No, I have the floor.
The question here is that we're dealing with a clause about a bill that has actually undermined the work of the officers of Parliament. So we have Mr. Adler who sits over there giggling when he's listening to the story of the chickens and the cows in Markham, but as a colleague I'm asking him to explain what the motivation behind this clause was so that we can decide whether or not this clause will move ahead.
Mr. Adler seems to prefer to hide behind the antics of my colleague from Markham and I don't think that's professional. So the question of this bill—it's a very serious bill. Just remind us. We're on clause 10 which is connected to clause 9. When we receive a letter from Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada; Karen Shepherd, Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada; Marc Mayrand, Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and now definitely with a black X under the Conservative attack; Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages; Chantal Bernier, Interim Privacy Commissioner of Canada; Suzanne Legault, Information Commissioner of Canada; Mario Dion, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada—I know that this letter was cc'ed to you Madam Chair....
Talking about the clauses, this is what we're talking about. We're not talking about chickens in Markham right now. These clauses provide that:
...an Agent of Parliament may examine an allegation raised in writing by a member of the Senate or House of Commons that an employee has conducted himself or herself in a partisan manner in the performance of his or her responsibilities. Following an examination, the Agent of Parliament must submit a report to Parliament by transmitting it to both the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons for tabling in both Houses....
This is clause 10 which we're talking about. Mr. Adler, I hope you're familiar with this part of your bill.
Overall, the Bill’s provisions do not provide specific guidance on how they would interact with the current legislative and policy regime that governs political activities of public servants. The current regime includes Part 7 of the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Code of Values and Ethics, and the Values and Ethics Code adopted separately by each of our offices. For instance, in the absence of a definition of partisan conduct, it is unclear how this notion would differ from the definition of political activity contained in the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA). The PSEA provides that only the Public Service Commission can conduct investigations into allegations of political activities. This lack of harmonization or integration may create uncertainty for employees and may give rise to issues regarding competing redress mechanism and overlapping jurisdiction.
This is clause 10 we're talking about, Mr. Adler.
The following paragraphs highlight specific issues for the Committee’s consideration.
This is what we're dealing with here, it's our committee's consideration of these clauses.
First, the requirement to declare a prior partisan position occupied during the past ten years at the earliest opportunity during an appointment process may impact on the hiring process. As Agents of Parliament, we have delegated authority to appoint employees based on merit principles outlined in the PSEA and the accompanying regulations. Consideration of prior politically partisan position would not be permitted during an appointment process. If an individual had declared prior politically partisan positions and, due to reasons of merit was unsuccessful in obtaining a position in the office of an Agent of Parliament, the decision not to hire that individual could be challenged under the PSEA on the basis that the declaration impacted the hiring process.
I have a simple question regarding clause 10. If the government is now realizing that Mr. Adler was absolutely wrong in bringing this forward, was it because of this letter that was signed by all of the agents of Parliament?
When Mr. Adler was putting this bill together, did he look at the Public Service Employment Act, or the Public Service Code of Values and Ethics, and the Values and Ethics Code which all pertain to clauses 9 and 10?
Mr. Adler, what was it that made you decide that clauses 9 and 10 had to go? It's a simple question.