Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 34 - Evidence - March 5, 2013
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 5, 2013
The Senate Standing Committee on National Finance met this day, at 9:30 a.m., to study the supplementary estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, this morning we will continue our study of supplementary estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013.
[English]
We began our examination of Supplementary Estimates (C) last Wednesday evening, with an overview provided by officials from the Expenditure Management Sector of Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. This morning we welcome officials from three departments or agencies that the committee has expressed an interest in hearing from.
You will note that about three quarters of the amount claimed in the supplementary estimates was with respect to National Defence. We do not have National Defence before us today. We are still working on that, but honourable senators will have received a reply with respect to reprofiling, which has been circulated from the last time National Defence was here. We talked about bringing them back to explain that reprofiling issue that was left in limbo after Supplementary Estimates (B). We will be working on that.
Today we are pleased to have other government departments here and we can work on understanding primarily Supplementary Estimates (C) and your request for additional expenditures for the year. We are always interested in knowing why it appears in the supplementary estimates and not in the Main Estimates. That is one of the points we would ask about.
We are anxious to get through the supplementary estimates for this year, because we also have now been charged with dealing with Main Estimates for the coming year, which we have to get started on because we will have to deal with interim supply at the end of March. We have quite a bit on our plate right now.
From Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada we welcome back Nadir Patel, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, and Renetta Siemens, Director General of the Physical Resources Bureau. When I go through these titles I have an image of the big sign on your door. You must have a large door.
From the Canadian International Development Agency, sometimes referred to as CIDA, we welcome Sue Stimpson, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. She is accompanied by Arun Thangaraj, Director General, Business Planning, Resources Management and Systems.
From Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, we welcome Alain Séguin, Chief Financial Officer, and Allen Sutherland, Assistant Deputy Minister, Learning Branch.
We have asked the spokesperson for each department to give us about five minutes of a briefing on your requests in the supplementary estimates. It is always helpful if you can take us through the estimates when you are doing that. We will start in the order in which I introduced them, with Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada.
Nadir Patel, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: Good morning and thank you for the invitation. It is once again a pleasure and a privilege to be here with you.
I will make a brief opening statement, following which we will get into the details and I will be happy to answer questions.
By way of context in the current environment, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is responsible for the conduct of Canada's international affairs, including trade and commerce. The Supplementary Estimates (C) before you here relate to that mandate.
Our mandate is set out in legislation and can be summarized in three distinct bullets: conducting all of our diplomatic communications and negotiations between the Government of Canada and countries and international organizations; coordinating Canada's economic relations and promoting Canadian international trade and commerce; and managing Canada's diplomatic and consular missions and services abroad, including the administration of the Canadian Foreign Service.
The department advances Canada's interests internationally, shapes Canada's responses to international issues and events, manages bilateral and multilateral relationships and delivers programs worldwide. This includes, of course, undertaking diplomacy and programming in support of international peace and security, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and providing whole-of-government coordination in response to international crises and natural disasters abroad.
DFAIT provides commercial consular and passport services to Canadians at home. On the commercial side, the department generates international opportunities for Canadian business by negotiating agreements to open and expand markets, facilitating two-way trade and investment, and encouraging innovation through international science and technology partnerships.
We also manage Canada's global network of 171 missions in 104 countries abroad, providing a range of services to Canadians and Canadian businesses. This network supports DFAIT as well as the international work of 32 federal departments and agencies, Crown corporations and provincial governments.
This current context puts DFAIT among the most complex departments in the Government of Canada, facing a wide array of challenges arising from uncertainties and volatility in the international environment in which it operates, such as natural disasters or security threats. Moreover, given our international operations, our annual expenditures are influenced by fluctuations in foreign currency, varying rates of inflation and changes in assessed contributions related to membership in international organizations.
Against this backdrop of complexity and volatility, the department places a strong, robust and unwavering emphasis on prudent and careful financial management in order to successfully deliver its mandate in a responsible manner within its allocated resources.
Today's Supplementary Estimates (C) for DFAIT, which are under discussion, result in a less than 1 per cent net increase of $25.16 million to the department's current year appropriations, bringing the total authorities for this fiscal year to $2.76 billion. This net increase of $25.16 million is comprised of a net increase of $106.23 million in capital vote 5, a net decrease of $48.53 million in operating vote 1, and a net decrease of $32.55 million in grants and contributions vote 10.
The largest single item included in these supplementary estimates and contributing to that net increase of $25.16 million is $107.52 million in new capital vote 5 funding for the consolidation of the Canadian High Commission at Trafalgar Square in London in the United Kingdom. Currently, the High Commission in London is accommodated in two buildings, Canada House, located at Trafalgar Square, and Macdonald House, located at Grosvenor Square. Some of you may have had an opportunity to visit those locations. This new project will consolidate the two chanceries into one location at Trafalgar Square and is expected to save money through a series of efficiencies while at the same time continue to provide the necessary platform for the delivery of services to Canadian businesses and visitors to Canada.
In closing, I want to emphasize that the department continues to place a strong emphasis on prudent and careful financial management along with robust risk management practices.
Since my last appearance before this committee in May 2012, the department has restructured its headquarters operations, which includes a concerted effort and emphasis on aligning human and financial resources with departmental plans and priorities. The supplementary estimates here are aligned with those departmental plans and priorities.
The department mandates, at all levels, the prudent use of public resources through effective and efficient budgeting, forecasting, spending, cost containment, reporting, control and oversight.
Through a strong risk-based financial management function, we will continue to provide strategic financial advice, analysis and support to senior management to implement programs and activities.
Looking ahead, DFAIT remains committed to the responsible stewardship of these resources and sound financial management in order to ensure that its priorities are met, its goals are fulfilled and program results are achieved.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Patel. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada appears in Supplementary Estimates (C) in the English version on page 58.
On a point of clarification before we continue with our next witness, is your consolidation of the buildings in London a net amount? Was the Grosvenor Square property sold and is this a net amount, or is it still retained as part of the assets?
Mr. Patel: At the moment, it is retained as part of the assets. This is not a net amount. This amount was used for a part of the project that is currently under way at Trafalgar Square.
The Chair: I am aware that the residence is also at Grosvenor Square as well as the meeting rooms. I was wondering what was happening with respect to the residence, but so far it remains.
Mr. Patel: For the moment it remains; that is right.
The Chair: Thank you.
We will go now to the Canadian International Development Agency and Ms. Stimpson.
Sue Stimpson, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA): Thank you. If you are reviewing the estimates, CIDA is part of the DFAIT portfolio; you will find CIDA's supplementary estimates within the section on Foreign Affairs in Supplementary Estimates (C).
Before I describe the items in CIDA's supplementary estimates, I would like to note that, as per the instruction of the Treasury Board Secretariat, economic action plan savings remain within departmental reference levels. Therefore, additional resources sought through supplementary estimates are offset instead of seeking additional funds from the fiscal framework.
The Canadian International Development Agency is on track to achieve the savings identified in Canada's Economic Action Plan. Through the Canadian International Assistance Envelope, CIDA will continue to focus its efforts where they can have a real impact.
The agency will continue to deliver on its Muskoka Initiative on Maternal, Newborn and Child Health commitment as well as important programming in economic growth, security, children and youth, as well as providing humanitarian assistance to meet the needs of those take affected by disasters and crises.
CIDA is focused on achieving results and demonstrating transparency and accountability for taxpayers' investments.
CIDA's Supplementary Estimates (C) consists of the following: CIDA is requesting a net increase of $5.4 million in new funding. The additional $5.4 million is comprised of additional authorities of $145.9 million, offset by $140.5 million available within CIDA's grants and contributions vote.
For CIDA's grants and contributions, two items require funding. The first is a $95.9 million requirement for the commitment to support Canada's Fast Start financing commitments under the Copenhagen Accord, which supports climate change adaptation and mitigation in developing countries. The $95.9 million is in addition to $171 million in CIDA's 2012-13 Supplementary Estimates (A).
The amount proposed in these supplementary estimates would be allocated as follows: $76.2 million to the Asian Development Bank for the Canadian Climate Change Fund for the private sector in Asia; $16.5 million to the United Nations Development Programme to improve climate resilience while enhancing food security in less developed countries; and $3.2 million for the Canada Fund for African Climate Resilience to support projects that will advance food security and promote sustainable development and economic growth in Africa.
In addition, the International Climate Change Strategy provided the opportunity for unspent funds from other departments against this initiative to be transferred to CIDA to provide to the Asian Development Bank. Transfers from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and Environment Canada are included in these estimates.
The second item is $50 million to increase the annual amount available to the Canadian International Development Agency for the Crisis Pool Quick Release Mechanism. The establishment of a Crisis Pool Quick Release Mechanism was approved as a pilot for 2011-12 and 2012-13 whereby $50 million of the crisis pool is allocated in advance to CIDA to provide rapid access to additional funds to respond to international crises and disabilities. This mechanism has now been approved on a permanent basis and increased to $100 million.
With these two items, the total amount of new funding requested by CIDA is $145.9 million. This is offset by the $140.5 million in economic action plan savings for a net increase of $5.4 million.
