Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 9 - Evidence - Meeting of June 2, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 2, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:33 a.m. to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning and welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
Honourable senators, on May 14, Supplementary Estimates (A) for the year 2009-10 were tabled in the Senate and referred to this committee for our consideration.
[Translation]
This morning, we are going to begin the study of these expenditures.
[English]
As usual, we will begin our consideration by hearing from officials at the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. We are pleased to welcome back Brian Pagan, Executive Director, Expenditure Operations and Estimates Division. I always enjoy giving the titles of your various departments. I imagine the sign on your door must go down the hallway a bit.
He is joined by Ken Wheat, Senior Director, Expenditure Operations. I believe, Mr. Wheat, this is your first appearance before the standing committee. We welcome you and look forward to working with you.
Senators, we only have one hour for this introductory session on the Supplementary Estimates (A), so I would ask you to try to keep your questions in their usual succinct and direct manner.
First, we will call on Mr. Pagan and Mr. Wheat to give us a brief overview before we go into questions and answers.
Mr. Pagan, you have the floor.
[Translation]
Brian Pagan, Executive Director, Expenditure Operations and Estimates Division, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to take a few minutes to give you an overview of these estimates, with special attention to the supply process context, the total amount of these Supplementary Estimates, the highlights of major initiatives and the implementation of priorities announced by the government in its Budget 2009, last January.
[English]
As you know, the purpose of supplementary estimates is to seek Parliament's approval of the spending required to implement planned spending for approved programs, including Budget 2009 initiatives approved by Treasury Board as of April 2, 2009, and to realign or transfer existing spending authority between voted appropriations.
Supplementary estimates also inform Parliament of updated projections of statutory programs for which spending authority is already in place.
The illustration on slide 3 is intended to remind the committee of the key dates in the supply process. The Supplementary Estimates (A) tabled on May 14 are the first of three planned supplementary estimates exercises for 2009-10, with additional supplementary estimates anticipated for the December and March supply periods.
As you know, the proximity of the budget in January to the tabling of Main Estimates in February does not always allow sufficient time to obtain policy and program approvals required to include budget initiatives in the Main Estimates. Therefore, these first supplementary estimates for 2009-10 are a critical piece of the government's efforts to implement the stimulus measures included in Budget 2009.
On slide 4 we have a table with the proposed amounts. Supplementary Estimates (A) seek Parliament's approval for $5.3 billion in new, voted appropriations and provide information on a net increase of $53.8 billion in statutory spending, previously approved by Parliament, for total expenditures of $59.1 billion. Included in this total is a statutory and non-budgetary item in the amount of $50 billion for the insured mortgage purchase program that was approved as part of Budget 2009. Through this program, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation may borrow funds to purchase $50 billion of insured mortgage pools from Canadian banks, thus providing them with significant and stable access to long-term funding and facilitating their ability to continue lending to Canadian consumers and businesses.
Borrowing undertaken through this program does not increase the federal debt or deficit, as it is offset by interest- bearing financial assets.
Slide 5 sets out the major voted budgetary items in these supplementary estimates. With respect to the sums required for these new voted amounts of just over $5 billion, $2.4 billion — or 48.6 per cent — is comprised of requirements from just four departments. National Defence has identified requirements for Afghanistan, Olympic security, major capital equipment projects and medium-sized trucks totalling $1.3 million.
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada has a requirement for the continuation of the homeless partnering strategy and has numerous Budget 2009 initiatives totalling $429 million.
Public Works and Government Services Canada has requirements in support of Budget 2009 infrastructure projects, and also has large projects related to parliamentary accommodations and renovations totalling $350 million.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has requirements for First Nations schools, water and wastewater projects, and other initiatives totalling $314 million.
As I said, these four departments represent almost 50 per cent of the total voted budgetary requirements.
The table on slide 6 presents the progress in implementing the economic action plan announced in Budget 2009. With the approval of funds sought through these supplementary estimates, a total of $20.6 billion — or 91 per cent — of the $22.7 billion in priorities that were announced in the January budget will have been approved and made available for departments and agencies for the implementation of budget measures.
This amount of $20.6 billion to be available to departments includes $10 billion in funding made available through Parliament's approval of the Budget Implementation Act; $1.8 billion in allocations from Treasury Board Canada vote 35, which is a new central vote established to facilitate budget implementation; and an additional $1.6 billion for budget initiatives funded through these supplementary estimates.
