OGGO Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 26, 2004

0910

The Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.))

Ms. Maria Barrados (Interim President, Public Service Commission of Canada)

0915

The Chair

Ms. Maria Barrados

0920

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, Lib.)

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Roger Gaudet (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ)

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Roger Gaudet

0925

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Roger Gaudet

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, CPC)

Ms. Maria Barrados

0930

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Maria Barrados

The Chair

0935

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.)

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Jacques Pelletier (Vice-President, Recruitment & Assessment Services, Public Service Commission of Canada)

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Jacques Pelletier

0940

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Ms. Maria Barrados

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

0945

Ms. Maria Barrados

0950

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Maria Barrados

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Maria Barrados

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Maria Barrados

The Chair

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Ms. Maria Barrados

0955

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Ms. Maria Barrados

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.)

Ms. Andrée Dubois (Vice-President, Recourse Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada)

1000

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Ms. Andrée Dubois

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Ms. Andrée Dubois

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Ms. Andrée Dubois

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Ms. Andrée Dubois

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Ms. Maria Barrados

1005

The Chair

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart (Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada)

1010

1015

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

1020

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

1025

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC)

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Robert Hertzog (Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada)

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Robert Hertzog

Mr. Derek Lee

1030

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Derek Lee

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Derek Lee

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

1035

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

1040

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1045

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Robert Hertzog

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1050

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

1055

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

Mr. Robert Hertzog

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

The Chair

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

1100

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

1105

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart

The Chair

Ms. Barbara Uteck (Secretary to the Governor General, Office of the Governor General)

1115

1120

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Barbara Uteck

Mr. Paul Forseth

1125

Ms. Barbara Uteck

Ms. JoAnn MacKenzie (Director, Financial Services, Informatic and Material Management, Office of the Governor General)

1130

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Barbara Uteck

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Barbara Uteck

1135

The Chair

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Ms. Barbara Uteck

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Ms. Barbara Uteck

The Chair

1140

Ms. Barbara Uteck

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Barbara Uteck

Mr. Pat Martin

1145

Ms. Barbara Uteck

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Barbara Uteck

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Barbara Uteck

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Barbara Uteck

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Barbara Uteck

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Barbara Uteck

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Barbara Uteck

Mr. Pat Martin

1150

The Chair

Ms. Barbara Uteck

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Barbara Uteck

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

The Chair

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Chair

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. JoAnn MacKenzie

Mr. Roger Gaudet

1155

Ms. JoAnn MacKenzie

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. JoAnn MacKenzie

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. JoAnn MacKenzie

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. JoAnn MacKenzie

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. JoAnn MacKenzie

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. JoAnn MacKenzie

1200

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. JoAnn MacKenzie

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. JoAnn MacKenzie

Mr. Roger Gaudet

The Chair

1205

Ms. Barbara Uteck

The Chair

Ms. Barbara Uteck

The Chair

1215

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

The Chair

Mr. Guy Bédard (Assistant Executive Director, Public Programs and Services, Communication Canada)

1220

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Guy Bédard

1225

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Guy Bédard

1230

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. Guy Bédard

1235

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. Guy Bédard

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Guy Bédard

1240

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Pat Martin

1245

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Guy Bédard

1250

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Paul Forseth

1255

Mr. Guy Bédard

The Chair

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. Chantale Cousineau-Mahoney (Director General, Corporate Services and Renewal Office, Communication Canada)

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. Chantale Cousineau-Mahoney

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. Chantale Cousineau-Mahoney

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Roger Gaudet

1300

Mr. Guy Bédard

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Mr. Guy Bédard

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1305

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. Pat Martin

1325

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

NUMBER 003

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 26, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0910)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The order of the day is to review the supplementary estimates, and we will be dealing with four groups today.

Our first group is the Public Service Commission of Canada. I want to welcome a good friend of all of us, Maria Barrados, who is the interim president of the Public Service Commission of Canada. Welcome to you, Ms. Barrados, and congratulations on your interim appointment, and hopefully soon your permanent appointment to the position.

Please introduce the colleagues you've brought with you today, and we certainly would entertain your representations to the committee with regard to the supplementary estimates.

Ms. Maria Barrados (Interim President, Public Service Commission of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll just take a few moments to introduce my colleagues at the table today. I have Anne-Marie Robinson, who's vice-president, corporate management branch;

[Translation]

Jacques Pelletier, Vice-President, Recruitment and Assessment Services Branch and Learning and Development Programs Branch; and Andrée Dubois, Vice-President, Recourse Branch.

[English]

Thank you very much for inviting me here, Mr. Chairman and members, to discuss the 2003-04 supplementary estimates (B), tabled last week by the Department of Canadian Heritage on behalf of the Public Service Commission.

[Translation]

As you know, the PSC is an independent agency reporting to Parliament. Since I was nominated just as Parliament prorogued in November, I appear before you today as the interim president of the PSC. I have been in this position for only a little over three months. With the help of my colleagues, I would be happy to address your questions.

[English]

As you see in our supplementary estimates, we are requesting a net authority to spend in the amount of $496,261. An itemized explanation of how we derived this amount is explained on the fact sheet that has been distributed to you. I would ask that members take a look at the accompanying sheet to the opening statement.

Since it is the most complex of these items, I will return to the item labelled “E-Recruitment” in a moment.

First, we have itemized the $3,257,261 as carried forward from March 31, 2003. The item below that, for $479,000, refers to the translation cost for staffing appeal decisions, which we are mandated to do by law.

Finally, the sum of $15,000 represents our transfer to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, as part of an obligation shared with other departments and agencies to provide funding for the Metropolis Project, which is an international forum dealing with diversity and immigration issues in Canada and around the world.

This total amounts to $3,721,261. However, this is offset by a reduction of $3,225,000 for e-recruitment funds, which were approved in supplementary estimates (A) but are being re-profiled to 2004-05 pending project approval.

Turning to e-recruitment,

[Translation]

in recent years, there has been increasing pressure from parliamentarians and Canadians to remove geographic limits, known as areas of selection, which determine Canadians' eligibility for public service job openings. The PSC made a commitment to Parliament to gradually remove areas of selection, provided it receives adequate funding to develop modern electronic screening tools.

Geographic limits are currently used for about three quarters of open competitions to ensure a manageable number of applications, while at the same time attracting a sufficient number of qualified candidates.

However, in response to concerns expressed by Canadians and parliamentarians, the PSC developed a measured approach to expand the use of a national area of selection.

¿ (0915)

[English]

In a briefing offered to parliamentarians in November 2002, the PSC presented the results of its pilot project on e-recruitment technology and indicated that it would prepare a plan for the phased implementation of a national area of selection.

In June 2003, the PSC followed up with another report to Parliament, which outlined the progress made in expanding Canadians' access to federal jobs.

An amount of $4,118,000 was approved in our supplementary estimates (A). This amount was put into a frozen allotment, pending a Treasury Board submission for preliminary project approval. As a result of the Treasury Board's submission, $893,000 of the allotted $4,118,000 was released to the PSC.

We are still in the process of negotiating with Treasury Board for project approval. The balance of $3,225,000 is therefore being re-profiled to 2004-05.

[Translation]

Underlying all of our activities at the PSC is the intention of providing Canadians with a highly competent, non-partisan and representative public service and of making appointments to it based on the values of fairness, equity, and transparency. These supplementary estimates support that ongoing mandate.

I would be happy to take your questions. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very kindly for your intervention. This area of e-recruitment is certainly of interest and concern.

I'm not sure whether or not, having made your statement, you'd care to also add what the implications are to the current operations. What impact does that have, as opposed to a re-profiled period for the subsequent period?

I'm not sure if it's clear whether this has any adverse impact on your ability to continue to provide service and to discharge your responsibilities.

Ms. Maria Barrados: I can take a few minutes on the issues surrounding e-recruitment.

What we have is a situation where there is a high volume of applications for jobs in the federal government. We have something like 1.3 million visits a month to our website. We have close to half a million applications for jobs in federal government positions.

The approach that has been taken to restrict the number of applications or manage the flow is to subscribe a geographic area where people are eligible. We have had a lot of representations from members of Parliament and Canadians who do not find that a very acceptable approach for access to federal jobs. The only way we can manage the number of applications we would expect by opening it up would be by a fully electronic system.

Currently, what we have is a website, the government jobs website, jobs.gc.ca, which gives the appearance of being fully electronic, but what actually happens is the applications are put in electronically. They are received, they are printed, and everything is manual. We are required by law to treat each application equally and carefully. We cannot randomly select. We cannot do the ones that are first in. We have to look at all of them.

Our effort here is to get a process in where we can screen electronically and reduce the number of applications we have to deal with manually.

The government has committed to giving us funds to do this. We have not, however, managed to get approval from the Treasury Board for the project itself, and the funds will not be released to us until we get that approval.

¿ (0920)

The Chair: Okay. I'm sure that members are going to have questions about the area and maybe some discussion about what we might be able to do. Maybe what we should do is go to the members for questions about the PSC operations and their estimates.

Who would like to start us off? Mr. Lanctôt, would you like to speak, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I'd like to make a comment. On page 3 of your speech, you request $479,000 for the translation cost for staffing appeal decisions, and you add that you are mandated to do so by law. I understand the legal requirement, but the way that's written suggests that you have no choice between having or not having the translation done. Is it just my impression, or is that how the text is drafted? You know what I mean. I don't want the Public Service Commission, an independent agency, to feel obliged to do so just because of the law. I think that francophones in some provinces and anglophones in others should be able to access those decisions in their own language. Does the new interim president have these decisions translated for this reason or just because the law requires it?

Ms. Maria Barrados: Thank you. It's partly because of the way we worded it. The Public Service Commission is a much more bilingual organization than some other Government of Canada organizations, and we try our hardest to do all of our work in both official languages.

In this case, it's due to the volume. We try to write the decisions in both languages, but when we get more appeals than we expected, we don't have enough money. That was the case here. It was a matter of volume.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: It's not because you have to catch up and do things that weren't done. It's just that more decisions were appealed.

Ms. Maria Barrados: Yes.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Gaudet.

Mr. Roger Gaudet (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, madam.

I am new to the House of Commons—a recruit, as my colleague would say—and I'm wondering how it is that there are always amounts carried forward. On the fact sheet, it says that in 2002-2003, $3,257,261 was carried forward, and in 2004-05, another $3,225,000 was reprofiled. Is the money never spent, or is it spent without people knowing it? What's going on with this program? Is it never-ending? You carry forward, you carry forward and you carry forward, and it never ends?

Ms. Maria Barrados: Thank you. This is about how things are managed. I think you could also say it's a sign of prudence. If you don't have a responsible, efficient and effective way to spend the money, you're better off not spending it. It's less than 5 per cent of the overall budget, so it's not very much. It's not at all uncommon to see this in government management. If you can spend all of the money, you do, but it's often impossible to do so before the end of the year. In my opinion, it's better not to spend than to spend too much money at the end.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: It almost looks like we'll never see the end of the program or the end of the carrying forward. It keeps coming back, over and over again. You eventually lose track of where you're at. It's always the same money that's being carried forward and reprofiled. What's the total expenditure budget of the Public Service Commission?

¿ (0925)

Ms. Maria Barrados: For the last year, it was $130 million.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: I'm done for now.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, CPC): Thank you. Sorry that I was late. I was over at Centre Block.

In your comments, you talk about the geographic hiring prohibition and the various pilot projects. In my discussions with ministers, they certainly wanted wide-open hiring as fast as possible. In my discussions with your predecessor it was “we want to go there”, but there always seemed to be a practical resourcing problem and a technical problem why we couldn't get there.

You're asking for some money. I just want to know, how fast are we going to get there to end this geographic prohibition? I gave your predecessor very simple solutions as to how the recruitment advertising on the net could solve that with hardly any extra resourcing problems.

So I would like some comment on timing and how much money it's going to cost. When are we going to get the ability so that a young graduate in Vancouver has just as easy a time to get a job and compete for a job in Ottawa as someone coming from Newfoundland or from the Ottawa region?

The other issue is again resourcing. I take it you have some ongoing responsibility for language training and professional development for non-executive, lower-level employees. I'm wondering what your long-term plans are to get funding to really provide training for lower-level staff, so that there's hope and opportunity for those employees and that it becomes a worthwhile activity to become a public servant and not a stop-gap--“Well, we can't do anything else, but we can always go into the public service”. I come from the positive side, because I was a public servant in the provincial system, so I'm very high on developing an honourable career within the public service.

So maybe you can talk about the resourcing and the plans for those two areas.

Ms. Maria Barrados: Thank you.

First, on the question of national area of selection, currently there is national area of selection for post-secondary student graduates. So the post-secondary student program is for all post-secondary students in Canada. There is national area of selection for all executive positions and the executive positions that are two levels under. I know that doesn't address the problem, because what I hear from members and Canadians is that they would like to see national area of selection opened up far more broadly for all the jobs.

You're right, a proposal is being put forward to move this gradually, to increase the number of jobs that are available on national area of selection, starting with the Ottawa jobs first, in four years to have all the officer jobs in Ottawa open to everyone in the country, and to see how that works before we expand it. In coming into the Public Service Commission, my question was why can't we do this faster? We are listening to the pressure we are getting from people saying that all Canadians should be able to get jobs in the federal public service.

Our issue right now is that we have the support of the government to provide us the money, but there are bureaucratic requirements I have to meet to get the funding released that will give me the technology I need to handle the volume. We have a website that is computerized and automated, but it results in printed CVs, and we have to treat each one of those equally. We now need to have something that links that website and gives us an automated system that allows us to select the smaller number of applicants we would interview.

Your question was how fast. Currently, it's four years to do all the officer jobs. My sense, from what I am hearing from people, is that's not fast enough. I have been doing as much as I can to try to get the approvals we need to speed this up and to get the money released, but I am having some difficulties meeting the technical requirements. In my last conversation with the people responsible at the Treasury Board, they gave me some specific suggestions. I've done all that, and I've sent the material back. Hopefully, we will get that soon.

Your second question related to language training. Some of the increases you've seen in the budget of the Public Service Commission were in fact for increasing language training under the Dion plan. But as you may know, the language training is being transferred from the Public Service Commission as we are implementing the new legislation. It's now going to CCMD, which will be the new training school. We have already put in place a memorandum of understanding where they are essentially now operating as part of CCMD, and we will formally be transferring the schools, the staff, and the budgets to the school.

¿ (0930)

Mr. Paul Forseth: Will you have any responsibility at all for funding any other types of courses, such as first-line manager courses?

Ms. Maria Barrados: We are not keeping any of the responsibility for training. We will be keeping the responsibility for testing and for the kinds of assessments in terms of whether people are qualified to do a job.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Related to the first question, how do your plans with regard to the technology relate to the overall government online initiative? The Auditor General had some worrying things to say about the government online initiative. Maybe you could expand on that. There's the whole issue of a good job opening up in Halifax, and yet a qualified person from Vancouver can't apply for it, or a majority of jobs are in the Ottawa region. it just is offensive to Canadians. This has been brought up in Parliament for many years, and yet you're saying that you're having trouble getting the money released and you're having technical problems. I just find that incomprehensible. Maybe you can expand on that and then talk about how that relates to the government online initiative.

Ms. Maria Barrados: Expanding on how I'm having trouble in getting the money, it relates in fact, I think, to government online. This is a technology project, and the technology project has to be approved by the people who are managing government online. No doubt in part because of the criticism, they're very concerned that all the planning steps are followed and all the information is there to ensure success of the project. That's a reasonable expectation on their part.

At the Public Service Commission, we have not managed to give them the information they wanted and are looking for to satisfy themselves that this project would be a success and would fit in with government online.

Although I tend to be a little on the optimistic side, I'm optimistic that we have currently met the requirements. The relationship we have with the Treasury Board is that they are the ones who control the funding. We are an independent agency and it is our policy on national area of selection; it's Public Service Commission policy.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I guess I'm out of time now.

Ms. Maria Barrados: We have not changed the policy without having the tools to implement it, because we felt that was not responsible. If we opened up all selection, the consequence would be a very high volume, and we would only delay hiring. I don't think that's the kind of result we want to have. We have to open it up and have the tools there so we can facilitate managers getting people into the jobs.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Forseth.

I think you're quite right. This has been an issue that has been with us for some time. But I think it is understood by all that the motivation for the restrictions on the geographic location of applicants has nothing to do with the geography, it has to do with the ability to recruit in an efficient manner.

I think we're very anxious, and I'm very concerned about having this delayed. The committee may want to make a recommendation with regard to the timing of the release of the moneys. We cannot change that, but we certainly could make a recommendation.

I'm going to go to Mr. Shepherd, then to Ms. Neville, and then to Mr. Perron.

¿ (0935)

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It's nice to see you again, Ms. Barrados, in your new vocation here. Maybe you'll be on the receiving end of some of this.

