Government Operations Committee on March 13th, 2008

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Gomery, from what I understand, you yourself offered to appear before the Committee, and I wish to thank you for that. Obviously, I too watched television for quite some time and I must tell you that as a Liberal member of Parliament...

[John H. Gomery]

I did not ask to appear.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Oh no?

[John H. Gomery]

No. Mr. Marcotte got in touch with me. It was totally unexpected.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

My apologies. I was not a member of the Committee, and I therefore was not aware. What matters, is that you are here and that you will be able to answer our questions. I would like to add that, as a Liberal MP, I am very grateful to you for having brought to light these illegal practices. Even though our party was greatly hurt, these issues had to be clarified. You have done so, and I thank you.

I read Mr. Donald Savoie's book and I would, if I may, like to make a comment. I note that under the present government, the situation has not changed, or else it has changed for the worse. Indeed, not only is the country being governed from the centre, but a whole culture of secrecy has developed around this way of governing. It is thus even more opaque and distant, not only from the public, but from the legislative arm of the government. I agree with several of the comments you have made.

Having finished with my own, I would like to come back to the matter that interests us here. Do you believe that the Federal Accountability Act, the famous act of the Conservative government, is an appropriate response to the 19 recommendations you have made?

[John H. Gomery]

As I indicated, it is not a response, because the bill had been drafted way before the tabling of my report. One cannot answer a question that is yet to be put. However, this Act deals with several of the problems that I underscored in my report and my recommendations, and it is, thus far, an excellent piece of legislation. The fact that it has been called the Federal Accountability Act does not mean that is it necessarily the best way to achieve the accountability that everyone would like to see. As I stated, the fundamental problem remains intact.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

There you have it. That is the main question that must be put, and it must be put to you. You made 19 recommendations; some of them were ratified in a bill that came before your proposals. No matter, some of them already exist. Fine. However, you several times this morning stated that the Federal Accountability Act does in your view not deal with the very heart of the problem.

Could you tell us what the heart of the problem is and why the Federal Accountability Act does not deal with it?

[John H. Gomery]

The heart of the problem is that the tendency is towards a political system in which all decisions, be they legislative or executive, are made by a very limited number of individuals. Certain realities must be recognized. The Prime Minister of Canada appoints each and every member of its Cabinet. These individuals therefore owe their limousine, if you want to call it that, to this individual. They owe a certain gratitude to the person who appointed them. That has always been the way.

What distinguishes the Canadian system from others is that the Prime Minister or his office also appoints all of the deputy ministers. These individuals who manage the public service are they too grateful to the Prime Minister for the advantages that go along with their position. That in itself lends itself to a politicization of the public service, which I believe is a bad thing. There should at least be a better system for appointing deputy ministers than that of purely political appointments, done in secret, without any public competition whatsoever. In my report, I mention that the province of Alberta, that does not have the reputation of being a very liberal province, instituted a system of public and open competitions to fill these types of positions. The system works very well, and in a very conservative province.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

There is one example...

[John H. Gomery]

Why could we not have the same thing?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Your five minutes are up.

Madam Faille, you have five minutes.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I too would like to thank you for being here. You are living your retirement in the beautiful region I grew up in.

[John H. Gomery]

It is a region we greatly admire.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I would like to come back to the issue my colleague discussed with you, that of the imbalance between the executive and legislative branches, and what you said about the politicization of the public service.

Over the course of the last two years, there have been repeated attempts at changing the appointment process for judges and immigration commissioners and recommendations with regard to the appointment of senior public servants.

Could you provide us with information on this? I will then move on to other questions.

[John H. Gomery]

I discovered, during the round table discussions that we held throughout Canada, that the place that I admire the most with regard to the appointment of deputy ministers is the province of Alberta. This is why I mentioned that province in my report as a model to be followed. I do not mean to say that this model should necessarily be followed to the letter, but there should at least be some process so as to allow qualified candidates to apply for these positions, instead of letting the Prime Minister decide on all of that.

I am not asking that the Prime Minister devote his days to the nomination process. Clearly, he will rely on the recommendations of his political assistants. The influence of those people is absolutely immense.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

With regard to the control of communications and public relations activities, as parliamentarians, we must often review the decisions made by the various ministers. Among other things, we have discussed the sale of the federal buildings. In this regard, the minister came and told us that it was a Cabinet decision. We are having difficulty determining if this decision will truly benefit citizens.

