Bill C-461 (Historical)

CBC and Public Service Disclosure and Transparency Act

An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act (disclosure of information)

This enactment amends the Access to Information Act to provide that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation may refuse to disclose any information requested under that Act if the information is under the control of the Corporation and the disclosure would reveal the identity of any journalistic source or if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the Corporation’s journalistic, creative or programming independence.
It also amends the Privacy Act to specify that certain information is not personal information for the purposes of that Act.

[Suzanne Legault, Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today in relation to your study of Bill C-461.

This bill proposes the repeal of section 68.1 of the Access to Information Act, which excludes information relating to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's journalistic, creative, or programming activities, subject to an exception for information relating to its general administration.

The bill would replace that exclusion with a new exemption, which would allow CBC to withhold records that could reasonably be expected to prejudice the journalistic, creative, or programming independence of the CBC.

At the outset, I would like to describe briefly the general structure of the act, the limits to the right of access and the powers given to my office.

To that end, Mr. Chair, I have circulated a document to committee members which sets out in a little more detail the various exemptions and exclusions, and explains the difference between the two. The document also explains the general provisions of the legislation as applied to my powers. It provides committee members with more information.

The legislation creates a right to access information under the control of government institutions, subject to specific and limited exceptions. The act limits access by way of exemptions and exclusions.

Exclusions provide that the act does not apply to certain records or information. The act also includes various exemptions that permit or require institutions to withhold a range of records and information.

The act gives the commissioner broad investigatory powers, including access to all the documents under the control of the federal institution to which the act applies. The commissioner has broad powers to require the production of these records.

Thus, when an exemption is invoked by an institution, the commissioner has access to the documents in their entirety. However, where an institution invokes an exclusion, access to the underlying information or records depends on the nature of the exclusion relied on by the institution.

The commissioner's access to records and information, which had been identified by the CBC as falling within the exclusion found in section 68.1, was at issue before the Federal Court of Appeal at the time of my appearance in October 2011. In November 2011, the Federal Court of Appeal rendered its decision.

The question of the extent of the commissioner's powers to examine documents for which an exclusion is invoked was raised in the investigations of the many complaints about the CBC's use of section 68.1 of the act.

As the result of the CBC's challenge to my power to compel the production of documents mentioned in that section, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the commissioner is allowed access to documents covered by the exclusion in order to determine whether the exception fell within the exception for information relating to the administration of the CBC.

With respect to information that would reveal a journalistic source, the Federal Court of Appeal's explanation was:

The identity of journalistic sources cannot clash with the exception relating to general administration, regardless of the scope attributed to this exception. In these circumstances, the only conclusion possible if one gives effect to the Federal Court judge’s reasoning is that the exclusion for journalistic sources, like the exclusions provided in sections 69 and 69.1, is absolute. It follows that in the event that a request seeking the disclosure of journalistic sources was made, a record—or the part thereof—revealing this type of information would be exempt from the Commissioner’s power of examination.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal resolved the scope of the commissioner's powers to compel the production of the records to which CBC has applied section 68.1. What the decision does not resolve is the scope of the exception to the exclusion and the meaning of the terms used in section 68.1, such as “journalistic, creative or programming activities”. So this does not preclude subsequent litigation on the scope of the exception or the exclusion.

Before I discuss the specific modifications proposed by Bill C-461, it is important to emphasize that the challenges related to access to information are complex. They demand thoughtful, unified action, and are not easily amenable to a piecemeal solution.

Like my predecessors, I have more than once observed that the act requires modernization to bring it in line with more progressive and international models. While it is true that the act was considered state-of-the-art legislation when it received royal assent in 1982, it is now significantly outdated. While acknowledging the need to amend the law, I maintain that it should not be done in a disjointed way, since this leads to issue-specific amendments that erode the act's status as a law of general application.

At the very least, the structure of the act as a whole must be considered when amendments are proposed. We must examine not only the specific interests to be protected by changes or additions to the law, but also the spirit of the law, the way in which it is structured, and its general framework. The chosen approach must, in my view, preserve the law's character as one of general application.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-461 in relation to the CBC reflect what I suggested when I appeared before this committee in October 2011.

