Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 25 - Evidence - January 27, 2015
OTTAWA, Tuesday, January 27, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which was referred Bill C-520, An Act supporting non-partisan offices of agents of Parliament, met this day at 9:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance to order.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, this morning, we will begin our study on Bill C-520, An Act supporting non-partisan offices of agents of Parliament.
[English]
We're pleased to welcome Mr. Mark Adler, Member of Parliament for York Centre. Mr. Adler tabled Bill C-520, An Act supporting non-partisan offices of agents of Parliament, in the House of Commons for the first time on June 3, 2013, almost two years ago. The bill was then reinstated at the beginning of the Second Session of the Forty-first Parliament on October 16, 2013. Bill C-520 received second reading in the Senate and was referred to our committee just before the Christmas winter break on December 11, 2014.
Mr. Adler, thank you very much for being with us here today. I understand you have brief opening comments with respect to the bill, and then we'll see if honourable senators have any questions. I remind honourable senators that we have been asked to appear before the Speaker of the Senate at 10:30, so I would propose at the very latest to adjourn this meeting at 10:15 so we can all attend that meeting. If it turns out that we have further questions of the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Adler, then I'm sure we can arrange for another mutually convenient time to talk to him.
You have the floor, sir.
Mark Adler, Member of Parliament for York Centre, sponsor of the bill: Thank you and happy new year, everyone.
Honourable senators, thank you for having me here today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-520, An Act supporting non-partisan offices of agents of Parliament.
[Translation]
I am pleased to appear before the committee today. Thank you for this wonderful opportunity.
[English]
The intention behind this bill is preventive medicine. The measures in the bill would serve to help avoid potential conflict that may arise between partisan activities and the official duties of any person working for the office of an agent of Parliament.
The measures of the bill are as follows: Bill C-520 would require current employees and applicants for a position in the office of an agent of Parliament to file a declaration indicating whether he or she has held a partisan position within the past 10 years. Any activities before this time are considered to be irrelevant.
It would also require applicants and current employees in the offices of the agents of Parliament to file a declaration if they intend to hold a partisan position while performing their duties. Declarations would have to be posted on the website of the agent of Parliament concerned.
I believe that this type of disclosure is in the public interest. It is important that all those who work in the offices of agents of Parliament have the full confidence of Canadians in their independence from political affiliation. This bill would affect the offices of the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Privacy Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the Senate Ethics Officer, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying, and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.
This bill is consistent with the government's current direction, notably the focus on transparency and accountability. It also reflects the values and impartiality of the public service and is supportive of Canadians' confidence in them.
Genuine accountability is the obligation of an individual or organization to account for its activities, accept responsibility for them and disclose the results in a transparent manner. It is not about punishment but simply about transparency and openness. There should be open and honest communication between public servants and the public, and the public should desire that the more information that exists, the better.
These values are largely universal and echoed in a recent report by the World Bank on accountability through communication. The report states:
As an actor in the public sphere, the state is accountable for its actions in providing service delivery to its citizens. Citizens, in return, provide legitimacy to the state through public opinion. Both the state and citizens have communication processes and tools at their disposal that hold them accountable. . . . The effective use of structures and processes of communication for accountability can result in better relations between the state and its citizens, improved governance and, in the long run, increased effectiveness of development efforts. . . .
Elected representatives are expected to be partisan. Unelected professional civil servants are not. Agents of Parliament are a unique group of independent officers who serve to scrutinize the activity of the elected members of Parliament. They report directly to Parliament rather than to the government, and as such exist to serve Parliament with a duty of unbiased oversight. This is critical to the balance and fairness of our institutions.
While the agents are currently held to a standard of non-partisanship by the Public Service Employment Act, there are employees who may be delegated any of the agents' responsibilities. The aim of my bill is to address and close this gap.
As the agents and their employees are tasked with the oversight of parliamentarians, it is in Canada's best interest to shine a light on potential conflicts of interest in the preparation of reports. Transparent disclosure will help ensure that even-handedness and neutrality are always applied.
This bill speaks to the fact that access to information is a public good. By opening the doors of government to the public, we will help ensure that everyone is held to the highest standard of impartiality.
I would like to take this time to assure you all that my bill works in harmony with the current Public Service Employment Act. The PSEA guarantees the right of any public servant to participate in political activity, so long as it does not impair their ability to perform their duties in a politically impartial manner.
My bill safeguards the essential value of non-partisanship in these offices by asking that each member of the office simply remain open and accountable without infringing on individual rights.
Pulitzer Prize-winning author Thomas Friedman once said that "one of the most important and enduring competitive advantages that a country can have today is a lean, efficient, honest civil service."
Expecting candidates to declare their past political position is no different than their likely inclusion of that position in their CV. It simply opens the curtain and allows Canadians to know more about our public servants. Including this step is one way that we can enshrine the expectation that public servants remain open and accountable.
To make a comparison under current legislation, the salaries of all federal employees are posted on the Treasury Board of Canada website, and all senior public servants are required to proactively disclose all travel and hospitality expenses.
The same principle of being proactive and transparent is the purpose behind Bill C-520. I believe that political affiliation is relevant information and should be disclosed to the public.
Canada is progressing towards a more open and transparent society, and our government has shown our commitment to this value every step of the way. In 2006 our government introduced the Federal Accountability Act, the toughest accountability legislation in Canadian history. Since then, we have worked tirelessly to strengthen the power of the Auditor General, toughen the office of the Ethics Commissioner, reform political party financing and tighten lobbying rules. Bill C-520 is the next step in a long line of legislation that will ensure accountability and transparency in these parliamentary agencies for many years to come.
Thank you. I'm prepared to take your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Adler. I'm glad you mentioned the other legislation that we've been trying to compare your proposal to — you referred to it by its acronym — the Public Service Employment Act.
Is your legislation intended to supplement gaps that you found in the regime that exists now?
Mr. Adler: Well, it does in the sense that the Public Service Employment Act has an expectation that those people who are employed in the public service would act in a non-partisan manner and not do so under any partisan or political influence.
What my legislation proposes to do is to go beyond an expectation and actually have them commit in writing and post on the website of the agency in question any past political activity that they have engaged in or any proposed political activity that they are contemplating doing.
The Chair: I think it's important for us to understand what prompted this. It's a gap you saw; you felt that the Public Service Employment Act hadn't gone far enough. Were there any specific instances that you can relate to us that prompted the legislation?
Mr. Adler: None whatsoever. This is preventive medicine, as I indicated in my initial remarks.
What this does is just address that gap that we have between the expectation and reality. That's what really prompted my efforts to put forward this proposed piece of legislation.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Adler.
With that background, I'll go to honourable senators and begin with Senator Eaton from Toronto.
Senator Eaton: Mr. Adler, the chairman of this committee received a letter signed by the people you're referring to: Michael Ferguson, Karen Shepherd, Suzanne Legault, Graham Fraser and Daniel Therrien, Privacy Commissioner of Canada. One of the questions they raised in the letter is the following:
The publishing of declarations raises privacy concerns in relation to personal information being made available in the public domain.
I'm sure you thought of that before you put together this bill, or is this something you're worried about?
Mr. Adler: Well, I'm not concerned on that front. Our bill merely discloses to the public anyone's past partisan activity or proposed partisan activity by any employees of Parliament.
The political process in this instance has worked exactly as it should. This bill was introduced in one incarnation. We had debate in the house and went through the committee process in the house. There were some amendments and changes made to the bill. The process worked; the committee system worked.
We took advice from the various agents of Parliament in their testimony before the house committee, and by virtue of the letters that the Senate committee received and also the house received.
So we took into consideration all of the concerns of the agents of Parliament, and we came out of the committee process with a bill that really strikes a good balance between what the agents of Parliament wanted and what this legislation hopes to achieve. I think we're at that balance right now.
Senator Eaton: I'm sure you are, but did the Privacy Commissioner sign off on it?
Mr. Adler: Well, there's no legislative requirement for the Privacy Commissioner to do so. Anyone at some later date, presumably, could ask for the Privacy Commissioner's opinion on whether or not this bill would infringe on anyone's privacy rights.
