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

[Gerard Power]

Certainly, the essence of what we are recommending is that we remove some of these offences from the Criminal Code and place them under the Canada Post Corporation Act, as has been done with certain offences that are today offences under the Criminal Code and have now been created as parallel offences within the Financial Administration Act in Bill C-2.

We would like to see that, so there is the jurisdiction for a federal prosecutor to take on these matters, with the expertise they have and their ability to dedicate the resources to these files.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Great. That makes it a bit clearer.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madam Guay.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, I am pleased to meet you. We are told that this is an important bill that will have great impact on large corporations such as the Canada Post Corporation.

Have you assessed the costs that your corporation will incur to implement Bill C-2?

[Moya Greene]

We have not studied this specifically. However, we inquired about other bodies that are now subject to the Access to Information Act. I personally had experience with this when I was a public servant. I know that Canada Post is perhaps the largest government entity that is subject to the Access to Information Act.

When I was working for the Department of Transportation, about 12 years ago, 30 persons were assigned to work on the Access to Information Act. Perhaps there are more of them now. At that time, Transport Canada was not as complicated, not as commercial and not as big. With its 71,000 employees, Canada Post is the seventh largest employer in the country. So, according to my experience and in light of the enquiries regarding other administrative bodies, this will be quite expensive. However, we are ready to commit the necessary funds to this undertaking.

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

Ms. Greene, after your assessment, could you inform us about the expenditures that you will have to incur? We ask for this information from all organizations like yours, so as to get an idea of what the overall cost might be.

[Moya Greene]

Yes, of course.

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

You want the application of the act to be delayed by 18 to 24 months. Do you really think that you need more than two years to implement it?

[Moya Greene]

Yes. Given the complex nature of the corporation and due to the fact that we are beginning to implement this legislation, we have information that shows that we will need at least 12 months to find an experienced person who will be in charge of enforcing this legislation. I think that it will take us 24 months to get all the files together and to form an experienced team.

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

I would like to know what you think of the idea of giving $1,000 to whistleblowers. What does the Canada Post Corporation think of this measure which, in any case, we will not support?

[Moya Greene]

I share the view of the person representing the Office of the Ethics Commissioner for the Public Service Commission, Madame Guay, that it's probably not necessary. I don't think $1,000 is a sufficient motivator for someone to come forward and, in fairness, to stand apart, stand up for what is right, stand up for what he or she believes in, even if it means standing apart from others.

So I don't think the $1,000 will uncover more wrongdoing, and I think it may in fact be misused on occasion.

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

Could this launch a witch hunt?

[Moya Greene]

It could, but I have to say that it is not a matter that we have done a lot of research into, so these would be my personal views.

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

That is quite acceptable. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Ms. Greene.

As you know, the proposed Federal Accountability Act adds 19 new entities to schedule I of the Access to Information Act, one of which, of course, is Canada Post Corporation. I think it's section 165 of the ATI act, but while it gives with the one hand, in our view it takes away with the other because the proposed FAA also creates 10 new exemptions. We're concerned this may add further secrecy rather than greater openness and transparency.

Beyond those that are already available, in the case of Canada Post it creates a class exemption with no time limit, so a permanent exemption for any record that contains financial, commercial, scientific, technical information, etc., which is virtually all of the activities of Canada Post, other than the physical plant perhaps. We're just very concerned that these new exemptions.... I don't understand why Canada Post needs these exemptions when the Department of Finance, for instance, operates under full transparency of the Access to Information Act and manages to safeguard these very important financial confidences that could ruin the economy if they ever got out.

So how is it that Canada Post needs this additional secrecy when institutions like the Department of Finance operate fine with the existing exclusions and exemptions under the Access to Information Act?

[Moya Greene]

I think, Mr. Martin, the answer resides in the nature of Canada Post. Canada Post is a commercial entity. We are not a department of the Government of Canada. We are a commercial entity, where 95% of our revenues are coming from thousands of businesses across this country. We are in the process of delivering mail, 40 million pieces of mail, every day, to 14 million addresses, where the security of the mail and the timeliness of its delivery are the basis for why those businesses still use us. This is a very competitive business. We are competing against some of the largest and most successful companies in the world. A company like UPS is a formidable competitor. It is one of only six companies in the world that has a triple A rating. I would like to think that Canada Post has the same protection for its commercial information that my competitors have.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

But you already enjoy that under the current Access to Information Act, except it's at the discretion of the Information Commissioner and there are time limits to it. Now what justification is there to--

[Moya Greene]

But we're not covered.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Let Mr. Martin ask the question.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm sorry, but if you were covered by the Access to Information Act, if you were listed in schedule I, which you would be by Bill C-2, and you didn't have these new exclusions, then the act as it stands would apply to you, and it already protects commercially sensitive corporate trade secrets, all of those things. They're already contemplated in the ATI at the discretion of the Information Officer.

What they're giving you in Bill C-2 takes that away. It makes it automatic and it makes it forever--permanent. We have a right to know what Canada Post is up to, just like we have a right to know what any crown corporation is up to.

Why this rigid exclusion? Did you ask for it, for instance? Were you consulted, and did you ask for this exclusion?

[Moya Greene]

Oh yes, of course, and I think it is quite properly there. The reason Canada Post was not subject to the act in the past was due to its commercial nature, Mr. Martin.There's a huge harm that could happen to this company—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Why aren't you fighting its being included in the act altogether?

[Moya Greene]

Because I think, as I have said in my remarks, the people who have proposed the law and drafted it have by and large done a good job. They have respected the commercial nature of Canada Post. The exemption that is provided for Canada Post and the EDC and the CBC.... These are special corporate entities, and they therefore require special treatment in order to be covered under the act. I believe this has been given, by and large. It is to recognize the harm that would happen to the company if we, unlike our competitors—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm sorry to interrupt you again, but those are the very things the Information Commissioner takes into consideration now when he rules whether something should be divulged or not—the injury test.