Canadian Heritage Committee on June 4th, 2024

[Blair McMurren]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Indeed, as officials, we see a potential problem with the transitional provision, especially toward the end, which might suggest that there wasn't the necessary authority at the time to establish the former versions of the Court Challenges Program. As we understand it, the goal seems to be to anchor the program in a new provision of the Department of Canadian Heritage Act. However, we think the government and the ministers at the time had all the authority they needed to establish the former versions of the program.

It's a bit of a fine legal point, but our perspective is that duly elected governments and ministers of the day had the authority under, among other things, the Department of Canadian Heritage Act to establish former iterations of the court challenges program. The transitional provision here could give the unintended suggestion that there was no authority previously to establish the program when, in fact, there was. It's suggesting that it's anchored in the new paragraph 5(a.1) of the act when, in fact, there was legislative authority for previous governments and ministers to establish the program.

We just want to avoid a bad suggestion. It may be a small point, but that's our legal view as public servants.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Chair, after the comments we just heard, do we need to vote on this clause or can we just say it's unnecessary?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

I'll ask Mr. Méla.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Serré, if you feel that the provision is no longer necessary and you want to remove it, you have to vote against it.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

If that is the will of the committee, we will have a vote to eliminate—

Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, first of all, I'd like to clarify one detail.

Mr. Méla, our amendment BQ‑7 proposes to create a new clause, clause 4.1. If clause 4 is defeated, will clause 4.1 simply be renumbered, or will it be defeated at the same time as clause 4?

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Champoux, clause 4 and clause 4.1 are two separate clauses, and one has no impact on the other.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Shall clause 4 carry?

(Clause 4 negatived: nays 10; yeas 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Champoux, we're at amendment BQ-7, proposing a new clause 4.1.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm quite happy to add an entirely new clause to this bill. This clause is interesting, but above all very important, given that Quebec is a nation and that it makes choices that are different from those of the Canadian nation in a number of areas where the state intervenes. The proposal made by the Bloc Québécois is a serious one, and I therefore invite my colleagues to think about it seriously.

Our proposal will make it possible to solve a problem that concerns the distinct nature of Quebec, as well as respect for the sovereignty of the National Assembly in all areas under its jurisdiction. Since the Court Challenges Program affects a number of areas of jurisdiction of the National Assembly of Quebec, we feel it is entirely appropriate to adopt this new clause 4.1, which proposes that: Within six months after the day on which this Act comes into force, the Minister of Canadian Heritage shall enter into a framework agreement with the Government of Quebec for the purpose of making an arrangement respecting the management of any program established under paragraph 5(a.1) of the Department of Canadian Heritage Act.

I admit that this is a bold request. However, if we think about it objectively, I believe that everyone will recognize that this proposal is consistent with the fact that the Quebec nation and its distinct character have been recognized a few times by the House of Commons itself. So that's the motivation behind BQ‑7.

So I invite you to put it to a vote right away and to pass it.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you.

Mr. Serré, go ahead, please.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amendment BQ‑7 requires the minister to enter into a specific arrangement with the Government of Quebec regarding the Court Challenges Program.

I don't remember which motion it was, but another proposal was ruled out of order on the grounds that the program cannot apply to a specific province but must apply to Canada as a whole. If there were other amendments that were ruled out of order because they applied to a particular province, I'm wondering if that is the case with this amendment as well.

It's a national program, so I just wanted to clarify that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you.

We'll have Mr. Méla.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Serré, the provision is a little different here. It simply asks that the minister contact the Government of Quebec to propose possible arrangements. Ultimately, it's not necessarily related to what's in the bill, but rather to arrangements that could be made outside the bill, while respecting its application, of course.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Méla.

Mr. McMurren, if we proceed in this way with the program, will that set a precedent? Will we have to negotiate with a province in the case of another national program? What's your opinion on that?

[Blair McMurren]

Thank you.

This amendment would add an administrative complexity to the program, which could compromise its timely implementation. It could also have an impact on access to the program for various—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

I'm sorry to interrupt Mr. McMurren, since we're currently dealing with Mr. Serré's question, but, with all due respect to Mr. McMurren, I think there's a bit of extrapolation here. Since we're only talking about establishing a framework agreement, I think it's a bit premature to conclude that this measure would complicate the application and accessibility of the act. I think that a framework agreement can take into account all these concerns and that we cannot conclude here that this amendment would complicate the process.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Mr. Serré, if you are done, I will move on.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Yes, it will add an administrative burden that could lengthen the applicants' process. Obviously, it's relative. It would still be an administrative burden if we ever added that we had to negotiate an agreement with a province, because negotiating is negotiating. It could have a negative impact if a province objects to an applicant.

With all due respect, Mr. Champoux, I would like us to let the witness finish his answer. I'd like to hear from Mr. McMurren on that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Okay.

Mr. McMurren, please continue.

[Blair McMurren]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to acknowledge the objective behind the amendment. However, we're wondering if this could add a dimension of administrative complexity that could have an impact, not only on the one‑time application of the program, but also on the access of various minority communities in Quebec to the program.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Ms. Lattanzio.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question will be directed to Mr. McMurren.

We understand this needs to be an independent program. Would this amendment not go against the program's nature and objectives in being subservient to the will of any province, whether it be Quebec or any other, in your opinion?

[Blair McMurren]

I wonder if I would characterize it as being “subservient” to a certain province.

I think we're more concerned with simply the timely administration of the program and, as I mentioned, the potential obstacles this could create for different minority communities in Quebec jurisdictions in accessing the program. That would be more our concern than what was being discussed.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

If the impediment is on an administrative level, would incorporating this language still not be regarded as a negative or a problem, if I can address it as such?

[Blair McMurren]

I have to confess that it's a question I hadn't thought about from exactly this perspective.

We're well aware that provinces have different perspectives on the program and their own interests in terms of the laws, policies and programs they implement in their jurisdictions. We don't consider it to be untoward that there are these different perspectives.

To restate it, I think our concern at the end of the day would be more around the administrative impacts and potential impacts on access within a particular jurisdiction in which this kind of agreement was required in order to deliver funding to recipients.