Industry Committee on June 10th, 2010

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

You have to understand that this is a rather unique situation. No one can answer our questions about the 20% or so in additional funds that we are supposed to look into and ask questions about this morning. The Deputy Minister maintains that he has no authority over this matter. These are funds that are being transferred. His department bears no responsibility. Therefore, this is a rather unique, and even puzzling, situation.

As my colleague just said, if Mr. Lebel cannot appear, then surely a deputy minister should be able to, much like we are hearing from deputy ministers this morning. He could answer our questions next Tuesday. If the minister can't make it, then surely a deputy minister could come here to answer a few questions about the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I'll suggest that we continue as the majority wishes to continue, which is to review them and then vote on them today, but I will ask the deputy minister if he would liaise with his counterpart, who has the details on the questions you've posed, and ask that those answers be submitted to the clerk of the committee for your information.

Go ahead, Mr. Dicerni.

[Richard Dicerni]

From a government perspective,

you may recall that virtually the same thing occurred when the Minister responsible for Western Economic Diversification Canada appeared before the committee in mid-May along with his deputy minister. The committee put a number of questions to the minister and to the deputy minister. We have the same situation here in the case of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

When Mr. Massé asked me some questions about the Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, I told him that the agency was not my department's responsibility.

We will do another follow-up and ask the Treasury Board, the agency that instructs us on the drafting of this document, to make a clearer distinction in future as to the accountability of the various departments and ministers. If there are any questions—and I've taken note of the ones that you had—we can arrange after the meeting to have you get in touch with my colleague Ms. Vinet. I will pass along any questions you had to her.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

At our next meeting on the study of the supplementary estimates, you can ask me to invite the head of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec to appear.

Mr. Wallace requested this meeting so that the committee could review the supplementary estimates. I invited these three witnesses because I thought they were in the best position to answer questions.

However, when we hold our next meeting on this subject in the fall, we could then invite the head of this agency to come here and answer our questions.

You can ask me at that time and I will invite him or her.

Are there any other questions?

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

I'm open to your suggestion. Why don't we agree right now to invite the minister responsible for this agency and her deputy minister to appear before the committee at one of its initial meetings? Of course, the estimates will have been approved by then, but we could still ask questions about the agency. Therefore, I'd like us to agree on this today, that is, that will we invite the minister and her deputy minister to appear at one of the initial meetings of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology so that members can ask some questions about the agency's operations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

You have my commitment that we'll do that when we review the next group, supplementary estimates (B).

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

What do Supplementary Estimates (B) cover exactly?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

That is something that we will examine in the fall,

the main estimates, the supplementary estimates (A),

in the spring,

and the supplementary estimates (B) in the autumn, and then the supplementary estimates (C), often around Christmastime.

So at the next opportunity, I will commit to you that we will invite the minister and any other people you wish to invite at that point.

It was Mr. Wallace who asked me to set this meeting. I did it, and I invited the three witnesses I thought were best. The next time, please suggest to me who you'd like to invite and I will invite them.

Are there any further questions for the witnesses?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

I'm fine. I would have liked to comment further, but I don't think I would get anywhere. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay. Merci.

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the Bloc actually is making a point, not just for this committee, but for all committees. I'm somewhat saddened that they don't know what the supplementaries (B) and supplementaries (C) are. If we make it the policy of the committee—policy might be a bad word, but maybe practice—that we are going to look at the supplementaries, unless we turn them down, then a meeting or so in advance you can ask who we'd like to see. It would require people to have at least a preliminary review of what's in the supplementaries and would make sure that we have the departments properly represented here.

Anyway, I had submitted a few questions, and I have a few others just to keep you on your toes.

There is about a 2.5% change in these supplementaries (A) compared to what you had. What policy is driving that change?

[Kelly Gillis, Chief Financial Officer, Comptrollership and Administration Sector, Department of Industry Canada]

In looking at the 2.5% change in our operating vote, about 88% of it relates to what we have as a funding model within Industry Canada, where part of our resources comes from repayable contributions.

For the strategic aerospace and defence initiative, for example, some of the repayable contributions from the previous year are then returned to us in the following year to continue to support that program. It's not a policy change, but because there is revenue uncertainty in the repayments, we have to get it through the supplementary estimates process.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you for that.

You call them repayments. Are they a carry-over?

[Kelly Gillis]

They're not a carry-over. Within the contributions that are made originally, certain portions are repaid to the Government of Canada, and a portion of those can be used to further support the program in future years.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

And they're not in the main estimates because you won't know what they are until the end of the fiscal year. Is that correct?

[Kelly Gillis]

That is correct.

What you see in supplementary estimates, actually, if we go to page 122 and look at vote 10, which is our grants and contributions vote, is a payment of $39.8 million. This relates to the repayment from the previous year, for repayments that were made up to and including March 1, 2010. They come in through supplementary estimates (A). You'll see again, when we come back with supplementary estimates (B), what repayments were made for the last month of the year.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

You just reflect the last month.

[Kelly Gillis]

That's correct.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Is the repayment piece...I don't want to say standard, but is it around the same amount every year or does it vary from year to year?

[Kelly Gillis]

It will vary from year to year.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Can it be zero?

[Kelly Gillis]

Hopefully it will not be.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay. So there will always be... Even though this is showing an increase, this is money that has been—

[Kelly Gillis]

It's part of a program.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

—an opportunity to recapture.