Government Operations Committee on Nov. 24th, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Committee members, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are still studying the economic stimulus package, and we have witnesses before us.

From Treasury Board Secretariat, we have Madame Michelle d'Auray, secretary to the Treasury Board, and Alister Smith. From Infrastructure Canada we have....

Silence, please. Thank you.

We have Madame Baltacioglu, deputy minister, and Mr. Forster.

I believe you have opening remarks, Madame d'Auray.

Yes, Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think most of us had planned to come to this committee meeting this afternoon with the expectation that the Parliamentary Budget Officer would be attending. We saw a change of meeting this morning, which just had no clarification or reasoning as to why he was not appearing. I'm wondering if you could give us an update as to what's gone on and what exactly--

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

The Parliamentary Budget Officer had indicated that he would be able to come, but then he had a change in plans. The government was supplying him with information, and he advised us that he would like to come to another meeting where he can give us proper analysis of the figures the government is providing him through a progress report.

I guess Madam Hall Findlay was the one who really wanted him to come. We agreed that if he did not have the relevant information and he felt he would not be adding value, he could come back, if he wants, as soon as he has the information from the government.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Madam Chair, there was no dialogue with other committee members. This raises the point that I think committee members have had and expressed to you as chair in terms of making determinations about where and when the committee will undertake certain discussions with witnesses. Considering the fact that this is our last planned meeting on this issue, and we won't have an opportunity to hear from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, I, for one, would like to hear what he has to say. I'm wondering if we could postpone this meeting for another date when he would be available so that he might be able to bring forward his testimony alongside the witnesses we had planned for this meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have a very valid point, Mr. Warkentin, the issue being that he had nothing to add. The report that was given to him, the 4,500 pages that came to him--

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Madam Chair, we don't allow witnesses--

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Let me finish. I'm sorry, I gave you the opportunity to finish, so bear with me.

He was given the information by pages, boxes, until we brought in a motion, and then he got a 4,500-page electronic version that he has looked at. He has not been able to analyze it; he claims it's administrative. In fact, he telephoned last night and wanted to know what he could do, because he really didn't have much information to go by. He suggested that since we have very senior people here who know what they are talking about, he be excused. And we agreed. I had to make a decision immediately that if we wanted him to be excused, we could. We said, fair enough, we have senior people who have information. I understand Madame Baltacioglu might be able to fulfill our requirements and maybe we might not need the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Madam Chair, in no committee that I've attended have we ever let the witnesses being requested or called determine whether or not they would be of use to our committee. It's always been the determination of committee members, in consultation with one another, as to who we would like to call and which dates we will call them for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Mr. Warkentin. I don't want any further discussion on it.

He's proposing that we postpone this meeting, and I'd like to take a vote on it and proceed with our witnesses.

Those in favour of Mr. Warkentin's suggestion that we postpone the meeting and let the witnesses come back the next time when the Parliamentary Budget Officer can come back again and give us the information that the very able deputy ministers can give us....

Yes, Madam Hall Findlay?

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I would like to respond to Mr. Warkentin. We had actually expected at this point to have the information that was given to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, with which we could ask him specific questions. As Mr. Warkentin knows, that has been denied due to concerns about translation, even though we said we would be more than welcome to take the document in its form. Having not been able to look at that also hampers our ability to ask effective questions of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

We have four excellent witnesses here today who I am sure have come ready to answer our questions. We would be more than happy to have another meeting, because today was not effective with the Parliamentary Budget Officer...to have him, but I feel very strongly that we have imposed on these people and they have information to provide us today. I would very much like to make sure we have that opportunity, and I would encourage a further meeting with the Parliamentary Budget Officer when he in fact has effective information for us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

I do not want any further discussion because Madame d'Auray has to leave in an hour. I will now come to what Mr. Warkentin has suggested.

Does the committee wish this committee to adjourn, to postpone for another day when the witnesses who are here may not be able to come, and wait for the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whose work was delayed by the government? Then the work was delayed by this committee not allowing its members to review what was given to the Parliamentary Budget Officer by the governing party, which claimed that we had to have it translated. Madame Baltacioglu has a reason for the translation that she would like to give as well.

