I am pleased to be here to discuss the supplementary estimates (B) 2011-12 for the government and for the Treasury Board Secretariat as well.
[Translation]
With me today from the Treasury Board of Canada are Michelle d'Auray, Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, and Bill Matthews, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management. That is all for the moment.
We are here to respond to your questions on these estimates.
[English]
Before doing that I would like to go over the basics of the supply process, if I may. The supplementary estimates support the request for Parliament's approval for expenditures that were already planned for in the budget but for which the necessary approval had not been obtained in time to be included in the main estimates.
Typically, the government tables supplementary estimates three times a year, in May or June, in October or November, and toward the end of the fiscal year in February or March. An equally important part of the supply process is the departmental performance reports and the reports on plans and priorities. Last Thursday, I tabled the DPRs, or departmental performance reports, for 2010-11. These reports are the primary means by which departments and agencies report their performance against the plans and expected results set out in their reports on plans and priorities.
I'm pleased to say that this year the departmental performance reports are primarily being made available to parliamentarians and Canadians electronically on the TBS website rather than in volumes of thousands of pages. By doing this we're delivering on our commitments to Canadians to be more cost-effective, sustainable, and modern. Indeed, we save the printing costs of three million pages in so doing. We have also taken other efforts to improve the accessibility and accountability of information about government spending. On November 30 departments and agencies' second quarterly financial reports will be posted on their websites. This quarterly financial reporting ensures that parliamentarians and Canadians have access to information on government spending on a timely basis.
Let me now focus on the highlights of supplementary estimates (B) for the government as a whole. The supplementary estimates (B) 2011-12 present $4.3 billion of expenditures in 68 organizations for which Parliament's authority will be sought through a supply bill. This is similar to amounts in previous supplementary estimates (B), the $4.4 billion in voted appropriations in 2010-11, and the $4.9 billion in 2009-10.
[Translation]
These supplementary estimates (B) set out the government's request for funding to continue investing in the Canadian economy, so that it can continue to grow and create jobs, while keeping taxes low. They also reflect the government's commitment to responsible spending. Let me just mention a few of the highlights.
[English]
The estimates include the economic action plan funds that have been reprofiled from previous years to complete infrastructure projects already approved and under way. These include $709 million for the infrastructure stimulus fund, $163 million for the Building Canada fund communities component top-up, and $35 million for recreational infrastructure. And Natural Resources Canada is seeking $470 million to strengthen Canada's economy and improve its environmental performance. Part of this is for grants to homeowners to implement energy efficiency improvements.
Let me also comment on the supplementary estimates (B) for the Treasury Board Secretariat. My department is presenting additional requirements of $39.2 million, as well as a transfer of $70.8 million to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and to the Department of National Defence.
The request for an increase in operational spending includes $15.5 million for the engagement of external experts to provide an independent view and perspective on the strategic and operating review initiative. A compensation adjustment of $11.5 million is required for the employees of the federal public administration, due to the signing of collective agreements for public servants and members of the RCMP. These payments are government-wide and the increases are consistent with the Budget 2010 cost containment measures. There's also funding for the Red Tape Reduction Commission, a Budget 2010 and 2011 priority, and the financial interoperability and stewardship initiative to improve the exchange and integration of financial systems and data.
There is the $70.8 million transfer to Foreign Affairs and International Trade and to National Defence for the cost of management of pension insurance and social security programs for locally engaged staff abroad. This will ensure that the roles and responsibilities for human resource management are properly aligned.
[Translation]
In total, the items presented in the supplementary estimates (B) represent a net reduction of $31.6 million in 2011-12 planned expenditures for the Treasury Board Secretariat.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my preliminary remarks.
[English]
Certainly I'd be available now, and my colleagues I work with, to address any questions the committee may have on these estimates.
Thank you.
I would like to thank you for being here, Minister. It is always a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak with you.
You are responsible for managing approximately $280 billion for the entire Canadian government. That is a substantial amount.
I am going to try to use these five minutes to get some more information about your priorities, and that will answer some questions.
According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the only place in this year's supplementary estimates where there really are large cuts is in green infrastructure. He mentions 59% less. This is an initiative that was launched in 2009, out of a total budget of $1 billion for five years.
According to the Public Accounts of Canada reports, $5 million was spent in 2009-2010 and $34 million in 2010-2011, and $65 million is planned for 2011-2012.
That means this program still has 90% of its budget, for the last two years of the program. So the questions are fairly simple.
