Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 22 - Evidence - November 23, 2010
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 23, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:30 a.m. to examine the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance to order.
[Translation]
We continue this morning to examine the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011, as referred to our committee.
[English]
This is the second set of supplementary estimates this fiscal year, and we anticipate Supplementary Estimates (C) is likely to follow in the New Year before the ending of this fiscal year.
We are pleased to welcome from Treasury Board Wilma Vreeswijk, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector; David Enns, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector; Sally Thornton, Executive Director, Expenditure Operations and Estimates Division; and Marcia Santiago, Senior Director, Expenditure Operations and Estimates Division.
Ms. Vreeswijk, you have a few introductory remarks and you will lead us through Supplementary Estimates (B), then we will proceed to question and answer and comment period. The floor is yours.
Wilma Vreeswijk, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: I will continue the practice of my predecessors by providing members of this committee with an overview of the supplementary estimates before you today, the second supplementary estimates for this fiscal year, which were tabled in the House of Commons on November 4. As you know, the supplementary estimates seek authority from Parliament for increases in spending authorized in previous estimates for this fiscal year.
These increases are required to implement approved programs the costs of which were reflected in the Budget 2010 planned spending. The supplementary estimates also seek authority to transfer existing spending from one organization to another or within an organization from one appropriation to another.
In addition and for information purposes, the supplementary estimates provide updated projections for statutory spending; that is, spending authorized through legislation other than the Appropriation Act, such as interest on public debt. If you look on slide two of the deck, an overview of the amounts are provided.
[Translation]
The Supplementary Estimates (B) seeks from Parliament authority for a $4.4 billion in voted appropriations. Close to one quarter of this amount is made of supplementary funds affected to items in the 2010 budget, that were not included in the Supplementary Estimates (A) presented last May.
[English]
These supplementary estimates also seek approval for appropriations in 2010 for programs that experienced changes in scheduling or for which funding profiles were altered. They also provide information on the net decrease of $2 billion in statutory spending previously approved by Parliament. This net decrease factors in an increase of $760 million for the Office of Infrastructure Canada for statutory programs where funds have been reprofiled from year one of the economic action plan to the current year.
[Translation]
The net total increase of forecast spendings, including voted and statutory items, is $2.3 billion compared to the $259 billion included in the 2010-2011Main Estimates. You can see that this amount of $2.3 billion is shown on the table. The next page includes an overview of the amounts requested up until now.
[English]
You will see the amounts indicated from the Main Estimates, Supplementary Estimates (A) and Supplementary Estimates (B). You will see before you that the supplementary estimates to date, including Supplementary Estimates (B), represent a 7.9 per cent increase in voted funding over that in the 2010 Main Estimates and a 1.9 per cent increase when forecast statutory spending is included. This is a slower rate of growth than last year at this point in time, when the 2009-10 Supplementary Estimates (A) and (B) reflected an 11.5 per cent increase in voted funding over the 2009-10 Main Estimates and a 5.5 per cent increase overall. This is consistent with Budget 2010, which indicated that the rate of growth of spending was to be reduced over the medium term.
The next page will show you where half of the $4.4 billion you are being asked to approve is going. You will see that funding in four areas accounts for almost $2.5 billion or 56 per cent of the $4.4 billion sought for Parliament's approval.
On slide four, you will see defence funding includes $649 million to address pressures associated with the Afghanistan mission, and that will support a number of major initiatives that will increase the capability of the Canadian Forces by ensuring that the required personnel, spare parts and infrastructure are available to support equipment that has been purchased.
A further $113 million is sought for major capital projects approved in estimates for previous years that have updated project schedules and thus revised cash flows.
Infrastructure Canada is seeking total appropriations of $719 million. This includes the $232 million for various components of the Building Canada Fund, $184 million for the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund, $174 million for projects under the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund, $103 million for the Gas Tax Fund, $18 million for the Border Infrastructure Fund, $6 million for the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund and $2 million for the delivery of projects under the Building Canada program.
Increases are also being sought by Indian Affairs and Northern Development related to the settlement of various Aboriginal claims, including $308 million for specific claims settlements that seek to rectify historic wrongs and $295 million related to the Indian Residential Schools Agreement. Another $87 million will be used to effect settlement payments to the Bigstone Cree Nation and the Lac Seul First Nation.
Finally, funding of $294 million for AECL will allow the corporation to ensure continued isotope production, including the repair and restart of the National Research Universal Reactor and the wind-down of the dedicated isotopes facility. It will allow the corporation to address infrastructure and operational upgrades related to health, safety, security and environmental priorities at the Chalk River laboratories and develop new-build reactor technology.
In addition to the planned spending in these four areas, the estimates seek $450 million for the horizontal initiatives described on pages 78 through 86 of your blue books.
The remainder of $1.4 billion will cover funding requirements for a range of smaller initiatives.
[Translation]
These supplementary estimates are in accordance with the plan included in the 2010 budget. The new appropriations requested are for a total of $4.4 billion, including $1.1 billion for the 2010 budget items. As for the measures set out in Budget 2010 to reduce costs, no amount is requested for pay increases in 2010-11.
These supplementary estimates recover $193 million from departments operating budgets. Moreover, the $107 millions related to the salary adjustments in 2010-11, will not be provided. Since departments absorb the cost of salary adjustments for 2010-11, this will result in savings of $300 million.
Savings identified by ongoing strategic reviews of departmental programmes will be used to decrease the new appropriations required by the affected departments.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my presentation. I will be pleased, with my colleagues, to answer questions that you or members of the committee would like to ask about Supplementary Estimates (B).
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Vreeswijk, you talked about the horizontal items at page 78 forward. Would you please look at pages 82 and 83. At page 82 is funding to support the defence of Canada against third-party claims in tobacco litigation, and on page 83 is for funding to combat production, distribution and public demand for contraband tobacco. These are both tobacco-oriented matters. Why are they separate?
Ms. Vreeswijk: One of them is in relation to contraband tobacco.
The Chair: Page 83 says demand for contraband tobacco.
Ms. Vreeswijk: That is right. It is related to enforcement and raising the awareness of Canadians in and around contraband tobacco. The other one is to fund litigation related to tobacco manufacturers where Canada has been named a third party. Those are two completely different initiatives.
The Chair: I understand they both relate to tobacco. One is authorized tobacco and the other is unauthorized tobacco.
Ms. Vreeswijk: That is right, and for purposes of clarity, we have separated the two.
The Chair: We are spending a whole lot of money to stop the unauthorized tobacco and more money to defend ourselves from authorizing the use of tobacco.
Ms. Vreeswijk: We have been named as a third party in litigation against tobacco manufacturers, and it is to ensure that both Agriculture and Health Canada are prepared and ready to support the government on that front.
The Chair: We do appreciate the horizontal items. They are very helpful, and I hope you will continue to provide those items. We only see them in supplementary estimates. They are helpful in finding our way through this documentation you have provided.
The only other point of clarification I have at this early stage is at pages 7 and 8. The table at page 8 is similar to the table 2 that you used in your presentation. The total Main Estimates for this year thus far is $261 billion. Do you see that figure?
Ms. Vreeswijk: Yes.
The Chair: If you flip back to page 7 in the narrative under Summary of Estimates to Date, the figure in the fourth line is for total Main Estimates of $259 billion. Can you help me on that?
Ms. Vreeswijk: You will notice an asterisk beside 2010-11 Main Estimates, and it includes $150.3 million for the Schedule 2 departments, the Canada Revenue Agency, Parks Canada, et cetera, if I am correct on that.
The Chair: That does not appear on the $259 billion?
