Government Operations Committee on Nov. 28th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for appearing before the committee.

I'd like to take a two-minute break, because we have new guests coming in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We will now resume because we are running a little late.

We'd like to start right away, because we're a little wee bit behind and we want to make sure we have as much time as possible with both of these groups.

We have before us the Privy Council Office and the Public Service Labour Relations Board.

We will begin by hearing from the Privy Council Office. We're going to let the representatives of both agencies speak for a few minutes, then we will move on to questions. Members may ask whatever questions they wish.

We will begin with the Privy Council Office. Ms. MacPherson, go ahead please.

[Marilyn MacPherson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Privy Council Office]

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

I am pleased to appear before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates today. I am accompanied by Mr. Yvan Roy, Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Legislation and House Planning and Machinery of Government, and Counsel to the Clerk. We are also accompanied by other official representatives who will provide us with support, if necessary.

PCO's last appearance before the committee was in November 2006 regarding the 2006-07 supplementary estimates, and we understand that we're invited here today to discuss the 2007-08 supplementary estimates.

PCO, as a core institution led by the clerk, has the mandate to support the Prime Minister, the cabinet, and its committees.

Over the next three years, PCO will focus on four key priorities. The first is to continue to support the Prime Minister in exercising his overall leadership responsibility through, for example, advice on the appointment of principal public office-holders and fulfilling the cabinet secretariat role through the challenge and coordination function with respect to policy proposals being brought forward by departments.

The second key priority area is to continue to play a central coordinating role in assisting the Prime Minister in improving the overall management, transparency, and accountability of government. This includes continued support to implement the Federal Accountability Act and its action plan and to support the renewal of the public service.

The third key priority is to provide advice and support on the development and implementation of the government's focused agenda as set out in the Speech from the Throne and identified by the Prime Minister.

The fourth priority is to strengthen our internal management practices, with emphasis on implementing the strategic HR plan and strengthening our emergency management and business continuity planning capacity to ensure the ongoing safety and health of our staff, our information, and our assets.

PCO's Main Estimates for 2007-2008 total $127 million. Approximately 68% of our resources are spent on providing advice and support to the Prime Minister and Ministers in his portfolio, 22% on providing advice and support to the Cabinet and Cabinet committees and 6% on providing leadership to the public service.

Four percent of 2007-2008 Main Estimates, that is $5.7 million, is allocated to the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182. Commissions of inquiry are established at the prerogative of the Prime Minister and PCO provides administrative support to those commissions which report to the Prime Minister.

PCO is providing, or has provided, this administrative support to three commissions of inquiry in 2007-08: the internal inquiry into the actions of Canadian officials in relation to Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou-Elmaati and Muayyed Nereddin; the inquiry into the investigation of the bombing of Air India flight 182; and the inquiry into the actions of Canadian officials in relation to Maher Arar.

PCO supplementary estimates for 2007-08 total $14.3 million, of which $14.2 million pertain to the three commissions of inquiry. I will speak briefly about each inquiry.

The internal inquiry into the actions of Canadian officials in relation to Messrs. Almalki, Abou-Elmaati, and Nereddin was launched in December 2006, and the Honourable Frank lacobucci was appointed commissioner. Our supplementary estimates include $7.5 million for this inquiry to cover operational costs of the commission, such as salaries, accommodations, travel, furniture and equipment, legal services, and translation. The funding also includes $700,000 to provide assistance in the form of contribution payments with regard to the cost of legal counsel for certain parties and intervenors appearing before the commission.

The inquiry into the investigation of the bombing of Air India flight 182 was launched last year under Justice John C. Major. Funding requirements in the supplementary estimates for 2007-08 are $6.3 million to cover the cost of operations, again, salaries, accommodations, travel, etc. The funding also includes $1.1 million to provide assistance in the form of contribution payments, again with regard to the cost of legal counsel for certain parties and intervenors.

