Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 2 - Evidence - November 25, 2013 (afternoon meeting)
OTTAWA, Monday, November 25, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 3 p.m. to study the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, this afternoon we will start our study of the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.
[English]
We are pleased to welcome back officials from the Expenditure Management Sector of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Appearing this afternoon are Bill Matthews, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector; Marcia Santiago, Acting Executive Director, Expenditure Management Sector; and Steve Tremblay, Portfolio Director.
Those who have been on this committee for a while will know that we are welcoming back a team that helps us immensely in our examination of the supplementary estimates. In terms of timing for this session, we will suspend at 4:15 p.m. to prepare for the arrival of Minister Flaherty and our next segment on the subject matter of Bill C-4. That means we have an hour and a quarter with the Treasury Board Secretariat. We will return to our study on Supplementary Estimates (B) on Wednesday evening.
We have an order of the Senate allowing us to study the budget implementation bill out of our normal time, so we try to work in the supplementary estimates into our normal meeting times, which are Tuesday morning and Wednesday evening. That's what we will do this week and probably next week as well.
Without further ado, I give the floor to Mr. Matthews. I think we have a deck you wanted us to follow?
[Translation]
Bill Matthews, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting us here this afternoon to talk about the Supplementary Estimates (B) for 2013-14. As you mentioned, I have two colleagues with me who will help me answer your questions.
I would first like to provide you with an overview of the Supplementary Estimates (B).
[English]
At the same time, I would like to explain a little about estimates themselves for the new committee members. I apologize to those who have been through this several times in the past. Mr. Chair, let me know if you would like me to speed things along.
We will start on slide 3, which is a diagram existing committee members will have seen before. I would like to take the time to explain the parliamentary reporting cycle and supply cycle, or estimates, and how what we are up to today fits into this process.
A little bit of information about government reporting to help situate new members is that there are four things you should ask yourself before you look at any financial report from the federal government.
The first thing you is should ask yourself is whether this a planning document or actual document. In the case of the estimates, we have planned spending for the upcoming period. Whether it is Main Estimates or supplementary estimates, we are dealing with planned spending. If you are dealing with the financial statements of the Government of Canada, it would be a document that tells you what actually happened. It's a question of looking forward or in the past.
One of the premises of government financial reporting is that any time the federal government produces a planning document, they will eventually produce a companion piece to let you do a comparison of planned versus actual. If you think about the federal budget, it's a planning document. The companion piece would be Volume I of the financial statements of the Public Accounts so you can see what happened in the year. In the case of estimates, it is a planning document and the companion piece is Volume II of the Public Accounts which tells you, department by department, what their spending authority was and what they spent during the year.
You should ask yourself whether it's a cash basis of reporting or accrual basis of reporting, because the federal government uses both. In the case of the federal budget, full accrual concepts are at play and the same reporting rules are in place for planned and actual. In the case of the estimates, which we are studying today, we used modified cash. So this is the cash that will potentially flow out the door during the fiscal year.
The Chair: How does cash get modified?
Mr. Matthews: If we go back in history, we said pure cash accounting, which would mean that you account for it the day you write the cheque. As you know, it's illegal to overspend your votes; what Parliament votes is a ceiling you can't overspend.
Under straight cash accounting, if you have an invoice you can't afford to pay as a department, you could slide it into your drawer and wait for the next fiscal year to start and say, ``I will pay next year.'' You would be around the rules.
The reason we say ``modified cash'' is because what's important is the date you received the goods or services. You can't get around the ceiling by deferring payment. You have to look at when the goods or services were received. If they were received during the fiscal year, they must be charged during the appropriate fiscal year's vote. That's why we call it modified cash.
You should ask yourself if you're dealing with an in-year report or whole-of-year report. With the Main Estimates, it's for the full year. Supplementary estimates would add to that. Quarterly reports the departments produce are in- year reports. Financial statements of the Government of Canada are whole-of-year.
The final question I like to ask myself before dealing with a report is: Am I dealing with a whole-of-government report or a departmental specific report? So, the estimates apply to the whole-of-government as would the budget, the financial statements of the Government of Canada. Departmental level reports, like the Reports on Plans and Priorities or the Departmental Performance Reports, go hand-in-hand.
When you think about the government's fiscal year, it is 12 months from April 1 until March 31, but you should be thinking about 18 to 20 months in terms of full cycle. Most people would say that the fiscal year starts with the presentation of the budget. The budget is typically presented in February or March for the upcoming fiscal year, so it's a month or two before the fiscal year starts.
