Debates of Dec. 9th, 2004

Main Estimates, 2004-05

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Question and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my observation and the point I want to make is that it is clear to me at this end of the House that the democratic deficit is alive and well in Parliament.

Contrary to all the romantic ideals that were referred to in the Speech from the Throne under the new Prime Minister, the will of the MPs in the government operations committee have been disregarded, reversed and, I believe, treated very shabbily in the fact that the President of the Treasury Board is now seeking to reverse the very clear will of the committee as expressed in a democratic process where members of four political parties accurately reflected the will of Canadians to have the Governor General's budget reduced.

The only argument I have heard so far from the Liberals has been that to reduce the Governor General's budget, to ask her to tighten her belt and sharpen her pencil, would be inconvenient. It would inconvenience the Governor General for us to impose these conditions at this time.

This comes from a government that had no qualms whatsoever cutting, hacking and slashing virtually every social program in the country that we value and inconveniencing millions of people by reducing the benefits they may enjoy from those programs. Yet, by some class issue, it will not apply the same logic to Rideau Hall.

We believe the government operations committee was listening and had its finger on the pulse of Canadians when Canadians were expressing outrage about the fact that when every other budget in the country was being reduced, the Governor General's budget was spiralling out of control, growing exponentially year after year after year.

For the President of the Treasury Board to stand up now and give us an 18 minute civics lesson on the budget and estimates process and then a 2 minute defence of the Governor General's budget does not wash with me.

He also did not even mention that he was trying to put the money back into the PCO budget as well, when this was clearly a partisan use of public funds to buy a polling company to give advice on damage control coming out of the sponsorship program. That was an abuse of taxpayer money for Liberal Party partisan purposes and he is seeking to reverse that reduction today too.

Would he explain why he did not comment on that?

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the three part question that the hon. member proposed.

The first is the question of the democratic deficit. I think he just misunderstands it. The reality is that committees are, as we always call them, creatures of the House. Committees provide advice to the House but it is the House that makes the decision, not the committee. It has always been thus. It is this way with legislation and it is this way with estimates. There is no diminution of democratic rights. In fact, there is a substantial enhancement of them given the fact that this is a minority government. It comes back to a minority House to make the decision. I think it is an unfortunate mischaracterization of what is going on here.

Think of the reverse. It is not uncommon in the House for a committee to make a report on a piece of legislation and for members of the House to stand and say that they disagree and to put further amendments forward. This is exactly what is happening in this case.

There is another piece to this, frankly. We might have had some of this debate in the committee if the committee had chosen to invite me back to talk about it. I could have put the same concerns on the table. The reality is that one couches this in the language of a cost saving-cost cutting exercise, the same as everybody else has been subjected to, but the reality is that it is a 10% cut in the last quarter of the year. It is simply a difficult thing to do. We do not do that with anything else around here. This would cause serious problems in a very short period of time.

The committee may be satisfied with that being an acceptable solution but I do not think it is. I believe the House has a right to debate that and in the end make a decision. I think the message that was sent was poorly constructed. Another time we might want to debate that.

As far as the other item regarding the PCO money, as soon as that motion comes up I will stand and argue that one also.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak tonight to this motion put forward by the President of the Treasury Board that would reverse the decision of the government operations and estimates committee which was to reduce the budget of the Governor General by 2%.

I want to talk about four main issues. The first issue has to do with what the government operations and estimates committee is all about? The second issue has to do with why the committee decided to recommend to Parliament a reduction in the Governor General's budget by $416,000 out of a budget of $19.3 million? The total Governor General's spending is something like $42 million.

The third thing I want to do is look at the decision of the Liberal government and at the impact it will have on the credibility of this committee and other committees.

The fourth thing I want to look at is the government's credibility when it attempts to reverse the decision of my committee.

I want to do all that in 10 minutes because I will be splitting my time with the member for Medicine Hat.

First: What is the government operations and estimates committee all about. It was established about two years ago to provide better scrutiny of government budgets and government spending of taxpayer money. One of the main roles of Parliament is, of course, to do just that, to provide appropriate scrutiny to the spending of taxpayer dollars.

The government operations and estimates committee was set up not only to provide this better scrutiny through its committee but through other committees of the House as well. The government operations and estimates committee was to look at the process used and to give advice to other committees as to how they might in fact improve their process and provide better scrutiny. This was done because there were a lot of complaints, and somewhat justified complaints, that proper scrutiny simply was not being provided. Therefore two years ago this committee was established. I think those were legitimate complaints that proper scrutiny was not being provided, but let us look at why proper scrutiny was not being provided. There were three main reasons for this.

The first reason was that in the past these committees were chaired and controlled by government MPs. The chair was from the government side and a majority of the committee members were from the government side. What they did was to make sure that whatever happened was what the government wanted to happen. Therefore the objectivity of the committees was very limited indeed.

The second reason there simply was not appropriate scrutiny was that the estimates and the budgets for spending taxpayer money were presented in such a complex way that no one could understand them. Even the people who were involved in putting the numbers together could not understand what the numbers really meant.

It seems like the estimates were, and still are, presented in a way where rather than give information to the public about government spending, they were hiding information on government spending. That is part of the reason that I think proper scrutiny was not given.

