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.

CBC and Public Service Disclosure and Transparency Act

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

moved that Bill C-461, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act (disclosure of information), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise and speak to second reading of Bill C-461, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act for public disclosure. The bill's short title is the CBC and public service disclosure and transparency act.

The bill has two purposes. The first is to correct a recognized deficiency in the current section 68.1 of the Access to Information Act, which currently reads:

This Act does not apply to any information that is under the control of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that relates to its journalistic, creative or programming activities, other than information that relates to its general administration.

Not surprisingly, the CBC took the position that it had an absolute exclusion with respect to its journalistic, creative and programming activities, even so far as the Information Commissioner and her investigative powers were concerned.

The Information Commissioner disagreed, stating that the access act allows her to examine any documents under request to determine if the exception applies.

However, as the CBC denied her certain documents, the Federal Court was called upon to make a determination. Both the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal sided with the Information Commissioner. The appellate court referred to section 68.1 as, “not a model of clarity”, because it created an exclusion and then an exception to that exclusion, which, in its words, creates “a recipe for controversy”.

Meanwhile, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access, Privacy and Ethics held a study on section 68.1 and recommended that it be amended to avoid any such future controversies. Therefore, Bill C-461 attempts to provide clarity to the issue of the CBC's access and disclosure obligations by replacing the aforementioned blanket exclusion with a discretionary exemption. It further adds an injury or prejudice test, which must be satisfied in order for the exemption to apply, and reaffirms the Information Commissioner's absolute right to examine the documents in order to adjudicate disputes.

Accordingly, the bill proposes that section 68.1 of the access act be replaced with the following, 18.2, which states:

The head of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act if the disclos2ould reasonably be expected to prejudice the Corporation’s journalistic, creative or programming independence.

The word “independence” was deliberately chosen and replaces the current word “activities”, first because it is narrower, but more to the point, because it is the independence of the public broadcaster that must be protected and therefore exempted from access requests, not all documents merely relating to its activities.

Some will no doubt argue that the bill is an attack on the CBC. That is not so. I am a fan of much of what the CBC does. It is Tuesday night, and I rarely miss The Rick Mercer Report or This Hour Has 22 Minutes. I never miss Hockey Night in Canada, at least not when the Oilers are playing. Power & Politics and radio's The House are often on my TV and radio respectively.

This legislation is not about the CBC so much as it is about transparency and accountability. Section 68.1 of the Access to Information Act was flawed. The Federal Court of Appeal said so. It was flawed, misunderstood and litigated. This legislation attempts to remedy these defects.

Some may suggest that the bill fails to properly recognize the unique position a public broadcaster is in. That is not so. I clearly appreciate and respect that a public broadcaster, especially as a journalistic entity, must enjoy a degree of independence from government.

However, and this is important, the Information Commissioner is not part of government. The Information Commissioner is an officer of Parliament. Similar to our collective role in this chamber, the Information Commissioner plays an important role in holding the government to account.

Moreover, the prejudice test, which is established under proposed section 18.2, recognizes this unique relationship between a public broadcaster, Parliament and government by providing a discretionary exemption when it is established that disclosure will result in prejudice to the CBC's independence. In any situation where disclosure would result in prejudice to the CBC, disclosure would be inappropriate. I submit that the prejudice test is a built-in protection not enjoyed by most government institutions, and this extra protection reflects an understanding of CBC's unique position as a public broadcaster.

Some may, and I expect will, argue that journalistic source protection is so sacrosanct that an absolute exclusion must be maintained. Not so. I agree that confidential journalistic sources must be protected, but I dispute that an exclusion is either appropriate or practicable.

First, the Information Commissioner has unlimited power under section 36(1) of the Access to Information Act, to compel production of “such documents and things as the [Information] Commissioner deems requisite to the full investigation and consideration of the complaint”. I am simply skeptical that an exclusion can be drafted that can coexist with the Information Commissioner's unfettered powers to compel documentation production under section 36.

Moreover, journalistic source privilege is not absolute. The Supreme Court of Canada has said so as recently as 2010 in R. v. National Post. It is not a class privilege; it is fact specific and therefore must be examined on a case by case basis. Who is to determine if the four-pronged test developed by esteemed Professor Wigmore is satisfied, if the CBC is granted an absolute exclusion? The obvious answer is “nobody”.

Is CBC to be made both judge and party in access to information requests? Certainly not. Disputes must be arbitrated by an independent watchdog and the federal court has said, “disclosing records to the Commissioner does not amount to revealing them”.

This bill would contain parallel amendments to the Privacy Act to import the prejudice tests when individuals request documents about themselves pursuant to Canada's privacy statute.

However, the CBC and public service disclosure and transparency act would make a more substantive alteration to the Privacy Act. It would move the words “range of” before the word “salary” in the definition of exempt personal information for the highest wage earners in the federal public service. Currently, under Canada's privacy laws, only the range of salary can be disclosed pursuant to access requests, which I submit is adequate for most income levels. However, at the highest income levels, the increments become increasingly large as to become meaningless. For example, I have been advised that the current CEO of the CBC earns in the range of $363,800 to $428,000. According to my math, that range of $64,200 is larger than many taxpayers' complete salaries and arguably therefore is not meaningful disclosure.

Accordingly, if Bill C-461 is adopted, the specific salaries and responsibilities of upper management, which this bill would define as “DM 1 and higher”, would be subject to access to information requests. This is important. This change would apply to the entire federal public service. CBC would in no way be singled out. Moreover, reimbursed expenses to all federal employees would also become subject to access requests.

