Government Operations Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

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

No, no, Minister. Let me remind you why you are here today. You're here today to answer our questions, not for us to witness comedy or theatre. I expect you to answer our questions.

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

I did. You just didn't like the answer.

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

No, you didn't answer my question. Canadian families face those similar choices on a daily basis and make choices to invest in their future and the future of their children. This government has chosen to use its own ideology by cutting expenditure on programs they don't agree with, and then claiming they are increasing spending on health care or immigration while they're doing exactly the opposite.

We had—this is a fact, and I know how much you like dealing with facts—a $13.5 billion surplus, and I'm not going to get into who's responsible for that surplus. This is taxpayers' money. They expect it to be spent wisely. It should have gone, part of it, to invest in health care, education, and future programs. This government has chosen to do exactly the opposite. It's really regrettable, and most Canadians are upset about that.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you.

I appreciate you being here this morning, Mr. Minister.

Certainly I have to follow up on my colleague from across the table. Of course he rants and he raves about particular household expenditures, and how a household might manage its expenditures.

I'll tell you a little story, Minister, and it goes like this. I'm married and we have a baby daughter, and there's a number one priority we have in our household, and that's to pay down our mortgage so that once our child reaches the age of getting her education we'll be able to pay for it because we won't be servicing the debt on our home. Certainly that has been the commitment that's been shown by this government, so we appreciate that you've been paying down the debt to ensure that future generations will be able to have the opportunities that all of us have had. So we do appreciate the investment that you've made by paying down the debt, because it will ensure that $650 million will come back into the government coffers ongoing from now into perpetuity.

But that isn't my major concern. I have to tell you a little story. I met with one of the literacy groups in our community, the Grande Prairie Council for Lifelong Learning, in Grande Prairie, which is the larger centre in my constituency. And the story goes a little bit like this. The group has been applying for money for several years and has been trying to get money. They're an organization that invests in communities by trying to teach people, through partnerships, through mentorships, to teach other people to read. These are older people, these are adults.

What this agency has told me, what this group of people has told me, is that in the past they have found it impossible to access federal dollars because all the federal dollars have been allocated for studies and studies and studies and studies. They said “We don't want one more study; we know that people have difficulty reading. We know who those people are. All we want is the money to be allocated into particular investments and just cut out the studies for now.”

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

You're wrong, though. All the money didn't go into studies. Some of it went for conferences, some of it went for symposiums, some of it went for advocacy.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

The story is these people are frustrated because they know the people on the ground who desperately need the services haven't been able to.

I think Mr. Bains pointed out, particularly, with eloquence, the problems that the last 13 years of Liberal programs have resulted in. People have not been able to access the dollars to be able to increase literacy in the country. We've seen a decline in the number of adults who have been able to reach the level of literacy that we'd like to expect in this country. Certainly this group was saying they're very pleased that we have withdrawn the money from these studies, and what they want to see into the future....

The government has made a number of different investments into literacy programs that will actually get to the ground and onto the ground, so certainly we do appreciate that and we do want you to continue to move forward. I speak for people who are happy with the direction you're headed in. I guess the message is that prudence and responsibility will win the day, and certainly we appreciate it.

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

Language training is particularly important for new Canadians, and that's why we're increasing significantly immigration settlement dollars--an issue that had been pushed very hard in my province by Premiers Rae, Harris, and McGuinty--for Ontario to get fair treatment. This is the first budget where we're moving towards that, and I'm very proud of this because there are a lot of new Canadians in my own constituency in Ottawa where I serve, a big city, and there and in the Toronto and greater Toronto area there are significant needs that can now be met.

I spoke to an individual the other day who works in the immigration settlement agency in my own constituency, and they're seeing a lot of action on the ground now in that area, which I'm very proud of. It's something we advocated very strongly about. I know long before the election I had the then-leader of the opposition talk to my premier, meet with my premier, put aside politics, to try to push this issue. It was only when Stephen Harper got involved and began to push this issue that finally the Liberal government federally began to cave under all that collective pressure, and now the Conservative government is delivering on that, and I'm very proud of it.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Absolutely.

Thank you, on behalf of my constituents.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you very much.

Madame Thibault.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Since my colleagues and I have not had the opportunity to hear from Mr. Moloney, I will repeat my question for him.

I would first like to know whether the Treasury Board Secretariat held discussions with Finance Department officials. When this exercise got under way, who decided what: did the government have to come up with a certain level of cuts? Were people asked to focus on certain areas? Was there also talk about direct efficiency, reductions, etc.? I used to do that kind of work in another life. Did the departments have instructions, or could they chose how to proceed?

I would also like to know whether the departments were offered any incentives to encourage them or force them, as the case may be, to review their own operating expenditures. Over the past ten years, government's spending has increased very significantly. I am not saying that your government is responsible for that; I am giving you the facts.

[David Moloney, Senior Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat]

Thank you.

The secretary of the Treasury Board Secretariat was with us, but I did participate in the process. As the minister mentioned, the budget set out an objective of several billion dollars a year in cuts. Existing and potential reductions were studied by senior officials in the departments and agencies, the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Department of Finance and the Privy Council. They focussed on all of the government and based their decisions on the criteria.

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

May I please interrupt you, I want to come back to the issue of criteria.