The table on slide 7 presents some of the major budget initiatives in these supplementary estimates. Of the total economic action plan of $22.7 billion, approximately $5.5 billion has not previously been authorized by Parliament through enabling legislation or the Budget Implementation Act. Therefore, this slide presents the principle budget measures which are being brought forward through these supplementary estimates for the first time.
This list includes $188.6 million to Health Canada for funding to stabilize the non-insured health benefits program; $177.5 million for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to support investments in First Nations infrastructure; $121.9 million to Public Works and Government Services Canada for federal infrastructure projects; $117.2 million to Natural Resources Canada to support the EcoENERGY retrofit program; $100 million to Canadian Heritage to support funding for the Canada Television Fund.
In order to support your review and maximize the transparency of budget items, we have identified each budget initiative that appears in the supplementary estimates by underlining these as ``Budget 2009'' in the section ``explanation of requirements for each department.''
An example can be found at page 128, Parks Canada, for funding related to improvements and upgrades to national historic sites. If you have the Supplementary Estimates (A) document in front of you, the first item for Parks Canada under the ``explanation of requirements'' explains the requirement and then in parenthesis indicates ``Budget 2009.'' We have done this for each budget initiative appearing in these supplementary estimates.
Slide 8 presents information on Treasury Board vote 35. As you know through the Main Estimates, Parliament approved the creation of a new $3 billion central vote to allow quicker implementation of Budget 2009 initiatives. Through this vote, funds can be allocated by Treasury Board ministers between April 1 and June 30 for forecasted cash requirements for budget priorities as bridge funding in advance of supply for Supplementary Estimates (A) or Supplementary Estimates (B). At the time of tabling Supplementary Estimates (A), a total of $1.8 billion had been allocated from this vote to support budget implementation. A summary of all allocations as of April 30 can be found at page 77.
Again, using Parks Canada as an example, we see the first allocation from this vote at page 77 is in the amount of $9.9 million for improvements and upgrades to national historic sites. This allocation covered forecasted cash requirements between April and June, with the balance of programming costs of $59.6 million to be obtained through approval of Supplementary Estimates (A).
On page 128, we see a figure with respect to Parks Canada for upgrades to national historic sites in the amount of $59.6 million. These are the funds that the department expects to spend during the period June to the end of the fiscal year. The allocations from vote 35 were their requirements from April to supply for Supplementary Estimates (A).
The government will be providing an update on allocations from vote 35 in the next quarterly report on budget implementation, and we will also provide a final reconciliation of all allocations from the vote in Supplementary Estimates (B), to be tabled in the fall.
In conclusion, these supplementary estimates reflect the government's commitment to accelerate implementation of Budget 2009. Timely implementation of approved budget items has been facilitated by the judicious and effective use of an innovation in the supply process in the form of Treasury Board vote 35, the new central vote for approved budget initiatives.
[Translation]
Honorable senators, this concludes my brief overview of the highlights and main characteristics of Supplementary Estimates 2009-2010. My colleague, Ken Wheat, and myself will be pleased to answer any questions you may have about these Supplementary Estimates.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Pagan, thank you very much. Before we go to the list of senators, could you explain vote 35, which is a new line item under ``Treasury Board'' for budget implementation? During the period up to the end of June, you allocated a certain amount of money through that vote. Will that be approved later on, reduced from vote 35 and then attributed to a particular department? Now it is Treasury Board, and it is like the emergency vote 5 funding that we have dealt with in the past.
Mr. Pagan: It is, in fact, in many ways comparable to vote 5 in the sense that it is a central vote that has been approved by Parliament for allocation by Treasury Board ministers. The difference between Treasury Board vote 35 and vote 5 is the time limitation around the vote.
In Budget 2009, the Minister of Finance indicated that, in order to have maximum effect, the government's stimulus measures should begin as soon as possible. In that context, we have a supply process that only allows departments to bring forward requirements at certain times of the year.
Therefore, vote 35 was established as a time-limited mechanism that would allow ministers to allocate funds to budget priorities announced in chapter 3 of the budget in advance of that supply process where there was a demonstrated cash requirement.
An example was cited with Parks Canada. You will see it on page 77 of the summary table of the vote 35 allocations. All of the amounts were allocated by Treasury Board ministers up to the end of April, and the total was $1.8 billion.
