:
Thank you, Madam Chair. It is always a great pleasure for me to come before you to talk about my work as president of the Treasury Board.
I am accompanied by David Moloney and Wayne Wouters. We are here to answer all your questions about government operations.
[English]
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the tighter approach to expenditure management and responsible spending adopted by the government since we took office and the savings measures we announced on September 25.
In my opening statement, I'd like to provide a high-level overview of three issues: first, why we're taking these measures; second, how they're being implemented; and finally, third, what this means for the future. After that, my colleagues and I will be happy to answer your questions on the specific details of our expenditure management initiatives.
Let me begin first with the principles, the reasons for these measures. Nearly a year ago, Canadians elected a new government on the promise of greater openness and greater accountability. Nowhere is this promise more important than on the issue of how government spends. Canadians have told us that they expect their hard-earned tax dollars to be invested responsibly in effective programs that meet their priorities. They're concerned about waste in government programs.
Unfortunately, the expenditure management system we inherited is not up to meeting the challenge of those concerns and of those expectations. Over the past decade or so, an incremental approach to funding decisions has become entrenched as a way of doing business. Many would be surprised to hear that the government is spending about $5,000 a year more for each Canadian family of four in programs and services than it did just five years ago, in 2001.
Over the past five years, total program spending has grown, on average, by 8.2% annually. In 2004-2005, growth in spending reached 14.4%. It's clear that a new approach is required, and we've already taken steps in the right direction. The Federal Accountability Act, our first piece of legislation, will establish important new checks and balances and enable Parliament and Canadians to see more clearly where tax dollars go and how they are applied against measurable results.
The vital next step is to renew the government's expenditure management system to position us to spend better on behalf of the people of Canada to ensure that we get maximum value. This will involve making important improvements in four key areas: enhancing the quality of information that departments provide to support cabinet and government decisions; reviewing existing programs on an ongoing basis so that ministers have the performance information they need to make sound decisions; ensuring that departments focus their management effort very explicitly on the need to achieve and demonstrate value for money; and finally, better reporting to Parliament and Canadians where we spend taxpayers' money, what we achieve with it, and whether they're getting good value for money, so the government can be held to account.
Madam Chair, this brings me to my second issue: how we deliver on the first step to do more responsible spending; that is, delivering our budget 2006 commitment to secure $1 billion in savings. As I announced on September 25, 2006, achieving the $1 billion in savings will be accomplished through tighter and more disciplined management of spending, which actually started on the first day we took office, and through the results of the review of programs we conducted and announced in September.
Let me tell you how we conducted the review. Building on the directions and the criteria set out in the budget, we adopted a rigorous approach and took responsible decisions to ensure that federal spending achieves results, provides good value for money, and most importantly, meets the priorities of Canadians. I worked with my officials to review spending plans from past budgets and consulted ministers to identify programs and spending in departments that do not meet the criteria we had set out in the budget.
In July and August, a committee of ministers established by the Prime Minister met three times to review savings proposals in detail and ensure that they met the budget criteria. The savings proposals were then considered and agreed to by cabinet. We have made some tough but responsible choices on behalf of Canadians. The list of savings totals $1 billion and it reflects the savings we identified in those programs that had unused funding because of lower take-up or because the objectives were being achieved through other programs, those that did not provide good value for money, those that could be delivered more effectively by streamlining or consolidating, and those that were not meeting the priorities of Canadians.
Let me give you a few examples of cuts made within my own Treasury Board portfolio. The previous government had decided to spend an additional $20 million to support regional ministers. We believe that the existing funding of $3.8 million is sufficient for that purpose and decided not to proceed with additional spending, saving $20 million for Canadians.
By eliminating uncommitted funding for government-wide initiatives, we will achieve savings of $18.5 million. This is funding that is no longer required, from past government-wide initiatives.
A reduction in program funding for the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada should generate more than $83 million in savings, and this includes eliminating funds set aside for the previous government. There was more than is required to proceed with necessary classification work.
Savings of over $9 million will be achieved by reducing low-priority training for federal employees at the Canada School of Public Service. The school has a budget this year of $89 million to deliver its programs. We will save $9 million over two years, while ensuring the school's resources are focused on core federal learning priorities.
