Evidence of meeting #121 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 subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you.
The reason for this change is that, again, we heard from witnesses who said that this program is most appropriately used for federal cases. Unfortunately, it was created by Pierre Elliott Trudeau—Trudeau senior—as a back-door way to go after the Province of Quebec and attack some provincial legislation that they were putting through. He didn't want to do it himself. He didn't want the federal government's handprints to be on the challenge, and so instead he created this program in order to fund third parties that could take on the Province of Quebec and, therefore, attack that province. Similarly, it has been used over the years in this way, which is inappropriate.
This subamendment that I'm offering will prevent the court challenges program from being used to go after provinces and instead will have to stay within federal jurisdiction, which, of course, is most appropriate, given that we are talking about a federally funded program and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Is there any discussion on this subamendment? No hands are up, so shall we call the vote on it?
Go ahead, please, Clerk.
4 p.m.
The Clerk
The vote is on the subamendment from Ms. Thomas—
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Yes. It is actually a part of CPC-4.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
The subamendment does not carry.
Now, do you have any other subamendments, Ms. Thomas? Your hand is up. Go ahead.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is very interesting, because I'm picking up on a pattern here that my colleagues across the way do not stand for transparency, accountability or the independence of this program—
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
On a point of order, Madam Chair, I'm totally happy to entertain these amendments, but the idea that now our intention is being assumed or impugned, I think, is unreasonable. We're having a great day. Everyone's doing well. There's no reason to get negative.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Let's just move on. Is there anybody...?
Your hand is not up. Are you still...?
Go ahead, Ms. Thomas.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I just simply made an observation. If the member takes that as negative, that is his interpretation. The observation stands.
In terms of the subamendment that I wish to move at this point, then, again it takes from CPC-5 and looks to incorporate it into G-1 as subamended by Mr. Serré....
I apologize. Just give me one moment here to find where it will best fit. This will be inserted at the end of Mr. Serré's subamendment. It would read, this final line here, where it has “rights that are guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, I would insert, “and that do not involve potential conflicts between those rights.”
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Ms. Thomas, there's an “and” after the semicolon after “rights”. Do you want that out or do you want that in?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
All right.
Is there any discussion on the subamendment as tabled by Ms. Thomas?
Seeing no one wishing to discuss it....
I'm sorry. Ms. Thomas.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Again, we heard from a number of witnesses, who brought up that this program is currently administered by a body through uOttawa. There's, of course, no transparency around how that body is put in place or how those members are selected. There's no transparency around how cases are selected or how they are funded or to what extent. We're left in this dark area as members of the public. Of course, taxpayers' dollars are going towards this program, yet they are not informed as to how that money is used. It is an interesting situation.
What ends up happening, no doubt, is applications are put forward for cases where actually some of those applications can be in conflict with one another. The board, then, is put in a situation where they are picking winners and losers. Essentially, the board is actually making a decision on which side of the case they believe is more worthwhile than the other. It's really interesting that we would allow for the system to function that way.
In doing that, then, again without transparency, without accountability, with nothing having to be tabled before the House and funding not having to be made known, it raises lots of red flags around this program, which of course is what we heard from many witnesses.
This subamendment is saying that where there is a conflict between rights, those cases actually should not be selected. The board should not be put in this position where they get to pick winners and losers.
The amendment—or subamendment at this point—then states very clearly that those potential conflicts between rights should be avoided, again, in order to make sure everybody has a fair chance at having their case heard; and the board is not put in a position whereby it gets to essentially decide which side of the argument or which right then gets preferential treatment over another.
It's wrong for the board to do that. It's certainly not a good use of taxpayer money, and it's actually a slap in the face to justice.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
It's up because I was called upon to speak. I'm done now, so I'm happy to lower it.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a question for Ms. Thomas on where the subamendment goes.
My understanding is it goes right after “Freedoms”, in the last line of the subamendment from Mr. Serré, “Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, and then adds “but that do not involve potential conflicts between those rights” and then a semicolon.
4:10 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
The “and” that's in the subamendment from Mr. Serré is needed to make the link between paragraphs 5(a.1) and 5(b) in the act.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Sure.
Mr. Méla, I would be fine with a semicolon so that can continue to read correctly. That's no problem.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Méla, I would offer one small correction.
When I read my subamendment into the record, rather than using the word “but”, I used the word “and”.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
All right.
Is there any discussion on this subamendment?
Yes, we have Mr. Lawrence.