Dennis Mills

[Main Estimates, 2002-03, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that I have an immense amount of respect for him but if he is suggesting that the actions of the RCMP are not sufficient, then I do not--

[Main Estimates, 2002-03, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I think that we are holding them accountable. The auditor general has recommended RCMP investigations on a number of files. Does anyone believe that the auditor general and the RCMP are not going through some kind of very serious accountability exercise right now? It is almost as if nothing has happened since these mistakes were discovered.

The reality is that a lot is happening right now not only with the auditor general in three departments as was just acknowledged, but also in certain instances where the auditor general has recommended the RCMP become involved. That is accountability.

[Main Estimates, 2002-03, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I was taking this debate quite seriously and that question does not deserve an answer.

[Main Estimates, 2002-03, June 6th, 2002]

The hon. members must be joking. He said he will lose his job. No one will be forced to do anything that is against the Financial Administration Act and risk a criminal offence.

[Main Estimates, 2002-03, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the statement by the member for South Shore is not accurate. I will tell the House why, and I made that comment in my speech. A senior public servant, if he or she is ever asked to do something by a political master that is not right and is against the Financial Administration Act, that deputy minister has the right to report to the Clerk of the Privy Council.

[Main Estimates, 2002-03, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member has really missed my point. This was the body of my speech on the challenge to the Privy Council Office which in turn instructs deputy ministers on what to do. That is one thing. Another thing is that most people do not realize that deputy ministers in the Government of Canada report to two places. They report to the minster and they report to the Privy Council Office.

First, we have to find out where the money is going. I will give a specific example. In our city two years ago we distributed over $20 million to the five chartered banks under a human resources development labour adjustment program. There is not a politician in this Chamber, when banks had just finished making $5 billion, that would have supported giving $20 million plus to banks. There is a gap between the interaction of the public service who are disbursing the funds and the political culture.

I do not think the opposition is fair when it thinks that all the moneys being disbursed are simply being disbursed by political direction. I make the point that I believe that 99% of the money is being disbursed through the public service. I pray and hope that most of what they do is right and proper. However those of us who are elected to be accountable for that money should at least know where it is going.

[Main Estimates, 2002-03, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important components of the main estimates debate. I believe that the Privy Council Office is the most critical component in the management of the Government of Canada.

It is important for Canadians to understand because we take it for granted sometimes when we use expressions like PMO and PCO. We think that most Canadians automatically understand what we are talking about.

The Privy Council Office represents 800 of the best and brightest minds we have in the country. The men and women who occupy the Privy Council Office have a level of experience, education and commitment that brought them there as a result of an incredible exercise of public service throughout most of their lives. The quality of talent in the Privy Council Office ultimately has a reflection not only on the quality of work exercised in the House but ultimately it is the barometer of the quality of service we give to all Canadians. I hold the Privy Council Office in great respect.

I have an enormous respect for Mr. Alex Himelfarb who I have watched over the years, and especially in the last couple of years because as members know, I have worked on the heritage committee and I have witnessed the ingenuity, creativity and drive that Mr. Himelfarb has. I salute the Prime Minister for his new appointment.

When we think of 800 men and women who are the nerve end of operating the Government of Canada, it is an average salary of about $100,000 to $125,000 per person. In that context Canadians should know, to put it in business terms, they are the key executives who report to the Prime Minister and are his chief non-partisan advisers. All deputy ministers operating departments and crown corporations of government report to the Privy council Office. Canadians should also understand that there is a tremendous responsibility that exists within the Privy Council Office.

When I first came here in 1980 I was educated and trained by the Privy Council Office. I remember working with Mr. Dennis Orchard, who was the secretary to the cabinet committee responsible for government communications. I was the senior political assistant on the other side. I had the incredible experience of working under clerk Michael Pitfield, who was a giant of all clerks of privy council, a man whose life, intelligence, integrity and commitment to Canada could never ever be challenged. I experienced and was a part of a privy council system that was special. I stand here today in total support of the men and women who serve in that office. I will vote in support of that motion tonight.

In any organization and it does not matter whether it is this House of Commons, a business or whether it is any sector of the economy, from time to time we must to review. We must review and renew ourselves. I believe that the moment has come when even the Privy Council must ask itself whether it is giving the best service, not only to the Prime Minister, but is it ensuring that the machinery of government, government departments, is giving the best quality service to the public?

I would like to challenge in a constructive way the Privy Council Office team. I will not challenge the Privy Council Office in the area of policy direction tonight. I would like to challenge the Privy Council Office on this whole notion of its attitude and thought process on service to the public.

I want to talk about a personal experience that I had with the Privy Council Office in the last six months. I consider the treatment that I received, and not just the treatment toward me, but treatment toward all of my colleagues from the greater Toronto area so serious that I consider it to be a near breach of my parliamentary privilege as well as the parliamentary privileges of my colleagues.

I represent a downtown riding in Toronto. About eight months ago over a series of two or three months the leading newspapers in the greater Toronto area, one in particular, the Toronto Star , article after article alleged that Toronto members of parliament were missing in action and that the Government of Canada was doing nothing. In fact, my neighbour and dear friend, Joey Slinger, wrote in the Toronto Star :

It's nice that Dennis Mills has a hobby...It's nice David Collenette has a hobby...It's nice that all 22 Toronto MPs who belong to the government party have things to occupy their time. It's too bad they're all bums.

