Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Translation]

Thank you very much for your presentation. It sounds very interesting.

What was the outcome? It sounds like you did a lot of research. When you were speaking, you were saying “such-and-such, but” — what was the outcome? Was it that you did the research for the sake of the research and now we have a body of research, or did you come up with some recommendations? Was there a pilot? Tell us the rest of the story. You told us the first part.

Do you think the government should go ahead and implement a basic income, or do you feel that the work you did didn’t quite convince you?

Okay. Did you change anything? You were saying that there is a certain system, and then that complex system would end up being replaced by a different complex system.

Were there any changes at all as a result of your research? Or did you come to the conclusion that it was very complex, and, therefore, you maintained the status quo? I’m asking because I was in charge of the social assistance program in Newfoundland and Labrador at one point, so I can relate to this.

Where did you go with it? Did you actually take a group of people and do a pilot in something?

Thank you very much. It’s very interesting.

This is focusing on your comment that instead of a basic assistance program, we should fix what we have.

One of the issues that I’ve always been interested in is that for people who are receiving financial assistance, in order to encourage them with workforce participation, for every dollar that they earn, they reduce a certain amount of their financial assistance. It used to be that if you earn a dollar, you maybe lose 50 cents, until you reach a certain salary.

Is that the best formula to support people and encourage them to move into the workforce? Did you do any work in that area?

Thank you, Mr. Giroux. Thank you, Ms. Giswold and Ms. Vanderwees, for being here today.

I’m using as a guide your report on Supplementary Estimates (B). On page 5, you’re talking about the government and how reluctant they are to bring the money into the budget measures — the estimates and the supplementary estimates. You’re saying that they’re doing it very slowly compared to last year.

I notice now that in the budget, they had forecasted a $40-billion deficit. That amount is staying firm.

I want you to confirm whether you can control the bottom line by slowing down the bringing in of the measures so that you actually hit the bottom line right on the nose. It’s my suspicious nature. I was a legislative auditor. I’m wondering if you could confirm whether my thinking has any merit to it, or if I’m out to lunch.

According to the numbers you provided — and I know that tracking the budget initiatives into the estimates and the supplementary estimates is not a science; the numbers don’t match up exactly — what other reason could there be for why the government is so slow in introducing those new budget measures? The number of employees within the public service has gone up quite significantly, so it can’t be shortage of manpower.

Can you think of any other reason as to why they’re slowly bringing the money in? By the numbers you’ve given, it looks like it’s about $6 billion that is still waiting to be brought in. Could you offer some other suggestions?

I will ask a question on professional services. I was looking at your comments on the reduction. I know that the $500 million is not a significant amount of money. It’s split into $350 million for professional services and $150 million for travel.

When I looked at the actual numbers for the reduction of $350 million, I wasn’t really impressed. The government has taken the $20 billion that they had last year up to this point in time, and they gave the departments an extra $1 billion. Then, they said that out of that extra $1 billion, they’re going to ask the departments to save $350 million. So really, the departments have $750 million more than what they had this time last year.

I couldn’t find the numbers for the travel. It’s $150 million for the travel. I was talking to some of your people about how you go about finding that.

First of all, do you have any commentary on the $350-million reduction? Also, is there any way to see if they treated the $150-million reduction the same way — giving the departments more money and telling them to take their $150 million out of that extra money?

That’s right; it’s not inflicting any pain on the departments.

Thank you.

[Translation]

My question is on a topic that several senators mentioned: It’s Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and all the money that is requested in Supplementary Estimates (B). One of the challenges that I have is trying to find which financial statements are bearing the burden of the claim.

The $5 billion for the Restoule settlement agreement is a significant sum of money. I cannot find that in last year’s public accounts. I can’t find it anywhere. When the government talks about being transparent, I have to shake my head over it. If you have an expenditure of that magnitude — $5 billion — and you can’t find it, there’s an issue.

Do you have any suggestions as to how we can go about finding that financial information? I know that the budget and the public accounts are not aligned. We’ve talked about that many times. It’s very difficult to track the expenditures because they’re going back and forth between documents.

Do you have any suggestions, or do you know where that $5 billion is recorded in the financial statements of the government?

Even in the fiscal update document and in the budget, there are large dollar amounts, and you can’t tell what it’s for. The public accounts have a similar problem. Going through the public accounts that were just released, there are dollar amounts in the billions of dollars, and there’s no way to find out what they represent.

It’s a transparency issue.

I don’t know the solution, but it’s very frustrating.