Although not a funding requirement, CIDA is also requesting approval to increase the amount to be allocated to grants rather than contributions. The total amount of CIDA's aid expenditures that can be provided in the form of grants is approved by Parliament through the estimates process and is known as ``grant ceiling authorities.'' In these supplementary estimates, CIDA is requesting an increase to its grant ceiling authorities in the amount of $100 million to fund initiatives in priority areas such as child protection, as well as maternal, newborn and child health.
[Translation]
The supplementary estimates also include four transfers for a total of $21.4 million. The first is a return of $1.5 million of unused funds from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade for positions abroad that have been postponed to the next fiscal year.
The second transfer of $13.7 million relates to the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, which was created in celebration of the 60th anniversary of Her Majesty's accession to the throne. The Government of Canada's contribution to the trust is an amount of up to $20 million that is broken into two components. The first is a $10 million lump sum contribution, and the second is an amount of up to $10 million to match Canadian private sector donations.
Under the supplementary estimates, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade will transfer $13.7 million to CIDA to cover Canada's contribution to the trust. CIDA will provide up to $6.3 million of additional funds from its existing budget.
The last two transfers relate to unspent climate change funding. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is transferring $5 million and Environment Canada is transferring $1.2 million to CIDA. As previously mentioned, CIDA will provide these funds to the Asian Development Bank.
[English]
I will stop there, senators. I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.
The Chair: There may be questions with respect to the contributions to the trust and what controls are on those, but I will wait for someone to explore that question.
We will hear now from Alain Séguin, Chief Financial Officer of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.
[Translation]
Alain Séguin, Chief Financial Officer, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: Mr. Chair and senators, I am pleased to appear before the committee as Chief Financial Officer of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.
I would like to introduce you to my colleague Allen Sutherland, Assistant Deputy Minister of our Learning Branch, responsible for student loans.
Allow me to offer the committee an overview of HRSDC's portion of the supplementary estimates (C), tabled on February 25, 2013. Through these estimates, we provide Parliament an update on various statutory programs.
Statutory items are included in the estimates for information only because Parliament has already approved the purpose of the expenditures and the terms and conditions under which they may be made through other legislation.
[English]
As part of our Supplementary Estimates (C), you will note a statutory item for $281 million referring to the enhanced Employment Insurance benefits. As per the Budget Implementation Act 2009, an amount of $2.9 billion was credited to the Employment Insurance Operating Account in fiscal year 2010-11. This amount represented the estimated cost of the temporary benefit enhancements that were not to be recovered from future premiums, as announced in Canada's Economic Action Plan.
Following the completion of these measures, actual costs have been shown to be higher than the estimated $2.9 billion. Therefore, an amount of $281 million is included as part of Supplementary Estimates (C) for 2012-13 in order to supply the difference between the total costs of $3.181 billion and the estimated amount that was credited to the Employment Insurance Operating Account in 2010-11.
You will also note other statutory increases, such as for the Old Age Security Program, mainly due to changes in the average monthly rates and the estimated number of beneficiaries; and for the Canada Disability Savings Program. The increases for the Canada Disability Savings Bonds and the Canada Disability Savings Grants are primarily due to the implementation of the carry-forward provisions in January 2012 that allows beneficiaries to claim unused grant and bond entitlements for a 10-year period back to 2008 when Registered Disability Savings Plans became available.
Finally, the major statutory increases include $86 million for the Canada Student Grants Program, reflecting the forecasted increase by the Chief Actuary and taking into consideration current disbursement trends.
In addition to the statutory items, HRSDC is asking for an additional $232 million in voted appropriations. This includes $231 million related to a request for the writeoff of debts owed to the Crown for unrecoverable Canada student loans under vote 7. As general practice, a separate vote is established for authority to write off debts. A loan to an outside body is considered a non-budgetary item since the loan is expected to be repaid. Student loans are an asset for the Government of Canada and such writeoffs require Parliament's approval.
According the Debt Write-off Regulations, debts should be written off in the year in which they are determined to be uncollectible. The Debt Write-off Regulations contain criteria under which accounts may be submitted for writeoff. The criteria include deceased, bankrupt, cost-effectiveness, statute-barred and hardship. Our request under vote 7 is consistent with such regulation, as we have determined these debts to be uncollectible this fiscal year. Each year the department recommends the writeoff of accounts that meet these criteria.
[Translation]
Allow me to provide some context. A large percentage of students respect and repay their loans. Some borrowers have difficulties with repayment, and we have measures to support them through the repayment process. Nevertheless, some loans go into default. We have a vigorous recovery process, including working with our partners at Canada Revenue Agency.
[English]
However, the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act establishes a limitation period of six years between the time the borrowers last acknowledge their Canada student loan and any legal activity the Crown can undertake to recover that debt. Once this period has expired, the Crown no longer has the authority to take action to collect on the debt.
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions is tasked with producing an actuarial report, as stipulated in the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act. The Chief Actuary's most recent report was tabled in Parliament on June 4, 2012.
Finally, you will note a net increase of $63 million for non-budgetary Canada student loans. As a result of increasing student need, more students are becoming eligible for loans, the result being an expected increase of roughly 10 per cent in loans issued over the course of loan years 2011-12 and 2012-13.
I hope this overview has given you a better understanding of the content of the Supplementary Estimates (C) for our department. My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you for taking the time to explain the criteria with respect to the student loans. Can we assume that money goes from the government to the students, or are commercial banks involved in the loan guarantees?
Allen Sutherland, Assistant Deputy Minister, Learning Branch, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: In effect, it is money from the government.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I have a list of senators who have requested an opportunity to engage in discussion. If they have a comment, any of you may or may not wish to reply. Let me know, if you would. If they have a question, then I hope you will try to reply to it.
Senator Buth: I would like to start with CIDA. Can you explain what the Muskoka Initiative is and what you are doing within that program? You made the comment that you are on track with that program, and I am not sure if you said you were on budget.
Ms. Stimpson: Yes, indeed, we are on budget.
At the 2010 G8 summit, Canada committed $1.1 billion in new funding to the Muskoka Initiative on maternal, newborn and child health — we refer to it as MNCH — in 2010, in addition to maintaining $1.75 billion of existing MNCH funding in CIDA's reference levels, for a total of $2.85 billion between 2010-11 and 2014-15.
Senator Buth: Could you provide a few more program details in terms of what that program is expected to do?
Ms. Stimpson: Absolutely. The program is focused on improving the health of mothers, newborns and children and reducing the number of preventable deaths. These are the top priorities for CIDA. Each year hundreds of thousands of women die during pregnancy and child birth, and 6.9 million children die before reaching the age of five. Many of these deaths can be prevented by proven, cost-effective, evidence-based interventions.
Canada is leading a global effort, the Muskoka Initiative, to mobilize global action to reduce maternal and infant mortality and improve the health of mothers and children in the world's poorest countries.
In November 2010, Minister Oda outlined how the $2.85 billion contributions through CIDA and the Muskoka Initiative will be organized. We focused on three paths: strengthening health systems, reducing the burden of disease and improving nutrition.
We also have partnerships with multilateral, global and Canadian organizations, such as UN agencies. We focus on 10 countries. We can provide a more detailed list. I can go through them here. We work in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Haiti, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania.
Senator Buth: What other countries are participating in the Muskoka Initiative?
Ms. Stimpson: I do not have a full list with me, but I can provide that to the committee, if you wish.
Senator Buth: That would be great. How will you measure success?
Ms. Stimpson: We have a variety of measures in place and work with a number of different partners. First, we have strong reporting and accountability on our Muskoka Initiative and MNCH. We report on it through the DPR, our official development assistance reports, and statistical reports.
There is also an accountability commission, which I will find a note on in just a second. We require accountability and transparency for each of our individual agreements with partners and with countries. We have monitoring requirements that are risk based. We maintain an ongoing dialogue with multilateral organizations so we can monitor projects as they go, and we require reporting on how those projects are going.
We have quite a bit of information on the initiative as a whole, and we can certainly put together a package for you.
Senator Buth: Some of these programs are complex and difficult to measure success. Are you looking at things like mortality? Do you monitor that within the countries? What is the reporting like in developing countries? I would think it might be difficult for developing countries to provide monitoring statistics.
Ms. Stimpson: It can be difficult, but the global organizations work hard with the countries to improve their statistics. Being the CFO, I am not an expert in the reporting, but we look at specifics.
For example, the Micronutrient Initiative delivers vitamin and mineral supplements around the world. We have $75 million over five years invested in Micronutrient. The GAVI Alliance is working to distribute vaccines against pneumonia and diarrheal diseases around the world, and that is $50 million over five years. We have some very specific projects, paths and partners with whom we work. We can provide an overview of how we invest.
Senator Buth: That would be great.
I have another area in terms of CIDA. You mentioned the Crisis Pool Quick Release Mechanism. You mentioned that fund that is approved under estimates and has gone from $50 million to $100 million. Can you explain why that was put into place and how it works?
Ms. Stimpson: In the international assistance envelope there is a crisis pool specifically for humanitarian crises and disasters. It is $200 million a year. There was a decision to pilot an initiative where $50 million would be put in CIDA's reference levels co-managed by the Department of Foreign Affairs, CIDA, in consultation with PCO and TBS. I should say it is co-managed by the ministers of DFAIT and —
Senator Buth: Not Mr. Patel.
