[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Monday, May 15, 1995
.1532 
[English]
The Chair: The committee is continuing its reference into Bill C-76. We have before us this afternoon the President of the Treasury Board, the Hon. Art Eggleton.
Mr. Eggleton, would you be good enough to introduce those who are with you. We look forward to your brief presentation and questions.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board): Thank you very much,Mr. Chairman.
I have two Bobs on either side of me, or Roberts if you like: Bob Giroux, who is the Secretary of the Treasury Board; and Bob Emond, who is the Acting Deputy Secretary from the Human Resources Branch.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to be with you today to discuss Bill C-76.
[English]
My remarks will focus on the portion of the bill that deals with measures affecting the Public Service of Canada. The February budget announced major reductions in government expenditures. These reductions were based on an extensive department-by-department program review that addressed some very fundamental questions: what business should the federal government be in; what services and programs are no longer required; what programs would be better delivered by other levels of government or the private sector; what programs would benefit from internal changes or restructuring in order to be more effective and to reduce costs.
The purpose of program review was to find ways to reduce expenditures and thus to improve the economic and fiscal situation of the country. It resulted in a reduction of 45,000 public service positions. What is particularly important to note is that the reduction of public service positions was not an objective of the program review exercise, but it was instead a consequence of it. It is this fact that explains the nature of the measures we are proposing and the way we would want to implement it.
After the review it was clear that some organizations would be undergoing very marked reductions during the next three years. Natural attrition and the programs currently in place to deal with moderate downsizing would be inadequate to deal with a change of this magnitude. Thus, the provisions in the proposed legislation would provide authority to deal with the planned reductions and, in our view, strike a balance between helping departments making the transition to a smaller public service on the one hand, and on the other hand, assisting employees who will be most affected by these reductions.
.1535
I will describe the measures that we are proposing very briefly. I understand that my officials have already given some briefings, and my colleagues and I will, of course, answer any questions you might have.
The measures are as follows. First is an early retirement incentive program, which would be available to any surplus employee who meets the age and service criteria in organizations for which the Treasury Board is deemed to be the official employer. Other federal employers who come under the Public Service Superannuation Act and who face considerable downsizing as a result of the program review would be considered for inclusion in this program.
I should point out that this program is not dealt with in Bill C-76 but, rather, has been introduced through regulations made under the pension legislation, and that is currently in effect.
Second is an early departure incentive program. This program would be available to surplus employees in organizations designated as ``most affected''. Departments and agencies may also be designated ``most affected'', and this is how they qualify: if they are unable to manage job reductions through normal attrition, existing workforce adjustment measures and other management tools; if reductions are particularly heavy in a region or an occupational category; if the reductions must be made quickly; or, if the organization's mandate is changing so broadly that the mix of employee skills must also change significantly.
The early retirement and the early departure incentives, the ERI-EDI programs, as they are known, will be available and are proposed for a three-year period. The early departure incentive program would only be available to surplus employees once Bill C-76 received royal assent.
Third, we are also proposing that in most affected organizations the reasonable job offer guarantee of the workforce adjustment directive be suspended for the three-year period. In these organizations, surplus employees who would not take either the ERI or the EDI program would be given a six-month paid surplus period followed by a twelve-month unpaid surplus period. The unpaid surplus period recognizes the fact that we cannot continue to pay employees if there is no work for them, but we would allow them to retain priority for reappointment within the public service.
If we cannot find a reasonable job placement for these employees during the total eighteen-month surplus period, they would then be laid off. I want to stress that throughout this period we would continue to make every effort to find alternate employment for surplus employees to minimize the number who would actually get to that lay-off point.
Four, we are proposing too that the workforce adjustment directive, with its reasonable job offer guarantee, continue in force in other organizations that have not been designated as most affected, but that it be modified. Three modifications we propose are:
- the fifteen-week separation benefit be suspended; we don't feel that is a reasonable cost to absorb, given the other costs involved in other parts of the package;
- the geographic area of a job offer be expanded in privatization and contracting-out situations; and
- departments and agencies be allowed to proceed with a contract before the status of all surplus employees is resolved.
Five, we propose that changes to compensation plans be negotiated, provided there would be no increase in costs to an employer.
Six, another proposal is that Treasury Board be authorized to introduce two voluntary leave without pay programs: pre-retirement transition leave and leave with income averaging.
These two new leaves will help employees and benefit the government. Employees will be better able to balance their personal and work responsibilities. At the same time, it will help the government keep as many people working as possible and, at the same time, reduce its salary budget.
Seven, we propose that the Financial Administration Act and the Public Service Employment Act be changed to provide additional flexibility in placing surplus employees and to provide for the efficient transfer of employees, along with their functions, within the public service.
.1540
I would like to stress that we are proposing these measures under Bill C-76 because, in our view, they are essential in carrying out the program review decisions during the next three years, and extensive negotiation with the public service bargaining agents in this case was not successful. These measures are, in fact, similar to those we proposed to the bargaining agents. There are, however, some differences.
As mentioned earlier, we propose to eliminate the fifteen-week separation benefit that is currently available to pensionable employees. Given the new benefits that would be available to these employees through the ERI and EDI programs, we feel the fifteen-week separation benefit can no longer be justified as a cost to the government.
As I mentioned earlier, we propose to expand the geographic limit for offers of appointment in privatization and contracting-out situations. The previous sixteen-kilometre limit would be expanded to anywhere in the same province or territory or up to 40 kilometres when outside of the province.
Finally, as I also mentioned earlier, we are proposing that changes to compensation plans be negotiated providing such changes are cost-neutral. We'd be happy to sit down and talk with the bargaining agents in that context.
Additionally, under the EDI program the maximum payment for employees entitled to an immediate pension annuity would be somewhat less than what was originally proposed. For other employees the maximum payments would remain the same.
We will continue to keep open the lines of communication with the bargaining agents. We are working with them to establish joint adjustment committees throughout the country with membership from both management and unions. The primary focus of these committees will be assisting public service employees who are affected by the changes to make career transitions.
[Translation]
Let me now answer some questions and concerns raised by members of your committee and others.
[English]
The question has been asked, why are the departure programs not available across the board to any public service employee who volunteers? I know the bargaining agents have been in to suggest that.
I mentioned earlier that the anticipated reductions are a consequence of program review decisions. Our objective was not to reduce the public service by some arbitrary number but rather to determine what services and programs the federal government should continue to deliver and in what ways. Thus, it is the changing nature of the work that is the primary focus of the exercise. In our view, employee reductions must be directly linked to those changing requirements.
Our discussions with a number of organizations that have undergone similar exercises confirmed that an incentive program that is targeted at employees whose jobs will be disappearing as opposed to a voluntary program is less disruptive and less costly.
Departmental management must have the discretion within the framework and guidelines provided by the legislation and the Treasury Board to manage its organizational changes in ways that support its particular circumstances. Departments must be able to do so efficiently and economically while maintaining quality services to the taxpayer to the extent possible. Departments are now making these very difficult decisions.
We have said that once an employee has been formally declared surplus based on these organizational work-related decisions, there can be no substitutes. Nevertheless, before this stage is reached management has considerable scope to deploy employees in ways that reconcile both organizational requirements and individual preferences.
The Treasury Board Secretariat will soon issue guidelines to departments on the management of alternates. These guidelines will deal with exchanges between employees who prefer to leave and those who prefer to remain. I share the view expressed by others that this kind of approach makes eminent sense.
Some concerns have been expressed about the cost of these initiatives, their impacts, and how they would be monitored. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, all of the funding for the EDI program would come from the $1 billion set aside for this purpose. No additional funds are required for the ERI program. We will be monitoring and auditing the expenditure of these funds.
In addition, I should point out that we will be monitoring the impact of the downsizing exercise per se. Some of the things we will track are the number of employees affected, their location, and their distribution by occupational and employment equity group. We are finalizing the monitoring framework and will be distributing it to departments in the next few weeks. Departments are well aware of our concern that they take a balanced approach to this exercise with no one region or no one group being disproportionately affected.
.1545
There have been concerns as well that departing employees will simply be replaced by contracts for services and that the cost of government will not in fact be reduced. This is clearly not the intent.
We have asked departments to re-examine their actual and potential contract usage to facilitate continuing the employment of surplus and other employees. Departmental budgets are being reduced to reflect the elimination or transfer of programs or modifications to them. Simply put, Mr. Chairman, there will not be any money available to increase program expenditure for contracts. The object of the exercise and program review was to get government right, to get the departmental budgets down within a fiscal framework we could afford. They're dollar reductions we're looking at.
Another aspect of this issue of contracting for services is re-employment of public servants. We are currently developing guidelines for the re-employment of public servants who have accepted either the ERI or EDI payments, should that occur. This is the so-called double-dipping issue. These guidelines will address both cases where people are employed directly and when they are employed indirectly through contracts with firms that employ them. Our primary goal here will be to protect the taxpayers' interest while at the same time recognizing the rights and needs of the individuals to seek further employment.
The figure of 45,000 has been widely quoted. This figure is a tentative estimate based on an assessment of the projected savings in departments' salary budgets.
The downsizing will take place over a three-year period. We expect reductions of approximately 20,000 FTEs, full-time equivalents, to have occurred by the summer of 1996.
Details on the reductions across organizations are not available at this point, in case you were going to ask, as departments and agencies are currently preparing their implementation plans. Reductions will occur in the federal public sector broadly defined, including government departments and agencies, the military, and crown corporations. Again, the reductions are based on program changes.
Some jobs will be transferred to the private sector. Others will be eliminated due to reducing or cancelling programs. But with a combination of normal attrition, the special departure programs, more rigorous management of labour, and voluntary measures, we intend to keep involuntary departures to a minimum.
Some have asked if members of designated employment equity groups will be given preferential treatment in the downsizing exercise. The answer is no. Decisions as to which employees are declared surplus are made by deputy heads in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act and its regulations. In many situations decisions are made by establishing a reverse order of merit list, that is, the merit principle is the guiding factor.
Mr. Chairman, I know that many public service employees and Canadians are concerned that with these changes, service to the public will suffer. Of course, some services will no longer be delivered, and some services will be delivered in different ways. We are committed, however, not only to maintaining but also to enhancing service delivery to the extent possible.
There are a number of exciting initiatives under way, and I want to tell you about a few of them. The first is the blueprint for renewing government services using information technology. The blueprint provides strategic direction for using information technology to achieve affordable, accessible, and responsive federal services. One-stop-shopping, such as the Canada Business Service Centres, is a good illustration of this direction.
The second is the locally shared support services initiative. This encourages departments to work together to improve services and reduce the administrative costs of government by sharing various support services within a building or within a geographic area where the government is providing services and requires a similar kind of support mechanisms.
.1550
The third is our plan to reduce the reporting burden on business by 1998.
The fourth is the establishment of service standards and quality service delivery.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the next three years will be a particularly difficult and challenging time for the public service as it adapts and prepares itself for the 21st century. In selecting the measures I have described today, we have tried to achieve a balance. In the interest of Canadians, we are working to achieve high quality services and affordable government. On the other hand, we want to treat fairly and humanely the many dedicated public service employees who have contributed with such distinction to the well-being of this country.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members, for this opportunity to address the committee.
[English]
My officials and I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. Mr. Loubier, please go ahead.
Mr. Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe - Bagot): Welcome, Mr. Minister. It's not every day that we on the Finance Committee have an opportunity to speak with you. We should meet with you more frequently. That way we would get to know each other better.
I have three questions for you. First of all, I'm sure you recall that on September 21, 1994, your colleague, Marcel Massé, the minister responsible for Public Service renewal, released six criteria which were to be used to review each department's activities and programs. I won't read out the criteria, since that would take too much time and The Chair would stop me. But these criteria did include the public interest, the role of the government, federalism and so on.
Mr. Minister, I would like to request officially that you table with the committee the evaluation report that was prepared using the six criteria that your colleague set out and which led you to lay off 45,000 federal public servants.
On February 15, you released the evaluation of government agencies. Now I wonder if you could provide us with this department by department evaluation - if you did it seriously, of course - and provide further information about the six evaluation criteria that your colleague released.
[English]
Mr. Eggleton: The program review, as you pointed out, was under The Chairship of the Hon. Marcel Massé. While we had input into the process, it was essentially staffed by the Privy Council Office, and I think that's where the request should be directed, to Mr. Massé and to the Privy Council Office. It's not either our responsibility or our ability to provide that information. It's up to them.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Minister, the expenditure reduction measures flowing from the program review that are found in the 1995-1996 main estimates, broken down by department and agency, come from your department. How did you draw up this list with the following figures: Agriculture and Agrifood, 215 million dollars in cuts; Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, 29.5 million dollars in cuts? We are talking about 45,000 positions being cut. How did you arrive at these figures? They come from your shop. What did you base yourself on? What I'm really asking you is to release this evaluation that was carried out on the basis the six review criteria. It should come from you.
