Debates of Oct. 17th, 2006

Canadian Heritage

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard repeatedly that the major reason the government cancelled the court challenges program is the government's pronouncement that it is perfect. The government states that there will be no need for the court challenges program because any law passed by the current government, and one has to presume also laws that will be passed to correct mistakes made by the previous government, will all be perfect and there is no need for a court challenges program.

The second statement of fact that is generally accepted now is that more than half of the court challenges that have occurred up to this point against governments have been against provincial governments and not the federal government.

Based on those statements I ask my colleague if she has any information that explains how the government became perfect. I do not know if there is some divine inspiration or pronouncement from on high that the government is perfect, but I would like her to share that in light of all the groups that she listed that have indicated that they do not see the government as perfect and want the court challenges program to continue.

Even if the federal government is perfect, does the member have any idea of what methodology the government is going to deploy to make sure that provincial governments are also perfect when they pass legislation that affects individual citizens and groups?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have no information that would back up the government's statement that it is perfect and that it will adopt only legislation that is constitutionally compliant and respects the Charter of Rights and Freedom.

However, if I simply take that premise and apply good faith to it, governments can adopt legislation that does adhere to our constitution and to our Charter of Rights and Freedom but we all know that the legislation must be interpreted and applied. At times a legislation that is perfectly constitutional and in fact charter proof, is not applied properly. There is a bias on the part possibly of the agent charged with applying it. An example of that is Baker v. Canada, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 1999 2 SCR 817, which reads:

Many decisions affecting people in Canada are made by government officials who exercise considerable discretion. This judgment encourages the consideration of human rights values in such determinations.

This case was a challenge by a Jamaican born women who had worked illegally in Canada as a domestic worker for a number of years. She had four children born in Canada and after the birth of her fourth child she suffered postpartum psychosis and was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. She received treatment at a mental health facility for one year and then applied for landed immigrant status on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The agent who had the responsibility of examining her application and determining whether or not to approve it, denied her application and ordered her deported. The immigration officer noted:

She will...be a tremendous strain on our social welfare systems for...the rest of her life.

The Supreme Court stated that it was deciding the case in light of the duty of fairness and the principles of natural justice which govern public officials in their everyday dealings with the public. In reviewing the fairness of the decision making process, the court found that the immigration official showed an impermissible bias against single mothers and women with a psychiatric history. That goes to show why the court challenges program is required.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the member is speaking today about questions of law but I noticed that she did not mention her party's soft on crime policies.

Our government, Canada's new government, has introduced tough new measures. We are bringing in mandatory jail time. We are putting an end to house arrest for serious offenders. We are banning street racing. We are raising the age of sexual consent to 16 from 14.

The Liberals stand opposed to all those measures. The Liberals are soft on crime. They oppose tough measures to crack down on violent offenders. They support house arrest for violent sexual offenders and they oppose raising the age of sexual consent to 16. They oppose all of those things and they are busy blocking those tough on crime measures in the justice committee.

Why is it that the Liberal member did not stand and defend her soft on crime position? Is it because she does not want Canadians to know how soft on crime her party really is? Is it because she does not want her electors to know that our government is moving forward to keep our streets safe through tough measures to clean up crime?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it astounding that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board would make those kinds of statements which have absolutely nothing to do with fact. It is typical of that minority Conservative government to use smoke and mirrors to mask the fact that it itself does not tell the whole truth to the Canadian people.

I would like the member to answer why, given the partial list of groups, which I named in the House today, that have raised their voices in support of the Canadian court challenges program, he would stand shoulder to shoulder with his government in claiming that the court challenges program is inherently flawed and that it encourages special interest groups to promote issues not supported by Canadians.

I would like to know which Canadians do not support a challenge based on the fact that there was a bias demonstrated by a government official in applying legislation when he or she had to render a decision that affected the lives of four Canadian children and their mother. How can that member sit there and not raise his voice in opposition to his own colleague's statement that this kind of thing is a special interest group and is based on an issue that most Canadians would not support?

