Gerry Byrne

[Business of Supply, November 5th, 2013]

He certainly implied it. No, there is a better word. I have just been prompted by members opposite. I apologize; I did not get it right. What the Prime Minister did say was that Nigel Wright was deceptive. That is what he said.

For a guy who is involved in securities exchange and equity offerings, the last thing he would want to be called is deceptive. Serious, irreparable harm has been done to Mr. Wright. The Conservatives, and the Prime Minister of Canada in particular as its leader, say it was well deserved. I submit it would be valuable for the Prime Minister to explain why someone who had his full and utter confidence as his chief of staff is now being called deceptive.

Remember, the three most powerful people in the political fiefdom of Ottawa, many would argue, would be the prime minister, followed by the clerk of the Privy Council; and the third most powerful person, the person exposed to most secrets, incredibly important information, and given a top secret clearance as a result, would be the prime minister's chief of staff. Whatever the clerk of the Privy Council knows and wants to transmit or convey to the prime minister of Canada, the chief of staff to the prime minister also knows. Now that person is being called deceptive. That is a lot of information to have in the head of someone whom the Prime Minister is now calling deceptive.

The security commissioner who was arrested in Panama, a person providing oversight to the operations of our security establishment, was another appointee by the Prime Minister. Mr. Porter has presumably been exposed to some of the most important secrets and sensitive information that anyone could imagine, not only for Canada's security but for each and every one of our allies. The Prime Minister appointed him, but that is not really consequential because he has been dealt with. Let us leave it at that. Let us move forward.

That whole narrative is just not working anymore. It is not working with Parliament. It is not working with the Canadian public. In fact, the truth is that—however regrettable this may be to the Prime Minister—it is not working with the Conservative base anymore. Quite frankly, I do not think they ever signed up to be members of the Conservative Party—most of them anyway—to be simple props for the Prime Minister's bidding.

“It's terrible when those guys do that; but when we do it, it's okay” is not really a good slogan. It is not really a good slogan for the Conservative Party of Canada and its members. Through my own knowledge and understanding of very good people who are members of the Conservative Party of Canada, I know they are concerned about the actions of the Prime Minister and they have asked for clarity. In actual fact, the base itself is saying that, if it is so onerous to be held to the truth under a situation where one is expected to tell the truth—a standing committee of the House of Commons where proceedings are held under oath with a presumption that one will tell the truth or face a perjury charge—it means one is not telling something and there are other things one wants to ensure are not told.

This is not a small matter. It directly affects the Prime Minister of Canada, his office, its operations and its capacity to deal with not only mundane issues but sensitive top-secret issues related to the safety and security of Canada and its allies.

I have presented to the House a small sampling of circumstances where the Prime Minister's judgment has been shown to be a little off, and the consequence has hurt each and every one of us. It has hurt our ability to stay safe. It has hurt our ability to work well with our allies. It has hurt our ability to have trust and faith in our institutions.

If that is not important enough to take three hours of someone's day to appear before an existing standing committee of the House of Commons that is charged with what the Conservative Party of Canada suggested it came to Ottawa for to begin with—which was ethics—well, maybe someone's ethical and moral compass is being influenced by magnets outside of the compass; maybe someone has to take a break and ask where we are going with all of this.

If the objective of the strategy is to just simply prolong this until some other matter comes up to distract and take away the attention, then that is not leadership; it is management. If the Conservatives are just going to manage this affair instead of leading it, then they should make way for others to become leaders of our country; make way so that someone who is actually ready and able to lead this country can assume that job.

Right now, we have a solid demonstration of crisis management, which is showing serious cracks, unfortunately for the Conservatives. The cracks are showing because the Prime Minister is changing his story just about every time he stands on his feet. It appears that he is taking his cues from what might be being found out from the RCMP investigation or the auditor reports; or maybe he is thumbing through some other senators' expense reports, or whatever. I do not know what it is, but we all find it very strange that a man who says “never apologize, never surrender”, is now all of a sudden changing his story.

A man who had such great respect and support of the Prime Minister has been labelled as deceitful. That is a label that will stick with Nigel Wright for a very long time. I have a feeling that, based on what has been described to me by others about Mr. Wright's character, he will not fink out the Prime Minister, but when he is asked very specific questions by those in authority, I think he will give very straightforward answers. That is what has been described to me. Maybe that is what the Prime Minister fears the most.

The government could simply show a little leadership instead of saying, “Oh well, what about the great railway scandal of 1874?” or whatever, and “Until we solve that issue then I guess we can't get to this issue, can we?”

Leadership is dealing with it when we have a problem, a legitimate problem, showing some credibility and fostering an element of trust with all Canadians. However, if a question is answered with, “Oh well, your shoes are black and you should have polished them, and you didn't; therefore you're just as big a problem”, then we are never going to get to the bottom of this.

