Debates of June 6th, 2002

Main Estimates, 2002-03

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Yes, that is what it is.

The government is making cuts in the health sector, in transfer payments for education, health and social assistance. It is easy to pay down its deficit. Actually, all they have to do is stop paying the invoices or have them paid by the poor or by others. It is easy, just as it is easy to become rich.

People call themselves good businessmen nowadays, and say that they have made it. If the Canada Information Office and the sponsorship system threw a million odd in my pocket every day, and I did not have to lift a finger, or do a stick of work, I might be a financial success.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I too would have a beautiful cottage.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

I too would have a beautiful cottage and I would let the minister stay there, even the minister of intergovernmental affairs, if he wanted.

We are going to say no to this $101million increase, because we find it obscene.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to an increase of a hundred and some million dollars.

For those Canadians who are not watching the hockey game, what we are doing here tonight is debating the full supply of the expenditures that were outlined in the estimates. This generally is a financial debate, but I must pay tribute to the Tories because they caught on very early that if they object to the PCO estimates, it is essentially carte blanche to debate whatever they want. Points of order on relevance will get nowhere because we are essentially talking about the umbrella and anything goes.

In terms of the cost, if we look at the cost of the Prime Minister's Office, in 1984-85 it was $7.3 million. If we look at the cost of the Prime Minister's Office in 1992-93 it was $6.7 million. They just happened to be years when there were Tory governments in place. From 1992-93 we have to go all the way up to 2001-02 before we get back to the amount that was spent in the PMO in the last year of the Mulroney government. We can debate whether ideologically this is what Canadians want us to spend money on, but as hon. members can we not at least acknowledge that what we are talking about is an organization that has exercised fiscal prudence?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Obviously I hit a nerve, Mr. Speaker.

These are not numbers that are adjusted for inflation. These are absolute numbers and what we have is a significant process of efficiency and effectiveness. It has taken us 10 years, unadjusted for inflation, to get anywhere near the expenditures that took place under the Mulroney government.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not really understand his question. I think it was actually a statement. I will try to respond to it in any case.

This country's budget is currently $172 billion. This is what is projected for spending, in the big documents beside him. This has not decreased since 1993. I remember in 1994, this government's first budget, by the minister who will reappear tonight, was in the order of $160 billion.

This is not centuries ago. This was in late February of 1994. The total budget was $158 billion, $159 billion, $160 billion. It hit $172 billion. It has not decreased, it has increased.

Government spending has always increased, except that the public service was cut. They cut where it hurts: the poor, the penniless, the children, the sick and seniors. This is what the government does well.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, be that as it may, we are debating the estimates and the supply of the resources for the Privy Council Office to carry out its objectives as outlined in the estimates. That is what I was referring to.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that a government needs a budget to operate. That is perfectly logical and to be expected. We have no objection to that.

We do object to the fact that this government never cut its own operations, costs or spending to the same extent it cut among the poor, the sick, the aged, poor children, in fact all children, and families. This is where the problem lies.

Had the government wanted to set an example and cut its own spending and splendour as it cut among the poor, we would be more inclined to have faith in it and say “You took the right approach, perhaps, to achieve your objectives, which we do not necessarily share”.

Instead, it continued to eat butter by the fistful while it dished out misery to the poor. This is what we criticize. If it wants a fine political career, it is going to have to get these principles into its head. It cannot go on abusing people indefinitely.

At some point, logic and principles are required. And the principles are that you do not do to others what you would not want done to you, and that you do not cut for others what you would not cut for yourself.

If they are guided by this logic, I am prepared to do my bit and say that they have some credibility, but that is a long way off.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Chambly. This speech makes good sense and comes from the heart.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister says that the Prime Minister's Office costs $6.2 million. That is what he says in general terms. The Privy Council is looking for a budget of $101 million. There is a discrepancy of $95 million.

I would like to know what, in his opinion, this amount covers. Are there more sponsorships for good buddies? Does it include all the cases that the Bloc put on the table and for which it still has no answers? Are the good buddies all getting a bit?

