Official Languages Committee on June 12th, 2007

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

Absolutely not, given its commitment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

We will continue with Mr. Godin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must ask a question of Ms. Foulem from Acadia.

Good morning, Ms. Foulem.

[Ghislaine Foulem]

Good morning, Mr. Godin.

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

The government no longer wants to invest in the Court Challenges Program. That is what they have decided to do until we are able to convince them that they are on the wrong track and that they must reinstate the Court Challenges Program in order to help communities, minorities and people who do not have the money to challenge the interpretation of the law or the manner in which the law is enforced on the front lines. If we were to ask the government if the RCMP in New Brunswick had to offer services in both official languages, I am certain that they would say yes. On the other hand, ensuring compliance is another story and that is what is being debated in court at this time. Without the CCP, the SAANB would be obliged to represent citizens in court. That is part of its mandate. If they use money that does not come from the Court Challenges Program, that means that there will be a shortfall in other community assistance sectors. In one way or another, someone will come up short.

[Ghislaine Foulem]

Mr. Godin, I have before me a list of some 15 cases that we have studied. We have had the benefit of this assistance of the Court Challenges Program in some 15 cases since 1998, and had it not been for this program, we would not have been able to pay the costs. Even the lawyers who work with us often do so with minimal compensation. Lawyers work with us to prepare our cases, but we cannot ask them to work for free, that is unthinkable. Without the program, it really will be impossible to bring cases before the courts. We simply would not have the means to do so.

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

The government was saying in the House of Commons that the money for the Court Challenges Program served only to enrich friends of the Liberals. That is not what happened in New Brunswick or in the Maritimes.

[Ghislaine Foulem]

I can state unequivocally that the lawyers who work with us do so for a very low fee. They even give their time free time to the SAANB. Imagine what it costs to take a case to the Supreme Court of Canada. As for the government, I am sure they do not pay their lawyers $35 an hour. Let us put things in perspective. Our lawyers are receiving a minimal amount. We cannot ask them to do the expert work and research that this requires, completely as volunteers. I can tell you that they are not asking us for their usual rate.

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

Mr. Schafer, I'd like to ask you a question, especially since you say that the taxpayers' money should not be used to go to court and challenge the law of this land or the Constitution, that it should not be the taxpayers' money but that it should be voluntary people giving money.

Would you agree with me, then, that when a case goes to court, brought by a citizen, the government should not challenge the court decision and go to the Supreme Court, using the taxpayers' money to beat the poor citizen who had, I will say, the guts to take the government to court to challenge the law? Would you say the government should not use the taxpayers' money to challenge a decision in the Supreme Court, where the citizen, for sure, could not? Would you agree with me?

[Christopher Schafer]

The ironic part of the court challenges program is that it's government funding to challenge itself. On principle alone, I cannot support the court challenges program. Regardless of whether the causes are worthy, and there have been times, I know—for example, I supported, personally not financially, Dr. Chaoulli in his challenge to health care in Canada—but the fact is that he took it upon himself to challenge the law. The government, of course, was backing with taxpayers' dollars to defend against his case, and unfortunately, in that example we were outnumbered by government lawyers.

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

Wouldn't you say, though, that the doctor from Quebec who challenged the court, at the end of the day, because of privatization of health care, will make lots of money out of it, compared to Madame Paulin, who got caught by RCMP in New Brunswick, where they didn't want to talk to her or they could not talk to her in French and she didn't understand what the cop was telling her on the side of the road? Isn't there a difference between Madame Paulin and the doctor, who has enough money and will make all kinds of money in privatization of health care that will destroy our health care system in our country?

[Christopher Schafer]

In principle, no, I would say it's not the same. If you believe in principle that government shouldn't be funding various groups—I mean, you could argue that the court challenges program should be equally funded. I don't think in theory that would work. I think the court challenges program, from the way it has worked in the past, historically demonstrates that fairness is not part of that program.

Therefore, I support the court challenges program being abolished and letting Canadians, as individuals, support causes they believe in. If linguistic minorities truly, all of them as a whole, support causes that these witnesses here today are advocating for, they'll gladly fund these programs.

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

You probably will have a chance to be a candidate for the Conservative Party in the next election, because I'm sure Stephen Harper would love you.

My question is to Madame Martin-Laforge. When we look at the court challenges program and the anglophones in Quebec, would you agree with me that when we have a law coming up, it's always a challenge about whether they are interpreting it the right way and whether they are fair to the citizens? That's what it's all about, to do what needs to be done.

For example, Bill S-3 said that every institution has to give services in both languages, the same problem as happens in Montreal, Quebec, or Trois Rivières. I mean, the citizens have the right, not only provincially but federally, to have their services in both languages, because they are what you call in French

the founders of this country

and there was an accord made, probably in 1867, that we're supposed to be equal. And that's what it's all about.

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

Certainly English-speaking Quebeckers have the right to have access to the same services as all Canadians. I think that's what the court challenges program allows us to think about when test cases are brought in front of it. Not all cases will be looked at in the same way under the court challenges program. There are panels and there are ways of accepting certain cases rather than other cases.

These are test cases that have to be seen for what they are; they are pushing the envelope on laws and regulations and rules that impinge on individuals' equality rights. Whether it be official language minority communities or other equity groups, it's absolutely important that all Canadians have access to the same services.

So yes, of course it's a necessary part.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Madame Martin-Laforge.

Now we'll end up this first round with Madame Sylvie Boucher.

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

I would like to say hello to everyone. Thank you for being here with us this morning; it is greatly appreciated. I am going to ask my question of the FCFA. You can tell me if my memory serves me well. I am young, but my memory plays tricks on me at times. Your organization represents about ten national organizations working on the development of specific sectors, like health, immigration, education, etc. Is that right?

[Lise Routhier-Boudreau]

We have nine national organizations and one representative organization in all the provinces and territories.

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

Does that exclude Quebec?

[Lise Routhier-Boudreau]

Yes. Quebec is not at the table.

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

All right. I wanted to be sure.

You have a horizontal kind of mandate, that is to say that to respect your member organizations, you are an umbrella group of the other associations that are part of the FCFA.

[Lise Routhier-Boudreau]

It is a federation, yes.

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

Could you tell us what means, activities and tools the FCFA has at its disposal in order to make its defence of rights a reality? On your website, it states that the FCFA aims to “...defend the rights of francophone Canadians living in a minority situation;”. We can also read that the FCFA wishes to ensure “that government services are offered to francophones where they live.”

I would like you to explain to us what means, activities and tools the FCFA has in order to make this advocating service real. I would also like you to tell us whether or not this service has undergone any changes over the last year, in order to see whether there has been any evolution or whether there have been any changes at all.

[Lise Routhier-Boudreau]

The federation's work consists in supporting the provincial, territorial and national organizations. These organizations function independently. The FCFA supports their work in the areas of communications, preparing briefs and doing research on their various files.

The federation, of course, meets with various governmental stakeholders on behalf of its members, on the one hand to inform them of certain concerns, if that is the case, or to support government authorities in the work they are doing for the development and expansion of francophone and Acadian communities.

As far as the resources are concerned, I do not have the details of the particular programs that are currently supported by the governments.

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

Has the kind of service that you offer been modified or changed over the last year? Have there been any changes or have you always worked in the same way? Has there been any development in the changes that have been made over the years?

[Serge Quinty, Director of Communications, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

In order to properly answer your question, I would like to understand it. When you talk about means and tools, are you talking about material or financial resources?