Debates of April 30th, 2007

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must shake my head when I listen to the speech from the member on the government side because she is essentially saying that if there were a dispute with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that the decision should be made by Parliament.

That is a dangerous statement to make when we look at the history of this country and its abuse of minority rights. We have had many abuses, and the member referred to a number of them, such as the Asian Exclusion Act, the Chinese head tax, the internment of Ukrainians, the policy of none-is-too-many for the Jews and a racial discrimination policy for immigration.

The point is that the Constitution of Canada is very clear. It says that the Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada and any law that is inconsistent with the provision of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency is of no force or effect. That is section 52 of the Constitution of Canada.

The courts are the interpreters of the Constitution, not the Parliament of Canada. The member is essentially saying that she is against the court challenges program because she does not want the courts to decide on minority rights.

I find that very dangerous because her speech was written by officials of the government, her governing party, exposing their neo-con ideology. They are saying that they essentially want to ride roughshod over the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution of Canada. We cannot go to court to challenge something that is unconstitutional if we do not have the money. The court challenges program levelled the playing field so that a person would actually have the resources to fight for their rights which affect so many Canadians.

What the member has been saying is that we should ignore the Constitution.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what I have been saying is that members opposite had 13 years to get the job done but they did not get it done.

What I have been saying is that people elect parliamentarians to take their voices to Ottawa to make the laws.

I am also saying that our most vulnerable citizens have been neglected over 13 years and our crime laws have been absolutely gutted. The rights of our vulnerable people have been gutted.

The government is taking action. It is ensuring we have matrimonial laws in place for aboriginal women. We are taking care of other aspects and we are ensuring that our most vulnerable citizens are taken care of.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am shocked and disappointed that the member suggested that her party should not fund disadvantaged groups. Who else will protect disadvantaged groups to challenge the courts for their rights? What else is government for?

The powerful and wealthy need to be in a state that is governed by law but they do not need our assistance as much as disadvantaged groups. Who else will help those groups without any funding?

She also suggested that we should not be funding self-serving minority interest groups against the majority of Canadians. One of the groups that use the charter challenge is aboriginal people. Is she suggesting that aboriginal people are a self-serving interest group? On this side of the House we consider aboriginal people as part of governments and we treat them as governments, not as interest groups that should not have the right to defend their rights in court.

Does she consider women as one of these self-serving minorities, women who use the court challenges program? A self-serving minority against the majority. The last stats I had, women were actually a majority in Canada and therefore should not be referred to as a self-serving minority interest group.

One of the biggest complaints I heard about these various cuts is that they were done without consultation. People from museums, literacy groups, women's groups, aboriginal people, all the volunteers woke up the next morning and had these cuts thrust upon them without consultation. The summer student program was cut too. To work out a plan to make cuts with these groups, a reasonable plan, is what governments always do. Rational, clear-thinking, organized governments at least consult with the groups so they can prepare for such dramatic cuts.

I wonder if the member agrees that there was no consultation with the groups that were cut.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hyperbole from members opposite is almost interesting. The Liberals had 13 years to address all these situations but did not and, in just a few short months, this government addressed many issues, such as on reserve real matrimony property rights, the Chinese head tax and the off-reserve school situation.

The Liberals should stop saying how shocked they are and how surprised they are at the cuts to Status of Women because there were no cuts to Status of Women. The government changed Status of Women so that women across Canada could have programs in their communities instead of paying lobbyists. Everybody can lobby and they can do it on their own dollar but what this government wanted to do was to put money directly into programs for women.

I have heard from women's organizations all across Canada that have said how happy they are about this because, finally, their little program in their little community can be funded. I think this is extremely important.

I think parliamentarians come to this House to guide the laws, and that is what we depend on and that is what democracy is all about.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the debate has come to the real crux of it, which is whether ideology will trump basic human rights and the best interests of all Canadians. It would appear that the member somehow, when she gets stuck and gets caught with the facts, such as the fact that the court challenges program was cut, reverts back to saying that in 13 years we did nothing”.

The Conservatives' line now is that the government is doing the job and getting the job done. The job the government is getting done is to dismantle the rights and freedoms of Canadians. The Prime Minister showed it himself by saying, even in this place, that he wanted to be absolutely sure that judges who were appointed were more closely aligned with his political views.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government strongly believes in a woman's right to be supported in their communities all across Canada, and that is what we have done.

The government believes that people should be able to walk the streets safely and walk around their neighbourhoods and that victims of crimes should be recognized and supported. That is what the government has done.

