Evidence of meeting #13 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agents.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Michael Ferguson  Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Marc Mayrand  Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Mary Dawson  Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

11:35 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

It's your seven minutes. Answer the question, if you like.

Thank you.

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON

Well, Mr. Calandra, as you know, there are many of us who...and I speak to a lot of people who are—

11:35 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

On a point of order, Mr. Andrews.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, the witness asked if he and I could have a conversation offline about my subject. Maybe he could have the same conversation offline with his Conservative colleague.

11:35 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

You don't have a point of order.

Carry on, Mr. Adler.

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON

Thank you.

To my understanding, there are many people who at one time were Liberals and who are now Conservatives because of, yes, the chain of broken promises. First of all, going back many, many years, they said how they'd never bring in wage and price controls, and then they did. Then there was axing the tax. Well, the tax was never axed. There was just a full chain of broken promises about their votes against Israel at the United Nations, and not standing with our friends in the Middle East, the only democracy.

I mean, it's just a series of broken promises, a series of disappointments. It was not only I as a one-time Liberal who felt that the Liberal Party really didn't represent me, but the fact of the matter is that it was a lot of the people I spoke to. The proof is in the pudding, right? The Liberal Party at one time was considered to be Canada's governing party. It is now a mere rump in the House of Commons. It's clear that I'm not the only one who feels this way.

I would ask if Mr. Angus posed a similar question to his leader, who was once a Liberal, or if Mr. Andrews posed that question to Mr. Rae, who was once the NDP premier of Ontario. These are very similar kinds of circumstances. Those two happened to make the wrong decisions. I feel I made the right decision in becoming a Conservative, and I'm proud of it.

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

How much time is left, Mr. Chair?

11:35 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

You have three minutes and 30 seconds remaining.

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

I yield to Mr. Zimmer.

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Thank you, Mark, for coming here.

I guess I'd use a hockey metaphor here. I'm an Oilers fan, I must admit, even though we're not doing that well this year. I would like to know that my referee in a particular hockey game is neutral and non-affiliated with any particular team.

I can see that the 10-year allotment you've given for proof of affiliation is a good part of your bill. Can you explain a bit about that 10-year prior affiliation, what that person has to state in terms of whether they've been affiliated with a particular party? Just explain that part of your bill.

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

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.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mark, I just want to talk about that, because you talked a bit about that too.

I think what's being lost in this conversation with the opposition is that this affects all parties equally. It isn't picking on a particular party. It's saying that these officers and offices have to be non-partisan regardless of the party.

To me, it is transparent. It's completely fair. It's equitable. It's everything I would expect, as a parliamentarian, of an officer. Going back to the referee analogy or metaphor, for the big game, the seventh game in the Stanley Cup playoffs, I want to make sure that particular referee is as neutral as absolutely possible. I think both sides respect that neutrality. I think we'll both have a better game as a result of that.

Could you give us some final words on how this is a transparent bill and deals with those concerns?

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON

Thank you for that question, too.

As Justice Louis Brandeis said, sunlight is the best disinfectant. The more information we have not only as members of Parliament but as the public is always a good thing. The more we pull back the curtain and let light in, the more that people can see what is behind decisions of members of our government, our legislative process, our executive, the better. It's good because it enhances democracy, accountability, and transparency.

As I said earlier, for the life of me I can't understand why anybody would be against greater transparency.

11:40 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

That concludes your time, Mr. Zimmer.

Thank you, Mr. Adler.

Next, for the NDP, is Mr. Mathieu Ravignat.

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC

Thank you, Mr. Adler, for being here to defend your bill and for taking a hit for the PMO. It's a pleasure to have you here.

It's clear that this bill has some serious legitimacy issues. Even your honourable colleague, Mr. Calandra, admits that it's a witch hunt. I can give you the record for that witch hunt.

Linda Keen, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, was fired and immediately called a Liberal appointee.

Richard Colvin was subpoenaed to testify before committee on Afghan detainees. The minister at the time questioned his integrity and his professionalism. There are suggestions he was a partisan.

Kevin Page was maligned and there were suggestions he was a partisan.

Marc Mayrand wears a jersey and...repeated just a couple of minutes ago by Mr. Zimmer, a partisan jersey.

They've accused Elections Canada of partisan actions in the past, such as raiding Conservative headquarters.

11:40 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Mr. Zimmer, on a point of order.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, that is not what I said. You can check the record. You are completely misstating what we said. I think you misstated what Mr. Calandra said also. Please state the facts. At least quote me accurately.

Thank you.

11:40 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Is it on the same point of order, Mr. Angus?

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Yes. I think the issue here is that my colleague was using the same reference that Mr. Poilievre used when he attacked Mr. Mayrand. My colleague was repeating the smear by just saying that they shouldn't be wearing partisan jerseys.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

He said that I said a particular statement.

11:40 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Mr. Zimmer, you don't have the floor.

On the same point of order, Mr. Calandra.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

In the interests of clarification he might want to then double check, because the minister did not make that comment about Mr. Mayrand. The minister made that comment specifically with respect to the election commissioner's job going forward and that the election commissioner who will be investigating members of Parliament in the new fair elections act should not be somebody with a partisan jersey. He never said that about Mr. Mayrand. In the interests of clarity I'm sure he would want to retract everything he said in his opening statement.

11:40 a.m.

A voice

Mr. Chair, sometimes—

11:40 a.m.

A voice

He won't because that's not what he does.

11:40 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Order, order.

We have a point of order on the floor and the point of order has precedence. I'm going to rule that it's not a point of order and we have no way of checking the veracity of what was said by Mr. Poilievre and Mr. Mathieu Ravignat can attribute whatever sayings he wants and he can leave it up to any listeners or observers to determine how factual it was.

Mr. Ravignat, you have four minutes left.