:
I call the meeting to order.
This morning we're continuing our review of the main estimates. In this case it's a series of votes under Treasury Board.
We're delighted to have with us this morning the minister responsible for the Treasury Board, the Honourable Vic Toews, President of the Treasury Board. He's joined by a number of officials who have been good enough to accompany him. I'd better get them all on the record in the beginning. They include Wayne Wouters, secretary of the Treasury Board; Alister Smith, assistant secretary, expenditure management sector; Mr. Dan Danagher, executive director, program integrity; and Ms. Kelly Gillis, assistant secretary, corporate services sector.
Thank you very much for coming.
As is customary, we'll open with the minister, who will open the issue of the main estimates for Treasury Board.
Minister Toews.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I will in fact make a presentation, and after I have concluded, my officials and I will be pleased to answer the committee's questions.
Let me begin by saying that I am pleased to be with you today to discuss the priorities of the Treasury Board portfolio in the context of the current economic climate and our role as the management board of the Government of Canada.
As we are all aware, we are facing tough economic times. Just over a month ago, our government brought forward Budget 2009, Canada's economic action plan. This multi-year plan outlines many measures we will be taking to stimulate the economy, protect Canadians hit hardest, and secure Canada's long-term prosperity. For these measures to have a real impact, they must be implemented as quickly as possible.
Today I will give you an overview of how the Treasury Board portfolio supports the government in implementing its agenda. I will also speak about the ongoing priorities of the Treasury Board Secretariat.
The stimulus in our economic action plan represents 1.9% of our economy for the next fiscal year and approximately 1.4% for the year after. We need to get this money out the door quickly to help Canadians in the short term. Even my honourable colleagues in the opposition have acknowledged that for these measures to have a real impact, they must be implemented as soon as possible. At the same time, we need to ensure proper due diligence. As the management board of the government, we at the Treasury Board Secretariat make sure that this process is handled properly and that we not only get the funds flowing, but we do so responsibly.
We are putting in place a number of measures to ensure that funding flows to those who need it most. One of these measures is a special central vote in main estimates of $3 billion, assigned to the Treasury Board Secretariat, for budget implementation. It will allow our government to provide initial funding for ready-to-go initiatives announced in Budget 2009 in advance of the normal parliamentary supply schedule. Reporting on allocations on the vote will be done in supplementary estimates and in quarterly reports to Parliament on the economic action plan. All the funds distributed will be thoroughly accounted for.
In keeping with the need to be responsive and responsible, we have established clear conditions for the use of this vote to ensure that the appropriate checks and balances are in place. For example, this fund can only be used for economic action plan initiatives announced in Budget 2009. Every initiative funded from this vote will require the approval of Treasury Board. Existing policy requirements on accountability and reporting will have to be met. In this context, it should be noted that grants and contributions payments will be subject to the transfer payment policy. Also, the use of this vote is time limited. Funds can only be allocated between April and June 30, 2009.
Contrary to what has been reported, we chose to create a special vote to provide bridge funding for departments to ensure due diligence in approvals, transparency in reporting, and accountability with respect to its use. In addition, we will streamline the review and approval of policies and programs while ensuring that appropriate controls and respect for parliamentary authority are in place. For example, we will use simplified or omnibus Treasury Board submissions for straightforward program extensions or top-ups. Existing programs will be dealt with in an omnibus way, because these have received prior approval from Treasury Board.
In addition, we have better aligned the timing of the budget and estimates. Thanks to new measures put in place by the Treasury Board Secretariat, the public service is better equipped to handle this process than in previous years. For example, over the past three years, financial management standards across government have been improved. Departments now have independent audit committees that include members from outside government, and departments now have qualified chief financial officers.
Departments have also improved the management of their operations. Under the management accountability framework assessments, large departments and agencies, representing over 90% of government spending, have improved in the area of financial management and control. Recent results show that financial management indicators rated acceptable or strong have risen to 90% from 59%.
