:
Good morning, Madam Chair.
Good morning, everyone.
[English]
I thank you for your invitation to be here. It's an invitation that is difficult to refuse. It is gratifying to me to know that members of Parliament are interested in the report and recommendations that were made about two years ago by the commission of inquiry over which I presided.
Let me begin by giving you some background, and I hope you'll forgive me if I take time to say things that you may already know.
By an order in council dated February 19, 2004, I was given the task of conducting an inquiry into the sponsorship program and advertising activities of the Government of Canada, which had been the subject of a very critical report by the Auditor General of Canada.
The terms of reference expressly required me not only to investigate the facts that caused the mismanagement and corruption dealt with in the commission's first report, which was dated November 1, 2005, but I was also required to make recommendations, based on the factual findings of the first report, on a series of issues that were detailed in the terms of reference. They included the respective responsibilities and accountabilities of ministers and public servants, as recommended by the Auditor General; whistle-blowing; access to information legislation; and “the adequacy of the current accountability framework with respect to Crown corporations”.
Finally, the commission was asked--and I think this goes to the heart of what was required of it--to make recommendations to prevent mismanagement of this kind happening in the future.
Although the first part of the commission's mandate was to investigate what had gone wrong and to identify who was responsible for the errors and mismanagement that had been uncovered, this part of the commission's work drew a huge amount of public and media attention. But I always thought that in the long run the second part of our mandate was more important, because no one can change the past, but we can learn from past errors and take steps to avoid them in the future. And I thought that was the principal purpose of the commission of inquiry.
So even while the commission was completing the first part of its mandate by public hearings and the preparation of its report, we were working very hard on the second part.
Because I have never pretended to be an expert in matters of public administration, I recruited some of the best minds in all of Canada to work with me and for the commission. They formed an advisory committee composed of prominent Canadians with broad and varied experience in public policy.
I also engaged the services of Dr. Donald Savoie, a professor at the University of Moncton and a very respected authority on Canadian government. He directed a research program that resulted in the preparation of 17 studies by prominent academics on various subjects related to our mandate.
These studies, which assisted me very greatly in the preparation of the recommendations, are appended to the second report, dated February 1, 2006. And in case you haven't seen them, here they are. I think they are a notable contribution to the literature on Canadian government, and they certainly were of assistance to me, as I said.
The advisory committee travelled across Canada and held round-table discussions--I was with them at these times--in a number of cities with groups of experienced and knowledgeable persons whose advice and comments were valuable contributions to our thinking.
The commission sought the opinions of ordinary Canadians through its website, and we were agreeably surprised by the number and quality of the responses.
All of this is to say that the commission's second report and recommendations are not the work of one individual. They represent the accumulated experience and wisdom of noted academics, politicians, former public servants, journalists, and the public in general. I suggest, for this reason, that the report and recommendations deserved the government's attention and careful consideration.
You will also remember that between the date of the first report, which was delivered on November 1, 2005, and the second report, which is dated February 1, 2006, a general election occurred. It resulted in a change of government. The new government had campaigned on a platform that promised that it would, as its first piece of legislation, introduce an accountability act that would deal with the abuses uncovered by the commission's hearings and described in its first report.
The new government kept its promise, and the Federal Accountability Act is the result. That legislation, when it was first proposed, had been, I believe, already drafted and decided upon before the commission's second report was delivered into the hands of the newly elected Prime Minister. Still, I expected that in due course the recommendations contained in our report would at some future time be studied and at least to some degree acted upon.
[Translation]
Unfortunately, that was not the case. I never received any acknowledgment of receipt of my report.
Recommendations 4 and 13 prompted a very negative reaction on the part of an impressive number of officials and others. The Prime Minister announced publicly that those two recommendations would not be followed. I was invited to come to Ottawa shortly after the tabling of my report to meet with the new chairman of Treasury Board in order to discuss my recommendations. But the minister in question indicated to me, during our meeting, that the government's policy was to table as quickly as possible before Parliament its bill, that had already been drafted, and that any implementation of the recommendations contained in the commission's report would be put off until later.