I can provide many more examples of the significant economies, but in the interests of time I'll move on.
I'd like to conclude my opening remarks by focusing on the future and how the government will continue to ensure it is generating the best possible value for taxpayers' dollars. Responsible spending is the cornerstone of accountable government. Furthermore, responsible spending is not a one-time exercise; it's the way this government intends to manage tax dollars year in and year out. These reforms signal a fundamental change in the management culture in the federal government, a change that is essential for ensuring ongoing fiscal discipline and measurable results on the issues that matter most to Canadians.
All Canadians have a direct stake in the success of the exercise. Canadians are solidly in favour of a plan for managing spending and the need for the government to make decisions based on clear criteria and on measurable results. Our expenditure management system will lay the groundwork for disciplined and well-informed decision-making and transparent reporting. The government intends to be open and straightforward with Canadians regarding the public finances. Making this vision of accountable, transparent government a reality will require a better way of managing overall spending throughout the Government of Canada, with a much stronger focus on results.
Going forward, the government will make responsible spending the norm by requiring that all new and existing programs go through a systematic and rigorous examination. This will ensure that this government only approves funds that are actually needed to achieve measurable results, in a way that is effective and that provides value for money. Our new expenditure management system will be built on the principles of fiscal discipline, managing the results, and maximizing value for money. This government's new direction in spending management is a clear departure from the wasteful ways of the past.
Through these initiatives, Canada's new government will ensure significantly greater transparency, accountability, and value for money in all federal spending. We will settle for nothing less. That's why this undertaking is at the centre of this government's management agenda.
[Translation]
Thank you, Madam Chair.
:
Thank you very much, Madame Chair.
Thank you very much, Minister, for coming today.
I've listened to your opening remarks and you've clearly indicated a set of savings. You gave examples, which I appreciate, but somehow there were some examples that were missed. I just wanted to highlight those that you have not brought to the attention of the committee in your opening remarks: the $5 million cut from Status of Women Canada; the $10 million elimination of the youth international internship program; the $11 million elimination of the first nations and Inuit tobacco control strategy; $18 million for the literacy skills program, which I will come to later on; $55 million for the youth employment initiative; and $6 million for the court challenges program, to just name a few of the cuts that you didn't indicate.
You indicated that the decision to make these cuts was based on the premise that you wanted to eliminate waste and that you wanted good value for money. In your opinion, concerning these cuts for women, for aboriginal people, for youth, and specifically for minorities, for literacy skill programs, are they considered a waste and not a good value for money?
:
We have only eight minutes for this round, so let me respond to the first two examples you listed.
The cuts, for example, at Status of Women Canada are on the administration side, not on the grants and contributions side. I think if you look at the ratio of administration to the grants and contributions side, it would probably be among the highest in the public sector. We want to focus on results, so rather than making the easy decision of cutting the grant budget, we wanted to ensure that we have a more streamlined administration. There are very few departments of that size, if any, that have the type of regional operation that it does, for such a small budget.
I'm not sure if all of the cuts that were made by the member for LaSalle—Émard in 1995 have been reinstated. I'm not sure if it has been brought up to the level that he inherited. But with respect to aboriginal people, yes, we eliminated the aboriginal effort to combat smoking. Smoking cessation efforts were not successful in that regard, and that's what we were spending public dollars on. We measure our commitment not on how much money we spend, but on the results that we get, and the Minister of Health will be coming forward with a program that will hopefully actually lead to smoking cessations for the market they're targeting.
:
I took my own experience as someone from our province of Ontario. In Ontario, federally and provincially, we spend more than $20 billion on education, training, and learning. We provide supports to pre-school programs, primary and secondary levels, the post-secondary level, and colleges and universities. We provide funds for immigrant settlement and adult education. In my community, this happens within four school boards. We provide substantial funds to EI, through social assistance. We provide substantial funds through the labour training agreement.
