Government Operations Committee on Nov. 20th, 2012

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

I don't understand, because in order to come up with the number of $626,000 for management frameworks in year one, you must know the components that add up to $626,000. If you have that information, I don't know why you can't share it.

I'm not asking for 100 subcomponents for management frameworks—10, maybe—and you can do your own aggregation as to how best to do that.

For us as a committee studying estimates, to have information this broad is meaningless. I'm asking whether you can't give us, for example, something on the order of ten sub-policy areas for each of the five major ones or whatever is appropriate—not 100, but not zero.

[Christine Walker]

In our quarterly financial report, we did explain really the bulk, a good portion, of the financial management area in the cost containment section of the QFR that we published. In that report, we actually do talk about what we achieved.

There were two key things. One, the internal audit human resources management framework is a program that we ended. As well, the financial interoperability and stewardship initiative is another program that we ended. That is a big portion—$4.8 million—of, for instance, what's in the financial management. As we issue the QFRs and these cuts are being put into place, they will be noted in the quarterly financial statements.

The other thing—

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

Perhaps I could put the point more formally. I would formally request that you provide us with more disaggregated information on these cuts by major program activity.

Are you able to do that?

[Bill Matthews]

Is the question for TBS?

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

For TBS alone, yes. I'm not asking you to do this for other departments. Other committees might be able to ask the same question to other departments.

Just for TBS, can you provide us with information on the cuts, information that is somewhat more meaningful than these five huge categories?

[Alister Smith]

We can provide more information, as Christine mentioned, in our QFR, where we have described the actual details of the changes we've made.

If you are looking for us to apply a different aggregation for the subprogram activity area, I think that might become quite cumbersome. It may be difficult to even explain to.... If we're affecting more than one subprogram activity area, we'll have to explain that this program, this change, has affected three things. It can become very complicated when you get down to that level of granularity.

I'm not sure that this is necessarily—

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

Well, I'm asking for what you might call “medium-level” granularity—not 100 subcategories, but something on the order of 10.

[Alister Smith]

That's what we thought we were providing in the QFR, actually, but we'll have a look at that and we'll respond to the committee.

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

Okay. Thank you.

[Christine Walker]

Perhaps I can add an additional comment. I don't think providing information by sub-activity would give you what you want.

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

I beg your pardon?

[Christine Walker]

Even if we did put it at the program sub-activity level, I actually don't think, because of the things that Alister has mentioned, it would give you the information you want.

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

Well, it would give us more than we currently have.

[Alister Smith]

We'll have a look at it.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, John.

Mr. Smith, thank you very much. We'll look forward to the second QFR, I believe, and there'll be more detail in that as well, as I understand it.

Mike Wallace is next.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just a few more questions. Again, a few of them are process-related, in a sense, with the numbers we have here.

This is not your department but another department whose estimates I was looking at. There's an explanation of funds, and it's under a vote 5—it doesn't matter which department—and there's $1.6 million in authorities available. There's a little over $1 million through that vote, within the vote, and then $500,000 within another vote, due to savings identified as part of the budget.

If I understand that correctly, the department had made an estimate on how much they were going to spend on a certain item. They did not spend it. Now they're asking, through this, to transfer it to something else that they're going to spend it on. Therefore, it's not really savings, in the end; they're spending it anyways.

Am I not reading that correctly?

[Bill Matthews]

Well, there are two things. As part of Budget 2012, there were some reductions in the budget, $5.2 billion over three years, and there was also some new spending. When we have a reduction from a department but it's offset by some new funding, that's exactly what's happening. Because there's already money in the department's votes that Parliament has approved from a dollar perspective, we don't need to bump up the appropriation acts. Rather than bump up the appropriation, we just do an offset.

But if you do look at Budget 2012, under the overall spending, yes, there's reduction forecast of $5.2 billion—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Right, overall.

[Bill Matthews]

—but there's also some additional money going in. What you're seeing here are some approvals for new spending being offset by some previously approved reductions.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay.

I have a question from your estimates. You mentioned earlier that the amount here in appropriations for the RCMP is a cost recovery item. Is it dollar for dollar—every dollar we spend we get back—or does the province only give us a certain amount back?

[Bill Matthews]

No, to my knowledge, it's full cost recovery. It's a little complicated in that when you're dealing with police services there's some capital involved. You need police cars and police stations and those things. I can't say that in-year it actually matches penny for penny, but the objective when they negotiate those agreements, as far I know, is complete cost recovery.

[Alister Smith]

Are you talking about the RCMP contract policing—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Yes.

[Alister Smith]

—arrangements with provinces? Those are cost-shared with the provinces and municipalities.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So they're cost-shared. They're not—