The first allocation appearing on that listing is $9.9 million for improvements and upgrades to national historic sites for Parks Canada. That $9.9 million is the amount that the department told us they could spend in the period April, May and June. Without that allocation, the department would not have been able to commence work; they would not have had the funding to be able to start construction on this particular project.
On page 128, you will see the department identifying a separate request of $59.6 million for this same initiative. That $59.6 million is the money that they will require in the period middle of June through to the end of the fiscal year. Essentially, they have received their funding through two mechanisms. The money that they could spend in advance of supply in June was allocated to them by ministers through vote 35, and that amount was $9.9 million. The funding they require for the balance of the fiscal year is being presented to Parliament for their approval through the supply process.
That is an example of how the vote was designed. In my opinion, it speaks to the importance of this innovation because it has allowed departments to begin implementing approved budget items as of April 1 rather than waiting for supply in June.
The Chair: Will vote 35 authority with Treasury Board continue?
Mr. Pagan: No. It is a time-limited measure. There was some discussion by ministers as to whether they should seek an all-encompassing authority throughout the year or a time-limited measure.
Because this is an innovation, it was determined that we should try this out on a time-limited basis. The allocations can be made by ministers from April 1 to June 30. If a department comes forward on July 10 for a requirement, ministers can approve the program, but they will not get money until they bring forward that requirement in Supplementary Estimates (B) in the fall.
As I said in my introductory remarks, the total program in the budget is $22.7 billion this year; $5.5 billion of that amount requires Parliament's approval. It is not covered under ways and means, the Budget Implementation Act or tax authorities.
This $3 billion central vote that was created is a form of an advance on that amount of $5.5 billion. Any funds that are not allocated by the end of June will simply be frozen; they will not be spent. Departments will receive their funding and their appropriation through the normal supply process with supplementary estimates in the fall and next winter.
The Chair: When you say the funds are frozen, can they be accessed, however, in the normal manner after July 1?
Mr. Pagan: Funds will be available from the fiscal framework but not from vote 35. One way or the other, the government was to bring forward $5.5 billion in requirements to be approved by Parliament. This vote 35 provides an advance, if you will, where up to $3 billion can be allocated. If it is not, then the funds will be sought through the normal appropriations process.
The Chair: I have one other question so we all understand this new initiative that is quite important for us to understand. It will not be continuing, but after the fact, will public accounts reflect under the department the funds that were allocated to that department either by vote 35 or in the normal estimates process?
Mr. Pagan: Yes, they will. Essentially, there are several areas of reporting here.
First, we have been working with the Auditor General, who will be auditing budget implementation, and the use of vote 35 is something that we understand she will be looking at.
All allocations from central votes are recorded in public accounts and can be tracked in terms of where they went and how a department used them.
Finally, departments who receive the money are responsible for reporting on the use of all their authorities through their departmental performance reports.
The Chair: Thank you for that explanation. Honourable senators may have some other questions in relation to that vote 35 initiative.
Senator Ringuette: With regard to last week's announcement by the Minister of Finance of the $50 billion-plus deficit, I realize that some of that deficit may reside in inaccurately estimated anticipated revenues. That is from one part of the ledger.
The other part of the ledger is with regard to expenses. What expenses are creating this $50 billion-plus deficit? You probably do not have that information in your briefing book, but perhaps you could provide the committee with the programs and numbers as soon as possible because we want to try to accommodate the government and report on Supplementary Estimates (A).
I understand you will send that information to the clerk so all committee members will receive it.
The Chair: Do you have any comment, either of you, on that question at this time?
Mr. Pagan: We will have to refer this particular question to the Department of Finance. I am well aware of the minister's announcement last week but am not aware of any formal update or of what information is available at this time.
I can speak to the program of expenses that was put forward in Budget 2009, and that number is $22.7 billion. I am not aware of any material changes to the expenditure side at this time but I shall inquire for you.
Senator Ringuette: By that comment, you are saying that the $50 billion-plus deficit is being incurred by a lack of revenues of over $28 billion?
Mr. Pagan: I understand from reports in the media that one of the primary drivers is reduction in tax revenues, and I also understand that there are some increases to employment insurance costs which are a form of stimulus themselves, but I do not have any material updates to the program of expenses that was presented in January.