My definition of the end is when the fiscal cycle is when the Public Accounts of Canada are produced, which closes off the year with its reporting. That is typically six months after the year end, so you're dealing with an 18- to 20-month cycle to get the full picture.
The cycle we're in right now is at the bottom of this lovely circle you have here, September to December. You will notice it's a very busy period of activity. In that period we have the tabling of Public Accounts. They were tabled a couple of weeks ago and that was for the year ended March 31, 2013.
Typically, we have Supplementary Estimates (B) being tabled, as well as the related appropriation bill, which will come in December.
You will also see a departmental level series of reports, the Departmental Performance Reports that get tabled. They are to wrap up the previous fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, and go through each department's performance. As well, you will normally have the economic and fiscal update, which happened not too long ago. So that's where we are in the cycle.
When thinking about appropriations, estimates and supply, one of the frustrations that we need to address is the link between the budget and the estimates. A budget will announce spending, and you may not see it in the estimates until one, two or sometimes three years later.
Why is that? You could see it in the same fiscal year but you don't have to. The budget announces the intent to do something. Before a department can actually start spending money, it legally must have the approval of Parliament, and that is what the estimates and supply cycle is about.
The way a department eventually gets the legal authority or approval from Parliament is by going through the process of preparing a Treasury Board submission, which is a detailed spending plan that articulates how much money they will spend in personnel, operating capital, et cetera. If it's a new program, they would outline the performance objectives, how they will be measured, and what's the process for the theory in terms of how the program will be evaluated. It will go through that really detailed review before it gets blessed as ready for spending.
Once it's through Treasury Board, then it can get wrapped up into the next estimates document, which is when money can start to be spent. Related to the estimates document is a supply bill.
One thing I should mention at this point is that the estimates documents themselves are presented to help parliamentarians study and approve — or not approve — the supply bill or the appropriation act. But it's actually the appropriation act itself, or the supply bill, that gets parliamentary approval. So Parliament does not approve the estimates; the estimates are simply a vehicle to help the study of the appropriation act. It is certainly a useful tool, but it's not tabled for approval.
When we are speaking about the estimates, the first thing to know, which I've already mentioned, is that it's illegal to overspend whatever Parliament approves. There are two kinds of spending: voted spending and statutory spending.
Voted spending is just that: It's spending that Parliament votes on, and that is illegal to exceed.
Statutory spending is when the department has received the legal authority to spend money through a separate piece of legislation. Most of our statutory spending has no limit on it. It does not require the approval of Parliament through the supply process to spend money. What we put in the estimates documents and related content online is an estimate of how much we think will be spent, but they are purely there for information purposes.
Therefore, Mr. Chair, if your members are combing through the estimates documents and they see something with an S beside it, that means it is statutory funding and is being presented for information purposes only; it is not voted on by Parliament.
A good example of statutory spending would the Canada Health Transfer to the provinces. It's not voted on each year as part of the estimates process; it's in legislation and it just flows.
The Chair: If we wanted to find out how much was actually spent on statutory, we find that in Public Accounts of Canada after the fact?
Mr. Matthews: You can find it in the Public Accounts of Canada after the fact, but I will tell you a simple rule: If the government spends roughly $270 billion a year, about two thirds of that is statutory. It is one third voted and two thirds statutory, so the vast majority is statutory.
If you think about the reasons for that — think about the Canada Health Transfer and all of our programs related to Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Those are statutory in nature, so some fairly significant programs are statutory.
That is voted versus statutory.
It is an up-to amount, so while it's illegal to overspend, departments do not have to spend the whole amount. It's a maximum. Because it's illegal to overspend, departments have to plan for what might get spent.
There has been a lot of discussion these last few weeks about what's called lapsed funding, or funding that is authorized by Parliament and is not spent. If you are wondering what happens when Parliament authorizes spending and it does not get spent — what happens to that money — there are three possible scenarios.
The first thing I will speak to is that departments have some capacity to carry forward money from one fiscal year to the next. So when Parliament approves spending, it's only good for the current fiscal year. There are some exceptions to that, but generally speaking, it's one year's worth of spending and it expires at the end of the year. If they don't spend it, they have to come back and get it reapproved. It's for that reason you might see things that look familiar to you in estimates documents in consecutive years. We have a few examples of that today.
