[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 30, 1995
.1105 
[English]
The Chairman: Order.
Today we have the pleasure of having as witnesses from the Treasury Board Secretary and Comptroller General Robert J. Giroux, and Chief Informatics Officer J. A. Macdonald.
I've been advised by our witnesses that they don't have any formal statement but they're prepared to answer any and all questions right away relative to the main estimates and to the outlook document.
As you probably know, colleagues, as a result of a Treasury Board directive departments of the government are supposed to come out with outlook documents by the end of April, and the Treasury Board itself has not produced its own outlook document. So maybe I can have the privilege of asking the first question before we go to Mr. Marchand. I don't know whether this goes to Macdonald or to Giroux.
Gentlemen, it seems the Treasury Board's failure to come out with its own outlook document is a violation of your own directive. In other words, other departments have responded to your directive but not your own department. Maybe you would like to offer us some kind of explanation.
Mr. Robert J. Giroux (Secretary and Comptroller General, Treasury Board of Canada): Mr. Chairman, first of all I apologize for not having the outlook document available for the committee. We are working on it. We're in the final stages of it, and we hope to have it to the committee no later than the end of this week. It a document we've prepared with the utmost of care to reflect the forward direction and the challenges the Treasury Board has been facing.
.1110
All I can say to the committee is that I'm sorry you don't have it. We're working very hard to get it over to you as soon as possible.
The Chairman: Do you find it a little embarrassing, Mr. Giroux, that other departments have been able to respond to this directive, but you haven't been able to respond to your own directive?
Mr. Giroux: We hope to do better next time, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Is there any way you could give us a sneak preview, even just orally, right now as to what the outlook document might look like?
Mr. Giroux: I can give you a sense, Mr. Chairman, of what the outlook document would look like. It will talk about our mission, the environment we're facing in terms of the challenges with respect to the public service, the fiscal restraint, the need to proceed with renewal, of course, the importance of quality service delivery in the government, and a number of these issues.
It will then bring out some of our broad direction we are in the final stages now of articulating in terms of the importance of better delivery of client services and how the Treasury Board, through its policies, procedures, the assistance on the technology side, can help in that area.
We will also want to discuss with Parliament the issue of our management framework policies and accountability of departments, an issue that's often been raised by the Auditor General and the public accounts committee, for example.
We will also want to maximize, of course, the introduction of the new expenditure management system and what it entails in terms of departmental business plans and the reallocation within departments.
We will give you a sense of our future budgets in terms of what they are, the cuts, the downsizing we have to face in Treasury Board and so on.
That's essentially a summary of what it will look like. As I say, I'm hoping to have it before you as soon as possible.
The Chairman: So with that start, maybe we could turn it over to Mr. Marchand from the Bloc, who will start the formal questioning.
You have eight minutes, Mr. Marchand.
[Translation]
Mr. Marchand (Québec-Est): Welcome, Mr. Giroux and Mr. Macdonald. You've announced cutbacks of 45,000 Public Service positions. Everyone knows this, because it appeared in the newspapers. Can you tell me at what stage the cuts are at the moment?
Have you determined exactly how many positions will be eliminated, how many people will lose their jobs, and how many of the positions will be eliminated by way of attrition? Can you give us a sketch of the present situation?
Mr. Giroux: The last time we appeared before the Committee - and the president was there as well - we said that it was premature to give you this information, for the simply reason that the announcements made in the budget are only general estimates of the impact of budget cuts. We and the departments have in turn estimated the impact of the cuts in terms of the number of positions that will have to be abolished.
Naturally, the departments are still planning their staff cuts for 1995-1996. They are preparing for the expected passage of Bill C-76 on the Budget, which was studied by another committee of Parliament. We think we will begin to have a better idea about the impact of the cuts in July or August.
We cannot give you a status report on the situation until the end of the year.
Mr. Marchand: In the Fall of this year?
Mr. Giroux: Probably by late Fall we will be able to start giving you a better idea. By then, departments will have made the first round of decisions following the passage of the bill.
Mr. Marchand: So this question will have to wait until the Fall.
.1115
I'm going to move to a different topic now, if you don't mind. Our committee has been looking into the contracting out. We have discussed the subject at length. It is well known that there are some rather serious problems in this area; there is abuse, and the public service has shown on a number of occasions that changes should be made to correct the way in which contracts are administered.
Treasury Board issues guidelines on contracting out and you are no doubt aware of the problems as well. They are quite significant. Has Treasury Board undertaken a study to determine whether your criteria are applicable, whether they are applied and whether they should be improved?
Mr. Giroux: Your committee recently sent us a series of recommendations, to which we will be responding. We hope that in the near future our president will comment on the points you made regarding contracting out.
If I may, I would like to ask Mr. Little, deputy secretary, finance and information, to come forward to tell you about the reviews were are putting in place in the area of contracting out.
I should say that the main philosophy underlying this initiative is to produce a better costs-benefits ratio. In other words, when a decision is made to contract work out, the first condition must be that the work cannot be done in-house. That is the first requirement. Secondly, we have to be able to demonstrate that Canadians will come out ahead - in other words that contracting out will be more cost effective.
So that is the general context. I'll now ask Mr. Little to add to my answer by telling you about the review of procedures we have undertaken, particularly in response to your recent letter.
Mr. Marchand: However, we realize that in most cases, or at least in a number of cases, your general comments do not stand up. In the case of many contracts that are awarded, it would be far from easy to prove that they are economical for the government. That's where the real problem lies. At least that's what I have found from all the witnesses the committee has heard. We have learned that to date, no study has been done that really proves that contracting out is more economical. In some sectors, this is apparently true. Contracting out is clearly more economical in some specialized areas. Generally speaking, however, this is not at all the case.
In addition, apparently the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing in contracting out, procedures are disorganized and lacking in control. We're also told that favoritism is often a problem. We've heard reports of flagrant abuse.
I think Treasury Board's role is to correct this problem. However, apparently this is not being done. That is the nub of my question.
Mr. Giroux: Let me start by saying that it is quite difficult to generalize about contracting out as a whole. Obviously, with close to $5 billion earmarked for contracts of all types, a number of which are very legitimate...
Mr. Marchand: Perhaps you should be referring to $10 billion, Mr. Giroux. Such a figure is possible. Treasury Board's figure is very moderate, but the public service spoke about a figure of $9 to $10 billion. Imagine the figure being twice as high as the one you just mentioned.
Mr. Giroux: I know that this is the type of figure put forward by some unions. However, our figure for last year was $5.2 billion, and we think that the figure for 1994-95 will be around $5 billion. The work done under many of the contracts could not be done by the public service itself. That point it very clear. Others however are a matter of interpretation, you are quite right.
.1120
In such cases, our guidelines are very clear. There has to be a business case, a demonstration of effectiveness. We at Treasury Board have always been willing to reassess some situations, to do some audits and so on, and give departments a considerable amount of freedom to make the necessary decisions.
On the other hand, I should tell you we have to be realistic. Some contracts are awarded on an ongoing basis. We would require double the staff we have at Treasury Board if we were to exercise the kind of control on departments that would allow us to say: ``You have awarded this specific contract. Will you take into consideration such and such specific matter?'' What we can do however is use our assessment and audit services.
We have made a study which hopefully will be made public soon, on the use of temporary services agencies. Those provide the services of secretaries, clerks, etc. on a temporary basis. When that study is completed and made public, we will be able to share the results with others.
[English]
The Chairman: Sorry, we'll have to continue this later. We're out of time.
If you have some additional information, Mr. Little, you will have to provide it later.
Mr. Williams for the Reform Party for eight minutes.
Mr. Williams (St. Albert): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Giroux, with regard to your outlook document, I was very surprised that you, the Treasury Board, who issued the policy giving every department a directive that they were to have it in by the end of April, have failed. It's a month late and it still isn't here. I'm very surprised to find that you've slipped so badly there.
As you know, and as I've said before in committee, one of these days I'm going to start asking for heads to roll, but I won't do it in this particular case. Maybe it's not that serious, but I'm glad it's going to be here by the end of the week.
With regard to contracting out, we had some witnesses from Correctional Service Canada before the public accounts committee, and they were telling us they can't reduce the costs by contracting out because they're not one of the departments designated to be participating in the program, and yet they can save some money by contracting out.
How well is this program going to work? Is this really going to save Canadian taxpayers money, or are we just going to lay off civil servants and find out that we'd have been better off if we had done things a different way?
Mr. Giroux: Maybe Mr. Little can help me here. I wasn't aware that Correctional Service Canada was prohibited from doing contracting out.
Mr. Williams: They're not prohibited but they're finding that the directives do not allow them to do as much contracting out as they would like, because they are not one of the departments participating in the program.
Mr. Giroux: Can you elaborate for me, Mr. Williams, which program you are referring to?
Mr. Williams: The downsizing. We found in the public accounts committee that they were able to save money by using, for example, the John Howard Society and the Fry Society to handle parolees, and yet they have to maintain it with in-house rather than farming it out. They could do more in the private sector, yet government policy doesn't allow them to do that. We found that rather strange.
On this work force downsizing I think we're going to find the same thing, that it's not really going to be pragmatic decision making, we're just going to be laying people off. Are we going to find that the services required for people are maintained, and if we can privatize them, then we should be privatizing them?
Mr. Giroux: It's true that Correctional Service Canada is not a most-affected department. In the program review exercise they were not affected as badly as other departments. It's one of those departments whose population and client base is stable and even increasing. Therefore they have some real management issues to deal with.
Not being a most-affected department, of course, they did not come forward with a series of initiatives that would, for example, take a big part of their operations and move it to the outside. That would have necessitated them particularly having available to them the early departure incentive program. They can, however, apply the early retirement incentive program.