[English]
Mr. Eggleton: What is in the budget process is the numbers against the different departments, as you pointed out, not as against the six criteria. That information, I take it, we don't have. As I said, it would have to be provided, if it is available, through the Hon. Marcel Massé or the Privy Council Office.
.1555
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: As a member of Cabinet and a member of this government, can you make a commitment that you will ask your colleague for this information, since these analyses and reviews carried out using the six criteria he announced September 21 create work for you? You're the one who's taking the decisions on the basis of these criteria. Consequently, it would be quite normal for you to ask your colleague to release this department by department study or analysis. Can you make a commitment before the committee that you will ask your colleague for the specific studies, if such specific studies do exist, and assuming that you did not make across the board cuts, as many people claim, not just people in the official opposition? I am asking you to make this commitment, if you can, if you're not afraid of the analyses that you carried out.
[English]
Mr. Eggleton: As I've indicated previously, this was not across-the-board cuts. This was an examination of programs and services provided by the government with the use of the criteria, as you have pointed out. That question again, either from yourself or from the committee, should be put to Mr. Massé.
[Translation]
The Chair: Perhaps you could do so through the clerk.
Mr. Loubier: We will ask the clerk to ask the minister responsible for Public Service renewal to release his report. Is that the correct procedure, Mr. Chairman?
The Chair: We could do that.
Mr. Loubier: Can we count on your support if we table a motion to that effect?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Loubier: Thank you.
Now I'm going to ask you a question that's more closely related to your area of responsibility, Mr. Minister. As the president of the Treasury Board, you are responsible for the enforcement of the Official Languages Act. The Commissioner for Official Languages recently deplored the sad state of bilingualism within federal institutions. There has been no improvement since you became responsible for the enforcement of the Official Languages Act, last year.
Consequently, I would like to ask you whether you can make a commitment, despite the fact that 45,000 public servants will be laid off over the next few years, that you will ensure that there will be enough public servants with responsibility for official languages and the health of the French language, particularly on Parliament Hill? In the past few months, ever since the Liberals arrived, the situation seems to be deteriorating rapidly.
[English]
Mr. Eggleton: I don't agree. I think the situation has got better. This government is committed to the implementation of the Official Languages Act and its regulations. We have done a number of things to help facilitate that happening. Of course there is always room for more improvement, and we will continue to strive to ensure that people can have government services in the official language of their choice and that the language of work policies are also fully implemented.
We've done a number of things - everything from new lists of departments being gathered and published in minority language publications to better inform the public of the availability of official languages. Just recently we published a book with the Commissioner of Official Languages dealing with language of work. We've asked all of the departments to provide us with work plans by this September. Those are plans that we will examine every six months and will report on on a regular basis to see the progress throughout the system. There are audit procedures. There are so many aspects to it.
A number of people from the Treasury Board Secretariat have been visiting various offices to check on the service provisions, as of course the Commissioner of Official Languages has also done. We have been making very substantial progress since this government took office.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Minister, with all due respect, I must point out to you that in the past six months or so, I have received documents from federal departments that contained mistakes in French. There are horrible mistakes in these documents we received.
Last week, one of my constituents brought me a Government of Canada envelope that was marked Government of Canada. So there's no problem here. There's no mistake here. But on the French side, it says Governement du Canada. There's a ``u'' missing. I've never seen such a mistake. You're telling me that there's no problem, but here's this serious mistake. This isn't even a sentence. There isn't even a verb here. It's just gouvernement du Canada. The government of Canada has been in existence since 1867, and it can't even print an enveloppe or an acronym using correct French. I was just astounded. It's horrible to see envelopes with mistakes like this one.
I have one last question for you. This morning, the association representing social sciences employees tabled a brief with the Finance Committee. It contained various recommendations, and one of these recommendations was similar to those made by various Public Service agencies and unions. This recommendation was to set up measures to monitor contracting out and guidelines in order to determine the real cost of contracting out as compared with the costs of having the same work done in house. I realize that you've been asked the same question ever since you took up your duties. Do you intend to strike a committee to evaluate contracting out in comparison with having the same work done within the Public Service? I think it's time to answer that question, particularly since over the past few years, municipalities throughout Canada have developped a cost-benefit analysis that is probably more advanced than the one used within the federal government.
.1600
[English]
Mr. Eggleton: First, about the envelope, I'm sure the department that is responsible for it would be anxious to see it so it can take corrective action. There's always problems one can find, but in the vast majority of cases people are given good service in the official language of their choice. Yes, there is always room for improvement. You can always find flaws here and there. But we will continue to work towards an improvement of the service. We have already carried out quite a number of substantial improvements, some of which I cited today.
With respect to the matter of the social sciences group and the contracting out, yes, contracting out is being examined. It's being examined by the government operations committee. We have provided a fair amount of information. We want to have it examined quite carefully because our position, quite simply, as a government is that we only want to contract out when it makes sense to do that. If it does make sense to do that, then we would not have a reason to oppose it at all. If it makes more sense to do it in-house, fine, let's do it that way. It's whatever gets the best value for the taxpayers' dollars. That's the bottom line and what it's all about. That's what we support doing.
The Chair: Mr. Abbott, please.
Mr. Abbott (Kootenay East): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm going to canvas one topic and then I'll switch as quickly as possible to Mr. Williams to make sure we get two covered here.
The Chair: As a tag team.
Mr. Abbott: That's right. Considering the minister we have, we felt we should at least double up on him.
I want to canvass the area of employment equity programs. I notice on page 6 in the English version of the minister's statement, paragraph 3 refers to employment equity groups. Then on page 7, the second to last paragraph, I'll quickly read it:
- Some have asked whether members of designated employment equity groups will be given
preferential treatment in the downsizing exercise. The answer is no.
Will the new Employment Equity Act or other acts that are coming in not be influential or applicable? Will the Public Service Employment Act and regulations not be affected by any potential new employment equity legislation? If so, in the downsizing.... There are two aspects to the downsizing that are of concern to me. My primary concern is the attitude that there are or would be in the workforce, in a given department, people who, by virtue of their gender or whatever the other identifying issues are, would be classified perhaps as keepers and others who would be classified as not keepers.
What I'm trying to say is that you've said here:
- In many situations
- - with respect, that isn't really a strong statement -
- decisions are made by establishing a ``reverse order of merit'' list, that is, the merit principle is
the guiding factor.
Nonetheless, isn't the government going to be hung up with employment equity in that if there is going to be a downsizing, there would be a reverse firing in the same way as there is currently a reverse hiring, in many situations, in order to bring a balance in employment equity? There is a reverse hiring, or that becomes part of the judgment call in hiring. Why would it not be part of the judgment call in letting go?
The second part of that is if there are surplus people within the public service who are qualified for a given position, again if they didn't happen to be the right gender, colour, or whatever the other designations are, would they necessarily be frozen out and new people brought in? In other words, where does employment equity really fit into this? I want to get this really buttoned down tightly.
Mr. Eggleton: I think you're mixing up reverse order of merit with employment equity principles. We operate by act of Parliament on a merit basis in terms of hiring. We have an employment equity program because we want to increase the pool of candidates that come from groups that are under-represented in the public service. Whether they're women in non-traditional or executive positions, the disabled, natives, or visible minorities, those are the groups that are under-represented. We want to get a public service that better reflects the population that exists today in this country.
We want to try to promote opportunities for them to be able to apply and have the opportunity to compete. But when it comes to the competition itself, whether it's hiring or promoting, it is by law done on the merit principle.
When we talk about reverse order of merit, what we're talking about is that there could be a situation in a department where, as part of the downsizing, there may be a particular group of people doing similar jobs. Maybe there are 20 of them doing similar jobs, with similar qualifications. Let's say the downsizing involves reducing the level of service and the scope of the program by half. That means half the number of employees are going to be required.
How is it then determined who are the 10 who stay and who are the 10 who go, if it's roughly the same kind of work and basic qualifications? That's where the reverse order of merit, based on the merit principle, comes into effect. It's not an employment equity exercise at all.
We're obviously concerned about employment equity. I indicated in my remarks that we didn't want to have a disproportionate situation exist. We're looking at it in terms of employment equity groups and the different levels - executive, middle management, supervisor, front-line worker and administrative support staff. We're going to monitor that situation.
We want to try to keep it in some proportion so we have a properly functioning public service at the end of it, because maybe 15% - which is what the 45,000 represents - of our employees will be leaving, but 85% are staying, the vast majority of programs and services are remaining, and we have to function properly.
That's the context in which merit and reverse order of merit is considered.
Mr. Abbott: But, Mr. Minister, can you help me understand if the government is hiring on the basis of attempting to achieve an equity. I believe that is a correct statement.
Mr. Eggleton: No, I said merit. Merit becomes the basis on which we.... We try to increase the pool of candidates in terms of the employment equity groups.
Mr. Abbott: Okay. What I'm having difficulty understanding is, if the government is doing that on the hiring side, are you committing that the government will not do it on the lay-off side? In other words, this statement can be taken 100% at face value. People will not have to be concerned about being white, middle-aged males.
Mr. Eggleton: As I've indicated time and time again, even with employment equity goals, half of the people who have been hired in recent years have been white males. I don't think there's any evidence that that particular group is being discriminated against. What we're trying to do is increase the pool of applicants from the other groups as well, so we can ultimately end up with a service that better reflects the population. But to get there, still a person has to qualify on the merit principle. That is the basis on which we hire people. It's also the basis on which we will deal with this lay-off.
.1610
Mr. Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Minister, you mentioned that the severance package will not be any more expensive than a reasonable offer elsewhere. But you're going to be paying about 39 or 40 weeks of severance pay to people with as little as 6 years of service. I'm quoting from The Edmonton Journal on Saturday, April 15, 1995. It says:
- The severance deal finally accepted Thursday by the Edmonton Capital Health Authority will
be available to 1,000 of the 1,850 unionized health care workers it plans to lay off. The package
offers laid-off employees 2 weeks' pay for every year served up to 40 weeks' compensation,
and those over 50 years of age receive an additional week's pay per year served.
Mr. Eggleton: No. There are all sorts of packages out there. There are certainly some that have greater compensation levels than the one we have put forward. But if you look at it, it comes out around the middle. We had a consultant have a look at it and the consultant said it's about average; it's in the middle ranks. I think that's a suitable place for us to put our proposal.
Mr. Williams: This package is going to cost $1 billion. Is that $1 billion the cost after people have worked their 6 months' notice, or does that include the 6 months' notice they will be given?
Mr. Eggleton: It's for people who take the EDI.
Mr. Williams: I know, but my point is that they will work for 6 months, during which time -
Mr. Eggleton: No, not if they take the EDI. If they don't take the EDI, they would work for 6 months before they would be put on unpaid surplus status.
Mr. Williams: How long are they going to work with the EDI? Is it just a case of here's your notice and you're gone next week?
Mr. Eggleton: They have 60 days to make their decision. But the manager would then advise them as to when they would leave their position, when the position would be terminated. It could be almost immediately or it could be a matter of a month, or weeks, or whatever.
Mr. Williams: You say you haven't made any regulations, rules or decisions regarding rehiring. Is this going to be a package that people put in their pocket and then they come back on the workforce within a short period of time?
Mr. Eggleton: No.
Mr. Williams: Are you going to guarantee that?
Mr. Eggleton: In general, I don't think that would happen. It's not going to help the departments to meet their goals. Their goals are reduction in dollars from their budget. There's no point in giving somebody a severance package to go out one door and then hire them back through another door. It doesn't help to attain the goal of dollar reductions to meet the program review targets.
But there are going to be some cases where people could come back on a part-time basis or do perhaps some other job. We don't expect that to happen very often at all. But when we get into the numbers that we're talking about - 45,000 - there are all sorts of possibilities. We want to make sure the interest of the taxpayer is looked after if that does happen. It's not paying out a lot of money and then hiring a person back. If we're going to hire the person back, we'll get the money back.
Mr. Williams: Will there be rules to prevent that?
The Chair: Excuse me. Could we move on and then come back for another round. Do you mind?
Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Catterall (Ottawa West): Several times in your presentation, Minister, you mentioned that this is the result of program review, that this isn't a downsizing exercise. It's changing the things government does and the way it does them. I would have assumed that means many of these decisions were made before the budget, yet the process of letting people know whether their job is affected or not seems painfully slow. As well, I'm certainly hearing that departments are not able to get the full amount out of the $1 billion fund to pay for their early departure incentives, especially if they're speeding up their lay-off process. Those two factors lead to a couple of questions.
