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.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
This is for each of you individually.
Mr. Angus has indicted in his comments that this bill would allow Conservatives to launch a complaint against each of you. In your read of the bill, can you point to the section that allows only Conservatives to launch a complaint against the work that you're doing? I've missed it, so if that's in there, could you guys, any one of you, point it out to me?
Ms. Dawson, do you see that anywhere in the bill?
12:30 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
No, it's not in the bill.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
My understanding is that any member of the House or the Senate can file a complaint. In fact, any member of the Canadian public could do it under other instruments.
12:30 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
I would just agree with what Mr. Mayrand said.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Ferguson, am I allowed to say congratulations on your French? I've been studying for a bit and have had a difficult time. You seem to be doing a lot better than I am in a much shorter time period, so congratulations on that, sir.
I want to pick up on something you said. I think it was in regard to the bill applying to employees no matter what duties they carry out. You said that the committee may wish to consider whether the objectives of the bill could still be met by restricting its application to those senior managers and employees with authority. What you're saying, in essence, is that perhaps people who are doing administrative work in your office shouldn't be necessarily subject to the entire force of this bill.
In terms of bringing it forward to senior managers or people who are in control of particular files, would that be a good idea? Is that something we should seriously consider?
We're just trying to make what you consider a not necessarily spectacular bill better by looking at ways of improving it.
12:35 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
I think, as I pointed out in my opening comments, there are a number of parts of the bill that could be problematic and need to be improved.
One of the overall concerns is that if this bill is going to go forward, is it really necessary to apply it to every single person who comes into our employ?
I'm equally concerned with clause 6, which I think implies that as an agent of Parliament I could undertake some sort of partisan activity while occupying this position, whereas currently, under section 117 of the Public Service Employment Act, I already cannot do that. That causes some confusion.
Overall within the bill there are many of those types of things that would need to be improved for it to achieve its objectives.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Mayrand, your presentation in point four says that the objective of maintaining neutrality in the organization would not be achieved by allowing even a small number of employees to engage in political activity, no matter how limited, at the federal, provincial, or territorial level. Point six refers to the obligation in clause 11 of the bill to publish on your website politically partisan positions of staff over the last 10 years. That would be obviously a new part. As you said in your opening comments, your organization already seems to have gone in the direction of doing everything you possibly can to try to remove partisanship entirely from it. I'm not sure...the provisions of this bill, then, would have almost no impact on your organization because of your position with respect to partisan activity, and the positions of previous chief electoral officers. Is that fair?
12:35 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
First, there's a point I'd like to raise. My understanding about the declaration would be about partisan position, not partisan activity. I think it's two things.
Partisan positions are defined quite narrowly, and you're correct in saying that I wouldn't expect anyone currently performing any of the positions that are identified in the statute...that would be against our code of ethics. The issue becomes whether when you hire new employees, declaration prior to their employment should be declared. I think that, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, raises issues of privacy.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Ms. Dawson, when I've heard you before the committee before, one of the frustrations you've sometimes brought forward is that all members of Parliament, and I think we're all guilty—Liberal, Conservative, NDP, and Bloc, and I'm not sure about the Green—sometimes approach your office and make allegations against each other, knowing full well that you will likely reject that comment, but there's no—I don't want to say punishment—recourse to take on the person who makes a vexatious request of your office.
I don't want to make it sound like you're supportive of all the clauses of the bill, but is that something we should be obviously tightening up in this?
12:35 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, indeed. Actually, my act does allow for me to make comment on frivolous and vexatious...but there's always been a kernel of something in these things that are raised. My objection is usually that they're made public, and the person who is accused isn't even told about it, but that's another question.
With respect to this bill, the problem is deeper than just the frivolous and vexatious.... The problem is there's absolutely no test as to when somebody can make a complaint. At least in my act, you have to have reasonable grounds, and that's why usually there's not a frivolous and vexatious problem, because it just doesn't proceed if there's no reasonable grounds. But under this bill, nobody has to even think up any reasonable grounds. They could just fling mud.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Really briefly, it's also been suggested to me that potentially a cooling-off period between partisan activity and employment in your agencies might be something to consider. Are there any thoughts on that now?
12:40 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Cooling-off periods work for a year or two. It's not something I would necessarily have thought of suggesting, but it's not offensive.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
I guess it wouldn't apply to you, really, Mr. Mayrand, because of the nature of Elections Canada.
Mr. Ferguson.
12:40 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Again, certainly if the committee decided to add in something around a cooling-off period, particularly for the agent, I think that's a reasonable thing to consider.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
I don't want to cut you off, Mr. Mayrand, but I don't imagine any partisan activity at all is something you would contemplate anyway.
All right, that's fine. Thank you.
12:40 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
It would have to ensure that it would harmonize with the concept of merit that we are all bound to follow when we hire people. That's an issue that needs to be addressed if you go this route.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Thank you, Mr. Mayrand.
Thank you, Mr. Calandra.
Next for the Liberal Party, Mr. Scott Andrews.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Welcome folks, and thank you for coming.
It's nice to point out and recognize that each one of the agents of Parliament often come from a long line of distinguished careers within the public service. They have been around government for many years. They have come up through the ranks of deputy ministers and come from outside government as well.
I'm not going to pick on you, Mr. Ferguson, but I'm going to ask you, because you are the rookie of the group here in the appointments process. Just out of curiosity, could you shed some light on how you were interviewed for the job of Auditor General, what processes you went through? Was there a disclosure during that time where you were asked about your political involvement?
I'm trying to get some understanding on how one agent of Parliament gets interviewed, or is suggested for their particular role. Was partisanship activity ever discussed during that type of process that led you to being recommended to Parliament?
12:40 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
The process I went through lasted about a year, so it could take a while for me to describe it all. It included a number of interviews. It included testing both on language competency and psychometric testing, I guess, on my temperament essentially, and things like that. It involved a number of tests, questions, and interviews.
To the best of my recollection, at no time was there ever any discussion about any political activities, and I've not had any political activities.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
It's one thing for the agents of Parliament to have to go through this and as much as you guys have stated, but your employees as well. We would be into, I guess, the hundreds to thousands of employees that this bill would encompass.
Mr. Ferguson, you talked about the overlap of the PSEA. Does that suffice? Does what the Public Service Commission have there suffice, do you think, for the overlap between what this bill is proposing? Is it strong enough wording in that process?
12:40 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Again, what we were pointing out is that there are some overlaps, and those overlaps, at least for me, are causing some confusion that's not there in the absence of this bill.
For example, section 6 under the current legislation is quite clear that the only thing I can do from a political point of view is to vote. That's the only right I have. Clause 6 seems to imply I can consider some partisan activity even while I'm an agent of Parliament.
Clause 7 talks about a potential employee providing this information as soon as possible. Our concern there is if somebody provides information that says I've had this type of political partisan position in the past, and that person then is not successful in getting the job they are applying for, they might infer the reason they are not getting that is because of their past political position. It puts us in sort of a problem that's not there right now just based on the merit principles.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
That was my next question. Talking about merit and their past involvement, what are the legal ramifications? We live in a free country and you're allowed to be involved with a political party and you're allowed to vote. If someone were to take it to that extent, this could really get into a legal casework.