Information & Ethics Committee on May 15th, 2014

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

It being 11 o'clock we will call this meeting to order.

We are continuing with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-520, An Act supporting non-partisan agents of Parliament. I believe where we left off on Tuesday was clause 9.

(On clause 9—Holder of a position in the office of an agent of Parliament)

Is there any further discussion on clause 9?

Madam Borg had the floor at the time we left.

Were you finished?

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I would like to repeat that this clause really shows the bill's fundamental deficiencies. I know the Conservatives have repeated that they want to vote against this clause, and I am very pleased about that. However, I do not understand how such a bill, which would open the door to these kinds of witch hunts, could have been introduced.

I am pleased that at least minor changes have been accepted. The fact remains, however, that this bill is fundamentally problematic and an insult to agents of Parliament.

Now I would like to hand the floor over to my colleague.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Angus.

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

I'm just interested in clause 9, and it will be in clause 10 as well. This is one of the key issues that was raised by many people. I'm looking at an article in the March 21 edition of The Lawyer's Weekly, where lawyers for the federal commissioners are raising alarm bells, particularly about this clause of Mr. Adler's bill. It says that crown counsel Lisa Blais said that Bill C-520 “would give politicians a weapon to attack independent and impartial Parliamentary officers”, and “It politicizes the public service”. She particularly drills down on clause 9 and in the ability to demand investigations by members of Parliament or the Senate.

The article says, “if passed it could jeopardize the ability of the 40 lawyers who work for agents of Parliament to do their jobs, Blais warned.” She also said:

Their professionalism [and] impartiality is questioned and suspect. If they make a very tough call in the context of their position, will this be used as a sword because some politician doesn't like an opinion that one of our members provides? So there will be a chilling effect potentially when it comes to our members discharging their duties.

My understanding is that Mr. Adler's no longer supporting clause 9. I'd like to ask him, does he agree with this assessment by federal crown lawyers that this would impede the independence of the parliamentary officers of Parliament, and is his decision not to support clause 9 an indication that he's recognized that mistake?

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

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

Mr. Angus wasn't here at the last meeting, so he probably isn't aware of the fact that Mr. Adler has already indicated that he has already answered all the questions, and the opposition had an opportunity to do that when he appeared before the committee. At this point we've already indicated we'd be voting against clauses 9 and 10 on Mr. Adler's advice after he communicated and held further discussions with individuals. So I'm not sure what point this would serve since we've already indicated we're voting against.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you, Mr. Calandra.

I think we've already established that Mr. Adler was here before the committee as a witness. He's not here in that capacity today.

Is there any further discussion on clause 9?

(Clause 9 negatived)

(On clause 10—Tabling in both Houses)

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Is there any discussion on clause 10?

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Adler was here before as a witness supporting all the clauses in the bill. Now he's no longer supporting the clauses in the bill based on, Mr. Calandra tells us, discussions with further individuals. Given the fact that it's extraordinary to see unanimous opposition to the key principle of his bill, I would like to know, being that we did ask Mr. Adler questions the last time and he was fully supportive of clauses 9 and 10 and now he's fully against clauses 9 and 10, would Mr. Adler tell us who gave him his advice that he realized that he was so wrong in this attack on the independence of the officers of Parliament and the ability of parliamentary officers to do their duty on behalf of the Canadian people? I think it would be helpful for us to know.

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

Madam Chair, that's not a point of order.

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

That wasn't a point of order. That was a question.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Excuse me. We've already established, Mr. Angus, that Mr. Adler is not here as a witness today. If Mr. Adler wishes to answer the question, he's free to do so, but he's not here as a witness.

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

Well, just to be fair, I fully understand that, Madam Chair. I'm not expecting him to be a witness, but this is his bill, and we're seeing a bill that they're now stripping. I think to show that he's done his due diligence, I'm giving him the opportunity to explain to our committee why he can't even get the support of his own caucus for the bill that he's brought forward.

That's not a witness question. That's a fair question to see if we can get a further understanding of the fundamental problems and the realization that he certainly presented some really problematic motions that even his own caucus is voting against.

I'm giving him, as a colleague, an opportunity to explain who it was who gave him the advice.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Are there further discussions on clause 10?

Madam Borg.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you.

Once again, although I am pleased that clause 10 was not supported, the very fact that this kind of bill was introduced in Parliament, that the Conservative Party voted for it on second reading and that it was referred to the committee in this way, with two provisions permitting investigations of persons who are supposed to ensure that members obey the law, is extremely problematic.

The withdrawal of those provisions here today reflects a certain amount of good will, but the mere fact that they were introduced indicates a genuine lack of respect for agents of Parliament. This opens the door to witch hunts. Dean Del Mastro, for example, requested an investigation into Elections Canada because he was not happy with what that agency did and felt particularly targeted for partisan reasons.

What appears in clauses 9 and 10 is totally vague. It permits witch hunts, and we are fundamentally opposed to those clauses.

In the circumstances, I will be happy to vote against clause 10 along with my colleagues.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Is there further discussion on clause 10?

Mr. Calandra.

