Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 5 - Evidence - Morning meeting
OTTAWA, Wednesday, September 6, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-2, providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability, met this day at 10:05 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I am pleased to call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to order.
We are continuing today our study of Bill C-2, providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability. This bill is more commonly known as the proposed federal accountability act.
As senators, witnesses and members of the public both here in the room and watching these proceedings on television across Canada know, this bill reflects a central portion of the new government's agenda and is one of the most significant pieces of legislation to be brought before Parliament in recent years.
Hearings on Bill C-2 commenced in June of this year and the committee is focusing on more precise aspects of the bill now. Subjects that have or will be covered this week include accountability generally, ethics and conflict of interest, and political financing. Our hearings will continue in the next few weeks on other important aspects of the bill.
This morning's meeting will continue our discussion on ethics and conflict of interest which started last evening with Dr. Bernard J. Shapiro, the Ethics Commissioner of Canada, and Mr. Howard Wilson, the former Ethics Counsellor.
[Translation]
This morning we welcome Mr. René Villemure, Founder and President of the Institut québécois d'éthique appliquée. He holds a Master's Degree in ethical philosophy from the University of Sherbrooke and is currently completing his doctoral thesis in philosophy. He serves as ethics counselor for leaders of large corporations and government bodies.
On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for coming here today. You now have the floor. We will then move on to a question and discussion period which will be very useful to us.
René Villemure, President, Institut québécois d'éthique appliquée: Mr. Chair, thank you for inviting me to speak to you today. Thinking well takes time but there is no guarantee that, even with time, we will think well. Ethics is a part of philosophy focused on what is fundamentally just. Over the last ten years the Institut québécois d'éthique appliquée has been focusing on fundamental issues so as to express them in ordinary language and make them accessible to all, something which is not always common in the field of philosophy.
Over the last ten years, I have been studying government management, social concerns and other issues such as how to live in society. Ethicists consider what is appropriate in order to do the right thing, which is the very focus of ethical thought. The arrival on the scene of Bill C-2 constitutes an ethical milestone. Because very lofty intentions were declared from the outset, it is important to deliver. Having good intentions is all well and good but it in no way guarantees results of high moral quality. If we want to avoid any hidden bad intentions, we will have to be very vigilant on some points.
Bill C-2 is ambitious and broad. It deals with a number of subjects. Several of them are relative, but others are more difficult to integrate despite the fact that they are all ethically linked. This morning I would like to address what is not said or what the bill remains silent on. In some instances, this silence is worrisome. I would like to focus most specifically on two points. First, the meanings of the terms used and their frequent inconsistency. The type of analysis I use is called "philology" which is the history of the science of words. Let us not be afraid to use these terms, it will all be very clear.
Second, I will comment on the role of the Ethics and integrity commissioners. Albert Camus claimed that:
Using the wrong words for things makes the world an unhappier place.
It is very appropriate this morning. The core of the bill is the desire to do what is right. Ethics is a process of thinking about making a just decision consistent with the values or purpose of the state.
In referring to ethics, we are referring to a sense of purpose rather than the "how." It is easy to mark out a path when we know our destination. The values of the state have a direct link with the concept of the common welfare, in other words what the state must do to manage its relations with its citizens. In a responsible ethical decision, the decision-maker has the choice of means to employ to achieve this end. We must ensure that this choice — and this is very important — of the means employed in order to achieve the end occur before the decision is made rather than afterwards. In the bill, I will be referring to what comes before and what comes after, and I will indicate where in the text or even in the same sentence we switch from one to the other. Ethical thinking must therefore occur before a decision is made, before it can be qualified as ethical or non-ethical, whereas concepts of "imputabilité," "reddition de comptes" or "accountability" are concepts which refer to a time after a decision is made. Ethics or "responsabilité" would be before, whereas "accountability," "reddition de comptes" and "imputabilité" would be after. This distinction must be made.
From an etymological standpoint, when we look at the term responsibility, and its Latin roots, we realize that the word "res" in responsibility refers to "the thing," and "sponsability," "spondere" meaning "to promise." The person who is responsible is one who can make a promise. In simple terms, the promise comes first. The person who is responsible will be judged afterwards on his or her actions, and is the one who will receive praise or blame. This distinction is important because the title of the bill refers both to "accountability" in English and "responsabilisation" in French. They are used as synonyms. They are indeed related, but I have some difficulty with this. At times, the meaning of the words shifts. Sometimes, "accountability" is translated as "imputabilité" and sometimes "accountability" is translated as "reddition de comptes" and sometimes "accountability" is not translated at all in the bill. Another term may be used. This has been the focus of my philological research into the meaning of the words.
I would suggest that there are significant differences in the translated versions of the bill. There has been an improvement in terms of the bill I testified about before the House of Commons versus this one. In my opinion, it has been tightened. I will focus on two types of occurrences. In the first bill which was before the House of Commons, the French word "éthique" appeared 45 times and the English word "ethics" 291 times: it was not referring to the same thing. In this new bill, "éthique" appears eight times and "ethics" 105 times. That ratio is worrisome; oftentimes people translate "éthique" as "ethics"; though that is not the case here, no clarification is given as to what is being referred to. The word "ethics" is referred to hundreds of time, yet there is no actual definition of what it means. As far as I am concerned, the purpose is missing, the starting point. It is one thing to use the word "éthique" and another to know that it actually means. That is not indicated in the bill. The word "responsabilisation" was used six times, the word "accountability" 141 times; in a new version, the word "responsabilisation" is still used six times, but now the word "accountability" has been used 141 times. This, in my view, is an insignificant change. The word "responsabilité" was never used in the first bill and yet it is been used 119 times in the second. The figures for the first bill are not in the document before you, I added them after the fact for the purpose of clarity. I will provide you with the new figures.
Senator Fox: What was the last number?
Mr. Villemure: The word "responsabilité" appears 119 times in the second version, and not once in the first; but the word "responsabilisation" was used six times in both. So, some responsibility has been added, at least in the wording of the actual bill, but I do not see that reflected within the meaning of the bill. That is very important. The terms "reddition de comptes" were never used. It is an interesting translation of the term "accountability." The word "imputabilité" was never used in other documents; it is also an interesting translation of the word "accountability." I am convinced that linguists must have worked on the bill.
But what I want to discuss with you this morning — is the meaning from an etymological standpoint, in other words what linguists consider — the philological and philosophical meanings. Philosophy focuses on the why; the law, the rules, the standards. Yet here the focus in on the "how." But if the why is not further clarified, I think you may be creating gaps which will be used in the future, some of which are gaping holes.
