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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Suzanne Legault  Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Emily McCarthy  Assistant Commissioner, Complaints Resolution and Compliance, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Gregory Thomas  Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Stephen Taylor  Director, National Citizens Coalition

4:35 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

The only thing I think the committee should seriously consider, given everything that we've heard and the two things I've heard, is the fact that we're talking about “journalistic, creative or programming independence”. There is a concern that this is not sufficient to protect freedom of expression, editorial freedom, or journalistic integrity. That's what I've heard and that's what I've also been told by other stakeholders.

When I looked at the Broadcasting Act with Emily and her group, we found various provisions in the Broadcasting Act that deal with broadcasters generally and the CBC, and they do speak about freedom of expression and “journalistic, creative or programming independence”. They use all of that, generally speaking.

Perhaps the committee could consider having proposed section 18.2 amended so that it would read at the end, “could easily be expected to prejudice the corporation's freedom of expression and journalistic, creative or programming independence”. That would truly mirror the Broadcasting Act in its other provisions. It could alleviate some of the stakeholders' concerns.

The other option would be to leave it as is, and instead of “independence”, use the word we have in the current section 68.1, which is “activities”. So it would read “its journalistic, creative or programming activities”. I think that's much broader than just the concept of independence, although we don't know at this point how we would interpret it. That concept has not been interpreted under section 68.1 either.

Those are two options, I think, that might go some way to alleviate some of the concerns of the stakeholder in relation to freedom of expression and editorial freedom.

In terms of journalistic sources, as I've said, I do not think there is an issue with the discretionary exemption in relation to the protection of journalistic sources, nor have I found any evidence that this would affect the competitive position of the CBC.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Thank you. Mr. Mayes' time is up.

That concludes your testimony, Ms. Legault, because, since we started 30 minutes late, we are going to give 45 minutes to each group of witnesses. We have other witnesses here as well. Thank you once more; we will—

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Point of order, Mr. Chair. It is about the Information Commissioner's testimony. I find it a little arbitrary that the official opposition only had one seven-minute opportunity whereas the governing party had two opportunities. I would like five minutes to be added so that our party has at least two opportunities as well.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Actually, at the first meeting of the committee, in June 2011, we decided that the first round would be seven minutes in duration, once for the New Democrats, twice for the Conservatives and once for the Liberals. I am going by what we agreed to.

In a spirit of fairness, I am giving the same amount of time, 45 minutes, to each group of witnesses. That is why I made the decision.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

In a spirit of fairness, Mr. Chair, could the official opposition have two opportunities, given that the governing party had two as well? That seems fair to me.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

No, that is not what we decided when we started. There are more Conservatives; they hold the majority. So they have more opportunities to speak.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

We can decide something else.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

I am told that I can ask whether there is unanimous consent to give less time to the other witnesses so that we can continue with the ones we have now.

Do I have unanimous consent?

4:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

I do not have consent.

So I will thank Ms. Legault and Ms. McCarthy, from the Office of the Information Commissioner, for appearing before us.

I am going to suspend the meeting for a few minutes to give the next witnesses time to take their places.

4:40 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

I call the committee back to order. We are continuing our meeting to study Bill C-461. Two new witnesses are taking their places at the moment.

First, we welcome Mr. Gregory Thomas, who is the Federal Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and Mr. Stephen Taylor, Director of the National Citizens Coalition.

According to our agenda, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Taylor will both have 10 minutes in which to make their presentations. Questions and answers in seven-minute periods will follow and will continue to the end of the meeting.

Mr. Thomas, thank you for joining us. Without further delay, you may take the floor.

May 29th, 2013 / 4:40 p.m.

Gregory Thomas Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank you all for allowing me to join you today. I'd also like to thank Brent Rathgeber for proposing Bill C-461. Mr. Rathgeber has shown character and courage in standing up for his beliefs and to his caucus when he has nothing to gain politically or personally by supporting this bill. This is evidence that principles are still alive and well in the House of Commons, and this gives us at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation hope that this bill will lead the government in the right direction.

