Debates of Nov. 8th, 2023

Court Challenges Program Act

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing out, at the end of his speech, an unacceptable thing that happened. I am talking about a situation where Radio-Canada used a Paris-based company to record a podcast because people in France do not like the Quebec accent. That is very important.

The Quebec accent is what makes us who we are in Quebec. The Quebec accent developed through 400 years of living in this country of ice, snow, forests, cold, fall, summer and heat. It developed through contact with the indigenous peoples, who were here before we arrived, and through contact with the English, who defeated us in 1759. Since that time, we have been intermingling with all the people who have come here over the past 100 years. They came from all over, and we have been enriched by that. It has made us who we are in Quebec right now. That is what makes our language unique, and that is what enriches our way of speaking and our culture, which we are bringing to the rest of the world.

We no longer have to talk about how Quebec is representing itself on the international stage. Denis Villeneuve is at the Oscars almost every year. He was not born in Ontario. He was born in Quebec. Xavier Dolan is at Cannes almost every year. He was not born in British Columbia. He was born in Quebec.

We often hear about Canadian culture outside Canada, and 90% of the time people are talking about Quebec culture. Robert Lepage directs plays all over the world, in Paris, Brussels and Tokyo. He was not born in Manitoba; he was born in Quebec. Cirque du Soleil was not created in Ontario; it came from Quebec. If Canadian culture is talked about internationally, it is thanks to Quebec. People should be on their knees in gratitude. If Canada is talked about around the world, it is because Quebeckers have risen to the top.

I am a bit obsessed with this issue. This is somewhat due to a certain constraint, this particular relationship that we have, because for the past 200 years, we have often been told that we are an insignificant people and we should resign ourselves to a life of poverty. We have developed a kind of “System D” in all areas, whether economic or cultural. This constant confrontation, this dominant-dominated relationship, drives us to stand out as fighters. We are doing it now, we have done it in the past and we will continue to do so in the future. People should buckle up and get ready for a bumpy ride, because when Quebec becomes independent, we will be winning Oscars in Los Angeles and Palmes d'Or in Cannes in our own name. We will win Goncourt Prizes in our own name. The award will not say “Canada”; it will say “Québec”.

The rest of Canada will be happy anyway, because it will have participated to some extent. It will be time to say bye-bye when we are in Hollywood or Cannes or on other major international stages. We will say hello to the gang back in Canada, but Quebec will win the Oscar.

That was my first argument on culture. My colleague started me off on that. Obviously, I had no intention of talking about it. I never want to talk about Quebec. I never want to talk about Quebec's language or culture. I never go there at all. It is not a subject that interests me in the least. I never want to talk about that when the opportunity arises. My Conservative Party colleague started me off on the subject. He passed me the puck. It was too easy and I felt like talking about it.

This has a connection with what we are talking about now: Bill C-316, on the court challenges program. The court challenges program is exhausting, it must be said. It directly concerns language and our ability to protect our language and culture in this country.

The court challenges program was launched in 1978. The timing is no coincidence, because the Parti Québécois and René Lévesque, a major Quebec figure, came to power in 1976. The timing is no accident. In 1977, the Lévesque government introduced one of its first and most important bills. I want to talk about this because it is important.

I would say that, of all the laws that could have been created in Quebec or even in Canada, this is a big one. It is a meaningful, masterful law that changed the course of history. It is really not every day that the course of history is changed through the creation of laws, but that is what happened in 1977. There is a reason why the father of Bill 101 is Camille Laurin, a psychoanalyst and psychiatrist. He knew that we needed to make a strong and powerful mark when it comes to the relationship that we have with ourselves.

That is what we did with Bill 101. What was the crux of Bill 101? It stipulated that, from that point on, there would be only one official language in Quebec, and that was French. We would have only one national language, and that was French. From that point on, we would speak French in our courts, schools, stores and restaurants. Public signage would be in French. Everything in Quebec would be done entirely in our language. That way we would no longer be afraid to be who we are. We were going to make a powerful statement. From that point on, things were going to change.

I would like to remind the House of an important fact. Before 1977, 90% of immigrants who settled in Quebec went to English schools. The children went to elementary school, secondary school, CEGEP and university in English and then they worked in English. Everything was happening in English. The school system itself was anglicizing Quebec. We were anglicizing ourselves, and we were paying for that.

[Caroline Desbiens]

We are still paying.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Yes, Madam Speaker, we are still paying.

In order for French to survive, we need something fundamental that was set out in Bill 101. It set out that, from then on, people who arrived in Quebec—people we need and who enrich Quebec with all of their cultures, colours and flavours—would have one thing in common, and that was the French language. That is the fundamental element that was set out in Bill 101. It changed everything about the relationship that we have with ourselves and our relationship with history. That bill was implemented by the first Lévesque government in 1977.

In 1978, the court challenges program was established. This allowed Quebec anglophones to use federal government money to challenge this key legislation, this fundamental law. Groups of Quebec anglophones were encouraged to challenge this fundamental law using our taxes. Language of signage has often been challenged, particularly after the Charter in 1982. Let us not forget that Bill 101 clearly established that, from that point on, commercial signage in Quebec was to be entirely in French. That was overturned. A hundred or so amendments have been made since 1982, largely through the court challenges program.

Even back then, there was no accountability in this program. Decisions could be made by cabinet. In the evening, behind closed doors, money could be sent to groups in Quebec without telling anyone, without disclosing the amount, without saying what causes would be defended with these funds, which was our money. These were discretionary funds sent to Quebec's English-speaking community to beat back one of the most fundamental and important laws Quebec has ever signed. That is really something. That is what the court challenges program is all about.

