StarBuzz Weekly, Toronto-Minister John Baird: Good afternoon, in 2009 in the face of the largest global economic crisis since the Second World War, the government introduced Canada's economic action plan. The economic action plan was our effort to stimulate the Canadian economy, to put people back to work, to support Canadian families who are out of a job through no fault of their own. Since its introduction, more than 28,000 projects have been started with most projects already completed. The results speak for themselves. Since introducing the economic action plan the Canadian economy has weathered the global economic storm better than virtually every other industrialized economy on the planet. The Canadian economy has grown for some 21 consecutive months. Since July 2009, the Canadian economy has created approximately 540,000 net new jobs. And now the economic action plan has been recognised as being done in a timely and effective manner and as a result Canada is in far better position during this fragile economic period than virtually every other advanced economy in the world. In fact, the former Auditor General spoke positively about the government's implementation of the economic plan in the fall 2010 report. Today I’m very pleased to hear and respond to the Auditor General's latest report. First, let me thank our previous Auditor General Sheila Fraser for her hard work and her dedication that's spanned several governments and always been done with great professionalism and to thank our interim Auditor General John Wiersema for taking up the position. I'd like to address chapter two of the report that relates to the G-8 Legacy Fund, a fund announced in February 2009.
The fund had three goals, first, to support specific projects that were required for the summit itself. Examples of this were the G-8 centre and improvements to the highway leading to the summit site. This covered about 58% of the fund. Second, with thousands of participants staying at the main site and some staying more than 70 kilometres away, including some 2,000 journalists from around the world, we wanted to enhance and spruce up the area to ensure that we're putting our very best face forward to the world. And third, as is custom for such previous summits, a few projects were funded to provide a lasting legacy to thank the municipality of Muskoka for hosting the summit. Our government worked directly with the municipalities to make sure that the projects got underway and, in fact, the projects that were funded were all ultimately reflected the priorities of the municipalities themselves. Four important points to keep in mind, the money was spent on appropriate projects, every penny was accounted for and every construction project was on time and costs came in under budget. And all costs recorded were used for the purposes intended. In fact, Canadians have been able for some time now to go online to infrastructure Canada's web site and see all 32 projects that were funded, complete with pictures. The Auditor General does suggest administrative deficiencies with the intake of these projects. The Auditor General would also like to see an improvement in the information, in the estimates that Parliament received to ensure greater clarity and transparency. We fully accept those recommendations and we'll be taking steps to ensure that the process going forward will be more robust across government going forward. Again, we thank the interim Auditor General for tabling this report and we look forward to working with him again and the entire office the Auditor General in the future. Mr. Libel?
Minister Denis Lebel [Voice of translator]: In 2009 in the face of the most significant economic crisis since the Second World War our government implemented the economic action plan. The economic action plan was our response to stimulate Canada's economy in order to get people back to work and support Canadian families following the crisis. Since its creation, 28,000 projects were undertaken and a good number of them are already completed. The results speak for themselves. Since the launch of that plan, Canada's economy has been any better than any other economy of the g7. Canada's economy has been growing since July 2009 and Canada's economy created approximately 540,000 net new jobs and recognising that the economic action plan was carried out in a timely and effective fashion and that is why Canada is in a better position today than any other industrialized nation in these difficult economic times. Moreover, the former Auditor General had good words to say with regard to the implementation by our government of the economic action plan in her report tabled in the autumn of 2010. And I’m pleased to be here to respond to the last report from the Auditor General. Allow me first to thank the Auditor General Miss Sheila Fraser for her dedicated work under a number of governments and her resolute approach. I'd also like to thank the interim Auditor General John Wiersema for having assumed the position until we find a permanent person. I'd like to address chapter two of the Auditor General's report on the G-8 legacy infrastructure fund, a fund that was announced in February 2009 and invested in projects to improve the Muskoka region and to thank it for having hosted the 2010 G-8 summit. Our government worked directly with the municipalities to carry out those projects. Projects were carried out and met in municipalities' objectives. And four important things to keep in mind, the money was spent for projects that were appropriate, each penny was accounted for, and all projects were carried out in a timely fashion and the total costs came under forecasted budgets. For some time already Canadians on the infrastructure Canada website can see the 32 projects that were fund asked there's even projects of those projects. Now the Auditor General pointed out some administrative deficiencies with how the projects were selected. We fully accept her recommendations and will take measures so that the measures are more robust. Once again we would like to thank the Auditor General for having tabled his report and we are pleased to once again work with him in the future. Thank you. Mr. Clement?
