Mr. Rob Wright:

I think that is one of the most important recommendations we have in here. I have spoken with three Secretaries General about how important it is. If I can, I will comment at some length on that. We did focus on those three core questions and I wanted to see the advice on the risks of pro-cyclical fiscal policy. There was just very little written advice. One could get snippets here and there, but in something as vital as that, particularly when one has regular engagement with international institutions like the IMF, the OECD and the European Union where concerns have been expressed, one would have anticipated a consistent flow of advice through that period. We really could not find much of that.

There were several reasons for that. The most dominant reason we were given was that under the Freedom of Information Act the Department would be at risk if its advice was truly blunt to a Minister. Advice has to be blunt to a Minister in terms of saying, "This is the Department of Finance's view. We're not saying it's your view. Here's what might guide your decision", or, "Here's what you committed to do, but here is why you should look at a different variant."

If one is sending a message to one's Minister that is suggesting a different path than he has already stated in public, it is very damaging to relationships and that is not how public servants in Canada and in Ireland see our role. Our role is to inform decisions. When I was briefing my Minister, Jim Flaherty, in Canada, I gave very direct advice on what the department's view was and he would usually take it. However, occasionally - on a number of occasions - he would say, "No, I don't agree with it. So I need an option of something that is more practical." These were areas where the Minister was right to have options. This was the right thing to do.

On some occasions, I would not have thought it was the right thing to do for the economy, but it was a broader political need for him, the Prime Minister or his party. However, once the decision is made, we will go and implement it. That engagement informs the Minister of a balanced professional view of the right thing for the economy. He makes his decision and he is accountable for it, and again it is a good interchange.

If one has a piece of advice that is not totally consistent with what the Minister has said in public, it is controversial. On the guidelines for my appearance here, there is an element of the committee's guidelines that I was struck by, that clearly state that public servants are not expected and cannot be asked to contradict what their Ministers say.