Government Operations committee  These are statutory programs, as the member mentioned. They are old age security and GIS. The amount you would see in the federal budget and then in estimates is for information purposes only, so it's not lapsing, as in unspent. There is a number that is estimated and I would say my colleagues in Finance are a little on the conservative side in that they typically will forecast a little extra.

Government Operations committee  Treasury Board looks at all spending, and we will look at voting more carefully than we looked at statutory, but when we provide our expenditure forecasting to Finance, it includes both, but we wouldn't necessarily tell Finance they need to adjust their estimates. It's a collective effort.

Government Operations committee  We would police it to the extent that we're aware of what was forecast and what was actually spent. I'll get Marcia to correct me, but typically, Finance's starting point for the new fiscal year for their statutory programs is what was spent in the last fiscal year, and then they will adjust.

Government Operations committee  I would agree with that. I can't say it's completely unique to the public sector, but it is certainly not normal in the private sector, I would agree.

Government Operations committee  It's two things. It's only for the fiscal year, and so it's an estimated payout. If you permit, Mr. Chair, there is some history here. The collective agreements—and I'll generalize—had a clause that basically said for every year you work, you accumulate a week of severance, and that severance would be applied whether you were retiring, departing voluntarily, going to the private sector, and when you left you would effectively get those funds.

Government Operations committee  No, it will be decreasing. Now that the agreements are all done, we've probably hit the peak, so I expect it will decrease. But there are some people who have elected to not cash out until they retire. To date, about 70% of people are cashing out as soon as they can. The balance are electing to wait.

Government Operations committee  The savings are difficult to estimate simply because employees could choose to actually hang onto their money until they retire, and then there's an interest obligation, I believe, on top of that. But, basically, employees were getting one week of pay for every year they worked.

Government Operations committee  No, it's difficult to say because, think about it this way, if you're a brand new public servant, you're at an entry-level position, and you earn a week's worth of severance, and then 20 years later you rise up to a level that's much more senior, you're cashing out at a much more senior level when you actually cash out.

Government Operations committee  There are definitely savings. I'm reluctant to put a dollar amount on it because it's complicated and I don't want to oversimplify it. But if you think about the wage bill for the Government of Canada, on average employees earned about a week a year of severance, but there was a maximum.

Government Operations committee  In the case of Lac-Mégantic, I would point out two things. In July, the government announced $60 million to be spent. The provincial government put up an equal amount. The $60 million in federal money from July was $25 million for response and recovery, search and rescue, things like that, and then there was an additional $35 million that was provided that is targeted for the Economic Development Agency, Quebec, that is around economic revitalization of the region.

Government Operations committee  Thank you for the question. For the benefit of the other members, I believe it's on page 1-7 in the English version. What was the French page? Page 1-7 in the French as well. What I will say is two things. The operating requirements in vote 60, so $54.7 million, flow directly from budget 2013.

Government Operations committee  It absolutely will. When the Department of Finance is preparing its budget they know how much Treasury Board will likely approve in the upcoming fiscal year. They know how much Treasury Board has already approved, and they always make adjustments for approvals, but they also know that departments do not spend 100% of what they are allowed to spend.

Government Operations committee  I'll have my colleagues supplement my answer, but basically the 5% is on unspent, so it's what was available less what was spent, and you get 5% of that. Have I got that right? I don't, do I?

Government Operations committee  Mr. Chair, it's a bit of both. You have cases like Shared Services Canada. Of their lapse, a good portion of that was planned. They had a reduction that they had to make. There are other cases where programs are very much demand-based. Agriculture is an example where we're offering insurance programs, and the department does a forecast of what they think the take-up of their program will be, but sometimes it's not as high as expected.

Government Operations committee  That's a good question. You're right, Mr. Blanchette. There really is a trend of amounts that have increased in terms of lapses, I would say this. You have to look at the reasons why. If you looked department by department, Infrastructure is always a heavy lapser of money. The reason is, as I said, departments cannot overspend.