Government Operations Committee on April 25th, 2013

[Michelle Doucet]

They are true bottom-line savings for the Privy Council Office. I spoke, in an earlier appearance, about the transfer of our funds to Shared Services Canada, which I believe was in the order of magnitude of $7 million, Marc, if I recall. That was at the April appearance last year on our main estimates where we transferred that money. That money is gone; the folks who are a part of that are gone as well. We have adjusted and we are carrying on. The other reductions you see, which I've talked about, come out of that.

When you look at the analysis of the multi-year reduction in the Privy Council Office's budget from $160 million down to $119 million, in addition to the reductions for strategic review and deficit reduction, there are transfers including that $7 million for Shared Services Canada. But it also includes the completion of what we call the priorities of the government—so the Afghanistan task force money comes out of that, commissions of inquiry money gets backed out of that. As those projects are finished, that money gets backed out of it.

It's really a combination. The decrease is a combination of our deficit reduction efforts plus the conclusion of work on the government's priorities.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

There's a common theme here. For the Privy Council Office, and other departments, it's really been focusing on unnecessary duplication, various support services, doing things more intelligently based on 21st century principles, removing some of the silos that are in the organizations. Yesterday the President of the Treasury Board was in and described that phenomenon, and that's really been driving some costs out.

If I have some time, Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask specifically about the Beyond the Border initiative. You mentioned in the RPP that the costs are going to be falling fairly significantly in the next couple of years. Can you give us an update of why that is? I presume there are some good measures that have been implemented now. Is it finished? Obviously we want to have this reduction in friction to trade, to tourism, and to travel, and it just seems that it's really been implemented very quickly.

Can you give us a sense of where things are at?

[Michelle Doucet]

I'd be pleased to do so.

With respect to the Beyond the Border team, I will refresh your memory: the Privy Council Office sought $1.3 million in the 2012-13 supplementary estimates (B), and we're seeking $0.9 million for this year and another $0.9 million for fiscal year 2014-15, for a total amount of $3.1 million, or $3.4 million, if you consider EBP. That money is going to be used for salaries, professional services, and travel.

There is a decrease in the funding this year. That's explained by the nature of the work and the support required. The first year of this work was a very big year for the team, because they had to get all of their proposals developed to implement the action plan and put through the approval processes—cabinet committee, cabinet, and agents of Parliament—for instance, conversations with the Privacy Commissioner around the privacy principles that were developed. They also had to do all the coordination with the American counterparts.

They've made tremendous progress on that. That progress is detailed in the December 2012 update, which is available online. This year, the decrease in funding is explained by a bit of a reduction in the workload. They got a small reduction in salary and consequential corporate costs and accommodation charges to reflect the change in the nature of the work, so I've talked about what they had to do that first year. This year there's going to be a need for ongoing coordination with the United States.

The focus for the Privy Council Office this year is going to be on supporting the lead departments in implementing the measures that have now received approvals. Also, as a result, travel costs will go down, partly because a lot of work got done this past year, but also because we're going to be using video conferencing facilities more efficiently.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Bernard.

That concludes our first round of questioning. I'd like to ask one point of clarification on some of the testimony.

I'm still not clear how many FTEs took the buyout and left the public service and how many were transferred internally. Looking back a few years, to 2011-12, you had a component of 341 full-time employees. In 2013-14, your report on planning and priorities says 280, but by 2014-15, it's 251, and by 2015-16, it'll be 249.

I'm looking at “internal services”. Is that the right terminology?

[A voice]

Yes.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I'm unclear. You tried to tell us how many were given notice that their jobs might be made redundant. How many took a buyout? How many were relocated within the public service? It's not a savings to the government if the person is simply reallocated somewhere else in the public service, so how many left?

[Michelle Doucet]

I'm not sure what pages you are referring to, but I certainly could speak to the PCO numbers having to do with employees who were affected.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

In the interest of being clear, page 25 of your report on plans and priorities has a spreadsheet of human resources, FTEs. If we go back one year to 2011-12, it was 341, 280, 251, 249.

[Michelle Doucet]

I understand now. Thank you for that clarification. Those are the numbers of the employees in my branch only. We spoke earlier about making a significant number of cuts to internal services in the Privy Council Office. Those cuts have been implemented in my branch, so the size of my branch has gone down and will continue to go down as a result.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I understand that, but we're looking globally. It's no savings if 40 people get transferred from your branch to somewhere else in the public service.

[Michelle Doucet]

I understand your question.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Your costs go down, but the government's costs don't go down.

[Michelle Doucet]

I understand the question, and it has a two-part response.

The first part is that, both in my branch and across the Privy Council Office, the majority of the employees who received opting letters have left the Government of Canada. They chose the option to leave the Government of Canada, and they have left.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

What would be the number?

[Michelle Doucet]

I would be happy to get back to you with the specific number. But off the top of my head, of the 79 whose jobs were affected, we had about 12 who decided to stay with the government and were able to get jobs elsewhere. When I say “jobs elsewhere”, it's meant after cuts. There were still jobs available with funding attached to them. So they weren't new jobs; it wasn't new money. There was a vacancy and they could be absorbed into the system.

There were also 20 other people who were able to alternate with people who wanted to leave the public service. I'll use Marc and me as an example. Marc has decided he is going to work in the private sector, but his job is not affected. My job is affected and I don't want to leave; I want to stay. So Marc and I say, let's switch. The manager has to approve that, but we switch. The person who wants to leave, leaves, and the person who wants to stay, who is suited for the job and for which there is money, stays. We had about 20 people who did that.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

That's helpful. Doing the math, then, about 67 people were laid off, to give you this reduction in cost of FTEs.

[Michelle Doucet]

Yes, and I'd be happy to give you the precise numbers around those. I'll get back to you with those.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

That's fair enough. Thank you.

Mathieu Ravignat.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to come back to a question my colleague Linda Duncan asked you about advertising. What exactly is the PCO's role in dealing with advertising? More specifically, do you have a say in content and content review? Do you approve content, for example?

[Ian McCowan]

The PCO role in advertising is set out in the policy. Ultimately, at the end of the day, for the government set-aside it's a cabinet decision in terms of priorities. But to get there, we gather suggestions from around the government. In any given year, there could be departments that have something they want to pursue. We certainly provide advice headed into the cabinet decision-making, and we provide—

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

On content, on the actual message of the advertising.

[Ian McCowan]

The actual decision about programs and the frame of the content is ultimately a cabinet decision. But in terms of the details of how that looks in any given advertising campaign, sure, we give advice. We give advice on the full range of communication matters that the Government of Canada—

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Presumably, this $1.4 million of increase is because you're expecting you'll have to provide even more advice, and provide even more procedural support for new advertising coming.

[Ian McCowan]

No, it's unrelated. Let me explain the context.

Almost all of the $1.4 million is actually for the EAP website. It's not related to the television advertising component at all. It's for a small team that basically runs this website. The objective there is to try to—