HUMA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 28, 2000

• 1106

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, we are here today pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study of HRDC grants and contributions, and before I introduce our patient witnesses, I would like to mention to you that the witnesses here today are all, I believe, from the Reform Party's list.

On Thursday, we proceed to people who are on the Bloc list, that's to say, the regional representatives from HRDC in the Quebec region, Danielle Vincent and Suzette Perrault. Then next Tuesday at our regular time, at the same time, it's the Honourable Lucienne Robillard and Treasury Board officials. That's where we stand.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses that we have here today. We have Bruce Phillips, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. We have John Reid, who is the Information Commissioner of Canada. We have Consulting and Audit Canada, represented by Christiane Ouimet, who is the chief executive officer of Public Works and Government Services Canada; and Bernard Thérien, principal consultant with Public Works and Government Services Canada. We also have, from Ekos Research Associates Inc., Tim Dugas, who is the principal, Goss Gilroy Inc., and project director, evaluation of the Transitional Jobs Fund, 1998; and Janice Remai, director, Ekos Research Associates, project manager, evaluation of the Transitional Jobs Fund, 1998.

I do welcome you here. I thank you for being so patient. It is my understanding that Mr. Phillips does not have an opening statement but that the others do, and it's my intention, if we could, to proceed through the opening statements in the order in which the witnesses appear on our agenda. We'd be glad to hear from you.

Therefore, John Reid, could you begin? Then I'll proceed to the others, and then we'll have questions and answers.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Chairman, will we be able to ask questions after each presentation?

[English]

The Chair: No, my idea is to proceed to all the presentations, which are quite brief, and then to questions to them all, if that's okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: John Reid.

Mr. John M. Reid (Information Commissioner of Canada): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here with you. I do have an interest in this matter and raised it in a significant way in my first annual report last year.

• 1110

The question of record-keeping shortcomings throughout the government is not a new problem. In my own way, I sounded the bell last year, but my predecessor, in his previous annual reports, had raised this question time and time again. In his 1993-94 annual report to Parliament, John Grace called for legislated information management rules, because he felt, even at that time, that the situation had become difficult. Unfortunately, as is often the case, it has taken an information management horror story to force the issue onto the public agenda.

My office has not conducted any specific investigations into records management at Human Resources Development Canada. We have, however, recently completed a review of the department's performance in meeting response deadlines under the Access to Information Act. This resulting report card will be tabled in Parliament, along with report cards on seven other departments. HRDC's report will be a significantly positive one with regard to its adherence to the statutory time limits for responding to access requests. It will be very unique in that regard.

My comments are derived from the experience of investigating complaints against a variety of federal departments and agencies. Every day in our work we find instances where information is not professionally managed: records are not created when they should be; records are not properly indexed, filed, or included in departmental record-keeping systems; records are not retained and are not disposed of in accordance with approved schedules.

The right of access, which I and many others view as one of the cornerstones of our democratic process and one of the best tools available to ensure responsible government, only has meaning in a regime where information is professionally managed. All too often, and in a growing percentage of cases, it is proving virtually impossible for departments to locate all records responsive to a specific subject matter.

What's more, the problem has grown worse, not better, with the advent and rapidly expanding use of decentralized computer systems and electronic communications. The management challenge posed by electronic records is simply enormous. No one yet has discovered how to effectively and efficiently make e-mail records subject to an acceptable information management regime. Every official is on his or her own to decide what and when to keep and delete, and where and how to file what is kept.

Furthermore, digital records are not proving to be as easy to store and retrieve as we all expected. The archivists and record managers find themselves creating museums of antique computer hardware so as to be able to retrieve and read the previous generations of electronic records stored on obsolete hard drives and floppies.

But it isn't just hardware: it's also a software and operating system problem. Much like keeping your movie collection on Beta cassettes or your music on eight-track tapes, with the rapid evolution of application software and operating systems, the antique hardware has to be kept loaded, and equally, antique software and operating systems, because the backward capacity of new software and systems is rarely beyond one or two generations.

So the real danger is that we may find ourselves with huge amounts of data in irretrievable formats, much like those piles of eight-track tapes found at every flea market in the country. Added to this is the problem of accessing electronic data that has been encrypted and for which the passport has been lost or forgotten. For these reasons, five years or forever, whichever comes first, is considered the effective life of a digital document.

The whole scheme of the Access to Information Act depends on records being created, properly indexed and filed, readily retrievable, properly archived, and carefully assessed before destruction. If records about particular subjects are not completed, the right of access is meaningless. Similarly, if records cannot be located and produced with ease, the right of access is of scant value.

I cannot overstate the point: information management in government is in a crisis. The crisis not only threatens the viability of the right of access, it also threatens to undermine national archival requirements and the ability to deliver good government to the citizens.

What are the reasons for the crisis?

First, years of government restraint and downsizing focused heavily on information managers, secretaries, file clerks, and librarians. This has been devastating to the records management discipline within government.

• 1115

Second, there is a great divide between the so-called IT, information technology, professionals and the so-called IM, information management, professionals, with the ITs dominating the agenda because of the Y2K crisis.

Third, there is an irrational fear of openness that leads many officials, often at the most senior levels, to avoid making records.

Finally, personal computing has reduced the ability of institutions to exercise central control over their production, filing, indexing, and destruction of records.

These factors have eaten away the foundation on which in the past a professional public service was built. By that I mean the professional tradition of carefully documenting actions, considerations, policy evolution, and advice, and the tradition of maintaining, contributing, and using a recorded institutional record, a memory. These activities are essential since governments have no money of their own; they are trustees for our money and trustees for the various programs and activities they undertake on our behalf and for us.

Both the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act contain provisions requiring good management of government information. For example, the Access to Information Act requires government institutions, on an annual basis, to inventory their organization, the nature of their information holdings, to describe their record groups and manuals, and to publish an index of holdings and access points. These provisions clearly cover electronic information as well as paper. When first begun, this was seen as a legally mandated government-wide record and information locator system.

We all thought that government would know what records it had and how to find and retrieve them in response to access requests. This belief perhaps was a hope, but it has proven to be a false one, in my experience as well as that of my predecessor, as shown.

When it was set up, Treasury Board was given the job of improving the general management of government, including effective management information. In the 1980s Treasury Board developed a comprehensive policy governing the management of government information holdings. This very good policy required government institutions to do the following things: one, to manage its information holdings as a corporate resource to support effective decision-making, meet operational requirements, and to protect the legal, financial, and other interests of the government and the public; two, make the widest possible use of information within the government by ensuring it is organized to facilitate access by those who require it, subject to the legal and policy constraints such as the Privacy Act; to maintain a current comprehensive and structured classification system to serve as a locator and an inventory; and lastly, to identify and conserve information holdings that serve to reconstruct the evolution of policy and program decisions or have historical or archival importance following all the requirements of the National Archives of Canada Act.

What has happened to this policy? Unfortunately, Treasury Board, to my knowledge, has refused to take any steps since issuing the policy to ensure that its policy is being followed.

It isn't only the Information Commissioner who has told Treasury Board of the ever-widening gap between policy and the reality. The message has also been given by the National Archivist, the Auditor General and both the historian and librarian communities.

Lately, though, there are faint glimmerings that Treasury Board is becoming aware of the crisis in information management. A joint effort is underway between the National Archivist and Treasury Board's chief information officer to identify and to assess issues associated with the management of government information.

As Information Commissioner, I have offered to assist in any way I can in this endeavour. And I've also urged the Clerk of the Privy Council to take a leadership role in making information management a priority of the public service as a whole.

Your committee might call the Secretary of the Treasury Board to outline the findings of the task force and to explore the means by which its policy and information holdings can be made effective.

Mr. Chairman, that is my statement.

The Chair: John, thank you very much. We appreciate your being here and the clear statement.

Could we now proceed, colleagues, to the witnesses from Consulting and Audit Canada.

Christiane Ouimet, as the chief executive officer, are you the first?

Ms. Christiane Ouimet (Chief Executive Officer, Consulting and Audit Canada, Department of Public Works and Government Services): Yes, I am.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

• 1120

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Consulting and Audit Canada to speak about the review that CAC conducted in August 1997 for its client, Human Resources Development Canada, on the Transitional Jobs Fund.

My colleague Bernard Thérien will also be available to respond to your questions.

[English]

Before dealing with the review itself, I think it might be useful to begin with an overview of CAC, Consulting and Audit Canada, how it operates, and its contribution to the Government of Canada and its client departments. I will be brief to allow for questions.

CAC's mandate and mission are straightforward. CAC was created in March 1990 as a special operating agency within Public Works and Government Services. Its mandate is to improve public sector management and operations through the provision of management consulting, audit, and other related services. The creation of CAC resulted from the amalgamation of two organizations: the Audit Services Bureau, which had been in place for 50 years, and the Bureau of Management Consulting, in place for 35 years. CAC serves a clientele of roughly 75 departments and government agencies as well as 15 organizations such as the UN.

As I indicated earlier, we help our clients better serve their public through improvements to public sector management, operations, and administration while meeting the priorities of government. In doing so, we also partner with the private sector.

CAC conducts its business in a professional client-sensitive manner and adheres to the standards of ethics and professional conduct as well as government contracting rules and regulations.

[Translation]

CAC's services, which are optional, are well received by our clients as 96 per cent say they would use us again, with 92 per cent actually giving us repeat business, primarily because CAC can deliver quality services to deal with urgent, sensitive and complex issues within security requirements.

