Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 2 - Evidence - Meeting of March 23, 2010 - Morning meeting
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:30 a.m. to study the Estimates laid before Parliament for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: This morning, we are going to start our study of the Main Estimates 2010-2011, which was referred to our committee.
[English]
This constitutes the beginning of our examination of government spending plans for the upcoming fiscal year, which begins April 1. This study will set the stage for our work in the coming months.
This morning, we are pleased to welcome back before the committee, Alister Smith, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Mr. Smith, welcome back; it seems like you have not left.
He is accompanied by his colleague, Brian Pagan, Executive Director, Expenditure Operations and Estimates Division with the Treasury Board Secretariat. Mr. Pagan, welcome back as well.
As honourable senators are aware, we will be continuing our work this afternoon with the president of the Treasury Board. The intent is to go into detail this morning with Treasury Board Secretariat personnel and then look for the broader vision this afternoon from the president, Mr. Stockwell Day.
Without further comment, I call on Mr. Smith for introductory remarks.
Alister Smith, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to appear before you again today. This time, I will discuss the government's Main Estimates for 2010-11.
[Translation]
Today, once again, I am accompanied by my colleague, Brian Pagan. We have prepared a short presentation that provides an overview of the main estimates. If I could, I would like to go through this presentation with you and then we will be happy to answer your questions.
[English]
I believe you have another deck from us. Page 2 outlines the purpose of Main Estimates. The 2010-11 Main Estimates provide requests for spending authority that must be approved by Parliament for each department, agency and appropriation-dependent Crown corporation. Unlike supplementary estimates, which we discussed with the committee last week, the Main Estimates present yearly funding being sought at this point for each organization for 2010- 11, rather than an itemized breakdown of requests for additional funding as in supplementary estimates.
Part II of the Main Estimates does not provide the derivation of these aggregate amounts. These budgets put forward for your approval represent the results of many decisions taken over the past several years as they affect fiscal year 2010-11. However, Part I, the Government Expense Plan, provides an explanation of major items that account for the change in this year's Main Estimates compared to last year's. These explanations appear in Part I beginning on page 5 of the blue document you have. The Main Estimates show a breakdown of funding sought by program activity or major results area for each organization.
Page 3 of the deck again depicts the parliamentary financial cycle that we showed you last week when we provided an overview of the 2009-10 Supplementary Estimates (C). The timing of events in this slide is representative of a typical year. Elections and prorogation obviously affect the schedule.
This year, due to prorogation of Parliament, Main Estimates were tabled on March 3. Apart from this slight delay, we remain in a normal supply cycle where tabling of the interim supply bill is anticipated before March 26.
In slide 4, the close proximity of the budget to the Main Estimates does not allow sufficient time for departments and agencies to come forward for the approvals required to reflect new spending proposals included in Budget 2010 in the 2010-11 Main Estimates. To implement budget initiatives, the government plans to table Supplementary Estimates (A) in May. It is anticipated that the related full supply bill for Main Estimates will be passed in June.
Slide 5 shows the structure of Main Estimates. Part I, the Government Expense Plan, contains an overview of the amounts sought in these Main Estimates. The departments and agencies are grouped by sector: social programs, transportation programs, justice and legal programs, et cetera. Year-over-year changes in Main Estimates are provided beginning on page 5 along with explanations of items that account for these changes. Departments' and agencies' specific presentations within each ministry begin in Part II on page 2-1.
Slide 6 draws the distinction again between Main Estimates and supplementary estimates. Supplementary estimates only seek in-year adjustments to spending for specific items, while Main Estimates present total spending for all programs of a department or agency for the coming year.
The total spending in 2010-11 for a department may reflect decisions taken several years before. For example, an initiative flowing from a decision in Budget 2007 may have a multi-year spending profile. Approval by Treasury Board for this initiative in 2007-08 would provide for a funding increase in future years that would be reflected in these Main Estimates in 2010-11. If the amount provided in 2010-11 was significantly higher or lower than that provided in 2009- 10, this would appear in the year-over-year changes for the department.
Departmental Reports on Plans and Priorities, which will be tabled this week, present spending plans over a three- year horizon and provide a more complete picture of the projected spending in a department.
The table on page 7 compares 2010-11 Main Estimates to 2009-10 Main Estimates. You see that the total 2010-11 Main Estimates have increased by $22.9 billion or 9.7 per cent compared to the total 2009-10 Main Estimates. The voted portion of 2010-11 spending, which is the portion Parliament has been asked to approve through these Main Estimates, represented a $12.4-billion increase over last year's Main Estimates or 12.4 per cent.
Slide 8 provides a top-down overview of federal spending for 2010-11. Over 60 per cent of budgetary expenditures in these Main Estimates are for transfers to other levels of government, individuals or other organizations.
Slide 9 illustrates spending by sector, which groups departments and agencies according to a shared purpose. As you can see from the slide, spending is dominated by the social program sector, which includes transfer payments for Employment Insurance, elderly benefits, and the Canada Health Transfer and Canada Social Transfer.
On the last slide is a list of the major increases in the 2010-11 Main Estimates. As I mentioned before, the Main Estimates reflect a number of increases and decreases to departmental budgets. You do see the net result in the text for each department. The most significant increases are shown on this page. Statutory expenditures, which are based on changes in forecast spending, are authorized through existing legislation and include $5.4 billion in increased Employment Insurance expenditures, $3 billion for assistance to provinces to implement the Harmonized Sales Tax, $1.8 billion in increased public debt charges, and $1.7 billion in increased elderly benefit payments. There are also increases in the voted expenditures, which reflect decisions taken by the government as they affect 2010-11 in comparison to 2009-10. Some of the major changes to voted expenditures include $2 billion for the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund; $822 million for the Afghanistan mission; $650 million for the Pulp and Paper Green Transformation Program; $500 million for the Knowledge Infrastructure Program, plus a $500-million statutory increase in that program as well; $298 million for the Medium-to-Heavy-Lift Helicopter project, and $289 million for First Nations school construction, water and waste water projects and on-reserve housing. That concludes the overview.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Smith. On the last page of the deck before us, I see $1.8 billion for increased public debt charges. Is $1.8 billion a forecast figure of the interest that will be paid because interest rates are increasing or because the debt is increasing?
Mr. Smith: It is for both, senator, but mainly because the debt is increasing.
The Chair: However, you are anticipating an increase in interest rates as well.
Mr. Smith: We take the forecast from the Department of Finance. I do not have their interest rate projection in the deck, but with the increase in debt as a result of the deficit in this fiscal year ending March 31, 2010, there will be an increase in the debt payments.
The Chair: To ensure that everyone understands, we are comparing the Main Estimates year over year. Would the Main Estimates for this year include a sum of the supplementary estimates for the previous year? Is that part of the explanation for the increase? We are seeing a rather significant increase in the Main Estimates this year over the previous years.
Mr. Smith: No, senator. In general, the supplementary estimates reflect the in-year adjustments for the previous year. They do not necessarily carry forward to the current fiscal year. The decisions for 2010-11 reflect budget decisions over a number of previous years, as well as other puts and takes, if I may, in departmental budgets. They are the result of a number of complex changes and not simply an extrapolation of the supplementary estimates.
In addition, senator, on your question on the interest costs, the Department of Finance takes projections from the private sector into account in its projections for interest costs. It is not simply a Department of Finance forecast but a consensus private sector forecast.
The Chair: That is helpful.
Senator Ringuette: Mr. Smith, it is always a pleasure to have you before the committee. On page 7 of your presentation, you indicate that the Main Estimates have increased by $22.9 billion. If we take into consideration last year's deficit of at least $52 billion, that bring us to $74.9 billion, whereas the government indicates that the deficit will be $49.2 billion. I am trying to reconcile a discrepancy of $25 billion.
