Government Operations Committee on March 5th, 2009

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Okay. So we will repeat that the desire here is to have information and knowledge of what those projects are once that due diligence is done.

To the extent that any of this $3 billion would go to infrastructure projects.... Our information of the $4.6 billion that was allocated to infrastructure projects for 2008-09 is that at best $1 billion of that has been spent, which would leave a good $3 billion left that has already been approved for infrastructure spending. How does that relate to this additional request for the blank approval of the $3 billion?

[Alister Smith]

Our figures are not the same as yours, I don't think--

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I would love to have more information, because we're not getting the information that we've been requesting.

[Alister Smith]

I think the point you're making is that if there's funding left over in any one year, let's say fiscal year 2008-09, the one we're just ending, can that money be used in 2009-10? The argument in general is no.

Money lapses each year. There are possibilities of re-profiling, but those require Department of Finance approval because they do affect the fiscal plan and our deficit numbers, so--

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

That's time.

Just save up your other question. We may have additional time later.

Monsieur Laframboise, two and a half minutes only.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Finance has stated that mistakes would surely be made. I'm trying to see where these mistakes could occur. Three billion dollars are advanced. There will be $3 billion available earlier than anticipated in order to start up these expenditures. Let me give you an example. In the part entitled “Transport, Office of Infrastructure” there's an item entitled “Targeted Project-Based Infrastructure Funding”. A sum of $1.8 billion is already provided for. This means that thanks to the $3 billion, you'll be able to allocate $500 million right away? Is that right?

[Alister Smith]

If you're focusing on one individual program and saying that a certain portion of that programming would be up front, if indeed it's approved, that's roughly correct. This is really the first instalment on some of the programs we would be bringing out. The program would have to be ready and would have to meet all the tests that we described earlier.

On the general point about mistakes, I don't want to add further to what Mr. Flaherty or other ministers have said.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I want to understand. I'm not saying you're the ones making mistakes. Just tell me whether I'm correct, on the whole. For instance, if the targeted infrastructure funding program is already set to go, $500 billion can be spent. The expenditure is authorized by cabinet, isn't it?

[Alister Smith]

You're talking about an existing program on which there has already been some funding provided, and therefore an additional instalment of funding would be available through the central vote. Am I correct?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

If it is an old program that's fine for you, it's already approved. However, if it's a new program, once you've approved it, there will be an amount of money deposited in the program budget.

[Alister Smith]

With a new program, of course, there will be terms and conditions for that program. There will be a Treasury Board approval of that program. That's less likely to be ready early than a program that's already currently being used, so it may not work that the funding from April 1 to June 30 would be available for that particular program. It's more likely for those programs that are ready to go than for those that still require work to be defined.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you.

I'm sorry, Mr. Laframboise, that's two and a half minutes now. I have to be strict here.

I'm going to let Ms. Hall Findlay ask a question, with no preamble, and then I will ask a question at the same time, without an immediate answer, so you can answer both.

Ms. Hall Findlay, do you have a question? We're running out of time.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I go back to the potential lapsing of what may be an amount of $3 billion in infrastructure spending. You can answer this, but is it possible that the $3 billion will not have been spent on infrastructure projects, possibly to help the bottom line for the 2008-09 year? But then we're now being asked to rush $3 billion, which could very easily have been invested in infrastructure over the past year, with money allocated even the year before. That money has not been spent. Is it possible that now, if it does not get spent, that will show a better bottom line for 2008-09, but then we're now being asked to approve a blank for another $3 billion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

There's one question.

Second question: please tell us in relation to vote 25, the $3 billion, how and when Parliament will be formally notified or shown, project by project, how that money is spent. Is there something filed in Parliament? Does the minister make a statement in Parliament? Is there a financial document tabled in Parliament? Tell us how that will happen, if you can.

[Alister Smith]

On the first question, I can't confirm that expected lapse number that you were using for Infrastructure Canada.

Could the money have been better spent in 2008-09 or 2009-10? I think that's a good question indeed. The economic situation has certainly deteriorated, and that's since...from the fourth quarter on. There's more of an imperative, I think, to use the money in fiscal 2009-10 than there might have been in 2008-09. That's certainly a factor to bear in mind. We can't simply roll the money over into 2009-10.

On the reporting, we certainly will, as a normal matter, report on all allocations from central votes in supplementary estimates. To the extent that we have information at that point in time, we will be reporting in supplementary estimates (A). We will certainly be reporting in supplementary estimates (B).

As you know, there are quarterly reports being tabled in March, in June, in September, and in December. In addition, we're looking at the logistics of more frequent reporting on these allocations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you very much for those concise answers.

I know that colleagues have more questions. We will have Treasury Board with us on Tuesday.

To the witnesses, thank you very much. You may withdraw at this time.

Colleagues, continuing with committee business, I have a routine motion. I'm going to read it. Then I'll ask for a member to move it.

Your subcommittee met this morning, on Thursday, March 5, to consider the business of the committee, and agreed to make the following recommendation:

That the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates meet March 12, 2009 to study the Main Estimates 2009-2010 under PRIVY COUNCIL and the appointment of Patricia J. Hassard.

Do I have a mover? It's moved by Mr. Martin.

Are we agreed, members?

This is our future business, colleagues.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Chairman, are you suggesting that it was discussed this morning? Because I don't remember it being discussed this morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

No, this was discussed at a previous meeting and agreed to. The clerk has asked us to pass the motion so that the witnesses who are attending have that record of our order of reference. We agreed to this previously.

Colleagues, if you don't pass this, we're not going to meet for this meeting.

I have a mover, and I'll put the question.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you.

Is there any other business we have to transact today?

Mr. McTeague, other business today?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

In the interest of the motion you just passed, again, I would ask the committee to at least advise a Liberal member, other than the chair, of these meetings. It leaves us in an awful situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

You mean the steering committee meetings.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Good point. We'll see if we can rectify that.

Mr. Anders.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

I just want to state something for the record, Mr. Chairman.

This morning we were missing a Liberal member and we were missing an NDP member. I do not appreciate having extra meetings in my life. I would prefer to have steering business dealt with here at the committee, as a group.

So I'm not in favour of having extra meetings in my life, especially if we're going to have other members not attend.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would--

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

This is not a debate. I'm going to cut it off--