So if a department does not spend its full allocation, most departments — with the exception of National Defence — are allowed to carry forward 5 per cent of their unspent operating dollars. If they are operating dollars, up to 5 per cent of the unspent portion can be carried forward into the next fiscal year, and that is done through an allocation called operating budget carry-forward — you will see it in these documents. That's a process of Treasury Board allocating out to departments amounts for unspent operating dollars last year.
We have the same process for capital, except it's 20 per cent of the unspent portion, so they have some capability to carry that forward.
If it's outside those parameters and the department still wishes to spend the money but couldn't get around to it or make it happen for some reason, they can apply to have that money put back into the estimates cycle and reapproved by Parliament. That is an option. They can make a case to the Minister of Finance and say, ``Look, we didn't spend the money last year. Here are the reasons why. It's still important that this money be spent. Please include it in the next year's round of estimates.'' That would go through the Treasury Board process again if the Minister of Finance is on side. So the second possibility is that it can appear again through that mechanism.
The third possibility is that it does not get spent and returns to the fiscal framework and effectively has a positive impact on the bottom line of the government's financial results.
All three of those things are possible, but if a department cannot spend the money, it is up the department to take action, if they wish to spend it in a future fiscal year, to get that money approved for spending in a future fiscal year. If they do nothing, it will lapse and go back to the fiscal framework.
So we do have a couple of examples of those things that I will highlight for you today.
The Chair: Before you leave that — it's easier for us to think about this, so I apologize for interrupting — but can you explain how the first one, the carry-forward of 5 per cent or 20 per cent of capital, is accounted for in terms of the Public Accounts of Canada? Is it shown as spent because it's carried forward?
Mr. Matthews: No, it would not be shown as spent. You would see nothing in the Public Accounts of Canada. I will let my colleagues correct me if I misspeak here, but what you will see in Supplementary Estimates (B) is a central vote called operating budget carry-forward and another one called capital budget carry-forward.
Central votes — there are a few of them — are a process where Treasury Board takes money and locates it out to departments. So at the end of the fiscal year, when the Public Accounts of Canada are completed and we have an understanding of how much departments spent or, more importantly, didn't spend, we can do the calculation and say, ``Okay, Heritage, your 5 per cent of unspent money is $3 million,'' for example, and you would see an allocation in Supplementary Estimates (B) from the central votes out to Heritage for $3 million.
The Chair: So it would be shown in the second year as having been spent as part of the overall amount of money spent by the government during that year.
Mr. Matthews: Not as having being spent, Mr. Chair, but as an authority for the department to spend. It would then go into their operating pot, so it would be mixed in with their other operating votes. It would supplement their operating dollars.
In the example I just used of Heritage, if it already had operating authorities of $10 million, this would add a further $3 million and give them up to $13 million to spend.
The Chair: But in terms of what we vote on in the supply bill, it's the $10 million.
Mr. Matthews: You would see the $10 million for Heritage as their operating budget, and the central vote allocation is also provided because there's a transfer from Treasury Board central votes operating budget carry-forward over to the department.
The Chair: But is it shown for interest and information, or do we actually approve the carry-forward in the carry- forward year?
Mr. Matthews: I will turn to my colleague, but I believe you approve it because of the vote transfer.
Marcia Santiago, Acting Executive Director, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: You approve the carry-forward vote, and Treasury Board vote 25 for the operating budget carry- forward and 33 for capital in Main Estimates. So they are established in the Main Estimates, and the vote wording gives us authority — actually gives Treasury Board authority — to allocate the amounts directly from those votes to the department any time after the amounts are fully voted in supply for Main Estimates.
The Chair: Fully voted.
Ms. Santiago: Yes.
Senator Gerstein: Mr. Matthews, could you clarify whether what you have just described is where we all also use the term ``reprofiling''?
Mr. Matthews: That's an excellent question, and that's the second case.
So operating budget carry-forward and capital budget carry-forward are forms of reprofiling, but they're almost automatic, based on a formula. Typically, when we talk about reprofiling, it's when a department has not spent the money and they've made a special case to spend it in an upcoming fiscal year, and they've submitted it again. So they didn't spend it in year one but they need to spend it — it will happen — in year two. That is typically what we call reprofiling.
