John Godfrey

[Question No. 48, April 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Communications Secretariat of the Privy Council Office conducted a thorough search through both paper and electronic records. These records did not contain information regarding individuals who actually attended each weekly meeting of the Communication Coordination Group.

The group was composed of the following regular members:

The following officials were also regularly invited:

The Communications Coordination Group, CCG, did not hold any meetings after October 2001.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, February 20th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for St. John's West for his remarks.

This is, despite anything suggested to the contrary, an important piece of legislation. It is not a trivial matter. The hon. member has accused us of killing time and that this debate is irrelevant. I suppose if that were the case, I might congratulate the hon. member for joining in the spirit of the thing.

I found the connection between the subject under discussion, amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the state of the east coast fishery, incredibly creative. It was a line I had not heard before, but I want to commend him for his creativity.

It is important to return to the essence of the matter, which is the whole question of crime and punishment in this country and how we deal with it. It can be said that the prison system is a reflection of society's failures. It is what happens to people when we do not get it right, when we fail to make and create high functioning citizens.

I have some experience with the prison system because in the 1970s, as a young professor of history at Dalhousie, I used to spend time visiting young students who were inmates in Springhill Penitentiary. I have some personal knowledge of the complexities of issues surrounding crime and punishment. The impression I took away was that these were very complex issues.

We are examining why it is that people do dreadful things to each other, and why is it that we fail as human beings and have to be punished? The question for us as we contemplate amendments to the act is, how do we test our own civilization and how do we protect our own civilization? How do we get the balance right, as the member for Burlington suggested?

How do we treat people in our society who fail, people who are vulnerable, while we protect other people's rights? How do we measure our civilization in terms of protecting their rights when they have often taken away the rights of others? These are the difficult questions which surround the way in which we treat people when we send them to prison and then decide when to let them out, and when it is that we can trust them to be integrated back into society.

It is interesting that the amendments which we are discussing were actually recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. In our system, justice and human rights go hand in hand. Everybody's human rights must be protected, even the rights of people we do not like very much and who have done bad things.

That is why we have provisions in this bill regarding the accelerated parole review process. We are trying to get the balance right again. We are trying to ensure that people who are capable of rehabilitation will be rehabilitated. We are trying to ensure that we protect society from those who will reoffend.

These are very difficult judgment calls. What determines the outcome of that is often a consequence of what we do for people while they are in prison, whether we can actually help them prepare for a life beyond prison. Many people in prison do not have much education. They have been denied the breaks that the rest of us have had.

Another important component in this set of amendments is the requirement for Correctional Service Canada to review all offenders who are entitled to statutory release for possible referral to detention or the imposition of special conditions. Once again we are balancing off the rights of prisoners with the rights of all of us to be safe in our communities. A very tough call and one which requires tremendous attention.

I know from my experience with the prisoners of Springhill when the importance of temporary absences was a major issue. How does one reintegrate people into society from what is an incredibly protected environment? There is something quite strange about prison. People actually go in to some unreal place, which is not at all like the world we live in. In fact, they lose whatever skills they had in society and so, upon release, they have to get used to society bit by bit.

I can remember, as a young professor of history, in the college where I was teaching, young prisoners coming with their parole officers to get used to the idea of being reintegrated with people of both sexes, of all ages and of all backgrounds.

What we do with temporary absences is incredibly important. We must ensure we know what the rules are. We must clarify the decision-making authority and we must be more purposeful about why we have temporary absences. We must socialize these people. They will be joining us in a better state or a worse state, but they will eventually get out of prison, except if they are there for life.

In this difficult task of balancing everybody's rights, we must hear from the victims. It is really important that we take into account their rights to be present at a Parole Board hearing to say why it is that this person should not get out or what it is that this person has done to them and their family. That is part of natural justice and must be brought to bear.

