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.
CANADA
Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Thursday, March 10, 2011
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
[English]
[Translation]
I wanted to point out to the members of the committee that whenever we ask for a document to be translated, we always hear that it will delay the committee's proceedings. That is a damaging attitude. It will not necessarily take longer for the committee to do its work or for a document to come in just because we want it translated into French. I find that appalling.
Keep in mind that this document has been around since 2006. So it should have been made available in French a long time ago. I just wanted to make that clear, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
[English]
Thank you very much.
You will recall that at our last meeting I moved a motion to request information for our study on advertising that we are to begin today. In response to a colleague, we had said we'd get back to this information again today. He wanted to talk further on this issue because he thought it should be more specific. There is going to be a friendly amendment to make it more specific. I think that will satisfy the concerns of the colleague who raised this issue.
Mr. Chair, the simplest way to do this is to read the motion as it would be amended:
That, with regard to government expenditures on advertising for fiscal year 2010-2011, the Committee request the government, through the Privy Council Office, to provide it with the following information, by each of the following departments or organizations, namely Infrastructure Canada, Public Works and Government Services, Canadian Heritage, Human Resources and Skills Development, Finance, Citizenship and Immigration, Fisheries and Oceans, Transport, Health, Industry, Privy Council Office, Canada Revenue Agency, in electronic form, within 5 business days and in both official languages: (1) how has the money been allocated; (2) what government program or service was advertised; (3) in what medium (print, radio, television, other); (4) what amount was spent; (5) in what geographic area; and, in general, (6) what is the total amount spent on advertising by the government for the said the fiscal year.
Members have copies of this proposed amended version of the motion.
Thank you, Chair.
I have a couple of things, if I may. This follows on our last commentary relative to the prior discussion.
First, just as a standard comment, could I suggest that, at a minimum, when we talk about five days—as we know, we have a weekend between now and the next five days—I don't want to overly presume, but do we mean business days? If so, can we make that part of our standard comments? There is obviously a difference with a weekend involved. That would be point number one.
I am mindful that much of this information is based on annual reporting from late spring, June, through September. I am not sure how much is available, so I will bring up the question again with regard to preparation, and that is as it relates to five days. Again, it's a popular mantra around here, and I understand it talks to the urgency, which I truly get, but I'm not sure if it speaks to the reality or the practicality.
There are two things. If we mean business days, can we say that, at least? Then, second, how practical and realistic, notwithstanding the urgency, is five days with the huge amount of information that is here? I am not even going to get into the cost, but in the event that it's all in French right now, which it may well be, and all I want to do is have the English translation as well—and I'm not even being clever on this--it just strikes me, is that fair and reasonable?
I defer to the committee's wisdom on this.
[Translation]
I would like some clarification, Mr. Chair. With regard to point 5, I would just like to ask Ms. Coady what she means by “geographic area”, by province?
[English]
“By geographic area” means by province or region, if it's done by region, so we can understand exactly where they're spending the money.
[Translation]
You need to make it very clear that you are talking about a breakdown by province or by region, because that is not clear here.
[English]
We've been talking about doing this advertising study. Today we are actually starting it. It would be very helpful to have this information in a timely and quick manner. This motion was discussed at previous meetings. I would like to move forward as quickly as possible, because we only have a couple of days dedicated to this. If we drag it out too much longer we're going to get information after we've been through a number of our witnesses, and will therefore have to actually call them back again.
We are making this friendly amendment in the spirit of trying to address the concerns of colleagues. So I urge all of us to move on as quickly as possible. We have witnesses waiting.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Back to what Mr. Holder and Ms. Bourgeois said earlier, the motion should indicate a turnaround time of five business days and not necessarily five calendar days. Five business days versus five calendar days makes a difference in terms of processing the request.
We are seeing that with the other document. The fact remains this motion is asking for a fair bit of information. Would it be possible to give them five business days to provide the documents in both languages? That is a fair question.
[English]
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to respond to Mr. Généreux and Mr. Holder. We are talking about five business days, and the House will be in recess for the next five days. So they will have nine days if you consider the business days and the five work days. That gives them plenty of time.
Furthermore, Mr. Chair, I hope that every department included its advertising expenditures in its budget envelope, because if every department did not, that would not be good. Every department is required to include every single one of its advertising expenditures. They are all required to include that spending in their total figures and budget envelope. So knowing how much they spent during the year should not be a problem for them. They have nine days to provide the information, when it should have already been taken into account. I don't think making it available in French should be a problem. Given what we have received so far, there should not be a problem with that.
[English]
I'd like to implore our members opposite who regularly request such reports that the reference to business days be the standard. That feels reasonable to me. All of us in business have been mindful of that, to the extent that in our world here we define business days as being Monday through Friday. There are those whose business days are weekends as well, but I think we might go with that definition. I come back to the point of sufficient time. Let's hope that it is.
Unlike some of the reports in the past that have cost significant dollars, where the expense of presenting it in both official languages was done and not utilized, I trust the committee will take in all this information and utilize it. I think that's as much as needs to be said three times.
[Translation]
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I just want to add something along the same lines as the other comments. We could amend the motion to read: “provide it with the following information in both official languages”. That would prevent what happened today and perhaps speed up the process of putting together the information.
Ms. Coady, would you be willing to accept that amendment to your motion?
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
Okay.
As amended, it's five business days, in both official languages.
Ms. Siobhan Coady: Yes.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: What unanimity. I'm so impressed.
Thank you, colleagues.
Yes. There might be a headline out of this.
Members, I'd like to call forward the witnesses.
I want to welcome Anne Marie Smart. I apologize for not being able to greet you personally, but we were otherwise occupied.
I'm working on the assumption that you've been well briefed on the presentation and the anticipated questioning over the next while. I welcome you on behalf of the committee, and anticipate that you will introduce your team.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Chair.
I have about five minutes' worth of opening remarks. I will introduce my colleagues who are here with me today as I give those remarks. I will begin with a short opening statement just to provide members with an overview of government advertising and to start to identify the respective roles that my colleagues and I play in the advertising process.
The current process for the allocation and management of advertising expenditures was established in 2004. It has three objectives. The first is to ensure that advertising campaigns are aligned to government priorities; the second is to ensure that they comply with government policies, procedures, and legislation; and the third is to ensure that they address the information needs of Canadians.
[Translation]
The respective roles and responsibilities of institutions in advertising have been established at all stages in the process, including in the planning of advertising, in its execution and also, importantly, in its evaluation.
[English]
These are set out in Treasury Board's communications policy and in its procedures for advertising. My colleague Monique Lebel-Ducharme, of the Treasury Board Secretariat, will be pleased, of course, to answer any questions you may have on the policy framework for advertising.
Generally, the bulk of government advertising campaigns in any given year are funded by what they call a “set-side” in the fiscal framework in the amount of $65.4 million per year. That amount was established in 2004. Examples of advertising campaigns funded by the set-aside this fiscal year include those on Canadian Forces and RCMP recruitment, protecting the health and safety of Canadians, victims of crime, jobs, and tax cuts.