Today, the government wants to enshrine it in law. We are not fundamentally opposed to that, because it is important for francophones outside Quebec, and they are our brothers. If the Official Languages Act of this country says that there are really two official languages, then francophones in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and St. John's, Newfoundland must have the same kinds of rights as anglophones in Quebec, something they would dare not dream of.

When push comes to shove, we will probably support this bill. However, we want it to be sent to committee because we intend to propose some major amendments. My friend, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, will be there, in committee, to fight for the Bloc Québécois's amendments.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-316 at second reading. This is a bill that would amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act to require the minister of heritage to maintain the court challenges program. In other words, it would simply take an existing program and entrench it in legislation.

Why do we have to have something to entrench an existing program in legislation? It is because the Conservatives, twice before, have eliminated the court challenges program. I do not necessarily believe there will be a future Conservative government, but the fear is that a future government would be able, in the absence of this legislation, to simply eliminate this program without coming back to Parliament. Therefore, this is an important change.

As always, the Liberals have done the minimum here. There are some other things we could have done to support the court challenges program. As a Parliament, we could expand its mandate because, right now, it is severely limited to only minority language rights and equality rights under section 15. There have been many calls from the legal community to expand the mandate of this program so it could apply to other cases where, frankly, the government has not taken leadership in protecting rights but where people lack the resources to bring these cases themselves. Court challenges can take years. They can cost literally hundreds of thousands of dollars.

What this program does is level the legal playing field for those who want to defend their rights against the government or against abuse by others in Canadian society. This program has been in existence, off and on, for 30 years, but it has played a very important role in helping defend women's rights, indigenous rights and the rights of other marginalized Canadians, so it is important that we make sure this program endures.

The program was created in 1978 on the issue of minority language rights. When the Charter was adopted, it was expanded just a tiny bit to add equality rights. The program was cancelled by the Conservatives in 1992 before being brought back by the Liberals in 1994, only to be cut again by the Conservatives in 2006. Then we had a big gap. In 2015, both the Liberals and the New Democrats campaigned to restore the program. The justice committee, in 2017, recommended not only that this be entrenched in law, but also that the mandate be expanded. That part is missing from this bill, but in 2018, the program was restarted.

Let me give some examples of kinds of things this program has done. It financed the case that resulted in ending discrimination related to access to what we used to call “maternity benefits” under what was then the UI act. It helped establish what is now known as the rape shield law, which prevents the accused from using the sexual history of a sexual assault complainant as a defence.

The program funded the cases that resulted in restricting access to victims' personal records, such as counselling records, in sexual assault cases. Again, this ruling would not have happened otherwise because women who have been the victims of sexual assault do not have the resources to bring forward this kind of case and fight it through court. Therefore, the Women's Legal Education & Action Fund, LEAF, applied to the program and received funding, which resulted in this very important decision.

One more example is that sex-based discrimination under the Employment Insurance Act for part-time employees who are women was ended as a result of the case. Again, it was brought by LEAF with funding from the court challenges program. We have a very strong history of defence of women's rights.

There are a couple more cases I could provide, but a favourite of mine, as a gay man, is Egan v. Canada in 1995, where two gay men who had been in an intimate relationship for 30 years were denied old age security benefits because they did not fit the definition of a spouse. There was a case, this time by the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto, taken to court to say that this was unfair because they had been a couple and Egan had paid into these benefits, including to old age security, Canada pension and things like that. This established equal spousal rights in the time before equal marriage.

In one last case, Daniels v. Canada in 2016, it was established that the status of Métis and non-status Indians under the Indian Act were protected. This was brought by the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, who, again, did not have great resources to spend literally hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers.

What is really clear is that there is broad support in the legal community for this program, including and especially in the advocacy of the Canadian Bar Association. There are certain precedents, as I mentioned, about the mandate not being broad enough. Cindy Blackstock and certain disability advocates have demonstrated why we need to expand that mandate so that cases of people with disabilities and of aboriginal women could more easily get into court.

I am going to take a minute to talk about recent events, which I think point to upcoming challenges to the rights of the 2SLGBTQI+ community and particularly to those of transgender and gender-diverse Canadians, who are among the most marginalized Canadians and those with the fewest resources.

Hate crimes against what I like to call the queer community, in reclaiming language, are up. They are up shockingly high. The official figures of those reported to the police show a 64% increase in one year in hate crimes directed against the community. Hate crime data from the police does not actually separate out crimes against trans folks, but a sampling that has been done by academics found that, first of all, hate crimes against the queer community, and particularly the trans community, are more likely to be violent. In the case of gender-diverse people, 80% of hate crimes involve violence. This is where government policies, particularly of certain provincial governments, are fuelling the hate, which has direct results of violence in the community.

I want to talk about the anti-trans school policies in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick for just a minute, because I think the trans and gender-diverse communities are going to want to make sure there is a court challenge to these policies. Without a program like the court challenges program, this would not happen. In August, Saskatchewan announced policy changes requiring parental consent for trans students under the age of 16 to be called by their chosen name and pronoun at school. We do not ask parents whether “William” can be “Billy”, but somehow when it comes to trans kids and their identity, we are creating in Saskatchewan a special bar to using names and pronouns that reinforce the student's identity. The policy was quickly challenged by the University of Regina's pride centre. After a hearing, an injunction was granted that paused the implementation of the policy. The same day, Premier Scott Moe announced he would invoke the notwithstanding clause, and he called an emergency session of the Saskatchewan legislature to enact Bill 137, which amends the education act and includes the notwithstanding clause.