I will jump ahead to one of our examples. You may recall there was an amount for National Defence for Manuge, which was a settlement. It looked, based on the best of our information last year, that that money would flow largely last year. In fact, it didn't flow. It's back in the supplementary estimates because the parliamentary approval to spend that money expired with the year end. There is a still a need to flow that money to Manulife for distribution. It's back again in these supplementary estimates for approval because, as I mentioned, parliamentary approval is for one fiscal year at a time.
When we typically talk reprofiling, we're talking normally about those larger amounts.
The Chair: Something outside the 5 and 20.
Mr. Matthews: Correct. You will notice that we have an operating budget carry-forward and a capital budget carry- forward. We have nothing for grants and contributions. So any time you see grants and contributions money that doesn't get spent, and a department wishes to spend it in an upcoming fiscal year, there is no 5 or 20 per cent for that. It must be resubmitted for reprofiles.
If you think about the lapses or the unspent money, oftentimes that's related to infrastructure projects where we are negotiating with provinces. You have to plan for reaching the maximum number of agreements and hope you can reach those agreements, but if the agreements aren't reached, the money will often get reprofiled from one fiscal year to the next. Historically speaking, infrastructure is one of our areas where the greatest lapsing occurs because complicated negotiations have to occur before that money can flow.
Senator Gerstein: I would like to follow that up. If you take DND as distinct from infrastructure, when you reprofile for paying for the 10 tanks that didn't come in because you anticipate them in the next year, is it specifically allocated for the same purpose for which it was originally granted?
Mr. Matthews: When you're dealing with a reprofile, it is for the same purpose.
Senator Gerstein: For the same exact purpose.
Mr. Matthews: When you think about National Defence, it is a complicated organization.
Senator Gerstein: Yes, it is.
Mr. Matthews: If you are the Minister of Finance, and I'm putting myself in his shoes here, what they have set aside is an amount for capital acquisition for the Department of National Defence. What you know is that every year there is going to be a certain amount of capital acquisition activity. Whether it's tanks or helicopters or ships, there is an amount each year for capital. The fact is that National Defence procurement is complicated. They have to plan for the best-case scenario in terms of being able to procure.
In addition to infrastructure, National Defence is one of our more common lapsers. If the procurement doesn't occur on the ships or helicopters and there is a signal that it will happen in a future fiscal year, Finance puts aside an amount of money each fiscal year for capital improvement or capital acquisition. From a profile perspective, I'm not sure if they are too fussed about which year it happens in. This is the Finance perspective. National Defence is certainly very fussed, but what Finance knows is that they have put aside a rough amount each year for procurement. If it doesn't happen in year 1 and they slide it over to year 2, the bottom line effect at the end of 10 years is the same. They have set aside X dollars every year for capitalization of the military, and if it doesn't all happen in one year, it happens in another.
We've got a similar situation with how we deal with Indian and Northern Affairs in terms of their settlements. We have made assumptions that a certain amount of settlement work will occur each year. It's never exactly right. Some years are more than others, but over a period of time it kind of matches up.
Senator Buth: What about the shift of funds within a year between operating and capital?
Mr. Matthews: Most departments are appropriated with three votes: capital, operating, grants and contributions, but they're large departments. If you are a smaller department, you might have all of those rolled into one thing called a program vote, but let's deal with the big departments.
Any vote transfer needs the approval of Parliament, whether it's a move from one department to another or a transfer within the same department, but you're moving it from a capital vote to an operating vote. That requires Parliament's approval because you are changing the vote amount, so that's a transfer.
A vote transfer is perfectly legitimate, but it has to be approved by Parliament. If you're looking for vote transfers, we do see them from time to time from capital to operating.
Senator Buth: We would see those in the estimates.
Mr. Matthews: You would see those in the estimates under ``transfers.''
The Chair: Mr. Matthews, back to you.
Mr. Matthews: With that, I will leave this rather complicated slide and move on to the supplementary estimates, but again, chair, please do stop me if there are questions as we go.
Slide 4 deals with the organization of the supplementary estimates themselves, the way the document is organized. There is an introduction that talks about structure, purpose and general information. Most important, it includes estimates to date.
This is Supplementary Estimates (B), so you would find the Main Estimates upfront in this document plus Supplementary Estimates (A) plus (B) to give you a sense of what the department has had to date. You would have a sense of the largest dollar items, and I will speak to the top 10 or so amounts in Supplementary Estimates (B). You will also see new votes and changes to vote wording. I would highlight for you today a couple of changes covered in this document.
