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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
I am going to take a few comments from Mr. Anders and Mr. Martin. Then, Madam Hall Findlay, you can respond to specific questions Mr. Brown has raised regarding December 8, 2009.
Mr. Anders.
Conservative
Rob Anders Conservative Calgary West, AB
You know, sometimes I sit around here and wonder where this is all going, and I'm just going to pose it in a bit of a macro question to my colleagues. Let's assume we're thinking about the ballot question for the next federal election. If indeed the official opposition wants to make this economy the ballot question of the next federal election, being that Canada is in the best position of the G-7, I don't think that necessarily is the wisest course of action for the Liberal Party of Canada.
Let's look at what they've done. Originally, last year, they asked for a stimulus report, and they wanted to have quarterly stimulus reports. Then, of course, our government generated all sorts of advertising to report on the stimulus package and the job creation package, and then, of course, the official opposition realized they didn't like that so much because actually it was getting out our success relative to the other G-7 economies and how Canada was doing. Then they complained about the money in the advertising and they thought it was too much.
So now we have the official opposition, the Liberal Party of Canada, asking for job creation reports. So now they're going to beg the question about whether or not the Government of Canada should go ahead and take a lot of money to advertise to the Canadian public just how many jobs have been created and how well Canada's doing relative to other G-7 countries.
Sometimes I think the official opposition has to think very carefully over what they're doing and why.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I think we're making this way more complicated than it is, maybe partly because it's written in quite a complicated way. It's real legalese. All it's asking is that whatever job creation reports the government has be given to our committee by the eighth of this month, and if future reports come in, within three days of their coming into the government, they be given to this committee. Nobody's asking the provinces to do anything; nobody's asking the municipalities to do anything, because that would be beyond our jurisdiction.
I think Madam Hall Findlay has done us all a great service by carefully reading the contribution agreements and seeing that there are mandatory reports right in the contribution agreements, so therefore the federal government is getting or should be getting job creation reports, and we are entitled to that information. I think we should vote on that. I don't think we should debate it any further, and we'll see if we agree.
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
No. I have Mr. Mayes, and then Madame Coady and Mr. Holder.
Mr. Holder, just on what Mr. Martin has said, I had a review of schedule H. It is a requirement: as part of the Government of Canada's agreements, schedule H has to be filled out quarterly. It is an agreement. So if it is an agreement, Infrastructure Canada should be collecting the information or is collecting the information. All we are asking, very simply—maybe the language was a little complicated—is to give it to us because you have it, you have the job creation, and that's the only thing.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
Madam Chair, all I was asking you before, and maybe I should have asked you to rule on this component, if I might—and not to be rude about it. And even to Mr. Martin's comment, it felt complicated to me as well, and there were questions. I was just trying to simplify it; that's all I was trying to do.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
On the dates thing, to get to the clerk's point, trying to compel someone, a group, to do something on this committee's generated timeline, this may not be consistent with whatever agreements the provinces and the feds have done—that's all. I'm not trying to be obnoxious; I'm just trying to understand it better.
December 3rd, 2009 / 4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON
I have a friendly amendment from Madame Bourgeois. My understanding is that we can just call the question.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
You can't call the question. Only the chair can call the question.
Madam Chair—
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Madam Chair, the committee I normally sit on, and I was there yesterday, is the committee on transportation, infrastructure and communities, and this same question came up at that committee. It was brought forward by Gerard Kennedy. The fact is that schedule H is an agreement between the municipalities and the provinces. There is no mandatory reporting between the provinces and the Government of Canada in the contribution agreements. There is no direct request or implied reporting of job creation in the contribution agreements with the provinces. That's exactly what the ministry reported yesterday.
There seems to be an assumption, and I'd like to know where the wording is that actually says the provinces shall report to the Government of Canada. I'd like to hear that exact—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Mr. Mayes, the problem, the confusion, arises because there is a schedule H attached.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
A schedule H is between the municipalities and the provinces. As I understand, it doesn't imply--
Liberal
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
--that the reporting be given to the Government of Canada.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
They have the Government of Canada logo on it, and that's confusing everybody. That's the problem.
Madam Coady--