Evidence of meeting #20 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 projects.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here this afternoon.
I would like to take this opportunity to clarify one thing. Today a member of our committee has accused our government of transferring money from the Green Infrastructure Fund without the House's consent.
Could you summarize the situation and explain the process to us?
Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
Let me say two things.
Number one is that because we run large funds in Infrastructure Canada, we're always very careful as to how they are managed. We always do reviews by our chief audit executive on our major programs. Our chief audit executive has done that kind of a review. It was presented to our departmental external audit committee November 1, where our review said that transfers from the green instructure funds to other initiatives are appropriately authorized by Treasury Board and are in compliance with departmental and Treasury Board policies, procedures, and legislation--e.g., the Financial Administration Act.
In terms of how the transfers have been documented, the government decided in June 2010 to transfer moneys out of the green infrastructure fund. On November 4, 2010, supplementary estimates (B) identified the $25 million of transfer to Natural Resources Canada from the green infrastructure fund. The only reason why Natural Resources Canada was mentioned in the supplementary estimates was because they were the only department that needed the money in the year in the supplementary estimates.
After the elections the June main estimates were tabled, and Infrastructure Canada's numbers were netted according to what got transferred forward and what got taken out. At the same time, part III of the estimates, which is a report on plans and priorities, clearly outlines the explanation around the transfer. On pages 32 and 33 it refers to $170 million in transfers to other federal departments to support high-priority initiatives such as the forest industry transformation program managed by Natural Resources Canada and a temporary initiative for strengthening Quebec's forest economies managed by Canada Economic Development for Quebec regions.
The estimates were approved. It was in the summer that the process ran through the government operations committee. I don't believe we were asked to the committee. In November 2011 our departmental performance report, also part III B of the estimates, pages 12 and 14, says that $170 million has been transferred out of this fund, plus we identify that $45 million has been taken out for the strategic operating review exercise.
Right now, for another additional transfer that is required, we're in front of this committee to answer your questions.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
You could send all the documents related to your response to the clerk. That way, they will be included in the committee record.
Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
Maybe in a little bit more coherent fashion, sure.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Thank you.
How many projects have been submitted to the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund of the Government of Canada in the last three years under the economic action plan?
Associate Deputy Minister, Infrastructure Canada
I believe across all of the government there were over 23,000 projects. At Infrastructure Canada we managed about four or five different programs. It included the acceleration of the Building Canada fund. Since the action plan was announced in January 2009, we've announced over 6,000 projects, with a federal contribution of $10 billion and a total value of $30 billion for Infrastructure Canada. I'm not sure of the amount for the whole government.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Your time has expired, Jacques. Thank you.
Madam Baltacioglu, I understood what you said about the movement of the money being properly accounted for and audited, but I don't understand the origin of the question.
Was there an accusation that money was improperly transferred out of the green infrastructure fund and allocated elsewhere without the authority to do so? I see. I missed that part. Perhaps we'll get to it in other questioning, I presume, if we don't run out of time. I was probably nodding off or something.
We'll leave it up to Monsieur Ravignat. You have five minutes, please.
NDP
Denis Blanchette NDP Louis-Hébert, QC
I would like to welcome our invited guests.
My first questions refer to the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.
Within the new funds, an amount of $16 million is earmarked to support construction activities related to recreational infrastructure. What does this mean exactly?
Associate Deputy Minister, Infrastructure Canada
Could you give me more details?
NDP
Denis Blanchette NDP Louis-Hébert, QC
In the part devoted to the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, in the line entitled "Funding to support construction activities related to recreational infrastructure (horizontal item)", we see under vote 5 that $16.5 million has been set aside for that purpose.
What is this exactly?
Associate Deputy Minister, Infrastructure Canada
We are not responsible for the Quebec department in charge of regional economic development. Those are the estimates of a different department.
NDP
Associate Deputy Minister, Infrastructure Canada
This is the same department, but the organization is not a part of the portfolio of the Department of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
NDP
Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
I am the deputy minister of the Department of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, but economic development agencies are not my responsibility.
NDP
Denis Blanchette NDP Louis-Hébert, QC
In that case, I am sorry. We will move on to other subjects.
Under the vote, we see that the total grant to VIA Rail increased by 10%. Could you give me some details regarding this increase and tell me if there is anything in progress now to improve the VIA Rail situation?
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
The $50 million in the supplementary estimates for VIA Rail is intended to help deal with an operating shortfall. The operating shortfall is a result of lower revenues, the downturn in the economy, increases in fuel costs, and other charges in their train service agreements. The reference levels for VIA Rail were set back in 2008. That was before the downturn in the economy, so they don't necessarily reflect the requirements that VIA Rail has today.
In the 2011 budget, $98 million was included for VIA Rail. The first part of that was for a shortfall in their pension plan, which was experiencing difficulties related to economic circumstances. So an amount of $48 million was authorized by Parliament in the first supplementary estimates for VIA Rail. This $50 million is the second part of that budget announcement, which is provided to allow VIA to continue its operations and make sure that there is efficient passenger rail service for Canadians.
NDP
Denis Blanchette NDP Louis-Hébert, QC
Thank you very much.
Does the government—and therefore you, more specifically—have a strategy for the future of passenger railway transportation in Canada? Is there anything planned in that respect?
December 1st, 2011 / 4:55 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
We looked at this issue very carefully. VIA Rail, year after year, does need additions because of their operating costs. The rail traffic in Canada is not even. The most lucrative part is the Quebec-Windsor corridor. In the rest of the country, there are not always as many people.
We have done a study with Ontario and Quebec on high-speed rail. The cost of that is pretty high—$18 billion to $21 billion. What we have done to date is make capital investments of $903 million. The passenger trains go on the freight track; they don't allow you to run them as fast. So improvements to the track will actually improve the service.
NDP
Denis Blanchette NDP Louis-Hébert, QC
Does that mean that you will implement a program to improve the railway situation so that passengers no longer come second to merchandise, as is the case now?
