Canadian Heritage Committee on April 18th, 2024

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

First off, I just want to clarify that I also don't support going forward with this. I'm concerned that we're going by anything that the National Post is writing, frankly, and I think this merits a broader discussion.

I am also disappointed that the Conservatives are interrupting a study on the Court Challenges Program, a program they cut when they were in power, to talk about this, so let's get back to the meeting today.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Ms. Ashton, and we will.

Ms. Thomas, you have one minute and 40 seconds remaining on your six-minute round. Thank you.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I would just remind the honourable member that the six minutes are mine, and I can use them as I wish.

This was a really important motion that I brought forward today, and I am confused as to why the Liberals wouldn't grant unanimous consent when we have evidence there is anti-Semitic rhetoric and conduct taking place on university campuses across this country. The Liberal government has signed off on, and committed to, a Canada anti-racism strategy, and it is incumbent upon the Minister of Canadian Heritage to abide by her mandate, which is to foster and promote Canadian identity and values, cultural development and heritage. I would certainly hope that anti-Semitism does not belong within the definition of that.

There was an opportunity here today for us all to agree to something that seems quite collaborative in nature. All of us should agree that it is wrong to perpetuate hate toward the Jewish community in Canada, and I'm confused and grieved, actually, by the fact that I wasn't given unanimous consent to move that motion forward today.

That's me, but further to that, I'm concerned about the Jewish community and I'm concerned about how the current government that's in power treats that community. I'll leave it there for now.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

You still have 30 seconds, if you wish.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. McKinnon, I would be curious as to your purpose in moving this bill.

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

As I mentioned in my remarks, one of the recommendations of our “Access to Justice” study on the 42nd Parliament justice committee was to make the Court Challenges Program permanent and to be enshrined in law, and that's precisely what this—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you.

We move to the Liberals now.

Ms. Gainey, you have a total of six minutes.

[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]

I would have to say that mainly we relied on the report of the justice committee from the 42nd Parliament and on the experience we had with witnesses on that committee as well. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an essential part of our democracy, of our Constitution. Not having these constraints on government action built in puts our democracy at risk, and we certainly recognize that. I certainly recognize that, and I didn't talk to a lot of external stakeholders about this beyond that point.

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

I know that in your home province of B.C. there's a very vibrant francophone community. How does that part of your province feel about this legislation? Would you speak a bit more about its roots there?

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

I certainly have heard no dissenting voices around this bill. The francophone communities in my neighbourhood are very strong and vital, and they certainly recognize the value of the official bilingual program and the ability of small groups like themselves to take action to preserve their rights as necessary.

In my community, not too far from where I live, in fact, there is a school devoted to francophone students, mainly from francophone families. We put our own children in French immersion from grade 1 onward, and they emerged fully bilingual. While I struggle with the language—and I can read, too, a little bit, to the painful ears of francophones—they are fluently bilingual. I see this across the country as a consequence of official bilingualism.

In Red Deer, where I grew up, you'd almost never hear French, but now wherever I am in Alberta, such as Calgary, or even in British Columbia, I can walk on the street or go into a restaurant and occasionally catch a snippet of French. It shows that the language is thriving and alive across the country, and I think that's in large measure due to the official bilingualism program. That is supported and sustained by measures such as the Court Challenges Program.

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

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I have family as well in the interior, in Kamloops, with nieces and nephews at a French school there. Their capacity in French is really remarkable and wonderful to see when we visit. When they visit Montreal, it's wonderful to see their ability to participate here in French as well.

Could you share with us about the cuts to this program that took place under the Harper government and the impact they had on the Court Challenges Program?

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

As I recall, a comment made by then prime minister Harper at the time asked why we would pay for people to sue us. I think that is a problematic perspective. It's the wrong question. I think about it differently. The cost of justice can be prohibitively expensive, so justice should not be decided by who has the most money. It's a significant public good that the constitutional rights of Canadians be protected, whether or not they have money.

That's the point of the Court Challenges Program. People who are well-heeled and affluent can take matters to court on their own dime, but people who are less well off need their rights to be protected as well. They can make application to the Court Challenges Program to help them fund their initiative. If it's seen by the panellists who administer this program to be of sufficient public value, they will arguably get funded. That means that justice is available to people of all walks of life at all economic levels.

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

I agree with you. It's been a very important tool to protect rights.

Our government, I believe, doubled the budget for this program in 2023, and the support, I think, has been important and meaningful from that point of view.

What is the message that you want to leave for this committee about the importance of this bill being passed?

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

I think it sends a strong message that we care about individual rights and about the rights of liberty, freedom of conscience and so forth. It means that we will continue, irrespective of the government of the day, to be able to support people who need access to justice.

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

Very good. Thanks very much.

I have no further questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Ms. Gainey. You were right on the six minutes.

We'll move to the Bloc with Mr. Champoux, please.

[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?

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

No, I have not.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

No? You really surprise me. Do you mean that one of the regions of Canada where this program is most used and most sought after—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Hold on, Mr. Champoux. We're not getting translation in English here for some reason.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Is the interpretation back?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Go ahead, Mr. Champoux. I'm sorry.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. McKinnon, I was surprised by your answer that you hadn't consulted any groups in Quebec, because that's probably where the court challenges program is most used and, in many instances, against the statutes and regulations enacted by the Quebec government, or rather the National Assembly of Quebec. I'm surprised you didn't see fit to consult Quebec groups to see what impact the program might be having on them.

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

Well, as I mentioned earlier, I was motivated mostly by the outcome of the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, at which time we did hear from many stakeholders from across the country.

I don't believe that this contradicts anything in the national legislature of Quebec. It would merely provide funding for people who have a case to bring their case before the courts to protect their rights if the court challenges administrators felt it was of sufficient public interest.

It does not change the law around official languages; it merely means that people who feel that their rights have been abridged in some way will have some recourse to take that up before the court, irrespective of whether they have the personal funds to do so, and I think that's critically important for justice. Justice should not depend on whether or not you have enough money.