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Prime Minister has been in politics for forty years, and he has a lot of friends. It is this unfortunately that costs so much, namely, his friends, his friendships and his relations.

Indeed, the Prime Minister has been cut off for forty years from the day to day realities of the world of poverty. Even though he has long gone around with the reputation of being the little guy from Shawinigan, Shawinigan lost sight of him long ago. He has made tracks and moved into the big time. He has no idea of the difficulties faced by today's workers in a world of high performance, where you have to perform and where competition is the watchword. Any job you start has to be done quickly and perfectly. Some people suffer under this. Some businesses do too. They cannot keep up. So they close. These facts seem totally foreign to the Prime Minister, who has been out of touch with the people for forty years.

[An hon. member]

With his obsession for putting Quebec in its place.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

This is paired with his obsession to put his fellow citizens, Quebecers, in their place. This has led him to do all kinds of utterly irrational things. This has led him to all kinds of tantrums. This has led him to hire people who advised him in this way, and it has cost a fortune all for visibility. And, to come back to my dalmatian analogy, it has left him with a spotty record, spots that can be found in this sponsorship document that I have here.

I would therefore ask the Prime Minister and his advisers, particularly the President of the Treasury Board, who is here with us, to try to bring him back to reason, and to beg him to put an end to the wanton spending and the lavish meals and to try to think of the poor people who pay for all of this and who are having an increasingly difficult time bringing money home for themselves, to ensure they will have some dignity when they stop working.

Workers despair when they come home with almost nothing, when they bring home not even 45% of their salary, when 38 workers out of a hundred lose their jobs and end up collecting employment insurance. One hundred percent of workers pay employment insurance premiums, yet only 38% of them can collect benefits. The other 62 out of a hundred are ineligible for all sorts of mysterious reasons. The chances of being eligible for EI are slimmer than winning the lottery.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that you must remain neutral, and that you cannot comment on this. However, I can tell that you are looking at me and that you completely agree with my ideas.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair has no thoughts on the matter. The time has come, however, to move on to another speaker. The hon. member for Palliser.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in the House of Commons especially in the evening. We are here tonight to talk about the Privy Council Office estimates for the coming year.

As the House knows, the Privy Council Office is one of the three central agencies of the federal government, along with the Prime Minister's Office and the Treasury Board Secretariat.

This debate comes at an important time, not only in the life of the country but in the life of this parliament. There is a growing unease among Canadians who since 1993 have been prepared to give the government and the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt in many areas. In light of the stories that we have been hearing and reading about for many weeks, there is a growing concern among the population about where is the beef, where is the vision that the government has for the future of the country.

We have seen in the past week two editorials in English language newspapers calling for the resignation of the Prime Minister. Gordon Robertson, one of the most respected public servants, was acknowledged earlier in the debates. He said that he believes the Prime Minister is about to join the ranks of other Liberal prime ministers who have outstayed their welcome in that important job and role as the prime minister of the nation.

The role of the Privy Council Office is to provide cabinet with non-partisan political advice to guide the decision making of the government. That is in stark contrast to the Prime Minister's Office which is on the partisan side of the ledger.

There is some concern of late about whether or not the Privy Council Office itself is straying over the line and into the role of partisan political advice. I do not know Alex Himelfarb who three weeks ago was appointed the Clerk of the Privy Council but he has been criticized in public quarters for taking an active role in the recent highly publicized dispute between the Prime Minister and the former finance minister.

Public administration scholar Gilles Paquet has concluded that the Prime Minister had politicized the position by asking the current Clerk of the Privy Council to directly intervene in a partisan dispute. Before that dispute broke, columnist and author Jeffrey Simpson had written in a column just over a month ago that Mr. Himelfarb is a favourite of the Prime Minister. It is widely reported, according to the columnist, that he had helped write the last red book which the Liberals campaigned on in the 2000 election, a rumour that if true would represent a breach of public service neutrality.