Ms. Vreeswijk: That is right.
Sally Thornton, Executive Director, Expenditure Operations and Estimates Division, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Yes, that is correct. When we publish the Main Estimates, at that time we do not know the balance outstanding for organizations with a multi-year appropriation. We learn that after, so we signal in the Main Estimates that this will be coming, but we do not have the numbers yet. At this stage we have them and they are added to give the full picture.
The Chair: The $261 billion might be money authorized in a previous year being carried forward by the multi-year, two-year agencies?
Ms. Thornton: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: You mention a $2 billion decrease in the supplementary estimates. I would like to have a list of departments and programmes affected by these reductions and to know the amount for each programme.
Ms. Wreeswijk: Could you tell us on which page we mention this decrease?
Senator Ringuette: On page 2 of your document, you mention a decrease of more than $2 billion. I would like to know which are the departments and programmes affected, and by how much.
Ms. Wreeswijk: There was a decrease in the needs of statutory programmes. We will find the answer for you.
Senator Ringuette: Are you going to send the information to the clerk?
Ms. Wreeswijk: Yes. We will send him the information, if we don't find it before. Apparently, there is a list on page 11 and 12 of the supplementary estimates.
Senator Ringuette: I would also like to get the specific details in order to know to which departments and programmes these budgetary cuts applied and what was the amount for each programme. From what I can see here, I doubt that it is only for the purpose of debt financing.
The Chair: The amount is $2.9 billion.
Senator Ringuette: Yes, $2.9 billion.
The Chair: It is not the same amount.
Senator Ringuette: The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is affected too. We really need more specific details because these amounts are quite substantial.
[English]
Ms. Thornton: The complete summary of each of the statutory items begins on page 54. It reflects both the increases and the decreases for the total decrease.
Senator Ringuette: On page 54, then, the CANARIE program, which is research and development, has been reduced by $6 million. Is that what you are saying?
Ms. Thornton: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: Is there any reason for that decrease? Then the Green Infrastructure Fund has lost $6.5 million, if I am to read it at page —
Ms. Vreeswijk: These are statutory items so —
Senator Ringuette: Even if they are statutory, we should be able to learn why. On page 53, there is $1.13 billion for Export Development Canada to discharge obligations incurred pursuant to section 23 of the Export Development Act, Canada Account, for the purpose of facilitating and developing trade with other countries.
Have we reduced the amount of money that is available for export development or for trade negotiation with other countries? Those are the kinds of details we need.
Ms. Vreeswijk: For CANARIE, it is a simple change in forecasting of requirements. That is normally the case with respect to the statutory payments. This was not a reduction of any other kind, it is in line with the statutory approvals made by Parliament to date.
For CANARIE, these are revised forecasts of payments for the operation and development of Canada's Advanced Research and Innovation Network. That is the nature of the reduction.
Senator Ringuette: I would like to know where these reductions were made. What percentage is the $6 million of the total operating budget of CANARIE?
Ms. Vreeswijk: The total statutory grant amount allocated to CANARIE is $96 million for the years 2007 to 2011.
Senator Ringuette: That is approximately 8 per cent.
Ms. Vreeswijk: That is for that entire period of 2007-08 to 2011-12. That is the total amount, and there is a $6 million reduction. That is based simply on revised forecasts.
Senator Ringuette: It is roughly $20 million a year, so in this particular year, we are looking at $6 million in reductions. That is 35 per cent.
Ms. Vreeswijk: In terms of the reasons underpinning the change in forecast, we will ask Industry Canada to get back to you with more information.
Senator Ringuette: I would appreciate that. If you could do the same with regard to the Green Infrastructure Fund.
David Enns, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Perhaps I can respond to that one now. That is a reduction in funding in that program within infrastructure under statutory appropriation. That is money being transferred elsewhere for investments in the Forest Industry Transformation Program, which will be done through other departments. It is not a reduction per se in programming but in the statutory funding available to Infrastructure Canada.
Senator Ringuette: I want the details of that. Parliament had agreed to X amount of money in the budget year for the specific Green Infrastructure Fund.
Mr. Enns: Right.
Senator Ringuette: The money should have been allocated to Green Infrastructure projects.
Mr. Enns: It is going to Green Infrastructure projects in the forestry sector in specific locations such as British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec for new technologies relating to mills and forest products. It will just be delivered through that vehicle rather than by Infrastructure Canada.
Senator Ringuette: I need more information on it, if you could provide it. You have indicated some provinces that will be allocated some funds. I am from New Brunswick, and a good portion of our economy is based on forestry products, so I would like to know if there will be any funds allocated to New Brunswick.
Mr. Enns: It is not to the provinces per se but to particular projects that are making use of green technologies, and my understanding is that some of those are in the Atlantic provinces as well.
Senator Ringuette: I would appreciate the details on that item.
The Chair: On that point, if the funds are not being expended by Infrastructure Canada but by another department, should we not see somewhere in here the change of the money being moved from one department to another?
Mr. Enns: Yes. That is delivered primarily through NRCan, so that is reflected in the blue books.
The Chair: Can you refer us in the blue book to NRCan, to where the money is to be used in another manner?
Mr. Enns: It is on page 190 of the Blue Book. In their contribution program, there is a line near the bottom that says ``investment in Forestry Industry Transformation Program.'' The total is $24,942,000. That is on page 189, the first line at the top, the total. You have a little more detail there in the description of that item about the kinds of innovative projects that are eligible.
Senator Ringuette: Is the Forestry Industry Transformation Program a new program?
Mr. Enns: Yes, it is.
Senator Ringuette: They have announced a new program but took money from an old program to finance it?
Mr. Enns: It is not an old program. It was an economic action plan program and they are using the funding that way, yes.
Senator Ringuette: They took money from the Green Infrastructure Fund Program, announced a new program called the Forestry Industry Transformation Program, and used that money to finance it?
Mr. Enns: The new program was not inconsistent with the terms and conditions —
Senator Ringuette: I understand that the objectives should have been consistent.
Mr. Enns: Yes, they were.
Senator Ringuette: Nevertheless, there was a lot of politics played here in terms of names and the creation of new programs to deal with green technology.
Mr. Enns: I think it might be a question of who is best positioned to deliver a program of that nature, and NRCan being responsible for the forestry sector has the capacity to do that, so it is better placed there.
Senator Ringuette: You will provide more information.
The Chair: It is not clear in my mind yet, and I am sorry for being a little slow here.
Back at page 55, we show a statutory savings of $16 million in the Green Infrastructure Fund. That was a statutory approved amount that was not spent, was it?
Mr. Enns: That is a reduction to statutory spending, yes.
The Chair: That is correct. Then you have referred us over to page 189 where we are voting a certain amount. That is non-statutory. That is in the estimates, and we are being asked to appropriate that amount of money, which is a different figure. However, you are saying that it is the same money going from a statutory to a voted appropriation. Is that right?
Mr. Enns: Right, and it is the same figure. It is rounded up to $25 million. If you look on page —
The Chair: I am looking at the Green Infrastructure Fund, where the savings were $16 million, and now we are voting $25 million. It is kind of hard to follow that for someone who has not been there before. I am getting lost in the trees here. Sorry for the pun.
Mr. Enns: It is a thick book. If you look under voted appropriations on page 189 under Natural Resources Canada, the first item mentions the Forest Industry Transformation Program, and you will see the total there is $24,942,000, so that is the corresponding amount.
The Chair: The $25 million voted corresponds with $16 million statutory?
Mr. Enns: No, there are other items at play, but for the $25 million out of the Green Infrastructure Fund, the $25 million reduction in statutory spending is reflected in the voted appropriation for NRCan under this program consistent with Green Infrastructure Fund objectives.
