Government Operations Committee on Feb. 10th, 2009

[Karen Wilson]

No, we have not.

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

Mr. Richardson.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Well, that's nice and clear. Thank you.

Colleagues, we're getting closer to the end of the meeting. We have some routine business that we want to accomplish, including a consideration of reporting back to the House on the supplementary estimates. So although the next round goes to Mr. Martin for five minutes, I'm inviting you to ask one question, or maybe one question with a supplementary, to keep it confined so that we can get two or three more members in before we move away and let the witnesses go. I'm inviting Mr. Martin to try to do that.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm happy to try to cooperate, Mr. Chairman, although I don't have a great deal to ask.

Perhaps as my closing remark let me say that the reason our party is having a hard time supporting Bill C-10 is that we find it draws more from the economic update of November than it does from the budget. The question I would put to any of the witnesses, not unlike my colleague from the Bloc previously, is what economic stimulus do you think the government could draw from limiting women's right to take pay equity appeals to the Human Rights Commission, or rolling back wages in the public sector, or gutting foreign ownership legislation, or going after student loan debt even more aggressively but not going after Technology Partnerships Canada loans? The payback rate for student loans is 96%. The payback rate for Technology Partnerships loans is 2%, and there are billions of dollars out there.

This thing is like a neo-conservative piñata, and when Mr. Ignatieff hits it, all this neo-conservative wish list is going to rain down on Canadians' heads.

What possible economic stimulus could you draw from any of the examples I've just cited? Can anybody answer?

[Paul Rochon]

Well, in Bill C-10 there is approximately $11 billion in authorities to provide stimulus with respect to the measures you raise. Most of them relate to management of various programs rather than to stimulus per se.

On the specific question of public sector wages, I would just point out that the government and the Public Service Alliance of Canada agreed on the wage rates that are in the legislation.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That's a good answer, Paul; I appreciate that.

The one last thing I raise, and it's a serious question, is that many of us feel—and watching the United States, the point is being made—that the work that needs to be done to save the planet may in fact be the work that shepherds us through these economically difficult times: there's the blue-green alliance that's being formed; energy retrofitting is huge.

But there's one question I have. There's a government program now called the federal building initiative. The federal government owns and controls 65,000 federal buildings; yet I think a total of only 1,100 of them have ever had any energy retrofit renovations above and beyond changing light bulbs. Would it not be reasonable to lead by example and show the private sector job creation and operating cost savings associated with a comprehensive energy retrofit of your own publicly owned buildings?

Could you answer what the status of the federal building initiative is, and do you contemplate escalating that activity in the context of this stimulus?

[Paul Rochon]

I can't comment specifically on the federal building initiative, but what I can say is that the moneys that have been made available to Public Works to improve federal buildings certainly are there and are available to also make energy-efficient retrofits as required, as well as to increase accessibility to federal buildings for disabled Canadians. There's nothing, in other words, that prevents Public Works from going in that direction, if it so desires.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you for your cooperation, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Calandra has one question.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I'm very excited about the infrastructure program and the possibilities for my municipalities. All of the municipalities in my riding have submitted a long list of projects they have that are ready to go.

I have two questions. First, I want to make sure that we are going to be maintaining accountability and won't be sacrificing accountability for speed. And second, is Oak Ridges—Markham the only riding in Canada that has municipalities ready to go with projects? I was under the understanding that municipalities across Canada are anxious and ready to go with these projects. Are we suffering from a lack of applications that are ready to be financed?

[Stephen Richardson]

Let me deal with both those questions.

On accountability, certainly there is some emphasis on doing things more quickly, and we're very sensitive to that, but we are also sensitive to maintaining appropriate accountability and control for public funds.

