Information & Ethics Committee on May 15th, 2014

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

Yes, absolutely. I'm getting around to that, Madam Chair. I appreciate that.

As we talk about clause 10, in order to truly understand what Mr. Adler has done and why this is coming, I think you have to set a framework for it so that people can truly appreciate what has gone on.

I note that in his testimony recently, when he was asked about his potentially illegal use of House of Commons resources, my colleagues.... It was apparently, according to the Leader of the Opposition, an innovation. It's an innovation of the NDP to have House of Commons resources in provinces in which they have no members of Parliament. What an innovation that is, my friends. Imagine that.

I'm sure the hard-working taxpayers of my community, those farmers, those people who get up early and bust their ass all day, are really grateful for the innovation that the NDP have come up with, misappropriating hundreds, millions of taxpayers' dollars. What an innovation that is. The NDP have innovated how to take money from Canadians' pockets, use it for political purposes, and accomplish absolutely nothing. That's a great innovation.

I guess, colleagues, that explains why the NDP have never had the pleasure and the trust of the Canadian people to sit on this side of the table, and that's why they continue to lose election after election. I think it's 16 straight elections that they've lost, my friends. Again, if I'm wrong, please correct me; if anybody out there knows that I'm wrong. Maybe it's 17, I don't know, but it's 16 straight elections.

Of course they did have the opportunity once, in the province of Ontario—and I'll wrap up with this—and it was an absolute catastrophe, of course. In fact, the NDP were so bad at government, the NDP premier at that time was so embarrassed by his own government, that he actually left the party. He was so embarrassed about his own government and his five years in office that he left the party and wrote a book telling people just how bad the NDP are and why they basically should never be trusted with taxpayers' money.

In summary, Madam Chair, I look forward to debating more clauses. We've spent so much time on this bill after what I thought was good faith that I feel very energized right now. We have a couple of hours. Let's debate every single clause. We have clause 10, clause 11, and who knows, maybe the title. We can spend a lot of time talking about the title while we learn more of the innovations of the Leader of the Opposition and the creative ways he found to take taxpayers' money and try to hide that fact from the people of Canada.

Madam Chair, ultimately what I'm trying to say here is that Mr. Adler has done his work, and the committee has done its work, and that's why at this point we have decided, because of the absolute, utmost respect we have not only for the agents of Parliament but for the people who work in the professional public service, to make these changes.

Also, the bill has been brought forward, as Mr. Adler has pointed out, out of the outmost respect for the people of Canada, who want to make sure that the professional public service that serves them and serves members of Parliament, and by extension, obviously, the 34 million Canadians out there who send basically 50% of their paycheque to service government at all levels.... They want to have that same confidence.

I applaud Mr. Adler for bringing this bill forward. I applaud most of the members of this committee, at least on this side, who have taken the process for what it is worth and, at least on this side, have shown that when Parliament works, it can work very well, unlike the childish and silly antics that we've unfortunately seen from the NDP.

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

I was actually talking to a real clause though.

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

I want to actually just highlight—I know it bothers the NDP when I highlight some of the good work of the Liberals on this. But Mr. Andrews of course—just for your own edification, Mr. Scarpaleggia—has been a very good contributor to this. He has worked very well. I guess that's the type of diligence that comes when you've actually had the responsibility of governing. I guess that's something that doesn't come with the NDP. So if you would take that message back to him, I would appreciate that.

In summary, Madam Chair, that's why we will be voting against the clause.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Mr. Angus.

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

Well that was very interesting. We learned about chickens and cows in Markham and hundreds of millions of dollars and gross misconduct. But I didn't hear anything about the clause.

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

I could go again, Madam Chair.

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

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.

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

I'm prepared to answer the question, and I appreciate that opportunity.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

We have a speakers list.

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

Well, I was asked a question and actually I would be happy—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

I'm sorry, but the member's not free to ask questions directly of other members.

Next on the list is Mr. Ravignat.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Were you done, Charlie?

[An hon. member]

That's fine.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you.

So far I do not think anyone has answered the fundamental question concerning clauses 9 and 10.

I would like to know what happened to clauses 9 and 10 of the bill. I think my question is relevant, regardless of whether Mr. Adler, the government or someone else answers it. When Mr. Adler came to testify before the committee, I remember he asked whether the Office of the Prime Minister, the government or the cabinet had in any way taken part in the preparation of the bill. I know this is a private member's bill, but I asked the question nevertheless. Mr. Adler's answer on the subject was vague.

