Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 35 - Evidence - March 20, 2013
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 20, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 6:45 p.m., in a public meeting, to study the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014; and in camera for the study of Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, tonight we are resuming our study of the 2013-14 Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.
[English]
We are pleased to welcome a number of officials to assist us with our examination of the Main Estimates. Of course, we are charged with studying the Main Estimates throughout the year, and we will revisit various departments, but I wanted to study a sampling of departments before we are required to vote on the first supply bill, which is interim supply and which we will receive soon in the Senate. I expect it will be tomorrow. This meeting with a number of departments is an important exercise.
From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we welcome Alain Duplantie, Assistant Commissioner and Chief Financial Administration Officer. We will also hear from Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada. You have not changed that name yet, I guess.
Colleen Swords, Associate Deputy Minister, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: Legally it is still Indian Affairs. We use Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in most documents. On any legal document it has to be Indian Affairs.
The Chair: We will use the legal term, but we hear the other term. We look forward to that being changed one of these days.
We will hear from Colleen Swords, Associate Deputy Minister; and Pamela D'Eon, Director General, Planning and Resource Management, and originally from Nova Scotia. I always like to see people from back home. From Public Works and Government Services Canada, we welcome Alex Lakroni, Chief Financial Officer, Finance Branch; and John McBain, Assistant Deputy Minister, Real Property Branch. I believe that each of the departments has a spokesperson for introductory remarks. Let us begin with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, then Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada and conclude with Public Works and Government Services Canada, after which we will have questions and discussion.
Alain Duplantie, Assistant Commissioner, Chief Financial Administration Officer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today on the RCMP's Main Estimates for 2013-14. I am pleased to have this opportunity and to respond to any questions you may have in that regard.
If you will allow me, I will take a few moments to provide some overall context on the RCMP that may be of help to better relate to what the Main Estimates contain for the coming year.
The RCMP's overall spending authority for 2013-14 will be in the order of $4.6 billion, made up of appropriations and vote-netted revenue, which will support its four distinct yet integrated levels of policing delivered by the approximately 30,000 men and women that make up the RCMP.
Internationally, we provide services such as police liaison abroad that serve as key linkages with our global partners in law enforcement, and we participate in peacekeeping and other United Nations missions. Nationally, the RCMP is Canada's federal police force, through which we contribute to national security, federal statute enforcement in every province and territory, and protective police services to political leaders and foreign dignitaries, as a few examples.
In addition, the RCMP administers a number of national police services to the benefit of the broader law enforcement community across Canada. This includes the Canadian Police Information Centre, criminal intelligence, the National DNA Data Bank and advanced police education. The RCMP also delivers police services under 161 contracts covering eight provinces and three territories, as well as most of their respective municipalities. Contract policing, as it is commonly referred to, has been in practice since 1906. It was renewed recently for a 20-year term through to 2032.
The RCMP posts uniformed officers covering 80 per cent of Canada's land mass in over 1,000 communities. This provides, among other things, visible promotion and protection of national sovereignty in the North. It is funded largely by provincial, territorial and municipal governments. These four levels of policing from community to provincial-territorial, to national and international levels provide a seamless integration of police information and intelligence.
The RCMP is quite likely the only police service in the world with that span of involvement under one organization, representing a cohesive strategic advantage to addressing crime, whether it be stopping it before it gets here or addressing it on the ground in Canada. Through its three major situation lines — contract policing, federal policing and specialized policing services — the organization focuses on its five strategic priorities: reducing the threat and impact of serious and organized crime; countering threats to Canada's economic integrity; reducing youth crime; countering criminal threats to the security of Canada; and contributing to safer and healthier Aboriginal communities.
In its Main Estimates for the coming year, the RCMP is seeking federal appropriations of $2.758 billion for a net increase of $204.4 million, or 8 per cent, which will be complemented by $1.8 billion in vote-netted revenue the RCMP earns from its contract policing operations.
Given the economic context facing government, I can well imagine that an increase in appropriations might seem a bit unusual in comparison with a lot of other departments and agencies.
The major highlights of our Main Estimates are: a decrease of $31 million for the transfer of funding to Public Works to pay for our share of the new RCMP provincial headquarters in British Columbia; a decrease of $89 million, which is our year two target under the Deficit Reduction Action Plan announced in Budget 2012; an increase of $329 million associated with the renewal and ongoing requirements of Canada's new 20-year police services agreements with the provinces, territories and municipalities that choose to receive RCMP police services rather than provide policing themselves; and some relatively smaller increases related to several federal initiatives, such as the Beyond the Border Action Plan, the sharing of immigration information with the United States, and national counterfeit enforcement.
It is the contract policing portion that is perhaps somewhat unique for us at this time because it represents two years of requirements and, more important, the renewal of substantial amounts of appropriations that had technically ``sunsetted.'' When the 2012-13 Main Estimates were being developed, Canada was still in negotiations with most of the contract policing jurisdictions. As a consequence, the RCMP deferred seeking the necessary funding adjustments related to contract policing until after the start of fiscal year 2012-13.
With the negotiations concluded, the RCMP returned to Parliament during 2012-13 through Supplementary Estimates (B) to seek the necessary in-year adjustments in funding levels. We are now entering the second full year of the new police service contracts. These Main Estimates represent our first opportunity to seek the amounts we had in our Supplementary Estimates (B) plus incremental resources required for 2013-14.
Our Supplementary Estimates (B) had included $288 million for the contracts, which included $206 million that had been approved previously to provide contract services but which had sunsetted at the end of 2011-12 pending the renewal of the agreements, as well as $82 million to both rebase the RCMP's reference levels required for the full federal costs to deliver contract policing under the new contracts and to fund the new resources requested by contract partners for 2012-13.
In addition, these Main Estimates include $41 million in incremental federal funding required to meet the contract partners requested resources planned for 2013-14, bringing the contract policing aspect of the RCMP's Main Estimates to $329 million.
I thank you for this opportunity to meet with you on the RCMP's Main Estimates, and I look forward to our discussion.
Ms. Swords: Thank you very much for the opportunity to present to you today. We are pleased that you are interested in the work of our department and the funds that we need to perform our functions.
The 2013-14 Main Estimates for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada forecast departmental expenditures of just under $8 billion. That is a net increase of $178 million over last year and about 2.3 per cent above last year's Main Estimates.
[Translation]
Last year's economic action plan included increased funding for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada in several key areas over the coming year. This includes more money for the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, the First Nations Water and Wastewater Action Plan and First Nation education, among other areas. You can see that this funding appears in the Main Estimates.
I want to take this opportunity to expand on these items in greater detail.
[English]
The Main Estimates include additional funds of $224.5 million for the next fiscal year to go towards the continued implementation of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. This includes additional funds for claimants under the Independent Assessment Process, Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Common Experience Payment Program. It also includes funding for the administration and research required for the government to continue fulfilling its functions and obligations under the agreement.
The Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement is court-directed and agreed to by multiple parties, including legal counsel for former students, the Assembly of First Nations and Inuit representatives.
The estimates also include $137.4 million for the First Nations Water and Wastewater Action Plan.
[Translation]
The Government of Canada and First Nations have a shared goal of ensuring First Nations have the same access to safe, clean drinking water in their communities as all other Canadians. Access to safe drinking water, the effective treatment of wastewater and the protection of sources of drinking water in First Nation communities is critical to ensuring the health and safety of First Nation people.
[English]
The 2012 economic action plan included $330.8 million over two years to help sustain progress made to build and renovate water infrastructure on-reserve and to support the development of a long-term strategy to improve water quality in First Nations communities. More specifically, this money is going towards training for operators of water and wastewater systems on-reserve and capital investments targeted at the highest risk systems.
The last area I would like to expand on is $115 million for initiatives to improve First Nations education, which is also included in the Main Estimates. The government's goal is to provide First Nations students with a quality education that provides them with the same opportunities and choices as other Canadian students. By improving graduation rates, the government is helping to ensure that First Nations students have the skills they need to pursue additional education or enter the labour market and become full participants in a strong Canadian economy.
The 2012 economic action plan committed an additional $275 million over three years to support First Nations elementary and secondary education. This includes new resources to build and renovate schools on-reserve and to support early literacy programming and partnerships with provincial school systems. The Government of Canada is also committed to working with First Nations parents, educators, leaders and others to have a First Nations education act in place by September 2014.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada is also subject to the need for fiscal prudence. The department's budget will be reduced by $240.1 million over three years. Of that amount, $160.6 million will be ongoing annual savings that will start in 2014-15. We have achieved these savings so far by identifying departmental efficiencies and streamlining operations while protecting delivery of essential programs and services to First Nations and northerners.
The many investments and initiatives I have outlined today we hope will contribute to the progress we are making in addressing many issues facing northerners and Aboriginal peoples in Canada and enable them to take advantage of all the opportunities Canada has to offer.
Our plans support partnerships, advance the department's legislative initiatives and set the stage for continued progress. We are confident they will drive progress on important issues of concern to Aboriginal peoples and, indeed, to the country as a whole.
I look forward to the opportunity to answer questions after my colleague makes his presentation.
[Translation]
Alex Lakroni, Chief Financial Officer, Finance Branch, Public Works and Government Services Canada: Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee. In my capacity as Chief Financial Officer, I am here today, on behalf of PWGSC, to discuss the 2013-14 Main Estimates for our department. I would like to introduce my colleague, John McBain, the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Real Property Branch of PWGSC.
Public Works and Government Services Canada plays a key role in the operations of the federal government. As its principal banker, accountant, central purchasing agent, linguistic authority, and real property manager, the department is home to the Receiver General, prepares the annual public accounts of Canada, and manages a cash flow of more than $2 trillion a year; accommodates 270,400 federal employees in a diverse real estate portfolio comprising 1,796 locations across Canada; manages and oversees the lion's share of government procurement, which contributes more than $14 billion annually to the Canadian economy; translates more than one million pages of text on behalf of federal organizations, and provides translation and interpretation services for Parliament.
[English]
In the 2013-14 Main Estimates, PWGSC's gross budget is $5.9 billion, explained as follows: $2.4 billion will pay for rent, fit-up and utilities for government-wide accommodation, Receiver General and central compensation administration functions such as banking fees, cheques and envelopes, and translation services to Parliament; $1.9 billion is related to providing optional services to departments, such as real property project management and translation services, on a cost-recovery basis; $0.9 billion will deliver core programs such as central purchasing and banking, public accounts, payroll and pension services; and $0.6 billion in capital is needed for Government of Canada buildings and infrastructure.
PWGSC generates $3.3 billion in revenues, or 56 per cent of its budget, from client departments. This results in a net appropriation of $2.6 billion. The 2013-14 Main Estimates represent an increase of $254 million, or 4.5 per cent, over last year's Main Estimates budget.
A primary factor for this increase is the funding for the rehabilitation of Parliamentary Buildings of $256 million. Please note, when comparing the 2013-14 Main Estimates to the 2012-13 estimates to date, the actual year-over-year increase for this initiative is in fact $14 million.
All major projects, including the major rehabilitation of the West Block and 180 Wellington, are still on or ahead of schedule and on or under budget.
Another component of the increase is $50 million to purchase a key complex in Gatineau, Les Terrasses de la Chaudière. This is not new space, as the government already occupied the complex and is committed to maintaining the 25/75 split of office space in Gatineau and Ottawa. The purchase represents the best value for the Crown and Canadian taxpayers.
Another increase is $32 million required for the transformation of pay administration to support the implementation of the Consolidation of Pay Services in Miramichi, New Brunswick, and the modernization of the 40-year-old pay system. A similar project, which has just been completed on time and on budget, is the Government of Canada's Transformation of Pension Administration initiative, which recently won PWGSC a Bronze Public Sector Leadership Award from the Institute of Public Administration of Canada.
The additional funding requirements are offset by PWGSC's commitment to realize its share of total government- wide savings initiatives.
This year, PWGSC will realize an additional savings of $95 million: $67 million associated with the strategic review and $28 million resulting from Budget 2012 expenditure review savings. These efficiencies and productivity improvements are in support of the Government of Canada's commitment to ensure a return to balanced budgets.
Sound management has always been a hallmark of PWGSC. Our department ensures consistent delivery of high- quality services to Canadians while providing value for money for taxpayers.
Finally, I want to say that our departmental efforts to support our most important asset — our employees — have been recognized for a second year in a row. PWGSC has once again been chosen as one of the top employers in the National Capital Region for 2013.
This concludes my opening statement. Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for your attention. My colleague and I would be pleased to answer your questions.
Senator Buth: I would like to start with the RCMP. In your statement you say that the spending authority for 2013- 14 will be in the order of $4.6 billion, yet the estimates just report the appropriations and not the vote-netted revenue. Where does vote-netted revenue appear? How would we, as parliamentarians, ever know that there was approximately another $2 billion that the RCMP was spending through vote-netted revenue?
Mr. Duplantie: In the proofs, in the Main Estimates, there will be a chart that shows the appropriations and the revenue.
The Chair: We have them in front of us.
Senator Buth: I am on page II-310.
Senator Buth: Does yours show the vote-netted revenue?
Mr. Duplantie: I am looking for the chart beyond that. I do not see it in this particular document. I am sorry.
Senator Buth: Could you let the clerk know where we could find that information?
Mr. Duplantie: Absolutely.
Senator Buth: With regard to cost-sharing in terms of your contract policing, can you describe the negotiation process? Who does the negotiations, who is responsible for the final decision, and what is the cost-sharing formula?
Mr. Duplantie: The negotiations are actually made between Public Safety as a representative of the Government of Canada and those jurisdictions interested in receiving the RCMP's services under contract. The RCMP actually administers the contract but does not negotiate the cost-sharing arrangement.
Senator Buth: Do you know what the cost-sharing formula might be?
Mr. Duplantie: For provincial policing, 70 per cent is the provincial share and 30 per cent is the federal share. For municipal policing, in municipalities with an excess of 15,000 in population, 90 per cent for the municipality and 10 per cent federal share.
For smaller municipalities, the share will still be 70/30. Of course, in the service agreements there will be cost-share formulas related to the overhead as well, which deviates from the 70/30. However, there are formulas that are driven by the establishment and it is to share the cost of overhead across those resources that are purely federal and those that are servicing the area but in a common fashion.
Senator Buth: You are essentially administering the contract. Have there been any major changes? Do you see trends up or down in terms of contract policing?
Mr. Duplantie: The new contract has brought in pretty substantial changes, particularly in two areas. First is the area of accommodation. In the previous contract from 1992, jurisdictions would pay an equivalent of rent for space occupied in a facility, and the cost of construction of detachments or headquarters was purely a federal responsibility. At that time, the cost to the jurisdictions in the aggregate amounted to about 39 per cent.
Now with the new contract, we can actually move to a situation where the cost is shared in relevance to the other terms of the contract, so 70/30. If we are going to build a detachment in Manitoba, the cost of that detachment will be cost-shared 70/30 between the federal government and the province. That is a very substantial change, because it now drives multi-year accommodation plans and brings two parties to the table in bringing the funding together for that to occur.
After the third year of the contract, we will also be cost-sharing recruiting, training cadets at Depot in Regina, and the cost of dog training.
Previously there was a flat fee, and that would possibly cover, in some instances, the cost. Other years, it would not, so now there is cost-sharing on actual costs.
Those are the two major pieces, the accommodation being substantially different. The contract brings in a number of other, smaller adjustments that are not nearly as significant.
Senator Buth: How long is the contract for?
Mr. Duplantie: Twenty years.
Senator Buth: I would like to ask a question of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. You mentioned the increase for the residential schools settlement. Can you tell me what the status of that agreement is right now, what the forecasts were and what total amount has been spent so far on the settlement?
Ms. Swords: Yes, certainly. The deadline for applications for the Common Experience Payment, which was funding that everyone who went to a residential school got, was September 2011. As of the end of December 2012, we had 105,540, applications and 102, 548 were resolved. We spent $1.62 billion resolving those claims. That is for the Common Experience Payment.
For the Independent Assessment Process payments, for people who were assaulted in one way or another or who suffered particularly as a result of the experience, the deadline was September 19, 2012, so we have reached the deadline. We have received 37,617 applications under that program, and over $1.77 billion has been paid out to over 15,000 claimants. That is more than expected. The number for the Common Experience Payment was in the order of what we expected, but the extent of those abused was larger than anticipated, hence the need for additional funds.
Senator Buth: You still have to resolve over 15,000 of that 37,000.
Ms. Swords: That is right: 37,000 received and 15,000 paid out. I think there would be a small number that we have identified as ineligible, for one reason or another. However, a significant number still have to be reviewed, probably in the order of 15,000 or 16,000.
Senator Buth: You have paid out $1.77 billion already, but you are only asking for $224 million if this year. I am just looking at your text. That is additional funds.
Ms. Swords: It ends up being somewhat netted. We were actually allocated an additional $559 million for compensation payments. Some funds sunsetted, and then we got additional funds. We had some funds under the Common Experience Payment. I do not think that in the end we used all of it, but it sunsetted. It would end up looking like a subtraction, but we got an additional $559 million for compensation payments for the IAP. If we need additional funds, we will be back before this committee and Parliament, seeking them in the mains or in sups. It is a court-ordered settlement. There are hearings for all of these people, and that is why it takes longer to seek the funds necessary to make the payments.
Senator Buth: I am on page 179 of the supplementary main estimates. Is that the $696 million that you are reporting there?
Ms. Swords: Which line are you looking at?
Senator Buth: I am looking at the third line down, Residential Schools Resolution, under Social Development.
Ms. Swords: That is a large part of it.
Pamela D'Eon, Director General, Planning and Resource Management, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development: I just wanted to add that the $225 million that you see reflected there as an increase is an increase from last year's Main Estimates. For this fiscal year, 2013-14, we anticipate that we could be up to just over $700 million.
Senator Buth: The comparison there is 466, 758 to the 696. That is where the 224 comes in?
Ms. D'Eon: Yes.
Senator Buth: Thank you very much.
The Chair: I am still looking at page 179 and trying to figure out all of your netting and carry forwards. Of course, you are using more than you have got, so you would not have any carry forward. You are asking for another $700 million for this fiscal year.
Ms. Swords: The increase over last year is 224. Last year in the mains we had 466.
The Chair: But that is all gone. That is all passed out?
Ms. Swords: Yes, that is spent. The increase, though, is netting it at 224.
The Chair: What you are asking us to vote for is —
Ms. Swords: Close to $700 million.
The Chair: We have to think in terms of what we are voting for. It is important for us to know whether you have increased or decreased, but in the end, what we vote for as an appropriation is what you will have available to you.
Ms. Swords: Yes. Included in this, of course, is the cost of the adjudicators to adjudicate the claims. It is not all money going out for that, but it is for the whole process, not just the settlements. It is the whole administration of the settlements.
The Chair: We have only been talking about residential schools, right?
Ms. Swords: That is right. This is not the education funding; this is the residential school settlement.
Senator Chaput: What percentage of that amount goes into administration?
Ms. Swords: It is a little hard to answer because some of it goes to the adjudicator. It does not all go directly to our department for administration because there are court-appointed adjudicators.
Senator Chaput: How much goes to them?
Ms. Swords: I will see if I can get you the exact amount. I know that lawyers who represent those making claims are entitled to seek 10 to 15 per cent of the settlement, so there is some right there that is administration that is not going through the government but would be included in there. We will see if we can get you the exact amount that is administration.
Ms. D'Eon: The settlement allotment itself is $560 million. In terms of salaries versus operating expenses and what would flow to the recipients, salaries represent approximately $52 million.
Senator Chaput: What percentage of the total would recipients get?
Ms. D'Eon: Ninety.
Ms. Swords: If you say 52 out of 560, it is close to 90 per cent.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: My question concerns both the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada, and is about drinking water.
Last year we were told that the cost would be a few billion dollars, and now we hear that it is $156 million. This leads me to wonder about the contract award procedure; who makes the decisions, and how are the technologies involved selected?
You do not need a plant like the ones in Montreal or Toronto to treat water in the Far North for a community of 150 people. What is the process or the mechanism that makes it so expensive, and why is it taking so long? It seems to me that there are somewhat less expensive processes that are often used in small communities in developing countries, whereas here we are lagging behind in providing drinking water to people because someone is promoting sophisticated facilities.
I would like to know who decides what. On the one hand, someone is footing the bill, and on the other, there is a contract award procedure. How are things done? Who decides what? I feel the water purification program is not moving forward very quickly. Who can answer my question?
Ms. Swords: I think that would be me, but if you don't mind, I am going to answer in English.
