Government Operations Committee on April 21st, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

We've hit the time limit here.

I have a question, as chair, and I have a comment. There's only one question, and it's two competing things that I just need to be clarified.

With respect to the $3 billion contingency, vote 35, I understand that if it is not used by the end of June it will lapse, so there's $3 billion up or down. In addition, there may be, from the previous fiscal year, some reprofiling, which would add expenditure into this budget year. We certainly can't figure out the vote 35 yet because the time hasn't run.

What about reprofiling? Is Treasury Board in a position, or is Finance in a position, to give us some clarity on reprofiling that would be in progress now, following the end of the fiscal year?

[Paul Rochon]

The fiscal year that we just started, 2009-10, started in April. There may be some funds that are reprofiled from 2008-09 into future years to the extent that those are associated, for example, with infrastructure programs that the government has committed to keeping whole.

As well, as we go through 2009-10, to the extent that there are amounts related to programs such as infrastructure that are not used in 2009-10, those would be not for the new programs in the action plan but for the existing Building Canada funds, for example. Those amounts would be reprofiled to future years.

At this point, no, we do not have information on the lapse, either from 2008-09, from those programs, or on whether Infrastructure Canada expects to fully expend amounts that have been included in the main estimates for the infrastructure programs for the current year--

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Excuse me. Since this is indirectly related to stimulus spending, when might we be in a position to know how much was reprofiled and where? When?

[Alister Smith]

Once the current fiscal year is closed, in public accounts terms in September, we will know what funds have lapsed and what the requests will be for reprofiling. Through the fall, departments that want to reprofile from the previous fiscal year will be able to reprofile into this fiscal year, into the 2009-10 fiscal year, with Finance's approval. Then those are presented to you for approval in supplementary estimates.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Okay. The actual practical reprofiling I'm discussing is going to go on for some months.

[Alister Smith]

That's right. The actual decision will not be until the December approval of supplementary estimates (B).

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

All right. Thank you.

My comment is this. Our committee, on behalf of the House, is engaging in an exercise here, attempting to track, monitor, the stimulus spending. To date, we seem to be unable to establish any benchmark, any useful, clear measuring stick on how that stimulus spending is flowing. Now you've explained to us why. Essentially you're saying, “This is a work in progress. We're on day 20. Give us a chance to get it sorted out.”

Parliament may or may not be happy with that, and colleagues around the table will be considering this over the next while. I believe it's the view of the committee that we want to continue to monitor the progress and the spending of the stimulus package. You've indicated that on May 14 the supplementary estimates (A) will provide a reasonable amount of clarity on some of the spending. So colleagues can look forward to that. That's approximately three weeks from now.

I think I can say for most members, if not all, that we'd like to be able to sink our teeth into some real benchmarks. Let's get out the thermometer and take a temperature. Right now I realize the thing is progressing, and it's a large undertaking, but I think we'll want at some point, whether it's with you as witnesses or with ministers, to be able to see those crystallized benchmarks. I'm telling you that now. I think that's where the committee members would like to be on behalf of the House.

So that's my comment, and if there aren't any further interventions on this subject, we can release the witnesses. The witnesses may withdraw at this time. Thank you very much for attending again. You've acquitted yourselves well, and we all look forward to seeing you again should that be necessary. Thank you very much.

Colleagues, before we adjourn, there are five items of business I have to place before you. I don't think any of it is controversial, but we'll see.

The first item is future business. As you know, we're going into a three-meeting phase now, where we're looking at procurement. The clerk and our researcher have done a good job of bringing witnesses together, and we'll be using live attendances and some videoconferencing. I'm just alerting you to that. On the focus of our inquiry—I'm just going to repeat this—we're not doing a study of the entire world of procurement. That is a massive undertaking. What we're really looking at is the ability of SMEs to access RFPs and the government procurement process. So we're going to keep it at that, and even that by itself is probably a significant issue.

Anyway, I've taken a look at the work plan for it. I think you'll find the three days useful.

Secondly, you will recall members discussed the fact that this committee in the previous Parliament completed a report, tabled it, and asked for a comprehensive response from the government. By my calculations, the response should have been given by the government by a particular date—I have the information—which expired without the response. As a result, it appears to me that the government didn't reply within the time allowed, within the 120 days, but it's noteworthy that within a couple of weeks of that date, Parliament dissolved for an election. So it would be understandable that the department at that point didn't devote much energy to this, but it seems pretty clear that the deadline was missed. The department would have had to table this through the clerk with Parliament not sitting, because Parliament was not sitting at the time. That date was the 29th of August.

Rather than our taking steps here, I've simply indicated to the Privy Council that it is our take on this that the report should have been completed and should have been tabled. And I'm asking whether they have actually done the work. If they have, I'm prepared to write to them to ask them to provide the response. If they can't do that, then we may be able to take other steps. I'm quite sure that we can take other steps, but let's allow them the opportunity to provide a report without us formally re-adopting that measure.

If that's okay, I'll proceed on that basis.

I have a motion to adopt a budget for our procurement study. Who wants to move this very important motion? We're looking for about $5,800 for witnesses for the procurement study.

Mr. Warkentin moves that the committee adopt a budget in the amount of $5,875 for its study of the federal government's procurement process.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Bill C-18 was adopted by the House and referred to this committee. Bill C-18 deals with the RCMP Pension Plan and some other statutes. It has to do with calculating pension benefits and contributions. It's a technical bill. I believe it's totally non-controversial. It's a kind of remedial statute. I'm suggesting that we just deal with it, get it back to the House, get it to the Senate, and get it passed, just in case something happens between now and September or October. If that's okay with colleagues, we'll bring that bill in right after we finish the procurement study. It'll be one day only. It may be half a meeting, but I don't know. If members have issues with the bill or want to propose witnesses, speak to the clerk.

