Evidence of meeting #33 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was billion.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I was going to do this after the meeting, but I'd like to clarify one thing about your mains for this year.
Based on your discussion then, in your mains for this year, total budgetary expenditure is $2.5 billion, almost $2.6 billion, based on the mains. Then I see, in your plans and priorities, the forecast for 2011-12 is $2.7 billion. What has happened between the mains and the plans and priorities?
Finally, in your view as a financial guy, would we be better off changing the schedule around so that the plans and priorities actually match what you're freaking asking for?
Thank you.
Chief Financial Officer, Finance Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services
I'll answer the question to the best of my capacity. I know the fiscal cycle inside and out, but I think the question is better directed to Treasury Board Secretariat to explain basically the cycle and the differences.
From my perspective on what happens, I consider the mains to be some kind of accounting exercise where all the approvals by the department that are known and available are submitted to Parliament for votes.
The plans and priorities include other items that come sometimes after the main estimates, items such as—
Chief Financial Officer, Finance Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services
—budget items, or other items that require cabinet approval. It happens sometimes. Or it could be items for which the requirements were not all defined at the time of the main estimates. A variety of things could happen between the main estimates and the plans and priorities exercise.
For me, if you're asking my opinion, I think there are some improvements to make, and not just from the cycle perspective—the cycle, as well as how the votes are presented to Parliament.
I understand you're working on some review of the estimates cycle. These issues will come up. There are pros and cons to every change you make to the cycle.
NDP
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Thank you.
I have three questions. I'd like to read them out. I'm hoping that if you don't have time to answer all of them, you can give written information back to the committee.
The first question has to do with cuts that are listed in the supplementary estimates. I'm trying to get an explanation as to what these involve.
There are five of these. There is a $7.9 million cut to the Canadian innovation and commercialization program, and a $14.5 million cut to the work at the new RCMP headquarters. Third, what are the engineering assets that have saved the department $8 million? Fourth, why is the real property homelessness initiative losing $2.5 million? If you have time, maybe you could do that one first. Finally, the data centre sustainability project is being cut by $2 million.
That was my first question. Here's the second question: could you provide the committee with a list of the buildings that are being affected by the $74 million for new offices and non-discretionary expenses associated with crown-owned buildings and leased space?
Finally, in an answer to my order paper question, your department indicated that they will be cutting 303 jobs this fiscal year, under the heading of “Specialized Programs and Services”, due to the strategic review. Can you provide us with a specific list of which programs or activities have been cut and by how much?
Maybe I could start with the homelessness initiative.
Chief Financial Officer, Finance Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Thank you for the question.
Overall, I think, for the items you referred to, most of them are what we call reprofiling as opposed to cuts. Reprofiling—as the deputy mentioned earlier, the way Public Works is a big chunk of the budget is project driven. So some projects materialize in a given fiscal year. Others don't materialize in that fiscal year and are overlapped to the next fiscal year. Then the money follows, to be aligned with the project that would be—
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
I understand the concept of reprofiling. You're telling me that's the case in all of these...? So there have not been cuts, but the money is going to be spent in the following year?
Chief Financial Officer, Finance Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services
We have a list of reprofilings, as listed in the estimates at page 100. If you could look, they are all listed there.
I didn't get all the elements. My apologies: I am not fast in writing, so I didn't note all your comments.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
If I have time, I'll ask a second one: the $7.9 million cut to Canadian innovation and commercialization program—
Deputy Minister, Deputy Receiver General for Canada, Department of Public Works and Government Services
That's reprofiling.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
The real property homelessness initiative is also reprofiling?
Deputy Minister, Deputy Receiver General for Canada, Department of Public Works and Government Services
That is correct.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Okay. Perhaps, then—I don't think I have much time—you can answer the questions in writing.
Deputy Minister, Deputy Receiver General for Canada, Department of Public Works and Government Services
We can.... We'll do it factually.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
That's excellent.
I think we've made very good use of our time.
Thank you very much to the witnesses.
Mr. Guimont and fellow experts, it has been helpful to us to understand better the supplementary estimates (C). We will continue in our overall study of trying to figure out the estimates generally. Maybe we'll be able to ask better questions next time you're here. Thank you.
We're going to adjourn the meeting. Thank you very much.