Information & Ethics Committee on May 22nd, 2013

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Brent, for coming in today.

I'm going to continue my line of questioning around that salary disclosure piece.

How much does Nigel Wright make? Well, let me rephrase that: how much did Nigel Wright make?

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

I have no idea.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

More than $90,000?

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

I have no idea.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

How come we don't know that?

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

Well, because.... Well, I've never inquired. That would be the short answer.

I would suggest to you that if you did inquire, you would probably be disappointed by the results of your inquiry. The Access to Information Act applies to all government institutions. Although the Privy Council Office is a government institution, I don't believe the Prime Minister's Office is a government institution within the meaning of the Access to Information Act. The government institutions are listed in schedule I of the act. Although the list is not exhaustive, I don't think it applies, but that would be a question better addressed to the Information Commissioner.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

But your bill would disclose that information if passed?

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

Well, it wouldn't if in.... Well, certainly with respect to that individual who is no longer an employee of the government.... The Prime Minister's Office is not a government institution listed in schedule I of the Access to Information Act. Others will argue—the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, I suspect—that the breadth of the Access to Information Act ought to be expanded to include the House of Commons, and certainly to include the Senate in light of recent revelations and, I suspect, the Prime Minister's Office. So—

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

So regardless of the government amendment, your bill wouldn't cover that information being released?

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

My bill does not amend the breadth of the institutions the Access to Information Act applies to. That is correct, member.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Recently, question number 1267 on the order paper asked: “With regard to the Prime Minister's Office, as of February 1, 2013...how many make a salary of $100,000 or more...?” Back came the response that 21 individuals in the Prime Minister's Office make over $100,000. Your bill wouldn't allude to who those 21 individuals are?

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

I'm sorry. Your question was posed in the House?

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

No, this was a question on the order paper, to which the government responded with the answer I cited. They had no problem disclosing that 21 people in the Prime Minister's Office make over $100,000—

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

Okay. There are two questions there, Scott. If you had tried to do that under the Access to Information Act, I think you would have gotten nothing, because the Prime Minister's Office is not a government institution within the meaning of the act. But you put a question on the order paper; you didn't apply through the access act. When the government responds to questions on the order paper, it uses the definition of privacy that's in the Privacy Act.

So you're actually right. I just thought of this as we've been having this discussion. Since the amendment of personal information would be amended in the Privacy Act, those individuals would be subject to specific salary disclosure when questions are put on the order paper, but nothing in my bill expands the breadth of the Access to Information Act to include the Prime Minister's Office. I think you would be able to do it through an order paper question.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

The government is going to propose an amendment that will bring it to the level of DM-4, so that will basically gut your bill, as you've said. It will only include—I think you just answered the question—only about half a dozen ranges of salaries.

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

The highest level of DM-4 in 2012 was $319,900, plus a potential 39% maximum performance bonus of $124,761. But if DM-4 and everything below it is excluded, that will raise the bar to essentially $320,000. So the only classifications that would apply would be GCQ-10, which I believe are traditional appointments, and CEO-6, 7, and 8.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

So if this amendment goes through, how do you see our proceeding with your bill then, if it essentially guts it?

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

The members will do with the bill what the members decide to do with the bill.

I would be very, very disappointed if the government believes that individuals making as much as $444,000 ought to have the privacy laws of Canada protect them from specific salary disclosure, particularly when I indicated that if you have a contract with the federal government for as little as $10,001 it's on a public website. I find that irreconcilable. I think there are lots of deficiencies with our access regime. I think I indicated that a report from the Centre for Law and Democracy said that we are 55th out 93 countries in terms of our openness and transparency, and our access.

This bill doesn't fix very many of those, but it would fix a couple of specific ones. I encourage members of this committee to continue to promote greater transparency. Canada was once a leader. When we first had our access to information law in 1983, it was held to be the gold standard of access, but there has only been a minimal incremental expansion of our access laws since then. The Information Commissioner will testify to that effect, I believe, when she's here next week. The government—and I don't mean only this government, but the Government of Canada as an institution—has a reputation for opaqueness. I think that trend needs to be strongly reversed.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I agree. We've fallen way behind in our access to information over the current administration, and we're continuing to do so.

Regarding the first amendment the government is going to bring forth to your bill, can you live with that amendment? Is that amendment or some form of it really aimed at protecting journalistic sources? Is there something there with that amendment that you could live with?

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

Thanks, Scott, for the question.

Philosophically I am absolutely not opposed to a mechanism that protects confidential journalistic sources. I simply don't know how you'd draft that, given the commissioner's broad powers under section 36, which says that she can enter government offices without warrants, she can compel the disclosure of documents, and she can compel people. Then subsection 36(2) says that no document shall be withheld from the Information Commissioner for any reason.

She testified to this very question when she was here two weeks ago. Exclusions are problematic because they take away any review from any independent entity. If the CBC says this is a journalistic source privilege and invoke their exclusion, that becomes the end of the debate, subject to one going to court.

I would prefer that there be some ability to review documents if journalistic source privilege were in question. I'm simply not convinced it can be drafted. Section 68.1 was an attempt at an exclusion and we all know how badly that ended up with protracted litigation. When the Information Commissioner was here last week, I think she said she has handled 1,200 complaints against the CBC, with 200 are outstanding, and that not a single one of those dealt with journalistic source privilege. I really believe, with all due respect, that the government's approach to provide an exclusion for journalistic source privilege is a solution in search of a problem.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you for your questions.

Mr. Carmichael, you have approximately five minutes.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Rathgeber, my colleagues have been speaking to the issues of these levels of disclosure of income. You mentioned in your brief that Ontario, B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia all have sunshine lists. I noticed that Alberta, your home province, does not. I wonder why.

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

That's a very good question. I don't know.

Members may recall a scandal about a year ago in Alberta when there was a civil servant, then an employee of Capital Health, who had significantly abused his expense account. I'm sure Mr. Dreeshen remembers this story. The Government of Alberta has moved now to public disclosure with respect to expenses, and they are now posting expenses for ministers and senior bureaucrat online, but there's still no sunshine list.

It was that story of the bureaucrat with Capital Health in Edmonton that really started my thinking about disclosure and transparency, respect for taxpayers and taxpayers' dollars, salary disclosure, and reimbursed expenses disclosure. You see the product of that thought in private member's Bill C-461.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

When we talk about DM-1 versus DM-4, I'm not sure if I am with you yet regarding your concerns about establishing DM-4 as the baseline versus your bill's having it at DM-1.

The sunshine list in Ontario, where I come from, is a growing list. It takes up pages in the newspaper as they disclose all of the various individuals that now fall under that measurement.

I wonder if you could be a little clearer or go into a little more depth of why the baseline should be DM-1 and not DM-4.

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

It's a lot lower.