Ms. Stimpson: Not Mr. Patel, I am afraid. It is in consultation with PCO, Finance and TBS. It is not necessarily spent but put in CIDA's reference levels so we can release it quickly, based on letters between the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and the Prime Minister, to determine whether the disaster or humanitarian crisis requires a quick response. It saves time and allows us to disburse quickly.
The pilot has been quite successful, although ``successful'' is probably not the right word, given that you are dealing with humanitarian crises in health, for example, but it allows CIDA to release money more quickly, having it in our reference levels. Because of the success of the pilot, our suggestion is to increase that amount to $100 million, which would be available as a quick-release mechanism. It is still subject to considerable oversight, to the approval of both ministers and to the information of the Prime Minister, but it is there for quick access in the event of crises.
Senator Buth: Have you already received approval for the $100 million, or is that coming up in the next budget?
Ms. Stimpson: We are seeking authority from Parliament to increase our current reference levels from $50 million to $100 million, and this year we will seek ongoing approval for the $100 million to be put in CIDA's levels.
Senator Buth: You mentioned $145.9 million for disaster assistance, offset by $140 million. These offsets, by the way, become confusing in terms of what we are actually approving, because things are offset and transferred. If it is the $145.9 million, where was that spent?
Ms. Stimpson: If I might correct a bit, senator. I realize with the offsets it gets a bit murky.
There are $245 million in authorities requested from Parliament. We are seeking $145 million — I am rounding it a bit — for the $95.9 million in climate change and the $50 million for the crisis pool, and we are asking for additional authorities of $100 million in grant ceiling. Those are the authorities we are requesting.
Because we have funds in our reference levels from economic action plan savings and we have transfers from other departments, it brings it down to only $5.4 million in new funding. However, the actual authorities are $245.9 million and the funding requirement is $145.9.
The Chair: Thank you for raising this issue of the crisis pool, which is accounted for somewhat differently. I think all honourable senators appreciate your discussion with regard to that.
During the year, if you have had to use some of the crisis pool, do you then come with a supplementary estimate to top it back up? Is there a requirement at the end of each year that if that has not been used, it has to be reapproved every year, or is it topped up and then just left there year after year?
Ms. Stimpson: There is a difference between the amount in CIDA's reference levels and the amount in the International Assistance Envelope as a whole, the co-managed crisis pool. Within CIDA's reference levels, if we do not use the portion of the crisis pool that is within our reference levels, it will lapse. We have no authority to spend it on anything else. It is dedicated to crises that have to be approved by the ministers involved.
In the IAE Crisis Pool, I think it is $200 million a year, if I am not mistaken. I think the total in there is $383 million, as at the start of 2013. Those funds are accessed only for crises and remain in the pool.
The intent of approving $100 million for CIDA is that we will not have to come back to Parliament in the event of a crisis to seek funds. We will be able to release it immediately, as needed. We will not be required to top it up, unless of course we lack money. If there are too many crises during the year and CIDA runs out of money, we will, of course, come back and seek supplementary estimates, but the intent is not to have to.
The Chair: That is within the year?
Ms. Stimpson: That is correct.
The Chair: With respect to the other fund, Mr. Patel, that is managed by Foreign Affairs?
Mr. Patel: The quick-release mechanism is under the umbrella of that crisis pool, and so those funds are in fact transferred into our reference levels. As my colleague pointed out, for CIDA it is $50 million; for Foreign Affairs it is $10 million. These supplementary estimates are requesting those amounts to double, so it would be $100 million and $20 million. Part of this, as my colleague points out, is to be able to access those funds on an as-needed basis, rapidly, and not have to cash manage until the subsequent supplementary estimates exercise, where we would get the money.
However, checks and balances are built in. The ministers hold the key, in consultation with the Prime Minister, to decide if those funds can be released quickly. It allows us to act in a more nimble fashion in response to disasters.
The Chair: What you are asking Parliament to do is to approve a certain amount of money without a specific use, other than the fact that it will be a crisis situation, as determined according to a certain protocol?
Mr. Patel: That is correct. The use itself would be determined in the context of that protocol, but which specific crisis or disaster is not defined yet. It would be so that we have access to that. Again, it allows us to cash manage better so we are not stuck with footing some expenditures without having access to the capital until the next go-around.
The Chair: Is there a lapse at the end of the year if that has not all been used?
Mr. Patel: We do not benefit from that. Essentially, that lapses if we do not use it and we do not use it for any other purpose.
The Chair: We should look at the Main Estimates, which we will do tomorrow night, and we should find a reference level for next year, an amount in there for both of your departments.
Ms. Stimpson: If I may, the approval was a bit late to make it into Main Estimates for 2013-14, so there will be another round of supplementary estimates for 2013-14 and then it will appear. Sorry. We will have this discussion again.
The Chair: We will look forward to someone helping us find that.
Mr. Patel: We will be back.
The Chair: Of course you will. Thank you very much.
Senator Gerstein: Thank you, witnesses, for appearing before us.
I would like to start by begging the indulgence of the committee because the question I wish to ask has been asked at a number of these meetings before.
We heard from DND last year that they were able to fund an operating deficit by transferring funds from their capital account — a rather interesting concept, I might add — to which I recall the general said, ``It is very complicated.'' I replied, ``You can say that again.''
If we turn to page 58, do I understand that we are now seeing the reverse situation, that in fact what you are doing is taking $48 million out of your operating expenditures and putting them into capital expenditures, $59 million below, in other words, a reprofiling of these approvals? Perhaps you would like to explain to us about how one goes about reprofiling approved expenditures.
The Chair: Mr. Patel, that is for you.
Senator Gerstein: If I might just take it one step further to be specific, if you use the example of the funding for the consolidation of the Canadian High Commission at Trafalgar Square, in which you are asking for an approval of $107 million, let us assume that the $107 million suddenly becomes $157 million. Does that mean that in order to fund that, you could simply say, ``We can either ask for more or we can go to the operating budget and put it in over to the capital'' — I am not sure whether this is capital or operating — ``or go to the capital and switch it back to operating?''
This is an interesting concept. I have to tell you that after hearing the reply two or three times, I still do not understand it. Perhaps other senators do.
First, is the $48 million coming out of operating and going into capital?
Mr. Patel: The answer to that question is no, in the sense that it is not moving from one vote to another vote in the context of our own ability to do that. However, because the $48 million were frozen — as an example, money that we no longer have access to because of whatever, whether it is a program that is sunset or some of the Budget 2012 spending review decisions — but still remain within our reference levels, we cannot do anything with it; they are frozen.
On the other hand, we actually have a need, and in this case it is a capital need of $107 million. Rather than that money returning to Treasury Board and then $107 million coming to us, this is an accounting adjustment so that it minimizes the need to transfer money out and then a full $107 million back. Therefore, it is an offset. It goes back to the offset element.
Senator Gerstein: You are expressing a concept, as I understand it, that you have the ability to move funds from operating to capital, capital to operating. Is that correct?
Mr. Patel: That is not correct. We do not have the ability to do that.
Senator Gerstein: That is what I understood Defence did, but that is for another vote.
Mr. Patel: I can confirm that this is something we do not have the flexibility to do unilaterally and it is not something I can use to cash manage our operational expenditures. Those votes are separated.
Senator Gerstein: How do you distinguish what you are doing on page 58? Is that not exactly what you are doing? You are taking $58 million out of operating and putting $59 million into capital. You are saying, ``It is frozen; we do not want to lose it so let us flip it over.'' Is that not exactly what you are doing?
Mr. Patel: It is frozen so we do not have access to that and we would not have access to that. That money is, because of the new funding needs that are before the committee —
Senator Gerstein: In capital.
Mr. Patel: — in capital or other sources. Once this is approved, money will come to the department to fund those new needs.
What that then becomes is a source of funding. We do not have access to that ourselves unilaterally, but Treasury Board will say, ``Look, you have money already in your reference levels that are frozen. You cannot touch them; you cannot do anything with them. Instead of giving you the full amount of everything you need, we will give you the net amount of what you need and use the money that is frozen to cover what this new funding request requires.'' From our perspective, it is an accounting adjustment —
Senator Gerstein: There is no question it is an accounting adjustment.
Mr. Patel: — where there is a source of funds that we would not otherwise be able to use, nor would we be able to use unilaterally for any other purpose. It is just there, and it could stay there for a long time or it could return to the centre. They are saying, ``Rather than give you this additional money in new money, just use that. We will now unfreeze it so you can use it to offset that need.''
Unequivocally, I do not have the flexibility to move money around between votes.
Senator Gerstein: Let us simply conclude that the general was right when he said it is complicated.
Mr. Patel: I can agree with that statement for sure.
The Chair: Senator Gerstein, Senator Buth has a question that might help clarify this for us.
Senator Buth: Are you saying that you cannot do that until you get our approval here?
Mr. Patel: The answer is yes, because if that does not go forward, it puts us in a cash management bind.
Senator Buth: I just wanted to clarify.
Senator Gerstein: I think that exhibits the fact that it is a reprofiling of the loan.
If I may pursue Macdonald House for a moment, I am interested in the basis on which the two chanceries are moving into one location and, to use your words, ``is expected to save money through a series of efficiencies.'' Do you think you could be more specific as to the numbers? It is a wonderful idea. Some of us know Macdonald House and Trafalgar Square. We have attachments to both. How much more efficient do you think they will be?