Under the government the relationship between the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office has been the focus of a good deal of scrutiny. There was a hallmark study done by Donald Savoie who had spent considerable time at the centre of government in a previous administration. He concluded that the decision making authority had been highly concentrated in these two bodies to the detriment and possible obsolescence of others including parliament. Mr. Savoie wrote:

Cabinet has now joined Parliament as an institution being bypassed. Real political debate and decision making are increasingly elsewhere--in federal-provincial meetings of first ministers, on Team Canada flights...in the Prime Minister's Office, in the Privy Council Office, in the Department of Finance, and in international organizations and international summits. There is no indication that the one person who holds all the cards, the prime minister, and the central agencies that enable him to bring effective political authority to the centre are about to change things.

What I think Mr. Savoie was saying is that cabinet, like parliament, has become little more than a focus group that polling companies engage in from time to time to assess the temperature of the electorate on issues of the day.

Mr. Savoie is not alone in his concern in this area and neither is Mr. Simpson, because Mr. Paquet has said:

I'm surprised that the clerk of the privy council, who is serving the prime minister as his deputy minister, would be politicizing its position to such a degree that he would become involved in partisan debate with other ministers.

Mr. Paquet concluded that as an official of the Prime Minister's Office, it is Mr. Eddie Goldenberg in this case who is in the political job, while Mr. Himelfarb's role is to oversee the machinery of government.

What this points to is the public's right to know and a feeling that the right to know is under some siege and in some considerable difficulty. The information commissioner has just this day released a document which indicates that the federal government has taken advantage of the tragic events of September 11 by suppressing information and stopping independent inquiries that it deemed to be threatening to national security. Information Commissioner John Reid says that the government has given itself the power to remove classes of records deemed to be too sensitive from ever being accessed while halting all requests under review. He believes that the government has “quietly and firmly” shut the door on 19 years of public access to the records showing how ministers and staff are spending public funds.

Mr. Reid stated “The report emphasizes the fragility of the public's 'right to know' and” cautions “ that this right continues to be under siege” by parliament. Mr. Reid, I am pleased to note, takes issue with the much debated anti-terrorism law, which was known last year as Bill C-36. He refers to it as “a sweeping derogation from the right of access contained in the Access to Information Act”. I am pleased to hear that because it is confirmation of and one of the reasons why our party stood in opposition to Bill C-36 when it was being rushed through the House of Commons in the wake of September 11.

The report states:

Bill C-36 gives the Attorney-General the power to use a secrecy certificate to resist giving records to the Information Commissioner...The federal government has given itself the legal tools to stop in its tracks any independent review of denials of access under the Access to Information Act.

The commissioner said that we Canadians need to be wary of this government's continued attempts to prevent access to important information. He is critical of the intent of the government to reform the act by way of an insider review process. He stated:

The harsh attacks made this year by the government against the right to know heighten the concern that, no matter how well the task force does its work, no serious effort will be made by this government to modernize and strengthen the Act.

Those are very significant concerns. In addition to them, Mr. Reid is also saying that Canadians should ask themselves why the Prime Minister is so opposed to independent political auditing of his ethical standards and those of his fellow ministers. We find the answer in the report from the commissioner, who is an independent officer of this House and who has had to take the Prime Minister's Office to court. This is what he has to say in that report released today:

The fact remains, however, that there is a reluctance to write things down (for fear of access) and an oversensitivity to preserving the good “image” of a minister, the government or the department. It is a fact that the Clerk of the Privy Council insists on the broadest possible interpretation of the scope of cabinet secrecy. As well, the Prime Minister is personally committed to insulating his office and offices of ministers from the Act's coverage and from the Information Commissioner's investigative jurisdiction. These “hostilities” at the top stand in the way of the good-faith efforts, at more junior levels, to get on with a cultural change to open government.

Those are fairly important words from the Information Commissioner, who does report to the House of Commons and to parliament. It brings up the fact that the New Democratic Party, for three consecutive parliaments now, has been endeavouring to have the House pass ethics guidelines. We favour a range of legislative reforms that would introduce transparency and accountability into party and campaign financing and the conduct of legislators and members of the executive in their dealings with lobbyists.

