Official Languages Committee on June 5th, 2007

[Noël Badiou]

I do not have the exact figures for both aspects with me. I know that the Commissioner of Official Languages did a study. He certainly identified 38 pending cases.

In answer to the previous question regarding the importance of the two aspects, let me say that equality rights cases account for three quarters of the budget of the Court Challenges Program, and language rights cases one quarter. Therefore, we can imagine that there are at least two or three times as many pending cases regarding equality rights and that these cases may never be resolved.

I have here the names of a few cases in both categories. I can certainly hand out this information later or send it to you by e-mail. A number of cases are in jeopardy. Some very important cases are at the first stage and they might not go any further if the government decides to appeal them.

[Kathleen Tansey]

Mr. Bellavance, I can also tell you that other cases were supposed to be heard by the committees, both regarding language rights and equality rights, when the abolition of the program was announced. Now these cases have been effectively muzzled. They have lost their voice. We never had the opportunity to hear these people's applications for funds.

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

Unfortunately, such cases often create precedents. There is a domino effect whereby many other cases will never see the light of day.

Ms. Lalonde, I followed your entire saga, of course, even before becoming an MP. I congratulate you for everything that you did. I was appalled when I found out that the Court Challenges Program had such a tiny budget of less than $3 million. Instead of discussing the program's survival, we should be discussing an increase in funding for it. It would be far more effective and useful.

In the Montfort Hospital case, you raised money. You worked very hard at collecting the money through $5 contributions, as we also sometimes do in our fundraising campaigns. After all, large companies are not the ones that contribute to the Bloc Québécois. Your outstanding fundraising campaign brought in about $400,000, but you did not get much money from the Court Challenges Program.

I would like to know why it was so important to receive less than $100,000, if I remember correctly, from the Court Challenges Program, whereas, thanks to your volunteers, you managed to raise nearly $400,000.

[Gisèle Lalonde]

What is hardest, Mr. Chairman, is that there are no major francophone corporations located outside of Quebec. We had to raise money by turning to ordinary citizens. As I said the last time, a young boy from Rimouski sent us $5, and the cloistered sisters sent us $11.23. We received those kinds of amounts from everywhere, and in some cases, it almost reduced us to tears. I felt like sending cheques back to certain people and telling them that they needed the money more than we did.

Professionals such as francophone doctors and accountants, people with a little more money, are the ones who sent us higher amounts. The money we were able to raise was unbelievable. We even received donations from the Northwest Territories and from Nunavut. The people who helped us were not necessarily the wealthiest. All these people supported the Montfort Hospital cause, and that is why we wanted to thank them.

We worked for five years, and I am still working at raising money today. The modest amount of $85,000 which we received may not be a lot of money for you, but it is what we needed to take our case to court. First, it was the provincial government which committed this injustice. So we had to go to Toronto to fight. They certainly would not have come to Ottawa. Getting everyone to Toronto cost an enormous amount of money. We also had to bring everyone together, to see whether they really cared about the Montfort Hospital. We had to meet with them. When we realized they numbered 10,000, we had to find the biggest room in town. That was also expensive. The amount of money we had to raise was unbelievable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I think that you have been very eloquent, Ms. Lalonde.

We will now move on to Mr. Godin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Lalande—

[Gisèle Lalonde]

It's Lalonde.

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

What did I say?

[Voices]

Lalande. That's the beauty of Yvon's accent.

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

I sincerely apologize, but that was my Acadian accent.

Isn't it ironic—and I think you already talked about this—that when the new government made those changes, the three senior ministers from the Harris government, namely Mr. Baird, Mr. Clement and Mr. Flaherty, were all involved?

[Gisèle Lalonde]

I would not include Mr. Clement in that bunch. When he became the Minister of Health, he truly understood—

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

So someone in that group understood?

[Gisèle Lalonde]

He understood, even though it was only after we had won, and he came to see us to say—

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

He's a saviour.

[Gisèle Lalonde]

He is the one who asked us what we really wanted and what we really needed. That is entirely to his credit. Mr. Clement understood, but the other two just don't get it.

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

And they are now here.

