Yes, Mr. Chair, I'll be brief.
I spoke very briefly with Mr. Martin about this after we both tabled our motions, coincidentally, without prior coordination.
I'll speak for myself. I think they're similar in intent. I tried to construct a general motion without limiting the committee. I don't think we need to spend several weeks in an exhaustive study of this issue, but it is an issue of importance. This is the appropriate committee to examine the question of the confidentiality of the names of access to information applicants, particularly as it relates to the alleged practice--the current or former practice--of furnishing those names to political staff in either the offices of ministers or in the Prime Minister's office. I think this is the right place to deal with it.
I do think it's important. I think Mr. Zed's motion, with respect, is much more limited and simply requests that the Privacy Commissioner come before us.
I am informed, just for the committee's information, by the President of the Treasury Board that when the reports were issued in the media last week about one particular name ending up in a circular memorandum from officials at Public Safety, Minister Baird and Minister Day both called Commissioner Stoddart, just to invite her cooperation with the government in general and with Public Safety in particular, to review the matter. I understand that Commissioner Stoddart informed the President of the Treasury Board that she had received a complaint—I say this generically—but had not yet, speaking as of last Wednesday, determined whether there were grounds for an investigation. Whether she does an investigation into this matter or not, to the best of my information at this point, is undetermined.
I think it would be more important for us to look at this in a broader context.
I just want to close by saying that I think it's very important that we look at both current and previous practices, because we can be less partisan here than in the House, obviously. I honestly believe that there may be certain practices that were inherited by the current government that were just normal business, such as the circulation of minutes of meetings where occasionally these names came up. If that's the case, we'd like to know, our government would like to know, what the source of it is, whether this is some kind of longstanding practice in certain departments or in all departments or in no departments, and then assist the executive branch of government in putting an end to it. Because I think we all agree that it's inappropriate.
I would argue in favour of either my motion or Mr. Martin's, or some version thereof, because I think the intent is effectively the same.