The third reason for the committee was that it would make recommendations. They would have good discussions in committees quite often. They would make recommendations but these recommendations were routinely ignored by the government. Why would we go to all the work of doing a good job of examining spending, just to have it ignored by government?

Those were the three main reasons why I believe appropriate scrutiny was not provided by members of the House of Commons.

The establishment of the government operations and estimates committee changed that to some extent I think. It is a less partisan committee than most other committees when it comes to looking at spending.

The committee was first chaired by the member for Winnipeg South, the President of the Treasury Board. To be fair, I think he was a good chair. A lot of non-partisan work went on until it came time to put the reports together. Interestingly, he stressed that the government should respect the work done by this committee. However, that was then and this is now.

The committee at that time was controlled by Liberals members who had a majority government and it was chaired by the member for Winnipeg South.

I, a member of the Conservative Party, now chair the committee and seven out of twelve members of the committee are from opposition parties. We see quite a different situation.

Now, the same MP who stressed how important it was for the government to respect the work done by the government operations committee, has put a motion before this House to completely ignore the recommendations of the government operations committee. What a change from then until now.

That is extremely unfortunate and it is very two faced on the part of the member to have these two different positions on how Parliament and how the government should respect the committee's work, depending upon whether he is the chair of the committee or President of the Treasury Board.

The second thing I want to discuss has to do with why the committee decided to trim $416,000 from the Governor General's budget, which is 2% of the Governor General's budget but less than 1% of her total spending. About another $22 million is spent on the Governor General by other departments. However we are not talking about that tonight.

The committee did that with a great deal of thought. It was not done on a whim, as the minister has said.

First, the Governor General increased her spending over her term by almost 100%. The increase in spending was 11% per year on average. That is unacceptable. How many Canadians can afford to increase their spending at that rate? I would suggest that there are very few.

Second, the committee requested in a report about a year ago that the Governor General report on her spending and on her plans for spending in a much more complete way. To be fair, the Office of the Governor General has moved on that and is doing a better job now, but there is still a long way to go.

The committee expected more and this spending cut was partly to send a message that she will provide a better accounting of spending, better budgeting or a better explanation of the effectiveness of the spending or she simply would not get the money. I think that message was sent loud and clear.

This was a responsible decision made by the committee with a great deal of thought by committee members and supported by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. She voted in favour of this cut, the same cut that the President of the Treasury Board is now saying that we should reverse and ignore the committee.

The committee's decision was a responsible decision and the committee knew what it was doing. I am proud of the committee for making that decision.

Where do we go from here? All the members of this House will be voting on this attempt on the part of the government to reverse the decision of the government operations committee. I encourage all members, especially from the government side and especially those two government members who are members of the committee and voted in support of these cuts, to uphold the power given to the committee. We can all do something to help improve this democratic deficit that the government always talks about and does so little to improve by rejecting the motion of the President of the Treasury Board and supporting the decision made by the government operations committee.

That is what I am proposing tonight and that is what I encourage members to do tonight. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate on this issue.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Madam Speaker, I want to respond to one thing the member said. I began my remarks by congratulating the committee. I thought it took the estimates process seriously and spent time on them. There is no disrespect here whatsoever. I simply disagree with the decision that was made.

We made a cut when I was chair of the committee, but we did it in a timeframe. We made it to send the same message that the member wants to send, but we made it in a way that did not create chaos in the department. The government accepted that one.

When we play with the numbers, and this is only 1% or 2% of the whole portfolio, the reality is we are cutting a given budget line that is for the last quarter of the year. The $400,000 out $19 million sounds like a small cut, but is being taken out of the last quarter because the rest of that has already been appropriated and spent. We cannot escape that. We can play with the numbers, but that is not the reality. The reality is it is the implementation of a very large cut, 10%, in the last quarter. That is the problem.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Madam Speaker, the minister's comment is really quite shocking. He said that the reason he brought forth the motion to reverse the decision made by the committee was because he did not agree with it. If we are going to have everything committee's do reversed because a minister does not agree with it, why do we bother having committees? Why do we bother doing the work? That is an absurd reason, and he knows it.

The spending cut is less than 1% of the total spending on the Governor General. That is the spending in her budget, $19.3 million, and in other departments. It is a little over 2% of her budget. It is 10% of the remaining portion of her budget. Will she feel it? Yes, but that is the intent. There are a lot of salaries to be paid. There are things that have to be done. However, it is supposed to make it difficult so she will be more careful in her spending, so she will reduce her spending, so she will respect the wishes of Canadians for more responsible spending and so she will report in a much more complete fashion to the House and to Canadians.

It is meant to be felt and it will be felt, but it can be managed. There will be no need to lay off members of staff. With respect to the issue of staff, however, she has increased the number of people who work for her by a large number, and she better have a serious look as to whether there may not be a few too many people on her staff.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to participate in the debate. One thing I find troubling about the presentation of the President of the Treasury Board is that his logic, as was pointed out by my colleague, seems a little perverse. He suggested that because the overspending took place in the previous budget year that somehow this would bar this Parliament from paring back or calling for greater responsibility and accountability in her budget, something for which he himself, at a previous incarnation as chair of the committee, called.

It is important to put into perspective just how much this amount is. What it represents is 2.2% of her current budget. We are talking about a little over $400,000 out of a budget currently of $19.2 million. That is up from $10.7 million just over seven or eight years ago. What needs to be put forward in the debate is that there is accountability for our actions.

