House of Commons Hansard #209 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was public.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Parliamentary Budget OfficerBusiness of Supply

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Pursuant to order made Thursday, February 7, 2013, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion relating to the business of supply.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #615

Business of Supply

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I declare the motion defeated.

I understand that the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé has a point of order.

Oral QuestionsPoints of Order

6:15 p.m.

NDP

Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, during oral question period, I made a poor choice of words. I apologize and withdraw my comments.

CBC and Public Service Disclosure and Transparency ActPrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

moved that Bill C-461, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act (disclosure of information), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise and speak to second reading of Bill C-461, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act for public disclosure. The bill's short title is the CBC and public service disclosure and transparency act.

The bill has two purposes. The first is to correct a recognized deficiency in the current section 68.1 of the Access to Information Act, which currently reads:

This Act does not apply to any information that is under the control of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that relates to its journalistic, creative or programming activities, other than information that relates to its general administration.

Not surprisingly, the CBC took the position that it had an absolute exclusion with respect to its journalistic, creative and programming activities, even so far as the Information Commissioner and her investigative powers were concerned.

The Information Commissioner disagreed, stating that the access act allows her to examine any documents under request to determine if the exception applies.

However, as the CBC denied her certain documents, the Federal Court was called upon to make a determination. Both the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal sided with the Information Commissioner. The appellate court referred to section 68.1 as, “not a model of clarity”, because it created an exclusion and then an exception to that exclusion, which, in its words, creates “a recipe for controversy”.

Meanwhile, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access, Privacy and Ethics held a study on section 68.1 and recommended that it be amended to avoid any such future controversies. Therefore, Bill C-461 attempts to provide clarity to the issue of the CBC's access and disclosure obligations by replacing the aforementioned blanket exclusion with a discretionary exemption. It further adds an injury or prejudice test, which must be satisfied in order for the exemption to apply, and reaffirms the Information Commissioner's absolute right to examine the documents in order to adjudicate disputes.

Accordingly, the bill proposes that section 68.1 of the access act be replaced with the following, 18.2, which states:

The head of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act if the disclos2ould reasonably be expected to prejudice the Corporation’s journalistic, creative or programming independence.

The word “independence” was deliberately chosen and replaces the current word “activities”, first because it is narrower, but more to the point, because it is the independence of the public broadcaster that must be protected and therefore exempted from access requests, not all documents merely relating to its activities.

Some will no doubt argue that the bill is an attack on the CBC. That is not so. I am a fan of much of what the CBC does. It is Tuesday night, and I rarely miss The Rick Mercer Report or This Hour Has 22 Minutes. I never miss Hockey Night in Canada, at least not when the Oilers are playing. Power & Politics and radio's The House are often on my TV and radio respectively.

This legislation is not about the CBC so much as it is about transparency and accountability. Section 68.1 of the Access to Information Act was flawed. The Federal Court of Appeal said so. It was flawed, misunderstood and litigated. This legislation attempts to remedy these defects.

Some may suggest that the bill fails to properly recognize the unique position a public broadcaster is in. That is not so. I clearly appreciate and respect that a public broadcaster, especially as a journalistic entity, must enjoy a degree of independence from government.

However, and this is important, the Information Commissioner is not part of government. The Information Commissioner is an officer of Parliament. Similar to our collective role in this chamber, the Information Commissioner plays an important role in holding the government to account.

Moreover, the prejudice test, which is established under proposed section 18.2, recognizes this unique relationship between a public broadcaster, Parliament and government by providing a discretionary exemption when it is established that disclosure will result in prejudice to the CBC's independence. In any situation where disclosure would result in prejudice to the CBC, disclosure would be inappropriate. I submit that the prejudice test is a built-in protection not enjoyed by most government institutions, and this extra protection reflects an understanding of CBC's unique position as a public broadcaster.

Some may, and I expect will, argue that journalistic source protection is so sacrosanct that an absolute exclusion must be maintained. Not so. I agree that confidential journalistic sources must be protected, but I dispute that an exclusion is either appropriate or practicable.

First, the Information Commissioner has unlimited power under section 36(1) of the Access to Information Act, to compel production of “such documents and things as the [Information] Commissioner deems requisite to the full investigation and consideration of the complaint”. I am simply skeptical that an exclusion can be drafted that can coexist with the Information Commissioner's unfettered powers to compel documentation production under section 36.

Moreover, journalistic source privilege is not absolute. The Supreme Court of Canada has said so as recently as 2010 in R. v. National Post. It is not a class privilege; it is fact specific and therefore must be examined on a case by case basis. Who is to determine if the four-pronged test developed by esteemed Professor Wigmore is satisfied, if the CBC is granted an absolute exclusion? The obvious answer is “nobody”.

Is CBC to be made both judge and party in access to information requests? Certainly not. Disputes must be arbitrated by an independent watchdog and the federal court has said, “disclosing records to the Commissioner does not amount to revealing them”.

This bill would contain parallel amendments to the Privacy Act to import the prejudice tests when individuals request documents about themselves pursuant to Canada's privacy statute.

However, the CBC and public service disclosure and transparency act would make a more substantive alteration to the Privacy Act. It would move the words “range of” before the word “salary” in the definition of exempt personal information for the highest wage earners in the federal public service. Currently, under Canada's privacy laws, only the range of salary can be disclosed pursuant to access requests, which I submit is adequate for most income levels. However, at the highest income levels, the increments become increasingly large as to become meaningless. For example, I have been advised that the current CEO of the CBC earns in the range of $363,800 to $428,000. According to my math, that range of $64,200 is larger than many taxpayers' complete salaries and arguably therefore is not meaningful disclosure.

Accordingly, if Bill C-461 is adopted, the specific salaries and responsibilities of upper management, which this bill would define as “DM 1 and higher”, would be subject to access to information requests. This is important. This change would apply to the entire federal public service. CBC would in no way be singled out. Moreover, reimbursed expenses to all federal employees would also become subject to access requests.

