:
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. I see the clock at 11:01. We will convene this meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
We're convened today pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 12, 2014, Bill an act supporting non-partisan agents of Parliament. We welcome as our witness the sponsor of that bill, Mr. Mark Adler.
Mr. Adler, I understand you're one of the lucky members of Parliament whose private member's bill actually succeeded in passing at second reading. It has been duly referred to this committee for your presentation, then examination by and testimony from witnesses, and ultimately a clause-by-clause analysis.
The first hour of this meeting is dedicated to you. I hope you have opening remarks. Then we'll open it to questions from the floor.
You have approximately 10 minutes, Mr. Adler.
:
Mr. Chair, it's an honour and privilege for me to be here today before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to speak on my private member's bill, Bill an act supporting non-partisan agents of Parliament.
The purpose of my bill is to improve transparency. Bill C-520 requires agents of Parliament and the employees in their offices to make a public declaration if they occupied a politically partisan position in the 10 years before their appointment. It also serves to affirm their commitment to conducting themselves in a non-partisan manner while employed in these specific offices.
This bill identifies nine specific offices with unique responsibilities and roles. Given their specific watchdog duties, it is imperative that the so-called agents of Parliament be seen to be non-partisan and free of political influence. 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 used, neutrality and independence must be maintained.
Let me be clear. The intent of this bill is not to limit any person's ability or freedom to engage fully in the political process of Canada; rather, the intent is to create a measure of trust and confidence in the neutrality and non-partisan nature of the offices of the agents of Parliament. I submit that the proposed legislation will enhance the legitimacy of the agents of Parliament and will make sure that the public is aware of any professional partisan position held by the agents and their staff.
The nine specific offices that my private member's bill focuses on include the office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer, the office of the Auditor General, the office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada, the office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, the office of the Senate Ethics Officer, the office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, and the office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
These agents of Parliament are a sole group of independent statutory officers who serve to scrutinize the activity of legislators and the government. I submit to you that their offices will only be enhanced by the public confidence Bill will provide.
All of the offices I mentioned report directly to Parliament rather than to government or to an individual minister and as such exist to serve Parliament in relation to Parliament's oversight role. The oversight role played by the agents is a crucial component of the balance and fairness of our institutions and the legitimacy of our Westminster style of democracy. It is critical that in carrying out their duties, the agents be independent of political affiliation. Neutrality in the office of an agent of Parliament is imperative to ensuring that Canadians receive information in a manner that is clear and trustworthy.
Mr. Chair, I would like to emphasize again the special role the nine agencies identified in my bill play in the democratic system. We already hold these groups to the highest standard of objectivity. We require them to sign an oath of impartiality and we ask them to take measures to guard against partisanship either real or perceived. The Chief Electoral Officer is even banned from voting in elections in order to maintain these standards. Bill simply suggests that given these exceptional standards, the agents and their employees should be required to disclose past or future partisan positions and continue to build transparency and openness into our democracy.
To further promote transparency, all declarations from employees would be posted on the website of the office of the relevant agent of Parliament. The declarations would state whether, in the 10 years before applying for that position, the person had occupied certain specified political partisan positions. Such a declaration would also state whether these persons intended to occupy a politically partisan position while continuing to occupy the position of agent of Parliament or to work in the office of such an agent.
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.
Canadians said they wanted a transparent government. Time and time again, I am proud to say, our government has brought into force legislation that increases transparency and accountability. Our government brought Canadians the Federal Accountability Act. We reformed the Lobbying Act. We brought into force the Conflict of Interest Act which named the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Our government eased the process of information disclosure, making it easier for Canadians to call to account their representatives.
The number of records that our government has released has increased, while the turnaround time has decreased. The numbers speak for themselves. Our government is committed to increasing government transparency and accountability.
Mr. Chair, this call for transparency and accountability is not something we can take lightly. The statutes that created these agents of Parliament do not imply the need for impartiality; they demand impartiality. With great power comes great responsibility.
If we look at some of the legislation about the agents themselves, the need for objectivity is clear. Subsection 15(1) of the Auditor General Act states:
The officers and employees that are necessary to enable the Auditor General to perform his or her duties are to be appointed in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act and...the provisions of that Act apply to those offices and employees.
The act goes on to make explicit the call for impartiality.
Before commencing his or her functions, a commissioner shall take an oath or make a solemn affirmation in the following form before the Clerk of the Privy Council or the person designated by the clerk:
I...do swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will faithfully, truly and impartially, to the best of my judgment, skill and ability, execute and perform the office of... of the Public Service Commission.
Further to that, subsection 23(1) of the Canada Elections Act states:
Before assuming duties, an election officer shall swear an oath in writing, in the prescribed form, to perform the duties of the office in an impartial manner.
In addition, the commissioners of privacy, conflict of interest and ethics, information, lobbying, public sector integrity, and official languages are all deemed to be employed in the public service and thus are bound to the same oath found in the Public Service Employment Act when carrying out their duties.
Mr. Chair, I submit that the requirements found within my private member's bill, Bill , expect from these agents the highest level of transparency and that they are already swearing to it in their oath; moreover, that they improve these laws by adding transparency and making all declarations available for the public to see.
Legislation similar to my private member's bill exists in other Commonwealth nations.
In Australia, for example, the national integrity commission bill, Bill 2013, in paragraph 7(1)(a), prohibits “any conduct of any person that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial exercise of official functions by the Parliament, a Commonwealth agency, any public official or any group or body of public officials” and continues by prohibiting “any conduct of a public official that constitutes or involves the dishonest or partial exercise of any of his or her official functions.”
In conclusion, Bill will enhance transparency. This bill is in line with our government's efforts towards transparency and accountability. I hope that the committee sees the value of my proposed legislation.
I believe we can all agree this is an important step to strengthening our democracy. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis has said, sunshine is the best disinfectant.
Thank you.
:
But I'm trying to understand the bill here.
Let's say that cabinet minister X is under investigation by Elections Canada. Cabinet minister X thinks.... Or let's say that it's parliamentary secretary X who says, “I feel violated and betrayed by an agency in which I and every other member of this place, indeed all Canadians, must place their trust, and I feel strongly that this process has been conducted”—this process being an investigation by Elections Canada—“with malice and contempt for me as a member and for my family's well-being.”
Furthermore, let's say that person X, a former parliamentary secretary to the prime minister, says that being investigated for abusing the electoral laws of Canada is a breach of his privilege. Under your bill, he'd be able to make a complaint, would he not? Right now, Mr. X, Mr. , is unable to make that complaint, but under clause 9 he would be able to make a complaint. Am I correct?
:
Okay, so transparency; I like your word “transparency”.
The Conservatives, our colleagues on the other side, have just brought in changes to the Conflict of Interest Act, and they're very worried about vexatious investigations. In fact, what they're saying is that when your colleagues, your fellow cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries are investigated for lobbying, for taking money inappropriately, those investigations must be kept secret by the Ethics Commissioner. That's what they're calling for in the conflict of interest changes.
I don't see any obligation for this to be kept secret when one of your members wants an investigation against an officer of Parliament. Why wouldn't you have the same protection that your colleagues are putting in for cabinet ministers? Wouldn't you think it would be fair if you, for example, decide to make a vexatious complaint against the Ethics Commissioner that it would be kept secret until it's been discussed? I want to know why, in transparency, it's fine for you and your colleagues to attack officers of Parliament, but officers of Parliament have to keep their investigations against your colleagues secret. Why is that missing?
:
Thank you for that question, Mr. Calandra.
Quite frankly, this bill will benefit all members of Parliament. It's really to enhance transparency and accountability. Once again, these offices, these nine agents of Parliament, hold a very unique position within our parliamentary democracy. These people sit in judgment on members of Parliament. Currently, the people who are employed in these agencies must sign an oath. Nothing on that front changes. The only change that we're asking for here in my private member's bill is that any partisan activity dating back 10 years be made public.
For the life of me, I can't understand why anybody would be against transparency. I think that transparency is a good thing. Certainly, my constituents tell me when I go door to door in my own riding of York Centre that the more transparency and accountability, the better. This is consistent with what our government has been doing since we came into power in 2006 initially with the Federal Accountability Act. On that score, we've introduced a number of other pieces of legislation to improve transparency. This is just another leg on the stool.
I think transparency is a good thing. I think this bill is a good thing. The more information that's available to the public, to the people of Canada, the better.
To my understanding, there are many people who at one time were Liberals and who are now Conservatives because of, yes, the chain of broken promises. First of all, going back many, many years, they said how they'd never bring in wage and price controls, and then they did. Then there was axing the tax. Well, the tax was never axed. There was just a full chain of broken promises about their votes against Israel at the United Nations, and not standing with our friends in the Middle East, the only democracy.
I mean, it's just a series of broken promises, a series of disappointments. It was not only I as a one-time Liberal who felt that the Liberal Party really didn't represent me, but the fact of the matter is that it was a lot of the people I spoke to. The proof is in the pudding, right? The Liberal Party at one time was considered to be Canada's governing party. It is now a mere rump in the House of Commons. It's clear that I'm not the only one who feels this way.
I would ask if Mr. Angus posed a similar question to his leader, who was once a Liberal, or if Mr. Andrews posed that question to Mr. Rae, who was once the NDP premier of Ontario. These are very similar kinds of circumstances. Those two happened to make the wrong decisions. I feel I made the right decision in becoming a Conservative, and I'm proud of it.
:
Thank you, Mr. Zimmer, for that excellent question.
I chose the 10-year period because it represents two election cycles, more or less. That's the reason I chose 10 years.
I just want to quote from a letter, which I know is in the possession of all the members, that seven heads of the various agencies of Parliament sent to the chair. In the opening paragraph, it says:
As Agents of Parliament we support initiatives that enhance transparency and accountability to Parliament and Canadians. Our role is to serve Parliament in a strictly non-partisan manner. In this regard, we support the principle that underlies Bill C-520 and are committed to ensuring that we, and the employees of our respective offices, discharge our duties and functions in a fair, independent, impartial and non-partisan manner.
In the letter they wrote to you, Mr. Chair, the principle of transparency is supported by seven of the nine heads of agencies of Parliament.
Transparency from my perspective, and I know from the perspective of our government, and I would hope from the perspective of the opposition parties, would be something they would be in favour of supporting.
:
Thank you, Mr. Adler, for being here to defend your bill and for taking a hit for the PMO. It's a pleasure to have you here.
It's clear that this bill has some serious legitimacy issues. Even your honourable colleague, Mr. Calandra, admits that it's a witch hunt. I can give you the record for that witch hunt.
Linda Keen, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, was fired and immediately called a Liberal appointee.
Richard Colvin was subpoenaed to testify before committee on Afghan detainees. The minister at the time questioned his integrity and his professionalism. There are suggestions he was a partisan.
Kevin Page was maligned and there were suggestions he was a partisan.
Marc Mayrand wears a jersey and...repeated just a couple of minutes ago by Mr. Zimmer, a partisan jersey.
They've accused Elections Canada of partisan actions in the past, such as raiding Conservative headquarters.
:
There is no provision in the bill whatsoever that bans political activity.
Under the current legislation, the Public Service Employment Act, those people who work in these agencies must take an oath to the effect that they are non-partisan.
My bill simply opens the curtain. It makes it for all to see. Currently, if someone is suspected of partisan activity, an investigation is conducted in secret. This brings it out into the open. More information is better.
It's better that we know more about those people that stand in judgment upon members of Parliament. It benefits both the members of Parliament and definitely the voters, the people of Canada. It's essential that the people have as much information as possible, particularly about those people who stand in judgment upon members of Parliament.
Definitions are clearly defined within the proposed bill. I would think that all members of Parliament would be in favour of more transparency, allowing people, citizens of Canada, the voters that elect their members to Parliament, to have more information at their disposal. I think it's a good thing.
Mr. Adler, thank you for coming today to speak to us about the content of your bill.
To begin, I would like to come back to a question that my colleague, Mr. Ravignat, asked regarding the absence of definitions. You kept referring to the definition of political staff, which is not the same thing. Section 9 of your bill says that alleged partisan conduct may be examined. However, “partisan conduct” is not defined in your bill, Mr. Adler.
Let us suppose that the Chief Electoral Officer starts an investigation into a candidate of a political party. You decide that that would be partisan conduct because it focuses on one specific political party.
This a very serious concern, and you have to clarify that part of the bill and define partisan conduct. One wouldn't want to create a system that would start a witch hunt targeting all those within the government whose responsibilities involve disclosure.
Mr. Adler, why wasn't “partisan conduct” defined? I would like you to tell us what you mean by that.
:
Mr. Adler, I do not think it is too late, as you seem to believe.
Regardless, I am going to move on to another question because we do not have much time.
I absolutely agree that those who are appointed to important positions must be transparent and impartial. In that regard, based on this Conservative government's record and that of previous Liberal governments, there have been too many partisan appointments.
I am going to refer to a very recent case. Mr. Chuck Strahl was appointed to a very sensitive powerful position, but he would not be subject to the bill that you are putting forward. That is a double standard. Mr. Strahl, who was a lobbyist for Enbridge, was appointed as chair of SIRC but would not have to be impartial nor undergo the process that you are proposing for agents of Parliament, who, in fact, must already be impartial under the Public Service Employment Act.
:
That's not really necessary, Mr. Angus.
As the chair, I was going to welcome our witnesses to the committee, but thank you for your enthusiasm.
We appreciate the three officers of Parliament who have made themselves available on very short notice to come and discuss Bill . As committee members, we have received written correspondence signed by seven agents of Parliament, and we appreciated that input as well. We have one thin hour to deal with the situation, unfortunately.
We'll welcome your opening remarks as you see fit to use them up to a maximum of perhaps 10 minutes each, or as a combined effort, as you see fit.
Mr. Mayrand, Madam Dawson, and Mr. Ferguson, welcome.
The floor is yours.
:
Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to present my perspectives on Bill .
At the outset I would like to assure you that my employees and I are committed to carrying out our duties in a fair, independent, impartial, and non-partisan manner. Along with several other agents of Parliament, I recently signed a letter that emphasized this point.
[Translation]
The letter also makes several observations of a technical nature regarding the interaction of the provisions of this bill with the current regime that governs political activities of public servants. The letter provides a description of aspects of the bill on which we would appreciate some clarification.
Section 6 of the bill requires an agent of Parliament who intends to occupy a politically partisan position while still holding his or her position as an agent of Parliament to make a written declaration of intent as soon as possible, before occupying the political position. Currently, under section 117 of the Public Service Employment Act, I am not permitted to engage in any political activity other than voting in an election. The situation described in section 6 could never occur, and I would not like people to get the impression by reading the bill that it could.
[English]
Other aspects of the bill may produce unintended consequences.
Under the current legislation, I appoint employees to my office in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act, PSEA. Employees are hired based on the merit principle.
Subclause 7(1) of the bill requires an applicant for employment to provide, as soon as possible in the hiring process, a declaration as to whether or not they have occupied a politically partisan position in the past 10 years. Consideration of prior politically partisan positions would not be permitted to influence the current selection process.
Under the PSEA, if an individual had declared prior politically partisan positions, and for reasons of merit was unsuccessful in obtaining a position, that individual could challenge the decision not to hire on the basis that his or her declaration influenced the hiring process. Moreover, the publication requirement of this personal information could discourage individuals from seeking employment with our office.
Clause 9 of the bill states that I may examine allegations made by a member of Parliament or a senator that an employee has carried out their duties and responsibilities in a partisan manner. If an examination of such allegations is carried out, a report must be sent for tabling in both Houses. The proposed examination power would benefit from clarification as to what constitutes partisan conduct and the threshold of evidence required to request an examination.
Under the PSEA, the Public Service Commission investigates allegations of political activity on the part of public servants. Political activity is defined very broadly in that act, and in my view, it could include partisan conduct.
In addition, there is no confidentiality mechanism to protect the reputation of the employee whose conduct was examined and found to be appropriate and non-partisan. It may be worthwhile to consider whether the investigation provisions of the PSEA are a more effective method for independent oversight. Given the apparent overlap with the PSEA, a witness from the Public Service Commission would be of assistance in the committee's deliberations.
[Translation]
There is a third aspect of this bill that I would recommend to the committee for further study, and that is its impact on the privacy of individual employees. I have mentioned some possible consequences in connection with hiring and investigations. I would now like to touch on other possible impacts.
Upon coming into force, the law requires written declarations from all employees in our office as to whether or not they occupied a politically partisan position within the 10 years prior to joining the office, and a declaration from those who may have occupied such a position that they have been carrying out their employment duties in a non-partisan manner. The fact that some employees would be required to make a declaration could have adverse consequences. The public disclosure of this past activity also causes the individual's current place of work to be known. Furthermore, over the past 10 years, the employee may have changed political allegiance. Factors such as these may give an employee incentive to withhold information about past political activity rather than to disclose it. For these reasons, employees may be reluctant to make a declaration.
[English]
The bill applies to all employees no matter what duties they carry out. The committee may wish to consider whether the objectives of the bill could still be met by restricting its application to those senior managers and employees with authority, influence, and supervision over the work of the office.
In closing, I'd like to say a few words about the processes and declarations that are currently required of the employees in our office to ensure they comply with professional audit standards, our code of values and ethics, and current legislation.
[Translation]
Each year, every employee completes a Conflict of Interest Declaration, acknowledging, among other things, the obligation to act in a non-partisan, independent and impartial manner. At the start of every audit, every individual who participates in the audit must complete a comprehensive declaration of their independence. Any cases that give rise to a real or perceived threat to independence are reviewed by senior managers and our office's specialists for values and ethics.
