Government Operations Committee on March 13th, 2008

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

For example, we have rules that forbid political staff members from becoming lobbyists within five years of their employment in a ministry.

[John H. Gomery]

That's in the law.

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

That is in the law. That is enforceable. Yes, it's in the law. That's in the conflict of interest legislation. We took that from the guidelines and we made it into statutory legislation. That is present.

These guidelines make it clear that, for example, political members are not allowed to own shares in the stock market; if they do, they have to put it in a complete blind trust. That is, I can assure you, very strictly upheld.

These are changes that have limited the ability of political staff members to get engaged in conflicts of interest and to use their influence in order to profit unethically after leaving office.

Would you not agree that these are positive developments?

[John H. Gomery]

Absolutely. I agree with them entirely.

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

Okay.

I think what's lost in a lot of this debate is the fact that a lot of members of Parliament from all parties helped construct the Federal Accountability Act. The bill accepted in the neighbourhood of, I think, 50 substantive amendments from the opposition--most of them, in fairness, coming from the NDP--to expand access to information, to strengthen whistle-blower protection.

A lot of that took into consideration the recommendations that you, sir, made. So I think you need to give yourself credit for the fact that your recommendations did make their way into the statutory law that we call the Accountability Act.

Would you not agree that at least your recommendations influenced that committee throughout its proceedings?

[John H. Gomery]

I hope so; I certainly hope so.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Mr. Poilievre, I see you have what appears to be a code of conduct that we've never seen. Could you please table that with the committee?

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

I would be delighted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Very good.

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

I also have the article from Ms. Kathryn May. I'll table that as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

That's fine.

We will go to Mr. Holland.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

The problem with these guidelines--and I think, Mr. Gomery, you were alluding to this--is that they are, in most cases, just that. In fact, if we look at the case of Linda Keen, it is these same guidelines that state that a minister shall not be contacting an arm's-length officer. Yet there were no consequences for Mr. Lunn. Why? Because it's not entrenched in law.

So while there may be one or two examples, I think the reality is that when violations of these guidelines occur--and we've seen it in recent examples--there's great vulnerability because it's not entrenched in law. Would you agree with that?

[John H. Gomery]

If it's a guideline, and the particular staffer in question does something that he or she should not have done, there's no consequence unless the minister chooses to dismiss the staffer--

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Or themselves.

[John H. Gomery]

--yes--or there's some discipline.

As I say, something will only have a consequence if there is some legal sanction. I learned that as a judge. You have to have a legal sanction in order to enforce a guideline. A guideline can be enforced or it can not be enforced.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I think we did see that in the case of what happened with Minister Lunn.

We're coming to the end of our time, but I want to say that the important thing I take out of this, I think, is not to say “Thank you, take care”, and off into the sunset we all go. Instead, it is to say that the main recommendations that you put forward have not been implemented.

While we did get Bill C-2, which was essentially a retooling of Bill C-11 from the previous government, the reality is that the main recommendations you have put forward have not been adopted. I think one thing we have to do as a committee is ensure that this happens.

To talk about other guidelines.... And this comes back to your point about committee. I think committee does play an essential role in being able to hold government to account, asking questions that maybe governments don't want to have asked. What we saw in the in-and-out scandal, what we saw in the Cadman affair, was the use of guidelines put out by the Prime Minister's Office on how to disrupt committee meetings, on how to use procedural rules to frustrate committees from asking questions that they want to have asked.

So the dilemma we're faced with in committee is that if the government decides they don't want to deal with something the opposition wants to ask about, they simply leave the room, or the chair disappears into the night, or they close the doors, or they don't show up.

I wonder if you have any recommendations there. Certainly the committee should be master of its own will. Opposition parties, I'm sure you would agree, must be able to ask these questions.

Do you have any ideas on how we could get around these procedural games that have been put forward in this playbook that has been advanced?

[John H. Gomery]

You need to have a very experienced chair who keeps a firm hand on the proceedings, it seems to me--such as the chair present here.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

We have a fine and exemplary chair, I would concur with that assessment.

The problem, Mr. Gomery, is when we have a chair who leaves instead of taking a vote. We just had that in the justice committee yesterday; it has happened twice.

Do you have any ideas on how we address that? Certain committees don't even sit any more because we can't--

[John H. Gomery]

You're into an area of parliamentary procedure, and I'm not an expert on that, so I don't think I'm going to answer that.

This is part of parliamentary debate. I'm sure parliamentarians have been dealing with this for hundreds of years, and will continue to do so.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

The point I make, just to conclude, is that you talked about—and you would agree—the fact that committees are one of the main vehicles Parliament has at its disposal to exercise that balance you talked about. Would you agree with that? Maybe you'd comment on it.

[John H. Gomery]

I agree with that. I think the committee system is an extraordinarily effective way of checking any autocratic tendencies on the part of the government.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

And it would be extremely important that balance be maintained and that committees be given the opportunity to exercise their duties and their work.

[John H. Gomery]

Yes.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you very much.