BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE CLOSED DOORS AT THE COURT CHALLENGES OFFICE: AN INSULT TO CANADIANS

Background

When the Liberal government was re-elected in 1993, in accordance with its election promises, it re-established the Court Challenges Program (CCP) which had been previously dismantled by the Conservative Mulroney Government in 1992.

In order to have a completely free hand to spend the CCP government funds at their own discretion, the twenty or so "historically disadvantaged groups" (meaning mostly homosexual and feminist groups, although some racial minority, disabled and language groups were also included in this mix) proposed that the program be incorporated as a new not-for-profit organization, completely independent of the government. The government agreed to this, and Letters Patent for the Corporation were issued on October 12, 1994. The Program consisted of two separate panels -- a language panel of 5 members and an equality panel of 7 members, the latter headed by the lesbian activist, Shelagh Day.

On October 24, 1994, the Canadian Heritage Department signed a Financial Contribution Agreement with the Program, which was to be in effect until March 31, 1998. According to this Agreement, the federal government would hand over $2.75 million of the taxpayers' money each year to the Program with no say as to how these funds would to be spent.

According to its 1996-1997 Annual Report, Sheila Copps, Heritage Minister responsible for this agreement had repeatedly expressed her and the Liberal government's unequivocal support for the Program. As a result, no difficulties were expected in obtaining the government's renewed support for the Program after 1998.

On September 28, 1997, the Program proudly announced that a new financial agreement extended government funding to the Program until the year 2002.

As succinctly stated by the homosexual newspaper, Capital Xtra, (November 14, 1997):

Renewed federal funding for the CCP means that you have an advocate -- at least until 2002.

This is very true. In its 1996-1997 Annual Report, the Program complained that it was restricted to funding only legal challenges to federal legislation, policies and practices and, as a result, regretfully, could not fund the Alberta homosexual Vriend case which dealt with the Alberta government's failure to include sexual orientation in its human rights legislation. However, the Program managed to be very generous indeed in funding homosexual legal challenges relating to federal legislation and policies.

Such funding includes both the Haig and Birch case (1992), which successfully gave legal protection to homosexuals and lesbians in the military by way of the court "reading in" such protection in the Charter of Rights and the Egan and Nesbit case (1995), a legal challenge by homosexual couples under the Old Age Security Act. Last year the Program funded the court intervention of the Ottawa-based homosexual organization EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) in the Rosenberg case in which REAL Women also intervened at its own expense on behalf of the traditional family (see Reality, September/October, 1997, "REAL Women Undertakes Court Interventions", p. 2). The Program also funded another intervenor in that case, William Dwyer, who, in another case, had successfully challenged his employer's private pension plan for failing to provide same-sex couple provisions.

Other Financial Contributions by CCP to the Homosexual Cause in the 1996-97 Fiscal Year

• In the 1996-1997 fiscal year, the Court Challenges Program funded a homosexual case brought by the BC-based homosexual organization, December 9 Coalition, which was challenging S.232 of the Criminal Code (sometimes referred to as the "homosexual panic" defence), which provides for a charge of murder to be reduced to manslaughter if a person acts in the heat of passion because of sudden provocation. This section had been successfully used by individuals who were provoked by sexual advances by homosexuals. The December 9 Coalition is seeking to have the entire defence of provocation (for any reason) declared unconstitutional;
• The right of a lesbian from the United States to remain in Canada while her non-Canadian partner completes her education at a Canadian University;
• An intervention by the Canadian AIDS Society in which the Canada Pension Plan Act was challenged on the basis that it denies benefits to surviving same-sex partners; and
• Development of a challenge to the Income Tax Act, which prevents same-sex partners from claiming the spousal portion of tax credits.

Further, last year the CCP funded several consultations on homosexual legal issues including:

• to the December 9 Coalition - for litigation strategies regarding Section 1 of the Charter following the "disappointing" Section 1 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Nesbit and Egan case;
• to EGALE for two-phase consultation to establish litigation priorities; and
• to EGALE for the preparation of a Strategic Discussion Paper on the question of whether differences which exist from province to province on the grounds protected under human rights legislation are an actionable violation of Section 15 of the Charter.

Feminist Funding by the CCP

The legal arm of the feminist movement, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) has also done well under this Program. Shelagh Day, the head of the Equality Panel, was the first President of LEAF when it was established in 1985, and the Vice-President and Co-Chair of the Justice Committee of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC). Certainly she and her Equality Panel have been most helpful in pushing the feminist cause by way of the Program. According to the Lawyers Weekly (March 20, 1992) 75% of LEAF's court interventions before the Supreme Court of Canada and over all, half of LEAF's funding for litigation has come from the CCP. In the 1996-1997 fiscal year the CCP provided LEAF with funds for several cases dealing with sexual assault. This included a legal challenge to the prohibiting of a complainant's past sexual conduct from being introduced into court, on the grounds that providing this information disrespects women's equality. (The accused's right to a full defence is apparently not an issue with LEAF.) LEAF has also been funded by CCP to argue against disclosure of a complainant's personal records, such as those held by psychiatrists or women's sexual assault centres, etc.

The fact that homosexuals and feminists (many of whom are activist lesbians) appear to be getting the lion's share of the CCP funding is no accident. The 7-member equality panel consists of at least two lesbians, Shelagh Day and Carmen Paquette. It should also be pointed out here that Shelagh Day's live-in partner, Gwen Brodsky, hasn't done too badly by the program either. Last year, Ms. Brodsky received a $45,000 grant to argue on behalf of a coalition of homosexual/lesbian organizations in the Rosenberg case, and the previous was given a grant by the Program (the amount wasn't specified) to author a discussion paper on the equality section (S.15) of the Charter. The 8-member Advisory Committee for the Program includes representatives from LEAF, EGALE and the December 9th Coalition -- hardly a neutral board, as witnessed by the fact that funding for homosexual and gender discrimination cases increases each year.

Types of Cases	Year	Funded by CCP
Homosexual / Lesbian	1994 - 1995	6
	1995 - 1996	7
	1996 - 1997	11
Gender Discrimination	1994 - 1995	5
	1995 - 1996	7
	1996 - 1997	11

Program Attacks the Family

The CCP is also doing its best to undermine the traditional family by continuing to fund attempts to remove S.43 of the Criminal Code, which permits parents to spank their children under reasonable circumstances.

In its 1995-1996 annual report, the CCP gave a $5,000 grant to research the possibility of challenging Section 43 of the Criminal Code. It then gave a grant of $45,000 to the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law, sometimes called Justice for Children, to launch its case

According to its 1996-1997 Annual Report, the Program gave a further grant of $5,000 to Dr. Ailsa Watkinson, an educator from Saskatoon, and former member of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for further case development on this issue. Dr. Watkinson will be working with Justice for Children on the court case.

The program, with its hierarchy of homosexuals/lesbians and radical feminists, is certainly no friend of the traditional family. We can be certain that nothing would please it more than to have state interference in family life by way of the removal of S.43 of the Criminal Code.

The Court Challenges Program is an insult to the intelligence, the decency and the autonomy of Canadians. Our values and freedoms are being undermined by the anti-family groups which now control the program and use it as their personal vehicle to advance their radical agenda in our courts.

Please write to:

exposing the injustice of the Court Challenges Program and asking that it be disbanded because of its radical and one-sided agenda, which is completely out of touch with the values and aspirations of the majority of Canadians. It also serves to undermine the democratic process in that the CCP's funding of legal challenges allows the courts to do an end-run around Parliament.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS