Government Operations Committee on May 11th, 2006

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Sure.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

On page three at the top we say the 2005 budget forecasts a 5.3% year-over-year growth in actual budgetary spending. Is that net of new revenues? What I'm asking, I guess, based on my other life again—I'm still getting around this.... We used to say our spending is up 5% technically, but we would have increased revenues of 10% and increased spending of 15%, for a net of 5%.

I want to know if this 5.3% is the real change, not net of revenue.

[Philippe Le Goff, Committee Researcher]

You say it's 5.3%.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Yes, it's right at the bottom under “The Expenditure Plan--An Overview”.

[Philippe Le Goff]

Do you mean the 6.3% on page 4?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'm on page 3, table 1. Sorry.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

In the table it says 6.5%, under “Change in Total Spending”.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

The last sentence says: “These Main Estimates are consistent with the...”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

The main estimates...and that's the actual budget expenditure.

[Guy Beaumier, Committee Researcher]

The budget forecast was 5.3%. The actual amount was 6.5%.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Either way, it's the actual spending increase. We didn't have a 15% increase in spending and a 10% revenue increase.

[Philippe Le Goff]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

There is a constant complaint by many departments, and Revenue Canada is one where you hear it more often I think, because what comes in goes to the fisc. What they spend is looked at separately.

So if you say that across the board you have to cut 5% in all departments, suddenly Revenue Canada has to cut 5%. I've often felt that you had to look at some agencies differently than others, because if you cut 5% from Revenue Canada, how much less are you going to collect?

But it's not matched. It never has been.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

It should be, in many instances.

Madame.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Before we leave, I would like to submit a notice of motion reading as follows :

That this committee calls on the government to immediately proclaim Bill C-11, An Act to establish a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoings in the public sector, including the protection of persons who disclose the wrongdoings.

There is a small grammatical error in the French version of the document, for which I apologize, but the main point is that you have now received the notice of motion with 48 hours notice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

She's tabling a motion that will be debated at our next meeting on Tuesday. She's essentially asking that the government bring into force the law that was passed at the end of the last Parliament on whistle-blowing.

I also want to give you an update on the Auditor General. The Auditor General has agreed to come before the committee on May 30 and on June 1. That was a request we made of her, and she was quite happy to have the request. On May 30, she will deal with chapter 4 of her report, which she'll be tabling in the House next week. It will be on the Canadian firearms program.

The June 1st meeting will be on the 2 other chapters, 1 and 7, dealing with government management, financial information and the purchase of rented offices.

Ms. Fraser has asked that officials from the relevant departments appear at the same time. So if you're in accord, we will ask the officials from the relevant departments to come at the same time.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Do you need a motion for that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Not really. We'll just invite them.

The clerk is distributing extracts on how to question witnesses, what is allowable and what is not. If you remember, you were asking about that.

She's also distributing an article from the Calgary Herald that was tabled in the House on April 24.

Ms. Nash has another request, and I think we should consider that.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Because we're going to have as a witness, or as someone we can interview, the head of Canada Post, we should also consider inviting a representative from the Canadian Union of Public Employees. I think they may also have some relevant information, in terms of the work of this committee as it pertains to Canada Post.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Are all in favour?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We don't need to have a special meeting for that. We'll see what we can do about inviting that person.

When we were looking ahead, we forgot to think about inviting the President of the Treasury Board. That's another minister who at some point we should consider inviting.

Ms. Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I think I erroneously said the Canadian Union of Public Employees. It's the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Yes. The postal workers have only one union. We'll see how we can fit that in before the end of June. We had some slots available, but they're filling up rather quickly, as you'll see.