Minister Tony Clement: Thank you, Denis. [end of translation] What I’d like to do is to offer a little bit more comment on the chapter that my colleagues and Ministers have highlighted. And before I begin let me as President of the Treasury Board and as a Member of Parliament as well say how much I welcome the Auditor General's excellent work. You know, the office of the Auditor General is a fundamental institution of our democracy and I would like to take this opportunity publicly to congratulate Sheila Fraser for 10 years of service to members of Parliament and, indeed, to Canadians. [Voice of translator]: As Mr. Baird indicated, the report reveals administrative deficiencies in the process used for G-8 legacy infrastructure funded projects. I accept the recommendations and as President of the treasury board I am committed to bringing the necessary improvements that will make the process clearer in the future. [end of translation] Now if you can believe it, the current process that was used to present these funds to Parliament have been in the books for close to 100 years. But I also agreed that it's perfectly reasonable to look at updating this process for the 21st century. As a government that is committed to openness and transparency we want to ensure that Parliamentarians receive the information that they need. As such I have directed the treasury board secretariat officials to look at how this process can be improved. Now I know that we're going to take a few questions here but let me close by again thanking the outgoing Auditor General Sheila Fraser for her outstanding work that earned the respect of all Parliamentarians of all political stripes during her tenure and, of course, we look as to productive a relationship with her successor whenever he or she is named. Thank you. We'll take some questions.
Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Clement. We'll go to questions and we have 15 minutes if everyone can keep their questions short and their answers short we should get through the list. Terry Milewski, CBC news.
Question: Two questions, first to Mr. Clement, if these projects were appropriate, as you say, why was it necessary to mislead Parliament that the money was going to border infrastructure and to something else, why that was necessary? And to you, Mr. Baird, you approved these projects and why was it necessary, a, to exclude the public servants from the approval process? And, b, to have no documentation of that process to explain why they were selected? Why no transparency.
Minister John Baird: Let me address your question head-on, Terry. I approved the 32 projects and I signed off on the estimates that were presented to Parliament and they were prepared by my department and I don't mind accountability and I accept accountability on this issue. I think that the Auditor General has made some legitimate observations about the transparency of the process. I agree. The government agrees. And we will respond accordingly. We announced all these projects publicly. They were all on the departmental website and we had no motive on the transparency side and I think that the Auditor General said that there was no deliberate, he found no evidence of deliberate attempt in this regard. The option of using the borders fund, the option of using the borders fund was totally developed by public servants and presented to me and I agreed with my public servants in this regard and I accepted the option that they presented me. This was used as an existing authority to adMinister the funds in an expedient fashion. Obviously, that we had tight time frames to get the more than 28,000 projects completed and 32 of the projects, 32 of those 28,000 had to be done by June of 2010, rather than the deadline in 2011. So that was the reason why we moved so quickly in order to get the projects going.
Minister Tony Clement: I think that Mr. Baird has answered the question.
Question: I beg to differ. Why was it necessary to disguise the purpose of the money? Nothing in the rules prevents you from saying what on the really for and there's no process that requires you to mislead Parliament about what -- Parliament what is the money is for.
Minister John Baird: I reject the premise of your question.
Question It was intended for another purpose.
Minister John Baird: I'm not here to debate you, Terry.
Question: Mr. Clement --
Terry, we have to go to the next question and we'll try to get in a second round.
Question: We want to all know the answer on that, why was it necessary to not tell the truth?
Jacques?
Question: The Auditor General says that the public servants were not involved in the selection of projects and there was no paper trail. And given these facts the only conclusion that you can reach is that this was a slush fund and it conjures up issues of Tony and the boys cutting up the cash. So why shouldn't we come to that conclusion?
Minister John Baird: Well, the whole notion that any Canadian voter would be influenced by the construction of a gazebo at a local public park is somewhat ridiculous. I can say this, is that we moved expeditiously as we can. When I was sent to the department my mandate was to make things happen and there was a considerable amount of concern that approvals were far, far too slow and with the global economic downturn we consulted widely and all of the advice that we received is we needed to move more expeditiously and there was a particular reason for speed in this regard because of the 28,000 projects, the 32 project his to be done a year earlier with respect to -- with respect to the selection process, we consulted with municipalities in the Muskoka region and some 200 odd projects came forward and were suggested. Then we made the decisions as to which projects would be -- which projects would be funded based on that recommendation. We moved incredibly expeditiously and the Auditor General has made some observations with respect to the selection process and the documentation and we accept that advice and we'll try to do a better job next time.
Question: A question for Mr. Clement about the i.T. Projects. All way over budget and none making their deadlines, why is the federal government incapable of managing any large i.T. Project?
Minister Tony Clement: Well, look, there's many dozens of i.T. Projects that are ongoing at any given time and I can assure you that these projects are overseen by the treasury board of cabinet and as well as by the individual line departments as well and we have, of course, the benefit of the Auditor General's review of these projects over time as well. We are studying her recommendations and her status reports very closely and I can tell you that this is a matter of great concern to us and we will continue to increase the oversight as we move forward.
Question: [Voice of translator]: Mr. Clement, I’d like to come back to the issue of the Auditor General who stated that the way that you proceeded to select the 32 projects was disturbing. And that he never saw a similar situation in his career and that it violated at least two government policies. What made you think that it was a good idea to not consult with the public servants in selecting those projects? [end of translation] To the both of you, I’ll come back again, the Auditor General says he's never seen anything like it in his career so it's not like, oh, they cut corners. He says I’ve never seen anything like it in my career, they broke two rules of management in government, why did you think that it would be fine to go that way just for the sake of going quickly?
