Thank you very much.
This has been very interesting. Certainly there's a role you're going to play, and I think a very important role, at the macro level. We're looking at long-term forecasts, and we're estimating financial prudence in good times and in difficult times. But as members of Parliament, much of our work is really at the micro level. It's about the utilization of programs, the efficiency of those programs, and whether there's uptake on those programs. One of the things that's really struck me since moving into federal politics is this consistent pattern I'm seeing in departments of money being allocated and then simply not spent.
When I was at the provincial level, involved with arts programming, when we had a pot of money every penny was spent. And if there was, for some reason, a program that couldn't take that money, there was always someone further down the list who would be moved up.
Last year, Indian and Northern Affairs sent back $109 million from their capital budget. That's $109 million that wasn't spent on schools in my region, where we have no schools. It wasn't spent on housing. There's no possible argument that could be made that there wasn't a need for this.
I found a much smaller example in terms of the museum program. Desperate communities wanted museums, and there's a little bit of funding all across Canada. Yet we've found that year after year, about 25% of that money is just returned to Treasury Board. And that's never really made public. I just can't understand how money is allocated.
There's obviously a planning process that recognizes this amount of need and that there will be a lot more uptake. Yet the money is simply shipped back year after year. It's like an elaborate shell game.
Do you see a role in your department at that micro level of saying, “Listen, we're allocating funds and not spending them, so we either have to come clean with the public or we have to reallocate those funds”?