PMO budget largely stable since 1975 Prime Minister Stephen Harper's $8.1-million Prime Minister's Office deepens centralization of power. By JEFF DAVIS Published February 8, 2010

View story Email Comments To the Editor

The Prime Minister's Office budget has grown steadily in recent decades, research has revealed, but adjusting for inflation reveals the PMO budgets have remained reasonably constant since the mid 1970s, The Hill Times has learned.

And while the numbers speak for themselves, they have sparked a heated debate about the widespread perception that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's PMO exerts greater control than previous PMOs.

The budget of the PMO has grown steadily from $2.2-million in 1975 to $8.1-million in 2008-2009, according to the Public Accounts of Canada, where all the government expenditures are recorded by Treasury Board. When adjusted for inflation, however, it appears that annual PMO budgets have remained relatively constant in the range of $7-million to $10-million over this 34-year period.

The most expensive year for the PMO was fiscal year 2005-2006, when Liberal prime minister Paul Martin spent some $14-million. While the Public Accounts do not provide a detailed breakdown of where this money went, many observers say this money went to cover the severance pay provided to the many PMO staffers including, some say, as many as nine well-paid deputy chiefs of staff.

All in all, Progressive Conservative PM Brian Mulroney—who had a love of shoes and was known change his shirt multiple times per day—ran the most expensive PMOs since 1975, spending between $8.8-million and almost $12-million per year in inflation adjusted dollars. Former Liberal PM Jean Chrétien and current Prime Minister Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.), meanwhile, are comparably parsimonious, keeping their PMO budgets within the range of $7-million to $8-million in adjusted dollars.

The transition of power years also tend to be pricey. The fiscal year 1984-1985, one of the most expensive years at more than $13-million when adjusted for inflation, saw Liberal Pierre Trudeau pass the reins to successor John Turner, who soon lost in the 1984 general election to Progressive Conservative PM Brian Mulroney.

Besides the costs incurred when running campaigns, observers said, another explanation for expensive final years in office are the farewell world tours that have become customary. Mr. Trudeau set the precedent, and it has continued with Mr. Chrétien making a pilgrimage to France to bid adieu to old friend President Jacques Chirac, and Mr. Mulroney heading to Russia and Germany.

Bob Plamondon, author of Blue Thunder: The Truth About Conservatives From Macdonald to Harper, said that he was most surprised to see that, when adjusted for inflation, the cost of the Harper PMO is similar to the PMOs of yesteryear.

"Relative to what we expect, this does not align," he said. "I was surprised at how comparable the numbers are particularl, given the commentary about the concentration of power in the PMO, and the expectation that the machinery attached to the PMO would have grown."

Said Mr. Plamondon: "If you did a survey, I think you'd find that think the majority of Canadians thought that the PM and his office are more powerful than at anytime in its history, but this data gives us reason to pause on that notion."

The Hill Times asked the PMO for its interpretation of this data, and received the following comment from associate press secretary Sara MacIntyre: "The Prime Minister's Office has an important function to advise and support the Prime Minister of Canada. Our priority for taxpayer value remains a priority and is reflected in PMO budgets."

Ian Brodie, who served as chief of staff to Prime Minister Harper until last year, said his boss was concerned about the overall cost of ministers, staff and PMO and strove to make savings. He said the appointment of ministers of state, which receive smaller budgets than full-fledged ministers, is part of an effort to reduce the cost of the ministry.

Donald Savoie, a professor of political science at the Université de Moncton who studies executive power, said the data shows "substantial growth" at the PMO.

Prof. Savoie said the real expansion of the PMO began when Liberal prime minister Lester Pearson handed the reins to Pierre Trudeau in 1968. Compared to today, Mr. Pearson's principle secretary Tom Kent has written, the Pearson PMO had a "skeleton staff."

Upon coming to office, he said, Mr. Trudeau tried to set a different tone than existed in the "chaotic" Pearson era, where the governments direction was determined as ministers, bureaucrats and cabinets battled for influence.

"He sought to strengthen the hand of the Cabinet in dealing with line departments, that was his stated purpose," Prof. Savoie said. "What happened of course was that he strengthened the hand of the prime minister, the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office."

Prof. Savoie said a similar concentration of power in the executive branch of government can be observed in many countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and France. The main drivers of this trend, have been the pressures of globalization, the need for rapid response, and an increasingly demanding and aggressive press corps, he said.

"It's a global phenomenon, and it has to do with department's boundaries breaking down: there are no boundaries left," he said. "And so the PMO has much larger role, and requires more staff and more spending."

Prof. Savoie said that the staff compliment of the PMO and PCO has grown remarkably in the past decades. Research into the main estimates, or the government's spending estimates, he said, revealed that the combined staff of PMO/PCO has grown from 287 in 1970 to 1,032 in 2005.

He added that he has "never bought the argument that Harper exerts more control than prime ministers in the past," noting that Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin were also known to run very "tight ships."

"I'm not sure I would point to [Mr. Harper] as the greatest of centralizers, he's part of a broader trend," he said. "Harper, sure he governs from the centre, but no more and no less than other prime ministers in my view."

Mr. Brodie agreed.

While he said the government does use mandate letters to ministers differently than previous PMs, he said Mr. Harper is using the same tools as prime ministers past, and has not radically altered the way the executive exercises its power.

"Is it a greater control or not? Look, the main mechanisms here for the PM to manage the agenda are the Throne Speech, the annual budget and the week-to-week agenda of cabinet and committees," he said. "There are different ways to make use of those tools in terms of trying to provide leadership, but the bottom line is none of that has changed."

He continued: "PMO plays the same role it played 15 or 20 years ago, and I think in relation to the overall size of government, I doubt that PMO is decisively a bigger piece of the governments overall budget than it was 20 years ago."

Tim Murphy, who served as chief of staff in the Paul Martin PMO, said that while the budget of the Harper PMO is not that different than its predecessors, its modus operandi certainly is.

"I think it's a mistake to draw a direct correlation between the number of staff and its influence, power or degree of centralization," he said. "I would argue we see now an unprecedented centralization of power, and it doesn't necessarily mean they are spending more, but what is evident is that not a lot happens that doesn't go through the centre."

He said the degree of control a prime minister wishes to exercise is at his discretion, adding that "we tried not to have everything come through us."

Had Mr. Martin wished to exert more control, Mr. Murphy said, he could have without spending more money.

"If the PM sets out a rule that says nothing is getting out of a ministers office until someone has signed off in the centre—either PMO or PCO—you don't need to hire more people to give effect to that rule," he said.

Tom Flanagan, an academic and former chief of staff to Prime Minister Harper, said the data says Mr. Harper has been reasonably parsimonious in ministering to his own needs, and shows the PMO has not grown significantly under his watch.

"It contradicts the notion that PMO is some kind of malignant growth that is getting bigger and bigger and dominating the entire government," he said. "Once the transition was made to a larger PMO under Trudeau, there was no need to make it much bigger."

Mr. Flanagan said this is because the basic functions and responsibility of the PMO—answering mail, dealing with the party, policy coordination and scheduling meetings, travel and media appearances—has not changed much since the mid seventies.

"Overall, it's a good news story for taxpayers," he said. "At least there's one part of government that hasn't been growing."

He said, however, it's "no secret" that the Harper PMO provides more control and coordination than other previous ones.

"Obviously, you don't need enormously more staff in order to increase the level of control over some aspects of government," he said. "The PMO may remain the same size, but provide greater direction for government communications."

jdavis@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times