I have consulted widely during the drafting phase of this proposed legislation. I believe, and I believe Canadians believe, that they are entitled to meaningful access to how the Government of Canada spends dollars and how the government operates generally. However, Canadians, including federal employees, are also entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Balancing these competing objectives is indeed a challenge and precarious.

However, it is submitted that an injury base test achieves that balance at least as well as that balance can be achieved regarding CBC's disclosure obligations, as it requires a public interest analysis. The question becomes this. Is the public interest in disclosure greater than any consequential harm? Limiting specific salary disclosures to upper management recognizes the privacy rights of the rank and file public servants.

Taxpayers rightfully are entitled to know how their tax dollars are being spent. In that regard, many provinces have established the so-called sunshine lists, which are publicly disclosed lists shining the sun on salaries, perks and benefits paid to government executives, directors and managers. Members may know that Ontario led the way with respect to such financial disclosure. The Ontario government introduced legislation in 1996 mandating the publication of names and salaries of all of its employees and officers who earn more than $100,000 per year.

The purpose of the Ontario law is to provide a more open and accountable system of government. Disclosure allows taxpayers to compare the performance of an organization to the compensation given to its senior people running it. It allows taxpayers to know how their tax dollars are spent.

British Columbia, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have all copied aspects of the Ontario legislation, with reporting requirements varying and going as low as employees earning $50,000 in the case of Manitoba.

My bill does not call for a website, but by mandating or at least allowing disclosure pursuant to access requests, the public will serve as a critical check on government expenditures and an effective deterrent to any government official tempted to treat taxpayers disrespectfully.

This approach, I would submit, is consistent with the purpose of the access legislation generally, as enumerated in the act, that there is a right of access generally to records under the control of a government institution, and that necessary exceptions should be limited and should be specific, and that decisions on the disclosure of the government information should be reviewed independently of government.

As an officer of Parliament, the Information Commissioner is independent of government and therefore in the best position to resolve the inevitable disputes regarding access to government information.

Canada has had access to information legislation in force since 1983. Canada was once a leader in providing access to government information and documents, but sadly, according to academics and according to the Information Commissioner, we are becoming laggards. Internationally, Canada is currently ranked 55th out of 93 countries in terms of our access and our openness.

Moreover, the Centre for Law and Democracy says the federal government is falling behind the provinces and ranking behind those provinces in terms of openness and transparency.

As we have seen, Ontario is arguably leading the way with the most comprehensive sunshine list. British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nova Scotia are all following suit and have implemented some variation of salary disclosure.

Sadly, and this should be of concern to this chamber, the federal jurisdiction is falling behind. Since its inception 30 years ago, there has been only marginal expansion of Canada's access law. In December 2003, the then-prime minister announced a new policy on the mandating of publication of travel and hospitality expenses for selected government officials. Then in March 2004, the then-government announced a new policy on the mandated publication, on a website, of contracts over $10,000. In my view, sadly, very little has happened since then.

Accordingly, the Information Commissioner—and I heard her on CBC Radio; I was listening to her on Sunday morning—observes a lack of commitment to openness and transparency at the federal level. Bill C-461, the CBC and public service disclosure and transparency act, is an initiative by Parliament to remedy this trend. The spirit of the act is based upon the principle of disclosure. Non-disclosure must be the exception. Bill C-461 clearly promotes this principle.

The CBC and public service disclosure and transparency act promotes open and transparent government and its role in holding government to account. Exclusion to government information prevents Canadians from holding their government to account. I believe, and I hope all members believe, that holding government to account is fundamental to democracy.

Although freedom to know is not a charter-protected right, freedom to know is inextricably linked to freedom of thought and expression and freedom of the press. Knowledge is power, and holding the government to account demands that knowledge and information be shared. Holding to account leads to the establishment of trust, trust that there is proper stewardship of public resources.

Opaqueness leads to mistrust. Accordingly, any attempt to weaken this bill and its attempt to increase access to information and transparency will be so regarded. As U.S. Supreme Court Judge Louis Brandeis said, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Canadians deserve to have light shone on government information. Accordingly, I encourage all hon. members to support Bill C-461, the CBC and public service disclosure and transparency act, without amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am amazed by the kind of words we are hearing. We heard “transparency”, “sunlight” and “best disinfectant”. How lovely.

The Conservatives can hide under the veil of transparency all they want, but this bill is clearly obsolete and comes at a time when the crisis is over. The CBC received an A rating not too long ago. This same member said in 2011 that he did not see why Canada needed a public broadcaster.

It is all well and good to praise Rick Mercer, but why is this coming at a time when the CBC just received an A rating from the commissioner?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question, but he should read the Information Commissioner's report card a little more carefully. The A was given for timeliness and that only. She did not give the CBC an A for the breadth of its transparency or what it had disclosed. Admittedly, the CBC is now quicker in its response time, but that is a much different category of disclosure than the breadth of disclosure.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the principle of transparency and appreciate where the member is coming from in his private member's bill to shine some light on this, but I do have some very specific questions.

The member talks about clarification. What the Federal Court of Appeal said was that the Information Commissioner embodies the decision to be made on whether CBC exemptions can be had. However, by introducing this injury or prejudice test, if the Information Commissioner feels it should be exempt, there are ways of going around this. A wealthy corporation could still take the CBC to court. Therefore, the CBC could end up in court beyond what the Information Commissioner said.

