Canadian Heritage Committee on May 21st, 2024

[Blair McMurren]

That's right. There is now a reference, further to Bill C-13.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I apologize. I am not normally this obtuse.

We have the Official Languages Act, which has the court challenges program in it, and then we have this amendment to recognize that in this private member's bill, or am I off there?

[Blair McMurren]

As I understand it, it's simply to use the same language in Bill C-316 to describe what the program is meant to do.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Okay, so we're amending the Official Languages Act to reflect the language in Bill C-316. That's the original amendment, or do I have that wrong?

[Blair McMurren]

I think it is amending Bill C-316 to reflect what is in Bill C-13.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

We do that in the amendment, and then we add the subamendment to make the language match better, for lack of a better term, with what's in the private member's bill. Is that what we're doing or not?

[Blair McMurren]

The subamendment is seeking to bring language into Bill C-316 from the Official Languages Act, and, as it happens elsewhere in the same bill, from the Department of Canadian Heritage Act.

I don't know if it would be helpful to read out those other two provisions. I could do that.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Yes, that would be very helpful.

[Blair McMurren]

The allusion is to section 7.1 of the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, which was added by Bill C-13. This provision states:

To promote a greater understanding of human rights, fundamental freedoms and related values, the Minister may take measures to provide funding to an organization, independent of the Government of Canada, responsible for administering a program whose purpose is to provide funding for test cases of national significance to be brought before the courts to clarify and assert constitutional human rights.

This is a provision referring to the human rights stream of the court challenges program. There are two streams. There's a human rights stream and an official languages stream. I could read the provision from the Official Languages Act now, if that would be helpful, which corresponds.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Yes, please. Thank you.

[Blair McMurren]

Subsection 43(1) says:

The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society, and to that end may take measures to

Then paragraph (c) says:

provide funding to an organization, independent of the Government of Canada, responsible for administering a program whose purpose is to provide funding for test cases of national significance to be brought before the courts to clarify and assert constitutional and quasi-constitutional official language rights;

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Without the amendment, Mr. Serré's private member's bill would not have sufficient clarity that the Official Languages Act reviews...or court challenges are meant to be administered by this organization independent of the Government of Canada. Have I got that right?

[Blair McMurren]

As I understand it, the amendment would seek to add even more clarity by using identical language from the provisions it's referring to. The original amendment simply referred to section 7.1 and paragraph 43(1)(c). This would go further and spell out in identical language the program we're talking about.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Now it's becoming a little clearer to me.

In the original PMB, it just said “7.1”. In this amendment, we have included the language afterwards, and then we have a subamendment on it, just in case there was any doubt as to the purpose behind the court challenges act—which probably would not have gotten challenged—and to add extra clarity. Have I got that right?

[Blair McMurren]

I believe so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.

I'll go to Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you very much.

I believe you've clarified most of what I needed to have clarified, but just for absolute certainty, I want to make sure of this. It is, then, a bit redundant or repetitive, because it is already being covered off in those previous two acts that have been mentioned. It's taking that language and using it in this bill again.

I just want to make sure. You're saying that being repetitive brings clarity, but is there any chance of that muddying the waters instead of bringing clarity?

[Blair McMurren]

I would venture to say no. I would agree with the statement that it brings extra clarity by using identical language. It has been amalgamated from the two other articles into one, and I believe it would add clarity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mrs. Thomas.

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Méla, I have a quick question. I don't even want to debate the amendment, which doesn't seem to add much or do any harm. However, I wonder about the impact of passing amendment G‑1, subamended or not. If we pass amendment G‑1, will this affect amendments CPC‑1, CPC‑2 and CPC‑3, in the sense that these three amendments won't be moved as a matter of course?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Mr. Méla.

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Champoux, you're right. If amendment G‑1 is passed, subamended or not, amendments CPC‑1, CPC‑2, CPC‑3, NDP‑1, CPC‑4 and CPC‑5 can't be moved as a result of a line conflict.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have no further questions on this topic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

I think I will call the vote on the subamendment.

Mrs. Thomas.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I'd like to—