TRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

LE COMITÉ PERMANENT DES TRANSPORTS ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 10, 2001

• 1108

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call the meeting to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 81, we're dealing with the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002, votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 under Treasury Board.

Before we welcome the minister and her officials, we have a notice of motion from Mr. Burton. The clerk will hand it out and Mr. Burton will read his motion into the record.

If everybody has a copy, Mr. Burton, would you read your motion for the record? Your motion is the preamble, we'll have a discussion on it, and maybe I'll give you the last word before we vote on it.

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As distributed earlier this morning and sent to the clerk, I move that the committee invite to appear before it, at the earliest opportunity, representatives of the Groupaction Marketing company regarding the $612,250 self-appraisal effectiveness study conducted by Groupaction Marketing for the government regarding the government's sponsorship of hunting, fishing, and recreation events.

Shall I speak to it now, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Yes, you may speak to it.

Mr. Andy Burton: I believe this is an issue that should be pursued. I don't believe we got a satisfactory answer in the House. It's something that I believe this committee should be concerned about.

• 1110

I think it's important that we get some more information and that the representatives appear as witnesses so we can get to the bottom of this matter.

The Chair: Is there any discussion?

Mr. Szabo, from the Liberal Party.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am aware of the issue. I would simply like to advise the committee that this question has been raised at question period and the Minister of Public Works and Government Services has responded, not only to the questions of the Alliance but also to questions the Bloc Québécois has raised on this matter.

Clearly the member is not satisfied with the response. Sometimes that happens because there's insufficient time during question period. There is the opportunity for an adjournment debate request or a question on the Order Paper to get specific information, etc., or there is the opportunity to simply communicate with the department for further information that may be forthcoming. These are options available to the member on a very specific matter as opposed to a policy matter.

The motion refers to a sole-source contract. This is not correct. The companies authorized to undertake work with regard to such work as Groupaction did for us were in a competition to determine the companies that would be qualified to do such work, so they are in fact pre-qualified. The government assigns the contracts as they come due rather than having specific work done and going to competition on each and every project because of the large number of them.

Secondly, on the question that this contract was for the evaluation of that company's work, in fact, the contract had a broader range of requirements. One was to evaluate the work, the programs, that had been undertaken thus far. I believe there are 16 different agencies that do this work or are authorized to do this work on behalf of the department.

Subsequent to the contract being let, the government changed or restricted the work done by Groupaction to simply identifying opportunities for further possibilities of programs that the minister may want to consider. That was the only work done. A report was prepared for the minister and the contract was completed.

I understand how the member and other members might unfortunately get the impression that this was a company evaluating itself. The fact is that there were 16 agencies working on this. The evaluation work was not done as part of the contract. The contract is now complete and paid and this matter is closed.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I recognize and understand the rationale for the member bringing it forward. I understand how it might come forward, but it appears that there are other avenues for the member to address specific contract matters. I know he's interested in contracting generally. I would suggest that the committee, as part of its work, consider future business and undertakings. I know the member had a motion that was stood with regard to undertaking a study of sole-source contracting.

I believe something like this would be covered under the umbrella of that project, should the committee as a whole decide that the subject matter was something we wanted to address as part of our future business.

I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Is there further discussion?

Before I take the question, I'll let Mr. Burton wrap it up, since he's the author of the motion.

Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just very quickly on the honourable member's comments, I'd be very happy if a subcommittee were formed so we could look into these contracts.

As you know, I've raised that issue twice, I believe, and it has been voted down. I'm certainly willing to pursue that.

• 1115

Just very quickly, my understanding is that this company was chosen from a list of 16, I believe. Basically, and for all intents and purposes, this is a sole-source contract. As the member said, the scope of the work was changed. Was the dollar value of the contract changed or did the company get paid for doing less work? Those are the kinds of things, Mr. Chairman, that I think we need to find out.

The Chair: We're getting into the matter of the topic, which is whether or not we want to approve your motion. I'll call the question.

(Motion negatived)

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, CA): So much for openness and democracy.

The Chair: The motion is defeated. We'll move on to orders of the day, then, and deal with Madam Robillard, the President of the Treasury Board.

Welcome, Minister. We appreciate your coming to talk to us about the estimates. It's very important that you appear before the committee, as you know. You may introduce your officials and let us know how you intend to proceed with your presentation.

Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll make a general statement and then I will be ready to answer any questions from your committee.

First of all, I want to say that I'm very pleased to be with you today.

[Translation]

I think this is my first chance, as President of the Treasury Board, to discuss the Treasury Board Secretariat's Report on Plans and Priorities and to look at how the secretariat is helping the government to move forward in achieving its commitments to Canadians.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is fair to say you can group most of the activities taking place at the Secretariat into three broad categories: insuring effective financial stewardship, human resources management and improving service for Canadians.

In addition to these responsibilities, we also lead government-wide initiatives like the government's 2.65 billion-dollar physical infrastructure program.

The next 12 months will also be an important time for the Treasury Board Secretariat. There is a great deal of activity on the horizon. We are making progress in each of the broad areas I just mentioned and will continue to build on this success.

I welcome this chance to give you a brief overview of some of our upcoming initiatives.

[English]

I think it is safe to say that most people think of the Treasury Board primarily as the financial manager of the federal government, so perhaps I should start my discussion by looking at that area of my portfolio.

Effective stewardship of public funds is fundamental to providing good government. It is in fact the cornerstone of public trust. We continue to move forward with our efforts to modernize comptrollership and fundamentally reform financial management practices government-wide.

Modernizing comptrollership is about improving the way government manages resources. It is about ensuring that we have the right systems in place and the right people to get the job done, as well as the right information for decision-making. We have introduced several important measures to improve comptrollership and financial management.

Through our new financial information system, for example, we have adopted accrual accounting practices, the form of accounting used in the private sector. This will improve our ability to compare costs with results and better position departments to report to Parliament on the costs of their activities.

We have also, among other things, introduced a revised policy on transfer payments for grants and contributions and strengthened the internal audit and evaluation functions. A few weeks ago we unveiled a new integrated risk management framework, one that other countries are looking at with great interest.

Combined, all of these key initiatives are going to continue to ensure that Canadians have access to better information on the results of programs and their related costs. We intend to continue to move forward with improving our financial management capacity over the coming year.

As you are all aware, the Auditor General has in the past raised some concerns about our stewardship capacity. We have responded accordingly and will continue to put the right elements of stewardship in place.

[Translation]

Improving the way we manage resources is only one part of our overall efforts to improve the way the government serves its citizens. We also want to improve the quality of the services we deliver and the access that Canadians have to our government.

• 1120

We want citizens to have certain expectations when they deal with their government. We want services to be reliable, fast and friendly. We want Canadians to be able to deal with their government conveniently and in the official language of their choice.

Our Service Canada initiative is an important mechanism to accomplish this. The idea behind Service Canada is relatively simple. It will provide a single "front door" to government. One-stop access to Government of Canada programs and services. It offers access to service and information via three integrated and coordinated channels: in person, by telephone, and over the Internet.

Canadians can visit the newly redesigned Canada Internet site, or dial 1-800 O Canada or go to one of the 122 Service Canada walk-in access centres and have the entire Government of Canada at their fingertips.

[English]

Our government online initiative is another critical component of our overall service agenda. Ultimately we want to provide our various clients with access to all government services in both official languages through a secure, integrated, and simple-to-use portal. As you can imagine, translating this goal into reality is going to take a coordinated approach across many fronts. We have been concentrating on establishing the right policy and legislative frameworks to ensure security and privacy of information and transactions for citizens and businesses. To this end we have already enacted private sector privacy and digital signature legislation.

[Translation]

We are about to develop, with a private sector consortium, a secure channel or service broker to allow for security and confidentiality of on-line transactions.

We are working in other areas as well, developing, for example, solid information management frameworks to ensure timeliness, accuracy and transparency of information coming from the government. We have also made real progress in ensuring that our service delivery is more citizen-focussed. The redesigned Government of Canada website launched last January is a prime example. Mr. Chairman, I hope that a number of members of Parliament have visited the new Government of Canada Web site and noticed that it is much better suited to the needs of Canadians.

I am pleased to say that a recent report from the consulting firm on Accenture placed Canada number one in the world in terms of the current status of our e-government efforts. This is very encouraging.

[English]

Our investment in government online is an investment in improving service, our national competitiveness, and ultimately the quality of life in this country. They are investments in our communities and in our future.

These are the same goals that drive our Infrastructure Canada program. As you are aware, this government set aside $2.65 billion for a new physical infrastructure program. The new program has two components, a municipal component, which will account for $2 billion, and a highways component, which will account for $600 million. Over the last few months we have signed agreements for municipal infrastructures with all provinces and the Yukon. We have put together partnership programs where we share costs and decision-making and work together to ensure that funding will go where it is needed most.

In the months to come, we will see funding being used to support green infrastructure projects, notably, as the throne speech points out, projects that improve municipal water and waste water systems. We will also see support to a wide range of activities ranging from local cultural and recreational facilities to rural and remote telecommunications and to providing affordable housing.

[Translation]

Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, I would now like to turn our attention, briefly, to our efforts to modernize human resources. There has been a great deal of attention paid to this area of our business recently. We have been working diligently to prepare the public service to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

• 1125

Over the last few months, we have engaged several outside experts, such as the Advisory Committee on Senior Level Retention and Compensation, and the Task Force on the Participation of Visible Minorities in the Public Service of Canada to identify areas where we can and should make improvements to our human resources management regime.

We are also working to build a more positive labour-management relationship. The report on Identifying the Issues by the Advisory Committee on Labour Management Relations in the federal public service, commonly known as the Fryer report, is helping to guide our efforts. We are expecting a final report in June.

More recently, the Prime Minister announced the formation of the Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service. We are committed to ensuring that the public service of Canada continues to be one of this country's most valuable and cherished institutions. I have set an 18-month deadline for the introduction of the required reforms. I know this is ambitious, but I think it is realistic and necessary.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to keep my remarks brief so that we can get to questions. Let me say once again how pleased I am to be here today. I should point out that a big priority for the secretariat as we modernize management practices is to ensure greater transparency to the public and to parliamentarians.

We are making a conscious effort to improve the information that is available to you. When you look at our reports, for example, I hope you will notice a marked improvement in the way that information is presented. They are considerably more user-friendly. We now have departmental performance reports that better link results to resources. You are beginning to see more and more context. We now expect each department to be able to explain to Canadians how they are meeting government objectives and why they are not if that is the case.

We believe this is essential to maintaining public confidence in the government. Canadians have a right to know what their government is up to.

[Translation]

In this spirit of information sharing, Mr. Chairman, I would now very much welcome any questions from members of this committee.

In concluding, allow me to introduce my team to you: Mr. Frank Claydon, Secretary of the Treasury Board; Ms. Carole Swan, Associate Secretary of the Treasury Board; Ms. Roberta Santi, Assistant Secretary, Risk, Procurement and Asset Management Policy Sector.

I also have with me, Mr. Chairman,

[English]

many other officials from my department, and each one is ready to answer any questions from this committee.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Robillard.

[English]

Our first questioner for ten minutes is John Williams of the Canadian Alliance Party.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Minister. It's nice to see you here answering questions on your plans and priorities and the estimates that we will be approving for you.

I noticed in the closing remarks of your speech that you said we now expect each department to be able to explain to Canadians how they are meeting government objectives and why if that is not the case.

When I read through your plans and priorities, this is like a report to the shareholders, not a report to the board of directors. There's very little information in here that is of value for Parliament to analyse the programs and so on of the Treasury Board. And you are, I'm sure, aware that I have been critical of the performance reports as well as plans and priorities because they've been largely self-serving statements rather than a critical analysis of each department's accomplishments and otherwise.

Can we get an assurance from you, Minister, that you will look into this and ensure that not only Treasury Board but indeed all departments will ensure that their reports to Parliament, their performance reports and so on, include a balanced, real assessment of their accomplishments and otherwise, rather than some self-serving statement just to make them look good?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: As you know, it is completely new for the government to put performance results in front of the House of Commons and in front of Parliament and to have an orientation on results. It's started some years ago only. This is a big change in the culture of the government.

• 1130

I think if you look at the report... and I know the Auditor General is saying we don't go rapidly enough on this. He is a little bit frustrated by this and would like us to move more rapidly. I'm aware of that.

But I can assure the members that it is really the orientation of the government that we should have very good performance reports. That should be very useful for the committee. I think with accrual accounting you will have perhaps a more accurate image of the costs and how they relate to the results.