However, our assessment of the bill as drafted is that it would not infringe on anyone's — listen, people put this kind of information in a CV when they apply for a job, so this is not really any different. It's not much more of a stretch to actually have it posted on their website if these people end up being employed by these agencies.
It's a matter of confidence that the Canadian people have and that legislative, elected officials have in the agencies of Parliament that have oversight over them. It's not much more of a stretch, really.
Senator Eaton: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Up next is Senator Rivard from Quebec.
Senator Rivard: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome and thank you for your presentation.
My understanding is that, when a bill is introduced in the House of Commons — whether it is a public or a private bill — a legal opinion is always requested to ensure legal compliance.
To your knowledge, was a legal opinion requested — and obtained — on Bill C-520?
[English]
Mr. Adler: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: I assume that things are moving forward because the legal opinion recognizes the bill's compliance. A legal opinion automatically confirms that a bill can move forward, whether there are amendments to be made or the bill was passed in the Senate without amendments. Is that what I am to understand?
[English]
Mr. Adler: Presumably, yes.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: You presume — but you could check again to make sure — that the legal opinion indicates that this bill can be passed as introduced?
[English]
Mr. Adler: Well, certainly this bill could be — and the anticipation is — that it will be legally adopted as such. However, of course it is within the constitutional jurisdiction of the Senate to make any proposed changes that they may wish, and they would be further debated at such time.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: I am sure we will hear from other witnesses over the next few days and weeks as we continue to examine this bill. Can you explain to me what you mean by "partisan activity"? Can you clarify what that includes? Does being an association president or being involved in an election constitute a partisan activity?
What is your definition of a partisan activity?
[English]
Mr. Adler: Well, partisan activities are clearly defined within the bill. The definition means any of the following: being an electoral candidate, electoral district association officer, member of a ministerial staff, member of a parliamentary staff or member of political staff.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Is this all that is covered? Let's say someone offered to help select candidates at the beginning of an election campaign or played an obscure — but important — role within the organization. Do you think that would strictly and exclusively constitute a partisan activity, as described in the bill?
[English]
Mr. Adler: My bill doesn't propose to cover anyone who, as you indicated, works in the shadows. I don't really even know what that means. The definition is clear in the proposed legislation that a politically partisan position is anyone who is an electoral candidate, electoral district officer, member of an association, a member of a ministerial staff, member of parliamentary staff or member of a political staff. The definition is clear.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
[English]
I have a couple of points of clarification. This is our first opportunity to take a look at your bill. "Political activity," the definition that Senator Rivard was looking for, I think flows from looking at the Public Service Employment Act. Do you, in your bill, adopt that same definition?
Mr. Adler: Yes. It's not a departure from what we had in the existing regime.
The Chair: I won't ask you now, but maybe we could find out from you where in your bill that definition ties in. If you can quickly refer it to us, that's fine, but otherwise maybe you could let us know so that we understand the relationship between your bill and the existing law.
Mr. Adler: We reference it in clause 2, in the interpretation, where it ties it back to the public service — the disclosure act. I can supplement my remarks.
The Chair: If you wouldn't mind, that would be helpful so we can understand that this is not something different but is something that augments existing law.
Mr. Adler: Definitely.
The Chair: The second point I wanted to confirm was that your answer was "yes" to Senator Rivard asking you if this had been vetted. Did you vet this through the Justice Department and they indicated that from a legal point of view that it's okay to proceed?
Mr. Adler: This was vetted through the parliamentary law clerk.
The Chair: Okay, not Justice?
Mr. Adler: No.
The Chair: Thank you. That's helpful.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput from Manitoba.
Senator Chaput: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So you believe that this bill is really necessary?
[English]
You mentioned that it was to fill a gap, but I understand that you don't have any concrete examples as to what that gap could be.
Mr. Adler: The gap is quite clear. You're asking me for concrete examples of any infractions of the proposed gap. It would be impossible to tell because the gap was never legislated before. This is the first time we're legislating it. I'm not insinuating there were any infractions of the gap in question. This is a preventive measure that will give Canadians and members of Parliament the reassurance that all of those who are overseeing their activities are acting in a non-partisan manner and will give more confidence to Canadians that public servants who work in these various agencies of Parliament are acting in a non-partisan manner.
