Government Operations Committee on June 20th, 2011

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

You have something called the sodium reduction strategy, but my understanding is that nothing has been spent on that. Is it correct that nothing has been spent? If so, why?

[Glenda Yeates]

Thank you for the important question on the topic of sodium.

We've had a working group, as members may be aware, that did some work and presented governments, essentially, with a report. As the minister noted, this was considered at the FPT ministers of health meeting last September. Governments collectively--federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of health--supported further work on this strategy. They endorsed the reduction of the target by 2016 from the current 3,400 grams to 2,300 grams.

They have endorsed that particular target. As FPT officials, they've sent us away to actually do work, saying, “Give us the strategies and give us the best research as to how we will achieve that.”

That work is going on within our base budget. We don't have a specific targeted line item in these estimates that reflects this, but we certainly are trying to integrate it with our other food work, because we realize that it's about the entire diet that the population eats, and sodium is clearly one key component.

But we're integrating that work. We're working with our provincial and territorial colleagues on an integrated strategy. So that work is very much going on, but the member is quite correct: there's not a line item in the budget. But I can assure the committee that it's going on.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Excuse me, Ms. Yeates. We're well over time.

We'll have Mike Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the officials for staying. I am going to go fairly quickly, if I may. I may need another round.

I'll deal with the Public Health Agency first. The capital expenditures are down 38% in these estimates. That's on page 160 if you need to see it. What's driving the capital piece down, Doctor?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

Thanks very much for the question.

Essentially, the bulk of that is related to the refurbishment at the National Microbiological Laboratory to increase efficiency. That's now complete. So that's why.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Excellent. Thank you very much. So you're not finding other things to spend that money on.

I have a question for the department in general. There is an opportunity, if you spend under your budget by a certain amount, to carry forward a certain amount. How much did you carry forward last year? Were you able to carry forward anything or not?

[Glenda Yeates]

Yes. This is for the Department of Health?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Yes.

[Glenda Yeates]

Thank you very much for the question.

We did try to work to carry forward money last year. This year, we had some projects and some investments we wanted to make, and we think we were very fiscally responsible last year, so we've carried over an amount. I'm not sure of the precise number at the fiscal year-end.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Here's my additional question on that while you're looking up the actual number: does that go into your base or into one-time expenditures?

[Glenda Yeates]

The answer is that it doesn't go into our base. It is something that we can use one time.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

One time? Okay.

[Glenda Yeates]

It's something, for example, that we can use.... I'm just looking here: I have the 2009-10 number, and in vote 1 we carried over $48 million--

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay. Forty-eight million.

[Glenda Yeates]

--and some additional in some of the other votes.

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

For the agency, it was about $19 million.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I have a couple of questions here on the part to do with health products. The environmental risks to health and pesticide safety piece is down significantly from the previous year. That's on page 161. Just tell me why.

[Glenda Yeates]

Again, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to respond to the question.

What we have here is the end of a number of programs that were sunsetted and reviewed periodically. So we had, for example, the chemicals management plan and the clean air agenda. At the time of these main estimates, those programs were sunsetted, thoroughly evaluated, and reviewed. We then saw in the 2011 budget the announcement that they would be renewed on a go-forward basis and that we would have new funding in those areas.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I can expect that in supplementaries, then. Is that correct?

[Glenda Yeates]

That's right. That will be reflected in supplementary estimates.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

To play the devil's advocate here a little, your supplementaries as a department have been significant. In one year they were 18% of what you had asked for in the mains, and in another year they were 29% of what you asked for in the main estimates.

I'm assuming that's because we've had pandemics and other issues that we've dealt with. What would a member of Parliament expect in terms of supplementaries in the future? You don't have anything in the supplementary (A)s, so congratulations on that--nothing on an emergency basis, I guess. What can we expect in the (B)s and (C)s come the fall and early next year?

[Glenda Yeates]

I think the answer is that good management often requires us to take a look at actual spending levels. Governments choose different times to sunset programs and say, let's put this in place for five years and then let's evaluate to see whether we got the expenditures tuned and--

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thanks very much.

[Glenda Yeates]

—whether we evaluate, whether we think that's at the right level, whether we should go forward.

A couple of years ago, for example, we had five-year funding for our aboriginal promotion and prevention programs. It was very important work, but it came to the end of five years, and we evaluated. The government then built those into a budget announcement, but that put them into the supplementary estimates.

So I think it varies...very much on when these programs are coming due.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay.

I have a final question in this round. Contributions to first nations and Inuit primary health care has a delta change of 426%. If somebody was reading this they would think they're getting a tremendous amount. Can you explain if that's just moving money to a different line item, or...?