:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
David Maloney and myself are appearing on behalf of Treasury Board and are pleased to be here to answer your questions in the context of your study of budget cuts announced on September 25, 2006.
[English]
We are here to follow up on the appearance on October 17 of the President of the Treasury Board, the Honourable John Baird; the Secretary of the Treasury Board, Mr. Wayne Wouters; and Mr. Moloney.
In his opening remarks the president outlined the government's budget 2006 commitment to fund from existing spending $1 billion of the approximately $5 billion in new spending announced in the budget. The president explained that the savings would be identified by reviewing government programs against the principles outlined in the budget. He explained those principles, and he explained how those measures would be implemented and outlined the principles that'll guide spending in the future.
That's all I have by way of an opening statement, Madam Chair. We look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
:
Good morning, Madam Chair.
My name is Mike Hawkes. I'm the chief financial officer of Public Works and Government Services Canada. I'm here to discuss how the Department of Public Works and Government Services has contributed to the expenditure restraint initiative recently announced by the President of the Treasury Board.
I'll do my best to answer your questions when I have completed these brief opening remarks.
[Translation]
The President of Treasury Board has announced measures to reduce federal spending by one billion dollars. Every department and agency, including PWGSC, has been asked to contribute to this savings target. Our department's contribution totals approximately 47 million dollars. These savings will be allocated to support the government's priorities.
[English]
PWGSC's contributions have been earmarked from three areas: the department's revolving fund surpluses, totalling $40 million; the real property investment fund, totalling $5 million; and the Canadian identity grants program of $2.4 million per year.
Let me provide some brief details on these, Madam Chair.
Surpluses in PWGSC's revolving funds result from good management practices. Through the continuation of these practices, surpluses in our revolving funds are likely to continue to accumulate, allowing us to take this reduction of $40 million at this time.
Under the expenditure review measures announced in 2005, PWGSC committed to gross savings of over $1 billion over a five-year period by better managing its portfolio of real property assets. To help the department achieve these savings, an investment fund of $100 million had been anticipated, resulting in net savings to the government of $925 million.
However, PWGSC did not seek the first $20 million of the funds that had been set aside for fiscal year 2005-06. By adjusting our priorities, the department can achieve its billion-dollar savings by reducing the size of the investment fund to $75 million through a reallocation of internal resources. Therefore, PWGSC is contributing an additional $5 million from the current investment to the Government of Canada's overall savings initiative.
Through the Canadian identity grants program, the government provided grants and contributions to Canadian groups and individuals to increase the understanding and appreciation of Canadian identity and to develop social awareness.
This program was administered by the former Communications Canada organization, which was integrated into PWGSC in April 2004. Since this program has been eliminated, we are in a position to contribute its annual budget of $2.4 million to the expenditure restraint initiative, in support of the government priorities.
[Translation]
PWGSC is leading the ongoing government-wide transformation of federal procurement and real property practices. In addition to achieving significant savings through this business transformation, our department is proud of its contribution to the Expenditure Restraint Initiative.
[English]
Madam Chair, members of the committee, I would welcome any questions you might ask.
:
Merci, Madame la présidente. As the Deputy Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, it's my pleasure to appear before this committee. I'm joined today by my colleague Marie-Josée Thivierge, who's the ADM of the learning branch in the department.
To put my comments into perspective, I thought it would useful to start with our department's mandates, since Human Resources and Social Development is a relatively new department. It was created in February 2006 through the consolidation of the former departments of Human Resources and Skills Development and Social Development Canada for the objective of ensuring integrated policy development as well as improved delivery of programs and services.
[Translation]
Human Resources and Social Development Canada's mandate is to build a stronger and more competitive Canada by offering choices leading to a productive and satisfying life, while improving the quality of life of all Canadians. Thanks to our efforts, Canadians know how to access training and apprenticeship opportunities, to protect themselves and be productive in the workplace and to have effective union-management relations.
They can also count on our programs and our support at every important stage in their lives, from childhood to retirement. They receive from our partners, of which Service Canada is one, the services they need.
In fulfilling its mandate, the department counts on 24,000 employees in the National Capital Region and in all regions of the country, and of this number, 2,000 work for Service Canada.
[English]
HRSDC has planned expenditures of $7 billion to $9.7 billion this year, which are detailed in our reports on plans and priorities. The vast majority of these funds support the department's statutory programs. Approximately 95% of our budget goes directly to Canadians through benefits such as employment insurance, the Canada Pension Plan and old age security.