Mr. Patel: There are several dimensions to that.
Senator Gerstein: The one dimension is clearly money. It is a number. How much do you think you will be able to save?
Mr. Patel: It is unclear at this point, and I can explain why.
Macdonald House itself is a property we have had for many, many years and is already past its expected life span from an engineering and structural perspective. We continue to make investments for maintaining the property and we will continue to do that to ensure that we maintain the property for what it needs to be maintained for.
We have been looking for quite a while at how best to manage that project. In fact, how to deal with that has been in the works for 10 years because the potential costs to fully retrofit that building are significant. We had an opportunity to explore the purchase of a building adjacent to or right next door to our property at Trafalgar Square. We looked at that from a preliminary planning perspective. When we looked at acquiring that property and the potential sale of Macdonald House, the overall project would generate savings from a few different sources once the consolidation, the redesign and the refit are completed. First, overall, the project itself, once completed, is expected to be cost-neutral and in fact is likely to generate additional surplus funds, which would be returned to the fiscal framework once the entire consolidation is completed. If we take the proceeds of sale from Macdonald House and invest a portion of that into refitting the building adjacent to Trafalgar Square and consolidating that, there are expected to be additional funds left over that would then be returned to the fiscal framework.
You then have the operational savings and I refer to the series of efficiencies. From that perspective, the maintenance costs from a building that has exceeded its expected life span are far greater than the potential maintenance costs from a newly refitted building. There will be savings in costs there.
In terms of efficiencies from consolidating with one location rather than two distinct locations, whether it is maintenance or other support services, internal transportation between missions, those types of things will also generate savings.
In addition, in the retrofit of the new location, we will move to what we refer to as Workplace 2.0 standards in the context of the internal setup of the offices — that is, moving away from multiple closed offices and moving to a more efficient work station approach, which is more in line with today's internal office setups. That will result in approximately 20 per cent savings of space utilized. We can have the same number of employees for 20 per cent less space than we have now in two different buildings. That in itself will yield cost savings.
If there is any surplus space — and this is a possibility with respect to the newly acquired property at Trafalgar Square — we expect we will be able to rent some of that space out and generate additional streams of revenue for the government at that point.
When you pull all this together, those are the areas where we see a number of savings opportunities. I cannot provide a specific number right now because we have not yet completed the assessment on the potential sale on the valuation of what Macdonald House is expected to generate. Work is still being done in London along with our bureau at this time. It is early for me to share a number, although I will be happy to do so down the road when it becomes clearer.
The entire cost of the project will of course depend on how the preliminary planning work goes now and what the expected sale of Macdonald House would generate. We are confident in the fact that this will generate at least cost neutrality but likely a return of additional funds back to the fiscal framework once the project is complete.
Senator Gerstein: To understand again, if you sell the building in Grosvenor Square, that is capital. What you are looking for on the other side is capital to expand, and you are also looking for substantial operating costs. I assume there is a bit of a comingling here, perhaps reprofiling of monies received and spent between capital and operating. On that, I will leave my questioning.
The Chair: We have a supplementary question from Senator Hervieux-Payette.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: How advanced are you? You are asking for real money for a project where we do not know how much it will cost. Why not ask for the money to do the study and then come back and ask for the money? It seems that we are authorizing some expenditures without knowing how much we will sell the building for and how much it will cost to refit the actual Trafalgar building. Your cost-neutral allegation is a pure fantasy when it comes to buildings in London.
I remind you that there is quite a difficult financial situation in England, so we may not get the money that you expect from the sale of the Trafalgar property. Things are not going so well in that country.
If we approve something, we really do not know what we are approving because we will not know until you have finished. Why are you coming at this point in time with this?
Mr. Patel: I think those are excellent questions. I jotted down most of them.
In the context of this particular request, we had an opportunity to acquire the building adjacent to Trafalgar Square, located at 2-4 Cockspur. It came on the market and we had an opportunity to negotiate terms for that. The opportunity would not be there for too much longer down the road. Therefore, we felt that it was appropriate, based on a set of expert advice not only in relation to that location but what we could potentially do with Macdonald House.
We decided to move forward to acquire the property adjacent to Trafalgar Square, which we have done. That was to take place around the month of November. We did not have enough funds in capital money in our reference levels to complete the sale, so that is what this is about. This $107 million goes toward the purchase of the new property. It was not done without expert advice and opinions on the potential sale of Macdonald House.
In that regard, I can understand the concerns around not knowing what that will yield. However, I can say that there has been extensive interaction with professional advice and expertise in London on the potential and best use of Macdonald House and what the maximum potential sale price could be.
We have not completed receiving our evaluations of what that potential sale price would be. I do not have a number right now because I am also reluctant to impede what the maximum price we could get as the Government of Canada. However, based on that advice, we felt there was a strong business case for that, given the cost neutrality and likelihood of additional funding being generated after everything is done.
The U.K. financial situation and that of the city are important points; we are very mindful of that. We found that parts of the city are very resilient. Where Macdonald House is located in Grosvenor Square remains a highly sought- after area. It is in the heart of Mayfair. It remains a highly sought-after area where valuations have not taken a significant hit, unlike other parts of the U.K. That continues to work in our favour. We know with certainty that there is a lot of interest in the property. The key is how to maximize the return on that sale and then offset the project costs.
The final comment I will make is that there is no commingling between operating and capital. This is purely a request for capital funds, and we have not requested any operating funds. Regarding the operating funds that would be used to manage this project to complete the planning and move forward on some of this, at the moment we will use existing funds that we have within our existing reference levels. However, we would not move money around like that to fund this project in terms of where it is at now.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: If I understand correctly with regard to the amount that will have to be spent to renovate or expand the new building and the Trafalgar building, you are working with estimates; you certainly do not have firm prices. You will come and ask us for another X, Y or Z million for that, will you?
Mr. Patel: No. These are very informed estimates. A lot of expert advice has gone into this.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: You mentioned that many times. Which experts are you talking about? Are they your own experts — architects, engineers or the real estate people? Who are you talking about?
Mr. Patel: We would work with professional real estate advisers in London, as well as with lawyers and our in-house real property professionals. The Physical Resources Bureau is the real property bureau, so there is expertise in-house as well as outsourced expertise. We would use them to ensure the estimates are as informed as possible.
Also, yes, the proceeds of sale of Macdonald House are expected to cover the entire cost of this project.
The Chair: Senator Hervieux-Payette, you started on a supplementary question, which is usually one quick question to clarify something for everyone. I have now given you your slot. You have used your time up as a full questioner, though we thank you for those important questions. I will now move on.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you all for coming here today.
Continuing on with the consolidation at Trafalgar Square, $107 million is a lot of dollars. You are saying that when you sell Macdonald House, you plan to get enough money back to cover the whole thing and have money left over. You will have money left over from the sale, plus you are talking about all these efficiencies and that those will save money. You will save money in two places. Have you done a study on the efficiencies? You must have done something because you said that you would need 20 per cent less space. I would like to hear about that.
Mr. Patel: The answer is yes. We have done a very robust business case to ensure that we can generate the savings and results that we are looking for. Included in that is service to the public, as well. To consolidate the location would also allow an opportunity for either Canadians, Canadian businesses, visitors to Canada or anyone requiring service from the High Commission.
Mr. Chair, I suggest inviting my colleague to offer more specifics around the details of the study, if you are comfortable with that, given that it is under her area of specific responsibility.
The Chair: I am quite comfortable with that. I thought you were to suggest that this committee should go to London.
Ms. Siemens, you have the floor.
Renetta Siemens, Director General, Physical Resources Bureau, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here.
As Mr. Patel was saying, we do have a very robust business case. The issue though, as everyone knows, is that when you are about to put something up for sale, you can have an assessment of what you think the price may be, but we are trying to be hopeful that any assessment we may currently have may be greater when we put it up on the market. We want to have an open, transparent and clear process so that we can engage the marketplace not just in London but with international buyers who may be interested in accessing the London market.
As Mr. Patel said, I think we have a robust marketplace for that particular type of property. We have good estimates in terms of the expected price, but I would prefer to provide those numbers privately as opposed to publicly given the fact that we want to go to market shortly and we do not want to tie our hands, frankly. That is the first point.
To reiterate, our full expectation is that the price we get from that sale will more than cover the cost of purchasing 2- 4 Cockspur, as well as the retrofit of the building itself.
In terms of the cost estimates for the retrofit, we have done preliminary estimates, and we have done them as robustly as we are able. We are now in the process of engaging an architectural firm that will do the more specific design elements. From that we will have much more precise costing elements.
Again, as Mr. Patel said, we are applying Workplace 2.0 standards, so there is a 20 per cent savings there. As you know, Macdonald House includes staff quarters as well as an official residence. In keeping with the Budget 2012 commitment for official residence right-sizing, we will be moving to a smaller residence. That will result in cost savings as well, for both capital as well as operating. The staff quarters will be right-sized also; there will be smaller staff quarters, and there will be capital and operating savings from that again.
