Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Of course, I share many of the concerns that my colleague has, as well as some sympathy for your situation, Monsieur Therrien. Clearly, 45 minutes to be able to ask you some questions, when in the past at least two hours and witnesses were allowed when dealing with the nomination that's as important as yours....
Our privacy laws are antiquated, as you know, and the person who we choose going forward in the post-Facebook world is going to have to review our laws. Therefore, your appointment is crucially important for the privacy of Canadians, and of course I decry the fact that we've been given only the time that we have.
That is the reason why I gave this notice of motion at the last meeting: “That, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(1), and subject to the order of reference of May 28, 2014, the Committee undertake a study of no fewer than 4 meetings to examine all matters regarding the proposed appointment of Daniel Therrien as Privacy Commissioner of Canada, that the committee invite Daniel Therrien to appear”—which you have, but only for an hour—“and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House...”.
I also suggested in the motion that “the Committee invite the former Privacy Commissioner of Canada”—who you suggested was probably a good resource when dealing with all issues of privacy—“Jennifer Stoddart, and the Interim Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Chantal Bernier, to assist the Committee in its study of the proposed appointment of Daniel Therrien as Privacy Commissioner of Canada...”. Finally, I suggested that “the Committee invite legal and constitutional experts, and other experts in the protection of privacy, to provide testimony regarding the proposed appointment of” yourself as Privacy Commissioner.
It seems like this is the minimum we could do when we're dealing with overhauling a law that is going to protect the privacy of Canadians for generations, as well as the role of the Privacy Commissioner in the future.
Mr. Chair, what I don't understand is.... Perhaps I'm not fully in agreement with the process here. I had given notice of motion, and I thought that, following due process, we would discuss these motions before any other motion was on the floor. That is my understanding of the process. If so, I think this is the motion that we should be debating presently, and not the motion to approve the nomination of Mr. Therrien.
Thank you.