First, I would like to clarify the following: Mr. LeBlanc and Mr. Bisson are not employed by the CNFS. They are independent consultants.
Mrs. Barbot, that which you are alluding to is in fact a personality conflict. The independence of the evaluators is not at issue here. I can assure you that these evaluators do not have the slightest link to the 10 institutions they evaluated.
No one likes to be criticized. To be subjected to a formative evaluation and therefore to be criticized is always difficult. As far as we are concerned, all our university programs are evaluated by peers and third parties alike. It is always difficult to be part of a critical evaluation by our peers. The purpose of the midterm evaluation was to do a critical assessment of what was going well and what was not going so well. I must admit that we were generally quite pleased with the quality of the evaluation.
What you are talking about is in fact a personality conflict to do with one of the evaluators. This conflict was brought to the attention of the executive committee and the board of directors and was resolved two weeks ago. It was decided that during the next phase, the firm would continue to do the evaluation. It is possible that the interlocutor will not be the same. We do not want to change the criteria, in other words, apply criteria that varies from one institution to the next. I think you would agree with the idea of maintaining some uniformity, of ensuring that funds are used well, and so forth. That was Health Canada's objective when it ordered a formative evaluation.
I must say I do not agree with you on the independence of the consultant. He was independent. His personality may have rubbed certain people in the network the wrong way, but this was brought to our attention. We will look at the issue and resolve it. Around the table, at CNFS, in Moncton and at the Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface, people were quite satisfied. Some institutions had a slightly more difficult experience with the evaluator, but that is normal. That is part and parcel of a critical evaluation. For example, if the behaviour and role of this committee were examined, some might say it needs some improvement. That is what happened in this case. It is possible that certain personalities clashed too much. As I was saying, we will address this issue. Furthermore, it has already been brought before the board of directors. I think people will be quite pleased.
I think it is important to realize, Mrs. Barbot, that notwithstanding this personality conflict, CNFS's achievements far surpass the objectives that had been set. It is a model that works and works very well. True training partnerships were developed with the regions, the Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface, the Acadian regions and the institutions of British Columbia. Some 10 institutions will work together to train nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and even doctors, in the case of New Brunswick.
At the University of Ottawa, where I manage 34,000 students, I find this type of collaboration within the framework of the CNFS, but not in the rest of the university. I think we can be very proud of that. The Government of Canada can also be very proud of initiating this network of institutions, which benefits from partnership and collaboration. I find this quite extraordinary.