Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 12 - Evidence - Meeting of September 29, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:32 a.m. to examine the Estimates laid before Parliament for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance to order. I thank all honourable senators for being prompt in arriving.
This morning, we return to our consideration of the Main Estimates for 2009-10. If honourable senators do not have a copy of the Main Estimates, we have extra copies here. In particular, you will want to look at section 21, which is the Privy Council Office. I expect there may be some questions in regard to some of the entries there.
[Translation]
We welcome this morning Ms. Marilyn MacPherson, Assistant Deputy Minister (Corporate Services), Privy Council Office, who is accompanied by Mr. Yvan Roy, Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet and Counsel.
[English]
I will invite our witnesses to make a few opening remarks, after which we will be open for questions. Following this session, honourable senators, we will have a short discussion on future business.
[Translation]
Marilyn MacPherson, Assistant Deputy Minister (Corporate Services), Privy Council Office: I am pleased to meet with members of the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance.
As you mentioned, I am accompanied by Yvan Roy and other officials from the Privy Council Office who are here to assist us.
My introductory comments pertain primarily to the 2009-2010 Main Estimates for the Privy Council Office. I will touch briefly on the Public Appointments Commission Secretariat. The Privy Council Office reports directly to the Prime Minister and is headed by the Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet.
The Prime Minister's overall responsibility is to provide leadership in creating and sustaining the unity of the Ministry required to maintain the confidence of Parliament. The Prime Minister demonstrates this leadership in two distinct ways: through the exercise of unique authorities as head of government; and through the management and coordination of the Government's agenda, as Chair of Cabinet.
The core functions of the Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet and those of the entire PCO flow directly from these responsibilities. The strength of PCO is in large measure determined by its ability to concentrate its resources on supporting exclusively these two central responsibilities, in addition to helping the Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet fulfill his role as head of the Public Service.
[English]
The Privy Council Office, PCO, contributes significantly to the implementation of a clearly articulated government policy agenda, coordinates timely responses to issues facing the government and the country, and supports the effective operation of the cabinet and the government. PCO works to maintain the highest professional and ethical standards in the federal public service and to ensure that the Prime Minister and ministers within the Prime Minister's portfolio receive high-quality, consistent, appropriate and non-partisan policy and legal advice, and objective recommendations.
PCO's Main Estimates for 2009-10 total $128.8 million. Resources are allocated as follows by program activity: 47 per cent of our resources are spent on providing professional, non-partisan policy advice to the prime ministers and portfolio ministers; 38 per cent is for internal services; 13 per cent is spent on providing policy advice and secretariat support to cabinet and cabinet committees; and 2 per cent is spent on providing overall leadership and direction to the Public Service in support of the government's agenda.
Up to fiscal year 2005-06, there was a separate program activity under PCO's program activity structure for the Prime Minister's Office, PMO. However, as of fiscal year 2004-05, as per the Treasury Board Secretariat guidelines, corporate services provided by PCO were allocated between program activities up to 2008-09. PCO implemented its amended program activity architecture in 2008-09 to better represent its activities. Under the new program activity, the PMO budget and expenditures are now part of the program activity "provide professional, non-partisan policy advice and support to the prime ministers and portfolio ministers." For 2009-10, PMO's budget, including statutory items in the Main Estimates, is in the amount of $8.4 million.
Since 2007-08, for greater clarity and transparency, the ministers' expenditures, including the Prime Minister's, are disclosed in the Public Accounts of Canada, Volume III, Section 10, by nature of expenditures.
As of 2009-10, internal services are represented as a separate program activity in the Main Estimates, in accordance with the Treasury Board Secretariat standard profile of the Government of Canada's internal services. In prior years, internal service budgets and expenses were pro-rated, based on the weight of each program activity.
For internal services, PCO operates in a highly centralized environment, where many costs, normally assumed by line managers, are covered by the corporate services and not reallocated to the individual program activities; for example, desktop computers, printers, BlackBerrys, furniture and equipment, et cetera.
The increase of $5.6 million from the 2008-09 Main Estimates of $123.2 million to $128.8 million in 2009-10 pertains to a the following items: $4.8 million is related to the funding for the operations of the Afghanistan Task Force, and that funding is expected until 2011-12, which is the last year of operation of the task force; $2 million is related to the funding for the Privy Council Office of the Coordinator for the 2010 Olympics and G8 Security, and that funding is expected to continue until 2010-11, which is the last year of operation of the office; $0.8 million is for collective bargaining agreements; and $0.1 million is for statutory adjustments related to the salary and motorcar allowance for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
This is offset by a number of decreases. One is $1.3 million for the funding of the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182. It was originally anticipated that the commission would end its operations in 2008-09, so no amount was included in the 2009-10 Main Estimates. However, due to delays in hearings, in getting documents and in the production of the report, additional funding for this commission was sought in the 2008-09 Supplementary Estimates, and also through the 2009-10 Supplementary Estimates (A). Other decreases are $0.5 million for statutory adjustments related to employee benefit plans and $0.3 million for additional efficiency savings related to the procurement initiative.
I will now turn to the Public Appointments Commission Secretariat, PACS. It was created by order-in-council on April 21, 2006. The commission, once established, and its secretariat, are within the portfolio of the Prime Minister, reflecting the prerogative of the Prime Minister with respect to Governor-in-Council appointments. The Privy Council Office provides administrative support services to PACS.
The secretariat's main responsibility is to lay the groundwork for the establishment of the Public Appointments Commission that is provided for in the Federal Accountability Act and, once established, to provide ongoing support. Specifically, the secretariat will advise the commission on the development of a code of practice and associated guidance governing the selection process for Governor-in-Council appointments to the agencies, boards, commissions and Crown corporations; provide advice and support on implementing the code; provide advice and support to the commission in carrying out the mandate to conduct audits on compliance to the code; and provide advice and support to the commission on the preparation of an annual report to the Prime Minister and, through the Prime Minister, to Parliament.
It is anticipated that the commission's work will improve the quality and consistency of selection processes. This, in turn, will contribute to improved governance of agencies, boards, commissions and Crown corporations and also enhance public confidence in the integrity of the public appointment process.
During the last three years, an average of $365,000 per year was spent by the secretariat in order to identify issues related to the appointments process, research into the development of a code of practice and establish the secretariat's organizational structure.
This is the end of my opening statement, and we would be pleased to take your questions.
[Translation]
The Chair: Would you care to add anything, Mr. Roy?
Yvan Roy, Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet and Counsel, Privy Council Office: I have nothing to add, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much. You are here to answer any questions that we may have.
[English]
Could I ask Ms. MacPherson for a clarification about page 3 of her presentation? Could you tell us first who "portfolio ministers" are?
Ms. MacPherson: The portfolio ministers include the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. It also includes the President of the Privy Council, Ms. Verner.
Mr. Roy: Minister of State for Democratic Reform, Minister Fletcher, is also part of the portfolio, and we provide some support to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator LeBreton.
The Chair: Are portfolio ministers those who do not have a portfolio, then? They are ministers of state that do not have a department, in effect.