Minister John Baird: Well, at the time, January/February 2009, we were facing the worst economic downs downturn in Canadian history and I was tasked and sent to the department to speed things up to make things happen and there were 28,000 projects that were undertaken by the government from coast-to-coast-to-coast and these 32 were the ones that had to be done quickly and we moved with speed to make things happen. The Auditor General has raised concerns with respect to the selection process and we're accepting the recommendations. I do note that the Auditor General, the acting Auditor General in his press conference said there was no evidence to suggest that there was a deliberate attempt with respect to our actions with Parliament and he also said that he wasn't aware of any specific law that was violated so I guess that I will challenge the premise of your question.
Question: But he quoted two policies that were broken. Not laws, I’ll grant you, but at least two policies and is the message that you're sending Canadians for the sake of expediency, it's fine to cut corners?
Minister John Baird: We are saying that we accept the Auditor General's recommendations and we'll improve the process going forward.
Minister Tony Clement: At the end of the day --
Minister John Baird: At the end of the day, let's be very clear, at the end of the day every single project met the terms and the agreements and they were all for public infrastructure projects and no private interest, and they've all been completed on time. The Auditor General is raising concerns and we agree and we accept the recommendations to do a better job going forward.
Moderator: Susan Lunn, CBC radio.
Question: How do you explain to taxpayers out there, you know, the cynical people out there who will look that the and say because there is no paper trail and despite the fact that you had to move quickly, how can they be sure that the money wasn't just given to conservative friends in the riding of Muskoka?
Minister John Baird: I think that the Auditor General speaks to the documentation with respect to the selection process and there was contribution agreements and with respect to the accounts for every single dollar that was spent. The funds, the 32 projects, you can look at them yourself. They all met the three criteria that I outlined and, you know, some people will be as you suggested and I think that the facts will suggest otherwise. I think that if you look on balance at all of the infrastructure projects that we did right across the country on all of the programmes, maybe not looking at one specific programme but on all of the programmes it's fairly well distributed, perfectly, not. But I look at -- a Member of Parliament from Ottawa, my riding didn't get any Building Canada money and Paul Dewar’s and others got an awful lot and I look at money put in transit and Ken Dryden’s were some of the highest in the country and on balance if you look at all of the infrastructure projects they were fairly -- it was a fairly balanced distribution, not perfect, but fairly balanced overall.
Question: As a follow-up, between $4.5 Million to $5 million to make themselves look better for similar summits and why did Muskoka need $50 million?
Minister John Baird: I outlined that there was the legacy part and there were two parts, one is that the costs were specifically for the summit and, second, sprucing the area up and third was the legacy. You know, I think if you look at the previous summits in this country over the last 10, 20, 30 years they become bigger and security concerns are different. And I was reading a book about a past summit, the last summit held in Toronto and they talked at the end of the summit the French President walked from the U of T to his hotel and obviously we don't have the security requirements, they're different in these summits and they have been transformed into much bigger arrangements.
Question: -- [Speaking in French]
Minister John Baird: Ask the question and we'll get to it.
Question: The Auditor General --
Minister John Baird: We get to choose whether to respond.
Question: The list of 32 projects was presented by you to Mr. Baird. And there's no documentation as to how those 32 projects were selected so, therefore, can you just say to us how those 32 projects were selected by you and how did you come about from 242 to those 32 and why did you do it yourself?
Minister Tony Clement: The fact of the matter is that first of all that the Auditor General makes clear that she had some concerns at the front end with the paperwork and with the process and I get that and I agree that that could have been better. She also concludes that not a penny was misallocated or misappropriated and every penny went to the stated intended purpose. So that's the good news for taxpayers that the money was spent on projects as intended and no money was misappropriated or misallocated. Having said that, you're asking the question of how did we get from 242 to 32, that's a valid question and I’d be happy to answer that question. When it became clear that through the creative minds of the various mayors in the surrounding area that there are about 242 projects that were possible, I had a conversation with all of the mayors and I said, look, you know, we're not going to be funding 242 projects, that's never going to happen. So give us the best projects, give us the ones that meet the terms and conditions of the government and that you think are the most appropriate and the highest priority for your community. They came back with 32 projects and I forwarded them on to the Minister and I said, look, this is what my mayors came up with and you get the final say but, of course, I support my mayors but you get the final say. So how did we get from 242 to 32? That's how it happened. Six mayors were part of that process and they sat around the table with myself and with representatives of the government of Canada and they in their best faith efforts, just like many other projects across the country where mayors and reeves and councillors sought to say this is the best project for our community, that's what happened in this case. So there's no mystery here. We accept the recommendation of the Auditor General that in the future there should be some paperwork and public functionaries that are part of that process but at the end of the day as the Auditor General did say not a penny was misallocated or misappropriated and every penny is, counted for.
Minister John Baird: If I can jump in as well, the 32 projects are all public infrastructure projects and we funded projects similar to those in other parts of the country through other elements of the stimulus.