Brian Pagan, Executive Director, Expenditure Operations and Estimates Division, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: By way of introduction to that question, I will take a minute to provide some detail on the structure of this document. I understand that there are some new senators around the table, and this might help the reading of this document.
As Mr. Smith mentioned, Part I of the Main Estimates provides context. We have adopted a new format this year that attempts to make the information more accessible, with a greater use of charts, visuals and inserts to highlight certain provisions.
In the explanatory tables, I draw your attention to the General Summary of the Main Estimates at page 1-12, which presents by ministry the various requirements anticipated by the respective departments. There is a series of explanatory tables that might be of interest to the committee. Page 1-27 presents departmental requirements by standard objects of expenditure, which has been of some interest to committees in the past.
The Chair: Is everyone following this? It is Part I and the number at the bottom of the page is 1-27.
Mr. Pagan: It is 1-26 for Budgetary Main Estimates by Standard Object of Expenditure. It is 1-13 for the General Summary.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Pagan: I am taking pains to emphasize these tables because they can be quite illuminating. Page 1-36 is the schedule of the proposed appropriation act that will be introduced in the House of Commons. It sets out by department vote and amount the requirements to be approved. There has been some interest in statutory expenditures in the past, and you can find a table of those at page 1-73. Finally, Part II covers requirements by ministry and department in alphabetical order.
With that understanding of the basic structure, in response to Senator Ringuette's question, there is a table on page 4 at the beginning of the document that sets out the total requirements for the year and breaks that down into different categories of expenditure, including reference to the debt. You will see that this year, the public debt charges are $33.7 billion, which is up from $31.9 billion last year. It forms part of the overall fiscal planning framework established by the Department of Finance. The revenue and expenditure projections are built into that framework for a total net expenditure of $259 billion.
Senators, it is quite correct to point out that Main Estimates this year are increased by $20 billion plus, but that is part of the overall planning framework from the Department of Finance, which includes increases and changes to revenue projections, adjustments to forecasted interest rates, et cetera. The bottom line of $259 billion incorporates that deficit planning figure.
Senator Ringuette: Mr. Pagan, I give you credit for trying to answer my question, but unfortunately you did not succeed.
Perhaps the statement on page 7 of your slides is based on the Main Estimates from 2009-10. We had Supplementary Estimates (B) and Supplementary Estimates (C), so there are two additional sources of expenses that are not considered in what you have in the Main Estimates of 2009-10. Would that be part of it?
Mr. Smith: Senator, I think you are trying to get at the deficit.
Senator Ringuette: Yes, and I am going back to my original question. If you look at your statement, you say there is an increase in expense of $22.9 billion, almost $23 billion; and if you take into consideration the deficit of 2009-10, which is roughly around $52 billion —
Mr. Smith: It is $53.8 billion.
Senator Ringuette: — you have $75 billion if it is a direct increase, while the minister has said that the deficit for 2010-11 will be only $42 billion, so there is $25 billion there that I am trying to identify in your statement.
Mr. Smith: Let me reconcile those numbers for you, if I can. The deficit for any year is the result of the difference between revenue and spending. What you do not see in our tables here, the missing part, is the revenue increase. If you look at page 175 of the budget, you will see an increasing revenue line as well as increasing expenses, and the net result of the two gives you the budgetary balance.
You do not simply take the negative $53.8 billion from last year and add to it to get the deficit in the current year. That deficit increases the debt, but it does not increase the deficit in the upcoming fiscal year, 2010-11.
You have to look at the revenue numbers in 2010-11 and the spending numbers in 2010-11, and the difference between the two will give you the deficit. The deficit from one year to the next does pile into the debt and results in increased interest costs that also have to be taken into account over time, but one deficit does not necessarily translate into an increment in the next deficit.
Senator Ogilvie: In the voted increases you noted towards the end of your presentation, there is an increase of roughly $822 million in expenditures for our military operations, which is to deal with increased safety and effectiveness of our Canadian Forces. Could you identify some of the major examples of purchases and investments being made under this fund to enhance the safety and effectiveness of our forces?
Mr. Smith: Senator, I am not sure I can break that number down, but many other increases and decreases come into the National Defence budget and produce the overall increase of $1.9 billion. You mentioned $822 million for the Afghanistan mission for safety and operational effectiveness of Canadian troops, but, in addition, there are also expenses for medium-to-heavy-lift helicopters, tactical airlift capability, maritime helicopters, tank replacement, land combat vehicles, and funds for other purposes, such as the Communications Security Establishment. These are all positives and increases in the DND budget, but there are also some decreases to be factored in.
There is a decrease in the strategic airlift capability project — so probably some slowing of that project and funds to be re-profiled in the future — the Halifax Class Modernization and Frigate Life Extension project and the Medium Support Vehicle System project as well. There are some pluses and minuses that result in the change in the overall DND numbers.
Regarding your question on the breakdown of the safety, we would have to ask DND for the full breakdown of the $822 million for the Afghanistan mission.
Mr. Pagan: To reiterate that point, these Main Estimates tabled March 3 present aggregate requirements of all departments. These will be complemented by the tabling of individual departmental Reports on Plans and Priorities, which I believe is set for this week. Those departmental documents provide a great deal more detail on individual departmental requirements, complete with phasing of cash requirements and expected results and benefits to be attained.
Senator Callbeck: In the document you passed out, Main Estimates 2010-11, among the major increases is $650 million for the Pulp and Paper Green Transformation Program. We just dealt with Supplementary Estimates (C) last week in which we deferred that funding, so now it is in this year. What caused the deferral last year? Are we liable to be looking at the same thing happening next year?
Mr. Smith: Let me start, senator, and my colleague may also want to answer. This $650 million is for the Pulp and Paper Green Transformation Program, which will lay the groundwork for a greener, more sustainable future for Canada's pulp and paper sector by supporting innovation and environmentally friendly investments in areas such as energy efficiency and renewable energy production.
To come to your point about the deferrals and sudden increases in the next fiscal year, with any of these projects it is not surprising to have some slippage in the plan and to have funds re-profiled or deferred to a following year. We see this in many multi-year programs and projects that the government undertakes. In general, that is not surprising. Only when the program requires the funds will you see it in the departmental budgets. If they do not require the funds, then typically we will freeze the funds and seek to re-profile them into the next fiscal year in order to allow for the project.
Mr. Pagan: As Mr. Smith said, it is quite common for funds to be re-profiled one year over another because of the limitations of our annual supply cycle. In this particular instance, the Pulp and Paper Green Transformation Program was introduced only in June 2009, so we were well into the fiscal year when the department received approval for the program, and their spending profile may have been based on a full year of delivery of the program when in fact they had only eight or nine months of the fiscal year. That accounted for the re-profile into this year, where they have a full year to run the program and would not at this point anticipate any delays to that.
Senator Callbeck: You do not anticipate any delays, and the deferral was mainly because they had only six months to work on it?
Mr. Pagan: That is it, yes.
Senator Callbeck: I want to ask you about several issues that are important to my province. One is the Community Futures Program, which we see on page 16-8.
That program was brought in to help rural areas. Rural citizens make the decisions. It gives access to many projects, in the rural parts of my province anyway, that otherwise would not have funding. I am concerned about why that is cut back so much. In the Main Estimates last year it was $21 million, and now it is cut down to $8 million. Can you give me the reasons for that decrease?
Mr. Pagan: We would not have a great deal of detail on that. Again, the tabling of the Reports on Plans and Priorities would provide some of that detail. I believe that in this instance, as a result of the creation of the new entity, the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, some of this funding was transferred from Industry Canada to the new development agency. I believe that figure was something in the order of $10.4 million, but the details on that would be provided both by Industry Canada for its share — what you see here this year of $8.8 million — and any of the other development agencies that will be providing funding under this program.
Senator Callbeck: Could you provide this committee with the breakdown of the $21 million by province and then of this $8 million?
