Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance

Issue 3 - Evidence

The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:30 a.m. to examine the Supplementary Estimates (B) laid before Parliament for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000.

Senator Anne C. Cools (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, our mandate is to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000. That will be the primary focus of our meeting this morning. Following our consideration of the Estimates, I would ask senators to remain for a few moments to consider the committee's budget.

Our witnesses this morning are Mr. Keith Coulter, Mr. Andrew Lieff, and Mr. Kevin Lindsey, all from Treasury Board of Canada.

Gentlemen, I invite you to proceed to share your information with us.

Mr. Keith Coulter, Assistant Secretary, Planning, Performance and Reporting Sector, Comptrollership Branch, Treasury Board of Canada: Honourable senators, as you know, I am here today to discuss the government's spending requirements for 1999-2000. This is my first appearance before this committee, as I was appointed to my position only last summer. I came to this position from the private sector.

[Translation]

You will recall that my predecessor, Richard Neville, last appeared before you in November to discuss the Supplementary Estimates (A).

[English]

In order to ensure that we are able to address your questions as well as possible, I have asked Andrew Lieff, Senior Director of Expenditure Operations and Estimates Division Planning, to join me for this presentation. Mr. Lieff has appeared before this committee a number of times. He has taken the lead in his division on the Supplementary Estimates (B) and thus has the most detailed understanding of the 200 items in the Estimates.

Mr. Kevin Lindsey, Director of Expenditure Operations, has taken the lead on the Main Estimates, which will be the subject of our discussion tomorrow.

As Assistant Secretary of Planning, Performance and Reporting, I also have central agency responsibility for the reports on plans and priorities that will be tabled in the House of Commons on March 30. At that time, 84 reports from the various departments and agencies will be tabled by the President of the Treasury. These reports contain the full spending plans of departments and agencies for the next fiscal year.

[Translation]

Today, I would like to discuss with you the government's Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year 1999-2000 that were tabled in the House of Commons by the President of the Treasury Board on March 2, 2000.

[English]

Specifically, these Estimates seek Parliament's approval to spend $3.1 billion on new expenditures for 1999-2000, announced in the February 28 budget, and on previously planned expenditures not specifically identified or sufficiently developed in time to ask for Parliament's approval in the 1999-2000 Main Estimates or Supplementary Estimates (A). These Estimates also provide information on changes to forecasts in statutory spending, which amounts to a forecast reduction of $1.6 billion on spending already approved under existing legislation. With both new expenditures and adjustments factored in, the spending contained in these Supplementary Estimates totals $1.5 billion.

[Translation]

Before getting into the specific details relating to these Supplementary Estimates, I would like to situate these Estimates within the overall government spending plans for the 1999-2000 fiscal year.

Over a year ago, in his February 1999 budget, the Minister of Finance established a planned budgetary spending level for 1999-2000 of $153.7 billion. This amount was set out in the Reports on Plans and Priorities which were tabled at the end of March 1999, providing details on the overall spending plans for the fiscal year.

[English]

When my predecessor, Mr. Richard Neville, appeared before this committee in March 1999 to discuss the government's spending plans for the current fiscal year as set out in the Main Estimates for 1999-2000, those Main Estimates sought spending authority for $151.3 billion. At that time, there was approximately $2.4 billion in planned spending that was not contained in the Main Estimates. This amount included spending that was not sufficiently developed or identified to seek the required spending authority at the time of the Main Estimates. It also allowed for unforeseen developments.

This brings us to the Supplementary Estimates process, which is the reason for our appearance before you today. Supplementary Estimates (A) contained $4 billion in spending and these Supplementary Estimates (B) contain $1.5 billion in additional spending. When these two amounts are added to the amount in the Main Estimates, the total spending contained in the Estimates for 1999-2000 totals $156.8 billion. Honourable senators, when the Minister of Finance presented the planned spending levels for 2000-01 in his February budget, he also announced a revised planned budgetary spending level of $157 billion for 1999-2000. Thus, the total for the three sets of estimates this year comes under the $157 billion for 1999-2000 announced in that budget. I would also like to point out that the total spending is within the revised planned spending level for 1999-2000. In particular, these Supplementary Estimates contain approximately $1.2 billion in new spending, which was announced as part of the 2000 budget.

[Translation]

I would like to provide you with a brief description of some of the major items which are found in the Estimates. As I mentioned previously, these Estimates seek Parliament's approval to spend $3.1 billion on new expenditures for 1999-2000.

[English]

The major voted items over $50 million in these Supplementary Estimates are as follows. There is $900 million for Industry Canada for a grant to the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, as announced in the 2000 budget, to provide increased financial support for the modernization of Canada's research infrastructure in the areas of health, environment, science and engineering.

There is $454.9 million in additional funding for National Defence in support of essential operating and capital requirements, including: compensation for economic increases to the salaries of uniformed personnel and the cash-out of accumulated military leave; equipment maintenance, upgrade and replacement; construction at defence facilities; and major capital acquisition program activities.

There is another $240 million for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for payments to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba for emergency farm relief for eligible producers. There is $175 million for the Department of Finance to make grants to trust funds of the IMF and World Bank in support of initiatives to assist over 500 million people living in the world's poorest, most heavily indebted countries.

There is another $160 million for Industry Canada for a grant to Genome Canada, as announced in the 2000 budget, to support genomics research, the study of how genetic information is structured, stored, expressed and altered.

As well, there $125 million for Natural Resources and Environment Canada, as announced in the 2000 budget, for grants to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to establish a green municipal investment fund amounting to $100 million and a green municipal enabling fund amounting to $25 million. These initiatives will allow the federation to support municipal infrastructure projects that improve air and water quality, minimize undesirable emissions and effluent, and encourage the sustainable use of renewable and non-renewable resources.

There is $102.8 million for the Department of Finance for transfer payments to the territorial governments. This increase reflects changes in the forecasts on which the payments are based, such as population, spending by provincial and local governments, and revenues generated by the territorial governments.

There is $99 million for the Treasury Board secretariat to distribute funds to departments and agencies to compensate them for the impact of recent collective agreements and related adjustments. This funding represents retroactive and ongoing incremental salary costs for 1999-2000.

