Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 4th, 2014

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

But you naturally assumed it would be the Treasury Board, right?

[Suzanne Legault]

It is, except we have received, in the last two years, a request from the Minister of Justice to submit our request for funding, and our request to be included in the budget exercise, and that's what we have done.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

That's kind of bizarre, because the President of the Treasury Board in the House basically said, “Well, we can't give her more funding because we haven't received her letter.”

[Suzanne Legault]

Well—

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

You would think the Treasury Board president would know that Justice is asking you for a submission.

[Suzanne Legault]

The only thing I can say, sir, is that, frankly, I don't care where I have to send the request. If somebody tells me there will be extra funding to the office, I will do whatever people in the government ask me to do—very gladly, very promptly, and in very much detail.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I fundamentally agree, the NDP fundamentally agrees, and you know what? It's incredible, the financial situation you're in.

I'd like to move the following, Mr. Chair:

That the Committee send a report to the House recommending that it provide the Office of the Information Commissioner with sufficient emergency financial resources to allow for the fulfillment of the Office's mandate in this fiscal year and to ensure that an adequate level of funding is maintained in the next budget.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

You've made a motion on the floor, Mr. Ravignat. I'll just check to see that the motion is in order.

Okay, the motion is in order.

Is there any debate on the motion? We have very limited time, so I'll ask people to keep their debate concise, please.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I assume that I can speak to my motion?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Yes.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I think we've heard quite enough about the challenges faced by the commissioner and by the office to fulfill the mandate of this very important agent of Parliament. This is a fundamental issue of our democracy, a fundamental issue of transparency.

I think it's time to stop playing with the puck and be serious about her role. She has about $37,000 left. What does that mean? I think it's only fair for our committee to do its due diligence and do its job: recognize the seriousness of the witnessing we've had today and recommend that the government give some money to this important office.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Ravignat.

Is there any further debate?

Mr. O'Toole.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would move a friendly amendment to the motion, because I think Mr. Ravignat's motion is premature. I say that because Madame Legault has already undertaken to provide this committee with a fairly helpful and substantive overview of similar jurisdictions, and the cost structures of ATI requests in similar jurisdictions. I think all members of this committee today have probably found some of the information provided in the materials, the charts, and her testimony before this committee to be very interesting and compelling. Certainly there's a shared optimism that she's been able to get closure rates down. She's been handling the 30% increase, but we do see the 30% increase by departments, and for some of the commercial departments it's far higher than that, and for the security departments it's far higher than that.

I think to really see how this system could work best and whether the five-dollar level from 1983 is the appropriate barrier to what was described as the frivolous or nuisance requests that are potentially bogging down the system and adding to costs, I think the overview that Madame Legault will be undertaking for the committee, comparing our system and processing fees, and showing the charges and those sorts of things, is an important piece of information that, I think, all members would want to have.

My friendly amendment would be to defer Mr. Ravignat's motion until after the undertaking from Madame Legault to this committee is fulfilled and committee members have had time to review it. His motion would become live at that time.

It's a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Actually, under the rules of the committee, there is no such thing as a friendly amendment. As we operate, we have a motion on the floor, and it has to be dealt with. It's a formal amendment—

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

My colleague may choose to agree to have more information in front of him, as per the undertaking. It's up to him.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

That's true.

Well, it's either an amendment or it isn't an amendment, Mr. O'Toole. There's nothing the chair can do with a friendly amendment. That's really between the two parties.

We have very little time if we want to put this to a vote. There are two other speakers on the motion itself, so unless you have a formal amendment—and then the debate will be on the amendment—we'll continue on the main motion.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Well, if my friend's not willing to build in a friendly amendment to his, I would ask for a formal amendment, based on what Madame Legault might need in terms of time for the overview she is going to provide the committee. Then we can give maybe a week from the date she provides it to amend the motion.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Okay, the debate will be on the amendment.

[Inaudible—Editor] be putting that in writing just so the clerk understands properly the amendment that you're putting forward. I understand generally that we will wait until the report comes from Madame Legault, and give it a week or two, and then deal with the matter.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

[Inaudible—Editor] of how to consider the motion, as far as I understand.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, do you anticipate needing a month or two to undertake the overview that we talked about?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

We're having a hard time interpreting things here or figuring this out. I don't know why it's so complicated.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, there's due process. There's a motion on the floor.

Either there's an amendment or there's not. It's not the time to add elements of debate by questioning the witness.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Let's not have any more chit-chat until we decide. We'd like to see the amendment in writing so that the clerk can put it into the amendment, and then the debate will be on the amendment.

We'll need unanimous consent to continue the meeting to conclude the debate on this amendment. Do we have the unanimous consent of the committee to extend the committee meeting by 15 minutes beyond its normal expiry time?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

The meeting is adjourned.