Canadian Heritage Committee on April 18th, 2024

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

This bill also doesn't specify the process by which the directors and officers who administer this program are appointed. I also see an opportunity to do that in this bill.

Why wasn't that pursued?

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

That is because other aspects of the Court Challenges Program itself, like how it's set up, how it's administered and how it's funded, are totally different and separate from what I'm trying to do here. All I'm trying to do here is make it so that the program's funding is carried on permanently.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Again, would you be in favour of an amendment being brought forward to create some transparency around the process for how the directors and officers administering this program are selected?

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

Personally, I wouldn't oppose that. I think it's a matter for the committee to decide.

I would suggest that the legislative clerk may need to be consulted to determine whether such amendments would be within the scope of this bill.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Further to that, I note as well that there was an opportunity in this bill to specify the governance structure, and that wasn't done. If an amendment were brought forward with regard to the governance structure, is that something that you would support?

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

I wouldn't oppose it, but I think it would be beyond the scope of the bill. I think you'd have to consult with the legislative clerk to see whether it's possible.

Again, the purpose of this particular bill is merely to make the Court Challenges Program permanent, not to fundamentally change how it operates.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I understand the bill covers the Court Challenges Program, and of course anything having to do with the Court Challenges Program and the existing legislation would be within scope. It would be a matter of doing the work to make those amendments or changes, and I would be happy to put forward some of those proposals.

In the last 12 to 14 months, there have been revelations about the Trudeau Foundation and its foreign financing. I'm curious whether there is anything in this bill that would prevent the Court Challenges Program from receiving private dollars similar to the way the Trudeau Foundation did.

Is there anything that would prevent that?

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

That has absolutely nothing to do with this bill.

The legislation that created the Court Challenges Program and the administrative aspects of it are totally apart and separate from this bill.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

You have 30 seconds.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm sorry, but how does that have nothing to do with this bill? This bill describes what the Court Challenges Program is.

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

This bill does not create the Court Challenges Program and it does not change its nature. It neither changes the way the boards are set up nor changes their marching orders. It merely says that the government “shall” fund it, not that it “may” fund it.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Ms. Thomas, your five minutes are up. Thank you very much.

We'll now go to the Liberals.

I believe this is the first time Mr. Serré has been in the heritage committee.

Welcome. You have five minutes.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the committee, Mr. McKinnon. I'm privileged to be here today.

Mr. McKinnon, I want to thank you for introducing this bill. You said that a private member's bill shouldn't include provisions for the disbursement of public funds; that's done in accordance with the procedure and Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

Mr. McKinnon, you mentioned that your bill concerned only a small part of…. I disagree with you: Your bill is very important. It's very important that the court challenges program be made permanent. As you noted, Conservative governments cancelled the program twice. Consequently, it's very important that it be made permanent, and many thanks to you for the work you've done through this bill.

I also want to thank you for the contribution you made, with other colleagues and me, to Bill C-13, which helped to modernize the Official Languages Act. You supported the bill together with 300 other members of the House of Commons. All the parties voted for the bill, which wasn't that hard to do. I thank you for the work you've done.

As you know, Montfort Hospital in Ontario is still open thanks to the court challenges program. Ontario's Conservative government had cut off funding for the program and wanted to abolish it. The program made it possible to preserve Montfort Hospital, which provides services to Ontario francophones. Thank you for your bill.

Here's my first question. We're obviously talking about the official languages situation across Canada, and that's important, but you also mentioned persons with special needs. Would you please tell us more about the fact that this bill will also protect the rights of special needs individuals? You are also a major human rights advocate.

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

That's a really big question.

Fundamentally, whatever people's situation in life is—whether it's a matter of disability, gender issues or whatever—when they feel their ability to succeed has been impacted by government action or decisions that impact their rights as identified in the charter, there needs to be a way for them to bring those concerns forward to an appropriate judicial body or organization that can adjudicate their concerns, decide whether or not they have a leg to stand on, if you will, and to propose some action to be taken within the context of whatever that body is. This is essential.

As I said, if we can't test things against the charter, the charter is meaningless. It is an incredibly important aspect of our judicial system and our whole legal system. The charter is fundamental, and it is basically what we have to rely on to keep our different governments in line to be able to protect our rights.

Some of the opposition members may not appreciate that sometimes the government of the day doesn't get it right. There needs to be a way to test whatever action the government has taken if you feel that it's contrary to your best interests. You might be wrong, but unless you have a chance to test it, you don't know.

If it's a matter of significant public import because the decision that is made in this case will have application across the country, it is really in the public interest that we support a means for these decisions to be examined and executed.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. McKinnon.

The British Columbia parents associations that supported Bill C-13 and the court challenges program obviously thank you for your work.

What final message would you like to send to the committee about how important it is to pass this bill? Please answer briefly because I think my speaking time is almost up.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Answer quickly.

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

It's critically important. It supports one of the fundamental building blocks of our country. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an essential element of our constitution and an essential element of our judicial system. It's also an essential element that constrains governments in particular.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

We're over time. Thank you very much.

We'll move to the Bloc for two and a half minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Champoux, please.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McKinnon, do you believe Quebec is a nation whose values are or may be different in many respects from those of the Canadian provinces, and from the rest of Canada? Do you believe that's a fact?

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

I believe that every province has unique concerns, unique problems and a unique culture.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

That's not the question.

Mr. McKinnon, is Quebec a nation? Quebec has values that are different from those of the rest of Canada.

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

I'm not going to weigh in on that question.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

But my question is quite important, Mr. McKinnon.

We have nothing against the court challenges program, but when we talk about it, we don't seem to draw a distinction, and that's a matter of acknowledging the values that are specific to Quebec.

This program is often used to challenge statutes that have been democratically passed by the National Assembly of Quebec and are entirely legitimate. But don't get me wrong: That's not a reason for us to oppose the program, but we're calling for transparency.

Earlier I asked if you would consider it appropriate to grant public funding to organizations that have significant financial resources and can afford the cost of a court challenge.

Do you think those organizations should be able to use the program?

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

I rely on the advisory bodies that administer the program to make those decisions.

I see Quebec as an isolated francophone island in a sea of English, particularly with a dominant culture such as the United States, Hollywood and all kinds of stuff going on.

Quebec in particular needs programs like this so that it can preserve its linguistic rights and culture. The fact that this applies not only in Quebec but right across the entire country is important in that context. It further strengthens Quebec's situation and uniqueness in the Confederation.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

That's quite curious because not a lot of francophone groups use the program to challenge statutes in Quebec, but we see a lot of anglophone groups doing it.

I'm going to stop there, Mr. McKinnon, because I think you've done a good job of presenting your bill. I beg your pardon if my questions were at times a bit aggressive, but I can see you were able to handle them.

Thank you.