Mr. Pagan: For the $21 million for 2009-10, we would not have that yet; we would only be able to provide actuals once the year is complete.
Senator Callbeck: Okay.
Mr. Pagan: However, for the anticipated requirements for this year, we can ask the department and the development agencies to provide their anticipated distribution of funds.
Senator Callbeck: You say that much of that money went to the agency in Ontario, but is that where it all went?
Mr. Pagan: I do know that $10.4 million of the funds available from that program have been transferred to the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario for fiscal year 2010-11.
Senator Callbeck: Certainly I would like to see the government strengthen rather than decrease the funding for this program, because rural Canada needs the help, and it is a very popular program. It has done a lot of developments in my area.
Mr. Pagan: Generally, when transfers are involved, transfers do not necessarily imply a reduction in funding. It is simply a transfer of responsibility from one entity to another that might be closer to the target group or clients. We will get a total number for funding for that program by all entities this year.
Senator Callbeck: Okay.
The Chair: Senator Poulin has a supplementary on the last point for clarification.
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: My colleague Senator Callbeck raised a matter that is very important for some regions. You said that the new development agency for Southern Ontario will not be receiving new money, but rather existing funds will be transferred.
[English]
I am referring still to page 16-8. I look at the Northern Ontario Development Program, and I see a reduction in the budget instead of an increase even for cost of living. Does that mean that money is taken from Peter to go to Paul? My grandfather used to call it taking four quarters for a dollar. Is there any way we could get more information, as Senator Callbeck has asked?
Mr. Smith: To go back to the creation of the new development agency for Southern Ontario, that was an economic action plan item and there is new money for that. It is not a case of simply shuffling the money from one agency to another in the creation of that organization. As Mr. Pagan mentioned, we will check whether the creation of a new agency has affected who is responsible for particular community programs.
With respect to changes from one year to the next, the differences for the Northern Ontario Development Program can reflect a variety of factors, such as, as we mentioned before, case loads, other requirements, the fact that new organizations and agencies have been created that then take on some responsibilities. There can be many reasons for that, but we will check why there is a reduction of $1 million from one year to the next.
Mr. Pagan: Not to close off, but just to add a bit more context to this particular question — and we will get a final total — the original question dealt with an amount under Industry at page 16-8, and we see that the amount this year is $8.5 million. However, if the members were also to refer to requirements for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency — ACOA — the Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec and the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, you would also see contributions under this program by those agencies. In the case of the Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec, it is $32.3 million this year, $10.9 million for ACOA, and $9.5 million for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario. This would be on top of the amounts required by the Department of Industry.
Senator Poulin: What about FedNor, the Northern Ontario agency?
Mr. Pagan: I have not found FedNor yet, but we will get that number as well. Again, for the committee we will provide the total of contributions by all entities this fiscal year. Clearly, it is well above $21 million from last year.
Senator Callbeck: You will be able to provide the information so we will know whether the Community Futures Program is being strengthened or the funding is being decreased there. The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry looked at rural poverty not long ago, and they talked about this Community Futures Program in glowing terms.
The other question I wanted to ask about is on page 10, the RRAP program, the housing program for low-income people. It says $48.1 million for the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. That has been extended for five years, but there is no extra money put in there, is there? It is not itemized in the budget, so I cannot see it.
Mr. Smith: You are referring to what page?
Senator Callbeck: I am referring to the RRAP program on page 10. It is under Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC. Under CMHC, on their estimates it is not listed separately, so I am wondering whether there is any more money in that program.
I do not believe there is. In my province right now there are 250 low-income people who own their own home who need some type of assistance. They are eligible for this program, but with the amount of money we have been getting, we can do only roughly 40 to 50 a year. That means it will take five years for some of those people to get any assistance under this program. Meanwhile, new people are applying all the time.
Mr. Smith: I can tell you that under the CMHC estimates, while it may not be in the book here, the early description is correct; there is $48.1 million for RRAP, due to the extension of the program and revised timing of program advances. There is an additional $48 million for that program in the upcoming fiscal year.
In addition to that, of course, there is additional money in the Affordable Housing Initiative as well.
Senator Callbeck: I am talking about the RRAP program because it has been so popular. It has been such a tremendous program for years, and the demand is increasing all the time. It needs some more money. With regard to the extension of the program, has the amount of money been increased, or is it still the same as before?
Mr. Smith: Do you mean for individuals?
Senator Callbeck: I am referring to the provinces.
Mr. Smith: We know the total has increased by nearly $50 million for the upcoming fiscal year.
Senator Callbeck: Has it increased, or is that just an extension? Last fall they signed a new agreement for five years.
Mr. Smith: It is due to the extension of the program.
Senator Callbeck: Yes, but it is not an increase.
Mr. Smith: It is an increase in the cost of the program of $48 million. Where those increases lie across the country, I do not know, but there is an increase of $48 million in the cost of the program.
Senator Callbeck: That is the same as they have been getting; it is just an extension of the program.
Mr. Smith: Yes, they are the same terms and conditions, as far as I know.
Mr. Pagan: The program was intended to end or what we call ``sunset,'' so the money had not initially been included in these Main Estimates. There was a decision by ministers to extend the program, and therefore $48.1 million has been added to the Main Estimates for that program.
Senator Callbeck: Right, but it is just an extension of it; there is no new money.
Mr. Smith: There is no enrichment of the program. As far as I know, this is just a pure extension of the existing program.
The Chair: For clarification, do we find that $48.1-million figure at page 14-14, which is Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, where I see assisted housing programs? Is it in there?
Mr. Smith: No, assisted housing programs are something different, I believe.
The Chair: Where do we find it?
Mr. Pagan: Again, the Main Estimates present essentially aggregate requirements by department, broken down either by vote or by program activity, but the two sums are the same. The details on what they are doing within these votes and program activities are found in the departmental Reports on Plans and Priorities that will be tabled this week, and those documents are very detailed. They explain at some length individual programs and services that are being provided by the department; the details would be found in those documents.
The Chair: We are called upon to vote on the estimates, not on plans and priorities.
Mr. Pagan: That is a very good point. The Reports on Plans and Priorities are considered to be Part III of the estimates, so it is integral to what we have before us, Parts I and II. As a result of work with parliamentary committees going back 10 years now, there was a consensus in Parliament that presenting detailed information in the Main Estimates that covered both forward looking plans and backward looking performance as well as the in-year requirements was simply too confusing and unworkable for committees, so a decision was taken to separate the documents, and although they are tabled at separate times, they should be considered parts of an integral whole. One can understand a departmental requirement only if one is to look at the plans and priorities specified by that department. As I think you may know, most of those RPP documents run some 30 or 40 pages, where they provide expected benefits, results, performance matrices, historical information, details on distribution of funding, stakeholders that they are working with and the like.
What is before Parliament now presents aggregate requirements by vote, and Schedule 1 to the proposed appropriation act will be introduced through the supply bill, but it is important to be able to read that document in conjunction with the Reports on Plans and Priorities.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Pagan. As I understand what you have said, and subject to our reviewing the plans and priorities for details, at page 14-14, the total amount in these Main Estimates that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is looking for, somewhere in there is a $48.1-million continuation of this housing program that Senator Callbeck has been talking about.
Mr. Smith: If I could refer you to page 14-12 of the document, you will see that we break down all of these program activity areas and describe what is under these categories, and, in the CMHC program activity architecture, there is a program activity called ``Housing Repair and Improvement Programs,'' and RRAP, I believe, would be included there in that part of their spending. All of that is aggregated up, as you can see, on page 14-14, and the Housing Repair and Improvement Programs will show you some $674 million for housing repair and improvement. That is where that program detail would be collected.
The Chair: Good; it is in there. We will get the plans and priorities document to find out just what else is in there.
Mr. Smith: There are a number of programs in there, as indicated on page 14-12.
