Government Operations Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

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

We have a two-pronged approach. One is the RCMP, and the other in our platform spoke of non-RCMP. The RCMP has been underfunded for many years. It does a huge amount of work in my community.

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

I understand, and I'm glad that we're hiring more RCMP officers. But you spoke about the senior citizen in your riding who is afraid to walk at night and about your helping hire more officers to make her feel more secure.

So how many municipal police officers have you helped—?

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

Municipal? We have three brands of police officers in Ottawa: we have the RCMP; we have the OPP; we have the municipal police force. They're hiring a significant number of new officers this year. Our first support will be to the RCMP, to deal with things like the drug problem, like organized crime. It will have a huge effect on the safety of my community.

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

Just to clarify, you really still have no direct impact on the municipal force that will help that senior citizen you're referring to.

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

We're putting $20 million into youth crime prevention. We're putting $26 million for victims of crime, more money to support the RCMP. That is a pretty good start in nine months. It's not enough. That's why we have six important pieces of legislation before the House, to crack down on guns that are used in the commission of an offence, to say that people who abuse children shouldn't get house arrest. These things will cost more money to do, and I think paying down debt gives us greater flexibility to meet those costs.

When those laws are enforced, we'll have a greater capacity to meet the challenges there, and I support that.

There may be an honest difference of opinion.

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

And there are.

I have to tell you, I'm really surprised at how you're pitting one right or one priority against the other. I know you're only accustomed to counting up to five priorities, but you can't say one right or one priority is a negative zero sum game against another priority. Minority rights are as important as health care, as education, as combating crime. And the court challenges program, the $2.5 million, the mere $2.5 million a year that received 12,000 applications over the last 12 years, is an important program that helped enhance minority rights in this country and gave groups the opportunity to access the Supreme Court.

It's really disappointing that you're trying to again, as usual, pit one segment of the community against another. It's only a polarizing political gimmick and it's unfortunate and it's regrettable.

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

What I want to tell you is that being in government is about making choices. The previous government tried to be all things to all people. When you're in government you have to make choices to put money here as opposed to there. We made a decision to hire more police officers. We made a decision to increase funding for health care. We made a decision to expand the tax credit for disabled children. We made a decision to deal with many of these issues, and it is in government about making choices.

You can't do everything. I suppose it would be a little easier if you brought in three budgets in one year as opposed to bringing in one budget. I don't think that approach has a lot of support.

I agree that there certainly was a lot to challenge. In 12 years of Liberal government, there was a lot of Liberal legislation that was worthy of challenging. If the Liberals had cared so much about equality maybe they wouldn't have cut the Status of Women budget so dramatically when they were in government. Maybe they wouldn't have cut health care by $25 billion. Maybe they wouldn't have cut minority language funding by 25%. So before you get on the high pedestal, I'd just look at the Liberal record. The Liberals fired 40,000 public servants and cut health care by $25 billion. I think our choices were far more responsible.

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

Minister, I'll agree with you, government is all about making choices, and your choices have reflected your ideological bent.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you very much for being here. Perhaps we'll have you back before too long.

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

Madam Chair, I always look forward to meeting with you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you very much.

We have one motion to deal with here. Mr. Kramp.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a motion, of course presented in due course to committee in both official languages, and it reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates hold hearings into the matter of "phantom positions" within the public service, as raised by the Public Service Commission in its 2005-2006 annual report; that the Committee call witnesses to testify on the matter; and that the Committee issue and table a report in the House of Commons, based on its findings.

I table this motion, Madam Chair, with mixed feelings. On the one hand, I don't want to get away from what we want to do. In this committee we're committed to following through with accrual accounting; we're committed to trying to stay the course and present a report that I think is probably the most important area of study before Parliament, which is of course the spending estimates. That can't be done accurately unless we finish accrual accounting.

But what prompted this motion the other day was when Madam Barrados from the Public Service Commission came forward. In her statement and report she said the cases she talked about raise troubling questions about political meddling in the staffing of the public service that would warrant—and this is the wording that goes directly to the heart of this committee—that would warrant tougher rules or legislation to stop the wide-open and unmonitored movement of bureaucrats between ministers' offices and the public service.

