Evidence of meeting #45 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was going.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Okay. I can do that.
Thank you very much, and thank you for still being available to us today.
I want to go back to the $300 million, which we have now budgeted.... In the 2010-11 framework, $300 million was supposed to be saved in reductions this year. And we've seen about $180 million reflected in estimates. When you went to departments, were you asking for the discrepancy, or where do you think the discrepancy is? Help me out here. I'm a new parliamentarian. When you have $180 million reflected in estimates and $120 million is still not reflected, how does that happen?
12:05 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
I'm assuming the government will come forward, perhaps in supplementary estimates (C), with the remainder of this $300 million, with the savings for 2010-11. So they'll ask at the end of the year to provide that kind of clarity as to the distribution of those cuts.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Do you have any idea of that clarity at this point because you've just gone through asking the departments for some information? Do you know if we're on track or not to realize that $300 million?
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
No, we haven't asked specifically for that information. Again, we're assuming we'll see the distribution with supplementary estimates (C).
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Okay.
And going back as well, you indicated afterwards that the coast guard came to you after the fact and told you that they're going to be hiring an additional 4,000, and the RCMP would have reductions of 1,000. I'm just looking at those indicators. One of the things we've been talking about at this particular committee is the impact of the Truth in Sentencing Act and those 4,000 new hires that are going to be required--and the impact. If that's 4,000 at the federal level, do you have any indication of what the provincial requirement will be?
12:05 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Just from the work we did on Bill C-25, the Truth in Sentencing Act, our analysis would suggest it will be at least 4,000, and likely more.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
And likely more?
If organizations such as the coast guard are choosing not to replace people--because, of course, Mr. Day has said 11,000 positions will remain unfilled--how are we ensuring that appropriate levels of service are going to be maintained, with the appropriate training, and that the overlap is taking place for critical personnel? Did this come up during your review?
12:05 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
No, but I think as we move forward to the 2011-12 estimates process and this committee and other standing committees are looking at the plans and priorities, they should be seeing the three-year plans and they should be integrated with the human resource plans in the context of fiscal savings and service levels. That conversation should come together at that time.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
I just want to go back again--and I asked it earlier, but perhaps for more clarity: what did you ask the Conservative government and what further information do you require? I'm asking you for specifics because at the end of today's meeting I'd like to move a motion to try to get some of those materials, as we've had to do in the past. Is there anything specifically that you requested that you did not receive?
12:05 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
What we could do for you is.... We publish all the requests to deputy ministers. We try to operate transparently, and we make that available on our website and also when we get responses. When we get responses from deputies, we also put that up on our website. We could quickly put that together and send it to you almost instantaneously.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
This is such an important issue, we want to make sure we have a handle on what further information we require to ensure we have clarity in our budgeting processes.
I think my colleague also has a question.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We can all recall the great fanfare that the government made associated with the creation of your office. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was going to be a mechanism whereby Parliament could hold the government to account and get access to information and have a second opinion about the government's management of finances. In view of that, your inability to get access to the information you require from government is disappointing, to say the least.
When you were here in December I asked you a series of questions about information--for instance, about whether you had any idea what departments have done to achieve the savings they are projecting. You had no idea then. Do you have a better idea now, because as you have said, you have some information from 10 departments, or some of those departments?
12:10 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Almost, perhaps, out of frustration, after trying to go through central agencies to get this information, we had a conversation about how we needed to find different ways. So again, knowing that these departments have to produce human resource plans, knowing that personnel represent almost 70% of operational spending, we went to the human resource plans to kind of get at whether there was a plan from the bottom up. The results are highlighted in our report today. We don't see evidence of a strong plan.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Mr. Regan.
Thank you, Mr. Page.
Mr. Cannan, go ahead for the last round. Welcome to the committee. We look forward to your participation.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. It's an honour to be a new member of the committee and to be brought up to speed.
Thanks, Mr. Page. We had a chance to chat briefly before the meeting. I had an opportunity to work with some of your staff last year--Mr. Khan and others. I thank you for your professionalism.
I just wanted to offer Mr. Regan clarification. I was a city councillor for nine years. During those years, when we had the surpluses, they were felt at the local level--provincially and at the municipality. So the surpluses might have been here in Ottawa, but at the local levels, we were forced to run a balanced budget.
One of the things I heard loud and clear in the last month--and many of you around the table had round tables with your constituents and met with local individuals--was that Canadians generally want us to get over this recession, to get through it, and to do the best we can. The IMF was very clearly supportive of our government's plan to balance the budget by 2015-16, and they thought doing so was not only appropriate but also credible. The net debt was the lowest among the G-7 countries.
My question to you, Mr. Page, as we work forward, instead of vilifying everybody, and we work in a collegial manner to try to get something constructive from the information you have gathered--you mentioned receiving additional information--is whether you have some suggestions of how we can work together to get this country out of this recession.
12:10 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Again, in the context of highlighting some markers, if you will, for the next budget, I think it's important that we see the plan. We were talking about Budget 2010. We're not actually talking about Budget 2011. So this was a plan that we should have seen some clarity on in 2010. We should see the austerity plan, with respect to operational restraint or any other austerity plan, should it be coming forth in the 2011 budget.
We think it's important analytically as well to be clear to parliamentarians when we're debating a new measure, whether it's reduced corporate income taxes, new spending for Afghan training missions, or other spending that we may see in the budget, that it be debated in the context of our fiscal balances--is it cyclical or is it structural? We're saying it's primarily a cyclical problem--a lot of it will go away--but there is a structural component to it. And I think the IMF produces that analysis. They want Canadians to know that as well.
Third, as I said, our major fiscal challenge is not even short term. Really, in terms of fiscal challenge, it's longer term. It's aging demographics. It's a weak productivity growth rate. It would be nice--and other countries are legislated to do so--if Minister Flaherty and the Department of Finance produced a budget that had a fiscal sustainability analysis. When we look at the Americans, and we look at budgets coming out of Washington or London in the U.K., or when we look at other countries, they're actually legislated to produce this type of analysis. So when you're debating this, you could say that Canada does not have a sustainable fiscal structure when you look to the long term. I think that will put whether it's new spending measures or it's tax reductions in a different context. So my suggestion would be more analysis along that line so that you can debate new measures in a richer context.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Page. I truly hope that after the budget is announced it will be supported by the Liberals, our Bloc colleagues, and the NDP, so that we can have that analysis done. So I truly hope that an election is not forced on the government. If I've heard anything over these last several weeks, it's that Canadians don't want an election. And I would like you to have that opportunity, frankly, to analyze the budget. I would call on my colleagues opposite to help us through this period, because this economic recovery is fragile. I think we all recognize that. We need all parliamentarians working together for the sake of this country, so I implore them all to support the budget so that we can go forward and let you do the analysis you talked about.
It was rather interesting, too, Mr. Page, when you made the comment earlier, in response to one of our colleagues opposite, on the question of the $300 million. You said from your standpoint we'd have to wait and see. So you're not saying that it's not achievable; you simply said it would play itself out. Someone once said--I think it was my Cape Breton mother--that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And I would say, from that standpoint, we need to wait and see. I truly hope you'll have an opportunity to do that analysis, as we have asked you to do.
Thanks very much for showing up today.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Mr. Holder.
This would normally be the end of our time with Mr. Page and his colleagues. Madam Bourgeois has a comment she wishes to make.