Bill C-316

Court Challenges Program Act

An Act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act (Court Challenges Program)

This enactment amends the Department of Canadian Heritage Act to specify that, in exercising the powers and performing the duties and functions assigned to the Minister of Canadian Heritage under that Act, he or she shall maintain the Court Challenges Program.

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my next question may be a little long. I am going to present a scenario, which will give the minister plenty of time to answer.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is currently studying Bill C-316, which deals with a program that we want to create a framework for and that we hope will become permanent. The Bloc Québécois defended this program during the years of the Harper government, which wanted to abolish it. We fought alongside other opposition parties at the time to protect this program, which is very important for advancing the rights of francophones outside Quebec and for advancing the human rights of many individuals and groups.

The current program includes a provision that prevents the federal government from funding challenges of Quebec or provincial legislation through the human rights branch. We think it would be appropriate for Quebec, as a nation repeatedly recognized by Parliament, to have access to a similar provision, an asymmetry provision for Quebec, to ensure that the program cannot fund challenges to the Charter of the French Language. This would help us protect the French language in Quebec while continuing to actively advocate for the advancement of francophones outside Quebec.

Will the minister accept the Bloc Québécois's offer of help and agree to consider suggested amendments to Bill C‑316 to this effect?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That's not what the meeting is about today, so I don't know. There would have to be unanimous consent for the motion to be allowed. Because we're dealing with Bill C-316 right now and we're waiting for translation and a legal opinion on Mrs. Thomas's subamendment, I think we just have to sit here right now and wait out the time, unless I get unanimous consent.

Ms. Lattanzio, are you able to speak? No.

Okay, so Ms. Lattanzio is out of the picture.

As the chair, I am at the wishes of the committee.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

First of all, I know the work Ms. Ashton has done on human rights and indigenous rights. The Canadian Human Rights Act is very important, but my understanding is that it's completely separate from this bill.

Can I ask our expert witnesses about that? Is there overlap with Bill C-316, or does the Canadian Human Rights Act have its own processes? I just want to clarify that, if they can add to it.

Based on my understanding, I will be voting against this, because it's a completely separate process outside of the scope of this bill. I just want to get clarification, please.

[Blair McMurren]

The subamendment is seeking to bring language into Bill C-316 from the Official Languages Act, and, as it happens elsewhere in the same bill, from the Department of Canadian Heritage Act.

I don't know if it would be helpful to read out those other two provisions. I could do that.

[Blair McMurren]

I think it is amending Bill C-316 to reflect what is in Bill C-13.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Okay, so we're amending the Official Languages Act to reflect the language in Bill C-316. That's the original amendment, or do I have that wrong?

[Blair McMurren]

As I understand it, it's simply to use the same language in Bill C-316 to describe what the program is meant to do.

[Blair McMurren]

That's right. The original amendment is establishing the connection between the clause in Bill C-316 and a clause in the Official Languages Act that refers to the court challenges program. It's also trying to establish a connection to a reference to the court challenges program in a different section of the Department of Canadian Heritage Act.

[Blair McMurren, Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm very happy to explain the intended effect of this amendment, which is to clarify that essentially three references to this program in Canadian law are referring to the same program. Two new provisions were created: a provision in the modernized Official Languages Act, through Bill C-13, and section 7.1 of the Department of Canadian Heritage Act. We're simply seeking to have maximum clarity that we're talking about the same program by using the same language in Bill C-316 to describe that program.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

The change is that clause 2 be amended by replacing lines 10 to 16 on page 2 with the following:

(a.1) establish and implement the program referred to in section 7.1 of this Act and paragraph 43(1)(c) of the Official Languages Act that is administered by an organization independent of the Government of Canada; and

The effect would be to clarify that the program contemplated in clause 2 of Bill C-316 is the same program as the one contemplated in 7.1 of the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and in paragraph 43(1)(c) of the modernized Official Languages Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 120 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 22, 2023, the committee is resuming its consideration of Bill C-316, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act (Court Challenges Program).

Before we begin, I want you to know that we have a hard stop at 6:30. I've asked the clerk to see if we can get resources to go on after that, because we were late starting. Normally, 10 minutes after a vote we are supposed to be ready to roll.

Before we begin, I ask all members to consult the cards on the table for guidelines on using your headsets and to make sure you know to put your earpiece down on the little round disc on your table if you're not using it. Remember to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. You can no longer use the grey earpieces; you have to use the black ones. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose.

