OTTAWA — A trio of parliamentary watchdogs says a Conservative bill that would force them and their staff to disclose past partisan activities could obstruct investigations, invade employee privacy and let detractors “fling mud” without cause.
Even the bill’s proponent couldn’t say what makes it necessary.
“Aspects of the bill may produce unintended consequences,” said Auditor General Michael Ferguson, who was called before a House of Commons committee to speak on Tory MP Mark Adler’s private member’s bill.
Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson were also on hand.
Though only three officers were present Tuesday, five others signed a letter saying they support increasing accountability and transparency in Parliament but worry this piece of legislation may have other outcomes.
READ MORE: The Hounds of Parliament: an interview series with Canada’s 8 independent watchdogs
As it stands, watchdogs’ offices select employees based on merit, as per federal hiring rules. This bill, however, would require applicants to disclose, as early as possible in the hiring process, whether they previously occupied a partisan job or intend to.
“If an individual … 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,” Ferguson said.
At Elections Canada, employees are obligated to maintain strict political neutrality at federal, provincial and territorial levels of government, both inside and outside the office.
“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,” Mayrand told the committee.
READ MORE: Conservative MP Adler won’t comment on allegedly banning Irwin Cotler from event in Israel
In light of those regulations, the restrictions laid out in Adler’s bill would likely have little effect in his office, Mayrand said — except for one “significant exception,” which is the obligation to post employees’ past partisan activities online, he said.
“I see this unnecessary requirement as a serious infringement of the privacy of employees and incompatible with the principle of merit when hiring staff,” he told the committee, echoing concerns Ferguson raised.
Facing questions from the committee earlier in the day, Adler defended his bill, stating repeatedly its intention is to increase accountability in the offices of the agents of Parliament, which also include the information, privacy, public sector integrity, official languages and lobbying commissioners.
“This will enhance transparency,” he said. “This bill is in line with our government’s efforts towards transparency and accountability.”
Despite repeated questioning, the Toronto-area MP could not offer examples of past instances wherein partisanship interfered with either the work of an officer of Parliament or one of their employees.
Adler didn’t answer the question, but repeated his quest is to increase transparency.
“The more transparency and accountability, the better,” he said. “The more information that’s available to the public, to the people of Canada, the better.”
Adler’s bill would also force anybody applying to become an officer of Parliament to disclose whether they took part in any partisan activities within the past decade, as well as allow for any parliamentarian to allege partisan interference in an investigation and request a subsequent investigation into employees at the watchdogs’ offices.
That provision could not only distract from investigations at hand and unduly increase public servants’ workload, Dawson said, it could also be used in a vengeful manner.
“The problem is there’s absolutely no test as to when somebody can make a complaint,” Dawson told the committee. “Under this act, nobody even has to think up any reasonable grounds. They can just fling mud.”
There’s also the question of why the bill’s needed in the first place.
“We manage conflicts of interest, we manage independence, objectivity,” Ferguson told reporters after leaving the committee room. “Is it really going to help us in terms of how we manage our independence and objectivity? I don’t think it’s really going to be necessary.”
Comments