The way I understand it, it's a committee of parliamentarians but a statutory committee. The application of parliamentary privilege is specifically excluded from the membership of this committee. My understanding of the bill is that the committee will include senators and House of Commons members, but it will be a statutory committee. The secretariat will also become a statutory entity that will be subject to the access to information provisions.
I understand your concerns, but I have often recommended and still recommend that there be an exemption in the Access to Information Act to protect parliamentary privilege. It seems entirely appropriate to me, especially since I also recommend that ministers' offices be covered by the Access to Information Act.
In this case, it really is a statutory creature, and in that context we are excluding the application of parliamentary privilege to protect its members.
Clause 35 of the bill is so broad, in any event, that I don't see how any information received or created by the secretariat could be disclosed. The wording of this clause makes it really very broad. The disclosure of documents containing any information obtained or created by the committee must be refused. In law, this is a positive obligation. There is no discretion; this disclosure must be refused.
I asked myself the question seriously when I looked at the bill. Having the experience of over 10,000 files, I think that even a purely financial document that might talk about the number of committee meetings, for instance, would be covered under this provision, in my view. Given the current wording, I don't see how there could be any transparency on the part of the secretariat.