Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 13 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 30, 2000
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:35 a.m. to consider the Main Estimates tabled to Parliament for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001.
Senator Lowell Murray (Chairman) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Colleagues, as you all know, the federal government's Main Estimates were tabled in the House of Commons in March. We are very pleased this morning to welcome the President of the Treasury Board, the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, who will make a brief statement, following which we will take questions from senators.
[English]
I understand there will be a cabinet meeting this morning and the minister has a presentation to make there. I have assured her that, as usual, we will try to accommodate that schedule. If she is obliged to leave before our meeting concludes, the officials will stay behind and answer questions of detail.
With us this morning we have our old friend, Mr. Richard J. Neville; and an equally old friend, Mr. Andrew Lieff. These two officials are well-known to the committee and I may say, in the presence of the minister, that this committee has always been very pleased with the cooperation that we have received from your department and, in particular, from these officials and their predecessors. On that pleasant note, I invite you to make your opening statement, minister, copies of which are available.
[Translation]
Ms Lucienne Robillard, PC, MP, President of the Treasury Board: Mr. Chairman, honourable senators, this is my first appearance before your committee since assuming the responsibilities of President of the Treasury Board. Let me begin by saying how pleased my associates and I are to be with you today.
Canadians have a right to expect their government to administer funds judiciously. This principle is one of the pillars of good governance. It is something this government takes very seriously.
That is why we operate in a transparent manner. We strive to focus on results and provide excellent service. And perhaps more importantly, we listen to what Canadians want. This has certainly proved to be a recipe for success.
Economically speaking, we have seen a remarkable turnaround over the last six years. Six years ago, people were skeptical about the future. Many feared that their children faced a future of debt, unemployment and uncertainty. What a difference a few years can make.
Canada's economic growth is now among the strongest of the G-7 countries. The size of our economy will surpass the trillion-dollar mark this year. Canadians have worked hard to make this possible. They have made tough decisions and now our country has a rock solid foundation.
We will continue to move forward to improve the general quality of life in this country. We have a coherent vision for the future. It was outlined in the Speech from the Throne, made concrete in the Budget, and is reflected in the Main Estimates. I welcome this opportunity to speak about the Main Estimates.
The federal budget, the first of the 21st century, adopted the right balance between spending, tax reduction and debt repayment. After years of fiscal restraint we are now in a position to invest, keeping in mind of course our budgetary commitments. However, we will invest strategically and responsibly on health, and on programs that will create opportunities, improve our sense of individual and collective security and promote general prosperity.
Canadians have told us what they want: a prosperous country with safe communities, a healthy environment and opportunities for our children. They also want a country with a soul, a country where people take care of each other and have a profound sense of collective responsibility. These are Canadians' objectives, and they are our objectives.
As you are aware, the Budget forecasts expenditures of $158 billion. But how exactly is this money going to be spent? How are we going to invest in innovation? How are we going to ensure that Canada is competitive in the 21st century?
The various parts of the Main Estimates help address these questions. As you are aware, the Main Estimates themselves consist of several documents. The so-called blue book details the voted and statutory items within departments and agencies and Crown corporations.
The Reports on Plans and Priorities provide detailed qualitative information on spending plans and expected results, while the departmental Performance Reports focus on actual achievements against plans. Together, these reports constitute Part III of the Estimates.
Thanks to Part III of the Estimates, we now have a more disciplined reporting structure in place that starts from key results commitments. We now have Performance Reports that tangibly link results to resources. We now expect each department to be able to explain to Canadians how they are meeting government objectives, and why they are not if that is the case.
This direct link between overall goals and individual departmental initiatives is crucial if Canadians are going to have a clear sense of the government's vision and how their tax dollars are being spent to turn that vision into reality.
As you are aware, the Main Estimates represent the bulk of the government's expenditure plan as set out in the March Budget. The Main Estimates 2000-2001 amount to $156.2 billion, or almost 99 per cent of the total planned spending. This includes the government's request for Parliament's authority to spend both the $50.1 billion for which annual appropriations are required and $106 billion of spending authorized under existing statutes.
Authority to spend the balance will be sought through Supplementary Estimates, or through separate legislation, over the course of the year. You will note that this year's Main Estimates show a growth in total spending of $4.6 billion, or 3 per cent, over last year.
This growth does not signal a move towards carefree spending. That is not the way this government does business. As I have said, this money is being invested strategically in areas that are important to Canadians.
In fact, the total amount of spending as a percentage of GDP has actually decreased over the last four years. It was 17.1 per cent in 1997-98. It is now 15.8 per cent.
The same is true for the amount of funds allocated for program spending. Program spending in 2000-2001 will be $116 billion. This is actually $4 billion lower than in 1993-94.
[English]
There are several reasons why the Main Estimates this year are $4.6 billion higher than they were last year. We have invested an additional $1 billion in the Canada Health and Social Transfer. There is also an increase of $700 million in the area of Old Age Security, guaranteed supplement and spouses allowance. With an aging population, we are seeing an increase in the number of benefit recipients and in the average benefit rate. Canadians told us their priorities: A strong social safety net and reliable and high quality health care. We list them there and, as you can see, we are investing appropriately.
There are also several increases in votes and appropriations. We are investing in areas such as national defence, with an increase of $895 million; and in agricultural assistance, with an increase of $500 million; as well as increasing grants to the registered education savings plans by $359 million. These are all measures designed to address the needs of Canadians and to create opportunities for the future.
