Debates of Oct. 17th, 2006

Canadian Heritage

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote for the member a comment that was made to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which, incidentally, recognizes that the court challenges program is an important tool for accessing justice for Canada's historically disadvantaged marginalized groups.

The government itself, during a recent presentation to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, stated:

It is not possible for the government to support all court challenges, but this uniquely Canadian program has been successful in supporting a number of important court cases that have had direct impacts on the implementation of linguistic and equality rights in Canada. A recent evaluation found that there remain dimensions of the constitutional provisions currently covered by the CCP that still require clarification and the current program was extended to March 2009.

Is that government representative, in his capacity as parliamentary secretary, prepared to table in this House, or make available to the relevant committee, a copy of the evaluations of the program? Those documents need to be made available to Parliament. Did the government conduct an evaluation of this program before deciding to cut it? If so, can we have a copy of that evaluation?

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member will know, the minister will be before committee tomorrow and perhaps that would be the most appropriate place to put that question. She is the person who ultimately has responsibility for that. He can put that question to her in committee tomorrow.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier for presenting this motion, which follows the tabling of the eighth report. It is quite incredible. It is hard to fathom the government's intentions; basically, they are doing everything to target the most vulnerable, to weaken those who truly need the government's assistance.

It seems that Conservatives believe in social contract. However they believe in it when everything is going well, in times of prosperity when there is no need to rely on solidarity.

Who would have thought that a government could be so low, so irresponsible, so servile and petty—to use words that are parliamentary—as to abolish a program that calls for total spending of almost $3 million, because that is what it comes down to for the court challenges program?

I have been here since 1993 and one of the stupidest things I have heard in my life as a parliamentarian came out of the mouth of the Prime Minister. I truly could not believe my ears when he justified himself in answering a question from the leader of the Bloc Québécois, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. The member asked why the government was abolishing the court challenges program, and what was the Prime Minister's response? In all his wisdom and enlightenment, the Prime Minister said that the government had no intention of introducing unconstitutional legislation.

Can you imagine the stupidity of such a statement, which is all the more worrisome coming from a head of state, a prime minister, a man who has major responsibilities when it comes to the value of equality?

Of course, governments never introduce unconstitutional legislation. When a submission is made to cabinet, the Minister of Justice must ensure that the content of the bill is compatible with various human rights mechanisms. In the Canadian example there is the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Diefenbaker's Canadian Bill of Rights, adopted in 1962, the year of my birth.

But that is not the substance of the debate. The substance of the debate is that certain rights are denied today. The law is in fact a changing thing. Our view of the law is subject to a certain evolution, for morals change. We no longer define indecency as it was defined in the 19th century.

Take the death penalty for example. It was partially abolished in Canada in 1977, and definitively in 1982. Ultimately, it can be called cruel and unusual punishment in light of the Canadian Charter.

So how can a head of state, in this instance the Prime Minister, say that his government does not intend to table unconstitutional legislation?

We will be returning to the Conservatives’ record on human rights. However, it is true that when a bill is tabled in this House, it has been evaluated by the Department of Justice.

Nonetheless, that is not what we are talking about. The court challenges program is primarily a means of verifying the scope of rights. Moreover, the fact that a right is not recognized by the Supreme Court in 2006 does not mean it will not be recognized in 2012. I have some examples.

First, we know that the Conservatives are not fond of homosexuals, not fond of people of the homosexual orientation: they have exercised a policy of institutionalized homophobia. I am not saying that individually they are homophobes.

I am not saying that. I will give some examples.

Since 1993, each time they have had the opportunity, the Conservatives, as a group, have voted against the rights of gays and lesbians. That is called institutionalized homophobia. I am not claiming that, as individuals, they are homophobes.

Imagine if the Bloc Québécois had voted nine times against the rights of aboriginal people. Imagine if the Bloc Québécois had voted nine times against the rights of women. Imagine if the Bloc Québécois had voted nine times against the rights of the cultural communities. Well, on nine occasions all of the Conservatives, with about five exceptions, none of whom unfortunately are current members of this House, voted that way. Those are the facts.

There was the first bill I tabled, on recognition of common-law spouses, which was supported by Mr. Lucien Bouchard and almost all of my caucus. This was in 1995. I remember that the vote on my bill was held on a Monday morning, and Alfonso Gagliano was the Liberal government whip. That was the only time in my life I voted on a Monday morning, and it was concerning my bill. Now, Sheila Copps was the only Liberal cabinet minister present at the time in this House. She represented the generous, humanist left wing of the Liberal Party. That Monday morning in 1995, however, other hon. members, 55 in all, supported that sole member of the Liberal cabinet present in the House.

So the Conservatives have voted against the rights of gay men and lesbians nine times. That is not insignificant.

In 1995, when the motion I had introduced regarding same-sex common-law partners was voted on, Allan Rock amended the Criminal Code to add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination in section 718.2.

This was referred to as a provision relating to violent crimes motivated by hate. In imposing a sentence, the judge may look to a number of provisions under which he may find that there is an aggravating circumstance.

In the second vote on Allan Rock’s bill, all of the Conservatives voted against it.

The same was true when former minister Anne McLellan introduced a bill dealing with recognition of same-sex common-law partners. Obviously she introduced a bill because she was well aware that the federal government had little hope of winning the foreseeable court challenges.

The Conservatives introduced a motion saying that homosexual unions were not real families.

They voted against Svend Robinson’s hate crimes bill.