My name is Gregory Thomas. I am the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. We are a federally incorporated, not-for-profit citizens' group dedicated to lower taxes, less waste, and accountable government. We represent over 84,000 supporters across Canada. I am here on behalf of our Taxpayers Federation and our supporters to defend the current iteration of Mr. Rathgeber's bill.

We believe that all governments should stick to their founding tenets: transparency and accountability to the people. When administrations base their governments on these two seemingly simply ideas, it benefits them, their supporters, and everyone in between. More accountability to the public gives taxpayers the rights they deserve—to know who is being paid with their tax dollars and how much of our money they receive.

Bill C-461 would cause the government to disclose all earnings above $188,000. We believe this is a necessary shift in federal disclosure policy. Although in a perfect world every penny paid out by the government would be public information, we believe Mr. Rathgeber's bill pushes the government away from its self-imposed opaqueness and pushes the government into disclosure policy that will greatly benefit all Canadians.

This bill in its current state, we feel, does not go far enough, but the enthusiasm and hard work put in by Mr. Rathgeber makes up for this and gives us hope that other MPs will push for further reforms in the future. That being said, there have been criticisms of these amendments from all sides of the House, and I would like to address each of them.

First, there is concern regarding the number of people who would land above the $188,000 salary disclosure limit. Their concerns have centred on the number of people whose salaries would be disclosed. We believe this is a non-issue in this discussion. Government employees are all accountable to the public precisely because we sustain their salaries. To suggest otherwise takes away from the real issues affecting Canadians: government accountability and transparency.

We hear this from the government, and, quite frankly, it confuses us. I'm not the first one, nor will I be the last, to reference the current Senate expenses scandal involving former Conservatives Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau, and former Liberal Senator Mac Harb. If the government allowed us access to the records and documents relating to their expense claims, this wasteful, unaccountable spending could have been nipped in the bud before it spiralled out of control into a $90,000 cheque with many reputations tarnished.

The same will go for this bill. If we see what government employees are earning, we can stop unreasonable salaries, benefits, and pension entitlements before they spiral out of control. It should be clear that this would help any government avoid embarrassment and scandal, while ensuring taxpayers are being treated with the respect they deserve.

The other major criticism relates to the effects of this bill on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Again, we believe this takes away from the real issues surrounding the amendments. The CBC is not the only affected crown corporation. All crown agencies, from the Atlantic Pilotage Authority to VIA Rail, are covered in this bill. In fact, there is a specific provision in this bill that would allow the CBC to withhold information that threatens its independence, and it would be subject to a test that could be tried in the courts.

We believe there are plenty of members in the official opposition, as well as the Liberal Party, who genuinely support the spirit of this legislation. I would simply plead with you not to get caught up in the sideshow that relates to the CBC, but rather focus on the real issue, which is accountability, transparency, and waste.

Now, you may be asking yourself, how exactly does federal disclosure policy help the average taxpayer, the average citizen? The fact of the matter is this: if we can see what crown CEOs are making and what their job descriptions are, we can avoid potential scandals before they spiral out of control.

You may believe that not every Canadian pays attention to the salaries of government officials. It's a valid assumption, and I don't deny it. However, we still owe it to taxpayers to treat their dollars with dignity. Even if every Canadian on every main street isn't going to file an access to information request, you can be assured that the Taxpayers Federation, as well as other advocacy groups for free press or free media, will be watching vigilantly to see how taxpayers' dollars are spent.

We're here to ensure that the government operates within reasonable limits. The day we stop respecting a person's money because they don't have the time or resources to be involved in the same manner you are, I believe, is the day we lose our moral authority to levy taxes.

I hope my testimony has shed some light on this issue. Canadians deserve the best from their government, and we believe the public's concerns, until this bill arrived, have been falling on deaf ears.

We commend Mr. Rathgeber and all members who support this legislation. You are the people who listen to Canadians and who are working for positive change in the stewardship the government shows over our tax dollars.

4:50 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Thank you.

We now move immediately to Mr. Taylor, Director of the National Citizens Coalition.

4:50 p.m.

Stephen Taylor Director, National Citizens Coalition

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The National Citizens Coalition is a supporter-based organization founded in 1967 and counts tens of thousands of supporters in its ranks. Our organization is founded upon the principle of more freedom through less government. We advocate on issues regarding the reduction of waste in the public sector for the more efficient delivery of services to Canadians.