In other words, since CAC's security-cleared professionals understand the machinery of government, its policies and priorities, CAC can respond quickly with no learning curve.

I should point out that work completed on behalf of a client becomes the property of the client, which can then take whatever action it deems appropriate in response to the findings and recommendations made.

[English]

As I just said, I would like to point out that once work is completed on behalf of a client, it becomes the property of that client, who can then take whatever action they deem appropriate in response to the findings and recommendations.

Mr. Chairman, before I turn to the review we conducted on behalf of Human Resources Development Canada, I would like to take a moment to draw the distinctions between an audit, an evaluation, and a review, according to CAC's internal guidelines, I should add. Let me express in very general terms the key differences that are quite important in our line of business.

First, audits. Audits are intended to identify compliance with defined standards. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the focus of this committee's work has been primarily on audit results. An evaluation is usually performed after some historical data can be collected and is usually intended to identify whether a program or project has achieved its stated objectives. A review, such as the one undertaken in the Transitional Jobs Fund, provides a preliminary assessment of how well a program is working in relation to its stated purpose. It gives a first impression and is carried out in order to identify early into the life of a program or project potential areas for improvement. It's good business practice.

Mr. Chairman, I will now turn to the 1997 review itself. First, I must emphasize that it was early in the program that HRDC approached CAC for a preliminary assessment. As I said, the intent was to obtain an initial impression. More specifically, our client asked for an assessment of the design and implementation of the TJF program in sample regions and a review of sample projects in regions in regard to long-term sustainability and jobs projections, and whether TJF provided an incentive for those projects.

• 1125

Again, I would emphasize that what was undertaken by CAC was a review, not an audit, and as such, as set out in the review itself, it did not employ methodology that allowed for a definitive assessment of job creation.

[Translation]

Again, I would emphasize that what was undertaken by CAC was a review, not an audit. As such, the review did not employ methodology that allowed for a definitive assessment of job creation. The methodology used for the review involved extensive interviews, both at the regional and local levels, with project sponsors and community leaders, and examination of preliminary documentation.

[English]

The TJF review involved examining a sample of 25 projects, seven in Newfoundland, seven in New Brunswick, and 11 in Quebec. As set out in the review, sample projects were selected by a CAC team, along with a client, based on criteria such as the early approval date of the projects, distribution of projects across economic sectors, and so on.

The findings are spelled out in the review. I would simply point out that the review achieved what it set out to do; namely, identify program strengths and potential areas for improvement. It concluded, for example, that most of the job creation was taking place, although at times at a slower pace than intended. The review also noted that involving all levels of government as well as non-profit private sector organizations needed to be encouraged.

I think the review speaks for itself, Mr. Chairman. Accordingly, I would point the committee to the factual findings and recommendations contained in the review.

[Translation]

CAC was pleased to offer and provide its services to HRDC for the conduct of the review back in 1997. Unfortunately, the consultant on the review has since left the Agency. Nevertheless, I would be happy to answer any questions you might have about the review and role of CAC. As well, Mr. Thérien who assisted with work on a portion of the review is also available to take your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Bernard Thérien.

Mr. Bernard Thérien (Principal Consultant, Consulting and Audit Canada, Public Works and Government Services Canada): I have no statement to make, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: You have nothing further to add? Fine then.

[English]

Perhaps we could then proceed to the witnesses of Ekos Research Associates, and Tim Dugas. Tim, are you the presenter?

Mr. Tim Dugas (Principal, Goss Gilroy Inc.; Project Director, Evaluation of the Transitional Jobs Fund, 1998, Ekos Research Associates Inc.): No, it's Janice.

The Chair: Okay. Janice Remai.

Ms. Janice Remai (Project Manager, Evaluation of the Transitional Jobs Fund, 1998; Director, Ekos Research Associates): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually, we will present the statement jointly.

Tim and I are both happy to be here at the committee to respond to any questions that you and members may have regarding an evaluation we conducted of the Transitional Jobs Fund program in 1998.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I don't believe Ekos has a written submission for us. As a rule, this firm produces many documents. It surprises me a little that they don't have anything for us today.

[English]

The Chair: We don't have documents, Paul. Sorry.

Please carry on, Janice.

Ms. Janice Remai: My apologies.

At that time Mr. Dugas, who is now with Goss Gilroy Inc., was with Ekos Research and acted in the capacity of project director for the evaluation study, and I was the project manager.

We have prepared a brief opening statement to provide some context for the evaluation study.

In March 1998 the evaluation and data development group at HRDC hired Ekos Research to conduct an evaluation of TJF. The evaluation was considered to be a preliminary or formative one, because the program had been in operation for about one and a half years and, as a result, the impacts and effects of the program were not yet expected to be fully measurable. The scope and timeframe of the evaluation were also quite compressed.

• 1130

Unlike an audit that focuses on operational and managerial practices, an evaluation study like this one typically focuses on program results. Evaluation studies like the TJF also look at program delivery; that is, what aspects of the program are working, the strengths of the program, and as well, aspects of the program that are weak or could be improved for the program to better meet its objectives.

For the preliminary evaluation of TJF, four evaluation questions were identified for the study: first, what was the nature of the projects that had been approved up until that point; how many jobs had been created and of what type; was TJF funding necessary for the projects to proceed; and to what extent did projects appear to be financially self-sufficient? In addition to these core evaluation issues, the study also looked at some other questions related to program delivery, such as satisfaction of the project sponsors, strengths and weaknesses of the delivery structure, and suggestions for improvement.

At this point I will turn the statement over to Mr. Dugas, who will describe some of the methodologies we used.

Mr. Tim Dugas: The study was based on three lines of evidence. The first was a brief review of documentation and some analysis of the administrative databases. The second was a series of 30 key informant interviews conducted with people who were involved with the design and delivery of the program. Typically these would be representatives from national, regional, and local HRDC offices, TJF officers, and people who were part of the partner organizations that were also involved in the design and delivery of the program.

The third line of evidence was based on 301 survey responses from TJF recipients. This was based on a sample that was drawn from 593 projects that were in progress at the time the evaluation was initiated. Of these, approximately 100 projects were actually completed at the time the survey was conducted. So in some parts, the results of the evaluation are based on the full 301 responses, but in other parts, such as looking at job creation, they were based on the 100 responses because we wanted to look at the completed projects for those cases.

The field work or data collection for the study was conducted in March and April 1998, and the analysis and reporting followed that.

Before concluding, I would like to say we are quite comfortable with the results of the evaluation given that this was a formative evaluation.

Some caveats were noted in the report, and I'd like to state those here.

First, the evaluation was completed at an early stage in the development of the program. Of the 300 projects that were surveyed, 100 were completed at that time. So in terms of looking at some of the shorter-term outcomes of the projects, we had a somewhat more limited database to examine.

Also, given the timing with which the evaluation was conducted, there was actually a short period of time from the completion of the projects during which we could examine the outcomes of the projects, so we were really dealing with some of the shorter-term outcomes and not the longer-term outcomes of the program. However, the longer-term outcomes would be more appropriately examined in what's called a summative evaluation, which was planned for the second phase of TJF. In those studies, you tend to look at the longer-term outcomes for the evaluation.

That concludes my statement.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Just to get the terminology right, there was a review, which is a preliminary thing; there were evaluations, I heard one or two; and then the internal audit, which we're looking at, is kind of the culmination of that sequence. Is that right?

• 1135

I'm just trying to get an idea. It's not my first question.

Mr. Tim Dugas: There was the review that was conducted by CAC, and there was a formative evaluation of the TJF program, which was completed. Those are two studies of which I'm aware. There is a subsequent phase that is in the design stage right at the moment, but there are no results from that at this point in time.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I want to thank the witnesses.

Colleagues, I'm going to proceed to the questions. I have a list, and as you know, because it's a large committee, I try to keep you informed of when you're likely to be on. I will continue to do that, but I've been asked to state very clearly who will actually be speaking, in order that the cameras can find you. If you find my emphasis a little bit unusual today, that's the reason; the cameras need to find you.

I have Maurice Vellacott, then Larry McCormick, Paul Crête, Rey Pagtakhan, Jean Dubé, Raymonde Folco, Libby Davies, Judy Sgro, Bryon Wilfert, Jean-Guy Chrétien, and Dale Johnston.

I'm going now to Maurice Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Diane is going to start. I'm slipping into our next Reform spot.

The Chair: Did you all hear that? Diane Ablonczy is taking Maurice Vellacott's place.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Then do I understand that I'll be in the next Reform spot?

The Chair: Yes, you'll be on the list for the next round.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the witnesses being here.

First of all, I have a question for Mr. Reid, the Information Commissioner.

Mr. Reid, in your remarks you said HRDC's report will be significantly positive with respect to its adherence to the statutory time limits for responding to access requests. I can tell you that is not my experience with HRDC. In fact we have 29 requests that are late. We have had no information in response to our access requests since March 2. After today, another 15 requests will be late. Of those requests, eight are simply for audits that were done in the past that in fact, according to Treasury Board guidelines, are supposed to be public information. We have not received those audits, which would simply be a question of someone pulling them out and faxing or e-mailing them to us. In fact the department has requested 90-day extensions on 15 of our requests. It has requested 60-day extensions on several others.

