Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 5th, 2011

[John Wiersema]

The documentation issue, Mr. Chairman, relates to the selection of projects for the legacy fund. In my opinion, the lesson learned from that is quite simple. There is a role for public servants to play and they should be allowed to play it to ensure proper processes are followed and that the programs are administered transparently.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

That's fine. Thank you, Mr. Wiersema.

My point is that with this huge undertaking and the length of time in which it was done, the complexities involved, and the fact that it had never been done before, the government did pretty well.

[John Wiersema]

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the overall planning for the summits, the preparation of budgets, the preparation of detailed plans for those summits, yes, our audit focused on the planning and preparation for the summits. With the exception of the transparency of the request for funding for Parliament and with the exception of the absence of overall review of the overall cost of the summits, the rest of the audit findings are that the government performed well.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you. Time has expired anyway.

Back to the NDP. Mr. Dubé, you have the floor.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank our guests for their work and for sharing their precious time with us.

One of the most significant aspects of the work we do in this committee involves examining the way money is spent. So, I would like to talk specifically about numbers. Almost $50 million was spent on these projects. Of that amount, almost $30 million was spent in the Municipality of Huntsville.

I am looking specifically at the two most expensive projects, including the supposed media centre that ultimately was not used for that. It was made 6,500 square meters larger to include an olympic-size skating rink—I fail to see how reporters would have found the time to play hockey—with a capacity of 1,400. Almost $17 million was spent on that project. The other one involved a facility at the University of Waterloo that has not been used by students thus far, as reported in an article that recently appeared in the Globe and Mail.

The problem with all of this is that I cannot ask you whether we received value for money, because you made the point quite eloquently that this was not part of your mandate and that you did not concern yourself with what happened subsequently. In your opinion, when the decisions were being made as to how the money would be spent, were the proper procedures followed to ensure there would be good value for money, not only in relation to the G8, but also for future generations?

[John Wiersema]

Mr. Chairman, the first comment I would make is that I am not able to shed any light on how the 32 projects were selected because there is no documentation in the Government of Canada to explain clearly how those projects were selected.

We don't have a mandate issue here, Mr. Chairman. We have a proper mandate to do all the work that we think is necessary. We were not impaired in any way as a result of our mandate.

As to the administration of the contracts, the contribution agreements, they were well administered by the Department of Infrastructure. They ensured that we got what we paid for.

There is the question of why did we pay for these particular items and did we get a good value for money? That brings you back to the selection of the projects in the first place and whether these were the right projects to select for funding. I'm not able to comment on whether these projects were properly selected because there's no documentation to so indicate, but I can say that Infrastructure Canada administered the contribution agreements for each of these projects in a prudent and responsible manner.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you.

With respect to project selection, you mentioned in your audit report that the establishment of the G-8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund was made public in February of 2009. However, we have documents dating back to November of 2008 where specific mention is made of pursuing opportunities through the G8 Legacy Fund Project—although I think we can put the word “Legacy” in quotation marks.

It also says that the goal is

“to provide the greatest possible level of support”.

The word “possible” is an indication that nothing was certain at that point.

Based on your experience, would you say that striking a committee in West Parry Sound to provide ideas about a project that had not even been made public yet is an appropriate way of receiving submissions in exchange for federal funding?

[John Wiersema]

Mr. Chairman, I'm not able to comment on when submissions for funding were submitted because I wasn't able to audit the submissions for funding. There's no documentation in the Government of Canada.

With respect to the broad question of whether there are discussions of upcoming government programs that may not have yet been officially announced or approved by Parliament, I believe that the legacy fund is probably not unique in that respect, and I believe that discussions take place with stakeholders about the possibility of a program, sometimes before the program has been finalized and goes through Treasury Board approval and the subsequent funding by Parliament. So I don't believe this particular case was unique in that respect.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

You have 20 seconds.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

My colleague showed you the document that was used. You mentioned that the information made available was not satisfactory. Which documents did you obtain, and why were they not satisfactory?

[John Wiersema]

I believe, as Ms. Loschiuk has indicated, Mr. Chairman, that when we approached the minister's office for documentation we did get copies of the application form. A blank application form didn't help us very much in determining which projects were submitted and how they were selected. There was a small amount of additional documentation that also existed in the records of the departments and therefore didn't shed any additional light for us on the actual selection of the projects. The documentation we received from the minster's office was quite limited and for the most part also existed in governmental records.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you.

The time has expired.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

We're back to the government benches.

Mr. Dreeshen, you have the floor, sir.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much to our witnesses.

Mr. Wiersema, I also agree you've had a distinguished career. I have had an opportunity to be here on this committee and to hear some of the reports that you and your team have put forward. I certainly do appreciate them.

I'm actually going to go to chapter 4 and deal with first nations.

Mr. Campbell, I know we will most likely be dealing with those things.

