Evidence of meeting #6 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was public.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Dyane Adam  Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
Johane Tremblay  Director, Legal Affairs Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
Edward Keyserlingk  Public Service Integrity Officer, Public Service Integrity Office
Jean-Daniel Bélanger  Senior Counsel/Investigator, Public Service Integrity Office
Moya Greene  President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Post Corporation
Gerard Power  Vice-President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Canada Post Corporation

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

So, that means you have not referred to the fact that the enactment of Bill C-11 would have caused confusion as far as the files you are currently processing are concerned. That did not happen, but Bill C-11's promulgation last session could have caused a great deal of confusion. So, should this interim provision be maintained, despite Bill C-2, there will be a great deal of confusion.

10:30 a.m.

Senior Counsel/Investigator, Public Service Integrity Office

Jean-Daniel Bélanger

We thought about the issue and discussed the following scenario. Should the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act be enacted, shortly followed by Bill C-2, we have to know what we are going to tell public servants who come and see us. What we will tell them is that redress may be obtained through the Public Service Labour Relations Board and that a tribunal will eventually be set up. That is more or less along the lines of Dr. Keyserlingk's answer: we cannot give a clear answer to public servant whistleblowers concerning the protection we are able to give them. All we can tell them is that section 19 is in force and that legal protection exists against reprisal, a legal prohibition which is in itself a lot stronger than the current policy. It would be beneficial, in this way, but the public servant may then lodge a complaint with the Public Service Labour Relations Board, which would have to establish its own due process. We would no longer be involved at that point.

If you go back and take a look at our office, at Dr. Keyserlingk's annual reports, you will note that we have always said the Integrity Commissioner should deal with everything that comes under our jurisdiction: acts of wrongdoing and reprisals.

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

I understand. I am going to interrupt you for a second.

If Bill C-11 had been enacted and had complaints being lodged, under the interim provision, the complaints you were already seized with would have been affected. From what you are saying, there would have been enhanced protection for whistleblowers. Let me speculate for a moment: once adopted, Bill C-2 will amend Bill C-11, which is already in effect. It is being claimed that Bill C-2 provides even better protection than Bill C-11.

I do not understand what would happen at that point. It may be necessary to include interim provisions in Bill C-11 to ensure there is no legal void and that the procedures permitted under Bill C-11, once enacted, would be either maintained or abolished in Bill C-2. I really cannot see what the problem is.

10:35 a.m.

Senior Counsel/Investigator, Public Service Integrity Office

Jean-Daniel Bélanger

In fact, with a transitional provision, we could go from the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to Bill C-2. This is what I like about the legislation.

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

What you are saying is that Bill C-11 provided better protection than what we have now, and that Bill C-2 will improve this protection even further. The fact that Bill C-11...

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

The time is up, Mr. Keyserlingk, but you can make a few brief remarks on that issue.

10:35 a.m.

Public Service Integrity Officer, Public Service Integrity Office

Dr. Edward Keyserlingk

My only concluding remarks would be simply that I want to be very clear that I like Bill C-2 and I think it's a very big improvement on C-11. But I think it could still be better, and of course that's true for any bill.

The provisions we've recommended here I think would not require major revisions. For instance, extending to private sector contractors and grant recipients the access to the reprisal mechanism of the office of the PSIC would only essentially require taking sections 19 and 19.1 and simply expanding the definition of “reprisal” to include more than just public servants for the specific purpose of these two groups of people.

Thank you very much.

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Thank you, sir, and Mr. Bélanger, for visiting with us this morning. Thank you kindly.

The committee will suspend for a couple of minutes.

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

I'd like to reconvene the meeting, ladies and gentlemen. We have with us representatives from Canada Post Corporation. We have Moya Greene, the president and chief executive officer, and we have Gerard Power, the vice-president and general counsel and corporate secretary with us. Good morning to you both.

I'm sure you're aware of what we do. We allow you a few moments for a few introductory comments to us, and then members of the committee may or may not have questions. You may proceed. Thank you.

Moya Greene President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Post Corporation

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen of the committee.

Let me first thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before the committee this morning.

I really welcome the opportunity to speak to you about the very important work that you have before you.

You have been entrusted with a heavy responsibility.

We understand the importance of moving the work along, so the comments I have to make this morning, Mr. Chairman, are more in the nature of I think relatively simple matters for you to take under what I hope will be positive consideration. This is a very important bill, Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act, and as CEO of Canada Post, I really appreciate the opportunity that I have to spend a few minutes to speak to it.

We appreciate the Government of Canada's efforts to bring forward measures to help strengthen accountability and increase transparency and oversight in government, and we know they are widely appreciated in this country.