When the Governor General took 59 of her friends and colleagues from the arts community to circumnavigate the globe, a trip which was exorbitant by any standard, costing over $5 million to the Canadian taxpayer, there was a price to pay for that. That price to pay is coming from the pockets of hard-working Canadian taxpayers. To that end a very strong message is being sent, a strong message that addresses concerns that the Prime Minister used to hold over the democratic deficit, concerns that Canadians should have over the way in which the government and the Governor General have spent their money. Let us not forget, there is one taxpayer in the country. No matter how many levels of government may be at them, there is one taxpayer.

To simply reiterate the point that was made by my colleague, a strong message should be sent and should be received by the President of the Treasury Board. Yet he is trying to, as has been pointed out, reverse the democratic decision that was taken by all members of Parliament who sat on that committee, including government members. We hope we will not see a repeat of hypocrisy in this.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know it was the spending of $5 million on a particular trip about a year ago that really brought this issue to the attention of Canadians in the greatest way.

However, these cuts have nothing to do with that. The spending on the trip was out of the foreign affairs budget. These cuts have to do with the Governor General's budget. We did think it through. We do understand the impact. It is absolutely absurd that the President of the Treasury Board would not respect that.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is such a pleasure to rise tonight and address this issue. This is the reason why parliaments were formed in the first place. The whole idea, when parliaments were formed, is to have a check on the ability of the Crown to tax and spend.

Tonight, as we go through the votes this evening, the government will be proposing tens of billions of dollars in expenditures. It is only appropriate that opposition parties, in particular, and all members take the time to scrutinize the government's estimates and ensure that every single penny is being spent as wisely as it can possibly be spent.

At this point we are addressing one issue, the Governor General's expenditures, but there are many other issues. As a way of symbolizing the tremendous amount of waste that goes on in government today, my colleagues from all parties have moved motions in committee to trim back the firearms registry by $82 million because it has proven to be a disaster. It has proven to be not only a tremendous waste of money, but also a waste of money that initially gave Canadians false hope about its ability to deal with the issue of crime.

My friend, the member for Central Nova, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, will be talking about that tonight. I also want to point to my friend from Yorkton—Melville who has done an outstanding job drawing attention to the tremendous waste in the firearms registry. It was supposed to cost $2 million when it was put into place, today we are approaching $2 billion with no end in sight. The government continues to pour money down that black hole.

What a pleasure to stand tonight and talk about the necessity for the government to be responsible when it comes to spending.

Another issue we would like to debate tonight, if we have time, is the waste on things like government polling. The government is using polling for clearly partisan ends, as it did last spring when it commissioned a poll that was designed to help it deal with the damage caused by the sponsorship scandal. Clearly, that is polling for a very partisan reason. The member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam moved a motion in committee and reduced estimates to deal with that issue. It is a good move and it is designed to tell the government that we will not allow that to happen with taxpayer money.

I want to specifically talk about the issue of the reduction in estimates for the Governor General. As I pointed out at the outset, parliaments were formed to control the power of the Crown to tax and spend. In this case it is literally the power of the Crown to spend, when we are dealing with the Governor General and some of the lavish spending that has occurred under her watch.

I want to point out that we support the office of the Governor General. We need a head of state. However, the Governor General has an obligation to be responsible with how she spends taxpayer money. Following up on what my friend said, when we have had expenditure increases in the Governor General's office, from $10.7 million in 1996-97 to $19.2 million last year, clearly the spending is out of hand.

Many Canadians today are being forced to cut back to find ways to deal with paying for the basics. They have suffered years of cutbacks. Many people, 1.2 million Canadians, are unemployed today. As one of my colleagues from the NDP pointed out when we went through a period of retrenching in government, millions of Canadians had to do with less when it came to health care services and all kinds of things.

What we are asking of the Governor General is that she restrain her spending in the same way that ordinary Canadians have to do all the time. I do not think that is too much to ask. What we are asking for is a very modest decrease, a cut of $417,000 in her budget of $19.2 million.

A minute ago we heard the Treasury Board President say that because this cut would have to occur in the last three months of the budget year, it really was unfair to propose it. That means we cannot propose any cuts to any of the estimates at this time of year because there are only three months left in the budget year. That just does not make any sense. Of course we have to propose reductions in estimates when certain departments are profligate and unwise in their spending of taxpayer money. That is why we are here. Some people think we are here to sit on committees and talk about every issue under the sun.

The first reason, the primary reason, we are here is to ensure proper expenditure of taxpayers' money. That is exactly what we are proposing to do tonight when it comes to this vote on whether or not we reinstate $417,000 for the Governor General as the President of the Treasury Board would like us to do and as the Liberal government would like us to do.

In my eyes, and I think in the eyes of many Canadians who are frankly offended by how the Governor General has spent in the last number of years, I think it is unacceptable. We simply cannot reinstate that money which was effectively removed by the government operations and estimates committee, money removed by all members of all parties on that committee because I think they understand that there has to be some limit on how governments spend.

It is unconscionable, I think, for government members to roll over on this and say they are going to back the Treasury Board president on this issue. It is unconscionable.

