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.

Canadian Heritage

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, in relation to Bill C-316, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act on the court challenges program. The committee studied the bill and decided to report it back to the House with amendments.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I would like to amend Bill C-316 in the preamble by replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 1 with the following:

Whereas it is of utmost importance that it be possible to bring before the courts test cases of na-

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Hello, everyone. I'm going to call the meeting to order here this afternoon. Welcome to meeting number 122 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 on Wednesday, November 22, 2023, the committee is resuming its consideration of Bill C-316, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act respecting the court challenges program).

Before we begin, I would like to ask all members to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback. Take note of the following preventive measures in place to protect the health and safety of participants. Use only the black approved earpiece. The former grey ones are no longer in use. Always keep your earpiece away from the microphones, and when you're not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you for your co-operation.

Today we're going to look at Bill C-316, an act to amend the Canadian Heritage Act regarding the CCP. We welcome back our witnesses from the Department of Canadian Heritage, who are available once again to answer our questions on clause-by-clause. We have Blair McMurren, director general.

Welcome back, Mr. McMurren.

As well, for the first time, we have Ms. Labbé, manager of human rights.

Welcome to the committee.

We will resume debate on Ms. Rachael Thomas's subamendment to amendment G-2. That's where we're going to pick it up today.

Ms. Thomas, if you don't mind, could you lead us off on the subamendment to G-2?

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

I don't give consent, Chair.

This motion is in front of us. I'd like for this to be dealt with. I believe it's important to deal with this before we finish the legislation, Bill C-316. I think we can do this in the time we have remaining.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

I call this meeting back to order.

It has been agreed by all parties that we will move to the main estimates for the second hour, and we will push Bill C-316 to next week.

The procedure is that we will have six-minute rounds of questioning.

We welcome David Dendooven, the assistant deputy minister. Thank you for joining us.

We also have with us Joëlle Montminy, senior assistant deputy minister, along with Mr. Ripley and Ms. Mondou, both of whom have stayed. Thank you to the departmental officials.

Thank you, everyone, for agreeing to look at the main estimates for the second hour.

We will start with a six-minute round of questions from the Conservatives.

Mrs. Thomas, please go ahead.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I was just going to say that we have the minister here for the hour. As unorthodox as it may be for this committee, why don't we get through the hour with the minister and see where we are at that point? Do we have questions for the officials on the main estimates? If we don't, then we can move on to Bill C-316. However, my understanding, just to be clear, is that the initial....

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

Do we have the officials here for Bill C-316 and for the estimates?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

We came here today for the first hour with the minister and the officials. I thought for the second hour we were going to do Bill C-316, but if that's not the case and we're going to move ahead with the second hour from heritage officials on main estimates, I'm open to that.

What is the will of the committee here today?

Ms. Damoff, welcome to the committee.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, it was in principle meeting number 121 that was suspended. If we want to move on to another agenda, meeting number 121 has to be adjourned to move on to the agenda for the next meeting.

I think what has been suggested is more of a friendly agreement to reverse the order of things by spending the first hour with the minister and then continuing our work on Bill C‑316 thereafter, with or without the departmental officials. The committee will then have to make that decision.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am under the same impression—because I've reserved also to be here on Tuesday of next week to do Bill C-316—that today would be the minister and officials, as agreed upon, for the two hours, which we normally do on pretty much every committee. We have the minister for the first hour and the officials for the second hour. Then, on Tuesday, we would do Bill C-316. Thank you.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

If I may, I think some of the confusion that we're facing is the fact that the last meeting was suspended, so I think it's caused some confusion as to where exactly we pick up.

Of course, knowing that the minister is here, the desire is to have her for an hour, and then, I think, but I don't really know, that the intent was then to respect the original agenda of this meeting by going back to Bill C-316.

At the end of the day, if we want to hear from the minister for the first hour and the officials for the second hour, I think Conservatives agree to that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

We have the officials with the minister. Then we'll go to Bill C-316 for the second hour.

Are we all fine with that?

I think what Mr. Noormohamed was referring to was that we had two hours set aside for the main estimates, the first hour with the minister and these officials, and then the second hour, and you were thinking of just the officials for that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Coteau, please let us know if it isn't working.

What I am proposing, Mr. Chair, is that we spend the first hour with the minister, as you suggested. If we still have questions for the deputy minister and her officials in the second hour, we can make a decision then.

I propose that we focus on Bill C‑316, if everyone is in agreement. I will nonetheless go along with the majority once the first hour with the minister is over.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, from what my colleague Mr. Noormohamed said, I gather there is confusion as to the agenda for the second hour. I see what his concern is.

It is in fact urgent that we focus on Bill C‑316. We are at clause-by-clause consideration and we have to complete that because we have other things to tackle before the end of the parliamentary session.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

No, I proposed the minister, who agreed to come for the first hour weeks ago and is here now for the first hour. We also have two people from the Canadian Heritage Department.

We'll go into Bill C-316 for the second hour. We'll have with us Blair and Flavie for that second hour.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I understood that you said Bill C-316 for the second hour.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Good afternoon, everyone. I will call the meeting to order.

We are resuming meeting number 121 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which was suspended on Thursday, May 23.

Before I begin, I would like to ask all members and other in-person participants to consult the cards in front of you for the guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Take note of the following preventive measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including our interpreters. Again, use only the black earpieces. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones, if you can, at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the sticker in front of you. Thank you for your co-operation if you do that.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format.

We are resuming meeting 121. Because the meeting was suspended during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-316, the committee would resume debate where it left off; however, the minister is in front of us here and available for the main estimates for 2024-2025 during the first hour. I am going to propose that we have the minister here for the first hour, and then we'll continue the second hour, if we can, on Bill C-316.

I would like now to welcome our witnesses.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

In response to a question from Ms. Ashton, you mentioned the importance of the court challenges program, which Bill C-316 would maintain. Based on the challenges that were raised throughout Ontario, it became clear that this program was important in education, just as the Montfort Hospital case demonstrated that it was important in health, and also in justice, as shown in Manitoba.

The Conservatives previously cut this program twice. And recently, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage welcomed a witness who had been Mr. Harper's chief of staff, who once again recommended cutting this program.

What impact would cancelling this program for a third time have on our official language minority communities?

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

I see. Thank you very much.

I'd like to go back to the point that you addressed in your report and that concerns the work that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is currently doing. In your report, you discuss how important court challenges are in guaranteeing language rights. We're currently discussing Bill C-316 in the Heritage committee, on which I also sit.

Would you please tell us how court challenges have helped to secure the rights of Canada's francophones? Would you recommend that we pass this bill as soon as possible?

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my next question may be a little long. I am going to present a scenario, which will give the minister plenty of time to answer.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is currently studying Bill C-316, which deals with a program that we want to create a framework for and that we hope will become permanent. The Bloc Québécois defended this program during the years of the Harper government, which wanted to abolish it. We fought alongside other opposition parties at the time to protect this program, which is very important for advancing the rights of francophones outside Quebec and for advancing the human rights of many individuals and groups.

The current program includes a provision that prevents the federal government from funding challenges of Quebec or provincial legislation through the human rights branch. We think it would be appropriate for Quebec, as a nation repeatedly recognized by Parliament, to have access to a similar provision, an asymmetry provision for Quebec, to ensure that the program cannot fund challenges to the Charter of the French Language. This would help us protect the French language in Quebec while continuing to actively advocate for the advancement of francophones outside Quebec.

Will the minister accept the Bloc Québécois's offer of help and agree to consider suggested amendments to Bill C‑316 to this effect?

[Philippe Méla]

Bill C‑316 seeks to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and maintain the Court Challenges Program, or CCP.

Amendment BQ-1 proposes to exempt the province of Quebec, provided it is involved in the cases in question, under the laws of the province of Quebec. This amendment would go beyond the scope of the bill and would therefore be contrary to its principle.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

I did. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I agree with this. When I was going through the budget, there was a lot of money not spent—hundreds of thousands of dollars, actually. I was concerned with the accountability on this bill, the money being put forward into Bill C-316 and the money that is there today.

I think the accountability is one that I'm really concerned with in this bill. We're putting money into a bill that already has hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I would like to ask the officials, Madam Chair, if you don't mind, about my concern. When I looked at what was in the bill and how much money was there, I was shocked that there were hundreds of thousands of dollars, and yet this government is going to put even more in there. Fiscally, I was just concerned about that.

Mr. McMurren, I would like to get your perspective on this, because when I first looked at the bill, I was shocked at the hundreds of thousands that were not spent, and we're putting more money into this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 22, 2023, the committee is returning to its consideration of Bill C-316, an act to amend the Canadian Heritage Act with respect to the court challenges program.

Before we begin, I'm going to do the usual housekeeping.

Could you all consult the cards on the table? The cards on the table tell you how to prevent audio feedback. I'll remind you of the little decal on the top to place your earpiece, so we can have a good meeting with nobody getting hurt.

Now, again, keep your earpiece away from all microphones. I'm still trying to figure out how I can speak and be automatically turned off, like I used to with the old phones. I have to remember to keep pressing to take myself off speaking. There you are. That's a little glitch we're trying to fix.

Now, today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. I want to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name. For those of you who are here virtually, please raise your hands in the virtual box, so I can recognize you.

Again, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

We have here with us again Blair McMurren, director general, strategic policy and international affairs, and Flavie Major, director, international affairs and human rights, strategic policy and international affairs, from the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Of course we have our legislative clerk, Mr. Méla, whom we all know very well. He's a patient man, indeed.

Resuming debate on the clause-by-clause, we are now looking at the subamendment of Mrs. Rachael Thomas. It's a subamendment to the amendment that we still have to vote on for G-1.

I'm going to read you the subamendment, just to make sure that everybody has it. Of course, I have to first and foremost find it in my notes.

