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.

[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.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that.

This is an incredibly important topic. I want to make sure everyone's clear that I'm saying that.

I wish this had been raised, perhaps, in a subcommittee so we could have properly planned out the calendar. I'm relatively new to this committee, but in the other committees I've been on, usually there's more of a structured approach to the schedule, even if there is some disagreement as to how that schedule will occur.

I believe the motion currently calls for four meetings. We want two meetings, but it doesn't give us any type of timing as to how or when we're going to do that.

As I look at the calendar here, when we come back, we have Bill C-316. I believe it's scheduled for clause-by-clause, although we haven't gotten nearly through the witness testimony, so I don't know whether that's going to be changed. We have safe sport scheduled for May 23 and May 27. On May 30, we have the main estimates, and then we have online harms on June 3 and June 5, and that's without getting any of our other important business done.

Just on a point of clarification, I would ask in a friendly way if we have unanimous consent to having the other side...what their thought was as to when we would schedule the study for. I know it's a little bit of a break in protocol, and I would like the floor back, but if you're willing to express...that's great. If not, that's fine. You don't have to. It's not your obligation, but I was just curious.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was stating that we have a whole host of witnesses who are here. They've come to speak to Bill C-316.

The motion that is on the floor, brought forward by the Liberal members, is something that can be debated at any point in time. It's common that a motion can be brought forward when we have witnesses here, but most often a courtesy is granted, and the motion is moved toward the end of the committee meeting in order to respect the time of our witnesses.

I do wonder if Mrs. Romanado would agree to, perhaps, in a friendly way, withdraw the motion. She could then move it within a matter of time, when it comes back around for the Liberals' question period. It would give the opportunity for the motion to still be moved, but it would also give us the opportunity to respect the time of our witnesses.

In a friendly way, I'll propose that to Mrs. Romanado, but I would just remind the chair that I do still have the floor, and if she's not amenable to this friendly suggestion, I still wish to speak.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I don't believe I was a part of that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I realize that the Liberals have moved this motion, and that they would appreciate nothing more than to spend this time debating this motion. I think that's unfortunate, because we have a whole host of witnesses who are here with us today, and we have an important study with regard to the Court Challenges Program and Bill C-316 on the table. Essentially, what they are doing, then, is opting to hijack the rest of this meeting for the next hour and 40 minutes to discuss a motion that they've put out there, at the expense of the witnesses who are here testifying.

[François Côté, Attorney and Doctor of Law, Droits collectifs Québec]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Before we begin, I would like to recognize and salute the previous intervention by my colleague, Mr. Dehaas, which was very enlightening.

Madam Chair, members of Parliament, distinguished committee members, it's a privilege for Droits collectifs Québec to appear before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to share our thoughts on Bill C‑316.

Droits collectifs Québec is an independent civil society organization whose mission is to contribute to the defence of collective rights in Quebec, particularly citizens' linguistic and constitutional rights.

Our non-partisan organization is active in public education, social mobilization, political representation and especially legal action.

In fact, we're frequently called upon to intervene before the courts in defence of fundamental rights, for or on behalf of Quebec litigants. As a major civil participant in the defence of rights and access to justice, Droits collectifs Québec brings its extensive knowledge of the field to its testimony before this committee. Specifically, we interact directly with the court challenges program and its funding application process. We're here because we have first-hand knowledge of and direct experience with the subject matter of this bill.

Justice is blind, but it is not free, unfortunately. What is a constitutional guarantee worth to people whose rights are violated and who would have to spend $100,000 on legal counsel and fees to have those rights upheld by the court, money they simply do not have?

To ensure access to justice, as well as to recognize and offset the significant costs associated with constitutional litigation, the federal government created the court challenges program in 1978. It's a neutral and independent funding program designed to financially assist Canadian citizens in asserting certain constitutional rights, language rights and human rights before the courts.

