Information & Ethics Committee on June 5th, 2013

[Jennifer Stoddart]

Do you want to know whether exempting it from the obligation to disclose files is warranted?

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I am talking about the present system, about the current exclusion.

[Jennifer Stoddart]

You are talking about the one provided for in section 69.1?

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

That is correct.

[Jennifer Stoddart]

Given the importance of freedom in our societies, this kind of exception is frequently established for artistic, creative and journalistic purposes, in particular, in the information protection laws of other countries that we have studied.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I am giving my remaining speaking time to Ms. Mathyssen.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Borg.

Thank you very much for being here, Commissioner.

I have a question, and it relates to whistle-blowers. It's very important for our democracy to have people within the public sector who can report on problems or things that they regard as difficulties. Of course this becomes even more significant in regard to the recent revelations about health and safety standards and the lack thereof in Public Works. We know that very recently there's been a loss of life and injury.

With that in mind, do you consider the proposed changes sufficient in protecting the anonymity of whistle-blowers?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

I don't know that this addresses the question, honourable member, of the anonymity of whistle-blowers. I believe it is covered in the whistle-blowing legislation.

I think general counsel has more information on that. Perhaps I can refer the question to her.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you. I'd appreciate it.

[Patricia Kosseim]

With respect to the specific amendment being proposed, do I understand that you're speaking about the source of the information that would be provided—i.e., it could be a whistle-blower or it could be any other journalistic source more generally?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Yes. That would be helpful.

[Patricia Kosseim]

As I think was mentioned earlier, the revelation of the name of the source would be protected, of course, as personal information that would not be disclosed under an access to information request. There is protection already provided for in the current regime, as it would be under the amendment.

Recently the Supreme Court, in 2010, looked at the protection of journalistic sources. Although they didn't entrench charter protection, they did say the common-law rules of privilege in the Wigmore criteria would continue to apply. So there would certainly be protection through the courts to withhold that information in cases where the public interest did not justify their disclosure. The common-law protections would continue to apply.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you, Ms. Mathyssen.

Mr. Boulerice, do you wish to ask a supplementary question?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Ms. Stoddart, do you believe that disclosing the large salaries of public service employees is an effective transparency measure?

If that is your opinion, should that measure also apply to the political staff of ministers and to people working in the Prime Minister's Office?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

As I said, I am not necessarily an expert on transparency or access to information, which are closely related matters. However, we hope that public disclosure of the salaries of people who earn large amounts of money will have the effect of guiding the actions of those people since they would then be in the public spotlight. I believe that is the general idea behind this.

Is that measure effective? I do not know whether a study has been conducted on the subject, but I would note the case of federal superior court judges, whose salaries have been publicly disclosed since 1906. It appears that that measure has generally been effective since, with few exceptions, it has resulted in irreproachable behaviour on the part of judges across Canada, in contrast to the situation in countries less democratic than Canada. That is all I can tell you on that subject.

What was your second question?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I asked you whether this measure should apply to the political staff of ministers and to staff in the Prime Minister's Office.

[Jennifer Stoddart]

As Privacy Commissioner of Canada, I am obviously in favour of extending the democratic rules applicable to many public service employees as far as possible. Our office recently conducted a study on the non-application of the Privacy Act to political parties.

In principle, I am in favour of extending the acts as far as possible, although that has not yet occurred in any other country.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

In privacy and access to information cases in an institution, somewhat as in the CBC's case, which we are currently examining, if we draw comparisons with what is going on internationally, we realize that the commissioners concerned generally have full powers in an exclusion-based system. However, that is not the case for us under the present act.

Do you think that might be an alternative to the bill before us today?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

I think, and I also believe it is the opinion of Ms. Legault and her predecessors, that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and that of the Information Commissioner need more powers to ensure their respective rules are enforced, which does not often occur.

I would not be able to tell you whether that is an alternative to this bill.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

It is a matter on which you are not going to state an opinion.

[Jennifer Stoddart]

I have not thought about it. I would not be able to respond immediately.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Do I have a minute left for one final question?

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Be very brief.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

With regard to disclosure of the large salaries of public service employees—we are obviously not talking here about clerks, for example—should the threshold be set at $100,000, $200,000 or $440,000?