We are not going to further consider it at this time, but it's still alive. It's still there.
(Motion agreed to)
That's unanimous. Now we have a clean slate and we have had a discussion about the possibilities.
If I may say so, the Simson motion came out virtually parallel to the motion that we passed and reported to the House on the access report, the 11th report. We have similar problems there. In my own view, the frustration of the committee has been that we didn't get a specific response to specific recommendations.
It's the same minister; there has been the suggestion that these letters look very similar in terms of their parallelism. I'm wondering whether we want to carry it a little bit further. This is just for consideration: that we might be able to address both.
What I'd like to suggest is that our work on access as well as on privacy may be in the same quagmire right now. Maybe we should ask for specific responses to the recommendations. We don't need a big book, but we could ask to be given an idea whether we are on the right track. We need to have some commentary on each of these, and what we'd like to do is then have a meeting with the minister. Let's have a conversation.
We could do it in camera. It's going to be extremely difficult and might take a long time for him to respond in writing, if we ask where we fit into this, where our role really is; if we say that we don't think he's waiting for us to come up with a whole new piece of legislation, but that we do have a role to play, and so do the commissioners and their people and the minister's officials, etc. There's a lot here.
I'm broadening it a little. If we're going to do this, we may actually help ourselves. Quite frankly, I would be happy to get a response from the minister in time for our return after the Christmas break, because I would like him to have the chance to consider where we've been on both of the two reports.
Did members get a copy of the November 25 letter?
I want to give you a basis as to why I'm suggesting this. I know we're shifting over now to access to information. As you know, we passed a motion to express our disappointment and to ask the minister to table a new Access Act by next March 31 and appear before this committee by this November 30. This is the last meeting.
Yesterday I received this letter. It came to me personally without a carbon copy. We have it here; it has been translated. I think the last sentence really is the key. It says: “Once you have undertaken and completed a full, in-depth study of access reform and consulted all stakeholders, I will be happy to appear before you to discuss your findings.”
It gives me pause, because this is a question on which I'm not sure we have a consensus as to whether we can do that. It's almost suggesting that it's up to us to do a draft act. If he wants us to do his job or the commission's job or whatever, that's interesting. But I think I really want to know what he's asking us for, and this is not specific enough for me. That's why I'm suggesting that we really have to meet with him.
So I'm asking the committee whether or not they would find it appropriate that in my letter to the minister we embrace both reports and both studies, because they have the same questions, or we could do separate ones on each, but that we say that we do want to have a meeting with him to discuss our role before we embark on any new projects related to either of those acts.
Mr. Del Mastro, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, and Mr. Dechert.
I'm in the hands of the committee. I think this is the last round. Let's see where we are.