I would like to take a vote and move. I do not want anybody delaying—

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

A point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

I have a vote and that is what I will go with.

Yes, Mr. Holder.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you very much.

What I've always appreciated with chairs of committee is the balanced way they presume a question, and I can't help but think the way you've positioned the question to the committee, by virtue of their potential inaccessibility, presupposes a response that they would not be available.

We had a particularly strong fuss, it seems to me, by members opposite not so long ago when we had Transport officials present, including two ministers, and there was some question of timing. We got into some really ridiculous wrangling, quite frankly, but members opposite made it really clear at that time, Madam Chair, that they intended to hear specifically the people who they had anticipated they would hear. Now there just seems to be an inconsistency in the logic that I'm trying to understand.

Separately, it seems, Chair, through you, that you biased the question to the committee, the way you positioned it, by suggesting their unavailability. I would respectfully ask you, when you pose questions of this nature, to remove the bias out of that, if you would, please--respectfully.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Actually, the deputy minister is extremely busy. Madame d'Auray has to go to a Treasury Board committee, and that is why I'm respecting their time availability and that's why I'm going to call the question to vote.

The people who wish this committee to be postponed and the witnesses called for another day when the budget officer may receive his information—because the budget officer has still not received the project update, according to him—and we get everyone back...those in favour of postponing the committee, please raise your hands. Those opposed.

I will break the tie and we will proceed.

Madame d'Auray, your opening remarks, please.

[Michelle d'Auray, Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As you've indicated, and I believe my office has indicated to the clerk of the committee, my colleague and I will have to leave at 4:30. But as I also indicated to you, I will no doubt be back before the committee on December 3, when we appear before this committee with my minister on the supplementary estimates for the Treasury Board Secretariat. So if there are other issues or questions that cannot be addressed within this timeframe, I'd be happy to address them at that opportunity as well.

I understand that I'm here today as a follow-up to my November 3 appearance before this committee, when I appeared with the Clerk of the Privy Council.

Accompanying me today is Mr. Alister Smith, assistant secretary in the expenditure management sector of the Treasury Board Secretariat.

In addition, I would say further to my November 3 appearance, I believe the department forwarded to the clerk of the committee the information the committee had requested on the Government of Canada's communications and federal identity program policies, as well as related information to the expenditure action plan.

It is my understanding that members had additional questions about communications planning--particularly coordination of communications on initiatives that cut across more than one department--and that some of these questions arose as a result of Mr. Kennedy's appearance before the committee last week.

I thought it would be of interest to the committee if I did a brief recap of the roles and responsibilities under the Government of Canada's communications policy.

I'll start with the cabinet, which is supported by designated cabinet committees. It sets and monitors the government's strategic communications direction and provides day-to-day coordination for the implementation of the government's agenda. It ensures that emerging issues are managed effectively throughout the government and acts as the gatekeeper for policy and legislative proposals. The cabinet sets policy direction and funding allocations required for Treasury Board to release funds for advertising contracts based on the government advertising plan.

I'll turn now to ministers. Ministers, both individually and collectively as members of cabinet, are the principal spokespersons for the Government of Canada and its institutions. It is their role to provide leadership in establishing the priorities and overall themes of government communications.

Specifically, ministers determine--together with their respective deputy heads--their communication priorities, objectives, and requirements. They approve the corporate communications plans of the institutions they head; they define the responsibilities of ministerial staff with respect to communications; and they establish, together with their respective deputy heads, effective liaison between ministerial staff and institutional heads of communications to ensure that the communication of policy and operational initiatives is coordinated. Particular attention is paid to media relations and participation in public events and announcements.

The Privy Council Office--my colleagues who appeared with me before you on November 3 and subsequently--coordinates and manages government communications, as determined by the Prime Minister and the cabinet. It is responsible for advising the cabinet and its committees, as well as the Privy Council Office senior management and institutions across the government, on communication issues, themes, and strategies.

The Privy Council Office supports and monitors the implementation of cabinet decisions across government, particularly with respect to communications. It collects and analyzes information on the public environment in order to advise the Prime Minister, ministers, and institutions on the management of public issues. It coordinates and supports the planning of horizontal or government-wide communications by designating lead institutions and assigning special responsibilities. It develops and monitors the government advertising plan and recommends funding allocations under that plan to the cabinet or its designated committee.