Why is there so much money in the last two years of the green infrastructure program? Is the program having problems? Is it in connection with the implementation of the program?
Should that money have been spent, or could it have been spent, elsewhere?
It is difficult to search and dig through the supplementary estimates (B) to try to understand and dissect all of the information there, what amounts will be reduced, and why there is spending for a particular item. Because a lot of things are combined. It is sometimes difficult for us as parliamentarians to follow the puck, as they say in hockey. In fact, Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, says it is difficult for parliamentarians to follow and they just approve what comes from Treasury Board.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer is also seriously concerned about the fact that we are losing control of spending. Although the government says it is going to rationalize, it is going to cut certain services, we see that the budget keeps growing, year after year. It is as if no one has any hold over it and no one is able to control anything.
Just with respect to personnel expenditures, in spite of budget cuts, the strategic review and attrition of positions, we see that spending for personnel, for employees, keeps going up. Even in the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 budgets, this spending has neither stabilized nor declined; it is still going up.
What is going on in your department?
It's a pleasure to be back at government operations. Thank you very much, and I appreciate being here.
Thank you to our witnesses, as well, for coming here today.
Minister, a special thank you to you. I understand you have a very busy schedule and that you have to leave at 4:30 p.m. for other commitments, so I'll get right into my questions.
There's a lot of money in the supply bill when it gets voted in Parliament. Would you be able to remind the House how much money was in last year's supply bill, and what the difference is this year, if any?
:
Well, I can certainly assure you that there have been some cost containment measures that have been put in place, including the restraint measures that were in place for this year's budget and last year's budget.
I can tell you that the operating budgets for federal organizations that are appropriated by Parliament have remained frozen at the levels established in 2010-11, until at least 2012-13.
There were some exceptions to that, including the clean energy programs, which I think we've already been talking about a little bit, and the economic action plan spending to complete some infrastructure projects. I think there was $708 million in that total.
Then we have legal obligations. They are statutory and include parental benefits, severance, out of court settlements, as well as Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development payments to Indian residential schools settlement agreement recipients.
Those are some exceptions, and they obviously indicate that there are certain envelopes that have cost containment and others, for valid reasons, that do not.
The Auditor General's proposals are really to look at.... They audit, for example, whether the reports have been produced to meet a standard. In those instances, the Auditor General is not removing himself or herself from a performance audit. On the contrary, they've identified areas where, in fact, their auditing of either reports or financial statements duplicates what is currently under way.
So they are not removing themselves from their core practice, which is the performance audit. In effect, in a lot of the areas where there was duplication, the Auditor General is going to be increasingly relying on internal audit, as the minister indicated, because that is something the government has strengthened and improved.
:
Of course. There is an architecture behind these forecasts.
I am going to give the explanation in English.
[English]
We have a whole system that is set up for the overview. It's important that we connect each expenditure, as much as possible, with earlier expenditures, for instance, so that we can compare apples to apples as parliamentarians. The history of supplementary estimates is that from time to time, there are certain monies that are unanticipated expenditures or that have not been expended in the time originally allotted for them. In those circumstances, that's why supplementary (B) or (C) estimates are important.
Do you want to add anything, Madam Secretary?
One thing that it is important to know is that ordinarily the estimates are tabled very shortly after the budget. So the recurring initiatives or new initiatives for which departments get funds cannot be presented in time for the main estimates, because the budget is introduced too close to those estimates. That is why departments that want approvals and authorizations have to go to Treasury Board, and then, once they have obtained their approvals, the funding request is made, the authorities convey the request to Parliament, and Parliament approves the funding and expenditures based on the authorizations given to the departments.
In a one-year cycle there is always a gap, a time lag, between when the funds needed for government initiatives are determined, when the departments receive their authorizations from Treasury Board, and when Parliament votes the funds so the spending can proceed in the proper manner.
What I can tell you is that in some cases I think it's important to say that the budget may have zero reductions in certain programs, because it's deemed that it's the appropriate thing to do. In other cases, the reduction could be anywhere from 0% to 10%. In some cases, if the program is deemed not to be useful to Canadians, the reduction could be 100%.
We're really not at the stage right now, Mr. Casey, where we've made any decisions. Obviously, those will be communicated in the budget. Once that is done, then there will be an opportunity to debate it in the House of Commons, I can assure you of that.
In the same vein, and I asked this question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs a couple of days ago, the problem we're faced with there or that the minister claims we're faced with, is a declining number of clients. But there is a huge skill base that has built up within the department in terms of case management, disability management, and early intervention for those who are disabled.
