Debates of Nov. 20th, 2013

Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it you shall find agreement to apply the outcome of this vote to the next vote.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is it the pleasure of the House to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote, and we will vote no.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

This practice is a little different from when we take the votes by party. The proposition by the chief government whip effectively applies the vote from the last vote at report stage to the vote at third reading, so we will not have to go to each of the whips to verify that. The House adopted that process, so we are good to go.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

(The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #14

Supporting Non-Partisan Agents of Parliament Act

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

moved that Bill C-520, an act supporting non-partisan agents of Parliament, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honour to rise today, in this House, to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-520, an act supporting non-partisan agents of Parliament.

I am certain most would agree that non-partisanship is an essential element of both a professional public administration and a responsible democratic government. A non-partisan public service is one where appointments are based upon merit and free of political influence and where public servants perform their duties and are seen to perform their duties in a politically impartial manner.

Our government values this vital feature of our Westminster style of democratic government, and we are committed to safeguarding the principle of political impartiality of the public service, agents of Parliament and officers of Parliament.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please.

I do not know why we have to do this every single time, but I am trying to hear the member give his speech. I am sure other members in the House would like to hear it as well, and we cannot if members continue with the discussions they are having.

If members do not need to be in the House for this debate or if members do not want to be in the House for this debate, please take discussions outside so we can hear the debate for all parties. Thank you.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House to represent the wishes of my constituents. When I go through the streets of York Centre and knock on doors and listen carefully to their ideas and concerns, what I am hearing on the doorstep is that Canadians want a strong economy, low taxes, safe streets and transparent government. That is what my constituents expect from me and from this Conservative government. That is why I have tabled this bill before us at this time.

I submit that the proposed legislation will supplement and add transparency to the regime governing political activities of public servants. I believe all members of the House will agree that, while non-partisanship is expected of all public servants, agents of Parliament play a particularly vital role in government oversight.

Agents of Parliament such as the Auditor General, the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Information Commissioner are a unique group of independent statutory officers who serve to scrutinize the activity of government.

They report directly to Parliament rather than to government or to an individual minister and so exist to serve Parliament in relation to Parliament's oversight role. This is extremely critical to the balance and fairness of our institutions.

Agents normally produce a report to Parliament to account for their own activities, and their institutional heads are typically appointed through special resolutions of the House of Commons and the Senate.

I submit that, given the close relationship of agents of Parliament and their employees with parliamentarians, it is critical that in carrying out their duties they be independent of any political affiliation.

Moreover, given their high level of political visibility, I believe it is crucial that agents and their staff work in a non-partisan way to maintain the confidence of parliamentarians and Canadians.

The elected officials and members of the House all know the difference between saying something innocuous and accidentally winding up on the front page of The Globe and Mail. Here in the House, perhaps more than anywhere else in Canada, words matter.

Words matter in reports as well. That is why neutrality in the office of an agent of Parliament is so critical to ensuring Canadians receive information as clear and as true as they expect.

At every step of the process in preparing a report or dealing with a case, from the selection of what to study, to the research, to the basic wording, neutrality and independence must be maintained. I believe, and I am sure we all would agree here, that this subconsciously would be challenging for former partisans.

Would the opposition trust a report issued out of an office staffed by former professional Conservative partisans? I do not believe so and it is understandable that they might not. The same goes for us on this side of the House. We would be suspicious of a report prepared by NDP partisans.

That is why the bill benefits all parliamentarians and all Canadians. It shines a light on potential conflicts of interest in the preparation of reports. It ensures that neutrality and even-handedness are being respected. It respects the process and ensures that these offices are being operated and populated as intended.

Politics is a tough business. It is like a tug-of-war that never ends. It is important that the referees be above the fray. I believe this is the case currently and would merely like to enshrine this expectation through disclosure.

With that goal in mind, the bill would require every person who applies for a position in the office of an agent of Parliament to make a declaration with respect to past engagement in politically partisan positions.

In particular, this declaration would state whether, in the 10-year period before applying for that position, the person occupied certain specified politically partisan positions.

The bill also prescribes a declaration in the case of persons who work in the office of an agent of Parliament and the agents themselves. Such a declaration would state whether these persons intend to occupy a politically partisan position while continuing to occupy the position of agent of Parliament or work in the office of such an agent.

To promote even more transparency, the declarations would be posted on the website of the office of the relevant agent of Parliament.

In addition, the bill would require an agent of Parliament and the persons who work in his or her office to provide a written undertaking that they will conduct themselves in a non-partisan manner in fulfilling the official duties and responsibilities of their positions. The bill also provides for the examination of alleged partisan conduct. These provisions would provide enhanced transparency and accountability for parliamentarians, who must have confidence that the work of agents of Parliament is impartial.