Mr. Chair, I hope that these comments will be of assistance to the committee as it undertakes its review of Bill . I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me to address the committee today.
Let me start by saying I am in agreement with the remarks that have just been made by my colleague, the Auditor General. He has identified several important aspects of Bill that I also believe are worthy of careful review by this committee.
I can assure you that I too, as an agent of Parliament, am deeply committed to the principle and the practice of political neutrality. This principle is fundamental to the administration of the Canada Elections Act and is absolutely central to the performance of my mandate.
Each agent of Parliament is unique. In my case, given my role of administering electoral events and regulating the activities of political participants, the need for political neutrality is particularly acute.
Indeed, the Elections Canada Code of Conduct imposes on employees an obligation to observe strict political neutrality at the federal, provincial and territorial levels, not only in the exercise of their functions and duties, but also in their activities outside work. Letters of offer to employees detail these conditions of employment regarding political neutrality. These stringent requirements reflect my conviction that everyone working at Elections Canada, no matter their position, must remain and be seen to remain neutral at all times. The objective of maintaining neutrality in the organization would not be achieved by allowing even a small number of employees to engage in political activity, no matter how limited, at the federal, provincial or territorial level.
I believe it is consistent with what Canadians would expect of the people who work for the country's national electoral body. We can take no risks in threatening the confidence of electors and political stakeholders in the administration of the electoral process. Similar conditions have been placed on employees at Elections Canada since long before I became Chief Electoral Officer, and to my knowledge, there have never been any concerns expressed inside the organization about this.
In light of our code of conduct, the restrictions on political activity imposed by Bill would not have much effect on Elections Canada employees, with one significant exception. The obligation in clause 11 of the bill to publish on our website the past “politically partisan positions” of staff over the last 10 years would be new. I see this unnecessary requirement as a serious infringement of the privacy of employees and incompatible with the principle of merit when hiring staff.
[English]
It is unclear from my reading of Bill whether it is intended to apply to contractors with agents of Parliament as well as employees. The bill refers to a person who “works” or “occupies a position” in the office of an agent of Parliament.
In any event, in cases where Elections Canada directly procures services, and where delivery of those services might raise a reasonable concern regarding political impartiality, contractors are subject to an obligation to avoid political activities for the term of the contract. In fact, suppliers who cannot certify their ability to adhere to this obligation will not be issued a contract.
Finally, you should be aware that key election officers are also severely limited in their ability to engage in political activity. The Canada Elections Act itself makes it an offence for a returning officer to engage in “politically partisan conduct”. Of course, this is not surprising.
In addition, clause 5 of the code of professional conduct for election administrators restricts returning officers from engaging in political activity at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels. This is different from employees and contractors, who are not restricted from political activity at the municipal level, but in light of the work being conducted by returning officers locally, I felt it was important to add this additional restriction for them.
As a last point, I would also like to comment on clause 9 of the bill, which would allow members of the Senate and House of Commons to make a complaint regarding political behaviour on the part of my staff. The Auditor General already touched on this provision in his remarks. It should be noted that even without this bill anyone who wishes to make a complaint about political activity on the part of those who work for an agent of Parliament can do so. There are mechanisms in place to deal with such complaints. For my part, I would like to underline my accountability for the conduct of those in the organization I run. Should there be any concern regarding the conduct of my staff, it is my role to appear before Parliament to account.
That concludes my introductory remarks, Mr. Chair. I have also provided the clerk copies of the Elections Canada code of conduct, as well as the code of professional conduct for election administrators. I would be happy to take your questions.
Thank you.
:
Mr. Chair, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I am pleased to contribute to the committee's study of Bill .
During my opening remarks, I will share some general observations, with reference to relevant practices in my own office. I will also comment briefly on several specific elements of the proposed legislation.
[English]
Unlike the others covered by Bill , my office is part of Parliament itself. As an officer of Parliament, my office is a separate employer that is not subject to the Public Service Employment Act. It is for this reason I'm not a signatory of the letter which I believe has been submitted to the committee by the others. However, I do agree in large measure with the views they have expressed.
Although Bill does not appear to have been introduced in response to a problem that requires fixing, there is certainly no argument to be made against greater transparency. In fact, I am a strong believer in transparency, as I have noted on many occasions, including in previous appearances before this committee.
I am satisfied that given the checks and balances already in place, my office could withstand any scrutiny contemplated by Bill . However, I do note there could be some technical challenges that might arise from the way the bill is currently structured, and I will briefly refer to some of them later.