I had expected that any administration would take the time to study, discuss and reflect before doing anything whatsoever. This is the reason why I had recommended that a report on the measures taken as a follow-up to the recommendations be tabled before Parliament within 24 months of receiving the recommendations. That was recommendation 19.
I thought that it was sufficient time to allow for an in-depth study of each of the issues.
[English]
The two-year delay has gone by and no report has been deposited. I'm still waiting to hear what the government thinks of the commission's other recommendations. No one has communicated with me in any way, except your committee, for which I'm grateful.
Some of the recommendations, at least to some degree, were dealt with by the Federal Accountability Act, but the basic problem described in the report has not been dealt with. That problem is the growing imbalance between the executive side of the government, represented by the Prime Minister and his cabinet, and the legislative side, represented by Parliament.
The report and the academic studies supporting it make the case that over the years there has been a greater and greater concentration of power and authority in the executive, and a corresponding diminution of the role of members of Parliament. This problem is made more acute by the expansion of the Prime Minister's Office, which has grown in size rapidly in recent years and seems to have an ever-increasing influence on government policy and decision-making.
It should be remembered that the political staff in the Prime Minister's Office are not elected. They are not subject to any rules or laws of which I am aware. And they have the ear of the most important and powerful person in Canadian government.
I suggest that this trend is a danger to Canadian democracy, and leaves the door wide open to the kind of political interference in the day-to-day administration of government programs that led to what is commonly called the sponsorship scandal.
The recommendations in the report of February 1, 2006, attempt to remedy this problem. I don't propose to discuss, in these preliminary remarks, each of the 18 recommendations in the report, but I'm happy to do so if you ask me to during questions.
[Translation]
Thank you for your attention and for having listened to me.
:
I speak personally, and I believe I speak on behalf of the Government of Canada and a broad section of parliamentarians, when I say we certainly appreciate the fine work that you, the entire committee, and your counsel completed in uncovering the enormous Liberal scandal. Without being partisan, this obviously served an important role in not only seeing what the problem was, but in your recommendations. I and many people have been exposed to your recommendations, and Canadians have been well served by them.
You made reference to the Federal Accountability Act as if it had been done in advance of your recommendations, but I can assure you, from a number of opposition members and government members sitting here who worked on the accountability campaign and the accountability issue--Bill --that your recommendations and thoughts were totally well received with a great deal of diligence and concern. Either by word or in principle, eight of your 19 recommendations have been readily accepted, for the most part. That's a recognition of the fine work you did along with your group.
I served on the public accounts committee prior to this committee, and I notice you made a number of recommendations directly with reference to the work, capacity, and responsibility of the public accounts committee. But I might suggest that four of the recommendations you made regarding the public accounts responsibilities and course of action cannot be implemented by government. They have to be implemented through the parliamentary process, and not by unilateral action of the government--by the public accounts committee and the recommendations they make to Parliament. So we're working our way through your 19, but that committee will have to deal with those four recommendations. We've seen some advancement in that case as well.
On the other six recommendations that have remained admittedly unaddressed, some concerns and reservations have been expressed by a broad section of eminent Canadians. You would be familiar with the Ehrenworth letter. It was a letter that was sent to the Prime Minister, and made public to Parliament, from a large group of eminent Canadians. It was distributed to the chairs of all the committees with the suggestion that these eminent Canadians had some differences of opinion about your interpretation of Parliament versus government responsibilities.
I would like to mention a few of these people, because I think their credibility speaks for itself. Though they're certainly not questioning your assessment of these issues, they also bring a broad scope and range of experience that we as a government, and most importantly Parliament, have to recognize. You weigh your decisions as a justice based not on one testimony or one witness; you want to get the whole broad text of any issue. So it's incumbent upon you to gain as much input as you can, and we as a Parliament--whether in government or opposition--have that same responsibility.
A number of recommendations were forwarded from that group of eminent Canadians. I'll give three or four that you may wish to comment on. They talk about the proposal that the public service should assert a constitutional identity independent of elected governments; a new system for the appointment of deputy ministers; and a change in the role of the Clerk of the Privy Council. These are pretty heady, major changes. But they state:
We are opposed to increasing the powers of unelected officials at the expense of Ministers.