Funding in the amount of $374,000 is requested in the supplementary estimates for the inquiry into the actions of Canadian officials in relation to Maher Arar. The commissioner, Justice Dennis R. O'Connor, challenged the redaction of certain material in his report. The matter was considered by the Federal Court, and on August 9, 2007, disclosure of some additional information was authorized by the court and an addendum to the report was released. The budget includes some travel, legal services, rental of accommodations, and the production of the addendum report. The budget also includes $25,000 for contribution funding for Mr. Arar's participation. Although much of this application was in camera, the Federal Court granted Mr. Arar status to participate in portions of the hearings that were held in public. The commission officially wound up on September 28, 2007.

To wrap up, the remaining $135,000 in supplementary estimates provides funds that were approved under an omnibus TB submission to support the continued implementation of the PSMA, which Treasury Board commented on before us, so I won't get any further into detail on that.

We would be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

We will now go to the Public Service Labour Relations Board.

Mr. Bloom, please.

[Casper Bloom, Chairperson, Public Service Labour Relations Board]

My name is Casper Bloom. I'm the new president of the Public Service Labour Relations Board.

I have occupied the position of Chairperson since January 2007. I am accompanied by Mr. Pierre Hamel, who is Executive Director of the Board and General Counsel.

We are here today to explain to you why we are seeking funding of $2.5 million. I would also like to take this opportunity to ask you not to require us to come back year after year for this same amount. I will explain to you why.

After the new act was passed in April 2005, Compensation Analysis and Research Services, or CARS, was added to the board's mandate. These services, which did not exist under the old act, now represent one-third of our mandate. For us to carry out this new mandate, we obviously need funding, and not just other responsibilities and powers

which was not provided, and as a result, year after year we have to keep coming back and making the same request for supplementary funds to pay for this new responsibility that has been--I won't say forced upon us--attributed to us and that I think belongs with us. It is in the right place.

As some of you may recall, the work we're doing in this particular responsibility is as successor to the old Pay Research Bureau, which was dissolved in 1992. The purpose of the Pay Research Bureau and our Compensation and Analysis Research Services is to see that the parties in negotiations at the table are working with the same data. Part of the problem in negotiations, as those who have negotiated in the past will know, is that the parties come with different data. They say “Our data is correct because we got them here”, and the other party says “We have the right data”, and they don't come to an agreement. When there is no agreement at the table, it leads to conflict. The purpose, the raison d'être, of our board is to do away with the conflict in order to try to have harmonious relations in the public service from one end of the country to the other. That is our raison d'être.

This particular new role that was given to us in 2005 is very much a critical part of that, because we are doing the research of the data through an independent means to provide objective, independent, neutral, impartial data that both parties have at the table, so that they are working from the same

data. So there's no conflict with the data because they come from an agency that is deemed to be independent and impartial.

This particular responsibility is an important one for our board, one that we are happy to do and execute, but we need the funds to do it. For the last few years, ever since the board was given this new responsibility, we have not been funded for it. As a result, we have to keep coming back year after year to ask for something that I would say is elementary.

I'm hoping that as a result of coming here today, we can perhaps avoid having to come back next year, and the year after that and the year after that. When I first started with the board and they explained that to me, I said it made no sense. Ce n'est pas logique.

This is something we're asking for. We have distributed to you a document that explains

in English and in French, our board's purpose in general, as well as its terms and conditions, the way in which we operate, responsibilities such as mediation, conflict resolution, adjudication and so on. I won't take the committee's time explaining what is already in the document.

That is really the reason we're here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you very much. I don't know whether we'll be able to give you a hand, but we'll try.

We'll begin the question period with Mr. Holland.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, witnesses.

I'm going to start, Ms. MacPherson, by asking a question about correspondence that comes into PCO. What is the policy with respect to correspondence that comes into PCO that is addressed to the Prime Minister?

[Marilyn MacPherson]

Last year there were approximately 1.7 million pieces of correspondence that came in, either by postal mail or through e-mail, and we do have certain practices. We have 35 people who are involved in actually reviewing correspondence. It is divided into categories. It's basically triaged, so there is political and personal mail that goes directly to PMO. There is priority mail. For example, it could be coming from heads of state. That's normally sent to the office of the clerk, where there are responses prepared for the signature of the Prime Minister. There's another level of general correspondence from the general public and so on.