[English]
There are a lot of questions in that. Fundamentally, the decisions on the type of water treatment projects in each First Nation are decided by the First Nation through their planning for how they want to use their capital. They get a certain amount for capital and they can decide to use that largely for water. There are special projects and additional funds, like when we get a project like this one and we got over $100 million for this year. We look at those that are high risk and encourage that First Nation to ensure their main water treatment plant is up to scratch if it is high risk and work with them to try and get a funding proposal in.
You are absolutely right; opportunities exist to have water treatment systems that are not extremely expensive. Many First Nations are located in remote and small areas. We are not able to put in piped water everywhere.
We have a pilot project with the Ontario government, with several municipalities and with First Nation communities to come up with innovative ways to do water treatment. I have not seen the results yet, but we are hopeful that it will produce an indication of opportunities for less expensive ways to treat water.
Drinking water is a fundamental issue and problem. There are boil water advisories across the country. At any given time there are well over 1,000. They are not all on First Nation communities. When we have a boil water advisory in a First Nation community, we provide bottled water at some expense. Therefore, we are keen to make sure we can take advantage of changing the systems.
There are some communities with wells because they are not drawing water from a river or a lake. It can be even more expensive if there are no alternatives to those particular wells. It is very complicated across the country. There is different geography and different options. In some communities it does not make sense to pipe water to every house but to deliver it by truck. We work with the First Nation to make sure that the most cost-efficient way of delivering water is available.
We have a long planning list of capital projects for water. First Nations communities put their proposals on that list and we work with them as we are moving our way through the risks. The risks, though, are not always the treatment plant itself. The risks are also through the operator; that is, where the operator is not familiar enough with how to keep the system working. We are spending more money this year on operator training.
That is a long answer, but you are absolutely right: We do not need expensive systems everywhere. We have a pilot project in Ontario trying to identify more cost-effective systems.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I hope you report on that next year. I will be here and I will probably ask the same question. For me, it is of the utmost importance. You can talk about health problems, but when the basics are not there it is hard to cook and drink. When I saw the saw the size of it last year — and I know it was in the billions of dollars — I thought maybe we will achieve this by the year 3000. That is much too long. Thank you for your answer.
[Translation]
I have a question for the RCMP representative. Is the police in the Far North 100 per cent federal?
[English]
Mr. Duplantie: Yes, the RCMP covers all of the Northern territories. When you say 100 per cent, do you mean in terms of coverage or in cost?
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Both.
[English]
Mr. Duplantie: It is still the same cost share, so 70 per cent to the territorial government and 30 per cent federal for the three territories.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: We finance the territories, so I guess we pay 100 per cent at the end of day. We are the ones giving them the operational money; it is not Public Works.
[Translation]
If you take Nunavut as an example, the population is certainly not generating the money to pay all of the RCMP services in that huge territory. So the figure cannot represent 75 per cent of their own local taxes. Do you agree?
[English]
Mr. Duplantie: I do not know what their source of funds is. That is the way it is cost-shared from the territory to the federal government. I am sorry that I do not have the answer on how they are subsidizing their share.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: More specifically, I remember hearing that law enforcement had been curtailed in the Far North. And so my question is whether, in your strategic item, you have reduced the number of law enforcement officers in the Far North. It is important that we know that. After all, they have a vast territory that is probably difficult to police. There are problems with drugs and domestic violence there. Have there been any staff reductions? The figures went from $854 million in 2011-12 to $168 million in 2013-14. That is an awfully large drop if you look at where we started and where we are now. We see a decrease of almost $200 million in your strategic plan. And yet, we have no details on your strategy.
Did part of the money come from reducing police resources in the Far North?
Mr. Duplantie: I do not have any statistics in hand on resources in the Far North; I am going to have to check that point.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I would like to know if there has been a decrease. Everyone attaches a great deal of importance to development in the Far North. At least, that is the case in my province of Quebec. And so it is important to see how things are moving forward in that regard, because the more people go and settle up there, the more we are going to need your services.
I have a question for the Public Works representatives. I must admit that I am amazed to hear you say that your renovation work on the Hill is on time, and even ahead of schedule, and on budget. I do not want to use the word ``costly'' to describe your operations. However, I have trouble imagining such an elaborate project in the private sector.
When I saw the sort of trench that was built, I wondered whether they were building a nuclear shelter for the senators and members. I was told that it was for housing wires. So they have been working for six months on a trench to run wires? If such a trench were dug and wires run in other cities over a six-month period, they would not survive.
I would like you to explain who drew up the budgets for this work and who set the limits on those budgets. Did you add a 30 per cent factor to ensure that you would cover your costs? I am asking the question because I watch what you do, and since I used to work for an engineering firm, I find the way in which this work is being done astronomically more expensive than the normal costs we would see in the private sector.
Mr. Lakroni: Thank you for the question. This Parliament Hill renovation project is a major program for Public Works, and we focused a lot of attention on it, from the planning stage right up to the delivery. You must understand that it is staggered over several years, that is to say 25 years, broken down into five-year periods. The project was divided up into five-year periods precisely to ensure that approval would be obtained in a timely fashion from Treasury Board. We are watching things very closely to ensure that the work done is necessary, that the schedule structure is well-designed, and that the funds are justified.
However, I am not familiar with what you were referring to.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: First, when you prepare projects, you do budget estimates, just as we do. Afterwards, you go into details and you draw up a more specific budget. At this time, the department already has a budget to do this or that work.
Who monitors the costs? Who draws up the original budget? Is it your department?
Mr. Lakroni: Our department submits proposals to Cabinet, which are approved. Afterwards, there are submissions made to Treasury Board. So we follow the normal funds approval procedure for this program.
Hence there is internal oversight, central agency oversight, and then we monitor things very closely. The previous Auditor General, who examined how we would manage the program, concluded that we were using sound management practices and that the department had an adequate costing system in order to deliver sound project management. I have a list of projects that were delivered on time, as designed and on budget. I could give you that list.
My colleague Pierre-Marc Mongeau and I were here last June. We provided quite an elaborate report on all of the projects. Here are a few I can share with you. I have the list in English, unfortunately.
[English]
The food production facility that received LEED gold certification was completed ahead of schedule and came in 18 per cent under budget. La Promenade, which houses 69 parliamentary office units and four committee rooms, came in 8 per cent under budget. These are specific initiatives. The Rideau Committee Rooms were completed ahead of schedule and on budget.
I have the details for each of these initiatives, which I will be more than happy to share with you.
The Chair: Why don't you do that.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I have another question. Do you have open calls for tenders for each phase and expertise needed for the project, or do you have a general contractor who gives out subcontracts to various skilled groups, depending on the contract?
Mr. Lakroni: Our contracts are tendered in a competitive process and we choose the best contractors in a fair, open and transparent way for the project requests we have to handle. And as I mentioned, all of this is managed in a very rigorous way.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I am going to wait for the second round of questions.