In committee, they voted against an amendment I proposed relating to access to new reproductive technologies by lesbians.

Twice they voted against a motion relating to marriage introduced by the Conservatives, and against a bill relating to marriage introduced by the previous government.

And so on nine occasions, the Conservatives, as a parliamentary caucus, have voted against the rights of gay men and lesbians.

In 1995, a couple who had lived together for 40 years challenged the provisions of the law relating to the old age pension income supplement that is paid to people who have not reached the age of 60 or 65 years. They had been living together for 40 years, but one of them was not eligible because same-sex common-law couples were not recognized. At that point, the Supreme Court said that sexual orientation had to be added to section 15 of the Canadian Charter as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

There is an example of a case which allows the Supreme Court, whose responsibility it is to bring about progress in the law, to take an updated look at our important legislation and the management of public funds used to assist minority groups in challenging laws.

I will say it again, when the Prime Minister rose in this House to say that his government did not intend to introduce unconstitutional legislation, that was one of the stupidest things I have heard in this House. Of course the government does not introduce unconstitutional legislation. It is the courts that bring about progress in the law, in some circumstances.

I have cited the example of minority groups in terms of sex, but could we not say the same thing about minority groups in terms of language?

Once again, what is it about the court challenges program that the government is afraid of?

This is not the first time that this problem has arisen. Remember that this program was established in the 1970s. It is worth recalling that under Brian Mulroney, who was in fact more progressive than conservative, in their next to last year in power, the Conservatives wanted to abolish the court challenges program. In fact, they did not want to abolish it, they abolished it. It was only when the Liberals returned to power, in 1993, that the program was reinstated.

Obviously, there was great indignation over the elimination of the program. All the human rights activists made their opposition known. This is typical of the current government. It has no sympathy for the most vulnerable people. It is not sensitive to minorities. A government really needs to be low to slash literacy programs. It really needs to be low to attack the status of women.

I would agree if a government were to say that a part of its responsibilities is to periodically evaluate how effective programs are in light of their objectives. We are not against program reviews and evaluations. But this government cut the court challenges program because it thinks that minorities do not need government assistance.

Do they know how much it can cost to go to court? This is not a gratuitous criticism of lawyers; everyone has a right to earn a living. When a good lawyer wants to challenge some legislation and it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, he has to write statements of argument and must be very well prepared in order to back up his challenge. The legal fees for all this can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Let me say parenthetically that two of my fellow citizens, Michael Hendrix and René Leboeuf, were the first to challenge the lack of equality when they were refused a civil marriage. They relied on the court challenges program because section 15 of the 1982 Canadian charter provides for equal treatment. What equal treatment means is not specified in the act. It is the courts that have defined what equal treatment is.

Does anyone think that we would have made the great legal strides in minority rights without the court challenges?

It is terrible to see what is happening now. It is terrible to see this lack of sensitivity on the government’s part.

Maybe we need to look into whether the court challenges program is well managed. Maybe it should not be administered by a non-profit agency. We are open to this kind of discussion. But that is not what the government wants to hear. The government says that this program is not needed because it will not introduce any unconstitutional legislation.

This government is extremely dangerous insofar as human rights are concerned. The Conservatives’ agenda is of deep concern to anyone who is a member of a minority, to anyone who believes deeply in equality, and to anyone who believes that minorities deserve to be helped to defend their rights.

I cannot name one person in their cabinet or even their caucus who is an advocate for minority rights. I believe that two Conservative members may be somewhat more sensitive to the issue. I cannot name them, but the parliamentary secretary to the senator who has not yet been elected has some sensitivity.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board is moving ahead, but has not yet fully matured in similar files. He is giving me a sign, and we will see how he votes when his government introduces a motion to revisit the issue of civil marriage for same sex couples. The member is nodding his head and gesturing. I would like to assume that he is concerned about minority groups, but I am curious to know how he will vote when the time comes. If memory serves, he is not among the short list of Conservative members who supported the bill introduced by the former Liberal justice minister concerning marriage rights.

It is a rather sad state of affairs when we begin bargaining with minority rights and when we hear that $1.1 billion has been cut, even though there is a budget surplus of $15 billion.

I saw the President of the Treasury Board on television, quite happy to be on camera to sign a $15 billion cheque. Meanwhile, our constituency offices had received the list of programs that were cut. Surprisingly, the programs cut were the programs that helped those less fortunate through literacy, housing and status of women.

Proof that this government in not interested in hearing public debate on human rights is that, in addition to cutting the court challenges program, it also abolished—yes, abolished—the Law Commission of Canada. True, the commission was known to question governments and to recognize, in its opinions, that the current state of rights may not be generous enough towards a certain minority group in our society. Nevertheless, a government that is proud of its minorities is one that gives them the tools they need to assert their rights.

I will close by stating that it is possible to support the court challenges program without necessarily supporting institutional bilingualism in Quebec. I hope that the member for Ottawa—Vanier will agree, although I doubt it. We all have an interest in helping the francophone community outside Quebec, for example, to become as dynamic as possible. In a minority language situation, one has to constantly fight for access to institutions. The governments did not just wake up one morning and decide to ask what they could do to improve the situation of minorities. It was the court challenges program that made it possible for linguistic minorities to gain access to educational institutions and to manage their own school boards. Just remember the fight that was waged on behalf of the Montfort, a French-language hospital.