We have also increased departmental oversight with a committee of deputy ministers, who will be tracking progress and overseeing the implementation of these measures. The Auditor General will also be auditing spending. For the second year now, the government plans to use early spring supplementary estimates as a vehicle for budget measures.
We all appreciate that we have a big job ahead of us. We will be balancing appropriate due diligence and transparency while rapidly delivering funds to Canadians, but we're up to the task, and we intend to help Canadians through these difficult times.
I'd like to now take a few minutes to talk about some of the ongoing priorities for us at Treasury Board. The first is to make government more effective. What do I mean by this? Our focus will be to continue to reduce the web of rules that stymie innovation and creativity in the public service and lessen our ability to deliver results. This initiative lines up with the recent recommendations of the third report of the Prime Minister's advisory committee on the public service, and it is part of our ongoing commitment to the public service renewal action plan.
Our second overall priority is to ensure that program spending is focused on results, provides value for taxpayers' money, and is aligned with the government's priorities and responsibilities. In this area the expenditure management system that our government put in place in 2007 will continue to serve us well in controlling the growth of government spending while producing results that provide value for money for Canadians. An important part of the system is the strategic review process. Through this exercise, every department and agency is required to assess all their direct program spending and performance on a four-year cycle to ensure they are achieving their intended results, are efficiently managed, and are responding to the priorities of Canadians.
Finally, our third overall priority is to create a dynamic public service that is well equipped to address the challenges of today and tomorrow. That means making changes to the organizational structure of government to ensure that we are as efficient and responsive as possible. One such organizational change was the recent restructuring within my portfolio. On March 2 of this year, the Canada Public Service Agency was combined with two sectors in the Treasury Board Secretaria that are responsible for central human resource management functions, to create the new Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer. This change focuses and streamlines the organizational structure for human resource management. With this new structure and other changes resulting from the review of human resources and governance, deputy ministers will be better supported to manage the people in their own departments and agencies. This restructuring was a result of our horizontal review of central human resource functions, and it responds to the recommendations made by the Prime Minister's advisory committee on the public service in its February 2008 report.
Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, our government is pressing ahead to help Canadian families, communities, and businesses weather the current economic storm. To stand still is no solution at all, and that's why we're putting in place the measures I spoke about today. As the management board for the Government of Canada, our job is to support the government in its efforts to get money flowing to Canadians by ensuring that it is done right. We are determined to deliver on this commitment. The main estimates reflect this central goal and our commitment to providing this leadership to Canadians.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to inform you that my colleague and I will be sharing our time.
Good morning, Minister. Thank you for coming.
You are asking for authorization to spend $3 billion. Based on what you're saying, you have even simplified the applications to extend programs. Have the programs that you're going to invest further in been assessed and have they reached their objectives and performance indicators?
Earlier, you were saying that we are in an economic crisis and that this seemed quite urgent. However, not much has been done since last fall to resolve this urgent economic crisis. You understand that we are not prepared to give you the green light, to open the door to your spending $3 billion without having you table a plan telling us who and what programs will get that $3 billion.
Just to remind you, Mr. Minister, my colleague also has a question for you.
:
Good day, Mr. Minister. I have a very specific question for you.
The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has asked the Treasury Board for years to invest significant funds in small craft harbours. Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for 800 small craft harbours in Canada, and the majority of these harbours are in a terrible state. Currently, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has said that it will take approximately $500 million just to repair the harbours and wharves that belong to it.
Minister, in the budget you announced a very small amount for small craft harbours compared to the needs identified by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Would it not have been more reasonable to take that $3 billion and heavily invest first in federal infrastructure? I was talking to you about Fisheries and Oceans, but I could also have been talking about the Department of Transport, which is facing the same problem concerning federal infrastructure. In fact, I could be speaking to you about all of the departments responsible for infrastructure in need of repair. Would it not have been better for the federal government to first invest heavily in its own infrastructure? Investing first in the repair of its own infrastructure would have accelerated the process.
