Canadian Heritage Committee on April 18th, 2024

[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?

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

Thank you for the question.

I don't know that they're not available. I believe the work of the various advisory committees is available. I haven't checked that myself.

I should point out that this bill does not create the Court Challenges Program. It does not add to its scope of action and it does not reduce it. Really, the whole point of the bill is to make it harder to get rid of it. If some future government decides that we don't want people to be able to take us to court, then they have to change the law to change it back. For me to expand the nature of the Court Challenges Program, to expand it or change it officially, would probably result in more expenses, and it is not possible to undertake that in a private member's bill without getting a royal recommendation.

Also, from my experience in this place, I understand that if you try to do too much in a private member's bill, you're most likely not going to succeed. The best thing to do is to take small bites that you can swallow and not choke on.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I understand from what you say is that you're open to certain amendments, even if the decision in that regard is made by the committee.

In closing, I'd like to know if you think that, to qualify under a court challenges program such as the one made available to Quebeckers and Canadians, applicants should be required to prove that they don't have the necessary financial resources to bear the cost of the court cases they undertake.

Should that funding be reserved for organizations whose financial resources are too limited for them to go to court?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Give a quick answer, please.

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

I believe it's up to the advisory body to decide that. They know the funding they have available and they know how to allocate it, and they make the decision on whether a given case is of sufficient public import and whether the people bringing the case have the need of their support.

I have—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you. We're going to move on. We're way over time here.

We'll go to the NDP and Ms. Ashton for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. McKinnon, for presenting this private member's bill to us today.

For linguistic minorities, for women and for indigenous people, the Court Challenges Program matters. Its objective is to provide financial support to Canadians to bring before the courts test cases of national significance that aim to clarify and to assert certain constitutional and quasi-constitutional official language rights and human rights.

Over its nearly 30-year history, from 1978 to 2006, the program funded more than 500 cases and interventions. These included a landmark ruling affirming sexual orientation as protected from discrimination, ruling out the defence of implied consent in sexual assault cases and confirming Métis and non-status rights as constitutionally protected.

It's also a program constantly under threat, whether it's by Liberals due to a lack of funding or by Conservatives who have twice cut the Court Challenges Program completely—once under Mulroney, who originally expanded it but then decided to withdraw financial support, and then again under Harper in 2006. Conservatives clearly like their challenges underfunded and under-resourced.

Multiple committees, civil society and others have recommended that the government enshrine the Court Challenges Program in legislation in order to enhance its sustainability and to ensure any cancellation would require the approval of Parliament.

Are you, Mr. McKinnon, worried that a future Conservative government would cancel a court challenges program, absent this legislation?

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

Yes, absolutely.

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

Great.

Would you like to expand on that, based on the work you did previously in committee, or would you like to share some more thoughts?

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

I was quite thrilled by your comments. I'd like to subscribe to everything you said. I certainly agree with you 100%.

This is an important program. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has to be more than a certificate on the wall; it has to be something we can test things on in real life. It is said that all roofs don't leak when it's not raining. If you want to find out if the roof is worth its while, you have to see what happens when it rains. It's the same with rights. If we can't test them against the law, if we can't bring a case of what we believe to be wrongdoing before a court to have it tested and measured, the law means nothing.

We have to make access to justice and access to protection of our rights available to everyone, particularly everyone with lower means, so that their rights are protected. People who are wealthy can afford to fund their own measures, but people who have less means are not as able to do so, and they need help. That's the real purpose of the Court Challenges Program.

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

Thank you very much for that.

Since the Court Challenges Program was reinstated in 2017, 107 court cases related to official languages have been funded by the program. As the official languages critic for the NDP and as someone who played a significant role in passing Bill C-13, the modernization of official languages bill, which involved enshrining funding for the official languages rights and human rights branches of the Court Challenges Program, I recognize how important this work is.

The federal government doesn't always get it right, though, and even with the changes made to the Official Languages Act, we know that more challenges will occur. The official languages branch of the Court Challenges Program currently uses one-quarter of its total spending. Are you satisfied with this number? Where do you think it should be? Should it be increased and, if so, by how much? What are your thoughts?

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

I don't have a specific number. If it's only using a quarter of its capacity, I'm wondering if they're not getting the cases that they feel are worthwhile or whether they're reserving funds for longer-term cases that might have to go all the way up to the Supreme Court. I don't know, but I certainly think it's important.

It behooves us as a government and it behooves Parliament to make sure that programs like this, and particularly this program, are well funded and that the mandates of the advisory committees are sufficient to do so.

I would like to see the scope of the Court Challenges Program enlarged beyond what it is. That's certainly not within the scope of a private member's bill, and it would require a royal recommendation. Taking too big a bite is often a mistake in private members' bills, so I'm looking just to make the thing permanent so that it's going to be difficult—not impossible, but certainly very difficult—for future governments of whatever description to get rid of it.

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

Okay. Thank you for that.

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

You have one minute and 47 seconds.

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

Speaking of expanding, we know that advocates like Cindy Blackstock, who is well versed on taking your government to court, and more broadly the federal government, has been clear that this legislation doesn't go far enough, particularly in terms of indigenous women's rights.

If we recognize that indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities and women face unique challenges in this country in terms of their rights and that the Court Challenges Program, even with this legislation, won't meet those needs, why not expand it?

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

I am totally in favour of expanding it; it's just not within the scope of this bill, nor did I believe that it would be in the appropriate scope of action for a private member's bill. I think we have to take baby steps to move this along, certainly in a private member's context. Let's get this permanent, and then maybe we can add some body to it the next time around.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. McKinnon.

Thank you, Ms. Ashton.

Mr. McKinnon, we're getting a little interference from your mic, so can you mute it when you're not speaking, and then, when you're asked a question, turn it back on? We're getting a little bit of interference when other people are asking questions. If you would be diligent about that, it would be appreciated for the officials here.

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

I admit the error of my ways. I shall try to correct them.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Oh, that's fine.

This is the second round. It is a five-minute round.

We have Mrs. Thomas for the Conservatives.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. McKinnon, I'm wondering if there is anything in this bill that would require the program to report to the heritage department and to Parliament which cases were funded and at what level the financial support was given.

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

No. The goal of this piece of legislation is simply to make it permanent. It essentially changes a word from “may” to “shall” in terms of whether it should be funded.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. McKinnon, there are public dollars being used for this program. It does say that cases are supposed to be selected according to the national interest. In your view, should there not therefore be some transparency around that?

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

I'm all in favour of transparency, but that's really a factor of the Court Challenges Program itself. This bill is intended just to make the Court Challenges Program permanent, not to fundamentally alter the program.

Having said that, I think the more transparency we can achieve in this situation, the better, and certainly more funding and whatnot as well. I'd be quite happy to do that, but I just don't think it's within the scope of action of a private member's bill.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

If an amendment was brought forward calling for greater transparency around the selection of cases and the dollars attributed to those cases, would you be in favour of that?

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

As I said, I agree with those things, but I don't know if that would be possible, because it would change the fundamental purpose of the bill that was referred by the House.

However, I certainly wouldn't oppose it myself. That's really a matter for the committee to decide.