Evidence of meeting #121 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
What's envisioned at the moment is that the annual report publish the names of the cases in the preceding year after they close.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
It's only after they're closed.
My curiosity is getting the best of me. These cases would be.... In the legal process, most challenges and most court cases are public. These cases already exist.
Why would we not publish the fact that the taxpayers are funding this before the decision is rendered?
5:25 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Again, as it was alluded to, the balance is between full transparency and litigation privilege.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
What is litigation privilege? I don't understand. I went to law school, but I don't understand that term.
5:25 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
As I understand it, it can have a number of aspects to it. Some were just alluded to, such as around the security and personal safety of the people involved in the case.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Sure, that's granted. That's 100% the way it should be.
If there isn't security of person or if it isn't a vulnerable individual that we are, for whatever reason, bringing a case for and that person is fine with the information—maybe they even they want their name out there and they want to know that they're associated with this program—right now you aren't publishing that until the end of the decision.
Is that correct?
5:25 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
That's correct. It's at the end of the legal process.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
In the annual report, in the modernization version as it is, are you currently publishing how much you are funding these various cases? Obviously, you said it's just at the end, but do you put in what the total dollar amount was?
5:25 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
The program absolutely publishes financial information in the annual report.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
That's not the question I asked.
Do you put the case...? Let's say it's Mr. Champoux who challenges the legislation in Quebec because he's like that—it's a little joke—and your organization gave him and his organization $200,000.
Is that easily accessible in the report?
5:30 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
No, the current annual report is not at that level of detail. There's more detail that's being worked toward.
I'd need to confirm whether what's envisioned under the contribution agreement would get down to that level of granularity. We'd be able to get back to the committee on that. I'm not sure offhand that it would get down to a case level, but we could confirm that.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I'm not trying to be difficult there. I'm legitimately trying to understand this and, hopefully, make the program better by working with you on this.
I think it would be a good thing for transparency for Canadians to know how much they're funding the various cases, provided.... I think there are legitimate reasons to withhold, if you have a vulnerable person. I get that 110%, but for those folks who are not in a vulnerable position, I think that's a great idea and a reasonable thing to do.
Just to get back...and then I'll finish up. Mr. Champoux's subamendment is just to provide a list of those cases at the end of the year, which is already sort of part of the modernization. This probably just puts a belt and suspenders approach to it.
Is that right?
All these cases are public anyway, or the vast majority are, unless it's a sexual assault victim or something like that.
5:30 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
I would say that the amendment is confirming to some extent the existing practice of the program, if it's clear that it's referring to closed cases in the previous year.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you very much. I didn't mean to give you a hard time, Mr. McMurren.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As to the financial contribution agreement between an organization and the CCP, is disclosure optional or mandatory? If it is mandatory and someone wants to disassociate themselves from the case, can they request that it remain confidential?
5:30 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Are you referring to the contribution agreement between departments and the University of Ottawa?
May 23rd, 2024 / 5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
No, I'm talking about the contribution agreement between the University of Ottawa and the applicant or organization receiving CCP funding to go to court.
Does the contribution agreement include a provision regarding public disclosure? In other words, is there a provision whereby the applicant authorizes public disclosure by selecting the “yes” box? On the other hand, if they want to avoid public disclosure, they select the “no” box and have to explain why.
In short, is disclosure optional? That would change the whole report. That would eliminate transparency.
5:30 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I understand the question now.
Under the contribution agreement between the department and the University of Ottawa, it does in fact have to be clear between the beneficiary and the University that when the case is closed, it will be made public. That is mandatory.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
Seeing no other hands, I'm now going to the vote on Mr. Champoux's subamendment.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
We'll now go to the amended G-2.
Is there any discussion on amended G-2, or shall I call the vote? We have a hard stop at 5:40.
Mrs. Thomas, are you speaking to the amended motion?
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I believe, if you confer with the clerk, that I'm on the speaking list.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Yes, I know. Are you speaking about that currently?
Okay. Go ahead, please.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I wish to move a subamendment.
For the subamendment, I would be looking to incorporate what is currently in CPC-6, for committee members' reference. I'd be looking to Mr. Méla to confirm. However, based on my understanding of the G-2 amendment—of course, as subamended by Mr. Serré—I should be able to replace lines 26 to 28 by putting in the following:
and financial performance of the program, as well as a list of all the cases that received funding, and the amount provided for each case
After that, it would pick up with Mr. Serré's subamendment.
Chair, once everyone feels they understand the subamendment I've put forward, I'm happy to speak about its significance.