Finally I would like to say that this government will pay dearly for its insensitivity towards minorities, no matter which ones. The Bloc Québécois, and the other opposition parties, will never condone this lack of sensitivity towards minorities. On behalf of my Bloc Québécois colleagues and all the members of this house, I say shame on this government. One day its representatives will have to explain their gross neglect of minorities. We will never be a party to abolishing the court challenges program, a valuable program that defends human rights. And if this government has any sense of responsibility and honour, it will restore the budget of the court challenges program, which strongly supports human rights.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am from British Columbia and several years ago the Government of British Columbia cut legal aid programs that helped low income and vulnerable people to access the court system in our province.

I heard your comments regarding persons with disabilities and other vulnerable peoples in our society and I am just wondering if you could comment on what recourses and what supports they would be left with if--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to address her comments through the Chair and not specifically to the member.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I wonder how the hon. member feels about what supports and recourse the most vulnerable in our society would have.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there will be far fewer ways for people to get help.

For example, the list of cuts includes the social development program that supported manpower adjustment programs and helped people with disabilities. I am not saying those people will no longer have a program, but I am saying that we have good reason to be worried. Once again, that was totally unjustified. We are not experiencing fiscal hard times. Even if we were, that would not justify weakening minority groups.

Recently, the President of the Treasury Board appeared on television, all smiles, signing a $15 billion cheque.

To add insult to injury, along with his $15 billion surplus announcement, the President of the Treasury Board announced $1.1 billion in cuts that will affect the most vulnerable. We will not forget that.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member touched on a variety of issues in his interesting speech. He talked about the court challenges program, the Supreme Court of Canada and the seeming reintroduction by the government of a bill to re-establish or restore the traditional definition of marriage.

As I understand the law on that point, every legal expert in the country, without exception, has said that if the government were to introduce and ultimately pass a bill restoring the so-called traditional definition of marriage, that such a law would be ruled unconstitutional and contrary to the charter by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Is the hon. member's understanding the same or has an expert actually now come out in support of what the Prime Minister, seemingly, is intent on doing.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. The civil marriage rights of same sex couples are now established in law. We voted on it in this House. They are part of the protections provided for in our key human rights documents. There have been court challenges, and we know how those turned out.

I take comfort in knowing that, should this government stoop so low as to introduce a motion to revisit the issue, we would quickly put this government in its place by defeating the motion. As I understand it, Bloc and NDP members agree, and I think our Liberal colleagues will too.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's comments are quite interesting. He claims that his party is a major champion of the rights of francophone minorities across Canada. However, he contradicts himself. The sovereignty he desires and wishes to attain will divide Canadian francophones into two groups: Quebec francophones and francophones in the rest of Canada, with my father a member of the latter.

He wants to abandon francophones living outside Quebec. To state in this House that he wants to be their champion is a major contradiction.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, with whom I often chat at the gym, but I must state that, in my opinion, the comments he has just made are most unfortunate. First, when the day comes that Quebeckers decide to become sovereign, it will be as a result of a democratic movement advanced by a referendum.

Second, when the Bloc Québécois arrived in this House in 1993, Lucien Bouchard worked with the former member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis on the matter of francophones living outside of Quebec. We had proposed a sort of oversight body. Even René Lévesque had done so at the time of the St. Andrews initiatives. We proposed a parity structure. We would look at how francophone minorities outside Quebec are treated and you would look into how anglophones are treated in Quebec, anglophones who have the right to services in their language, from kindergarten to university.

We have never been ashamed of the way in which we have treated the founding minority of Quebec, that is the anglophone minority. The fact that we will become sovereign through a democratic process must not be interpreted in any way as an indication that we intend to abandon francophones outside Quebec. That is not the intention of the sovereignist movement, nor of the National Assembly, and I urge my colleague to validate and to verify the documents that we have presented on these issues since 1995. That was done by Mr. Bouchard through our heritage critic at the time, Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that this was a decision made at the summit of la Francophonie. Imagine. The Prime Minister was accompanied by a delegation of people from across Canada, including a number of Acadians from New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador. Members should have seen how this announcement was received by francophone minorities outside Quebec. What nerve.

Rights are being taken away from the francophone minority in the rest of Canada. In Romania, the Prime Minister bragged in a speech about the importance of the French fact around the world, while he himself was taking rights away from an important community in Canada and Quebec.

I have a question for my hon. colleague. He said that it was shameful for a government to have acted that way toward minorities, and I know that he is good at defending Canada's minorities such as francophone communities. I hope that, in the next election campaign, the Bloc Québécois will decry this government's lack of courage, because this government is afraid to give rights that would allow people to challenge it. So much for democracy.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Québec is right, and her remarks are especially relevant since she was in attendance at the summit of la Francophonie.

We know what the Prime Minister said in his speech at the summit of la Francophonie. But, beyond that, one has to recognize that it takes an awful lot of nerve to show up at the summit of la Francophonie with such a poor record in terms of protection of rights. I think that it is totally legitimate for the hon. member for Quebec to point out this incongruity which voters will remember come the next election.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the hon. member's intervention he indicated that this government gave no consideration for the less fortunate people of Canada. I disagree entirely with that. I would like to point out to him a number of issues that this government has addressed in the short period of time that it has been the government.

The government has addressed the residential school issue. This was a tragedy inflicted on this country. We have given redress for the Chinese head tax issue in the short time we have been in government. We have also addressed the rights of aboriginal women for property on reserves.