I think this is a terribly significant time to be making these kinds of ethical guidelines, just because of what we have been reading and hearing about in the news media. I believe that the root of the problem is kickbacks or perhaps kick-forwards in terms of working with ad agencies and the like, either for past favours or for future favours.

One of the ways that this could be corrected very quickly would be to amend the Canada Elections Act to incorporate funding of party leadership campaigns under the disclosure requirement. A second way would be to develop and promote a system of state funded campaign financing, possibly modeled after the system in Quebec or Manitoba, which must be implemented to curb the influence that business and the wealthy have over the democratic electoral process.

I do not want to imply by referring twice in one speech to Jeffrey Simpson, the Globe and Mail columnist, that I am necessarily a big fan, but I did read with some interest a recent column that Mr. Simpson wrote in that newspaper regarding the changes to the election law that have occurred in Manitoba under the premiership of Gary Doer. In that column, Mr. Simpson indicated that Mr. Doer “first had to persuade his own party to abolish union and corporate contributions to political parties”. He managed to do that. He has brought that law into power. The provincial parties operating in the province of Manitoba must now rely only on contributions of up to $3,000 maximum from individuals, wrote Mr. Simpson, “a change that would be worthwhile for federal parties to adopt with modifications, instead of having their leaders fly around scooping up corporate (and union) cash” as the Prime Minister did recently in the province of Manitoba at a $400 a plate fundraising dinner.

I recall that René Lévesque, the first leader of the parti Quebecois in the province of Quebec, who governed for a number of years, was asked after he left office what the one piece of legislation was that he was most proud of. He responded very promptly that he was most proud of the guidelines his government brought in on spending for political parties and curbing and restricting donations from corporations and from trade unions. This is something that, as I have said before, but I do not think we can say it too often, would go a long way to restoring the faith of Canadians in what it is that governments are doing and what it is that political parties need to be doing.

Another area that could and should be looked at is the whole notion of whistleblower legislation. My colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, introduced a bill more than a year ago, an act to respect the protection of whistleblowers and to amend various acts. The bill proposes to protect members of the public service of Canada from retaliation for making in good faith allegations of wrongdoing and to provide a means for making such allegations in confidence so that it may be determined whether or not there is substance to the charges and to allow an opportunity to ferret out all of the facts. The legislation proposed by my colleague would have placed present practices under the House of Commons where they could be referred to a committee by the House.

Whistleblower laws are posited on the belief that employees should be able to disclose without reprisal to those in a position to investigate instances where there has been or there will likely be a criminal or a civil offence, a breach of legal obligation, miscarriage of justice, danger to public or individual health or safety, damage to the environment or a coverup of any of these matters.

The basic provisions would be protection of disclosures made in good faith to prescribed bodies. The bill would prohibit employers from discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees in retaliation to the disclosure to the employer, an independent body or government agency. It would protect employees and allow them to participate in formal government proceedings in connection with violations, including amnesty from any legal proceedings arising from their participation. Finally, it would establish an independent appeals procedure for any employee who believes that he or she has been discharged, demoted or otherwise discriminated against contrary to the provisions, and compensation could be awarded in cases where this has occurred.

This is not groundbreaking legislation. It would be in this country, but it certainly is not around the world. The British public interest disclosure act is considered by some to be the best example of comprehensive whistleblower legislation and makes provision for whistleblowers to be protected in the case of wider disclosures, which is mentioned in my colleague's bill.

My time is drawing to a close. I indicated that I was not here to be critical of Alex Himelfarb, the new Clerk of the Privy Council Office. Indeed, I noted with some interest that he addressed some 800 senior public servants yesterday in a speech here in Ottawa.

Among other things, Mr. Himelfarb said that the time was ripe for the bureaucracy to dish up new and exciting policy options like this government has “never seen before”. He is calling for an agenda in the fall that includes public service reform, health care reform, the long promised innovation agenda, a skills and learning blueprint, and something that will reach out to aboriginal, poor people and make certain that every child has a good start in life.