It's simply more accountability and openness, which I know from my experience in my own riding, when I go door to door, Canadians tell me they value the openness that our government has provided in terms of various pieces of legislation, particularly the Federal Accountability Act, which is our first piece of legislation in 2006. They like that, and this is in the exact spirit of openness and accountability.
Senator Chaput: What is the real difference, then? In five words, what difference will it really make?
Mr. Adler: As Chief Justice Brandeis once said, sunlight is the best disinfectant. How is that?
The Chair: That's five or six words. That's what you asked for.
Mr. Adler: I can do it in four words: more accountability and openness.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Welcome to our committee, Mr. Adler. I have a question about the declaration that must be made to the office of an agent of Parliament. Clause 6(1) stipulates that every applicant for a position in the office of an agent of Parliament must, as soon as possible in the selection process, provide the relevant agent of Parliament with a written declaration stating whether or not, at any time in the 10 years before applying for the position, they occupied a politically partisan position. What is covered by "every applicant for a position"? Could we be talking about an administrative officer? A researcher? A legal officer?
[English]
Mr. Adler: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Every applicant must provide the agent with a declaration; so that applies to anyone who works for the agent. You say that the declaration must then be posted on the website. Once the individual submits their declaration, that document will be available on the website. Is that correct?
[English]
Mr. Adler: Yes, that's what the legislation requires. You've worked in an office, presumably, at some point in your life, and sometimes people do research one day and administrative work the next. This legislation is intended to cover all of the positions. Offices are fluid and job responsibilities and descriptions are quite fluid from time to time. That's why that provision is in there.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Let's say, for example, that an individual spends six months working in the office. Will the declaration on the Internet be automatically removed, or will it remain online?
[English]
Mr. Adler: The obligation would be on the employee to provide that information to the agent of Parliament and, in return, the agent would have the responsibility of posting it online, yes. If they're not employees, there's no reason to have that kind of information. The legislation requires —
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Who will be in charge of removing that information from the website?
[English]
Mr. Adler: The agent of Parliament.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: You also say in your bill that any person who, on the day on which this act comes into force, occupies a position in the office of an agent of Parliament must make this declaration. Is that right?
[English]
Mr. Adler: Yes, it is.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: What will be the consequences of finding out that an individual may have done door-to-door canvassing for a member, was active in a constituency office or was a candidate? Are there any intended consequences?
[English]
Mr. Adler: No, absolutely not. That's not the intent of this bill, to have any consequences. The intent of this bill is simply to provide more openness and accountability.
We as legislators, those of us on the house side and the Senate side, will have the ability to know whether or not any of the people who work in the agencies of Parliament have any past political activity whatsoever. It's simply more openness and shedding more light on any partisan activity that has taken place by any of the employees within the agencies of Parliament.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: You set a period of 10 years. People can change careers and their minds over time. What made you choose a 10-year period?
[English]
Mr. Adler: We chose that time period because it's typically two election cycles.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Could we ask you for the legal opinion provided on your bill? Is it clear that this piece of legislation does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Is it absolutely clear that the transparency you are calling for would not be going against individual freedoms or undermining people's privacy?
[English]
Mr. Adler: This bill was not vetted for its constitutional efficacy. The only way you can vet a bill for its constitutional efficacy is if it goes before the Supreme Court itself; the Supreme Court has to rule on its constitutional efficacy. No lawyer or public servant can do that.
Senator Gerstein: Thank you, Mr. Adler, for appearing before us.
Our colleague Senator Rivard asked for a description of "politically partisan positions," and you were good enough to read directly from the act what is included. May I take it from your answer that you would confirm to this committee that the contribution of money to a political party is not viewed as a partisan activity under this bill?
Mr. Adler: Absolutely not.
Senator Gerstein: Thank you.
The Chair: That clarifies that one pretty clearly. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Mr. Adler, you will understand, as the sponsor of Bill C-520, that this question was put to me in the Senate. It is normal for the opposition to express concern, as that is its role. The point may be to enhance a bill or to criticize it, but that is the democratic role of parliamentarians.
