Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon, members of the Committee, and thank you for inviting us to make a presentation on the effects of the freeze on departmental budget envelopes. This freeze will have repercussions for our members who do the work, as well for the quality of services provided to Canadians.
The 57,000 professionals represented by the professional institute proudly provide a gamut of service to ensure the health and safety of all Canadians. Let me describe just a few of the contributions to our society. Meteorologists monitor our weather conditions and warn us of impending storms. Engineers ensure that our roads and bridges are safe. Nurses provide care in northern communities. Financial experts regulate the financial institutions. Auditors recover millions of unpaid tax dollars from large corporations. Scientists monitor the earth's tremors, the receding Arctic Ocean, and climate change.
These are but a few examples of the dedicated and experienced professionals who work across government in an environment under constant review and cost-cutting. They work in constant concern that the federal government leaves itself without sufficient regulatory tools, expertise, or financial and human resources to position Canada to innovate or to deal with the potential environmental, public health, or national security crisis.
As if program review in the 1990s weren't enough, the 2005-2010 strategic review exercise required federal departments and agencies to cut their overall programs by 5%. Now in 2010-11, the federal budget imposes an additional freeze of 5% on the already stressed operating budgets, at a time when departments must find funds to cover the 1.5% wage increase and bonuses for senior managers. The professional institute is concerned that this freeze will harm the ability of the professionals we represent to fulfill their mandate, and it will impact upon the quality of services to Canadians.
Additionally, considering the complexity of federal government operations, decisions by one department often affect others. For example, if Environment Canada, for instance, decides to cut certain programs that are integrated with those of, say, Natural Resources Canada, what can Natural Resources Canada do? Can it carry the ball alone? Probably not. Each department will prioritize its own programs to be cut. In an era of globalization and effective service delivery, is such a disjointed approach the best direction to go in for Canada and Canadians?
When I met with Mr. Day we spoke of the government's plan to reduce the size of the public service through attrition. While this strategy may reduce the payroll in the immediate term, it will be very damaging in the long term because of the loss of accumulated knowledge and the inability to mentor a new generation of professionals to do the business of government. In short, the government may reduce bodies, but it cannot replace knowledge. Such an approach is not a sound or healthy business practice for any organization, be it private or public.
Further, the government advocates modernization of the public service, and we applaud this. However, how can young graduates and/or experienced professionals be attracted to work in a place that is constantly underfunded, not to mention berated? Traditionally, potential recruits were attracted to the public service by stable employment and a sound and secure benefits package. As these are gradually chipped away, what will attract new recruits?
Our point is this. Without a well-educated, highly skilled workforce and a modern infrastructure, Canada has little or no chance of remaining competitive in today's global marketplace. The federal science function is particularly vulnerable. While the return on investment in public science research is not always discernible or substantial in the short term, it is the lifeblood of innovation. Yet public scientists are diminishing in numbers, and the resources and infrastructure at their disposal are also dwindling.
The consequence of meagre funding for public science was addressed in Sheila Weatherill's report of the independent investigator into the 2008 listeriosis outbreak. Many of the readiness problems identified by Ms. Weatherill could be solved using her recommendations of having
...appropriate human resources available to respond to workload requirements, comprehensive training based on required competencies and skills, timely delivery of ongoing training and supervision of inspection staff structured to encourage enterprise and accountability.
The government's desire to move towards deregulation does not serve the public good. Recent sad examples include these deaths from the listeriosis scandal and thousands of Canadians who continue to suffer financial hardship provoked by the economic crisis.
While the March 2010 federal budget introduced some steps towards stronger financial regulation and policy changes to protect consumers with more timely and appropriate interventions, more basic applied and regulatory research and science is needed. I refer you to the governments of the United States, Great Britain, and Australia, which have substantially increased their support for publicly funded science, which is known to be a key driver of prosperity and economic competitiveness.
Why is Canada waiting to follow their lead? The robustly funded federal public science program is the perfect catalyst for Canada's current economy and truly leads to innovation.
One of our objectives here today is to offer viable considerations and solutions to the government's budgetary challenge. These and other suggestions have been shared with Minister Day. Institute members want to be active participants in identifying solutions in tough economic times.
Take, for example, outsourcing. The institute believes that the government should review its reliance on outsourcing and move to repatriate public service work within the public service. In 2009, the government spent $8 billion on professional and special services, representing one-quarter of the total operating budget for salaries and benefits. This figure, based on the information contained in the alternate federal budget for 2010 by the Canadian Centre For Policy Alternatives, is alarming. The same source also indicated that the government plans to spend $11.3 billion for contracting out work and services in 2009-10. And of that amount, almost $7.9 billion is earmarked for professional and special services alone.
In her December 2008 report, the Auditor General of Canada reported that the government spends more than $7 billion on professional and special services. Obviously, taxpayer dollars can be saved here by using public service professionals.
A study conducted by the professional institute last year revealed that in the area of information technology alone, three departments outsourced more than $700 million, including the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Canada Revenue Agency, and PWGSC. The institute is astounded and dismayed that the government relies on third-party services for public safety, an area that requires considerable ethics, confidentiality, and sensitivity.
Simply put, too much money is spent on contracting out, with little or no accountability. This is another area in which the government can make substantial savings.
In closing, I would like to thank you for your work. It is very important that politicians understand the impact of their decisions. Our members want to provide top quality services for the good of all Canadians. However, it is becoming more and more difficult to fulfill that mandate with limited financial resources.
Thank you for your attention and I am available to take your questions.