Industry Committee on Sept. 28th, 2006

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Deputy Minister.

You have cut Statistics Canada's budget by 3 per cent approximately, in other words by $15 million. Is that correct?

Given that these people are the same lunatics who have been misleading people for years and have been unable to correctly calculate inflation rates, could you have done any better?

[Richard Dicerni]

First of all, I want to make it clear that I wasn't the one to order the budget cutbacks.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

So you're giving us the rationale for these cutbacks.

[Richard Dicerni]

But, since...

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Surely you must have been consulted.

[Richard Dicerni]

Since your comments are going on record, I wouldn't want my colleague, the Chief Statistician, to think that I had stepped in and cut his budget. This was a decision made by ministers, by cabinet.

On the other hand, I think you can hardly blame them and that if you did, it would not be fair. They made a mistake and they admitted it. It was a serious mistake and they are responsible for it, but most organizations do make mistakes from time to time. I would even go so far as to say that we, in the Department of Industry, do make mistakes from time to time, errors in judgment or administrative mistakes. As I said, this was a political decision, a ministerial decision made following discussions with the Chief Statistician. It led to a 3 per cent or $15 million cut.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Were you involved in considering possible budgetary cutbacks for Statistics Canada or were you only informed of them by the gentleman that was actually cutting his own budget?

[Richard Dicerni]

We discussed the issue with my colleague from Treasury Board. Some meetings were held with the Chief Statistician and it was suggested that he take a serious look at what could be done this year.

It is important to note that this year's expenditures by Statistics Canada are somewhat unusual because it is a census year. They have more expenses for this year. I think that their annual budget is between $400 and $450 million, including $115 million which is mostly related to the census. That is only for this year. A $15 million cutback in a regular year would be slightly higher than 3 per cent.

It should also be noted that a large part of their expenditures—almost 75 per cent—are for employee salaries. So, even if the government had decided to cut back on that part of the expenses, not much would have been saved this year, because there are union agreements, contracts and periods during which this amount could not have been saved in the 2006 budget, because half the year had already elapsed.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Could someone not suggest to Statistics Canada that it stop asking questions in the census to which it knows the answers, specifically with respect to income? Some of the useless questions contained in the last census were downright insulting. These included questions about our sexual orientation and family income.

Isn't it about time we ask Statistics Canada to clearly define its role, to tell us what purpose the data collected and published serves and to stop playing around? Maybe there are more savings to be had.

[Richard Dicerni]

I 've noted your suggestion and will pass it along to the Chief Statistician.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We go to Mr. Carrie for the last round, for five minutes.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps we could clarify what's going on. Everybody is saying that these are cuts, but we could say that's a liberal interpretation of the word. We could conservatively say that they're savings. Wouldn't some people agree that they are actually savings?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I'm not sure if that's an alliance of thought, though.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, Oh!

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Dicerni, I would like you to clarify something on the record. There was some exchange earlier about the Canadian Tourism Commission. It was suggested that you controlled it or you were in charge of it. Could you clarify that the Canadian Tourism Commission is actually an arm's-length body?

[Richard Dicerni]

The Canadian Tourism Commission, set up by law, is a crown corporation that has its own board of directors, and we will be developing an appropriate governance memorandum of understanding with them.

They don't report to me. They are an agency of government. However, as Mr. Masse indicates, as the minister's deputy minister, I do provide some guidance, some comments to assist him in the discharge of his ministerial responsibility vis-à-vis the Canadian Tourism Commission. But it is an independent crown corporation.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much for clarifying that.

There are a couple of other points to clarify.

Is it true that the Canadian Tourism Commission's operating budget will remain the same and this move will have no impact on the Canadian Tourism Commission's ability to work with partners and to promote tourism in Canada?

[Richard Dicerni]

Yes, with the caveat that I referred to earlier, that I believe the previous budget reduced it by about--if I'm correct--$3 million. I'll get back to you by tomorrow on that. This was not the last budget, by Minister Flaherty, but the previous one.

So the overall fiscal envelope fundamentally has remained the same.

All agencies that have a specific mission of that nature would obviously always want to have more. This would apply to any association or organization that I've been involved in, federally or provincially, because you always want to improve on what you're doing and you always want to be as effective as you can. They are quite committed to the mission they signed on to, and that goes for the chairman, Monsieur Lapointe and the president, Madame McKenzie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you.

I have one more point, Mr. Chair.

Could you clarify if it's true that the government invests more than $300 million annually in tourism-related activities, including $78.8 million for the Canadian Tourism Commission for marketing and research?

[Richard Dicerni]

There are a number of other areas and other departments that the Government of Canada makes a contribution to in supporting tourism. There are some in ACOA. I referred to the support for the founding of Quebec City, which obviously is going to be a great tourist boom as people rediscover how well Champlain did by planting a flag in 1608.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll go to Monsieur Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to address some specific issues. From my understanding of certain conversations that have taken place, Cabinet would have informed you of cut you were to make in your department. Is that correct? Were you consulted, or were you instructed to make these cuts?

[Richard Dicerni]

The decision-making process is such that at the end of the day, it is the ministers who decide. Officials can provide additional information. They will attempt to ensure that ministers have all the information at their disposal which, given the circumstances, could be useful to help them understand a given program. Are we consulted? The word “consultation” can be defined a number of ways.