For a committee such as yours I can imagine that, first of all, the plans and priorities are really important at this stage of the fiscal year. But what is also important is to examine the performance report tabled in the fall to see if there is a link with the former.

The big challenge—and I will agree with my colleague here—is, first of all, to be sure we have the right methodology to measure the results, to have the standards to measure the results. That's the first challenge.

The second one is to show them very clearly and transparently, and if you don't achieve your results, to show why you don't achieve them. I think it will be very useful for parliamentarians to put questions to departments according to these kinds of results.

So I want to reassure everyone that this is really where we will go.

Mr. John Williams: I take that to be a yes, Mr. Chairman?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you.

That's good. So the short answer is great. We appreciate that.

Changing the subject to contracting out, there have been some articles in the paper recently about raising the limit for non-competitive bids from $25,000 up to perhaps as high as $81,000. I think the biggest problem is with ACANs. ACANs is a non-competitive environment, and yet the government seems to insist that it is a competitive process. ACANs requires people to object to a sole-source contract. It does not give them the opportunity to apply if they feel they want to participate in that particular contract.

Can we get your assurance, Madam Minister, that you will look at ACANs and realize it needs to be fixed so that it does give people, in this electronic age, the opportunity to bid on contracts of their choosing rather than being denied unless they object to it?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, I was told that this question of ACANs has often been discussed in this committee. Let me tell you that we clearly disagree with the Auditor General's comment that ACANs are not competitive. I remember the first time I met with the former Auditor General as minister here and we agreed that we disagreed. I think you cannot compare ACANs to a sole-source contract. This is clear to me. It's different from the sole-source contract.

The Auditor General told us we have some weaknesses in the approach we have with ACANs, and that we should reinforce what we are doing here to be sure we achieve the goals we have with that process. Mr. Chair, we have revised that ACAN process and we've made changes this year.

I don't know if you're aware of these, but I can ask Madam Santi to explain what are the major changes we brought to the ACAN process, if you're interested in it.

Mr. John Williams: The only question I have, Madam Minister, because my time is short, is this. Has ACANs been amended to allow anybody to bid on a project, or is it still a process whereby they can only object to a sole-source contract? A yes or no will be just fine.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: There's no change on that matter.

Mr. John Williams: I certainly want to see a change in that area, Madam Minister.

I want to change to the issue of your initiative to renew the public service over the next 18 months. The Public Service Commission appeared before the public accounts committee just last week. As you know, they seem to have a policy that is geographically restrictive for people being able to apply for employment with the federal public service. Quite often they are restricted to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Western Canada is absolutely and totally excluded from applying for jobs with the federal government. Can you please explain why this is the case, and can you assure us that it will be discontinued immediately?

• 1135

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: First of all, I want to remind everyone that the Public Service Commission reports directly to Parliament. It doesn't report to the President of the Treasury Board. Let me be clear here. I cannot give an order to the president of the Public Service Commission. But—

Mr. John Williams: But you can change the legislation to ensure that is their direction—

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: As I said in the House during question period, the last time we revised that legislation was in 1992. We're in the process of revising various pieces of legislation through the human resources modernization. I did understand from the president of the Public Service Commission, when he appeared in front of the public accounts committee, that he himself is ready to revise that. I was happy to read that in the transcript. I think this is one item that will be on the table.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Madam Minister.

The universal classification system seems to me to be a nightmare that just cannot work. During your review of the public service over the next 18 months, can you assure us that you will bring in merit pay for people with exemplary performance in the public service to ensure that the better employees are adequately compensated?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: We're still looking at the classification problem we have right now. As you know, this is long-standing problem, which we have had over the years. This is a very complex situation. I think in the near future I will be able to bring forward some improvements in the system. It's a little bit premature for me to speak about that today. But I can assure you that we'll improve the system.

Mr. John Williams: I have one final question, Madam Minister. The Strong commission recommended an 8.7% increase, I think it was, plus performance pay for executives within the civil service. Yet in the negotiations for the rest of the civil service the increase seems to be around 2%. Can you explain the differential between 8.7% plus performance and basically 2% for the rank and file?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It's clear to me that they are two completely different files. We never adjust the pay of the civil servant to the manager's pay. We can't speak about oranges and apples at the same time. That's quite different to me.

The Strong commission, as you know, is an external advisory group that is following very closely the issue of compensation for executives in order for us to be able to compete in the marketplace.

For our own employees, we also want to have good compensation. Right now we're at the negotiating table. I'm hoping we'll find a way to agree on a compensation package that will also be good for the taxpayers of this country.

The Chair: Thank you very much. You're out of time, Mr. Williams. We'll have a second round later.

We'll go to Marcel Proulx of the Liberals for 10 minutes. I note that quite a few of you want to ask questions, including Serge Marcil and the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Shepherd. If you run out of time, I'll give them the rest of the 10 minutes, starting now.

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

Good morning, Madam President. Welcome to you and your officials.

Before I get ahead of myself, Madam President, despite what you may have read about me, I have no preference when it comes to the language in which you choose to answer my questions.

Madam President, when we look at the figures, we see a marked difference between planned spending for the years to come and for 2000-2001, which is practically twice as much. I think two words are enough to explain the reason for this major difference.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Are you referring to the table on page 12 of the English version?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes, that is right.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: So are you are talking about planned spending last year versus this year?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I am talking about planned spending this year and next year too.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Next year too. The difference, which appears enormous, is due to the pay equity payments we had to make.

• 1140

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Precisely. That is what I thought. Madam President, could you talk about that briefly? It seems to raise a number of questions.

Is the case now closed? Have all employees received their cheque? I would be surprised because we are still getting calls in our offices. What about employees of separate employers, for example, employees of the Auditor General's office? Are those people also going to get pay equity cheques?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: My goodness, that's a lot of questions, Mr. Chairman. I am going to ask Mr. Marcel Nouvet, Chief Human Resources Officer in the Secretariat, to give you a brief overview of the pay equity payment situation, and then I will answer the question about separate employers.

Mr. Nouvet.

Mr. Marcel Nouvet (Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): Thank you.

The implementation of the agreement with the Public Service Alliance is going well, according to schedule and in keeping with what was agreed. Last year, we issued over 560,000 cheques, which covered the majority of workers, and we kept within the budget allowance made for that purpose. Approximately 226,000 workers have received either part or all of what they were owed, and we expect to complete the process this year, in 2001.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: That is part of the answer.