My question for you, Minister, is given the base of skill set that has been built up there, if the projections are accurate and they have a declining client base, it strikes me that it would be a very efficient use of the talent pool to deploy those people to perform disability management for all federal government employees.
That's something that clearly would be outside the purview of the Department of Veterans Affairs, but would require some interdepartmental cooperation. Is that something you'd be prepared to look into further and something you'd be prepared to consider?
Mr. Minister, I know you've been in the news a whole lot more than you probably ever wanted to be, and for all the wrong reasons, I believe, in your mind.
My question to you, and it relates to the G-8 and G-20, is if you had to do it over again, would you do anything differently?
In another area, the Treasure Board is requesting $4.1 billion to improve financial systems. They're looking at areas of inefficiencies. Another one is $5.6 million for the Red Tape Reduction Commission. They talk about revenue opportunities. It's helping businesses to be more efficient. One way, I hear from constituents, is making it easier for us to do business.
I've attended a panel of the Red Tape Reduction Commission when they came to British Columbia. Some of our interprovincial trade barriers are the biggest ones, especially coming from the wine industry. We know it's making it's way through, but maybe you could share with the committee what are the expected savings that could be achieved through this commission.
:
--do have a number. I don't have it off the top of my head, but if somebody could whisper that to me, it would be great. But there is a calculation that can be made in terms of what they call administrative burden, and what the rest of us call red tape. It does cause costs in terms of small business, diverting their ability to hire more employees and expand their operations, and what have you.
So it has been calculated. There's some good research in this area. There's no question that there is an amount. It's in the billions-of-dollars range.
A voice: [Inaudible--Editor]
Hon. Tony Clement: They say $10 billion--so there you go--is lost to the economy as a result of administrative burden generally.
I would like to think the federal government is a subset of that $10-billion number, because obviously there are provincial and municipal red-tape issues as well. That's why the and I are working hand in glove with CFIB and other stakeholders with this Red Tape Reduction Commission, and there will be some very interesting proposals coming out of it very soon.
:
The Minister of Finance decided and announced that he was making changes to the employment insurance scheme, as well as other changes relating to some of our government's programs, because the situation has deteriorated in Europe and America.
I can also say that it is important to have targets for budget cuts.
[English]
I would say this to you, sir. We obviously understand that we are living in a world where there are some massive economic changes occurring right now in the eurozone, the United States, and elsewhere. But if you look at where the problems are arising, they're in countries that do not have plans to get back to balance because then all of their other plans for jobs, growth, and being low-tax jurisdictions that can generate innovation go down the drain.
To me it remains important, despite the economic conditions and because of the economic conditions, to continue with our plans to find savings where they merit action. That's certainly our continued commitment.
:
I just have a couple of points of clarification, Mr. Chair.
Statutory items are in the estimates for information purposes only and are not part of the appropriation bill that will be voted on.
Normally, the main estimates would have the statutory items, and you'd see an update in the supplementary estimates for any revised forecasts.
What you'll see in supplementary estimates (B) that is related to this is a bit of a large amount, simply because when we did the main estimates it was not yet clear how the calculation was going to be applied for some provinces. We didn't have a good amount to actually put in for an estimate. We now have a good number.
The Department of Finance keeps its website fairly up to date in terms of forecast for transfer payments. You're seeing it in here, not because it's new since supplementary estimates (A) but because now is the time when we've actually got a good estimate of the number.
:
The horizontal items are actually found on page 205, and they are described, as we have started to do, in a bit more detail. For example, the clean energy programs and the remediation of contaminated sites are described.
We are trying to give parliamentarians an update on what the activities or initiatives are that cover more than one organization, and to provide the information to you on a total basis of what is being requested and what has been requested to date for these initiatives.
One of the comments that had been made a number of times was that, when more than one organization is identified, the requests for funds in the estimates are all identified per organization but that it is very difficult for parliamentarians to get a sense of the initiatives that cross more than one. We have now grouped them, and you can trace them back into the individual votes for the individual organizations. You can also see them rolled up, described, and the amounts identified per organization in these estimates. It is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction so that you can actually....
Then in the next sets of estimates you will also see if there are any additional requirements related to these, and in which estimates they have been requested, if I can put it that way.
:
I am going to be sharing my time, if I don't talk too much, with Mr. Ravignat.
