The news is good and bad.

By the time this decade-long case reached the high court last October, it had already become impossible for requesters to obtain a host of records that had become off-limits because they existed in the office of a cabinet minister. 

Officials who handle requests had admitted during my many off-the-record conversations that they feared departments were using this provision as a way to avoid releasing information that was more embarrassing than sensitive.

Now this practice will continue. Information deemed to be too sensitive, perhaps because it's too embarrassing to make public, will be dumped into a black hole known as the Prime Minister's Office, or the office of anyone else who sits around the cabinet table.

That's the bad news.

The good news is that perhaps the Supreme Court decision will finally end fishing expeditions, where requesters simply ask for everything that was ever produced on a particular file.

The whole idea behind the access to information system is to give citizens the right to records produced in federal institutions such as government departments and Crown corporations.

By law, those institutions can use a host of exemptions or exclusions to shield information considered to be too personal. And this is where the agendas come into play.

When Jean Chrétien was prime minister back in the mid-nineties, he was in a heap of political trouble, fending off conflict of interest allegations and questionable spending controls at the government department responsible for job programs.

Some journalists and the then-Reform Party smelled blood, and began demanding the personal agendas of Chrétien and some of  his key ministers.

The government said no, arguing that the agendas were personal and therefore beyond the scope of the law.

The high court agrees, but makes it clear that if officials in a department have access to ministerial records, Canadians should as well. Personal agendas have nothing to do with departmental officials, goes the argument. So they remain secret. 

When crafting broadly-worded requests, journalists, for instance, hope to obtain records that explain what advice ministers are given. In short, they're looking for documents that uncover political moves that could produce headline-grabbing news stories.

The court ruling makes it clear that you can't have records deemed to be the exclusive domain of a minister. That means it's necessary to do a bit of legwork to find out which records have been distributed to officials such as deputy ministers. So you may not be able to obtain a personal agenda, but perhaps you can still obtain a briefing note, memorandum or report that has also been circulating in a department.

In this case, an access-to-information request that is sharper and more tightly worded may be less likely to be subject to delays beyond what is now considered to be normal. This is the advice the access officials have given me during those many off-the-record conversations where they, too, admit frustration over their inability to track down records.

So look at this way: forcing journalists to craft better requests can be good news. I've begun doing so, and have plenty of material for background information and stories. But I operate in the real world and must admit that this doesn't always work. When in doubt, governments err on the side of withholding information. It's just the way it is.

There is ample evidence that the Harper government has gone to great lengths to keep information secret. Just before the recent federal election, the information commissioner asked the public works minister to refer a case of alleged political interference involving the former aide to ex-public works minister Christian Paradis to the RCMP. 

Commissioner Suzanne Legault is also investigating other cases of suspected political interference. 

As I did earlier this week, I would like to end on a hopeful note.  I used this space to suggest that now might be the time to turn the concept of open government into an initiative that actually means enhanced access to government records. 

The feedback to that column was interesting, with at least one person saying that I was hopelessly naive for suggesting that any government would be in favor of opening up access.

That may be the case. But perhaps the Conservatives, who first came to power in 2006 promising more access, will finally deliver now that they hold a majority.

After all, it was a former Reform Party researcher who helped start the battle that led to today's high court ruling. If Reformers were demanding more access back then, why can't Reform's successor, the Conservative Party, turn those demands into action now that it has the power to do so?

I also suggested that the government might heed the calls of a succession of information commissioners, MPs and advocates who have been pleading for a stronger Access to Information Act.

Admittedly, the government could go either way: it could use this judgment to tighten the screws on access even more, or change the law to finally reflect the expectations of a society that demands more information from its governments, not less.

David McKie can be reached at david_mckie@cbc.ca.

It was just last week that the office released its latest statistics on insolvencies - a combination of bankruptcies and proposals. And the story was much the same for consumers in 2010. They make up the bulk of the insolvencies: 92.4 per cent in 2010 and 95.75 per cent in 2009.

In 2010, 151,712 Canadians were insolvent. Of that total, 116,381 declared bankruptcy and 35,331 offered proposals to get out of debt.

Although the numbers are decreasing compared to 2009, they're still too high, which is why the governor of the Bank of Canada and the finance minister have been sounding the alarm about consumer debt.

So while Bruce Carson's money problems have formed part of a political narrative (sure to be spun out in the election) prompting questions about the Prime Minister's judgment, Carson is part of an unfortunate trend.

In short, he is one of the names behind the statistics that the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Canada publishes every few months.

David McKie can be reached at david_mckie@cbc.ca

• 2007-09
• 2006
• 2003-05

UPDATE: This afternoon, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon tabled his department's 2007-2009 Report on Exports on Military Goods From Canada.

NDP Foreign Affairs critic Paul Dewar, who has been demanding the report for the past few weeks, said that while he's happy the latest report is finally public, it's a shame the government decided to table the document on a Friday afternoon just before Parliament takes a week off.

Dewar also said the process the department uses to produce these reports is too slow, and secretive, given the importance of knowing what weapons Canada sells to countries in areas of the world such as the Middle East.

Despite this release, there is an interesting back story to these reports, which you'll find in the narrative below.

Once I have had time to read and make sense of this latest report, I'll produce an update.

* * *

In 2006, Canada sold about $360 million worth of arms, such as bombs torpedoes and rockets, to such countries as Chile, France and Oman. It sold aircraft and so-called "specially designed components" to Egypt.

That was then. What about now?

With a number of countries in the Middle East now wracked by conflict, the extreme example being Libya, advocates concerned about arms sales are beginning to ask questions about what Canadian companies export and to whom. And one of the best ways to track that information is through the export permits companies must obtain from the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Wondering about present-day arms sales is perfectly legitimate, given that there is concern some weapons could end up in the wrong hands, or on the wrong side of an armed conflict, and that Canadian arms could be responsible for the killing of innocent victims.

It would be easier to address these concerns if we had similar statistics to the ones I quoted at the beginning. But we do not. And here's why.

If a company wants to sell a weapon abroad, it must apply to the Department of Foreign Affairs for a permit, according to the rules of the Export and Import Permits Act. Foreign Affairs gathers the statistics from these permits to produce annual reports, which detail what we're selling, the dollar amounts and to what countries.