As for separate employers, as you know, Mr. Chairman, they are separate and completely different. Treasury Board is not the employer of those employees. It was quite clear, when we got the decision from the Human Rights Tribunal, that all parties to the dispute, namely the unions, the Human Rights Commission and ourselves, had agreed at that time that the agreement would not cover employees of separate employers. So they did not get pay equity payments.

In addition, Treasury Board Secretariat has always been willing to financially assist those separate employers it had asked to do a similar operation in their own organization, so that they might fulfil their obligations if they discovered any pay equity problems. Subsequently, some separate employers did go through the exercise, and we helped them to solve the problem.

That is where we are at. Now, as you know, the unions have taken the case back to the tribunal, and I therefore cannot comment further.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Madam President.

[English]

Mr. Chair, can I share my time?

The Chair: Who are you sharing it with? Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Minister, for being here today.

I would like to return to the issue of ACANs, which Mr. Williams brought up. He made the statement that they're non-competitive. As I understand the process, there's a posting for 15 days during which people can challenge these contracts.

But more importantly, why do we do this in the first place? Why is it so important that there be a constant contractual obligation out there with our suppliers so that there's not an interruption of service?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, this is an opportunity for me to ask Madam Santi to give an overview of that policy and to explain why we have it and how we revised it in order to strengthen it.

Ms. Roberta Santi (Assistant Secretary, Risk, Procurement and Asset Management Policy Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): A number of changes have taken place with regard to the policy. The policy now indicates that an ACAN must be posted for a minimum of 15 calendar days. That is one change.

We've also changed the language in the policy to remove the concept of challenge. We heard from the Auditor General, the supplier community, and others that the language of challenge made suppliers feel there wasn't an opportunity to put forth their capabilities with regard to a particular type of work that was being sought. So we've taken out the language of challenge and replaced it. Now when an ACAN is posted, suppliers have 15 days to indicate whether they have the capabilities to meet the statement of work indicated in the particular ACAN. After that it is reviewed by the department, and if the supplier does meet the statement of capabilities, it then moves into the second round of the competitive process, into another stage of competition.

• 1145

So in fact there are full and complete opportunities, especially since these are advertised on the MERX, for suppliers to put forth their statements for them to be reviewed, and if they are successful, to move to the second phase of a competitive process. Or the statement of capabilities is rejected because the department feels the capabilities are not in sync with the statement of work, and we've introduced another change to the policy to increase the impartiality with respect to these decisions. In the policy, we now state that if a rejection is made, it has to be made by some official in the department other than the official who launched the ACAN.

We've also developed a very fulsome guide to managers, including best practices in terms of what types of information should be now included in the ACANs so that they can become more transparent, so suppliers can better understand the kind of work that's required, and also how to deal with suppliers in terms of informing them as to whether their statement of capabilities has been accepted or rejected.

So there have been a number of very significant changes to the policy and the practices. I would add that we are working with departments to select ACANs off the MERX randomly to see whether they are complying with policy. We have committed to review by the end of the year, with the five departments that were included in the Auditor General's report, what steps they've taken to strengthen their practices in this area. By 2002 we will also be reviewing the overall application of the policy across the federal government.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: But in reality, there are a number of challenges that occur. Is that correct?

Ms. Roberta Santi: I wouldn't call them challenges right now. I would call them statements of capabilities, submissions from suppliers. There are some that do come in.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Yes.

Going back to your initiative of government online, I know you've made the commitment that you're going to have all government departments online by 2004. A lot of members of Parliament sometimes get concerned about whether in fact the government has capability to do that.

I would like to know where that objective is and whether in fact you're still comfortable with the 2004 criterion.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, I am comfortable with the timeframe of 2004.

This is a big challenge for us. All departments realize that this is a big challenge, but the collaboration is very good right now. The different steps we're following to reach that goal are going on and are well established.

As you know, we have the CIO of that operation here today. Perhaps I will ask her to give more of an explanation.

This is Michelle d'Auray, the chief information officer for government online.

The Chair: We'll give you one minute for the explanation.

[Translation]

Ms. Michelle d'Auray (Chief Information Officer, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Yes, getting services online by 2004 is a challenge, but it's a challenge that departments and agencies are up to meeting. The driver behind this is to make government more accessible and to allow citizens to engage with us directly in a more citizen-centred and citizen-focused approach.

The department and agencies are all online in terms of a web presence, and quite a few of them have some interactive capabilities now. The new Canada site, as the minister mentioned, has been praised and found to be one of the best in the world.

Building on that success, I think we are well on our way to meeting our target.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Burton of the Alliance Party, you have ten minutes.

Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you.

Madame Robillard, thank you for being here today. We appreciate the opportunity to ask you some questions.

Everybody on this committee knows my concern regarding the contracting, especially sole-source and ACAN contracting procedures. I'd like you to clarify very briefly your department's position and how much of a hands-on role you actually play in the contracting process. Or do you just write the cheques or hand out the money?

• 1150

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The main responsibility of the Treasury Board Secretariat is to design the policies that apply in the department, like in many other fields. So we're in charge of the policy.

Once we have the policy, we're in charge of monitoring the policy.

Mr. Andy Burton: So you are actually monitoring the policy. But then at the end of the year, the Auditor General goes over the actual operations as well, and he obviously disagrees with your opinion or your observations on the ACAN process.

There's a disagreement there. Who's writing the rules? You write the rules, but when somebody disagrees with you, you're not changing the rules. How are you going to address that?

I think we have a problem here, and it keeps popping up. Every Auditor General's report has a concern about the ACAN sole-source situation. It just seems to be a stalemate. You disagree with him, you agree to disagree, but that doesn't solve the problem. How are we going to solve the problem?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: With the Auditor General's recommendation, I think you will recognize that most of the time we agree with the Auditor General, and we try to improve the management system we have in government.

On that specific subject, to consider it non-competitive, we have some really major problems here understanding the point of the Auditor General. As Madame Santi explained, there is a possibility. Sole-source contract suppliers don't have any possibility to put forward even their state of capabilities to fulfil a contract. But this is not the case with ACAN.