Someone is getting lucky, I guess, with HRDC, but it's not me. So I wonder if you can tell me why the official opposition's experience with HRDC ATR requests are so much at variance with your remarks today.

The Chair: John Reid.

Mr. John Reid: I suspect it's because it's the timeframe in which my audit was done to meet the requirement of getting my report cards out in June.

The audit we did was from April 1 to November 30, and in that period of time, HRDC had a perfect track record; it wasn't late on one case. All requests that were received within the audit period were answered within 30 days. No extension of time, which is a perfectly legal and proper action, was claimed at all.

No other department we have reviewed in the time I've been Information Commissioner can boast of a record as good as HRDC's, and I commend the minister, the deputy minister, and senior management for their leadership in making sure that this happened.

With respect to the audit reports, there has been a slowdown, but the slowdown is government-wide. The reason for that is that as a result of the HRDC experience, I'm told by persons well placed to know that all audits requested now go through an additional process by Treasury Board and by the Privy Council. What has happened is that Treasury Board and the Privy Council Office want to know what audits have been requested, whether they contain bad news, and what the official media line will be.

• 1140

Treasury Board sent out a written circular to all departments urging, on the one hand, informal disclosure of audit reports, while on the other asking departments to send Treasury Board the following information: a copy of the original request for any audit; a listing of reports to be released; a copy of the reports to be released; a copy of all audit reports, even if they have not been requested; and a copy of any plan of action for the release of audits, whether on grants, contributions, or any other topic, regardless of whether the release is to be formal, under the Access to Information Act, or informal.

This directive, I'm told, was issued on February 14, 2000. It brought the release of audit reports, as you can imagine, to a virtual standstill. Many departments objected to this heavy-handed central control. Some informed Treasury Board that the directive with respect to the provision of original access requests might constitute a violation of the Privacy Act.

As a result of this heavy criticism from the departments, Treasury Board, on February 17, 2000, issued a clarification. But the clarification, in my judgment, muddied the waters further, because in the second directive Treasury Board reminded departments of the distinction between final audits, which could be disclosed to the public with no access requests, and draft audits, which should not be disclosed without a formal access request—

The Chair: John, could you end this, please?

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I'm sorry, I'm very interested in this answer.

The Chair: By all means, I'm glad to have it. But I would like to point out to you and all the witnesses that there's supposed to be an exchange, and the answer time is taken out of the member's time. In this case, it's a very long reply.

Diane says she's interested in it. Please, continue.

But I would say to you all that I think it's much better if we can have an exchange, and if there is long material to be presented, we can receive it in written form.

Please continue.

Mr. John Reid: Thank you.

In the clarification, Treasury Board withdrew its request to be provided with a copy of the original access request for audit reports of the other information requests referred to above. They were maintained, and such information is now being collected by Treasury Board. Furthermore, Treasury Board and Privy Council Office are in close communication for the purpose of ensuring that all of these audit disclosures are well managed from a public relations point of view. I'm informed that PCO hosts a meeting several times a week for this purpose.

I'll end this overly long answer by saying that in principle, there is nothing improper about the government's desire to develop a consistent, unified position on any record to be disclosed. The problem, however, arises when the communications concerns of the government are allowed to take precedence over the public's right to timely access to information.

The Chair: Diane Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I must say, Mr. Reid, and through you, Mr. Chairman, that I find the information this committee has just been given absolutely appalling. It is shocking to think that information is being managed and manipulated by this government in that fashion.

When you appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights last year, you stated that a culture of secrecy can only thrive in a bureaucracy when it is tolerated or encouraged from the top. What you have just said about the Privy Council Office and the Office of the Prime Minister fits into that. I wonder, Mr. Reid, whether you feel that in light of the delays the official opposition have experienced in getting even routine information, we are seeing a move toward this culture of secrecy you mentioned last year.

Mr. John Reid: We're certainly seeing an attempt by the government to obtain advance information as to what goes out. As I have said before on countless occasions, I have no problem with the government seeing the information as it goes out. I have no problem with their preparing a communications program, unless they interfere with the proper disclosure of that information to the people who have a right to it, and that includes all citizens of Canada.

So if the department wants to see any of this information, I have no problem. But it must be done within the 30 days; it must be done within the time of the law. That is the important thing.

The Chair: Mrs. Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I wonder, Mr. Reid, if you can tell us whether in the past access to information requests have been vetted with this degree of enthusiasm, shall we say.

• 1145

Mr. John Reid: We have had a number of cases with other departments where there has been an attempt to delay the disclosure of information to accommodate the requirements of sometimes officials, and sometimes ministers. Where we find these, we go in and do our best to eradicate those problems, and we have been successful in doing so in many cases.

So the policy position we have taken is that we do not mind the department or the minister knowing what is in an access request going out, as long as those needs do not interfere with the citizen's right to have that material in a timely way. So we've taken the approach that the information, when it's going out, not only belongs to the citizen who requested it, but is also available to all other citizens who may wish it as well.

The Chair: Larry McCormick, then Paul Crête, Ray Pagtakhan, and Jean Dubé.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll go to Mr. Reid just for a moment, then I want to move on to a couple of other questions. We've had a lot of information here. It's like access to information.

Mr. Reid, in your opinion, has the government interfered with access to information within HRDC?

Mr. John Reid: In the audit we did, we found that this was one of the best departments at getting information out in terms of the 30-day requirement within our audit period. As I described in answer to the previous question with respect to audit information, Treasury Board and the Privy Council have substituted another process, which in my judgment has resulted in the delay of information going out.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Well, I'm certain, Mr. Chair, they will review that. I'm sure they have, and they will even more after today.

To Consulting and Audit Canada, you mentioned the assessment you did of the TJF and a number of projects from Newfoundland, New Brunswick, and Quebec. I'm just wondering who chose those for you to review, because we're looking at basically two areas of Canada, and of course we've heard...and I'll try not to be tempted to be political by saying how more money went to areas other than just those areas. But it looks as if a very narrow selection was involved there, and I'm wondering why that was so.

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make a few preliminary observations.

First, it was HRDC that approached our organization very early on in the process. So it was their initiative. It showed that the department cared about the program and getting objective advice as early as possible. We were given a specific mandate to look at the design and implementation.

With respect to sample projects, we had to select sample projects, because not all of the projects had achieved a certain level of continuity.

The projects, in answer to your specific question, were selected jointly by CAC and the client. The selection was based precisely on specific criteria that are set out in the review. I've indicated two. One was early approval, because certainly we needed enough programs to do an assessment. The rest of the list goes on as follows: distribution of projects across economic sectors, geographical distribution across the province, total value of contribution, value of the TJF contribution as a proportion of total investments—

Mr. Larry McCormick: I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. It was just a question, because, for example, British Columbia did receive a lot of money for the right reasons. I just wondered why it wasn't included.

But perhaps I'll go on with my next—

The Chair: Very briefly, Larry. And again, I would remind the witnesses, it's the exchange that I time, okay?

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you very much, though.

To Ekos Research, concerning your key findings regarding the TJF, you state that equity of access may be a weakness. I haven't caught everything or read everything, but I wonder if you could just speak to that.

Ms. Janice Remai: One of the findings in the evaluation report was that the promotion of the TJF program was not systematic or wide, so this led us to some concerns about equity of access.

• 1150

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Larry.

Next is Paul Crête, followed by Rey Pagtakhan, Jean Dubé, Raymonde Folco, and Libby Davies.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: My first question is for Mr. Reid. I have here a list of requests for information under ATIP submitted by the Bloc Québécois over a certain period of time. In 25 of these cases, responses have been delayed, possibly because of what you said about Treasury Board wanting to be informed about information made public.

Have you observed that the department is required to wait for Treasury Board to approve the information that is to be released? If so, doesn't this negate the relevance of the 30-day deadline provided for in the legislation, or any chance of actually meeting the deadline?

[English]

Mr. John Reid: If the documents are held up at the Treasury Board or the Privy Council and they do not come out within the 30 days, then there has been a delay created by this new process. What we have done with other departments is work with them to eliminate the delays in their decision-making process, which has been one of the major problems. This is going back, in a sense, to what we had before in many departments. The decision-making process has become more complex, and it leads inevitably to delays.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Reid, last year you wrote a letter to a Dominic Mauris of TVA Québec in which you alluded to a request by TVA under ATIP. In that letter, you noted the following:

The minister's office considered its interests over and above those of the person making the request and defied the law for this entire period of time. This is totally unacceptable.

Although every effort was made to rectify the situation during the summer of 1999, based on what you're saying, is it your impression that information is currently handled in a straightforward manner at HRDC?

[English]

Mr. John Reid: As I say, the audit we did demonstrated that they had one of the best records in government in that audit period. We found that they worked very hard to meet their obligations under the act. Now, with the publicity they have received and the problems they have been undergoing, I can certainly understand why they would be having delays.

But in the case of audit reports, as I have described before, a new process has been put in place by the Treasury Board and the Privy Council, and I think that has been a major cause of delay in getting that information out.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I have a question for Ms. Ouimet.

The Chair: For the Privacy Commissioner of Canada?

Mr. Paul Crête: No, for Ms. Ouimet.

The Chair: From Consulting and Audit Canada.

Mr. Paul Crête: That's correct.

You note the following on page 3.2.3 of your report under the heading “Quebec-Advertising and Promotion of the Program”:

Information regarding TJF appears to have been known by only a limited number of persons at the beginning of the program. The TJF program was even perceived as being “secret” by one of the interviewees.

