Canadian Heritage Committee on May 9th, 2024

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

Certainly, speaking on behalf of West Coast LEAF, which is an organization focused on gender equality and substantive equality—which means equal protection of the law and equal benefit of the law for all people—what's important for us is that this really is the case.

In terms of cases that come before the CCP for consideration, what's important is that those be considered on the basis of the legal questions that are at issue. There is the importance of those legal questions to the development of constitutional law and the impact of outcomes, not only on one community necessarily, but on a broader range of communities.

I think it's very important that we take the focus out of individual cases and individual context because this program is also about the development of constitutional law, recognizing that we live in a society and in a legal system that is based on precedent. Cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada that relate to one area have legal implications for people across the country.

I think that's really an important consideration for this committee. As you consider the cases that the CCP might be looking at, take it out of individual context or individual communities and recognize that constitutional law doesn't develop just in one context; it develops for everyone.

That's an important aspect of, for instance, the intervenor process that the CCP program funds, which allows groups that might be impacted by a case to also participate in those legal proceedings to ensure that the wider implications are before the court.

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

Thank you for that.

I understand that it's clear that you would think the bill would benefit from strengthening the assurances made for access to all communities.

Is that correct?

[Humera Jabir]

Absolutely.

Certainly, I think it's very important that those who are marginalized and who face intersecting forms of discrimination in our society have access to justice. It's important that rule of law is premised on access to justice. Our charter rights and human rights depend on that access.

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

In your view, is it appropriate for the program to be limited to test cases?

[Humera Jabir]

It really depends on how a test case is defined. The CCP seems to define that in a broader way at the current moment to consider issues that courts have not necessarily addressed before.

However, it is also important that the CCP deal with cases as they come forward. As an example, there could be a case that's brought to prevent the rollback of a benefit that is provided by the government, as well as cases that deal with novel issues that may not necessarily be novel legal issues, but address legal issues in a novel context.

A test case can be one way of framing that, but it should be interpreted broadly by the program.

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

In your view, how important is the privilege relationship between the program and its grant recipients? Also, why must we strive to maintain a balance between transparency and this privilege relationship?

[Humera Jabir]

The key aspect here, and I stated this in my opening remarks, is that if we go back to the charter, it is a negative rights document. It prevents the infringement of people's rights by the government. Litigation related to the charter, as well as other human rights litigation, is necessarily adversarial, and the government is on the other side.

The worst-case scenario for anyone who is involved in constitutional litigation or involved in this program would be to see the politicization of funding such that a case that's brought forward that has serious issues...the funding is limited or pulled for a political reason. That's where the privilege relationship is important, and that's what the committee must focus on. That transparency must be balanced with independence and the protection of the applicants to the extent that their litigation may not be damaged or interfered with because it isn't in favour of the government, which it may not necessarily be. It may run counter, and likely runs counter, to government interests. I think that's the key concern.

On the question of litigation privilege, the government has litigation privilege, and it's important for this committee to consider why parties that, because of their need, seek funding in order to access justice should have to give up their litigation privilege, and the equity concerns around that. This is because they access what, I would say, could be a small amount of funding compared to the total cost of litigation that a party might have to encounter in order to bring their claim forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry, Patricia. I forgot the one-minute call. I was just going to give you a 30-second call, so if you want to—

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

Okay. I'm sorry.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Our colleague asked for a one-minute call. It would be a courtesy on the part of the committee to give her the one minute she asked for in order to share the floor with her colleague.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry, Martin, something's wrong with my volume.

Can you begin again?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, before she began speaking, Ms. Lattanzio asked that you inform her one minute before the end of her turn. I think it would be a courtesy to at least give her the minute she asked for so she could share the floor with her colleague.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

If the committee is unanimously in favour, I'm fine with that. Everyone seems to be nodding.

Go ahead, Patricia. You have a minute.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll cede the one minute that's left to my colleague.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to move the motion put forward by MP Noormohamed last week, which was sent to all members of the committee. The motion reads as follows:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of no less than four meetings to study the concerning rise in far-right extremism in Canada, that study include how far right extremism plays a role in misinformation and disinformation; how to better support preventable measures for ideologically motivated extremism in Canada and the connection between far-right extremism and harassment towards journalists, women, Indigenous Peoples, Black, and racialized communities, members of the 2SLGBTQI+ community and religious minorities; that the committee report it’s findings and recommendations to the House; and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you. Has everyone received a copy of that motion?

Clerk, do we have a copy of this motion that was not distributed or that you received?

[The Clerk]

It was distributed on May 2. I can print out a copy for the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We will suspend while everyone gets a copy of it, because I don't have a copy of it.

We're suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm going to explain to the witnesses that a motion has been moved, and it's going to have to be dealt with right now, so I'm going to ask you to stand by. Maybe we can deal with this motion very quickly. If we see that it's not going to be dealt with quickly, we may have to come to some other conclusion and decide on how to let the meeting move forward.

We will begin.

Niki Ashton, is your hand up?

Is Michael's hand up? All right. Okay then.

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

I want to make an amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We'll put you on the list.

Ms. Romanado, would you like to speak to your motion?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Other than to say that I support it, I will cede the floor to the next speaker.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We will go to Mrs. Thomas.