The Chair: Thank you, that was helpful.
Senator Marshall: I did find the document very easy to read. There is a lot of information there, but if that is the first time you prepared the document in that format, I did find it very informative.
I am looking at the information contained both in the budget document that was tabled in the house, I believe, and also the 2010-11 Estimates. I refer you to Table 1 on page 2 and Figure 2 on page 3.
You commented earlier that the deficit is a blend of expenditures less your revenues. Could you provide some commentary with regard to how much you would expect the expenditures to move? Currently, we are talking about the Main Estimates, and, as per Figure 2, it is $259 billion, but there will be supplementary estimates coming later.
Does that mean the total expenditures will increase and therefore will affect your bottom line? I want to ensure I understand the document properly.
Mr. Smith: I will start on that. We are bound by the fiscal framework in the budget. There cannot be approvals of new spending without a source of funds being provided. If the budget has provided for a new initiative, it has effectively earmarked a source of funds for that initiative. Whatever we do this year in terms of supplementary estimates has to be consistent with the fiscal framework in the budget. While spending may increase, that is essentially planned for in the budget. For instance, if you look at the government's own projections of expenses in the most recent budget for 2010-11, you will see that, in accrual terms, the government is expecting total program expenses of $249 billion and public debt charges of $31 billion, for a total of $280 billion. There is leeway within the fiscal framework to accommodate what you see in the Main Estimates.
Senator Marshall: Does it include Supplementary Estimates?
Mr. Smith: Yes, it does.
Senator Marshall: Revenue projections are the other side of the coin. On page 176, they took a nose dive in 2009-10 from the previous year, and we now have a higher projection for 2010-11. If those revenues do not materialize, I anticipate the expenditure side will be adjusted. You indicate that these are estimates, and actuals do not always come in on estimates. How do you rework the numbers to control the deficit?
Mr. Smith: Projected revenue numbers in the budget are based on a consensus of private sector economic forecasts. The strength of the economy will certainly have an important impact on revenues. It is possible that everyone could be wrong. The economy might become weaker and, therefore, there would be lower revenues, which would increase the deficit. If that were to occur, it could mean we would have smaller supplementary estimates with tighter spending to try to adjust.
However, I think there is a fair amount of confidence that the economy is improving. Revenue projections tend to be quite conservative. I think there is a fair amount of leeway that should make it unnecessary for us to retrench on planned expenditures.
Senator Marshall: Given the era we are in, I would think direction would have been given to the line departments or Crown agencies. Are you able to share with us any information to give us an idea of the environment?
Mr. Smith: We have given direction to departments following the budget that we will freeze operating expenditures in future years. In 2011-12 and 2012-13, about $54 billion of spending will be constrained, which is part of the $96 billion total program spending. Departments are expecting to restrain their operating spending. That will not affect capital or grants and contributions. It will affect overall operating spending across government.
Senator Marshall: It is not supposed to affect transfers to departments or individuals, either.
Mr. Smith: Correct.
Senator Marshall: Is information available now regarding transfers provided to each individual department or territory, or is it usually determined throughout the year and we find out at the end of the year?
Mr. Smith: If you look under any department in this document, you find grant and contribution votes. There is also a breakdown of grants and contributions. Those transfers to individuals and organizations should occur as planned in this document.
That is not affected by the operating budget freeze. Overall statutory transfers to provinces — for example, health and social transfers, and equalization — are not affected by the freeze. Those transfers are statutory; they operate according to the enabling legislation. There will be no reduction in those.
Mr. Pagan: An example of that point is on page 5, Table 5. It lists many of the major statutory transfers to other levels of government or persons. This gives you at a glance the value of transfer payments to individuals and governments. An example of the breakdown of a departmental requirement by transfer payment requirements would be Indian and Northern Affairs on pages 15-8 and 15-9. It shows a number of grants and contributions to different clients and stakeholders of that department.
Senator Marshall: It was actually Table 5 that triggered my question. I did not know whether I was reading it correctly.
If you look at the change in fiscal equalization, it went from $16.1 billion to $14.4 billion for 2010-11. Do we know which provinces will lose money?
Mr. Smith: We could check with the Department of Finance on that. As you know, that is formula-driven. It depends on relativities across provinces. As a result, you may have lower equalization as a result of those changes across provinces.
Senator Marshall: Do you know which province or provinces are affected at this time?
Mr. Smith: I do not know. We will have to come back to you with that.
The decrease is a result of changes implemented as part of the Budget Implementation Act in 2009. That is what we have been told.
The Chair: On page 5, we see that fiscal equalization is anticipated to be 10.7 per cent less from the federal government to recipient provinces this year over last year, which is a significant amount. Hopefully, those provinces know so they are able to do their planning.
Regarding another point of clarification on Senator Marshall's question, you indicated that we use the fiscal framework that appears in the budget as guidance. What impact does the economic update that often comes in the fall have in relation to that fiscal framework?
Mr. Smith: For example, we base statutory forecasts on the most recent fiscal update. What you see in these Main Estimates largely reflects the economic update of last fall as opposed to Budget 2010. We have not had the opportunity to incorporate all of the new initiatives of Budget 2010 into this document.
There is always a lag between what the Finance Department has tabled and what is in Main Estimates each year. Through supplementary estimates, we essentially try to catch up to the most recent budget. You will see the budget initiatives from Budget 2010 in Supplementary Estimates (A) and probably Supplementary Estimates (B).
Overall, the fiscal framework evolves. As new information is available on the state of the economy and in forecasts, it is reflected particularly on the statutory side. You see that in the transfer payments.
The Chair: Please help me with Table 1 on page 2 with respect to adjustments. There is a 58 per cent increase in adjustments this year. Can you explain that in light of the discussion we have just had with respect to the fiscal framework?
Mr. Smith: There are a number of adjustments in moving from the budget numbers to the cash appropriations numbers. First, the budget is on the accrual accounting basis, and appropriations are on a cash basis. Second, the budget shows numbers in gross terms as opposed to net terms and includes revenues — what we would call ``vote netted revenue'' in some of the figures. When we ask Parliament for funds, we are always asking for funds on a net basis. We take into account any revenues that organizations have and net those out from our requirements. Those are two major differences.
As you move to a larger scale, this adjustment from $12 billion to $19 billion is a little misleading. It looks like a large adjustment at 58 per cent, but it is not a large adjustment in relation to the scale we are dealing with in moving from $248 billion to $278 billion in terms of net expenses.
Mr. Pagan: The most useful number for our purposes is the bottom line figure of $278.4 billion as seen at page 2 of Part I, because that is the framework. As Mr. Smith said, that is the total expenditures forecast by the Department of Finance for this fiscal year, inclusive of everything in the Main Estimates or anticipated through future supplementary estimates as well as their provisions for accrual accounting and gross versus net and the like. We had a discussion last week about a source of funds. The figure of $278.4 billion is the aggregate of all of the source of funds authorities for any initiatives that will be brought forward for parliamentary approval, inclusive of adjustments and changes to forecasts of statutory items that will be updated through future economic updates.
The Chair: When Senator Marshall presented her question, you referred us to the fiscal framework in Budget 2010 at page 175 of $280.5 billion. Has $278.4 billion simply been rounded up?
Mr. Smith: The $280.5 billion reflects Budget 2010 measures. There are some positives and negatives incorporated in it.
Mr. Pagan: Our document was tabled in advance of Budget 2010, and at the time of its preparation, the framework was $278.4 billion. As a result, it has been updated to $280.5 billion. We will bring to this committee in future supplementary estimates that number provided by the Department of Finance as the aggregate of fiscal expenditures for this year.
The Chair: When the economic and fiscal update comes from the Minister of Finance in the fall, Supplementary Estimates (C) would be based on that fiscal framework.
Mr. Pagan: That is correct.
The Chair: This number simply keeps rolling.
