Evidence of meeting #2 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was commissioners.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
The original motion talked about two hours per commissioner.
We are going to see if that's a friendly amendment or not before we go to Mr. Anders.
Mr. Angus.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you for that friendly amendment.
I'm certainly glad my colleagues do their homework. That's good to hear. When I do my homework, I have lots of questions, because I'm not just speaking on behalf of myself; I'm also speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party and the Canadians who sent us here.
These are complex files. These are serious issues. I think we could probably all benefit from giving the time to work and to meet these commissioners and to press them on the outstanding issues. It might save us work down the road. When I do my homework, I want to be able to follow up and make sure that we can get the full amount of questions in.
So it's a friendly amendment, but I reject it.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
We're debating the amendment now, I would assume. I moved an amendment, so we're now debating the amendment. Of course, at some point you'll have to call the question.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
I'll have to call the question.
Let's get some comments on this time allocation thing, and let's not spend too much more time.
I have Mr. Andrews next.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Somewhat unfriendly.
As much as I agree with trying to move along with committee time, and how we do waste a lot of time in committees, I think that this being our first committee...a lot of us are new to this committee. I've met with two of the commissioners already myself, and those meetings were longer than an hour. I think two hours is not much to ask. It's going to be a long four years, guys and ladies, so I think we should look at using two hours. One hour will just deal with their reports in themselves, let alone trying to inquire into some new business and some new items that may have come up since the reports.
I'll back down in a minute here and let's move forward. It's only two meetings.
September 20th, 2011 / 9:35 a.m.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Just to reiterate what my colleagues on this side have said, one hour is not enough. Doing homework I come up with more questions. As a new MP, new to a committee--this is all new to me--one hour is not enough, so I'm really pushing for two hours.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
Mr. Chair, maybe just one last comment. Again, being new to it, my thought is that if we do our homework and find our way through the reports and through the preparation for the meetings...I'm of a mind that probably one hour, frankly, should be enough. Then if we do need more, I would think at the discretion of the chair, or at this committee's discretion, with one particular commissioner or another, we would have the opportunity to extend if we felt there was a particular need. But I think if you start with one hour...let's find out where we go. At least that gets us a footing and a foundation to learn what we're here to learn.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
We have this amendment. We're going to vote on it. I'm just going to throw a suggestion out to test the floor, and if it's rejected, just nod your heads no.
We had a substantial conversation about one of these commissioners in particular in terms of access to information. Would it be of interest to the committee to have two hours with that commissioner and slot one hour for the others, to proceed that way, or should we just take the motion as it is?
Take the motion as it is. Okay.
So the amendment to the motion as it is right now is to have each of the commissioners appear before the committee for one hour each.
(Amendment agreed to)
Now to the main motion, which is to see each of these commissioners report to the committee for one hour each. We'll line them up as quickly as we can in the order we can get them. Can I just seek a vote on this motion? Do we need to have more discussion?
(Motion as amended agreed to)
I'm not sure if we have any other committee business that we need to conduct.
Just on the motion prior to this one, on the CBC and specific to access to information, we're going to need some witness suggestions from the members. Just so people have an understanding, it might not be as...we're going to get it as quickly as possible, but some of these folks are extraordinarily busy; some of them are in court. We'll get who we can, but we're going to need, as soon as possible, suggestions for witnesses from the members of the committee. That's fine; everybody understands.
I don't want to drag this out. Is tomorrow at four o'clock okay for people, or do you need more time than that? This is just for lists of witnesses.
Mr. Angus.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
That's not acceptable. Tomorrow at four o'clock? I mean, you guys can—
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
You guys came in totally out of the blue and threw this at us, and then we're supposed to have witnesses?
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
We have four years, as my colleague says--a long four years. Either we're going to do this in some kind of quasi-collegial, professional manner, or you guys are just going to blow through--
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
9:40 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
It's Friday at five o'clock. I see I'm going to get pounded by my colleague after the committee. Is Friday at five o'clock okay for witnesses? Does that make sense? Does that give people enough time?
There is one small final piece. I seek this from the committee. The 7th International Conference of Information Commissioners is happening in Ottawa from October 3 to 5. Committee members should know that we have an invitation from the conference to attend for free, which is nice, because there's actually a substantial fee to get in. We'll make that information available to you.
Second, the analysts are seeking to go to this at a much discounted rate.
For those of us who are going to be too busy to attend this, my suggestion is that the committee allocate some funds to allow the analysts to go and then report back to the committee, not necessarily in a full standing effort. This is going to be a gathering of the best and the brightest of information commissioners from around the world. I think it would behoove us to have somebody there on our behalf if we can't go, and I know our schedules don't necessarily allow for us to go.
Is everyone in agreement with that? Excellent.
Thank you, everybody.
Sorry, there is a question on the floor as to next business.
Chad, do you want to...?
9:40 a.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Chad Mariage
It's all going to depend on the availability of the commissioners at this point. With regard to the witnesses for the CBC study, obviously I'm pursuing the commissioners for as early as Thursday. I have a couple who are kind of on standby, and they'll be confirming with me within the next hour. If there's a meeting Thursday, a notice will go out today in order to conform with the 48 hours' notice rule. We'll have an answer today. The idea is to have at least one of the commissioners on Thursday.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
I think there have been some changes to the parliamentary schedule for Thursday because the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is coming in. I'm not sure if that affects the timing of this or, if we're getting commissioners in, how long they're going to be able to speak before we have to be in the House.