Canadian Heritage Committee on May 2nd, 2024

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you for your very clear message, Ms. Roy. You cited some specific examples of the progress and gains that have been made thanks to this program. The results of the program have helped support and strengthen francophone communities. In particular, it has enabled my community to access French-language education.

My next question is to Mr. Jensen.

We are in a committee where we've heard now from a number of witnesses—including you—about how critical this program has been. In fact, I first got involved in politics because of the fight for gay marriage, while recognizing the long struggle by Egale and other organizations to make gains, whether through the courts or in our Parliament, etc. We hear loud and clear to what extent the Court Challenges Program is critical to the work you do and to the struggle for justice when it comes to LGBTQ rights.

We're also in the context of a committee where we've heard from Mr. Brodie, who was former Prime Minister Harper's chief of staff when the Conservatives last decided to abolish the Court Challenges Program. I think it's a pretty clear indication that the current group of Conservatives would repeat the same mistakes Stephen Harper made.

I want to quote from his book, Friends of the Court, where he dismisses the Court Challenges Program, reducing its role to one of community outreach to encourage litigation and create new interest groups—as if communities standing up for themselves is just “community outreach”. He even describes how “the Charter has led...'unions, [common] native groups, [common] language minorities, gay and lesbian groups and others' to import American-style public interest litigation techniques into Canada.”

I find these comments profoundly disrespectful. They miss the point of what makes Canada unique and the way forward that we ought to be pursuing when it comes to justice. It's not “American-style politics” for communities to fight for their fundamental rights.

If we want a better example of importing American-style politics into Canada, I think we could look at the pro-billionaire, anti-LGBT, Islamophobic, anti-indigenous politics, and the policing of women's bodies, that we've seen from Trump and other right-wingers in the States. We're seeing so much of that among today's Conservatives here in Canada.

Bluntly speaking, the elimination of the Court Challenges Program set communities back in our country. It's clear what the Conservatives want. We need to enshrine this program. That's what this bill is all about.

What would the elimination of the Court Challenges Program mean for the communities Egale fights for?

[Bennett Jensen]

Thank you for the question.

It would mean the further marginalization and elimination of the ability to assert one's rights in court. I think you named how broad an impact that would be.

Of course, I'm focused in large part on the communities Egale represents. However, as I said in my remarks, our position is politically neutral. We believe that Canada, as a constitutional democracy, requires robust checks and balances in the system, and that the rights of minorities, unpopular social groups and those with unpopular opinions should not be left to majoritarian rule. That's not how our system is set up. This is a small step the government has taken that needs to be protected to make sure those checks and balances in the system stay functional.

In order to ensure our constitutional rights belong to us and can be enjoyed by all in our country, the Court Challenges Program needs to be protected.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

You have 10 seconds left.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Jensen.

Do you have any final words for the committee about how important this bill is?

[Bennett Jensen]

I would simply reiterate that our position is this: It is critical that the Constitution exists for all of us, not simply those who are in favour at a particular political moment. This program is a critical check and balance to ensure a robust constitutional democracy.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Ashton.

This is the second round. It is five minutes long.

Conservative Party and Mrs. Thomas, you're up.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Brodie, I have a quick question here for you to start off with.

It's clear that with regard to the Court Challenges Program, there's no specificity in terms of how directors and officers are selected and there's no transparency in that process.

Should it be specified? Should it be transparent? Why or why not?

[Ian Brodie]

I tried to set out in my written submission to the committee a week ago that the Court Challenges Program has been on this kind of roller coaster existence of being created and being abolished. The Harper government announced it would abolish it, but never did, and the Court Challenges Program has continued on since 1994 in various forms.

Part of the challenge the Court Challenges Program has as an organization, and part of the challenge that the groups who get subsidies from the Court Challenges Program have, is that it has such a narrow political and, over time, partisan base. In the written submission, I tried to make the argument that the program can be stabilized by bringing the parties of the House of Commons into the governance structure—not by having it answer to Parliament, but by having each of the parties nominate people for appointment to the Court Challenges Program board of directors in an effort to broaden out the scope of the organization and therefore really broaden out the funding of the Court Challenges Program.

I would just note that over the course of the past three years, we went through a period of extraordinary repression of basic civil liberties and provisions of the Charter of Rights under the rubric of a pandemic response. I'm not going to get into whether that is a legitimate use of government power or not. All I'm suggesting is that a variety of groups and individuals challenged a number of the COVID-era rulings by both the provincial government and the federal government, all of which were privately financed, as far as I can tell. Certainly the Court Challenges Program has not released any details of funding they gave to any of those challenges. None of the groups represented here or before your committee in these hearings was involved in any of those challenges. Those were issues that were legitimately brought before the courts and were entirely financed by private fundraising efforts.

If we're going to stabilize the Court Challenges Program into the future, I think the Court Challenges Program has to broaden itself out into financing some of these types of challenges as well.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Brodie, thank you very much for answering that question and for giving such a thorough account.

At this point in time, I wish to move a motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Go ahead.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Notice was given of this motion on April 18, and the motion reads as follows. I move that,

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 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 our universities have with antisemitism, 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.

Mr. Chair, it is important to note that the motion I have just read into the record does call on this committee to unequivocally condemn the anti-Semitic conduct of the anti-Jew faculty committee at York University.