All these things have infrastructures in place. We have to ensure that each one, whether it be for children, youth, or adults, achieves success in teaching people how to read. Rather than develop a federal program for something that is clearly provincial jurisdiction, rather than try to clean up the failures of previous systems, we should work to ensure that for all Canadians—children, youth, or adults—there is a good system in place. We have increased support in many of these areas, particularly immigrant settlement. In the Department of Human Resources and Social Development, they spend $28 million on enhanced language training. We're spending an additional $900,000 on essential skills and workplace literacy, $73 million on the workplace skills strategy, $2.6 billion for aboriginal education programs, $4.4 million for computers in schools, over $1 million for adult education skills in the Maritimes, $63 million for the sector council. I could go on and on.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Distinguished guests, as you know, we are here because of a Bloc québécois' motion that was adopted by the committee. I am pleased that all of my colleagues around this table agree that it is important for us to consider the approximately $1billion in budget cuts that will be taking effect over the next two years.
Mr. Baird, I am surprised, to put it mildly, by some of the things you said in your remarks. As can be seen in a number of documents issued by your government, you talk about openness, transparence and responding to Canadians needs.
Looking at the cuts that have been made, I would say that you have actually affected—in the sense of deeply impacting—the most disadvantaged people and reduced service to the public. That is obvious, since three quarters of the cuts are made to those areas, with only one quarter resulting from reductions in operating expenditures.
So the government could have reduced its operating expenditures, but you chose to cut services to the public. I will give you a few examples: eliminating advisory groups, as well as eliminating funding for groups that assert people's rights and act as a counter weight to government. Those include the Law Commission of Canada, other groups such as the ones mentioned by my colleague just now, and groups involved in women's issues.
As an aside, I want to mention the comments made by your colleague, the . Her department indicated that the eligibility criteria for one of its major programs, the Women's Program, had been changed. From now on, research and pooling activities, along with advocacy and efforts to influence the federal, provincial and municipal governments are no longer eligible. So we are not talking about cosmetic changes.
Coming back to some other aspects, you have eliminated so-called unused funding. One example is the whole crisis in the forestry sector caused by the mountain pine beetle. The government decided to eliminate $11 million that had not been used. Millions of dollars have also been removed from food inspection activities. The same thing was done in the textile area and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. One wonders why this funding was not used. Perhaps the conservative government was not interested in having initiatives take up that funding?
The uncommitted money included $40 million for social economy programs. Quebec will be especially hard hit by those cuts, since it will lose $5 million of the $28.5 million set aside for that purpose.
I will conclude with three other examples. The first concerns the cuts to the Museum Assistance Program. I will take a very local example from my region. We have a travelling museum exhibition because not everyone in the Gaspé region and the Lower St. Lawrence can get to Rimouski. So the exhibition is taken from place to place so that people in the region can see it. In Rimouski, we were able to see it, but the others will not. This is terrible, because when people cannot get to culture, culture needs to be brought to them. It is an essential aspect of people's quality of life.
The second example is the Visitor Rebate Program, which was cut in order to save $78 million. That will certainly affect tourists to some extent.
The third is the elimination of $17 million for youth employment programs.
In my view, minister, the government could have reduced its spending. I want to know why, other than some meagre efficiency gains, you did not make your cuts within the government apparatus in order to streamline government instead of directly affecting the public in this way. I believe that you chose to have a serious impact on people. I would like to know why.
Moreover, I would like to know whether the departments received instructions outlining requirements to make «ideological cuts» or whether they were able to determine what approach they wanted to take. You laid out your requirements in those instructions, basically. I would like to know how that was done.
My first question, which is why you did not cut more from government operating expenditures, is for Mr. Baird.
My second question is for Mr. Moloney.
:
Thank you very much for your presentation.
I agree that we had a choice. The first decision that the prime minister made was to reduce the size of cabinet.
After that, the first decision that our committee made was to cut the $23 million or $24 million that we saved by reducing the size of cabinet. That was the first place, of course, where we cut spending. That was the prime minister's first decision.
We also decided not to spend the approximately $20 million to increase the budget for regional ministers, such as my budget as minister responsible for Ontario. That decision is another good example.
In terms of the percentage of its budget, my department underwent the second largest cuts. That is how we were affected.
You also mentioned a number of other cuts. I know that if your budget were cut, there would be an impact. It would not be a good day for you.
I will continue in English.