I do not believe that and the groups that I listed do not believe that. The majority of Canadians are completely supportive of the fact that we need to have a government funded court challenges program to ensure that individual Canadians who see their charter rights and constitutional rights being violated, intentionally or not, are able to defend themselves and their rights.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that among the groups she listed that she did not list victims groups, victims of crime, who have been calling on the Canadian government to crack down on hardened criminals for many years. The Liberal government did not do it. We promised we would do it and we have done it.

We have brought forward 13 tough on crime bills before the House of Commons, such as raising the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 and making minimum mandatory jail time for hardened criminals.

The member did not answer why her party continues to oppose those measures or why she continues to defend a soft on crime position. Why can the Liberals not be honest and say that they are in favour of soft on crime policies?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada, the official opposition, is in favour of our Constitution and of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including those that guarantee judicial rights. However, we have never claimed, as a government or as the official opposition, that we are perfect and that we would never adopt legislation that might violate an individual's constitutional rights or that the legislation is in fact constitutional but that those applying it might violate the constitutional rights and guarantees of an individual, unlike the member over there. We also do not smear people.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to join in the debate because it is important for Canadians. It is important for the laws of this land to be constitutional and that governments treat Canadians with the rights they have guaranteed under our Constitution and in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Sometimes, whether it is intentional or not, those rights are trampled on and Canadians, whether they are wealthy or average, need a vehicle available to them to go before a court, obtain an explanation of the rights they are allowed, if there has been an infringement, and have an announcement by the court at the end of hearing facts.

We do not have infallible governments. I do not care that this is characterized in a partisan way. It is not a partisan issue. I do not think any government is ever infallible on every aspect in which it engages.

I go to the guide section of the court challenges program. Right off the bat it states:

THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION, INCLUDING ITS CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, PROVIDES FOR STRONG PROTECTIONS OF EQUALITY RIGHTS AND LANGUAGE RIGHTS. HOWEVER, RIGHTS IN LAW BOOKS DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO RIGHTS IN REALITY.

I think that is understood. Individuals or groups can find themselves in situations where governments refuse to respect their constitutional rights and in those situations people may have to take their governments to court. Courts have the power to force the government to bring its laws, its practices and its policies into accord with our charter, but we know that court action is expensive. It is often far more costly for those very individuals or groups whose rights are not being respected or they themselves belong to marginalized groups.

The role of the court challenges program is to provide the financial support to people who want to use the courts to have those rights respected but lack the funds to do so on their own and, more specifically, it provides financial support to test cases that help to protect and advance the language and equality rights guaranteed under the Canadian Constitution. Aside from funding these cases, the program also funds activities that increase the awareness of the constitutional equality and language rights which fall under the program's mandate.

There are applications. Not just anybody gets it. There is a process of screening. There are funding criteria for the program. Federal laws, policies or practices could be challenged. It has to ensure that it is a test case and not already one that has been decided.

Some examples of equality cases that have been funded were, first, the first nations people when they opposed a section of the Indian Act that prohibited them from voting in band council elections if they lived off reserve; second, same sex couples seeking the same rights to certain benefits and deductions under the Income Tax Act that are accorded opposite sex couples; third, parents of children with disabilities who sought employment insurance for periods when they must be off work to provide care for their children; and fourth, the legality of the current laws that restrict the courts from admitting evidence of prior sexual activity on the part of sexual assault complainants.

What can the program not fund? It does not fund any case that covers an issue already funded by the program or that is already before the courts. It does not cover challenges to actions taken by provincial governments, complaints under the Canadian Human Rights Act, challenges to provincial laws, policies or practices and public education, community development lobbying or political advocacy.

We should be very concerned when a government thinks it is appropriate to cut funding. The words I have heard are, “We just don't want to pay people to sue us,” or comments of that nature.