Mr. Roy: No. When we talk about portfolio ministers, we are trying to describe that in the portfolio of the Prime Minister there are some ministers that fall under that umbrella, as opposed to them not having a portfolio. They have a portfolio; they have some responsibilities, if we are using portfolio in that sense.
However, in the umbrella that constitutes the Prime Minister's department, which is the department that we are representing here this morning that is supporting the Prime Minister, there are those ministers that receive services from the PCO. I have identified them — Minister Hill, Minister Fletcher, Minister LeBreton, Minister Verner and, to a lesser extent, the whip of the government in the House of Commons, Minister O'Connor. They all have specific responsibilities. It is just that they are getting their services from us in support of their particular responsibilities.
The Chair: Okay. That is helpful. You indicated on that same page, the Prime Minister's budget and expenditures.
Ms. MacPherson: Yes.
The Chair: Where do we find that in an item in the Main Estimates, or is this just a figure you are giving us that is included in some larger figure?
Ms. MacPherson: That is correct. It is included under our program activity 1, which is to provide advice to the Prime Minister. It is a part of that.
The Chair: Therefore, it is at page 21-4 of the Main Estimates, "Provide professional, non-partisan policy advice and support to the Prime Minister and portfolio ministers."
Ms. MacPherson: Yes.
The Chair: That is $61 million.
Ms. MacPherson: Yes, that is correct.
The Chair: Within that, the Prime Minister's aspect, budget and expenditures, you indicated to us are $8.4 million; is that correct?
Ms. MacPherson: Yes, that is correct.
The Chair: I understand that now. Thank you.
Senator Ringuette: In the Main Estimates 2009-10, the Privy Council Office was appropriated $128.8 million, which was an increase of $5.6 million over the last year's budget. Considering that we are in a recession, there was an increase there of $5.6 million. Then, in Supplementary Estimates (A), there was an additional increase of $9.8 million. That is an overall average of 12 per cent increase from the previous year.
With respect to the different declarations that government will be cutting down on its expenses because of the huge deficit that you have, do you not think it is quite extraordinary that we would have a 12 per cent increase in the Office of the Prime Minister?
Ms. MacPherson: If I can clarify, the increase is primarily due to some specific initiatives. For example, for the Afghanistan Task Force that was established, $4.8 million is included in this year's Main Estimates. It will terminate in 2011-12. It is very specific to the Afghanistan Task Force.
Also an amount in the Main Estimates of $2 million this year is for the coordinator of security for the Olympics 2010 and the G8. That is a very specific line item or amount that is included in the Main Estimates for this year. That also will disappear in the future. It is time limited, so it will disappear in 2010-11.
As far as the supplementary estimates are concerned, one of the major portions of the $9.8 million that we are asking for in supplementary estimates has to do with the Oliphant commission. They were appropriated monies in the 2008-09 year of $6 million. They only used approximately half; so we are, by and large, taking the money that they had last year, plus another $3 million for them to finish their work. That is very specific to the commissions of inquiry, which is the prerogative of the Prime Minister. That is about $12 million of very specific money.
Senator Ringuette: You mentioned the Afghanistan Task Force. They reported on Budget 2008-09. Is that still going on?
Ms. MacPherson: Yes. It will go until the finalization of our troops' current tour in 2011.
Senator Ringuette: Do they still have some reporting to do?
Ms. MacPherson: Yes, the Afghanistan Task Force still reports every quarter.
Senator Ringuette: Where is that report tabled?
Ms. MacPherson: It is tabled with Parliament.
Mr. Roy: One report that was tabled a couple of weeks ago in Parliament. It is available on our website and also in paper format.
Senator Ringuette: Is it the same people who are part of this task force?
Ms. MacPherson: That is correct. That is one of their functions; they do the quarterly report. They do a coordination function across government, so they consult with Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, National Defence, the Canadian International Development Agency and others and report against the benchmarks that have been set for our initiative in Afghanistan.
Senator Ringuette: In the five pages of your statement, just on page 3 alone, you have mentioned at least three times "non-partisan policy," non-partisan policy advice" and so forth.
I would like to bring to your attention a situation reported in The Toronto Star on September 25: "Tory-blue banners and logos received better placement than those of the Canadian Pork Council." It is in regard to an event that happened on the Hill.
The article stated that a photograph of Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz serving a pork sandwich to Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff was intentionally excluded from the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada website, the article states:
As Murdoch rushed to post the pictures online after the event, she ordered a single photo of her boss to be featured prominently.
"All others (not the one with the opp leader) should go into the online photo album," she wrote.
The government calls such things "message events," and each one must be okayed at the highest levels of the federal bureaucracy by officials in the Privy Council Office.
Who would have been the official in the Privy Council Office to authorize or to give such partisan policy?
Mr. Roy: I am not familiar with this particular event reported in The Toronto Star last Friday.
You have public servants, like us, providing support on all sorts of things, including communications, but providing support mainly to the Office of the Prime Minister. I have no way of knowing the person in particular to whom they are referring in this article. However, these involve ongoing discussions as we are supporting our political masters in their effort to communicate the message of the government. This is not meant to be, in any way, shape or form, partisan on the part of the bureaucrats. Rather, we are here because we are neutral and non-partisan — and, we mean it when we say that — and we are supporting the government in place today. That is about as good an answer as I can give you.
Senator Ringuette: Is Meagan Murdoch a federal employee under your office?
Mr. Roy: I do not know, senator.
Ms. MacPherson: I do not know; I do not recognize the name.
Mr. Roy: That is not a name with which I am familiar.
Senator Ringuette: Could you check that and provide us with an answer?
This is not the first instance where we see such items, with respect to using taxpayer money, to be almost an indirect office of the party politics of the current government. From my constituency in New Brunswick, I have been hearing quite a lot during the summer. People are not pleased, especially right now, because of the current crisis. This is not acceptable.
Is the Privy Council responsible for printing the economic update that is given out by the Prime Minister?
Mr. Roy: The economic update is produced by the Department of Finance, but it would be misleading of me to tell you that we do not have a part in putting this together. There are ongoing discussions between departments and the Privy Council Office when there is a major initiative of that nature going forward. However, the primary responsibility for the economic statement and the update lies with the Minister of Finance; his department has the prime responsibility for this.
Senator Ringuette: Are you also consulted about the advertising of the economic update and reports?
Mr. Roy: With respect to the advertisement, I am not sure I know exactly what you are talking about. Generally speaking, when an event of that nature is taking place, the Privy Council Office would be involved in supporting the Prime Minister. Indeed, he is very involved in the announcement of this and how things are being presented. However, again, the leadership remains in the hands of the Minister of Finance.
Senator Ringuette: With the costing of all this, is there any cost that is being absorbed by the Privy Council Office?
Mr. Roy: Do you mean the printing and things of that nature?
Senator Ringuette: Yes, the promotion, the advertising and all of that.
Mr. Roy: Again, I do not know what you mean by "advertising," but I would be surprised if we in the Privy Council Office were paying for this. My knowledge is rather limited on this.