[English]
Senator McInnis: With respect to Indian Affairs and Northern Development on page II-179, under Urban Aboriginal Participation, which looks to be a new program, I see $41 million. I am looking for an explanation as to what that might be.
I can finish my questions and then you can respond.
At page II-181, I notice a grant for Mi'kmaq education in Nova Scotia for $45 million. Why is that separated out — it is an ongoing annual thing — from page 179, your education, which is close to $2 billion, and the community infrastructure fund of $1.2 billion. Is that done on a regional basis? Is it done on a project basis? You were just mentioning water. Would that be one of them? It is done upon request, I presume. Could you respond to those three questions?
Ms. Swords: The first one, the line item of Urban Aboriginal Participation, $41 million, represents a transfer of three programs from Canadian Heritage that took place last year. The programs are the Aboriginal Friendship Centre Program, Cultural Connections for Aboriginal Youth and Young Canada Works. They are all programs that deal with trying to assist people going from reserve into urban settings and how they adjust. They are also open to Metis and non-status Indians. They are programs that reflect the fact that today over half of the Aboriginal people of Canada do not live on reserves; they are in the cities. We have that item.
We used to have a separate item in the mains called The Office of the Federal Interlocutor. That had funding for the Urban Aboriginal Strategy, for some funds related to post-Powley, working with the Metis. That has now been rolled up into the main department. It is part of Urban Aboriginal Participation and we have the additional funds from Canadian Heritage. That is why that is there and that is why there is nothing appearing before.
Second, we actually have a self-government agreement with the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in the education sector. That represents the funds required under that agreement for Mi'kmaq students K to 12, primary and secondary school but not post-secondary. That is the funding they receive in order to deliver those programs.
Senator McInnis: Over and above this?
Ms. Swords: They are not included in the other funds that we get that are available for those on reserve when there is no self-government agreement.
Many self-government agreements that we have now are not just related to education. They are much broader, the Nisga'a out west, for example, or Tsawwassen. However, the one we have with the Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia works very well, and they have some of the highest graduation rates of Aboriginal people anywhere in the country. That is the funding that is through that agreement.
Senator McInnis: Nova Scotia, Mr. Chair, number one again.
The Chair: There may be some New Brunswickers in that, too.
Ms. Swords: I lived in Nova Scotia for three years, so I can count myself as an honorary Nova Scotian.
In relation to the third question, I am not sure which line item it is in the Main Estimates, but it is our main A base for infrastructure on reserve. That is used for building new schools, for renovating existing ones and for the operating costs of schools. It is used for water and wastewater on reserve, new operating renovations. It is used for things like sometimes they need gravel roads on reserve. Any community infrastructure on reserve comes out of that particular programming.
Funds that we get under the First Nation water and wastewater project that we got in last year's budget, additional funds would actually end up appearing in that line item. That is for reserves all across the country.
We identify a list. We have a plan of projects that are put forward by First Nations. We identify them on the basis of health and safety and risk and put priorities on them. Different regions are allocated a sum of money, partly based on what they got before, because of the ongoing operating costs, and partly based on what we know are projects that are going to be approved for larger infrastructure projects like a big school.
It is divided up by region, but it covers all infrastructure on reserve. It would not cover infrastructure on First Nations that are self-governing. That appears in a separate item.
The Chair: At the end of the heading ``Community Infrastructure,'' a third of the way down on page 179, I see $1.21 billion.
Ms. Swords: Yes, that is where it is.
Senator McInnis: Public works, could you clarify something for me? As you know, a massive contract to build our new vessels has been awarded to the shipyards in Nova Scotia and B.C. This is more for clarification. I suspect your department will be involved with the procurement part of it, but will the capital funds be with Defence? Who will call and execute the contracts? Does your department take the lead?
Mr. Lakroni: There are secretariats right now for that project and the lead is PWGSC. However, PWGSC is working in partnership with four or three other organizations — the Coast Guard, Fisheries, National Defence and Industry Canada — to oversee the good and sound execution of the contract. The funding is with the program. A portion of the funding is with Fisheries and Oceans, the Coast Guard. The large portion of the funding is with National Defence.
Senator McInnis: I thought I understood that and you have confirmed it. Thank you very much.
The RCMP will achieve some savings with respect to the Canadian Firearms Program. Could you explain how much?
Perhaps I could ask you a couple of other quick questions. The RCMP Senior Executive Committee has committed a time period over the next four or five years to reduce youth crime. How will you do that? Will you work with educational systems? Will RCMP in the communities working with the youth? I see that as a very important initiative. I wonder how you will accomplish that.
Mr. Duplantie: On your first question with respect to the firearms program, the efficiencies targeted there total $5 million. They will take place in a staggered way. This is part of our Deficit Reduction Action Plan, with a portion of savings in the first year, a portion in the second year and a portion in the third year. Effectively, it amounts to process improvements and a requirement for fewer personnel.
As to youth and our strategic priority in that regard, this work takes place in the first instance at the local level. Detachment commanders, working with their municipal council or rural organization will set out strategies relevant to their local area. This is to not only prevent youth crime but to target primarily those youth who are at risk of actually crossing the line, trying to catch the process early on to avoid them falling off the tracks. A significant amount of effort is expended in that regard.
On a national basis, of course, the contract and Aboriginal policing policy centre looks at strategies of a national scope to help provide some level of guidance in that regard. Fundamentally, it happens at the local level.
Senator McInnis: It is a great initiative and it is nice to see. It apparently started in 2012 and is being carried out by the senior executive committee which I take it is the upper echelon of the RCMP.
Mr. Duplantie: It is a strategic priority, but I would argue that it was not started as an initiative in 2012, per se. A tremendous amount of work at the ground level has been done for a number of years, but it has been framed within our five top strategic priorities because it carries that level of significance and importance to us.
Senator McInnis: In many instances the RCMP has an office in the high school, so it is great. Thank you very much.
Senator Callbeck: Commissioner, do you answer questions on the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP? I see where that is independent. Who do they report to?
Mr. Duplantie: The complaints commission is completely independent from the RCMP, so I would not answer any questions about their operation. They fall under the purview of Public Safety, but as a separate entity.
Senator Callbeck: I see they are being reduced by $2 million to $3 million.
The Chair: We could bring them in if you wish, but not tonight of course.
Senator Callbeck: That would be a good idea.
You said that there are 30,000 men and women in the force. What percentage are women, what was the percentage five years ago, and what is your target for five years down the road?
Mr. Duplantie: Currently in the regular member population we have a split of approximately 21 per cent women and 79 per cent men. The commissioner has set a target to achieve 50 per cent women in our training facilities at Depot in Regina so that over the long run we can achieve a 30 per cent representation in the organization overall. That is going to take time. It will take a number of years to get to that representation, but in order to increase the representation from 20 per cent to 30 per cent in the organization, we must have that much more representation in the training facility. This is in part to deal with attrition, demographics and the regular movement of personnel through the organization, and in part the reality that not everyone that starts the training program in Regina finishes the training program in Regina.