I have consulted widely during the drafting phase of this proposed legislation. I believe, and I believe Canadians believe, that they are entitled to meaningful access to how the Government of Canada spends dollars and how the government operates generally. However, Canadians, including federal employees, are also entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Balancing these competing objectives is indeed a challenge and precarious.

However, it is submitted that an injury base test achieves that balance at least as well as that balance can be achieved regarding CBC's disclosure obligations, as it requires a public interest analysis. The question becomes this. Is the public interest in disclosure greater than any consequential harm? Limiting specific salary disclosures to upper management recognizes the privacy rights of the rank and file public servants.

Taxpayers rightfully are entitled to know how their tax dollars are being spent. In that regard, many provinces have established the so-called sunshine lists, which are publicly disclosed lists shining the sun on salaries, perks and benefits paid to government executives, directors and managers. Members may know that Ontario led the way with respect to such financial disclosure. The Ontario government introduced legislation in 1996 mandating the publication of names and salaries of all of its employees and officers who earn more than $100,000 per year.

The purpose of the Ontario law is to provide a more open and accountable system of government. Disclosure allows taxpayers to compare the performance of an organization to the compensation given to its senior people running it. It allows taxpayers to know how their tax dollars are spent.

British Columbia, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have all copied aspects of the Ontario legislation, with reporting requirements varying and going as low as employees earning $50,000 in the case of Manitoba.

My bill does not call for a website, but by mandating or at least allowing disclosure pursuant to access requests, the public will serve as a critical check on government expenditures and an effective deterrent to any government official tempted to treat taxpayers disrespectfully.

This approach, I would submit, is consistent with the purpose of the access legislation generally, as enumerated in the act, that there is a right of access generally to records under the control of a government institution, and that necessary exceptions should be limited and should be specific, and that decisions on the disclosure of the government information should be reviewed independently of government.

As an officer of Parliament, the Information Commissioner is independent of government and therefore in the best position to resolve the inevitable disputes regarding access to government information.

Canada has had access to information legislation in force since 1983. Canada was once a leader in providing access to government information and documents, but sadly, according to academics and according to the Information Commissioner, we are becoming laggards. Internationally, Canada is currently ranked 55th out of 93 countries in terms of our access and our openness.

Moreover, the Centre for Law and Democracy says the federal government is falling behind the provinces and ranking behind those provinces in terms of openness and transparency.

As we have seen, Ontario is arguably leading the way with the most comprehensive sunshine list. British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nova Scotia are all following suit and have implemented some variation of salary disclosure.

Sadly, and this should be of concern to this chamber, the federal jurisdiction is falling behind. Since its inception 30 years ago, there has been only marginal expansion of Canada's access law. In December 2003, the then-prime minister announced a new policy on the mandating of publication of travel and hospitality expenses for selected government officials. Then in March 2004, the then-government announced a new policy on the mandated publication, on a website, of contracts over $10,000. In my view, sadly, very little has happened since then.

Accordingly, the Information Commissioner—and I heard her on CBC Radio; I was listening to her on Sunday morning—observes a lack of commitment to openness and transparency at the federal level. Bill C-461, the CBC and public service disclosure and transparency act, is an initiative by Parliament to remedy this trend. The spirit of the act is based upon the principle of disclosure. Non-disclosure must be the exception. Bill C-461 clearly promotes this principle.

The CBC and public service disclosure and transparency act promotes open and transparent government and its role in holding government to account. Exclusion to government information prevents Canadians from holding their government to account. I believe, and I hope all members believe, that holding government to account is fundamental to democracy.

Although freedom to know is not a charter-protected right, freedom to know is inextricably linked to freedom of thought and expression and freedom of the press. Knowledge is power, and holding the government to account demands that knowledge and information be shared. Holding to account leads to the establishment of trust, trust that there is proper stewardship of public resources.

Opaqueness leads to mistrust. Accordingly, any attempt to weaken this bill and its attempt to increase access to information and transparency will be so regarded. As U.S. Supreme Court Judge Louis Brandeis said, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Canadians deserve to have light shone on government information. Accordingly, I encourage all hon. members to support Bill C-461, the CBC and public service disclosure and transparency act, without amendment.

CBC and Public Service Disclosure and Transparency ActPrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am amazed by the kind of words we are hearing. We heard “transparency”, “sunlight” and “best disinfectant”. How lovely.

The Conservatives can hide under the veil of transparency all they want, but this bill is clearly obsolete and comes at a time when the crisis is over. The CBC received an A rating not too long ago. This same member said in 2011 that he did not see why Canada needed a public broadcaster.

It is all well and good to praise Rick Mercer, but why is this coming at a time when the CBC just received an A rating from the commissioner?

CBC and Public Service Disclosure and Transparency ActPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question, but he should read the Information Commissioner's report card a little more carefully. The A was given for timeliness and that only. She did not give the CBC an A for the breadth of its transparency or what it had disclosed. Admittedly, the CBC is now quicker in its response time, but that is a much different category of disclosure than the breadth of disclosure.

CBC and Public Service Disclosure and Transparency ActPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the principle of transparency and appreciate where the member is coming from in his private member's bill to shine some light on this, but I do have some very specific questions.

The member talks about clarification. What the Federal Court of Appeal said was that the Information Commissioner embodies the decision to be made on whether CBC exemptions can be had. However, by introducing this injury or prejudice test, if the Information Commissioner feels it should be exempt, there are ways of going around this. A wealthy corporation could still take the CBC to court. Therefore, the CBC could end up in court beyond what the Information Commissioner said.

Am I reading this correctly? Perhaps the hon. member could shed some light on this. What he has done here is to allow many external factors to come into play, such that CBC could be brought to court time and time again to defend these three pillars when the commissioner may have said it should be exempt.

