Non-Partisan Offices of Agents of Parliament Act

An Act supporting non-partisan offices of agents of Parliament

This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2015.

This bill was previously introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session.


Mark Adler  Conservative

Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)


In committee (Senate), as of Dec. 11, 2014
(This bill did not become law.)


This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

This enactment establishes a requirement for every person who applies for a position in the office of an agent of Parliament to make a declaration stating whether, in the 10 years before applying for that position, they occupied specified politically partisan positions. The enactment also requires the persons who work in the office of an agent of Parliament to make a declaration if they intend to occupy a politically partisan position while continuing to work in the office of such an agent. The declarations are to be posted on the website of the office of the relevant agent of Parliament.

As well, the enactment requires the persons who work in the office of an agent of Parliament to provide a written undertaking that they will conduct themselves in a non-partisan manner in fulfilling the official duties and responsibilities of their positions.


All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, provided by the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.


Oct. 29, 2014 Passed That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.
Oct. 29, 2014 Passed That the Bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with a further amendment.
Oct. 29, 2014 Passed That Bill C-520, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 39 to 41 on page 4 with the following: “responsibilities of the position in the office of the agent of Parliament, conduct”
Oct. 29, 2014 Failed That Bill C-520 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
Feb. 12, 2014 Passed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

February 25th, 2014 / 12:55 p.m.
See context


Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Do you think that Bill C-520 would complement what you're already doing, or do you think it's going to make any difference to your audits?

February 25th, 2014 / 12:45 p.m.
See context


Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Thanks to each of you for being here with us this afternoon. I'm very anxious to hear your input as we study this bill. I also want to thank each of you for the role you play as agents of Parliament.

I must admit, Ms. Dawson, that I've had more contact with you than with the other two gentlemen, but I certainly have always found you to be very impartial. You've always given us good advice when we have asked for it as a committee.

One of the things we've been hearing about from the three of you—well, actually, from Mr. Mayrand and Mr. Ferguson more than Ms. Dawson—are the differences between the PSEA and this bill. One of the things I've been told is that the PSEA does talk a little bit about volunteer activities, but Bill C-520 does not.

Could either of you gentlemen comment on that?

February 25th, 2014 / 12:15 p.m.
See context

Mary Dawson Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Mr. Chair, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I am pleased to contribute to the committee's study of Bill C-520.

During my opening remarks, I will share some general observations, with reference to relevant practices in my own office. I will also comment briefly on several specific elements of the proposed legislation.

Unlike the others covered by Bill C-520, my office is part of Parliament itself. As an officer of Parliament, my office is a separate employer that is not subject to the Public Service Employment Act. It is for this reason I'm not a signatory of the letter which I believe has been submitted to the committee by the others. However, I do agree in large measure with the views they have expressed.

Although Bill C-520 does not appear to have been introduced in response to a problem that requires fixing, there is certainly no argument to be made against greater transparency. In fact, I am a strong believer in transparency, as I have noted on many occasions, including in previous appearances before this committee.

I am satisfied that given the checks and balances already in place, my office could withstand any scrutiny contemplated by Bill C-520. However, I do note there could be some technical challenges that might arise from the way the bill is currently structured, and I will briefly refer to some of them later.

I acknowledge the importance of non-partisanship. I believe that non-partisanship is essential to the ability of all agents and officers of Parliament to fulfill their mandates. They and their staff must perform their duties in a fair and politically impartial manner and be perceived to do so. I note that non-partisanship is likely already being taken into account in the appointment process for agents and officers of Parliament. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, for example, is appointed under the Parliament of Canada Act. That act requires that the Governor in Council consult with the leader of every recognized party in the House of Commons, and the appointment must be approved by resolution of the House of Commons.

Indeed, the principle of non-partisanship is one that underlies my approach to my role. As is the case with the others covered by Bill C-520, I have implemented a code of values and standards of conduct in my office, again, copies of which I have tabled with the committee. This document specifically and extensively addresses political activity and impartiality. It notes the importance of employees maintaining their independence from political interference and discharging their responsibilities in an impartial way. It also recognizes the effect that employees' actions and comments outside the office could have on the reputation of the office as it relates to impartiality and independence.

In addition to prescribing desired behaviours and actions, the code of values and standards of conduct for my office specifically prohibit certain actions. Employees may not participate in any political activities. They are not allowed to share publicly any political allegiance during election campaigns, for example, by posting lawn signs. Also, they must refrain from making any written or verbal comments, including in the media or on social networks, that favour or could be perceived as favouring one political party over another.