Mrs. Thomas, after the words, “independent of the Government of Canada”, is inserting, “for which the selection criteria shall be made public and the final selection decision shall be tabled in each House of Parliament.”

That then goes with Mr. Serré's subamendment, which Mr. Méla wants to make a comment on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 121 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.

In keeping with the House of Commons order of November 22, 2023, we are resuming consideration of Bill C-316, an act to amend the Canadian Heritage Act regarding the court challenges program.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That's not what the meeting is about today, so I don't know. There would have to be unanimous consent for the motion to be allowed. Because we're dealing with Bill C-316 right now and we're waiting for translation and a legal opinion on Mrs. Thomas's subamendment, I think we just have to sit here right now and wait out the time, unless I get unanimous consent.

Ms. Lattanzio, are you able to speak? No.

Okay, so Ms. Lattanzio is out of the picture.

As the chair, I am at the wishes of the committee.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

First of all, I know the work Ms. Ashton has done on human rights and indigenous rights. The Canadian Human Rights Act is very important, but my understanding is that it's completely separate from this bill.

Can I ask our expert witnesses about that? Is there overlap with Bill C-316, or does the Canadian Human Rights Act have its own processes? I just want to clarify that, if they can add to it.

Based on my understanding, I will be voting against this, because it's a completely separate process outside of the scope of this bill. I just want to get clarification, please.

[Blair McMurren]

The subamendment is seeking to bring language into Bill C-316 from the Official Languages Act, and, as it happens elsewhere in the same bill, from the Department of Canadian Heritage Act.

I don't know if it would be helpful to read out those other two provisions. I could do that.

[Blair McMurren]

I think it is amending Bill C-316 to reflect what is in Bill C-13.

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

Okay, so we're amending the Official Languages Act to reflect the language in Bill C-316. That's the original amendment, or do I have that wrong?

[Blair McMurren]

As I understand it, it's simply to use the same language in Bill C-316 to describe what the program is meant to do.

[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.

[Liane Roy, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I want to thank you for inviting us to appear before you today together with our colleagues from the FAJEF.

The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, is the national voice of 2.8 million French-speaking Canadians living in minority communities in 9 provinces and 3 territories. Our organization heads up a national network of some 900 French-language organizations and institutions across the country.

Our communities are determined to live in French and work hard to do so every day. Over the years, they have established more than 700 French-language schools, some 20 francophone and bilingual colleges and universities, health services, community and cultural centres, as well as media outlets. Those institutions didn't just materialize out of thin air. In many cases, minority francophones had to go before the courts to secure them or to defend their existence.

Even though the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has established very clear language rights, having those rights honoured has proven to be quite another matter. In many cases, in many places across the country, we have had to take legal action that lasted years.

In 1984, a group of Franco-Albertan parents filed suit because they felt they had a charter right to manage their own schools and doggedly pursued the matter to the Supreme Court, where they won their case in 1990, six years later.

I could tell you about Summerside, Prince Edward Island, where children had to travel two hours by school bus every day to go to school in French. After years spent in the courts, those Acadian parents won their case in 2000.

Then there's the five-year struggle in the courts that was required to prevent the closure of Montfort Hospital, the only francophone university hospital in western Quebec.

Lastly, I should mention the long and recent struggle by the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique to restore French-language employment assistance services in their community.

The court challenges program provided the support that made those victories possible. It's thanks to this program that there are now 42 francophone schools in Alberta, and the same is true of the cases brought to provide French-language education in the territories that are still before the courts today.

It has to be understood that court challenges are not simple matters. They require time and resources over many years. It's the individuals and groups, dedicated people, who dream, for themselves and their children, about being able to live in French, who go to bat in these struggles, showing immense courage and tenacity in defending their community's collective rights. The court challenges program enabled those people to go all the way.

Let me be clear: The fact that our communities are determined and thriving today is largely due to the many cases we have brought as a result of the court challenges program. We owe many of the institutions that enable us to live in French, as the charter promises, to this program.

That is why the FCFA has always defended the court challenges program because we know all too well how closely its existence is connected to what allows us to live in French. The court challenges program is linked to our sense of belonging and our francophone identity.

Our communities are now increasingly diversified. Just as francophones still encounter barriers in exercising their language rights, so are many francophones facing discrimination based on race or sexual orientation and identity. Living in French is a language rights and human rights issue, and the court challenges program is now more important than ever. Which is why we have resolutely come here today to support Bill C-316.

Thank you for your attention. I will be happy to answer your questions.

[Justin E. Kingston, President, Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Justin Kingston, and I am the president of the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law, or FAJEF. I am accompanied by Rénald Rémillard, who is the director general of FAJEF and is also appearing by video conference.

FAJEF's mission is to promote access to justice in French in the majority anglophone provinces and territories of Canada. FAJEF represents the associations of French-speaking lawyers of seven provinces: the four western provinces, plus Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Our members also include the francophone representative organizations of the three territories and Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island. It is also a member of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, whose president is also attending today's meeting.

FAJEF unreservedly supports Bill C-316 for the following six reasons.

First, a court challenges program is essential in guaranteeing access to justice and honouring francophone minority language rights. Here are a few examples of the tangible consequences that have directly and indirectly resulted from various cases funded by the court challenges program over the years. French schools have been established in the three territories and in six provinces: Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. There are 28 school boards and 740 schools—

[Bennett Jensen, Director of Legal, Egale Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Bennett Jensen, I use he/him pronouns and I'm the director of legal for Egale Canada.

Egale is Canada's leading 2SLGBTQI organization. Founded in 1986, Egale has been at the forefront of advancing and defending the rights of 2SLGBTQI people since that time.

Particularly in the early years of the charter, the Court Challenges Program was essential in Egale's ability to obtain legal recognition of queer people. I appear today on behalf of Egale in support of Bill C-316.

I will be addressing three brief points. The first is the role of the Court Challenges Program to date, the second is the particular vulnerability of 2SLGBTQI people and the third is the need for a robust challenge function in a healthy democracy.

On my first point, as members of this committee likely know, section 15 of the charter does not expressly list sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination. This protection was obtained through the courts. The courts reasoned that sexual orientation was analogous in nature to the immutable characteristics protected under section 15, such as race and religion.

This recognition was achieved through litigation. Specifically, the Court Challenges Program provided funding for Egale's interventions in landmark cases such as Rosenberg and Canada, Egan and Canada, and M. and H., which led to the recognition of same-sex relationships and specifically the conclusion that section 15 prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, a finding that has enabled broader acceptance and dignity for queer people in Canada.

Currently at Egale, we are grateful to have received court challenges funding to pursue protection for the rights of another historically marginalized community: intersex people. Egale has initiated litigation challenging provisions of the Criminal Code that permit unnecessary surgeries to so-called normalize the appearance of intersex infants' genitals, in violation of their charter rights.

On my second point, the members of this committee will also appreciate that litigation is very expensive. For equity-denied groups, the very discrimination for which they require legal services is often a factor in their inability to afford those services, with 64.5% per cent of 2SLGBTQI people in Canada earning less than $40,000 a year. Discrimination in housing, employment and education contribute to higher poverty rates. Courts and human rights tribunals in this country have recognized that gender-diverse people in Canada in particular are in a unique position of disadvantage.

On my final point, in order for the charter to play its part in promoting equity and justice in Canada, those in minority communities must be able to access the courts to challenge the constitutionality of legislation passed by the majority. The Court Challenges Program is the vehicle that makes this more possible.

I note that this is a politically neutral position. The rights guaranteed by our charter apply to all.

When the legislative branch of the government fails to protect the charter rights of marginalized social groups, litigation is the avenue by which the government can be held accountable to its obligations. Without financial support for litigation, this avenue is closed to groups relying on charter claims to overcome systemic and systematic discrimination.

This is a crucial moment for gender-diverse people in particular. By “gender-diverse”, I mean two-spirit, trans, non-binary and gender-nonconforming people. As elected governments and major political parties take aim at the rights of gender-diverse people, particularly the rights of young people, it is essential that our communities are able to access the justice system.

As the Supreme Court of Canada recognized last year in Hansman and Neufeld, a core disadvantage facing gender-diverse people in Canada is the politicization and denial of legitimacy of trans identities and lives. This is precisely the kind of disadvantage that demands well-functioning checks and balances within our legal and political systems.

In conclusion, Egale strongly supports the strengthening of the Court Challenges Program through its entrenchment in legislation. This will help to counteract the financial difficulties faced by equity-denied communities, including ours, in asserting their charter rights before the courts and ensure that all of us benefit from the protections of our Constitution.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

I call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 117 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

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 Canadian Heritage Act (Court Challenges Program).

Now, as of Monday, when this was announced in the House, we are trying to avoid audio feedback. Before we begin, I would like to remind all members and other meeting participants in the room, if we have any, of the following important preventive measures to prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that can cause injuries.

All in-person participants are reminded to keep their earpieces away from the microphones at all times. As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to the members on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents.

All earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces that you have in front of you, of course, are black. The former grey earpieces are gone. Use only the black ones. By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of the meeting.

When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the middle of the sticker for this purpose, which you will find on the table as indicated. Please consult the cards on the table for the guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.

The room layout, as you have noticed, has been adjusted to increase the distance between microphones and reduce the chance of feedback from the earpieces.

These measures are in place so that we conduct our business without interruption and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including our interpreters here.

Again, thank you for the co-operation.

In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning connection tests for witnesses, I'm informing the committee that all of our online witnesses today are in compliance and we're ready to go.

Canadian Heritage

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

It being 3:21 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage concerning the extension of time to consider Bill C-316, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act with regard to the court challenges program.

Call in the members.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

It's Bill C-316. I'm just wondering how many meetings we....

[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.

[Humera Jabir, Staff Lawyer, West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund]

Thank you very much for having West Coast LEAF here today.