[Translation]

There is $74.9 million for the Cape Breton Development Corporation to cover the additional operating losses and workforce reduction costs associated with the earlier-than-planned closure of the Phalen mine. There is $74.3 million for Transport Canada to enable Marine Atlantic Inc. to finance the purchase of a vessel for its ferry fleet. This vessel will provide Marine Atlantic with increased capacity to meet increased demand. There is $67 million for Public Works and Government Services for additional capital acquisitions to meet accommodation requirements.

[English]

There is $60 million for Environment Canada for a grant to the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society to establish the Canadian fund for climate and atmospheric science. This will provide funding to researchers in order to strengthen Canada's scientific capacity to address climate change and air quality issues.

There is $50 million for Veterans Affairs for payments to merchant navy veterans who served in World War I, World War II and the Korean War. These payments recognize the heroic contribution of the merchant navy veterans to Canada's war effort.

There is a $50 million decrease to the non-budgetary working capital advance account of National Defence. The account had been temporarily increased to meet the department's pay requirements for personnel deployed outside Canada in the event that year 2000 transition difficulties would have necessitated cash payments. The additional authority was not used and the account is being restored to its original level of $100 million.

The above items represent $2.5 billion of the $3.1 billion for which parliamentary approval is sought. The remaining $600 million includes some 175 line items spread among 76 departments and agencies, the specific details of which are included in the Supplementary Estimates. These Estimates also provide information to Parliament about a net increase of $1.6 billion in changes to projected statutory spending from amounts forecast in the Main Estimates that Parliament had already approved in legislation.

The major statutory adjustments shown in Supplementary Estimates (B) represent a net decrease of $1.6 billion compared with the amounts forecast in the 1999-2000 Main Estimates.

The statutory items over $50 million are as follows: Under the rubric increases, there is $855.3 million for Health Canada to make court-ordered payments to the trust established to provide compensation to individuals infected with Hepatitis C through the blood supply between 1986 and 1990.

There is a forecast increase of $370.2 million in equalization payments to the provinces by the Department of Finance. This increase reflects changes in the forecasts upon which these payments are based, such as population, provincial revenues, provincial fiscal disparities and commodity prices.

There is also a forecast increase of $126 million in grants to the trustees of Registered Education Savings Plans by the Department of Human Resources Development. This increase reflects the higher than expected participation of Canadians in the Canada Education Savings Grant program.

Concerning decreases, there is a forecast decrease of $1.5 billion in expenditures from the Employment Insurance account by the Department of Human Resources Development, resulting primarily from an improved labour market.

There is as well a forecast decrease of $1 billion in public debt charges, reflecting declines in the forecasts for both the short-term and long-term interest rates upon which the original forecast was based.

[Translation]

There is a forecast decrease of $304.1 million in expenditures under the Canada Student Loans and Financial Assistance programs of the Department of Human Resources Development. This decrease reflects declining expenditures associated with the former guaranteed loan program and the lower than expected take-up on repayment assistance measures.

There is a forecast decrease of $170 million in payments by the Department of Human Resources Development for Old Age Security, the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the Spouse Allowance, reflecting minor changes in the average monthly benefit and expected number of eligible recipients.

[English]

There is a forecast decrease of $95 million in provincial transfers by the Department of Finance, resulting from an increase in alternative payments for standing programs recoveries due to higher than forecast personal tax yields.

The above major items represent an overall decrease of $1.7 billion which, when offset by an increase of $118.8 million spread among a number of other departments and agencies mentioned in the Supplementary Estimates, amounts to a decrease of $1.6 billion.

That concludes my remarks. We would be happy to respond to your questions on the Supplementary Estimates. I have listed the major items. We have information on every one of the other items as well, if they are of interest to you.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I assume that the other two gentlemen have nothing to add at this time.

Mr. Coulter: They are here to help me with the questions because they have more detailed knowledge.

Senator Stratton: I would welcome you to your first appearance before this committee. Your predecessor did a very credible job, as I know you will. We appreciated receiving prompt answers to our questions.

There is a forecast decrease of $1 billion in public debt charges. In the United States today, Mr. Greenspan is announcing a .25 per cent increase in interest rates. Of course, we will follow in lock step tomorrow. This is the second increase of three that Mr. Greenspan has forecast. Have you taken that into consideration with respect to this projected decrease of $1 billion?

Mr. Coulter: The simple answer is no, because this is for 1999-2000.

Senator Stratton: I appreciate that. It is an adjustment in the past.

Presumably you will forecast that for next fiscal year.

Mr. Coulter: We will talk about that tomorrow when we will be here to discuss the Main Estimates.

Senator Stratton: Thank you.

I am interested in three items on page 6 of the Supplementary Estimates under Canada Heritage. The National Gallery of Canada is forecasting an 8.85 per cent increase. Parks Canada is forecasting a 10.5 per cent increase, and Status of Women is forecasting a 17.12 per cent increase in their Supplementary Estimates.

I should like to have a brief explanation of that. When we are trying to hold inflation, it seems incredible to have such increases.

Nonetheless, I would congratulate the Department of Finance for the decrease in spending. That is good to see that.

Could you give me a brief explanation of those three items?

Mr. Andrew M. Lieff, Senior Director, Expenditure Operations and Estimates Division Planning, Performance and Reporting Sector, Treasury Board of Canada:On the National Gallery, we have capital improvements of $3.3 million. Is that the number to which you were referring?

Senator Stratton: It is difficult to read this chart. I believe that the figure for the National Gallery is $22,593,000, which is an increase of $2 million.

Mr. Lieff: On page 47 of Supplementary Estimates (B) there are two items listed for National Gallery for a total of $3.4 million.

Senator Stratton: I had the wrong line. It is the National Arts Corporation Centre which was at $22,593,000 with a supplementary budgetary increase of $2 million, or 8.85 per cent.

The National Gallery was at $32,535,000. That is to be increased by $3,418,000 which amounts to a 10.5 per cent increase. The Status of Women was at $17,783,950 and that is being increased by $3,044,000, or 17.12 per cent.

Mr. Lieff: I will start with the National Arts Centre Corporation. On page 46 of the Supplementary Estimates we see that the explanation for the increase is year 2000 compliance requirements and contingency planning. This $2 million is to cover the costs that the National Arts Centre Corporation incurred for preparing for Y2K by cash managing its funds during the year.

The amounts were spent on eight mission critical systems in the National Arts Centre: their financial management information system; their human resources information system; the sales system for the restaurant and catering; the event management system; the parking control system; their local area network; their voice communication systems; and personal desktop computers.