During the more than six years that I have been commissioner, there has never been a case where the work of an employee in my office has been influenced or has appeared to have been influenced by political opinions or beliefs. If such a case were to arise, it would contravene our standards of conduct and the employee would be subject to disciplinary measures up to termination of employment.

A few of my employees have previously worked in political offices of various party affiliations. As professionals, however, they perform their official duties and responsibilities in a strictly non-partisan manner. I also note that their knowledge and experience of the workings of Parliament have been very helpful in fulfilling their duties at the office. It would be an unfortunate consequence of any initiative if it became an impediment to qualified people taking on positions in the office of an officer or agent of Parliament.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe there are changes to the bill that should be considered. For example, it does not establish a clear threshold for launching an examination, such as requiring the person making the request to set out the reasonable grounds for the belief that the staff member conducted his or her duties and responsibilities in a partisan manner. Nor does it provide a process by which an employee has the right to respond to the allegation being made. As well, the bill does not define what constitutes partisan behaviour. It does not set out provisions for conducting an examination in private.

I note that both the Conflict of Interest Act and the “Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons” contain such provisions, ensuring the application of principles of procedural fairness and natural justice.

Finally, the bill is very broad and applies equally to all employees regardless of level or whether they are in a position to make or influence decisions.

In short, while I have no issue with the principle of transparency that underpins the bill, I'm not convinced that the bill is necessary. I believe that the current draft could be improved. I hope, if this bill is enacted, that the final version clarifies these matters.

Again, I thank the committee for this opportunity to discuss Bill C-520.

Mr. Chair, I look forward to answering your questions.

February 25th, 2014 / 12:10 p.m.
See context

Marc Mayrand Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me to address the committee today.

Let me start by saying I am in agreement with the remarks that have just been made by my colleague, the Auditor General. He has identified several important aspects of Bill C-520 that I also believe are worthy of careful review by this committee.

I can assure you that I too, as an agent of Parliament, am deeply committed to the principle and the practice of political neutrality. This principle is fundamental to the administration of the Canada Elections Act and is absolutely central to the performance of my mandate.

Each agent of Parliament is unique. In my case, given my role of administering electoral events and regulating the activities of political participants, the need for political neutrality is particularly acute.

Indeed, the Elections Canada Code of Conduct imposes on employees an obligation to observe strict political neutrality at the federal, provincial and territorial levels, not only in the exercise of their functions and duties, but also in their activities outside work. Letters of offer to employees detail these conditions of employment regarding political neutrality. These stringent requirements reflect my conviction that everyone working at Elections Canada, no matter their position, must remain and be seen to remain neutral at all times. The objective of maintaining neutrality in the organization would not be achieved by allowing even a small number of employees to engage in political activity, no matter how limited, at the federal, provincial or territorial level.

I believe it is consistent with what Canadians would expect of the people who work for the country's national electoral body. We can take no risks in threatening the confidence of electors and political stakeholders in the administration of the electoral process. Similar conditions have been placed on employees at Elections Canada since long before I became Chief Electoral Officer, and to my knowledge, there have never been any concerns expressed inside the organization about this.

In light of our code of conduct, the restrictions on political activity imposed by Bill C-520 would not have much effect on Elections Canada employees, with one significant exception. The obligation in clause 11 of the bill to publish on our website the past “politically partisan positions” of staff over the last 10 years would be new. I see this unnecessary requirement as a serious infringement of the privacy of employees and incompatible with the principle of merit when hiring staff.

It is unclear from my reading of Bill C-520 whether it is intended to apply to contractors with agents of Parliament as well as employees. The bill refers to a person who “works” or “occupies a position” in the office of an agent of Parliament.

In any event, in cases where Elections Canada directly procures services, and where delivery of those services might raise a reasonable concern regarding political impartiality, contractors are subject to an obligation to avoid political activities for the term of the contract. In fact, suppliers who cannot certify their ability to adhere to this obligation will not be issued a contract.

Finally, you should be aware that key election officers are also severely limited in their ability to engage in political activity. The Canada Elections Act itself makes it an offence for a returning officer to engage in “politically partisan conduct”. Of course, this is not surprising.