Senator Ringuette: Mr. Pagan, Treasury Board is responsible for allocating dollars for programs. One would call it expenses; some would call it investment. We are talking about billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. I recognize that there is a lack of anticipated revenues in this deficit figure, but there must also be an increase in expenses. I cannot believe that the $28 billion difference is only in revenues.
Mr. Pagan: Absolutely, but I am not aware of any changes to the expenditure plan that are the responsibility of Treasury Board. As you know, Parliament itself approves expenditures through statutory programs, EI being an example. Where there are increases to EI, those do not come to Treasury Board for approval because there is existing enabling legislation that automatically drives those expenditure increases.
Senator Ringuette: However, the Treasury Board Secretariat is responsible for all of this. EI is already in a $22- billion deficit. The $4 billion is already in EI and accounted for. I want the information as to this additional $22 billion with regard to lack of revenues or additional expenses that we are looking at in just two months of operation in this budget year.
Ken Wheat, Senior Director, Expenditure Operations, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: I believe the $50 billion relates to the previous year, 2008-09, not 2009-10. That is the deficit, is it not?
Senator Ringuette: No, I do not think so.
Mr. Wheat: It is this year?
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
Mr. Pagan: The forecasted deficit in the budget this year was, I think, $34 billion, and the minister last week provided an update saying it would be in the range of $50 billion. There is an acknowledged $16-billion change. I am saying there has been no change to the expenditure plan presented to Treasury Board.
I will find out what the drivers are. I suspect that many of them are on the revenue side and on the statutory side where there are existing programs already in place for which the costs, perhaps, will be more than anticipated.
I can assure you that there has been no change to the plan presented to Treasury Board. We will refer this to the Minister of Finance. We regularly, as you know, provide updates on the costs of statutory programs. If there are material changes to those costs, we can make those available; otherwise, they will appear in Supplementary Estimates (B) in the fall.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you.
In Supplementary Estimates (A), do you have any amounts allocated for the non-existent-as-yet home renovation tax credit?
Mr. Pagan: We do not present tax measures in estimates; this is not a money bill.
Senator Ringuette: However, in order to create the program, you need to incur expenses with regard to the criteria, the application form and so forth. While I am talking about expenses, could you provide the committee members with the cost of advertising for this non-existent program since its announcement in January?
Mr. Pagan: The program does exist; it came into force with Parliament's approval of the Budget Implementation Act. Tax measures were included in that Budget Implementation Act.
In terms of costs to implement Budget 2009 measures, on page 79 you will see a charge of $8.6 million by the Canada Revenue Agency for implementation of various tax measures, including the home renovation tax credit. There is also the first-time home buyers' tax credit, the direct seller industry simplification of GST compliance, payroll deduction tables and changes to the tax code, and increases in the basic personal amount.
Senator Ringuette: As of the end of March, this program was not defined. There was no regulation and there were no application forms. There was nothing as per what the departmental official told this committee. When you say that it does exist, I want to know if the department has put in place the guidelines and the different rules to be applied on this program.
Mr. Pagan: It is something that the department clearly is able to speak to. If you had an update at the end of March, I am not sure if anything has changed. However, as I understand the tax measure, it is something that will apply when you or I fill out our tax forms next year. If we have incurred costs, we will be able to claim a deduction against those costs.
Senator Ringuette: You widely advertise certain criteria for a program, and the program is not in place.
Mr. Pagan: It came into effect with Parliament's approval of the Budget Implementation Act.
Senator Ringuette: You are talking about the money; I am talking about the process. There was no guideline as of the end of March, there was no eloquent program description, and there was nothing in regards to application forms, but there was a lot of publicity and advertising costs, and I want to know what those costs are as of now.
Mr. Pagan: It is not a program that you apply for.
Senator Ringuette: I understand that, but still, people have to know what the program entails. The department had not set any guidelines or framework for the program at the end of March, even though, as you say, the budget was approved.
Mr. Pagan: I will ask the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, to provide the guidelines that existed at the time.
Senator Ringuette: I have two other very short questions, chair.
The Chair: Please put them both on the record at this time.
Senator Ringuette: Page 9 indicates $4 million for Canada summer jobs. Is that an addition or is that the total amount for summer jobs?
Mr. Pagan: Are you referring to my presentation?
Senator Ringuette: Yes, on page 9.
