Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 25th, 2014

[Michael Ferguson]

I'm not going to try and predict that, but certainly the way some of these clauses are written is adding some confusion that is not there already. It would then have to go through some sort of process to try to sort it out.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Mayrand, I have one question.

One of the things in Elections Canada legislation is that political parties who finish first and second in each riding in the country have to provide you with the names of DROs and returning officers. There's a format. It's a terrible process because it takes a lot of work that we shouldn't be doing anyway.

How does this bill reflect on the simple workers on the ground and conflict with Elections Canada?

[Marc Mayrand]

Again, that's provided by the legislation. I guess it's reasonable in the context that these workers work in pairs. They are appointed by.... There is a check and balance built in.

I would point out something which I will raise in another forum. Bill C-23 goes much further. That's the bill that proposes to reform the Elections Act. That would be a concern for me because, from now on, under the new bill, poll supervisors will be appointed by the party that won the riding in the last election. Poll supervisors oversee what's happening at the polls, and they are resource persons to those workers who work in teams. Again, I'm not sure, in reading this in the context of this piece of legislation, how they would fit with one another.

On one hand, this bill requires the utmost non-partisanship on my part and the part of all agents of Parliament. On the other hand, another bill builds an element of partisanship into the system. I'm not sure how we're going to deal with that in the future.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Yes, absolutely. I didn't realize that with the other bill. That's something I'd like to get into at a different forum, because it's a very complex issue from a campaign point of view.

Ms. Dawson, it's a pleasure to have you here again. I just want to go—

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

You have 30 seconds, Mr. Andrews, to pose the question.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Following on Paul Calandra's point of view, on investigations, the format for investigations for these things, and the partisanship of this place in making recommendations, in this bill, who does the investigations? Are you investigating your own department if a complaint is launched? Do you see that maybe some other agent of Parliament should do the investigation to have a bit of separation? I'm not quite familiar with that, if that's covered off in this bill or not.

[Mary Dawson]

Well, it's a strange provision, clause 9, because it is a bit odd that it comes to the person running the shop. I find that “may” in that clause a bit strange, because I can't imagine, if you got a complaint like this, people not saying that you had better look into it. In other words, I don't know how much discretion in practice there actually is, but that's another point.

I don't think it's necessary in the first place, but there could be another person who looks into it. It's not my bill.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to cut you off, Ms. Dawson. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Andrews.

Ms. Davidson.

[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?

[Marc Mayrand]

In our context, the code of ethics would prohibit volunteer activities for political parties or any campaign. Whether it's a riding association, a party, or a campaign, that would be prohibited, that volunteer work.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Under your code of conduct—

[Marc Mayrand]

Yes.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

—or under the PSEA?

[Marc Mayrand]

In the case of the PSEA, it's in the context. It depends on the position you hold in the organization, the level of influence, and the visibility. In our case, I would say, it's a total prohibition. It's not acceptable for someone at Elections Canada to volunteer, for example, for a party. That's a sacrifice which the people who work at Elections Canada must make.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Ferguson.

[Michael Ferguson]

I can't speak to all of the aspects of the PSEA, but certainly one question I had when I looked at this bill was on the fact that it didn't seem to be covering volunteer activity. To the extent does that matter or not, I don't know, but I can't speak to exactly how the PSEA would cover that.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Ms. Dawson, you indicated that you are not subject to the PSEA, and therefore you weren't a signatory to the letter. The other agents of Parliament were subject to that act.

You also talked about some of the technical challenges that might arise. Could you elaborate on a couple of those? While you're doing that, could you comment on the privacy issue of having to have employees declare?

[Mary Dawson]

I think the most serious technical issue is the one I just mentioned, that there is just no threshold for when somebody can put a complaint in. They can just put it in with no evidence at all. Then the commissioner involved there has to decide whether to launch an investigation. As I was saying, it's pretty hard for them not to launch it once the thing is raised, even though there is a “may” there, because the only way they can get a public airing of the thing is to put something out.

Now, as was just mentioned, I know the way the general rules work regarding whether you can be involved in political activities changes with the level you are at, so to apply them to some officer in your office who couldn't have had any effect on anything seems to be an unnecessary invasion of privacy.

There are concerns generally about people's privacy being invaded, but people's privacy is often invaded for a good reason, for example, in the case of MPs who are being investigated. There's always a balance and you have to have a good reason to infringe on privacy.

In all these cases, there may not be a strong enough reason, in my view, but it depends.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Okay.

Mr. Ferguson, in your opening remarks you said that each year every employee completes a conflict of interest declaration. Then at the end of that statement, you said that any cases that give rise to a real or perceived threat to independence are reviewed by senior managers and the office's specialist for values and ethics.

Have there been cases in which this has arisen, and what kinds of things would be involved?

[Michael Ferguson]

We often have cases of employees coming forward with a potential conflict. We may have employees who were previously employed in a given department but who are now auditors with us, so we need to make sure we're not putting them on auditing something they were doing before.

If we ask you about potential conflicts of interest, those run the whole gamut. They're not just political. From that point of view, the question is whether there is any reason that you or a member of your family has a connection to the organization that you are auditing that could cause somebody to question your independence to act on this audit.

We ask that on every single audit we do before we start the audit.

[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?

[Michael Ferguson]

I think we manage conflicts of interest extremely carefully. Our whole reputation is based on our independence, our objectivity, and the way we do our work, so we manage those extremely carefully.

I suppose what this whole exercise does is maybe make sure we are asking the question extremely specifically about partisan activity, but I'm more concerned that the bill itself could cause some opposite behaviour.

For example, now people will know that the information they are declaring will be on the web. That ends up disclosing an additional piece of information about them which is where they are working right now, at the office of the Auditor General, which otherwise would not necessarily be known.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I'm sorry to have to interrupt you.

You're well over time, Ms. Davidson.

For the last four minutes we have Mr. Mathieu Ravignat.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I have a really quick question for you. We don't have a lot of time left, unfortunately. Maybe just a simple yes or no answer would suffice on this one.

Could this bill potentially decrease and reduce your independence?

[Mary Dawson]

I think the one danger here is that if a spurious complaint came in, it might disrupt proceedings that were under way. It casts doubt on the decision-maker. I think that's the most serious concern in this bill.