The government believes that aboriginal women should have their property rights. The government has done that.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to reiterate comments I have already made in the past during a similar debate about a report tabled by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on the same topic.

I also rise to say that the Bloc Québécois supports the adoption of the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Status of Women, which recommends that the government reinstate the court challenges program. Why do we support it? Because we feel that this government has room to manoeuvre, given that it has the luxury of a surplus of billions of dollars, and that it should have cut operating expenditures rather than programs affecting the most disadvantaged citizens.

We all know that the Conservatives have made what are generally called ideological cuts, and it is not impugning their motives to say so. They target the disadvantaged and minority groups. In England, Mrs. Thatcher taught us a great deal and left a rather interesting legacy in this regard.

The Conservatives target programs that provide checks and balances to the government, programs that facilitate the expression and practice of democracy in a country that calls itself free, sophisticated and developed. It refuses to consider possible savings at the Department of National Defence, for example. I wonder why. I do not know. The question must be asked.

Why is it that there were no cuts to the Department of National Defence when it is one of the departments with the largest budgets, about $14.7 billion in 2005-06?

During the election campaign in January 2006, we saw the Conservative Party slowly progressing like masked turtles. I did not come up with this image; it was provided by someone else. But I thought it was appropriate because we could not see the true face of the government. We did not yet know it as we do today.

The masks have been set aside. We have a tendency of pointing that out. It happens every day when we debate and defend positions and values in this House.

With all these cuts, the Conservative government—as I have already said here—is stirring up a lot of discontent in Quebec. If the members of the Conservative caucus are incapable of seeing this, I can only say that they are out of touch with reality in Quebec. The values of the Conservative Party are not the values of Quebeckers.

Quebec is about solidarity in all areas of life. That is the very essence of the soul of the Quebec nation: solidarity, mutual aid and compassion. I defy anyone here in this House to convince me that the measures taken by this government, whether using its machete, sabre or chain saw to slash programs such as the court challenges program, are in any way in line with the values I just mentioned.

The Conservative government, as I have already said, is directly attacking the disadvantaged and minority groups. I will give other examples, in addition to the elimination of the court challenges program, which, incidentally, gave a voice to linguistic and gender minorities, which would include women and homosexuals.

Furthermore, we know that the court challenges program funded groups that challenged the positions taken by current members of this Conservative government. Was cutting this program—the question must be asked—an unhealthy sign that all groups opposed to this government's ideology are in danger of being gradually silenced?

Perhaps our potential insensitivity to this ideology would soon cause these groups to disappear or become weaker. Fortunately, we are here. To respond to some of the foolishness across the floor, I would say the Bloc Québécois is here to denounce this dangerous ideology.

I spoke earlier about other programs that are at risk or are going to disappear, including the Canada volunteerism initiative, and the program that advocates for women and women's rights, a fight that is far from over. Those involved in the women's movement in Quebec, who have been fighting for years and for generations, know what I am talking about.

We may be far removed from the values that this government stands for, but it is not taking a strong stand. It is unable to say without circumvention and hypocrisy that women and minority groups have to make do with what they have. Women, minority groups and those who are unable to read—the illiterate—have to make do with what they have.

If the Conservatives would use clear speech, if they would be transparent and have the courage to be upfront and take a strong stand, I think the entire population of Canada—not just in Quebec, because in Quebec we have made up our minds, there is a clear consensus—would wake up and chase the Conservatives out of government.

Now I would like to address those who are watching us on television today. Wake up. There is still time. You have seen what they are capable of as a minority government; imagine what they would have done if they had formed a majority government.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague for his response to the statement by the Conservative members that the court challenges program represents special interest groups in Canada.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question. I do not want to repeat what they said, because I find their comments uncalled for. I want to refrain from using words that could harm or be unparliamentary.

We have here an expression that reveals an ideology. To be unable to deal with the diversity of values that are the foundation of Canada and Quebec, to be limited only to the expression, the validation and promotion of one's own values, which, in my opinion, can be referred to as sectarian, then there is a problem. This has no relation to our diversity as human beings in this society and as people with unequal means and abilities. It is up to us as parliamentarians, as my colleague just said, never to stop denouncing this deviance reflects an ideological minority in Canada and Quebec.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Lambert for his excellent speech. I would like him to explain why a government which is currently spending billions of dollars to purchase military equipment has made cuts to programs such as the court challenges program.

I visited maritime Canada with the Standing Committee on Official Languages. People said that if they had not had access to this program, they would not have had the right to schools or many other services. Literacy services were available in these communities because of this program. Status of Women Canada programs have experienced cuts, as have the literacy programs, which were extremely important social programs for people with literacy problems. As well, the government is still refusing to improve the employment insurance program. We could also talk about the POWA program to help older workers.