.1615
One, given that many departments don't seem to have decided what they're doing yet, many people have not had the time to reflect, without a gun at their heads, about whether they want to take an early departure incentive, an early retirement incentive, or look at other possibilities within the government. They may not have any time before this legislation comes into effect, at which time the clock starts ticking on what's available to them. It makes it very difficult for people to know what kind of flexibility they have.
I'm pleased to note you're saying there are going to be guidelines to departments on alternates. But if they're going to be allowed to do this, why can't it be part of the formal process and the early departure incentive program as it's contained in this legislation, if there are going to be options to just one job, one employee, one early departure incentive?
Mr. Eggleton: First of all, in terms of it being painfully slow, as governments move on these things, we're moving at a pretty good pace. But when it's their own personal life involved, I understand how people feel about it. The anxiety and the uncertainty seems to go on forever.
That's certainly why we encourage departments to be as open as they can with their employees, so people will have even an informal understanding or an idea in advance of whether their position is being declared surplus or not. I know in a number of cases that kind of exercise is happening. But not every department has reached that point yet where they have a lot to communicate. They're still formulating, still going through the details.
The broad strokes of this were done in program review, yes, but actually getting down to how you do it and what it means in a detailed position-by-position basis still requires a little bit more time. That's going on as Bill C-76 is being debated. But let me also say that the sooner we can get Bill C-76 back into the House and passed, the sooner we'll cut down on that uncertainty and anxiety, and the sooner we'll be able to formally get the EDI into effect. Until we have this bill passed and the EDI into effect, time continues to march on.
You asked about the $1 billion. There are some costs of the downsizing that the departments would be absorbing - some of the regular costs relevant to removal of positions. The extraordinary costs involved in the EDI itself will be picked up centrally as part of the $1 billion, but there are some smaller costs the departments would pick up. We're in complete dialogue with them on this to make sure they have the resources, so the downsizing exercise and how to absorb those costs don't become a problem for them. That isn't going to happen.
You mentioned the substitution or alternates situation. Again, what's very fundamental here is that we set out not to cut the number of employees but to cut programs and services. There's a dollar amount that goes with that. It happens to translate into approximately 45,000 positions. But since we relate it to programs and services, it's also related to very specific positions that are involved in providing those programs or services.
The people in those positions have particular skills they have developed over time. Nowadays learning is a continuous process. There are a lot of skills associated with those positions that may not be transferable to other positions. On a most fundamental level, you can't put an engineer into a lawyer's position. I don't know; maybe you could. But generally you don't. There can be quite a difference in the skills and knowledge gained over the years by people with similar general backgrounds and education, so you can't just automatically substitute on a wholesale scale.
However, there are some circumstances, so that's why we've targeted, and the Auditor General says we should target. But we also have said there could be two people doing similar jobs who have similar skills; one person's position is going to be declared surplus, but that person wants to stay. This person over here would like to go, but they're not in the surplus position. Can this happen? Yes, all things being equal, that kind of alternate arrangement....
But it's in the control of the managers. It's in the control of management. It has to be on that basis. Otherwise, we'll end up with a mismatch between the functions and the programs and services we're going to continue to operate and the people we'll have to operate them. So it must be handled very carefully and handled before the designation of the position as a surplus position. Once it's surplus, there can be no substitution. That we quite clearly said.
.1620
There is flexibility for the managers under the jurisdiction of the deputy minister in each case within each department.
Mrs. Catterall: That relates to my second question, which is the timing. As I said, it appears that most people do not know what their situation is. Unfortunately, that means that close to 100% of the people are worried when only maybe 15% of the people are going to be affected. Are you open to considering the proposition that nobody should be issued a surplus notice until they have had a certain period of time in which to consider their options, to get adequate financial counselling, and to have the department consider retraining options for them so that they can fit into other available positions so that they aren't making really important life decisions and losing entitlements every day they delay that decision? Are you prepared to consider a time period of at least, say, 60 days before somebody who knows that their position is one of the affected positions gets a formal surplus notice?
Mr. Eggleton: There is a 60-day provision within the surplus notice procedure, and I think that's adequate. I think most of them will probably know in advance. Certainly we've encouraged deputy ministers and other department executives to be open with people and let people know as soon as they can. If that is followed, then I think we'll find that most people will know even before they get the formal notice of 60 days. They certainly have all the information now about ERI and EDI. They can start contemplating possible moves. So I think some of them are able to assemble some of that information now. But when it comes to the formal notice, I think the 60-day period is quite an adequate period.
Mrs. Catterall: I just ask you to give some consideration to delaying that time when the clock starts ticking.
Mr. Eggleton: In fact, I'm told that some departments are doing counselling now. We've had job fairs. All of these things are informally going on now. So a lot of people will know, as I say, before they get that formal notice.
Mr. St. Denis (Algoma): Thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here.
Actually, I think that in your response to Mrs. Catterall you covered my first question having to do with substitution. I think my constituents will be encouraged that we have responded in a way that while keeping the principle of targeting, which is important for meeting objectives, we have allowed our management to take into consideration the needs of people within their area of jurisdiction.
So I'd rather go to my second question, which has to do with double-dipping. As well, our government has dealt with that as far as MPs' pensions are concerned. While acknowledging the right of an individual to seek employment after they leave the public service, how far can we reasonably go to assure Canadians there'll be no abuse in this area, and can we go as far as provincial re-employment? Is that possible?
Mr. Eggleton: I think that would be difficult to do.
As I said, the underlying principle here is that we shouldn't have a situation where a person gets one of these departure packages and and then comes back onto the federal public payroll or gets a personal contract without having to reimburse the money they got for the departure. But if they go out and get another job somewhere else, in the private sector or even in another level of government, it would be very difficult for us to police that.
.1625
Indeed, we're trying to balance two things here. We're trying to balance the public interest, the taxpayers' interest, vis-à-vis the situation of somebody going out and coming back. At the same time we're also trying to help these people who are leaving the public service to get a job, and we don't want to put too many roadblocks in their way that make it difficult for them to do that. So we're trying to balance this. We are looking at the different scenarios and determining what are the appropriate guidelines, but it's with that balance in mind.
Mrs. Brushett (Cumberland - Colchester): My question is similar to that of the previous speaker.
Very briefly on double-dipping, I have sat on the government operations committee and listened to a lot of witnesses talking about contracting out. Very often the point came up about someone retiring on Friday and drawing a pension and being hired back on a contract basis on Monday morning, the same person.
Having been in business, I understand why that would happen quite often. You're used to working with somebody, they're an excellent employee, they're skilled and trained, and it's much easier than finding a new person and going through all the ropes.
This doesn't allow our young people to get into the workforce and so on and so forth. It comes up frequently.
While encouraging people to seek employment and to find it, I'm wondering whether in this whole process we can somehow send a clear directive on this process, which has been abused or used, whichever is the more correct word, quite often and prohibits our young people from getting into the workforce.
Mr. Eggleton: There are two things here. First of all, in regard to the situation of a person who walks out the door one day and comes back another day, I don't know of many circumstances where that occurs. There are all sorts of possibilities in a public service this large.
However, when it comes to the program review exercise, you don't meet the targets by the number of positions you declare surplus or the number of employees that get laid off as a result of that. You do it by reducing the dollar amount. However, you're not going to reduce the dollar amount if the person goes out the door one day and comes back another day. So it's a different kind of exercise. It's not like the previous exercises where there were across-the-board cuts and you could do almost anything. These are specifically targeted. That's why we've had to be very careful about this whole substitution situation.
About young people, yes, in the last few years we have hired a lot fewer people than before, but we obviously have to be careful that we renew the public service at the same time, that we do bring in young people. We have done that in lower numbers than previously, but I think we have to keep an eye on the need for renewal. We do have management training programs and such to help bring young people into the system and advance up through it. We will continue to do that. We want to continue to do that, because I think we recognize the need for that kind of renewal.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Minister, you said that involuntary departures would be kept to a minimum, but I understand there are no voluntary resignations from the public service at this time. They're all waiting for the golden handshake. How do you reconcile the fact that we're going to keep voluntary departures to a minimum when there aren't any at this point in time?
Mr. Eggleton: I don't agree with your preamble. It's not a golden handshake. It's a reasonable way of treating employees who have given long and dedicated service to help them in the transition to the private sector. This is not going to be easy for an awful lot of people who have to go out there and find other means of employment to support themselves and their families and to pay their mortgages. So let's not be calling it a golden handshake. It's an attempt to help people adjust to a new life in the community.
.1630
For people who want to stay in the public service but who are in a surplus position, we're going to try wherever we can to see if we can find them an alternate job. That's the spirit of the workforce adjustment directive. The workforce adjustment directive with its reasonable job offer will still apply in a good many departments for a good many people who are going to be subject to the surplus. In other words, we'll have to find them an alternate job because that's part of the union agreement.
Mr. Williams: My question was, how many people do we still have in the public service, statistically speaking, who otherwise would have resigned voluntarily but who are waiting around to get the early departure incentive rather than leave now?
Mr. Eggleton: I couldn't tell you that. I don't know. There are people who are in a position to go out on the early retirement incentive program, and they can go now if their position is declared surplus.
Mr. Williams: My point was that we're finding that voluntary resignations by people in the public service have ground to a halt. Nobody's resigning at this point in time. They're all waiting for the early departure incentive. How much is that going to cost us in additional moneys by virtue of the fact that these people are now waiting on salary and then are going to get - and I'll say it again - the golden handshake of 40-plus weeks' salary in order to move them out the door when perhaps they could have gone on a voluntary basis without this type of package coming down the pipe in a short time?
Mr. Eggleton: We have no way of knowing that. Obviously, when people see that something of that kind is coming, they might tend to wait to see what it is before they make their decision. It's their right to do that. If they're doing a job they're getting paid for and it's a function that's needed, then they continue to do it. They're not sitting around doing nothing. It's not costing us any money. Obviously that service is needed at this point in time.
Mr. Williams: You've extended the EDI to cover four additional agencies, that is, CSIS, Canada Communication Group, the Western Grain Transportation Agency, and the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board, yet at no additional cost. How do you manage to keep expanding the program to cover more and more people without increasing the cost?
Mr. Eggleton: The money we provided in the central fund, the $1 billion, took into consideration that there could be other organizations. We knew initially about 11, but there are outside agencies that hadn't formulated their plans by that point in time to know whether they could qualify as a most affected department. We provided that there could be some, and yes, there are some, and we can still handle it within the $1 billion.
Mr. Williams: Now that you've added some more departments, how fixed is the 45,000 figure? Has that number gone up, too?
Mr. Eggleton: No, it's still our estimate. They were within the 45,000.
Mr. Williams: Do you have any plans to cut the senior echelon of government more than the customer service part of government? The jobs of the people who are doing the interaction with the taxpayers and Canadians at large are deemed to be more important than the managers who manage the managers and so on. Are we going to see a larger proportion of the upper echelon being moved out of the workforce through ERI and EDI and this program so that we can preserve customer service?
Mr. Eggleton: It's up to each department as to how they carry out the downsizing, but they're expected to continue to provide the services that are part of their long-range plans. We certainly want them to provide them as quality services to Canadians. So it's going to be very important to have front-line workers who can provide services that are needed by the customers, the Canadian taxpayers. But how each department carries it out is up to them.
Some people are concerned it could be the other way around, that there might be more of the front-line workers cut and perhaps not enough of the people in the upper echelon. We're going to monitor the situation and make sure there isn't a disproportionate -
Mr. Williams: But aren't you going to give some directives?
Mr. Eggleton: No, not directives. We've certainly indicated that we expect them to provide services in a quality way and that we expect them to have the necessary support to do that. How they actually carry it out position by position is up to each of the departments.
.1635
Mr. Williams: Aren't you going to monitor to find out -
Mr. Eggleton: Yes, we are going to monitor, yes.
Mr. Williams: - that managers who make the decisions aren't going to look after themselves and let somebody else go, rather than assuring -
Mr. Eggleton: Well, I wouldn't put it that way, but you -
Mr. Williams: - that service is number one, and that we cut back in the size of management? Surely that has to be the number one thing. When you take a look at downsizing in the private sector, it's the managers and the middle management and the upper echelon that get cut dramatically. Aren't we going to be doing that in this downsizing?
Mr. Eggleton: The Treasury Board is not into micro-managing each department. They don't run all the departments. The department heads run the departments. We will give them the necessary guides and we will monitor the situation because we don't want a disproportionate amount coming from any particular level. We want things that make sense and continue to provide good service to Canadians.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Plamondon, please go ahead.
Mr. Plamondon (Richelieu): Good afternoon, Mr. Minister. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Minister, between 1985 and 1986, the Auditor General of Canada harshly criticized the way the Public Service was cut. He said that there was no basis for 35% of the lump sum payments made, and that 29% of these payments were debatable. So according to the Auditor General, 64% of the public servants who had been let go and who had received a lump sum payment did not deserve it or received it under doubtful circumstances.
