Evidence of meeting #45 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
This is the accountant in me trying to figure out what it is we're really doing.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
But you see, here's the other implication, I suppose, in terms of it following its logical solution or conclusion. That is, if for some reason there is an entitlement but it's not fulfilled, then that, by its nature, implies a penalty, and I don't know what that penalty is--
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
It's implicit in the negative. I'm not trying to get weird on this, but it just strikes me that we're saying you have to give it to us, but if you don't have it to give to us, then somehow there has to be some retribution, I would presume, if the party doesn't comply. I know you're trying to put a positive spin on it, but all of a sudden that becomes a negative because they say, what if we don't have the information, or for whatever reason it may not be there? I'm really trying to get my head around what you're trying to accomplish with that.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Can the clerk help out to clarify the power of who has the right to receive documents and who can enforce? I'll let the clerk explain.
You can provide your explanations in French or English.
December 3rd, 2009 / 4:45 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Marc-Olivier Girard
Madam Chair, I was simply saying that the power of committees to order the production of documents generally applies to cases where the documents are already in existence. In this particular case, the motion is referring to documents that will be coming, which will eventually be produced. So, it is a little bit...
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
The Clerk
I'm still trying to find the right words. It's a bit of a stretch, you know, compelling production of documents that would be produced in the future.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON
I'll volunteer a solution, if I can.
We are concerned about the government making sure it requests the information it's entitled to, because we're entitled to that, and we're at the mercy of the government to make sure it follows up.
I have to look at the language, and we can work on that, but just in principle, Mr. Holder, if there is a possibility to say that if the document the government is entitled to has not been received according to the timeframe in which it was supposed to be delivered, it would then provide us with that information and say why not.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
Madam Chair, through you, if I may, it seems to me there's some wordsmithing around what Ms. Hall Findlay is talking about. It ties into what Madame Bourgeois has said, that she's looking for some specific clarity around Quebec. I'm not sure I have my head around that either as yet. It seems to me there are a lot of well-intended pieces to this.
Could I ask that this come back in another form that's tighter and cleaner so that I can understand it, please? I'm not trying to be obstructionist, but it would be useful for us to have this correct. I refer back to the clerk's comments.
Madam Chair, what are your thoughts on that?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
If you don't mind, Mr. Brown and Mr. Anders, I'm just going to let Madam Hall Findlay know what he has indicated regarding documentation and how you cannot receive documents that do not exist. We'll need to be careful of number two. We have to go back to what the original agreements were and what schedule H said. Was schedule H signed by all provinces with all municipalities? If that's the case, then we need to figure out whether they were given a deadline.
I think it all comes back to the creation of jobs, which was put in the advertising. I think Madam Hall Findlay has concerns about that. If jobs were created or were supposed to be created, the municipalities were supposed to track it. If they didn't track it, and provinces may allow municipalities to track or they may not—
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON
It's a positive obligation, Madam Chair. It is a legal agreement and it is a positive obligation. There is an agency relationship between the provinces and the Government of Canada with regard to this agreement. The Government of Canada is entitled to receive the information that the municipalities are obliged to provide on a regular basis.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
It's entitled to it, but what happens if it does not receive it? Then what?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON
That is why I was going to suggest some minor changes to the language to refer to information “received by the government, but if not received by the government according to its entitlements, then information provided to explain why”.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
I'll have to ask Mr. Brown and Mr. Anders if you can take over their time.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
Could I just finish very quickly, to extend my logic on this?
I think we're all trying to do the right thing here in trying to get information that's appropriate and meaningful, but I come back to the clerk's comment about trying to do something that doesn't exist as yet.
Ms. Hall Findlay can come back and address some of the concerns, not just from Madame Bourgeois, but also some of the things we've expressed, because I think it's more important to do it right than to do it quickly. That would be my comment to you, Madam Chair.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON
Similar to what Mr. Holder was saying, I think maybe the happy medium would be to take out the date. I think by putting a date in, you're ordering the provinces to provide information. There's nothing in the agreements, from what I've heard, that says the federal government can order the provinces to provide information by an arbitrary date.
Ms. Hall Findlay has picked December 8. Can that information be provided that quickly from the provinces? Have they made that request to the municipalities? Have job creation numbers flowed from all municipalities in each province? I understand that the agreement with each province is different. December 8 is an arbitrary date.
Maybe the motion will be more successful and less demanding of the provinces, given that there are various different agreements, if you just remove the date. It would be more reasonable, and hopefully the information can flow when it's reasonable to flow.