I want to ask a larger-based question on the concern many people have on how long it takes to process an application. We've seen many reports that the civil service isn't a great place to apply for a job because it takes so long. We're not competing with the private sector, or we're not getting the best qualified people because of that.

Looking forward to some of the criticisms the Auditor General's office has had, and others, to people's perceptions and concerns about waiting lists today, do you see yourself providing better performance reports in the sense that you would quantify waiting periods?

In other words, maybe by classification, how long does it take to process an application for employment to an actual denial or acceptance of employment? Do you have any idea what those numbers are currently?

Ms. Maria Barrados: Thank you, Mr. Shepherd.

It's an interesting problem, because I asked that question of my staff. The only number they could give me was one produced by the Auditor General--and I had a hand in the production of that number.

The problem is that for the external recruitment there's a portion of the work that is done by the Public Service Commission. We can measure that. My colleague can talk a little more about that period. Then what happens is we turn it over to the departments. We tell them the number of people who got in. We screen them. This is the set of applicants, and now it's over to them. We don't have any control over that part of the process.

The other part of the process is up front, which states the kind of job, the description, the qualifications. Getting all that right before it goes to the Public Service Commission isn't in the hands of the Public Service Commission, but in the hands of the departments. You have many players in this.

Now, that's not a satisfactory answer to the question of how long does it take. We have to do better on that, with the Public Service Commission doing their part by getting the departments, in how they're taking on the increased responsibilities, to manage their parts too.

Maybe, Jacques, you want to add something to that.

Mr. Jacques Pelletier (Vice-President, Recruitment & Assessment Services, Public Service Commission of Canada): Yes.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Maybe I can first of all ask for a point of clarification.

I understand what you're saying about the receipt of the information and the stuff going out. Isn't there some way to get a working arrangement with the individual departments that you can actually quantify that in a quantum form? In other words, you can actually say we received this application from the department on day x, we returned what we believe are qualified people on day y, and on day z the department confirmed that they hired the person or whatever.

We need to put that in one place. We talked about horizontal aspects of government today. Maybe that's your job and you should take it on, because it is a human resource concept.

Ms. Maria Barrados: What we're trying to do at the Public Service Commission, given the new legislation, is separate out clearly what I'm calling the oversight in the audit and investigation section from the service section. The service section, you could really argue, belongs with the employer, not with the independent parliamentary agent.

Mr. Pelletier is the one heading that up, so maybe he could talk about how far you're going in terms of getting departments to manage that horizontal issue.

Mr. Jacques Pelletier: Yes, thank you.

In terms of reporting, I think the system we have now is not sufficient in terms of what the departments are doing. We can ask, how much time does it take to send a person or make referrals to the department, but then when the department interviews the people and tests them or whatever to the point that they give an offer, that's where the system may need to be improved.

In the new system that we want to put in place, a report is going to be very important, a report to PSC. This is something we take under consideration.

But when we're talking about the time it takes to get hired in the public service, I think it depends from which point of view you are looking at this program. When you are on the management side, I could say that most of the referrals we do can be done quite rapidly. But when you are on the candidate side, I think the perception is quite different, because for one position we get numerous--thousands--of applicants.

For instance, for post-secondary recruitment, in the last campaign we ran in universities, about 20,000 students across the country knocked at our door. We tested almost all of them, so that when a department is interested we can pick that person who has been tested and approved by PSC. Nevertheless, not more than 500 have been hired through that program. So if you're a student and you've been tested, it takes a long time to get the job.

So it depends from which point of view you are looking at the process.

Another consideration from the manager's side is that if I advertise a position and in two days I send them--because we don't have that sophisticated tool to screen--400 applications, it takes a lot of time for the manager to go through all those applications, making sure that he will pick out the best person. That's why with the system we want to put in place, instead of sending 400 applications to the manager, if I send 20, the time to screen them will be much faster.

¿ (0940)

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I understand you want to refine and perfect the system. What parliamentarians want to be able to do is measure the system at a certain point in time, and then we can compare those measurements and how well you're doing at moving people through.

So I guess what I'm asking you is the next time you do your plans and priorities or performance reports, or whatever, do you intend to have some kind of analysis of that point of entry into the system and point of exit out of the system? I hear what you're saying about the number of applications, but the reality is when you tell people it takes six months to get a response, the real world doesn't work like that. So I question whether you're getting the best-qualified people. In other words, I think the system you have is actually discriminating against the best qualified. The best qualified people go somewhere else.

I know my son went out the other day and had an interview, and bang, he got a high-tech-sector position. That would never happen. As a matter of fact, in the same example, he also applied for CSIS and has never had a response from them, and that was three years ago. So this isn't working. This system doesn't work.

But what we really want to know, rather than criticizing the system, is how to get a measurement tool in place. I guess I'm asking, will you do that?

Ms. Maria Barrados: I share the concerns about the system and trying to get the system working better. What we are in the process of doing is we're looking at our whole system of delegations and asking departments to report back on how they are discharging those delegations. We'll take a good look at that delegation agreement to see what we can do in terms of measuring just the basic activity levels. It's a fair question: how long does it take? The next fair question is where is the bottleneck, because if you don't identify that, you can't really deal with it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Shepherd.

Ms. Neville.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

I'm new to this committee and new to this process, but I'm most interested and intrigued in what you're saying. Mr. Forseth asked some of the questions I'm concerned about, but I've got a whole host of others.

Let me ask you this. You were talking about your general recruitment, when you do post-secondary recruitment. Can you differentiate between general recruitment and specific recruitment for specific jobs and explain how that works?

I'm going to ask you a bunch of questions and then let you respond, because I don't know how much time I have.

You talked about just under $900,000 being released out of a total of $4 million. What has that allowed you to do and what are you waiting to do?

My colleague Mr. Shepherd spoke about measuring, and you talked about measuring in terms of the time it takes, and that's really important, but I'm also interested to know whether you measure in terms of the success of the placement as well.

We talked about horizontality in working with departments. What kinds of guidelines or directions do departments operate under when they're working with the Public Service Commission in recruitment?

My last question for the moment is how do you deal with internal hires? Is it done the same way you do an external, given some of the geographic difficulties if one is internally in the system in British Columbia and wants to move to Halifax or Ottawa or wherever?

I'll stop there.

¿ (0945)

Ms. Maria Barrados: Thank you. I'll try to answer your questions, and if I miss something we can come back to it.

On whether we have different kinds of recruitment activities and programs, we have some programs that are specifically targeted. We have specific types of recruitment programs. Post-secondary recruitment was one that we talked about earlier. Special versions of that are run by the Department of Finance, for example, and for External Affairs.

There are other possibilities, in terms of recruitment for a particular pool of people. At one time there was an effort to try to get computer specialists, but now it's certainly people in the financial area. So there are those kinds of recruitment efforts. A lot of the recruitment, though, is done by a specific poster for a specific job.

On what have we done with the $900,000, the Public Service Commission has taken that $900,000, but we have also added some of our own money to it. So we have taken money we have received for generally improving systems and put it into this problem we have on how to manage the volume. So we've actually spent significantly more, having reallocated it from our own budgets.

To date, we have done two pilots--different versions of what we are trying to do. We have built some of the libraries--the screening tests and questions you need to develop for occupational groups--to demonstrate that this concept of screening the applications, and at the same time as you screen, providing responses to people, providing them the information of where they are in the process, is a viable way to go. So we have used that first amount of money to demonstrate that this is something we could do, and how it would work.

We now need the funds to develop the technology and expand it to more jobs. A large part of this work is to have screening questions that are fair and reflective of the kinds of things you're looking for as you automatically screen people out.

We've reached the limit, though, and cannot take more money from other activities to put into this e-recruitment without the additional money. As many members here probably know, the new legislation has given a mandate to the Public Service Commission to do more audits and investigations. We have to go through, look at our own expenditures, and reallocate as much as we possibly can before we ask for new money. That means there won't be the flexibility to put anything more into that system.

On the question about the directives on hiring and staffing, the policy responsibility and authority rest with the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission is the one that has the authority to appoint people; that is still the case in the revised legislation. Currently, there are guidelines and directives that come from the Public Service Commission, but over time a lot of jurisprudence and legal decisions have defined what is required to be done. It has resulted in quite a cumbersome technical system.

The hope is that with the new legislation there will be a new policy suite given to departments that will be much more value-based and less rigidly process-based, to facilitate the staffing process. We are in the process of developing those policies and guidelines for the implementation of the new act.

On internal hires, they are delegated to the departments. They do the inside appointments themselves, but they restrict those hires by national area of selection--not all of them, but they can and they do. Our expectation is that as we move to broaden out the external, there will be equal pressure on the departments to do the same thing.

¿ (0950)

For the departments themselves, of course, there is additional consideration about costs, because then the public service would have the right to be paid to come to interviews--and reallocation costs.

Ms. Anita Neville: I don't want to create a make-work project, but do you have figures from the last number of years on the categories of public service employees across the country?

Ms. Maria Barrados: Categories?

Ms. Anita Neville: I'm curious to know whether executive positions have grown in British Columbia or Manitoba, or whether the numbers have gone down. I'd just like to see something on the patterns of employment and hiring across the country in the regions. As I say, I don't want it to be a make-work project, but if you have something available I would be interested.

Ms. Maria Barrados: I believe we have those figures and can provide them. If I understand correctly, you'd like to see the number of public servants in the different regions by job category, over a period of time.

Ms. Anita Neville: Yes. Thank you.

Ms. Maria Barrados: We'll try to provide what we have to address that question.

The Chair: Colleagues, we started a little late, so we're going to allow it to go a little bit over. I still have four speakers, and we'll finish after they have spoken.

Next is Mr. Perron, then Madam Allard, Madam Yelich, and Mr. Lanctôt, who I believe wanted one supplementary.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, ladies, and welcome, members of the minority.

I've often observed that in the private sector, when there was a shortage of funds, arrangements were made to cut the fat or find other sources of funds. In the public sector, it's so easy: you ask the government for extra financial assistance; it's $500,000. My first question is whether you looked to see whether there was any fat to cut from your agency, and if so, whether you made any cuts.

My second question has to do with the sophisticated computer system you're using to carry out your project. Surely, your budget covered the costs associated with this system. I'd like to know whether you stuck to your budget or whether you exceeded your estimates. I'd like to think that you're not using the same defective system as the one being used for the firearms registry. I surely hope not.

My third question has to do with your request for an extra $4.1 million. How is it that this has not yet been approved by Treasury Board, and why did Treasury Board release $893,000 in January, when the project had not yet been approved? Why, when you are asking for $4.1 million, didn't you ask for an extra $500,000? That way, you wouldn't have had to ask for supplementary estimates of $496,000. Thank you, madam.

Ms. Maria Barrados: I'll try to answer those questions.

When it comes to cutting fat, I'd like to point out that when I was appointed to this position, I began an expenditure review. We are currently proceeding with that. As I said, we have to put in place an audit function as well as various types of investigation.

I'd first like to find funds in existing budgets before requesting additional funds. I hope we'll be able to find those funds, especially since we're talking about making our processes more efficient. We are currently working toward reaching that goal. I don't know how much we will ultimately come up with, but I hope that it will be clearer in the next budget.

With respect to the computer system, it's not the one being used for the firearms registry. We've taken an approach that includes carrying out pilot projects. We thus want to ensure that the project is feasible. Still, implementing such a system does have its limitations and challenges.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: But is that implementation staying within your budget?

Ms. Maria Barrados: We have spent the money we got from Treasury Board for improvements to all systems. These funds were spent on our projects, as well as the amount we got from Treasury Board, but now...

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: How much did you get?

Ms. Maria Barrados: If you include the money we took from our base and the other funds for improving systems overall, it's around $9 million. But the systems are expensive because that includes salaries, operations, pilot projects and electronics. We are satisfied because with these amounts and this investment, we have shown that it was feasible. At present, under the current process, the government requires us to provide a clear plan for the overall project, and Treasury Board is still asking questions.

In my view, we need to stop the project, whatever the consequences for recruitment. We need to make sure that everything is in place at the centre.

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Why is $15,000 being transferred to the Metropolis fund? I don't see the point in transferring money from one department to another. I have trouble understanding that.

Ms. Maria Barrados: It's a technical matter. It has to be written up that way, because it's a transfer of funds from one government budget...

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: But why make this budget transfer? Couldn't Citizenship and Immigration Canada have asked for $15,000 more in its budget?

Ms. Maria Barrados: I don't know. I wasn't here then. The decision was made that this was a very good project and the Public Service Commission could contribute to it, because the goals were consistent with those of the Public Service Commission. It's important to show that, in my view.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Allard.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Good morning, ladies. Good morning, sir.

I'd like to talk about the happiness of those already working in the public service. I'm referring to your request for $479,000, the cost for the translation of appeal decisions. My question is probably for Ms. Dubois.

I'd like to know how the appeal process works when a public servant is not satisfied with the decision in his or her case. How many cases do you have every year, approximately? Are there any criteria, or can anyone appeal a decision? Are there any safeguards so that it's not a non-stop process?

Ms. Andrée Dubois (Vice-President, Recourse Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada): I'm going to start at the end to reassure you. There are indeed guidelines that apply to the right to appeal the results of a competition process. However, admittedly, a lot of competitions are held every year, and about 1,700 of them end up being appealed.

We attempt to reduce the volume of quasi-judicial activity and we systematically offer complainants the option of informal resolution. We have a lot of success with that: 40 per cent of cases are settled informally. However, the appeal board has to settle up to 450 and sometimes even 500 cases per year. There too, there are criteria to help us determine whether the allegations made should be accepted or not. We also have service standards to meet so that delays do not unduly hold up the appointment of those who were considered to be the best candidates.

Ultimately, about 8 or 9 per cent of appeals are allowed.

À (1000)

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: The $479,000—that's almost half a million dollars—is used to translate how many decisions?

Ms. Andrée Dubois: Just to clarify, if I might, the $479,000 is additional money. Mr. Lanctôt will be happy to know that we spend $1.1 million on translating appeal decisions. My annual volume is around 450 decisions, and sometimes they are quite lengthy. An appellant may make up to 22 allegations. The average number of pages in a decision varies in general between 35 and 50, but some are almost 100 pages long.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Do you also provide to the appellant the services of a government-paid lawyer?

Ms. Andrée Dubois: No. Appellants can decide whether to be represented or not. If they decide to be represented, their union takes care of that. As for managers, they are very rarely represented other than by their human resources. If an employee or manager wants to have a lawyer, it's at the expense of the parties.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I have one last question, Mr. Chairman.

Do these cases ever make it to Federal Court?

Ms. Andrée Dubois: After we've made our ruling, the person can apply for judicial review; the case is then heard in Federal Court.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Within the public service, who hears the cases? Adjudicators?

Ms. Andrée Dubois: They are heard by chairpersons of the appeal boards, who are public servants.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Thank you, Ms. Dubois.

[English]

The Chair: This is the last intervention for Mr. Lanctôt, please, briefly.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be quick.

Since the introduction of C-25 and with the discretion that has been given to public servants, have many complaints been received about staffing or recruitment? Have you began applying C-25 yet?

Ms. Maria Barrados: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The new act was passed by Parliament, but apart from one section dealing with appointments, it has not yet come into force.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: You know that the act will soon apply, but you haven't even started?

Ms. Maria Barrados: We haven't undertaken the changes to the system.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very kindly.

Ms. Barrados and colleagues, thank you kindly for responding and providing the information the members asked for. We will be having our votes on the estimates after we have heard all of our witnesses.

I think the committee feels very strongly that this issue surrounding recruitment and eliminating this geographic restriction is an aggravation. We would certainly support as prompt as possible a resolution to this situation. You have our support in that regard. We will be communicating to Treasury Board and other stakeholders that we believe this is a matter that deserves the promptest attention possible.

Thank you kindly.

Ms. Maria Barrados: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members.

À (1005)

The Chair: We'll now bring our next witness in, from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, I believe.

Good morning. I'd like to welcome our new Privacy Commissioner, Ms. Jennifer Stoddart, and Mr. Hertzog, who is the chief financial officer. I'd like to welcome you and congratulate you on your appointment. I was on the committee where your candidacy was reviewed, and I had the honour of moving the motion in the House to approve your appointment.

I know that you have the confidence of this committee, and that we're very much looking forward to establishing a relationship with the Privacy Commissioner's office under your leadership. We certainly want you to know that we believe that establishing that relationship is a critical element of us having productive work done, and for the members to understand or keep abreast of the challenges that you are facing. So we will welcome you often, I hope, to be in touch with us and to carry on this dialogue and the development of the relationship. Thank you for coming.

We're here today to review the estimates for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and I would entertain your interventions in that regard. Then we'll have questions from the members.

Welcome, and please proceed.

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart (Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for that introduction and welcome.

This is the first time I have in fact come to Parliament since my nomination. I see a few familiar faces from the committee that interviewed me on the occasion of my nomination. And I too welcome this as a beginning of an open and transparent relationship.