I took that as a plea to say we have a problem, and let's address that problem, when it came directly from the head of the Public Service Commission to this committee. We are mandated and I think have an obligation to deal with it. I don't think it's something we can just slough off.

I don't want to delay the regular workings of this committee. Perhaps we could do it at extra or special meetings, but I believe we definitely have to look at it. The motion before us is quite simple. It essentially calls on this committee to hold the hearings into the matter as described, and then, of course, make a report back to Parliament.

The very simple reason is “phantom positions”. It's unbelievable. Is there one? Are there two? Are there more? It's an open-ended book, and we just can't accept that. We need to know exactly who requested these appointments; we need to know who signed off on them; we need to know whether any disciplinary action should be taken. We should also determine whether there are more cases. This has to be done. I really feel we have to move on this.

What I'm suggesting and asking is that we hold a few more hearings, obtain some answers, and then issue a report to Parliament so that we can ensure this type of offence never happens again. We are an oversight committee. That's our job, and it's our duty. I don't want to get sidetracked, but I think this is so important that we can't overlook it and can't just pass it by.

When Madam Barrados makes this kind of statement to this committee, I really think that is a plea. She states unequivocally that there is a problem. We need it fixed. Does it require legislation? Does it require action? Does it require study?

I believe this committee should seriously look into this matter. I would ask the committee to unanimously endorse our moving forward and taking this to the steering committee to see whether at some particular point in our schedule we could bring it forward so as not to interfere with our regular duties.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Madame Thibault, followed by Madam Nash.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Two weeks ago, I told Mr. Kramp that the Bloc supported this, but this morning, I read the following passage in the Ottawa Citizen:

“Harper to probe phantom jobs”.

I told Mr. Kramp that since the government had decided—I do not know by what method, but I am sure that it will find a good one—to consider this issue significant enough to be included in Ms. Barrados' report, we should let the government do its work. Otherwise, it would not be good, because we have little time.

Once the work has been done, we will be able to table a motion in order to establish the committee, group or body in charge of this study, in collaboration with us. However, we must first let the government finish its work, as it said it would, because as far as we are concerned, we are clearly not working for any government of any kind.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Kramp.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I brought this point up as a non-partisan issue, feeling that this is a matter that should come before all members of all parties. If the government is going to undertake a study or evaluation, so be it, but I would have thought that the other members from all parties would have wanted to have some input and would want to set their standard and to give some personal attention to this matter so that they can verify and satisfy their own concerns.

We are dealing with a very serious matter here that could have implications not only for past governments but for future governments, regardless of who they are. We cannot carry on.... If we have a broken record, we just don't keep on with that broken record. We have a duty and an obligation in this committee to solve it. That's our job. We are an oversight committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

I am going to call the vote on this.

Oh, Madam Nash. Yes.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I support the intent of the motion and had intended to vote in favour of it.

I am concerned about conducting two simultaneous inquiries, as it were. I firmly believe there should be an inquiry. I firmly believe that the issue of the phantom jobs, which has already come before this committee, is the business of this committee and should be dealt with. But my concern is that we should not take two processes up simultaneously. I'm not sure that's productive.

If someone can help us with why we should do that.... It seems that if one process is going to investigate and uncover certain truths and report, then I'm not sure it makes sense for us to duplicate it. Perhaps we should act after the fact and build on their findings.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Chair, I am going to encourage the members opposite to actually vote for this. I think the message—for us, if we support here at this committee that we are going to actually do the work—is that we can send the message off to the government, as you like to call it, that we are going to take the lead on it.

If we do not support this motion, it doesn't happen; nothing happens. The government may take the lead on it.

I think this is an opportunity. In a future meeting, if the government says they are going to continue their process to look at these phantom jobs, well then, fine; then as a committee we make a decision that we don't want a dual-stream process and we back off, or we wait for their report, or whatever.

I think the logical thing to do would be to support this today, saying that we are going to take the lead as a committee on this issue. We will be the ones calling the witnesses and we will be doing the investigation. If we get “pushed back”—as I've learned as a word here—if they say to us no, they're going to do their own, then the committee can make a decision.

But I'm encouraging people to vote for this today, so that we can send a message that we heard it here first at this committee and we are going to deal with it at this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

I'd like to call the vote on the motion.

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We will be adjourning this committee at this time.

The meeting is adjourned.