:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Let me, first of all, thank the clerk and also the committee for their flexibility in scheduling this meeting. I know I was unavailable last week, unfortunately, because I was travelling through New York City and other places. I very much appreciate the invitation and your flexibility.
I'm going to discuss in my opening statement, Madam Chair, the Public Appointments Commission's mandate and also my nomination as its first chair. You have a copy, I believe, of the mandate of the commission before you.
The key objective of the commission will be to ensure that names forwarded for consideration as Governor in Council appointees possess the qualifications, background, experience, and personal attributes required for the position. In other words, the objective will be that merit determine appointments. The process will be transparent, and vacancies for Governor in Council appointments will appear in the newly created website.
I believe personally, Madam Chair, that developing the best possible public appointments process is very important to our country. Agencies of the Crown play important roles. Those who are appointed to leadership positions within them must not only be the best available for the job, they must also be seen to have been chosen by a process designed to ensure that they are.
Now I want to make a very important point. The commission is about how appointments are to be made; it is not about who is selected to serve on agencies, boards, commissions, and crowns. In other words--and this is my most important point of emphasis--the commission will neither select nor appoint anyone.
Madam Chair, I turn to why I have accepted the Prime Minister's nomination to chair the commission and what abilities and background I believe I bring to the role. You know from the information that has been provided that I dedicated half of my 60 years on this earth to building a successful Canadian-headquartered international company, a company that ranks among the largest corporations in the country, a company that prides itself in showing that Canadians can compete with the best in the world, a company that does its best to protect the environment and makes a positive difference in the community where we operate, and a company that employs Canadian representatives of our country's rich diversity of cultural backgrounds.
Of course I take pride in these things, and I am humbled by the personal awards and recognitions I have received over the months since I stepped down from the company. What I take the greatest pride in is EnCana's corporate constitution. I have always believed, Madam Chair, that true success can only be achieved by the disciplined adherence to a set of principles that stem from the best of Canadian values. These are enshrined in EnCana's corporate constitution. It is a document unique in the corporate world. I wrote it.
Madam Chair, I'm happy that copies have been made available to the committee today.
The constitution outlines shared principles, the first one being strong character. I'll read very briefly from that principle. People of strong character “lift one another up to greater success, we are determined...and disciplined, and we can be counted on”.
The second principle is ethical behaviour: “We function on the basis of trust, integrity, and respect. We are committed to benchmark practices in safety and environmental stewardship, ethical business conduct, and community responsibility.”
High performance: “We focus where we passionately believe we can be the best. We are accountable for delivering high-quality work that's continually enriched by...learning.”
Great expectations: “We have great expectations of one another. Living up to them will allow us to experience the fulfillment of being successful, and the pride of building a great company.”
I have longed believed, Madam Chair, that living by sound principles is the key to success of any organization. I am a passionate Canadian prepared to apply what I've learned to serving my country.
I accepted the Prime Minister's nomination because I bring two attributes that are well suited to service on the Public Appointments Commission. Firstly, my track record for principle-based leadership is there for all to see. I am gratified by the degree to which that has been recognized across the country.
Secondly, I've learned a great deal about sound private sector governance, much of which has applications to the agencies, crowns, boards, and commissions of government. I believe that if you look carefully at the mandate of the Public Appointments Commission, the specific mandate, you will see that the alignment is there between the skills needed and my experience.
I came from the private sector, I am not a politician, and reading media reports on some of my public speeches tell me I wouldn't be very good at it anyway. I must tell you, though, that after dedicating my life to building a sound reputation, it is painful for me and my family to see a couple of sentences taken out of context from one of my speeches leave such an untrue impression of my beliefs.
I emphasize once again that the commission will not make any appointments. In fact, the commission will not even be presented with the names of proposed public appointees. What the commission will do is to examine the process used in selecting proposed appointees to ensure that it follows the guidelines established by the commission, code of conduct types of guidelines, which will be based upon the principles of transparency and meritocracy.
I and the other members of the commission will need to completely avoid expressing views on any potential candidate for public appointment or, for that matter, any other political process or issue. We are about principles, process and governance; we are not about the selection of individuals. Madam Chair, I commit to your committee, and to all Canadians, that I will do everything I can to see that the process of making public appointments in this country is lifted to a level that is viewed as the highest standard among democracies in the world.
