Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 12th, 2023

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Am I to understand that they wouldn't have gotten any funding this year if they hadn't cancelled all these agreements?

[Isabelle Mondou]

Yes, it's part of our funding agreement this year.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

What is the date on that?

[Emmanuelle Sajous]

It's from 2023. This is part of the current contribution agreements.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

In other words, there should be no non-disclosure agreements in effect at this time.

Is that right?

[Emmanuelle Sajous]

That's right.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

We will be following up on that, because what we've seen is that a lot of people are still tied up in court over that.

[Isabelle Mondou]

We will also be happy to follow up with you. We're taking note of the issue.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you for your co-operation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

We'll go now to Mr. Green for two and a half minutes, please.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to just correct the record to say that the person I referenced earlier, Kim Shore, is actually from Gymnastics for Change Canada.

I would like to go back to the notion of parliamentary privilege and the ability for Parliament to send for documents, which is quite contrary to what Mr. Noormohamed likes to think. I reference “The Power of Committees to Order the Production of Documents and Records”, a report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated December 2009, in the 40th Parliament. On page three, it says:

Parliament is not bound by the Privacy Act, and has a right to have any documents laid before it which it believes are necessary. This principle was established in Canada through the Constitution Act 1867, which passed the “privileges immunities and powers” of the British House of Commons into Canadian law at the time of Confederation. The power to send for records has been delegated by the House of Commons to its committees in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

I would encourage the honourable member to read the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It continues:

A committee's power to call for persons, papers and records is said to be absolute, but seldom—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Green, there's a point of order.

Please go ahead, Mr. Noormohamed.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Chair, for Mr. Green's benefit and the committee's, I will just clarify that the point I was making is that they were not the same and the powers—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's debate. That's not a point of order.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

You're misrepresenting what I said, Mr. Green.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Green, I think that this committee is well aware of the powers to get documents, etc. We did it with Hockey Canada. We did it with a lot of the people we were trying to meet with. We're well aware.

Are you going to ask a question of the officials?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, on the point of order, in fact, I find it troubling that, as a chair, you're intervening on behalf of the committee when it is not your role to intervene on behalf of the committee. It is my time to respond accordingly, in both questions and comments, as it relates to the debate. Again, this is on the point of order that was raised, the non-point of order.

To suggest that we do not have ultimate powers to send for documents misleads the public and is contrary to our parliamentary privileges. If I decide to speak on that, as I'm doing in this point of order, that is my prerogative. It is not for you to direct my line of questioning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I am not. I am telling you that I think that—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I would like to go back to my time, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead. You have a minute and 20 seconds left in your time.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Fair enough.

I'll continue as follows:

The Law Clerk provided the Committee with a legal opinion on the powers of committees pertaining to the production of documents. The legal opinion summarized the applicability of statutes to Parliament under the Canadian constitution, and cited precedent from the Supreme Court of Canada that Parliament has an adjudicative role as the “grand inquest of the nation.” The Law Clerk concluded:

“In summary, constitutional law has priority over statute law, that is, the provisions of a statute, such as the Privacy Act, are to be read in a manner that is consistent with the constitutional laws of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that no part of the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, prevails over any other part of the Constitution, including the constitutional powers, immunities and other rights that constitute the parliamentary privileges of the House....”

In closing, while it might not be the position of our Liberal friends in this committee, we in fact do, at every standing committee, have the power to send for documents.

Thank you. I'll cede the rest of my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You are over time, actually.

Thank you very much to the officials. We have ended this session. I want to thank you for your time and for coming and explaining so many things to us.

Before we leave, committee members, we have a small bit of housekeeping. We have a bunch of budgets that we have to okay.

We have a budget on the briefing by the chairperson of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. It is for $1,250.

Do I have agreement to pass that budget?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.