Canadian Heritage Committee on April 18th, 2024

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dendooven.

I really appreciated the stats at the end. Thank you. You came prepared. You had 115 on language rights and 160 on human rights, and 74 cases. That helps everyone around the table here. You came with stats, which is most important as we move forward.

The first round of six minutes goes to the Conservatives. We'll have Mrs. Thomas for six minutes, please.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, and thank you to the officials for being here with us today as well.

My first question has to do with clause 2 of the bill, which doesn't clearly define the term “national significance”. I'm wondering if you can shed some light on that and help us understand what is meant by that term.

[David Dendooven]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the question. I will speak to the program as it currently exists.

When applicants apply for funding, they need to ensure on the application that it meets the test of being a case of national importance—for example, it's a question that a lower court has never addressed before in the past. In other cases, there might be contradictory judgments that have been rendered by the courts.

That gives you some sense of “national importance” in terms of some of the criteria that are addressed.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm sorry, Mr. Dendooven, but I don't know that it does. I actually think that was quite grey.

Essentially, what I'm walking away with is that it's really up to the administrative body to determine whether a case will be heard. It's really up to them. They're using their own made-up criteria to determine which cases fit this definition of “national significance”.

You used the term in your definition. You said that national significance means something of “national importance.” Is there a list? Is there a checklist they can go through? Are there specific criteria they're looking at in order to determine if something is, in fact, of national significance, or is that just up to the administrative body to determine on their own?

[David Dendooven]

There is an MOU between the government and the University of Ottawa, and it goes through the criteria that need to be addressed when they apply for funding.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'll just clarify, then, that there's a list that you're saying they can go through when they apply for funding. Interestingly enough, I tried to access that list, and the site was down when I did so. Perhaps you could table that with the committee.

[David Dendooven]

It's unfortunate, Mr. Chair, that the site was down. I went onto the website this morning, and the site was there.

There is an application form that groups, individuals or non-profits must fill out. It's very clearly indicated what the actual protections are that they can apply for.

I'll give you the example of human rights. For human rights, there are a number of sections for which they can apply for funding because they have a case for which they want to challenge certain laws that are there.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Again, we've been at this for four and a half minutes, and I still don't have a clear understanding of what is meant by “national significance”.

Yes or no: Is there a list that the administrative body is following, a list of criteria that they are using to determine their assessment of these cases and whether they fall into this category of “national significance”? Is that being considered consistently from case to case?

[David Dendooven]

Mr. Chair, I would note—and I didn't mention this—that we do have experts on the panels, the committees, and there are seven of them—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

It really is just a yes or no. Is there a list of criteria that is consistently followed?

[David Dendooven]

Yes, there is.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Okay, five minutes and 14 seconds later, there is a list of criteria that is followed by the administrative body, and it is followed consistently for every single application that is considered.

[David Dendooven]

There is a list that is published, so yes, there is one.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Can it be accessed publicly?

[David Dendooven]

Yes.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Where?

[David Dendooven]

It's on the website of the University of Ottawa, and we can provide that, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Could you?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Is that list of criteria followed in the consideration of every case?

[David Dendooven]

I am not there during the deliberations of the committee of experts, but they are aware of the parameters of the program, of what can and cannot be funded and of what the criteria are that they need to follow when they are assessing applications before them.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Who determines those criteria?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mrs. Thomas. We're at six minutes.

We'll go to the Liberals and Ms. Gainey, please, for six minutes.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I'll take it, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

I'm sorry. Go ahead.

[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?