Human Resources Committee on June 18th, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Yves Lessard]

So then, the answer is yes.

You do understand why we invited you here today to discuss the nature and management of the Fund.

Based on your experience, can you explain why $45 million has been budgeted for this program over just three years and why the majority of these funds are being used for two projects? Is there a logical explanation for this, or does this decision defy logic?

[Karen Jackson]

On the question about the three-year horizon, it is not uncommon for governments to create programs that are time limited. There are others within the Department of Human Resources and Social Development and elsewhere that are created for a period of three, four, or five years.

On the second part of your question---

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Yves Lessard]

I understand, but the arrangement was that the funds would be available over a three-year period and be allocated as equitably as possible.

Isn't it rather odd that two-thirds of the funding announced has been earmarked for two large projects in year one? Would you not agree that this decision raises some questions?

[Karen Jackson]

I would begin by looking at the statement of what the government was trying to achieve in budget 2007. There were two key program objectives. One, as I said, was to support some of these flagship participatory ability centres--

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Yves Lessard]

I'm curious about your personal opinion, not about the government's intentions.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

On a point of order, the chair is a chair and he's also the questioner. Now, to do it properly, if the chair wants to question, he should move to the table and ask questions. If he's going to be a chair and a questioner at the same time, then in fairness he should let the witness answer, because there's nobody overseeing his interruption.

So I would ask the chair that if he wants to sit as a chair and a questioner, he should allow the witness to finish answering before he interrupts her, or he should take his place as a questioner and have somebody else oversee it. If you wish to continue as a chair, you should then use your discretion so as not to interrupt the witness and allow the witness to finish her answer.

Is that not fair?

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Yves Lessard]

Yes. There are two things to consider here, but I will take your point of order as a clarification.

First, the duties of the vice-chair were explained to me. In the absence of the chair, one of the two vice-chair presides over the proceedings. I raised this issue because I wanted to be sure that it would not limit my ability to ask questions.

However, if you feel that I have no business asking questions, then I would invite you to take over and chair the meeting. I don't have a problem with that. I will return to my seat and ask my questions as a regular member. If you are more comfortable with that arrangement, it's fine with me. I'll turn over my responsibilities immediately, provided our colleagues seated at this table have no objections. How does that sound?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

The point I'm making, Mr. Chair, is that I'm not yet at this point thinking you should abdicate the chair if you're prepared to use it with discretion, where you ask the question, allow them to finish, and not interrupt the answer. If you're prepared to do that, I'm fine with you being the chair. But if you're going to interrupt the witnesses and cut them short before they finish, then you should abdicate the position and have somebody else in it.

It's your choice, but if you're prepared to be judicious and fair about it, I'm okay.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Yves Lessard]

I'll just say one more thing, then I'll turn the floor over to you.

Go ahead, Mr. Volpe. You have something you would like to say.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

While I'm new to this committee, I do find Mr. Komarnicki's comments rather odd, because as committee members, we do have the right to cut in when a witness is answering a question. In this particular instance, a member who also happens to be chairing today's meeting, is putting his questions in French, and there is a bit of a time lag between the question and the answer because Ms. Jackson must wait for the translation. A great deal of his time is lost because of the translation. As I see it, the member has every right to interrupt the witness once he has received the answer he was looking for. I don't see a problem there and I think Ms. Jackson is fine with this as well. I have no problem with Mr. Lessard chairing this meeting and at the same time, putting questions to the witness. This is quite acceptable in a committee setting.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Yves Lessard]

Mr. Savage.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Rather than waste a lot of time on this, and because we don't have a vice-chair here, with the unanimous consent of the committee, I would certainly be happy to step into the position of chair so you can ask your questions. As a former vice-chair—and a very distinguished one at that—I'd be happy to, just so we can get on and not waste the time of our distinguished guests.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Before we get into this, Mr. Chair, I have no objection to your staying in the chair, providing you balance that, but if you do interrupt, I will ask that we shift it. I'm not overly concerned, but you have a delicate role because you're the questioner and the overseeing chair. I think you can continue, but somebody has to oversee it, and so I'm prepared to have him—

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Yves Lessard]

I'm prepared to continue, but I want to make it quite clear that I have no intention of being restricted in terms of how I can ask questions. I intend to proceed as I have always done, that is in a respectful manner. I want us to benefit as much as we can from the presence of these two witnesses who have come to shed light on this program, and as Mr. Volpe said, once I think my question has been answered, I'd like to be able to move on and ask a secondary question.

Does anyone have a problem with that?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

In view of that, I think just to expedite and get along here and quit wasting time, I would concur that Mr. Savage should be in the chair—distinguished as he is—and then you have total liberty. He referees, polices the whole thing, and I would be supportive of that. I think that's the way to go. I think it's a precedent-setting thing to do.

I'm not challenging the chair. He is very conciliatory about it. Those are my comments. I appreciate your conciliatory response on this and Mr. Savage's offer. I think that would be the way, so we don't get ourselves into a procedural bind in the future. I think that's a fair way to go.

[An hon. member]

His seven minutes are up now. I'm just kidding.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Yves Lessard]

You are free to appeal my decision, but I have no intention of setting this type of precedent. Therefore, I will continue to chair the meeting, to fulfill my duties, and to question the witness as I was doing. If you have a problem with that, then you can appeal my decision. I think it will be easier if I carry on in this manner. I do not see what difference it makes if I put my questions from the chair's seat, or from my other seat.

Do you have a problem with this?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I hear what the chair is saying, but it's like being the prosecutor and the judge at the same time. It's a difficult role to balance, but in any event, I think we should carry on. Let's see where it goes.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Yves Lessard]

I can understand you're having a problem with this, since we are trying to get some clarification as to how the EAF is managed, but for heaven's sake, please let us benefit as much as we can from the presence of these two witnesses here this morning.

I will carry on.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Chair, don't for a moment suggest I'm saying that, because I'm not. That's taking it totally out of context. You can proceed, but that is not what I was saying, just for the record.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Yves Lessard]

I know what the government's intentions are, but I was curious to learn your opinion as a manager. A total of $45 billion has been budgeted for the fund. In the very first year, two thirds of the money, or $30 million, has been earmarked for two large projects.

Had three big projects been eligible, would they have eaten up the entire $45 million?

[Karen Jackson]

No. As I was trying to explain, in budget 2007 there were further commitments to have the minister consult provinces and territories, NGOs, and community groups around two objectives. One was to support some of these flagship participatory ability centres. The second clear objective was to support smaller retrofitting projects in communities.

Through those consultations, through our program officers and analysts studying the cost of doing things, and through our experience and knowledge of some of these ability centres where they exist in Canada and internationally, as part of the program design, the notional budget allocation was created for the two components of the program. There was about $28 million to $30 million for major projects. We realized that would probably allow us to support one to three projects. The remaining budget of $13 million to $15 million was allocated to the smaller projects. Our estimate from the beginning for the design was that we would probably be able to support in the neighbourhood of 300 projects overall in the three years of the program.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Yves Lessard]

Ms. Jackson, as far as large projects are concerned, I understand that funds can be used to purchase a building. Is that correct? A agency could thus become a building owner. Correct?

[Karen Jackson]

I'm going to ask Laura to comment on that.

[Laura Oleson]

Are you talking about giving an organization the go-ahead to become an owner, or about imposing the requirement to become an owner? Either the organization had to own the building, or have a contract showing that it planned to become the owner over the next five years.