Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Obviously, I support Mr. Del Mastro's motion. I think it's getting at the crux of the issue we've all been discussing for the last few minutes.
I did want to respond to a comment you made earlier, though, that you thought the minister seemed to be asking us to write the new act for him, in both the Privacy Act situation and the Access to Information Act review. I don't see it that way at all. I think he seemed very clear, in both letters, that what he would like us to do is more public consultation, and that's the role of this committee, as I see it. He's not asking us to suggest the wording. He's saying, in the letter of November 25, with regard to the access to information review:
I wish to stress that the most productive and effective activity that your Committee could undertake would be to conduct a full study of access reform, with a particular focus on the Discussion Paper.
It goes on to say, “Once you have undertaken and completed a full, in-depth study of access reform and consulted all stakeholders”--which is what the committee normally does--“I'd be happy to appear before you to discuss your further findings.”
In the letter responding to our report on the Privacy Act, he sets out several areas of clear guidance about where he would like us to do some further work, and specifically says, “Further consultation with government institutions and agencies...responsible for the security as well as the health and welfare of Canadians would be required....”
That's what he's asking us to do, not to write the wording of the legislation, and I think those are reasonable requests.
I think these are pretty reasonable responses from the minister, and I think he has given us a clear indication of what he would like us to do. I think these are things that would be in the public interest, so I would recommend that we undertake those further consultations so that we can say with certainty to the people we represent--