In addition to these long-standing programs, the department is responsible for implementing several new programs and initiatives, including the launch of the new universal child care benefit, the implementation of the new apprenticeship incentive grant, and the launch of a new federal-provincial-territorial program for older workers.
In budget 2006, the government promised to review programs to ensure that those programs focus on results and value for money and are consistent with government priorities and responsibilities. Following a review process, which the President of the Treasury Board has described, the government's decisions were announced in September by the and the President of the Treasury Board.
The impact on HRSDC is a reduction in spending of $32 million in 2006-07, and by $75.5 million in 2007 and 2008. Let me detail for a moment the changes within HRSDC.
There will be a reduction of $13.8 million to grants and contributions under the social development partnership program over two years. The program will continue to invest over $60 million this year and next to work with national community-based non-profit organizations on supporting the needs of persons with disabilities, children, and families, including children in official language minority communities.
The adult learning, literacy and essential skills program will be better targeted on national priorities and reduced by $17.7 million over two years. Over the next two years, the department will still invest $81 million in adult learning, literacy, and essential skills under this program.
The investments under the youth employment strategy programs will be better targeted. Specifically, the summer career placements program will have its funding reduced by $55.4 million over two years. With the remaining budget of $124.6 million, this year and next, the program will focus on students who need help the most in finding summer employment.
The workplace skills strategy will be refocused and reduced by $17.6 million over two years, achieved through the termination of funding for the training centre infrastructure fund and the Workplace Partners Panel.
[Translation]
We will stop paying out a 3 million dollar grant to the Canadian Policy Research Networks as of 2007-08.
[English]
The policy research initiative that has recently been transferred to HRSDC will achieve efficiency savings of $300,000 over the next two years. It's important to note that statutory expenditures will not in any way be effected by these decisions.
[Translation]
These savings represent some fifty jobs within the department. However, no one will lose their job against his or her will.
My colleagues and myself will be pleased to answer your questions as best we can.
Thank you for your attention.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I would like to thank all of you, all the departmental officials from Public Works, Treasury Board, and Human Resources for coming out today.
You can understand why it's important for us to meet today. On September 25, the budget cuts were announced by Treasury Board Secretariat. We met with the minister on October 17, and some of you accompanied the minister from Treasury Board. As you can imagine, we weren't entirely impressed with some of the responses because of the partisan nature to the dialogue that took place. In light of that, we want to understand the policy behind the decisions he made.
Today's purpose is very different for me and, I believe, for many of my colleagues here today. It's to really focus on the process of how things unfolded. That's where I will be putting my attention, not on the ideology behind the cuts, because I think that was clearly discussed last time. It's something that has been discussed in the public domain as well.
I want to make a small comment to the deputy minister for the Department of Human Resources. I do appreciate the opening remarks, but you mentioned quite a few numbers. If we had something in writing before, it would have really been useful. On a going-forward basis, that would be greatly appreciated.
Before I get into the process, my initial question is about value for money. The government has clearly indicated that there are certain programs that are not considered to have value for money. I think they estimated that to be around $265 million. Could you describe what in your various departments is considered not to be value for money? According to the initial remarks given by the human resources department, there was a long list of items: cutting money for literacy and youth employment and targeting that money, cutting the status of women programs, and other programs that were cut as well. I just want to understand, of those cuts, which ones are perceived to not be value for money?
Answer that question, please.
:
Sure, I'll take an initial crack at that.
The news release on September 25 did identify a group of some 10 or 12 programs that have been reduced or eliminated for reasons of value for money. That total is $265.6 million. The definition given of value for money focused on programs that in the judgment of the government were not achieving their results or that could be refocused or targeted for improved effectiveness.
In terms of identifying such programs, to the maximum extent possible, we at the Treasury Board Secretariat, along with our colleagues in the other central agencies, relied on the formal program evaluations that departments themselves conduct each year. In particular, this was the grants and contributions program, but it was not limited to that. We actually maintain a database with some 700 program evaluations that have been conducted by departments. We assessed those results, and that was the basis of an initial round of advice to the president and minister.
:
Perhaps I can help. To support the decision to reduce the budget for the summer career placements, which is one of the streams within the youth employment strategy, the department is constantly analyzing Canada's labour market situation. We use a wide variety of tools, including the Labour Force Survey.