Again, putting this into perspective, given what Canadians have gone through, given the cuts we have seen to the Canadian Forces, for instance, we are talking about a very minor decrease in a very bloated budget that the Governor General now has as a result of years and years of increases. I do not think we are asking too much.

I want to point out, too, that the fact we are having a discussion like this tonight has been made possible by the fact that we now have a minority government. For years we have had a majority Liberal government and for years we have been unable to bring about these types of motions, get them passed and get to the point where we come to the main estimates and actually have a chance to reduce spending.

It has only been because the government has been basically forced into this position that we now have this option. Even with that, the government is threatening to take that away from us through the President of the Treasury Board, who used to favour these kinds of cuts. When he was the chair of the government operations and estimates committee he used to favour these things, but suddenly when he is the Treasury Board president it is just not going to happen under his watch. It is amazing how people do a complete about- face when they get into cabinet. It is very regrettable too.

I am simply pointing out that this is not some sign of democracy breaking out among the Liberal ranks. This is the Liberal ranks being forced to accept democracy because we are in a minority government situation today.

I simply want to wrap up by saying that this is a chance for Parliament to really send a message to the government, a government that has seen its expenditures grow and grow. If I remember correctly, a few years ago in 1998-99 government spending was $106.5 billion. It is going to hit $150 billion next year. It has gone up by an average of about 5.7% a year over the last number of years. It is growing exponentially.

I want to argue that it is time to send a message that Canadians are not going to allow their hard-earned tax dollars to be spent willy-nilly by these government members in whatever way they deem is important to them, keeping in mind that they have their own partisan reasons for spending money in these ways, and sometimes they are extraordinarily wasteful.

I am urging members on all sides to be mindful of this primary role that Parliament has, which is to keep a check on the power of the Crown to spend. Tonight we have a chance to do that.

I am urging members to be mindful of this primary responsibility, to stand with members of the Conservative Party when we oppose the reinstatement of this money going back to the Governor General, to stand with the Conservative Party when we propose that we strip spending away from the firearms registry, which is clearly a black hole of taxpayers' money, and to stand with us in opposing the reinstatement of money to the Privy Council Office for partisan polling. This is our chance to send a message on behalf of taxpayers that we are simply not going to take it anymore.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I had the pleasure of working with the member for Medicine Hat on the finance committee when he was the finance critic. I have always valued and respected his opinion.

We are here right now to debate the estimates of the Governor General, but I noticed he mentioned something about the gun registry. I am surprised he would reach the conclusion he did when the facts speak about a totally different case. Let me give the House some examples.

Since 1975, the rate of firearms homicides has decreased by more than half. The number of rifle and shotgun homicides has consistently dropped. It has been a very steep slope since 1995. If we look at firearms homicides in 2002 and compare them with the United States, the numbers are not even close. In Canada in 2002, the rate of firearms homicides was .48 per 100,000 population. In the United States, the rate was 4.0 per 100,000 population. We know the United States has much more relaxed rules with respect to firearms.

If we compare Canada and the United States with respect to female spousal homicides, we will see female spousal homicides on a very steep decline. The comparison between Canada and the United States is not even close. There are fewer female spousal homicides in Canada than in the United States.

The member said the gun registry and the firearms program are not useful at all. This flies right in the face of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which has endorsed the firearms registry and firearms program. Not only that, but Canadian front line police officers have now endorsed the gun registry.

Those experts over there are denying the views of front line police officers and police chiefs who are accessing this system--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Order, please. The member for Medicine Hat.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was a very selective use of statistics by the member. I want to point out from a StatsCan survey I have in my hand that between 1997 and 2003, of all the homicides that were committed, 86% of the weapons that were used were not registered. That is 86%, so rather obviously the firearms registry does not work for criminals who refuse to register firearms.

I want to point out that in the last dozen years handgun deaths in Canada have doubled. We have had a registry for handguns in Canada for 70 years. Julian Fantino, the police chief of Canada's largest city, has changed his mind. He has said we should scrap the firearms registry and put that money into front line policing.

If the member does not believe me, I ask him to ask the member for Sarnia--Lambton, a Liberal member who was going to move the same motion that my friend from Central Nova has moved but was talked out of it by the Prime Minister.

Liberal members do not even support that Liberal member who just spoke.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to make the point that these cuts in the estimates that were put forward by the opposition were very specific cuts. The combined opposition parties worked in committee to authorize certain cuts. They are specific cuts and this really is a test for the Liberal Party and a test for this Parliament.

There are three crystal clear issues.

One is the gun registry. If we did a poll of Canadians with regard to the gun registry, the overwhelming majority of them would tell us that the gun registry is an absolute abuse of taxpayers' money and it has not done any good for public safety at all, none whatsoever, certainly not commensurate with the amount of money that is being spent on it.

Next is the Governor General. When the Liberals came into power the budget of the Office of the Governor General went from $10 million to $20 million. Cutting it by $400,000 to send a message that we are tired of her wasting money is a message that taxpayers want sent.

Last, stopping the Liberals from spending taxpayers' money on partisan polls is precisely what should be done, because these Liberals need to stop abusing taxpayers.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to say to my hon. friend it is pretty clear that when the government has a budget of $200 billion and it runs around and says it cannot find what really ultimately amounts to a few million dollars in cuts, I think that is crazy. I think taxpayers think that is crazy too.