CBC and Public Service Disclosure and Transparency ActPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the Information Commissioner appeared before the ethics committee and advocated on behalf of a prejudice test, almost word for word as the legislation before the House indeed contemplates. However, the member is quite right in that there is no way to absolutely guarantee that a piece of legislation will be judgment-proof or litigation-proof.

Thankfully, we do have the courts that can review decisions of government if they feel those decisions are wrong. However, if this is the member's concern, I would suggest that if the prejudice test is properly applied by the Information Commissioner, the chances of having a decision overturned are very remote and, in fact, probably non-existent, although nothing prevents someone from taking that to the Federal Court

CBC and Public Service Disclosure and Transparency ActPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics and am quite surprised by the line of questioning from across the way, because the committee reached a non-partisan, consensus recommendation. There was only one major recommendation in the report, which called on the government to amend section 68.1 because of the lack of clarity on journalistic clarity and so on, as indicated by virtually everyone who testified before committee. The recommendation is to study models in other countries and how those countries have got around this. I would ask my colleague what research led to his proposed changes.

CBC and Public Service Disclosure and Transparency ActPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member will know, as he sat on that committee, that when the Information Commissioner appeared at committee she referred to international models, specifically how the United Kingdom deals with disclosure pursuant to the British Broadcasting Corporation. That is how she came up with the concept of the prejudice test, which I think will work quite well.

CBC and Public Service Disclosure and Transparency ActPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but think of the French-speaking community in my colleague's riding, which relies heavily on Radio-Canada. I wonder whether they were consulted.

I rise in the House today to condemn what can only be seen, despite a devious facade, as an attack against public broadcasting and programming. It is an attack against the work CBC journalists do, against free, politically independent journalism.

I respectfully ask my colleagues to resist the lure of the bill's misleading title. It is a sham. This bill is not about transparency. Its real goal is a long-standing, political goal: to undermine the CBC and public broadcasting in our country. Yet that tradition is at the very heart of our culture.

In fact, the bill really is about the government's Reform roots and their unrelenting attacks on the CBC. It is about a pathological anger against public radio and TV that has obsessed and tormented some people for 25 or 30 years. It is about an unhealthy obsession with the CBC, although that affliction is very rare among the people I meet on the street.

Just admit it. The truth is that no one in the House dislikes or even detests the CBC as much as the members opposite. I am tempted to tell them to get over it. Their problem is that they are going it alone with this personal mini crusade. They do not have the support of the 78% of Canadians who, according to an Angus Reid poll, believe that the CBC fulfills its mandate, or of the 59% of us who would like the CBC's funding to be at least maintained or perhaps increased.

Our colleague from Edmonton—St. Albert is up against an overwhelming majority of Canadians who oppose the destruction of the CBC. Therefore, I will say to that MP, who has an axe to grind, that he is quite alone.

I believe that this bill does absolutely nothing for transparency. This bill is coming out of left field today. The CBC is known as a model of transparency and access to information.

With regard to transparency, it received an A in 2012. I am not the one saying so. The Information Commissioner ranked the CBC among the best public organizations for transparency. According to her report, it sets an excellent example.

At this time, anyone can ask for internal CBC information about expenditures in various areas.

If the CBC refuses the request, which happens in 4.2% of the cases, the person can refer the matter to the Information Commissioner, who determines if the information request pertains to sensitive matters such as the work of journalists, who must protect their sources.

That is the current system. It is a system of exemptions based on the international standard for information requests that gives the Information Commissioner the right to examine information that the CBC wants to protect. It is a system that works, that was voted on in the House in 2006, that we supported at the time, that was enhanced by the federal court and that was approved by all stakeholders. The Information Commissioner is satisfied, the CBC is satisfied, everyone is satisfied, except for those who are just entering the debate. We suspect that the Conservatives are actually not very interested in the real issue of transparency. That is another excuse, another opportunity to weaken the CBC's presence.

We have reason to worry about the work of journalists and the protection of their sources. Currently, the CBC is protected, excluded from disclosing information about its journalistic, programming or creative activities. This same system is in place for public broadcasters in other parts of the world such as Ireland, Australia and the BBC in Great Britain.

This protection is based on an international standard and allows the CBC to carry out its public mandate by being a competitive player in the media environment, in a way that is transparent to taxpayers. Above all, it is a way of ensuring that journalists' work will not be compromised or the confidentiality of their sources questioned.

Bill C-461 proposes that we dismantle this system that was created by Parliament and clarified by the courts. It proposes that the exclusion should become an exception so that the CBC would have to prove that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the corporation’s journalistic, creative or programming independence.

One has to wonder who will benefit from this bill. Certainly not the public, given that virtually all access to information requests made to the CBC come from its competitors.

This is a bill that is tailor-made to benefit the CBC's competition. And that competition is cozy with the Conservative Party, so cozy that a person can move easily from the Prime Minister's Office to the vice-presidency of the private network that is the most maliciously and exceedingly critical of the CBC. And that is not just by chance.

This bill sets out to expose the CBC to its competition in order to weaken it and eventually eliminate it.

In terms of protecting sources—and this is even worse—the CBC will have to argue why journalistic research, including confidential sources that allow employees to do investigative work, should not be made public. Generally speaking, that is a given.

Once again, it has to be “reasonably” proven, and I want to emphasize “reasonably”, that the journalistic process will be affected. The Supreme Court spoke about the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of the journalist's source and “the high societal interest in investigative journalism”.

Do not forget that Reporters Without Borders recently dropped Canada from 10th to 20th place in its annual press freedom index. That is not something this government can be proud of. Reporters Without Borders noted the continuing threats to the confidentiality of journalists’ sources as the reason for the downgrade.

Another aspect of the bill before us is the amendment of the Access to Information Act so that the salaries of some government employees can be subject to access to information requests. There is something fishy going on here too. To be quite honest, it is actually more of a whale of a problem. The vocabulary used in the bill seems to be tailored so that our colleague's insatiable curiosity, about some CBC celebrities, including Peter Mansbridge and Rick Mercer, which he mentioned earlier, can be satisfied.

