Evidence of meeting #120 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Perhaps members could speak a little more slowly when they're reading out something for us, because some of us are not particularly bright and cannot write as quickly—i.e. me. Just slow down, guys.
Go ahead, Mr. Serré.
Conservative
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Yes.
Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Noormohamed.
My question for the officials, just to piggyback on Mr. Lawrence's question, is on the language. Really, the reason for it is just to bring it into alignment with Bill C-13.
Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
That's correct. We just want to avoid potential legal incoherence between the two laws involved.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
Thanks, Madam Chair.
What was proposed here was to make the act align with Bill C-13, and what I would like to do at the end of what Mr. Noormohamed just presented is submit a subamendment. I would ask the clerk to circulate it to all committee members.
While you're doing that, I'll just read it out if that's okay, Madam Chair.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
At the end, where you have “the Government of Canada”, we'd add:
and 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 and constitutional human rights that are guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and
That would be the language. My understanding is that all members will receive the subamendment.
Essentially, this addition, the subamendment, looks at the court challenges program. Obviously, we all know that it helps to empower the most vulnerable Canadians to fight for their rights under the charter. In that way, it helps make the charter stronger and connects it with the needs and challenges of the people who are most in need of its protection.
The subamendment emphasizes the importance of the charter. It is a timely subamendment given the recent promises by the leader of the Conservative Party to take away the charter rights of some groups with the notwithstanding clause.
It's really important that we emphasize this. I just want to make sure that this clause has this part.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Mr. Serré.
Is it an amendment, Taleeb? I still have difficulty understanding if it's an amendment or not.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
All right. Before we go to the amendment, let's deal with Mr. Serré's subamendment.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Could we suspend? This is substantive.
Liberal
Liberal
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you very much.
I would be happy if either Mr. Serré or the officials could respond to my question.
This is what appears to be a substantive amendment, and I'll be candid: I don't fully understand the impact of it.
I'll start with the officials. Maybe they would be kind enough to provide us with the impact of this subamendment.
Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
It appears to us that this amendment would add descriptive language around the program that is very consistent with the references elsewhere in the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Official Languages Act. It uses almost identical language in describing the program.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I am legitimately and sincerely just trying to understand. You don't need to assign blame, and I don't want you to do that, but was it an omission to not have this in the initial language? Is the purpose to clarify or is it to validate?
My understanding is that this legislation is to allow for court challenges. In other words, it is for individuals to bring claims that are funded by the federal government against missteps by the federal government. The subamendment inserts “to provide funding for test cases”. I thought that was the whole purpose of it, but we didn't have that in there before. Is it somewhere else?
I am sincerely and legitimately just trying to understand why this was not in there before and why it's in there now.
Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
The original amendment I think was a little more factual. It referred to the relevant articles of the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Official Languages Act without getting into the description. The subamendment appears to bring in some language that is descriptive but very closely aligned. The language around “test cases of national significance” is identical to what appears in those other articles.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I appreciate everyone's patience here.
The amendment brings this program to the Official Languages Act, if I have that correct, or am I off there? That is the original amendment, not the subamendment. Is that right?
Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
That's right. The original amendment is establishing the connection between the clause in Bill C-316 and a clause in the Official Languages Act that refers to the court challenges program. It's also trying to establish a connection to a reference to the court challenges program in a different section of the Department of Canadian Heritage Act.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Under the Official Languages Act there is a court challenges program. Is that correct?