Essentially, the word "responsabilité" has been added as equivalent to "accountability." which is incorrect philologically as well as philosophically. This is not just a bee from some philosopher`s bonnet. It is not just a pointless exercise. A government of Canada bill should go out of its way to be correct and show the way in terms of clarity, which is not the case here. What cannot be overlooked in the figures that I am quoting and of which there are many, is that in the French version, from an ethical viewpoint, reference is made to terms dealing with a time before the decision was made whereas English words refer to a time after the decision was made. I carefully read the bill in both languages and understood two different things. That is what I submit to you this morning.
The question I put to you is the following: what exactly is the purpose? Do we want people to be inspired ahead of time in order to make a good decision or do we want to be able to make decisions after the fact in order to say whether they did the right thing or not? That is the central point of this analysis. To summarize, the title of the bill was changed in French yet not in English. As far as I can tell nothing has actually changed, but the words themselves have.
To summarize this first point, it would appear that the accountability desired by the bill — once we stop concentrating on the two columns and attempt to bring things together — it would seem that accountability here is deontological in nature, in other words related to rules and to what is allowed, rather than ethical, or related to thinking about how to do the right thing. The foundations upon which this bill is built are not strong enough.
However, in the second version, the word "ethic" is used less often, thereby reducing the confusion which was significant in the first version. Second, I would like to make a few comments on the roles of the commissioners of ethics and integrity. First of, extended tenure for them is an excellent idea.
However, and this is interesting, reference is made to the qualities which an ethics or integrity commissioner should possess, but nowhere is it stated that this person should be an ethicist. There is such of thing. An ethics commissioner should be an ethicist. The bill refers to a jurist who would consider conduct in the English version of the bill, in other words very much related to rules, accountability, but I think that today, in 2006, the Government of Canada should be able to find an ethicist somewhere in the land.
The work of the commissioner by the way would go far beyond strictly procedural matters, or at least it should. It should point the way towards what is just, despite or through the procedure itself. I believe that any ethicist worthy of the name should be able to determine whether any given conduct is legal yet unjust, or illegal and just. It would preferably be legal and just. So this is possible. Ethicists believe that what is legal is not necessarily just. This is why the fundamental values I refer to at the start of my presentation should form the foundation of the bill; they are not there and it is more difficult to make the connection. Although the word "commissioner" appears almost 500 times in the bill, "ethics," "integrity," "conflicts of interest," "lobbying," the primary definition of a commissioner's responsibilities seems to be missing. We will have a commissioner, but that person's duties are not specified. He would be there, though.
But what is an ethics or an integrity commissioner? This is a function which exists in the Anglo-Saxon world, in some countries in the United Kingdom. But very seldom does it exist on the continent, in Latin cultures. I put the following question to you: will the commissioner be an advisor or an investigator? That is a valid question. If the commissioner is an investigator, no one will go and see him for advice. That is currently the case. People don't want to seek out advice from someone who could potentially prosecute them. That aspect of things has to be clarified, as to whether the commissioner is an advisor or an investigator.
There are many references in notes 72.01 to 72.061 to principles, rules and obligations, without the principles in question ever being made explicit. Rules and obligations are specified. This brings me once again to what I described earlier as the missing foundations of the bill. You know that principles and values, great Canadian values are often mentioned in speeches, we have heard them often. It is not erroneous. However, what is the definition of a value?
A value from a philosophical standpoint is like a light that is shed on behaviour to direct it in some way; I would like to know if the light is yellow, red or blue. That is my question this morning: What is the foundation? What type of light is it? What are these specific values? Values should be morally positive and have purpose, people are generous because they are generous and not for any other reason than that. Values work that way. The same thing applies to principles.
I would also like to remind you that this bill is full of prohibitions, but seems a trifle thin on the level of ethics — ethics: what to do in order to do what is right — because the rules and principles are lacking; that is implicit. We should also reiterate that acting ethically cannot be reduced to a mass of prohibitions. It is more than that. Ethics is more than simply not doing what is prohibited. A bill is much like a work of art, as soon as the final version is sanctioned; it is recorded in time for a specific people. However, society continues to evolve and we will have to legislate on non-existent points in the act. That is when we seek inspiration from rules and values and return to the purpose. If this is missing, the bill will be fixed in time and will have to be revised in the foreseeable future.
So, acting ethically cannot be reduced to a mass of prohibitions. The subject is much broader than a simple calculation of accountability. The failure to spell out principles and values in the bill risks reducing the role of the commissioners to that of technicians who know the "how," rather than advisors on the "why." That distinction is significant. Bill C-2 should be the locus in which overarching principles and values are clearly enunciated, with all the rules on "how" deduced from them, throughout all future jurisprudence.
In the fields of ethics and philosophy, "how" is useless without "why" and, the "why" is rather non-existent in this bill.
Thank you for your attention. That concludes my comments. I am open to any questions you may have.
[English]
The Chairman: That was a very interesting and different approach to the bill. It was refreshing to have your remarks.
You feel the integrity commissioner should be an ethicist. I would be interested to know some Canadian ethicists who come to your mind who might fit the bill.
Mr. Villemure: In terms of the profession — if we want to use that word, because it is not a professional order or anything — ethicists have not been around for a long time. Over the last 10 years, however, some people have come to mind as brilliant ethicists.
I would probably try to go outside of the academic world because of the limited practical experience there. Dr. Shapiro is definitely an interesting individual. He is someone who comes to mind. There are not that many, but there are a few; I could probably find 10 people who would fit the profile.
The Chairman: Could you name a few right now?
Mr. Villemure: That would be hard to say. I would have to do a bit more research to be able to suggest great names. However, I could tell you what I would be looking at. I would be looking at someone with training in ethics — like a Masters or a Ph.D. in ethics — but also someone who has been working a long time around government offices such that the individual would know the customs of the government. You could not take an individual from an academic chair, regardless of the person's credentials, and put him or her there; it would not work.
Ethics is a "regard que l'on porte sur une situation." The person must know the object of that "regard" to start with. The person would have to have great competence in ethics.
If you want, I could do a bit more research and submit some names to the clerk.
Again, that is not something for which we could advertise in the newspaper. There is no such thing as an ethicist right now. There are teachers and a couple of lawyers. There are people like me who do a lot of conferences and there are also a lot of people who do not know what they are talking about — they are more numerous. Those are the ones we find the most.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: Welcome, Mr. Villemure. I would like to get back to the philosophical principles you refer to in your opening presentation.
