Evidence of meeting #9 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.
Secretary, Treasury Board Secretariat
Again, Mr. Chair, I think the government has made its decision on how it's going to report. And what I've said was that at any time following the issue of that report we'd be prepared to come and talk about how the funding is being allocated.
Liberal
Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate, Mr. Wouters, your comments as well. None of these questions, of course, has to do with any comment on your ability and the ability of all of the people working in the civil service. We appreciate and we understand that an awful lot of work has been put in. I also want to stress that we, as Liberals, understand the need for speed and understand the effort going on here. You can understand that we also, as parliamentarians, have an obligation to make sure that we look after the accountability on behalf of Canadian taxpayers.
I do want to stress that there is no confusion on our part whatsoever on the difference between the Building Canada fund and the $3 billion as part of Budget 2009. Our point only is that in the understanding of the need for speed--and we do want to support that, provided we have sufficient accountability--it seems just a bit inconsistent with the approach of the government in not having spent earlier money that was allocated. But, to be clear, we understand completely. There's no confusion on our part on the fundamental difference between those two baskets of money.
I have a quick question on the $3 billion. The provision is to have the $3 billion allocated over the course of the three months, not spent, right?
Liberal
Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON
Allocated.
So there's no specific requirement on when that ultimately would be spent, and it is a question of as long as it is allocated within those three months then it stays?
Secretary, Treasury Board Secretariat
The expectation is that a large share of that will be spent between April 1 and June. That's why we've said that it is a bridge funding mechanism. However, you can never predict in any one program area that what you forecast in April will actually always be done by the end of June. Some of that money actually can slip into future months, but the discipline in the system is to ensure that when we allocate we will allocate only between April and June. As I said, the intent is largely to provide that bridge funding, but some funding can go beyond the end of June.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Thank you.
I had a couple of questions. I have one comment and another comment leading to a question.
The first thing is with respect to these lists. I've noted that in the budget documents there are lots of lists. I'll just refer to the English version, on page 139, where there is a list of 14 infrastructure projects. A couple of pages later, on page 143 in the English version, there are some 13 projects, all of them major, big-spending projects. So I can only assume that the lists mentioned by Mr. Martin and other colleagues around the table have something to do with those lists. Already we have some 27 items. Perhaps, if there is a list going up on a website today, it will be a consolidation of those lists, with a refreshment of some sort.
The point I want to get to is that Parliament's job here is to scrutinize public spending. That is our job. The measure here, vote 35, the $3 billion vote, is an extraordinary measure. So it is not unnatural for parliamentarians--some of them, all of them--to want to probe or to perhaps even propose extraordinary scrutiny of the extraordinary spending measure. It's a large amount of money, and the speed attached to the spending and approval has already been acknowledged to be faster than normal. I know that Treasury Board won't want to make any mistakes.
Projects are approved. Somebody somewhere--the top person--has given the green light. Then you have the issue of when the money is spent. In this case, and in almost all cases, as you've explained, the money is not going to go out until work is done, which will follow that decision by months. In some cases it will be by many months. I don't know who picks up the bridge financing on this, but somebody does.
Lastly, you have the announcement, and we all love announcements in this place. I have a sense that Parliament accepts that the decision to approve a process or a project will take place behind closed doors, as it normally does, in a government office somewhere. All the papers are in and all the boxes have been checked off, and someone signs it. Maybe it's you, Mr. Wouters, or the minister, or somebody else. Somebody says that it's done. The approval's done. Then you contact the counterparties. Then there's an announcement. Somebody is going to want to make an announcement.
Why is it that Parliament can't be informed at that point about extraordinary spending? Why do we have to wait six months?
Secretary, Treasury Board Secretariat
There seems to be some confusion here about projects versus programs.
Secretary, Treasury Board Secretariat
First and foremost, in order to fund a project, you need to have the program approved. The role of the board, first and foremost, following this economic statement, is to ensure that all the appropriate programming is approved. That's what we're doing now, and that's largely what the $3 billion vote will be used for. We will look and say that for this program they have the resources in place, the personnel in place, and the program designed, and they're ready to go April 1. Therefore, we will recommend to the board, the secretariat, that of that $3 billion, x amount can be used now to bridge-fund, because they're ready to go. Another program may not go until the middle of April, because they don't quite have everything in place to get the program off the ground.
The primary role of the board is to approve the various programs. Projects, then, will be determined depending on the authority each department has to decide which projects under that program will be approved. Now, some of them may be large enough that they have to come back to the board and get project approval. The role of the Treasury Board is very much one of approving the programs. Then it goes back to the line ministers and the departments for approval of the projects.
So when I hear that people are looking for a list.... We're always talking about the programs we're going to fund with the $3 billion, not the projects.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
I just think there's been an appetite expressed from some members, and remember this is a committee that scrutinizes all of this spending. It seemed rather dumb for Parliament to be informed of the spending out of the $3 billion several months after it's already been publicly announced. To me there's a misfit there. Isn't there some mechanism in relation to spending envelopes out of the $3 billion envelope, so that Parliament could be informed forthwith when those decisions are taken?
Secretary, Treasury Board Secretariat
A ceiling was in effect at the time. I don't think we could do it, even if we wanted to.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
I realize you wouldn't do that normally, but then you wouldn't take $3 billion normally either. So that's my question.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
I can't really add too much to what Mr. Wouters said. The projects really are at the departmental level. At this stage we're dealing with the rather large agenda that's in this budget--all the various programs--especially the new programs that require more effort. We can't really get in front of decisions on projects and relay that information at this stage.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
I'm asking you after, not in front. It comes down to one person and the decision is made. In relation to money out of the $3 billion envelope, would it not be possible to construct a notification mechanism that is tighter than the existing one that would see this published something like six months or nine months from now? Or the mechanism proposed by the leader of the official opposition, where you get these quarterly reports, which isn't too bad, but there's a lag time there. I'm just asking if there couldn't be a mechanism tighter than that.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
As you mentioned, we will certainly be reporting the allocations from this $3 billion vote in supplementary estimates along the way. There will be reports of these allocations as well in each quarterly report in June, September, and December.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Okay, I thank you for that.
Are there any other colleagues who wish to ask a question?
Mr. Warkentin.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
I think it's important. I'm reading through press reports that have come out during this discussion about vote 35. I would just like to quote something that I've heard quoted from other opposition members, but it was quoted here in a Canadian Press story quoting Mr. Goodale. He's quoting somebody within Treasury Board. At least he says that somebody in Treasury Board used these words: “to fund things that haven't even been thought of yet”, and he goes on to say, “which would imply that it's not in the budget”. Could we get some clarification on that? There is this quote out there--I've heard it from members opposite--that Treasury Board officials are telling Liberal members of Parliament that vote 35 could be used for anything out there, anything that hasn't been even thought of yet, and it wouldn't simply be limited by the provisions and the programs outlined in this economic action plan.
Secretary, Treasury Board Secretariat
Mr. Chair, I'm not aware of where that quote comes from. Again, to reiterate what the minister said, vote 35 can only be used to fund initiatives, programs that were announced as part of the economic plan.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Further on in this article that I am quoting from, again, your assurance of that and the government's assurance of that seems to be the hinge on which Mr. Goodale indicates that his support would be contingent. In this news article he says that with that assurance he would be happy to support vote 35. So we appreciate your clarification on that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Thank you.
Can we wrap up now, colleagues?
I can allow you one minute, Ms. Hall Findlay, if you want to put a quick question. Did you want to make a comment or did you want to get another round?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Yes. We don't have time for another round, but if you do have a question, go ahead and put it.