In addition, for this proposal to be workable, it would be necessary to effect a clear separation between the roles of Ministers and officials.
In the public accounts committee we went through a lengthy study regarding the responsibilities of ministers and deputy ministers. So this has been a long evolutionary process, not only for this government, but for many governments in the past.
:
Well, I don't think I'll answer that question directly, because I've tried to remain non-political, and it is not my intention to attack any particular political party or to endorse the program of any particular Liberal Party. I prefer to think of the Government of Canada as representing the public interest and to direct my comments to that.
But let me say that it was the Government of Canada; it wasn't one person. It was the Government of Canada. There was an order in council that came, essentially, from the Privy Council, which is basically the Governor General, that named me. The Government of Canada asked me to make recommendations, and I made recommendations to the Government of Canada--not to the Conservative Party, not to the Liberal Party, but to the Government of Canada.
I thought it was appropriate, after the amount of time and a very considerable amount of money had been devoted to studying these questions, that they would be brought before the attention of the Government of Canada and that there would be discussions.
I just have to judge on the evidence that there hasn't been any discussion that I can see. Maybe there has been, but if there has been, it was done in secret. It certainly was not done publicly, and nobody spoke to me and told me, yes, we're studying this. I had the one conversation with Mr. Baird, who I don't think had read my report at that time, but he was very preoccupied with other matters. He had just been named President of the Treasury Board. I'm sure he had a ton of things to read.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Gomery, for being here today.
I can certainly echo the words of my colleagues, in that we do appreciate the work that you've done in uncovering a lot of Liberal corruption and arrogance, and I might say even a sense of entitlement that pervaded that entire regime. But you did point out, fairly, that that part was the first part, and that the second part of your report was the most important part. In your report you laid out a number of recommendations to improve government accountability and transparency.
In an article yesterday you were quoted as saying, “I think they owe the fact they are in office to the work of the commission. That wasn't the objective, but it was the consequence and I think they are ungrateful to treat me that way.”
We could probably argue at length as to the reason for the change in government in January 2006, but I can tell you that on the doorsteps in my riding, the primary concern of the voters was that we improve the transparency and accountability. Whether that's through your recommendations or through the Federal Accountability Act never was part of the discussion. But you did say today, in response to a question, that all you expected was that your report would be studied, and I can assure you that has happened.
The Federal Accountability Act, without question, is the most comprehensive accountability legislation that's been introduced in Canada, and I might say that was the promise of the Conservative Party during its campaign to introduce the Federal Accountability Act. The promise to adopt every one of Justice Gomery's report recommendations was not part of our platform. But in fairness, we did adopt a number of the amendments that were suggested by opposition members, and that point needs to be made very clearly. There were dozens of amendments that were proposed and adopted in this new legislation.
But I would just like to compare, if I could, just for a moment, some of the recommendations that were made by your report, sir, with some of the changes that are in the Federal Accountability Act. As you pointed out, there are many of them. We could list them by number; I don't want to take all of my time to do that. But recommendations 2, 4, and 5 were adopted, possibly from a little bit of a different perspective, but adopted nonetheless.
The issue of exempt staff having a code of conduct is clearly embedded in the Federal Accountability Act. In fact, not only is it in there, but training sessions have occurred so that exempt staff are included.
Regarding recommendation 15, relating to the registration of lobbyists, you recommended that we increase from two to five years the time the registrar has to file notice of investigation and prosecution. We extended that to ten years.
So I think in many ways, many of your recommendations were adopted, possibly through knowing that they would be part of your recommendations, possibly as part of the process. But my question is this. Do you believe that there is more accountability in government today than there was prior to the adoption of the Federal Accountability Act?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be sharing my time with my colleague, madam Faille.
Mr. Gomery, for you personal information, according to the Library of Parliament researchers — and these people are rarely wrong — of the 19 recommendations, only seven have been implemented or partially implemented, if that is of some comfort to you.
