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

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I think the proposals for a made-in-Canada approach that have deputy ministers and deputy heads accountable before Parliament for the statutory or regulatory powers they exercise is a significant initiative in addressing the challenge you just raised. I also think that strengthening internal audits will hopefully equip deputies with better information.

One of the challenges we have, and I think this certainly affects every parliamentary-style public service around the world, is that where some deputies have an extraordinary capacity in policy, others have an extraordinary capacity in management, and others have an extraordinary capacity in process, or in law or in communications, or have an operational background. It's a rare breed to get someone with all of the skill sets, as it is for a minister—and probably a lot more difficult for a minister.

Complementing the internal audit, we're looking at doing more training on things like delegated authorities and at strengthening internal capacity on the management side, which I think is important and will affect the long-term culture change.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

As you know, I was very frustrated. I don't believe the access to information provisions are adequate in this. I'm frustrated that they were pared down to seven officers of Parliament, seven crowns, three foundations.

Here's a quote from the current Prime Minister to the former Prime Minister in question period: “Why is the Prime Minister refusing to allow the Information Commissioner to examine all crown corporations, officers of Parliament, foundations and organizations that spend taxpayer money?”

The former Prime Minister, as we know, intervened when the justice minister was trying to push meaningful access to information reform. At the cabinet level they squashed it. Clearly the Liberals were not dedicated to ending the culture of secrecy as much as they would have you believe today.

The current Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition then, was challenging the existing Prime Minister regarding why he wouldn't allow it. It sounded like the current Prime Minister was committed to it, at least when he was the leader of the opposition. What's changed in the mindset of your--

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I think that as an initial step, when the current Prime Minister presents his first bill to Parliament, the bill will go farther than any government has in Canadian history to expand it to all agents of Parliament, the three big foundations, and the seven big crown corporations that weren't covered. That's welcome news.

Second, we put forward a draft discussion paper and the draft bill. When the Information Commissioner came forward to Parliament—I think it was in October of the last Parliament, and as you know I wasn't here—he said that he hadn't done a lot of consultation on his proposals and welcomed that from the committee. That's one thing.

Also, whenever you are expanding the act, there's a significant amount of due diligence that you have to do to recognize the different circumstances of those you bring in. One example is the CBC. Obviously it's unique, and we would all, I think, unanimously want to ensure that there's a 100% concrete guarantee to journalists that their journalistic sources would be protected, not for five years or twenty years, not at the whim of whoever the commissioner of the day is, but continuously.

When we put the election officer underneath, is it our intention to Americanize our system by having the ballots be subject to access to information? No. So there's a significant concern, as you bring in more organizations, that there's some due diligence and some work to do. We're working on a very tight timeframe. We didn't have the input that the Information Commissioner suggested. He also suggested that our proposals were radical and went farther than he even had asked for.

I'm a believer in access to information. We've talked about that. You know the commitment that I give to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Minister.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Saved by the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre and Mr. Lukiwski are going to share their time.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Minister, I'd like to ask some additional questions regarding comments from Mr. Sauvageau. He is asking for the government to proclaim the former Bill C-11. I recall why the decision was made not to proclaim the bill, because its flaws run right down to the DNA level, and they need to be corrected with amendment before they are set into place. The idea of affirming or setting in place a whistle-blower law that is flawed and then hoping that it can eventually mutate into something better is highly impractical and sets the stage for administrative disaster.

The principal difference at the quintessential level between Bill C-11 and the whistle-blower protections we are bringing in is that Bill C-11 was not a whistle-blower protection law; it was a mechanism for disclosure. It relied effectively on the executive branch of government to protect the whistle-blower and to punish the repriser or the bully.

We know the core principle of whistle-blower protection has to emanate from the independence of the process from the executive branch. That does not exist in Bill C-11. It does, however, exist in the Accountability Act. The Accountability Act will allow whistle-blowers to ultimately gain protection from judges. A tribunal will be put together when needed. Also, the consequences for punishing a repriser will also be put in the hands of independent judges. So those who believe in the independence of the judiciary would logically support that process.

Ultimately, is it your view that we ought to get it right from the very start on whistle-blower protection? That's the first question. Secondly, if the members of the opposition want whistle-blower protection swiftly, is it not also your view that they should move swiftly to pass the Accountability Act?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I think it's important. With respect to whistle-blowers, I think the real win will be if a process is not used. I think the real win will be if a public servant has the confidence to know that they can come forward with no fear of reprisal. That will be the real win.

We had a lot of discussion about Bill C-11. The institute did not want us to scrap it. That was the advice we got from Michèle Demers. So we didn't do that. There was a lot of discussion that we'd be better to just start from a clean slate and build a new regime. The PSAC had significant concerns about the integrity of the whistle-blowing measures.

Time didn't allow me to answer, but the good news is that we have a new government and we have a Parliament that I think is prepared to go farther than Bill C-11, and to strengthen it.

The measures we're proposing for whistle-blowers really are a home run for the public service. They send out a very serious message to any manager who would... they'll think twice before committing a reprisal. It's actually now a crime, and there will be significant adjudicative remediation for any circumstance where that goes on.

For the sake of clarity, the portions of this bill with respect to whistle-blowing are really not new issues for Parliament. In the 38th Parliament I think there was about a year or a year and a half of discussions on them. This, by and large, takes measures exactly from that committee process in strengthening it.