Arms permits data, 2003-2006: Sales by country
(Click red markers for details, or see the data)

Arms permit data, 2003-2006: Sales by type and country
(click markers for details, or see the data)

The department is supposed to table these annual reports in Parliament. Foreign Affairs rightly points out that there's no legal requirement for the department to do this. However, as was made clear by an explanation in a document about these reports that I obtained through access to information, "the practice of producing a military report is one that is shared by many like-minded countries, including EU member-states, Australia, the U.S., and so on." The explanation goes on to describe this disclosure as a "voluntary transparency." 

I filed this access-to-information request after we did a series called Arming the World in 2007. Back then, we raised questions about the lack of transparency regarding these so-called Reports on Exports of Military Goods. Foreign Affairs hadn't tabled a report in a number of years and said it was in the process of finalizing details to publish reports from 2003-2005, which it eventually did.

What became clear was that officials recognized they were late in filing these reports, and they talked about glitches such as the burden of dealing with paper records. They vowed to increase their "efficiency" with a move to dealing with records from companies in electronic format. Better days were ahead. The department went on to table its 2006 report. And then everything stopped. The "efficiencies" they depended upon to produce these reports with more regularity appear to have disappeared.

Attempting to get an interview has been impossible, despite repeated attempts.

As many journalists working on Parliament Hill are only too aware, email seems to be the government's preferred choice of communication, a better way to control the flow of information and keep on message. I received an emailed response from the department, which didn't provide much more detail than the document obtained through access to information.

I am certainly not accusing either the Canadian government or exporters of anything nefarious. There are strict rules about that we can sell and to whom, though the laws say little about arms that may make their way to despotic regimes via third countries or other circuitous venues.

What I am saying is that it's perfectly legitimate to ask about what we're selling and to whom, if nothing else than to rest assured we're not unwittingly complicit in the spilling of innocent blood. But without the kind of detail that Foreign Affairs provided about arms shipments back in 2006, it's impossible to be assured of anything. So the questions linger.

In most cases, the department would explain it policies in an interview. For example, why the delays in submitting these reports, especially when they talked about improvements back in 2007? Why where there so many glitches when other countries are about the publish their reports?

So far, this is all the department is prepared to say:

"The Government of Canada is finalizing the report on military exports from Canada for the period 2007-2009 and it will soon be tabled in Parliament."

That's not good enough. The department offered the same kind of assurances back in 2007.

If you have opinions about this story or any insight into the lack of transparency, please feel free to contact me at david_mckie@cbc.ca.

• INDUSTRY CANADA
• STATISTICS CANADA

Reports Feb. 11 revealed professors Amir Attaran and Errol Mendes were the subjects of voluminous Ontario Freedom of Information requests demanding files such as expenses and teaching records.

On the surface, such a demand should not be considered newsworthy, except perhaps for the scope and volume of the requests. But what really raised eyebrows was the professors' suspicion that federal Conservatives were behind the requests, though they had no proof and the Conservative Party denied having anything to do with it. The Prime Minister's Office refused to comment on the matter.

You see, by Ontario law, the identity of requesters is supposed to remain a secret, something a spokesperson in the PMO rightly pointed out. Mendes and Attaran suspect they were targeted because they have been outspoken critics of the Conservative government and are seen by some as Liberal sympathizers. Attaran, for instance, used the Access to Information Act himself to dig up lots of material regarding Afghan detainees, an issue that many suspect moved Prime Minister Stephen Harper to prorogue Parliament last year.

Whether the suspicion of political skullduggery should have made news is not the reason for this column. Instead, the allegations point to some of the contradictions and pitfalls inherent in a law that at worst is ill-defined and archaic, and at best, a catalyst for democracy. Indeed, these large requests have potential consequences, and not all of them good. Here's what I mean.

It's no sin to use the law to - and let's be blunt - dig up dirt on someone. Political parties do it. Non-governmental organizations do it. Lawyers do it. PhD students do it. Journalists do it. Full disclosure: One media organization has a campaign on the CBC, and the CBC has been criticized by the information commissioner and by Heritage minister James Moore for not responding to information requests quickly enough. We all live in glass houses.

Probing requests can lead to embarrassing headlines about dubious expense accounts and over-the-top bonuses that demonstrate poor judgment or a lack of fiscal responsibility.

While technically speaking there's nothing wrong with using the act this way, it's not the smartest way to proceed. These requests usually involve a huge volume of records, many of which can be personal and subject to exemptions, and tie up officials for months and months, possibly resulting in large price tags that may be too rich for the requester. As someone who teaches cash-starved journalism students how to use the law, I advise against using the act this way for the reasons I've just outlined. It's much better to conduct some research for the kinds of records you're seeking, and then craft a precisely worded request with a specific time frame.

This creates less work for bureaucrats and ensures results, and, at the end of the day, a possible story.

My point to students is that rather than use access to information as an unwieldy fishing net, it's better to employ more efficient means of obtaining those records.

Fishing expeditions paint requesters in a bad light and provide fodder for government officials who argue that the law should be amended to restrict requests because many tend to be vexatious, mean-spirited and time-consuming. The history of access to information is filled with such arguments. And I've been a part of those discussions, where I've argued that access should be opened up. A requester's motivation has nothing to do with it.

I suspect that one of the reasons the law hasn't been amended in any significant way is because of this fear regarding vexatious requests. Open the floodgates and requesters with nothing but embarrassment and revenge on their minds will come rushing through. I don't think I'm overstating the case, though others may disagree.

There seems little doubt the law could be used as a weapon in an age when politics, journalism and other endeavors seem to line up sharply on either side of the great ideological divide. A politician or a journalist can be demonized for being too right-wing or left-wing. The tone can be nasty, and the level of reflection extremely shallow. Here, the losers are not politicians and journalists caught up in the argument, but Canadians who depend on responsible and reasoned political discourse for the decisions they make.

And here's a danger that may seem counter-intuitive: In order to thwart requesters, departments at all levels may be tempted to follow the lead of B.C. Ferries and publicly release all material immediately after providing it to the requester, such as an enterprising journalist.

"Why should any applicant pay thousands of dollars in FOI fees only to lose all of the records' value when government sends it out to the world to co-opt the applicant?" argued investigative journalist Stanley Tromp in an opinion piece that examined the issue.

