In a previous life not so long ago, I worked as a family mediation notary. I worked with several parties to reach a compromise. I am prepared to do this again and to work with several parties, even though I am now talking about political parties, to find a motion we can work with.
But if the opposition parties are trying to score political points by focusing on a single event, for which thePrime Minister has apologized, and are attempting to involve the family of an elected member, then I can tell you right now, Madam Chair, that I will oppose it.
Are we blameless? Of course not. That is why the Prime Minister apologized sincerely. And yet, the opposition parties have also made mistakes in the past. If the opposition parties want to play that game, of looking at government expenditures, we could also examine the guidelines established by the government to prevent a party from paying partisan offices out of House of Commons funds, or from taking advantage of the fact that the opposition would like to call upon Mr. Ian Schubert to ask why he had reservations about Mr. Bruce Carson when he was working for the Conservatives, not to mention the ties between then Prime Minister Harper's cabinet and the Senate expenses scandal.
Yes, we could start pointing at our adversaries, but I sincerely believe that this is not the best way to structure the committee's work. We can try to raise awareness among Canadians rather than create a political spectacle. People often say that politicians are crooked or thieves. If we take advantage of every trifling opportunity to generate a political extravaganza, we are confirming that they are right. What we have here is an excellent chance to demonstrate to Canadians that there are guidelines in place and that we can always do better.
You may not be aware of this, Madam Chair, because we are still just getting to know one another, but I also taught at the University of Sherbrooke, the best university in the world in Canada's most beautiful city.
I taught at the Université du troisième âge in a program for people aged 50 and over who wanted to continue their education with a view to lifelong learning. The program's goals are to facilitate the acquisition of knowledge, combat isolation among seniors, promote the integration of seniors into cultural and social settings, encourage exchanges, support seniors in their desire for personal growth and provide society with a new wave of dynamic and responsible citizens.I also gave professional training to share my passion for the work of notaries and to train the next generation. All this is indicative of my strong belief in education, in the transmission of knowledge and in the acquisition of best practices. What we have here is an opportunity to do precisely that.
I just mentioned that before I joined you all here, I was a notary and still am. I love this profession. It is based essentially on ethics and probity. Whenever I affixed my seal, it meant a credential that could be trusted. As a notary, my role was not to represent one or other of the parties, but rather both. I know that elected members from other provinces may be bemused by my profession because our legal systems are different. However, in Quebec, notaries are recognized as public officials precisely because of their probity and ethics.
To provide a context for my comments today, and to help members of the committee better understand my line of argument, it is important to briefly explain the underpinnings of my moral code and professional ethics. As I have already mentioned, before being elected in the beautiful riding of Sherbrooke, I worked as a notary who specialized in human rights and mediation. This work required rigour and integrity. There is no bias; we are there for everyone, for all parties, to ensure that everyone gets a hearing, and that each party can express their point of view with the end result an agreement that is satisfactory to everyone. As you can see, questions of ethics have always been at the core of my professional work.
To further stress how hese ethical questions ought to be expressed, I am going to speak to you about my second professional challenge. I was fortunate to have been a lecturer at the University of Sherbrooke for almost 25 years. I would like to mention in passing that I want to congratulate the university for having received the international STARS certification at the platinum level. The university is now one of the 10-best teaching institutions in the world in the field of sustainable development.
When I was a lecturer, I could make effective use of concrete examples from my professional work in my teaching. In the examples I used, and in the questions asked by students, ethical issues came up frequently. As you might expect, notaries must ensure that clients have no power over them and that there are no ethical conflicts in managing clients who have competing interests. As for the common good, another concrete example is the importance of ethical and moral issues when dealing with a tutorship, a curatorship or a power of attorney
So that this illustration can provide a better context for the ethical issues we have to deal with today, I would like to discuss them with you. When a tutor or curator is appointed, it is important to ensure that the appointee is completely independent and will always make decisions that are in the best interests of the person being represented, without ever placing themselves in a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest situation.
To any members of the opposition who would want to depict us—and especially me—as wanting to prevent an investigation into an ethical pseudo-scandal, I offer as a pledge of my probity my 28 years as a notary and a teacher of the profession. Not once since I was elected have I ever failed in my rectitude and I continue to strive to ensure that the government spends public funds effectively.
As Montesquieu famously said: "Power should be a check to power". The checks and balances mechanism requires that we, who exercise legislative power, can control the action of executive power.
I am therefore here in my capacity as someone who can control government action, a role that I have admitedly exercised to a lesser degree because of the pandemic, during which the government, through our amazing public service, has demonstrated that it is capable of rapidly and effectively coming up with funds to help Canadian families. It succeeded in doing so, and I believe this will help us get through the crisis better. We have supported our fellow citizens when others among us demanded we abandon them.
