Government Operations Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I think you and I would be in agreement that those types of organizations could use more funding, rather than some of the other—

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

They are the ones being cut, I'm sorry to say. So I'm going to watch very carefully, because there's a very big demand for literacy programs in northern Ontario, and especially among francophone groups. Many people did not have French high schools when they graduated from grade 8, and many of them are not particularly literate. It's a great help to all of them. I would like to see those programs continue.

We can argue about that at another time.

Madame Thibault.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Madam Charette, when my colleague asked his questions earlier, he was thinking in terms of revenue. He wanted to know if you have looked at increasing revenues, for example by eliminating tax havens. The answer was no since it was a cost-cutting exercise. Madam Charette, did senior officials in your department consider the savings that could be made by respecting the fields of jurisdiction of Quebec, for example by transferring directly to Quebec funding in the areas of education and training? You would no longer need the bureaucratic apparatus to administer these funds.

This would make for a leaner federal government. You are obviously going to say this is a hypothetical question, so I will not even ask it. However, I wanted to make the point.

I know there are program officers at Treasury Board — I do not know if they still have this title — who undertake reviews with officials in the various departments. They do follow-ups and red flags are raised.

Who does this work for the Treasury Board Secretariat?

[David Moloney]

One of our sectors is responsible for analyzing a number of departments, including central agencies.

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

Fine.

[David Moloney]

This sector is in charge of reviewing the spending of the department itself.

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

I have looked at some of your cuts. The way they are described seems rather intriguing. Here, it says: “Canada School of Public Service, reduction in non essential training of federal public servants“.

Does it mean that you provided non essential training in the past and that you will stop doing so? We should get more information on this aspect.

I only have five minutes. I am interested in one thing in particular. Let us look at the Treasury Board Secretariat. Between 2000 and 2005, the budget of Treasury Board has increased by some 26 percent.

What have you done since in order to reduce that spending? I believe one should preach by example, and this applies also to the Department of Finance. One should try to be the champion and try to show the rest of the public service what efficiencies can be gained internally.

The Canadian government and the public service exist in order to redistribute wealth. The shareholders are the Canadians, including Quebeckers. Before proceeding with cuts that will impact on the citizens, one should at least consider what could be done internally — in your own department — in order to reduce these 26 million dollars of increased spending over the last five years.

[David Moloney]

A number of items have been identified within Treasury Board Secretariat itself, including funding for regional responsibilities....

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

Excuse me, Mr. Moloney, but you did not get my point. I know those figures, I have seen them and I could recite them myself. I did my homework, I am well prepared, as are all my colleagues.

My question was this: what efforts are you really making in order to reduce in a major way... I should ask you if this is your objective. So I am asking you this. Do you have as an objective to return, for example, to your funding level of the year 2000 or of a previous year?

[David Moloney]

We have as an objective to better manage expenses which includes, obviously, those of each department.

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

I will stop there.

Do I have another minute left, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Yes.

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

I have one last question, sir, to which my colleague, Mr. Warkentin referred earlier. I put it to Mr. Baird because, in my view, this is a total aberration. This is one of the reasons I asked it. I am talking about the elimination of so-called unused funds. Correct me if I am wrong, but the greatest aberration is with Health Canada. The documents show that 28 million dollars are being targeted, but the department cannot tell us where. It just says that 28 million dollars would be saved.

Unused funds in the area of social programming amount to 5 million dollars in Quebec, and the rest of Canada will lose all its social economy funding. It will be completely eliminated. We are going to lose 5 million dollars out of a total of 26 million dollars. We might be able to survive those wounds. However, there was a program in British Columbia for fighting against the ponderosa pine beetle. Unused funding for food inspection amounts to 10 million dollars; unused funding for the textile sector is 24 million dollars; unused funding for Fisheries and Oceans Canada in New Brunswick, for the salmon enhancement program, amounts to 20 million dollars.

How come these departments, i.e. the officials who manage these programs, have left unused all these dollars in such crucial areas? I am not being partisan, I am talking about all of Canada. How could these departments do such a thing and how come your analysts are happy with it?

[David Moloney]

In those cases, programs were approved by Cabinet. Departments received authority to spend these amounts in order to reach stated objectives. It is quite possible, because it happens quite often, that departments reached their objectives at a lesser cost than anticipated and did not require all the allocated funds. Normally, departments are not allowed to spend these dollars in other ways, for objectives other than those approved by Cabinet.

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

Mr. Moloney, I understand that very well. I can tell you that people in my riding and elsewhere in Quebec who work in the social economy sector cannot understand that we were unable to help the various social economy organizations to spend that money. I maintain my point of view and say this is an aberration. However, I will continue with my research.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you, Madam.

We now go to Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I have only five minutes, I'll ask very brief questions and ask if there could be brief answers.

First of all, was there any formal gender analysis done to the package of cuts by Treasury Board or by the individual departments that were asked to find efficiencies, as they're called?

[David Moloney]

Not formally.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Fonberg, is there any requisite analysis that you have to do or that you did undertake on the total body of the cuts to see if they disproportionately impact women?

[Robert Fonberg]

No, there was no analysis done on the entire package.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you. I won't dwell on that.

Madam Charette, you mentioned that apprenticeships will get $1,000 each. For the record, that $1,000 goes to the employer, not the apprentice. Is that correct?

[Janice Charette]

No, sir. It's $1,000 for first- and second-year apprentices. There is an additional tax credit for employers.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Oh, I'm sorry. It's a tax credit. I just wanted a clarification.

With the little time we have, my main question is to you, Mr. Moloney. Under Brison, procurement was a big area in which they were looking to find deficiencies. The real property division and, I think, the IT sector were the trifecta he put in place there. Under the procurement at the time, it was recognized that the U.S. is studying this idea that they won't allow tax fugitives—in other words, companies that are in tax havens—to bid on government contracts. They want the secondary benefit of only dealing with companies that pay their taxes in that country when it comes to getting government contracts. Has there been any analysis of that? Is there any movement along those lines with your procurement policies up for review?

[David Moloney]

I can't comment one way or the other. Perhaps my colleague from Public Works can.

[Mike Hawkes]

I can't either.