A government used what was really the nuclear option in law to take away rights from kids. It falls into the category of what I would call the spillover of American rhetoric into Canadian politics. It talks about parental rights instead of what we have in Canadian law of parental responsibilities and children's rights. Parents have a responsibility to nurture their kids and to affirm their kids. We know that school peers who use their chosen name and pronouns experienced 71% fewer signs of severe depression, a 34% decrease in reported thoughts of suicide and a 65% decrease in suicide attempts. Therefore, this is a policy that causes great harm. The government could do more to provide leadership in fighting this rising tide of hate, in particular by implementing the 29 recommendations in the white paper on trans rights tabled last June. In fact, e-petition 4666 went up today, asking it to do just that.

In conclusion, New Democrats support Bill C-316, even though we would like to see more from the government to support the court challenges program. It is still important to entrench the program in law in order to make it harder for any future government to eliminate the program. As I said, the court challenges program could use an expanded mandate to be able to fund cases beyond minority language rights and section 15. The program could use increased funding to ensure that it can fulfill its purpose in levelling the playing field on rights in the courts, so that not just those who are already rich and privileged can defend their rights and seek fairness in the courts. Even in the absence of these further improvements, we hope to see expeditious passage of the bill through all its remaining stages.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on a matter of great importance touching on the fundamental rights and freedoms of all people in Canada. I speak of the court challenges program and the legislation before us, Bill C-316, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act.

Since its creation in 1978, the court challenges program has come to be seen as a unique feature of our constitutional democracy, helping people in Canada to bring forward legal cases when they believe their most cherished rights have been infringed upon, regardless of their means. It enables individuals and organizations to challenge laws and policies that run counter to Canada's fundamental rights and freedoms. It is a true testament to our country's unwavering commitment to justice, equality and social inclusion.

The modernized court challenges program, reinstated in 2017, has been instrumental in ensuring unfettered access to justice and equality for every Canadian. Over the years, it has funded hundreds of challenges of national interest, adapting to the evolving needs of our society by helping to articulate a broader range of civil and social rights. This progression is crucial as our society continues to evolve and embrace a more diverse and inclusive perspective.

In sustaining and protecting this program further through Bill C-316, we would be solidifying its proven effectiveness in safeguarding rights and promoting equality before the law. This legislative initiative aims to complement the important reforms enacted by the modernization of the Official Languages Act through Bill C-13, which received royal assent on June 20, 2023. Bill C-13 acknowledges the important role of the court challenges program by incorporating its official language rights component into the Official Languages Act and its human rights component into the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, thereby underscoring the government's unwavering commitment to this iconic program.

The court challenges program plays an indispensable role in supporting official language minority communities in all regions of the country. By challenging laws and policies that could erode their linguistic rights, it helps preserve the vitality of these communities while ensuring that linguistic duality and diversity remain a proud part of Canada's social and cultural fabric. Furthermore, this program has consistently been at the forefront of protecting the human rights of all people in Canada. It has empowered vulnerable and marginalized communities, has helped defend minority rights and has consistently helped advance the principles of justice and equity.

One such example is the funding granted by the court challenges program in 2019 and 2020 for an intervention in a class-action lawsuit on the issue of the forced sterilization of indigenous women. This intervention seeks to ensure health equity for indigenous women and to address systemic discrimination against indigenous people, while providing a national perspective on behalf of affected indigenous women and girls. Thanks to the program's funding, the issues of gender equity, rights recognition and reconciliation will be deliberated in court through a more inclusive approach to participation in the proceedings.

The program's annual reports reads like a catalogue of the defining social and civil rights issues of our times. Its essential role in helping to advance our democratic principles and ensure that our rights framework reflects the evolution of Canadian society has been amply demonstrated. Through the deliberate and purposeful act of enshrining this program in law by means of Bill C-316, as a strong complement to what has been achieved in Bill C-13, we are affirming our commitment to its long-term viability and are recognizing its proven effectiveness in asserting, clarifying and protecting the rights and freedoms of all people in Canada.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Before I begin, I want to pass on my condolences and recognize the life of Eugene Dery from my riding. He leaves behind a son, who is approximately 20 years old, Dax, and his wife Kim Galloway, whom I met through my sister. I grew up knowing them and have known them throughout the years. I extend my deepest condolences to the family. May perpetual light shine upon him.

On a more positive note, I want to recognize Ethan Katzberg from my riding. Mr. Katzberg took home gold in the hammer throw. Good for him. We are obviously very proud of him. He is the one to beat, following in the line of Dylan Armstrong. We look forward to seeing Ethan at the Olympics doing his best to represent not only Canada but also Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

We are here today to discuss Bill C-316, an act to amend the court challenges program. This is an interesting act when we think about it. In my research to prepare for my speech, I saw that the court challenges program has existed for a great deal of time. I knew that it existed, but I was not sure exactly how it had operated in the past.

One of the things that struck me is that this bill would enshrine the court challenges program into law. I know that my colleague from Lethbridge did an excellent job in her speech on this issue, but I will be addressing some of the points she made and perhaps some of the points that the sponsor of the bill made. I have some concerns.

The reality is that with this legislation, in my respectful view, we would be legislating an undermining of Parliament in a certain way. Parliament passes laws and the courts interpret them; there is no issue there, and frequently the courts will engage in a dialogue. I raised this with Justice Moreau of the Supreme Court of Canada, although I am not sure if she has been sworn in. She is the chief justice for Alberta for the time being if she has not been.

I asked her about the dialogue between Parliament and the courts. Parliament speaks through its legislation, the courts interpret the law and then Parliament speaks again if it needs to. This bill would essentially fund people to go to court to, in my view, look at ways that Parliament got it wrong. That is not to say the courts need any help. Frequently, the courts strike down legislation passed by Parliament, or they uphold it as constitutional, but those things happen irrespective of a third party like this.

