Evidence of meeting #7 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was equality.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:45 a.m.
Executive Director, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund
We have continued to litigate equality cases, but it's been at a significantly reduced capacity. Again, as mentioned by my colleagues, the support of pro bono counsel has assisted us to do that. But it has been significantly diminished.
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
Ahmed Hussen Liberal York South—Weston, ON
This is for the panel.
Do you have recommendations on how to better provide equal access to funding by a new court challenges program?
10:45 a.m.
National Vice-President, REAL Women of Canada
One way to do it is to have an impartial CCP that is not involved in special interest groups so there will be a fair access. There was certainly no access to justice for anyone in Canada who didn't support the ideology of those managing the program.
Another problem was that there was never ever anything put forward so that people knew what was going on. Even the government didn't know what was going on. For the program to enable access to justice, you have to be able to account for what you're doing, and there was no accountability.
Those were the things that were missing. There's no access to justice—there never has been access to justice—under the old CCP for the simple reason it was bigoted, biased, and discriminatory. You can't have a program like that and call it “access to justice”.
10:45 a.m.
Executive Director, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund
To my understanding and reading of how the former court challenges program functioned, it functioned as an independent body. It approached cases professionally, with a high level of ethics and independence.
In terms of encouraging wider access, obviously ensuring that the criteria of how cases are funded is communicated would be important, as would be continuing to reach out to individuals and groups. A good part of this could be public education as well, so there's a strong understanding of how the court challenges program functions.
I have to say that in looking at the cases, not just by LEAF but other organizations supported by the court challenges program, I think that the equality panel and the language panel made very good, precise, and independent decisions on what cases would be supported to the benefit of all Canadians.
10:50 a.m.
Director of Litigation, West Coast Women's Legal Education and Action Fund
I would add to that very briefly, if I may. By having all sorts of different groups, historically disadvantaged groups and individuals throughout Canadian society, with some representation in the process in which decision-making happens, you wouldn't have what Ms. Landolt is concerned with—only one perspective as part of the decision-making. I think with a clear mandate and independent oversight, we may be able to address some of those concerns.
10:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
I appreciate the members' forbearance.
I would like to thank the witnesses for their excellent testimony.
Have a wonderful day, everyone.
The meeting is adjourned.