RIP Court Challenges Program

[If this post seems particularly formal, it is because I stumbled ass-backwards into a weekly politics column at McMaster's The Silhouette. My pieces appear complete with a vaccuous, mouth-breather headshot and everything. I'm nestled in amongst all the "what's the deal with facebook?" type columns. It's embarassing. Anyways, this is installment 3.]


Consider it a formal introduction. Stephen Harper reminded Canadians what conservatism in government truly means on Monday, with the announcement of spending cuts across the board. Treasury Board President John Baird exhumed a tried and tested cliché not heard since Mulroney’s 80s: “We are trimming the fat and refocusing spending on the priorities of Canadians.”

Baird assures us that the cuts were done strategically; the programs that suffered were those that generated little returns. A closer examination will find that half of that is true. These cuts were strategic indeed. One stands out particularly – one that speaks volumes about this government’s true agenda.

On Monday, Stephen Harper quietly engineered the elimination of the Court Challenges program. What is Court Challenges? It is – was – an arms-length institution that provided financial backing for rights claims. Essentially, through this program the government funded disadvantaged groups to challenge it on rights issues.

The program was introduced in 1978. At that time, it was intended to protect minority language rights exclusively. Later, it was expanded, so that it applied to all equality rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It’s been an essential tool in many landmark equality cases. Certainly, without Court Challenges we would not yet have same-sex marriage. It provided considerable support to the gay rights organization EGALE. Its subsidies allowed EGALE to manage massive legal costs while pursuing its equality claims in court. The eventual result was a Supreme Court decision that the current definition of marriage was unconstitutional.

Aboriginal groups, too, have relied heavily on the program. Land claims, residential schools reparations, racist legislation: First Nations have an endless need to access the court system. However, endemic poverty makes this extraordinarily difficult. Without financial aid, pursuing Charter rights is simply impossible.

It’s no wonder that far-right organizations have called for the disbandment of the program. Theirs is not a concern for fiscal responsibility. Gwen Landoldt, vice-President of the anti-gay, anti-abortion REAL Woman of Canada makes her point with gusto:

“You have homosexual and radical feminist activists doling out funds to their own activist organizations without the slightest public accountability

Iain Benson, a lawyer that often represents the religious Right, says the program was susceptible to “…blatant favourtism… It’s the politically correct groups that get the funding.”

The program would not generate such vitriol if it had not been successful in bringing about equality rulings. We begin to read new meaning in Harper’s decision. It is presented as a cost saving measure – the lesser of the conservative evils, as it were. But it underscores a far more odious design.

Harper’s aversion to minority and Charter Rights is no secret. He has mused publicly about invoking the notwithstanding clause – so that he might override rights in, say, repealing same-sex marriage. Here is a far simpler, softer option. There is considerable political capital at stake when a prime minister engages the constitution in open battle, after all. Harper intends, instead, to use the back door. If Canadians are unable to access the Charter, via the courts, then it is rendered effectively toothless. Where previous governments paved a road from the disadvantaged to their Charter justice, Harper is now tearing up the tarmac.

The Conservative defence is not as reassuring as it intends to be. Baird argues that “…if the government thinks that laws are unconstitutional, it should change them. They shouldn’t be providing subsidies to lawyers to do their work for them.” He would have the legislators solely responsible for challenging the laws that they themselves pass. This begs the question that why would a government pass laws if it deemed them to be unconstitutional?

The message, at simplest, is “just trust us.” Are we to heed this advice? Are we to bow our heads in deference, content that our government will look after all of us all the time? This defies the very purpose of having a constitution. Our Charter was enacted so that all citizens would be able to challenge their government and could not be ignored. This is an ability we should protect zealously.

There is more afoot in Ottawa then the mere pinching of pennies.


- Mike (SCG)