Mr. Pagan: I believe the program was $10 million in total. This is $4 million advanced to the department from vote 35 for their requirements in April, May and June, which would be the university hiring season, if you will.
Senator Ringuette: This is an advance out of the $10 million and not an increase to the $10 million.
Mr. Pagan: Correct.
Senator Ringuette: My last question is in regard to page 8 of your presentation, the knowledge infrastructure program, $498 million. Could you provide members of this committee with a breakdown of where this money will be invested, indicating the provinces and universities that will be receiving these funds? I know you probably do not have that with you, but could you provide that to the clerk?
The Chair: You might be surprised what they have with them.
Senator Ringuette: I wish I had a copy.
Mr. Pagan: I can tell you a bit about that program, senator. Treasury Board approved the terms and conditions for the knowledge infrastructure program on April 23. A call for proposals was issued by the department early in March.
Successful negotiations with British Columbia led to the signing of the first agreement for more than 29 projects on April 8, and that comprised $202 million of federal funding, leveraging $252 million in provincial and other funding. Of this amount, $79.1 million was for colleges and $132 million for universities in the Province of British Columbia.
Successful negotiations with Nova Scotia led to the signing of an agreement for funding of $113.9 million for 25 projects on April 30, $56.7 million of federal funding, leveraging $57.2 million in provincial and other funding. Of this amount, $8.5 million was for colleges and $48.2 million was for universities.
Funding announcements are scheduled this month for Alberta and Manitoba, I understand, and just last week, there was something about announcements in Ontario, including this region for Carleton and Ottawa U.
Senator Ringuette: Is this per-capita basis distribution?
Mr. Pagan: I do not have the per-capita breakdown but there is a formula. I am not sure if it is by population or by the number of universities or institutions.
Senator Ringuette: Could you provide that information to us?
Mr. Pagan: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you.
The Chair: Could you, Mr. Pagan, look to page 6 and give us an explanation of these various items? I say page 6, but you might call it slide 6 of your presentation this morning. This arises from one of Senator Ringuette's questions and you indicating that the supplementary estimates do not reflect tax measures but, here, you are giving us progress and budget implementation and you refer to various tax measures. Could you explain this chart for us?
Mr. Pagan: Certainly. The budget announced at the end of January presented an action plan totalling $22.7 billion. Not all of that requires appropriations. There are tax measures and ways and means measures. The table on page 6 breaks down that $22.7 billion by the different funding avenues or mechanisms.
First was the Budget Implementation Act itself, which provided a total of $10 billion in authorities, and this included direct authority to draw funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, for instance, for the university infrastructure program, but it also included tax measures and changes to existing statutory programs. That is how the government was to implement $10 billion of its $22.7 billion plan.
Ways and means and other tax authorities such as the home renovation tax credit accounted for $3.5 billion. I will get the guidelines for the program, as Senator Ringuette has asked, but I can assure you that the program exists. It has now been approved by Parliament and will be applied by the Canada Revenue Agency when individuals fill out their personal income taxes next year.
The Chair: By the time government initiatives in the House of Commons that start as ways and means arrive in the Senate, we no longer call them ways and means. They morph into a bill or a supply bill or something. Ways and means does not help us much here.
Mr. Pagan: The basis of this information is a chart that was prepared in the first report to Parliament, Canada's quarterly report to Parliament, and the finance department used ways and means. I am taking their language.
The Chair: Can you tell us how that evolved into something we would understand? Did we vote on that in the form of a bill of some sort? If it has not come through both houses of Parliament, there is no authority to spend the money.
Mr. Pagan: This has come through both houses of Parliament.
The Chair: You will let us know how.
Mr. Pagan: Finally, we have the allocations from Treasury Board vote 35 and I have spoken to those.
The Chair: Yes, you helped us with that.
Mr. Pagan: The items appearing in Supplementary Estimates (A) total $1.6 billion.
The Chair: Is there a list of all the items that add up to $1.6 billion? Do we have that?
Mr. Pagan: It is on page 7. We went through a list of the major items over $80 million and then all other voted items from Budget '09 totalling $688 million. Every budget initiative is tagged or presented in a department's explanation of requirements in brackets. To assist in your review and increase transparency, if Parks Canada or Industry Canada has a budget initiative, they explain it, and then in brackets it says Budget 2009.
The Chair: At slide 6, the figure is rounded off to $1.6 billion. Thank you.
