Government Operations Committee on April 19th, 2016

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'm going to jump around. I'm sorry.

There's a part on expenditures by strategic outcome and program for Canadian transportation accident investigation. The estimate next year is $29.8 million. Is this forecasting what you expect to spend on investigations, or is this proactive work being done?

[Brian Pagan]

Is this for the transportation investigation board?

Our structure for strategic outcomes allows departments to disaggregate their votes by purpose. In this case, that forecast is the estimate of the current forecast of their authorities for this year for that purpose. The estimates are structured in a way that would allow comparison year over the year, so you can see what they are doing for that purpose or that program.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

That's $275,000 approximately for pipeline occurrence investigation. Is that very minimal?

[Brian Pagan]

I'd need the specific page reference to be able to give you a comparison.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Page 78.

[Brian Pagan]

Page 78 of the document.

On pages 78-79, we're seeing the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board. Their total voted program is $26.2 million. They break that down by their strategic outcome.

You were talking about aviation?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

No, the pipeline from Alberta. That's all we care about.

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

This particular board does estimate how much it's going to cost them to do a particular investigation, and that's what they report to Parliament. If the organization feels that's as much money as they need, then that would be it. I don't think we want to give them more money if they can't use it.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Okay, that's what I'm asking.

Sorry about jumping around. That's a small amount, so to speak.

The $3 million for the Governor General is an increase requested to better choose people to better represent Canadians. Is it not better just to direct these folks on diversity rather than adding, and seeking out additional...?

What I'm trying to say is, if it's for the Order of Canada, etc, do we need to spend $3 million to add a program to figure out how to be more diverse in choosing people?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

That's how it falls under the Governor General's office. In terms of the specific wording, “to support and modernize the Canadian Honours System and bring it closer to all Canadians”, that is a priority of the Governor General's. This amount represents an increase to meet that priority.

Do you have a quarrel with the idea of bringing things like the Order of Canada closer to Canadians?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

No quarrel at all. In fact I'm very much for that, because if you look at it, it's Ontario-centric and not western-centric. It does not reflect Canadians.

I'm curious about the $3 million. Could we not just do that with the existing assets that we have as existing program spending. It's jumps out, $3 million extra just to...

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

If I may interject for a moment.

This committee does, if it wishes, have the opportunity to invite representatives from not only the Governor General's office, but also the AG's office, to talk about their budget.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

For instance, Transport Canada, or our transport minister, or the Minister of Natural Resources, appears before respective committees on their estimates as well, but this is all very helpful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

You still have 15 seconds. Perhaps we can move on to Mr. Weir, for seven minutes.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

One of the concerns about public-private partnerships is that they tend to cost more because the government is effectively paying a private partner to borrow money at a higher rate than the government itself could access. I was pleased to hear that the new government was going to remove the requirement that projects receiving federal infrastructure funding necessarily be organized as P3s. However, I was concerned to see in the main estimates a massive increase of 22% year over year in funding for P3 Canada. I want to clarify where the government is at on this. Is it trying to relieve municipalities and provinces of this obligation to structure their projects as P3s, or is it in fact pushing them down that road?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

The previous government's policy on a P3 screen proved to be very challenging in working with other partners, including municipalities, to actually get projects approved. It proved very challenging to try to comply with the P3 screen. It delayed projects and it wasn't necessarily the best way from a governance perspective.

Our decision to change the P3 screen does not reflect somehow an aversion to the role that public-private partnerships can play, used properly in the right way. For instance, we're doing a lot on infrastructure right now. There are countries out there, including Australia and the U.K., that use public-private partnerships a lot for developing their infrastructure and they work with pension funds. Pension funds have access to capital at very competitive rates too. With bond yields at historic lows and Canadian pension funds with extraordinary understanding and experience in funding infrastructure around the world, pension funds are active. So it's somewhere in-between. There are some folks on the right who would think you could privatize sidewalks, and some folks on the left who see no role whatsoever, for instance, for pension funds in participating in these projects. We are in-between. Where it makes sense to consider public-private partnerships we will, but the P3 screen wasn't necessarily the best way to move forward.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

I would agree that the right approach is to look at things on a case-by-case basis and see what makes sense and what's actually the best option, which is why I'm pleased that the government got rid of the screen. It just strikes me that inevitably projects funded by P3 Canada will have to be P3. So isn't greatly increasing that fund really forcing the same thing as the screen did?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

The P3 Canada fund has made more than $1.3 billion in investments in projects across the country. It has leveraged more than $800 million in savings.

An organization, Partnerships BC, I think it's called, is engaged in helping facilitate P3 projects in British Columbia. There are different provincial projects. There's some work being done in Ontario. I know Ed Clark, a former CEO of TD Bank, is involved in some.

There is a role for P3, Mr. Weir, but I think, as you said, it should be determined on a case-by-case basis, and P3 is part of that decision-making process. But there are some countries out there and some provinces that are doing some very innovative things around P3, getting good value for taxpayers, but building really important projects for citizens.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Just to change gears, the main estimates also increase expenditures for the Senate to $90.1 million. That represents an increase of $1.4 million over the previous estimates. It seems that every time we look at the Senate, it's asking for another million dollars. The last time you appeared at this committee, Minister, I was asking about a million dollars a year for this new advisory board on Senate appointments. Just recently we had the government leader in the Senate asking for about one million dollars for his office to manage supposedly independent senators on behalf of the Liberal government.

I would ask what's going to be achieved by the additional million dollars in these main estimates? In an overall sense, do you regard the more than $90 million that's being spent on the Senate now as a good use of money?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Weir, the debate as to whether or not to have a Senate is not necessarily the subject of my appearance at this committee, but it's a great discussion that I'd love to have with you any time.

The fact is that there's a constitutional reality in terms of provincial requirements if we were to do what I think you're suggesting. What we are doing as a government is levelling with Canadians and saying there are ways, without our opening up the Constitution, to make the Senate more effective, less partisan, and more constructive. Some of the questions you're asking may be directed to the Board of Internal Economy, as an example.

If we're going to have a Senate, we have to fund it in the same way that your office gets funded, my office gets funded, parliamentarians' offices get funded. We're not going to have a Senate and not fund their operations.

I'm meeting tonight with the Senate committee, the equivalent committee.

I can tell you, Mr. Weir, that when I meet with senate committees, I meet with senators who are diligent and prepared and effective in the work they do. I would urge all of us to consider that there is important work that goes on in the other place, and to recognize that as long as we're going to have a Senate, there are things we can do in terms of governance to make it operate more effectively. I think that's what we're trying to do as a government.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Yes, I guess it's just disappointing that when each time one of these things is done, it costs another million dollars. I think there is a concern about the cost of the Senate, but I know the issue that you're really keen to talk—

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Weir, I'm sure you have another point, and the minister would like to engage with you, but unfortunately we're out of time.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

I'm sure he would, yes.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Weir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

We'll go to Mr. Whalen now for seven minutes, please.