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 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. I see the clock at 11:01. We will convene this meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

We're convened today pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 12, 2014, Bill C-520, an act supporting non-partisan agents of Parliament. We welcome as our witness the sponsor of that bill, Mr. Mark Adler.

Mr. Adler, I understand you're one of the lucky members of Parliament whose private member's bill actually succeeded in passing at second reading. It has been duly referred to this committee for your presentation, then examination by and testimony from witnesses, and ultimately a clause-by-clause analysis.

The first hour of this meeting is dedicated to you. I hope you have opening remarks. Then we'll open it to questions from the floor.

You have approximately 10 minutes, Mr. Adler.

11 a.m.

Conservative

Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON

Mr. Chair, it's an honour and privilege for me to be here today before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to speak on my private member's bill, Bill C-520, an act supporting non-partisan agents of Parliament.

The purpose of my bill is to improve transparency. Bill C-520 requires agents of Parliament and the employees in their offices to make a public declaration if they occupied a politically partisan position in the 10 years before their appointment. It also serves to affirm their commitment to conducting themselves in a non-partisan manner while employed in these specific offices.

This bill identifies nine specific offices with unique responsibilities and roles. Given their specific watchdog duties, it is imperative that the so-called agents of Parliament be seen to be non-partisan and free of political influence. At every step of the process in preparing a report or dealing with a case, from the selection of what to study to the research to the basic wording used, neutrality and independence must be maintained.

Let me clear. The intent of this bill is not to limit any person's ability or freedom to engage fully in the political process of Canada; rather, the intent is to create a measure of trust and confidence in the neutrality and non-partisan nature of the offices of the agents of Parliament. I submit that the proposed legislation will enhance the legitimacy of the agents of Parliament and will make sure that the public is aware of any professional partisan position held by the agents and their staff.

The nine specific offices that my private member's bill focuses on include the office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer, the office of the Auditor General, the office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada, the office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, the office of the Senate Ethics Officer, the office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, and the office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

These agents of Parliament are a sole group of independent statutory officers who serve to scrutinize the activity of legislators and the government. I submit to you that their offices will only be enhanced by the public confidence Bill C-520 will provide.

All of the offices I mentioned report directly to Parliament rather than to government or to an individual minister and as such exist to serve Parliament in relation to Parliament's oversight role. The oversight role played by the agents is a crucial component of the balance and fairness of our institutions and the legitimacy of our Westminster style of democracy. It is critical that in carrying out their duties, the agents be independent of political affiliation. Neutrality in the office of an agent of Parliament is imperative to ensuring that Canadians receive information in a manner that is clear and trustworthy.

Mr. Chair, I would like to emphasize again the special role the nine agencies identified in my bill play in the democratic system. We already hold these groups to the highest standard of objectivity. We require them to sign an oath of impartiality and we ask them to take measures to guard against partisanship either real or perceived. The Chief Electoral Officer is even banned from voting in elections in order to maintain these standards. Bill C-520 simply suggests that given these exceptional standards, the agents and their employees should be required to disclose past or future partisan positions and continue to build transparency and openness into our democracy.

To further promote transparency, all declarations from employees would be posted on the website of the office of the relevant agent of Parliament. The declarations would state whether, in the 10 years before applying for that position, the person had occupied certain specified political partisan positions. Such a declaration would also state whether these persons intended to occupy a politically partisan position while continuing to occupy the position of agent of Parliament or to work in the office of such an agent.

In addition, the bill would require an agent of Parliament and the persons who work in his or her office 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.

Canadians said they wanted a transparent government. Time and time again, I am proud to say, our government has brought into force legislation that increases transparency and accountability. Our government brought Canadians the Federal Accountability Act. We reformed the Lobbying Act. We brought into force the Conflict of Interest Act which named the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Our government eased the process of information disclosure, making it easier for Canadians to call to account their representatives.

The number of records that our government has released has increased, while the turnaround time has decreased. The numbers speak for themselves. Our government is committed to increasing government transparency and accountability.

