Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2010

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much, Commissioner, and the rest of your staff, for being here with us again today.

I have a couple of quick questions. I note that there are some changes under this bill when it comes to authorizing you to communicate and share information internationally. It also gives you the ability to refuse to conduct an investigation. Those are changes that you'll be dealing with.

Do you have to make organizational changes within your department to meet the intent of the bill? I noticed that you said you'll need an additional six FTEs. What will they be doing?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

The six FTEs are particularly for the anti-spam initiative. They will be scattered across the organization in each of our major functions, such as research, communications, law, compliance, etc. It will be more or less like that. They will be mainly, I would think, acting as in-house experts and liaising with the outside world.

We're not asking for money to hire a lot of new civil servants, for the reason that we think, from our observation of the online world and particularly the spam world, which is an illicit world, that what we need constantly is state-of-the-art expertise. This can change, as I understand it, from week to week. These people will be liaising with the outside, pointing out experts that we and our partners should be working with to keep us abreast. They could be experts in the private sector, in the public sector, or elsewhere in the world. They will be constantly putting us in a position to be efficient in the anti-spam efforts.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you. I don't have any more questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I believe that concludes the questions. Now the options available to the committee are to approve the request, to negate it, or to decrease it. We of course have no option to increase it. I'm going to read the motion and ask for a mover.

JUSTICE

OFFICES OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONERS OF CANADA

Vote 45b--Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada--Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada--Program expenditures..........$694,048

Shall vote 45b under Justice carry? Ms. Davidson so moves.

(Vote 45b agreed to)

Thank you very much, Ms. Stoddart, for all your great work.

[Jennifer Stoddart]

Thank you very much, honourable members and Mr. Chairman. This is a great day. I think if the next part will go as well, we can move towards real anti-spam action.

Thank you. Merci.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

The next item on the committee's agenda is the approval of the steering committee. That meeting was held earlier today and those minutes have been circulated.

The main part that's subject to approval by this committee is that the steering committee agreed in principle to proceed with the e-consultation and online outreach. The committee staff were instructed to develop a plan, and that plan would be presented to the committee no later than December 16, 2010.

Again, this is just the first step. This is approval in principle. There are a number of hoops to go through. I should point out that this is not actually done by the Library of Parliament. We would need outside help. Of course, you need budgets for that, which would have to be approved by the House of Commons Liaison Committee.

There you have the minutes of the steering committee. Approval has been moved by Mr. Siksay. Is there any discussion?

(Motion agreed to)

The last item on the agenda, colleagues, is the motion by Mr. Calandra that was introduced on notice at the last meeting. I will read it for the record:

That the Committee call on Serge Ménard, Bloc Québécois Member of Parliament for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, to appear before the Committee to discuss his allegation that he was offered illegal cash while he was a provincial candidate.

I'm first of all going to ask Mr. Calandra if he has anything he wants to say on the motion. I understand from discussions that the motion does have the broad support of the committee, but I may be wrong on that.

Go ahead, Mr. Calandra.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I'll be very brief, Mr. Chair.

I know we can't compel him to appear, but I wanted to offer an opportunity to hear what happened and see if there's anything we can gather from it or learn from it and go from there. I'm not looking at this as a court or anything like that. It's just an opportunity to hear what happened and to see if we can learn anything from it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Yes. Mr. Calandra made the point--and I was going to make that later--but Monsieur Ménard is not a compellable witness. Members of the House of Commons, Senate, or other legislative assemblies, the Governor General, and judges are not compellable before our committee. So he could exercise his discretion not to come if he so chose.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I've talked to Mr. Ménard, and I know he wants to come before this committee of his own volition. I really can't support the motion at this time. I would rather not have a motion ordering him to come. If he's willing to come--and I pretty well can assure the committee he is--then I don't think we need the motion basically requesting that a member of Parliament come before the committee. I would suggest that if you as chair were to talk to him without the motion being passed, he would volunteer to come. I think that would be a better process. That's just where I stand on the issue.

I would say if we could move the motion aside until the next meeting and give you the opportunity to talk to Mr. Ménard, rather than having a parliamentary committee take the step of requesting him to come, I think it would be better with regard to honourable members of Parliament. I think he would do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Ms. Bennett.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

I agree, because he's not compellable anyway. The way we deal with colleagues is usually to give them the benefit of the doubt. I think it would be way better to have you, Mr. Chair, invite him to come. We believe, from what we hear, that he would like to come and explain it, and it would be way more collegial in dealing with honourable members to not have that motion and to ask Mr. Calandra to withdraw it or at least table it until next week to see if you've been able to sort it out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Calandra.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Again, Mr. Chair, I understand that these people have just talked to him about it and that he's willing to broach it. I'm not approaching the motion in any way or shape as something that is accusing him of anything. It's just an opportunity to hear what happened, to see if we can learn something from it. I've been here only a couple of years. Maybe we could learn something from what his experiences were.

I'm not asking the committee to order him. I know we can't do that. Perhaps I'll defer to my colleagues who have actually talked to Mr. Ménard to see if he is willing to come. My understanding is that he was willing to come and share some of his thoughts with us, and that's it. I know sometimes in the past others have tried to push certain agendas, but that's not what this is about. It's just to get some information from him.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Monsieur Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Ménard has been quite public about the focus of this motion. He intends to be transparent by appearing before all the appropriate authorities. Is a motion really necessary? If it is put to a vote, we will support it, but I still think it would be preferable for you, the chair, to deal with the request, especially since there is no obligation. You could easily speak with Mr. Ménard, and he could confirm his attendance.

If I understand correctly, you find the motion to be in order. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Yes, I thought of it, but I haven't researched it extensively. I take some solace that the gentleman wants to appear. That's what I'm picking up.

You have the floor.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

That was not what I was asking. I did not finish. My question was clear: is the motion in order? I am telling you that if you find it admissible, we will vote in favour it. Regardless, rest assured that Mr. Ménard will appear if that is the wish of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Yes, it's the chair's ruling that it is admissible.

We do have a number of people now. Colleagues, we could handle this one way or the other way. Someone can make a motion to table, I can ask him, or we can vote on the motion. We will do whatever is the wish of the committee, but I think we are splitting hairs.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Yes, I think we are. I think more or less everyone is on the same page here. If it's just a matter of having the committee invite Mr. Ménard to appear and of having a procedural step to make a sitting day in this committee available for his appearance, we can do that. I don't think it matters to anybody over here whether the motion says that it calls on him to appear or invites him or whatever.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

The chair would recommend that someone make a motion to table. We'll vote on that, and then we'll--

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Just so I'm clear, Chair, it would be to table the motion, and then do what?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I would then go ahead and invite Mr. Ménard to appear before the committee. I would report back to the committee at the next meeting. Then we would bring the motion back at the next meeting, which would be this Thursday, for further debate.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

That's fair enough. I would so move.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay. It's moved by Mr. Poilievre that the motion be tabled and be brought back to the meeting on Thursday of this week. I don't think it requires any discussion, unless someone insists.

(Motion allowed to stand)

I think that concludes the agenda of the--go ahead, Mr. Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

There is a translation problem, Mr. Chair.

The French version should say the same thing as the English version. The English motion talks about “illegal cash”. So I would think the French version should say “argent illégal”, as well.

I just wanted to bring that to your attention. We need to make sure that both versions are consistent.

Thank you.