Given that the party in power changes but that the upper ranks of the Public Service remain, the same people who issue the criteria and guidelines will certainly be the ones guiding those who make these cuts. When you were answering the questions from the Reform Party member, it seemed to me that you didn't have a specific approach to giving out these lump sum payments in order to ensure that they are given out properly. Secondly, won't these people who are let go come back as part-time employees?
I would just remind you that on page 236 of his report, the Auditor General listed a series of principles that should be followed or guidelines that the departments should follow when they cut positions.
Mr. Minister, do you realize that the same senior public servants will be acting on your behalf, the same senior public servants who acted for the Conservatives, the same ones who are acting for the Liberal Party, and that after these cuts are made, we will end up facing the same problems, namely that public funds will be wasted in 64% of all cases, and probably most of the employees let go will return as part-timers?
[English]
Mr. Eggleton: As the auditor also said, we should be targeting positions, and that's certainly what we're doing. This exercise is different from the past exercises that he criticized.
Quite aside from that, we have taken corrective action with respect to those previous criticisms, which really relate not to the current exercise but to the previous times in the previous government.
I'd ask my deputy, Bob Giroux, to further expand on that. He knows a little bit more about the specifics of that situation.
[Translation]
Mr. Plamondon: I would like to know how these cuts will be different from the others. How are you going to do things differently in comparison with the cuts made between 1986 and 1991?
Mr. R.J. Giroux (Secretary, Treasury Board of Canada): First of all, Mr. Chairman, as the president of the Treasury Board has said on several occasions, there is a very big difference between what's going on now and what happened in 1985-1986, which the Auditor General reported on .
First of all, departmental budgets have been cut by the amount of the reduction called for in the program review. It is very difficult for these departments to let people go and then hire them back the next day or make cuts that can't be justified.
The Auditor General's report also showed some weaknesses in the application of the workforce adjustment policy, particularly with the infamous six months of salary, which people call the six month cash out. We have carried out additional audits in the departments since then. We have set guidelines and a framework with these departments to ensure that decisions are really made to abolish positions, positions which are done away with and that do not come back.
We also asked deputy-ministers to make sure that these measures are strictly applied. They may even make the decisions themselves for a while, until they're quite sure that the departments are managing this initiative properly.
Finally, as the president said a few moments ago, we will also have a monitoring system that will enable us to assess these decisions and ensure that real reductions are implemented.
The Auditor General's report helped us take the direction that we have taken today, which is to target the cuts, and it also helped us a great deal to prepare for the work that we will have to do once the bill has been passed.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Plamondon.
.1640
[English]
Mr. Fewchuk (Selkirk - Red River): I asked this before and I didn't get an answer. I'll ask you again. If one employee was 47, surplus, willing to stay, and had the same qualifications as another employee who was 58 and willing to go to pension, would the younger employee have the opportunity to talk to management to see if he could stay? I understand that in the field right now the manager of the 47-year-old would say, no, I'm sorry, that's it; you're finished. This employee doesn't have the opportunity.
Mr. Eggleton: It's still a managerial discretion. He can ask whether that's possible or not, all things being equal. There is discretion and flexibility for the manager to be able to make those kinds of common-sense changes. But there will be a lot more circumstances where they aren't exactly identical. Again, the manager has to have the opportunity to not do that.
Mr. Fewchuk: Will they have a chance to speak to somebody? Some managers are pretty rough. Is there somebody else they could speak to if there is a problem?
Mr. Eggleton: Managers report up the line, so there are other people. In terms of declaration of positions, there also are grievance procedures. That's at a later stage. But I'm sure there are people he or she could talk to.
Mr. Fewchuk: Are we looking at managerial end of it, too, the assistants, deputy heads and deputy assistants? In some cases the management is too heavy. There are assistants who are actually doing the work, and as the old saying goes, the manager or the other ones are no place to be found. Do we need all these people? Someday we'll be looking at that department.
Mr. Eggleton: I think this whole exercise is going to go fairly well, and we're going to monitor it to help ensure it does. But there are any number of problems that can crop up in any major undertaking like this. We'll be keeping a very close eye on it. I'm sure the unions and others who will be monitoring this situation will also be giving us their views as things go on.
Mr. Abbott: Very quickly, under clause 7 of Bill C-76, it appears to us the accountability of public servants could be split between two ministers; that is, a public servant could delegate some of the powers of one minister to another public servant of another department. This would damage in four ways. Number one, the loyalties of the public servant would be torn. Number two, both ministers could technically be responsible to the public for the servant's actions. Number three, both could claim not to be responsible. In practice, no one would exercise authority over the public servant.
Have you examined clause 7 with that concern in mind?
Mr. Eggleton: What we're trying to accomplish here is greater efficiencies within the public service. There are a number of initiatives. Our employees are very innovative and they've brought together what we call a practice of locally shared support services.
For example, a building where there are three or four departments doesn't need to have three or four mail rooms. They can have one. They could maybe share automobiles and various other pieces of technology. There are a lot of things that could be shared that could cut down on the cost of government and bring greater efficiencies to the operations.
.1645
This is really targeted at that because it recognizes that it will mean some operations will be shared by different departments and won't come within the jurisdiction of strictly one deputy minister or department. At least, that's part of what we're trying to achieve.
Mr. Giroux: Mr. Chairman, I will just to add to this. Whenever we have a situation, for example, where it's decided that the classification of positions or similar work will be done for departments by an employee in one department, what this provides for - and it's very simple - is that the deputy heads of those four departments will delegate to that employee the authority to classify positions on behalf of those four departments. Right now we can't do it; the delegation has to be to direct line employees under the authority of the deputy head.
For example, that would permit the Department of Transport to delegate classification authority to a qualified classification officer in the Department of National Defence to do the classification on their behalf. It was really to assist us in getting economies at the workplace by pooling the resources under the principle of the locally shared support services.
Mr. Abbott: As far as the Reform Party is concerned, I would say that initiative is very commendable. We would be fully supportive of it.
Regarding clause 7, the objective is clear and we support the objective. The difficulty we have with clause 7 is that it's not at all clear to whom the employee would answer. If somebody took an initiative - and it could be the Department of Transport, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or the Department of National Defence - we would need a minister to be able to holler at. The buck has to stop somewhere. In the wording as it is presently set out, it's not that clear. We'll take another look at the wording.
Mr. Giroux: In the application of this provision, deputy ministers would make sure they circumscribe very clearly the kind of authority they're delegating. They would not go and say you have my authority. They would delegate some very specific authority, subject to an accountability approach, whereby the employee who does classify positions on their behalf would have to follow the classification standards established by the government.
In the final analysis, it would still be the deputy of the department - Transport in this case - who would be ultimately accountable for the decision of that employee in National Defence who has done this classification work on his or her behalf. The accountability would not be compromised, but the deputy minister would say, for purposes of the initiative, I'm allowing this particular employee in another department to exercise my authority. But it wouldn't be all across the board. It would be very clearly identified what the delegation would involve.
Mr. Duhamel (St. Boniface): I have two quick points. First of all, one has been raised. That is, if they're dissatisfied with the decisions, people could appeal up the administrative line and, later on, through formal appeal and grievance procedures. I thought that was so, and you have confirmed that, Minister. Thank you.
As for the other one, I don't know, Minister, if you or your staff would have the numbers. It's my understanding that there's been a sizeable number of reductions at the administrative level in the civil service as a whole. Does anyone have any particular numbers? Have there been sizeable reductions in managers at the civil service level?
Mr. Giroux: I can answer that, Mr. Chairman. Since about 1991-92, the EX group or the senior management group has gone down by I think a little bit more than 20% - it's at least a good 20% since that time - as a result of de-layering, the 10% reduction that was imposed by the previous government, and the major reorganization that took place in 1993. We expect that proportionately again it will go down in the same way as other positions are being eliminated.
The Chair: Minister, I think probably one of the most difficult things all of us face on this committee is the fact that we have been served so well over the years by our public servants. To lay off over the next three years 45,000 people, many of whom might not find a livelihood or work afterwards, is something we do with a very heavy heart indeed. The evidence before us from public service groups has been to the effect that if we could effect so-called substitution, then we would probably be able to get rid of many of these public servants by voluntary means.
.1650
On the other hand, you and the Auditor General have pointed out that we don't have that flexibility; we have to do a targeting approach. You've indicated today, and it's been of some solace to us, that you can have some flexibility within this targeting. You can find ways, if a person is prepared to take the early retirement package in one department, to maybe have some substitution.
We urge you, to the greatest extent possible, to try to respect that principle, knowing managers have to make decisions based on efficiency, service to the public, and everything else. But during this difficult time, we urge you as well, to the extent humanly possible, to exercise this concept of substitution and humanity where you can. We know you will. We know it's not an easy job for you; it's not for us.
On behalf of all of us, we thank you very much for this presentation.
Mr. Eggleton: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I agree with everything you just said. I think it is a great challenge. We want to do two things with respect to public servants. We want to treat people fairly and reasonably and do everything we can to help those who depart adjust into a new life and new opportunities for income-earning.
But at the same time, we have great, dedicated and innovative people who are here. I've been finding this out by travelling across the country and meeting with a good many of them. We want to encourage those kinds of best practices and those success stories where they exist, spread them around with other people in the entire system, and in effect rejuvenate, reinvigorate and re-motivate the public service of this country to provide the quality services they're quite capable of providing to Canadians. I think in that way both the public and our employees will feel a greater sense of satisfaction.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister. Could we take a two-minute break while our next witnesses come. We've already kept them waiting for a long time.
.1652
PAUSE
.1658
The Chair: I'd like to call the meeting to order again. We're continuing our consideration of Bill C-76.
With us this afternoon from the National Action Committee on the Status of Women is the president, Sunera Thobani, along with Ms Cameron and Ms Head. I apologize to you for being approximately 29.5 minutes late. All of us look forward to your presentation. Following that, we'd like the opportunity to ask some questions.
Ms Sunera Thobani (President, National Action Committee on the Status of Women): Could we wait until the other members of the committee join us?
The Chair: How many do you want here before we start? We have a quorum now.
Ms Barbara Cameron (Member, Social Policy Committee, National Action Committee on the Status of Women): We shouldn't give it unless there are people here to hear it.
Ms Thobani: That's right.
The Chair: Fine. It's your decision. We do have a quorum by our rules.
Ms Cameron: Not by NAC's rules.
The Chair: How many would you like us to have for you?
Ms Thobani: As many as possible, certainly more than four, please.
The Chair: I'm sure your members contacted the members they wanted to be here to hear the presentation.
Ms Thobani: Is this a question of waiting for the other members, or are they gone for the rest of the day?
The Chair: I have no idea.
Ms Thobani: We'll wait.
The Chair: Sure. I know one will be coming back.
.1659
PAUSE
.1703
The Chair: Did you wish to start?
Ms Thobani: Yes, I think so. It suspiciously looks like nobody else is going to come back.
The Chair: I know there will be one more person here.
Ms Thobani: I would like to begin by asking you as chair to urge the members of the committee to go through the written brief we have submitted.
The Chair: I certainly urge all members of the committee and all members of Parliament to read your brief.
Ms Thobani: Thank you very much.
With me today is Barbara Cameron, who is a professor of political science at York University. She is also part of the NAC social policy committee. Also with me is Tina Head, a lawyer who was recently with the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women before it was cut. Currently Tina is also working on NAC's social policy committee.
I'd like to begin by thanking you for giving us the opportunity to make this presentation.
NAC, as you know, is the largest women's organization in the country, and we represent over 600 women's groups.
We share the view of many expert commentators that Bill C-76 represents the most significant change to social policy since the white paper on employment and income in 1945. If implemented, Bill C-76 will set the framework for the complete restructuring of federal social policy and a redefinition of the very nature of social citizenship in Canada. In many ways it signals a reversal of the gains represented by the 1945 white paper and returns Canada to the arrangements for the financing of social programs that existed in the period before the Second World War.
NAC has publicly stated its opposition to the massive cuts to provincial transfers for social programs projected in the February 1995 budget. These cuts will translate into cuts to such basic social programs as health care, child care, income support for the poor, transition houses, and rape crisis centres and other services that are essential to women.
The February budget also reintroduced the hated head tax on immigrants and refugees, which panders to and will increase anti-immigrant prejudice.
For women, the cuts in social services mean an increase in the unpaid domestic work in the home, increased poverty, and a loss of better paid jobs in the public sector. Bill C-76 will facilitate a 45,000 workforce reduction over the next three years, a reduction that will impact most negatively on the jobs of women.
