Government Operations Committee on May 26th, 2009

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

How does Chalk River find its way onto that list?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Through a budgetary initiative under chapter 3, under the economic action plan; that was the criterion by which we made that determination. So the departments come forward and say, look, we need money between April 2 and June 30. There's no way of getting that money, and we could allocate that between April 2 and June 30—I might be off on the April date because the April date was the internal date. If they had missed supplementary estimates (A), and they could well have—I don't know what the particular case was here—the next date for approval would have been some time in December, when supplemental estimates (B) would have been introduced. So $225 million is not sent down a hole in Chalk River. There are economic spinoffs and ramifications by spending $225 million. Whether you put a brick onto a house or whether you're reconstructing a reactor, there are economic spinoffs, and this gave us the authority to be able to do that.

Again, unlike the Liberal sponsorship fund, which had no authority and nobody knows where the money went, this in fact went specifically—

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Well, we have an idea, but I think we're past that right now. I'm speaking about the sponsorship fund.

This is an approval process along the budgetary path that gave bridge funding sometimes up to nine months ahead of schedule.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

That's time.

Ms. Foote, you have five minutes.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Thank you to the minister and to Ms. Gillis and Mr. Smith for appearing before us this afternoon.

Minister, I have to say I'm really taken aback by your suggestion that vote 35 was not necessarily money that was voted on for stimulus initiatives. I can clearly tell you that getting the support of the official opposition was plainly based on the fact that the country was in a recession and we needed to do everything we could to try to deal with that recession and the fact that there was so much happening in terms of downsizing and people losing their jobs. Any suggestion that it was anything other than an opportunity to try to put people back to work...it just leaves me puzzled that you would say that here this afternoon.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

All right, let me respond to that with a question. How do you think the impact of $225 million with respect to a reactor at Chalk River finds its way into the community?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Maybe it's the same way as when I look at the Canada Revenue Agency here...and you're suggesting spending over $8 million to implement Budget 2009 tax measures. I don't know how you can suggest that that is in some way part of a stimulus package.

You talk about the sponsorship scandal. I'm looking here at the industry department and the marquee tourism events program—$30 million to support marquee festivals and events occurring in the summer that will attract tourists from within and outside Canada. But there's no indication of where or how that money is being spent. To me, clearly, if you want to talk about a sponsorship scandal, there's $30 million out there somewhere and no one really knows where or how it's being spent.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Let's talk about that then. There are three additional reports coming to the House of Commons to indicate exactly how that money is being spent. Let's take the CRA example. You ask how spending $8 million by a government could possibly stimulate the economy. Until you understand what the money was being spent on...and that was specifically set up to administer the renovation tax credit, which of course has been one of the most popular programs across the country, encouraging home owners to go to stores to buy products to move the economy along.

Again, by looking at a specific amount of money and not seeing it in the proper context, of course you'd be confused. What I would suggest—

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

This is a program you initiated as a government. I would have thought you had already hired staff to administer that program, because that was not part of the stimulus package.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

It was part of the stimulus program.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Does this indicate that extra staff were hired to administer it? Can you tell me how many or where they were located?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

The department can tell you that. It was to get the staff there to administer a new program brought under the stimulus package to stimulate the economy, mainly the renovation tax credit. A good carpenter like Pat Martin would understand how stimulating that can be.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

If that's what it was for, why don't we see, within the main estimates or the supplementary estimates, additional funding to deal with the issue we're seeing now with EI? At this time a record number of Canadians are unemployed and unable to access EI in a timely manner. Nowhere in the main estimates or the supplementary estimates is there any kind of additional funding to deal with the fact that we need more people to be able to deal with these people in a responsible manner.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

All I can say at this point is that we're helping Canadians who are hardest hit by the recession. We've taken concrete action to strengthen employment insurance. Some of your comments need to be made directly to the minister, who could probably give you her experience first hand.