Overall labour market conditions are stronger than they have been for many years for young people, particularly in the summer. For example, in 2005 the economy generated 1.4 million new summer jobs, and in 2006 older students experienced their best August ever for summer employment. In fact, for the best three years, their employment rate was up to 72%, which was up 2.6 percentage points from the previous year. Among those who were employed, 70% were able to find full-time work.
In addition to this labour force information, we looked at evidence from the program in the past. We found that one-third of employers who received a wage subsidy through the program indicated they would have created some or all of the jobs anyway. In addition, we found that 30% of participating students could have found work without the program. So the decision was taken to retarget the program towards students who have real barriers to finding summer employment.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for being here with us this morning.
I will attempt to ask very brief questions, which for me will be a rather perilous exercise. I would also appreciate receiving brief responses because, as you know, eight minutes is not very much time.
Ms. Charette, in answer to a question from my liberal colleague, you gave statistics demonstrating that all is well with employment and the economy in Canada. Based upon these numbers, do you consider that things are going well across Canada and in all regions of Quebec?
As MP for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, I know that the situation is far from brilliant in the critical sectors, be it agriculture, forestry or fishing. I am convinced that the situation is the same in other regions of Canada and of Quebec. Proof of this lies in the fact that our young people are leaving the regions in favour of the larger centres.
Do your statistics relate to major urban centres or do they also include those regions that are in crisis?
:
The question I put to you now flows from the first.
Will you and your colleagues in the department be keeping in mind the importance of this program for certain regions of the country? This program is not a luxury for our students.
If we want our students to remain, to the extent possible, in our province, in places such as Rimouski, where there is a university, to have summer jobs in our companies, to launch their careers and contribute to our economy, our social and cultural life — and the same goes for all the other regions —, then the funding for this important program should not be reduced.
I will be making political representations later on, but I would like to know, for the time being, if your department has taken into account the fact that this 55 million dollar cut will bring about certain disparities.
I now turn to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.
In the document that you provided to us, we see that the Adult Learning, Literacy and Essential Skills Program will be reduced by 17 million dollars. You say here: “Better targeted“. I would like to know more about these investments, but I imagine that you are talking here of the 55 million dollar envelope.
I am allergic to certain terms, but I must read what my eyes see: “Refocussing of the Workplace Skills Strategy“. 17 million dollars are being cut from this program.
Mr. Moloney tells us that the program officers in Treasury Board did an evaluation; you did one also. We will come back to the guidelines later.
What tools did you use and who did you consult in determining reductions of this magnitude? I am talking here of the 17.7 and 17.6 million dollar amounts, for a total of 35 million dollars. Literacy is very important for adults. We are well aware of the problems that exist in Canada. How did you go about assessing the situation with the various stakeholders and determining that we either were not getting enough for our money, or that there was a need, to borrow from government jargon, to realize efficiency gains?
I would like to know more about the way in which you carried out this study that led the department to make these cuts.
Our Report on Plans and Priorities mentions the three programs that were consolidated to create the new one. The assessments related to the three former programs.
These assessments revealed, for example, that the National Literacy Program should have included more concrete performance indicators, because it was difficult to determine the impact of the investment made on the rate of participation of Canadian adults. This indicator should therefore be improved so as to better measure the impact of programs and ensure that our investment bears fruit...
My apologies, but I will say this in English.
:
Madam Charette, allow me to interrupt.
You are saying that you evaluated the programs and that they should include better performance indicators, etc. Do those people who are illiterate, or nearly illiterate, and all of the players who are assisting them, believe that, even if they could be improved upon, these programs were working well? How do those people evaluate these programs?
You talk about an operational tool, and that is all very well, but what do the people in the field think? Did the people affected do evaluations? Were they satisfied with the program? Were the people in the field advocating for major changes because the programs were not working? That could happen, and these people could ,they too, reach these conclusions.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, let me say the NDP has been openly critical of both the amount of money that has been cut from various programs and the process. I will make no bones about the fact that we've been very critical of what we believe to be ideologically driven cutting, hacking, and slashing. We can only conclude that the newly elected government is trying to punish certain NGOs, certain centre-left organizations that don't agree with the political ideology of the new government.
An hon. member: Point of order.
The Chair: He's making a statement.
Mr. Pat Martin: That's the frustration people are feeling where I come from, and that's what people are telling me.
