Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 4th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We'll call the meeting to order.

This is the Legislative Committee on Bill C-2, the accountability legislation, and meeting number two. The orders of the day are Bill C-2, An Act providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on elections financing and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability.

Our guests this morning are the Honourable John Baird, President of the Treasury Board, and two representatives from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

What I'm going to do, Minister, and representative from the Department of Justice, is to ask you at the appropriate time to introduce the people who are with you.

So we will proceed.

Minister, you will make, hopefully, a presentation to the committee and then we will have some questions. Minister, good morning.

[John Baird, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Good morning. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Colleagues, I'm very pleased and happy to be here to briefly introduce the Federal Accountability Act, Bill C-2.

There's a real desire, I think, on behalf of all Canadians to see their parliamentarians work together to make this important piece of legislation one that will rebuild the public trust of Canadians in their government. Over the coming weeks you will deliberate on each of the 317 clauses of the bill and you will hear many witnesses with different points of view. I urge you to consider them carefully and to remember what Canadians said on January 23, that they want an honest and accountable government they can trust. The Federal Accountability Act, I believe, is a starting point for rebuilding that trust.

Before I go into the details, I'd like to say how pleased I was with the debate on second reading in the House last week. There were many interesting ideas put forward, and I know the committee will have time to consider all of them. I was particularly interested in the genuine support and cooperation in the speech by the member for Vancouver Quadra,

my colleague from Repentigny's comments and

the speech of the member for Winnipeg Centre, who has obviously worked on this issue longer than most of us. They were very thoughtful.

I'd like to briefly go through the bill. Part 1 is about making significant political reforms to ensure that elected representatives and public office-holders make decisions in the very best interests of Canadians. These proposals would enshrine the Conflict of Interest Code into law.

This is the practice in the province of Ontario, where I gained a great deal of experience. The Members' Conflict of Interest Act is part of the law, and is not merely something written by the premier of the day.

The bill would significantly reduce the influence of big money in politics. These are reforms that were undertaken in Quebec more than 25 years ago, and also in the province of Manitoba. By eliminating corporate and union contributions, we believe we can make the political process more open and more democratic.

There are major lobbying reforms in the bill. The ban of five years for senior public office-holders, ministers, and ministerial staff is significant and designed to end the revolving door between senior government officials and lobbying firms.

In section 2 of the bill, the provisions are intended to support the institutions of Parliament in their duty to provide a responsible government.

By establishing a parliamentary budget authority, the legislation would ensure parliamentary committees have access to independent and objective analysis on economic and fiscal issues.

Part 3 of the bill is about making government more open, ensuring the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions and protecting those who report wrongdoing.

The bill proposes expanding the coverage of the Access to Information Act for the first time to 17 new organizations, including seven agents of Parliament, seven crown corporations, and the three foundations created by federal statute. Each of those foundations has a budget of approximately $1 billion.

We're committed to going even further to strengthen the Access to Information Act, through consideration at committee of the draft proposals based on those put forward by the Information Commissioner late last year and further changes to the discussion paper presented by Minister Toews on April 11.

The bill also provides a new public appointments commission to oversee, monitor, and report on the selection process for Governor in Council appointments to agencies, boards, commissions, and crown corporations. This proposal would ensure that government appointments reward merit while respecting the values of fairness and openness.

Also, in the spirit of ensuring that appointments are merit based and reflect fairness and openness, the bill would give the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer the authority to appoint returning officers. This is something that would help depoliticize the process and ensure greater political and public perception of the way our elections are run. I know this is an issue that has been very big for our colleague from Lanark--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington and also for a number of our colleagues from Quebec in the past.

Because openness and transparency are the heart of accountability, we must create a federal public sector culture where people feel comfortable in coming forward to report wrongdoing. The proposed act strengthens the former Bill C-11 by hopefully creating a greater degree of certainty in the minds of public servants when they see wrongdoing, waste and mismanagement, or even criminal behaviour, that they'll have the genuine confidence to come forward and report that knowing they don't have to fear a reprisal and there will be a genuinely independent process for protecting them. The development of this proposal was led by the member for Nepean--Carleton and certainly builds on what the committee heard on Bill C-11.

I believe the proposed act is a good bill for public servants as it does not establish more red tape, more bureaucracy, or more rules.

Some have said our proposed amendments to the whistle-blowing legislation may imply that we believe abuse is rampant in the public service. Let me be clear and say for the record that the government knows the vast majority of people in the federal public service uphold the highest ethical standards.