My name is Humera, and I use she/her pronouns. I am a staff lawyer working on the homelands of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh nations.

West Coast LEAF supports Bill C-316, which would provide the Court Challenges Program with a legislative home. We also seek two amendments to further strengthen access to the guarantees enshrined in constitutional law and official languages legislation.

Our position on this bill arises from our decades-long experience advancing justice and equality for women and people who experience gender-based discrimination. We were formed in 1985 to ensure that charter rights, particularly section 15 equality rights, would receive robust protection. We have appeared before courts and tribunals in many cases to advocate for equality rights and protection from discrimination.

In our current justice system, all litigation is costly, and constitutional litigation is even more so. Going to trial as well as bringing or facing an appeal can be financially draining and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Developing and litigating test cases that seek to move constitutional law forward, especially on systemic issues, may involve several years of litigation, likely at three levels of court, and support from dozens of lawyers, staff and expert witnesses.

The program as currently structured caps funding at $200,000 for trials, $50,000 for appeals and $20,000 for test case development. This funding is a significant help, even if it only partially covers the total costs of litigation. Without it, accessing justice would be even more of an uphill battle.

The program is also an important funding source for public interest litigants, many of whom are non-profit organizations with very limited resources. In the 2022 case of British Columbia (Attorney General) versus Council of Canadians with Disabilities, CCD, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the critical role that public interest organizations play in supporting access to justice by bringing cases on behalf of people and communities who face social, economic or psychological barriers in litigating cases on their own.

The program also funds intervenors who join cases as third parties to share unique perspectives with the courts. For decades, intervenors have made notable contributions to the development of constitutional law by ensuring that the perspectives of those whose rights and interests are impacted by a case are considered by courts and that legal decisions are informed by broader implications. West Coast LEAF has also received funding from the program to partially support the litigation costs of interventions.

While we support Bill C-316 in principle, we also recommend two amendments to bolster access to justice in constitutional and language rights cases.

First, section 2 of the bill should be amended to include language indicating that the program will support claims arising from federal, provincial and territorial jurisdiction. Presently, funding is only available for cases connected to federal jurisdiction; however, provincial and territorial laws directly affect the largest number of Canadians, and areas of law falling within provincial jurisdiction, such as family law or access to social services, often disproportionately impact women, people of marginalized genders and people facing other intersecting barriers.

The program must also include cases engaging provincial or territorial jurisdiction if it is to achieve its goal of supporting cases of national significance, which is the language used in the bill. Andrews versus Law Society of B.C., the first ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada on section 15 equality rights, was a case concerning provincial law. Similarly, the CCD case mentioned earlier in my remarks was also provincial in scope, but required the Supreme Court of Canada to decide legal questions concerning public interest standing. These cases significantly impact constitutional jurisprudence, but they may not have met the program's criteria for national significance as they did not squarely engage federal jurisdiction.

Second, the bill should be amended to clarify the term “independently administered” and to specify how independence from government will be secured. Litigation is an adversarial process, and cases brought against the government will necessarily run counter to government's interests. The bill must prevent the possibility of interference in funding decisions through the pulling or limiting of funding.

We understand that many committee members have expressed a wish for greater transparency and accountability, and we agree that the process of funding applications must be transparent and accountable; however, we caution that this must not come at the expense of independence and must balance concerns around preserving litigation privilege.

To conclude, by adopting Bill C-316, this committee would be signalling respect for constitutional rights and the rule of law. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that if people cannot challenge government actions in court, individuals cannot hold the state to account and the government will be or will be seen to be above the law. It also ruled that there cannot be rule of law without access to justice.

By enshrining the program in legislation, this committee would be supporting meaningful and consistent access to courts to check and balance government and to advance fundamental rights.

Thank you.

[Geoffrey Sigalet]

You're promoting me to general when I'm a lieutenant, a baby professor.

I want to keep it simple. My view is that it would be a mistake to entrench the Court Challenges Program, the CCP, into statutory law, even through a private member's bill like Bill C-316, because it's not appropriate for public money to support the program.

I have three basic reasons for this.

First, the way the CCP has been designed and implemented has ensured that it is subject to partisan contestation. The preamble of Bill C-316 partially acknowledges this by indicating the history of how the program was abolished and then reinstated, but what it leaves out is that it was abolished by Conservatives and reinstated by Liberals. In my view, this partisan contestation undermines the preamble's own stated aim that the program should be independently administered in a way that holds the government to account.

It's very difficult for a program that is understood, at least by one major political party, to be advancing the partisan agenda of another set of political actors to effectively hold the government to account over successive governments. In truth, overall, this threatens to mire Canadian courts in partisan contestation, which is something we want to avoid. We want to avoid politicizing our courts further.

Second, the Court Challenges Program was created to challenge provincial legislation, and [Technical difficulty—Editor] actually the courts whose judges are appointed by the federal government to strike down provincial laws. The risk it creates is that Canadian federalism will be eroded, and it is a particular threat for the Government of Quebec.

It should be noted that the program funded at least one of the applicants who is challenging Quebec's Bill 21 in the Hak case against the Attorney General of Quebec, and probably others.

Third, the very idea of the CCP is in tension with the charter statements program and the idea that the federal government and Parliament are themselves responsible and accountable for protecting the rights entrenched in the charter. The CCP partly outsources to unelected special interest groups the responsibility for ensuring that legislation complies with rights. If there is a human rights or language rights issue with Parliament's bills, then it is Parliament's responsibility to fix these issues before they become law. Indeed, in my view, that's what the charter statements program stands for: declarations about the consistency of bills that should be debated and taken responsibility for in Parliament.

All of these three reasons for objecting to the CCP and Bill C-316 are compounded by what both speakers before me have mentioned already: the lack of transparency surrounding the CCP.

The CCP claims solicitor-client privilege and does not reveal the names of intervenors and litigants that it supports. This lack of transparency is a big problem for those who want to defend the program and would like to see it entrenched in statutory law. If the supporters of the CCP wish to argue that Bill C-316 should enjoy partisan support from across different parties, then the first thing they should do is waive solicitor-client privilege and publish a comprehensive list of the interventions they find.

Since 2000, they have advertised only a select set of interventions and have not identified the intervenors in their annual reports, although you can figure out some of the intervenors by looking at the case and at who is an intervenor in them. The list that they actually publish is very select. First of all, this whole conception of solicitor-client privilege as an approach to transparency is contestable. Second, it's all waivable. The CCP can waive this privilege, and indeed there seem to be good reasons for doing so.

In truth, the 2016 report issued by the 2016 Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on access to justice recommended that the CCP waive this privilege and publish in annual reports all cases that received support from the program. That's recommendation 7 from that report. I'll note that this committee report is, in the words of the sponsor of this bill, one of the sets of recommendations that motivated the introduction of this bill. If we're going to take this bill seriously and the reasons for it seriously, you might want to take the other recommendations in that report seriously as well.

In my view, whatever we make of the political future of the CCP or the future of this bill, informed debate about its merits cannot really take place without transparency about the kinds of cases it funds.

With that, I'll conclude my remarks and wait for the questions. Thank you very much.

[Guillaume Rousseau, Law Professor, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

Thank you for inviting me to talk to you about some of my language law research and, of course, my analysis of Bill C-316.

I often recall that in language law, there are two basic major models or principles: the principle of personality and the principle of territoriality. I am going to provide a brief overview of this issue before addressing the bill.

The principle of personality is simple. It offers individuals the freedom to choose among multiple languages for official use. This is the situation with official bilingualism or multilingualism. On the other hand, under the principle of territoriality, a single language is mandated, a single official language: the language of the majority.

A review of the scientific literature clearly shows that the territoriality model is really the only one that is able to enhance the vitality of a vulnerable minority language. The best example is the case of Canada, which is based on linguistic personality. The percentage who are francophone fell from 27.5% to approximately 22% between 1971 and 2021. In Switzerland, on the other hand, the francophone percentage rose from 18.4% to 22.9% between 1970 and 2017.

The reason I am telling you this is as follows. During the 1960s and 1970s, when there was a decline in French in Quebec, the Charter of the French Language and its territorial approach meant that a single official language was adopted. As a result, French made progress in the late 1970s and during the 1980s. After that, however, there came several judgments that had the effect of limiting the effect of the Charter of the French Language, which is also known as “Bill 101”, and striking it down in part. Since then, French has declined.

Why have there been so many judgments against the Charter of the French Language? As Prof. Brodie was saying, the Court Challenges Program was used to fund cases that led to judgments that struck down whole segments of the Charter of the French Language. This ultimately contributed to the decline of French.

I therefore propose that Bill C-13 be amended so that the program can no longer be used to challenge the Charter of the French Language and reverse the progress made by French. That would be logical. The 2021 white paper entitled English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada proposed that the federal government support French in the other provinces, as it has long done, and also support it in Quebec, rather than hurting it by funding challenges to the Charter of the French Language, for example. The amendment would be to that effect.

We could even go further to remedy this historic error. Funding challenges to Bill 101 like these was ultimately a historic error, so we might go further by proposing that actions in support of Bill 101 be funded, and this would help individuals who wanted to assert their language rights as provided in sections 2 to 6.2 of the Charter of the French Language. These are fundamental language rights. Obtaining federal funds to move forward would truly be a good thing, especially given that since 2022, with the new Charter of the French Language, fundamental language rights are now enforceable.

People really may bring proceedings to fill the gaps in the specific rules in Bill 101. I always offer the following example. Consumers of goods have the right to be served in French. In certain clothing stores in Quebec, however, the signs advertising clothing, particularly for children, are in English. No clothing is advertised in French. Could the right to be served in French, this fundamental language right of consumers, mean that clothing must always be advertised in French? We do not know, but it would be worth considering an action on that point being funded by the Court Challenges Program.

The purpose of this amendment would be so that someone could not challenge provincial legislation and certain groups of people would be able to use program funds to assert the language rights provided by provincial legislation, in particular the Charter of the French Language. The same logic should apply to Quebec's Act respecting the laicity of the State. Rather than challenging it and repeating the historic error surrounding Bill 101, the fund could be used to put into effect the right to secular public services provided by that law. That would really be preferable. It is what the amendments mean, fundamentally.

In addition, there are improvements to be made regarding governance. I found what Prof. Brodie proposed very interesting, in particular that various political parties nominate people to sit on the board that manages how funding is awarded.

We also think that if there could be even more Quebeckers—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

I call this meeting back to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 22, 2023, the committee is resuming its consideration of Bill C-316.

I would like to welcome our witnesses. We have four on video conference, and we have one in the room with us this afternoon.

We have Mr. Ian Brodie, professor, from the University of Calgary; Guillaume Rousseau, law professor; and Geoff Sigalet, associate professor.

In the room, we have Marika Giles Samson, director, Court Challenges Program of Canada.

Thank you for coming.

Also on video conference, from the West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund in Vancouver, we have Humera Jabir.

As you all know, you have up to five minutes for opening remarks, after which we will proceed with rounds of questions.

Up first is Mr. Brodie.

I invite you to make an opening statement. As I mentioned, you have up to five minutes.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

You really haven't added three or four meetings, but I'm going to say four, as we did, so this will be the second of four. Thursday will be the third of four, and then when we come back on May 9, it will be the fourth of four meetings to deal with Bill C-316. Is that clear?

Does the committee want to choose the deadline for amendments? Does the committee want to deal with a date for amendments?

Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.

[The Clerk]

In the original motion from February, we had four meetings with witnesses and one for clause-by-clause study of Bill C-316 and another meeting with witnesses on May 2. May 7 would be with the CBC and May 9 would be with witnesses for Bill C-316. Then, following the break week, we would do clause-by-clause study on May 21, and then the committee would just need to confirm what date they would like to have as the deadline for amendments.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I have a point of order, Chair. Now that have some clarity on this—and as I mentioned, I wish to withdraw the motion anyway—can we get clarity in terms of scheduling so that we know exactly what is happening in respect of Bill C-316 so that we can then move forward? Before we get to this, it's just to know where we are in terms of the next meetings, what the timing looks like, etc. Maybe the clerk can just help us out with that.

[The Chair]

If you don't mind, I would like to suspend, then, for a maximum of two minutes. We have five people online, and we need to hear what they have to say on Bill C-316.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Order.

Good afternoon. We're resuming meeting number 116 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which was suspended on Thursday, April 18.

First off is avoiding audio feedback.

Before we begin today, I would like to remind all members and other meeting participants in this room of the following important preventive measures.

To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that can cause injuries, all in-person participants are reminded to keep their earpieces away from the microphones at all times. As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all members on the morning of Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents.

First, all earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces in front of you are black in colour, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please use only the approved black earpiece.

By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of the meeting.

When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the middle of the sticker for this purpose that you will find on the table, as indicated. Please consult these cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.

The room layout, as you've noticed, is quite a bit different. There's an increased distance between the microphones to reduce the chance of feedback.

These measures are in place so that we can conduct our business without interruption and protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Again, thank you for your co-operation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, and I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members here today.

As always, please wait until I recognize you before speaking.

We're resuming the debate on Mr. Noormohamed's motion, starting with the amendment moved by Mr. Champoux. However, as you may or may not know.... I'm just going to read this:

“That, notwithstanding the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, February 1, 2024, with respect to the review of Bill C-316, the committee schedule”—and this is a change—“a minimum of three meetings with witnesses on April 18, April 30”—which is today—“and May 2”—which is Thursday—“respectively, that the deadline for amendments be no earlier than April 30, 2024”—which is today—“and the committee begin clause-by-clause consideration no earlier than May 7, 2024.”

On May 7, of course, I believe Ms. Tait from the CBC is coming. That's a week from today.

If the amendment is, as we said, inadmissible, I think, Mr. Noormohamed, you've made those changes.

Is there any discussion on this?

Okay, we're going to move on. I was going to actually rule the motion out of order because of the dates that you first proposed, especially April 18 and so on.

I think the changes are required. We have the three meetings, and the third and final meeting would be this Thursday.

Do we all agree with these changes, then, going forward?

Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in relation to Bill C-316, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the court challenges program.

The committee has studied the bill and, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), requests a 30-day extension to consider it.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Okay, Mr. Housefather, we have old new members, and you're one of them. Mr. Louis has also joined us now, as well as Mr. McKinnon, although it really doesn't pertain to Bill C-316. Well, it does, but not for the vote here.

Go ahead, Mr. Gourde.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I understand the intention behind the motion that Mr. Noormohamed is bringing forward today, and I don't disagree with the principle.

However, we're at day one of what's proposed in the motion. In other words, we're coming to the end of the first meeting that Mr. Noormohamed proposes be held on consideration of this bill. If we had had this proposal and discussion earlier, today's meeting might have been planned differently. Allow me to explain.

The Bloc Québécois attaches importance to consideration of the bill, and we intend to call very few witnesses. We've invited only two witnesses, whom I consider extremely relevant. We would like to have a chance to hear those two witnesses and to have them heard in committee. However, I can't confirm now that either of those witnesses or that the two witnesses invited by the Bloc Québécois will be available on April 30, the last date we have on which to hear witnesses.

It seems to me that precipitating matters in this manner will prevent us from doing a proper job. Once again, I don't disagree with the idea at all. We definitely have to work quickly. We have a lot on our plate between now and the end of our parliamentary business. However, I don't think it makes sense to allow only one more meeting to hear from witnesses before commencing clause-by-clause consideration. That shows a lack of respect for the parliamentary business we have to conduct.

I therefore move an amendment in the same spirit as that of Mr. Noormohamed's motion, but one that will at least allow the committee some time to do its work properly in the present circumstances.

I will read the proposed amendment:

That, notwithstanding the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, February 1, 2024, with respect to the review of Bill C-316, the Committee schedule a minimum of three meetings with witnesses on April 18, April 30 and May 2 respectively, that the deadline for amendments be no earlier than April 30, 2024 and that the Committee begin clause-by-clause no earlier than May 7, 2024.

I have the written version here, in English and French, which I can immediately offer to our clerk so she can retranscribe it and circulate it to committee members.

Thank you.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thanks to the witnesses for being with us today.

I'd like to clarify a few points.

The passage of Bill C-316 will send a clear message to provincial governments that it's important and necessary both to make the court challenges program permanent and to provide additional funding for it in future federal government budgets. Passing the bill we're considering today is the right thing to do because it will help individuals living in minority communities across the country.

My question is for both witnesses. Earlier we talked about experts and what that involves. During consideration of Bill C-13 last year, members of the committee who are here today discussed the importance of the court challenges program and the fact that financial decisions were made by an expert panel, not by politicians. That aspect is very important.

Would you please describe for the committee how that expert panel works, how its members are selected and how it operates independently?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I wasn't trying to pull your leg; let me reassure you on that score. I just wanted to say and explain to you that consulting could be useful in some future time and place. Bill C-354, which was sponsored by my colleague Mario Beaulieu, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, is a bill that concerns the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and that will eventually land here, on the table of this committee. In developing that bill, we considered francophone communities outside Quebec because it concerns them. We asked them questions. I think that's a habit that should be cultivated when something specifically concerns Quebec, where there's a lively bilingual culture. I think it would be appropriate to consult those groups. It's not that we're opposed to this bill—on the contrary—but I have a quick question that I could ask you about Bill C-316.

Do you think anyone has considered the idea of providing greater transparency so, for example, we can get access to information on applications to the court challenges program and applicants who are funded by it? Do you think it would be in the public interest to disclose funding amounts granted to different groups in various cases?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. McKinnon, for being with us to discuss your Bill C-316.

I always find it interesting to hear people say how vital and vigorous bilingualism is across Canada based solely on examples involving their friends and families. I know two Swedes who speak pretty good French, so I think Sweden's a great example of a country where French is flourishing. That's roughly the same kind of example.

You talk about British Columbia, where you increasingly hear French being spoken. I've been to Vancouver many times and haven't heard a lot of French, but you're right: there may be more and more of it. Restaurant operators, business people and others go there and do contribute somewhat to the French fact, which is disappearing at an accelerating pace. Even in the streets of Montreal, you increasingly hear people say they find it hard get served in French. My MP colleagues from Montreal Island would be in very bad faith if they denied that.

When you prepared your Bill C-316, in which you seem to be very interested, which is all to your credit, did you consult many Quebec groups about their expectations and concerns regarding this program?

[Anna Gainey, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to Mr. McKinnon for his presentation.

Mr. McKinnon, I also want to thank you for the leadership you've shown in introducing Bill C-316. It's a testament to your commitment to human rights. As you know, this week marks the 42nd anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is a timely discussion. Thank you, Ron, for being here today.

Perhaps you could start by sharing with us a little about the stakeholders you worked with in drafting this legislation and by sharing some stories they shared with you about the importance of this program.

[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.

[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]

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.

Court Challenges Program Act

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

It being 3:28 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-316, under Private Members' Business.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from November 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act (Court Challenges Program), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking everyone who has participated in this debate. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is critically important to the good of our democracy and of our country.

It exists to ensure that the rights and freedoms of minorities are respected and protected in our laws and by our governments. However, it is not and cannot be merely a static document. We must be able to call upon it at need, to weigh and measure the laws that we enact in this place, to ensure that these laws and government actions do, in fact, respect and protect those rights and freedoms.

Doing so cannot be the sole purview of those who are financially well off and who can personally afford to engage the legal process. There must also be recourse for ordinary people to challenge laws that they believe are unjust or that unreasonably infringe upon their rights and freedoms, to test those laws against the fundamentals of the charter. That is the court challenges program.

The court challenges program, however, has been on and off again over the years, and this is problematic. The purpose of this bill, Bill C-316, is to provide an enduring mechanism wired into legislation, administered by arm's-length, independent experts, to support the examination of nonfrivolous, nonvexatious questions that are significant to the public good. This will enable these important questions to be brought forward, irrespective of the financial means of the proponents, to be answered properly in a court of law.

In doing so, we strengthen the charter itself and bolster this critical foundation of our democracy. I urge all members to support this bill. Let us get it to committee.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Before I begin, I want to pass on my condolences and recognize the life of Eugene Dery from my riding. He leaves behind a son, who is approximately 20 years old, Dax, and his wife Kim Galloway, whom I met through my sister. I grew up knowing them and have known them throughout the years. I extend my deepest condolences to the family. May perpetual light shine upon him.

On a more positive note, I want to recognize Ethan Katzberg from my riding. Mr. Katzberg took home gold in the hammer throw. Good for him. We are obviously very proud of him. He is the one to beat, following in the line of Dylan Armstrong. We look forward to seeing Ethan at the Olympics doing his best to represent not only Canada but also Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

We are here today to discuss Bill C-316, an act to amend the court challenges program. This is an interesting act when we think about it. In my research to prepare for my speech, I saw that the court challenges program has existed for a great deal of time. I knew that it existed, but I was not sure exactly how it had operated in the past.

One of the things that struck me is that this bill would enshrine the court challenges program into law. I know that my colleague from Lethbridge did an excellent job in her speech on this issue, but I will be addressing some of the points she made and perhaps some of the points that the sponsor of the bill made. I have some concerns.

The reality is that with this legislation, in my respectful view, we would be legislating an undermining of Parliament in a certain way. Parliament passes laws and the courts interpret them; there is no issue there, and frequently the courts will engage in a dialogue. I raised this with Justice Moreau of the Supreme Court of Canada, although I am not sure if she has been sworn in. She is the chief justice for Alberta for the time being if she has not been.

I asked her about the dialogue between Parliament and the courts. Parliament speaks through its legislation, the courts interpret the law and then Parliament speaks again if it needs to. This bill would essentially fund people to go to court to, in my view, look at ways that Parliament got it wrong. That is not to say the courts need any help. Frequently, the courts strike down legislation passed by Parliament, or they uphold it as constitutional, but those things happen irrespective of a third party like this.

From what I can see, this program costs $5 million at this time. It could be substantially more. By my estimation, about 30% of that alone is bureaucratic costs. We have been talking a lot about heating oil and things like that. How many heat pumps is the government going to buy for people? How many heat pumps would $5 million buy? Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that we often talk here in the billions of dollars.

A senior contacted my office not long ago saying they had to choose between putting food on the table and buying shoes. To them, $5 million sounds like a lot of money. I know it certainly was when my family came from Italy. They did not really have two pennies to rub together. Sometimes we lose sight of this.

Not only that, we would create a bureaucratic entity beyond asking people to challenge our laws. There is no issue with the idea that people disagree with what Parliament passes. It happens all the time. That is why the courts will make various decisions. However, this is done routinely when somebody brings an action to the court.

I am going to underscore as well that when we pass legislation here, it goes through second reading debate. Sometimes bills pass with unanimous consent, but very rarely will a significant bill pass that way. I think I have seen it twice so far.

Bills go through second reading debate and then go to committee. Who do we hear from at committee? We hear from witnesses. On the justice file, who are those witnesses? Invariably, they are lawyers, experts who will tell us what is wrong with the bill: “Your bill has this constitutional frailty in this spot and this spot.” Then someone else will come in and say, “Yes, I agree, but I don't think the frailty is here and here, I think it might be over here.” What do we do? We take that and go back, potentially through an amendment. At third reading, we have more debate, and then it goes to the Senate. What happens at the Senate? There is more debate. Then, eventually, we will have royal assent after it has gone through the machinations in the Senate and then it goes to the courts. There is this idea that Parliament does not have ample opportunity to get it right and to hear from the very lawyers who will be making these courts challenges.

However, these challenges are made supplementary to the actual challenge. What I mean by that is, for example, somebody who believes that they are aggrieved by the statute on charter grounds will say, “This offends my section 7 right to life, liberty and security of person”, and they will challenge the law on constitutional grounds. Frequently, I presume, this program will fund somebody to intervene. Well, somebody is already making that challenge in a lot of instances from what I can see, and so I question the efficacy of that.

The other issue I have is that this issue is run through a university. I used to teach at Thompson Rivers University and I will give a shout-out to them, but this is done through the University of Ottawa. Now, we will obviously have in a university faculty, particularly one like law, divides. Some people are going to have one view of the law and some people will have another view of the law. In here, we have Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, Greens and the Bloc. They are going to have different perspectives on how the world works, which is fine; actually, it is more than fine, it is central to a thriving democracy. However, the people who administer this program are going to be, through their perspective, deciding who gets these programs. Invariably, there will be winners and losers, and it does not seem to me that we know exactly how that is going to be administered, especially when it is being administered right now through a third party. That, in my view, does raise some issues.

The importance of people who are writing academically cannot be underscored. It is, in my view, central to anybody who is a professor, particularly a professor of law or political science. We do frequently receive feedback. We, as members of Parliament, are expected to take feedback on our laws. In my view, that is the correct mechanism by which we should be addressing these laws and not funding people who would not otherwise be in court on a matter of their own in doing so.

One of the issues that we have seen about this dialogue is that, in my view, this Liberal government has not necessarily acted well on that dialogue. For example, Bill S-12, the issue of the sex offence registry, was taken literally right down to the last day. It is how the courts work. The courts act and Parliament reacts. Parliament legislates, the courts interpret and it is up to Parliament to react. It took us literally months. We could not actually get this right. That is how things are supposed to be working. We can also look at this when it comes to that extreme intoxication case that we had to legislate on very quickly. However, sometimes, and this is one failing of the Liberal government of many on the justice bill, this Liberal government does not always react.

If we want to look at places where we should be devoting our resources, the courts have said that it is unconstitutional to have back-to-back first degree murder convictions and for parole ineligibility to be served consecutively.

I am out of time and so I will wrap it up there.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on a matter of great importance touching on the fundamental rights and freedoms of all people in Canada. I speak of the court challenges program and the legislation before us, Bill C-316, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act.

Since its creation in 1978, the court challenges program has come to be seen as a unique feature of our constitutional democracy, helping people in Canada to bring forward legal cases when they believe their most cherished rights have been infringed upon, regardless of their means. It enables individuals and organizations to challenge laws and policies that run counter to Canada's fundamental rights and freedoms. It is a true testament to our country's unwavering commitment to justice, equality and social inclusion.

The modernized court challenges program, reinstated in 2017, has been instrumental in ensuring unfettered access to justice and equality for every Canadian. Over the years, it has funded hundreds of challenges of national interest, adapting to the evolving needs of our society by helping to articulate a broader range of civil and social rights. This progression is crucial as our society continues to evolve and embrace a more diverse and inclusive perspective.

In sustaining and protecting this program further through Bill C-316, we would be solidifying its proven effectiveness in safeguarding rights and promoting equality before the law. This legislative initiative aims to complement the important reforms enacted by the modernization of the Official Languages Act through Bill C-13, which received royal assent on June 20, 2023. Bill C-13 acknowledges the important role of the court challenges program by incorporating its official language rights component into the Official Languages Act and its human rights component into the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, thereby underscoring the government's unwavering commitment to this iconic program.

The court challenges program plays an indispensable role in supporting official language minority communities in all regions of the country. By challenging laws and policies that could erode their linguistic rights, it helps preserve the vitality of these communities while ensuring that linguistic duality and diversity remain a proud part of Canada's social and cultural fabric. Furthermore, this program has consistently been at the forefront of protecting the human rights of all people in Canada. It has empowered vulnerable and marginalized communities, has helped defend minority rights and has consistently helped advance the principles of justice and equity.

One such example is the funding granted by the court challenges program in 2019 and 2020 for an intervention in a class-action lawsuit on the issue of the forced sterilization of indigenous women. This intervention seeks to ensure health equity for indigenous women and to address systemic discrimination against indigenous people, while providing a national perspective on behalf of affected indigenous women and girls. Thanks to the program's funding, the issues of gender equity, rights recognition and reconciliation will be deliberated in court through a more inclusive approach to participation in the proceedings.

The program's annual reports reads like a catalogue of the defining social and civil rights issues of our times. Its essential role in helping to advance our democratic principles and ensure that our rights framework reflects the evolution of Canadian society has been amply demonstrated. Through the deliberate and purposeful act of enshrining this program in law by means of Bill C-316, as a strong complement to what has been achieved in Bill C-13, we are affirming our commitment to its long-term viability and are recognizing its proven effectiveness in asserting, clarifying and protecting the rights and freedoms of all people in Canada.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-316 at second reading. This is a bill that would amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act to require the minister of heritage to maintain the court challenges program. In other words, it would simply take an existing program and entrench it in legislation.

Why do we have to have something to entrench an existing program in legislation? It is because the Conservatives, twice before, have eliminated the court challenges program. I do not necessarily believe there will be a future Conservative government, but the fear is that a future government would be able, in the absence of this legislation, to simply eliminate this program without coming back to Parliament. Therefore, this is an important change.

As always, the Liberals have done the minimum here. There are some other things we could have done to support the court challenges program. As a Parliament, we could expand its mandate because, right now, it is severely limited to only minority language rights and equality rights under section 15. There have been many calls from the legal community to expand the mandate of this program so it could apply to other cases where, frankly, the government has not taken leadership in protecting rights but where people lack the resources to bring these cases themselves. Court challenges can take years. They can cost literally hundreds of thousands of dollars.

