Evidence of meeting #84 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 amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
If there are no further questions and no one wants to speak, I am prepared to call amendment CPC-1.
I am going to read it so that it is clear for everyone:
That Bill C-461, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 1 with the following: 18.2 (1) This Act does not apply to any information that is under the control of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and that would reveal the identity of any journalistic source. (2) The head of the Canadian Broadcasting
(Amendment CPC-1 carried on division)
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Now we go to amendment NDP-1, which also amends clause 2.
Before we go to debate, I will read the amendment for those here present:
That Bill C-461, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 15 on page 1 with the following: "requested under this Act if the information contained in the record relates to its journalistic, creative or programming activities."
Mr. Boulerice, you have the floor.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I am very proud of the work done by my colleague, who put the word "activities" in his amendment. That much more broadly covers the protection of journalism and journalists. It is an excellent amendment.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Does anyone else want to debate it?
It appears not. We will therefore vote.
(Amendment NDP-1 negatived)
(Clause 2, as amended, carried on division)
(Clause 3 carried on division)
(Clause 4)
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Now we go to clause 4, for which we have received three amendments. The first was from the NDP and it reads as follows:
That Bill C-461, in Clause 4, be amended (a) by replacing lines 17 to 19 on page 1 with the following: "4. (1) The portion of paragraph (j) of the definition "personal information" in section 3 of the Privacy Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following: (j) information about an individual who is or was an officer or employee of a government institution or an employee of the office of a minister of the Crown that relates to the position or functions of the individual including, (2) Subparagraph (j)(i) of the definition "personal information" in section 3 of the Act is replaced by the following: (i) the fact that the individual is or was an officer or employee of the government institution or minister's office, (3) Subparagraph (j)(iii) of the definition "personal information" in section 3 of the Act is replaced by the following: (b) by replacing line 2 on page 2 with the following: "the government institution or minister's office an annual salary" (c) by replacing line 9 on page 2 with the following: "the government institution or minister's office an annual salary" (d) by replacing line 19 on page 2 with the following: "reimbursed by the government institution or minister's office,"
I will render a decision on the admissibility of that amendment.
Bill C-461 amends the Privacy Act by amending the definition of "personal information" as it pertains to the executives and employees of a federal institution. The purpose of the amendment in question is to extend the scope of the bill by subjecting the employees of a minister's office to the definition of "personal information".
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states, on page 766:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
The Chair is of the view that adding the employees of a minister's office would extend the application of the provisions of Bill C-461 to a new group of employees, which constitutes a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Consequently, in my view, the amendment motion is out of order.
Mr. Angus, do you have a point of order?
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your recommendation on this. I think what's important to point out, though, is the issue of accountability. We know that the Information Commissioner—
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Perhaps. You haven't heard me yet. I can keep it for the next amendment. I'll be heard one way or another. You can have me now, or you can have me at length later.
The issue is that—
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
You may not debate the amendment that you have moved, since I have ruled it out of order in accordance with our procedures.
My decision was based on the fact that the amendment was beyond the scope and principle of the bill. Consequently, you may not debate it. You may nevertheless try to challenge my decision if you wish, but I am upholding it unless committee members think differently.
I see no other members who want to speak to this point.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Yes, I think you did this incorrectly. Normally the motion is read, the person who moves the motion gets to speak to it, and you then decide whether to rule it in or out of order. You've ruled it out of order before I've had a chance to speak to it.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
We received the amendment in advance and I ruled that it was out of order. Consequently, it may not be debated.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
But I mean, just under standard procedures. If you want to stay all night, we'll stay all night. I'm just clarifying the rules here. Normally the person moves it, he speaks to it, and the chair then decides whether it's admissible.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
There may have been some misunderstanding on this subject. When I called amendment NDP-2, which concerns clause 4, I read the amendment myself. Normally it is the member who moves it who should read it. It was at that point that you could have read it and perhaps explained it. However, since I read it and you did not indicate at the outset that you wanted to read it or explain it, I informed the committee of my decision immediately after reading the amendment.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I allowed you to read it because of my great respect for you, not because I thought I wasn't going to get a chance to speak to it. It's because I have such great respect for you. I love the way you speak when you read legalese, so I did not want to be seen interrupting a person I have great respect for. However, the form is that the person who moves the motion speaks to it and then it's ruled in or out of order, and that's not what happened here.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
All right.