Too often we see example after example of wasteful spending. Even the government is undertaking an expenditure review where it says it could find $3 billion in waste. We are talking about nothing compared to that. When is the government going to wake up and support common sense measures like cutting $400,000--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Madam Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board has presented a motion that changes the one I presented last week, November 25, 2004, to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, one which, I repeat, was adopted by the majority of the committee members.

That motion, I must point out immediately, did not in any way question the legitimacy of the role of the Governor General. Primarily for the benefit of the taxpayers who are watching so they will know exactly what is involved, I will reiterate and explain as clearly as possible what it is all about, because much has been said.

The motion I presented, which the majority of the committee adopted, involved a 10% reduction in the $4,171,000 that had not yet been authorized by the government with respect to the Governor General's budget, in other words the modest sum of $417, 000. Let us make it clear, the budget of the Governor General's secretariat is $19.1 million for the current fiscal year, but taxpayers need to know that the total budget allocated to the Governor General's mandate is far more than the $19.1 million figure. When all the budgets of all the other government bodies that provide her with services are added it, the figure totals—a conservative estimate—between $35 million and $42 million. We can never get accurate figures. This is an important point, because it demonstrates that the real costs, the total costs, are not consolidated but spread among a number of federal bodies.

On the other hand, I must tell the public, prompted by that same desire for clarity, that the Governor General's budget has, according to all the data known, gone up 90% in the past 10 years. It made a jump worthy of an Olympic record in 2002-03, with a dizzying 102% increase.

The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates was able to hear from two representatives of the Office of the Governor General, to question them on the budget and the way in which the Office of the Governor General undertook its responsibilities to streamline expenditures, to optimize expected and achieved results, to review this streamlining exercise and the reporting, accountability, and transparency expected by Canadians and Quebeckers. I will come back to this testimony in a moment.

First, I want to say that it is normal to expect a Governor General, the head of state, not only to lead the way in cutting government expenditures, but also to set the tone and to lead by example. She is a head of state. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The motion that was adopted seeks to rectify this. This requirement to cut expenditures is not new. The Liberal government has made it into a theme song, and we are well-placed to hear it in the House.

To give an extremely simple but very relevant example, I refer hon. members to the Speech from the Throne, and I do not need to remind anyone that it was the Governor General herself who read that speech.

On page 2, the government announced, with regard to its seven commitments:

To aim for tangible, practical results for Canadians and report to them so that they can hold their governments to account;

A little later, on page 3, the government said, through the Governor General:

—we will not be complacent. The Government will not spend itself into deficit ... It will provide transparent, accountable management, treating every tax dollar with respect. The Government will make the difficult decisions among competing priorities and systematically review all expenditures, reallocating from old to new, from past to future.

I want to digress, here, because I allow myself to hope that the Governor General will not go from past to future with a 90% increase.

Now, I will detail the testimony given by the Governor General's representatives so that everyone can see that the goals of reducing expenditures, optimizing anticipated results and being financially transparent have not really been taken into consideration by the senior officials and the head of state herself, and that progress, as such, has been more than mitigated and very minimal.

To do this, I refer to the minutes of the meeting of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates of Tuesday, November 23. Let us recall, first, that in the spring of 2004, this committee undertook a review of the budget of the Office of the Governor General. I need only point to three recommendations that are especially relevant to what I have to say in support of it.

The third recommendation reads as follows:

That the Parliament of Canada ensure that the necessary measures are taken to improve the financial transparency and accountability of the Office of the Governor General (Head of State).

The fifth recommendation reads as follows:

That the Office of the Governor General report on its annual projected plans and priorities and the anticipated results of its activities. In that report, the Office of the Governor General should state the expenses borne by the federal departments and agencies supporting its activities.

Finally, the sixth recommendation reads as follows:

That the Office of the Governor General prepare an annual report on its activities, including its financial statements—

In reference to these recommendations, the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, a committee member, asked what had been done in this regard, and I quote:

The purpose of the reports requested at that time was transparency, letting Canadians know how money was being spent and what activities were being done. Also, I guess whenever we look at budgets or main estimates or a report of this type, it's to try to find savings.

Addressing the two representatives, he asked the following question:

At the point you're at in the preparation of this plan, have you found savings?

This is the answer of the Director General, Corporate Services, Office of the Governor General:

We participated in the government's reallocation exercise in the current year and we did find savings. We found about $150,000... We are also participating in the 2005-06 expenditure review committee initiative.

And the Governor General's secretary added:

I might just add that it is part of our regular management practices; in our program planning and in looking at all the events that the Governor General does, it is a critical part of our planning to always look at the most cost-effective ways of doing business.

I am very pleased because that is exactly what was proposed and requested in the motion that I introduced and that was adopted.

I then had an opportunity to ask a question of the two representatives along the line taken by the hon. member. I therefore asked these two representatives:

—how the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General measures the return on investment Canadians get from the Governor General's activities. How is this return measured?

I think that the answer is of interest to everyone, and taxpayers in particular:

For example, with respect to the Visitor Services Program, we do an evaluation based first on the number of visitors to the sites and their level of satisfaction. We have carried out surveys to determine their level of satisfaction as well as the recognition of information provided during the visits. This is one of the types of evaluations we do.

To which I replied:

So according to your logic, the budget could go on increasing, since it would always be possible to provide activities or services that would attract more and more people.