Should we not start by making a very clear distinction between ethics and morals? In my opinion, morals should not be including in any definition of an ethics commissioner's accountability. Moreover, I think there is a tendency to blur the line between morals and ethics. I believe that in the context within which this bill was introduced, to react to a situation and correct it, there is a tendency to want to take punitive action rather than establish limits for future conduct. So, seeing as you are a philosopher, my first question is: Where do morals end and ethics start when we have to implement a system such as the one proposed under this bill? In my opinion, on some fronts, this bill is an overreaction to a situation which had to be addressed; it is almost as though we are going from one extreme to the other.
Mr. Villemure: As far as this is concerned, I completely agree with you.
It is worthwhile taking a look at the distinction between ethics and morality. In France, ethics and morality are synonymous but that is not true here. It is a very cultural thing. The definitions I will give you are those used in a school of philosophy. Another school may be just as valid, but I will provide you with the words that I use. Ethics is about what is the right thing to do in a certain set of circumstances; here we try to do what is best according to the circumstances. In the case of ethics, it is what is good according to the circumstances. Morality is often a personal concept linked to moeurs, in French. Morality is the personal line that an individual draws between good and evil whereas moeurs is the line that society draws between what is good and evil. That is it in a nutshell. In France, the response is different, but we need to have a premise. I understand the way you use the word morality and where you want to go with that, but we must make a distinction between these two concepts. As far as I am concerned, ethics are based on societal values whereas morality may be more a matter of revealed truth, heritage, choice and personal values. Ethics must be based on clear, practicable and shared values.
I will give you and example: the word "respect." The word "respect" is interesting because it is used every day by millions of Canadians. Generally speaking, the word "respect" is used according to the Anglo-Saxon meaning of the word in, for example "To respect the law." We also hear "respect" used in the expression "to lack respect," which does not in any way mean non-compliance with the law. From an ethnological point of view, the word "respect" means: a second look so as not to interfere needlessly. In ethics, this is the way that we define the word "respect." When I talk about clear values, that is what I mean. When we talk about clear values, we are referring to the second term: a second look requires more time that an initial look, and so on and so forth.
These values must be stated in the bill, these social, Canadian and so on and so forth values will enable us to deduce a set of "how". I can assure you that once these values have been agreed to and identified, you will, despite your different politics, all agree on the "how" because the basic declaration will lead you to a common ground. In its current form, one has the impression that the bill overreacts, in fact, and that this is a vision of things because it has not been explained.
In my opinion, there is not enough substance: so, the morality, the personal line; "ethics" the good according to the circumstances and the "moeurs," the social line.
Generally, legislation is driven by moeurs. In the sponsorship affair, the social moeurs of the people resulted in the opinion that the action taken was unacceptable. A bill was prepared, driven by the moeurs to prevent such a situation from recurring and to guide decisions so that there would be a better outcome, et cetera. I believe that the very punitive aspect alone has been retained in the bill.
Senator Joyal: So, according to your assessment of the bill, it is about implementing actions that come after the conduct. And you feel that the bill is not sufficiently explicit when it comes to defining the principles and standards that should normally guide conduct?
Mr. Villemure: That is it, exactly.
Senator Joyal: Yesterday, the Ethics Commissioner for the House of Commons, Mr. Shapiro, mentioned that he had proposed, when the House was studying the bill, that the principles of the code outlined in the bill for, in particular, public office holders be clearly established so that the obligations that arise from the code, that are detailed in the bill, will have some relevance to the objectives that we want to achieve. He informed us that his suggestions had not been retained by the House.
Mr. Villemure: I had made the same suggestion and it was not retained.
Senator Joyal: Since you agree with this approach, what are, in your opinion, the principles that should normally be explained or referred to in either a preamble to the code or as an introduction to the code so that the bill before us reflects the concerns you identified this morning, concerns that you feel are legitimate.
Mr. Villemure: Whether or not we call them principles or values, well that is a bit like "the chicken and the egg." At least the concern is the same. The principles of equity, respect and fairness would be very interesting aspects. Equity, which may be interpreted as being a fair evaluation of what each person is due, calls for a decision regarding an awkward situation. Respect, which is a second look so as not to interfere needlessly, suggest that some measures are more appropriate than others. And we define fairness as being the art of making a decision that is neither bold nor timid, but very courageous. The courageous decision is often one which, in the face of uncertainty — and generally speaking, questions of ethics are usually cases involving uncertainty — perhaps I may not have all that I need in order to make a decision, but in view of the regulations, principles and values, I will take action all the same.
So, equity, respect and fairness are interesting aspects. I have not gone much further than this. However, there is one issue that should be clarified in the bill; namely, the whole concept of responsibility. Responsibility is made up of two Latin words, the res, which is the thing and spondere, which is to promise. The person responsible is the one who can promise something, so this happens before any action is taken, and promising something involves four characteristics: the first one is the desire to promise and one would hope that public office holders would have this desire and we would want to encourage them through various measures; secondly, there is the authority to promise, therefore the possibility. I believe that in all of these cases, public office holders have the authority, but I have seen many of them who have abdicated this authority. They may have the power but they say that they do not. In a nutshell, this is something that requires further thought. Thirdly, — the third and fourth characteristics are very important — the person who is responsible can choose how this action should be taken. Consequently, the individual does not have his or her hands tied. The accountable person has his or her hands tied, but the person responsible does not. And, fourthly, and this is always more difficult at the outset, but the person responsible should be dealt with kindly should an error be made in good faith.
That does not mean a right to make mistakes. Mistakes are not covered by the Geneva Convention, I am talking about benevolent treatment. If we want someone to take action in an effort to do good, in a matter that is based on principles such as those that have been suggested to us, there will be some cases in which it will not work. The current bill does not cover these cases where individuals have acted in good faith but things have not worked out. To use a language which is a bit more technical, I would say that the rules, laws and standards deal with what we would call regular cases. These are cases that are repetitive, that have already occurred, that have already got parameters. Ethics pertains to those irregular cases where there are no rules: the rule is inadequate under the circumstances where there is a difference between the spirit and the letter of the law.
In such cases, the individual will have to do some ethical thinking. Some will say that they do the best that they can, but they should be basing themselves on guidelines, values and principles. In all these cases there will be some uncertainty and the individual may get it wrong. The bill makes no distinction between regular and irregular cases. As far as the bill is concerned, all cases are regular. If the rule has not been followed because all of the cases are regular, there will be a penalty. An aspect is missing from the bill. I would admit that it is more difficult to draft in the case of a bill. This is something that is quite new because a bill by its very nature sets the guidelines for the regular case. But when we talk about a bill on ethics, responsibility and conflicts of interests, I believe that more details must be given. It is a bit strange to have to say this because we are talking about a bill comprising 234 pages, but I do think that we need to make a bit more effort to clarify matters.