As the House knows, accountability and transparency in Canada's public and democratic institutions are the hallmarks of our Conservative government. That was part of our government's promise to Canadians when we were first elected in 2006, and it is why one of the first things we did on coming into power was bring in the Federal Accountability Act and its accompanying action plan. We committed, and we delivered. The act, along with its companion action plan, holds everyone accountable, from the Prime Minister to parliamentarians, from public sector employees to recipients of government funding.

Let me give the House a few examples. We designated deputy ministers accounting officers who must appear before the parliamentary committees to be accountable for the management of their departments. We did this for the simple reason that organizations paid for with public money should be open to public scrutiny.

We also introduced measures to strengthen ethical conduct in the public service. Through the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, we empowered public service employees and Canadians to honestly and openly report government wrongdoing without fear of reprisal. We brought in reforms to the Lobbying Act and its regulations to respond to Canadians' desire for more transparency and ethical behaviour in lobbying activities. We also brought into force the Conflict of Interest Act and named a conflict of interest and ethics commissioner so that Canadians would have the opportunity to voice their concerns about unethical behaviour in government and hold violators accountable. To help give these accountability measures teeth, we introduced new criminal penalties and sanctions for anyone who commits fraud against the Crown.

Canadians also told us loud and clear that they wanted a government that is more open and transparent.

As former U.S. Supreme Justice Louis Brandeis once said, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Indeed, the Federal Accountability Act delivered, shining a light on the operations of the government. It has given Canadians broader and better access to more information from public organizations than ever before. It has extended the Access to Information Act to cover the Canadian Wheat Board, five foundations, five agents of Parliament and most crown corporations and their wholly owned subsidiaries.

The reforms contained in this act are in a direct line of descent from the political reforms that first brought responsible government to this country. We can show that our changes in governance are working.

Let us take a look at access to information, an area where the government is setting records here in Canada. In 2012, the Conservative government released a record number of materials through access to information requests. Six million pages were released to the public last year. That is not all. The number of requests processed increased by 27%. That is 10,000 more requests over the previous year, which set a new record.

One could be forgiven for thinking that these record numbers would have bogged the government down or slowed down turnaround times. I am happy to say that they did not. In fact, this year, the government had one of its fastest turnaround rates on record. More requests were filled and more materials were released, and it was all done more quickly and efficiently.

When Canadians say that they want openness and accountability, they expect results. These numbers do not lie. Thanks to this Conservative government, Canadians are getting more, better, and faster access than ever before. That is just one concrete example of how the government is delivering on its promises to Canadians and just one example of how the accountability act has opened up the doors of government to the public.

The bill I bring before the House today continues our efforts to make our system of government even better. Our government fully supports the bill's intent to augment and supplement the existing regime in ensuring that agents of Parliament and their employees do not engage in political activities that conflict or are seen to conflict with their official duties and conduct. I look forward to its examination in committee to further discuss its effectiveness and its relationship to the tools already in place to protect the impartiality of the public service.

I encourage all members of the House to support this bill. I hope my colleagues across the aisle see this as a way of protecting all of our rights as parliamentarians and as a means of ensuring that Canadians get the most fair and unbiased information possible, as they expect. I believe that we can all agree that this is an important step in ensuring transparency and accountability in the House.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from York Centre for his remarks. I admit that had I not known his political affiliation, I probably would have shed a tear.

However, once you know the context, it is practically absurd. When the government says that more pages have been made public under the Access to Information Act, it is probably because this government is the most secretive government ever and this is the only way to get even a shred of information.

I would like to ask the hon. member a question about his very specific bill. I think that transparency should be a two-way street.

How is it that his bill allows any senator's office to request an investigation into an agent of Parliament, while agents of Parliament cannot request the same kind of investigation into the Senate?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member feels like crying, I would encourage him to go ahead and do so, because this bill is clear in its intent. This bill would bring more transparency and accountability to all agents of Parliament. I would think that members of the opposition would be just as interested in it as we are.

We hope that Canadians will see that all the agents of Parliament, and those who work in the offices of the agents of Parliament, are above partisan politics and that our professional civil servants are dedicated to their jobs and not to their political parties and activities. I would hope that the member who asked the question would be on board with that. In the event that he is not, he should just go ahead and shed tears.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member thumped the chest of government about the Federal Accountability Act and transparency through the Ethics Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner and how these are all great pieces of legislation they brought forward. However, time and time again, we see Conservative after Conservative breaking these laws and being written up by the Ethics Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner. What punishment is there? There is a slap on the wrist, and Conservatives carry on doing business as normal.