Since the committee has been having hearings, I have been following the comments of the stakeholders very closely, as well as the comments of parliamentarians in the House of Commons, and I'll be happy to discuss some of the issues that have been raised by various parties.

At this time, Bill C-461 proposes the repeal of section 68.1 and the insertion of a discretionary, injury-based exemption that would permit the CBC to withhold information that “could reasonably be expected to prejudice the corporation's journalistic, creative, or programming independence”. A discretionary, injury-based exemption will ensure requesters' rights to an independent review process in all matters.

To be clear, any information or records obtained by my office are reviewed solely for investigative purposes. Indeed, the access act's confidentiality requirements are very strict and do not allow the disclosure of any information during the performance of my duties.

In concluding, I ask the committee to consider how these proposed amendments to the Act will apply to the more than 200 complaints currently under investigation. Will the new provisions be applicable to ongoing files, that is, requests and complaints to CBC, or only to new requests? The bill in its current form makes no mention of transitional measures for dealing with existing files. So I invite the committee to consider that matter as it deliberates.

In my view, it would be better that the new provisions be applicable to existing complaints and requests since a requester may simply make a new request, thereby benefiting from the application of the new provisions. But, for that to be the effect, a specific provision is needed, in my view.

With that, Mr. Chair, I would be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Welcome to the 82nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We are continuing our study on Bill C-461.

Unfortunately, we are 25 minutes late; we have the Information Commissioner with us. She is accompanied by Ms. McCarthy, Assistant Commissioner, Complaints Resolution and Compliance.

I now give the floor to the Information Commissioner, Suzanne Legault. She will be speaking to us about the bill for about 10 minutes. Then there will be a period when committee members will be able to ask questions.

Without further delay, you have the floor for 10 minutes, Ms. Legault. Thank you for being here.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you, Mr. Andrews.

Since the bells have begun to ring, I must take this opportunity to thank our witnesses. The hour we had to spend with you is now over.

I thank your for your testimony and your thoughts in the context of our study of Bill C-461.

Since the bells are ringing, I must suspend the meeting, unless I have unanimous consent to continue at this time.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

Thanks very much, to each of you, for being here with us this afternoon.

When it comes to the information on section 68.1, certainly this is something this committee has been looking at for quite some time. I think you're probably all well aware that we did an extensive study on that and recommended that section be amended in order to comply with the Federal Court of Appeal's decisions on the matter. I'm quite sure you would have followed that. Now we're looking at Bill C-461 and discussing the same issue with section 68.1.

Madame Bertrand, you talked about your concerns with the bill, that as it's currently drafted it would have some unintended consequences. You were afraid, in your words, that it may undermine CBC/Radio-Canada's “ability to do its job as mandated by Parliament”. I would like you to talk a little bit about that. As well, you talked about the bill removing current protections for journalism, and the Federal Court of Appeal making section 68.1 crystal clear and how that should continue.

We've heard from the mover of the bill that he feels his bill absolutely upholds the Federal Court of Appeal's decision on section 68.1. I'd like to know why you feel it doesn't, if in fact that's what you do feel.

Also, when we heard from the commissioner the last time, she told us that since 2007 they've looked at close to 1,200 cases in relation to CBC and they have about 200 remaining. Out of all those cases, no case has dealt with journalistic sources, and she thinks that's an important fact to know when we consider possible amendments. Can you also talk about the fact that out of all of those cases she has not dealt with any dealing with journalistic sources?

There are three or four different things there that I'd like you to talk about, please.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Myles.

My next question is for Ms. Bertrand or Mr. Poulter.

With Bill C-461, we are moving to an exception based on CBC/Radio-Canada's independence. We asked Mr. Rathgeber how he defined that concept. He replied that it was independence from the government.

In your opinion, how is the concept of independence, which is in fact derived from the Broadcasting Act, to be defined?

[Brian Myles, President, Journalist Le Devoir, Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec]

Good afternoon.

Allow me to introduce myself: I am Brian Myles, President of Quebec's Professional Federation of Journalists, or FPJQ. To my left, I am joined by Mr. Claude Robillard, who is our Secretary General.