Senator Callbeck: You said 30 per cent down the road, but you must have a target, whether it is 10 years or 15 years.
Mr. Duplantie: I believe it is by 2025, but I am not certain. I would have to confirm that.
Senator Callbeck: Would you look into that and get back to the committee?
Mr. Duplantie: Certainly.
Senator Callbeck: You say 21 per cent right now. Is that up or down from five years ago?
Mr. Duplantie: I do not have statistics over time with me.
Senator Callbeck: I would like to know that.
You talk about the agreements with the provinces and the municipalities. Has the percentage changed for the provinces, the municipalities and the federal government in the agreement that took effect April 2012?
Mr. Duplantie: The cost-sharing percentage? No, they are the same thing, other than in those instances where the cost basis changed. I talked earlier about the accommodation program, which previously was a flat rate and now it is cost-shared on a 70/30 split. There are some items where the cost base changed but the ratio has remained.
Senator Callbeck: In your presentation you talked about the highlights. One was a decrease of $89 million in our year two target under the Deficit Reduction Action Plan in Budget 2012. Do you have any information to back up that $89 million?
Mr. Duplantie: Yes, we have a number of specific projects with specific implementation plans. We had a target of $44 million that we aimed to hit in the first year of the Deficit Reduction Action Plan. For the first year and second year combined, the target is $89 million. In large part it is in administrative efficiencies. In some respects it is in operational support efficiencies and how they relate to operations. However, we have worked arduously to safeguard operations, so when I talk about efficiencies as they relate to operations, I am talking about discretionary spending efficiencies in contract police forces. I am looking at a $10 million federal share in discretionary spending efficiencies.
Senator Callbeck: In view of time, could you send the committee a list of what that $89 million makes up, please?
Now, in Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada on page II-179, Co-operative Relationships, there is a big reduction there. I would like to know what you mean by ``co-operative relationships'' and why there is such a reduction. It has gone from $716 million to $396 million.
Ms. Swords: That title covers specific claim settlements. That is a major part of it. Last year, we made a settlement of over $300 million to the Coldwater First Nations for a long-standing claim, which was significant. That is a one-year event. This year, we will not be, as far as we know, making a claim of that size, so that explains the rather large reduction.
Senator Callbeck: In your presentation on page 5 you talked about $275 million over three years to education, and I am certainly all for that. Can you give us a breakdown as to how much of that is for elementary, secondary, the building of schools, literacy programs and partnership with provincial school systems? Do you have a breakdown for the total figure?
Ms. Swords: Yes. For this year, because it is spread out over three years, the amount in the Main Estimates is about $115 million — $40 million to support early literacy and partnership activities. Usually the partnership activities are with the provinces and First Nations to try to ensure comparability, various consultative groups we have with them, and opportunities to share best practices. As well, $75 million has been allocated to start construction this year of some priority school projects. They are in Fort Severn, Ontario; Pikangikum, Ontario; Clayoquot, British Columbia; Kwakiutl, British Columbia. They are new schools. There are also two new schools in Lac Squalims, B.C., and Shamattawa, Manitoba. We are adding and renovating Peter Ballantyne in Saskatchewan and we are giving funds to start the design of schools in Eel Ground Atlantic, Blood Tribe Alberta, and other Alberta places. It is pretty much across the country. We are allocating a small amount of the money to see if there is an opportunity to change how we fund major projects like this in the future. We are working with P3 Canada to see if we can come up with ways in which we can do design, build and operate over a longer period of time and spread the cost. Currently, we are paying for schools up front. If we do not have the funds in the particular year to pay for all the needs, then some of it has to be done the next year. Provinces do not fund schools on an all-cash basis, so we are trying to look at ways in which we can better manage the funds we have.
Senator Callbeck: Is it $40 million for literacy from the $275 million?
Ms. Swords: It is for early literacy and the partnership program with a number of the provinces and First Nations in those provinces. We have MOUs where we are working on developing issues around comparability, curriculum development and so forth. There are various partnerships and the $40 million is for this year.
The Chair: Can you refer us to all of these items in the Main Estimates? Are they under grants or under operations?
Ms. Swords: They would be under contributions — vote 10.
The Chair: Is it under grants and contributions?
It is a mixture. The amount for the schools comes under the item we discussed before under Community Infrastructure, and amounts for early literacy and the partnership program are under Education. If you would like the exact page, my colleague will get that.
Ms. D'Eon: Looking at it by name of the program, on page 179 part of the increase that you would see under education towards the top would be related to the readiness portion, and the capital infrastructure would be just slightly down where we have the $1.2 billion infrastructure for education schools incorporated in that figure.
The Chair: I have not found the capital, but I have found Education.
Ms. D'Eon: Capital is under Community Infrastructure.
The Chair: I have that now.
Ms. D'Eon: Yes.
Ms. Swords: That of course includes regular A-based funding that we have year after year plus additional injections we get in budgets for water and schools. The amount we got last year appears in there, but it is only part of the whole.
The Chair: We like to think in terms of zero-base funding. You come back each year and we decide from zero up as opposed to saying, ``This is what we got last year, so this $240 million is really $700 million,'' as we were talking earlier.
Senator Callbeck: Under Public Works and Government Services Canada, I see $49.9 million for funding to purchase a building complex. Do we need another building?
John McBain, Assistant Deputy Minister, Real Property Branch, Public Works and Government Services Canada: In fact, we occupy that building and have been since 1978. The government entered into a lease-purchase agreement for Les Terrasses de la Chaudière. The lease-purchase agreement included an option-to-purchase clause for the Crown, so the government approved the purchase. We notified the landlord that we would be exercising that option to purchase. The purchase price is set at $54 million. Our current rent is about $12 million per year, so the payback in terms of purchasing it for the Crown is a relatively short period of time.
Senator Callbeck: How many people will be housed or are housed there?
Mr. McBain: Currently it is 142,000 square metres of office space or 1.56 million. There are approximately 5,500 federal employees located there from a number of departments in three large buildings. As part of the department's accountability, we house 270,000 public servants from coast to coast to coast. Our inventory of real property exceeds 7 million square metres, so we have a very large inventory of owned and leased accommodation that we use to fulfill that mandate.
This complex is one of the ones that we use in the National Capital Region to do so. The option to purchase was a sound financial investment for the federal government.
Senator Callbeck: We have fewer employees. Do we have less leased space or space that the government owns?
Mr. McBain: As part of our strategic and Deficit Reduction Action Plan initiatives, we will be reducing our inventory commensurate with the reductions that are made in the public service.
Senator Callbeck: When will you start?
Mr. McBain: Part of our savings kick in this fiscal year. We have a seven-year program to realize that savings because real property initiatives by the nature of what we need to do to reduce takes a little bit longer than others take. We need to wait until the reductions are made, and then we look at consolidation projects to move into other space to shrink our actual footprint and release what we were occupying. That process is under way and will continue over the next five to six years.
Senator Callbeck: On page 3 you talk about additional savings of $95 million. I will not ask you to give us the details here because of time, but will you send the committee the details of what that $67 million makes up from the strategic review and the $28 million from the budget expenditure review?