They had to undertake these expenditures without funding provided for that in the Main Estimates. Therefore, they sought relief from Treasury Board and were granted it under the Y2K program.

Senator Stratton: Did they make any forecasts of that spending?

Mr. Lieff: They did make forecasts. However, the amount required was not known specifically enough to be included in the Main Estimates.

Senator Stratton: Will we see much more Y2K spending in other categories?

Mr. Lieff: You will see a very small amount of that. Most of it was drawn down through the Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), but as the accounts are finalized there is a little bit of catch-up related to parliamentary spending authority to implement the additional funding.

Senator Stratton: Is that pretty well completed?

Mr. Lieff: Yes.

Senator Stratton: Is the expenditure for the National Gallery related to protecting the windows in the event of an explosion at the American embassy?

Mr. Lieff: Yes. That is due to the location of the embassy.

Senator Stratton: It was reported in the media a while ago that a film was being put over the glass to protect it in the event of an explosion at the U.S. embassy.

The Deputy Chairman: Perhaps the witnesses could clarify that. I believe Senator Stratton got that information from a newspaper clipping. Perhaps we could be told of that officially.

Mr. Lieff: Senator Stratton is quite right. The RCMP, the Ottawa police, and U.S. embassy authorities agree that there is an increased risk to the area surrounding the embassy building. Studies conducted by the RCMP identified a number of security concerns, in particular related to the National Gallery building with its glass facade, including the glass colonnade that links the glass entrance of the pavilion to the glass Great Hall. As a matter of interest, the glazing is to cover 390,000 square feet of glass.

RCMP, private security experts, and a project team for window protection for the houses of Parliament have decided that a protective window filament is the appropriate solution. The product has been tested and has already been approved for use in the Parliament buildings. It is the same basic product.

I have a breakdown of costs, if you are interested.

The Deputy Chairman: If the presence of an embassy is so inherently dangerous to the immediate environment, why would an embassy be built in such a location? Perhaps that is beyond the purview of this consideration, but it seems that these matters should be taken into consideration when locating an embassy. Perhaps it is too late.

Mr. Coulter: You are right that it is beyond the realm of Treasury Board to make that decision. However, the former U.S. embassy building was in downtown Ottawa.

Senator Stratton: Was the east wall of the Victoria Building protected when the embassy was on Wellington Street?

Mr. Lieff: I do not know the answer to that question.

Senator Stratton: I am sure it was not.

Mr. Lieff: Your next question was with respect to Status of Women.

Senator Stratton: I have been informed that that was related to expenditures made in Beijing. Is that correct?

Mr. Lieff: This new appropriation of $3,044,000 is funding for a non-recurring event and, as such, it was not included in the base of the agency. It will allow Canada to participate in the United Nations special session: Women 2000.

As background, in June 2000 Canada will be attending the UN special session entitled Women 2000: Gender Equality, Development and Peace for the 21st Century. That will be held at UN headquarters in New York with representatives from 189 countries. This session was held in Beijing in 1995 and in Nairobi in 1985. In 2000, it will be in New York.

This is one-time funding which will be used to cover the following four broad category items: the cost of supporting non-government organization preparations in order to facilitate their participation at the UN session and parallel activities relating to that session; the cost of conducting consultations with women's and other equality seeking organizations; the cost of producing documents and reports and providing other public information before, during, and after the events; and travel and other delegation costs to represent Canada at the international meetings leading up to the June sessions.

The total financial requirement will be $6.2 million over a number of years. Funds were included for that in the recently tabled budget.

Senator Stratton: We see the $3-million figure for the Beijing trip, but are you saying that future expenditures for these conferences are included in the Main Estimates?

Mr. Lieff: There will be some in the Main Estimates.

Senator Stratton: Could you tell us how you arrive at the Main Estimates and how you arrive at the Supplementary Estimates? I am confused about why we get hit with a request for an additional $3 million when you knew that the expenditure would take place. I would think that you should be able to come up with a number to put in the Main Estimates to lessen the impact of Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Coulter: Believe me, the people who prepare the Supplementary Estimates would like to minimize the number of things with which they must deal.

To use 2000-2001 as an example, the day after the budget came down the Main Estimates were tabled. We included in the Main Estimates the predicted cost of as many items as we could predict. There are other items that we know are coming that are not yet mature enough to cost and include in the Estimates. Therefore, there is an amount of money in the planned spending that is not included in the Main Estimates but that would be drawn down through Supplementary Estimates. I hope there will be only two next year, but that remains to be seen. In the past we have had Supplementary Estimates (A), (B) and (C). Approval for those items under planned spending, but not in the Main Estimates, must be granted by Treasury Board

Senator Stratton: A good response, but fuzzy. Thank you.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Coulter, in response to Senator Stratton you said that you know these items are coming but they are not yet mature enough to be included in the Main Estimates. What does "maturity" mean in that sense?

Mr. Coulter: "Mature" means that it is costed and known well enough to put before the Treasury Board.

Mr. Lieff: To add some precision, there may also be some initiatives announced in the budget and factored into planned spending for departments which you will see on March 30 when we table our RPPs. We have always followed the convention that we not include items in the Main Estimates for which legislation is pending. We always wait for the legislation to pass before coming to draw down the funds. That is an example.

Senator Bolduc: I have three questions. The first is with regard to the Canadian International Development Agency. On page 65 we see a reduction of the debt of Costa Rica. I know it is not new to have such reduction of debt for countries that are considered poor. I know something of this country. It is not central Africa, it is Costa Rica.

In the past, when the Prime Minister has travelled the globe, he has visited places like this and it has cost usually between $25 and $50 million in either a grant for something or debt reduction. Is Costa Rica the next destination for the Prime Minister? Is this a general policy? If it is, I should like to have it tabled.

Costa Rica is not what I would consider a poor country at all.

Mr. Lieff: Your first question is a matter of policy on this particular item. I can assure you that it was part of an overall package of debt reduction for Latin and Central America that was basically developed in the June 1992 Rio summit. You will have seen in Supplementary Estimates (A) earlier this year, and Supplementary Estimates (C) the year before, most of the items related to that overall initiative. This is part of the package.

In 1992, at the Rio summit, Canada committed to forgive up to $145-million in debt over an eight-year period ending 1999-2000. This is environmental related debt for the Rio summit.