Mr. Pagan: It is adjusted regularly to take into account forecasts, statutory programs, interest and revenue, et cetera.
Senator Gerstein: I would like to go back to your comment about the lag. Are we talking weeks or months that you are able to update the estimates?
Mr. Pagan: We update the estimates on a fairly regular basis according to the parliamentary supply calendar for supply periods ending June 23, December 10 and March 26. The Department of Finance updates its forecasts almost on a daily basis as it monitors activities and changes. The department will issue formal updates periodically either in a budget or in an economic and fiscal update. It tracks revenue projections, interest rates and formula-driven programs around statutory requirements. I would venture to say that the department does this daily so that it is able to ensure that it is on track with the provided framework. Treasury Board comes forward to Parliament at the time of estimates, which are prescribed by the parliamentary supply calendar.
Mr. Smith: In addition, Senator Gerstein, I worked at the Department of Finance for many years, where the forecasts are formally updated with the economic fiscal update in the fall and the budget. Usually, as Mr. Pagan said, the monitoring is continuous. Elements of the forecast are used when possible in supplementary estimates. When we receive new statutory estimates from the Department of Finance, such as changes to Employment Insurance, then we try to incorporate them, for transparency purposes for Parliament, as frequently as possible in our supplementary estimates documents.
Of course, we do the Main Estimates once per year only, in which we reflect the most recent budget document or economic fiscal update document. We cannot reflect the document that is tabled almost concurrently with the Main Estimates.
Senator Runciman: I have a follow-up to Senator Marshall's question on equalization, which certainly intrigues me and many Canadians. For edification purposes, would it be possible for the committee to have a written copy of the breakdown of provincial contributions to equalization? Newfoundland and British Columbia are no longer have-not provinces; in terms of the provincial contributions, that might help to explain the slight decrease in the federal figure. It would be interesting for us to have a brief overview of the formula, where the amounts are to be allocated, and the specific amounts to various jurisdictions and regions across the country.
Mr. Smith: We could provide the committee with a short note. We rely on the Department of Finance for that information, so any in-depth analysis should come from that department.
Senator Runciman: I am not looking for an in-depth analysis.
Mr. Smith: We do not have expertise to provide any detail on that. Finance has the expertise to provide you with quite a deep analysis.
Senator Runciman: That might be required at some time, but for now an overview will suffice.
Senator Ringuette: To clarify, Senator Runciman was indicating that the provinces contribute to the equalization program. The equalization payments are taken from the federal General Revenue Fund and transferred to the provinces. It is not a case of the provinces contributing amounts to the program.
Senator Runciman: I will wait for the overview.
Senator Ringuette: I make that clarification — unless something has changed in the last few months that I do not know about.
The Chair: This committee has done an extensive study on equalization. Senator Murray has spent considerable time studying the various programs.
Senator Runciman: My question is related to $3 billion in assistance to Ontario and B.C for their respective implementation of the HST. How does that break down? Do you have those figures?
Mr. Smith: Senator, I do not have a breakdown of that. You are correct to indicate that further transitional payments are to be made under this authority, including a payment to Ontario in 2011-12 and payments to British Columbia, which are subject to the terms of the Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement between Canada and British Columbia. I do not have a breakdown of the figures for the two provinces.
Senator Runciman: Does the total amount include the transfer of staff? Although I am not familiar with the situation in British Columbia, about 1,500 staff will be transferred.
Mr. Smith: I believe it includes that process.
Senator Runciman: With respect to transfers for elderly benefits, Employment Insurance and universal child care, the increase is over 13 per cent. What is the main driver of such a dramatic increase?
Mr. Smith: As you mentioned, senator, there are some major increases in these expenditures. The Old Age Security expenditure increase of $1.5 billion is due in part to an increase in the estimated number of beneficiaries as well as an increase in the average rate of OAS from $492.13 per month to $504.24 per month, which results in an increase of $685 million.
The increase in beneficiaries will result in an increase in expenditures of $828 million; and the increase in the average monthly rate will result in another increase of $685 million. Those largely account for the $1.5 billion in increased OAS expenditures.
In addition, there are increased expenditures for a number of other transfer programs. The GIS, Guaranteed Income Supplement, is expected to increase by $166 million. That is due to offsetting effects. One is a decrease in the number of beneficiaries and, on the other side, an increase in the forecast average monthly rate from $398.41 to $408.37. There is an increase on the one side of the average monthly rate, which overbalances the slight decrease in the number of beneficiaries.
In addition to that, there is a significant increase in Employment Insurance this year, as you noted as well. That is in the order of $5.4 billion, which is due to the economic situation — the increase in the number of claimants as a result of the weakness in the economic situation, as well as an increase in the maximum number of benefit weeks, which contributes to the cost.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Runciman. Now it is Senator Murray, formerly of Pakenham and now of Cape Breton.
Senator Murray: If you insist on bifurcating me in this way, Mr. Chair, I will start referring you to as Senator Day from Saint John and Beijing. Senator Day is very well travelled. I say it for the benefit of new senators.
With regard to equalization, it is a program that is entirely within the federal government's gift. There are objections from some provinces about the equalization component of some of the social programs, notably the Canada Health Transfer and the Canada Social Transfer, which some provinces feel is costing them money. However, equalization itself comes entirely from the federal treasury.
I think I am correct in saying that the information as to the entitlements this year is available, is it not? I did not notice it in the budget documents; it is usually there. I think I am also correct in saying there are six provinces in and four out. Your province, Senator Marshall, is now out, along with the three westernmost provinces, and I think the others are in.
Mr. Smith: Senator, I am sure you are right. You are expert on all these measures.
Senator Murray: No, I am speaking from memory, and memory is an unreliable thing.
Mr. Smith: I believe the information is available.
Senator Murray: What is interesting about all this is, first, I think it shows that to that extent, equalization is working. You are supposed to receive equalization when your revenue capacity is below a certain standard, and you stop receiving it when your revenue capacity increases. We had as many as eight provinces in at one point; now there are six and we may go to five at any time.
What is interesting about it is that as a result of some tweaking of the formula that the government did quite recently, there are fewer provinces in and a smaller pie to distribute. I think the reason for that is the tweak brought in last year by the government. Until fairly recently, the entitlements of different provinces were based to some extent on the revenue capacity of the lowest of the non-recipient provinces. Up until recently, that was Ontario, and we all thought it would then be British Columbia; but instead of that, the tweak changed the formula, and the basis now is the average revenue capacity of the recipient provinces. That is how our friend Minister Flaherty saved himself $1.7 billion or a 10.7 per cent decrease in equalization in the coming year over the present year.
Do you happen to know — and if you do know, would you tell us — about the budget implementation bill or bills? Will there be just one or more than one?
Mr. Smith: For the current Budget 2010? I am only aware that there is one budget implementation bill at the moment.
Senator Murray: Budget implementation bill?
Mr. Smith: Budget implementation act — the BIA that accompanies the budget; is that what you are referring to?
Senator Murray: Yes, it will be coming in a few weeks.
Mr. Smith: That is all I am aware of, that there is one.
Senator Murray: You do not know when it is coming, do you?
Mr. Smith: No, I believe it is coming soon; I just do not know exactly when.
Senator Murray: One of the reasons the Parliamentary Budget Officer cited for not being able confidently to support the deficit projections going forward was that he says he cannot get his hands on the program expenditure assumptions in future years. I do not have the document in front of me, but I think I am correct in saying he asked for it and was told it was a cabinet confidence.
You have told us today that instructions have gone out to departments telling them that their operating budgets will be frozen out to 2013-14. This is public knowledge, is it not?
Mr. Smith: To 2011-12, 2012-13. That is in the budget.
Senator Murray: That is apparently not enough for the Parliamentary Budget Officer to make his —
Mr. Smith: I think you have to distinguish between when we finalize operating budgets this fall and freeze those budgets in future years and what the Parliamentary Budget Officer may be looking for.