I should also note, however, that this is not the only source of funding. Departments can obtain funding for advertising through policy memoranda to cabinet. An example would be the advertisements you may have seen discouraging drug use by youth, which were funded as part of the national anti-drug strategy.
Finally, departments can also fund advertising from their operating budgets. An example of a campaign this year that was funded by a department was a campaign on new employment insurance measures for the self-employed.
There are also many public notices in a given year. Typically, public notices provide basic local information on, for example, the construction of a federal road, job opportunities for on-reserve nurses, or other important information on a program that may affect local residents or for which a consultative process is required. Departments invest approximately $5 million annually--that's the total amount--on these operational public notices.
Regardless of the source of funds, all government advertising is subject to the legislation, policies, and procedures that govern this function. For example, to access funds in the $65.4-million set-aside, departments and agencies work with the Privy Council Office to develop advertising proposals that are based on government priorities. The priorities are often established by documents such as the Speech from the Throne and the federal budget, or by cabinet. These proposals are coordinated by the Privy Council Office and are brought to cabinet for consideration and approval. If they are approved, they are then submitted to the Treasury Board for review and funding approval. Finally, if approved there, they are submitted to Parliament for approval of appropriations.
Once the funds are approved, they are allocated to departments, each of which manages their own campaign budgets and expenditures on behalf of their ministers.
The next stage in the process is the procurement of advertising agencies for production and media planning. Advertising procurement is undertaken solely by Public Works and Government Services Canada, which works closely with and on behalf of departments. The procurement of advertising agencies is based on a competitive process, and it is done in accordance with the established policies and procedures.
Public Works also manages the government's advertising agency of record, which is a single firm that purchases all advertising time and space for the government. The objective of centralizing media purchases is to leverage the combined buying power of the government to obtain the best prices, whether it is for television, radio, print, out-of-home advertising, or the web.
As I mentioned earlier, advertising is subject to Treasury Board policies and procedures. To help all departments comply with the rules, Public Works and Government Services works closely with the Treasury Board to review proposed advertising for compliance with policies and procedures. My colleagues here from Public Works are Mark Perlman and Louise de Jourdan. They would be very pleased to answer any questions you may have regarding the role and functions of Public Works in the advertising process.
Treasury Board policies and procedures also require departments to pre-test creative concepts for their ads and to then conduct post-campaign evaluations of their major advertising initiatives.
Finally, the last step in the process is reporting. It is performed on a number of tracks, such as, for example, by means of the website the Treasury Board Secretariat has that identifies the moneys committed to advertising from the fiscal set-aside.
Public Works also has annual reports on advertising that provide an overview of the Government of Canada's annual expenditures.
[Translation]
I have briefly described the process, and I sought to identify the responsibilities of the institutions represented at this table today: Treasury Board Secretariat, Public Works and Government Services Canada, and the Privy Council Office.
[English]
I hope this brief overview will assist committee members.
I've also given three handouts that summarize what I was talking about. On one page you have the advertising management framework. You have some examples of major themes and campaigns for 2010-11. Finally, you have a document produced by Public Works on the Government of Canada's advertising process, roles, and responsibilities. They are all bilingual, and there's considerable information in the little handout.
Thank you very much.
[Translation]
[English]
Thank you very much.
We certainly appreciate your time today and your gathering up of the information and laying it before this committee.
I have a lot of questions, so bear with me as I go through them.
My first question speaks to your advertising agency of record. You say the agency of record does the advertising buy.
They have the sole responsibility for doing this advertising buy, and you say that the Privy Council Office, in consultation with cabinet, understands what is to be advertised. Is that correct?
The agency of record provides different types of services, so they are remunerated in different ways. They provide corporate services to PWGSC as a coordinator across government. That includes reporting and that kind of thing. For that service they are provided a monthly fee--
Then there are variable fees that are established in the contract. They depend on what they purchase.
If they're executing a campaign for a particular department and buying television, they're paid x amount of dollars up to a maximum, and so on.
So I'm hearing you say that this agency of record provides a very broad range of services. Second, as taxpayers we can't know how much, in a general sense, we spend on our agency of record.
Maybe you can't tell me the monthly retainer, but you could tell me if you spend $100 million on your agency of record or $10 million. Can you give us some kind of indication? Take that under advisement and get back to the committee, if you would be so kind.
Can you tell us the name of the agency of record? That's not confidential.
They provide all the advertising buy and advice to government.
Here's my concern and why I ask these questions. I've noticed dovetailing over the last few months, and a number of people have asked me about it. They see a Government of Canada ad, and then two ads later there's a Conservative Party ad. It's very difficult to dovetail because there are so many advertisements in a roster. How can the Conservative Party be in the same cycle and roster as the Government of Canada? It can't be coincidental.
I'm sure you can't answer that question, but it does beg a question about how that is possible.
We issue guidelines to the agency of record, and they are passed on to the broadcasters, about proper spacing and how these ads show up in broadcast.
For example, the guidelines specify how many Government of Canada ads should be in a particular broadcast--how many should be spaced out. There's also a separation that is supposed to be there from other levels of government and political parties. For example, in the same station break there should not be an ad from another level of government or political party.
It does not, that we're aware of. We're not aware of a back-to-back or a dovetailing happening. If it is brought to our attention, we will bring it to the attention of the agency of record and the broadcaster. At that point, the broadcaster is asked to make good on it—that's the term in the contract—which basically would mean that they would treat the Government of Canada ad as not having happened, and then we'd rebroadcast it.
Thank you for your table; that would be great.
I only have a short period of time and so many questions.
We now know—today it has been reported—that $4 million has been set aside for advertising for the upcoming budget, and the upcoming budget is going to be presented on March 22. That leaves about $4 million for seven days of advertising.
Have these ads already been prepared? Can someone answer that?
Yes, $4 million, but we haven't allocated....You were asking about what has been prepared or allocated—
Not yet, no. We don't know what's in the budget, so we literally have to see the budget, and then we know there's only a week before the end of the fiscal year.
Am I supposing from what you're saying that you have nothing done at this point, but that you have allocated the $4 million?
We've allocated the $4 million. We know we have a week, and anything that is not spent is returned to the fiscal framework.
Okay, thank you.
This is a kind of responsibility.... It upsets me quite significantly. We know that recently there has been a lot of change with the moniker of the federal government, and we have lots of articles by the Canadian Press on this very issue. The moniker of the Government of Canada has literally been changed to “the Harper government”.
My questions are on the common look and feel. We know, for example, that the federal identity program and the common look and feel policies exist, and yet they seem to be now being changed so that you could use the Harper moniker.
I'm just going to quote from the Canadian Press article, which says:
Civil servants in at least six departments now say the naming policy comes from “the Centre”—meaning the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office.
The branding of the Government of Canada ensures from an international perspective that internationally we're known as the “Government of Canada” and even that the people of our country know that this is Government of Canada official information. How is it that we can now be using “the Harper government”?
Further to that, was there a communiqué verbally or in writing that made that dictum?