Question: And my other question for Mr. Clement -- you spoke about the rules that exist, can you just point out which rules you think prevented you from labelling in the supplementary estimates that the money asked from Parliament were not for border infrastructure but for the summit.
Minister John Baird: I'll speak to that because that was my decision. The public servants presented, the notion that a Minister sitting down at a typewriter or a keyboard and drafts his own estimates and we wanted an existing authority to allow these projects to move expeditiously and public servants in my department made recommendations that we could use the border infrastructure fund as an existing authority so we could move expeditiously. As Minister I accepted that advice and I don't distance myself from it and I’m accountable for that decision. As I understand this has been done for many years. The Auditor General, I think, has been clear and I think that makes a compelling case that there should be greater transparency in the presentation of the programme to Parliament and we had no motive to keep this secret or quiet, it was on our website so any notion that was designed to somehow be secretive or to not be transparent, we did public announcements for these projects and we put them on the web, so we were certainly doing them in the full daylight of transparency and as far as the estimates to Parliament goes, we agree that they should be presented in a clearer way and we'll do that going forward.
Moderator: Ok, thank you for your patience. We have five more people on the list and the next one -- Campbell Clark "Globe & Mail" and if we can go quickly we can get through the list.
Question: There's a debate on Libya next week and the extension of the mission and there's been an intensification of airstrikes, including on Tripoli and on Gadhafi compounds, is Canada fully behind that approach and what are the options if Colonel Gadhafi remains in power?
Minister John Baird: The answer is, yes, we're working closely with our allies, particularly the United Kingdom and France and we'll debate the extension of this issue in Parliament next week on Tuesday hopefully. We have reached out and provided briefings to both opposition parties and this morning I spoke to two of the independents from the Bloc to offer -- to get their input and to offer them briefings. I think that the one thing that is very clear is that we've made a deliberate decision not to put boots on the ground and so the effort requires patience from every briefing that I’ve had from my discussions with other colleagues I believe that we are making headway. We are -- it is slow but we are making progress. And I’m not going to contemplate failure because I believe that we will meet with success, we've just got to be patient.
Question: What are the options if Colonel Gadhafi remains in power, the options to end it?
Minister John Baird: I won't speculate on that publicly. With the United Nations mandate and with NATO support, with support from other Arab countries in the region, I think that we are making progress and I believe that we will meet with success. I am not going to speculate on other options. We'll take them as they come.
Question: [Voice of translator]: Mr. Clement, I’d like to try once again and perhaps in French it will be a bit easier. You can explain to me in the current process you want to change, Minister clement because you were involved, what in the actual process made it such that you did not have a paper trail, that you selected these projects but you did not have any documentation for selecting those projects?
Minister John Baird: [Voice of translator]: Well, I want to correct something you said. You said that of course I am accountable in this file for the decisions that were made. We worked very hard and expeditiously to identify the projects and to follow -- and to meet the three objectives. The Auditor General stated that he would like to see some changes in that process and out of the 28,000 projects selected, we received additional advice with regard to those 32 projects and we'll follow the recommendations of the Auditor General.
Question: [Voice of translator]: Well, the problem isn't the 32 projects selected, we have $50 million in Mr. Clement's riding who needed to be re-elected and you are saying that the problem is the process and you say we will change the process and the problem is how the funds were used. Can you explain what in the process prevented you to tell Parliamentarians to tell what you'd be using the money for? And to allow you to make those decisions without the help of public servants?
Minister John Baird: I'm going to be very brief with two issues. Obviously there was a selection of the process and the Auditor General identified concerns and that there wasn't a significant amount of involvement with the public servants and we have accepted that recommendation. With respect to the border and infrastructure fund which was used because it was an existing authority so we could move expeditiously and the Auditor General says she thinks that this could be done in a more clear and transparent way and we completely agree and we have fully accepted her recommendations.
Interview: [Voice of translator]: You said it was in the riding where the G-8 was held and it was in Mr. Clement's riding but that's where the G-8 was held and we had one year to deliver those projects and so we have to act expeditiously and we have to find a way to accomplish those projects. 242 Projects were submitted by the mayors and Mr. Clement said we can't carry out those 242 projects, help me to streamline that and 32 projects were therefore selected and it was said that the Auditor General said that we should have more documentation in the selection of those projects.
Moderator: One last question. [Speaking in French]
Question: [Voice of translator]: Mr. Clement and Mr. Baird, isn't it a bit shameful when you hear the Auditor General say that this situation is unprecedented and it is worrisome. Are you not ashamed when you hear the Auditor General say that this is an unprecedented situation and it's worrying in the way that the funds were managed?