Thank you for your co-operation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, and I want to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For members in the room, raise your hand if you wish to speak. For members here virtually, use your virtual hand. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, based on when we see your hand come up. We appreciate your understanding. Remember that all comments should be made through the chair.

For Bill C-316, an act to amend the Canadian Heritage Act, I would like to welcome our witnesses from the Department of Canadian Heritage, who are available to answer questions during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill: Blair McMurren, director general, strategic policy and international affairs, and Flavie Major, director, international affairs and human rights, strategic policy and international affairs.

Today we are dealing with the clause-by-clause of the bill. I shall begin. I hope you have your clauses in front of you.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, which is the short title, and of the preamble are postponed to the end of clause-by-clause. I will begin by calling clause 2.

(On clause 2)

Did you have your hand up, Mr. Noormohamed?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

These are obviously extremely important questions for organizations such as CBC/Radio-Canada and individual francophones across the country. This is a significant element of the motion.

I'm sitting temporarily on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, where we're examining Bill C-316, which concerns the court challenges program, a truly important program that the Conservatives oppose. They've previously abolished it twice.

I was thinking we would discuss those issues today, but, no, they've come back here with a motion.

I'm going to remind the committee of the meeting last Thursday. It was on May 9, at 8:15 a.m., which is a bit early, but we meet every Thursday morning at 8:15.

The notice of meeting stated that the purpose of the meeting was to study federal funding for minority-language post-secondary institutions. The Hon. Randy Boissonnault was here. He was in attendance at 8:15. He made a five-minute speech, as witnesses normally do. All that was directly related to the motion that Mr. Godin is tabling today. I'm going to try to use positive words and say that my interpretation of last Thursday's meeting is different from that of Mr. Godin.

I hope Canadians are watching us today. In our meetings, witnesses have five minutes to make a presentation, then the official opposition party asks its questions first. That's the way it always is in practice. The Conservatives go first and then it's the Liberals' turn.

The first speaker was Mr. Godin, and he spoke directly about Mr. Boissonnault's remarks. We had the study—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I'll wrap up.

We could have discussed this another time, but everyone here took the opportunity to make political statements. Now, the NDP wants to make another political statement to condemn a party leader—rightly or wrongly, I don't even want to debate it. We were supposed to move Bill C‑316 forward today. We've lost two hours. We have other things to do.

Madam Chair, I move that the meeting be adjourned.

Thank you.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, I haven't spoken much since the start of this meeting. For one thing, I didn't have time, because after I had the courtesy of giving Ms. Lattanzio the time she requested, a motion was moved. It's not in keeping with our usual practices to move such a motion and disrupt the rest of the committee's work when witnesses are present.

Madam Chair, this committee has become a joke. It's embarrassing. I hope you have your earpiece and that you're listening to what I'm saying in French, because I'm talking to you and all the committee members.

We have important topics to discuss. We're not able to keep to our schedule. We have things that have been sitting on the agenda for months. We were supposed to submit the report on sport months ago. We all want to put forward topics for the committee's consideration. We're trying to finish studying a bill. We've changed the committee's schedule about 22 times, and we never manage to stick to our schedule.

In addition, there are people online who follow the committee's work on things like Bill C‑316, on safe sport or on online content that's inappropriate for young people. These are important studies. We just wasted a meeting on a motion that could have been brought forward at any time. Madam Chair, this is embarrassing.

When we talk to industry people in sectors in the Canadian Heritage portfolio, they tell us that we have no credibility. People laugh at us because we can't see any of these topics through.

Madam Chair, I'm sick and tired of this committee being unable to get things done. The motion before us isn't a bad one, but why move it at the beginning of a meeting when we have important witnesses here?

I'm not done, Madam Chair.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I know that you're very well aware of how to schedule the House and committees.

It's just that sometimes this committee is not operated, with all respect to all members here, at maximum efficiency. We're going to put the study forward without putting any dates up. I would hate to see our not getting our business done, such as getting through Bill C-316, of which I believe there was already an extension requested and granted by the House.

The online harms, as Mrs. Thomas said, is a very important study, as well as safe sport. Even not being on this committee, I have heard a lot about the importance of that study from my stakeholders.

It's for those reasons that I would close the debate—unless there's someone else—on the amendment to go from four to two meetings.