Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 11th, 2006

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

No, I just want to ascertain that you're generally supportive of the bill as written, with the one exception.

[Dyane Adam]

Yes, really.

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

The question I have is that many--

[Dyane Adam]

Oh, I'm sorry, sir, the other thing I did mention was the vote, the fact that it's not open.

I must say, the secret ballot amazes me a bit. I do not understand the reason, because this is a bill about transparency. Why would the agents of Parliament not have an open vote? That's the only thing.

I would have lived with that one if that was the case, but I think it's already open. It's already transparent. It was fine, so why change it?

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

That's an interesting point, because some other officers of Parliament take the opposite view, thinking that a secret ballot would be better. But that's something where there will probably always be 50% of the people on one side of the question and 50% on the other.

My question, though, Ms. Adam, is that some critics of this bill hone in on the access to information and say we're making it more secretive. So I would just like you to explain, if you could, a little bit more fully why you're recommending that we include yet another exemption to access to information under the Privacy Act, and why, if all access to information was increased, it would undermine the integrity of your office. Why are you asking for more exemptions to access to information?

[Dyane Adam]

We are not demanding more, because in fact in my own bill, in the Official Languages Act, there is already non-disclosure protection. It's already there.

With respect to the citizens, but mostly the employees, I'll give you an example. The employees find it very difficult when they notice in their institutions their supervisors or whoever, even the deputy minister, not really respecting the act.

One recent employee from my office went to another department. The first day on the job he was given his manual to be introduced to his new position. It was entirely in English. He comes from my office. He knows his rights. He was talking about this to one colleague at the office, who said, “Well, you know what you need to do. Give a complaint to the commissioner.”

He will not do that. Because it's the first day on the job, he doesn't want to do that. He doesn't want to be seen immediately.

So imagine, and this is with non-disclosure. I think it would impact enormously on the integrity and the credibility and the possibility of doing my job as an agent of Parliament and ensuring that the Official Languages Act is protected and respected.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you. That concludes the first round. We're now onto the second round.

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Adam. I am glad to see you again. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you for the excellent work you have done during your mandate with us.

On page 5 of your brief, under the title “Administrative Changes”, it says that the changes or amendments that concern you or your organization could involve an increase of financial and human resources. Moreover, you asked your personnel to determine what impact the administrative changes needed to implement the amendments proposed in Bill C-2 would have on resources.

First, I would like to know what progress your personnel has made regarding this file. Then, I would like to come back to the question that Mr. Sauvageau put to you regarding another article which does not concern you, namely the one that says that the citizen would have to go through an MP. I agree with you in saying that this is a useless measure that restricts citizens' accessibility. I would like to hear more from you about this.

[Dyane Adam]

With regard to the impact of the bill on an organization like ours, I must emphasize the fact that we are a small organization as compared to a department. We have a very limited administrative capability. Most of my resources are of course assigned to discharging my mandate, that is to say to investigations, examinations and legal remedies.

When we carry out internal audits or when we have to go through extra administrative procedures, such as the ones required by the Access to Information Act, we have to provide for more resources, of course, but these resources also have to be specialized. These circumstances don't allow us to improvise. Therefore, we have to provide for everything in advance. I must emphasize that we have always tried to manage public funds with the utmost possible care.

Thus, I cannot give you any figures now, but we think that this will create added financial burdens. I intend to prepare this file before handing it over to my successor, so that he will be able, when the budgets of commissioners or officers of Parliament are examined, to provide you with figures. At this time, this would be premature.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Consequently, you are not able to give exact figures?

[Dyane Adam]

I cannot do that for the time being.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Nonetheless, you can state without a doubt that this will put more pressure on your organization.

[Dyane Adam]

There is no doubt about that.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Besides, this will require added funds so that your organization can actually enforce the act as it will be amended by Bill C-2.

[Dyane Adam]

There is no doubt about that. I invite all MPs to come and visit the office of an organization like ours from time to time. They will be able to see all the administrative procedures that we must follow and the kind of reports that we must fill out. It is important that we do so. Behind all that, there are people and resources. Things do not simply appear out of the blue.

Let's go on to your question about a citizen's access, if he has to go through an intermediary. I have never worked as an MP, but you are an MP. I can see you in Ottawa, without necessarily going into your office. I know that you do a tremendous amount of work during long hours. How can we really believe that you, the MPs, will be able to handle all the requests from citizens, given that you are already overwhelmed?

I think that citizens are responsible adults. Citizens can file complaints on their own if they are not satisfied with services or with anything else in the federal public administration.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Monsieur Petit.

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

Let me ask you a question, Ms. Adam. I am curious to know. You said that this was your opinion.

Are you speaking on your own behalf or on behalf of the Office of the Commissioner? Was this your personal opinion regarding MPs?

[Dyane Adam]

Yes, it was my personal opinion, but at the same time, I am speaking on behalf of the Office of the Commissioner. This is my opinion as the commissioner, and not as a simple citizen. It's as though I were an ombudsman. In fact, this is my opinion as commissioner.

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

Let me ask you my question, since you are speaking on behalf of the Office of the Commissioner. You know something about our work. You said that we do a great deal of work. You also know that there are many people working in our offices.

When I am in my riding, people come to meet me for all kinds of things. We deal with all kinds of matters in MPs' offices.

Do you believe that if someone came to see me about an issue involving your work, this would be an extra administrative step? Could the MP communicate directly with you? Could citizens have two options for access?

[Dyane Adam]

We should not give the impression that citizens should not go to their MP's office. On the contrary, they should go there. Currently, some citizens inform you that they have a problem with a government service. Often, they are sent to us by the MP.

This is the normal procedure, but if we want to make everything formal, citizens will necessarily have to go through their MPs and, in my opinion, there will be only one remaining access option.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madame Guay.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree with you. I do not think that complaints should go through MPs' offices, not because MPs cannot intervene, but rather because the complaint takes on a political colour at that point. Our role is to work in politics. Now when a citizen wants to complain, I believe that he should be able to do so directly to an authority which should be apolitical. The citizen must feel that his complaint is being received in this apolitical way. By going through the MPs' offices, we thereby go through all the political parties with their different ideologies. I do not think that this is a good thing.

In Bill C-2, they mentioned a $1,000 reward for whistleblowers. I do not know what you think of the idea of giving someone a $1,000 prize for having blown the whistle on his superiors or on any other person who might have committed a reprehensible act in a department or agency.

As far as we're concerned, we have made up our minds, but I would also like to know what you think. Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you and to wish you good luck in your future projects.

[Dyane Adam]

I don't really have an opinion on that subject. When I am asked that question, I wonder first of all why there is a $1,000 reward. I don't understand. Why $1,000 instead of $5,000? Does the bill say anything in particular on that matter?

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

Yes, it does. It states very clearly — and we will in fact propose amendments on the subject — that the whistleblower should receive the amount of $1,000. It's basically like a witch hunt. Some people might move heaven and earth to find a guilty person in a department in order to get the $1,000.