If that is the strategy, let us fling muck to the point where everyone is filthy. We will not have to worry about Senate reform; it will be parliamentary reform that we are really going to have to start talking about, because we are showing that this House does not work.

It is a very straightforward motion, a watershed moment for each and every one of us. Can we use the institutions of the House of Commons that already exist to examine a problem that all of us acknowledge exists as well?

[Business of Supply, November 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow night, a short time from now, there will be a bit of a watershed moment in the House. Members from both sides will take a decision. They will vote according to their own conscience as to whether or not accountability will indeed reign in the House.

The House will decide whether or not members from various parties, but most importantly individual members, will do what they felt they came here to do.

This will be a watershed moment because when I look back and remember some of the statements that were brought forward by members who represented the Canadian Alliance party, the Reform Party, and then the merger that formed the Conservative Party of Canada, they came forward with very strong ideals that they voiced with passion. They said they would clean up Ottawa. They said they would bring in a Parliamentary Budget Officer with teeth to prevent the kind of shenanigans that they said were going on around here. They said they would empower officers of Parliament to ensure that those agents of Parliament could perform their functions and do their jobs.

It has not quite worked out that way. A lot of good people, very well-intentioned and strong-minded and very vocal and articulate in their opinions, said they were coming here to do their constituents' business, and one of key points of their constituents' business was to clean up Ottawa. No more of these cover-ups, no more sweeping things under the rug. They were the Conservative Party, and they were going to set the record straight.

History has not been quite that kind in terms of their performance. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was someone who just got in the way. Conservatives were trying to do the people's business, and that pesky Parliamentary Budget Officer was getting in the way.

The nuclear regulatory commissioner was going on about people's safety from radiation. Well, she had to shut up; they were going to get rid of her pretty fast, and they did.

The list goes on and on. The Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, the person appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada—the current occupant, whose job it was to ensure the integrity of the public service—was found to be guilty of serious abuse and wrongdoing. The Auditor General of Canada did an investigation and put forward in detail some of his findings.

What did the government and the majority of the Conservative members on that side of the House do? They ensured that the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner was not available to appear before the public accounts committee and that no ministers were prepared to appear before the committee.

That is one of the most important committees of the House. It is an oversight body that reviews the actions of the government. It was a cover-up.

How far we have come. How far the Conservatives have come, because they have now become the problem, the very thing they came here to criticize and be a solution to.

It goes pretty deep, because there has not been any instance that I can recall in my 18 years in this place in which a prime minister himself has been personally implicated in a matter of this seriousness.

Let us review the facts.

The Prime Minister has always said that the buck stops at the Prime Minister's Office. On May 16 the Prime Minister's Office said:

Mr. Wright will not be resigning. Mr. Wright has the full support of the Prime Minister.

A couple of short days later, another statement was issued:

It is with great regret that I have accepted the resignation of Nigel Wright as my Chief of Staff. I accept that Nigel believed that he was acting in the public interest, but I understand the decision he has taken to resign. I want to thank Nigel for his tremendous contribution to our Government over the last two and a half years.

We know that on June 5, the Prime Minister made another statement in the House:

....it was Mr. Wright who made the decision to take his personal funds and give those to Mr. Duffy so that Mr. Duffy could reimburse the taxpayers. Those were his decisions. They were not communicated to me or to members of my office.

Then, more recently, on October 28, the Prime Minister said:

Look, I think the responsibility whenever things go wrong is for us to take appropriate action. As you know, I had a chief of staff who made an inappropriate payment Mr. Duffy. He was dismissed.

There is a certain disconnect here that people are aware of. There is an incredible disconnect between the truth of what the Prime Minister said initially versus what he says now versus what he said about how many people in his office knew about what went on versus what he says now about how many people in his office knew.

For such an orchestrated event to occur, behind closed doors, among such senior members of his staff, and for such senior members of the party to be complicit in it, and for him not to know, I think the Prime Minister himself recognizes, would bring his own managerial competence into question.

That is the stuff of debate and politics and is eventually for the voters to decide. What is not for any of us to decide is a version of the truth. It is for openness and accountability to occur to allow that light to pour in on the truth.

This party that governs now once actually made a commitment to one of its predecessor parties that cabinet ministers would be required to attend every session of every parliamentary committee, every hearing, on which they had an interest and a responsibility to report.

It was not a question of whether a parliamentary committee could grab a minister for an hour to answer questions on a particular topic. The point of view of that party, put in a platform document, was that cabinet ministers would be required to attend every session of every committee meeting.

Now we have an opportunity to show accountability to Parliament through the committee process. How far we have come.

