[English]

With that, since we seem to have a consensus, we will go directly into questions.

There will be, I'm sure, infinite opportunities to ask questions of other officials from the Privy Council Office on separate matters on separate dates and times. For the purposes of this meeting, I would ask you to please confine your comments to the issue at hand.

The second comment will be a personal one, colleagues, more than anything else. We have, as you can see, representatives from the Privy Council Office before us today. Unless anyone on this committee has been deaf, dumb and blind, you will know that the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Wernick, made a very public appearance before the justice committee last week. There are probably many questions that members would like to ask Mr. Wernick and perhaps officials of the Privy Council Office, but I would remind all members that we are here to discuss the estimates. I would appreciate it if all committee members recognize that and keep their comments to the officials based on the estimates that have been provided.

I have spoken with Mr. Shea on this matter; I have not spoken with Mr. Borbey. If the committee is willing to have the comments of both the Privy Council Office and the Public Service Commission taken as read and appended to the evidence, that would allow us to go directly into questions. All of the opening comments would still be part of the official record. It would just save us about 10 or 20 minutes of opening time. Is there a willingness from the committee to do so?

My first question will be for the PCO. I know that the PCO provides non-partisan advice to the Prime Minister's Office and also consults with departments. I'm wondering about some of the issues that have been coming up and how PCO has been able to provide this non-partisan advice. How do you ensure there is a separate gate between PCO and PMO? How do you provide that confidence? Does it date back a long time ago in since your existence? How do you assure Canadians that yes, there is a separate body that does provide non-partisan advice from PCO to PMO?

That particular issue is one of the things you may want to look up and consult on with your colleagues. It's just a comment. I'm not going to be hard on millennials; you've known my lines of questioning for a long time.

I'm not going to ask you a question. I'm just going to comment on an issue that is very apparent. I have the email here. It's with regard to criteria and how folks apply for jobs. One issue that arises from this is that if you forget, for instance, to mention in your application that you have a college degree, a high school diploma or a university degree, you will automatically be disqualified. I won't mention the agency or department concerned, but departments will say “I'm sorry, but too bad, so sad. You must now re-apply, but by the way, it's not open so we'll have to take your application into consideration” even though it may not be the truthful application that's standing. It's just been an honest mistake by the proponent.

My first question is actually for Mr. Borbey. As you know, I always ask about millennials and access to public service jobs.

I had hoped to have the witnesses read their comments, but I have them here, so I shall read them as we go along.

There are very much two gates, personified through the Clerk of the Privy Council, who has three roles: head of the public service, secretary to the cabinet, and deputy minister to the Prime Minister. It's through him that our advice is provided to the prime minister.

As for the Prime Minister's Office, it has its perspective and provides advice from the evidence it gathers.

With respect to non-partisan advice, the gate is very much there. In fact, I think it's in part because there is the Privy Council Office and there is the Prime Minister's Office. Our role at the Privy Council Office is to coordinate across government departments to ensure, for example, that we have that broad policy evidence base—whether it's scientific evidence based or economic evidence based—or that a full gender-based analysis has been undertaken. We do legal analysis when that's appropriate. It's about pulling together all of that information together, including from Statistics Canada, and the evidence base from program evaluation, legislation, etc. All of that comes together, and that is reflective of the public policy advice that the public service provides through the Privy Council Office.

Okay, in that same line of questioning, on page 10 of the 2017-18 DRR, there is a statement that the PCO provided procedural support to make six Senate appointments. What does that look like?

If you look in the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector, there are avenues for resolution. If people ever don't feel that that's being done in their organization, there are avenues that they can turn to in that type of situation.

The one thing that I'd point you to and that I'd add to my colleague's response is the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector. This is really the playbook by which all public servants work, and that's absolutely the case at the PCO. This is something that you hear very often. You talk about the line between political and non-partisan advice. We provide fearless advice, and then we faithfully implement whatever decision the government of the day makes. Whether that's the current government or the previous government, that's always been the approach that the public service has taken.

Our role in the Senate appointments is really administrative. We help to pull together the nominees and bring them to the decision-makers. Ultimately, we're just playing an administrative role in the Senate appointment process. We're not exercising any type of political role.

Again—just to ensure that appointments are done in a fair and non-partisan way—what type of advice does the PCO give? I know we've gone through about 10,000 applications, but we'd say 10% of GIC appointments were done in 2017-18. What advice does the PCO give to elected officials or government in terms of those applications?

