Good afternoon. My name is Claude Poirier. I am President of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, or CAPE. With me today is Claude Danik, Executive Director of CAPE, and Hélène Paris, CAPE's Research Officer.
We represent about 12,000 economists, sociologists and statisticians who work for the Government of Canada. They provide advice and analysis to departments and agencies across Canada. We also represent more than one thousand translators, interpreters and terminologists at the Translation Bureau, probably including these interpreters here in the booth. And, finally, we represent a little short of 100 researchers and analysts at the Library of Parliament, from whom, I am sure, you receive very valuable services.
I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to comment on the effects this government's budget will have on our members and also on the Canadian public. You will find with my speaking notes questions that we are asking departments and agencies regarding the cuts they will make.
My first comment will be to say that our members probably advised this government that it was going in the wrong direction; that is, putting more pressure on an already over-pressurized public service; putting at risk succession, given the number of public servants about to leave on retirement; endangering the transfer of knowledge from one generation to the other; compromising the quality of services offered to the Canadian population; and unavoidably increasing the workload and the number of people exposed to stress and burnout. But that should have been obvious.
Canada already has a problem replacing some of its work force. Take our members from the economics and social science services group, for instance. The number of vacant positions is still very high. Why? Because we cannot find enough candidates to fill the needs of departments and agencies. Actions that threaten wages, benefits, pensions or job security will not help attract qualified professionals.
Another example would be the Translation Bureau. We know that Canada as a whole needs to find 1 000 new translators per year. However, universities only produce about 200 of them per year and the Translation Bureau hires most of them. The Canadian government created a scholarship program to increase the number of students, and therefore the number of graduates. But, once again, attacks on the public service will not help us recruit qualified professionals.
In the three groups we represent, the average age is quite high. The number of employees going into retirement will peak around 2014, and because of a gap in hiring in the 1990s, there will be a serious lack of succession.
What about the security of the Canadian public? If this government freezes budgets and starts cutting programs, will we see an increase in the number of unsafe products hitting the market? Will we see problems with the safety of food and drugs? Can we expect problems, if a new pandemic hits Canada? Will we have the necessary expertise? Will we still have the necessary corporate knowledge?
What if, instead of solving its deficit by forcing federal government employees to choose where to cut their budgets, our government had the courage to make decisions and select which program would be cut, and to take responsibility for it in the next election? That is called accountability. Being accountable means making decisions and being judged for them.
No, this government was not ashamed to let others be the bad guys and take all the criticism. Yes, I used the word “deficit”. Isn't it strange that the current deficit is mostly related to global crisis and that Canada was one of the least affected countries? Even the Fraser Institute concluded that the steps taken by this government had no effect on our recovery. What is worse, this “man-made” deficit is used as a pretext to again cut services provided to the Canadian public. This is nothing more than a deficit engineered to give the government a good reason to hit on the public service once again, for ideological reasons.
Just imagine telling your family that you're cutting, in all sectors of spending, an even 5% per year for the next three years—15% in total. The 15% on entertainment would probably make you very unpopular among your teenagers, but what about 15% on food, or 15% on health care products? You would be seen as very bad parents indeed.
Cutting public spending constantly year after year without decent reflection is very bad government. Cutting taxes for large corporations, if it's not needed, is also bad government. Those companies that are not profitable won't see the difference: if they don't make a profit, they don't pay taxes anyway. On the contrary, offering tax rebates to the oil industry doesn't make sense.
So what is good government? Good government is avoiding destroying the Canadian public service in the hope of securing a majority in the next election. Good government is seeing that you do not lose corporate knowledge. Good government is putting the interests of the Canadian public first. Good government is listening to the in-house experts who tell you that you are making a mistake. Good government is asking questions before, not after, when it is too late.
Thank you for your attention. I am now available to take your questions.