Of course, there are those who argue that these massive document dumps would be a good thing. But I agree with Tromp. Such a move would dissuade requesters from investing the time and money to craft requests if they gain little advantage from obtaining the records for a period of exclusivity, say a week or two. Fewer people using the act, means fewer people pressing governments to make reforms. This is not idle speculation. Canadian and American journalists are scared governments will attempt to thwart access with these massive, proactive releases.

One of the most popular listservs for investigative journalists has been buzzing with this conversation.

And, finally, let's not forget our current political context.

The allegations from Attaran and Mendes come at a time when the Harper government is facing real and important questions about political interference in other access requests, were a former political aide told bureaucrats in public works to "unrelease" a file that was going to be released to The Canadian Press.

Given the allegations of political interference - the Information Commissioner is investigating and due to report soon - academics' concerns about being targeted become, if nothing else, points for discussion. The government has denied it's up to anything - and it shouldn't have to deny or confirm anything because, by law, the identity of a requester must remain secret.

The fact that such denials are greeted with suspicion is indicative of the low level of trust that has descended upon the nation's capital and its political discourse.

If you have feedback about this topic or any other, you know where to find me at david_mckie@cbc.ca

The Canadian Press reported last April that disgraced hockey coach Graham James, convicted of sex crimes, received a pardon. All of a sudden, the whole business of giving people an opportunity to move on with their lives became political.

The prime minister made it clear that his government would not stand for this. With the kind of speed rarely seen in Ottawa, the law governing pardons was amended. The Parole board would process fewer applications, and spend more time on each case.

The government also instructed the parole board to take another look at the administrative fees it charged, even though the board already intended to increase the price from $50 to $150 on Dec. 31.

Now the board is proposing the charge be $631.

And here we are, debating the increase. But advocates opposed to the increase say there's more to this debate than the tough-on-crime government would have people believe.

For years, the parole board, an independent administrative tribunal, has gone about its business processing tens of thousands of parole applications quietly and with little controversy.

The rules are stringent. You can't apply for a pardon until you've served your time, paid any fine, and stayed out of trouble for three, five or 10 years depending on the crime. You can then apply for a pardon, a process that is not automatic.

So why do people apply for pardons? To get jobs or housing or to travel outside the country.

Michael Ashby, the director of the National Pardon Centre, a non-profit organization that offers pardon services, concedes that paying extra money, while a burden, would not necessarily mean the difference between obtaining a pardon or not - at least for his clients. But the move still bothers him.

"The Conservatives are willing to spend billions on new prisons. Price is no concern for minimum sentences and rigid parole policies. But for those people who have made a mistake involving the law and who wish to put that mistake in the past by applying for a pardon, there is not a penny to be found," he said in an email.

John Rogers, head of a company that helps people prepare applications for pardons, pointed out that many people he deals with are on social assistance, such as single moms. In an emailed response, he argues that the fee increase would make a difference:

"Toronto Social Services is being overwhelmed, and a huge percentage of these people cannot find work because of a criminal record. So we increase the fee and make a pardon more expensive and MUCH harder, and taxpayers in return get more unemployed people on assistance and guess what else? What do desperate people do when they have a criminal record and find there is no hope, that they have been branded a criminal? When they have kids who want things? They do whatever it takes. Even if it is a crime."

For his part, public safety minister Vic Toews insists there's no reason for the government to subsidize the cost of processing pardons, a process that is now more difficult.

Wednesday, Toews appointed new members to the parole board. They will have their work cut out for them.

For feedback on this topic, please feel free to contact me at david_mckie@cbc.ca

(Hear David McKie's story from World Report above)

While the saga of Christiane Ouimet and the public accounts committee's investigation of her time as the public sector integrity commissioner of Canada continues, some interesting numbers have emerged that may shed some light on the way that she did - or didn't do -- her job.

The committee wants to find out why the former watchdog for public sector whistleblowers never found a single case of wrongdoing during her time as the person in charge of the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada. The auditor general lambasted Ouimet's performance and suggested the office to take another look at the complaints. The MPs on the committee would like to hear from Ouimet and there's all kinds of speculation about why that might not happen - which could be the topic of future columns.

For the time being, we have some numbers to pore over. The committee asked for, and obtained, a spreadsheet that breaks down each investigation by factors such as when the complaint came in, the nature of the complaint, the reason for the decision, and the decision itself - which in every case was to close the file.

Feb8-2011-integrity-complaints (Or view the spreadsheet on Google Docs)

I took the liberty of adding one column to the spreadsheet called "Time between days," which calculates the time it took from the date the complaint was filed to the date the decision was rendered. And then I sorted that column in descending order.

The case that pops to the top took 1,624 days, almost four and a half years. The parts of the Public Servants Disclosure Act that were allegedly breached in this case was Section 8(a) (contravention of an act or regulation) and Section (f) (directing a person to commit wrongdoing). The complaint was made in 2005, before Ouimet become the commissioner. But she was the one who dismissed the case, as she did in 62 per cent of the complaints - in other words, all the files that crossed her desk. Other staff members dismissed the remaining percentage.

At the low end of the scale, there were two cases in which the file was closed on the same day it was received.

And just to throw another number at you, the average length of time it took to investigate these cases was 118 days.

In crunching the numbers, there were other trends that I found interesting. For instance, in 18 of the 234 cases that were dismissed, there were allegations such as "gross mismanagement of funds" and "substantiated and specific danger to life, health, safety of person or to the environment."

What's also interesting is this: according to David Hutton, executive director of a lobby group for whistleblowers that goes by the acronym FAIR (Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform), Sean Bruyea's case fell into this category.

You may recall that Bruyea was the former army vet who complained that officials in Veteran's Affairs were breaching his privacy rights by passing around his personnel files during the time he become an outspoken critic of the department. His complaint was eventually substantiated - but not by Ouimet's office.

"Canadians ought to understand there is a very direct link between protecting honest employees from reprisal and the integrity of our democracy: the safety of our foods, our drugs; air transportation," says Hutton.

"There are so many ways we're dependent on the government to do things right and protect us. And also corporations to do things right...," Hutton says.

"If you speak out about wrongdoing, the likelihood is that your career and livelihood are going to come to an end. And there is absolutely nothing in official channels that's going to protect you. It's only going to make things worse."

Of course, there is information that is not in the spreadsheet. For instance, we don't know the departments in which the complainants worked. It would be interesting to know whether a disproportionate number came from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in the wake of the listeriosis crisis that killed 23 Canadians, for example, or Health Canada or Environment Canada.

