Canadian Heritage Committee on April 18th, 2024

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

I call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to meeting 116 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format—I think we know that—pursuant to the Standing Orders. This afternoon, members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind all participants of this meeting that taking screenshots or photos of your screen is not permitted. Proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website.

Before we get into Bill C‑316 and hear from Mr. Ron McKinnon, we have in front of us, if you don't mind, the budget for this study, in the amount of $19,200. I believe it was distributed just before the meeting, at about two o'clock. Is there any discussion, or does the committee wish to adopt the budget? Is there any feedback?

Everyone is good with that. Okay.

(Motion agreed to)

I do wish that we would make more use of Zoom, as we have a lot of expenses coming from Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal and Toronto. We do have capabilities here. When it comes time to do airports and to bring people in, it's nice, but we do have the capability to use Zoom here in the House of Commons, and that could save us a lot of money.

We'll go with this. I'll have it adopted, and we'll move on.

For the first hour, from 3:30 to 4:30, we welcome Ron McKinnon, member of Parliament for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.

You may proceed with your opening statement on Bill C‑316. You have five minutes, sir. I know you are on Zoom today, so we welcome you to the Canadian heritage committee.

The floor is yours.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a pleasure to appear before the committee today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-316, the court challenges program act.

The genesis of this bill was the work we did in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament. In that committee's “Access to Justice” report, one of the key recommendations was to enshrine the Court Challenges Program in law.

Canada is an open, inclusive democracy in large part because the rights of individuals are respected. However, during our hearings in that committee, we learned that it is often too easy to take for granted the many rights and freedoms that we enjoy as Canadians.

The court challenges program protects and reinforces our constitutional rights by providing financial support to persons and organizations seeking to put test cases of national significance before the courts. More specifically, the program provides funding to protect our constitutional and quasi-constitutional official language and human rights.

First created in the 1970s, the court challenges program plays a decisive role in helping Canadians clarify and affirm their rights, especially their official language and equality rights. Although the program was cancelled in 2006, our government restored it in 2017. We expanded it to cover rights that had not initially been included but that are protected by specific sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms respecting fundamental freedoms, including democratic rights, freedom of expression, the right to life and freedom and security of the person.

The program has, over the years, been used many times to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians. It has provided funds to disabled Canadians to help ensure they are treated fairly; it has helped to clarify the rights of LGBTQ+ people to marry whom they love; and it has strengthened the rights of official language minorities to protect their rights and preserve their culture.

The Court Challenges Program also provided support to important cases such as Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, wherein the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a law society could not prevent a qualified permanent resident from practising law in Canada simply because they were not a Canadian citizen. Think of the relevance of this ruling today as we try to recruit doctors and nurses from abroad.

The court challenges program reinforced the rights of francophone minorities in British Columbia, helping, in particular, to protect the rights of francophone children to receive French-language instruction of quality equal to that of English-language instruction.

In its June 2020 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed the importance of education in the official language of one's choice. The court also acknowledged the central role that section 23 of the Charter plays in enhancing the vitality of official language minorities communities.

I know that some may ask....

I'm sorry?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

You have 40 seconds left.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Okay. I will skip ahead.

By passing Bill C-316 and enshrining the Court Challenges Program in law, we will be sending a strong message about the importance of protecting the rights of Canadians. It will demonstrate our shared commitment to ensuring that the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter, the Official Languages Act and the Canadian Constitution are respected and upheld.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. McKinnon. You're right on.

Everybody knows the gig here. It's six minutes for the opening round. Each party will get six minutes.

We will start with the Conservatives and Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. McKinnon, thank you so much for coming and being willing to speak with us about your bill. I look forward to discussing it in just a moment. However, before I dive into that, I wish to give notice of a motion for the committee's consideration.

At this point in time, I will invite the clerk to distribute it so that everyone has access to it in writing. Bear in mind, of course, that I am giving notice of this motion.

The motion I wish to give notice of reads, “Given that, according to a National Post article published on April 17, a York University faculty committee has presented a list of anti-Semitic recommendations that include labelling the support of Israel as 'anti-Palestinian racism', classifying anyone who supports Israel as 'anti-Palestinian, Islamophobic and anti-Arab', granting academic freedom and free speech to pro-Palestinian students while revoking these same rights from Jewish students and anyone supportive of Israel, and identifying Zionism as 'a settler colonial project and ethno-religious ideology' that should be isolated and destroyed, and given that the Government of Canada has committed to the Canada anti-racism strategy; and that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for 'fostering and promoting Canadian identity and values, cultural development, and heritage', and that the 2024 Canadian universities anti-Semitism report highlights the serious problems that our universities have with anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and anti-Jewish hate, the committee unequivocally condemn the anti-Semitic conduct of this faculty committee at York University and report this to the House.”

Chair, I have given notice of this motion, but I believe it is so important. I would imagine that all around this table agree that anti-Semitism is wrong and that this type of vile conduct should be condemned in the most serious terms.

Given that we should share this commonality, I seek unanimous consent to consider this motion moved and adopted.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Do I have unanimous consent from the Liberals?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

No.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Do I have unanimous consent from the Bloc?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I believe there's no unanimous consent from the moment one party says no.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

No. It would be a dilatory motion. I don't believe there's a debate on this. Give me a second.

All I was asking here, Mr. Champoux, was for unanimous consent. The Liberals didn't give it to me. What about the Bloc? Would you?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I need some clarification, Mr. Chair.

If someone requests the committee's unanimous consent and one member doesn't agree, I don't see why every party has to comment on that request.

I'd like to get some clarification from the clerk on this, if she's willing.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Okay. The Liberals haven't granted it. Thank you for that. We'll move on—

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Just hold on, Mr. Coteau.

We'll stop the clock at 1:40. We had the clock going, Ms. Thomas. We did not stop it during your motion.

Go ahead, Mr. Coteau, and then Ms. Ashton.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Chair, anyone could have said no. It could have been from any single party, but you chose to go through each group. It seemed like it was intentional.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Well, that's your interpretation; it wasn't mine. I don't sit here, as you know—

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I've never seen that done before, and you've isolated it now.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Yes. Ms. Ashton—

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

On a point of order, is that the proper process? Is that the proper process that you used? I would like you to comment.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Well, I guess I didn't use the proper process, then. I did not know that—

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Okay. As long as you acknowledge it—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Yes. I just did.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

It seemed very intentional.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

No, it wasn't intentional, Mr. Coteau.

Go ahead, Ms. Ashton. Your hand is up.