Canadian Heritage Committee on May 21st, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry, Niki.

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

It's fine. I want to propose a subamendment to G-1 if that's still possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

It is possible to have a subamendment, yes.

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

I propose the following subamendment—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Excuse me, Niki.

Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I believe I was next on the speaking list, and I believe you called on me and then got distracted.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

I interrupted. I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I thought you were no longer going to speak and Mr. Waugh was speaking. I'm so sorry, Mrs. Thomas.

Go ahead and speak.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Okay, thank you.

I would like to offer a subamendment to G-1. I apologize. I am having to act on the spot here, so I'm trying to figure out exactly how to fit it in best.

After “independent of the Government of Canada”—so at the end of G-1—I would insert the following:

and that the program be overseen by a board of directors composed of members appointed following consultations with each of the political parties represented in the House of Commons,

Then it would continue with the subamended text.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Could you please read that again, Mrs. Thomas?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

At the end of G-1, I would insert—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You mean G-1 as amended by the subamendment of Mr. Serré.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

At the end of G-1, I would insert:

and that the program be overseen by a board of directors composed of members appointed following consultations with each of the political parties represented in the House of Commons,

Then it would continue with the subamendment that has been added to the text.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

The significance of this subamendment is that it would make the entity non-partisan. It would allow there to be accountability, whoever is in government at the time, rather than allowing for an appointment to be made just by that government. It would allow for each political party to be consulted, to have input. Ultimately, the final decision would come from the minister, but it would at least allow for consultation, which allows for cross-party bridges to be built. That would be the hope.

This comes out of testimony we heard from numerous witnesses, who talked about the fact that the court challenges program can be good and can be used for good. However, it can also become partisan in nature because, of course, whoever happens to be the government at the time can flex in that decision-making process.

Over the years, we've observed the Liberals and the Conservatives and how they've managed it. This subamendment would allow all parties to be part of the decision-making process with the board of directors, therefore hopefully achieving a more non-partisan approach.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mrs. Thomas.

Seeking to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act to maintain the court challenges program and appoint the members of the board overseeing the program would result in payments out of the public treasury and would require a royal recommendation. That's because House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

I'm ruling that subamendment inadmissible.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

If I may....

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

There is already an entity that has been put in charge of the court challenges program, and within that entity, there's a board of directors. I'm not asking to appoint a new board of directors. I'm not asking to spend extra money.

Within the framework of the program, there is already an arm's-length entity in charge. I'm asking that the parties have input on who is at the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I hear your explanation. I'm going to ask Mr. Méla to tell me what he thinks of that suggestion.

I'm being told there is no debate. I'm ruling it inadmissible, so you may have to challenge the chair.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Okay. I'm not sure how this works. We're asking for a subamendment to be drafted, so perhaps legal could bring that to our attention so we have an opportunity to draft something that could be admissible. I was set up for failure, if that's the case.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Méla, would you answer, please?

[Philippe Méla]

For all members, you can always consult us before submitting amendments officially. We will get back to you if there is a royal recommendation issue or if there is an issue with the scope or principle of the bill. We can then work to fix the problem if the problem is fixable.

In this case, because the members of the board are appointed, it means anybody could be paid out of the CRF. Once you appoint somebody, the Interpretation Act provides for the payment of these people. They could be the ones you're mentioning or other people.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

The process at this committee is insane. Thank you.

It's very troubling. I have been a part of this process at other committees, and generally, there are two things that happen that are not happening here.

First, we are given a heads-up if something is determined inadmissible so that we have the opportunity to suggest something different. To surprise me at the table today is unfair. I worked with legal to accomplish an end. This was the way they recommended I achieve that end. Taking their expert advice, I've come to the table in good faith thinking I would be able to accomplish that end. I never wanted to spend money. That was not a part of what I asked to do.

That's a letdown. As a legislator, I have been let down by the system, so I'd like to know how that can be remedied, because it is very serious. It's actually a violation of my parliamentary privilege to come to this table with confidence and move exactly what I intend to move.

Second, the other process that is not going the way it needs to today is when an amendment is read out. To my colleague's point, we need to know what effect it will have on other amendments coming after. To withhold that information from us is, again, a violation of our parliamentary privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mrs. Thomas, I couldn't rule on your amendment until you actually moved it. I ruled on it, telling you it was inadmissible because of the decision on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. That's all I can do. I cannot presume to know what's going to happen.

If you spoke to legal and you say legal said this was okay to do, I guess we'll have to find out what happened. I am just reading out to you that this is inadmissible because of the reasons I gave you. I am following the rules. I cannot make these decisions. I am not legal and I'm not a lawyer. I'm running this committee the way it should be run according to procedure.

Also, I read out the procedure as soon as you finished reading out your subamendment. I couldn't do it before you read your subamendment, because I didn't know what you were going to say.