Of late, we at Canada Post have been very proactive in this area. We have introduced measures, including our own whistle-blowing policy that came into effect January 1, 2005, and a renewed and strengthened conflict of interest policy that provides more clarity and guidance to all our employees in how they should conduct themselves with personal integrity, honesty, and obviously diligence in the performance of all of their duties. In addition, Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the committee, the governance committee of the Canada Post board is led by Gordon Feeney, a very strong business-oriented chairperson whom many of you have met. We have also put in place a number of new business processes for the approval and retention of all records relating to travel and hospitality expenses that apply to board members, and of course to the senior managerial team, including me.

Nonetheless, I think that some aspects of the bill could be improved a bit. I do not want to suggest any major change. In fact, I can give you a copy of the language used in the bill, if it can be helpful.

to move things along more quickly.

As many of you know, Canada Post is a unique crown corporation. It is very large: it is the sixth-largest employer in Canada, with 71,000 employees; it has $7 billion in revenue; it is perhaps the most complex crown corporation in Canada. The presence of the company in every province and in most towns and cities across the country makes it in fact one of the most widely recognized names in Canada.

We're very pleased to talk to you about the brand of Canada Post. Some of you will know that Canada Post is recognized as one of the top ten brands of business corporations in Canada. This, I think, reflects the confidence that both our business customers across this country and consumers alike repose in Canada Post. That has everything to do, Mr. Chair and ladies and gentlemen of this committee, with the security of the mail. The brand of Canada Post is based upon the security of the mail.

The world has changed in the past five years, and all aspects of security everywhere have taken on far greater importance for every public official than they did even five years ago. That is also the case for Canada Post--perhaps more so, because of the importance of the security of the mail as the key cornerstone of the brand of this company.

The security of the mail is threatened every day. I don't need to tell some of you--many of you--with whom I've spoken personally in the course of my first year as CEO of this company about issues relating to identity theft, but the security of the mail is threatened in other ways.

Hardly a week goes by, Mr. Chair and ladies and gentlemen of this committee, that our operations are not interrupted at our largest hub facility, for example, in Toronto and Vancouver, because of concerns over suspicious parcels and letters. It stops the operation; we have to put in place different handling procedures to make sure that the security of the mail is uppermost in our minds before that piece of mail moves on to the next stage of processing.

Every day in the course of their duties, our employees are involved in security operations, in investigative operations. These investigative operations often include alliances with some of the strongest investigating forces in the world--not just in Canada, but in other parts of the world--so our people work very hard to reinforce the security of mail operations.

In order to protect the corporation's ability to properly carry out its mandate and ensure not only the security of the mail and employees involved in transmitting mail but also the security of management, we must send out a message that states that we take the prosecution of offences very seriously.

Any infraction, any offence, that would threaten the security of the mail or undermine people's confidence in our ability to safeguard the security of the mail is taken very seriously at Canada Post. These are criminal offences—tampering with the mail—and that has certainly helped us in the course of the years to reinforce the importance we attach to that and why it has become the cornerstone of the brand. But I think it's fair to say, and I mean no criticism whatsoever here, that attorneys general and public prosecutors in the provinces have a lot of difficulty giving the kind of priority that obviously we would give to infractions that would undermine the confidence we all need to retain in the security of Canada's mail operations.

So it is for this reason, Mr. Chairman, that we at Canada Post applaud the idea of creating a Director of Public Prosecutions, and we feel the office, if its attention could be directed to offences relating to the security of the mail, would be a very positive thing for Canada Post. It would open an avenue where greater priority and attention could be applied to the investigation and the prosecution of these infractions, similar to what is available for Canada Elections Act offences and Financial Administration Act offences.

Canada Post has a specific interest in this aspect. Like the offences in these other acts, there are a series of mail-related offences respecting theft of identity, national security, and the use of mail for terrorist purposes. In the wake of the horrible events of 9/11, some of you will have heard about threats through the mail, where anthrax and other suspicious substances were being put through mail operations. This happens, still, on a regular basis. Thankfully, we have in place the means to investigate anything suspicious as soon as it arises. But being able to prosecute these offences quickly and with diligence is I think a reinforcing measure that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions could help.

As I said at the beginning, Mr. Chairman, we have suggested language. We don't think this would be a big change to what is currently before you and your colleagues on the committee. We think it could be done relatively simply, and certainly it is being put forward in the spirit of minor adjustments that would improve the act.

Canada Post understands the objective of greater transparency and better accountability for the Government of Canada and supports the principles enshrined in the bill at hand.

As you know, Canada Post generates $7 billion in annual revenues. It is probably not well-known, Mr. Chairman, that 95% of that revenue comes from Canadian businesses, big and small. To the 14 million addresses, it's very important to them that we bring their messages to their customers. However, we operate in a very, very competitive environment, more competitive than I think many of you would have thought.

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

I want to allow time for questions, Ms. Greene, so if you could conclude, please....

10:55 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Post Corporation

Moya Greene

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Many of you know the strength of companies like UPS and FedEx. That's competition, very vigorous competition for Canada Post.