When I accepted this nomination, the Prime Minister and I agreed that five commission members should be spread across the regions of our country, and the commission should reflect a diversity of backgrounds. Now, Madam Chair, let me mention the other members of the commission, which was announced in yesterday's press release.
Starting from the west and moving east, we have Hassan Khosrowshahi. Hassan and his wife, Nezhat, came to our country as immigrants from Iran and founded and eventually sold the Future Shop. They are passionate Canadians who want to do everything they can to see that Canada continues to be one of the greatest places in the world, and they are stellar examples of the contribution that Canada's immigrant mosaic makes to our country.
From the prairie region, I humbly offer the services of this former farm boy from Alberta.
From Ontario, there's Roy McLaren. Roy McLaren has served this country as an MP, a cabinet minister, and as High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, among other things. I'm sure that his record, his abilities, his integrity need little explanation to the committee or, for that matter, to other Canadians.
From Quebec, there's Ms. Jacqueline Boutet, Order of Canada. Jacqueline was raised in Quebec City and now lives in Montreal. This French Canadian has a distinguished record both in business and in her service to her community and her country. She has served on both crown and private corporate boards and was first woman chair of Tennis Canada. I would be very proud to work with Ms. Boutet as we carry out the mandate of the commission.
Madam Chair, the fifth member of the commission will come from Atlantic Canada. I hope you can see the quality and diversity standards set by the names announced so far, and I know the Prime Minister will be proud to announce a commissioner from Atlantic Canada in due course.
Each person has agreed to work as a commissioner and is prepared to invest their time and bring their abilities and dedication to its mandate for one and only one reason, because we love our country and we want to help make it even better. That is why we have all asked that we not be paid any salary. That's not precisely true; we want to be paid $1 per year. I'm excited about this because it recreates some great history under Minister C.D. Howe and, more recently, that great Canadian, Mitchell Sharp.
Madam Chair, with that opening statement, I'm now prepared to answer the committee's questions.
:
Thank you, honourable member.
Madam Chair, I've never been very good at, as some people call it, blowing my own horn, so I'll have to do my best here.
I was born on a farm in Alberta with what you might call a very low start in terms of economic position, but, I believe, a high start in terms of ethical standards that I was taught by my parents. Through my whole life I have believed in principles, and I have loved my country.
I took engineering and ended up in the oil and gas industry. I was able to join a company in 1975 that was Canadian headquartered. That was in fact very important to me, and the reason that I left a non-Canadian-headquartered company was to do so.
One of my greatest pleasures, having built that company to the point of being one of the largest energy companies in the country and also internationally, was to combine it with another very large company to create EnCana in the year 2002.
My wife and I actually came up with the name EnCana to represent energy Canada, to show our pride in this country. One of the reasons I brought that company together and created EnCana was that we were losing head offices in this country, and I believed very strongly that Canadian head offices are very important to the country.
I'm very humbled to say that I was recognized by 250 CEOs across the country as the most respected chief executive in the country last year, and also by another group as chief executive of the year.
All of these things are far beyond what I could ever have dreamed of in pursuing my career, and now that I have stepped down, I'm willing to put whatever I can and whatever abilities and effort and enthusiasm I have into this role.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Morgan, for coming before the committee.
It's very good to hear your comments, and you have probably read some of my comments in the press. I suppose I've been your loudest critic since I heard about your appointment. I have to be clear with you that I have some real concerns about your appointment. Given what I've read about your views on some issues, we may not be the best of friends at the end of this or agree on much. That said, this is a respectful forum, and I appreciate your ability to come here and be questioned, as we're doing.
Of course, this is not about the others who are being appointed to the proposed commission; this is about you and your qualifications. In a speech you gave recently in a Fraser Institute forum, you attacked my party, social programs, unions, low-wage workers—a number of things I believe in—and I'm here to represent my constituents and beliefs on these issues.
I want to ask you questions about three different areas: first, the comments that I found deeply offensive in this speech regarding Jamaican immigrants in Toronto and their propensity for violence; second, the fact that you, your wife, and your business interests are major financial contributors to the Conservative Party and its previous incarnations; and third, your qualifications for the job.
