Evidence of meeting #33 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 projects.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Ronnie Campbell  Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
David Enns  Deputy Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management, Treasury Board Secretariat
Rick Stewart  Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Liaison Secretariat for Macroeconomic Policy, Privy Council Office
Taki Sarantakis  Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Communications Branch, Infrastructure Canada
Natasha Rascanin  Assistant Deputy Minister, Program Operations Branch, Infrastructure Canada
Robert Dunlop  Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and Innovation Sector, Department of Industry
Douglas Nevison  General Director, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Elisha Ram  Director, Microeconomic Policy Analysis, Department of Finance
John Affleck  Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Joann Garbig

9:45 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP David Christopherson

I'm listening.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON

Point of order.

There's a focus to this report. There's a focus for the witnesses. Mr. Byrne is totally off point, and you must recognize that, sir.

9:45 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP David Christopherson

What I'm hearing is questions about the economic action plan. You may not agree with the questions--

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON

No. I refer to the focus of this report.

9:45 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP David Christopherson

Okay, I understand. I also understand the sensitivities of the government, but there always has to be a little latitude. It's not apples and oranges. I think we're splitting hairs here. Let Mr. Byrne have his time, and then we'll move along. There's nothing untoward here. I'm not sensing some kind of hijacked agenda where Mr. Byrne is way off the point. I'm not.

If you're going to make the same point, it's not going anywhere.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC

It's a different point, Mr. Chair.

The point is, we're here to discuss the Auditor General's audit, and Mr. Byrne's questions have absolutely nothing to do with the audit. He's strayed from the reason we're here this morning.

9:45 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP David Christopherson

I understand, but the report is about the economic action plan. Mr. Byrne is making a connection. At least in his sentences and his questions, he's making the connection. He has the right to pursue this. We have a little more latitude at committee, and I don't for one minute think that Mr. Byrne is colouring outside the lines.

I'll take one more point of order. I'm going to freeze the time—we're not going to eat up Mr. Byrne's time through points of order. So the time is frozen.

Madam Bateman, you have the floor.

9:50 a.m.

Conservative

Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB

At the risk of being a peacemaker—and I love your analogy about colouring outside of the lines—I think Mr. Stewart from PCO made the point that the success of this whole endeavour lies in using existing mechanisms, not in reinventing the wheel. Perhaps that's the angle Mr. Byrne is seeking.

9:50 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP David Christopherson

Once we give Mr. Byrne back the floor, I'm sure he will explain his line of thinking.

With that, we will restart the clock. Mr. Byrne, you have the floor.

9:50 a.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

My line of thinking is that I would like to know why the G-8 legacy fund could not have been incorporated in some aspect of the economic action plan. According to what we've heard this morning, the criteria, the objectives of the plan, are a little more loose. The objective of the border infrastructure fund was specific—to create border infrastructure to facilitate trade. The production of gazebos and lakes were not part of that initiative.

The economic action plan also had a legacy component, which was to create conditions for longer-term competitiveness. Is there some reason why the G-8 legacy fund could not have been incorporated in some aspect of the economic action plan? If so, were other projects incorporated? Is anyone at the table aware of any other funded elements that did not meet any criteria within the economic action plan?

9:50 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Communications Branch, Infrastructure Canada

Taki Sarantakis

Maybe I can offer a few clarifications.

First, the border infrastructure fund was announced in budget 2001. That's over a decade ago, so it would be difficult for the government to claim a program created 11 years ago to be part of a budget 2009 economic action plan.

Second, the G-8 legacy fund was the subject of a separate audit that is not within today's discussion. Still, recommendations were made in the G-8 audit from the Office of the Auditor General, which the government accepted. There have also been a number of witnesses who testified on the G-8 infrastructure fund, and the government has accepted the report of the Auditor General on the matter.

9:50 a.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

The G-8 legacy fund was created about the same time as the economic action plan. I'm just curious; it's the first quarter of 2009, and there's a clear similarity there. If there was a need to expedite the G-8 legacy fund, it seems to me that it normally would have been a very appropriate vehicle...on the surface of it; I'm not making complete judgment on this. But the economic action plan, or some element, would have been an appropriate vehicle in which to fund the G-8 legacy fund with some transparency.

March 13th, 2012 / 9:50 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Communications Branch, Infrastructure Canada

Taki Sarantakis

The economic action plan isn't a program, per se. The economic action plan is a title for a series of initiatives. The programs within the economic action plan that were tagged as economic action plan—

9:50 a.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

I understand that.

9:50 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Communications Branch, Infrastructure Canada

Taki Sarantakis

—were laid out by the government in 2009.

9:50 a.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

But what you're describing to the committee, sir, is that the economic action plan had some values that were not as tight—

9:50 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP David Christopherson

You'll have to wrap it up.

9:50 a.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

—as what the border infrastructure fund would have been. The economic action plan, because of the need for speed, the need for movement on projects very quickly, the community adjustment initiative or others, could have been a potential source of funding. Is that not the case?

9:50 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP David Christopherson

Be very quick.

9:50 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Communications Branch, Infrastructure Canada

Taki Sarantakis

I'll be really quick, because I'm not sure I understand the question.

9:50 a.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP David Christopherson

All right. Well, we'll have to leave it at that.

Thank you, all.

Mr. Hayes, you have the floor, sir.

9:50 a.m.

Conservative

Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The knowledge infrastructure program was great for Sault Ste. Marie. We got a new wing for Sault College. The federal government normally isn't responsible for education; we got a new health services wing, and Algoma University got a Biosciences and Technology Convergence Centre. At both institutions, their registration is up at least 15%. I would suggest that the future impact in terms of job creation is there. The benefits of colleges and universities to a community are well known.

As well, my small community of Sault Ste. Marie, a northern Ontario community, was really happy to be eligible for the community adjustment fund. I can read the criteria for the community adjustment fund:

...support activities such as community transition plans that fostered economic development, science and technology initiatives, and other short-term measures promoting economic diversification. Funding targeted communities that had fewer than 250,000 residents, had suffered major layoffs, and lacked alternative employment opportunities or had experienced a year-over-year increase of 20 percent or more in Employment Insurance claimants.

The primary objective was to maintain existing jobs. What were some of the alternative objectives? We understand the primary objective, but there must have been other objectives within that fund.

I don't know who would best answer that question.

9:55 a.m.

Director, Microeconomic Policy Analysis, Department of Finance

Elisha Ram

Perhaps I can answer that question, or at least give you some perspectives on it.

As you mentioned, the broad objective for the community adjustment fund was to target smaller communities that were facing particular economic difficulties due to the economic recession. The intent was to have a program that could be delivered at the regional or the community level and have a lot of flexibility built into it so that communities could see that only the best-suited projects were supported.

There was no desire to create a program that would dictate to communities what they should be pursuing as their economic objectives. It was more intended to make sure that there was a reasonably flexible tool focused on those communities so that the project would be supported as one that the community themselves saw as worth pursuing in order to meet the economic objectives.

9:55 a.m.

Conservative

Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Would you state, then, by its very nature of the way it was established, that the objectives of job creation would naturally be met because these were initiatives that were community-driven? Would that be a fair statement?

9:55 a.m.

Director, Microeconomic Policy Analysis, Department of Finance

Elisha Ram

I think that is a fair statement. Clearly job creation was an objective, the primary objective; it's just that the program was designed to make sure that at the community level there would be a priority placed on the kind of project that would be most pertinent to that community in terms of job creation or job retention.