Government Operations Committee on Feb. 8th, 2011

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Chair, I am asked a question, and then when I start to give the answer—

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

How is that relevant at all? If you're saying that your plans for reduction of spending are dependent on attrition and you aren't talking about actually reducing the number of positions, how can you possibly suggest that it's going to help you meet your targets?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Chair, if I could try to finish when I'm asked these questions....

When 11,000—last year I believe it was 11,154, but over 11,000—people will leave the public service....

Here's why that's an important figure: because it creates vacancies. If, and I'm using the word “if”, a department decides that a certain program can be run with fewer people and people have already left the department because they've retired, that gives a little more assurance to people working there that they'll be able to continue to work, because yes, a program has been reduced, and maybe the number of people who are going to run it temporarily, but a lot of other people have already left, so those holes can be filled by existing....

Now, there's no guarantee that there will not be people who will have to leave the public service because of a program's changing how it operates. But Mr. Chair, I can say that the effect on the public service is going to be nowhere near as devastating as it was in the mid-nineties when, by the tens of thousands, public servants received their pink slips and were shown the door. This is a very, very different approach.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Minister, you've been in government for five years. It's time to be accountable for what you're doing, not deal with what happened 15 and 20 years ago.

Let's talk about this attrition question. You've been trying to suggest, using these numbers, that you're going to make big savings from 11,000 a year. Let me ask you: if you don't actually reduce the number of civil servants by 11,000 or more, as you've suggested, by the end of this fiscal year, will you resign?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Chair, it is not for me to tell the departments how many public servants it's going to take to run a program. They will make those decisions.

Mr. Chair, I don't know whether there's just a deliberate lack of acceptance of what we mean when we say 11,000. Do we understand, when I say that 11,000 is the attrition rate, that this means some number higher than 11,000 people will leave the public service this year? Does that mean we're not going to hire any more? No, we've been hiring pretty aggressively, as the member has pointed out. Does that mean a certain department may not reduce in an area? No. I'm simply saying—

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

So you're not going to meet your financial target. That's the point.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Well, we and much of the rest of the world think we are.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Regan. Thank you, Minister.

Colleagues, it's 11 o'clock. We did get started a little late. I propose that we have a Bloc round and a Conservative round and end it at that. Is that fine? Five minutes each?

Mr. Vincent, five minutes, please.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am glad I am here today, Mr. Minister, so I can tell you what I think of your plan, not as a member of Parliament, but as a citizen. We have been hearing about the government's plan or plans for a few years now, but unfortunately, we have yet to see a real plan.

You talked about reducing the deficit. To you, that may be a plan, but that tells me absolutely nothing. You talked about possibly cutting the deficit by $15 billion, but we still have no idea how you are going to do that. It makes no sense.

In your opening remarks, you said, “I'm proud to say that our government has led by example by freezing the salaries of the Prime Minister, ministers, members of Parliament and senators.” Further on, you said, “Let me be clear. This government won't be balancing the budget on the backs of hard-working Canadians.”

Could you comment on the 35% increase in employment insurance? It seems to be another tax on workers and employers. Is that the money you will use to try to balance the budget?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Vincent, you asked a number of questions.

I repeat—and I believe I am right—certain people here today do not agree with our plan. But to say we do not have a plan is false. For example, you can see a clear reduction of $20 billion for this year alone, given that we are going to put an end to the temporary stimulus plan. That is equivalent to roughly $19 billion. Those numbers are in our plan.

You do not agree, and I accept that. But it is wrong to say that we do not have a plan. We have a plan.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Day, I understand your plan. Basically, I could write something similar down and call it my plan.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

We are not going to increase the employment insurance fund at the level he mentioned. Instead, we rejected the board's recommendation that it be increased. We decided not to because jobs, entrepreneurs and businesses were more important.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

That is what you are doing this year, but you are going to increase it again next year. Stop it.

I will give you a real example. What could these budget cuts really mean? How is it being done? There is a Canada Border Services Agency in my riding, a customs office. It will shut down, because they say they want to save a lot of money. That is in the government's plan. The customs office in Granby will be closed, but the only true savings will be the cost of the telephone line, given that the Canada Border Services Agency paid for the office space and equipment. So closing that office will not save a thing. The office will close, workers will lose their jobs, and the people in my riding who deal with that office, which, by the way, brings in $1 million in taxes a week, will suffer. And yet, the office is being closed to save on the cost of a telephone line.

That is your plan, Mr. Minister. You would do better to jot down another on the back of some napkin, because the one you have is pretty flimsy.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Very briefly, Minister, please, because we have half a minute.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

A Canada Border Services Agency office may indeed be closing, as my colleague mentioned. The minister may have made such an announcement, I am not sure. But if it is true, that is an example of a plan to reduce services. And if that is the case, there is a debate that needs to happen. Will it cut costs? I do not know. I appreciate the recognition that a debate needs to happen. There is a plan. Everyone may not agree with it, but it does exist.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Merci, monsieur Vincent.