In the course of your analysis, did you note whether program reviews were in fact conducted in regions of Canada where the unemployment rate was below 12 per cent or whether, in all of the electoral districts and regions evaluated, the unemployment rate was higher than 12 per cent?

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: The terms of our mandate are spelled out clearly at the beginning of our review report. Obviously, we were looking closely at program design and implementation and clearly, the program targeted regions with higher rates of unemployment. However, as far as your specific question is concerned, no, this was no part of our mandate.

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Ekos people the same question. Did you review how well the program was working in ridings where the unemployment rate was lower than 12 per cent?

[English]

The Chair: Janice Remai.

Ms. Janice Remai: The 12% unemployment criterion was taken as a given in our evaluation, and neither in our terms of reference did we look at an analysis by riding or by employment rate based on the results we had.

• 1155

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Summing up then, the two reviews that we have here and that were done at the department's request were conducted in regions where the unemployment rate was above 12 per cent.

[English]

Ms. Janice Remai: Well, the evaluation included projects that were approved under TJF. We didn't do an analysis of what the unemployment rates were in those areas.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: Mr. Chairman, I want to be certain that I have made myself clear. We were not focussing on this component in particular.

Mr. Paul Crête: Fine. Let me rephrase my question. Did you in fact review projects in regions where the unemployment rate was below 12 per cent? The question is directed to Ekos as well as to Ms. Ouimet.

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: The report we have here does not contain any observations or findings to this effect.

Mr. Paul Crête: Mention is made on page 12 of the Ekos report of the non-refundable aspect of TJF. I would point out to Ekos that that is not always the case, since Vidéotron in Montreal was forced to reimburse $220,000 representing 44 jobs at $5,000 apiece following an internal audit. Therefore, the analysis findings do not, in my view, take into account actual program terms and conditions.

[English]

Ms. Janice Remai: Thanks for the clarification. We didn't understand that distinction at the time of the evaluation.

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan, Jean Dubé, Raymonde Folco, Libby Davies, and Judy Sgro. At the moment it's Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the panellists here. Before your anticipated excellent report on the report card for Human Resources Development Canada, did you have observations in the past that the performance was not as good as the one forthcoming?

Mr. John Reid: They were not on our list before, because what I wanted to do was expand the report cards not only to look at those we saw in our work, dealing with complaints of their poor performers, but to start to look at those departments that were doing well, so that we could have a contrast between those that were doing well and those that were doing poorly.

HRDC was one of those that was doing reasonably well when we began the audit, and as a result of the work and the additional resources they put into it, they were able to work it up to a perfect score during that period of time.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: That is my point. We heard from the opposition that 29 reports had been late in being responded to. Would you know of this complaint if you were not formally informed of this delay?

Mr. John Reid: No. I can only work when I receive a formal complaint.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Have you been informed by the official opposition of this delay?

Mr. John Reid: To my knowledge, we have not completed any investigations into this current situation. I'm not surprised, because people can't complain to me until at least 30 days have gone by.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: But the allegation was made that it had gone beyond the 30 days, because of being late. The presumption is that it is late beyond the limits of the law.

Mr. John Reid: If it is beyond—-

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I have a point of order, Mr Chair. A complaint has been filed with the Information Commissioner by the official opposition, in case the member is wanting to know.

The Chair: That's not a point of order. I'm sure John Reid can explain that if he wishes.

Mr. John Reid: Yes.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I am not pursuing this question any more more at this point, because I have other questions, Mr. Chair.

On the directive from the Treasury Board, you showed theoretical concern, at least as I heard it, because you said “I think the basis for the delay...”. But you have not been made aware of the delay at the present time in terms of the currency of the file, and at the same time you are giving an opinion. Therefore it is purely an opinion without evidence at this point. Is that correct?

Mr. John Reid: It is an opinion based on the facts of the process that have been put into place by Treasury Board and by the Privy Council.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: But this is only a projection that has not yet been realized, from your point of view. I just want it to be clear. In other words, at this point you are projecting a concern, but there has not been an actuality and a reality.

The Chair: I would remind all concerned that the chair is still here.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, yes. That is understood, Mr. Chair.

• 1200

The Chair: Thank you.

John Reid.

Mr. John Reid: Mr. Chairman, we do have investigations underway on this, which have not yet been completed. The concerns that I have been reporting have been raised with us by access to information commissioners in the various departments, because we keep in very close touch with them. But I would say to the member that he is correct: we have not yet concluded an investigation. We have investigations underway, but it is clear from what we have been told by access to information commissioners in the various departments that they cannot meet the 30 days or they cannot meet the days with the exception because of this new process that has been put into place.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I think we have to be very—

The Chair: Very briefly, Rey.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes, Mr. Chair. I will go to Mr. Phillips.

The Chair: Very briefly.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes, Mr. Chair. I have not yet used three minutes, Mr. Chair, and you keep interrupting me.

The Chair: I do apologize for that, Rey.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: My point is that at this point you have no evidence. I will leave it at that.

Now I would like to go to Mr. Phillips. Of the documents the departments hold, to which documents do members of Parliament or committees of Parliament not have access for clarification?

Mr. Bruce Phillips (Privacy Commissioner of Canada): That's a question that gets well beyond my competence, sir. Parliament's right to documents is an issue that is not a matter of immediate concern to me. I daresay that if the committee has the proper power, it can command any document it wants. That's the best answer I can give you.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Phillips.

The Chair: Raymonde Folco, Libby Davies, Judy Sgro, Bryon Wilfert, and then we'll see. At the moment it is Jean Dubé.

Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm still trying to get my head around what you just said on our demands for access to information. Going back to my comments now seven weeks ago that the department has gone into a bunker, if you want to put it very easily and for people to understand, I think that's what they've done. They've gone literally into a bunker. The information that's coming out is being filtered through two departments, through the Prime Minister's Office, obviously, and Treasury Board.

I have to also share our experience with access to information with the department after this scandal at HRDC. I know now why you've mentioned a few points about audits and unverified audits, because you know that I received an audit when it was released on November 17 with a date of October 5. That's probably where they went into that famous bunker. We sent a letter off to HRDC on January 27. They sent a letter back on February 3 saying that it would take 30 days. We received also a letter on March 1 on the same issue saying that it's going to take another 90 days.

We represent the Canadian public, and the Canadian public has a right to know exactly what went on with their money here. Could you tell us what you've done, your office? You seem to know what's been going on here. You seem to have some information. Have you contacted the department? Have you contacted the Prime Minister's Office, stating your concerns with the information that's being released and not in a timely fashion?

Mr. John Reid: We can only examine what we are given. In other words, we can only go and investigate when we have a written complaint. We do that, and we have some underway now. However, in our normal work in our discussions with access to information coordinators we have a fairly good flow of information as to what is going on. That is where we have received information of this new process. One of my senior staff as a result of that had some conversations with Treasury Board to find out how the new process was set up and what it was doing and to investigate some of the difficulties this was creating with the access to information officers. So that is the source of my information.

• 1205

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Dubé: I'm still trying to get my head around what you said earlier about transparency. It is clear that the Government of Canada is not operating in a transparent manner right now. You stated that ensuring the flow of information within government—and I want to be certain that this is in fact what you said—seems to be more important than getting information out to the Canadian public. Is that in fact what you said?

[English]

Mr. John Reid: This is a battle I fight all the time. That is why in my first annual report I highlighted the whole problem of delays in getting information out. At that time the complaints I was receiving amounted to approximately 60% of my office's workload. I'm delighted to say that this has now dropped down to about 40%. So there has been a significant improvement throughout the government.

My point is that if the government wants to get the information out in 30 days, it can do so. It requires effort. It requires work. It requires a repair of the documentation handling system. The point is that information delayed is information denied. So we put a lot of effort into the whole question of getting information out within the 30 days of the request being made.

Mr. Jean Dubé: You talk about a report card at HRDC. You talk about many report cards coming out. You've heard from three opposition parties. Your report card does not go to January, does it?

Mr. John Reid: No; it ends in November. I have to end it in November because the year-end comes and I have to prepare the report cards. So we try to do the audit on a year-to-year basis, but not on a government financial year basis.

Mr. Jean Dubé: It would be interesting to see a mid-term report on the year 2000 from that department.

Mr. John Reid: We will probably continue our audit of the department to see what has happened.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Dubé: My question is for Ms. Ouimet. I believe you said that the CAC review was conducted in 1997. Is that correct?

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: That's right, Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Who initially requested this review?

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: The client, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jean Dubé: And that would be...

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: Human Resources Development Canada.

Mr. Jean Dubé: And when did you submit your report to HRDC?

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: In August of 1997.

Mr. Jean Dubé: August of 1997. Therefore, when the TJF was brought in, it was clear to you, judging from your report, that there were a number of problems. Is that right?

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: The purpose of our review was precisely to identify the program's strengths and the areas that could be improved upon. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jean Dubé: The following is noted in your report:

[English]

Some of the more problematic projects did not go through the established approval process.

[Translation]

I have to say that your report's findings are consistent with the audit conducted recently by the department. Unfortunately, they did not give rise to any changes.

Following up on a question put by my colleague Mr. Crête, I also see that you did not look at regions where the unemployment rate was below 12 per cent.

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: That's correct.