In the short time that we have been the government, we have addressed a number of issues that deal with the less fortunate, people who have been wronged over the years in different situations.

Ultimately, the elected officials in this country, the members who represent our constituents from coast to coast, are the ones that should be creating policy and legislation in Parliament. It is Parliament that has to deal with any inadequacies that are created in laws by bringing them back and addressing those issues. Would the member comment on that aspect?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, part of this responsibility lies with the government, but if we had waited for this government to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it never would have happened. That is why the courts also have a responsibility.

I challenge the hon. member to add to the list of achievements he just gave by voting in favour of the motion by the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier. If he votes to restore the funding, the next time he rises in the House, in addition to the three achievements he just mentioned, there will be the reinstatement of the court challenges program. Every member in this House will be grateful to him.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this House to speak about court challenges. Although I say I am pleased to rise in this House, I think this is a sad day. The Conservative Party, the government, has decided to cut the court challenges program. By doing so, the minister has said, here in this House, that it was not right to give money to groups so that they can challenge a government that has created the laws. It is not right. If not, then the Supreme Court of Canada should be abolished. If it is not right, the provincial courts should be abolished.

[An hon. member]

They will do it.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

If it is not right, then we should live with a dictatorial government. Let us not forget that the ministers and members of this government cannot even talk to the press. Is that the kind of Canada we want?

I can give examples of the contribution that the court challenges program has made to minorities, and the support they have drawn from it. In New Brunswick, an attempt was made to move the food inspectors from Shippagan to Moncton, in the Dieppe and Shediac regions, and the Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick, thanks to money from the court challenges program of Canada, brought a court challenge and won its case. This decision was then brought before the Supreme Court by the Liberal government of the time, which contested the decision of the Federal Court of New Brunswick. At least the municipalities had some tools at the time to defend the minority communities.

Did they think that one person, an individual on his own, the Shippagan food inspector on his own, Mr. Gauvin and his colleagues, would have had the money to appeal to the Supreme Court? No.

That is what the Conservative government wants. It wants to lay down laws, it does not want citizens to defend themselves; it is depriving citizens of the right to bring a court action against the government. It is setting itself up as a saint, it believes it is perfect, it thinks it is establishing good laws which citizens must respect.

If that were the case, the government should not have to be afraid of investing in court challenges, for it would win in court. However it is shameful to remove the democratic tool that allows citizens to defend themselves in Federal Court, in the Supreme Court of Canada and in the provincial courts. The Conservatives should be ashamed. I do not know how they can sleep at night.

Let us consider the RCMP in New Brunswick, which was not providing service in both languages. Once again, New Brunswick organizations, through the SANB, received money from the court challenges program to go to court, and they won. At the time, the Liberals in power decided to contest this decision up to the Supreme Court. At least the organizations had the money to keep defending themselves.

If citizens and organizations cannot receive money through the court challenges program, to be fair the government should not have the right to take taxpayers’ money to fight citizens in court. That would be a bit more fair. Yet the government takes in money through taxes—whether citizens like it or not, taxes are deducted from their pay—and uses it to fight an individual in court. At the same time, it says it will not give the community the chance to benefit from this money in order to reach a happy medium, a balance of power. It is undemocratic to deprive citizens of such a tool.

The government machine is too big for the individual. That is what the Conservatives want, an American system where the individual feels all alone in life and has to manage all alone without any help.

In my opinion, the same is true of the status of women. The reason that women have made it to where they are today is because funding has been granted to create groups so that women are able to show what they can do and are recognized even here in Parliament.

Equality between men and women must also be recognized. Equality was not achieved as a result of the wishes of a single person who stood up one fine day and said that he or she wanted equality between the sexes so that women would be respected and government would support this. There were battles fought and there are organizations that worked hard to achieve that objective.

As for literacy, we are told that we do not want to spend money on older people, we want to fund young people instead. So we are being told that when we get to be 40 years old we are no longer citizens, we are no longer human beings? What kind of attitude is that, Mr. Speaker? The attitude that the Conservatives are taking today toward these people and these organizations is disgraceful. They are going to realize that there are people working in these organizations and that those people talk to one another. At this moment, those people are protesting and a big wave will be hitting Ottawa, telling them that they are not right and they do not deserve to be leading this country. They have taken things away from us that are fundamental to our country.

If you can imagine, two days before the literacy cuts the wife of the Prime Minister of Canada took part in a march for literacy, all the while her husband, right here in the House of Commons, was cutting the funding for literacy training. I hope that she will talk to him this evening and tell him that what he has done and what the Conservative government has done is not right.

We know people who worked at the same company until they were 40 or 50 years old and who always worked at the same job. With all the cuts going on in industry today, we have to help the workers and equip them with the skills they need so that they can find new jobs. And yet the Conservatives are telling us that there will be budget cuts for the organizations that do this, cutting the fat, they say.

So someone will have to go to the library in Bathurst by himself or herself to pick up a book. That person will go home and study independently, with no help from anyone, no teacher, no local organization. The same will be true in Timmins, Ontario, or in Regina, Saskatchewan, or in Edmonton, Alberta. People in Alberta love it when people from our hometowns work on their oil wells. What these cuts mean is that we will not give the people in our hometowns a hand so that they can learn to read and write. These are people who started working when they were very young and never had a chance to go to school. Are we going to let all these people fall by the wayside?

You know, Mr. Speaker, I did not come to the House of Commons yesterday. How many times have we heard it said in committee that we have to do something for minorities? And then came the question of how much it is going to cost us.