The Chair: Am I looking at the wrong thing? I see a Green Infrastructure Fund reduction of $16 million, not $25 million. It looks to me like it takes $25 million voted to make up for $16 million statutory.
Mr. Enns: My notes have $25 million here.
The Chair: A $25 million saving in the Green Infrastructure Fund?
Mr. Enns: A reduction, yes.
The Chair: That is what you said, but that is not what this book says at page 55.
Mr. Enns: We will supply that for you.
The Chair: That will be very helpful.
Senator Ringuette: Moving to page 53 in regard to the decrease in expenditure, I would like to have some detail on how we can reduce developing trade between Canada and other countries by $1.1 billion.
Ms. Vreeswijk: Is this with Export Development Canada?
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
Ms. Vreeswijk: To clarify, this is the payments to Export Development Canada to discharge obligations incurred pursuant to the Export Development Act. This is a non-budgetary item. Export Development Canada manages the Canada Account. The Canada Account transactions are disclosed on its website, and repayments to the Canada Account transactions are deposited back into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and the $1.1 billion is a reduction in forecast expenditures that reflects the advance payments received from General Motors and Air Canada. It is simply the kind of transaction where payments have been received and therefore the account is being reduced.
Senator Ringuette: I can understand that.
I would like to go to the Office of Infrastructure Canada. You have indicated $719 million in these supplementary estimates. Except for the Gas Tax Fund which is automatic, three funds — the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund, the Building Canada Fund and the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund — account for almost $600 million. Which of these three funds, or is it all three, has a deadline of March 31?
Mr. Enns: None of them actually. These programs predate the economic action plan, so these are all essentially re- profiles of existing work that was not able to be completed due to various reasons. They involve negotiations with partners. The infrastructure department itself has very little control over some of the factors. Weather can play a role if it is in the North, for example. This is not new funding but re-profiled funding from the previous year into this year to complete these planned projects. None of these have a deadline because these are not economic action plan programs.
Senator Ringuette: You are saying that the money we are requested to approve for these three programs is to complete projects that have already begun?
Mr. Enns: Planned projects, yes, under the Building Canada Fund, the various program components that you have mentioned, yes.
Senator Ringuette: None of these programs will end on March 31?
Mr. Enns: No.
Senator Ringuette: I shall move on to National Defence. We are looking at costs of $762 million mostly in regard to airlift.
Ms. Vreeswijk: Do you have a page number?
Senator Ringuette: It is on your slide 4.
Ms. Vreeswijk: Most of the funding is to address pressures associated with Afghanistan and to support such initiatives by ensuring that the personnel, spare parts, maintenance and the support activities are available. It is mainly operating funding to run and service equipment.
Senator Ringuette: I am told that $649 million is destined for strategic airlift, C-17; for tactical airlift, C-130; and a family of land combat vehicles and regular forces, including the operation and maintenance thereof.
Ms. Vreeswijk: These amounts are found under vote 1 of National Defence, which is operating expenditures. They are for that purpose and to ensure that any equipment purchases have the personnel, spare parts, and infrastructure and support that they need in order to continue to function and to be fully utilizable. That is the intent.
Senator Ringuette: My issue is that, for tactical airlift or strategic airlift, we are being asked to approve taxpayer money to the tune of $762 million in a supplementary budget document when, a few years ago, we renounced an Allied airlift contract. In reneging on that Allied airlift contract, how much more have we spent?
Ms. Vreeswijk: On page 185 of the Main Estimates, you will see the detailed line-by-line breakdown of the amounts requested for National Defence, and you will see that a large portion of that amount is in vote 1, which is operating budget. The $649 million is for the purposes which I have outlined, for operating, not for capital. Regarding the airlift contract, we will ask National Defence, which is best placed to respond to that query.
Senator Ringuette: You will ask them and provide us with an answer?
Ms. Vreeswijk: We will ask them to respond to your question.
Senator Ringuette: It pertains to the comparison between that contract we had with Allied countries to supply airlift when needed, and reneged on, and these costs in the Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A) to provide airlift for our troops.
Ms. Vreeswijk: We will certainly ask them to respond.
Senator Callbeck: The first question I have is on page 11. It has to do with the accounting changes that were made to the interest debt charge. Because of those accounting changes, the deficit is $2.9 billion less. I would like to know what those accounting changes are.
Ms. Vreeswijk: Certainly. The details are in the Department of Finance section. This estimate in Supplementary Estimates (B) is for interest costs related to the Department of Finance's statutory vote. Compared to the estimates in Supplementary Estimates (A), the estimate is being revised down by $2.9 billion as the result of an accounting change. As indicated in the public accounts, total public debt charges are equal to the statutory vote adjusted for accrual accounting differences and the consolidation of specified purpose accounts.
In the past, the estimate in budget-related documents for total debt charges has been a good approximation for the departmental statutory vote, as accrual and consolidated adjustments were offsetting each other.
With the passage of the Jobs and Economic Growth Act, there are accounting changes that render this no longer the case and, accordingly, in the interest of accuracy, the interest rate cost estimate is equivalent to the total public debt charges as reported in the budget-related documents less the accrual adjustments.
In this regard, it is important to note that this revision to the statutory vote estimate does not affect the estimate for total public debt charges as reported in public accounts. It does not affect that.
Senator Callbeck: It does not affect what?
Ms. Vreeswijk: It does not affect the estimate of total public debt as reported in the public accounts. The budget is simply an accounting.
Senator Callbeck: Why would it not if the deficit will be $2.9 billion less?
Ms. Vreeswijk: It is simply an accounting change.
Senator Callbeck: I do not understand.
Ms. Vreeswijk: It relates to Part 24 of the Jobs and Economic Growth Act and the accounting change related to that.
Senator Callbeck: It may relate to that, but it says right here that your deficit will be lower by $2.9 billion, so why will that not affect your debt?
Ms. Vreeswijk: It is just a forecast in the budget. It is an accounting change. If you would like more information, we can certainly request it from the Department of Finance.
Senator Callbeck: I would certainly like that.
The Chair: I think an explanation would be helpful to all of us.
Ms. Vreeswijk: I understand. Just to point out, this is a statutory item and it is provided entirely for information.
The Chair: I understand that. If it is for information and we do not understand it, it is not very informative.
Senator Callbeck: On the same page, with respect to payments to Export Development Canada, which you mentioned that a few minutes ago. GM paid back the money that the government lent them, and I think it was $9 billion in shares and money that the government lent last year. Can you tell us whether GM has paid back all the money or just part of it? At that time, the shares were on the government books at zero.
As you know, last week there was a public offering that went better than expected. I think it started out at $34 and went to $36 or $37. What value will the government put on those shares in their books?
Ms. Vreeswijk: I would have to check on that. Certainly Industry Canada would be providing us with advice related to the share value.
Senator Callbeck: Will you please get back to us as to what will be on the books?
Ms. Vreeswijk: Yes.
Senator Dickson: Did the Government of Canada sell half of their General Motors shares in the market? Is that what I understood from the newspaper clippings?
Ms. Vreeswijk: I really would not want to comment on what the Government of Canada has sold by Industry Canada's efforts.
Senator Murray: You have an obligation to sell.
The Chair: I think we will need some clarification, and we would appreciate it if you can help us get that information. We get confused with what the U.S. did with respect to the share allotment that they got as well.
Ms. Vreeswijk: It is simply a matter that I am here representing the Treasury Board Secretariat, and we would not have been involved in that transaction. We will certainly request clarification and ask Industry Canada to reply.