What this program does is level the legal playing field for those who want to defend their rights against the government or against abuse by others in Canadian society. This program has been in existence, off and on, for 30 years, but it has played a very important role in helping defend women's rights, indigenous rights and the rights of other marginalized Canadians, so it is important that we make sure this program endures.

The program was created in 1978 on the issue of minority language rights. When the Charter was adopted, it was expanded just a tiny bit to add equality rights. The program was cancelled by the Conservatives in 1992 before being brought back by the Liberals in 1994, only to be cut again by the Conservatives in 2006. Then we had a big gap. In 2015, both the Liberals and the New Democrats campaigned to restore the program. The justice committee, in 2017, recommended not only that this be entrenched in law, but also that the mandate be expanded. That part is missing from this bill, but in 2018, the program was restarted.

Let me give some examples of kinds of things this program has done. It financed the case that resulted in ending discrimination related to access to what we used to call “maternity benefits” under what was then the UI act. It helped establish what is now known as the rape shield law, which prevents the accused from using the sexual history of a sexual assault complainant as a defence.

The program funded the cases that resulted in restricting access to victims' personal records, such as counselling records, in sexual assault cases. Again, this ruling would not have happened otherwise because women who have been the victims of sexual assault do not have the resources to bring forward this kind of case and fight it through court. Therefore, the Women's Legal Education & Action Fund, LEAF, applied to the program and received funding, which resulted in this very important decision.

One more example is that sex-based discrimination under the Employment Insurance Act for part-time employees who are women was ended as a result of the case. Again, it was brought by LEAF with funding from the court challenges program. We have a very strong history of defence of women's rights.

There are a couple more cases I could provide, but a favourite of mine, as a gay man, is Egan v. Canada in 1995, where two gay men who had been in an intimate relationship for 30 years were denied old age security benefits because they did not fit the definition of a spouse. There was a case, this time by the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto, taken to court to say that this was unfair because they had been a couple and Egan had paid into these benefits, including to old age security, Canada pension and things like that. This established equal spousal rights in the time before equal marriage.

In one last case, Daniels v. Canada in 2016, it was established that the status of Métis and non-status Indians under the Indian Act were protected. This was brought by the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, who, again, did not have great resources to spend literally hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers.

What is really clear is that there is broad support in the legal community for this program, including and especially in the advocacy of the Canadian Bar Association. There are certain precedents, as I mentioned, about the mandate not being broad enough. Cindy Blackstock and certain disability advocates have demonstrated why we need to expand that mandate so that cases of people with disabilities and of aboriginal women could more easily get into court.

I am going to take a minute to talk about recent events, which I think point to upcoming challenges to the rights of the 2SLGBTQI+ community and particularly to those of transgender and gender-diverse Canadians, who are among the most marginalized Canadians and those with the fewest resources.

Hate crimes against what I like to call the queer community, in reclaiming language, are up. They are up shockingly high. The official figures of those reported to the police show a 64% increase in one year in hate crimes directed against the community. Hate crime data from the police does not actually separate out crimes against trans folks, but a sampling that has been done by academics found that, first of all, hate crimes against the queer community, and particularly the trans community, are more likely to be violent. In the case of gender-diverse people, 80% of hate crimes involve violence. This is where government policies, particularly of certain provincial governments, are fuelling the hate, which has direct results of violence in the community.

I want to talk about the anti-trans school policies in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick for just a minute, because I think the trans and gender-diverse communities are going to want to make sure there is a court challenge to these policies. Without a program like the court challenges program, this would not happen. In August, Saskatchewan announced policy changes requiring parental consent for trans students under the age of 16 to be called by their chosen name and pronoun at school. We do not ask parents whether “William” can be “Billy”, but somehow when it comes to trans kids and their identity, we are creating in Saskatchewan a special bar to using names and pronouns that reinforce the student's identity. The policy was quickly challenged by the University of Regina's pride centre. After a hearing, an injunction was granted that paused the implementation of the policy. The same day, Premier Scott Moe announced he would invoke the notwithstanding clause, and he called an emergency session of the Saskatchewan legislature to enact Bill 137, which amends the education act and includes the notwithstanding clause.

A government used what was really the nuclear option in law to take away rights from kids. It falls into the category of what I would call the spillover of American rhetoric into Canadian politics. It talks about parental rights instead of what we have in Canadian law of parental responsibilities and children's rights. Parents have a responsibility to nurture their kids and to affirm their kids. We know that school peers who use their chosen name and pronouns experienced 71% fewer signs of severe depression, a 34% decrease in reported thoughts of suicide and a 65% decrease in suicide attempts. Therefore, this is a policy that causes great harm. The government could do more to provide leadership in fighting this rising tide of hate, in particular by implementing the 29 recommendations in the white paper on trans rights tabled last June. In fact, e-petition 4666 went up today, asking it to do just that.

In conclusion, New Democrats support Bill C-316, even though we would like to see more from the government to support the court challenges program. It is still important to entrench the program in law in order to make it harder for any future government to eliminate the program. As I said, the court challenges program could use an expanded mandate to be able to fund cases beyond minority language rights and section 15. The program could use increased funding to ensure that it can fulfill its purpose in levelling the playing field on rights in the courts, so that not just those who are already rich and privileged can defend their rights and seek fairness in the courts. Even in the absence of these further improvements, we hope to see expeditious passage of the bill through all its remaining stages.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing out, at the end of his speech, an unacceptable thing that happened. I am talking about a situation where Radio-Canada used a Paris-based company to record a podcast because people in France do not like the Quebec accent. That is very important.

The Quebec accent is what makes us who we are in Quebec. The Quebec accent developed through 400 years of living in this country of ice, snow, forests, cold, fall, summer and heat. It developed through contact with the indigenous peoples, who were here before we arrived, and through contact with the English, who defeated us in 1759. Since that time, we have been intermingling with all the people who have come here over the past 100 years. They came from all over, and we have been enriched by that. It has made us who we are in Quebec right now. That is what makes our language unique, and that is what enriches our way of speaking and our culture, which we are bringing to the rest of the world.

We no longer have to talk about how Quebec is representing itself on the international stage. Denis Villeneuve is at the Oscars almost every year. He was not born in Ontario. He was born in Quebec. Xavier Dolan is at Cannes almost every year. He was not born in British Columbia. He was born in Quebec.

We often hear about Canadian culture outside Canada, and 90% of the time people are talking about Quebec culture. Robert Lepage directs plays all over the world, in Paris, Brussels and Tokyo. He was not born in Manitoba; he was born in Quebec. Cirque du Soleil was not created in Ontario; it came from Quebec. If Canadian culture is talked about internationally, it is thanks to Quebec. People should be on their knees in gratitude. If Canada is talked about around the world, it is because Quebeckers have risen to the top.

I am a bit obsessed with this issue. This is somewhat due to a certain constraint, this particular relationship that we have, because for the past 200 years, we have often been told that we are an insignificant people and we should resign ourselves to a life of poverty. We have developed a kind of “System D” in all areas, whether economic or cultural. This constant confrontation, this dominant-dominated relationship, drives us to stand out as fighters. We are doing it now, we have done it in the past and we will continue to do so in the future. People should buckle up and get ready for a bumpy ride, because when Quebec becomes independent, we will be winning Oscars in Los Angeles and Palmes d'Or in Cannes in our own name. We will win Goncourt Prizes in our own name. The award will not say “Canada”; it will say “Québec”.

The rest of Canada will be happy anyway, because it will have participated to some extent. It will be time to say bye-bye when we are in Hollywood or Cannes or on other major international stages. We will say hello to the gang back in Canada, but Quebec will win the Oscar.

That was my first argument on culture. My colleague started me off on that. Obviously, I had no intention of talking about it. I never want to talk about Quebec. I never want to talk about Quebec's language or culture. I never go there at all. It is not a subject that interests me in the least. I never want to talk about that when the opportunity arises. My Conservative Party colleague started me off on the subject. He passed me the puck. It was too easy and I felt like talking about it.

This has a connection with what we are talking about now: Bill C-316, on the court challenges program. The court challenges program is exhausting, it must be said. It directly concerns language and our ability to protect our language and culture in this country.

The court challenges program was launched in 1978. The timing is no coincidence, because the Parti Québécois and René Lévesque, a major Quebec figure, came to power in 1976. The timing is no accident. In 1977, the Lévesque government introduced one of its first and most important bills. I want to talk about this because it is important.

I would say that, of all the laws that could have been created in Quebec or even in Canada, this is a big one. It is a meaningful, masterful law that changed the course of history. It is really not every day that the course of history is changed through the creation of laws, but that is what happened in 1977. There is a reason why the father of Bill 101 is Camille Laurin, a psychoanalyst and psychiatrist. He knew that we needed to make a strong and powerful mark when it comes to the relationship that we have with ourselves.

That is what we did with Bill 101. What was the crux of Bill 101? It stipulated that, from that point on, there would be only one official language in Quebec, and that was French. We would have only one national language, and that was French. From that point on, we would speak French in our courts, schools, stores and restaurants. Public signage would be in French. Everything in Quebec would be done entirely in our language. That way we would no longer be afraid to be who we are. We were going to make a powerful statement. From that point on, things were going to change.

I would like to remind the House of an important fact. Before 1977, 90% of immigrants who settled in Quebec went to English schools. The children went to elementary school, secondary school, CEGEP and university in English and then they worked in English. Everything was happening in English. The school system itself was anglicizing Quebec. We were anglicizing ourselves, and we were paying for that.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to debate Bill C-316, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, regarding the Court Challenges Program.

You will recall, Madam Speaker, that I actually began this speech on Wednesday, May 3. I am sure that all members have been patiently waiting these last six months to hear the conclusion of my comments on this bill.