In the NDP, we often have the impression that we are running into a brick wall when we are looking for transparency, and we often complain about that. When we ask simple questions about the figures and the reports we get from Industry Canada, from National Defence and from Natural Resources Canada, to understand the budget changes from one year to the next, we—and the people who study them too—find ourselves facing stone walls and red tape. We do not have that information. Do the reports disclose all the appropriations announced in the Main Estimates? Once again, the answers do not stand up, and this is unfortunate for us, because it is then difficult to understand the public numbers.
There are also substantial cuts and objectives that have been set. At the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, there are $80 million in cuts. At Industry Canada, it is $6 million. At Infrastructure Canada, it is $51.8 million. We have no details about how these cuts or these savings are going to be achieved. The lack of criteria is very troubling. There are also other cases where the lack of selection criteria in projects has caused problems. I will not go into that subject today; we have other forums for talking about that.
This lack of clarity, of details, and of control, does this explain, among other things, why you are not able to come up with the balanced budget you had promised for 2015?
:
In the first document you read, the quarterly financial reports that the departments have started to produce are one of the items the office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer commented on. The first one was published at the end of June, or in August, for the end of June. That is the report you were referring to, in which there are different colours for the scores. That was the first effort, and we recognized that. The next report is going to be presented at the end of November.
Because it is the first time, we have a plan for continuing, fine-tuning and refining, so that in fact the information will be easier to understand. This is the first time we have done this in the course of a year. You have the current expenditures. This is the first time, and it was started in August of this year. The second report will be ready in November. As well, discussion sessions and training sessions are being held for the people in the departments with the goal of improving the reports.
We hope this will mean that in the next report there will be more green than red, if I can put it that way, in terms of the score the office of the Parliamentary Budget Director gives us.
:
Thank you to both of you.
As my colleague has kindly agreed to share his time with me, I'll go ahead with a question.
Here's my question. Whether it be Public Works or various other ministries, when you look at these estimates, the costs for external consultants and professional services that are not in the public service are increasing at a rapid rate. This has been going on under this government for some time. At Public Works and Government Services Canada, it's a 100% increase.
Now, about this transformation exercise you're talking about at the public service, it's a little bit difficult for Canadians to understand why you're cutting jobs in the public service while you're giving money to external consultants by the boatload.
Is this transformation really an exercise in the privatization of our public service?
:
Sure. As the finance minister has indicated, it has had an impact on revenues, there's no question about it. The economy has slowed down. The projection for next year is down to what I believe is still quite robust growth, in G-7 terms, of 2.1% growth. But that's down from the 2.9% GDP growth that was originally targeted by private sector economists.
There has been an impact of the eurozone crisis and the debt ceiling crisis in the United States. It's never good when you're describing events as crises, but that's the reality of the situation.
Having said that, Minister Flaherty indicated our government's position, which is that we will make changes to deal with these issues as they come due. That's what the fall economic statement did, but at the same time we still have as a goal the balancing of our budget within the 2014-15 timeline, if that is possible.
We will continue to make the decisions that will allow us to spend within our means. Canadians expect that because that helps us grow jobs in the private sector and keep a low tax jurisdiction.
:
We are expecting they will be part of the deficit reduction action plan in the short term, because they will be able to generate savings as we consolidate. At the same time, they have a long-term transformational role as well.
Again, the goal is to make sure that citizens receive excellent services; that the morale of the public service can be improved; and that there's less confusion and duplication in the IT sense, from the 3,000 networks, and 100 different e-mail systems, and 300 different data centres. We believe this can be rationalized, which will increase efficiency and productivity in the public service and help us deliver better services to Canadians. That's the goal.
Part of it will be achieved in this budget cycle and the deficit reduction action plan cycle, but part of it is a longer-term objective as well.
:
Welcome back to the 18th meeting of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates reviewing the supplementary estimates (B).
We have with us Michelle d'Auray, Secretary of the Treasury Board; Mr. Bill Matthews, assistant secretary, expenditure management; Christine Walker, chief financial officer and assistant secretary; and Sally Thornton, executive director, expenditure operations and estimates. All of you have been witnesses and guests at our committee before. Welcome back to all of you.
I see you have circulated a document that you'd like to begin with. Do you have a presentation you want to give, or should we just continue with the questions?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will move fairly quickly, and I will not repeat anything that was covered in our earlier discussions.
Slide 2 is a quick overview of how our estimates document is organized and what you'll find in it. There is an introductory section that provides some details on changes. There are then details by department. Then you'll see the proposed schedule to the appropriations bill.