In the past, the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert even took the time here in the House to ask about their salaries in particular. The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber saw first-hand that, when we ask exactly the same question about the salaries of the little army of goblins working for the Prime Minister's Office in the Langevin Block, we do not get an answer. What a surprise. Oddly enough, that is how it usually works.

Since the Conservatives want to talk about transparency, let us talk about it. While the CBC received an A for its transparency, last year, the Information Commissioner gave the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Transport Canada an F.

Does the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert have a position on this issue? Does he want to share his concerns with us or would he prefer to focus only on the CBC? Does that suit him?

The Information Commissioner must now go before the Federal Court to call to order the Department of National Defence, which has been asking for extensions for responding to access to information requests for over three years.

The Conservatives are being totally outdone by the CBC when it comes to public transparency rankings; yet, they are finding a way to attack it.

That would give Sigmund Freud something to analyze. It is odd.

The day before yesterday, on CBC, the Information Commissioner said that the current Conservative government is not one of the most transparent—this understatement was indicative of her duty of deference—and that the response rate for access to information requests had reached record lows.

She said that Canadians should be outraged. This is where we have a problem. In 2006, the Conservative Party took office under the banner of accountability. Now there is a tale to remember. Their focus on accountability was, hon. members will remember, in direct response to the sponsorship scandals. It is strange to think about the word “accountability” today.

We just celebrated the seventh anniversary of this government. Today, after seven years, we can honestly say that this government is the least transparent and has caused the most scandals in Canadian history.

The member for Edmonton—St. Albert belongs to a government that preaches transparency, that expects it from everyone but itself. From its seat in Ottawa, the government spends billions of dollars on a whim and then demands accountability from aboriginal communities, labour associations, anyone but itself.

Today it has set its sights on the CBC, which it surely finds inconvenient. Transparency is a piece of cake when it is demanded of others. Transparency is increasingly being used as a way to launch stealth attacks against the right's targets of choice; this needs to stop.

We demand transparency. The NDP demands transparency right here, right now. After seven years, it is about time the government itself showed some transparency.

All of this brings us to the realization that the bill we have before us has more to do with the disgust that some feel for public radio and television than with a sincere ethical concern. This is but another salvo in what the Canadian Media Guild has dubbed “a dirty war against the CBC”.

I recently began personally measuring people's attachment to their public broadcaster. On January 23, at the Lion d'Or, in Montreal, individuals and creators from all walks of life gathered to attest to the cultural importance of the CBC.

After some consideration, I have come to realize that the things that members across the way have been saying about the CBC represent a marginal opinion and quite simply contradict the mainstream impression of our public broadcaster; what is more, it seems their arguments mostly do not hold water.

The majority of Canadians who, like us, are in favour of an independent public broadcaster free of political leanings have no doubts as to what is going on tonight. This majority wants our public broadcaster to stay independent and transparent and keep reflecting our national creativity.

CBC and Public Service Disclosure and Transparency ActPrivate Members' Business

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill today, calling for more accountability and transparency at the CBC. We will try to keep it to the facts and try to look at the bill on the surface of what it is trying to accomplish.

I do not see it as the bogeyman the NDP points it out to be, but we have to make sure there are protections in there for the CBC, and I will get to that in a moment.

First, we should give credit where credit is due. I give credit to the CBC on the information it has provided. The Information Commissioner has recently given it an A for performance, an upgrade from an F.

Granted, that is on the timing of requests, because quite often we see the government dragging its heels on a lot of information requests. Canada Post Corporation is another example, and the Department of National Defence. The government needs to do better on getting the information out there.

The bill is a result of the legal battle around section 68.1. We did study it at our committee, and changes are needed to bring a little more clarity to section 68.1 so that we do not run into this in the future.

Granted, there may be changes made to section 68.1. That does not preclude it from being challenged in a court of law and information being challenged in the courts, but we have to make sure that some fundamental principles behind that remain.

That is the role of the Information Commissioner. We must ensure that the Information Commissioner has the power to investigate this. Both parties must submit the information before her. We have to make sure she has the power she needs to look at the information and decide on what can be released. I would like to ask the Information Commissioner, when she comes before committee with the bill, about the prejudice test and how exactly that prejudice test would work and what could be some of the pitfalls around that.

We support CBC. We like the programming and the journalistic investigations it does, but we have to make sure as well that it is protected. The journalism, programming and creative activities must be protected for all.

More important, journalistic sources have to be protected. That was referred to a little earlier in the debate. We have to ensure that these sources are protected, because it is fundamental, when it comes to journalism, that these sources be protected.

The second part of the bill, which is an interesting part, is about the salary ranges and salaries in government departments.

If the CBC wanted to protect the salary of a personality or someone in the department, it would have to go to the Information Commissioner and try to have that information protected, because it bases on its programming integrity, its commercial value. With regard to looking at the salaries at the CBC, the Information Commissioner would rule in favour of the CBC and protect those salaries from disclosure for commercial value. We have to make sure that is looked at when we look at the bill at committee.

The other part of the bill is releasing salaries of all people higher than DM1, which is very interesting, because the government, and in particular the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office, has not been forthcoming with salaries of people in the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office. The bill does open up those offices, as well, for disclosure of the salary of anybody earning more than a deputy minister's salary.

A deputy minister's salary, just so the public out there would know, is probably somewhere in the range of $160,000 to $180,000, so these are fairly highly paid public servants. It is important that these public servants' salaries be made public. That is one thing the bill would do.

As I said earlier, the government has fallen behind in disclosing such information, and we must hold it to account so it does a better job of it. Once we shine light and open up public disclosure in an access to information request, it does keep things honest.

