Transport Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2009

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

No, that's fine. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Brown.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to a question posed to the minister earlier about the cooperation we've seen happening. Every time I have been out making announcements on behalf of ministers, the one comment that has come to me over and over again is how incredible people are feeling about the three levels of government working together cooperatively. People like to see this. In fact, we have a--

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

We have a new deputy minister.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

--quote here from former Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish, who is currently a Mississauga city councillor. She says, “The three levels of government are cooperating extremely well in our city”. She goes on to thank the member of Parliament “for bringing us the largest single infusion of infrastructure money ever received by the City of Mississauga”

One quote that I particularly like, because I am the member for Newmarket—Aurora, came from the mayor of King Township, who is also the Liberal candidate in Newmarket—Aurora. In a letter to Paul Calandra, she wrote:

We really appreciate your dedication and hard work in making this dream become a reality for our township. This project is a great example of the federal, provincial and municipal governments working together to enhance community life by developing a facility that can be enjoyed for generations to come.

That's from Margaret Black, the mayor of King Township.

So here is my question to you. What has been your experience in this process of the three levels of government working together? Obviously the provinces have to come to the table first, but how has the assessment process been for you in your capacity as deputy minister and as staff?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

Thank you.

I'll start, and my colleague, Mr. Forster, will continue.

The engagement of our partners is absolutely critical in the management of this program. It is important as well from my perspective; it helps identify the projects where the needs are. Provinces and municipalities come to the table with their proposals. They participate with us at the officials level in terms of project selection and determination of the funds around that. They do come to the table with their money, which means that a lot more than just the federal money gets injected into the economy.

Having worked in federal-provincial areas and joint jurisdiction areas, I must say that coming into infrastructure, it is phenomenal. The working relationship, the seamless working relationship, between the officials across three levels of government is very impressive.

Do you have anything to add, Mr. Forster?

[John Forster]

No, thank you.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Okay.

I'd like to share my time with Mr. Mayes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

We've talked a lot about spending money. I'd like to talk a little bit about saving money. It's important that in any department's operations we look at the effective and efficient way of accounting for taxpayer dollars both in operations and in administration.

I notice that approximately $7.4 million has been identified as part of the government's ongoing strategic review of department spending. I'd like to have some examples of what was foregone to generate these kinds of savings.

Then, in the bigger picture, because of all the activity and the workload of the department, our government has committed to reviewing all ministries to look at how efficient and effective they are as far as the spending of taxpayers' dollars is concerned. Has that slowed down this review a little because of the huge workload you have undertaken with this economic action plan?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

First of all, Mr. Chairman, it is important to give a context in terms of management and the management controls both departments have.

When you look back a number of years, even 10 years back, and look at the management systems of government departments, the number of controls and risk management tools we have at our disposal now as managers is quite astounding. I can speak to the actions that we have taken since I have come on board.

In both Infrastructure Canada and Transport Canada we have increased the internal audit capacity. We have established our external audit committee, which is chaired by an external member. All members are from outside government. We have already briefed them concerning all our operations and all our activities. We have shared all our risks, and they are going to be very much part of the activities we will go through over the years to come.

As well, I don't know if members are aware, but Treasury Board Secretariat does assess the departments' management performance. We do get report cards. As deputy ministers, part of our performance depends on how well our departments are being managed.

I must say that Transport Canada, in particular, has been at the top of its class in a lot of management areas, and Infrastructure Canada, for a seven-year-old department, has come a long way in terms of having the right systems and structures. As public servants we are proud of the work we have done, and we feel that we had a role to play in this very important project, especially on the economic action plan.

The workload issues were more on the Infrastructure Canada side; Transport Canada is a big department and it has the capacity.

I'll just leave it there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you. Congratulations to you and your department.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Grégoire, I want to take advantage of the fact that you're here and that we asked you some questions the other day.

On aviation safety and the safety management systems, I noted that the minister made an announcement or a declaration yesterday that was highly publicized in the papers. It appeared to give the impression that you were abandoning the hand-off of the audit system to companies and to industry associations monitoring those companies, and that you were going back to a direct inspection system. Is that a wrong impression?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

Let me start. Then I will turn to Mr. Grégoire.

It is very important not to be confused with different languages around the inspection systems. We have not given up our oversight requirements. We have not given up our regulatory oversight. The safety management systems approach that has been discussed--and the committee is very well aware of it because you're doing a study on it--is not in place of inspection; it is an added layer of protection for the industry.

However, as we speak to the industry, the unions, and our own employees, we appreciate that issues are coming up, and the department is actively dealing with that situation. We have taken many steps. Maybe Mr. Grégoire can elaborate.

[Marc Grégoire]

Yes, in fact--

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

There's no need, Mr. Grégoire, because I understand that part. We'll proceed on that another time.

I'll hand off the rest of my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Kennedy, you have three minutes.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There was some discussion about relationships with municipalities, but let me ask first about spending.

Last year, the ministry underspent pretty dramatically on programs announced by the Conservative government. Essentially, the Conservative government promised to spend $1.4 billion on its new programs under the building Canada project programs, but only spent $117 million. We're here at estimates today and your main estimates ask for another $979 million. The much talked about building Canada fund was budgeted at $926 million, estimates requested $376 million, and only $56 million was spent. It was only 4% or 6% of the building Canada fund that got spent last year. The rest of it went back to the treasury.

You are asking for more money this year, so I am curious to know what assurances we have that the money is actually going to be spent. You've been underspending to a fairly dramatic extent over the last number of years, and in here you're looking for more money. Where are we going to get some truing to that, some actual action?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

Thank you.

The department gets the money in the budgets, usually straight-lined, year after year. The way the infrastructure program is run is that they ramp up, they peak, and then the peak goes down. This means that sometimes for the budgeted amounts we get year after year, our actual spending may lag a year behind.

That being said, the money is not lost. It gets re-profiled so that the spending can happen. If you look at the history from 2002 on, you'll see the department has lapsed on a consistent basis, as you said. In some years, it has been as large as 59%, as it was in 2004-05. In 2005-06 it was 15%. So it's a cycle, but--

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Last year, Deputy, it was almost 95% of the money, again, for this amount.

The point is that there's a plan that's been in place since 2007, called the building Canada fund. Some of it now is being referred to in the same context as the infrastructure stimulus fund. I understand there are different rules. The public may not know that, but members of the government do say that these are accelerated projects and so on.

I guess I would ask this, then. In order to have greater reliance on those kinds of announcements, are they actually going out more quickly? Is there a list of projects that would support the announcements? Because especially some of the building Canada fund major ones are large projects. Are you monitoring their progress? Can some of that be shared with the committee so that we know you really need the money? Because billions of dollars have been asked for and billions of dollars were pretended to have been spent. At the end of the year, it's not spent at all.

That may be the way of doing things, but when stimulus is inferred and job creation is being claimed by people like the Prime Minister, I think it's important the department make clear where it believes the projects are actually going to take place in the year for which the dollars are being requested. Is it possible to have that information?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

I'll turn to John to explain the building Canada aspect, but one thing is very, very important: spending versus commitment data are quite different things. In terms of economic activity—

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Sure, but on that point, Deputy—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You just have to let her finish. We're way over the five minutes.

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

Let me just get straight to the building Canada answer, then.