Evidence of meeting #37 for Public Accounts in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was billion.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Office of the Comptroller General of Canada
If we hadn't done that adjustment, if we had just decided not to make these changes at all—that's your question?
4:50 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Office of the Comptroller General of Canada
We would have had a $0.3-billion decrease related to the bonds, and then $0.2-billion related to social housing. Basically, the impact in the 2012-13 year would be $0.5 billion.
4:50 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Office of the Comptroller General of Canada
My colleague to my right might want to explain the impact on 2013-14.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
No, it's okay. That's about the highest level I need it to be. I don't need any more detail.
No offence, Mr. Vaillant.
4:50 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Office of the Comptroller General of Canada
I want to get Mr. Vaillant on the record.
4:50 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
I understand you do, sir, but the guy with the gavel here doesn't give us a lot of time. I really didn't need that much detail. I just needed that level to make sure I had it clear in my head.
The other piece in the deck that stuck in my head was with regard to the one-time payments in the revenue stream from the sale of GM shares. I spent 32 years there, so that kind of stuck in my head.
I don't know if you actually gave us a number. I recognize that you sold some properties overseas, including the high commissioner's residence, I believe, in London. I had breakfast there once a couple of years ago, so I guess I'm not having breakfast there again.
Is there a number attached to that, sir? It is one-time funding.
4:55 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Office of the Comptroller General of Canada
On the GM front, GM is ongoing. The government ended up with shares—
4:55 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Office of the Comptroller General of Canada
—so we're selling those in pieces.
As to the actual gain in the 2013-14 year, I will turn to my colleague, because he just told me the number.
4:55 p.m.
Michel Vaillant Acting Executive Director, Government Accounting Policy & Reporting, Office of the Comptroller General of Canada
It's $679 million.
4:55 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Office of the Comptroller General of Canada
But if I could, just to—
4:55 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Office of the Comptroller General of Canada
All right. If you have more questions, you go ahead.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
Okay.
Let me take you back to something. My friend Mr. Regan talked about the lapsed funding. I have the numbers, and I heard your comment in the newspapers and all that stuff, so I won't go down that road.
I understand lapsed funding. As an ex-municipal person who used to work in corporate finance when I was an elected official, I understand that you can take funding of 5% when the operating says 20% in the capital sense. But I have two questions here.
One, when you move the capital...and not the operating, because I'm not concerned with that. Operating is operating. You may have changes in operating next year, so you just move the money. In the capital sense, does it stay with the same project?
Second, does the lapsed funding you looked at concern you, just looking at the ballpark number? If yes, you'll tell us that, but if not, does any one particular department's lapsed funding concern you in the sense that it may be larger than what it ought to be?
I get what you said from the very beginning, Mr. Matthews, that when we actually allocate money budget-wise for the government ask, it's an “up to”. If you spend 105%, you need to come back and see us. So I'm not arguing whether they did a good job or not, but rather a good job simply from an accounting procedure. When people are crafting budgets, are they doing a good job? That's really what I want to know.
4:55 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Office of the Comptroller General of Canada
Your first question, with regard to the capital and whether it stays with the same project, is a fascinating question. From a parliamentary control perspective, Parliament controls on the total vote. It's just one global number for capital. You're not approving certain projects. So from a parliamentary control perspective, no.
From an operational perspective, departments basically are tracking their projects. They have capital attached to them. If one is under budget and another is overbudget, can they move that money around? Yes, they can.
Two, are there any departments whose lapses concern me? No. The interesting thing about government is that the lapse is lower this year than the previous year. Typically speaking, when there are cutbacks or reductions in budgets, departments are so worried about overspending that they put the brakes on too hard. Ironically, in years when we're cutting back, lapses are typically higher than in years when we're not. It's kind of a strange phenomenon, but it speaks to the importance of not overspending your budget.
In this fiscal year, when you actually look at the net lapse, the vast majority of it is planned: capital carry-forward, operating carry-forward. We didn't talk about grants and contributions. Two major grants and contributions programs really accounted for the bulk of the lapse on that side—infrastructure, which is complex negotiations, so no big surprise; and our friends at Indian and Northern Affairs, where again, negotiations can be difficult stuff, so you often see large lapses there.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
Thank you.
Sorry, your time has expired.
Mr. Woodworth, you have the floor, sir.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Matthews, I want to put one last understanding onto what you were just speaking about with Mr. Allen.
I'm looking at the chart on page 1.10, which indicates that out of projected program expenses of $251,243 billion, there was $2.636 billion not spent. This amounts to something like 1%, or close to it, of the total projected program expenses.
I want to ask you about this. Am I right that in fact the difference between projected program expenses and actual program spending was something very close to 1%? If so, do you consider that a good performance or not?
4:55 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Office of the Comptroller General of Canada
This is a fascinating question—
4:55 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:55 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Office of the Comptroller General of Canada
—so my friend Nick is going to have to weigh in here. This is great.
When our colleagues at Finance do the budget, they know that departments are not going to spend all of the money that Parliament authorizes, so they make their own projection as to what will actually be spent. I believe the number you're looking at here in a projection would factor in Finance and central agency assumptions of spending patterns. When you saw the lapse that we've been seeing in the papers, that was the comparison against what Parliament authorized, so it was much higher.
This 1% here really speaks to Finance's ability to forecast accurately, and they did a pretty good job, so congratulations, Nick.
4:55 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!