How can the member explain the government's lack of concern for social problems and for the most vulnerable members of our society?

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. Let me put this in a broader context in order to shed some light on this government's ideological goals, which are those of a minority in Quebec and Canada.

Through its mouthpiece, the Conservative Party, this government will go down in recent political history as a proponent of the law of the jungle and of might makes right against the weak, the vulnerable and the isolated. When I say isolated, I mean, for example, francophones outside Quebec, who had access to this program that will probably disappear for good if the government does not act reasonably and wisely.

The law of the jungle is contrary to Quebec's values and to human values. It is clear that the people who support these methods, both here and elsewhere, care only about themselves. As my colleague said, these people do not pay attention to the weak and the vulnerable because they are unable to see the big picture; they cannot see past the ends of their noses.

It is our duty to remind all of our colleagues in the House of Commons, as well as all Canadians and Quebeckers, that this kind of ideology flourishes only on the edge of the abyss, on the edge of chaos, and that is what we have to avoid.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact when I look at my Canada, it is based on one centrepiece, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. My riding of Newton—North Delta is very diverse when it comes to economics and socio-cultural structure.

Does the member agree that by taking away the court challenges program, the government is undermining the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and hence, is also undermining basic Canadian values that we all see as our new Canada?

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss my reservations about the Canadian Charter, but that is another debate entirely. It makes no sense to deprive minorities outside of Quebec, aboriginals, women's groups, the most vulnerable, the poorest, the economically excluded, and society's downtrodden. What else can I say? It makes no sense.

I hope nobody minds if I laugh as Canada's red and white lights shine around the world, telling everyone that it is the greatest country on earth.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for West Nova, Federal-Provincial Relations; the hon. member for Windsor West, Foreign Aid.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Acadie—Bathurst.

The truth is that changes to the mandate of Status of Women Canada and the termination of the court challenges program are a travesty.

The court challenges program of Canada provided access to justice in languages and equality rights. It provided a constitutional test. To be meaningful, rights have to be exercised. Without the court challenges program in place to provide this assistance, the interpretation and application of constitutional rights will only be available to those with deep pockets.

In a constitutional democracy like Canada, constitutional rights litigation is an essential part of democratic dialogue and the exercise of citizenship. Constitutional test cases examine the meaning of rights and their limits. As a society we suffer when constitutional wrongs go unchecked.

However, the government has no interest in these ideals nor in the needs of women, needs such as child care, economic security, affordable housing, fair immigration policy, the rights of aboriginal women and pensioners. There was nothing in the recent budget that specifically referred to the government's funding plans to address women's inequality and to address their needs.

The Conservative child care plan does not address the child care needs of working women. Twelve hundred dollars a year does not even come close to covering the cost of child care. Families in my riding of London--Fanshawe have made it very clear that what they need are child care spaces, not a taxable $100 a month.

The Conservative budget did not provide funds to create more child care spaces until 2007-08. Just last week we saw the results of such a travesty in the city of Toronto. A child, a baby just over a year of age, was injured because of inadequate child care. Now we see that the number of child care spaces are in decline. We need to invest in our children now. To invest in our children is to invest in our future.

The government shows very little support for women and their children and has made it very clear that they are simply not a priority. The priorities lie elsewhere. The minister responsible for the status of women claimed in the House that the government would stand up for the equality of women. She said:

I can assure the member and all women in Canada that this government will stand up for the equality of women and their full participation.

By the government's actions, actions like ending the funds for court challenges, ending funding for literacy programs, for Status of Women Canada, for museums, for summer youth programs, the government has shown that it is not interested in these very interesting words. Neither the Minister of Justice nor the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women has stood up. It is clear that women are not a priority

In order to comply with its international obligations and truly advocate for women in Canada, the government needs to fund research, legislation and programs in order to address the 26 recommendations made by the United Nations committee, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. It needs to fund the court challenges program. Funding for Status of Women Canada according to the estimates has stayed relatively stagnant, except for about $1 million in transfer payments to the Sisters in Spirit initiative through the native women's network to raise awareness of the alarmingly high rates of violence against aboriginal women in Canada.

Status of Women Canada needs more funding to address women's issues, especially those outlined in the CEDAW recommendations, not just for projects but to address the systemic causes of inequality. According to the estimates, the promote public policy program is being cut by approximately $5 million, while there has been an increase of about $6 million for the build knowledge and organizational capacity on gender equality. The large cut to promote public policy program will prevent the development and implementation of federal initiatives that narrow the gap between women and men and expand opportunities for women. This cut in funding also means that there is only $2 million to address the CEDAW recommendations.