From what I can see, this program costs $5 million at this time. It could be substantially more. By my estimation, about 30% of that alone is bureaucratic costs. We have been talking a lot about heating oil and things like that. How many heat pumps is the government going to buy for people? How many heat pumps would $5 million buy? Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that we often talk here in the billions of dollars.

A senior contacted my office not long ago saying they had to choose between putting food on the table and buying shoes. To them, $5 million sounds like a lot of money. I know it certainly was when my family came from Italy. They did not really have two pennies to rub together. Sometimes we lose sight of this.

Not only that, we would create a bureaucratic entity beyond asking people to challenge our laws. There is no issue with the idea that people disagree with what Parliament passes. It happens all the time. That is why the courts will make various decisions. However, this is done routinely when somebody brings an action to the court.

I am going to underscore as well that when we pass legislation here, it goes through second reading debate. Sometimes bills pass with unanimous consent, but very rarely will a significant bill pass that way. I think I have seen it twice so far.

Bills go through second reading debate and then go to committee. Who do we hear from at committee? We hear from witnesses. On the justice file, who are those witnesses? Invariably, they are lawyers, experts who will tell us what is wrong with the bill: “Your bill has this constitutional frailty in this spot and this spot.” Then someone else will come in and say, “Yes, I agree, but I don't think the frailty is here and here, I think it might be over here.” What do we do? We take that and go back, potentially through an amendment. At third reading, we have more debate, and then it goes to the Senate. What happens at the Senate? There is more debate. Then, eventually, we will have royal assent after it has gone through the machinations in the Senate and then it goes to the courts. There is this idea that Parliament does not have ample opportunity to get it right and to hear from the very lawyers who will be making these courts challenges.

However, these challenges are made supplementary to the actual challenge. What I mean by that is, for example, somebody who believes that they are aggrieved by the statute on charter grounds will say, “This offends my section 7 right to life, liberty and security of person”, and they will challenge the law on constitutional grounds. Frequently, I presume, this program will fund somebody to intervene. Well, somebody is already making that challenge in a lot of instances from what I can see, and so I question the efficacy of that.

The other issue I have is that this issue is run through a university. I used to teach at Thompson Rivers University and I will give a shout-out to them, but this is done through the University of Ottawa. Now, we will obviously have in a university faculty, particularly one like law, divides. Some people are going to have one view of the law and some people will have another view of the law. In here, we have Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, Greens and the Bloc. They are going to have different perspectives on how the world works, which is fine; actually, it is more than fine, it is central to a thriving democracy. However, the people who administer this program are going to be, through their perspective, deciding who gets these programs. Invariably, there will be winners and losers, and it does not seem to me that we know exactly how that is going to be administered, especially when it is being administered right now through a third party. That, in my view, does raise some issues.

The importance of people who are writing academically cannot be underscored. It is, in my view, central to anybody who is a professor, particularly a professor of law or political science. We do frequently receive feedback. We, as members of Parliament, are expected to take feedback on our laws. In my view, that is the correct mechanism by which we should be addressing these laws and not funding people who would not otherwise be in court on a matter of their own in doing so.

One of the issues that we have seen about this dialogue is that, in my view, this Liberal government has not necessarily acted well on that dialogue. For example, Bill S-12, the issue of the sex offence registry, was taken literally right down to the last day. It is how the courts work. The courts act and Parliament reacts. Parliament legislates, the courts interpret and it is up to Parliament to react. It took us literally months. We could not actually get this right. That is how things are supposed to be working. We can also look at this when it comes to that extreme intoxication case that we had to legislate on very quickly. However, sometimes, and this is one failing of the Liberal government of many on the justice bill, this Liberal government does not always react.

If we want to look at places where we should be devoting our resources, the courts have said that it is unconstitutional to have back-to-back first degree murder convictions and for parole ineligibility to be served consecutively.

I am out of time and so I will wrap it up there.

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

Madam Speaker, to put the court challenges program into context, I will start by providing a bit of history of the linguistic dynamic in Canada and Quebec because a people unaware of its history is like an individual having amnesia. We become easily manipulated. If we do not know our history, if we have amnesia and we are cheated, we can be cheated again. We never remember what happened.

There are politicians who exploit that. For example, Jean Chrétien said that it was thanks to Canada that we still speak French. In reality, from the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which turned New France into the Province of Quebec, to the British North America Act, 1867, and a good part of the 20th century, the British and Canadian governments have openly used military repression, anglophone immigration, bans on French schools and various other assimilation measures to make francophones the minority; they went from 99% to 29% in 1951. Since then, the numbers have dropped both outside Quebec and more recently in Quebec. It is very worrisome.

There were language laws everywhere, in all the predominantly English-speaking provinces today, that completely banned French-language schools and even teaching French in schools. In Quebec, access to French-language schools was limited in regions like Pontiac. French-language schools and colleges were underfunded, as were French-language health care facilities. Even in Quebec, francophones truly experienced economic discrimination.

In the 1960s, André Laurendeau, a French-Canadian nationalist and federalist who wrote editorials in Le Devoir, wrote a column saying that the crumbs given to francophones were enough; what they had been given at the time were bilingual stamps and cheques, things like that. He proposed that a commission of inquiry be formed, and Lester B. Pearson did just that. The Laurendeau-Dunton commission made a powerful observation of the inequality between francophones and anglophones, even in Quebec. For example, out of 14 linguistic groups in Quebec, the average income of francophones ranked 12th.