The federation represents 2,000 journalists in Quebec. It is one of the biggest associations of its kind. It is not a union. It is an association which includes executives, salaried workers and independent journalists who rally around the noble cause of diversity of information, freedom of the press and the public's right to information.

For the FPJQ, the issues at stake in this bill are not so much access to information and transparency at CBC/Radio-Canada, but the protection of sources and of freedom of the press. These values are very important to us. Parliament decided a long time ago to give the country a public broadcaster. The very existence of CBC/Radio-Canada is not what is being called into question today. At the federation, we continue to believe that Canada needs a public broadcaster to encourage a diversity of voices.

Over the years, this corporation has played an invaluable role, in particular in investigative journalism. In Quebec currently, as you know, the Charbonneau Commission is investigating corruption and collusion in the construction industry. However, if these journalists—and first and foremost those of Radio-Canada—had not been on the case, this commission of inquiry which is revealing inappropriate expenditures that are now totalling millions of dollars—soon to be billions—would never have seen the light of day.

We feel that at all costs, we must prevent the public broadcaster from being weakened in any way. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is independent, and this must not become a hollow concept, an empty expression that is useful in beautiful speeches: rather, it must be a fact of life in daily reality and in the management of the day-to-day affairs of CBC/Radio-Canada.

Parliament already has two far-reaching and very important powers, since it determines the annual budgets of the corporation, and appoints the members of the board. The CRTC is then responsible for holding the corporation to account. It has considerably improved its record, which, it must be said, was somewhat disappointing in terms of access to information. This independence is what makes the difference between a true crown corporation which practices journalism, and a phoney institution that could eventually sink into shallow surface journalism, if not promotion or propaganda, as is the case in certain dictatorships.

A public corporation cannot consider practising journalism today without this independence from the state, and private broadcasters must enjoy a similar autonomy with regard to editors or bosses. The bill weakens CBC/Radio-Canada's situation in relation to its competitors. The message being sent is that the protection of sources is less important at CBC/Radio-Canada than at other broadcasters.

Since the Supreme Court ruling in the “MaChouette” affair, the famous case of Daniel Leblanc, a journalist at The Globe and Mail, there is now a test to protect sources in Canada. This is the famous Wigmore test, under which a source may be divulged before a court of justice, but only as a last resort. Moreover, it must be proven that disclosure will be more beneficial to uncovering the truth than silence. As the courts and the Supreme Court have said, we must always ensure that the high value of investigative journalism is protected.

Two very important elements underpin the mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada, and they are the Broadcasting Act, which guarantees the corporation full independence in matters of journalism, and the Journalistic Standards and Practices of the CBC. That document expressly states the following: “We are independent of all lobbies and of all political and economic influence. We uphold freedom of expression and freedom of the press, the touchstones of a free and democratic society. Public interest guides all of our decisions.”

These are the values that must be paramount when studying the bill. By going from an exclusion—that is to say the current standard—to an exemption, we run the risk of weakening the protection of sources. Mr. Carty spoke earlier of pharmaceutical companies that could want to appropriate secrets. I have no trouble believing that in the current context in Quebec, engineering firms and construction contractors would try to find out who is investigating them and would try to obtain information even before any investigation was concluded or made public.

The risk is that people will eventually want to have access to journalists' notes, and will want to know who they had dinner with, how much time they spent covering an issue, who they are investigating, and what network or contacts they are using to work on a project. Ultimately, an investigation could be nipped in the bud before it was even begun.

You must know that investigative journalism is not an easy or simple genre. There is a lot of preliminary background work that has to be done, whether it concerns the selection of topics, the identification of potential sources and the contacts that will lead us to speak to a source, taking us eventually to the ultimate source, who may confirm or infirm the original thesis.

This cannot be an open process, it cannot be brought to fruition in real time, in the full public light of day. There has to be a minimum of protection—if not of secrecy—and of discretion if the investigation is to go forward. This can be compared to baking a cake, if you like to cook. If you put a nice cake in the oven and open the door after two minutes, your cake will not rise. This bill means that the door will be opened on investigations that are underway and they will literally be snuffed out.

What collective benefit can there be to weakening an important news voice, a voice that has provided us with great investigations that have received international awards, a voice that has allowed us to shed light on numerous scandals? Whatever government is in power, there is no advantage in doing that.

