Evidence of meeting #32 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the 23rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), we need to elect a vice-chair from the opposition. So I will take nominations.
Mr. Scarpaleggia.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Welcome, Mr. Scott, vice-chair.
We will move to the second order of business, a notice of motion from Mr. Scarpaleggia, as follows:
Given the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is embarked on a mandate review of CBC/Radio Canada and that is has no immediate plans to proceed to the production of a report from museums study That notwithstanding the motion adopted by the Committee on November 1, 2006, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommends that the government officially designate Exporail as Canada's National Railway Museum with dedicated long-term funding outside of the Museum's Assistance Program, and report this recommendation to the House of Commons.
Mr. Abbott.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
As you probably know, I have a very cordial relationship with Mr. Scarpaleggia. We find ourselves more often than not on the same side of issues. It's a long-standing relationship that I value. That said, unfortunately I don't think I can speak in favour of this motion for a couple of reasons.
First, there is a process currently in the works that will give us a revised museums policy. The difficulty I have with this motion in that context is that we don't know what the museums policy will say. Of my own accord, and not speaking on behalf of the government, I have been pushing an initiative with the minister for a process by which we can define national significance.
This is relevant to the two railway museums in my constituency: the Canadian Museum of Rail Travel, and the Revelstoke Railway Museum. If we're talking about taking a specific amount of money and having the funds go to Exporail in Montreal, what does that do for museums that happen to be in my constituency, the museum in Squamish, or other museums without a definition of national significance?
Therefore, as much as I have a tremendous amount of empathy for what Mr. Scarpaleggia is trying to do, and a tremendous amount of respect for Exporail in Montreal, this becomes a satellite with no place to go. It becomes an object. I don't have a clue where this motion would fit in. At some point in the future it has to fit into a national museums policy containing a mechanism to define national significance.
Therefore my recommendation to my colleagues is that, regrettably, we vote against the motion, and I would recommend that for the consideration of my colleagues on the other side.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have spoken about this in the past. I agree with my colleague. I think Exporail is an excellent site. However, I am concerned about us as a committee making decisions here and recommending individual projects as being nationally significant.
We had the opportunity to decide whether or not to do a museums study here, but the fact that we aren't—We know that the government is undertaking a museums study, and the issues of national significance have to be addressed within that context.
I'm not very comfortable recommending one site because it was brought forward to this table, and saying we want this to be given special funding outside of all the other projects. I don't really feel that's our mandate. It's different for us to say that we support a project program within the museum assistance program, and we think it should be given more funding because of our recommendation. But to take one individual site, separate it, and ask for specific funding for it, I do not feel that's something we should be doing at this time.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to point out that the museum is not in Mr. Scarpaleggia’s riding.
We have heard witnesses here representing this museum and we have read their submission. In my opinion, given that this museum is adrift at the moment, it could turn out to be a national loss. This is the biggest museum of its kind in Quebec and Canada. As far as I know, a motion is not a bill as such or an act.
Mr. Abbott just now mentioned the study under way regarding the museum policy. We in fact made a request on those lines to the minister by presenting motions such as the ones we have adopted here since May of last year. So much the better if a study is under way. The motion, once adopted, would help the government to articulate its work by taking account of this situation. It is a unique museum, and we must, as parliamentarians, in the light of what we read in the submission and what we heard as evidence, support this motion. That is why I am supporting it.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to call the vote. As a matter of record, though, I would just like to say that the Cranbrook museum and the Revelstoke Museum support this motion. I would look forward to debating it in the House.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Next on the agenda is a motion put forward by Mr. Kotto, as follows:
That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommend that the government continue funding the Court Challenges Program at the fiscal 2005-2006 level and that the Chair report the adoption of this motion to the House forthwith.
Do you want to speak on the motion, Mr. Kotto?
9:15 a.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
In light of all the evidence that we have heard, and which is summarized here, I feel obliged to make a gesture to challenge the decision last September 25 to abolish the Court Challenges Program, not only for linguistic minorities in Quebec, but for linguistic minorities outside Quebec, and for vulnerable groups such as persons with disabilities, women and the poor.
I think that all the evidence, if listened to objectively, argues for the need to maintain this program. Besides, Canada, at the international level, has signed agreements and treaties that, were the program to be abolished, would make it look bad in the eyes of the world.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Just before we have a vote, it was very interesting to hear in the testimony—I believe it was in the first session—that former member Mauril Bélanger and Mr. Fast had a very interesting exchange over the fact that Mr. Bélanger, along with a person by the name of Louis Quigley, had jointly ended up funding $115,000 virtually out of their own pockets. Mr. Bélanger could not put the lawyer fees against the House of Commons and Mr. Quigley did not have access to this program. I believe Mr. Fast made the representation that this was a point, that Mr. Quigley should have had equal access, but Mr. Bélanger took a different perspective.
