Evidence of meeting #8 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 money.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for coming this morning, or is it the afternoon now? I appreciate your coming to bring testimony.
I think there has been a lot of misunderstanding, and there's been a lot of discussion surrounding this $3 billion vote 35. I think we are getting a little closer to some clarification today, but we certainly want to ensure there's no misunderstanding in leaving this meeting.
My understanding is that this $3 billion vote is being brought forward so that money can be spent on items in the budget. Can you assure us that no money in this vote can be spent outside the parameters of the vote that has already been accepted by Parliament?
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
That's correct. The budget initiative is vote-worthy. This says very clearly that it is for budget initiatives only, for Budget 2009 initiatives specifically.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
So in regard to the notion out there that this is somehow a blank cheque, I guess it's only as blank as the budget is.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
It's not a blank cheque. As I understand it, the budget has been approved—in principle, at least. So it is for those initiatives that are in the budget.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
So no minister could decide unilaterally that he was now going to build a new program to print golf balls for different members of Parliament, with their names and pictures on them, and distribute them to different members of Parliament, and say he was now going to use a portion of the money for that. Is my understanding correct? There's no way something like that could happen because there is no initiative within the budget to do something like that.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
It would only apply to initiatives that were in the budget and nothing less.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Is there any amount of due diligence that would be lost by spending the money now rather than later?
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
We do not believe so. In fact, we're treating these items the same as we would treat the supplementary estimates (A) items, which would go in June. It's the same due diligence that's being applied.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
As you have pointed out and as the minister before you pointed out, the intent is that the moneys included in this budget be spent now, or as soon as possible, so that we might be able to stimulate the economy, as you have spoken about. If the $3 billion were not included in this vote, would the government have the same ability to expedite the spending initiatives within the budget in the short term?
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Definitely not.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
So, essentially, the idea of getting shovels in the ground and hammers in the hands of folks and projects initiated is dependent on the inclusion of this $3 billion.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Certainly to have funds flowing from April, yes, it is. Otherwise, it would be the latter half of June at the very best, maybe into July, before the funding would flow.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
So ministers cannot make up programs that are outside the parameters of the budget and utilize the $3 billion for them.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
No.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Full due diligence will continue to be taken care of.
I think this brings a lot of clarification. Most importantly, without this money, initiatives from the budget won't be able to move as quickly as they would if the money were available.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
That's correct.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Well, I certainly think this answers many of the misunderstandings. Possibly, my colleague from the Liberal side is now assured that in fact this money is not going to be spent in areas she did not vote in favour of. It'll be interesting to see if in fact that is the case.
I'm going to change topics, simply because I think we have now come to full clarity on this particular issue.
When Madame Barrados was before our committee, she brought to our attention.... Certainly this is outside the scope of the estimates discussion, but maybe I'll just ask it and see if it's on your radar screen. I think we'll have a discussion on this at some point down the road. There was a concern on her part about what she called “classification creep” within the different departments.
I'm not sure if there's anybody here today who would be able to speak about that particular issue and her concern surrounding it.
Assistant Secretary, Corporate Services Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
I would refer that to the Public Service Commission and have them respond with some information on that.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Good. Thank you, Mr. Warkentin.
Now we'll go to Mr. Martin for an eight-minute round.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, witnesses.
Both the Prime Minister, in answers to questions in question period, and Treasury Board officials have invoked the Auditor General in their response as a way to assure Canadians that...I think her office is the most trusted office in the country, maybe second to the Treasury Board Secretariat. I'm not clear what specific approval or validation the Auditor General has given to this process. In our reading, we find previous auditors general, and perhaps even this one, being quite critical of the vote 5 process in the pre-approval of spending that's not specific.
What specifically did this Auditor General say that approved of this vote 35, this extraordinary vote?
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Mr. Martin, I can't say what specifically the Auditor General has said on this. The Auditor General has been consulted. We expect that the Auditor General will continue to audit the entire budget implementation process. All the documents that she and her colleagues need for those audits will be provided to them. We can assure you there will be full cooperation in that respect with the Auditor General.
On Treasury Board vote 5, we have had, in the past, discussions with the Auditor General on the use of the vote. We have responded to the views of the Auditor General, and indeed the views of parliamentary committees, through guidelines that we put in place and changes in the wording for Treasury Board vote 5 and the way we use the vote. I don't think the two things should be linked.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Also, we don't know what the Auditor General said. Maybe we have to call the Auditor General as a witness. There's a big difference between having consulted with the Auditor General and having the Auditor General approve of this whole process. If you read the answers in question period from the Prime Minister, they would have the country believe that Sheila Fraser thinks this is A-okay. She may have said in that consultation that she has grave concerns about this particular vote.