[Translation]

I can assure you that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, as an agent of Parliament, is at the disposal of members to answer their questions and inform them about what comes under the office's mandate, as well as about the administration of the two acts for which it is responsible.

[English]

Mr. Chair, I wondered if it would be appropriate for me to make a few remarks, which I've tried to organize in an objective fashion, in order to inform members about the supplementary estimates and the progress we are making within the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Then, of course, I could answer your questions on the material that's been distributed, or any other concerns you would have. Would that be okay?

[Translation]

Thank you. As the chairman said, I am joined by the Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Robert Hertzog, who will help me to answer your questions.

[English]

I would again like to thank you very much for the confidence you expressed in me in the month of November, when you interviewed me. I will certainly do my best, and you have my personal commitment to doing the best to fulfill the responsibilities of this office.

When I assumed my duties on December 1 of last year, I identified a series of priorities for our office for the immediate future. They include: helping organizations implement Canada's new private sector privacy law, which came fully into effect—that is, its last phase—on January 1 of this year; monitoring government initiatives to ensure that they take into account citizens' privacy rights; developing my office's research capabilities to track technological trends and to help Canadians understand potential privacy encroachments; and finally, monitoring compliance with both federal privacy laws, through complaint investigations, to ensure that citizens' rights are protected.

À (1010)

[Translation]

My most immediate priority, however, was and is my intention to lead the office's institutional renewal by strengthening its management processes, particularly as they relate to human resources and financial management—planning, budgeting, reporting and control mechanisms. Without these in place, as you can well imagine, the rest of it cannot work. This renewal is the bedrock upon which my office will enhance its effectiveness and efficiency as an ombudsman dedicated to the protection of the privacy rights of Canadians.

The plans for institutional renewal and the necessary corrective measures follow those established by Robert Marleau, the Interim Commissioner, from the beginning of his term of office at the end of June. You received a report on this in the fall.

As you know, the reports of the Auditor General, Ms. Fraser, and the Public Service Commission, and the work of this committee, revealed a major breakdown of external governance and internal controls at our office. They revealed significant costs associated with these problems—an incalculable human cost for the employees, which cannot be ignored, in addition to a more measurable financial cost. That is what we are going to look at today.

[English]

It was to deal with these financial costs that my office required additional funding from Treasury Board in the amount of $621,000, as published in the supplementary estimates. I'm pleased to be here to provide you today with additional details on these costs, and both Mr. Hertzog and I can answer additional questions.

First of all, of this $621,000, $272,000 of the supplementary budget estimate is to comply with the legal requirements for severance payments for a small group of individuals who are no longer with the office, as well as to cover costs for those who are assigned out of the office on special leave with pay during the ordeal. Another $189,000 of the supplementary budget estimate has been used principally for human resources and finance related professional services in order to help the office through the transition and to begin implementation of enhanced human resources and financial controls. And finally, the remaining $160,000 of that amount is being used for the creation and documentation of policies and procedures, for staff training, and for enhancement of management information systems.

[Translation]

In the Report to Parliament on actions arising from the Auditor General's report on the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, tabled jointly in October 2003 by the President of the Treasury Board and the Interim Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Marleau, we indicated that along with Treasury Board, we would be tabling a report by April 30, 2004, on the actions taken, on the amounts determined to be improperly retained and recovered, and future action as may be required. We hope to have completed further corrective steps and have more to report to you at that time.

In the interim, I can tell you that $151,854 has been recovered for annual leave overpayments, and a further $171,681 of performance pay has been or is being recovered.

[English]

I believe you have a table that attempts to set this out clearly.

In addition to providing you with details regarding the breakdown of the supplementary estimates, I am happy to provide you with an update on the progress of other operational measures we have taken to increase our organizational effectiveness, to ensure that a management deficit of this magnitude never reoccurs.

For example, we have implemented a new delegation of financial authority framework, put a new strategic planning and budgeting framework into place, established an external advisory committee that provides input on the office's strategic directions and policy issues, and appointed a values and ethics champion, as well as an internal disclosure officer.

[Translation]

There are also a number of corrective measures in progress. These include: the review of classification levels by the Treasury Board Secretariat identified in Ms. Fraser's report has been nearly completed; the Public Service Commission's review of certain staffing actions is also almost complete, and as a result, one appointment has been revoked, whereas all other staffing actions examined by the Commission to date have been upheld; training on delegation and financial policies is being given to all managers and administrative staff; a modern comptrollership plan and control framework are being established; and finally, a performance management system is being developed for all staff, to be implemented in the new fiscal year.

À (1015)

[English]

I am making available to you today a one-page summary of some of the more noteworthy corrective actions that we have taken or have initiated since our last report to this committee, at the end of October. This will give you a sense of our progress to date in a number of areas. And as I mentioned, we will be giving you another report, for the end of April, next month.

You will see that this office, which plays a fundamental role in protecting the rights of Canadians, has made significant progress, I believe, but the renewal path is long and complex and arduous.

I want to take this opportunity to commend the staff of my office for their strength and for their patience. They have endured and they continue to endure the impact of the difficulties faced by this office. They are hard-working, professional civil servants. I continue, since my arrival, to be impressed by their commitment to the cause of privacy protection, which is at the foundation of our democratic society. They understand that the important work they do must go on, and I commend them for their support of me since I've taken over this position.

[Translation]

So I want to take this opportunity to commend the staff of the office for their strength and for their patience. They have endured and continue to endure the impact of the difficulties faced by the office. They are hard-working, professional civil servants, and I am impressed by their commitment to the cause of privacy protection, as well as by the support they have given me personally in the performance of my responsibilities.

[English]

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the role of Privacy Commissioner of Canada is a position of great responsibility, which requires the trust of both Parliament and the Canadian people. Let me say once again that I am committed to working with you in an open and transparent manner.

I thank you very much for inviting me here to talk about the supplementary estimates. Mr. Hertzog and I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. I think we're off on a great start.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you very much.

First of all, welcome to the committee.

You say that “...$272,000 of the supplementary budget estimate is to comply with the legal requirements for the severance payments for a small group of individuals who are no longer with the Office...”. Can you provide some additional detail to flesh out what that is?

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Yes.

One of the things in looking at where the money has gone and the amounts of money involved is that when employees' contracts are terminated or when positions are terminated, there are certain statutory severance requirements. For example, in the case of the former commissioner, the severance pay requirement in the order of $82,000 was negotiated with the Privy Council. $This 82,000 comes out of our budget. The former director general's severance pay--

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay, I'll just stop you on that one. It was the previous information to this committee that the so-called negotiated $82,000 was not going to be paid out. You're telling us today that it was paid out.

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Well, in fact it may not technically be paid out, because it's being offset against the money being owed. So my understanding is that it hasn't been paid out. There are a lot of accounting complexities, but when the interim commissioner asked for this money in the fall, it was estimated that part of the money was to meet the requirements of terminating the employment.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay. Sorry to interrupt your thought there.

The Chair: Paul, I think this is extremely important. The severance amount, the $82,000 that you're talking about, Ms. Stoddart, is the statutory obligation, legal obligation, in an amount negotiated with the Privy Council negotiator. So we're talking about establishing an amount, but not the cash flow.

À (1020)

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: That's right.

The Chair: There's a difference between liability and cash flow here. I want to be absolutely sure that people don't walk out of the room and say we just paid $82,000 to somebody. This is to the T account, as it were, and the net we should work our way through very carefully. So let's be cautious on this one and clear that cash paid versus owing is something different.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay.

You were beginning to answer my first question and I interrupted you, so perhaps you could get back to your train of thought. When you talk about specific individuals and the money related to the $272,000, I hope you do name those people specifically now as you go through the list. Just tell us a little bit about that.

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: In terms of the money involved?

Mr. Paul Forseth: You mentioned $82,000 for the former Privacy Commissioner; there must be more on the list.

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Yes.

The director general was technically owed severance pay of some $70,000. Let me just find these. Then for the chief of staff, for example, the money owed would be severance pay, annual leave, and so on to a total of $27,000, minus the money offset for various things. At this point, for example, currently we believe there is a $6,000 difference from his version of what he is owed.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Who is that person?

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: The chief of staff, Mr. Art Lamarche.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay. So you're saying on paper he owes you $6,000?

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: On paper at this point we owe him $6,000, but we have not reached a final settlement. He is contesting, in fact, the actions that have been taken concerning him.

Mr. Paul Forseth: You say in your comments today that when the PSC reviewed things, only one appointment was revoked. Was it his position that was revoked?

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: No, it wasn't his position. It was the position of another person.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Who is it?

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: The name hasn't been discussed publicly--a staff member whose position was revoked.

Mr. Paul Forseth: That's a matter of public record. Can you tell us who that was?

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: It's a privacy issue.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I don't think so.

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: If the committee requests it....

The Chair: I think we probably could call on lawyers and we could have some interesting discussions about this. If it is your opinion that it would not be helpful to the resolution of the process in an appropriate fashion, I would think that you may want to make that declaration, unless you're not aware of any reason why it should not. It might come up. I think the idea here is to make sure that we don't jeopardize, frustrate, or somehow jaundice any actions that are currently in process, because we are a public meeting.

I'm going to ask you to use your professional judgment here as to the disclosure of persons' names.

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Yes. Please be assured of my very great wish to cooperate with the committee.

This whole process has been, as you can imagine, very difficult on staff. Within that context, with the greatest hesitation I choose to put before you the fact that the nomination of Madam Danielle Bondar was revoked by the Public Service Commission as a result of their investigation into the circumstances of her nomination.

Mr. Paul Forseth: We, as a committee, did ask the Public Service Commission to review their processes and their involvement, and they did report back to us. At that time I think they said they still had a lot of issues ongoing. You're providing a little bit more information now that further time has passed. I suppose we could go back to the PSC and ask them the primary source, if they were the ones reviewing the appointment process--it's always good to go to primary sources rather than secondary ones.

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Yes, you could. But perhaps, honourable member, I could give you the information.

I think there were nine different transactions that were looked into. We've had the results of seven. Of the seven, six have been confirmed, and one has been infirmed, the one I just gave you. That person has left the employment; her employment was terminated with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

There are two investigations outstanding. One concerns Mr. Arthur Lamarche, whom I just spoke to you about. We were recently informed by our legal staff that he has made an application in Federal Court to challenge the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission to review the staffing action that concerns him. The other outstanding staffing action concerns a systemic look at what the total picture gives, from what I understand. There are only those two outstanding at this point.

À (1025)

Mr. Paul Forseth: What happened to Ms. Dona Vallières?

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: She is no longer with the commission. However, we are still, shall we say, negotiating with her representatives over the amount of performance pay and travel and hospitality we could recover from her. Because some of these situations are ongoing, we thought we would give you this table, because it is very complex. You can see the amounts we have recovered and the amounts we hope to recover by offset. That is, we have not paid out the money, so the money is being offset under any legal entitlements.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I haven't seen that table yet.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC): Perhaps that's it there.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Oh, sorry. This is what you're referring to. I'll leave that for now.

I'll ask one more question, and then we'll come to another round. You said you've implemented a new delegation of financial authority framework. Maybe you can tell us what that means. In the previous regime, you might say, the whole reporting relationship of comptrollership seemed to be lost. I'll just narrow in on one specific item, and that is that the commissioner's position had ministerial override provisions for spending on travel, hospitality, and so on that did not meet the normal Treasury Board guidelines that a lower executive officer would have to follow. Has there been any change in that regard so that there's an automatic system of comptrollership that even watches over your own area of discretion with regard to travel and hospitality and that kind of thing?

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Yes. We have completely redone this responsibility matrix. It is, of course, a very detailed chart. To give you an example, I recently incurred travel expenses. I was at a very important conference in Washington where we wanted to give a message about the implementation of Canada's new Uniform Electronic Commerce Act. I was just filling out my forms. The assistant privacy commissioner countersigns for my travel so that we can make sure I am not in a position where I would use some kind of absence of discretion to simply decree on my own. Of course, in the other cases, I sign off on the assistant privacy commissioner's travel and so on down the line. So I'd say we are at the position of a normal department. We have added the fact that even though I am nominally the head of the agency, there is always somebody who countersigns my expenditures and so on.

I don't know if Mr. Hertzog would like to elaborate on this.

Mr. Robert Hertzog (Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada): Thank you.

We have implemented a series of changes in terms of who can now initiate transactions and who can approve different types of expenditures. Specifically, this relates to expenditures such as the purchase of goods and services, travel, hospitality, and training. The responsibilities for who can sign off have been clearly communicated and have now been implemented in the office.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I think I'm out of time.

The Chair: Well, that was the first, second, and third rounds, but that's okay. I think they were good questions and helpful.

Mr. Lee, please.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you.

I have three quick questions. The recoveries referred to here, do they get credited back to the OPC budget, or do they get credited to the consolidated revenue fund?

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: That's a good question. I'll give that to the chief financial officer.

Mr. Robert Hertzog: The short answer is they are not credited to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

That leaves two questions. One is a specific question about the supplementary estimates, and the other one is an ongoing file question. On the supplementary estimates, there's a category for professional and special services. I realize that in setting out these supplementaries one follows existing formats. As a result, these are just rubrics we use to categorize the spending. Could you provide more detail on what is involved in the professional and special services or tell us how much of the $621,000 is for that purpose?

À (1030)

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: In regard to professional and special services, we calculated that about $189,000 is for that. This is for, for example, a report on office procedures and management processes, for someone to help with, I'd say, personal coaching, personnel training, the beginning of office reorganization towards strategic planning. Then we had a group in to help us work through strategic planning. This is in a context where this doesn't seem to have been done for at least three years, and it's not clear before that.

So we had, for the moment, a certain number of consultants to basically fill two gaps, the gaps of what was never there and the gaps created by the fact that a lot of key individuals in the administration of the office were displaced or left--human resources, finance, the executive director.... You had a core of people around personnel management, financial management issues, who all exited at the beginning of July, so you had this unusual expenditure to try to make up for that vacuum.

Mr. Derek Lee: Most of our membership will understand the need for that as a result of what went on.

Can you tell me what, if any, in that category went to legal fees? Is there anything there for legal fees?

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: I don't know if I have that cost here with me. I don't think it's the major cost. The latest figure I have is $23,000.

Mr. Derek Lee: And that does not say “exorbitant”. That's fine. I think it addresses my curiosity on that.

Thirdly, over a year ago, when I was in New Delhi, I was apprised of a very effective proposal to expedite business visa issuance. The proposal was a procedural change, did not involve a statutory change. The concept had been run through the government here, and I was advised that the matter had been sent to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for comment because the procedure proposed in New Delhi involved making personal information of applicants potentially accessible to third-party service providers and agents. It seemed pretty routine. However, the matter, I'm told, has become stuck.

I am fully aware of how the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has had a number of administrative challenges and why things could have become stuck there over the last year.

If you're not familiar with this particular file, which is essentially an immigration business visa processing procedural change, I'm inviting you now to deal with it as quickly as possible. If it's still stuck in your office, get it back out on the street, because every week that we go on, we delay implementing improved efficiencies in this envelope.

I forgive you if you're not specifically aware of the file, but I'll ask you to comment.

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: I am not specifically aware of this issue, so I'm very relieved that you would seem to forgive me, for this time anyway.

I've made a note of it. We'll certainly ask the office to follow up.

Maybe I could take this occasion to tell the members that I've just finished writing to all of you to announce to you that I'm creating a parliamentary liaison officer post, because I think the importance of the role of a parliamentary agent means that we should have someone who facilitates our mutual communication, looks after your concerns, and, for example, could get back to you quickly on this issue with your answer, and so on.

So I hope to get back to you in the next few days with an answer on this.

À (1035)

Mr. Derek Lee: Great.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: And thank you for thinking of us. That's certainly a good way to continue to build the relationship.

I'm going to go to Mr. Martin, and then to Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Stoddart, for being here. It's nice to see you again.

What strikes me the most is I think that it speaks volumes. The sheer number of corrective actions that you've listed here to bring some semblance of order and to bring some acceptable standards to that office speaks volumes, in that it looks like Radwanski cut a swath through every standard of accountability and transparency and left sort of a scorched earth. I'm amazed at the extent of the corrective measures that you've found necessary to put in place in order to have that very important office functioning correctly. I compliment you for doing so.

My questions are more in regard to the industrial relations side of your task now in cleaning up that office.

I come from a union background, and I've fought many wrongful dismissal suits and firings. One thing I know is that when you're fired for just cause, you don't start negotiating the terms of your departure. You don't start negotiating with the boss who fired you about how much you're willing to accept as a severance package.

I don't know if other people are as angry as I am to hear from somebody like Dona Vallières.Well, let's use a better example of Manon Mutchmore or Art Lamarche actually negotiating terms of severance when they should have been summarily fired--just, bang. There has never been more graphic just cause, in my experience as a union representative, than a guy who falsifies documents, lies to a standing committee, and essentially steals money. Next to punching your boss in the mouth, that's as severe as it gets in terms of justifiable grounds for dismissal.