It could be argued that withholding that information protects the privacy of the potential whistleblowers. But then again, knowing which departments are involved would give us more information about potential threats to our food, prescription drugs and environment.

At least this spreadsheet is a start. Let's hope the committee demands and receives even more information.

If you have any information or observations you'd like to share, especially after studying the material in the attached spreadsheet, please feel free to contact me at david_mckie@cbc.ca.

"The safety and security of Canadians is of utmost concern to the Government. Put simply, there is no higher priority. For this reason, extensive efforts were undertaken to meet the urgent needs of all Canadians seeking to flee the deteriorating security situation and return to Canada."

Sound familiar?

Aside from the past verb tense, this could be mistaken for what foreign affairs minister Lawrence Cannon -- or the prime minister, for that matter -- has been saying to reassure Canadians the government is doing all it can to help its citizens get out of Egypt.

In fact, these words are from former foreign affairs minister Peter MacKay testifying before the standing committee on foreign affairs following the evacuation of 13,000 Canadians from a war-torn Lebanon in the summer of 2006.

MacKay described the operation then as "several times larger in scale and scope" than other recent emergency events, including the 2004 tsunami in South Asia.

Admittedly, the context was different in Lebanon, which was a country at war in the wake of the July 12, 2006, Hezbollah attack on Israel. That country fought back through attacks by air, ground and water.

Still, there are some similarities to the current situation in Egypt - and clues to things worth watching for in coming days.

For instance, the supposed lack of embassy staff in Cairo. Indeed, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff referred to the staffing situation in his lead-off question in Monday's Question Period as a way of emphasizing what happens when governments cut services.

Monday, Cannon denied the Egyptian embassy was short-staffed, and blamed difficulties in reaching the embassy on the general telecommunications shut-down in Egypt.

And then there is the issue of cost. The government is taking some heat for making people pay their own way out of Egypt.

Back in 2006, there was no question of making anyone pay. By the time thousands of Canadians had been evacuated, the final price tag was close to $100 million. In a backgrounder document obtained by CBC News under access-to-information in the wake of the crisis, this question of cost is tackled head on. (View the full document below.)

The question: Why are we paying to evacuate people who have not lived in Canada - or paid taxes here - in some cases for years?

The answer: Foreign affairs and International Trade Canada is mandated to provide, on behalf of the Canadian government, assistance to all Canadian citizens abroad regardless of their country of residence."

After Lebanon, the question of dual-citizenship became a thorny political issue.

This time around, Ottawa seems to be following the lead of Washington in coordinating evacuation flights, but doing so on a "cost-recovery" basis - making the passengers pay their way - which the United States is compelled to do by law.

Despite the differences between the Lebanon crisis and the events in Egypt, there are lessons for any government. The lack of embassy staff seemed to be an issue back then and could return as an issue this time around. And the speed with which we act could be another issue, as Ottawa seeks this time to avoid accusations it is moving too slowly, as it faced in 2006.

Whether the government learned important lessons from the Lebanon crisis in 2006 - still in the early days of the Harper government, after all - may be too early to tell. Still, it's worth noting that we've been down this kind of road before.

If you have any feedback on this story, or general observations of our funding of missions abroad, please feel free to contact me at david_mckie@cbc.ca

There are three main classes of immigrants: business, family and refugees. From the chart below, you see the trend that's in play.

When comparing their numbers from the second quarter of 2010 to the third quarter (the most recent statistics), we see that the business class - represented by the red line in the chart - grew by eight per cent; the family and refugee classes dropped by 2.6 per cent and 2.8 per cent, respectively.

These trends held firm when comparing the first three quarters for 2009 and 2010.

In a news release last summer, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said Canada wouldn't increase the number of business-class immigrants at the expense of family or humanitarian immigration categories, but the numbers tell a different story.

Predictably, advocates and some Opposition MPs accuse the Harper government of favouring people who either have money or who are coming here to do certain jobs over potential refugee claimants.

The government responds by pointing out that Canada needs people who can contribute to the economy and pay taxes (or put another way, stay off welfare) while helping to increase our population by sponsoring their relatives or having kids, or both.

I recall a scrum Kenney had with reporters on Nov. 1, 2010. We asked him about numbers, which even then showed an increase in people coming to Canada through temporary work permits. While he fielded specific questions about that program, there was no mistaking his government's take on the value of business-class immigrants.

(Click here to listen to audio of Kenney talking to reporters)

In the "refugee class," even though the overall category is in decline, there are parts of it, such as "privately sponsored" refugees, that are increasing. This comes as no surprise, as Kenney has touted this as a preferred route for refugees entering the country. But "Refugees landing in Canada" and those sponsored by the government are two parts of this overall category that are declining. And these declines are responsible for the refugee category's overall downward trend.

If you have any feedback on any aspect our immigration program, please feel free to contact me at: david_mckie@cbc.ca

Many of Health Canada's critics, holed up in talks in Ottawa with the department until the end of the week, charge that too many dangerous drugs are finding their way on to the market. As proof, they point to drugs such as Vioxx, the anti-inflammatory medication that was pulled from the worldwide market several years ago over safety concerns.

Today, there's concern about a number of drugs that have been the subject of warning letters from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and, to a lesser extent, Health Canada.

Not surprisingly, the drug industry sees it the other way. Its representative in Ottawa, an organization that goes by the acronym Rx&D, claims that Canadian regulators take too long, averaging about 545 days to review their safety data before deciding whether the drug is safe enough to market. Normand LaBerge, the organization's spokesperson, told me when I interviewed him the other day for my stories on the Health Canada talks, that this average figure consistently overshoots the department's own target of 300 days.

So who do you believe?

The truth, as is usually the case, is probably somewhere in the middle. Because LaBerge talks about an "average," this could mean that some medications make it to market a lot quicker, which brings me to the issue I'd like to broach: a convoluted and bureaucratic term called Notice of Compliance with Conditions (NOCC). The term may be cumbersome, but the end result could be life-saving - or deadly, depending on your point of view.

"Life-saving" to people who feel it's important to get certain drugs to people who desperately need them if the product meets a certain safety threshold. "Deadly" to those who argue that drugs can kill if they are allowed to enter the market without significant proof that they're safe.

Let me explain.