We're focused on getting Canadians back to work. In order to meet that challenge, Canada's economic action plan provided $1 billion over two years through the EI program to help the provinces and territories provide employment and training programs to their industries and employment insurance-eligible residents.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

The problem is that we have people who are unemployed. You're supposed to be able to respond to their claims within 26 weeks. I have people in my riding who are waiting 70 days to get responses to their claims. How is that possible? You're telling me you hired additional staff to implement a home renovation tax credit program, but we have an EI program and not enough people to administer it.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I suggest you have the minister here to answer those questions specifically. She can go through exactly how many additional staff have been hired. I was in the House when she made those statements. I heard them, and I trust that you heard her answers as well.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

The only thing--

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Sorry, you're out of time. Thank you, Ms. Foote.

We have three five-minute windows left. So members can plan their time, I will see Mr. Roy, Mr. Anders, and then Ms. Hall Findlay. We'll see if there's any time left after that.

Mr. Roy.

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

Mr. Minister, as far as vote 35 is concerned, I agree with you that things have been accelerated and the schedule moved forward. This was done precisely because everyone agreed that we were facing a major crisis.

The Treasury Board, along with all other departments... You do not seem to appreciate the concrete difference between authorized funds and commited funds. I understand that Treasury Board can accelerate things and quickly give its authorization. However, there is a difference between authorizing funds and tangibly allocating funds. That is the problem we are currently facing.

What makes you believe that the departments have tangibly allocated the funds to the projects that you have authorized? That is the basic question that parliamentarians want answered. Ms. Hall Findlay as well as others have said that the funds were authorized, but have the departments really spent a red penny? Can you confirm for me that departments have already spent funds that we authorized one, two or three weeks ago?

I agree with you that Treasury Board has accelerated things and authorized significant sums, but concretely, which department has spent any of the amounts committed? Canadians and Quebeckers want answers.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

The concrete result is that without vote 35 or the other initiatives we put forward to move the funding ahead, nothing would be done until next year. So anything that is happening in this year is happening as a direct result of the initiatives that the Treasury Board put in place.

I understand what the distinction is. Vote 35 is simply a mechanism to allocate funds early. Where there is a joint cost issue between the federal government and a province, whether it's the Province of Quebec or any other province, they sign an agreement. For example, on the knowledge infrastructure program in Manitoba, the amount was $75 million. We have allocated $54 million on shovel-ready projects. Now the universities can go out and hire the contractors and the architects. It's not the government that is actually putting the shovel into the ground. If the university or another organization says it needs some of that money up front, before putting a shovel in the ground, there is a mechanism by which it can have 25% of the federal government contribution. Under the old infrastructure fund, you could not get a dime out of it until you showed a receipt for work done.

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

Mr. Minister, you have been saying that since the beginning. My question is simple. Let us speak concretely. Are you in a position to tell me whether or not departments have allocated funds? Can you tell me that there are people working today because the departments have spent some money? That is what I want to know. How many are there? Currently, can we believe that the billions of dollars that were allocated, accepted and authorized two, three weeks or a month ago by Treasury Board have resulted in people actually working today? It's dead easy; it is a basic question. I know that the money will not be spent by Treasury Board. Everyone knows that is done by the departments. That is what you are telling us, but I was already aware of that.

What guarantee do you have that the money is truly allocated, concretely and immediately?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Those are the terms under which the money is given to the various organizations. That's the condition of handing that money over to them to spend.

We agreed to the House motion that there would be quarterly reports. So all of those questions will be answered. I think your questions are premature—it is a work in progress. All of the legal authorization, with the exception of approximately $2 billion of the $22 billion, is already put in place. In June we will have a report that will indicate exactly how much of the money has been spent and allocated. I don't anticipate all of that money being spent in the first couple of months, given that there are certain requirements the proponents have to go through. What I can tell you is that there wouldn't have been a dime spent out of that if we didn't have things like vote 35.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Mr. Anders.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

I thank the minister for his time and his appearance today.

Minister, you've heard that members are concerned about a speedy stimulus package. In light of that, I would like to bring to your attention what I consider some disturbing comments and invite you to explain them.

“I'm not going to take a GST hike off the table.” This comment was made to City-TV News, December 18, 2008. That's the first quote, Minister.

The second quote, just a couple of weeks ago: “We voted a budget which contains a very substantial injection of stimulus into the economy. We voted for it in April. It's not coherent intellectually or economically for me to come out in May and say, 'Put another $30 billion in. I'm perfectly willing to come back in September and October'.”

That comment was made in a press conference on May 3, 2009.