Many of the proposed expenditures are designed to maintain and preserve the levels of service that Canadians expect from their government. A number of federal services are addressed by new funding applied in the Estimates. These expenditures will improve, among other things, the safety of this country's public infrastructure. They will augment the RCMP's policing capacity and the safety of food inspection, and will help to speed up the response times and capacity of search and rescue services. These are all things that affect Canadians on a day-to-day basis. In the budget, we commit to improving the quality of life in this country, and I believe we are doing so.
As you are aware, I am tabling the Main Estimates on behalf of the government. As president of the Treasury Board, however, there are certain expenditures that are particularly relevant to my own area of jurisdiction. The Main Estimates for the Treasury Board Secretariat are approximately $1.73 billion. It is useful to distinguish between the expenditure of the secretariat requirements and those requirements related to a series of central votes designed to meet government-wide commitments. These central votes constitute 92 per cent of the Main Estimates for the Treasury Board Secretariat and cover commitments, including the current round of collective bargaining, a provision for contingencies, and expenditures such as public service insurance.
I should note that the $1.73 billion in expenditures is actually a decrease of almost $174.5 million from last year. These savings can be attributed to a change in the funding requirements in a number of different areas. We have seen a decrease of $16.2 million, for example, in our operating expenditures. The bulk of this reduction is due to the near completion of TBS responsibilities for the Y2K initiative.
You will also notice that the Main Estimates show an apparent decrease from last year of approximately $200 million in the central vote for collective agreements. This vote provides funding to departments and agencies for the increased personnel costs of collective agreements that were reached too late in the year to identify and allocate specific amounts to departments in agencies in the Main Estimates. For the 1999 and 2000 fiscal year, the timing of the agreements did not allow us to reflect the new resources in each department's Main Estimates.
As an alternative to preparing a Supplementary Estimates item for each department, the money was placed in a central vote and distributed over the course of the year. I should note that Public Accounts will report on the specific departmental allocations for this vote. The downstream impacts of these agreements are reflected in each department's Main Estimates for 2000-2001.
We are also seeing an increase in certain votes, notably Vote 10, the government-wide initiatives vote. The funding level has increased by $78.6 million over last year. This increase is primarily due to funding for the government on-line initiative. About $80 million is being requested for this initiative. This may seem like a large amount. It is, but it is an investment in our competitiveness, in our prosperity as a country, and in our future. This investment is a reflection of our government's commitment to being known around the world as the government most connected to its citizens.
Other initiatives such as the Service Canada pilot projects, designed to improve access to government, will also require additional funding. In Service Canada's case, the amount is $2.9 million. The increase will be used to complete the Service Canada pilot program initiated in 1999-2000 and is necessary to accommodate adjustments to the project implementation timelines.
When you look at these numbers, and you look at where the money is being spent, it is clear that we are on the right track. We are managing to strike a balance between prudent financial management and strategic investments in innovation, and between our national competitiveness and our quality of life. The budget laid out the course, and the Estimates demonstrate how we are following it.
In closing, I would mention one more document which helps to complete the picture. I am speaking about the government's new management framework. It is outlined in the publication, "Results for Canadians" that I tabled in Parliament on March 30. "Results for Canadians" explains how we are modernizing government and management practices. It outlines our overall management commitments.
As we enter the 21st century, four principles direct all our efforts to improve government management. We are striving to make the Government of Canada more citizen focused. This means listening to what Canadians want and providing the services that they need. We are becoming more results oriented. We are setting goals and improving the way we measure our success and failures. We are committed to a high standard of professional and personal values and ethics and, finally, we are focusing on ensuring responsible spending. Ultimately, we want Canadians to have confidence that the investments we outline in the budget and the Estimates are being administered efficiently and effectively, that we are accountable for results achieved, and that funding is going to programs and services that are truly serving the public good.
These efforts to improve the way that government functions complement our efforts to invest in Canadians and in their future. Put together, they demonstrate how we are moving forward and providing Canadians with the type of government they need and deserve.
We are ready to answer all your questions.
[Translation]
Senator Bolduc: This may be your first appearance before our committee, but I can assure you that the competence of your officials is well known.
[English]
In the overall process in federal spending management, the government produces many documents. First, there is the budget speech by the Minister of Finance and all the related papers explaining it in more detail. Second, there are the Estimates that your board provides, which are divided into Part I, summarizing the key elements of the Main Estimates and the major changes over the year; and Part II, which comprises the bulk of the blue book, which supports the Appropriation Act and details the resources allocated among the departments, various department programs. Third, there is the report on plans and priorities, which indicates department orientations, the goals, and the expected results. Fourth, there are the departmental performance reports for better accountability and accomplishments achieved against the performance expectations and the results commitment.
What puzzles most parliamentarians, I gather, is the fact that the Estimates are tabled at the same time as the budget speech, but they do not contain changes which would be a consequence of the budget speech.
