Government Operations Committee on June 20th, 2011

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

This is exactly—

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Actually, John, I'm afraid you're well over time. Your five minutes is up.

Next is Scott Armstrong.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you, Minister, for being here with us today.

As the only representative of Atlantic Canada on this committee, I'm going to ask a question that relates to my region. You're very familiar with the Atlantic region, obviously. You've made many trips out there and you're always well received. And we're very confident in your new position as President of the Treasury Board that you have a firm understanding of the economy and how our region works.

Budget 2011 affirms our commitment to forgiving the debt of the Saint John Harbour Bridge. It also includes funding for refurbishing the bridge. Can you speak to the importance of this project and other similar projects across the country?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Thank you for the question.

Of course the context of this question is part of an overarching plan that we do have to keep creating jobs, making sure that stimulus is targeted to help regions that need some help, supporting our hard-working Canadians and their families. One of the projects where we felt we could make a meaningful investment is the Saint John Harbour Bridge, and that shows an understanding of the regional economy and how we can make a meaningful investment in a community and help steady the economic situation.

So we have committed to forgiving the debt of the bridge as well as providing the funds necessary for the refurbishment of that bridge. It's conditional on the removal of toll fees and it's transferred to the province. We really believe that this is part of an overarching strategy relating to the Atlantic gateway. Obviously we can see this region reaching out to the rest of the world in terms of increased trade links and economic activity, not only of a national scale but of an international scale, and by eliminating the large toll fees that could hamper business and productivity, we think we're certainly part of the solution.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Great. Thank you.

Going back to the strategic review on a broader basis, we've set the commitment of reducing our expenditures by $4 billion out of an $80 billion budget. When you compare the strategy we put in place to do this to what was done in the previous recession in the nineties, where we saw the federal government slash transfers to health care, slash transfers to education, and download other things on the provinces—sort of balancing the budgets on the backs of the provinces—do you think we can do this particular operation and reach those targets through attrition for the most part and maybe sunsetting of some programs? What's your confidence level that this is going to be a successful operation?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I have a high degree of confidence. I think you said it in the right context. The budget of the Government of Canada this year is $250.8 billion. A lot of that is transfers to individuals, such as EI, or transfers to provinces for things like health care and social services. None of that is being touched.

So you're left with our direct programs that do not involve transfers to individuals or to provinces. You're left with $80 billion out of the $250.8 billion. We're asking for 5%. Four billion represents 5%, and we believe that we can find it, that there are programs that have either outlived their usefulness or are not seen as essential to Canadians, or that the way government does things—how we operate, how we deliver certain services—can be modernized, and that in itself will actually realize some savings.

So it's a combination of a number of different things, but when added together we believe we can get to that $4 billion goal.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

My last question relates to national defence, because the Department of National Defence is part of the strategic review. As we heard from Minister MacKay last week, it has a very large budget.

As you know, Atlantic Canada depends heavily on the Department of National Defence for a lot of our employment. A huge percentage of our population actually works for the Department of National Defence, compared to other regions of the country. Can you give us any assurances that the cuts that have to be made in the Department of National Defence will take that into account, that they won't severely, disproportionately affect Atlantic Canada?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I'm really conscious of the fact that there is a lot of excellent work that is being done by the public service in the regions as well as here in the Ottawa area, and obviously one always has to balance out and make sure we have the appropriate balance in terms of our review.

The other thing we've been very clear on is that the Canada First defence strategy, which was first articulated by our government in the previous Parliament or maybe two Parliaments ago now, is critical to our defence of sovereignty in the north Arctic, to our projection of military capability in defence of our values and interests and in concert with our allies, and those are pretty elemental to our work as a government on behalf of the people of Canada.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you.

Minister, thank you.

Alexandre Boulerice.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Minister, allow me to go back to the G8 Infrastructure Fund. In these brief comments I will be making, I have to ask you first why no senior public servants were involved with you in choosing the projects for approval.

It is difficult to feel that you acted responsibly in this matter since only elected officials were involved with you. There were no senior public servants, no one representing the State. If I am not mistaken, there are no notes. So you cannot provide us with any notes, any minutes. It is a kind of black hole. You made decisions, but there is no record at all of the discussions that you had among yourselves.

Why were there no officials, no senior public servants, with you when you met?