For its part, the Treasury Board of Canada is responsible for approving and promulgating general administrative policy for the Government of Canada in accordance with the Financial Administration Act. The Government of Canada’s communications policy is a good example of such administrative policy.

The secretariat advises and supports the board and its president in the development, management, and evaluation of those policies.

In that capacity, the secretariat has key responsibilities for the communications policy, which include developing and evaluating the policy itself; advising institutions on policy interpretation and application; monitoring policy implementation and compliance; advising on the allocation and management of funds for government advertising, which the Privy Council Office coordinates, and assessing, advising on, and processing Treasury Board submissions from institutions to release funding for approved advertising initiatives; assessing performance results and ensuring effective resource and expenditure management related to the communications function; and directing, coordinating, and monitoring implementation of the federal identity program.

Deputy heads lead and are responsible for the overall management of communications and its integration with other key functions, particularly policy and program management, and they champion an institution's internal communications.

Deputy heads are accountable to their ministries for ensuring the government's communications priorities and requirements are met; to the Clerk of the Privy Council for ensuring that their institutions' communications fully reflect government-wide policies, themes, and priorities, and that the communications function is fully integrated into the planning, management, and evaluation of policies, programs, services, and initiatives; and to the Secretary of the Treasury Board for implementing this policy within their institutions and for carrying out related directives, instructions, or administrative procedures that the secretary may issue from time to time.

Deputy heads must ensure that any instructions issued by the Clerk of the Privy Council and all relevant cabinet decisions concerning communications priorities of the government are fully implemented.

Deputy heads must ensure that the requirements of the communications policy of the Government of Canada are fulfilled in all operations of the institutions they lead, both within Canada and abroad. This includes ensuring that institutions manage both internal and external communications according to the values and principles expressed in the policy.

In my November 3rd testimony, in response to a question from Ms. Bourgeois about whether there is a government-wide planning process for communications, I said that, and I quote:

It is up to each department to establish a communications plan or a communications strategy. The Treasury Board does not have a communications plan, except for its own department. Most of the communications initiatives form an integral part of the initiatives of the programs of every department and agency.

This applies to the vast majority of communications initiatives in government. A certain level of coordination is usually put in place where an initiative cuts across more than one department and requires a coordinated approach from a communications perspective.

When I stated at that same meeting “that there is no pangovernmental planning”, I was referring to advertising in general. Communications planning for the economic action plan is an example of an initiative that cuts across multiple departments and as a result is coordinated, which my colleague from the Privy Council spoke to and showed you by way of the communication materials he referred to.

In his opening remarks at the November 3rd meeting of your committee, the Clerk of the Privy Council spoke on this issue. He stated that the Privy Council Office, and in particular, Mr. Simon Kennedy, Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Plans and Consultations, is “responsible for managing the overall communications of the economic action plan.” He went on to talk about two key elements of communications planning for the Economic Action Plan: the economic action plan website and advertising.

Madam Chair, I trust I have clarified the roles and responsibilities for communications planning in the Government of Canada for initiatives that are within a single organization, as well as for initiatives that cut across several departments.

I will be happy to respond to any questions you may have on this topic. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Madame Baltacioglu.

[Yaprak Baltacioglu, Deputy Minister, Infrastructure Canada]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. I have with me John Forster, who is our associate deputy minister of infrastructure.

We are pleased to be here today to update you on Infrastructure Canada's work in implementing the Government of Canada's Economic Action Plan.

Last January, the government tabled its economic action plan. At that time, Infrastructure Canada was charged with two important responsibilities: first, to accelerate the government's Building Canada infrastructure plan; and second, to design and deliver five of the more than 20 new infrastructure initiatives in the budget, as approved by Parliament.

In the past 10 months, my department has been focused on delivering this challenging agenda for Canadians.

