Government Operations Committee on March 27th, 2007

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

You should.

[Dr. Peter Harrison]

I do believe I've answered the honourable member's questions in terms of what the secretariat and the commission are intended to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you very much. I think you're being quite just, in not getting involved in some of this partisan nonsense.

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

I agree very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We will go on to the next questioner, Madame Nash. And I'm biting my tongue not to make some nasty remark.

Madame Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Madame Chair.

I'd like to welcome you, Mr. Harrison, especially as you're no longer in your previous position and you've made yourself available to this committee. So thank you for that.

I want to begin with your appointment and the functioning of the secretariat.

Of course the issue of accountability was a big issue during the last election. It was a key campaign promise by the Conservative Party. The Accountability Act was a centrepiece of this government's legislative initiatives, and the Accountability Act was passed with a number of amendments. Our party was involved in some of the amendments that we felt strengthened the Accountability Act, especially as it concerned the appointments process, to make the appointments more accountable to broader parliamentary oversight.

You were appointed in April 2006, and the Accountability Act was passed by the House of Commons in June. How did the passage of the Accountability Act change the work that you were doing in your position, if at all?

[Dr. Peter Harrison]

Thank you, Madame Chair.

If I may, I think that's an intriguing question. The order in council that created the secretariat and the commission in the first instance, as I pointed out in my opening comments, was related to the fact that in Bill C-2 at that point the reference to the creation of the commission was through a change to the Salaries Act. I am no legal expert, and I'm not an expert in machinery of government, so I do not have the ability to explain why it was done that way.

As you point out, Madame, Bill C-2 itself was amended, and effectively the principles, as I read it, of the order in council were included in the legislation. However, and I have not done a total analysis in recent time, the role of the commission would have been increased or is increased because of the fact that the bill is passed. By adding a number of functions, including audit, so the commission would be in the position of looking at what had taken place, the legislation still includes a very key instrument, and that is a report by the chair of the commission to the Prime Minister for tabling through the clerk in both houses of Parliament, which is maintained in the bill.

The bill also requires the development of a code of practice, which the order in council talked about in terms of guidelines. There are those who would argue that guidelines are different from code of practice. My reading of that is that an instrument needs to be developed so that ministers would be able to respond to that, so effectively, the work of the secretariat continued the way it had been, but with the role of the commission enlarged somewhat.

That's the best answer I can give you.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

There were no commissioners named to the commission, as I understand it. Is that not correct?

[Dr. Peter Harrison]

If I may, Madame Chair, the chair of the commission was not appointed. Three commissioners were appointed by order in council, and my understanding is that they resigned.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

No new commissioners were appointed?

[Dr. Peter Harrison]

There are no commissioners. No commissioners have been appointed.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

The commission does not exist?

[Dr. Peter Harrison]

The commission, Madame Chair, exists. There are no commissioners.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

The commission does not function?

[Dr. Peter Harrison]

But there are no commissioners.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

The role of the commission is not being fulfilled, or is it being fulfilled?

[Dr. Peter Harrison]

If I may, since there are no commissioners, I have to assume that function is not being fulfilled, but my information to this committee is that the role of the secretariat was functioning with the objective of supporting a commission.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

There are, of course, appointments being made on an ongoing basis, but there is no guidance or oversight by a commission, as required by the new Federal Accountability Act?

[Dr. Peter Harrison]

The new Federal Accountability Act indicates, if my understanding is correct, that the government may appoint a commission, and to my knowledge, that has not taken place. Appointments have continued, because the prerogative of the Governor in Council remains in place.

I am told--this is anecdotal, however--that given the discussions we had as a secretariat with many of the heads of agencies, crown corporations, and commissions, that within some of those organizations they have proceeded to review the procedures they have in place and to move in the general direction we would have hoped.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Because the secretariat exists, as I understand it, at the prerogative of the Prime Minister, what was the nature of your relationship and the secretariat's relationship with the Prime Minister? Does he provide oversight, and if not, where has the political oversight come from?

[Dr. Peter Harrison]

The secretariat was created by order in council. It has the status of a department within the Prime Minister's portfolio. This is similar to other examples elsewhere in the Government of Canada where a minister will have a number of responsibilities in her or his portfolio. So the secretariat was the department of which I was the deputy head, and I was accountable, therefore, to the Prime Minister as my minister. In reality the deputy head to the Prime Minister is the Clerk of the Privy Council. The Clerk of the Privy Council, who is also secretary to cabinet, plays the role of head of the Public Service of Canada, as you know. So my dealings with the Prime Minister's Office and with the Prime Minister, therefore, were through the Privy Council Office, as I think is appropriate.

That having been said, there were occasional meetings I had with the Prime Minister's director of appointments simply to keep him apprised as to what we were doing, or what I was doing in terms of my accountability as a deputy head.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Monsieur Rodriguez.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for coming here today Dr. Harrison. If I understand correctly, you were appointed on April 21, 2006, and you remained in this position until January 21, namely about nine months: a structure was established, a few individuals were hired, you left, other people left. I believe that at present there is only one individual at the secretariat, who will soon be leaving. So we are left with an empty shell. In your opinion, was this money well spent?

[Dr. Peter Harrison]

Madam Chair, I am not here to provide personal opinions. What I can tell you is that under my direction, the secretariat did accomplish what we had been asked to do. We did the required analyses. We held round tables. We created a network in the system.