There is always a discrepancy of $3 billion or $4 billion. Would it not be possible, with all the new technology at our disposal, to have the budget speech in the middle of February so that the Estimates could be tabled at the beginning or in the middle of March, incorporating the changes made by the Minister of Finance, at least in Part I or Part II of the Main Estimates? We would then have an up-to-date document. As soon as the Main Estimates are produced, they are out of date in one way. I cannot understand that. I do not expect that all the details will be up to date, that would be difficult, but at least two or three main tables in Parts I and II, if produced say a couple of weeks after the budget, could be incorporated. It would be enough for me if it were simply inserted into the document. Do you not think this would be a great improvement for our poor laymen parliamentarians? We are not specialists, as your people are, in national finance management. This is a broad question of administrative policy but I thought, at the beginning of our meeting with the minister, it would be appropriate to ask that question.
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: That is a very relevant question. There is always a discrepancy between the Budget and the actual spending projections in the Main Estimates. This year, and I do not know if you saw this in this voluminous blue book, we endeavoured in Part I on page 3 to note the adjustment in relation to the Budget tabled by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, for the purposes of reconciling the two documents. If I had more time, I could explain this adjustment at greater length. There is one discrepancy in this table that we could explain to you today in some detail, but I think you are speaking in more general terms about the tabling of documents. That is certainly something we could take a closer look at. Perhaps Mr. Neville would care to add something to this.
The Chairman: What was the page reference you gave?
Ms Robillard: Page 3 in Part I.
Mr. Richard J. Neville, Deputy Comptroller General, Secretariat of the Treasury Board of Canada: As you are aware, the Main Estimates represents the government's overall spending plan as set out in the February Budget. The discrepancy in the figures can be explained as follows: expenditures listed in the 1999-2000 Estimates which, for accounting purposes, are spelled out in federal budgets, are debited for previous years when the government actually follows through on its budgetary commitments. Understandably, provision is made in the Budget for limited reserves, but these amounts do not appear in the Estimates because they are associated with projects that have not been developed sufficiently to be tabled to Parliament. Provision must be made for these amounts. The Budget also makes provision for other reserves to cover unexpected items such as reviewing spending projections for legislative programs. Lastly, spending authorizations granted by Parliament are not fully used each year. It is a virtual certainty that a portion of the moneys authorized will not be spent. This accounts for the discrepancies between the Main Estimates and the February Budget.
[English]
Senator Bolduc: The departmental performance report is a title which puzzles many parliamentarians because you aim, in fact, at two different objectives. On the one hand, you try to measure accomplishments achieved against results and commitments of a year ago. On the other hand, you try to evaluate the achieved performance against the expectations of a year ago.
Do you not think the two objectives should be more clearly stated in your document on plans and priorities and that the so-called "performance report" should be undertaken independently by someone outside of the ministry, like the Auditor General or an outside, independent reviewer or a committee of the house or, preferably, a committee of the Senate itself? Otherwise, it looks to me, as an old civil servant, like an exercise in self-glorification.
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: First of all, let me say that we have improved the way we report to Parliament. However, we concur that there is room for further improvement. At present, a sub-committee is at work developing ways of improving how departments report to Parliament. The critical issue here, one that represents a shift in culture in the federal public service, is our current results-oriented approach. Can you identify the results you want to achieve? And, at year's end, can you report on your objectives? This results-oriented approach is fairly new in the federal public service and it is normal for it to take a few years to see positive results.
The first report focuses on objectives, and the second, on performance. On the one hand, you have spending plans and expected results, and on the other hand, performance reports that measure achievements against these plans. Can you tell us why you achieved or did not achieve the expected results? Performance could be improved through additional financial information. This brings me to the current financial information strategy being implemented. Let me say a few words to you about this strategy.
As you undoubtedly know, the government is moving toward accrual accounting. This means that parliamentarians will have access to more financial and non-financial information and will be in a better position to question the government or the department concerned.
Our timeline for implementing the financial information strategy is the year 2001. It will certainly prove useful in painting a clear picture of the situation in each department. Perhaps then we will see a noticeable improvement in the reports tabled to Parliament.
[English]
Senator Bolduc: Over the years, we are committing more and more money to Canada's foreign affairs program, which is administered by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, or by the Department of National Defence, or by the Department of Foreign Affairs, or by the Department of International Trade, or by CIDA or, as a matter of fact, by the Department of Finance.
We have a program to reduce or annihilate the debt of poor countries. We also have expenditures related to peacemaking -- and sometimes peacemaking is like war. We also have expenditures related to international development, as well as export development contributions.
Some of those commitments are, according to treaties, agreed upon by the federal government. As a parliamentarian, I cannot be but puzzled by the wide margin of discretion in favour of the executive in our parliamentary process. For example, we went to war in the Gulf. I do not think the money for that participation was voted. In my opinion, there is something wrong in that.
It seems to me that, in the democratic world of the 21st century, the time has come for Parliament to put some, not "barriers," but des balese for government action, so that we are not confronted with wild moves made by people who may be of goodwill but wrongly oriented. Do you share that perspective at the Treasury Board in connection with our international matters?
I know the executive has a lot of power, and I know about the Constitution and all that, but we are in the world of today, not 18th century England. We have a Parliamentary system where we must have, in my opinion, some guidance as to government legislation. I know you must have discretion, but it should be within certain limits. Do you not think that the Treasury Board should have a good dialogue with all the ministries I mentioned, Defence, Foreign Affairs, CIDA, Immigration and some others, on the criteria for the expenditures? It seems to me that is very important, otherwise your discretion is unlimited, and I do not think that is acceptable in the world of today. I know that you are in government, and you want some flexibility. I recognize that Foreign Affairs is a difficult area in that, often there are conflicts and difficult situations with which you must deal. However, without criteria to guide the actions of people, bad expenditures will be made.