Senator Joyal: Yesterday, Mr. Shapiro mentioned that the commissioner named in the bill is rather a conflict of interest commissioner than an ethics commissioner, given the approach that the bill has taken. You make the same point, that it is rather a punitive approach, that is to say that we intervene after the fact in order to punish a behaviour that has been found to be unacceptable. If we want to keep the term "ethics", that is that the bill would successfully be what it purports to be in this area, then you feel it is lacking in ethical substance.
Mr. Villemure: Yes, it is lacking. There are two choices regarding role of the commissioner. We add this responsibility, but I doubt that such an addition can be successful, because once again, I would not consult a person to guide me in taking a decision if that person is apt to punish me. The other solution would be to have two roles: it is possible to consider both an ethics commissioner and a conflict of interest commissioner.
In the world in which we currently live it would be wiser and easier to do so. In all of the governmental organizations I have been involved with, and they are in the hundreds, the role of commissioner has never fulfilled its promise: if it was transparent, people were unhappy because they said it was too out in the open, and if he was not, he was accused of favoritism, and because he had the power to sanction, he was not consulted, and so on. There are many precedents. On the other hand, one has to realize that this role exists and functions quite well in the United Kingdom, but the different Canadian cultural reality must be taken into account, and we cannot simply use a cut and paste method taking the British and Australian models. We have to emphasize what distinguishes Canada.
Senator Joyal: Therefore in your understanding of the bill, the professional code of ethics component is not explicit enough to be able to guarantee the results that we want to achieve through this bill.
Mr. Villemure: Let me correct one thing: the code of ethics is clear but it stands alone. A code of ethics and a code of conduct are not incompatible. A code of conduct is intended to make up for the shortcomings of a code of ethics. A code of ethics alone is inadequate here given the objective. It is as though we have a dish that was half-filled while pretending it was full. It is an intellectual conceit.
Senator Joyal: Yesterday, Mr. Shapiro told us that the number of people for whom he is responsible — 1,500 appointments for permanent positions granted by order-in-council, plus 2,400 part-time positions, plus 308 members of the House of Commons, plus, if this bill is passed, 105 senators — is such that the role of advisor is almost impossible in practice to play since he physically does not have the time to meet with all these people. By definition, the role of advisor that we are looking for in order to prevent behaviour that could then be seen as unacceptable cannot in practice be played by the commissioner as defined in the bill. Consequently, it will not be possible to live up to the expectations that the bill creates. Let us implement a system that meets the needs and objectives that we want to achieve through this bill. How do you consider Mr. Shapiro's observation?
Mr. Villemure: It is quite fair. It is as though we have a single customs officer at the Lacolle border crossing, and as if that was the only border post. That is more or less the equivalent of the traffic that one could imagine. If a pressure group filed a complaint for conflict of interests — a pressure group can send 1,000 e-mails a day —, the commissioner's office, from that day foreword, would be four months behind schedule and that would be without taking government appointments or any other appointments into account. The bill is beneficial and sets out good intentions, but the problem is the choice of the means to be used in order for that good intention to translate into good action. Currently, the proposed means, even though they are noble, will be inadequate. I remain more concerned about the possible complaints from NGOs or other lobby groups, because we cannot anticipate the volume. It is huge. Democracy Watch often blocked the process in United Kingdom. The team as it is currently planned would be inadequate. If a person must investigate certain allegations, the time to be granted to counselling will be secondary. That is why it is essential to have two separate roles: counsellor and investigator. Now, whatever method is chosen, there will be congestion at some level. It is easy to predict. We should attempt to reduce this as much as possible by having the role of commissioner-investigator split in two; one role for political appointments, and another for investigations requested by NGOs and lobby groups. One must be able to recognize the differences so that if there is a bottleneck caused by lobby groups, this would not prevent the advisor from being able to do his job because the volume would always be less. One ill-advised opinion can result in numerous complaints for inquiry. Generally speaking, we say that there would easily be a ratio of six in such cases. Therefore, one opinion avoids six inquiries. That is a lot. Do the math, with 1,500 appointments. Ethics has a preventive function and we should distinguish it from the prescriptive or curative function that a code of ethics or an investigation represent.
[English]
Senator Oliver: Senator Joyal, could I ask you to hold this question? There are several other honourable senators who have questions they would like to put. I can put you on the second round. You have had five questions already.
Senator Segal: Some of my questions were asked by Senator Joyal, so I am appreciative for the tutorial I received.
[Translation]
Mr. Villemure, my question concerns the balance between the proactive and retroactive aspects of the bill. During your testimony, you emphasized the problem of "responsibility" in the way it works, in its roots. A well-known Quebec academic, Denis St-Jacques, spoke of an ethical problem that he described as a "parliamentary posse." that is to say that officers are appointed by the Canadian Parliament to investigate persons who have violated the law, whether they be ministers or others. This bill is intended to create other officers of Parliament who would facilitate the existence of more serious parliamentary "posse."
[English]
If you remember all the old western movies, the posse got sent out to find the bad guys, and when they came back, they would only be exposed to whiskey in the bar, honky-tonk pianos and the dancing girls if they brought some dead guys back on their horses, whether those people deserved to be dead or not; but that is the mission of a parliamentary posse.
Reflect for a moment on the ethical issue of a series of officers who are created by Parliament, who are, I think we can say, based on experience, utterly unsupervised by Parliament — they are accountable to Parliament but not supervised by Parliament — whose mission is to, where appropriate, as defined by the proposed act, find wrongdoing and expose it in the public interest, and how that deals with the retroactive versus proactive balance, which I think caused you some difficulty from the point of view of the ethical construct of the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Villemure: Your question is most interesting. In terms of the application, unelected people, judges, interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on behalf of the elected. This is what can be termed "government by the judiciary." It would be similar to the relationship we would have with a group of officers whose mission is to go bounty-hunting. Certain caveats would have to be issued. I have not analyzed that particular scenario as I have limited myself to the bill.
[English]
Off the top of my head, caution is something.
[Translation]
We elect people so that they can represent us, and then we have them supervised by people who are unelected. I do not have a solution to put forward as I have not thought this over at all, but I agree with your concerns on the subject. What worries me is the increase in the number of information officers, et cetera. Perhaps I am confusing the provincial and federal levels of government, but there are many commissioners, from the privacy commissioner to the commissioner for the sick, et cetera. One must proceed with care, because that represents many organizations that are not accountable to voters.
