Government Operations Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Mr. Wouters, I just want to bring this to the attention of committee members. I'm going to read the standing order for responses by public servants so that this line of questioning is regarded carefully:

Consequently, public servants have been excused from commenting on the policy decisions made by the government. In addition, committees will ordinarily accept the reasons that a public servant gives for declining to answer a specific question or series of questions....

Please, all of you, keep that in mind. Thank you.

Continue, Madam.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to go back to the economic action plan and ask about the signage component of that plan and the cost for that component.

[Simon Kennedy]

The actual signage, Madam Chair, is the responsibility of the individual department. We provide guidance as to when it's appropriate to have a sign, the kind of sign you'd use, and so on, but the actual expenditure is done in the context of the expenditures the individual departments are doing on their programs. That's the way it has been in the past.

So transport or infrastructure has an infrastructure program, a portion of the budget is for communications and signage, and it would be captured by that budget. I don't, at this table, have a global figure for you on signage, but it would be the individual departments managing those budgets.

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

How about the location of the signs? Who determines where the signs are going to appear?

[Simon Kennedy]

Well, essentially--

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Madam Foote--

Go ahead, answer that.

[Simon Kennedy]

Essentially, the rule of thumb would be that if it's on the economic action plan website--if you visit the website and it's on the map--that would be the type of project that would have a sign. It would be a project that would have a fixed location--for example, an infrastructure project.

Things such as the work-sharing program or EI benefits, things that are more for individuals and that aren't in a fixed location, obviously wouldn't have a sign. But for infrastructure projects, major projects, that have a fixed kind of geographic location, they would typically have a sign.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Mr. Dorion for cinq minutes, s'il vous plaît.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, madam and gentlemen, for being here.

Mr. Wouters, we've just been told that, when a “ceremonial” cheque is handed over at the initiative of a member who is not the spokesperson of his party in the field concerned, the cheque does not need to be consistent with the public policy. That suggests that the Treasury Board and other bodies that you represent allow members to present cheques bearing the logo of the Conservative Party of Canada. We know very well that members who do that kind of thing are trying to create the impression in their audience that it's not really the Government of Canada that is giving the money, but rather the Conservative Party.

Doesn't that mean that you are allowing people to act in this manner and that you believe it is not contrary to accepted morality? Acts and regulations are one thing, but there is also a matter of common sense. If Mr. A gave $1,000 to a charity and Mr. B claimed it was he who gave that amount, I don't believe Mr. A would accept that. You are representatives of the Canadian government. How can you allow this kind of thing?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Madam Chair, allow me to answer the question. As you indicated, the policy does not apply to parliamentarians who are not the official spokespersons of a minister.

In the case you refer to, it is up to political authorities to determine what the situation is. In this case, the Prime Minister had clearly stated that this was not an appropriate use and that the mix of the two events and the presence of political ties were not acceptable.

We can only act in the case of an activity that comes under our responsibility. If these kinds of initiatives are brought to our attention, we can intervene. In this case, however, the Prime Minister had already intervened to say that it was not an acceptable practice.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Did you know about that practice before the Prime Minister intervened, or before it was revealed by the newspapers?

[Michelle d'Auray]

No, we weren't aware of it.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have two minutes left.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

The government's economic recovery plan suffers from a lack of transparency. We saw that last week in this committee. We have no figures, no data on the plan's economic impact. The parliamentary budget director does not have the summary necessary to an exhaustive analysis of the government plan.

Furthermore, this morning, I attended a meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We heard from the acting Access to Information Commissioner, Suzanne Legault, who presented the organization's annual report to us. I recall from that testimony that there were a lot of complaints about undue delays in responses by departments, agencies and so on. It appears the delays were caused by the intervention and consultation of a third organization. In a number of cases, the third party organization was the Privy Council Office or the Treasury Board Secretariat.