We believe that in its current form, the bill does not offer sufficient guarantees to adequately protect the sources of CBC/Radio-Canada journalists. With this mechanism, people will always be turning to executives—those responsible for access to information—or to a superior court to force the disclosure of journalist's notes. Ultimately, as my colleagues have said, CBC/Radio-Canada journalists will not be able to guarantee their sources the same degree of protection as do journalists who work for other, private media.

Unfortunately, there isn't much to be done. I don't see how an amendment to the bill to exclude journalistic sources will save the day. It seems to me that the proper route to follow—and that is the sole recommendation we are making—is to vote down all of Bill C-461. We, the members of the federation, have always defended the principle of protecting sources. If Parliament feels that we need a law to protect sources, I urge our elected representatives to hold that debate. We will be pleased to come and testify about our experience and make our suggestions, but, please, if you must raise as serious a topic as the protection of sources, do so for all of the journalistic community. Indeed, in this day and age, no investigation worthy of the name is conducted without resorting to confidential sources and journalistic material.

Thank you very much.

[Marc-Philippe Laurin]

The CBC was created by an act of Parliament because Canadians wanted a public broadcaster. Today we believe that a majority of Canadians still want a public broadcaster and they want a robust one able to hold its own in the media marketplace. We can't imagine anyone trying to impose the conditions outlined in Bill C-461 on any other media in Canada. They certainly shouldn't be imposed on CBC/Radio-Canada, the biggest news organization in the country and an essential vehicle for informing the public.

Bill C-461 would have an adverse effect on the public broadcaster's information service. The bill attacks the very principle of freedom of the press and would not be in the best interest of the citizens of Canada.

We urge this committee to recommend proceeding no further with Bill C-461. We would certainly support a thorough review of the Access to Information Act. We would be pleased to participate in any future proceedings towards reform of the act to improve accountability and access, but without endangering freedom of expression and the integrity of the public broadcaster.

In closing what we would like to say is that if what members of Parliament want is a sunshine list of public servant salaries, then it should draft a clear and transparent bill to that end instead of using the back door and destroying CBC journalism in the process.

Thank you.

[Bob Carty, Member, Canadian Media Guild]

Thank you, Marc-Philippe.

Mr. Chairman and members of Parliament, I'd like to look at this bill from the perspective of a journalist. I have worked with the investigative unit of the CBC in past years. One of the main stories we worked on for years was about adverse drug reactions, the sickness and death that could be caused by pharmaceutical products. It was an investigation that involved confidential sources, access to information requests, and it eventually won 10 Canadian and international awards.

I'd like to present a hypothetical analysis of how an access request with this kind of a topic might work currently under section 68.1, or in the future under Bill C-461.

As you know the sector that most uses access to information is the business sector, so in my example let's say an access request is made by a pharmaceutical company. It wants access to my e-mails, reporters' notebooks, even confidential sources. It wants access to perhaps my strategies to do interviews, my travel plans, and things like that—all the processes involved in collecting an investigative report. Under the access request as it currently works under section 68.1, the exclusion process, which has been clarified by the Federal Court, is fairly straightforward. My confidential sources are completely out of bounds. The court has ruled here that the CBC's right of exclusion is absolute. As for my notebooks, the e-mails, the research materials, the CBC would refuse to disclose them because they relate to journalism, by definition.

The Information Commissioner now has the right to review all these documents nonetheless, but she would likely agree because, again, the materials are clearly journalistic in nature. The pharmaceutical company could go to court, but I think the courts would side with the CBC, and my sources, my notes, my research, my investigative broadcast would be protected, and so would the CBC's inherent right to freedom of information.

This is not the case if Bill C-461 goes through. What would happen there? Under the bill's exemption, all my materials, even my confidential sources, would be on the table. Nothing is protected, not even sources, which the Federal Court and the Supreme Court have recognized as an essential component to free expression. For each piece of my material the CBC would have to prove that disclosure would harm the corporation's journalistic, creative, or programming independence, and that word is critical. It's where it gets very messy too.

