Government Operations Committee on April 2nd, 2009

[Alister Smith]

That is correct. That's my understanding of the proper procedure to follow.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Next, would you dare to guess as to when we might see large allocations of this fund going to specific departments? At the earliest, when might we be able to have a list of some magnitude of where this money is being allocated?

[Alister Smith]

Well, there will be some information when we table the supplementary estimates. It will be whatever information is available. There will also be information--more detailed information, I think--on the allocations from vote 35 in the June report.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Could you tell us the date in June when that will be tabled?

[Alister Smith]

Well, that's still to be determined, I believe, but it will probably be early June.

[Tim Sargent]

If I may, certainly there's a commitment to table it five days before the last supply date. That's the last date we could table it. Obviously we could potentially table it earlier than that, but no date has been announced.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Great.

I think the desire of this committee is just to have the assurance, for our own sake and for that of Canadians and taxpayers, that the money is going out, and that it is simply and absolutely going only to programs that received allocations in the budget. You've assured us of that. I think what we're trying to do is just provide another level of transparency to ensure and to exhibit to Canadians that in fact it is so, that in fact it is happening, and that it is happening in an efficient and effective manner.

I suspect that it won't be possible to analyze the outcomes of the actual program spending for some months to come in terms of how effective those initiatives actually were on the ground. Right now we're hopeful of ensuring that the money coming from vote 35 is funding initiatives that were in the budget. Then we may seek to get some information as to how the different departments are allocating those funds.

That's helpful. I appreciate that clarification.

[Alister Smith]

Those quarterly reports, which will be provided in June and then in September, I believe, and December, will be able to follow results as they develop in the use of the money.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I want to be absolutely clear. This is hypothetical, but if $3 billion is not spent by June 30, I want to be clear that in the larger scheme of things that will not jeopardize any program or initiative. It may be more difficult for departments to cash-manage, as you suggested--

[Alister Smith]

That's right.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

--but in actual fact it does not limit the scope or breadth of any program that was in the budget.

[Alister Smith]

No, it doesn't, with the exception of the cash management difficulties that it may give rise to in departments. A program will have supplementary estimates B, and it will have the next budget, presumably, wherein further funding can be provided, although that's my colleague's terrain, not mine.

I don't think it would be a limit in that sense, but for economic reasons it's very important that this stimulus be provided in a timely way--

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Absolutely.

[Alister Smith]

--because the further away you get from the economic problem, the less useful it is.

Perhaps my colleague can add to that.

[Chris Forbes]

On that point, the expectation is that the departments that need this have programs that are going to flow money starting in April. The whole purpose is to help them with that. We would certainly expect and hope that there will be take-up on that. That's the reason it's there. It's got to be used to get the money flowing out sooner, as opposed to later.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you, Mr. Warkentin.

Mr. Martin is next.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, witnesses.

After listening to my colleagues ask questions, I think one of the things making it difficult for our committee is that we have to focus on the name of our committee. It's government operations and estimates. What we're being asked to do with this $3 billion of additional spending is really to review it after the fact, as if we were the public accounts committee. As parliamentarians, what we're being denied in this process is the right to review the estimated spending in the context of a business plan and to decide whether it is the best bang for the buck.

I think it's that task that we've asked you to come to help us with. Where do we, as parliamentarians, get a chance to assess this spending plan? That shapes the context of my questions.

More specifically, I'm wondering.... I'm having difficulty grasping all this.

I was part of the briefing that members from each party were invited to by the President of the Treasury Board in order to ask them if they could get away with this new $3-billion, eleven-twelfths idea. If you could get unanimous consent, it would be simpler.

At that time, and I wrote down specific notes, they said the eleven-twelfths of the $3 billion will be spent only on items in the budget within chapter 3. That language is different from the actual budget implementation vote in the end, the one we ended up debating. All of a sudden, now it's any new grants, any increase in amounts of grants listed in the estimates, etc., as long as it's within the legal mandates of the government organizations.

Can you say that the spending associated with vote 35 is only for budget items within chapter 3 of the budget?

[Chris Forbes]

Chapter 3, in fact, has all the budget measures in it. It's the entire chapter, so that might have been a way of saying in effect that it was the action plan itself, because all the specific announcements are contained in chapter 3.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Okay. That's helpful. Thank you.

[Alister Smith]

Might I address the vote wording?

That particular construction of the vote wording allows one to provide the authorities required in the event that you have, for example, a new budget initiative. It's in the budget that's been approved by Parliament and it's in chapter 3, but it is new, and you may not have had previous authorities. You could run into an authority problem, a financial commitment problem, if you don't have wording that allows you to cover those sorts of situations.

There's nothing that goes beyond. It's still limited to chapter 3 and still limited to the budget, but it gives flexibility. In the case of a grant, if you found out you had put this wording forward and a mechanism like a grant was used and you couldn't use it, then you'd have thwarted the objective of trying to implement the budget.

That wording was simply for that purpose.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, you can understand where it would raise an alarm on our side, but I appreciate that.

Our research says that if the Treasury Board approves the department's request, it forwards the funding to the department. I think we know that. But it says that Parliament does get an opportunity to examine the request for funding when the next supplementary estimates are published, and that Treasury Board details the reasons for giving the money to the department outside the regular funding cycle of the supplementary estimates. However, the details are included for information only, since the funding has already been spent.

That accurately outlines how it goes, doesn't it? We get our opportunity to criticize or compliment what has been done after the fact, much like the public accounts committee does with finance department spending.

Where do we get our opportunity to scrutinize whether or not it's a good idea to spend it at all, to see the business plan, to see the justification for the spending?

[Alister Smith]

Mr. Martin, this is the procedure we follow with virtually all central funds.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, but this is unique. This $3 billion is unique.

[Alister Smith]

Indeed, this is unique--