I come from the labour movement, where we went through this whole era of scientific management—kaizen, continuous improvement. Management was always looking for ways to find efficiencies and eliminate waste. But the logic was to find efficiencies and eliminate waste so you could put what you found back into more product. Here it seems we've looked for the efficiencies and trimmed the fat to the point where many of the fundamental elements have been taken away all together, so that the organization has less to deal with.
I would ask you to comment on the logic in gutting organizations, as opposed to rewarding them for finding efficiencies.
In the province of Manitoba, the literacy group got cut. This is one of the favourite examples used by the minister and others. I think they had $365,000 a year, of which only about $10,000 a year was actually given out in literacy-related grants. But I'm here to tell you that I actually know those people, Marg Rose and others. I've been to visit them. They work very hard all year long promoting literacy in ways above and beyond the actual grant. That's one example where it's completely wrong to say that money was being wasted just because it wasn't being given out in direct grants and contributions to the community.
So I have two questions. First, do you have any specifics on that cut? Second, could you address the larger question about cutting, hacking, and slashing, and then taking whatever you hacked out and not reinvesting it back into the same program?
:
Let me respond briefly. My colleague can pick up the question of the literacy program in Manitoba.
As a public servant, the rhetoric is a little hard for me to deal with. In the same budget in which the government announced its plan to reduce spending by a billion dollars, it also announced its intention to spend $224 billion this year. It also announced that the $1 billion would be used to fund its $5 billion of new spending. It identified priorities around that $5 billion, including communities, health, and defence. Basically, the government used the $1 billion to reinvest in what it has continued to argue are its new priorities.
From our perspective, it's not more complicated than that—$1 billion on a $224 billion budget. The $1 billion was reinvested to top up $4.4 billion worth of new spending to about $5.5 billion.
:
This is to become an annual feature, though. This is the first go-around. We used to get this from the Liberals too. After the devastating program review in 1995, 1996, and 1997, they began the annual process of trimming about a billion dollars a year in fat, to the point where there was no fat left to be trimmed. Some cuts don't heal. When you get through the fat and into the bone and meat, you're causing grief and anguish above and beyond the fat trimming.
How can this go on? In light of this trend, how can we expect programs like the court challenges or the status of women to survive? We feel persecuted. Those of us who care about these social justice areas feel that we've been singled out and targeted for cutting. Nobody talked about cutting the $1.4 billion that they give to the oil and gas companies in grants. They could have found a billion dollars right there. Why pick these little nickel-and-dime cuts that devastate important programs for low-income people?
I know you can't answer those political questions, and maybe I'm just venting my frustration. I didn't answer it. I'm accusing the government of being motivated more by ideology than by reason, logic, or even efficiency. We feel genuinely punished by this. It's beyond reason and logic.
:
Thank you for the question.
The existing agreements that have been established under the adult learning, literacy and essential skills program will be honoured. If there is an existing agreement with an organization, it will be honoured.
The decision announced by the government was that adult learning literacy programs in the future will be retargeted so that they're focused on national priorities and achieving concrete results for Canadians.
So existing agreements will be respected, and—
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, everybody. Thank you for coming here today.
I want to say first that I think I speak on behalf of my colleagues here when I say we're all in favour of identifying areas for increasing efficiencies in government expenditure. This exercise is done on an annual basis by the government, regardless of who's in power, and public servants offer a lot of assistance in identifying those areas. That's what taxpayers expect. That's what Canadians expect. So it's important that we keep our eyes focused on identifying those areas.
The concern that we have—or that I have, at least—is that some of those areas that were cut as part of this announcement appeared to many of us to be working. For example, in my riding, I have close to three dozen students, youths, who have received summer placements through the youth career program. It has become really difficult for us, especially for me, to explain to my constituents why that program is not going to continue anymore.
So let me get to my question. First, I'm interested in knowing if any of those cuts had been identified previously as part of this annual review that the government and public service go through.
:
So I can basically tell them that they're not a priority for this government right now and that they're going to target their funds somewhere else.
By the way, just to make a comment, more than 50% of my constituents are new Canadians, and I'm hoping I can give them a better answer. If I go back and tell them what you just told me, they're really going to wonder what kind of answer that is. Are we not important? Are we not using this program effectively? Are we not benefiting from the program?
I know it may be unfair to direct this question to you because you're not the one who made that decision, but I was hoping to get an answer that I can really tell them I believe in, that makes sense. I'm sorry, but this answer did not give me any comfortable feeling that lets me go back and tell them.
