Evidence of meeting #56 for Official Languages in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cases.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Gisèle Lalonde  former President of SOS Montfort, As an Individual
Guy Matte  President, Court Challenges Program of Canada
Noël Badiou  Executive Director, Court Challenges Program of Canada
Kathleen Tansey  Vice-President of the Board of Directors, Court Challenges Program of Canada
Michel Gratton  Communications Consultant, Montfort Hospital
Jean-Rodrigue Paré  Committee Researcher

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney

Thank you, Mr. Harvey. We are now moving to our last speaker in this third round.

Mr. Godin.

10:40 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A few moments ago, I think you clearly explained that, when a case goes to court, it is not to benefit a single individual but rather the community as a whole. In the case of food inspectors from Shippagan who were transferred to Shédiac, people challenged the decision— I believe the case was funded under the Court Challenges Program—and won the case. In the circumstances, the Liberals had nothing to brag about because they were the ones who had to defend their decision in court. There was a battery of Liberal lawyers against ordinary people. If money was spent on lawyers, it is the government we should look to blame. Ms. Lalonde said it very well. In the case I'm talking about, the community as a whole benefited from the decision. The court ruled that services could not be withdrawn from a minority region and transferred elsewhere.

In another case, which concerned the RCMP in New Brunswick, once again the Liberals have nothing to brag about because they were in power when the government appealed a ruling in favour of Ms. Marie-Claire Paulin. At the end of the day, the winner will not just be Ms. Paulin, but the entire francophone community in New Brunswick, as well as all francophones who travel to New Brunswick and might be arrested by the RCMP. The lower court stated that the RCMP was required to comply with constitutional linguistic obligations particular to New Brunswick, Canada's only officially bilingual province. The case was won, and once again, the only reason for which they ended up back in court was that the government appealed the ruling. The lower court is not that expensive. But every time you have to go to a higher court, it costs more. And since people don't have the money it takes to go to those higher courts, communities will lose cases.

It's all well and good to boast about Bill S-3. Yesterday again, I heard the minister declare in the House of Commons that the Bloc Québecois had not wanted to vote for the bill. I can tell you that the Conservatives didn't want to vote for it either. But we were on the brink of elections in Quebec, and at the official languages committee I said that I personally would like to see the Conservatives vote against Bill S-3 just before an election. In the end, Bill S-3 passed. But don't we have to test it? Do you think that if we test it, everything will be all right? Section 41 of part VII of the Official Languages Act stipulates that bilingualism will be promoted in federal institutions, in Quebec and across Canada, so that both English and French are recognized in Canadian society. We still have some way to go. Unlike what Mr. Chong was saying, the Court Challenges Program did not serve only individuals and did not represent some sort of legal aid. It's not that at all. He is missing the point entirely.

It might have been good for the government to test the bill before cancelling the program. The government probably did not know what it was doing. Alternatively, it might have known all too well—it was taking away the rights of minorities. I'm not from Quebec, and I'm not part of the French majority. The reason we have French-language schools in New Brunswick, the reason we have our own school boards, the reason we have furthered our cause and preserved our French language, and the reason there are still 250,000 francophones in New Brunswick is that we fought for it.

Aside from that, I don't know whether I have any questions. However, I would like to hear our witnesses' comments.

June 5th, 2007 / 10:45 a.m.

President, Court Challenges Program of Canada

Guy Matte

I will certainly comment on the issue of legal aid. We need to remember that, when cases are assessed, one of the criteria is that the funding is not used to further individual cases, cases that affect only one person. Test cases that affect groups of people are funded. The point is to establish a right that will be recognized for a particular group of Canadians cited in section 15, or, in some cases, for all Canadians, particularly women, because the issue is gender discrimination. That is my first point.

My second point is on former Bill S-3. You said that we have enough case law, but when we pass a bill and promulgate a new statute, its scope has to be tested. You passed Bill S-3, so testing it is important. However, I should say that the Court Challenges Program could not be used to test Bill S-3 directly, since Bill S-3 amended the Official Languages Act, and we cannot fund cases associated with the Official Languages Act. If there was some accommodation to be made, we would certainly be happy to extend the Court Challenges Program to cover the OLA and establish a whole new area of case law.

I would also like to be more specific on something—I think I understood Mr. Harvey to say that the funding allocation might be unfair, with too much of it going to administration. As a program, we would have no problem in reviewing the distribution of funding with the government and the department. We are merely an instrument. We were an instrument of the federal government for years, as we supported cases. That was our purpose. Thus, if there are any aspects of the program that are not appropriate, or if you believe that some things should be changed, we are bound by a contribution agreement which comes from the federal government. We are always ready to consider changes to the program with the federal government.

10:50 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

I know that my time is up, but I would like to know whether the names of the 38 unheard cases could be submitted to the committee.

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney

You mean 38 pending cases, but you want the names of the language-related cases, or of all cases?

10:50 a.m.

An honourable member

The language-related cases.

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney

Could your organization give us the list, or is it confidential?

10:50 a.m.

President, Court Challenges Program of Canada

Guy Matte

Some cases are still pending and have not yet come before the courts. Parties are in the process of deciding whether they want to take it further. In those cases, confidentiality must be maintained. However, we will determine what names we can give you.

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney

That concludes our three rounds of questioning. I would like to thank our witnesses for having shared their opinions and their comments, and also for having given us testimony that at times was very touching. I will paraphrase Mr. Godin, and say that Quebec within North America is a minority as well. Thus, as Quebeckers, we are extremely interested in the progress and efforts achieved by members of francophone communities across Canada.

I would like to thank you for promoting linguistic duality across Canada. There are statutes and regulations, but behind those, there are people who make a difference. Some of those people are around this table today.

Thank you.

10:50 a.m.

President, Court Challenges Program of Canada

Guy Matte

Thank you. I would reiterate our recommendation that the Court Challenges Program and its budget, as it was before September 26, 2006, be restored in its entirety.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney

Thank you.

We now have a number of questions to discuss.

Ms. Boucher, do you have a point of order?

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

No, I would like to present my conclusion.

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney

Fine.

We still have some time left, but there are a number of points we need to discuss, including the budget.

Ms. Boucher.

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

I would like to thank everyone who came here today. I have heard a great deal this morning, and one of the things I heard is something I would like to put back on the table. We have heard about the Court Challenges Program, but as a member of the government, I would like the communities to know...

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC

Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I thought that part of the meeting was over.

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney

Ms. Boucher, could you please conclude.

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

Mr. Chairman, point of order. The time allocated to each member on this issue is up. We should respect that.

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney

Very well.

Ms. Boucher, thank you.

The next point is very important. If we are to receive witnesses during the three other meetings, we have to look at the budget. On the whole, it is fairly standard. I would invite you to read through it. Our goal is to give witnesses from outside Ottawa an opportunity to come here and appear over the next three meetings, which will be on the Court Challenges Program. With your consent, I will authorize the clerk to move the budget forward.

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC

Mr. Chairman, could I make a suggestion?

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney

Yes.

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC

I suggest that we approve the operational budget request before us.

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney

Mr. Godin.

10:50 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

How was this budget established? How was the amount arrived at? The number of witnesses is not specified.

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney

Look at item 2—ten witnesses, with $1,200 budgeted for each. This would mean ten witnesses from outside the National Capital Region, Mr. Godin. The estimate is based on those figures.

10:50 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

I see.