The CBC's independence as discussed in the Broadcasting Act, and as the sponsor of the bill outlined it last week, almost always concerns the issue of the CBC's independence from government and Parliament. However a pharmaceutical company eager to know what we are finding out about the deadly side effects of one of its drugs could argue in court that the release of my journalistic materials, even sources, in no way compromises the CBC's independence from government and Parliament. The release would damage my credibility, the CBC's journalistic integrity, and quite possibly subject us to a lawsuit to prevent the material from even being broadcast.

In such a scenario what reporter in good conscience could promise he or she could protect the source? Without that protection what whistle-blower would approach us with a story of corruption? The CBC would be stripped of much of its ability to conduct public service journalism. The public broadcaster would lose its inherent right to freedom of expression.

In the same way we have deep concerns about Bill C-461's amendments to the Privacy Act. The exemption here is again based upon harm being done to the CBC's journalistic independence from government. Under these changes a person being investigated by the CBC, perhaps a doctor, or perhaps a Mafia boss in Montreal, could request all information about himself in the possession of the CBC. The CBC would be forced to turn over information about criminal activities, about this Mafia don, even before it was broadcast. No other media outlet would be subject to such a process. Again great harm would be done to the CBC's integrity, its ability to function in the marketplace, its very freedom of expression.

Mr. Chairman, both these changes to the access law and to the Privacy Act are ill conceived. They are not necessary. In the name of accountability they would cripple the public broadcaster's ability to hold those in power to account. In the name of access to information, one of the foundations of freedom of expression, the bill would damage other important freedoms of speech: the freedom and the duty to protect sources, and the right of the CBC to its editorial freedom.

Thank you, I'll turn it back to Marc.

[Marc-Philippe Laurin, President, CBC Branch, Canadian Media Guild]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Marc-Philippe Laurin and I am President of the CBC Branch of the Canadian Media Guild. We represent the people who work for CBC/Radio-Canada across Canada, with the exception of Quebec.

I'm joined by guild member, Bob Carty, a long-time CBC radio producer and investigative journalist, who's also a member of the board of Canadian Journalists For Free Expression. The Canadian Media Guild represents 6,000 media workers across Canada at 10 different media outlets.

The guild has long supported a robust system to ensure access to information. We respect the fact that the CBC, as a recipient of public funds, has serious responsibilities for accountability under the access to information system, but it also has other obligations that are equally serious. It must fulfill its mandate from Parliament while maintaining a true arm's-length relationship with the government of the day. It must conduct its journalism with integrity and complete editorial freedom, and it is responsible for the protection of its confidential sources.

We feel that Bill C-461 would adversely affect CBC/Radio-Canada journalists. The new provisions being proposed would undermine their integrity and capacity to protect their sources. For this reason, we urge the committee to recommend that Parliament take no further measures regarding this bill. In the absence of such a recommendation, we ask that Parliament vote against Bill C-461. The bill is beyond repair, even with amendments.

Bill C-461 places demands on CBC/Radio-Canada newsrooms that do not exist for any other news organization in this country. In doing so, it puts CBC at a disadvantage compared to its competitors, undermines its ability to do journalism, and as a result, to inform the public.

As we noted in our brief, the bill would actually undo the clarity brought to the existing legislation by the Federal Court of Appeal in 2011. Since that court decision, we understand that CBC and the Information Commissioner have been successfully resolving outstanding complaints without friction or disputes. The lack of clarity in the bill's exemption would certainly be the subject of new court cases for years to come, and much of that at the public's expense.

In the meantime, the door would be open for access applicants to get a hold of information about CBC's confidential sources and news investigations. This would harm the public broadcaster's reputation as a trustworthy recipient of confidential information from whistle-blowers and sources. It would allow others, including competitors, to find out inside information about how CBC is pursuing stories, information that no other news organization in the country is obliged to share with anyone.

Bob Carty is here today to further explain how these provisions would hurt CBC news operations.

[Maryse Bertrand, Vice-President, Real Estate, Legal Services and General Counsel, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chairman, members of the committee, on behalf of CBC/Radio-Canada, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss our concerns about Bill C-461 and its potential effect on the public broadcaster.

We are concerned that this bill as currently drafted will have some unintended consequences that may undermine CBC/Radio-Canada's ability to do its job as mandated by Parliament.

