Canadian Heritage Committee on April 18th, 2024

[David Dendooven]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the member for his question.

The members of the expert panel are selected through an open and transparent process. This morning, for instance, we posted to our website information on an open and transparent process for recruiting candidates willing to sit on the official language rights expert panel. In accordance with the process established from the start, a selection committee reviews the applications. I chair that committee, and I'm here today with a representative of the Department of Justice and an outside representative from the private sector. We identify candidates who meet the criteria we've set.

Next, we conduct interviews, as necessary, with those individuals to ensure they meet the criteria and to assess their knowledge of the field, official languages in this case. We then establish a pool of potential candidates. When positions on the expert panel need to be filled, we send the minister a list of candidates. Once the minister has made a decision regarding a new member on the expert panel, we inform the University of Ottawa, which is responsible for the program, of that decision. I then contact the person in question to inform him or her of the minister's decision and to determine whether that person wishes to accept the position.

We then inform the University of Ottawa that there is a new member on the expert panel and speak with the individual to ensure he or she is well aware of the way the expert panel operates and of the program's parameters. In answering the previous question, I mentioned the criteria for what constitutes a case of national significance, test cases and so on. The members of the expert panel generally meet four times a year to review funding applications submitted to the program and to make their decisions.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

It's a comprehensive process. There's no reason to criticize it or assume it's not an expert panel.

Someone mentioned earlier that the program lacked transparency. Would you please describe the annual reports and what's made public?

[David Dendooven]

Annual reports are required to be prepared under the agreement with the University of Ottawa. They have been published on the website for many years now, along with the testimony of the chairs of the official language rights and human rights expert panels. The last annual report was submitted for the 2022–2023 fiscal year. We expect the 2023–2024 annual report will be released in November, in accordance with the contribution agreement with the University of Ottawa, which outlines the information that it's required to provide us and the documents it must post online for Canadians.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you for that clarification.

We've also heard, outside the committee, that the annual report date specified in clause 3 of the bill might not be consistent with that of the annual report of the current court challenges program.

Would you please explain the discrepancy between those two dates?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Answer quickly, please.

[David Dendooven]

The agreement currently provides that it's November, and that's in order to give the University of Ottawa a chance to assemble the report, statistics and so on. That takes time.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

The date in the bill is—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. Serré. We are over the time.

We'll go to the Bloc and Mr. Champoux for six minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McMurren and Mr. Dendooven, thank you for being with us today.

Exactly what decision-making authority does the University of Ottawa have in selecting cases that are accepted?

[David Dendooven]

As I previously said, I wasn't present during the discussions. My only role is to chair the selection committee to identify members who have met the criteria in an open and transparent process.

It's a decision that's made in committee. A chair directs the discussion in each committee. The University of Ottawa has lawyers. As you can see in the annual report, they sort through the applications submitted to the University of Ottawa and assist the experts in determining whether the applications meet the criterion that test cases of national significance be presented. From what I understand, they develop summaries and submit everything to the panel members.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

The University of Ottawa's mandate was renewed, but when will it expire?

[David Dendooven]

The agreement with the University of Ottawa will expire in 2025.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

All right.

Earlier you mentioned established criteria that had to be met during case selection. To what information can the public have access in the report that the program manager or administrator has to provide every year? Can anyone know the names of the groups that file applications? Can anyone know the purpose of the applications and what's being challenged? Do we have access to those details? Can we also know what applications have been submitted but denied by the program administrator?

Do we have access to that information, Mr. Dendooven?

[David Dendooven]

Thank you for your question.

As I mentioned, the reports are on the website. There's no summary of cases as such, although there are a few examples, but the number of applications for appeal funding and funding to challenge a statute, in particular, appear in certain parts of the report.

That information is there, but the University of Ottawa doesn't indicate which cases have been funded until all appeals—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

—until all cases have concluded. However, we ultimately have access to that information.

[David Dendooven]

That's correct.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

However, can we know what cases have been denied funding? That was the second part of my question.

[David Dendooven]

That's a good question, but I don't have that information.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Would it be possible to send that to the committee?

[David Dendooven]

I don't have access to that information. I'll have to check the agreement with the University of Ottawa to see if we've requested information on denied cases.

I obviously read the agreement in order to prepare for this meeting, but I didn't see any applications of that kind. However, I may have overlooked them.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I'd appreciate it if you could provide that information to the committee once you've had time to check it. You can obviously do that in writing.

Earlier you said it wasn't possible to fund challenges of provincial statutes. You can see where I'm headed with this. I bet you think I'm going to talk about the Act respecting the laicity of the State, Quebec's Bill 21.

In Quebec, there are what I consider absolutely legitimate fears that the government, or groups—pardon me—might use the court challenges program indirectly to challenge Bill 21. As far as you know, are there any mechanisms that could be used to prevent those kinds of schemes? We know that some people are very good at circumventing the system, in this instance in particular.

[David Dendooven]

Thank you for your question.

I'm not involved in the discussions and I don't see the applications. Like you, I learn about certain things by reading the papers.

However, I can tell you that, in the interviews, we make very clear what is and isn't permitted. I also know that the University of Ottawa is reaching an agreement that clearly defines what is and isn't allowed. I'd also say that the people sitting on the official language rights expert panel always have a kind of individual meeting with university representatives at the start so they also know the program's criteria and conditions.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

We move now to Niki Ashton of the New Democratic Party for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, and thank you to the officials who joined us here today.

In our previous hour, we raised the fact that we wished for changes that would have allowed for the further expansion of the bill. We're particularly concerned because legal advocates such as Cindy Blackstock have indicated that it's quite limited and certainly wouldn't be able to be used to support certain key challenges that indigenous groups and communities would put forward.

In the context of the work that the Court Challenges Program already does, how much has been allocated—if you have this number—over the years to court challenges led by first nations, Métis and/or Inuit peoples and groups?