Government Operations Committee on March 10th, 2015

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

The number for the Transportation Safety Board is the amount to do the investigation. If you would like to find the measures, you'll have to look at Transport Canada estimates for the amount that will be added. They are taking some steps. I'm sure they're going to take many more steps as well as those around Lac-Mégantic. The safety board is an investigative body with a tiny budget. So for them, that amount of money just facilitated their investigation.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

This leads directly to my second question, which concerns the 2015-2016 main estimates.

The budget of Transport Canada has been slashed by $40 million, which is quite incomprehensible to the Canadian population, in particular to the citizens of Montérégie and the Eastern Townships who had to endure this catastrophe.

Can you explain why the budget of Transport Canada was slashed in this way when it was determined that more monitoring was needed? One of the obvious conclusions following this catastrophe is that when the industry self-regulates and self-monitors, disasters like this one occur.

How can you reconcile the priority, which is to ensure more monitoring—you explained that this is Transport Canada's responsibility—and this $40 million cut in Transport Canada's budget? We hoped and expected that that budget would have been increased. How can we explain this to the people in those regions who are directly concerned?

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

Of course it is Transport Canada's policy to make changes to regulation. The companies are then responsible for applying those changes. This is more than an expenditure, it is an obligation for the future.

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

It is the same issue we've been having. When you look at the main estimates, you then have to look at the supplementary estimates to get a full picture of the department. Then within the department...it's a large department. In terms of the regulatory functions, I know for a fact that the cuts did not hit the regulatory functions. The cuts were taken out of the administrative functions.

Regarding any additional...you'll have to see what future documents, future estimates, demonstrate.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Very well, thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

That concludes your time.

You have eight seconds left, if you'd like, Mr. Matthews.

[Bill Matthews]

I would like to talk about the budget of Transport Canada.

If you look at the detailed breakdown, operating expenditures in the main estimates are actually higher in 2015-16 than in the 2014-15 main estimates. Capital expenditures are showing a decrease, and that is largely because of a transfer of resources related to the Detroit River international crossing to the new authority for the bridge, so operating is up, capital is down, and that's why you're seeing the decrease.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Matthews.

That does conclude your time, Mr. Brahmi.

I see that it virtually concludes the time we have dedicated—

Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

I'll just raise a quick point of order. I want to clarify, Mr. Chair. I thought I heard an undertaking on the part of the minister and the officials with him in relation to the question I asked about the current status of the corporate plan for Marine Atlantic. I thought I heard an undertaking that Treasury Board officials would submit to you, as chair, a description of the Financial Administration Act statutory requirements for the submission of a corporate plan, which is held under sections 122 and 123, and also the Treasury Board policy expectations of crown corporations when it comes to the submission of corporate plans, as well as Marine Atlantic's performance of those policy expectations within the explanations that they may provide as to why there may be a discrepancy.

I thought I heard an undertaking by the minister to provide that information. Would you be able to ask the minister if he is prepared to make that undertaking to the committee?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I'm having trouble understanding how that's a point of order, Mr. Byrne, but it was a really good effort anyway. I do admire seeing an old journeyman ply his trade.

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

It's all on Twitter anyway, so we have you covered here.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I'm afraid that's not a point of order, Mr. Byrne, but you have made your point, and that does come close to the time that we have for the minister with us today.

But I just want to say before you go, Minister, that this has not exactly been a triumph of scrutiny and oversight and due diligence, in that 241 billion dollars' worth of spending just flew past under our noses with the most cursory overview of one hour with the committee, and one party with political standing got exactly five minutes to question all of the spending on the main estimates and the supplementary estimates (C).

It's a bit like walking a chicken past a pot of boiling water and calling it chicken soup. It hardly qualifies as oversight, in my view.

On a point of order, Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you.

To relevance, as chair, I'm sure you can make the—

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I don't have to be relevant, Mr. Albas. I'm the chair.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I can challenge that notion if you like, but the point is, Mr. Chair, we all have the opportunity to hold government to account through many different vehicles. It's up to us, as individual members, to do that. While I totally understand that you do have your strong feelings on things like this, it should be done through the committee process. Therefore, if you'd like to ask the officials questions, you can give it up to the vice-chair, and I'm sure the vice-chair will gladly take the chair so you can fulfill your role and bring accountability in your way.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Mr. Albas, I'm not sure if you were a member of this committee when we did a comprehensive review of the way the committee deals with estimates, where we made 17 very robust recommendations and a commitment to the public that we would do a more comprehensive analysis of the estimates for the very reason that it's our obligation as an oversight committee, which happens to be called the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

A one-hour analysis of 241 billion dollars' worth of spending does not satisfy those—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

It's up to individual members of Parliament to do that, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Well, as the chair—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

—and there's still a whole other hour.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

—I've taken the chair's prerogative to share my views.

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

Chair, in response, I offer up my officials. They can be here—

[A voice]

As long as you want.

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

—day and night, night and day, to answer any questions you or the committee may have.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

That's very generous of you, Minister. Frankly, the buck stops with you, and it's you we would like to question.

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

I have a few other things on my plate, but I can offer other time. If the committee votes to bring me back, I'd be happy to be back.