Senator Ringuette: Could you check on that and provide us with a definitive answer about whether you are involved in the printing of these full-page ads in different newspapers, also the radio announcements and TV advertising, and so on? Essentially, you are saying that most, if not all, of that advertising campaign would be done under the Minister of Finance?
Mr. Roy: Maybe I should give you a broader explanation of the role that we play in the Privy Council Office. The Privy Council Office, by and large, does not lead initiatives that are being put together around town. This is the responsibility of specific ministers, and their departments are supporting them. That is certainly true of the third report that we were just talking about.
The Privy Council Office will be part of the effort in that we are, for instance, challenging departments in order to get to the product that will be absolutely accurate. We will help with the coordination if there are other departments that should be involved and are involved; we will offer suggestions; and we will work with the departments to put together what we consider to be the best product possible. However, again, the leadership for these matters usually resides with the department that would be understood, generally speaking, as having the main responsibility.
For example, we were just talking about the Afghanistan Task Force. That group is helping with the coordination of what is happening. That group does not run the Canadian effort in Afghanistan. It is simply in the business of coordinating, of helping, challenging and ensuring that all of the bases have been covered. You would have the same type of involvement on a number of initiatives and that certainly includes the report to which Senator Ringuette was referring.
Senator Ringuette: You just said that you offer suggestions and that you challenge the department; I assume one of those issues would be non-partisanship advertising.
Mr. Roy: It is absolutely essential to our role as civil servants that we remain non-partisan, neutral and impartial. That was true when Mr. Lynch was in charge, and that is certainly true with Mr. Wouters in the chair of the Clerk of the Privy Council. That is something that is taught, that is absolutely pursued and that is vital to the role that we play in the system we have, namely, the Westminster system of government. That is not necessarily the case in other systems, but in ours, we consider that to be essential. In the advice that we give, we are careful not to cross the line and become partisan in any way, shape or form.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you for coming here this morning. I want to ask about the Public Appointments Commissioner. As you mentioned, an order-in-council set up this secretariat back in April of 2006. The legislation received Royal Assent in December of that year. We are talking three years down the road. My questions are to find out where we are right now with this secretariat.
You mentioned in your opening remarks that it has spent, on average, $365,000 a year in the last three years. However, in the Library of Parliament information, it says that since its inception in 2006, the secretariat has spent about $1 million. I was assuming that that was $1 million a year, but it is $1 million in total. Therefore, I assume that that figure of $365,000 includes all the costs.
Ms. MacPherson: That is right.
Senator Callbeck: Has the Prime Minister ever nominated anyone under the provisions of the Federal Accountability Act?
Ms. MacPherson: Yes, Gwyn Morgan was nominated. He was the CEO of EnCana Corporation at one time. He went before committee in Parliament and was rejected. At that point in time, I do not believe anyone else was proposed for the position.
Senator Callbeck: Has PCO been involved in vetting potential candidates?
Ms. MacPherson: Not that I am aware of.
Senator Callbeck: Why is there such a delay? This has been three years.
Ms. MacPherson: The only response I can give you is that these appointments, the appointment of this commissioner or other commissioners under the Public Appointments Commission, are the prerogative of the Prime Minister. We continue to put $1 million into our estimates on the premise that there will be an appointment, but I have no idea when that might be.
Senator Callbeck: Therefore, you have nothing really to say about the delay or the reasons?
Ms. MacPherson: No, it is the Prime Minister's prerogative.
Senator Callbeck: You mentioned $1 million. This year you are asking for $1 million. That assumes you are fully staffed?
Ms. MacPherson: That is correct.
Senator Callbeck: When you get the commissioner, will your budget be roughly the same?
Ms. MacPherson: Yes.
Senator Callbeck: Does vote 25 represent all the notional costs associated with the operation of the office, such as the space, telecommunications and so on? Are costs included in other votes?
Ms. MacPherson: Costs are included in other votes. For example, all of our space is provided by Public Works and Government Services Canada, so when you look at our financial statement at the end of the year, you will always see recognition of costs for that and their services without charge. When we do our financial statements at the end of the year, we pick up those types of costs.
Senator Callbeck: What other costs are there? You mentioned the rent. Is there anything else outside of those?
Ms. MacPherson: Outside of those, other types of accrual entries would be such things as payables for severance pay, and so on.
Senator Callbeck: What is the cost of that office space?
Ms. MacPherson: Only two people are in the office space at this point in time. I would have to go and check the occupancy instrument to find out the actual cost of that particular space. Because the commission is not established and because the secretariat is working but not fully staffed, we have only two people there: one is a secondment from another department and one is temporary help. We are only housing two people.
Senator Callbeck: I would like to know how much space is taken up and what the cost is, if I could, please.
Ms. MacPherson: Okay.
Senator Callbeck: Two people are in the office?
Ms. MacPherson: That is correct.
Senator Callbeck: What are their classifications?
Ms. MacPherson: The executive director, who is the public servant, is an EX-3. Her name is Christine Miles. I am unsure of the level of the temporary help person, but I would expect an administrative services individual at the AS-2 or 3 level, which is probably around $45,000 a year.
Senator Callbeck: We are three years down the road, and we only have two people. That is pretty slow progress. Was there ever a plan for staffing the office? Do you have one?
Ms. MacPherson: In the estimates, we are assuming we would have four full-time staff to support the commission when it is actually established.
Senator Callbeck: At what level was this plan approved?
Ms. MacPherson: It would have gone through the deputy minister. It assumes that that secretariat will have a deputy minister.
Senator Callbeck: Were there positions here that were filled with people who then left and went elsewhere?
Ms. MacPherson: I believe in the first year more folks were staffed in those positions. The average is a bit misleading, so I will give the exact amounts spent in the secretariat over the three years. In the first year, they spent $633,000, and I believe they were staffed up to three or four people at that time.
Then they went into abeyance, and it was not staffed for the first part of 2007-08. It was re-staffed with the temporary individuals in October or November of 2007, and they spent $113,000 in that year. In 2008-09, with the same two individuals, they spent $347,000.
Senator Callbeck: Why do we have $633,000 in the first year?
Ms. MacPherson: A deputy was appointed in the first year, and someone was in place, and they had more staff in place.
Senator Callbeck: Why have they left? I thought the government was anxious to get this Federal Accountability Act passed — and this is part of it — and, as I say, we are three years down the road with less staff than we had three years ago.
Ms. MacPherson: They have done a great deal of work and research. I am not sure that having a staff of greater number would necessarily give us more information to be able to support the secretariat.
Senator Callbeck: Therefore, you do not know how many people transferred out.
Ms. MacPherson: No. It was three or four.
Senator Callbeck: Could you give me a list of those with the other information that you will provide?
Ms. MacPherson: Do you want the levels of the individuals?
Senator Callbeck: Yes.
On page 21-4 of the Main Estimates under "Programs by Activities," in the budget in 2008-09, you do not have internal services, yet you have broken it out for 2009-10, which makes it impossible for us to compare the other figures. Why have you done that?
