Canadian Heritage Committee on May 23rd, 2024

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

That's correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Champoux, I'm sorry, I just didn't follow it, and I apologize for that. Why did we not put in the (a) part of the amendment?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Are you on BQ-4?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Thomas, I just wanted to mention to you that Mr. Champoux did not move only (b); he added a little bit of (a) in there as well. The part that says, “qu'un aperçu”.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm sorry, Chair. That's not being translated for me. I don't know exactly where that fits into the change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That's line 25, on page 2, new section 5.1.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Could you read the change that is being made?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

The change in English is—just a second, I'm trying to find it in English here—where it says, on line 27, “an overview”, he's saying “a list”.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Mr. Lawrence, are you good?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

If Ms. Thomas is good, I'm good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Okay.

Mr. Champoux, do you have something to say?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, regarding the concern raised by my colleague Mr. Lawrence, let me just clarify that the subamendment does indeed include the two provisions of amendment BQ-4, including the requirement to produce a list rather than an overview.

I would also like to clarify something. While we demand greater transparency, we also think it is important to protect the confidentiality of cases that have not yet been made public. This is an important exercise that has to be conducted seriously. I think incorporating amendment BQ-4 into amendment G-2 in this way is a good compromise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Are you integrating the whole of BQ-4? I'm just trying to find BQ-4.

Instead, you want to take away “an overview” and add “a list”. Do you want the list so that confidentiality is respected?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

No. It is exactly as it was distributed. That was simply an explanation in response to Mr. Lawrence's question. My subamendment is unchanged.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Good. Thank you.

Having no one else discussing the subamendment....

Ms. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I do need to understand something from the officials here. I understand the desire for a list; however, the second part of the subamendment says that it would be the “cases that have been made public”. If they've already been made.... The cases have been made public. From the officials, what is the significance of that as opposed to leaving that part out?

[Blair McMurren]

We've been seeking to try to quickly understand that ourselves. I would say that we were a little more focused on the language around the publication of names of cases and whether that's all cases or, as envisaged per the current practice of the program, cases that have exhausted all avenues of appeal.

I wonder if that might be what's being alluded to. I'd welcome clarification myself on that, if that's what's being suggested when a case reaches the end of all avenues of appeal and is made public at that time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Martin, could you answer that please?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, I am very sorry, but I missed the start of Mr. McMurren's question.

Could I ask him to kindly repeat it?

[Blair McMurren]

Of course.

As public servants, we have a question.

Regarding the cases that have been made public that are mentioned in the subamendment, have they been completed and have all avenues of recourse been exhausted?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Absolutely, that's correct.

That is already the current practice for the overview of cases that have been processed. Those cases are public in nature, of course. So it's the same principle. We simply want a list of those cases rather than an overview, and that list may only contain the cases that have already been made public. If memory serves, the Federal Court ruled on that in 2000. So we cannot deviate from that.

Cases that have been made public are therefore those that have been completed and are public in nature. We want them disclosed in a list rather than as part of an overview. I hope that answers your question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Does that answer your question, Mr. McMurren?

[Blair McMurren]

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.