Government Operations Committee on June 11th, 2018

[Brian Pagan]

—and the Public Accounts will reflect that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

—that, of the $7.4 billion, not one penny will show up to taxpayers or Parliamentarians on the public accounts in detail, but will only show up as a lump sum transfer.

[Brian Pagan]

That's consistent with—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

They will be reflected by a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Could he finish his question, please.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

When we had your colleague here last week or two weeks ago, from InfoBase, an incredible program, he actually confirmed to us as well that it will only show up as a lump sum. We will not get any access to the detail.

Again, we've seen the departments come before us and we've seen in other committees where the minister is not able to answer. We've received here, in other meetings, not even an answer. We've heard from the PBO that not one penny will show up in the detailed Public Accounts, so taxpayers or parliamentarians can see where this pre-approved money is coming from.

Do you still believe that it provides better accountability for parliamentarians?

[Brian Pagan]

Absolutely, I do, Mr. McCauley.

Again, the structure of the Public Accounts is that Parliament controls by votes. Therefore, for every department at the table, they have votes for operating capital, Gs and Cs. The Public Accounts reconcile the authorities provided by Parliament and by those votes with the actual expenditures by those departments and by those votes. That's not a vote 40 construct. That is a construct of parliamentary control.

As you know, the president is interested in moving forward and looking at some alternative means of Parliament exercising its control.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'll give you points for defending the indefensible. I believe vote 40 is an affront to Parliament and I think we've seen enough from the PBO and from other witnesses that backs my commentary, but I give you points for trying to defend it. Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Ms. Ratansi, you have five minutes.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thanks very much.

Mr. Thoppil, you may finish the answer to Mr. Ayoub's question if you want to, but don't take too long, as I have another question for you.

[Paul Thoppil]

Thank you very much. I'll be pleased to do so.

There is a gap of more than 80,000 housing units on reserve in this country. As a result, from budget 2016 onwards, there have been investments made in infrastructure, in order to deal with the infrastructure gap on reserve. To date, out of that more than 80,000 unit gap over the past couple of years, there is now 13,000 or more that have been addressed. Discussions are ongoing with the Assembly of First Nations and other first nation communities regarding housing reform, in terms of how we continue to address that gap and ensure that it is addressed in a sustainable way, so that it never comes back. That's essentially what's going on right now with regard to that infrastructure funding.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

In budget 2018 for the first time there is a specific funding included for the Métis nation. Can you explain how their needs differ from the first nations and the objective of this funding?

[Paul Thoppil]

Thank you for that question.

As you know, there are three main indigenous groups in this country, which are the first nations, the Inuit, and the Métis. Relative to non-indigenous Canadians, they all have a socio-economic gap. It's relative among the three. Based on the department's own research, the Métis are relatively better, as compared to the other two, but the government's commitment is to address the socio-economic gap for all indigenous communities.

You are correct that this is the first budget with a significant investment in the Métis space and it is to deal with a couple of main planks. Housing is where the most significant amount of money is to go. There is also money for post-secondary education. That is all part of a frame that is also going on between the Government of Canada and various Métis nations, in terms of advancing their agenda to move into a self-government status for their self-determination aspirations. This investment will help in those discussions to eventually give them the path that they are seeking, which is self-determination.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Last, the Department of Indigenous Services Canada—I'm looking at table 2—has a budget funding in 2018 of $1.039 billion, out of which the funding withheld is $5.979 million and then the amount remaining, $832 million. What is this withheld for, and the $832 million, how is the tranche going to be flowed out?

[Paul Thoppil]

I think I'll ask my colleagues from the secretariat to respond to that.

[Marcia Santiago]

As Mr. Pagan explained earlier, most of the funding that's withheld—and in this particular case it's true—is for the portions of the program spending that will be flowed through other authorities. For example, employee benefits and pensions are paid out of a statutory authority, and then accommodation charges and technology charges are appropriated separately to Shared Services and to Public Works. We're showing in the table the full cost of those initiatives, but parts of those payments will be allocated differently.

The amount for about $2.8 million for renewing matrimonial real property was incorrectly reported earlier in the fiscal year as being allocated. In reviewing the decisions, we realized that this was one of the measures that was caught in the transition from the single department of aboriginal affairs to the two organizations. So in fact, the authority for matrimonial real property belongs to the other department. It will be supped in the fall or the winter.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

My final question is for Mr. Pagan. What's the risk of vote 40?

[Brian Pagan]

I'm sorry, did you say the risk?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

What's the risk of vote 40?

We're talking about accountability, transparency.

[Brian Pagan]

Yes.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

We're getting confused with different information. What's the risk?

[Brian Pagan]

Yes. There is no risk here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

We're completely out of time.

We have one final three-minute intervention from Mr. Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Barker from Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, there's just under $30 million allocated now under Treasury Board vote 40, as of last week, under “Ensuring Rules-Based and Responsible Trade”. In the budget there are two initiatives you mentioned under that rubric. The budget document talks about softwood lumber support, including legal fees, and it also talks about a Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise.

How much of the $30 million is allocated to each of those initiatives, or are there other initiatives that the money is going to be spent on that we don't read about in the budget?

[Colin Barker, Director, Softwood Lumber Division, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

I'm happy to speak to the softwood lumber funding. That is the amount of $29 million. All of that funding goes to the support for the litigation of the ongoing softwood lumber dispute and also for the operations of our permitting regime for softwood lumber and logs. I'm not aware of the ombudsperson position, but I can get information on that and get it to you. The $29 million is dedicated to the softwood lumber file.