Ms. MacPherson: That was a government-wide requirement established by the Treasury Board Secretariat, and in the Main Estimates for this year, we were required to actually pull out our internal services and show them separately. I believe the secretariat expects to be able to do some comparative analysis of internal services across departments.
Senator Callbeck: For example, it is providing professional support to the Prime Minister and portfolio ministers. Can you give us the figure that would be in there for 2009-10 if internal services were removed?
Ms. MacPherson: I would have to do a calculation and pull them back out. I do not have that information.
Senator Callbeck: I would appreciate receiving that information as well.
The Chair: Ms. MacPherson, could you check on another point? It is my recollection that the process with respect to Mr. Morgan was before this legislation was passed. Since this legislation came into force, has there been any nomination by the Prime Minister? Can you confirm that? That would be helpful to us as well.
Ms. MacPherson: There has not been any, but I will confirm it.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: In response to Senator Ringuette's question, you enlightened the committee as to the reasons for the increase in PCO's budget. If I understand correctly, the budget increase is due in large measure to the Afghanistan Task Force, the 2010 Games and G8 security.
Another matter that concerns me is government advertising. One example cited was a new initiative, the Economic Action Plan. However, under previous administrations, were you ever involved in advertising, even when the initiative originated with the Department of Finance? Putting it another way, did you ever do for previous governments what you are now doing for this administration?
Mr. Roy: What you call government advertising is certainly viewed as a legitimate government activity. To the extent that the government wants to do some advertising, the bureaucracy, the Privy Council and other departments will support the government's efforts in that regard. However, as I indicated in response to Senator Ringuette's questions, our involvement is non partisan, neutral and impartial. We endeavour to inform Canadians about the services that are available to them. This is not something new. We have been seeing this type of media advertising for some time now.
Senator Rivard: So then, you provided the same kind of services to the previous government. I would now like you to tell us about some of the Privy Council's efforts in the area of public service renewal, especially the renewal of the senior public service.
[English]
Ms. MacPherson: It is fair to say that, in general, the efforts to renew the public service are ongoing. We still face the same labour crunch that we all know will happen with the baby boomers retiring. We have made much effort through the clerk's continued support of the renewal of the public service in integrating our human resource planning with our business planning.
I think that now the effort is actually turning more from recruitment, which continues to be extremely important, to the retention of staff. That means we need to do more career development; we need to look at the skills and abilities of our new recruits and ensure that they move up through the ranks to fill those positions that are really critical.
As you know, most of our vulnerabilities tend to be at the higher levels. Therefore, the more senior executives also tend to be the oldest and approaching retirement, so we need to be fast-tracking our best and brightest folks to be able to take their place.
As I say, the clerk continues to support those efforts. Over the last two or three years, every time he has made a report to the Prime Minister, there has been an action plan with very specific requirements for departments to actually make concrete efforts in order to ensure that we are renewing our public service.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I was interested in the Conference Board of Canada's comment last week on Canada and poverty, that we are slipping a bit. Therefore, I am always interested in budgets and estimates and how they impact poverty.
For me, part of that corrective is understanding the function that gender-based analysis plays in all our decisions and in our financial decisions. I will ask you questions about the Auditor General's report as released to the Privy Council Office and here, sir, are the tabs.
In Chapter 1 of the Auditor General's spring report, to the House of Commons. The PCO agreed that it would work with Status of Women Canada and Treasury Board to "identify departments facing challenges in meeting their gender-based analysis (GBA) commitments with a view to holding formal discussions."
Have any of those discussions started, and where are they right now?
Mr. Roy: The whole issue of gender-based analysis continues to be at the forefront of the general analysis that we are conducting with respect to whatever government policy there is. Since you were good enough to give me the report of the Auditor General earlier, I noticed there was a reference in there to the Department of Justice Canada. I happened to have been at Justice doing policy work in the 1990s when gender-based analysis was very prominent in what we were doing.
The Auditor General has noted that you first need to have that as being prominent in your analysis and, over time, it becomes parts of the work that you are actually doing. As you are doing analysis, you are taking into account gender-based analysis. However, other issues also need to be considered. Certainly, this is how we were doing that work at Justice when I left a few years ago. I understand they are still doing it.
Therefore, the reason the work is not being done is not because it has not been identified very specifically as we are conducting our analysis of policies.
I will answer your question very precisely. Had I known yesterday, for instance, that you would ask me those questions, I would have checked to see what progress we have made with respect to the report of the Auditor General.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I will look forward to your written response, then.
Mr. Roy: I will do that with pleasure upon my return to the office this morning.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Yesterday afternoon, I heard a Justice official say that intuition was sufficient to do gender-based analysis. Justice Canada was badly hit in the Auditor General's report, and so were other departments. For example, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada received many recommendations from the Auditor General. Different departments are doing different things.
However, it is part of the responsibility to have Privy Council Office, with Treasury Board, to ensure that this has at least some practice in all departments.
Therefore, have those discussions started?
Mr. Roy: Senator, if I left you with the impression that I meant intuition, I expressed myself poorly. Intuition would not be enough.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I have heard twice now from Justice. One person said, "We have over 51 per cent of employees who are female; therefore, we do not need to do GBA." Yesterday afternoon, another rather senior official said that intuition is sufficient. Younger men and women who are employed, who have no formal GBA training, think they know it. That is what I was told.
Is the senior position for gender-based analysis at the PCO currently filled? As I understand it, that officer is responsible for coordinating annual training for PCO policy analysts.
How many analysts do you have? How many have received training to date? Over what timeline will all or most receive GBA training, and how often will it be renewed in light of the staff turnover?
Ms. MacPherson: We do have a champion for gender-based analysis, namely, Neil Bouwer, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Social Development Policy.
It is just by happenstance I saw an email that he sent out broadly to the department inviting analysts to identify themselves, to come and receive training. I do not know how many of these he has done or what his plan is, but I do know who the champion is, and I know he is making contact inside the department.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Is it compulsory for the analysts to go through the training?
Ms. MacPherson: I do not know. I would have to find out the details, and I am certainly willing to do that.
Senator Nancy Ruth: The Auditor General stated in the final paragraph of her report:
Departments and agencies lack clear guidance about how they are to apply gender-based analysis. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and the Privy Council Office thus far have not clearly communicated their expectations.
Given that the PCO has had some time to reflect on the Auditor General's report, are there any new developments since she gave out her report? Also, in particular, of the initiatives that Status of Women Canada agreed to undertake in consultation with PCO, as outlined in paragraph 1.57 of the report, what work is PCO currently involved in?
Mr. Roy: For the benefit of the committee, I would note that, as part of the response of the government, and, in particular, Status of Women Canada, to recommendation 1.79, the report says:
Privy Council Office has developed a template that outlines how GBA should, when appropriate, be considered throughout each step of the policy and program development process. This template is shared with line departments and serves as guidance.
Work is ongoing; this has not fallen through the cracks.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Is it measured and tested in terms of its effectiveness? Are you satisfied with the template? Does it need revision? Poverty is a bigger problem. It is all connected to poverty — Canadian families, men and women and children.