The news release itemized the specific detailed savings into four areas, as the member has just set out. In the order that they show in the table, the first of those is efficiency. A total of $256 million over two years was identified in terms of efficiencies, which were defined as follows: savings from streamlining or consolidation of activities or from operational or program efficiencies, as well as programs or services that can be provided or are being provided elsewhere. That was the first category...well, the second, in addition to value for money.
The category of what we call non-core programs, where the savings totalled $99.6 million over two years, was identified as programs or activities that do not meet the priorities of the federal government or Canadians.
The final category was referred to as unused funds, with a total of $379.6 million over two years. That was funding for programs that will not proceed, funds in excess of those required to achieve results, or funds not needed due to lower than anticipated take-up for those programs.
:
Madam Chair, I just want to pick up on the comments made by my Conservative colleague Mr. Kramp. We believe that program evaluation is very important to examine where efficiencies can be found, but you have to look at where the cuts were made. These are the cuts that Canadians see. I am going to give some highlights. Tell me what you see in this theme.
You see $5 million cut from the status of women; $10 million cut from volunteerism initiatives; $10 million from the elimination of the youth international internship program; $11 million from the elimination of the first nations and Inuit tobacco control strategy; $17.7 million from the literacy skills program; $55 million from the youth employment initiative; and $6 million from the court challenges program. These are just some of the cuts, where the bulk of the cuts were made.
There is a deep-rooted frustration. It is not the fact that cuts were made and efficiencies were found. That should always be an ongoing obsession with government--efficiencies should be found. But they seem to be targeted at certain groups, and that's where the frustration comes in. That's where the difficulty lies in explaining to our constituents why these particular groups were cut.
We understand these cuts were targeted at women, aboriginals, youth, and minorities, but what other items were on the list? I know the entire government was part of this exercise in examining cuts, but at the end of the day the list got smaller and smaller, and there were various components to it eventually, when the cuts were decided. What other areas were examined for potential cuts?
Was it continued cuts with the youth, women, or aboriginals, or were other areas examined? I think that's where the concern lies.
:
Let me start, and then I'll turn it back over to Mr. Moloney.
I think, in fairness, if you have questions about specific cuts and a view of the specific cuts and where they may have had their origins, it's worth having the individual ministers in to actually talk about the specific cuts. I think the individual ministers would actually want to talk about their specific cuts.
I think Mr. Moloney started earlier by talking about how this was an exercise that looked very broadly across all of government, the full range of programming--obviously not statutory programming or the public debt charge program, but all direct program spending. For all intents and purposes, that was the universe of what was on the table when this began.
:
No, I understand that. That's why I said I don't want to politicize this. I'm not here to discuss policy; I just want to focus on the process.
You alluded to this earlier as well, that typically there are consultations that take place when cuts are made, that stakeholders are usually—you said “typically” is the word you used.... Maybe we can check this out. Typically consultations are made—I don't want to put words in your mouth—when cuts are made.
My view is that these particular organizations or groups were targeted and were not consulted, based on our understanding, because it was a cabinet exercise. Based on what Mr. Moloney said, even MPs were not consulted. Is that correct, first of all?
Okay, so MPs were not consulted; the stakeholders were not consulted; it was strictly a cabinet exercise. It was a top-down approach. People at the bottom were not consulted. Is that a fair assessment?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome.
We know that it is government that decides where cuts will be made. You must follow their instructions and implement those policies.
For the record, I would like a clarification. We talk about a billion dollars. Mr. Kramp said that this accounts for only 1 percent and is rather insignificant. However, if you are part of an organization that is being cut, the impact is enormous. He should show a little bit more compassion than that. However, I will not dwell on that.
Was the idea of eliminating tax havens part of the measures you were asked to explore? Has it been discussed? You may answer by yes or no.
:
It could have been, but it was not considered.
Madam Chair, I would like to table a document. It is in French only and I suppose it will need to be translated. Mr. Moore already has a copy. It talks about possible savings. Public Works and Government Services Canada could implement a principle which was adopted in 1983 and was reaffirmed under the governments of Trudeau, Turner, Mulroney, Campbell, Chrétien, Martin and now Harper. Under this principle, 25 percent of federal jobs in the National Capital Region would be located on the Quebec side and 75 percent on the Ottawa side. This would mean that more jobs would be located on the Outaouais side since the number presently is only 18.9 percent.
Did you consider moving employees to the other side of the river where rental costs are less, in order to achieve savings?
