Evidence of meeting #6 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 convention.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Jean Crowder
Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro.
Are there any other comments on the witness list?
To clarify, there was no motion to strike; you withdrew that motion to strike.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
NDP
9:55 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Yes. I'm looking at the witness list and am concerned about the number of folks we have piled in together for some of these sessions. I don't think it's a good idea, knowing that some individuals have more to say on this issue than others and that committee members have I think more questions for some folks than for others, that we construct the study as presented.
I would suggest, for example, that when on October 20 we have Gregory Thomas of the Taxpayers Federation, Michel Drapeau of the University of Ottawa, and Pierre Karl Péladeau of Quebecor all scheduled in that slot, the scheduling is going to be tight. I don't think we should have more than two witnesses in any given slot. I'd encourage the clerk to move perhaps Mr. Drapeau.
My understanding is that Jennifer Stoddart will not be appearing. She's there, but she's not actually appearing, is she?
9:55 a.m.
The Clerk
You have the old version, Mr. Del Mastro.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Okay.
Would it be possible to give Mr. Drapeau or Mr. Thomas a call to see whether they can fit in to that session, perhaps in the second hour following Konrad von Finckenstein from the CRTC, and allow that we could have no more than two witnesses per two-hour period? It seems to be the way the rest of it is constructed.
9:55 a.m.
The Clerk
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will certainly bring that back. The way the calendar fell is basically that I proposed two or three dates to many of these people, and given prior commitments and that kind of thing, this is where all of the dominoes fell.
I am certain Mr. Péladeau can't be moved; he does not have any other availability. As far as I know, I have offered Mr. Drapeau a couple of options, and this is the date he came back with.
With regard to Mr. Thomas, I can follow up.
I will do what I can to accommodate the members, but in the event that they can't be moved, do we want to proceed as scheduled? I need some direction from the committee on this.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
What I would prefer is that we move them. If they cannot be moved, I would understand that. But there is nothing limiting this study from going into November 3, 15, and 17. I am aware of the challenges you have had scheduling Mr. Péladeau, but if we can seek to offer the other two witnesses on that day another date, I think it would be better for the committee. I know there are a number of questions that committee members have for those individuals.
I would simply point out that on any other given day we don't have any more than two witnesses appearing in the slot, which I think is entirely appropriate.
10 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Jean Crowder
Before I go to Mr. Angus, I have a point of clarification. Your concern is with October 20, is it? The others you can live with?
10 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
The others are fine. I have no problem with those at all. I simply point out that having three witnesses in that slot is too much.
10 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
In all the committees I've been on, it was normal practice to have three in the first hour and three in the second hour. If we are getting down to two witnesses, it seems as though we are trying to drag this out as long as we can. It will probably set up a good chance to continue to beat up on the CBC.
If that's the agenda, then they will continue to beat up the CBC. I'm sure they will have a lot of opportunity to beat up on the CBC outside of this committee, but it's certainly a waste of our time to stretch this out, when we have issues on ethics and privacy and we are supposed to do the lobbying review.
But of course this is Dean's court. We're only the supplicants in Dean's court.
I would like to suggest that we follow normal practice, but we are going to get whatever we get. We could get down to one witness if he wants.
10 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Jean Crowder
I just have a reminder to the committee. We've also received the order of reference on the Lobbying Act, so there is going to be committee business that we will have to undertake at some point. My understanding is, if we can leave it at this.... The clerk has heard your concerns. Can we leave it to the clerk to see what he can work out, but with an agreement that if we can't change it, we will live with this October 20 date?
Will that work for everybody?
Okay.
Is there any other committee business?
Seeing none, I adjourn the committee.