Mr. Chairman, I would agree with Mr. Zed that your job, as chairman, is to organize the committee's business. You're an experienced member, and I trust your judgment in this respect because you understand. I don't know what the timelines are on the legislative review we have to do, but we would be comfortable with your judgment on how to organize committee business.
The motion that was just adopted in my name is a matter of some current controversy. We expect this matter will be examined and resolved in a timely fashion, so we would encourage you to consider making that a priority for the committee.
As it relates to reviewing the appointment process for the ATI Commissioner, as per Mr. Martin's remarks, I don't think it's the job of this committee to review the appointments procedure. Other committees have dealt with or are dealing with Bill C-2, with the appointments process. If it's the committee's will to get into that, so be it. But I can assure Mr. Martin there's no hidden agenda in terms of appointing an ATI Commissioner. I haven't heard of any secret candidates out there. Moreover, if the government had a candidate it wanted to push through, it wouldn't matter whether there were 100 applicants or 1,000 applicants, we'd still have the prerogative to put that person forward.
And finally, I'd point out to him the fact that Mr. Reid's term is expiring is hardly a secret. We could Google “Access to Information Commissioner term” and find hundreds of hits. Anybody who follows access to information or these matters knows that there's a change coming. I've received unsolicited letters and applications from people I've never heard of, expressing an interest in the position. So I'm not as pessimistic as Mr. Martin that this is a closed competition per se. But I'll leave that in your hands.
Generally, I can speak for government members here in saying that we trust your judgment as to how to organize the committee business.