Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 27th, 2011

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you, Mr. Morrison.

The final question will go to Mr. Andrews for five minutes, and then we will suspend for two minutes so we can go on to committee business.

Mr. Andrews.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you very much, Ms. Chair.

Mr. Laurin, you gave a very good analysis of court proceedings in this country. It is imperative that we keep reminding the Conservatives how they like to talk about how this is a waste of money. Mr. Butt refers to it several times, about why they are appealing this decision. That's our court case, that's our system of government, those are the fundamentals: that an individual or group has a right to exhaust its levels of appeal, and I thought you did a very good job on that as well.

Also, I think Mr. Butt needs to be educated about the competitive nature of some of the requests. We had the head of Quebecor come in here, and he gave us two examples of some of the requests they require from the CBC, wondering about their outdoor advertising and information around a magazine production they were involved in. So there are two exact examples of how Quebecor is trying to get a competitive advantage--that's really the crux of this--and how we use section 68.1 to protect the competitive advantage. I don't think you mentioned it, and if you said it, I'll apologize, but I'm reading it here in your brief that you sent. It's the same as Fedex or UPS using ATIP requests to find the competitor information about Canada Post. That's exactly why we are here, and this is why this Quebecor media campaign is based...they may be looking for 20% legitimate freedom of information types of requests, but it is modelled on this competitive advantage.

Mr. Laurin, I know, mentioned it a little earlier. Let's just talk about section 68.1 and the competitive advantage and how we can protect the CBC, Canada Post, and other crown corporations from being attacked over competitive information so that we can educate those members across the way.

[Marc-Philippe Laurin]

This is something we've discussed among ourselves, and Karen spoke earlier about having more debate, having a group of folks look into how this could happen. I don't have an answer for you; I wish I did. I think it's part of the problem. It's why we're here today. The confusion around section 68.1 and the clarity, or lack of clarity, is bringing up all these questions.

It behooves us as a country to have a discussion about it and try to put some parameters, put some fences around some of the questions that will be deliberated at that time. The crown corporation I work for is a journalistic enterprise; it works in a very competitive industry. It requires, I believe, some kind of...I don't want to say protections, but it needs to be able to defend its competitive edge. I guess that's the best answer I can give you. It needs to be able to keep its arm's-length relationship with government, and at the same time keep the competitors at bay when it is making decisions, whether it's a decision about programming or whether it's a decision about how many people you send to a certain location.

I can't answer the question because I don't have the details of that specific case. Programming decisions are made on a daily basis, based on a whole set of criteria that are particular to that specific event, so it's impossible for us to speak to any singular event here today.

The question has to be asked and the debate has to be had. As Mr. Morrison talked about, who's responsible? Who do they answer to? The CBC has on its website a whole list of government agencies that it answers to, that it's accountable to. Is that accountability enough? I guess that's for Parliament and the Canadian public to decide. It is a question that has been hanging out there for.... I've been at CBC now for 36 years, and we've been talking about this for at least 25.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Every government department is the same, because if government enters into a business arrangement with an outside business and you do a freedom of information request, you can't get that information because it talks about the competitive advantage of that particular business. CBC is no different. However, it's a crown corporation, and there is a need for some transparency there, when it comes to the financials and that kind of stuff—

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Mr. Andrews, your time is up, but I'll allow a brief response.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I didn't really have a question.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

It was just a statement.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I was getting around to it, but that's fine.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Well, thank you very much.

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Chair, before we move into committee business, related to today's and other testimony, I would like to move the following motion before the committee:

That, in order for the Committee to determine access exclusions, the Committee order the production of the following documents pursuant to Standing Order 108(1):

1. From the CBC: The un-redacted documents provided by the CBC for the access to information requests made by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation;

2. From Québecor: The access to information request referred to by Pierre Karl Péladeau....

That would be the one related to vehicle fleets. And I'd also like the redacted response they received.

3. From the CBC: The un-redacted response provided by the CBC to the request referred to...by Québecor;

4. From Friends of Canadian Broadcasting: The access to information requests that have been sent to CBC and the responses received;

5. From the CBC: The un-redacted responses for the questions put forward by the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting.

And that the information be provided to the Committee without delay.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Before we go to debate on that, I'm going to free the witnesses and thank them very much for their participation and attendance today.

May we suspend for two minutes?

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Okay, we can now resume.

Mr. Del Mastro has proposed a motion. I will go to Mr. Del Mastro for an explanation of his motion, and then we'll take any speakers on the motion.

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It seems to me it's going to be incumbent on this committee to make specific recommendations to, in this case, the President of the Treasury Board regarding the Access to Information Act, and section 68.1 specifically, and whether the Information Commissioner, for example, has made specific recommendations in that regard, as have others before this committee. In order for the committee to determine how section 68.1 is being applied and what changes should be made, we should be reviewing the decisions that have been made, specifically with respect to these access to information requests.

I am obviously cognizant of the protections provided to the CBC, so I would recommend that these documents be viewed in camera to respect the protections that have been afforded to the CBC. But I do think it's necessary that the parliamentarians on this committee be provided access so that we can make specific recommendations that I believe would be in the public interest.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thanks, Mr. Del Mastro.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Would Mr. Del Mastro read the motion?

We were given no notice of this, so we're playing catch-up. He read it through quickly. I'd like to at least hear what he's proposing.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you. I'll have the clerk read the motion again.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Chad Mariage]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The motion reads:

That, in order for the Committee to determine access exclusions, the Committee order the production of the following documents pursuant to Standing Order 108(1):

1. From the CBC: The un-redacted documents provided by the CBC for the access to information requests made by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation;

2. From Québecor: The access to information request referred to by Pierre Karl Péladeau at the meeting on Thursday, October 20, 2011;

3. From the CBC: The redacted and un-redacted response provided by the CBC to the request referred to in the previous request #2 made by Québecor Media Inc.;

4. From Friends of Canadian Broadcasting: The requests made and the responses given, and the un-redacted responses from the CBC in this regard.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Just on a point of information, this motion is admissible without notice of motion because it's on the study at hand.

Mr. Angus, did you have further comment?

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

Yes.

I find this once again is turning our committee into somewhat of a circus at the request of Mr. Del Mastro. I think the issue of this Conservative Party looking to get its hands on unredacted documents so it can make the decision as to what documents should be looked at and which should not is not within its purview, and is usurping the work of the Information Commissioner.

I'd also suggest that given the antics I've seen at this committee over the last two weeks, it would be definitely not in the public interest to allow that party over there to put itself in the position of arbiter. If it wants to be an arbiter, it can take in legislation and it can change the act.

Last week, we had Mr. Andrews, my colleague down at the other end—correct me if I didn't hear it right—make a reference to that party looking to dismantle the CBC, and I saw Mr. Del Mastro and Mr. Butt having lots of good laughs about the fact that they resembled that remark about dismantling the CBC.

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

I never said that.

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

Well, that's the way I remember it, and I think I would have enough—

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

A point of order.

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

There were lots of good jokes last week.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Gentlemen, I have Mr. Del Mastro on a point of order.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Chairman, Mr. Angus is implying motive from some response or reaction that may be completely unrelated to the comments that he's attributing alleging to Mr. Andrews. This is highly inappropriate and it has nothing to do with the motion.