Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 25th, 2022

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

That's excellent, because that brings me to a point that has been made. The Auditor General made the very important point—and she has done so over a number of reports—that it is outcomes that are important, not outputs.

My colleague Mr. McCauley made a remark earlier about performance pay and whether these people deserved their bonuses and so on. I'd like to remind Mr. McCauley—and I know he knows, because he sits on the government operations committee—that performance pay is based on individual performance—HR, management, that kind of thing—whereas it's departmental results, which I know Mr. McCauley enjoys perusing regularly, that provide outcomes.

When we look at something, Auditor General Hogan, like the fact that we started out in 2015-16 with 100 water advisories and now we're down to 31, I believe, is that the kind of outcome we're looking for?

[Karen Hogan]

Well, I think in that respect the report focused on long-term drinking water advisories, and the commitment to lift all of them had not been reached.

More broadly, the important statement there was that a long-term solution had not been reached. There are so many short-term drinking water advisories that fall just short of the year mark that are repeated over and over again. Until you have given capacity to communities to help manage their own water treatment plants and you have found a long-term sustainable solution, lifting half of long-term drinking water advisories is progress but not the outcome. Every Canadian deserves safe drinking water.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

But progress is where we want to be.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Thank you.

We will now move to our third round, starting with Mr. McCauley for five minutes.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

To address your comment, Mrs. Shanahan, I don't think any spin you put on this can justify bonus payouts for such miserable results, period. Not a penny of it is justified.

Paragraph 8.17 of the AG's report talks about 112 infrastructure projects that are identified but not funded due to insufficient funding. I have to say that I find it extremely odd that this government has $150 million to pay Elon Musk to subsidize wealthy people to buy electric cars when we have insufficient money for the infrastructure. I almost think that perhaps you should put a charging station as part of the infrastructure to get this government to react.

How much cost in emergency relief is projected because of the underfunded, and therefore not completed, mitigation projects?

[Gina Wilson]

I'm sorry. If I could better understand the question you're asking—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'll repeat it. There are 112 infrastructure projects identified but not funded due to insufficient funding. How much in emergency relief cost is projected because of the underfunded, and therefore not completed, mitigation projects?

[Gina Wilson]

You'd like an extrapolation of that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Has an analysis been done?

[Gina Wilson]

I don't know if there actually has been an analysis done looking at—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Article 6.50 in the 2013 report states that your department should be doing that analysis of what the costs are. It just goes to a continual—

[Gina Wilson]

Would you like an analysis?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

That was nine years ago, and it still has not even been started.

You talked about a lack of funding. Are you aware of any projects that have gone to the Treasury Board Secretariat for this infrastructure and been turned down?

[Gina Wilson]

Individual projects do not go to Treasury Board specifically. We go to—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

So you've never had funding turned down by the Treasury Board for any infrastructure projects.

[Gina Wilson]

Treasury Board actually would operate on the basis of a broader ask around infrastructure—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Have you ever had a broader ask around infrastructure turned down or reduced by Treasury Board?

[Gina Wilson]

No.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Okay.

I'm curious. How can we be saying in this department that we're underfunded, but the department's never been turned down for funding requests by the Treasury Board?

[Gina Wilson]

The actual process, Madam Chair, is that you actually get policy approval of an initiative, and then Treasury Board—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Where's the problem? We know that there's a lack of funding. We know that the Treasury Board has never turned down any funding requests. Is it just a lack of political will to put a project together?

You've stated that you don't have the funding and that you want more funding. Who's not asking for it? What's the issue?

[Gina Wilson]

Well, sir, we are asking for it. It's not a matter of not asking for it. I'm not sure if you're clear on how—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Was that incorrect earlier when you said that you did not have enough funding or that you had insufficient funding?

[Gina Wilson]

I think you're incorrect, because you're actually asking what we have.... The process is not being understood here, is what I'm saying.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

If 112 identified infrastructure projects have not received funding, why have they not received that funding?