Evidence of meeting #75 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was million.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
—level of investment. Of course, we are committed to continuing these kinds of investments.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Perhaps I can interject here.
It seems we have a relationship between Mr. McCauley and the minister that happens every time you're here.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
I'm sure you do, as I'm sure does Mr. McCauley.
There was one specific question based on about $800 million or so that have either lapsed or were unspent, and Mr. McCauley was simply asking—
Conservative
Liberal
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management, Treasury Board Secretariat
Mr. McCauley, the first point of your question is whether this funding is going to be available. That is in fact the purpose of re-profiling. If it is available this year and the department can't spend it—
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management, Treasury Board Secretariat
—you move it to the year.
Conservative
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management, Treasury Board Secretariat
I'm sorry, I can get that in one second.
Specifically with infrastructure, there are three projects. There's the Lions Gate wastewater project, $11.2 million; the provincial-territorial base funding agreement of $293 million; and the budget 2016 clean water and wastewater fund and the public transit infrastructure fund. These are being re-profiled into future years as a result of delays in signing contribution agreements with the provinces.
With respect to National Defence, it's a series of re-profiles. They have a very large investment portfolio.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Okay, that's what I was looking for. Thanks.
Do you mind, because we're short on time, just providing that afterwards? Could you shoot us a note?
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
There's one other thing, too, Kelly. In fact, this week I had some meetings related to this. One of the things is that the provinces had planned their infrastructure investments over the next several years based on expectations on what the federal commitment was. It changed when we were elected, so now there's actually—
Conservative
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
No, but there is a reprioritization of provincial projects now. They're doing that with knowledge of the new program and we're working with them.
I know you'd share with me that it's important that when we put federal money into projects that the funding partners are ready and the projects are ready. We have a results focus for these things. Part of this is just ensuring that the funding partners have the projects ready and that the projects are ready to move forward.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
That's fair. If the partners aren't ready, that's fine. I just want to get back to—
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
The partners are asking about reprioritizing their lists in some cases. Based on the new availability of funding, they're looking at their priorities differently.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
In your DPR you write on page 3 of the “Results highlights”:
Laid the groundwork for a new Treasury Board Policy on Results, which took effect July 1, 2016. The new policy will strengthen the federal government’s ability to deliver results and to demonstrate how tax dollars contribute to outcomes for Canadians.
I want to refer to Canada's new infrastructure plan by the PBO. He writes that:
The Government has provided no performance measurement framework with which to evaluate the NIP’s performance, and only limited visibility on tracking how the money is being spent.
On one side, you're saying you've laid the groundwork, and then you have the PBO saying that nothing exists. Then he goes on to criticize. I realize it's a lot of things to deal with. He says there is “no mention of the NIP in current departmental performance reports”. He states there's a “gap between what has been announced and the value of the projects currently identified by departments”, and he says that, while “departments have committed to spending all the allocated funds within the time frame provided, these data show that there remains a significant gap”.
We have a bit of a separation. Your DPR says you've laid the groundwork. PBO is critical and also says there's no results outcome for the infrastructure spending. It's been one of the criticisms. Are we getting a return on it?
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
We take seriously the PBO reports. Part of it is the first phase of infrastructure. After we were elected, there was an urgency in working with provinces and funding existing projects. As we move forward in phase two and future phases of this, we want to strengthen the results framework around infrastructure in partnership with the provinces.
In respect of the provinces and the municipalities, it's really important that they play a leadership role in prioritizing their projects. At the same time, we want to see results for federal investments that are consistent with our broad principles as a government, including, as an example, addressing climate change. We want to see projects that actually move the needle in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
But I share with you—
Conservative
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
That would be right. We want to as we move forward in partnership—
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
When could we expect an update or something from your department addressing the PBO's concerns?