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.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
All right.
Ms. Thomas, are you on this same subamendment?
Mr. Lawrence, on the subamendment?
Ms. Thomas is first.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I do appreciate the official trying to seek some clarification on my behalf. I'm still not seeing the significance here.
If they're already public, we're just asking for that information that is public to be compiled into a list. Is that essentially it? We don't want to go looking for the information, so we want it put into a list for us. It's essentially asking for curation.
I'm seeking clarification from the officials and I guess perhaps from Mr. Champoux.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I will ask Mr. Champoux for clarification because it's his subamendment.
Go ahead, Mr. Champoux, and then the officials will comment if they feel they need to.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I hope so, because their opinion on these matters is essential, Madam Chair.
We have the choice here. We are asking for certain information to be provided in the annual report that must be produced by the organization that manages the Court Challenges Program. Ms. Thomas said that information is already public, which is true. If someone wishes to do an exhaustive search of all the cases in question, however, that search would be significantly more difficult than if the information were readily available in the annual report of the organization in charge.
It is simply a question of transparency and ease of access to information. That is why a complete list would obviate the need for research should someone need full access to that information.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Actually, I would like to say something, Madam Chair.
We are not talking about the program making that information public. The current practice is more appropriate: The beneficiary's consent is required to make the information public, and it must be confirmed that the case is indeed closed.
Perhaps this is a distinction between the intent of the amendment and the way the program is currently administered.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. McMurren, I need some clarification. Are the cases brought before the courts not public in nature from the outset? Once those cases have been completed, the decision has been made and the cases have been “closed”, are they not public in nature? I thought that was the way it works.
We have not changed the rule regarding a case before the courts being made public, for example. There are confidentiality concerns. Once cases have been completed though, I don't see why the CCP beneficiary's consent would be required to disclose that information. I don't think that should be necessary…. When a case is brought under the Court Challenges Program, which is funding by the taxpayers of Quebec and Canada, should that information not be public from the outset?
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Madam Chair.
What I meant to say is that, in terms of reporting, the CCP does not consider whether the case is public or not.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I just want to make sure everything is clear.
If an organization decided to challenge a law or policy, and if it decided to take the matter to court using public funds, as the CCP provides, I don't think it should be up to that organization to decide whether it will remain anonymous or whether it will agree to the disclosure of the information. Correct me if I am wrong, but from my point of view that information automatically becomes public. In some cases, they are nonetheless challenging government legislation or policy.
I want to make sure the wording used in this subamendment or in the final version is clear and that no one is seeking access to sensitive information or prejudicing either of the parties.
Once the matter is decided, however, is there some reason to preserve the anonymity of the individuals or groups who used public funds to challenge a policy under this program?
I am trying to understand under what circumstances it would be warranted not to give broad public access to that information.
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Madam Chair, it is true that test cases typically receive a lot of media attention and are publicly known. The extent of the publicity or the fact that a case is public or not are not among the CCP's criteria.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I simply want to clarify things. I might be a bit slow, but I feel like I do not understand.
The cases are public in nature, public money is used and we are talking about a federal program. As I already said, Mr. McMurren, I simply want this to be very clear. Tell me if it isn't. We are not asking you to change the kind of information that the program administrator has to disclose. All we want is for you to disclose the complete list rather than providing an overview and choosing the cases funded by the program that you wish to disclose.
The same criteria would apply, except that we would simply receive a list of the cases, rather than 5, 10 or 20 examples of cases. We would see the list of everyone who received program funding. The criteria would not change as to what is disclosed. Rather than being given an overview to illustrate the good work that was done and the support provided for cases, we simply want a complete list of the cases. That list should be available to the public, without having to make an access to information request.
Once again, I am not trying to put you on the spot. I am trying to understand and to make sure that the intent of the subamendment is understood.
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would just like to point something out. Under the modernized program, we are seeking a balance between transparency and litigation privilege. The latter is what we are seeking to uphold in finalizing the reporting requirements of the program.
That is why the program's key criterion is the degree of media coverage or public nature of a case, whether the case is closed or not.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
By that reasoning and assuming that the current criteria and the confidentiality of cases that are already ongoing are maintained, it would not be a problem for us to receive a complete list. I think that transparency criterion would be easy to implement. We are not talking about changing the selection criteria for what is disclosed, but rather applying them to all cases that can be disclosed in the annual report.
5:25 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you.
Once again, the idea of a complete list is acceptable as long as the cases are closed.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
I just want to say, Madam Chair, that we are opposed to incorporating amendment BQ-4 into our subamendment.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to follow up on Mr. Champoux's questions.
You certainly aren't slow. If you are, I'm much slower than you are. I really do appreciate those questions.
I just wanted to dig into the fact of litigation privilege. I think there's some value in this. I'm not trying to undermine that term in total, but I do want to unpack it a bit.
I guess I could imagine a situation in which you had an individual who was a sexual assault victim and they wanted to change the legislation. We wouldn't want to discourage those folks by publicizing their name or otherwise. I get that 110% , but I would think that in most cases we would want published, any time the taxpayers are funding litigation, what they are paying for—the performance they are getting for those dollars, just like any other program, and the result of those programs.
Forgive me for this little bit of ignorance, but as of today, before this bill, do taxpayers get to know where their dollars are going with respect to any of the cases right now, or no?
5:25 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
At the moment, what's envisioned under the contribution agreement is full transparency at the end of the legal process, when the cases are closed and all avenues of appeal have been exhausted or relinquished.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
The case is done and, whether the challenge to the legislation is successful or unsuccessful, then you will publish that.
Mr. Champoux is asking, I believe, for a complete list of that, but there was some objection to that. That's the part of it I didn't quite understand.
5:25 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy and International Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
I was wanting to clarify that the current approach envisioned under the modernized program is in a given year—in a given annual report—to publish a list of the cases that have been financed that were closed in that time period. Anything beyond that would be a departure from the current practice.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Can you say that again? I apologize, Mr. McMurren.