OGGO Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 20, 2004

0905

The Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.))

Ms. Maria Barrados (Interim President, Public Service Commission of Canada)

0910

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, CPC)

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Paul Forseth

0915

Ms. Maria Barrados

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

0920

Ms. Maria Barrados

Ms. Anne-Marie Robinson (Vice-President, Corporate Management Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Maria Barrados

0925

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Jacques Pelletier (Vice-President, Recruitment & Assessment Services, Public Service Commission of Canada)

The Chair

Mr. Roger Gaudet (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ)

Ms. Maria Barrados

0930

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Roger Gaudet

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, CPC)

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Leon Benoit

0935

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Maria Barrados

0940

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Maria Barrados

Ms. Anne-Marie Robinson

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

Ms. Maria Barrados

Ms. Anita Neville

0945

Ms. Maria Barrados

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Maria Barrados

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Jacques Pelletier

Ms. Anita Neville

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC)

Ms. Maria Barrados

0950

The Chair

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. Maria Barrados

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Leon Benoit

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Jacques Pelletier

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Leon Benoit

0955

Ms. Maria Barrados

The Chair

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Tom Wappel

Ms. Maria Barrados

1000

Mr. Tom Wappel

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Tom Wappel

The Chair

Hon. John Reid (Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada)

1015

1020

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

1025

Hon. John Reid

Mr. Paul Forseth

Hon. John Reid

Mr. Paul Forseth

1030

Hon. John Reid

The Chair

Mr. Tom Wappel

Hon. John Reid

Mr. Tom Wappel

Hon. John Reid

Mr. Tom Wappel

Hon. John Reid

Mr. Tom Wappel

Hon. John Reid

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater (Deputy Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada)

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Mr. Tom Wappel

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Mr. Tom Wappel

1035

Hon. John Reid

Mr. Tom Wappel

Hon. John Reid

Mr. Tom Wappel

Hon. John Reid

Mr. Tom Wappel

Hon. John Reid

Mr. Tom Wappel

The Chair

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Hon. John Reid

1040

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Hon. John Reid

Mr. Roger Gaudet

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

Hon. John Reid

Mr. Leon Benoit

Hon. John Reid

Mr. Leon Benoit

Hon. John Reid

Mr. Leon Benoit

Hon. John Reid

Mr. Leon Benoit

Hon. John Reid

Mr. Leon Benoit

Hon. John Reid

1045

Mr. Leon Benoit

Hon. John Reid

Mr. Leon Benoit

Hon. John Reid

Mr. Leon Benoit

Hon. John Reid

Mr. Leon Benoit

Hon. John Reid

Mr. Leon Benoit

Hon. John Reid

1050

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Hon. John Reid

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Hon. John Reid

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Hon. John Reid

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

1055

Hon. John Reid

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville

Hon. John Reid

1100

The Chair

Hon. John Reid

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

NUMBER 008

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 20, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)): Good morning.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates will look at the main estimates 2004-2005, including vote 100 of the Public Service Commission, under Canadian Heritage; and vote 40, the Office of the Information Commissioner, under Justice Canada, referred to the committee on Tuesday, February 24, 2004.

We have as our first witness, from the Public Service Commission, Maria Barrados, interim president. At least as far as this committee is concerned, it's president, but that will hopefully be dealt with in the Senate very quickly.

You have brought others with you, and I'm going to ask you to please introduce them appropriately. I understand that you have a brief statement to make, and then I'm sure the committee members will have some questions for you.

Welcome, and please begin.

Ms. Maria Barrados (Interim President, Public Service Commission of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll just take a moment to introduce my colleagues with me today. I have Jacques Pelletier, vice-president of the recruitment and assessment services branch; Anne-Marie Robinson, vice-president of the corporate management branch; and Greg Gauld, vice-president of the merit policy and accountability branch.

I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman and honourable members, to be invited today to discuss the main estimates for 2004-2005, as tabled recently by the Department of Heritage on behalf of the Public Service Commission.

I would like to thank the committee for their support in recommending my nomination as president. I am indeed honoured, and look forward to working with this committee.

[Translation]

As you know, the Public Service Commission is an independent agency reporting to Parliament. Canadians and the Canadian Parliament rely on the Public Service Commission to ensure a representative, competent public service that is non-partisan and able to serve Canadians in the official language of their choice.

Normally, at this time, you would have our Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP), along with the main estimates. But, due to machinery change decisions announced in December of last year, the Treasury Board Secretariat decided to postpone tabling the RPP. However, I welcome the opportunity to outline our plans, and some of our changing operational requirements, which have resulted from the new Public Service Modernization Act.

[English]

The new roles of the Public Service Commission are set out in the new act, which gives specific direction on staffing and recruitment issues, including delegation, accountability, audit and investigation, and on political activity of public servants.

Under this legislation, the PSC has been given a more focused oversight mandate. As such, effective April 1, 2004, a number of service activities will be performed elsewhere. These include learning services, like training, and a number of human resource functions, which will be transferred to the new Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada. Those that remain will be clearly separated out from the oversight activities, leading to the creation of an autonomous service agency reporting directly to the president, as opposed to the commission.

[Translation]

This will allow us to be in a position to clearly distinguish the roles and responsibilities, and there will be further organizational changes required. For example, our capacity to carry out audits will need to be significantly strengthened; the type of investigations carried out will need to be changed; the appeals function will be phased out; and a new governance structure for the commission and its part-time commissioners will need to be put in place. As well, the PSC will play a new role in regulating political activity by public servants.

[English]

Beginning in 2006, these measures will be in place to support the implementation of a new Public Service Employment Act.

In brief, the PSC's main job will be to oversee that the merit system in the public service is supported and upheld; to communicate clearly to departments what is required and on how they are doing; and to report back to Parliament on our progress. These changes are described in greater detail in our RPP.

The main estimates are based on a business line structure that does not reflect the changes that came into effect on April 1, 2004. The budget figure of $147 million for 2004-2005 in fact becomes $92 million, given these changes. The $55 million reduction is the result of program transfers out of the PSC. Approximately $32 million was transferred to the new school, and $23 million to the new Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada.

We will make further changes to our budget as we carry out our expenditure management review. The budget request for the PSC has increased by $3.5 million from 2003-2004 for e-recruitment, the employee benefits program, and collective bargaining agreements. As part of this review, we will be closely examining our expenditures. We will use it to make necessary reallocations, for example, to the audit function, and to identify gaps.

¿ (0910)

[Translation]

My personal objectives for the PSC are to implement the spirit and intent of the act—that is, to modernize employment in the federal public service; to look after the employees of the PSC as the organization transforms; and to continue to deliver quality programs and services as part of our current and ongoing obligations.

The PSC is clearly in a period of significant transition—which provides us all with a wonderful opportunity to build a new organization. As we move forward, I welcome the opportunity to work closely with the committee and individual members of Parliament.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very kindly.

We'll now go to some questions from the members. We'll begin with Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, CPC): Thank you.

Welcome to our committee.

I'd like you to just expand a bit on the theme of having a relationship to Parliament and perhaps this committee. Scott Serson, before he left, thanked me as being the only MP who went to see the public service commissioner in years. For a while it was like the PSC was the lonely repairman: if things were going along okay, nobody paid attention. It was kind of lonely over there. And there is a relationship to Parliament that perhaps needs to be strengthened.

Of course, I have this theme that I feel that the Public Service Commission and the other officers of Parliament should be real officers of Parliament and truly independent of government. That's something you might want to explore with us.

Maybe you could first of all talk about strengthening the relationship between your office, its somewhat neutral role, and Parliament itself.

Ms. Maria Barrados: Thank you very much for that question.

As you know, I've come from the Office of the Auditor General. The Office of the Auditor General has a very strong working relationship with Parliament and with the public accounts committee. Its reports get referred to the public accounts committee, and the public accounts committee holds a series of hearings on those reports.

Now, our position is not exactly the same as the Office of the Auditor General, but I would really hope that we could strengthen the relationship with Parliament by having a mechanism so that either through this committee or one of the subcommittees there is a regular basis for going to Parliament with our reports and issues.

It is a very strong accountability tool in the bureaucracy when there is the intervention of Parliament and the demand for accountability by officials to parliamentarians. So if the Public Service Commission could have a vehicle whereby its reports and issues are given to a parliamentary committee, and that committee then studies these reports and has hearings on the reports, I think that would help the system a great deal.

As you know, under the old legislation, the only mechanism that the Public Service Commission had by which to go to Parliament was through its annual report through the Minister of Heritage and through the estimates process. Starting with the new legislation we have a clause in our act that allows us to table reports directly to Parliament. This will then give us the opportunity, when there is something of importance, to go directly to Parliament. I would hope we'd have the occasion to have the discussions in these kinds of forums.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay, as a follow-up, perhaps you can just tell us how the implementation of Bill C-25 is progressing and your relationship with that. I take it the bill put in place a transition mechanism, taking about two years to get it done.

In addition to that, perhaps just as a signal, people in your office could provide some technical advice or whatever on the new Bill C-25, the whistle-blower legislation, because certainly the Public Service Commission is going to be affected or involved with that concept or bill. It's not really clear whether that bill will ever get through the Senate and proclaimed because of the impending election.

It is a concept whose time has come. It appears that everybody in the public service community agrees. Everybody agrees with the concept. We just disagree on the technical mechanisms of how to get it done. Certainly you have resources in the PSC to provide some technical expertise to this committee as we consider the bill.

That's the back end of the question. Perhaps you could talk about, first of all, the general progress of the implementation of the old Bill C-25 that we just proclaimed.

¿ (0915)

Ms. Maria Barrados: Thank you.

I think we are making good progress. Internally, what we are trying to do is we are taking steps to clearly separate out the service activities and develop this new service agency. There was in the past too much of an interrelationship between service and oversight. We have to then build up that oversight function, because that's really what's required under the bill.

As my predecessor said, he had only five or six auditors. I have to develop that audit capacity. We are in the process of doing that as we reallocate and shift resources. I may have some issues with the salary cap. I can't convert O and M money into salaries because of the restraints. But we're on that path, and I think it's going well.

We're also in the process of developing our policy frameworks where we need to lay out what the new expectations are. That is on track as well. The difficulty we have is that with all the changes in town we have to do our work, but we have to spend time with departments and get them ready to take on those responsibilities. I do have a question as to what the capacity is to take those things on.

The systems are not as strong as they should be, and frankly, a lot of people in town are very preoccupied with other change and are not putting the focus on that. So I have some concerns about how fast that is moving. I am working very closely with committees of deputy ministers to try to get the system ready to accept the changes, but I believe we are quite clearly on a good path.

The second part of your question was with respect to whistle-blowing. The Public Service Commission is very supportive of the notion of putting in some kind of whistle-blowing protection. We have been discussing that particular piece of legislation and we do have some issues and concerns that we would be quite happy to discuss with this committee. They relate primarily to the relationship that this piece of legislation would have with the Public Service Employment Act, particularly since a number of the issues that could be raised by somebody would relate to staffing issues.

There are other issues that are of concern to us in terms of the kind of protection that people may have. If you have one type of protection under whistle-blowing, you should have the same kind of protection under the PSEA. Currently it's not the same. We also have some issues about breadth of coverage and a number of things like that, also issues about staff and what the status of the staff of that organization would actually be.

We would be very happy to discuss those things with this committee.

The Chair: We look forward to having the Public Service Commission come before the committee with regard to Bill C-25. There is a vote today, as you know, to refer the bill to the committee, and we will have the minister lead off the committee proceedings a week today. So we'll be anxious to move into that very quickly.

We're going to move to Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Thank you very much.

Thank you for being with us today to help us better understand what is before us in these estimates.

One of the things I would like a further explanation on is you're asking for a supplementary increase of $17 million, and when I look at the actual program by business lines, I look at learning and I see that most of the change appears to be in the learning line item. I'd like to better understand what you're proposing here and how this is affected by this “less revenues credited to vote”. Is this expected to be an ongoing credit, or is it simply one time only?

¿ (0920)

Ms. Maria Barrados: I'll get Anne-Marie to help me out on some of the details of this, but learning is one of those areas that has been transferred from the Public Service Commission. This is the language training and Training and Development Canada. They had a revolving fund--they could charge. That revolving fund is what gets credited to the vote. It's the reference to the revolving fund.

The increase in the money was largely for language training that came through the Dion plan. There was a government initiative to strengthen language training as part of the Dion plan, and that appears in the estimates. All that was transferred to the new school, so it is no longer with the Public Service Commission.

Did you want to add something to that, Anne-Marie?

Ms. Anne-Marie Robinson (Vice-President, Corporate Management Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada): The only thing I would add is that in addition to the Dion plan, there was $11 million that accounts for the increase, and in addition to that, $3.4 million for e-recruitment and another $3.2 million in employee benefits.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: With respect to the e-recruitment side, as you look at that, is this again going to be an ongoing process?

Normally we look at “e” as implying a capital cost up front, and ultimately a lesser operating cost down the road. Can you explain to us, then, how the $3.5 million fits? Is that only operating, or is that a capital input to ultimately reduce the operating costs in this process?

Ms. Maria Barrados: The $3.5 million is the initial request to develop a project proposal, a request for project proposal. There are a series of steps that have to be followed whenever there's an undertaking for a large systems project. The first step is to get a request for project proposal. That's a technical document that has to be prepared and get the approval of the Treasury Board.

The total request was $1.2 million for the request for project proposal. We were given $1 million. The remainder of that was frozen subject to further clarification from us to the Treasury Board to provide us that $3.5 million; hence, we have to provide for it in our estimates.

There are two elements to this. One is that we have to modernize and develop our recruitment systems, and this is one very important component of that recruitment system. So the two elements are one of always modernizing the recruitment systems, and the second one is this new initiative that we are calling e-screening, which will provide the electronic screening tools to handle larger volumes of applications.

Our class D estimate of that project is about $40 million, but what this new first step has to do is the detailed estimates for what the project would cost. So it's a very rough kind of estimate, and we're saying $40 million.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: So from my perspective, then, this is an initiation cost that you're dealing with here in those numbers--

Ms. Maria Barrados: Yes.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: --that in fact will lead to obviously a different framework of operating costs as it relates to that job that is being done by you as the Public Service Commission.

Ms. Maria Barrados: It will lead to a different framework for operating costs, but it will also lead to an increased project cost for implementing e-recruitment.

¿ (0925)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Does this lead us to savings in the operation of the commission, or in fact is this simply an additional burden that the commission will have to bear over the coming years?

Ms. Maria Barrados: I think it will clearly lead to some efficiencies, but we have some other pressures, which I think will end up balancing out the capacity to identify savings. That is this whole issue of national area of selection, which I have spoken about to some of the members around the table.

Currently what we are doing is using a piece of the legislation that allows us to limit the area from which people can apply for a job.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Yes.

Ms. Maria Barrados: We have been subject to a fair bit of pressure to change that. The consequence of this approach is that more people get jobs in the national capital area from the rest of the country.

We have committed to broadening out the national area of selection as fast as our technology will allow us for the professional jobs. We currently do it for the executive positions and one level under the executive, but we would like to bring this down further as we get the electronic tools in place. But then, of course, the consequence of that is going to be that I will increase the volumes, and in increasing the volumes I will not be getting the kinds of savings if you had a frozen state and put in a technology and just were doing your work more efficiently.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: So what do you estimate to be the cost of implementing that strategy so that we will ultimately be able to receive applications from across the country?

Ms. Maria Barrados: We have spent about $9 million on this already, and we estimate that there would be a further cost of about $40 million, which is what we're requesting. That's our estimate at this point, but I put that with a big caveat, because I think we have to do the detailed work in terms of how we are going to move this to the prototypes we currently have. We have some prototypes. We've tested it, it stands the legal challenge, and it does for us what we want it to do. But we have to then cost out what it would be for an entire system and how we deliver that system. So I'm not so confident on those costs at this point.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Have you in any way set a target date for implementation?

Ms. Maria Barrados: That's a very good question, because our target is to do it in four years and have it in place for the professional jobs. I have been challenging the staff to do it faster. They have been telling me there's no way they can do it faster if they don't get the approvals to initiate the project.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: On the implementation itself, do you see it as a stepped process, where you'll simply come down the scale in broadening the application levels, or do you see it all being held until the whole system is ready to activate for anything below where you're already going? I think you said you were doing the executive levels and one level below.

Are you going to hold back and try to implement the system all at once, or will it be phased in? How do you propose to bring it on line?

Ms. Maria Barrados: I'll get Mr. Pelletier to talk a little more about that. Our objective is to phase it in by job class, as well as do it initially for the national capital area jobs, before we move outside of the national capital area. But Mr. Pelletier is responsible for this, so he might want to answer.

Mr. Jacques Pelletier (Vice-President, Recruitment & Assessment Services, Public Service Commission of Canada): The only thing I can add is the important point is that Canadians across the country get access to Ottawa jobs, to be more representative of all the cities in Canada. In order to do that we want to go by phases, starting with the most important jobs. So we have started with the executives, and we want to go down.

The second thing we want to do in phases is target the jobs that are most frequently staffed in Ottawa, instead of just going to the jobs that are not regularly staffed. If we go that route it would serve our purpose to go step by step, but to open as many jobs in Ottawa as possible.

The Chair: Thank you. That was a very good set of questions.

Monsieur Gaudet.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Gaudet (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a problem here, Ms. Barrados. A budget of $147 million is summarized in five lines here. First of all, I would like you to explain what the public service is—for $147 million, there must be a lot of people in it. I would like you to take five minutes and explain it to me, because I really don't know. I am a new member of Parliament, and I want to know exactly what this represents. I have a problem with $147 million in just five lines of a budget. Coming from you, someone who has worked at the Auditor General's Office and with the Auditor General—I have a problem with it, because it doesn't tell me very much. We know that the government spends $147 million, and that is all we know. I don't know where it goes, and I don't know what it is spent on.

Ms. Maria Barrados: Thank you very much for your questions. It is a fact that the main document does not contain a lot of details. The RPP is much more detailed, but we do not yet have it for the committee.

I can try to give you some explanations. One third of this amount was transferred to other institutions, and we have also transferred responsibilities for training to managers, and responsibilities for other human resources programs to the new agency. One third of the amount does not stay with the Public Service Commission.

What remains with the commission includes two major responsibilities. About half will be used for monitoring tasks. This will include investigations on complaints, audits and the policy branch, as well as the negotiation of delegation and monitoring agreements. This will account for another third of the total amount, or for half of the remaining amount.

The other half is the responsibility of the new service agency because the public service is now responsible for all staffing from outside the government. We have local offices and this service will remain with the public service. The services we were providing need to be improved. That is the other half. These are our major responsibilities. We will have about 1,000 employees remaining at the public service, and we have transferred 500.

Does this give you some idea?

¿ (0930)

Mr. Roger Gaudet: It is not a lot.

Ms. Maria Barrados: No, it is not a lot, but the RPP is a lot more detailed. I can begin to provide more details if you wish.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: No, there is not enough time.

Ms. Maria Barrados: We could perhaps come back when the committee has the RPP to look at everything we are trying to do in more detail.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: From what I can see, the public service is being divided up, since you are sending one third to other agencies.

Ms. Maria Barrados: Yes.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: This means that there will be several agencies in the government. It will become very hard to understand. We used to have one agency which was the public service... I believe it would have been easy to say that the public service has this or that and that is fine. Now, there will be another...

Ms. Maria Barrados: This year was difficult because of the change in government and in government organization. Treasury Board required that we provide figures according to the old system of activities and this made it more difficult because all the responsibilities are mixed up.

It is also true for the RPP, which was based on the former activity system, but we still tried as much as possible to give a picture of the future or new activity system. It is complicated.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Gaudet.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, and good morning.

Ms. Barrados, I noticed you're interim president. That's only because you haven't had your final appointment yet. And you came from the Office of the Auditor General. What type of work did you do there?

Ms. Maria Barrados: I was an assistant auditor general in the Office of the Auditor General and I had responsibility for a number of areas in the Office of the Auditor General that included human resource management. I was responsible for the audit of health, human resource development, performance measurement, accountability issues, Statistics Canada, Public Service Commission.

Mr. Leon Benoit: With that background, coming to the Public Service Commission, what did you find? What has your assessment been, looking at it, let's say, from the other side, from someone with your experience, which I think is very important?

¿ (0935)

Ms. Maria Barrados: It's quite a transition, because the Office of the Auditor General is independent, and I'm now much more closely tied to government. So that's been my first learning exercise, that there are things I have to get approval for that I never thought you had to get approval for. For example, I am trying to make some changes to my organization. They are not big changes, but I'm making some adjustments and changes. I have to go to Treasury Board to get those approved. That's a surprise for me.

The other thing that was a surprise for me was how little audit there actually was. The Public Service Commission had had quite a large audit function and it had been allowed to decline, so I was not too happy about that.

What has been a very pleasant surprise is that I have been very pleased with the calibre of the people who work there, with their enthusiasm and their commitment. I have a very good executive team with me today, which I'm very proud of. So I think I have in the people a lot to work with. We have some things to do.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're saying that the audit team had been allowed to run down somewhat. What was your assessment of the appropriateness of the accountability provided in the Public Service Commission in the recent past?

Ms. Maria Barrados: Can I ask you to clarify that? Are you asking about the accountability of the commission to others or the accountability that the commission was seeking ?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Well, actually, more money being spent within the commission....

Ms. Maria Barrados: Okay. As part of the expenditure management system, I have been reviewing budgets and I have been asking questions about the budgets. I'm fairly confident that they have a good handle on how their money is being spent. I have had some issues about some contracting and we are making changes on that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Could you elaborate on that?

Ms. Maria Barrados: The psychology assessment centre contracts a lot of services. They have to do the counselling, screening, and reference checks. They need to do that on a contractual basis because it's not constant; it comes and goes. They're a service organization. The contracts that they were letting were non-competitive. That's okay under $25,000, but sometimes these were then increased by half, and sometimes they were repeated without competition.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So maybe the $25,000 limit was being circumvented by breaking the contracts down in an unreasonable way.

Ms. Maria Barrados: You could interpret it in two ways. There was a $25,000 contract for executive counselling for an individual, and then there was another $25,000 contract for executive counselling. You could argue that the counselling was for different people and they were completely different contracts, which was the argument being made. The second one was that they were different people in a different context so it was a new contract. In my mind, that's splitting hairs, and I'm not satisfied with that. So I have asked that those contracts be fully competitive.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How widespread was that? Give us an idea of the number of contracts you were concerned about.

Ms. Maria Barrados: It was in the psychology assessment centre, and we're talking about roughly $1 million a year. There were a lot of small contracts, but when you added them all up, it came to that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: One of the things that should be evaluated is value for money spent. Do you feel that was being done appropriately in the Public Service Commission generally? Were there some areas where that was not being done appropriately, in your judgment?

Ms. Maria Barrados: I have been asking a lot of questions about that. That's part of our expenditure management review. I'm faced with having to resource an audit function and redefine investigations. I'm trying to find the money inside through savings. So we're using the expenditure management review to challenge particularly the administrative support functions, how we are doing some of our business, to try to free up money to reallocate before I come and ask for new money.

¿ (0940)

Mr. Leon Benoit: Let's go back to the $1 million in contracts through the psychology assessment centre. How many organizations were those contracts with? Was it a large number or a very few?

Ms. Maria Barrados: It's a large number.

Anne-Marie, do you have the number?

Ms. Anne-Marie Robinson: I don't have the number with me, but I could undertake to get back to you. There were some instances when they used the $25,000 limit, and, as the president said, in some cases they extended it. But for many more people on the list they used $5,000, $8,000, or $12,000. I would have to get back to you with the total amount.

Ms. Maria Barrados: There isn't one large contract but rather a long list of them. But I'm not comfortable with how it was done.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Were a large number of people being served by the psychologist or whoever was involved, or was it a very small number?

Ms. Maria Barrados: They are frequently referred to as the jewel in the crown of the Public Service Commission. They are highly thought of. They have a very strong reputation. They do a very fine piece of work. That's not the issue. The issue is how they did their contracting.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So it was the process rather than a concern about any particular contract.

Ms. Maria Barrados: Yes. But as you know, the process protects, and I wasn't satisfied that we had enough protection.

Mr. Leon Benoit: To me they're different issues.

Roughly how many people have been served?

Ms. Maria Barrados: In the psychology assessment centre?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes.

Ms. Maria Barrados: We'll have to get back to you on that. It's a fairly high volume. I just had a presentation on that. I'm sorry that I've forgotten the number.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd really appreciate getting that information.

You said that a lot of people in town are preoccupied with other things. What were you referring to?

Ms. Maria Barrados: I was referring to the new government reorganization, which, as you know, has created several new departments. It has divided up some large departments, such as the old HRDC. When public servants have to deal with that, they are looking at trying to deal with the structures they have to put in place to manage a new department and worrying less about changing to a human resource management regime.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're talking about major restructuring.

Ms. Maria Barrados: That's right.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Sometimes in the public service the constant and sometimes quite significant restructuring can take people's focus away from the job they're there to do. Is that something you've seen as quite a broad problem in the public service, from your background with the Auditor General?

Ms. Maria Barrados: A number of times changes are made and they have a good rationale and they need to be made. Sometimes there's too much change, but you don't necessarily have to have government reorganization for that.

The comment that we've made to the AG was about the change of senior personnel. Then you would have new deputy ministers in, and every time you have a new deputy minister you have a new plan, a new strategic vision, and new performance measures. This didn't let that settle down, because, as you know, the whole estimates process, which this committee has been pushing very hard, requires some stability in that. So the comment had been more about that than the larger reorganization.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Neville, please.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

I have a number of disjointed questions. First I have a mechanical question, which is when do you expect your report on plans and priorities to be tabled? I know you've spoken to some of the issues, but I'm interested....

Ms. Maria Barrados: We have to have it to the Treasury Board by the end of this month. We have our report ready. Following on the previous questions, I did put in as much as I could about our new structures and what I expected the new expenditure levels to be. My understanding is that Treasury Board expects to be tabling those by the end of May.

Ms. Anita Neville: I wanted to follow up on two lines of questioning, on the learning aspect and on the national recruitment process. You indicated on the national recruitment process that you're urging your officials to roll it out faster. What would be involved in rolling it out faster? As well, you focused on Ottawa positions. What emphasis will you be giving to major regional positions as well? That's my first question.

My second question, and then I'll let you answer, relates to the whole learning issue. I've looked at the two agencies and you still retain a learning component within the Public Service Commission. Is that for the Dion language training that you referred to earlier? What is the component that you are maintaining, and how does that relate with the two agencies that are being put in place?

¿ (0945)

Ms. Maria Barrados: We retain very little on the learning. In fact, most of the learning has been transferred. But it relates to the problem raised earlier that I was directed to prepare the estimates based on the previous organizational structure, so my estimates reflect that learning component. Then it's almost as you see them presented, above the line they're positive and then they get taken out below the line. So most of the learning has gone to the new school and very little stays with the Public Service Commission.

Ms. Anita Neville: If I could follow up on that, the new school, is it being staffed from within the Public Service Commission? How is that being put together?

Ms. Maria Barrados: The new school was the former CCMD. So they have the former CCMD and then they have added those elements from the Public Service Commission. They are now going through a process of developing their plans and their new direction.

Now, to respond to your second question on the national area of selection and what our strategy is going to be, our approach is going to be to deal with the Ottawa jobs first, because most of the concern seems to be about limiting professional jobs to Ottawa and not broadening it nationally. After we have done that we will then move to the regions, but we want to do the Ottawa ones first.

Ms. Anita Neville: When you broaden the Ottawa ones, will there be a consistent national availability? That is, will the west have the access at the same time the Maritimes will have access to the Ottawa...or will it be done on a phased-in basis?

Ms. Maria Barrados: No. Jacques may want to add to this. My understanding is the way we're going to have to do it is we're going to have to do it by job type, as he was saying, the jobs that are staffed the most, so some kind of policy job or some kind of computer job, and it would be available to everyone across the country.

Right, Jacques?

Mr. Jacques Pelletier: Yes. If the question is when we open a specific job nationally will it be open for all parts of the country, the answer is yes.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Yelich, please.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC): I'm pleased to see you this morning.

I have a couple of brief questions. My main question is how can we help you as members of Parliament? This is a new position, or a new office, and I would like to know how we can help you and what you would see as a perfect relationship with the members of Parliament, because I think we should play some role. Or do you think we should?

Also, do you have an organizational chart that can somehow put into perspective where you are and where you're a public service...? I can almost see where you see the real weaknesses and where you plan on strengthening. Do you have it in some sort of a graphic chart minimizing all this paper? Because I have so much paper to go through right now, and I wondered about that. And I do have concerns when we come to the learning area of your estimates and training and development. I always wonder who's going to be watching that, who's going to be on top of that. When you start contracting that out, is it going to be something you're going to be responsible for, or is it just we're going to pay whatever they submit for contracts, receipts, and that sort of thing?

I want to know very much if we can help in any way and if you see us playing a role in your new area, in your new office?

Ms. Maria Barrados: Thank you for that.

On the organization chart, I will send the committee the official one. Am I allowed to do this? I'll send you the draft I'm working on. This is part of my not being sure as to what has to be approved and not approved. But I'm sure I can send this committee a draft of where I'm trying to go. And that's quite simple.

On the training, the training is no longer with the Public Service Commission; it has been transferred out as of April 1. It will not be an area where we will be doing oversight or audit. But it is a responsibility for the AG, so it is a good question for the Auditor General. We will be focusing on staffing and staffing-related issues in terms of where we do our audit and oversight.

In terms of the invitation for comments on how we could work with the committee, I think the involvement of members of Parliament is essential in this. This committee could call us to come and talk about our reports; you could call us to talk about our annual report when it's ready. If you have a question about any kind of staffing or any staffing-related issues, if you would call us we would be happy to come to this committee any time. It is clearly, my staff knows, a priority. When we get to do more regular kinds of reports, I would welcome the opportunity to come to the committee.

I also personally, as you know, will come and meet with any member of Parliament on any concerns they may have, because staffing issues are often issues that get raised at their local levels. I welcome that opportunity as well.

As I get more into my job, I may be in a position of perhaps raising issues to your attention better than I am doing today. Today I am preoccupied with building that new organization, and I don't feel that I have any big blockages I have to raise with Parliament. But if I am going along and I am finding I can't make the progress I need, I would want to be able to come to this committee and say “I'm doing the best I can, but I can't go any further with where I'm trying to take this.”

¿ (0950)

The Chair: In our last few minutes we have three members, Monsieur Gaudet, Monsieur Benoit, and Mr. Wappel. Could you be crisp, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Gaudet: In your presentation, you said that structural decisions announced in December by the Treasury Board Secretariat have been postponed. Will this hinder your work, or will you have to start over what you are doing now when Treasury Board brings down its report?

Ms. Maria Barrados: That is the RPP. The report has been completed, and the Treasury Board will be giving all of the documents from all departments to Parliament around the end of May.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: But will you have to do your homework over?

Ms. Maria Barrados: I have finished my homework.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: It is finished?

Ms. Maria Barrados: It is finished. I have a new [Inaudible--Editor].

Mr. Roger Gaudet: My second question was to ask for the organization chart which Ms. Barrados... Since she has already replied, that is all I had.

Ms. Maria Barrados: We intend to give that to the committee.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know you had said that the language training is gone out of the Public Service Commission now, but I have some general questions on that.

Do you feel, from your work in the Auditor General's office, that there's any really good estimate of the total amount of money spent in the federal government on language training? The spending is done in so many different ways. Is there any kind of good estimate of that?

Ms. Maria Barrados: Just to be sure I'm clear, we at the Public Service Commission continue to have language testing. So the language training has gone to the new school, but language testing is staying with the Public Service Commission.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay.

Ms. Maria Barrados: As to whether there is a good estimate of the total expenditure, I'm really not sure.

I don't know, Jacques, whether you have--

Mr. Jacques Pelletier: No.

Ms. Maria Barrados: The language training that is done by the school is actually a very small proportion of the language training. The larger proportion is done by private schools. So to get a number of the cost, you would have to get all those private schools; and then the additional thing, which is probably the largest cost of all, is the salaries you're paying the people who are taking the training.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I understand that. I'm just wondering whether there had been any accounting of that.

I understand there have been studies done on the success rates for language training. Could you give a bit of an outline of what the success rate has been?

¿ (0955)

Ms. Maria Barrados: There has been a lot in the media about the issue of the success rate in the language testing. The issue tends to be mostly around the oral interaction test of anglophones, who are having greater difficulty with it now than they did in the past. We're finding that, overall, about 15% don't make it the first time they try that test. But that is because they're trying the test a lot. So it doesn't mean that 15% don't make it; the overall success rate is 95%. So 95% do make the level, but they try it a number of times.

We have been doing quite a bit of work to understand why this 15% has occurred, because that is higher than it was in the past. Our first question is, is it the test? We have gone back and done analysis of old tests and new tests, done them blind.

We've come to the conclusion that it's not really the test, but there are other circumstances around giving language testing. So we've set up a group, and we're looking at all of it to try to improve it, things like making it easier for somebody to go in and have the test. When people come, they're very stressed. We're trying to make that whole environment easier, so a number of steps have been taken. Then with other people in the government we're looking at the standards, the level that's expected. So we're looking at the whole thing, because there is this concern about the number of failures the first time around. But overall the success rate is still 95%.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Barrados.

Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): I have just one question.

In your remarks you indicated, and you've repeated it numerous times, that the RPP is ready, and that in reality, instead of $147 million, your budget request is, I presume, going to be $92 million. I think that was what your remark said.

You were asking for a 13% increase when you were using the $147 million figure. As part of your RPP, have you extracted from the actual expenses of 2003-04 those things that you will no longer be responsible for? If so, how much did you spend on those things that would be remaining to you under the new regime in 2003-04, and how does it compare to $92 million?

Ms. Maria Barrados: The way we presented the RPP is that we were told that we'd have to do it under the old activities structure, so the presentation is of the old activity structure. The $147 million is all of the requests for expenditure.

The next block gives all of the things we're taking out. So the next block takes out all of the transfers. The biggest transfers were the training and a number of programs for human resource development. But we've also taken some things out of other spots in the Public Service Commission, plus some of the corporate services. So that brings us down to about $92 million.

As I was saying in my comments, the things that are incremental to past expenditures include a request for e-recruitment, which we discussed earlier. This is the new electronic screening, an incremental thing that wasn't there before. The other incremental thing is the employee benefits.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Yes, but what I'm getting at is the $92 million is a figure that will be out of nowhere. How can anyone compare that $92 million to previous years' expenditures for more or less the same things, to see whether or not the $92 million is, for example, 13% more than the same services would have cost last year? How can you make a comparison? Have you made such a comparison, or can you?

Ms. Maria Barrados: I think we have done so in the presentation, by showing what has come out. I think that when you see all of the numbers, it will be there. If not, we'll—

À (1000)

Mr. Tom Wappel: Perhaps this is a heads-up for a future question?

Ms. Maria Barrados: Absolutely.

But the other thing I'm trying to do is that I have to rebalance those things, because I don't have the proportions right. So I'm having people working on that rebalancing, in terms of trying to give the picture of where I'm trying to go with the organization chart.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: This is very good.

I think we're going to have to complete this session now.

The committee had a very difficult time dealing with the old Bill C-25, because we were faced with embedded bills and all kinds of interesting things. But the very important issues related to the public service did come out, and I think the committee is very sensitized to the challenges you face.

Certainly we are aware that there wasn't even agreement among all of the experts about how far we could go in terms of the public service renewal, and that we are indeed only about halfway in terms of the vision for the public service. So I'm not sure whether the next time around we still won't have a comparative for anything, because the evolution of the public service will continue.

But there are also some fundamental issues with regard to the health and productivity of the public service. There is some cynicism out there, I know. There are some concerns about hiring and merit, and about political activity, and about a number of other aspects.

As an independent agency reporting to Parliament, the PSC can report to Parliament once a year, but in these times of transition, I think that the committee will agree with me that we would like to hear from you as often as you feel that you should communicate with us on developments and matters you feel we should be apprised of, so that we can continue to support the process of ensuring that we do have a reliable, credible public service.

Thank you very kindly for your excellent defence, as it were, of your estimates. We will not be voting on the estimates, however, until the end of our meeting on Thursday.

Thank you kindly, to all.

We'll suspend to get our next panel on.

À (1003)

À (1011)

The Chair: Resuming the meeting, the review of the estimates, this is vote 40, Office of the Information Commissioner, under the Department of Justice, referred to the committee on Tuesday, February 24, 2004. We're pleased to have with us Mr. John Reid, Information Commissioner of Canada.

Welcome, Mr. Reid. Perhaps you could please introduce your colleagues appropriately. I'm sure you have a few opening remarks you'd like to share with us, and I'm absolutely sure they will provoke lots of questions from the honourable members.

Please proceed.

Hon. John Reid (Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

With me is the deputy commissioner, Alan Leadbeater, and Ruth McEwan. She is the director general of corporate services.

I am delighted to have received the invitation to be here today to talk about the estimates of the Office of the Information Commissioner. I thought what I'd do is briefly outline to you some of our policy issues and then get into the financing of the operation.

There have been some improvements in the status of the Access to Information Act this year. We have had two court decisions, one by the Supreme Court of Canada and one by the Federal Court of Appeal, which have dealt with some of the barriers to the Access to Information Act.

The first is that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that decisions by the government to refuse access to certain documents by asserting that those documents contain cabinet confidences can now be reviewed by other courts and bodies such as the Information Commissioner.

The Federal Court of Appeal also ordered the government to narrow the zone of secrecy in cabinet documents that had been implemented by clerks of the Privy Council. There is a section in the Access to Information Act that says that discussion documents that are brought forward as part of the cabinet process can be made available.

For a number of years those documents were not available. We took a case to the courts that ended up with the courts determining that the clerk had to go into the cabinet document and extract that material that provided background information on the decision that cabinet was being asked to make. This means that members of Parliament and the general public can now find the factual basis of cabinet decisions, something that was embedded in the law but which had not been enforced for a fair amount of time.

So those are two big changes in the way in which people will now have access to government information. The thrust of these decisions is basically to expand accountability and to enhance the ability of people to see what is behind decisions made by government.

The current Prime Minister has commented on the fact that there is a need to eliminate what he called the “democratic deficit”, and I suggest to you that there are some ways it can be done through the Access to Information Act.

The first is that the act does need modernization and updating. It has not really been significantly altered since it was passed in 1982. It needs broader coverage. For example, crown corporations, officers of Parliament, entities such as the federal foundations are all outside the ambient of the act. There's no real way for members of Parliament, for the general public, to get behind the surface of the annual reports that they provide, if in fact they provide annual reports.

One of the things we have been interested in has been the question of information management within the Government of Canada. If you have paid any attention to the reports of the Auditor General, if you've paid any attention to the reports of the Information Commissioner, we have both been talking, for about the last ten years, about the problem that documentation provided in the government's activities is sparse. It is not complete; it is not filed.

There have been reports from the outside, commissioned by the senior public service, saying that we can't provide first-class advice to the government because we no longer can ascertain that we have all the information in our files. There is a crisis in information management brought about, I think, by two causes.

The first cause is the fact that we are in the midst of a transition from a paper-based system to an electronic system. We have what is called a “hybrid system” right now, and we no longer really track well the paper files and we no longer really track all that well the electronic files. So there's a real crisis of information management within the public service.

The Government of Canada is not unique in this. The private sector has trouble, non-profit organizations have trouble, and other provincial governments have trouble as well.

I have suggested that the way around this is to pass an information act so that there is an obligation on senior public servants to create records, to document the decisions they take, and to make sure there is a paper trail that can be followed for the purposes of accountability.

À (1015)

I picked up the other day a quotation from Louis Gerstner, who is the former IBM chief executive officer. He once noted, “People do what you inspect, not what you expect.”

I think we have reached a point where the culture of keeping records in the Government of Canada has broken down. We need something to bring that culture back. Policy will not do it; I think we require a law that is well enforced.

The information commissioner is one of those who comes before committees and complains that he is underfunded, and I am here to make that complaint again. It means that I am coming under increased pressure because I am unable to discharge a number of my mandates.

One of my mandates is to keep parliamentary committees and members of Parliament apprised of the effect that legislation being brought down by the government has on the Access to Information Act. Indeed, in terms of the ethics bill, I've found some problems with the bill as it applied to access to information. I was able to go over to the Senate and they graciously received me, but they properly criticized me for coming in at the last moment with my concerns. But I have no ability to monitor the large amount of legislation that the government brings down. I'm embarrassed by the criticism that the people in the other place made, but it is an accurate statement and we have to put up with it.

We also have other problems, in that I am now unable to deliver investigations in a reasonable timeframe. My timeframe for examinations, for investigations, when I became information commissioner was about four months on average. It is now about six or six and a half months--I'm sorry, it's ten months--and worse, the backlog has gone from half a year to a full year. That is, we do about 1,000 files a year; my backlog is now about 1,000 files.

What's happening is that each year the situation deteriorates even more. These are funding problems that I have just in terms of keeping the base program going. It means that I have no resources for an audit capacity, because we are in some ways the regulator of the system. I have no resources to extend the little audit capacity that I do. The audit capacity that I do is limited basically to departments meeting the 30-day limit. We would like to go beyond that. We have no ability to do any research, no policy. We can't extend our report cards to other areas that we'd like to do. Parliamentary liaison and public education simply get done only on a basis of emergencies.

So we're not looking for luxuries, only the essential basics. We'd like to have the funding base re-examined and expanded so that we would be in a position to discharge properly the obligations that the office has under the Access to Information Act.

Let me look at the supplementary estimates, supplementary estimates (B) for 2002-03.

Treasury Board ministers approved the items included in the OIC's 2002-03 supplementary estimates. Their decision, however, included a condition that $196,000 be clawed back in the next year--that is, 2003-04. So that meant when you approved my estimates last year, in effect they were approved minus $196,000. So that started us in the hole approximately $200,000 for that year. Then they created a frozen allotment of $200,000 for the outsourcing of legal services, and there was a third one of $30,601 for payroll over-expenditures. So that meant that 40% of our total O and M was in frozen allotments. You can understand that it leaves you with no flexibility. We spent an enormous amount of time on cash management, and of course we had to go back to Treasury Board for additional supplementary estimates because we were unable to tap into the funds that we had.

So 2003-04, supplementary estimates (B) were the result of us going back to get that, and they again gave us $426,000 in frozen allotments, plus another $100,000 in salaries.

À (1020)

It means the statement that was made to me by my financial officer when I became the information commissioner back in 1998—he said, “Mr. Commissioner, you have to understand that you're bankrupt”—though I didn't realize what he'd said, is absolutely true, when your base funding does not support the obligations your act provides you must do.

We are currently being audited by the Office of the Auditor General. When the Auditor General completed her audit of the Privacy Commission, I went to Treasury Board to ask them for some money to be able to have an audit on my own accounts, because at that time, you may remember, the two offices shared corporate services. I wanted to make sure my services were properly audited as well.

Treasury Board refused to fund the audit, and I certainly had no funds to be able to do it from my own accounts. So I approached the Auditor General and asked her to conduct an audit of my activities. She has agreed to do that, and that audit is currently underway. We anticipate having the results of it in two or three months.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my presentation. I want to say we've had an enormous amount of stress in our office in the last year as a result of the investigation into the former privacy commissioner, the setting up of a new corporate affairs section, plus the deterioration in our ability to deliver on time and on budget the obligations we have under the Access to Information Act.

I am very proud of the work my employees have done. They have gone above and beyond what one would anticipate, and I appreciate very much the efforts they have made.

Of course, I do make a plea to you to do whatever you can do to make sure the office is put on a sustainable funding balance.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Reid. That's a nice gesture, but as you know, we have no money to give to anybody. As a matter of fact, this committee actually only has the opportunity to go in reverse.

I knew your thoughts were going to be provocative, and we have lots of questioners. We'll start with Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

Welcome.

First of all, perhaps you could comment on the larger philosophical approach: that in the long run, the whole public service in government is working for the people, and the people have a right to know what is being done with their money and what is being administered on their behalf, and that in the long run, your office should be trying to put itself out of business. It's not just a matter of your particular activity and your mandate, but of trying to encourage alternate transparency so that your office doesn't have to become involved; so that material is already publicly available on the Internet, or if someone asks, it's there, because government says everything is on the public record.

This gets to the philosophical position of reverse onus: that everything is public and available unless a reversal of the case can be made, through a proper hierarchy, that it be private. I take it that's certainly not the way it is today. I take it from what you're talking about that the budget limit in essence is more than a practical one. It amounts to a shutting down and a closing of the doors on the availability of information to the public, and that this is one way, instead of eliminating the office, of squeezing its resources so that therefore it can't do its job. In combination with a lack of the transparency outside your office, in effect government is becoming more secret.

Those are some philosophical propositions to you. Perhaps you can comment on those before I get back to a specific question.

À (1025)

Hon. John Reid: Yes, I agree with your position. The act basically says that all government information is available to Canadians, that the government should make that information available when requested, but that there are 13 exceptions to the law for information that shall be kept private—one of which is privacy, one of which is security, one of which, by the way, is federal-provincial relations.

I think the act is well structured and I think the exemptions in there are well thought out. There is a problem, because the act is based on the concept that all information shall be available “except”, but it is administered within the Government of Canada as a secrecy act that says “I don't have to give it out; therefore, I shall not give it out. If it's on the margins, then we will keep it secret.”

The spirit of the act has not permeated the Public Service of Canada as yet. I think your philosophical position is exactly that of the act, and it's certainly the philosophical position that motivates the Office of the Information Commissioner.

Mr. Paul Forseth: You've referred to some legislative needs, and I'm just wondering if your office has done a deep policy paper or analysis setting out what legislative adjustments would be desirable and perhaps a series of options--perhaps this, perhaps that--to provide an in-depth working paper that could set minds thinking to eventually come up with an amendment bill.

Hon. John Reid: We have had an examination of the Access to Information Act by what I call the insider task force that was established by the then Secretary of the Treasury Board and the Deputy Minister of Justice. It produced a report. It was in two parts. One dealt with the administration of the law and the other dealt with the possibility of making changes.

I thought the work that was done on the administration of the law by that task force was excellent, and we have moved to implement everything we can. However, the recommendations they made in terms of changing the act were a disaster from the point of view of openness and accountability. As a result, I wrote a document that I filed with the House of Commons called “Response to the Report of the Access to Information Review Task Force--A Special Report to Parliament”. It contains two things. It contains my commentary on the proposals made by the task force, and it contains my commentary on what really should be done to improve the act. So this document is out there in considerable detail. It's also available on my website, and if anybody doesn't have it in their library, we have some copies left. We'd be delighted to circulate it.

Mr. Paul Forseth: It looks like I asked the right question. I guess I have some homework reading to do.

The whole business of Parliament is an oversight role. Parliament is not the government; Parliament is where the government comes to get permission to tax, to spend the people's money, and to get its legislation passed. But if there's no commensurate knowledge around that process, there's no way the public can evaluate, even in the political domain, if they're being well governed or whatever. So information is fundamental to the operation of a democracy.

We used a bad example to illustrate the point. We know what goes on in Minsk, the capital of Belarus. We know that even the new Russia doesn't figure that country is democratic enough. That's one of the worst-case scenarios of the old style of command and control. And of course the first thing they do to control is control information. They control information of government about legislation and even get into control of the press. Those are the old horror days that seem to still live on in 2004. That is the bad case that illustrates the exact opposite of where we need to go, and obviously it seems it's in the interest of governments of the day or bureaucracies to not have that kind of transparency.

I also illustrate the point that you made about the lack of documentation. A decision will be made by phone because we don't want any paper trail, because we have people like you who eventually might tell the story. So maybe you'd have some advice around that particular concept as well, about the mandating of keeping a proper record. How many times have I heard the Auditor General say there were no files, there was no contract, there were no notes?

I'll leave it at that.

À (1030)

Hon. John Reid: I agree with you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you, Monsieur.

There's no philosophy here, just some questions. You mentioned the Supreme Court of Canada case. Did you outsource that legal work, or was it done in-house all the way to the Supreme Court?

Hon. John Reid: We had to outsource that.

Mr. Tom Wappel: How much did it cost the commission?

Hon. John Reid: I can tell you that in the last year we spent $189,794 on outside counsel, but that's our total bill. Remember that also includes the 29 or 27 cases that the Prime Minister of the day brought against us over the question of whether or not we were able to look at his agendas as a result of a request we had received, and it included a case going up to the Federal Court of Appeal. We have just had the decision by the judge on the other 29 cases. Her decision has just come out.

So that's what we spent in the last year on outside counsel.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Right. Now, referring specifically to the Supreme Court of Canada, you won that case, I gather, or you consider you won it. Were costs ordered to be paid by the government?

Hon. John Reid: Well, we had to again use outside counsel on that case. This was the case that dealt with the amount of privacy that was due to public servants. We had lost that one at trial. We lost that one at the Federal Court of Appeal. We won nine to nothing in the Supreme Court of Canada.

So what happens when we outsource is that we do a lot of the basic solicitor-type research work in-house, but we don't have the capacity to have that kind of expertise in all parts. So for us it is much more reasonable to buy it outside. We pay standard Department of Justice rates.

Mr. Tom Wappel: All right, but that wasn't my question. My question was did the Supreme Court, in its nine-to-nothing decision, order the government to pay your costs?

Hon. John Reid: I'd ask Mr. Alan Leadbeater to answer that one.

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater (Deputy Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada): Yes, Mr. Wappel, we were awarded costs, but you must understand that when two government institutions battle each other in court, that outcome never is delivered upon, because we are not entitled to receive income other than through appropriations from Parliament.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Well, this is what I'm getting at. You're spending the public's money, and rightly so, and obviously correctly, since you won a nine-to-nothing decision. I fully understand that you're looking for expertise to argue an appellant case before the highest court in the country, and that makes sense. What doesn't make sense, then, is that you're using your budget to pay for a winning case. The government is ordered to recompense you for that expense, and apparently you don't get it.

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: And the reverse is true: if, in cases that we lose, we are ordered to pay costs, the government doesn't get it either, because we're all one purse.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Okay, but that is not necessarily a good thing, because if you lose too many cases and you have to pay, then there's something wrong with your decision-making of taking cases to court.

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: Absolutely.

Mr. Tom Wappel: So I find this strange, because it's clear, from what I've read in the media and so on, that sometimes you just have to go to the wall on these things. Good for you, because you lost in two courts and ended up winning where it counted.

Perhaps there's some way that can be resolved, if in no other way than in a bookkeeping way, so that you don't lose money from your very tight budget that you've indicated. And you do lose money if you're abusing the process, and I don't mean you, particularly, but if one is abusing the process by taking every case to court. I'm thinking of another person who was alleged to have been doing that. So perhaps you should be thinking about that and discussing that with my next question, which is--and I don't have the act in front of me--which minister do you report to?

À (1035)

Hon. John Reid: I am an officer of Parliament.

Mr. Tom Wappel: So you report to us.

Hon. John Reid: I report to the Speakers of the House and the Senate. My annual report is permanently referred to this committee, now.

Mr. Tom Wappel: That's good, because you remember years ago you used to go to the justice committee.

Hon. John Reid: That's correct.

Mr. Tom Wappel: That committee was so busy that we were lucky if we had five minutes to listen to you.

Now you have another committee you can come to, which is specifically mandated for things like this. And it seems to me that you should be hammering away at the points you've made, and I'm sure you do, in your reports and in this committee.

Although we can't increase budgets, it seems to me you can certainly make a report, either agreeing or disagreeing with the commissioner and making recommendations to government and making them public. Then the government has to respond in one way or another as to whether or not the recommendations of the committee or the recommendations of the commission that were accepted by the committee are valid.

There has to be some way of getting around this impasse that you don't have enough money to do your job.

Hon. John Reid: Well, I think the committee does have a power to call the officials from Treasury Board to justify the positions they're taking on the funding of these offices. One of the great tragedies of the system is that last year, when Mr. Leadbeater was here, there was a great argument over whether or not he could give you certain information that was in the Treasury Board submission. I think you should have access to all those Treasury Board submissions, because that would really give you a window on two things--on what departments are doing, on what agencies are doing, but also on the way in which Treasury Board deals with those questions. Because right now it's a black box, from your point of view.

Mr. Tom Wappel: My final point would be that I agree with Mr. Forseth and you. The way we operate in society, generally speaking, is that everything is permitted unless it's prohibited, and it has to be specifically prohibited, and there have to be rules. I agree that the information is open and available unless specifically prohibited from being open and available.

It seems to me that at some point Parliament should be asked to remind Treasury Board, in some manner, that this is not a secrecy act but an information act. That's not to diminish the 13 points you mention, because they're all valid, but to remind them that they should be reversing the way they look at this matter and should be finding reasons to give information, as opposed to withholding it.

If Parliament is the appropriate authority to say that, perhaps you should request it in one of your reports specifically from Parliament and ask Parliament to take it on. Somebody could move a motion and have a good debate in the House of Commons at some point.

I leave it at that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, sir.

The Chair: I want to go to Monsieur Gaudet, please, followed by Mr. Roy, and then Mr. Macklin.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Gaudet: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What kind of cases do you have? If you have a backlog of 1,000 cases in one year, what kind of cases are they? It can't be that difficult. Are those matters on which the government does not wish to give any information? What kind of cases are they? Give us some examples.

[English]

Hon. John Reid: These are cases where individuals have asked for certain information, the government has denied that information, and they have appealed to the information commissioner. The information commissioner then gathers all the files and goes through the information to make sure the material that has been severed out is according to the act and the 13 exemptions.

Where we run into difficulties is where there is a disagreement. Sometimes it's honest, and sometimes it's not so clear-cut. We go through all of those files and make judgments. Generally speaking, 99.9% of the time we come to an accommodation and agreement that the information goes out or it stays private.

We take about two cases a year out of the 1,000 to the courts. The role of the ombudsman is to make sure that maximum material comes out, and we do that. We do not have the power to release information; only the court has that power. But we are able to work a very efficient and effective system and we don't spend much money or time on the courts.

À (1040)

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Gaudet: How many employees do you have?

[English]

Hon. John Reid: We have about 50 employees. Last year, from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2004, we opened 1,428 files. The previous year, it was 1,154 files. That tells you that there's been an increase of about 375 files that have come in; that's an increase of about 25% in our workload.

I'm told we have 56 “full-time equivalents”. You understand that's not necessarily people; that's full-time equivalents. I apologize for the misinformation before.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Gaudet: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: One of my questions has been answered, about the number of employees. But did you say that's 50 positions, and not all are filled now?

Hon. John Reid: What I said was 50 positions, but I was given the correct terminology, which is 56 “full-time equivalents”, and they're not all filled. As a matter of fact, because of the financial constraints this year, at one time we were down three investigators from what we had had before, and I think we're still down two investigators. We have not been able to fill those positions because of financial constraints.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How many investigators do you have?

Hon. John Reid: We have 23 at the present time. Before we had these other problems financially, we had 25.

Mr. Leon Benoit: What kinds of backgrounds do these investigators have normally? Are they varied, or do you look for a typical background?

Hon. John Reid: We look for a varied background. We have all kinds of people with all kinds of skills. We have accountants, librarians, people who have come up in the general civil service. Our level is about PM-4 and PM-5. We have been hiring lately from the departments, from their ATIP shops. We do that because it saves us money in terms of the training, but it puts pressure on the departments. I would like to see us being able to go on a broader basis.

We have participated in the setting up of a course through the University of Alberta extension service on access and privacy. We now look for people who have taken some of those courses. At some point, we probably will say you can't come in unless you've taken the certificate course. We find, in this emerging profession of access and privacy, this kind of course work is extremely valuable. If we take somebody in from the outside and we train them, it's about three years before they are fully producing. If we take somebody who has some experience, then within a year they are basically fully producing.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How effective has it been hiring people who have been inside the departmental access shops. They would know how other people in that area tend to block access. They would know the particular people who are most likely to behave in a particular way. They would know what instructions they are given. That should all be quite helpful.

Hon. John Reid: What they have is a very good working knowledge of the act. That's very important. It's also interesting to know that about 65% to 70% of the time we agree with the government about its severing process. It's not that it's the other way around. Generally speaking, we find there has been a big improvement in the quality of severing that has taken place over the last four or five years.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Are there particular departments that you find most often block access you feel should be given?

Hon. John Reid: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Which departments?

Hon. John Reid: We publish in our report cards a list of the departments that are problematic. We have last year's annual report, and I can—

À (1045)

Mr. Leon Benoit: It is in the annual report?

Hon. John Reid: It is always in the annual report. It's all listed there and it is all quantified in considerable detail. We also go into detail as to where the blockages are, why the blockages are there, and what can be done to improve. We not only give you a report card, sir, we also say here is how you can improve.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You were talking about improving the act. I'm wondering how much benefit there is to improving the act. Is the problem so much the act, or is the problem that there seems to be in certain departments an automatic reaction to try to keep any information hidden that could be difficult to deal with, should it get out to the public. It's that philosophy of secrecy. You alluded to it in your opening comments, I think, or in response to a question, maybe.

Hon. John Reid: The responsibility of the Office of the Information Commissioner is to make sure the act is respected. A department can have a particular view as to whether information should come out or not. Our concern is to say whether or not that information can be kept secret, or whether it can come out according to what's in the act.

My view of the act is that 22 years ago when it was passed it was a world-class, world-beating piece of legislation, but it has not been looked at. I would think members of Parliament would like to look at the secrecy provisions in the act—that is, the 13 exceptions. They may want to look very closely at the question of whether or not cabinet documents should be treated in the way they are now. You should want to look at all of the areas of the Government of Canada that are excluded from the act—crown corporations and foundations, to name only two areas. Officers of Parliament are another area that is excluded. I would think a good parliamentary review would be the way to go to determine where the act's weaknesses are from your point of view, because as a parliamentary officer this is your act. I as a parliamentary officer am your eyes and your effective enforcement mechanism of the system.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I can understand the need for changes in the act, and as you were explaining it, I can understand that those changes could be very helpful in having appropriate information come out, including from crown corporations. Certainly some are extremely secretive. The Canadian Wheat Board has an unusual level of secrecy.

The other is the powers that you're given or the tools you have to push an issue when you feel you're not being given the information that should be given under the act.

Hon. John Reid: I have always said that the powers that I have under the act are more than adequate to do what has to be done. I seek no powers for the Office of the Information Commissioner. What I do seek is an adequate level of funding so that I can properly exercise the responsibilities given to me under the act.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you feel that funding really is being used as a way to reduce the effectiveness of the office, I guess, in terms of providing information that should be provided under the act.

Hon. John Reid: Well, I wouldn't want to say that is the way in which Treasury Board has approached it, but there is no question that the ability of a very small agency like the Office of the Information Commissioner to get a hearing for Treasury Board is very difficult. We're only $5 million in the yearly budget, so when you consider what the total budget of the Government of Canada is, they naturally want to focus on the areas where the big dollars are.

Mr. Leon Benoit: What was that $196,000 you were talking about that was clawed back?

Hon. John Reid: This was the claw-back. When the Treasury Board agreed to the separation of the two organizations--privacy and access--we had had a joint corporate installation at that time. They asked us what it was going to cost, and we said it was going to cost us about $400,000 in terms of one-time transition costs and about $325,000 a year in extra operating costs.

They transferred from the Privacy Commissioner's budget the $325,000 to us; however, they gave us nothing in terms of the transition costs. In the Government of Canada, when they talk about transition costs they are real costs, so consequently we have had to eat a fair amount of that. I hope at the end of this year, with the supplementary estimates that will be coming down shortly, that it will put to bed the whole question of those transition costs, and we can get on with it.

That meant that they gave us the $200,000 for the transition costs for the first half and then they clawed it back the next year, so it meant I was really looking at a $600,000 transition cost that I had to eat in some way.

À (1050)

The Chair: Thank you.

We're going to finish off the session with Mr. Macklin, Ms. Yelich, and then Ms. Neville.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you very much for being with us today and assisting us in going through this process.

First of all, you mention that in terms of the number of files you're opening, they've gone up in the last fiscal year by 25%. Do you have a comparative, to give us some indication, in terms of the number of information requests--that is, the access to information requests? What percentage did it go up in the same period of time? In other words, are the complaints becoming more numerous only because people are being blocked, or is it in fact just a representative increase that reflects the use of the system being increased?

Hon. John Reid: I believe it reflects the use of the system. About 8% to 10% of all of the requests going through are appealed to our office, so we have been told there has been a big increase in the amount of work coming through the departments. So this figure is not a surprising figure.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: You don't have any statistical basis to suggest to us that the complaints are coming down--in other words, that the government appears to be more compliant in this process?

Hon. John Reid: The figures for the whole system are kept by Treasury Board, so we only see them when Treasury Board publishes them. We see our own figures, so we try to work on what we hear from Treasury Board on what the figures really are. We look on the basis that 9% to 10% of all requests will end up coming to us, and that's been a fairly stable number over time.

Now, there are changes in the mix. When I became commissioner, about 50% of the requests were for time delays. That's now gone down to about 15% to 20%, but the requests that we now get for appeals are much more complex, dealing with actual information as opposed to delays. The investigations are more complex now, as a result.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: With respect to another area, you say that you're not doing public education and liaison that you believe your mandate requires you to do. What estimates are you bringing forward in terms of dollars that you believe ought to be allocated in order to allow you to do that?

Hon. John Reid: We have made some submissions in the past to Treasury Board. We are in negotiations with them to do what is called an A-base review. This will be the third A-base review in my seven-year term, if Treasury Board accepts that. I am told that the chances are fairly good that they will be accepted, and we would anticipate that we would have a fairly good feel for the results of that by the end of the year. Generally speaking, the amount that we would like to see come in to do these projects and others is about $1 million. That would allow us to increase the number of investigators we have. We'd like to bring in somebody to do policy and to do publications and what not, and we need somebody to do research.

We are in desperate need of doing a whole range of things in terms of our information management technologies. By the way, we did get some extra money from Treasury Board for information technology, and we have a super system, of which we're really proud, that deals with the way in which we conduct our investigations. If members are interested, I'd be delighted to bring it over and show it to you or have you come over to the office and show it to you, because it's a super program and it really works well. It's really boosted our productivity.

The Chair: We'll go over to Mrs. Yelich.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: The questions asked were very good. I thank you for coming. It was most interesting.

You sound a little exasperated. I'd love to hear if there's anything we as members of Parliament can do. Perhaps you could make some suggestions. The previous witness from the public service suggested that she would like to see an ongoing relationship with the committee so that she has somebody to guide...and also to answer to.... That wasn't exactly what she said.

I wonder if you too could see yourself making some suggestions in that way.

À (1055)

Hon. John Reid: Well, I would make two suggestions. The first is that as an officer of Parliament, I really want to have a special relationship with the people to whom I report, because that is very helpful to me. Not reporting to a minister and not reporting to the civil service, it means that I feel that somehow I don't have anybody to be accountable to, and I feel very embarrassed when I'm not accountable to somebody, because I've always been accountable.

Secondly, I think that I'd like to see some work done on a proper financing model for the Office of the Information Commissioner, and indeed for all of the parliamentary offices. I think you've begun the process in the ethics bill, where you have set up the Ethics Commissioner in such a way that he will be funded through the House of Commons. There will be the budget set here and the word will go back to Treasury Board. Treasury Board will then add that fund to the Parliament of Canada's budget.

Because officers of Parliament are all in that status--i.e., our accountability is to the House of Commons--it should be the House of Commons that strikes our budgets and it should be the House of Commons that takes responsibility for accurately funding its officers. I think it's a difficult thing for Treasury Board to deal with those of us who are officers of Parliament, because we don't fit within their normal authority.

As you know, the Treasury Board is run by a committee of ministers, so in effect it's a committee of ministers that determines what the funding levels are for officers of Parliament. I'm not so sure that was the idea we had in mind when we established the concept of officers of Parliament. So I would like to see some work done on making us accountable more directly, financially and otherwise, to the House of Commons, using the formula that you have developed with respect to the Ethics Commissioner. I think that would be very helpful.

The Chair: Ms. Neville.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Reid, you've in part answered my question, and I see we're just about out of time.

I'm listening to you and I hear your frustrations and they're certainly palpable. To what do you attribute your lack of ability or your lack of success in not being able to increase your appropriation? You've gone before Treasury Board. You've dealt with the agency's budget and you don't have the successes that you would like. Why is that happening?

Hon. John Reid: Well, in the first case it may well be the inadequacies of the information commissioner, but I think primarily it is a problem caused by the fact that we are very small, so that it's very difficult for Treasury Board and people to see us.

Secondly, it's very difficult for the government as a whole to finance adequately the policeman who is looking at their activities in a way that in many cases they may not enjoy. There's no question that in my time we have had some very high-profile disagreements with the government. The interesting thing about that is that if you look at the terms of other information commissioners—Inger Hansen and John Grace—they also had high-profile disagreements with the government of the day. It's endemic to the office. But it becomes very difficult for the governmental structure, I think, to be willing to finance adequately these pesky officers of Parliament who cause them a lot of difficulties and problems.

I think the way out of that dilemma for the government and for Treasury Board—and it is a dilemma and it is a problem for them, I think we have to be fair and say that—is for members of Parliament and the committees to take on the responsibility and deal with it. I would be satisfied with that, and I think most of the other officers of Parliament would be satisfied with it, because we are your agents.

Á (1100)

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Neville.

Thank you, Mr. Reid and Mr. Leadbeater and Ms. McEwan.

The reference to this committee is through vote 40 under Justice, which really has nothing to do with your estimates, because it really is to the Treasury Board, which you correctly point out is a committee of ministers, many of whom you have listed in the back of your annual report as being problems with regard to access to information compliance. It tends to make it difficult for you to be seen as totally objective when those who have the ability to fund your activities are in fact those you have to deal with on the operational side. It's concerning.

It's also concerning that you would come to the committee and say you don't have the dollars to discharge the responsibilities Parliament has given to you. This should not go unaddressed very much longer. I'm not exactly sure at this point—we might want to discuss this with the committee—but if you have anything you have prepared, or if you've sent a letter to the Treasury Board president or to any other parties, we could issue an ATIP to get a copy of that letter, but maybe if you'd like to.... Then we could appeal to you.

I think it's important that we become engaged in this as well. From the standpoint of a relationship with a committee, I think this is the committee you should have a relationship with, and we certainly want to have it grow. We also have a responsibility to ensure that the estimates and the plans and priorities and all of those related responsibilities are discharged appropriately as well. This matter, however, would supercede, in the sense that “the operation may be a success, but the patient is going to die”. We should be engaged on this.

I'd like to invite you to please give us more information that you feel is appropriate with regard to your ability to discharge your responsibilities as an officer of Parliament. As was indicated by Mr. Forseth, the committee can strike a discussion on the matter and issue a report to Parliament requesting a response. If you have not got a response, we will get a response.

I thank you kindly for your presentation and for your answering questions to members. I think it's been helpful and informative. We look forward to our next meeting.

Hon. John Reid: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

We're adjourned until Thursday at 9 a.m. in this room.