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

Madam Chair, I can appreciate that the NDP is in a very difficult spot today with their leader being before a committee of Parliament to try to account for the potentially gross misconduct that their leader and their party, and virtually all of their Quebec members and probably other members, have shown, and the disrespect they've shown to the taxpayers with respect to the millions of dollars that they have potentially used inappropriately. I know that Elections Canada is currently investigating them on.... I think, if I'm not mistaken, that I read it's millions—1.8 million or something—of potentially illegal flyers that were sent out into ridings in an attempt to influence the—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

On a point of order, Ms. Borg.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I do not know if the member has a point of order or whether he is talking about clauses 9 or 10. Whatever the case may be, I do not think his remarks are entirely relevant to those clauses of the bill. I ask that he make a bit more of an effort to abide by the rule of relevance to the subject we are discussing today.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

I'm quite sure the relevance will appear.

Mr. Calandra.

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

Definitely, Madam Chair.

As I said, I can understand the frustration and the anger that the NDP must feel today in light of the fact that their leader, and basically almost their entire caucus, is potentially found in a very embarrassing and troubling situation where millions of taxpayers' dollars—hard-earned taxpayers' dollars. Let's be honest; the taxpayers work very, very hard.

I know that in my riding, Madam Chair, a lot of them get up at six o'clock in the morning and are at the GO train station by seven o'clock. They find their way to downtown Toronto. The farmers in my community are up at five o'clock in the morning. They milk their cows. They feed their chickens. They work all day, and they come in at nine o'clock at night and have dinner. All they ask is that the dollars they work hard for be treated with respect, Madam Chair. What they're seeing today, of course, in another parliamentary committee, is that the NDP and their leader just flagrantly disrespected Canadian taxpayers.

I know that the member opposite talked about our agents of Parliament in this bill. I think what Mr. Adler did was try to shine a light. He looked at something that he had heard a lot of people talk about. In fact, since I've been here I've heard a lot of members of the NDP talk about how they were worried that as the Liberals were being thrown out of office by the Canadian taxpayers for the gross misconduct they showed with taxpayers' dollars when they stole millions of dollars through the sponsorship scandal, they still have not turned over the $40 million, for which we have been looking very hard. I remember when I first came here that a lot of the members of the NDP talked about how the Liberals—who were fired by the people of Canada—flooded their staff into different departments and they were all worried about this. We heard a little bit of that as we were out and about.

Mr. Adler came forward with this bill. He followed the right process. Imagine that, Madam Chair. He brought it into the House of Commons for debate. He then appeared as a witness. He went and heard testimony from our agents of Parliament. He then went back, after he heard that testimony, took some more advice, spoke to people within his riding, and spoke to our caucus.

I know that we, as a committee, reached out to members opposite and we did what committees are supposed to do. We reviewed a bill and we came forward with amendments. Mr. Adler had a number of reasoned amendments. We've changed the bill based on what we heard at committee, and based on what he has heard as he has talked to people.

What we've seen over the last two days here by the members of the NDP is nothing short of a disgrace. It's just a flagrant attempt to try to move the channel away from what has been happening in Parliament over the last few days with respect to the gross and really quite ugly potential misconduct of the NDP when it comes to millions of taxpayers' dollars.

I was up early today, and I had the opportunity, Madam Chair—this is relevant to clause 9—to watch the Leader of the Opposition on CTV news. Question after question, he refused to answer. He just flat out refused to answer. Yesterday he even attacked the poor reporter from CTV news who questioned him about something with respect to him and his party being investigated by Elections Canada. He said that it wasn't true, that it was just a fabrication. Yet today, where is the Leader of the Opposition?

Imagine this, Madam Chair: The leader of the opposition is ordered to appear before a committee to account for the millions of dollars of potentially stolen taxpayers' dollars in offices. This is the best part of it, and I'm sure my colleagues saw this; this is one of the best parts: the Leader of the Opposition said, “Well, these people, they had cellphones that were in Montreal.”

Well, my gosh, guess where my cellphone is registered: Toronto, and do you know why? Because that's where most of my constituents are calling me from.

When you go to the House of Commons NDP office in Montreal, what do you see out front? You're not going to believe it. You won't see “House of Commons”. You'll see “NDP”. When you call that phone number, you're thanked for calling the NDP, and if you want to leave a donation, press two.

These are House of Commons resources.

They're doing House of Commons work in Saskatchewan, colleagues. I don't remember the last time the NDP actually had a member of Parliament in Saskatchewan. If anybody knows, please rise on a point of order and help me understand that. But apparently they're doing constituency work in Saskatchewan—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Okay, Mr. Calandra—

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Chair, I have been very patient.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Is there a point of order?

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Chair, I have a point of order. I have been very patient. I really listened to what the member said. I tried to understand how Mr. Calandra's remarks were relevant to clauses 9 and 10. He mentioned them once, but I do not think his remarks are relevant to our present discussion of clause 10.

We have taken the floor to explain the reasons why we voted against certain clauses of the bill. To my knowledge, that is the purpose of today's meeting.

I have shown patience, thinking that Mr. Calandra might get around to clause 10, but I consider his remarks irrelevant to that subject.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

We'll just remind you once again, Mr. Calandra, about relevance.