Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 18th, 2011

[Gregory Thomas]

Yes, and we called for that publicly, along with Newspapers Canada and the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association. The individual in question threatened us with legal action. We're still waiting for his writ and would welcome the opportunity to litigate that with that particular individual.

In fact, our national communications director made the point that if that individual guessed we were going to be intimidated or that we didn't have deep enough pockets to face him down through a lengthy and expensive litigation process, then he guessed wrong, because we take this stuff very seriously.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Do you see this as a SLAPP suit threat from representatives of the government, or employees of the government?

[Gregory Thomas]

I'm not a lawyer, so I wouldn't know how to characterize it, but we welcome the opportunity to meet him in court, if that's what he wants to do. We were disturbed that no one has been prosecuted under the access to information laws. We believe that when there are egregious examples of government employees interfering unlawfully with freedom of information, then they should be prosecuted and should be dismissed from their positions and jailed.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you for that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

I'll remind you once more, Mr. Julian, to keep your comments relevant.

Continue, please.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much, Madame Chair. This is quite interesting.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

It is.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

And I think the Canadian public finds it quite interesting.

Mr. Thomas, you have raised egregious examples of violations of access to information by the government and government employees. I think it's very relevant that you bring this to the committee. You have also encouraged this committee to actually sit down and address those issues, those egregious violations of access to information laws by this Conservative government. I think it's important testimony that you have brought forward today.

Madam Chair, we have seen some members of this committee engage in a kind of a witch hunt when it comes to CBC. Yet we now see that violations of that kind are committed regularly by the government.

I would like to know whether our witness finds that some government employees have used intimidation tactics and perhaps threatened his organization with legal proceedings if the government's violations of the Access to Information Act were brought to light.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Julian. I will allow the witness a very short answer.

The time is up, so make it a very short answer, please, Mr. Thomas.

[Gregory Thomas]

I think that, in this case, the employee is no longer with Canada's public service and that the legal commitment between him and our organization is private.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to Mr. Del Mastro for seven minutes, please.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, I've always found in my experience that when an individual avoids speaking to the question at hand, it's because they're uncomfortable with the question at hand. So perhaps Mr. Julian is just uncomfortable asking the tough questions. But I'm not.

So, Mr. Thomas, you indicated that you've made requests specifically to the CBC on behalf of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, but they haven't responded to the requests—any of them?

[Gregory Thomas]

We finally asked them to provide us with the name of their CEO and the address of their head office.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

You could have got that off the Internet.

[Gregory Thomas]

We could have, but we wanted to make a point.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Okay, very good.

Your members, if I'm not mistaken—and I think I am one or used to be one—tend to advocate a couple of things. One is for lower taxes, but the other thing is for responsible use of tax dollars. Is that accurate?

[Gregory Thomas]

That is correct. That is one of the major functions of our access to information applications, following up on information we get from our supporters and also from government employees. For example, in Manitoba we heard they were getting big flatscreen TVs and violent video games in detention centres for young offenders, and that bothered an employee. We followed up with access to information. We proved that this was in fact going on and had the practice ended.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

You didn't think the flatscreen TVs might be more energy efficient? I'm kidding.

One of the things that really concern me on this, and I think it concerns the Taxpayers Federation, is that right now we have the CBC, not the Information Commissioner.... The act is written that the Information Commissioner should determine whether or not section 68.1 of the act applies to access to information requests to the CBC. The CBC is actually making the argument that, no, they will determine what they should give to the Access to Information Commissioner in the first place. The court actually determined that, no, the Information Commissioner was entitled to do that and would determine if section 68.1 applied.

That's the way the act is written; that's what the ruling says. But what we are actually seeing now and what I think the Taxpayers Federation is concerned about is the CBC, publicly funded, fighting the Information Commissioner, publicly funded, in the Federal Court, publicly funded, and that taxpayers are funding the whole thing.

Doesn't it sound outrageous, as a taxpayer?

[Gregory Thomas]

Yes, and in my opening remarks I addressed that.

I think it's unconscionable that government agencies all funded by the same people are using the courts to pursue internal bickering. We believe that the CBC should honour the access to information legislation. We believe that should be made clear to the directors of the CBC. And if they're insubordinate in that regard, then they should be replaced and they should direct the CEO to uphold the legislation.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

To be clear, you think they should be handing over this information to the Information Commissioner, and she should be determining whether it's 68.1 or not.

What do you think of section 68.1 to begin with? Do you take a view on it? Do you think there should be a set-aside when it comes to taxpayers' money in this regard?

We're not talking about the Privy Council. That's what Mr. Julian was bringing up. He'd like to have all the information from the Privy Council. The court said it's appropriate that it's not actually subject to access, and I think we all understand there are some pieces of information that simply cannot be....

But what we are talking about is the expending of taxpayers' dollars. How do you think section 68.1 should be applied? Should there be a section 68.1 cut out? And if there is, should we narrow it down or better define it so that groups like you that have made requests with respect to the spending of the CBC.... I understand some of the requests are for the expenditures on meals, fleet costs for trucks, salaries, and so forth. These things are not programming or don't deal with journalistic integrity. We're not asking them to reveal sources. Correct?

Is there a way you would suggest we better define this?

[Gregory Thomas]

I think there is a fair amount of common sense on the exemptions. Nobody thinks the public should be invited to CSIS security briefings, nobody thinks the public should get to view military exercises, and nobody thinks the public should sit in on cabinet discussions or that the confidential advice to cabinet should be public. I think there's a broad consensus among all who have been involved in government that there is a whole list of things--police investigations, confidential information, etc.--that is not public. I think everybody is willing to give the CBC a pass on disclosing its journalistic sources, for example.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Absolutely.

[Gregory Thomas]

I don't think anybody figures that CTV should get to look at CBC's programming schedule ideas. And I think that if the CBC had just stuck to those reasonable things, then they wouldn't be--

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

But if we wanted to know how much, for example, CBC spent at the Toronto International Film Festival on its booth or on its film festival evening when it hosted an event, do you think that's something that could be public? Or do you think that's something that would relate to programming and artistic exemptions?

[Gregory Thomas]

CBC has advantages and disadvantages. One of the advantages it has is the $1.16 billion head start it has on its competitors by way of public subsidy. That's a big advantage. The entire budget for some of these other channels is like a rounding error on the CBC's budget. You could run--