Fire them. Why can't we just fire these guys? Why do we have to negotiate with these people? I'm getting angry just thinking about it. I want these people gone. I really want these people gone. I'm furious.

Manon Mutchmore came and lied to us. Is she still working for you?

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: She is working for another government department at this time.

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, that is absolute.... I can't say it. It sickens me to think that someone like that can still survive in the public service. I want these people gone.

I don't know how the committee feels, but Art Lamarche stood there and lied to us. He's the guy who actually whited out these documents. He crossed out the expense on the expense claims. We know that now.

The Chair: Let me remind all honourable members that the proceedings that we went through during the period were in camera proceedings. I would caution members to be judicious and careful about disclosures and other allegations that may compromise or jeopardize other matters still ongoing. Let's be careful, please.

Pat.

Mr. Pat Martin: Point taken.

My original point is that Radwanski was like some whirling dervish who cut a swath through every accountability standard that we aspire to. But I compliment you on the steps you're taking.

I guess to focus on something I won't get ruled out of order on is whistle-blower protection. I'd like your views on it. One of the saddest things about this whole sordid mess was that the whistle-blowers--the honest, decent people who did come forward from your staff--had to bring their lawyers with them. In order to do the honourable thing, they felt they had to bring legal counsel with them to talk to a bunch of MPs.

Can you share your views on how that could have been better if a proper whistle-blowing regimen were in place? How do you envision whistle-blowing protection being a benefit in the future?

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: On whistle-blowing, I haven't had the opportunity up till now to study the provisions of the latest projects on whistle-blowing. I'm meeting with Dr. Keyserlingk next Tuesday.

You put your finger on one of the things I, having come from, shall we say, more highly organized workplaces as a manager, am amazed at. The Auditor General has called it a reign of terror from the fact that many employees didn't feel free to come forward, and of those who did, they did it with great trepidation.

I think that over and beyond various pieces of whistle-blowing legislation, a large employer-employee organization, a large bureaucracy like the Public Service of Canada, has to make sure that there is a constant, daily culture of ethics. You can have all the laws you want, but on the Sparks Street Mall people are saying, ah well, we're not sure what's going to happen; these people are politically well connected; be careful, and so on. That's a bit of the reaction I've got from some employees. They didn't really know, and it wasn't clear to them how well they would be protected.

I say to you, you can pass any laws you want, but if somebody is interested in issues of law enforcement, they'll know there are big steps between what's written in the law, the way it's actually enforced, and what's happening in terms of values and everyday observance of that. I think it's only by everyday observance of a culture of transparency, ethics, and fairness in the civil service in the relationships between the employees and their managers and in the relationships between the managers and the people who may be named by order in council and so on that we're going to have a systemic correction of this problem.

À (1040)

Mr. Pat Martin: I think you're right. Oliver Wendell Holmes said in the 1880s that you can't legislate morality. The same applies to ethics, I think, and that culture has to develop.

I see you are introducing a “values and ethics champion, as well as an internal disclosure officer”. Will there be anonymity associated with those internal disclosure policy--

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Yes. My belief is that yes, there is anonymity. This is in fact one of the deputy commissioners, who has a long record of service in the public service. It's simply to help employees, and it's also to provide a place where we as management can recognize there's this kind of problem going on and we should take some kind of steps to correct it if it is a problem.

The Chair: Who is that?

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Raymond D'Aoust. You were made aware of the nomination of two deputy commissioners. One is Heather Black, who was the previous general counsel, an acknowledged expert on commercial law and widely respected throughout Canada and beyond--I've just come back from the United States--as an expert on it, and she is largely responsible for the implementation at this moment of PIPEDA.

The other one is Raymond D'Aoust, who held several positions, I believe, for several years with the House of Commons, and he is the assistant commissioner responsible for the implementation of the Privacy Act in many internal policy personnel issues.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Personally, I am angry about the size of the severance payments included in the $272,000. I find it outrageous to be asking for more money after recovering over $171,000. It is like the money was being taken away and given back. I have trouble understanding that. When I see the amount sought... I am not frustrated with the overall budget estimate, but certain rules for managing the public purse have to be followed. I do not understand why you are hiring more people and also asking for more money to set up a system.

I expect things to be put in order. That has been done, and I congratulate you on that. I also congratulate you on your appointment. However, I'm having trouble understanding. Monies have been recovered, and taxpayers are being made to pay to put back in place a system that should already have been there. I understand that it had to be done quickly, but there are people replacing these people. Why are we paying twice? If we hire new people, these professionals should take care of the implementation using amounts that are already there. We are paying new competent people. Were the others competent or not? That remains to be seen. But they are no longer there, and a new request is being made to pay the salaries of the new people too. You need to explain this to me, because Canadians need an explanation of what is going on with this. In addition to the amounts recovered, we arrive at an amount of... This entire $621,000 that you are asking for is for the cleanup operation, if you will. Getting the new management up and running again could be done by the new employees. I do not understand.

À (1045)

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: I share your indignation. Looking at these numbers, we said to ourselves that what the law required in some circumstances was appalling and illogical.

However, I hasten to add that the situation is very complex. I asked our chief financial officer to continue, because we have not paid these amounts to these individuals. We are here to defend the estimates we made in October of the supplementary funds we would need to complete this operation. These estimates were made in October, at a time when the former commissioner had squandered public money. It was against that backdrop that my predecessor came to see you.

I hasten to add, and I repeat, that the four most heavily involved people are no longer employed by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, and that we are not negotiating the terms and conditions of their departure. They are gone and they are the ones arguing that money is owed to them. We are telling them that we are not going to pay them because they owe money for trips, accommodation, etc. We have kept all of the money, but it is not in our account, as we have just seen. It goes into the consolidated fund.

Okay, this is an accounting exercise, but, let us be clear, we have not paid anyone yet. These are accounting transactions, and thanks to compensation issues, we keep the money. They are the ones claiming to be owed the money.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: We are talking about compensation and the consolidated fund. Are you saying that the $171,681 would be in addition to the $621,000, and that this should completely solve the problem? If this money had been transferred into the consolidated fund, you would have needed an extra $800,000, because you no longer had the $171,000.

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: No. I will let the chartered accountant provide you with the required explanations.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Could we then subtract $171,000 from the $621,000 amount, given that the $171,000 has been set aside?

Mr. Robert Hertzog: I would go back to the comment made by the chair at the beginning of the discussion, when he indicated that this was an accounting operation issue. The money that we have to pay as severance packages or the amounts owed to the employees in question are charged to our budget. However, not all of the recoveries are credited to our budget. They're paid directly to the government's general fund. That is why the $272,000 amount had to be included in the $621,000. The former amount includes a few severance packages as well as some money owed to former office employees on assignment outside of the office.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I would like you to explain why the $189,000 and $160,000 amounts are in addition to the salaries of new employees, who could have implemented this new management system over a time period which may have been a bit longer. If some of these new employees, who were just as qualified, were capable of doing this, why couldn't they have done the same work?

À (1050)

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: I must emphasize that we have hired next to no new employees since this summer because of the staffing and classification level review process. I spoke about a broad classification level review initiative. Given the situation, we can only hire people on a very exceptional basis.

In addition, as other honourable members have said, the office was so thoroughly disorganized that before we could staff positions, we had to determine who we needed, which classification level was required for a given position and what approach we wanted to take with respect to managing the office properly. Consequently, these amounts were used to pay consultants. These individuals were identified by Mr. Marleau. Generally speaking, they are retired public servants who have appropriate experience, a solid reputation and so on and so forth. These are the individuals who did that work.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I understand all of that, Ms. Stoddart, but I do have a problem with respect to the implementation of Treasury Board management policies. There is nothing new about the need for management policies and transparency. Why do you need to call on outside people to set all of that up? It's not complicated. There was a director of finance and a director general or chief executive officer.

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Yes, but they all left.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: That's right. Have they not yet been replaced?

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: No. As I was telling you, the office was extremely disorganized. In many cases, the people who left were in key positions and allowed the very shady operations, which you discovered, to occur. That is the problem.

But there is some good news. The policy aspects, the advice on privacy and on enforcement of legislation were not affected. The employees that we are talking about today were not responsible for that sector. They were responsible for financial management and human resources management within the office of the commissioner. That is where there was a big hole. Before we could fill in this hole and complete the reorganization, we had to determine the magnitude of the damage, hear suggestions, consult employees, etc. on the best way to restructure the office, at the organizational and corporate levels.

I do not know whether or not I have properly addressed your concerns. The good news is that this problem pertained only to the internal operation of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. It had a much smaller impact on the service that we provide to the public.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Fortunately.

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Yes, fortunately.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

We're going to go to Ms. Yelich, Mr. Perron, and then to Mr. Forseth.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Thank you very much.

My question is a little bit different. I want to ask about your new private sector privacy law. You understand the impact it's having on Canadians because of, I think, a lack of communication, how some are overreacting and some are underreacting. I just wonder what the goal was originally, and if you expected companies to react the way they have.

I think the liaison you were going to set up is absolutely excellent. I would imagine you're going to be giving that phone number out very quickly. I already have very many complaints about the extent to which some people are going. I just want to know a little bit about how that's working, if you have that under some sort of surveillance.

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Okay.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: We can talk later, too. I just want that, because I know you're under a lot of pressure through these questions. So perhaps I'll meet you after. I want to talk, personally, more about this.

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: I'd be happy to.

The Chair: I'll go to Mr. Perron, and then, I'm sorry, I forgot that Madam Neville also wanted an intervention.

So Paul, if that's okay....

Monsieur Perron.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Ms. Stoddart, and welcome to the lions' den. I am not referring to this committee in particular, but when I follow your activities from afar, I wonder about a question that is rather personal. Do you miss your old job in Quebec City?

Getting back to serious business, I would think that the difficult situation you encountered when you obtained your position has certainly resulted in additional expenditures. Do you think it would be a good thing to try to recover some of the money for Canadian and Quebec taxpayers by prosecuting your predecessors who defrauded the system?

Secondly, I have a comment for Robert. It's just a silly little joke to lighten up the atmosphere a bit. I really have a problem with accountants because they can say just about anything. Sometimes they say that 2 plus 2 makes 5, and we have to believe them. Robert, I have no bad intentions when I say this; I'm just making a silly little joke to lighten things up a bit here.

The floor is yours, Ms. Stoddart.

À (1055)

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: I think that your question, Mr. Perron, reflects not only my personal musings, but also the musings of the entire Canadian public, Quebeckers and other Canadians, about what is occurring when they see such a waste of taxpayers' money. It looks like taxpayers' money has been deliberately wasted.

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: I used the word “fraud”, which is much more serious than your term, “waste”.

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: From what I understand, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has no authority to prosecute these individuals. Rather, this would be a decision made by the Attorney General.

However, I must say that one thing that adds to the stress of the employees and to the difficulty of re-establishing a normal environment is that, after all these months, the RCMP is still in one of our conference rooms, which is kept locked, and continues to examine documents from our office. We have been assured that the job is almost over. Obviously, the RCMP cannot talk about the content of their inquiries, nor can they discuss the conclusions that they are drawing, but it is clear that their investigations pertain to activities that could have taken place at the office. What is going to happen? In the long term, I think that the ball with be in the RCMP's court once the investigations have been completed.

Robert, do you wish to make any comments?

Mr. Robert Hertzog: As you can no doubt remember, the Auditor General referred certain issues to the RCMP for investigation. These are issues that are being examined as part of the RCMP investigation, I believe.

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Indeed, your responsibility is precisely to re-establish the trust of the citizens and taxpayers. You have to show them that your organization is operating properly and that there is no more unnecessary—personally, I would use a stronger word—waste. I believe that it is also incumbent on you to recommend, despite the fact that you do not have the authority, that legal proceedings be instituted following the RCMP investigation. I do not want to imply that you do not have a good image, but I do sincerely believe that this would improve the image of the commissioner and of all the administrators in your organization.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Thank you, Mr. Perron.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Neville.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you very much for coming this morning. I'm a new member of this committee and did not go through what many of my colleagues here did last year. But first, let me say thank you for what you've done. You've certainly been busy and had a huge challenge here.

My question isn't what I was originally going to ask. It's in regard to a response that you made just now.

What is the climate in your office, given all that you've gone through, the changes you've implemented? Have you turned the corner? How are you working? What's the atmosphere in the office?

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: I think an employee would probably give you a more accurate answer than myself. My impression is the employees still find things very difficult. In fact what happened was that there were these events in which you participated and so on, and this unleashed then a whole series of secondary events, which went into the whole way the office was managed, the way people had been hired, the way people were classified, and so on. Dozens of innocent people walked into that office because they were interested in privacy issues, like anybody else, and unwittingly found themselves in that management environment. So if you're going through the structure of the management environment, you can't go through it without impacting on people's jobs, their careers, and so on, and that is still very difficult.

I would say that the very tragic part of this is the human cost to dedicated civil servants who want to work on these issues and they are very devoted. I cannot say how impressed I am by the staff. They are the ones, now, who are still going through the questioning of their positions, how some of them were hired. You have these funny situations where it may look funny on one side, but you have a totally “innocent” person who was hired through a funny process, who didn't even know the process might have been funny. This is the complexity of the issues we're dealing with.

We have some good new leadership. We have the assistant commissioner as well. We have people who specialize in human resources. We have the consultants I was telling your colleague about. We have a chief financial officer who's a very experienced and skilled financial manager and so on. There's light at the end of the tunnel, but things are very difficult for the employees, and I think that's my biggest concern at this point.

Á (1100)

Ms. Anita Neville: I guess my question is when will you get to the end of the tunnel? You talk about the RCMP still being in the office. As an organization, are you functioning and doing the work you should be doing, given the disruption in office?

When I read through your presentation, what you've done is spectacular in a short period of time. It has involved huge changes and changes which should be made. But is the Office of the Privacy Commissioner functioning as a viable organization?

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Yes, we're a viable organization. I think I could say we're functioning well, but we're not functioning at 100%.

We're functioning well for two reasons. First, because of the professionalism and the interest of many of the employees who choose to be there and choose to remain there in a highly difficult situation, as you understand from hearing what happened in that office, because they are sincerely interested in the issue. They are sincerely dedicated, and that's where they want to make their contribution to Canadian public life.

Secondly, it is because very fortunately, I think, the worst parts go around the human resource, the finance, the commissioner's job and so on. The worst of the impact is not so much on the people who are dealing with the public programs, although they are affected by the overall levels of funding and problems with staffing and things like that.

The Chair: Okay, just one quick question. There was a quick one?

Mr. Paul Forseth: I had one, but you could go ahead if you....

The Chair: No, we're fine. We're slowly trying to catch up.

All right, why don't we leave it at that. Certainly I want to again thank you for being frank and forthright with us, as always. We expect that from all the people we consider ourselves to be working with.

Mr. Martin raised an interesting question, which is not just for you, maybe more for the public service culture as a whole. The question is about what does it take to get fired? I think the committee should maybe just note that down, and we may have to pursue that, but certainly not with you. I understand it's not your call. It may be part of the solution, so that people do understand that there are circumstances, thresholds that are breached, that result in termination of employment without severance and without any other consideration. Understanding what that is may be part of the communication we have to do. I think we'll probably be pursuing that ourselves, to make sure we understand it as well. I think it's important.

I don't think there's any other thing pressing, so thank you kindly for being here, and we will look forward to our next meeting.

Á (1105)

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Ms. Stoddart, I would like to congratulate you on the high caliber of your bilingualism: your French is wonderful and your English is marvelous.

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Thank you, Mr. Perron.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Perron.

[English]

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart: Mr. Chair, thank you very much for giving me this occasion. I'll be back, I think, to present the report that we promised at the end of April.

If any of the honourable members would like to meet with me or the assistant commissioners individually, we want to begin a new relationship with you, and I would be pleased to answer your questions individually, if that would help fill you in on the picture. And Mr. Hertzog could perhaps give more information if that would be helpful to you.

The Chair: Thank you kindly.

We're going to suspend for a moment for the next witnesses, who will be the Governor General's representatives.

Á (1106)

Á (1111)

The Chair: Resuming our meeting, we are welcoming, from the Office of the Governor General, Barbara Uteck, who is again with us. It's good to see you again. We welcome you with regard to the supplementary estimates.

I would ask you to introduce your colleagues who are with you and make your representation with regard to the estimates and then we'll seek some dialogue with the members.

Ms. Barbara Uteck (Secretary to the Governor General, Office of the Governor General): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to introduce Curtis Barlow, who is deputy secretary to the Governor General, and JoAnn MacKenzie, who is our director of financial services.

If I might, I would like to proceed with my statement.

[Translation]

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to answer your questions on the request to carry forward $200,000 in our operating budget.