Now we will move on to the next amendment, that of the Conservatives. This is the amendment moved by Mr. Butt.
Do you want me to read it or do you want to read and explain it?
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
I'll read it into the record just so we can.... He might rule it out of order so I want to be able to read it just so people back home think I really do work here.
So the amendment is:
That Bill C-461, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 16 on page 2 with the following: (iii) the classification and responsibilities of the position held by the individual, (iii.1) the total annual monetary income of the individual from the government institution if that income is greater than the maximum total annual monetary income that could be paid to a Deputy Minister, (iii.2) the salary range of the position held by the individual if their total annual monetary income from the government institution is equal to or less than the maximum total annual monetary income that could be paid to a Deputy Minister, (iii.3) the expenses incurred by the indi-
to complete the clause.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
All right.
Just before I allow debate on the amendment, I remind you that another amendment to clause 4 has been moved. It is an amendment from the Liberals. If the Conservatives' amendment is adopted as is, that will cause a problem for the Liberal amendment that follows. It may not be adopted as currently worded.
I wanted to recall that point so that you bear in mind that adopting the amendment currently submitted will have consequences for the Liberal amendment. There will be a problem regarding the wording of that amendment.
Mr. Andrews, you have the floor.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Thank you for that piece of advice because my amendment is coming later. I'll try to include remarks on my own amendment as well, as it doesn't look like I'll have an opportunity to include them.
This particular amendment will essentially gut this bill. It's removing the classification for a DM 1, to the top of the DM 4. You have to put it in perspective. To put this in context, it's important to look at the salary ranges and the maximum performance pay, in 2012, for a Governor in Council appointee's cash compensation for the EX and DM groups.
The DM 1 level, which is being proposed by Mr. Rathgeber, is the appropriate level. He spoke to it, saying that it would go with inflation. It wouldn't be like the sunshine list that is rigid at $100,000. It would move as these levels move. This was reasonable to put into his bill.
Just so we have it in perspective, a DM 1 minimum salary is $188,600 to a maximum of $221,800, with a maximum performance award of 26%. I'm hoping that this particular amendment from the Conservatives will talk about, as they've put in here, total annual monetary income. That's a point that I'll have some questions on in a moment.
Does a person's annual monetary income also include their performance award, or is their performance award something separate? We want to make sure that it captures the performance.
With regard to DM 2 level, the minimum is $216,900 to $255,100, with a maximum level performance award of 33%. The DM 3 is $242,900 to $285,700, with a maximum performance award of 33%. This gets to the thrust of this amendment to take it to a DM 4, which begins at $272,000 and goes to a maximum of $319,900, with a maximum performance award at the highest of all DM levels, up to 39%. Theoretically this amendment would take the salary disclosure from $188,600 to $319,900, plus the performance award to a maximum 39% or $124,076. That's a total disclosure of anyone in the government who makes more than $444,661.
I think this will eventually take this bill to maybe zero people in government making that amount of money. It takes out the thrust of this bill. It nullifies the intent of what it is trying to accomplish here, which is to disclose people with salaries around the salary of the people who sit around this table. Anyone who is over the salary of the people in the legislatures should be disclosed. That's the intent of this bill, and this will gut it.
When you look at the total annual monetary income, we want to make sure it includes the classification salary of any applicable bonus or performance award. It is important that if you're going to talk about someone's salary that you talk about it as the total envelope of someone's salary. This amendment will basically make this bill null and void because it won't disclose anybody's salary. If anybody in government is making more than $444,000, I'd be very surprised.
The government is trying to gut this. There's no intent to have more openness and accountability, and I will not be supporting this amendment. But I want to make sure that my concern over the total annual monetary income does include the maximum performance award.
It's funny that at a DM 4 level you would get the maximum performance award, highest of all the DMs.
I think this amendment should not be passed, because this bill will be rendered useless.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Thank you, Mr. Andrews.
Mr. Boulerice has the floor.
I remind you that we are talking about the amendment.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I agree with my Liberal Party colleague. I believe that this part of the bill has just been diluted, if not emasculated. Even a figure of $188,000 seems a little high to me. It could have been our salary, that of a parliamentarian, a member or even a senator. That would have been all right.
We ultimately have a fishing net so big we will never catch fish with it.
That is all.
