Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 25th, 2014

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

But don't you think it would be good to have that to protect against vexatious complaints?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

This is to protect all members of Parliament, not just any one particular party. When a member of Parliament or a senator suspects that a member of one of these agencies acted in a partisan manner, they may request, they can request, of the head of that agency to conduct an investigation—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

But you haven't given us any example—

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

The head of that agency—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

—other than the attack on Marc Mayrand—

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

—may conduct an investigation—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

You don't have an example.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Actually, you only have about 30 seconds left. If you want to complete your—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Okay. Could—

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

No, I'm going to let Mr. Adler conclude his remark.

Had you finished your comment?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Let me just say that the member of Parliament or the senator can ask the head of the agency to conduct an investigation. If the head of that agency deems it's worthwhile, deems.... In the proposed bill, it says “may” conduct an investigation. If it seems on the, I guess, prima facie case that there is evidence of a political agenda or partisan activity, then the head of that agency can conduct an investigation and make those findings available to both the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the Senate, all very public.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

And would you be able to do that as a smear? You could just put out a press release saying that you think Elections Canada is unfairly targeting Mr. Penashue, Mr. Dean Del Mastro—

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I'm afraid you're out of time, Mr. Angus. There's no time for a response to that.

The next questioner is Mr. Calandra, for seven minutes, please.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Adler, congratulations on being able to bring a private member's bill forward.

I think it's pretty obvious, and I imagine you must have known when you were drafting the bill, that this would be a bill that would bring some controversy or contention with it. From the first round of questioning, I think it's quite obvious the avenue that at least the opposition is going to go on here.

I'm more concerned with what your motivations are on this. In particular, I think it was quite clear from the moment the bill was introduced that many people were categorizing this as a bit of a witch hunt. I'm wondering if you can address that, and indicate what your motivation was in bringing the bill forward. Also, perhaps you could address the witch hunt aspect of this bill.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you for that question, Mr. Calandra.

Quite frankly, this bill will benefit all members of Parliament. It's really to enhance transparency and accountability. Once again, these offices, these nine agents of Parliament, hold a very unique position within our parliamentary democracy. These people sit in judgment on members of Parliament. Currently, the people who are employed in these agencies must sign an oath. Nothing on that front changes. The only change that we're asking for here in my private member's bill is that any partisan activity dating back 10 years be made public.

For the life of me, I can't understand why anybody would be against transparency. I think that transparency is a good thing. Certainly, my constituents tell me when I go door to door in my own riding of York Centre that the more transparency and accountability, the better. This is consistent with what our government has been doing since we came into power in 2006 initially with the Federal Accountability Act. On that score, we've introduced a number of other pieces of legislation to improve transparency. This is just another leg on the stool.

I think transparency is a good thing. I think this bill is a good thing. The more information that's available to the public, to the people of Canada, the better.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

It's safe to say that your goal with the legislation isn't to investigate current partisans within particular agencies. It's not outing anybody for being a particular partisan. The goal is, obviously, moving forward to help ensure that these agencies continue to work in the fashion that at least I believe they are right now, a non-partisan fashion. This just adds to that level of accountability.

I asked that only because I think Mr. Angus wasn't quite understanding the purpose of the bill. He seems to be looking for a retroactivity in this, trying to get you to out people who might be partisan. That's not what this is about, I'm assuming. This is about moving forward and adding another layer of accountability. Am I correct on that?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Exactly, exactly.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Again, just give me a bit more on the motivation. Obviously, it's a great honour to be able to bring a private member's bill forward. I never had the opportunity when I was first elected. I think I was 212 on the list or something like that. Just give me a little bit of the rationale, your motivation, for using your spot to bring this forward.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Given our focus on transparency and accountability as a government, and given that in the riding, as I said, people have been telling me that the more transparency the better, with that in mind, in anticipation of my position coming up for a private member's bill, I wanted to do something that would enhance the transparency of government in one fashion or another. In my readings, I came across that these agents, these nine specific agencies of Parliament, all of whom must take an oath to be non-partisan.... I thought it would be just another higher level of transparency and better for the Canadian people to have more enhanced information, more enhanced exposure, and allow members of Parliament also to have that added level of confidence that, when they're being investigated, they are being investigated by people who are non-partisan. It's very, very important.

Given the import that I placed on this, I thought this would make a good private member's bill. Therefore, I began to pursue it.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

If I'm getting this, in essence you're trying to add another tool to the tool kit for these agents to ensure they provide that level of accountability and non-partisan accountability so that when a member of Parliament or a senator has a complaint, they can be assured that it is being dealt with in as non-partisan a fashion as we would expect.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

That's a very good way of putting it. This bill is not just for the governing party. This bill will enhance the powers of all members of Parliament regardless of party. This has no partisan intent whatsoever. Yes, if a partisan initiative is suspected by a member of Parliament, once again, it can be referred to the head of that agency. The head of the agency may conduct investigations if they deem that partisan activity conducted or guided the investigation in any substantive way. It's about transparency, plain and simple.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Calandra. That concludes your seven minutes.

Next for the Liberal Party, we have Mr. Scott Andrews. You have seven minutes, Mr. Andrews.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair,

Full disclosure and transparency are good things, and I think we all aspire to do more of that.

I'd like to ask you a question about what you call past partisanship and how past partisanship in one person's life is considered a bad thing. Why is one's past partisanship an important part of this bill? You said “free of political influence”. If someone has past partisanship, does that entitle them to some sort of political influence?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

No, not at all. First of all, I have never said that past partisan activity is a bad thing. People have different journeys in their lives, and it takes them down different roads. The expectation from people who work in these offices is that they be non-partisan. They even have to swear an oath to that effect. This sheds light on the fact that the oath they take is pretty much codifying what they're saying. Past partisan position is clearly enumerated and defined within the bill, and it includes being an electoral candidate, an electoral district association officer, a member of a ministerial staff, a member of a parliamentary staff, or a member of a political staff.

Let's face it, Mr. Andrews. You wouldn't accept an employee of mine, say my chief of staff, and try to hire that person away to work in your office, because you would have some suspicions about their past political affiliations. This sheds light. It opens the curtain. It lets the light in and allows the members of Parliament and people to see that people have had past partisan activity, period. It's as simple as that.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

You didn't explain why someone's past partisanship is a bad thing.

You, sir, were a Liberal staffer at one point in your life. You were a donor to the Liberal Party, and you said more information is better and that the public deserves more. I don't think you disclosed any of that when you were running for office yourself.