.1125
The fact still remains that any government department can take a look at its operations and look at how best to manage these operations. If it feels it can get better value for money, can get more cost-effective service, by doing it on the outside, there's nothing prohibiting them from doing it. There's no doubt they're not a most-affected department. They do not have the same flexibility as the 11 departments have - and now we've added 4 new agencies to that group - in terms of being able to do the necessary adjustments to staff.
Mr. Williams: On your new initiatives you have alternative delivery programs that basically are asking people to be more pragmatic in the way they deliver the services. Do you have any active plans and target dates on that particular program?
Mr. Giroux: The alternative service delivery is basically a set of broad policies and guidelines that we've made available to departments to assist them in looking at a number of measures for delivery of services.
Good examples of that are what is happening in the Department of Transport with the transfer of the Air Navigation Services to a not-for-profit organization; the transfer of local airports; and what was in the Globe and Mail this morning, for example, with respect to the privatization of the Canada Communications Group. Other things are being looked at in terms of partnering with the private sector, and so on.
Mr. Williams: Do you have any actual timeframes to get these things accomplished?
Mr. Giroux: Those are part of the departmental plans. The Treasury Board itself is not directing those approaches. Each department is coming in with specific initiatives. To use the example of Transport again, I think they want to have this done by April 1, 1996.
So it's all part of the departmental business plans and outlook documents that I'm sure will be coming out. As well, Treasury Board has not set specific objectives. Our role here is to advise departments and assist them with the general guidelines and approaches, and of course to help them when there are major human resource issues to deal with.
Mr. Williams: On interest group funding, in February 1994 - that's 15 months ago - there was a review of interest groups announced in the budget. We haven't seen anything since then. Where is it at, and when can we expect it?
Mr. Giroux: I can ask Mr. Paton to give you more details on this, but the interest group funding effort has been combined with the program review exercise. In fact, when departments did their program reviews, they looked at interest group funding as a major component of that program review. A number of them who came to the program review committee are now implementing them in their own way in terms of their own departmental activities.
So there is not now a major specific reduction to interest group fundings. It's all part of departmental plans.
Mr. Williams: It says here that you're applying the guidelines in the context of their individual program reviews. Where can we get a copy of the guidelines?
Mr. Giroux: The guidelines we issued? I think that's possible. They're very general guidelines. They were essentially an approach that we gave to departments to the kinds of things they should look at in determining what kind of funding and the level of funding for interest groups.
Mr. Williams: Any particular directive to cut them back?
Mr. Giroux: There was not any specific financial target. They were only guidelines to assist them in reviewing it. Depending on how government departments wish to put emphasis in terms of interest group funding, they use those guidelines to assist them in making the right decisions.
Mr. Williams: Have you any idea on how much money is spent on interest group funding in this country?
Mr. Giroux: Richard, maybe you can help me on that.
We had made some estimates at a point in time, Mr. Williams. I don't know how solid they are, because it's very difficult to define sometimes whether or not an organization is an interest group.
Mr. Richard Paton (Deputy Secretary, Research Branch, Treasury Board of Canada): The short answer to Mr. Williams is that we don't really have a clear idea of what the amount of money is.
Your example earlier of the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society - some would argue they are interest groups, some would argue they are service groups. So there's a complete range of types of groups.
Rather than say there's a certain number or amount that is attributed to interest groups, what we try to do then is to tell them to take a look at their program, at their activity. Look at the interest group in terms of whether it's providing a service to the government that might cost us more money or that would be better if it was integrated into the community. Look at whether it's an advocacy group only, if it's just promoting a point of view and representing an association, and therefore maybe should be self-funded on that basis. Also, look at whether it has alternative ways of raising money, by memberships or by contributions.
.1130
Based on that set of criteria, each minister, if in a cultural portfolio or transport portfolio or corrections portfolio or environmental portfolio, will look at these groups differently in terms of how it helps with the agenda of government and how it may not. So we've had to leave it to each minister to make those determinations, and they have come forward in their program review and made their appropriate reductions, and I think communicated them to those groups as part of their overall plans.
Mr. Bryden (Hamilton - Wentworth): Mr. Williams anticipated some of my line of questioning. I don't know whether to thank him or to deplore the fact that he's gone ahead on that. But I will follow exactly where he's left off.
I'm quite interested in the issue of interest-group funding. I wonder whether or not the department is keeping track of what the individual ministries are doing. May I anticipate getting some kind of report card at the end of the summer that would indicate, on a ministry-by-ministry basis, how the departments have responded to the guidelines set forth by Treasury Board? May I look forward to that?
Mr. Paton: Mr. Bryden, I'm well aware of your strong interest in this area. What you're raising, though, is an interesting and difficult question for the Treasury Board, because the way we see our role, as sort of keepers of the budget and helping to improve efficiency in government, is to set out a kind of direction, a set of guidelines as questions that ministers should ask themselves. We don't see ourselves in the role of making those decisions for ministers or monitoring what decisions they're making. There's a certain sense that each minister has to make his or her own decisions based on those criteria and directions.
The government announced that it was concerned about interest-group funding. Our minister wrote to his colleagues and expressed strong interest in these areas. We've provided guidelines. We've had meeting with departments, including political staff and officials. We've gone through the guidelines. We've discussed our interest. They've gone through a program review process.
So in a sense we feel that our job is to stimulate that interest to get people to look at it, and to look at it seriously. But in the final analysis, those ministers have to make those judgments as to whether that John Howard group is critical to their operations. It's not a judgment the Treasury can or should make. Otherwise, we would be deep into making decisions that are really properly those ministers' decisions.
So I think the answer to your question is that you should really ask each department for their decisions with respect to interest groups.
Mr. Bryden: I appreciate that, but I find it difficult to see how you can assess the success of an initiative you've taken - that is, the setting of guidelines in this particular area - if you don't evaluate the effect of the recommendations at some later point in time.
I'm not suggesting that you should specify directly how each ministry should respond. But surely, if I can suggest it, some assessment at the end of the summer, just to help me and other MPs who would like to get a measure without going ministry by ministry.... I would like your opinion at the end of the summer on how these guidelines have been implemented.
Is that possible? May I look forward to it, even in a general sense?
Mr. Giroux: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take Mr. Bryden's suggestion under advisement and discuss it with our president. This is a matter that I think our president should decide. If he says, ``Fine, I'd like you to give us this kind of assessment''....
It might be a bit early at the end of the summer, because departments are still making decisions, and this year some of the decisions that we think are being made are often transition types of decisions. In other words, they're saying to an interest group that this is the last year in which they'll be getting this level of funding, so start planning for a reduction next year, and so on.
If the president is agreeable, then we can certainly try to provide for the use of the committee a summary of what has been happening in interest-group funding. But I will have to transmit that request to the president.
.1135
Mr. Bryden: If I may, I would like to pursue this question of guidelines a little bit as well. One of the things that has struck me is the lack of consistency or continuity across the ministries, in the assessment by the bureaucrats in the ministries of the fiscal soundness of non-governmental organizations they might be dealing with in a financial way, either in the form of grants, or contracting out and that kind of thing.
Are there in existence now general guidelines for assessing the fiscal soundness of non-governmental organizations, guidelines from Treasury Board similar to what we were talking about with interest group funding, guidelines to bureaucrats?
Mr. W. E. Robert Little (Deputy Secretary and Deputy Comptroller General, Financial and Information Management Branch, Treasury Board of Canada): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to answer that at two levels of detail, if I may.
First of all, each one of the programs Mr. Bryden is referring to is accompanied by terms and conditions that are specifically organized around the means to assure that the objectives of that particular program are being met. Many of those standard terms and conditions in fact do require certain reviews to be undertaken, both prior to the issuance of a particular project, or in terms of monitoring, or in terms of evaluation at the end of a particular program timeframe. So in that context, within each one of the programs you do have terms and conditions that would have that requirement.
Secondly, in terms of making payments, there is a specific requirement under the Financial Administration Act that you in fact certify that you're dealing with a competent contractor in the form of assessing not only the value and the degree with which the terms and conditions have been met but also meeting certain financial requirements, which in some cases are subsequently audited. So in the two levels I'm referring to - one is in terms of program terms, and the other is in terms of financial payment terms - there are guidelines that are certainly available and used by departments.
Mr. Bryden: May I make the observation, then, that in my own research I have encountered and continue to encounter time and time again organizations that are getting funding without having to provide any financial statement, or any statement or evidence of fiscal responsibility.
So I'd like to leave that thought with you. You might care to look at that as a ministry-wide problem.
Mr. Little: I would add by way of additional information that what I am describing, of course, is a grant and contribution world where the contribution requires much more detailed specifications, as I'm describing to you, as opposed to grants, which in fact are a different regime and require different and less rigour in that particular way. So I apologize if I gave you the impression that this was for both.
Mr. Bryden: Then you would agree with me. You are aware that there are problems with grants going out to organizations where there is no prior accountability, in various and different departments.
Regarding Heritage Canada, for example, I think every MP is aware of notorious examples in their ridings of organizations that have received direct grants and apparently do not have any kind of fiscal soundness, or have not had to provide any evidence of this. So I would hope this is something you would take under advisement and consider for review, because I think a general standard across the board would be very appropriate.
I'll go on from that, if I may.
The Chairman: I'm sorry -
Mr. Bryden: Okay, that's fine. I'll go in the next round, if I may.
The Chairman: Well, not the next round. Mr. Bellemare is in the next round.
I wonder if the term ``interest group'' now has a bit of a pejorative connotation. I only really wonder out loud. I'm trying to think of an organization in this country that has an absolutely impeccable image or reputation. The Salvation Army - it has a wonderful reputation, as far as I know.