Senator Segal: My question concerns the difference between accountability and responsibility. Our colleagues will remember the famous parliamentary committee on Al-Mashat. There was disagreement between certain conservative government ministers at that time, as to who was responsible for the fact that this Iraqi diplomat had been invited to Canada very graciously and in a highly expedited manner. Some ministers said that it was not their fault because they had just been elected, but the deputy minister at the time, Mr. Kruger, came and testified before the committee. He said without hesitation that as the deputy minister responsible for the department throughout the period that he was deputy minister he was responsible, and that he should provide all of the essential information to the committee. In the final report of this multi-partisan committee, it was decided that the only person who had taken his responsibilities seriously would not be held accountable for the wrongs committed, if such was the case, and that was Mr. Kruger. This distinction between responsibility and accountability is very serious. You raised important points during your presentation. Is there a balance in the bill or must the balance be changed in order to improve the effect of the bill once it is passed?
Mr. Villemure: I will complete the explanation that I had started to give to Senator Joyal on what responsibility is. It is an issue of the person who was in a position to make a promise. In an organization, public office holders are always accountable whatever they do and whoever they are. They are not all responsible because they were not all in a position to make a decision, but they are all accountable at the end of the day. Your deputy minister was right, he was responsible and accountable. These two concepts are related but they can be combined. A person is always accountable, however a person who is accountable is not always responsible. Thus, the person who takes the decision has to answer for his action. Accountability is being deserving of praise or blame. A person whose hands were tied and who had no option regarding means or the decision could only be accountable. He could not have been asked, for example, to run the marathon with his legs bound. That person did what they could, but the person whose legs were not tied was perhaps able to win, but that person was accountable for the result which would be praise in this case. Responsibility goes beyond accountability, and everyone is accountable. Everyone has to answer for their actions and is accountable. The day that a person accepts a high-level management position, that day become part of the ongoing debate, they are accountable for the decision through cabinet solidarity.
Senator Fox: Your presentation was very interesting and corresponds to the bill before us. Within the limits of the proceedings, the recommendations and the amendments that a senate committee can make, there are realistic limits, in the sense that the government would like this bill to be returned to them as quickly as possible and with the fewest amendments possible. There is a proactive component and an accountability component to your presentation. It is proactive in the sense that given the stage we are at, your remarks on the shortcomings or absence of a set of principles that could be included in the preamble seem unrealistic at this time, however, this will serve us well for public debate in the sense that that is the direction we will be moving in.
Furthermore, you raise a series of difficulties in the bill that we could correct immediately. On the issue of proactivity, even though I thought the government was ready to study this more objectively and take more time, we could think about that kind of an amendment.
Is there an institute in Canada, other than yours, that studies these issues and that would be in a position to draft a model bill that would take up some of the considerations that you have tabled here this morning?
Mr. Villemure: I do not know of many. Bills are often the work of lawyers and are limited to law schools. With this necessary amendment, we would need a broader vision than a strictly legal one, but people have a tendency to work in silos. The other negative point is that if you look for philosophers, you will find that the degree of abstraction is a little too high. Some other think thanks could be interested in it. That is what we do. There must certainly be others that have this kind of expertise. I do not know enough about their qualifications to talk about it, being too taken up with the achievement of our own objectives. What I hear in your comments is that it is a little too late for this bill, but that this could serve us as food for thought for the future. However, I welcome your remarks on the bill dealing with ethics and accountability; now is the time to do so despite the timelines set. I was told in June that we do not have enough time, when I appeared before the House of Commons committee. I appreciate that the time is limited, but as I said at the beginning of my presentation: using the wrong words for things makes the world an unhappier place and to think takes time. If we want the desired effect, and the government is counting very much on this bill to set an example, the bill has to be somewhat reworked. I do not think we are talking about months. These issues could be debated in the House and I believe they are essential. If we do not take the necessary time to do so, we will have to live with the initial mistake for years, and will always be thrown in our faces as a technical flaw which was identified by several people. And so I remains skeptical.
Senator Fox: The Centre de recherche en droit public at the University of Montreal, which often organizes interdisciplinary groups, is studying these issues. I somewhat regret the fact that the academic world did not begin to study this issue sooner.
Mr. Villemure: That is a comment that is supposed to be somewhat broad. The centre in question does good work, and indeed, it has not studied the issue. Most of the people who thought about studying the bill because ethics is mentioned, were afraid. This is not an area of expertise for them. People from the legal and ethical spheres do not naturally spend a lot of time together. There are a few legal ethicists, but people were somewhat surprised by this. There was a certain reluctance to comment on this. All the people I know who wanted to but did not, should have. The discussion would of been more encouraging. Anyone in this room can stand up and tell me that I am wrong. If you prove it to me, I have no problem. I prefer making a suggestion that will be assessed, and perhaps not acted on, than trying to depict an ideal world that has no chance of coming into existence. For philosophers in general, a bill is too applied for them to study it. For people in law, in terms of ethics this goes beyond the procedural aspects that they are accustomed to. There could be some common ground between the two.
Senator Fox: I am really tempted to accept what you have said, and the approach you have taken was corroborated by Mr. Shapiro earlier. He is a great Ethics Commissioner. We are very lucky to have been able to persuade him to serve the public interest for a period of time. That shows that there is a shortcoming in this bill.
You touched on the international dimension. I am no expert, but it surprises me when you said that there were no bills, no practices of this kind in European countries.
Mr. Villemure: Oddly enough, very few. I was in France last year with the upper levels of the French administration. Their first bill was to create an ethics commissioner. The interest in ethics is very high among the French in terms of discussion, but the main concern of the French administration was that companies that were mostly public will become mostly private when they are sold. There is concern about conflicts of interest and a desire to contain those conflicts with ethical and legal rules. Being with officials from Mr. De Villepin's office at the time, I was astonished by what I saw. I expected something else. I have seen some feeble efforts in Belgium and Luxemburg — in the smallest countries — but nothing in Italy or France. That made quite an impression. There is a lot of documentation on Anglo-Saxon countries through the OECD, which does most of its surveys in those countries.
I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Shapiro. He is like an eagle in a small cage. The current position greatly limits his capacities to a few small acts that do not match up with his abilities. I was critical of that in a newspaper article at the time. He could do more good than other people. He is a keeper, in my opinion.
Senator Fox: In the English text, it says: "occurrence of certain terms." Is that a finding that the word "éthique" comes up so many times versus the term "ethics," "responsabilisation" versus "accountability"? Have you compared the texts to see whether the words were used the same way in the French and English versions?
