Evidence of meeting #45 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was transparency.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay.
We're still on the amendment, not a subamendment, to change the motion to have eight meetings. Is there any other discussion on that? No.
Do we have consensus on the amendment?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we'll move on to the main motion as amended.
Do we have consensus on the main motion?
Go ahead.
Liberal
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
I'm new, so I appreciated the insights you gave at the beginning of the session. Thank you for sharing them with me and bringing me up to speed, at least.
It feels like this is going to go in the right direction. It would be nice to know what witnesses are being invited and then get the status of who's responding and who's not. That's something I'm missing with the Lobbying Act, which I now understand you will be providing us an update on.
I would like to put that on the record as a request, please.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Madam Clerk, maybe you can talk about the practice when witnesses are submitted by each party and what the normal course of action is so that Ms. Chagger is brought up to date on the work you do with the analysts in order to invite witnesses to our committee, and how that's marked off and moved. Do you want to just provide us with an update?
The Clerk
Yes, absolutely.
We've been working together on this committee for a few years, so we have a good working relationship that enables us to be effective. It's been our practice to prepare a witness list once members have sent us their lists. After that, the analysts, the chair and I suggest a work plan, which we distribute. Members who were on the committee at the time received the work plan. This plan is not set in stone. Once it's circulated, if members have any comments to make, we ask them to do so as soon as possible. Otherwise, we will move forward.
Obviously, the plan will change depending on the availability of witnesses. Sometimes, witnesses may not be available on certain dates and we change the order of appearances, but we try to follow the plan as much as possible. That ensures that all parties are represented proportionally. In addition, we try to group witnesses by topic or by type of witness to have more productive discussions. So the work plan is distributed in advance.
After the meetings, on a more informal basis, I will regularly go and see the members and employees to give them updates on the witnesses I have invited from those proposed by their respective parties, those who are harder to reach and those who will come in the next few days.
All of that has already been done. Most of the members who were on the committee before April had an update at that time. We had to cancel some witnesses for the lobbying study, because there was a debate and the committee went in a different direction. So we picked up from where we left off before the debate, quite simply.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay. Thank you, Madam Clerk.
We try to get as many witnesses as we can, but the old expression is that you can't push a wet noodle. If some witnesses decide they don't want to appear before the committee, they don't, and we try to make adjustments based on that.
We're on the main motion as amended. Are there any questions or comments?
I have Mr. Barrett on the main motion as amended.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
As prescribed witnesses, we have the President of the Treasury Board, the Privacy Commissioner, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta and “any other witnesses the committee deems relevant”, so that's good. With respect to the provincial privacy commissioner of Alberta, unless there's an exclusive imperative to have her, I wonder whether we should not seek to invite all of the provincial and territorial commissioners—unless there's some specific synergy that we're looking to capitalize on. If there is, that's great. If there's not, I would amend the motion to have, in (c), all provincial and territorial information and privacy commissioners, and to strike the words “of Alberta”. I will defer to the chair and the clerk on the prescription of time, because then we're into 26 hours.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
I'm just not sure if we can panel them.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
It would depend on their availability within our study window, but we would get the information and privacy commissioner of Alberta, as requested, and we'd be able to draw on the experiences of the others as well.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
That's a fairly straightforward amendment by Mr. Barrett, under item (c). It's to have every privacy commissioner. I'm assuming that every province and territory has a privacy commissioner. I don't know that for sure. That would mean 13 of them appearing before the committee, but not for two hours each. I would suggest that it be in panels. Two and two has been the normal practice around here.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
It would be a lot more meetings, but if the amendment passes, we'll come back with a plan to do it. Maybe we need three here at a time. It's up to you guys to figure out what you want to do.
Mr. Barrett's amendment is to have the privacy commissioners from all provinces and territories. Do we agree with that?
Liberal
Leslie Church Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
We will agree with that.
The rationale for it is that Alberta completed a significant privacy review last year. It is the first province to undertake one in a long time, and recently. That's why we thought they would have the most valuable insight. We're certainly open to hearing from others.
The suggestion to be flexible on the number we have during an hour is very good.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay. I'll take that as direction from the committee, then, and the clerk will too.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Mr. Barrett is proposing that item (c) be amended to include all privacy commissioners from the provinces and territories.
Liberal
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
He wants to remove “of Alberta”. I think the reference to Alberta is relevant. That's all.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
“All” means all. It doesn't exclude Alberta. My interpretation of “all” is that it includes Alberta.
Liberal
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
We should specify Alberta because they're the only current one. That's what I'm saying.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay. We can say “Alberta and all other provinces”, then. It's the same thing.