Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 17th, 2009

[Joe Wild]

Sure. They're all available on the PCO website; it's not a problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Maybe you could provide us with the web link and the members can print up as many copies as they wish. Let's save paper.

I was also looking on your site for the oath of office for swearing in ministers. For some odd reason, it wasn't there. Was it taken off?

[Eileen Boyd]

I think it is there, but we can certainly provide you with the link, if it's not there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

If it's not there, could you send us a copy of it?

[Eileen Boyd]

Certainly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

There has been a lot of discussion about whether ministers are in or out, when we talk about public office holders. I understand Mr. Siksay's question, because the certification process is different for ministers than for all other public office holders, who have a contractual relationship. The point is that ministers can't sue if they're let go or something like that. That's probably the differentiation.

So that everybody understands, the term “public office holders” includes ministers and goes all the way down, through all other order in council appointees. You can refer to footnote 14 in the document or you can print it from the PCO site, for greater certainty.

Mr. Del Mastro, you have the floor.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Perhaps while I have the floor I would ask that we temporarily move to item 2 under orders of the day to consider motions, and then we can return to questions. It's just to make sure that we have time to deal with motions today. The other day we ran out of time before we got to motions. It's just a procedural matter. Perhaps we could move quickly to item 2, and then I would get on with questions for the witness.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

The committee is master of its own agenda. I think we had better take a straw vote on this.

I assume you have moved that we suspend the current proceedings, move to complete motions, and then come back to this. Is that the gist of the motion?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Yes, it is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Does everyone understand the request in the motion of Mr. Del Mastro?

All those in favour? Opposed?

(Motion negatived)

The chair believes that we should continue with our witnesses, but I want to assure the member that we will complete the full agenda today.

We're back to Mr. Del Mastro for questions, for eight minutes.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wild, you correctly pointed out in your responses to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj that, with the Westminster parliamentary system, when Canadians feel that governments aren't upholding the ethical standards they've been elected to uphold, they throw them out through the democratic process. That's what we saw occur to the Liberal Party in 2006. We witnessed Canadians punish them in the 2008 election. Canadians just punished them again in four by-elections with four third-place finishes, including a terrible showing in Montreal, which has to cause concern to a party whose bastion of support tends to emanate from around the city of Montreal. It has to be very concerning.

We know that between the years 1993 and 2005 we didn't have this; we didn't have accountable government. We witnessed abhorrent abuses of taxpayers' dollars, and certainly what Justice Gomery referred to as a culture of entitlement had formed. We saw an elaborate kickback scheme invented whereby money was doled out beyond the reach of Treasury Board, with more than $360 million paid directly to Liberal operatives who then took money in unmarked brown envelopes and.... We don't know who gave or who directed that the money be given to these Liberal operatives or bagmen. These individuals then took that money in brown envelopes and gave it to Liberal riding associations in Quebec, but we don't know which Liberal riding associations received that money. In fact, more than $43 million couldn't even be accounted for.

This was over $360 million. Let's call a spade a spade: they did this because they were using it as an unfair advantage over the Bloc Québécois. They didn't feel they could hold them off in the province of Quebec without using taxpayers' money in an illegal fashion to do so.

Do you think that Canadians deserve to know which Liberal operatives operating out of the Prime Minister's Office directed this theft of more than $360 million from taxpayers? Do you think those people should be held accountable? Do you think they deserve to know where the missing $43 million went? Do you think that public trust will continue to be challenged if we don't get answers to these questions and hold those Liberal members accountable for their crimes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Excuse me. The last part I think is inappropriate for the record. I'm not sure whether there were any Liberal members identified in the Gomery report, and certainly there was no determination of crimes.

I would ask Mr. Del Mastro to withdraw the reference to that phrase.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, this is where you and I disagree. I think the theft of $360 million plus in taxpayers' money is a crime. I can understand perhaps where you have a different view of this, but I will not withdraw those remarks, because that was a crime.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We're not going to have a debate on this, Mr. Del Mastro, but I have offered you an opportunity just to be correct.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

No, I think that was a crime, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Well, that's not what I pointed out. I pointed out that you said that “Liberal members”...and there was no issue here with Liberal members. And certainly there was no determination by any jurisdictional body that there was a crime.

I raise with you that we should be judicious in the way we describe things. To be honest is always a good thing.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair, and that's why over $360 million of taxpayers' money, funnelled to Liberal riding associations, is a crime, sir. And you will stop interjecting into my questions just because you may not like the answer.

Do you think Canadians have a right to know who is responsible for this? And more, do you think that until those questions are answered, Canadians will continue to question the ethical standards of government? Frankly, the Liberal Party told them they should always question government.

[Joe Wild]

I want to point out one thing, which is that accountable government, under a different title and a different form, was in existence from 1993 to 2005. As I said, it dates back to 1974, and it has been in place in various forms. There are changes that are made by various prime ministers when they come into office.

On the issues surrounding the sponsorship program, I don't have anything to add beyond the government's response to Justice Gomery's inquiry.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, sir.

I'll give the balance of my time to Mr. Dechert.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Mr. Wild, for your remarks.

You mentioned in your opening comments that a key component of the Federal Accountability Act was to strengthen conflict of interest rules for ministers and other public office holders. You said:

By enshrining conflict of interest rules for ministers and other public office holders in legislation and entrusting its administration to an independent officer of Parliament, Canada became the only Westminster country to have created a statutory regime for ministers in this area.

I thought that was quite interesting. Could you tell us what other countries with similar systems of government do, if they don't do what we do? For example, what is done in the U.K., and how would you compare Canada to the U.K. and other Westminster-type countries in that regard?

[Joe Wild]

Most of the Westminster countries take what some commentators would call an integrity-based approach to ethics and conflict of interest, in that it's done through a series of guidelines and guidance documents.

The United States, which does not have a Westminster system, is probably one of the most legislated systems when it comes to conflict of interest.

Canada has basically moved, you could say, partway towards that, in the sense that it's trying to balance both the integrity-based approach that most Commonwealth countries take, of having softer concepts such as honesty and integrity remain in a guidance document, while taking concepts that could be more readily reduced to a set of rules—those mainly being conflict of interest and post-employment conduct—and establishing a rules-based system around them in law.

Those are really the main differences. Australia and New Zealand operate on a set of guidelines, and in the U.K. they have a set of guidelines. But if you put it on a sort of spectrum, you would probably find the U.K. having the least amount written down, with Australia and New Zealand next, and then Canada further along that spectrum.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Would you say there has been a significant increase in the rules governing ministers since 2006?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'm sorry, we're way over. It's nine and a half minutes already.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Okay, I'll have another opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Sure.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj and Madam Simson are going to split the five minutes left.