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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jennifer Stoddart  Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Patricia Kosseim  Senior General Counsel and Director General, Legal Services, Policy and Research, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Miguel Bernal-Castillero  Committee Researcher

4:15 p.m.

Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Jennifer Stoddart

I wonder if the ranges also are linked to the size of the civil service. They're not necessarily. I see, for example, that Nova Scotia publishes salaries of all officials earning $100,000 or more. Those are salaries, I read, not salary bands, which is what we do federally. Ontario seems to do the same, and the size of the civil service in Ontario is very different from that in Nova Scotia.

So there's a wide range, I would say. There are probably very few that don't have any publication of salaries now. The ones that don't are Prince Edward Island and Quebec. I read here that they don't disclose pay figures, but my recollection is they will give classification ranges according to a Supreme Court decision in 1999. I don't have any information on Yukon, but all the others seem to post salaries over a certain level.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON

Going back to your comments, I have a list in front of me of all the various compensation levels within government specifically, and as I understand it—and please correct me if I'm wrong—right now any information that is contained in these lists on an individualized basis can be accessed through the Access to Information Act. If I submitted to you an access to information request on a specific individual or job role, I could access that information through your office.

June 5th, 2013 / 4:20 p.m.

Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Jennifer Stoddart

Yes, or you could through the office where the individual works. Right now you would get the salary band. It would say that this individual has this job and this job pays, let's say, between $60,000 and $80,000. You don't get the exact salary of the individual.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON

But that would be across the entire public service?

4:20 p.m.

Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Jennifer Stoddart

That's my understanding.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON

That's by individual, specifically for that individual.

4:20 p.m.

Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Jennifer Stoddart

You could get their classification and job description.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON

Would that include bonuses or any type of incentive that might be part of their salary range as well?

4:20 p.m.

Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Jennifer Stoddart

The existence of the incentive or bonus, if there is one, would probably be disclosed but not the actual amount that the individual received. So it would be like the salary range. It tells you they're in a job that pays, depending on...but not the exact detail. So I think that would apply to bonuses as well.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON

All right.

What's my time?

4:20 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

You have 1 minute and 15 seconds left.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON

I don't think I have any more. I think I'll call it there. Thank you.

Could I share my remaining time with my colleague?

4:20 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

With pleasure.

Ms. Davidson, you have the floor.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Thanks very much, Commissioner, for being with us again.

I want to go back to what Mr. Carmichael was saying about the provinces. You talked about the varying levels that they have implemented. Does any of it have to do with the fact that they were implemented at different times? The only one I'm familiar with is Ontario's and that was some 18 years ago, when $100,000 was a heck of a good wage and there were very few people who met that $100,000 threshold. Now the names of those on the $100,000 list fill newspaper pages.

Are the disclosure requirements of the other provinces long-standing? The fact that the level has not been raised in almost 20 years causes a bit of concern. Do you have any idea when the other ones were implemented?

4:20 p.m.

Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Jennifer Stoddart

Yes, I do. In looking at this, I think that's a very important point.

Nova Scotia publishes the salaries of all officials earning $100,000 or more. That was adopted in December 2010. Newfoundland posts the salaries and expenses of elected officials. That was in 2007. In Ontario, as you said, it was 1996.

On the other one, the public sector salaries over $50,000, which is the policy in Saskatchewan, these are available online dating back to 2005-06. On Alberta, I just have information about government ministers' office expenses, which are posted online. That started in April 2007. B.C. executive compensation disclosure statements were made available online starting in 2008-09.

I think that's all I can tell you about the dates. Generally, it's a fairly recent trend, I guess, but the oldest one seems to be Ontario.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Thank you very much.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Thank you.

Ms. Borg, you have the floor.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

I too would like to thank you for being here today.

My first question concerns the Privacy Act as such, and its section 69.1, which concerns journalistic activities. I would like to know why you think legislators use the word "activity" in the act, not the word "source".

A few witnesses explained to us that there was a significant difference between the two, but I would like to know what you think about it.

4:20 p.m.

Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Jennifer Stoddart

Ms. Borg, I honestly have nothing to tell you on that subject. As I told you, since we do little work with this part of the act, I do not know. We have not examined the question very closely as there is no obvious privacy-related aspect to it.

I do not know whether our senior general counsel has any comment to make.

4:20 p.m.

Senior General Counsel and Director General, Legal Services, Policy and Research, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Patricia Kosseim

It is interesting to note that the present Privacy Act does not refer to activities, but rather to "journalistic, artistic or literary purposes". It uses the word "purposes", not "activities". It is slightly different in our act.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

That is fine. Thank you very much.

I have another question, but I do not know whether you will be able to comment on it.

Canada's Information Commissioner has said that the word "independence" could be interpreted as meaning independence from government. I would like to know whether you have any similar concerns about the Privacy Act.

4:25 p.m.

Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Jennifer Stoddart

I have no concerns from reading it. Some rules of legal interpretation state that the simplest, most obvious interpretation must be adopted.

The bill includes the words "could reasonably be expected to prejudice the Corporation's".The government is therefore not concerned. That is what I understand.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

You would not interpret it in that way.

4:25 p.m.

Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Jennifer Stoddart

No, it clearly states "prejudice the Corporation's." It uses the possessive form. In French, it states "de la Société". I think that applies solely to the CBC.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Thank you.

I would like to go back to the exclusion and the reason why it was included in the act. Do you think it is warranted by the fact that the CBC really plays a special role, one not necessarily the same as that of the government, its agencies and its departments? Its role is very different since it is a journalistic business that makes use of sources. Do you think the exclusion that has been put in place is fundamentally warranted?