The information and the figures you quoted obviously are accurate, but they are based on information known at that time. The RPP was put together a number of months ago and it doesn't reflect reality in terms of what we will actually spend this year or even next year. It's based on what known information we had at the time. The adjustments, of course--and this was alluded to earlier--will come from additional MCs or Treasury Board submissions that are actually going to provide the funding to the department.
We took your figure of $97.5 million, I believe it was, and I went to the table on page 42, which again shows reductions in the area of science and fisheries management. I think those were a couple of areas you had highlighted in your information with the media and you're quite right, but as has already been indicated by the minister and the deputy, some of these reductions were planned reductions in accordance with the original MCs that had provided the funding.
I'll give you one example, because it is a fairly large item with respect to fisheries management. Between this year and next year's planned spending there is a reduction of $62 million with respect to Marshall. That's the biggest chunk within the fisheries management area. There are other reductions in here that are attributable to the ERC, the Expenditure Review Committee, initiatives, some of which we're not proceeding with, but based on the information at the time the money has already come out of reference level. So you'll see a figure in there that relates to the ERC implementation, and that included some FTE reductions, which, as the minister has indicated earlier, we're not going to proceed with in all cases.
To go back to Mr. Byrne's request, we will provide you the detailed information that will track the reductions. I just wanted to highlight a couple in the area of fish management and science, because that seemed to be one of your preoccupations.