I am curious about something. All employees of agents of Parliament are included and, although I do not want to diminish the importance of certain positions, I am wondering how janitors, receptionists, telephone operators, office clerks or other lower level employees could be affected. Couldn't you have been more specific and determined, based on organization charts, who is considered a senior-level person — employees who can influence the policies of the office of an agent of Parliament — or did you feel that you may as well include everyone on the agent of Parliament's payroll? Was this considered?
Was that brought up when you appeared before the House of Commons committee? Has this question already been answered? Is this a new point, or have you heard it before? If so, why is it being maintained that this applies to all employees of agents of Parliament?
[English]
Mr. Adler: Senator Bellemare asked a similar question before. Job descriptions are not always applicable to what people actually do in an office setting, and job descriptions and responsibilities are very fluid. The intent was to cover all those people who are employed within the agencies of Parliament. Janitors are not typically under the employ of an agent of Parliament. They would be under the employ of the Government of Canada, Parliament or whomever.
These are pretty small shops in comparison. All of the people who work in these offices tend to have responsibility for applying the policy and the legislative requirements that are given to them within the parameters of their legislation.
The reason why we included everybody was because everybody has a hand in applying the policy and the legislative requirements that are demanded of them within their offices, and others are not — janitors, as such, are not employed necessarily by the specific agents of Parliament.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I have a question about the future. I am concerned by this bill, as it hinders democracy. Once people learn about it, such a bill could discourage Canadian citizens from entering politics or becoming involved in political activities.
Anyone who is interested in public affairs or in working within government knows that, if they decide to work in a constituency office or wish to be elected in a riding, that decision will affect their life over the next 10 years. If they are not elected, that decision will affect them for 10 years, as they will have to post all their political activities on the Internet should they want to work for the government someday.
A Canadian will think twice before becoming involved in politics, as that could be a blemish on their record going forward. Have you thought about this? That is my reaction to this bill. It contains obstacles for any ordinary Canadian potentially interested in working in the public domain — working for the government.
Given these considerations, do you think this piece of legislation contains long-term obstacles for Canadians who may be interested in having a political career someday?
[English]
Mr. Adler: With all due respect, I don't believe that to be the case. In fact, there's no stain on anyone's reputation or on their ability to conduct themselves at some future date in an impartial manner simply because they ran or were involved in a political party. Most of us at some point or another have not been involved in the political process, and if they haven't, they should. It's a civic responsibility of people, of Canadians.
What this simply does is it merely brings into the fullness of openness and accountability that everybody who is a legislated official, legislator or the Canadian public, in my opinion, has the right to know if anyone or any of these people have been involved in partisan activities.
There are no legislated repercussions whatsoever. This simply places a requirement on those people who have been involved in political activities to make that full disclosure so that those people who are governed under the regime, i.e., members of Parliament, senators, would have the full confidence that these people are acting in a fully impartial, open and accountable manner.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: That's your opinion. Putting this kind of information in a resume is one thing, but broadcasting it online with all the ensuing repercussions is another. We know full well that stories and rumors spread quickly. That's my opinion. This worries me. Thank you for your answer.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Bellemare.
[English]
Mr. Adler: This bill would actually work against the ability for one to spread rumours. This would put in clear, contextual format what people have been involved in, in terms of any partisan activity as defined by the bill, and would negate anyone's ability to spread any rumours, if you will.
Senator L. Smith: Mr. Adler, just a simple question: There seems to be some push-back from some of the agents of Parliament with a couple of letters that have been received by our chair. These are comments such as the system works; it's merit-based; it has worked since 1908; there have been thousands of employees in the public service and of this number of 200,000, 300,000-plus, there have been 46 complaints; and there have been studies on the issue of any form of partisan activity. How do you address the push-back from some of the agents, who are the senior people within the public service, in terms of their perception that the merit system works and this may cause some issues with regard to the existing system? I'm sure you have thought about it a lot, but could you give us some feedback on that.
Mr. Adler: Thank you for that question, senator.