[English]

The Office of the Secretary to the Governor General is a government agency that receives its funding through an appropriations act and with parliamentary approval, in the same manner as all other government departments. The Governor General, as representative of the Crown, along with Parliament and the judiciary form the foundation of our democratic system in Canada. This foundation has remained solid throughout the evolution of Canadian society over the past 130 years.

The Governor General is the de facto head of state as well as Commander in Chief of the Canadian Forces. It is in this capacity that the Governor General carries out constitutional roles and responsibilities and upholds and promotes Canadian values both at home and abroad.

Among the manifestations of the constitutional role of the Governor General are the following: the Governor General ensures the continuity and functioning of government; summons, prorogues, and dissolves Parliament; reads the Speech from the Throne on behalf of the government; ensures Canada always has a Prime Minister; and grants royal assent to government legislation.

As head of state, the Governor General exercises all the powers of the Crown in Canada, either in her own right or on behalf of the sovereign.

[Translation]

The Governor General officially receives foreign heads of state on state visits to Canada. I would like to mention that since 1999, the Governor General has received 19 heads of state, many of whom extended invitations to the Governor General to return the visit. She represents Canada on state visits abroad; these are undertaken at the request of the Prime Minister on the advice of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

[English]

The Governor General plays a highly visible and effective role as Commander in Chief of the Canadian Forces. For example, she inspects troops on ceremonial occasions, visits Canadian Forces in conflict zones such as Afghanistan, attends memorial services and funerals for fallen military on behalf of all Canadians.

In her installation speech, which she delivered to a joint session of Parliament on October 7, 1999, Her Excellency outlined her themes and objectives to the people of Canada: bringing Canadians together; promoting bilingualism; recognizing the contributions and roles of the aboriginal people in our society; respecting diversity; caring for others; encouraging public dialogue about issues of concern to Canadians; understanding our history and our geography, including the north; reflecting Canadians to each other; and providing continuity through the traditions of the Governor General and the initiatives of former Governors General.

Through these themes, the Governor General instils in Canadians a sense of national esteem, and reflects the Canadian character.

Since the beginning of the mandate, Their Excellencies have participated in 3,183 events across Canada.

Á (1115)

[Translation]

This represents an increase of almost 300 per cent in the number of events in the Governor General's program since 1999.

The invitations and requests for the Governor General's participation have increased by approximately 60 per cent over the last five years. The Governor General has delivered over 600 speeches since the start of the mandate, the majority of which were given out of Ottawa.

[English]

This represents an increase of almost 300% in the number of events in the Governor General's program since 1999.

Their Excellencies have visited every province and territory frequently, including almost 300 cities and towns.

Since 1995, visitors to the grounds of Rideau Hall have increased by over 250%. In fact, during the last four years, more than 600,000 people have visited Rideau Hall.

Since 1999, the Office of the Governor General has received over 113,000 requests from across the country for special messages and anniversary greetings.

I wanted to give you some of these figures as an idea of the level of activity of this Governor General.

You have asked today about our request for approval to carry forward an operating budget from 2002-03. The operating budget carry-forward is a budget management practice commonly used by government departments, which allows departments to carry forward, from one fiscal year to the next, up to 5% of their main estimates operating budget. This flexibility allows departments to manage or implement initiatives over a multi-year horizon.

In our case, it would permit the office to proceed with information technology projects that were funded and initiated in the previous fiscal year but were not completed, such as updating our computer hardware to meet government-wide standards, acquiring new software programs, and providing staff training.

I'd like to tell you now how the budget approved by Parliament in the main estimates for 2003-04 is spent.

The $19.1 million approved for 2003-04 includes salaries and operating expenditures for the three program activities listed in the main estimates: the Governor General activity--that is, the function and exercise of the Office of the Governor General; honours; and former Governors General.

The Governor General activity is budgeted at $14.2 million and includes support to the state and constitutional functions I have described earlier, citizen access and visitor services, regional visits, as well as the operating costs of the office. These costs also include salary increases resulting from the negotiation of government-wide collective agreements.

The honours activity is budgeted at $3.9 million and includes all of the administration of the national honours system, and includes, for example, the Order of Canada, the Order of Military Merit, bravery decorations, exemplary service medals for police and fire service personnel, and other medals, such as the Academic Medal and the Caring Canadian Award. In total, over 10,000 awards are presented to Canadians every year.

Support to former Governors General and surviving spouses is $990,000 annually.

At my last appearance before the committee, on October 6, 2003, I was asked about support to the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General from other government departments. I subsequently undertook to consult my colleagues in other government departments and to assemble this information. I can give you today some of those preliminary details, some of the picture.

A number of government departments traditionally come together to support the Governor General, because the office is essential to the functioning of our democratic system of government. This support relates to security, travel, the upkeep of official residences, and state functions, among other things. Those departments determine the level of support and services provided to the Governor General and secure appropriate resources through their own budget exercise.

I believe in my last appearance I named a number of those departments, and I will just repeat: the National Capital Commission, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Department of National Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs, and the Solicitor General through the RCMP.

If I could, I will give you, as I just mentioned, a couple of examples of what I have been gathering.

The Department of National Defence provides support to the Governor General and to the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General in the following areas: transportation services, both domestic and international; provision of logistical support and photographic services; ceremonial support, such as guards of honour; and the issuing of orders, decorations, and medals.

Á (1120)

In the current fiscal year, the Department of National Defence provided support to the office in the amount of $2.4 million.

The Office of the Secretary to the Governor General maintains liaison with the RCMP on matters related to the personal protection of Their Excellencies while in residence and while travelling. An estimate of the level of support pertaining to the RCMP this year is $3.7 million.

As Secretary to the Governor General, I am the senior official of the agency and have ultimate responsibility and am accountable for all operations and programs of the office. As secretary, I have a responsibility to ensure that the highest standards of public service management are applied and observed. Therefore, with respect to the organization, I have made every effort to make it more efficient and cost-effective. I have taken steps to review and implement our information technology requirements to meet government-wide standards, to restructure our corporate services division, and to develop and implement an accommodation strategy to address occupational health and safety deficiencies.

Mr. Chairman, my associates and I would be pleased to take any questions that you and the committee members may have.

Merci beaucoup.

The Chair: That's an excellent presentation to us to provide a foundation for all, and I thank you very kindly for taking the effort to put it on the table and give us that foundation.

Let's start off with Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

Welcome to committee.

You will recall that I sent you a personal letter a number of weeks ago. Copies of that letter were distributed to the committee. You were kind enough to answer me. I haven't been able to distribute that letter, but it's in the spirit of your comments today that you are trying to collect on behalf of the Governor General for general transparency, which you agreed to.

My theme is that I don't think anyone else should be speaking on behalf of the Governor General. The Governor General and its office should be able to speak for itself and collectively take the responsibility to say, by the way, we had $3 million and something by the RCMP. So you collect and provide in the background of your annual reporting some rounded figures to get to the simple question, how much does it cost the taxpayer to have a Governor General? We will eventually get there, and I think in your letter you committed that you would be able to complete that work by about mid-March.

Ms. Barbara Uteck: That's correct.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I would hope that kind of reporting becomes regular and part of an annual report. So my first question is whether there is some kind of general annual report that talks about all the wonderful things the Governor General has done and that's a public report, as part of which—in the back, perhaps, in an appendix—there could be a paragraph or two that just describes in summary terms what the total cost of having a Governor General is to Canada.

I went to the website. I know there were previous annual reports, and I couldn't seem to find them anywhere on the website. There was all kinds of wonderful stuff there, but I couldn't find the actual annual report. I remember receiving a printed document that seemed to be a kind of annual report, but I could not find it on the website.

That's where I see this reporting and transparency we're trying to get at: in there being a regular published report that's available across the country and tells about all the wonderful things the Governor General is doing—a bit of mandate, a bit of history—but then in the back, in the appendix, contains some financial stuff that provides complete transparency.

I would like to compliment you on agreeing to the theme I had about taking responsibility for collecting all this information from everybody else and trying to then provide this global wrap-up budget. Perhaps you can comment on that.

The other point is, you're saying you want to carry over $200,000; that was money that wasn't spent. I'm looking at the capacity for financial planning. We have the main estimates now, and we have an unusual situation. We have the main estimates out before the budget speech has even been given. Then there was a kind of warning that maybe these main estimates are going to be replaced by another set of main estimates. Then we have supplementary estimates A and B.

I've been very critical about the financial planning at the front end and why we always have to have such tremendous amounts in the supplementary estimates. In relation to the Governor General, it was the financial planning question that really came up in the media, because there were estimates floated from the Department of Foreign Affairs that the northern trip was going to cost about $1 million, and it comes out at $5.3 million. From a budget planner's point of view, something must have really gone off the rails as far as someone being able to have comptrollership and properly project into the future is concerned.

That's a case example of part of the budgetary process: being able to properly estimate what are going to be the future costs. I've thrown a number of things in there, and I hope you can help us with it.

Á (1125)

Ms. Barbara Uteck: Thank you very much.

I would say you've asked three questions. I will try to reply to each one, and may call on my colleague JoAnn MacKenzie to assist me in at least one of them.

With respect to your first question, I appreciate very much your wish—and I believe it is the wish of the committee as well—to have a global picture of what it costs Canada to have a Governor General. While we have no legislative requirement to produce an annual report and have always simply reported through main estimates and public accounts, I'm very pleased to be able to get that global picture for you. It's obviously an undertaking this committee has made, and I'm very pleased to be able to assist you in whatever way I can in assembling that information.

I will, of course, though, mention that it is the responsibility of other government departments to explain in detail the full requirements they have, because they make the decisions. For example, if you look at the personal protection the RCMP provides to the Governor General, the RCMP makes the decision as to the level, based on their threat assessments and so on. They make the decision as to the level of personal protection required and what it costs, or about the number of RCMP on any detail who have to be with the Governor General when she travels anywhere. I just would mention that.

But in terms of giving a global wrap-up, I'm very pleased to gather that information so that you will have as complete a picture as possible.

With respect to the carry-over, I would ask Ms. MacKenzie to reply; then I'll come back to address your third question.

Ms. JoAnn MacKenzie (Director, Financial Services, Informatic and Material Management, Office of the Governor General): Good morning.

Again, Mr. Chair, I will address some of the financial planning processes in government right now.

At some point late in November the department has to determine our cashflow requirements until the end of the year. As a matter of fact, as most departments do in government, we calculated our carry-forward as early as last summer. We have an idea of how much funding could be available in that carry-forward allotment. By around November we have to decide if we are going to request access to those funds through the final supplementary estimates process.

This year, conscious of the current environment, we took the hard decision to go forward in order to protect our investment in the projects we had started. At this late date, as we go right to the end of the fiscal year, I think we need to ensure that we protect our appropriation, even though we have put into place all of the hard cashflow and management practices that are required to the end of the year.

I also did not distribute but made copies for the members of the horizontal items included in the final supplementaries. I note that the carry-forward exercise is very popular. If you were to take a look in your supplementary estimates, we are certainly among a very large group of departments that have to do that very same thing. It is viewed as more a technical exercise, Mr. Chair: rather than asking for new money, we are trying to manage those funds as briskly and as crisply as possible.

I hope that answers your question.

Á (1130)

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay.

Ms. Barbara Uteck: Mr. Chairman, if I could I'll return to Mr. Forseth's third question, which had to do with forward financial planning, just to assure you that is the way in which we try to operate.

With respect to the floated estimate you said was put out by the Department of Foreign Affairs, I believe that floated estimate was in fact a guesstimate on the part of one particular media organization and not at all put out by Foreign Affairs. Foreign Affairs was working with its own budget, and details of that budget have recently been released.

Mr. Paul Forseth: What happens is that when something is out there, and it's out there for so long and becomes a big issue and is never corrected, it's then accepted as valid. That's a dynamic as well.

The question now comes, was the financial planning so far off? You're saying that perhaps a contemplation of $5 million was planned in the beginning. That should have been corrected way back then. Why were people silent? It's going to come out anyway.

Now we have the double question: there might be the public issue of how much was spent, but now we also have the issue of financial management and being able to plan, as far as the budget cycle is concerned. Who's minding the store? Do we have any capability to make estimates worth the paper they're written on?

Maybe you could just comment specifically on the decision-making process of who decides on that particular budget. We had information from you previously that there was a conversation back and forth between your offices and Foreign Affairs, and that there was maybe a mutual decision to do this and then to invoke the spending that flows as a consequence of meeting this request by Foreign Affairs.

We want to get at some of that accountability model. When a decision is made, dollars are spent. It's about the ability of the main estimates to reflect really what the Governor General is planning to do. Maybe you can use that as a case example. How did that funding get decided?

Ms. Barbara Uteck: Mr. Chairman, the funding for state visits, which are carried out by the Governor General on behalf of Canada on the invitation of the Prime Minister and on the advice of Foreign Affairs, is fundamentally managed by the Department of Foreign Affairs.

With respect to our involvement, we work very closely with them in the planning of the state visits and look at every single event to determine whether it will be one where we will get value for money, if you will. We always look at what are we going to accomplish? What results are there going to be from this particular event? At every step of the way in planning a state visit from the selection of the delegates to the places that are visited to the nature of the events that are held, we work closely with the Department of Foreign Affairs. We work not only with their experts here in Ottawa but very closely with their people in our missions in the locations that are being visited and with the protocol people in those countries. Then we look at what are the results going to be? What kind of value are we going to get for the dollars that are spent?

Á (1135)

The Chair: I'm going to move to Mr. Perron and then Mr. Martin.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for coming.

First of all, I would like to add a point to page 4 of your presentation, where you refer to the speeches that the Governor General has given. I believe that the Governor General forgot to include that she takes very expensive trips at taxpayer expense. Ms. Uteck, you can appreciate my mood.

Does the $19 million figure shown here—and this amount is higher, given that we do not have the departmental amounts, etc.—include the costs of your lieutenant-governors, who are located in every province throughout Canada?

And then, like any good company or any good father would do, have you determined whether or not, in your organization, there were any opportunities to cut out the fat? I think that this would be a good thing.

Finally, before you answer, I would like to tell you that I will be voting against providing you with an additional $200,000. As far as your computer system is concerned, I think that you can wait a few months and have this expenditure built into your next budget.

Ms. Barbara Uteck: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the first question about the provincial lieutenant-governors, I would clarify that we do not have any responsibilities in that area. Heritage Canada and their respective provinces pay for their costs.

As for your second question, namely, whether there is some fat and whether we are trying to cut it out...

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: There is one "whether" too many. You should say that there is some.

Ms. Barbara Uteck: I would say that we always examine the budget and we always try to do our best to ensure that our expenditures lead to concrete results. We try to find ways to do things as efficiently and as reasonably as possible.

[English]

The Chair: Just if I may, I'll make a comment, since Mr. Perron has appropriately raised the issue of the $200,000 and the carry-forward. This is actually a change that was applied to members of Parliament as well. Members will recall that we used to have to spend it or lose it, so that latitude was put in. This is kind of interesting. It's almost a question of members having 5% of their budget to carry over to the next year and then having someone come in during the following year and say they've just decided to take it away.

I think the principle of the carry-forward has been well established by Treasury Board as being appropriate so decisions as to the timing and the proper scheduling of expenditures, etc., do not make you make maybe improper or unwise decisions in terms of forcing something through. If members could, just reflect as we talk about these things that the nature of the carry-forward is that it is not effectively an increase in anything, but rather a continuation of an ongoing operation.

Á (1140)

Ms. Barbara Uteck: If I might, Mr. Chair, I'll speak with relation to what Mr. Perron said. Obviously, if we hadn't been going to call on the carry-forward, we would have had to make some extremely difficult decisions, not to cut back but to cut something we felt was essential to the delivery of the Governor General's program.

The Chair: Chances are you would have spent the money before and have had no carry-forward, and the question would be moot. That's the whole issue.

Mr. Martin, please.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. How much time are we given?

The Chair: Oh, we're generous today. Carry on. The members here seem to be very patient when the line of questioning is relevant and constructive, etc., so we're really allowing a lot of latitude today.

Mr. Pat Martin: I get your point: as long as it's relevant, right?

The Chair: Please. You did really well last time. I think we're expecting good things this time too.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you very much, Ms. Uteck, for being here.

At the last steering committee we moved a motion that called for undertaking a study of the budget and estimates of the Office of the Governor General and the estimated spending of any other agency spending money in support of the Office of the Governor General in the context of whether that money was in keeping with the mandate of the Governor General. The operative words at the end of that motion were about dealing with “the mandate of the Governor General”.

In the United Kingdom from time to time they have a review of the role and function of the royal family and the monarchy and, more pertinently, how much they're willing to spend for that. It comes up and the debate takes place without rancour and without malice. They have that debate and in the end so far they've always said yes, we value having a royal family, but here's how much we're willing to spend, a fixed amount.