First, the bill would remove the current protections for journalism programming and creative activities under the Access to Information Act. There was much discussion in 2010 and 2011 about section 68.1, which is the exclusion for these activities, and how it needed to be clarified. In fact, it has been clarified. In November 2011, the Federal Court of Appeal made it crystal clear. The Information Commissioner can review documents held by CBC/Radio-Canada to determine whether the exclusion applies, except when it comes to journalistic sources.

I would like to read what the court of appeal said:

...the exclusion for journalistic sources, like the exclusions provided in sections 69 and 69.1, is absolute. It follows that in the event that a request seeking the disclosure of journalistic sources was made, a record – or the part thereof – revealing this type of information would be exempt from the Commissioner’s power of examination.

That decision is extremely clear and at the time, both CBC/Radio-Canada and the commissioner expressed their satisfaction with it. The government, in its response to this committee's study, wrote that the decision, and I am quoting: “settled the dispute between CBC and the Information Commissioner”.

Indeed, since then, we and the commissioner have been working together to resolve the files which had been awaiting the court's decision. As you have heard from the commissioner, that work could be completed by the end of this year and we are collaborating closely with the Commissioner's Office in order to meet our goals.

This bill is proposing to do away with 68.1 completely and to replace this exclusion with an injury-based exemption. That change will introduce a great deal of uncertainty regarding its application as the commissioner, CBC/Radio-Canada and third parties will have to debate not one, but two elements now: whether the material is journalistic, creative or programming information, and secondly, whether the release would prejudice the corporation's independence. This will be the case even where there are confidential sources. We are loosing ground, going backwards, where sources are concerned.

Introducing an additional requirement of “prejudice to independence” which is untested in any current case law in Canada will inevitably bring us to a new level of uncertainty that will likely require several cases and years to resolve before a sufficient body of legal decisions exist to give us all the necessary guidance.

Parliament must balance the desire for more access to information for federal institutions, with the requirement that media organizations such as ours operate effectively and independently.

The specific protections in both the Broadcasting Act and Access to information Act for journalism, programming and creative activities, exist to ensure independence.

Incidentally, those protections are not unique. As the commissioner pointed out in the comparison document that she shared with you in 2011, public broadcasters in Ireland, England, and Australia, all have specific exclusions from their access to information laws for their journalism programming and creative activities, and all without any test in order to demonstrate a negative impact on their independence. Why would Canadians want to change that for their own public broadcaster? Why is such a change necessary when CBC/Radio-Canada is among the strongest performers under access to information?

Here are some facts about that. We have taken the lead among organizations in posting on our website much of what we release under access. That's in addition to the board minutes and the business travel and hospitality expenses that we post proactively. CBC/Radio-Canada earned an A from the commissioner in her most recent review for its performance under the act. Last fall, the corporation was recognized for improving transparency and accountability in the 2012 IPAC/Deloitte Public Sector Leadership Awards.

But that accountability goes beyond access to information. Every year we provide detailed financial information to the CRTC, which oversees our licence conditions. Every year the Auditor General of Canada signs off on our financial statements. Every five to 10 years he conducts a comprehensive special audit. In his most recent audit tabled in Parliament this year, the Auditor General gave CBC/Radio-Canada a clean audit opinion. That's the best result a federal agency can obtain.

We also report to our minister, to parliamentarians, and to Canadians through our corporate plan, our annual report, and our quarterly financial statements published on our website. We also have an independent board of directors, including an audit committee and a governance committee, all appointed by the government to oversee our budgets and our operations. It's their job to ensure that our programming and journalistic resources are being spent wisely.

This means while we are accountable under access to information for the general administration of our corporation, the law also draws the line at publicly releasing those things that would undermine our independence, or prejudice our competitive position—things like how much Peter Mansbridge gets paid, or how much we paid for the upcoming Olympics, or the details of our promotional strategies for new shows. For those things, it is the responsibility of our board of directors to protect both the public interest and the corporation's arm's-length independence.

There are two other unintended defects of C-461 I would like to mention with respect to proposed changes to the Privacy Act. These are the consequences I would now like to discuss.

First, the bill proposes to strip away the existing Privacy Act protections for journalism, programming and creative activities—but only for CBC/Radio-Canada. It would allow the subject of a CBC/Radio-Canada investigation to demand all information about them held by one of our journalists, even before we broadcast. Only CBC/Radio-Canada journalists would be subject to this provision. You can imagine what this would do to the investigative journalism that Canadians value.

Finally, with respect to salaries, C-461 proposes to make public the exact salary of the highest earners working for a government institution—rather than the salary ranges of their position, which is the current law. This has a much broader impact than just on CBC/Radio-Canada.

The Privacy Commissioner has established four tests to determine whether an invasion of privacy is justified, and one of those tests is whether there is a less privacy-invasive way of achieving the same end. The commissioner has put it this way:

...disclosing salary ranges or aggregate salary amounts for relevant groups, as opposed to specific salaries of individuals, could prove just as effective in achieving enhanced transparency and accountability without incurring the corresponding loss of individual privacy.

In our case, we would suggest that the combination of our salary ranges being public—they're available proactively and under access to information—the aggregate of our senior executive salaries being available in our annual report, and a specific salary being the express responsibility of our board of directors, all of that achieves the goal of enhanced transparency and accountability. It does so without undermining our ability to maximize public value in our highly competitive business environment where other broadcasters' salaries are protected.

Should CBC/Radio-Canada be accountable? Absolutely, and it is. Should there be oversight? Absolutely, and there is. But in addition to accountability and oversight, CBC/Radio-Canada needs to be able to do the job it is being asked to do by Parliament. In our view, this bill will not help us do that.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

That is not a point of order either.

I move that we now deal with the first point on our agenda and that we hear the testimony relating to Bill C-461.

In our notice of meeting, as you can see, Mr. Scott Andrews' notice of motion is listed and we are supposed to discuss it under the heading: “2. Committee Business”. So we will have the opportunity to talk about it more at length later.

For the moment, I am going the give the floor to the witnesses who took the trouble to come here to make a presentation on Bill C-461. And so I am going to let the representatives from—

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Welcome, everyone.

I would like to ask the members of the media to leave the room as soon as possible.

Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, March 27, 2013, and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, April 22, we are resuming our study of Bill C-461, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act (disclosure of information).

During the first hour, we will be hearing witnesses from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian Media Guild, and the Professional Federation of Quebec Journalists. Without further delay, we will begin the meeting.

Mr. Andrews, you have a point of order?

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you, Mr. Carmichael. Your speaking time has expired.

I would like to thank Mr. Rathgeber for his testimony today.

I would like to read a procedural motion to you concerning our procedure for the amendments. This is the motion:

That the proposed amendments to Bill C-461 be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than Tuesday, May 28, 2013 at 12:00 p.m., and that the amendments package be distributed to members as soon as possible.

The point is simply to clarify that amendments must be submitted to the legislative clerk before noon, May 28, since we will be doing clause-by-clause consideration at our May 29 meeting. Nothing prevents members from submitting amendments on the day we are doing clause-by-clause consideration. However, it is preferable to send them to the legislative clerk so that they can be distributed, and so the members of the committee can get a chance to see them prior to the meeting.

I need a motion. Is there a volunteer?

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

That's a very good question. I don't know.

Members may recall a scandal about a year ago in Alberta when there was a civil servant, then an employee of Capital Health, who had significantly abused his expense account. I'm sure Mr. Dreeshen remembers this story. The Government of Alberta has moved now to public disclosure with respect to expenses, and they are now posting expenses for ministers and senior bureaucrat online, but there's still no sunshine list.

It was that story of the bureaucrat with Capital Health in Edmonton that really started my thinking about disclosure and transparency, respect for taxpayers and taxpayers' dollars, salary disclosure, and reimbursed expenses disclosure. You see the product of that thought in private member's Bill C-461.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks very much for being here, Mr. Rathgeber, and for presenting your Bill C-461 to us. I certainly appreciated your presentation and the outline that you went through as you explained what your intent was with the bill.

I know that you're well aware that this committee did an extensive study of section 68.1 of the Access to Information Act when we were doing an earlier study. We recommended that section 68.1 be amended to comply with the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal's decisions on the matter of 68.1.

Do you think that your bill responds to the committee's recommendations? Would you also tell me why you feel that way or not?