I could understand that if this minority Conservative government took great care with the constitutionality of the pieces of legislation that have been brought here, but I am very concerned, as I think all opposition members are, that this government has shown a lacklustre concern, shall we say, for constitutional issues. If something is challenged down the road and a few people's rights are trampled on in the meantime, that seems to be good enough for the government.

It is not good enough on this side of the House. Somebody has to take responsibility for protecting people's constitutional rights and protecting their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is true that we are getting a large number of pieces of legislation coming forward, but does that equal a deliverable law and order agenda, for instance? Or does one put questionable pieces of legislation before this House and then take away the very funding that some of the marginalized people under those pieces of legislation perhaps would have access to with the court challenges program, in order to question their government when they feel the government has gone over the line?

These are not new thoughts. This is a program that was established in 1978 to provide access to justice in relation to minority rights. In 1982 Canada received the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it came into force. In 1985 the program included funding for equality rights cases under section 15 of the charter. We know that in large part the historically disadvantaged groups in our society have been the ones to utilize this program. They are not the only players in the system, but in large part we have those people who are being challenged in many other ways being able to bring their cases for a proper determination before the courts.

I will quote the parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, which said, “This program has made a critical difference in bringing constitutional rights within the reach of francophone parents, aboriginal women and persons with disabilities”.

The court challenges program guide tells us that the program is happy to support “test cases that help to protect and advance the language and equality rights guaranteed under the Canadian Constitution”.

We need these funds because this funding is not going to come from any other place. We have to know that the clarification of the linguistic aspects of freedom of expression is an important right where we have official languages in more than one language. We have minority language rights in nearly every province and territory in this great country of ours.

We are not talking about great sums of money here. Far greater than the sums of money involved are the great principles involved. We have been proud of this as a country and when we Liberals were the government we made sure this program continued and was funded.

I have been receiving letters from across the country, as have many of my colleagues. Some of them are copies of letters sent to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, but some come directly to us.

We know that sometimes their words are better than our own words. I will go to one letter from a lady in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. She talked about a resolution of the Canadian Bar Association urging the government to continue funding for the program. She said:

In fact, the CBA placed so much value on the impact of the Court Challenges Program with regard to protecting the rights of marginalized and vulnerable groups, that it saw an urgent need to increase funding--not cancel it.

The CCP clearly plays a fundamental role in upholding our Constitution. It brings Charter protection within the means of all citizens. Groups that currently access the Court Challenges Program play a vital role in ensuring that economic barriers do not deny Canadian citizens their rights.

Clearly, without the Court Challenges Program it will be much easier for governments to violate the Constitution. This program gives a voice to those who otherwise would have no practical means through which to challenge the courts. Without the ability to challenge--constitutional rights can become meaningless.

I guess that is so unless we have enough money to hire our own lawyer each and every time and we are constantly tracking this, but it is for those who are most vulnerable in our society that we need such a program.

Let us go to some of the other letters that I have had, one from members of the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa and professors of law. They sent a letter dated September 25 that talks about the court challenges program, “a national non-profit organization...to provide financial assistance for important court cases that advance language and equality rights guaranteed under Canada's Constitution”.

They were concerned because they were hearing news reports that the government was considering cancelling the program. They sent a letter in urging the federal government to continue the important program. They again referred to the Canadian Bar Association's resolution to “increase its funding in order to ensure its long-term...stability”. Certainly the government does not listen to these people who have a lot of experience with the program.

The letter went on to say:

The Court Challenges Program serves a vital function in our constitutional system. The CPP plays a fundamental role in our system of constitutional governance ensuring government accountability, insisting on the rule of law and ensuring equity and access to justice for Canadians.

The Court Challenges Program has made possible some of our most important Charter cases. It has been praised by United Nations bodies. It contributes to Canada's international reputation as a just and democratic society. It is an important mechanism to ensure that constitutional rights set out in our Constitution are meaningful--

The writers mean not just words on paper, but “meaningful”.

--to all Canadians. It deserves strong support.

This was signed by people who are professors of law at the University of Ottawa here in the capital region.

The Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians sent the minister a letter dated September 23 and said to him that it was:

--writing to you to express our grave concerns over press reports that the Court Challenges Program...is being reviewed, and in jeopardy of being de-funded by your government.

That is the new government. The letter continues:

--achieving coverage under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms represented an important milestone for all equality-seeking groups and individuals. Nevertheless, Canadians with a disability still face numerous barriers to the achievement of our goal of full participation and equality in all aspects of Canadian society. Today, people with disabilities remain among the poorest of the poor living in Canada.

Going to court is expensive. It is critical that groups such as ours have the resources to enforce our hard-won rights under the Charter. The Court Challenges Program plays a critical role in providing resources to our community to make needed litigation under the Charter possible. This litigation has also provided our community--

I am talking about the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians there. The letter continues:

--the opportunity to clarify for governments their obligation to protect such rights.

A right which does not include recourse to a legal remedy amounts to no right at all. Having rights without the resources to enforce them will inevitably result in serious setbacks to the progress made by people with disabilities in Canada.

The AEBC strongly recommends the Court Challenges program continue to receive funding from the Government of Canada.

The letter is signed by the president of the association.

The Quebec English School Boards Association sent a letter dated September 22 to the Minister of Justice. The president of that association talks about the rumoured cancellation of the court challenges program by the Conservative government, saying:

As the association representing Quebec's nine English school boards, QESBA speaks on behalf of a universally-elected level of government that answers directly to the members of Canada's English speaking linguistic minority community. In that capacity, we call upon you to confirm publicly that your government will maintain the Court Challenges Program.

We take as a given that your government respects and recognizes its legal and moral commitment to preserving and developing Canada's linguistic minority communities. Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the cornerstone of that commitment. The Court Challenges Program is an essential tool allowing our communities access to Canada's Courts to ensure that the rights and protections we are afforded in the Charter are upheld, understood and respected by all elements of Canadian society.

The pertinence of the Court Challenges Program of Canada has been recognized by the Canadian Bar Association. Important decisions on minority-language schooling, access to services, and key issues regarding freedom of expression have been rendered after interventions funded by the Court Challenges Program. Many of those interventions would have been impossible to initiate without the program's support.

Not hard to initiate, says the association, but “impossible to initiate”. The letter continues:

Quebecers are particularly exposed and sensitive to minority-language questions, both those affecting our communities and those affecting francophone communities in the rest of the country. Any move toward the elimination of the Court Challenges Program would surely be greeted with much opposition in my home province.

The president then respectfully asks the Government of Canada “to do the right thing and announce promptly the continued support of the Government of Canada for the Court Challenges Program”. Let us imagine the disappointment of the writers. Let us imagine their surprise.

On this side of the House, we know that the right thing to do is to put those funds back. We know that we had a $13 billion surplus and we know that this is a question of priorities. There are many, many good programs seeking funding from this House. There are very, very few programs that help those who are less advantaged in our society have access to the courts to make sure their voices and those whom they represent can have a say in obtaining rights that are theirs.

We did not say, when we gave this country its Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that only wealthy people who could afford lawyers would be able to have access to their rights. We said that this was for one and all. We said that this was for Canadians, that it was something to celebrate. Most of us in this House celebrate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Most of us in this House know that legislation has to meet constitutional tests.

I personally do not understand why this program would have been targeted. I do not want to impugn motives to people on the other side. But the reality is that they have cancelled an important program. The reality is that we have equality issues in this country. The reality is that minority language rights have to be upheld throughout the country. And the reality today is that the Conservative government has limited access to the courts through the cancellation of the funding for this program.

These are facts, indisputable facts. Why has the government done this? Because it got great advice from Canadians saying they hate the program? No, that is not the reason. This is ideological. The government is either saying it is perfect and has it right all the time, or it is saying to heck with constitutional rights. If somebody wants to spend their own money, not government money, not taxpayers' money, not in our value system as a nation together, then they can do it on their own time and their own penny. What does that say about the thinking of the current government? What does that say about how it values the access and equity issues among the most disadvantaged Canadians?