[English]
To put the reductions in context, if I were to put 400 quarters on the floor here, these budget reductions would be take one single quarter off. When we were increasing spending by more than 5%, we took these savings and put them into health care and a cancer control strategy, and we increased supports to families with children with disabilities—to try to respond to other pressures.
So we may have valid differences of opinion, which I think is fair, but we had choices and our choice was to put more into health care, a cancer control strategy, and more to support families with children with disabilities.
:
When I first ran for office back in 2000, one of the dominant issues in that election campaign was the issue of the brain drain. I ran for office and was elected at the age of 24. One of the reasons I continue to run for office and continue to want to serve as a member of Parliament is to frankly work very strongly on competitiveness and to pay down our debt.
We cut less than one half of 1% of the federal government's annual spending; that's it, less than one half of 1%.
Navdeep Bains asked where the cuts are coming from. For example, we cut $20 million that was going to aquaculture, I believe, in the province of Nova Scotia. There was $20 million allocated and never spent. It was just sitting there.
We've decided in an ideological way, as Madam Thibault would say, to say that's frankly stupid. If the money is allocated but not spent, let's take the money and give it back to Canadian taxpayers in the form of tax relief. Better yet, in my judgment, tell my generation that you're not going to bankrupt the future by saddling them with debt from broken promises, which were never fulfilled, by politicians they've never met.
I think paying down the debt is critically important to this country and critically important to our future. I think the “boy who cried wolf” routine of the federal government in cutting less than one half of 1% of the federal budget to pay down the debt, so that young Canadians have opportunities and are not saddled by massive taxation with one-third of tax dollars going to pay down the debt, is responsible fiscal management. I think people who say that cutting less than one half of 1% of the federal budget is fiscally irresponsible are utterly out of touch with Canadians.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Moore.
I would only clarify a remark I made earlier. When I talked about the $12 billion in savings by the previous government, 85% of those were internal, not 100%.
I agree. I think there are two ways to raise taxes: one, you do it directly; and two, you borrow money. You then give a tax increase to the generations that follow.
I think one thing we want to do is have a balanced approach, with real tax cuts to put more money into hard-working families that are struggling to make ends meet, debt repayment so that we can leave this country in better shape than we inherited it, and investments, such as the ones I mentioned in health care, which is of particular concern to folks in my consistency. We have to take a balanced approach on all three.
We didn't have the temptation to go on an end-of-year spending spree. In March in previous years they have spent upwards of $5 billion of unplanned money. The previous government set up billion-dollar foundations, often with little accountability and no access to information for the public. We avoided doing that and wanted to present a clearer picture of the finances. When there was a surplus, we didn't go on a spending binge. We paid down debt, which will mean a brighter future for the children of today.
To put that into context, when you think of $13.2 billion, what that equivalent would save, if it was all cash debt, would be about $650 million for this year, next year, the year after, and the year after that.
I think it was a prudent decision and one that I think Canadians welcome.
:
Well, I can assure you that I don't quite agree with some of the comments I'm hearing from some of the other members today. Quite honestly, I suppose I'm not only surprised, but I'm a little disappointed.
As you said, we have an aging society. The demands on the future are going to be literally heavier and heavier if we don't eliminate the debt and reduce the debt. As the Treasury Board president said, $650 million each year thereafter requires prudent management.
My opposition colleagues seem to have an attitude of “have money, will spend”. Well, we have a surplus and the surplus doesn't just happen; all parties have contributed to the surplus through the House. I would suggest that we have an obligation, as the Treasury Board president said, to ensure we finally have a level of accountability for our spending.
Could the Treasury Board president elaborate a little on this? People have asked, if we have this surplus, why do we need more savings? Why do we need savings? Why don't we spend it? Could you give me an answer on that?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning, Mr. Minister.
I recently met in Toronto with a number of community agencies--dozens of them in fact--unanimously very, very concerned and distressed about the cuts announced by your government. They're concerned because there was very poor communication. People were not consulted before the cuts were made. Some of them found out about cuts to their organization by looking on a government website. There seemed little concern about the impacts of these cuts.