When it comes to the other types of leadership positions, we actually do take more of an active role, so we'll work with individual departments. Depending on the position being staffed, there are other ministers who are ultimately responsible, so it's not uncommon that there would be members of the PCO, the other department, and also the Prime Minister's Office or the minister's office of that other department who are part of the selection board. We give our non-partisan advice, but ultimately, decisions are made by those who have that authority. In many cases, that's ministers of individual departments.

There are different types of GIC appointments, whether it's the Senate or the leadership positions, so it really varies. I mentioned the Senate where we really have more of an administrative function, kind of bringing things together, helping with onboarding and that sort of thing.

Here's the second part of the question. I saw in a report today that the government has announced, I guess, a director for the leadership debates. It's $200,000 a year when you add in the benefits and everything. I think $5.5 million was the overall budget. When are we actually going to see a breakdown of what we're getting for that $5.5 million? I'll be honest—and I'm not looking at you specifically, but I will ask if you have a breakdown. I'm aghast, and I think the average taxpayer would be aghast and find it very difficult that we are spending $5.5 million to do two debates when we're not providing the cameras and we're not providing this and that. I'm just trying to figure out when we're going to see what makes up that $5.5 million. What have you spent so far? Why is $300,000 withheld?

There is $438,000 allocated so far, and about $300,000 withheld. What has the $438,000 gone toward? Why the withheld amount?

Mr. Shea, I just want to start with you. The last time you were with us, I think we were talking about some of the vote 40 funds, particularly around the leadership debate. There are a couple of things that I want to ask you about that.

This is a unique situation for me, in that I'm not the chief financial officer for the Leaders’ Debates Commission. The way it was formed, as you know, is that we did the Treasury Board submission to bring the funding in. It is who is actually the minister accountable to Parliament. However, it's an independent department. It was created that way to ensure its independence.

Thanks for your question, Mr. McCauley. I'm always pleased to answer as best as I can.

About $900,000 of the total spending of the $5.5 million will be for salaries, and the remainder will be for operational expenditures, divided up between communication services, advertising, and professional services. It's anticipated there will be some type of contract to put on the two debates.

Having said that, I have worked with him in anticipation that there may be questions, and I'm happy to give you a bit of a breakdown. As I told the procedure and House Affairs committee last week.... I appeared with and we did talk about the expenditures, because PROC is the committee that is overseeing that.

For the vote 40 piece, however—the supplementary estimates that were just tabled—the $438,000 was for a new department. The deputy head is actually the debates commissioner, so he is the best person to ask these questions.

The $438,000 that has been spent so far, allocated to vote 40, that's under your department, is it not?

As I mentioned to the committee last week, the debates commissioner has made it a point to try to minimize costs. Consequently, from an accommodation perspective, we showed him existing space and he tried to minimize the costs, but there are start-up costs, as there were for the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

The $400,000 that was already allocated was spent at PCO at the direction of the Debates Commission. Just from a timing perspective, the department had not been created. Those are start-up costs and informatics costs. Those are accommodation costs to actually set-up an office.

Do you know why $300,000 of the vote 40 money that had been approved has been withheld?

Because it's under cost. We're spending less than was anticipated this fiscal year. I would suggest that's a good news story.

There are six different levels: completed, fully met, completed modified, actions taken, etc. Who's deciding what goes where on the mandate tracker?

I want to get back to what we spoke about last time you were here, about the mandate tracker. I think it's under PCO's control, so to speak. It's actually in your departmental results that PCO will continue with the and cabinet to track the status of mandate letter commitments in communicating results through the mandate tracker.

I'll handle that question. In terms of how the mandate tracker is evaluating progress across the 430-something mandate letter commitments, that's done in consultation with the relevant departments, the minister, and officials who feed into the overall government picture.

Who decides to put it as “underway with challenges”, as opposed to not being pursued, like electoral reform?

Let me ask a specific question. We brought this up before about the budget, that supposedly the mandate commits to “balance this year”. It says, “underway with challenges”. It's obviously been abandoned, and this is fact-based, as it's not under way with challenges. It's not going to get done.

As I mentioned, that's a decision taken at the departmental level with the officials and the relevant ministers.

Would that be the finance minister saying to your department, put it here?