Mr. Roy: This is not something to be taken lightly. The Privy Council Office is following up on these instruments, and if they are found to be lacking, it is our job to correct them.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I look forward to your written statement.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: My question concerns the Privy Council Office secretariats. If I understand correctly, there are currently 19 secretariats. In recent years, has the number increased, decreased and remained the same?
[English]
Ms. MacPherson: Since I have been there from January 2007, I think the organization has been stable; however, there have been the additions of the Afghanistan Task Force and also the coordinator of the 2010 Olympics and G8 security. Other than that, I think we have remained pretty much the same, at least for the last two or three years.
[Translation]
Mr. Roy: The organization of the Privy Council Office is centred on issues that have a certain importance at a given period of time. Ms. MacPherson spoke to you earlier about the Afghan Task Force, which has a limited lifespan. The same is true of the position of Olympic Games coordinator. Once the Olympic Games are over, the requirements with respect to this item will decrease.
You will also note that staff levels within the Privy Council Office fluctuate. In recent years, staff levels declined somewhat in light of requirements and the organization of the workload. Staff levels within the Privy Council Office have not increased in quite some time. The number of employees has remained the same, or even decreased slightly in the past three and a half years.
Senator Chaput: I understand that there was once an official languages secretariat within the Privy Council Office. If I am not mistaken, the secretariat was transferred to the Department of Canadian Heritage.
Mr. Roy: That is correct.
Senator Chaput: Who was responsible for the decision to transfer a Privy Council secretariat to a department? What happens to the operating funds associated with that secretariat? For example, did the transfer to the Department of Canadian Heritage include the transfer of additional operating funds, or is it assumed that the department will find its own operating funds?
Mr. Roy: Speaking from my experience with that secretariat, as I recall, the transfer occurred either at the start of 2006 or at some point in the middle of the year. The clerk at the time had decided that some of the secretariat issues were more the responsibility of that particular department.
In answering some earlier questions, I said that the lead on certain timely questions should be taken up by the responsible department. In the case of official languages, that responsibility should clearly fall to the Department of Canadian Heritage. The clerk at the time indicated that it would be more appropriate to refocus the Privy Council on its role as a coordinating body and on related challenges, and to leave it up to the departments to assume their proper roles. That is how the secretariat came to be transferred by the then clerk to the department that was deemed appropriate, namely to the Department of Canadian Heritage.
I believe the secretariat was transferred along with its budget, but Ms. MacPherson would be better able to answer that question.
Ms. MacPherson: You are quite right. When we transferred the different secretariats to the other departments, we did some calculations and transferred their funding as well.
Senator Chaput: Does the Privy Council still have a role to play or any responsibilities in terms of the development or review of official languages policies, or is this now the sole responsibility of Treasury Board and the Department of Canadian Heritage? Do you continue to play a role in the area of official languages policy review or formulation?
Mr. Roy: Privy Council closely monitors any matters in which interest is high. I can certainly tell you that Privy Council is interested in any issues pertaining to official languages.
I would just like to remind the committee that the Prime Minister's portfolio includes IGA, or Intergovernmental Affairs, which has a keen interest in official languages. We continue to closely monitor this area and it remains one of our areas of concern.
At least once, if not twice a year, the Clerk invites the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Fraser, to come and meet with deputy ministers to discuss his annual report and to voice his concerns to them.
[English]
Senator Di Nino: First, if I can clarify a point for your information, the staffer that Senator Ringuette was asking about, Meagan Murdoch, is a staffer to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Gerry Ritz, for the record.
Returning to the questions asked by Senator Ringuette about the non-partisanship and the non-political role that PCO plays, I recall that in 2004, the Liberal government set up a war room that cost at least $1 million to monitor media and provide strategic advice on the fallout of the Gomery inquiry. I believe that was operated under the PCO. Is that correct?
Ms. MacPherson: It is before my time. I am sorry I do not have any information on that.
Mr. Roy: I am familiar with the fact that there was a secretariat in PCO composed of three or four people who were following what was happening before the Gomery commission. Once the commission was dismantled after they finished their work, so was that secretariat. However, with respect to a war room, I would not be able to help you with this. I do not know.
Senator Di Nino: As far as you know, has this continued since those days, that there would be a group of people set up in the PCO to give advice that would be more of a political nature? Can you comment on that?
Mr. Roy: I would like to make the point as forcefully as I can: We are not partisan. We are neutral, and we are impartial. We do not give advice of a political nature. That would be something that if the clerk found out about it, he would be very unhappy.
Senator Di Nino: I appreciate that.
Who sets the mandate for PCO? How is that established? Is it by law? Is it by regulation? Does it change from time to time? If so, how does that happen?
Mr. Roy: That is a good question. We do not have a piece of legislation, such as the Department of Justice Act or the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act, that provides the framework, and that is usually a very broad framework. If the question is of a legal nature, it is more the prerogative of the Crown, which allows the creation of organizations in government, through orders-in-council or otherwise, in order to support particular ministers and support these ministers in their responsibility.
However, that is a question I should probably know the answer to, but I cannot help you more than this. I am the clerk's counsel, after all. I will look it up. That is a very good question.
Senator Di Nino: I really want to know the answer to that. I am totally familiar with this and I am 100 per cent in concert with you. As far as I know, the Privy Council has never been a political entity and does not play a partisan role in any way. I want to applaud your organization for that. It was an interesting question that has been going through my mind for a while. Thank you for that answer.
I wish to ask Ms. MacPherson a question related to Senator Callbeck's question on staffing of the appointments secretariat. The answer was partially given by Mr. Roy when he said that the departments will increase costs when it is necessary and decrease costs when it is not. Would that not be one of those examples where, since the secretariat is not active, he would not need to keep as many people on staff? Therefore, he would reduce those costs until such time as a secretariat was re-established or reactivated, and then the costs may go up again? Would the way I understand it be correct?
Ms. MacPherson: I think you are absolutely right from a practical point of view. When we do the Main Estimates, however, we only have one time frame in which to do that, so we continue to put in a million dollars because we do not have any knowledge that a commissioner will not be appointed. However, the actual expenditures in the secretariat are limited to the services of a couple of individuals who wait for the establishment of the commission.
Senator Di Nino: Is the budget prepared on the expectation that the department will fully need those funds?
Ms. MacPherson: Yes.
Senator Di Nino: However, will the actual costs reflect the expenses incurred by that department?
Ms. MacPherson: That is correct.
Senator Downe: Following up on my colleague Senator Di Nino's comments: For greater clarity, we have spent roughly $350,000 for the last three years for a total of close to $1 million on a secretariat that does not exist and has not done anything.
Ms. MacPherson: The secretariat exists; the actual commission does not. We do have a secretariat composed of the individuals working there. In the first year, it was the three or four people there; currently, it is the two people who are there.
Senator Downe: Right, but the Public Appointments Commission Secretariat is the title. They have not actually screened, as Senator Callbeck indicated, any appointments at all.
Ms. MacPherson: That is correct.
Senator Downe: They have prepared for a future appointment that may or may not happen. That has cost taxpayers $1 million.