I would note in that regard that as is normal with public spending at the federal level, all of the funds we've been speaking about will be approved by Parliament. All of the various disbursements of these funds will go through normal channels, including--where they are appropriated funds--through Treasury Board. And if they don't go through Treasury Board and are not subject to Treasury Board terms and conditions as a normal matter, then that has been added as a condition for the appropriation. In fact, if you refer to Bill C-10 you'll see that specific appropriations in part 6 of Bill C-10 refer directly to Treasury Board terms and conditions as being a requirement.

We have tried to do what is possible to make sure that things happen more quickly--because that's very important from the economic perspective right now--but with an appropriate view to accountability and control.

On the second question, I'm not really an expert on the various municipalities in Canada, but I think I can mention that there have been other municipalities, in addition to Oak Ridges—Markham, that have indicated a keen interest in pursuing some infrastructure projects.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you.

I have two quick questions.

Do the fiscal year 2008-2009 funds for infrastructure spending lapse if not spent? I'll direct that to Privy Council--or to the Department of Finance.

And second, has the government yet put in place any kind of mechanism—a secretariat, a task force—to, on a macro-basis, manage and facilitate, with accountability, all of the stimulus spending proposed in Bill C-10.?

[Paul Rochon]

Why don't I answer the first question, and I'll leave the second one for the Privy Council Office.

With respect to 2008-2009, which is the fiscal year we are in now, there is not any new infrastructure proposed. It would take effect in 2009-2010, the fiscal year that is about to begin in April.

To your specific question, any funds from 2008-2009--which is the existing infrastructure program--that do lapse would be re-profiled. However, the budget “use it or lose it” principle applies to the new funds, which take effect in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

All right. So the unspent infrastructure funds from 2008-2009 could be re-profiled and spent later. Is that “could be”, “will be”, “probably will be”, “may b”...?

[Paul Rochon]

Could be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Okay, thank you.

Where's the whip on the stimulus spending?

[Simon Kennedy]

Shortly after the budget, the Privy Council Office, working with colleagues in the Department of Finance and Treasury Board, convened the deputy ministers responsible for each of the departments that have a chunk of the stimulus to get the ball rolling and to organize ourselves to support the government in implementing the stimulus. Our intention is that this will be a regular process. There will be meetings at the senior official level at regular intervals to basically keep track of the work and make sure it stays on course.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Okay.

It looks to the chair that StatsCan hasn't been aggressively consulted on what the best types of stimulus spending are, but there may be other sources of that information already in the government. I appreciate the efforts of StatsCan to have the data available, and if individual members do have questions in that regard, I'm sure StatsCan would make every effort to assist.

With that, we can handle another 10- or 15-second question or two.

Ms. Hall Findlay, do you have a 10-second question?

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Okay, go ahead.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I actually have a 10-second question.

It's actually an apology to Mr. Richardson, because there were two bits to the ways and means motion, and it does include the home renovation. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you for your patience on that.

[Stephen Richardson]

Accepted.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Also, I'd just add a moment of credit for the government for getting rid of section 18.2, because there were those of us who thought it was not appropriate at the time. So this is a rare moment for saying well done. We think that was the right move.

Thank you very much for your patience and your attendance today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Well, Ms. Hall Findlay has taken my own words.

Thank you all very much for attending today. I'm sure it's been helpful. Good luck in your work getting that money or stimulus spending out the door.

You are now free to leave.

The committee will continue with administrative business.

Colleagues, we have three items of business that we want to accomplish. Most of it is routine, but I want to ask if there is a motion now to report back to the House on the supplementary estimates B.

Actually, colleagues, the procedure is for us to go through each of the votes in the supplementary estimates B. There are four categories. I will put those to the meeting and seek your approval of them and to report back to the House.

CANADIAN HERITAGE Public Service Commission Vote 80b--Program expenditures..........$1,248,792

Public Service Labour Relations Board Vote 85b--Program expenditures..........$5,401,410

(Votes 80b and 85b agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

There is another vote, this one under Privy Council.

PRIVY COUNCIL Ministry Summary Vote 1b--Program expenditures..........$10,081,146

(Vote 1b agreed to)