Thank you.
I would like to congratulate my colleague. His comments were very comprehensive, based on the information and quite brief. He could have spoken at length on this very interesting topic.
First, I consider it quite unusual that transparency should be demanded of the CBC. Transparency is very important. Everyone in a democratic society looks for it, but the fact is that we have a government that is not very transparent at all. The Information Commissioner has said on numerous occasions that there is a genuine problem of access to information. Scientists may not speak publicly and even librarians are not allowed to give conferences. It is therefore quite unusual to set transparency as the objective of this bill—which, incidentally, we do not think will achieve that goal—whereas the government itself has no best practices with regard to transparency. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, for example, has to petition the Federal Court to obtain the documents he needs to do his job.
The amendment shows the haphazard manner in which the bill has been put together. No thought was given, when it was drafted, to the fact that it was important to protect journalistic sources. I am pleased to see that this amendment has been introduced. I think it will improve matters somewhat. However, it does not attack the root of the problem. Journalistic sources are very important. The CBC is really very important to my fellow citizens. However, if it is unable to guarantee the confidentiality of its journalistic sources, it will be difficult for it compete with the major news and media companies. It is very important to protect those sources.
Although we support this amendment, it does not address the root of the problem. In fact, the bill creates more problems than it solves. The Information Commissioner stated in her testimony that it was important to amend and update the Access to Information Act but that that should not be done haphazardly, that is to say by correcting one thing and then another. That means focusing too much on one specific issue, which is then politicized.
Information regarding confidential sources has come to us from various sources. Letters, in particular, have been written. I would note that I am receiving an enormous number of emails from people who are opposed to this bill. I think it is our duty to discuss them and to think about them very seriously. The Canadian Media Guild, more particularly, spoke specifically about protection for confidential sources. In its view, this bill would unfortunately jeopardize that protection. We want to ensure that the CBC remains competitive and continues to be the organization that is so much appreciated by my fellow citizens and colleagues.
This bill generally addresses CBC/Radio-Canada, not the problem of transparency. The intent may have been to attack that problem, but it unfortunately does not go far enough in that direction. In short, although the amendment improves matters somewhat, we will be proud to vote against this bill.
That sums up my comments. I am sure my colleague Mr. Angus will add to them.