I acknowledge the importance of non-partisanship. I believe that non-partisanship is essential to the ability of all agents and officers of Parliament to fulfill their mandates. They and their staff must perform their duties in a fair and politically impartial manner and be perceived to do so. I note that non-partisanship is likely already being taken into account in the appointment process for agents and officers of Parliament. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, for example, is appointed under the Parliament of Canada Act. That act requires that the Governor in Council consult with the leader of every recognized party in the House of Commons, and the appointment must be approved by resolution of the House of Commons.
Indeed, the principle of non-partisanship is one that underlies my approach to my role. As is the case with the others covered by Bill , I have implemented a code of values and standards of conduct in my office, again, copies of which I have tabled with the committee. This document specifically and extensively addresses political activity and impartiality. It notes the importance of employees maintaining their independence from political interference and discharging their responsibilities in an impartial way. It also recognizes the effect that employees' actions and comments outside the office could have on the reputation of the office as it relates to impartiality and independence.
In addition to prescribing desired behaviours and actions, the code of values and standards of conduct for my office specifically prohibit certain actions. Employees may not participate in any political activities. They are not allowed to share publicly any political allegiance during election campaigns, for example, by posting lawn signs. Also, they must refrain from making any written or verbal comments, including in the media or on social networks, that favour or could be perceived as favouring one political party over another.
During the more than six years that I have been commissioner, there has never been a case where the work of an employee in my office has been influenced or has appeared to have been influenced by political opinions or beliefs. If such a case were to arise, it would contravene our standards of conduct and the employee would be subject to disciplinary measures up to termination of employment.
A few of my employees have previously worked in political offices of various party affiliations. As professionals, however, they perform their official duties and responsibilities in a strictly non-partisan manner. I also note that their knowledge and experience of the workings of Parliament have been very helpful in fulfilling their duties at the office. It would be an unfortunate consequence of any initiative if it became an impediment to qualified people taking on positions in the office of an officer or agent of Parliament.
As I mentioned earlier, I believe there are changes to the bill that should be considered. For example, it does not establish a clear threshold for launching an examination, such as requiring the person making the request to set out the reasonable grounds for the belief that the staff member conducted his or her duties and responsibilities in a partisan manner. Nor does it provide a process by which an employee has the right to respond to the allegation being made. As well, the bill does not define what constitutes partisan behaviour. It does not set out provisions for conducting an examination in private.
I note that both the Conflict of Interest Act and the “Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons” contain such provisions, ensuring the application of principles of procedural fairness and natural justice.
Finally, the bill is very broad and applies equally to all employees regardless of level or whether they are in a position to make or influence decisions.
In short, while I have no issue with the principle of transparency that underpins the bill, I'm not convinced that the bill is necessary. I believe that the current draft could be improved. I hope, if this bill is enacted, that the final version clarifies these matters.
[Translation]
Again, I thank the committee for this opportunity to discuss Bill .
Mr. Chair, I look forward to answering your questions.
Mr. Ferguson, am I allowed to say congratulations on your French? I've been studying for a bit and have had a difficult time. You seem to be doing a lot better than I am in a much shorter time period, so congratulations on that, sir.
I want to pick up on something you said. I think it was in regard to the bill applying to employees no matter what duties they carry out. You said that the committee may wish to consider whether the objectives of the bill could still be met by restricting its application to those senior managers and employees with authority. What you're saying, in essence, is that perhaps people who are doing administrative work in your office shouldn't be necessarily subject to the entire force of this bill.
In terms of bringing it forward to senior managers or people who are in control of particular files, would that be a good idea? Is that something we should seriously consider?
We're just trying to make what you consider a not necessarily spectacular bill better by looking at ways of improving it.
:
I think the most serious technical issue is the one I just mentioned, that there is just no threshold for when somebody can put a complaint in. They can just put it in with no evidence at all. Then the commissioner involved there has to decide whether to launch an investigation. As I was saying, it's pretty hard for them not to launch it once the thing is raised, even though there is a “may” there, because the only way they can get a public airing of the thing is to put something out.
Now, as was just mentioned, I know the way the general rules work regarding whether you can be involved in political activities changes with the level you are at, so to apply them to some officer in your office who couldn't have had any effect on anything seems to be an unnecessary invasion of privacy.
There are concerns generally about people's privacy being invaded, but people's privacy is often invaded for a good reason, for example, in the case of MPs who are being investigated. There's always a balance and you have to have a good reason to infringe on privacy.
In all these cases, there may not be a strong enough reason, in my view, but it depends.