The Chair: Really?

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: Would you like me to elaborate further?

Mr. Jean Dubé: By all means.

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: Fine. First of all, let me reiterate that the intent was to obtain an initial impression at a point in time when, as the member said, the program was still in its early stages. It's very important to mention that because I can't comment on the current situation. I don't have all of the particulars, therefore I will confine my remarks to the CAC review.

• 1210

With respect to the projects selected and to the methodology used, an important consideration alluded to in the English version, let me briefly recall the following:

[English]

it is premature to fully assess sustainable job creation.

[Translation]

As to whether we examined regions on the basis of a given rate of unemployment, I would have to say that this wasn't a criterion. Certainly, as a rule, projects were initiated in areas of unemployment. We indicate as much in our review. However, there is no mention of any specific rate. I don't know whether that's helpful to you or not.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Christiane.

[English]

Jean, a very short question, as long as the answer is very short.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Dubé: I also have a question for the Ekos officials. In your 1998 report, you note the following:

[English]

...with some concerns noted regarding the approval process in terms of its length and, in some cases, the presence of political factors.

What do you mean by “political factors”?

The Chair: Janice Remai, very briefly, please.

Ms. Janice Remai: Mr. Chairman, the reference to political factors came from interviews with individuals involved in the design and delivery of TJF. During the course of these conversations several respondents mentioned that they were uncomfortable with the element of the program involving elected representatives. Essentially, they felt that this involvement had had an impact on the quality of the decision-making of the approval process.

The Chair: Thank you.

Raymonde Folco, Libby Davies, Judy Sgro, Maurice Vellacott, and then Bryon Wilfert. Now it's Raymonde Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): My question is directed primarily to Mr. Phillips, but if anyone else cares to answer, I will be happy to listen.

For several weeks, HRDC has been under tremendous pressure to disclose information about institutions that received grants and about the grants themselves. In the ongoing debate, many have argued that an institution or individual who receives financial assistance from the government should expect that the details of the transaction will be made public.

I know that for you and for many others, the right to privacy is a core principle in our society. My question to you is this: do you feel that the expectation on the part of certain individuals that the details of these grants should be made public is reasonable?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bruce Phillips.

Mr. Bruce Phillips: The issue of persons who receive grants from the government is not really a question of whether I think it's reasonable or not that it should be disclosed. Personal information collected by the Government of Canada normally is protected by the Privacy Act. However, it has to be defined in the act as personal information. There is a paragraph in the Privacy Act, paragraph 3(l), that says that personal information that is connected with a discretionary benefit is not personal information as defined by the act.

The real issue for us is to decide what is meant by “discretionary”. I cannot give you a definitive answer to that question. There is very little jurisprudence on that issue, and we have not had a complaint brought to us with respect to the Transitional Jobs Fund that has required us to conduct an investigation. So I'm really not in a position to tell you whether it is or is not a discretionary benefit at this stage of the game.

The Chair: Raymonde Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: On a similar note, what action would you suggest be taken in order to balance the general public's need to be well informed and the government's need to be transparent and responsible, on the one hand, and the need to uphold the right to privacy, on the other hand?

I'd like to go to Mr. Phillips first. What would you suggest HRDC do to strike a better balance, that is to say achieve the desired transparency, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, safeguard individual privacy, in light of what you've just told me?

[English]

Mr. Bruce Phillips: I think it's worth making the point that subparagraph 8(2)(m)(i) of the Privacy Act gives the minister of any department absolute and unfettered discretion to release any piece of information if the minister decides that it's in the public interest to do so. So if the minister in this particular case decided that all of the information with respect to these grants was in the public interest to be disclosed, the authority certainly existed to do that.

• 1215

The Chair: Very briefly, Raymonde.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: No, that's all.

The Chair: That's fine.

We'll have Libby Davies, Judy Sgro, Maurice Vellacott, Bryon Wilfert, Jean-Guy Chrétien. Now it's Libby Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming. I have a couple of questions to be directed to CAC and to Ekos.

One of the issues we've been examining at this committee is not just the decision-making process around grants and contributions for HRDC but also the rules that underlie that. What rules were in effect and were there discrepancies and contradictions in the rules that we've heard about from the minister versus the rules that we've heard about from the Auditor General? How flexible were they and were they applied differently across the country?

I know in the CAC report on page 31 in your recommendations you say that:

The TJF program should be made more transparent to the public and all potential sponsors. There should be easy access to information available.... The Department should address the perception that the program is directed toward favoured clients and clearly communicate the program criteria and process to all levels in bureaucratic and political structures.

I would like you to explain what that recommendation was and what you meant by the “political structures” and whether or not you did actually, as part of your assessment, look at the criteria or the rules by which these grants and contributions were made. Were things reported to you or did you find out that there were differences in terms of how those decisions were made?

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: I would like to again highlight that this was a review. I keep coming back to that same message just because it is important in this context. We are dealing with a preliminary assessment base, and the methodology involved, which was also a key element, was interviews and regional visits. So a qualitative methodology was used.

Having said that, with respect to the comment that was read at page 31 specifically, and again because this was a new program, at times the publicity around the program was based on how the project officer presented and spoke to various partners. You have to remember that there were also community leaders involved; it really varied. So the recommendation I think speaks for itself.

We would promote certainly more publicity, more transparency, so that there would not be the perception that it was directed at a selected group. In fact, again, while there were some general findings that it could improve, it really varied depending on the project officer and a number of other factors.

With respect to political participation, again that was specifically part of the design of the program. Full political participation was involved as one element.

On the actual rules and grants, again we did not go into a level of detail, but I would certainly refer you to the methodology used specifically in the case of the review. What was used...and again I quote directly from the review:

HRDC district and regional staff and partners were asked how they assessed the business plans of the approved projects

—so business plans were part of the approved projects—

how the approved projects fit into local development priorities and opportunities. Project sponsors were queried as to the development of their business plans...

You recall that I said our review was based on interviews and that these were the sorts of questions that were used. Also, we looked at the marketing efforts, the vitality of the market. Community leaders, where appropriate, were asked about the direct and indirect sustainable impacts of the project to the community. Again, we looked specifically at the design, and these were the questions that were used to look at that specific aspect.

• 1220

Ms. Libby Davies: Perhaps I could just follow up, because I'm not quite clear on this. In your first answer, am I right in saying that you did find that there were differences in terms of even the involvement of HRDC staff at a local level from office to office?

One of my concerns is to determine how this program unfolded and who actually did make decisions, because there seems to be a huge variation. In some areas it was local offices, in other areas it might have been regional offices, in other cases it might have been much more political in terms of key Liberal members or parliamentary secretaries who were very involved, for example, in Ontario. Is that what you're talking about in that recommendation?

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: The recommendation per se talks about the program, and it is specific to the extent that we're talking about easy access to information available on the program and the process. That's what the recommendation talks about specifically.

Ms. Libby Davies: When this report came out and it was delivered to HRDC, was there a process whereby the department responded to your recommendations? You made very clear recommendations. Did they respond to your assessment in writing?

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: To clarify, Mr. Chairman, the client department, as you may have noticed, was part of the selection of the project and also accompanied.... This was close as well, and that's why when we go into terminology it can be confusing to a management review. Again, it was on their initiative; they wanted to get the guidance.

Ms. Libby Davies: Did they respond to your recommendations?

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: No, there's no response. This is not the process in the context of the review. We complete the services, we provide the report. The client indicates that we've met our mandate, that our terms of reference have been met. They are satisfied with the report, and then we give it to the client, who now owns the report.

The Chair: I'm going to give you one very brief exchange.

Ms. Libby Davies: I would like to make a request, Chairperson, that we ask HRDC whether or not they did respond to this report, because clearly there are some very clear recommendations made by CAC. I would like this committee to ask the department what they did when they received this report and whether or not there were any internal memos or records that actually responded to these recommendations. I would like that to come to the committee, if I could make that request.

The Chair: Libby, I heard an answer that they did not respond to the report and they did not need to. Do you mean respond in some other way?

Ms. Libby Davies: There may be internal memos or reports. I cannot believe that, whatever amount of money this report cost, there's no response from the department. If it didn't go back to CAC, then who did it go to? If it's within the department, I believe the committee should be able to look at that.

The Chair: Okay, so it's what sort of action was taken when this was received, not the formal response to it?

Ms. Libby Davies: Whether it was a formal response or an informal response, what follow-up was taken? Is there anything in writing that pertains to that?

The Chair: Libby, I do understand now.

Colleagues—

Ms. Libby Davies: Do I have time for another question?

The Chair: No, you've finished your questioning.

Colleagues, is that okay? There is a point of order on that.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I think it would be more useful, Mr. Chair, if at a point following the assessment of the evidence today and following the conclusion of our report, of our hearings, we can determine as a committee whether indeed we would like to invite back the departmental officials or the minister or what have you. The prerogative rests with us.

The Chair: Okay. That's not a point of order. We'll consider that. On this request, colleagues...? I see no objections, we will certainly do that.

We'll move on. It's Judy Sgro, then Maurice Vellacott, then Bryon Wilfert, then Jean-Guy Chrétien.

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): The question is to CAC. In your report you say that “job creation under TJF tends to be more productive and uninterrupted than it is under other more traditional HRDC job creation programs”, especially where seasonal employment is common.

Have you had previous experience in evaluating these kinds of programs? When I read this, it sounded to me as if you were very supportive of the types of programs and partnerships that were happening in this particular TJF initiative.

• 1225

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: In response to that question, our review aimed at looking at what worked and what could be improved. That was one of the findings. In fact, employers tended to like the program because of the flexibility, and workers also tended to be productive because they would not leave their jobs. They would in fact stay on the job.

Perhaps I could turn to my colleague, Mr. Thérien, who can probably add to the technical component of the question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: By all means. Bernard Thérien.

Mr. Bernard Thérien: I cannot compare this particular aspect with jobs in other centres because I do not have that experience, but we were told that they preferred to work with people under the TJF. They seemed to be staying on their jobs longer.

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I may just complete the answer with respect to your specific question of whether or not we have the relevant experience. I would like to stress that at CAC we have professionals in a variety of areas, and yes, there is expertise within my organization to deal with those specific issues.

The Chair: Judy Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Was it the department itself that went to you requesting you to do a review of some of the TJF programs?

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: That is correct. It was on the initiative of the department. They approached us, and then we entered into an agreement and we set out the terms of reference, what it was that they were looking for precisely.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Why did they do that? Is that something they normally do, or was that a new part of their program review?

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, it demonstrated that at the early stage of the program the department cared about how it was developing. It was good business practice. Even though it only provided a snapshot at the very early stage, it was still useful. As well, the fact that the management team was part of this exercise...they wanted to get lessons learned at the very early stage.

Ms. Judy Sgro: I have a question for the Ekos management, and then I have another question for Mr. Reid.

You talked in your report about ranking this TJF program as one of the better partnerships that were created. Can you elaborate on that? Was it just as good or better than previous or existing job creation programs?

Mr. Tim Dugas: In that context it referred to some of the key employment interviews that were conducted with the project officers, not to some of the quantitative evidence that was collected. There again I have to assume that some of what they were implying referred to some programs where jobs were created for a very short period of time. Those jobs ended. In some cases the employees might get hired on with the employer, but in other cases they moved on to try to find other jobs with the skills they had obtained in those short-term job placements. In this case the respondents were saying that because these jobs created tended to be sustainable and longer term, you didn't have as much turnover in terms of employees leaving.

The Chair: Judy, your time is up. I regret that.

It's Maurice Vellacott, Bryon Wilfert, Jean-Guy Chrétien, Judi Longfield, Dale Johnston, John Godfrey. I would point out that we're on the second turn for some parties already.

It's Maurice Vellacott, the second time for the Reform Party.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Chairman, I thank the presenters of Ekos for being here.

As a professional agency, I would assume that when you take on a task or a project like this, you get all of the relevant material in hand defining the parameters of the program, brochures and descriptions of programs and so on. You talk about the parameters of the program and projects being developed in areas of high unemployment, 12% or more. You state that in a couple of places. I see no reference to pockets of high unemployment.

• 1230

My question, which is again directed to the both of you, is in your discussions and briefing information were you aware of such a thing as pockets of high unemployment? You mention 12% in several cases. I see that reference, but I see nothing about pockets of high unemployment. Was that ever brought to your attention? Were you aware of that at any point in your look at this whole thing?

Mr. Tim Dugas: Janice will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think in at least one case, in terms of interviewing one of the key informants, they mentioned that in some areas where there was fairly high employment and they weren't eligible, they felt that there were some groups that could have used a program, but they couldn't access it in some cases because of the high level of employment overall. So it came over—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm talking about the TJF department officials and so on. Did they at any point ever make you aware of “pockets of high unemployment”?

Ms. Janice Remai: Not that I recall.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You're not aware. So 12% was the criterion as far as you were concerned. You were not aware of such a thing as “pockets of high unemployment” in terms of any briefings, material, and parameters of the program that you received.

Ms. Janice Remai: Not any material. As Tim mentioned, those key informant interviews were conducted with HRDC representatives at the local and regional levels, so that comment in terms of pockets of unemployment he referred to would have come from an HRDC—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That was more an issue of not being able to get it because they didn't have the criterion, the 12%.

Mr. Tim Dugas: That was in one case.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right.

Going then to Ms. Ouimet, my question is the same. You talk about 12%. Were you aware of “pockets of high unemployment” as you did your assessment? Were you aware of such a term or category?

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: This is not an issue that was raised. This is not a concept we looked at.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: In getting that information, you look at the broad parameters and scope of the program and what it requires in the way of meeting the guidelines and so on, and such a thing as “pockets of high unemployment” was never brought to your attention.

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: Never.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Never at any point.

Ms. Christiane Ouimet: No, no indication in the report and no such information.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. Thank you.

The next question—

The Chair: Very briefly, Maurice.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: —has to do with the issue of statements in respect of the matter of political involvement and concerns about that. I just want to put the question to the people from Ekos, and then we'll go back to Christiane—

The Chair: No, be very brief and ask just one question.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. The question is with regard to the issue of political interference. With regard to these people who talked about the possibility of and are uneasy about political interference, what exactly did they have in mind in terms of what they cited to you? Were they talking about members of Parliament signing off or having a direct involvement or too much involvement? Is that specifically what they would have had in mind?

Ms. Janice Remai: During the key informant interviews, we looked at how they felt about the involvement of elected officials, which is a part of the TJF program. We didn't talk about political interference as such. The response from some key informants was that they were uneasy with that aspect of the approval process. There are some examples of their discomfort about that. They felt it had had an impact on the quality of the approval process. Some examples were that in their opinion weaker projects were approved over more worthy ones; there had been some issues around the timing of project approvals, with some being fast-tracked and some being delayed; and certain factors that they felt would be irrelevant were brought into the approval process.

The Chair: Next is Bryon Wilfert, followed by Jean-Guy Chrétien.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Reid, in your presentation you seemed to suggest—actually, I think you did more than suggest—a new system of procedures in which, if I heard you right, audits would be vetted through Treasury Board, PCO, and PMO. In response to Mrs. Ablonczy's question about a culture of secrecy being able to thrive in a bureaucracy only when it's tolerated or encouraged from the top, you read from what appeared to be a prepared statement. I would ask, first of all, that the document you read from be tabled. Also, I would like to know, Mr. Reid, what additional information you might have to substantiate such an allegation.

• 1235

Mr. John Reid: There are some corrections I'd like to make, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I never mentioned the Prime Minister's Office. I mentioned only Privy Council and Treasury Board.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I do have copies in English and French of memoranda that were issued by Treasury Board to the ATIP coordinators on February 14 and 17, and I'd be delighted to table them with the committee.

The Chair: Thank you. Please proceed. We'll pick those up, and we'll take that as done.

Mr. John Reid: As to the document I read from, I have provided a copy of my original statement to the clerk. I do have a written copy of part of the answer I gave, and I'd be delighted to give that to the clerk as well.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Thank you for that, Mr. Reid.

Mr. Chairman—

Mr. John Reid: I might also say that the former member quoted a statement I had made in my annual report in the previous years.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Yes. That I am aware of. That was when you were before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Mr. John Reid: That's right. That also was a public document.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Yes. That one I'm aware of.

Mr. Reid, with regard to access to information requests, my 12 years in municipal politics taught me that we get a lot of requests with regard to access to information, and sometimes one might describe them as vexatious or even mischievous requests. Given the resources many municipalities have, they have to be vetted to some degree or certainly reviewed in a way that.... Often these came from defeated candidates who were looking for information.

You mentioned that last year HRDC received 500 requests and that in the first quarter of this year alone they have received 500 requests. Given the cost, staff, time allocation, etc., and given the previous comments that were made about the excellent record of HRDC in responding in a very timely fashion, do you feel you have a responsibility to make sure departments are not overloaded in terms of these requests? Are these requests ever looked at to see whether they are in fact mischievous, vexatious, or anything of that nature?

Mr. John Reid: Mr. Chairman, the way the system operates is that Canadians have the right to access information that is held by the Government of Canada. There are no limitations on that type of general request. However, each request, when the information comes, is subject to 13 very precise limitations, including the restrictions of the Privacy Act. So when a request comes in, whatever it happens to be, once it is gathered by the ATIP office it is then examined to make sure that all of those 13 requirements, exceptions, or exclusions are met and that the Privacy Act requirements are met, and it is released only after that. So a very elaborate procedure has been put in place to make sure citizens get the information they have requested and that the secrets of the government that are defined in the legislation are maintained.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: If I might conclude, Mr. Chairman, I would certainly agree that citizens are entitled to that information. Would you be able to provide information as to where these requests are coming from?

Mr. John Reid: In my annual report I do have a breakdown. I forget what the precise figures are, but my recollection is that business makes up about 40% of the requests, individuals about 5%, and there are journalists, academics, and other groupings in there. I'd be delighted to send you a proper breakdown.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I'd be interested in the other 55% and in particular—

The Chair: Okay. Jean-Guy Chrétien.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: —the 500 for HRDC. I'd like to ask you to provide the information on those 500 for the first quarter.

The Chair: Next is Jean-Guy Chrétien, followed by Raymonde Folco.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): My colleague Bryon is a persistent MP. He wants to get to the bottom of this matter.

My next question, Mr. Chairman, is directed to Mr. Reid.