If they are serious about making changes, would they not want to put some teeth in the legislation so that when Conservatives break these laws, there is actually a fine in place?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, coming from a Liberal, that is the kettle calling the pot black. There was a government, before 2006, that passed around brown envelopes that were not very transparent at all. There a number of former leadership candidates who owe hundreds of thousands of dollars and refuse to pay it back. They have walked away from their debts not only to themselves but to the Canadian people. It is an absolute outrage.

This bill would bring transparency and accountability to the public administration, and I would hope that every member of the House who has some integrity would be behind it.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is my opportunity to add to my remarks and perhaps to answer some of the questions from the hon. member for York Centre.

The title of Bill C-520 is “An Act supporting non-partisan agents of Parliament”. The short title I would have given it is “An Act avoiding the real issue”.

The system of democracy is based on a number of mechanisms that guarantee its legitimacy: the right to vote, the right to be elected, the right to be represented, the division of powers, accountability—of course—transparency, and so on. I will take a few minutes to explore some of these elements in more depth.

It goes without saying that, in a modern democracy, representatives, elected officials, parliamentarians as a whole, derive their legitimacy from an election. Election by universal suffrage is one of the basic principles of democracy. The Conservative government today is the government of Canada because our electoral system gave it a majority of votes, even though that majority was by no means the same as the majority of the votes cast by Canadians. Do I need to remind the House that this majority government was elected with 39% of the popular vote? Voter turnout was right around 60%. We are a long way from a full voter turnout. However, that is the way our political system works. The right to govern is based on an election.

Without any doubt, people are also aware that our parliamentary system has a long historical tradition and that some significant anachronisms remain. The most significant of them will probably be solved in 2015, when the New Democrats come to power. Canada is one of the last democratic countries in the world to have a chamber of its Parliament made up of unelected people. I refer, of course, to the Senate. As I was looking through the parliamentary website, I came upon a definition that I really want to quote:

In a democratic country, all eligible citizens have the right to participate, either directly or indirectly, in making the decisions that affect them. Canadian citizens normally elect someone to represent them in making decisions at the different levels of government. This is called a representative democracy. Countries like Canada, the United States of America and the United Kingdom all have representative democracies.

Let us look at this definition of democracy as it relates to the Senate. In Canada, some representatives make decisions without being elected by the people. It looks like we must either tailor the definition of democracy to the reality of Canada or remove it from our own website.

The other pillar of democracy is the power to hold any institution accountable. The Senate scandal would have remained hidden from Canadians if not for the mechanisms of accountability, oversight and transparency. Despite this, we are unfortunately still far from knowing the sad truth about this affair.

In this context, Bill C-520, An Act supporting non-partisan agents of Parliament is apparently intended to mitigate partisanship in Parliament and enhance government transparency. That is a good plan. It is true that on this second point, something has to be done. After all, this is the same government that repeatedly relies on gag orders—there were over 50 of them during the last session—often stays silent during debates in the House, conducts far too many committee meetings in camera and uses omnibus bills to bury even deeper everything that Canadians are entitled to know. The Conservatives are trying to tell us about transparency. I am certainly willing to talk about it, but as we often say back home, it would be nice if they could walk the talk.

In our Parliament there are people we sometimes call “officers of Parliament”. We know them well and greatly appreciate the work they do. I am referring to such people as the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. These people take on responsibilities to serve Parliament, and they report to Parliament. It is obviously necessary to preserve their independence from the government in power, so they can assume the responsibilities conferred on them under the law.

The bill introduced by the Conservatives is somewhat underhanded in that it suggests that these agents of Parliament are not really impartial and calls for increased transparency in how they do their work.

Bill C-520 claims that its purpose is to avoid conflicts that are likely to arise or be perceived to arise between partisan activities and the official duties and responsibilities of agents of Parliament or their staff.

The bill also requires agents of Parliament and anyone who applies for a position in the office of an agent of Parliament to declare any politically partisan positions they held in the previous 10 years—as though people are not allowed to have a life before Parliament—and any politically partisan positions they currently hold or intend to hold in the future. The government seems less strict or less demanding when it comes to former Conservative MPs who resign, decide to change careers and then return as consultants for their friends. No matter.

What exactly constitutes a politically partisan position? For the Conservatives, it means being an electoral candidate, an electoral district association officer, a member of a ministerial staff, a member of the House of Commons, a member of a parliamentary staff, or a member of a political staff.

Once again, the bill's main goal seems commendable, but in reality the bill is very dangerous to our democracy. First, we are concerned that such a bill would discourage many candidates who have expressed their opinions publicly or actively participated in our democracy over the course of their lives. Ten years is a long time.

This bill could also be seen as an attempt to intimidate agents of Parliament.

The bill goes off the rails when it indicates that any senator or MP can ask that an agent of Parliament investigate the partisan activities of his or her staff.