We've never had that debate, to my knowledge, in this country, and my questions are around that. I know you can't speak on behalf of the Governor General herself, but that is what I'm advocating and that's what our motion reads.

Do you think that it's timely and appropriate for Canadians to debate what the role and expectations are for our Governor General in 2004, as opposed to 1804, and how much it is going to cost? Then, in an estimate process such as one held before this committee, you would submit--she would submit, the Office of the Governor General would submit--a plan saying here's what we intend to do this year and here's how much it's going to cost, letting this committee deal with it as a true estimate instead of a comment after the fact. Do you have any thoughts on the importance of having that debate now in Canada?

Ms. Barbara Uteck: Mr. Chair, it would not be appropriate for me to comment personally, but what I would say nonetheless is that you are well within your rights as parliamentarians and Canadian citizens to have that debate. I would also say that the office is more than willing to cooperate and to assist you in providing any information whatsoever with respect to the budget and the expenses and how they relate to the Governor General's mandate. We're more than willing to assist you in any possible way.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's good. You're as close as we can come to speaking to the Office of the Governor General.

Á (1145)

Ms. Barbara Uteck: I would say so.

Mr. Pat Martin: This is why I put this question to you. That's as close as we're going to get.

We've just gone through ten years of brutal budgetary cutbacks, ten years of program review, of cutting and hacking and slashing of every social program we hold dear in this country. Yet in that same period of time, the Office of the Governor General's spending--and you can argue whether we got value or not--increased dramatically, some would say doubled, some would say tripled when you include all the other spending that goes in support of the Office of the Governor General.

Let me expand a little. In my riding, an inner-city riding of Winnipeg, there's one program I just couldn't help; it closed. It's a $5,000 program to teach inner-city, low-income moms about nutrition and early childhood development, an eight-week program; $5,000 was the total cost. We couldn't find that anywhere, after months of trying, so it's gone. That one circumpolar tour would have paid for 1,000 of those programs in every town, village, and community in the country. It's a class issue for me and for a lot of Canadians. We were tightening our belts and trying to fight the deficit, and your office was spiralling out of control in spending--or without control.

Our Governor General did nothing wrong. Nobody is making any aspersions. We think she's an activist Governor General, and I accept that she's done probably three times the trips that the previous Governors General have. But can you sense the frustration people feel when we're told to tighten our belts and two departments of government, the National Literacy Secretariat and the Office of the Governor General, went up and up during that time?

Would you care to comment on that?

Ms. Barbara Uteck: My understanding is that the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General also lived through the program review period, where there was clearly no new money available to do anything.

Mr. Pat Martin: Where is the evidence of the restraint? I certainly haven't seen it since I've been here. Well, I guess it did remain constant during the mid-1990s under Roméo LeBlanc.

Ms. Barbara Uteck: And Mr. Hnatyshyn, that's right.

Mr. Pat Martin: So it's only spiked wildly since this Governor General took office.

Ms. Barbara Uteck: There was a possibility government-wide to address certain realities, such as collective agreements. There was a salary increase as a--

Mr. Pat Martin: That doesn't double or triple the global budget.

Ms. Barbara Uteck: No, but it is a substantial amount.

Mr. Pat Martin: The staff increased by 30 or 40 as well, did it not, from 120 to 160, roughly?

Ms. Barbara Uteck: The staff did increase, but I think you have to bear in mind that there were stated objectives by this Governor General to reach out to Canadians and--

Mr. Pat Martin: Not stated specifically.

Ms. Barbara Uteck: There was also, as I mentioned in my statement, a requirement to modernize the office and to address certain health and safety deficiencies. A responsible manager can't have people working in conditions that are a violation of health and safety codes, so those things did have to be addressed.

What I'm saying is that there were reasons for the increases you have mentioned.

Mr. Pat Martin: The public perception is that for whatever reason, the costs of having a Governor General spiralled dramatically during a period when we were sucking it up and tightening our belts and going through some really difficult times as a country.

I'm with Mr. Perron; I'm going to be voting against this $200,000. Even if it is carry-over, it's a symbolic thing for me. I moved a motion in the last year to reduce the budget of the Governor General by $1 as a symbolic gesture. It was defeated, but somehow we want to get the point across that we want to have the debate about the role of the Governor General in Canada in 2004, in this century, in this post-1982 context. Symbolically, we want to see some evidence of efforts to show restraint, when we've all been showing restraint. So I'll support Mr. Perron. I believe later today we'll be voting on the supplementary estimates of the Office of the Governor General, and I'll be voting against the $200,000 carry-over, as it were.

Thank you.

Á (1150)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Ms. Barbara Uteck: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, if I might just make a comment, the Governor General has a mandate to carry out, and that is what all the expenses are in support of.

Mr. Pat Martin: Nobody's accusing her of doing anything wrong.

Ms. Barbara Uteck: She, like you, hears about and is told about situations and issues that are difficult for Canadians. She does not have a mandate to address them.

Mr. Pat Martin: No, certainly not. I didn't mean to imply that, if I did.

Do we have a quorum here?

The Chair: Yes, we do. For witnesses it's three, Pat.

Monsieur Perron.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Mr. Chairman, I do not care whether or not we have a quorum.

[English]

The Chair: For a witness, we have quorum.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: My comment is for you. In listening to the people who are here this morning to make a presentation, I am experiencing the most painful moments I've had since 1997, when I was elected. Mr. Chairman, I'm neither for nor against the Governor General of Canada. However, when I hear this woman speak on behalf of the Governor General of Canada, I see a film replaying in my head. I see the Governor General with her horses and her carriage, going around the world and spending millions of dollars. This may be normal, but when I go back to my riding, I see children who do not have any breakfast in the morning before they set off to school and they have trouble assimilating what their teachers are telling them and they have difficulty learning.

Mr. Chairman, I'm offended. That makes me sick. I have the heaves and I feel like throwing up. Mr. Chairman, you will excuse me, but I think that I will finish my fit outside.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mrs. Yelich.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Thank you.

I would just like to thank our guests. Although there is the perception that our Governor General's office is expensive, I would like to say we do have a very classy Governor General. I think she does a very good job. Perhaps we have to review her mandate, but I do think we have a very fine Governor General.

The Chair: Thank you kindly.

Monsieur Gaudet.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Gaudet: This will not take very long. Your initial budget was allocated on April 1, 2003 and, in November, you were to do another budget. Did you increase your budget in November?

Ms. JoAnn MacKenzie: No.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: So why are being asked how much money you have to spend? This is what Ms. MacKenzie said earlier in her comment. She said that the department was asking you how much money you still had and what your estimates were for November, whether or not you were short any money, or if you had too much.

Á (1155)

Ms. JoAnn MacKenzie: Mr. Gaudet, I could provide you with a bit of background on our budget this year. As for the 2003-2004 budget, when I said “no” in the update, in the fall, that meant that we were not requesting an increase in budget for 2004-2005.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: So these were the estimates for 2004-2005 and not the estimates to complete the current year.

Ms. JoAnn MacKenzie: We are currently dealing with two fiscal years. First of all, there are the final supplementary estimates for 2003-2004. This is the $200,000 for 2003-2004. There are also the main estimates for 2004-2005, which is not being reviewed today. If you are asking me whether or not there will be a budget increase for next year, the answer is no. We have not requested a budget increase for next year.

The $200,000 amount in our supplementary estimates reflects a surplus that was run in the fiscal year 2002-2003. As the chair explained, there is a mechanism to fund projects that we were not able to complete in another year, such as in 2002-2003. Instead of trying to hurry up and spend the money, as we used to do, when we had all that madness at the end of the fiscal year, we carried on with our projects without being able to complete them.

We are therefore requesting that the operating budget be carried over. We are seeking your approval for the $200,000 amount in order to complete our projects in this fiscal year.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: You are telling me that this was in fact for the year 2002-2003.

Ms. JoAnn MacKenzie: There was a surplus that year.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: What was the amount of the surplus?

Ms. JoAnn MacKenzie: There was a surplus of approximately $350,000.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: Out of this $350,000 amount, you are requesting $200,000 for this year.

Ms. JoAnn MacKenzie: That's right.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: I understand your system, but I did not think that you could go back two years. I am newly elected and I know that our year ends on March 31. On April 1, we will have such and such an amount for the rest...

Ms. JoAnn MacKenzie: The chairman explained the system very well when he said the Treasury Board wanted to set up a process to encourage departments to spend well. Before that, the departments tried to avoid a surplus at the end of the fiscal year, especially during the last quarter. I am not saying that that is what we used to do, but still it was an approach that all the large departments could use: they spent during the last quarter of the financial year, maybe even without a plan.

As far as we are concerned, we wanted to ensure that we spent with plan in hand, but despite that, we did not manage to finish our projects. You also have to think about planning and timing for the approval of funds. Often, the funds are not in the final supplementary estimates; they are transferred to the departments only at the end of the financial year.

As we are a small organization, when the time comes to manage the availability of funds, despite the comments, I must make sure that the funds are available to do everything. At that point, it often becomes risk management.

Â (1200)

Mr. Roger Gaudet: I will turn the question around. If in 2002-2003, you had had a $125,000 deficit, what would your reaction have been here this morning?

Ms. JoAnn MacKenzie: We cannot go beyond the estimate.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: What impresses me is that you noticed this a year later. We are talking about the 2002-2003 estimate and we are already in 2004-2005.

Ms. JoAnn MacKenzie: Mr. Chairman, our 2002-2003 estimates were up on March 31, 2003. So we ran the calculations during the summer of 2003. The only mechanism that we, the departments, have to access those funds is through the two fiscal years. In the fall, we did not have access to those funds because the supplementary estimates were reserved for major special projects. So the only year available was this one. That is why there is such a gap in the timing.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a little comment. I think it is a bit funny that there is no one from the Liberal Party here except you, Mr. Chairman. It is an enormous disappointment even though they are over at the Public Accounts Committee, because I think that what is going on here is important, since we are here. Later on, they will say that they did not hear anything, that they do not know anything just like it is the case now for the sponsorship affair. They have not heard anything, they are deaf. When the time comes to get down to business, they are gone, they are out of town. Anyway, I am very disappointed by their lack of participation and I hope that you will tell them so for me. If you do not tell them, I will do it myself.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

I agree with you, Monsieur Gaudet. Unfortunately, the public accounts committee is attracting a lot more attention, and we have four of our permanent members of the committee over there. It's unfortunate that these two committees meet at the same time, but your point is well taken. If people can't be here, they should be arranging for substitutes, so that we show due respect to the witnesses, etc.

I apologize to our witnesses. There is certainly no intent, and it certainly has nothing to do with you. As a matter of fact, I would have expected the place to be packed.

Anyway, we are going to move on, because we are going to have one more group and we are going to have witnesses. I think everyone who is going to start talking about carry-forwards ought to understand that the decision on a carry-forward sometimes is beyond the control of the department that has that amount. As an example, you could enter into a contract to do some work that was approved, and the supplier may not be able to get delivery or provide the full amount of the service, and they may go over the year end. Therefore, they can't bill you for it, and it has nothing to do with you, it's just that a supplier couldn't meet a deadline or whatever.

I think Ms. Uteck or Ms. MacKenzie would agree that the $200,000 actually is a net figure, not simply all going one way. There are real world things that go on, pluses and minuses, and you couldn't possibly fit everything into April 1 to March 31 precisely, to start on or finish by. So I would like to caution members to think about the whole aspect of a carry-forward. It's why the rules were changed for members of Parliament, to make sure we didn't have to figure out to the penny how much we had left in our budgets at any point in time, not knowing what was already processed through the accounts, etc. It is good business practice. I think that's been established by Treasury Board.

Ms. Uteck, I must admit, Mr. Martin has raised a point that really puts things in perspective. I know it's very difficult for an office that in fact is associated with pomp and ceremony to show restraint. I don't know how you show restraint in pomp and ceremony when that is the job. Maybe you just walk instead of taking the carriage. It's sort of artificial. But I think this is an issue we need to explore a little more. What are the kinds of things that people would expect a Governor General, for instance, to do at a time of restraint? What would be an appropriate thing to do or not do? How is that reflected even in the statements that might be made by a Governor General at times of difficulty or restraint, or if we should be in a recession, for instance?

We do have a concept called royal prerogative, I'm told, which is the reason a Governor General cannot appear before a committee. We have an ongoing relationship. The Governor General's office is associated with this committee. This committee has, I believe, been very responsible in discharging its activities and very much values building the relationships with the departments with which we have relationships, and that includes the GG's office. I would like to ask you, on behalf of the committee, whether you would make the necessary inquiries as to whether committee members who wish to do so could come and visit and have an audience with the Governor General to talk informally about matters that have been raised. I think, from the members' perspective, it may be helpful to deal with the office and with the resident of the Governor General's office at the time, maybe to establish the relationship a little further in ways we can't now under our rules. This may help us to better appreciate the ebbs and flows within that very unique office, and maybe to share the sensitivities Mr. Martin has spoken of here.

I don't know whether the Governor General will have heard this. It might be very difficult even if she read it. She may not have heard the passion or the sensitivity of a couple of members here, but she may have that opportunity if she wishes. I would ask you to consider accepting our request, at an appropriate time, to have an audience with the Governor General, if that would be possible.

Â (1205)

Ms. Barbara Uteck: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that would be very possible, and I will certainly speak to the Governor General about it. Certainly members of Parliament, as are all other Canadians, are always welcome at Rideau Hall. The Governor General would, I think, be very pleased to hear the kinds of comments that were made this morning, and be very pleased to have a chance to speak with you and hear what the members have to say, and have an opportunity to share with you some of her observations about what she sees when she meets with Canadians across the country.

The Chair: Thank you very kindly. We appreciate your consideration and we thank you very much for your presentation, which has been very helpful and will help us think a little more as we move forward to our other project, which is basically the study of the operational activities and the mandate of the Governor General's office. We hope this will itself prove to be an important public education document. And I've found that public education is always a part of the solution to most problems.

Thank you very kindly, and we look forward to our next meeting.

Ms. Barbara Uteck: Thank you. I look forward to it as well. Thank you very much. Merci.

The Chair: We'll suspend for a moment while we bring in our last witness.

Â (1207)

Â (1214)

The Chair: I would like to resume our consideration of the supplementary estimates.

We have with us right now, from Communication Canada, Mr. Guy Bédard, assistant executive director of public programs and services, and Chantale Cousineau-Mahoney, director general of corporate services and renewal office.

Welcome, and thank you kindly for allowing us to change our schedule. We were concerned that you may or may not be tied up. Time management has been somewhat difficult.

So let me welcome you to the review. We're going to entertain your brief presentation with regard to the supplementary estimates, and then I will be turning to the members for their questions and comments.

Before you commence, Mr. Bédard, Mr. Perron would like to say something.

Â (1215)

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Mr. Chairman, thank you for your sympathy and for listening. I want to apologize to you and my colleagues for my behaviour during the meeting we have just wound up, behaviour I personally think was uncouth.

On the other hand, you can understand my frustration when I hear people asking for a surplus in order to be able to accumulate money and spend it next year when there are poor people in my riding. I am saying from the bottom of my heart that it is hard to take morally, physically, intellectually and emotionally. I apologize and I thank you for not having called me to order. I also apologize to my colleagues. I am not apologizing for my behaviour but because I upset you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Perron. I think what you've told us is that you in fact are a sensitive human being. We understand it, and we appreciate your sharing with us on that. It's understandable, from time to time.

Monsieur Bédard, please.

Mr. Guy Bédard (Assistant Executive Director, Public Programs and Services, Communication Canada): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,

[Translation]

My colleagues and I welcome this opportunity to provide you with information on Communication Canada and to describe the initiatives that are included in the supplementary estimates for the organization.

The mandate of Communication Canada is to improve communications between the Government of Canada and Canadians. We seek to achieve that mandate through a variety of programs, services and initiatives which together represent an integrated and comprehensive communications effort on behalf of the government as a whole, organized around the needs and interests of the public.

Communication Canada is fulfilling its mandate by listening to Canadians through public opinion research, ensuring access to relevant and reliable information where they live, informing Canadians on the programs, services and access channels available to them and providing direct access to government information and services whether by telephone, through the 1-800-O-Canada call centre, by Internet through the Canada site, or in person through attendance at exhibitions. We also provide corporate communications support across government through such services as Publiservice, and coordination of advertising and public opinion research activities.

[English]

This fiscal year, Communication Canada has a budget of $141 million. This includes funding to be received following supplementary estimates (B). Communication Canada supplementary estimates (B) include four elements: first, $7.2 million for an operating budget carry-forward; second, $3.4 million for the anticipated operational deficit of the Canada Gazette and Canadian Government Publishing; third, $1 million for the Government of Canada online publications project, known as the E-Bookstore; and finally, a reduction of $1.7 million in transfer payments from the departmental contribution to the $1 billion government relocation exercise.

