Evidence of meeting #24 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was assets.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Colleagues, I'm going to go through the list of the other estimates. We will be reporting these back to the House, if members so agree.
CANADIAN HERITAGE Public Service Commission Vote 95—Program expenditures..........$79,814,000 Public Service Labour Relations Board Vote 100—Program expenditures..........$6,071,000 Public Service Staffing Tribunal Vote 105—Program expenditures..........$1,567,000 Registry of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal Vote 110—Program expenditures..........$1,644,000
(Votes 95, 100, 105, and 110, less the amounts voted in interim supply, agreed to)
GOVERNOR GENERAL Governor General Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$16,468,000
(Vote 1, less the amount voted in interim supply, agreed to)
PARLIAMENT The Senate Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$58,659,000
(Vote 1, less the amount voted in interim supply, agreed to)
PRIVY COUNCIL Department Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$115,611,000 Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat Vote 5—Program expenditures..............$6,095,000 Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Vote 10—Program expenditures..........$25,635,000 Public Appointments Commission Secretariat Vote 25—Program expenditures...............$945,000
(Votes 1, 5, 10, and 25, less the amounts voted in interim supply, agreed to)
TREASURY BOARD Treasury Board Secretariat Vote 1—-Program expenditures.......................$175,374,000 Vote 5—Government Contingencies...............$750,000,000 Vote 10—Government-Wide Initiatives................$6,636,000 Vote 20—Public Service Insurance...............$2,103,044,000 Vote 25—Operating Budget Carry Forward..$1,200,000,000 Vote 30—Paylist Requirements.......................$500,000,000 Vote 35—Budget Implementation Initiatives...$3,000,000,000 Canada School of Public Service Vote 40—Program expenditures........................$58,330,000 Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying Vote 45—Program expenditures..........................$4,120,000 Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner Vote 50—Program expenditures.........................$6,033,000 Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada Vote 55—Program expenditures........................$61,127,000
(Votes 1, 5, 10, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, and 55, less the amounts voted in interim supply, agreed to)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Thank you, colleagues. It's unanimous.
Shall I report the main estimates 2009-10 to the House?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
I shall report them. I should say it may well be that Monsieur Gourde will report them on our behalf tomorrow morning in the House at routine proceedings.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Gourde will report it to the House? But that's your job, Mr. Chair.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
You are the chair, and I do not want to be represented by Mr. Gourde.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Thank you for your support and kind advice on that.
We continue to do the work our electors have sent us here for. We've approved the estimates and we'll report that back to the House.
There's an additional item involving the User Fees Act and the Esquimalt dry dock that was taken up in questioning earlier by Mr. Anders. Mr. Gourde, on behalf of the government, gave us notice of this at the last meeting. I think we have a motion that is going to be moved by Mr. Gourde. I will just say for the public record that the User Fees Act requires that where there is a regulatory initiative to increase or adjust user fees, these matters are referred to the House and the Senate, and they are then referred to the appropriate committee, in this case this committee. The committee then may study, review, and report the recommendation back to the House.
In this case, I understand the parties have all been informed of this. They've all had an opportunity to review the user fee proposals for the Esquimalt dry dock. The parties have accepted and agree with those, and we're able to put the motion. I understand colleagues do not wish to debate it, but they can if they wish.
Is this a point of order?
Liberal
Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON
I thought you weren't going to allow any comment, but you just said we could, actually.
Liberal
Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON
I thought you were going to run it through. That's my mistake.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I propose the following motion to my committee colleagues:
That the Committee indicate to the House of Commons that it recommends and agrees to the adoption of the User Fees Proposal relating to the Esquimalt Graving Dock (EGD), as tabled in the House of Commons on May 20, 2009.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
We've had some difficulty today on the precise wording of this.
Would you please read it again, just for the record?
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
All right then, I will read it more slowly.
That the Committee indicate to the House of Commons that it recommends and agrees to the adoption of the User Fees Proposal relating to the Esquimalt Graving Dock (EGD), as tabled in the House of Commons on May 20, 2009.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
I think the running translation we have here is sufficient. I think it complies with our requirements. This is pursuant to the User Fees Act, particularly section 5. Thank you for the motion.
Is there any debate on the motion?
Ms. Hall Findlay.
Liberal
Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON
I just wanted to say that, based on the information the ministry has provided to us over the last few weeks, we support the motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Thank you.
Is there any other comment?
I will just say I've had an opportunity to look at it, and there appears to have been pretty significant consultation with all the users. My feeling is that the process here quite adequately fulfills the objectives of the User Fees Act as it was adopted by Parliament as a result of a private member's initiative a few years ago. I thought that was a fairly good exercise.
Having had that brief exchange and debate, I will put the motion.
(Motion agreed to)