Evidence of meeting #82 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 cbc.
A video is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
I must interrupt you so that I can ask you another question.
In terms of the production of documents, would you have not preferred that the Information Commissioner have that power as well?
5 p.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Our principal interest here is to....
The CBC/Radio-Canada issue is not our main concern, given our mandate. The issues related to the Access to Information Act are uniquely specialized. Mr. Rathgeber is a lawyer. He is very familiar with those issues. According to him, the wording of the current legislation is not specific enough.
We have not thoroughly examined this. But Mr. Rathgeber's point is that an exemption is a bad way to address the issue of the independence of the CBC. He believes that an injury test will give the courts and the Information Commissioner a better tool to protect the independence of the CBC, while ensuring that the CBC complies with access to information requirements.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Thank you.
I will now give the floor to Ms. Davidson for seven minutes.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here with us and for having the perseverance to come back. I think we've cancelled or been interrupted a couple of times. I appreciate the fact that you returned and that we've been able to have some discussion today.
I want to ask you a couple of questions on the CBC.
Do you think it's important that Canadians have access to most of the information the CBC possesses? Depending on how you answer that, can you provide examples of information that may not be appropriate for the CBC to release?
5:05 p.m.
Director, National Citizens Coalition
Yes.
As the Information Commissioner has stated, and as concerns from this committee and debates from Parliament have suggested, the privacy of journalistic sources is important and should be protected. However, the CBC does receive public dollars. Unfortunately, it has used section 68.1, by its own interpretation, as a blanket exclusion for blocking access to information requests that have nothing to do with journalistic source protection and are more to do with administrative activities.
I do think there needs to be clarification within the act, and I think this will provide it, to bring the spirit of access to information, as described by the Information Commissioner so eloquently a few minutes ago, in line with how it is implemented.
5:05 p.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
We have found it offensive that the CBC would go all the way to the Federal Court of Appeal in its disputes with the Information Commissioner in the past. We were gratified when the Information Commissioner's position was upheld in the Federal Court of Canada and in the Federal Court of Appeal.
For us, we find the spectacle of taxpayers paying for the Information Commissioner's lawyers and the CBC's lawyers to have a dispute between agencies of the Government of Canada to be profoundly offensive. We welcome any attempt by a member of Parliament to put an end to this nonsense. We herald Brent Rathgeber for his persistence in trying to improve the law to put an end to litigation. It is a travesty that different agencies, all funded by the taxpayer, would be going to federally funded courts to decide their differences. It makes no sense to us at all.
5:05 p.m.
Director, National Citizens Coalition
Further, if Parliament sees fit to release items that concern national security to an ad hoc committee—swears in privy councillors on the spot—to review Afghan detainee documents, I do have faith in the Information Commissioner, who is an officer of Parliament, to use her discretion and professionalism in reviewing such information.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Along those lines—and I'll ask both of you—do you really feel there needs to be a distinction between general information and the journalistic source? Do you firmly believe that the journalistic source needs to be protected, and do you think Bill C-461 does that? Or do you not think it needs to be protected?
5:10 p.m.
Director, National Citizens Coalition
I think journalistic sources need to be protected. I think Parliament is supreme in the land. I've heard from other stakeholders that perhaps a judge would be more appropriate in reviewing such information. But I believe the Information Commissioner is better placed within the supremacy of Parliament to review this information. She stated earlier that she wouldn't be releasing this information; it would only be within the scope of investigation.
I note that previous stakeholders of the CBC, when asked if any access to information requests had been made on journalistic sources, replied that none had been made. I think that any reasonable person would be able to see on the face of it what a request constitutes: information on the administrative capacities of the CBC versus the outing of a journalistic source. I know that any such information would be excluded, as stated by the Information Commissioner, in such a release. It would be blacked out on those documents.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Do you agree with those statements, Mr. Thomas? Or do you have a different view?
5:10 p.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
We believe that journalistic sources should be protected. We've had some discussions with Mr. Rathgeber about it, and we believe he's reflected and investigated the issue carefully. But I think it behooves the committee to get expert advice and satisfy themselves that, whatever amendments may come out of this committee, journalistic sources are acknowledged by all sides to be protected. I realize that's a tough mandate to give you guys, but I'm sure you're up to it.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, folks.
Mr. Thomas, just for clarity, you disagree with the government amendment to raise it from a DM-1 to a DM-4?
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
If the government is successful in getting that amendment passed, would you support this bill as amended?
5:10 p.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
We'll be very critical of this bill if it comes out with that. You're talking about people earning a considerable amount, and there will be fewer than 2,000 out of 212,000 in the core public service.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
No, we'd be very critical of it.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Okay.
Mr. Taylor, Stephen Harper was president of your coalition. When was that?
5:10 p.m.
Director, National Citizens Coalition
That was prior to his running for the Canadian Alliance. I can't recall the exact date, but it was for one or two years.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
What would Stephen Harper have said about someone in the PMO giving a $90,000 cheque to a sitting parliamentarian?
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
What would Stephen Harper, as the president of your coalition, have said about giving a $90,000 cheque to a sitting parliamentarian to cover up expenses?