|
Tories slammed for court program cut
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MarkT |
from today's Toronto Star, but off the Canadian Press wire...the last few paragraphs, I find to be the most compelling points (Danny Williams' remarks re: legal aid in general and the VP of the Cdn. Bar Assoc).
| quote: | Tories slammed for court program cut
Sep. 27, 2006. 07:18 PM
ALEXANDER PANETTA
CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA — The Conservatives are under fire for killing a legal-aid program that has assisted Canadian minority groups in a series of historic court victories over the last three decades.
The cancellation of the Court Challenges Program was slammed Wednesday by the country's largest legal organization, opposition parties, and at least one Tory provincial government.
The Trudeau-era program has helped fund successful court challenges that broadened the rights of Canadian seniors, women, the disabled, homosexuals, religious groups, aboriginals, and minority-language groups.
The federal Tories announced this week that cutting the program would save taxpayers $5.6 million over two years.
Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams — a provincial Tory and a lawyer — called the cuts worrisome and distanced himself from the ``right-wing" federal Conservatives.
The opposition Liberals noted the irony of the cuts coming just months after a famous pre-election quip by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
"He said, `Don't worry, if you elect me as a prime minister, the courts will hold me in check'," Liberal MP Omar Alghabra told a news conference.
"(Then) what does he do? He cancels the Court Challenges Program, which is supposed to hold him in check."
The program helped fund court battles that gave seniors employment-insurance benefits, and gave deaf people the right to get sign-language service in hospitals.
It helped women win pay-equity cases, and simplified the necessary argument for a sexual-assault conviction.
It funded cases that opened schools for French-Canadians, guaranteed English-language rights in Quebec, and helped affirm religious freedoms like Sikh children's right to carry a kirpan.
It helped homosexuals win equality protection under the Charter of Rights in landmark 1990s cases that led to a slew of new legal benefits and eventually paved the path to same-sex marriage.
But the program has long drawn the ire of the Tories, who already killed it in 1992 the last time they were in power.
The Liberals revived it in 1994 upon returning to office, and its continued existence has long been a sore spot to conservatives.
Many conservatives have denounced the program as biased, saying it supports liberal causes while consistently denying funding for things like anti-abortion cases.
Harper's right-hand man wrote his doctoral dissertation and several other papers about the program in his previous career as an academic.
Now chief of staff to the prime minister, Ian Brodie published one paper titled "Do the `Haves' Still Come Out Ahead in Canada?"
"Three interests — official language minority groups, feminists, and homosexual rights groups — have been particularly successful at pursuing their objectives through the courts," Brodie wrote when he was a professor at the University of Western Ontario.
"All three of these interests consider themselves traditionally `disadvantaged' groups in Canadian society, and so their success is puzzling."
The paper, which he co-authored in 2003 just before joining Harper's staff, suggests "a solution to this puzzle."
The paper concludes that the so-called "haves" really do come out ahead in our legal system — and that's because the Court Challenges Program has simply helped reverse the definition.
"In other words, these self-described `disadvantaged' groups win because under the new conditions they are now among the `haves'," Brodie writes in the paper, co-authored with the University of Calgary's Ted Morton.
"Being among the `haves' has given them the resources required to become repeat players and succeed in judicial politics."
One Conservative government official was far more blunt when asked about the program Wednesday.
If there are any future injustices, he said, offended groups can simply use the news media or the political process to pressure government. Or they can launch lawsuits with their own money.
"From a small-c conservative standpoint, (people wonder) why are we paying people to sue the government?" said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "They can raise their own money."
He said the program exposes a key philosophical difference between Liberals and Conservatives.
"(Liberals feel) citizens are clients of the state, and (they feel), `We better keep those clients, so we'd better stand up for them'."
He added that, because the Charter of Rights is now a quarter-century old, legal rights for feminists, homosexuals, and minorities are well-entrenched in our justice system.
But Newfoundland's Conservative premier weighed in against the federal Conservative government.
Williams distanced his provincial Progressive Conservatives from the federal Tories.
"In my opinion, it shows the difference between Conservatives: true right-wing Conservatives and Progressive Conservatives," Williams said in St. John's.
"You know, when you start taking away funding from minority groups just because they're going to sue government, that means you're saying, `We're not going to give you any money if we've done something wrong to allow you to sue us.'
"So then (do) you take away legal aid at some point down the road so people who commit criminal offences don't have the right to have legal counsel?"
The Canadian Bar Association — which has 36,000 members — said the government has been dishonest in characterizing the program.
"They're making it sound like these fringe groups were the only ones accessing it," said Guy Joubert, a vice-president at the association.
"That's definitely not the case. . . . What this move has done is silence the voices of marginalized Canadians." |
|
|
|
| cenik |
| Imho, it was a big mistake to vote this party into power (for a variety of reasons) |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| Yea, I mean, who would want a party that is doing what they'd said they'd do? |
|
|
| cenik |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Yea, I mean, who would want a party that is doing what they'd said they'd do? |
I take issue not with whether they are delivering on their election promises but rather with what those promises are amounting to in reality......Essentially, the 'get-tough-on-crime' approach got them voted into power but as a student of criminology I understand that this approach doesn't work in practice.
To each his own bud :D |
|
|
| Orko |
Why does he not just come out and say what he wants to do?
