Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, thank you for accepting our invitation. What you have told us this morning has been very enlightening. Naturally, our role is to advise the House of Commons and to give our opinion. The decision that was taken concerning funding cuts seems to be extremely important for all groups concerned.
I must say we were quite surprised to hear that as a 13 billion dollar surplus was being announced; funding cuts totalling one billion dollars were being made to the various programs you’ve described. As we mentioned earlier, we certainly don’t object to the disappearance, in whole or in part, of certain programs that serve no useful purpose. However, you seem to be saying that cuts have been made to certain essential services.
I believe it was Mrs. Lysack who asked how the government went about taking such important political decisions. At the very least, we know that this government doesn’t consult the main stakeholders. That being understood, one wonders why this step was taken. I think one must refer to the document that came with the government’s financial reference table and annual financial report that were tabled on September 25th. One can also refer to the press release.
My question is for all of you.
A press release from the Department of Finance and the President of Treasury Board announced that the new government has cut back programs that serve no useful purpose and are a waste of public funds; in fact, the government was cutting the fat. You mentioned that some very important programs were being targeted and that they shouldn’t be. Are these cuts targeting what the two Departments have called useless programs, thereby cutting the fat? The Ministers still insist that they are cutting back on program spending, thereby ensuring a leaner government and more resources for programs that really matter. -
I’d like to take this a bit further so as to get a better sense of what is happening. It’s your turn, so to speak. Mr. Wyatt was telling us earlier that four million Canadian citizens are volunteers, in some way. If I understand correctly, this amounts to 7% of the GDP. That’s extraordinary. We’re talking about a generous social safety net, but it seems now to be at risk, because of this operation.
In conclusion, I’d like to ask you if you think that cuts were made to the fat, to useless programs. This question is for all of you.