It is also important to recognize, as my colleague pointed out, that there are, among the prison population, older people, people who have fallen ill and who will not in the normal course of events survive to come out of prison. As human beings we must respond to those illnesses and difficulties. We must let them out to die in some kind of dignity, recognizing that they may have denied that dignity to somebody else. That is a tough call for all of us as human beings.

[Supply, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I shall be sharing my time with the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.

I rise today to speak as somebody who firmly believes that all Canadians have the right to respect and expect that their public office-holders will act in accordance with the highest ethical standards. Last week's Auditor General report outlined unacceptable behaviour within the public sector. We will fix this mess, no matter what.

The government is accountable. We accept collective responsibility, not for criminal wrongdoing but for correcting what went wrong. Nobody is shirking his or her responsibility or his or her duty.

Our plan is simple and it is what Canadians expect. We will hold those responsible to account. We will try to recover lost funds. We will overhaul management and administrative practices, and we are calling an inquiry to answer all remaining questions.

These necessary actions reflect our vision of values and ethics as presented in the government Speech from the Throne. They are rooted in the steps our Prime Minister has already taken to ensure we function in the most ethical and transparent manner possible.

As Canadians, we are fortunate to be served by a public sector that is overwhelmingly honest and professional. I believe that the troubling reports we have seen in the media, following the Auditor General's latest report, in no way reflect behaviour of the wider public service. I believe that when confronted with ethical dilemmas, the overwhelming majority of public servants unfailingly take the right road.

In short, I believe in the public service of Canada and I believe we do a disservice to the public service as a whole if we allow the actions of a few individuals to discredit the loyalty and hard work of many.

The reality is that the vast majority of public servants in Canada serve Canadians with honour, integrity and excellence. Recently even the Auditor General has expressed concern that only the negative portions of her reports get coverage, noting she does not wish to damage the morale of the public service.

On December 9, 2003, she defended the integrity of the vast majority of public servants when she said:

I think Canada is very fortunate in the calibre of men and women who make up its public service—the vast majority of whom uphold high ethical standards and take very seriously the need to carefully manage public money to meet the needs of Canadians.

As recently as February 10, 2004, Ms. Fraser reaffirmed that these incidents of wrongdoing were isolated cases and it would be very unfortunate and unfair if the vast majority of public servants who came in every day with great integrity and great dedication to their fellow citizens were tarred by this and that people thought that they all worked like this.

Nevertheless, research conducted in countries of the OECD over the past 30 years has revealed a decline in citizens' regard for and deference toward their governments. Canada has been no exception. A study released by Ekos last summer showed that over 60% of Canadians had only a moderate or low level of trust in their government.

It is not enough for those of us in government to say to Canadians that our intentions are good and that they should trust us. We need to demonstrate that trust is justified day after day. We need to operate in a manner that holds up to the most intense scrutiny. Our actions at every level of the organization, from the minister and deputy minister to the frontline worker must be consistent with our words.

At a broader level, a loss in confidence in government institutions weakens the foundation of our democracy, as citizens become more and more disillusioned and less and less interested in participating in the governing process. I thought the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar spoke powerfully on this point. We have too often seen evidence of this in many jurisdictions through low voter turnout in elections, the most fundamental exercise of democratic rights.

Canadians' trust in their government must be restored. We have already moved on a number of early initiatives to reassure the public that our new government will act with the utmost integrity.

The Prime Minister has already distributed to his cabinet ministers a revised guide for ministers and ministers of state which provides his personal directions to the government on democratic reform and integrity.

The guide includes a new policy on mandatory publication of the travel and hospitality expenses of ministers, ministers of state, ministers' offices and parliamentary secretaries on a quarterly basis. This policy is even being extended to deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers and their equivalents.

The Prime Minister has also issued a new conflict of interest and post-employment code for public office holders, ministers, ministers of state, parliamentary secretaries, members of ministerial staff and governor in council appointees.

The government is also reinstating legislation to establish the office of an independent ethics commissioner and a Senate ethics officer.