The Standing Committee on Official Languages has never travelled across the country to visit minority communities. Who has objected to that? Always the Conservatives. Do not tell me that it is not true, because it is true.

Last year, I was forced to make a proposal to the effect that if the Standing Committee on Official Languages did not travel, none of the committees would travel. If we can send 12 people across the country to see where seals live, we can send the Standing Committee on Official Languages to anglophone and francophone communities to find out what people need.

The Prime Minister had said that we should perhaps look at the system in Belgium, and he suggested that Quebec look after the francophones and the rest of Canada look after the anglophones. I was born in New Brunswick, on the Acadian Peninsula, and I am Canadian.

I want to obtain services in both official languages, like any English- or French-speaking Canadian. Anglophones should be able to obtain service in their mother tongue where they live.

Someone has said that no one was asking all the anglophones to learn French and all the francophones to learn English. People were asking the government to offer service in both official languages. It is not hard.

It was sad when Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier had to introduce Bill S-3 three times. The bill amended section 41 of part VII to make the obligations therein enforceable rather than declaratory. It applied to federal institutions, and the Bloc Québécois voted against the bill on the grounds that the government had no right to interfere in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. However, at issue were areas of federal jurisdiction.

I am sorry, but we cannot rely on Quebec alone to defend francophones outside Quebec. Quebec showed in that instance that it had not defended them. This is a federal law that applies to federal institutions.

In committee I said to the Conservatives that I would have liked them to vote against Bill S-3 and then come and say to us that they support francophones. But even though I told them to vote against the bill they voted in favour. Now they think that, since they voted in favour of this bill, they can take away our right to appear in the various courts. That is what they did. They took our tools away from us.

Take the example of the Montfort Hospital, here in Ottawa. It was not just because someone was sick and bedridden at the hospital that they won that case. It was because organizations got together to fight for it. They used money from the court challenges program. That is when the case was won, thanks to the support and desire to help.

The government is a big machine and can become a dictatorship. It has the army on its side, the police on its side, it has everyone on its side in order to enforce the law. But in our democracy citizens get a chance to attend court. They are entitled to go to court and obtain judgment. Is the government right or not?

I will give some other examples. Take the example of electoral boundaries. In my riding this has caused some problems. They wanted to send some of the francophones from Acadie—Bathurst to Miramichi, where 70% of the constituents are anglophone. Thanks to a court decision, that did not happen. In the history of Canada, that was the first time a boundary was changed by the court. The association of municipalities managed to do that with money from the court challenges program. Without that money, which boat would we have missed, what direction would we have taken?

Here is another example. This morning at the Standing Committee on Official Languages we tried to pass a motion recommending that the government give back the money to the court challenges program. The only party that voted against this was the Conservative Party.

This is unbelievable and unacceptable! Let us hope that it will change and that Canadians recognize it.

We have a beautiful country. But we must not deceive ourselves—it is not just about francophones and anglophones; it is about power. That is the problem. It is dangerous to give too much power to a government. It is dangerous not to challenge its decisions, its interpretations or the directions it takes.

To say that Liberal lawyers make a lot of money from that is wrong, completely wrong. How much work has Michel Doucet, a professor at the University of Moncton, done for us? How much responsibility has he taken on to defend francophones and minorities, without charging them anything?

It was only for the court costs. How many hours of volunteer work did Michel Doucet of the Université de Moncton give freely? Thank you, Michel for what you have done on behalf of these communities.

Today the Conservatives want to do away with that but we are not going to sit here in our seats without speaking out. We are going to fight for this. We will not accept that here in our country we cannot defend ourselves after laws have been passed, laws that are badly interpreted and not respected.

They are not compelled to misinterpret legislation. If they do not respect it, if they do not do anything, the law and the courts give us the tools to force the government to do something. The fact of having services is just as significant for anglophone minorities in those places where francophones form a majority. It is not asking too much to be able to speak with your doctor in the language of your choice when you are sick. If you are having your appendix removed, it is to be hoped that the doctors will not remove your spleen. We must have access to these services. This morning at the Standing Committee on Official Languages we talked about the importance of ensuring that patients can receive services in the language of their choice in our hospitals. It is not too much to ask.

As I have said, we are not asking that all anglophones become francophones, nor that all francophones should become anglophones. We are asking that services be provided, that the Official Languages Act of our country be respected, and if it is not respected, we want the tools to go before the courts, before judges appointed by the government. We want to ask for the opinion of the court. That is democracy. What would it be without access to the courts?

We are sending out soldiers to fight in Afghanistan to promote democracy, and in our own country we are abolishing it. It is a disgrace. In our own country we are cutting funding for the status of women but we are going into Afghanistan because we want Afghan women to have rights. We cut funding in Canada. Is that not hypocrisy?

It is an insult, as the member for Québec properly described it earlier. We went to Romania for the summit of la Francophonie. How could the Prime Minister stand up and say that he supports the Francophonie? At the same time he was cutting all the existing powers that enable minority communities in Canada to live the Francophonie.

The wife of the Prime Minister of Canada took part in a walk in support of people with literacy problems. Two days later, her husband cut off funding for literacy. Where does that leave us?

The communities are hurting. We are getting phone calls about that. We are meeting people back home. Anyone who has not contacted Conservative MPs yet should know that there are toll-free numbers they can use. They can phone them; those numbers are at their disposal. If people are happy with all that is happening and want an American-style system, let them rejoice because it is on the way, well on the way. Once it is done, they will wonder why.