Mr. Chair, this call for transparency and accountability is not something we can take lightly. The statutes that created these agents of Parliament do not imply the need for impartiality; they demand impartiality. With great power comes great responsibility.

If we look at some of the legislation about the agents themselves, the need for objectivity is clear. Subsection 15(1) of the Auditor General Act states:

The officers and employees that are necessary to enable the Auditor General to perform his or her duties are to be appointed in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act and...the provisions of that Act apply to those offices and employees.

The act goes on to make explicit the call for impartiality.

Before commencing his or her functions, a commissioner shall take an oath or make a solemn affirmation in the following form before the Clerk of the Privy Council or the person designated by the clerk:

I...do swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will faithfully, truly and impartially, to the best of my judgment, skill and ability, execute and perform the office of... of the Public Service Commission.

Further to that, subsection 23(1) of the Canada Elections Act states:

Before assuming duties, an election officer shall swear an oath in writing, in the prescribed form, to perform the duties of the office in an impartial manner.

In addition, the commissioners of privacy, conflict of interest and ethics, information, lobbying, public sector integrity, and official languages are all deemed to be employed in the public service and thus are bound to the same oath found in the Public Service Employment Act when carrying out their duties.

Mr. Chair, I submit that the requirements found within my private member's bill, Bill C-520, expect from these agents the highest level of transparency and that they are already swearing to it in their oath; moreover, that they improve these laws by adding transparency and making all declarations available for the public to see.

Legislation similar to my private member's bill exists in other Commonwealth nations.

In Australia, for example, the national integrity commission bill, Bill 2013, in paragraph 7(1)(a), prohibits “any conduct of any person that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial exercise of official functions by the Parliament, a Commonwealth agency, any public official or any group or body of public officials” and continues by prohibiting “any conduct of a public official that constitutes or involves the dishonest or partial exercise of any of his or her official functions.”

In conclusion, Bill C-520 will enhance transparency. This bill is line with our government's efforts towards transparency and accountability. I hope that the committee sees the value of my proposed legislation.

I believe we can all agree this is an important step to strengthening our democracy. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis has said, sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Thank you.

11:10 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

I thought that was my line, but I see that I've been plagiarizing all this time.

Thank you, Mr. Adler, for that presentation.

I know there are a lot of questions. First, for the official opposition, the New Democratic Party, we have Mr. Charlie Angus.

11:10 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Adler, recently your colleague Pierre Poilievre insinuated that Elections Canada wears a team jersey, signifying that they do their work in a politically partisan manner.

Have you any examples of the nine agents of Parliament you described undertaking activities in a partisan manner?

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON

Thank you, Mr. Angus, for that question.

All that my bill lays out is that these nine agencies have a very special role to play in our parliamentary democracy. In fact, as I mentioned in my remarks, even the head of Elections Canada can't vote. Now—

11:10 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Yes, but do you have any examples? Has this been a problem? You say it's an “imperative”.

You refer to them as “so-called agents of Parliament”. They are actual agents of Parliament; they're not “so-called”.

Do you have any examples? If this is so imperative, you should have some examples. Where, other than in your colleague's attack on Mr. Mayrand, have these agents of Parliament acted in a partisan manner?

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON

Well, Mr. Angus, I'm trying to answer your question, if you'll give me the time to do do so.

What I'm telling you is that my private member's bill will enhance transparency and accountability. These special agents of Parliament hold a very special responsibility in our parliamentary system, and all I'm trying to do with my private member's bill—

11:10 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

So you don't have any examples.

Well, I'll continue. I only have seven minutes. You don't have any examples.

Partisan activity is already prohibited under the Public Service Employment Act, but what is not included that would be different in your bill is the ability of members of Parliament or of the Senate to demand investigations against these agents of Parliament.

Your colleague Mr. Penashue had to resign in disgrace because of investigations by Elections Canada. If your bill became law, would it have been possible for Mr. Penashue to demand an investigation into whether Elections Canada was unfairly picking on him? Would it suffice, under clause 9 of your bill?

