Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 1st, 2007

[Guy Matte]

Some Canadians.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Of course.

No, Canadians understand what's happening here.

The other question I had, and I don't want to badger you, but you mentioned earlier that you had never taken this up with those who make the funding decisions. You never took it up with those in authority who established the program and funded it. You never took up some of the concerns that were raised in the 2003 report, concerns about conflict of interest and concerns about the restrictive application of the funding arrangements.

[Guy Matte]

No, I'm sorry, the response was that what we were doing was okay. What did we have to change?

You're saying some groups said that, but the report itself, the evaluation, when it came out from Heritage Canada, said that what we were doing was appropriate. So why would I go and say, I'm sorry you feel it's appropriate, let's change stuff so it's inappropriate?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

So you totally disregarded the views of the stakeholders whose views weren't accepted in the final report?

[Guy Matte]

We do not disregard them. Those views were part of the report, we agree. I told you before, I understand that some Canadians will never agree with the expansion of rights under the charter. Some people don't even accept that there are two official languages in this country, but that's the law of the land—it's too bad.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'm very pleased we've had this opportunity today, and that it's televised, because I think it has clarified for many people the fundamental issue we're dealing with.

When we began this, I was trying to understand the Conservative point of view, and we heard first of all--from the Prime Minister--that it was a Liberal lawyer slush fund, and that was proved to be a falsehood. We've seen this relentless attack from Mr. Fast on conflict of interest, which I think hasn't been shown, but Mr. Fast has very much clarified the Conservative view here, and I appreciate that he has managed to do that.

The heart of the argument I'm hearing from him is that certain groups believe in a restrictive notion of rights, that certain groups want to test the limit of minority rights, to take away rights, to exclude people from rights, and because they can't access your fund to go after minority rights, they're somehow left out in the wilderness, and this is somehow unfair. We had the example of our friends from REAL Women. It turns out it has been 13 years since they made an application to a fund that no longer exists. It wasn't your fund, and I was thinking 13 years is a long time to lick your wounds when you're out in the wilderness Mr. Fast is talking about.

This is a fundamental issue we're dealing with, because the notion being put forward by the Conservatives puts civil rights jurisprudence on its head. What they are saying here today is that unless you allow groups from the majority, who can test and take away rights from a minority, then you should not allow the minority to have access to defend those rights. That seems to be the fundamental argument we have heard here. That seems to be the entire attack. I think, in a subtler way, it was explained by the Treasury Board minister, who said it's not wise government policy to provide money for people to test government, to test the Conservative government's laws.

This will be my last comment on the court challenges program. I think we are dealing with a fundamental view of how minority rights exist in Canada, one upon which we have based this jurisprudence for years, and it is under attack from a viewpoint, and what the attack is has been very clearly articulated.

I'd like to hear your viewpoint on the need to maintain the notion that government has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that minority groups have the ability to ensure they can access rights that theoretically are proclaimed but sometimes not enacted in law.

[Bonnie Morton]

I'd like to start by saying that democracy in this country means more than putting a check mark on a ballot once every four years. I take my democratic responsibility and my rights quite seriously, and that's why I do the work I do, through the United Church of Canada, as well as with every low-income and grassroots organization and equality-seeking group I'm involved with.

It is our right and our responsibility to use that Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Constitution, to ensure that all our constitutional rights are upheld and not being violated.

Can our government make a mistake when they bring in a law? They're not infallible, and I don't think it's done intentionally. As a woman who over the years had to try to fight for rights.... If women hadn't fought for their rights and taken their democratic responsibility seriously, would you women be around this table today? Would all of us women have any voting rights? I need to ask that question. If we hadn't taken our democratic responsibility seriously.... To take it seriously in this country today requires having some funding to access domestic remedies. That's what court challenges is about, and the funding, and I thought we were here at this table to talk about the truth of the program, not to perpetuate false perceptions.

So I hope what comes out of all these hearings is the truth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus, do you have anything more?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'm finished.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I wanted to look at perpetuating this idea that there's a conflict out there in terms of the benefits or the beneficiary of whatever the court challenges program used to do. The one benefit that comes from the court challenges program is a payment of legal fees, and in that sense, it has been made quite clear, quite explicit, that there is no conflict. I would like to know if there has ever been a complaint or a conflict brought to the court challenges program since its reincarnation in 1994, after its first cancellation by the Conservative government. Has there ever been a conflict?

[Guy Matte]

The answer is no, for the record.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

In terms of the money that we're talking about here, it's non-existent. Where Mr. Fast is trying to create a sense of a beneficiary conflict is in the sense of those who benefit from the decisions that may flow from the court challenges program. And in that case, I'll say mea culpa, Mr. Chairman. I'll say mea culpa. I am in conflict because I've benefited personally because my rights as a francophone, a minority in Ontario, are now better defended because of the court challenges program. This is a benefit that I have, and I don't think there's a problem with that. If Mr. Fast has a problem with that, he should say so.