Minister John Baird: We want to be very, very -- I’ll answer in English --
Minister John Baird: I will answer in English because I want to be very precise. We had the environment economic situation that we were operating demanded speed and if you recall back in Parliament there was a desire and a suspicion whether we could move quick enough to get the stimulus done and we responded in a big way medically politically to get the 28,000 projects, I don't think that any other industrialized country in the world were as successful as we were in forming partnerships and making these things happen. You know, the -- we approved 28,000 projects and the Auditor General has made some criticism and observations with how we proceeded with 32 of them and I think what most constituents of mine would say is that you worked hard and you acted in good faith to deliver real results for Canadians and the Auditor General on 32 of the 28,000 projects made observations on how you could have done it better and I think that most people would expect us to reflect on that advice and to respond and we're responding that we accept the advice and agree that we can do a better job. We should always be trying to raise the bar.
[Speaking in French]
Minister John Baird: Thank you.
The fund had three goals, first, to support specific projects that were required for the summit itself. Examples of this were the G-8 centre and improvements to the highway leading to the summit site. This covered about 58% of the fund. Second, with thousands of participants staying at the main site and some staying more than 70 kilometres away, including some 2,000 journalists from around the world, we wanted to enhance and spruce up the area to ensure that we're putting our very best face forward to the world. And third, as is custom for such previous summits, a few projects were funded to provide a lasting legacy to thank the municipality of Muskoka for hosting the summit. Our government worked directly with the municipalities to make sure that the projects got underway and, in fact, the projects that were funded were all ultimately reflected the priorities of the municipalities themselves. Four important points to keep in mind, the money was spent on appropriate projects, every penny was accounted for and every construction project was on time and costs came in under budget. And all costs recorded were used for the purposes intended. In fact, Canadians have been able for some time now to go online to infrastructure Canada's web site and see all 32 projects that were funded, complete with pictures. The Auditor General does suggest administrative deficiencies with the intake of these projects. The Auditor General would also like to see an improvement in the information, in the estimates that Parliament received to ensure greater clarity and transparency. We fully accept those recommendations and we'll be taking steps to ensure that the process going forward will be more robust across government going forward. Again, we thank the interim Auditor General for tabling this report and we look forward to working with him again and the entire office the Auditor General in the future. Mr. Libel?
Minister Denis Lebel [Voice of translator]: In 2009 in the face of the most significant economic crisis since the Second World War our government implemented the economic action plan. The economic action plan was our response to stimulate Canada's economy in order to get people back to work and support Canadian families following the crisis. Since its creation, 28,000 projects were undertaken and a good number of them are already completed. The results speak for themselves. Since the launch of that plan, Canada's economy has been any better than any other economy of the g7. Canada's economy has been growing since July 2009 and Canada's economy created approximately 540,000 net new jobs and recognising that the economic action plan was carried out in a timely and effective fashion and that is why Canada is in a better position today than any other industrialized nation in these difficult economic times. Moreover, the former Auditor General had good words to say with regard to the implementation by our government of the economic action plan in her report tabled in the autumn of 2010. And I’m pleased to be here to respond to the last report from the Auditor General. Allow me first to thank the Auditor General Miss Sheila Fraser for her dedicated work under a number of governments and her resolute approach. I'd also like to thank the interim Auditor General John Wiersema for having assumed the position until we find a permanent person. I'd like to address chapter two of the Auditor General's report on the G-8 legacy infrastructure fund, a fund that was announced in February 2009 and invested in projects to improve the Muskoka region and to thank it for having hosted the 2010 G-8 summit. Our government worked directly with the municipalities to carry out those projects. Projects were carried out and met in municipalities' objectives. And four important things to keep in mind, the money was spent for projects that were appropriate, each penny was accounted for, and all projects were carried out in a timely fashion and the total costs came under forecasted budgets. For some time already Canadians on the infrastructure Canada website can see the 32 projects that were fund asked there's even projects of those projects. Now the Auditor General pointed out some administrative deficiencies with how the projects were selected. We fully accept her recommendations and will take measures so that the measures are more robust. Once again we would like to thank the Auditor General for having tabled his report and we are pleased to once again work with him in the future. Thank you. Mr. Clement?
Minister Tony Clement: Thank you, Denis. [end of translation] What I’d like to do is to offer a little bit more comment on the chapter that my colleagues and Ministers have highlighted. And before I begin let me as President of the Treasury Board and as a Member of Parliament as well say how much I welcome the Auditor General's excellent work. You know, the office of the Auditor General is a fundamental institution of our democracy and I would like to take this opportunity publicly to congratulate Sheila Fraser for 10 years of service to members of Parliament and, indeed, to Canadians. [Voice of translator]: As Mr. Baird indicated, the report reveals administrative deficiencies in the process used for G-8 legacy infrastructure funded projects. I accept the recommendations and as President of the treasury board I am committed to bringing the necessary improvements that will make the process clearer in the future. [end of translation] Now if you can believe it, the current process that was used to present these funds to Parliament have been in the books for close to 100 years. But I also agreed that it's perfectly reasonable to look at updating this process for the 21st century. As a government that is committed to openness and transparency we want to ensure that Parliamentarians receive the information that they need. As such I have directed the treasury board secretariat officials to look at how this process can be improved. Now I know that we're going to take a few questions here but let me close by again thanking the outgoing Auditor General Sheila Fraser for her outstanding work that earned the respect of all Parliamentarians of all political stripes during her tenure and, of course, we look as to productive a relationship with her successor whenever he or she is named. Thank you. We'll take some questions.
Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Clement. We'll go to questions and we have 15 minutes if everyone can keep their questions short and their answers short we should get through the list. Terry Milewski, CBC news.
Question: Two questions, first to Mr. Clement, if these projects were appropriate, as you say, why was it necessary to mislead Parliament that the money was going to border infrastructure and to something else, why that was necessary? And to you, Mr. Baird, you approved these projects and why was it necessary, a, to exclude the public servants from the approval process? And, b, to have no documentation of that process to explain why they were selected? Why no transparency.
Minister John Baird: Let me address your question head-on, Terry. I approved the 32 projects and I signed off on the estimates that were presented to Parliament and they were prepared by my department and I don't mind accountability and I accept accountability on this issue. I think that the Auditor General has made some legitimate observations about the transparency of the process. I agree. The government agrees. And we will respond accordingly. We announced all these projects publicly. They were all on the departmental website and we had no motive on the transparency side and I think that the Auditor General said that there was no deliberate, he found no evidence of deliberate attempt in this regard. The option of using the borders fund, the option of using the borders fund was totally developed by public servants and presented to me and I agreed with my public servants in this regard and I accepted the option that they presented me. This was used as an existing authority to adMinister the funds in an expedient fashion. Obviously, that we had tight time frames to get the more than 28,000 projects completed and 32 of the projects, 32 of those 28,000 had to be done by June of 2010, rather than the deadline in 2011. So that was the reason why we moved so quickly in order to get the projects going.
Minister Tony Clement: I think that Mr. Baird has answered the question.
Question: I beg to differ. Why was it necessary to disguise the purpose of the money? Nothing in the rules prevents you from saying what on the really for and there's no process that requires you to mislead Parliament about what -- Parliament what is the money is for.
Minister John Baird: I reject the premise of your question.
Question It was intended for another purpose.
Minister John Baird: I'm not here to debate you, Terry.
Question: Mr. Clement --
Terry, we have to go to the next question and we'll try to get in a second round.
Question: We want to all know the answer on that, why was it necessary to not tell the truth?
Jacques?
Question: The Auditor General says that the public servants were not involved in the selection of projects and there was no paper trail. And given these facts the only conclusion that you can reach is that this was a slush fund and it conjures up issues of Tony and the boys cutting up the cash. So why shouldn't we come to that conclusion?
Minister John Baird: Well, the whole notion that any Canadian voter would be influenced by the construction of a gazebo at a local public park is somewhat ridiculous. I can say this, is that we moved expeditiously as we can. When I was sent to the department my mandate was to make things happen and there was a considerable amount of concern that approvals were far, far too slow and with the global economic downturn we consulted widely and all of the advice that we received is we needed to move more expeditiously and there was a particular reason for speed in this regard because of the 28,000 projects, the 32 project his to be done a year earlier with respect to -- with respect to the selection process, we consulted with municipalities in the Muskoka region and some 200 odd projects came forward and were suggested. Then we made the decisions as to which projects would be -- which projects would be funded based on that recommendation. We moved incredibly expeditiously and the Auditor General has made some observations with respect to the selection process and the documentation and we accept that advice and we'll try to do a better job next time.
Question: A question for Mr. Clement about the i.T. Projects. All way over budget and none making their deadlines, why is the federal government incapable of managing any large i.T. Project?
Minister Tony Clement: Well, look, there's many dozens of i.T. Projects that are ongoing at any given time and I can assure you that these projects are overseen by the treasury board of cabinet and as well as by the individual line departments as well and we have, of course, the benefit of the Auditor General's review of these projects over time as well. We are studying her recommendations and her status reports very closely and I can tell you that this is a matter of great concern to us and we will continue to increase the oversight as we move forward.
Question: [Voice of translator]: Mr. Clement, I’d like to come back to the issue of the Auditor General who stated that the way that you proceeded to select the 32 projects was disturbing. And that he never saw a similar situation in his career and that it violated at least two government policies. What made you think that it was a good idea to not consult with the public servants in selecting those projects? [end of translation] To the both of you, I’ll come back again, the Auditor General says he's never seen anything like it in his career so it's not like, oh, they cut corners. He says I’ve never seen anything like it in my career, they broke two rules of management in government, why did you think that it would be fine to go that way just for the sake of going quickly?
Minister John Baird: Well, at the time, January/February 2009, we were facing the worst economic downs downturn in Canadian history and I was tasked and sent to the department to speed things up to make things happen and there were 28,000 projects that were undertaken by the government from coast-to-coast-to-coast and these 32 were the ones that had to be done quickly and we moved with speed to make things happen. The Auditor General has raised concerns with respect to the selection process and we're accepting the recommendations. I do note that the Auditor General, the acting Auditor General in his press conference said there was no evidence to suggest that there was a deliberate attempt with respect to our actions with Parliament and he also said that he wasn't aware of any specific law that was violated so I guess that I will challenge the premise of your question.