Part 4 of the bill focuses on public sector reform by enhancing administrative oversight and accountability. Within the framework of a minister's overall accountability to Parliament, the roles and responsibilities of deputy ministers must be clear. The bill before us proposes to designate deputy ministers and deputy heads as accounting officers for their department, without taking anything away from the responsible minister's accountability to Parliament.

Finally, the last part of the bill is about reforming procurement and contracting. This is obviously real and significant in terms of the concerns that the Auditors General have raised in recent years, and among the public, particularly small businesses. The Auditor General plays a key role ensuring that public funds are spent wisely. That's why the bill before us would give the Auditor General increased authority to audit individuals and organizations that receive federal funding.

The measures I have described here give a good sense of our commitment to instill a culture of accountability within the public sector. These measures before us would affect everyone, from the Prime Minister to parliamentarians, to public service employees, to Canadians directly, and to companies that receive federal funding. By ensuring these proposed reforms make it into law, Parliament would go further than any government in Canadian history with respect to accountability.

At the beginning of this minority Parliament, I think working together to rebuild the public trust in government and its institutions and in the political process would perhaps be the greatest legacy the 39th Parliament can give to Canadians.

In the Ottawa Citizen, I saw a poll that looked at professions. At the top of the list were farmers, nurses, and firefighters, in the middle of the pack were public servants, but at the very bottom were politicians and elected officials. I think we all share a responsibility to help rebuild that trust, which has declined over many decades in this country, under the stewardship of many political parties, I would also add. That can perhaps be the greatest gift for the 39th Parliament, I think, to show the importance that we all place on strengthening accountability.

I was very pleased to read recent media reports from my good friend the member for Winnipeg Centre, where he suggested it would be a great gift to Canadians to put these measures into law before we break for the summer recess. That would allow us to quickly move forward in terms of getting these new offices up and running and getting these new measures in place to strengthen the trust that Canadians have in their government.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am now prepared to answer your questions and hear your comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Minister.

We now have rounds of seven minutes per caucus.

Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, welcome.

Let me begin by reiterating what I said in the House, that the official opposition supports the proposed Federal Accountability Act. We see it as a continuation, a natural evolution of many of the accountability measures that have been introduced by the former government over the last decade, including a continuing strengthening of the Lobbyists Registration Act and practices, whistle-blowing legislation, reform of procurement, the extension of the Auditor General's reach into crown corporations, the setting up of the independent Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer, having a code of conduct--and I think the intention of this bill to put that code in legislation is a very positive, forward, further step--and certainly around the whole question of ensuring, and I'll paraphrase, because I don't remember the exact phrase you used, that we stop the revolving door between people in influence in Ottawa and lucrative careers advising people on how to have influence with their government. I think that's an area that all of us would like to see properly cleaned up.

Minister, as we go forward with this commonly held revolving-door concern, as you've said, how might we ensure that this proposed act protects against not only people leaving public offices and going into the lobbying or influence-contracting business, but also people who have held high office in an opposition that now becomes government going out and practising the same thing, and perhaps with even greater influence since they're now speaking to the people who were their former colleagues and are now in government? That may be something we together will want to think carefully about, because governments will come and go over the years and we want to make sure the principle is effective.

To give you a brief example--not to embarrass anybody, but this is a public posting on the Lang Michener website, from their Vancouver office--with respect to a new senior strategic adviser who of course is well known to all of us, John Reynolds, they say on the website: “John's wealth of experience and connections further adds to our ability to serve our clients.” Then they go on to name his numerous shadow cabinet roles in federal politics: official opposition whip and House leader, leader of Her Majesty's official opposition in 2001, chair of Stephen Harper's leadership campaign, and co-chair of Prime Minister Harper's 2006 election campaign.

I don't want to focus too much on Mr. Reynolds, but rather on the type of situation we are seeing with a number of people who were senior advisers and officials in the official opposition, which is now the government--and there are dozens of them--registering as lobbyists. I wonder if you can help us with any suggestions on how we can deal with the principle but ensure that it applies all the way around, so that the people with potentially the most influence... and in the attitude of the public, which you've so properly raised, of cynicism towards people in political life, how we can ensure that there isn't even the appearance of undue influence through these very close connections.

I think that's something we have to work towards collectively, and it's so important that we work towards that because of the attitude of the public that you mentioned, but it being actually contrary to the facts.

