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

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I would like you to give me an answer which is of a legal nature rather than political in nature. I am fully aware of the fact that you cannot answer political questions.

Bill C-2 will amend 60 existing acts. If Bill C-11 were to be enacted, would it be complicated or feasible legally speaking to enforce Bill C-2 later on?

[Joe Wild]

The way Bill C-2 works vis-à-vis Bill C-11 is that Bill C-11 has received royal assent but has not been proclaimed in force. Bill C-2 amends Bill C-11. Assuming Bill C-2 is brought into force first, then Bill C-11 will come into force with those Bill C-2 amendments having been made to it.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

So we have to amend Bill C-11 either way, whether or not it is enacted. Thank you very much, you make me very happy.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It might be useful, Mr. Wild, if at some time you could give us a more precise estimate of the number. You said at least 60.

[Joe Wild]

If you want me to count them, I will.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, do that and send it to the clerk.

Monsieur Petit.

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

I'd like to ask Mr. Wild a question.

You have certainly read Bill C-2, which the committee is currently considering, as well as Bill C-11. It is correct to say that C-11 is not in effect. Something in Bill C-11 drew my attention. Whistleblowers get transferred within the public service in order to protect them from acts of retaliation. However, they would not be protected from acts of retaliation on the part of their unions.

If someone discloses the wrongdoings of a colleague who holds an important position within the union, the latter may use the union, even if the whistleblower has been transferred, to settle a score. Let's say the whistleblower wants to file a grievance through his or her union, that process may be delayed or may not work at all. Why isn't there a safeguard on that front? There is a weakness there.

[Joe Wild]

What we've done in Bill C-2 is make it an offence for any person to commit a reprisal against a whistle-blower. So it is a criminal offence for a member of a union to issue a reprisal against someone who has blown the whistle. That's the extent of the reach we could have in terms of reaching into entities that are not government institutions and controlling their behaviour, if you will.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have a little bit of time.

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

Under Bill C-11, it was left largely to politicians and senior bureaucrats to enforce the act. That's the simple legal reality we were left with from the previous Parliament.

The Accountability Act gives that power to the independent judiciary. It gives the power to protect whistle-blowers and discipline infractions to judges instead of senior politicians and bureaucrats. That's something that should have been in the original bill but wasn't.

Additionally, the Accountability Act removes the cover-up clauses that allow the cabinet to remove certain organizations and all their employees from protection. It removes the prohibition on access to information requests related to disclosures of wrongdoing, so that if corruption is exposed by a whistle-blower, it cannot then be covered up and concealed from the Information Commissioner. It extends whistle-blower protection to every Canadian. Any Canadian who makes a disclosure, public servant or not, is protected under Canadian law against reprisal.

So the Accountability Act provisions on whistle-blower protection are significantly stronger and broader than anything contemplated under Bill C-11.

Does Mr. Wild or Ms. Cartwright believe, due to the independence of the judiciary, we can rely on an independent tribunal of judges to protect whistle-blowers?

[Joe Wild]

Yes, absolutely. No question.

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

So people who believe in the independence of the judiciary must also logically believe that an independent tribunal of judges, comprised, when need be, to protect whistle-blowers and to discipline those who have bullied whistle-blowers, is necessary if you really believe in independence. I'm not going to ask you to comment on that, because I'm just making a point.

So I hope the opposition members will find it in their hearts to extend that kind of independent protection by judges, as opposed to protection by politicians and senior bureaucrats, who in some cases may themselves have been involved in the initial wrongdoing, to provide those protections.

That's exactly what the Accountability Act does. It is a fundamental change, is it not, from Bill C-11? Regardless of whether one supports the policy decision or not to give independent protection through judges, would you not agree that it is a fairly quintessential change from the system that was in place under Bill C-11?

[Joe Wild]

The introduction of the independent tribunal composed of judges to hear complaints with respect to reprisals is certainly a fundamental change from what was contemplated in Bill C-11.

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

It's a genetic change. It starts right at the DNA level, and to set in motion an entirely different creature. Then, before that creature has fully had the opportunity to be born, to alter it would certainly be an administrative catastrophe, the kind of which you, Mr. Wild, wouldn't even want to contemplate. Is that a fair question?

[Joe Wild]

I'm not a geneticist, so I'll just stick with saying it's a fundamental change from Bill C-11.

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

Thank you. That's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Martin, you have seven minutes, if you wish, because we missed you earlier, and then we'll go to Ms. Guay.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, thank you, if you wouldn't mind.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Proceed.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm interested in the legislative versus regulatory matter. A lot of the changes that the government is featuring in terms of change in the culture and in the way we do business are divided into those two categories.

Is it accurate to say some of the things that are being heralded in with the Prime Minister's new accountability regime won't ever come to this committee? They'll be done by regulation.

Do you have them in two books or two lists, or is there any way you can help us with that?

[Joe Wild]

There is the action plan document, which sets out the entire agenda, including the Accountability Act.

Within the Accountability Act itself, you will see there are various areas where regulatory authorities are being created in order to actually implement the policy objective of the government. So it is true that there are elements that will be implemented through regulations.

The only point I would make about the regulations, of course, is that they are subject to the scrutiny of the committee that looks at regulations. It's a transparent process involving consultations with stakeholders, and so on.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Fair enough.

One of the questions I asked the minister was if, after a few months of working on this bill, it looks as if we're bogging down on certain elements of it, even though there's broad agreement on certain elements of it, is there a way, logistically, to hive off elements and allow them to pass while we bicker over...?

If there are 317 clauses, what if we're in agreement on 315 and bogged down on two?

[Joe Wild]

It's a difficult question you're putting to me, given how hypothetical it is.

From a technical perspective, this is a very complex piece of legislation in terms of interconnections between the various parts of it. And while there are five parts, they do interact with each other, so it's difficult to identify particular areas where one could say that if we just, for some reason, split the bill or something like that, we could still go ahead with these other parts. It is difficult to do that, by and large.

That's about all I can say about that.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Nothing's impossible, mind you.

[Joe Wild]

I'm not going to use the word “impossible”, because one never knows what is actually impossible until you're faced with the situation.

The only other point I would make on this is that the committee will have to go through the bill and decide how fast it's going to be proceeded with. We'll do our best to provide the information support that we can to ensure that we don't bog down on any specific item.