Before a drug company can sell a product, it must submit safety data to the drug regulator in the country where it intends to sell its medication. In Canada, that regulator is Health Canada. After reviewing the company's submission, and if the scientists are satisfied that the clinical trial data proves the drug can be marketed safely, the company receives a "notice of compliance." If the scientists feel the company's submission lacks enough safety information, they can ask for more data, which seems reasonable. But there are instances where the company is able to argue that it needs to get the drug onto the market because it will save lives.

So what happens is this:

Health Canada says to the company, okay, you've presented enough evidence to convince us the product is safe enough to give to the select people who really need the drug, but we'd still like you to submit more evidence while the medication is on the market. Because we still have questions, we'll give you what's called a Notice of Compliance with Conditions. You will sign a Letter of Undertaking promising to conduct more tests, and submit results when they come in. We'll review the new tests, and if they answer our nagging safety concerns, we'll lift the conditions, thus giving the product an approval, no strings attached.

I'm obviously simplifying what is obviously a serious and complicated process, but I hope you get the point. Other countries have similar processes to speed certain drugs to market. And the point must also be made that no company can prove absolute safety. Drugs have side effects. That's a fact of life.

In theory, conditional approval sounds fine, especially if you are someone who needs the drug in question. But what if the drug isn't considered lifesaving? What if it's a so-called "me-too" drug - a pill that is a simple variation on a money-making product already on the market?

Health Canada and drug companies don't give out detailed information about the drug approval process, citing confidentiality. But my guess is that if a product receives an NOCC, it's probably not taking 545 days to get to market.

With that in mind, I downloaded the statistics from Health Canada's website that tracks drugs that receive various kinds of approvals and filtered the dataset for those that received the green light with constraints. In 2003, five drugs received an NOCC. In 2010, the figure jumped to 17.

Chart: Number of drugs recieving Notice of Compliance with Conditions from Health Canada, 2003 to 2010. Source: Health Canada website 

So the number of conditional approvals more than tripled, as you can see in the chart above. I have also created a table of all the conditional approvals from 2003 to 2010, which you'll find in this PDF. You look at the drugs, and the class of medications to which they belong, and be the judge.

Critics say the increase in conditional approvals is proof that Health Canada is speeding more drugs to market with inadequate safety data. They may have a point. But then again, there could be valid reasons for the department's decisions. The thing is, without more information, Canadians will never really know, which is one of the reasons the government needs to open up the drug regulatory process by making as transparent as possible. There have been calls for this in the past, not only in Canada, but in the United States and elsewhere.

In responding to our questions about the closed-door drug safety talks taking place in Ottawa this week, the Health Minister urged people to speak up if they have concerns. So I'd like to take up Leona Aglukkaq's challenge by calling for greater transparency and more information about a drug approval process that is too important to be relegated to closed-door meetings.

If you have any views about this or any other issues I've written about, please feel free to contact me at: david_mckie@cbc.ca

• Employees' salaries and services contracts;
  
• Travel;
  
• Hospitality and events;
  
• Advertising;
  
• Printing;
• Offices. 

Only where there would be a real risk that Mr. Leblanc's answer would disclose MaChouette's identity, should the judge ask himself whether, after an assessment of the relevant considerations, the balance of interests favours privilege over disclosure. For example, at the far end of the spectrum, if Mr. Leblanc's answers were almost certain to identify MaChouette then, bearing in mind the high societal interest in investigative journalism, it might be that he could only be compelled to speak if his response was vital to the integrity of the administration of justice. Ultimately, these matters will be for the judge to determine, but he must consider them.

A police officer stands by the G20 fence in Toronto in June. The latest G20 spending figures show the government spent about $200 million on travel, hotels and other expenses during the summit. (Reuters)

It may be some time before we know the total cost of the G8/G20 summit.

In June, we learned through an Access to Information request that the Department of Foreign Affairs spent about $20 million for items as mundane as phone rentals to more interesting purchases, such as the hosting of a "mock youth summit." Foreign Affairs censored much of the material, citing security concerns.

Once the June summits in Toronto and Muskoka were over, the department released another version of the cost-breakdown that was more uncensored, but not completely. For instance, we learned that AVW Telav was the company that received the $2.6 million contract to supply audio visual material.

But before discussing these new militants and why they're so upset, let's have a quick word about the forms that are causing all the fuss.

The agency uses a rigorous methodology to select individuals who answer the questions on the long form. The selection process ensures that an accurate cross section of citizens who provide richer detail about their backgrounds. Researchers can then use that information in combination with other data sets to explain certain behaviour. For instance, do the prescription drug habits of people in a certain neighborhood have anything to do with socio-economic factors such as how much money they earn, or their ethnic background? Combining information from the long form with the actual prescription drug habits provides researchers in British Columbia with possible answers.

So if the information is so valuable, why is the government doing away with the census long form and replacing it with a survey that will cull similar information, but voluntarily? The government says it is simply responding to concerns of individuals who were worried about the intrusive nature of the questions.

Citing privacy concerns, the government will still allow StatsCan to distribute long form, but as a survey people can fill out if they wish.

"Canadians, I believe, and we believe, will be very happy to fill in the long form," explained Conservative senator Marjory LeBreton.

Not so, retort researchers such as Raymond Currie, who knows a thing or two about the methodology behind census taking. Currie is stepping down as the executive director of the Canadian Research Data Centre Network, a coalition of 24 (and soon to be 26) research centres at universities across the country. The network uses information from the long form for much of its work. The irony here is that the network also receives government money to conduct that research. So, on the one hand, the Ottawa is giving it money to conduct research; and on the other taking away some of the very data it needs to do that work.

And what kind of work? Currie uses the following example.

"Let's say an Italian community in Montreal wants to set up a centre for the elderly. Where do the Italian elderly live in Montreal? How many are there? Is there sufficient need or demand for a centre for the elderly of Italian descent who would like to be surrounded by people of their own ethnicity? You couldn't get that information if you didn't have a long form, which tells you all about minority groups."

Currie's group has sent a letter to Tony Clement, the federal minister responsible for StatsCan, demanding that the government reverse its decision. Currie echoes the concerns of researchers who explain that if you make something voluntary, then many people just won't bother, no matter how noble the exercise, and no matter how much you plead with them to cooperate. So even if the government plans to send the forms to a greater number of households, Currie and many other researchers who have spoken out (including former statisticians with the agency) argue that the return rate will still be well below the gold standard of 95 per cent. He says this means the data would be unreliable because it would fail to represent an accurate cross section of society, in large part because research demonstrates that certain individuals such as those from low-income backgrounds and immigrant communities avoid filling out forms. And these are some of the very people who would benefit from research into certain behaviours.