So how do I answer that? We revised the policy to answer some of the concerns of the Auditor General, and I think you can perhaps ask the Auditor General if he is satisfied with the improvement we brought. But at the end of it, if it's a question of considering competitive or non-competitive, the problem we have here is, how do we do it?

Here, I cannot accept that it's a sole-source contract. It's not a sole-source contract, as you know, because suppliers are able to come here in this system and say, hey, I can do it. If they signal that, we will obliged to be in a more open competitive process.

That's the way we've answered the concern of the Auditor General in revising the policy. I don't know if Madame Santi has something to add to that.

Ms. Roberta Santi: I think we've looked at this issue fairly thoroughly, and we've also gone to other jurisdictions to look at definitions of sole-source contracting.

What we've been able to pull out of the U.S. procurement system is a definition of sole-source contracting, and—

Mr. John Williams: But I don't think the issue is an American-style definition of sole-source contracting. The issue is openness and transparency.

We have four fundamental rules that say if a contract is over $25,000, it has to go for a competitive bid, unless it happens to be under $25,000, a national emergency, or, that catchall phrase, nobody else can do the job.

You pride yourself on being a leader in e-government, and using the electronic methodology and the web, and so on, to communicate with Canadians. It escapes my understanding why you cannot use the web with ACAN, the system that's set up, to make every contract over $25,000 a true competitive bid, rather than a civil servant saying, I'm only aware of my friend down the street as the only person capable of doing this contract, therefore I'm going to give it to him unless somebody out there says, wait a minute, I think I qualify too.

Why don't you just post the information on the web and say, there it is? The friend down the street will be fully aware of that at the same time. Let him bid along with everybody else. You have this great opportunity to make it a truly open, transparent, competitive environment, and I'm at a loss to understand why you won't do that.

Ms. Roberta Santi: I think it's part of the ACANs process. One of the exceptions to the government contracting regulations has to be cited in any notice put across the MERX.

Fundamentally, when a notice is actually put up on the MERX, suppliers can look at the statement of work and can determine whether they can do—

Mr. John Williams: But you're not addressing my issue.

• 1155

The Chair: For both the witnesses and you, just make sure that it comes through me. I don't want there to be a direct argument. You need to ask a question and then they need to answer.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Well, let me interrupt because we're avoiding the real question. I'm saying that—

The Chair: Mr. Chairman, okay?

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, I'm asking the witness to explain to me why they refuse to broaden this out. We know the rule says that if there's only one person we're aware of who can do the job, we give it to them, and we can post it on ACAN and say, is there anybody else out there? But as for ACAN, with e-government, with the new electronic methodologies we have, if you buy into openness and transparency, you can make this a wonderful, competitive environment to reduce costs for government, to eliminate opportunities for corruption and for people to get into cozy relationships, and to ensure that Canadians get value for money.

My question is, why won't you do that? I don't need an explanation about the rationale for the U.S. not doing it, the U.K. not doing it, and so on. Why will you not do it, when you have the opportunity and boast about being the leader in e-government?

Ms. Roberta Santi: The tool is used on the MERX, so it is part of e-government. As to the efficiency discussion, question, or issue, ACAN is an efficient procurement tool in that—

Mr. John Williams: But Mr. Chair, she's still avoiding the question.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, I think we have to be fair and give time for the answer.

The Chair: It may well be that there's not a yes or no answer, and in a case where you have a paper explanation, you could forward it to the committee as well. But you could try to explain now.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but we cannot answer yes or no to that kind of question.

The Chair: Okay, go ahead.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It's more complex than that. This is a complex issue we have at Treasury Board. We cannot answer only by yes or no here.

The Chair: I appreciate that, and I'm not asking you to do that. But when we get a question, we like an answer, and if you could be short with the answers and to the point, that's what our witnesses are asked to do.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: If we are not interrupted, it will be shorter.

The Chair: Okay, go ahead.

Mr. John Williams: Well, we're waiting for the answer, Mr. Chair. My question again is, with the opportunity of e-government and e-commerce, and with the government taking pride in the fact that it says it's a leader in this field, in the interest of openness, transparency, and accountability, to ensure that people don't get into cozy relationships and that corruption doesn't creep in, when it's so simple to use the ACAN system for a truly competitive situation, why will you not do it?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, I have a problem with the question asked by the member, because when he links ACAN with possible corruption, he infers, I think, that we do that behind closed doors. This is not the case. ACAN is on the MERX system and is available to all suppliers in this country. So this is an open process too. This is a transparent process, but different from the competitive process, in order to be more efficient. I think the government is acting in a transparent way too, and to use MERX for ACAN is also part of e-government. So I really don't know where the member wants to go with that.

Mr. John Williams: Do I still have some time, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Yes, you do. Two minutes.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you.

Where I want to go on this issue, Madam Minister, is to the fact that one of the rules is that every contract over $25,000 goes out for a competitive bid, and one of the criteria that can bypass that rule is if there's only one person who can handle the job. Unfortunately, the people who are granting these contracts don't know all the contractors in the country. The Auditor General on numerous occasions has pointed out the situation where the person awarding the contract has a friend in another department or knows a retired civil servant and says, he is the only person I'm aware of who can do the job, and that person gets the contract. Then it gets elevated and the amount spirals out of control. I can think of the Auditor General reporting on the evaluation of NAV CAN, where a $25,000 contract spiralled up into the millions and never went out for a bid.

• 1200

Corruption can creep in. With this new methodology, we can build open, transparent systems, and that prevents corruption creeping in. I'll come back to my question, why can't it be done?

The Chair: You have about a minute.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: My answer, again, is that this is an open and transparent approach that we have here, because this is on the MERX system; this is open to everyone. Every supplier in this country can follow, and they are following, what's on the MERX system, as you know. If a supplier comes in and says he is able to do the job, we'll go to the second phase, to the competitive bid. There's a continuum here, in a transparent way, at the first phase and at the second one. It's wrong to say that the first phase is not transparent. It's wrong to say that, Mr. Chair, because this is on the MERX system and open to all suppliers in this country.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Minister.

I move now to Serge Marcil of the Liberal Party for five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Greetings, Madam President. I am pleased to be taking part in this meeting today, because it brings back memories. First of all, as a Canadian, I am proud of the work that has been done since 1993 to get our fiscal house in order. It has been a gargantuan undertaking. Everyone thought Canada was on the brink of bankruptcy with an operating deficit of 42 billion dollars, an ever-increasing debt and especially the interest on the debt. People seem to forget that you have to budget for debt repayment every year. We are talking billions of dollars a year.