And the cuts seemed to be particularly targeted to the not-for-profit sector in our society and some of the most vulnerable groups--the volunteer sector, literacy. Four in ten Canadians struggle with literacy. These programs are going to be affected. Women's programs are targeted. Now we see the word “equality” disappearing from the website of the Status of Women along with a 40% cut in their budget. We now see that for-profit organizations are going to be allowed to seek money from the Status of Women, so I wonder if the Royal Bank is now going to be eligible for grants from the Status of Women, as long as they don't seek equality. Immigrants are targeted and youth.
I'm very concerned about the cuts and the impact on our communities right across the country. And I have to say, for a party that campaigned on the issue of a democratic deficit and the need for a new democracy, squelching or reducing democracy by cutting advocacy programs and the ability of community organizations--some of the most marginal voices--to be able to speak up and challenge the government on issues of concern is very, very troubling. I think it's troubling to silence some of the most marginal voices in our society.
It's easy to always hear from the very powerful but less easy to hear from some of the people who are most marginal. And I include the court challenges program because without those resources some of the most marginal people would not have access to their full charter rights.
I've heard arguments today about economic efficiency, which of course we all support, and about the need to pay down the debt, which of course we all support, but a $13.2 billion surplus, the entirety of which goes to pay down the debt, doesn't make sense. This is at the same time as we continue to subsidize the oil and gas industry to the tune of $1.4 billion. It seems bizarre to target the most vulnerable sectors.
Mr. Minister, why is your government trying to silence some of the most marginalized groups in our society by denying the funding they need to survive?
:
I guess it won't surprise you that I don't agree with the premise of the question.
There are quieter voices who want the government to spend more on health care delivery. There are quiet voices who want us to spend more money on immigration settlement.
You're a member from Toronto. I'm a member from Ottawa. They're both big cities in Canada. One of the things I'm proud of in our budget is that we took some of these savings to help pay for things like immigration settlement where the province of Ontario was getting a raw deal for many, many years.
Again, my premier fought hard to get the Liberal government to finally back down and treat Ontario fairly. I can remember he met well into the evening with the former prime minister, and I was the only member of Parliament on the Hill to fight for Ontario, to be there to support him that night.
So we're putting more into immigration settlement. And those are people with a quiet voice who have been disadvantaged, particularly in the province of Ontario for years. We had half the immigrants and we were getting 25% of the money and now we're going to get our fair share. I think that's important.
There's one example of a reinvestment to a group--talk about marginalized--a voice that hasn't been heard that's now being heard. I could give you more examples.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I guess there's a certain theme that's developed in today's discussion. Obviously the theme is that there are cuts to social programs, and more to come. Based on your remarks, that's the impression I get.
I would like to echo the comments of my colleague with respect to fiscal management. It needs to be noted that you take great pride in the surplus that was generated, but that was due to hard work and diligence of the Liberal government, alongside many other Canadians, working in a collaborative fashion to fix up the books and the mess that was left by the previous Conservative government, which almost bankrupted this country. So I just want to make that point as well.
But I think there's also a new theme that you developed, aside from the social cuts and aside from the cuts that are yet to come: withholding funds. I think this is something that might be a new practice for you, so I just want clarification on this as well.
You withheld the federal government's $200 million commitment to the City of Ottawa for light rail transit. There are three components of this particular issue that come to light.
First is the legal consequence of your action. When you talk about Canadian taxpayers, you take great pride in it, yet now you put them in jeopardy and they might be liable for your actions for intervening in this particular file.
Second, there's obviously the breach of the confidentiality agreement that has occurred with respect to particular items that you released to the media. There seems to be an implication that you possibly might want to get involved in the municipal elections through these actions. I don't know if that's the case. I trust you don't. I think you're a very honourable member and you work hard. So I hope that's not the intention.
Third is this unprecedented action, why you would get involved in that particular matter like this. This is the first time, I believe, in the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund, in Ontario, where a minister has gotten involved so late in the game.
The ironic part is that you got involved thinking there was an issue, yet you made it very clear that the new council, if they come in, can okay the deal. If there's no problem with the deal, then why are you involved?
