Evidence of meeting #11 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was year.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
We're at 338, right? We're looking at just under 3,000 people that you're....
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, 2,500.
Conservative
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Including, but they're increasing still, of course.
Conservative
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Especially with the ministerial staff, it's going to come up.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
It's going to change.
That's all I wanted to know. Thank you very much.
Madam Commissioner, and your colleagues, thank you very much for coming.
We will not be taking a decision on the estimates until we've heard from the other two commissioners next week. We'll be reviewing the votes and deciding whether we're going to fund you for another year, but your chances are looking good.
We'll leave you with that.
Thank you very much, colleagues. We can go straight into committee business, if that's okay with you.
I wanted to advise you on the upcoming schedule, and remind you this Thursday we have the Honourable Scott Brison coming here with Jennifer Dawson to talk to us about access to information and other items.
This time next week, starting on Tuesday, we have Madam Legault and Madam Shepherd, the last two commissioners we haven't heard from yet, in regard to the estimates. We're only going to do one hour for those two commissioners.
We also have Jennifer Dawson and Sarah Paquet to come in for one hour to give a presentation on the access to information review.
Next Thursday, we have three witnesses coming in to testify on access to information.
On May 17, we have the ATIP coordinators panel and Shared Services Canada coming in. That will be our last meeting with regular witnesses.
On May 19, we'll hear from Madam Legault. She'll be our last witness to wrap up the testimony. We'll spend one hour with her, and then we will have instructions to the analysts for an hour. That will take us up to the May long weekend break.
When we come back on May 31, we have the Independent Statutory Review Committee from Newfoundland, with Mr. Clyde Wells, Jennifer Stoddart, and Mr. Letto. They will be talking to us about aspects of both because their study dealt with the privacy and access to information commissioner for Newfoundland. They can provide us with any new information on how they went through their review, and the analysts can simply alter their report then.
That would be a nice segue into moving toward the Privacy Commissioner.
I would like to leave the 2nd, 7th, and 9th free for discussions and deliberations on the report. If we're done earlier, then we can move to the privacy, probably as early as the 9th. The Privacy Commissioner has made himself available on the 14th, 16th and the 21st. Sorry, from the 21st to the 23rd I think he's going to be away at a conference.
He said to me he would be willing to change his schedule. I would suggest to you colleagues, we always want to have the commissioner as a last witness to wrap things up.
Is it the intention of the committee to try and wrap up the Privacy Commission study before we rise as well? Is there any rush on this? I'm trying to get a sense around the room.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
We can start filling up with witnesses and see how it goes. Then we can have the Privacy Commissioner in the fall, or something like that, If we need to wrap things up at that particular point in time.
All right.
Is there any other business that the committee would like to discuss?
Yes, Mr. Lightbound.
Liberal
Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC
Yes.
I'd like to move the motion that was sent on April 22, 2016, of which you received a copy.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Is this the motion in relation to orders of reference for the House in respect to bills, and it says, “The clerk of the committee shall” etc.?” Is that correct?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Colleagues, do you all have a copy of that motion in front of you? Is there any discussion? I'm going to ask the clerk. You should all have a letter from Ms. May. You should all have a copy of the letter as well, in regard to this motion.
I'm going to open up the floor to discussion.
Mr. Lightbound.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
That was quick.
Anybody else want to discuss this?
Mr. Blaikie.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Yes. I wanted to say I've heard a bit about the reasons for the motion, but obviously not today. I think it might be helpful to understand better why it is the government thinks it's a good idea, or government members on the committee might think it's a good idea, to pass such an amendment.
I'm not personally convinced. The arguments I've heard have to do with letting independent members into the committee process. I would argue they have more ability to participate meaningfully in the legislative process at report stage.
While this would grant them the ability to move amendments at committee, they're otherwise able to move amendments at report stage. They would get to vote on their own amendments at report stage, which they're not able to do at committee because they're not voting members of the committee.
Other independent members would be able to address the amendments of other independent members at report stage, which is not the case in committee.
I'm not convinced by the argument this empowers independent members any more. I think it's probably better from a parliamentary point of view to allow them to continue moving their amendments at report stage.
There is no argument for the motion at the moment at this table anyway. I'm not compelled by no argument. I suspect I wouldn't be compelled by the argument were it given.
I'm probably not going to be supporting this motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Is there anybody else who would like to speak to the motion?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Is there anybody else who needs to bring anything to the attention of the committee? No?
The meeting is adjourned. We will see you on Thursday.
