Public Accounts Committee on May 11th, 2021

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair; and good morning, colleagues.

There have been many great questions. I'll try to ask a couple of follow-up ones.

First, to the Auditor General, obviously it's another great report that I enjoyed reading.

Paragraph 9.6 of the report talks about this horizontal initiative in infrastructure, with 21 federal organizations: 13 federal departments, two crown corporations and six regional development agencies. I think about the bureaucracy in all those organizations.

Can you explain to me the complexity of this audit versus the other audits you have performed? Can you very quickly explain to me that differential, please?

This may have been asked earlier, but I had to take a personal call. Excuse me.

[Karen Hogan]

I'm not sure I would say it's a more complex audit for our organization. Obviously, the more departments that are involved, the more it adds to the administrative burden and the need to gather more data and summarize it.

The more important point I would raise here is the complexity of how the reporting structure needs to have been thought through for this program in order to be able to actually measure results and outcomes. There are so many organizations that are all individually accountable in their own right for their budgets and the programs and the projects they do, but they also contribute to a much broader program: the investing in Canada plan.

It's not to successfully report on one against the other but to make sure they're aligned and that you can feed into the meaningful reporting in both instances, at an individual departmental or Crown level, as well as at the broader program level across the federal government.

It's figuring out that nuance that's complex for the government. For us, it's more places to go and more people to meet.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I want to pivot here.

I completely agree with you, AG, when I look at these organizations and the reporting structure, and you say results and outcomes. At the end of the day, Canadians want results. There may be a bureaucracy in place, but we want results.

Here in the city of Vaughan—and I'm one of the three MPs who represent the residents of the city of Vaughan—we have a subway that comes up from Toronto into the city of Vaughan. It was planned, and along with that was a highway 407 extension out to Whitby. It was done and it was planned and we see it operating. Canadians want results.

In terms of the infrastructure side, one of the bullet points says about 40% of funds have been committed of the $180 billion, so $70-odd billion have been committed and $48 billion flowed to recipients. Obviously this is in connection to when something is committed and when something is built and then paid for. I want to understand that. My question on that front pivots, too, on the idea of operating dollars versus capital dollars. When we think of each of them....

I know, Ms. Fox, you commented on this in terms of the indigenous funding. Can each of you comment in terms of operating and capital?

In the infrastructure plans, when I think of infrastructure, I don't think of it as paying—as you mentioned, Ms. Fox—utility bills. I look at it as building, and then the asset is turned over to the entity, turned over to the municipal, the provincial, federal....

Can you comment on the infrastructure spending that's taking place? Is it operating or is it on capital?

I'd like to start on the infrastructure side, then move to the other two witnesses today, please.

[Kelly Gillis]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

When we look at the programming within Infrastructure Canada, we are on the capital side. It is about proponents, so communities, provinces and territories building particular infrastructure assets. What is eligible from our programming is the capital.

That said, we have some programming in the investing in Canada plan that is funding research. When we talk about building codes and when we want to have the advancement from climate and the severity of the weather that we're facing for the future, we are also investing, and we have $45 million in the investing in Canada plan that funds research at the National Research Council.

There are different programs that are doing different things, but all with the advancement of the objectives of building the infrastructure we need in this country.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Could I hear from the other two witnesses, please?

[Christiane Fox]

Maybe I can go next.

Quickly I can say that we have both pockets of money available at Indigenous Services Canada. For instance, in budget 2021 we have a new investment of $4.3 billion, plus $1.7 billion for O and M.

Similarly, on water investments, in the fall economic statement, we got an additional $1.5 billion strictly for O and M.

For our pockets, there's both, and I think the O and M aspect is key in order to ensure that the asset management plan is effective.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you.

Our time is up. Thank you very much, witnesses, for joining us today. We certainly appreciate being able to have this conversation with you. You are free to disengage from our meeting at this point in time.

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, do you have a question?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Could you tell me if it's possible, as part of the committee's work, to obtain written responses from CMHC?

I asked some questions earlier, but I didn't have much time. I'd like to get some clarification on programs that are under way. Would that be possible?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Absolutely. If you have asked a specific question during the committee meeting and weren't able to get the answer, or if you have some information that you would like to receive, we can definitely ask the department to provide that.

I know our clerk will make note of that and we will follow up with that.

Thank you, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

Colleagues, before we adjourn, there are two questions or some information I need to give you.

In regard to my earlier question, while the audit was tabled on March 25, 2021, giving the department until September 25, 2021 regarding the management action plan, our committee has a motion that requires invited departments to provide an action plan 48 hours prior to their attendance at a meeting. Therefore, I would like to seek your guidance on how to proceed regarding the action plan from Infrastructure Canada.

Does the committee want to receive it sooner, or are you willing to allow the department more time, that is, until their September 25 deadline?

Mr. Blois.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

It seemed as though, in the beginning of your remarks today, you mentioned that there was something on the website, but then, when the question went to Ms. Gillis, it seemed that the report was still being prepared.

If the Auditor General has given the department up until...I think you just said September, to be able to complete the management report, I don't know if it's appropriate for our committee to say that we need it sooner, notwithstanding the fact that, yes, that is the normal practice, but we've had our meeting before.

Perhaps we could ask for a progress report or what they have right now that they could share with us. To ask for the full thing before the deadline that the AG set is a bit problematic, in my view.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much, Mr. Blois.

Go ahead, Mr. Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I agree with Mr. Blois on the progress report. We could indeed ask the officials from Infrastructure Canada to provide us with a report by the end of May indicating exactly where they stand. I think that's the best solution.

If someone else has imposed a deadline on them, it would be difficult to ask them to do otherwise. However, we can ask them for a progress report so that we can follow up on this. It's very important to show them that we will follow it very closely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, I see three more hands up to speak to this issue. I've been advised that we aren't able to lengthen this meeting by very much due to the technical support that we will need, so if you could keep your comments brief on this, I have another issue to raise with you.

Go ahead, Mr. Lawrence.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I'll be brief in accordance with the chair's direction.

We have a motion, and they should abide by the motion. We're not asking for any deliverable other than an action plan, sort of a plan to a plan. I think it's utterly reasonable to ask for that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Yip.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I agree with Philip. That's new.

Oh, oh! I'm just kidding.

If other departments come before us, and they also submit an action plan, and they know that this is what's expected, why would they not do that? In many of the action plans, they often have staggered dates, and they also indicate that they're updating us, so I don't see why they can't say within their actions that the report is still incomplete or that this is an update.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Quickly, I'm in agreement with Jean. I want to see these action plans. We are the public accounts committee, and we need and deserve them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you.

Mr. Berthold, your hand is still up. Do you have a further intervention?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I will follow my colleagues in that we will request the action plan. If there's a majority, I will follow it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you.

I also see our analyst's hand up.

Go ahead, Dillan.

[Dillan Theckedath, Committee Researcher]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon to the members today.

I just want to provide some context. If we don't have the action plan, and we've asked the chair to maybe.... We'll have to discuss this at a future meeting. Without the deadlines within the action plan, we would need further guidance from the committee on how to determine when we can expect certain deliverables in our recommendation.

It also is part of the norm to have something against which to measure the progress and hold them to account. The response in the audit does not provide any dates, and that's the last thing we, as a default, use. If we did not have that action plan, we would need further drafting instructions from the committee with regard to deadlines.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you, Dillan.

Go ahead, Mr. Blois.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I'll be very quick. I think I misunderstood when you said the management plan by the Auditor General. That's the department and how they're going to address it, but the action plan is the plan to address the management plan, which we will then present. Is my understanding correct? Is that the difference?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

I believe so. Dillan is nodding yes.