I am coming to the very specific question that I want to ask you, Minister. How did you prioritize, if you didn't even invest in repairing your own infrastructure? I would repeat that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has assessed needs at $500 million. For five years, I sat on that committee and for the past seven years this committee has been asking for funds but has only received crumbs every year. During that time, infrastructure has been crumbling. This infrastructure belongs to the federal government and I feel that it is a priority.
:
Thank you very much for the question. It is a very important question.
I think that while we want to be efficient and quick in getting the money out of the door, we also recognize that we have to do this in a responsible way. I note that the leader of the opposition made a statement that you have to change the rules by which this money goes out the door. Obviously, he's not saying create more rules or make them more burdensome. What the leader of the opposition was essentially saying is find a process that gets the money out of the door in a more timely fashion. What he indicates and what he states is that we're in a serious crisis, and I would rather err by doing it fast and making the occasional mistake, which then you, the voters, punish us for later, than sit here asking have we got all the boxes ticked.
I think there is a middle ground in terms of how to get this money out. It's true that there is sometimes unnecessary bureaucracy that impedes the flow of this money, but I think we can still have Treasury Board approval of this money in a responsive and a responsible way. So in terms of this $3 billion, the programs and projects must be in the economic action plan initiatives included in Budget 2009 and passed by Parliament. So there's a clear perimeter around this fund.
Then the funds can only be allocated during April 1 and June 30 as essentially bridge funding until the money is available through supplementary estimates A or B. So what we're doing is moving the process up in order to get the money out the door faster, as the leader of the opposition in fact has indicated we should be doing. But I must say that the appropriate checks and balances must still be in place, Treasury Board approval must be obtained, existing requirements on accountability and reporting must be met.
One of the examples I gave is that there is a way of moving things ahead more quickly, especially when we've already approved a particular program, the parameters of the program are set out, the requirements of the program, and all that municipalities or provinces are perhaps asking is for more money. So we can safely put that money into an existing program where that existing program has demonstrated that it is being carried out in a responsible fashion meeting the priorities of Canadians. So it would be done in omnibus approval rather than a specific project approval. There are ways of speeding up the process without losing control of the expenditures of the money.
:
Well, as with all budget-related items, it has to come to the board for oversight and approval. The board looks at every program to determine that the terms and conditions are clear going forward, that there's appropriate oversight in the departments.
Of course the $3 billion fund is to provide that bridge funding between April and June. The board has to determine, on a program-by-program basis, if a department is actually in the position to have the funding at the start of the year or if the program cannot get off the ground until June. That's why the comprehensive list is in the budget.
What will be allocated is now being decided by the board. It looks at each individual program to make a determination. Is that ready to go on April 1, or is it ready to go a little later? If it's a little later, it can be in supplementary estimates A; if it's ready to go on April 1, then we can allocate funds from the $3 billion. That's what's being done now on a case-by-case basis. When that's completed, then the list will be there. Right now we're all working with the same list, which is in chapter 3 of the budget. That does not include the Budget Implementation Act measures, which are a separate source of funds.
Really, I think little can be done in terms of providing the list, except what's in the budget, until that work has been done. There's an intense effort by the Treasury Board right now to follow through on each one of those programs.
And thank you, Mr. Toews, for being here today.
Mr. Toews, without being repetitious, I understand the government's intent is to get billions and billions of dollars out the door in a fast-tracked fashion.
I wrote down one of the things you said. You yourself said it will be necessary to streamline the application process. Yet you're also saying that nothing will change in terms of scrutiny or oversight or the due diligence of the study of these applications. I don't see how that jibes. Something has to give. Where specifically will you be able to streamline without compromising any of the oversight, etc., to get this volume of activity through your own bureaucracy?
I said to Mr. Smith at the last meeting that he has a human resources challenge, if nothing else, in just dealing with the sheer volume of activity that's going to be flowing through Treasury Board. The room for abuse or maladministration of these things is huge.
