Canadian Heritage Committee on June 4th, 2024

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Through you, Chair, to the officials, the amendment would delete “for Canadians”:

Whereas it is of utmost importance for Canadians to be able to bring before the courts test cases of national significance

What is the significance of taking out “for Canadians”? What does it do?

[Blair McMurren]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment would explicitly clarify that access to funding through the court challenges program is not limited to legal citizens, Canadians. The basis of the modernized program is in, effectively, charter rights that apply to everyone in Canada, including non-permanent residents and other classes of people, regardless of their citizenship status.

Some charter rights do apply only to legal citizens, such as the right to vote and the right to enter and leave the country, but the rights covered by the modernized program apply to all people in Canada. This amendment would seek to reflect that, given that the program's eligibility tracks with that situation.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

I think that could have been a quorum call. It wasn't a vote. It could have been a quorum call, because the lights are off.

Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Certainly, charter rights apply to those who are citizens and non-citizens alike. The Court Challenges Program is money put aside by Canadian taxpayers, essentially used to challenge the Government of Canada and the rulings made there.

Potentially, then, what this would do is say that non-citizens have the right to access those Canadian tax funds put aside for the Court Challenges Program to challenge the Canadian government with regard to decisions it has made.

Is that correct?

[Blair McMurren]

Given the nature of charter rights, this amendment would outline the way the program works with the charter it's based on. Eligibility for the program is based on certain charter rights. Given that they apply regardless of citizenship status, we would observe that the reference to Canadians here might not be completely appropriate and is possibly misleading. Maybe that's too strong, but it is not apt, we would think.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Again, through the chair, the Court Challenges Program has nothing to do with whether or not the charter applies to citizens or non-citizens. The Court Challenges Program has to do with how taxpayer money is used to pay for cases.

[Blair McMurren]

I would respond that applications are received and considered by the program based on the charter rights that are being invoked by the applicants. Given that those apply regardless of citizenship status, it's effectively how the program runs.

I take the point in terms of public funds and Canadian taxpayers, but a decision has been made to establish a program on the basis of charter rights that apply a certain way to all people in Canada.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Through the chair, then, in your estimation, what does removing “Canadians” do? Does it actually change the way the program functions right now?

[Blair McMurren]

Given that we're talking about the preamble, no, I do not believe it would affect how the program is run. It would just align the language of the preamble with the eligibility criteria of the program, effectively.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Okay.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Mr. Serré.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Chair, this is a very minor amendment being proposed, which reflects how the program is being operated today.

Organizations are not citizens. Basically, this is just making the preamble a bit more consistent, as was just described, with what the program is actually doing today. It's obviously based on the charter rights.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you.

Mr. Noormohamed.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Serré took the words right out of my mouth.

I will cede my time back to you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McMurren, I'd like clarification: Are you able to tell me the proportion of applications submitted by individuals as compared to the number submitted by organizations or organized groups?

[Blair McMurren]

We could probably confirm that by looking at the annual reports, but as far as I know, we don't have access to that kind of breakdown.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

So we don't know how many people amendment G‑3 might apply to. I agree that an organization isn't an individual. That said, it does raise a rather pertinent question. We're opening up this program to challenge Canadian laws, and we'd be making it available to people who don't have Canadian status. So I think it's quite relevant to ask questions and to want to explore this further. That's why I want to know how many people this would apply to.

However, Mr. McMurren, you're telling me that we don't have access to data that would allow us to determine, in the Court Challenges Program, the proportion between individual applicants and applicants who are organizations.

[Blair McMurren]

Thank you for your question. I imagine that it would be possible to do some calculations based on data from closed files when that information is published.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

All right. Seeing no more, I'm going to ask the question.

Shall G-3 carry?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

We now go to NDP-3.

Ms. Ashton, I'll ask you to move this. Then, unfortunately, I'm going to have a couple of comments. I do need you to move it first.

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

Okay, I can definitely move it and also predict what you might say. I have only to say that, for us in the NDP, it has been important for the Court Challenges Program to be able to expand to include cases based on the Canadian Human Rights Act. It's something that we heard from multiple witnesses and that is critical to the work we need to do in our country to advance everyone's human rights.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you very much. I can read out the chair's decision here.

In the opinion of the chair, the last line of the proposed amendment is substantive and, therefore, inadmissible.

We'll go to BQ-10 and Mr. Champoux. It's almost the same thing. I need you to move it. I'm not going to be your big friend here today, but I can see why I'm in the chair.

Go ahead.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'll take my time and read the entire amendment to give you time to reflect on your decision.

The purpose of BQ‑10 is to add to the preamble a recognition of the predominance of English in Quebec.

Mr. Chair, I'll let you make your tough ruling.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

You said “English”.