Official Languages Committee on March 21st, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Wait a moment, Mr. Housefather. You don't have the right version.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Pardon me, Mr. Beaulieu. Essentially, I want to know if you name one of these rights, and not the others.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Housefather, here is the most recent version. This is amendment BQ‑39.2.

It's reference number 12291732.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Okay, then my question will be different.

Now the wording is “and quasi-constitutional official language rights, while taking into account the rights granted under provincial and territorial linguistic regimes”. If you're going to do that, as opposed to looking at constitutional and quasi-constitutional rights, then you have to look at the rights—or the lack of rights—granted under language regimes.

Let's take the example of Quebec. Would this not reduce the ability of the court challenges program to deal with the constitutional and quasi-constitutional rights that the English-speaking minority in Quebec would bring forward?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Ms. Boyer, you have the floor.

[Julie Boyer]

I'll pass it to my colleague, Warren Newman.

[Warren Newman]

I see your concern, because it puts a focus on what rights may exist already under the various language regimes and schemes that are out there, province by province. If you're held to that, there may be an argument that you should interpret it in a way that says we're not going to entertain cases that are imaginative in this regard, because we already have this regime in place and we should take that into account. It seems to be a limitation.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

This would be a limitation for francophone communities outside of Quebec as well, because provincial regimes must also be considered.

Would you agree?

[Warren Newman]

Yes, of course. It is important to consider context.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Drouin, the floor is yours.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I would like to make a few comments in response to my Bloc Québécois colleague's arguments.

The problem has nothing to do with the fact that information is disclosed before a case is filed. Rather, the problem is the fact that it would give future governments or federal or provincial institutions a tool to find out who received money and how much money was potentially spent to litigate a case. It's an access to justice issue, from my perspective.

For example, in the case of Montfort Hospital, which was in danger of closing, it would have disclosed how much it cost to retain all the lawyers who argued before the court, including Mr. Caza and the group of lawyers who represented Montfort Hospital. Had that happened, the lawyers' strategy would have been to extend the trial indefinitely in order to exhaust the funds of the parties involved. It is then a question of access to justice and the means by which it was accessed. Whether the information is disclosed before or after a case is filed is irrelevant, since it would still give future governments the tools to potentially curtail certain rights.

I agree that the University of Ottawa, for example, should be given a global envelope, but I am concerned about the idea of disclosing who received what. That's why you use a third party, in principle.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Actually, Mr. Chair, as I read it, my colleague's proposed amendment is about the right to information and the right to transparency. There is indeed the right to justice, but transparency in communications is also important.

I think it's perfectly legitimate to disclose, after going through the whole process, that a particular organization received financial assistance. It's perfectly legitimate to know that information. Paragraph 22(1)(c.1) of the amendment is clearly intended to ensure that the nature of the case is disclosed in the independent body's annual report, unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure would adversely affect the beneficiaries.

Mr. Drouin, you presented a reasonable argument as to whether such disclosure would be harmful to the beneficiaries. The amendment includes protection. I agree on the issue of transparency, as long as it does not infringe on the agencies' right to justice. For the sake of transparency, I think the information should be given. That is entirely legitimate because it is public money.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

The democratic process depends on access to information. If we do not have the most complete and objective information possible, we cannot make an informed decision. Access to information is fundamental to the democratic process.

For the people in Quebec who are watching, I want to say that the court challenges program was implemented in 1978, right after the adoption of the Charter of the French Language. Many people believe that the federal government did that to give itself legal means with pressure groups, for example.

People forget that Quebec is a minority in Canada. We are having a program imposed on us that subsidizes groups that, along with the federal government, challenge Quebec's democratic choices. In that way, the federal government has managed to weaken just about every provision of Bill 101. The result is a growing decline of French in Quebec. We need to stop that decline, otherwise the future of the French fact, both within and outside Quebec, will be in jeopardy.

I think a minimum amount of transparency is a fundamental requirement.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Mr. Drouin, you have the floor.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I just want to come back to the arguments on transparency.

When we ask Canadian Heritage or any other department or agency to name the organizations that received money, we do not get the salary amounts paid by those organizations or any details about the subsidized activities. We do not get any kind of statement on the organization's performance or results.

The transparency argument therefore does not hold water. We know how much money the University of Ottawa received to administer this program, but to get the details, we need to consult the university, which is a third party. It is the same thing for all of the organizations. That is not unique to the court challenges program. That is the reality for any third party organizations. We do not have a statement of results for all of the organizations.

I understand why we are talking about transparency, but we do not even have that level of detail. Even if you make an access to information request, you will not get those kinds of details.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

That is our tax money.

The government put an independent organization in charge of the program because, in the beginning, the people who were a party to the conflict were the ones who were deciding who would get subsidies. In some cases, the government and Privy Council representatives bringing the cases were the ones who were deciding who got subsidies. That was a blatant conflict of interest.

That is why an independent organization was put in charge of the program. Quebeckers should be told what proportion of the allocated amounts are used to strike down our democratically passed laws. That could at least help people to make an informed decision come election time. That is fundamental to democracy.

We do not want to cause any harm. I checked in with the FCFA, for example. At one point, we reacted and they set us straight. We are trying as much as possible not to harm francophones outside Quebec. However, I think it is important to know where our money is going.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

I don't see any other requests to speak, either on the screen or in the room.

Madam Clerk, please call the question on Amendment BQ-39.2.

(Amendment negatived: 6 nays; 5 yeas. [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, this brings us to Amendment BQ-40.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Regarding Amendment BQ-40, I'm taking out the first part because I think we've already voted on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Amendment BQ-39.2 was defeated. There is no line conflict.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

In that case, I'll keep it.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That's what I was asking you.