One thing that I have learned in politics is that as much as there might be secrets, it is hard to keep a secret. We have to ensure this information is available. If an individual requests it, we have to ensure he or she can get access to this information. The government must strive to do a better job of providing that information and to be more open and accountable. It helps the opposition and everyone to hold people to account.

I look forward to this bill going to committee, where more questions can be asked to get clarification and to ensure that the CBC is protected in certain circumstances and to open up transparency in other circumstances.

CBC and Public Service Disclosure and Transparency ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Delta—Richmond East B.C.

Conservative

Kerry-Lynne Findlay ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to speak for a few minutes to Bill C-461, the CBC and public service disclosure and transparency act.

I would first like to thank the member for Edmonton—St. Albert for his efforts to bring a higher level of openness and accountability to the CBC. Bill C-461 also proposes to bring more openness in relation to the expenditure of public funds. These involve the disclosure of reimbursed expenses to government employees and of the exact salaries of the highest-earning officers or employees of government institutions.

Before dealing with the changes that Bill C-461 proposes in relation to reimbursed expenses and the exact salaries of the highest-earning officers or employees of government institutions, let me first describe in some detail the changes it proposes to make that will affect the CBC.

Currently, the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act do not apply to records of the CBC that contain information that relates to its journalistic, creative or programming activities. This means Canadian citizens do not have a right of access to this information.

If Bill C-461 passes as is, the CBC would be fully subject to the Access to Information Act. By this I mean that all CBC's information could be requested under the Access to Information Act. However, the CBC would be able to protect information that, if disclosed, could cause harm to its journalistic, creative and programming independence. Bill C-461's proposal regarding the CBC is based on the Information Commissioner's recommendation made before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. My colleagues may remember that back in 2011 that committee conducted a study of how the CBC handled its access to information requests and issued a report in March 2012.

I would now like to focus on one area that I believe the House should consider when reviewing this legislation.

One of the pillars of journalism is the ability to protect confidential journalistic sources. Individuals can therefore feel comfortable enough to approach journalists and give them information without fear that their identities will be disclosed and, correspondingly, news agencies are able to provide assurance of anonymity. For an individual who is a confidential journalistic source, any notion that information that could reveal their identity would be released or reviewed could put the CBC at a distinct disadvantage in relation to its private sector competitors. Accordingly the House may wish to consider the way in which Bill C-461 treats information that would reveal the identity of confidential journalistic sources of the CBC.

Back in 2011, the Federal Court of Appeal dealt with a dispute between the CBC and the Information Commissioner on how the CBC was handling its requests under the Access to Information Act. When considering the provision that currently excludes records of the CBC, the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that for journalistic sources the exclusion was absolute and that the Information Commissioner therefore did not have the power to examine such information. Both the Information Commissioner and the CBC expressed satisfaction with the outcome of that decision. Accordingly the House may wish to consider the court's findings on this matter as it continues its review of Bill C-461.

Let me turn now to the part of Bill C-461 that deals with increasing openness and accountability in relation to certain government expenditures. Hard-working Canadians pay their fair share of taxes. I think all parliamentarians in the chamber would agree that they deserve to know that their money is spent by the government prudently and that there be transparency in its expenditure.

Bill C-461 proposes to amend the Privacy Act to shine the light on how certain government spending is conducted. Bill C-461 proposes to do this in two areas.

The Privacy Act governs the disclosure of personal information by government institutions. At the same time, there are certain types of personal information that can be disclosed to an access requester under the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act.

Also, a government institution can disclose these types of personal information whenever it chooses to do so. Information that relates to the position or function of an officer or employee of a government institution falls into that category of information and can therefore be disclosed. Currently, examples of job-related information listed in the Privacy Act that can be disclosed are the position occupied by the employee, opinions given by the employee in the course of employment and the salary range of the position. Bill C-461 proposes to make two additions to the list of personal information that can be disclosed under the Privacy Act or Access to Information Act.

The first would be the exact salary of officers or employees of government institutions who earn the highest salaries paid by government. It is important to note that the change proposed by Bill C-461 will not affect the majority of public servants. Most people employed by the government are not in the top ranks of the public service. For these employees it will remain true that only their salary range and their job classification can be disclosed. It is only those who are in the highest ranks who would be affected by the change proposed in Bill C-461. The House may wish to consider which level of government employees should be covered by the bill.

Second, Bill C-461 proposes to amend the Privacy Act to specifically list expenses incurred by employees in the course of their work for which they are reimbursed, as types of personal information that can be disclosed under the Access to Information Act or Privacy Act.

In conclusion, I would again like to thank the member for Edmonton—St. Albert for bringing forward the legislation and allowing Parliament the opportunity to discuss this issue. Again, I would encourage members to consider the various issues I have raised and I look forward to the continued debate on the bill.

CBC and Public Service Disclosure and Transparency ActPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

NDP

Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to debate this matter in the House today. At the same time, I am very disappointed that we are having the same debate once again.

In 2011, we debated the same subject, transparency for the public. The NDP supports the concept of disclosure, of making things public. However, many of my colleagues and I feel that the members are trying to bring in by the back door what they were unable to bring in through the front door. This discussion only seeks to discredit the CBC.

This all started when someone asked why we need a public broadcaster. Now we have a bill that opens the door to very sensitive information. I am not referring to the salaries; I am referring to the second part, which concerns information that is made public and that the CBC's competitors can use against it.

It is very easy to look at an expense report to see who is meeting with whom and, through that, decide or figure out what kind of programming is going on. My mother has always said, “When you're looking at an issue, consider the source”. The private members' bill comes from a group of people where, and I will quote from the Hill Times, one Conservative MP has acknowledged that his party's members and the government will be “breathing a sigh of relief” when Kevin Page's term ends in March.

