I agree with my colleague's analysis of clause 6. Even the process of appointing an agent of Parliament partly excludes this possibility. Furthermore, the code of conduct of agents of Parliament and the law governing the political activities of public servants sufficiently cover that possibility. I see only bitterness on the government's part in this clause.
As for Mr. Page and the other individuals who had the audacity to criticize the government, some of my colleagues have said they were subjected to a witch hunt. I would not go so far as to say that, but the fact remains that I do not understand the logic of this amendment since we already have an act that limits the political activities of agents of Parliament.
Why does the government need this kind of provision? Can anyone imagine asking commissioners to come and testify about their political activities before a committee?
We will cross-examine these persons on their political opinions, on whether they have or have not been members of a particular party, whether they will be in the future, whether they intend to be, whether or not their wives will be, and whether or not their kids have actually engaged in any form of partisan activity.
It seems to me what this article is to give a beating stick or a flail to a government. With future governments, we'll have to live with their ability to smear the name of an independent agent of Parliament on a whim, or on an ill-defined partisan definition. I think it doesn't have its place in a democracy, where we have agents of Parliament who actually watch the government and do their job. Also, we're not the only ones saying so. As my colleague, Madame Borg pointed out, the commissioners themselves don't understand why this was put into this bill and what it's supposed to cover.
At one point, Mr. Chair, we have to understand that this has never occurred in the past. There has not been one incident of partisan activity in the various commissioners' offices. So, you solve a problem when there is a problem. You don't create a solution which causes problems.
It seems to me there has to be some form of evidence-based legislation-making, and this is clearly a failure on that account on several levels. So, if it hasn't happened, why are they wanting to drag out the commissioners on their partisan opinions? I don't understand it. The commissioners don't understand it. The Canadian public doesn't understand it.
It's too bad I can't ask questions of the drafter of this bill, because it would be interesting to know what motivated the inclusion of this particular article. But the fact that the government actually wants to keep it in here is really worrying, and it would be interesting to understand why. Why do they feel this is actually necessary? I'm not going to get that answer. It will probably go to a vote, but it would be interesting, indeed, to have it, because I'm sure there are a lot of people asking the same questions that I am.
So, I'll keep it there, Mr. Chair, and I thank you for your diligence.