I last spoke about the Conservative legacy when it comes to human rights, particularly that of the late, great John George Diefenbaker. He was a one-man court challenges program. Indeed, it was John Diefenbaker who said, at the beginning of the debate on the Canadian Bill of Rights in 1960:

Here for the first time this bulwark of freedom will be embodied in a declaration by parliament that is in existence and cannot be violated. Furthermore, if any of these several rights should be violated under legislation now existing in the courts in interpreting the particular laws or statutes which have been passed will hereafter ... be required to interpret those statutes of today in the light of the fact that wherever there is a violation of any of these declarations or freedoms the statute in question is to that extent non-operative and was never intended to be so operative.

The bill at hand, as has been mentioned, would require that the minister's power include that of the Court Challenges Program. In fact, this is already within the powers of the minister. This program has been in existence since 1978, in different forms and fashions.

Furthermore, the provisions for how the minister can fund the Court Challenges Program already exist in the same statute, at section 7.1. It further talks about requiring a report. As members would know, reports are already presented by the Minister of Canadian Heritage; the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages; the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities; the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth; and the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity. They provide annual reports through the departmental results report, departmental plans and departmental evaluation plan.

We must look at the record of the Liberal government when it comes to the rights of Canadians. Let us start with language rights. Members would recall, and I was on the official languages committee at the time, when the Liberal government tried to appoint Madeleine Meilleur as the official languages commissioner. She was a former Liberal cabinet minister who also donated to the Prime Minister's campaign.

I was also on the Canadian heritage committee at a time when it was revealed that the department gave $133,000 to a well-known anti-Semite with a long history of directing hate towards Jewish people. The government did this through an anti-racism action program.

We recently learned that Radio‑Canada used a Paris-based recording studio, rather than a Quebec-based studio, to record a podcast in order to avoid the Quebec accent.

That is indeed shameful. We should be proud of the language of Quebec and the accent that we hear from our Quebec colleagues across the country. We should be protecting that indeed.

As I wrap up my speech, I wish to say how proud I am as a Conservative to stand on the human rights record that all Conservatives have stood on from the time of John Diefenbaker to the present day. I am very proud of that legacy.

The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act (Court Challenges Program), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I heard a riveting comment from a colleague behind me, but I will not go that far.

It is indeed an honour and a privilege to rise in the House this evening to contribute to the debate on Bill C-316, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, court challenges program. Indeed, as has been mentioned in this House, this program has an off-and-on history in this place and in government through the Department of Canadian Heritage. I did have the honour and privilege of serving for some time at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Before I get into the meat of my speech, I do want to reflect on one of the more famous quotations from one of the great parliamentarians of this place. The Right Honourable John Diefenbaker was one of the great defenders and protectors of Canadian freedom. He said, “Parliament is more than procedure—it is the custodian of the nation's freedom.”

I think too often in this place we forget about our role as the protectors and defenders of the freedoms of Canadians. If we look back at the history of some of the great orators, some of the great defenders in this place, including Diefenbaker and his bill of rights, the first attempt at enshrining the rights and freedoms of Canadians in a single federal statute was by Diefenbaker. From his humble upbringing, his birth in Neustadt, Ontario, which is just north of my riding, Perth—Wellington, to his time as a defender, as a defence counsel and during his time as a parliamentarian, his focus was on the rights and freedoms of Canadians. That was what he lived for in this place.

We will recall that it was under Diefenbaker that the first woman was appointed to cabinet. It was under Diefenbaker that indigenous peoples in all corners of this country finally had the right to vote and it was through Diefenbaker's bill of rights that we saw the first written efforts at enshrining the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

That history and protection of rights and freedoms continues under other Conservative leaders as well. We need to be proud of their efforts. Indeed, under the leadership of former prime minister Mulroney and former foreign minister Joe Clark we saw the strong stand that Mulroney and Clark took in defending us on the world stage in calling out the apartheid regime in South Africa. We saw the efforts they led in the Commonwealth to make that happen and we saw the work they undertook here at home in Canada when it came to the defence of Canadian rights and freedoms. Their efforts on the two constitutional accords did, in fact, fail but, nonetheless, attempted to enshrine those rights and freedoms and ensure that all members in this country signed on.

To the issue at hand of this bill, Bill C-316, I think Canadians would be forgiven in not fully understanding why this is before us today. Members will know that, in fact, the court challenges program exists today. It is a program that is run out of the University of Ottawa and funded by the Government of Canada, so why is this being done today? Canadians might be forgiven for perhaps seeing it somewhat odd or ironic that the government is creating a program that would sue itself, that would provide funds for the Canadian public to sue themselves. There is an odd strategy there.

If we look back at the history of the court challenges program, in 1978 this was first established under then prime minister Pierre E. Trudeau. It was primarily for language cases. We look at the importance of language rights here today in Canada, and indeed we have a bill before the House, as we speak, Bill C-13, which is the modernization of the Official Languages Act. As luck would have it, was one of the first files I worked on when I first came here in 2015 as a member of Parliament. I was the vice-chair of the official languages committee, the Anglo from southern Ontario at the official languages committee but it was, nonetheless, a great opportunity to learn my beloved second language.

The importance of having the rights of official language minorities protected across the country is, indeed, very important. Whether someone is a Franco-Ontarian, a Franco-Albertan or even from a small language community in the country, it is important to protect their right to be able to receive services in their second language.

My time is dwindling, but I understand I will have four minutes remaining when the House takes up this important issue next. I look forward to concluding my remarks on Bill C-316 next time.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a delight to stand in this place and represent the great people of Edmonton Strathcona.

Today we are talking about Bill C-316, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act regarding the court challenges program. Basically what this bill would do is amend the Heritage Act to require that the Minister of Canadian Heritage maintain the court challenges program, making sure that this is now in legislation, so that if any future government wanted to cut this program, it would have to do it through legislation. Of course, it would not be a perfect protection for this program, but it would be a good start. It really does make me think about all of the different policies I would like to see protected that have been put in place by various governments. I am going to come back to that as we go forward.

Some people in the House today have said that this is bad legislation and is not something that should be in place, and they have expressed what I would consider some pretty faux outrage about this particular bill. I want to highlight that there are a number of people who believe in the court challenges program, very notable groups that actually think this court challenges program needs to be put into legislation and also needs to be protected and expanded.

The New Democratic Party has been calling for an expansion of this. There is very little money that is allocated to this. It is a very small fraction, a drop in the bucket, compared to what we spend on the justice department. We would like to see this expanded. We are not alone. The people who would also like to see this program expanded are people like Cindy Blackstock and other advocates within the indigenous communities. Legal organizations, including the Women's Legal Education & Action Fund, or LEAF, would love to see this program expanded and put into legislation so that it is protected. Even more notably, the Canadian Bar Association supports the court challenges program.

There are people around this country who are leaders on this and who have asked for this program to be maintained and expanded. It is something that all parliamentarians need to consider. Very few of us are experts in the fields in which we produce legislation, so we take advice from experts. I would say, when we are looking at the justice system, that the Canadian Bar Association, Cindy Blackstock and others would be excellent examples of experts we should be listening to.

There are several reasons why this program is so important, but one of the ones that mean the most to me is that it levels the playing field. It allows Canadian citizens to have access to justice. Often, those Canadian citizens who are least likely to be able access justice are marginalized Canadians. They are women, indigenous people and members of the LGBTQ2+ community. For the people who are often disproportionately impacted by the justice system in a negative way, this helps level the playing field.

I strongly support the program. We could work on making the bill stronger. Certainly, I would like to see the government commit to better funding. We have been calling for stronger funding for this program for some time, so we would like to see that.

I want to talk a little tonight about some of the other things that I think we should be putting into legislation. We are all lawmakers in this place. As I was preparing the notes for my speech this evening, I was thinking about how important it is that we put things into legislation to protect them, protect them from potential future governments that do not share the values of ensuring that there is a level playing field within the justice system for Canadians.

The first thing that came to my mind is my Bill, C-205, which is actually about the Impact Assessment Act. I was very happy, because Minister Wilkinson—

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Bill C‑316, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, specifically with respect to the court challenges program.

The Bloc Québécois supports this bill in principle. We would like to look at Bill C‑316 in committee and make recommendations. The Bloc Québécois's current position already favours the continuation of the court challenges program, especially considering the important role it plays in promoting the rights of francophones outside Quebec. We therefore support the idea of ensuring the program's future by including it in the Department of Canadian Heritage Act.

However, in my speech, I will go over the Bloc Québécois's reservations concerning the program's terms and conditions, especially the lack of clarity surrounding its management and the process for deciding which cases and organizations will receive funding. Next, Bill C‑316 proposes measures designed to make the program's administration more transparent. On the surface of things, it seems to answer a Bloc Québécois demand related to one of our major criticisms of the program, namely, its claim to operate at arm's length from the executive.

Finally, I will address the fact that this program is currently being implemented and administered by the University of Ottawa, but it is impossible to prove that decisions about cases are not politically driven because of the lack of transparency and accountability measures.

First, in terms of transparency, Bill C‑316 states that the organization responsible for administering the court challenges program would be required to report annually on its activities, including disclosure of the list of cases funded during the year. These reports would be tabled before Parliament. The Bloc Québécois believes it is imperative that the reports include not only the cases, but also the recipient organizations, as well as the amounts of money allocated. That is one way Bill C‑316 could be improved. We would also then be able to assess the amount each part of the program receives, in other words, official language rights and human rights. It would be interesting if the report also had to include a list of the unsuccessful applicants.

Second, the fact remains that the court challenges program can be used to fund challenges to Quebec laws, such as the Charter of the French Language and the state secularism law. The crux of the problem is that we cannot pick and choose, based on our political views, which laws should be challenged and which ones should not be, even if we have good reason to believe that some laws that do not pass the test in the Canadian courts would be deemed constitutional under a future constitution of Quebec.