So all these issues really are mind-boggling. It's difficult to understand why you would get involved. Most importantly, you're putting at risk Canadian taxpayers. So I would like you to talk about this new theme now, aside from the social cuts, the new theme of withholding funds from projects, especially infrastructure, as you discussed previously.
Minister, I would like to welcome you and your officials from Treasury Board.
Certain information has come out following the $1billion worth of cuts, but beyond those cuts is the fiscal imbalance. Under the Canadian Constitution, Quebec and the other provinces are responsible for health care services, education, income support, social services and municipalities.
I find it tragic that the attitude of the current Canadian government is similar to that of the previous government, whose ties were a different colour. For the past 24 years, our deficit and debt have been decreasing. I would like the Treasury Board and the Department of Finance in this current government to shift their focus so that much of the surplus, whether we are talking about one-third or two-thirds, would be used to deal with certain problems in Quebec and Canadian society.
The textile industry, for example, is a major issue in some regions. There is also the soft wood lumber industry, but that is another story. Some segments of the population are having difficulties. One example is the need for an assistance program for older workers. The federal government has some flexibility to help vulnerable sectors of society.
There is a total surplus of $13 billion, and some of the cuts affect very sensitive areas.
I understood your message, when you have made comments in question period or elsewhere, about the court challenges program. You said that the federal government will always respect the Canadian Constitution and there is no point in having a program that allows people to take the federal government to court.
You know very well, minister, that in certain cases, such as the administration of French schools in Ontario or Saskatchewan, which I know better, the problem was not the federal government but rather the provinces that were not complying with the Canadian Constitution.
How will parents' groups be able to challenge political decisions made by the provinces and made by an education department, in order to require the provinces to comply with the Constitution? If I remember correctly, when Mr. Mulroney was prime minister, he abolished the court challenge's program and then reinstated it because he realized that he had make a mistake.
How are you going to resolve the problem of the fiscal imbalance, taking into account the current and future surplus? On the question of court challenges, why not allow francophones in Canada, in special cases like school administrations, to use that support to make sure that the provinces honour the Constitution?
:
I would just like to clarify a few things, minister.
If any people, group or minority suffers injustice, the Canadian state must show that it is willing to help people rattle provincial governments, which are also part of the machinery of government, and tell them that they are not complying with section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under that provision, school administration comes under the authority of groups like the Fransaskois, Franco-Ontarians and Acadians.
That kind of exercise made it possible to start fighting assimilation once again. For example, one illustration of that is the Montfort Hospital. You know that file better that I do, since you were in the provincial cabinet at that time. The province had not acted fairly. In that kind of situation, a court challenge is needed so that people who do not have enough financial resources, unless they work with the government, can rein in provinces that do not respect the law of the land.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Minister Baird, for being here today.
I can tell you without question that people in my riding are very grateful that our government has taken some steps to restrain spending and put some measures in place that will not only restrain new spending, but re-evaluate programs that have been in place for some time.
All of us here have at some level a responsibility for a budget, whether it's a family budget or that of a community board we serve on. For many years I served on a school board in my area. It's always easy to start a new program, but it's very difficult twenty years after the fact to come back and re-evaluate whether that program is still doing what we set out to do. I applaud the efforts that have been taken here.
I also noticed in the material we were given that you're committed, Mr. Baird, to having all new and existing programs undergo a systematic and rigorous examination. I'm wondering if you could outline for me in a very brief way what that process will be. Will it be annual? Will it be more frequent? What kind of process do you envision for that?
:
One of the things I was tasked to do in the budget, beyond this, was to bring in a new expenditure management system for the government. Our expenditure management system is weak at best. We went through the big period of high deficits, and the focus was so much on spending reductions, there became a lack of focus on how we deal with increases in spending, or how we deal with the competing pressures for increases in spending.
I think it's important to constantly evaluate programs to find out if they're meeting with success. I'm working on bringing a proposal to my colleagues on that issue. We're doing a lot of work, and the officials have been incredibly busy. But at this stage, we don't have anything to report, and I haven't been back to my colleagues.
A tenet I believe is that we should look periodically at every dollar that's being spent and ask if we're getting results. Are we getting value for our money, and is the program doing what it was intended to do?
