Government Operations Committee on April 2nd, 2009

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

No, I'm talking among other things about infrastructure that belongs to the federal government.

[Alister Smith]

Oh, you mean federal infrastructure. Yes, in this case, for federal infrastructure and the public works program, that would be eligible, I believe.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

That's fine for now, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

That was a short round.

Do we want to come back to the Liberal side now? Are you ready to go?

Please go ahead, Ms. Hall Findlay.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you.

As a committee, we have a job to do over the next couple of months, and we will need more than this day to be able to hold the government to account effectively on the $3 billion.

The larger question is that there has been money that has now lapsed, and we have had prior discussions on whether it can be reprofiled, whether it gets lumped in, and so on. We need to be able to hold the government to account on a number of areas of spending. The $3 billion is the most obvious one, just because of the reprofiling.

My understanding was that as part of this, we as a committee could ask your advice in terms of the right people to bring before the committee on a regular basis over the next couple of months. It isn't enough to bring somebody once in a while. Frankly, the next two months will be very important in terms of holding to account.

I open that up to the three of you for your advice on people we should have in, specifically and on a regular basis, to help us, whether it's Treasury Board or....

[Alister Smith]

I think you're absolutely right. This is a much broader picture than simply the $3 billion vote. I couldn't agree more. Indeed, we have Budget Implementation Act measures that total $10 billion, other tax measures, the money that's in the central vote, and additional funding to be provided in the supplementary estimates A, so we have several sources of funds here. It is a very large package. It amounts to $20 billion in 2009-10 when you include the tax measures.

It would useful to have a broader picture of the overall thrust of the budget implementation instead of simply looking at one pocket of it, which is the central vote, and in any case the central vote funds will have been allocated by the end of June. My colleagues may want to chime in here, but it seems to me that you might want a broader range of officials, including departments, to address the broader budget implementation plan.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

It may not be a broader range of officials. My concern then would be that we might end up diluting the whole process.

Let's take the $3 billion, for example. If we were to ask your advice on the best person to have before the committee, whether on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, who would you recommend as the best person to ask about where that money is going, how much of it has gone, and what process has been used?

[Alister Smith]

I think that should be Treasury Board. I'd be happy to let my deputy decide who he wants to come up here to address that matter, but that part of the package would be Treasury Board.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

For some of the other aspects, knowing that it is a broader thing, do you have any other recommendations?

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Go ahead, Mr. Sargent.

[Tim Sargent, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Liaison Secretariat for Macroeconomic Policy, Privy Council Office]

Certainly if you want to have one-stop shopping or one person who can tell you about the disbursment of public funds, Treasury Board Secretariat is obviously responsible for that within government. One caveat there is the extent of detail that you would want to go into. If you are really trying to drill down to the project level, you may well find that you may need somebody from the Department of Transport or someone from another department. If you want to have one person, that's fine, but there is a bit of a trade-off there in the detail that you're going to get.

In terms of the broader implementation of the budget, certainly the Minister of Finance is the person who tables the budget. If you're interested in the broad underpinnings of the budget, how it's being reported, and what the accountability mechanisms are, I would have no hesitation in volunteering my colleague from the Department of Finance, or whoever they wish to choose.

The role of PCO, as you know, is partly to ensure coordination across government, partly to provide policy advice to the Prime Minister, and partly to help manage the cabinet committee system. If you want to understand this at a very high level, then certainly PCO, since we perform that function for the Prime Minister, can be helpful, but as soon as you begin getting down to why the Budget Implementation Act says something or other or what the details of a specific program are, it would have to be handed over to my colleagues at the finance department or Treasury Board or another department.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I don't think it is necessarily how the budget process works. We really are under some pressure now, as a government, to make sure the stimulus money that has been promised to Canadians gets out. Our job in opposition is to hold the government to account on that basis, so from time to time it may be the specifics. I would suggest that there may be times within that context that representatives from the PCO would be helpful in terms of the direction.

Mr. Smith, in terms of the process over the next couple of months, perhaps we would be able to give you advance notice of the need to bring somebody else along with you on a specific issue or program that might come up.

[Alister Smith]

I'd be very happy to accommodate the committee in that regard.

It might be useful if my colleague from the Department of Finance talked a little bit about reporting.

[Chris Forbes, Director, Fiscal Policy Division, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

It's just a reminder that we will be reporting again in the next few months. We will be following up on the March report with further details on the status of implementation. That obviously doesn't preclude any discussions before then, but we are working, as a government, on another report following on the budget implementation. That report will be coming some time before Parliament recesses in June.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Right, but remember that the reason for the $3 billion special request of vote 35 was to get that money out in the next three months, so another report....

[Chris Forbes]

Yes, certainly.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

It's not your fault. I'm not being critical of that; it's wonderful, and I'm looking forward to the report.

However, our job is to get that information over the next little while for that very reason. On that point, will it be possible to ask somebody from your shop to come on an interim basis with an update?

[Chris Forbes]

Yes, we're certainly happy to come as we can to help.

As my colleagues have mentioned, if you want the high level of what our budget objectives were or where we're going on the reporting, I think we can help you there. If you're looking for the Treasury Board processes, then obviously Alister and colleagues would be the ones who would discuss that process. If you're into questions on specific aspects of the stimulus plan, Treasury Board, as Alister has mentioned, allocates for programs, not for projects, so if you're getting into questions about program spending in various areas, you would have to go to the departments in question for the expertise.

We are certainly happy to assist as needed.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

That is terrific. Thank you.

Do we have more time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

No. We are at eight minutes now. We'll come back to Mr. Szabo shortly.

Go ahead, Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming in this morning. We are seeking clarification because as a committee we believe it is our responsibility to ensure that this money flows, and flows in the direction it is intended to. We appreciate your efforts in making us more aware of our responsibilities and of the ways in which we might carry them out.

I need a number of things for clarification. There is a lot of muddy water, and I hope not to exacerbate that situation. I am hoping to bring some clarity, and I seek some.

First, it is my understanding that the $3 billion in vote 35 cannot fund anything that has not already been outlined in the budget. Is that correct?

[Alister Smith]

That is correct.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

It's simply the provision of cash for different programs that may be in the budget. This money will lapse after June 30. If the money is not spent, it doesn't mean that any program or initiative within the budget is limited in terms of its ability to be funded; it simply means that a new vote will have to be brought forward to fully fund programs. Is that...?

[Alister Smith]

Perhaps I could provide some clarity on that question. If it is not spent, the money lapses. That's for sure.

If a program has not been funded through vote 35 or supplementary estimates A, then the next avenue will be supplementary estimates B in December. Departments that have not gone through the process of obtaining that early funding would have to cash-manage, if they're running with a budget initiative, until they got funding in supplementary estimates B in December.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

That's an important point on two fronts. Number one, of course, is that the departments don't want the undue pressure of having to manage without cash, and I guess that's the incentive to get everything moving before June 30.

In terms of the different programs that are going to be funded through this, I know that there has been a call for projects that will be funded. I know the impossibility at this point for any of you to speak about the different projects, but I think I know what we as committee members are looking for at this point: as decisions are made that those programs that were outlined in the budget will be funded by the funds available through vote 35, we might like to know the programs that are going to be given money. You've assured us that only the programs and initiatives that are in the budget will be funded through vote 35.

Then there may be another level of accountability. We may seek to call before us those different departments so that we might drill into those initiatives. We would require the different departments to actually fully understand the way those programs were being funded and the way the money was being sent out to Canadians. Is that correct?