Government Operations Committee on Nov. 20th, 2012

[Sally Thornton]

Well, it is interesting that you focus on that, because this is a relatively new area that we've introduced as a result of comments from your committee and the Senate committee. What is new in this round this year is that we've included not just the horizontal issues identified within these supplementary estimates, but if something was requested in supplementary estimates (A), we've also included that. The intent is that you see the incremental and the full picture within that year.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Right.

Sally, you beat me to my next question. When I see the supplementary estimates (A) in this piece, they have already been approved, and it's just showing this for information. Is that correct?

[Sally Thornton]

We're just reminding you, because the point you made was that you see a piece here and a piece there, so could we put it together for you.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay. I just wanted to make sure that's what it is.

There's nothing really in your estimates today. Let's be honest—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

There's really nothing in the supplementary estimates (B) today from the Treasury Board, so I have another process question.

I'm looking at the agriculture department, just because it happens to be on the page. When it says “Funds Available”, and then says—this happens in all of them—“Less spending authorities available within the Vote”, it means that's money that has been saved within a vote and they're applying it somewhere else. Is that correct?

[Bill Matthews]

That's correct.

I'm trying to keep this short, Mr. Chair, but you'll recall that when we tabled the main estimates, it was in advance of the Budget 2012 reductions, so there's money in departments' main estimates that they no longer have access to. We've frozen that at the centre, and departments know they can't spend it. When a department comes along and says it has approval to spend some new money, the first thing we do is look to see if we can offset it with something we've already frozen to avoid coming to Parliament to increase the appropriation on it.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I have just a tiny technical question, and I know you'll have the answer for me.

In anything else that's a reduction, there are brackets around it, except for this piece. When I'm looking at “Total Voted Appropriations” and the $10.8 million—in this case it's on page 34, but it doesn't matter—it's not bracketed. I was attempting to read it as an addition, just because everything else above is added together as an addition, in the positive sense. Is there a reason that it's not bracketed?

[Sally Thornton]

Oddly enough, yes, but perhaps it's not a good reason. It's because the descriptor is “Less: spending authorities available...”, so if you look at the far left of what that number is—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Yes, I can read that.

[Sally Thornton]

Yes, I know. The debate was that if we bracketed it, would it be minus a minus, hence a plus? Then you'd be adding it, so....

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay. Below it says there is a “reduction”; “less” and a reduction, to me, mean the same thing.

[Sally Thornton]

You're absolutely right, though: everything else that is out of that vote...yes.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

That's all the fun—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

That's it?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

—we can have for now.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Well, I may get another turn, Mr. Chair. You never know.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

That's six minutes, Mike.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

That does conclude our first round, but I think Mr. Wallace's line of questioning is a good graphic illustration of the complexity and of the degree of difficulty that ordinary members of Parliament might have. Not all of us are as well versed as Mr. Wallace is, frankly, and he's made it a hobby of his, almost—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

—to try to figure out the estimates.

I have one question before we go to the second round.

It seems by virtue of these estimates that marketing freedom for farmers is not quite as free as we might have expected. There's a budget line in here for the Canadian Wheat Board, with a couple of hundred million dollars for the Canadian Wheat Board.

I'm the critic for the Canadian Wheat Board, and it's in my riding. I know that it hardly exists anymore, right? It has been essentially eliminated. What are we spending on for the Canadian Wheat Board that is no longer there?

[Bill Matthews]

I can start.

This is very much related to the transition costs. This would not be an ongoing type of funding, but it is related to the transition. I'm not sure if Sally wants to add additional....

[Sally Thornton]

Specifically, the Wheat Board is going to use the funds to reduce debts and liabilities from their previous operations. Specific examples are settlement of pensions and post-retirement benefit obligations, penalties related to the modification of long-term contracts because of the transition, and costs associated with the downsizing of the organization. It should enable the new organization to be in a more financially sustainable position.