Evidence of meeting #36 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was code.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
On the date, I just chose the closest date handy, but I'm open to an amendment if there needs to be a change of date with the scheduling of the witnesses we have already discussed.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
It appears as though there is a conflict. Maybe we can resolve this.
Mr. Angus, we'll turn to you first, and then we'll go to Mr. Barrett.
2:55 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
This is the work of our committee, so I think it should be pretty much unanimous that we support this. My only question is that Friday is a day that's already been allotted, as Madam Gaudreau had said, to the WE study or the pandemic study. I think we should have it at an early date after that, since we don't want to go much over time because of the pressure it puts on our interpreters. I'm ready to fully support it. Let's just find a date and make it happen.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Thanks very much, Chair.
I think that having the Privacy Commissioner nominee appear is good. I have an amendment that I would like to move. I'd like the minister to appear for a second hour. I will send this in both official languages to the clerk as soon as I've read it.
The motion as amended would read, “That, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, May 27, 2021, and Standing Order 111.1(1), Daniel Therrien, nominee for the position of Privacy Commissioner of Canada, and Minister of Canadian Heritage Steven Guilbeault be invited to appear on Friday, June 11, 2021, each for one hour, in relation to Mr. Therrien's proposed appointment.”
I am sending that to the clerk right now.
3 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Colleagues, as is our custom, we will suspend until such time as that can be distributed to members in both official languages.
We are suspended.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I call the meeting back to order.
Madam Gaudreau, we'll turn to you.
3:05 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, so that everyone is on the same page, could you please tell us the order of the work we have left. We have to keep June 10 in mind. We definitely won't be done on June 4, since we are spending an extra two hours on the Pornhub study. We do have some time until June 21. Can you tell us what the order is for the work we have to do and what time slots we have available?
Second, I would like to hear from Mr. Barrett on why he wants the committee to invite the minister, Mr. Guilbeault.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I think, Madam Gaudreau, you have indicated that your calculation of days is that we only have three days freed up. I am in concurrence. I agree with you that we are very limited. I'd be interested in members' thoughts on how we can make this all happen, but we'll turn to other members here.
We'll turn to Mr. Fergus.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Gaudreau is much more diplomatic than I. As was shown very clearly, we have little time left.
The minister is already appearing before the committee, as per Mr. Angus's motion. We would have to invent time, considering how little we have left to wrap up the studies we've already begun.
I thought there was a consensus to put a time limit on the other discussion because we were running out of time. That's the proper thing to do. With all the work on our plate, I don't think it's necessary to go down that path.
I'm eager to hear Mr. Barrett's response to Ms. Gaudreau.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
3:10 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you. I appreciate my colleague's amendment. I guess my concern, like Madam Gaudreau's, is that the clock is ticking. We are having the minister come to speak to us. To have him come back on another issue to me is questionable. We could actually question him on both things if people feel that's what they want to do.
I think we have to get Mr. Therrien's appointment approved. I think that's incumbent upon us. We have to finish the pandemic study. We have to finish the Pornhub study. Therefore, I would say that having him come back for another hour is not necessary.
May 28th, 2021 / 3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
I would just say that, in the interest of saving the committee time, I'd be happy with the unanimous consent of the committee to withdraw the amendment if Madam Shanahan withdraws having Mr. Therrien appear. Mr. Guilbeault is the minister who has proposed this individual for the appointment, so if we want to save a full day on the calendar, let's do it, but if we're already having a meeting.... If someone has a proposal on how we're going to split time for that one hour, let's hear that proposal, but if we're dedicating a meeting, I don't think that it's unreasonable to ask that the minister who is proposing the appointee....
We just had Mr. Therrien at the committee, and no one had any questions or said that they had further questions about Mr. Therrien's service, so I would be happy, with the unanimous consent of committee, to withdraw my amendment, and we could withdraw having Mr. Therrien appear. We could deal with Pornhub on that day and drafting instructions and the like, but if we are blocking meetings, if we are doing some planning, that's the proposal that I'm making.
Mr. Guilbeault is the minister that put Mr. Therrien forward, but we are going to have Minister Guilbeault appear on another matter and we just had Mr. Therrien appear, so with such little time left, I would concede that we could do without both.
3:10 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I have all kinds of ideas to make full use of our time.
For instance, when we heard from Mr. Dion earlier, he quickly answered our questions about the estimates and his mandate. The discussion then veered onto another topic, the last report. We met with him for one hour.
Do we need an hour? If we can find extra time to hear from Mr. Guilbeault, we could discuss two subjects with him, much like we asked Mr. Dion questions that did not pertain specifically to the estimates or his mandate. That will shorten the meetings. Otherwise, we will run out of time.
I don't think we will be able to hear from the Privacy Commissioner on June 4, but we could do it by June 21. We have to deal with the work we have in the order agreed upon. Further to our last meeting on the Pornhub study, we are supposed to draft the report. That means we still have a bit of work to do. I don't think the date in Ms. Shanahan's motion works given what we've just decided. However, we could just add some time, less than an hour, between now and June 21. A half-hour might even do it. We want to make sure we meet with the commissioner, but we have to be realistic about it.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
There's definitely a possibility to add time to meetings. We have often gone beyond the two-hour time limit. However, as Mr. Barrett suggested, if we're going to set aside one hour of one meeting, the second hour would have to be dedicated to something, so it could be to the minister, if in fact we are doing that.
Again, I would suggest that we push this off until such time as we have been able to deal with some of the heavy lifting on some of these other reports, so that final translation will be allowed to take place before the House rises.
Mr. Barrett, you're the last person who has indicated you want to speak to this, and of course, we are still debating the amendment.
Mr. Barrett.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Chair, being mindful of the time—it's 3:15—I am certainly not opposed to hearing from Mr. Therrien. I do think it would be helpful to hear from the minister.
There are a couple of different ways that we could look at this. This is perhaps a discussion that we could resolve off-line. I would suggest perhaps that we adjourn debate. We have meetings planned next week, and perhaps the chair could come back to the committee on Monday with a proposed work plan for the remainder of this sitting.
Chair, with that said and, again, just underscoring that I think people are interested in hearing from Mr. Therrien, with the way that we do that and being sensitive to folks' time, I'm going to reach out to colleagues to see if we can resolve this off-line.
At this point, I'd move to adjourn the meeting.
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
There's been a motion to adjourn the meeting. This is not a debatable motion, so we'll ask the clerk to run through the roll call.
3:15 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Miriam Burke
The result of the vote is five yeas, five nays.
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I will vote to adjourn the meeting.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
I will now move to adjourn this meeting.
The meeting is adjourned.