In our view, this bill is not a bill to implement an annual fiscal plan. It is a blueprint for a new role for the federal government in economic and social life. Its purpose is to implement what Paul Martin gave as his central objective in February 1995, which was to redesign the role of government in the economy.
What will be the new role of the government? According to Mr. Martin, it is to manage the economy in the interests of the private sector and to gear monetary, tax, trade, labour market, and regulatory policy to that end. Conspicuously missing from the description in the budget of an appropriate role for government is any commitment to equality, whether this be regional, social, gender, or racial equality.
.1705
The redesign of the role of government called for in the budget would, according to the Minister of Finance and his department, leave government ``to do what only government can do best - and leave the rest for those who can do better - whether business, labour or the voluntary sector''. It is NAC's view that the Department of Finance should be limited to doing what Finance does best and leave the definition of Canadian citizenship and the role of government to those who are more qualified for the task - namely, the Canadian people. A redefinition of the responsibilities of governments in Canada should result from a process of open and democratic public debate. It should not be imposed from on high through a budget drawn up by a small, elite and supremely unrepresentative group - conservative economists and senior bureaucrats.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to remind the finance committee that the last time we appeared in front of you, we pointed to the make-up of the committee and talked about equity issues. This committee does not reflect Canadian society in terms of gender or racial make-up. We would urge you to pay more attention -
The Chair: Are you saying we're illegitimate?
Ms Thobani: We're saying you do not represent the gender make-up of the country.
The Chair: Then why are you bothering to appear before us?
Ms Thobani: Because we want to urge you, and we look forward to the day when we can make a presentation to a committee that will reflect the make-up of this country and where 52% of the members will be women. This is a reminder to you, and we urge you yet again.
The Chair: I could probably substitute women members of Parliament for all of us here, if that would make you feel better and you want to come back. Would you like to?
Ms Thobani: Are you saying you will reinstitute a new finance committee made up of all women who would be making this decision -
The Chair: No, not all. You said 52%. But if you would like, I'm sure the three parties here could arrange to substitute members on this committee who are women, if that would make you feel more comfortable appearing before us.
Ms Thobani: No, we do not want just women members to come here and listen to NAC's presentation. We want the decision-making process of the committee to reflect the gender divisions that exist in this society. If you're offering to do that, if you're saying to us it is possible that this finance committee can be reconstituted, and that it will be made up of 52% women who will be in the decision-making process, then that is something NAC would be very willing to accept from you here today. It is a commitment that we have been asking for from federal governments for a long time. We would be very happy. Nothing would please us more than for you to make that offer to us today.
The Chair: Okay, I understand that.
Ms Thobani: Thank you.
The Chair: I won't make you that offer, but I could get a majority of women on this committee for any single hearing, if you wish.
Ms Thobani: This is the whole point. It's not just a single hearing. It would be the women who would actually make the decisions.
The Chair: I understand what you're saying.
Ms Thobani: Thank you.
While we object to other proposals in Bill C-76, NAC is particularly concerned with the abolition of the Canada Assistance Plan and the proposed Canada health and social transfer, and we'll focus our comments on these.
As we make our presentation, we ask the committee to keep in mind NAC's position that Canada is a multinational and multi-racial country. We recognize there are very significant differences between the people of Quebec and the people of the rest of Canada on the appropriate role for the federal government. We support the right of the people of Quebec and aboriginal peoples to work out the relationships between their governments and the federal government in Canada that are appropriate to their needs. We oppose using the national aspirations of the people of Quebec to provincialize responsibility for social programs in the rest of Canada.
In 1976, Canada signed the UN Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights, which provides, among other things, for the right to an adequate income and to freely choose and accept work. CAP is the only piece of federal legislation that protects the right to an adequate income in Canada, a right recognized under article 11 of the UN covenant. In the reports to the UN committee charged with monitoring the implementation of the covenant, successive Canadian governments have pointed to rights guaranteed under CAP as evidence of Canada's compliance.
In its proposal to eliminate CAP, Bill C-76 removes all the basic protections except the prohibition against provinces imposing residency requirements as condition for receiving social assistance. The proposed change will permit provinces to receive federal funds while denying needy Canadians social assistance on any grounds except those of residence. If introduced, this measure effectively strips poor people in Canada of their social citizenship and creates a situation where an underclass of Canadians will very likely find themselves completely and absolutely destitute.
.1710
The seriousness of this attack on the rights of Canadians, particularly the most vulnerable, led the National Action Committee to join with the National Anti-Poverty Organization and the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues in order to bring the provisions of Bill C-76 to the attention of the United Nations committee in charge of monitoring the implementation of the UN Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights. In an unprecedented decision, the UN committee decided to write to the Canadian government about legislation currently before Parliament. It raises questions about the compatibility of Bill C-76 with Canada's obligations under the international covenant.
For women, the elimination of the protections guaranteed by CAP is a particular concern. NAC does not want to see a return to the situation where women in need can be denied social assistance because they do not conform to some state-imposed notion of morality. This sort of moral policing of women, particularly single parents, is a very real danger in a climate where right-wing, provincial politicians are scapegoating people on welfare as the cause of the erosion of the standard of living of many Canadians.
Instead of reducing the social and economic rights of Canadians, the federal government should be expanding them.
NAC recommends that the social and economic rights contained in the Canada Assistance Plan should be maintained and protected in federal legislation related to social assistance. NAC also recommends the economic and social rights of Canadians, and of Canadian women in particular, be expanded through the incorporation in human rights legislation of explicit references to social, economic and cultural rights, as recommended in 1993 report on Canada of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
In the past, Tory budgets used the distinction between cash transfers and tax points to bring about the rapid elimination of all federal contributions to health care and post-secondary education. While it took some time for Canadians to realize the extent of destruction that the Conservative Party was wreaking on Canadian institutions, the reaction of the electorate was brutally efficient when the recognition came.
In the 1992 election, the Liberal Party presented itself as an alternative to the dishonesty and underhandedness that Canadians came to expect from the Tories. The Liberals, it was hoped, would provide honest government and they would protect, not destroy, Canada's social programs and provide jobs.
In light of this history, the experience of reading the proposals contained in Bill C-76 on the Canada health and social transfer is a bit like receiving a sharp blow to the stomach that leaves one gasping for air. The dishonesty and lack of respect for democracy inherent in these proposals is breathtaking. Not only is the Liberal government proposing to use the same trick as the Tories to destroy social programs - it is going one step further. Bill C-76 adds social assistance to the list of social programs the federal government will no longer fund.
It is clear that the main purpose of the Canada health and social transfer is to put federal funding for social assistance on the same fast track to oblivion as federal funding for health care and post-secondary education. It will result in the complete provincialization of all these programs behind the backs of Canadians.
In addition to the violation of an election mandate and the use of the tax point trick to mislead Canadians, there are other democratic problems involved with the proposed Canada health and social transfer. The issues at the centre of this matter have been subject to two processes of elaborate and expensive public consultation - the Charlottetown referendum and the Axworthy review of social policy. The Minister of Finance and his department may be unhappy with the outcome of these processes, and they have now decided to impose their own preferred solutions with respect to the design of Canada's social programs and the Canadian Constitution.
.1715
NAC believes the proposals in Bill C-76 on the Canada health and social transfer will result in fundamental changes to Canada's social programs and to the role of the federal government in social programs. The Liberal government does not have a mandate for this. In fact, it has a mandate not to do these things.
NAC therefore recommends that:
- the sections of Bill C-76 dealing with the elimination of CAP and the introduction of the Canada health and social transfer be eliminated from the bill;
- the federal government cease reporting transfers of tax points as ongoing expenditures;
- federal transfers to the provinces for social programs be in the form of cash;
- the size of the cash transfer to the provinces be sufficient to ensure quality, accessible services to all Canadians and to allow for the effective enforcement of national standards;
- the formula used to calculate the transfer be straightforward and comprehensible to Canadians and related to factors directly relevant to social programs;
- negotiations of tax points be removed entirely from discussions of federal transfers for social programs; any future change in the division of tax room between the federal and provincial governments should take place in negotiations devoted to that issue and through a process that is open and democratically accountable.
On the issue of national standards, the elimination of cash transfers to the provinces means the elimination of meaningful national standards. The only means the federal government has to ensure compliance with national standards is the threat to withhold cash.
Since Bill C-76 contains a formula for the rapid elimination of cash transfers to the provinces, the inclusion of the principles and criteria of the Canada Health Act in Bill C-76 is misleading. If the Liberals are planning the termination of cash transfers, they should come clean with the Canadian people and admit there is no way they can protect medicare and the principles of the Canada Health Act.
The Chair: I think we would agree with you on that.
Ms Thobani: Good.
The proposal in the bill for a process to determine national standards suggests the Minister of Finance is quite aware that the inevitable outcome of the Canada health and social transfer is the complete provincialization of health, social assistance and post-secondary education. The process proposed in the bill states:
- The Minister of Human Resources Development shall invite representatives of all the provinces
to consult and work together to develop, through mutual consent, a set of shared principles and
objectives for the other social programs referred to in paragraph (1)(d) that could underlie the
Canada Health and Social Transfer.
From the perspective of democracy, what is alarming is that the proposal for establishing shared principles and objectives in Bill C-76 is very similar to the one defeated in the Charlottetown agreement. The only difference is that Bill C-76 gives even less recognition to the role of the federal government than the Charlottetown accord did.
Again, we find it extraordinarily arrogant for the Liberal government to attempt to slip through, in a bill implementing a fiscal plan, a proposal that was defeated after widespread public debate in a referendum held less than three years ago. The Minister of Finance and the Department of Finance may not have agreed with the outcome of the Charlottetown referendum, but they have no right to try to reverse it through anti-democratic, back-door measures.
NAC recognizes the issue of the federal role in the establishment of national standards. Outside of Quebec, the federal government's role in national standards is an essential element of social citizenship. In Quebec, the provincial government is seen as playing a key role in social programs.
NAC therefore recommends that the proposed amendment to subsection 13(3) of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act concerning the process for establishing national standards be deleted from Bill C-76, along with the entire section devoted to the Canada health and social transfer.
.1720
With reference to the future of CAP, governments in Canada have attempted to use the recession and budgetary difficulties to abdicate their responsibility to eliminate poverty. In a country as wealthy as Canada, this is clearly unacceptable. In its 1993 report on Canada, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural rights did not accept that Canada's economic situation warranted the rate and depth of poverty experienced in Canada.
At a point when Canada is experiencing such high levels of poverty, the Liberal Party of the 1990s should not be dismantling Canada's legislative and fiscal framework to address poverty. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women supports the continuation of the Canada Assistance Plan as the framework for the funding of income support and social services for the poor. In particular, NAC supports the continuation of cost-sharing as the mechanism to fund social assistance.
The major argument made against cost-shared programs is that federal spending is driven by provincial spending in a particular area. In the case of social assistance, this link between federal and provincial spending is entirely appropriate because the level of provincial spending is to a great extent determined by policies under federal jurisdiction, including monetary, fiscal, trade and unemployment insurance policies.
Tight monetary policies pursued by the Bank of Canada, the free trade agreements, and cutbacks to entitlements under unemployment insurance have significantly increased the burden on provincial social assistance programs. Given the impact of federal policies on the demand for social assistance, it is entirely fitting that the federal treasury contributes directly to meeting this demand. A significant federal contribution to social assistance should act as a useful deterrent to irresponsible federal governments that wish to manage the overall economy in a way that results in high rates of long-term unemployment.
In light of these considerations, NAC recommends that:
- Social assistance and income support continue to be funded through cost-sharing arrangements between the federal and provincial governments;
- The Canada Assistance Plan be retained as the framework for cost-sharing arrangements until such time as legislation is introduced that provides increased protection for the rights of the poor;
- The federal government portion of the cost-sharing be 50% as a recognition of the link between federal policies and the demand for social assistance, and as a deterrent against irresponsible federal management of the economy.
We'd like to put forward the example of child care as showing us what happens to the development of social programs when the federal government fails to play a leadership role. Without the support of federal policy and stable funding, child care services have been developed on a local level, often almost entirely as a result of the efforts of community-based groups of women.
The result is a patchwork system of programs that is beneficial to almost no one - young children, parents, women who need child care to work, train or attend school, or employers. If the transfer of federal power to the provinces occurs as proposed in the federal budget, it will effectively bury the possibility of a national child care program now and in the future, and it will erode even existing child care services.
Child care is critical to the participation of women in the paid labour force, training programs, education, and as full members of Canadian society. Accessible, quality child care is a fundamental element in any agenda that promotes or even permits women's equality. Without it, Canada will continue to jeopardize women's equality and children's health, safety and development.