Am I reading this correctly? Perhaps the hon. member could shed some light on this. What he has done here is to allow many external factors to come into play, such that CBC could be brought to court time and time again to defend these three pillars when the commissioner may have said it should be exempt.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the Information Commissioner appeared before the ethics committee and advocated on behalf of a prejudice test, almost word for word as the legislation before the House indeed contemplates. However, the member is quite right in that there is no way to absolutely guarantee that a piece of legislation will be judgment-proof or litigation-proof.

Thankfully, we do have the courts that can review decisions of government if they feel those decisions are wrong. However, if this is the member's concern, I would suggest that if the prejudice test is properly applied by the Information Commissioner, the chances of having a decision overturned are very remote and, in fact, probably non-existent, although nothing prevents someone from taking that to the Federal Court

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics and am quite surprised by the line of questioning from across the way, because the committee reached a non-partisan, consensus recommendation. There was only one major recommendation in the report, which called on the government to amend section 68.1 because of the lack of clarity on journalistic clarity and so on, as indicated by virtually everyone who testified before committee. The recommendation is to study models in other countries and how those countries have got around this. I would ask my colleague what research led to his proposed changes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member will know, as he sat on that committee, that when the Information Commissioner appeared at committee she referred to international models, specifically how the United Kingdom deals with disclosure pursuant to the British Broadcasting Corporation. That is how she came up with the concept of the prejudice test, which I think will work quite well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but think of the French-speaking community in my colleague's riding, which relies heavily on Radio-Canada. I wonder whether they were consulted.

I rise in the House today to condemn what can only be seen, despite a devious facade, as an attack against public broadcasting and programming. It is an attack against the work CBC journalists do, against free, politically independent journalism.

I respectfully ask my colleagues to resist the lure of the bill's misleading title. It is a sham. This bill is not about transparency. Its real goal is a long-standing, political goal: to undermine the CBC and public broadcasting in our country. Yet that tradition is at the very heart of our culture.

In fact, the bill really is about the government's Reform roots and their unrelenting attacks on the CBC. It is about a pathological anger against public radio and TV that has obsessed and tormented some people for 25 or 30 years. It is about an unhealthy obsession with the CBC, although that affliction is very rare among the people I meet on the street.

Just admit it. The truth is that no one in the House dislikes or even detests the CBC as much as the members opposite. I am tempted to tell them to get over it. Their problem is that they are going it alone with this personal mini crusade. They do not have the support of the 78% of Canadians who, according to an Angus Reid poll, believe that the CBC fulfills its mandate, or of the 59% of us who would like the CBC's funding to be at least maintained or perhaps increased.

Our colleague from Edmonton—St. Albert is up against an overwhelming majority of Canadians who oppose the destruction of the CBC. Therefore, I will say to that MP, who has an axe to grind, that he is quite alone.

I believe that this bill does absolutely nothing for transparency. This bill is coming out of left field today. The CBC is known as a model of transparency and access to information.

With regard to transparency, it received an A in 2012. I am not the one saying so. The Information Commissioner ranked the CBC among the best public organizations for transparency. According to her report, it sets an excellent example.

At this time, anyone can ask for internal CBC information about expenditures in various areas.

If the CBC refuses the request, which happens in 4.2% of the cases, the person can refer the matter to the Information Commissioner, who determines if the information request pertains to sensitive matters such as the work of journalists, who must protect their sources.

That is the current system. It is a system of exemptions based on the international standard for information requests that gives the Information Commissioner the right to examine information that the CBC wants to protect. It is a system that works, that was voted on in the House in 2006, that we supported at the time, that was enhanced by the federal court and that was approved by all stakeholders. The Information Commissioner is satisfied, the CBC is satisfied, everyone is satisfied, except for those who are just entering the debate. We suspect that the Conservatives are actually not very interested in the real issue of transparency. That is another excuse, another opportunity to weaken the CBC's presence.

We have reason to worry about the work of journalists and the protection of their sources. Currently, the CBC is protected, excluded from disclosing information about its journalistic, programming or creative activities. This same system is in place for public broadcasters in other parts of the world such as Ireland, Australia and the BBC in Great Britain.

This protection is based on an international standard and allows the CBC to carry out its public mandate by being a competitive player in the media environment, in a way that is transparent to taxpayers. Above all, it is a way of ensuring that journalists' work will not be compromised or the confidentiality of their sources questioned.

Bill C-461 proposes that we dismantle this system that was created by Parliament and clarified by the courts. It proposes that the exclusion should become an exception so that the CBC would have to prove that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the corporation’s journalistic, creative or programming independence.

One has to wonder who will benefit from this bill. Certainly not the public, given that virtually all access to information requests made to the CBC come from its competitors.

This is a bill that is tailor-made to benefit the CBC's competition. And that competition is cozy with the Conservative Party, so cozy that a person can move easily from the Prime Minister's Office to the vice-presidency of the private network that is the most maliciously and exceedingly critical of the CBC. And that is not just by chance.

This bill sets out to expose the CBC to its competition in order to weaken it and eventually eliminate it.

In terms of protecting sources—and this is even worse—the CBC will have to argue why journalistic research, including confidential sources that allow employees to do investigative work, should not be made public. Generally speaking, that is a given.

Once again, it has to be “reasonably” proven, and I want to emphasize “reasonably”, that the journalistic process will be affected. The Supreme Court spoke about the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of the journalist's source and “the high societal interest in investigative journalism”.