Senator Murray: What do you think he is looking for? The fiscal framework in the out years, is that it?
Mr. Smith: Yes, I think the fiscal framework in the out years. First, the Department of Finance does provide projections of overall program spending in the out years, so those are not secret; those are in these documents. They are projections based upon assumptions about economic events.
Senator Murray: We know about those. That is the private sector consensus forecast; that is what he is using as a basis.
Mr. Smith: Right, but there are decisions for future spending — on future programs such as whether or not sunsetters continue — which are cabinet confidences and cabinet decisions to be taken in the future. Therefore, if that is what is sought, those are difficult to project at the level of individual programs. One can simply project overall program spending at the aggregate level.
Senator Murray: Projecting five years out is a hazardous thing to do, as previous ministers and governments have found. We will have the Parliamentary Budget Officer as a witness, perhaps, one of these days. I would like to know what it is he thinks he is missing.
The Minister of Finance knows enough about the fiscal framework going forward. One assumes decisions that have been taken are incorporated into his numbers in terms of revenues and expenditures and so on. I am trying to get at precisely what the Parliamentary Budget Officer thinks he is missing.
Mr. Smith: I will say I think you were suggesting the projections are here for program spending, for revenue — the assumptions that guide these, in general terms.
Senator Murray: It is not only economic information he is looking for; it is the government's fiscal information.
Mr. Smith: If the information that he is looking for is information that depends upon a cabinet decision, then it is a cabinet confidence.
Senator Murray: Surely the Minister of Finance is not making projections in the absence of cabinet decisions on important programs.
Mr. Smith: At the level of individual programs, it is very hard. It is one thing to project program spending and statutory spending based on economic assumptions; it is another thing when you get down to the level of a program like some of the programs we have been talking about today, such as housing programs where future decisions are required. If that is the kind of information he is looking for, that is where I think it is difficult to provide that in advance of cabinet having decided.
Senator Murray: Finally, would you refresh my memory on the question of public service compensation? We passed legislation, did we not, a year ago, limiting it to 1.5 per cent increases over the period 2009-10?
Mr. Smith: To March 2011.
Senator Murray: To March 2011.
Mr. Smith: The fiscal year 2010-11.
Senator Murray: Okay. We imposed 1.5 per cent on those who might have negotiated a higher settlement. Is Ms. Laurendeau from your department?
Mr. Smith: Yes, Hélène Laurendeau.
Senator Murray: A year ago, we talked about the 1.5 per cent and how you will apply it to those who had already negotiated something more, and she was happy to report that in quite a few cases the settlements had already come in within the parameters in the act.
I take it no further legislation will be required in respect of the public service. The decision announced in the budget relates to the operating budgets to the departments, right? In other words, you will have to find the 1.5 per cent in the operating budget?
Mr. Smith: That is correct.
Senator Murray: So no further legislation is required.
Mr. Smith: No further legislation is required for the operating budget; that is correct.
Senator Murray: No, but in terms of the compensation.
Mr. Smith: I think you are projecting for the period beyond 2011-12.
Senator Murray: No, I am not. No.
Mr. Smith: The Expenditure Restraint Act applies to the period through to the end of 2010-11.
Senator Murray: I went back and glanced at the economic and fiscal statement of the fall of 2008, and there was some talk then of putting in the legislation a provision that you would preclude the right to strike on wages during that period. Did we do that?
Mr. Smith: Perhaps we should leave the provisions of the ERA for this afternoon's discussion. I am not fully equipped to discuss those provisions here, but I think the ERA applies in such a way that you are not allowed to strike on wages through the period until the expiry of the ERA.
Senator Murray: Do you know whether the unions went to court on this and with what result?
Mr. Smith: I believe some of the unions have gone to court on this, yes.
Senator Murray: Is it still in court?
Mr. Smith: There are several cases, I think.
Senator Murray: Still in court?
Mr. Smith: Yes.
The Chair: Mr. Smith may be right that we will have an opportunity with the minister this afternoon, and that seems to be an area we should pursue further.
I have one question prompted by Senator Murray's question about when the budget implementation bill will be coming down. Do you know when Supplementary Estimates (A) will be forthcoming?
Mr. Smith: Yes, we plan to table, I think, towards May 25.
Mr. Pagan: Yes.
The Chair: Since these Main Estimates were developed before the budget, should we anticipate a lot of budget-type announcements and activity in the Supplementary Estimates (A)?
Mr. Pagan: Yes. We have taken steps to try to give departments as much time as possible to bring forward their requirements to Treasury Board ministers for review and consideration, and we will aggregate any approvals in early May and be ready to table Supplementary Estimates (A) towards the latter part of May.
The Chair: That means this committee and the equivalent in the House of Commons will be dealing with Supplementary Estimates (A), the budget implementation bill and the main supply bill all in late May and June.
Mr. Smith: That is correct.
Mr. Pagan: That is right.
The Chair: We will go to a second round now dealing with these Main Estimates.
Senator Ringuette: I want to go back to the transfer payments as seen on page 5. I distinctly recall the Minister of Finance in the period of pre-budget presentation or tabling and during the budget speech saying that there would be no reduction in equalization transfers to the provinces. However, on page 5, the facts speak for themselves. There is $1.7 billion in reduction in fiscal equalization. That is the program destined for the poorer provinces of our federation.
There is quite a significant reduction in that program, and you will say it is compensated for by the health and social transfers. The Minister of Finance has no flexibility with the Canada Health Transfer. It is a signed 10-year contract from 2004 at an increase of 6 per cent per year, so he has no choice there.
In relation to the Canada Social Transfer, there is $0.3 billion there, but Minister Flaherty changed the distribution method of the social transfer program to a strictly per capita transfer. The formula was changed three years ago by the current government so as not to take into context the financial capability of one province. The facts are there: There is a reduction.
I would like to bring forward the issue of the Employment Insurance program and go to page 4-2 of the document. This is under the Canada Revenue Agency. It says program expenditures and recoverable expenditures on behalf of the Canada Pension Plan and the Employment Insurance Act. Last year there was over $3 billion, and there is nothing for this year's Main Estimates.
Mr. Smith: Senator, the $3 billion you are referring to here for vote 1 for Canada Revenue Agency is all in operating expenditures, so that is for all aspects of CRA's work in collecting taxes and administering the tax system. The agency is also allowed, under its operating vote, to recover the costs that it bears in administering EI and CPP. That $3 billion number does not refer to EI payouts in any way.
Mr. Pagan: If I may, senator, there is also a slight twist here with respect to CRA in that a new vote has been introduced for the department. As you know, departmental requirements are organized and approved by Parliament according to individual votes, and there are different categories of votes depending on the nature of the expenditure.
Until last year, CRA's requirements were presented in a single program vote, and you will see that on page 4-2 towards the bottom of the page, last year $3.1 billion. A program vote was sufficient at that time because CRA's requirements did not necessitate a separate grants and contributions vote or a separate capital vote, so all of the requirements were presented in a program vote.
Effective this fiscal year, CRA has now identified requirements that meet the criteria of a capital vote, and therefore we introduced two votes for CRA — vote 1, which is now called operating rather than program, and vote 5, which is CRA's capital expenditures. The operating portion of CRA's requirements is $2.9 billion this year and the capital portion is $136 million, for your bottom line, after some statutory requirements, of $4.4 billion.
That explains why there is no reference to last year in the operating vote, because they did not have an operating vote last year.
Senator Ringuette: I understand that you are saying it has gone from a program to a regular operating expense.
Is that $2.9 million or $2.9 billion?
Mr. Pagan: That is $2.9 billion.
Senator Ringuette: You are telling me it costs the taxpayers of Canada $2.9 billion to collect, for instance, $4.5 billion in EI premiums?