This program, which forgives debt in exchange for environmental initiatives undertaken by those countries, was exclusive to Canada, although a number of other countries may have adopted similar programs since then.

This program allows Canada to meet the Rio summit commitments by forgiving loans that were effectively written off prior to 1992, meaning that there was little hope of recouping them in any case.

The program is part of Canada's overall commitments to environmental initiatives arising out of the summit, some of which involve the negotiation of international agreements, some which have yet to be concluded, the most notable being the climate change convention, of which you should be aware.

The initiative requires that Latin American debtor countries repay an agreed on share of their outstanding debt in local currency in exchange for the forgiveness of the debt. Originally, they were positional loans on 30-year terms at 3 per cent interest and 7 years' grace prior to 1986 for development assistance projects.

Local funds created from this initiative are then used to help environmental and sustainable development projects. Overall, up to $145 million of debt was available for forgiveness.

We have gone through most of them in previous Supplementary Estimates. However, there is one more. CIDA is in the process of working on an agreement with Guatemala to add them to the list. Presumably you would see those next year in Supplementary Estimates (A), if that is what is concluded. That would then end the round of the Rio summit.

Senator Bolduc: My second question relates to grants to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Are the grants given to the association; are they given to the municipalities; or are they given, through the provinces, to the municipalities?

If I remember correctly, this is a matter for provincial jurisdiction. When I was a deputy minister of municipal affairs in Quebec, I was very surprised to see this item included in the budget I had to deal with then.

I know that municipalities, like every public service, have big demands. Would you be kind enough to provide some information on that?

Senator Finestone: What page are you on, please?

Senator Bolduc: I am referring to pages 54 and 55.

Mr. Coulter: By way of background, there are two one-time grants involved here: One grant of $25 million to support the Green Municipal Enabling Fund, and the other is $100 million to support the Green Municipal Investment Fund. These initiatives are in support of a broader objective of reducing domestic greenhouse gas emissions and reducing sources of air and water pollution at the local level.

Senator Bolduc: Is it through the environment that you get the jurisdiction to deal with municipalities?

Mr. Coulter: It is a partnership arrangement. I will explain.

There are two departments involved, environment and natural resources. They are sharing the funding on a 50/50 basis for both the enabling fund and the investment fund. We are contributing $12.5 million to the enabling fund and $50 million to the investment fund. For Environment Canada, this falls under the clean environment business line. It is part of its basic business.

In the current fiscal year, funds will be used to increase the energy efficiency and environmental effectiveness of existing municipal infrastructure. The first grant will allow the federation of municipalities to support audits and feasibility studies of projects for existing infrastructure in the areas of energy efficiency, water and waste water treatment, waste management, and transportation infrastructure. Funding will be fully disbursed by the FCM to qualifying projects over a five-year period.

The second grant will enable the FCM to provide access to capital funding for commercial and non-commercial projects related to the same project type. There is a link between the two items. The enabling fund determines the feasibility of a project, and the investment fund will serve as a source of capital.

All municipalities will be eligible for funding from both funds and will lean to achieve a balance between rural and urban communities.

Provinces will not be eligible for direct funding, but can receive indirect funding if they choose to partner with individual municipalities for specific qualifying projects. The provinces can join if they partner with municipalities.

Funding for both initiatives will be cost shared. Under the enabling fund, federal contributions must be matched by a minimum of 50 per cent from other entities. Under the investment fund, federal funding will make up a maximum of 25 per cent of the costs of the project.

For votes and grants, funding agreements between the departments of environment, natural resources and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities will be signed and they will address issues such as governance, eligible recipients, audit and performance reporting, conflict of interest, investment in management of the funding and selection criteria.

The whole regime is meant to be a partnership with the federation and to allow provinces the opportunity to play in with municipalities. There must be funding from elsewhere.

Senator Bolduc: What happens if one province decides not to join?

Mr. Coulter: Then the municipality can partner in any way it can, raise its own money and still play. Obviously, many municipalities will choose to go to the province and encourage them to be partners in this.

The Deputy Chairman: As I understand it, Senator Bolduc referred to page 55 above the amount $62.5 million, but Mr. Coulter's response referred to that same figure on page 103, under the Department of Natural Resources.

I am not sure if it is the same amount and, if it is, why it is reported in two places. Is it double?

Mr. Coulter: It is double. Each department is contributing a total of $62.5million to this project. Therefore, the total is $125 million.

Senator Finestone: First, could you tell me if, in the management under the FCM, all municipalities are equally able to access this project, or is it just being held to large municipalities based on population? How will these funds be distributed?

Second, are you using the trade and commerce rights and the shared environment rights to be able to go directly to the municipalities?

Mr. Coulter: The short answer to the first question is that all municipalities are eligible. Obviously, it depends on their degree of organization and ability to approach the fund, but all municipalities are eligible to apply.

Mr. Lieff will respond to your second question.

Mr. Lieff: I am afraid that I do not have the answer to that specific question.

Senator Finestone: In light of the fact that there is so much argument, in particular from Quebec, as to the rights of the federal government to give money, it would be helpful to know what is the potential for the federal government to enable the ordinary citizen to profit from the kind of grants that we would like to see in order that we can live in a better and cleaner country with sustainable development. It would be helpful for us to understand that.

The Deputy Chairman: It would be helpful, indeed. I think your questions, senator, should also be addressed to the minister when he appears before the committee.

Mr. Coulter: We can provide an answer to that question for you, senator.

The terms and conditions of the funding agreement set up a council and a peer review committee to manage the loans and grants. The council will manage the provisions of the funding agreements, the regulatory review, and establish fund priorities and investment granting allocations, as well as collaborate with the ministers involved to coordinate program offerings, minimize duplication, and achieve an investment granting balance both regionally and between urban and rural communities. A council with up to 15 members is being established. They are working their way through some of these steps. We can get back to you with whatever information we have on your specific question. It is an evolving situation.

Senator Bolduc: My last question relates to the Department of National Defence and page 100 of the Supplementary Estimates. It is not necessarily specific to the Supplementary Estimates; however, you will see the type of thing in which I am interested.

How much did the operations in Kosovo cost? I understand that the peacemaking process took place between March and June of 1999. Therefore, I suppose that most of its costs fell within the 1999-2000 budget. However, because of preparations, I suspect part of the costs were paid in the Supplementary Estimates of 1998-99, with the major part falling under 1999-2000. There will probably be some consequences of it in 2000-01. Could I have an estimate in that regard?

