I would like to start by saying that the round tables are part of the process. I said earlier that I was ready to assist Parliament in modernizing the program. I think there are three parts to this modernization process.
First of all, we need to modernize the public service culture as regards what I call the service culture. We must advocate a service approach when it comes to responding to inquiries. With respect to the latest amendment you made to the legislation, I will base all of my initiatives on the duty to assist in a reasonable way. I see this as a question of leadership on the part of deputy ministers.
I met with about 20 deputy ministers on the advisory committee of Treasury Board at a breakfast meeting. I told them that I see the duty to assist provision in the act as a question of leadership. Parliament did not include this concept in the act as a motherhood statement. The head of a business or a federal institution cannot delegate this responsibility to the coordinator. In terms of leadership, this is a continuum from the top down and from the bottom up.
The second component is the modernization of the administration. With Treasury Board, we have already started working to review the recommendations contained in the Delagrave report. This report was supported by my predecessor, but it has been gathering dust since 2002. Ms. Legault, the Assistant Commissioner, Policy, Communications and Operations, has begun discussions with Treasury Board representatives to begin moving these issues forward. We're talking here about statistics, training, recruitment and the qualifications of public servants, and perhaps some day their certification. In your report on Afghanistan, you used my recommendation that these people be certified, that their skills be identified and that their role within the federal institution be very specific.
The third component is the modernization of the act. This involves all sorts of considerations that I would like to discuss at the round table meetings. In his presentation to the committee, my predecessor—and this is not a criticism—did not discuss the issue of the power to order as compared to the ombudsman role. I am not advocating that we have the power to make orders, but this has not been discussed. If I remember correctly, four jurisdictions in Canada do have the power to make orders as compared to the ombudsman role.
At the federal level, the ombudsman manages to settle 99% of the complaints. The process works, but it is slow. Would a system in which we could make orders be more effective? It might lead to legal disputes earlier in the process, and it may not be more effective. However, we will have to have a debate in which we compare penalties and incentives and in which we discuss the entire technological system. We will also have to look at the timelines set out in the legislation and ask whether 30 days for an initial response is really a valid deadline nowadays, and whether there should be some limits on extensions. At the moment, extensions are unlimited, once the department has provided a document within the 30-day period.
I hope to focus on these issues at the round tables and present a detailed report on these matters next fall. In my opinion, these issues are not covered in Mr. Reid's draft bill.