The main point, though, is that in addition to all of this, it should be noted — and Mr. Patel spoke to it but I can provide a bit more proposition — that Macdonald House is greatly deteriorated. Should we wish to stay in that building for the next 10, 20 or 30 years, we would have to do a fundamental rehabilitation of the building. Those numbers are very significant.
Status quo is basically a cost negative from a capital perspective, whereas going forward with this plan would be cost neutral. In terms of our estimates for the rehabilitation, I would be happy to provide those numbers as well so we can deal with that.
The final point is that we are a landowner in London now with the purchase of 2-4 Cockspur. We do have tenants in place, and we receive millions of dollars of rent for the leasing of the floors that we will not be occupying; we will not occupy the full building but only a smaller subset. Therefore, we will be retaining monies in that respect. Any capital that results from this sale and the purchase will go back to the fiscal framework, and we are expecting annual operating savings as well.
The Chair: To clarify, you are talking about the residence and downsizing. Will that be a rental accommodation, or do we anticipate as part of the overall package another capital acquisition for residence?
Ms. Siemens: Based on Treasury Board policy and direction, given the high price of the London marketplace, the assessment is that it is better to purchase in London as opposed to rent. Therefore, our presumption is that we would purchase NOR. Again, the monies for that purchase would be coming from the sale of Macdonald House.
Senator Callbeck: Mr. Patel, I asked you about a study on efficiencies, and you said something to the effect that, yes, there had been and that you found the savings you were looking for. What were the savings? Can you give us a lump figure here?
Mr. Patel: In terms of a dollar amount or in terms of examples of the types of things?
Senator Callbeck: I know you are talking about selling Macdonald House and that the proceeds will cover the purchase of the other building. Above and beyond that, you are talking about efficiencies. You said there was a study that showed you had found the savings you were looking for. I would like to know what you are talking about there.
Mr. Patel: We have a study and we can identify areas where there are expected savings. We have not achieved those savings yet, not until the project is consolidated and completed. It relates to the areas that I referred to earlier, whether it is a smaller workspace or whether it is costs from consolidation of a single location, looking at the maintenance costs we have on an annual basis at Macdonald House, which would no longer be in play. I do not have the numbers in front of me now, but we can certainly share what we have available. Again, these are a combination of a number of different elements, some of which we know. If you spent X amount of money on maintaining Macdonald House and you will no longer spend that money once this project is complete, we have a clear number.
For those areas where we expect savings, we have informed estimates and we can articulate that. All of this pulled together is part of the reason we decided to do that, and we can share those details in a more specific manner.
Ms. Siemens: Further to that, we have done present values on these various options, so the status quo option versus this new project option. We do have net present value analysis both for capital and operating. There are, of course, working assumptions because we are not yet in the building, but we do have these figures.
Senator Callbeck: What is the total cost of the property adjacent to Canada House that was purchased?
Mr. Patel: The purchase price was approximately £270 million, so approximately $114 million.
Senator Callbeck: You will send us the information you have on the efficiencies?
Mr. Patel: Yes, around the specific costs that we have identified in the context of our study around efficiencies.
Senator Callbeck: I have other questions on that, but I will let it go because I want to take up an issue that is extremely important to my province, and that is the passport service. We are the only province in Canada where you cannot get an emergency passport without going outside your province. If you get a phone call this afternoon that one of your family members was in an accident in the United States, and your passport has expired or you do not have one, you cannot get on a plane and fly down to that place in the States. You have to go to Halifax or to Fredericton, first, and make arrangements, and all this takes time.
I think this is an extremely unfair situation. I do not understand why arrangements cannot be made so that Islanders can get an emergency passport in their own province if a serious situation arises.
Mr. Patel: Mr. Chair, let me articulate it this way: This becomes a challenge for us to serve from a physical location, to cover the entire population within a short distance. What we do have now is that 95 per cent of the population resides within 100 kilometres of a physical passport office. Then, of course, Passport Canada's operations are funded through revenues received and fees paid by applicants. The opening and closing — ``expansion'' is a more appropriate word — of Passport Canada offices is really based on the sustainability of such offices. That becomes a bit of a driving challenge for us in trying to manage beyond that 95 per cent of the population within 100 kilometres of a physical location.
What we try to do is serve the public in alternative ways. A key element of this service strategy would be the delivery of application services through partnerships with receiving agents, such as Canada Post and Service Canada, as an example. If we do not have a physical passport office, we will use some of these agents in place of that. This allows Canadians, including those in Prince Edward Island, to submit passport applications through a broader range, particularly as we look beyond urban to rural and northern areas, among other places, and areas where we do not have passport offices within a reasonable distance for residents.
In Prince Edward Island, in particular, in terms of these partnership arrangements, residents have access to passport services at five Service Canada centres and two Canada Post locations on the Island. Two of them are in Charlottetown, two in Summerside, one in O'Leary, one in Montague and one in Souris.
In addition, these agents are not only receiving applications, but they will now review and validate that the documentation or the applicable proof of Canadian citizenship and other documents are reviewed on the spot so that applicants can keep their original documents with them. This is something we were not doing in the past.
We are trying to make it easier. We may not be entirely where we would like to be to cover the entire population, but we are trying to make it easier for residents to apply for a passport.
Of course, the new ePassport, which will soon formally launch, will have passports valid for a longer period of time, going from five years to ten years. That will allow longer validity and potentially provide a more optimal level of service as well to those who need passports.
Senator Callbeck: I am certainly aware of your partnership arrangements with the post office and Service Canada. That does not cover what I am talking about, namely, an emergency passport. We have no way of getting an emergency passport in our province unless we go to Halifax or Fredericton. Lots of times, when emergencies come up, the time is just not there.
I have been involved in a case from my own village, so I know what I am talking about. I would like to see your department look into this. There must be a way to provide that emergency passport for the people of Prince Edward Island.
Mr. Patel: Mr. Chair, I will relay these comments back to the CEO of our passport office, and I will explore this further. I recognize the challenge: When you are not covering the entire population through a passport office, what are the mechanisms for service delivery in these urgent situations? I cannot offer much more at this stage, but I will be happy to take this back to the CEO of the passport office and see if there are any other solutions beyond what we have already done to improve service delivery for those areas where there may not be a passport office relatively nearby.
Senator Black: Thank you all very much for being here and thanks so much for the level of preparation and competence that you so obviously display.
I have a number of questions. Because I am new to the Senate, and certainly new to this committee, Mr. Chair, if I am deviating from time and if I should go to second round, just yank the chain.
I would like to start in respect of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. Could you explain to me, just simply, the corporate relationship between your department and CIDA? Perhaps ``governance'' relationship is a better word. For greater clarity, is CIDA an agency of your department? Is it a separate department? Is it a creature of its own? What is the relationship? That is what I want to understand, please.
Mr. Patel: CIDA has its own department, deputy head and Minister of International Cooperation. Its estimates are under the broader portfolio of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Similarly, we would also have the Minister of International Trade and a Deputy Minister of International Trade, but it is under the umbrella of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Hence the estimates for CIDA are under that portfolio.
Senator Black: Mr. Patel, that structure, then, is only for the purpose of the estimates?
Mr. Patel: From an operational perspective, each department essentially operates on its own, but there is a lot of interaction and horizontal collaboration at all levels, from the ministers, ministers' staff and our deputy ministers. As well, corporately, Ms. Stimpson and her colleagues and I and my colleagues around our management table meet as joint management teams from time to time with agenda items that may be common to both departments. Ms. Stimpson and I would interact regularly. We did not prepare together for this committee, but we do interact regularly related to the portfolios.
Senator Black: In terms of our embassies, high commissions and trade offices around the world, you gave a number that I do not remember now. Is that up or down from past years?
Mr. Patel: There are 171 missions in 104 countries. That would be slightly down from last year. For example, we closed some consulates in the United States recently, but we also opened a new embassy in Burma. We do periodic reviews of our missions and will make decisions based on strategic relevance to Canada, security considerations.
Syria is a good example where we have a mission and have suspended operations. That would be included in our numbers. We do a periodic review.
As of last year it is slightly lower, but if you look at it relatively speaking, it is not dramatically swinging one way or the other.
Senator Black: I will use the word ``emergency'' fund. I know that is not the word that you have used, but that is the concept of this $100 million set aside for things that just come up. I think you called it ``fast track'' or something.
Mr. Patel: The quick-release mechanism?
Senator Black: Why was that set up? Were there problems in the past with timing, authorizations or with funds? What was the rationale for moving in that direction?
Mr. Patel: The primary rationale would be if you have an emergency, a disaster, it could cost a considerable amount of money. We have had some of these in the past. I cannot pinpoint which event, but there have been examples where they have created a temporary strain on resources within the department.
When that is the case, as the CFO we will need to look at reallocating or where we need to offset some funding temporarily. Even though the government may be fully supportive of additional funding being made available through the crisis pool mechanism, as a crisis pool, for example, we would have to typically wait until a supplementary estimates exercise to have those funds brought into the department, so that could be a few months, it could be several months.
Largely this was driven by giving flexibilities to cash manage and making it easier to draw funds so we can nimbly respond to emergencies on an as-needed basis. A core feature, of course, is that your checks and balances are still there, hence the ministers, in consultation with the Prime Minister, holding the keys before those funds are actually released.
Senator Black: It was an administrative efficiency drive.