I know that you might not be able to provide us with the information today. We would like to have it, however, at some time in the future. That operation was undertaken without the approval of Parliament. It was decided when President Clinton was having some problems with Monica Lewinsky. Finally, Mr. Blair visited Washington, where he was most eloquent, and to get out of the troubles they were in they sent people to war.

I would like to have an idea of the costs involved. I know that we pay the people in the Department of National Defence the year around, whether they are in Kosovo or here. I would like to have an idea of the total costs of that operation which was taken without any decision by Parliament. The decision was made by cabinet. Constitutionally speaking, they had the right to do it. Do you have an estimate as to the costs? How would it be distributed in 1998, 1999 and 2000?

Mr. Coulter: Senator, the amount you see in the Supplementary Estimates (B) does not pertain to that operation. It refers to a number of other items.

I am reminded by my colleague who was here before you with my predecessor during the discussions surrounding Supplementary Estimates (A) that there was an item in those Supplementary Estimates which totalled $249 million for National Defence which was its part of the additional funding required for the Kosovo operation.

Senator Bolduc: I was asking about National Defence. I know that CIDA also contributed. It is organized in such a way that we do not know the real numbers for the operation. Do you have the total?

Mr. Coulter: We could provide you with the information that we, the Treasury Board secretariat, have on the costs of that operation. As you know, senator, these things tend to be fairly complex. Sometimes when we talk about additional funding we are asked whether the salaries of personnel, for example, are included therein because, after all, we pay salaries to train for these kinds of operations. We tend to do it on incremental costs, that is, the costs over and above what would be required to keep those people at home. We have some information on that.

Senator Bolduc: I do not want you to do a study pertaining to, say, 15 days or a month. If you were to make just a few phone calls to the Department of National Defence, CIDA, and others, I am sure you could get the information. I want an overall idea of what was involved.

Mr. Coulter: We will do our best, senator.

Senator Finestone: I would like to underscore the fact that I do not agree with the analysis put forward by Senator Bolduc as to why we went into Kosovo and why that operation took place. If any one of us has concern for human security over and above the national sentiments of national sovereignty, one does not have to question, one has to act.

The Deputy Chairman: That is an issue which, perhaps, we can return to at some point in time.

Senator Doody: Page 51 deals with Citizenship and Immigration. There is a write-off there of about $2.5 million for advances, I believe, to immigrants. Can you tell me how that system works? What is the total amount paid out annually to immigrants, and under what terms and conditions are such payments made? I was under the impression that we are now charging immigrants a $900 fee. Do we charge them $900 and give them an advance? How does this work?

Mr. Lieff: Under the process by which loans are advanced in the first place, there is a regular review process every year to determine which ones can be repaid and which are not likely to be repaid. This is something we do annually at year end.

Senator Doody: Is there a set amount for each individual immigrant? Is there a means test? Does the immigrant apply for funding from the department? Is there a specified amount per head?

Mr. Lieff: There are criteria. However, I am afraid that I do not have them with me. Most of the notes I have deal with the criteria under which we write them off.

Senator Doody: Are you able to tell how much money, per person, is paid out each year to our new Canadians?

Mr. Lieff: I do not have that in my note, but that material is available.

Senator Doody: Could you let us know the total amount per person? I presume there is a system whereby you follow these things up and try to collect the money, or is it, in fact, a disguised grant?

Mr. Lieff: That I can indeed answer. The current estimate is seeking authority to write off some 3,897 various loans for a total amount of $2,493,000, based on a review by a departmental write-off committee that has recommended the write-off of these loans.

Senator Doody: Is that one year's loans, or is that an accumulation over a number of years?

Mr. Lieff: It is on the base of the loans, but it is the figure they have arrived at this year in their review as to how many should be written off.

Senator Doody: You know what I am getting at. You could perhaps have someone try to find an answer for me.

Mr. Lieff: In this particular group of loans, just as an example, to answer some of what you are asking, 96 per cent of the loans involved in this Supplementary Estimate involve such small amounts that additional collection efforts were not justifiable or all other means of collection have been exhausted.

For example, in the balance of the cases, the debtors are bankrupt, deceased, disabled, cannot be located or have left Canada. However, historically, 92 per cent of loans issued under this program have been reimbursed.

Senator Doody: That is encouraging.

Do we charge immigrants $900, or is my memory at fault on that?

Mr. Lieff: There is a fee for immigrants. I am not sure of the amount.

Senator Doody: This confuses me. We are giving them money. Do we give them some money so we can collect some money from them?

Mr. Lieff: Those are two separate items.

Senator Doody: My next question deals with Transport Canada and the figure of $74 million for a new ferry for Marine Atlantic. I believe that will run from North Sydney to Port-aux-Basques, but it could run from North Sydney to anywhere, I suppose.

When is that due to come into operation? Has an arrangement been made? Is that a firm figure? Where is this ferry to run?

Mr. Coulter: It is as mature a figure we can have at this stage, however I will explain.

Marine Atlantic Inc. is an appropriation dependent Crown corporation under Transport Canada. It currently fulfils Canada's constitutional obligation to Newfoundland by providing ferry service from North Sydney, Nova Scotia to Port-aux-Basques, Newfoundland. It also provides a 12-week summer service from North Sydney, Nova Scotia to Argentia, Newfoundland. The second is not a constitutional requirement, the first is.

In accordance with their 2000-01 corporate plan, Marine Atlantic is receiving in the Supplementary Estimates incremental funding of $72.4 million of which $58.4 million is available from other Transport Canada votes. When combined with the $12 million available within MAI's vote, Marine Atlantic will have $86.2 million for the purchase of a fourth vessel to its ferry fleet.

The additional ferry is required to allow Marine Atlantic to meet capacity requirements as a result of strong growth in commercial and passenger traffic -- that has been increasing steadily since 1997 -- and to allay the trucking and tourism industries' criticisms with respect to service standards.

As the Minister of Transport's direction to Marine Atlantic in December 1999 to negotiate the acquisition of an additional ferry within Marine Atlantic's forecast reference level, Marine Atlantic initially proposed a capital lease arrangement through a private sector lender. Given that the least cost option for the government is to provide an appropriation for outright purchase through this Supplementary Estimate, Marine Atlantic will receive the resources necessary to acquire the vessel outright.