Last week I received a copy of a January 26 letter from Louis Quigley—he's from Moncton—that he had submitted to the editor of the Moncton Times & Transcript. He says in the letter the following:
One of the actions of the federal government that raised eyebrows was the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program, whose mandate was: “To provide support to important court test cases challenging federal legislation...based on equality rights under section 15 and 27 and 28—of the Constitution.” In my opinion, there are solid arguments to support its cancellation. The government spent several million dollars each year to support this bureaucratic institution when there were numerous safeguards already in place to protect the rights of citizens, usually without any court involvement. The “arm's length” policy of the government in overseeing where and how the money was being spent did nothing to inspire confidence. Accountability was minimal. Canadians who believe that their rights are being violated by any federal agency, whether Constitutional equality rights or language rights, may be assured that there are numerous sources of redress: First, every Canadian has a Member of Parliament, whose duty is to hear the concerns of his or her constituents and, where justified, to help the individual find his or her way through the labyrinth of the federal bureaucracy to a source of redress.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Excuse me for just one second, but we have a point of order.
9:20 a.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
I don’t know if I’m completely wrong, but listening to Mr. Abbott, I get the impression I am hearing a witness, and the witnesses have already been heard. We are no longer at that stage.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I know that, but Mr. Abbott can present this. He's having it read into the record. At the end, he can present his letter and we can have it as a transcript to go forward. I think he has the right to read this letter, and then we can have a vote.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To continue:
Second, every Canadian has access to the Human Rights Commission (toll free 1-800-999-6899). The Commission has wide powers to investigate complaints and to direct that corrective action be taken when it finds that there has been discrimination by any federal institution on grounds of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, or disability. Third, anyone who believes that his or her official language rights are being violated by any federal institution may contact the Official Languages Commission.
Again, there's an 800 number, which he provides.
If the individual wants to lodge a formal complaint, there is a procedure in place at no financial cost to the complainant. The Commissioner may then launch a formal investigation, again without cost to the complainant. If the Commissioner finds in favour of the complainant, the offending institution is expected to take prompt corrective action. On those rare occasions when the offending institution declines to take action, the Commissioner has the power, under Section 78 of the Official Languages Act, to “apply to the Court for a remedy”. Once again, the costs of that Court action are borne by the Commissioner, not the complainant. In addition, there are at least two other Acts of Parliament designated to protect the rights of individuals. They are: The Privacy Act—which provides citizens with the right to access personal information about themselves held by the government, as well as to the protection of that information against unauthorized use and disclosure; and, The Access to Information Act, which gives Canadian citizens the right to obtain information about government programs and decisions. Finally, as an added source of expertise it might be worthwhile for law faculties in our country's universities to consider offering pro-bono advice to deserving citizens searching for justice. In addition to performing a valuable public service, faculty and senior students would undoubtedly benefit from the experience. It is understandable that some members of the legal profession are reluctant to see the end of the Court Challenges Program, which has undoubtedly been a lucrative source of income, but the taxpayers of Canada are just as understandably a little tired of paying for the unneeded and redundant services whatever their source.
Mr. Quigley reported to me as recently as this morning that in response to this letter he has received nothing but positive comment. He has yet to receive a negative comment by telephone.
I thought this exchange, having occurred at the very beginning of these hearings, would be of value.
We have Mr. Bélanger's perspective, which is absolutely respected. Interestingly, Mr. Quigley, with whom Mr. Bélanger worked, and Mr. Bélanger both put their own personal financial resources on the line, and he came to a significantly different conclusion than Mr. Bélanger did.
I appreciate having the opportunity to put Mr. Quigley's thoughts on the record.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you. Would you put your documents forward to the clerk, please.
Mr. Angus.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
I have to say that I don't think that letter is relevant whatsoever. The suggestion that people can go to pro bono law students for help is to me an absurd suggestion.
I don't think it actually is contradictory to what Mr. Bélanger said. Mr. Bélanger said, if I can recall correctly, that his conclusion out of Mr. Quigley case was that it did prove a need. The fact that Mr. Quigley doesn't feel a need to have gone to the court challenges program, and that he could have done it on his own, seems to me to prove that the system does work. Mr. Quigley certainly seems to have found other avenues to run his case, and that's what he's offering.
However, the bigger issue goes to the testimony we heard, and that's the relevant part of what we are discussing. In particular, we had the cases for the francophone language rights outside of Quebec, which have had to be proven in court because the provinces would not accept those rights. The other fundamental issue is the issue of deaf rights, because the governments continue to fight against these rights even when they are proved in court.
That's why we have the court challenges program. You have to take these rights to court because government refuses to enact some of these rights.
I feel we've been over this issue many times. We've heard all the possible arguments. I'm ready to vote on this motion. I think it's a very strong motion.
