Official Languages Committee on June 5th, 2007

[Guy Matte]

I will answer this question with the help of my colleagues. I should say the following. NGOs receiving funding from the Government of Canada via the Department of Canadian Heritage through contribution agreements have very well-defined agreements. They serve two purposes. The first is to meet the operational needs of an organization. Take for instance one of the best-known organizations, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne. They receive core funding to provide premises or office space allowing the federation to do its work of bringing together francophone and Acadian communities politically. The funds received through contribution agreements also go to projects but they are always extremely well-defined; the money cannot be used to do anything other than to complete specific projects as defined by specific contribution agreements.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Some of these projects were done in parallel with—

[Guy Matte]

No. To our knowledge, no project has been submitted which would fit Canadian Heritage criteria as they currently exist. The criteria of the federal government and the Department of Canadian Heritage to grant, say, $500,000, $1 million or $2.8 million to the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne would not allow for legal challenges. It is impossible for an organization like that to use these funds. In fact, a case has now been filed by the FCFA in the Federal Court regarding the Court Challenges Program and all of the funding will have to come from monies not allocated by the federal government.

To get back to the $2.8 million example, which is a small amount for the Court Challenges Program, funds may be distributed for various projects and given to the communities, but certainly not for the purposes of the Court Challenges Program.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I would also like to hear from Ms. Tansey whom I met last Friday at the anglophone provincial association in Quebec, perhaps she could answer my question.

[Kathleen Tansey]

Thank you.

The English minority community in Quebec is devastated by the cancellation of the court challenges program. The access that they used for education rights to get through.... We were at a QCGN meeting. I'm on the language panel and I had calls after the cancellation of the program from people who said, “Where do we go from here? Where do we go? They're closing our schools.”

There's a real anguish there, Madame Folco.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Excuse me for interrupting you, Madam Tansey, but are you aware--you would be aware if such a thing had existed--that the association was able or would be able, through the contributions of the government, to pursue the court challenges program under this different forum?

[Kathleen Tansey]

No, just as Mr. Matte said, there is no other available measure for them to get access to justice—for any of the minorities, the francophones or the anglophones. This is exactly the problem they're facing.

That is, in fact, why we complained to the Commissioner of Official Languages. We have no voice. That is the problem. I don't think there are other means. Mr. Badiou mentioned The Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada case, in the Okanagan, because people are saying they're going to use that case in order to try to obtain the necessary funding to have access to the justice system and to the Supreme Court of Canada. You see how strict the limits are. They have provided nothing for this case. It is one example. These complaints speak volumes; minorities are crying out and wondering what they're going to do. Justice is being denied.

Justice delayed is justice denied. It has been nine months since the government cancelled this program. It is now nine months and there's nothing to take its place.

Ms. Folco, that is what I would have to say to you.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Yes, but not much, Ms. Folco.

Thank you.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I would simply like to add that, to my knowledge—I've worked a great deal in the field of immigration—many francophone minority groups in Canada are working hard to recruit francophone immigrants, not only from Quebec, but from outside of Canada. It seems unfortunate to me therefore, and I will be closing on this point, Mr. Chairman, that the elimination of this program will once again interfere with the rights of francophones, not only making their lives more difficult but also hindering their ability to grow.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Let's now go to Mr. Chong.

Mr. Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the witnesses for their presentations.

It is very important to keep in mind that the Court Challenges Program's objective of clarifying certain constitutional provisions regarding language and minority rights does not consist in providing legal aid. The provincial programs are responsible for this.

I think that's been forgotten in this whole controversy, this whole debate, about what has been done here.

The principal reason for the court challenges program—and that's been outlined in the contribution agreement—was not to assist those who did not have access to legal aid, those who couldn't afford to go to court. The principal reason for the program, since its inception in 1978, was to provide clarification, to fund certain cases so that we could build a foundation of case law to clarify minority and linguistic rights in this country. That was the primary purpose of the program. Because in the 1970s, when the program was first created, there was a bit of a vacuum.

Now, why was there a vacuum in the 1970s? Quite simply, it was because in the preceding 10 years there had been a lot of significant pieces of legislation introduced that really brought Canada into a new age--a new age of rights, a new age of protection of minorities and the like. We had the Official Languages Act, 1969. Au Québec we had the 1977 Chartre de la langue française. In 1982, we had the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So in that 10- to 15-year period, there was this massive...in some ways one could call it a revolution in terms of rights in this country, and a lot of it led to a lot of confusion about what exactly our rights were, because there wasn't a substantial body of case law.

