Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When a department does its budget forecasting, it looks at the next few years, sometimes one, two or three years ahead, and it determines what it will spend or how much it will ask for in the estimates. Either it uses the funds or it doesn't. Obviously, departments can carry amounts forward.
An argument could be made that asking a department to carry forward unspent amounts or not to spend as much as it should would result in savings that could be put towards the debt. That's a simplistic way to look at things. It's completely irresponsible. If a bridge needs repairing, the money to fix it needs to be spent, because if the bridge isn't repaired, as in the case of the Champlain Bridge, it could do damage. If an accident occurred, it could cost more than the savings intended to go towards the debt.
The same applies to railroads. Last summer, I travelled across Canada, and I can tell you they were in poor condition. When it comes to railroads, it's as though we're stuck in the 1960s. It's actually shocking that there aren't more accidents.
Then there's the matter of employment insurance. In order to increase revenue, program expenditures are slashed and access to the program is reduced. That way, the government is able to transfer more money. Is that responsible behaviour? It's not your job to answer that question, but the minister's, one day or another.
That brings me to another question. On the subject of the $955 million for the payment of accumulated severance pay benefits, you said that 70% of people had decided to cash out their benefits and that the other 30% had chosen to wait, with their benefits being set aside. Was a cash flow budget done with the entire $955 million going into this year's budget? If not, was a forecast done in terms of those retiring in one year's, two years' or three years' time? Was the amount payable spread out over a number of years so as not to include it in the budget right away?