Government Operations Committee on March 13th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We have very few minutes. We have another committee about to start in this room, and I'm going to allow all of the people who are on my list to speak, but I'm going to try to keep it short. I have Madame Faille, Mr. Kramp, and Mr. Mulcair.

Madam Faille, please try to be brief.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I would like to add to what my colleague, Mr. Holland, was saying. For some time now, we have seen the Conservatives attempt to use reporters to discredit those issues that make them uncomfortable. Every time they are questioned, they tell us that they have received information — from I do not know where — and they attack the credibility of what is being reported by the media.

Today, you expressed the desire that there be a fundamental change, but you know full well that this change will not come overnight.

We can read the following in the first paragraph of the newspaper article:

The man who headed the sponsorship inquiry believes that Prime Minister Stephen Harper seems to have abandoned his commitment to government transparency, preferring a style of government that concentrates power in his hands.

Are you in agreement with that? I believe that, to summarize, we could say that to share information is to share power.

[John H. Gomery]

That interpretation of what I stated is not completely false, I agree. As a member of the legal profession, when there is any misunderstanding as to what a witness wanted to say, I read the transcript of the statement. In a newspaper article, the journalist is not transcribing, but interpreting. I do not dispute that interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Kramp, for two minutes.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

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.

[John H. Gomery]

Thank you, sir. Very kind remarks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you, Mr. Kramp.

Mr. Mulcair, for one final question.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

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?

[John H. Gomery]

That certainly is the way such affairs were dealt with in the past. Obviously, it is greatly dependent upon the independence of the Clerk of the Privy Council. If the Clerk fits the mould of certain people who have held the position in the past, such as Mr. Gordon Robertson, who is perceived as a model for the Clerk of the Privy Council, all the better. Mr. Robertson had much authority and independence.

I noted a problem. It was, as a matter of fact, the object of another recommendation that was not followed. I recommended that the role and status of the Clerk of the Privy Council be somewhat modified. Indeed, this person is in such close contact with the Prime Minister — being appointed by the latter — that it is difficult for him or her to retain his or her independence and objectivity. That being said, I make no comment whatsoever with regard to the present clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Allow me to take a moment to thank you for having spent these two hours with us. Thank you very much.

The Committee now stands adjourned.