:
You examine it on a regular basis. We know that this plan was introduced in 1983. Implementation of this government directive would result in savings.
Furthermore, this would allow, for example, to abstain from cutting groups with which I talk in my riding. I am thinking, Madam Chair, of a group such as Le Tremplin des lecteurs, a literacy group. They were getting $14,000 a year, were performing miracles and fell victim to the cuts.
All of this goes to say that it would be possible to find efficiencies without destroying the social fabric. Nobody would be a loser. On the contrary, our taxpayers and our government would benefit from the savings that could be had, for example, on the rental of office space.
I would like to make one thing clear. It is possible to cut spending without wrecking the social fabric. I believe you, our senior officials, should analyze those aspects. These solutions should be put forward.
Let us talk about the cuts to museums. I would like to know what justifications you were given. Were there any? Were you told to just go ahead and slash these expenses, without any consideration? Museums who get few visitors, especially in the regions, require more assistance than major museum institutions throughout the country. I would like to know your analysis of this aspect.
:
There are three parts there that I could speak to.
Number one, as the chair mentioned, is that the supplementary estimates have included for parliamentarians' information those aspects of the restraint measures that mean that spending of $220-some million that was previously requested of Parliament will not proceed. Some of the measures that have been identified here were against planned spending for which in fact Parliament had not been asked for authority but for which it had been planned to set money aside. That's thing number one.
Thing number two is, I don't have it with me, but it would be possible to provide a list of programs that have funding that would end as of March 31, which, as the chair will know, we refer to as “sunsetting programs”. There is no separate list, to my knowledge, of programs for which there had been a decision taken to not continue. Had there been, that would be part of this exercise, if there had been a policy decision to not continue at this point.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to each of the officials for your time here today.
I too, like Mr. Kramp, operated a small business for a number of years and also served on a number of community volunteer organizations, and I know how important it is that we occasionally evaluate and make some hard decisions about stopping some programming we have started. It's always nice to start new programs, and we're happy to do that, but it's more difficult to stop them when it comes time to.
I think, with respect to the $1 billion savings we found, that Canadian taxpayers should actually be quite pleased that our government is taking a serious approach to cost containment at this level.
We're living in a dream world, Mr. Martin, if we think we can keep spending with no adjustments and no realistic evaluation of programs. That dream world very quickly turns into a nightmare, as we found in Ontario under Mr. Rae.
I'd also like to correct an impression Mr. Martin gave us that perhaps this was an ideologically driven cut. Our staff here today clearly outlined that there are formal evaluations that each department does on an annual basis for the purpose of finding potential effectiveness gains, as they are doing today.
And I would like to point out that there are at least two new programs that Human Resources and Skills Development has initiated. One of them deals with increasing the pool of skilled workers, and the other has to do with utilizing the wisdom and the years of older workers.
I wonder whether we can highlight the fact that, yes, we did make a $1 billion cut, but that we're also reinvesting a lot of the funds we're saving, as we have pointed out a number of times today. This was a commitment in our budget that some of the $5 billion increase would be found within savings, and it would be nice to highlight for Canadians the initiatives that are being taken on the skilled trades front and the older workers front, if you could speak to them.
:
I came from the private sector. Every year at the end of the year, if we were not at our target of profitability or cost, we would go through a cut exercise. This was a private corporation, not government. Private corporations have the option of laying off people or cutting some expenditures that they think they can find efficiencies in, like less travelling and more video conferencing or finding other opportunities that are identifiable for cost-cutting. That's what the private sector typically selects.
This is less than 0.3% of the budget. At least, whatever number it is, it's less than 0.5%. In my riding, though, it affects close to 36 youths, and not only for the summer term but in fact for their professional careers, because I think the summer employment that they benefit from will have an impact on their future, on their careers.
If this $10 million is cut in the name of a focus on targeting, is it going to be redeployed toward youth employment, but in a different format?
:
I believe the question at the end was what the impact of the $10 million decision will be. The answer is that the funding available for the summer career placement program will be reduced in 2006-07 by $10.4 million, and in 2007-08 by $45 million.
To use 2007-08 as an example, the remaining funding will be $45 million, and that funding will be retargeted, as I tried to explain earlier, but perhaps not adequately. It will be aimed at students who face particular barriers in finding jobs, such as those in rural, remote, and high unemployment regions; and at individuals who may face particular barriers, such as new Canadians. Individuals will have the opportunity to apply against those criteria, through a call for proposals that will be launched in January.