Currie says just because people dislike completing forms, doesn't mean governments should let them off the hook.

"People objected to seatbelts. People object to legislation on anti-smoking. They object to the legislation on cell-phone use in cars. But we do things for the common good. We have to measure the common good against the individual good. Nobody says we should cut out jury duty and not have it obligatory. And no one says we should cut out the census except the minister."

So far those arguments don't seem to be swaying the government. Standing beside Marjory LeBreton at the news conference in Ottawa was John Baird, the minister who has become the de facto spokesperson for the prime minister when he's not around. When asked about the long form and the reason for changing the government's policy, he gave an answer that left journalists scratching their heads.

"(The) government threatening to put people in jail if they don't tell how many bathrooms they have is a bit heavy handed and a bit ridiculous. We will respect peoples' right to privacy. At the same time the important information that's needed in the census will be gathered."

Flummoxed, journalists pressed Baird and LeBreton to explain what they meant by throwing "people in jail." (Listen to the audio here.)

LeBreton: "...as John said, (we) will not be throwing people in jail and threatening them with fines and chasing them around forever for not filling out the long form."

Baird: "I just think a lot of Canadians find it really offensive that big government steps in their lives, asking how many bathrooms they have in their house. I think it's ridiculous."

(UPDATE: I've just heard from an expert who pointed out that the 2006 long-form census didn't actually ask about bathrooms.)

So what advice, did the government receive? Who's complaining about the government being intrusive? And how did the government arrive at this new policy? The journalists had no luck obtaining answers. Baird suggested they put their questions to Tony Clement. So I called. No response so far. However, in the past he has been quoted as saying that the government doesn't have to shout it from the roof tops every time it makes a change.

Undaunted, a number of groups are adding their voices to the disenchanted. Marianne Levitsky is one of them. Her field is occupational health and safety. She doesn't use the data from the long form, but felt compelled to express her concerns. She assumed there would be a petition, but after conducting a bit of research discovered this was not the case.

Levitsky considers herself just an ordinary Canadian who was so outraged that she also started a Facebook page and petition with 4811 signatures) which she is sending to Tony Clement.

She says Baird's comment about people being sent to jail is ridiculous and feels that many Canadians would gladly cooperate, as they have in the past.

"Most Canadians are glad to fulfill their obligations of citizenship. And it's not a matter of doing it because you think you might be put in jail. And we usually do it willingly and gladly when we see there is a public benefit."

One of the people to sign her petition is Steve Morgan, a health policy researcher at the University of British Columbia.

"It sounds as though it's just bean counters at some levels," he says. "But when I can show you I can do a study that demonstrates that children from a minority group living in neighborhoods that are predominantly white, do worse off than children where there are larger concentrations of their ethnic identity. That's not to say that the policy prescription is to racially segregate. But it does tell us something about the experiences of people, and maybe help us talk to doctors about how to make that extra effort to be culturally competent when you're talking to a person who is a recent immigrant in a neighborhood for which there is not a lot of immigration."

Steve Morgan, Marianne Levitsky and Raymond Currie are three voices that seem to be part of a growing chorus of critics which includes key members of the business community that use the data; the country's official languages commissioner who is investigating the government's decision; municipal politicians who depend on the data to figure out how to provide services to certain neighborhoods; and, of course, federal opposition politicians.

So, as we say in journalism, this is a story that seems to have legs, especially since it involves data that has been tantamount to gold to some of the country's leading researchers.

If you have any information to share about this story, please feel free to contact me at david_mckie@cbc.ca.

The mood grew increasingly tense, as Togneri refused to answer if he had ever done this before. The Conservative members attempted to shield the aide, but to little effect. And, as fate would have it, the fire alarm sounded. Everyone exited and lounged in the sunshine until the fire trucks came and went. It was a false alarm, but the meeting was basically over.

The next scheduled witness, Dimitri Soudas, who is now the prime minister's Director of Communications, was supposed to be right after Togneri. I heard him tell committee chairman, Paul Szabo, that he would appear whenever the committee wanted. But that cooperation was short lived. And the culprit seems to be ministerial accountability.

Days before he was scheduled to reappear, a different-sounding Soudas publicly indicated that he would decline the invitation to testify because the government decided that only ministers, and not their aides, would answer questions at committees. The opposition MPs smelled cover-up. The government cited the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, which essentially means that ministers are responsible and accountable for their departments.

Donald Savoie teaches public administration at the University of Moncton and has recently written a book on power and who really has power in federal politics.

While he can understand this sudden invocation of ministerial responsibility, he says the government may be using the venerable doctrine as a shield to protect aides from answering tough questions that could land them or their bosses in trouble.

"The difficulty, of course, is that I don't think parliament and Canadians are in any mood to see the government say no, in the name of transparency. And so I think the Canadian parliament expects ministerial aides who are paid by taxpayers, to appear before a committee of parliament. There's not much tolerance on the part of Canadians for the finer points of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility because it has been stretched and pulled so many times that Canadians can't figure out what it really means."

Stretched and pulled because during the Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship scandal, Jean Chrétien and his former public works minister Alfonso Gagliano refused to take responsibility for the scandal, recalls Ned Franks, who was the inquiry's senior research advisor back in 2004.

Savoie agrees.

"Jean Chrétien appeared before Gomery and said 'I am responsible, but I'm not to blame.'  And so did Alfonso Gagliano," he says. "The Liberals used (the argument of ministerial responsibility to avoid blame). The Tories are using it (to avoid aides having to testify). They're stretching this to meet the circumstances of the day."

But perhaps the problem isn't ministerial responsibility and the way it may be used to avoid answering tough questions. Perhaps, the problem lies with political aides and how they're defined.

According to a Privy Council document called Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State - 2008, "political" or "exempt staff" exist to do what civil servants can't: "Share their political commitment... and contribute a particular expertise or point of view."

So what is the nature of this expertise? Does it involve communicating with civil servants such as access-to-information officers about releasing certain records?

Well, the guideline in the Privy Council document states: "To the extent practicable, relations between officials and exempt staff should (my emphasis) be conducted through the deputy minister's office. The deputy minister's office should be informed about contact between exempt staff and public servants in the department."

