Government Operations Committee on March 14th, 2012

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I just have one question, and you will agree that it is totally non-partisan. It is that normally I think you use the fraction three-twelfths for the first quarter of the year, but I noticed that in three cases it wasn't three-twelfths; it was four-twelfths for PWGSC vote 10 and Shared Services Canada vote 20, which is an area we've looked into, five-twelfths for Public Safety vote 5, and eight-twelfths, for some reason, for Justice vote 1.

My only question is, why is it not three-twelfths in these three cases?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Generally speaking, it is three-twelfths unless there are some specific requirements, which the department has to put to us and justify.

I will ask Ms. Thornton to give you the explanation as to why the others are higher than the normal three-twelfths.

[Sally Thornton]

There can be a range of rationales, but when departments come in, they have to request more than three-twelfths and have to provide an explanation to the Treasury Board Secretariat. Then, what you see reflected in the interim supply bill is the overall number for all those organizations with three-twelfths, and then you see it broken down by each exception, so that you understand which organizations and which votes are requesting more than their three-twelfths.

You'll notice in the bill this afternoon that you have three organizations requiring eleven-twelfths in a certain vote. Typically that has to do with the need or a potential need for that expenditure to be made almost in its entirety between April and June. There are about 30 organizations that require, in one or more of their votes, more than the three-twelfths, and those are explicitly set out in the interim supply bill. And there is a story behind each.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

That was a good question and a good answer.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Mr. Chair, the supply is in fact in the main estimates. If you wanted to have a look at them, I believe they start on page....

Okay, the full supply.... But the interim supply, I guess, is not included in the mains.

[Sally Thornton]

The interim supply reflects that portion of the mains, but the specifics are in the bill that's being tabled today.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Is that it, John?

We have Alexandre Boulerice as our last questioner, then, to take us up to the top of the hour.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you for joining us.

I have a somewhat more general question.

The main estimates for 2012-2013 total $251.9 billion, but the 2011-2012 spending estimates, including the main estimates and the supplementary estimates (A), (B) and (C), are $259.7 billion. That is a decrease in spending estimates of nearly $8 billion.

The 2011-2012 main estimates total $250.8 billion. Here, it’s a matter of $251.9 billion. So, the amounts are fairly close, which means that, if we really want to save $7 billion, practically no new spending should be approved by parliamentarians as part of supplementary estimates (A), (B) and (C). Otherwise, we won’t be able to reach the $8 billion in savings the minister talked about.

I know that supplementary estimates can sometime include global decreases, but in this particular case, there would need to be virtually no spending across supplementary estimates (A), (B) and (C) for the anticipated amount of money to be saved.

Is my analysis correct?

[Michelle d'Auray]

That's not exactly....

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

That's why you are here.

[Michelle d'Auray]

We mustn't forget about statutory votes. Most of the increases come from statutory votes. They are provided for information purposes, but statutory votes cover pension plans and employment insurance. And that's where most of the increases come from.

In addition, in his report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer also pointed out that the biggest increases come from statutory votes.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you for that helpful clarification.

I also have a question about the considerable reduction in capital investment over the last two years or so. I asked Ms. Ambrose a similar question when she appeared. I would have also liked to put the question to Mr. Clement, but he has a busy schedule, and I understand that. In terms of capital investment, the amount is 4% lower than it was before the economic action plan was implemented. However, the wind-down of the economic action plan cannot explain that. We feel that reducing capital investment is tantamount to putting off investments that will have to be made eventually.

If you decide to stop upgrading or maintaining a bridge, that bridge's need for upgrades and maintenance won't be reduced. You will have to play catch up later on. The bridge's lifespan will not magically increase. Instead, it will decrease if the bridge is not properly maintained. Is that really a good way to save money? If not, is it just a way of putting off investments that will eventually be necessary?

[Michelle d'Auray]

The Department of National Defence is one of the organizations that require the most capital investments. Every time there is a change in the purchase and acquisition of goods and services included in that vote, there are major repercussions. If we don't take into account the Department of National Defence's capital investments, which fluctuate because they depend on the department's purchases, there is an increase.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

That's if we do not take into consideration the Department of National Defence.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Exactly. The considerable change you are seeing for that whole vote is attributable to the Department of National Defence, whose expenditures fluctuate based on the purchases and acquisitions made from one year to the next. If you do not take that department's portion into account, there is indeed an increase in capital investment. That way, federal assets are actually looked after and maintained.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you.

Can I share the remainder of my floor time with my colleague Mr. Ravignat?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

There are 45 seconds for Monsieur Ravignat.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

My question is more general. It is about the supplementary estimates process. This suggestion comes from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Wouldn't it be useful to establish a clearer link between supplementary estimates and more details on the program architecture? Do you have that type of information? If the process is eventually changed, could you provide that kind of information to us at times that are convenient for estimate assessment?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Thank you for the question.

I want to bring your attention to the main estimates. When we publish our projections, the information is broken down by department and by program architecture. That information is already provided in the main estimates.

As for the supplementary estimates, they focus much more on certain activities. Normally, that information is not included, but it is in the main estimates. At the end of each department description, you will find the breakdown of funding or projections based on program architecture.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Okay.

Why do you think the Parliamentary Budget Officer recommended that budgetary votes be allocated to program activities rather than to operating expenditures and capital investments?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Very quickly, please, Madame d'Auray.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I just want to understand; my question is not of a partisan nature.