There has been a transfer of responsibilities from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency over to Health Canada. You would see that reflected in this document.
Some of you may recall that CIDA was merged with DFAIT, and you would see that covered here as well.
Horizontal items are covered in the introduction section, and I will spend some time on horizontal items because they are important and are increasingly common.
The Chair: Can you refer us to a page?
Mr. Matthews: If I recall correctly, horizontal items would start on page 22 in the French version and on page 19 in the English version.
Horizontal items — and I will walk through some of these in detail in a few moments — are where multiple departments are cooperating together to achieve a common goal. You will see we have listed those here because to understand the whole picture you should see what each department is getting, but when Parliament votes money they vote it to each department.
First on this list of horizontal items is something for perimeter security and economic competitiveness, and you have CBSA, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, getting funds under this one for $49 million, but we will go through some of those later on.
In addition to the introduction section, the biggest part of this document is the department-by-department breakdown of requests for spending. That would actually occur starting with section 2. It is presented in alphabetical order, so in the English version Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is first and if you flip around to the French version, ''Les affaires étrangères commencent le développement'' is first.
I will use this opportunity to remind members that when it is time to ask questions, if you can give us the page number that will be useful because the page number is often different in English and French.
That's the largest section of this document, the actual details by organization.
In the annex you will find the proposed schedule to the appropriation bill, and that is what is actually approved by Parliament. That's actually the draft, what the appropriation act itself would look like when it comes time to approve that.
In addition to all of this, there is substantial information online. You will find online details on statutory forecasts, which I've spoken to before. There has been a lot of discussion at this committee, as well as the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, on spending by strategic outcome and program, so there is information on each department spending by strategic outcome and program or estimated spending available online.
The reason I'm highlighting that for you is that there is an ongoing discussion with the Government Estimates and Operations Committee about whether the votes of money should be based on program or strategic outcome, or, as it is now, on capital operating and grants and contributions. That's an ongoing discussion we are having with both committees.
You will find information about transfers between organizations in more detail, allocations from Treasury Board central votes, which we've already spoken about, and, last, explanation of available authorities. I should spend 30 seconds on this one.
You will see that the department is asking for money for a new initiative, but it turns out they already have money that we know they won't spend, so what do we do with that? Parliament does not approve reductions in planned spending, so if we are aware that the department has money they cannot spend this fiscal year but are getting money for something else, we will net the two, and that's what we call explanation available authorities.
To give you a very simple explanation, after Main Estimates were prepared last year, Budget 2013 announced reductions in spending on travel that impacted most if not all departments. That money was already in the departments' votes. We now know they can't spend it because there was a reduction made as part of the budget. So if they come along looking for new money, we net off the money we know they can't spend; so travel is a very easy example. If they're looking for $100 and we know we've cut them by $10 for travel, we would give them $90 because they already have $10 in their Main Estimates that we know they can't spend.
The Chair: Even though that has not been approved by Parliament for some expenditure.
Mr. Matthews: Well, it would have been in Main Estimates initially because they were prepared before this travel cut. It would have been voted on by Parliament. The department would have the authority to spend it, but the second that we get wind of something like a budget reduction for travel, we instruct the departments that they cannot spend that money. We have an internal system to freeze the money. If they then come along and say, ``We need money for a new initiative,'' we would net the two off.
When you hear they have available authorities, that's money we know they have in their authorities that they cannot spend.
The Chair: But not for this new initiative.
Mr. Matthews: Not for this new initiative.
The Chair: You see where I'm going.
Mr. Matthews: What's a good example? There's money in here for perimeter security, but if we know that there's money the department already has that they can't spend, we would only give them the net requirement; we would net the two.
The Chair: The transportation, the $10, how do they get authority to spend that on something else, not transportation, but perimeter security?
Mr. Matthews: Because it's the vote level that Parliament controls. So as long as it's under the vote of operating, or whatever we're dealing with — in this case, travel would be part of operating — they don't need the authority from Parliament to do that because it's at the vote level.
Senator Buth: My brain might have just lapsed in the middle of that. You do require approval for the new initiative.
Mr. Matthews: You do require approval to increase their operating vote, and we explained to parliamentarians why we are asking for an increase in their operating vote, and that would go into the reference levels.
But from a parliamentary control perspective, what you are controlling in this case is the total operating dollars that the department spends. We've given you a breakdown of the intent, but to move money, if I can use this, underneath the vote doesn't require the approval of Parliament.