I must say that, personally, I am not a big fan of this way of doing things, which could be compared to a witch hunt. We have seen other examples of this. There has been an increasing number of witch hunts.

Need I remind hon. members of the case of Ms. Therrien, who lost her job as a result of a witch hunt when she put the public good or the good of all Canadians ahead of political partisanship? She is still paying a high price for her actions today. Since she was dismissed, she is not eligible for employment insurance. As a result, she has only the solidarity and generosity of Canadians to help her through this difficult time when she is looking for a new job and needs support. That is just one example.

We live in a country where everyone can express their political opinions without fear that their careers will be affected, especially in the public service or in our Parliament, as long as their political opinions do not affect or influence the work those agents or public servants are supposed to do.

Part 7 of the Public Service Employment Act already allows public servants to engage in political activities as long as those activities do not affect or appear to affect their ability to fulfill their duties in a politically impartial fashion. That is already covered.

The Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service also broadly states that public servants must carry out their duties in a non-partisan and impartial manner. With the exception of unfounded politically motivated witch hunts, there have never been any proven incidents of partisan activities or apparent conflicts in those offices. As I was saying, the activities of those offices are already regulated by the Public Service Employment Act, the Political Activities Regulations and the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service.

Mr. Speaker, you are telling me that I have one minute left. If I did not believe you were fully impartial, I would say that time is running out faster for me than for others, but I believe you.

In short, there are three measures that already guarantee the impartiality of the agents of Parliament whose work we greatly appreciate. At the same time, no incident has been reported. As a result, we cannot help but ask: what is the point of this bill?

In conclusion, let me say that the Conservatives' idea of accountability consists of making Canadians forget the government's repeated lack of parliamentary accountability by irrationally attacking and intimidating the parliamentary watchdogs whose job is to hold the government accountable.

I could also tell you about Mr. Page, but I know I do not have time.

Bill C-520 is just another example of the political cynicism of the Conservatives, who are attacking Parliament's oversight mechanisms for a problem that has never been proven to exist, while protecting and hiding the corruption of their own members—in the Senate, for example.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in this place we get to do private member's bills because of a cause or something we truly believe in. However, this legislation is a solution looking for a problem.

There is no problem with our officers of Parliament being non-partisan. They all do their jobs very well. This legislation, which tries to make our officers of Parliament non-partisan, is sort of like a red herring.

Let us take a look at the individuals in question.

We are talking about only eight individuals who are officers of Parliament who are normally chosen by the government in consultation with all the parties. Usually these officers of Parliament have a fairly good vetting process through the political environment. These individuals are the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Privacy Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.

These individuals do not need to sign a waiver to say that they have not been partisan and that they will not be partisan. This is something that one goes through during the job interview.

Do members not feel we need to find the people who are best suited for these jobs regardless of their political affiliation? Just because they might be a Conservative, or a New Democrat or Liberal does it automatically make them bad people and they cannot do the job?

Let us look at the government's choice in the Auditor General. One of the most fundamental things in our hiring system is that we hire someone who is bilingual. That sort of got left out when the government hired our current Auditor General.

We really need to look at the individuals who are seeking these jobs and not base it on some party political affiliation that would deem them inappropriate. We want the best people in these jobs and this bill would certainly limit that.

Talking about partisanship and political appointments, if the government were serious in cracking down on partisan and political appointments, why does it not look at some of the 1,157 people it has appointed in six short years from partisan activities to the Canada Pension Review Tribunal, to the Toronto Port Authority, to the Canada School of Energy and Environment, to the Immigration and Refugee Board and to the Employment Insurance Boards of Referees? It goes on and on.

I could sit here and list hundreds upon hundreds of donors, Conservative bagmen sitting on riding associations, supporters, former Conservative cabinet ministers and former staff to different premiers. I could go on and on. Therefore, if the Conservatives are truly serious about cutting out partisanship, why do they not look at themselves and some of the appointments they have made as a government and not look at our agents of Parliament?

The bill is a little misguided. It is a bit of a red herring in this debate and it is trying to cast aspersions on some fine agents of our Parliament. It really misses the mark where the patronage trough begins and it begins with the government and some of the over 1,100 appointments that it has made to different appeals, tribunals and boards in government.

If the Conservatives really want to look at cutting out partisanship, they should look at themselves first rather than try to bring in some phoney legislation that would come to our officers of Parliament, who are all people who go through an enormous vetting process.

I am sure in the vetting process for our Chief Electoral Officer, we would look at what he has done in the last 10 years. For many people who apply for these positions, we would look at their resume in the last 10 years. Therefore, the legislation really does nothing. It only tries to claim some transparency and that Conservatives are all of a sudden concerned about partisanship when deep down they have done that over 1,100 times in the short six years they have been in government.

