Evidence of meeting #13 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mulroney.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
So you had no moral objection to this practice at that time. But given the proportions this matter assumed, the amounts of money involved and the nature of some of the expenses, at some point did you not feel there was something illegal or at the very least clearly immoral that needed to be changed?
4:25 p.m.
As an Individual
No, because throughout the period during which I worked in the Prime Minister's Office, the system provided about $5,000 a month to the Prime Minister. That is all there was in my day, to my knowledge. That is not a huge amount of money.
4:25 p.m.
An honourable member
It depends for whom.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To summarize to this point, Mr. Spector, we've concluded that you have no new evidence with respect to wrongdoing and that you didn't think there was anything unethical or illegal about the payment system that was in place for the former Prime Minister, but you have expressed a great deal of passion about ways that we can prevent this type of thing from happening in the future.
Are you aware of our Federal Accountability Act and the fact that we've brought in measures to strengthen the lobbyist registration procedures, to increase the power of the Auditor General to follow public money, and to provide whistle-blower protection for people who rat out wrongful behaviour? Are you aware of that? And what other suggestions would you have for this committee, in terms of preventing this unethical, or perhaps questionable, activity--because nobody's said it's unethical or illegal at this point--from happening in the future?
4:25 p.m.
As an Individual
First, to the preamble of your question, I have presented new evidence here.
4:25 p.m.
As an Individual
I've presented new evidence of reimbursement systems that I was not aware of when I wrote the afterword to the Kaplan book. What I've written in Le Devoir and The Globe and Mail is new evidence. This is something that has not been heard before. I've said in response to your chairman that I have no information about it. I'm not in a position to tell you to cast judgment one way or another on it, as to whether it was appropriate or not. So before you put words into my mouth, that is my evidence.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
But I heard you say a moment ago that you didn't think it was either unethical or illegal.
4:25 p.m.
As an Individual
In terms of the second part of your question, I am aware of the reforms and I think they've gone some distance. But I also know that the Prime Minister said that he would make deputy ministers accountable to committees of Parliament, and he has not done so, and there's a fight going on between the public accounts committee and the Privy Council Office, which I assume has the backing of the Prime Minister, over the protocol to apply. I'm also aware that the lobbyist registration rules are not quite what the Prime MInister promised.
Now, you're asking me what I think would help. I think one thing that would help would be to keep lobbyists out of playing any political role in Ottawa. We've already looked at the question of campaign funding. I think they should be kept out completely of any political role, including any role on the media.
I think there should be no ability for anybody who's registered as a lobbyist to say that they have any special access or any influence with the party in power, that the party in power has any debt to them. You should not be able to say the Conservatives are in power and you know which lobby firm you should engage when the Conservatives are in power. I think there's a legitimate role for the industry, but that role should be based on expertise, on knowing the way governments operate, having a large rolodex of officials; it should not be based on, “So-and-so was in the war room” or “So-and-so ran the buses for the campaign”. I think that would help, in addition to cleaning up the system.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Well, Mr. Spector, I appreciate your addition to this discussion. I'm still at a bit of loss, in terms of your testimony. You said a moment ago that there was nothing unethical or illegal about the payment system. I offered you an opportunity to provide additional evidence about Bear Head, about Airbus, about the consulting agreements with Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney, and I've heard no new evidence. So I'm at a bit of a loss as to why you're saying now that there is new evidence. If you're referring to this payment system that you had documents for...I don't know how many years, I don't see how it's relevant to what the committee's trying to address.
4:30 p.m.
As an Individual
Maybe when you read the transcript, you'll see the relevance, and maybe you should read the transcripts before François Martin comes to testify.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have very little time, so I would ask you to be brief. Could you give us the name of the investigator?
The name of the inspector you referred to from the RCMP?
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Earlier, you said that you had another example for us. What is that?
4:30 p.m.
As an Individual
I wrote about this in the afterword to the Kaplan book. It had to do with...
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
I see. It is something that has been published. It does not matter.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Is there anything that has not appeared in print. Is there anything else that you have not said today?
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
I have one last question, because the time is so short.
Earlier, you referred to the mandate given to the future commission of inquiry. You said quite rightly that the Prime Minister promised a full public inquiry. After his musings over the Christmas period, when he said that maybe we did not need an inquiry, all of a sudden, Mr. Johnston reports that we no longer need a full inquiry, that this is well-tilled ground, and to back this up, he quotes from Stevie Cameron in a footnote.
Given what you said earlier about how we should follow the money, in particular the $10 million, do you think Mr. Johnston's mandate for the commission of inquiry is broad enough to allow us to follow the money? Do you think that this committee should be requiring the production of a paper trail, tax and bank records? Would it be preferable for us to continue our work, or do you think that the mandate of the commission is broad enough?