We will also be acting soon to respond to the recommendation of an independent panel that we create legislation to protect whistleblowers from possible reprisal. We need to encourage people who are aware of wrongdoing to come forward. We need to protect them when they do so, and we will.

As organizational leaders our first question has been how we catch people and punish them. However, we need to look further in order to determine how we stop unethical behaviour before it happens and how we help people make the right choice. It comes back to providing guidance and doing so in a positive, affirmative fashion. That is an approach that we have already taken in introducing another code of conduct.

The government's new “Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service” came into effect last September and was made available to each public service employee across Canada. Our code of values and ethics tells the world what the public service does, where it fits into democratic government and what it stands for. It was not imposed from above. It is the product of many years of discussion and consultation at every level.

The code provides a strong foundation for public service behaviour. It sets out four interwoven and balanced baskets of values by which public servants should be guided in their work and professional conduct.

First, there are democratic values, helping ministers under the law to serve the public interest in a spirit of non-partisanship. Second, we have professional values, serving with competence, excellence, efficiency and objectivity. Third, there are ethical values; the public service commits itself to acting at all times in such a way as to uphold the public trust, not just following the letter of the law, but the spirit as well. Finally, there are human values, the values that we all strive to reflect in our daily lives and interactions with others, values such as compassion, fairness and courtesy.

The code is an important step forward in providing a moral compass for the public service, but it cannot simply be a statement of principles. It cannot merely be rhetoric. It must be a living document that can be operational in the workplace. That is why we have given it some teeth.

The code is now a condition of employment in the federal public service. Breaches of its provisions can involve disciplinary measures up to and including dismissal.

In addition, public servants who feel that they are being asked to act in a way that is inconsistent with the code or who wish to report a breach of the code can do so in confidence to the senior officer in their organization or to the public service integrity officer. This is a key element for rebuilding public confidence in government.

Values and ethics are not things that should be compartmentalized into a single office. They cannot be allocated to a single box on an organizational chart. Values and ethics must permeate the organization. Everyone sitting around the management table should in their own way be a values and ethics specialist and should view their work through a values based lens.

Integrity begins at the top. The Prime Minister has taken this challenge head on. He has been open. He has created a public commission of inquiry. He has involved the public accounts committee. He has appointed a special counsel for financial recovery. He has talked directly to Canadians, unfiltered, for two hours on Cross Country Checkup .

In short, as he did with his attack on the deficit, the Prime Minister has courageously laid his reputation on the line in fixing the problem. For his honesty, for his directness, he deserves our utmost respect and support.

[Nicholas Goldschmidt, February 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Nicholas Goldschmidt, an extraordinary musical impresario and cultural entrepreneur who died in Toronto at the age of 95.

Niki, and anybody who knew him for more than 10 minutes called him Niki, was a conductor, an administrator, a teacher, a baritone and a pianist.

He came to Canada in the mid-1940s to become the first director of the Royal Conservatory Opera School which later became the Canadian Opera Company. He also met and married his wife, Shelagh Fraser, who has continued over these many years to be his greatest supporter and helpmate.

After going to the Edinburgh Festival in 1948, he asked why we could not do it in Canada, and he did, again and again. He founded the Vancouver festival. He founded the Guelph Spring Festival. He founded choirs and international choral celebrations, including the Bach international piano competition and Festival Canada at the National Arts Centre. Even last November he put on a month-long Benjamin Britten festival. He was planning festivals well into the future.

[The Economy, November 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, once again Canadians are seeing the results of the government's wise fiscal management. The unemployment rate fell again to 7.6% and the Canadian economy created over 65,000 jobs last month. This is five times as many jobs as economists were predicting. Most of these jobs are full time jobs.

In particular, we see considerable growth in employment in British Columbia and Quebec. In British Columbia, the unemployment rate dropped from 9.1% to 7.8% in just one month. In Quebec, 26,000 jobs were created last month.

Ten years ago, when the Liberal government came to power, we promised to get Canadians working. Since then, three million jobs have been created. This is three million more Canadians who are working today since the government first took office.