Senator Finestone: When the bridge to P.E.I. was built, as I understood it, two ferries were put out of business. I come from Pictou, Nova Scotia. What happened to those two ferries?

Mr. Coulter: The bridge was built to Prince Edward Island. This route is to Newfoundland.

Senator Finestone: I know, but two ferries were put out of business. Where did they go?

Senator Doody: I do not know that they would have been suitable for the Port-aux-Basques run.

Senator Finestone: This is Newfoundland to Cape Breton.

Senator Doody: It is a much broader run, in much rougher water.

Do you have any detail on the type of vessel is proposed? I do not want a history of the constitutional requirements of the Terms of Union. Unfortunately, I am all too familiar with them. Could you tell me if you have any update on what size of vessel is proposed, how it will be serviced and handled, and what routes it will cover?

Mr. J. Kevin Lindsey, Director, Expenditure Operations, Expenditure Operations and Estimates Division, Planning, Performance and Reporting Sector, Treasury Board of Canada: In response to Senator Finestone's questions, I believe the ferries to P.E.I. were scrapped. They were not appropriate for the Newfoundland run because they are fairly shallow vessels and they are not appropriate for the Newfoundland crossing.

Senator Doody, the new vessel will be acquired from a European concern. It is a vehicle and a passenger ferry.

One of the capacity problems right now, senator, is that one of the three ferries that is presently on the run can only carry 25 passengers and so it cannot deal with the summer tourist trade.

Senator Doody: Do you have any detail on that?

Mr. Lindsey: I cannot give you the number of passengers.

Senator Doody: That will be disclosed in the fullness of time, I suppose.

Senator Mahovlich: While we are on the subject of boats, British Columbia built their own boats. Was the federal government involved in that?

Mr. Coulter: There is nothing on the Supplementary Estimates in regard to that.

Senator Mahovlich: Did the government consider buying those boats? They are a real buy right now.

Senator Doody: Thanks, senator.

Senator Finestone: I would like to have a better understanding of how we handle the CIDA funds. CIDA is involved in overseas development. Why are they involved in a reduction of debt, or in meeting certain environmental undertakings, conditions and foreign loans?

I thought CIDA was formed to enable populations in Africa, particularly, and in underdeveloped countries to develop some form of personal and economic growth. Forgiveness of debt does not, in my view, fall into that category. Could you explain why CIDA has that responsibility and not under Foreign Affairs or some other department? If it a matter dealing with the environment, why is it not the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment?

Mr. Coulter: Are you referring to the Costa Rica issue?

Senator Finestone: I am not so sure that Costa Rica is such a wealthy country. They have had some very serious storms. We have co-sponsored the University of Peace, which is an important undertaking worldwide. We have enabled them to build a proper archives and natural resource centre. I can see how that sensibly belongs under CIDA. However, forgiveness of debt and things of that nature, I do not understand at all.

Mr. Lieff: I will try to respond to your question without notes. CIDA is involved, as you mentioned, in a variety of ways to help support the most desperate countries around the world. In doing that, they are also partners with a number of multilateral and bilateral institutions to address the situation in those countries. For example, there are very heavily indebted countries that CIDA sponsors, some multilateral development banks, including the African Development Bank, which provide concessional funding, grants, loans and that kind of thing for projects in those countries that qualify as heavily indebted. CIDA would be involved in those countries at a multilateral development bank level whereby there are contributions to those banks and write-off, or bilaterally as well.

Senator Finestone: I still do not understand the authorization of bank loans. You say that authorization is found under the Financial Administration Act, of which CIDA is an active partner.

Mr. Lieff: This is page 65.

Senator Finestone: I am on page 65. You spoke about the African Development Bank. I understand that; but Costa Rica, I do not understand. It is not that I do not understand the amount of money: I do not understand why that money is placed under CIDA. That is why I was asking the question.

Mr. Lieff: The various financing arrangements that we have for international aid, Canada's ODA or Overseas Development Assistance program, take a variety of forms. They are spread mostly through the Department of Finance and CIDA.

Senator Finestone: Is the Department of Foreign Affairs not involved? Is it not a three-way partnership?

Mr. Lieff: Foreign Affairs is involved at the ministerial level, but their programs do not provide funding for those countries; that is done under CIDA and Finance.

Finance deals with the institutions established under the Bretton Woods Act and the International Monetary Fund. CIDA deals with those organizations under the International Development (Financial Institutions) Assistance Act. They basically divide up the territory between those two departments in order to provide the kinds of participation in the multilateral institutions that I have just mentioned. They provide financing, loans that type of thing to those organizations. You will see items in Finance as well, mainly the IMF and World Bank kinds of items. In CIDA you will find the items under the International Development (Financial Institutions) Assistance Act, such as, for example, the African Development Bank.

Senator Finestone: It does small loans. That is why people are given forgiveness.

Mr. Coulter: We belong to seven major multilateral development institutions that consider dead issues, including the IMF and the World Bank.

Senator Finestone: I know that, sir. My question is this: Why does it come out of CIDA instead of coming out of the budget for the Minister of Finance? My concern is that the ODA is very low and it should have been increased. If you keep taking these kinds of debt repayments or losses in terms of how you write it off or you ask for supplementaries, it means you continue to reduce CIDA's capacity to do real ODA. That bothers me. I want to know why it comes out of there. It is understood that they are a partner, but the Minister of Finance should be paying that, not CIDA.

Mr. Coulter: Could we get back to you on why that specific item came out of CIDA? I am sure there is a logic that we do not have here today.

The Deputy Chairman: The particular constitutional framework under which CIDA operates is a matter that has been raised in this committee on countless occasions, especially in the last session, especially by Senator Bolduc.

Senator Finestone, there is a fair amount on the record here. At some point the committee should revisit the question of CIDA and how these millions of dollars are made available. CIDA is only constituted by an Order in Council. It is so constituted to give governments a total free hand across the world.

I refer Mr. Coulter to some of the tests going on with our committee on this question. This business of CIDA has preoccupied the minds of many senators of this committee.

Senator Mahovlich: From where does our contribution to the reconstruction and development of the European Bank derive?

Mr. Lieff: From the Department of Finance.

Senator Mahovlich: What is the amount?

Mr. Lieff: I am not sure if we have anything in these particular Supplementary Estimates for that. There might be an amount in the Main Estimates when we come back tomorrow. We will look.