So I want to congratulate your team. I know that the officials are recognized as very competent people whose work is characterized by integrity, justice and fairness. As a minister, you have proven yourself both in Canada and Quebec. I am pleased to be able to work with you today, because you have always been known as an example of uprightness, tough when it comes to business, straight to the point, right to the heart of the problem. So I want to congratulate you for the outstanding work that has been done.

Of course, it takes teamwork, but still, you and your team had the courage to hold the course when the time came to fix the programs, to analyze all the programs and come up with a game plan, with eliminating the operating deficit and reducing the debt as your goal. Now that we have surpluses, we often tend to contemplate embarking on new programs. You have done quite a remarkable job in that respect.

Minister, my question is straightforward. I have had the opportunity to work abroad, in developing countries, and to meet people who worked for CIDA and others who worked for Foreign Affairs. Each time I travel and visit a Canadian embassy, people working for Foreign Affairs always ask me why they are treated differently from those who work for CIDA. They say that after all, they are from the same country and so on. I am talking about people working overseas. I am not talking about those who work here, in Canada.

So is there any reason why people working in embassies for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, who are required to live abroad, are in a lower pay bracket than their CIDA colleagues doing similar jobs in the same countries? I am not asking you to answer today, because you surely do not have the answer, unless someone does. So is there a reason for that? Surely you have been asked about that in the past.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, my initial answer would probably be to say that last year, there was a lot of talk about our foreign service officers, when they were at the bargaining table, negotiating salaries and arguing that there was a problem. I do not remember whether it was at the bargaining table or in conciliation, but in any event, we worked very hard on both sides to try to solve this problem, to improve their working conditions. Finally, we reached an agreement that was, I believe, satisfactory to foreign service officers. Perhaps Mr. Nouvet would like to add something.

• 1205

Mr. Marcel Nouvet: Mr. Chairman, I do not have the exact details of the agreement we reached with workers from the Department of Foreign Affairs, but it was a higher than the average agreement for the public service, precisely in order to bridge the gap.

In addition, the national joint labour-management committee is currently finalizing the directive governing overseas assignments, which in my opinion should also help balance things out. This is an agreement that was reached with the unions.

Mr. Serge Marcil: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: You are out of time.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: I just wanted to point out that the question comes from them. Every time I visit an embassy, people ask me to raise the question. I had the chance to do so today. Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Drouin of the Liberal Party for five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question for the president, but first I want to thank her and the people from Treasury Board for being here today. I would also like to point out that I could not agree more with my colleague's introductory remarks.

Madam President, in recent months, we have been faced with an infrastructure problem, a problem of poor drinking water in certain Canadian municipalities. This caused major problems and even fatalities. In your presentation, you referred to the infrastructure program, and I think that might be a solution. The government has taken this problem seriously and decided to invest in this program. You mentioned 2 billion dollars for the next six years. Is that enough? We know that this is one third of the project; in other words, six billion dollars will be invested in the next six years. That is a lot of money, but does Treasury Board have any reason to believe that it will be enough, enough to solve the problems Canadians are experiencing, particularly with drinking water?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, let me say first of all that the reason we have this infrastructure program is because municipalities asked us for it. The priority given to municipal infrastructure is truly our government's policy behind this program.

Second, when we negotiated agreements with each province, we also wanted consultation with municipal officials and agreement on program specifics and amounts for "green infrastructures", meaning water supplies and sewer systems, etc. in order to improve people's environment.

In each of the provinces, the agreement is different and the amounts and percentages are different, precisely because all of this is all based on the needs of each province. In order to be sure, we checked the figures with Environment Canada. I can tell you that for certain provinces, 80 percent of the total is allocated to green infrastructures, and in others it is only 40 percent: it depends upon the needs. Therefore, we relied upon Environment Canada's data, but also on the data of each individual province.

Having said that, I'm actually hopeful that this is what we will do in each of the provinces, in real and practical terms. I know that the third component, that is cultural and recreational infrastructures, is very attractive, but I think that when a municipality must choose between two projects, it will choose air and water quality for its people before thinking about tourist infrastructure. As far as I can see, it is obvious that municipalities will come to us with this kind of project.

Mr. Claude Drouin: Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Desjarlais of the NDP. No questions?

We come back then to Mr. Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton: I'll defer to Mr. Williams.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Minister, you have indicated that you're going to actually propose legislative reform as part of your renewal of the public service. One of the costly items in the last year or so—and I see it was in last year's estimates—was $3 billion for the pay equity settlement. The Human Rights Commission is actively promoting that agenda as we speak, in their annual report and in a specific report to Parliament this past spring. They've talked very much about this particular issue. In your legislative reform, have you thought about moving this equal pay for work of equal value concept out of the Human Rights Act into, say, the Labour Relations Act? Do you have any thoughts or comments on that?

• 1210

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, you may remember that when we had an agreement on pay equity more than a year ago, we issued a press communiqué at the same time saying we would revise article 11 of the Human Rights Act, which is the responsibility of the justice minister. So this is clear.

At the time, I think the union leaders agreed with us that our present complaint-driven approach through the legislation is not the right approach and we should revise it. Since then, I think the justice minister has put a task force in place to revise it, and I hope they will finish that work so that we can link up with it when we do our work on human resources management reform—we can put the two together. We will work very closely with Justice to make sure we address the problem.

Mr. John Williams: In your earlier statement, I think you also indicated that you are not averse to merit pay for civil servants when their performance is exemplary—as we have in the Strong committee. That was called “at-risk pay”—I don't like the term, but basically it's performance pay for the civil service executive. Can we also look forward to such merit pay for all the civil service, so that we do recognize people's exemplary performance and ensure that they feel their contribution is adequately recognized?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, as you know, we already have that principle of performance pay, if we can call it that, for the executives. In his last report, Mr. Strong said it's too early right now to tell if it's being used well, because it's only been in the system for one year. Next year perhaps we'll see how well it's being used.

As you know, compensation for civil servants across the board is discussed with the unions at the negotiating table. At the same time, we're also revising the classification of employees and addressing some other issues in the system, so I cannot say what the results of that revision will be.