I know that the Conservatives will insist that they are not like that, that they invested money everywhere. The fact is that they are individualistic.Take what they did with child care. To keep the public quiet, they announced they would be providing a $1,200 benefit. But there is still no child care system. The American style is making its way into Canada. Whatever people say, this is a Bush-league style of work.

If Canada were problem-free, there would be no need for the Francophonie and official languages department and its minister. Besides, that portfolio was not even given to a person who speaks both official languages. That is adding insult to injury. When the time came to appoint a parliamentary secretary, it took the government three months to appoint one. This shows how important official languages are to this government.

Nevertheless, this is our country, and we have to show one another respect; anglophones and francophones have to show each other respect. We are all human beings. We are just passing through on earth and we should be able to get along. There are countries where people speak five or six languages and they respect one another much more than we do here, in this country. In some countries, the battles are apparently about religion or race; here, they are about language.

We should set all of that aside and work together toward making our country a better place to live, one of the greatest in the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst that he deserves to be admired for what he just said about this bill, which is really very ambiguous.

The court challenges funding is truly a democratic instrument. I must say that some of what he had to say about the Bloc was a bit too partisan, but I guess he felt the need to say it.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst whether he thinks that private enterprise will take the place of public funding when it comes to defending collective rights.

Will the fishers in New Brunswick provide money? Will VIA Rail Canada, Bombardier in Quebec, General Motors in Ontario or construction companies provide funding, will they invest the funds that are needed to challenge oversights and regulations that are often to the detriment of minorities? These minorities often consist of disadvantaged people. Can neo-liberalism replace public funding?

I would like to ask my colleague whether he thinks we could have public collections to replace this funding.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. The answer is no.

The Conservative Party should just say now that since judges are paid with taxpayers’ money, we are going to take their pay away because they are no longer needed to interpret our laws because the Conservative Party is perfect. It will pass legislation and comply with it. That is the message the government is sending out. Individuals, however, do not have enough resources.

All the examples I mentioned, whether food inspection or the part of the riding of Acadie--Bathurst that was attached to Miramichi, were cases that were won.

There is the question of the RCMP. We should look at that. New Brunswick is the only province in Canada that is officially bilingual. The RCMP is a federal agency and provides services in New Brunswick. The federal government denies that it is responsible for bilingualism in New Brunswick. In its view, New Brunswick should see to it. I want the courts to pass judgment in this regard. I hope that this decision is favourable to minorities and states that the federal government is responsible for all its institutions, even when it is loaning out their services.

Take the case of Montfort hospital. Would companies like Bombardier, Chrysler or the Irving family in Bathurst have helped it to survive? No. The answer is no. The government is responsible for handing out money to communities so that they can defend their rights and force compliance with the law. That is what real democracy is all about.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone undoubtedly knows, I represent a Manitoba riding. When the province of Manitoba was created, francophones and anglophones were essentially equal in numbers, although francophones were the majority at one time. That did not last very long. Anglophones soon surpassed them in numbers and eventually suppressed the rights of the minority for 80 years. As the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst no doubt knows, Georges Forest took matters into his hands and fought all the way to the Supreme Court. He did so with his own money and suffered tremendously as a result.

So, I am astonished that the Prime Minister would rise in this House and say that the court challenges program was a waste of money, that it only went to pay legal fees to Liberal lawyers. I find that entirely unacceptable.

Here is my question for my hon. colleague. Last year, when the Standing Committee on Official Languages voted in favour of Bill S-3, was that a political decision or not? Indeed, how can one vote in favour of Bill S-3, which essentially gives francophones the right to defend their constitutional rights, only to later take away the main tool that allows them to do exactly that? This is my question for the member for Acadie—Bathurst.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the problem. I would like to thank the member for Saint Boniface for his question.

It makes no sense that the people whose rights have been violated are forced to go to court to fight for their convictions in the hope of changing the interpretation of the law to help an entire community. They truly believe they can win even though their whole family will suffer in the process. The government will deploy a whole team of lawyers selected according to the O.J. Simpson model to take on one defenceless individual. Apparently those lawyers would not be Conservatives. Perhaps the government would send only lawyers with new democratic sympathies.

That is what scares me. We should all be scared of this; we should condemn it and refuse to accept it.

I would like to conclude my response to this question by asking the government to really think about what it has done. The Conservative government includes members from Quebec—francophones. They have a responsibility. Some of them said they knew all about the Conservatives, but decided to join the party so they could moderate things and ensure their fellow party members understand francophones. It is time they started talking to them, because things are going very badly. Things are going badly because they are already cutting programs for minorities. Those francophone members have a responsibility—maybe they think this situation will pass and that everything will work out in three years. This is how it is working, and I suggest the francophone members from Quebec wake up right now because they are not doing their job. I am sorry, but they are not helping us, not at all. Furthermore, the Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages is a francophone from Quebec, and she did not even stand up for this issue.

Please forgive me, but this is very disappointing.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for me and I know it is a sad day for my colleagues in the Liberal Party, the official opposition, but it is also a sad day for many Canadians and Quebeckers. This so-called new Canadian government, this Conservative minority government, is cutting funding to Canada's court challenges program.