In addition, clause 5 of the code of professional conduct for election administrators restricts returning officers from engaging in political activity at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels. This is different from employees and contractors, who are not restricted from political activity at the municipal level, but in light of the work being conducted by returning officers locally, I felt it was important to add this additional restriction for them.

As a last point, I would also like to comment on clause 9 of the bill, which would allow members of the Senate and House of Commons to make a complaint regarding political behaviour on the part of my staff. The Auditor General already touched on this provision in his remarks. It should be noted that even without this bill anyone who wishes to make a complaint about political activity on the part of those who work for an agent of Parliament can do so. There are mechanisms in place to deal with such complaints. For my part, I would like to underline my accountability for the conduct of those in the organization I run. Should there be any concern regarding the conduct of my staff, it is my role to appear before Parliament to account.

That concludes my introductory remarks, Mr. Chair. I have also provided the clerk copies of the Elections Canada code of conduct, as well as the code of professional conduct for election administrators. I would be happy to take your questions.

Thank you.

February 25th, 2014 / 12:05 p.m.
See context

Michael Ferguson Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to present my perspectives on Bill C-520.

At the outset I would like to assure you that my employees and I are committed to carrying out our duties in a fair, independent, impartial, and non-partisan manner. Along with several other agents of Parliament, I recently signed a letter that emphasized this point.

The letter also makes several observations of a technical nature regarding the interaction of the provisions of this bill with the current regime that governs political activities of public servants. The letter provides a description of aspects of the bill on which we would appreciate some clarification.

Section 6 of the bill requires an agent of Parliament who intends to occupy a politically partisan position while still holding his or her position as an agent of Parliament to make a written declaration of intent as soon as possible, before occupying the political position. Currently, under section 117 of the Public Service Employment Act, I am not permitted to engage in any political activity other than voting in an election. The situation described in section 6 could never occur, and I would not like people to get the impression by reading the bill that it could.

Other aspects of the bill may produce unintended consequences.

Under the current legislation, I appoint employees to my office in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act, PSEA. Employees are hired based on the merit principle.

Subclause 7(1) of the bill requires an applicant for employment to provide, as soon as possible in the hiring process, a declaration as to whether or not they have occupied a politically partisan position in the past 10 years. Consideration of prior politically partisan positions would not be permitted to influence the current selection process.

Under the PSEA, if an individual had declared prior politically partisan positions, and for reasons of merit was unsuccessful in obtaining a position, that individual could challenge the decision not to hire on the basis that his or her declaration influenced the hiring process. Moreover, the publication requirement of this personal information could discourage individuals from seeking employment with our office.

Clause 9 of the bill states that I may examine allegations made by a member of Parliament or a senator that an employee has carried out their duties and responsibilities in a partisan manner. If an examination of such allegations is carried out, a report must be sent for tabling in both Houses. The proposed examination power would benefit from clarification as to what constitutes partisan conduct and the threshold of evidence required to request an examination.

Under the PSEA, the Public Service Commission investigates allegations of political activity on the part of public servants. Political activity is defined very broadly in that act, and in my view, it could include partisan conduct.

In addition, there is no confidentiality mechanism to protect the reputation of the employee whose conduct was examined and found to be appropriate and non-partisan. It may be worthwhile to consider whether the investigation provisions of the PSEA are a more effective method for independent oversight. Given the apparent overlap with the PSEA, a witness from the Public Service Commission would be of assistance in the committee's deliberations.

There is a third aspect of this bill that I would recommend to the committee for further study, and that is its impact on the privacy of individual employees. I have mentioned some possible consequences in connection with hiring and investigations. I would now like to touch on other possible impacts.

Upon coming into force, the law requires written declarations from all employees in our office as to whether or not they occupied a politically partisan position within the 10 years prior to joining the office, and a declaration from those who may have occupied such a position that they have been carrying out their employment duties in a non-partisan manner. The fact that some employees would be required to make a declaration could have adverse consequences. The public disclosure of this past activity also causes the individual's current place of work to be known. Furthermore, over the past 10 years, the employee may have changed political allegiance. Factors such as these may give an employee incentive to withhold information about past political activity rather than to disclose it. For these reasons, employees may be reluctant to make a declaration.

The bill applies to all employees no matter what duties they carry out. The committee may wish to consider whether the objectives of the bill could still be met by restricting its application to those senior managers and employees with authority, influence, and supervision over the work of the office.

