Government Operations Committee on Nov. 19th, 2009

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Time? Oh, sorry.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you very much.

I am now going to give the floor to Mr. Nadeau of the Bloc québécois.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to all of you from the Privy Council Office, which is also referred to as the Prime Minister's department.

We are talking about $4 million for a communication plan that includes, based on what I just heard, $200,000 for surveys. I am trying to understand. The Prime Minister's Office has a role to play, for sure. It is an institution in its own right, no matter who is Prime Minister. But what are we talking about? Self-promotion? Why do we need a communication plan that costs $4 million or almost?

Statistics came in in our western world as a political reality with the end of monarchies and the rise of republics. Elections mean we now choose our leaders, in most western countries, in fact in all. It took political mathematics, and they became what we now call statistics. They are used to determine more or less where we are going, how to respond to the public, what the needs are, and so on. I understand that. That is why there are surveys today. We known that departments need to determine where they stand in relation to the public on certain matters, specific subjects, things that need to be done, and I understand that, but the Prime Minister's Office...

Can we see the communication plan with our own eyes? Why does the Prime Minister need $4 million?

[Simon Kennedy]

Mr. Chair, the last time we were before this Committee, I think the Secretary to the Cabinet, Mr. Wouters, explained the purpose of communication intiatives. The purpose is to inform Canadians of the benefits of the programs to which they have access.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I'm sorry, but as you know, I only get five minutes.

Don't departments have their own programs?

[Simon Kennedy]

Yes, of course.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

We know who the Prime Minister is and what he is like, but government agencies, Crown corporations, Canada Post, the Department of Finance and other departments do not ask the Prime Minister to promote their services.

[Simon Kennedy]

The decision that was made was to involve all government departments in coordinating communications, including advertising, signage and so on, so that Canadians would be informed of the available programs. For example, it was decided that there would not be 30 or 40 Web sites, but only one. That way, Canadians who wanted to learn more about the Economic Action Plan would have to go to only one site, not 30. We needed resources so that we could manage the situation.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. kennedy, if I want to know what is going on at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, I go to that department's site. The same is true for National Defence, Canadian Heritage and other departments. It's public, obviously.

When it comes to the Economic Action Plan, I know that cities and provinces are required to pay for the signs and all that. You're talking to us about a Web site, but which Web site? Is the Prime Minister about to tell us what is happening in every department? Does this means that departments won't have a Web site?

[Simon Kennedy]

No. Thank you for the question.

Mr. Chair, the idea is to consolidate in one place all of the information on the Economic Action Plan. We worked with the departments. The programs are managed by departments; the Web site content was prepared by the departments, too, but...

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I'm going to stop you again. Is this program not the responsibility of the Minister of Finance?

[Simon Kennedy]

No, it's a program...

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

The Prime Minister wants to control it all? Are ministers nothing more than puppets with no right to any information? Are the ministers of Foreign Affairs, Finance and Infrastructure Canada puppets of the Prime Minister, who controls all the information?

[Simon Kennedy]

Mr. Chair, is that a question?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Yes, that is a question.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Time is up. Now we have a point of order.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

On a point of order, please, Mr. Chair, I've made it really clear, as the new member of the committee, that my objective in this is to have thoughtful dialogue with our guests who are present. I think we've been doing fairly well, all things considered, but then we get into what I'll graciously call slang. When we call ministers puppets or marionettes, even as a member of the opposition I would find that offensive. I don't happen to be a member of the opposition and maybe I find it a little bit more offensive.

But I would suggest to you, Mr. Chair, that this committee could be more productive if we kept to thoughtful dialogue, without slurs and that kind of implication. I don't find it helpful. I think we want to have helpful questions for our guests, without those allusions to what I would consider inappropriate name-calling and references. I would appeal to you and perhaps all our colleagues to keep this a thoughtful dialogue when we have our guests present, please.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I think your comments have been heard, Mr. Holder. Generally as chair, in my previous incarnations, I have allowed members to use their time, whether it's five or eight minutes, in whatever way they see fit, as long as the witnesses don't feel particularly offended. I think they understand that Parliament is Parliament. I think the records will always reflect what the members have chosen to use as their language, and so history will judge them.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

On a point of order, though, Mr. Chair, and to be fair to you, what I have indicated to our chair, Ms. Ratansi, is that I would call points of order on either side of the House, frankly, whether it be the government side or members opposite, when I felt that the dialogue and content wasn't thoughtful and reasonable. I will put the committee on notice, if I may, that I'll call points of order until you throw me out if I feel that the language on either side isn't appropriate, because that's just wrong. We need to rise above, I would say, the tenor of dialogue that you often hear in question period, which I find particularly offensive—and by the way, not just from one side of the House.

So what I would suggest to you is that I want to encourage, please, all our members to have good dialogue and save the slanging and slagging of members of either side for another forum and not here.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Okay, I think everybody has heard what Mr. Holder has to say on the matter.

Now, Mr. Holder, you can have all the time you want—five minutes, sir.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank our guests for attending today. I appreciate it.

As I've already said, I'm a new committee member, so I'm going through this process for the first time. I appreciate the work that the PCO does. I'd like to thank you in terms of the sometimes smooth running of government. I'm sure you have your fingerprints all over that.

I'm trying to understand the process of the supplementary estimates that go through. It would be helpful for me, please, to understand this. It seems from what I've heard that typically you'll come back from time to time and ask for an increase in funds. Is that typical? I hate to be this general, but I'm trying to understand why that would be the case.

[Marilyn MacPherson]

I think that is because of the estimates process. For example, for the 2009-10 year, the main estimates have to actually be in and finalized by the end of September 2008. When you have timelines like that, there are things that can occur, for example, after September 2008 that would affect our 2009-10 year. So the supplementary estimates, which normally occur three times a year, give departments an opportunity to come back to Parliament to get supplementary funds.

In PCO's case in particular, we do tend to come back quite frequently because of the inquiries we have. We don't always know when they're going to be announced. We have no real control over when they will finish. Although a commission may be set up—a commission of inquiry with a particular date—it may get extended and we may not know that in time to actually get it into the main estimates. We always try to get everything we can into mains, but it's not always possible.

For example, we will be facing that right now with the new Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of the Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River. That commission of inquiry has been launched; however, we have missed the window of opportunity for supplementary estimates (C). So whatever expenditures they make this year, we will have to absorb them somehow within our voted funds.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

So is it possible, then, to say you might well come back at another time if an issue was brought up by any party that was worthy of some review by the PCO? You might well come back to us and say, by the way, this is recent; it has come up, but you didn't budget for it, so here it is?

[Marilyn MacPherson]

That's correct.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Okay, it's helpful to know that. Thank you for that.

Now, you've asked for support in some eight areas, but there are subsections here in the eight areas: DFAIT staff support, youth employment strategies, national equity councils, amalgamation of communications, internal inquiries, and so on. Would you find anything unusual or things that this committee needs to be particularly concerned about from the standpoint of the integrity of the numbers or the protocols?