If you do not have these figures, could you send us the amount you have budgeted in the Privy Council Office for public opinion polling and research for this fiscal year, and the amount you spent in the Privy Council Office for the last fiscal year? I assume you do not have those here.
Ms. MacPherson: No, I do not.
Senator Downe: Over 95 per cent of public servants at the deputy minister level receive, in addition to their salary every year, a bonus. How many employees of the Privy Council Office receive a bonus every year?
Ms. MacPherson: At the deputy level or at the executive level?
Senator Downe: In the Privy Council Office.
Ms. MacPherson: For the executives, less than 5 per cent get a bonus, but I am not sure about the deputy ministers.
Senator Downe: For greater clarity, I will repeat the following: Of the total number of employees in the Privy Council Office, how many received a bonus last year? Could you tell me the range of the bonus, the maximum, the minimum, the average?
Ms. MacPherson: A variance exists between EX-1s and EX-3s and then EX-4s and EX-5s. I will provide you the information.
Senator Downe: We would call it "bonus" in civilian language; the government calls it "at-risk pay." There is a minimum at-risk pay, a maximum at-risk pay and another separate category called "bonus." It is all a significant amount of money.
Ms. MacPherson: Yes.
Senator Downe: The last figures I received indicate that the government paid over $68 million in fiscal year 2007-08 in that area. I would like to see those numbers for the Privy Council Office.
Ms. MacPherson: Yes.
Senator Downe: Could you advise or send us in writing how many employees are budgeted for the Office of the Prime Minister for fiscal year 2009-10; how many were budgeted for fiscal year 2007-08; and what the salary budget was for those two fiscal years as well?
Ms. MacPherson: Okay.
Senator Downe: I understand from reports in the newspapers that numerous pictures and photos of the Prime Minister and other politicians were on the Canada's Economic Action Plan website. That was against Treasury Board guidelines. The media report indicated that after this was raised in the media, the Office of the Prime Minister removed a number but not all of those photos.
Is that website coordinated by the Privy Council Office?
Ms. MacPherson: The website itself was certainly established with efforts from the Privy Council Office. We dealt with all of the different departments to get the input for the website. However, I am not well enough versed in the website to know what pictures were there or what ones were taken off.
Senator Downe: I have not looked at the website myself, but I understand, from media reports and from others who have looked at it, that these photos were on that site. As you know, that is against Treasury Board guidelines. Who insisted that these photos be on the government website when it was against the rules? If some of the photos were taken off, why were not all the photos taken off the website if it is against policy? That would seem to be a role of the Privy Council Office, namely, to supervise government departments. If you did not do it directly yourself, you still would be responsible for the overall communications to the government.
Mr. Roy: I am familiar with the controversy because I have seen the media reports to which you are referring. It is not clear in my mind that whatever may have taken place was in breach of government policy. That is something that we need to confirm.
Senator Downe: Is it not government policy, though, that you cannot promote individual parliamentarians on a government website when it is taxpayers' money that is paying for that? It is not their money; it is the taxpayers' money. That is the principle underlying the Treasury Board policy. It has been that way for decades, going back to Prime Ministers Trudeau and Mulroney, right through until the current government.
The question for the Privy Council Office — and, you spoke many times about how non-partisan you are — is why that was allowed to happen. Why was the Clerk of the Privy Council not supervising that? When it came to their attention, why were only some and not all of the photos removed?
The Chair: I want to make sure that the witnesses got all the questions down.
You will do your best to provide answers to those questions? Thank you.
You indicated at page 5, Ms. MacPherson, that the Public Appointments Commission Secretariat will advise the commission on the development of a code of practice. Over the past three years and the million dollars, has a code of practice been developed?
Ms. MacPherson: I understand there are options for a code of conduct, but any actual code of conduct would need the approval of the commission itself.
The Chair: When, ultimately, the commission is created?
Ms. MacPherson: That is correct, yes.
Senator Gerstein: Ms. MacPherson, as you indicated, this government tried to bring forward an appointments commission naming Gwyn Morgan as the chair. As you also mentioned, Mr. Morgan is the former chair and CEO of EnCana Corporation, one of Canada's great corporations; I must say a gentleman of impeccable credentials. Instead, the opposition preferred to smear the reputation of Mr. Morgan, and he was not appointed.
Would you recall, had Mr. Morgan been confirmed, what his salary was to be?
Ms. MacPherson: I am sorry. I have no idea. I can ask senior personnel to find out.
Mr. Roy: I think it was a dollar or not getting paid at all. A dollar is not getting paid, so either way, it was to be minimal, shall we say.
Senator Gerstein: Yes. We did clearly lose a great opportunity to move this commission forward with one of Canada's great citizens. Thank you.
The Chair: To clarify the record, all of that took place before this legislation was in place, so that would have been an initiative by the government before the legislation was passed. I think it is important to clarify that. You will clarify that for us, Ms. MacPherson, as well.
Senator Gerstein: It is always good to be ahead of the curve.
Senator Ringuette: Have you seen the television, radio and paper advertisements from the government that states "stay the course"?
Mr. Roy: No, I have not.
Ms. MacPherson: No. I think that is the title of the latest report, is it not, for the economic update?
Senator Ringuette: "Stay the course"?
Ms. MacPherson: I think so.
Senator Ringuette: As I have looked at supplementary estimates for last year, 2008-09, and I have looked into 2008-09 Supplementary Estimates (B) and (C), I find it interesting that nowhere in there do we have an item under the Privy Council department that is called "funding related to government advertising programs (horizontal item), $500,000" for this year. This is new spending; advertising from the Privy Council is new spending.
Ms. MacPherson: Yes, the $500,000 is new spending.
Senator Ringuette: It is new spending. It has never been done before within the Privy Council.
You have the book in front of you. Would you go to page 86, please?
The Chair: Which book is this?
Senator Ringuette: This year's Supplementary Estimates (A).
Ms. MacPherson: We do not have the supplementary estimates.
The Chair: You will have to tell everyone what is there.
Senator Ringuette: I will tell everyone what is there so we will be on the same page. The page heading is "Horizontal Items included in these Supplementary Estimates," which we are dealing with today.
It says:
Funding related to government advertising programs
(This funding will support advertising campaigns and initiatives intended to provide information to Canadians on a variety of government programs and services. More specifically, this funding relates to the implementation of 10 advertising campaigns: "Canada — Vancouver 2010 Olympics", "Canada's Economic Action Plan", "Canada's Economic Action", "Economic Action — Infrastructure", "Economic Action — Helping Canadian Workers", "Economic Action — Home Initiatives", "Remembrance Day Vignette", "Service to New Canadians", "Advertising Corporate Identity", and "Emergency Preparedness (72 hours)".)
These advertising programs are for over $44 million, and in them, the Privy Council, for the first time, is a participant in this advertising program to the tune of $500,000; Canada Revenue Agency $7 million; Canadian Heritage, $10 million; Citizenship and Immigration, $2 million; Finance, $7 million; Human Resources and Skills Development, $7 million; Office of Infrastructure of Canada, $8 million; Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, $414,000; Veterans Affairs, $2.5 million. Therefore, you are a part of this advertising campaign.
