Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 4th, 2006

[Susan Cartwright]

The only thing I would like to add to that is that I think the government has been clear in putting together the Accountability Act as it is presented to you, and in the various elements in it that touch on a number of parts of the government—the legislature, the executive—it has identified areas in which change is, in its view, required in order to restore the confidence of Canadians in their public institutions.

I think the government has seen this bill as a cohesive whole to address a range of issues that it believes Canadians would like to see addressed. So to reinforce Mr. Wild's comment that the bill is presented as a cohesive whole, from a technical point of view there are interrelationships, but from a policy point of view there are linkages as well.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you.

There is one thing I'm most curious about. I've actually learned, in the previous government, what stopped the access to information movement. I know now exactly when it was nipped in the bud.

I'm curious if you can tell me--under oath, too--at what point the government dropped a bunch of the access to information reform elements of this act. Who put the brakes on, going from the complete access to information reform regime down to the stripped-down version that we have and hiving the rest off to the committee?

Who did that, when, and at what stage?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Just give me a minute.

Order.

If the witness is able to answer that, he can proceed with the answer. If not, then say you are unable to answer the question.

[Joe Wild]

I think there are two things I can say; part of it I cannot answer.

The part I can say is that the government has an access to information reform proposal that is in this Accountability Act. The other part of it is before another parliamentary committee for consideration. Nothing has necessarily been dropped in the sense that you still have fulsome access reform.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

When did you decide that it wouldn't go under Bill C-2 but would be put off to some other committee? And who told you to do that?

[Joe Wild]

I can't answer that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You know, Mr. Martin, the reason I'm pausing here is that, to use your words, these are technical people who are here before us. I wonder whether you know you're getting into an area of political questioning that might have been more appropriate towards the minister or a political person. These are technical people, and I don't know whether those are appropriate questions. You're getting into an area that makes me uncomfortable, quite frankly.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

What I'm not comfortable with is that his answer tells me there's more there than meets the eye. He said, “I can't tell you”. I would argue that he's under parliamentary privilege when he's a witness at this committee. He can tell us anything and be free of reprisal too. He enjoys the same privilege we do.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You can talk about that, but there has been a tradition in this place that I know of, that people in Mr. Wild's position and Ms. Cartwright's position don't get into those areas. So they're pleading the fifth amendment.

I'm asking you to rephrase your question. The questions that have been put forward, I think, should have been more appropriately put forward to the minister.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Could I ask, then, what was the rationale put to you for only having the seven additional crown corporations included and not all 246 crown agencies, institutions, and corporations?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The seven crown corporations are the last of the eight crown corporations fully owned by the government that are not under the Access to Information Act. There is one crown corporation that is not being brought under the Access to Information Act, and that's the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. The reason for that is that it is a body that requires provincial consent in order to be brought under the Access to Information Act due to a technical provision in the Canada Pension Plan Act, because it is governed with the provinces that participate in the Canada Pension Plan. Effectively, with Bill C-2, of the 46 crown corporations wholly owned by the government, you would have 45 of them under the Access to Information Act.

I'm afraid you're out of time.

Madam Guay.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question will be brief but very important, because it addresses some problems in Bill C-2.

I would like to start off by getting back to last session's Bill C-11. If the committee decided to have a safety net in place until we finish considering Bill C-2... In my opinion, in light of the time it takes to get other bills through the House, there is no way the consideration of C-2 will be finished before the month of June; that would be practically impossible. It is a very dense, very long bill which affects a number of departments. Several amendments will be brought forth by the various political parties. If we want to have a bill that makes sense and works, we're going to have to take the time to do it right. By having a safety net in the form of Bill C-11, we may be able to see the flaws in Bill C-2 and correct them even before we are done considering the bill.

My question is the following: we know that there currently is a Commissioner of Official Languages, and a commissioner of responsible for the protection of human rights. When someone wants to file a complaint, he or she may do so directly with these commissioners. In Bill C-2, a similar position would be created, except for the fact that complaints would be made through one's member of Parliament. The complaint would come to us and it would then be up to us, members of Parliament, to follow up with the commissioner.

Do you not see how that simply won't work? It will mean an incredible workload. I think this should be done directly with the commissioner, and not through the members.

[Joe Wild]

Again, from a technical perspective, what Bill C-2 does in setting up the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is provide an avenue for members of the public to make a complaint with respect to the Conflict of Interest Act and whether or not a public office-holder has violated the provisions of that act. The member of Parliament is integral to that process in that the member of the public would have to make the complaint to the member of Parliament, who then has to determine whether that complaint has been made in good faith and is reasonable. Then the MP would make that complaint to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That is the mechanism that has been chosen.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Members have a duty as members of Parliament, but they also have a political role. Each one of us has a political party, an ideology, ways of doing things. There could be some partisanship there, up to a certain point.

Under this bill, the member would have to assess the complaint and decide whether or not it should be sent to the commissioner, which according to me may infringe upon certain people's rights because, based on our political party or our allegiance, we will have to judge a complaint which may be of a political nature. It is a judgment call we may not be making correctly.

So, why not simply allow for complaints to be made directly to the officials, people who are supposed to be apolitical and in a position to truly assess a complaint and determine whether or not it is reasonable?

[Joe Wild]

The complaint mechanism doesn't require the public to go to a specific member of Parliament. They are free to choose whichever MP they wish. I'm sure they would be able to find one willing to bring a complaint against the other political party.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

That makes no sense.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Wild, I have a technical question to ask.

I would imagine you must have consulted other legislation in order to draft the Accountability Act. In the Province of Quebec, there is legislation that has been amended on two or three occasions since February, 1995. It is the Act respecting the Accountability of Deputy Ministers and Chief Executive Officers of Public Bodies and it was amended in 2000. That act seems to provide powers which are just as extensive, but there are fewer sections in it than in the act you are introducing today.

Could you tell us if you discussed the legal implications of their legislation with the province of Quebec? And I mean legally speaking, not from a political perspective.

[Joe Wild]

No. In drafting the accounting officer provisions, we did not have discussions with counsel for the Government of Quebec. Certainly in drafting the provisions, however, we looked at what is in the Quebec legislation, as well as in that of other countries.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

You did not speak directly with the Attorney General of the Province of Quebec, for instance? The legislation has been in existence since 1993 and we are in 2006. It was amended twice for technical reasons and to broaden the accountability of deputy ministers and heads of public agencies.

Did you enquire as to how things were done and how people reacted, before deciding to introduce Bill C-2?

[Joe Wild]

We did not have specific discussions with the procureur général du Québec. We certainly looked at the wording of their legislation. The primary sources we drew from were the United Kingdom, as well as Australia and New Zealand.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, you have some time.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back and explore a little further the questions I asked the minister about Information Commissioner Reid, who tabled a report in Parliament critical of this bill on a number of fronts.

The minister gave me three examples of where this legislation differed from the views of the Information Commissioner, and I want to know if there are more, and if so, why the differences? As an example, he explained that if the Information Commissioner wanted the CBC to reveal a source, this legislation would prevent it by upholding the current provisions regarding the media, which protect disclosing sources.

The second example was that if a complaint was laid by one bureaucrat against another under the whistle-blowing provisions of this act, and if the investigation found there was no basis for the complaint to have been raised, that information would not be given to the Information Commissioner.

What other specific examples did the Information Commissioner provide in his report that were critical of this legislation? Why were there any differences, and what was the rationale in your legislation?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Lukiwski, I'm going to give you the same warning as I gave Mr. Martin. I get very nervous with these types of questions. It may be an appropriate question, but I don't know whether it's an appropriate question for this witness. We'll see how he does.

You're getting into a--