[Translation]
Ms Robillard: Your concern is that the government sometimes reviews files in a rather horizontal fashion. You mentioned that several departments were involved in activities on the international front. It is important to look at how departments act internationally, how their actions and objectives can complement one another as part of a clear vision.
Whether in cabinet, in cabinet committees on in Treasury Board, government programs are more global and horizontal in nature and involve a number of departments.
We already engage in the kind of dialogue you want with the various departments involved in these programs, which is not to say that there is no room for improvement. We try to have a joint vision and to engage in cohesive operations, working within existing financial parameters.
Senator Bolduc: What strikes me is that generally speaking, in other departments, with the possible exception of Human Resources Development which seems to be having problems, there are program standards and rules in place. A number of well-known written rules must be adhered to.
Is there some way of establishing spending criteria in the field of foreign affairs? CIDA found itself with its back against the wall when criteria were demanded. They claimed that they provided financial assistance to the poorest foreign nations. Poverty was therefore a criteria. Several years later, it was discovered that CIDA provided funds to Tunisia, which is not considered a poor country.
Out of a total of 185 countries, 40 are considered poor. Everyone knows which countries are on this list and yet, funding manages to find its way elsewhere. The government operates according to certain guidelines, even in the field of foreign affairs. Obviously, a certain amount of room to maneuver is important, but nevertheless, tighter administrative standards should be in place.
Ms Robillard: Each department that operates a grants or contributions program must submit its procedural requirements to Treasury Board. You argue that these requirements should be reviewed further to ensure compliance. My comment also applies to the Department of Human Resources Development.
I can assure you that with the help of a revised grants and contributions policy, Treasury Board intends to be even more demanding when it comes to having different departments report on the procedural requirements of their programs.
Having said this, I think there will always be a certain amount of room to maneuver on the international scene when global crises erupt, such as the one in Kosovo.
Senator Bolduc: Money was spent before the budget was approved.
Ms Robillard: The crisis erupted and we had to move quickly to take in refugees. Expenditures were incurred. Obviously, the parliamentary cycle was not adjusted to the crisis we were contending with. I do not think Canadians hold this against us. When an international crisis erupts, Canada is always ready to provide assistance. Of course, there is certainly room for improvement.
Senator Bolduc: We are not always in crisis mode.
Ms Robillard: No.
Senator Bolduc: Certain departments would do well to follow the lead of other departments.
[English]
Senator Finestone: Madam minister, I want to follow up on some questions raised by Senator Bolduc, but I would first like to tell you how pleased I am, from a woman's perspective, to see you in this role. Certainly, the women in caucus were very pleased when you settled the pay equity case. I feel that we have someone who understands the importance of the areas to which I should like to address my questions.
As I look at what is happening internationally, being extremely interested and involved in the international world myself, I believe that Canada is doing an extraordinary job and has a superb reputation internationally. That is not my view, though, of what Canada spends and how it spends it with respect to overseas development funds, ODA, when I see that we have reduced IDRC in the grants that we have given them and when I look at what we have decided to do with the World Banks on heavily indebted poor country's trust funds and the International Monetary Fund.
With respect to international agreements, human rights, peacekeeping, and anti-personnel land mines, how do we keep our commitments in balance, given the new perspective and the new reporting that you provide to us? We must understand the inter-relationship of all these international commitments and yet, at the same time, there are desperately needy countries such Mongolia, Angola, and Myanmar that require our assistance. International organizations are present in certain countries, but there are places in this world that are in dreadful shape that call and ask for help, but we do not have the means to assist them.
I agree with Senator Bolduc's observation about the role of the legislator or the parliamentarian and their relationship to the executive. The impact on civil society and NGOs is a serious concern and we simply have to look at what happened in Seattle to realize how world trade can be affected. There is an important link between international trade, international monetary affairs, the World Bank and its monetary fund, and overseas development which is key to a more stable world. Legislators should have the opportunity to examine and vote on the international initiatives that we take.
I acknowledge, however, that your supervision of the distribution of funds based on criteria and on goals is also important.
My second area of concern is the Public Service Commission adaptation of your objectives for the appointment of a highly competent, non-partisan professional public service on the basis of merit, and a representative public service workforce which you will arrive at through development and continuous learning, where the public servant is an independent champion and a steward of the principles of a professional public service in the public interest.
In that regard, two areas concern me: one, the representation of women and minorities, particularly in Quebec where minorities and the anglophone population are underrepresented in an absolutely unacceptable percentage both by the Quebec civil service as well as the federal civil service; and two, our concept of employment equity and the values which you have enunciated. I presume those are found in the document, "Results for Canadians" that you tabled, and which I have not yet seen, so I cannot comment on it.
Three major categories of people have never reached the potential of their personal abilities. I am referring to people who are disabled, who should be hired and promoted based on their ability, not their disability. I am also referring to women who are undervalued, have, perhaps, less experience, and are having difficulty. The glass ceiling is not being cracked quickly enough. As well, minorities, whether visible minorities or others, are not moving up in the ladder of leadership as quickly as they should. Aboriginals, blacks, Chinese and Japanese people have been in this country since its beginning. They are part of the beauty and the value that we say is the construct of Canada. We are not sharing fairly.