:
All right, let me ask another very practical question.
In your opening comments you were reminding Canadians of the urgency of the situation, that we have to get moving and fast-track this. Why then won't you and your government just split the bill and take out the irritating elements of this, so the opposition parties could in fact unanimously support some fast-tracking of spending?
I don't want you to spend the rest of your time on this, because I know it's an irritant for you and others, but what do pay equity and those issues have to do with economic stimulus? Why was the Navigable Waters Protection Act crowded into this same bill?
Why do you make it so hard for us to agree with you that we must get the money out the door? If you really wanted to get it through the Senate, split the bill, and it would be through the Senate and your job would be done and you could get busy spending that money.
Why let partisan politics get in the way of the very opening remarks you made?
Thank you, Minister, for appearing this morning. I have a very quick comment, and then I want to ask a question about the infrastructure and lapsing funds.
My first comment is that you keep saying the programs to which the $3 billion will be applied are outlined in the budget. I will point out that the budget provides for total expenditures of almost $250 billion, and to say that the programs for the $3 billion are included in that is extremely broad, and in my view a completely inadequate answer for a $3 billion blank cheque.
I have two questions on infrastructure. The first one is specific. When we talk about the Building Canada fund and other infrastructure money, there remains some question about the money that has been unspent. By far the majority of the Building Canada fund has been unspent. You mentioned that it had been signed in September. The Building Canada fund was announced in 2007, sir, but a significant majority of the Building Canada fund money has not been spent.
Will that money be allowed to lapse at the end of this fiscal year, or will it actually be brought forward into the 2009-10 budget?
Minister, in your introductory remarks, you said you wanted to protect the most vulnerable Canadians. We know that single women, single mothers and senior women belong to this category of Canadians and Quebeckers who are extremely vulnerable. Among your priorities, you say that you also want to ensure a dynamic public service. However, you have just given it a cold shower by making pay equity negotiable.
Historically, in the public sector, pay equity has never been part of the collective bargaining process, when it comes to negotiating on this, because it's always the part that gets dropped. I see that your officials are giving you suggestions, but I would ask you to listen to me carefully. The fact that pay equity is set aside during bargaining is important. First, overall wages are negotiated, then benefits; finally, we leave it up to individuals and their unions to take pay equity further.
Minister, you seem like a logical man. What got into you to go over and above the Human Rights Commission and the group that wrote a report on pay equity? I fail to understand your stance.
:
Let me first deal with the issue of why we've moved to the Public Service Labour Relations Board. It was a specific recommendation of the Bilson report in 2004 that it move to an independent tribunal, away from the Canadian Human Rights Commission, because the Canadian Human Rights Commission simply did not have the expertise to deal with the issue of wages in that context. So that's a direct recommendation that we've taken from the Bilson report.
The other point you make, that pay equity is never taken into account in the context of collective bargaining, is not correct. In fact, in your own province a plan is developed between the employer and the union on pay equity. Then that plan is brought to the collective bargaining table and worked into the collective agreement. So there is a clear utilization of the pay equity plan in the context of that.
What we are doing here is very similar. We are saying that there are certain principles in pay equity. We don't have the same strictures of the Quebec plan, but they still have to follow those principles of pay equity. So when the collective bargaining takes place, neither the union nor the employer can ignore the principles of pay equity, in the same way that in Quebec they can't ignore the plan that has been developed in accordance with the principles of pay equity.