In terms of the mechanism, if he has a problem with, essentially, peer evaluation, which is what we have here, then he should also bring forward and question the Canada Council's methods, as another example to the one that my colleague, Mr. Scott, has given, for allocating public money. For the Canada Council, it's peer evaluation that is given. This is a very similar concept that we have here. This concept that he's trying to perpetuate, or enhance the conflict about, is just non-existent, and I wish we could get off that.

The other thing I think I need to say here is that I don't sense from my colleagues on the opposition a great deal of angst when it comes to linguistic rights. I didn't sense through the witnesses that we, on this side, convened a great deal of angst when it came to the rights of seniors, people with disabilities, or aboriginals. The witnesses who they suggested and where I felt some angst from their side were in matters dealing with sexual orientation and same-sex marriages in particular.

Are we going to scrap the entire....? It's not “are we”; this government has scrapped the entire court challenges program, in my opinion, because of the government's hang-ups with matters of sexual orientation. And that's a shame, Mr. Chairman. None of the other explanations we've had make sense.

I'd like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he would be prepared to try to find out if there is a review.... Well, there is a review. That's what the government said they did. Can we get that review, Mr. Chairman, in front of this committee so we understand on what basis, if it's not what I'm proposing, the government decided to scrap the court challenges program?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Abbott, if you'd like to respond.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Yes.

In response to Mr. Bélanger, I would be pleased to check into it. However, I can only presume that it would be a cabinet document, in which case it definitely would not be available.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Let's find out if it is. In 30 years we'll know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Fast, this will be the last question.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to close as well by saying, first of all, that there's no angst on the part of this individual here on any of those rights issues. I will defend them to the hilt.

The issue is, are we excluding some in our society from having their voices heard when it comes to interpreting the charter? The suggestion that somehow we're excluding people from funding who wish to take away charter rights is totally false. We're talking about being truthful here. That's not what the case is.

The issue is that these individuals believe in a more restrictive application of the charter. And from time to time the courts apply a more restrictive approach; at times they apply a more liberal approach to the interpretation of the charter. That's all these groups are asking for, that there be fairness, even-handedness, and balance in how the funding is allocated.

I've never suggested there's an actual conflict of interest. What I am saying is that the groups involved in membership on the board and on the panels appear to be almost like a club, and this is something that needs to be addressed and should have been addressed before. A lot of Canadians had concerns with the program because of those problems, the perception of conflict of interest, and the problem with only expansive interpretations of the charter being funded under this program.

Mr. Chair, I believe in the Charter of Rights. I believe it needs to be a living document, as Ms. Morton stated. It needs to adapt to the times. But as it adapts, we use the courts to interpret that document. If we're going to provide funding for challenges to the charter or to decisions that government has made, we need to allow more than just one voice to be heard.

Often, the government voice is heard and it's usually well funded. We also have those seeking a broader application of the charter who want to be heard. And then there are those who want to intervene as well in those proceedings and who may have a different approach, who may argue more vociferously or less vociferously for a restricted application of the charter.

In any case, there needs to be some fairness in the system, and we need to ensure that the program has credibility. Unfortunately, we've lost that opportunity. The irony, as I said earlier, is that had some of these issues been addressed, perhaps the program would still exist.

Those are my comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Badiou.

[Noël Badiou]

The voices that are being brought forth are the ones that would not otherwise be heard, so I think that's very important to know about the program. The voices you're talking about, that want to defend the legislation of the government, are already being defended by the government. I mean, that voice is already there. The government gets advice from these groups and presents their voice in defending the challenge being brought forth by the voices that do not have the means to otherwise bring forth that issue. The government, if it chooses to, can certainly fund these groups, in addition to their own lawyers, to bring that extra voice in its own defence or supporting the government.

What we're saying is that the program is providing funding for the group that's challenging the law, saying that it isn't going far enough, it isn't being inclusive enough. I think that's very important to know, that this is the fundamental principle of what the court challenges program is about.

In terms of the membership, the program does outreach on a regular basis to try to include and get more groups from the various communities across Canada. It fluctuates in terms of numbers, but over the years it has gone up and down depending on interest in the program of one or another particular issue. But the program is always open to new membership from the very groups that are being targeted, if you will, and are supposed to benefit from this program.

In terms of opportunity for the program, like the evaluation said, the court challenges program of Canada, the corporation, was doing its job. It is serving Canadians and was serving the mandate of the government.

So we would love to see what we did or what was wrong. We would have loved to have had the opportunity to respond to any of the concerns, to have provided additional information that the government may have wanted before making any decisions about cutting the program.

Where was our opportunity to really provide—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

It's right here in the evaluation.

[Guy Matte]

No, the evaluation said that we did the right thing.

[Noël Badiou]

The evaluation suggests that we did the right thing.

[Guy Matte]

It says we did the right thing. It's like blaming the victim for what's happening, and I think it's unfair, sir. If you really believe in that particular program, such as you are saying, make sure it happens. And fund both sides. We do not mind. I mean, do it. But make sure that we, as Canadians, and those who are seeking equality rights and those who are seeking clarification of linguistic rights have real access to justice.

Thank you, sir.