Do not forget that Reporters Without Borders recently dropped Canada from 10th to 20th place in its annual press freedom index. That is not something this government can be proud of. Reporters Without Borders noted the continuing threats to the confidentiality of journalists’ sources as the reason for the downgrade.

Another aspect of the bill before us is the amendment of the Access to Information Act so that the salaries of some government employees can be subject to access to information requests. There is something fishy going on here too. To be quite honest, it is actually more of a whale of a problem. The vocabulary used in the bill seems to be tailored so that our colleague's insatiable curiosity, about some CBC celebrities, including Peter Mansbridge and Rick Mercer, which he mentioned earlier, can be satisfied.

In the past, the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert even took the time here in the House to ask about their salaries in particular. The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber saw first-hand that, when we ask exactly the same question about the salaries of the little army of goblins working for the Prime Minister's Office in the Langevin Block, we do not get an answer. What a surprise. Oddly enough, that is how it usually works.

Since the Conservatives want to talk about transparency, let us talk about it. While the CBC received an A for its transparency, last year, the Information Commissioner gave the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Transport Canada an F.

Does the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert have a position on this issue? Does he want to share his concerns with us or would he prefer to focus only on the CBC? Does that suit him?

The Information Commissioner must now go before the Federal Court to call to order the Department of National Defence, which has been asking for extensions for responding to access to information requests for over three years.

The Conservatives are being totally outdone by the CBC when it comes to public transparency rankings; yet, they are finding a way to attack it.

That would give Sigmund Freud something to analyze. It is odd.

The day before yesterday, on CBC, the Information Commissioner said that the current Conservative government is not one of the most transparent—this understatement was indicative of her duty of deference—and that the response rate for access to information requests had reached record lows.

She said that Canadians should be outraged. This is where we have a problem. In 2006, the Conservative Party took office under the banner of accountability. Now there is a tale to remember. Their focus on accountability was, hon. members will remember, in direct response to the sponsorship scandals. It is strange to think about the word “accountability” today.

We just celebrated the seventh anniversary of this government. Today, after seven years, we can honestly say that this government is the least transparent and has caused the most scandals in Canadian history.

The member for Edmonton—St. Albert belongs to a government that preaches transparency, that expects it from everyone but itself. From its seat in Ottawa, the government spends billions of dollars on a whim and then demands accountability from aboriginal communities, labour associations, anyone but itself.

Today it has set its sights on the CBC, which it surely finds inconvenient. Transparency is a piece of cake when it is demanded of others. Transparency is increasingly being used as a way to launch stealth attacks against the right's targets of choice; this needs to stop.

We demand transparency. The NDP demands transparency right here, right now. After seven years, it is about time the government itself showed some transparency.

All of this brings us to the realization that the bill we have before us has more to do with the disgust that some feel for public radio and television than with a sincere ethical concern. This is but another salvo in what the Canadian Media Guild has dubbed “a dirty war against the CBC”.

I recently began personally measuring people's attachment to their public broadcaster. On January 23, at the Lion d'Or, in Montreal, individuals and creators from all walks of life gathered to attest to the cultural importance of the CBC.

After some consideration, I have come to realize that the things that members across the way have been saying about the CBC represent a marginal opinion and quite simply contradict the mainstream impression of our public broadcaster; what is more, it seems their arguments mostly do not hold water.

The majority of Canadians who, like us, are in favour of an independent public broadcaster free of political leanings have no doubts as to what is going on tonight. This majority wants our public broadcaster to stay independent and transparent and keep reflecting our national creativity.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill today, calling for more accountability and transparency at the CBC. We will try to keep it to the facts and try to look at the bill on the surface of what it is trying to accomplish.

I do not see it as the bogeyman the NDP points it out to be, but we have to make sure there are protections in there for the CBC, and I will get to that in a moment.

First, we should give credit where credit is due. I give credit to the CBC on the information it has provided. The Information Commissioner has recently given it an A for performance, an upgrade from an F.

Granted, that is on the timing of requests, because quite often we see the government dragging its heels on a lot of information requests. Canada Post Corporation is another example, and the Department of National Defence. The government needs to do better on getting the information out there.

The bill is a result of the legal battle around section 68.1. We did study it at our committee, and changes are needed to bring a little more clarity to section 68.1 so that we do not run into this in the future.

Granted, there may be changes made to section 68.1. That does not preclude it from being challenged in a court of law and information being challenged in the courts, but we have to make sure that some fundamental principles behind that remain.

That is the role of the Information Commissioner. We must ensure that the Information Commissioner has the power to investigate this. Both parties must submit the information before her. We have to make sure she has the power she needs to look at the information and decide on what can be released. I would like to ask the Information Commissioner, when she comes before committee with the bill, about the prejudice test and how exactly that prejudice test would work and what could be some of the pitfalls around that.

We support CBC. We like the programming and the journalistic investigations it does, but we have to make sure as well that it is protected. The journalism, programming and creative activities must be protected for all.

More important, journalistic sources have to be protected. That was referred to a little earlier in the debate. We have to ensure that these sources are protected, because it is fundamental, when it comes to journalism, that these sources be protected.

The second part of the bill, which is an interesting part, is about the salary ranges and salaries in government departments.

If the CBC wanted to protect the salary of a personality or someone in the department, it would have to go to the Information Commissioner and try to have that information protected, because it bases on its programming integrity, its commercial value. With regard to looking at the salaries at the CBC, the Information Commissioner would rule in favour of the CBC and protect those salaries from disclosure for commercial value. We have to make sure that is looked at when we look at the bill at committee.