We have essentially ensured that it is done in a flexible way so that pay equity principles are respected and not bargained away. What is presently happening in the federal sector is that a union can go in, bargain without regard to pay equity, and simply enter into an agreement that puts women at a disadvantage. Obviously that has happened in the past, because subsequently they've had to go to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to say that pay equity wasn't taken into account in the collective agreement, and therefore they now need to have a hearing by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The Human Rights Tribunal and the court take 15 to 20 years to resolve those issues. That's not right, from a legal point of view. That's not right, from a human rights point of view. That's not good from a collective bargaining point of view, and it's not good for--
This morning, as Mr. McTeague was going on about accountability measures, I had something come back to me from my first term as a member of Parliament, which I'd like to put on the record and have the minister respond to. I was at the time sitting in Room 112-North in Centre Block, and I remember that Eleni Bakopanos, who was a Liberal member for the government at the time, put forward amendments to go ahead and change the way political parties were financed in this country. I remember, Mr. Chair, you were there at the time and you gave her a hairy eyeball, looking at her as though she should be quiet and desist from proceeding forward with her line of questioning and speech.
I didn't know quite what was going on, but then Mr. Boudria, who was at that time the Liberal House leader, and his staffer, Mélanie, who still works for the Liberal Party, proceeded to replace every single Liberal member who sat on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Then what happened was the Liberal Party, the government at the time, forced through public financing of political parties. And then subsequently, of course, the Liberal sponsorship scandal all unveiled. It turns out that what it was doing was covering over the tracks of the Liberal Party of Canada with regard to their kickbacks, with regard to money that was siphoned through Chuck Guité, with regard to brown paper envelopes being passed around in Montreal to prop up failing Liberal candidates in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Minister, Mr. McTeague's questions this morning with accountability bring those issues back to my mind. I would like you to speak to the issue with regard to accountability and how what you're doing with regard to the money that's going out to fund the GO Train and various projects to stimulate infrastructure in this country is fundamentally different from the Liberal sponsorship scandal and what that party was up to with regard to slush funds and taxpayer dollars wasted to promote their own partisan interests.
:
I don't want to get into too much detail about that unfortunate chapter in our country's history, but from a procedural point of view, it is important to make a distinction between what happened with the sponsorship issue and what is happening here.
With the sponsorship issue, in fact, the first big problem was that it bypassed the public service completely. It was simply a political fund that was set up. As I recall, and I was on the public accounts committee, when the deputy minister was there, he said that he had nothing to do with that project and that it was Mr. Guité who went directly to the minister. The minister and Mr. Guité decided on the projects, on what was apparently a very political basis.
So the first thing that happened was that the public service itself was completely shut out. There were no criteria. There was no Treasury Board oversight. There was, in fact, not a specific appropriation by Parliament. I'm still not exactly sure where that money actually came from.
We are not going down the road of a lesson that we have all learned. All we are doing here is saying that there has to be a balance between appropriate due diligence and transparency and the rapid delivery of stimulus measures. But you don't dispose of all the safeguards that were in fact put in place by Treasury Board or by the government or by Parliament itself in order to get that money out the door.
So we have now, in this particular fund, the broad parameters, as I've said, in the economic action plan, which will define which programs will benefit from this money. Treasury Board will still review the expenditures. And as I've said, there is some streamlining of that process in cases where we would simply be duplicating what we are doing in terms of approvals. It's not necessary to go through the same forms if that's already been done.
Departments, I would also say, now have independent internal audit committees that include members external to government. They will also have input into these programs. Our government has taken steps to ensure that only qualified chief financial officers are appointed in departments and agencies. And of course we brought in the Federal Accountability Act, which makes a huge difference in terms of the responsibility that department heads, such as Mr. Wouters and other deputy ministers, have in respect of Parliament and the obligations they owe. So you could not go around the deputy minister, as happened in that unfortunate period in our country's history that we've come to know as the sponsorship scandal.
:
Let me just make a few comments.
First of all, the money doesn't flow to any particular project until the Government of Canada is invoiced for it. That is the process.
Now, should there be changes to that process? That's a good question. But the fact is that if we, as the Government of Canada, jointly make an announcement with the municipality and the provincial government, then the municipality goes out and gets the quotes from the tendering process. Then the shovels are put into the ground, and then when the invoices are received by the federal government, we pay. We don't pay before the work is done.