I think that if that were to happen it would be a good start, not only for Mr. Himelfarb, but for the House and mostly for the people of Canada.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the member on his speech. I think he is the first speaker tonight who we could listen to and not have to go to the order paper to check on what we were talking about. He made some very interesting points.

I want to mention a couple of things. He talked about his concern, and I think everyone would share his concern, about the politicization of the Clerk of the Privy Council.

I want to point out that the Clerk of the Privy Council provides advice to the Prime Minister on the machinery of government. That function includes orders in council when there are changes in ministers. The notion that because the Clerk of the Privy Council was somehow involved in the cabinet shuffle he is becoming political, is not entirely accurate in terms of the traditional role the Clerk of the Privy Council has undertaken. I do not think that is a strong enough argument to get at least myself to admit that we have crossed that line. However, the concern is valid. As are many of the concerns the member has raised.

I want to focus in on his comments on election financing. I am an MP who is fortunate enough to represent an area that is on the border. There are a number of issues where I must deal directly with my political counterpart in the United States. I have had a couple of very interesting discussions about the role that money plays in the electoral system there.

The congressman across the river from me, who represents roughly a similar geographical area, has three people on his staff who do nothing but raise money. We are talking about millions of dollars that have to go into war chests, which, incidentally, they can keep when they retire, which is a strange quirk of election law.

A couple of things concern me about the direction in which we are going now. In Ontario, where they mirror the federal ridings, they have increased the amount a candidate can spend in an election in my riding from roughly $70,000 to over $100,000. That takes participation in this process away from people who do not have access to that kind of cash. I echo the member's sentiments and would be interested in hearing his views on how election financing reform could work at the constituents' level.

The other thing that concerns me, and this is an issue in which the Leader of the Opposition is directly involved, is the court case that is trying to appeal the aspects of electoral law that limit third party spending.

We changed the Elections Act. It says that special interest groups cannot spend unlimited amounts of money at election time because the candidate then would have to counter that and that would just drive up the cost. It is certainly a concept that I support and I would be interested in the member's view on that specific topic.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will deal very quickly with all the member's questions.

With regard to the business of orders in council and the involvement of the Clerk of the Privy Council, I do not think anybody should be concerned about that. I recognize where the member is coming from.

In addition to orders in council, I also asked whether the current clerk was involved with the production of the red book leading up to the 2000 campaign which others have said would be a breach. In any event, according to newspaper reports he was somehow caught up, to some degree, with the exciting and fascinating debate that went on last weekend involving the ex-finance minister and the current Prime Minister. If there was involvement there we should be properly concerned about that.

I am delighted to see the Speaker in the Chair because he knows firsthand about the royal commission on electoral reform and party financing that began about 1988 or 1989. Some very good, solid recommendations are in the Lortie report, recommendations that by and large have not been followed. Some of them deal with party financing. I encourage the member to look at that report or ask the Speaker for a briefing because he could do that on a firsthand basis.

The member referred to what happens in the United States. I recall when that commission had meetings in Washington. We sat down with a group of politicians and backroom strategists who started off the meeting by saying that they had looked at our laws and did not think they had a single thing to teach us. They felt that we had a lot we could teach them, and that is true.

However, having said that, it is not perfect. One thing that could happen and probably should happen is that there should be strict limits on the amount that can be donated. At the same time I think it is important to note that if we are going to limit and restrict donations, there has to be some additional public involvement. We do have some public financing in our laws but we need more in order to make it fair and equitable. If that happened it would take many of the current concerns out of the system.

I agree with where the member is coming from on third party advertising. I have always agreed with that legislation. I was concerned when Alberta judges turned it down. I am not talking about federal or provincial elections. I am talking about Canadian Wheat Board elections which come up every two years. Allegations were made after the last board election that folks who were interested in getting rid of the wheat board or in electing directors of the board who would open up the board to the open market were unnecessarily influencing it. Those allegations were made to the minister responsible for the wheat board. I am not sure what action he has taken but it is a major concern.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have just one question for the member. The member spoke about transparency in programs. I agree that it is good to fix problems as soon as we find them. I also wanted to make sure that the member agrees with the balanced approach to fixing problems.