The other part of the bill is releasing salaries of all people higher than DM1, which is very interesting, because the government, and in particular the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office, has not been forthcoming with salaries of people in the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office. The bill does open up those offices, as well, for disclosure of the salary of anybody earning more than a deputy minister's salary.

A deputy minister's salary, just so the public out there would know, is probably somewhere in the range of $160,000 to $180,000, so these are fairly highly paid public servants. It is important that these public servants' salaries be made public. That is one thing the bill would do.

As I said earlier, the government has fallen behind in disclosing such information, and we must hold it to account so it does a better job of it. Once we shine light and open up public disclosure in an access to information request, it does keep things honest.

One thing that I have learned in politics is that as much as there might be secrets, it is hard to keep a secret. We have to ensure this information is available. If an individual requests it, we have to ensure he or she can get access to this information. The government must strive to do a better job of providing that information and to be more open and accountable. It helps the opposition and everyone to hold people to account.

I look forward to this bill going to committee, where more questions can be asked to get clarification and to ensure that the CBC is protected in certain circumstances and to open up transparency in other circumstances.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to speak for a few minutes to Bill C-461, the CBC and public service disclosure and transparency act.

I would first like to thank the member for Edmonton—St. Albert for his efforts to bring a higher level of openness and accountability to the CBC. Bill C-461 also proposes to bring more openness in relation to the expenditure of public funds. These involve the disclosure of reimbursed expenses to government employees and of the exact salaries of the highest-earning officers or employees of government institutions.

Before dealing with the changes that Bill C-461 proposes in relation to reimbursed expenses and the exact salaries of the highest-earning officers or employees of government institutions, let me first describe in some detail the changes it proposes to make that will affect the CBC.

Currently, the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act do not apply to records of the CBC that contain information that relates to its journalistic, creative or programming activities. This means Canadian citizens do not have a right of access to this information.

If Bill C-461 passes as is, the CBC would be fully subject to the Access to Information Act. By this I mean that all CBC's information could be requested under the Access to Information Act. However, the CBC would be able to protect information that, if disclosed, could cause harm to its journalistic, creative and programming independence. Bill C-461's proposal regarding the CBC is based on the Information Commissioner's recommendation made before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. My colleagues may remember that back in 2011 that committee conducted a study of how the CBC handled its access to information requests and issued a report in March 2012.

I would now like to focus on one area that I believe the House should consider when reviewing this legislation.

One of the pillars of journalism is the ability to protect confidential journalistic sources. Individuals can therefore feel comfortable enough to approach journalists and give them information without fear that their identities will be disclosed and, correspondingly, news agencies are able to provide assurance of anonymity. For an individual who is a confidential journalistic source, any notion that information that could reveal their identity would be released or reviewed could put the CBC at a distinct disadvantage in relation to its private sector competitors. Accordingly the House may wish to consider the way in which Bill C-461 treats information that would reveal the identity of confidential journalistic sources of the CBC.

Back in 2011, the Federal Court of Appeal dealt with a dispute between the CBC and the Information Commissioner on how the CBC was handling its requests under the Access to Information Act. When considering the provision that currently excludes records of the CBC, the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that for journalistic sources the exclusion was absolute and that the Information Commissioner therefore did not have the power to examine such information. Both the Information Commissioner and the CBC expressed satisfaction with the outcome of that decision. Accordingly the House may wish to consider the court's findings on this matter as it continues its review of Bill C-461.

Let me turn now to the part of Bill C-461 that deals with increasing openness and accountability in relation to certain government expenditures. Hard-working Canadians pay their fair share of taxes. I think all parliamentarians in the chamber would agree that they deserve to know that their money is spent by the government prudently and that there be transparency in its expenditure.

Bill C-461 proposes to amend the Privacy Act to shine the light on how certain government spending is conducted. Bill C-461 proposes to do this in two areas.

The Privacy Act governs the disclosure of personal information by government institutions. At the same time, there are certain types of personal information that can be disclosed to an access requester under the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act.

Also, a government institution can disclose these types of personal information whenever it chooses to do so. Information that relates to the position or function of an officer or employee of a government institution falls into that category of information and can therefore be disclosed. Currently, examples of job-related information listed in the Privacy Act that can be disclosed are the position occupied by the employee, opinions given by the employee in the course of employment and the salary range of the position. Bill C-461 proposes to make two additions to the list of personal information that can be disclosed under the Privacy Act or Access to Information Act.

The first would be the exact salary of officers or employees of government institutions who earn the highest salaries paid by government. It is important to note that the change proposed by Bill C-461 will not affect the majority of public servants. Most people employed by the government are not in the top ranks of the public service. For these employees it will remain true that only their salary range and their job classification can be disclosed. It is only those who are in the highest ranks who would be affected by the change proposed in Bill C-461. The House may wish to consider which level of government employees should be covered by the bill.

Second, Bill C-461 proposes to amend the Privacy Act to specifically list expenses incurred by employees in the course of their work for which they are reimbursed, as types of personal information that can be disclosed under the Access to Information Act or Privacy Act.

In conclusion, I would again like to thank the member for Edmonton—St. Albert for bringing forward the legislation and allowing Parliament the opportunity to discuss this issue. Again, I would encourage members to consider the various issues I have raised and I look forward to the continued debate on the bill.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to debate this matter in the House today. At the same time, I am very disappointed that we are having the same debate once again.