I sat here stupefied listening to the parliamentary secretary, the member of Parliament for Kootenay—Columbia, state today during the debate that the government believes in creating laws that protect the constitutional rights of people. He said that the constitutional court challenges program is inherently flawed in that it encourages special interest groups to promote issues not supported by the majority of Canadians, that the court challenges cases are a misuse and wasteful use of taxpayers' money, and that this new Canadian minority Conservative government has proven its commitment to protect the rights of vulnerable Canadians.

I would like us to look at these statements that were made by the member for Parliament for Kootenay—Columbia on behalf of this new Canadian minority Conservative government. Let us look at the facts.

When the government and the Prime Minister state that the moneys that are used by the court challenges program is a misuse of Canadian funds and it is money that is used simply to finance Liberal lawyers, what are the facts? I have a letter dated October 2, 2006 written to the Prime Minister of Canada by a whole series of organizations that I will list. One of the points they make is as follows.

The Minister of Justice has questioned the accountability of the court challenges program. This is not a sustainable objection. The court challenges program has an established track record as an effective and accountable institution that promotes access to justice. It provides quarterly reports on its activities to the government and publishes an annual report with statistics on the number and types of cases that it has funded.

The annual reports are public documents and are available on the CCP’s website: www.ccppcj.ca. It has been evaluated on three separate occasions by independent evaluators, most recently in 2003-2004, and received an extremely positive report each time.

The CCP is subject to some legal restrictions on disclosing information about cases that are before the courts. This information is protected by solicitor-client privilege and cannot be released by CCP, in the same way that legal aid organizations cannot divulge information about their clients.

I want everyone in this House and those watching this debate on television to hear this: the court challenges program’s responsibility to protect this information was affirmed by a Federal Court ruling in 2000 in Hirondelle v. The Queen.

The Minister of Justice claims that the program is not transparent, that public servants or those in charge of the program are hiding information, but he is the one hiding information from Canadians because he is not telling the whole truth. He knows full well, as the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, that a Federal Court ruling has established when the program can disclose information and when the program cannot.

That is not all.

The member of Parliament for Kootenay—Columbia claimed that the court challenges program is inherently flawed in that it encourages special interest groups to promote issues not supported by Canadians. Let us look at the statement the parliamentary secretary made on behalf of his government.

Let us look at the partial list of organizations in Canada that are making their voices heard to save the court challenges program: Action Canada for Population and Development; Action ontarienne contre la violence faite aux femmes; African Canadian Legal Clinic; Alberta Association for Community Living; Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians; ARCH Disability Law Centre; Association des juristes d'expression française de la Colombie-Britannique; Association des juristes d'expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick; Association of Chinese Canadian Lawyers of Ontario; B.C. Human Rights Coalition; B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities; Brain Injury Association Network; Breast Cancer Action Montreal; Canadian Arab Federation; Canadian Association for Community Living; Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies; Canadian Association of Law Teachers; Canadian Association of the Deaf; Canadian Auto Workers Union; Canadian Bar Association; Canadian Council for Refugees; Canadian Council of Muslim Women; Canadian Federation of Students; Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action; Canadian Hard of Hearing Association; Canadian Health Coalition; Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic; University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law; Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women; Canadian Union of Public Employees; Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2204 and Local 3260; Canadian Women's Health Network; Canadians for Equal Families; and Canadians for Equal Marriage.

The list also includes the Centre d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel, North Shore region; the Centre d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel, CALACS, in Rimouski; the Centre de communication adaptée; the Centre de femmes l'Éclaircie; the Centre d'éducation des femmes; the Centre Entre-Femmes de Rouyn-Noranda and the Centre québécois de la déficience auditive.

The list includes: CFT French Legal Aid Services; Charter Committee on Poverty Issues; Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada; Child Care Workers of Eastern Ontario; Chinese Canadian National Council, Ottawa Chapter; Coalition of Persons with Disabilities; Community Advocates Network; Community Business and Professional Association of Canada.

Also on the list is the Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec.

The list includes: Congress of Black Women of Canada, Manitoba Chapter; Council of Canadians with Disabilities; Cross-Disabilities, Genders, and Sexualities Working Group; Dalhousie Legal Aid Service; DisAbled Women's Network, Ontario; DisAbled Women's Network Canada; Disabled Workers' Complex Case Network Inc.; Dundurn Community Legal Services; East Toronto Community Legal Services Inc.; Egale Canada; Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, Bluewater Local; Elizabeth Fry Society of Manitoba; Ethno Racial People with Disabilities Coalition of Ontario; Excalibur Learning Resource Centre Canada Corp.; Family Alliance Ontario.

In addition, the list includes the DisAbled Women's Network of Ontario; the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada; the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law inc. and the Fédération des femmes du Québec.

Also on the list are: Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of B.C.; Feminist Coalition of Newfoundland and Labrador; Feminists for Just and Equitable Public Policy; Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain; Greater Vancouver Association of the Deaf; Grey-Bruce Community Legal Clinic; Halton Community Legal Services; Hamilton Mountain Legal & Community Services; Income Security Advocacy Centre; Institut canadien de recherches sur les femmes; Jamaican Canadian Association, Toronto; Jesuit Centre for Social Faith and Justice; John Howard Society of Manitoba Inc.; Justice for Girls; Kamloops and District Elizabeth Fry Society; Kelowna Women's Resource Centre; Kenora Community Legal Clinic Suite; Kensington Bellwoods Community Legal Services; Kitchen Table Collective.