Government accountability is very important to our supporters, and indeed to all Canadians. Whenever taxpayer dollars are in the mix, we believe on a philosophical level that Canadians deserve transparency for where those tax dollars go and accountability by those who spend them.

Recent scandals in the Canadian Senate with regard to how our senators are spending their housing allowances serve to underscore the need for transparency and accountability in our public institutions. Canadians lose faith in their institutions when those institutions abuse the public trust. Since human fallibility seems to be fairly consistent, the system must account for it, and accountability measures must be built in. We are here to provide testimony in support of Bill C-461. The CBC and public service disclosure and transparency act is an important piece of legislation to bring transparency and accountability to the spending of public dollars at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The CBC is the recipient of over $1 billion taxpayer dollars every year.

Section 68.1 of the Access to Information Act is deficient, in our view, because the CBC has used it as a blanket exclusion to allowing oversight of how it spends public money. The Information Commissioner, the Federal Court, and the Federal Court of Appeal all agree to the limitations of section 68.1 as written. Further to the changes to the Access to Information Act, the legislation also makes other important changes to current statutes.

Canadians have been well-served by the so-called “sunshine list” in provincial jurisdictions, which list salaries and expenses of public servants. Unfortunately, such a list does not exist federally, and this legislation does not go far enough, in our view, in establishing such a list. Mr. Rathgeber's middle measure, however, is to provide specific salary figures and expenses on an individual on the federal payroll upon request.

Also troubling is the proposed amendment by this government to raise the threshold for the reporting level. In Ontario, for example, we benefit from disclosure of salaries of $100,000 and above. Mr. Rathgeber suggests a federal list should require disclosure at or above DM-1. We implore the members of this committee to resist pressure to raise the threshold from Mr. Rathgeber's proposed figure. Ideally, though, we'd like to see the disclosure set at around $100,000—perhaps wishful thinking.

Also less than ideal is the per request mechanism. We hope the committee will see the benefit of full and automatic disclosure of salaries, expenses, and bonuses on a public website in a machine-readable format. The world is moving to the open data model of governance. I note that Canada has fallen to 55th place in the world for freedom of information.

Canada is watching what its legislators do in this place. As scandal looms regarding the abuse of taxpayer dollars, some have suggested abolition of the Senate. Transparency provides an automatic mechanism that helps protect against those who would abuse the public's trust. Such transparency does not exist at the CBC.

The National Citizens Coalition's view is the privatization of the CBC. This isn't a big secret. I know this view is not yet shared publicly by many in this room. However, if the CBC is to receive public dollars, it suffers a legitimacy gap when it refuses to disclose how those dollars are spent. For those who do believe in a public broadcaster, you bring legitimacy to it as a public institution when it is accountable to the public for how it spends our money.

Regarding the CBC-related amendment to this legislation, that is, to include an exclusion for journalistic source protection while allowing for an injury-test exemption on programming-related information disclosure, this sounds acceptable in principle. However, the CBC has acted in bad faith on previous access to information requests, claiming blanket exclusion under section 68.1 of the Access to Information Act. The Information Commissioner has taken the CBC to court at least twice on this matter. We are concerned that the CBC will use any loophole to protect against reasonable disclosure.

We believe that the voting public is the best judge for how its money is spent. We do believe in less government; many of you believe in more of it. However, shrouding this information from the public view is not an honest mechanism for protecting government largesse. Indeed, it delegitimizes the view that advocates for it in the absence of such disclosure.

Government members may be looking to amend this legislation to raise the reporting thresholds and ranges for disclosure with respect to public sector salaries and bonuses. This will put more data out of reach of the public on how public dollars are spent on public services.

l'm told that this legislation will pass with such an amendment. Indeed this bill faces a fork in the road. If this legislation fails because it lacks this particular amendment, it will be scandalous for the majority governing caucus. This is legislation that calls to the very heart of the conservative base. Such transparency is a core theme of why conservatives elect Conservative Party candidates to serve in Ottawa.