To answer the member's question, it has to do with the fact that we have a group of people, we have the government and backbenchers, demanding transparency from all sorts of organizations, while they refuse to be transparent. To the same subject, in 2011, I put forward a question on the order paper, asking for the disclosure of the salaries of the PMO and was met with a resounding thud of silence. Therefore, considering where this comes from, it is not hard to doubt, for lack of a better way of putting it, the motivations of the private member's bill. The type of transparency that the member is looking for, as I said, is the type of transparency that can damage the work that CBC does, both in journalism and its programming.

This same member, as my colleague pointed out, asked why we needed a public broadcaster. I have heard it said time and again: Why do we need a public broadcaster if there are corporate organizations that can do it just as well or better? To that point, I will say that is a possibility. It is a possibility that they would be able to do it better because they have access to more resources to hire the best directors, to hire the best producers.

However, based on my 25 years of experience working in this industry, the fact is that corporate broadcasters do not want to do it. They do not want to create shows that speak to Canadians, created by Canadians, for Canadians. Who else is going to create shows that from coast to coast to coast engage Canadians, in a Canadian voice, for Canadians? Nobody, because there is no money in it.

For example, in 2007, the broadcasters crowed about how much money they spent on American programming. It was over $750 million. In that same period of time, they spent just over $50 million on Canadian programming. That includes the magazine shows, the sports shows and so forth, but no creative programming.

For the last 75 years, the CBC has created programming that Canadians have enjoyed from coast to coast to coast, because they have seen themselves in those shows. They have seen and heard themselves nationally, and internationally with Radio Canada International.

From my perspective, this private member's bill is redundant, because there are already laws that require disclosure. CBC, to its credit, went to great lengths to open up and become better at disclosing information. In less than a year, it went from an F to an A. The hon. member says that going from an F to an A was only for time. Time was part of that, but so was disclosure. It disclosed all it was obliged to disclose and fought those issues it felt were damaging to its ability to do the work.

I must underline that the vast majority of the access to information requests, which were some 1,400 during this period, came from one source: a competitor. It saddens me that the government continues to do the work of a competitor in this environment when it claims it wants a level playing field. If it is to be a level playing field, then let it be a level playing field.

It is clear that there are certain members of the government and/or the backbenches who have a continued dislike for the CBC and are looking for ways to de-fund the CBC. From my perspective, it makes me suspect the motivation for the bill. I say “suspect”. Maybe the member has good intentions. However, if the bill is supposed to shine a light on all government activities, why is it directed at the CBC?

In this context, why does this bill target the CBC?

If the bill has been, as my colleague said, created to shine a light, to make government spending transparent, then why is the bill not called a bill to demand more transparency from government and government institutions as opposed to targeting the CBC?

For that reason, I am suspicious of the motivations.

The CBC is an organization that is very important to Canadians.

For a small cabal of Conservatives who want to see the CBC destroyed, I think this is a very weak attempt to go through the back door to accomplish what they could not accomplish through the front door.

CBC and Public Service Disclosure and Transparency ActPrivate Members' Business

7:10 p.m.

South Shore—St. Margaret's Nova Scotia

Conservative

Gerald Keddy ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade

Mr. Speaker, I listened to some of this debate. It is always interesting to me how sometimes we in this place can take some pretty straightforward, basic information and turn it into something that really does not reflect that straightforward, basic information at all. Talk about patent nonsense, fearmongering and misleading information from the member who just stood up. It is beyond the realm. For the record, I think it is time for full disclosure.

I listen to CBC Radio and I watch CBC television. The hon. member may find that hard to believe. CBC does a pretty good job, but that certainly does not put it beyond the reach of transparency. What is wrong with openness and reasonable and responsible transparency not on personal, highly secretive information, not on giving some other company a corporate advantage, but reasonable and responsible transparency? I think that is really what the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert is talking about. If we cannot have that discussion in this place, then are we saying that we do not want transparency anywhere, that nobody, members of Parliament, members of the Senate, members of the RCMP, should ever have oversight in place? Are we saying that no one should ever be checked upon? We are talking about a multi-billion dollar crown corporation. Do we not want to have some openness and some transparency? Do we not want to let the full light of day shine upon certain aspects of how this corporation works? I really question where the hon. member is coming from.

Members on both sides of the chamber know that the Information Commissioner, for instance, is the independent entity that balances the legitimate interests of government in the protection of records and the public's right to know. It is a balancing situation. We just do not kick the doors in and say there is all the information. We take it piecemeal and we look at it, because there is proprietary information, there is information, quite frankly, that should remain private, but there is a lot of information that the public has a right to know.

We are going back to 1983 with the Access to Information Act. This act is three decades old. This is not something that just came through the mill. It is a guiding principle that government information should be available to the public and that any necessary exemptions to the right of access should be limited and specific.

How can the member say that this is some kind of a witch hunt against the CBC? What the opposition is saying about this legislation is incredibly misleading. The bill deals with the CBC, a multi-billion dollar crown corporation that Canadian taxpayers pay for and how access to information requests should be managed.

I will provide the House with a little content, a bit of history, about the corporation before I really discuss the fine details of Bill C-461.

CBC/Radio-Canada began well before the days of television. A lot of members in the NDP would remember those days when Canadian radios were severely lacking Canadian content and coast to coast coverage was not heard of let alone planned for. The CBC, as we know it today, really came into being in 1936 when the Canadian Broadcasting Act created the CBC as a crown corporation. The 1950s brought CBC into the world of television.

The CBC gains a significant amount of its revenue from advertising sales. However, it still receives nearly $1 billion a year from the government and the taxpayers of Canada and that is what separates it from broadcasters whose funding is solely from private sources.

I know that I will have to finish my remarks another time, but to turn now to the relationship between the CBC and the access to information regime, my colleagues will remember that in 2006 our government succeeded in delivering its first major piece of legislation. It was the Federal Accountability Act, which accomplished a number of important things. In short, what we are talking about here is simply reasonable, responsible accountability.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Foreign InvestmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand one more time to talk about the issue of the Canada–China investment treaty, or FIPA, and to again force the Conservatives to be accountable to Canadians about this deal.