The Chair: As Senator Callbeck has pointed out, we were told previously by Treasury Board and Industry Canada the shares were shown as having zero value to Canada. In order to change that amount from zero to something else, does Treasury Board look into that? Does someone oversee that, or do you just wait until Industry Canada tells you to put another figure in the books?
Ms. Vreeswijk: Because it is a non-budgetary item, it would have been recorded that way. Certainly in the way we record these things, we would be working closely with the Office of the Comptroller General to ensure that it is a proper accounting treatment.
The Chair: Some of the stimulus funds were budgetary and some were non-budgetary. Whatever you can do to help us out with an understanding of what is happening there will be appreciated, and we will ensure that all senators receive a copy of whatever material you provide us.
Ms. Vreeswijk: Certainly.
Senator Callbeck: On pages 145 and 146, Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Vote 25 says the gross appropriations are $382 million and net appropriations are $265 million. The department had $117 million in available authority within the vote.
Over on page 146, it says of that $117 million that was available, $115 million comes from a realignment of contributions to grants towards delivering more efficient international assistance. Does that mean that the government changed from contributions to grants? How did you come up with that $115 million? It is in the footnote on page 146.
Mr. Enns: I think you are right, that it is just a reflection of the mechanism used to transfer the funds. These will be done through a grant instead of a contribution, and this reflects the shift.
Senator Callbeck: How will you save $115 million by that shift?
Mr. Enns: It is not a savings per se. It balances out. It will be reduced in the contributions and will flow through a grant instead. It is a different kind of transfer.
Senator Callbeck: Where will it show up in grants?
Mr. Enns: It shows up on the next page, 147. It is included in the totals for the grants and contributions shown on that page.
Senator Callbeck: It is included in the $332 million?
Mr. Enns: Yes.
Senator Callbeck: It is in there, but then it comes off at the bottom, funds available within the vote.
Mr. Enns: It comes out of the contributions.
Senator Callbeck: It comes out of the contributions?
Mr. Enns: Yes. Like I say, it is to reflect the different mechanisms used to flow the funds.
Senator Callbeck: Are you saying that that $117 million is included in that $332 million?
Mr. Enns: The $117 million is the total authorities that are available, $115 million is within the vote due to the realignment from contributions to grants.
Senator Callbeck: Within that $327 million? It is in there?
Mr. Enns: Yes.
Senator Callbeck: However, it is then taken out.
Mr. Enns: It appears there because as a grant it needs to be shown in the estimates documents, but it is a rebalancing, if you will. It is a ``put'' and a ``take'' between the grants and the contribution side of the funding.
Senator Callbeck: I still do not understand how you are saving $115 million, unless you are not going to give out the money.
Mr. Enns: It is not a savings per se. It is simply a transfer from one to another. It is a reduction in the contributions, and monies will be provided via grant, and it is listed here because the grant authority has to be obtained through the estimates.
Senator Callbeck: It is listed there, but then at the bottom it is taken out.
Mr. Enns: It balances, yes. They do not want it in the contributions; they put it in the grants instead.
Senator Callbeck: In other words, you will still give as much money?
Mr. Enns: Yes.
Senator Callbeck: There is no reduction?
Mr. Enns: They need the total grant authority to do that, yes.
Senator Callbeck: Are you telling me that there is no reduction?
Mr. Enns: There is no net reduction.
Senator Callbeck: No net reduction.
The Chair: The difficulty we are having, Mr. Enns, is that the numbers are not the same, and we see a reduction in one place, and you tell us that is reflected in some other item, which shows a different figure, so we take you at your word that it is in there. However, if you had broken that down and shown the same figure plus more, then we would quickly comprehend. That is our difficulty in understanding. If we did not have you here, we would never have figured that out, but that is why you are here.
Mr. Enns: I can come back on the Green Infrastructure Fund, if you would permit me. I have found the location where that is listed.
The Chair: Why do we not finish with Senator Callbeck, and then we will do that before we go to Senator Marshall.
Senator Callbeck: On page 73, there is an authorizing carry forward of unused funds which amounts to $1.1 billion. How does that figure compare to other years?
Ms. Vreeswijk: Departments are allowed to carry forward up to a maximum of 5 per cent, and each department may vary a bit in what they are able to carry forward. Is it in line with previous years? I have just been informed it is a little bit higher because of the carry forward from DND this year.
Senator Callbeck: It is pretty much in line?
Ms. Vreeswijk: It is the operating budget carry forward. This appears each and every year. It is governed by a maximum of 5 per cent, so apart from the DND portion, it is pretty much in line, yes.
Senator Callbeck: All right. On page 80, you are looking for $18.7 million for medical isotopes, and it says it includes the isotope supply initiative which is a two-year strategy, so one year will be up at the end of March 2011. Can you explain what that initiative is, please?
Ms. Vreeswijk: Certainly. It is listed as funding to support non-reactor-based production of medical isotopes, and under this initiative, Natural Resources Canada is establishing a program to support private sector investment in alternative modes of isotope production. The funding will also support Health Canada's work on optimizing current supplies of medical isotopes and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research work on research and development of alternative imaging methods. This initiative came out of the work of an expert panel on medical isotope production and reflects their recommendations.
In terms of the work by Natural Resources Canada, there is vote 1, operating expenditures of $3.5 million, grants and contributions of $9.5 million for a total of $13 million to take a look at the commercialization of non-reactor- based technologies as well as an investment in terms of alternate isotope production such as cyclotrons and linear particle accelerators. That is the lion's share. There is $4.9 million going to CIHR for looking at alternative forms of medical imaging.
Senator Callbeck: How much is going to the initiative?
Ms. Vreeswijk: The total is $18.7 million.
Senator Callbeck: This initiative to support private sector investment is for two years, and as I say, one year is nearly up. How many private sector partners have shown an interest?
Ms. Vreeswijk: We would have to ask Natural Resources Canada to provide that kind of information.
Senator Callbeck: Would you ask them for that, please?
Ms. Vreeswijk: Certainly.
Senator Callbeck: On Page 158, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, is a note at the bottom. You say there are measures set out to contain administrative costs to government and ongoing strategic reviews. There is an explanation at page 158 for vote 1 about the money that is available within the vote due to savings identified as part of the cost containment measures to reduce the rate of growth. What specific measures have been adopted in Human Resources and Skills Development Canada to come up with those savings?
Ms. Vreeswijk: A similar line appears for every ministry mentioned there, so I could perhaps talk a bit about cost containment if that would be okay.
Budget 2010 set out a track for cost containment measures to constrain costs and provide incentives for efficiencies in the delivery of government programs. Departmental operating spending was capped and will be capped at 2010-11 levels for the next two fiscal years.
Since the operating costs support the general operations of departments, the intent is controlling those operating costs to slow down the growth in the cost of government. Operating budgets are made up of different components. They are appropriated separately from capital and grants and contributions and include personnel costs, wages and salaries, and other operating costs such as fuel, travel, hospitality, leases, utilities, materials, supplies and minor capital.
While adjustments will be made for non-discretionary essential services and payments that arise from liabilities and others of that nature, any wage or salary increases established by collective agreements that apply from April 1, 2010- 11 until the end of 2012-13 are to be absorbed by departments.
In my opening remarks, I indicated the impact of those cost containment measures. You are seeing there the reduction to the estimates of those departments. Monies that were placed in the departments in earlier estimates are being removed now. That is for wages and salaries to ensure that departments are supporting those increases.
That amount in total, across all ministries, is $193 million, and they will not be able to access $107 million, for a total of $300 million in that cost containment activity. It is mainly in the area of wages and salaries for this fiscal year.