I can start on your latter part. There was no directive whatsoever issued, to my knowledge. I'm in the Privy Council Office, so there was nothing driven....
There's nothing in the communications policy or the FIP policy that either prescribes or prohibits the use of any language or words, and the identifier you're talking about in FIP is the FIP signature, which is the—
So how could it be that so many official Government of Canada websites are now using the Harper moniker?
It's in the text of a news release; it's not in the identifier of the news release. All of our news releases have an identifier, and the identifier is the FIP signature, which is at the top of the document. It's the flag, with the signature of the department or the Government of Canada, and at the bottom the Canada wordmark. Those are the identifiers of the Government of Canada.
As to the information or the contents within the news release, there's nothing in our policies that prescribes or prohibits how that language is—
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning everyone, and thank you for being here.
Anything having to do with communications is always fascinating. It is an area we are not very familiar with.
A while ago, Michelle d'Auray, of Treasury Board Secretariat, appeared before the committee to discuss the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada. Based on what you just told us, you apply that policy in your work. Is that correct?
And when you apply the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you have no choice but to apply the Federal Identity Program Policy as well. Do you work with that policy?
If I understand correctly, under the Federal Identity Program Policy, the Privy Council Office must approve all communications. Is that correct?
Recently, the Federal Identity Program Policy has not been applied properly. I have here a number of newspaper articles that mention how the current government changes the word “Canada”. My colleague also talked about that earlier.
I would remind my colleagues that the Federal Identity Program Policy governs the use of three official corporate symbols. Those are Canadian coats of arms—in other words, Canadian logos such as the House of Commons logo—the flag symbol and the “Canada” wordmark. Under that policy, the terms “Government of Canada” or “Canadian government” must appear in all government communications. Those are the titles that must be used.
Unfortunately, the newspapers have been reporting something different for a while now. Public servants in certain departments said they were ordered to use the term “Harper government” instead of the “Government of Canada”.
How is it that the government corporate identity is being misused, misrepresented and altered when its use is an integral part of the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada? How can that happen? Please explain that to me.
The policy you refer to governs the use of the three symbols. It sets out how documents must be identified. So it targets document identification. Every Government of Canada news release prepared by a department contains two things—
Forgive me for interrupting, but please do not repeat what I just said. I asked you how it is possible that the most important part of the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, in other words, the Federal Identity Program Policy, is literally being disregarded. Whenever we have had a presentation, from either Treasury Board Secretariat or the Privy Council Office, we have been told that every communication is approved by the Privy Council Office. Please explain why this is being allowed.
It does not govern the content of a document, but rather how it is identified. You will notice that every news release issued by the public service or by a federal department is subject to the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and the Federal Identity Program Policy. It bears two identifying features: the standard signature, which is the flag symbol with the institution's name—the department or the Government of Canada—and in the lower right....
Yes, but there is nothing in either one of those policies that governs what a document can say, from a content standpoint.
Precisely. For instance, who writes the content that appears on the Web site for Canada's economic action plan? Who writes the content?
[English]
Most of the time the text is drafted by departments and submitted to the minister's office. If there's a change--in my years at the Privy Council Office I've seen “Canada's new government” and “the Harper government”--it's made at the political level.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
I noticed a few things on the Web site for Canada's economic action plan that do not, in my view, have anything to do with the economic action plan. I can submit them to the committee, Mr. Chair, if you would like.
When the purpose of a Web site is to promote programs aimed at helping Canadians, I find it rather odd to see the site promoting the Prime Minister, the finance minister, the industry minister, the minister of this or the minister of that. I find that rather peculiar.
I see you cannot respond. But could you provide the committee with the breakdown by province of the Government of Canada's advertising expenditures for the past year? How much did the Government of Canada spend in each province? I do not want the numbers for each region, but for each province.
My next question picks up on what my colleague was saying. When there is a government action plan and you decide on a given advertising project, you need to have plans and criteria. Could you please provide the committee with the criteria you are told to give priority to? Is it the information aimed at Canadians or the promotion of the federal identity? I want to know.
My last question is how do we rank against other countries when it comes to advertising spending? Do you have enough money to work with, or are we among the biggest spenders?
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
I want to thank the witnesses for being here.
As you can see, everyone agrees that Government of Canada advertising should be used to promote Government of Canada services.
During the H1N1 crisis, for instance, and the campaign aimed at educating people on the importance of getting vaccinated, did the results show that the campaign was effective at teaching Canadians about the need to get vaccinated? To what extent did the money spent help prevent a Canadian pandemic?
[English]
The H1N1 campaign is an excellent example of an issue that arose very quickly. It was a global pandemic, and there were many issues around whether or not to be vaccinated, or whether it was safe.
We did a number of ads stressing the importance of being vaccinated. If you remember the ads, we also urged people to wash their hands frequently. Dr. David Butler-Jones, who's head of the agency, also showed people how to cough into their sleeves. It is extremely important for informing people, making them aware, and changing behaviour. That's an excellent example.
[Translation]
[English]
I wouldn't be able to go that far, but I'd change behaviour. Dr. David Butler-Jones has told us he recognizes Canadians when he travels because we cough into our sleeves. So he feels he has changed behaviour that way. I can't say it has gone as far as saving lives, but it's certainly important to inform people. I see that as the key priority.
[Translation]
Furthermore, government advertising on tax cuts for all Canadians is critical not just to governments, but also to Canadians so they know they are entitled to those tax cuts. Did advertising in this area help a lot of Canadians save money?
[English]
It did. If you remember, in the last couple of years we've been in the midst of a pretty severe global recession. Part of the goal of the advertising around the economic action plan was to let people know, for example, that there were at least three tax credits available to help them through the recession. There was the home renovation tax credit, which was extremely popular. In fact, the recall rates when we tested post-campaign on that one were levels we hadn't seen before, around 70 or something. People wanted the information and they went.... All of our advertising is aimed at driving people to the website, where all of the information about what programs they can apply for and where is located. So people did that.
There was also the first-time home buyers' tax credit, which people took advantage of. Also, even around tax filing, Canada Revenue Agency did a bit of a campaign to remind people to apply for things like the credits under the home renovation tax credit.
So it did save them money. That's one of the reasons why the advertising was so important. It was the recession; we wanted to make sure that people had information about the services and benefits that were available to them, and thirdly, that they were able to easily access that information. So it was extremely important to do it.
[Translation]
You mentioned the home renovation tax credit. I think that is a very good example. When that measure was put in place, no one knew about it, but thanks to Government of Canada ads promoting the tax credit, many people became aware of it and took advantage. In my riding, one out of two homes underwent some form of renovation, and the construction industry got a boost.
I will now hand the floor over to my colleague.
[English]
[Translation]
If I may, I will use the rest of my colleague's time.
