Government Operations Committee on May 10th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Mr. Martin, you can have one last very brief question.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I notice that your internal services take up one-third of the total budget. I mean, is that efficient? A lot of administrations would be criticized for burning up that amount of their total budget on internal services. Is there a logical explanation?

[Marilyn MacPherson]

I think the way we have internal services organized is probably a very efficient model. One of the things about PCO is that we want to ensure that the deputy secretaries and their staff and analysts have the time and effort to put on the important files of the government. So we have centralized to the extent possible and we have a lot of efficiencies of scale.

For example, we maintain inventory. We buy paper and toner. I think they told me that we save about 70% by doing so. We manage all of the BlackBerrys, all of the service, all of the computers, which means that we buy everything in bulk. We manage everything that way.

I think in some departments you would find that where they have a decentralized system, there are repetitive functions that are not necessarily obvious. We have very little of that because we have it so centralized. It is also very transparent where the money goes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We now go to the second round of questions with Ms. Hall Findlay, for five minutes.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will take just a few seconds at the beginning to deal with a comment made by my colleague.

There was a time, quite a while ago, when we actually did say we would like to see much more information on the results of the economic stimulus package. We did call for a much more substantive website. We were told that PCO was in fact spending money on a website, and to date we still have a website that does not actually give any of the real detailed information that for months we have been asking for. There is certainly not any information on job creation specifically related to projects, or even the state of the projects that have been started, where they are.

I just want to make it clear that, yes, we did want a website that was akin to the one in the United States. Yes, we pushed for it. We were told that we were going to get it. We were told that was the reason PCO was spending so much money. We still haven't seen it.

I will simply echo the concerns of my colleague Mr. Martin about $3.6 million. That's an awful lot of money that's not advertising, that's just coordinating advertising in a way that the ethics commissioner just recently suggested some aspects of which--I would suspect due to that coordination--were perhaps inappropriate.

My real question, however, has to do with spending. There has been, since this Conservative government has taken power, a steady increase in PCO spending from the 2006-07 year, including a 12% increase just being proposed right now.

I would like to go back to a colleague of mine, John McCallum, who in 2005 put a great deal of effort into an expenditure review report that found, across all of government, $11 billion in savings over the course of four or five years; I think it was about four years. That included specific opportunities within PCO, that were committed to, of savings, reductions in spending, of $6 million a year in administrative savings.

Had that been the case and had any of those recommendations been implemented, rather than significant increases in PCO spending over the last few years there would have been in fact a decrease in spending.

So I have two questions. One is that I want to ask about the concern that we've raised elsewhere about padding significant increases in this spending and in this budget in order to then be able to cut back and say, “Aren't we wonderful? We've cut back both in the freeze and in the strategic review.”

But I want to ask first, were any of those recommendations ever implemented? As I say, they said they found they were able to see significant savings, and yet PCO has only spent increasing amounts every year.

[Marilyn MacPherson]

I'm not familiar with even the recommendations.

That was in 2005?

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

In 2005, John McCallum produced a significant expenditure review report that included, among other things, recommendations and a commitment, in fact, from PCO that $6 million of savings every year, for four years, would be found. I will note that over those four years, instead of savings of $24 million, PCO has actually spent more, to the tune of about $30 million.

Let me ask my second question, then, which has to do with significant increases just in time to actually be faced with a freeze and then be part of a department review. It certainly gives a distinct impression that this is padding. I'd like to have some idea of what you have, as PCO, been instructed to look at, what you're thinking of looking at in terms of how you're going to deal with, first, a freeze, and then participate as one of the departments participating in future cuts. Where are you going to find those savings?

[Marilyn MacPherson]

I should start by saying, as I mentioned earlier, that of the $15 million, which is the increase from the 2009-10 main estimates to the 2010-11 main estimates, $13 million was actually included in our 2009-10 budget because we put it through supplementary estimates. That amount includes the chronic funding pressures that I mentioned, of $7.6 million. It includes--

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

With all due respect, I actually asked this question--what is meant by “chronic funding pressures”--of the president of the Treasury Board. When I have an expenditure review report that suggested the ability to find $6 million a year in savings, I don't know what is meant by “chronic underfunding”. That seems like a label that is relatively convenient, if I may say, in order to justify significant increases in spending without really any detail of what those are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Ms. Hall Findlay.

You may answer the question.

[Marilyn MacPherson]

As I mentioned, the chronic funding pressures were actually identified early in 2009. I'm sorry that I'm not familiar with Mr. McCallum's work, but we have identified, for example, with the PM's tour group, a $1.1 million pressure. That is simply a function of the cost of cargo and of overtime for the number of events that the Prime Minister attends. We really don't have a lot of control over those, but they must continue; they're mandatory.

