Government Operations Committee on April 30th, 2012

[Marc Bélisle]

The budget of the Privy Council Office fluctuates on a yearly basis because lots of temporary initiatives are housed within the Privy Council Office. One example is the Afghanistan task force, which was there for a specific period. The commissions of inquiry also fluctuate a lot in our budget. Some years we can go up to almost $20 million in commissions of inquiry and in other years there is hardly anything. So those amounts fluctuate a lot.

On the two amounts you were referring to, most of them are due to some of the programs that are sunsetting. We had the G-8, the Afghanistan task force, the economic action plan—all of these were for set periods of time, and now you are starting to see the end of them.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

I realize there are some year-to-year fluctuations and variations, but when looking at most government departments, the expense of running government actually goes up. PCO was one where we've seen it stay equal or actually go down. When you factor in inflation, it seems to be a more impressive record. Just looking at numbers, that shines through.

The second part is—and usually government departments.... Bill, you mentioned that it's mostly in salaries, particularly at PCO. When you look at the full-time equivalents, in 2005-06 there were about 1,117 full-time equivalents. Looking at the projections for this year, I think you said you're looking at 987. Again, it's not a massive reduction. The department is smaller now than it was seven years ago and is still providing the same high-level service, when we're talking about your ongoing, continuous cycle of evaluation you are putting forward.

It seems to me that in the budgeting process the PCO has done a very good job of meeting the demands that are placed upon on it on a year-to-year basis. But overall, if you look at the actual growth of the department, you have remained pretty stable for at least over half a decade.

Am I accurate in comparing those numbers now?

[Marc Bélisle]

Yes. We also had several government-wide initiatives that reduced our budget. We're seeing those reflected. For the strategic review we are now in year two. We also have to think about cost containment. Employees are receiving salary increases; however, the departments are not compensated any more. That's also how our reductions sometimes in FTEs...because we will not be filling some of our vacant positions...to be able to find the money to continue to operate.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

That's good, because now you are entering my next question.

We're hearing a lot of reports in the media about cuts and layoffs. Can you tell me the workforce adjustment situation currently in PCO?

[Michelle Doucet]

As Marc has just elaborated, and Bill has spoken about it as well, we've taken several budget reduction-related activities in recent years. As a result, we are now faced with a concrete reduction to our work force, and I'll tell you about how we're going to do that.

In order to proceed according to the agreements we've negotiated with the unions, and pursuant to Treasury Board guidance, on April 2 we advised Treasury Board Secretariat that we would be invoking workforce adjustment at PCO. Two days later we met with the unions to provide them with the details, pursuant to the agreements we have with them.

One week later, on April 11, we began the process of notifying employees that they were affected. No one was declared surplus immediately. Being declared “affected” means there's a possibility that one's job will be declared surplus to requirements. An affected employee is therefore told that their services may no longer be required.

In some circumstances, where more than one employee is performing the same type of work, we conduct merit-based assessment for retention processes in order to fairly and transparently make the decision on which positions will be eliminated and which employees will be declared surplus.

Once it has been confirmed that the services of an employee are no longer required, the employee is informed in writing that their job will be declared surplus. At that point, the next step is to see whether they're being given a guaranteed reasonable job offer or not. If not, then they become something called “an opting employee”, and they have four months to choose between three options, each of which at the end of it will terminate their employment with the public service, unless they find another job during that time.

In terms of what that means for the Privy Council Office, right now we have—and I'm going to put caveats around numbers because they shift with people coming and going and retiring—approximately 139 affected employees at the Privy Council Office. As I said, the coming and going, folks who say they'd like to retire now, combined with the fact that we don't have programs that we cut—we have financial targets that we are working toward—will play a role in determining the final number of employees that will be declared surplus.

With that important caveat in mind, we currently estimate we will be declaring surplus between 90 to 100 employees at the Privy Council Office sometime between June and the end of November of this year.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Good. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Scott.

We're getting close to the end. Are there any further questions?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have one short one.

[An hon. member]

I have one.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

If you have two or three minutes each, that will conclude this one hour.

Linda, go ahead.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay. Well, this will explain to me how the government and the Senate work. I wonder if you could explain how in your budget the House of Commons pays the Government of Canada for the leader of the government in the Senate.

Why does that turn up in the budget that we vote on?

[Marc Bélisle]

What is the question, please?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

In your mains you have $78,000, I believe it is, to pay for the salary and motor car for the leader of the government in the Senate. I'm puzzled as to why a budget for a position in the Senate would be in something that I vote on as a member of the House of Commons. Why is it not in the Senate budget?

[Michelle Doucet]

That's because the leader of the Senate is a government minister and a member of cabinet. She's one of the PCO's portfolio ministers. That's why the expenses for her are listed in our main estimates.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

So her salary is paid through the Senate but we pay for the car and driver?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

It's a top-up. We call it the bonus.

Does that answer your question?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes, it does.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Okay. Thank you.

Mike, it's your turn.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

It's not a bonus. Every cabinet minister has more work to do, including that cabinet minister, so let's be clear.

I know this isn't your area, but you are in charge of the Public Service of Canada, so I'm going to ask you one question. If you can't answer me, that's fine.

In one of the explanations in the “Canadian Transportation Accident” piece, and I just want to know if this is standard across the board—and maybe it's a Treasury Board question and not yours—it says here there's a slight deduction, which is explained by:

...collective agreements that have expired in 2011–12 and for which a new agreement has not yet been signed. The funding for terminable allowances in these collective agreements is not included in the Main Estimates.

From a financial perspective, can you tell me what's happening here? There's something in the collective agreement that they had, but it expired so they don't have to account for it until it's re-signed again? I don't know what's going on there.

If you can't explain it to me, that's fine. I'll ask Treasury Board.

I'm assuming this is something that's standard across government and not just for this agency.

[Marc Bélisle]

Yes, I think I would refer this question to the Treasury Board Secretariat. They would be in a better position to be able to answer your question.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

We've got a brief question from Ron Cannan. He's asked for a moment.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses.

I come from British Columbia and I represent the interior, but I used to be on the fisheries committee.

Justice Cohen has requested another half a million dollars, their total budget will be $26.4 million, and their inquiry will be wrapping up in September of this year. So next year, following Mr. Armstrong's comments, your budget would reflect one less commissioner and a reduction of several million dollars because of the completion of that inquiry?

[Marc Bélisle]

Yes.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you.

That's for sure? When you were here in March, you said it was going to be wrapped up in March, and now he's come back for another half a million dollars or so.