In 2011, we debated the same subject, transparency for the public. The NDP supports the concept of disclosure, of making things public. However, many of my colleagues and I feel that the members are trying to bring in by the back door what they were unable to bring in through the front door. This discussion only seeks to discredit the CBC.

This all started when someone asked why we need a public broadcaster. Now we have a bill that opens the door to very sensitive information. I am not referring to the salaries; I am referring to the second part, which concerns information that is made public and that the CBC's competitors can use against it.

It is very easy to look at an expense report to see who is meeting with whom and, through that, decide or figure out what kind of programming is going on. My mother has always said, “When you're looking at an issue, consider the source”. The private members' bill comes from a group of people where, and I will quote from the Hill Times, one Conservative MP has acknowledged that his party's members and the government will be “breathing a sigh of relief” when Kevin Page's term ends in March.

To answer the member's question, it has to do with the fact that we have a group of people, we have the government and backbenchers, demanding transparency from all sorts of organizations, while they refuse to be transparent. To the same subject, in 2011, I put forward a question on the order paper, asking for the disclosure of the salaries of the PMO and was met with a resounding thud of silence. Therefore, considering where this comes from, it is not hard to doubt, for lack of a better way of putting it, the motivations of the private member's bill. The type of transparency that the member is looking for, as I said, is the type of transparency that can damage the work that CBC does, both in journalism and its programming.

This same member, as my colleague pointed out, asked why we needed a public broadcaster. I have heard it said time and again: Why do we need a public broadcaster if there are corporate organizations that can do it just as well or better? To that point, I will say that is a possibility. It is a possibility that they would be able to do it better because they have access to more resources to hire the best directors, to hire the best producers.

However, based on my 25 years of experience working in this industry, the fact is that corporate broadcasters do not want to do it. They do not want to create shows that speak to Canadians, created by Canadians, for Canadians. Who else is going to create shows that from coast to coast to coast engage Canadians, in a Canadian voice, for Canadians? Nobody, because there is no money in it.

For example, in 2007, the broadcasters crowed about how much money they spent on American programming. It was over $750 million. In that same period of time, they spent just over $50 million on Canadian programming. That includes the magazine shows, the sports shows and so forth, but no creative programming.

For the last 75 years, the CBC has created programming that Canadians have enjoyed from coast to coast to coast, because they have seen themselves in those shows. They have seen and heard themselves nationally, and internationally with Radio Canada International.

From my perspective, this private member's bill is redundant, because there are already laws that require disclosure. CBC, to its credit, went to great lengths to open up and become better at disclosing information. In less than a year, it went from an F to an A. The hon. member says that going from an F to an A was only for time. Time was part of that, but so was disclosure. It disclosed all it was obliged to disclose and fought those issues it felt were damaging to its ability to do the work.

I must underline that the vast majority of the access to information requests, which were some 1,400 during this period, came from one source: a competitor. It saddens me that the government continues to do the work of a competitor in this environment when it claims it wants a level playing field. If it is to be a level playing field, then let it be a level playing field.

It is clear that there are certain members of the government and/or the backbenches who have a continued dislike for the CBC and are looking for ways to de-fund the CBC. From my perspective, it makes me suspect the motivation for the bill. I say “suspect”. Maybe the member has good intentions. However, if the bill is supposed to shine a light on all government activities, why is it directed at the CBC?

In this context, why does this bill target the CBC?

If the bill has been, as my colleague said, created to shine a light, to make government spending transparent, then why is the bill not called a bill to demand more transparency from government and government institutions as opposed to targeting the CBC?

For that reason, I am suspicious of the motivations.

The CBC is an organization that is very important to Canadians.

For a small cabal of Conservatives who want to see the CBC destroyed, I think this is a very weak attempt to go through the back door to accomplish what they could not accomplish through the front door.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to some of this debate. It is always interesting to me how sometimes we in this place can take some pretty straightforward, basic information and turn it into something that really does not reflect that straightforward, basic information at all. Talk about patent nonsense, fearmongering and misleading information from the member who just stood up. It is beyond the realm. For the record, I think it is time for full disclosure.

I listen to CBC Radio and I watch CBC television. The hon. member may find that hard to believe. CBC does a pretty good job, but that certainly does not put it beyond the reach of transparency. What is wrong with openness and reasonable and responsible transparency not on personal, highly secretive information, not on giving some other company a corporate advantage, but reasonable and responsible transparency? I think that is really what the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert is talking about. If we cannot have that discussion in this place, then are we saying that we do not want transparency anywhere, that nobody, members of Parliament, members of the Senate, members of the RCMP, should ever have oversight in place? Are we saying that no one should ever be checked upon? We are talking about a multi-billion dollar crown corporation. Do we not want to have some openness and some transparency? Do we not want to let the full light of day shine upon certain aspects of how this corporation works? I really question where the hon. member is coming from.

Members on both sides of the chamber know that the Information Commissioner, for instance, is the independent entity that balances the legitimate interests of government in the protection of records and the public's right to know. It is a balancing situation. We just do not kick the doors in and say there is all the information. We take it piecemeal and we look at it, because there is proprietary information, there is information, quite frankly, that should remain private, but there is a lot of information that the public has a right to know.

We are going back to 1983 with the Access to Information Act. This act is three decades old. This is not something that just came through the mill. It is a guiding principle that government information should be available to the public and that any necessary exemptions to the right of access should be limited and specific.