Mr. Patel: I would say efficiency is a good part of it, flexibility, but of course it is also a risk management/mitigation strategy as well.
Senator Black: In respect of CIDA, where would I look to see which organizations Canada belongs to and what the fee is for those various organizations? Where do I find that?
Mr. Patel: This would be under the umbrella of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. In the Main Estimates you would see a list of all the organizations for which we make a —
Senator Black: That would be the UN, the Asian Development Bank, whatever?
Mr. Patel: That is right, all grants and contributions, all the international organizations. We have assessed contributions, non-assessed contributions, everything from the United Nations to the World Trade Organization, or whatever it may be. It will list the organizations, the amounts that been appropriated to make those payments.
What ends up happening is some of those amounts are based on historical spending, and we may not receive the actual invoice until some point during the fiscal year and in some cases at the end of the fiscal year. You may see some fluctuations in what is paid versus what we are referenced for.
If we have a lapse of money, so we did not need that money because the assessments were less than — which is often the case. That money simply returns to the fiscal framework at the end of the year or the beginning of the following year.
Senator Black: Are these annual assessments, normally?
Mr. Patel: It depends on the organization. Some could be annual, quarterly, twice a year, monthly.
Senator Black: At some point could you draw to my attention where I could actually see that list? You do not need to do that now, but at some point I would like to have a look at that.
Mr. Patel: I can do that. Once again, if the chair would like, I can make that entire list available to the committee off line.
The Chair: Is the list in the Main Estimates under ``Foreign Affairs''?
Mr. Patel: Yes, it will be.
The Chair: We will be looking at Main Estimates tomorrow evening.
Mr. Patel: Your problem is solved; it has been provided to me.
Robert Dufresne, Director General, Budgeting, Planning and Resource Management, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: It is in the Main Estimates under Annex A of the department. There is a complete list by grant and contribution.
Senator Black: In respect of the Muskoka Initiative, is there a sunset to that initiative?
Ms. Stimpson: The year 2014-15 for the Muskoka portion of MNCH, but the maternal, newborn and child health is a focus for CIDA. There was additional funding approved through the G8, the unconditional $1.2 billion that runs through 2014-15.
Senator Black: I assume that at the end of 2015, unless there are further authorizations, the Muskoka Initiative is terminated as of today?
Ms. Stimpson: The additional funding that we received, which we would refer to Muskoka, supported an ongoing initiative for maternal, newborn and child health. It was additional funding for our MNCH programming. That additional funding comes to an end in 2014-15.
Senator Black: My last question relates to the student loan issue. I know there has been a lot of dialogue around it. Is this amount of the writeoff in this year, is that consistent with other years or is this something new?
Mr. Sutherland: It is largely consistent. It is a bit bigger than past years. It is fair to say the size of the writeoff is a function of the growing size of the portfolio. As you have a growing number of students taking up loans, your chances of having increased writeoffs down the road increases.
If you look at our levels of default they have remained largely constant, notwithstanding the recession. I could provide a bit more detail.
Senator Black: No, that is fine.
Mr. Sutherland, as monies are collected here, this goes back in?
Mr. Sutherland: Yes.
Senator Black: Where will that be reflected?
Mr. Séguin: They are netted out.
Senator Black: The 231 number is a net number? That is what is outstanding less what has been collected, repaid, whatever.
Mr. Séguin: Yes.
The Chair: On that point, the average per student is not a large amount; it is $5,248. Why would we not be able to collect $5,000 from these students who owe that kind of debt?
Mr. Sutherland: For most students we are able to. If I take the universe of students going to school now, half of students graduate without any loans. Of the half who do have loans, 80 per cent are able to pay with not much difficulty and 88 per cent end up paying.
Of the remainder, we have CRA. When a loan goes in default — so a student has not paid for 270 days — it goes over to CRA. CRA has a number of instruments at its disposal to track down and get repayment. First, they find the students. They have the ability to trace and find them. Second, they contact them. CRA has a call centre. They can send letters. Third, they can do set-asides. I think it is section 155 of the Financial Administration Act. They can do set- asides against income tax. Sometimes they pursue legal remedies.
In some cases students perhaps have left the country, but some people do not repay and that is what you are seeing for the writeoff.
The Chair: We are reading that student loans are much larger now than they have been historically so should we anticipate then, as time moves on, that instead of $231 million we are writing off in a particular year, there will be significantly more than that?
Mr. Sutherland: I do not hold that view. The actual size of the loans and the federal portion of loans have stayed constant in recent years. In fact, they have dipped slightly. Another reason to be hopeful going forward is that we have put in place some measures to help people get on a better repayment track, so we have a repayment assistance plan that helps students who are having trouble making the jump to the labour market.
In addition to that, the government in 2009 introduced additional grants for low- and middle-income students.
The best thing for students is to get them repaying early. Our experience has shown us that if you get someone starting down repayment, they are likely to maintain that track. It is when they miss payments right at the beginning that you end up having trouble later. We are putting more of our emphasis up front so that we do not have the problem later on.
It is true that the portfolio as a whole is growing, so that will tend to put pressure on writeoffs, but I do not think you will see it hugely different from previous years.
Senator McInnis: Perhaps I will ask a few questions. It is more information- gathering.
The Afghanistan Counter-Narcotics Program, is that the poppies-to-wheat program? If so, is there a specific amount? Would you or would National Defence be able to tell us the success of that?
I did not know this and I am sure there is a good explanation, but it says that the ``Minister of Foreign Affairs, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, for the purchase of shares of international financial institutions, may not exceed the amount of $94 million.'' I would like an explanation why the Government of Canada is buying shares in foreign financial institutions and where those institutions are.
Finally, a question I have once again for information checking, because I do not know what this is, there are dollars available within vote 1 to the reprofile of Extended Continental Shelf Program funds. An explanation of what that is would be very much appreciated.
The Chair: Could you refer to the page numbers?
Senator McInnis: The Afghanistan question is page 59; the question with respect to shares in foreign financial institutions is page 62; and at the top of page 64 is the continental shelf question.
Mr. Patel: Perhaps I will go backwards and start with the Extended Continental Shelf Program.
Essentially, this is a reprofile of $800,000, reflected in Supplementary Estimates (C). In concert with our colleagues at Natural Resources Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we have requested a reprofile of funds to the next fiscal year to fulfill our obligation to support our commission where we are defining the outer limits of Canada's continental shelf. It is a legacy issue that has significant impacts potentially. Essentially, it is the last line in the map of Canada. It is important that we develop that submission as accurately as possible, given the future economic development opportunities in the North. This project had some funding allocated to it a couple of years back. It is not yet completed and it is expected to be completed in the next fiscal year. This is an $800,000 reprofile request to continue with that project and have it conclude later than originally expected.
Senator McInnis: Is it surveying?
Mr. Patel: That is part of it. It is to pull together the actual submission that would then be finalized, but surveying is part of it; that is correct.
I will talk about Afghanistan. The wording on page 59 is a description of all the vote 10 programs and, of course, that includes the Afghanistan Counter-Narcotics Program. I do not have with me the level of specificity and detail under that program at this stage but would be happy to follow up for the committee with more details on that. However, in the context of that program, I would say that there is nothing in the supplementary estimates in terms of new funding. This is something that has already been in place. I can provide more details on that program, but I cannot do it at the moment.
Senator McInnis: Is it the narcotics, the poppy growing into wheat, or do you know?
Mr. Patel: I am reluctant to make that assumption without knowing for sure. If I look at the title, I would say yes, but I cannot say with certainty. It is better for me to look into it in a little more detail and come back to the committee.
The Chair: At page 59, you have that in the supplementary estimates to show a saving?
Mr. Patel: No, it is a description of the vote. There is no new funding, but the authorities to date reflect the total of $855 million in relation to the grants and contributions. It is listed as one of the programs there.
I can say that the counter-narcotics program itself reflects collaboration with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime to provide assistance to the government of Afghanistan to decrease the cultivation, production, trafficking and consumption of illicit drug, primarily heroin, so that is what you are referring to. I just got this handed to me from my colleague. That is what you were referring to.
Ms. Stimpson: On your second question, the international financial institutions are development banks. They support international assistance efforts abroad. Our contribution is under the International Development (Financial Institutions) Assistance Act, and we work with DFAIT and the Minister of Finance.
The funding in this case is capital that will be used to provide concessionary loans in financing in developing countries, so it is very much a part of Canada's development portfolio in our assistance. The IFIs are the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Caribbean Development Bank and Inter-American Development Bank. They are not the typical international financial institution. It is not the Royal Bank in Hong Kong.
Senator McInnis: Is it a consortium, then.
Ms. Stimpson: Canada does become a shareholder because of our contribution. We are represented on the board with other contributing countries to ensure they are well managed and to support decision making as to where the investments are made.
The Chair: We are looking at page 62 of the supplementary estimates?
Senator McInnis: Yes.
The Chair: Is it clear to everyone why only the two dollars is shown here?
Ms. Stimpson: That has always been a difficult one for me. Because the supplementary estimates drive an appropriation act, the system requires you to put a dollar amount in supplementary estimates to allow the approval of the vote wording to appear in the appropriation act. These are statutory. We are not seeking your approval. They are provided for information, but the dollar amount allows the change to appear in the appropriation acts.