I will remind members at this point that Parliament does not approve estimates; Parliament approves the appropriation act. These estimates are tabled to support the study of that appropriation act.
Another reminder is that there are statutory forecasts updated in this document. Again, they are there for information only. If you see an S beside something in the estimates document, it means it's statutory. Other items that we're actually seeking votes on do not have the S beside them.
As to another little trick of the trade, if you see an item in the document that is underlined, it means it has been adjusted. So if you see an S with an underline, it's an updated forecast. That is to help you decode these documents.
You will see in here allocations from Treasury Board central votes. I believe you are aware that there are central votes for such things as operating budget carry-forwards and capital budget carry-forwards. There are allocations from those votes in here as well. The horizontal items have been discussed already.
I will make only one point about slide 3. In the supplementary estimates (B), there is a non-budgetary item, a reduction of $1.4 billion. To refresh your memory, non-budgetary items include things such loans where there is no impact on the surplus or deficit of the government. So the negative $1.4 billion you're seeing here is because the government received an early repayment of its loan to Chrysler Canada. Because it was an early repayment, it was not forecast originally in the previous estimates document. It's showing up here as a reduction in the non-budgetary amount, because Chrysler repaid $1.4 billion ahead of schedule.
:
While we're on the auto deal, GM made an early repayment as well. So it's not unique to just Chrysler, but this fiscal year it was just Chrysler.
In slide 4, we have the history of the last couple of years of estimates. I think we've gone through that in enough detail that I won't touch on it for now.
In slide 5, we have for you highlights of major voted items in this estimates document, supplementary estimates (B). I won't read them all for you but just bring to your attention that you've got some clean energy programs. You will see a fair amount in this document about the estimates related to clean energy programs.
There are supplementary health benefits for nursing services in remote and isolated first nations of $218 million.
There is assessment management remediation of contaminated sites for $218 million as well. Again, just to highlight the difference between estimates and the budget, this is the amount that is intended to be spent this year to remediate contaminated sites. The actual contaminated sites liability for the Government of Canada is much greater than this, but this is the amount of money that is to be spent this year.
We also have an update to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement of $179 million.
About the write-off of student loan debts of $151 million, there is a bit of context. For about 95% of these loans, the statute of limitations has kicked in. They're more than six years' old. CRA has been trying to collect them, and that time is now expired. When that happens, we write them off. This is a fairly regular occurrence. If you're curious about debt write-off related to student loans, roughly 87% of student loans get repaid these days. There's an outstanding receivable related to Canada student loans, if I recall correctly, of close to $14 billion on the government's financial statements.
Slide 6 is dedicated to environmental spending. Again, I've mentioned the clean air agenda already, but there are five pieces to this and you'll see funding in supplementary estimates (B). These are some of the horizontal items related to adaptation, clean air regulatory agenda, and other items. These are items that include multiple departments, so you will see things like the ecoENERGY retrofit homes program, as well as the clean transportation initiatives. There's a variety of departments implicated here. I've already mentioned the federal contaminated sites action plan related to environmental liabilities.
Turning to reprofiles, something that is not included in the estimates documents but which I think is of interest to members is that when a department does not spend the money in the previous fiscal year because of project delays, etc., it can reprofile it into the new year, which basically means it transfers the authority to spend from one year to the next. Because Parliament approves appropriation bills on an annual basis, we need Parliament's approval to spend that money again, even though it's already been approved in a previous year. So roughly $2 billion of these estimates relate to reprofiles. It's not new money; it's money that was initially envisaged to be spent in a previous year but the department has made its case and brought it forward to be reprofiled.
The minister already spoke about the infrastructure stimulus fund, at $709 million, as well as the Building Canada fund communities component top-up of $163 million.
Roughly speaking, about $2 billion of these estimates are reprofiled. You will not see anything in the estimates document that actually indicates what's a reprofile and what is not. So I just thought I would indicate—and here I see that Mr. Wallace is rolling his eyes—that it's one of the changes we're contemplating making, but that's a longer term view.
Turning to the statutory items on slide 8, we've got two types. On some items we're just revising the estimate. I've got that list of three: fiscal equalization, public debt, and payments to Export Development Canada, which is the negative number because of the Chrysler Canada repayment. Then we've got a separate list for forecasts that you're seeing for the first time here, and we've spoken a bit about two of those statutory items in the earlier round.
I will highlight for you that AECL shows up in both statutory and voted items, the distinction being that the statutory item relates to the divestiture, that is the sale of part of AECL to the private sector. So there is a split between the voted and statutory items. The statutory item is for the divestiture.