Therefore, NAC recommends that:
- The federal government proceed with the development of a new national child care program as we proposed previously, amalgamating existing child care funding now spent through the Canada Assistance Plan, the child care expense deduction, the dependant care allowance, and other programs;
- A framework of principles, including universal accessibility, comprehensiveness, high quality and accountability through regulation and non-profit administration, be used to shape the national child care program; this framework should respect the national rights of Quebec and aboriginal peoples;
- The funds promised for child care in the red book over three years - $720 million - be used to strengthen and expand existing child care services as committed in the election campaign and the 1994 federal budget.
.1725
In this presentation, NAC has stressed its very strong concerns about the Liberal government using a bill to implement a budget to bring about fundamental changes in the role of the federal government and the nature of Canadian citizenship. In particular, we have called for the elimination of those sections of the bill that deal with the abolition of the Canada Assistance Plan and the introduction of a Canada Health and Social Transfer.
If the Liberal government wishes to redesign the funding arrangements for social programs and come up with a procedure for the development of national standards, then an open process allowing for full democratic debate must be put in place. To this end, we share the view of the Canadian Labour Congress that the restructuring of Canada implicit in the CHST proposal warrants extensive study and public debate, at least on the scale of the free trade agreement and the recent constitutional discussions. We support the proposal made by the CLC that a committee of eminent persons be appointed to consider proposals from the federal government for the redesign of the responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments with respect to social programs.
As we have emphasized in this brief, Bill C-76 repeats the federal government's disregard for its international commitments on economic, social, and cultural rights, which was so characteristic of the Conservative period of government. It shows a disregard for Canada's international commitments on eliminating discrimination against women and implementing the forward-looking strategies for the advancement of women, which is at least a decade old.
If implemented, this bill will make a mockery of Canada's contribution to the fourth United Nations World Conference on Women, to be held in Beijing in September 1995. We call on this committee to reverse the threat to Canadians' economic and social rights and to Canadian social programs represented by this bill.
Thank you. We'll be happy to take any questions you might have.
[Translation]
The Chair: We will begin the questioning with Mr. Plamondon.
Mr. Plamondon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam, I would like to begin by saying how pleased I am to have this opportunity to welcome you to the committee. As far as I'm concerned, your presentation has very rightly brought to the fore what the government's actual intentions are with this legislation. I would say I generally agree with the social choices that you believe it is important to defend, unlike the kinds of social choices the government has decided to make. The budget makes it clear that the rich and property owners will always be entitled to invest their money in tax havens, and benefit from such privileges as family trusts, and that it is much easier to go ahead and take benefits away from the poorest members of our society - something the governement seems quite happy to do.
Do you see a difference - I believe you briefly touched on this - between the thrusts of the last Conservatives' budget and the ones the Liberals have brought forward thus far? In other words, do you have the feeling the same people are writing the Budget speeches, that the same senior officials are directing the whole process and protecting their own little territory, and that ministers simply succeed one another, and that unfortunately, none seems to have the backbone to ensure that government programs provide basic social protection? I will let you answer that question, and then I will have another one for you.
[English]
Ms Cameron: I think one of the most discouraging things for Canadians is that there is such a continuity between the Conservative policies, which were so overwhelmingly rejected, and the policies of the Liberal government. It's very clear with social policy.
In fact, one thing is particularly alarming. I don't think the Conservatives would have ever brought in the abolition of the Canada Assistance Plan. They wanted to; they didn't have the credibility to do it. I think the Liberals are using an unnatural period in Canadian politics to try to ram through changes the Conservatives wouldn't have been able to make.
.1730
It's quite clear that it is senior bureaucrats in the Department of Finance who are still running the show. They have usurped the role of human resources development, and they've usurped the electoral mandate of the Liberal Party.
I think these are fundamental questions of democracy. Canadians also have increasing cynicism about government, from seeing such a continuity after such a complete defeat of the Conservatives in the election.
[Translation]
Mr. Plamondon: Do I have five or ten minutes?
The Chair: It's up to you.
Mr. Plamondon: I love talking about your government in the company of these witnesses.
The Chair: Well you'll only be allowed to continue if they're on our side!
Mr. Plamondon: You talked about the daycare network. I believe that has been an ongoing election promise, particularly since 1984 and that successive political parties have made firm commitments in that area. I believe a number of very strong commitments were made along those lines in the Red Book, but as you yourself pointed out, the Red Book has become the Blue Book, and does not hold much hope for the future.
Within my own party, I sat on a committee that was responsible for finding women candidates. I realized that we were having a great deal of difficulty, not because women were not interested, but because their social situation did not allow them to be candidates. Either they were single parents, or they were responsible for bringing up children within the family unit, and as a result, they didn't have the same opportunities as men do to get involved in politics.
I very clearly remember the case of a lawyer in Trois-Rivières who was a single parent with two children and who was very interested in getting involved in politics. The day she discussed this with her ex-spouse, his response was that if she got into politics, he would go to court to ask for custody of the children. She ended up changing her mind, so as not to have problems with her ex-husband.
Everytime we met promising candidates, things like this would come up, and I admit that this was a total surprise for me, as I had not realized until then just how difficult it could be for a woman to get involved in politics. Of course, I am referring namely to women between the age of 30 and 50 who still have children, or who would not necessarily have an established career to return to after being in politics. That's why it is so important for someone who wants to have a career to have access to a daycare network. And the justification for creating that kind of network is not simply that we won't be able to put women in Parliament or in senior positions, but that this will be beneficial for them in their daily lives. I really don't know what kind of arguments to use to make the government understand that.
You touched on this very briefly in what I would say was a very excellent brief. I might point out, however, that I would have liked to have it in both languages, but again, I would emphasize that it was very well prepared and that we are fortunate to have an excellent system of interpretation here. Indeed, in that connection, I would like to commend our interpreters who are able to follow very closely what is being said.
Perhaps you could just elaborate on the need for this kind of daycare network and on your own disappointment about the kind of cuts that are proposed? Nowadays it seems as though there is no longer any reason to hope - no light at the end of the tunnel - in terms of the government's actually introducing a policy to establish a national daycare network.
[English]
Ms Thobani: I'm sorry I speak so fast. I'll try to slow down in my response this time.
I think the extent to which the lack of child care in this country continues to make women economically unequal is recognized in study after study. The Liberal Party certainly recognized that during their election platform. Minister Axworthy continued to state again and again this government's commitment to child care during the whole social policy consultation, the review process.
.1735
I don't think the question is one of the government's not understanding the centrality of access to child care to women's economic equality. I think this government continues to show a contempt for the rights of women. It continues to show a contempt for using the power it has to implement policies that will bring about not only the economic equality of women but also an improvement in the lives of children in this country.
I think by not providing child care and by not making a commitment to a national child care program, this government is condemning not only women to economic inequality but also children to economic inequality. Children's development is hindered. We know many children in this country, more than we should actually have, live in poverty, and child care would go a long way in improving the quality of lives of these children.
I don't believe it is a question of the government not recognizing that lack of access to child care is a problem for both women and children, but that the government is content to keep short-changing the women and children in this country and that it continues to support policies that will appease international financial markets at the expense of the well-being of women and children in this country.
Ms Tina Head (Member, Social Policy Committee, National Action Committee on the Status of Women): I will add a couple of sentences to that.
I would like to reinforce that the question of good quality child care is not just a question of government policy, which the government of the day is free to accept or reject according to its policy program. Canada as a country has made very clear commitments that in order to further the economic, social, and cultural rights of all Canadians and in order to further the economic, social, and cultural equality rights of all women in particular, it will provide a ``publicly funded quality child care system as a fundamental premise of Canadian society.''
It's not a question of policy that we're now free to debate as a matter of expediency. These are basic human rights to which Canada is committed in the international public arena, and those rights are being disregarded.
[Translation]
Mr. Plamondon: I guess I will turn it over to the new Conservatives, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Fantastic! Thank you, Mr. Plamondon.
Mrs. Brushett.
[English]
Mrs. Brushett: Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question.
You brought up the point as though the present system or the status quo is very ideal and very much a good system, and that without cost sharing between federal and provincial governments we'll go into the deep, dark holes of poverty. If it is such a great system, why do we have so much poverty amongst children today and why is it increasing?
Ms Cameron: The existing cap has all kinds of problems with it. The level of support that people on social assistance get is clearly inadequate. There have been real problems with the policies of the federal government putting a cap on CAP - which the Tories brought in, and the Liberals continued. There is no question there are major problems with our existing -
Mrs. Brushett: Let me just stop you there.
I've worked at the municipal level very closely with children. It's not as though we're isolated from our communities, I would remind you of that. We're very much involved in tending to our social services meetings, to our families, and to our single parents in our communities. They have reminded us that money really isn't the answer. There is a greater need at the local community level. We could fire bundles of money at it and still not resolve the problem of child poverty.
Ms Cameron: I think you may have missed the central point of the brief, which was that this is not a small question of the design of programs and the design of arrangements. We're going back to the period before the Second World War. We're talking about a relationship between the federal and provincial government with respect to financial arrangements that existed in the 1930s. That's what we're talking about in terms of the provincial responsibility around social programs. That was ended in 1945, and the Liberal Party played an important role in ending it.
We support the general post-war advances that were made. Within that framework very significant changes have to be made. A different relationship with Quebec has to be developed. There has to be a democratization of services. However, the framework should be built on, and advances should be made. We should not go back to the period before the Second World War, and that's what the Liberal Party is doing.
.1740
Mrs. Brushett: You bring up the point that the size of the cash transfer to the provinces should be sufficient to ensure quality, accessibility, etc. It's always the size of the bundle. As we all know, we're here to deal with deficit reduction and with things that Canadians have forced us to deal with and to restructure so that we can look for results in regard to child poverty and not just fire more money. This is what the public has asked us to do.
Ms Cameron: You didn't run on this in the election, for sure.
You are talking about removing -
Mrs. Brushett: You're right, I didn't run on that.
Ms Cameron: - the cash transfer to the provinces. It isn't a question of throwing money at the provinces. You are eliminating the cash transfer to the provinces. That is a redesign of the relationship between the federal and provincial governments. That's what is involved in this bill.
Mrs. Brushett: I would remind you that we're very close to our constituents and know what our communities' needs are. I believe most of the women in my riding wouldn't know who NAC is. So they would not know what -
Ms Cameron: Your constituents asked you to withdraw the role of the federal government in social programs? They said that the thing they really want is for the federal government not to play a role in social programs? Is that what they asked you to do?
Mrs. Brushett: My constituents asked me, number one, to deal with the reduction of the deficit and to bring things closer to the community so that they can then fulfil their needs better. I believe the basic philosophy is that the closer the service is to the client, the better the efficiencies of those tax dollars will be and the more directly the results will be in serving that client or that poverty situation.
Ms Thobani: I'd like to remind you that NAC actually participated in the social policy review process last year, in which we were expecting these kinds of changes to be proposed and debated and to be consulted.
NAC organized a national women's conference on social policy reform, at which our member groups got together and looked at how the present system could be strengthened and made more effective and more responsive to the needs of women and children. However, that whole process has now been short-changed by the federal budget and by what this bill is trying to do.
We certainly are very, very interested in being part of a process of reviewing social programs with the goal of strengthening them. It was in good faith that we participated in this process for one whole year. At that time we called upon Minister Axworthy and Minister Martin not to use the budget to transform Canada's social programs. The whole country was engaged in a process of social policy review, and that whole process has been completely put to the side by this federal budget. So I just want to remind you it was in good faith we participated in that process.
Mrs. Brushett: I think the two are intertwined and we can't work in isolation, either on social programs or on deficit reduction.
Ms Thobani: That's exactly what this government is doing. You are completely cutting that connection and working on a deficit reduction agenda. That is the goal with which you are viewing social policy reform, and we reject that.
Mrs. Brushett: I believe we're trying to serve our public with social programs that Canadians want and with results, and that's our aim.
Mr. Pillitteri (Niagara Falls): I would like to make some remarks on what our hon. friend across the way said. I would inform him that I've always been a Liberal, and I don't intend to change. Certainly I'm not the expert the hon. member is. I just wonder whether he has any intention of going to a different party. I've always been a Liberal, and I intend to stay a Liberal for the remainder of my political career.
.1745
In your presentation you say that under Bill C-76 we try to actually do away with our responsibility and to cut off the cash transfer payments. This has not been the case. You're assuming that the transfer of payments will diminish and that eventually within the next decade those funds will disappear. However, the government still has the option of providing enough cash in order to maintain those programs.
You say here in your last statement that the last government and this government are making a mockery of Canada's contribution to the United Nations World Conference on Women, which is going to held in Beijing in September, and that we are in contravention of what we signed.
As a new Canadian, I feel that I live in the best country in the world, yet you are saying we are in contravention of this.
Can you tell me how many countries are in contravention of this and whether China is one of them.