You will also see that in terms of going forward.
Senator Callbeck: I would like to have a list of savings that make up that figure for Human Resources and Skills Development.
Ms. Vreeswijk: That figure is made up of wage-related amounts that we have reduced from their reference levels.
Senator Callbeck: Is it nothing else but wages?
Ms. Vreeswijk: Are you asking about the cost containment line at the bottom where there are also amounts related to strategic review elements?
Senator Callbeck: Yes, I am.
Ms. Vreeswijk: There are amounts listed for strategic reviews, and each year the budget reports on the strategic review reductions and provides detail. The amounts are removed in the following supplementary estimates. That is the amount that is sitting here.
In the budget for Human Resources, the labour program was reviewed in the last round of strategic reviews, and on page 300 of Budget 2010 are details on the changes to the labour program. That amount is also included. It has a savings profile, so the savings profile is playing out here as well.
Senator Callbeck: Will you give me a list of the savings identified in that figure?
Ms. Vreeswijk: It is the amalgam of that, the cost containment.
Senator Callbeck: I would like to see it on a piece of paper.
Ms. Vreeswijk: Certainly.
The Chair: Before we go to Senator Marshall, Mr. Enns had a clarification.
Mr. Enns: I wanted to apologize for the lack of clarity on the Green Infrastructure Fund. The $25 million I was referring to is the total, of which roughly $16.5 million will be delivered through the forestry program that I mentioned, and the rest is reprofiled for one year.
Senator Ringuette: Reprogramming.
Mr. Enns: It stays with Infrastructure Canada but has been reprofiled from the previous year into this year.
Senator Ringuette: We have seen that a lot in the last four years.
Mr. Enns: Between the reprofile and the $16.5 million, the total is $25 million.
The Chair: Again, I make the point that the problem is we did not see where the $16 million was reallocated.
Mr. Enns: Yes, it is there on the NRCan page.
Senator Marshall: Could we speak about the revised forecast of public debt charges of $2.9 billion? Is that statutory and budgetary?
Ms. Vreeswijk: That is statutory, I believe.
Senator Marshall: Is it also budgetary?
Ms. Vreeswijk: Yes, it is.
Senator Marshall: Is the Foreign Affairs figure of $1.1 billion statutory and non-budgetary?
Ms. Vreeswijk: That is Export Development Canada, and it is non-budgetary and statutory as well.
Senator Marshall: All right, so I do understand.
If you look at page 2 of the handout that you gave us this morning, for statutory and budgetary, you are using a figure of $1.2 billion, so the $2.9 billion is for the revised forecast on public debt charges. What else is in that $1.2 billion? Can you give me an idea of a couple of other large item numbers?
Ms. Vreeswijk: All of the statutory items are listed on pages 53, 54 and 55 of the supplementary estimates, so all the puts and takes for these items are provided for information and transparency purposes.
Senator Marshall: On what page is the total of $1.215 billion? Is that total there, or do you have to go through and pick it out yourself?
Ms. Vreeswijk: The total that you see on page 55 is both budgetary and non-budgetary, and we do not have a breakdown.
Senator Marshall: Can I get a separate breakdown? That would be very helpful.
Ms. Vreeswijk: Yes, you can.
The Chair: You can send that to the clerk.
Ms. Vreeswijk: We indicated on each line item, but we have not totalled it up. We will be happy to do that.
Senator Marshall: I am speaking from the high-level items now. In the introduction to the supplementary estimates on pages 9, 10 and 11 are a number of items for the Office of Infrastructure Canada. Looking at the nature of the items, I would have thought that the one on page 11, $590.8 million, that that program would end March 31, 2011. I got the impression earlier that all of the funding for the Office of Infrastructure Canada would continue on into the next year. Could you clarify that for me?
Mr. Enns: The first figure you see — the first reference on page 9 — is an older program, and on page 11 the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund is, in fact, economic action plan programming.
Senator Marshall: Will that not end?
Mr. Enns: Yes, it will.
Senator Marshall: When we spoke earlier this morning, my impression was that all of the programs under the Office of Infrastructure Canada would be ongoing, that they did not terminate at the end of March.
Mr. Enns: The programs in the supplementary estimates are the older programs and are ongoing. The statutory item, which is the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, is provided for information. The items treated in the supplementary estimates are the old programs that are there for information.
Senator Marshall: I have spoken to a number of elected officials from municipal governments. Is March 31, 2011 still the firm deadline for funding projects through the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund?
Mr. Enns: Perhaps I am not best placed to answer that question. The program is structured that way, but I think you have seen in the papers that the Minister of Finance has said things like ``we will be reasonable'' and ``projects that are virtually complete,'' but under the terms and conditions, formally, the program ends on March 31.
Senator Marshall: What is the policy regarding the carry-forward funds that the departments are allowed, for example the $1.1 billion we spoke of? Is 5 per cent the maximum of which every department avails itself, or is it left to the discretion of the departments and they can carry forward however much they want, up to 5 per cent?
Mr. Enns: It is an ``up to'' amount. They can carry forward an amount up to 5 per cent of their operating budgets. Some departments do, and some have lapsed beyond. They are only permitted to access 5 per cent. Often, they do not get to a 5 per cent carry-forward.
Senator Marshall: Would this have to be savings that occurred in the previous year?
Mr. Enns: It is unused monies. It is just to allow them to plan better and avoid spending for the sake of spending at year end.
Ms. Vreeswijk: We look at the public accounts to see what they have spent, and we allow them to retain up to 5 per cent. There is a separate vote, vote 25, which is drawn down, and the monies are transferred into reference levels for departments.
Senator Marshall: Does Treasury Board track what each department carries forward each year? If the money is available for carry-forward, that means they did not need that money in the previous year. Does Treasury Board look at it to see whether budgetary requests are inflated, or is the number so small?
Ms. Vreeswijk: I would like to talk about two things: Why we have the operating budget carry-forward, and why there may be lapses. We have had the operating budget carry-forward since the mid-1990s. That was to ensure that departments do not spend right at the end of the fiscal year, that they continue to spending their operating budgets in a measured approach.
Senator Marshall: So at the end of the year you do not have —
Ms. Vreeswijk: Yes, so you do not have what was previously known as ``March madness.'' This is to ensure the departments are not losing that money if there is some excess operating monies.
There are many reasons why you might see operating budgets in excess. If a new program is introduced in a particular year they might need some time to really get into a stable state. You might have a little bit of extra operating funds in that year. Then, as the program stabilizes, the operating budget stabilizes as well.
We certainly keep an eye on the lapses and operating budgets, but there are a number of reasons why you might have a lapse in a given program related to the ramp-up, or related to negotiations with partners, et cetera. We try to make sure we understand the reasons behind some of those operating budget changes when they seem to be excessive, and we monitor it.
Senator Marshall: We are now in a period of restraint. Would Treasury Board have input into options for expenditure reductions?
Ms. Vreeswijk: The budget sets out a track for bringing the budget into balance, and it talks about the cost containment measures that I previously spoken about. There are these strategic reviews, and we have undertaken a number of them and are into the fourth round of strategic reviews.
There is an administrative services review that is also underway. There are a series of measures that have been launched to try to reflect the fiscal constraints underway.
Senator Marshall: These carry-forward budgets could feed into one of those programs then?
Ms. Vreeswijk: The carry-forward is an ongoing part of the structure of budgets. That is why there is specifically a central vote for that purpose.
Senator Marshall: That has only been since 1995.
