Canadian Heritage Committee on May 23rd, 2024

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Sure, I have another subamendment that I would like to move, then. It's based on CPC-3. I would offer the following subamendment. After the line “independent of the Government of Canada”, I would insert:

to be overseen by a panel whose members are selected independently based on criteria that are made public and for which the final membership selection decision shall be tabled in each House of Parliament

If it's helpful, Madam Chair, I'm happy to type that up and provide it to the clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Did you add another phrase to it or a clause—I don't know, Ms. Thomas—to the one we already have written here?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I only caught half of what you said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry. I asked if you added an extra phrase or clause to the one we already have here. I sense that's what you did, but I'm not sure.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'll repeat my subamendment.

Within G-1 as amended, I would insert after “independent of the Government of Canada”, the following: “to be overseen by a panel whose members are selected independently based on criteria that are made public and for which the final membership selection decision shall be tabled in each House of Parliament”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

She's added just the first part of it.

For those of you who want to know exactly what went on, I'm having to borrow Mr. Méla's notes, because my notes disappeared somewhere. In fact, for those of you who have not heard, if you have CPC-3 in front of you, what Ms. Thomas is moving is after “ministered program”. She's not moving that, but it goes:

to be overseen by a panel whose members are selected independently based on criteria that are made public and for which the final membership selection decision shall be tabled in each House of Parliament

Do you all have that one? This is admissible. Is there any discussion?

Philip.

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

I want to move through this expeditiously, so I'll make my comments very brief.

I think it's a great idea to have an independent panel overseeing. We've all seen governments of all stripes that have shown partisanship in the past, and we would hate for this program to be tainted by partisanship, whether that be an NDP, Green Party, Liberal or Conservative government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, Ms. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just to provide context for this subamendment, again, we heard from a number of witnesses that greater independence is needed so that this program is carried out in a similar manner regardless of which government is in power or which party is in power. In addition to that, there would be greater transparency and greater accountability.

These all seem like fairly common-sense principles that we would want: independence, transparency and accountability. It's just calling for those things around the way this program is overseen or administered, in order to make sure it's not partisan and that the government isn't interfering in terms of the types of cases that are selected for funding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Is there further discussion?

Kevin, did you have your hand up? Go ahead.

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

I did. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I agree with this. When I was going through the budget, there was a lot of money not spent—hundreds of thousands of dollars, actually. I was concerned with the accountability on this bill, the money being put forward into Bill C-316 and the money that is there today.

I think the accountability is one that I'm really concerned with in this bill. We're putting money into a bill that already has hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I would like to ask the officials, Madam Chair, if you don't mind, about my concern. When I looked at what was in the bill and how much money was there, I was shocked that there were hundreds of thousands of dollars, and yet this government is going to put even more in there. Fiscally, I was just concerned about that.

Mr. McMurren, I would like to get your perspective on this, because when I first looked at the bill, I was shocked at the hundreds of thousands that were not spent, and we're putting more money into this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. McMurren.

[Blair McMurren, Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I might just seek to clarify that the question is regarding the money flowed to the court challenges program by the Department of Canadian Heritage. I don't believe the bill to be proposing anything related to an increase in the finances of the program, for example.

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

There seemed to be a lot of money in that department, like in this bill, that has not been used. It could sit there for how long? Who knows? I just had some concerns over this. It's not that I'm expecting 100,000 submissions. I'm not, but when I see a substantial amount of money in this pool, I'm a little concerned. That's my point on this. There seemed to be a lot of money there.

Listen, I wish we had no cases on this, but I understand there will be some cases, and the varying amounts of money needed to take part in something like this, I also realize, is substantial.

[Blair McMurren]

Thank you for the clarification.

I would just remind members, because I think it's related and it's underlying the question, that there was an announcement in budget 2023 regarding the doubling of the program budget from $5 million annually to $10 million annually. That is the case, and that is under way. The ramp-up is under way.

The university is in the process of planning for the receipt of the new monies and how they will be used. The two independent expert panels are obviously involved in planning for how that's going to happen. There are some parameters around it. For example, a minimum of 30% of the total funds will be dedicated to official language rights cases. Some of the original parameters of the modernized program will continue.

To the point around the surpluses that appear in public accounting around the program, I think something important to point out is that it's sort of related to the complexities of the legal cases that the program funds. There are situations in which surpluses return to the program if the money is not required by litigants. There's a financial complexity to the management of the program that the university works through on a continual basis, effectively, as those monies return.

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

That's part of the accountability that I sought on this, and that's why I agree with CPC-3. It would keep it above board, and we could see the accountability.

That was the reason I asked the question. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you. Shall we call the question?

Sorry, Ms. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Chair, I apologize. I will add my comments at a later time. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Seeing no other comments, shall I call the question on the subamendment that Ms. Thomas just tabled?

Clerk, we may need to call a vote.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We now move on to the original G-1, tabled by Mr. Noormohamed. We are going to vote on this.

Ms. Thomas, is your hand a new hand?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Yes, it is. Thank you.

I wish to move a subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

To G-1 as amended, I wish to move a subamendment that incorporates CPC-4. For reference, for those who wish to look at that, it is after the line that reads, “and whose purpose is to provide funding for test cases of national significance”. This is the subamended portion. After “test cases of national significance”, I would insert the following: “that relate to federal laws or regulations or Government of Canada programs”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

It's ending at “programs”.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

That's correct. If I may, I will add context to this change whenever it's appropriate, Chair.