Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 1st, 2007

[Bonnie Morton]

I'd like to try to address this. We're being asked, as a court challenges program, if members of our board actually are affiliated members to organizations that receive funding. Are we asking the same question of the Canadian association of banks? Bankers sit on these boards. They get benefits from being part of the Canadian Bankers Association, right?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

They're not receiving government funding, though.

[Bonnie Morton]

Okay, but—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

They're not receiving government funding.

[Bonnie Morton]

But I sit on the board as a member who might be involved with some of these organizations that have received funding. You need to understand that as a board member I do not make the decisions on who receives funding; I don't even know who has made an application.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I understand that. I'm not suggesting there's an actual conflict of interest; I'm saying the public has a perception of what goes on at the CCP program.

My final question has to do with the panels that actually make the funding decisions. Who appoints those panels?

[Noël Badiou]

The panels are appointed by a selection committee. The board appoints members to the selection committee, and again, it's for their expertise in either equality or language.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

So again, board members who represent organizations that sometimes receive benefits also appoint the members of the panels who actually make the funding decisions.

[Guy Matte]

No, that's the selection committee.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

The selection committee.

[Noël Badiou]

The selection committee then appoints, independently, members of the panel.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

So you can see, we're starting to build up this whole house of cards that a lot of Canadians consider to be a conflict of interest.

[Guy Matte]

I don't think so, sir. I think it has to do with keeping things very separate.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Again, there's one thing that's actual conflict and there's perceived conflict.

[Guy Matte]

So your problem is not so much with the program but with the way the program is managed through our particular corporation, which was set up at the request of Heritage. If that's the problem, give it to somebody else, but please make sure there's a program somewhere to protect the rights of Canadians. If you can fund it in a way that is not...I certainly don't mind. I'm not working for our corporation and saying please, save us. I don't care if you kill our organization, as long as there's a program to protect Canadians. If you agree with that, please do something about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much.

We're going to go to Mr. Scott, please.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much.

I think it's important. Mr. Fast has suggested that there is a perception in the Canadian mind that there's something untoward here, or it's a perception he acknowledges. I would suggest that, by virtue of the time he's taken to make those connections, he's not alleviating the perception. He may be adding to the perception.

I would like to make something very clear so that Canadians watching this would not allow themselves to be drawn into that. For instance, the members opposite are familiar with NSERC or SSHRC. These are federal research granting agencies, with huge budgets. The panels that decide who gets the research money are made up of academics who work within various universities in Canada, and they make decisions all the time about who is going to do what research. I would suggest that we shouldn't hold the court challenges program panels to a higher standard--or perhaps the government has some plans for NSERC and SSHRC and the medical research agencies.

The reality is that in the universe of people--and I think yesterday, when we talked about the CBC, Mr. Fast even referred to the fact that when there is the universe of people who are specifically engaged in this exercise, those are the people we call upon to help us make decisions about these exercises. This is that universe. And to deny that universe the opportunity to make decisions because they've committed their lives to it would be a terrible denial of access for these people.

I just want to make the point again for the purposes of the perception of conflict, which is I guess what is being proposed. The reality is that there are all kinds of agencies where people are big enough to make decisions that they believe are right, and they're not motivated by self-interest. I think we should have greater access to post-secondary education for university students. I've got two kids in college. Surely that doesn't disqualify me from holding that position.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

[Noël Badiou]

I think it's important to include the people who are being demographically targeted by this program. You can't just create a program without having the input of the people who are actually going to be affected by it. One of the strengths of our program is to actually have the people who are targeted, or who are identified as being the ones who need assistance, also being able to set some direction in terms of how best the program will serve their needs. It's about helping these disadvantaged groups and individuals and the official minority language groups in Canada. If they're not even included in the process, I think it would be a flawed process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We can go back to Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

If I could respond to that, Mr. Chair, I appreciate Mr. Scott's comments, but when you look at the structure here, we're talking about the members of the program who represent organizations who benefit from government largesse. Then we have those members appointing members of the board. The members of the board in many cases also represent organizations that receive funding. When they then appoint the selection panels that make those funding decisions, those selection panels also comprise board members who in some cases represent those organizations. The reason that's critical is because there is a large number of groups in Canada who have been excluded from consideration for funding. These groups came before us, they've articulated well that they feel left out of the process simply for the reason that they advocate at times a more restrictive application of charter rights rather than an expansive application. These are organizations that also don't have the means to conduct litigation all the way up to the highest courts in the country, and that's the frustration.

I don't take issue with Mr. Scott saying that there are many organizations in Canada where that kind of a scheme exists. But when you're dealing with government money and when there's a group in our society that is excluded, in my mind unfairly, from accessing those funds, we have a serious problem.

[Guy Matte]

I agree totally with you when you talk about the unfairness of groups not having access to justice. I think that's why we're here. I totally agree with your last comment on this. I think you should make sure, as a representative of the government, that you carry the message to the Prime Minister and to the heritage minister and the justice minister that you believe people who seek justice should have access to justice. I think that's an important statement.

First, just to set the record straight, no member of the board represents another organization. When we are on the board we are individuals; we're not there as representatives of an organization. Some of us may belong to some organizations, but we do not represent them. That, I think, is an important distinction.

Second, when you say there are lots of Canadians who find it difficult to believe we should have these types of programs, I would refer you to, for example, the Premier of Newfoundland, who said you should reinstate the court challenges program. Every minister responsible for francophone affairs in the country, whether in Alberta, British Columbia, or the territories has requested that the government reinstate the program.

I don't believe there's a huge amount of conflict of interest within our organization, but if that is the problem, if that is the problem for the government, solve the problem. Do something about it, but please make sure that people have access to justice. If it's your belief that there's conflict of interest—and I don't believe it and I totally disagree with that argument—please reinstate the program and put it in a fashion that you believe is appropriate so that people can have access to justice. That's the real issue here.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I would suggest to you that you had the opportunity to fix that problem, the perception of conflict.

[Guy Matte]

There was no problem for us. This is what we were mandated to do.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

The individuals who are appointed to the board, the individuals who are appointed to panels, at the very least should be independent. You say the individuals are there in their personal capacity. You know, Canadians see past that.