Government Operations Committee on Feb. 25th, 2019

[Matthew Shea]

Okay.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Was it more clear internally in terms of how that went? Was there a discussion that we're going to withhold this much at PCO because that money, under the budget implementation vote, was designated for this new entity, and now that it's up and running, that money is being allocated there and it's being withheld here? A big part of our discussion has been about how you follow the money under vote 40. I don't think we're seeing it clearly enough, for my purposes, in the estimates document.

I'm wondering what the internal decision-making process and documentation was like. If what was going on or what was happening was clear to you, perhaps you could tell us. Secondly, tell us what that process looked like.

[Matthew Shea]

What's clear to me is that on TB vote 40, actually Treasury Board Secretariat had that. Of that amount, PCO accessed the $438,000 I referenced. For every expenditure we took, there was a sign-off from the debates commissioner. We made sure that, even though they didn't exist as a department, we were trying to do our best to be a proxy of a department. Everything was charged to our accounts; however, it was approved by them. We were doing spending on their behalf. There was no managerial oversight from PCO's perspective, to ensure that independence.

That $287,000, including the statutory piece that I refer to, is transferred effectively from the Treasury Board vote into a separate vote for the newly created department for the debates commissioner. Next year, in their main estimates, they will have the remaining amount voted directly to them as an independent department that has its own deputy minister.

The only role we will have is the administrative support, because they chose to get administrative support through us. They had the option to go to any department. The debates commissioner felt that, after meeting with us, they liked the services we could offer. They choose what we do and what we don't do, and we ensure that it's as arm's-length as possible.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Indeed, and I'm not calling that into question today. I just wonder about the extent to which it was very clear and obvious that a certain amount was going to be withheld from what was designated a PCO vote, for all the reasons you've just elucidated, and that this would effectively be the amount that was then going to appear in a supplementary estimate.

The reason I'm concerned and the reason I want to know is that I don't think it's as obvious as it ought to be in the estimates document. I would hope that it's at least more clear to people in government.

I'm just curious as to the nature of the conversations that were had and any documentation that went along with those conversations.

[Matthew Shea]

I can assure you that it's clear internally. I feel that it's clear, and I think the debates commissioner would say that he thinks it's clear, although you're free to ask him.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

You have less than 30 seconds.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I probably don't have enough time to get into anything else, so thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Jowhari, you have seven minutes, please.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair; and thank you to both departments for your submissions.

I'm going to start with the PCO and Mr. Shea.

As background, so that I can ask my question, I'm going to read into the record a portion of the statement made, specifically:

As 2019 is a legislated election year, PCO will continue to provide non-partisan advice and support to the Minister of Democratic Institutions on advancing policy to improve, strengthen and protect Canada's democratic institutions, including protecting the integrity of the 2019 election.

Can you shed some light on the advice and support your department is providing and on whether there is actually any funding allocated to it as part of the estimates?

[Matthew Shea]

Are you talking about the estimates for next year, our interim estimates?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Yes.

[Matthew Shea]

We have a certain amount of funding set aside for our governance area, which is machinery of government and other pieces related to democratic institutions that support Minister Gould.

We also have funding for the national security and intelligence adviser to the Prime Minister, who provides advice not only to the Prime Minister, but to cabinet, and provides that whole-of-government approach.

In keeping with that, as a government, there have been a number of steps taken. They're not PCO per se, but there is a coordination role that we play.

We know that the CSE prepared a report last year and will prepare another one this year, talking about the threats or potential threats to elections. There's monitoring that's going to go on.

On January 30, Minister Gould announced additional steps to protect the integrity of democratic institutions in the electoral process. That included a critical election incident public protocol that lays out exactly how, during an election, if there was seen to be some type of interference, the government would approach that, the way it would communicate it with political parties, with the public and with the Chief Electoral Officer. That work is being done.

The report from CSE talked about some of the challenges that exist when it comes to social media. I believe the minister said at a recent appearance that she has spoken with some of the social media companies to discuss that. Obviously, briefings are taking place with political parties to ensure that they are adequately protecting themselves.

When you look at the overall government approach, there are four themes. There's enhancing citizen preparedness. There's a big push for the better we educate the electorate on the challenges, the better for democracy.

There is improving organizational readiness, working through all government institutions to make sure they're actively monitoring threats, working with Elections Canada.

Obviously, there's combatting foreign interference. This is something our intelligence agencies are seized with.

We're also expecting social media platforms to act. This is part of that social conscience that social media needs to have, and they have a role in ensuring that the electorate has accurate information and knows where that information is coming from.

We at PCO didn't necessarily get new funding. This is part of an overall government approach. We do know that the government created the cyber centre. There was funding announced for that within the Communications Security Establishment. As well, we do know that other departments are allocating funding to ensure that this work is done.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

Going to Mr. Borbey, I'm going to read another piece of the submission and then ask my question.