I worked in advertising for many years, and I can say this: there are always two parties, the client and the supplier. And you need both of them in order to make a product. I would imagine you know firsthand that you have to work in partnership with the subcontractor on an advertising campaign. I want to pick up on what Ms. Bourgeois was saying about the content or message and the medium, and draw a distinction. The medium is Canada's corporate identity, which you must adhere to. That medium holds the message or content, which must be prepared, of course. Do you work on the message with the subcontractor? Do you work on the crux of the message to be conveyed? You are not necessarily the only ones who have a say in the product. I am not sure whether you know what I mean.
Take the H1N1 crisis for example. The end result of your ad campaign cannot be attributed solely to what you brought to the table, but also to what your supplier brought to the table.
[English]
That's very important. H1N1 is a good example. The campaigns, especially something that important, would all be what we call pre-tested. The department would make sure that there was a focus group of people with young children, another focus group of seniors, whatever. You would test the messaging.
You would do that for two reasons. One, you need to make sure that they understand the message. It's pretty direct to say “get vaccinated”, but you want to make sure that you're explaining it to people in such a way that they understand. Secondly, you're dispelling myths. If you remember, at the time of H1N1 there were a lot of misperceptions, myths, and fears around. When you're doing this pre-testing with your focus groups, you're making sure that they understand the message and that it's addressing the key things they need. Thirdly, you want to see if they're going to change behaviour. So in the example I was using, coughing or washing your hands frequently, you're testing to see whether they got that message. We consider it extremely important with major campaigns to do this, as you say, testing with a service group.
[Translation]
I will use that time to congratulate you. You did an excellent job during that campaign, in particular. Canadians did indeed change their behaviour. Even if we don't go as far as to say it saved lives—although I believe it did—we can say you did an outstanding job educating Canadians.
[English]
Thank you, Monsieur Généreux.
MPs are all multi-taskers, and with the permission of colleagues, I'll preserve Mr. Martin's time and turn to Mr. Regan for five minutes, please.
That's agreeable, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
Thank you to the witnesses as well.
Let me ask you, to start with, about the $4 million that's been set aside in the estimates for spending on advertising for the budget upcoming, which basically has to be spent between March 22, when the budget is delivered, and March 31, which of course is the fiscal year-end.
You're telling us that it hasn't been pre-tested at all, yet of course Government of Canada policy requires pre-testing of all major advertising campaigns. You can understand why it's a little hard to believe that there aren't advertisements in the can already for this. But if not, then when will you pre-test those ads if they aren't even going to be designed until after the budget is tabled?
I'll start with that.
As I mentioned, when we set aside the $4 million last year, no one knew the date of the federal budget, and we cannot begin anything, for whatever money or any campaign--and we know that there's only one week before the end of the fiscal year--until we know what's in the budget, and we won't know that until the day the budget is tabled.
And there's no way that Cossette Communication, which I think you're telling us is the company that's responsible for that advertising campaign.... Is that who will be responsible for that campaign?
Absolutely. All departments are responsible for their advertisment campaigns. Public Works or PCO don't know the proper messaging.
Let me rephrase that. Are you telling me that it's videoed or filmed, scripted, the actors are hired, etc., by the department?
There's no way that they could have had directions from PMO, for example, on what to start pre-testing.
Any news release? It goes through the department drafts. It goes through the minister's office. If it's an important announcement it comes over to PCO and we check that they have the cabinet authority to be saying what they're going to say. PMO looks at it and then it's approved.
Most of those ads, in other words, have to have the approval of the minister's office and the minister's political staff, or the Prime Minister himself, his office, in the case of government-wide announcements.
I was just going to tell you that advertising goes through exactly the same process as news releases for approving the content, so the department, the minister's office checks with Public Works, checks with Treasury Board, ourselves, and PMO are involved.
If you're telling me there's no policy saying that the regime has directed that all news releases say “the Harper government”, you're not going to suggest to me that a minister's political staff wouldn't have been directed to put that in.
It's not for you to say. You wouldn't be aware of that necessarily if that were the case. Is that what you're telling me?
All right. Because it's certainly ubiquitous. I think it's fairly obvious. We've certainly seen commentary from lots of people in the media saying that this is a dramatic and obvious change that we see throughout government communications.
Let me go on. Who in the Prime Minister's Office is informed about advertising buys?
I guess you'll agree that it's possible that political staff in the Prime Minister's Office could share the information.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't want to be hard on you because, at the end of the day, you are not the ones with the final say on how and what advertising is done. Based on what you said, it is my understanding that ads come from the department and then go to Treasury Board for approval and funding. I also learned that part of your job was to check whether one of the three symbols appeared in the ad. You do not look at the content of the ad or have a say in it. Nor do you decide how much will be spent on the campaign. Is all that correct?
[English]
All advertising is a cabinet decision. All of the priorities for advertising, as I mentioned, come through either the Speech from the Throne or the federal budget. The departments then work--
[Translation]
I know that. I already said that.
What I am trying to get at is where you fit in to the whole process. What is your role? If the minister or the department is the one that makes the decisions, and final approval for any advertising comes from Treasury Board, what is your role in all this? Is it your job to find the consulting firm?
[English]
The Privy Council Office coordinates what's called the annual advertising plan, which goes to cabinet for approval. Our job is to coordinate and bring the proposal to cabinet.
[Translation]
Ms. Smart, what is your specific role?
And what is your role in all this, Ms. Lebel-Ducharme? If the department makes the decisions, what do you do?
My role is to ensure compliance with the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and the Federal Identity Program Policy. I must ensure that ads—
Unless I'm mistaken, when advertising material lands on your desk, your job is to verify that the three logos are present. If they are, you approve the material, you say “thank you very much”, and your job is done.
That is the answer I was looking for.
Earlier, Mr. Gourde alluded to the H1N1 virus. He mentioned that an advertising campaign had been conducted, that lives were saved and that everything was good. Do you know how much money was spent on this ad campaign? In all, $6.5 million. Do you know how much money was spent to promote the Conservatives' Economic Action Plan? The plan didn't save any lives, but a total of $34 million was spent on this initiative.
Do you see a difference there? Did I miss something? Could it be that the public's health matters less to the government than its action plan?
What do you think?
[English]
Okay. I could speak a little bit to the numbers, not to the rationale behind it.
The H1N1 campaign for fiscal year 2009-10 came to $23.5 million. That was the amount spent in total on that campaign.
For the EAP, the economic action plan, a total of $53.2 million is the amount we have.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
Okay.
According to the figures we have, between $70 and $80 million have been spent overall this year. How much was spent on advertising during the year? That is what Ms. Coady wanted to know. You have some figures. You quoted figures for 2009-2010. Overall, how much was spent on advertising by all departments? Do you have those figures?
[English]
Overall, for all the departments for 2009-10, we had already released estimates. The estimated amount of $130 million was the total we released in our various order paper questions. We have since refined those numbers, because we are preparing to release our annual report. That's now been refined to $136.3 million in total for the Government of Canada.
[Translation]
That means the amount of money initially set aside for advertising, namely $64.5 million, has more than doubled. In fact, I read on the website that a portion of this budget, $20 million in total, was spent on advertisements for CF recruitment purposes.