Ms. MacPherson: The $500,000 apportioned to PCO is specifically attached to advertising corporate identity. The purpose of those funds is to design a new corporate identity for government advertising. It is to cover print media, broadcast, out-of-home and new media. Right now in PCO, a statement of work is being drawn up to actually do the redesign work, and that money will also cover concept testing.
Senator Ringuette: Is that being done in-house or through a contract?
Ms. MacPherson: We are doing a statement of work right now, and it will go out to contract.
Senator Ringuette: Therefore, you do not know how much it will cost you.
Ms. MacPherson: No, I am sorry; I do not.
Senator Ringuette: However, you have estimated it will cost $500,000.
Ms. MacPherson: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: Within that, because you are looking at the corporate identity as the Government of Canada, then I suppose that, as you have mentioned earlier, you do some consultation with other departments in regard to their government advertising?
Ms. MacPherson: I am not sure what the level of consultations is, particularly on this initiative.
Senator Ringuette: Is the $500,000, as part of this horizontal funding related to government advertising programs, solely for what you have just said, the corporate identity?
Ms. MacPherson: Yes, that is correct. That is the initiative for which we are responsible in PCO.
Senator Ringuette: Not one dollar will go from your department to the Economic Action Plan, the infrastructure, the Olympics, all of that, all of the other programs that are mentioned here in these estimates.
Ms. MacPherson: That is correct. This $500,000 is for the advertising of corporate identity. That does not mean that PCO will not have ongoing discussions and consultations with departments around the Economic Action Plan, how it is advertised, but these funds are for the design of that corporate identity.
Senator Ringuette: In regard to how it is advertised, I think you already know what the general public feeling is, as was expressed here. I look forward to the corporate plan, if and when it is done, and who does it, because I am assuming that you will put it out for tender.
Ms. MacPherson: Do you mean the corporate design?
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
Ms. MacPherson: I would assume so. I do not know the level of the contract.
Senator Ringuette: Five hundred thousand dollars is a nice contract.
Ms. MacPherson: If that is the amount, but I do not know if that covers the entire contract or if there are people costs in there, as well. I am not sure.
Senator Ringuette: I thought the Government of Canada already had a corporate design. This logo is a corporate design in regard to advertising, printing and so forth. I am puzzled about what this $500,000 is really for.
Ms. MacPherson: I think they are looking for a design for printing but also for new media. More than that, I cannot tell you.
Senator Ringuette: I suppose, Mr. Chair, we will need to look into this issue.
In Supplementary Estimates (C) of last year, you have an item in regard to public opinion research expenditure in the amount of $296,751. In this year's Supplementary Estimates (A), you have the same item for the same amount of money.
Ms. MacPherson: Yes. It is an ongoing reduction. In February 2008, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Public Works and Government Services imposed some reductions on public opinion research. Our portion is $300,000.
Senator Ringuette: Yes, but it should have been out permanently; it is a permanent reduction.
Ms. MacPherson: Yes, it is.
Senator Ringuette: It should have been out permanently. I do not see why it is being restated again this year. If the reduction is gone, it is gone.
Ms. MacPherson: Our Main Estimates would already have been printed or ready to go. It was the timing. It was in Supplementary Estimates (C). We had to put it in both the supplementary estimates and here.
Senator Ringuette: In Supplementary Estimates (C) of last year, you found out at that time.
Ms. MacPherson: Right. We were preparing those about the same time as we were doing the Main Estimates for the next year.
The Chair: So that all honourable senators understand the documents with which we have been dealing, the Main Estimates come out at the end of a fiscal year for the next fiscal year. Then we have Supplementary Estimates (A), (B) and (C). We have already dealt in this fiscal year with Supplementary Estimates (A). We dealt with that in the spring. They are extra funds needed for the government to implement its policy that were not fully developed at the time that the Main Estimates came out. Supplementary Estimates (A) came out to fill out some of those policy issues and give parliamentary approval through the supply bill that goes along with these.
Honourable senators will know that we should be expecting Supplementary Estimates (B) sometime in the near future, which will be this fall, and then Supplementary Estimates (C), which typically comes out in February, just before the end of the fiscal year, to clean up the fiscal year.
Those are the various documents.
Senator Nancy Ruth: In the Ottawa Citizen in June this year, Kathryn May interviewed your former boss, Kevin Lynch. It was around the appointments issue, among other things.
As I remember, he said that the appointments process had been improved since this government came to power in 2006 and that the commission has spent around a million dollars developing standards and a code of practice, but the improvements were there.
Would you agree with his statement, and can you tell us a bit about how that is still ongoing within the PCO?
Ms. MacPherson: First, I know that, inside the department, PCO has developed and distributed a document entitled A Guide to Managing the Governor-in-Council Appointments Process. It focuses on key elements required for a rigorous process.
Second, it was also recognized that vacancy management was an issue. Therefore, PCO has been working with departments and providing a monthly report on vacancy rates to try to improve management of that and to get positions filled.
Third, they wanted to address upcoming expiries. Therefore, rather than waiting for positions to become vacant, they are trying to be proactive in ensuring ministers are taking account of that.
The fourth change is related to increasing transparency and access to the Governor-in-Council appointments process. In April 2006, the government launched the Governor-in-Council appointments website so that those positions that are available are very visible to the general public.
A fifth change was the rigour of the appointments process, where the government broadened the scope of the recruitment efforts for leadership and quasi-judicial positions.
The sixth change was the need for enhanced training and orientation for both stakeholders and appointees. There are one-on-one orientation sessions for new chairs, heads of agencies and CEOs of Crown corporations, and regular workshops, on how to implement the appointments process.
Senator Callbeck: I have a brief question on the ministry summary. I noticed that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons' salary — motorcar allowance — is in this budget but was not there last year. Where was it last year?
Ms. MacPherson: Previously, it was considered to be a Minister of State and therefore covered off by voted funds. However, it is now considered to be a full minister, so it is a statutory item. It has just moved from the status of being in the vote 1 to being covered off by statute.
The Chair: I have one question, and I will put it in a historical perspective. This committee has been asking for a breakout from the Privy Council Office of the PMO's expenses and the number of employees. We have been asking for a number of years why you cannot separate that. We accept the professionalism of the entire public service, in particular the heart of the public service, being the Privy Council Office. You have a global operation budget that has a bunch of partisans in that non-partisan activity.
Would it not make sense to have a separate item for those who are expected to be partisan in their approach — separate from those who are expected to be non-partisan? On page 3 of your presentation, you were able to give us the dollar figure.
Ms. MacPherson: Yes.
The Chair: If I look in the government telephone book, I can identify who is in the Privy Council Office and who is in the Office of the Prime Minister. Why can you not do that for us in the estimates each year?
Ms. MacPherson: We probably could. However, over a number of years, the Treasury Board continues to refine the documents that we present to Parliament in order to be more representative of results. When you present results on an organization, it does not really map what it is that we are doing. We have refined our program activity structure, and that is why the PMO is included in that provision of advice to the Prime Minister's program activity.
