Evidence of meeting #8 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 funding.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
If you want to ask one more question, because he spoke quite at length for the first question.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
10:25 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
It's not surprising, no.
Ms. Parsons, you talked a little bit about alternative dispute resolution. You're not a fan of that?
10:25 a.m.
Executive Director, African Canadian Legal Clinic
I am a fan of alternative dispute resolution. It does have a place in our legal system—
10:25 a.m.
Executive Director, African Canadian Legal Clinic
—but I think that when we're talking about equality rights, we're talking about systemic change and systemic impact, and alternative dispute resolution doesn't lend itself to that.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
You're saying that because it resolves the case for the individual litigating—
10:25 a.m.
Executive Director, African Canadian Legal Clinic
For the individual...it's individualized.
10:25 a.m.
Executive Director, African Canadian Legal Clinic
It's individualized, absolutely.
April 19th, 2016 / 10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Ahmed Hussen Liberal York South—Weston, ON
Thank you, Chair, for allowing me to ask these question.
I'd like to begin with Mr. Mia. Thanks for coming in.
You mentioned that the new program should be as independent as possible from government. It's related to another question I'll ask about funding. Do you think that the new program should be created by an act of Parliament to make it much more difficult to abolish it in the future? If so, if you agree or not, what are your views on that?
10:25 a.m.
Member, Legal Advocacy Committee, Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association
As I said, we want to ensure that this program is stable and solid. Part of being independent from government is that it can't be cancelled at the whim of the next government when things change, and then the program's gone.
I don't have a particular opinion on how you go about doing that, but if one way forward is to have legislation that creates and entrenches the CCP and then lays out the fundamental principles, we'd be interested in looking at that legislation. I think that's one way to go, certainly, in achieving stability.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Ahmed Hussen Liberal York South—Weston, ON
If anyone else has an opinion on that, I'm happy to hear it.
10:25 a.m.
Chairperson, Human Rights Committee, Council of Canadians with Disabilities
When the program was cut in 2006 and equality-seeking communities were looking at the possibility of a charter challenge, the strength of their legal arguments was a bit more challenging to establish than in the case of the language rights community.
I think one thing that would be very helpful, something that equality-seeking groups have been saying since the beginning and something that the treaty bodies consistently say, is that the court challenges program is a way to put in force section 15, and it is a way for Canada to comply with its international obligations under CEDAW, under CERD, under various international treaties. If that was said in the preamble, it would be very helpful in future litigation. In that way, when the government makes an announcement of the future program and the announcement clearly says that this is, in the government's view, a program that is in keeping with section 15 and that there is an obligation to fund it, just building that record would be helpful.
Equality-seeking groups have been saying that. They've been appearing before treaty bodies, but to have the government make that statement would really bolster a case if ever the program should be cut in the future.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Ahmed Hussen Liberal York South—Weston, ON
This question again is related to the independence of stable and sustainable funding contributing to the independence of the program and its sustainability. How do any of the panellists feel about a public-private funding model, moving forward, to ensure sustainability and stability?
10:30 a.m.
Executive Director, African Canadian Legal Clinic
No. I think that doesn't ensure stability. Public-private funding requires you to be in the goodwill of the private sector. In terms of stability, we strongly support a legislative framework, an endowment or a foundation similar to what was done with the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, and that this be supported by government. That will ensure the stability of the program going forward and lessen any possibility of it being cut or defunded in the future.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Ahmed Hussen Liberal York South—Weston, ON
I just have one quick question for Ms. Parsons. Any of the panellists can jump in, but I'd like to begin with you.
In my experience, the communities that need these sorts of programs the most are the least informed of their existence or of the processes to access their benefits. In your experience, how do we ensure, even if we have a more robust, expanded program, that as we move forward and possibly reinstate the program those communities will be well informed about it?
10:30 a.m.
Executive Director, African Canadian Legal Clinic
One way of doing that is ensuring that the program isn't all about lawyers and all about litigation, and that communities are aware of their equality rights, their charter rights, and what equality rights mean.
10:30 a.m.
Executive Director, African Canadian Legal Clinic
One way of doing that is through consultation, by increasing the funding for consultations, and consultations at a national level and throughout the case. We found in our experience at the ACLC that this was very important.
It's also important in our experience as well to fund interventions into cases. That was a way to bring community coalitions together to be able to understand the importance of a case going up to a court of appeal, the Federal Court, the Supreme Court, and the impact it can have on their communities.
It was also important in terms of the impact study. If we got a positive decision and/or a negative decision, the community was involved in understanding the case, the impact it could have on them, and the potential outcome. It would be a part of developing the impact study, in participating in the impact study.
One of the things that we're advocating for in the inclusion of the new program is an element for training, an element for training of young lawyers, so that they also have the skills and the capacity and the abilities to be able to build and develop a test case, because the skill involved is very unique.
On outreach to the communities, I don't think the outreach dollars were really utilized a lot because they weren't very significant. Outreach to the communities and education to the communities on equality rights are significant if you really want to bring the community into the process.
I would say that the court challenges program as it is, from its previous iteration, and even recently in the consultation we held this weekend is very community based. They really make an effort to ensure that communities, the voice of communities, organizations representing communities on the ground are involved and drive the court challenges program.