Senator Finestone, I just wanted to cover the point you were raising about ODA. My understanding is that both finance institutions, the multilateral institutions that are dealing with the most impoverished countries, as well as CIDA's are eligible for ODA, both when we subscribe to the shares as well as when we write off the debts, because it will be helping the country by reducing the debt they owe. I can verify that for you.

Senator Finestone: If in any way it increases the amount of ODA that we give up to 0.3, I will be very happy.

Mr. Lieff: I think it does but I will verify that for you.

Senator Finestone: On page 10 of your brief you indicate a forecast decrease of payments by HRDC for old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the spousal allowance, reflecting minor changes in the average monthly benefit and expected number of eligible recipients. I find that quite interesting in light of the fact that we have such a rapidly ageing population. Second, women have not been in the workforce so long that there should be a reduction in old age security or the spousal allowance. As far as I know, men are still dying sooner than their wives.

I should like to know about the GIS that you are forecasting showing a decrease. It is not a significant amount of money, but it is certainly significant. What does it do in terms of the geographic distribution in Canada? My questions relate specifically to women, and I should like to understand your analysis.

Mr. Coulter: The information we have here may not be everything you want. Originally, the department forecast total payments of $23.5 billion for 1999-2000. Revised forecasts are now of the order of $23.3 billion. Therefore, there is a reduction of $107 million or 0.7 per cent. In percentage terms, the amount is small.

Senator Finestone: Fundamentally, when we scrutinize it we see that you are ending up with less money for women. That is what I do not understand.

Mr. Coulter: I understand your point, senator. I do not think I can address it directly, except to say that the Treasury Board deals with the revised forecasts of a program that is run out of HRDC.

Senator Finestone: Yes, I know that.

Mr. Coulter: Therefore, we are not involved in the policy part of it.

Senator Finestone: I should like to understand how they arrive at that conclusion. If you take a look at the population of this country, you will see that the face of that aging person is woman. How did you get to this? Is there a reduction, overall, in the number of women? Are the incomes of women increasing? Are fewer men dying?

Mr. Lieff: All of the factors you quite rightly mention, senator, were factored into the forecast when it was made in the Main Estimates at the start of the year. It was based on what HRDC saw as the emerging trends. What has happened is that as we have more experience during the year, we are fine-tuning that downwards. Thus, if you will, in terms of an initial forecast, it is not a decline of the amount but just that it was slightly high in terms of all of the concerns that you had in mind.

Senator Finestone: I should like specific answers to these questions: Was a gender analysis undertaken? What process is used to analyse those figures to ensure that an effective team within HRDC is mandated with the responsibility of analysing all these factors through a gender lens?

Mr. Coulter: We will consult with HRDC. I know they have a women's bureau that promotes gender analysis within the department. Status of Women has responsibility for gender analysis throughout the system. HRDC also has a bureau that does it.

Senator Moore: I should like to ask a question with regard to Industry Canada and the establishment of Genome Canada, which we see at page 83. There is an amount of $160 million there. Can you give me a breakdown of how it is anticipated that sum will be distributed nationally?

Mr. Coulter: I believe you are asking for the starting point and what the situation is today. That money will be put through a process in terms of eventually funding the foundation for the research. Does that answer your question?

Senator Moore: Will it be distributed equally around the country or will it all be focused in central Canada as usual?

Mr. Lieff: The national office of Genome Canada has just been established, whereas the five centres have not been established. As we speak, there are negotiations going on involving the department, Treasury Board and the third party, which is Genome Canada, to put in place the terms and conditions for the funding. We understand this will be going to Treasury Board in the very near future for resolution. Basically, these discussions are still underway. Clearly, a fundamental criterion on the table is equitable or regional distribution of the funds where genomics research can take place, that is, where there is some kind of a starting point for it in the first place.

Mr. Coulter: This research is now taking place in Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.

Senator Moore: As a Maritimer, that does not make me very happy. Is it anticipated that the funding will be distributed equally by region? There had to be some kind of conceptual thinking when you come up with a figure. Was that the basis of the discussion when this was established?

Mr. Coulter: It is ongoing. We are setting up the foundation and getting the terms and conditions in place. The regional balance will be playing through to that issue shortly. At the moment, because it does not exist, I cannot give you the regional balance that we expect for this program.

The Deputy Chairman: To add to Senator Moore's question and to Mr. Coulter's response, it seems to me that Senator Moore's questions should also be raised with the minister. Hopefully, the minister has some staff here who are listening. Perhaps they could report to the minister that this particular question has been raised.

Mr. Coulter: Absolutely, senator.

Senator Moore: In the past there were technology partnerships to the tune of $1 billion and Maritime Canada received but 2 per cent of it. That is embarrassing and disgraceful. I am asking the question because we in the Senate will be watching this.

The Deputy Chairman: The concerns of Senator Moore are widely supported.

Senator Finestone: Why is it separated out from the $900 million to Industry Canada for Canada's research structure in health, environment, science and engineering? Is this $160 million in addition to the $900 million?

Mr. Lieff: It is a different but related item. The Canada Foundation for Innovation has very strict criteria for what the money can be spent on, i.e., infrastructure, and on the cost-sharing arrangements, which are 60-40.

Because this is for genomics research, there is a need for testing equipment. Since this is a fledgling industry, the advice is that there would not be partners to put up the 40 per cent that is required under the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Therefore, a specific initiative was announced in the budget, targeted at genomics, with slightly different criteria, although there will be a screening place to ensure that there will not be double funding from the government. Because some of the criteria overlap, strict provisions will be built into the arrangements to ensure that that does not happen.

Senator Finestone: I find it somewhat strange that, in light of the huge number of very successful pharmaceutical companies that we have in this country, they cannot find matching funds with pharmaceuticals.

Senator Stratton: Turning to page 116, Public Works and Government Services, Vote 25b, to reimburse Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the amounts of loans forgiven, grants, contributions and expenditures made, and losses, costs and expenses incurred -- $39,300,000 is the new appropriation. Could you provide us with some explanation as to what that is? Are we still forgiving debts?

Mr. Lieff: That is basically the wording to cover most of the operation of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It includes all the various aspects of their operation, including what you have just mentioned.

There are three items under this vote listed in the Estimates: reserve for interest and inflation, the shelter enhancement program as part of the homelessness initiative announced in the budget, and $1 million for the youth employment strategy.