Mr. Lakroni: I can answer now, if you wish. The $67 million you see in the Main Estimates is a top-up of what was achieved last year. Last year, we achieved $49.5 million, and this year we are achieving another $66 million on top of that, plus another $10 million that you do not see in the Main Estimates. You do not see that in the Main Estimates because it is cost avoidance. It is economies of leases and we do not ask for them to return them. They are economies that we call ``savings withheld at the source.'' The 66 plus 10 plus 49, which we achieved last year, totals $126.6 million, which is the full targeted savings achieved. It is primarily in the areas of real property, procurement modernization, electronic banking, departmental overhead or internal services and leveraging technology. That is for the 66. For the 28, it is related to our 2012 budget commitment contribution to the reduction of the deficit, and it is comprised of 15.1 in accommodation savings and other initiatives, such as internal services, $7.6 million; linguistic management services, 4.9 million and specialized programs and services, which is another way of saying internal services, $0.5 million. The total is 28.1, which is our target for this fiscal year.
As my colleague Mr. McBain mentioned, we have a commitment over multiple years, so this 28 ramps up to $177.6 million in 2018-19.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: My first question is for the Department of Indian Affairs. On page 178 in the English version, you refer to a decrease of $53.8 million for the gradual elimination of First Nations Infrastructure Fund financing.
One of the senators asked a question about infrastructure, but we are talking about another program here, are we not? You are going to eliminate this program, even though since 2007 it has provided $234 million for various investments in community training, waste management, roads, bridges, energy, as well as Internet access.
How will these projects be able to go forward if that infrastructure fund for First Nations is eliminated? Where are you going to get the money to continue these projects?
[English]
Ms. Swords: That is part of the capital funds that we had, the community infrastructure funding. Various programs make up the community infrastructure, or capital-on-reserve, funds. We have about $1.183 billion in vote 10 alone, even without that particular program. There are still regular, ongoing, A-based funds. However, I do want to say that the fund was well used and very useful. We had 234.9 million over five years. The fund has sunsetted now. Last year was the sunset year. We spent about 53.8. We had over 400 projects across the country. We are hoping that, as a result of legislation that was adopted last year for all of Canada, which allows municipalities and First Nations to access a fund, there will be an opportunity for similar kinds of programming in the future that capture what this particular program allowed for.
It is part of the Gas Tax Fund that gave money to municipalities. The legislation includes First Nations as municipalities. When the funding is attached to that legislation, there will be opportunities for First Nations to access that fund. As of now, as of these estimates, that funding has not yet been decided. There is hope.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: The First Nations had their word to say about what was done with these infrastructure funds. Will this still be the case with the initiatives that will be undertaken in the way you have just mentioned, or will you be centralizing the decisions far more?
[English]
Ms. Swords: For the funding of infrastructure, we have tried to somewhat centralize the ranking around schools so that we are ensuring that the schools that are most in need on a health, security and safety basis, wherever they are in the country, are the ones that are getting funding. For the other programs — water and wastewater — the ongoing renovation costs are pretty well set across the country. If there is a large project, then it is decided more centrally based on where the need is greatest across the country.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: My other question is for Public Works and Government Services Canada. In your expenditure statement on, page 303 in the English version, there is a budget item entitled ``Linguistic Management and Services''. This budget item has gone from $80 to $70 million for 2013-14. According to your website, this refers to translation and interpretation services that are funded through that budget item.
Is that decrease due to a drop in the number of translation requests, or is there a decrease in the language services budget?
Mr. Lakroni: There are two parts to our language services. One of these is funded through appropriations and is quite stable. This is used to defray the cost of services to Parliament, to all committees like this one, for instance.
The other part, the major part of our funding, is tied to services offered on an optional basis. In other words, we operate on a total cost recovery basis.
Conditions in departments, forecasts, and department commitments lead us to believe that there is a slight decline in the demand for the optional services we offer. That is what explains the difference, in part.
The other part can be explained in the following way: we had a program that provided contributions to industry, to continue to provide us with translators. This program has come to an end and will be discontinued in 2012-2013. And of course, there was a one-time investment in technology, for the Language Portal, which ended in 2012-2013. This accounts for the decrease of about $10 million.
Senator Chaput: I read in a newspaper article that since departments have to freeze or reduce their expenditures, they are forced to reduce the number of internal documents they have translated. Have you heard anything about that?
Mr. Lakroni: Yes, we read what the newspapers publish. So we are aware of certain things. But as I mentioned earlier, the departments call on the Translation Bureau for their translation needs on a voluntary basis. We have ongoing commitments with these departments so that we can manage our finances soundly. We adjust our resources according to our demand projections.
There certainly is a noticeable drop, but it is not significant from what I see and what is reflected here in the Main Estimates.
Senator Bellemare: I had several questions, but I am going to go to the main one. I will begin with the Department of Indian Affairs.
There is a total budget of approximately $8 billion, over $6 billion of which is made up of grants and contributions. When I look at the distribution of expenditures by large strategic category, I am struck by something. I see that $254 million of the $8 billion have been allocated to Aboriginal Economic Development, as a strategic element. Are these the expenditures for economic development that is being done with First Nations peoples?
I have a related question. You said that close to half of the population lives in cities. Here I see is a program called Urban Aboriginal Participation, and $41 million is allocated to that.
I would like to know what you did with that money. I know we see a lot of First Nations people in cities, and yet we see a lot of misery. Are these amounts sufficient? How are they spent?
[English]
Ms. Swords: The amounts for Aboriginal economic development that you see relate to very specific programs that the department has. There is an Aboriginal business development program that tries to help Aboriginal entrepreneurs. I do not have the exact amount of funding for that. There are programs available for community economic development opportunities on reserve. Funding is granted to some Aboriginal financial institutions to assist in loans that are being granted to Aboriginal companies.
Those funds are specifically directed at that kind of economic opportunity, but there is other funding, if you look throughout our piece. For example, any of the funds that we spend related to additions to reserve may indeed actually assist in economic development. In some cases they are for community expansion, but in some cases they are to allow for a factory or a Tim Hortons. Some reserves now have Tim Hortons. Some of the additions to reserve are to unlock the potential on the lands and make use of that kind of economic development. It is not really the whole picture.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Do you have an approximate idea of what percentage of the budget is used for economic development?
[English]
Ms. Swords: No, I think we would have to count serious amounts on addition to reserve, for example, self- government. Any of the money we are giving to First Nations that are now self-governing in one sense you could say is also for economic development because they tend to do better once they have self-government. It depends on how far you want to take your definition of economic development. It is a little hard to say.
With respect to the amount for Urban Aboriginal Participation, under section 91.24 of the Constitution our department is responsible primarily for Indian lands and Indians. That is the federal responsibility, but that tends to focus largely on-reserve, and there is only a small amount off-reserve because the provinces and municipalities have responsibilities. A lot of funding is being provided by provinces and municipalities.