I called the research branch of the Library of Parliament and I said I needed the numbers of how much money the people in the greater Toronto area send to Ottawa and how much is returned. The facts will show, and any member can get this information from the research branch of the Library of Parliament, the people of the greater Toronto area send to Ottawa $31 billion annually.

In the last three years the greater Toronto are received an average of $22 billion back. There is a differential of $9 billion which we share happily on equalization, service of debt and debt reduction. The people of Toronto are happy to do that. However $22 billion going into the greater Toronto area is a lot of money. It is not members of parliament missing in action. It is not the Government of Canada doing nothing.

I started asking for this information, not just for myself but on behalf of the 28 members of parliament who serve the four million people in the greater Toronto area. We were denied request after request from department after department. The parliamentary research branch was denied. How is it that unelected officials can disperse $22 billion and they know where it goes, but those of us who are elected cannot know?

I ask my friends in the Privy Council Office who are responsible for the machinery of government, who are responsible for service to the public, why should elected members of parliament not know where the money goes? I know the member for St. John's, Newfoundland knows every bit of service that the Government of Canada provides for his constituents. I know that the member from Antigonish knows where every nickel of public money goes. I know the member for Saint John certainly knows. Why should members of parliament from the greater Toronto area not know?

I will tell members why this is important. The presence of the Government of Canada in a community is central to building confidence and pulling the community and the country together. I want to say directly to the Privy Council Office that as it is renewing itself under Mr. Himelfarb's new leadership I would ask it to please be extra sensitive to the whole idea of service to the public. In that same vein I would challenge the Privy Council Office to look at new and better ways of service to the public.

I am hearing from my constituents that it is so tough to get access to Government of Canada services. They either open late or close early or people have to leave voicemail. I would like to ask the Clerk of the Privy Council Office to examine the possibility of having a public service, remembering that the PCO is the head of the Public Service of Canada, that works two shifts a day, six days a week? Why not? We are living in a world where a husband and wife are working and need the support. Why not have a system that starts at 7 a.m. and goes until 3 p.m., and a second shift from 3 p.m. to 9 p.m.?

I believe one reason we have apathy, disinterest and a difficult time in gaining trust from Canadians is the gap that exists between the Government of Canada and the people. It is not about our constituency offices providing all this service. There is a team of 400,000 public servants across Canada. The leader of the Public Service of Canada is the Clerk of the Privy Council. I challenge the Privy Council Office, under the leadership of Mr. Himelfarb who I am a firm believer will be the greatest clerk since Michael Pitfield, to use its ingenuity and creativity to come up with a list of ways of providing better service to the public.

Ultimately that will serve every member of parliament in the House and it does not matter from what party they come. The reality is whether people live in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland or Toronto, 95% of the people never get to talk to us. They deal with those men and women in the 40 departments of government and the 10 crown corporations. The spark that inspires the quality of public service in all of those departments of government starts with the Privy Council Office.

To my friends in opposition, let us not try to be cheap with the payroll of the best minds and the best public servants in the country who are in the Privy Council Office. Let us just challenge them to renew themselves and reinvent themselves so we can ultimately have a higher quality public service.

Finally, I want to deal with one short point that was raised by opposition members on some of the problems we have had with so-called scandals. The people of Canada have to know something and it is really important they understand this. Every senior public servant is bound by the Financial Administration Act. A parliamentarian cannot order a public servant to do something that is against the Financial Administration Act because that puts that public servant at risk of a criminal charge if they were to do something against the act. If there were any situations where that kind of event happened, the people of Canada should know there are serious recriminations.

[Main Estimates, 2002-03, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member from Nova Scotia and I earlier had a constructive exchange. In no way, shape or form did we refer to any flaws that may be in the system as something that was justified. The member who just spoke suggested that we would shrug off something that was wrong and that is inappropriate.

[Main Estimates, 2002-03, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very precise. There are rules in the House of Commons for parliamentarians in terms of our limitation on lobbying. The rules state, because I have done research on this, that we cannot lobby on behalf of an organization, whether we are an MP or a minister, where there is a direct personal economic pecuniary interest.

I intend to challenge the PCO when I speak, so I am not here tonight to do a big shill for the PCO. However, I believe it is dangerous for us to create a situation for the men and women who are elected to Ottawa and who have friends or associates through business that those individuals might or could suffer from a reverse discrimination. I do not believe in that.

[Main Estimates, 2002-03, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question for clarification. If I heard the member correctly he is saying that once a member of parliament becomes a minister his or her ability to inquire on behalf of his or her constituents should be terminated. This is a critical point for me.

My views on patronage are well known in this place. My views are that the machinery of government should always be sensitive and respectful to the men and women who are elected here to represent their constituents. It is important we understand the Progressive Conservatives position on this. If they are suggesting that members of parliament who are graduated to parliamentary secretaries or ministers can no longer intervene on behalf of their constituents, or for that matter other constituents, then I do not share that view. Would the hon. member clarify his party's position?