Government Operations Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[Robert Fonberg]

In fact, on September 25, when the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance announced this, they actually announced that this was the conclusion to this process, but that going forward they would ensure a tighter approach to expenditure management.

I believe the language they used—I don't have it in front of me—was that they would ensure that departments only receive spending required for effective programming that achieved results. The budget also announced that the government would be reviewing its overall approach to expenditure management and would be making a report this fall.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Who gets to decide whether you're achieving results? Is there any outside analysis of this, or is it a judgment call of the government?

[Robert Fonberg]

The government ultimately is responsible to Parliament, and ministers will stand up when they need to in order to report intended results and achieved results.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

One thing Mr. Baird says is that the government is not going to pay for Liberal lawyers to sue the government all the time. That's one of his—

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Alghabra.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, everybody. Thank you for coming here today.

I want to say first that I think I speak on behalf of my colleagues here when I say we're all in favour of identifying areas for increasing efficiencies in government expenditure. This exercise is done on an annual basis by the government, regardless of who's in power, and public servants offer a lot of assistance in identifying those areas. That's what taxpayers expect. That's what Canadians expect. So it's important that we keep our eyes focused on identifying those areas.

The concern that we have—or that I have, at least—is that some of those areas that were cut as part of this announcement appeared to many of us to be working. For example, in my riding, I have close to three dozen students, youths, who have received summer placements through the youth career program. It has become really difficult for us, especially for me, to explain to my constituents why that program is not going to continue anymore.

So let me get to my question. First, I'm interested in knowing if any of those cuts had been identified previously as part of this annual review that the government and public service go through.

[Robert Fonberg]

They obviously had not been acted upon. Whether there had been discussion in the past as to whether or not programs were achieving their results and ought to stay in place is a different question. I wouldn't have a record of those conversations, but anything that was eliminated or cut in this exercise obviously had not been cut before.

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

Yes, but my question is whether there were any recommendations. Were they identified last year? Let's be even more accurate: were they identified for cuts last year?

[Robert Fonberg]

I genuinely would have no record or sense of that.

Do you, Mr. Moloney?

[David Moloney]

We were drawing on the evaluation evidence at hand, and to a considerable degree, these were not evaluations conducted during the course of this year. A good evaluation study takes six, twelve, or eighteen months. Some of this information was out there; we were systematically pulling it together with a focus, in that case, on efficiency, yes, but also effectiveness.

How much we spend to achieve a result is what we think of as efficiency. But is the result actually being achieved as desired? A good evaluation goes further and asks if that result in fact is still relevant. There was the example of a city with a very low unemployment rate; is it relevant today? That becomes a policy judgment. Finally, there is whether this result is a priority of the government that is accountable for the tax dollars.

That information is available, in varying degrees. We pulled it together.

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

Mr. Moloney, I hope you give me permission to say that you still have not answered the question. The question is, were these programs identified before? Do you recall? You don't have to say yes or no, you may not recall. But do you recall if they were identified last year?

[David Moloney]

I was not at the Treasury Board Secretariat when the 2005 exercise was conducted.

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

Okay.

Madame Charette, do you recall if the adult literacy program was identified last year as a target for cuts?

[Janice Charette]

I was recently appointed the deputy minister of Human Resources and Social Development. I don't have knowledge of what happened before my appointment in July.

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

All right.

Through the review, these programs were identified as possible targets for cuts. What process did your departments go through in consulting with the targeted groups? Were there any consultations with them before the decision was made? I know the decision was made at a political level. Was any consultation done with the groups that were targeted?

[Robert Fonberg]

I think you would have to ask each of the ministers and deputies who were involved two questions: one would be the extent of their knowledge about their stakeholders and possible impacts and their ability to be able to speak to those issues; and two, in those situations where they weren't comfortable, whether they had any kind of consultation with stakeholders. So there is a judgment call, and there is as complete an understanding as possible of stakeholders and stakeholder impacts.

But there was no formal consultative process, as is typically the case in these kinds of exercises.

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

Does the same apply for the human resources department, that there was no formal consultation process?

[Janice Charette]

To pick up on what Mr. Fonberg said, he structured it as two questions: what's the extent of knowledge on the part of ministers, deputies, and officials who are involved in the exercise about how the programs operate; and what the stakeholder impacts would be.

One of the things HRSDC does on an ongoing basis is consult with our stakeholders. I spoke earlier about 19 round tables that took place on literacy in the summer of 2005. There is an ongoing stream of information.

But there was no explicit discussion with stakeholders. I believe you asked me about literacy, in particular?

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

Yes.

[Janice Charette]

There was no explicit consultation with literacy stakeholders on reductions in this program.

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

With respect to the impact of those cuts, I'm interested in the youth program specifically, out of selfish reasons, because it directly affects my riding. What can I tell my constituents when they ask me why this program is no longer valid? What should I tell them?

[Janice Charette]

The decision of the government was to better target the summer career placement part of the youth employment strategy and to refocus the program on students who need the most help in finding a summer job. I believe the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development has gone further to say that we will be refocusing to target the resources of this program on students in rural and remote areas, for instance, where jobs may be more difficult to find; in high unemployment regions; and for students who may face particular challenges, such as new Canadians.

We've been asked by the minister to design the new calls for proposals, which will go out in January. That will provide more explicit criteria that companies and organizations in the municipal-university-hospital sector can look at in terms of whether they want to apply for funding in the next fiscal year.

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

So I can basically tell them that they're not a priority for this government right now and that they're going to target their funds somewhere else.

By the way, just to make a comment, more than 50% of my constituents are new Canadians, and I'm hoping I can give them a better answer. If I go back and tell them what you just told me, they're really going to wonder what kind of answer that is. Are we not important? Are we not using this program effectively? Are we not benefiting from the program?

I know it may be unfair to direct this question to you because you're not the one who made that decision, but I was hoping to get an answer that I can really tell them I believe in, that makes sense. I'm sorry, but this answer did not give me any comfortable feeling that lets me go back and tell them.

[Janice Charette]

Perhaps I might add one thing, Madam Chair.

Unfortunately, I don't know the specific labour market conditions in your particular constituency, nor do I know the composition of it in order to be able to speak expertly on that. What I would say is that we've been asked to put together the criteria for the new call for proposals that will go out in January 2007. It will follow the lines that I set out, and organizations across the country will be invited to apply for funding under this program, according to those kinds of criteria.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Kramp.