Information & Ethics Committee on June 5th, 2013

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am quite dismayed by this amendment. It's an open attack on a private member's bill that's attempting to do something about accountability.

Mr. Rathgeber came here in good faith. He's not asking for a sunshine list. He's not asking for the “gotcha” moment. We know the sunshine list, which was brought in by the Conservatives in Ontario. They were going to go after all those civil servants. Then it got bigger and bigger, and it's actually kind of meaningless.

However, the issue of salaries does have a certain level of importance in terms of access to information and accountability.

I certainly appreciate Mr. Rathgeber's concern here. There's not much that Conservatives and New Democrats agree on, other than the fact that we often don't really like each other. My grandmother was an old CCF, but my grandmother loved Diefenbaker. I'm not afraid to say that. There are elements where New Democrats and Conservatives sometimes come together, and one is on the issue of accountability. It's on the issue of being outsiders and coming to Ottawa and wanting to know that your tax dollars are being spent properly.

When they create a provision that would hide the salaries of people making $378,000 a year or $400,000 a year in the civil service, I ask what happened to that party of Preston Manning's. Where is the accountability here?

What we're seeing again in the Senate, the secrecy and the spending and the outrageous abuse of the public trust, and the fact that the public is not even allowed to find out what's happening with that money, is an affront to democracy.

I also find it appalling that we have a president of the Treasury Board, Tony Clement, who always seems to be beating up civil servants in the media. We have hard-working civil servants, people who do good jobs, and the public service is an important term. It's not to be denigrated because they are public servants. It's a very important institution and there are hard-working people throughout every aspect of the public service.

It seems odd that an amendment would be brought forward to actually undermine the spirit of the bill and to protect the upper mandarins.

Again, the DM 1 classification that Mr. Rathgeber had would begin at about the $180,000 mark. That's above what a member of Parliament makes. There are certainly people who would argue that you should set the standard at what an MP makes, or maybe what a senator makes. But at $180,000, that's the low end of where that goes. That actually goes up to people who are making about $280,000 a year with their bonuses.

If you asked most Canadians whether that should be accessible to the public, they'd say yes. What that's about, Mr. Chair, is that perhaps in some department something went wrong and someone failed in their duty, and the public interest was compromised, and someone wanted to know what was going on in that department. Then they found out that the person in charge of that was making $430,000 a year and was getting bonuses when the problems were going on. That's when you need that information.

The fact that they would move it up to the upper level of absolute protection, so that the bare minimum of people being protected are making $270,000.... The beginning base of the DM 4 is $272,000, where they start, but it goes up to $444,661.

My honourable colleague from the Liberals said he doubts anybody makes that. I would put to him that I doubt anybody will find out who makes that, because they're certainly concerned about protecting it. Why in God's name would they be worried about protecting salaries at $450,000 a year in the public service if there weren't perhaps many people making them?

This is not fair. It's not fair to the spirit of the bill, which is to have some levels of accountability. My colleague, again, I don't want to say Mr. Rathgeber did not set this up as a “gotcha” thing. This is about transparency and accountability to the taxpayer. I'm shocked that we now have a government that believes that keeping salaries at that high level...and it's not to say that people may not be deserving of those high salaries, but to keep them covered, to keep them from the public, is undermining all the principles of what that party once told Canadians.

We certainly think this amendment is wrong and has to be opposed.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you.

As no one else is on my list, we will put it to a vote.

(Amendment CPC-2 carried)

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

As I said earlier, the Liberal amendment is no longer possible because the clause in question has just been completely altered.

Mr. Andrews, you have the floor.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the spirit of openness and accountability and to make sure that we are totally clear, the thrust of my amendment is, and it would be easily a friendly amendment, that be paid to a deputy minister, “the classification, salary, including applicable bonuses and performance awards”.

So, to make it admissible, would the government like to make a friendly amendment to mine, to take out the DM 1 reference in the bill and to replace it with, to be paid to a deputy minister, “the classification, salary, including applicable bonuses and performance awards”?

Would the government be open to making sure that it captures the full envelope of one's salary? In the government's amendment, it talks about “total annual monetary income”. I don't know if it includes that. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the answer to that.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

I would like to point out that it will no longer be possible to change clause 4 as part of this process. The legislative clerk has informed me that it would be possible to make amendments by moving a subamendment to the Conservatives' amendment in order to include what you requested. The fact remains that it is now impossible to amend clause 4.

As no one wishes to speak, we will now vote.

(Clause 4, as amended, carried)

(On clause 5—Canadian Broadcasting Corporation)

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Now we will go to clause 5.

We have received an amendment from the NDP.

Do you want me to read it or do you want to read it yourself, Mr. Angus?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, at this stage, I would prefer to read it into the record myself because I see what a ruthless bunch I'm playing cards with here, and I don't want to be sitting in my undershirt at the end of this round.

That Bill C-461, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 27 on page 2 with the following: "the information relates to its journalistic, creative, or programming activities."

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Is there any debate on the amendment or do you want to explain it?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

We're looking at the bill under proposed section 28.1. The wording "creative or programming independence" was certainly raised as a concern by numerous witnesses. It was problematic. It was untested. It did not cover the scope, and the question would be interpreted as independence from what? From government? That's not the issue we're concerned about. The larger issue is ensuring that the programming and journalistic and creative activities of the organization are able to be protected.

First, we've already spoken of the journalistic element, and I can certainly elucidate it if people have forgotten or gotten off track. The issue of creative and programming activities is important as well because this is an organization in competition with other media outlets. It's a tough business in this country. Whatever you're doing in your creative and programming activities, your number-one competitor is going to want to find out.

This isn't about the parties they are throwing. This is about what they're doing, how they're seeking out programing, and what they're engaged in. “Independence” does not cover it enough because it doesn't give us the clarity, and we've heard that, so we wanted to return to the language “journalistic, creative or programming activities”. It's the activities. It's the work being done. That's our amendment.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Does anyone want to discuss it?

I have Mr. Warkentin on my list.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

No, sorry.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

All right. If there is no one else, we will proceed with the vote.

(Amendment NDP-3 negatived)

(Clause 5 carried on division)

(On clause 6—Canadian Broadcasting Corporation)

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

We have received an amendment from the Conservatives, moved by Mr. Butt. I will let him read and explain it.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move:

That Bill C-461, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 2 with the following: (3) This Act does not apply to personal information that is under the control of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and that would reveal the identity of any confidential journalistic source. (4) Sections 4 to 10 do not apply to personal

The rest of that's fine.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Is there any debate on the amendment?

Mr. Angus, you have the floor.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Well, again, this was being offered to us by our Conservative colleagues to reassure us that they were not going to undermine the independence of journalists doing investigative work. What they've told us, however, what they've given us, is that they would simply protect the identity of any confidential journalistic source. That identity means simply a person, and we would assume that the name would be blacked out anyway

In terms of the issue of sources, it's not just the person. It's the work that's done to build the case for the story. That's what they're leaving wide open with this. They're simply saying it's a person and that's what's going to be excluded. We're not getting the larger issue, which is the ability of the newsroom and the institution to say, “No, we are not going to put forward the activities that the journalists were involved in to protect the overall integrity of their work”.

I find that this falls very short of what we were promised.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Does anyone else want to speak to the amendment?

It would appear not; so we will go to the vote.

(Amendment CPC-3 carried)

(Clause 6, as amended, carried on division)

(Clauses 7 and 8 carried on division)

(On clause 1—Short title)

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Now we will consider the short title.

Mr. Angus, you have the floor.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1 I move that the committee report to the House a recommendation that Bill C-461, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act (disclosure of information), not be further proceeded with and to give the reasons therefore.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Are you introducing a motion?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

All right. Do you have it in writing?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Here it is.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Very well.

Is there any debate on this motion?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, again, this is not to undermine the right of the—