Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the things that has concerned a number of Members when we are looking at supplementary appropriations is the amount that we see under special warrants. Those are funds that are approved by the Cabinet and typically spent before the Legislative Assembly has a chance to consider them.
In a previous report, the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight, after reviewing the Report on Other Matters, the committee supported the Auditor General's position that special warrants could be used less and the government could come forward with special warrants only where they were urgently needed, maybe to cover a portion of the cost of an expense, leaving the balance then for consideration under the category of not previously authorized.
I just want to take a look at what we have before us today, and almost 15 percent of this bill is for special warrants. Is there any reason why the government has chosen not to follow the suggestion of the Auditor General which was supported by the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight that the government divide up those funds and that only the portion that has to be spent before the Assembly would sit and could look at it, would an expenditure actually be committed through special warrants? The Assembly could then decide to, or could review, the balance of the expenditure before the money was actually spent.
For instance, in this one, we see an awful lot of the bill is made up of funding for collective agreement increases. I would expect that not all of the salaries have been paid to employees in this fiscal year, therefore not all of this money has probably been spent. Why could we not have looked at it on that basis and seen less of the amount accrued as a special warrant and more of it coming through as not previously authorized?
That is just an example. Why could we not see it done that way so that the Assembly is given the opportunity to make comment before the spending takes place rather than after?