Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
And thank you very much, Dr. Carty.
I note that you've said from day one that your office has been inadequately funded and has had no permanent staff other than you yourself. We have been criticized for terminating your office, but what the government is trying to do is provide an office that can give them substantive policy advice to move the entire agenda forward.
I'd like to quote from Research Money. A gentleman named Mark Henderson wrote this. He said:
The role of the NSA was hamstrung from the beginning due to a minuscule budget, a vague mandate and the lack of a reporting mechanism to Cabinet. Several have criticized Carty for failing to negotiate a clear mandate before accepting the position. Indeed, Carty told Research Money in early 2005 that he was seeking a clarification and strengthening of his mandate from Paul Martin, but nothing came of the attempt.
And he quotes you as saying, “There are a lot of expectations being put on this office but without any mechanism for inputting policy advice to the highest levels, I'm not going to be very effective”. That's what he has quoted you as saying.
So I think there's a realization that with your office there were some challenges.
The government has put together STIC. From what you've said today, it almost sounds like what you're recommending. We have Dr. Alper, who is chairing it, with 17 other people in the council giving him advice—prominent people.
You seem to be criticizing STIC as not being independent because it has three DMs, but we've also heard that you had a committee of DMs under you. Do you feel that your office alone could give better advice to a minister or a Prime Minister than STIC, which includes 18 other people, with Dr. Alper as the chair?