In the meantime, André Laurendeau passed away. Pierre Elliott Trudeau took over from Lester B. Pearson as Prime Minister. André Laurendeau had championed a territorial model similar to Switzerland or Belgium because he felt that, as the home of Canada's francophone community, the number one priority was granting special status to and strengthening French in Quebec. Instead of granting special status to Quebec, Pierre Elliott Trudeau joined forces with proponents of English in Quebec. He decided that the federal language law, rather than protecting French in Quebec, was intended to support and protect linguistic minorities by province. As luck would have it, in Quebec, it was English that was to be protected and the English-speaking community promoted.

This supposed equivalency or symmetry between anglophones in Quebec and francophone and Acadian communities was absurd from the start. As we have seen, anglophones were already part of the dominant Canadian majority in Quebec up to that point. Anglophones in Quebec are part of the Canadian majority that controls the federal government with its paramount legislative power and its spending power in areas within Quebec's jurisdiction. We saw that, for example, with the 1982 Constitution, which weakened the Charter of the French Language even though education was supposed to be under provincial jurisdiction. The 1982 Constitution was imposed against the wishes of the Government of Quebec. No government of Quebec has ever signed the 1982 Constitution. Even the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that Quebec anglophones, as part of Canada's majority, cannot invoke minority rights.

It even added that a majority in a province could invoke minority rights if it was a minority in the country. The government of the Canadian majority decided to support its language in Quebec. The Official Languages Act has been funding English in Quebec almost exclusively ever since. We often hear the Prime Minister say that his party protects minorities in Canada. As far as I know, Quebec is not a majority in Canada. Quebeckers are a linguistic minority, a minority nation that is not protected by Canada. The court challenges program is the perfect example of that.

The court challenges program appeared in 1978. Coincidentally, Bill 101, the Charter of the French Language, was established in 1977. René Lévesque wanted to make French the only official language of the state of Quebec, the common language of Quebec society. It is in that context that Ottawa brought in its court challenges program. At first it even considered using its power of disallowance to invalidate Robert Bourassa's Bill 22 and then the Charter of the French Language. After the election of the Parti Québécois, Pierre Elliott Trudeau thought this option would cause a legitimacy crisis that would benefit the Lévesque government. He was cunning and dismantled Bill 101 while avoiding creating a direct confrontation between the two levels of government. Rather than have this direct confrontation with Quebec, the federal government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau instead funded, structured and supported anglophone lobby groups in Quebec. Then he paid their legal fees to challenge the Charter of the French Language using the court challenges program.

Between 1978 and 1985, the court challenges program did not produce annual reports. Of the six bills that were challenged, four had to do with the Charter of the French Language in Quebec. Right from the beginning, we have seen that it was the official character of French, the fact that it is the language of justice, that was struck down. So it has continued and, as a result, today the Charter of the French Language has been weakened in all areas of application.

The Government of Quebec recently tried to partially strengthen this legislation. Now the government is announcing that it is going to double the court challenges program. I think it is obvious that this will be used to challenge Bill 101. The sad thing is that there have been problems from the outset. The government was clearly in a conflict of interest. The same officials approved funding for legal proceedings and worked for the Attorney General of Canada, who was often an intervenor in those proceedings. Between 1982 and 1985, Ottawa was aware of the alleged conflicts of interest and tried to create an advisory committee. Brian Mulroney then gradually added equality rights, the promotion of multiculturalism and gender equality to the language rights that could be promoted by the the court challenges program. Administration of the program was entrusted to the Canadian Council on Social Development.

In closing, we support the bill, but it needs to be improved. The bill needs to be transparent. The first bill talked about publishing a list of supported cases. Now it talks about an overview. We will be proposing amendments—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Unfortunately, I must interrupt the hon. member. His time is up.

The hon. member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam on his right of reply.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking everyone who has participated in this debate. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is critically important to the good of our democracy and of our country.

It exists to ensure that the rights and freedoms of minorities are respected and protected in our laws and by our governments. However, it is not and cannot be merely a static document. We must be able to call upon it at need, to weigh and measure the laws that we enact in this place, to ensure that these laws and government actions do, in fact, respect and protect those rights and freedoms.

Doing so cannot be the sole purview of those who are financially well off and who can personally afford to engage the legal process. There must also be recourse for ordinary people to challenge laws that they believe are unjust or that unreasonably infringe upon their rights and freedoms, to test those laws against the fundamentals of the charter. That is the court challenges program.

The court challenges program, however, has been on and off again over the years, and this is problematic. The purpose of this bill, Bill C-316, is to provide an enduring mechanism wired into legislation, administered by arm's-length, independent experts, to support the examination of nonfrivolous, nonvexatious questions that are significant to the public good. This will enable these important questions to be brought forward, irrespective of the financial means of the proponents, to be answered properly in a court of law.

In doing so, we strengthen the charter itself and bolster this critical foundation of our democracy. I urge all members to support this bill. Let us get it to committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 22, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Small Business

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am back again tonight, this being my last opportunity to continue pressing on the need to extend a critical loan deadline for small businesses before we expect the fall economic statement later this month.

Here is what has brought us to this point. In the pandemic, small businesses did what we asked of them by closing their doors to slow the spread of COVID-19. The federal government then rolled out a really important program to help them, the Canada emergency business account loans, or CEBA loans for short. These were interest-free loans of up to $40,000 for small businesses and non-profits. It was later increased to $60,000.

The most important part though is that up to 33% of the loan was forgivable, meaning it was a grant, if the small business paid the rest back by December 31 of this year.