The government is well aware of the content of bills, whether they are bills prepared by one of its members or bills that it introduces. At some point, for reasons of which we are unaware, the government decided to withdraw these clauses from the bill. It first impugned the independence of agents of Parliament, then suddenly came to the conclusion that was not a good idea. That suggests the government was initially trying to establish a tool it could use to gag agents of Parliament.

At some point, the pressure brought to bear by the commissioners, the opposition, the Canadian public and journalists became so strong that both clauses seemed to be a bad idea. That nevertheless indicates a very negative opinion of the role that agents of Parliament can play in our democracy. I denounce that and do not understand it.

Why did they initially include these clauses in the bill? Why does the government suddenly wish to withdraw them?

I am obviously delighted that these clauses, including clause 10, are being withdrawn from the bill. However, the story behind the events is not clear to the Canadian public or to journalists. I think that

the onus is on the government

and that it must explain the reasons for this reversal and why these clauses were initially included in the bill.

I think that is an important question. It is not a question on the merits of the bill that is being asked solely by the opposition. It is also being asked by journalists and serious people.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Madam Borg.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to explain my reasoning and to state the reason why I will be voting against clause 10. It is quite similar to the one I gave when I voted against clause 9.

Although I am pleased that the government will be withdrawing this clause, I nevertheless have a problem with the fact that a bill was introduced that permits this kind of attack on agents of Parliament.

We have not had a chance to hear testimony from the Information Commissioner of Canada because the process of hearing evidence was conducted very quickly. I therefore want to share with you what she told us about clause 10 that we did not have a chance to hear here.

She wrote this:Report will be made public even if there was no basis for the allegation.

Someone's reputation could therefore be tarnished even if there are no grounds for examination or investigation.

She also noted:Privacy concerns in the requirement to submit a report to Parliament following an examination; the necessity for such report making public personal information may not be reasonably justified in every circumstance.

She is obviously still talking about privacy issues. This is something that we raised. We wanted to bring forward amendments. Unfortunately, they have been negatived to date.

Lastly, she emphasized this:Issuing a report would likely lead to a breach of confidentiality obligations of the Access to Information Act in relation to ongoing investigations.

If she has concerns about the Access to Information Act, she is really the person to be listened to on the subject since she is the commissioner responsible for this matter.

All in all, we are looking at a clause that would make witch hunts a possibility. It shows a lack of respect for agents of Parliament, whereas they are the ones who are supposed to report members' breaches of the rules. We have seen situations in which agents of Parliament have been attacked without justification. That was the case of Mr. Poilièvre, who attacked Marc Mayrand because the latter did not support a bill. We want to limit these kinds of attacks.

I am really disappointed with this bill, which the Conservatives supported on second reading in the House of Commons. However, I am pleased because we will nevertheless be limiting, even if only slightly, the harm the bill will cause to agents of Parliament, their offices and all their employees. However, our amendments requiring that the clause would apply only to people in positions of power were rejected.

The mere fact that these two clauses were put before our committee and adopted by the Conservatives in the vote at second reading is a great shame and a major problem for our agents of Parliament.

We heard that from several witnesses and read it in the letters we received. Remember that not everyone had a chance to testify because we simply went through the process very quickly.

That is what I had to say on the subject. I will be voting firmly against this clause.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Mr. Calandra.

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

We're ready for the vote if there are no other comments, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Shall clause 10 carry?

(Clause 10 negatived)

Shall clause 11 carry?

I'm casting the deciding vote, which is in favour of clause 11.

(Clause 11 agreed to)

(Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to)

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

We're moving on to the short title, and we have amendment CPC-5.

Note that amendments CPC-5 and CPC-6 are consequential. If amendment CPC-5 is adopted, so is amendment CPC-6, and conversely, if amendment CPC-5 is defeated, so is amendment CPC-6.

I would ask someone to please introduce amendment CPC-5.

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Chair, it's very short, so I'll just read it.

This is amendment CPC-5:

That Bill C-520, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 1 with the following: '“Non-Partisan Offices of Agents of Parliament Act.”

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Shall the short title as amended carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

(Short title agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall the title carry?