I'm having a hard time grasping certain things. First of all, I realize that you are not responsible for advertising. The department is responsible for advertising, for improving advertising, and it knows what it wants to include in that material.
Earlier, Ms. Ducharme, you mentioned logos. We've seen in some advertisements the letter C along with a maple leaf, which gave the impression that...
[English]
Thank you very much, Chair.
Again, witnesses, I'd like to thank you for attending with your testimony today.
It's rather interesting. I've heard a series of questions and responses, and one of the things that came up fairly loudly in the first round of questioning had to do with dovetailing ads—that is, the apparent perception by some that Government of Canada ads and Conservative ads are within the same mix of commercials in between the content of shows. Sometimes I'm not sure whether it's the advertising we're watching or the shows, based on amounts of time. But the comment came back by a member opposite that this “dovetailing” can't be coincidental, but Mr. Perlman, you made it really clear, from what I heard, that there are guidelines in place in terms of the numbers of ads, the separation of ads. They cannot be in that same series or segment of ads. And in fact, did I hear you correctly that if that were ever to happen you would treat the Government of Canada ad, the cost of it, as if it never happened? Is that correct?
In essence, that's correct. What would happen is that our agency of record would then go back to the broadcaster and try to make good on the situation. The normal practice for the community is that they would treat it that way and then they would find another 30- or 60-second spot and rerun the ad.
Do you need to remind broadcast media of these guidelines on some regular basis? How do you do that, please?
All right.
Here is another thing I'd like to lay to rest as well. It's rather interesting. I'm hearing more recently, “the Harper government this”, “the Harper government that”, and I'm hearing that reference more from members opposite than from any reference to media, so I guess I should say thanks to our friends opposite for the continued support. In fact, it's rather interesting. I'm on the Standing Committee on International Trade, and the critic for international trade for the official opposition made the comment in referencing our government; she called it the “Harper government”. That was about an hour and a bit ago, and a witness made the same reference as well.
I guess if there were a perception that that was a bad brand, I suppose it's okay, because I certainly recall many times with various media releases from members opposite when they talk about the “Harper government” this or that, but now that it appears that the brand seems to be fairly positive, now all of a sudden it's kind of curious that it's somehow.... Maybe they shouldn't be saying it so much, but it's what it is, and I'm hard-pressed to understand that rationale. But it's what it is.
Madam Smart, it seems to me that the Government of Canada has checks and balances to ensure that our advertising process complies with existing policies. Can you help me understand a little bit better how these checks and balances work?
Certainly.
Every year the government either does a Speech from the Throne or a budget, and the priorities for advertising are usually laid out as coming out of that budget under themes. For example, I have done a one-page handout of the major themes that are actually related to the Speech from the Throne for 2010-2011—families, economy, recruitment. When those major themes are established, my role is coordination and pulling together this annual advertising plan. We would work with departments to pull together advertising campaigns under each of those themes.
So under families, just as an example, you would have protecting the health and safety of Canadians, or victims of crime, and you'll see the various posters there. As the departments pull together those campaigns—and they're the ones that know their clients best, so they pull it together—they would work very closely with Public Works to make sure procurement and policies and procedures are followed, and they would work very closely with Treasury Board to make sure the common look and feel and the fit are identified properly in the creative concept.
As they come together, we also look. Ministers' offices look. So these things are not usually developed in one step. They're usually developed back and forth, back and forth. They're pre-tested. They're adjusted. There are many checks and balances built into this as it goes forward. And then after it's over, after it has run, if the campaign is a major one, we do an evaluation. The department must do an evaluation of the campaign.
I need to stop you, because I need you to reply in 11 seconds or less. I wanted to ask how you ensured the integrity of the contracting process, but perhaps more important right now is what happens to government advertising, assuming that there is no election? I hope there's a brief answer to that.
Thank you very much.
I'm going to ask some questions for clarity purposes.
Can you clarify, and this is just for the record, that you've never had a make-good for any dovetail Conservative advertising? If you have, I'm just wondering, how many times and when and where did that occur? You said that you're not aware of any of them, and I just want clarity on that.
I'll clarify that we're not aware of any. We have had a couple of instances when people have said that they've been close, and we investigated them.
I'll give you one example where someone said the ad had dovetailed, and it was during the Academy Awards, as an example. When we did a check, the ads were not in the same station break; they were about ten minutes apart. So it wasn't in the same station break, but regardless we felt they could have been spread further apart. The broadcaster has agreed to make good on that and will do a make-good on that.
So there's just that one time during the Oscars and you're getting a make-good on that.
I also want clarification on something I heard earlier. You clarified that the PMO actually approves the buy, is that correct?
Ministers' offices, departments, the PMO, and everybody looks and approves the buy. So yes, they would in the mix.
Thank you.
From this morning's newspaper, an article by Mr. Bill Curry talked about how an official from the finance department said there was money being spent right now preparing advertising. But you're telling me there's none that you are aware of.
I'm just reading from today's article that said the finance department says they are in preparations right now.
Okay. Thank you.
I have a question that goes back to something that occurred this past fall. In response to an order paper question from the member for Brampton--Springdale it was revealed that the Conservatives spent money advertising on various websites. One of the websites was Hollywoodtuna.com and there was another one they spent for Google AdWords and some pretty risqué pages came up. I'm just wondering who actually approves the spending of that money. When I go back and I look at Hollywoodtuna.com and if I look at some of the Google AdWords searches that the Conservatives have spent money on--and I think there's another website called PhotoForum.ru--it certainly would not be within what I think would be the right and proper things for the Government of Canada to be spending its money on. Could you comment on that?
If PMO and PCO are approving all this spending for advertising and the cabinet is actually the one saying where the advertising is going, I'm concerned that it's showing up on some pretty risqué sites.
I can take that question.
I think the incident you are talking about had already been brought to our attention some time ago and we investigated it. It was actually related to a DND ad and dated back to quite a number of years ago; it was in 2006, when the Government of Canada was just beginning to use the Internet more as a form of advertising. We do use it a lot more now.
Our processes have evolved substantially. For example, like the instructions that Mr. Perlman spoke of earlier with respect to spacing of ads and so on and so forth, the AOR, the agency of record, also has very clear instructions on the placement of Internet that it uses with broadcasters. It's done on a filter basis. There's a whole series of filters that are in keeping with our values and ethics. So there are words provided.
There are some types of Internet buys that do pose a little bit more risk. It's kind of technical, but at the end of the day we've pulled away from those types of Internet buys. So we're following it pretty closely.
The AOR in addition to that has put in remedial action because it also affects them as a company. So it's company-wide not just in keeping with our stuff but they are working with the network providers to ensure that these filters are very strong and are taking action if they're not adhered to.
For example, just reflecting on the Canada Post website, it was much more recent than 2006.
Thank you.
Thank you for coming.
It's ironic, because on the one hand you have the opposition claiming we're a secretive government, but you're here today because they're also telling you that we advertise and we communicate too frequently with people. They are upset that we communicate too frequently about changes to taxes, with respect to the economic action plan, and the budget.