Senator Di Nino: I have a number of questions on the home renovation tax credit. I believe that there is a full description of the program on the CRA website outlining a myriad of 15 or 20 different areas, including eligibility, what it is, the period and so forth. Are you familiar with that? Is that a good place to get some information?
Mr. Pagan: I am not aware of what information might be on that site, senator. However, I would imagine that, if the guidelines and eligibility criteria have been established, they would be posted and we will obtain that.
Senator Di Nino: Just for the information of our colleagues, that is all detailed extensively on the CRA website.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Thank you for being here. One of the significant horizontal initiatives in the supplementary estimates is nearly $350 million for policing and security at the Olympics and Paralympics. Could you tell me which departments and agencies are involved in this and how much each is getting?
Mr. Pagan: I can provide that, senator. I just need to find the briefing note on that.
Your first question was departments involved?
Senator Nancy Ruth: Who are they?
Mr. Pagan: This initiative includes a number of departments — the RCMP, National Defence —
Senator Nancy Ruth: Can you tell me how much each is getting?
Mr. Pagan: Yes, I can. Let us do it in the order they appear. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, $5.7 million, and that is for intelligence and security screening services.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada, $2.2 million. That is basically for processing an increase in visa applications.
The Department of National Defence for a total of $205 million, related to an integrated package of specialized military skills and capabilities, including land, sea and air support.
Industry Canada for $6.7 million for enhancing the spectrum management capacity for organizations involved in games security.
The RCMP for $124.3 million, related to pre-games planning, including training exercises and then policing and security at the event.
Finally, Transport Canada for $5.2 million related to the support for inspection and temporary screening facilities and the movement of dangerous goods.
Senator Nancy Ruth: When you said National Defence is getting $205 million and you said land, sea and air, are they using the Coast Guard at all? Are they subcontracting to the Canadian Coast Guard system?
Mr. Pagan: Not to my knowledge, senator. I would think that, if DFO, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, was involved, we would see them as a separate listing here but I will confirm that.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Are we able to identify how much of the spending has been spent on particular aspects of security, particularly measures to address trafficking in women and children that often accompany sports events like this?
Just to give you some data — at one World Cup soccer event in Berlin, housing was built around the stadium, and over 40,000 women were brought in from Eastern Europe and thereabouts to service the participants. I wonder what we are doing or not doing in Canada around that issue.
Senator Di Nino: Make sure it does not happen.
Senator Nancy Ruth: How much money is going towards it?
Mr. Pagan: I do not have a breakdown of security elements or programs. I suspect there may be some limitations in terms of what might be available for reasons of security, but I will certainly find out.
Senator Nancy Ruth: There was a seminar given on the Hill last week by the Quebec police and the RCMP about the huge movement of women, from that province in particular, to various markets in Canada. I am curious as to what we are doing to prevent it.
On a related point, does any part of the funding on another horizontal initiative, the homelessness partnering strategy, attach to the impact of the Olympic development on the homeless in British Columbia?
Mr. Pagan: I do not have any information about a link to the Olympics, senator, but we will check.
Senator Nancy Ruth: My final question is how is gender-based analysis done on these horizontal initiatives, and what gender-based analysis has Treasury Board received or undertaken with respect to these initiatives, both in terms of systemic issues around trafficking in women and children and the homeless and men, and how are they different?
I would like to know Treasury Board's answers, especially after the Auditor General's report.
Mr. Pagan: We have addressed some questions related to gender equality and the approval of projects in the past. A horizontal initiative is no different from any other initiative coming forward from a department for approval. Treasury Board guidelines for the submission and approval of programs require departments to undertake gender analysis. As I say, there is no differentiation between an individual and horizontal project.
The lead department for any initiative is responsible for completing all the requirements leading up to approval of a Treasury Board submission.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I look forward to your answers.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Nancy Ruth.
I should point out that the various horizontal initiatives appear in the supplementary estimates at quite a few different pages — page 80 and onward. The horizontal initiatives are initiatives through various departments for the same subject matter. This committee has encouraged horizontal reporting in the past. We thank the Treasury Board for doing that because it makes it easier for us to trace expenditures where there are several departments involved.
Keep up that good work, if you would, Mr. Pagan, and pass our compliments on to the Treasury Board Secretariat for that.
Senator Di Nino: On your allocation from TB vote 35, pages 8 and 9, there are a couple of items that I have particular interest in. One is the Canada youth business foundation. Could you give us a brief description and where it is at this point?
