Official Languages Committee on June 12th, 2007

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Both at the same time. What do you base your community assistance on? Given that you are an umbrella group for nine national organizations, you must have means and tools to help these people. That is what I want to know.

[Serge Quinty]

Given that there are now more and more government mechanisms that are shared between a certain number of departments, and that we are working in collaboration with government authorities in order to understand the needs of communities well, and so forth, the role of the FCFA has grown over the last two years.

As regards tools and material resources, the situation has remained constant over the years. We have several tools to help us get to know and rally communities. Ms. Routhier-Boudreau can speak to you in detail about the francophone and Acadian community summit, which really was, I believe, a great exercise in community consultation. We have several channels, of course, through which to consult the communities.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I come back to my question. Have there been changes, a certain evolution since you have been there? Have there been any changes over the years which have resulted in the situation improving or—?

[Serge Quinty]

Perhaps...

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Having worked in the community sector, I know that an organization seeks to go further, and make the changes necessary to meet the changing needs of the community it serves. In the last year, have there been any changes made to the services you provide?

[Serge Quinty]

Yes, absolutely. Over the years, we have certainly adapted to service structures, to methods of consulting our members and to the communities. We adapt, and we make changes as the context evolves.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Very well. We have just completed our first round. We will begin our second round of five minutes for questions, answers and comments. We will begin with the official opposition.

Mr. Rodriguez, you have the floor.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning everyone. Thank you for being here today.

In 2005, we discussed Bill S-3 at length. We had long debates. At the time, I was the Chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Ultimately, Bill S-3 was passed after having gone through all of the steps after several attempts. In my view, that piece of legislation is an important tool for protecting and promoting minority rights.

However, I feel that abolishing the Court Challenges Program, which means communities cannot defend their rights, goes against the philosophy of S-3, a bill that sought to do more for the communities.

Generally speaking, the government's action is incomprehensible, and it is all the more baffling because it runs counter to the development and defence of community rights. I don't know if you share this point of view.

Ms. Routhier-Boudreau, do you wish to reply?

[Lise Routhier-Boudreau]

Since 2005, it is been very difficult to make out what positive measures have been implemented following the amendment to the act. It is clear that the abolition of the Court Challenges Program leads us directly to the issue of true equality, which is been far from being attained at the moment. In my opinion, abolishing this program directly contradicts the new obligation to take positive measures.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I agree with you. I have a question for the two representatives of the minority community. A yes or no will suffice. Do you think the abolition of the Court Challenges Program has violated on your constitutional rights?

[Lise Routhier-Boudreau]

Yes.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Ms. Martin-Laforge, do you wish to answer?

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

It is certain that anglophones living in Quebec need this program to ensure access to representation.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

This is a violation of the basic constitutional rights of francophone communities outside Quebec and anglophone communities in Quebec.

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

Absolutely. Abolishing this program does not affect minorities exclusively: it also affects other groups that fight for equality rights.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I agree with you. The program should be reinstated in its entirety, and include not only the official languages components, but also the component that deals with all minorities.

Do you share this view, Ms. Martin-Laforge?

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

Absolutely.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

And you, Ms. Routhier-Boudreau?

[Lise Routhier-Boudreau]

We believe that the program in its entirety should be reinstated.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Schafer, Mr. Godin asked you an excellent question. I don't think it was given answered. He talked about groups or individuals who go to courts thanks to government funding. You said that it is unacceptable to use taxpayers' money to fund a case. He asked whether, if these groups won, it would be more acceptable for the government to appeal using taxpayers' money in order to overturn the original ruling. Do you find this acceptable, or should this not be done either?

[Christopher Schafer]

Let me answer that by saying that, for example, I sympathize with the anglophone urge for justice in Quebec. However, to the question you're asking regarding the government appealing a decision and that it's detrimental to justice, for example, for defendants or proponents who can't afford to continue litigation, I would answer that it's unfortunate, because yes, in cases that we're currently litigating in the courts, that happens to us. So it's unfortunate, yes, because we don't have unlimited funds. We don't have taxpayers to go back to and ask for more money. It also happens in other equality cases where I may disagree; a certain group might be pushing litigation, and unfortunately, the government appeals even though they win the decision.

It's unfortunate, but it happens across the board. That's what makes it fair.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

The government is still spending taxpayers' money. In one case, you say it shouldn't happen. I want to know whether the government should use that same money, the money from the people, from Canadians, to appeal. Should they spend that money?

[Christopher Schafer]

I would say yes, because it's the nature of the system. What makes the court challenges program unsuccessful is that in theory it's a good idea if you can fund groups across an ideological spectrum and fund them equally. In theory it works; however, human nature being what it is, and politics being what it is, the unfortunate reality is that you can't create a court challenges program and fund it equitably.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Very well.

Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez.

We will now move on to the other witness. I would like to remind everyone that we always treat our witnesses with courtesy and fairness. I would also like to remind you of what is at stake—I will not say that the Sword of Damocles is hanging over our heads—with regard to the action undertaken by the FCFA, and to keep that in mind when you are asking your questions.

We will now move on to the government side.

Mr. Chong.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question for Mr. Schafer, but before I ask the question, I just want to give a bit of background.

This program originated in the 1970s to establish a broad foundation of case law in an area that was undefined at that point because of a lot of changes that had taken place in the 1960s, 1970s, and subsequent to that in the 1980s with the Official Languages Act, with the Chartre de la langue française in Quebec, with the advent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These were significant pieces of legislation and constitutional changes that really caused a lot of confusion and questions as to the exact nature of the rights that people had with regards to linguistic rights, and also with regard to minority rights. So the court challenges program was created after that.

There are many who say that after 30 years of jurisprudence and court cases, we do have that broad foundation in law. So my first question is, do you concur with that? Do you think we do have that broad jurisprudence to be able to define what our rights are? I don't mean all of them, as obviously there are always new cases and new areas of the law that are being defined, but do you believe that after three decades we do have that broad basis in case law, both with respect to minority rights and with respect to linguistic minority rights?

Regarding my second question, the official languages commissioner commented in his most recent report that in his view the cancellation of this program ran contrary to part VII of the Official Languages Act. So my question is, do you share that view at all? Do you have any views on that?

Those are my two questions.