[Gisèle Lalonde]

Indeed. They wanted to turn the page and not talk about it anymore. Yet they had very senior positions when they arrived. One of them held the purse strings and the other was with the Defence Department. There is no doubt that for us it was fairly easy to make the connection.

If Mr. Harris got it about two months ago and sent me a nice letter, which is entirely to his credit, then why don't the two other guys get it and tell their government that they made a mistake? Why don't they try to acknowledge what happened as soon as possible?

Don't even talk about another study, otherwise we will all come back. I will mobilize everyone I can. You will get sick of it to the point where you will not be able to take it anymore. We don't want to have another study or another small group tasked with finding ways of improving it: we want the old program reinstated and even enhanced, if you will. Indeed, we find that having only one third of the budget available is unfair.

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

Mr. Chairman, I only have five minutes. I really like you, but perhaps you could table this letter with the committee, and we can send a copy to both ministers, if they have not yet received it. We will do that for you, Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Boucher said that she was sad when she met you, but I can tell you that we were also sad that we could not be here the first time to meet with you. I am sad that you were forced to come back again. The francophone minority—I know that people don't like the word “minority”—was forced to come to Ottawa three times to speak to the same issue.

Legal aid is not available for communities. I hope that they will understand. It would have been better for the government to study the issue before eliminating the Court Challenges Program. But no study was done. It was a impulsive decision. Baird himself told the House of Commons that the government would not give money to people to challenge the government's own laws. Let's tell it like it is. That's where the problem lies. It's a setback for francophone communities outside Quebec. It's a setback for Quebec's anglophones. It is a setback which is completely unacceptable. That is the message we must send the government.

Do you agree with me?

[Guy Matte]

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chairman?

[Some members]

Oh, oh!

[Guy Matte]

I believe that the words Mr. Godin has spoken and the way he expressed himself reflect the opinions of a vast number of Canadians about the Court Challenges Program.

We are extremely concerned by the elimination of this program, which has reduced the right to equality of francophones, linguistic minorities and Quebec's anglophones. However, the same Parliament, the same group which had adopted Bill S-3, said that not only would it participate in the development and the growth of official language communities, but that it would also adopt positive measures to ensure their development.

I really don't see how the elimination of the Court Challenges Program represents a positive measure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you for your intervention. You finished exactly on time, Mr. Godin. Congratulations.

We will now move on to the third and last round, in accordance with the usual formula. This will allow those committee members who have not yet had the chance to speak to ask questions.

So without further ado, Mr. D'Amours, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to raise a few points. Mr. Matte, you have just talked about Bill S-3. I was on the same committee during the last Parliament when we debated the bill. We wanted to do everything we could to get it adopted because we knew that if an election was called, it would die on the order paper, and francophone communities and minority communities would pay the price.

It is strange to see the government members of the committee on the other side of the table who have already voted to implement the positive measures contained in Bill S-3, but when it comes to implementing those measures... Everyone remembers the official languages commissioner talking about "window dressing". The fact remains that no real and concrete measures have been implemented. It basically all comes down to a big fat zero. Back home, we would say that it was "diddly squat", which is even less than zero. That's basically what we have with the present government in Ottawa.

I would like to have a clarification on the issue of costs, because I don't think it's been made clear enough. Some people think that the program costs billions of dollars. You said that the overall budget of the Court Challenges Program was approximately $2.8 million. What part of that amount goes to language rights? We're not talking about millions of dollars, are we?

[Guy Matte]

The funding for language cause represents $525,000.

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

There are some things which cost the federal government much more money. God knows that we are not facing a financial crisis, unless the government is hiding something we don't know about. The current government came to power when there was such a huge surplus that it did not know what to do with it; money was spilling out from everywhere. When the time came, it made cutbacks. But it was not as if there were no money. Even in the toughest times, the program remained. It costs peanuts to defend the rights of linguistic communities. That's a reality the government has not understood.

Ms. Lalonde, you said something at the beginning of your testimony. I have also heard the same thing elsewhere. You were told not to engage in politics. Before you appeared before the committee, did anyone warn you not to engage in politics? When someone says something like this, it's because they think something has happened.

What do you have to say about that, Ms. Lalonde?