Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I believe you have all received a copy of my motion, which reads as follows:
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(c), that the Committee devote the next two meetings to a review of the detailed budget cuts announced by the Treasury Board on September 25, 2006.
Madam Chair, this is really just a detail, but to improve the quality of the French version, I would like to replace the word “coupures” with the word “compressions”. It in no way changes the meaning of the motion.
I will be very brief, but I would like to explain my rationale in tabling this motion.
We all know that in the last fiscal year, the Government posted surpluses of more than $13 billion. We also know that for the last ten years, the Government has considerably increased its operating expenditures. Now the Conservative Government is making draconian budget cuts based on ideology by attacking groups and programs that provide a counterweight to the Government's position. The examples that come to mind are the Court Challenges Program and advisory and advocacy groups that focus on the Department of Revenue.
Very often, the cuts involved affect projects and programs that, however small, are very important to civil society and, I would venture to say, to the health of our democracy. In my opinion, that is very much part of our mandate in this Committee, and I'm sure colleagues will recognize that. Indeed, the Government has a duty to explain why it decided not to invest $25 million in the textile and clothing industry, which is currently facing major problems as a result of globalization.
The same question arises with respect to the $20 million that were not invested in fisheries and oceans. Across this vast country, we are all affected. Some $14 million has not been allocated to the Food Inspection Agency, even though the agricultural industry overall is greatly concerned by such issues as the new disease affecting potatoes, the avian flu crisis, and mad cow disease. I could add to this already long list a $50 million reduction in programming aimed at Aboriginal Canadians.
I should also like to point out, as regards the agencies and departments that it is our role to critique, that Public Works and Government Services Canada has decided to apply spending reductions of $45 million, primarily to the Real Property Program. My position is that we should invite the Minister and Deputy Minister to explain how it has come to this. As for cuts in additional funding for real property management renewal, there we're talking about $5 million, as well as a $40 million reduction in the revolving fund surplus.
I hope my colleagues will agree that it is critical that we review these issues. For Treasury Board, we're talking about a $9 million cut in funding for the School of the Public Service, an $83 million cut for the Human Resources Management Agency, and $18.5 million worth of cuts to government-wide initiatives. We know that governments have often boasted about being able to save money through such initiatives. I'd like to know how we managed to save $18.5 million.
Madam Chair, I hope all colleagues will agree to carefully study these budget cuts. In closing, I would just like to suggest that we do this in two ways. First of all, I am suggesting that we review the overall situation. To that end, we could select a number of witnesses and hear from them. The idea is to determine how and why all these budget cuts were made.
Also, in order to study this in greater detail, I would suggest that we invite senior officials, including the ministers responsible, respectively, for Public Works and the Treasury Board Secretariat, so that they can explain how they arrived at budget cuts of the magnitude I have just mentioned.
Thank you, Madam Chair.