I note your signal, Mr. Speaker. I have other letters here. My colleagues and I have lists of organizations that have contacted us. I must put on the record that I have not had one phone call or received one piece of correspondence saying, “Hurrah for the government. It cancelled the program”. Not one. I have not seen that.

I think that is important. It is not only this area that has been cut off. I see a pattern developing. I see my friends on the other side getting ready to pounce, so I will put it on the record now. I see a pattern developing in which the government is telling Canadians it is protecting law and order in this country just because it is piling up legislation. But as members will know, people are working in this House every day on legislation. Members of the justice committee whom I work with every day are working through legislation. In fact, we just added another weekly meeting to our agenda to be able to work through legislation, and we will make sure that it is constitutional.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, this is a question of laws and a legal debate. That is why I was so curious to hear the member speak for a very lengthy period, yet fail to mention where her party stood on our government's tough new measures to crack down on crime.

We have introduced numerous measures. We are raising the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16. We are bringing in minimum jail time for serious offenders in place of house arrest for those serious criminals.

The member of Parliament is soft on crime and opposes these measures, but she does not want to say so out loud. She does not want her constituents to know where she stands on those issues.

The member does not have any view on our plans to toughen up dangerous offenders laws to keep them in jail indefinitely unless they can prove they are safe. She does not have any views on our decision to ban street racing. She does not have any views on any of those things. She will not tell us where she stands on a single one of those new measures.

She should stand in her place and admit that she is against those tough new measures and that she is against the majority of Canadians who support those measures. She talked about a lot of interest groups that are angry about some of the spending reductions we have made. She did not speak about the victims' groups and the police groups that have stood up very strongly and supported our tough new measures to crack down on crime.

Therefore, I urge her in her response to finally come clean with Canadians and admit that she continues to be soft on crime and that she and her party will continue to oppose our tough new measures all the way through the process.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the debate today is on the court challenges program. That may have escaped the attention of the member on the other side of the House.

I am looking at a letter dated September 27, which has come from a gentleman in Toronto. He said:

I know I am not the only white middle-class male to use the Charter to challenge inequitable laws--I share that distinction with yourself, Mr. Prime minister, who successfully challenged the federal electoral law. The Program is a uniquely Canadian initiative to help make Government more accountable to the people, a goal the Conservative Party has itself put forward and that I certainly share.

If you don't like the way the Program is administered, I suggest an all-party parliamentary committee be convened in order to suggest ways to improve the Program, but please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

In relationship to each and every one of the justice legislation that comes before the House, as justice critic for my party, I give a speech in which the position is put not only of myself but of my party. With our votes and consultation, just like every party in the House, we make our decision whether to move a bill through the process of going through the committee stage and coming back into the House. We participate fully on that.

There is no doubt my constituents know where I stand on each and every issue because I tell them. I tell them not only here in the House, but I tell them at home and through my communications. Therefore, the member should not worry himself about issues that are not relevant to the debate on court challenges, because I do take care of my own constituents. Not everyone in the House has the ability to think that all their constituents agree each and every time, on each and every issue. That certainly has not happened in my constituency and I dare say that it has not happened to any other member of Parliament.

Everybody is entitled to their stance on an issue. Over time people come to realize that the laws of the land have to be developed in accordance with the Constitution and in a manner that helps the public safety because they will be effective laws that are passed. If good laws were put forward and not hastily put together and if they were consulted widely on in advance in the preparation, a lot of the problems with the legislation we at the justice committee face today and in the weeks ahead would be much simpler and we could efficiently go through them.

As it is, as of yesterday we just added an extra meeting every week for the justice committee to sit in order to do our work more effectively.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the President of the Treasury Board repeatedly, in his bombastic fashion here in the House, say that the Conservatives were happy about getting at this program and killing it because almost all the money went to Liberal lawyers.

