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.