I spent some time on the aboriginal affairs committee, and I know many of the issues that were brought up in chapter 4 are things that have been talked about afterwards and are starting to be addressed. Certainly, as we recognized in the AG report, it's looking at what has happened in the past. I know Mrs. Fraser was looking back a number of years and saying there have to be some changes. Certainly as far as our government is concerned, the comments are important. We are trying to focus, though, on where we are going to go and on the forward working relationship we have with aboriginal people.

Again, I suppose, the feeling is there. I know on the committee there is a strong and ongoing commitment for improving the lives of aboriginals. There is progress that has been made: achievements in economic development, infrastructure, and education--I'm a former teacher, so I have a lot of interest in that area--as well as changes that have been occurring as far as water in communities is concerned, child and family services, other active measures, and associated land claim settlements. These are some of the things that are to take place, but as Mr. Wiersema was saying, there are these impediments there. Some of them, of course, are associated with how fast one can move on some of those particular issues. Part of it is that I would like a discussion on how you see those particular impediments and how we can improve that.

We know there has to be collaboration with first nations in order to move onwards on any of the types of projects we have. We agree to develop the implementation plans with other federal organizations. These are parts of the things we are looking at. I am specifically looking on page 44 at the recommendations we have in paragraph 4.86, where we speak about the plans, the specific goals, the targets, the action items, and the timelines for achieving results and indicators for measuring progress.

I am curious if perhaps you can speak to some of the implementation plans that are associated with the responses you see.

[John Wiersema]

Mr. Chairman, very quickly, I think the member is correct. There are areas in which conditions on reserves are improving, but I would indicate that overall it's getting worse out there. The housing shortage, for example, has increased to 20,000 houses from some 9,000 the last time we audited it. The education gap between first nations people on reserves graduating from high school compared to the Canadian population is widening.

There are areas where it is getting worse out there. There are areas of improvements, but there are areas where it's getting worse as well.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Campbell, would you like to comment on the department's responses and action plans? Also, too, perhaps you could tie in the impediments you spoke of. It is one thing to say there is this problem, but you also spoke of the impediments that exist.

[Ronnie Campbell]

Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One of the things that I think is important to state, and we've stated it in our report, is that fundamental change is needed in how governments tackle the terrible conditions on reserves. Having said that, we also say that these are complex issues. As auditors, there is an accumulation of 10 years of work. We've brought it to you to say that in some cases you can't get there from here. We talked about the reporting burden, but the fundamental thing is how we will be funding those programs in the first place.

I recall being at this very committee, Mr. Chairman, many years ago—I think Mr. Williams was in the chair at the time—and having a discussion with the First Nations Health Council, and the issue about there being no legislative base. I recall senior officials from government eventually saying a bureaucrat would much rather a legislative base than the types of bases they have.

There is no doubt in our mind that solutions will be very difficult to reach. The member mentions relationships with first nations. That takes you into a world that's not the auditor's world. It's a world of policy and politics. A lot of the solution is there. Not only that, when you are looking at education, where are the educators in the country? They are in provincial regimes--and the health professionals and the social workers.

One of the things we say in the report is that, wherever they are found, the solutions are found in looking for fundamental change—maybe not the small increments, but the fundamental change—and bringing together not only first nations, but reaching tripartite agreements, which we recognize as not easy at all.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

One of the other things that was mentioned--

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

I'm sorry, Mr. Dreeshen, time has expired. Actually, it's quite a bit over.

Thank you very much.

That exhausts the speakers' list and the rotation that we have built into our routine proceedings.

We have a half hour left in the scheduled meeting. Some of the options that come to mind are that we could adjourn, we could allow another few rounds at a reduced time, and/or we could swing into a steering committee that would allow us to begin the process of selecting the chapters.

Might I suggest maybe a version of both? If we do six rounds at two minutes, that would ensure everybody gets an opportunity to get in the round and it would still leave us 15 minutes or so to go in camera and at least determine what our process is going to be for the selection of reports. As you know, we had a consensus process last time. Whether or not that's what we're going to do again, we haven't yet determined, so that needs to be done.

Those are my thoughts. I'm in the hands of the committee.

Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

I think we should use this time expeditiously and get on with it. Let's offer some more questions to those appearing before us and hear some answers. Let's move quickly.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Okay, thanks.

Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, we have no objection to doing what you suggested as well, a sort of hybrid--do some more questions and then perhaps move into steering committee at quarter after, as you direct.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thanks.

I must say that I prefer that because it allows us to use as much time as possible to get questions in the public session, but it also allows us to get some of our homework done to determine how we go forward.

Do I have agreement for that? We'll do six rounds at two minutes, and then I'll take a motion to end this public session and we'll go into the steering committee, which is done in camera, and then begin talking about our process of chapter selection.

For the public, the step after this concerns all these chapters we have in this report. The committee makes a determination, as we do with every report, on how many, if any, of these chapters we're going to hold hearings on. That process and decision will flow from today's hearings.

With that, I will immediately put us back in rotation and start with the government benches, so the floor is open to a government member.

I recognize Mr. Saxton. You have the floor, sir.