For example, we made certain announcements, I believe, in the Toronto area, in 2008, where not one dime has been spent by the proponents of the project. It's not our project. The proponents haven't spent a dime. Money cannot legally flow. So if you're suggesting that we flow money before it's legally permissible to do so, that's not going to happen.
Thank you, Mr. President, for being here before our committee this morning. We do appreciate your testimony and your work. I know that you're working overtime to ensure that the budget and the dollars that do need to flow do flow in due course.
It's interesting that the Liberals have engaged in one of the most severe second-blow types of arguments that I've ever heard. It was probably even more clearly articulated in the last statements by the Liberals, in which they changed their questioning from asking why you are going to expedite all of this money, this $3 billion, to at the same time asking why you aren't pushing this other money out faster.
I do not envy you, in terms of your responsibilities and your desire to make the opposition parties happy during this time as well.
Clearly you have worked very hard to try to explain to the opposition members exactly what this $3 billion will be spent on, but I think it is very important that the average person out there clearly understand that the $3 billion being brought forward in vote 35.... Maybe I should put this in the form of a question. Is there a single cent of that $3 billion that will be able to be spent on anything that is not outlined within the parameters of the budget, which the Liberal members have already voted in favour of?
:
No. Thank you for the question.
In terms of working overtime, I must compliment the staff and the public servants. They have done an incredible job in moving this ahead. I know it's difficult sometimes to change the way you do business, but Treasury Board specifically and public servants generally have responded well to this particular challenge, and I'm very pleased with their performance.
In respect of your specific question as to whether there are measures outside of what has already been announced, in terms of programs to which this $3 billion would be applicable, the answer is no. It must be spent in respect of the economic action plan measures outlined in the budget. That's what this money is for.
The purpose—and again, I don't want to repeat myself, at the risk of boring some of you—is to move the money out earlier than ordinarily would be the case. It's not that the rules have changed to allow government simply to create this sort of private fund. The public scrutiny of the expenditure of money and the Auditor General's auditing of specific programs will continue. Parliament will in fact receive regular updates in respect of the implementation of this so that Canadians can be assured that we are dealing with this money in a responsible manner.
:
I will come back to this, because $200 million was not added. When I say that the needs are approximately $500 million, I think priority should have been given to federal infrastructure.
Do you have an assessment of all the federal government's infrastructure problems, whether in the Department of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or in other departments? Does Treasury Board have an evaluation of this type? How much would have to be invested to repair and renovate the federal government's infrastructure? In my opinion, this would have been much easier to do, and it would have created jobs in all parts of the country.
I went to British Columbia, Newfoundland and the Maritimes, and the infrastructure situation is a disaster. There have been problems with infrastructure for years. There has been no maintenance work done. For years, no money was spent, and now we are facing some very serious problems.
Let me give you the example of two wharves in my riding, where barricades have been erected so that people will not use them. However, fishers are continuing to use the wharves. The department has erected barricades, because the wharves are dangerous, but there is nothing to prevent people from using them anyways. There would have to be a police officer at each of these facilities. You tell me that you will be injecting $500 million. That is nowhere near enough. The same goes for infrastructure belonging to the Department of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I fail to understand the federal government's attitude in not maintaining its own infrastructure.
:
As a first step, every initiative outlined in the budget requires either policy approval through the cabinet system, or some of them, as the minister noted, could be extensions or top-ups to existing programming, which don't require additional policy approval and would come directly to the board. So on that first step, we've been working very hard with our colleagues in PCO to ensure that the process for policy approval is as swift as possible. That work has largely been done now. At the same time, though, every single item in the budget that has funding associated with it requires Treasury Board approval.
