Canadian Heritage Committee on May 23rd, 2024

[Blair McMurren]

I take it from the language that this could include communities seeking funding through the program and affected by the outcomes of those cases. It's potentially other communities, perhaps, that aren't accessing the program to the extent possible at the moment, for whatever reason.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm sorry. Isn't that rather wide in scope and grey, in terms of who's being consulted here and what's being reported on?

[Blair McMurren]

I would agree.

It's a general reference to the potential communities that could be the object of this outreach. I took it to be a fairly neutral reference, but I accept the point that it could refer to a variety of different communities that aren't specified here.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Without it being specified, it would really be left up to the organization responsible for administering the program to determine which groups they want to be transparent about and which groups they just don't care to include in their report.

Is that correct?

[Blair McMurren]

I would comment, based on the current annual reporting done by the program, that they take a very inclusive approach to showcasing, such as highlighting the kinds of cases that receive support from the program. I have no reason to believe that it wouldn't continue on the basis of this amendment. An inclusive approach would be taken.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

In your estimation, then, would every group that is consulted be included in the report?

[Blair McMurren]

I think that would be a reasonable assumption.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Is that the way things are currently done?

[Blair McMurren]

My comment would be that the university does an excellent job at the moment of highlighting a number of different aspects of what they do in the annual report, and they touch on a number of different affected communities.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

I wasn't asking for an assessment as to whether or not you think they're doing a good job. I don't know that it's appropriate for you to comment on that.

Rather, my question to you is this: Is this the current practice, and is every group consulted equally reported on?

[Blair McMurren]

At the moment, the cases that are highlighted in the annual report are selective. There are a certain number under each stream of the program that are described in a little more detail currently, so they are selective by definition. Not every possible community is showcased, but a certain breadth is showcased. The program makes an attempt to show a certain breadth of the range of communities that are benefiting from the program currently.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you. I do appreciate that, because I think that is the honest answer.

Ultimately, it is up to the administrative body to determine which groups they want to give more attention to and which groups they don't. We wouldn't know that, because there's very little transparency and a whole lot of secrecy around this program. I appreciate your confirming that.

I have no further comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Thomas.

I now have Mr. Gourde.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

There's a typo in the French version of the subamendment. It says “desactivités” when it should be two words, “des activités.” As this typo could change the meaning of the amendment, it should be corrected before we vote on this subamendment.

Should I repeat what I just said?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Is everything okay, Mr. Serré? Good.

We have Mr. Champoux and then Ms. Ashton.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I must confess that I'm puzzled by this subamendment. It leaves me somewhat dubious. In fact, a host of images come to mind. I'd like to know what the words “outreach and promotional activities” imply. Would this involve parties with hot dogs and corn roasts for targeted groups to explain the Court Challenges Program? I'd like someone to explain what the outreach activities would consist of. I'm making jokes, but it does worry me somewhat.

We're facing some rather troubling situations in Quebec. Groups are taking advantage of this program to challenge Quebec laws. I don't doubt for a moment that the program is extremely useful. It is essential for francophone communities outside Quebec. It has saved francophone institutions outside Quebec, which is wonderful. In Quebec, however, it's not being used in quite the same way. Nor is the reality exactly the same. The fact that we're talking about outreach activities worries me a lot.

I'd like my colleague Mr. Serré, who proposed the subamendment, to explain what he means by “outreach and promotional activities that have been carried out with groups affected by these cases.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Mr. Serré.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Those are activities that are already proposed in Bill C‑13, which is linked to this one. The purpose of this subamendment is to use common terms. Perhaps Mr. Champoux would like more information on this subject.

I don't know if Mr. McMurren has more specific information on this, but I can tell you that we're certainly not talking about corn roasts and the like. Come on! Let's try to be professional.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I understand, Mr. Serré, that we're not talking about corn roasts. You can understand that I'm just adding some colour to something I find rather worrisome.

That being said, I find it a bit rich that you use the wording in Bill C-13 and consider the use of that wording justified for a subamendment when, just a few minutes ago, you voted against an amendment, which I thought was absolutely justified, in which that wording was used in exactly the same way.

In short, I find it a bit peculiar to talk about outreach activities. I have nothing against promoting the Court Challenges Program, making it known to different groups, in general, in Quebec and Canada. However, I'm somewhat dubious about the wording of the subamendment, which talks about outreach activities. That seems like a trap I would rather avoid.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right. Now we have Ms. Ashton, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Lawrence.

Niki.

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

Thank you very much.

I want to indicate that I think this subamendment, which is a reflection of something we've put forward for later on.... I'm not sure if it's going to get cancelled out as well.

[Technical difficulty—Editor] our amendment comes from, but witnesses like West Coast LEAF and others have made it clear that it's important to engage in consultations with organizations and groups for whom the court challenges program is applicable. It's important to respect the testimony brought forward by those witnesses. I'm a bit concerned that we're minimizing important testimony we heard from witnesses who presented at our committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Ashton.

It's over to Ms. Thomas and then to Mr. Lawrence.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair, but I'm just on the list. I've already spoken to this. I wish to speak to the amendment when we come back to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We're still on the subamendment. I'm sorry.

Mr. Lawrence, I just wanted to clarify something. You commented that the government should get its act together. This is a private member's bill, not a government bill.

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

I'm completely aware of that. That was my comment. That's why I didn't say they were the government. I said they were from the governing party.

They have considerable resources that we opposition parties don't have, even when drafting a private member's bill, and access to the civil service that we do not. I just find it odd—