So was the deputy minister at public works informed about Togneri's instruction to "unrelease" the document?

"It curls your hair," says Franks,  "when you have (young adults) threatening 50-year old public servants with 30 years experience with 'well, the minister wants this, or 'this minister doesn't want this, and bloody well do it.' I mean there's something gone wrong. It's worse now than in the past."

And to make matters worse, says Savoie, the political staff member may be acting without the consent of his or her boss. He says the MPs have a right to ask that question directly to Togneri, Soudas, or any other political staff who may have acted without the specific instruction from his or her minister.

The access to information committee is still determined to hear from political aides and have summoned Dimitri Soudas to appear. If he refuses, and the government continues to send cabinet ministers such as Transport Minister John Baird to committees instead, the dialogue will continue to descend into what Savoie calls a "gong show" that merely turns Canadians off politics.

A refusal  to appear could also result in a charge of contempt of parliament, a charge Savoie and Franks say is not to be taken lightly.

So, back to the number 137, the number of pages Public Works was supposed to release to the Canadian Press.  In the end, the department was 82 days late in getting out a document which was whittled down to a mere 30 pages. The Canadian Press successfully complained to the Information Commissioner, who is still investigating Togneri's involvement in the file. The department was forced to hand over the entire document, as it had planned to do in the first place.

What did the record show?

"That the average vacancy rate in Public Works-managed real estate was 5.1 percent, far above its internal target of 3.5 per cent."

If you have any information you'd like to share with David, he can be reached at david_mckie@cbc.ca.

(David McKie, May 28, 2010) PDF One_cover Letter

But when I got to the second page, there it was, the dreaded Section 69. In fact, the first 92 pages were excluded. No questions asked.

(David McKie, May 28, 2010) PDF One Referred to in Story

But there was more. On the next page, thanks to section 69, I would not be allowed to see an additional 260 pages. Hopefully, you're  starting to get the picture. The first piece of information after these exclusions was contained in what's called a "Question Period Note": A list of "suggested" answers that cabinet ministers and their political underlings use during question period. The first proposed response read as follows:  "The Government is deeply committed to increasing openness and transparency and to upholding the principles of Access to the Information Act."

(David McKie, May 28, 2010) PDF Two Referred to in Story

I may be stating the obvious, but if the government was so committed to transparency, why did it withhold so many records, which, ironically, spell out discussions about access to information?

I called the Information Commissioner's Office to see if a complaint would do any good. That's because even the commissioner is not allowed to see documents excluded under Section 69. The official confirmed that Section 69 exemptions tie their hands.

Curious, I researched the use of exclusions under Section 69. I wanted to find out if departments were using the section with increased frequency to deny information. After dumping some numbers into Excel from a document that keeps access-to-information statistics, I discovered that since 2005-2006, the use of Section 69 has increased slightly more than 34 percent.  During the same time period, the number of requests increased by about 25 per cent. Section 69 exclusions are increasing at a faster rate. So the government can't simply argue that more departments are using this section because more people are filing requests. That may be true. But only to a point. There has to be another explanation.

(Source of data: http://www.infosource.gc.ca/bulletin/bulletin-eng.asp; Graph: David McKie)

So what are we to make of the increased use of Section 69? Does it feed into the criticism of the opposition parties who argue that the Conservative government is betraying its commitment to greater transparency?

I ran this by Michael Geist. He teaches law at the University of Ottawa, is a frequent user of the act, and maintains a website that tracks requests in large departments such as Industry Canada.

"If you want to be scrupulously fair about it, I think (your) numbers.... don't necessarily tell the whole story."

He says it could be that an increasing number of requests delve into sensitive territory. So without examining each request, it's difficult to draw any definitive conclusions.

Fair enough.

"It's hard just looking purely at statistics to know. If in the department of Foreign Affairs there has been a lot of focus on Afghanistan, and detainee issues, and any number of those highly sensitive kinds of things that have been much in the news over the last number of years, well you can understand why the government is reluctant to release some of that stuff.  So it may be that some of the requests are driven by news cycles and other kinds of events."

That may be so, but getting back to my request, there was one exclusion (as opposed to a total exemption under Section 69) that intrigued me: Blanked out portions of a Hill Times article about the decision of Robert Marleau to quit his job as information commissioner. A Google search quickly turned up the full article, which read in part:

"Mr. Marleau said the Access to Information Act needs to be improved and Canada should 'restore its reputation internationally as a model of democratic values.'"

(David McKie, May 28, 2010) PDF Three Referred to in Story (David McKie, May 28, 2010) PDF Four Referred to in Story

Hmmm. If this is an example of the kind of information that has been excluded or completely exempted under Section 69, I think I'll file a complaint to the Information Commissioner's office after all. Wish me luck.

But, having the information in a program such as Excel would allow for those kinds of comparisons. So, I requested the data in the online document in Excel, but was refused. It would seem that the powers that be are concerned with journalists "manipulating" the information in the manner I've just described.

Undeterred, and using a variety of techniques, I was able to get the information into Excel, which allowed me to create some lists that, while far from exhaustive, provide interesting ways to look at the expenses.

For instance, in order to determine the biggest spenders, I added the 10 individual categories (office, advertising, travel, etc), and then sorted the new "Totals" column in descending order. In short, I "manipulated" the data.

So what you'll see here is four sets of charts containing Top 20 and Bottom 20 lists in the following categories: Total Expenses; Staff and Other Expenses; Travel; and Advertising. After each category is an explanation culled from the parliamentary website that provides some context. Please be sure to read the explanations before reading the numbers.

It's also important to reiterate that these expenses are from April 2008 to March 2009, which is why you'll notice the inclusion of names of former MPs such as Rahim Jaffer and Belinda Stronach. The Speaker refuses to release the most recent expenses until next November, even though some MPs have begun publishing their expenses for the most recent fiscal year.  All that being said, the lists that appear in the charts below provide an interesting snapshot of expenditures on either end of the spectrum.

Expenses: Top 20 and Bottom 20

Total Expenses: The total is comprised of 10 categories including staff, travel and advertising.  Because these expenses are from the fiscal year April 2008 - March 2009, the data includes MPs such as Stronach, who are no longer MPs, either because they chose not to run (as was the case with Stronach) or were defeated. If they were not MPs for the full year, that might explain their lower expenses. It also includes MPs who were elected for the first time, which is also why some, such as Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq appear in the Bottom 20. And there are other factors that influence the numbers. For instance, Stephen Fletcher is at the top because of the special accommodations he requires to deal with his disability.