Senator Buth: Were you going to show us any examples of that?
Mr. Matthews: I think we will, yes. If I forget, I'm sure my colleagues will remind me.
Slide 5 deals with supplementary estimates totals, just to give you a sense of where we are in Supplementary Estimates (B).
[Translation]
These supplementary estimates provide information on $5.4 billion in the budget's voted appropriations for 62 organizations. These appropriations will be approved by Parliament through the supply bill you will see in December.
[English]
Sixty-two organizations are requesting money in the supplementary estimates, a total of $5.4 billion. You'll notice the vast majority here is voted; $5.4 billion voted; statutory is very small at 5.5. That statutory amount is a netting of a whole bunch of other smaller items, and I will spend a few moments to break out that number for you.
Just a reminder that overall in terms of government spending, two thirds is typically statutory, one third typically voted, but that's what we're dealing with here.
A big part of understanding estimates is terminology. So we have bumped into the terms ``budgetary'' and ``non- budgetary'' here. All of the spending in Supplementary Estimates (B) is budgetary. What that means is there is an impact on the government's bottom line. That is the best way to explain budgetary.
Non-budgetary, even though there are none today, if you had a non-budgetary expenditure, it would be something that if everything went as planned would have no impact on the government's bottom line, such as a loan to another country. If they pay us back, there's no impact on the government's bottom line. The second we get a sense that they can't repay us or will not repay us, it becomes budgetary because there is an impact on the government's bottom line.
So everything here today in Supplementary Estimates (B) is budgetary.
On the next slide is a quick comparison of estimates to date, so the current year versus previous years. Supplementary Estimates (B) is typically our largest supplementary estimates of the year. The one we had in the spring was Supplementary Estimates (A). If a department is looking for money in the spring, supplementary estimates, they have to convince us that they can't wait until the fall; so it's typically very small.
By the time you hit Supplementary Estimates (C), or the winter sups, you are pretty close to the end of the fiscal year so there has to be a really good case for needing to spend it or proving you can spend it before the year is up. So Supplementary Estimates (B) is typically our largest: 5.4 this year.
If you look at where we are this year to date versus last year, you'll notice that to date, including the supplementary estimates, we would be at $259 billion in spending. Last year, the total for the whole year was $259 billion in terms of authorities.
If you're wondering why it's larger this year, you should look at the split between voted and statutory. Voted spending is actually down 93.6 at this stage and statutory is up. If you're wondering why statutory is up, I can give you three reasons: Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement have both increased over the last year because of our aging population, roughly about $1.8 billion there. The Canada Health Transfer, as senators would be aware, went up by 6 per cent, so the increase there is another $1.7 billion. Those two things together would cause our statutory estimate to go up by $3.5 billion. That's where the big chunks are there.
Next is slide 7. I will spend a couple of moments on the major items in these Supplementary Estimates (B), and I hope it will allow members to focus their attention on the bigger items.
First up is Treasury Board Secretariat and payment of accumulated severance benefits at $955 million. Members who have been at this committee in the past will remember this item. This is the notion that as collective agreements have been negotiated and the accumulation of severance benefits has ceased for voluntary departure, employees now have the option of cashing out the severance they've earned to date. You will have seen this in the last few supplementary estimates; so we've got it again for a few more agreements. Largely, the amounts here are for national defence, our computer services group, audit and commerce, our economists and our finance folks, so that's where that comes from.
The second item on this is Public Safety, Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements. This program is cost-shared with the provinces based on natural disasters. The amount the federal government spends has to do with the per capita cost of clean-up. The bulk of this amount is related to the relief being provided to the Province of Alberta for the flooding in southern Alberta. There's a total that the government has estimated they will spend of just under $3 billion, I believe 2.8. This amount is to top up what's in the reference levels for the department to allow them to cover that off.
I will say on the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements that it often takes years before there's a final accounting of the actual spending. So this year there is also money flowing from Public Safety under this program for flooding in Manitoba and storm and flooding damage on the East Coast. I think that was as far back as 2010 to 2012. There is an accumulation of things in there.
The Chair: Is that an account that's kept in Foreign Affairs?
Mr. Matthews: It is kept in Public Safety; they are the keepers of that. Normally for a province to be repaid by the federal government, it's a matter of revalidating their expenses. There's quite a time lag between the disaster itself and when the federal government's final cheque comes.
