Government Operations Committee on June 20th, 2006

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'm going to go back to that, because I'm trying to learn as a new member. My questions are on the actual estimates.

One question I have is that the estimates that were tabled were the previous government's spending commitments, I believe. Hopefully I have that correct. When will we see what our government is spending, and how that changes from previous estimates?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Do you mean the supplementary estimates we will table in the fall?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Yes. When does that happen?

[David Moloney]

They will be tabled in October. They will be voted on December 8.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

And that's for this year's spending?

[David Moloney]

Yes.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So by the end of the year, we'll be approving this year's spending? Is that correct? Is that a good process?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

No. This is something that has gone on for many, many years. It wasn't an issue with the previous governments, but an issue for many, many years or decades, where the estimates were prepared by Treasury Board and the budget was prepared by the Department of Finance, and the estimates don't match the budget. In other jurisdictions, the province of Ontario, for example, they integrate that process, so when the estimates are tabled within two weeks of the budget, they actually reflect what was in the budget.

I don't know why this has gone on; it went on under Conservative governments and it went on under Liberal governments. It does not lead to the best accountability, and I think it's something we should look at.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So you at least have an intention of maybe trying to fix that?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I certainly identified it early on as a fair issue.

We talked about accountability and providing this committee and the public accounts committee with the opportunity to scrutinize the estimates. I haven't had a single question on the estimates here.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Well, I'm working on that.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Why would you, if they're not about the current government? I think we'd strengthen Parliament; that would be one of the things I would certainly raise with my colleagues.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'd be happy to support you on that.

On these estimates that we have to work with, there was basically a 5.3% increase in spending to $205 billion—which is still hard for me to get my mind around, but I know I will eventually.

What is our expectation in terms of the change in that number, when we get the actual spending estimates for this year? Do we expect it to be about the same?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Yes, it will be 5.3% in October.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay.

I'm also having a hard time—and I've talked about this before—understanding what in vote 5 is determined to be emergency or urgent. I don't get it. In the world I've just come from, you set up your budget, you live by it, and there is no slush fund that you can come and ask for more money from during the year. I don't get it.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

It is a fair concern. Some have referred to it as a slush fund, but I wouldn't use that name. It allows us to deal with contingencies during the year and to have some sort of parliamentary authority until the supplementary estimates are passed. For example, last year the supplementary estimates were not passed because the government was defeated.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Right.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

But I can give you some examples. I did table in Parliament—and I have a copy here, if you'd like it—what it was spent on last year.

So you can see the very nature of it, I'll give you some examples. There was an advance one year for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to deal with the BSE crisis. There was an advance one year to deal with the SARS crisis. There was an advance one year to deal with CIDA international assistance with respect to the tsunami. There was an advance last year, again to deal with mitigating the BSE crisis. So it does allow us some capacity to deal with those things.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Right.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Having said that, there are other examples that are not as solid as the ones I gave you.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Right.

The number here, if I'm reading this correctly, is $469 million. Is that correct?

[David Moloney]

The TB vote 5 is in fact set at $750 million a year.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Yes, but some of it is.... The ones under urgent grants or contribution payments, the number is $469 million. Is that regular spending we're doing there?

[David Moloney]

If I might, the key issue is that Parliament votes specific amounts for specific uses, and while the member's statement about the government needing to live within a budget or an overall budgetary framework is very wise counsel, the government is not free or at its leisure to move the moneys within that framework back and forth between votes. That is the crux of the issue of why, should we decide a need is more urgent, if there are not sufficient funds available within a specific vote, we would need to come back to Parliament through supplementary estimates. But a need such as forest fires or SARS or BSE might cause the actual spending to have to be brought forward.