Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 25th, 2014

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can see that sometimes wounds hurt when you touch them while they're healing.

Anyway, I'd like to ask a very pointed question. It's very simple. Is it not true that the PMO essentially gave you this bill to distract from the Conservatives' poor record on transparency and accountability?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you for that question.

This is a private member's bill. The whole purpose of a private member's bill is it's legislation that is brought in by somebody who is not a member of the government, just as a member of Parliament, which is in fact what I have done. I hope to muster the support of as many members of Parliament as possible and in the outcome of passing this very important piece of proposed legislation which I think would be—

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you for that answer. I think that pretty much answers it.

The problems with this bill go on and on. We're not the only ones to be pointing it out. It has been pointed out by various commissioners. It has no definition of partisan conduct, no threshold of evidence that would be required to request an investigation, no remedial action or any redress mechanism for the employee, no confidentiality requirements for examinations, nothing on the impacts of an examination on an employee, and nothing if there is no basis for finding that employee acted in a partisan manner. The lack of definitions is problematic. I can quote for example the letter to our honourable chair to that effect by the commissioners.

When a letter is signed by no less than five commissioners, and these are experts, there are clear holes in this bill. This is not a serious attempt to deal with partisan issues at the highest levels. There has never been a single case where it has been a problem. All of this is smoke and mirrors. Could you just simply admit it, Mr. Adler, that this has nothing to do with true dealings with cases of partisanship? It's a flawed bill. Why bring it forward? The Public Service Employment Act has provisions in it for partisanship. It's actually better at defining what partisanship is about than your bill. Do you recognize that these are fundamental problems, Mr. Adler?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I don't know if I'll be able to persuade you of anything other than your own conclusions.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I'm not the only one saying it, Mr. Adler.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

It's quite clear what the definition of a partisan position is in the bill. I suspect that given you don't know what the definition is, you didn't read the bill. A “politically partisan position” means the following: if you were an electoral candidate, if you serve in an electoral district association as an officer, if you're a member of a ministerial staff—

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Adler, I must interrupt you because it is not necessary that you read the bill.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

—if you're a member of a parliamentary staff, or if you're a member of a political staff.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Order, order. One at a time.

Mr. Ravignat, you have the floor.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I have read it thoroughly. It contains some serious problems, but you are not responding to the issues that these raise.

One of the commissioners from the Public Service Commission of Canada wrote the following in a letter addressed to Mr. Martin:

In particular, the Commission is concerned about the Bill's effect on the merit-based appointment system and the impact of the overlap with Public Service employment Act (PSEA) provisions for managing non-partisanship and political activities of public servants.

That is quite serious. The Public Service Commission has taken the time to write to the government about the shortcomings of your bill.

Mr. Adler, how do you respond to the Public Service Commission?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Your five minutes are up.

We'll give Mr. Adler a few seconds to respond, if he likes.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I would say that these nine agencies of Parliament are not just public servants. They hold a very exceptional role and the expectation is that they are to be non-partisan.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Have you considered how your bill overlaps....

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

No more back and forth, please. Your five minutes has expired.

Mr. Adler, I don't think you'll have time to expand on that. Perhaps in response to other questions you can elaborate.

Pat Davidson for the Conservatives, for five minutes.

We're in five-minute rounds, colleagues.

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

Welcome, Mr. Adler. Congratulations on getting your private member's bill this far, to committee. We all have a lot of questions. One thing in questions and comments that I have heard several times is that some people do not believe there is any definition of partisan activities.

I know you talked about that in your opening remarks and you also just tried to address that issue with my colleague across the table but were unable to. I would like to give you the opportunity to talk about the definition of partisan activities, please, as it relates to your bill.

[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.

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

Thank you very much.

Why should former partisans need to disclose their past activities?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I think in the greater spirit of transparency.... These are unique agencies that we are talking about here. These are not just public servants. These people have oversight over the elected members of Parliament. They hold a unique position. In fact, the Chief Electoral Officer isn't even allowed to vote. That's how unique these positions are.

It's important that the public and members of Parliament have the level of confidence that people who stand in judgment upon them are non-partisan. They take the oath, according to the Public Service Employment Act, that they must be non-partisan. This is consistent with their oath. This is about more information being available to members of Parliament, to people who are elected, and to the people who send them there, the voters, the constituents.

More information is better. More transparency is better. More accountability is better. It's in the interests of everyone.

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

We've talked about partisan activities and why we need to disclose this. Does your bill ban political activity?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Absolutely not. Absolutely not.

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

Could you elaborate on that, please?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

There is no provision in the bill whatsoever that bans political activity.

Under the current legislation, the Public Service Employment Act, those people who work in these agencies must take an oath to the effect that they are non-partisan.

My bill simply opens the curtain. It makes it for all to see. Currently, if someone is suspected of partisan activity, an investigation is conducted in secret. This brings it out into the open. More information is better.

It's better that we know more about those people that stand in judgment upon members of Parliament. It benefits both the members of Parliament and definitely the voters, the people of Canada. It's essential that the people have as much information as possible, particularly about those people who stand in judgment upon members of Parliament.

Definitions are clearly defined within the proposed bill. I would think that all members of Parliament would be in favour of more transparency, allowing people, citizens of Canada, the voters that elect their members to Parliament, to have more information at their disposal. I think it's a good thing.

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

When you were doing your research, were you able to find any other countries that might have comparable legislation in place?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Yes. In fact, Australia has very similar legislation, as do the United States and Britain. We're heading toward a world of more transparency. I can't understand why anybody would be against more transparency. I think it's a good thing, and so, too, do most members of Parliament.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

On that accountability, we have to conclude this five-minute round.

For the NDP, Charmaine Borg, for five minutes.