Question: But he quoted two policies that were broken. Not laws, I’ll grant you, but at least two policies and is the message that you're sending Canadians for the sake of expediency, it's fine to cut corners?
Minister John Baird: We are saying that we accept the Auditor General's recommendations and we'll improve the process going forward.
Minister Tony Clement: At the end of the day --
Minister John Baird: At the end of the day, let's be very clear, at the end of the day every single project met the terms and the agreements and they were all for public infrastructure projects and no private interest, and they've all been completed on time. The Auditor General is raising concerns and we agree and we accept the recommendations to do a better job going forward.
Moderator: Susan Lunn, CBC radio.
Question: How do you explain to taxpayers out there, you know, the cynical people out there who will look that the and say because there is no paper trail and despite the fact that you had to move quickly, how can they be sure that the money wasn't just given to conservative friends in the riding of Muskoka?
Minister John Baird: I think that the Auditor General speaks to the documentation with respect to the selection process and there was contribution agreements and with respect to the accounts for every single dollar that was spent. The funds, the 32 projects, you can look at them yourself. They all met the three criteria that I outlined and, you know, some people will be as you suggested and I think that the facts will suggest otherwise. I think that if you look on balance at all of the infrastructure projects that we did right across the country on all of the programmes, maybe not looking at one specific programme but on all of the programmes it's fairly well distributed, perfectly, not. But I look at -- a Member of Parliament from Ottawa, my riding didn't get any Building Canada money and Paul Dewar’s and others got an awful lot and I look at money put in transit and Ken Dryden’s were some of the highest in the country and on balance if you look at all of the infrastructure projects they were fairly -- it was a fairly balanced distribution, not perfect, but fairly balanced overall.
Question: As a follow-up, between $4.5 Million to $5 million to make themselves look better for similar summits and why did Muskoka need $50 million?
Minister John Baird: I outlined that there was the legacy part and there were two parts, one is that the costs were specifically for the summit and, second, sprucing the area up and third was the legacy. You know, I think if you look at the previous summits in this country over the last 10, 20, 30 years they become bigger and security concerns are different. And I was reading a book about a past summit, the last summit held in Toronto and they talked at the end of the summit the French President walked from the U of T to his hotel and obviously we don't have the security requirements, they're different in these summits and they have been transformed into much bigger arrangements.
Question: -- [Speaking in French]
Minister John Baird: Ask the question and we'll get to it.
Question: The Auditor General --
Minister John Baird: We get to choose whether to respond.
Question: The list of 32 projects was presented by you to Mr. Baird. And there's no documentation as to how those 32 projects were selected so, therefore, can you just say to us how those 32 projects were selected by you and how did you come about from 242 to those 32 and why did you do it yourself?
Minister Tony Clement: The fact of the matter is that first of all that the Auditor General makes clear that she had some concerns at the front end with the paperwork and with the process and I get that and I agree that that could have been better. She also concludes that not a penny was misallocated or misappropriated and every penny went to the stated intended purpose. So that's the good news for taxpayers that the money was spent on projects as intended and no money was misappropriated or misallocated. Having said that, you're asking the question of how did we get from 242 to 32, that's a valid question and I’d be happy to answer that question. When it became clear that through the creative minds of the various mayors in the surrounding area that there are about 242 projects that were possible, I had a conversation with all of the mayors and I said, look, you know, we're not going to be funding 242 projects, that's never going to happen. So give us the best projects, give us the ones that meet the terms and conditions of the government and that you think are the most appropriate and the highest priority for your community. They came back with 32 projects and I forwarded them on to the Minister and I said, look, this is what my mayors came up with and you get the final say but, of course, I support my mayors but you get the final say. So how did we get from 242 to 32? That's how it happened. Six mayors were part of that process and they sat around the table with myself and with representatives of the government of Canada and they in their best faith efforts, just like many other projects across the country where mayors and reeves and councillors sought to say this is the best project for our community, that's what happened in this case. So there's no mystery here. We accept the recommendation of the Auditor General that in the future there should be some paperwork and public functionaries that are part of that process but at the end of the day as the Auditor General did say not a penny was misallocated or misappropriated and every penny is, counted for.
Minister John Baird: If I can jump in as well, the 32 projects are all public infrastructure projects and we funded projects similar to those in other parts of the country through other elements of the stimulus.
Question: And my other question for Mr. Clement -- you spoke about the rules that exist, can you just point out which rules you think prevented you from labelling in the supplementary estimates that the money asked from Parliament were not for border infrastructure but for the summit.
