Evidence of meeting #116 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was funding.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Are there some slots before the end of May in our current schedule?
April 30th, 2024 / 5:05 p.m.
The Clerk
We currently have seven meetings, and we can move things around. Three meetings haven't been decided on: May 23, May 28 or May 30.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
If I understand correctly, on May 21 we will be doing clause-by-clause consideration on the sport study. Normally, that would take a few sessions, would it not?
Is the clause-by-clause study for that on May 21? That's what I understood, Mr. Champoux.
I'm sorry, I wanted to talk about the clause by clause consideration of Bill C-316.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
It's Bill C-316. I'm just wondering how many meetings we....
5:05 p.m.
An hon. member
I agree. Now, we could change the old schedule because.... Remember that whole fiasco....
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I have no objection to it if we can figure out how.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Mrs. Thomas, we're looking at the calendar. It would be the 23rd, the 28th or the 30th. Is that correct? That's what we're looking at.
We'll let the clerk, if you don't mind, reach out to the minister, and we'll give her some options. We have the 23rd, the 28th and the 30th, and we'll see if it fits her schedule.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Will adopting this motion push the safe sport report back at all?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Well, to be honest with you, it could. We have online harms tentatively scheduled on the 23rd and the 28th right now. Then we have safe sport on the 30th.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
I have no problem with this, but my only objection would be that I really would like to get that report done.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I understand everyone's concerns about the safe sport study, which we would all like to finish. It has been dragging on for much too long.
However, in this case, we have to meet with the minister about the estimates. That is the normal order of things in the committee's parliamentary business and it has to be before May 31. We cannot do it later. I understand wanting to do everything, but that has to be done as the priority, before going on to other matters.
If we present the minister with options, we can organize our schedule around the available times she offers us.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Good. We'll have the clerk reach out to the minister to see if we can fit her in, as well as the departmental officials, for one hour each. How's that?
I'm just looking at the schedule. It could be May 23, May 28 or May 30, but it has to be done before the end of the month.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I just want to confirm that we're required to have this done by May 31. Is that correct? I just want to make sure.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Okay, that's fine. Then we have to make sure that we can.... Okay.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Thank you, Mrs. Thomas. Is there anything else?
No. You're done.
Mr. Serré, welcome. You represent the Liberal Party of Canada for six minutes of questioning here. Go ahead.
5:10 p.m.
An hon. member
He represents the—
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Well, it says “Liberal Party of Canada”. The people of Nickel Belt are very proud, so....
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to the witnesses for being here to testify about the Court Challenges Program.
My first question is for Ms. Giles Samson.
A witness and some members of the Conservative Party talked about confidentiality and lack of transparency. Earlier, Ms. Jabir referred to important factors relating to confidentiality. I think there are some significant problems there.
Can you explain your argument regarding the annual report to the committee, and tell us about the suggestion that a parliamentary committee should choose the experts in order to avoid partisanship? In my opinion, it would be a colossal mistake to involve parliamentarians in selecting the experts.
Can you explain how the selection of experts works and how transparency is ensured?
5:10 p.m.
Director, Court Challenges Program of Canada
I am happy to answer questions about transparency.
In my opinion, it is a question of striking a fair balance. There are three factors.
First, we have to share as much information as possible about the management of the program and we have to provide all the information we can.
Second, a balance has to be struck between that consideration and the rights established by the Supreme Court of Canada that allow social assistance recipients to maintain a certain degree of confidentiality in bringing their case, which preserves their ability to carry it through. In my opinion, that right, or privilege, should apply equally to people who have financial needs. We do not ask other people how they are paying to have their litigation resolved.
The third part of the triangle of transparency is the independence of the program. We have to be able to preserve the integrity and decision-making independence of the CCP, beyond the reach of public or political pressure. That is why the CCP has been administered by a third party. The independence of the program is strengthened when the expert panels are able to select the cases to be funded based solely on the eligibility criteria.
In my opinion, questioning their decisions does not respect either their expertise or their independence. We should note that there are seven members on each of the panels. That represents a diversity of views.
This brings me to Mr. Serré's question about how we choose the cases described as being of national significance: the test cases. That is really a question of expertise. It is necessary to know where a case falls within the case law and how it may clarify or further rights. I think it works very well because those decisions are assigned to experts.