Government Operations Committee on Dec. 1st, 2011

[John Forster]

Yes, vote 55 is our contribution vote, so it would include the range of programs we have: Building Canada; green infrastructure....

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Okay. I understand the need for Building Canada to resort to supplemental estimates, given its construction projects and the inherent variability in terms of the timing and expense amounts when it comes to construction projects. And it is always difficult to estimate exactly how much things are going to cost.

I'm sure the Auditor General has weighed in on the expenses related to the Building Canada expenditures in the last couple of years. Without getting into the detail, could you summarize, overall, the Auditor General's comments on the Building Canada expenditures, please?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

The Auditor General looked at the economic action plan. In two reports what has been tabled is that our department has done a very good job in terms of managing the program and ensuring that the costs were controlled, ensuring that appropriate management controls were put in place. We have done risk-based management of this program. I would probably say that in terms of the program administration, both the Auditor General's reports are very complimentary to the work of Infrastructure Canada, which I believe is a great little department.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Let me ask something about the management controls, then. Were they in place before the announcement of stimulus projects? In other words, did Building Canada have its management controls in place long before some of the urgent announcements related to the stimulus program?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

Of course. Like all of the programs, we have management controls when you're running big amounts of money.

For the economic action plan, because the time was so tight and because there was a potential for making mistakes, the department took extra care, adding additional steps and controls. That's why all of our funds have been reviewed halfway. Our departmental audit committee has been involved in all of the program control gates, etc. I think for the economic action plan, more effort was put into it in terms of it was riskier, because as the time gets shorter, risk goes up.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Okay. Yesterday the Minister of Transport made an announcement about a new approach, post-2014, for Building Canada. Could you describe how things might be different? You talked about the three-step process of an assessment phase, a prioritization phase, and then a more detailed planning phase. How will that be different from what you had previously with Building Canada? And what's that going to mean in terms of predictability and so on when it comes to future estimates?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

Well, it's a little too early to tell in terms of what the next program is going to look like. What the minister announced yesterday at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was actually a process where, with the partners, we have the luxury of thinking about how best to spend the money, where the greatest needs of the country are. It's a collaborative process with the municipalities, provinces, and the federal government.

As to how different it is, in some ways it is a good signal that the Building Canada fund is going to be renewed. That brings stability. And the fact that we're going to work with all of the partners to design a program is also for us a very positive move, because money is not endless. You have to focus on what you're going to spend your money on. So I think that so far, from the provincial governments and from the municipalities, we've had very positive assessments.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

It sounds like I might have a bit more time left.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

Ten seconds.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Well, thank you very much for coming today.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

The NDP has kindly allowed me to use its time for the last very few minutes, and I would like to return to where I was before.

The departmental performance report states: “...in 2010-11 the Government of Canada transferred $170 million from the Green Infrastructure Fund to other federal departments to support high-priority initiatives”. That is past tense, so that transfer occurred in the year 2010-11. We have looked very carefully through all the estimates from last year and we can only find the $25 million that went to NRCan. Therefore, given that the $145 million transfer did occur in 2010-11, according to this document, is it not the case that parliamentarians were informed of this only after that fiscal year was over?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

Mr. Chairman, you would remember these processes from your days as a minister. There are two parts to the equation. One is that cabinet and government make a decision and legal authority comes in with the estimates. So as my colleague explained, estimates only come in in the year they're needed. The $170 million is profiled all the way to 2013 and 2014, so it's going to come into the estimates as the money is drawn down.

If we used the past tense we will have to be more careful about the way we use tenses. The government had made a decision, but Parliament's approval is coming through. These supplementary estimates have an entry about this particular $170 million.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

I'm a bit confused--even though I was a minister once, that is correct. It strikes me that if you use the past tense it is a fait accompli, it's a done deal, and it strikes me that you're making it a done deal before you have parliamentary approval, which would strike me as questionable.

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

I am in your hands, Mr. Chairman. I think governments can make policy decisions and make them public as they deem fit, so I don't think I can contribute anything to this as a public servant.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

Thank you.

I think our time is up. I think Mr. Forster has another meeting.

[John Forster]

No. I was just going to say as an example that when the budget in 2007 announced the Building Canada fund, $30 billion over seven years, that money does not flow except on an annual basis when Parliament votes legal authority for the government to spend that money.

Until that vote takes place, the government may have decided something, but Parliament has to vote its approval and vote those funds. So as I mentioned before, Parliament voted the first $25 million last fall. It voted another $40 million in main estimates this spring. There is $5 million in our supplementary estimates (B) right now, and the rest will come each year in the main estimates. And unless Parliament votes those estimates, that money does not get spent. I think that's what we're trying to explain.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

Thank you very much.

It being 5:30, we will thank our witnesses very much for appearing.

There is one small item of business for the committee to deal with. I think I can do this even though our witnesses have not left. I don't think it's very complicated. We have to approve a project budget for the study on Shared Services Canada. The budget total amounts to $16,500.

Any discussion?

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

I have a question, Mr. Chair.

Why is it $1,600 per person, coming from Mississauga? Is that correct?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

Maybe the clerk would know.

[The Clerk]

It is the standard price we use for witnesses who come from the Toronto region. It might be a lot less. In that case, as you know, we pay what the witnesses claim. What we save is returned to the general envelope of the Liaison Committee for other committee activities of the House of Commons.

Don't forget that some people might want to drive to get here. And sometimes, for instance, they will stay overnight in Ottawa. Basically, the $1,600 should cover these possibilities.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

All in favour?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

The meeting is adjourned.