Thank you, Mr. Murphy. The comments singled out my hometown, Dieppe, and I understand why.
With regard to whether these rights are now clear, I agree with what Ms. Buckley said. There are generations of rights. For example, thanks to the many Supreme Court decisions on education in the minority language that have been handed down, some of the section 23 rights are now settled. However, there are still some outstanding issues concerning section 23. For example, few, if any, Canadian provinces have settled the issue of preschool education in minority language communities. Young French-speaking children do not necessarily enjoy the best conditions, that is to say, they are not always able to develop, or indeed rediscover, their mother tongue at preschool. These are questions that must be addressed. There is a lot of talk about school management and the power balance between the minister and the school boards. These questions remain outstanding.
Very few issues relating to sections 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Charter have been brought before the courts. I understand what Mr. Murphy was saying. When he was the mayor of Moncton, I was the lawyer who took the municipality to court. The case resulted in language obligations being introduced for New Brunswick municipalities. Mr. Murphy and I also discussed these issues at that time. This important decision allowed us to clarify rights and publicly debate a new generation of rights. The Constitution is an ever-developing, living organism and, in order to help it evolve, it is important to have access to the courts.
You asked whether francophone communities had the means to take matters to court. In some instances, a community fund-raiser might be the solution; however, you have to bear in mind that these are matters of public interest. An English-speaking person living in Moncton does not have to wonder whether the municipality will provide him with an English version of the municipal by-laws. An English-speaking person in Saint John does not have to fight to have access to an English-language school. An English-speaking person in Halifax does not have to plead his case to have access to health care services in his language. Francophones, however, often have to go to court because they are refused these rights. Faced with this kind of a reality, why should ordinary citizens be expected to foot the exorbitant bill?
Mrs. Aucoin said that it can cost $100,000 to take a case to the Supreme Court. I was able to take a number of cases to the Supreme Court thanks to the Court Challenges Program. Had the program not existed, I do not know how we would have managed. And I am not referring to lawyers' fees here: the cost of photocopies for a case that I will be defending before the Supreme Court in the fall is over $10,000. I do not make photocopies for the fun of it. It is the Supreme Court that requires a certain number of photocopies. The files are huge.
We are challenging the government in these cases. It knows that our resources are limited, while its own are not. Its costs are covered by the Canadian taxpayer. In many cases, preliminary questions are raised, meaning that our resources are eaten up before we even get to the substantive issues. The government, as the defendant, however, has all the resources it needs. The Supreme Court asked us to retain the services of an Ottawa agent. This alone costs between $4,000 and $5,000. Members of the public who want to have their right to education in their language and in their municipality upheld are being asked to pay $150,000 in legal costs. If they have to, they will find the means to do so. However, given that the government has already recognized these rights, providing support to have them upheld before the courts is hardly asking too much.