The Chair: How is that accounted for? There's a pot of money the government needs to be able to dip into fairly quickly to help out, and then that's topped up whenever a sup comes around?
Mr. Matthews: It's topped up as needed. In the normal case, the province submits their expenditures for reimbursement to the federal government at a cost-sharing ratio. It's typically not something where there is an urgent response or an urgent flow of money required. The province typically spends the money and then informs the federal government in terms of what they've spent: ``Here are the invoices, please reimburse us.''
I think the program you may be thinking of is a crisis pool fund managed by Foreign Affairs.
The Chair: That's the one I was thinking of.
Mr. Matthews: We'll speak about that one at the bottom of this page, actually.
The Chair: But is this accounted for in the same manner?
Mr. Matthews: Its spending is tracked in terms of the program. It's a little more formalized in that the federal government's share on this one is formula-based in terms of per capita spending. The Foreign Affairs one you are thinking of is a little more flexible.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: If I understand correctly, the government portion for the Lac Mégantic events is not included in that $689 million total.
[English]
Mr. Matthews: With regard to the spending in Lac-Mégantic, two amounts have been spoken about: $60 million that the federal government matched with the Province in Quebec back in July; and recently an announcement of around $90 million for environmental clean-up. That money is not included in here as it's a clean-up fund. It was announced too late to be included in the Supplementary Estimates (B). I think the events that are funded from this program are natural disasters. Lac-Mégantic is a bit different in that it's not a natural disaster.
Senator Callbeck: I have a question on the Canada First Defence Strategy. Part of that, I assume, is going to armored patrol vehicles. I know there have been some articles in the press about some of these contracts being behind schedule and over the price. I'm wondering how many contracts we have. I know there're contracts to upgrade the existing vehicles and contracts to get new vehicles. How many do we have? What is that $400 million going toward, what specific contracts?
Mr. Matthews: This $400 million is going to a couple of places, such as ongoing training. This amount is all about being for the armed forces to improve their readiness. That would include training as well as some of their capabilities in terms of equipment.
The intent for the money here in terms of $400 million is the armored patrol vehicles, which you've mentioned, and Chinook helicopters. Those are the two that pop to mind, in addition to training. That's kind of what the $400 million is for.
In terms of how many contracts the department has for the armored patrol vehicles, I regret that I cannot answer that question. I would assume that it's on the department's website under Proactive Disclosure of Contracts. If need be, we can follow up with the department to get an answer.
Senator Callbeck: Yes. I would like to have an answer. On that question of $400 million, I would like to know how much is going towards these vehicles and which contracts.
Mr. Matthews: If the chair is agreeable, we can have a follow-up on that.
The Chair: You can submit it to the clerk and it will be circulated to everyone.
Senator McIntyre: I'm looking at page 107 of the supplementary estimates dealing with VIA Rail Canada Inc. I note that VIA Rail is requesting $97.9 million to address the corporation's requirements. In addition, the corporation is requesting $54.7 million to address operating requirements. Of the amounts being requested, what amount of funding will be allocated to remote communities? Will the funding announced in the budget to maintain passenger rail services for remote communities be sufficient to ensure that no roads will be eliminated over the next five years? I have northern New Brunswick and the Gaspé coast in mind when I ask because our passenger rail service was reduced from six days to three days and it really affected our community.
Mr. Matthews: I can take a shot at the first part of the question, but I'm not sure I can answer the second part. It might be better to task the responsible department.
If I recall correctly, and I will allow my colleagues to supplement my answer, the funding in budget 2013 in here is twofold.
Senator McIntyre: You're talking about the $97.9 million for the corporation as requirements.
Mr. Matthews: The $97.9 million is around capital; so that's specific for replacement of existing infrastructure, as I understand it — existing cars, tracks, et cetera.
Senator McIntyre: Bridge rehabilitation.
Mr. Matthews: I'm not sure about bridges. Yes? Okay thank you.
The operating requirement, if I recall — the $54.7 million, may have been specific to their pension plan requirements, but I'll allow my colleagues to supplement my answer if they can.
Ms. Santiago: The pension requirements were done in Supplementary Estimates (A).
To add to the information on capital requirements, our notes say that the work is related to bridge rehabilitation, signalling systems, equipment contracts, track improvements, station repairs and information technology. But I'm afraid it's not specific about the split between remote and more urban areas, so we'll have to get that from the department for you.