The text of the motion is as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be instructed to examine the conduct of the Prime Minister’s Office regarding the repayment of Senator Mike Duffy’s expenses; that the Prime Minister be ordered to appear under oath as a witness before the Committee for a period of 3 hours, before December 10, 2013; and that the proceedings be televised.

It is pretty straightforward. It is part of the process of accountability. It shows that we have an understanding of and an appreciation for the committee structure. Often it is the standing committees of the House that allow us to access or glean information that may not necessarily be available in the cut and thrust of question period. However, the questions and answers that flow in question period will be part of any such study by a standing committee. It will provide the basis for some of those questions that as yet are unanswered.

The crux of this motion is very simple. The Conservative Party of Canada has been communicating not to Canadians. It is more interested in communicating with what it calls its base. Allow me to communicate to the Conservative Party base for a minute.

I do not believe for one second that a Conservative Party donor, someone who truly believed that he or she was supporting a party that was going to do things differently, was supporting a party that would recklessly fire a quasi-judicial regulator of nuclear waste and energy as payback for speaking out. I do not think the Conservative Party base was interested in making sure that the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner was given carte blanche to run roughshod over her office and never be held accountable on the floor of the House or at the public accounts committee or anywhere else.

I do not believe the Conservative Party base members ever thought that when they were giving their $20, $200 or $1,100 cheques to the party that those funds would be used for legal fees for someone whom the Prime Minister had suspicions about, according to his own words. I do not believe they thought the Prime Minister of Canada would allow Mr. Nigel Wright, whom he later implied was distrustful and incompetent, into his inner sanctum.

[Government Appointments, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Public Service Commission report that was originally presented to the minister was not the same one that was tabled in the House.

Even though it was ACOA that was being investigated by the PSC, it was the Minister of National Defence's chief of staff who got involved and demanded that a section of the report, pointing to the Minister of National Defence's involvement in the illegal hires, be removed from the report.

Will the Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency promise the House that the report of the public sector integrity commissioner will not be altered, redacted or whitewashed in any way?

[Government Appointments, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, ACOA and ECBC have become the targets of three separate investigations under the minister's watch.

When asked yesterday about the integrity commissioner's investigation, the minister replied as if I were asking about the public service commissioner's report.

Will the minister now confirm to the House that she has made herself aware of the third investigation of her portfolio by the integrity commissioner and that she will co-operate fully with the commissioner and provide whatever information is asked for concerning the involvement of the Minister of National Defence in inappropriate, partisan hiring at ECBC? Will she do that?

[Ethics, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the integrity commissioner's report is not whitewashed like the last one.

The member for York Centre lists the Economic Club of Canada as a source of significant income for him, which he continues to receive in addition to his salary as a member of Parliament.

Could the government disclose how many times federal cabinet ministers have appeared at the Economic Club of Canada to the profit of the member for York Centre since the May 2011 election campaign, and could it also tell the House how the rate of attendance of these cabinet ministers compares to two years prior to the May 2011 election campaign?

[Government Appointments, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has been at the centre of several investigations involving a call on ECBC, one by the Public Service Commission and an ongoing one by the Ethics Commissioner involving John Lynn, with whom he is familiar.

I can inform the House today that a third investigation has now been initiated surrounding ECBC. It is related to the hiring of people right out of the office of the Minister of National Defence, this one by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner out of concern for potential gross mismanagement at ECBC.

Who will be accountable for all this? Is it the current Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the former minister for ACOA or the Minister of National Defence?

[Financial Administration Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-473. It is clear to the House that the intention of the proposed act is to amend the Financial Administration Act to provide some method of balance. It is a laudable goal of a Canadian just society to ensure that gender equity is not a slogan but a commonplace action within our society.

The fundamental goal, recognition of equality and respect of everyone, is very commendable, and so I am pleased to speak to some of the strengths of the bill. There are some issues that need to be addressed, obviously. The bill does not prescribe any method of attaining the gender equity it attempts to achieve. There is no method laid out as to exactly how this statutory provision would be enacted, controlled and monitored.

That said, I will speak to the general parameters of the bill.

It has been a long-standing and well-established practice that we move, wherever reasonable and possible, to bridge the gap, to prevent an unjust or unfair and disproportionate imbalance in gender within our own federal jurisdiction. We have long moved toward gender equity with pay equity issues. We have seen the value of ensuring that there is gender equity and the recognition of gender equity within hiring in the federal public civil service. Therefore, it only stands to reason that we would also incorporate gender equity within the governance of our major Crown corporations, which are governed by the government and accountable to this House through various ministers.

