I'd like to begin with something at the end of the report that was tabled for us. You've highlighted a phrase here: “Our political culture makes poor reporting safe reporting.” Earlier in the week we met with members from the Treasury Board Secretariat, from Privy Council. They used the term “flexible” pretty often, that they have a “need to be flexible”. I'm quoting out of Mr. O'Sullivan's opening statements: “needs of the government can be met”, and there is self-evaluation when reviewing deputy ministers' performance. There's nothing concrete. He keeps on going: views of the responsible minister; views of the Public Service Commission; views of the Privy Council.
What we've come up against here in committee over and over, especially in the problematic departments, is a revolving door of deputy ministers. I'm a rookie MP. I haven't been here very long, but I've now gotten to know several deputy ministers who, in the case of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, when coming before the committee and when we tried to address problems within the department, basically told us that they haven't been there long enough, but the intention is to fix some of these problems. I understand from colleagues who have been here much longer than I that this has been continuing for some six years.
You've studied the various departments. You've noted that there are differences among the departments. We had concrete recommendations that deputy ministers be signed on for a term of at least three years. When Mr. O'Connor from the Privy Council was speaking before us, it turned out that a three-year term doesn't suit the flexibility they want. I understood “flexibility” to mean “lack of accountability”. Then what was even more worrisome was he said--and I may not be exactly quoting him--that there is a requirement for the minister to get along with his deputy minister. I found that quite worrisome, because you assume that professionalism is the overriding consideration, and that almost seemed to hint at political considerations. When it was pushed, it finally came out that recommendation of at least a three-year term--and of course it would have qualifications, and you always need to have a safety valve--is something the Prime Minister's Office probably does not want or would not want.
What is your opinion about that particular recommendation--that deputy ministers should be in their departments at least three years, with some allowances in the case of extreme circumstances?