Evidence of meeting #33 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was billion.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
NDP
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
I think it would be worthwhile, as my colleague mentioned.
I had the same concerns about the roof and the expenditures. It's been clarified that it's going to be $45 million to $50 million for the roof. It's not $1 billion, which I originally mentioned. I have concerns about $850 million. I never saw the plan. It was approved, they said, by government. I'm not sure who it was within government, but that's the minister's responsibility, and I respect that.
I just think it would be very informative to take a first-hand look at the professional job being done there.
My question, being a fiscal conservative, is specifically about the increase in the main estimates of about $46 million for the federal contaminated sites. I think it's prudent to spend money when you're looking after our environment and brownfield remediation, etc. Could you maybe elaborate a little bit more on the remediation and assessment activities for which funds are being requested in the main estimates?
5:20 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Deputy Receiver General for Canada, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Thank you for the question. These resources come out of an overall envelope of $3.6 billion over 15 years. We are part of this, but we're not the only department. There are a number of departments that have contaminated sites. A decision was made to decrease that liability, both financial and environmental, and departments come forward every year with a plan and they're given resources based on requirements.
In this case, more directly to your question, $33 million of the $46 million will be invested in the Esquimalt Graving Dock for some cleanup activity that will be taking place there. There is $10 million for various segments of the Alaska Highway. There are nine sites. There are various British Columbia sites, which I can give you specifically, if you wish—three of them across British Columbia.
There is Pointe-Shea, Havre-Aubert, pour 340 000 $ and some program management responsibility to make sure that it's done correctly, because this is done by the private sector. It is always the same approach, an action plan in place delivered by the private sector in terms of decontamination, and then a sign-off that the plan has been executed correctly.
That's where the resources are going.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you. You're looking after the environment for all of Canada, but for a B.C. member of Parliament, obviously the nine projects are even closer to heart.
I'd like to pass the floor to my colleague, Mr. Wallace.
Thank you.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
There's lots of time.
I have a very basic “follow the bouncing ball for me as a member of Parliament” piece.
I'm looking at the plans and priorities for this year. I'm looking at the year-end, and in the document, it looks as if it's at $3.1 billion. I look at supplementary (C)s, and I see at the very end $2.9 billion—I'm rounding it here and not adding all the other numbers. Then I look at last year, where we actually spent $3.8 billion by the looks of things here, but that was probably economic action plan stuff.
Am I looking at the right things? I want to know this because when I see your plans and priorities come out again in May, I want to be able to look at that and see what you're forecasting. You have forecast for planned spending for the next three fiscal years here, and I realize it doesn't include the deficit reduction action plan—or whatever we're calling the thing, DRAP—which will affect these numbers, in my estimation.
Am I looking at the right numbers? I just want to make sure I can add this up to match what this is, or at least where the numbers are. Am I doing the right thing as a member of Parliament? That is my actual question.
5:20 p.m.
Chief Financial Officer, Finance Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Okay, as a parliamentarian you need to look at two aspects. You look at the gross plan, gross spending for Public Works, and you look at the net. Parliament votes on the net. The net, basically, is what we spend minus the revenues.
So on the gross budget, if you look at last year, or 2011-2012 including supplementary estimates (C), Public Works will spend $6.7 billion this fiscal year. If you compare it.... That $6.7 million is four exercises—it's main estimates, plus supplementary (A), (B), and (C). In this year's book, we are asking $5.6 billion, so there is a difference of $1.1 billion, and we have the explanation for that.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I don't get where your numbers are coming from, sir. I'm sorry. I'm looking at the end of supplementary (C), total budgetary expenditures. I'm assuming it's for the whole year, because you're adding what has been approved thus far to $2.9 billion.
Am I not right there, on page 99?
5:25 p.m.
Chief Financial Officer, Finance Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services
You are correct.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Chief Financial Officer, Finance Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Yes, that's my net spending.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Does that match the net spending, or is this net spending in the forecast of planned spending in your report on plans and priorities? Does that match or not? Am I doing doughnuts to doughnuts, or not?
5:25 p.m.
Chief Financial Officer, Finance Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services
No, these are not comparable.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
It illustrates the whole point of our study here, doesn't it? We've kind of come full circle. They're very difficult to understand. We're also well over time.
5:25 p.m.
Chief Financial Officer, Finance Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services
May I answer the question?
5:25 p.m.
Chief Financial Officer, Finance Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services
It's a timing issue. When we do the plan, we base it on the projects that are approved based on what we know. As the year evolves, new projects get approved, new realities. Some projects materialize, others don't materialize, and then we seek supplementary estimates based on developments over the course of the year that were either not defined at the beginning of the year or unforeseen. This is why you can't compare from when we planned to the end of the year. Things happen.
5:25 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Deputy Receiver General for Canada, Department of Public Works and Government Services
If I may comment, Mr. Chairman, since I'm briefed on this regularly and sometimes I do as you did.
That's why the estimates adjust the mains. They're meant to be transparent to you.