Government Operations Committee on April 24th, 2013

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

Specifically to your ministry, the secretariat is asking for $5.66 billion in spending, which is about $19.8 million less than in the previous main estimates. Can you explain the difference, please. It's a decrease of almost $20 million, which is good. I like to see that.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Right.

There are increases and decreases, so the increases are $5.1 million for the cyber-security initiative that's designed to protect our digital infrastructure; $3.5 million for human resources modernization; $2.2 million for incremental compensation associated with recently signed collective agreements; and $600,000 for the transfer to the Office of the Comptroller General within Treasury Board Secretariat of responsibility for internal audit services for regional development agencies.

Those are the increases, but we did have offsetting decreases of $9.9 million in sunsetting funds for the classification program, the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council, the joint learning program, and the workplace renewal initiative.

There was a decrease of $9.3 million from the savings identified by DRAP, the deficit reduction action plan; and $1.5 million in savings identified in the 2010 strategic review announced in budget 2011; and $500,000 in transfers to Public Works and Government Services Canada for the first stage of the centralization of pay services and to the Privy Council Office for the Business Transformation and Renewal Secretariat.

As you can see, there were some additions, but they were more than offset by the reductions.

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

Thank you to you and your staff, who have been very busy. I appreciate all of the great work done on behalf of the committee.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Ron.

For the NDP, Linda Duncan.

Five minutes, please, Linda.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, and thank you, Minister Clement.

Mr. Minister, I just have one quick question. In response to my colleague, Mr. Ravignat, you had said that under this government the Conservatives' costs for advertising had declined by 36%. I find that a little puzzling, because based on the reports provided by your government, since you took power, each year the costs have escalated by two, and sometimes three, times.

Second, on many occasions far more was spent than was approved. So I'm left a little confused, and perhaps you'd like to clarify that.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Sure. Let me be exact, that advertising spending in this year just ending is 46% lower than in our 2009-10 budget. That's what I was referring to. So that's the 46% diminution from 2009-10.

We are spending less than the previous Liberal government and advertising represents less than 0.3% of government spending.

The advertising expenses for a year that I have statistics for, 2010-11, were $83.3 million, which was well below the last full year under the former Liberal government of $111 million. So those are the comparatives that I use.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay, thanks. I guess your figures are quite different from mine. I'd appreciate the chance to get together to share figures. I'm showing the last full year for the Liberals at $49.5 million and your figures were twice that for the year you were referring to, so it would be useful to proceed with more useful information.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

It could be a definitional issue of what was the last full year of the Liberal government.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

This was actually as provided by your website.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Well, I'd be happy to clarify that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay, there appears to be some discrepancy and, of course, part of the struggle for members of Parliament in scrutinizing spending is that the government has chosen not to release the spending reports on advertising until two years later, so it's very hard for us to actually track the spending. That is something we will raise with Minister Ambrose.

My second question is about the recent decision by the court on the action brought by the Leader of the Official Opposition and the former Parliamentary Budget Officer. While the case was thrown out simply because they judged there wasn't a specific request for information that was denied, it is very clear in that decision—frankly, similar to the decision on the Wheat Board and similar to the decision against Jim Prentice on failure to abide by the rule of law—that once a mandate is given to the Parliamentary Budget Officer or any officer of Parliament and is prescribed in law, the government must abide by that. The court ruled that it was very clear that where he demands information of a deputy minister, it must be provided. If it isn't, he has recourse to the courts.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

On a point of order, Mr. Braid.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Chair, you certainly reflected on this appropriately when Mr. Cannan raised his point of order. I'm struggling to see, on this particular point, how this has anything to do with—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Let me finish.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

—the purpose for which we are here today, which is to study the main estimates.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I am about to explain the connection.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I understand that the point of order you're making is one of relevance, is that right?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

It's pretty hard to call anything out of order on the basis of relevance when we are talking about the main estimates of the Treasury Board. Really, it's a very broad scope.

Ms. Duncan, I think, is making reference to the court ruling that talked about the release of information, and I presume that's what you're getting to.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes, Mr. Chair. The reason I am raising this is that the President of the Treasury Board chose in his presentation to take three-quarters of his time to talk about his response to our estimates report. The estimates report recommended a number of changes, which we're grateful the government is doing, but there are a number of equally important recommendations, including the capacity of members of Parliament to actually analyze all that raw data.

The reason I am raising the question—my question is for the President of the Treasury Board—in lieu of that decision and in lieu of your openness now to providing the raw data, is to ask whether you are willing to revisit the possibility of enhancing the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and, in fact, not stand in his way to respond to our requests for detailed information and analysis.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Before you respond, I'll simply close the loop and say I don't accept that as a point of order and, based on what we've heard from Ms. Duncan, the question is in order. So, Minister, the floor is yours.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Duncan.

Let me say a couple of things. First of all, I apologize. I went to law school. The actual decision of Mr. Justice Harrington is actually five lines long. That's the decision. The decision was that there is no justiciable issue. It was very hypothetical and there was a factual vacuum. That's the decision. All the rest is wonderful opinion.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It's obiter dictum. It stands.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

That's the way the law works. I just want to make sure that we're clear on what the decision was. The decision was to reject the application before the court. Sorry, I sometimes hark back to my law school days.

Let me just get to the nub of the issue, though, for the member, and I take that seriously.

I do encourage this committee to go through a walk-through demo with my officials of the online database, because it is so usable for yourselves as parliamentarians, and for Canadians. There's a whole treasure trove of information going three years back, and for the reports on plans and priorities three years ahead with our projections. You can cross-reference by program, by year, by activity, by department. It's all there. I really do believe that it will be a very useful tool for citizens and parliamentarians to understand this.

Let's face it. Let's be honest with one another. The budget is a very large, very complex document of a very large and very complex organization. No revelation there. But we have to catch up and we are starting to catch up with that complexity, to allow individual human beings, without the big brain of Bill Matthews sitting beside them, to understand what is being done. I do think this will be very helpful. I think it answers a lot of the concerns you just expressed about access to budgetary information, and I agree with you: it is necessary for parliamentarians to do their jobs. I really encourage this committee to do the sit-down demo—formally or informally; it’s your call—with the officials. I think it will be very helpful and will help animate your future deliberations.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Minister.

I'm afraid there's no time left to share on the NDP side.

Jay Aspin for the Conservatives, go ahead.