How can the member say that this is some kind of a witch hunt against the CBC? What the opposition is saying about this legislation is incredibly misleading. The bill deals with the CBC, a multi-billion dollar crown corporation that Canadian taxpayers pay for and how access to information requests should be managed.

I will provide the House with a little content, a bit of history, about the corporation before I really discuss the fine details of Bill C-461.

CBC/Radio-Canada began well before the days of television. A lot of members in the NDP would remember those days when Canadian radios were severely lacking Canadian content and coast to coast coverage was not heard of let alone planned for. The CBC, as we know it today, really came into being in 1936 when the Canadian Broadcasting Act created the CBC as a crown corporation. The 1950s brought CBC into the world of television.

The CBC gains a significant amount of its revenue from advertising sales. However, it still receives nearly $1 billion a year from the government and the taxpayers of Canada and that is what separates it from broadcasters whose funding is solely from private sources.

I know that I will have to finish my remarks another time, but to turn now to the relationship between the CBC and the access to information regime, my colleagues will remember that in 2006 our government succeeded in delivering its first major piece of legislation. It was the Federal Accountability Act, which accomplished a number of important things. In short, what we are talking about here is simply reasonable, responsible accountability.

The House resumed from February 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-461, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act (disclosure of information), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to express my opposition to Bill C-461. People who defend this bill will say that its purpose is to improve the CBC's transparency. My New Democrat colleagues and I want to show that it is actually a sleight of hand designed solely to target our national broadcasting service while weakening it in the face of its private competitors.

It is important to shed light on the Conservatives' real intentions. With this bill, the Conservatives are trying to discredit the CBC through insinuations that are not only unfounded, but also wrong. We wonder why are they doing this. Is it to punish our national broadcaster, whose only crime was apparently being too dedicated in its duty to inform Canadians, especially when it comes to the actions of the Conservative government?

With this bill, the Conservatives want to imply that the CBC operates opaquely and apparently has something to hide from Canadians. For example, the government wants us to believe that the CBC's most senior executives are hiding their salaries from Canadians. That is absolutely not the case. Every Canadian can go to the CBC website and find the executive pay scale. All you have to do is click on the “Reporting to Canadians” tab.

The hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert said that this information is worthless since we are talking about a pay scale and not a specific salary. Since exact salaries constitute private information, I would like to remind hon. members that no Canadian broadcaster is required to provide any information about its executives' salaries. The CBC therefore demonstrated great transparency by providing its executive pay scale.

Next, I would like to draw the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert's attention to the fact that the pay-scale method is necessary in a society that recruits its executives from a competitive market. The Conservatives always like to claim that they are the only ones who understand how the market works. They should therefore understand this basic principle.

What is more, salary amounts are decided by the board of the CBC, whose members are appointed by the Conservative government itself. In that sense, I really do not see how the Conservatives can continue to insinuate that there is any sort of problem with the income of CBC executives.

The Conservatives are also speaking out against a system of exemptions for the CBC. They are suggesting that there is no justification for such a system. Must I remind the government that there is no other public broadcaster in Canada? Is it not then natural for the legislation governing a public broadcaster to make specific reference to the CBC? Clearly, there is a discretionary exemption, as the Conservatives call it, since the CBC is the only company involved.

I want to remind the Conservatives that they are in no position to lecture the CBC on transparency. For example, every time the CBC refused to disclose documents in order to preserve journalistic confidentiality, the corporation sent the documents to the Information Commissioner for her to verify their protected nature.

Finally, it is my pleasure to remind the House that the Information Commissioner herself gave an A, the highest grade in access to information, to the CBC. The same cannot be said of the Conservative government, which has been criticized more than once by the same commissioner for its overly high rate of refusal, for its unreasonable response times, and for its excessive tendency to censor information.

Therefore, since we already know the salary grid of the CBC's managers and since it has shown exemplary transparency, what is the real aim of Bill C-461 and what will its consequences be if adopted?

First, it seems clear that the purpose of this bill is to attack our national broadcaster.

Ever since the last election, the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert has been on a crusade against the CBC. He has even gone so far as to say that Canadians do not need a national broadcaster. Fortunately, that is not his party's unanimous position, and the members of the Conservative caucus know that any attempt to suppress the CBC will fail. They know that Canadians treasure the continued presence of an independent information system. They know that Canadians love the CBC.

Noting the opposition to his bill, the same member has tried to attack the CBC's financing. First he suggested removing public subsidies. Realizing that his position was marginal, even within his own caucus, he has now resigned himself to trying to discredit an institution that is considered a model of transparency.

In fact, one of the primary goals of this bill is not to clarify the law, but to set off a spurious debate that will give him an opportunity to suggest that there is something fishy about the CBC's operations. And yet, the truth is that the CBC is already subject to many more transparency rules than its competitors.

What is this if not the Conservatives' mistrust of the CBC? It is no secret that the government sees the CBC as an adversary.

Why is the CBC seen as a threat? It is seen as a threat because it is still at arm's length from political power and the Conservatives have a hard time with that.

This is their logic: if the general public will not allow them to directly hurt the CBC, then they will interfere in how it does business and make it harder for the CBC to be competitive.

That is exactly what will happen when this bill is passed.

As if draconian budget cuts were not enough, the Conservatives now want to add as much of an administrative burden as possible to the disclosure of information.