Minister John Baird: I'll speak to that because that was my decision. The public servants presented, the notion that a Minister sitting down at a typewriter or a keyboard and drafts his own estimates and we wanted an existing authority to allow these projects to move expeditiously and public servants in my department made recommendations that we could use the border infrastructure fund as an existing authority so we could move expeditiously. As Minister I accepted that advice and I don't distance myself from it and I’m accountable for that decision. As I understand this has been done for many years. The Auditor General, I think, has been clear and I think that makes a compelling case that there should be greater transparency in the presentation of the programme to Parliament and we had no motive to keep this secret or quiet, it was on our website so any notion that was designed to somehow be secretive or to not be transparent, we did public announcements for these projects and we put them on the web, so we were certainly doing them in the full daylight of transparency and as far as the estimates to Parliament goes, we agree that they should be presented in a clearer way and we'll do that going forward.
Moderator: Ok, thank you for your patience. We have five more people on the list and the next one -- Campbell Clark "Globe & Mail" and if we can go quickly we can get through the list.
Question: There's a debate on Libya next week and the extension of the mission and there's been an intensification of airstrikes, including on Tripoli and on Gadhafi compounds, is Canada fully behind that approach and what are the options if Colonel Gadhafi remains in power?
Minister John Baird: The answer is, yes, we're working closely with our allies, particularly the United Kingdom and France and we'll debate the extension of this issue in Parliament next week on Tuesday hopefully. We have reached out and provided briefings to both opposition parties and this morning I spoke to two of the independents from the Bloc to offer -- to get their input and to offer them briefings. I think that the one thing that is very clear is that we've made a deliberate decision not to put boots on the ground and so the effort requires patience from every briefing that I’ve had from my discussions with other colleagues I believe that we are making headway. We are -- it is slow but we are making progress. And I’m not going to contemplate failure because I believe that we will meet with success, we've just got to be patient.
Question: What are the options if Colonel Gadhafi remains in power, the options to end it?
Minister John Baird: I won't speculate on that publicly. With the United Nations mandate and with NATO support, with support from other Arab countries in the region, I think that we are making progress and I believe that we will meet with success. I am not going to speculate on other options. We'll take them as they come.
Question: [Voice of translator]: Mr. Clement, I’d like to try once again and perhaps in French it will be a bit easier. You can explain to me in the current process you want to change, Minister clement because you were involved, what in the actual process made it such that you did not have a paper trail, that you selected these projects but you did not have any documentation for selecting those projects?
Minister John Baird: [Voice of translator]: Well, I want to correct something you said. You said that of course I am accountable in this file for the decisions that were made. We worked very hard and expeditiously to identify the projects and to follow -- and to meet the three objectives. The Auditor General stated that he would like to see some changes in that process and out of the 28,000 projects selected, we received additional advice with regard to those 32 projects and we'll follow the recommendations of the Auditor General.
Question: [Voice of translator]: Well, the problem isn't the 32 projects selected, we have $50 million in Mr. Clement's riding who needed to be re-elected and you are saying that the problem is the process and you say we will change the process and the problem is how the funds were used. Can you explain what in the process prevented you to tell Parliamentarians to tell what you'd be using the money for? And to allow you to make those decisions without the help of public servants?
Minister John Baird: I'm going to be very brief with two issues. Obviously there was a selection of the process and the Auditor General identified concerns and that there wasn't a significant amount of involvement with the public servants and we have accepted that recommendation. With respect to the border and infrastructure fund which was used because it was an existing authority so we could move expeditiously and the Auditor General says she thinks that this could be done in a more clear and transparent way and we completely agree and we have fully accepted her recommendations.
Interview: [Voice of translator]: You said it was in the riding where the G-8 was held and it was in Mr. Clement's riding but that's where the G-8 was held and we had one year to deliver those projects and so we have to act expeditiously and we have to find a way to accomplish those projects. 242 Projects were submitted by the mayors and Mr. Clement said we can't carry out those 242 projects, help me to streamline that and 32 projects were therefore selected and it was said that the Auditor General said that we should have more documentation in the selection of those projects.
Moderator: One last question. [Speaking in French]
Question: [Voice of translator]: Mr. Clement and Mr. Baird, isn't it a bit shameful when you hear the Auditor General say that this situation is unprecedented and it is worrisome. Are you not ashamed when you hear the Auditor General say that this is an unprecedented situation and it's worrying in the way that the funds were managed?
Minister John Baird: We want to be very, very -- I’ll answer in English --
Minister John Baird: I will answer in English because I want to be very precise. We had the environment economic situation that we were operating demanded speed and if you recall back in Parliament there was a desire and a suspicion whether we could move quick enough to get the stimulus done and we responded in a big way medically politically to get the 28,000 projects, I don't think that any other industrialized country in the world were as successful as we were in forming partnerships and making these things happen. You know, the -- we approved 28,000 projects and the Auditor General has made some criticism and observations with how we proceeded with 32 of them and I think what most constituents of mine would say is that you worked hard and you acted in good faith to deliver real results for Canadians and the Auditor General on 32 of the 28,000 projects made observations on how you could have done it better and I think that most people would expect us to reflect on that advice and to respond and we're responding that we accept the advice and agree that we can do a better job. We should always be trying to raise the bar.
[Speaking in French]
Minister John Baird: Thank you.
No comments :
Post a Comment
Your comments are welcome.