However, that being said, now, with the change in the public accounts, the expenditures of the PMO and all ministers is quite visible, and we can break out for you the actual budget — as we have this year — of $8.4 million for the Prime Minister.
With respect to full-time equivalents, FTEs, it is not much different than it is with departments. It is a notional number. We actually manage according to the salary budget. The number of people in any given organization may fluctuate; many interns may be employed for the summer, so the number of people in the actual seats is greater, and then that will die off. Therefore, again, it is a notional number, and we are constrained by the salary limit. However, we can certainly provide you the salary budget and the non-salary budget.
The Chair: That would be appreciated, if you can do that over the past five years and track it. We would be interested in seeing what is happening in relation to that particular activity.
In the future, if you do not break it out in the Main Estimates, will we have to call the Clerk of the Privy Council in each year to give us that figure?
Ms. MacPherson: It will not be shown in the Main Estimates because we get the program activity structure that we have and use to present to Parliament approved through the Treasury Board. Therefore, it would not be part of the Main Estimates.
The Chair: You cannot do it because of the process?
Ms. MacPherson: That is correct. It also does not fit with the rationale behind having the program activity structure.
The Chair: However, you are estimating how much it will cost each year.
Ms. MacPherson: Yes. We do the same with all the organizations inside PCO. The total amount of money that you see spread over our program activity structure as we present it to Parliament in order to represent results is definitely broken out by organization inside the department every year.
The Chair: Do we have to go to public accounts after the fact to find out exactly what the figure is? Is that the way we trace this?
Ms. MacPherson: I do not think so.
The Chair: The other way is to bring the Clerk of the Privy Council in and ask him or her.
Ms. MacPherson: We establish budgets at the beginning of the year inside the organization. For example, we go through — as we are now — a mid-year review, so it may be reallocated. It is not fixed in stone, but our total amount is certainly fixed.
The Chair: Our purpose in knowing this information is because we vote appropriations each year and want to understand what we are voting for. If we see a big global figure, and you say you can move things all around in there especially between non-partisan activity and partisan activity, it would be helpful for us to know the breakdown.
Ms. MacPherson: I can check. Maybe there is a way to provide that information.
The Chair: Maybe you could investigate that. I know the Treasury Board has been made aware of our concern, and they tell us to talk to Privy Council Office. So here we are talking to you.
Would you pass on our regards and best wishes to the new Clerk of the Privy Council Office and Secretary to the Cabinet, Mr. Wouters? We were hopeful that he could come along so that we could wish him well personally. However, we understand he is a busy person. If you could pass on our regards and wish him the best of luck in that position, we would appreciate it.
Honourable senators, we have used up our time. Thank you very much for being here. On your behalf, we thank Ms. MacPherson and Mr. Roy for their assistance. We look forward to having you return in due course to chat with us again.
I will suggest that we proceed with the future business discussion now so we can all be on our way.
You will want to know about Bill S-227, a private member's bill by Senator Watt. He indicated that he would like to consider the issue of the Province of Quebec being involved in this, as well as the federal government. He would like to think about how he might handle that. We will not move on that until we hear from him. It is a typical process with respect to a private member's bill. He introduced it, and we want him to tell us that he is ready to proceed. With your permission, we will put that one on hold.
However, we have a clarification with respect to the numbers. You recall there was quite a discrepancy between the government's and our estimate. Mr. Nadeau, our researcher, will be able to help us a little with that aspect.
Jean-François Nadeau, Researcher, Library of Parliament: The first clarification is that we compared the figure of $8.4 million that was the first estimate of the Library of Parliament to the figure of $30 million that was produced by the Department of Finance. The $8.4 million estimated by the Library of Parliament was just the cost of improving the Northern Residents Deductions, while the $30 million provided by Finance was including the cost of the Northern Residents Deductions and the cost of removing the GST and the excise tax.
To make the comparison fair, you would have had to compare the $8.4 million to the first figure of $15 million that Finance produced. I went back to see how we had calculated that $8.4 million, which was done before I started in the Library. It was based on older data; since then, we received better data from the 2006 census. I redid the Library's estimate given the data I now have, which would be somewhere between $11 million and $12 million, to compare to the figure of $15 million from Finance. When it comes to the excise tax removal and the exemption of the GST for Nunavik, I come up with a number of $11 million, compared to the $15 million.
Senator Ringuette: Does that include the Quebec portion of the GST?
Mr. Nadeau: No, that is just the GST.
If you sum up the two, the Library of Parliament estimate would be $21 million to $22 million while the Department of Finance would be $30 million. Yesterday Sylvain Fleury and I met with the Department of Finance to discuss methodology. Given there is so much uncertainty about these cost estimates, we agreed that anywhere between $22 million and $30 million seems to be a reasonable number.
It is difficult to come up with precise estimates of these. We looked through many data sets. It is difficult. We have to make assumptions about who pays what, who claims what type of deduction, how many kids are in the family and so forth.
As a result, Finance would be comfortable with the Library of Parliament saying that it costs $22 million and the Library of Parliament would be comfortable with Finance saying that it would cost $30 million.
The Chair: That was only for Nunavik, which is the northern part of Quebec. We had asked for the cost of applying that overall, and we still do not have that estimate.
Mr. Nadeau: That would be much more.
The Chair: We had asked our witnesses to calculate that because you will recall some were asking why we should have a federal program for only one portion of the North. That was discussed.
The other point I wanted you to be aware of concerns Bill C-50 and Bill C-51. Bill C-50 is the Employment Insurance bill, and a motion is before the Senate that would allow us to pre-study that. If that is accepted, we may possibly be starting on that tomorrow evening.
On Bill C-51, we are not sure where that is — that is budget implementation act two. It has been introduced in the House of Commons now, and we can assume we will be receiving that in short order. It is to do primarily with the home renovation. There does not appear to be an awful lot of other things in there, which is good news from our point of view.
We should also anticipate receiving Supplementary Estimates (B) fairly soon. We have a number of things staring at us that we will have to react to very quickly when they are received. In the meantime, we have two or three one-offs that we are hoping to work on, and we have a motion before Senate with respect to Bill C-50.
Senator Di Nino: We are not sure whether Bill C-50 comes up today. If it does, do you want to meet tomorrow? Do we have a set of witnesses already?
The Chair: Yes, we have. We are anticipating it, but it will still take cooperation between the parties in the Senate.
Senator Di Nino: Would those include any departmental officials?
The Chair: Yes, so we understand what is in there.
Senator Di Nino: That is fine.
Senator Ringuette: Then we would see from what they say.
The Chair: Yes, what they have said; and once we get a chance to understand what is there, then we can determine what other witnesses we would like to have.
That is all for the now unless you have other questions.
Senator Di Nino: For everyone's knowledge, because it was raining very hard, the three of us were waiting for a bus that came by twice and did not stop twice.
The Chair: Is there a message there?
Senator Di Nino: It was non-partisan, obviously. It is an apology to all of you for us being late.
(The committee adjourned.)