The amount of $21 million is dedicated to develop the knowledge and capacity of a number of stakeholders so that they are better informed and able to address gender based issues of significance to Canadian society in a coordinated manner. Of this money, $10 million is dedicated to grants.

While women's organizations need funding, the large adjustment between the two programs indicates that the government would rather have a hands-off policy when it comes to promoting women's equality instead of funding federal programs with direction and cohesion. Again the government shows that women are not a priority. Clearly it does not believe that government should promote women's equality. Instead, responsibility is passed over to the non-profit community, or in some cases, the for profit community.

The Government of Canada continues to ignore that Canadian women need Status of Women Canada to achieve equality. Addressing the symptoms of systemic discrimination against women, as the government's actions do, will not eliminate the inequalities that women face.

If the Conservatives truly cared, they would make sure that the $100 million for Status of Women Canada was available to meet our international obligations. They would reverse the closure of 12 of 16 Status of Women Canada offices across the country and reverse the cancellation of the independent policy research fund. They would also reverse the restrictive funding mandate of Status of Women Canada and reverse the cancellation of the court challenges program. They would truly address violence against women, provide core funding for women's groups and increase funding to the women's program at Status of Women Canada by at least 25% for investment in women's groups and equality-seeking organizations.

If the Conservatives truly cared, there would be better parental benefits. There would be proactive pay equity legislation and a commitment to safe, affordable, regulated child care.

Women across this great nation deserve that. They deserve the basic human rights that this country says it intends to guarantee: safety and protection. No one should be denied these rights. We need the court challenges program.

We need to have a government that respects and supports the women of this country. We do not have one yet; we are still waiting. We demand a government that respects women and will restore the programs that bring them equality, the equality they deserve.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in a number of instances this debate has brought forward serious concerns about where the government is going. The cancellation of the $6 million for the court challenges program seems symptomatic. The court challenges program is, I think in the view of all thinking Canadians, one of the more appropriate programs that we have, because it helps to provide access by all Canadians to their rights under the Canadians Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That cancellation seems to be reflective of a broader problem in terms of the thinking of the government.

I am concerned about the appointment of judges and why there are so many appointments. The Prime Minister's suggestion is he would like to have judges who are more closely aligned with his own thinking on the world. That may bring into question his commitment to the independence of the judiciary.

There are the appointments to the refugee boards to dispose of those cases. These people have rights, yet the number of refugee cases has skyrocketed.

Even on something as simple as the chair of the CBC, our cherished institution that we want to protect, is there some reason that after six months we still have not started the process to replace that person? Is there a hidden agenda?

Those are my concerns. Does the member think that the action to cancel the court challenges program is yet another symptom of a hidden agenda?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the direction the government is taking. My first response is it seems to be going in circles, but that is not really accurate. The government is going backward, and it is going backward in terms of women's rights.

What we see with the cancellation of the court challenges program and the end of funding for research and policy development for Status of Women Canada is quite symptomatic of what can only be described as an entrenching of Republican style values.

The member talked about the appointment of judges and administrators who were closely aligned with the Prime Minister's own thinking. I would like to remind the Prime Minister that he is one citizen of this country. There are 33 million more, and they too have a right to develop and participate in this country as full citizens, not by a narrow set of rules that is determined by one individual.

It is time for the Prime Minister to take his role seriously as a leader, as a leader who makes it possible for people to develop and to contribute, a leader who brings out the very best in this country, not one who would take it backward to a time we shudder to think of, because it was a time when women were undermined, when immigrants were undermined, and when minority groups and first nations were undermined. We cannot possibly return to those times. We need to go forward.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member from the Bloc suggested that he was quite afraid of the direction in which the government was going, as the member just described and would be really afraid if the Conservatives ever received a majority government. I wonder if the member is concerned about what might happen if the Conservatives had a majority government.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is the quality of nightmares. Canadians are much too cautious and much too intelligent to ever give the Conservative government that kind of power. There has been a great deal of discussion, but they have seen what happened in the United States with the entrenchment of a right-wing agenda and the kind of despair that we see there. We certainly do not want a repeat of that here.

I would predict that Canadians would be very sage in terms of their electoral choices next time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about court challenges, the status of women and the problem we face because of what the government has done. The government has gotten us into a situation that will affect our country's future. Allow me to explain.