Here is what small businesses in my community had to say about how critical the program was. Graeme Kobayashi, from Counterpoint Brewing Company, said, “We were operating very successfully prior to the pandemic, however, we're also a very new business and were able to amass only a small amount of savings when COVID arrived and the lasting conditions of COVID lockdowns ate away at them relatively quickly. The CEBA loan was a lifeline for our business.” He said that, without it, they would not be here today.

Ian McMullan from McMullan's Canadian Pub & Pizzeria said that the CEBA loan was a significant source of help for his business to get through the pandemic. Without it, it would have been in the red on multiple occasions. The CEBA loan was absolutely essential to its survival as a business.

These are small businesses that were operating profitably before the pandemic, did the right thing by closing during the pandemic, unlike big box stores, and now they are disproportionately experiencing lasting impacts of longer-than-expected pandemic lockdowns.

It is why this past summer more than 250 local and provincial chambers of commerce, including the Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce, and national business organizations including the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Better Way Alliance and Restaurants Canada called for an extension on the time small businesses would have to pay back the full loan and still qualify for the grant portion.

I met with small businesses in my community this past summer. I heard their concerns, wrote to both of the ministers responsible and met with the Minister of Small Business this past summer to convey these concerns. All of which is why I was so disappointed in September when the Prime Minister announced a mere 18-day extension to repay without having the grant portion of this program turn into another loan.

I then brought it up in question period during Small Business Week, and I do not feel like I received a real answer to the question. It is why I am back here again this evening.

Here is what CFIB has found about the changes the Prime Minister announced in September. It found that the majority of business owners, or 82%, did not find the changes to the CEBA repayment schedule helpful, and more than half of them question whether they will be able to stay in business if they lose the forgivable portion. It is obvious the federal government has not listened to small businesses after small businesses. They stepped up for us, and businesses in my community are frustrated.

Sam Nabi, from Full Circle Foods, says, “As independent business owners trying to do the right thing, we often take on a lot of personal responsibility. And yet, I can’t help but feel frustrated at federal grants given to massively profitable national grocery chains with no strings attached, while independent small businesses in our neighbourhood have to shut their doors.”

Carolann Mackie from the Frugal Decorator is saying that she is frankly very worried about the expectation to pay back the CEBA loan. The nearing date continues to leave her in a very difficult financial position.

My question to the parliamentary secretary is whether he is going to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I need to give the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business the opportunity to answer.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business and to the Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to the comments made by the hon. member for Kitchener Centre regarding supports for small businesses and the Canada emergency business account payment deadline and loan forgiveness.

Since the beginning of the COVID–19 pandemic, the government has been there to provide unprecedented support to Canada's small businesses across the country. That is why, at the onset of the pandemic, we launched the Canada emergency business account program. This is in addition to critical and much-needed supports like the rent and wage subsidies, which were put in place to assist small businesses. CEBA provided $49 billion in support to nearly 900,000 businesses across the country. The program offered interest-free partial forgivable loans up to $60,000 to eligible small businesses. It kept their lights on and helped workers remain employed.

Early last year, to help business owners as they continue to recover from the pandemic, the government announced that the CEBA repayment deadline for partial forgiveness would be extended by one year. The government understands that the current global economic environment is having a major impact on entrepreneurs and Canadians. We recently announced several changes to the CEBA program aimed at supporting economic recovery. Recognizing the challenges that small businesses continue to face in the current economic context, we have yet again extended the deadline for partial forgiveness to January 2024 and have extended the CEBA term loans by one year, to December 31, 2026, to offer businesses more time for their loan repayments.

Small businesses asked for more flexibility and the government listened. It is also supporting small businesses by cutting credit card transaction fees and reducing the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%. We have enhanced the Canada small business financing program by increasing annual financing to small businesses by an estimated $560 million annually through the introduction of a working line of capital to help businesses access liquidity for start-up costs and intangible assets. For businesses looking to bring their offerings to the digital marketplace, the Canada digital adoption program has supported enterprises of all sizes to digitize and reach more markets.

Moreover, we are ensuring that all entrepreneurs have the opportunities they deserve. That is why we launched the historic women entrepreneurship strategy, the Black entrepreneurship program, the 2SLGBTQI+ entrepreneurship program and targeted supports for indigenous entrepreneurs.

The government is focusing on growing our economy and building a stronger, more resilient Canada for everyone. We will continue to support Canadian businesses throughout this recovery process, because, quite frankly, that is common sense.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and I agree on one very relevant aspect of his comments, which is that the CEBA loan program was critical and small businesses are deeply grateful for it. However, the reality is that today over half of these same small businesses are trying to tell the government that if it does not step up, they might not make it at all. They are trying to tell the government that 18 days is not going to cut it.

My question to the parliamentary secretary is this. Does he understand what small businesses are trying to convey? If he does, is he advocating for a proper extension to December 31, 2024, to be in the fall economic statement, which we are expecting in a matter of weeks?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government has heard loud and clear that small businesses needed additional flexibility and options in these difficult times and we are taking action. This includes an extension of the CEBA loan repayment deadline, more flexibility on refinancing and more time to access loan forgiveness. Through these measures, we are giving small businesses additional breathing room.

The government will continue to support small businesses across the country while we grow our economy, fight climate change and create an economy that works for all Canadians.

Climate Change

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the climate crisis is here. Thousands of Canadians were evacuated from their homes in the worst wildfire season on record. Hundreds died in heat domes. Extreme weather is only getting more frequent and more severe.

If we want to have any hope of meeting our climate targets, we must implement a strong emissions cap on the oil and gas industry. In Canada, despite accounting for just 5% of Canada's economy, oil and gas is responsible for over a quarter of Canada's emissions, more than any other sector.