The last point I should like to ask you about is the need for whistle-blowing legislation. An important private member's bill was introduced in the Senate that deals with the protection of privacy rights and the protection of the individual within a society. In a sense, there is an obligation to individuals in the workforce who see malfeasance to have a way to respond to that, to bring it to the attention of the government, and not suffer retribution as a result. Those are important undertakings.
Perhaps one area of concern that can only be answered at the political level right now is the whistle-blowing question, and another area would be related to women and minorities, particularly in Quebec, with respect to general hiring practices based on employment equity, not affirmative action. Would you care to answer my questions on whistle-blowing and affirmative action equity principles?
Ms Robillard: We have taken note of your remarks on the international scene and we will look at that.
Employment equity is also a real concern for our department. As you know, we must follow that issue closely. Our objective, and it is an old one, is to have a public service which is representative of our society. We have an equitable participation of men and women, but we must also consider the positions held by those women in the organization. My last annual report on equity which I tabled in the House indicates some improvement in that women are moving to manager roles in our system. That is a positive step. I have less concern on that side.
On the side of disabled people, another group which was targeted in the employment equity legislation, we have also made some progress, although not enough. Where we need to make the most progress is among our minority groups in our society.
I wish to remind you that the former president of Treasury Board, Marcel Massé, in response to that problem, appointed an independent group last year, under the responsibility of Mr. Perinbam, to look at the situation and to come forward with a plan of action. It is not yet another report that will be put aside and take years to implement.
Mr. Perinbam and his group tabled their report three weeks ago. I now have a recommendation and a plan of action in order to make some progress in that situation. Our department is looking at it right now, and before the end of this session I believe I will be able to respond publicly regarding that plan of action. I invite your comments about the plan of action which was proposed by that independent group.There are former civil servants in that group, as well as private-sector people. We must admit that some private-sector businesses, such as the banks and other sectors, are ahead of the government on that. We now have a recommendation before us for our consideration. I am quite pleased by the recommendations that are made, and I believe we will be able to make some progress on that side.
Senator Finestone: Once you have looked at an independent report on official languages, you might also consider an important report that looked at the hiring of minorities and French-speaking people across Canada. Are you applying those findings as well? Two important reports -- the names of which escape me -- were prepared and tabled. They dealt with the application of the official language policy across Canada, including the application of a fairness principle in hiring and in the advancement of people in Calgary, Vancouver or Halifax, as well as those who are a minority in Quebec.
Ms Robillard: Yes.
Senator Finestone: You are looking at the fairness principle, you are looking at the results-oriented principles. Do you have concrete results?
Ms Robillard: Yes. We have official language legislation and many reports have been tabled, particularly by our new commissioner who is a very dynamic woman. She wants to advance in this regard, and we support her.
As to minorities, if you have any ideas about the recommendation I have in front of me right now, I would welcome them.
As to whistle-blowing legislation, I know that some of my officials appeared before one of the committees of the Senate in that regard. I do not remember which one.
The Chairman: It was this committee.
Ms Robillard: I do not know, at this stage, if legislation is the right tool. We are considering that. However, it is clear to me that, on the side of public policy, civil servants who work for the public service and who see some problems in their area should be able to point out these problems without that action having any negative impact on them from the organization.
We are carefully considering the policy direction that we should follow on that question.
Senator Finestone: I can tell you, Madam Minister, that the presentation by the staff from Treasury Board who spoke to us was quite disappointing. They were still at the point of defining values, and they were having a discussion about how to describe what I thought was quite fundamental. I have heard you speak to these values. I have spoken to these values, and I have heard many of my colleagues around this table speak to them.
I could not believe my ears when I heard the presentation of the officials from your department. I know you have many things to do, minister, but I will send you a couple of excerpts from that presentation. I think you will see that it is time for you to perhaps give them a little nudge forward.
Ms Robillard: We are looking at the current system. There are many activities around what we call ethics and values.
Senator Finestone: That is the point, the witnesses were unable to define ethics and values.
Ms Robillard: The values that we want to promote in the document I tabled are very clear. Those are the values that we want to promote in the public service, and all our actions should be based on promoting those values in the public service. Having said that, the entire question is presently under examination by the Treasury Board.
Senator Finestone: Mr. Chairman, my next question relates to the burning issue of gender analysis structure. Will you permit that question or should I save it for the second round?
The Chairman: Perhaps you should return to that on the second round. It may be best put to the officials. I want to accommodate those senators who have questions for the minister herself.
[Translation]
Senator Bolduc: This committee heard testimony from representatives of your department regarding this matter and I have to say that I was disappointed.
[English]
They talk about the fact that we have to put that in the larger context of ethics. We all know that. We have been doing that since 1970. It is not a new affair.
We have a fairly concrete proposal to better the civil service. I can understand the views from the management point of view and even probably from the Treasury Board point of view. It is embarrassing to say "yes" to that, because civil servants have a tendency to protect themselves, and particularly management. However, I think we have to go through it.
The Chairman: Let us just leave it at that.
Senator Bolduc: I am not alone in that feeling.
Ms Robillard: Perhaps we will have an opportunity to discuss that question at another time. However, I must say that I reacted in a certain way; I was quite surprised.