• 1240

I represent Frontenac-Mégantic, a semi-rural, semi-urban riding. The largest municipality in the riding has a population of 18,000, and the second largest, a population of 16,000. I know my riding like the back of my hand. I'm familiar with all of businesses that operate in the region. In the interests of transparency, the Minister of Human Resources Development has released the files on each individual riding. My file is approximately three centimeters thick. I leafed through it and saw that Vêtements Kuujjuaq Inc. had received a total of $6,000 in 1997-1998 under the Local Labour Market Partnership Initiative, a further $547 in 1998-1999, nothing at all for the period from April to December 1999 and commitments of $3,482 for the current year.

As far as I know, there are no aboriginals in my riding. I have to wonder what Kuujjuak is doing in the riding of Frontenac- Mégantic. Perhaps it's merely an irregularity like the one noted in Rosemont. I filed a request with the Office of the Information Commissioner and, much to my surprise, I received this morning - and that's why I'm here actually - a letter signed by José Lapensée informing me that she had nothing for me on my specific request pertaining to Vêtements Kuujjuaq. How do you explain that? Is this normal?

[English]

Mr. John Reid: I would like you to complain to my office, so we could investigate it for you.

I cannot say anything, I cannot do anything until I have a formal request for an investigation. So to get to the bottom of this, you would have to write to me and we would undertake to do an investigation. We would report back to you what we were able to find.

I said in my opening remarks that this is not an unusual event, because of the collapse of the record-keeping function within the Government of Canada. In my view, it's simply not just HRDC; it is government-wide. That is also the position I believe has been taken by the Auditor General.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: I've conducted my own investigation since March 3. That's when I filed my request with the Office of the Information Commissioner. I discovered that the money had gone to a small village. In your estimation, is it quite normal for the department not to have any information whatsoever on file, given that it funded this venture for three years and has made commitments for the current year? How do you explain the fact that the department has no relevant information whatsoever about this initiative on file?

Mr. Paul Crête: No relevant documents.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Precisely. No relevant documents on file.

[English]

The Chair: A brief response, Mr. Reid.

Mr. John Reid: As I said in my opening statement, we are finding this in all parts of the government, not just HRDC, because the filing system has collapsed.

The Chair: Judy Sgro, followed by Dale Johnston.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Excuse me. Can I explain what I just did? It was a Liberal turn. It was Raymonde Folco, but Raymonde is gone. Just as we did previously with Reform, we put a Liberal in the place.

Judy Sgro.

Libby, you're on the list, yes.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Thank you.

Mr. Reid, help me a little bit to understand this whole issue. When someone is asking for some reports through access to information, whether it be from the municipality or the federal government, and they give them the 30 days, is the 30 days an achievable amount of days to get those reports out?

When we look at what HRDC has put out—we'll go back to that particular department—I think for all departments we should be questioning whether 30 days is an achievable number and how we got there. But in the field of HRDC, given the previous record you indicated, they were actually 100% on a reporting schedule. Now that there seems to be some difficulty in releasing some reports fast enough, is it not possible that department is in complete overload, given the fact they released 10,000 reports earlier this month, and maybe they need more than 30 days in order to respond?

Mr. John Reid: I would assume that with the volume of requests coming in when they were receiving a perfect record, they were adequately staffed and resourced for it. If there has been a significant increase in the requests being made and the complexity of the documents requested, they would fall behind. There are not very many people who are skilled at this kind of work who you can pick up off the street. It's very difficult to bring in outside contractors to give you a hand to meet an enormous volume.

• 1245

I can't comment on that because I don't know, but it is my supposition that there has been a significant increase in their workload.

Ms. Judy Sgro: So rather than chastising the department, do you have the flexibility to make those points clear and give the department another 15 or 30 days, recognizing the difficulties?

Mr. John Reid: I do not have that flexibility, but the department has the ability to call for extensions where there are specific conditions laid down in the act for them to do so. They have the right to do that.

Ms. Judy Sgro: You talked about how well HRDC was going, and you talked about record management throughout the government. What do you do to follow up on recommendations you make? Let me elaborate, as a new member.

One of the things I find really clear here at this level of government is the frustration that everybody else is responsible, but not the people I end up talking to and asking questions of. It's always someone else who seems to be responsible, and that person is no longer in that position because he or she is somewhere else.

In your position, you're saying there are difficulties with record management and so on. What are you doing to ensure that those things are corrected within the division you are head of?

The Chair: John Reid.

Mr. John Reid: The Access to Information Act provides that the enforcement agency for my recommendations are members of Parliament, specifically the committee on justice, which is given the responsibility to hold hearings on my reports. That committee has met only once to hear the annual report of the Information Commissioner, and that was just recently. So members of Parliament have the responsibility to do this. I can tell you that when members of Parliament call a deputy minister and a minister before them and ask them why they are in default of the law of the land and why they are being ineffective and inefficient, this does nothing for their career prospects. It does focus their attention.

Members of Parliament, I believe, in the case of the Access to Information Act, have to be far more aggressive in taking advantage of the reports they are given. As I said in my opening statement, my predecessor had been highlighting this question of document management for the last four or five years. It had never been dealt with. He did it every time, and I made it a major issue in my annual report—the first one I gave.

We are doing what we can, but in the end it comes down to members of the House of Commons, because of the structure of the Access to Information Act, to call these people before them and find out what is going on. I'm glad to see you'll be having the President of the Treasury Board before you in a while, because these are questions that come under her authority and management.

The Chair: Thank you.

Colleagues, we're getting near the end here now and members have been coming and going. I've been trying to keep the list in reasonable shape. We're going to move very quickly through it. We have Dale Johnston, who is the third for the Reform, Bryon Wilfert, Libby Davies, Paul Crête, Diane Ablonczy, Judi Longfield, and Jean Dubé.

We have to do that very quickly.

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Reid, you stated that the audit and the reviews have been vetted through the Privy Council Office and Treasury Board. As the Information Commissioner, do you have any concerns that that sort of vetting, before it becomes public, could lead to the alteration of the reports in any way?

Mr. John Reid: I do not believe there would be any alteration of the reports. That is now a criminal offence, as a result of legislation passed by this House of Commons. However, I don't have a problem with their being vetted. I have a problem when the vetting takes longer than the 30 days allowed under the law for them to come out. My concern is that that part of the law be obeyed.

The Chair: Okay, can we move on?

Mr. Dale Johnston: Is that the limit of my questions?

The Chair: It is. I'm trying to balance the parties here.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I have a really quick question for Ekos.

The Chair: No.

We will have Libby Davies at the very end and Paul Crête. Then, by the way, I'm going to put Jean Dubé in at that point. I apologize that the PCs are behind in these numbers.

So it's Libby Davies, Paul Crête, and Jean Dubé.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Chair, on a point of information, I thought the understanding was that if a member had not had the chance to speak yet, they would have their proper opportunity.

The Chair: Colleagues, I'm doing my best here.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That I understand.

The Chair: A sign that I'm doing quite well is that I'm getting complaints from all sides. It is a fact that the Liberals are behind in time. They really are. There's no question about that. I'm doing my best, if you don't mind. Dale, you will excuse me.

• 1250

Libby Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you.

I just wanted a clarification from Mr. Reid about this memo he just handed out, the one from Treasury Board. First of all, does ATIP mean access to information programs?

Mr. John Reid: No, it's access to information and privacy. It refers to an office that each department has, which is responsible for dealing with access to information and privacy requests.

Ms. Libby Davies: So the normal routing would be that a member of the public would go through the departmental ATIP coordinator.

Mr. John Reid: That's correct.

Ms. Libby Davies: If the information is denied, does it come through your office?

Mr. John Reid: Only when somebody complains either that there's a delay or that information they think should be there is not there or if they complain because of the exclusions and the severances that have taken place.

Ms. Libby Davies: Who are the ATIP coordinators accountable to? Is it your office or is it the department they work for?

Mr. John Reid: The department they work for.

Ms. Libby Davies: Okay.

The Chair: Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Reid, we've obtained a copy of a directive issued by Mr. André Robert, Acting Director, Internal Audit Division, to all heads of review, audit and evaluation services. Mr. Robert states the following on page 2 of his directive:

Please inform us of any plan or action currently being taken, or at any time until the end of March, for the releasing of such documents, whether on grants and contributions or other significant issues, regardless of whether they are going to be released under the ATIP or the Review, Audit and Evaluation Policy.

I want to know where you stand on this issue. Your concern is that requests of this nature be dealt with within 30 days, as provided for in the legislation.

Do you not think that a departmental official receiving a directive like this might be tempted to wait a while longer to respond to a request so as not to make a mistake?

[English]

Mr. John Reid: From my point of view, the OPIs, the people who are responsible for forwarding the material to the ATIP offices, would not hesitate in moving it up there. The real problem is what happens when it gets to the ATIP office. What happens when it's been properly processed and it goes through another approval process?

My point is that I don't mind anybody seeing this information. I don't mind them studying it, as long as the information comes out to the person who requested it under the ATIP Act within 30 days or the time that the extensions have been taken.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: And you've observed that in some cases, the 30-day deadline is not being met?

[English]

Mr. John Reid: We are getting complaints that these 30-day deadlines are not being met. We are investigating them.

The Chair: Jean Dubé, Diane Ablonczy, Bryon Wilfert, Maurice Vellacott.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Coming back to your comments about this problem being widespread, I tend to agree with you. That was my worry from the very beginning. We hear comments in the House of Commons that everything is okay, there are no problems with these departments. What do you have to say to those comments? Do you see real problems?