Just amazing what his vision of Canada is. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by cenik
I take issue not with whether they are delivering on their election promises but rather with what those promises are amounting to in reality......
|
Again, far be it for me to question anyone that actually follows through on their word or actually get things done.
We, or course, could be sitting with another government for 12 years with their thumb up their ass on anything important to move us forward.
| quote: |
Essentially, the 'get-tough-on-crime' approach got them voted into power but as a student of criminology I understand that this approach doesn't work in practice.
|
What?
Do you agree that the useless, government-cash-grab, gun registry is the answer?
That's just punishing the innocent more than the criminals AND leaves them the ones with the guns!
What would you suggest then? :conf:
| quote: |
To each his own bud :D
|
Definately. ;) :) |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Again, far be it for me to question anyone that actually follows through on their word or actually get things done.
We, or course, could be sitting with another government for 12 years with their thumb up their ass on anything important to move us forward.
|
I don't think cenik has anything against people following through on their word. I believe his problem is with what that 'word' is. In this case, trying to take away key program for 'disadvantaged' groups.
Obviously we like politicians to keep their promises, but were these sort of cuts in his election campaign, or are we just learning about them now? Were we shown that Harper was tough on crime, and against such social programs, or were we just shown the crime portion of his agenda?
As somebody who is not directly affected by these cuts, I would still like to see the involved groups get the help they need.
| quote: | The program helped fund court battles that gave seniors employment-insurance benefits, and gave deaf people the right to get sign-language service in hospitals.
It helped women win pay-equity cases, and simplified the necessary argument for a sexual-assault conviction.
It funded cases that opened schools for French-Canadians, guaranteed English-language rights in Quebec, and helped affirm religious freedoms like Sikh children's right to carry a kirpan.
It helped homosexuals win equality protection under the Charter of Rights in landmark 1990s cases that led to a slew of new legal benefits and eventually paved the path to same-sex marriage.
|
How can you be against any of these causes, except same-sex marraige (which is our own business)? It also seems as if Harper is further trying to cozy up to Quebec. |
|
|
| nacarter |
Keep in mind that this program cut was a bone tossed to his core constituents; in this case, conservative Christian and family action groups. These groups have complained about the Court Challenges Program for years because they come out on the short end of the stick.
I've had the opportunity to debate both Ian Brodie and Ted Morton (now a Calgary MLA) on this issue. Both seem to have a poor understanding as to what the CCP is for. This program is designed for groups to challenge the existing definitions in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Conservative groups are ineligible for funding because they don't challenge anything in the Charter. They're trying to uphold the existing definitions (or roll them back), hence they must foot their own bills when they wish to participate in such cases.
The program could have been reformed without being scrapped. Give opposition groups funding (it doesn't necessarily have to be equal funding). The only reason the CCP was scrapped is to keep liberal action groups (most notably gay rights groups) out of the Supreme Court of Canada.
I hope Focus on the Family, REAL Women of Canada, the Catholic Civil Rights League, and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada enjoy their bone - it will be the only one they get! |
|
|
| malek |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
It also seems as if Harper is further trying to cozy up to Quebec. |
oh no, quite the contrary with these specific cuts.
those funds helped keep open the only french hospital in Ottawa for example and it helps french minorities across Canada to fight against the federal behemoth.
How can you justify this cut, 6 millions? when you have a 13,200 millions surplus?!
its really crazy |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
Why should the GOVERNMENT fund the ability of groups to sue the GOVERNMENT? Its pure lunacy! If they have a problem then they should raise capital for their cause like anyone else would. Whats next? asking the tobacco companies to finance the people who are suing them?
As for the cuts when there is a 13 billion surplus. Keep in mind that $13 B surplus means they have 13 billion too much of our money. At the same time, this shouldnt give a government carte blanche to waste money. The government should still only spend on what is needed regardless of a surplus. They just handed that surpluss over to pay the debt which is THE BEST POSSIBLE USE THEY COULD EVER HAVE FOR IT.
Why? Because interest payments for the debt is the single biggest expense for the government. $1 OUT OF EVERY $3 GOES TO THE INTEREST PAYMENTS FOR THE DEBT. Remember thats just the interest payment, so the debt doesnt even go down. Just imagine how much money wed have to spend on social programmes in the future if we focussed on paying of the debt today? But thats something left wing people dont seem to understand. They just want to spend spend spend until we are bankrupt. |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Why should the GOVERNMENT fund the ability of groups to sue the GOVERNMENT? Its pure lunacy! If they have a problem then they should raise capital for their cause like anyone else would. Whats next? asking the tobacco companies to finance the people who are suing them?
|
A tobacco company is not the government, and is not supposed to create equal opportunities for its citizens/customers.
This fund, as I can see it, was responsible for helping those who are disadvantaged by the very government that they pay taxes to. The whole point of the Canadian ideal, and system is to help those who would not otherwise be able to get help.
A prime example in this case is the income inequality that women have faced, and continue to face. If the government is paying them less, which they have done in the past, it should be up to them to help rectify the problem. In your case, the women being paid less, will never had the money to launch a legal battle to even get back on equal footing. That's like removing some body's arm in a fight, when they are already missing a leg. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
The whole point of the Canadian ideal, and system is to help those who would not otherwise be able to get help.
|
Who came up with this definition/ideal? (Meaning, how did this idea come to be a Canadian value?) |
|
|
|
|