In conclusion, these supplementary estimates detail the $6.6 billion that we've discussed, including the split between voted and statutory items the minister has already talked about it. And towards the back of the estimates document, you will actually see the appropriation act schedule—basically how these estimates turn into an appropriation act. That's there for your information, as well.
We do have 68 departments and agencies covered by these supplementary estimates (B) and 22 horizontal initiatives, which the secretary has already spoken about.
So I think I have honoured my five-to-ten-minute commitment.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
:
I'm just going to refer to the Department of Finance's estimates themselves on page 51 of the supplementary estimates (B) document.
What you should see in there is the list of the voted items first, and then you'll see the statutory bit, and on the federal-provincial payments to Ontario and P.E.I., I have to say that I'm actually struggling to find these in my list here, so bear with me for one moment.
I think, Mr. Chair, we're going to have to get back to you on the details on just what that is, if that's all right.
And thank you for coming. I do want to comment on the piece on the transfers. It was clear to read, and I do appreciate that.
On the same item that Sean was talking about, in supplementary estimates (A) we did do the $1.3 billion transfer, which added up to an amount of $1.9 billion, right? Then when you look at supplementary estimates (B) in front of us, it has changed down to the $1.7 billion, or whatever it is.
Yes, it says authorities to date of some $1.7 billion. You can find it way back on page 202, where vote 30 is. We approved $1.9 billion, or whatever that number was, but now it's $1.7 billion. Since you guys are in charge of these books, why is there not a little footnote saying, “This has changed and look here for the explanation”?
:
I have a chart, which is a work in progress, to be perfectly honest with you. On my chart, I compare the asks in the supplementary estimates with the asks in the main estimates. I understand the budgeting process and how in the heck you can you do it in the main estimates if you don't even know what is in the budget, or it's two weeks later.
For some of the departments, which will go unnamed, if you add up all their supplementary estimates, there are differences of 11%, 12%, 27%, 41%, 35%, 35,%, 23% between what is asked for in the mains and what is asked for in the supplementary estimates. There are some—don't get me wrong—that are down to 1%, 2%, 3%, which I think is reasonable.
Are there any guidelines on what can and can't be asked for, because some of these departments...? And this isn't just for one year; this is after five years, so this is prior to the economic action plan. It's inconsistent.
:
To explain that, it is important to understand that the supplementary estimates are not an estimate of—
[English]
Don't rely on the supplementary estimates to judge whether departments forecasted properly. This is solely a case of when departments actually received Treasury Board authority to spend money. You will see things in estimates—and it's quite normal—from a previous budget two or three years ago, if it's a complex program, because to design a program and get it into Treasury Board for approval takes that much time.
If you are working from the premise that seeing a great deal of money in supplementary estimates is an indication of poor forecasting, that's not the case. As the secretary mentioned, when you have new programs and new initiatives, it takes time to design them in enough detail to get Treasury Board approval. Then we update the spending authorities of departments.
If you look at these estimates, you have things for Agriculture Canada having to do with excess moisture, and supplements for farmers concerning lack of forage, and those types of things. This is not about forecasting; it's about new programs that were designed and then brought into Treasury Board for approval. I would suggest that it's in the nature of some departments that you see repeated or more frequent requests for additional funding. It's that's not an indication of poor forecasting, but an indication of when they actually received Treasury Board approval for their programs.
I just wanted to find the actual amount given in the supplementary estimates to Public Works, and there is funding for the renovation of the parliamentary buildings. There's nothing in here about recovery of costs.
The way cost recovery works, as the secretary indicated, is that it shows up in the public accounts. If it's recovered in a subsequent fiscal year, you actually have to ask for the money again, because we're into a new fiscal year. So you will not see net recovery of costs in a supplementary estimates document.
:
That would be appreciated.
I will ask my final question. In the document from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, it refers to a substantial increase, in percentage terms, in the Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada reserve for employee benefits.
Since the government is first spending millions of dollars to make cuts in the public service, are those funds attributable to senior public servants, for example EX-1 to EX-5 positions? Does that include the bonuses?
Once again, my question is very specific. This is information I would very much like to know.
:
--rather than in camera.
That motion is non-debatable.
All those in favour of doing the rest of the planning meeting--
An hon. member: A recorded vote.
The Chair: A recorded vote is being called for.
(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
The Chair: This is the problem: there are more guys on that side than this side.