I used these examples to show that, for 2004-05, on a budget of $19.1 million, only a microscopic cut of $150,000 was made. This should answer the argument put forward a moment ago by the President of the Treasury Board. One might even argue that, by extrapolation, it is but a speck of dust, as compared to a total budget of $35 million to $42 million.

In response to my questions on the Governor General's total budget, for all services, I was basically told that there was no desire to be transparent in providing taxpayers with the big picture, that is, all the costs associated with the mandate of the Governor General.

There was no indication from the representatives of the Governor General that the Office of the Governor General had any concern for any analysis or real, significant reduction in spending, or even for recommendation 5 mentioned earlier.

And yet, the President of the Treasury Board himself, in response to a question I asked him last week concerning the need to add up all the various expenses relating to the Governor General's mandate, gave this answer, and I quote:

—the public service modernization process that we are engaged in and which was announced in the budget is to do exactly what the member is requesting. It is to put in place a modern expenditure management information system that allows us to answer these questions quickly and easily and make it entirely transparent for the members of the House and the citizens of Canada.

I would like to add that the President of the Treasury Board began his answer to my question with, I quote, “—the member raises a very interesting and important question”.

In all modesty, that is not surprising, because when the President of the Treasury Board testified—the same day—at the Standing Committee on Governmental Operations and Estimates, he said that the government's strategic initiatives plan would have to involve:

—rigorous stewardship of public resources to achieve the results that Canadians demand, making sure that Canadian's tax dollars are invested in their priorities and managed in a manner that is effective, efficient, and accountable, is part of any government's most fundamental responsibilities.

In conclusion, we are firmly and resolutely opposed to the motion by the President of the Treasury Board, since it is high time we put the brakes on the Governor General's spending. The people of Canada and Quebec have every right to expect that the Governor General's expenses are rationalized, subject to analysis for their cost-effectiveness, transparent, and accounted for absolutely rigorously.

Finally, I want to refute the argument advanced by some hon. members that a reduction of $400,000 or so would have negative effects on the activities and mandate of the Governor General. There is no reason for the general public to be penalized in any way by such a cut. It is simply about doing things differently, as is happening in a number of departments and agencies. One telling example, if I may say so, is the initiative and savings undertaken by my counterpart, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, about which he speaks so eloquently.

It is up to the Governor General and her senior officials to use their creativity and their undoubted sense of innovation, to do things differently and reduce costs. Moreover, the Governor General herself said, in the preamble to the throne speech, and I quote:

I recently concluded extended visits to six cities of varying size ... In them, I found remarkable, innovative projects for social renewal and individual commitment. They express the confidence and love that we all hold for this country. This is the spirit of Canada I see as Governor General.

I hope she will be inspired by the words she spoke in the throne speech.

I am sure we can all remember the slogan—one I heard more often in a previous life—that was widely used in the government: “Do more with less”. It is high time for the head of state, the Governor General, to lead the way.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Grey—Bruce—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are two issues here tonight. First, there is an erosion of democracy. Something that has been running rampant here a way too long and a way too fast, and the Liberals do not seem to care or recognize that at all. By not accepting the committee's recommendation, it is totally unacceptable. This is the way democracy is set up. We have the committee structure. It is meant to work. I do not think the minister should do anything but accept that.

Second, it is a continued waste of large volumes of Canadian taxpayer dollars, $400,000 alone by the Governor General. This is not an argument tonight about whether the Governor General should exist or not, although that is an argument that a lot of people in Canada are talking about, it is a waste of dollars that we are talking about.

I relate back to a comment from my colleague across the floor on the gun registry. There has never been a bigger financial lie told to the country than the gun law. My question to the hon. member from the Bloc is on the value and quantities of these dollars, and how we could have spent them. It is a figure that is fast approaching $2 billion, and as my colleague said earlier, we have not saved any lives.

We have taken the dollars and wasted them. There are items about which I would like to ask my Bloc colleague. How many MRIs does she think the dollars, between the Governor General and the money wasted in the gun registry, could have bought? How many nurses salaries could it have paid for? How many students could have had their tuitions paid?

I know that doctor shortages in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound are atrocious, as bad as any place in the country. Just think how many doctors could have been hired for rural Canada. Dare I say, rural Canada? After all, we know that rural Canada means nothing to this government.

Does the hon. member think that the money we could save here, the $400,000 and the money wasted in the gun registry, could have been spent in much better ways?

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Madam Speaker, in replying to my colleague, I would like to say to him that I do not believe it is up to me or to any member to decide how the funds will be used.

As a first step, we ask the Governor General to amend the present motion, about which I made a speech, that is, over the next three months, to reduce the amount of $4,171,000 by $417,000. It is certainly not for me or any member of the Bloc to tell the Governor General, or any other person, how to do that. The accountability rests with her.

Concerning the fact that obviously many Canadians, including many Quebeckers, are experiencing real hardship; when we make a connection between the “effort“ that we are asking the Governor General to make, in contrast to the victims of the system, we recognize that the differences in how people live cannot be compared.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's remarks. Before asking a question of my colleague, I would like to respond to the hon. member opposite, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, and the others I have heard this evening, who rail against the erosion of democracy by the Liberals.

I do not know what could be more anti-democratic. To reconsider a resolution from a committee is the essence of democracy. That is what we are doing this evening. We are debating it. There will be a vote, and that is what democracy is all about.

