A federal judge has ruled that taxpayer-funded groups have no inherent right to government subsidies and that Parliament is not obligated to consult all stakeholders impacted by funding cuts. The federal court decision comes amid expectations that broad funding cuts are on the horizon, according to Blacklock’s Reporter.“The Court cannot substitute itself for (cabinet) in establishing, in the absence of regulations, the manner in which its obligations should be carried out,” wrote Justice Martine St-Louis. She emphasized there was no indication that “Parliament had intended to impose an obligation to consult each and every stakeholder who might be affected by a measure.”The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by the Association des Juristes d’Expression Française du Nouveau-Brunswick, a taxpayer-funded group based in Moncton. The association sought $340,000 in damages after its annual $85,000 grant was cut in 2014, causing what its lawyers described as “negative repercussions.” The group argued that it was essential to the vitality of New Brunswick’s francophone community and that cabinet had a “duty to consult” under the Official Languages Act before making budget cuts.The group claimed that the loss of funding forced it to lay off its office manager and discontinue critical activities related to its mandate. However, Justice St-Louis rejected the Association’s claim, ruling that the Official Languages Act “does not create obligations” that would require consultation before budget cuts.The decision follows a 2015 court ruling that affirmed Parliament’s broad authority over federal finances, including the power to legislate retroactive budget cuts. At the time, Québec Court of Appeal Justice Nicole Hesler ruled that such legislation was “acceptable in a free and democratic society.”In that earlier case, federal employees and unions unsuccessfully challenged the 2009 Expenditure Restraint Act, which rolled back previously negotiated wage increases. The Supreme Court also rejected a similar challenge from RCMP members, whose contracted wage hikes were reduced by the Treasury Board.Canada has not balanced a federal budget since 2007, and many analysts, including former Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick, have warned that an austerity program may be inevitable. “There probably will be some fiscal correction,” Wernick said in a 2020 interview with Canadian Government Executive, noting historical precedents.Chris Aylward, then-president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, echoed concerns about impending austerity during 2020 hearings of the Commons government operations committee, where he testified that public sector workers feared forthcoming budget cuts.
A federal judge has ruled that taxpayer-funded groups have no inherent right to government subsidies and that Parliament is not obligated to consult all stakeholders impacted by funding cuts. The federal court decision comes amid expectations that broad funding cuts are on the horizon, according to Blacklock’s Reporter.“The Court cannot substitute itself for (cabinet) in establishing, in the absence of regulations, the manner in which its obligations should be carried out,” wrote Justice Martine St-Louis. She emphasized there was no indication that “Parliament had intended to impose an obligation to consult each and every stakeholder who might be affected by a measure.”The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by the Association des Juristes d’Expression Française du Nouveau-Brunswick, a taxpayer-funded group based in Moncton. The association sought $340,000 in damages after its annual $85,000 grant was cut in 2014, causing what its lawyers described as “negative repercussions.” The group argued that it was essential to the vitality of New Brunswick’s francophone community and that cabinet had a “duty to consult” under the Official Languages Act before making budget cuts.The group claimed that the loss of funding forced it to lay off its office manager and discontinue critical activities related to its mandate. However, Justice St-Louis rejected the Association’s claim, ruling that the Official Languages Act “does not create obligations” that would require consultation before budget cuts.The decision follows a 2015 court ruling that affirmed Parliament’s broad authority over federal finances, including the power to legislate retroactive budget cuts. At the time, Québec Court of Appeal Justice Nicole Hesler ruled that such legislation was “acceptable in a free and democratic society.”In that earlier case, federal employees and unions unsuccessfully challenged the 2009 Expenditure Restraint Act, which rolled back previously negotiated wage increases. The Supreme Court also rejected a similar challenge from RCMP members, whose contracted wage hikes were reduced by the Treasury Board.Canada has not balanced a federal budget since 2007, and many analysts, including former Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick, have warned that an austerity program may be inevitable. “There probably will be some fiscal correction,” Wernick said in a 2020 interview with Canadian Government Executive, noting historical precedents.Chris Aylward, then-president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, echoed concerns about impending austerity during 2020 hearings of the Commons government operations committee, where he testified that public sector workers feared forthcoming budget cuts.