We had some problems a while back and measures were put in place to fix them. However I think we may have gone overboard in some places. I have had a number of calls from organizations in my constituency, especially those dealing with the poor and disabled, telling me that there are so many procedures and it is so transparent that it takes a long time and it is actually hurting their operations. They cannot function because it takes some time to get the final product out.

I hope I have the support of the member as we go through various improvements to the systems to still make them functional but fast enough for our organizations that really need the support.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly agree with the sentiments of the member. We should always be looking at ways to improve the system and to make it as accessible as we possibly can.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for my friend from Yukon.

It is fine to suggest that somehow now the services and the delivery of those services may be affected, but the problem all along has been that money has gone missing, that money was not accounted for, that money was not properly given out in the first instance. Reports were paid for that were not complete. Money that was supposed to be helping to foster business was going to numbered companies in the HRDC scandal. There were untendered contracts for jets for $101 million, which is the exact amount that the PCO is seeking here.

This is all about hiding the actual use of taxpayer dollars, not being accountable to the public and, in essence, setting up a scheme in which money is going to handpicked friends, relatives and donors of the Liberal Party to perpetrate power. That kind of chicanery, duplicity and patronage system is unprecedented in the country under this administration.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the former minister of public works and government services, who is again the government House leader, in defence of his questions before that change took place, argued that there had been no benefit that accrued to him or his family for the time spent at chez Boulay, as it has come to be known.

I felt at the time, as I listened to that answer, and perhaps this is a way to address the question raised, that the former minister of public works had totally missed the point. It was not about the benefit that accrued to him. It was the benefit that accrued to the president of Groupaction.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

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.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member opposite. He raised a number of very penetrating and relevant questions. I share his frustration. The House can imagine the degree of frustration that we must feel, if a member of the governing party is unable to get important information. He is quoted in The Hill Times as saying, “Where's $12 billion?”. That is a very relevant question.

The member speaks of the need for trust and the need to renew faith of Canadians in the system. That is a wonderful sentiment as well. Yet on something as basic as how the finance minister and the Prime Minister came to part company, we cannot get a straight answer, whether he was fired or whether he quit, something as basic as that.

That is relevant because it sets the tone for basic honesty and basic disclosure of information and the government is not able to communicate something in a straightforward way.

With respect to the allegations, corruption and the ongoing concern about where the money is spent and how it is being spent, why would the member not support a full public inquiry with a mandate to go where the money is and where the trouble is with allegations that involve poor documentation as pointed out by the auditor general? I know the hon. member opposite is a very strident member when it comes to documentation and when it comes to backing up a claim and giving factual information. The auditor general talked about oral contracts being handed out. She pointed out specifically that some of these so-called arm's length quasi-crown corporations were not under her gamut or her ability to observe and to investigate.

Therefore, it reiterates the point of a full public inquiry with a mandate to go where the potential criminality might lie to find out if ministers were in fact making improper interference in files. The member is right. It is not fair to smear all departments and all bureaucrats, but there is evidence to which the auditor general has pointed. Why would the member not support a full public inquiry?

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

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.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I just heard the last part of that intervention. It reminded me of a question that I asked the auditor general last week at the public accounts committee. The member said he hoped and prayed that the moneys were spent correctly and that there was a right and proper formula followed.

I asked that very question to the auditor general. The auditor general's reply was quite simple. She said that when she questioned the people involved, in this case with the Groupacton file and some improper spending of government dollars, the civil servants and the bureaucrats knew exactly what the rules were, where the dollars were and how the dollars were spent. They knew that they were in a conflict of interest. They knew that the contracts were not applied fairly and correctly following the government's policy.

My point is that we have a very good civil service. To a high degree, we have an excellent group of bureaucrats. They answer to their political masters, to the ministers of the departments. If a person is a top level civil servant and the minister tells that person not follow file or not file it, that is the gap and that is where the problem lies.