As well, I mentioned the ministers' offices. There is a pressure when we're trying to support that many ministers, and we are just not capable of continuing to operate the department and actually absorb those costs as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Madame Meili Faille, s'il vous plaît. Vous avez cinq minutes.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

In fact, I will let my colleague continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

No problem.

Mr. Doiron, you have the floor.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am going to stay with the subject of chronic pressures. Is this not a characteristic of people who are in power, to want to talk constantly about their achievements or their claims? On that point, could we say there is chronic pressure coming from the Prime Minister's Office to simply echo its plans, its achievements, or its claims? Is that what you mean by "chronic pressure"?

[Marilyn MacPherson]

Possibly, in part; for example, I think there are many more international trips at this point. The Prime Minister is travelling more in response to the economic situation of the world, so there are more G8 and G20 meetings that he is attending. He has also been pursuing a number of trips to open markets and was recently in India. Those are some of the events that will increase our pressure. But again, that will have a resulting pressure on the Prime Minister's tour group, because they must travel with him.

We've also included costs for some translation services. As we continue to increase our amount of communications that we do out to the public, because communications has now become a 24/7, 365-day operation, it's actually increasing our costs for translation.

Those are the types of things that are included in our chronic pressures.

[Yvan Roy]

I would first like to add that we certainly must not forget, as Ms. MacPherson said a little earlier, that the Prime Minister's portfolio includes five ministers, and that creates additional pressure. That is the sense in which we are talking about chronic pressure.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

We can't say there are more activities, but mainly there is a greater desire to talk about those activities and make taxpayers aware of them.

[Yvan Roy]

I will quote the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. In her recent report, she noted that in a political environment, it may be expected that there is an interest in making accomplishments known.

At the same time, it is not an insignificant factor to say that Canadians want to know what is done with the money given to politicians. For example, when we talk about Canada's Economic Action Plan, the websites are viewed by Canadians who want to know how the effort made is producing results. It works both ways somewhat.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you.

I am going to change the subject. You talked about an exchange program between Canada and Australia. Can you tell us what benefits we get from that project, if we compare it with other exchange programs we might imagine exist, with emerging countries that are much more prominent than Australia in our trading relationships and that will be increasingly important in the future, like India, Brazil, and so on? What is special about Australia?

[Marilyn MacPherson]

In September of 2007 the Prime Minister met with the Prime Minister of Australia, and they actually signed an agreement to do an exchange. I believe the purpose of that was to share best practices and also for career development.

Yvan may have more information on why Australia was chosen, but it is a Westminster country. Therefore, within their system we may actually learn best practices that are somewhat more applicable to our type of government.

We also have quite a tradition in the Canadian government of having exchanges with the Australian government in other departments. It was probably just a natural affinity because of the type of system that we operate under.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Did you want to answer as well, Mr. Roy?

[Yvan Roy]

I would just like to add something here. I completely agree with my colleague. We are somewhat comparable countries. The Australian states make up a confederation that operates under what is called a Westminster system of government. We can learn from them and they can learn from us in return. The only way to do it is through exchanges. That is the spirit in which the program was established. We learn things and they learn from us. So we may then make fewer mistakes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We now go to Mr. Holder for five minutes.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank our guests for attending this afternoon.

It's rather interesting; it was suggested earlier by a colleague that somehow I'm hypersensitive to how we deal with our guests, and the innuendo, and the way that comments are made. I absolutely am: I think it's important that we treat our guests with respect and that we, at the same time, take a line of questioning that is equally non-partisan, as I believe you have been.

In fact, Mr. Roy, your comment was that public servants must serve their political masters in a non-partisan way, and I appreciate your comment.

I would also like to remark, Ms. MacPherson, that you talked in terms of the code of conduct and high ethics and integrity.

You know, my Cape Breton mom used to say that you've got two things in your life, your name and your integrity; you don't mess up one without messing up the other. And I believe in that wholeheartedly.

So I would like to commend our public service and the work that you do in the PCO, and I hope you would take that back. I think we have an obligation, as members of this committee, to ask things in a thoughtful manner so that we can get to the best answers that we can on behalf of the people who we all serve, in the same way that you're asked to do the best you can with the highest integrity for the people who you serve. So that's a very sincere thank you for that.

Madam MacPherson, in your formal comments you made reference to chronic funding pressures, and of course that has been a recurring theme in some of the questions that have been asked. As I try to get a sense of it, I think what I've heard you say is that some of the challenges have been that.... What you've done is you've had to put into the supplementary estimates what you are now putting into the main estimates, so that you won't have as much of that challenge in terms of chronic funding pressure.

Do you believe that will be the case as a result of the budget you've put in and provided with us today?