Despite the greenwashing that we hear from industry lobbyists, from their friends in the Liberal Party and from corporate-controlled Conservatives, oil and gas emissions are increasing year after year. The oil and gas sector's expansion has gone unchecked in Canada, and there have been no limits on how much pollution they are allowed to create.

A strong cap on emissions would be that limit. The Liberals promised to deliver a cap on emissions but, instead, they continue to delay and disappoint. It is time to hold the oil and gas sector accountable for the fact that they are fuelling the climate crisis. It is not like they cannot afford it. Oil executives are raking in record profits, while everyday Canadians are struggling to make ends meet.

If the Liberals wanted to stop pretending to be a climate leader and instead take real climate action, they would stop listening to oil and gas CEOs and implement a hard cap on emissions, one without the loopholes and delays that the oil and gas lobbyists are pushing for.

A hard cap would be aligned with the Paris Agreement of keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. It needs to be enforceable, and a hard cap on absolute levels of emissions; no loopholes and relief valves that let companies off the hook. This means emissions reductions would need to happen within the sector, not through purchasing offsets for reductions elsewhere. Companies should only receive credit for proven reductions, not hypothetical reductions based on speculative technologies.

A strong emissions cap needs to include strong enforcement measures. Penalties and fines have to be significant enough that they actually deter or change behaviour rather than simply allowing companies to internalize small fines as the cost of doing business and continuing with business as usual.

We need to look at compliance mechanisms that are not financial, things like mandated production cuts or the use of the criminal powers under CEPA. It also must uphold indigenous rights. We need to ensure that the rights affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples continue to be upheld within the emissions cap, including securing indigenous peoples' free, prior and informed consent for energy development in their territory.

The Liberal government needs to get serious about prioritizing our health and our future over the profits of rich CEOs. We cannot afford a weak emissions cap that does not hold the oil and gas industry accountable.

My question to the member is this. When will the government stop delaying and start keeping some of its climate promises? When will we see a cap on emissions?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to the environment, we have a government that has clearly demonstrated, since coming to office in 2015, a genuine and sincere commitment to Canada's environment. In fact, the total greenhouse emissions that have been taken away are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 53 million tonnes since 2015. That is the equivalent of 11 million gas vehicles. Looking at it from a world perspective, of all the G20 countries, Canada is the only one that has actually eliminated fossil fuel subsidies. We even did that in advance of the dates by which we said we would do it. We have a government that has made the commitment to put a cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector.

If we contrast the messaging that I hear tonight from the member across the aisle to the way in which she actually voted the other day on the Conservative opposition motion, there are a number of progressive people who are who are looking at the NDP and are getting a confused message. Part of what we talk about is how people can actually convert from oil heating to heat pumps, and I think the NDP might have been manipulated into supporting the Conservative motion in regard to the policy that the government put into place. That policy is to get people throughout Canada to take advantage of conversion from oil heating to heat pumps, which are much better for the environment and more affordable for Canadians.

Games were played. In the House, the majority of the political entities, including the Greens, the Bloc members and obviously the Liberals, saw what the Conservatives were doing. The NDP, on the other hand, voted with the Conservatives. It sends a very mixed message when the member stands up and talks about emissions and then votes for a motion that goes against a price on pollution, remembering that with the price on pollution there are also the rebates that complement it. It also goes against the idea of sound policy that would ensure that more people convert to heat pumps from oil heating.

I would suggest that is a good thing, and the government has a good track record already on that. The greener homes program, again, is about tens of thousands of homes, in all regions of the country combined, that have actually made a conversion and are now using heat pumps, recognizing that heat pumps are far better for our environment. This is a program, as an example, which the government has brought forward.

Whether it is budgetary measures or legislative measures, we have been found to be a very progressive government in dealing with the environment and emissions.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, if the member wants an example of saying one thing but doing another, he just needs to look in the mirror, because today the NDP put forward a motion with respect to heat pumps, and the Liberals voted with the Conservatives. The motion included an excess profit tax on oil and gas companies. It is a measure that would hold rich CEOs accountable. Unfortunately, the current Liberal government does not have the courage to stand up to oil and gas lobbies. In fact, the Liberals invited them into crafting their climate policies.

I am concerned that the member does not understand the urgency of the crisis we are facing and the urgency of ensuring that the oil and gas sector reduce its emissions. We needed an emissions cap years ago. I did not hear a date. When will the government get serious about holding the oil and gas giants accountable, and implement a cap on emissions?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member makes reference to a vote that took place today on, again, a bad NDP policy. Let us think about it. What the New Democrats want to do is to completely get rid of the GST on fossil fuels, whether that is natural gas or oil. The GST provides a very significant rebate. That is what makes it progressive.

The people who would benefit the most by the policy that the NDP was advocating are Canada's 1% wealthiest people. Those are the ones who actually would benefit the most because there is a rebate section to the GST. That is not to mention the many other inequities in that particular policy. That is why I suggest that the New Democrats need to think through their policies in regard to what is coming to the floor related to the price on pollution or to the GST, because the New Democrats' actions do not support a healthier environment.

Foreign Affairs

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to follow up on a question that I asked on Monday regarding the horrors we are witnessing in Gaza and to demand that the Canadian government call for a ceasefire, which is something this government continues to actively fight against. Even today in the House, Liberals refused to support our motion calling for a ceasefire.

Many in my community of London—Fanshawe are in an incredible amount of pain. There are Canadians across this country who are in an incredible amount of pain. They are grieving for their families, their friends, their loved ones and for what they are seeing unfolding in Palestine and Israel.