It's always in consultation with the departments and agencies that feed in as we aggregate all that information, so we're not—

Who would have the final decision on where it goes?

PCO is responsible. Do you not feel a bit awkward when you're representing information that clearly is not correct, or not truthful in the mandate tracker?

Let me ask you another question. There are several other commitments here: ensure that the Armed Forces have equipment they need; infrastructure bank support; building new rental housing. The government is clearly not doing that.

Our position, as I mentioned the last time I was here, is that the information is verified through the departments and officials and the responsible minister. Our role, within that entire process, is to represent the views and opinions of the departments and their ministers.

I'm not sure who would answer this. How many Senate appointments were made last year?

Are we still maintaining the same amount of support services for the Senate selection process, as we did last year, or does it ebb and flow depending on how many Senate openings we have?

I would suggest that it ebbs and flows. It's a large unit that does all the different types of appointments, so obviously, it has to be nimble.

I'm talking more specifically about administrative support, because we've had some order papers come in that it was like $1 million for the secretarial and administrative supports for the selection committee.

Sorry, Mr. McCauley, I'm just trying to find the Senate piece. I don't have it broken out here. Perhaps I can give you that later. I don't want to waste time while I find it.

Sure. I suspect we're pretty much out of time anyway, so maybe you can have that for the next round.

Before I go to Mr. Blaikie, I will say that I have noticed a number of committee members and some of our guests half squinting. We tried to find a dimmer switch to lower the level of intensity of the lights. This committee room doesn't seem to have one, so we're stuck with what we have. I hope it doesn't make anybody too uncomfortable or the glare off of.... Oh, I won't go there.

I mean, you guys were the ones entitled to that money under vote 40. Is it understood that the money is being withheld because it will be transferred to the Leaders' Debate Commission? What exactly does that accounting conversation look like when the decision gets made to withhold that money? How obvious and how documented is it that the withholding is meant to create space to allocate funds to the new entity?

I'd first like to come back briefly to the discussion Mr. Shea was having with Mr. McCauley about the vote 40 money that was allocated to the new Leaders' Debate Commission. I'm trying to understand the process. I think it's good we see that a certain amount of money has been withheld and that the money exceeds what appears to be allocated to the Leaders' Debate Commission under the supplementary estimates. How does that process unfold? What is the discussion like?

I am hesitant to answer too deeply about their spending, because we're trying to maintain an arm's-length relationship. In terms of a role, we have an MOU with them to provide administrative services.

One thing I'd like to address, because I think it's been alluded to a couple of times, is the opportunity to challenge the plan. I would suggest that every department has to come forth with a departmental plan. I mentioned that they were created as a department, so just like PCO, in the coming months there will be a departmental plan and there will be an opportunity for parliamentary committees to actually bring witnesses to talk about those plans. That would be an opportunity for PROC, as an example, or this committee, to call the debates commissioner and ask those questions. I know that his office has indicated he would be pleased to answer questions on the way in which they're going to spend money.

Mr. McCauley alluded to the fact that we spent around $400,000 at PCO in set-up costs. For personnel and those types of expenditures, this year it will be a little under $300,000 for the commission itself. Next year they're looking at spending around $4.6 million. That's their best estimate. If they spend under that amount, obviously that would be returned to the fiscal framework.

To your question, as I explained before, the process was in the federal budget. Money was set aside. There was TB vote 40, which we have spoken of before. That's an “up to” amount. Ultimately, that money is in the fiscal framework, available for the departments when we talk about the $5.5 million. Ultimately, as we worked on the estimates for this, we found that it could be done for a lower price, working with the debates commission and that's the reason they're not accessing the full amount that was available to them.

First, maybe I can just close the loop with Mr. McCauley. We made 16 appointments last fiscal year and 49 in total under the current government.

Fair enough. Just to be clear, that's why the target of my question is more about how the money moves to the new entity and less about what the new entity is doing. That's what I'm trying to understand. For instance, in the supplementary estimates, there is an item with a voted amount of $257,000, roughly.

It doesn't say in there that this is coming from the vote 40 allocation that was under the PCO rubric, and therefore the amount that's being withheld on your vote—or a sub vote, as the case may be, within vote 40—is actually about $300,000. It's not clear in the estimates that those are proxies. I can see that they are similar numbers and that what the new organization is getting approximates what's being withheld from you. I don't think that's really clear enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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