Are we obliged to have legislation in this country, for the Public Service of Canada, to protect the employees who are performing their duties? I am shocked that we are obliged to have such legislation. That should be part of management policy in all organizations. Do you understand what I mean? Perhaps we can have further discussion on that.
Senator Stratton: Mr. Chairman, I should like to talk about money, if I could, and the Estimates, just for a change. It is rather important because we are spending Canadian tax dollars here.
On page three of your presentation, in the third sentence, you referred to the fact that the total amount of spending as a percentage of GDP has actually decreased over the last four years. It was 17.1 per cent in 1997-98; it is now 15.8 per cent. In the fourth sentence you state that the same was true for the amount of funds allocated for program spending. Program spending in 2000-01 will be $116 billion. This is actually $4 billion lower than in 1993-94.
With respect to those two statements, and that is bragging on the part of government, and government should do that, and I congratulate you for doing that. However, what I think the public would be interested in, with respect to 1993-94, is how much has government revenue grown in terms of real dollars, and as a percentage since 1993-94, and how much has government spending been reduced since 1993-94 in terms of real dollars? I know Mr. Neville is looking at me. I know you cannot answer that necessarily right away, but I would like an answer eventually.
Mr. Neville: In all fairness, there has been an increase in revenues as a percentage of GDP. Before I give you the answer that I think you are looking for, I would like to ensure that we clear that number with all parties and return to you with a more precise percentage. I have an inkling as to what it is, and you are probably thinking along the same lines, but I would like to get the right numbers and put those before the committee.
Senator Stratton: If I could get real dollars and a percentage, I would appreciate that very much.
Mr. Neville: You are looking for the period from 1993-94, to 2000-2001; is that correct?
Senator Stratton: Yes, up to the current estimates.
The interest on the debt is $42 billion. Again, it is down from $42.5, for which I congratulate you. Our concern is that those interest rates are now climbing and and they are expected to continue to escalate, with increased pressures on inflation. The rates are climbing in the United States and, of course, so far, we have gone lock step with them. We do not know if we will continue to do that.
First, what assumptions did you use regarding the interest rate levels with respect to these Estimates? Second, do you still remain confident about those assumptions?
Mr. Neville: There are several components to that answer. I will start with the 1999-2000 Main Estimates to show you how we arrived at the 2000-2001 Main Estimates. For the 1999-2000 Main Estimates, we expected public debt to be $42.5 billion. The net debt at that point was $579.7 billion. In terms of assumptions, we took the three-month treasury bills at 5.1 per cent, and we took the ten-year bond percentage which averaged 5.6 per cent, and that is how we arrived at the $42.5 billion.
For the year 2000-20001 Main Estimates, we anticipate that it will be $42 billion. Bear in mind the reason is that the net debt has decreased from $579.7 billion to $570.8 billion. Thus, there has been a decrease in the net debt. One would expect right off the bat that there should be a decrease in the public debt interest charge. However, when one looks at the actual percentages, again using the treasury bills, the three-month average is 5.2 per cent. That is a little higher than the 5.1 per cent previously used, and for the ten-year bond there has been quite an increase. That is 6.2 per cent for the year 2000-2001, which is higher than the 5.6 per cent. Therefore, one will see that, though there is a decrease in the net debt and an increase in the interest rates, that leaves us with an overall decrease of $500 million.
It is important to know that you should also factor in the lower debt, the $2.9 billion budget surplus realized in 1998-99. It is also important to note that the stock of that is lower because the contingency reserve is now applied to the debt reduction.
You also asked for some rationale as to the assumptions. While most economists now expect interest rates to be higher than at the time of the 2000-2001 Estimates, prudent debt management has reduced the impact of increases in interest rates and the increased amounts would be met from the provisions built into the budget for economic prudence and for contingencies.
You are aware that we have built in a number of components. For 2000-2001, there is $4 million, and for 2001-2002 there is $5 billion. We have already built in some reserves just in case interest rates increase more than was originally planned.
Senator Banks: Minister, I do not expect you to have the answer to either of my questions today, but I would very much like you to answer them later.
With regard to the Agriculture Income Disaster Assistance program, producers who sell their own products are treated differently from producers who are under contract to processors, in that producers who are under contract to processors are not eligible for grants under AIDA. Is that a matter of policy or is that a matter of law?
My second question is a revenue question as opposed to an expenditure question and has to do with the forthcoming option of space on the spectrum for wireless communication. There is an opportunity in that option for the Government of Canada to obtain considerable revenues, if the option is widely open. If the bidders, particularly Telus and Bell, are allowed into that option with other players, the Government of Canada would be a beneficiary of the proceeds of that option.
If they are not, the state of convergence in that field of communications would suggest that either or both of Telus or Bell will have to make acquisitions in order to become national players, and the beneficiaries of their expenditures would be the shareholders of existing companies such as Clearnet, for example, rather than the Government of Canada.
What is the government's policy with regard to a restriction on the number of people who are eligible to bid in that forthcoming auction? The question is related strictly to the revenues that might be derived therefrom.
I would appreciate answers to those questions later.
Ms Robillard: Yes, we will come back to you on those very specific questions.
The Chairman: You will find, Senator Banks, that the Treasury Board people are very prompt and thorough. When they commit themselves to sending us information, we get it very quickly and it is complete.
