Evidence of meeting #47 for Status of Women in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was reports.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Joy Smith
We certainly can take time and stay here for as long as it takes, even if it's until midnight, to debate this motion. We will do whatever is the pleasure of the committee.
5:35 p.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Madam Chair, I'd like us to vote on this motion today. For the past three weeks, my colleague and I have been touring Quebec and meeting with women's groups. To date, we've met approximately 150 women from various groups. They urgently ask us to urge the government to restore that program.
I don't think we should waste any time. Two weeks is a very long time. That will take us up to the end of April. I would really like us to settle the matter and to submit it to the government. Then it will be up to it to make its decision. In any case, we know that we're going to vote for the motion, and you know that you're going to vote against it. The result will be the same even if we debated it for 24 hours or a week.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you, Ms. Demers.
I need a motion to continue this debate. Otherwise, the meeting will be adjourned and we'll continue it next time. Does anyone have a motion to continue this debate?
Ms. Fry.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Yes, I would like to put forward a motion to continue debate, with a timeline at the end of which the vote will be called. I would like to continue this debate for 10 minutes, ending at a quarter to the hour. Then the vote will be called.
(Motion agreed to)
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a few questions about the motion.
It relates to the court challenges program. I know we've certainly heard a lot of special interest groups talk about the court challenges program. I have had people talk to me about it, as well as groups that have come before this committee.
I certainly think it should be noted that this court challenges program has encouraged some groups to bypass the political process. They've used the courts instead of going through the process that's been set up that they should be using.
I think it also needs to be said that certain pro-life and traditional family groups have consistently been denied court challenges program funds.
I find it very strange that government is funding some causes and not others. I find it even stranger that government is paying groups to challenge government legislation and government programs.
I would certainly ask why we should be funding and using public dollars to encourage advocacy litigation. I do not understand why we are funding some groups and not others. It's not an even across-the-board representation. I don't think it's right, and I don't think the people of Canada want or need their hard-earned dollars to support only specific groups.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, this is probably one of the single most important and historic programs that has ever occurred in Canada. Practically every single piece of case law that pertains to gender has actually come out of this program. It has usually tended to defend the rights of those who are vulnerable and disadvantaged and who have absolutely no money to be able to defend themselves.
It's a minority rights program that has defended aboriginal women, immigrant women, lesbian women, and women who have actually been at the margins of our society and who have suffered from poverty and discrimination. These women have no voice. They have no money, generally speaking, to hire a lawyer to take discriminatory cases to court.
The court challenges program was put in by a Liberal government to support the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and gender equality therein. Therefore, to cancel the only tool by which minority women and women in terms of gender equality can have access to the courts and can have access to human rights is in fact nullifying what the charter intends to do.
To do this is destructive, to say the least. It's discriminatory, and I think it must be returned if women are to have rights acknowledged in this country and access to justice. Without access to justice, these women have been denied justice.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Ms. Fry says that this is the most important program in the country, and yet in the year 2000 it was impossible to tell who actually got money from the court challenges program. So if it's such an important program and it's so important to Canadian women, why does it actually exclude some women, on the one hand, and why in fact is it that--and I know you were in government at the time, Ms. Fry, so maybe you can explain to me--there was no accountability whatsoever for this program? No one in this country had a clue who was actually getting money from the court challenges program.
It didn't, after 2000, publish the names of the groups that it funded. Files are no longer available under access to information, and individuals and companies caught up in litigation had no way to find out what was happening with that money.
We can question the merits of whether or not you liked the program or didn't like the program or whatever the case may be. The fact is that there was absolutely no accountability in the program, none whatsoever.
You can be proud, I suppose, of a program put forward by a Liberal government that has no accountability, that answers to no one, and that excludes women from being included in it, and now you want it back again. Well, I'm glad you're proud of something that actually didn't work, doesn't work, never has worked, and is on the cutting edge of excluding women from being involved in it. Great. Why don't we just vote on it?
March 29th, 2007 / 5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Number one, the characterization of this program as being in pursuit of special interests is a mischaracterization of the program, both as a matter of law and as a matter of fact. Its intention and its application were with respect to the promotion of equality and the protection of equality, which is not a special interest but is in the interest of all Canadians and in the interest of a just society.
It was intended to promote and protect minority rights, particularly minority language rights. There is no vested interest in that if we care about minority rights, which, as was set forth in the secession reference case, is one of the fundamental constitutional principles of our overall Constitution. So the promotion and protection of equality and the promotion and protection of minority rights are what this country stands for. If we're now going to go and convert this into special interests, that's a mischaracterization and a misrepresentation of the Constitution of this country.
Number two, it's intended to promote access to justice for those most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society who would not otherwise have had the standing and the capacity to even come before the courts to begin with. So this was intended to equalize access to justice in the pursuit of equality of justice.
Finally, determinations with respect to grants were made by an independent panel. They were not made by the government. They were not by special interest or in the service of special interests. I think to make that kind of statement is to reflect a lack of understanding of this program, how it worked, what its principles were, and what its purposes were.
To say that this has not been discussed.... It has been before the House of Commons. It has been before the justice and human rights committee. I dealt with it as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
I don't care where people want to come down on an issue, but at least they should be informed of the facts and the principles and the purposes of a program before they make such misleading statements before a parliamentary committee.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Yes, Madam Chair, I certainly listened very closely to the Honourable Mr. Cotler, and certainly I appreciate what the intent of the program was. I am saddened to think that the outcome of it wasn't what the intent was, because I think it had a very valuable intent.
If this motion passes, I will be asking for a dissenting opinion, please.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Joy Smith
The question is called. Could we start on a recorded vote, please?
(Motion agreed to: yeas 7 ; nays 4)
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Joy Smith
The request has been made for a dissenting opinion. Is it the will of the committee to have a dissenting opinion attached and 48 hours for that?
5:45 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
5:45 p.m.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Joy Smith
Okay, great.
There's one more item of business. How does the committee wish to proceed with the draft report? There are two options: send it to the office over the break or bring the copies to the meeting on April 17.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Joy Smith
The confidential report we took back.
The problem is that we had just discussed this and there was a question about sending it out at all.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Send it on Monday to our offices, the Monday when we come back.