Today, I would like to spend a few moments to talk about our progress and the measures the department has put in place to ensure the accountable stewardship of taxpayers' funds. While appreciating that much of the focus has been on new funds, we cannot overlook the steps taken to accelerate our existing programs, specifically the Building Canada plan. This plan was originally designed to provide $33 billion over seven years to 2014. In the past 10 months, Infrastructure Canada has announced funding for 88 major projects worth $9.6 billion, transferred half a billion dollars to provinces and territories for their core infrastructure projects, and approved the entire program for small communities, about $1 billion for almost 800 projects in all 10 provinces.

Second, Infrastructure Canada has designed and launched new infrastructure funds announced in the budget.

For example, since January, Minister Baird has signed agreements with every province and territory that has committed matching funds of their own to infrastructure stimulus funds. He has committed more than $3.3 billion of this $4 billion fund, approved over 3,000 projects across the country, allowing work to begin, and approved a $500 million top-up for small communities in 9 of 10 provinces. Through all this activity, the department's focus has been on effective and efficient program delivery. In other words, Infrastructure Canada's goal was to balance speed with accountability and stewardship.

Madam Chairman, while much work remains to be done, the department has made good progress in achieving this goal. The department has streamlined the administrative and approval processes to allow work to begin sooner.

The department developed an innovative online application form and review process.

The Government of Canada passed legislation and changed regulations to streamline environmental assessments to avoid duplication while protecting the environment. The department contributed to the government's overall efforts.

Infrastructure Canada has not done this alone. Infrastructure Canada has built a truly impressive national partnership with two other levels of government. Provinces, territories, and municipalities play a key role in this partnership. They provide matching funding to increase the number of projects that can be built. They review and approve the projects with us. They contract, manage, and oversee the construction of projects on the ground, and they provide additional accountability to their citizens and taxpayers.

The Government of Canada is responsible for reviewing and approving the projects with our partners as well, and our department monitors progress.

Infrastructure Canada pays its share of the costs as construction proceeds based on claims submitted by the provinces and territories. This is a very important point. Under our stimulus funds, the department reimburses the claims as construction proceeds.

Through signed contribution agreements, the department has provided advances to each province and territory. As construction on projects proceeds and milestones are reached, provinces and territories can submit claims and the federal government pays its share.

This is exactly what Canadians do when they are renovating their homes. They do not pay 100% up front before any work is done; they pay a deposit or an advance. Then, as the construction proceeds, they pay the money for the work that is done.

In some cases, this means the department may not see a claim for work that began this year until later this year or even next year. This is not a reflection of inactivity. Instead, it is simply how these programs work in our agreements signed with the provinces and municipalities.

It is also an important part of protecting taxpayers by ensuring that the Government of Canada is paying for results achieved and delivered. Once the department receives complete and accurate claims, we have financial controls in place to review it. Upon approval, Infrastructure pays the claims within 30 days.

There is one last thing I would like to touch on.

Infrastructure Canada was tasked with a very important mandate. The department takes this mandate very seriously. And it has put in place important measures to deliver on it.

Infrastructure Canada's management capacity has been strengthened by the appointment of my colleague, John Forster, as the dedicated associate deputy minister for Infrastructure Canada.

The department has created and staffed a separate team that is responsible for infrastructure stimulus fund administration.

The department has strengthened its audit team. Infrastructure Canada has created an external audit committee. It has started its operations and the committee has been briefed on all our programs, most importantly regarding the economic action plan.

Infrastructure Canada has bolstered its capacity on environmental assessments. The department has strengthened its human resources management team, and we have improved the monitoring of our staffing processes.

And, Infrastructure Canada has built effective partnerships with other departments, such as the regional development agencies, who manage and deliver some of the department's infrastructure programs on the ground.

In the four months since I have become responsible for Infrastructure Canada, I have been very pleased with the dedication and level of effort in the department to deliver on the government's agenda. Much work remains to be done, and I will continue to seek ways to improve our implementation.

In closing, over the last 10 months, Infrastructure Canada has developed a national partnership that is leveraging billions of dollars in infrastructure funding, contributed to the start of thousands of important projects across the country, and, most importantly, put measures in place to ensure that the department could deliver quickly on the agenda while being accountable to Canadian taxpayers.