Mr. Villemure: On both levels. The first is a recurrence of the term and the second determines the various levels of meaning. The word "éthique" has three meanings, and "accountability" has two. Between the two versions, the recurrence of terms has been improved, but the meaning has not been improved; there is still the same number of meanings. The meaning has not been clarified, but the presentation has. That's not a bad thing, it is what you see, what you count with a word-counting software program. The uncertainty remains where it always was.
Senator Fox: In terms of the role and characteristics of commissioners, I noticed that in the bill, in section 81, page 44, the description of who can be appointed is very limited. If I understand your position correctly, you would like to see those limits quite simply dropped, so that the best candidate could be chosen, be that person an academic or an ethicist, or did you just want ethicist added to the list?
Mr. Villemure: No, I do not just want ethicist added to the list. I was being fetishist. In my work, whenever ethics is being discussed, I never refer to ethicists. I find that quite hilarious. It is more a matter of doing away with the limits. The person could be a lawyer, an ethicist or any number of things. A student of the history of philosophy would have a great deal of knowledge. Many of today's problems are old problems with new words. We tend to forget the old wisdom. There is also the idea of the government mandarin. That might make a good commissioner. But I think the person should be required to have at least some training in ethics, and lawyers do have some, but I do not think they have enough for this job. Unfortunately, I would say that when I meet younger lawyers, they are more like legal technicians. We do still come across some people with a classical education, and that is great. If the person is not an ethicist, they should at least be trained in ethics. There are plenty of graduates with a master's in ethics. Not all of them are able to do this job, but some are.
Senator Fox: You drew a distinction between an advisory commissioner and an investigative commissioner.
Mr. Villemure: Yes.
Senator Fox: Could an investigative commissioner be in the office of an ethics commissioner? Could that be sent to another organization?
Mr. Villemure: It depends on the supervision. The investigative commissioner cannot be supervised by the advisory commissioner. They can be at the same level, under a superior officer. In public and private organizations in general, these types of duties are the work of a secretary general. There is a direct link with the boss. But one cannot supervise the other, either way round.
[English]
Senator Milne: I know that our time is getting short so I will be very brief. I was impressed by your definition — "ethical thinking occurs before a decision while concepts of accountability refer to a time after a decision." This has been the clearest explanation we have had of the entire situation so far.
You talked about the fact that values must be stipulated in this bill, and they are not. On what would this ethics commissioner, czar or whatever you want to call the individual base a judgment if there are no values stipulated in the bill?
Mr. Villemure: As of now, he will have to base his judgment strictly on rules, meaning that he will be able to investigate and judge on regular cases and will be left in the dark as far as non-regular cases are concerned. He will be able to do part of his job with the bill as it is.
Senator Milne: So this bill is only partially effective, is that correct?
Mr. Villemure: Yes.
Senator Milne: You mentioned several things that should be added into the bill. These were the concepts of fairness, respect and accuracy, those three particular concepts. Would you recommend that we make an amendment to add those, to expand the role of this commissioner?
Mr. Villemure: I think we should make an amendment to expand the role. As far as the three terms are concerned, I have not prepared anything for you this morning. It could need a second thought, but we are in the vicinity of these three things. I will be happy to write it more clearly if you want me to do so. However, that is something that should be added and expanded in the bill.
Senator Milne: Thank you. Perhaps the witness could write something and send it to us.
The Chairman: Please.
Mr. Villemure: Okay.
Senator Baker: You have conducted a fascinating analysis of the bill. Perhaps every piece of legislation should receive such an analysis.
I was sympathizing with Senator Stratton as I watched your presentation. Let us get one thing straight: You are in favour of this bill, are you not? You think that this is an ethical moment in time for Canada.
Mr. Villemure: Yes.
Senator Baker: So you are in favour of this bill.
Senator Stratton: Thank you for asking my question, senator.
Senator Milne: I think we are all in favour of the bill. We just want to improve it.
Senator Baker: I have two questions. In this case, what should be the accurate translation of the word "accountability?"
Mr. Villemure: "Imputabilité."
Senator Baker: The second question is this: In your analysis of the bill, there is lots of ethics but no "éthique." Do you believe that one language prevails over another in the interpretation of statutes? What is your general belief on that?
Mr. Villemure: Again, not speaking from a lawyer's point of view, I think the bill should be clear and effective in both languages and there are ways to do that. However, the way the bill is written now, it is written on both sides with their own linguistic terms but the terms have not been cleaned of their heritage so they say different things. That is the main problem.
Your first question as to "imputabilité" or accountability is interesting.
[Translation]
The accountability bill in French is very interesting, but the text does not fit with it. I would like it to be an accountability bill, and for it to be called that, that would be fine, but in order for that to be so...
[English]
There are lots of things to be improved.
Senator Baker: In my second question to you, which was my final question, what normally happens is that you would take both languages — English and French — and you would analyze a word, according to the instruction in a text called The Construction of Statutes, within the meaning of that particular clause in the bill, and then within the meaning of the intent of the legislation that the government had. I suppose what you are saying is that without some sort of a mission statement or without some explanation of what the principles are that are being legislated, this would be a very difficult task to do, and perhaps impossible for a judge to analyze. Is that your point?
[Translation]
Mr. Villemure: Yes, that is my point. I would not presume to tell you how to write this kind of thing, but it is apparent that the discipline of philology has not been used here to the fullest extent. Linguistics has been used, and some etymology, but no philology. And why is that necessary? When you draft legislation, in general, you describe things that are generally restrictive. This bill has to do with the why, and the why is an added level of abstraction. Lawyers working on this subject are perhaps a bit less familiar with this added level of abstraction. That is why some clarification is needed, and that would come from the discipline that I just mentioned. It is in no way a reflection of the competence of the people in question. It is just an added level of abstraction.
Historically, the profession of lawyer and philosopher was one and the same. Over the last 2000 years, a distinction has risen between the two. In order to get to the issue of why, the legislation has a lot to do with the how, a little something needs to be added by way of a contribution from those sciences.
[English]
Senator Stratton: I am having difficulty with this whole question about ethics, principles and values. You said in your opening statement that ethics cannot be reduced to a mass of principles and values. I agree with that statement. We all wrestle with it. However, Mr. Shapiro last night testified that he wanted to enshrine into this bill a set of principles and values. Do you agree with Mr. Shapiro? How do we deal with this issue and leave it such that we are not really saddling ourselves with something that will be onerous in the future?
Mr. Villemure: If I recall correctly in my presentation, I said that the bill made numerous references to rules, principles and some directions. It made reference to the words but never made explicit reference to the principles in question. We talked about them; we did not say anything about what they are.
