Government Operations Committee on Dec. 8th, 2009

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Okay, very good. We're looking for the total amounts, so I appreciate that.

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

So in terms of Building Canada major infrastructure, there are 96 projects with a total value—again combined—of $9.5 billion.

The communities component, together, is 1,255 projects, and the total value is over $4 billion. So those are some examples.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Those are helpful numbers.

If you have additional numbers, if you would table them with the committee that would be helpful.

Now in terms of FCM—

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

The numbers I have are a week old, from our last appearance. I think my colleague has today's numbers, so we'll table them.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Okay. That would be helpful.

We've heard testimony that FCM uses an analysis or modelling that states that $1 billion of investment would result in 11,500 jobs being created. I wonder if that's similar to the numbers that Finance came up with in collaboration with the Conference Board and the University of Toronto, or do you have different numbers you've been utilizing in estimating jobs?

[Paul Rochon]

Yes, we have slightly smaller estimates. We understand how the FCM came up with its estimates. Ours are about 10% smaller than theirs.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Would FCM's be in line with the Conference Board of Canada's? Do you know where the—

[Paul Rochon]

The FCM number is reasonable, given the margin error in these things.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Okay.

This is what's helpful for us as a committee. What we're trying to do, in the absence of the jobs being done...and what we're trying to get a sense of is what has been freed up in terms of the economy today. How many people could possibly be working as a result of the green lights being given? The numbers you have stated this afternoon give us a good indication. We can start to make some analysis out of that.

In the fullness of time we'll find out, but my sense, coming from a constituency where the infrastructure dollars are valued highly by the municipalities, is that there is no municipality that's not going to move forward on their project, because they see this as an opportunity. So I think we can reasonably expect that 90% of these dollars that have been allocated to different levels of government will be spent in the fullness of time, and these jobs will be created. So I appreciate that.

In terms of additional benefits... Well, let me switch gears and get a sense from Finance on what Mr. Martin was asking about, with regard to certain types of investments and how they translate into the economy. We see infrastructure investments, we see housing investment measures, and we see measures for low-income households. I would suspect that these are on the upper threshold of—

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Mr. Warkentin, please finish your question.

I am very engrossed when you're asking questions, so go ahead and finish quickly.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the fact that you're going to allow me to continue.

What I'm curious about is that with the absence of all the different options and places that government could invest money in, would these four different measures be within the highest threshold of return on investments?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

A very brief answer, please.

[Paul Rochon]

Yes.

In developing the action plan, the government had to find a way to balance speed of implementation with magnitude of effect. Some of the things that we can do very quickly, such as reducing taxes and increasing EI benefits, have lower initial impacts on output than something like infrastructure, but they could be put in place right away, and in many cases, target people who are most in need—EI, for example.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

I have to stop you there, because I've gone over six minutes.

Madam Hall Findlay.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you very much.

I mentioned at the beginning that I had some concerns about the modelling. I understand the value of modelling, and I understand the value of the Conference Board of Canada, for example, participating.

Two things, though. First, economists have been somewhat surprised at what appears to be and is often referred to as a jobless recovery. So I think earlier models based on infrastructure spending plans or stimulus spending plans elicited certain projections, but economist are now seeing this so-called jobless recovery. I'm not asking you to comment on that. I'm just pointing that out, that it might be a problem with earlier models having been used.

The other challenge I have with modelling is that it assumes that everything is done properly. In this government, we have seen in the past some real challenges with a particular large spending program where a small number of criminals took significant advantage of big spending in a relatively short period of time without accountability. I was one who applauded the effort toward greater accountability, because we don't want that sort of thing to happen.

My concern here is that with only relying on modelling, without actually asking for facts, without asking the regional programs for specific numbers attached to specific projects, the opportunity here...particularly because it's so much money and it's going out relatively quickly, and especially in different levels of jurisdiction it can be even harder to track. I don't disagree with that.

But I remain very concerned, and I put it out to you, have we not learned? I am very concerned that there is an opportunity here for people to take advantage without the accountability for hard jobs. So I put that there, but I actually have a question based on the agreement between the federal government and the provinces.

This is section 12, and it has to do with communications:

The Parties hereby agree to follow the terms of the communications protocol set out in the Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Framework Agreement signed July 24, 2008.

I'm assuming that's a publicly available document. If not, I would just throw out here that we would like to have a copy of that.

The section goes on to say that

Canada will provide Ontario with guidelines, graphics and branding requirements to be used in all communications regarding the Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Stimulus Fund Agreement.

Can I ask our representatives if the documentation for those guidelines, graphics, and branding could be tabled for us?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

I might be wrong--the clerk of the committee may verify this--but when the Clerk of the Privy Council and deputy secretary of plans and consultation appeared, they did share the government directives for signs.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

That's actually different, because that's an overall PCO involvement. I'm referring specifically to what's under this agreement for infrastructure spending.

If it's the same and you can confirm that, or, if it's not the same and you can table it, that would be very good.

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

From what I know, it is the same. I'll double-check to see if we've added anything, but it is pretty consistent across the country.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I actually want to see the guidelines, graphics, and branding requirements as they were laid out for the provinces.

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

Right. They're probably the same things as PCO showed you, but we'll look at it.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

If you can confirm either way, that would be great.

I have a quick question for the finance department. In terms of the claim of 90% committed...and I understand that's not actual, that's committed. I understand the benefits, too, of even though it hasn't been paid for by the government yet, the commitment has been made, so the provinces and municipalities are spending. We don't disagree with that in terms of the process.

I would like to know at what point Finance had enough information to be able to say 90% was the number. At what point in time chronologically, what date, would Finance have been able to give the 90% number that has been claimed in the economic report?

[Paul Rochon]

It's 97%.

I would say it was roughly mid-November, mid to late November. It would vary by project or by program area, but...,

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

There was a global claim of, yes, over 90%.

So it was mid to late November?

[Paul Rochon]

Yes. We go through by program, as we've indicated and documented in each of the reports. You've got a fairly detailed listing by program of amounts committed.

We work as close to the deadline as possible. We published the report on December 2, I believe. Depending on the program, mid to late November we would have finalized it.

Can I just make a comment on something? You mentioned accountability at the outset. We appreciate that, and agree that accountability is extremely important. With respect to this program, of course, the Auditor General is taking the exceptional step of auditing the program as it goes along to deal with some of those, to ensure we've got proper accountability. As well, the government has put out four reports, which is quite exceptional.

Finally, with respect to the jobs numbers--

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You'll have to wrap up quickly.