So in the late 1970s, the Government of Canada decided to assist in the clarification and the establishment of this foundation of case law by funding this program. That has been the primary purpose of the program since the beginning.

However, I would argue, and the government has argued, that after three decades of court challenges, of case law, we now have a substantial body, a substantial foundation of case law that now defines what minority and linguistic rights are in this country. Is it completely defined? Of course not. The law is an evolving thing, and each year new cases come forward and things are further clarified. But I think it's a reasonable proposition to say that after three decades we have that substantial body, that substantial foundation in case law; and a substantial, significant, if not overwhelming, portion of minority and linguistic rights has been now defined in this country. I think that's something that has been forgotten, because I think a lot of people are conflating legal aid with the court challenges program, with the purpose of the court challenges program.

Second, I don't doubt that one of the criteria to receive funds under the program, under your program, was financial need. But the primary purpose of the program was not legal aid; that's a responsibility of the provinces. I think we also have to put into context the fact that the legal aid programs of the provinces are massive, more than half a billion dollars a year spent by provinces, through the assistance of the Government of Canada through the Canada social transfer, for legal aid programs for this country. So if people need access to courts, it's through provincial legal aid. And it's our contention that after close to three decades we have that substantial basis in case law.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you.

Could you give us a brief answer, please?

[Guy Matte]

Certainly. In the first place, the Court Challenges Program was not created in order to provide funds to all and sundry. As you said yourself, one of the criteria does state that:

prior to approving the case for funding, the panel should be satisfied that the applicant or the individual or group the applicant represents requires financial assistance to proceed with the case.

Therefore we cannot deny the fact that there is an element—

There's a means test that has to be done in order to make sure that the applicants who can afford to go to court and to clarify the Constitution and the charter and the cases don't use public money to do so. Only in cases where one can show that there's a lack of funds can this be applied.

As to legal aid, I'm not a lawyer, but I know that in many provinces you cannot use legal aid to fund constitutional cases against any government anyway. So it's not a question of whether there are alternatives to that program. And you talk about there being billions and billions. I would say that for $2.5 million, you had quite a good case law built, and this case law is not finished because of the number of cases that are still outstanding and coming to us all the time. So it is building, and it is, I think, useful to continue to build that case law.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Matte.

Ms. Tansey, perhaps you could have the floor later on.

We will now continue with Mr. Bellavance of the Bloc Québécois.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

Do I have five minutes this time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Yes, you have five minutes.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Seven?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Five.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I thought that it was seven.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Godin, the last two interventions lasted seven and six minutes respectively. I am having some trouble with getting adjusted. When I listen to you, I get totally absorbed.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

We will stick to six minutes for everyone.

Mr. Bellavance.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope that my five minutes are beginning right now, because I want to use every second that I have.

Thank you very much for your presentations. We should note that usually, when a government comes power, it abolishes programs implemented by previous governments and creates new ones. There is nothing surprising in this. Nevertheless, we always try to find out why a program was abolished and a new one created. When a government creates a new program, it uses the opportunity to make it known to the public and it has no shortage of reasons supporting it. When a program is abolished, things are often a bit more difficult, and this is when the opposition and the other stakeholders try to find the reasoning behind the decision.

Intentionally or unintentionally, people sometimes think of unbelievably insidious reasons. In the case at hand, no reasonable or comprehensible explanation was given to justify the decision. Conceivably, one of the insidious reasons that motivated the government to make this decision might be an intention to muzzle linguistic minorities. If this is not the reason, it is nevertheless the result. In fact, abolishing the Court Challenges Program deprives linguistic minorities from the means to uphold their rights.

This was discussed at length. Mr. Godin referred to several cases in his province where rights have been trampled, but these things have happened all over Canada. There are many reasons for defending one's rights. It is obviously a crucial matter, and for certain groups, it involves their dignity.

Mr. Matte, could you or someone from your group tell us how many cases are still pending and will never be resolved without funding from the Court Challenges Program? I wonder whether you have any data regarding this. Generally, when an individual wants to make his case heard by a court, he is told that he had better back off because it would cost far too much. We know that a great many cases have not been proceeded with and never will be.