Following are some considerations for parliamentarians.
First, progress reports continue to suggest that a large number of projects will not be completed by the March 2011 deadline. PBO ISF survey results indicate considerable variation in ISF program and implementation impacts across the country. It is apparent that more precise targeting of projects and recipients could lead to better program outcomes.
Second, there is a significant opportunity for the government to improve reporting on stimulus measures. The ISF program falls under the provision of a transfer payment program to other orders of government. These have different requirements, under Treasury Board policy, than other types of transfers, because they limit the number of mandatory requirements in the contribution agreements. Parliamentarians might want to be more explicit as to what performance information they require.
Third, the government may wish to consider updating the PBO survey at the end of the program to ensure that parliamentarians and Canadians have a better picture of the effectiveness and efficiency of the program, a program that will cost Canadian taxpayers close to $10 billion, all deficit financed.
On the operating budget freeze, the supplementary estimates 2010-11 contain references to 51 reductions in departmental and agency operating budgets attributable to “savings identified as part of the cost containment measures to reduce the rate of growth in operating expenditures announced in Budget 2010”. The operating budget reductions proposed by the government are approximately $181 million in 2010-11, or over 60% of the $300 million target announced in Budget 2010. On average, the cuts represent approximately 0.4% of the affected budgets.
My staff has also prepared a note that enumerates the reductions and provides a list of the 10 largest reductions, as measured by absolute dollars and as a percentage of affected organizations' operating budgets.
Since the government announced these cuts in Budget 2010, I have requested basic information regarding how the cuts will be implemented, but I've been ignored. The committee has asked for similar information and has not yet received a response, or it received a response today. Now the government is seeking parliamentary sanction for those cuts through the supplementary estimates. Given that there are no details regarding how departments and agencies will manage these cuts, this could be an area of risk that warrants further parliamentary scrutiny. Or, as I highlighted in the note, before the committee reports back these supplementary estimates, it may wish to satisfy itself that it knows how each of the 51 organizations is achieving the operating savings, including which positions are being cut and how service levels may be affected.
I would be pleased to answer any questions committee members may have regarding our approach toward supporting parliamentary scrutiny of the estimates, or either of the two areas I have flagged for your attention.
Thank you. Sorry for going late.