Secondly, it is very difficult for parliamentarians, as well as for the reporters who are here, as a matter of fact, to obtain information. My colleague mentioned this earlier. Yes, there is here a culture of secrecy, smokescreens and non-transparency. We would have expected that the Federal Accountability Act would have allowed for a greater flow of information, would have allowed people to be aware of what is going on and would have allowed Canadian and Quebec citizens to know what is being done with their money.
That being said, in the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, the government wishes to set a very restrictive mandate for the commissioner who will be in charge of the inquiry. In your case, I would like to know, briefly, what happened exactly. Was your mandate very restrictive or broad? Were you able to negotiate it? Is it important to have a broad mandate, granting you full liberty, for example, to explore those clues that you consider to be important? Finally, would you recommend that the government appoint the commissioner before setting out the commission's mandate?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Let me echo what some of my colleagues have said and thank you, Mr. Gomery, for the work that you have done. Certainly there is a tremendous appreciation for it, and I think Canadians are well served by the work you did in uncovering one of the greatest Liberal corruption scandals in government history, not only in Canada but around the globe.
I want to mention a few things in my comments and then get your thoughts on them. At the start of today's session I heard Mr. Holland talk about how all the political parties were for accountability. I just want to note before I delve into this that the Liberals were in power for a long period, and suggesting the Liberals are on the cusp, after all those terms, if they had only had a fifth term they would have acted on accountability, is like suggesting you're going to wait for season tickets for the Quebec Nordiques. We know what that party's track record was, and I want to point to some of the things that have been accomplished. There are some very direct areas where your recommendations have resulted in substantive change for the Government of Canada because of the work that you've done.
I'd like to point out a few. Your recommendation number two is:
The Government should adopt legislation to entrench into law a Public Service Charter.
Well, that's done, through the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.
Your recommendation number four is:
In order to clear up the confusion over the respective responsibilities and accountabilities of Ministers and public servants, the Government should modify its policies and publications to explicitly acknowledge and declare that Deputy Ministers and senior public servants who have statutory responsibility are accountable in their own right for their statutory and delegated responsibilities before the Public Accounts Committee.
Well, that's done in the Federal Accountability Act.
Your recommendation number five is:
The decision of the Minister should be recorded in correspondence to be transmitted by the Deputy Minister concerned to the Comptroller General in the Treasury Board Secretariat, and be available there for examination by the Office of the Auditor General.
That's also done in the Federal Accountability Act.
Gomery recommendation number 10 is:
The Government should remove the provision in the law and in its policies that enables exempt staff members to be appointed to a position in the public service without competition after having served in a Minister’s office for three years.
That is also done in the Federal Accountability Act.
Gomery recommendation number 11 is:
The Government should prepare and adopt a Code of Conduct for Exempt Staff that includes provisions stating that exempt staff have no authority to give direction to public servants and that Ministers are fully responsible and accountable for the actions of exempt staff.
That's also done in the Federal Accountability Act, a guide for ministers.
:
Gomery recommendation 14 was also accepted by the Federal Accountability Act.
Gomery recommendation 15, “The Registrar of Lobbyists should report directly to Parliament on matters concerning the application and enforcement of the Lobbyists Registration Act”, has not only been accepted by the Federal Accountability Act and implemented, it has gone even further. It has extended the period to ten years in which violations can be investigated and prosecuted.
Gomery recommendation 17, “The Financial Administration Act should be amended to add a new section stipulating that deliberate violation of section 34 of the Act by an employee of the federal government is grounds for dismissal without compensation“, is also achieved in the Federal Accountability Act.
What I am trying to get to by pointing to these examples is to highlight to you and to those watching that your work has resulted in massive change, and that's why it's so appreciated that you're able to delve into this massive Liberal scandal with such an effect that we've been able to change the way in which government is done. That's why many people refer to the Federal Accountability Act as the toughest anti-corruption legislation ever presented in the House of Commons.
I want to note that the Federal Accountability Act was something that we all campaigned on. I remember that winter election where we would trudge through snow and we told this to Canadians.
