Government Operations Committee on June 11th, 2018

[Barbara Jordan]

Yes. It's a timing issue with the approval and the winding up of the plan. That timing did not work out. Next year it will be in our plan. It will be reflected.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

We'll go to Monsieur Massé.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I said earlier that I think it is important to be able to coordinate the measures set out in the budget to ensure that these projects can proceed very quickly, rather than waiting for the supplementary estimates to be approved. Otherwise, initiatives can be delayed for up to eight, nine or 10 months.

I asked Mr. Pagan a question earlier and I would like him to answer, but first I have a question for Mr. Morel, from Fisheries and Oceans.

Mr. Morel, in the report that was tabled, I see that $150 million is allocated to small craft harbours. This is an important initiative.

I will play politics, and I am happy to do so. For about 10 years, our small craft harbours were neglected. We have several of them in the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspé.

As a result of this neglect, some ports have deteriorated. It was a struggle and a lot of money had to be invested. I am thinking in particular of the dock in Carleton-sur-Mer. We have finally settled this matter. The harbour will be rebuilt. This is a very important initiative. When we talked to the minister, we told him how important this was and that many harbours still have to be renewed. From my understanding, this $150 million is the first chunk of the $250 million that will be allocated to modernize small craft harbours.

As to the process that Mr. Pagan described, I also understand that you have had access to these funds since the start of April—if you could confirm that—to invest in the modernization of the small craft harbours in question.

Is that correct?

[Philippe Morel]

Yes, that is correct.

There are more than 1,000 small craft harbours in Canada. About 700 of them serve the fishing industry, and the remaining 300 are subject to divestiture. The department is looking for partners to whom it can transfer the ports in the short term. The $150 million this year and the $100 million next year will support the restoration of these harbours or their divestiture.

On the other hand, while the funding has been allocated, there are certain conditions attached to it. In particular, we have to provide a list of projects. Since the budget was passed, the staff at small craft harbours have been planning in accordance with priorities, their needs related to harbour quality, and the needs of the fishing industry to support its activities.

So there is no money for work or contracts submitted since the budget. We are waiting for confirmation of the list of projects and for information about Treasury Board's process.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Can you tell me a bit about how the process works, administratively speaking? You made a submission to Treasury Board to access those funds.

Has the submission been fully approved or do you have to wait for an additional approval process to be completed before you can access those funds?

[Philippe Morel]

There have been discussions of an administrative nature with Treasury Board, but the submission has not yet been approved. We are awaiting final approvals and approval of all the projects. This is not a regular program, but an investment in ports. We are waiting for the list to be finalized. Once it has been, we will begin the contracting process and project management.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

That helps me understand the process. Once Treasury Board has approved the submission for that $150 million, the department will not have to go through the process again. You will be able to proceed with the project in question. Treasury Board officials will of course have to work with you to make sure all the projects are proceeding well, to provide more information to you about the allocation of funds, and so forth.

[Brian Pagan]

That's right. Once the submission has been approved, the department can proceed with the project.

It's a very important point, Mr. Massé. We have provided to parliamentarians a full list of the measures to be implemented. Upon approval those measures will be reflected in subsequent departmental plans, and the department will have all the authorities they need to move forward with implementation. If we didn't have this central vote, then we would be forcing departments to wait until the next supplementary estimates, which are scheduled for the fall, and they wouldn't get approval from Parliament until December. This is a question of balancing timely service to Canadians and moving forward with the priorities of government with Parliament's right to know. This is not a blank cheque. This is a mechanism by which parliamentarians can hold the government to account for the priorities identified in the budget.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. McCauley, go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Pagan, you mentioned this process. Let me quote you here. You said that's what the government “expects to achieve” from the vote 40 money and that we would have the opportunity to ask the departments involved. Now, we have asked. We asked PCO about the money, and they said, “Well, ask Treasury Board”. When we asked PSPC about the money, they said they hadn't developed the plans, and this is when I was told I was being preposterous to ask what the money was going to be used for before Parliament approved it.

I'm having trouble reconciling your comments that under this vote 40, we have the ability to hold the government to account and to ask the department what the money is going to be used for, as well as what the government plans to achieve for this money, because not one penny of this $7.4 billion is in the departmental plans. There's not one penny showing what we're going to achieve for this. Again I'm having trouble reconciling your defence, for lack of a better word, of vote 40 when we have the ability to ask but we don't have the ability to get answers.

[Brian Pagan]

Thank you, Mr. McCauley. As you've heard today, in fact departments are in a position to provide answers. We just heard from Madam Fernando about what the Department of the Environment—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Ms. Fernando, I'll give you points, because you've answered better than anybody else, but it's for a tiny amount. When I asked PSPC about two-thirds of $1 billion of taxpayers' money, I was told I was preposterous for daring to ask on taxpayers' behalf what the money was planned for because, I was told, I couldn't ask what it was for until it was approved.

[Brian Pagan]

In fact you can.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

This is the problem with vote 40.

Ms. Fernando has done a great job, and Ms. Jordan, and a couple of others have answered, but the majority haven't.

[Brian Pagan]

I would encourage you to invite the department back. The business of supply is an ongoing—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

We've attempted to and we been voted down by the committee here.

[Brian Pagan]

I'm certain that the department would be able to answer your questions.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I appreciate what you're saying. In a perfect world perhaps, but in our reality, vote 40 leaves a lot to be desired that way with regard to accountability and actually even getting questions. That backs up exactly what the parliamentary budget officer was saying.

[Brian Pagan]

Mr. McCauley, what we heard today is that departments are in fact in a position to respond to your questions. I would encourage you to have the department back to satisfy yourself of their priorities.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

We have answers for about $30 million out of $7.4 billion.

Let me ask you this. When the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated how this money would show up in the public accounts, he said that it would not show up detailed, that it would just show up as a lump-sum transfer. Do you agree with the PBO, or is he incorrect?

[Brian Pagan]

I'm not familiar with the particular exchange, Mr. McCauley, but with the Public Accounts—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

You should be. I asked you before.

[Brian Pagan]

—we'll itemize the expenditures by department by vote at year-end. If reference levels, if votes of department X or Y are increased over the course of a year, then their authorities increase—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

What I'm saying is—