Government Operations Committee on March 10th, 2009

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

It would certainly not present the same challenges that dealing with the municipalities and provinces does. I don't make those decisions, but I can assure you that when these kinds of projects come forward they can be done a lot more quickly in terms of the approval process than if we have to consult with the provinces and the municipalities.

I just want to talk about the consultation with the provinces and municipalities. As a federal government, we don't want to go in and tell the provinces what they should be doing in their areas of jurisdiction. What we want to do is ensure that they have sufficient funding to meet their priorities in the area of infrastructure. That's why we're moving on this economic action plan. That's why the $3 billion stimulus will be of great assistance in terms of moving this along. It gets the process moving essentially three months earlier. It doesn't open the door to simply let the cash flow, but it allows the process to move three months earlier.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you.

Mr. Gourde, you have eight minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you for allowing me to speak, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the minister for answering our questions and providing us with clarification.

Minister, what is the purpose of these votes and what conditions must be met so that these votes can be used as quickly as possible?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you very much for the question. It is a very important question.

I think that while we want to be efficient and quick in getting the money out of the door, we also recognize that we have to do this in a responsible way. I note that the leader of the opposition made a statement that you have to change the rules by which this money goes out the door. Obviously, he's not saying create more rules or make them more burdensome. What the leader of the opposition was essentially saying is find a process that gets the money out of the door in a more timely fashion. What he indicates and what he states is that we're in a serious crisis, and I would rather err by doing it fast and making the occasional mistake, which then you, the voters, punish us for later, than sit here asking have we got all the boxes ticked.

I think there is a middle ground in terms of how to get this money out. It's true that there is sometimes unnecessary bureaucracy that impedes the flow of this money, but I think we can still have Treasury Board approval of this money in a responsive and a responsible way. So in terms of this $3 billion, the programs and projects must be in the economic action plan initiatives included in Budget 2009 and passed by Parliament. So there's a clear perimeter around this fund.

Then the funds can only be allocated during April 1 and June 30 as essentially bridge funding until the money is available through supplementary estimates A or B. So what we're doing is moving the process up in order to get the money out the door faster, as the leader of the opposition in fact has indicated we should be doing. But I must say that the appropriate checks and balances must still be in place, Treasury Board approval must be obtained, existing requirements on accountability and reporting must be met.

One of the examples I gave is that there is a way of moving things ahead more quickly, especially when we've already approved a particular program, the parameters of the program are set out, the requirements of the program, and all that municipalities or provinces are perhaps asking is for more money. So we can safely put that money into an existing program where that existing program has demonstrated that it is being carried out in a responsible fashion meeting the priorities of Canadians. So it would be done in omnibus approval rather than a specific project approval. There are ways of speeding up the process without losing control of the expenditures of the money.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

If I understand correctly, Minister, with the cooperation of the provinces and municipalities, money will be available this spring, starting April 1, to implement major infrastructure projects that will help stimulate our economy.

Minister, will the minister report back on the amounts spent under these votes?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Absolutely. We will be issuing reports to Parliament. Not only will we do that through supplementary estimates, but we will do it through quarterly reports to Parliament. What the official opposition leader has asked us to do is bring reports forward on a timely basis in March, in June, and in December. Why he chose those particular months, I'm not sure, but we are certainly prepared to meet those requirements.

Obviously, in March we're not going to have as extensive a report in terms of expenditures because the money has not yet been approved. But we will report openly and on a transparent basis how that money is being spent. Again, I want to emphasize there is nothing being changed in respect of how we report to Parliament; and we will not be reporting in any different way from what we would have usually reported, with the exception of the additional reporting that we will be doing as requested by the leader of the official opposition.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Minister, I see that considerable efforts are being made to ensure transparency. Will the Auditor General have access to the information she needs to audit the management of these votes, and will her reports be made public?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Absolutely. The Auditor General will continue to review any and all programs she chooses to review. We don't dictate to the Auditor General what programs or projects she will review.

I might say that we did have a meeting with the Auditor General--and when I say “we”, I mean the finance minister and I--to apprise her of what we intended to accomplish through vote 35. She is aware of the government's intention in that respect.

Again, there is nothing that prevents her from making the appropriate inquiries, at any time, in respect of this fund or any other fund, if she or her office have any concerns.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Minister, will all the amounts paid out under these votes be subject to approval by Treasury Board ministers?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Absolutely.

I'm wondering whether Mr. Wouters, the Secretary of the Treasury Board, would want to give some details in that respect. I could do that, but there's nothing like having it come from the expert himself, in terms of the process that Treasury Board will follow in respect of the $3 billion fund.