It wasn't one person who came up with the Federal Accountability Act. It wasn't one person who decided on it. But it was the collective wisdom of Canadians who supported that, and I think, as a political party, when we presented this, and as a government, we had that obligation to Canadians, because it was Canadians who voted on it and it was Canadians who expected us to deliver on the Federal Accountability Act.
In terms of the four aspects of the Gomery recommendations that relate to the public accounts committee, obviously that's a decision of the public accounts committee. I know it's chaired by an opposition member. I don't imagine they're trying to sabotage those recommendations of yours. I know they've been preoccupied with some other things. It would be my hope that the opposition members on that committee would certainly adopt those.
But I want to close with a question. Given all the work you've put into this, are you satisfied that we're stepping forward in the right direction? And looking back, do you believe those Liberal operatives who were involved in this massive scandal have been adequately held responsible?
Mr. Gomery, the truth is that all impropriety that happens at any point in time hurts not only the political party of the day but hurts our Parliament and hurts our system overall, and whether or not it was under Brian Mulroney or under a Liberal government, or whether or not it's the various affairs that this current government is involved in, this hurts us.
One of the things I take pride in is that our government, despite a very difficult time, made a very difficult decision, which was to ask you to look into this affair and ensure that it wouldn't happen again. Therefore, so that it's clear, I certainly can speak not just for myself but for our party, that we're happy to talk at any time, in any place, about your recommendations and the need for them to be implemented. I think it's essential that it happens.
I do not want to see my reputation or those of any parliamentarians hurt because we make the same mistakes again. We should learn from history and not be doomed to repeat it.
In that regard, whether or not it's fighting for a public complaints commissioner to be put in immediately, whether or not it's talking about the complaints the information commissioner has and the recommendations you've made in that regard that haven't been fulfilled, those key recommendations and those main recommendations that you talked about that haven't been implemented have to be. When we've put them forward, unfortunately we haven't gotten the progress that we want.
So I want to come back to this point just for a second, because it's crucial. We've heard from government members that they appreciate what you've said, but to be clear, you have never gotten a letter saying that. You've never received correspondence saying “We've read your report, we've considered your recommendations, we disagree with your recommendations, we're going to accept some, we're going to take another year to implement them.” You've received nothing back in terms of what this government intends to do with those recommendations. Is that correct?
I'll tell you that those same farmers were very interested in the media attention brought to you a couple of years ago because of your uncovering of the huge Liberal sponsorship scandal. Thank you very much for doing that on behalf of Canadians, really.
You said something interesting about transparency, which was that Canadians are going to continue to demand more and more transparency. I think you're right. I think we live in a day and age when things in the past that could be held secret can't be. I certainly think there's a trend in terms of increased media availability and increased technologies that really do inform the electorate. I want to concur with you on that.
I think there's no question, especially as I look at my generation, the generations to follow, that we will live in a completely different world from what our parents and grandparents lived in.
Along with that, there's a responsibility, as far as the government is concerned, to continue to bring transparency and to open itself up to the public eye. Obviously, there are some challenges in doing that.
I think it's very interesting. I've read this letter that many people, eminent Canadians, have signed off on, including a Liberal candidate who's running in a byelection right now, Mr. Bob Rae. They talk about the report, and they talk about complex matters that could have far-reaching effects:
...effects that in some cases, we believe, would be very damaging. It is important that you should take enough time to make a careful assessment of your own before deciding which of Justice Gomery's recommendations should be implemented.
After two years, we look at the recommendations. We see that a good number of them have been implemented, a majority of them, at least in part. As we proceed, obviously, there is going to be more attention drawn to this. There's going to be more of a desire to see this.
Is there anything you felt, looking at it today, you left out of the recommendations, things that could have been added or things you see differently than when you put the report together?
:
Well, I've been on it for a long time.
I read your report several times. You made 19 good recommendations. I don't necessarily agree with all the recommendations, but the overriding concern, the broad brush, was to make some attempt to rebalance the relationship between Parliament and government.