This past month has devastated many of us, and my constituents are as alarmed as I am by the increase in hate, including anti-Palestinian racism, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. I have spoken with many Londoners who are still reeling from the horrific murder of members of our London family. Many Londoners do not feel safe sending their children to school, and some are scared to wear their Stars of David or their yarmulkes. I know of sons who have been so scared that they have asked their mothers not to wear their hijabs for fear of harassment and potential violence.

Hundreds of Canadians and their families are still unable to leave Gaza, including some of my constituents. They are surviving the worst conditions and are under constant threat of bombardment, and they do not know when they might find safety. Global Affairs Canada has had no answers for them.

I have been working with family members who are desperate. They fear every phone call that comes in. Their bodies can no longer handle the stress and they are being hospitalized for fear of what they will be told about those family members. They have cried in meetings with me and asked why they are seen as second-class citizens.

Since October 11, the NDP has been asking the Liberals to stand on the right side of history and demand a ceasefire. Yesterday, polling by Mainstreet Research showed that over 71% of Canadians support the call for a ceasefire. Canadian aid agencies, including CARE, Development and Peace, Islamic Relief, Oxfam, Médecins du Monde and Save the Children are urging the Government of Canada to take a strong and resolute stance and demand a ceasefire in order to prevent further loss of civilian life.

Eighteen leading global agencies, including UNICEF, the World Health Organization, the World Food Programme and the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs are urging a ceasefire, saying that enough is enough. Many of the families of the hostages are calling for a ceasefire, saying that the bombardment puts their loved ones at risk.

This is the worst humanitarian crisis we have seen in our lifetimes, and Gaza children are starving to death. Pregnant women are miscarrying from stress or having C-sections without anaesthetic in hospital rooms that are damaged from bombing and infested with insects. There is no water. There is no medicine. There is no safe place. The United Nations Secretary-General has said that “Gaza is becoming a graveyard for children.”

However, what we do not hear from the government is what we need to hear. Why is Canada refusing to support international investigations into war crimes? Why is it that Canada cannot condemn those violations of international humanitarian law? In other conflicts, the government does that, but it does not do that in this one. This is an outrageous failure of leadership by the Prime Minister and the government.

Canadians want a ceasefire. They want to see the hostages released. They want their fellow Canadians home. They want their family members home. However, the Liberals are failing at this moment. It is time to find their courage. I beg them to find their courage and call for a ceasefire before more Palestinian children are killed in this horrendous war.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for bringing this issue back to the House this evening. As she knows, I grew up in London, Ontario. I appreciate her efforts in bringing the concerns of her constituents to the House. We know that communities are grieving, and we are all concerned by the rise of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism in our communities right across Canada. I join the hon. member in calling for us to condemn hate in all its forms.

The horrific attacks by Hamas against Israel shocked us all. Canada unequivocally condemns these brutal attacks against innocent civilians. The victims and all of those impacted are at the front of our minds. Hamas must unconditionally and immediately release all hostages, regardless of nationality, who were kidnapped during its attacks. We must also immediately and unequivocally call for unimpeded humanitarian aid, including food, fuel, water and medicine, to be allowed into Gaza.

Every measure must be taken to protect civilians in Gaza. This means that Canadians, permanent residents and their immediate families must be able to leave. That is why we continue to call for humanitarian pauses.

What is unfolding in Gaza is a human tragedy. As the Prime Minister has said, “the price of justice cannot be the continued suffering of all Palestinian civilians.” Canada's long-standing position is that civilians must be protected in all conflicts always. I repeat that everything must be done to protect all civilians, and international law must be respected.

I want to reassure all Canadians that we are in regular and close contact with our allies and partners in the region. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs continue to speak with their counterparts in Israel, Gaza and Qatar. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has been to the region twice. She has just arrived back from the G7. We continue to work hard to support Canadians and get them to safety. We are actively working to get Canadian citizens, permanent residents and their family members to safety.

I want to take this time to thank our missions in the region, in Israel, Ramallah, Egypt and Jordan, and those in Canada at Global Affairs Canada. Today, I visited the emergency watch and response centre and saw first-hand the staff's dedication. I heard about the good work they are doing. They have been working non-stop to help Canadians, and their tremendous efforts continue as they work around the clock to ensure that Canadians are brought to safety.

The first Canadians have now departed Gaza through the Rafah border crossing. Canadian officials are on the Egyptian side of the border ready to help with the support and care they need and to get them to Cairo. We remain in contact with those still in Gaza and will continue to work every day to bring them home.

Canada was the first G7 country to announce additional humanitarian assistance to address the crisis. To date, Canada's contribution stands at $60 million to respond to the alarming conditions of those affected by the crisis. Our funding will help provide food, water, emergency medical assistance and protection services in Gaza. It is essential that humanitarian access can reach those in need.

We will continue to call for the immediate release of all hostages and demand that they be treated in accordance with international law. We will keep working with our diplomatic channels. We have also sent a team of experts to the region.

Canada is committed to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. This means the creation of a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel. All Israelis and Palestinians have the right to live in peace and security. It is essential that this conflict not spread. Canada continues to engage with our partners in the region and around the world to reinforce the need to avoid further escalations.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, once again, I am deeply disappointed that the hon. member could not even talk about the word “ceasefire”. She did mention a humanitarian pause, but the scale of the current humanitarian catastrophe cannot be reversed with temporary and localized influxes of aid. This is about starvation. This is about dehydration. This is about mass killings.

Four thousand Palestinian children are dead. People are living in fear. More than 120,000 Canadians have written to MPs demanding a ceasefire. I am heartbroken that the Liberals do not have the courage to do what is right and call for the release of the hostages, call for international justice and call for a ceasefire.