When we come to private member's bills, we should look at something that could really make a difference rather than some bill that would prop up the government to say how great it is doing things. This legislation is totally misguided.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to be here tonight. That kind of talk is why I am here tonight. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to provide the government's response to Bill C-520, An Act supporting non-partisan agents of Parliament.

Our government is committed to the principle of political impartiality of the public service, agents of Parliament and officers of Parliament. This principle is a fundamental element of our system of government and ensures that Canadians and parliamentarians benefit from the non-partisan delivery of services.

The bill before us would supplement and add transparency to the existing regime governing political activities, which is why our government is pleased to support it.

I do not believe it is a secret to anyone in this place that partisanship is alive and well in this chamber, no different than any provincial legislature or local governments and elsewhere. The interesting thing about partisanship is how often it is one side that accuses the other, while overlooking that it takes two or more to tango.

I would submit that partisanship, overall, is on the rise. We now have groups and organizations that exist, in some cases, solely for partisan purposes. I will not name names, as we also know that some of the most partisan groups claim to be non-partisan, and that is what brings me back to the importance of the bill.

For this place to function for government, for opposition, for elected officials and, most important, for Canadians, we need to maintain and enhance a professional non-partisan public service.

I have a great respect for all members of the House who I am certain join our government in recognizing that non-partisanship is what makes responsible, democratic government work. An impartial public administration ensures that Canadians, regardless of their views, receive fair and objective treatment from government officials. The work that our public service performs on behalf of Canadians is important, from border guards to food inspectors and from public health specialists to safety investigators.

One of the many benefits of non-partisanship is that public servants are selected based upon qualification, merit and expertise, as opposed to political affiliation. That is why the Values and Ethics Code and the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act protect the impartiality of the public service and, specifically, agents of Parliament. Clearly, the principle of non-partisanship is not to be taken lightly.

In fact, it is essential to the success of the public service that this reputation and tradition of impartiality should be maintained in the eyes of both the public and parliamentarians, which is why the bill has come forward at an opportune time.

In budget 2013, our government committed to review and update public service processes and systems to ensure the public service would continue to serve Canadians well.

This bill is consistent with that commitment. It recognizes that while non-partisanship is expected of all public servants, agents of Parliament play a particularly important role in government oversight. Agents of Parliament carry out duties assigned by statute and report to one or both of the Senate and the House of Commons. The individuals appointed to these offices perform work on behalf of Parliament and report to those chambers, usually, through the Speakers.

Given the close relationship of agents of Parliaments and their employees with parliamentarians, their independence from political affiliation in carrying out their duties is essential.

Furthermore, given that much of this work is political and, by extension, partisan in nature, it is vital that agents and their staff work in non-partisan ways to maintain the confidence of parliamentarians and Canadians. To that end, the bill would require that every person who applied for a position in the office of an agent of Parliament to make a declaration with respect to past engagement in politically partisan positions.

Specifically, this declaration would state whether, in the 10 years before applying for that position, the person occupied certain specified politically partisan positions. Now in the case of persons who work in the office of an agent of Parliament and the agents themselves, a declaration would state whether or not they intend to occupy a politically partisan position while continuing to occupy the position of agent of Parliament or work in the office of such an agent.

The declarations would then be posted on the website of the office of the relevant agent of Parliament. As well, the bill would require the agent of Parliament and the persons who work in his or her office to provide a written undertaking that they will conduct themselves in a non-partisan manner in fulfilling the official duties and responsibilities of that position.

The bill also provides the examination of alleged partisan conduct. These provisions provide enhanced transparency and accountability for parliamentarians who must have the confidence that the work of the agents of Parliament are impartial. I believe, as members, we have an obligation to support the principle that agents of Parliament and their employees should not engage in political activities that conflict or may be seen to conflict with their official duties.

Our government supports the intent of the bill and looks forward to its examination at committee to ensure that nothing in this bill will diminish the effectiveness of the tools that are already in place to protect the impartiality of the public service.

Before I close, I would like to add one more comment on why I personally support this particular bill. We know that 83% of Canadians now actively use the Internet. In fact, in my home province of British Columbia that number is now 87%. We also know that the Internet has been available to Canadians for around 20 years.

I mention this because never before in our history has so much personal information been available to the general public online. I know I am not alone in pointing out that all governments struggle to keep pace with this technology. Bill C-520 creates an opportunity for public servants to make full and open disclosure on any previous political events they may or may not have been involved with. Given that many of these events can be found online and by extension potentially misunderstood online, I see Bill C-520 as creating an opportunity for increased transparency and proactive disclosure.

This can then help resolve potential conflicts and misunderstandings and will help ensure Canada has a non-partisan civil service that we all can be confident in. I encourage all members of the House to support this important legislation, which augments the principle of non-partisanship in our system of government.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel that this bill is a real witch hunt. I am pleased to at least be able to speak to the bill.