There are four or five different levels of correspondence and each one of them is dealt with in a different way.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

For correspondence of a political nature, it is forwarded to the PMO. Depending on the severity of what's contained in that correspondence, do you have a system to determine where in the PMO that information goes? Is there a universal place to which that information goes in the PMO?

[Marilyn MacPherson]

Yes, there is a Prime Minister's correspondence unit, so all of the correspondence that moves from PCO, our executive correspondence unit, goes directly there.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Is that a universal practice? Are there any instances where you would not follow that practice?

[Marilyn MacPherson]

For anything that we were going to forward to the PMO, that is where we would forward it to.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I'm wondering if you could help me with a couple of other items. The first is public opinion polling. Do you have a figure for how much was spent for public opinion polling, and then, secondary to that, how much of that would have been sole sourced, either as a percentage or a dollar figure?

[Marilyn MacPherson]

No, I'm sorry, I don't have that information. I did take note of it when you asked it when Treasury Board was here, but I would have to go back to the department to get that information. I think it's held in the estimates of other departments, and I don't have the composite figures.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

You took note of the other questions I asked?

[Marilyn MacPherson]

We will check with the clerk to make sure we have the actual questions.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I will just go over them really quickly, if I could, because I think there was one that I didn't ask for, and that was the total amount for public relations training for government representatives as well, again either the percentage of that or the dollar figure that would be sole sourced. As well, my first question that I was asking previously was on government-wide advertising.

That's all for right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Silva, did you want to take up the balance of the time?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Yes. I didn't have really many questions. I must say, even though I've been here for four years, I always found the Privy Council a little bit of a mystery to me, but that's because you have to be, I guess, the Prime Minister or in the government to figure out what this is all about.

Nevertheless, if I recollect correctly what you said in relation to appointments, I think all the appointments are vetted through the Privy Council or go through the Privy Council. Is that correct?

[Marilyn MacPherson]

I think I probably would defer that to a colleague who actually works in senior personnel, if I could. Mr. Marc O'Sullivan is the assistant secretary for senior personnel, so he can talk to you a little bit more authoritatively.

[Marc O'Sullivan, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Senior Personnel and Special Projects Secretariat, Privy Council Office]

Sorry, could you repeat the question, please?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

The question is on appointments. Are appointments vetted? Do they go through...? Every program has to go, I presume, through the Privy Council Office. Is that correct?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

The appointment is made by the Governor in Council, then it goes to the cabinet, with final approval by the Governor General. These are appointments to all the agencies, boards, and commissions, as well as diplomatic appointments, appointments of deputy ministers, and these come through the Privy Council Office.

Basically, ministers make recommendations, because the enabling legislation that provides for the creation of the position that's being filled provides that a recommendation is made to the Governor in Council. That's made by the responsible minister.

We examine the recommendations to make sure they conform with the enabling legislation. Security checks are made as well. Compensation issues that have to be dealt with are dealt with because the Governor in Council usually has the authority for compensation. Then the appointments go to cabinet for ratification, and then the Governor General signs the order in council and the appointment is made.

So there's a population of roughly about 3,000 people for whom appointments are made by the Governor in Council, and it's the Privy Council Office that offers support for that.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Maybe I can try to put in the context of the estimates why these appointments are important.

If there's money that's been allocated for these individuals, and we know there's a backlog in appointments, specifically to the Immigration and Refugee Board, and families are waiting for these particular cases for a very long time unnecessarily and they're not being filled, doesn't this mean that in fact it's not fulfilling the mandate to get these appointments going?

We just had Treasury Board here not long ago saying that they're providing a new office to help in terms of fulfilling the mandate of the government directive, but shouldn't there be directives that if you have moneys allocated for these appointments, you have to make the appointments?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

The Privy Council Office supports the cabinet in its decision-making, including for the approval of appointments. It's contingent upon appointments being recommended by ministers. Basically, we're processing. We fulfill a technical function in processing.

The actual moneys for the payment of the salaries of the individuals are disbursed by the organizations themselves. In terms of money being set aside for a given organization like the IRB, it's the IRB's budget that covers the salaries of the members of the IRB.