We are not changing our approach here vis-à-vis our own due diligence of the Treasury Board Secretariat, my staff, in assessing every one of those programs. We are looking at every one. Of course, as the minister noted, extensions or top-ups already have clear terms and conditions, so that's less of an issue. It's in a new programming area that we work very closely with our colleagues in the departments to ensure, as a new program comes forward, that the terms and conditions are clear, that the oversight is there, that departments have the appropriate management systems in place. That work is being done, and it means my people are working extraordinarily hard. They're not taking too many days off these days, because we want to apply that same rigour on the approval process and the advice we provide the board, as we always have. We feel we're able to do that, we're able to accomplish the task.
At the same time, though, you have to recognize that at the end of the day it is the departments that are responsible for the spending once the board approves, and they have to ensure that they have their own oversight mechanisms in place to manage spending on a day-to-day basis.
The minister noted that as deputy ministers we are now designated as accounting officers, which gives us a responsibility to ensure that those dollars are being spent prudently. I think it is fair to say that if you look over the last two to three years you'll see there's been a lot of work done through the Comptroller General of Canada to improve overall financial management controls. A lot of work has been done by the board in working with departments in improving the overall management regime.
So for me, yes, it is a significant change in the spending pattern of the Government of Canada, but I do feel, as a personal view, that with the work we're doing at the board, plus the department's overall capacity, we are in a good position to have this funding move forward as expeditiously as everybody wants it to be.
I appreciate, Mr. Wouters, your comments as well. None of these questions, of course, has to do with any comment on your ability and the ability of all of the people working in the civil service. We appreciate and we understand that an awful lot of work has been put in. I also want to stress that we, as Liberals, understand the need for speed and understand the effort going on here. You can understand that we also, as parliamentarians, have an obligation to make sure that we look after the accountability on behalf of Canadian taxpayers.
I do want to stress that there is no confusion on our part whatsoever on the difference between the Building Canada fund and the $3 billion as part of Budget 2009. Our point only is that in the understanding of the need for speed--and we do want to support that, provided we have sufficient accountability--it seems just a bit inconsistent with the approach of the government in not having spent earlier money that was allocated. But, to be clear, we understand completely. There's no confusion on our part on the fundamental difference between those two baskets of money.
I have a quick question on the $3 billion. The provision is to have the $3 billion allocated over the course of the three months, not spent, right?
I had a couple of questions. I have one comment and another comment leading to a question.
The first thing is with respect to these lists. I've noted that in the budget documents there are lots of lists. I'll just refer to the English version, on page 139, where there is a list of 14 infrastructure projects. A couple of pages later, on page 143 in the English version, there are some 13 projects, all of them major, big-spending projects. So I can only assume that the lists mentioned by Mr. Martin and other colleagues around the table have something to do with those lists. Already we have some 27 items. Perhaps, if there is a list going up on a website today, it will be a consolidation of those lists, with a refreshment of some sort.
The point I want to get to is that Parliament's job here is to scrutinize public spending. That is our job. The measure here, vote 35, the $3 billion vote, is an extraordinary measure. So it is not unnatural for parliamentarians--some of them, all of them--to want to probe or to perhaps even propose extraordinary scrutiny of the extraordinary spending measure. It's a large amount of money, and the speed attached to the spending and approval has already been acknowledged to be faster than normal. I know that Treasury Board won't want to make any mistakes.
Projects are approved. Somebody somewhere--the top person--has given the green light. Then you have the issue of when the money is spent. In this case, and in almost all cases, as you've explained, the money is not going to go out until work is done, which will follow that decision by months. In some cases it will be by many months. I don't know who picks up the bridge financing on this, but somebody does.
Lastly, you have the announcement, and we all love announcements in this place. I have a sense that Parliament accepts that the decision to approve a process or a project will take place behind closed doors, as it normally does, in a government office somewhere. All the papers are in and all the boxes have been checked off, and someone signs it. Maybe it's you, Mr. Wouters, or the minister, or somebody else. Somebody says that it's done. The approval's done. Then you contact the counterparties. Then there's an announcement. Somebody is going to want to make an announcement.
Why is it that Parliament can't be informed at that point about extraordinary spending? Why do we have to wait six months?