The Chair: In the past Treasury Board has said that $1 would do. Is this inflation?
Senator McInnis: Mr. Chair, we have to be concerned about every dollar.
The Chair: We do indeed.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: My first question is for the representatives from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, and more specifically for Mr. Séguin. It is in regard to the $981 million dedicated to boosting employment insurance benefits, pursuant to the Budget Implementation Act, 2009.
I would like to understand the links and the problems between this budget appropriation and the employment insurance account. We know that the EI account is funded by the employee and employer contributions. We know that the account is running a deficit, and we know that when it will accumulate a surplus, it will be able to pay out reimbursements.
I would like to understand. Two hundred and eighty-one million dollars have already been distributed. How does one arrive at this number?
Mr. Séguin: The amounts in the supplementary estimates (C) are there to enhance the measures laid out in the Budget Implementation Act, 2009 for Canada's Economic Action Plan. An amount of $2.9 billion had already been earmarked, and now it is being raised to $3.181 billion. Essentially, this amount is there to ensure that EI premiums coming directly from the Consolidated Revenue Fund are not affected. This amount exists because the number of weeks for benefits went up from 45 to 50 in the Government's 2009 Economic Action Plan. Other programs exist to improve employment.
Senator Bellemare: I know that this money has already been spent, since we are talking about the 2009 budget, and I know that the benefits distributed were greater than the amount laid out in the 2009 budget.
We know that employment insurance is managed through accounting. Will EI reimburse the Consolidated Revenue Fund, given that it is a fund made up of employer and employee contributions?
Mr. Séguin: That is not the intention of this fund. Essentially it is there to avoid increasing premiums. There is no intention to reimburse the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Those were significant amounts of money for the fund.
Senator Bellemare: So if I summarize, these are stabilization funds that come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund that will not be claimed by Employment Insurance one day. Is that right?
Mr. Séguin: That is correct.
Senator Bellemare: Thank you for your answer. My second question is for the representatives of the Foreign Affairs Department. If I wanted to see the consolidated funds allocated to all international aid, and I imagine that would involve several calculations, would I look exclusively to your department, or would I have to go looking in other departments as well?
We often hear about Canada giving foreign aid to other countries and to international aid efforts. We hear all kinds of things, that Canada is giving more, giving less, that Canada is not doing its part. Are there figures to back up these statements? If so, where can these figures be found other than in the national accounting books?
[English]
Mr. Patel: Thank you for your question. As it relates to international development and aid, it would be my colleagues at CIDA. As it relates to international organizations, assessed contributions, non-assessed contributions, United Nations agencies, such as la Francophonie, that would be our department, and those are listed in Annex 1 of the Main Estimates, as my colleague mentioned.
I will ask my colleague to speak to that as it relates to international development or aid.
[Translation]
Ms. Stimpson: The Minister of International Trade published two reports for the government. One is a summary report that is published six months after the end of the fiscal year, and the other is an annual statistics report that is published after the end of the fiscal year.
We also have a report on the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act. We have the statistics report as well as the report on the complete audit, which is prepared by CIDA for all of our international development partners.
Senator Bellemare: Is there consolidated data in the report?
Ms. Stimpson: Yes, absolutely. I have a copy of the latest report. I can leave it for you, if you like.
Senator Bellemare: Yes, thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Would we expect to see the same information in the Public Accounts that follows about six months after a fiscal year?
Ms. Stimpson: Yes. The Public Accounts are actually published by department, so it would show CIDA's contribution to international development as well as that of DFAIT. Our colleagues at the RCMP have a portion as well as DND. The intent of the Official Development Assistance Reports is to provide the view across government of international assistance.
The statistical report goes well beyond CIDA and well beyond the federal government. It includes contributions by provincial governments and even municipalities to provide a whole picture of Canada's contribution.
The Chair: You have one of those reports from last year?
Ms. Stimpson: Yes. They are also available online. Perhaps I can provide a link to the website and the information available on the whole international assistance package.
The Chair: If you could, we will circulate that to members so that we can see the format.
Ms. Stimpson: In addition to a statistical report, there is an official development assistance report. The statistical report is the actual amount spent by each department and each level of government on each type of assistance in each country. There is then an overview of our performance.
I can certainly direct the committee to the websites that have those reports, and we can provide additional copies.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: My first question is a request for a verification. I am referring to page 63 in the English version regarding the transfers.
You have a line, ``Transfer to Shared Services Canada — to adjust amounts as a result of the creation of Shared Services''. What is this entity called Shared Services Canada? When was it created and what is its mandate?
[English]
Mr. Patel: This is related to the creation of Shared Services Canada, a new department that was created within the last year to which departments have transferred some elements of their information technology employees' programs related to networks, emails and server support to consolidate this under one new ministry to achieve horizontal efficiencies and savings across the board.
There was a transfer of funding that was reflected in recent estimates earlier this year, if I am not mistaken. In our department, as we corrected the amounts or reflected the exact number of employees, residual refinements were necessary, so there may have been additional money that we would have been required to transfer to the Shared Services Canada.
In our case, earlier this year the full amount of the transfer was somewhere around fifty some odd million, approximately. This $1.4 million, or whatever that would be, would reflect any changes as a result of that original transfer.
One unique element we have in the Department of Foreign Affairs is Foreign Service technology experts who are abroad servicing our missions. While these elements and resources under the mandate of Shared Services Canada have also been transferred, we have an arrangement with Shared Services Canada to continue to administer those functions on a transitional basis so as to not impede the operations. We have some monies transferring back and forth to ensure that we are funding these in the accurate manner.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: You also transferred employees to Shared Services Canada?
Mr. Patel: Yes.
Senator Chaput: How many?
[English]
Mr. Patel: I do not have the details on how many employees. It was a combination of money, and if there was money that includes salary dollars, there would be some employees as well. It was not quite a number; it was more a financial transfer.
[Translation]
I need to check that, in any case.
[English]
I can get back to the committee with specifics if the committee desires.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: How many departments made transfers that are now part of this new service, if I can put it like that?
Mr. Patel: Approximately 44 or 45.
Senator Chaput: Departments?
Mr. Patel: Yes, that is correct. My colleague at CIDA said 45, Mr. Séguin said 44. Let us say just over 40; almost all departments, in any case.
Senator Chaput: And to whom does this new service, Shared Services, answer, and what is its annual budget?
Mr. Patel: To the Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
[English]
It is under the portfolio of the Minister of Public Works. I do not know what their annual budget along those lines would be. It is operating as a stand-alone department with a deputy head with their own established budget. I do not have that level of detail with me at this time.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Now on page 64 you have under vote 5, the return of advertising funds, $3 million. What is that? To whom did the return go, what does that mean and why?
[English]
Mr. Patel: This relates to government advertising funds. The $3 million reflected in the Supplementary Estimates (C) was part of a larger envelope of money that the department received. The larger envelope was approximately $5 million. Of that $5 million, we have not used $3 million and so returned that money to the centre. Going back to an earlier example, because we are not using that, we do not need it but we did not physically transfer the money. It stayed in our reference levels as frozen, so it can be used for other things once we have the approval to do so through the supplementary estimates exercise.
In essence that $3 million is unused money. Of that original $5 million, we used approximately $2 million for two distinctly different initiatives. One of them was a government advertising campaign to promote a one-stop, revamped, whole-of-government travel.gc.ca website and its associated mobile application as well, Travel Smart. This was really about rolling out awareness for Canadians travelling abroad around consular services, our mission reports and things like that. It was a four-month campaign, and that was one of the two significant advertising campaigns.
The other was a national multimedia advertising campaign, which included print, radio, online as well, to promote government efforts to support Canadian businesses expanding into foreign markets through free trade initiatives. This is about to launch more formally at some point this month. Those are the two distinct initiatives for which we have spent advertising dollars, and the $3 million we decided not to use or did not need is being returned.
Senator Chaput: The money will be returned to where?
Mr. Patel: This is money that we would return to the centre, to Treasury Board. However, rather than a physical transfer, it remains in our reference levels as frozen. We cannot touch it; it does not belong to us. Now that we have some additional funding needs, these estimates would proceed to unfreeze that to use toward these other expenditures. Again, it is an accounting entry, but that money does not belong to us because we decided not to use it. Now it will unfreeze and we will use it to fund some of these other elements that form part of the supplementary estimates.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: If I understand correctly, the $5 million was in your budget; you spent $2 million, and the remaining $3 million you did not spend. It does not belong to you as such but it is still in your budget, and if you would like to use it for something else, you will ask for permission to do so and you can.
The Chair: That is correct.
Mr. Patel: Exactly.
[English]
Mr. Chair, I do not think I could have explained that better. That is fantastic.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Chaput, now I understand!
[English]
Honourable senators, we have about 15 minutes left and I have five senators on round two, so that gives us about three minutes each for question and answer. Please be prompt in round two. These are the short, snappy questions, you will recall, and hopefully quick replies as well. I will start with Senator Buth.
Senator Buth: I have a question for CIDA about the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust Fund. What is it, what does it do and how much are we funding it for?
Ms. Stimpson: The trust was founded in February of last year to celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the accession to the throne. It is chaired by the Right Honourable Sir John Major, the former Prime Minister of the U.K. It will be funded by governments, individuals, organizations and the private sector, and will invest in projects that seek to make a difference in people's lives throughout the Commonwealth.