Thank you very much for coming in, all of you who are involved in presenting here today.
I noted that on October 17, when Minister Baird was before us, the question was put to him with regards to the government's practice of allocating funds into certain programs and then never spending that money.
I sit on the heritage committee as well, and there was a discussion or a question about specific funding for the MAP, the museums funding. What we found within the program was that in the past there's been allocation, but there were amounts that weren't spent. So it wasn't necessarily cut, but there was an allocation and the money was not spent.
I imagine this might be a problem that is widespread throughout other government departments. Did you find that in this review process, allocations of dollars that weren't being spent? What was done with that discovery?
Mr. Martin talked earlier, saying he felt personally victimized by some of these cuts. I met with one of the literacy groups in my constituency, and this was before the cuts even happened. This is a group of volunteers who work very hard to raise money and teach the most vulnerable people in our society to read and write. They came to my office and said that what worried them the most and what they felt most attacked by, in the federal programs for literacy, was that if they wanted to put on a symposium, they could find funding. If they wanted to put out a study, they could find funding; if they wanted to put up a big banner or poster, they could find funding through the federal government. But in terms of trying to teach another person one-on-one to actually read, they couldn't access federal funding.
I was astounded by that. I was shocked that with all the money we spend, none of it was getting to—at least our local organization wasn't able to—teach somebody to read. I thought that's what literacy programs should be oriented towards.
Is it the intent of the ministry now to move towards reallocating funding? Or has it been discussed within the ministry, as to putting more money towards teaching people to read?
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Madam Charette, when my colleague asked his questions earlier, he was thinking in terms of revenue. He wanted to know if you have looked at increasing revenues, for example by eliminating tax havens. The answer was no since it was a cost-cutting exercise. Madam Charette, did senior officials in your department consider the savings that could be made by respecting the fields of jurisdiction of Quebec, for example by transferring directly to Quebec funding in the areas of education and training? You would no longer need the bureaucratic apparatus to administer these funds.
This would make for a leaner federal government. You are obviously going to say this is a hypothetical question, so I will not even ask it. However, I wanted to make the point.
I know there are program officers at Treasury Board — I do not know if they still have this title — who undertake reviews with officials in the various departments. They do follow-ups and red flags are raised.
Who does this work for the Treasury Board Secretariat?
:
I have looked at some of your cuts. The way they are described seems rather intriguing. Here, it says: “Canada School of Public Service, reduction in non essential training of federal public servants“.
Does it mean that you provided non essential training in the past and that you will stop doing so? We should get more information on this aspect.
I only have five minutes. I am interested in one thing in particular. Let us look at the Treasury Board Secretariat. Between 2000 and 2005, the budget of Treasury Board has increased by some 26 percent.
What have you done since in order to reduce that spending? I believe one should preach by example, and this applies also to the Department of Finance. One should try to be the champion and try to show the rest of the public service what efficiencies can be gained internally.
The Canadian government and the public service exist in order to redistribute wealth. The shareholders are the Canadians, including Quebeckers. Before proceeding with cuts that will impact on the citizens, one should at least consider what could be done internally — in your own department — in order to reduce these 26 million dollars of increased spending over the last five years.
:
I have one last question, sir, to which my colleague, Mr. Warkentin referred earlier. I put it to Mr. Baird because, in my view, this is a total aberration. This is one of the reasons I asked it. I am talking about the elimination of so-called unused funds. Correct me if I am wrong, but the greatest aberration is with Health Canada. The documents show that 28 million dollars are being targeted, but the department cannot tell us where. It just says that 28 million dollars would be saved.
Unused funds in the area of social programming amount to 5 million dollars in Quebec, and the rest of Canada will lose all its social economy funding. It will be completely eliminated. We are going to lose 5 million dollars out of a total of 26 million dollars. We might be able to survive those wounds. However, there was a program in British Columbia for fighting against the ponderosa pine beetle. Unused funding for food inspection amounts to 10 million dollars; unused funding for the textile sector is 24 million dollars; unused funding for Fisheries and Oceans Canada in New Brunswick, for the salmon enhancement program, amounts to 20 million dollars.
How come these departments, i.e. the officials who manage these programs, have left unused all these dollars in such crucial areas? I am not being partisan, I am talking about all of Canada. How could these departments do such a thing and how come your analysts are happy with it?