In closing, I'd like to say a few words about the processes and declarations that are currently required of the employees in our office to ensure they comply with professional audit standards, our code of values and ethics, and current legislation.

Each year, every employee completes a Conflict of Interest Declaration, acknowledging, among other things, the obligation to act in a non-partisan, independent and impartial manner. At the start of every audit, every individual who participates in the audit must complete a comprehensive declaration of their independence. Any cases that give rise to a real or perceived threat to independence are reviewed by senior managers and our office's specialists for values and ethics.

Mr. Chair, I hope that these comments will be of assistance to the committee as it undertakes its review of Bill C-520. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

February 25th, 2014 / noon
See context


The Chair NDP Pat Martin

That's not really necessary, Mr. Angus.

As the chair, I was going to welcome our witnesses to the committee, but thank you for your enthusiasm.

We appreciate the three officers of Parliament who have made themselves available on very short notice to come and discuss Bill C-520. As committee members, we have received written correspondence signed by seven agents of Parliament, and we appreciated that input as well. We have one thin hour to deal with the situation, unfortunately.

We'll welcome your opening remarks as you see fit to use them up to a maximum of perhaps 10 minutes each, or as a combined effort, as you see fit.

Mr. Mayrand, Madam Dawson, and Mr. Ferguson, welcome.

The floor is yours.

February 25th, 2014 / 11:55 a.m.
See context


Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON

Thank you, Ms. Borg.

As a point of clarification, I don't know the specifics about those other incidents you mentioned.

I am here to talk about Bill C-520. Bill C-520 clearly enumerates who would fall under the purview of this bill. It's the nine agencies of Parliament that stand in judgment of members of Parliament and senators. These agents are held to a higher standard because they stand in judgment. In fact, the Chief Electoral Officer can't vote; that's how high the standard is.

February 25th, 2014 / 11:50 a.m.
See context


Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON

Partisan activity is clearly defined in the bill. There are a number of definitions, a number of phrases and terms that are defined within Bill C-520.

Specifically, in terms of what a partisan position is, it clearly states under subclause 2(1):

“politically partisan position” means any of the following positions: (a) electoral candidate; (b) electoral district association officer; (c) member of a ministerial staff; (d) member of a parliamentary staff; or (e) member of a political staff.

February 25th, 2014 / 11:35 a.m.
See context


Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON

Thank you, Mr. Zimmer, for that excellent question.

I chose the 10-year period because it represents two election cycles, more or less. That's the reason I chose 10 years.

I just want to quote from a letter, which I know is in the possession of all the members, that seven heads of the various agencies of Parliament sent to the chair. In the opening paragraph, it says:

As Agents of Parliament we support initiatives that enhance transparency and accountability to Parliament and Canadians. Our role is to serve Parliament in a strictly non-partisan manner. In this regard, we support the principle that underlies Bill C-520 and are committed to ensuring that we, and the employees of our respective offices, discharge our duties and functions in a fair, independent, impartial and non-partisan manner.

In the letter they wrote to you, Mr. Chair, the principle of transparency is supported by seven of the nine heads of agencies of Parliament.

Transparency from my perspective, and I know from the perspective of our government, and I would hope from the perspective of the opposition parties, would be something they would be in favour of supporting.

February 25th, 2014 / 11:35 a.m.
See context


The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Mr. Calandra, if I'm going to be consistent on relevance, really I don't know if that has any bearing on Bill C-520.

February 25th, 2014 / 11:35 a.m.
See context


The Chair NDP Pat Martin

As long as you can bring it around to Bill C-520.

February 25th, 2014 / 11:30 a.m.
See context


The Chair NDP Pat Martin

The point of order is one on relevance. I'm inclined to agree that you do have a point.

Mr. Calandra, could you limit your questioning to something at least related to Bill C-520.

February 25th, 2014 / 11:30 a.m.
See context


Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC

Mr. Chair, with all due respect to my honourable colleague and his questions, I'm here, as I think most of us are, to hear about Bill C-520. I think this line of questioning is irrelevant and not particularly on subject, so I'd like you to rule on that, Mr. Chair.

February 25th, 2014 / 11:30 a.m.
See context


Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL

Their names are in Bill C-520. I'm just wondering if it's a good idea for them to come here to discuss your bill.

February 25th, 2014 / 11:30 a.m.
See context


Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON

Quite frankly, I don't know what you're talking about, because it's not within Bill C-520. I don't—