A partial fix for this problem as far as the official languages component of the court challenges program is concerned could involve a program framework that takes an asymmetrical approach to Canada's official languages. Since the Liberal government recognizes that only one of the official languages is at risk, then it should agree to grant program funding only to cases that defend the rights of francophones.

The text of Bill C‑316 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.

Here are a few explanations. From the Bloc Québécois's perspective, the court challenges program has two major flaws in its design. The first is the fact that, historically, the program has helped to undermine the protection of French in Quebec. The second is that, historically, the program was politically oriented and acted as the judicial arm of the executive branch.

Bill C‑316 could potentially fix, or at least mitigate, the second problem we see, namely the program's lack of transparency and independence. This would be brought about by adjustments and improvements, in particular by disclosing in the annual reports not just the cases funded, but also all the amounts granted and the recipient organizations.

As for the first problem, it could also be addressed, but this would require refocusing the vision of Canada's official languages policy, which the Liberal government and its NDP ally just rejected in the review of Bill C‑13. This problem could be solved with amendments to this bill or with future legislation.

The court challenges program has gone through three historical phases. First, the date of the program's creation is significant. The court challenges program was established in 1978 in a very specific context of heightened language tensions and Quebec-Ottawa confrontations following the election of the Parti Québécois in 1976, and the adoption of the Charter of the French Language the following year. We know that Canada's prime minister at the time, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and his government very much disliked Bill 101.

The year after Bill 101 was passed, Ottawa created the court challenges program to subsidize anglophone lobby groups' legal fees from challenging Bill 101. It was not originally a formal program. The Department of Justice decided which cases would be funded and how much they would receive based on its own objectives. This approach obviously put the government in a conflict of interest.

Between 1978 and 1982, the court challenges program funded six cases, half of which challenged Bill 101. At the time, the program was not at all independent. The cases that would be brought before the courts were selected and funded by the executive branch. To assess applications for funding for language rights, a committee was formed by selecting members from among a small group of candidates proposed by agencies that dealt with official languages.

The third version was initially called the language rights support program. The Stephen Harper government, which had cancelled the first program, was forced to create this new program following an out-of-court settlement with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA.

The new and current court challenges program arose from a Liberal campaign promise in 2015. The administration of the program was entrusted to the University of Ottawa. The program relies on two committees of experts to decide which cases can be funded according to two streams, namely human rights and official language rights. We know that there is a bit of bias here.

Currently, through an access to information request, it is possible to find out which cases were supported, but it is impossible to find out who the recipients were and how much money they got from the program. This means that taxpayers cannot find out how the money allocated to the program is being spent. Since the year 2000, the names of individuals or organizations receiving money cannot be disclosed, after a court ruled that applications and funding contracts are protected by attorney-client privilege. That has made it difficult, if not impossible, to access accurate information for at least two decades. Annual reports, when available, contain only general information and mention only examples.

To ensure transparency and accountability, a report by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights recommended that, after a case is filed, the names of those who received funding from the court challenges program and the nature of the cases be disclosed in each annual report, unless such disclosure would prejudice the litigants. It appears that no follow-up has been done in this regard.

During the committee's consideration of Bill C‑13 on modernizing the Official Languages Act, the Bloc Québécois tabled an amendment to have the program administered transparently, with consideration for the rights granted by provincial and territorial language regimes, and mirroring the position of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, to ensure as much transparency as possible. The amendment was rejected with the NDP's support, despite the party's claims about supporting Quebeckers' right to self-determination.

Issues related to the program's transparency and independence came into clear view during the controversy surrounding the $125,000 in funding provided to the English Montreal School Board to mount a legal challenge to Quebec's secularism law.

The Liberal government is hiding behind the program's alleged independence to avoid having to address the fundamental issue: the Canadian government's financial commitment to supporting challenges to Quebec's secularism and language laws.

In addition to the transparency issues, the other problem with the court challenges program is that, although it has been used to advance the rights of francophone minority communities in other provinces, it has also been used to challenge Quebec laws that are designed to promote and protect the French language in Quebec.

That problem stems from the main flaw in Canada's official languages policy, which assumes that there is symmetry between the anglophone and francophone minority communities. That structure, which was designed by Pierre Elliott Trudeau and which the Liberals just refused to change when they modernized the Official Languages Act, pits the interests of Quebec against those of francophones in Canada.

In closing, the francophone communities of Canada have good reason to care about the existence of the court challenges program and to hope that it will be around permanently because it advances their language rights. That is the main reason the Bloc Québécois is not calling for the program to abolished. Rather, we are asking for it to be regulated and modernized.

There are some good things about the court challenges program, but it falls into the official languages trap. This would not be an issue if the Liberal Party and the NDP were willing to accept the solution proposed by the Government of Quebec and the Bloc Québécois, which is to use a differentiated approach in the implementation of the Official Languages Act, or in other words, to stop putting both official languages on equal footing.

If the Liberal government recognizes that only one of the two official languages is at risk—

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

moved that Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act (Court Challenges Program), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is often too easy to take for granted the many rights and freedoms we enjoy as Canadians. Canada is a free, successful country because of the decisions made by those who came before us. We are an open and inclusive democracy in large part because the rights of individuals are respected. Canada is a country where the rule of law operates independently from politicians and where our Constitution protects the rights of Canadians. This is something we should champion. It is something we should celebrate. It is something we must do everything we can to protect.

I introduced Bill C-316 to build upon the good work of previous Parliaments. In the 42nd Parliament, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which I was then a member, as part of our study on access to justice we recommended that the court challenges program, which had previously been cancelled, be recommenced. I am happy to say this was in fact done.

In our report, we also called for enshrining the court challenges program in legislation to enhance its sustainability and to ensure that any government seeking its cancellation in the future would require the approval of Parliament to do so. Bill C-316 would do just that. It would enshrine the court challenges program into Canadian law, providing stability and certainty to the program, and ensuring that it continues to operate predictably. This, in turn, would give greater protection to the rights of Canadians as we continue to provide a mechanism that enables individuals and organizations to challenge laws and regulations that they believe violate their rights.

The court challenges program protects and strengthens constitutional rights. It provides funding for individuals and organizations who wish to bring matters of national importance before the courts.

More specifically, the program provides funding to protect our constitutional and quasi-constitutional rights in matters involving official languages and human rights.

Created in the 1970s, the court challenges program played a key role in helping Canadians clarify and assert their rights, especially with regard to official languages and equality rights.

The program was eliminated in 2006, and our government restored it in 2017. We expanded it to include rights not originally covered, such as specific sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms pertaining to fundamental rights, including democratic rights, freedom of expression, and the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

Over the years, the program has been used many times to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians. It has provided funds to disabled Canadians to help them ensure they are treated fairly. It has helped to clarify the rights of LGBTQ+ people to marry whom they love. 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, where 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.

The court challenges program strengthened the rights of French-language minorities in British Columbia. It helped protect the rights of francophone children to receive French-language education of equivalent quality to that of English-language education.

In its ruling in June 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed the importance of education in the official language of one's choice. The court also recognized the key role that section 23 of the charter plays in the vitality of official language minority communities.

I know that some of my honourable colleagues may ask why we would provide funding to allow people to sue us. I think this asks the wrong question. The right question is why we would fund cases defending the charter, and the answer is that, as we know, the cost of justice can be prohibitively expensive. Justice should not be decided by who has the most money. It is of significant public good that the constitutional rights of Canadians be protected, whether or not they have money.

The value of the court challenges program is that it breathes life into the charter and into the Official Languages Act. It provides meaning to our constitutional rights, particularly by enabling those with lesser means to protect their rights. The program allows matters of merit with significant public impact to be brought forward, regardless of the means of those bringing forward the case.

Other members might wonder if the program allows the federal government to decide which cases receive funding. Does it allow the federal government to sue provincial governments that do not agree?

I can say that the answer to that question is no. The program is independent of the government. It is administered by the University of Ottawa. Funding decisions are made by two groups of independent experts, one for official language rights and the other for human rights.

These committees are made up of experts who are selected based on their expertise in law. The government has no say in which cases receive funding, and the funds are often used to challenge federal decisions or policies.

This is, in fact, a good thing. I think that I can say without much controversy that the government does not always get it right, and it is important that, when policies and laws are put into place, we have a process to review, and possibly correct, these decisions. In a constitutional democracy where the rule of law is paramount, allowing Canadians to bring forward cases when their rights may have been infringed upon is an important part of our constitutional democracy.

We face a great many challenges as Canadians. The world is an uncertain place, but Canada is blessed with tremendous resources and potential. We have some of the best and brightest people in the world, and we have inherited the tremendous institutions that have made us successful: pluralism, freedom of speech and debate, and the opportunity to make a better life for our families. These are the things that bring us together as Canadians.

The rights and the freedoms that we hold dear are critically important to Canada’s success as a country. We must do everything we can to shore up our democracy and protect our constitutional system. By passing Bill C-316 and enshrining the court challenges program into Canadian law, we would be sending a strong message about the importance of protecting the rights of Canadians. It would 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.

I hope members will join me in supporting Bill C-316, so we can better protect our democratic institutions.

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act (Court Challenges Program).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to introduce my private member's bill, which would enshrine the court challenges program into federal law. The court challenges program supports Canadians seeking to bring cases of national significance that protect our constitutional rights. It plays a vital role in ensuring that the government acts within the bounds of the Constitution and the Official Languages Act.

Enshrining this program into legislation would provide greater certainty for the program and allow it to continue its important work well into the future. It would send a strong message about the importance of protecting the rights of Canadians, and it would demonstrate Parliament's shared commitment to ensuring that the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter and the Official Languages Act are respected and upheld.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)