Thank you, minister.
Your visit was eagerly anticipated. We've been after you since February to honour us with your presence. I don't like being pressed for time when we're dealing with a budget in excess of $2 billion and the equivalent of 4,000 employees. It's truly a shame that you can't devote two hours of your time to us. Part of our job entails asking you questions about your budget. However, we're being rushed.
I noted in the budget that your department's expenditures have increased considerably, in particular your operating expenditures which have increased by $158 million. I was once an administrator in the public service in Quebec and my boss had to justify just about every penny he spent on operations. I have some questions about the $71 million increase under the item “Professional and special services”. What explanation can you give us for this increase?
I did my homework and I found that these increases are largely offset by a range of budget cuts, including the series of measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, or Action Plan 2000 on Climate Change, and assistance to the Canadian softwood lumber industry. The government is increasing its operating expenditures, particularly in the professional services sector, but taxpayers would also appreciate some explanations as to why any increase of this magnitude is justified. All of the people here are, I must say, very mindful of how taxpayer dollars are spent.
Before you answer, I'd like to ask you a second question. I've compared past energy savings programs with the ones that you are proposing. It's all rather confusing. That's why the Library's research staff has prepared a good comparison for me. I'd like to share with you the findings of the researchers on this matter: Most programs included in these initiatives are a continuation or a resurrection of existing or former programs that have been renamed and, in some cases, have undergone a few specific changes. Some of the changes have either expanded or restricted the scope of the program to some degree.
Here is my second question. I'm my party's natural resources critic and as part of my job, I handle complaints from citizens who feel victimized in some way by the cuts that have been made and by the new program in place. They had signed an agreement with the department which stipulated that they had 18 months to do the work associated with the EnerGuide Program.
During the transition phase, these citizens were asked—and I have with me a letter from your department bearing your signature—given the funding shortfall, to shorten the deadlines for completing their work. These individuals made a commitment to your department, with your approval, but during the transition phase, in an attempt to speed up the process, you asked Canadian citizens committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and using energy more efficiently, to complete work within deadlines that had not been agreed to.
Can your department offer any permanent solutions to these citizens in an effort to resolve this situation to their satisfaction?