I am sure my colleagues in the House will join me in celebrating the continuing success of the government and the benefits that 10 years of good government have provided for Canadians.

[Osteoporosis Month, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, November is Osteoporosis Month, and 1.4 million Canadians have osteoporosis, a condition that causes bones to become thin and brittle. The result can be broken bones, particularly the hip, spine and wrists. These fractures lead to long term pain, disfigurement, a loss of mobility and, in turn, a loss of independence.

The incidence of osteoporosis will rise steeply as the number of older Canadians increases over the next two decades, so it is important that we all become aware of the risk factors for this treatable disease.

The Osteoporosis Society of Canada urges all of us to learn how to detect and treat osteoporosis to ensure an independent and active lifestyle, even in old age.

To learn more, visit the Osteoporosis Society of Canada's website at www.osteoporosis.ca.

[2003 Special Olympics, September 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to honour the athletes who represented Canada at the 2003 Special Olympics World Summer Games that were held last June in Dublin, Ireland.

The Special Olympics World Games are held every two years, alternating between winter and summer events.

In Dublin, the Canadian team was one of over 160 international delegations, totalling more than 6,500 athletes from around the world.

The 59-athlete delegation from Canada offered a brilliant performance that drew very positive attention to Canada's special Olympics program. Indeed, Team Canada reaped a total of 102 medals, of which 51 were gold. Several athletes completely dominated their sport, like Johanna Hamblin from British Columbia who alone captured five gold medals in rhythmic gymnastics.

All our special Olympics athletes represented our country with pride, while perpetuating Canada's tradition of sportsmanship.

On behalf of everyone in the chamber, I wish to congratulate them wherever they may be and tell them how much they are admired as athletes and persons. Their success in overcoming adversity in the pursuit of excellence makes them great role models for all Canadians.

[Official Languages, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last week, 95 students in the Edmonton area received their French immersion high school diplomas.

These students were part of a pilot project established by the Edmonton public school board and the Public Service Commission. Each student earned a high school diploma and acquired a knowledge of French equivalent to that required for bilingual imperative positions in the public service.

Not only does the prodigious success of this project demonstrate the talent of these students and their teachers, but it will also enable the project to continue next year.

I would like to congratulate all the students who earned their high school diplomas in this immersion program. I would ask the House to join me in wishing success to this project in the years to come.

[Supply, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, an important part of the member's argument rests on the way in which we deal with rogue states. Here is the problem I have with the way in which this argument is presented.

On the one hand it is argued that these rogue states are so irrational that the traditional method of deterrence, that is to say, wiping them off the face of the planet by sending back intercontinental ballistic missiles, will not do. That is not good enough. They will not listen to that because they are irrational. On the other hand it is argued that once we develop a national missile defence system, it will serve as some kind of deterrence, that they will then become all rational all of a sudden and they will not feel that they have to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles.

I would like to ask the hon. member, are they so irrational that they consider it a worse fate to have their missiles shot down than to have their country wiped off the planet?

[Supply, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, for 50 years Canada and the other major nations of the world have pursued dual track policy with regard to defending ourselves against inner-ballistic missiles. The first was the principle of mutually assured destruction, which basically said that there was enough rationality on the part of others that they would see it is not in their interests to be wiped off the face of the planet.

The other part of that is we have also worked to restrict the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the proliferation of all of these systems. It was hard and dirty work but it was generally pretty successful.

The problem I have with investing all of this money and energy into national missile defence is that it detracts from the real work of disarmament and anti-proliferation. It means that people have given up on the idea of trying to stop these states from acquiring these weapons, whether it is through diplomacy or some kind of negotiation which has worked for 50 years, in favour of a technology which is incredibly dubious. It is only based on these missiles coming in being extremely primitive. It does not deal with a missile with any degree of sophistication which would have decoys on it, for example.

That is the problem. We need to pursue the old doctrine of first, we crush them if they attack us, and second, we will try to negotiate with them so they do not feel they have to.