Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Would Senator Downe take another question?

I will be quick. In paragraph (b) of your amendment, you propose to make public the salary of a certain number of people in comparison with the salary of a senator and not that of an MP. If you want the amendment to be accepted by the other place, perhaps you should include the salary of MPs as well.

My question is this. Does this not constitute a violation of privacy under the Privacy Act?

[English]

Senator Simons: Is it the most appropriate place? I would have to question that. I mean, it’s a very fine, granular thing to put in a regulatory framework that is supposed to be broad, general application. I don’t think the place to have this discussion needs to be in legislation. It can be clearly given as a ministerial directive or policy. Frankly, it’s something that the board of the CBC should be pressured to do. To put the micromanagement of the CBC’s pay salary into a broad regulatory framework that may have to last us for another 20 or 30 years is the wrong place for the right message.

Senator Downe: Actually, no, because as you know, senator, under the Privacy Act, anyone can waive the restrictions. The reason for this is we should not ask others for what we’re not prepared to do ourselves. In this case, our salaries are all disclosed, so it would be whatever the Senate salary is and above that for the CBC employees. It’s not a violation of the Privacy Act because we have all kinds of salaries released publicly across the government.

There’s a clear section in the Privacy Act where the person can waive. I can ask an ambassador, “Who did you have for lunch in Berlin last week?” They can say, “Under the Privacy Act, we are not disclosing,” but they can also waive that and disclose it. That’s the same here.