The Can’t Buy Silence Act aims to limit the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in the federal public sector in Canada. The bill requires government agencies and related entities to report on how often they use NDAs and the total amount spent on agreements with NDAs. It also restricts the use of public funds to settle harassment, violence, or discrimination cases with NDAs, and prohibits government departments from using public money to litigate NDAs against complainants. Before signing an NDA, complainants must voluntarily request one and have the opportunity to seek independent legal advice. The bill mandates regular reviews of its implementation and applies similar restrictions across various federal bodies, including Parliament, the Library of Parliament, and Parliamentary Protective Services. It will become law 60 days after receiving Royal Assent.
If you experience harassment or discrimination in a workplace or government setting, this bill seeks to give you more control over whether to keep the details of your case confidential. It makes it harder for the government to use public money to hide incidents through NDAs. Agencies must report how often NDAs are used and how much money is spent on them, promoting transparency. If a government agency or department wants you to sign an NDA, they can’t do so unless you voluntarily ask for one and get legal advice. The bill aims to prevent the government from silencing complainants with secret agreements and to make the process more transparent and fair.
Since the bill requires reporting from government entities and establishes new restrictions, it will likely increase administrative costs for these agencies due to additional reporting and oversight. The fiscal note estimates the costs for implementing this oversight and reporting. However, the exact total cost is not specified here as detailed figures are unavailable. The bill also restricts the use of funds for settlements involving NDAs, which could potentially reduce some government expenses related to secret settlements, but data on savings is unavailable.
Supporters of the bill argue that it promotes transparency and accountability in how the government handles harassment and discrimination cases. They believe restricting NDAs will help prevent victims from feeling pressured to stay silent and will encourage more open discussions about issues that affect public servants and the public. By requiring legal advice before signing NDAs, the bill aims to protect individuals' rights and ensure they make informed decisions. Advocates see it as a significant step toward creating a safer and more transparent government environment.
Opponents argue that the bill could limit privacy and confidentiality in sensitive cases. They believe that NDAs can sometimes help protect the privacy of victims and prevent reputational damage. Critics also worry that the restrictions on using public funds for litigation might complicate settling cases efficiently. There is concern that the bill could increase bureaucracy and slow down processes involved in resolving disputes. Some also question whether the reporting requirements will lead to meaningful change or simply create additional paperwork for government staff.