Mr. Pagan: No.
Mr. Smith: That is for all taxes.
Mr. Pagan: That is for all revenue.
Mr. Smith: It is for all revenue by the Government of Canada. In addition to that, CRA does administer, along with HRSDC, the EI and CPP accounts. It is just that the vote wording here provides for authority for CRA to recover expenditures it incurs, the costs it incurs from the EI account. That is what the vote wording permits, but the $3-billion figure here, or the $2.992 billion, is the overall operating cost for a very large organization.
Senator Ringuette: CRA's overall operating cost is $2.9 billion.
Mr. Smith: That is correct.
Senator Ringuette: Last year, in the Main Estimates, it was identified as $3.1 billion for CPP and EI.
Mr. Smith: No, the $3.1 billion from last year was for the same purposes. It was for revenue as well as for EI and CPP, which would be small amounts of that. It is just that we had one large vote, called the program expenditure vote, which has now been broken down into the operating vote and the capital vote.
The numbers have not changed very much from $3.1 billion to whatever this turns out to be here. It is pretty close to $3.1 billion anyway when you add the $2.992-billion figure and the $136-million figure for capital. It is very close to what it was last year.
Senator Ringuette: Just to recollect then, in regard to EI, how much do we collect or anticipate collecting in premiums for fiscal year 2010-11?
Mr. Smith: We have that figure somewhere. We are paying out $22 billion in overall EI benefits. I will find the figure for what we are collecting. We will try to find that figure for you.
Senator Ringuette: Actually, I have it right here: $17.6 billion. There is a $4.5-billion shortfall there.
Mr. Smith: Right.
Senator Ringuette: I have another quick question, if you do not mind. There is an item also in regard to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, AECL, for $253 million. What would that be for?
Mr. Smith: There is $102 million in the Main Estimates for AECL for 2010-11. This reflects increases due to the National Research Universal, NRU, reactor in Chalk River, as well as for the CANDU reactor refurbishments. The overall Main Estimates for this Crown corporation for 2010-11 are I think $102.5 million, and that is a slight decrease from the previous year, which was $108.7 million. As you know, there have been supplementary estimate increases for AECL during 2009-10. Of course, those are not reflected here, but there will likely be further costs associated with those refurbishment projects through the year.
Senator Ringuette: When you say refurbishment projects, are you talking about Point Lepreau?
Mr. Smith: Yes. There are four CANDU reactor refurbishment contracts at the moment. One is with Point Lepreau and the others are Bruce Power in Ontario, Wolsong in Korea and Gentilly in Quebec.
Senator Ringuette: How much money has been identified for each one separately this year?
Mr. Pagan: That question was posed to us last week when we appeared on Supplementary Estimates (C). We have referred the question to AECL for a direct response to the committee because we did not have that detail. We have asked the department to respond directly to the committee.
Senator Ringuette: Okay.
Under these estimates, in regard to the money towards refurbishment, are they expenses? Are they loans? What are they exactly?
Mr. Smith: These are expenses. These are budgetary. This $102 million for AECL is budgetary, not a loan.
Senator Ringuette: For instance, in the case of New Brunswick, the money going to the refurbishment of Point Lepreau that has been identified in this budget and previous budgets is not a loan; it is an outright grant?
Mr. Pagan: No. In fact, they have entered into contracts with the organizations running the facilities for repair and refurbishment, so these are contractual expenses, program expenses of the department to complete that work.
Senator Ringuette: I understand it is to complete the work. My question is whether these expenses for the federal government toward AECL, in the contract between AECL and whatever province or entity is doing the refurbishing, are loans or grants. Are they repayable expenses from that entity to AECL, and will AECL repay the federal government if that is the case?
Mr. Smith: These are certainly expenses that AECL is incurring on these contracts. They are not loans to AECL. AECL does not have to pay back the federal government per se. These contracts are fixed-price contracts with other organizations. The Crown has the liability for the increased costs above what is in the contract. Our payments are in respect of those requirements to AECL.
Senator Ringuette: You are saying that the money the federal budget is providing to AECL is the extra costs over contract expenses incurred by AECL to complete those jobs?
Mr. Smith: There is certainly more to it than that. That is the main driver of increased costs.
Senator Ringuette: I am trying to get a clear picture.
Mr. Smith: As we have seen in supplementary estimates before, that is the main driver of increased costs, but the $102.5 million is their total appropriation. It includes many other costs associated with AECL. I do not want to say simply that it is due to the excess costs for fixed-price contracts on the refurbishments. It is a range of costs that AECL requires.
Mr. Pagan: There is detail on the overall requirements on the page for AECL, page 19-9. AECL's program activity is broken down according to facilities and nuclear operations, which I believe is the program activity under which it is doing these repair and overhaul requirements, and then research and development.
To start the fiscal year, AECL has identified requirements of $102.4 billion, according to these program activity areas, and the funds provided by Parliament for the department are program expenses of the department for their purposes. The issues you are speaking of, Point Lepreau and others, are not loans or advances; they are program expenses of the department.
There was a question last week about allocation to different facilities under repair. We have requested that the department provide detail to this committee.
The Chair: I recall Senator Dickson asking those questions last week in relation to Supplementary Estimates (C). Will you pursue that for us?
Mr. Pagan: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: You have said that the money provided to AECL for refurbishment will not be reimbursed to the taxpayers of Canada. I would like to see some estimates of the completion costs.
The Chair: We have a request, Senator Ringuette, for AECL to appear before us. We can ask them about this directly.
We have been trying for some time to have AECL appear before the committee. Therefore, any information you can obtain for us in the meantime would be helpful.
Senator Callbeck: You mentioned earlier that the number of seniors receiving Old Age Security is increasing, but that the number receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement, GIS, is decreasing. Why is that?
Mr. Smith: I can only hazard a guess. We are pursuing that question as well.
It is the low-income elderly population that receives the GIS. It should be good news that the number of low-income elderly individuals is declining even though the overall number of beneficiaries under OAS is increasing. However, I do not know that for a fact and will double-check the information.
Senator Callbeck: You will get back to the committee with information on that?
Mr. Smith: Yes, we will pursue that.
Senator Callbeck: Page 122 of Budget 2010 has a line that says: ``Less: Funds existing in the fiscal framework.'' Can you tell me what that means?
Mr. Smith: The senator is referring to a table on page 122 of Budget 2010 called Building on a Strong Economic Foundation, which lists a number of costs associated with different measures in the budget.
In the fiscal framework, there is typically money earmarked or planned for various purposes. If that money is already in the fiscal framework plan for those purposes, the net fiscal cost of these measures is lower than if there had been no provision for them in the fiscal framework.
Senator Callbeck: Please give me an example of that.
Mr. Smith: If there had already been earmarked funding planned in any sector — for example, mining or forestry — and a new program comes into being that is in excess of what was planned, it would have a fiscal cost. The fiscal cost would not be the whole amount; it would be offset by whatever has been earmarked in the fiscal framework.
Senator Callbeck: Has that anything to do with the savings from the strategic review?
Mr. Smith: No, not directly.
Senator Callbeck: Not directly?
Mr. Smith: The strategic reviews provide savings for the fiscal framework that can be used to offset the costs of other items. In that sense, the answer is yes.
In this example, there may be many other earmarked items in the fiscal framework for planned costs of various programs. That is what is aggregated in this table.
Mr. Pagan: From the table on page 122, we can see that this year a certain amount is forecast for a specific initiative. For example, combating money laundering and terrorist financing has $8 million anticipated as a charge for that requirement in the framework this year. If an amount of money had been provided in a previous budget or economic update, that is considered an offset. You are seeing here any increase to amounts that had already been provided.
Senator Callbeck: On page 1-30 of the Main Estimates, professional and special services for National Defence is very large, $2.7 billion. That is approximately 28 per cent of all government spending on professional and special services. I would like you to clarify what we are talking about in this regard and why that figure is so large.
