Government Operations Committee on May 14th, 2009

[Alister Smith]

Perhaps I can start with the first one, the Canadian Television Fund, and my colleague Brian Pagan can help me with this as well.

The Canadian Television Fund is a private-public partnership that provides support for the production of high-quality, distinctively Canadian television programs. It's administered by the Canadian Television Fund Corporation, which is a not-for-profit private corporation. Budget 2009 provided $100 million more for this program in 2009-10 and 2010-11. This level of funding, combined with $20 million in existing reference levels for Canadian Heritage, is consistent with the level of support provided in previous years by the Government of Canada for the Canadian Television Fund. So in effect, as a result of the budget, this essentially keeps the level of funding level with previous years to support distinctively Canadian programs.

Brian, do you want to take the next one?

[Brian Pagan, Executive Director, Expenditure Operations and Estimates Division, Treasury Board Secretariat]

In response to what I believe was your third question on the elements comprising the increase in grants in Industry Canada—vote 10 is their grant vote—there are a number of factors contributing to this increase, most of which are related to budget 2009 priorities.

As an example, funding to support marquee festivals and events was a flagship element of budget 2009. Industry Canada is looking for $17.6 million in vote 10 to provide transfers to marquee events across the country. I believe there have been recent announcements related to the Stratford Festival, the Calgary Stampede, and some music festivals.

Funding to provide a grant to the University of Waterloo in support of the construction and establishment of a new world-class research facility, called the Institute for Quantum Computing, is worth $16.5 million. Again, that was a budget 2009 initiative.

Funding to support strategic investments in the Technology Partnerships Canada program and the strategic aerospace and defence initiative comprises grants totalling $32.9 million to Industry Canada in support of development.

I believe those three represent the lion's share of grants, but there are a number of initiatives.

Perhaps it would be constructive for members to look at the ministry summary and then at the explanation of requirements for Industry Canada, beginning on page 166, because for each element in the supplementary estimates requiring funding, there is a brief explanation there. At the top of that page, we break it down by the vote: vote 1, vote 5, and vote 10. For Industry Canada, its grant total of $85.7 million is easily identifiable by the distinct elements in vote 10.

I believe your second question related to CIDA.

[Alister Smith]

CIDA is seeking $140 million in new funding to support a number of development commitments this year, $70 million of which is to respond to increasing global food aid requirements, consistent with Canada's commitment to a food aid convention. There is also support for the Government of Canada's engagement in the Americas. As you know, a fair amount of existing CIDA funding is also devoted to supporting our development efforts in Afghanistan. There's a wide range of other elements under the CIDA supplementary estimates here.

I think your point is about the relative priority perhaps of CIDA funding versus support for veterans and other Canadians.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

That is the point I was making, that the increase in funding to CIDA would buy over 1,000 soldiers' legs. That was my point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Does that wrap up your line of questioning?

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

I think that wraps it up for now, sir, unless I have a colleague on my side who'd like to pick it up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

There are about 20 or 30 seconds left.

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I'll go in the next round with my other colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Okay.

Mr. Martin, for an opening round.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess I'm as much, or perhaps even more, interested in the process as the numbers. The numbers are so huge they're almost meaningless to me in many respects, although I appreciate knowing where they're going. They don't really tell us much of a story unless they are broken down in a lot greater detail.

Vote 35 really didn't contemplate any new spending. If I understand, it took spending that was to take place anyway and gave licence to roll it out more quickly—to roll out eleven-twelfths instead of three-twelfths. Correct?

[Alister Smith]

Right. It's a bridge funding mechanism; there's no new money here. The budget established, essentially, the envelope funds.

This mechanism allows us to bridge-fund to supplementary estimates and thereby avoid any unnatural breakages that would not allow us to implement some of these programs. Essentially it's based on cash requirements. It's a bridge to the supplementary estimates (A) or (B), based on the cash needs of departments. We don't want departments to try to implement the scale of this budget—and you mentioned its large scale—by dipping into existing funds and starving existing programs, when in fact—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Instead of robbing Peter to pay Paul, this lets them be more open and transparent about it.

[Alister Smith]

Precisely.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm wondering, though, how it was decided what spending should fall under vote 35 that needed this bridging. I'm interested in particular on page 81, under Natural Resources, where there is Atomic Energy, $222 million for the Chalk River Laboratories CANDU reactor. It's very controversial. If that spending was planned to go ahead anyway, what would have been the reasoning, and who would have applied for this to be part of the fast-tracked, enabled spending? Who would have made the request?

[Alister Smith]

Everything that is in chapter 3 of the budget is eligible for the use of this Treasury Board vote 35.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Except that not everything is. Who decided what would be under the special vote?

[Alister Smith]

There were some items ready to move in advance of supplementary estimates (A) for which funding could be provided through this vote. There are some where there are cash requirements that extend beyond supplementary estimates (A) and, on a bona fide cash requirements basis, would also be eligible for assistance from this vote.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

What would have been the goals or the benefit to having this particular spending fall under the rubric of vote 35? If it was scheduled and it was in the main budget anyway, how is it to anybody's benefit to speed that up when in fact it's a very controversial issue and may have benefited from more public debate and analysis?

[Alister Smith]

We're not really questioning the elements that are in the budget that are stimulus and that are to be accelerated, whether it's to provide a nuclear advantage for Canada and improve the competitiveness of the industry or for other reasons. I'm not really able to debate the policy here.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

No, not the merits of it, but I'm looking at the process. How did they get that in the group of things that would be under vote 35?

[Alister Smith]

Sure.

Brian.

[Brian Pagan]

Mr. Martin, perhaps I can try to explain the process.

The starting point for vote 35 consideration was that it clearly had to be part of Canada's economic action plan. It was clearly articulated in the budget. The budget met with the approval of the House, so therefore anything that was in the budget was a potential call on vote 35.

The next step was for departments to proceed with the policy approval at cabinet, where that was required, and then to develop the detailed terms and conditions that would satisfy Treasury Board ministers that a program, in whatever form it took, would be implemented in consideration of due diligence, transparency, and value for Canadians. We really are working with departments to move that along. To a certain extent, we are dependent on departments to finalize the terms and conditions and be able to bring them forward before they can be approved. So everything is eligible, and to a certain extent, it is as they come forward. There has been no designation that this or that is the priority for vote 35. It's as they become available. That's the first point.

The second point--and this is very important--is to understand that when a budget initiative comes to us for approval, that does not automatically precipitate an allocation from vote 35, because we are looking at their cash forecasted requirements. If the initiative does not have a cash need before supply, then it simply comes into supplementary estimates, and there are approximately $1.6 billion of budget initiatives that are in these supplementary estimates for which there is no tie or relationship to vote 35. Where a department can indicate that they can spend in a stimulative way in advance of supply, then we would look at vote 35.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That answers my question. In a stimulative way, that is the test. In order to have this special consideration, you should be able to demonstrate that this will in fact be stimulative.

[Brian Pagan]

The budget in chapter 3, in its entirety, is intended to be stimulative. It's intended to support housing, infrastructure, Canada's sectoral competitiveness, and consumer confidence.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It's a very tenuous connection in some of these items. That's all I'm saying, and I realize we're not arguing the merits of the choices with you. And I'm not trying to get into a debate, but as a member of Parliament looking at it, I think even with some of the western economic diversification money that you find on page 82, it would be hard, without knowing a lot more details.... If I had input into what kind of spending I'd like to see under western economic diversification, I don't think recreational infrastructure would be the top priority.

But that's helpful. So somebody has to advocate for and argue for the inclusion of certain elements under this special category. Again, process-wise, who would make the case? Would it be department heads?