Therefore, the Access to Information Act must be applied to Canada Post, Mr. Chairman, in a way that doesn't undermine our ability to continue to compete, and to compete even more effectively as the environment becomes more and more intense. We appreciate that proposed section 18.1 of the Access to Information Act does to some extent do this. However, again in the spirit of modest adjustments that could improve the bill, we think we can make changes that will do just that.

We have four specific recommendations for improvement that we'd like to make.

First, like EDC, CBC, Atomic Energy of Canada, and the National Arts Centre Corporation, and indeed the Public Service Pension Investment Board, we believe Canada Post should have the benefit of the same tailor-made language, language that recognizes and protects information relating to our essential commercial interests as a competitive postal corporation.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like you to know that this is what the U.S. Postal Service has; this is what other postal services--Australia and the United Kingdom--have. A comprehensive set of protections have been developed—

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

I want to allow time for questions, Ms. Greene.

10:55 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Post Corporation

Moya Greene

—to recommend the business of Canada Post.

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Yes, Mr. Tonks.

Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON

On a point of order, I can see that the witness has three other points. We could bring those through questioning and give her the opportunity then to expand a little on those. I think she's out of time.

10:55 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Post Corporation

Moya Greene

I'll move very quickly, Mr. Chairman.

Secondly, proposed paragraph 18.1(2)(b) of the Access to Information Act proposes language in reference to two Canada Post programs that we are proud to deliver on behalf of the Government of Canada: the government free mail and literature for the blind. The principle for the compensation we receive for these programs is in fact the right one, that this is a commercial corporation. While we are most proud to have the confidence of the government, we would like to suggest a modest amendment in that case to make sure that what Canada Post is recommending is focused on those two specific programs.

Thirdly, as Canada Post carries out the many investigative and enforcement activities that I alluded to above, the Canada Post corporate security office should be recognized as an investigative body under paragraph 16(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act.

Finally,

Given the amount of information collected by the corporation and given the scope of its operations, Canada Post recommends that the committee consider extending the application of the Access to Information Act by 18 to 24 months in order to allow time for preparation.

It's a very complex, big company with a huge history. It goes back, as a crown corporation, 26 years, and before that, 250 years. The kind of challenge that this company will put in, and will meet, to meet the requirements of the Access to Information Act will take us some time. I am told by experts in the field that it will take us about a year just to recruit a person with the necessary seniority to take on the access to information role.

Thank you for your attention, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned to you, we actually have suggested language so as to not delay the work of your committee with respect to these modest suggested improvements.

11 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

If you can give those to the clerk, Ms. Greene, that would be appreciated.

Mr. Owen.

11 a.m.

Liberal

Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Thank you, Ms. Greene.

I'm interested in your support for the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I would like to understand a little more clearly how you would see that operating. You mentioned the Canada Elections Act. Are you looking for a specific offence that would be within the authority of the federal prosecution service?

11 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Post Corporation

Moya Greene

I'll turn it over to my colleague Gerard Power, who is the legal counsel for Canada Post, but essentially the offences are already there in the Criminal Code. It is the power to prosecute those offences in the new office that we would seek.

Go ahead, Gerard.

11 a.m.

Liberal

Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Is that as opposed to provincial jurisdiction?

Gerard Power Vice-President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Canada Post Corporation

Yes, the challenge is that the provincial crown attorney is dealing with a series of priorities, the highest priority being acts of violence to the person and the next priority being matters of child pornography and other very, very serious offences. When dealing with commercial crimes, we often find that we are told it will be a year or more before the matter can go very far, simply because of the lack of resources within that office.

It's not that they're not considered to be serious; it's just that from the provincial crown attorney's perspective, these are commercial crimes and are not high priorities.

11 a.m.

Liberal

Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Could you explain, then, what the difference would be if this federal prosecution offence were created, whether it was the prosecution department of Justice Canada or whether it was a Director of Public Prosecutions?

I don't understand what the link would be to having a Director of Public Prosecutions that would enhance what would be done under the federal prosecution service as it now is.

11 a.m.

Vice-President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Canada Post Corporation

Gerard Power

The Department of Justice has a number of priorities in dealing with legislative policy as well as civil litigation beyond the criminal law domain. By having someone as a Director of Public Prosecutions, as has been done in some provinces, whose sole focus and professional purpose is to deal with the prosecution of offences within their jurisdiction, not only will a body of expertise be built up within that group, but also the time, attention, and focus necessary to deal with these matters will be there in an undivided manner.

11 a.m.

Liberal

Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

But I understand the assistant deputy attorney general for criminal prosecutions in that branch within Justice Canada is exclusively focused on the prosecution of federal offences. So I'm not sure how...then I also understand that we're not thinking of creating, in the Director of Public Prosecutions, any larger institution. I understand it's merely a transfer of what already exists to a somewhat arm's-length operation from the Department of Justice. I'm not sure there would be any further resources or any further focus.

So my question to you really is.... The essence of what you're recommending is to create a federal offence...it's independent of whether it's by Justice Canada's prosecution division or whether it's by a Director of Public Prosecutions.