I don't know many people who send their money back to the government as a grant saying we don't need this any more, or we haven't met with success, so you can have the money back.
Sometimes you have to ask difficult questions in government. We're going to ask the tough questions to make sure that the taxpayers' money is spent wisely and well.
I appreciate you being here this morning, Mr. Minister.
Certainly I have to follow up on my colleague from across the table. Of course he rants and he raves about particular household expenditures, and how a household might manage its expenditures.
I'll tell you a little story, Minister, and it goes like this. I'm married and we have a baby daughter, and there's a number one priority we have in our household, and that's to pay down our mortgage so that once our child reaches the age of getting her education we'll be able to pay for it because we won't be servicing the debt on our home. Certainly that has been the commitment that's been shown by this government, so we appreciate that you've been paying down the debt to ensure that future generations will be able to have the opportunities that all of us have had. So we do appreciate the investment that you've made by paying down the debt, because it will ensure that $650 million will come back into the government coffers ongoing from now into perpetuity.
But that isn't my major concern. I have to tell you a little story. I met with one of the literacy groups in our community, the Grande Prairie Council for Lifelong Learning, in Grande Prairie, which is the larger centre in my constituency. And the story goes a little bit like this. The group has been applying for money for several years and has been trying to get money. They're an organization that invests in communities by trying to teach people, through partnerships, through mentorships, to teach other people to read. These are older people, these are adults.
What this agency has told me, what this group of people has told me, is that in the past they have found it impossible to access federal dollars because all the federal dollars have been allocated for studies and studies and studies and studies. They said “We don't want one more study; we know that people have difficulty reading. We know who those people are. All we want is the money to be allocated into particular investments and just cut out the studies for now.”
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Since my colleagues and I have not had the opportunity to hear from Mr. Moloney, I will repeat my question for him.
I would first like to know whether the Treasury Board Secretariat held discussions with Finance Department officials. When this exercise got under way, who decided what: did the government have to come up with a certain level of cuts? Were people asked to focus on certain areas? Was there also talk about direct efficiency, reductions, etc.? I used to do that kind of work in another life. Did the departments have instructions, or could they chose how to proceed?
I would also like to know whether the departments were offered any incentives to encourage them or force them, as the case may be, to review their own operating expenditures. Over the past ten years, government's spending has increased very significantly. I am not saying that your government is responsible for that; I am giving you the facts.
:
May I please interrupt you, I want to come back to the issue of criteria.
Did the senior officials and deputy ministers of the various departments have any questions? With regard to the "unused funds" criterion, I gather that the deputy ministers, for whose intelligence I have great esteem, must have thought that unused funds were perfectly usable as such. There are unused funds, but there are many other things that come afterward.
With regard to criteria, we find the expression "programs that were not providing good value for money". We could get together and study government documents and come up with very different opinions about programs that do not provide good value for money. For instance, some colleagues found certain pseudo-legal programs very useful, whereas the government said that they had not been very useful. People do not make claims that are contrary to what their own government wants. There are philosophical reasons for this.
Did these people have a detailed book of specifications? You said that criteria were followed during this exercise. Mr. Moloney, I do presume that public servants respected the criteria: the decisions are up to the government. I would like to know whether the criteria were so strict that they did not leave any choice, or whether they allowed the government to make savings in other ways. Can senior officials find other ways and means, or must they strictly follow the plans provided by the Treasury Board Secretariat or by the Department of Finance?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
Mr. Baird, I'd like to ask you about the court challenges program. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a law that Canadians support and are very proud of; it protects equality in Canada. Without the court challenges program, many people, in fact the very people whose rights may be at risk, won't have the means or the resources to be able to challenge unjust laws and discrimination. So to cut completely the court challenges program erodes the power of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect the rights of those very groups it seeks to protect.
Certainly many concerned people have contacted me on this. They're very concerned that this is a major step backwards for equality rights in Canada. There are lots of examples of groups that have used the court challenges program, including those who are seeking redress for the Chinese head tax and those who are concerned about the lack of linguistic freedom for francophone rights. There are many other examples.
There's a real concern about the elimination of the court challenges program as an erosion of our democracy and human rights in the country, in that the very people who this is designed to protect will no longer have access to the mechanisms and resources to help them get their rights enforced.
