Evidence of meeting #80 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was exclusion.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
At what point do you....What is your intent?
Is your intent that the net capture everybody who achieves a certain income level, or are you trying to peg a certain segment specifically?
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
The intent and the way the bill is drafted is to capture a certain income level and above. The number that's admittedly arbitrarily chosen is $188,600. I think $100,000, which is the benchmark in the Ontario sunshine list, is too low. I think it captures too many people, but by the same argument I think $319,900 is grossly too high.
I want to respect the privacy of the majority of the civil servants, people working for the bureaucracy in lower and mid-level positions, but upper management, the decision-makers....
There are two aspects to this, Mr. Carmichael. It's not just salary disclosure. The benchmark also applies to specific job descriptions, whereas currently, under the Access to Information Act you get a range and the general job description of that category. If my bill passes, with whatever benchmark is ultimately chosen, you will get the specific salary and specific job description of the people above that level.
It will be a little more work for the department to comply not only with providing the specific salary, which will be easy, but also with determining what that person's specific job description is, as opposed to a generic one. Those two pieces of information, I submit to the committee, will allow the taxpayers who are requesting this information to compare the performance of the organization with the compensation awarded to the senior managers.
So no, I have no interest in specific salary disclosure for clerks at the Canada Revenue Agency, but for directors, deputy ministers, and chief executive officers, yes. For those individuals who are the real decision-makers in the bureaucracy, I think that not only their specific salary but also their specific job description ought to be subject to access to information legislation.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
If that were the case then—and I hear you on that—clearly the decision-makers, though, would be fully captured within the DM-4 category. Equally, you could apply the job descriptions at that level just as effectively, but you would have a smaller group. You would effectively have all of the people who are making the decisions and are truly the drivers.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Well, if you believe that DM-1s, DM-2s, DM-3s, and DM-4s are not decision-makers at a high enough level, then you will support the government's intent. I haven't seen the proposed amendment, but if you believe the above, then you will support the government amendment.
If the government amends the bill, as the parliamentary secretary said it will, it will capture very few people—and certainly a lot of managers and a lot of deputy ministers—
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Thank you, Mr. Carmichael. Your speaking time has expired.
I would like to thank Mr. Rathgeber for his testimony today.
I would like to read a procedural motion to you concerning our procedure for the amendments. This is the motion:
That the proposed amendments to Bill C-461 be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than Tuesday, May 28, 2013 at 12:00 p.m., and that the amendments package be distributed to members as soon as possible.
The point is simply to clarify that amendments must be submitted to the legislative clerk before noon, May 28, since we will be doing clause-by-clause consideration at our May 29 meeting. Nothing prevents members from submitting amendments on the day we are doing clause-by-clause consideration. However, it is preferable to send them to the legislative clerk so that they can be distributed, and so the members of the committee can get a chance to see them prior to the meeting.
I need a motion. Is there a volunteer?
5:30 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Excellent. So, you must submit your amendments no later than noon on May 28.
As I mentioned, on May 29, we will begin our clause-by-clause consideration. If it takes longer than the three meetings we have planned, we may hold another, unless we prolong the meeting on the same day. However, we had decided to earmark three meetings for this consideration, at most. The necessary time will depend on the number of amendments.
In addition, the information commissioner will appear before the committee on May 29, as I said at the beginning of the meeting. That will take some of the time we have for the meeting. We have to keep that in mind at this time.
May 22nd, 2013 / 5:30 p.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chair, if I may, I would like a brief clarification.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
When is the information commissioner supposed to appear?
5:30 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
She is supposed to appear on Wednesday, May 29, during the first hour of the meeting, before the clause-by-clause consideration. Since we did not have enough time today, we had to postpone her appearance. She is available May 29, and she has been kind enough to agree to come and share her thoughts with us.
Mr. Warkentin, do you have something to add?
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
5:30 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Fine.
It is 5:30 p.m. and the bells are ringing. We will meet again next Monday.
The meeting is adjourned.