I note that when we talked about the economic action plan and the stimulus, we were told that we weren't telling people what's going on. Then when we worked with our provincial partners to advertise and put up signs at all the locations so people could see the progress in action, we were told they didn't want us telling people what was going on, that's not what they meant.
So it's very difficult for you. Especially in this committee over the last year or so, the public service is brought in and they are told this and that with respect to the West Block construction, and then we find two, three, four layers of accountability is built in. With the G-8 and G-20, layer after layer of accountability is brought in.
What I find most offensive, to be honest with you, is the wording that comes from some of the members of the opposition. Earlier in his questioning Mr. Regan used the word “regime”. I don't know if he's being funny or if he just has a complete lack of respect for the public service, as opposed to me. I think the public service is doing a spectacular job. It's just a commentary on the fact that when he says things like that, and when the Liberals in particular say things like that because they think they're being funny or they think they can score some cheap political points, what they're really saying is that they don't trust the public service, the professional public service. And we've seen it time and time again in this committee over the last year.
I'll say this. I think you've done a spectacular job. This has been a very difficult couple of years. We've been focusing on jobs and the economy. I know that's not what the opposition has been focusing on.
When it comes to advertising, you look at H1N1. We're being criticized for spending on H1N1.
On August 12, 2009, the opposition issued a press release saying the government should spend more on communicating with respect to H1N1. They repeated that on November 3, 2009. The leader of the opposition in the House of Commons said the government needed to do more to communicate to people what's going on, and yet you're brought here today and told you shouldn't have spent $23 million telling people about H1N1; you shouldn't spend money telling people about elder abuse; you shouldn't spend money telling victims of crime where they can go to access help and information; you shouldn't be told about jobs and the economy; you shouldn't be telling people you can access tax cuts and the changes that have happened as a result of the budgeting process; you shouldn't tell homeowners that you can get a tax credit for the work you're doing at your home.
For some reason, these are all bad things. You know what? After a decade of darkness and misery in the Canadian armed forces, this government put in an action plan to restore the pride and the effectiveness of the armed forces--but we don't want people to know about it, so don't tell people about it. We can buy this new equipment, give them the resources they need, but let's not do anything to recruit more people.
I know it frustrates the opposition to no end that this has been a government that has been extraordinarily accountable and effective with people's money, but just to go back, how do you ensure the integrity of the contracting process when you do your advertising?
First of all, all the contracting for advertising services goes through one group, and that's Public Works and Government Services Canada. Right there it enables one group to ensure they are following all the principles of open, fair, and transparent government.
Every contract for advertising services is awarded on a competitive basis. We worked to put in a series of tools that are at the disposal of departments. For instance, we already talked about the agency of record. That contract was let after a national competitive process.
We now have a series of three sets of instruments that departments use: standing offers for services up to $350,000; they also have access to companies that have been pre-qualified on supply arrangements; and departments can also ask PWGSC to run a full RFP process on MERX.
As I said, every contract is awarded competitively, and it's done on a two- or three-year cycle to ensure there's a rotation, and it's open to as many suppliers as want to apply.
Further to that, we have....
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ladies and gentlemen, let's be very clear about this. We have no intention of blaming you for anything. We're here to try and understand the process and what happens in the case of all government communications.
Yesterday, I logged on to Canada's Economic Action Plan website. It contains photographs of average Canadians, which gives the impression that the site is intended for the average Canadian. An explanation is given of the policies associated with the Economic Action Plan. If you check out the site further and click on some of the additional photographs, you come across a series of photos promoting either the prime minister or ministers. These are the kinds of photographs and observations normally found on departmental websites.
So then, you can see why we have some major issues with this approach. We know that these were not your decisions. We know that you must comply with policies and follow orders. That's what has been said and reported by the media. We're merely trying to delve into this a little further and to get more information, so that we have a clearer picture.
When Ms. d'Auray appeared before the committee, she was accompanied by Simon Kennedy. My colleague probably mentioned that earlier. Simon Kennedy told the committee that the government's Economic Action Plan website is managed by the Privy Council Office. You are telling us that the Privy Council Office in fact decides what material is posted on a website like the Economic Action Plan website.
That said, did I understand correctly that the office has dealings with Cossette Communication? No? Earlier, I thought I heard the name Cossette mentioned. Why has the name Cossette Communication come up?
[English]
There are two different things here. The website for the economic action plan is not advertising. Advertising for the Government of Canada is all done through Cossette. The website is not advertising. It's not considered advertising.
[Translation]
Cossette Communication coordinates advertising for the Government of Canada. Is this the same agency mentioned in connection with the previous government?
There is no connection here with Cossette Communication, a name that came up during the sponsorship scandal?
But, you're talking about the same agency. It was not working for the government then, but it is now. I see.
Cossette has been around for some time. It secured its first contract as an agency of record with the Government of Canada in 2004. It secured its second contract last year, following a competitive process.
That said, Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, I'd also like to point out that on the Economic Action Plan website, mention is made of the prime minister and his ministers. The website even sings the praises of these ministers, including the minister of transport, if you can imagine. Reference is made to social media. Users are told to check our Twitter and YouTube. Who handles Twitter and YouTube?
[English]
Just to answer you, the economic action plan website is indeed coordinated by the Privy Council Office. It is because there were so many government departments that were part of the economic action plan. So you're right: Transport, Infrastructure, Human Resources and Social Development—a number of them.... That website—and I think Simon Kennedy probably referred to it as well—is the place you go to, and when you click through, it has all of the 134 measures that are there to benefit Canadians. It is the one stop for finding out about training or the home renovation tax credit.
But you're also right that it is the place in which, up top, when a minister makes an announcement—say it's in Transport, and it's on the economic action plan, we cross-reference between—
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My thanks to our witnesses.
It's a pleasure to discuss an issue that's very near and dear to my heart. As a marketing management major, I made my living for many years selling advertising, both print and television. So I appreciate the insight from the government's perspective, knowing the importance of advertising in the private sector and the public sector alike.
On the agency of record, how does the process of selecting the contract and remuneration actually work? Just go through the tendering process. How long is this process awarded for?
It goes through the government purchasing site, which is MERX. We have an open national competition and everyone is able to bid. It's open and transparent. Based on the bids, a company is selected.
In this case, in April 2010 a communications contract was awarded on a two-year basis, with three one-year options. That is the way we've done it.
What criteria do you use to determine whether the taxpayer is getting good value for the advertising in the contract?
The contract provides for two reviews. Cossette Communications provides services to my group, so it provides corporate services and does all the media buying. At the 18-month mark—that's coming at the beginning of next fiscal year—we will hire a third-party media expert to review the purchases made by Cossette, or the agency of record, to ensure that we are getting the best value for the Government of Canada. They look at their ability to negotiate, and so on and so forth, and the prices they're paying. That's one.
At the two-year mark, there is a review done on every term and condition in the contract to ensure that they're adhering to each of the articles of agreement. The contract also provides for an ad hoc financial review. So at any point in time, the Government of Canada can ask to go into Cossette's offices and randomly pull one of the contract files, review them, and check their finances.