The independent officers of Parliament play an essential role in ensuring federal transparency and accountability and in effectively running the institutions upon which Canadians depend. That is why, in the previous term of office, we strengthened the Access to Information Act, precisely because we believe in open and transparent government.
I would like to remind the committee that in 2015 we published the document entitled "Open and Accountable Government", which sets out:
core principles regarding the roles and responsibilities of Ministers in Canada’s system of responsible parliamentary government. This includes the central tenet of ministerial responsibility, both individual and collective, as well as Ministers’ relations with the Prime Minister and Cabinet, their portfolios and Parliament. It outlines standards of conduct expected of Ministers as well as addressing a range of administrative, procedural and institutional matters. It also provides guidance to ministerial exempt staff and useful information for public servants and Canadians on Canada’s system of government. Finally, on the critical issue of ethical conduct, Ministers are expected to be thoroughly familiar with the Conflict of Interest Act.
A passage from the foreword is also very edifying. I would like to quote it, Madam Chair.
To be worthy of Canadians’ trust, we must always act with integrity. This is not merely a matter of adopting the right rules, or of ensuring technical compliance with those rules. As Ministers, you and your staff must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality, and both the performance of your official duties and the arrangement of your private affairs should bear the closest public scrutiny. This is an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.
I may be here before you as the MP for Sherbrooke, but I have also had the opportunity to serve Canadians as the parliamentary secretary to the Hon. Mélanie Joly, the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages. That being the case, I am well aware that ministers and parliamentary secretaries must act honestly and comply with the highest ethical standards if they are to maintain and enhance public trust in the integrity and impartiality of the government.
As public office holders, ministers and parliamentary secretaries are subject to the requirements of part one of "Annex A Ethical and Political Activity Guidelines for Public Office Holders", and to using best practices for ministers and parliamentary secretaries in fundraising and dealing with the lobbyists described in Annex B.They are also required to discharge their official duties and conduct their personal affairs in a manner that will stand up to the most rigourous public scrutiny. This too is an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.
I fully comply with these standards established by our government, and I am sure that this is also the case for all MPs on our side of the house. Once again, I would like to draw attention to an important fact. I am prepared to undergo a rigourous public examination, but I do not believe that our families ought to be subjected to such rigourous public scrutiny.
I would also like to comment on requests for interventions by political staff and public servants. I would like to do so by paraphrasing some principles from works by Dr. Kenneth Kernaghan.
Politics and policy are distinct from administration; thus politicians make strategic decisions and public officials carry them out.
These officials do not publicly state their personal opinions about government policies or administration.
Public officials give frank and objective advice to their political masters privately and confidentially; in return, the executive branch protects the anonymity of these officials by publicly shouldering accountability for ministerial decisions.
Once again, it is up to the ministers to account to Parliament for their actions, as my colleague minister Chagger did yesterday.
I acknowledge that it may be helpful for officials to assist ministers in the more technical aspects of responses. However, they ought not to be subjected—and their families even less so—to a public Inquisition, as the opposition parties would like.
As I mentioned earlier, rather than use this committee as a court of inquisition, we should be using it as an educational platform.
I would like, Madam Chair, to explain what I believe our committee should be taking into consideration.
Ethical issues should indeed remain central to the concerns of parliamentarians. The bond of trust between the population and its elected representatives is vital. It is thanks to institutions like the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying, and this committee, in addition to the rigourous work carried out by the various political parties and this government, that this bond of trust will be not only maintained, but renewed.
The 21st century has presented us with an unprecedented wave of cynicism, which has no doubt opened the door to all kinds of extremist policies, propaganda, and populism, all of which have a lasting impact on the political landscape, and they are all policies that for the most part—and this is truly unfortunate—appeal to the emotional and even impulsive side of voters' psyches. Needless to say, urgent action is needed when, in a democracy that prides itself as being healthy, dynamic, open, inclusive and sustainable, part of the population can be swayed by fear-inducing messages and political negativity.
If Plato has taught us anything, it is that searching for truth must be central in our decision-making and that rational thinking needs to be exercised in good faith, pragmatically and, especially, in accordance with a reality-based dialectic. It is therefore essential for Canadian political parties to avoid sinking into dogmatism or the rhetoric of fear.
We need to give Canadians credit for their intelligence and to ensure that we address public policy issues rationally. Doing so would strengthen ethics in the political collective action of this chamber, and make it more enduring and more universal.