Mr. Smith: Professional and special services includes costs of temporary employment, contracting and other kinds of services. The table on standard objects of expenditure on page 1-34 indicates $9.8 billion is provided for across all of government.
DND accounts for $21 billion in expenditures, which is by far the largest department. Therefore, one would automatically expect it to have the largest requirements for professional and special services simply by virtue of its size.
Mr. Pagan: For example, the department would pay salaries and training costs, et cetera, out of its operating budget. It purchases new equipment out of its capital budget. Depending on the nature of the requirement, if it is sufficiently specialized or technical, the department might contract out that requirement.
I am aware of a recent instance where, in the interests of security in Afghanistan, there was a contract for dog teams that can sniff out explosives, improvised explosive devices and the like. I do not know details of the contract other than that the requirement has been identified. That would be provisioned under the department's professional services because it does not have the expertise. It has to contract for it. DND would have similar requirements related to information technology, scenario planning and a whole range of initiatives relevant to the department's requirements.
Senator Callbeck: Of the $2.7 billion spent on professional and special services, what percentage roughly would be regarding the mission in Afghanistan?
Mr. Smith: We do not know that.
Overall, DND's spending is higher. It has approximately one fifth of direct program spending. You might expect its contract professional and special services to be in the $2-billion range automatically. It is more than that, which probably reflects that the department has more procurement and acquisition of multi-year capital projects. It has much higher demand for those types of services than many other departments. A lot of factors other than Afghanistan would drive that.
Senator Callbeck: Is that figure increased a lot from last year?
Mr. Smith: I do not know. We would have to check that.
Mr. Pagan: This is a breakdown of overall requirements for the department. Most of its professional special services are provided for in its operating vote funds, but that is not quite true because the department would have requirements in the area of capital as well. One can determine increases year over year by looking at the relevant votes, operating and capital primarily, to determine whether they are up.
Senator Callbeck: This seems to be a huge amount.
Mr. Smith: The department's budget is $21 billion. As you can see from page 1-31, the total net expenditures for DND is $21 billion. For personnel, it is $9 billion. All of these costs are large because it is one fifth of government spending. At page 18-7 of the Main Estimates, you can see the breakdowns of the various categories of spending, the operating expenses and how the capital is organized. It is a large organization, so it is not surprising that there would be large demands for professional and special services.
Senator Marshall: Could you speak to the $5.4-billion increase in the Employment Insurance expenditures as shown on page 10 of your presentation deck. It also appears on page 5 of the Main Estimates. I thought the Employment Insurance program had its own fund. Are these estimates prepared on a consolidated basis? Is that why they appear in here?
Mr. Smith: Yes. The EI program has its own specified purpose account. The amounts are consolidated with overall government accounts.
The main factor is the increased number of claimants. As well, a number of measures have been undertaken in the budget and in the economic action plan to support the unemployed in this last year. One important measure is the number of weeks of eligible assistance, which has been a contributing factor in addition to the increased number of claimants. I should also mention that contributing to the deficit in the fund is the fact that the EI premium rate has been held at $1.73 per $100 in earnings.
Senator Murray: Please do not talk about a deficit in the EI fund because there is a surplus in that fund going back to 1994 that I reckon is in the vicinity of $70 billion of revenues over benefits paid out. I will leave it at that and have a go with Mr. Flaherty when he comes before the committee. It is not generally realized how much Mr. Martin, in his time, and Mr. Flaherty now solved their ``problem'' on the revenue side by the enormous surplus in the EI fund. The actuaries said that they should keep it at $15 billion to $20 billion against a downturn in the economy. There is no justification for an increase in the premiums, but we will have that policy argument with someone else.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Murray; that is a policy matter.
Senator Marshall: What criteria are followed in order to determine whether something is consolidated for purposes of the estimates?
Mr. Smith: Actually, you are talking about the Public Accounts of Canada more than the estimates in that context. Important rules govern the treatment of accounts. We follow government public accounting standards, and all of these accounts are audited by the Auditor General. There are rules on what accounts should be consolidated.
Senator Marshall: If they are included in the public accounts, they are consolidated in the estimates. Am I interpreting your answer correctly?
Mr. Smith: That is not quite the way it works. In the Main Estimates, we are seeking appropriations from Parliament, which means that we are seeking cash requirements. The Public Accounts of Canada are broader, with a balance sheet, income statement and cash requirements. They are governed by international accounting standards.
Senator Marshall: I will follow that line of questioning another time.
Senator Gerstein: For clarification, I would like to return to the projected deficit for 2010-11. Am I correct in assuming that, based on the facts as we know them today, the manner in which you determine the deficit figure is by taking $278.4 billion, found on page 2, and deducting $231.3 billion in revenue forecasted in Budget 2010? The net figure is $47.1 billion, which, I assume, rounds up to the suggested deficit figure of $49.2 billion. Is that the calculation?
Mr. Smith: It is better to stay with one set of estimates of the deficit. In this case, we would rely upon the more recent figures in the budget. While the numbers on expenses are very close, the revenue numbers tend to lag what is in the budget. Therefore, it is better to stick with the revenue numbers that are in the budget.
Senator Gerstein: That revenue number is $231.3 billion.
Mr. Smith: For 2010-11, it is $231.3 billion and the spending number would be $280 billion in Budget 2010. As I mentioned, that figure is on an accrual and on a gross — versus net — requirements basis.
Senator Gerstein: The $280 billion relates to $278.4 billion.
Mr. Smith: Yes.
Senator Dickson: I am looking under Canada's Economic Action Plan at page 246 of Budget 2010 relating to Canada Health Infoway. We all appreciate that the government is under contract with the provinces to increase until 2014 an escalating rate of 6 per cent in health transfers. Everyone in Canada is concerned after what happened over the weekend in the United States in terms of health care.
First, are we getting the anticipated results from the Canada Health Infoway program?
Second, at page 246, it states that Canada's Economic Action Plan provided $500 million to Canada Health Infoway to support the goal of having 50 per cent of Canadians with an electronic health record by 2010. Will that be individual patient health records or will it be a record of the Government of Canada? Perhaps you cannot answer that now.
Mr. Smith: I do not think I can answer the second question. There was a report by the Auditor General on Canada Health Infoway as late as November 2009 that looked at the program in some detail. Overall, it received a rather positive assessment.
Senator Dickson: Mr. Chair, considering the cost of health care to Canada and the provinces, it is important that it be clarified at some time by having the Canada Health Infoway people come to the committee to confirm who owns those records. Most recently — over the weekend, I believe — I was searching on the Internet and noted that in one province a question had been raised by scholars in respect of health care and who would own the record. In my view, it is important that the patient own the record. There was some question as to whether doctors were claiming that insofar as they were supplying information, they had the propriety interest in the records. I find the statement in the budget to be misleading.
The Chair: The steering committee will consider the matter. Thank you for bringing that to our attention.
Mr. Smith and Mr. Pagan, can you provide any insight with respect to that question? It would be helpful.
Mr. Smith: Short of asking the question of Canada Health Infoway, I am not sure that we can help.
The Chair: We will invite them to appear before the committee.
Senator Ringuette: Could you provide the committee with details of the various transfers for this year as compared to the last five years of social, health and equalization transfer payments? Perhaps you could forward a table of the numbers.
Mr. Smith: Should it be similar to the table on page 5 but going back five years only?
Senator Ringuette: Yes, by province.
Mr. Smith: That will take a little time to obtain.
The Chair: Honourable senators, that concludes the work at this stage with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
With the Main Estimates referred to the committee, we will deal with matters arising from them throughout the year. We might want to ask the witnesses to return for clarification on certain points.
I thank Mr. Smith and Mr. Pagan for their helpful testimony that serves to set the stage for future work of the committee.
(The committee continued in camera.)