Did the senior officials and deputy ministers of the various departments have any questions? With regard to the "unused funds" criterion, I gather that the deputy ministers, for whose intelligence I have great esteem, must have thought that unused funds were perfectly usable as such. There are unused funds, but there are many other things that come afterward.

With regard to criteria, we find the expression "programs that were not providing good value for money". We could get together and study government documents and come up with very different opinions about programs that do not provide good value for money. For instance, some colleagues found certain pseudo-legal programs very useful, whereas the government said that they had not been very useful. People do not make claims that are contrary to what their own government wants. There are philosophical reasons for this.

Did these people have a detailed book of specifications? You said that criteria were followed during this exercise. Mr. Moloney, I do presume that public servants respected the criteria: the decisions are up to the government. I would like to know whether the criteria were so strict that they did not leave any choice, or whether they allowed the government to make savings in other ways. Can senior officials find other ways and means, or must they strictly follow the plans provided by the Treasury Board Secretariat or by the Department of Finance?

[David Moloney]

We, the senior officials of the central agencies, reviewed the government expenses as well as the planned expenses that had not yet been committed. We based this review on available information and evaluations carried out by the departments, in order to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of expenses following set criteria.

As a central agency, we suggested that the minister as well as a committee of ministers should discuss the matter and then hold consultations. This was done under the direction of the secretary. I will give him the floor so that he can tell you about the discussions that went on among deputy ministers. Through this process, we, the senior officials, reviewed the impacts and the consequences. The deputy ministers followed by the ministers also discussed these aspects.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Ms. Nash now has the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Baird, I'd like to ask you about the court challenges program. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a law that Canadians support and are very proud of; it protects equality in Canada. Without the court challenges program, many people, in fact the very people whose rights may be at risk, won't have the means or the resources to be able to challenge unjust laws and discrimination. So to cut completely the court challenges program erodes the power of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect the rights of those very groups it seeks to protect.

Certainly many concerned people have contacted me on this. They're very concerned that this is a major step backwards for equality rights in Canada. There are lots of examples of groups that have used the court challenges program, including those who are seeking redress for the Chinese head tax and those who are concerned about the lack of linguistic freedom for francophone rights. There are many other examples.

There's a real concern about the elimination of the court challenges program as an erosion of our democracy and human rights in the country, in that the very people who this is designed to protect will no longer have access to the mechanisms and resources to help them get their rights enforced.

Can you tell us what the thinking is behind the elimination of this important and successful program?

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

I think of the senior citizen in Bayshore in my constituency who's afraid to leave her apartment at night to walk three blocks to go to Swiss Chalet. As a woman, she feels vulnerable, feels that she can't walk her own streets at night. Our budget is hiring more police officers, putting greater resources in law enforcement.

I think of the parent who's struggling to raise their own child, and the inequality of the previous government's child care program, where 85% of the children were left behind; the rights of the disabled and the medically fragile to health care, where there wasn't enough money budgeted; and the rights of disabled children and their families, and the increased support for them through the tax system.

We made the decision that we'd rather put that money into those rights.

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

But Minister Baird, the ability of these very people to get their rights enforced is what has been put at risk here with the cutting of the court challenges program. To pit needs, like this of the most vulnerable—you're talking about seniors, single mothers—against each other is somewhat offensive. Of course we want the senior to be protected. Of course we want all parents and all kids to do well. But it's pretty fundamental to have access to legal rights, and for equality before the law to be not just a nice thought but to actually get equality, through equal enforcement of the law, for those without the wealth and resources to get their rights enforced—to actually get the resources to challenge inequality and discrimination.

It baffles the mind that we would want to cut a program to help people fight discrimination that has been, in a very practical way—whether we're talking about women's equality, language rights, seniors' rights, the rights of immigrants—so successful. It is perplexing.

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

What about the right of that senior citizen to walk her own street at night—who feels afraid, in a culture of fear; who wants more resources spent on law enforcement? And I've spoken about health care. In my constituency, the two highest priorities for government funding are health care and law enforcement, so that people can be healthy and feel safe in their community, and feel safe in their homes.

I guess there's just an honest difference of opinion. I respect that you have different views and I don't profess to say I'm right and you're wrong. I just profess to say that's my opinion.

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

There was also the choice to take the $13.2 billion surplus and put it, in its entirety, to paying down the debt. Compared with other G-8 countries, Canada already has a fairly aggressive debt repayment program. Canadians generally want to pay down their debts. That's sound economics.

On the other hand, Canadians don't want to do that in exclusivity, in a way that undermines their fundamental rights and freedoms, and I believe that is what this choice is doing.

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

We've adopted a balanced approach. We're taking some money to pay down debt. We're taking other money to invest. We're spending about $35 billion a year, every year, on paying down our debt. We could double the budget of every hospital in Canada—double it—with that money. That's massive, $35 billion—double the budget of every single hospital.

So we have paid down debt, we have investments, we increased spending this year by 5.5%—plus cutting taxes. I think we are adopting a fairly balanced approach. Others may disagree, and that's fair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you very much.

You may have one last question, Mr. Alghabra.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, I'm curious about a comment you just made. How many police officers have you or the government helped to hire in your riding?

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

We've come forward with a plan for about 1,000 new RCMP officers. I don't know how many will be stationed at the new RCMP headquarters in Nepean.

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

Then it has nothing to do with the municipal police forces.