Then you say that money to be spent on sidewalks was actually spent on them. That is not a satisfactory answer simply because the money was supposed to be for easing traffic congestion on the border. No way was it for sidewalks 300 kilometres away from the border or for fixing a town clock! Why was $250,000 spent on signs for hiking trails, parks and facilities in Muskoka? How does that reduce traffic congestion on the border? Parliamentarians were hoodwinked over this; money was not spent where they approved it to be spent.

Why were senior officials nowhere to be found and why was money used for things that had nothing to do with the uses approved by Parliament?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

You know, you're absolutely wrong, I must say. To suggest that money was diverted from the border infrastructure fund for the G-8 legacy fund is factually incorrect. It's just not true. The funding was allocated in the budget. It was put in the border infrastructure fund for the purposes of presentation to Parliament. That was a decision that was made by the minister of infrastructure at the time. He has indicated that he realizes, in retrospect, that was not the most transparent way, but the fact of the matter is everyone knew that there was a G-8 legacy fund because I kept announcing via press conferences and ground-breakings that the funds were being used.

So it's a bit precious to say that no one knew what was happening. Having said that, there was no diversion of money from the border infrastructure fund to Muskoka. That's just a falsehood, and I refuse to let it stand.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

There are two and a half minutes left in the NDP's round.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Good afternoon, Mr. Minister.

We see in the estimates that funds have been allocated for retirement allowances for employees. You announced that this would be done mostly by attrition—and you chose your words carefully.

Here is what I would like to find out from you. What are your goals for cutting full-time jobs in the public service? What is the rate at which jobs in the public service will be replaced? Also, if it is being done mostly by attrition, could you tell me about the rest? How do you want to do that?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

That is difficult to say right here and right now.

Of course, there will be a process that will consider the budget of each department and agency. There will be a process to decide if there is a reason to reduce the number of employees in each set of circumstances.

It is not for me to say, at this very moment, how many jobs will be affected and where job reductions will take place. That is impossible to say right now. But there will certainly be a process and discussions with each department in order to arrive at that decision.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I was not looking for specifics for any department in particular, Mr. Minister; it was more about approaches and intentions.

In order to establish budgets, you have to have targets in mind. If you have targets, it follows that you already have figures.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

My goal is for most of the job reductions to be made through attrition. As for how many jobs will be affected, I cannot tell you that at the moment. There will certainly be other occasions in the future to have that conversation at this committee.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Do I have any time left?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

No, virtually none, Denis. Sorry.

Bernard Trottier.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Minister Clement, thank you for coming in, as well as the officials.

I want to ask you a question about the Governor General's special warrants. Since the end of the fiscal year, the government has been operating on special warrants. Could you explain how they work and what the impact is on the 2011-2012 estimates of operating in that fashion?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I remember signing some as Minister of Industry during that period, but I'm going to leave it up to the secretary to explain the process more fully.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Thank you, Minister.

The Governor General's special warrants are used and applied only when Parliament is dissolved for the purpose of an election and supply or appropriations have not been voted. They have to be used or they have to be put forward if there is a requirement or an obligation on the part of the government in the public interest, and a minister has to attest to the fact that they are, indeed, required.

So there were two warrant periods because the Parliament dissolved before the last period of supply could be addressed before the end of March. The first warrant period was from April 1 and then the second was from May 16. That took us for a total of 90 days. That basically covered the requirements for the government to continue to operate.

The ongoing operations of government are deemed to be a requirement or an essential activity of government to keep the government functioning during an electoral period. When these amounts are put forward to the Governor General—that's why they are called the Governor General's special warrants—and they are based on the attestation of ministers that these are required, these funds are deemed to have been allocated, provided to organizations for that period for the fiscal year. They are then subtracted from the amounts that are put forward in the appropriations bill. So while they may be included in the information or the expenditures and the allocations included in the main estimates, when the appropriations bill is tabled before Parliament, they would be net of the amounts that had been already included in the warrants. So that's how we manage during a period when supply or appropriations are not provided.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Does that mean then that some of the improvements that we were trying to implement prior to the unnecessary election being called...? Does that mean we're behind schedule in terms of implementing some of our improvements?

[Michelle d'Auray]

In terms of the improvements to the...?

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I meant compared to the plans we had in place prior to the election being called, with the postponement to some of the improvements we're looking at across various departments.