Government Operations Committee on April 30th, 2012

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

That's concluded. Thank you very much.

Next we have Denis Blanchette for the NDP.

You have five minutes, Denis.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Doucet, Mr. Pentney, Mr. Bélisle, welcome.

I am going to continue in the same vein as my colleague. I would like to finally obtain the long version of the answer to all of this. Perhaps you cannot give us this right now, but I would like you to provide the committee with a comprehensive table of cuts related to strategic reviews, the budget, as well as a breakdown of savings achieved through job cuts, on the one hand, and through other means, on the other.

[Michelle Doucet]

Thank you for the question.

I think we can actually give you some of that information today.

Mr. Pentney, did you want to open?

[Bill Pentney, Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Plans and Consultations, Privy Council Office]

Thank you.

First I want to specify that at PCO, there are practically no other expenses aside from salaries. We do not administer programs. So it will not be complicated to give you a global overview. We are talking, rather, about staff cuts. We are not responsible for employment insurance programs and other programs offered directly to Canadians.

However, we do not administer two separate programs. We manage the budget, the staff, the program and responsibilities of PCO in a global way. This year, as indicated in the budget, there are reductions related to strategic reviews. In addition, the budget stated that there would be reductions linked to the deficit reduction plan for this year.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

You have a lot of say, but I have not really found anything out.

[Bill Pentney]

Yes.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I would very much appreciate your answering me in writing, since our time is limited.

Since the Public Appointments Commission is going to be abolished, I would like to know how you are going to take charge of the work that was done by that organization. How are you going to ensure that the work is well done? I am thinking in particular of some appointments that were much discussed in the media, the big concern being how they had come about. I am thinking among others of the appointment of the Auditor General and of judges to the Supreme Court.

How are you going to ensure that there are no further appointments that make the front pages because they do not respect criteria?

[Bill Pentney]

Thank you for your questions.

From its inception, the Secretariat of the Public Appointments Commission has made recommendations to improve the appointment system. The government implemented a few changes, as Ms. Doucet said in her previous answer. There is a group that is responsible for supporting the government in this process. The government created a website and provided details on the required skills and

the statement of merit criteria,

and the government adopted a more rigorous selection process. So, the process has been unfolding normally and we have benefited from the studies and recommendations of the secretariat during that period.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I have a brief question on Shared Services Canada and the breakdown of budget cuts.

In a previous reply, you said that certain types of emails, among other things, were going to be transferred to Shared Services Canada, and that others would not. I understand that there are security levels to be considered; everyone understands that. That said, does this not represent duplication for your office, and consequently, an increase in the total cost of the service?

[Michelle Doucet]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm not sure I understand the question: won't there be an increase for the total cost of the service?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

May I ask my question again, if the people on the other side will allow?

[Voices]

Fine.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

In a reply to my colleague across the way, you stated that Shared Services Canada was going to be responsible for certain types of emails with a security rating of secret or less, and that you would keep control of those with a higher security rating than the secret rating.

In light of how this process will be managed, will there not be a duplication of technical procedures, and finally, an increase in costs rather than a reduction in the administrative costs of the service, which was the hoped-for outcome?

[Michelle Doucet]

Thank you very much. Now I understand the question.

As I said in my remarks before, PCO will continue looking after the e-mails in the secret and top secret category.

We had some work done some time ago to see if we were delivering our IT services in a cost-efficient manner, and I can tell you we deliver those services in a very cost-efficient way at PCO. So while I don't have the exact information as to whether it will cost more, I can assure you that we have a pretty lean set of business processes around our delivery of secret and top secret e-mail at PCO.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Madame Doucet.

Next, for the Conservatives, we have Mike Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank you for coming and joining us this afternoon and answering a few questions about the main estimates.

I'm going to ask you a few questions about last year's plans and priorities document that had numbers in it.

I have one question to start with to get my head around things. Last year, in 2011-12, it was $140 million—I'm going to round, if you don't mind. Then in the plans and priority document of last year you had $134 million. In the main estimates this year we have $127 million. I'm assuming part of that was the Shared Services transfer.

When did the Shared Services piece come together? Was that included in this reduction that we see of the $6 million that was in the plans and priorities? Did you know that was coming at that time, or is that new since then?

[Marc Bélisle, Executive Director, Finance and Corporate Planning Division, Privy Council Office]

During the summer we found out that this transfer was going to occur. However, with all the calculations, it claimed more into the fall, so we were able to include the reduction in our main estimates for 2012-13. However, when we did our main estimates last year, we wouldn't have known.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So what's making up this reduction? You set out a three-year concept, in terms of how much you're going to spend. You have a reduction in your plans and priorities. If that wasn't there, can you remember what made up the reduction to begin with in your plans and priorities from last year?

[Marc Bélisle]

Which year are you comparing with which?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

In your RPP from last year, 2011-12, you have $140 million, and it goes to $134 million, so you're planning a $6 million reduction. The reduction is even greater when you look at the main estimates now. It's down to $126 million. I want to know what you thought the reduction this year was going to be. Was there something coming that you knew about? I want to know what that was. Can you tell me?

[Marc Bélisle]

Off the top of my head, it's from our RPP.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Right.

[Marc Bélisle]

You're talking about the same year, 2011-12?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'm talking about 2012-13.

If I'm a member of Parliament and I look at your document from last year and I say, okay, they're planning to reduce by $6 million to $134 million, and then I go to the book, when you send it out, and it's down to $126 million, I want to know, on the list of things you deducted, what you knew about in advance in last year's plans and what's new in this year's plans.

If you cannot tell me that, that's fine. It's just that I need to know.

[Marc Bélisle]

I can tell you that we did not know about SCC, Shared Services Canada, the transfer.

We did know about the Afghanistan task force, that that was going to sunset.

For the strategic review, we put in our amounts last year, so we knew those amounts.

For security-related initiatives, yes, we knew at that time that our reference levels would be reduced.

The adjustment for EBP, we do not know. That's an adjustment we do yearly, because the rate changes and we adjust accordingly.

The office of the special advisor on human smuggling would have not been known about at that point. This is something that came after we had done our documentation.

For the Cohen commission, that was the information we had available at that time.