[Translation]

The continuation of these communication initiatives will reinforce the success achieved to date. These programs will continue to foster a corporate, whole-of-government approach to communications by providing access to Government of Canada information to citizens at a national, regional and local level.

[English]

Generated by savings in 2002-03, the operating budget carry forward of $7.2 million has been dedicated to strengthening Communication Canada's infrastructure and systems. We have built robust systems and tools that will continue to serve the communications functions of the Government of Canada for years to come.

Included in the $3.4 million received for the anticipated operational deficit of the Canada Gazette and Canadian Government Publishing is $1.2 million of integrated funding for the Canada Gazette. This funding was approved by Treasury Board on October 23, 2003.

The net amount received by Communication Canada in supplementary estimates (B) is $1,104,527, excluding $65,550 for the employee benefit plan and $42,608 for accommodation.

[Translation]

The online version of the Government of Canada's official newspaper has had official status since April 1, 2003. Canadians and the legal community can now use the online version of parts I, II and III of the Canada Gazette in legal proceedings and the tribunals will take cognizance ex officio. The paper and online versions are published simultaneously. The PDF version is an exact copy of the paper version.

Â (1220)

[English]

Government publishing is receiving integrated funding of $2,487,315 to cover the operational deficit and to maintain a high level of access to publications of interest to Canadians.

The net amount received by Communication Canada in supplementary estimates (B) is $2,265,473, excluding $124,000 for the employee benefit plan and $87,392 for accommodation.

The Government of Canada publications online E-Bookstore project is an initiative that is designed to leverage publishing, marketing, and cataloguing expertise in the publishing and depository services directorate to create one-stop shopping for all Government of Canada publications. This initiative, which started in fiscal year 2001-02, is expected to be fully completed by the end of 2004-05.

We have successfully implemented the processing of online transactions through the Government of Canada publications website. The implementation of the online transaction processing has been accomplished by incorporating the Receiver General's “buy” button on the Government of Canada publications website. Through this new service, all Canadians and other clients now have the ability to browse and order Government of Canada publications through the Internet. Customers can use the shopping cart function of the Government of Canada publications website and order publications of their choice by using their credit cards. Their orders are processed and shipped to the address provided by the customer.

The final item is self-explanatory. It is the final portion, $1.7 million, of a $3 million contribution to the $1 billion reallocation exercise.

As you know, Mr. Chair, the Government of Canada has announced machinery changes that will affect our organization. Effective March 31, 2004, our programs and services will be moved to Public Works and Government Services Canada and PCO.

That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Bédard.

Mr. Forseth, please.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

Your last comment is my first question, in that we're told that Communication Canada as an entity will be closed. I asked a question in the House about why then they are asking for $9.8 million, and the minister said it was for closing costs. Perhaps you can explain that.

We do know that a lot of the internal activities of Communication Canada have to continue. I would like a breakdown as to where those activities are going to be centred. The Gazette still has to come out. What's going to happen to that storefront operation on Wellington, and to a whole bunch of other things? So if Communication Canada is going to end, maybe you can explain that, and what you really mean by that.

As well, perhaps you could tell us where then all of these activities are going to be farmed out to, so that we know the lines of accountability. For further budget appropriation and committee approval, we need to see where it's going, in a transparent way, and not see it buried.

So let's get around that particular issue first.

Mr. Guy Bédard: As you know, on December 13 the Prime Minister announced the cancellation of the sponsorship program and the disbanding of Communication Canada. Since then we have been working with colleagues in the government to make proposals to the Prime Minister in terms of how we should ensure the continuity of some of the most critical programs and services of Communication Canada.

Last week the Prime Minister essentially approved a proposal that will transfer all of the programs and services that are common communications services to PWGS effective April 1. So Communication Canada still has a life up to March 31, which is why in supplementary estimates (B) it's under the Communication Canada name.

Because those programs were identified as being very important for Canadians, they are going to be maintained, and there will not be a disruption in services for Canadians on April 1.

Â (1225)

Mr. Paul Forseth: So Communication Canada previously was a branch or a separate unit under Treasury Board, is that how it was?

Mr. Guy Bédard: Communication Canada was created in September 2001, and it was a merger of the Canada Information Office, CIO, and a branch of Public Works, the Communications Coordination Services Branch. Those two organizations were merged to create Communication Canada in September 2001.

Mr. Paul Forseth: So it's all going back to Public Works, is it?

Mr. Guy Bédard: Most of it is going back to Public Works, the communications services, as I said. A portion of Communication Canada will be going to the Privy Council Office. Those are essentially what we call the strategic communications services. That will include our regional network of offices across Canada. That will include as well analysis of public opinion research, media analysis, and a communications operational support unit that we used to have.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Interesting.

The Chair: This is a union job. He controls the mikes.

Mr. Paul Forseth: There must be some documents, then, that clearly outline all of what you've briefly described, so I could read it on a piece of paper. Perhaps you could provide that to the committee.

It's very interesting that operational stuff is going to PCO. Why doesn't it all go to Public Works? Can you help us with that particular question?

Mr. Guy Bédard: First, I'd like to apologize. There was a glitch in making copies of my remarks, but we have provided an original to the clerk, and it's going to be distributed.

As I said, the principle that was established was that in order to support the corporate communication activities led, to some extent, by PCO, the units that are more relevant to that, for example, the regional network of offices, will be value-added for PCO with regard to getting intelligence, coordinating federal departments at the regional level, making sure that in communications of the Government of Canada, we care about talking to Canadians in a language and with symbols that are relevant for them where they live.

Mr. Paul Forseth: As a case example, that storefront operation here on Wellington was part of Communication Canada, was it not?

Mr. Guy Bédard: No. On Wellington Street?

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes.

Mr. Guy Bédard: There is the Tourism Bureau for the Ottawa region. Is that what you mean, just in front of the Parliament, at the corner of Metcalfe?

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, but I thought it was operated by a federal department.

Mr. Guy Bédard: Are you talking about the outlet at the corner of Metcalfe and Wellington?

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes.

Mr. Guy Bédard: That's the National Capital Commission tourism office.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay.

I'm just trying to figure out, really, what this whole announcement or shuffle is. We know that CCSB at Public Works was the issue of concern at public accounts and that it operated somehow as a rogue unit for a while, unaccountable to any kind of parliamentary appropriations. Now all this stuff is going back where it came from. I'm trying to understand the rationale for this.

Mr. Guy Bédard: The rationale is essentially that most of the services that will go to Public Works, the 800 O-Canada call centre, the portal for the Government of Canada, Canada.gc.ca, the Gazette, publishing, copyright, the exhibition program, are what I would call common communication services for the overall Government of Canada, and Public Works is a common services organization of the Government of Canada. So there was a good fit there. Some of the services came from Public Works, as you mentioned, two years ago. They will be part of a new branch reporting directly to the deputy minister, called Government Information Services Branch. Essentially, it will provide this family of communication services to the government clientele, because we support the communications of other departments, and to Canadians with the online, the 800 O-Canada, the Canada.gc.ca, and so on.

Â (1230)

Mr. Paul Forseth: This exhibition program you mentioned, is that the new form of the old sponsorship program?

Mr. Guy Bédard: No. The exhibition program has been in place for four years. It has two components. One is the Canada Pavilion, which brings together a series of departments at major fairs and exhibits across Canada, the Calgary Stampede, l'Expo Québec in Quebec, the Festival of Lights in Charlottetown, and so on. The second component is making sure the different departments are all together at any event. We call this the coordination of federal presence, ensuring that we have the same look and feel and that people can easily see what are the services and the programs of the Government of Canada.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'm out of time. I'll defer to a colleague.

The Chair: Mr. Perron.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good day, Mr. Bédard.

Mr. Guy Bédard: Good day.

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Welcome to the committee. Mr. Bédard, I'd like to know the title of your position at Communication Canada.

Mr. Guy Bédard: I am the assistant executive director of what is called Public Programs and Services.

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Unfortunately, you gave us no document. For people working in communications, that's not very good. That's just a little aside to begin with.

I'd like to know what the total budget of Communication Canada is and how much you're asking for in the way of supplementary estimates. You have told us already but I just don't remember.

Mr. Guy Bédard: This year's budget is $141 million and I think the supplementary amount is $10 million.

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Indeed!

Mr. Guy Bédard: It's included in the $141-million amount.

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: That's a lot. You'll certainly understand the concern I have with Communication Canada. It is recognized, known and said that you are, if I may say, the fathers of the sponsorship scandal. That can't be denied. In your famous document on how to communicate better in Canada, mention was even made of certain journalists that it was preferable to see and invite as they were favourable to your option. The objective of Communication Canada—and here I am repeating the words of Mr. Chrétien and not those of any ordinary citizen—was to make war on the those big bad Quebec separatists. And you want me today to agree to grant you an extra $10 million? I find that hard to swallow.

Mr. Guy Bédard: I will proceed step by step. As I mentioned, Communication Canada was set up in September 2001. In fact, at that time, certain components of the Canada Information Bureau as well as from the Communications Coordination Services Branch, which included the Sponsorship Program, joined Communication Canada. The organization then started restructuring itself along the lines of a real department, redefining its programs and setting up a framework for action and results. If you read the Auditor General's report, you will see that on page 31, she recognizes very clearly the progress accomplished by Communication Canada concerning the management of all communication activities. In my opinion, she is noting that we implemented governance and control mechanisms to ensure that the funds were going where they were allocated.

We should also keep in mind that Communication Canada is a corporate communication organization and that, in that respect, it adopted a mixed marketing formula. It was based on public opinion research, publicity, sponsorship, direct information services to all Canadians—through the 1-800 line and the website—as well as on all mechanisms allowing it to determine on an ongoing basis whether the results of the programs met the objectives set out. I am of the opinion that in that respect, the Auditor General explicitly recognized the progress which was accomplished.

Â (1235)

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: She recognized it for 10 or 15 per cent of the programs. On the other hand, I am not against the 1-800 number, which is quite a tool. I am against where all that was located. It was a shambles, if you do not mind my saying so. The money was promenading left and right. I do not know how, but that is what happened. If a simple member can make a suggestion, I would suggest a name change to get rid of your very bad reputation. You are the only ones to have acquired that bad reputation.

Mr. Guy Bédard: I would like to emphasize that we restructured the Sponsorship Program from top to bottom. For the year ending, we were present at over 800 events in all regions of Canada. About 60 to 65 per cent of those events were sponsored to the tune of less than $10,000. So those events were essentially sponsored by community groups, groups who celebrate their belonging to a community, who celebrate part of their heritage and so on. Six months later, we also did an evaluation to see whether the adjustments we had brought in were bearing fruit. The indications from that evaluation were rather positive.

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: It should also be added that the sponsorships existed before that and they cost the taxpayers $130 million. That money was thrown away on all kinds of things and it has to be pointed out. I congratulate you for the efforts you are making to remake your image but, by God, you do have a tough row to hoe, especially in Quebec. It is especially tough to hoe that row in Quebec. Unfortunately, besides that, the problems you had—whether they were caused by Quebeckers or not—tarnished the reputation of all politicians and residents of Quebec. We are seen as fraud artists everywhere in Canada. Thanks to you, all of Canada is under the impression that we Quebeckers are political scammers. A lot of the fault for that lies with the father of your organization, my dear friend. You are the father of the whole mess.

Mr. Guy Bédard: Is the son a criminal because his father was?

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: The son might not be a criminal but he's going to have to prove certain things to get rid of the bad reputation he inherited because of his father's actions. That's why I suggested earlier on that you change your name.

Mr. Guy Bédard: I have carefully noted your suggestion.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Bédard.

I too am concerned with a line of questioning in question period, and I'm sure you took note of it, where people were asking about this very supplementary estimate. Is it $9 million or $10 million? I don't have any paperwork with me on this particular presentation.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy Bédard: It's 9.9 million... 10 million... Is that it?

Â (1240)

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin: Okay. Fair enough. Round it off to the nearest million.

The President of the Treasury Board answered that a lot of this cost is for the closing up of the sponsorship scandal. Then it was revealed that part of what they call closing costs is that since December 12, since the new cabinet was sworn in and the new Prime Minister took over, money has still been flowing to Groupe Everest, to Boulay, who also owns Media IDA. How, in all good conscience, can we still be giving money to these guys, who are so clearly key players in the theft of the hundreds of millions of dollars? I don't mind calling them thieves, because our research has them fully implicated. By what madness are we still handing over cheques to Groupe Everest, knowing what we now know? Can you explain that at all to me, and how much money has gone to Groupe Everest since the scandal was supposed to be frozen?

Mr. Guy Bédard: I am going to answer for Communication Canada on this misunderstanding, this $10 million being for the closing of Communication Canada.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's what Reg Alcock said.

Mr. Guy Bédard: Yes, I understand that, but it's essentially the continuation of the program that we undertook for the E-Bookstore, government publishing, and so on.

Mr. Pat Martin: Is Groupe Everest one of the pre-qualified contractors for the delivery of those programs?

Mr. Guy Bédard: No. Communication Canada has not issued any contract with Groupe Everest since March 2003.

I understand that Groupe Everest was still the communication agency of Heritage Canada, up to last week.

Mr. Pat Martin: Cheques have still been paid through Public Works, and I presume all Public Works advertising communications go through your office, so I'm surprised to learn that.

Mr. Guy Bédard: It hasn't been done yet.

Again, I think it's important to keep in mind that we are Communication Canada until March 31, and Communication Canada hasn't done business with Groupe Everest over the last year.

Mr. Pat Martin: Do you know Roger Collet?

Mr. Guy Bédard: I know the name.

Mr. Pat Martin: What did he used to do? Chuck Guité would handle one side of the communication stuff--

Mr. Guy Bédard: That's past history.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, but what was Roger Collet's position?

Mr. Guy Bédard: I think he was the first head of the Canada Information Office back in 1995.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's right. He was the guy who gave $5 million to fight the separatists in Quebec--that whole scandal. I remember that now.

I have a specific question--I have very little time. Do you have a relationship with Compass Communications, out of Halifax?

Mr. Guy Bédard: Compass Communications, up to July 3, 2002, was one of the qualified communication agencies for the sponsorship program. As you know, when Minister Goodale was appointed the minister responsible for Communication Canada, he imposed a moratorium. At the end of the moratorium, he put in place an interim sponsorship program. One of the major changes was that we would not use the communication agencies any more--

Mr. Pat Martin: Except for Groupe Everest, which you continued to use until March 2003, and continue to hand cheques to today.

Mr. Guy Bédard: On Groupe Everest, I think it's important to make a distinction. Groupe Everest was also one of the qualified communication agencies for the sponsorship--

Mr. Pat Martin: It sure was.

Mr. Guy Bédard: --so we stopped that.

Mr. Pat Martin: It was one of a privileged few.

Mr. Guy Bédard: But Groupe Everest could have been assigned as a communication agency of a department through a competitive process for advertising.

Mr. Pat Martin: I would like to ask you to help me table a document specifically. If you could deliver it to the clerk, it could then be circulated.

Compass Communication received $2.3 million for the Pan Am Games in Winnipeg in 1999. The Pan Am Games people are now saying they only received $620,000. Can you investigate that for me, bring back any paperwork related to Compass Communications and the Pan Am Games in Winnipeg, and table that with us? I'm having a hard time getting to the truth of this. As the director, I think you would be the right person to access that information for me.

Â (1245)

Mr. Guy Bédard: Yes and no--I don't know how the committee works in that regard. Those are Public Works and Government Services Canada files.

Mr. Pat Martin: And you're not...?

Mr. Guy Bédard: I'm not yet. I will be in Public Works starting April 1, so in terms of requests, I don't know if your committee can ask the other department to provide this.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'd like to ask you if you could arrange to do that for us, because it's the Minister of Public Works who answers all questions about communications.

Mr. Guy Bédard: That's the same minister, I agree with you.

Mr. Pat Martin: You share the same minister.

Mr. Guy Bédard: Okay.

Mr. Pat Martin: Maybe through that route, if you could find out what happened to the rest of the money that was supposed to go to the Pan Am Games, that went to the president of the Liberal Party in Nova Scotia...Compass Communications.... I'd be very interested in knowing that.

Mr. Guy Bédard: I will certainly refer the question to my colleagues at Public Works.

Mr. Pat Martin: Is it safe to say that if we vote in favour of this $10 million, some of that money will still go to Groupaction, Groupe Everest, Gosselin, Coffin, Compass, Lafleur, or Media IDA?

Mr. Guy Bédard: Not at all. Those dollars are essentially for government services that we do. So that money is for the operating deficit of the Canada Gazette. With the online services there's been a reduction in revenues, given the fact that Canadians can now get the Canada Gazette officially through the Internet. It's also for the development of the E-Bookstore, so it's internal.

Mr. Pat Martin: So you can guarantee me that if I vote in favour of this in 20 minutes, not one penny will go to any of these sponsorship--

Mr. Guy Bédard: I can guarantee that.

