Government Operations Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you, Minister.

We will now go to Mr. Albrecht.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister Baird, for being here today.

I can tell you without question that people in my riding are very grateful that our government has taken some steps to restrain spending and put some measures in place that will not only restrain new spending, but re-evaluate programs that have been in place for some time.

All of us here have at some level a responsibility for a budget, whether it's a family budget or that of a community board we serve on. For many years I served on a school board in my area. It's always easy to start a new program, but it's very difficult twenty years after the fact to come back and re-evaluate whether that program is still doing what we set out to do. I applaud the efforts that have been taken here.

I also noticed in the material we were given that you're committed, Mr. Baird, to having all new and existing programs undergo a systematic and rigorous examination. I'm wondering if you could outline for me in a very brief way what that process will be. Will it be annual? Will it be more frequent? What kind of process do you envision for that?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

One of the things I was tasked to do in the budget, beyond this, was to bring in a new expenditure management system for the government. Our expenditure management system is weak at best. We went through the big period of high deficits, and the focus was so much on spending reductions, there became a lack of focus on how we deal with increases in spending, or how we deal with the competing pressures for increases in spending.

I think it's important to constantly evaluate programs to find out if they're meeting with success. I'm working on bringing a proposal to my colleagues on that issue. We're doing a lot of work, and the officials have been incredibly busy. But at this stage, we don't have anything to report, and I haven't been back to my colleagues.

A tenet I believe is that we should look periodically at every dollar that's being spent and ask if we're getting results. Are we getting value for our money, and is the program doing what it was intended to do?

I don't know many people who send their money back to the government as a grant saying we don't need this any more, or we haven't met with success, so you can have the money back.

Sometimes you have to ask difficult questions in government. We're going to ask the tough questions to make sure that the taxpayers' money is spent wisely and well.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Yes, you do.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I also wanted to comment that in terms of paying down our debt, the billions of dollars that were committed to paying it down are very crucial.

Members opposite are taking great credit for the fact that our deficit has been reduced. But I'd like to remind them that when they came to power, the accumulated deficit was actually $11 billion less than it was when we took power. In spite of a booming economy and all the efforts put into paying down the debt, we have a higher debt at this point than we did in 1993.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Is there any answer to that?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I guess one of the real challenges is that deficits are a tax on future generations. As to debt, think of what we could do with all the money we're spending on interest every year. I visited your constituency, and the number of people talking about community safety and the need for tougher criminal laws is incredible—and more resources for our police.

I think we have a responsibility to leave the country in better shape than we found it. Certainly my generation is going to have to work awfully hard to do that, because previous governments have left it in bad shape.

To be honest with you on the fiscal situation, I don't think anyone can wear lily white. Governments of all three parties have borrowed too much and taxed too much. We have to keep our eye on the ball of that simple goal: how do we leave the country in better shape than we found it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Mr. Baird, you will admit, though, that getting a $13 billion gift from the previous administration is kind of nice. I don't think you knew that before.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

That's not the previous government's money. That was the problem with the previous government: it's not the public treasury, but their own.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Believe me, we had a $40 billion deficit left over as a gift from the previous administration. It's not the same thing.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

That surplus is not the government's money; it's the people's money.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

But it's kind of nice to have that to be able to put down against the debt. So say thank you.

Mr. Alghabra.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, you've put a lot of emphasis today on health care needs and the fact that you'd rather spend government money on health care. You acknowledge that there are a lot of challenges and needs in the health care sector and in other sectors that are important to Canadians. Is that true?

I didn't hear the answer.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Sure.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Okay.

Can you tell me why, and tell this committee and tell Canadians why, you didn't choose to dedicate part of that surplus towards the needs that are really urgent, especially the ones you keep talking about? Health care—why didn't you do that?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

We did. We put more money for our cancer care strategy.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

No, no, the $13.5 billion surplus--why didn't you dedicate part of that? That's my question. Why didn't you dedicate part of that surplus to health care?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I think the equivalent savings would amount to about $650 million, and by paying down debt we had more money for a public transit credit, so that people can breath cleaner air when we have fewer cars on the road. We have our cancer care strategy in this budget, which we're able to pay for based on paying down debt. There are two examples, right there, where the health of Canadians will be better as a result of this budget.

As well, by paying down debt, we had better flexibility, and we were able to increase health care spending as opposed to cutting it by $25 billion.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

That's airtight logic. I'm impressed.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I appreciate that.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

You know, $13.5 billion.... An average Canadian family every year faces a similar choice. They have a choice: whether they want to pay down additional payments towards their mortgage or send their children to university. What do you think they choose?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'm not going to tell families how to live their lives.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

No, what do you think? That's not my question. I'll tell you, if you don't want to.... To avoid—

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'll tell you what. I think what families can't do is increase spending by an average of 8%. If they get a pay raise of 3% or 4% and they increase spending by 8%, what happens is that the house gets foreclosed, because families can't print money.

I am proud of the fact that we paid down $13.2 billion, and I'm very happy to defend that anywhere, any time, any place to Canadians directly. If you want to fight against that argument, God bless.