The fact that a committee has decided something does not mean we have no right to talk about it. I am sorry, but that is not my idea of democracy.

Having said that, I would like to ask my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, really out of professional curiosity, whether, before moving her motion in committee, she asked the Governor General what effect this reduction would have on her responsibilities.

Am I to understand that this proposal means the Bloc agrees that in future we will make budget cuts strictly as a matter of percentage, without regard for the consequences?

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows full well, we cannot question the Governor General. I believe she means the Governor General's representatives.

I would like to reply to this question in the same way I did earlier regarding spending cuts during three-quarters of the year, from the beginning of April until now. I cited only a few, but all members of the committee raised excellent and relevant questions. We were told they had found $150,000 out of a budget of $19.1 million.

We repeatedly asked how performance was evaluated. I am sure the hon. member would agree with me that activities must be evaluated in terms of performance and human resources as well as in terms of financial investment. They told us they had saved up to $150,000 out of $19 million. It should be out of $16 million, if you subtract the $4 million remaining, which is the number at issue in the motion.

No further information was given on what steps were taken, in relation to the spring 2004 report of which I spoke, to systematically implement, like all other federal government agencies, spending cuts and streamline funding granted to it up to now. No light was shed on this matter. We were told that, in the future, they would do their work and give consideration to our requests, but could not give us figures.

I am replying in this manner, because to me, the level of the answers does not bode well for the future. In considering a cut of some $400,000, as I said in my speech, it is up to the Office of the Governor General to decide where it is to occur. Obviously, everyone can have ideas, but it is not up to me to transmit them.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I very much enjoyed the remarks of the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. I too was on the parliamentary committee where representatives of the Governor General answered our questions. I would like to ask my colleague if she was satisfied with the answer to the question, among others, about the spreading of expenditures among the various government agencies. We have tried to estimate an amount on the basis of the answers we got, but were never able to come up with an exact amount.

Later, we asked the President of the Treasury Board to review the information and provide us with a more accurate answer. I am wondering if my hon. colleague received this answer. If so, I would be curious to know what it was and what her assessment was.

I just have a brief comment for the hon. member who just spoke and expressed outrage at the 0.5% cut in the Governor General's budget, wondering if this could put the country in difficulty. I am a little surprised that a party that made all sorts of cuts in health, education and transfers to the provinces without asking itself too many questions would worry about that. This was painful to hear.

I look forward to my colleague's response.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I am able to give him an answer, since it is in the minutes of the meeting at which the Governor General's two representatives testified.

I had asked the two representatives the following question:

—can you tell us how much the structure surrounding the Governor General costs and how much the other departments pay for that? Could you give us something understandable and accessible for the average person?

The answer that I and the other committee members were given is as follows:

I think it would be up to the other departments to give you a full report. We expect to give you the figure for our department. I cannot tell you whether, generally speaking, our costs can be compared to those offered by other departments.

I will close by repeating exactly what I said earlier, and that will be my answer to my colleague opposite. That was the very aim of one of the committee's recommendations in the spring 2004, but they did nothing about it. The answer we received is proof.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to participate in the debate tonight. This gives us a chance to address the fundamental issue of democracy, as so many have said tonight, as part of the budgetary process.

Some of us were recently in Ukraine and had a chance to see the determination and courage of an entire nation standing up to be counted, standing up to ensure that their democratic rights were not trampled upon, determined to have their voices heard, and determined to have their votes count.

Surely in this context, the government can hear the voices of opposition representing Canadians from coast to coast to coast. They are concerned about whether or not their rights, opinions and feelings are reflected in the budget, the road map of government from start to finish. We are dealing tonight with a critical part of that road map, a critical element of a process that must reflect the democratic rights of Canadians and their feelings about accountability and transparency.

We have heard over and over again tonight just how much democracy has been eroded in this process. In the context of what is happening worldwide, when we see democracy being so fragile, we must do everything possible to respect the wishes of Canadians, and to stand up and demand a process that is full of integrity, honesty and truthfulness.

We have an obligation in the House to ensure that the voices of Canadians are mirrored in this place and that their concerns about accountability, transparency, responsibility, honesty and integrity are all integrated into the budgetary process from start to finish.

The estimates process is a critical part of this whole public policy arena. Tonight we have an opportunity to shed some light on just how effective our government has been with respect to the budgetary process, including the accuracy of the information presented in the estimates. There are a number of critical questions that have to be asked tonight, questions that the President of the Treasury Board did not really address in his rather pedantic lecturing style tonight.

We are dealing with some fundamental issues that have been identified as problem areas for the government, by the Auditor General, by outside observers, and by many in the House. Members have had to sit through and try to influence a position or an approach that has been so rigid, so autocratic, and so arbitrary that we have felt unable to represent the concerns of the people back in our respective constituencies.

There are several key questions that must be asked in this context. The first critical question is: Is the information that is at the beginning of the budget process accurate? Are we able, as Parliamentarians and Canadians, to draw on truthful information and make decisions based on that, or are we starting from a place where there are real questions about the accuracy and the truthfulness of the information provided to us and to all Canadians?