We also need to give consideration to Canada's specific characteristics. We have always been able to protect Canadians from the political extremism found in other countries by giving politicians of various political stripes a way to offer Canada balanced options that avoid diverting legislative and parliamentary instruments for strictly partisan purposes.
Madam Chair, I hope that this balance, in which Canada takes so much pride, can be preserved, and that the various members of this committee will remember their role as parliamentarians. A descent into petty partisanship would be a disservice not only to this Parliament, but also, more broadly, to the political class and Canadians.
When questions of ethics are raised, it is essential to refocus on the main concept that binds us together, which is a democracy. The word "democracy", which is derived from the Greek words "demos", which means "people", and "cratos", which means "people", has undergone many changes in definition throughout history. The Greeks saw democracy as an equal opportunity to obtain a government position through a lottery. Today, it is generally agreed that democracy means a multitude of freedoms in addition to free, equitable and frequent elections, as explained by Robert Dahl. Added to these two visions of democracy are the ideas propounded by many thinkers, which make important contributions to democratic theory.
Alexis de Tocqueville was one such thinker. In 1831, he decided to study American democracy in order to document it and highlight its leanings. This leads to the next question, which is about Alexis de Tocqueville's definition of democracy and the sociological and political consequences of thereof? For Alexis de Tocqueville, several factors come into play in any definition of democracy.
One concept that is central and essential to the idea of democracy is the rule of law. The rule of law is a concept which ensures that citizens with executive power cannot place themselves above the law. Generally speaking, the rule of law describes a nation in which no one is above the law. According to Alexis de Tocqueville, this form of equality among citizens with respect to government action and the application of law means much more than mere equality before the courts. It leads to a change in the mindset of citizens, with members of society believing and feeling that they are all equal. Even though inequalities unfortunately continue to exist, the population retains this feeling of equality.
According to Alexis de Tocqueville several other characteristics define democracy. He begins by pointing out that the process leading to democracy is ineluctable because it is natural among humans to want uniform living conditions and equal rights for everyone. This can only lead to democracy and the rule of law. Equal rights, on the other hand, means that everyone can improve their conditions. Everyone can thus aspire to social mobility. He argues that this process is unavoidable. Because this theory of democracy and equality leads to social climbing, material property lies at the core of the democratic vision. Personal comfort and the desire for personal enrichment lead to an individualism that may cause citizens to leave the public sphere for a more private sphere. This isolation is a threat to democracy, which can only exist if the population participates in politics and in public political life.
To prevent this isolation, Alexis de Tocqueville requires the establishment of many civil associations that allow citizens to become involved, put pressure on the government, and assemble to discuss ideas and issues. For these associations—and, ultimately, our democracy—to subsist, it is nevertheless important to retain people's trust in their institutions. The work of this committee is therefore crucial. I am pleased to be part of a government that ensures the preservation of individual freedoms so that they can become vehicles for democratization.
I would like to conclude with a few words about the substance of the accusation. It is important to recall that, contrary to what members of the opposition are claiming, no contract was awarded to the WE organization; it was rather a contribution agreement.
This distinction may appear to be a matter of semantics, but the administrative distinction is extremely important, as are the underlying implications.
It should also not be forgotten that, contrary to what some members of the opposition are saying, the WE organization was not chosen by the Prime Minister, but rather recommended by the public service, more specifically by Ms. Rachel Wernick, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister in the Skills and Employment Branch.The department and Ms. Wernick decided that only the WE organization could provide the student grant services within the assigned deadlines and that it would have been impossible to do so internally within this timeline.
Our government has the utmost confidence in our public service. We are pleased to be able to say that the Canadian public service is the best in the world. As a former lecturer at the University of Sherbrooke, I am disappointed to see that the student grant program is running behind schedule. Many citizens in my riding are students who have serious financial needs. These needs are exacerbated by the current crisis and I am disappointed to see that this money will not make its way into the hands of the students as quickly as anticipated.
I would ask all members of this committee to shift their focus and remember why this measure was implemented and what our priority should be to help Canadians and the most vulnerable among us get through the crisis.
I would therefore ask that all members of the committee remain within the terms of our mandate.The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics must continue to fulfil its mandate and remain an institution in which partisanship does not become more important than the issues being dealt with.
Some pressure groups accuse politicians of putting on a show in committee, and of behaving as if they were in a recording studio, where you can record your opinion into the minutes without really debating anything or making any progress. Let's show the people who have this very cynical vision of our work that, on the contrary, we always work on behalf of the public, and that in spite of our partisan divisions, we can act as parliamentarians to ensure that our work always strives for the common good.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