If I were running the Salvation Army, I wonder whether I would want to enter into any kind of relationship with the federal government - and I don't know, maybe the Salvation Army does have some relationship with the federal government. But I'm wondering whether I would want to enter into a relationship with the federal government lest somebody comes along and says, oh, you're an interest group.
Do you have any comment on that, Mr. Giroux?
.1140
Mr. Giroux: Mr. Chairman, you're raising the point we brought forward initially when we started this discussion. The question of definition becomes key here. There are many organizations some people may think are interest groups that are providing a very valid and essential service for the federal government. The federal government uses these organizations as service delivery mechanisms and does provide funding on that basis. There are then some of the more traditional interest groups, those being advocacy groups and so forth, that are out there pushing an idea on behalf of a certain specific community or specific interest, and that the government has been funding to different degrees.
I think the second category is certainly the one that's been the focus of attention from Mr. Bryden - who is nodding his head right now - much more than the first group. But in many departments, somehow the differentiation is not that clear.
[Translation]
Mr. Marchand: This is an interesting subject. Mr. Giroux, you know that the government has tabled a rather shabby legislation on lobbying, and when I say shabby, I mean that if the government was really intent on solving this problem with interest groups, the House would appoint a critic independent from the government. This would be beneficial not only to the interest groups but also to the politicians. At least, this is the Bloc's position.
Nevertheless, this supremely interesting subject is better left to Mr. Bryden, Mr. Williams and others. For myself, I would rather come back to contracting out. In answer to my last question, you said that contracting out abuses, favoritism and several other connected problems might be a matter of my own perception. I would like to correct this remark. It is not a matter of my own perception. I rather think that after listening to the many witnesses that have come before us, all the people around this table agree that there is a problem, a serious problem, concerning contracting out. If you are not aware of it, it is regrettable.
Treasury Board plays an important supervising role in the matter of contracting out, but nevertheless, you have given me the impression that it was so extensive, $5.2 billion last year, that you were totally overwhelmed, and unable to respond and to control the problem. This is serious. When Treasury Board recognizes that contracting out has become so overblown that it has become completely unmanageable, that the department is no longer able to impose its criteria, shouldn't we question its very role?
Mr. Giroux: First of all, I said earlier that I had no general information as to the scope of the alleged problem you are mentioning. Obviously, it is always possible to question the decision of a manager by taking examples here and there. I know that. I'm not naive enough to pretend that all contracts are justifiable in terms of their sound management and efficiency. There are far too many of them, but some of them are very minor.
Nevertheless, my point is that we delegate authority to the departments. Treasury Board is there to set the general policy, to give the departments the tools that they need in order to evaluate and to make the right decisions and to ensure that these decisions go through an auditing system, for example, or are subjected to special inquiries. As I said, we did one on temporary personnel agencies.
What we cannot do, and it is not our role, is substitute for the department and go look over their shoulder every time they award a contract. If we were asked to do that, we would have to double the staff of the Treasury Board. I just wanted to correct this impression I may have given.
.1145
Concerning the criteria, we are currently reviewing the matter. In the light of the work done by your committee, we will endeavour to make them much more definite. We are going to tighten accountability and, in cases of possible glaring abuses, we are always ready, and we have the means, to go to the department, see what is happening and correct the situation. We would rather proceed in that way, on a case by case basis, rather than march in like an army and try to audit every single thing they do.
Mr. Marchand: I see a slight contradiction in what you are saying. You said that Treasury Board sets the general rules and then you sit back and wait for reports of individual cases. That is precisely the problem. Treasury Board issues guidelines but, unfortunately, they don't seem to be applied as much as they should.
As to contracting out, we know full well that there are serious problems, therefore, how could Treasury Board say, as you do in your budget on page 2-14, that ``Treasury Board is a leader in terms of government for creating quality government''? How can you say it, how can you measure it? Contracting out is no small problem. It is no small affair, it's a matter of $5 billion. It is a colossal amount of money, especially when we know that even this figure is questioned, and that it could be a lot more.
If Treasury Board is not even aware of the situation, if you don't even have rules or criteria, how could you even mention quality government?
Mr. Giroux: I would like to ask Mr. Little to explain our approach concerning the policy review of service contracts. He will tell you what initiatives were are planning to take in that field.
[English]
Mr. Little: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'll respond, again at a series of levels.
First of all, we have a standard set of contracting policies describing the objectives we expect departments to meet in terms of value for money, and for particular arrangements around prudence, probity and using contracting to meet national and other government objectives. That particular framework is then put in place around a series of contracting regulations, which are put out as mandatory requirements by departments to follow, and which we follow up on by a series of internal reviews and audits in order to ensure that the contracting process is sound.
At another level, then, the contract world is run by a set of professional procurement officers, both centrally at Public Works and Government Services Canada, and also within each department, where there is normally a contracting section run by procurement group specialists who have a professional knowledge about the rules, regulations and requirements we have put in place as a framework to protect against abuse while, of course, achieving the objectives.
Thirdly, we have a series of monitoring activities within the board. We review annually all contracting that takes place within the government. We shortly will provide you with the next series of reports on all contracting that takes place. We have specific follow-ups we do on particular types of contracting, for example, on all advertising and professional polling and on all emergency contracting. These are reports that soon will be made available to you based on the 1994-95 year.
We also complete certain cross-departmental audits and reviews, including one we are completing now on end-year spending, which is an area where people believe there is a lot of opportunity for contracting out but should not be. We are going to follow that up specifically and provide you with details of our findings, department by department.
I'd also like to point out that we are in the process of reviewing on the basis of one of the protections against contracting out, which is a sense of competition to ensure that the marketplace is to be taken into full consideration. The policy, and the manner in which we deal with this particular area...and I have a number of initiatives under way that are being prepared for consideration by Treasury Board ministers, after which I'd be happy to provide you with details.
.1150
The Chairman: Time has expired. Thank you.
Mr. Marchand: Could I just make one comment?
Mr. Little, without questioning your competence or your good faith, it sounds as though you're speaking from an ideal world. From what we've heard from those who have come to this committee, it's quite apparent there is no control, there is no surveillance. All the elements you've mentioned, which are of good intent, are not applied. To some extent, Treasury Board's guidelines are hardly even known. The abuse is quite worrisome, actually.
Mr. Little: If I may, I came recently to the board from fifteen years of working in the procurement business in the Government of Canada, and I assure you that in the three departments I was in, we paid great attention to this particular area. In fact, we took pride in the fact that we were able to demonstrate value for money in our contracting procedures. So I speak from personal knowledge in that area.
The Chairman: When might the review you're talking about be available?
Mr. Little: We're working toward providing ministers with the reports and returns I talked about by the end of next month, the month of June. We therefore hope to have them available shortly after that.
The Chairman: That would be helpful to us, because we haven't completed our examination of contracting out. In fact, we're really depending on that kind of information from you.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellemare (Carleton - Gloucester): Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to what you have just said, namely that it would be useful to have that report. Mr. Little mentioned that he would give it to us, but the question was very specific and I will ask it again. Could the Committee have a copy of your report before the 1st of July or, otherwise, before the 1st of August?
Mr. Giroux: We will make the report available when the Treasury Board ministers have considered it and accepted it. That is the procedure we must follow. There are several meetings of Treasury Board ministers in the month of June. We will try to present the report in June and make sure they are ready to authorize our making it available.
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Giroux, if I understand correctly, the Treasury Board, of which you are the Secretary General, reports to Parliament. This Committee is accountable to Parliament. We are now discussing contracting out. Could you tell me if there is some kind of regulation or act that says that you cannot give us this report before it is submitted to a group of ministers, given that we are presently examining this matter?
Mr. Giroux: That is a question I am willing to ask the President, but it is up to him to decide, which to my mind, is appropriate. It is up to him to decide whether the report should be made available. I said there was a procedure to be followed in this respect. Before making this kind of report public, we must present it to the ministers and then the report is made public. That is what we intend to do. I think that we will present the reports to the Treasury Board ministers in June, and we will then recommend to the President that they be made public as quickly as possible, that is as committal as I can be today.
Mr. Bellemare: I will make a request. If ever the Treasury Board President does not recommend giving us the report, I would like Mr. Giroux and Mr. Eggleton to be present at our first meeting in the fall to explain to us why we cannot see the report, given that we are examining contracting out. It is not a matter of debate. It is a request of my colleagues here today.
[English]
The Chairman: Do you have another question, Mr. Bellemare?
[Translation]
Mr. Bellemare: Yes. In your budget, Mr. Giroux, I did not find a section on your monitoring and auditing services. Do you have a monitoring and auditing service that targets contracting out?
.1155
Mr. Giroux: Yes, and Mr. Little is in charge of it. At the Financial Services and Information Technology Branch, we have a special service that deals with the auditing, assessment and review of programs which is responsible for preparing reports, and so on, on this topic. It is the group which, at Treasury Board, audits government activities.
Mr. Bellemare: You were saying just before that it was impossible to have an army of accountants and auditors to audit all contacts. We all agree that you're right on that point.
However, we all, without exception, have questions or concerns about contract management after hearing some of the witnesses. Has the budget for your service which monitors and audits contracts awarded, been increased or reduced this year?
Mr. Giroux: Mr. Chairman, I refer you to page 2-39 in the French version of part III of the Estimates. There are government review and quality services. The 1995-96 estimates show that there is a total amount of $3,756,000 and about 40 positions. This budget has been reduced by close to $400,000 compared to the amount set aside for 1994-95. It was cut in line with the significant reduction that the Treasury Board must deal with, which is the result of the program review. That group is basically the review group which interests you, Mr. Bellemare.
I would however like to add that many of the activities of the other Treasury Board branches are monitoring activities. There is a lot of data gathering which allows us to prepare reports, etc... But the official auditing group, Treasury Board, the group that has an established program and that the Public Accounts Committee has been very interested in lately, is the government review and quality services group.