One of the challenges, with the diversity of media out there, is trying to reach Canadians as effectively as possible and getting the message out. When you talk with your clients, you're limited by the dollars in getting effectiveness in your advertising. What do you do to determine the effectiveness of your advertising campaign?
There are different things at different steps. Before a campaign is completed, there is pre-testing done on several concepts. When you hire an ad agency, typically they'll present a minimum of three concepts. Those concepts are tested in the target population to ensure that the messages resonate with them. That's one safeguard.
At the end of the campaign, as part of the evaluation process, if they're large campaigns where the media exceeds a million dollars, they're automatically subjected to an evaluation process. This includes the testing of the audience—whether or not they remember seeing the ad, whether they can recall the major messages.
In addition to that, other types of measurements are done. Typically, an ad campaign will have a call to action, so in the message it will say call this 1-800 number, visit a website, take a particular social action, and there are ways to measure that. We'll measure how many hits there were on the website, or how many calls there were to the 1-800 number. For the home renovation tax credit, one of the results that was put forward was the number of people who actually claimed the home renovation tax credit. So there are different measures like that.
I have one quick question.
You've been working in advertising for the government for quite a few years?
What has changed? Were there stricter regulations in 2009? What has changed in the process to make it more efficient?
The overall process, the actual framework, remains the same. But as new things come up.... For instance, we heard earlier about issues around the Internet. I mean, there's new media coming up all the time, so we take care to review all of these things, to make sure our processes are adhering to new technologies.
The other thing my group does is we also take sort of an upstream approach. We don't just look at things at the back end, and we have a very fulsome training and development program to ensure that government communicators have the best and latest tools and knowledge about how to manage their programs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I note that Mr. Gourde talked about the $6 million spent on H1N1 advertising, which, as he points out, is designed to save lives. Of course the government also spent $31 million on its economic action plan, which appeared to be self-congratulatory and designed to promote the Conservative Party. That's an interesting statement of the regime's priorities.
Who produces the huge novelty cheques that the government uses?
I won't even dignify the stupidity of the regime comment, but it was actually $23 million, I think, that was spent on H1N1, not $6 million.
I suppose that's one of the reasons why the Liberals are so usually off on everything: they don't listen and don't read.
For departments who want to use that kind of tool in announcements, PWGSC has a sample cheque that can be used.
I take it that the ones that had the great big Conservative logo on there were not produced by Public Works. Is that fair to say?
Thank you.
When did the first ad promoting the 2010 budget—approximately a year ago—air? Can you tell me that?
That's fair.
Who is informed of pre-test? You said that you pre-test all the ads. In fact you're required to, as I was discussing earlier in terms of the Government of Canada policy. Who's informed of the results of the pre-tests?
Normally the departments and the ministers' offices would be informed of the pre-test, especially if you have to make changes to it as a result of the pre-testing.
So the political staff at the ministers' offices would be aware of those results because they're informed of it.
Okay. Now, getting back to the question of the ads for this year's budget, for which you have eight days to prepare, pre-test, and broadcast, which is a remarkably small time, are there elements of these ads or key messages that you know already?
Of course. But you know, we have heard for months some of the things the government is saying will or will not be in there, and some of the themes we've certainly heard. I'd be surprised if there wasn't already some testing of those.
What criteria do you use to determine that an advertising project should receive public funding?
It's a cabinet decision. As I mentioned, there's an annual advertising plan. Normally the theme, as you can see on the handout, is set through the Speech from the Throne or the budget, and it's a cabinet decision.
Thank you.
Again, following through on what my colleague just asked, we're understanding that the finance department has said that some of the money has already been spent preparing an ad campaign and that it would be a comprehensive national campaign. I'm just following up on him.
I'm hearing from you that Privy Council doesn't know about that, but the finance department does. Okay, we'll follow up on that.
When you determine that an advertisement will air, for example, using—and I think you talked about it earlier--the Oscars or the Super Bowl.... I was in marketing a long time back, and those ads are at a hyper price, a lot more expensive than most.
I'm seeing shaking heads. So you're saying you don't pay a premium for these particular placements?
Just to clarify, when it comes to things like the Academy Awards or the Super Bowl, we have to remember that we're looking at the Canadian market and not the North American market. When we advertise, we're advertising on a network. In the case of the Academy Awards, it's CTV, and we're looking at about a three-million-viewer population.
When we buy them, we always plan it in advance. We will look for a package. Cossette Communications will be looking for a package--
It's a reach.
The way it works, the budget remains the same. It's trying to see how much penetration we have into the market.
Thank you very much, Chair.
I'll carry on with some comments if I can.
I've listened to questions from around the table as well as your thoughtful responses. It's rather interesting. Here's what I've heard so far, and I find this very compelling. There's been no dovetailing of ads such that the Government of Canada ads and Conservative Party ads appear in the same short segment. I've heard that. I've heard that there's been no direction under the PCO to promote the Harper government. We actually leave the opposition to do that. I've heard that all government advertising is subject to legislation, policies, and procedures, and that they're rigorous. I've heard that all contracts are awarded competitively. I've heard that by centralizing media purchases, the Government of Canada leverages combined buying power, whether it be TV, radio, print, or web advertising. I've heard that Public Works provides annual reports on advertising to offer their overview of the Government of Canada's annual expenditures.
Madam Smart, have I missed anything? Would you deem those comments I've made to be reasonable considerations?
Yes.
The management of advertising has a lot checks and balances built into it. Between Public Works, the Privy Council Office, Treasury Board, departments, and ministers' offices, any advertising initiative goes through a number of stages, phases, checks and balances, to ensure that we're getting the best value for money.
The comment came up about some risqué ads, and obviously that poses a concern to anyone. Should that be the case, I can't imagine that any government of any stripe would ever want to be associated with that.
In fact, what's rather interesting--and Madam de Jourdan, you had quite the opportunity to respond to this, and perhaps you might--is that when the reference to Canada Post came up, I recall, I was sitting in my seat in the House of Commons, and I listened to the minister's response. He was shocked when advised by a member opposite of the association betweeen this Internet site and the risqué ads. I was led to understand--and I know this is not your area--that Canada Post moved immediately to remove any inappropriate ads.
Can you explain a bit about the Internet ads and how you have filters in place? For those of us who are a little less technical, can you give us a little wisdom on that?
There are--and it is kind of technical--different ways to purchase Internet. They have different cost structures, and they do different things. You can buy in a particular website, and that's easy, right? You buy in a website, and you know where you're placing your ad. The way the payment structure works on these things is that you pay by performance. They call it “cost per thousand”. It takes 1,000 people to click through for that service provider to get a certain amount of money. In those instances, because it takes a lot of click-throughs, they charge a little bit more.
There's another type of ad placement called run-of-network. When somebody clicks on to an Internet site that seems to have the same type of target audience that you're going after, the ad is served to them. That is typically a less expensive buy, but with it is a little bit of a higher risk, because you're not predetermining where they will all land. You're dependent on the use of these filters to say you don't want your ad to be served to any of these sites. We work very hard on those filters. The thing is, as you can appreciate, the Internet evolves, and new sites are added every day. Sometimes it's even hard for Cossette to work with the representatives from these sites, and the representatives don't even know necessarily how many new ones have been added.