Primarily, Bill C-473 proposes to require that the composition of the boards of directors of a parent Crown corporation shall be such that the proportion of directors of each gender is not less than 30% the second year following the coming into force of this proposed section, not less than 40% the fourth year and not less than 50% the sixth year following the coming into force of this section. The proposed bill clearly outlines these requirements and stipulates that the aforementioned numbers may vary when the board of directors of a parent Crown corporation consist of no more than eight members, and so there is latitude and flexibility built into the bill.

For example, in such instances, it is proposed that the difference between the number of directors of each gender may not be greater than two. For small governed boards, obviously it is a little more difficult at times, such as in the immediate aftermath of the coming into force of the proposed legislation, to be able to reconstruct the board, and the bill does provide that flexibility. However, there are no specific requirements or criteria as to how this would get done exactly. We would like to see a little more detail on that.

It is worth noting that Bill C-473 is premised on Bill C-407, but this new legislative proposal seeks to elevate the percentage to 50% from the current of approximately 30% non-legislated average commencing in the sixth year.

Prior to endorsing Bill C-473, we would like to better understand whether or not the breakdown of gender numbers cited in the legislative preamble are indeed accurate and if there is an appropriate reason for the current levels. However, these issues would come out if the bill were to be passed at second reading and sent to committee.

We would like to know what the real-world impact would be on business if mandated quotas of this nature were established within the timeline suggested, 30%, 40% and 50% within two, four and six years respectively.

We would also like to know what specific penalties would be imposed upon non-compliant boards and agencies. Legislation that is absolutely toothless just merits a public rebuking and does not go beyond that, with no scope of arbitration, no scope of determination of whether or not proper compliance requirements are being met and if not, what the consequences are of such decisions.

It becomes a bit of a fool's errand in the sense that we actually institutionalize non-compliance, even though we could enact laws to prevent this. If it is absolutely baseless and there is no consequence whatsoever except for a public rebuking, which may or may not be scoffed off by those who have been cited, the legislation becomes somewhat worthless. It speaks to a platitude but not to an action. That is really not where we necessarily need to be.

If concrete proposals could be brought forward as to how this could be done and what the consequences of this being done would be, greater comfort would be provided to all of us, I am sure. We should be prepared to say here and now that the concept is not only valid but that it is necessary. It is necessary to work toward gender equity at the highest echelons, in the most prominent and largest profile of organizations within the federal jurisdiction.

We have not had very much feedback from stakeholders at this point in time; in fact, very little. One of the opportunities at second reading is to be able to receive input from stakeholders as to how exactly they feel about this, what they would offer in terms of strengthening and criticizing and in terms of impacts, and receive their other views about the nature of this legislation and what it would do. That would be extremely helpful.

There also has not been a huge amount of feedback in terms of the real-world analysis of the consequences of this. There are many organizations that can offer that. We look forward to hearing from them so that we have a better idea of exactly what the legislation could present to us.

Finally, it would be helpful at this point in time for the parties within the House to pronounce where they stand on the general principles of the bill. I have pointed to the fact that there are obviously some inherent issues, some concerns, some information that is not contained within the bill, which may be necessary for the enactment of legislation, in the opinion of some. If we are going to pose a statutory requirement on somebody to do something, that statute should also lay out a process as to how that would be done and what the consequences of not adhering to it would be.

While we can all recognize that there are some issues surrounding this, it would be helpful if we could understand a bit better whether or not the parties within the House support the concept of gender equity within the governance structure of our Crown corporations, boards and their directorships, instead of just simply saying this is not a piece of legislation that can be supported. That would be very helpful.

I appreciate the work done by the mover of this particular piece of legislation. I look forward to hearing the debate. I also look forward to, hopefully, having this piece of legislation before committee, so some of these questions can be given proper answers.

[Ethics, June 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of scandal after scandal, ethical Conservatives are now fleeing the Conservative Party.

With the PMO's $90,000 cheque to a Conservative senator, guilty in the in-and-out scandal, engaging in trench warfare against the courts, using the robo database to commit election fraud and allowing two Conservative MPs to sit and vote in the House when they have no legal right to be here, how can any Conservative serve under a Prime Minister with such low ethical standards?

[Ethics, June 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there are millions of Canadians wondering about the ethical behaviour of the government.

As a lawyer, Mr. Perrin has a sworn duty to uphold the law. Could the government explain why, when Mr. Perrin eventually learned that the source of the $90,000 was Nigel Wright himself, he did not blow the whistle to the appropriate authorities at that time?

Millions of Canadians want to know that answer.

[Ethics, June 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, all we get from the Conservatives are weasel words, and their actions are not passing a smell test with Canadians. The Prime Minister's legal counsel, Benjamin Perrin, denied negotiating the cheque for Mike Duffy.

This is a simple question for the government. Was Mr. Perrin involved in any aspect of negotiating the terms between Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy?