Government Operations Committee on March 27th, 2007

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I am not judging you, Dr. Harrison. I want this to be clear. I am simply asking whether or not Canadians received value for their money in this instance. I'm simply trying to find out what happened following this series of events: if you had remained in your position, if the committee had furthered its process, if the team had been in place, if it were still operating, if there was something else. I am not at all trying to make you bear the burden of anything whatsoever. Nevertheless, given the way that things went, where you started from and where things got, I'm wondering whether or not this was money well spent, whether or not Canadians got good value for their money. That is simply what I am trying to find out.

You are sticking to that. Fine.

As a result of the problems with the commission, were appointments not made, was the work done by the government not really done?

[Dr. Peter Harrison]

I don't know. Could you clarify your question?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Of course. It is clear that there was an entire structure in place to operate and provide results. Given that this structure is no longer in place and given that it is, for all intents and purposes, an empty shell, has this situation had an impact on the appointment process and on the way that the government and its various entities operate?

[Dr. Peter Harrison]

Thank you, sir. Madam Chair, the secretariat was created to do the work required to establish a commission. One option would be—and I'm talking about options—to do everything on the first day, and it would take a great deal of time before a commission would become effective. We were asked to do the preliminary work so that there could eventually be a commission and so that this commission would be able to immediately begin fulfilling its mandate.

In my opinion, I was asked to do what I explained to you. I can simply say that I believe that we accomplished, within the prescribed deadline, what we were asked to do.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

What type of expertise was the secretariat to have in order to help the commission with its work? What type of expertise was the secretary to have?

[Dr. Peter Harrison]

Madam Chair, may I interpret the question?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Of course, if you don't interpret it properly, I will tell you so.

[Dr. Peter Harrison]

Perhaps you are asking me what my background is.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

No, not necessarily you, but—

[Dr. Peter Harrison]

No?

[Pablo Rodriguez]

What were they looking for as a team—

It's required to—

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

—particularly you.

[Dr. Peter Harrison]

I'll start with me. I did not appoint myself. Someone else did. That someone else could explain why I was chosen. However, I can tell you why I accepted the appointment. First of all, I felt that the objective was a noble one. Moreover, I am a career public servant. I was a deputy minister in a number of major departments. My experience was not related only to decision-making, but to personnel management as well. More specifically, besides being a deputy minister at Fisheries and Oceans and at Natural Resources, I created the Leadership Network. I was the vice-chair of what was then known as the Canadian Centre for Management Development. I served as the human resources ADM at Revenue Canada. I was the head of La Relève Task Force, and reported directly to the clerk of the Privy Council.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Harrison, far be it from me, or anyone else, to challenge your experience or your credibility. It isn't you that I don't trust, it's the government. Please don't think that we are ganging up on you.

Earlier, Mr. Poilievre said, quite candidly, that appointments should not be partisan—and I think everyone would be in agreement—but that they could be ideological. That is what I thought he said. People who are appointed to do certain jobs should share the government's way of seeing things. Did the group share that philosophy?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I have a point of order.

The member has mischaracterized my remarks, and he knows it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

That's a point of debate.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I just thought, from the other point of order you accepted, that the rules had perhaps changed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

That was also a point of debate. You've both had a chance to have your word.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Harrison, I believe that the question deserves an answer.

[Dr. Peter Harrison]

Madam Chair, the people who worked for the department had a great deal of experience within the public service. We started by deciding how we would proceed, and how we would choose our options; we had to write clearly and be familiar with the system. The people who came to work with me had those skills. I believe that the entire group agreed that our objective was to devise a system through which all of the names would be submitted to the governor in council.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

More specifically, would you say, Mr. Harrison, that all of the public service appointments may or should be based on ideology? That is what I would like to know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Harrison was a public servant. He was non-partisan.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I am trying to follow up—

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Yes, but he can't take sides. He was a public servant who was appointed to set up a system to vet candidates. I think that is more or less what it was all about. It was not up to the commission nor to Mr. Harrison to make the appointments. It was up to the Prime Minister and the ministers who were responsible to—

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

But it would still be interesting to hear his opinion, Madam Chair.