We know the facts. A good deal of the money does not go to lawyers at all. It actually goes for court costs and expert witnesses in these court challenges. A great deal of the legal time is donated time by lawyers across the country from all political parties, including my own.

Does the member have any facts that substantiate the accusations that a large number of Liberal lawyers were recipients of funds? What percentage of the money spent on this program actually went to lawyers as opposed to court costs and expert witnesses, et cetera?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the fanciful argument that we are used to getting from the new government. Conservatives make things up like this. I have no factual basis to buy into anything of that nature.

However, the reality is there are court costs and this program, in large measure, helped to fund the availability for access to the courts. The most important issue we should address is the fact that funding has been cut, funding that gave marginalized individuals and groups that had real issues to bring before the courts cases involving their language rights and often education rights.

A lot of these cases have been in my area. Susan Abbey v. Essex County Board of Education was a language rights case. The judicial rights case, R. v. Beaulac in 1999 was groundbreaking case in the development of judicial rights. Public services section 20 of the charter grants the right, without exception or limitation, to communicate with the central office of institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada and the legislature and government of New Brunswick and the official language of one choice.

These are cases that were really important in enunciating principles where rights were being trampled and people had to take that right. There is no other way to say it than those access rights are now being taken away. I do not see how any government can defend this situation and how it can take away, summarily, the moneys that go to the heart of upholding our Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier a member of the heritage committee from the Conservative Party made the case that we should be making laws in Parliament, that is where we do the scrutiny, that is where we deal with the constitutional issues, that is where we deal with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a consequence, he said there is no need for the court challenges program.

I would think there is an evolution, just like the Supreme Court has said. It is like a tree; it grows. There have been some very important cases that have gone through the court challenges program. It would be useful if the critic would advise the House of a couple more of the cases, which go right to the heart of the rationale for having an effective court challenges program.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, R. v. Beaulac in 1992 is another case considered key to women's equality. The Supreme Court of Canada dealt with the constitutional validity of the definition of obscenity in section 163 of the Criminal Code. For the first time, the court articulated contextualized harms-based tests for determining when material should be considered obscene.

Now the Conservative government has taken the words “equality” out of the mandate of Status of Women. Therefore, we can participate, but we cannot be equal. Is that what we are saying? Last week, when I was in my university classrooms and on the radio locally, the thing that appalled most people was the fact that equality was taken out of the mandate of Status of Women in the mission statement.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to make the most of what little time we have left, but I do appreciate the opportunity, on behalf of the NDP caucus, to enter into the debate.

I would like to recognize and pay tribute to my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier for bringing the issue to the floor of the House of Commons today by moving a concurrence motion to a report from the heritage committee. It is timely. He is doing a service to the country by bringing this fulsome debate to the House of Commons today.

This is an issue that the government clearly wanted to slip in under the wire, with very little fanfare and very little notice. We are not prepared to let this issue go under the table. We will not let the government slip it under there without having a full scrutiny debate in the House of Commons and without a vote in the House of Commons. We want to shine the light of day on what really is going on with this issue so the government does not get away with it, not if we can help it.

The federal government would have us believe that it is eliminating the court challenge program because it is somehow frivolously funding every Tom, Dick and Harry to sue their own government over legislation that it puts in place. Essentially this is the answer we heard in question period when the President of the Treasury Board was pressed on this issue. We were pressing the minister for the business case. We were pressing him for some reason, some rationale as to why this heavy-handed move was justified. This is a deliberately simplistic and misleading overview of what the court challenge program does.

The one thing that the member for London West has done for us is spell out, not just what the federal court challenge program does, but the things that it does not do. It certainly does not provide funding to anyone who wants to sue the federal government. There are very rigid tests. The bar is set very high as to what type of challenges qualify for any support under the court challenges program.

It is a matter when legislation, by omission or commission, offends the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or the Constitution of Canada, or it somehow is applied in such a way that a legitimate group of Canadians feel that they are not being treated equally by their own Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The highest duty of a member of Parliament is to ensure that all Canadians are treated equally.