In a speech you made at a Fraser Institute forum, you talked about believing in a strong immigration policy, and you've reiterated that here. You even end the section of your speech, as you've read, indicating you think that colour, race, and religion should be irrelevant in the selection process. You have talked here about meritocracy. In the speech, however, you also seem to say that race and country of origin are in fact very relevant when it comes to determining how violent a person is. You said, and I quote: “The social side is all too evident with the runaway violence driven mainly by Jamaican immigrants in Toronto, or the all too frequent violence between Asian and other ethnic gangs right here in Calgary.”
On what basis do you make the claim that Jamaican immigrants are the driving force behind violence in Toronto?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Morgan, welcome to life in this fish bowl here.
The one thing that concerns me a little bit is the direction of some of the questions here today. Of course we understand it's important to delve into the type of individual we are interviewing, the character, the capacity, the intelligence, the relative experience. Might I suggest that we could possibly even take some guidance from a past member of this committee who, in our last government operations meeting--Mr. Szabo, a member of the opposition right across from us--said that when we interview Mr. Gwyn Morgan we should understand that what's really, really important is sticking to the facts, the capability, the competence, and the ability to do the job. I thought he hit it right on the money. That really is what really matters to me. With a non-partisan approach to this, this is our job, ladies and gentlemen, to ensure, sir, that you have the capacity, you have the capability, you have the intelligence, you have the experience, you have the dedication, you have the commitment to Canada.
I was very fortunate a short while ago to sit on the review committee for Chief Justice Rothstein, in which we had a similar process. Quite frankly, I see some striking parallels here with good questions, but considerate, fair and honest. The similarity I find, of course, is in the response, sir, with the greatest respect--honest, maybe even to a fault, but what a wonderful, wonderful asset to have. I think that clearly has been almost a mantra for your success in private life in the corporate world, because with that honesty you earn the respect of so many other people.
As you carry forward with this appointment process, I'm really pleased that you separated the responsibilities, the fact that you are responsible for process, not on actually picking people.
If I were to ask you the three most important assets that you bring to this process, so that we could judge your capacity and capability, what would those three most important assets be?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
You stated that what you may have said in the past would have no effect on the commission's work. Earlier on, my colleague stated that we are to assess the abilities, skills and experience of possible candidates. But regardless of the commission to which a person is appointed, and its mandate, we have to assess whether the candidate has all of the values expected of him or her. When I refer to values, I'm referring to human values, be they held by Canadians, Quebeckers or persons of another origin.
In your December speech, you also addressed the issue of equalization. You said that the welfare state was creating dependency. I noticed that in this speech you decided to share some of your fundamental convictions. Allow me to say that that might lead people to wonder what your real motivation is, and in fact, you may be asking yourself the same question.
You say that you will not know the names of possible appointees, that you will not take part in anything at all, that you will establish a process and that, further to that, you will report to the Prime Minister, and therefore to the House. Is this very different from what existed previously? I imagine that before you accepted this nomination you looked into the current system. How can we know that this process is going to be better? What will the commission's status be? Will it really report to the Prime Minister's Office? How much do you need in terms of human and financial resources? Will you need three executive directors, a secretary, an assistant, three or four employees, a half a million dollars or $3 million?
:
Thank you for that question.
I think it's an important question, Madam Chair. I know it's a little hard to imagine in one's mind exactly how all of this is going to work, but the key point is this. Placed on the desks of ministers and all people who are involved in the public appointment process—crown corporation boards, etc.—will be a code of conduct and guidelines that they're expected to follow before they bring any names forward. Then once their appointments are made, the commission will review....
Well, first of all, even during the process they have to bring forward something saying, here are no names, but here's the process we intend to follow. The commission approves the process as being consistent with the guidelines, and then they can go ahead and proceed.
Again, we'll have no names. We won't know who's being appointed until they're announced. But then at the end of the day, on a regular basis, we'll come back through the secretariat of the commission to review and see that they followed the guidelines they said they were going to follow. The extent to which they did will be reported to the Prime Minister and tabled in the House on an annual basis.
The reason this thing has some effectiveness, in my opinion, is that I don't think anyone will want that report to show that the guidelines and the code we put forward were not followed. That's all the influence we will have, but I think it will be a rather significant influence on the process—and not the names of those who are actually appointed.
The cost of the commission? I'm a bottom-line guy from the business sector. I'm very worried about cost. We start with the fact that the commissioners are going to be paid $1 a year. That's a good start. We will not incur a lot of expenses for travel, because today's electronic conferencing and other ways of messaging will allow us to put things like a code of conduct together and have meetings through conferencing.
The secretariat in Ottawa will be small—I would guess no more than 20 people, perhaps a little smaller. They are going to be carefully selected, as career public servants and people who have expertise in what we're trying to achieve. I think there will be very good value for money from this commission.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I'll just point out, to begin with, that Mr. Alghabra and Mr. Volpe seem to be contradicting each other. Mr. Volpe seems to suggest that Mr. Morgan is unsuitable for the position because the position itself has not been sufficiently defined; and Mr. Alghabra, on the other hand, seems to believe he's unsuitable because of a few lines in one speech he's given in a 40-year career and a 60-year life, much of it in the public eye.
Believe me, Madam Chair, I understand, as somebody who has been in opposition here for nine years, the duty of the opposition, the responsibility of the opposition to oppose, to be critical, to ask tough questions, and not to give the government or anybody proposed by the government an easy ride. I understand that. I understand the context, and I respect the obligation of opposition members to do that. I do, however, think it has to be done in a way that doesn't do permanent damage to our public institutions.
I'll admit that as a member of the opposition in the past, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, I've been too aggressive on occasion, but I hope I never would have taken somebody with the status of the leading business person in Canada--
:
Well, not 30 seconds without interruption, Madam Chair.
As I was saying, the motion before us was introduced last week, prior to the witness appearing before us. There's an old Jewish proverb that the judge who decides the case before having heard it is a fool. I hope we're not proven to be fools here today.
Madam Nash suggested in the media this weekend that it was simply a precautionary measure to put this motion before the committee before having heard Mr. Morgan and that she was acting in good faith and could just as easily withdraw the motion. I quite frankly question the veracity of that, having heard her leader today say before this meeting that she was going to “tear Mr. Morgan apart.”
Madam Chair, this is precisely relevant to my argument, that we should be careful. I encourage the opposition members to do their job aggressively, to hold the government to account, and so on, but I would encourage them to do so in a way that does not do permanent damage to the institutions of public service.
We have before us today a man who's been recognized by his peers as the leading business leader in Canada, who is willing to leave, I'm sure, a very pleasant retirement and work in what is probably close to a full-time job for $1 a year.
What we see here today, and I believe this is very significant, Madam Chair, is a 40-year career, reaching the height of Canadian business achievement, being characterized in the most vile terms possible--I think there are three members opposite who used the word “racist”--because of one line--
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Quite honestly, colleagues, I have a little bit of a heavy heart on this. I recall the first meeting of this government ops committee, at which the chair stated, “This is, thankfully, one of the least partisan committees on the Hill, and we hope to see it act that way.”
For those members who obviously support this motion, if that is their strong personal opinion and their strong personal belief, I'm not comfortable with that, but I understand it and accept it. I think that's fair, that's democracy. But sadly, in my evaluation, I do believe that unfortunately too many people are playing politics with this issue, and it is such a serious issue. That is just from what we've heard here today and from the tone of comment. I don't believe it's consistent, and I'm not suggesting everybody is following that pattern; to those who are, I offer my apologies if I mischaracterize you on this statement, if you have that belief.
Just to touch on Mr. Kenney's remark, we have the credibility of people coming forward and we have a mandate. The mandate has not been followed by this motion in the committee. It's absolutely not relevant to the appointment process. It has absolutely no relevancy whatsoever. Competence, capability, ability to do the job, ability to deliver for the Canadian public, efficiencies--that's the mandate. When I see it being absolutely cast aside simply to mischaracterize an individual who has given 40 years of his life in the public service without a blemish, and to have this kind of mischaracterization...it is really a sad day.
I offer my personal apologies to Mr. Morgan for having to put up with this kind of mischaracterization. It's a sad day. I would recommend that our Prime Minister actually just do what is proper, do what is right, and appoint a gentleman who obviously is very deserving of this.