Mr. Cossette, there are some points I'd like you to address.
I have in front of me the minutes of the meeting of this committee held on October 18, 2005, five years and 43 days ago. It basically dealt with an âFâ report that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade got from the Information Commissioner. They basically weren't following the law.
I'm going to quote you a few sections, because what I'm reading is almost verbatim what you're saying today. It talks about a plan to overcome the deficiencies:
We believe that the plan that we are now putting into effect will lead to these outcomes in the long term.
Then it goes on later:
As was mentioned above, the workload at the department's ATIP staff is a major factor in our inability to meet the legislative deadlines. [...] The plan proposes adding 15 employees.....
Then it goes on, Mr. Cossette:
Some of these actions include the development of a structured ATIP awareness program to educate departmental employees on their roles and responsibilities, a program that will include senior management, to build a network of knowledgeable officials at every level; implementation of new procedures for the review of documents by the division, which will eliminate most return visits by ATIP staff, and in addition, the ATIP process has been carefully mapped and is being redesigned to increase its effectiveness; purchasing--
And this is important:
--the ATIP image software application, already been in use for a number of years in most departments[...] However, I believe that by approving this action plan, the most senior levels of the department have demonstrated a clear...[etc.]
The results haven't improved any in the past five years. What is the difference between that testimony, which was given by Mr. Michael Calcott, director general of the executive services bureau of the Department of Foreign Affairs five years and 43 days ago, and the testimony you're giving here today?