Some of our funding for urban Aboriginal projects we do with the provinces and the municipalities and then leverage two to three times the amount for particular projects by others contributors. By no means is that the entire amount of money. We are just one player.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: With regard to the votes that have to be approved, I get the impression that there has been a change in the structure of the operational expenditures and the subsidies in the budget; what is that change?
For instance, I see that real expenditures from 2011 to 2012 went from $2 billion down to $1.8 billion; and the subsidies went from $122 million to $144 million. Does this indicate some type of trend, or a change of course in your operations? If so, what are they?
[English]
Mr. Duplantie: On the operating side, the significant difference is that at the beginning of this fiscal year just ending the contracts for contract policing had not been signed off. The $206 million that had been approved from 2008-09 through to 2011-12 sunset, so they did not appear in the mains because the contracts were not in place yet. We waited until the contracts were in place, returned through supplementary estimates to rebuild that and add the growth that was demanded by the program. That is why you will see a significant shift in the operating and capital votes.
On the matter of grants and contributions, what is really driving change is the grant for compensation of members injured in the performance of their duties. These costs are forecasted and reported to us from a forecast perspective by Veterans Affairs. We put what information we get from them in our forecast. Over the last few years, we have found that the cost of that grant has increased by 10 to 12 per cent year over year. There have been more reported work- related injuries and residual effects, and we know that health care and the cost of health care is going up as well.
Senator Bellemare: Those were the causes?
Mr. Duplantie: Yes.
Senator L. Smith: Ms. Swords, do you keep measurements? We hear in the public domain about the wastewater and drinking water programs that you are trying to implement. As you pan across the country, do you have stats in terms of how many communities? Where are you at a percentage of completion versus the need? Do you keep active statistics on that? It is in the news and it is an important idea, and I am sure you are focused on it.
Ms. Swords: We have the national assessment from two years ago which was done right across the country and on a standard, consistent basis evaluating water and wastewater by an engineering firm. Last year we did an update. Our own people — we have some engineers, not many, and funding service officers — have gone out to the communities and checked the number of similar characteristics checked in the national assessment. Does the operator have his training? What are all the issues around the system? What upgrades are needed? We have an update, but they are not exactly parallel because one was done by an engineering firm that went right across the country. We cannot afford to hire an engineering company every year, so the next year we sent our own people out.
We found and I believe we will continue to find that there was a percentage — I have it somewhere and could send it to you — that went from high to medium. It was around 6 or 8 per cent, but there were also some that went from medium to high and some that went from medium to low. They change all the time because what you are checking in terms of evaluating risks includes things like whether you have a trained operator right now. If you have a trained operator one year, they may be gone the next, so that can affect your standard.
Each year we have an assessment of the risk level of each one, but it varies quite often from year to year, and they go up and down depending on what happens in the community.
Senator L. Smith: As you look across the country, out of 100 per cent of the communities, could you tell me how many have potable water? Obviously there will be boil advisories if there are breakdowns due to an operator who leaves or someone is not qualified, but where are we in the national picture in terms of the need?
Ms. Swords: Health Canada keeps the statistics on potable water and the issues around boil water advisories. At any given time, and again it will change, usually over 100 water systems on First Nations communities would have boil water advisories. That does not mean the entire community is on ``boil water'' because many of the communities have multiple reserves or multiple water systems, so you cannot translate that into one sixth.
We have made progress. There are fewer and fewer high-risk communities, but there are some communities that may get to medium but never lower because the source is a real problem. The source water itself is part of the risk factor, and if you cannot fix that, then you will always have some issues.
To answer your question, at any given time there are over 100 water systems on boil advisories, but they are not always the same.
Senator L. Smith: All the reserves in our country have some form of running water that would be through water treatment plants that have been built by the government or themselves through PPPs?
Ms. Swords: They all have some form of water. In some cases the water is trucked in. In some cases the water is from wells. In some cases it is bottled water because the water system is broken down and we are sending in water to make sure they have some.
There are issues like that that we work on because we do not want to be spending money on bottled water. We want to get a system that is working. They go up in this list of planned investments in water pretty quickly so we can try to move them into having a system that is working.
Senator L. Smith: Do you think it is the type of challenge that you can get control of? Do you feel you have control of the actual process of making sure that more and more people have quality water?
Ms. Swords: I think the investments the government has made have gone up. We are spending more money on water systems, but it is something that requires money every year. You may make a major investment, but unless you maintain it and keep it going the system will need to be fixed sooner. We have a lot of systems in remote parts of the country. There are systems in some reserves that are actually supplying water to local municipalities and are some of the best in the country. It is not all a situation where there is a problem.
Senator L. Smith: In Kahnawake, an $11 million or $12 million investment was made in a treatment facility, which is outstanding. It is just off the south shore of Montreal.
Ms. Swords: That is right. The picture is varied across the country.
Senator L. Smith: Do you have stats so that our group could better understand? It is a public concern and it would be good if we had more information.
Ms. Swords: Yes, and it will change from year to year.
Senator L. Smith: I understand.
The Chair: Any further information you can give us would be helpful.
In the documents, $34 million was transferred from the RCMP to Public Works to acquire a new property in Vancouver or the mainland of British Columbia, I assume. Is that leasehold improvements, or will the RCMP own the building and you will administer it for them? How does the ownership work?
Mr. Duplantie: Since the transfer is coming from us, I can answer. This is in relation to the Green Timbers property, the new headquarters in Surrey, British Columbia. In December, the occupation took place; it just recently stood up. The transfer of $31 million in this fiscal year is comprised of two parts. About $6.9 million is our share of up-front capital that was put into this transaction. It is a bit after the fact, but it was an arrangement with Public Works from a timing perspective. The other part is $24.4 million. It is a contribution to the overall annual stream of payments to the consortium that will take place over the next 25 years.
The Chair: It is a payment up front for a long-term leasehold that you are paying?
Mr. McBain: This is a new facility, a new consolidation delivered through a public-private partnership. It is a full design, build, operate, finance, maintain. As described by Mr. Duplantie, it is a 25-year agreement that Public Works entered into on behalf of Canada. We have a portion of it in terms of our office accommodation role; the other portion is the special purpose space that the force needs to deliver its mandate. We are the overseers of the contract and it eventually reverts to the country, but it is a new facility consolidated in Surrey, British Columbia.
The Chair: I noted that it was interesting and you have explained it. The public-private partnership implication adds another dimension to all of this that we will have to take into consideration as we go along.
Colleagues, I am sure that any one of the departments we have heard from would be pleased to come back if we wanted to delve more deeply into the issues later on because we do have the mandate to deal with any department that is asking for funding in the Main Estimates for the year.
We would like to thank Public Works and Government Services Canada for being here. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, we look forward to that name change.
[Translation]
To the representatives of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, thank you for having attended our meeting.
[English]
We will suspend for two minutes. Please get out the report on Supplementary Estimates (C). We have had it for a couple of days and we will take it from there.
(The committee continued in camera.)