Mr. Bellemare: There are about 30 civil servants in this group.
Mr. Giroux: The number of positions has been estimated at about 40.
Mr. Bellemare: Will there be job cuts?
Mr. Giroux: No. That's the number projected for 1995-96, but there were 49 positions in 1994-95.
[English]
The Chairman: I'm sorry, you're out of time.
Mr. Epp, you have five minutes.
Mr. Epp (Elk Island): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to begin my intervention here by talking a little bit about the public service and the downsizing. The notice was given that the public service would be reduced by some 45,000 people, and we're now well into the time period when this downsizing is to take place. I wonder whether you could give us a little bit of a summary of where things are at now.
Mr. Giroux: At the moment, as I answered to a previous question, it is premature to give you a clear sense of the actual numbers of people who are being slated for surplus status.
First of all, the budget legislation, Bill C-76, has not passed its final stages in the House and in the Senate. We're targeting that it would be fully approved by no later than the middle of July. That will then provide the authority for the most-affected departments to declare a number of people surplus. At the moment, the departments are in the planning stages.
We know for a fact that a number of people are showing interest in the early retirement incentive program, and departments are trying to accommodate these individuals by placing people who might be adversely affected by the downsizing and helping do the necessary alternate movement we have been talking about in the press.
.1200
As I said previously, we do not feel confident that we can give you a clear sign of where we are in terms of 1995-96 until the legislation will have been passed, and we will start having more solid facts than we have now - because we're just getting little bits from various departments - by the fall, as I indicated to one of your colleagues.
Mr. Epp: Do you have any fear that you might not be able to meet the targets?
Mr. Giroux: Not really, in a way, because, as you probably know, departments' operating budgets have been reduced by the amounts they are to meet for 1995-96. There isn't any money available for them to go over budget, so departments are planning really hard to meet the targets that have been set for 1995-96.
Mr. Epp: Just for my own interest, is it the goal to do 15,000 per year for three years? Are those numbers fairly equal, or will there be a peak?
Mr. Giroux: The Minister of Finance and our president have stated that we're targeting.... We think in the first year - I'm talking now about July to July, because we have to wait for the passage of legislation - we will probably see about 20,000 affected and leaving. After that, we can see about 15,000 and 10,000, because we think in the third year there will be a lesser amount than in the first year.
Those are very general estimates, but they're certainly somewhat the objectives that have been set publicly by both the Ministry of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board.
Mr. Epp: I read somewhere that the attrition rate in the civil service is around 5% per year.
Mr. Giroux: It's much lower than that.
A voice: It has dropped to zero.
Mr. Epp: It's lower now? Okay, then that precludes the rest of my question. I was just wondering whether we could use any methods that would be less costly to the federal government by using natural attrition.
If that has disappeared, I suppose one of the reasons is that people aren't going to leave if it looks as though they're going to get a fairly good benefit by hanging in.
Mr. Giroux: That's one of the reasons. There's no doubt that people have been expecting that there will be reductions and they've been waiting to see what kinds of programs the government will want to face. But we also saw some reductions in the attrition rate even before any of this was being discussed, because of the economic situation. In many areas of the country there are not many outside jobs that are attractive, and therefore people have stayed around. This was not a situation we had in the mid-1980s, for example, when we had an attrition rate of about 5%, as you quite legitimately said.
Mr. Cameron knows it better, but I think we're around 1% to 2% at the moment now, which is a very small amount and leaves us very little room to manoeuvre.
Mr. Epp: Is there any move afoot to tie this in with the correction of the problem of duplication between the federal government and provinces? In some instances, certain functions should be taken over by the provinces, and justly so. They've been encroached upon by the federal government over the last number of years.
As well, is there some cooperation with the provinces for people who are being laid off from a federal government position to be able somehow to move into a similar position if the provincial government is going to be managing that department?
Mr. Giroux: As I said previously, definitely each department is looking at some specific initiatives, some of which do entail starting discussions with the provinces about combining certain services or transferring services over, and we've assisted with our framework for alternative service delivery. At the same time, we are also exploring some common service delivery approaches. The Canada Business Service Centres are a good example of that, where we're finding that, for the Canadian public, whether it's federal, provincial or even municipal, they see it as being government, and therefore they feel they should be able to go to one source and get service.
So a number of these things are happening, and that was part of the program review criteria departments looked at when they came in with their proposals.
The Chairman: I remind my colleagues that Mr. Giroux has to leave at 12:15 p.m.
.1205
[Translation]
Mr. Bélair (Cochrane - Superior): Mr. Giroux, you have just confirmed that approximately 25,000 public servants will be laid off, in the sense that approximately 20,000 will take early retirement or avail themselves of the early departure incentive. How much will the departure of these 20,000 public servants cost the government?
Mr. Giroux: First of all, of these 45,000 public servants, some will be transfered to other sectors. Close to 7,000 people from the air traffic services of the Department of Transport, for instance, will be going to a new corporation. They are among the 45,000 employees concerned. We estimate that about 4,000 will avail themselves of the early retirement program. Preliminary indications are that that objective will be reached; there may even be more.
Secondly, our overall estimates indicate that 13,000 to 15,000 other people will take advantage of the program to...
Mr. Bélair: Yes, but I am trying to determine how much these early retirements and departures are going to cost the government.
Mr. Giroux: Well, a cost assessment of the early departure program was done, and in his budget, Mr. Martin stated that he had created a special fund of approximately $1 billion to cover the costs generated by the 13,000 to 15,000 employees I mentioned. That is a general estimate; the departments will be able to tap into that billion dollar fund to cover the costs of the early departures.
As to the early retirement program...
Mr. Bélair: I only have five minutes. Has a comparative table been drawn up to show us whether today's billion dollar investment will ultimately be of benefit to us, and if that is the case, how many years will it take?
Mr. Giroux: A billion dollar investment of that kind is generally recovered within 18 months. In other words, the billion dollar investment will reduce the number of positions and the government will begin to see the benefits of that after 18 months.
Mr. Bélair: We will reach zero at that time.
Mr. Giroux: No. I am referring to the benefits that will accrue following reductions of staff and budgets.
Mr. Bélair: Has a review process been put in place to evaluate that program?
Mr. Giroux: Certainly. We have put an evaluation process in place. Our process to gather basic information is almost operational. That mechanism will provide us with much more detail on the number of employees involved, their occupational groups and regions they are in, etc., which will allow us to make sure that the program reaches its objectives. We are doing it this time because in the past, certain similar programs caused us problems because we did not have evaluation criteria like these.
Mr. Bélair: Is there a special clause in your evaluation program for rural regions in Canada? I am referring to isolated regions in particular, where there are very few public servants. If you eliminate one employee in an two-person office, that is a 50% cut. Do you have a special provision to deal with problems like that one, should they arise?
Mr. Giroux: I don't believe so. You are highlighting the impact of government cuts in remote rural areas of the country. Through our program's evaluation criteria we want to make sure that the decisions to allow certain persons to benefit from those programs were justified because their position were abolished, budgets were reduced because of that, and that the employees who availed themselves of those programs were entitled to do so. We want to make sure that the program is well administered.
.1210
For your part, you ask us if we have assessed the impact on the community. That assessment will be the responsibility of the departments that will make the decision to cut the levels of service. Our program is meant to help departments implement their decisions.
Mr. Bélair: It is discouraging to find that the budgets of the major regional or provincial offices will increase at the expense of the budgets of smaller local offices. The figures are there to prove that. I find it quite disturbing.
[English]
The Chairman: Before we go back to Mr. Marchand, I'm going to recognize Mrs. Chamberlain, who has one or two questions.
Mrs. Chamberlain (Guelph - Wellington): Someone over on the other side raised this. I want to talk a little bit about organizations that will stop getting money, and about the fact that in this budget there was sometimes no transitional funding allowed for these particular organizations.
Whose decision is that? Is that solely with the minister? How does that all come about?
Mr. Giroux: Essentially, you're talking about the broad category of interest groups. For the funding we're talking about, departments came in with respect to their program review and as part of that they indicated they would take the following decisions with respect to interest groups. That is the responsibility of the minister of that department, supported by the management of that department.
A lot of departments have said they cannot do it all in the first year. We have to give notice to these organizations because many of them are dependent on federal funding. Therefore some departments are saying they will keep the level this fiscal year, maybe go down a little bit, five or ten per cent, but slowly phase them out or get them down to a much lower level in future years. The departments are managing these activities within their budgets. There has not been a fund provided to assist them in doing that. When they provided their plans, many of them decided to take that kind of an approach and that's all part of their budgets.
Mrs. Chamberlain: I want to be very specific, particularly in the Foreign Affairs budget, under the area with the resource centres that were cut. I don't know if you're familiar with them, but there were a hundred of them. In my area the one that was cut was known by the acronym GIRC.
I know this is getting very much ``my area'', but it seems to me any time, with what you said earlier about the fact that things are taken into account, we put money into it the past and believed in an organization as viable, and there was a reason for it, unless there is a reason to completely have it end... In this particular organization there does not seem to be this reinforcement of that.
These particular organizations have resource libraries that the communities rely on, and they have resource people. I think they have a really good opportunity to have groups like teachers' federations, as well as perhaps some local agencies, help fund them. But when funding is completely cut out of the blue, and you're given only two or three months' notice to suddenly find an extra $65,000, in some cases, that's almost impossible.
I guess I really want to reinforce that I don't think that's a wise practice in some areas. I don't know how we get better at being able to at least have the input.