At the initial phases of this bill, when it was first introduced, we took the advice of some of those agents of Parliament and proposed some amendments, which were accepted at the committee level and on the house side. I think we ended up with a bill that struck the right balance and achieved those demands, if you will, by the agents of Parliament.
This legislation merely covers those agencies of Parliament that report or oversee the activities of the members of Parliament and senators. It doesn't include members of the public service, as such. So this is merely, once again, shedding more light, more accountability and more openness on this whole process. We've done this. As a member of the governing party, our government introduced the Federal Accountability Act. We designated deputy ministers to come before parliamentary committees so they could provide more accountability and openness on their side. We introduced the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act so that whistle-blowers could come forward with what they saw as perhaps any infractions of the law. We strengthened the Lobbying Act, the Conflict of Interest Act. We've been very aggressive as a government in terms of creating more openness and accountability.
This is simply within that spirit and addresses what I saw, when I first started this process, as that gap between the expectation that everybody act impartially, which I have no doubt that they are, and the letter of the law requiring them to act impartially by simply making it clear and open that these employees who are employed in these offices merely post that information on a website without repercussion. This is just so the public and members of Parliament and senators can know if any of these people who work in these various agencies of Parliament have had any partisan activity as defined by the bill, and nothing more.
The Chair: When you say "without repercussion," do you mean that the information won't be used as part of the hiring process?
Mr. Adler: What happens in the hiring process is not covered by this bill. That's up to the discretion of those involved in the hiring process, whether they want to hire the best possible candidate. It's entirely up to them. This bill does not interfere with that process whatsoever. Presumably, these people would be putting this information on their CV. That doesn't really change that whole part of the openness. What I'm hoping for here is merely that those people, outside of the hiring process, would have an ability to know if they had engaged in any partisan activity, as enumerated by the bill.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: The question was asked by Senator Bellemare, and Mr. Adler answered it. I am also concerned about the impact of this bill, which I think could discourage political involvement, but it could also deter qualified candidates from applying. I wanted to share this with the committee.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Adler has commented on that already.
Would you like to make any further comments?
Mr. Adler: No. I'll let my comments from before stand.
The Chair: We're just about out of time, but I had one question I hoped I could ask you.
My understanding is that the commissioners, the agents, the actual bosses of each of these departments were all included in an earlier iteration of your legislation, but that was one of the amendments that took place. Could you explain why they've been taken out? Was that a political compromise, or was there some other legislation that you felt captured the need for disclosure by those various agents?
Mr. Adler: Again, the system worked exactly as it should, wherein the bill was introduced into the house, and there was ample debate and fullness of discussion on it. It went to committee, and at committee we decided that certain changes would be made, which were made in the public interest. The committee system worked exactly as it should, and I think we struck a reasonable compromise in terms of what the agents of Parliament themselves wanted and how we could achieve that fair balance in a form of legislation that I think everybody could support.
The Chair: The way I read the correspondence, what the agents themselves wanted was not this legislation. They felt it was not necessary. The compromise you made was to remove them, but everyone in their department is still caught by the legislation.
Mr. Adler: Yes, and we felt that was a reasonable compromise. I hope that the agents of Parliament will decide that this legislation does reach an equitable compromise between what they wanted and what the elected members of the House of Commons were seeking.
The Chair: It would be unfair for us to let you leave here today thinking that maybe they're happy now, because we have received a letter signed by all of the agents of Parliament saying that they believe this legislation is unnecessary. So you're aware of that, that the letter has just been recently received.
Mr. Adler: Yes, I understand they're appearing tomorrow.
The Chair: That's correct.
Mr. Adler: I'll wait to hear their deputations then.
The Chair: We would be pleased to share their letter, which will become a matter of public domain as they appear.
Mr. Adler: Thank you very much. I'd appreciate that.
The Chair: Mr. Adler, thank you very much for being here. Unfortunately, we've run out of time. Senators have a number of follow-up questions from other senators' questions, but we'll perhaps have those answered by the agents of Parliament and other witnesses as we proceed with this work. We thank you very much for being here this morning.
Colleagues, I remind you of the meeting with the Speaker. We'll see you Wednesday evening.
(The committee adjourned.)