Evidence of meeting #37 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was estimates.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Mr. Williams, thank you very much for coming. It was a very interesting presentation.
If we were going to go the program evaluation route, my concern would be, right along with what Mr. McCallum was saying, that we would be calling witnesses who would say that this program is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and if you change it or reduce it or eliminate it, I'm going to suffer, my family is going to suffer, and our community is going to suffer. On the other side, there's a program in the budget, Katimavik, for example, that will no longer be funded in future years.
Is there a way of taking the politics out of that discussion, so that we are actually talk to a program evaluator who have five or six criteria that they're evaluating against, and we and the media don't use it as political fodder to say that these guys are the worst thing since sliced bread or whatever? Do you have any suggestions in that area?
5:30 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption, As an Individual
Yes, your witnesses are going to be the public servants. They're not going to be representatives from society.
I remember when I came down here in 1993, we had a very serious budgetary issue of huge deficits and I was at the finance committee. Every 10 minutes, we'd have a new witness, and every witness said two things: “Cut, but don't cut me” and “Tax, but don't tax me”. Well, who's left? Nobody was left.
The issue is the management of the program. It is not the recipient of the program you want to hear from. So don't bring in the people who say that you can't cut them because they're enjoying this program because of whatever it does for them.
No, you want to ask what public policy this program is designed to address and whether it is doing it well. Hear from the public servants. If you have an opinion from the evaluation team that says that this program spills over and is giving far too many people the benefit compared to what the program was designed to do, then you can make your recommendation.
We have to be very careful. I remember one time I was at a seminar here in the House. The director of statistics from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was talking about employment insurance. He said that when they brought in employment insurance in Newfoundland, it created a significant improvement in education in Newfoundland and a significant improvement in health care in Newfoundland. So it wasn't a case of paying employment insurance or not paying employment insurance. It had spillover ramifications.
As public policy people, these are things you have to think about. This is not a private sector corporation that is designed to make money. This is here to serve Canadians in the best way possible. That's why one of the questions in an evaluation is whether there is a better way to do the same thing. Sometimes these benefits that are not obvious come to the fore through evaluation. These are the types of things you, as parliamentarians, need to know so that you can tell the government you agree with a particular program or that you think it should be changed.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
5:30 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Thank you, Mike.
Thank you very much, Mr. Williams. Your presentation was as interesting as we knew it would be, and you are certainly welcome here any time as we wrestle with this subject. We may even have cause to call you back.
I want to thank you for teaching me one new word: scutage. I've learned a new bad word now. If it means taxes, it might sneak its way into my vocabulary.
5:30 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption, As an Individual
If I may correct you, Mr. Chairman, that's not a new word. That's an old word.
5:30 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption, As an Individual
In the 1215—
5:30 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption, As an Individual
—Magna Carta, that was how they described taxes. It may have been a bad word, too.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
It is certainly new to me, anyway.
The other thing I was reminded of during the questioning from Denis is that a former colleague of ours, Roy Cullen, wrote a very good book called The Poverty of Corrupt Nations. Which came first? Are they corrupt because they're poor, or poor because they're corrupt? It certainly speaks to some of the many issues you deal with very capably.
5:30 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption, As an Individual
Mr. Cullen is part of the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption. He leads our global task force on anti-money laundering, because he has the expertise.
If you'll allow me an advert, Mr. Chair, tomorrow night, across the hall, in the Railway Room, at six o'clock, I'm having a meeting. I want to get Canadian parliamentarians engaged. Please come and find out how you can carry your knowledge and your expertise to parliamentarians around the world as they wrestle with the same problem you do, which is how to serve the people who have elected us.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
I would very highly recommend we all get to that meeting.
I've been a member of GOPAC since its founding and feel very strongly about the good work they do.
Thank you so much for being with us, Mr. Williams. We'll see you tomorrow night.
5:30 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption, As an Individual
Thank you.