Ms. Vreeswijk: Since the mid-1990s — 1993, 1995 — I cannot be precise. Certainly that part of the operating budget carry-forward allows departments to use those funds in a subsequent year.
The Chair: You say it is central vote 25, but presumably within that vote all of that money carried forward would be allocated to the various government departments and agencies?
Ms. Vreeswijk: We draw it down, and the list of all the draw-downs on that central vote are listed on page 73 of the estimates.
The Chair: Based on the 5 per cent savings in their operating budget.
Ms. Vreeswijk: That is right.
The Chair: It was starting to sound like it became a global amount that everybody could dip into.
Ms. Vreeswijk: No, it is not.
Senator Eggleton: Listening to the 5 per cent provision reminds me that it was done in my time as President of the Treasury Board.
Ms. Vreeswijk: Perhaps you remember the exact year that it was introduced.
Senator Eggleton: I was there from October 1993 to 1995, or something like that.
I want to ask about two agencies here. Page 191 brings us to Atomic Energy of Canada. This agency has had some controversy of late, and it describes how $294 million will be spent, in general terms. We are talking about a business corporation that has commercial activities. I am interested to know more about how this money will be spent.
Ms. Vreeswijk: I will have to refer to a couple of different places in my notes here.
The $294 million will be used to ensure that isotope production, including repair of the natural research universal reactor and relicensing of the reactor is done. It is also to address health and safety and environmental priorities. It is to develop new reactor technology and commercial operating costs and for funding shortfalls and delay in some of the life extension and refurbishment projects of the existing reactors.
Senator Eggleton: I can read that myself, but I am looking for more detail, particularly as it might relate to any commercial activities. Why the government would be subsidizing commercial activities, is my question.
Ms. Vreeswijk: There are two arms to AECL. The CANDU part of it is commercial. The CANDU division has encountered some delays in terms of their refurbishment projects. Simultaneously, Chalk River, the LabCo portion, has also been making investments. Both of those pieces have experienced difficulties.
Senator Eggleton: Can you break down the $294 million as to what it would be between CANDU and others?
Ms. Vreeswijk: I do not believe I have that breakdown.
Senator Eggleton: Like everything else, a breakdown of that would be helpful.
On page 145, the Canadian International Development Agency is another one that has received a fair bit of attention. How is the funding to support maternal, newborn and child health programming activities in developing countries, $173.456 million, being spent? Can you tell us what kind of programs it is going towards? Is it being spent on Canadians working over there or is it being spent locally? What can you tell us about how that is going at this point?
Ms. Vreeswijk: The $173.5 million will be broken down into three different streams. It will be to strengthen health systems, to improve service delivery for maternal, newborn and child health at the local level by training more health workers and increasing access to adequately equipped local health centres.
It will also reduce the burden of diseases. CIDA is supporting the provision of medicines, vaccines and actions to prevent and treat prevalent diseases and illnesses that are the main causes of maternal and child mortality. It is also to improve nutrition by increasing access to healthful and nutritious food and supplements to improve and save lives.
We do not have that exact breakdown of Canadian professionals, but CIDA's geographic programs that it executes on behalf of Canada to benefit developing partners involve government-to-government assistance.
Senator Eggleton: Has the structure for any of this been set up? You speak of it in the future, and that is understandable, but I wonder if any of the framework for the delivery of this program has been established.
Ms. Vreeswijk: They are accessing the funds right now. In order to access funds, there are policy and Treasury Board processes to work out the details of implementation.
Senator Eggleton: In future we should be able to get more detailed reporting on how this money is spent.
Ms. Vreeswijk: Yes, they would be reporting in their DPRs.
The Chair: DPRs?
Ms. Vreeswijk: Departmental performance reports, I am sorry.
Senator Murray: I would like to ask the witnesses whether they have some further, more detailed, information on the item under Finance, total transfer protection related to fiscal equalization, $509.5 million. It says that total transfer protection payments are one-time payments made to provinces that would have otherwise experienced a decline in major transfers from the federal government from last year to this year, 2009-10 to 2010-11.
When I flip over to page 133, I find total transfer protection related to fiscal equalization, $509,503. Several lines down, there is a $15.7 million total transfer protection related to the Canada Health Transfer and Canada Social Transfer to Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador. I surmise that that is a separate item because those two provinces are not recipients of equalization. Is that correct?
Ms. Vreeswijk: These are separate line items.
Senator Murray: I see that, yes, because they are not recipients of equalization. That is why it is there, I think.
Ms. Vreeswijk: The cause and effect I would not want to comment on, but I can certainly speak to the fiscal equalization.
Senator Murray: What I want to know is how much of the $509 million relates to offsetting what would otherwise be a decline in payments under the equalization program itself, and how much could be attributed to declines that would otherwise be experienced by provinces under the Canada Social Transfer. Those are the two items I think we are talking about here.
Ms. Vreeswijk: That is right, and they are reported for information as separate because they are separate. In December, the government committed to provide a one-time payment.
Senator Murray: Is this the second or third one-time payment?
Ms. Vreeswijk: I would have to validate that, senator.
The Chair: One time per year, perhaps.
Senator Murray: I am not objecting to it; far from it.
Ms. Vreeswijk: Essentially, they compare the equalization payments the province received in 2009-10 with what they would have received in 2010-11. If there is decline between those two amounts, then the amounts will be provided in terms of total transfer protection. The only provinces where this occurred were Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Manitoba. That is for the equalization portion.
Senator Murray: Stop there for a moment. That would be as a result of the decision taken by the government in a previous budget to impose two caps on equalization. One cap is on the overall pool of funds, which cannot grow faster than the three-year moving average of GDP; and the other cap is on individual payments, which cannot bring a province over the fiscal capacity of the average of the recipient provinces. Those are two caps, and what we are talking about here is compensating for those caps; is that it?
Ms. Vreeswijk: I would not want to tie it back to that reason. Certainly we will have the Department of Finance respond to that question.
Senator Murray: I suppose there are other possibilities as to why they might otherwise be getting less money.
Ms. Vreeswijk: That is right. It is a complicated formula, so I would not want to comment on that.
On your earlier question regarding the Canada Health Transfer and the Canada Social Transfer, it is a similar structure in that the government committed that they would not experience a decline in CHT and CST payments.
Senator Murray: When they went to equal per capita cash.
Ms. Vreeswijk: Therefore, what they are doing now is providing a one-time payment related to that.
Senator Murray: I think this is the second or third such one-time payment.
What I would like to know, if you can provide it for me, by province, is the amount that is compensation under the fiscal equalization program and the amount that would be attributed, I think, to the Canada Social Transfer.
Ms. Vreeswijk: For clarity's sake, are you asking how much, under the transfer protection for equalization, P.E.I., Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are getting?
Senator Murray: Yes.
Ms. Vreeswijk: It is just the recipients, and then it is similar under the CHT for Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Murray: I see the CHT, but I think the other provinces must be getting compensation with respect to CST also.
Ms. Vreeswijk: Yes. It is both the Canada Health Transfer and the Canada Social Transfer are put together in terms of the protection amount.
Senator Murray: I would like to see the numbers.
Also, I think this is the second or third time since changes were made.
Ms. Vreeswijk: We will validate that.
Senator Murray: There is one other subject, and you may not be able to help me with this. I have just come off a couple of weeks' travel with the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans on the coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia. The issue there was the almost perennial attempt of the government to de-staff lighthouses.
One of the things I learned, which I should have known but did not, unfortunately — and there is an item in these supplementary estimates that provides me some justification for asking the question — is that the Canadian Coast Guard is a special operating agency. I, frankly, did not know that.