The numerous attempts at obtaining information bring about delays. It can happen that information be contradictory or be twisted. Over recent years, it seems that there has been a concentration of the means of communication within the Prime Minister's Office. Among other things, as far as departments are concerned, it has been said that everything is concentrated at the media level and that it is virtually impossible to obtain information on scientists' reports, for example.

When people request information, it seems that the first reaction is to deny the existence of any information, such that an even greater effort must be made in order to obtain any.

Would you care to comment on this?

[John H. Gomery]

That is not the subject of any specific recommendation in my report. However, I discussed reforms proposed at the time in view of changes to the Access to Information Act. If I remember correctly, the party that is presently in power had intended to be a transparent government. The desire was to be transparent and I had hoped that the changes suggested at the time by Mr. John Reid, who was then Information Commissioner, would be adopted. There have been some changes and, today, the Act applies to virtually all Crown corporations.

The other hoped for changes have been looked at for two years now. I do not know why. Honestly, if the government thinks that Canadians will accept that it not be transparent, it is very badly mistaken. In the thousands of responses and comments that we received in the course of our work, everyone, without exception, was in favour of greater transparency. Everyone was of the belief that the time has come to know everything about the workings of the government.

It is perhaps simplistic on my part, but if you have done nothing wrong, then why hide it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Mr. Poilievre, you now have the floor, for five minutes.

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

Mr. Gomery, you've been through quite a series of experiences over the last several years. First, you helped expose what was arguably the largest criminal conspiracy in Canadian history, the Liberal sponsorship scandal. You wrote two reports. Now you're being sued by a former Liberal Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, who wants to force you to renounce your findings against him.

After the government kept its promise and introduced the Federal Accountability Act, none of the opposition members bothered to bring in any amendments to fulfill your recommendations in that accountability act process. Interestingly enough, they now show some enthusiasm for those recommendations, but during the process in which a committee in this very room was studying the Federal Accountability Act, none of these opposition parties, who collectively have the majority, brought forward your recommendations in the form of amendments to have them legislated into law.

Through all of this, yesterday you indicated that your feelings have been hurt by this rejection of some of your recommendations. I can understand why, having been through what you've been through, this has become somewhat of a personal issue.

What do you believe the motive was of parliamentarians, the majority of whom are from the opposition, not to amend the Federal Accountability Act to include your recommendations?

[John H. Gomery]

If you'll permit me, I'd like to make a comment: my feelings aren't hurt.

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

I was just quoting from the Ottawa Citizen.

[John H. Gomery]

That's the trouble with newspaper reports.

I never said to anybody that my feelings were hurt.

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

Don't pick on the Ottawa Citizen.

[John H. Gomery]

I said I was disappointed. I find it difficult to swallow, but I have to tell you, I'm very serene about this. My feelings aren't hurt.

I don't want to venture into the area of political motivations, except that it seemed to me obvious that when the Federal Accountability Act was presented, it was politically impossible for the Liberal Party to vote against it, considering what I had said about what had happened in the sponsorship scandal. I think that probably they wanted to forget that whole issue as quickly as possible. I think that probably motivates them even today. I don't think it's a popular subject for Liberals to be reminded about the sponsorship scandal, so at least dealing with that party, I think I understand perfectly well why they didn't propose any amendments. If you ask me why people didn't propose amendments, I really can't imagine why.

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

It would seem that if the opposition now supports all the recommendations you mad--a claim we never made ourselves, but that they are now making of their own political formation--they could have amended the Federal Accountability Act through the legislative process to include those recommendations. They did not.

Our promise, on the Conservative side, was to bring in the Federal Accountability Act, and you rightly point out in your presentation that we did keep that promise. I think you would agree that in many cases your recommendations were addressed by the Federal Accountability Act. In other areas the Federal Accountability Act went further, including bans on big money and corporate cash in the political process and a legislated conflict of interest act, both of which were not contained in your recommendations.

You deserve a lot of credit for the legislative changes that came about in the Federal Accountability Act, even if they weren't written precisely with all your recommendations included in them. We are very grateful for the contribution you have made in that respect.