This witch hunt is unfounded, and the Conservatives are using it for purely political purposes. First of all, there have never been any reports of incidents or actual or apparent conflict in these offices. I would like to add that political activities of public servants are already strictly regulated under part 7 of the Public Service Employment Act, the Political Activities Regulations and the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector. The only two offices not covered by those measures are the Senate Ethics Officer and the Ethics Commissioner. That is because they have their own very strict internal code, because they work in the area of ethics.

The first thing that jumps out at me from this bill is that it applies to agents of Parliament. It also applies to anyone who might want to work in their office ones day. For example, it applies to the Auditor General as well as the person in charge of answering the telephone and saying that you have reached the Office of the Auditor General of Canada.

This is in no way related to how important the desired position is. It is black and white; it applies to everyone. Some people are already subject to strict codes, like translators, who are required to keep their work confidential. It makes absolutely no sense. The Conservatives are looking for problems where there are none. What is even more hypocritical is that they are saying that the problem involves everyone working in the offices of agents of Parliament, when we know that this has never been an issue.

The government is doing this, yet it appointed I do not know how many defeated candidates to nearly all the positions it was able to fill. Every time a position opened up, the government found a partisan candidate who had donated to the Conservative Party or a defeated candidate to fill it.

I find that particularly hypocritical. The Conservatives need to acknowledge that they sometimes went too far in making partisan appointments and that they may not have made the best appointments. For example, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Wallin and Mr. Brazeau were appointed to the Senate. Well done. Talk about putting the right person in the right place.

I think we can all see that the government's judgment is completely disastrous. Perhaps it could admit that it has a problem and it should work toward having less partisan candidates in positions of some importance. I think the position of senator is a fairly important one in Canada. Instead of thinking about itself, looking inward and saying that it could maybe do something intelligent, the government is saying that the problem is the receptionist who works in the agent of Parliament's office, or perhaps even the person who cleans the office. It makes no sense, frankly. No distinction is made and everyone is lumped together.

Moreover, the government does not distinguish between politics, politicians and policy-makers. It seems to me that these concepts are crucial, because they imply different levels of involvement. Generally speaking, we also know that Canadians' apathy toward politics is at an all-time high. Close to 40% of Canadians do not vote. I think citizen involvement should be more highly regarded.

I think it is normal that people who have already been involved in political activities should be interested in the political system and should want to work in that area because they have had a similar job. However, the Conservatives make no distinction with respect to regions, either. In my region, some municipalities have only about 150 voters. On average, one person in 25 in the town could be a councillor or the mayor. Now, all that has to be declared. It is crazy. It is important to note that all that needs to be disclosed.

Everything has to be posted on the website. Therefore the names of all employees in these positions, with their statements, have to be posted regardless of what they do. This makes absolutely no sense.

There is something else that makes no sense and has to be discussed. Indeed, any member of Parliament or senator can ask an agent of Parliament to inquire into the partisan activities of his or her staff members.

For example, if a person is unhappy with someone else for any reason, that person can ask for an investigation of that someone else. Agents of Parliament will therefore be conducting investigations. I hope there will not be too many of them, but with the Conservatives, you never know.

Agents of Parliament have a specific job to do. We all agree that the Commissioner of Official Languages, for example, is overworked because of all the cuts and mismanagement of the Conservative government. Therefore what will he be doing? He will not be doing his job, as he will be busy investigating certain employees who may or may not be engaging in partisan activities.

Neither members nor Conservatives are even required to make a valid complaint. They can file a complaint without having any idea of whether it is valid or not. There will be no consequences. Whenever people have any doubts about employees, they will simply make a complaint and an agent of Parliament will investigate these employees instead of doing his or her job.

Worse, any member of Parliament or senator may request an investigation, but agents of Parliament will not be able to investigate the activities of the Senate. The Senate may ask for an investigation of agents of Parliament, but agents of Parliament will not be able to investigate senators. They will have to obtain a special warrant. Not even the Auditor General can decide on his own to investigate certain senators.

Of course, we do not know of any senators with strange spending habits, do we? No, we have never heard of such a thing. None of this makes any sense, especially given the huge scandal in the Senate right now.

It is clear that senators could ask for investigations into agents of Parliament, but agents of Parliament could not investigate senators. However, it is quite obvious that the Senate warrants far more investigation than the agents of Parliament.

This really is a bill that is totally useless. It is a witch hunt that shows a total lack of respect for the public service.

I think the bill tells Canadians to avoid getting involved in any way, because if they do, they will never be able to get a job with the government, which will shut them out. It makes absolutely no sense.