Also on the list are the Table régionale des organismes volontaires d'éducation populaire de la Montérégie and the Association multi-ethnique pour l'intégration des personnes handicapées.

Included are the Law Office of Mary Eberts and the Law Union of Ontario.

The list also includes the Centre francophone de Toronto; the Official Languages Committee of the Ontario Bar Association; the Front commun des personnes assistées sociales du Québec; the Mouvement action chômage Pabok Inc.; the Regroupement des comités logement et associations de locataires du Québec; the Centres d'accueil Héritage in Toronto; and Les Frères et Sœurs d’Émile Nelligan.

The list includes: Let's Teach About Women; Low Income Families Together, LIFT; Ligue des droits et libertés du Québec; Mad Student's Society; Maison l'Océane; Malaspina Faculty Association; MATCH International; Metro Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic; Mokami Status of Women Council--

The list also includes the Mouvement d'éducation populaire autonome de Lanaudière and the Mouvement d'éducation populaire et d'action communautaire du Québec.

Also on the list are: National Action Committee on the Status of Women; National Association of Women and the Law; National Council of Women of Canada; National Eating Disorder Information Centre; Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women; Nipissing Community Legal Clinic; North Bay & District Labour Council; North Bay Network for Social Action; Northern Society for Domestic Peace; Nouveau Départ National--

And the list goes on: Okanagan Advocacy and Resource Society; Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants; Osgoode Hall Law Union; Pacific DisAbled Women's Network; Parkdale Community Legal Services; PEI Council of the Disabled; PRAXIS Conflict Consulting.

The list continues: Promotion handicap Estrie Inc.

Also on the list are: Provincial Association of Transition Houses and Services of Saskatchewan; Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba, Inc.; Public Service Alliance of Canada; Quebec Community Groups Network; Quebec English School Boards Association; Quebec Native Women.

In French, this is Femmes Autochtones du Québec.

Also on the list are: Refugee Law Office, Toronto; Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario.

The list also includes the Regroupement des centres de femmes du Québec; the Regroupement des femmes de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue; the Regroupement des associations de personnes traumatisées cranio-cérébrales du Québec; the Regroupement provincial des maisons d'hébergement et de transition pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale; and the Regroupement québécois des centres d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel.

Also on the list are: Response: A Thousand Voices; Roach, Schwartz and Associates; Saskatchewan Voice of People with Disabilities; and Selkirk College Faculty Association.

Mr. Speaker, I have two other pages of groups that have voiced their support of maintaining the court challenges program and its funding in all its integrity. These are what the member for Kootenay—Columbia calls special interest groups that promote issues not supported by Canadians.

Let us look at that as well. Let us look at the issue of whether or not the cases which are funded in part by the Canadian court challenges program touch on issues which are of interest to the majority of Canadians.

Let us look at the case of R. v. Prosper in 1994. In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether an impoverished accused upon arrest had a right to state funded counsel. An intervener in the case argued that depriving poor people of access to counsel would result in inequality in access to justice that would be inconsistent with section 15 of the charter. The court held that where an arrested person requests counsel, the police must desist from attempting to obtain a statement until counsel has been provided. Justice McLachlin, who is now the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in a concurring judgment noted:

--the Charter right to counsel cannot be denied to some Canadian citizens merely because their financial situation prevents them from being able to afford private legal assistance. The poor are not constitutional castaways.

I ask the member for Kootenay—Columbia who is a parliamentary secretary, I ask the Prime Minister, I ask members of his cabinet, I ask the government which is so proud to call itself the new Canadian government but in fact is a minority Conservative government, how they can deem the right of someone who does not have the financial means to secure counsel upon arrest once that person has been arrested, to state that they are constitutional castaways? The chief justice of the Supreme Court has said they are not constitutional castaways.

I would like to go to another case. This will be a case of great interest for those who know that there still exists bias within our society. Most Canadians abhor bias, bias in our legislation and bias in decisions by government officials who have, in many cases, a great deal of discretionary authority and power under various legislation.

R v. S, 1997 is an important case about judicial bias. At issue were remarks made by a black Nova Scotia judge in considering the credibility of both a police officer and R.D.S., an African-Canadian youth. The police had charged the youth with a number of criminal offences relating to an altercation between the police officer and the boy. The youth and the police officer each gave a very different account of the events leading up to the charges.

Judge Sparks weighed the evidence of the two witnesses. She then determined that the youth should be acquitted as the evidence raised “a reasonable doubt as to the youth's guilt”. In her oral reasons, Judge Sparks observed that in some situations, “Police officers do overreact, particularly when they are dealing with non-white groups”. The Crown challenged her remarks as raising a reasonable apprehension of bias. In the view of the Crown, a reasonable person would think she had prejudged the case without giving proper consideration to all of the evidence.

There was a court challenge on that. The Supreme Court of Canada decided that Judge Sparks had not acted in a biased manner. Moreover, Justices L'Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin, and I remind members of the House and the new minority Conservative government that Beverley McLachlin is now the chief justice, determined that by paying attention to the racial dynamic in the case, Judge Sparks was simply engaging in the process of contextualized judging. As they stated, “It is perfectly acceptable for judges to take into account not only the facts of the case but also the social and psychological context within which the case arises”. They recognize that judges are members of communities, have particular knowledge of such communities and are often guided by this knowledge. Consequently, as a person familiar with the racial dynamic of Halifax, particularly where police are concerned, it was reasonable for Judge Sparks to apply this knowledge.

I conclude in showing--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.