Go ahead, Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Will we do Bill C-18 immediately following the procurement study?

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Yes, and I'm looking at Tuesday, May 5.

I have a notice of motion from Ms. Hall Findlay that was given on April 9.

Did you want to put that now, Ms. Hall Findlay?

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Would you introduce it for our colleagues?

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

If everyone has a copy of it, do I need to read it out, or are we okay with it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

There is no need to read it, but you may want to describe it, or you can move it and debate it. Do it however you like.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

If everybody has it, I'll just move it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Ms. Hall Findlay moves her motion. You have copies before you. This is a motion that the committee call certain witnesses and set up a half-hour window on Tuesdays for the purpose of monitoring stimulus package spending.

Is there any debate?

Go ahead, Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I would prefer, Mr. Chairman, to undertake the regular practice of this committee, which is that as issues and concerns are identified by committee members, we proceed in that fashion and allocate them to respective dates. I appreciate what Ms. Hall Findlay is working to undertake, but my concern is that if we actually do this, we are going to put everything else on the back burner. We're going to jeopardize the ability to get through some other issues we would like to get through.

It would be my preference that as supplementary estimates (A) come forward we have a more comprehensive day of review. I don't think a half-hour every week or whatever is beneficial to members of this committee. I'm not sure we'll find out anything that's helpful for this committee.

Since I have the mike, I think there are a few other concerns that have started to bubble away that members of this committee would like to address before our summer break. I think we're running under very tight time restrictions. I don't think there's anybody around the table who's opposed to having a full accountability and airing of vote 35 and other measures, but we may want to look at dates that would coincide with us having additional information, such as when the government submits supplementary estimates (A) for everyone to consider. I think at that point it might be our opportunity to dissect them and look further into those.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I very much understand Ms. Findlay's concerns, particularly since the Liberal Party supported a budget with conditions and she wants to comply with them. That's very honourable on her part, except that people have come to see us three, four, five times, so much so that I asked them if they had the time to work. They're holding two meetings today: ours and that of another committee where they're doing exactly the same thing. They're asked questions. First, they have a job to do; second, I feel like I'm at the circus right now. Quite honestly, you won't get any answers because they are always the same. They tell us to ask the departments.

Ms. Findlay, if you propose that we invite every department from the end of June to early September, I don't see any problem in that. First of all, we have work to do for which we consulted each other. Second, I don't have any time to waste here.

Unfortunately, I won't vote in favour of your motion because I think this is a real circus.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Mr. Brown.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you.

My concern with this motion is that it would determine too much of our agenda going into spring. It would take the committee away from selecting witnesses. Although I trust the wisdom of the chair, it says here that the chair be empowered to invite witnesses, and I'd like that process to involve the whole committee.

Coming out of the questions today, I'd love to see what Martha is getting at. I appreciate the intent, but I think we should be more specific. It shouldn't simply be a passing of the buck to the chair to say, you pick whom we're going to hear from. Personally, I'd love to hear from the CMHC to know more details on those municipal loans. I want to hear from Canada Health Infoway and find out why those funds aren't being spent on hospitals, and to find out where the electronic health record funding is being spent.

I think if we had a session where we all came forward with the areas of stimulus funding we'd like to get greater details on, that would be a more productive use of our time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Shall I put the motion then?

Ms. Hall Findlay wants to speak to her motion. Okay, go ahead. I have no objection.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I'll just say it very briefly.

I completely agree that this is a bit like a circus, but I would like this motion to be adopted. Based on what we've heard today and before leaving, they didn't give any answers. We supported a $3 billion budget on the condition that we could request information. But there's nothing.

We also heard Mr. Brown's comment today that he would consider supporting it if it were a little more specific. Trust me, I would love it to be more specific, but twice today we heard a refusal to give us a list of departments that are in fact being allocated the money under the $3 billion.

I've heard the comments, and I'll leave this on the record that this is our attempt.... I think it is our job to do this, not just as opposition members, but also as parliamentarians. Having been asked to approve $3 billion in spending under unusual circumstances, it is our job to hold the government to account and to have departmental representation here, as well as the Secretary of the Treasury Board, before committee on a regular basis.

I have a final comment on Mr. Warkentin's point that we should probably wait until we have more information from the government. The whole point of this motion was in fact to require more information from the government and more quickly than it's already proposing. But I'll leave those comments on the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Okay. I don't see any further debate. We can put the question.

(Motion negatived)

Our next meetings have already been sorted out. Clearly, the supplementary estimates referred to in today's meeting will trigger some interest on May 14. At the same time, we should be scheduling the main estimates—and after May 14, the supplementaries as well. So we'll have Public Works and Government Services, Treasury Board Secretariat, and the Privy Council as well.

In discussions with ministers and ministers' offices, I gather they think that this timeframe is a more appropriate window for their appearance. With that in mind, I'll ask the clerk to do some scoping out for appearances within those timeframes.

We now have Mr. Warkentin and Madame Bourgeois.

Madame Bourgeois first.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

It's just a matter of health, Mr. Chairman. It's now 1:05 p.m. I had breakfast at 6:45 this morning and I've eaten nothing since then. I've sat in I don't know how many meetings here when I was quite tired. My colleague suffers from an illness that is like diabetes and he has to eat at set times. We have never had anything to eat here. When I see Mr. Gourde sleeping in front of us, I imagine he must be hungry. I also feel like sleeping because I'm hungry.

Mr. Chairman, is it possible to order lunch, even if it's just snacks, so that we can have a little energy in this committee? Please, I'm on my knees.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

I'll look at the snack approach. We'll look at a snack as an option.

Mr. Warkentin.