Staff and other expenses includes employee salaries, service contracts and constituency office operating expenses such as utilities, telephone service for secondary constituency offices, additional cellular and personal digital assistant (i.e. BlackBerry) services in excess of goods and services provided by the House (as well as airtime and data plans), furniture and computer equipment. This item also includes a miscellaneous expenditures account of up to three per cent of the Member's Office Budget for certain hospitality expenses and gifts given for reasons of official protocol.

You'll notice the Top 3 spenders are from relatively big and/or remote ridings, although many following the Top 3 are from urban ridings as well. If you dig deeper you also might find that some of the top spenders sit on more committees than some of the smaller spenders.

Total travel  includes travel, accommodation, meal and incidental expenses incurred by the member and the member's employees, designated traveller and/or dependant(s) within the constituency or the province or territory in which the constituency is located. It also includes certain transportation expenses incurred by the member within the National Capital Region, as well as accommodation, meal and incidental expenses incurred by employees on parliamentary business trips within Canada specifically authorized by the Board of Internal Economy. Seats identified as "vacant" are the taken care of by the former MP's Party Whip or, in the case of an Independent MP, the Speaker.

Again, most of the top spenders are those from large ridings, from ridings that are far from Ottawa (i.e. B.C., N.L. and the Far North). Although Jack Layton is from an urban Toronto riding, he is the leader of the NDP, so that may explain his high travel expenses. But not everyone falls within those explanations. Again, judging value for money is not a straightforward task.

Advertising allows members to communicate with their constituents about their office location and contact information, assistance and services they provide and meeting announcements related to the discharge of their constituency functions, and to issue congratulatory messages or greetings to constituents and opinions or statements in support of their parliamentary functions. The advertising expenses account is limited to 10 per cent of the member's office budget.

You'll likely notice that the Top 4 spenders are Bloc Quebecois MPs and that Industry Minister Tony Clement is listed as having spend $0 in this area. We're not sure why this is, so if you have any ideas or clues, feel free to post them in the comments section!

"The report described significant deficiencies in administrative organizational arrangements, in financial management and control, and in personnel administration in the House of Commons. It stated that, although services to Members and to the House appeared to be of high quality, the quality of general and financial administration was below a minimum acceptable standard."

The report is not from our current auditor general, Sheila Fraser. Because, as we now know, the MPs won't let her examine their expenses or those of the House of Commons.

The author of the above report was an auditor general most people have never heard of: J.J. Macdonell. He was the auditor general in 1980 when he sent this letter to Speaker of the House, Jeanne Sauvé. The predecessor of the newly-elected speaker had invited Macdonell to audit the House of Commons books. But then an election got in the way, which meant he couldn't interview MPs as part of his audit. So instead, he conducted an "interim" audit and found enough weaknesses to suggest that Sauvé authorize a full audit, which she eventually did.

Enter Kenneth Dye, who served as the country's top auditor from 1981 to 1991. During his tenure, he did two audits. These audits are made up of two parts: random checks of the MPs' expenses (the kinds of things making news in Nova Scotia with the RCMP's investigation) and value-for-money or "performance audits," which are the types of probes that determine whether taxpayers' money is being spent wisely.

In both audits, Dye says he found no evidence of "hanky panky," but some weaknesses in the way the House of Commons was run. And that's significant for an organization whose budget has grown from $96-million in 1980, when that interim report was written, to slightly more than $500-million and growing.

Although they're dominating the headlines, MPs budgets (those that they use to pay their staff and run their offices) only make up about 15% of that $500-million -- a tiny percentage.

The largest chunk of money is spent running the entity we know as the House of Commons: hiring, recruiting and training staff, buying supplies and computers. The performance audit examines how this largest chunk - 85 percent - of the money is spent.

It was in this area where Dye found "deficiencies." And it was because of these deficiencies that previous Speakers were willing to allow auditors general to conduct these value-for-money, or as they're called these days, "performance audits."

I had a chance to speak to Dye about his audits the other day. Slowed down by painful arthritis in his legs, he eased his way into a sturdy chair to chat. And he had plenty to say. He began with the note of caution that characterized his tenure as the country's auditor general. He had no reason to suspect that there is anything seriously wrong. He assumes that the politicians followed his recommendations, which is why he's at a loss to explain the refusal by Board of Internal Economy (the committee of MPs responsible for overseeing the Houses' expenses) to allow present-day Auditor General Sheila Fraser, to do what he did about 20 years ago.

Indeed, she may still find some of the same weaknesses he identified back in 1991 when he wrote:

"The indicators of inadequate management of employee performance include: inadequate goal setting and evaluation; high sick leave and accident rates; poor analysis and management of overtime expenditures; and, weaknesses in dealing with performance problems. Each indicator is not conclusive, but taken together they provide a consistent picture of the need for better management of employee performance."

Flipping through the green-covered report

that I had obtained from the Parliamentary library shortly before our conversation (listen here)

jogged Dye's memory, allowing him to identify other weakness that he found in areas such as accounting.

"We didn't feel they were putting the numbers together correctly and as professionally as they should, given the size of the operations," he says making clear to point out that he had similar concerns about accounting services in many government departments.

So what did he recommend?

"To improve the staff. And train the (accountants) in their jobs so they could do their job properly."

Staff is important. I looked at some of the information the House does provide on MP's expenses. These are general ten-line items that include categories such as "staff and other expenses," "advertising," "office lease," "travel" and "other," the smallest category that eats up less than one percent of the $73-million dollars of total MP expenses from April 2008 to March 2009.

Just over half of the total is taken up by "staff and other expenses." So we can see why this area is so important, says retired Queens University political science professor Ned Franks.

"You might ask the question, how well are human resources managed? Is the staff training, staff development, recruitment, working properly," says Franks.

Pressure seems to be mounting on the politicians in general, and the Board of Internal Economy in particular, to open the books. Ken Dye believes the pressure might be too much for the politicians to ignore. So we'll have to stay tuned.

In the meantime, unless there is another audit, we won't know whether the recommendations in his 1991 report forced the House of Commons to do a better job managing the men and women who toil in anonymity every day to ensure that the nation's business gets done.

For feedback about this story or suggestions for other blogs, please feel free to contact David McKie, at david_mckie@cbc.ca.