FIPA is a deal that will be in force for 31 years once it is ratified by the government, which is any time now. I am going to break it down for the members opposite because they mislead all the time. It has a 15-year term. At the end of 15 years, either party can serve notice if it wants to cancel the agreement in the 16th year. If a party does so, all investments made under the first 15 years will continue to be bound by the terms of the FIPA for a further 15 years. That amounts to a 31-year deal at minimum.

This deal took 18 years to negotiate. What is in this deal? Here are some of the concerns that we have.

It contains a provision for secret tribunals where investors from either country can sue the other country for alleged violations of this deal. If that is the case, the country being sued can choose to hold those hearings in private, with the documents not being released to the public. That is the first time in Canadian history that any Canadian government has ever signed an international treaty allowing the other party to have tribunals held in private. If the investors are successful in suing Canada or vice versa, these are taxpayers' dollars at risk. It is a fundamental principle of the rule of law that all legal proceedings should be held in public. I cannot believe that in 2013 we even have to mention that concept. However, to the Conservative government apparently it is a novel concept.

Another provision of this agreement that is of concern is the clause allowing both countries to keep all existing non-conforming measures in place, while they agree not to bring in any further non-conforming measures in the future. What is a non-conforming measure? It is a law or rule or practice that discriminates against foreign investors. Why is this of concern? It is because China has many non-conforming measures as a command economy. Canada has very few non-conforming measures because we have been on a 25-year path of trade liberalization. Thus the government has signed a deal that lets China keep in perpetuity hundreds, perhaps thousands, of non-conforming measures that will discriminate against Canadian investors, while we have very few in reverse. What are these non-conforming measures? China is renowned for having rules that require Canadian or any investors to do local sourcing. They force partnerships with local Chinese firms. They force companies to pay fees, licences and all sorts of money under the table. These are the kinds of non-conforming measures that will affect Canadian investors, and Canada has virtually none. This is an unbalanced deal.

We are going to talk about debate. The government members have said that the opposition could have debated the motion, because the government tabled this in the House for 31 days. Here is the truth. An official opposition day motion permits us to have one day of debate and then a vote. The New Democrats tabled a motion at the trade committee where we could have put this agreement before the committee for multiple days of close examination and called stakeholders, like Canadian businesses and investors, provinces, trade experts and lawyers, so that we could get the input of the Canadian public. What did the Conservatives do? They shot it down. They said no. Therefore, when the Conservatives say they were willing to debate this deal, Canadians should not be fooled. That is absolutely untrue.

My question for the government is this. If this FIPA is such a good deal for Canadians, why will the Conservatives not agree to bring this agreement before the House for multiple days of study, send it to the trade committee where we can hear from the Canadian public, and let us see if this is actually a deal worth supporting?

Foreign InvestmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

South Shore—St. Margaret's Nova Scotia

Conservative

Gerald Keddy ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade

Mr. Speaker, I have to admire the hon. member opposite for his persistence. He asked a question in the House on the FIPA with China, then he gets to ask a question in the late show. The question in the late show should try to correct the mistakes he made in the last question in the late show.

Let us go back to the 16 years. He was wrong on it in the last late show and he is wrong on it tonight.

Here is how it happens. There is a 15-year term. Absolutely, I totally agree. These investments can be extended for another 16 years to make 31 years, correct again, but only on those investments that have already occurred in that 15-year period. The FIPA is not extended for another 31 years. That is a clarification. Clarity does not hurt a thing. We are happy to have clarity.

Let us look at Canada's exporting, let us look at what runs this economy, and let us understand the importance of trading with the growing economies of the world, including China. The hon. member ignores a number of facts here. He ignores the fact that China, today, is the second-largest economy in the world. He ignores the fact that China holds probably the largest reserves of foreign currency in the world. We do not know that for certain, but it is right up there in the top two or three holders of foreign currency in the world.

Somehow or another, we should not trade with this economy that by 2030 will be the largest economy on earth. Have we lost our minds in this country? Do we not understand that the Pacific Rim countries are the economy of the future? Canada needs to participate in that economy. We need to be part of it, along with the European Union, along with the trading partners that we already have. We have to have fair and balanced trade, and with the FIPA, we need to protect Canadian investment that already exists in China. It is not about trading just tomorrow. It is about protecting investment that is already in place, and those companies and the work they are going to continue to do in China. This is a very important and significant relationship.

We are moving forward. We are moving forward with a very ambitious pro-trade plan. We understand the huge market in Asia, not just in China but in Indonesia, Vietnam, Korea and India. There are tremendous opportunities for Canadians.

Let us look at our Canadian foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with China. It will provide stronger protection for Canadians investing in China. It establishes a clear set of rules under which investments are made and under which investment disputes are resolved. Canadian businesses looking to set up in China cannot be treated less favourably than any other foreign company looking to do the same.

The foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, or FIPA, also ensures that all investment disputes are resolved under international arbitration, ensuring that adjudications are independent and fair. Canadian investors in China will no longer have to rely on the Chinese legal system to have their disputes resolved. It is important to note that ours is the first bilateral investment agreement that China has signed that expressly includes language on the transparency of dispute settlement proceedings.

Fundamentally, this treaty is about protecting the interests of Canadians investing in one of the world's most dynamic and high-growth markets.

Foreign InvestmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Mr. Speaker, finally we have someone on the government side who acknowledges that this deal will govern investment for 31 years. It proves that even the government members are starting to read the agreement.

What we do not hear from the government is it responding to the actual substantive points we have raised. Conservatives do not stand up in the House and defend why they would sign a dispute resolution mechanism that allows a country to go and resolve legal issues in private. There is not a word. The Conservatives do not stand up and defend why they signed a lopsided deal that gives Chinese investors in this country far more protection and rights than Canadian investors have in China.