I'm not opposed to the fact that we have to get our deficit under control. I'm not opposed to the fact there will have to be cuts and different ways of doing business. But I think we have to be sensitive. If we have funnelled into something, and we think it's viable, then how do we sustain it at the local level? Because that's really what we're talking about.
I don't know whether you have any comments on that, but that is really a concern of mine.
Mr. Giroux: Obviously, I cannot comment on the specific case you provided. All I can say is that these are tough decisions for departments to make. Many of these organizations have struck historical alliances with the departments and so forth.
.1215
It's one of the reasons why many departments are trying to ease them into this new funding approach by going slowly the first year, a little bit harder the second year, and eventually getting to where they want to be in the third year. Obviously, it's in the hands of the departmental management and the decision of the departmental minister on how they proceed with each and every case.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Giroux, I'm going to ask you to stay for one more witness. I've had indications from colleagues that Mr. Marchand, Mr. Bryden and Mr. Williams have more questions. We'll let Mr. Marchand go for five minutes, and then you can take your leave, Mr. Giroux. We'll try to wrap up within about 15 minutes because we have votes to deal with.
[Translation]
Mr. Marchand: I'd like to go back to the topic of subcontracting, Mr. Giroux. In your answer in the beginning, you stated that the purpose of subcontracting was to help the government save money, as is well known. Mr. Little, who is undoubtedly a competent person, also stated that according to his 15 years' experience, subcontracting did mean savings.
Mr. Little also said that an analysis was being carried out and that we might see a report on that. Were analysis, studies, done in the past which showed that subcontracting really did allow the government to save money? Were any comprehensive studies carried out to assess the return on investment? I know that specific studies were carried out in certain well-defined areas such as the National Research Council, but did Treasury Board do an analysis to show that subcontracting activities overall translate into savings for the government?
Mr. Giroux: I don't think there was such a comprehensive analysis, but Mr. Little may correct me. I know that sectoral analysis were done, and you mentioned them. It is difficult to do an overall analysis, because you have to look at each particular case. In each case, you have to set efficiency and effectiveness criteria.
When I was with Public Works, I did several of those analysis. There was a great deal of subcontracting in that department and those analysis were carried out. But I don't think we have any comprehensive, all-inclusive analysis that comes to the conclusion you are seeking. Mr. Little tells me that there is no such study.
Mr. Marchand: You do state that overall, subcontracting allows the government to save money. I know sectoral analysis were carried out, but they were very limited. They were not generalized, in the sense that such analysis were not carried out in every sector. It seems that once subcontracting has begun in a given sector, no analysis is carried out. Thus, how can you come to the conclusion that you are saving money? That conclusion is unfounded. That is the impression I am under after having listened to statements by witnesses.
But I want to get back to the Public Service; underneath it all, one suspects that subcontracting was begun to reduce the number of federal public servants, not to save money in the strict sense of reducing expenditures. Personnel reduction was the primary purpose of subcontracting, it would seem. In any case, that is the impression I have. Since a second phase of personnel reduction has now been launched within the Public Service, an operation that will affect 45,000 employees, can we expect to see an increase in subcontracting?
Mr. Giroux: I must repeat that we have no all-inclusive study. We carried out sectoral studies and the departments did so as well, but you are right: they have not been done everywhere. Often, decisions were taken to provide better services, or for a whole range of other reasons, and not only to save money.
As the president of Treasury Board said repeatedly, this government's policy on contracting out is that it must make good business sense; there must be good reasons that show that it is more effective and more efficient for the government to contract out. We are working out the criteria needed to do that.
Mr. Marchand: That is the problem. The criteria have not been applied yet; may we expect, nevertheless, an increase in contracting out? Will contracting out increase, or decrease? Is there a Treasury Board guideline? Are we just muddling along? Or is there a project, a plan? Is there a review of the issue? Is there a guideline? Will it be broadened? Or will it be reduced?
.1220
Mr. Giroux: As Mr. Little mentioned earlier, we have a series of policies and criteria, means of doing evaluations, etc. As I mentioned at the outset, we will answer your letter in which you asked basically the same questions.
We will certainly try to tighten things up and make sure that we get better value for money.
Mr. Marchand: When can we expect an answer to that letter?
Mr. Giroux: We are preparing it now, but first, we have to submit it to the president and, if he approves it, we will send it to you as soon as possible.
Mr. Marchand: Will that be before the end of June?
Mr. Giroux: We hope so.
Mr. Marchand: Thank you, Mr. Giroux.
[English]
Mr. Giroux: Mr. Macdonald can certainly proceed on my basis, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: You're out of the on deck circle, Mr. Macdonald, and you're up at the plate. The next pitcher is Mr. Bryden.
Mr. Bryden: I have just a couple of questions for my own information, to a large degree. Are you familiar with the International Development Research Centre, which is an agency under Foreign Affairs?
Mr. J.A. Macdonald (Chief Informatics Officer, Treasury Board of Canada): Yes, in a general sense.
Mr. Bryden: Can you give me some background on it? Is it a crown corporation? What is its relationship to the ministry? Do you have, as a department, any supervisory role over how it spends its money?
Mr. Macdonald: I believe it's an agency as scheduled under the Financial Administration Act. For purposes of financial control it is treated like a department, which means the general Treasury Board planning framework extends to IDRC.
The Chairman: Mr. Bryden, that agency is not a part of our mandate; it falls under Foreign Affairs. I'm not trying to muzzle Mr. Macdonald, but it comes under Foreign Affairs, not our committee.
Mr. Bryden: The nature of my question, Mr. Chairman, was to try to establish whether Treasury Board had any guidelines or any ability to track the financial and managerial performance and the spending of money by an agency like that under Foreign Affairs.
The Chairman: I think that's all right.
Mr. Macdonald: If it is an agency, then under the Financial Administration Act the Treasury Board policies apply, just as they do for Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Bryden: Can you give me any kind of assessment of that particular agency? I assume it reports to Treasury Board in some form or another.
Mr. Macdonald: I'm unable to give you specifics. I guess I'm not quite sure what you have in mind. I'm going to ask Mr. Paton to help me here in terms of our involvement with them. But in general terms they would be subject to internal audit and program evaluation, as any other department would. To the extent that those are done, they are reviewed by the Treasury Board.
I don't have an in-depth knowledge here, and I'm afraid I can't assist you on that.
Mr. Bryden: Just a final question and I'll close that issue. If you can supply me with any information from Treasury Board that reflects the Treasury Board's monitoring of that particular agency in any way, manner, shape, or form, I would really appreciate it.
Mr. Macdonald: I'll see what we can do for you.
Mr. Bryden: I'd like to have a sense of whether Treasury Board is tracking an organization like that, and in what way.
Mr. McKinnon (Brandon - Souris): Are you aware of a common agreement between unions and the government, in general terms, on a proposal to introduce a new mail-order pharmacy plan out of New Brunswick?
Mr. Macdonald: Not to my knowledge. I can ask Mr. Cameron.
Mr. McKinnon: Is this out of context in this committee?
Mr. Macdonald: There were some earlier discussions but there's nothing out there yet.
The Chairman: Can I add to that, Mr. McKinnon? My understanding is that the mail-order pharmacy service is a possible alternative under the public service health plan. It won't be compulsory, but if subscribers, especially those who are chronic users of drugs, find it to their advantage to get their drugs through a mail-order service, that would be one alternative, but there's absolutely nothing compulsory about it.
.1225
Is that helpful to you?
Mr. McKinnon: I suppose so. Thank you.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Macdonald, when the President of the Treasury Board was last before this committee he made a commitment that he would give us the information we requested. We pointed out that in the estimates it would seem that the average salary in the Treasury Board was somewhere around $70,000 to $80,000. He said that couldn't be, and promised to provide the information. Is that forthcoming?
Mr. Macdonald: Mr. Williams, let me ask Mr. Little to respond to that.
Mr. Little: Mr. Chairman, a letter has been dispatched from the secretary to the greffier that responds to that particular request for information. I have a copy of it somewhere. I just can't put my hands on it. But we have replied and provided the information.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Macdonald, Bill C-62, the regulatory efficiency act, which is one of your proposals or objectives this year, has run into some serious problems. Some changes are being shopped around - if I may use that terminology - by special interest groups and other people. However, the opposition MPs have not been privy to that document. Is there any particular reason why?
Mr. Macdonald: I'll ask Mr. Paton to respond to that.
Mr. Paton: On that particular bill, Mr. Williams, we've listened very carefully to the concerns of parliamentarians about the need for the process to be as transparent as possible and for parliamentary committees to be as involved as possible. So these new proposals reflect many of the representations we've had from parliamentarians. Mr. Duhamel has been around to see several parliamentarians, and contributed to these proposals.
We have been discussing with our minister just how we would go forward and communicate with parliamentarians on the proposals and we -
Mr. Williams: It seems to me you've made this document public, but it hasn't been given to members of Parliament.
Mr. Paton: I would like to do that as soon as possible. We're also trying to arrange for House times because we had to get back into the House to refer it to the committee for study. So given the pressure of House business, we've had difficulty just getting in the queue to achieve that.
Mr. Williams: Doesn't it seem rather inappropriate that the President of the Treasury Board would give special interest groups advance notice to vet the document without circulating it to members of Parliament?
Mr. Paton: We have discussed the principles.
Mr. Williams: I haven't heard anything.
Mr. Paton: Mr. Williams, I'll make sure our minister is aware of your concerns. Hopefully we'll be able to share it as soon as we're ready.
Mr. Williams: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Little: I wonder if I could reply to the previous questions. I found the document I was looking for. It's a letter, signed by Mr. Giroux, to the Clerk of the Standing Committee on Government Operations. I'll quote from it:
- the average salary costs of the Treasury Board Secretariat, we invite Committee members to
consult page 2-50 of the Part III of the Estimates, where the personnel costs of the Secretariat
are displayed by professional group. As well, under the heading of Personnel in Table 7 on page
2-49 of the same document, the total salaries and wages is given as $51.4 million. The number
of employees is 886; therefore, the average salary is approximately $58,000.