I gave notice of this motion on April 18. However, since then, in just those few weeks, anti-Jewish rhetoric and actions on campuses across this country have only grown in number. In fact, it is out of control and altogether vile and disgusting. It is inexcusable, and this committee has an opportunity to do something about it.

Jewish students should not fear going to class, writing their final exams or attending their convocation, but that is in fact where we are at as a country.

Anti-Jew mobs are active at McGill University, the University of Ottawa, Western University, Carleton University, and now, as of this morning, the University of Toronto.

This government has signed off on and committed to the Canada anti-racism strategy, which is led by the Minister of Heritage, and it is incumbent upon her to abide by her mandate.

Today we have another opportunity here at this table, and it seems an opportunity that should elicit the collaboration of those here. The hatred facing Jews in Canada should be condemned in the strongest terms possible. We cannot sit idly by and be silent as those within our community are suffering.

I sincerely hope that my Liberal colleagues, especially, will not try to water down or equivocate the motion I am moving and its purpose to help Jews who are experiencing real terror.

All of us should agree that it is wrong to perpetuate hate toward the Jewish community in Canada, which is why I was confused and grieved as to why my desire to seek unanimous consent to see the motion moved and adopted at the last committee meeting was rejected. However, it does remain tabled, so I do wish to move it today. I remain hopeful that my colleagues across the way will have had a change of heart and will perhaps see the light and vote in favour of this motion. I would ask that it be voted on at this time.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mrs. Thomas.

Go ahead, Mr. Coteau.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think everyone at this committee agrees that in this country there's no room for hate.

The member opposite who proposed this just said that she hopes we have a change of heart at this committee. I want to bring some clarity to this, because when it was first introduced.... I think it was about a week and a half ago. Is that correct, Mr. Chair?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

It was April 18.

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

I had some phone calls and some emails and some text messages about this, because immediately after it was introduced, the member opposite went onto social media and made the claim that we were standing in the way of fighting anti-Semitism. That was really disheartening for me as someone who's dedicated most of his professional career in politics to fighting racism and all forms of hate.

I just want to bring clarity to this issue, because we're not playing games here. These are real-life situations in which people are being hurt and people are being discriminated against. The toxic level of hate is rising in this country. I need to speak to this, because what happened was that a week and a half ago, the member introduced this motion out of nowhere in the middle of a study we were doing. I believe it was a study. In the motion, there were some questions that one would naturally ask. For example, it makes reference to policies at York University. I have never seen these policies at York University. I know that there's a current lawsuit. I did some research. There's a current lawsuit that's being aimed at York University about this issue, and there are probably lots of documents that speak to these issues.

For the member to ask me to condemn a university without seeing any of the information.... This was a National Post article I saw that the member referred to. The first time I ever heard of it was the day that the member opposite introduced it—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Go ahead on a point of order, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Just for the record, the motion asks to condemn anti-Semitism. I've noticed that the member across the way refuses to use that word. He's accusing me of wanting to condemn people. That's not true at all. That's not what this motion says. It says that it condemns anti-Semitism.

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

That's not a point of order, Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Coteau.

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

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting. I can say anti-Semitism 100 times over. In fact, I was the minister for anti-racism for the Province of Ontario. I was the first person in this entire country to embed anti-Semitism into legislation. Ontario was the first province in the history of this country to have anti-racism legislation. I believe B.C. is only the second province. I was responsible for putting that term, along with anti-Black racism, Islamophobia, and many different elements like anti-indigenous hate, into a piece of legislation that exists today, that compels the current Ontario government to build an anti-racism strategy to collect disaggregated race-based data and to work towards collecting hate-based data. In fact, I had a special advisory committee, made up of very prominent members of the Jewish community, who personally advised me on that piece of legislation.

To hear the member opposite actually say I'm afraid to use that term.... My entire track record of my career at the provincial level as the minister of anti-racism spoke to these issues. You can go through any type of check into the work I've done. I built the first anti-racism strategy for Ontario. In fact, when I was a school board trustee, I was the first person to bring forward the collection of disaggregated race-based data, back in 2006. These issues are not new to me. I went to universities a decade ago to speak to Jewish students and Muslim students about hate on campus.

Scoring political points in a committee like this, taking one specific National Post article and using it out of nowhere to try to separate and create a wedge between members here—we won't allow that to happen.

We are very concerned about hate in this country, and the rise of hate. Since 2016, we have seen a drastic increase of online hate. We've seen a drastic increase of hate incidents, and it continues to happen in this country. It's dividing us.

I've been a victim of racism. I have been impacted by extreme forms of hate by people in this country, and I have dedicated my entire life in politics to fighting hate and looking for ways to create balance in this country. We want to look for ways to ensure that our Jewish friends, our citizens, our Muslim friends and citizens, indigenous communities, the Black community, and all people have the opportunity to find success in this country. That's the type of country I'm trying to build.

To use motions like this out of nowhere, without even collaborating with members on the other side to talk about these issues and look for meaningful ways to act—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas, on a point of order.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Just for clarification, the Liberal chair ruled out of order a previous anti-Semitism motion, so there really wasn't a space to—

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

That's not a point of order, Mr. Chair.