Summary#

Bill C-316 would amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act to require the Minister of Canadian Heritage to maintain the Court Challenges Program. The program funds court “test cases” (cases meant to clarify the law) of national significance about official language rights and human rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bill also requires an independent administrator and yearly reporting to Parliament.

• Puts the Court Challenges Program into law and requires it to be maintained (Bill s.5(a.1)).
• Requires an independent organization to run the program (Bill s.5(a.1)).
• Adds an annual report with activities, goals, finances, funded cases, outreach, and counts of denied applications in each component (language rights and human rights) (Annual report s.(1)–(1.1)).
• Requires the Minister to table the report in both Houses within 15 sitting days (Tabling s.(2)).
• Does not change eligibility rules or set any funding amount in the bill text (Bill s.5(a.1)).

What it means for you#

• Households and individuals

  • If you seek to bring a Charter language or human rights case of national significance, you can continue to apply for funding from the program. The bill does not change who can apply or how much funding is available (Bill s.5(a.1)).
  • “Quasi-constitutional rights” (laws with special status, like human rights and official languages laws) remain within scope for language rights; constitutional human rights are within scope for Charter cases (Bill s.5(a.1)).
  • The program must publish more information each year through an annual report to Parliament, including the number of denied applications in each component (Annual report s.(1)–(1.1)).

• Official-language minority communities

  • The law would confirm ongoing federal support for test cases that clarify and assert language rights (Preamble; Bill s.5(a.1)).
  • The annual report must note any outreach and promotional activities with groups affected by funded cases, which may help communities access the program (Annual report s.(1)).

• Workers, advocates, and legal clinics

  • More stability: the program is in statute, not just policy. This can help plan multi‑year test cases (Preamble; Bill s.5(a.1)).
  • More transparency on what the program funds, and how many applications are denied in each component (Annual report s.(1)–(1.1)).

• Businesses and organizations

  • No direct new duties. Some may be parties to test cases funded by the program. The bill does not change court rules or private rights (Bill s.5(a.1)).

• Parliament and the public

  • You will see a yearly report with activities, goals, finances, a list of funded cases, outreach efforts, and counts of denied applications by component, tabled in both Houses (Annual report s.(1)–(1.1); Tabling s.(2)).

• Federal government (Canadian Heritage)

  • The Minister must ensure an independent organization runs the program and must table the annual report in Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving it (Bill s.5(a.1); Tabling s.(2)).

• Courts

  • No change to court processes. The program’s purpose remains to fund test cases of national significance to clarify rights (Bill s.5(a.1)).

Note: Provisions take effect on Royal Assent. The bill text sets no start date beyond that.

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• The bill sets no funding amount or appropriation. It requires the Minister to maintain the program and to have it administered independently (Bill s.5(a.1)).
• The program already exists; the bill codifies it and adds reporting and tabling duties (Preamble; Annual report s.(1)–(2)).
• Any costs for program grants and administration would continue to be set through future budgets and Estimates. Data unavailable.
• Added costs for preparing and tabling an annual report are likely administrative. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Stabilizes access to justice by putting a long-standing program in law after past cancellations and restorations, reducing the risk of policy reversals (Preamble; Bill s.5(a.1)).
• Helps clarify Charter equality, linguistic, and human rights by funding test cases of national significance that many individuals and communities could not afford (Bill s.5(a.1); Preamble).
• Protects program independence by requiring an administrator that is independent of government (Bill s.5(a.1)).
• Improves transparency and oversight through an annual report with activities, goals, finances, funded cases, outreach, and counts of denied applications for both components (Annual report s.(1)–(1.1)).
• Enhances accountability by requiring the Minister to table the report in both Houses, making information public on a set timetable (Tabling s.(2)).

Opponents' View#

• No budget caps or performance targets in the bill; spending levels and results remain unspecified in law (Bill s.5(a.1); Annual report s.(1)).
• Embedding a grant program in statute limits flexibility to redesign, pause, or wind down the program if priorities change (Bill s.5(a.1)).
• Government would fund litigation that can be against itself, which some view as an inappropriate use of public funds (Bill s.5(a.1)).
• Key terms such as “national significance” and “quasi-constitutional rights” are not defined in the bill, leaving broad discretion to the administrator and potential inconsistency (Bill s.5(a.1)).
• Reporting must include counts of denied applications but not reasons, case outcomes, or equity metrics, which may limit accountability and learning (Annual report s.(1)–(1.1)).
• Added reporting and tabling duties may increase administrative burden; the bill provides no resources for this. Data unavailable.