Canada had the court challenges program. It was eliminated by Brian Mulroney's Conservatives, who governed from 1984 to 1993, and was later reinstated. What did the court challenges program allow people to do?

Earlier, one of our Conservative colleagues talked about legal aid. I think he completely missed the mark, because legal aid and the court challenges program are two completely different things.

A previous government and Parliament gave us the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In cases where the charter was violated, the court challenges program gave people the opportunity to go to court and seek a court ruling.

When we look at the court challenges program, it was used a million different ways. For example, in New Brunswick in 2003-04 when the electoral boundaries were changed, part of my riding of Acadie—Bathurst was put in Miramichi. It is because of the court challenges program that the boundary was reinstated.

The regions of Allardville, Big River, Tetagouche, North Tetagouche, and South Tetagouche around Bathurst that were part of the riding of Acadie—Bathurst were reinstated because of the court challenges program. That is how my riding was saved.

We say that francophones are a minority in Canada. Even in Bathurst the anglophones were saying that in the region of Acadie-Bathurst the anglophones were a minority. By putting more anglophones in Miramichi it gave the Conservatives a better chance for a minority.

Constituents were arguing that Big River, South Tetagouche, North Tetagouche and Little River, all the small areas around Bathurst, had to stay in Acadie—Bathurst. It is through the court challenges program that we got back the riding. If it were not for the court challenges program, we would never have gotten it back. I am thankful to the program for it.

Francophones still have their own schools in Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia thanks to the court challenges program. The program was used not only in the maritime and Atlantic provinces, but in Ontario as well. Here in Ottawa, the Montfort Hospital still exists today because of the court challenges program.

People in Toronto and Sudbury also benefited from the court challenges program. Francophones at Collège Boréal were able to go to court for the right be served in their own language in their province. There were similar cases in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The court challenges program was used across Canada.

This Conservative government has even told this House that one of the reasons it abolished the program was that the program benefited friends of the Liberals by giving them the chance to make money on court cases.

I do not know if there has been an investigation into whether friends of the Liberals indeed benefited. Nonetheless, in our region, people fought hard for the court challenges. Michel Doucet, a lawyer and professor at the Université de Moncton, did pro bono work defending the rights of francophones.

Today, we see we have to fight again in New Brunswick, a bilingual province, to have bilingual service from the RCMP. We had to take our case to the Supreme Court of Canada because the previous Liberal government decided to appeal. Today the federal Conservative government is pursuing the appeal at the Supreme Court. My hat goes off to Michel Doucet, a lawyer who is not earning any money fighting for the rights of francophones. He should be commended.

Furthermore, I do not accept the claim that the court challenges program was used to make lawyers richer since most of them are not getting paid. Only the legal fees are covered. The money was used to cover the legal fees.

On September 23, 2006, at the summit of la Francophonie in Romania, it was sad. More than 50 French-speaking nations were at the summit. Instead of talking about la Francophonie, the Prime Minister of Canada talked about the war between Israel and Lebanon. While we were in the midst of participating in the summit of la Francophonie in Romania, the federal Conservative government announced that it was taking away the tools that allow us to challenge legislation and government procedures, the tools that allow us to go to court to get justice.

Senator Gerald Comeau, who was at the summit of la Francophonie, said he did not accept these cuts. Senator Andrée Champagne did not accept these cuts by her own government. I can assure you that this had little impact on the Conservative Party, which is not progressive, but an amalgamation of the Canadian Alliance Party and the Reform Party. That is where it comes from. It has not changed. It does not want to do anything for the communities or the status of women. There was a time in this House when a woman could not even become a member of Parliament.

At one time, women could not even be members of Parliament in this House. They had to work hard. The Status of Women has done a lot for the women of our country and this government is taking away all its tools and cutting its funds.

What is the government scared of? Is it scared that for once women could have equality with men? Is that what it is scared of? Does it not want them to be treated as equal persons in our country, that they have money to challenge that when it is not done?

The government should be ashamed of itself for what it has done. It cut literacy programs when we have people in our country who do not know how to read and right, and we had groups working hard in that respect.

The government went further than that. The Conservative Party even cut the association for volunteers. The volunteers who work so hard and who put in so many hours for our country have an association that the government has cut. It has taken the money away and that is a shame.

I could hear the Liberals saying “Bring it down”. What? When we look at the cuts, it is totally unacceptable. I believe that people will remember what the government took away from the people, what it took away from the minorities in our country. When we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms with no tools to go to court and challenge a bad decision, we might as well not have one. The little people who want to challenge the government will never have the money to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. That was done through the court challenge program. That is what the Conservative government took away from them.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to put this all into perspective. Our party, our government, has been a proud supporter of rights through the decades, both federally and provincially.