Mr. Williams: So is it confirmed that the average salary in the Treasury Board from the secretaries all the way to the president average $58,000 - plus benefits and pension plan?
Mr. Little: It includes benefits, yes.
Mr. Williams: That includes benefits.
Mr. Little: No, excuse me. I'm getting advice here that it does not include benefits.
.1230
Mr. Williams: So it's plus benefits plus pension plan contributions. By the time we figure it all out, we're back up to about $70,000. Then we wonder why we find government expensive.
Mr. Little: I can give you a slightly more accurate figure than $70,000, Mr. Chairman. Considering the other costs referred to in terms of benefits and pension costs, it comes to approximately $65,000.
Mr. Williams: Well, it's still $65,000, Mr. Chairman, and I think the private sector in this country would be absolutely appalled to think that the average salary in a department the size of Treasury Board from top to bottom has an average cost of that amount. I think we should be looking at that very seriously to compare the costs in government with what we find in the private sector.
This brings me to another question.
The Chairman: This is your final question, by the way, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: On page 2-17 you talk about equal pay for work of equal value as one of the initiatives. I've always thought the marketplace would determine the value of a person's work. I agree with the need to ensure that women are paid the same as men for doing the same job, but equal pay for work of equal value is comparing a carpenter with an office secretary.
Apart from the marketplace, how do you intend to do that, bearing in mind, as we've just found out, that it appears the average salary within government is grossly inflated?
Mr. Macdonald: I'm not prepared to accept your latter premise, Mr. Williams. I guess this is a philosophical debate we're in here. The government recognized that relying solely on the marketplace could sometimes lead to systematic discrimination against particular groups. The equal pay for work of equal value is an attempt by the government to redress some of these problems.
It's a very difficult area to reach agreement on, although we have made important progress over the last while with a number of public sector unions in this area. The government remains committed to the concept of equal pay for work of equal value while recognizing that the process by which one does the estimation is at times quite subjective and that it's quite difficult to be precise on it.
The Chairman: Okay, thank you very much.
If there are no further interventions, we will thank you, Mr. Macdonald, for filling in at the end, and thanks to all of your colleagues for coming today. You can take your leave.
Mr. Macdonald: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Colleagues, as you know, by the end of May, by tomorrow, under House orders, we have to approve the estimates, so we have some votes before us. Let me provide notice to you on one matter and make one suggestion before we go further.
You may or may not know - and this is the notice - that under House rules the official opposition, that is the Bloc, has exercised its prerogative or its right and asked for extension of consideration of the estimates of one department that comes within our purview. That right has been exercised in the House It's deemed approved. The Bloc has asked for an extension of consideration of the estimates of Privy Council. That being the case, they have ten working days, until June 13.
.1235
Given the fact that the Bloc has asked for this, I would think we should then try to get Mr. Massé to come before the committee a week from Thursday, or June 8.
Mr. Marchand, it would be my intention to ask for that, unless someone else has some other point of view.
Mr. Bélair: Could you outline very briefly the reasons why?
The Chairman: The reasons for the extension, or why they made this request?
Mr. Bélair: Yes.
The Chairman: I can't speak for the Bloc. Perhaps Mr. Marchand would want to answer that.
Mr. Marchand: The principal reason is that there is a debt outstanding with the Government of Quebec of some $333 million -
An hon. member: Boo.
Mr. Marchand: Boo to you.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Marchand: We'd like to take up this matter with the minister, Marcel Massé.
The Chairman: Just before I recognize Mrs. Chamberlain, could I ask you a question. If Mr. Massé for whatever reason won't or can't come or whatever, would it be possible to have his officials?
Mr. Marchand: I don't believe so.
The Chairman: In other words, if we can't get him, you would forgo the exercise.
Mr. Marchand: Or do something else.
The Chairman: Such as?
Mr. Marchand: I don't know. I'd have to think about it.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out to you that the Ontario elections are on June 8. That might factor into the day you choose. I don't know if does or not, but there are some of us who are heavily involved in that.
The Chairman: Let me ask my clerk. I don't think we have a lot of alternatives, because we have only until the June 13. Is there an alternative option?
Is it your request, Mrs. Chamberlain, that we not ask Mr. Massé to come on June 8?
Mrs. Chamberlain: If it's the only day we can get him before that...but I'm certainly open to two meetings in one day, if necessary, to try to wrap it up. I'd leave it at the chair's discretion, but I just point out to you that there are some things that, if we could possibly work around, would be great. If not, go with what you need to do.
The Chairman: We have a steering committee meeting tomorrow. Maybe right after this meeting the clerk will make overtures to Mr. Massé's office. We may get some preliminary indication from him.
Is that point clarified? Have we completed that point?
The suggestion I have, colleagues, is that we now proceed through the individual votes. If anyone has a motion pertaining to any of the votes, I would request that you hold the proposed amendments to the end.
In other words, for example, the first vote will be a vote on 140. If there are any motions of amendment with respect to that then I would ask that you hold the motion, hold the amendment to the end and then we'll come back to 140. We'll just stand it aside until we deal with it, okay?
Mr. Epp: Should we give you notice where we have it?
The Chairman: Yes, you can give notice right now.
Mr. Epp: It might save some time.
The Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Epp: We have amendments on vote 140 for Canadian Heritage and then on votes 1, 5, 10 and 35.
The Chairman: We're not dealing with 5 today and we're not dealing with 10 or 35, because of the extension. So it'll be 140 and 1.
Is that it?
.1240
The Chairman: So it will be 140 and 1. Is that it?
Mr. Epp: Yes. Then under Public Works -
The Clerk of Committee: Vote 1 of which ministry?
Mr. Epp: Privy Council.
The Clerk: But this is an extension.
Mr. Epp: That's right. So the Privy Council is out. Then it is Public Works and Government Services, votes 10, 35 and 40.
The Chairman: Vote 140, Canadian Heritage, and then vote 1 of Public Works?
Mr. Epp: No, vote 10.
The Chairman: And 35?
Mr. Epp: Votes 35 and 40.
The Chairman: Is there anything under Treasury Board?
Mr. Williams: I have votes 1, 5, and 10.
The Chairman: Is that it?
Mr. Williams: Yes.
The Chairman: We'll come back to vote 140 later, Mr. Epp.
GOVERNOR GENERAL
- Governor General
Vote 1 agreed to
PARLIAMENT
- The Senate
Vote 1 agreed to
The Chairman: Now we turn to Public Works and Government Services. For now, we'll set aside votes 10, 35 and 40.
PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
- Public Works and Supply and Services - Services Program
Vote 5 - Architectural, Engineering and Realty Services Revolving Fund - Activities in support of Broader Government Objectives $2,589,000
- Real Property Program
- Supply and Services Program
Vote 25 - Capital expenditures $24,359,000
- Crown Corporations Program
Votes 1, 5, 15, 20, 25 and 30 agreed to
The Chairman: Under Treasury Board, we're going to set aside votes 1, 5 and 10.
TREASURY BOARD
- Secretariat - Employer Contributions to Insurance Plans Program
Vote 15 agreed to
The Chairman: We now go back to vote 140 of Canadian Heritage.
Mr. Epp: I'd like to give a little preamble, and then I'll make a motion to amend.
In light of downsizing in the public service at a time when we'll be laying off 45,000 workers, it is almost an insult for the commission to be spending $10 million a year for external recruitment. In addition, special measures initiatives will cost $15 million for the next four years while people are failing to complete the program at a rate of well over 50%, proving the program to be not only costly but also ineffective, not to mention discriminatory.
I therefore move that vote 140 of Canadian Heritage, the Public Service Commission, be reduced by $24,839,000.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bellemare: In the preamble the member speaks of laying off 45,000. I have never heard the term ``lay-off''. That is not the terminology we've been using, and no one is being laid off. There's a diminution of effectives by transfers and privatization. At the moment there's no lay-off. Therefore, that part of the motion is -
Mr. Epp: It's not part of the motion. It was just a preamble.
Mr. Bellemare: It was just a preamble?
Mr. Epp: Yes.
The Chairman: Part of the argumentation.
Mr. Epp: The motion was that the vote be reduced by $24,839,000. That's my reason. I'll go along with Mr. Bellemare. Don't call it lay-off; the staff is being reduced by that amount, by whatever means.
.1245
The Chairman: Is there any further comment?
Mr. Bryden: Are we debating the motion now, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Bryden: I would like to make a comment, then.
My observation of the preamble is that I find myself in disagreement with my colleague. I think it is very necessary to continue to recruit the young at a time when one is making lay-offs. That argument was presented by the Public Service Commission in justifying spending the $10 million: we have to continue to recruit a young work force; otherwise, we'll be in great difficulty later.
So I take their point.
Mr. Williams: I would like to ask a question of my colleague, Mr. Chairman. According to the point he is putting forward, 50% of the people failed to complete the program. Yet we're spending millions of dollars trying to attract people into the work force while we're trying to get rid of people - or whatever terminology you want - out of the work force. It seems to me rather incongruous that we would be spending money when we're finding it's a failure that it's in direct opposition to what we're trying to achieve.
I therefore support my colleague.
Mr. Marchand: I would tend to support that, too. I think it ludicrous, in fact, that there would be so many funds allocated to recruitment.
I'm sensitive to students as well, but I don't think spending $10 million to recruit students.... Certainly there must be efforts made to recruit young people and students, and I'm sure students and young people apply in great numbers. I don't think the government should even allocate funds, basically.