Can you tell us what the thinking is behind the elimination of this important and successful program?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a motion, of course presented in due course to committee in both official languages, and it reads as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates hold hearings into the matter of "phantom positions" within the public service, as raised by the Public Service Commission in its 2005-2006 annual report; that the Committee call witnesses to testify on the matter; and that the Committee issue and table a report in the House of Commons, based on its findings.
I table this motion, Madam Chair, with mixed feelings. On the one hand, I don't want to get away from what we want to do. In this committee we're committed to following through with accrual accounting; we're committed to trying to stay the course and present a report that I think is probably the most important area of study before Parliament, which is of course the spending estimates. That can't be done accurately unless we finish accrual accounting.
But what prompted this motion the other day was when Madam Barrados from the Public Service Commission came forward. In her statement and report she said the cases she talked about raise troubling questions about political meddling in the staffing of the public service that would warrant—and this is the wording that goes directly to the heart of this committee—that would warrant tougher rules or legislation to stop the wide-open and unmonitored movement of bureaucrats between ministers' offices and the public service.
I took that as a plea to say we have a problem, and let's address that problem, when it came directly from the head of the Public Service Commission to this committee. We are mandated and I think have an obligation to deal with it. I don't think it's something we can just slough off.
I don't want to delay the regular workings of this committee. Perhaps we could do it at extra or special meetings, but I believe we definitely have to look at it. The motion before us is quite simple. It essentially calls on this committee to hold the hearings into the matter as described, and then, of course, make a report back to Parliament.
The very simple reason is “phantom positions”. It's unbelievable. Is there one? Are there two? Are there more? It's an open-ended book, and we just can't accept that. We need to know exactly who requested these appointments; we need to know who signed off on them; we need to know whether any disciplinary action should be taken. We should also determine whether there are more cases. This has to be done. I really feel we have to move on this.
What I'm suggesting and asking is that we hold a few more hearings, obtain some answers, and then issue a report to Parliament so that we can ensure this type of offence never happens again. We are an oversight committee. That's our job, and it's our duty. I don't want to get sidetracked, but I think this is so important that we can't overlook it and can't just pass it by.
When Madam Barrados makes this kind of statement to this committee, I really think that is a plea. She states unequivocally that there is a problem. We need it fixed. Does it require legislation? Does it require action? Does it require study?
I believe this committee should seriously look into this matter. I would ask the committee to unanimously endorse our moving forward and taking this to the steering committee to see whether at some particular point in our schedule we could bring it forward so as not to interfere with our regular duties.
:
Two weeks ago, I told Mr. Kramp that the Bloc supported this, but this morning, I read the following passage in the
Ottawa Citizen:
[English]
“Harper to probe phantom jobs”.
[Translation]
I told Mr. Kramp that since the government had decided—I do not know by what method, but I am sure that it will find a good one—to consider this issue significant enough to be included in Ms. Barrados' report, we should let the government do its work. Otherwise, it would not be good, because we have little time.
Once the work has been done, we will be able to table a motion in order to establish the committee, group or body in charge of this study, in collaboration with us. However, we must first let the government finish its work, as it said it would, because as far as we are concerned, we are clearly not working for any government of any kind.
:
Madam Chair, I am going to encourage the members opposite to actually vote for this. I think the message—for us, if we support here at this committee that we are going to actually do the work—is that we can send the message off to the government, as you like to call it, that we are going to take the lead on it.
If we do not support this motion, it doesn't happen; nothing happens. The government may take the lead on it.
I think this is an opportunity. In a future meeting, if the government says they are going to continue their process to look at these phantom jobs, well then, fine; then as a committee we make a decision that we don't want a dual-stream process and we back off, or we wait for their report, or whatever.
I think the logical thing to do would be to support this today, saying that we are going to take the lead as a committee on this issue. We will be the ones calling the witnesses and we will be doing the investigation. If we get “pushed back”—as I've learned as a word here—if they say to us no, they're going to do their own, then the committee can make a decision.
But I'm encouraging people to vote for this today, so that we can send a message that we heard it here first at this committee and we are going to deal with it at this committee.