If this legislation is amended to raise the disclosure limit and passes, it will be a watered-down, paler version of itself. I implore the government members to resist amending the disclosure threshold, because recent troubles facing this government on accountability issues provide the impetus for passing the legislation that we small-c conservatives desire.

With that, I welcome your questions on this presentation.

4:55 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Thank you both for your presentations.

We now move to Mr. Boulerice, who will be sharing his seven minutes with Mr. Nantel.

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I listened with interest to our guests' presentations.

The current bill targets CBC/Radio-Canada, pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Access to Information Act. But it does not deal with information or transparency in the Prime Minister's Office.

As you are making the case for transparency in spending public funds, let me ask you this very simple question. Given that we all are supposed to know how much Peter Mansbridge makes in a year, should we also not know how much Nigel Wright makes, or any other chief of staff in the Prime Minister's Office?

4:55 p.m.

Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Gregory Thomas

Yes, and if it were up to us to write the legislation, that threshold would be $100,000. We don't believe that Parliament should be exempt; we don't believe that political staff should be exempt. We believe it should be a straight $100,000 threshold for all federal government employees.

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Thank you.

4:55 p.m.

Director, National Citizens Coalition

Stephen Taylor

I would like to echo my colleague's statement. If anyone earns over $100,000 taxpayer dollars through this government by their salary, whether chiefs of staff or any other public servant, that should be accessible and publicly disclosed on a website. If members here do believe in such transparency for members of the Prime Minister's Office or political members of this government for the sake of transparency and disclosure, they should also agree with such measures of disclosure and transparency for every such dollar in every crown corporation as well.

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Thank you very much. At least that’s clear. Problem solved.

We often hear that CBC/Radio-Canada costs taxpayers $1.1 billion a year. I would like to put things into perspective and perhaps hear what you have to say.

Most of CBC/Radio-Canada’s budget comes from selling and producing its own programs, as well as selling advertising. Public funds represent only 50% of CBC/Radio-Canada’s budget, not 100%. Most OECD countries have a public broadcaster. In Germany, the public broadcaster costs each citizen $147 a year; in Japan, it costs about $90, and the same goes for the U.K. Yet here in Canada, CBC/Radio-Canada costs each taxpayer on average $34 a year. That is approximately one-third of what it costs someone from the U.K. or Japan.

I think we are getting pretty good value for our money. CBC/Radio-Canada provides us with a diversity of views, programs covering everything that happens in every region in Canada, as well as very interesting local and regional coverage, for an attractive price compared to other countries around the world.

5 p.m.

Director, National Citizens Coalition

Stephen Taylor

I'll just say that it's no secret that the National Citizens Coalition does stand for privatization of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We think that if people think the CBC is such a great deal, they can put their own dollars into it.

In the age of the Internet and the YouTube generation.... I heard a statistic from Google the other day that more Canadian content has been consumed by Canadians on YouTube since 2010 than has been consumed on CTV and CBC since the 1950s. There is accessibility of Canadian content, especially by Canadians themselves, who are able to tell their own stories without the need for a public broadcaster. I'd welcome that discussion as well, but I do believe that might be out of the scope of this particular bill.

5 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Time is running out, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Nantel has a question.

5 p.m.

Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Gregory Thomas

The approach of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is completely different from that of my friend Mr. Taylor’s organization. He called on other Conservatives to support this bill, but on our side, we are not a Conservative organization. We have no political affiliation. As for CBC/Radio-Canada and other organizations, we are against any subsidized organizations, such as Cogeco and Rogers, regardless of whether they are private or public.

5 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC

Thank you for appearing before us. Honestly, I know that we will not see eye to eye, but I still have to ask you questions and recognize that you have come here.

So Mr. Thomas, this is a good time to ask you what your position is in relation to Mr. Taylor’s scrap the CBC campaign.

5 p.m.

Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Gregory Thomas

We poll our supporters on a regular basis. We deal with issues such as government legislation, marijuana and the Senate. In western Canada, some want to elect the Senate and others want to abolish it. Under those conditions, it is hard for us to always take a stand. That said, some of our supporters want to keep CBC/Radio-Canada. In northern Canada, just like the western and Atlantic communities, CBC/Radio-Canada is the only broadcaster. It is the only—