Therefore, my question is: Does the Canadian Coast Guard have any different relationship to the mother ship, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, on fiscal matters? Does it have a relationship any different than any other branch of that department? Does it have any fiscal autonomy at all?
Ms. Vreeswijk: I do not believe so.
Senator Murray: It does not look like it.
Ms. Vreeswijk: We will certainly check on that.
Senator Murray: Do I understand correctly that we have people from Privy Council coming tomorrow night?
The Chair: Yes, tomorrow night.
Senator Murray: Perhaps I will ask them.
The Chair: However, if the witness could find us some information, that would be helpful. I would not want to dissuade one source of information because we might have it from another. The information is not always the same.
Senator Neufeld: Senator Eggleton asked the question about AECL. I have not been here very long, but I have never in my life seen money disappear faster than what goes into AECL. We go from authorities to date, which we approved, of $402 million, and they come in with adjustments to appropriations of $294 million in Supplementary Estimates (B). That is almost what they asked for in the first place, $108 million less, actually.
I want to highlight these expenditures a little more. Obviously, there are problems at Point Lepreau. There might be problems at some of the other generating stations in Canada, the one in Ontario. However, there must be a better explanation. When I looked through it all, I was astounded that they are asking for almost another $300 million. I want to make sure that gets on the record. They asked for $402 million and now they are asking for another $294 million. When does it end? There will be another request, I am sure, coming forth soon.
As Senator Eggleton mentioned, that is a commercial operation, and when do we quit funding a commercial operation? From the history, I understand this did not just start; it has been going on almost from day one, and that goes back many years. It would be interesting to me, and perhaps to others in Canada, what the total would be.
The Chair: It might be helpful to get AECL back to talk to us. I notice at page 191 that $100 million of that $294 million had to come out of a contingency fund, in other words, emergency funding from Treasury Board before we approved it. There should be some explanation of why their Main Estimates of X million dollars was not enough to keep them going until the supplementary estimates came and they had to dip into an emergency fund. Do you have information that could help Senator Neufeld and the rest of us?
Ms. Vreeswijk: I am not an AECL representative, so I will not go beyond what before you. However, it is true that they had to access vote 5, the contingency fund for $100 million, and that is because they were experiencing significant difficulties from a cash-flow perspective. Therefore, the Treasury Board approved access to vote 5.
The Chair: Was there nothing extraordinary; was it just their cash flow in their normal business?
Ms. Vreeswijk: They are currently undergoing a lot of restructuring at AECL, and that is posing significant challenges to them. There have been a number of media reports about the difficulties they are facing. I would not want to comment further than that.
They are doing repairs and refurbishment at a number of sites including Point Lepreau, Bruce, Gentilly and Wolsong. The commercial operation is going through some refurbishment. Health and safety upgrades are being done in the laboratories, and National Research Universal is being secured.
Senator Neufeld: Maybe we could get the reasoning for the $100 million contingency from Treasury Board. Perhaps AECL could appear and explain the rest.
The Chair: That would be helpful to us.
Senator Neufeld: For the Old Port of Montreal Corporation there are some transfers of $7 million and adjustments to appropriations of almost $913,000.
Why would the Old Port of Montreal be transferred to the Privy Council?
Ms. Vreeswijk: That is a machinery issue. It is simply a change in responsibilities for the minister. It goes to the Government House Leader.
Senator Neufeld: You do not know why?
Ms. Vreeswijk: I could not comment on why that is.
For clarity, the $913,000 is just parking.
Senator Neufeld: I see that the city needed another million dollars, so they hit them up with parking fees.
Ms. Vreeswijk: It was a widespread increase in taxes.
Senator Dickson: Senator Murray took all my fire away on equalization, so I will move to page 82, which relates to funding for tobacco claims.
Can you comment on who the claimants are, what the alleged causes of action are, what jurisdictions they are in and what the anticipated damages are?
Ms. Vreeswijk: These are five lawsuits related to health care cost recovery. They have been launched by British Columbia and New Brunswick. There is a class action in Quebec and one consumer class action in B.C. Apart from that, I would not want to comment.
Senator Dickson: These are tobacco companies suing the government?
Ms. Vreeswijk: No. They are lawsuits in relation to the tobacco manufacturers where the Government of Canada has been named as a third party. That is the kind of actions they are.
Funding is being requested for the defence of the Government of Canada in this litigation. Work is being done by both Agriculture Canada and Health Canada in that regard.
Senator Dickson: On the top of page 81 we see funding for the Canada Excellence Research Chairs. How much of this is going to universities in Atlantic Canada?
Ms. Vreeswijk: I could talk a little bit about the process that led to the choosing. There was an arm's-length selection board made up of world-renowned experts from varying fields. They recommended the allocation of the chairs to universities and the specific individuals to fill those chairs. There were 19 of them, including a number in Atlantic Canada.
Ian Gardner is the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Aquatic Epidemiology at the University of Prince Edward Island. Douglas Wallace is the Chair in Ocean Science and Technology for Dalhousie University.
I believe those are the only ones for Atlantic Canada.
Senator Peterson: Have the additional costs that will be incurred by the Department of National Defence for closing Camp Mirage been factored in?
Ms. Vreeswijk: I understand that change came after the supplementary estimates were prepared, so we would not see that here.
Senator Peterson: When will we see it?
Ms. Vreeswijk: For estimates, decisions have to be made by Treasury Board and then there is a preparatory phase, so any decisions made after the beginning to middle of September would not appear in these supplementary estimates.
Senator Peterson: Is it paid out of some other fund? There will obviously be costs occurred.
Ms. Vreeswijk: There are other estimates periods where that cost might show up, depending on the magnitude of it.
The Chair: In the meantime, presumably National Defence would fund that kind of thing out of their operating funds?
Ms. Vreeswijk: Departments do risk manage some costs if they have to absorb them before an estimates period.
The Chair: Are you able to tell us whether there has been a request under the vote 5 contingency of Treasury Board for the cost of dismantling Camp Mirage?
Ms. Vreeswijk: I could not say. We can certainly verify that. Any vote 5 requests received would show up in the next supplementary estimates. You would have that clarity at the beginning of February.
Senator Peterson: Can you tell me how the Canada Account is funded, who controls it, and whether there is any oversight on it?
Ms. Vreeswijk: Are you asking about the Canada Account of Export Development Canada?
Senator Peterson: Yes.
Ms. Vreeswijk: As indicated in the estimates, the Canada Account is meant to facilitate trade by supporting transactions that exceed EDC's risk threshold. The criteria that the EDC uses include Canadian benefits, financial technical capability, the government's willingness to consider country risk, creditworthiness of borrowers and the national interest. Decisions in and around the Canada Account are made by the Minister of International Trade in concurrence with the Minister of Finance. Those are the ministerial responsibilities.
Senator Peterson: How much money do they have to work with?
Ms. Vreeswijk: I would have to verify that. In this estimate I see only a $1.1 billion non-budgetary item. There were funds in Supplementary Estimates (A) as well. We would have to get back to you with the totals.
Senator Ringuette: These supplementary estimates show over $1 billion in costs for the G8 and G20 summits. Are any of these costs in the supplementary estimates?
Ms. Vreeswijk: No G8 or G20 costs are included in the supplementary estimates.
Senator Ringuette: Were they all in Supplementary Estimates (A)?
Ms. Vreeswijk: That is right.
Senator Ringuette: Are there any costs in Supplementary Estimates (B) in regard to the Vancouver Games?