With respect to the first item, the reserve for interest and inflation in social housing, the $31.3 million is to be transferred to Ontario for potential cost increases on social housing due to increases in inflation. That amount is the share of the research for the Ontario social housing portfolio, so the reserve that has been set aside.

Senator Stratton: Senator Murray, are you hearing this? Ontario, Ontario, Ontario.

The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, some of these questions are best put to the ministers. The witnesses are doing their very best, but some of these questions should rightly go to the minister.

Senator Stratton: Continue with the explanation, Mr. Lieff, if you could. My fundamental question is whether that $31.3 million is for Ontario alone.

Mr. Lieff: That is right.

Senator Stratton: Is Ontario the only province with a homeless problem or an interest in inflation, or what? The next item talks about shelter.

Mr. Lieff: They are different items. A reserve was established in CMHC to cover cost increases if mortgage rates were to rise in the future. With the transfer of social housing to provinces and territories, they are required then to assume the risk for all cost increases. It was, therefore, agreed to transfer a share that had been set aside in CMHC for Ontario to the Province of Ontario, basically just transferring the reserve. With that above amount, CMHC will have transferred a total of $57.8 billion to six provinces and three territories that have signed agreements to assign responsibility for social housing under that agreement.

Senator Stratton: That sounds better. You do not want Ontario sticking out too much like a sore thumb.

Mr. Lieff: Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Yukon, N.W.T. and Nunavut have been done so far. The agreement with Ontario was reached, so you will see those amounts in other Estimates.

Senator Stratton: For a total of $57.8 billion.

Senator Bolduc: In regard to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, I see that there is a figure of $140,000 under new appropriation. Is that because of the discussions relating to the Auto Pact and the difficulties we had on that decision by the international trade tribunal? I am on page 60.

Mr. Lieff: Senator, this item is a standard feature you see every time or hear on the Supplementary Estimates, although in most cases you see it at the time of Supplementary Estimates (A). It is the operating budget carry-forward provision. It is basically an automatic provision that allows departments, when their money lapses at year-end, to carry it forward to the following year to encourage them to spend this money wisely. They did not come in at the time of Supplementary Estimates (A) for that amount, so they are asking for it.

Senator Bolduc: Do you have some information about the tribunal? It is an international organization and we do a lot of international trade. What is our contribution to Geneva? How many civil servants do we have there? It is not directly related, but I should like to have that information.

Mr. Coulter: We will obtain that information from the department.

Senator Mahovlich: The banks have recently thrown their hands up in the air on the question of loans for students. This could be very costly. Under what heading does this fall if the government takes over? Do we then set up our own banking system?

Mr. Lieff: Senator, discussions are still under way regarding the funding for that item. I believe the minister of HRDC has announced that a regime will be in place in August. The government is right now seeking another private-sector administrator for the account other than the banks.

Senator Mahovlich: This is a losing proposition and I think it is very important. I know my son took advantage and followed through and paid off his loan, but many loans were not paid and the banks were losing money. They threw it back to the government. Can the government throw it back to them? I mean, why should the government give in?

Mr. Coulter: Minister Stewart has the lead on this. It is in process. The information we have is that they expect to have a solution by the next academic year. We are not following it day to day. I have some kids and I am worried, too.

Senator Finestone: I should like to know what the rule is if an agency has money left in their budget. I heard you say that they are encouraged to spend it wisely. What happens if they do not spend it? Is it recovered into the department or are they left with a 5 per cent latitude to carry forward?

Mr. Lieff: For operating funds?

Senator Finestone: Any kind of money that is left.

Mr. Lieff: Any funds that are unspent at year end lapse. Parliament votes those funds annually. If they are not utilized, it is considered that they are not required to cover those costs, so they are available to go to the bottom line and they can contribute to the surplus or to reducing the deficit. With respect to the operating budget carry-forward, there is a provision to encourage managers to spend wisely by saying it will not be lost forever. For up to 5 per cent of your operating funds, we will go back the following year and seek parliamentary authority to spend it. Thus, in Supplementary Estimates (A), you will see us come back for approximately 5 per cent of operating budgets for that provision.

The Deputy Chairman: I think that brings this segment of this particular meeting to a conclusion. I should again like to thank all three of you gentlemen for being with us this morning and for being as open with us as you have been. I should especially like to thank Mr. Coulter because we all recognize that not only is he in a new position, but this is his very first appearance before this committee.

Honourable senators, I will excuse the witnesses now. Then we will proceed to two items. The first is the question of reporting Supplementary Estimates (B) and the second is our budget. Perhaps we could move directly to the question of reporting Supplementary Estimates (B).

I would ask someone around the table to move that the committee researcher prepare for consideration at the next committee meeting, tomorrow, a report containing the comments and concerns of the committee with regard to its examination of Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000.

Senator Moore: I so move.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chairman: Let the record show that the vote carried unanimously.

Having done that, as the first item on our agenda tomorrow, we shall look at the prospective report of this committee on Supplementary Estimates (B), which we plan to have reported and into the chamber on Thursday.

Honourable senators, tomorrow we shall proceed with the Main Estimates, so the witnesses may be able to refer back to some of the questions that were raised today.

Let us move on now to an internal housekeeping matter, the consideration of the committee's annual budget. I had asked the clerk to distribute copies to you. Senator Kroft and the other senators at Internal Economy had wanted this budget back before them, I believe, for March 3. Senator Murray and I could not meet that deadline, obviously, because, if you recall, we adjourned for two weeks, and prior to adjourning we had had to cancel committee meetings for particular caucus events.

Having said that, I ask senators to turn their minds to the budget before them for the committee's work. On examining it, one will see that the amounts are really quite small. It is a total of $17,000. I would invite senators' comments.

Senator Finestone: I have a concern. As I am brand new here, I do not know how this works, but I do know that you have had referred to you Senator Kinsella's whistleblowing bill. Do you not have to reflect that in your budget?

The Deputy Chairman: Not yet. This is absolutely routine nuts and bolts.

Senator Moore: I move the motion as distributed to committee members for the approval of the budget for the year 2000-2001.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chairman: Let the record show that the motion carried unanimously.

We need another motion that the chairman, being Senator Murray, be authorized to present the budget to the Subcommittee on Finance and Budgets.

Senator Moore: I so move.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Deputy Chairman: Let the record show that the motion carried unanimously.

The committee adjourned.