Government Operations Committee on March 10th, 2009

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I think it's very important to understand that the two funds, the Building Canada fund and this particular vote--vote 35--are separate and apart. They're two separate and distinct funds. The first, the Building Canada fund, deals with infrastructure funding. The second is intended to cover a broad range of initiatives outlined in the economic action plan.

As the member knows, you can't simply take money from one fund and then apply it to the other fund. That would be, certainly, inappropriate and perhaps even illegal. So we have to make sure that we are dealing with these two funds in a separate way.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I appreciate that, and I think that it certainly clarifies things for me. I think it would clarify things for Canadians. There is this desire to see the projects and the initiatives that are outlined in the economic action plan move forward in the next number of months. I think it's unfortunate that the Liberal members continue to muddy the waters to try to bring some type of doubt to this initiative.

As you and Mr. Anders have suggested, when the Liberals were in government they engaged in a different type of practice, so maybe they're thinking back to the way in which they operated, and that's what makes them so suspicious.

I appreciate the fact that you are undertaking complete due diligence in all these matters, and I appreciate your work and the civil service's continued work in this matter.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Well, thank you.

Perhaps Mr. Wouters can give the members of the committee some indication of the types of initiatives that would benefit from this particular vote 35, as opposed to the Building Canada fund, which deals specifically with the infrastructure.

[Wayne Wouters]

I can. I guess we start with the budget initiatives that are not funded through the Budget Implementation Act. As I noted earlier, we're looking at these on a case-by-case basis, or the board is. We've wrapped up the business of the board to do that. It's essentially looking at all of those programs that were announced in the budget. There are many programs in HRSDC, such as the apprenticeship completion grant, the older worker program, Canada summer jobs program, aboriginal skills employment program, and the list goes on and on. Again, we will decide on a case-by-case basis whether that program has advanced far enough and if the terms and conditions are clear enough that the board can make the decision not only on approving the program particulars, but as well to say that they're ready to move April 1, so we'll provide that bridge funding through vote 35 until such time as supplementary estimates are passed. That's the process under way at the board now.

Federal infrastructure is being looked at, as well, and we talked about small craft harbours. We also have the president responsible for looking at federal labs; there's about $250 million allocated to federal labs. There are many of these programs that could be funded from vote 35, and that, as I said, we are looking at on a case-by-case basis between now and about April 2, when we'll need to sign off and move into supplementary estimates.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you.

Monsieur Roy, for five minutes.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

I have a point of order here, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Yes, Mr. Brown.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

I know that the minister was booked until 12. Now we've gone beyond that. I suspect he has additional meetings.

Have we asked the minister if he is available to continue beyond what was originally scheduled?

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

His staff has approached me and indicated that at some point the minister may have to leave. I said if that's the case, then when the time comes, the time comes. The officials, I presume, will stay.

We're delighted to have Mr. Toews here. As colleagues know, the main estimates issue, on which Mr. Toews is appearing today, is the big enchilada of ministerial accountability. While we're very appreciative of the minister, his appearance here is pretty much de rigueur. We all realize that ministers do have busy days, but....

If you do have to withdraw from the meeting, Mr. Toews, you can come back at another date, possibly, before we report back all of the other votes in the main estimates in June.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I am half an hour over what I'd indicated I would be here for. If the committee determines that it's necessary for me to reappear, we will certainly take a look at that request and comply.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you very much.

Your officials will be remaining, I assume.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Okay.

We'll continue with the meeting. Thank you for being with us today.

I'll go to Monsieur Roy, for five minutes.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, just one last comment, before you leave. You mentioned $200 million in response to my question earlier on small craft harbours. That is incorrect. You added an amount, but this includes the annual budget of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which is approximately $92 million. This means that this $200 million is not new money. I will come back to this.

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

I think that Mr. Wouters understands.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Wouters is nodding yes.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

I will come back to this, because $200 million was not added. When I say that the needs are approximately $500 million, I think priority should have been given to federal infrastructure.

Do you have an assessment of all the federal government's infrastructure problems, whether in the Department of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or in other departments? Does Treasury Board have an evaluation of this type? How much would have to be invested to repair and renovate the federal government's infrastructure? In my opinion, this would have been much easier to do, and it would have created jobs in all parts of the country.

I went to British Columbia, Newfoundland and the Maritimes, and the infrastructure situation is a disaster. There have been problems with infrastructure for years. There has been no maintenance work done. For years, no money was spent, and now we are facing some very serious problems.

Let me give you the example of two wharves in my riding, where barricades have been erected so that people will not use them. However, fishers are continuing to use the wharves. The department has erected barricades, because the wharves are dangerous, but there is nothing to prevent people from using them anyways. There would have to be a police officer at each of these facilities. You tell me that you will be injecting $500 million. That is nowhere near enough. The same goes for infrastructure belonging to the Department of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I fail to understand the federal government's attitude in not maintaining its own infrastructure.

[Alister Smith]

Perhaps I could start by giving an indication of the scale of infrastructure spending that's already committed.

As you know, with the Building Canada fund we're talking about $33 billion over seven years. Over and above that, with this large stimulus plan--it's not entirely infrastructure, but it's a very substantial plan--it will be two years of nearly $40 billion in--

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

I apologize for interrupting, Mr. Smith, but you are talking about the size of the investment in infrastructure. Personally, I'm talking about the federal government's own infrastructure, not the infrastructure that belongs to municipalities or others. What I want to know is whether you have an idea of how much it would cost to repair the infrastructure owned by the federal government.

[Wayne Wouters]

I think when it comes to the overall state of affairs for infrastructure, each department comes up with its own estimate. We don't have a comprehensive assessment of that; each department does.

As part of this action plan you'll see a lot of proposals coming forward based on what the department felt it needed. So in the case you've got initiatives in the action plan to deal with small craft harbours, that $200 million is incremental to the department's budget. You've got money allocated for federal bridges, for federal buildings.

So a significant number of initiatives deal with federal infrastructure in this economic statement that we probably haven't funded at the level needed in the past, but I think this is a huge step forward to deal with some of those major rust-out problems we have across the federal infrastructure.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

I think that is a minor change at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I can say that, because the need is for some $500 million, and that is a minimum. That would simply improve the infrastructure, not repair it properly. That would just make the infrastructure safe.

I do not understand why Treasury Board has no idea where we are headed with respect to federal government infrastructure, after consulting with all the departments. In my region, the image of the federal government is reflected in wharves that are full of holes, rail lines in poor repair, airports that do not work and a host of other similar things. I apologize, but I simply cannot get over the federal government's attitude regarding its own infrastructure. It is beyond understanding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Did you want to add something, Mr. Wouters?

[Wayne Wouters]

Mr. Chair, I didn't think there was a question there. I think there was a statement by the honourable member.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

It was an exasperation of some sort, yes. But that's fine, the point's been made.

Mr. Martin, for five minutes.