[Wayne Wouters, Secretary, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Well, as with all budget-related items, it has to come to the board for oversight and approval. The board looks at every program to determine that the terms and conditions are clear going forward, that there's appropriate oversight in the departments.

Of course the $3 billion fund is to provide that bridge funding between April and June. The board has to determine, on a program-by-program basis, if a department is actually in the position to have the funding at the start of the year or if the program cannot get off the ground until June. That's why the comprehensive list is in the budget.

What will be allocated is now being decided by the board. It looks at each individual program to make a determination. Is that ready to go on April 1, or is it ready to go a little later? If it's a little later, it can be in supplementary estimates A; if it's ready to go on April 1, then we can allocate funds from the $3 billion. That's what's being done now on a case-by-case basis. When that's completed, then the list will be there. Right now we're all working with the same list, which is in chapter 3 of the budget. That does not include the Budget Implementation Act measures, which are a separate source of funds.

Really, I think little can be done in terms of providing the list, except what's in the budget, until that work has been done. There's an intense effort by the Treasury Board right now to follow through on each one of those programs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you.

Mr. Martin, for eight minutes.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you, Mr. Toews, for being here today.

Mr. Toews, without being repetitious, I understand the government's intent is to get billions and billions of dollars out the door in a fast-tracked fashion.

I wrote down one of the things you said. You yourself said it will be necessary to streamline the application process. Yet you're also saying that nothing will change in terms of scrutiny or oversight or the due diligence of the study of these applications. I don't see how that jibes. Something has to give. Where specifically will you be able to streamline without compromising any of the oversight, etc., to get this volume of activity through your own bureaucracy?

I said to Mr. Smith at the last meeting that he has a human resources challenge, if nothing else, in just dealing with the sheer volume of activity that's going to be flowing through Treasury Board. The room for abuse or maladministration of these things is huge.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Let me say, first of all, that I have a great deal of confidence in the officials at Treasury Board. They assure me they can do this in a responsible manner.

When I indicate there will be the same rigour in terms of getting matters through Treasury Board, I go back to the example of existing programs. All the criteria have already been set out so we know what a particular program involves, how that money is to be spent. In those cases we are simply topping up the money that has already been depleted.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That's one example, yes.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Yes, so there's no need then to go into the whole program, and that will make a huge difference in expediting the matter, because we don't then have to have Treasury Board analysts reviewing the entire program to ensure that it meets all of the requirements.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

One obvious question, though, Minister, that comes to mind is that you already have the Building Canada fund, with $3 billion or so that was pre-approved by Parliament. That money is stalled. If we're willing to streamline applications, etc., to fast-track this future spending, you could be spending that Building Canada money now, or yesterday, and get that money out the door without any of this delay, without waiting for the Senate, etc., to approve this new pot of money.

Why isn't the same flexibility being shown to that pot of money as you're contemplating for this future pot of money?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I think that's a good question. The short answer is that it is, in fact, happening.

Let's go to your province in particular, Manitoba, which I'm also familiar with. The Building Canada fund was not signed until some time in September. What has happened over the last number of months, especially in the last two or three months, is that we've been sitting down with the provincial government to determine the list of projects that will be approved jointly by the province and the Government of Canada. So we anticipate having a list of projects ready to go for Manitoba's share of the Building Canada fund. That, essentially, is happening right across the country, and it will be done concurrently with this specific fund—that is, the vote 35 fund.

Remember, the vote 35 money is separate and apart and deals with different issues from the Building Canada fund.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

No, I understand that.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

The Building Canada fund has very clear criteria. The economic action plan and the $3 billion have another set of criteria.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Fair enough, Minister.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I don't want to take up your time, but we will be dealing with the Building Canada fund in a timely fashion and we will be dealing with this, and the three months extra that we get by moving the money up will allow us to enter into commitments earlier than we otherwise could.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

All right, let me ask another very practical question.

In your opening comments you were reminding Canadians of the urgency of the situation, that we have to get moving and fast-track this. Why then won't you and your government just split the bill and take out the irritating elements of this, so the opposition parties could in fact unanimously support some fast-tracking of spending?

I don't want you to spend the rest of your time on this, because I know it's an irritant for you and others, but what do pay equity and those issues have to do with economic stimulus? Why was the Navigable Waters Protection Act crowded into this same bill?

Why do you make it so hard for us to agree with you that we must get the money out the door? If you really wanted to get it through the Senate, split the bill, and it would be through the Senate and your job would be done and you could get busy spending that money.

Why let partisan politics get in the way of the very opening remarks you made?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Well, I think the example you've given of pay equity is in fact a good example of why this should be done in an overall bill, rather than individually. What the pay equity bill does is ensure that pay equity principles are incorporated into the collective bargaining regime—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Look, Minister, I don't want to argue the merits of pay equity.