It was a provincial Conservative government in Ontario that established the paid legal aid program in Ontario; one of the first in Canada. It was a federal Conservative government that first established the Bill of Rights. So, we have had a proud history in this area. While we have eliminated the court challenges program, I think it has to be put into perspective.

The biggest threat to legal rights in the last 15 or so years in this country were the drastic cuts the previous Liberal government made to provincial transfers. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens living in provinces like Ontario were denied access to justice. The Ontario legal aid plan, in the early 1990s, provided about 225,000 certificates a year. By the mid-1990s, that had been chopped to 75,000 a year. That is a reduction of two-thirds. For each certificate that was chopped, that was a Canadian citizen living in Ontario who was denied access to justice because of the denial of legal aid.

So, I think we have to put this all in perspective. What we have done here is eliminate a program and have used the resources for better means. We have to put this in a bigger perspective of what happened in previous years and other governments. As I said before, our party have a long and very proud tradition, both nationally and in the province of Ontario, defending legal rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is where my colleague got it wrong.

Let us take a look at legal aid. For example, at no time will the people of New Brunswick be able to get legal aid, even if the money goes to the province, to challenge the Government of Canada or Elections Canada or the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the changes that have been made to electoral boundaries.

Legal aid will never pay to go to court against the government for the RCMP not being bilingual in New Brunswick. Legal aid is not there for that. There cannot be legal aid for that.

The court challenges program was used when Canadians challenged the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Legal aid did not pay for that.

There is nothing at all on the books saying how they will get paid. That is what the government has taken away. It took away the rights of those organizations.

For example, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency had offices in Shippagan. Those people were transferred to Dieppe. They went to court using the court challenges program and won back their right to be in Shippagan. Legal aid would never pay for that. It has nothing to do with legal aid.

This is about respecting the minorities of our country. Legal aid does not pay for that. It would never pay for that. It is not on the books. When the government took away the court challenges program, the Conservatives said in the House, “Why should we pay people to take us and the government to court?”

However, I think it is fundamental in a democracy that we be able to do that. I raised this question with the government. If a simple citizen goes to court and wins his case, will the government not use taxpayers' money to appeal it? Will the government say that the citizen wins?

Why would the government use taxpayers' money to go to the Supreme Court of Canada when Canadians do not have a program to help the little person to go to the Supreme Court of Canada and win for the collectivity, as was done for the minorities of our country? That is what we had through the court challenges program.

That is how the Montfort Hospital in Ottawa won back its hospital. It was done through the court challenges program. Legal aid did not help the Montfort Hospital in Ottawa. The hospital did not qualify for legal aid. Even if it would have had all kinds of money, it would not have come through legal aid.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to enter into this debate, but before I start, I think it is important that we put this into context. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills made some comments that I think deserve a response. He talked about the proud tradition of Conservative governments.

There has been a proud tradition of Progressive Conservative governments, governments that still exist on the provincial front, but not in the House of Commons. As Danny Williams, the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, said, he sees himself as “a progressive Conservative” and the Prime Minister of this country as a “regressive Conservative”.

It is important to talk about that. The present government is not the party of the bill of rights of John Diefenbaker. The present government is a neo-conservative government, ideologically driven, based in the religious right, and it has done everything in its power to divide Canadians, to attack minorities, and to attack disadvantaged groups.

I am going to give the House an example so that we can understand that the court challenges program was much more than some debate that does not have an impact on ordinary Canadians. As the House knows, right now we are involved in a debate in the citizenship and immigration committee, and we have been for quite a number of years, and that debate deals with the whole issue of citizenship rights.

Very recently it became public that upward of 400,000 Canadians who thought they were Canadians are losing their citizenship rights and their citizenship for various reasons. I am going to focus my comments on one particular group, that of war brides and their offspring, because there are tens of thousands of people who fall into this category.

I am going to cite the case of Mr. Joseph Taylor because this particular case is very relevant to the discussion that we are having here today. It shows the very human nature of what we are talking about when we are talking about the fight for rights.

As we all know, we have had a lot of debates in this House on how we honour our veterans, the men and women who served to keep this country safe in the past and who did a great service for us in the world wars and other conflicts abroad. I am going to take the case of Mr. Joseph Taylor because he happens to be the son of a Canadian veteran. His father, Joe Taylor Sr., fought for this country during the second world war.