Someone asked before about the types of things we do to sort of keep constant and to introduce new checks and balances into the system, and that would be one of them. We try to build in increased safeguards as new technologies and challenges are thrown our way.
Thank you.
I want to move to the future, if I could, for a few moments.
How do you review to ensure compliance? That would be my first question. How do you make sure that all of the policies the government has are actually being met, and that the compliance is there? How do you monitor that?
That's a role we play at different stages in the process.
When an ad first comes in to us, or when we work with a government department, typically it's at the very beginning of the process. When they give us a call and tell us, “We're going to mount an ad campaign”, the first thing we have to ensure--it's in your nice little “roles and responsibilities” there--is that it's a campaign that has been approved in the government ad plan.
That's right.
So we work with them, and the major checkpoints at the different stages are as follows. At the contracting stage, before they enter into a contract, they have to send us what's called a “9200”. It's really a proof, a signature, that the money is available from the department to pay for that contract before we start the contracting process.
We also verify the creative--
So that's all up front.
If I may...because you've tabled that information, and we can just add it to what we have.
So how do you monitor, after the ads are run...? As I've already pointed out, many people have come to me about this dovetailing. You said you do monitor that. How do you monitor it? Is someone monitoring where ads are being placed? Is someone following up at the end?
I know you do a checklist at the beginning, but what about at the end?
For those specific things, yes; Cossette is bound to monitor the placements to ensure they are compliant with the instructions we've provided.
I have to tell you, though, that they wouldn't necessarily....
What makes it difficult in this instance about the dovetailing is that they don't have access to other people's logs, as you would appreciate.
Okay. And I'm so sorry that I have to keep interrupting you, but I only have a few minutes.
So what you're saying is that the ad agency does that. Have you ever looked at other jurisdictions--for example, the Government of Ontario, the Australian government, the U.K., or other jurisdictions--to see what they might have in terms of policies and procedures and overview of government advertising?
It's a significant amount of money. It's tens of millions of dollars.
Before I turn it over to my colleague, perhaps you could give me a very quick response: have you done that, and if so, what have been your findings?
Have we asked questions? Oh, yes, absolutely; we do it fairly regularly.
About three weeks ago I had a meeting with the people from ARB in Ontario to see how they do things. We do a lot of verification with our colleagues.
Mr. Regan, you can have a quick second if you want to ask something.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to turn it over to my colleague.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer this morning indicated that his research indicates that the F-35 stealth fighter jet purchase will cost in the range of $30 billion over its lifetime. Have there been any ads promoting the F-35 purchase? Has the Conservative regime, the government, vetted any ads or spent any money on advertising this purchase?
Okay.
I just want to go back to this reviewing. I think that one thing this committee will want to do is ensure that we have the proper policies and that we have no particular interference. All Canadians want that--to make sure that we are spending our money fiscally responsibly as well as ethically.
Can you elaborate on some of that? Have you done a study on this, on the ways in which other jurisdictions actually run their advertising budgets and campaigns? Have you looked at this in both depth and detail?
We've not done a study that compares everything from A to Z. Usually it's on a particular subject. We've done it with respect to certain target audiences they've done.
When we were preparing to renew the advertising agency of record, we looked at the way that other governments were doing it, and--
Did you note any key differentiations between the way in which the Government of Canada and the other jurisdictions run their policies and procedures? This is not their specific ads but their policies and procedures around advertising.
It would have to be on a specific subject, but there are definite differences. Some are more centralized than others. I can give you an example. In Britain everything goes through one office. One office does absolutely everything from A to Z for the entire government. That's very different from our system, which is decentralized. The accountability is decentralized to departments.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.
I will just reference my friend across the way, Mr. Regan, who was talking about the amount spent on H1N1. Obviously it was far more than the amount he indicated.
We on the government side do believe there is an essential responsibility of government to step in, to assist, to ensure there are lives saved. When we think of the H1N1 development, there was a necessity for government to step in to ensure that Canadians were prepared for the impending problems that would come as a result of the flu, and we obviously see the benefits of that. Canadians were well prepared and many Canadians who may have been infected were otherwise spared that situation.
He belittles the investment we made to ensure Canadians are aware of the economic action plan. While it's essential for government to help spare the lives of Canadians, it's also a responsibility of government to help spare the livelihoods of Canadians, to ensure their families have an income, to ensure people have access to jobs and an opportunity to take advantage of the measures that the Canadian government is bringing forward with regard to different tax savings and different training opportunities Canadians have in general. If we were to reference the different ads that were brought—obviously television is one, probably the one that we most often reference in our minds—was there a program designed to link Canadians from one medium to another?
I often think that television is simply the most obvious reminder to Canadians that they should look further. With common branding, when they go to a government website, they see there is an economic action symbol and it would reference back to the television ad. Then by going on the Internet, they would be able to find how they would actually get the individual services provided. Was that linkage there? Is there a common effort to ensure that people can follow the advertising or the common themes to where they might actually be able to take advantage of the opportunities government is providing for individuals?
With reference to the economic action plan, you're absolutely right. There was a very deliberate decision and strong desire, when that budget came down and there was this global recession going on, to make sure Canadians had very swift access to the information about programs and services that could benefit them.
You are right. The principles of marketing—if you want to put it that way—were applied, and one of the ways to do that is to have a recognizable symbol, such as the economic action plan logo brand. It was consistent in everything that was done, whether it was the website, TV, print, or radio. We drove everyone to one spot on the action plan site so they had one-stop service to be able to access a program that would benefit them. It was really important to do that, whether it was an individual, a family, or a business.
Visible logos and visible symbols are a good principle of marketing if you're going to do something that important and of that magnitude, so yes, we did.
That is important. There are probably lessons learned, and obviously this was a success. I talk to constituents on a regular basis who were impacted as a result of some aspect of the economic action plan, whether it was a training opportunity to retrain people who had lost their jobs and were now able to access programs to help them be retrained for future jobs; whether it was for tax provisions to ensure that people could take advantage of lower tax provisions to lessen their burden and their output to government to keep more money in their own pockets; or whether it was for some of the job-saving measures, through the job-sharing program, that some of these companies used so that they could keep employees on the payroll even though they didn't have the work.
It was interesting to speak to some constituents who are employees at a particular firm in my constituency. They were referencing a different measure on the website and came across a job-sharing program. Their employer had not been aware of that program, but because they went to the website for a different purpose they were able to access the information and indicate to their employer that this program existed, and the employer actually took advantage of that program. It was a perfect example of the absolute success of having people come to one spot. I commend you for that. I think that is something that was done right and it is something that should be considered as we move forward. Maybe that's something that could be undertaken as well when the budget is rolled out.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Warkentin.
Perhaps if there is a hiring opportunity available in any one of your departments, Mr. Warkentin could apply.
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer