Thank you, Ms. Lalonde. As we say in English, Ms. Lalonde is always a tough act to follow.
I would like to discuss the decision to cancel the Court Challenges Program as it pertains to language decisions and what they mean, and more specifically, the Montfort decision.
The Ontario Court of Appeal saved the Montfort Hospital primarily because, had it been shut down, there would have been a greater assimilation of Ontario's francophones, which would have been against the fundamental constitutional principles pertaining to the respect and protection of minorities. Another minor reason was that Franco-Ontarians were entitled to a French-speaking hospital.
I'm going to read a short excerpt from the Montfort decision, which speaks specifically about the significance of this principle. I am quoting from paragraph 81 of the Ontario Court of Appeal Montfort decision:
The protections accorded linguistic and religious minorities are an essential feature of the original 1867 Constitution without which Confederation would not have occurred.
In other words, without the respect and protection of minorities throughout Canada, there would have been no Canada, because the signatories would never have signed the 1867 agreement. And I'm not the one who is saying this, but rather the judiciary of the Ontario Court of Appeal. They based their ruling, among other things, on Supreme Court decisions.
The Montfort decision was the first to apply the principle of protection and respect of minorities. This is the first decision of this type. The principle was set forth in the Quebec secession reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Mr. Matte told us that we were depriving people of access to justice. It is clear that we are denying communities access to justice because they can never collect enough money to go to court. Hence we are directly encouraging the assimilation of Francophone minorities in two ways. On the one hand, we are cutting funding and, on the other hand, we are sending the message to all Canadians that this is not an important issue. This is a message that leads to assimilation throughout the country. This is a message that governments have been sending us for more than a century. They are saying this is not important, that it is secondary, an afterthought. We are told that decisions will be translated should someone submit a request. That is the problem.
Before concluding, I would like to discuss another decision. I would like to refer to the Beaulac decision, which is extremely important for the interpretation of our language rights. Before this decision, the Supreme Court said that language rights had to be interpreted narrowly because such rights were political. The Beaulac decision changed the law in Canada in 1999. It stipulated that:
Language rights must in all cases be interpreted purposively, in a manner consistent with the preservation and development of official language communities in Canada.
The words "in all cases" were underscored by the Supreme Court of Canada. By abolishing the Court Challenges Program, it is clear that language rights are not being interpreted in a generous fashion.
Since the Mahé decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1990, another basic principle used by all the courts in the land to interpret language rights is redress. Why did New Brunswick become constitutionally bilingual? Why did Ontario adopt the French Services Act? What is the purpose of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? All of these measures are designed to halt assimilation. The courts interpret this section as being one that provides redress. What does that mean?
That means that harm was done and that the governments must make additional efforts—and the Court is very clear on this matter—to invest more in an effort to repair the damage caused, among other things, by false interpretation and historic disinformation that persisted throughout the duration of the 20th century, namely, that minorities outside of Quebec were not protected under the Canadian Constitution of 1867. It is now clear that they are and that this protection is significant.
Mr. Chairman, I think that this issue is of concern to all Canadians. Our linguistic duality is part of who we have become, at the very least. The Commissioner of Official Languages has told us that the success of Canada depended directly on the success of our linguistic duality. I don't think that is an exaggeration, nor do I think that this is a political matter.
Thank you.