Information & Ethics Committee on June 5th, 2013

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I have a point of order. The chair had called for a vote on the short title. You're not doing that, and we're going on to this?

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

It's in order. It's a standing order.

We are going back to—

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

You were on the short title. This doesn't speak to the title. This speaks to something else.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

I was reading the question, but I was interrupted. So we will go back to the short title later on.

Now we will continue debate on the motion introduced by Mr. Angus.

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

I think what we've seen here is that we had a member who brought forward a bill who had two concerns. He had his concerns about the CBC, and he had concerns about ensuring there was some equilibrium of balance of information. He felt if he was asking the CBC for this he would, on the other hand, expect some measure of transparency within the federal departments, which at this point in many key areas does not exist.

We certainly had problems with the bill, but in good faith we actually asked Mr. Rathgeber to come back a second time. We wanted to give him the full opportunity to discuss this bill.

We felt that in terms of the CBC issue...and he spoke to us about trying to find the language. He was very clear about trying to find the language, in terms of ensuring there was no inordinate undermining of the work of journalists. That was the issue. It wasn't the corporation itself, but it was the work of journalists.

We had hoped that our Conservative colleagues would work with this, but in fact what they presented us was of such narrow scope that they're actually leaving the journalist teams at an extreme disadvantage, which their colleagues in other news agencies do not face, because other journalists are not under access to information. Only the CBC, as a government institution, is. So what we've been offered here is that the name of the source will be protected, but that's not sufficient. We heard that from independent journalists. It is incumbent upon us, as parliamentarians, to ensure the work of journalists in this country is not undermined in any way. This bill does not do that.

On the second element of the bill, in which it was my colleague's desire to actually shed some light so that citizens and taxpayers had a sense of accountability of what was happening in the federal departments, it was not an attack on the departments and not an attack on the civil service, but a sense of where are the upper salaries? What's happening? This was so that people could at some point, if they felt there was perhaps a problem with a decision made in a certain department, or that within a department decisions had been made and yet somebody was getting bonuses and somebody's salary.... That is something that should be part of the public record. He was not suggesting the sunshine list but the right of access to information.

It's one thing my colleague and the New Democrats certainly are concerned about, that Canada is now falling further and further behind. We have countries that were previously dictatorships that have better access to information laws for their citizens than this country. Canada was the world leader; we are now one of the world's laggards. What people see when they see Canada is a country where basic rights to information are getting harder and harder to get. When they're protecting the salaries of everybody under $444,000 a year, they put such a blanket over the work of the federal civil service that no accountability is possible through this bill.

What I've seen is that the Conservative Party has come together to actually put the old horse's head in the bed of one of their own members, who's trying to basically come forward in his way and in his right as a member of the House of Commons to bring forward legislation that can be acted upon. The party has decided to leave him high and dry. I think that's wrong. I would rather have this bill not go back. I'd rather have it stopped because of what's happened here, than to support it going forward.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Mr. Andrews, do you want to speak to the motion?

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I too support the motion proposed by the NDP for the same reasons, and perhaps one that's even a little bit personal to me.

I was the only one within our Liberal caucus who supported Mr. Rathgeber and his bill. I truly did believe that his intent was noble, and that where he was trying to go with this particular piece of legislation was to open up and have more transparency and accountability.

I would have even went as far as to believe the Conservative Party on their amendments regarding journalistic sources. I thought that was an honourable thing to do, but they've limited what “journalistic source” will mean, and they don't totally protect journalistic sources.

Then the final straw to drop on this bill was the gutting of the disclosure of salaries. So it's very disheartening that we see this here today. For those reasons I will no longer be supporting Mr. Rathgeber's bill. I thought it was noble in his intent and his willingness to be more open and accountable, but obviously his philosophy doesn't hold true through the Conservatives. They will go out there and tell him they tried to protect the CBC's interests through journalistic sources, but it's quite obvious that they have not.

So I'll support the motion as put forward by Mr. Angus.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you.

Since no one else is on the list, I am going to call the motion.

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

So we come to the point I reached a few minutes ago. We were discussing the short...

Mr. Angus, you have the floor.

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

Yes. I want to speak to the title.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

First, let me finish. I was saying that we had come to the short title.

Is there any debate?

Mr. Angus, you have the floor.

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

Yes. I think we need to amend the title. To call it the public service disclosure and transparency act would be a bit of a joke at this point.

We could call it the CBC act. We could call it the lack of disclosure and what is the opposite of transparency? Opaqueness. Maybe we could call it the public service lack of disclosure and opaqueness act. I think that...

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

You must choose a title if you want to move an amendment.

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

Okay. I would call it the CBC and the lack of disclosure and opaqueness act.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Upon reflection, the Chair finds that the amendment is unfortunately out of order.

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

Again, I'm not challenging the chair. As I said, you are this generation's Stanley Knowles. I'd like to know why clarifying the title is not in order. I should hear what that is from O'Brien and Bosc. It would certainly be helpful.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

In my view, no change has been made to the bill that would warrant the choice of words you propose to use for the short title.

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

Mr. Chair, this is not about public service disclosure and transparency. It's the opposite. It would be very Orwellian for us to go forth with a bill with a title that said making peace is war.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Mr. Angus, I remind you that there is no debate once I have ruled that the amendment is out of order. You may always challenge my decision, but you may not debate your amendment.

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

My colleague has a point of order.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

No, I have an amendment.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

We are still on the short title. Is anyone moving another amendment?

Mr. Boulerice, you have the floor.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

If we want to reflect the exact content of the bill, we must have a title that corresponds to that content. I am not going to use my hon. colleague's words, but I think we could call it the Act respecting the transparency of public servants earning more than $444,000 a year, except those in the Prime Minister's Office.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

I am going to consider the admissibility of that amendment.

Can you please give it to us in writing, Mr. Boulerice? That will make it easier for me to determine whether it is in order.

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

On a point of order, I didn't fully hear the title. Could you repeat it? I would like it to be clear before it's ruled admissible or not.