Mr. Pagan: The other one, senator?
Senator Di Nino: The other one deals with First Nations. Our colleague, Senator Keon, is doing a study on poverty and that sort of stuff. You have two items here — one is First Nations, Inuit and Aboriginal health and the other is First Nations child and family services. Could you give me a brief comment on those?
Mr. Pagan: First, the Canada youth business foundation was a budget commitment in the amount of $10 million. This program provides loans to young entrepreneurs, applications for which have increased by 68 per cent over the past year due to an overall tightening of the credit market. That credit crunch has reduced financing for all small businesses and is disproportionately affecting young entrepreneurs. This program was enhanced through Budget 2009. It is a granting program.
Senator Di Nino: For young entrepreneurs.
Mr. Pagan: Yes.
Senator Di Nino: Where is it now?
Mr. Pagan: All of the funds have been allocated to the department, to Industry Canada.
Senator Di Nino: This is an ongoing program enhanced by this. My question is really — is this money being taken out?
Mr. Pagan: I cannot tell you the amount of disbursements but the demand — applications to the program — has increased by almost 70 per cent over the past year.
Senator Di Nino: Could you provide that to us? Let us know what the status is at this point. What about First Nations, Inuit and Aboriginal Health and First Nations Child and Family Services?
Mr. Pagan: For First Nations Child and Family Services, the amount of $4,050,000 was allocated by ministers toward the end of April for expenditures in advance of supply for Supplementary Estimates (B). This will support enhanced prevention-based programming in the First Nations Child and Family Services programs in Quebec and Prince Edward Island.
Senator Di Nino: Is this particular program specifically for the benefit of those two provinces?
Mr. Pagan: The amount from vote 35 was for those two particular programs. As I understand it, there is a larger program for which the request will be forthcoming in Supplementary Estimates (B).
Senator Di Nino: I am tempted to ask you why, but that is a policy provision so we leave that alone.
Mr. Pagan: In each jurisdiction, there are negotiations involved in terms of program readiness, terms and conditions, and so on.
Senator Di Nino: What about the $10 million on First Nations and Inuit health?
Mr. Pagan: This is —
Senator Di Nino: The reason I ask is because Senator Keon is telling us about some of the difficult situations they have discovered during their study on this issue, particularly in Northern Canada. I wonder if this will be helpful towards eliminating some of those problems.
Mr. Pagan: This is related to construction and infrastructure issues on reserves. Unfortunately, I do not have detailed listings of this specific reserve, but it is acquisition, maintenance, renovation or replacement of health facilities in First Nations communities.
Senator Di Nino: Can you provide us with details as well in that regard?
Mr. Pagan: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: With respect to the youth entrepreneurs within Industry Canada, has the department distributed these funds, for instance, to Atlantic Canada at ACOA, to FedNor or to the Quebec regional economic development agency, which are responsible for delivering Industry Canada programs in these regions? Can you tell us that?
Mr. Pagan: Unfortunately, I cannot. However, I can find out.
Senator Ringuette: Can you find that out? At the same time, could you provide us the allocated amounts for those agencies?
Mr. Pagan: Yes, I will find that.
Senator Neufeld: I have a number of quick questions, and you can get back to us on them if you want.
With respect to the rural broadband, can you give me an idea of where that $83.7 million is being spent or where it is anticipated to be spent? Perhaps some has already been spent.
Second, with respect to the ecoENERGY retrofit program, I would like to know about the $32.5 million that appears on page 8 of your submission. I know what that program is. I just want to know whether the government anticipates that it will be oversubscribed at the end of the year or whether that has dropped off a bit with the economy slowing down.
With respect to the innovative clean energy fund of $10 million, can you tell me what that one is? I know what the fund is, but what is going on with it?
Mr. Pagan: I think it might be best if I was to get back to you with details on each of those questions.
Senator Neufeld: That is fine.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Pagan and Mr. Wheat. You have undertaken to provide answers to quite a few questions. You have shown us the supply cycle, and you will appreciate that we have a supply bill that is forthcoming, which we cannot deal with until we have our report, and we cannot complete our report until we receive all undertakings that you have offered to make.
With that plea for quick answers to those various questions, we thank you very much for being here, and we look forward to continued contact with you.
(The committee continued in camera.)