[Translation]
The word is mentioned frequently, but not its meaning. In this, I agree with Mr. Shapiro that the missing elements should be added. Besides, the theme of my presentation was what the bill does not say. I told you that the bill was rich, in 72 to 72.01, it refers to rules, principles and duties, but the principles were never identified. That is what lacking, and that is what Mr. Shapiro is proposing, I did not hear his testimony but that is what I take it to have been.
[English]
My presentation was to question if there are too many values and principles; there are none. There are rules. We talk about principles and values but there are none, in fact.
The Chairman: Senator Stratton, in his presentation he said that "the failure to spell out principles and values in the bill risks reducing the role of the commissioners to that of technicians who know the how rather than advising on the why." He does say "the failure to spell out the principles and values in the bill."
Senator Stratton: Yes. A few of us were part of the group wrestling with our set of rules for the Senate over a long period of time as I recall.
Each house sets its rules based on a certain set of principles it feels is important. The commissioner, in our case, interprets those principles. There is a gatekeeper in each case in each house — a committee. The committee in our house is chaired by Senator Joyal and it is made up of five members. That committee ensures that things are done ethically, appropriately, for the most part. That is my sense of how we govern ourselves. Those mechanisms are already in existence.
To handcuff each house, which may have a different set of values and principles, with the same interpretation, no matter which house it is, I think is wrong for different reasons. The principles and values should be stated in the individual set of rules in each house, established by the members of each house, and then interpreted by the ethics commissioner in the House case or the ethics officer in our case. I really strongly believe that. I do not think it should be part of the bill. These should not be part of the bill for that reason.
I should like you to respond to that because this is a critical issue as far as I am concerned.
[Translation]
Mr. Villemure: I mostly disagree. Perhaps I should try to make it easier to understand. I do not believe that the rules and values should lie with each house. There are certainly different ways to review those rules and values in each house, but when we are talking about governing public office holders in Canada, there are certain federative concepts that need to be established.
Take respect, for example. This concept applies in different ways, depending on whether you are a member of Parliament, a deputy minister or someone else. But the essence of that respect is still to think twice so as to not to cause needless offence. Although the way in which the principle is applied may vary, the meaning remains the same. If we start to have variations in values and principles among us, it will be a mess. Why make things simple when we could make them complicated, that is the question I might ask you. This is definitely the place for this kind of principles and values, and they should be found in both houses and in all that governs the public sector.
When deciding what to do in order to do good, one cannot do everything. It is impossible to say that one thing will be good for one body and bad for the other. When defining a principle, from the Latin princep first, it should prevail. If the princep prevails, it governs all bodies. I do not believe that there should be many principles, there are no figures or standards, but they must prevail, because by definition, they are overriding. I am not sure if I have properly answered Senator's Stratton question.
[English]
Senator Stratton: When looking at the set of rules established by the House of Commons and the set of rules established by the Senate — if you were to look at the difference, I think you would understand what I was getting at. I think it is important for you to at least take a glance at this, to understand.
Mr. Villemure: I know where you are coming from.
Senator Stratton: I thank you for that.
With separate committees, we act as gatekeepers, in essence, so that we strike a balance between the individual's right to file a complaint and those balanced against the frivolous complaint that we are really concerned about. That is why it is enshrined in this bill; each house has its own committee for gatekeeping to prevent this. The overload for the ethics officer or commissioner, however he or she is named, is reduced substantially. You will have the vetting process go through the gatekeeper process.
Mr. Villemure: By doing so, you are helping the task of the person that is acting after a decision; you are not helping the task of the person acting before decision.
Senator Stratton: Oh, yes, you are. You are.
Mr. Villemure: Do you think so?
Senator Stratton: Yes, because the ethics officer cannot proceed without that gatekeeper saying yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Villemure: I would perhaps disagree with you on that. Let us suppose, for the sake of comparison, that the ethics advisor suggests something that goes against the mandate of the ethics investigator, but for reasons which are documented and debated, the spirit of the law is respected whereas the letter of the law has been broken. This is the type of case that you will see arise. What is to be done if to do good means breaking the letter of the law? In such a case, there would be deadlock.
[English]
Senator Stratton: Personally, I do not think so. I do not see our committee going against the letter of the law. We went through that recently, very recently, and there was no way. We had an established set of principles by which we operated and that was it.
There was pressure brought to bear to make another decision and we made the appropriate one, I think, and a very good one in that case. Therefore, I do not agree with you; I cannot agree with you on that, so will we agree to disagree?
Mr. Villemure: We will agree to disagree. That is it.
Senator Day: I am afraid I will have to agree to disagree with Senator Stratton, too.
I refer Mr. Villemure, if he has a chance in due course, to look at proposed section 45 that allows the commissioner to examine matters on his own initiative, so there is no gatekeeper involved with respect to public office-holders.
We seem to have been confusing three different concepts here. There is the senators, there is the House of Commons and then there is public office-holders, and the public office-holders are divided again in the new proposed act. The commissioner is given a lot more authority to go in and do investigations and, as we found out yesterday, to let the Prime Minister know what he is doing about these various investigations.
That was only for the benefit of Senator Stratton because I think he might have been confusing you in some of his questioning.
Let me talk about the principles and values that you were talking about earlier. It seems that the drafters of Bill C-2 have decided that they cannot do what had been previously done because we were going from a value-based system to a rules-based system.
Previously, we had codes. There is a conflict of interest code and post-employment code for public office-holders. This was Prime Minister Martin's. In his code, at the very beginning, objects and principles are stated. They act as an overall guide. I will let you take a look at that in due course, but I wanted to point these things out to you.
Then along comes Mr. Harper and he created his own code. This is still value-based conflict of interest rules. In that code, you can see it at the front, is "objects and principles." That is what we have been talking about here, namely, these objects and principles that exist.
The Chairman: Are they the same in the two documents?
Senator Day: No, they are not precisely the same.
The Chairman: But generally the same?
Senator Day: Yes; they provide an umbrella under which the specific rule can be interpreted by the commissioner or the officer.
The other document I have is the Conflict of Interest Code for Senators. We did the same thing — "purposes and principles" at the front end to give whoever is interpreting or enforcing this code a general mindset for the interpretation of the specific rule. That is a value-based system. Along comes Bill C-2 and it was decided, for whatever reason, not to put those general principles in there.
The question I have for you is this: Is it inconsistent when you go from a value-based system like these were to a rules-based system like this is purporting to be? Is it inconsistent then to have principles and values in the rules-based system?