With the passage of Bill C-461, requests for access to information will increase. These requests are not from Canadians wanting to know more about public spending. They come almost exclusively from certain members of the Conservative caucus and private competitors, their cronies.

Out of all the complaints regarding the CBC's performance in terms of access to information, 80% come from Sun News Network and its owner, Quebecor.

As a result, Bill C-461 seeks only to put the CBC at a disadvantage with respect to its competitors who are under no obligation to disclose information, even though they receive government subsidies.

In short, with this bill, the Conservatives are killing two birds with one stone. They are unfairly discrediting a corporation that continues to be exemplary despite budget cuts while threatening its independence and putting it at a disadvantage with competitors that they see as less of a threat.

We will be voting against this bill. It is nothing more than an ideological attack, another ideological attack, against the CBC, Canada's only public broadcaster.

The Conservatives should be proud of this institution instead of trying to destroy it at all costs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on Bill C-461, which is an interesting piece of legislation. At the end of the day, one may question whether the bill will be sent to committee, but it brings up what I believe are very interesting issues that are important to discuss.

I was listening to the previous member speak to the issue of CBC, its legacy and how Canadians perceive it today. I truly believe that Canadians from coast to coast to coast tune in to CBC radio and television networks on an ongoing basis. The services that CBC provides to Canadians are second to none in terms of they type of programming and ensuring that there is a high level of Canadian content, which is very important for the industry here in Canada and taking the talent we have to the next level.

Not only does CBC have direct benefits for the viewing and listening audience here in Canada, but we often find people abroad and around the world tuning into CBC Radio. Now because of Internet technology, we find that more and more people are tuning into the websites of CBC.

Historically, there has been a high level of respect for the integrity of news and other types of programming, particularly documentaries, that CBC has aired over the years. Members will find that Canadians trust and want to see that continue because it is very important in terms of our own heritage as a country. We need to be able to feel comfortable in knowing that we have an industry that will continue to be there in a very healthy fashion.

Let there be no doubt, CBC does afford the opportunity for Canadians to have more than one radio or TV broadcasting program. It provides competition to the other industry stakeholders. It is not like we have 20 or 30 different broadcasting networks. Canada is not in a position to have those kinds of numbers. We have two or three private companies that have invested hundreds of millions of dollars, such as CTV, Global and Sun Media, which are healthy competition for the CBC.

I think we have to be very careful that we do not buy into what I believe, and many Canadians believe, is a hidden agenda from the Conservative right. There are many within the former Reform Party, now Conservative Party, who believe that Canada would be better off without the CBC and that there is no need for it. Therefore, generally speaking, people need to be aware that there are those, even within the House, who would like to see the demise of CBC TV and radio.

I am not one of those people. I believe in the CBC and the services that it provides to Canadians. Members will find that the Liberal Party of Canada believes in the valuable contributions of the CBC, whether from its broadcast news, other types of broadcast programming or its radio division and the services it provides to not only Canadians here in Canada but abroad as well. At the end of the day, the Liberal Party will stand up for the CBC and will fight to ensure that it is going to be there for future generations.

That said, the Liberal Party also believes in accountability and transparency. It is interesting that the bill attempts to deal with deputy minister level one salaries and higher. That is an important aspect of the bill.

Transparency and accountability are important. We know that the government, probably more than any other government that predates it, is somewhat reluctant to provide what we believe is important information, which Canadians should have the right to know. There is no hidden agenda there. We do believe there needs to be more transparency.

It is interesting that the bill has come before us at a time when we are debating the budget. For members who were here listening to the leader of the Liberal Party talk about transparency and the budget lines in the tables, there was a question posed about those line-by-line comparisons that used to be there.

In the name of accountability and transparency, we would argue that the government has done a disservice in terms of providing that transparency and accountability. That is why we find it interesting that we now have a private member's bill asking for more transparency and accountability from within the very Conservative cabinet.

I suspect that if the bill does happen to pass out of the House and is sent to committee, one of the areas of discussion would be in regard to cabinet and to what degree they are prepared to ensure there is more accountability and transparency in terms of freedom of information access requests. The government goes out of its way to avoid that sort of accountability, yet many of its members are calling for more accountability with the CBC. I will have to be excused for not necessarily believing that the government is being genuine on the issue.

At the end of the day, Canadians as a whole cannot be blamed for being suspicious of anything the Conservatives want to do in regard to the CBC. This is because a very high percentage of Canadians believe in the value of the CBC. They see what the Conservative record has been. They see the petitions that have been introduced in the past number of months in regard to targeting the CBC, and some of the comments that have been put on the record in regard to the CBC. There seems to be this opinion that there is this pent-up frustration from many of the Conservative, or maybe the past Reformers within the party.

There is a potential hidden agenda there that is not healthy for our country, if we believe in the preservation of heritage and the promotion of the role that CBC has played both in the past, in the present and hopefully well into the future. This is why we approach it with some skepticism.

On the other hand, we do believe in the merits of ensuring that there is more transparency and accountability with respect to the ministers and the government as a whole. It would be nice to see the government approach things in a more accountable and transparent way and be clear in terms of the future of the CBC from the government perspective.

If the government was more transparent in regard to the CBC and if it had a long-term vision that it was prepared to share with Canadians, maybe then there would not be as much skepticism.

I suspect the freedom of information request that would be filed if this legislation were to pass would come from CBC's competition and many of the Conservative government members. This is really where the drive for this additional information is coming from. That is why I would caution members on what we will be voting on and to be very suspicious and watchful if it ends up going to committee.