Evidence of meeting #60 for Official Languages in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cases.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:35 a.m.
Representative, Canadian Bar Association
All I can say is that the Canadian Bar Association has asked for an explanation of the decision, and we have not, to this date, been furnished with an explanation.
10:35 a.m.
Representative, Canadian Bar Association
We met with the Minister of Justice, Minister Toews, just prior to the decision, because his ministry is the one the Canadian Bar Association deals with most closely. I believe we were told at that time that the program was being reviewed and that a decision would be made at the end of the review. But that was all we were told.
10:35 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
At the time, did you say how important it was that you meet with him to explain or to put your position? You had nothing to win from it; you were just there to represent the Bar Association. You believe in law—I hope—and you believe in justice, and here was a way for Canadians to say here is a new law and we'll give people the opportunity to go to court. That's your interest, because you said you never used it yourself. Then you must have an interest in justice in our country.
June 19th, 2007 / 10:35 a.m.
Director, Legislation and Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association
The Canadian Bar Association made its view on the program very clear to the minister last August.
10:35 a.m.
President, Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de Common Law inc
The Court Challenges Program is indeed very important to the FAJEF, but we have not had an opportunity to meet with Ms. Verner on this matter. When the FAJEF met with Mr. Toews—and I was not president at that time—we were also concerned about the appointment of a unilingual anglophone judge to the Supreme Court of Canada.
10:35 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
We have been told that the government has spent or is spending more than $700 million on action plans, including the plan for 2003.
Mr. Doucet, I'm thinking about all of the money that has been spent in 10 years. If the government had not challenged the decisions initially handed down... Indeed, many decisions were accepted in the first instance. However, these are subsequently being challenged by governments. Isn't that true?
10:40 a.m.
Professor , Expert in language rights, Law Faculty, University of Moncton
If the government loses in the first instance, it decides whether or not to appeal the ruling. Any party in a court proceeding has the right to decide to appeal a ruling. In some respects, this enables communities to have issues clarified by the highest court in the land. Accordingly, it is important to monitor this process. However, for communities with little money, this is no easy feat.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Let's take, for example, the case involving the RCMP. Had the government accepted the decision rendered by the appeal court judges... Has this case been heard by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal?
10:40 a.m.
Professor , Expert in language rights, Law Faculty, University of Moncton
The case was heard by the Federal Appeal Court and it is now before the Supreme Court.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
If the government had accepted the ruling, it would not have been necessary to bring the matter before the Supreme Court, meaning that the government would have accepted the lower court's decision.
10:40 a.m.
Professor , Expert in language rights, Law Faculty, University of Moncton
Everything would have been concluded at that stage.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
On the one hand, the government gives the communities money, and on the other hand, it challenges them in court. It is really the government that is spending the money.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Thank you, Mr. Godin.
That completes our third round. I would now like to inform committee members that there is one individual—
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
I would simply like to finish up with our witnesses. We are still at the discussion stage. A member has indicated that she wishes to question the witnesses. I would therefore like to obtain the committee's consent so that one final question can be put. Are committee members in agreement? Ms. Folco has requested that she be allowed to ask questions for one final round. No one else has asked to do this.
Is there a question?
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
We always have three rounds. I would like to keep some time so that we can consider the future business of this committee.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
We could allot three minutes to committee members who wish to ask questions.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Who would like to ask questions? Raise your hand.
There's one individual, so there'll be one three-minute question. Ms. Folco.