Evidence of meeting #12 for Public Accounts in the 41st Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clement.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to ask the committee if we would have agreement, in that case, to continue our work today until the committee business is completed. We had set aside 15 minutes for committee business, and we do need to get the committee business accomplished and finished.
If we're now going until 5:20, then that means we may have to go five minutes over our allotted time. We may have to go to 5:35.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
One of the honourable members indicates he cannot.
If we have agreement, then, that we will get the business done by 5:30—that is, in the reduced amount of time, with ten minutes for committee business—we would not object.
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
Okay, quickly, folks; we're like kids in the backyard spending more time fighting over the rules than playing the game.
Go ahead, Mr. Byrne.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Can we just carry on for another five minutes with the hearing of witnesses, and then proceed with committee business at 5:20?
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
Well, under the current rules that we set for ourselves, we could continue, if we agree now, in rotation. Ms. May would come up during Mr. Byrne's speaking spot. At 5:15, we would move to committee business.
But I count five...which means we're not going to get there.
So your offer is symbolic, at this point.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
However genuine: however genuine it may actually turn out, Mr. Chair, it is symbolic. Thank you.
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
Thank you, colleagues.
Do I have agreement that we will continue in rotation until 5:15?
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
Okay. So that's where we are.
We'll go back to the beginning, as we do when we say we're going to reset.
Therefore, Mr. Saxton, you have the floor....
Monsieur Caron, yes?
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
We had an agreement. When we negotiated the rotation, we agreed that if it continued and there was a second round, we would respect the principle that the same party would not intervene twice in a row to ask questions. If this is the case, the last speaker was a Conservative and, therefore, it should be the opposition's turn next.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
We didn't agree to that. We said let's just go back and start over again until the 15 minutes is up.
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
Yes.
Monsieur, I'm open to hearing you again, but I don't think we had that understanding. I think what we do is just loop back in. Okay?
If there are no further points—I'm hearing none—Mr. Saxton has the floor.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question for the officials.
I have sat here and listened to your responses carefully. I believe that's what my constituents have sent me here to do. However, I notice that the opposition lets their own rhetoric stand in the way of your professional responses.
For instance, on the border infrastructure fund, they have ignored your response. Can you again tell us how and why the border infrastructure fund was used for this project?
Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I outlined a few minutes ago, when the new money came into the department, the department did not have that much time to get the program up and running. The projects had to start within weeks. Therefore, departmental officials tried to find the most expedient way to administer this program.
Getting new funds and programs off the ground, and getting all of the authorities and approvals done from scratch, often takes anywhere between four to six months. So the idea of using the border infrastructure fund came up as a way to administer the program appropriately but in a more expedient approval time process. New money was added into the border infrastructure fund, with separate terms and conditions around this legacy fund.
Again, as we said, that was what was deemed to be a wise way of proceeding at that time. Within months of that, the officials were thinking that we should have done a stand-alone fund, because we could have gotten the approvals probably in the same timeframe; a lot of flexibilities came in with the economic action plan in terms of getting the memoranda to cabinet approved, Treasury Board submissions approved, etc.
At the time, they didn't know. They looked at the past process, and that was the recommendation that was made to the minister.
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Just to be clear, Mr. Saxton, the public service recommended this to me. It was their idea. But at the end of the day, I'm the one who signed off on it. I tabled the estimates for my department. I'm responsible for the estimates put forward to Parliament from my department, so I take responsibility. It has been done for some 100 hundred years, I'm told.
The Auditor General has said it's not as transparent as it should be, and no one takes exception. We accept her wise counsel and good advice.
Conservative
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
I have a question for the secretary of the Treasury Board. The Auditor General in her report recommended that changes be made to the estimates process. As Minister Baird has mentioned, some of those processes were in place for over 100 years.
Can you briefly describe to us what changes are being made to the estimates processes?
Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have instituted two things within the Treasury Board Secretariat based on the Auditor General's advice. First, for initiatives of a horizontal nature, we have described with greater detail in the estimates. We are also for the first time, as you will see shortly, providing information on horizontal initiatives from previous estimates as well as the current estimates, so that the tracking of funds can now be done. That's a new development.
We have also instituted some very clear guidelines inside our organization, because we're the ones that provide departments with their estimates sheets for them to sign off. Where there are specific subprogram elements that provide different parameters or additional parameters to existing programs, those will now be listed separately.
We have had a tradition of aggregating them, and we recognize that may not be as transparent or as clear. We recognize that. As a result, where there are subprograms with different parameters or additional parameters, those will then be identified distinctly. They will still be under the heading of the main program so that the funds can be tracked under the program authorities all the way through.
The program elements are also reported in departments' performance reports. They are also reported in the public accounts. Members of Parliament can see them all the way through--from the main estimates, to the supplementary estimates, to the departmental performance reports, to the public accounts.
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
Thank you, Mr. Saxton.
We'll go to the NDP.
The time is being split, I understand.
Mr. Boulerice, you have the floor.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
We would also like to share our time.
I have one last question for Mr. Clement, before Mr. Caron takes over.
I'm coming back to this subject. Actually, for any Canadian who follows politics a little, this parallel—and practically private—method from the constituency office is still troubling.
Had you used this method of a homemade form previously? Had you used this type of thing, in the constituency office, to approve projects and dispense millions of dollars? Have you used this type of documentation in other circumstances since then?