Thank you again, Madam Chair, for inviting us. We are very pleased to be here, and hopefully we'll answer all of your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you very much.

We'll start with the first round of questions. You have eight minutes, Madam Hall Findlay.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you very much, everyone, for being here.

My questions are for Madame d'Auray first, because of the time constraints you have. I do appreciate your being here. I want to thank you also for your detailed description of who's responsible for what with the communications policy of the federal identity program. That's very helpful. So thank you for that.

I do have a couple of questions. I am being completely upfront. We have had some significant concerns about some of the advertising content looking and feeling a great deal like certain aspects of the Conservative Party. We've had examples of website colours, for example, not only being blue, but out of a million possible choices the exact same pigment as that used by the Conservative Party. We are worried about phrases such as “Harper government”, which appears over 9,000 times in government websites. Having reviewed the communications policy and the FIP, there's nothing in there that suggests the name of the Prime Minister with “government” is a Canadian symbol the way “Government of Canada” is.

I have two questions. For things like that exact pigment of blue for the websites being exactly the same as that of the Conservative Party, the use of the phrase “Harper government”, the decision to have photos galore of the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers—including playing the piano—those decisions, I take it from your description, would come either from cabinet or from cabinet with the approval or direction of the PCO. Is that correct?

[Michelle d'Auray]

In many of those instances your answer is correct. There are no prescriptions or no elements with regard to which colour, which element. The only colour elements, if I can put it that way, are prescribed in terms of the federal identity program, with the official symbols, per se. It really is the choice of either ministers or cabinet with regard to what the elements are. It is not an element governed by or prescribed by or prevented by, if I can put it that way.... There are no prescriptions for or against the specific use of colours or phrases or elements.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

This is where I become a little bit confused, because in reading the policy and the FIP, it certainly seems to me that although it doesn't exclude certain things, by including certain things, without a catch-all saying “by the way, anything else will go”...there is a certain element of “not everything will go” in government advertising. By including reference to Government of Canada symbols and accepted symbols, there is a requirement, I think. There should be.

Ultimately, in terms of compliance, if decisions are made to have a certain branding element to advertising made by the PCO, by the PMO, in your description here you do have that the Treasury Board Secretariat does in fact have the responsibility of monitoring the policy implementation and compliance.

Can you tell me who in Treasury Board would look at those directions from the PMO, from cabinet, from the PCO, and determine, yes, you have complied with the communications policy, yes, we have decided that the use of X slogan or the use of X colour scheme or the use of X number of photos, for example...? Who in Treasury Board would actually say, yes, this complies with the communications policy? And what criteria would be used? But I'm really trying to focus in on who.

[Michelle d'Auray]

The reason I gave the roles and responsibilities was also to indicate that in the specific areas or in the programs or activities or communications activities, deputy heads are accountable for ensuring that they are compliant with the policy.

In the horizontal communications activities that are undertaken, the Privy Council Office and the Treasury Board Secretariat do engage in, I would say, a review of the materials insomuch as there is a need to do so.

As I indicated in my previous appearance before this committee, in the materials with regard to the economic action plan, the advertising is fully compliant with the Government of Canada communications policy as well as with the components with regard to the specific advertising elements of the EAP.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

With respect, on the comment that just because something isn't excluded means it can be included, our view is that if the communications policy allows that level of politicization of an advertising campaign, either the policy is not being complied with in requiring clear Government of Canada symbols--the communications policy and the FIP are not really being complied with--or they need a significant tightening up, because there seems to be a great deal of this transfer of the Conservative Party look and feel into government advertising.

But thank you for that.

I have a quick question for Ms. Baltacioglu.

We understand that everybody at Infrastructure has had to do double and triple duties, so we appreciate the workload you're under. But since last spring we've been looking for the dollar numbers. I notice in your handout there's a figure for advances, and then another explanation that the government will pay claims once invoices are received. I have no argument with that, although the question of an advance is now new to us.

Can you please tell us what those numbers are so far in simple dollar figures?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

Thank you for the question. I appreciate that the honourable member is seeking clarity, because it is somewhat complicated in the way the program runs.

Madam Chairman, the last time we appeared you asked us for a schematic. Do the members have that?