This can happen at all levels. This can include people who were involved in partisan activities not only at the federal level, but also at the provincial or municipal level. I do not know if this will also apply to people who work for a union. This is really just a witch hunt that shows contempt for workers in general.

What is even more ironic is that the Conservatives are doing this while refusing to look in the mirror and failing to realize that the partisanship problem is not among the staff of our agents of Parliament, but rather in this government. The problem is within the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister's Office. The Conservatives refuse to see that.

That is why I find it completely hypocritical of them to introduce a bill like this, when for months the Conservatives have been refusing to take any action within their own government. I find that completely hypocritical. I think this shows a complete lack of respect for all the people who work hard for the public service and within the offices of our agents of Parliament.

The Conservatives are showing just how utterly incapable they are of respecting a job well done. They are incapable of respecting people who really want to improve our Parliament and our country, like the staff at the office of the Commissioner of Official Languages who are fighting so that francophones like me can continue to enjoy the progress we have made. The government is laughing in their faces. This makes absolutely no sense.

I urge all members to vote against this bill.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill appears to be designed to avoid conflicts of interest. The government claims that it wants to protect democracy, but senators are not even elected. They are not accountable to the public.

These same people will have the right to look into someone's party affiliation. If someone is chosen to work on a file because he is an objective professional, why is who he votes for in an election a problem? Every citizen is afforded that freedom. This is a democracy, and making political choices is part of our lives.

Last year, the Auditor General did an excellent job and had some criticism for the current government, which was not acting appropriately. This public official wanted to shed some light on the situation, which enabled the official opposition to inform the public that things were not working as they were supposed to.

Now senators can scrutinize those officials if they do not like or are bothered by their work. Those officials were selected to fill their position based on their ability to achieve certain objectives. However, since they are inconveniencing the senators, the latter can decide to harm them, scare them and silence them. That is not good for democracy.

I support any bill that requires us to be more transparent. What I want is a bill that requires the government to tell the truth to the opposition and to Canadians. That is what democracy is about and that is what I stand for.

When we allow a body like the Senate to investigate public officials, that is troubling. Senators are not even elected and are not accountable.

In our system, we already have laws governing these professionals. What, then, is the real purpose of this bill? Let us look at that for a moment. What is the government really trying to do? I think they want to appear to be transparent by demonstrating that they are capable of controlling their officials. Instead they should demonstrate greater transparency by telling the truth and admitting when they make mistakes. That would be better for democracy, instead of coming up with excuses to justify using taxpayers' money. I am referring to one senator in particular who I will not name because everyone knows who I am talking about.

That is what we have to focus on. As elected representatives, we are all accountable and we must respect our commitment to the public. If these officials are doing good work, then why interfere? They can choose to vote for the NDP, the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party. What does it matter if the person has a political past? They are citizens like the rest of us. This is very touchy. These people help us to be more transparent. It is up to each and every one of us to be accountable.

Appointed senators are not accountable to anyone and that poses a threat to democracy. Using taxpayers' money inappropriately is another threat. Transparency must come from each one of us regardless of whether we are part of the opposition or the government.

I do not like the fact that workers are being frightened and told that if they do not do what the government wants, they will be questioned. That brings back bad memories. I come from Chile, a country that was not at all democratic when I was young. In a truly democratic country, people have freedom of expression and we can verify what they say.

We must not undermine democracy. We must not attack public servants who are doing a good job. We must instead go after those who are not doing a good job. We must go after senators who are not doing a good job and who were not even elected. We should investigate those who are in the wrong.

I am truly worried. If the Conservative government really wanted to shed light on its current problems, it would talk openly about them. That would help all of us get through these difficult times.

Bills like this one force us to talk about things that are not even necessary. That is why we are saying that this is a cynical attempt by the government to undermine the credibility of this office couched in the language of transparency. First of all, all of us in this place should be transparent.

I believe that instead of attacking these officials, we should take a look at ourselves, be honest and speak out. If we have made mistakes, we need to acknowledge them. It will be good for democracy. Those who have done wrong will not be elected the next time.

Unfortunately, that does not apply to senators because they are appointed. That is why we want to abolish the Senate. It does not meet the needs of a democratic country. I believe that we should focus on being transparent in our day-to-day work.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. I would advise the member that he will have about three and a half minutes before the time expires.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is not a lot of time, but I am pleased to have the opportunity nonetheless to rise and speak for a few moments on this bill.

It is a bill that I am a bit perplexed to find here on the floor. While we certainly support private members' bills coming forward, the government tends to slide its own business through as either government-sponsored bills or through private members' bills, so we never really know what the motivation is behind it.

Let me speak to this. Bill C-520, an act supporting non-partisan agents of Parliament, talks about the people who should staff and represent the agents of Parliament. It does not talk about the fact that many of the agents of Parliament need proper resources to carry out their responsibilities under their particular mandate. They have come to committees and reported to the House that they would be in a better position to properly carry out their responsibilities and mandate if they were allocated greater resources and if they had their mandate properly amended to allow them to carry out their responsibilities.