Senator Finestone: On page 34 of "Results for Canadians" it states:
Demographic analyses of the Public Service indicate the likelihood of a large number of retirements over the next five to ten years. Accordingly, the management board will work with departments, agencies, the Public Service Commission, the Privy Council Office and others to implement recruitment, retention, learning and career development strategies. Particular emphasis will be placed on critical skill areas and on improving the representation of employment equity groups.
I appreciate that you have this task force and this report, as well as the report from official languages.
With regard to employment equity groups, I am concerned about Canada's geographic distribution. What are we going to do about the under-representation in Quebec of employment equity groups, particularly aboriginal, visible minorities, women, and anglophones?
Ms Robillard: I do not have before me the figures for aboriginals in Quebec, in particular. I remember discussing with the department that we have a special challenge for the anglophone community in our public service. Compared to the public service of Quebec, we are far better, but we cannot say that we have no problem. However, since I do not know the figures for aboriginals in Quebec, I will not comment on that, although I know that, generally speaking, across the country the percentage is quite good for aboriginals in the public service.
Geographic distribution is very important. Even for minorities this is a big problem because we have many civil servants in the national capital region while the visible minorities are concentrated in the largest cities in this country, Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. That is a big challenge.
Currently, when the Public Service Commission advertises a job it can limit, geographically, who may apply for it. One of the recommendations of the task force is to open that up more so that anyone who is willing to come to work in the national capital region would be allowed to apply. If successful, they would be obliged to move, but that is another issue.
We are working with the Public Service Commission on how we can implement some of these recommendations in order to better reflect that reality.
Senator Finestone: Are you looking as well at the blockage to job satisfaction and job fulfilment? This is a country of immigrants. People who come to this country come with many skills. They come with degrees in psychology, sociology and medicine, and they are blocked at the corporate level by the associations of accountants, doctors, and other associations. In order to be fair, is there not some way by which we can allow them to practice in Canada in order to earn a living other than by driving taxis?
The other day when took a taxi from the airport I learned that my driver was a doctor. What will he do for the rest of his life? I know that he came here prepared to sacrifice for his children and his grandchildren, but that is not fair.
The Chairman: What is not fair?
Senator Finestone: It is not fair that he cannot practice medicine here. He comes from India, although he did his internship in London, England. However he is not allowed to practice medicine here. That is absolutely ridiculous.
Treasury Board talks about this problem in this report. What can you do about that? What can all the ministers together do about it? You are elected members just as I am -- or I was.
The Chairman: Excuse me, minister. In the case of doctors -- and there are other professions, as we have heard before -- the argument, surely, is with the professional associations who have some kind of monopoly powers at the governmental level with the provinces, is it not?
Senator Finestone: The public service does hire in the public domain.
The Chairman: Do you think the federal government should hire them?
Senator Finestone: Yes, not necessarily those people, but just generally. We just completed a tour of Nunavut. That area is very short of medical and nursing staff. Who hires those people? It is the civil servants in the federal government. Please look into it.
Ms Robillard: If I may, Mr. Chairman, as a former minister of immigration, I am quite aware of the problem of how to recognize the education of our new immigrants to our country. As you said, all the professional groups are under the responsibility of the provinces, so that is more complicated. I can tell you that there is a working group with the provinces to try to find a solution to that, and that involves the Immigration Minister and the Human Resources Minister.
Having said that, the question of who is allowed to practise medicine is a more complicated one because sometimes, when an immigrant applies to come to Canada, he is told that he will be unable to exercise his profession in this country, and he is asked if he would be prepared to do something else. Often a doctor, who has a lot of education, can do something else such as research, and he will sign a form agreeing to that. However, once in the country, he may want to practise as a doctor, and that is another issue. This is an issue for the Immigration Minister, and she is working on it with the provinces.
On the side of the public service, as you know, in order to become a public servant, you first must be a Canadian citizen. We do not have those kinds of problems if people who are qualified apply and are recruited by the Public Service Commission.
Senator Bolduc: That is, if they do not practice. We had that problem also.
Ms Robillard: When we looked at the question of how to increase the percentage of minorities in our public service, we discovered that there are many scientific people in our public service from minority groups.
Senator Banks: I know this is properly a question for the Minister of Immigration, and I know that the regulation of professional societies is a provincial responsibility, but I would pose this question to you as a former minister of immigration. When a doctor comes from a country whose level of medical training is not recognized by our professional associations to be of a sufficiently high degree that we will license the doctor to practise in this country, would it not be efficient use of the human resource in this country to take advantage of whatever training that doctor has and to have a federally funded program to top up his training? In that way we could take advantage of their training. Would that not be an efficient use of human resources rather than having doctors and psychologists driving taxis or cleaning rinks?
Ms Robillard: That question should be addressed to the Immigration Minister, and I am sure that she has been working on it now for many months. I would prefer, if it is possible, if you would address the question to the minister.
Senator Bolduc: On page 1-3 of your expenditure plan of $158 billion, there is an expression: "Other Transfers and Subsidies" for $17.9 billion. It is a huge amount. Could the officials or you, minister, provide a brief overview of these transfers? This is outside debt services, elderly benefits, and so on. Who are the major beneficiaries, and what government departments and organizations are involved?