Mr. John Reid: We see real problems. I am not alone. The National Archivist sees real problems. The Auditor General sees real problems. If you take a look at our annual reports, if you look at my annual report, you'll find that it's quantified, it's qualified, it's stated as baldly and as powerfully as I can.

Mr. Jean Dubé: I just wanted to get you on record.

When you sounded the bell, as you said in your opening remarks, how hard did you ring it and who did you ring it to?

Mr. John Reid: I rang it as hard as I could and I placed responsibility on Treasury Board. Treasury Board is the organization within government that sets policies for these items. However, it has no desire and no intention, apparently, of enforcing that by doing audits to make sure that departments are actually following the policies laid down by Treasury Board on this issue.

Mr. Jean Dubé: We hear a lot about downsizing maybe being a cause. I'd like to get to the cause and try to fix the problem here. I hear downsizing a lot. We heard the Auditor General last week saying that this problem has been going on for many years, as far back as 1977. The downsizing happened after that. This is where I have trouble finding downsizing as a problem. Do you think it is a real problem in what's going on with the problem of good accountability, good bookkeeping? This has been going on for 20 or 30 years.

• 1255

Mr. John Reid: My office has only been operating since 1983, so we don't go back as far as the Auditor General. However, with the downsizing came a re-engineering. With the re-engineering came the idea that you were going to cut out the bureaucracy, cut out what was called the “waste”, and you were going to emphasize client service so that you were going to give better service to the citizens. You were getting rid of all of this undertow that cut that back. So you cut back your staff, but you did not cut back your programs. You even increased the programs that you were asking a smaller staff to deliver. You were emphasizing and promoting people on the basis of the excellent client service they were giving.

One of the things that was not considered was keeping records. The first people who went in the downsizing were the people who handled information: file clerks, secretaries, librarians. With the decentralized environment, with computers, everybody creates his own documents. We don't know where those documents are, and they're tough to access. We have a technological change combined with a change in philosophy combined with the downsizing.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reid.

Jean, if I could interpret your question, it was “For whom did the bell toll?” If you follow that passage through, “It tolls for thee” is the next quotation.

Diane Ablonczy, Bryon Wilfert, Maurice Vellacott.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: It's very nice to have a literary chairman.

The Chair: Well, it was a literary question.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Yes, indeed. I was very impressed.

I have two quick questions. One is to the Privacy Commissioner. We know that many of the grants and contributions from HRDC went to individuals. In fact in one riding $11 million went to a few individuals, but so far the minister has refused to name those individuals. I wonder if you can tell us under what authority the minister is refusing to name the individuals who got $11 million in public money.

Mr. Bruce Phillips: I don't know what authority the minister cited. The issue that's raised there is whether the minister would be complying with the Privacy Act in refusing to disclose personal information.

My earlier answer is relevant here. Grants of a discretionary nature that convey a financial benefit do not qualify as personal information under the Privacy Act. Therefore, the question is whether the individual got a discretionary benefit. Yes or no? An example of a non-discretionary benefit would be something like the OAS. If you're the right age and the right citizenship and have proof of birth and so on, you automatically qualify for that. There is no discretion involved.

With respect to the Transitional Jobs Fund, is there a discretionary benefit, that is to say, one that some official of the government operating under powers delegated from the minister can say yes or no to, even if the applicant has complied with a checklist?

I cannot answer the question for you about whether these are discretionary benefits, yes or no. No complaint has been brought to my office with respect to this matter so far. If one is brought, I'll investigate it and try to come to a conclusion about whether these are or are not discretionary benefits.

The Chair: Diane, very briefly.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Chairman, I think the Privacy Commissioner can count on a complaint reaching his office very shortly.

My follow-up question would be this. If a complaint is investigated and it is found that information is improperly withheld, are there any mechanisms to compel a minister or department to make public the information that was improperly withheld?

Mr. Bruce Phillips: No, I only make a recommendation to the department. I don't have any power to compel them to comply. That's not a complete answer, because certainly we have other weapons at our disposal. I would be making a report to the complainant, for a start.

• 1300

The Chair: Bryon Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Reid, in response to my question about vetting through, for example, Treasury Board, you handed out a document—which I appreciate that you did so quickly—dated February 14, from the acting director, André Robert. It says:

Please, kindly fax us a copy of the original demand for accessing reports. It is very important that we get that information now.

Three days later, on the 17th, from the same gentleman, a document says:

As a final point, I would ask that you please disregard my previous request to fax a copy of access demands for audit reports. This information is not required.

My question, through you, Mr. Chairman, is that it would seem to me, Mr. Reid, that you gave me half the answer, but not the full story.

The Chair: Mr. Reid.

Mr. John Reid: The point I made was that there was a question raised by the ATIP officers to the Treasury Board—that providing them with the information of the request could be in violation of the Privacy Act. That was all that was taken back; it was that question of the other.... But if you go on to look at his message on the 14th, everything else stands, particularly the paragraph that reads:

With your FAX, we would like to have a listing of the reports to be released. We will be in contact...to obtain a copy of the reports to be released.

He goes on to talk about the additional information he wishes to have. This is something new that has never been done before.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: And he also suggests, Mr. Chairman, that it doesn't need to have a formal request through ATIP so—

Mr. John Reid: No, that's right. Of the four or five pieces of information he wished to have, he took away one.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Well, Mr. Chairman—

Mr. John Reid: I also said in my testimony to you that the information was being used in particular ways.

A voice: They are public documents.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: They are all public documents, in my view.

Mr. John Reid: At this point, they're not public documents.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: In this gentleman's view, he says that they are public documents.

Mr. John Reid: Well, he makes a distinction between two documents. The documents that are public documents and are supposed to be released without any ATIP request are those documents that are the completed audit, and those documents in draft form are documents to be released under ATIP. There is a considerable difference between the two.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Well, if they were in draft form, I would understand that, Mr. Chairman.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, with regard to my comment on the 500 requests from April, I was starting to come back to that item. On the 500 requests since January, the first quarter, I would like to know if you can provide us, at some point in the foreseeable future, with a breakdown of where those 500 requests are coming from. Are they coming from researchers, staff, the opposition...? Because we obviously also want to make sure that—

The Chair: John Reid, do you understand the question?

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: —hard-working journalists and citizens generally get that information.

Mr. John Reid: Mr. Chairman, there's a fundamental problem here. First of all, I don't know how many numbers of requests have been put in to the ATIP office. I never used a number because I don't know—and I never know. You'd have to get that information from the department. All I see are the complaints that people make to me.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: You have that information.

Mr. John Reid: No, I do not have it. I do not have any of that information.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: We have it.

Mr. John Reid: I know the department has it.

The Chair: The last exchange, a short one—

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: You're asking all the questions—

The Chair: —for Maurice Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm directing a question and a statement with respect to the Ekos people here.

I noticed that your response rate here in terms of the queries, the telephone calls to people, and checking up on project sponsors was only 58%, and then you extrapolated this. My statement is that I would be wondering about that other 42% that did not respond to your phone calls, did not return the calls, because maybe they were embarrassed at the negligible or zero rate of jobs created or whatever with the money, or they took off.... I'm not sure. But I would suggest that it's this 42% of projects that did not respond we should be most worried about.

Then to follow that up, often cited is this “30,000 jobs”, but we find that the “22,000 incremental” or actual jobs that were created...the real impact was only 22,000 and, of that, really 18,500 are full-time jobs. Then you talk later about “one-quarter of cases, the incrementality”, or the actual impact of jobs—that's even questionable. So we might be down to 12,000 to 13,000 created, if my math is correct, from 18,500 full-time jobs, and you're questioning even a quarter of those cases. You suggest on page 24 that it is “questionable”. I have a real query with respect to the oft-cited 30,000 when it appears to be an obviously—

The Chair: Tim Dugas.

• 1305

Mr. Tim Dugas: The job figure of 30,000 dealt with the short-term jobs created, so in that context, it would be accurate to say that our best estimate at that time is that there were approximately 30,000 jobs created in the short term. The other numbers, though, deal with looking at taking into account the incrementality of the jobs and the full-time equivalent. So if you're looking at incremental full-time equivalent jobs, the number would be lower. That's how it was stated in the report.

The Chair: Thank you.

Colleagues, before I thank the witnesses, I have a couple of things. Everyone, I think, has a schedule up to and including the break. I would point out to you that on Thursday we have the regional representatives from HRDC in Quebec, and then next Tuesday we have the Honourable Lucienne Robillard and Treasury Board officials.

Secondly, you'll observe under “Other Business” that we have a notice of motion. It has been there for two or three meetings. It's in the name of Diane Ablonczy. This has to do with the televising of this committee. It's my understanding that Diane is going to withdraw that on condition that we continue, as we are doing, to try to have these hearings televised as often as we can. In the event that we do not, I understand that this motion will return.

Colleagues, if I may, I will now thank our witnesses.

We do appreciate your being here. You know that there's great interest in this topic. You can tell from the meeting.

I want to thank Bruce Phillips, the Privacy Commissioner. Thank you very much.

The honourable John Reid: John, it's always a pleasure to see you on Parliament Hill—almost always.

Consulting and Audit Canada: Christiane Ouimet and Bernard Thérien, we thank you both.

And Ekos Research Associates: Janice Remai and Tim Dugas, we thank you too.

The meeting is concluded. We adjourn until Thursday at 11 o'clock in the same place.