Merci, Minister.

Mr. Cannan....

No, I won't say anything.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the name being used, and it's an honour to be here.

Thank you, Mr. President, for being here as well.

I'm going to split my time with Mr. Warkentin, our newest father of the group.

The issue is obviously a very important one to all of us around the table. We've had consultations with our constituents in pre-budget, and the number one thing I hear from constituents is that living within our own means is no different from, at home, living within our own budget. It's important to get to this balanced budget that we're working towards. I'm glad to hear from your comments today that we're on track to realize these savings.

Mr. President, I just have a quick question, one that was identified when we talked about transparency and open, accountable government, which we're all for.

And I appreciate Pat Martin in the last session...that we got Bill C-2 through.

The question has to do with releasing of documentation. I understand. We all want the information. But could you, as the President of the Treasury Board, assure our committee and members of Parliament that documentation won't be released to others before elected members of Parliament have the information?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Chair, this is something that is very key. I have explained to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, along with the documentation that we have sent him—piles a lot higher than the one in front of me that he quite rightly has asked for and that quite rightly we've given—that there are some things we can't give.

My colleague is saying that he wants the assurance that MPs won't be seeing stuff coming out of the PBO that they haven't had a chance to see yet. There is documentation that I've itemized for the PBO, saying that I appreciate his asking for these numbers, but that MPs haven't even had the chance, because it might be part of an estimates process in years to come—Parliament has not even had the chance—to debate or approve or vote against those numbers. And you're asking me to give them to you so that you can release them? That would be not just an affront to Parliament; it would be contempt of Parliament.

Any time we have had to say no to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we have said very clearly why some documents can't be forwarded. I would suggest that we send him a great many documents, but we're not going to release—and I think my colleagues here on the opposition side would be the first to jump all over me, if I gave out—information that MPs haven't even had the chance to see and debate and vote on yet. Mr. Chairman, that is one of the things that needs to be addressed.

Just to come back to this issue, we should be able to have vigorous debate on plans and numbers, but really, in the session today, some of the hyperbole that I've seen.... In fairness, and with respect—that's freedom of speech, and people can dance from the rooftops while they're making their remarks, if they want—let's realize that there's a difference between a vigorous debate on numbers, plans, and even philosophies.... That's one form of debate, but some of the characterization that I've heard today is a little bizarre, and I think it detracts from some of the hard number-crunching that this committee is actually known for a lot of the time.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Warkentin, you have less than two minutes.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, it's a pleasure to have you.

This last week, I understand, the C.D. Howe Institute came out with a report in which it gave great explanation as to why it felt the government would be on track to meet its targets. It also gave some ideas or suggestions as to how the process could be expedited to balance the budget. So we have yet another well-respected voice in Canada, an institution that we often make reference to, that is agreeing that the numbers are in fact in place, that the numbers are working, and that the plan is doable and can be reached.

What is interesting, in addition, when we're talking about numbers, is.... I don't want to demonize the PBO either, but I just did some quick calculations, and my estimate is that there are approximately 280,000 civil servants, not including department of defence civil servants. If there were only 1,100 people leaving the civil service, that would be an exceptional retention rate, especially as we know that the demographics within the civil service indicate that there are many people who are ready to retire—I believe the number is closer to 12%—and who could be prepared to retire in the next number of years.

So I think all members of Parliament should be aware immediately that the number 1,100 is not realistic, that it isn't in congruence with any type of reality. While I appreciate that members opposite are claiming that this is a vilification, it's clearly just not believable that there would only be 1,100 people who would be leaving the civil service.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

The PBO said in his January 20 report:

The President of the Treasury Board has also noted that public service attrition will be the primary mechanism to achieve the operating freeze savings targets; observing that approximately 11,000 public servants vacate their positions each year.

I think that today the minister has in fact acknowledged that the PBO has that correct.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

If there's a point of order, I'd like to—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That's not a point of order; it's a point of debate.

Regrettably, Mr. Warkentin has run over his five-minute allotment. As a courtesy to the minister, I'll give him a half-minute to reply. Then we'll suspend while we bring in the next witness.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

What was just attributed to me by the PBO is in fact not accurate. As a matter of fact, I just pointed out to my friend from the Bloc that the primary achievement this year for budget reduction is going to be the $19 billion that will no longer be spent on the stimulus program. It has nothing to do with attrition at all; it's just that this money is not going to be spent.

I would simply like the PBO to be more careful in his publications and statements and I would certainly appreciate his simply saying, all other things aside, whether he was talking about net or not net, that the government is correct when they say that attrition this year will be something over 11,000 people.

That's all. If he would just say that, it would be great.