The answer should be readily apparent to members this evening if they were to reflect on the past couple of months in the House. We have dealt with a very serious issue, an issue now identified and recognized by many around the country. It was the deliberate decision on the part of the government to present inaccurate statistics to this place and to the people of Canada. It deliberately lowballed the surplus so that we were denied an opportunity to debate and choose priorities.

Whatever side of the issue we are on, I am talking about the ability to make decisions based on accurate information. If we do not have accurate information, it is pretty darned difficult to have a serious, intelligent debate about choices and priorities.

We now know that year after year over the past decade the Liberal government has chosen to present inaccurate information. We know that the government has chosen to lowball the surplus to the tune of $86 billion. Some people will ask, what is so bad about having a surplus? We are not saying there is anything wrong with having a surplus. We are saying it is a crime to have that information hidden from Canadians because we cannot choose where that money should be spent.

We know, by the very process that the government has chosen, that the money that comes our way, by way of surplus, disappears and is put against the debt regardless of whether or not it makes a significant dent in the debt to GDP ratio. For 10 years now this trend has occurred because of a deliberate decision by the government of the day. We are left trying to deal with serious priorities among Canadians and without the wherewithal to do it.

The first critical aspect of this whole budget process and the estimates must be a plea and a recognition on the part of the government that it must change its ways. In the spirit of democracy and addressing the democratic deficit, we must receive accurate information. Canadians are entitled to the facts. We are all invited to participate in a process in the interests of democracy.

When we raised this matter in the House and in committee, the government feigned ignorance, like it really did not know this was happening. It said that it is hard to predict budgets, that there are so many different forecasts, and so many different predictions and it was hard to do.

I want to point to two developments in response to that argument. First, despite the fact that the government has hired all these private sector forecasters from the banks and all these so-called smart economists, who have not produced one single accurate forecast in all these years, there is a group of learned economists in our society who have made accurate forecasts. Every single year the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has done just that. It has come within tiny percentage points of being in line with the actual reality.

The government members will not listen to the Jim Stanfords and John Loxleys of the world. They spend their time studying the figures and making accurate forecasts so we could make proper decisions in this place. If the government is interested in being accurate, it would turn to those people who have provided those enlightened analyses of the budget prospects for the future.

Second, is the interesting fact that the government actually did recognize that there was a problem in its budget forecasts. Lo and behold, there was an actual study done in 1994 by the then minister of finance who is now our Prime Minister. He recognized that there was enough of a problem that he hired Ernst & Young to study the forecasting methods of the Department of Finance. It is fascinating. It is even more fascinating because that report recommended that:

An independent forecasting agency could be established. The mandate of this agency would be to provide the “no policy change” economic and fiscal forecasts, and to forecast the impact of the Government's fiscal plans.

Imagine if the government had only acted in 1994 on the recommendations of its own study, which was initiated because it knew there was a problem. Then the government conveniently chose to ignore the study, the problem that it had created and to perpetuate this untruth, an inaccurate forecasting of the money available to parliamentarians and Canadians for public policy decision making.

We have to resolve that. We have to resolve this soon. It is not good enough for the government to suddenly say it has hired another banker to study this and make recommendations. Parliament has sent a message to the government through the Speech from the Throne that there shall be a serious study by an independent budget forecaster and there shall be steps taken to resolve this issue.

It is absolutely imperative that we let Canadians know tonight that at least those of us in the opposition who believe in the need for action in this area will work to make it happen regardless of the obstacles and roadblocks the government of the day puts in our path. That is the first issue that we have to deal with and why we have such doubts here tonight.

The second, even more than in terms of the forecasting, is whether the government is truthful in terms of its stated objectives. Can we trust the word of the government? Is it possible to take the words from a speech from the throne or a budget and for Canadians to feel confident that will be the road map?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, a Liberal member is yelling yes. I have to tell him that Canadians do not believe the Liberals when they say that because the reality is the opposite. The reality is that we cannot trust the Liberal words even when they appear to be addressing the concerns of Canadians.

Let me reference the most egregious example of this kind of untruthful presentation to Canadians. It has to do with the so-called fifty-fifty splitting of any budgetary surplus promised by the Liberals in previous election documents, speeches from the throne, and budgets. Fifty-fifty they told us back in 1997. They said that if there was any budgetary surplus, it would be split. Fifty per cent would go toward program spending to deal with the fact that the Liberal government had cut the heck out of our social programs and national infrastructure, and the other 50% would go toward tax cuts and debt reduction. That was going to be the recipe from the Liberal government.

Some of us had concerns with that fifty-fifty proposition as it was because we had seen since 1993 Canadians take the brunt of the government's cuts to social programs, health care, education, housing, the environment, just name it. We felt that when there was a surplus it was time for the government to balance out the situation and ensure that we were able to take the benefits accrued to Canadians because of our tightening of the belt and put it toward those programs.

We expected a slightly different balance, but even if one accepted the fifty-fifty proposition, we did not get it. What did we get? We got 10%, if we were lucky, toward program spending and dealing with the deep cuts that the Liberals had engineered, and 90% for debt reduction and tax cuts. We are dealing with a double whammy here, inaccurate forecasting of information to begin with and then broken promises and empty rhetoric by the Liberal government itself.

Those are the first two questions we have to ask in the estimates debate. The third is, have Canadians been consulted? Is the budget process and the estimates that we are dealing with today a culmination of Canadians' expectations and feelings?