Of course, after the Gomery inquiry, which was one of the longest fact-finding inquiries in modern Canadian history, Justice Gomery came to the conclusion in his report that “Canadians should not forget that the vast majority of our public officials and politicians do their work honestly, diligently and effectively, and emerge from this inquiry free of any blame”.

Now, that is certainly not, as you've correctly identified, the general impression that the public has of public servants and politicians. I see our task in this committee as a solemn one to help improve areas of accountability wherever we can, but to also help correct the misconception in the public that things are routinely corrupt, inefficient, or inappropriate in some way in public life in this country, when we know they are not.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you for your comments.

I share the view that we certainly have a solemn task. I think we have it collectively, irrespective of our political affiliations, to rebuild the institution of a government of elected officials, the honour that we all have to represent the people of Canada from different parts of the country. I agree with you in that the overwhelming number of actors in this business are good honest people, who are motivated by collectively wanting to make a difference for the country.

With respect to your issue, you mention that the Lang Michener website talked about the numerous cabinet roles that Mr. Reynolds had in federal politics. I'm not sure that he did.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Shadow cabinet.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Oh, shadow cabinet. Sorry.

On the five-year ban on lobbying, I think if there has been one criticism, one huge criticism is that it goes too far, not that it's not strict enough. I heard many comments. Your comments in the scrum, after we released the bill on the day we tabled it, on April 11, indicated we were going too far.

Through the conflict of interest code and the lobbying reforms, we've sought to regulate the executive branch of government, not the legislative branch. I'd be very open if you have any proposals on regulating the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, the staff of members of Parliament who are not working in the executive branch. If you think these don't go far enough, we would welcome any ideas or suggestions that you think could strengthen the bill.

Thus far, we haven't gone into the legislative branch on the conflict of interest side. We've only looked directly at the source of power in this government, and this act identifies the executive branch. We've sought to bring in fairly significant reforms so that people don't lobby the person who used to work in the office next to them, the people they used to work with on making important decisions in government, for five years.

If you have suggestions to go further and you would like to present amendments, I think we'd all welcome a good discussion on that. If you would like to discuss making them retroactive, we're open to discussing that too. We would want to make them retroactive for the former ministerial advisers in the previous government too, if we made them retroactive for the former opposition.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay. The chair is going to try to follow the rules of this place, and you're making it difficult for me. We've now had eight and a half minutes on this. What each caucus does with their time is their business. We let it go this time, but I'm going to get mean from now on.

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Baird, good morning and welcome.

I have several questions for you. I would ask you, if possible, to give me brief answers, because we only have eight and a half minutes at our disposal.

I will begin my comments by paraphrasing the Auditor General, if I may. And I want to say clearly that this is a paraphrase and not a quote. When referring to the sponsorship scandal, she said something along these lines: every rule in the book was broken. The rules therefore existed, and they were broken. I congratulate you for creating new rules, but these rules will be respected if and when the political will exists to ensure it.

On the highway, the speed limit is 100 km an hour. We can go ahead and adopt a new rule to further control speeders, but if it is not respected or no penalties are imposed... We can have all the lovely rules that you are proposing and this big document with 317 sections covering 250 pages, but what is needed is political will. And only time and experience will tell whether it is present. That was not a question.

Here is my first question. Alfonso Gagliano told us that a minister is not responsible for his department. Reg Alcock told us that a minister is responsible for his department. In your opinion, is a minister responsible for his department and his actions or is he not?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

What you have said about the changes to internal auditing is important. The steps that have been implemented in order to protect whistleblowers are as well, as is the new independence these people have. In my opinion, the situation has changed over the last few years. I feel a minister is responsible for his actions as well as for those of his staff. Given that responsibility, I believe that the former Prime Minister and the former Minister of Public Works were in fact responsible. A great many files were affected.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

In the end, you are telling us that a minister is accountable and that other cabinet ministers from the Conservative Party are responsible for their departments.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

All my cabinet colleagues are responsible for what is done by their departments. In my opinion, under the Federal Accountability Act, when a minister or his or her office takes action on a file...

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I am certain that this will not be the case, but suppose there was a scandal within the Human Resources Department and that there was a change of minister. Does the accountability for the scandal follow the minister?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

The bill does not deal with that principle.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

For example, when Mr. Pettigrew was the Minister of Human Resources, it was discovered that departmental funds had disappeared. When there was a change of minister, we were not able to ask questions of the new minister because she was not there at the time those monies disappeared. Nor could we ask questions of Mr. Petttigrew because he was no longer with the department. Does the responsibility follow the minister?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Ministers are accountable for their actions to the House and to committees. That is nothing new. In other countries, deputy ministers are still held accountable for these actions to their parliaments. Now, under our system, the sitting minister is held accountable.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

So there are no changes in that respect.

What do you think of Bill C-11 from the previous session, which, at the time, was passed unanimously by Mr. Poilievre and other members of the committee?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

In my opinion, Bill C-11 was barely better than nothing. The amendments brought forward by the government after the committee's study were much stronger than what had been proposed at the outset. I feel that the measures included in Bill C-2 will improve the system.

I hope that public servants will be better able to count on the fact that there is truly a system in place to protect their careers. The provisions in our bill dealing with the protection of whistleblowers have much more impact than those in Bill C-11. This is very important. If we adopt a culture of accountability—

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

The culture does not lie in the differences between Bill C-2 and Bill C-11. This is about more than the sections. Furthermore, you said something that is both interesting and significant which gives me the opportunity to ask you another question. In your opinion, Bill C-11 would be better than nothing. The fact remains that this bill, even though it went through all of the legislative stages, was not enacted by your government.

You want us to study Bill C-2 quickly in order to create a better climate, that is to say a culture of confidence. Well, we could announce today at 9:30 a.m. the government's intention to immediately enact C-11 from the previous session of Parliament and to amend the latter when Bill C-2 is passed. It would be doable, realistic and relatively simple. While we are rigorously studying Bill C-2, this alternative would allow you to offer something that you consider better than nothing—you said earlier that for the moment, there is nothing—to all civil servants, bureaucrats and others.

Would you be prepared to respond favourably to the request formulated by the Professional Institute of the Public Service, one that I make my own, that is to immediately recognize that civil servants may disclose wrongdoing? Or would you prefer to let these people live in uncertainty for some time?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

We had consultations concerning this bill with Michèle Demers. The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada was not comfortable with the idea of changing Bill C-11. We had to decide whether or not we would draft new legislation or proceed with Bill C-11, with amendments. We accepted the institute's opinion.

As for the representatives of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the other large public servants' union, their representatives said that Bill C-11 did not go far enough and that we needed very strict legislation.

The good news, is that we have a government—

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Why wait? Why wait?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

You're doing much better; you're only 30 seconds over this time.

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Martin is next.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

I will try not to use up all of my time with my comments, so we can give the minister some opportunities to react as well.

Let me say first, on behalf of the NDP, that I view what we're doing as a very noble undertaking. I'm happy on behalf of our party to be able to be involved with this. I can restate that I think this could be the single most important thing we do in the 39th Parliament. I say that as a preface to the comment that we can't ram this thing through; this is so important that I think perhaps the minister's stated timelines might not be realistic. By that same token, I won't tolerate anybody on this committee doing anything to sabotage the work for their own political motives. I say that as the first official comment I have to make on this committee, because while we don't want it rammed through, we will not see it unduly delayed for anybody's political objectives. I'm speaking, of course, to my colleagues on the opposition side, largely.

We're concerned that the sheer magnitude of this thing could cause it to collapse under its own weight; that's my only observation. Rather than getting into the specifics, I'd ask the minister if he has considered the idea of hiving off those things where there is broad agreement and consensus, allowing them to go ahead unabated or separately while we wrestle with the more contentious issues. Has there been any consideration of taking your easy ones first, like in a game of pool?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'll say to my friend from Winnipeg, the minister's stated timelines were inspired by comments I saw attributed to you in The Hill Times. That's when I first wanted to take up your challenge to deliver to Canada an accountable political system.

I think there are a lot of measures here that are interrelated and lean on each other. The end objective is to create a culture of accountability. If there are parts of the bill that you have specific concerns with or where you don't think there's as much agreement, I'd welcome answering any questions on those.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

As I said, I don't think this is the time to get into the nitty-gritty. I will say on a more general level that one of the things we're particularly keen on is the accountability provisions, where you're speaking about deputy ministers' responsibilities. I've often thought and felt that deputy ministers are always looking forward and that their primary concern is watching their minister's butt, frankly, to make sure the minister is not getting into any trouble, and that they are spending very little time looking backwards at the 5,000 people they supervise.

How do you contemplate reversing that to make sure the deputy ministers are in fact watching what's going on in their backyards, as well as watching over their ministers' political well-being?