Even most of the union leaders would acknowledge that this is a pretty significant win. I can certainly commit to you, the member for Nepean—Carleton, that we will move expeditiously, when this bill passes, to get this new regime in place as quickly as possible to demonstrate that we're serious about protecting whistle-blowers and going after people who commit reprisals.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

A point of order, sir.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yesterday, we passed a motion that the Conservatives tabled, perhaps because of inexperience, according to which witnesses would have only 40 minutes to testify before us. Therefore, out of a concern for fairness towards the other witnesses, we will have to say goodbye to Mr. Baird and thank him for his presentation. I am certain that this was not the intention of the Conservatives when they tabled this motion. Now, they want to prolong Mr. Baird's time as well as that of the other witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It is a good point of order.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The 40 minutes has expired. We have a number of choices. We can change the rule, as we discussed yesterday, by unanimous consent to extend times. That's one interpretation.

Another interpretation is that I see three people back there; that's two more witnesses. However, as I said to Ms. Guay yesterday, I'm here to proceed with the will of the committee. If the committee wishes to proceed further with Mr. Baird, we will proceed further with Mr. Baird. We will need unanimous consent to do that.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

That's right. One of the things we did set into that motion was that we would allow, by unanimous consent, an extension of the time period allotted to a witness. I think that's a very good safety valve. If the member is asking for that unanimous consent, we would grant it.

How long do we want to extend it?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't know. It's up to you people.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Another round or two?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have a consensus to go into a....

We actually had a couple of minutes left for the Conservatives, so we could finish them off--I didn't mean it like that--and then we could go another round at five minutes each. Do I have a consensus for that? I don't see any opposition.

Mr. Lukiwski, you have two minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

I just want to pick up on a point that Mr. Martin was making on access to information. Current Information Commissioner John Reid was highly critical of the bill, as you well know, and actually tabled a report in Parliament. With the short amount of time we have left, I wonder if you could expand on why you believe the provisions for access to information in this bill are sufficient, and perhaps respond directly to some of Mr. Reid's comments and criticisms.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I've certainly taken the time to be with Mr. Reid to talk about his concerns. I think in many respects he thinks the existing blanket protections for certain sorts of information are sufficient and don't require new exemptions; the CBC is one example I raise. We certainly have agreed to work with him to hear any concerns he has, to look at what amendments might be brought forward to satisfy him.

I think in three areas there will not be agreement, at least with the government. One is a concrete, iron-clad guarantee for journalists that their sources are fully protected and not reviewable by him. Two, because we're going so far on the whistle-blower protections, I don't believe that if a charge is made against another public servant, if there's no basis in fact for it, in fact if it's false... that should not be made public; we should protect people's reputations and their careers. Third, we've accepted a recommendation from the accounting community, and I believe the Auditor General as well, in order to protect draft audit documents before the main audit report comes out. In some respects, deputy ministers would be able to request a draft copy of the Auditor General's report before she even goes to Parliament, as one example. Those are three areas where we have significant disagreements with him.

As for the rest of his concerns, I've said we're prepared to work with him and see if we can't satisfy his concerns. He obviously has a significant amount of expertise.

I do find it problematic, because one day he says we're going too far, we're radical, and the next he says the exact opposite.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We now go to the second round at five minutes each. It will be opposition, government, opposition.

Mr. Tonks.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to the minister. I'm sure the committee is unanimous in its appreciation for you being here today.

Chairman, would it be possible for the minister, through staff, to provide the committee with a management chart that would focus the role, under the legislation, of the deputy minister as accounting officer and the role of the deputy minister with respect to his or her relationship with the internal audit committee, and then the relationship of the internal audit committee to the Comptroller General and the Auditor General with respect to closing that accountability loop?

From the perspective of the government, what is the role of oversight through the respective committee that that deputy minister would be responsible to, through the minister?

I ask for that on behalf of the committee, Mr. Chairman, because I think Judge Gomery pointed out the systemic breakdown in the checks and balances, that we're really here to try to make sure there is transparency, accountability, and follow-through in decision-making. All of that was seriously flawed, as Mr. Cutler pointed out during the public accounts hearings.

I wonder if the minister might like to make a comment on that, and would it be possible to provide the committee with a management chart?

The second question is about this public accountability culture. I wonder if the minister could acquaint the committee with the $1,000 aspect of the proposed whistle-blower legislation. What was the government's thinking behind that, and does the minister think that that really will contribute substantively to a professional culture that we're all trying to inculcate in our own actions and in the actions of appointed public servants?

There are two questions, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

If I could just address your first question, that's probably the most astute question I've had on the bill since it was put forward. I think you've gone right to the heart of one of the big issues within the public service with respect to Justice Gomery's report and with respect to this bill. We'll do our best to get something to you and to the committee in writing on that issue, because I think you have taken a scalpel and gone right to the heart of it. It's a good question, and we'll provide that information for you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That would go to the clerk, Mr. Minister.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Certainly.

On the second issue, with respect to the culture of accountability, the reward for whistle-blowers, I'm going to concede to you, is a contentious issue among some. I think some would argue that it is very difficult for a whistle-blower to go back to work, just to face their colleagues if they've blown the whistle on something that might have involved a good number of people in the workplace. That's why some people have said it should be six or twelve months' worth of pay, so they can re-establish themselves in another environment. We didn't choose to go that far; we chose a rather modest reward, perhaps not dissimilar to Crime Stoppers, to reward people who have the courage to stand up and do what is right.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You still have some time.