Ms. Vreeswijk: There is an item under National Defence where funding for the remaining expenses relating to 2010 Olympics are listed. It is page 185 in the estimates. Because the Canadian Forces remained active in a protection role until the end of the Paralympics which ended in late March 2010, any costs related to the Olympics in terms of site remediation and certification of sites for the Canadian Forces would have been tallied in the early part of this fiscal year, so there is $13.5 million in operating funds being sought by DND for that purpose. It is related to the Olympics; it is costs that went into this fiscal year. Apart from that, there were no other Olympics costs.
Senator Ringuette: Could you provide the cost to the federal government through its different departments to support the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games, including this $13.5 million? I do not know if you have that list already there, but it would be interesting to find out.
Ms. Vreeswijk: Certainly, we will get back to you with that listing.
Senator Ringuette: You will supply the total financing that all departments of the federal government have supplied?
Ms. Vreeswijk: I thought I had that with me. We will look for it. I might be able to provide it to you before the end of this meeting. If I do not, I certainly will commit to get back to you in terms of the totals related to the Olympics.
Senator Neufeld: To add to that question, what is the percentage normally provided by the federal government to Olympic Games that have been held in Canada, not just Vancouver? It would be nice to get some sense of what is going on, but that may be a little too difficult to provide.
Ms. Vreeswijk: That is a difficult question.
Senator Neufeld: I guess things change.
Ms. Vreeswijk: Funding is also provided by Heritage Canada in terms of sport funding, so it would be difficult to scope that out. Between Olympics there is that kind of support. We can certainly provide you the figures for the Vancouver Olympics, both for security as well as hosting.
Senator Neufeld: However, it is normal for the federal government to significantly fund the Olympics.
Ms. Vreeswijk: I have one point of clarification. There is a small amount for the G8 summit in the Public Works and Government Services Canada portfolio.
Ms. Thornton: On page 208 is an item for Public Works on the estimated cost of additional office accommodation provided to government departments and agencies. The overall funding is $14 million, and that includes $185,000 for G8-G20 summits, so it is not an explicit line item.
Senator Ringuette: For housing?
Ms. Thornton: For additional office accommodation during the G8-G20 summits.
Senator Ringuette: This is accommodation was for whom? Do we know?
Ms. Thornton: For officials.
Ms. Vreeswijk: Most of the G8-G20 summit costs would have been captured within Supplementary Estimates (A), but there is a small charge of $185,000 that is within the Public Works portfolio as well.
Senator Ringuette: In regard to Senator Neufeld's question about percentage of federal government participation in Olympic Games, I would like to highlight that never in Canadian history have the Olympic Games been held in Atlantic Canada.
On page 68, Public Works and Government Services Canada, $2.5 million, funding to help defer the cost associated with the ministers' regional offices program. The ministers' regional offices program provides shared secured office accommodation and administrative support for federal cabinet ministers and their exempt staff while conducting government business outside the National Capital Region.
Costs for the program include set-up costs, accommodations, basic operation costs, salary costs for two PWGSC administrative staff at each site, and program coordination costs at Public Works and Government Services Canada headquarters. Ministers' office budgets are charged for incidental costs, hospitality and so forth.
First, I would like more detail. Where are these offices located? What are the individual costs of these offices? Why is it under Public Works? It is a ministerial responsibility, and it includes staffing here and space for coordinating program costs.
I want more detail than what we have in Supplementary Estimates (B). What are the other costs associated with these MROs, the ministers' regional offices?
Ms. Vreeswijk: Perhaps you could ask your next question while we endeavour to see if we have an answer.
Senator Ringuette: I have a few other questions in regard to this issue.
Why are we not looking at these ministerial expenses under the minister's department? There is the issue of two PWGSC administrative staff at each site. What do they do? I do not suppose that the minister is at these offices on a daily or weekly basis. These costs are highly questionable. Could you provide this committee with as much detail as you can as you reply to my particular questions?
Ms. Vreeswijk: We are endeavouring to see if we have information with us on this topic. It shows up here because Public Works is the service provider for the public service in terms of accommodations.
Senator Ringuette: However, under the Parliament of Canada, for example, the Senate is maintained by Public Works and Government Services Canada, and yet the cost of maintaining our buildings is under the rubric ``Senate of Canada.'' There is great discrepancy in regard to allotment of expenses.
In regard to having two Public Works administration staff members for each regional office, what could they be doing that could not be relegated to a private contractor. Regardless, we will await the detailed information you will provide.
The Chair: You say ``Public Works'' but is it not a Treasury Board central vote we are looking at here — a vote 10? It is not Public Works at all; it is Treasury Board, is it not?
Ms. Vreeswijk: It is an allocation from vote 10 to Public Works. It is a division of accommodations.
The Chair: It is Treasury Board vote 10 that we are looking at here.
Ms. Vreeswijk: That is right. It is a central vote.
Senator Ringuette: To restate my case, we are looking at additional expenses for these regional offices. We do not know how many there are or where they are.
My other question has to do with page 76, under ``Privy Council.'' Is the Privy Council coming before us tomorrow?
The Chair: The Privy Council will be here tomorrow.
Senator Ringuette: Maybe you could direct this question to them before tomorrow so that they will have the answer tomorrow.
On page 76, Privy Council, Public Appointments Commission Secretariat, vote 25 I suspect is again a Treasury Board vote. There is an additional $47,000.
Ms. Vreeswijk: That is for the operating budget carried forward. We had talked earlier about all departments being able to access as part of vote 25 an operating budget carry-forward up to an amount equal to 5 per cent of their operating budgets.
Senator Ringuette: However, we still do not have a public commission appointment officer. Why would they be able to carry forward 5 per cent?
Ms. Vreeswijk: If there are monies within the estimates already —
Senator Ringuette: It is a nonexistent, nonoperational and non-functional entity.
Ms. Vreeswijk: If the estimates are appropriated at this time, then only at that point in time would they be eligible for the operating budget carry-forward.
Senator Ringuette: I am looking at these additional costs while considering services for New Brunswickers, say. I will give you just one example in regard to dealing with CPP disability benefits. In New Brunswick the statistic for the federal government to deal with that kind of request under that particular program is 180 days. In Ontario, it is 120 days. It takes two months less in Ontario to provide the processing and the services than it takes for New Brunswick.
If there is some left-over money given out, I would like it used to address the problem of human resources to provide equal services and access to programs. New Brunswickers pay the same taxes as anyone else in Canada. At the same time, the quality of the service they are given is a lot less. That is just one example.
Senator Callbeck: Under the Correctional Service of Canada, on page 199, you are transferring out $2.4 million. What was that amount originally budgeted for? Does that have anything to do with the closure of prison farms?
Mr. Enns: It does not relate to the farms.
Senator Callbeck: What was it budgeted for initially?
Ms. Vreeswijk: We will have to get back to you regarding what that was budgeted for.
The Chair: We have given you quite a few requests and you have given us a number of undertakings. Ms. Vreeswijk, please bear in mind that we will be required to vote on the appropriation bill in the next two or three weeks. We must have our report completed and all the background information before we can be in a position to vote, even to vote on a report. Therefore, the sooner you can forward those answers, the sooner we can ensure the Government of Canada has the funds it is seeking.
Ms. Vreeswijk: As a point of clarification, a number of the questions were related to statutory items. I apologize that we were focused much more on the voted items. Therefore, we will endeavour to get back to you on all the items recognizing the statutory items are provided for information only. Should the answers to those be delayed, they would not affect the voted items, per se.
We will work with the clerk and the researcher's office to ensure we have all the line items of your requests so that we can fully respond to any areas that we did not respond to today.
The Chair: That would be wonderful. We appreciate you being here with us today, and we look forward to seeing you again in February, if not before.
(The committee adjourned.)