Mr. Andrew M. Lieff, Senior Director, Expenditure Operations and Estimates Division, Planning, Performance and Reporting Sector, Treasury Board of Canada: Senator Bolduc, these are the grants and contributions that are made by each department and agency across the government, excluding the major transfers for Employment Insurance and Old Age Security, and the transfers to the provinces, such as equalization and that kind of thing. They are basically all the grants and contributions programs of the government.
As you point out, they have increased, in the Estimates, from the previous year. I could give you a number of the changes. One of the largest increases is $500 million for agricultural grants and contributions, primarily related to the AIDA program.
Senator Bolduc: The $18 billion is a huge amount. Could you give us just the largest components of that? For example, you mentioned $500 million for agriculture. I would like an overview of the major grants.
Mr. Lieff: If you will bear with me for one moment, I will try to provide it.
The Chairman: While Mr. Lieff is doing his research, could I interrupt for a moment, Senator Bolduc?
Senator Bolduc: Yes.
The Chairman: The minister will be leaving shortly, and I would like to have Senator Cools put her question.
Senator Cools: First, I want to let the minister know that we have many healthy and excellent exchanges with her staff, so we are quite used to them.
On the point that Senator Banks raised, what I wanted to do was just to reinforce the need for study in that area. The concept that the professions are self-regulating is a healthy concept and a good concept, and it is one that should be maintained and sustained in our community. However, at some point, it becomes important for Parliament to begin to study what is happening on the ground because, minister, since you are a former minister of immigration, you would know that a lot of lawyers from other countries are coming to Canada and are becoming paralegals because they can not enter the profession. What you end up with, really, is a very stratified situation such as the one that is developing between the paralegals and the professionals, which is also fortified by other issues of social importance, such as race and colour and so on.
At some point in time, it becomes important for a Senate committee or a committee of Parliament to begin to examine the whole notion as to what self-regulation by professionals really means. For example, with respect to lawyers, one could hardly argue any longer that individual lawyers, or individual ministers of justice, as it used to be, are really not professionals, that they are really providing public service.
If one looks at how the practice of law has developed in this country, one sees a movement towards conglomerates. One is clearly seeing the massive escalation of the practice of law as commerce, the commercialization of law, so to speak.
At some point in time, some of our institutions should look at these concepts and see how they are operating on the ground. I know that, around Toronto, there are enormous problems with the paralegals. Ordinary citizens believe they are getting good service but they really do not know. They have no tools by which to judge the quality of service. For some of these immigrants, it is a very painful process. They spend their few dollars only to discover that they still cannot get their brother or sister to come over from the old country.
Ms Robillard: This question is being examined right now by the Department of Immigration and by the minister. Consultants in immigration have no outside regulation or self-regulation in this country. Some consultants are very good, but when a client suffers from poor quality service, where do they turn? There is no professional group or organization to help. That is a real problem. I do not know what stage the study is at now, but I do know they are working on a self-regulatory body.
The Chairman: Unlike the doctors and the lawyers, though, do you take the position that this is a matter which is within our jurisdiction and, if we are not satisfied with the self-regulation, the federal government could move in?
Ms Robillard: That is a good question, Mr. Chairman. The question of jurisdiction is very important. There was discussion with the provinces, but there was no appetite on the part of the provinces to regulate those consultants. Perhaps the provinces were ready to accept new legislation. You should look at the legislation which is to be tabled by the minister. There may be a possibility of that contained in that bill.
Senator Cools: That is a good point. If you drive around any large city like Toronto, every three or four doors I see huge signs saying: "Bring your mother. Bring your father. Immigration consultants. Reasonable fees."
The Chairman: We return now to Senator Bolduc's question. Mr. Lieff and Mr. Neville have completed their research.
Mr. Lieff: Senator Bolduc, I draw your attention to page 1-23 which is entitled "Budgetary Main Estimates, Standard Object of Expenditure." Column 10 shows transfer payments which would be grants and contributions.
Senator Bolduc: Yes, it would be under the various departments.
Mr. Lieff: That amount is the total, including the very large transfers. From this table, if you subtract the major transfers, you will get a good sense of the distribution.
I would draw your attention to a number of the largest items. On page 1-25, the largest grant and contribution program out of the $19 billion is $4.3 billion for the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. Most of the programming for that department is delivered through that mechanism.
The next largest item is to cover veterans' pensions. There is a contribution in the Department of Veterans Affairs of $1.4 billion primarily for their pensions.
In addition, in the Department of Finance we have transfers to the provinces and territorial governments of about $1.5 billion. Most of the other major transfers are statutory, whereas this one is voted annually.
In the Department of Health, approximately $900 million in expenditures is delivered using this kind of vehicle.
As well, virtually all of CIDA's programming is delivered by grants and contributions. That is about $1.7 billion annually.
Senator Bolduc: What about the Department of Industry?
Mr. Lieff: The Department of Industry also has a large amount. The department itself has $630 million, and then there are various regional agencies, as you can see, which have specific amounts.
The Chairman: Senator Finestone asked me to raise with you the question of the report of the task force on minorities which you had mentioned. It is not clear to me whether this may become a public document.
Ms Robillard: It is a public document.
The Chairman: Senator Finestone requested that you file it with the clerk.
Ms Robillard: Yes, I will.
The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Minister and officials.
Tomorrow there will be a vote at 5:30 in the Senate. Supper will be served here at 5:45. At 6:15 we will hear the president of CIDA.
The committee adjourned.