The court challenges program has evolved over the years, but it has always been a financial support program controlled by the executive branch of government. It has therefore always had the flexibility to respond to changing economic winds, but it has always been vulnerable to political winds. The court challenges program has been cancelled, restored, cancelled and restored a number of times since the 1990s.

Now, Bill C‑316 proposes to enshrine the program in Canadian law. Some might say that this is a way to avoid leaving it at the mercy of the next government in power. Droits collectifs Québec will not comment on the political implications of this move, but our organization supports the initiative in Bill C‑316 to codify the program. However, two important aspects still need to be improved.

Droits collectifs Québec welcomes the move to codify a court challenges program that can lead to challenges to national laws and policies and to submit it to the House of Commons and to democratic debate. However, there's the matter of transparency, and the preamble of Bill C‑316 talks about holding the government to account. Wouldn't it make sense for that to apply to the administration of the court challenges program funds themselves?

Let's not lose sight of the fact that a constitutional challenge means challenging the validity of federal or provincial laws. This program uses public funds to change laws and policies. Knowing what's being done with that money and which causes it is funding, while respecting party confidentiality, is a matter of public interest.

However, the court challenges program does not currently provide any details about how its funds are distributed. It funds dozens of constitutional challenges to the tune of $3 million per year, but no information is publicly available to indicate which cases get that funding.

The parties' confidentiality obviously has to be respected, but it is in no way a breach of confidentiality to say that a given case in a given district, A v B, file number 12345, concerning a given constitutional right, received a given amount of funding. No confidential information would be disclosed, and a crucial transparency objective would be achieved.

As such, we believe that Bill C‑316 must be amended to add an accountability element to the court challenges program—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Good morning, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 119 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 people.

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

I just want to remind you again about the new rules we have. I want to remind members and other meeting participants of the following preventative measures to protect the hearing of the interpreters.

To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that can cause injuries, all in-person participants are reminded to keep their earpiece away from the microphone at all times. When you're not using it, there's a decal on the desk right in front of you with a picture of an earpiece. Please put your earpiece face down on top of that when you're not using your earpiece.

Keep your cellphones away from the microphones, etc., because that causes feedback.

In the communiqué from the Speaker to all members on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback.

All earpieces have been replaced by a new model that reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black, and the old earpieces were grey. Please only use a black, approved earpiece. By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the middle of the sticker on the right-hand side of your table.

There are some cards on the table to help you understand what the rules are with regard to feedback.

The room layout has been adjusted to increase the distance between committee members so that we're not causing each other audio feedback.

I want to thank you for your co-operation.

As you well know, today's meeting is being done in a hybrid format. I just want to remind you that you're not allowed to take photographs of what's going on in the room because it will already be on a website.

I'm informing the committee that all witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

Now I have a couple of general comments for the benefit of the members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. Members in the room, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. Those in the chat can please press the hand icon there.

There is a little globe at the bottom of your screen that you can press for interpretation in English or French—the language of your choice.

We have some witnesses who have been here before. We have five witnesses. We have Geoffrey Sigalet, assistant professor. He will not be providing an opening statement because he already provided one when he was here earlier on. Then we have, from the Canadian Constitution Foundation, Josh Dehaas, counsel. Then we have François Côté, attorney and doctor of law with Droits collectifs Québec. The other witnesses—Bennett Jensen, director of legal, Egale Canada; and Humera Jabir, staff lawyer, West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund—will not be providing opening statements.

For the people making the statements, you have five minutes. It doesn't matter if you do not finish everything you want to say. When you're being asked questions by the members, you will be able to elaborate on some of the things that you didn't get to say.

I want to begin with Josh Dehaas, counsel for the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

Please begin, Mr. Dehaas. You have five minutes.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

On Bill C-316, go ahead.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mrs. Thomas.

Yes, Mr. Noormohamed, please continue. Stick to the facts of our guests here today and stick to Bill C-316, if you don't mind.