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON

Well, Mr. Angus, quite frankly, I'm not here to comment on other members of Parliament and what they have or have not said. What I'm here to talk about is my own private member's bill—

11:10 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

But I'm trying to understand the bill here.

Let's say that cabinet minister X is under investigation by Elections Canada. Cabinet minister X thinks.... Or let's say that it's parliamentary secretary X who says, “I feel violated and betrayed by an agency in which I and every other member of this place, indeed all Canadians, must place their trust, and I feel strongly that this process has been conducted”—this process being an investigation by Elections Canada—“with malice and contempt for me as a member and for my family's well-being.”

Furthermore, let's say that person X, a former parliamentary secretary to the prime minister, says that being investigated for abusing the electoral laws of Canada is a breach of his privilege. Under your bill, he'd be able to make a complaint, would he not? Right now, Mr. X, Mr. Dean Del Mastro, is unable to make that complaint, but under clause 9 he would be able to make a complaint. Am I correct?

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON

Well, let me just tell you, Mr. Angus, once again, that the purpose of my bill is to bring—

11:10 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Just answer the question. Will he be able to—

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON

I'm trying to answer the question—

11:10 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Tell me—

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON

Chair, I'm trying to answer but he won't let me.

11:10 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

—does he have the power to do that?

I've read your bill. I want to know, in your opinion, would member X, Mr. Dean Del Mastro, who feels that his rights were abused by being investigated by Elections Canada, be able to launch an investigation against Elections Canada?

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON

Mr. Angus, I'm not here to comment on specific cases. What I'm here to talk about is my private member's bill, Bill C-520. What I'm telling you is that these agencies hold a very unique role in our parliamentary system—

11:10 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

I understand that, so—

February 25th, 2014 / 11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON

—but let me just tell you—

11:10 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

—transparency, Mr. Adler, I like your word “transparency”. Under clause 10 of your bill, these agents of Parliament, after having been called out by one of your colleagues, “must submit a report to Parliament”.

When your colleague Mike Duffy and your colleague Nigel Wright were being accused of fraud and bribery, it was handed over to the Ethics Commissioner, but the Ethics Commissioner had no power to investigate Mike Duffy because he was a senator. Tell me if I'm wrong. Under clause 9, if Mike Duffy were still a sitting senator, Mike Duffy would be able to demand an investigation of the Ethics Commissioner even though the Ethics Commissioner couldn't investigate Mike Duffy. Is that not correct?

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON

You know what, Mr. Angus? This bill will protect all members of Parliament. This is not a partisan bill—

11:15 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

No, but if you understand this, you should be able to explain. Would Mike Duffy have been able to demand an investigation of the Ethics Commissioner? The Ethics Commissioner doesn't have the power to investigate Mike Duffy.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON

Mr. Angus, I'm here to talk about not specific incidents. I'm here to talk about my bill and my—

11:15 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Okay, so transparency; I like your word “transparency”.

The Conservatives, our colleagues on the other side, have just brought in changes to the Conflict of Interest Act, and they're very worried about vexatious investigations. In fact, what they're saying is that when your colleagues, your fellow cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries are investigated for lobbying, for taking money inappropriately, those investigations must be kept secret by the Ethics Commissioner. That's what they're calling for in the conflict of interest changes.

I don't see any obligation for this to be kept secret when one of your members wants an investigation against an officer of Parliament. Why wouldn't you have the same protection that your colleagues are putting in for cabinet ministers? Wouldn't you think it would be fair if you, for example, decide to make a vexatious complaint against the Ethics Commissioner that it would be kept secret until it's been discussed? I want to know why, in transparency, it's fine for you and your colleagues to attack officers of Parliament, but officers of Parliament have to keep their investigations against your colleagues secret. Why is that missing?

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON

I'm not here to talk about other pieces of legislation, other proposed legislation. Bill C-520