There are six themes. I will need to read these as I do not know them off by heart. These were themes of interest to Her Majesty at the time. There is young diamonds to support youth development; urban food, supporting the development of urban gardens to improve nutrition and supplement income; disability to capabilities, supporting full independent living for persons with disabilities; heritage and culture; exceptional leaders; and care with dignity.
Our Prime Minister announced that the Government of Canada's contribution is up to $20 million. There is a $10 million contribution and then up to an additional $10 million based on contributions from the private sector, essentially up to $10 million matching funds with private sector donations.
We have not yet disbursed any funds through the trust pending approval of these supplementary estimates, but we are in preliminary negotiations of an agreement that would set out how the relationship will work and what kind of accounting, reporting, participation and monitoring Canada will request as part of our contribution to the trust.
Senator Buth: The private sector you are referring to, is that the Canadian private sector?
Ms. Stimpson: It could be the private sector throughout the Commonwealth.
Senator Callbeck: I have three questions to put on the record and perhaps you could send in written answers.
First, Mr. Patel, regarding services, you say that we also manage Canada's global network with 171 missions in 104 countries abroad providing a range of services to Canadians and Canadian business. I am particularly interested in small businesses. I would like to know what services or programs you have. For example, what can you offer someone in Prince Edward Island who wants to get into the export business? Do you have statistics that will show how many people in the past year have been involved with these programs? Do you have a breakdown by province?
As well, when we talked about this emergency passport office, I would like to have a written answer as to what you have to say regarding the unfairness that I think exists there.
Mr. Sutherland, on the criteria in the brief that was read, it mentioned certain criteria but this says it includes that; I think there are five categories there. Could you provide the committee with the statistics for each criterion? In other words, how many students go bankrupt; how many are written off because of hardship? I would like to have those figures.
Mr. Sutherland: Okay.
The Chair: Thank you. Could you provide any of these requests in writing as quickly as possible? We have asked the Library of Parliament to prepare a report that forms the basis for the supply bill when it comes. If you could do that as promptly as you can, it would be very much appreciated.
Senator Gerstein: Mr. Patel and Ms. Siemens, you both stated that you had a robust business case for the expansion of Canada House and the sale of Macdonald House. I am very familiar with robust business cases for real estate. Let me be frank: I certainly hope someone is using a much broader lens than just a robust business case to talk about selling our high commission or embassy in any location. When Ms. Siemens refers to the fact that we will get a very high price for this location, let us be absolutely clear to Canadians: This is a Crown jewel location that is being sold. I must say that I am very saddened by the fact that the Canadian flag will no longer fly over Grosvenor Square for Canadians to admire for future generations.
When providing the information that you talked about for Cockspur's renovation, would you be good enough to include the amount of money that is being spent on the refurbishment of Canada House over the last 10 years? That obviously has to play into the entire equation.
I will conclude by saying I was interested when Ms. Siemens talked about the downsizing of the residence of our high commission and appropriate staff. If you want to get an idea of how London real estate has appreciated, you might look back in your files. In 1960 I had the great pleasure of attending the residence of the high commission, the Honourable George Drew, which was located on Upper Brook Street. That was a very small location. Again, I suggest, it was not the appropriate thing to have sold it.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: My question concerns partnerships with CIDA, the goal of which is to develop projects with developing countries. Last year, I went to Haiti for a week with my colleagues. We met with Canadian and Haitian businesspeople. They were complaining about the lack of investments in international development aid compared to those in humanitarian aid.
We often hear the Minister of Foreign Affairs say: ``We're going to help people.'' There is also the famous saying that instead of giving them fish, we should give them a fishing rod.
Did you convert the significant amounts available so that people can help each other? Is there a balance between the percentage of funding for humanitarian aid and the percentage in aid for developing countries?
Ms. Stimpson: We are still working in Haiti. I don't have the information with me, but I can certainly provide it to you at a later date.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: My question is not just about Haiti, but rather all of CIDA.
Ms. Stimpson: Are you referring to all the expenditures related to humanitarian and development assistance?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Yes.
Ms. Stimpson: Absolutely. We can provide you with this information.
[English]
Senator McInnis: I will ask my question very quickly and you can provide the answers later if you like. I may have missed this when you responded to Senator Bellemare. What is the figure that the federal government puts into EI?
Mr. Séguin: I will have to get you the exact amount.
Senator McInnis: Then on page 75, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and here they exempt out the National Housing Act. What is the amount of the losses that are there? In relation to the forgivable loans, what brings about a forgivable loan? What is the basis for that? Obviously someone is not paying but what is that?
Please distinguish for me, if you will, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation on page 76 — and this is dealing under the National Housing Act — there is a credit for $2.769 million. When you respond, could you differentiate between the fact that one is not under the National Housing Act and one is. You can respond at a later date.
The Chair: Thank you. If you could, please provide us with those answers.
Senator Callbeck: Regarding the footnotes in Foreign Affairs and International Trade, for example, on page 64 you are talking about money being available from Vote 1 due to savings identified as part of the 2012 spending review is $31 million. There is the amount of $31 million and then there are a lot of figures through your estimates that refer to savings. Can you provide a list? Where did you get these savings? There are a lot of dollars here. On that page there is about $70 million. Where did the savings come from?
Mr. Patel: If you look at the $31 million on that list, in her opening remarks my colleague talked about Budget 2012 spending review reductions, if I can use that term. Those funds would have remained in our reference levels but frozen. We have that money. It goes back to the accounting adjustments. That money is there, but we cannot do anything with it; it is frozen. It is meant to go back to the centre, but the reference levels did not take that money away because it was already in our authorities by the time Budget 2012 was tabled. That money is there, but it reflects the reductions that were announced in Budget 2012. It is there but it is frozen.
Again, like the other examples, it would be there to be used for other authorized increases, such as Supplementary Estimates (A), (B) and today's (C). That is how it is articulated there. It is footnoted so there is a transparent notation on what money is remaining.
Where those savings come from would be the savings identified and announced in Budget 2012. It is a combination of a number of different elements, including closing some of our consulates in the U.S. and repositioning some of our trade commissioners there. It includes reductions in travel spending, which has been offset by increases in video conferencing technology. We have reduced our vehicle fleet abroad. We have talked about some of the real property right sizing to which my colleague referred. There is a whole series of different initiatives that we have undertaken and have reported out on that form, a range of different savings, and that $31 million in a portion of that.
If you look at this current fiscal year, the total in vote 1 reductions was approximately $72 million. There would have been that amount frozen at some point throughout the year and it was unfrozen during Supplementary Estimates (A) and (B). There is still $31 million remaining to be unfrozen in Supplementary Estimates (C).
Senator Callbeck: Can you give us a list of what made up that $72 million? Were programs cut? Obviously some programs were cut or less money was spent. Where did it come from?
Mr. Patel: It was a range of different initiatives. There were some programs cut but very little. The bulk of this comes from realigning some of our footprint abroad, looking at how we administer our back office operations and achieving some efficiency. For example, we have moved more towards consolidating some of our administrative accounting HR functions.
As I mentioned in my remarks, in headquarters we have streamlined our organizational structure. We have reduced our assistant deputy minister positions by six, so we have seven assistant deputy ministers now, down from approximately thirteen, by consolidating some of these functions. By doing a series of these initiatives it has yielded a number of savings. Again, that was what was articulated in Budget 2012. It is largely driven by achieving efficiencies through back office or administrative restructuring. While there are some program reductions, they are not in the majority; they are more in the realm of efficiencies through the way we have managed existing operations.
Senator Callbeck: Can you provide the committee with a list as to what is in that $72 million?
Mr. Patel: Mr. Chair, I can provide a list of the initiatives I referred to that form part of that.
The Chair: Thank you. Anything you can do to help us understand it will be appreciated.
We are unfortunately out of time. Colleagues, this is March, and March madness is on. We have to get supply done for the end of this fiscal year by the end of March, plus interim supply for next year. Therefore, tomorrow evening we start on the Main Estimates for the next fiscal year to start taking a look at that. Then we will have witnesses on the Main Estimates.
We are still trying to help Senator Gerstein and me with respect to reprofiling. We have a written reply that has been circulated, but we need somebody from DND to come in and explain it. I recommend that you look at the transcript as to what transpired when they were here before, plus the reply. We will get that sorted out in due course.
It has been pointed out to me that over 60 per cent of the Supplementary Estimates (C) are going to DND as well. That is what is outstanding with respect to Supplementary Estimates (C).
With respect to supplementary estimates for next year, we will not obviously get a complete hearing because we are seized with and we continue to study it throughout the year. However, we need to get enough of an understanding to vote on interim supply before April 1.
Regarding parties that are leaving, we heard last week from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. However, we should hear from another parliamentary officer who is leaving because his office is to help us hold the government to account. I am referring to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We made informal inquiries as to whether he would be available. He is leaving before the end of the month, so we may or may not be able to get that together.
If there is anything for next year in the Main Estimates that you would like us to pursue between now and the end of the month, let us know so we will try to do that.
We thank our guests very much: the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, the Canadian International Development Agency and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. Thank you all very much. That was very helpful.
(The committee adjourned.)