But there is a clear contradiction when you are downsizing the public service by 47,000 and at the same time spending $10 million to recruit. My goodness, there's something terribly wrong there.
Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Bryden: Could I make a comment, following up on this? I think the issue raised by Mr. Epp is an important one, and perhaps this committee should ask the Public Service Commission to justify, to give us details on, how that $10 million is spent.
Can I put that forward? I don't know how it's done, Mr. Chairman. Can I move it or suggest that we make that request of the Public Service Commission? Then we can come back to it if we don't get this information.
The Chairman: This is Canadian Heritage.
An hon. member: But it's the Public Service Commission.
Mr. Marchand: Can I make a suggestion? I think it's so serious that, frankly, the vote shouldn't even take place until we've had clear answers from -
The Chairman: We don't have that choice.
Mr. Marchand: We don't have that choice?
Mr. Williams: You do have the choice, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: We have one day. These estimates have to be dealt with by tomorrow, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: The point my colleague raised was that you don't have to approve the motion until you have the answers. It seems rather strange that we would approve the motion, and you have -
The Chairman: The motion has already been approved.
I'm not too sure whether I'm clear on this, Mr. Bryden. Do you want us simply to write to the Public Service Commission?
Mr. Bryden: An issue has been raised here that possibly we should have addressed more aggressively when it first came before the committee, and we've missed our opportunity. But let us ask for a detailed justification for the spending of that $10 million on recruitment. How are they spending that money?
The Chairman: All right. It's a point well taken. We will contact the Public Service Commission and ask for the information.
Mr. Marchand: Could I make a comment? It is unfortunate that this committee is not exercising the power it has to look into these matters. This is our job. It's absurd; I mean, here you are, sitting there...and I respect your being part of the government, but you're approving $10 million without really having answers to these questions. I think it's unfortunate.
The Chairman: Well, that may be fair criticism, but the motion is suggesting that we cut the department by $24 million without the information that you so want.
Mr. Marchand: Actually, I think it would be reasonable to at least get the answers and then approve it, because I would probably think there is a good reason. I assume that.
But until I hear the explanation from the government, it's as though, gee, we should close our eyes and approve $10 million.
.1250
The Chairman: Maybe we should have been asking the question when the Public Service Commission was here.
Mr. Bryden: I observed that. If we can get this reply in a timely fashion, there's still an opportunity to make an amendment in the House of Commons or do whatever else you want to do.
Mr. Marchand: Really?
Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, is it too late to ask for a recorded vote on this motion?
The Chairman: Not with unanimous consent. Do we have unanimous consent to go back to that vote?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: The clerk will call the names.
Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 3
The Chairman: The result is exactly the same.
Now we're going to go to the votes under Public Works and Government Services Canada, vote number 10.
Mr. Epp: I have an amendment to propose, with a little preamble. Considering the overall reductions in government proposed by the Reform Party and also the reductions in government spending proposed by the Liberal Party, it only stands to reason that the government will need less office space.
Mr. Williams: That's right.
Mr. Epp: Therefore, I move that vote 10 of Public Works and Government Services Canada, which is Real Property Management, be reduced by $100,000. It's not a great amount, but it is a reduction, and it sends a message.
The Chairman: Is there any debate? If there's no debate, I'll call the question.
Mr. Epp: Could we have a recorded vote, please?
The Chairman: Yes.
Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We are now on vote 35 of Public Works and Government Services.
Mr. Epp: Vote 35 has to do with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and social housing. Before I make my motion I want to again give the preliminary that I reject the hypothesis that if the government doesn't do it, it won't be done. I really think the best and the most accountable way of achieving what might be called the charitable advance of meeting other people's needs is best done in the private sector and through organizations that run themselves.
We in the Reform Party are actually opposed to the idea of public social housing, with all due respect to my Bloc colleague, who I know is really the.... In Quebec they've pushed this a lot.
So here's my statement. The view of the Reform Party is that charity is most effective and most efficient when done by private organizations. We feel that by reducing government expenditures in some areas, the resultant long-term tax decreases - and more importantly, the generosity and responsible nature of individual Canadians - will more than fill any gaps that will be left in government social spending.
I therefore move that vote 35 of Public Works and Government Services Canada, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and social housing, be reduced by $525,000.
.1255
If I could just say one more thing, Mr. Chairman, it's that we always hear that the Canadian people are very generous, and we know that to be true. If we look at how much they give to charitable organizations, we know it is true. We also know when governments do things very generally, there are considerable inefficiencies.
So this is a move that is in no way saying we don't want to meet these people's needs. In fact, I'm sure some of the members opposite also have talked to the real estate people, who recently came up with a very good alternative zero-cost-to-government plan for social housing involving individual investment, including also the investment of people coming into the country with the money they bring here to help provide their own housing.
I think this is a very good thing. Again, the amount of our proposed reduction is not great, but it is a start, and I think it is an important one.
So that's a motion to reduce this one by $525,000.
The Chairman: Any debate?
Mr. Bélair: Could I ask Mr. Epp which program he is targeting specifically.
Mr. Epp: I don't know if we have -
Mr. Bélair: Where does the $500,000 come from?
Mr. Epp: It's just a general cut in that particular vote.
Mr. Bélair: Why not the whole $2 billion, then?
Mr. Epp: You do not want to pull it out from under people. There are some projects under way, so I don't think you can do that.
Mr. Bélair: Of course not. I agree with you. But I'm still looking for an answer to where you got your $500,000.
Mr. Epp: There would be places identifiable, such as where projects are not yet under way and where we could cut back and transfer them to the private sector.
Mr. Marchand: I think the government has already exercised poor judgment in cutting some $300 million in social housing. I thought it was one of the worst decisions in the budget that was passed. It wasn't called for, especially when the government hits on poor people. I know you're talking about social housing. It's a fundamental issue, a fundamental demand, so cutting it even more is really slapping people in the face.
Mr. Epp: I knew you'd think that.
Mr. Marchand: I agree with you in principle. The government should ideally reduce its moneys in that sector, but it should at least offer alternatives and not just cut, which is what it's doing now.
Mr. Epp: The private sector would move -
Mr. Marchand: And it's protecting banks at the same time.
Mr. Bryden: I appreciate the symbolic intention of what's proposed by this motion. Certainly in my riding, where there has been a great deal of social housing built in the last ten years, this has caused serious community distortions - the downside to this kind of social housing program.
As a symbolic measure, I find myself supporting the motion.
Mrs. Chamberlain: I couldn't possibly support this motion. I think we're taking figures out of the air and are simply just whacking those kinds of dollars off a budget for a sector of people. I have to find myself agreeing with my Bloc colleague - if you can imagine, Jean-Paul - probably for the first time ever.
I have serious concerns about taking bulk dollars off of budgets, particularly in areas such as this, so fundamentally important to the fabric of our Canadian society. There is absolutely no way I could support that in a bulk fashion like this.
The Chairman: I think Ms Chamberlain has come up with the ideal swap. She can oppose the motion and you can drop sovereignty from your platform.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bélair: Just on a point of information, Mr. Chairman, the cuts that colleague Jean-Paul was talking about a while ago were mostly made during the former administration under the Conservatives.
Thank you.
Mr. Epp: I just want to point out to the members opposite - and perhaps it'll give them a little more freedom to vote for this - that the percentage we are talking about on this budget is .025%. It really is just saying to these people that we should start looking at an alternative way of providing housing for people who cannot afford it for themselves. We are saying that the government's inefficient way is one way we ought to maybe look away from in looking at alternatives.
.1300
The Chairman: Did you do that arithmetic on your trustworthy Texas Instruments calculator?
Mr. Epp: I did it on my trusty Radio Shack calculator.
The Chairman: Okay, let's go to the question. I assume, Mr. Epp, you want a recorded vote.
Mr. Epp: Please do.
Mr. Bellemare: We don't need a recorded vote.
The Chairman: He's already asked for one. You dissent. But we don't have a choice.
Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Now we'll go to vote 40.
Mr. Epp: Are we then going to go back afterwards and vote on these votes as not amended, because we haven't really passed them?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Epp: So you're going to go back afterwards and cover them again.
The Chairman: Yes, as amended, or whatever.
Mr. Epp: As not amended.
The Chairman: Vote 40, Mr. Epp.
Mr. Epp: This one relating to vote 40 is a little more controversial, but I think you will all agree with it. I am proposing that we cut the vote to the post office for at least half of the portion of the post office subsidy for mail sent to MPs.
What I am talking about here is the bulk of mail that we get from lobby groups. They send us tonnes of stuff every day to the precincts here on the Hill. We taxpayers end up paying the bill for that. My argument is simply that the taxpayers pay for the postage, pay for the delivery of the mail that comes to the Hill and away from the Hill anyway, inasmuch as it's government business. But I would like to see the lobby groups and the businesses and those who are sending us their annual reports and all of those things.... It has to be worth between 43¢ and $2 to them if they want it to be worth anything to me.
I'm saying I would like to cut the expenditure of Canada Post here, and our payment to Canada Post, by that amount. I'll just read this and we'll see what the others have to say.
Canadians do not think it is unreasonable for them to spend 43¢ if they want to send a letter to their MP. They do object, however, to spending $11 million of their tax dollars to subsidize the huge lobby groups that send hundreds of pieces of mail a year to MPs. I'm therefore recommending that free postage to MPs be eliminated, and when the impact of this has been assessed, free postage for MPs, that is, outgoing mail, could also be eliminated. We'd have to assess it.
My motion, Mr. Chairman, is that vote 40 of Public Works and Government Services Canada - that's the one that has to do with Canada Post Corporation - be reduced by $5.5 million. That's half of that amount.
The Chairman: I want to make a point of clarification.