Ms Head: What we're suggesting is that there seems to be a pattern, with which the government has become very comfortable, of violating international commitments to basic human rights. The pattern affects the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It has recently been widely publicized that it has violated the international standards under the ILO's freedom of association convention, which dramatically affects the rights of federal public sector workers, a great many of whom are women.
In our view, it certainly calls into question Canada's compliance with both the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the commitments made by the Canadian government in the Nairobi forward-looking strategies. The violations of the UN covenant and the UN convention have been internationally and publicly established.
I think when we measure the current policies against the precedents that are available, there won't be much doubt about what the verdict will be. I think we'll find in September, when Canada's record of achievement is under international scrutiny, that Canada will have failed again there.
These are matters of international record.
Mr. Pillitteri: I do understand what you're saying. You made me quite aware of that in your presentation.
I was asking you how many other countries are in contravention? I asked you specifically whether China is one of them, because it is holding that conference in September.
Ms Thobani: In September when we go to Beijing, if the conference does take place in Beijing, we will find out how many other governments are in violation of the forward-looking strategies that were signed 10 years ago.
I hope you're not making the argument that because other countries are in violation Canada can also -
Mr. Pillitteri: No, that's not the case.
Ms Thobani: We will find out in September.
Certainly in terms of the question you're asking about China, there is no question there have been violations of fundamental human rights in China in the past. They've been well documented. I don't see the connection.
Mr. Pillitteri: This is the third time you've made a presentation, and you'll likely have another opportunity in the fall at a pre-budget hearing. For our information, would you inform us then of those other countries that are in violation?
Ms Thobani: Yes.
Ms Head: Perhaps I could add just one other point that might help you in your search for comparative information. The United Nations has developed what it calls a human development index. In 1992 Canada ranked first in the world and in 1993 second, just behind Japan, which I think certainly contributes to the sentiment you expressed a few moments ago about Canada being one of the best countries in the world.
.1750
However, you also need to be aware that when this index is adjusted to reflect the status of women in countries for which data on women are available, Canada ranked only eighth in 1992. It dropped from first to eighth place, and in 1994 it dropped from second to ninth place. So Canada does have some serious work to do in a positive sense to improve the status of women in the country. Forward is the direction in which we need to be going.
The Chair: I believe Mr. Pillitteri raised what is your primary objection to this, which is that not only are we cutting but also we're eliminating. These are the words you used. In fact, you make it even stronger. You say that the main purpose of the transfer is to put federal funding for social assistance on a fast track to oblivion. Yes, if a trend is not arrested at some time in the future, it will run out. It is definitely diminishing.
You can paint a worse case scenario that sometime in the next millennia there will no cash portion to it if the present course continues, but we did not legislate that it must continue that way. We've legislated only two years ahead in this budget. So I have to discount what you said based on all of these programs running out.
Now, I can also say to you that it is with a heavy heart, if not with a great deal of -
[Translation]
Mr. Plamondon: Let me tell you one thing: Don't go and tell that kind of nonsense if you don't want to be ridiculed.
[English]
The Chair: I don't think any of us here on any side of this house take delight in cutting social programs or in not going ahead with commitments made before the 1988 election for national health care programs. It's not in our nature to rejoice when we have so many people unemployed and so many children living in poverty. If we can find ways to do these things better within the means we have available...we welcome your suggestions.
Can we undo the transfer of tax points, which you complained about, and if so, how?
Ms Cameron: I was going to say that it would be more convincing if you did change what you're saying. It would be more convincing if you did change the relationship between tax points and cash in the transfer, because you do have the option to structure it differently. With regard to the difference to the federal treasury, in the short run it doesn't matter whether it's cash or tax points. In the long run it makes a big difference. So why don't you reverse the relationship between cash transfers and tax points that is in the existing arrangement?
I have a -
The Chair: What do you mean by reverse the relationship? We gave away the tax points a long time ago, and our cash is diminishing.
Ms Cameron: You're still giving away -
The Chair: How do we get them back?
Ms Cameron: That is the problem with the policy. You're going to have to stop the erosion now and -
The Chair: Just a second. Can I deal with tax points? How do we get back those tax points we transferred?
A voice: Legislate.
The Chair: You're getting help from the back there. Maybe you need it. I'd be delighted if you want to bring them up to the table to sit with you.
Ms Cameron: This policy was criticized all along by social policy advocates when it was established that the cash transfer -
The Chair: I understand that. I agree with you. The question is how do we get rid of the transfer.
.1755
Ms Cameron: You're going to have to go to the Canadian people and say past governments made a mistake, that you are going to make sure there's enough cash in the system so you can defend national programs. If it means you're going to have to raise taxes, reverse some of the changes the Conservatives made, and have a more progressive tax system, then you're going to have to do it. That was the problem with giving away tax points.
The Chair: Okay. I asked you the very simple question. Maybe I agree with you. How do we get back those tax points?
Mr. Plamandon: Why do you promise that if you are not able to keep it? If you promised that, do it.
The Chair: If there is a way, I'm asking if you can help us get back those tax points so we can have more clout in terms of defending social programs. You're saying the only way to do it is to increase federal taxes.
Ms Cameron: Do you believe the provincial governments will be as generous in returning tax points as the federal government was in giving them away?
The Chair: No.
Ms Cameron: No, they won't. The only thing you can do is go to the people of Canada and say you support Canada-wide social programs and national standards and there has to be cash in them.
I would add that a special relationship for the people of Quebec has to be part of this, because we believe and NAC has very legitimately argued that Quebec needs to control social programs to meet the aspirations of the people of that province. We support that. But we believe there is support in the rest of Canada for Canada-wide social programs. If the Liberal Party were to do that, we would support you.
The Chair: You think the provinces would go along with it.
Ms Cameron: No, we think the provinces would fight it tooth and nail. This is why it would take leadership from the federal government.
The Chair: I agree with you. It's going to be very difficult. I wish we had these tax points with us now.
Ms Head: On the question of tax points, it seems to me some of this is a bit of smoke and mirrors because, as I understand it, the federal government has not consistently and always recorded those tax points as federal expenditures. In fact, they were not recorded for quite a long period of time and were reintroduced as federal expenditures on the books some time in the 1980s. We've been through some smoke and mirrors on whether this actually counts as a federal contribution to social programs or not.
The Chair: When were the tax points transferred?
Ms Head: I'm sorry, I don't have that information.
The Chair: Was it 1976?
Ms Cameron: It was first brought in with EPF. It was 1982 when it started to be declared as an annual expenditure. We think that's just smoke and mirrors.
The Chair: I agree with you this would be a more representative democracy, and Parliament would be more representative, if 52% of its members were women. Unfortunately, in spite of the efforts of your party and my party - and maybe they're not adequate - we haven't been able to get that type of balance. Mr. Chrétien had to appoint women candidates in the last election, even by-passing democracy so we could up it anyway.
I agree with you. Meanwhile, you're stuck with us. You have my sympathy. I believe you are wrong in saying federal funding for social programs is going to run out. On this side of the House, we are committed to making sure that does not happen.
On behalf of all the members here, I thank you for coming before us. You're a very important group to us. We called you before us on our first round of budget consultations. I think your claims in many cases are exaggerated, but we share your concern about national standards and federal funding for social programs.
Ms Thobani: I'd like to make one comment in response to what you've just said about the make-up of this committee. We have urged the finance minister again and again to do a gender analysis of the budget, put out a women's budget, and look at the impact of budgetary decisions on the equality rights of women in this country. One thing this committee could do is recommend that we have a women's budget statement. That would counter the real lack of presence of women on this committee.
.1800
The Chair: Did you read our pre-budget report of last fall?
Ms Thobani: Yes.
The Chair: Were you happy with the recommendation in there?
Ms Thobani: No, it didn't get us anywhere.
The Chair: Okay. We adopted your.... I think if you go back and read it, maybe....
Ms Thobani: Can I just say if it had been adopted, we would have seen a different committee here.
Ms Cameron: We would have seen a different budget.
Ms Thobani: We would have seen a different committee and a different budget.
The Chair: You asked our committee to recommend it. I'm sure you remember we put it in there.
Ms Thobani: Yes, we do. It obviously needs to be recommended again.
The Chair: Okay.
Ms Head: Can I ask one question? When the minister presented before the committee, as I'm sure he did, did you ask him what his studies were on the impact of this budget on women? Did you ask him to table that information with the committee?
The Chair: I don't recall. You or we could go back through the record and find out.
Ms Head: It's one means of trying your recommendation.
The Chair: It was brought before us. We discussed it and put it in our report - a gender impact analysis of the budget. We're very concerned.
May I thank you for your presentation.
Ms Thobani: Thank you.
The Chair: Our next witness is One Voice - The Seniors Network. I apologize to you people for making you wait a very long time.
Mr. Andrew Aitkens (Director of Research, One Voice - The Seniors Network): That's okay. A few people had to leave.
The Chair: I'm sorry. We recognize some familiar faces from past consultations, and we welcome you. Who is heading your delegation? Who is the chief spokesperson? Mr. Aitkens? Would you be good enough, sir, to introduce those who are with you.
Mr. Aitkens: Certainly.
I'm director of research at One Voice - The Seniors Network. I'll let the other individuals introduce themselves and their organizations.
[Translation]
Ms. Gisèle Bérubé-Farmer (Second Vice-Chairperson, One Voice--The Seniors' Network): I am Gisèle Bérubé-Farmer. I am here representing the Coalition des aînées et aînés du Québec.
[English]
The Reverend Bruce Mutch (Member, One Voice - The Seniors Network): I'm a member of One Voice - The Seniors Network. I'm also vice-president of the Canadian Pensioners Concerned Incorporated, and a member of the committee of the Alliance of Seniors for the Protection of Canada's Social Programs. I'm also a member of the steering committee of Paying for Canada Coalition, centred in Toronto, and sponsored in a large part by the Social Planning Council of Toronto.
Mr. Ben Swanky (Member, One Voice - The Seniors Network): I'm representing a number of seniors organizations from British Columbia, and I'm chairman of the One Voice - The Seniors Network social health action group.
The Chair: We welcome you.
Mr. Aitkens: I'll begin with a few general remarks. We're not making an extensive, formal presentation today. We'd like the opportunity to engage in discussion with you.
I also don't want to sound too much like a broken record after what we've just heard. But I think I should report to you that seniors are very concerned about the diminishing federal role in providing social programs, in terms of both the financial contribution and the maintenance of national standards.
.1805
There is great concern that trends we're seeing in certain provinces, and Alberta is a very good example...we're not confident that we can trust provincial governments to provide the services that are needed to help people remain independent in the community.
When you look at the kinds of programs that are included in the funding block that comes with the Canada Health and Social Transfer, there are many programs that would not be explicitly called ``health'' and would not be covered under the Canada Health Act, but which very strongly support independent living in the community. I think it's important to recognize that this kind of expenditure is actually an investment, an empowerment of individuals to maintain their own health and independence and thus cost us less in the long term. If people don't have the ability to stay healthy, they cost us more.
We as One Voice did support your committee's pre-budget report, and we sent a letter to you and to Mr. Martin supporting in specific terms your call for increased progressivity in the income tax system, that corporations and wealthier Canadians begin to pay more of their fair share; and your call for a symbolic reform of MPs' pensions, which I know is not a big saving but is very symbolic, and I think it would help alleviate some of the cynicism in our system today. You did not explicitly recommend cuts in social spending, and we are now faced with a budget and legislation that do impose considerable cuts and changes to the way we fund our social programs.
In the long term, the delivery of these programs provinces will have two options: either to cut or to increase their own taxes to make up the difference. Neither is really a very tantalizing approach. Cuts have been made in Alberta, and we're seeing people sent home the day of their surgery in the care of a 13-year-old granddaughter, who has to stay home from school. This is just ridiculous. We're trying to get figures on how many people end up back in hospital worse off, because they were released too early. It's hard to get figures from the Alberta government right now.
The other option for the provinces is to raise their own taxes, which will probably be regressive sales taxes or regressive property taxes, if they funnel things down to the municipality. I think we're going to end up with not quite the right system that we want through this mechanism.
I would make reference to the recent paper released by the Caledon Institute, which you may have seen, entitled CHST Spells Cost for Disabled. It covers a lot of ground in describing the impact of the health and social transfer, and it's good reading.
One other point we would make - and this may seem strange coming from a senior's organization, but we've made it before - is we still feel that there is too generous a treatment in the RRSP deduction for the wealthier end of the population. We recommended to you in our last presentation that you lower the dollar figure - $1,000 isn't really enough - and increase the percentage, and that would make it a much more progressive measure. Of course, you could always make the deduction into a credit; that would help as well.