Joe Taylor Sr. went to England, where he was stationed, and, like thousands of Canadians who were in similar situations, many of them single, became involved with a woman from Britain. He met his English Rose and they fell in love. They found out that she was pregnant. Mr. Taylor told his commanding officer that he wanted to get married so the child would be considered legitimate versus being born out of wedlock. The commanding officer informed Mr. Taylor Sr. that Canada was not in the business of producing widows and orphans and essentially said they could not get married.

Mr. Joe Taylor Sr. went off to France to fight. Fortunately for his wife and child he survived the war in France. He went back to England, at which point he married his wife. He was very happy to be reunited with his new wife and son.

Canada had a program related to war brides and their children. The program was that those war brides and their children were allowed to come to Canada and as soon as they landed in Canada they all would become Canadian citizens.

Mr. Joe Taylor Sr. and his family set up house in British Columbia. Unfortunately, the marriage did not work out, so subsequently his wife and son went back to England. Mr. Joe Taylor, upon turning 18 years of age, decided that he would try to find his father, a veteran of the second world war. Mr. Taylor Jr. was told back then that he was no longer a citizen and would not get Canadian assistance in finding his father.

Back in the 1990s, Mr. Taylor once again decided he would come to Canada to try to find his father. Unfortunately for Mr. Joe Taylor Jr., he found out that his father had died. He is buried in a cemetery in Port Alberni.

Mr. Joe Taylor Jr. also found out that he had seven half-siblings living in British Columbia, with whom he reunited. He decided that he would retire in Canada, seeing that he has more family in Canada than he has in England. He bought himself a condominium in Victoria and comes back on vacations. He now is semi-retired in Britain and comes to Canada for his vacations. He spends time in Victoria.

Mr. Joe Taylor once again tried to get his Canadian citizenship. Once again the Department of Citizenship and Immigration refused him his citizenship. Mr. Taylor went to Federal Court over that decision.

The government, in denying Mr. Joe Taylor his citizenship, his rightful inheritance from his father, who fought for this country in the second world war, opposed his citizenship on two grounds. One was because Mr. Joseph Taylor was born out of wedlock. Second, the government opposed his citizenship on the grounds that in the 1947 act there is an obscure piece in the legislation which states that if people leave the country for any prolonged period of time they have to apply to keep their citizenship. Mr. Joe Taylor was not aware of that so he could not do so.

He took his case to the Federal Court. The Federal Court justice, Judge Luc Martineau, released his decision on September 1, 2006. In his decision, Mr. Justice Luc Martineau found that to discriminate against a person because he or she was born in or out of wedlock violated the equality section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which says that we cannot discriminate against people because they are born in or out of wedlock.

On the question of not reapplying to keep that citizenship, Justice Luc Martineau ruled that this infringed section 7 of the charter, which talks about basic legal rights. Two sections are very important for this discussion. Section 7 of the charter states:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Section 15 of the charter deals with the equality section and states:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disabilities.

It is very clear that nobody, no government would want to have legislation that violated that section of the charter, but what do we have? This decision came down September 1. I asked the then minister of citizenship and immigration a question as to why the government would want to appeal that decision.

The government opposite appealed the decision after it got rid of the court challenges program. It is incomprehensible to me that anybody, that any party and certainly the Government of Canada, would so dishonour the sacrifices made by our veterans as to fight against the rightful citizenship of their offspring.

In the case of Mr. Joe Taylor, he is not a rich man. He has a comfortable life, but he is not rich. For him to take on the government and pursue his case before the court to fight for his rights, and rights that affect thousands of other offspring of veterans whose rightful citizenship is being denied, it costs money and in the case of having gone to Federal Court, that cost Mr. Joe Taylor $30,000 and even though the judge ordered costs against the government, Mr. Joe Taylor recovered only $10,000.

The government made the decision, after it got rid of the court challenges program, to appeal Mr. Taylor's victory in the Federal Court. When it applied to the Federal Court of Appeal, it also informed the Federal Court that if it lost in the Federal Court, it would take the case to the Supreme Court.

How meanspirited can the neocons get when the government says to Mr. Joe Taylor, and people like him, that if he wants to fight for his fundamental rights, which a justice of the Federal Court has ruled to be unconstitutional for infringing the legal section and the equality section of the Charter of Rights, an individual, the son of a Canadian veteran, and there are thousands like him, that he might be right, but if he wants to fight for his rights, he will need lots of money, while the government will use the taxpayer money to fight him to the end.

For Mr. Joe Taylor to get his hearing before the Supreme Court, if it goes there, it would cost upwards of a half million to a million dollars. What the government has done is so very shameful.