Mr. Pat Martin: Good, thank you--and if you would get that other information, because we're having difficulty--

Mr. Guy Bédard: I will follow up on that request, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: In your comments, you mentioned that the sponsorship program has ended, yet the funding of those kinds of activities is still continuing. Maybe you call it something else. You have the exhibit program, which is somewhat similar. Then there's obviously continuing advertising that's going on. I'm trying to figure out if we have changed the name but not changed the substance. Help us.

For example, when we go to our major NHL hockey rinks, there is a Canada sign on the boards. I think it costs in the nature of $175,000 a year to have the word “Canada” on a hockey board in our Canadian NHL teams. I take it that was part of the visibility of sponsorship. I take it that some of that stuff is still continuing. Can you explain to me what it is called and what has changed?

Mr. Guy Bédard: On the sponsorship front, when the announcement was made on December 13, the government also committed to fulfill all the commitments it had taken before December 13. This means that there are a certain number of events across Canada that are taking place in March of this year that had been sponsored. We will close those files according to the commitment that we made before December 13, and that's the end of the sponsorship program. There is no funding next year for the sponsorship program, so you should not see this again, not from the department.

Â (1250)

Mr. Pat Martin: Drive a stake through its heart.

Mr. Guy Bédard: In terms of the fairs and exhibits, essentially we rent space at major exhibits and we bring with us different departments. Those departments are the ones that are more relevant to the people who will be visiting these fairs and exhibits. Canadians, in all the research we have done, are looking for information on the programs and the services of the Government of Canada. It is ongoing. It's part of their needs. They want to know more, and the exhibitions also allow them to talk to a real person, to talk to a specialist in a given area and so on. That's what we will continue to do.

Are we going to go there with the Canada wordmark? For sure. That's our corporation. We are the Government of Canada, so we will go with a look and feel that is going to be the Government of Canada.

In terms of advertising, you referred to the Canada wordmark on the skating rink boards. The reference you made was to something that was done previously through the sponsorship program, before the interim program, and before the new program that has been put in place. That was another way to promote--

Mr. Paul Forseth: Will that kind of spending continue, under some kind of a new name?

Mr. Guy Bédard: That kind of spending will not continue unless we want to reach Canadians and explain the new policy of the Government of Canada as part of the different marketing mix that we're going to use. If we decide that we will use jumbotrons in arenas, and so on, in order to reach out as part of using TV, using print and so on--

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay. So in the long list we saw, there is a French festival that occurs every year in my riding. The Festival du Bois celebrates French culture in the riding of New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby that goes back to the turn of the century. This society has always managed to get federal funding in support of their festival.

The Western Lacrosse Association has also been able to get federal money, almost on an annual basis, for the support of amateur lacrosse. Also, as lacrosse is the official summer sport of Canada, the national hall of fame of lacrosse is in my riding, so certainly that museum should be able to get some money.

In this great bundle of material we saw yesterday, we listed hundreds of events, activities, concerts, jazz festivals, and all kinds of things across the country. Even small amounts are being funded. Is that all going to end, or is it going to continue under some naming program?

Mr. Guy Bédard: That's going to end, from the perspective of Communication Canada and our host department, Public Works.

You'll recall that on December 13 the Minister of Heritage said she would see how she could continue to support community events, cultural events, sporting events, and so on, through existing programs and budgets.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I missed that. Where is that going to come from?

Mr. Guy Bédard: Heritage Canada. I'm not suggesting it's going to come from there, but she is taking responsibility to see how she can do something through her existing programs and budgets.

Mr. Paul Forseth: The other concern has been the most recent Auditor General's report--I think it was in chapter one--which talked about the problems with government online as a concept, and the overall grand promises of what it was going to deliver.

When the Auditor General started looking for results--peer review, outside auditing of objectives versus dollar value--she had some pretty severe criticisms about still-divided authorities, divided accountabilities, silos of authority and accountability, and this whole concept of government online and one window. An overview plan isn't quite being delivered as originally contemplated.

Because of that, it seems there is a vortex sucking the dollars in an unending or unplanned way forever. It looks like we're heading into a black hole on this government online initiative. This involves communicating with Canadians and providing the portals for citizens and taxpayers to interact with their federal government.

Can you comment on the emerging difficulties that the Auditor General saw with government online?

Â (1255)

Mr. Guy Bédard: The only comment I can make from Communication Canada's perspective is on the projects that we have developed under this broad initiative: government online--essentially www.canada.gc.ca--and the E-Bookstore.

In section 1.79 of the Auditor General's report, she is very complimentary on how we have managed the resources and achieved the results. The E-Bookstore, for example, right now is functioning. With the receiver general button, you can buy publications from Communication Canada. You can order free publications, and so on. A project was defined there with specific results to be achieved, and it is in place.

The www.canada.gc.ca website has won awards for the last three years. It is recognized by the private sector as being a user-friendly and very useful way to access information on Government of Canada services and programs.

The Chair: Monsieur Gaudet, I apologize. I passed over your name.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Gaudet: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For the 2003-2004 estimates, the figure was $98 million. You added $28 million. Why that additional $28 million?

Mr. Guy Bédard: Communication Canada had three initiatives: the Exhibitions Program, the Citizens Information Initiative, which is a publicity program for the programs and services offered by the Canadian government and the Regional Coordination Initiative, which is our network of offices. Those estimates had initially been allocated for three years and they were renewed for one. We asked for the amount in order to keep those three programs going for another year. The Citizens Information Initiative was $19 million, the Exhibitions Program was $5 million and the Regional Coordination Initiative was about $6 million which rounds up to about $30 million. Your figure is a net one and probably does not include the offices and employee benefits.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: Fine.

You said before that the $10 million was included in the $141-million amount. If that is so, why are you coming back to see us or Treasury Board to ask to get them back? Usually, you don't come to ask us for permission to spend your money.

Ms. Chantale Cousineau-Mahoney (Director General, Corporate Services and Renewal Office, Communication Canada): It is because we first wanted to give you the total estimates and then explain to you what those $10 million included. It was to give you the total. But, in fact, we have $131 million and the $10 million are added to it for a total of $141 million.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: So it is $131 million.

Ms. Chantale Cousineau-Mahoney: That is it.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: Before, the gentleman said that it was included in the $141-million estimate.

Ms. Chantale Cousineau-Mahoney: Yes. We tried to simplify.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: But if Communication Canada disappears, where will the money go? Have we just saved $140 million or will the money be spread out over all the departments? Are we going to see the whole thing start all over again, with under-the-table sponsorships and so on?

Mr. Guy Bédard: The government clearly said there were savings of $40 million at the outset with the Sponsorship Program. So of those $140 million you see there are $40 million disappearing with the Sponsorship Program. As we're transferred both to the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada and to Privy Council, just as all departments do, we must undertake a program review to see if we can gain other efficiencies and save more money on top of the $40 million.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: One last question. Before 2001, you were at the Canada Information Office, if memory serves, and you were a part of the communications arm of Public Works and Government Services Canada. You were there before, you left there and now you're going to be going back there. That is called follow the bouncing ball.

· (1300)

Mr. Guy Bédard: That is called changing the way you do business, yes.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: Doing business or getting the business world all mixed up, I am not so sure.

Mr. Guy Bédard: In fact, the government agreed that there were different ways of engaging in corporate communications, and all services with a view to ensuring corporate communications will now come under Public Works and Government Services Canada, an organization which has that in its terms of reference.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very kindly, Monsieur Bédard. I appreciate your answers to some tough questions. I know it's a difficult time, and there are many things yet going on that affect people. We can't ever forget that there are very good people who work in the milieu of Communication Canada and are doing the best they can at a difficult time. We appreciate your frankness with us, and we hope some of these matters will resolve themselves, but that the good service, particularly from the call centre and the other important operations, continues, because it is in the best interests of Canadians.

Colleagues, we have until Monday, March 8--routine proceedings, at three o'clock--to table our report on the estimates. I will be polling the members for a brief meeting on Monday, March 8, somewhere between eleven and one o'clock, for our vote on the estimates of all the departments.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I sit on four committees, and it's very difficult for me to attend. We only have 14 members of Parliament, so we're spread very thin now. We were summoned here today because it was a very important meeting, as we would be voting on the supplementary estimates of the Governor General, Justice, Parliament, the Privy Council, Treasury Board, Canada Heritage. But even though the Liberal whip's assistant has been hovering right outside the door with a cell phone to his ear--he is back there now--there's not a single Liberal here, so we don't have quorum to take these important votes.

I gave up my day to be here. We only have 14 members, and we have a representative here, the Bloc have two, to their credit. You have 170 members of Parliament. Where are the Liberals, and why are they trying to avoid being on the public record as voting for or against these estimates?

The Chair: The rules provide that we can hear witnesses with only three members of the sixteen here. The votes, however, require us to have a quorum, which is nine. But the votes only take about ten minutes in total. The hearing of the witnesses, etc., takes four hours.

Mr. Pat Martin: So you can't find one Liberal to sit in one of those chairs?

The Chair: That's not the issue.

Mr. Pat Martin: What's a quorum?

The Chair: Nine.

Mr. Pat Martin: And you cannot find a few Liberals? There are 170 of you. This is really shameful.

The Chair: Thank you.

We at this time--

Mr. Pat Martin: How are you going to rule on my point of order that the Liberals should be found in contempt of this committee for their deliberate boycott and absence here, so that we can't conduct the regularly scheduled business of the day? Mr. Perron supports that. This building is full of Liberals.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Mr. Chairman, I also find...

[English]

The Chair: The order of the day is to review the supplementary estimates. I would note that a couple of members have indicated that they would like to propose some changes to the estimates, and I respect that. That's a member's right, as well as a responsibility, and we look forward to hearing those. The votes on the estimates will, I hope, take place, so that we can table the estimates by Monday.

Mr. Pat Martin: I wasn't planning on being in Ottawa on Monday, March 8. Frankly, it's inconvenient for me, and it violates my privileges as a member not to be able to participate in this committee. I've scheduled my day so that I can participate fully in these important votes. Because of this deliberate strategy to avoid dealing with these votes, I'm now not going to be able to vote on an issue that you know full well I feel is very important, especially the Governor General's budget.

· (1305)

The Chair: We can meet sometime next week. Even though the House is not sitting, the committee can sit.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's fine.

The Chair: If the member wants to vote today, I'll suspend and we will bring the members here to have the vote. How's that?

Mr. Pat Martin: Absolutely fine. Thank you.

The Chair: Then we are suspended.

· (1306)

· (1322)

The Chair: We're resuming the meeting.

Colleagues, we have completed the review of the four vote areas we did want to review. As you know, the estimates have to be reported back to the House by Monday, March 8, and we don't have another scheduled meeting. As a consequence, our only opportunity to vote, unless the members want a further meeting during the break week or on Monday, March 8, is now. Are the members prepared or ready to vote on the supplementary estimates?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay. So we vote on Canadian Heritage with regard to the Public Service Commission vote we discussed this morning.

CANADIAN HERITAGE

Public Service Commission

Vote 110b--Public Service Commission--Program expenditures..........$496,261

(Vote 110b agreed to on division)

The Chair: With regard to the Governor General:

GOVERNOR GENERAL

Vote 1b--Governor General--Program expenditures..........$200,000

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to amend the motion regarding the supplementary estimates of the Governor General to reduce the figure from $200,000 to $1; in other words, subtract $199,999 from the supplementary estimate.

The Chair: Is there discussion?

We'll take the vote on the amendment. This is to reduce the supplementary estimates of the Governor General, effectively, by $200,000.

Mr. Pat Martin: $199,999.

The Chair: Thank you.

Yes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): I wonder what specifically the member opposite is excluding in her budget.

The Chair: It's carry-forward, is it not?

Mr. Pat Martin: Had the Liberals voting on this been present for the testimony and the lengthy debate that took place, they'd have an idea.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm still allowed to ask a question any time, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: The reason I've asked for it to be reduced by $199,999 is not that I disagree with the concept of a carry-forward from the previous budget. We do it ourselves in our MPs' budgets, and it's common accounting practice. What we are providing is a symbolic gesture that we want a review and a study of the budget and estimates of the Office of the Governor General as they pertain to the mandate of the Governor General. We want to send a message, the people of Canada through me--my constituents at least will be sending a message--that we're critical that the Governor General's budget has spiralled by 200% in a period when all other budgets have been cut and hacked and slashed and all other Canadians have been asked to tighten their belts and live on less.

· (1325)

The Chair: It's Mr. Forseth, I believe.

Mr. Pat Martin: I was waiting for the person I was talking to to pay attention to what I was saying. She asked me a question.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I was paying attention, Mr. Martin.

The Chair: I'd like to recognize Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

Irrespective of what Mr. Martin had to say, I believe the committee has voted a motion and we've already agreed to essentially do that, to hold those hearings and to look at those questions, and we're going to do that in an orderly way. We had evidence today from Barbara Uteck that she's fully supportive and cooperative in that and is making every effort to provide information to this committee. The request was that committee members, for background, could perhaps even meet the Governor General privately over at Rideau Hall in an informal session to look at and discuss mandates and the future. That was well received. So the essential message of what Mr. Pat Martin has talked about I think has already been agreed to by this committee, and we've already got on the record cooperation from the Governor General's office in that. We will do that in an orderly way. We don't do that by symbolic gestures in reducing the supplementary estimates.

The Chair: Is there further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Shall vote 1b under Governor General carry?

GOVERNOR GENERAL

^ç	Vote 1b--Governor General--Program expenditures......$200,000

(Vote 1b agreed to on division)

The Chair: Vote 45b, under Justice Canada, is with regard to the Privacy Commissioner, which we heard about this morning. Vote 40b deals with the Information Commissioner, which we did not review this morning.

JUSTICE

Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada

^ç	Vote 40b--Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada--Program expenditures......$525,995

^ç	Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada

^ç	Vote 45b--Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada--Program expenditures.....$621,000

(Votes 40b and 45b agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall vote 1b under Parliament carry?

PARLIAMENT

The Senate

^ç	Vote 1b--The Senate--Program expenditures and contributions......$2,746,900

(Vote 1b agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall votes 1b, 5b, and 15b under Privy Council carry?

PRIVY COUNCIL

Department

^ç	Vote 1b--Privy Council--Program expenditures......$1,869,152

^ç	Canadian Centre for Management Development

^ç	Vote 5b--Canadian Centre for Management Development--Program expenditures......$3,043,510

^ç	Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board

^ç	Vote 15b--Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board--Program expenditures......$4,889,000

(Votes 1b, 5b, and 15b agreed to on division)

The Chair: Under the Department of Public Works we saw this morning Communication Canada, and that is vote 15b. Shall votes 1b and 15b under Public Works and Government Services carry?

PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Department

Government Services Program

^ç

Vote 1b--Government Services--Operating expenditures--To authorize the transfer of $56,587,781 from Public Works and Government Services Vote 5, and $5,670,000 from Public Works and Government Services Vote 10, Appropriation Act No. 2, 2003-2004 for the purposes of this Vote and to provide a further amount of......$148,506,339

Communication Canada

^ç	Vote 15b--Communication Canada--Operating expenditures--To authorize the transfer of $1,680,000 from Communication Canada Vote 20, Appropriation Act No. 2, 2003-2004 for the purposes of this Vote and to provide a further amount of......$9,897,950

(Votes 1b and 15b agreed to on division)

The Chair: Under Treasury Board, shall votes 1b, 10b, 15b, 20b, and 21b carry?

TREASURY BOARD

Secretariat

^ç	Vote 1b--Treasury Board Secretariat--Operating expenditures......$10,086,850

^ç	Vote 10b--Government-Wide Initiatives--Subject to the approval of the Treasury Board, to supplement other appropriations in support of the implementation of strategic management initiatives in the public service of Canada......$417,550

^ç

Vote 15b--Compensation Adjustments--Subject to the approval of the Treasury Board, to supplement other appropriations that may need to be partially or fully funded as a result of adjustments made to terms and conditions of service or employment of the public service including members of the RCMP and the Canadian Forces......$107,265,000

^ç

Vote 20b--Public Service Insurance--Payments, in respect of insurance, pension or benefit programs or other arrangements, or in respect of the administration of such programs, or arrangements, including premiums, contributions, benefits, fees and other expenditures, made in respect of the public service or any part thereof and for such other persons, as Treasury Board determines, and authority to expend any revenues or other amounts received in respect of such programs or arrangements to offset any such expenditures in respect of such programs or arrangements and to provide for the return to certain employees of their share of the premium reduction under subsection 96(3) of the Employment Insurance Act......$38,000

^ç	Vote 21b--Payment to the Canadian Wheat Board pursuant to subsection 7(3) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act for losses sustained in the 2002-2003 wheat pool......$84,484,000

(Votes 1b, 10b, 15b, 20b, and 21b agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall I report the supplementary estimates (B) to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you.

We are adjourned.