That would be a very positive and constructive piece of legislation and something that we could probably support. However, I do not quite understand why this is here. It talks about the partisan activities of people who work for parliamentary agents, but we already have legislation and regulations that deal with the partisan activities of public servants. We have Part 7 of the Public Service Employment Act, political activities regulations, and the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service. The only two offices not covered by these pieces of legislation and regulation are the Senate Ethics Officer and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. They have their own in-house codes.

I do not understand why this is here. I have to tell the House that as somebody who has been in politics as an elected member for over 15 years and who has been involved in partisan activities, I encourage and applaud citizens who get engaged in the political process. It shows a commitment to their communities and their country. That is a good thing, and it is something that we should encourage.

We should not use it as a detriment. Somebody should be hired or appointed based on the skills, credentials, and experience that they bring to the job; it is not based on their partisan activities. Likewise, I would say that their partisan activities should not be a detriment to their ability to qualify for that position.

I see you are indicating that my time has drawn to an end, Mr. Speaker. I will hopefully get an opportunity to rise and continue this, but I encourage members not to support this bill and not to support the attack by the government on public servants.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour will have approximately 6 minutes and 15 seconds if he wishes to resume his speech at the time this matter comes back for further debate.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

(House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 4, Mr. Joe Comartin in the chair)

Crisis in the Philippines

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That this Committee take note of the crisis in the Philippines.

[The Chair, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Before we begin this evening's debate, I would like to remind hon. members of how the proceedings will unfold.

Each member speaking will be allotted 10 minutes for debate followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments.

The debate will end after four hours or when no member rises to speak.

Pursuant to the order made on Tuesday, November 19, 2013, the Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent.

We will now begin tonight's take note debate.

The hon. Minister of International Development.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of International Development and Minister for La Francophonie]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Niagara Falls, the Minister of National Defence.

Thank you for the opportunity to update the House and discuss the situation in the Philippines.

Like everyone here, I am stunned by the extent of the damage and the tragic loss of human life.

Our thoughts and prayers are with all of those affected by this crisis. This recent tragedy serves as an important reminder that our international aid is a tangible expression of Canada's most noble values. Canada is a compassionate society, and we are ready and willing to do more to help those affected cope with this terrible crisis.

Canada has been closely monitoring the situation since before the storm hit. We provided funds to help with preparations before it made landfall. Twenty-four hours after Haiyan hit, we made an initial contribution of $5 million to address immediate needs. This was followed by the launch of the relief fund through which our government will match eligible donations by individual donors dollar for dollar. Just this week the Prime Minister announced $15 million as part of that fund. Canada is the fourth-largest donor so far for the Philippines.

Even before the typhoon hit, Canada was involved, providing funds to help with preparations. Twenty-four hours after Haiyan made landfall, we made an initial contribution of $5 million to address immediate needs.

That was followed by the launch of the Typhoon Haiyan relief fund. For every eligible dollar donated by Canadians, the government will contribute one additional dollar, effectively doubling donations.

In addition, this week the Prime Minister announced an additional $15 million as part of the relief fund.

We know Canadians are incredibly compassionate. The most recent numbers from our partners show that they have received nearly $20 million from Canadians in donations.

Canada will continue to play a leadership role in the relief efforts under way in the Philippines. We will continue to be there for those Canadians who are worried about their loved ones.

Just this morning, I announced in Mississauga that we were deploying our emergency stockpile of relief supplies. I commend the efforts of Médecins Sans Frontières, Save the Children Canada, and CARE Canada for the work that they will be doing on the ground very soon, since the plane is leaving as we speak.

We are sending tents, blankets, water purification tablets, shelter kits, and other emergency supplies to the hardest-hit regions. These items will help to meet the basic needs of a minimum of 5,000 families, or 25,000 people, for three months.

Canada and the Red Cross Society also deployed the emergency field hospital and a 12-person medical team to provide urgently needed emergency health support.

Canada has provided more than $20 million to support relief efforts for those affected by the typhoon.

Our humanitarian partners are using these funds to provide emergency shelter, food, water, sanitation services, health support, security services and other essential services.

Our government will continue to be there for members of Canada's Filipino community who are desperately awaiting news of their loved ones.

In particular, we will offer our support to those who have received bad news. I would like to point out that Canada is the fourth-largest donor so far in response to the situation in the Philippines.

The message we want to send to our Filipino friends is that all of Canada is by their side. I would ask Canadians to continue to give generously. Our government will continue to match eligible donations through the Typhoon Haiyan relief fund, which was announced in recent days.