Government Operations Committee on March 13th, 2008

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

But you're frustrated. You said yourself that you're frustrated with the way the government is handling your recommendations.

[John H. Gomery]

Yes. I gave them two years. I thought that would give them time to find time to do something. Perhaps I'm naive, but I expected that at the expiry of that two-year period something would be said or done that would indicate that yes, we've looked at your report; we've decided to reject it or we've adopted this or we've done this or that or the other way--but nothing.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Do you think the present Government of Canada, the Conservative government, is actually sincere about doing anything about accountability in terms of implementing in any way, shape, or form your recommendations?

[John H. Gomery]

Well, I'd just like to know what their attitude is.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

So you question their sincerity and their....

[John H. Gomery]

I have no reason to believe that the present government does not sincerely wish the well-being of the country.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Why do you think you've been ignored?

[John H. Gomery]

I would just like them to tell me what their reaction is.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Why do you feel you've been ignored by the government?

[John H. Gomery]

I don't know the answer to that question. It would be pure speculation, and I don't think I should speculate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you very much, Mr. Silva.

Go ahead, Mr. Albrecht.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

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?

[John H. Gomery]

I believe that there's more accountability required of the public service today than was the case in the period that was covered by our inquiry. There's no question about that. Whether that is due to the provisions of the Federal Accountability Act or to other factors is extremely difficult to know.

I am told, and I think it is generally the reputation here in Ottawa, that there is something called the “Gomery effect”—that makes me into an adjective, which I think is very peculiar, a funny feeling for me—which is sort of an attitude in the public service about being very careful about what you do. I think that's great, but as to whether that's because of the Accountability Act or just because people were profoundly embarrassed by what happened during our commission's hearings, I don't know what the reason is.

But I'll say it again to reassure you. I think the enactment of the Federal Accountability Act was a very positive step towards attaining a better degree of accountability in Canadian government.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

So clearly, we're moving in the right direction.

[John H. Gomery]

Yes.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Okay.

I would just like to follow up for a moment, Madam Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

You have 30 seconds.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Oh, then I'm going to change my approach.

There's still a fairly large sum of money outstanding--this comes out of the first part of your investigation--and in fact Public Works and Government Services has listed a number of initiatives that are trying to reclaim some of the money that's still owing to Canadian taxpayers, somewhere in the area of $40 million. I believe that we have an obligation to return this to taxpayers. It might seem like a small amount to people on the other side who consider this government money, but this is taxpayers' money, and I believe we need—

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you

. We'll allow Mr. Gomery to answer very quickly.

[John H. Gomery]

I understand that matter is before the courts and that there is a lawsuit being vigorously prosecuted against people who are alleged to owe money to the government as a result of the sponsorship program. All I can say is that I have a certain sympathy for the judge who's going to have to hear that case.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Albrecht, I would like to add to you that our research people were unable to find any information on the code of conduct for exempt staff. Perhaps if we could have that tabled, it would be very good. Thank you.

We will now go to Madame Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

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?

[John H. Gomery]

There are a lot of questions there, madam.

As for the factual part, I negotiated my mandate with the government of the day. One of the important provisions I negotiated was the right to go wherever I deemed it appropriate in seeking out the truth. I gave myself, through negotiation, a freedom of action that was very useful during the course of my inquiry.

I would recommend to any commissioner of inquiry that he or she be covered by a similar provision. Otherwise, if a mandate is constrained, some people would be able to make criticisms and state that a given aspect was not researched or investigated. For purposes of the protection of the credibility and reputation of the commissioner, he or she must be provided with a certain freedom of action during the course of the inquiry. If it is necessary to negotiate one's mandate, then it follows that the commissioner should be appointed before the terms and conditions of the mandate are set, would you not say? If the mandate is established in advance, the commissioner is somewhat a prisoner of what was decided without his or her knowledge.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you very much.

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

My questions relate to the rules for political party financing. You were not able to discuss this in any great detail. Changes have been made. What consequences might the new rules have? What changes or recommendations could you make in this area?