Government Operations Committee on March 13th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank very much, Mr. Warkentin.

I don't know if you want to give a brief answer.

[John H. Gomery]

No, thank you; that's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Please go ahead, Madame Folco.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I understand your sentiment, Mr. Gomery. In French, we say that politeness is important. In my view, the Prime Minister or those persons responsible could have sent you an acknowledgment of receipt, simply to inform you that they did receive the package and are reflecting upon it. That was the least they could have done. If I understood correctly, you did not even get an acknowledgment of receipt, is that so?

I would like to come back to an issue that I am not sure is more important or less important, and that is your meeting with Minister Baird when he was President of Treasury Board. It was reported in the newspapers that you gave the impression that Minister Baird was, at the time, much more worried about the possibility that you might cause damage to the Conservative government than about the government's own bill. You made mention of that quite a while ago.

I would like to know precisely, given that we do not have very much time here, what the minister said and what his concerns were as to the problems that you might create for his government.

[John H. Gomery]

You are asking me to remember something I cannot. I did not take notes. I can simply relay to you impressions drawn from my memory.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

But this is rather important.

[John H. Gomery]

I clearly recollect — I went back home after that meeting — having told my wife that my impression was that Mr. Baird was very relieved to know that I would remain a judge for a long time and that I would not be making political comments about the future of the recommendations contained in my report. I indeed had to hold my tongue because of my work as a judge. It was an impression. However, I cannot quote the words the minister said to give me that impression.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Gomery, could you be more specific with regard to your concerns?

[John H. Gomery]

Obviously, had I not been obliged to stay silent with regard to my recommendations, I would have accepted the thousand and one requests I got for television interviews, for example. After tabling my report, I was sought out by journalists and all sorts of people to comment on the Federal Accountability Act. I refused all of those interview requests.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

It is never too late, sir.

[John H. Gomery]

Today, I am much freer, and this is why I am here.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to share my time with my...

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I have a comment and a question.

Mr. Gomery, I've spent seven years on the public accounts committee, the last two as chair, so I've lived through this issue for a very long time--

[John H. Gomery]

Are you no longer on that committee?

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I am on the committee. I chair the committee right now.

[John H. Gomery]

As you know, one of my recommendations was that people should be on it for a long time.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

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?

[John H. Gomery]

Yes, I'm happy to.

My recollection is that the public accounts committee unanimously recommended to the government that deputy ministers should be accountable to the public accounts committee, and not as is the current practice, that they respond only in the name of their minister. I thought that would carry more weight than it did carry as against a letter received from some very highly placed people, which seems to have influenced the Prime Minister to decide not to follow that recommendation, not to follow the recommendation of my commission, not to follow the recommendation of the public accounts committee, not to follow the recommendation of the Lambert commission 30 years ago. It seems to fly in the face of all the opinions.

The reason for the desirability of a certain level of accountability by deputy ministers is to depoliticize their position. As matters stand, the only person to whom a deputy minister needs to account for his actions, whether he's made a terrible mistake, whether he's neglected his responsibilities, whether he's committed some sort of an illegality, is to either his minister or the prime minister--the minster because he's the person who oversees the government policy in his particular department, and the prime minister because it's the prime minister who names the deputy minister. The public or individual parliamentarians never have the right to ask a deputy minister, why did you do this, or explain why you failed to do this. Nobody can ask that question. They are unaccountable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Gomery, earlier on I forgot to cite the quote in which you indicated that your feelings were hurt. I just want to make clear that came from March 12 in the Ottawa Citizen, and there's a quote here about your hurt feelings. I don't doubt for a second that's not exactly what you meant. You mentioned that you're not always pleased with what---

[John H. Gomery]

Mr. Poilievre, what happened in the real world is that I received a telephone call in the kitchen while I was preparing dinner, and it was from Kathryn May, who I have known now for several years because she's followed the affairs of the commission. I'm on a very friendly basis with her.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

We all know her around here.

[John H. Gomery]

She and I had quite a long conversation in which I talked about various things, and she, as is her job, reported those in a news article. She said that my feelings are hurt, but I don't think I said to her that my feelings are hurt. She may have interpreted my reaction in that way. Anyway, if I have to repudiate it, I repudiate it. My feelings aren't hurt.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I think we're all relieved to hear that. We all know Kathryn May around here. She's a very solid professional journalist, but I know that she'll be writing about all the good things that you said about the Federal Accountability Act in tomorrow's Ottawa Citizen.

The Federal Accountability Act that we have talked about is the most severe anti-corruption law ever in the history of Canada. It is what we promised during the election campaign. I wish to say this in French because we promised such an act during the 2005-06 election campaign, and that is precisely what we did as soon as we came to power. You have already mentioned that you were in favour of several of the clauses of that bill and that you believe that this act represents a tremendous improvement. I agree with you.

There has been talk about the accountability that is thrust upon members of political staff, and somebody I think indicated that there are no rules for political staff. In fact there's a very extensive guide right here—it's a guide for ministers and secretaries of state—and it includes a whole list of rules for their staff. These guidelines are very strict and they limit employment opportunities that political staff can pursue after they leave.

[John H. Gomery]

These are guidelines, I gather, that are written by the Privy Council Office probably, or written by I don't know who, but they don't have the force of law. They've never been adopted by anybody. They've never been debated. Excuse me for interrupting you, but guidelines are guidelines. They're in no way enforceable.