Your 19th recommendation was for a response to be tabled in Parliament within two years, and that has not been done. I, like you, am disappointed, because the recommendations and the government's response should have been subject to debate in Parliament. They're under no obligation to accept them, and it's not your job to dictate to them, but there were some good recommendations there. Unfortunately, your report is now gathering dust on the bookshelves of Ottawa.
My question, sir, is on one of the responses. It is about your recommendation on the accountability of deputy ministers before committees, specifically the public accounts committee. The government did respond. Actually, I was satisfied with the response in that particular act: that deputy ministers are accountable to the appropriate ministers for the compliant and prudent financial administration of the departments, the establishment and maintenance of internal controls, and the signing off on accounts. I was fairly satisfied, but once the act was proclaimed, they interpreted it totally differently from what the act states, in that the deputy ministers are accountable only to their ministers and not to any committee in Parliament--not to Parliament at all.
The public accounts committee has adopted a protocol in line with your recommendation and in line with the actual wording of the act. I don't know if you're following that issue, but do you have any comment on that particular issue?
:
I think we did see that in the case of what happened with Minister Lunn.
We're coming to the end of our time, but I want to say that the important thing I take out of this, I think, is not to say “Thank you, take care”, and off into the sunset we all go. Instead, it is to say that the main recommendations that you put forward have not been implemented.
While we did get Bill , which was essentially a retooling of Bill from the previous government, the reality is that the main recommendations you have put forward have not been adopted. I think one thing we have to do as a committee is ensure that this happens.
To talk about other guidelines.... And this comes back to your point about committee. I think committee does play an essential role in being able to hold government to account, asking questions that maybe governments don't want to have asked. What we saw in the in-and-out scandal, what we saw in the Cadman affair, was the use of guidelines put out by the Prime Minister's Office on how to disrupt committee meetings, on how to use procedural rules to frustrate committees from asking questions that they want to have asked.
So the dilemma we're faced with in committee is that if the government decides they don't want to deal with something the opposition wants to ask about, they simply leave the room, or the chair disappears into the night, or they close the doors, or they don't show up.
I wonder if you have any recommendations there. Certainly the committee should be master of its own will. Opposition parties, I'm sure you would agree, must be able to ask these questions.
Do you have any ideas on how we could get around these procedural games that have been put forward in this playbook that has been advanced?
:
Welcome, Mr. Gomery. Thank you so kindly for being here today.
Obviously your report went a long way in dealing with the previous Liberal...the criminality, the lack of accountability, the lack of integrity. But most importantly, I think Canadians today have accepted a broad number of your recommendations, either through parliamentary or real life's experience. As such, I think Canada is a better place for it.
I think there needs to be work done yet. I think we all recognize that. There's one thing I'd like you to reflect on, when you're sitting down at Havelock at some particular time, though. That is the number of esteemed citizens, whether it was Bob Rae, John Manley, Professor Tom Courchesne, Herschel Ezrin, Arthur Kroeger—I could go through a list of some 40 people—who expressed some reservations regarding your perception of governance. I really do believe this is an area we could expand upon, and both the public accounts committee and the government operations committee could take a serious interest in trying to improve how this whole House of Parliament works.
So certainly by no means consider this case closed. It's an ongoing process. Government, Parliament is just that, and your contribution has certainly been welcomed and appreciated.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Gomery. I listened carefully to what you said earlier about deputy ministers, especially the actual deputy minister of a department, and I have a question for you. People often say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Sometimes, a concrete example plays the same role and helps to understand.
At the present time, there is a case involving that person who is, for lack of a better term, the first among actual deputy ministers, namely the Clerk of the Privy Council. He has been asked to look into what the first chief of staff, the Chief of staff of the Prime Minister, did in a case involving NAFTA. There is also, if I dare say, the first diplomat, who is the Canadian Ambassador to Washington. In that case, the Prime Minister's Office decided to charge the Clerk of the Privy Council with carrying out that inquiry to determine what was done by the Prime Minister's Chief of staff and the Canadian Ambassador to Washington.
Is that sufficient? If not, could you suggest to us what we should do in order to clear up such a situation, apart from launching a much more formal inquiry, be it judicial or not?