In your submission, you had indicated that, “ln 2017-18 the total number of hiring activities increased by 11.4% ”, with 53,000-plus hires and then about 13,000 student hires. This is an increase for the fifth consecutive year. In your previous appearance here, there was a discussion around the length of time it's taking to do the processing. I'm very happy to see the number has increased, but can you give us an update on where the pendulum has moved on the length of time? I recall it was nearly 300 days. Where are we now?

[An hon. member]

It's 197.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Sorry, 197.

[Patrick Borbey, President, Public Service Commission]

Not quite.

It is too lengthy, I admit. The baseline we established, which I shared with the committee, was 197 days for an externally advertised process. Again, that is one type of selection process, but we also have an internally advertised process. I think the baseline was established at 180 days. We've already seen slight improvements in the last year, with 193.5 days as the new result for last year for the externally advertised.

Working with departments, we have taken a number of measures to simplify their approach to staffing and to remind them, of course, that there are alternatives to fully advertised external processes, such things as using pools. Hiring a former student is a very simple process and takes a fraction of that time.

At this point, maybe just looking at the numbers recently, six months into the year we were averaging about 169 days for an externally advertised process, as compared to the 197, and for the internal, we were around 175 days on average, as compared to with the 180. These are partial results. We're going to monitor them and see what the year-end numbers are, but I think we're headed in the right direction.

I'm also seeing lots of evidence of departments taking action to be able to cut back on that time. We've done a number of speed staffing events with universities in Quebec and Atlantic Canada and recently at York University, which again allows the connection between hiring managers and highly qualified students, even before they graduate.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I have about 30 seconds left, so I'll pass that back to the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go into our five-minute rounds.

Mr. Deltell, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Gérard Deltell, Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Colleagues, it is good to see you again.

Ladies and gentlemen from the Privy Council Office and the Public Service Commission, welcome to your House of Commons.

Mr. Shea, it's good to see you again.

Again, I would like to address the issue of the TV debate for the next election.

I will not play a role. I said that before and I want to repeat it because I want to be honest with everybody. I really don't understand why we have to spend $5.5 million for a problem that does not exist. We will respect the will of the government. Those people have been elected democratically. I pay all my respect to you, as civil servants, who have to address the mandate—or sometimes the orders, but we will keep the word “mandate”—from the government. You do your homework and you do it quite well. I appreciate that. However, technically speaking and at the end of the day, I totally disagree with this decision.

Since we are spending $5.5 million on a problem that does not exist, we are going to try to see how that money is being spent.

Mr. Shea, you were off to a good start earlier, telling us how much of the amount you've spent so far. Could you remind us of the figures and tell us how much is being spent in the various sectors? What will be done to empty the account of the $5.5 million earmarked for this issue, which, in my opinion, probably did not deserve a cent?

[Matthew Shea]

Again, I just want to make it clear that PCO is not spending the money ongoing. We spent the initial portion on their behalf. We spent $438,000. Of that, the lion's share was for IT services, to actually get them up and running...some equipment, some repairs to buildings just to get them up to spec for what was needed for the debates commission, office furniture and some administrative support.

There's not a whole lot of spending, as you can appreciate, that's occurred at PCO. For the remainder of this fiscal year, of the money that's been transferred to the debates commission as a new department, about a half of that amount relates directly to salary. The remaining piece is broken up between travel—obviously, the debates commissioner has been travelling to seek input from stakeholders—and then some professional services, including the advisory board members who are paid a per diem to be part of this.

For next year, the total spending is going to be around $4.6 million. Of that, if you include EBP, a little under $900,000 would be related to salary, as our best estimate. I do want to keep underscoring the fact that they're independent and may make changes in how they spend. They could spend more on salary, less on salary. This is my best estimate.

Then, the remaining amount is broken down among things that I've mentioned before: travel, printing services, communication, advertising services and professional services, with the lion's share of that relating specifically to what would likely be a contract to put on the two debates, one in English and one in French.

[Gérard Deltell]

Let me remind the people who are listening to us, and paying for it, that this has been done for decades in Canada without costing taxpayers a cent, apart from the services provided by the CBC, which were part of its mandate.

Where did the committee travel to consult the people involved in the matter?

[Matthew Shea]

My office had no role in consultation. The Minister of Democratic Institutions has had a role in consultation since the 2015 election, which included a report to another parliamentary committee, PROC. That was part of what was a driver for the creation of the debates commission, but I can't really go deeper into that as I wasn't involved in the consultations.

[Gérard Deltell]

Mr. Shea, I would like to remind you that this has absolutely nothing to do with you or with the public service employees among us. We are not targeting you when we are asking our questions. You operate according to the mandate given to you. At the risk of repeating myself, I believe that money is being spent for nothing, because we have been doing this for decades without having to spend it.

I would still like to come back to the $4.6 million that remains to be spent. If I understood correctly, you mentioned $900,000 in salaries. There is still $3.5 million left.

Do you have a more specific breakdown, supported by figures, for the items you mentioned earlier: works, advertising, communication and professional services? I really look forward to seeing which professionals will be involved in this project.

[Matthew Shea]

I don't have that information. It will be up to the commission to decide that and most likely there would have to be a procurement process for the amount of money that would be spent.