Mr. Epp, you're recommending that free postage to MPs be eliminated. Are you suggesting free postage to all who exercise that or just lobby groups, and if just lobby groups, how are they identified?
Mr. Epp: It's the lobby groups that are the big cost here.
The Chairman: I know. How are you going to separate them?
Mr. Epp: We are not. What we're saying is that taxpayers foot the bill anyway, so instead of them footing the bill and including in the bill the payment of all of these other postages for other groups and organizations, let them simply foot the bill for the letters they send, which means they put a stamp on it. So we're saying everybody now sending a letter to a member of Parliament or to a senator -
The Chairman: Including Grandma?
Mr. Epp: Including everybody.
.1305
Now, I know there's a certain degree of political incorrectness in this, because it looks as though we're shutting off communication from people who want to contact their government. However, I contend that virtually no one can't afford 43¢ to send his or her MP a letter.
What we're getting now are massive mailings to all MPs. That just shows our democracy isn't working. I represent Elk Island. My people should send their letters to me and I will carry them forward here. Mr. Bellemare's constituents should write to him, not to me. I don't mind - and I answer the letters I get from Gloucester - but I would just as soon he got them.
The Chairman: I think I understand your answer.
Mrs. Chamberlain: There is some credence to some of what the member says, and already I have initiated a letter to our whip to investigate some of this area. But I think simply to cut, willy-nilly, without having a plan in place, and to say that then we'll assess the impact of that is the wrong way. We're going in the direction opposite to what we should do.
I think right now some investigation is being carried out into some of these things. However, let me put on the record that, regarding outgoing mail, I have real and grave concerns from the point of view that if we cannot communicate with our constituents, for instance - and this should be near and dear to the Reform Party's heart - any changes in Mr. Rock's gun bill that come out.... Surely you want to inform your constituents of changes that are going to, in some way, be coming closer together.
So from the point of view of communications, I have real concerns about starting to put a cap on the outgoing mail. That's absolutely paramount to what we do. People already feel they're too far removed from Ottawa.
I can't support this reversal of process. The intent in some direction here has some validity, but the process is wrong. We must first investigate what we can do in that area and then adjust the budget accordingly.
Mr. Bélair: Mr. Epp, if all organizations were as rich as the National Citizens' Coalition, which you support, then I would really -
Mr. Epp: That's a false assumption. I'm not a member.
The Chairman: Or the National Rifle Association.
Mr. Bélair: Rich organizations have no problem at all. But the principle we should maintain is free and democratic access to your member of Parliament in order not to discriminate against any Canadian in this country.
Mr. Bryden: Regarding Mr. Bélair's remarks, there is a fundamental principle here. While I'm sympathetic regarding the enormous waste that's involved here, it's not a question of just about anyone being able to buy a stamp. It is that we must be accessible to everyone. If there's one person who cannot afford that stamp and wants to write to his MP, then we must have that accessibility.
The difficulty is that it is like free speech. It's either all or nothing. If you're going to look after those one or two people who cannot communicate or who cannot afford the stamp, then I'm afraid you're going to have to put up with the $11-million abuse.
So I can't support the motion, even though I feel much annoyance regarding the groups abusing it.
Mr. Williams: First, the motion is only for incoming mail, in response to the previous member's point. The motion has nothing to do with outgoing mail. That would continue to be absolutely free of charge.
As for incoming mail, here's a simple motion to change an anachronism that has existed for a long time. We have a serious debt and deficit problem in this country. Every Canadian wants the government to address it. They would gladly pay 43¢ to communicate with a member of Parliament. To think that we can't move on a small issue such as this shows there is very little chance that this government is ever going to get the debt and deficit under control, which every Canadian wants them to be.
Mr. Epp: I want to emphasize the fact that we're not making MPs inaccessible. I still have a constituency office. I'm still available by phone. If somebody is really so poor that they can't reach me one way or another -
.1310
Mr. Bélair: [Inaudible - Editor]
Mr. Epp: Yes. But the fact of the matter is, I'm sure 99.999% of the people can afford that 43¢ stamp, because through their taxes, they're paying over $1. There are 13.5 million taxpayers, so each taxpayer is paying $1 for this mail, but a whole bunch of that dollar is going toward hauling these boxes of brochures and things that we get here. So I'm convinced the total cost to the taxpayer will be less.
We also have to look at the environmental factor here. Look at the tonnes and tonnes of trees being used for paper that comes to our offices and we never even look at. There's no way we have time. It goes directly into the bin.
Mr. McKinnon: If we're talking paper, then we should shut off all fax machines.
An hon. member: Telephones - long distance.
Mr. McKinnon: So that doesn't hold true, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bryden: I would just like say to my colleagues opposite that it's not a small issue. It is a fundamental issue to our democratic process. We simply have to have universal access to us as MPs. For me, it is absolutely the core of my very being as a parliamentarian.
The Chairman: We're going to vote now.
Do you want a recorded vote, Mr. Epp?
Mr. Epp: Yes, please.
Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: So now we'll go back -
Mr. Williams: I have a motion on Treasury Board.
The Chairman: Now we're at Treasury Board, vote 1.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, my motion is that vote 1 for the Treasury Board Secretariat, in the amount of $75,190,000, be reduced by $8,374,000, to read $66,816,000.
The rationale covers four items in that particular vote, Mr. Chairman. As you can see, it is a large vote. By and large, the rationale for the motion is that increases in budgetary amounts should be reduced back to 1994-95 levels, and this also goes a further 15% in reductions from last year's expenditures, those of 1994-95. If this government is serious about containing expenditures, I don't see any reason why it should be increasing the budget.
This applies under expenditure management, under regulatory affairs, firstly to reduce it by $400,000 to bring it back to last year's figure, and to then reduce it by a further $127,000, which is a 15% reduction.
Under management salaries, again there is a reduction of $123,000 to bring it back to the expenditures of last year, plus a 15% reduction of $176,000.
Under personnel management, we are suggesting that we oppose the official languages and the employment equity policies. We are therefore recommending that this particular program be cut by 50%, Mr. Chairman.
On grants or special interest groups, there is the Canadian Standards Association. In this year's budget, it has been cut from $15,000 to $7,000. We don't see any reason why they shouldn't go all the way, so we suggest that it be cut all the way down to zero. I expect that will likely be done next year anyway.
Under grants, there is the Conference Board of Canada, which is also a special interest group. Again, it should be cut back to last year's figure, along with a further 15% reduction.
Those are the reasons for the numbers in my motion, Mr. Chairman.
.1315
Mr. Bellemare: Could you ask the question?
The Chairman: We can have the question. Is there any comment?
Mr. Bryden: I have a very quick comment. I point out to my colleague opposite that, as he has said, the grants to special interest groups are likely to be cut down to zero by next year. I have to give some latitude to the various ministers to make the cuts, which I very much agree with, as humanely and as responsibly as possible. That does take a year or so to accomplish. I do expect, though, that the government will follow through in the next year or so.
The Chairman: Are there any further comments?
The question has been called. Do you want a recorded vote?
Mr. Bellemare: I'm against having a recorded vote. I think it's taking too much time. We're going to be here until 3 p.m.
The Chairman: Okay. The clerk will call the names.
Mr. Bellemare: Whoa.
The Chairman: We have no choice, Mr. Bellemare. It's the rules.
The Clerk: When somebody asks for a recorded vote, they're allowed to have a recorded vote.
The Chairman: We don't have a choice, Mr. Bellemare.
Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Williams, on vote 5.
Mr. Williams: Vote 5 is a special vote for the Treasury Board that right now stands at $450 million. I move that vote 5 for the Treasury Board Secretariat in the amount of $450 million be reduced by $200 million to $250 million.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Chairman, this is a contingency fund that the Treasury Board holds. If they dip into this fund, it is usually replenished by a supplementary estimate by charging the funds out to the department that spends the money. The Treasury Board holds this contingency fund for all government. Right now it's $450 million, which is approximately 1% of all the funds expended by government that we vote upon.
Mr. Bellemare: Question, Mr, Chairman.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I feel in the interest of financial constraint and in the interest of good money management that if, in the event of an emergency, this government cannot manage its affairs, if it can't budget within $200 million in any particular area, if it happens to be an emergency, then this Parliament can be recalled. Therefore there is no reason why this government needs a slush fund of $450 million to be approved by parliamentarians so that it can spend the money it feels like on anything it so desires without any prior commitment or justification of any kind by this Parliament.
The Chairman: Is there any debate?
Mr. Bellemare: Question.
The Chairman: Do you want a recorded vote?
Mr. Williams: A recorded vote.
Motion negatived: nays 4; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Now we go to vote 10. I understand you have another amendment, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Vote 10 is reprography, Mr. Chairman. This is a new expenditure that is being brought in by the Treasury Board to in essence cover up royalties and other fees it pays on a group-agreed basis to publishers and so on. We feel that should be cut back by 15% in light of the government's current fiscal problems.
Therefore, I move that vote 10 for the Treasury Board Secretariat in the amount of $1.369 million be reduced by $205,000 to $1.164 million.
I'd like a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.
Motion negatived: nays 4; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Now we'll go back to the top, Canadian Heritage, vote 140.
.1320
Do you want individual recorded votes on all these votes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: No, Mr. Chairman, since we do have the record on the motions we have presented, we'll forego the recorded votes on that.
CANADIAN HERITAGE
- Public Service Commission
Vote 140 agreed to
PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
- Public Works and Supply and Services - Real Property Program
- Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
- Canada Post Corporation
Votes 10, 35 and 40 agreed to on division
TREASURY BOARD
- Central Administration of the Public Service Program
- Government Contingencies and Centrally Financed Programs
Vote 10 - Reprography $1,369,000
Votes 1, 5 and 10 agreed to on division
The Chairman: Since there is no further business, this meeting is adjourned.