[Translation]
Mr. Villemure: That is a very interesting question because were the rules and values to be built into the legislation, they would not change as they are being changed now. Perhaps they are similar, I have not seen them, but at least we are talking about a stronger foundation. When we work from a system of codes, which do not have any statutory power but rather an ethical one, when we work from an ethics system, with certain rules and values, and when we fall into a system that lacks values and principles, I believe that we are losing something along the way. Of all the codes I have studied over the years, very often the principles and values are described starting from page one; there were also many codes which remained intact even if the first page were removed. I find this to be unfortunate. That page is what is referred to as "posted ethics." In other codes, the first page is very much consistent with the rest of the code. I have no problem so long as there is consistency. The problem with C-2 is that there is no consistency; and as such, we will never be able to manage irregular cases because without values, the rules suppose that all the cases are ordinary. As I said earlier, part of the reasoning is missing when it comes to managing irregular cases. There is no problem when it comes to regular and ordinary cases; it may be a bit tough but it will do. To my mind, that does not pose any problem. The problem is that we will be missing tools to analyze the more troubling cases. Some tools may already be built into these codes, I am not aware of them, but to go from a system of values to a system of rules is a step backwards.
[English]
Senator Day: I would be pleased to share these with you. If you have any other comments that you would like to send back to us, that would be helpful. That applies also to the comparisons or updates of how frequently the various words were used.
I was very concerned about your comment that you read this in one language and then you read it in a second language and it meant two different things. That makes it extremely difficult for us to say then let us just pass this bill along and let someone else sort it out. That is our job.
We are supportive of the concept of ethical behaviour and the concept of having accountability in government and in parliamentarians. We are very supportive of all of that, but we have a constitutional responsibility to ensure that bills go through that make sense — and they should make equal sense, I agree with you wholeheartedly, in the two official languages. If you could help us in suggesting any amendments that should be made to achieve that goal, we would be very pleased. Ultimately, we will pass a bill and we want to pass the best bill we possibly can.
[Translation]
Mr. Villemure: You reassure me. Before the hearing began, Senator Joyal told me that people tend to assume that very little is done here. I am very pleased to be here because this place provides one a forum to speak out. I know that you are absolutely rigorous, that is why I am trying to express these highly complex ideas. A person cannot retain everything, but I am certain that you are working very rigorously. I much appreciate the fact that we can go over each point, step by step. I believe that this is essential because it will help us avoid problems which will inevitably arise in the future.
[English]
Senator Campbell: I am not fluent in French yet. Is it possible to bring these into the same meaning? Is it possible to have a word in French that means the same in English? That seems to be the difficulty we are having here.
Mr. Villemure: Yes, it is feasible but we have to get over our laziness. As an example, the term "ethics" in the English language could be best translated by the word "déontologie" in French, but we do it the lazy way — "ethics" becomes "éthique" in French. If we were to do it this way, there are simple things that could been done — ethics becomes "déontologie."
Moral philosophy has a way —
[Translation]
— accountability is a term that can be properly translated. It is just that sometimes —
[English]
— I have noticed that people like to use the word "ethics" and they use it abundantly just to look good. Then you lose all the sense behind it because there is no substance. I would say if there is a need for the word, you use it; if not, use another word. That is why my comment from Camus was:
[Translation]
Using the wrong words for things makes the world an unhappier place.
[English]
That is all it is all about.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: Mr. Villemure, in your study of the different Canadian systems which have been in place for a certain number of years in certain provinces, standards and codes have been in effect, and commissioners' offices have been established and operating for a few years now. In your opinion, which approach resembles most that which you described this morning?
Mr. Villemure: I must admit that I am more interested in European practices as opposed to Canadian practices. I cannot speak on what is done at the provincial level because I am not sufficiently aware of the practices. At the Institute, we are in the process of developing a sort of model that would bridge the two. The Canadian situation is interesting in the sense that we have truly inherited two cultures and that is what we work with. It is wonderful. However, things may become abstract and difficult. Therefore, the French solution cannot automatically apply, nor can that of the European community, or an Anglo-Saxon solution for that matter. What can be developed quickly best resembles the British solution, including its strengths and weaknesses. I would say that the British solution, in all of its aspects, works very well in the United Kingdom; however, culturally speaking, it cannot be imported to Canada.
The aspect that I did not talk about this morning is whistleblowing. This is a striking example. In the United Kingdom, whistleblowing rates are very low, but the number of well-founded cases of whistleblowing is very high. In Quebec, there is a very low rate of whistleblowing, and a very high rate of unfounded cases. That is a small detail. The British model cannot be imported here just like that. The same goes for the entire piece of legislation.
I would like to look at the provincial side of things. I work a lot in Europe. I have been asked to compare components within the European Community.
[English]
Senator Zimmer: Thank you for appearing today, and especially because of your preciseness on definition, definition of meaning, and the exact translation of words; they can mean a tremendous difference. In addition to Senator Campbell's question, I would like to add to that and go a step further.
Many times we hear the words "open," "transparent" and "accountability." I am almost tired of hearing them because if something happens in the morning and it does not go according to plan then something was not open, transparent and accountable. We become lazy with those words and use them too easily. They almost become bully words or intimidation words.
I will go one step further. Do you believe words like this used in certain bills become politically motivated when using them to get a decision made in the way that you want it rather than really dealing with the bill the way it should be used?
[Translation]
Mr. Villemure: These words are simply a pretext in many cases. For example, the Quebec government has a fetish of turning transparency into an obsession. Transparency is about seeing what is behind something. A value is, morally speaking, positive. Transparency, in itself, has no moral content. It depends on what is behind. If one is transparent, and what is behind is not good, this amounts to very little. Transparency is only useful when compensating for lack of confidence. It is used all over the map. It is a buzz word used to create smoke and mirrors. In many cases, people use ethics to create smoke and mirrors, which is wrong, and is something I witness regularly; words such as "transparency, accuracy, accountability" do not have any real meaning the way they are used. The Government of Quebec talks only of transparency. It is necessary for the government to do so, because over the years, some decisions were not justified, or at least citizens did not fully understand them. The government has now been pushed to say to the people: since you do not trust me, I will show you what we are doing. This is a band-aid solution. Nothing is transparent; this is not an end in itself. The idea is to use transparency as a means to earn the people's trust, and the goal is trust. In the cases that you have raised, there are no objectives. It is just to provide a good image and make sure people do not say anything. That is my political analysis of how these words are used. They are popular beliefs, which have no basis. They have appeared out of no where, and have no use.
[English]
Senator Oliver: Honourable senators, with that, we will adjourn this hearing.
The committee adjourned.