I am proud to say that this is one country in the world where equality is our main objective, which is not the case everywhere in the world. In Canada we have very meticulously written in to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms the assurance that Canadians can count on being treated equally as far as the application of services, benefits or anything provided by the government. Therefore, it is not a nuisance to the government to have Canadians or organizations test the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by these regular court challenges. It strengthens our rights. Our rights are made more secure by these challenges.

We should keep in mind that the Canadian Constitution is not a rigid document. It is a living, breathing, evolving document that can benefit from these rare and infrequent tests and challenges.

We should at least start from the same base level of information as we ask Canadians to concern themselves with this debate. They should go into this with their eyes open. Clearly the government has tried to sneak this through in a flurry of other activity and other cutbacks, hoping no one will notice this relatively small budget line. Let us be fair. This is a very small amount of money on the global scale of things. Let us also ensure that misinformation is not what is guiding us here. We have to challenge comments from the President of the Treasury Board when he says that all the money just goes to Liberal lawyers anyway.

My colleague from Windsor pointed out that these challenges are often collaborative efforts by non-profit groups and NGOs. They find lawyers to work pro bono. The court challenge money they get, or the enabling money, is often used to pay for court costs, expert witnesses, research, et cetera.

Having laid that foundation, I challenge the veracity of both of the excuses given by the President of the Treasury Board. I think we could then begin to have a proper debate about whether or not we need this assistance in our judicial system.

Let me point to one case to illustrate how valuable this program can be. It is my own personal experience. In Winnipeg Centre the Community Unemployed Help Centre deals with people who are having trouble with their employment insurance. On behalf of one client, Kelly Leisuk, the centre launched a Federal Court challenge sponsored by the court challenge program . The centre maintained that the EI act does not treat women equally, that women suffer a gender imbalance with the application of EI as it was evolved by the Liberal government.

When the EI system went from a weekly based system to an hourly based system, women were disproportionately and negatively impacted in that more women worked low wage part time jobs and so women qualified less often for any EI benefits than men did. The empirical evidence was fairly straightforward. Frequent appeals to the federal government bore no satisfaction at all. We made the case to the federal government that the EI program was affecting women negatively, but the government of the day was deaf to this gender imbalance. The only avenue of recourse was to make a charter challenge under section 15, the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that the EI act as contemplated by the Liberal government offended the charter.

Where else would a non-profit workers' organization go? Its total budget, and I know because I sat on its board of directors, is $250,000 a year. That funded four staff to advocate on behalf of people having trouble with their employment insurance. Where would an organization like that go to launch a massive Supreme Court challenge if not to the court challenge program?

When viewed in that light, it is an issue of natural justice, in this case on behalf of Canadian women. They would not have a voice and would not be able to have legal representation in this compelling matter were it not for the court challenges program. It is not unlike legal aid. We do not allow defendants to go into a courtroom unrepresented. They are given legal aid. No one argues if that is fair. It is a natural justice issue. In that same context, from time to time we need to test the veracity of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and thereby strengthen it by these court challenges by legitimate groups within Canada.

I condemn the government for cutting the court challenges program. I thank my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier for giving us the opportunity to voice those concerns in the House today.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The vote will be held tomorrow at the end of government orders.

The House will now resume with the remaining business under routine proceedings.

Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I wish to thank my colleague from the riding of Québec for the two petitions that I will present today regarding SCIPI, the supporting communities partnership initiative.

The first petition is from 119 individuals who signed for Gîte jeunesse inc., a community housing organization which is a centre for the prevention of mischief, vagrancy, and homelessness. This organization provides shelter and assistance to 100 youth almost every day. Consequently about 3,000 individuals in difficult circumstances are helped each year.

The second petition is from Centre femmes aux 3A. According to this petition, it is the government's responsibility to look after the disadvantaged in our society. There is a real need for SCIPI in our society and it is a valuable program for our communities.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?