Information & Ethics Committee on May 22nd, 2013

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

Mr. Chair, I would nevertheless like to table documents that show that he did indeed say:

“I don’t know that we need a national broadcaster.”

He said that in 2011.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

You may, as witnesses do, send the document to the clerk, and then we will have it distributed, if you wish.

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

Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

We will now move on to our second intervention.

Ms. Davidson, you have seven minutes.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks very much for being here, Mr. Rathgeber, and for presenting your Bill C-461 to us. I certainly appreciated your presentation and the outline that you went through as you explained what your intent was with the bill.

I know that you're well aware that this committee did an extensive study of section 68.1 of the Access to Information Act when we were doing an earlier study. We recommended that section 68.1 be amended to comply with the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal's decisions on the matter of 68.1.

Do you think that your bill responds to the committee's recommendations? Would you also tell me why you feel that way or not?

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

I absolutely do. The Information Commissioner testified that she does not fancy exclusions. She prefers exemptions because an exclusion takes the subject-matter out of the operation of the act and, therefore, takes away any ability for her to objectively review the decisions of the information officers.

I can't take credit for the discretionary exemption. The credit for that belongs to the Information Commissioner who is going to testify in front of this committee next week.

I'm trying to find her exact words, but it's almost verbatim what the new section 28.1 would say. This committee recommended that section 68.1 of the Access to Information Act be repealed in accordance with the expert testimony heard during the study. In so doing, the government should consider international models as presented by the Information Commissioner.

It was the Information Commissioner who came up with the injury-based test and changed the exclusion to a discretionary exemption. I don't take credit for that. There has been some slight wordsmithing with respect to her testimony in front of this committee. But yes, I do believe this amendment is in accordance with the committee's study, which was an important study in light of the litigation between the Information Commissioner and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Just a little bit further along that same line, you talked about exclusions and exemptions. Could you talk a little bit more about the differences between the two and how that distinction is important in the context of your bill?

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

Certainly, that's a good question.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Mr. Rathgeber, I am going to have to stop you here, since the bells have begun to ring. Pursuant to Standing Order 115(5), I must suspend our proceedings, unless the committee gives its unanimous consent to continue. However, I did not get the impression earlier that the committee had given its unanimous consent to do so.

Yes, Mr. Andrews?

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Can we come back after the vote to continue the meeting?

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Yes. There will be about 20 minutes left.

I am going to suspend our proceedings then, and we will see each other again later, unless I have unanimous consent to continue the meeting for a few minutes, since the House is just a few metres from here.

Do I have unanimous consent to continue the meeting, at least long enough to let Mr. Rathgeber answer Ms. Davidson's question?

[An honourable member]

No.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Very well. In that case, I am going to interrupt the meeting, and we will meet again in approximately 40 minutes.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

We are back. I call the meeting to order.

There are about 25 minutes left. We will now be able to hear the rest of the testimony that was interrupted by the votes in the House.

I am going to let Ms. Davidson repeat her question, if she will, unless Mr. Rathgeber remembers it.

You have ample time, Ms. Davidson.

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

I remember the question.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Okay, go ahead.

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

The member asked about the difference between exclusions and exemptions and exceptions. They all start with the letter e and are all very confusing.

But in the Access to Information Act, an exclusion would mean that the act does not apply to the situation or the group of documents under consideration. That's what section 68.1 purported to do. It purported to create an exclusion.

Then at the end of it, it created an exception to that exclusion because it said, “other than information that relates to its general administration”. So there was an exclusion, and then there was an exception to the exclusion, and that's what led to the controversy and the confusion.

When the Information Commissioner testified, she recommended—and I found her exact words in appendix A of your report—with respect to the CBC, that you replace both the exclusion and the exception to the exclusion with a discretionary-based exemption. The words she chose are as follows:

The head of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the journalistic, creative or programming independence of the Corporation.

If you check that recommendation of the Information Commissioner, which this committee accepted, against the words that I've used in my private member's bill, they are almost identical.

The exclusion means that the act doesn't apply except in certain circumstances, which was the confusion in section 68.1. But all of that is to be replaced by a discretionary exemption, so the act applies. The Information Commissioner can review the situation to determine if there is going to be prejudice, and if there is prejudice then she'll recommend non-disclosure.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

I'm going to share whatever time I have left with Mr. Dreeshen.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Go ahead, Mr. Dreeshen. You have 2 minutes and 30 seconds left.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Rathgeber, for being here today.

I know that back in the 2008 campaign when we were both involved with that election, certain folks were telling us that the CBC's funding was being cut. I took a look at it and realized that this was not the case and that there was more money being continually given. So we were fighting a situation where there was a push on to try to create a perception that this was actually taking place.

You've been criticized because of the suggestion that your bill is in some way designed to hurt the CBC. Mr. Nantel, just a few moments ago, talked about some of the things you might have said during the campaigning and in subsequent elections.

I wonder if you could address a bit of what was being asked at that time when you spoke about different models for public broadcasters.

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

Yes, during the break I went back and read some of my old blogs that referred to the town hall or forum in the 2011 election campaign.

For clarification to Mr. Nantel, what I said was that I favoured the continuation of the CBC but I wondered—and he's done his research quite well—whether a charitable model might be better than a perpetual subsidy. The thought, and it was only a thought, would be to attempt to get the CBC less dependent on the taxpayers.

But having said that almost two years ago, with the benefit of time and upon reflection, I'm not convinced that a charitable model is practical. Quite frankly, members, I don't believe the viewers of CBC, as charitable as they might be, could possibly donate the requisite funds that the corporation currently gets from the public treasury. I think the charitable model is an interesting model, but ultimately it's not practical.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I'd like to address the second part of the bill where you have spoken to a particular number that you feel needs to be addressed. I understand that you put a lot of research into this, but having arbitrarily picked this particular number, I suppose it all depends on where you're at.

When we think about young people leaving high school in Alberta who are finding jobs in the $100,000 range, we realize that we are taking a look at different types of ranges for salaries. I wonder whether you've determined how many employees would fit into the various categories that there were for different divisions. How that would work? Should one amount of money be reassessed, taking a look at the numbers that exist there?

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

I can't give you the specific numbers of how many people this would apply to. I can tell you that using the deputy minister one level, or DM-1, was maybe somewhat arbitrary. The number that it would reflect in real terms would be $188,600, according to the 2012 Governor in Council appointees.

If this bill passes unamended, it would apply to DM-1, DM-2, DM-3, and DM-4, the highest levels of GC-7, and all of GC-8, GC-9, and GC-10. Those are Governor in Council appointments. It would apply to judicial appointments above the highest level of level 6, and CEOs higher than CEO-3.

If the government does in fact introduce an amendment, and if the members see fit to change the lower level of DM-1 to the highest level of DM-4, all deputy ministers would be exempt. The only people that it would apply to would be those at GCQ-10 and CEO-6, 7, and 8.

Members will appreciate that if.... I haven't seen the government amendment. I don't know if the members have, but the parliamentary secretary said in the House that he thought the highest level of DM-4 was more appropriate than the lowest level of DM-1. It will significantly reduce who is covered by this bill and which civil servants and mandarins will need to have their specific salaries disclosed.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

No, you have no more time.

I am now going to give the floor to Mr. Andrews.