Don't you think that the Treasury Board and Privy Council Office could substantially improve their transparency rules so as to inform Quebec and Canadian taxpayers about how their money is spent and, especially, what the results of those expenditures are in the case of the recovery plan in particular? Can you provide us with any specific statistics on the amounts invested in Quebec under the economic recovery plan, not the announced amounts, but the amounts actually granted?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Madam Chair, with regard to the publication of documents, I believe the government has tabled three quarterly reports in Parliament and a fourth is scheduled for December, if I'm not mistaken, outlining the commitments made by the Government of Canada on the economic recovery action plan.

In terms of the amounts spent or committed, most information is on the website, as my colleague Mr. Kennedy indicated. Each of the projects, appears on the website once it has been signed off. So, by going to the site, you can see which projects are currently underway in Quebec because they should all be posted as the agreements are signed for the individual projects.

In certain circumstances, I know discussions are still underway with certain provinces to finalize certain agreements. However, as soon as individual projects and agreements are signed, the initiatives are posted on the sites.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We go now to Mr. Brown, for five minutes.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We're talking about the infrastructure stimulus. It's a huge amount. Just to put this into context, think of $7.5 billion in budget 2009 alone combined with other levels of government for $22 billion in stimulus.

I want to know what is the total spent on advertising to make Canadians aware of this program? As a rough estimate, what percentage of the $22 billion is on advertising?

[Simon Kennedy]

So far, to date, the expenditure has been roughly $34 million for advertising of the economic action plan.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Out of $7.5 billion, $34 million.

The interesting thing is that back in the winter when we were discussing the budget, I watched panels of Liberal MPs talking about the budget. They complained that we were not advertising the economic stimulus. There were complaints: Why can't they be like the States and advertise? Why can't we have a website, like the U.S. did, pointing to projects around the country?

Now that we do advertise, it almost seems like the Liberals are attacking for the sake of attacking. Now that their attack has no base, they're complaining about the actual cost of doing exactly what they had asked for.

So in the case of the website, since the Liberals were demanding this only a few months ago, maybe it would be nice to let them know about this website, the functions it offers, and the cost associated with offering Canadians this valuable information.

[Simon Kennedy]

We're managing the website on a very low budget. I have four staff who actually manage it. There is no formal budget for the website. We spent a small amount of money on some market research to focus groups to just see what people think of the website and to try to improve its functionality, but it actually has no budget other than the staff time of the people who are managing it.

Of course, departments are all contributing information so there will be staff time in departments as well.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

I'm also curious about the costs associated with advertising the home renovation tax credit. When the Liberals tried to force an unnecessary $300-million election, a lot of Canadians were worried about how to actually claim this tax credit because of the uncertainty caused by the opposition.

This is such a valuable program that Canadians tremendously appreciate and are eager to qualify for. Getting the message out in the midst of the confusion sown by the opposition was important.

What efforts have been undertaken to share with Canadians this important program, specifically the home renovation tax credit?

[Simon Kennedy]

The total cost of the campaign for the home renovation tax credit is $7 million. That includes print advertising in magazines, some advertising on the Internet, television advertising, obviously, which a number of members may have seen, as well an attempt to have, at least for the government, more innovative advertising. Some members may have seen the point-of-sale displays in stores such as Home Depot and Rona, as well as door hangers. For houses in new neighbourhoods, where Canadians would be more likely to want to undertake renovations—put in a new kitchen, that sort of thing--there are door hangers to put on the door knocker.

So that's a $7-million campaign.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

In terms of the signage, I notice in my riding, and around Ontario, and around Canada, there are all these signs about the economic action plan. I can see why the Liberals would be upset about this, because they are saying there are no projects happening around Canada, that it hasn't started. It's really frustrating for them to have to go into communities and see these giant signs where people can see construction work taking place, jobs being created.

In terms of this program, the signage, what are the costs associated with that? I'm also curious, because the signs in Ontario have the provincial sign by the Liberal provincial government and the federal sign. I haven't heard members of the opposition complain about the provincial signs, which are actually attached to all the federal signs. I wonder if that's just because there's a provincial Liberal government. But it just seems to be a little bit disingenuous.

So I just want to verify, are the economic stimulus signs with these projects with the provinces indeed attached, as I see when I drive around in Ontario; and what is the cost in terms of this program?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have time to respond.