Finally, I wanted to make the point that seniors are very disturbed to hear that the government's aging society paper may not see the light of day. This is a rumour at this point, but it has been promised in two budgets now, and we really need to have that paper. We're facing a major demographic shift in our population. We have an opportunity to manage that, but to do it we need a comprehensive strategy, and the strategy needs to be developed with broad public consultation. We need this paper to stimulate that discussion.
I'll stop there and invite my colleagues to speak.
.1810
[Translation]
Mrs. Bérubé-Farmer: Mr. Chairman, lady, gentlemen, I would like to talk a little bit about transfers for health care. When this system of transfers was initially introduced, previous governments had the wisdom to provide for standards. Now those standards are being lowered and transfers to the provinces are being reduced. In the province of Quebec, as a result of these reductions, it was announced in the last provincial budget that there would be huge cutbacks in the health care system. People then turn around and say: «The problem is that federal transfers are not adequate».
I think it's important to point out that senior citizens in Canada are very concerned. We are being told that we will no longer be able to remain in hospital for long, that day surgery will become the norm and that ambulatory care - which means that people go home after 24 hours - will become a standard feature of our system. Just who will look after us, especially older women who live by themselves?
People's response is to say: «Well, just go to a CLSC», but CLSCs are not open 24 hours a day. Senior citizens are concerned that there will be a funding crunch because of the huge reduction being made in transfer payments.
I know what your're going to say: «We have no money, and we have to cut somewhere». My view is, however, that the federal government should be playing a strong leadership role and saying that the provinces will be getting their full transfer payments because otherwise, standards will vary greatly from one province to the next. The danger is that the poor provinces will suffer the most, and that health care and services in those areas will greatly decrease.
Another way of finding money is to look at ways of eliminating waste. Let's take the example of doctors who are paid on the basis of a fee-for-service system. Why not simply pay them a salary?
Another solution would also be to have a look at the kinds of profits that pharmacies and pharmaceutical companies are making thanks to seniors. We ask that the Canada Health Act be maintained in the form in which it was initially introduced - in other words, on the basis of compassion for people, whether they are rich or poor.
Much of the problem also revolves around privatization of the system. Senior citizens do not necessarily have high income. In Quebec, we already pay user fees for medications; now we will have to pay for private nursing services and private rooms. In conclusion, we just want to say that the Canada Health Act must be maintained. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Bérubé-Farmer.
[English]
I have to announce that, as I understand it, the bells for a vote will start to ring at 6:30 p.m., which would mean we would have to leave here no later than about 6:37 p.m. So we're going to try to not interrupt you.
Reverend Mutch.
Rev. Mutch: Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here.
Does that mean I have approximately four minutes?
The Chair: No. We have not quite half an hour. We have about 25 minutes more.
Rev. Mutch: All right.
First of all, I would like to say that I appreciated very much hearing the NAC presentation, because obviously they had known about their meeting here and had done a lot of research and good preparation.
I would like to say that it might be worthwhile while for you to know of some of the feelings and attitudes that have been generated in the Toronto, Ontario area as a result of the budget and in particular as a result of Bill C-76. People are feeling that the red book of the Liberals is in shreds.
.1815
Prior to the budget, a lot of us not only in seniors organizations but also in other community organizations worked very hard at meeting with Liberal MPs in the greater Toronto area. We thought we were making some progress.
There was an alternative budget we thought was politically credible. We were told by friends in the Liberal caucus that it was. With regard to Mr. Martin's stated goals for bringing down the deficit, I think he was calling at one point for $7 billion and then he moved to $9 billion about a month and a half afterwards. By the simple process of a conservative cut of tax expenditures, we were able to find $5 billion more than he was calling for. Yet, when the budget came down, the alternative proposal had received no -
The Chair: Which one was that?
Rev. Mutch: The one put forward by Paying for Canada: Perspectives on Public Finance and National Programs. Sir, if you'll remember, I went over the possible tax loopholes point by point with you in front of the soup kitchen when the Liberal caucus met in Toronto at that time.
The Chair: You said there was one for $5 billion, which we didn't take advantage of. Which one was that again?
Rev. Mutch: It was the alternative budget proposed -
The Chair: Yes, I went over that very carefully. I would have to argue with you that there wasn't a lot of substance we could have worked on, but -
Rev. Mutch: We thought there was, and we still think there was.
The lady over here - I'm sorry, I don't know your name - suggested that the object of your process is to bring the deficit down. We think the object of the finance committee is not just to bring the deficit down but also to re-examine the financial management of the country in such a way as to keep the character of our country as a caring society. The present Canada Health and Social Transfer legislation is going to completely do away with that.
Now, last Friday, I think it was, I was asked to make a presentation to the Ontario Gerontology Association and did so. I want to quote a few sentences from that, because it was prepared and right now I'm speaking off the cuff, as it were.
There were 570 representatives from Ontario, 7 from Finland, 1 from Australia, and a number from the United States. What I had to say was well received. The theme was access and equity. I'm going to read some of it.
The new plans for the devolution of federal powers to the provinces by the Canada Health and Social Transfer legislation now in progress through committee in Ottawa will put even welfare beyond the reach of many of the genuinely needy. By this legislation the provinces will gain power to use transfer payments according to their own regional plans. National standards will disappear. Access and equity will undergo a meltdown. The two-tiered society will be established. It's already under way. This year is to be the final year of payments under the Canada Assistance Plan and the Established Program Financing, both of which are to be repealed.
Now, does this all mean that pensioners are opposed to taxation? Does it mean we are part of a tax revolt? Do we think the national debt and the annual deficits are not important? The answer to all of these questions is a resounding no.
We are opposed, however, to regressive, unfair, unjust taxation. The recent propaganda by the business community, the business-driven sections of the media, and certain politicians and their unthinking followers is an ideological import from the United States.
.1820
It is self-serving for corporations that are enjoying a tax holiday and thereby not contributing to the welfare of the country. You can get a publication that lists the corporations that are not paying taxes or not paying taxes at a level that even the poor of Canada are paying.
Taxation is essential for an ordered, civilized society. Progressive, fair taxation is essential to a caring, humanitarian society. We are not part of a tax revolt.
The notion that the whole population created the debt and the deficit is a most grotesque, but highly successful, propaganda scam. In our society, there are economists and financial analysts, not in the pay of big business, business institutes, or so-called think tanks, who tell us there are alternative ways of dealing with our indebtedness other than that of eliminating our social safety net.
Freelance economists say the deficit and the debt can be brought under control and decreased by closing the mammoth tax loopholes, tax expenditures, rescinding the legislation that supports family trusts of the wealthy, instituting progressive taxation for corporations and for individuals, reinstituting regulations that control the wealth of the nation from flowing to foreign countries, and refinancing the debt so it will be owed once again to Canadians rather than to foreign bond-holders, as it was until the recent past.
The present federal government is continuing to dismantle the fabric of Canadian society with its financial policies, which they adopted from the previous federal government. We are told that our indebtedness is caused by overspending. In fact, it is caused by undercollection.
In concluding my remarks to the gerontology association, I quoted from Monica Townson, who is an economist and the former chair of the Ontario Fair Tax Commission. She said:
- In general terms, Canada has had a significant commitment to a collective responsibility for its
older citizens. Fundamentally, that commitment has been based on the view that seniors made a
significant contribution to society during their younger years that should be recognized through
collective action and support for old age. I believe Canada can afford its aging population.
I believe those cutbacks are political and moral choices, not borne out of economic necessity. As the famous British economist Joan Robinson once said, all economic questions except the most trivial are basically political questions, and all political questions are basically moral questions.
If the present direction of our federal government is not altered significantly and quickly, we will enter a new dark age in Canada, where equity and access will be words that symbolize partially realized realities of a past age or realities of an age far into the future.
Thank you.
Mr. Swanky: Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
I speak at a lot of seniors meetings in British Columbia and with various non-seniors organizations that are concerned about the future of medicare. I can tell you seniors are fearful, concerned, and many are becoming angry at the thought that maybe this is the beginning of the end of medicare.
We are particularly concerned about block funding, not only because there's a cut in health care funds involved, but also because apparently the provinces are being given the freedom to do what they like with these funds from now on. To make it worse, it appears from what we've read that they can decide not only how much of this fund will be used for welfare, universities, or health care, but also to use it for other purposes.
.1825
Our fears have been spurred on by what our Prime Minister said. I think it was in Saskatoon that he told an audience the provinces would be free to use this money to provide lunch for kids in school. He also said it could be used to top up the wages of the working poor. He made another statement to the effect that originally medicare was designed to cover only catastrophic medical bills, which might cause people to lose their home.
Mr. Chrétien should know better, because he was a member of the cabinet that passed the Canada Health Act in 1984, and the Canada Health Act, which is one of the finest pieces of legislation we have in Canada, covers much more than catastrophic cases.
These kinds of statements by the Prime Minister of our country are causing great concern among seniors, and you should know that.
[Translation]
The Chair: We'll begin with questions from Mr. Plamondon.
Mr. Plamondon: Welcome! I always enjoy hearing from the people who built our nation. I think that any self-respecting government should pay particular attention when seniors testify before it, since they are the ones who have left us what we enjoy today.
When I was born, my father was 55 years old. As a result, I knew many seniors when I was a child and when I was a teenager, given that when I was 15, my father was 70, and so the entire immediate family was in the same age group.
I spent my Christmas and Easter holidays surrounded by older people. So I was able to appreciate all that they had done, because back in those days, that's the way things were: the adults talked, and the young people listened.
I often heard older people talking about their experiences, such as the long hours they worked, as much as 15 hours a day. They slaved away, nose to the grindstone, to make ends meet and to build a system that made health care a top priority for seniors.
It's surprising that during the election campaign you stressed just how important these points are. You even sensitized the party that's currently in power to the issue by warning them not to act like the Conservatives and to change their direction with respect to social programs.
Once the Liberal Party was elected, we should have expected changes, because during the election campaign - and the commitments in the Red Book were very clear about this - they talked about maintaining and protecting the health care system and social services.
Given that you are the ones with the experience, you are the ones who have seen many elections, heard many different philosophies over the years, could you explain to me why this government is going in exactly the same direction as the last one did with respect to social programs, even though we changed governments? And what's worse, they are cutting even more now, even though the last government was defeated because of the choices it had made.
You mentioned various places where cuts could be made, and rightly so. We still have tax havens - and it's estimated that $16 billion is placed in them per year - in the form of offshore investments, and it would just take one bill to control the situation by taking a 25% tax that would bring in at least $4 billion. But that's not what the government's priority is; it would rather cut funding to the poor, to the health care system and to seniors.
.1830
I listened to you speak and I'm almost embarrassed that you travelled here, because it's my impression that even though what you say is logical - you already said it a year ago, and you received firm commitments about your request - today you've come here once again to say the same thing, and the government is turning a deaf ear.
Given your experience, what do you feel when you see...
The Chair: Ask your question.
Mr. Plamondon: Yes. My question is...
[English]
Rev. Mutch: I would be glad to say something about that.
The Chair: Go ahead. We think we know what your answer will be.
Mr. Campbell (St. Paul's): I just wanted to clarify something Mr. Aitkens said.
You expressed concern about the status of the aging paper. I just wanted to confirm that later this year the ministers of Human Resources Development and Finance will release a paper on changes required to ensure the continued sustainability of the public pension system, including those programs you're most concerned about. Consultations with seniors and other interested groups will take place when the paper is released.
It was stated in the 1995 budget that the government intends to complete the process and to consider the need for related changes in time to have those changes in effect in 1997.
That is still coming, and there will be consultations with regard to it.
I just wanted to clarify that, Mr. Chairman, so that people have the information on it.
The Chair: Unfortunately, we're going to have to break away to go to the House for the vote.
Personally having been involved in this process, may I urge you to send to our committee next fall during our pre-budget consultations, which will take place, the precise proposals for finding the tax money elsewhere. Just because these myths are reiterated by the same group of people does not mean they're right. We want to have a full and open debate in front of all Canadians on these alternative tax proposals that you want to present to us, so we would welcome them. Not having studied them, we have not yet found them to have the money attributed to them, but let's keep looking for the magic pot of gold that may be able to save us from making the cuts we don't want to have to make.
[Translation]
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Chairman, it would appear that you had all the answers in the Red Book. So why aren't you applying them?
The Chair: We are going to do our best to safeguard and protect our social programs, our health care system, but you must remember that we are only human beings.
[English]
The Canada Health Act is still being protected. The five principles of it are critical to us. It doesn't give us joy to have to cut programs, believe you me.
This is why we've wanted you here to put again before us the priorities of One Voice, a very articulate group that speaks for Canada's senior citizens. I think as a committee we're lucky to have people like you who are such forceful and eloquent spokespersons for our seniors, who have a claim on the loyalty, respect, and support of every one of us. On behalf of all members, may I thank you for being with us.
We're adjourned until tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.