Ralph Goodale

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, in doing the review of the files for this year, the problems that we are identifying are not problems associated with the community based projects themselves. The problems appear to be connected to the delivery mechanism rather than the project.

At this stage it is too early to predict whether any of those community based projects per say would be rejected. I suspect few if any of the community based projects would be rejected.

What we will focus on is the methodology of the delivery, which is where the problem is, not with the project itself.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to give the committee an idea of the magnitude of this task. What we are reviewing is the time period from 1997 to the year 2000. The year 2000 was the year in which the internal audit took place. That was a very important event in the flow of history here.

However in 1997, 1998 and 1999 there were probably about 500 projects processed per year, so the volume of files we have to review is a significant volume. We are going through them as rapidly as possible. In fairness, it is still just a bit early to draw any statistical conclusions. However, in the improvements we are making, we want to be able to measure progress. That is something that is just as important to me as I am sure it is to him.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, in the days since May 27 we have not had the opportunity to take the hypothesis of the new rules and apply them to an old situation. It is an interesting question and, if the hon. gentleman would permit, I would like to reflect on the question and see what the impact would be.

It is important for us make improvements and to be able to measure the nature of the improvements. I would very much like to take that suggestion under advisement.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Later on this evening. I will advise exactly when, Mr. Chairman, in just a few moments.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, it will take me a moment to dig out those specific statistics. This is quite detailed statistical information. Perhaps it would be acceptable to the hon. member if I filed it with the committee in writing rather than taking the time to read through all the statistics. It is quite a complicated set of numbers. I would be happy to file the paper if I could.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. gentleman would have used the word inadvertently, but there was no sneaking here. It was according to the established procedures.

Naturally, when one comes in part way through a $40 million program and imposes a moratorium or a freeze, one will catch some things in progress because it will be part way through the year.

My intervention came at just about the halfway point. Eighteen million dollars worth of work was essentially done for the year. Another $22 million remains to be done. I am in the process of focusing particularly on those ones that have been caught in process.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, the only members of the committee are ministers. Obviously there are some ministerial changes from time to time. It is the Prime Minister's prerogative as to which ministers sit on which committees.

We have, as members know, the economic committee of cabinet, the social committee of cabinet, the treasury be communications committee. The membership varies from time to time. It is a decision of the Prime Minister as to which ministers are on which committee.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, it is the cabinet committee on communications. As the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and the minister responsible for Communications Canada, I chair that committee. We could provide to the committee of the whole later on this evening the membership of the committee.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, there has been no new delegation since May 26.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, the delegation of signing authorities is reviewed periodically from time to time as required. There is no rigid schedule that it must come up for review on an annual basis or that sort of thing. It is on an as required basis.

As a new minister in a portfolio, I would expect to see the delegation of signing authorities in the next short while to see if I consider them to be appropriate. Whenever my portfolio has changed in the past I have routinely taken the opportunity to examine the delegation of signing authorities, and I expect that to be forthcoming.