Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I share Mr. Christopherson's feelings about the obfuscation that we're getting here this afternoon. This is not an investigation into some serious problem at the Treasury Board. This is time for us to understand the roles and responsibilities of the Treasury Board Secretariat and review them. Yet we seem to find this lack of direct dialogue that we thought would be helpful in this particular situation.
Talking about the accounting officers, which is this new thing we have brought into the Canadian model, the ninth report of the public accounts committee in the last Parliament said that the accounting officers would be responsible for the administration of the department on an ongoing basis. We brought that from the U.K., which I understand has had it for about 125 years. Yet I've heard nothing from you telling us that the accounting officers are going to have ongoing accountability for problems that arise in the department after they're long gone. Am I correct in saying that there is no ongoing accountability?
I think of our investigation into the sponsorship scandal, where the deputy said “I wasn't in the loop, don't look to me for the answer.” Then the minster saying, “I only handle policy, don't look to me, it wasn't my problem.” We were left with a huge gap and we couldn't point the finger at anybody. Now, it seems to me there's a huge hole in this model where, if the minister moves on and the deputy moves on, that's it, nothing. We can't point a finger or hold anybody accountable.
Am I correct? If so, why is that?