Evidence of meeting #18 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was billion.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Michelle d'Auray  Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
Bill Matthews  Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management, Treasury Board Secretariat
Christine Walker  Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Services, Treasury Board Secretariat
Sally Thornton  Executive Director, Expenditure Operations and Estimates, Expenditure Management, Treasury Board Secretariat

5:10 p.m.

Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat

5:10 p.m.

Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management, Treasury Board Secretariat

Bill Matthews

If I understand correctly, this is in Mr. Page's report.

He has provided an analysis of the estimates to date, which is for the main estimates plus supplementary estimates (A) and supplementary estimates (B). The amount that's actually driving that is the Treasury Board central vote related to severance, which we discussed a bit earlier at this meeting. Supplementary estimates (A) contained $1.3 billion. Because TBS is the employer and has a central vote, we have all of that amount in personnel expenditures. So he was adding that all together. That is actually painting a bit of a misleading picture about TBS as a department.

5:10 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

They're all finished.

Mathieu, you're well over your time.

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC

I was going to ask you how it was misleading, but that's okay. I'm out of time.

5:10 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Actually, just before we go to the next questioner, I'd like a point of clarification, if you don't mind.

We talked about the AECL divestiture in part of one of the statutory items of $285 million. Can you just remind me what the agreement was between the government and SNC-Lavalin? I understood that we more or less paid them to take over AECL for us. Now my understanding is that we're giving them another $285 million to offset any liability they may have inherited when we gave them this company. Is that right?

5:10 p.m.

Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management, Treasury Board Secretariat

Bill Matthews

The agreement was not for all of AECL. It was for part of AECL.

5:10 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

It was for only the profitable part.

5:10 p.m.

Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management, Treasury Board Secretariat

Bill Matthews

That part of the organization actually had some refurbishment or life extension types of projects--I believe the Bruce Power plant is one, and there's one in Korea--which are known to be incurring costs greater than the revenue. That was the part of the deal where the government agreed, as the secretary mentioned, to put a cap on how much, but basically backstopped the liabilities on those three or four specific projects.

5:10 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

So that was part of the original deal?

5:10 p.m.

Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat

Michelle d'Auray

It was because the original contracts and the original liabilities were incurred by the Government of Canada. That was done by the commercial arm of AECL, and the contracts were signed by the crown and, therefore, the crown was still responsible and is still responsible.

The company has agreed to take on the responsibility for delivering on the contracts, but the refurbishment contracts were signed many years ago by the crown, by the Government of Canada. I think there were three or four, and I think that of the four, two of them have been closed and the other two are on the verge of being completed.

5:15 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

It seems to me like the kind of deal that Jack and the Beanstalk would make.

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC

It's called corporate welfare.

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON

It's 5:15. Isn't that when we're done?

5:15 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Yes, that's true. I suppose we are.

Is that the agreement of the committee?

Well, I know, Scott, you came all the way over here to question--

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON

We're going to go in camera in both.

November 24th, 2011 / 5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

If I told you I came all the way from Newfoundland this morning, would you believe me?

5:15 p.m.

An hon. member

No.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

You'd probably be right.

5:15 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

As Chair, if I could suggest this. We don't have very much to do in the private in camera portion of the meeting. I think it will only take a minute or two. Is there a willingness of the committee to give the Liberals their last turn questioning the Treasury Board?

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC

That would be fine for us, yes.

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON

No more than five minutes, and then we've got to go.

5:15 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Five minutes.

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON

Scotty gets the last five minutes.

5:15 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

The last five minutes are for the Liberals and then we'll go to our camera work.

All right, Scott, you have the floor.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

I'd like to apologize to my guests for witnessing the abuse that I received.