Evidence of meeting #20 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Are you familiar with the Aboriginal Curatorial Collective?
4:35 p.m.
Manager, Indian and Inuit Art Centres, Corporate Services Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I am, and that's the very collective I'm referring to. It is headed by a former employee who has been—I can't even say the right word—examining us very closely.
4:35 p.m.
A voice
Do you need your lawyer?
4:35 p.m.
Manager, Indian and Inuit Art Centres, Corporate Services Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I might.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Am I hearing you say that these are not legitimate questions?
4:35 p.m.
Manager, Indian and Inuit Art Centres, Corporate Services Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
They are not legitimate questions. That's why I'd like to invite you to see what we do.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Manager, Indian and Inuit Art Centres, Corporate Services Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Upon appointment.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
The problem is that as a parliamentarian, if someone brings me something.... I have no idea if this person was a past employee.
4:35 p.m.
Manager, Indian and Inuit Art Centres, Corporate Services Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
He is an angry past employee.
4:35 p.m.
Manager, Indian and Inuit Art Centres, Corporate Services Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I know who you talked to.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I find it awkward. If I can't, as a parliamentarian, talk to people and ask questions without being accused of asking questions that are not appropriate or legitimate, there's a problem here.
4:35 p.m.
Manager, Indian and Inuit Art Centres, Corporate Services Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
You can, and I appreciate your concern for that group or person.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Because you have no idea where I'm trying to go with this.
4:35 p.m.
Manager, Indian and Inuit Art Centres, Corporate Services Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I will continue to answer your questions.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
If there's a situation where a very valuable and important collection is perhaps in need of greater financial assistance, that's part of our job.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
The time is up now on that question. Maybe you'll have another chance as we go around.
Are there no questions on this side? Okay.
Because we have gone around a few times, I would like to say one thing as chair. I know what collections and archives have not been looked after over the years. When I first came on committee we talked of the Library and Archives getting put together. We know collections were in some deplorable situations.
As we go forward, we want to make sure that all collections, whether they're art or other artifacts, are looked after properly. I hope that as time goes on your collection stays good and your acquisitions go along the way they have.
I thank you very much for your presentation here today. I've learned a lot. I'll try to make an appointment to come over. Maybe Mr. Bélanger and I will come over together to have a look at the collection.
4:40 p.m.
Manager, Indian and Inuit Art Centres, Corporate Services Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
All right.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you very much.
We're going to have a short recess and then we'll be back.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Order.
The other day, when we didn't have translation, I started into the court challenges program hearings. I started to read off some of my concerns. This, then, continues with regard to the court challenge program.
On Wednesday, October 25, while the committee was planning its future meetings on the above-mentioned subject, we learned that a petition had been filed at 10:30 a.m. the same day at the Federal Court in Fredericton.
I'm going to ask Jacques to read the names off, because they are all in French.
Jacques, please.
4:45 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Jacques Lahaie
In this case the plaintiffs are as follows:
the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, la Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, la Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law, la Commission nationale des parents francophones and the Quebec Community Groups Network.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you.
The sub judice convention is an unwritten convention whereby the House and its committees voluntarily refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts. The convention has two aims: to protect the parties in a legal dispute from any prejudicial effect that could result from a public discussion of the issue by parliamentarians, and to maintain a separation of mutual respect between legislative and judicial branches of government.
As regards the first aim, the convention seems to apply differently to criminal and civil cases. It applies much more rigorously in criminal matters. Indeed, the House and its committees on principle do not discuss any case in which a person has been formally charged with an offence. The application seems more flexible in civil matters, where parliamentarians' freedom of speech is restricted only when the merits of the case are being heard, and not from the time of action in commencing or during any interlocutory proceedings.
As regards the second aim, which concerns the principle of the separation of powers, the convention should apply equally to criminal and civil cases. The importance of this aim is made clear in the following comment made by the Supreme Court of Canada in Vaid:
It is a wise principle that the courts and Parliament strive to respect each other’s role in the conduct of public affairs. Parliament, for its part, refrains from commenting on matters before the courts under the sub judice rule. The courts, for their part, are careful not to interfere with the workings of Parliament. None of the parties to this proceeding questions the pre-eminent importance of the House of Commons as “the grand inquest of the nation”.
In a number of recent decisions, the courts have recognized the parliamentary privileges of the House of Commons, thereby acknowledging its independence from the judiciary. To maintain that flow of favourable decisions and retain the sympathy of the courts in its regard, the House must, in my opinion, reciprocate by respecting the independence of the courts.
As Marleau and Montpetit state in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, “...the perception and reality of the independence of the judiciary must be jealously guarded.” Therefore, now that the matter is before the courts, the House and its committees should refrain from discussing it in order to avoid the risk of encroaching on the independence of the judiciary.
I should remind all members of the committee that this is the position this committee took a few months ago in the case of Telefilm Canada.
So this is the decision I have taken, in consultation with the clerk and with various other people, and I am open for comment.
Mr. Angus.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Although I certainly don't want to show that I didn't bring my book with me today, the fact is that I didn't bring it. I have to ask a question for clarification.
Are any of the parties to litigation parties that are scheduled to appear before our committee?