I think we have to look at the results of performance pay for executives to see what they are and whether we can extend that principle to the 155,000 people in our system. That's quite different.

Mr. John Williams: But are you monitoring to ensure that performance pay is actually for exemplary performance, or is it just becoming another way to get a pay raise? For example, have you any idea what percentage of the people in the executive ranks are actually getting this performance or at-risk pay?

The Chair: We'll finish with John and then switch to Mr. Shepherd.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, Mr. Chair, we are following that. I know the member has put a question forward in the House of Commons on that subject, and we'll answer him in a few days. We are monitoring it. But again, I want to remind the members that Mr. Strong did say it's too premature to make an evaluation. Yes, we monitor to make sure this is not another way to get an increase. That should be based on results.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I'll go to Mr. Shepherd now.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Williams brought up the issue of pay equity. We had the Auditor General's staff here a couple of weeks ago, and they were concerned that the issue of pay equity didn't seem to apply to their office. I know they are in negotiations with your department about that, and I wonder what that process is and where it's going.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: They are not negotiating with our department because the Auditor General is a different employer. That means the agreement we had on pay equity does not apply to the Auditor General. It doesn't apply to all the separate employers. The tribunal made it very clear to all the parties involved at the time—the Human Rights Commission, the union leaders, and us—that the agreement does not apply to the separate employers, just because they are separate employers.

• 1215

That means they have to look within their own organizations if they have problems with pay equity. If they do have problems, we will help them financially to solve the problems. But they have to do the exercise in their own organizations—as some separate employers did in the past. I told the former Auditor General that he had to do that himself, for his own organization, and he had to prove to me that he had a pay equity problem.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I'd like to go back to the issue of the ACAN, since we've talked about it a lot today. I'm trying to clarify a few things.

In the Treasury Board guidelines on when to use an ACAN, I see that it says: when a possible delay in awarding a contract would be injurious to the public interest. Do you have any examples of the breaking of a contractual obligation, of instances when a contract is coming up and you simply renew it using an ACAN, rather than putting it out for complete public tender, because the interruption of the supply chain would be injurious to the public interest?

Ms. Roberta Santi: The public interest is one of the exceptions under the government contracting regulations that are cited in the ACAN award notices. A situation in which you might use the public interest clause to justify sole-source contracting might be if you were engaged in studying criminal activity, for example. For obvious reasons, you would not want to put that up for a competitive bid.

But I'd have to be given an example of a particular contract to really respond to that question on contract continuity.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I was just asking for a general concept of what sort of issue would not be in the public interest.

Ms. Roberta Santi: Well, as I said, one issue would be anything that related to an investigation into criminal activity, for example. You wouldn't want to post that contract because it could create some security issues in terms of that information not getting out into the public domain. That could be one example.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I assume there must be some kind of cost-benefit analysis here. If I think of large corporations—one that's in my area is General Motors—they have similar contracting policies.

Have you ever thought what the cost would be if every single contract the government entered into had to be completely solicited across the country? It seems it would be very expensive for the government to process all those applications, study them all, and determine who had the competence and who didn't. In the present situation, you know you have a competent supplier, and you allow others to challenge that supplier from time to time, on a year-to-year basis. But have you ever done an internal analysis of the cost of implementing a full competitive bidding system?

Ms. Roberta Santi: I haven't seen any specific studies, but we do know that it is very costly. That's one of the reasons why the government contracting regulations do exempt certain types of contracts from competitive bidding.

If you also link it to the tool of the ACANs, I think what we're being told by the public—and also by the Auditor General—is that sometimes our procurement process takes too long and as a result is too costly. We're also told this by suppliers.

I think ACANs are a really excellent example of our attempts to create the proper balance between time efficiency and cost-effectiveness. If you look at the overall objective of our policy, it is to enhance access, competition, and fairness, but most importantly, to ensure best value to Canadians. I think those are all considerations in terms of what particular procurement tools to use.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Back to the minister, on the issue of public access to government, we're fixated on online access to government, but obviously everybody in this country doesn't own a computer. How do we try to ensure that everyone has adequate access to government?

The Chair: That'll be your last question, Mr. Shepherd.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: In our approach to services to citizens and how to improve those services, what we want to do is leave citizens the choice on how they contact the government. That means that not only will they have access to government through the Internet, if they want it, but via telephone service and in-person service. The three approaches should be coordinated, so that citizens have a choice in what way they want to be in contact with the government.

• 1220

We know that not everyone has a computer in the home, which is why we have also opened community access centres all across the country—122 of them, through schools, libraries, and some government offices. But even if citizens have computers at home, they can still decide that they prefer to use the telephone or to see someone personally. That's why I think we have to be flexible.

The Internet is wonderful as a tool, yes, but I think we should leave the choice to our citizens too, and not forget that we also have a digital divide in our country.

At the same time, once we're online, citizens in remote areas where there are no government offices will be able to conduct transactions with the government directly in the language of their choice. I think this is a really good sign from our government, to be so accessible to its citizens.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

I move to Mario Laframboise of the Bloc Québécois.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My question will be simple. Madam Minister, last November you were present with your colleague from Public Works in order to support your colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry regarding the announcement of the construction of two bridges and of 14 kilometres of Highway 30. Infrastructure Canada will invest 2.65 billion dollars in the Canada-Quebec Infrastructure Works Program for Municipalities and 600 million dollars for highway repairs. What budget will the necessary funds come from for the construction of the two bridges and the 14 kilometres of Highway 30, Madam Minister?

[English]

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It's for me, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

Let me say first of all that I am very pleased that the Member for Beauharnois—Salaberry is part of the government team. I am very proud of that. Also, my colleague at Transport is directly responsible for this file. I believe he has responded to questions on the subject of this election campaign commitment several times, both in and out of the House of Commons. Now, the Minister of Transport has decided to study the interests of the private sector, which has shown an interest in becoming an active participant in the extension of Highway 30, a project that several governments have discussed over the years. I therefore feel it is premature to discuss government costs, given the fact that we are waiting to be certain of the private sector's interest.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: What you are saying in effect, Madam Minister, is that there is no money in the budget. You're waiting to see what interest there is from the private sector, but there is no money for this kind of infrastructure in the present budget. Did I understand correctly?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: You have the Treasury Board Secretariat's budgets before you today, but not those of the entire government. Treasury Board's budget includes one component for municipal infrastructures. Provincial highways are the financial responsibility of the Canadian Department of Transport.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: These funds would come from the 600 million dollars, if I understood correctly.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes.