Let me read a letter that Mr. Joe Taylor received from the court challenges program on October 31, 2006. It deserves to go in the record.

Case Funding Application E-1885.

We are writing in response to your application received in our office on October 16, 2006, in which you applied for Case Funding from the Court Challenges Program with respect to opposing the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration's appeal from the Order of Mr. Justice Martineau.

We regret to advise you that the Court Challenges Program of Canada is no longer in a position to consider your application for funding. The Federal Government of Canada announced on Monday, September 25, 2006 that it would cut funding available under the existing Court Challenges Program effective immediately. Consequently, there are no longer any funds available for new applications under this Program.

We understand and appreciate how this decision will negatively affect your ability to bring your equality rights case forward, and we wish you all the best in your efforts to advance your equality rights.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me...

It is signed by the legal policy analyst.

It is an incredible disgrace for members of the Conservative Party to stand and say they support their military, the men and women in uniform, and then treat their offspring as shabbily as they have by cutting the court challenges program, appealing the decision and saying that they will appeal it to the Supreme Court. It is a disgrace and something for which they should hide their heads in shame. As more Canadians learn about this, the more outraged they will become.

I mentioned earlier that hundreds of thousands of people fall into this category of citizenship rights. For the government to eliminate a $6 million line item in a $200 billion budget is a total disgrace. However, this regressive Conservative Party, as the Premier of Newfoundland called it, has a long history on this. Therefore, this is nothing new and we should not be surprised.

In 1995 we had the hate crime legislation and Reformers, the predecessors to the Conservatives, were totally in opposition to it. They did not believe that gays should be protected, along with other groups, against hate crimes. That party is the government now. Those members fought against anything to do with gay rights, just as they fought against same sex marriage, and used it shamelessly for perceived political advantage.

That party had a family issues critic say that he believed it was a mistake to have legalized it, referring to homosexuality. That party has consistently made harmful statements about minority groups.

When we talk about the ideological perspective of that party, as I mentioned earlier, it is tied into religious rights and it has shamelessly used religious rights. Nothing better reflects it than its support from the Real Women of Canada. That group hated the court challenges program. It does not believe in same sex marriage, rights for homosexuals or that anybody who has a right should be able to challenge government.

That party calls minority groups special interest groups, but it embraces the gun lobby, the worst special interest in the country. It embraces the oil barons. That party does not call them special interest groups.

You were in the chair, Mr. Speaker, and you have seen the evolution of the Reform ideology. The Conservatives have been hiding it, but every once in a while it comes to the fore. There is no better example than when we bring up the court challenges program.

The Liberal Party is the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, something the Conservatives hate. What are the Conservative roots that they refer to back in 1985 to 1993? What did we have? Eighteen members of Parliament and cabinet were charged and convicted of breach of trust. We saw none of that under the previous government.

I want to make it very clear, and everybody except the Conservatives in the House agrees, that they do not have a right to compare themselves to other Conservative parties in the country. As Premier Williams said, “I am a Progressive Conservative; they are regressive Conservatives”. And once again, by removing funding from the court challenges program, they have proven it.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Kitchener—Waterloo and his rhetoric about how the Liberal Party was such a strong defender of rights. I might point out two things that will fly in the face of that assertion.

If we look at the Liberal Party in Toronto, a city that is over 50% visible minorities today, and we look at the number of seats in the city of Toronto, roughly about 21 or 22 seats, the Liberals hold all but three seats, Trinity--Spadina, Parkdale--High Park and Toronto--Danforth, yet among their members from the Toronto caucus, I count one member of a visible minority. The party likes to talk large about its record on minorities, but its record speaks otherwise.

The other thing I point out is that in the previous Liberal government, if we looked at the members of the cabinet who sat on the frontbench of that party, I did not count any visible minorities.

It is a bit rich listening to the rhetoric of the member for Kitchener—Waterloo. I propose that there is a huge gap between the member's rhetoric and reality.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is totally wrong. I can point to our multicultural minister, Jean Augustine. Jean Augustine is from Toronto. I could point to Mr. Ray Chan. I could point to Herb Dhaliwal. I could point to the member for Vancouver Centre. I could point to all sorts of members in the GTA who are members of visible minority groups.

However, what is clear is the member, in his desperation, is trying to defend getting rid of the court challenges program. In terms of the budget, it is like stealing from the Salvation Army box. That is what the Conservatives have done. They have taken away people's ability to fight for their rights. For that party to even pretend it is related to the Progressive—