Thank you very much.
My name is Doris Buss. I'm a professor of law at Carleton University, and I'm the chair of the law program committee at LEAF.
As many of you will know, LEAF is an organization that brings litigation, education, and some law reform work to advance equality for all women. LEAF has been active since 1985. It has been involved in over 140 equality-rights-related decisions that have touched on the areas of sexual violence, pay inequity, social and economic rights, spousal and child support, reproductive freedom, and access to justice, just to name a few.
In LEAF's view, the court challenges program was a relatively inexpensive program, at just under $3 million a year, and yet it was highly effective. It breathed life into the inert language of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Canada, as you all know, bringing court challenges is the principal means by which ordinary Canadians can challenge government action that infringes on their human rights. Dismantling the court challenges program has undermined the fragile system by which access to that simple remedy was made available to ordinary Canadians.
The high cost of charter litigation has the greatest and most deleterious impact on those Canadians with the least access to funds--namely, minority and aboriginal women. For Canadians at the lowest income levels, disproportionately represented by women, access to courts is an impossibility. The research available shows that where public funds supporting access to courts are cut, it is women, and minority women in particular, who are disproportionately impacted.
While the CCP was one of only several avenues by which the high costs of charter litigation could be somewhat ameliorated, the de-funding of CCP in particular is having a serious consequence for ordinary Canadians looking for remedies when their rights are violated.
The de-funding of CCP has a very human face. Organizations such as LEAF find themselves unable to take on meritorious cases of individuals whose rights are being infringed by the actions of the Government of Canada but who, often because of a history of discrimination, do not have the funds necessary to challenge those actions.
The case of Sharon Mclvor, who we're very fortunate to have with us today, is an example of just this sort of problem. As Ms. Mclvor will explain in more detail, her case challenges the definition of “Indian” under The Indian Act, and it was initially funded by the court challenges program. The British Columbia Supreme Court has upheld her claim. It has found that her rights and her son's rights were violated. The Government of Canada is appealing that case, and now Ms. McIvor and her son have to come up with the funds, absent the CCP, in order to face the appeal by the Government of Canada.
The implications are dire for human rights in Canada if applicants like Ms. Mclvor, whose rights have clearly been violated, are blocked from realizing those rights by a lack of funds. In effect, we would be left with a situation in which human rights abuses would be allowed to continue and fester perversely in those situations where they impact on society's poor and marginal members.
The court challenges program was not the be-all and end-all. It did not provide entire funding for cases, but it was substantially and symbolically important as an avenue for individuals to access their rights. It was thus part of a constellation of instruments by which the Government of Canada ensured a minimum level of access to justice for all Canadians, not just the privileged few.
The equality rights of women, and hence of all Canadians, were significantly enhanced by the CCP. Because of funding received through CCP, organizations like LEAF were able to bring cases for Canadians on a range of issues. We were able to work to uphold the rights of pregnant women. We were able to work to ensure that trials for rape would be fair and would not rely on harmful stereotypes about women's sexuality, that women would be treated fairly in divorce proceedings and settlements, that defendants in rape cases would not be allowed to troll through the private documents of victims, and so on. These are ordinary Canadians; they are not special interest groups. We don't know what their political leanings are. These are women who have been subject to sexual violence, and they deserve to have their rights upheld.
The CCP was one means by which, however partially, the democratic deficit in Canada could be addressed. It is not counterintuitive for a government to fund the means by which the most marginal members of society may seek to challenge the sometimes hidden barriers to their full inclusion. Indeed, it's essential in a parliamentary democracy like ours, where full democratic accountability is realized through the separation of the different arms of governance. We are facing a time when the Government of Canada is realizing a budget surplus of just under $14 billion and the government has cut $2.85 million from this one avenue that would allow ordinary Canadians to access their rights.
Thank you.