The New Democrats support protecting Canadian investors in China. We have never said otherwise. However, misrepresentation is the government's stock in trade, because it cannot deal with the facts. The facts are that we can sign an investment agreement with China, but it should conform to Canadians' expectations of the rule of law and protect Canadian investors.

I will ask again, why will the government not bring this deal before Parliament so that we can examine this deal to see if it is actually a well-structured deal? It sure does not look like it from this point of view.

Foreign InvestmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am still mulling over in my head how the NDP can protect and agree to protect Canadian investors in China but be against the FIPA. I have given that some consideration, and that box simply does not square.

Here is the deal in a nutshell. Before coming to government in 2006, we did not table treaties in the House of Commons. There was no opportunity for debate.

The hon. member said that he did not want to debate it there. He wanted to debate it somewhere else. The opportunity was here in the House of Commons to put the FIPA on the table and discuss it ad nauseam in the time the opposition has allotted every week. For 31 sitting days, the answer was a resounding no from the NDP, who did not want to look at it.

Foreign InvestmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

NDP

Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC

Mr. Speaker, today I am following up on a question I asked last October. Things were heating up last fall, especially with the Investment Canada Act.

The biggest transaction ever made under this act took place. The Nexen-CNOOC deal was worth a total of $15.1 billion. I raised a number of questions in the House on this and other transactions, such as the Petronas deal.

I requested this adjournment debate because I was struck by the lack of depth and seriousness in the government's response on October 26, 2012.

I would remind the House that the Investment Canada Act was introduced quite a few years ago, and the NDP has called for overhauls on a number of occasions.

In the case of the transactions we were talking about last fall, the process lacked transparency, predictability and consultation of Canadians. That raised a lot of questions.

I asked others for their thoughts so the government could not claim this was my own opinion. Other people raised the fact that the process is not transparent, and they have been concerned about seeing our industrial leaders disappear over the past few years.

We are talking about companies like Dofasco, Stelco, Inco, Falconbridge, Alcan and other Canadian companies; the sale of the assets of the bankrupt Nortel to various non-Canadian buyers; and most recently, a bid for another.

This has led many to express heightened concern that the Investment Canada Act lacks the necessary tools to protect Canada from a hollowing out of its corporate boardrooms amid fears that we will become a branch-plant economy without control of our own resources and economic destiny.

This is from an article in the Canadian Competition Law Review. I have other accounts to share, including this from the School of Public Policy:

Investment Review In Canada — We can do better. More transparency and public disclosure will make foreign investors confident the system is fair...

When will the government review the rules governing the Investment Canada Act, either here in Parliament or in the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, to ensure that there is a net benefit to Canadians?

Foreign InvestmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:30 p.m.

South Shore—St. Margaret's Nova Scotia

Conservative

Gerald Keddy ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade

Mr. Speaker, the question is a reasonable one, but of course the hon. member already knows that the Investment Canada Act is in place to make sure dealings with other countries, and investments in particular, do have a net benefit for Canadians. That is why we have an Investment Canada Act.

This is an Investment Canada Act question, but there is an undercurrent in the member's statement about trade protectionism and, quite frankly, some of the bad old days of NDP policy in which it is simply anti-trade on everything. Let us try to move beyond that type of rhetoric for a moment and look at specifics.

We said we were planning to form a government and we were going to look at exporting quality Canadian goods, services and expertise to the new fast-growing markets around the world. It is a key part of our government's plans for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians. I think the hon. member understands that. Our government is delivering on this commitment. We are engaged in the most ambitious pro-trade plan in Canada's history. In order to do that, we have to balance that with the Investment Canada Act so the two can work together for the betterment of all Canadians.

Today in Canada our exporters, and therefore our workers, have more access to markets than they ever had in the history of the country. We are committed to ensuring that the access is guaranteed and continued. Again, we talked about our foreign investment promotion protection agreement with China, the world's second largest economy. This agreement alone will provide stronger protection for Canadians investing in China. It will create jobs and economic growth here in Canada.

This agreement establishes a clear set of rules under which investments are made and under which investment disputes will be resolved, the same way that the Investment Canada Act provides rules for investment in Canada. The treaty is about protecting the interests of Canadians that ultimately will give Canadian investors in China the same types of rules, parameters and privileges that the Chinese investors already have, and have long had, in Canada.

Let me emphasize that this is a bilateral investment agreement that we sign with China. It establishes clear rules for investment. So let us move the NDP members away, because I think they truly are trying to move away from their anti-trade positions of the past, and the Investment Canada Act criticism is just a cover for some of those anti-trade criticisms. It is the party that has opposed our government's efforts to open up new markets for Canadian exporters. New Democrats have opposed trade on countless occasions. They have tried to shut down trade ever since the days of the auto pact, which they now say they support but we know they are on the record as not supporting. They opposed NAFTA, the world's greatest free trade success story. Millions of jobs have been created in Canada because of it. That is not all. They voted against trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, Israel and even Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, which are not exactly dictatorships.

The NDP views on trade are not limited to history.

I realize I am running out of time, but we have further trade negotiations coming with Korea, Japan and the European Union. We have more investment coming through the Canada Investment Act, so—

Foreign InvestmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:35 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, one minute.

Foreign InvestmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:35 p.m.

NDP

Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about negotiations. These are not negotiations. The government is rolling out the red carpet and letting itself get walked all over.

When we talk about negotiations, whether free trade negotiations or negotiations with investors interested in our natural resources or our businesses, this means putting certain conditions on the table in order to defend the interests of Canadians. That is the problem I have with this.

Of course, we fully understand that Canada needs foreign investments in order to be able to make economic progress. However, why is this government not putting conditions on the table to ensure, for instance, that head offices remain here for a certain length of time, that environmental laws will be respected and that value added jobs stay in Canada?

That is what it means to negotiate. It is important to do so transparently and honestly.