• 1225

Mr. Mario Laframboise: In the end, the 357 million dollars that you are announcing are to come from the 600 million dollars. We all understand, however, that Quebec's share is only 128 million dollars. These are the figures that were given to us by the Minister of Transport. Quebec will receive only 128 of the 600 million dollars. I'm still trying to understand where the federal government's share will come from.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, I think that my answer was very clear. We have always said that this project will be achieved through a partnership between the private sector and the public sector. At this point, we are waiting to see what the private sector interest is as regards involvement in this project.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Fine.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Thank you, Mario.

I'll go to Madam Desjarlais and then back to Mr. Burton.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Thank you.

It's good to have you here before us today. I actually didn't have any questions until I heard your comments back to my colleague from the Bloc. On more than one occasion, the transport minister has made a point of saying that the transport department isn't involved in the funding of highways; they're involved in the regulatory aspect. They don't look after the funding of highways. They don't have a budget, so to speak, that they have a plan in place for the funding of highways. So it has actually been one of my concerns that Transport doesn't have a policy or a plan in place for highways in Canada for any length of time.

Actually, I must apologize, because I had noticed only this week for the first time that you were the President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure. Quite frankly, I really thought nobody was looking after infrastructure. We gave a little bit to Western Diversification and we gave some to ACOA and we threw in bits and pieces through INAC and Human Resources, but there was really no set-out plan for infrastructure in Canada. Quite frankly, I thought that was the reason things were in such a mess.

So it's good to see that there is a minister for infrastructure. But then I heard you specify that you're only municipal infrastructure.

I think it's probably for clarity. We would probably throw the municipal in front of infrastructure, and we still have nobody looking after the rest of it. I just want your comments.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes. This is in my responsibility—Minister responsible for Infrastructure. But that means the part of the infrastructure that is for municipalities, as you know. We put $2 billion on the table. That means it's only one-third of the project. This means it is a $6-billion program across the country. For that program I had agreements with each province and territory for that part of the infrastructure.

The other part of the announcement of the government, and it was in the last budget, was $600 million for highways. This is under the responsibility of the transport minister, and right now the transport minister is on his way to negotiate provincial agreements on that part. He is negotiating right now.

The Chair: Okay.

Thanks, Bev.

Mr. Burton, for five minutes, and then we'll go into our work session.

Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm glad my colleague from the Bloc raised the infrastructure issue, because that twigged my mind on something I'd really like to ask the minister. I hope it's appropriate at this session.

As to the infrastructure program criteria and the formula of one-third federal, one-third provincial, one-third municipal, I think there's some real difficulty with that. There are many small municipalities across Canada, and certainly some in my riding, that have major infrastructure requirements in terms of capital investment. They just do not have the tax base to meet that one-third criterion.

I have a community with about 900 people in my riding called Telkwa and they need to spend about $6 million on their water system. There's absolutely no way they can come up with their one-third share, and yet it has to be done.

Is there any thought or any way that you could or would consider revising the formula to take into account that many of these smaller communities across Canada just don't have the access to the kind of dollars required, but need to improve their infrastructure systems, especially the water systems given some of the difficulties that are arising today? Is there any thought to revising the formula to take these kinds of concerns into account?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, first of all, I will say that it's not usually in the regular business of the federal government to get involved in municipal infrastructure. But because we had so much pressure from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to participate, we've come to an agreement with them. When we made this agreement, it was clear that the participation of the federal government would be one-third—the total cost would be one-third.

• 1230

What is very important here is that at the end of the program in one specific province, the participation of the federal government would have been one-third of all the projects.

What about the other two-thirds? I remember in announcing that program in some provinces the question was asked directly of the premier or the minister responsible for the infrastructure program in that specific province. The answer in some provinces—and we can look specifically at the announcement for you to determine what has been said—was very clearly that the two-thirds could come from different sources. In some cases, it could all come from the province. As the federal government, we do not have an objection to that.

So I know that in some parts of the country some provinces will put more money on the table to help those little municipalities face their challenges.

I have with me here the director for infrastructure, Monsieur Guy Bédard. Perhaps you can add something, Guy.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy Bédard (Director General, National Infrastructure Bureau, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

We have built some flexibility within the agreements, as Minister Robillard explained, and this time, contrary to the Canada Infrastructure Works Program back in 1994, the federal government is committed to a one-third average, and the two-thirds could come from different sources. In many instances, as Minister Robillard has said, the province has committed to go over their one-third.

Further to that, we have also added the flexibility on specific projects to go over one-third for one project. But at the end of each fiscal year, the management committee has to make sure they balance the books—in other words, that we get on average one-third on all the projects approved in a given year.

Mr. Andy Burton: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, but I guess what I'm getting at here is whether there is any possibility that between the federal and provincial governments some pressure could be put on the provinces, and also whether there could be some commitment from the federal government to recognize the difficulties of these small communities. Perhaps a certain percentage of that one-third—I appreciate the one-third—could be directed to high-cost necessary projects in communities that just don't have that kind of capability.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: According to the agreement we have signed, there's an obligation in each agreement that a certain percentage will go to a rural part of the province. We have a percentage in each agreement. That doesn't say only little communities but the rural parts.

The only limit I would like to add here, and this is not well known, is that we also opened the door to a partnership with the private sector for some municipal infrastructure. That is completely new. Also in the two-thirds of the component, some municipalities want to have the private sector involved in investing in the municipal infrastructure.

That this is a challenge is clear to me, but I think there's enough flexibility here in this new agreement that we can solve the vast majority of the problems.

Mr. Andy Burton: Do I have more time?

The Chair: One quick question.

Mr. Andy Burton: Again, I appreciate what you're saying, but I don't think the private sector involvement is going to deal with the problem of small municipalities, because it wouldn't be cost-effective.

I just want you to be very aware that there is a problem out there, and if there's any way you can consider or see some way of dealing with it, I know it would be very much appreciated by these small municipalities.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Minister, for appearing.

I appreciate your candidness, and we appreciate that you brought your staff with you to explain.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It was a pleasure, Mr. Chair. We're always available for the members of your committee.

The Chair: I'm going to suspend for one minute to clear the room, so we can go into our work plan in camera.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]