Senator McIntyre: Okay. Can I get an answer on that? The question I'm asking is related specifically to operating requirements. Thank you.
Mr. Matthews: There are other things I should mention on this in terms of highlights. We've already spoken about the Manuge class action lawsuit, which the committee has seen in previous supplementary estimates. The item for Indian Affairs Specific Claims Action Plan relates to Budget 2013.
I'm on slide 7 and running through the top list.
On national defence, there's already been a question on the Canada First Defence Strategy. Health Canada has money in here for First Nations and Inuit health, which is a Budget 2013 item. The three-year program was brought forward to improve supplementary health benefits and primary health care. It also includes e-health and funding for addiction services. Treasury Board Secretariat Operating Budget Carry Forward is the amount we've already discussed. That's the way we flow funds out to departments for their operating budget carry forward.
We have funds here for the National Defence Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships, which relates to the plan, design and build of between six and eight ships. This money is for their definition phase, which includes two pieces: definition of the actual ship's requirements and a second piece that's around infrastructure, implementation and improving an existing jetty in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and a jetty in Esquimalt, British Columbia. There's a third piece about an Arctic berthing port in Nanisivik, Northwest Territories, being approved as well.
The Chair: This is just some money toward each of those projects and does not cover any one of those projects in totality.
Mr. Matthews: No, this is just money for the infrastructure and design phase and has nothing to do with actual ship construction beyond the design.
The Infrastructure Canada Gas Tax Fund is another example of reprofiles of unspent money from previous fiscal years. This is specific to two provinces and one territory — Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Yukon — that had delays in their reporting, so there's been a request to have money again this fiscal year.
Lastly, Mr. Chair, is the item you are familiar with: funding to allow Foreign Affairs to respond to major international crises. This $120 million is not earmarked for anything specific. This is just money we want in the department's reference levels in case there is an international disaster that the government wants to move quickly on in terms of funding and there's not enough time to wait for a supplementary estimates appropriation bill — all those things. Money is often put in this pool that is never used. It's there for emergency purposes.
Senator Buth: On the Foreign Affairs piece, this is where the funds for the Philippines would come from with respect to that typhoon.
Mr. Matthews: Yes, for that type of event.
Senator Buth: Could you go back and explain ``Manuge?''
Mr. Matthews: That related to a settlement of an action. There was a clawback of benefits for certain veterans if they were in receipt of a certain type of pension. It was agreed that that was not a fair practice, so they were to be reimbursed. Manulife Insurance is responsible for flowing the money out to recipients, so the government's money will flow to Manulife who will then reimburse the veterans.
The Chair: What does the $120 million to Foreign Affairs for major international crises top up? Is there already money in there and this increases it because after the Philippines they're forecasting a need for more?
Mr. Matthews: If I recall correctly, this money would have been in the hopper before the Philippines event occurred, so it's not likely specific to the Philippines. I believe they would normally have something in their Main Estimates for such a case, but I will allow my colleagues to correct me. No?
I'm not certain what they have in their base funding.
The Chair: There's an amount at the beginning of the year that they have, and then they dip into that to look after matters. Then they top that up to try to bring it back to its reference level. What is the reference level, and does this 120 cover some activity that we're trying to top the pool up to?
Mr. Matthews: We'll have to confirm whether there was something in their investment level. The reason I'm not certain whether there's anything in their base funding is that it's possible the program had expired and needed renewal, and sometimes that doesn't happen in time for Main Estimates. So it's possible that $120 million is actually the normal amount in the fund.
The Chair: Could you check into that for us?
Mr. Matthews: Sure.
The Chair: I remember talking about it before, but I couldn't remember what the reference level was. If this 120 is different from what it was previously, then it must be based on some prediction that this is what they're going to need during the year.
Mr. Matthews: I'm speculating, Mr. Chair, but my assumption is that there was nothing in Main Estimates and this is actually establishing this at its previous level. We will confirm.
The Chair: We'll wait to hear from you. Thank you.
Mr. Matthews: I will not spend much time on slide 8, but I did mention that there's a series of adjustments to statutory forecasts for information purposes, which all net out to a very small dollar amount, but there are some larger amounts in here. The one I will highlight is employer contributions made under the Public Service Superannuation Act, for $443 million. This is actually the first time we've included this information in the estimates, even though it's a regular payment of the Government of Canada. We've got this in for the first time.
I will highlight the decrease for you. Finance is forecasting a decrease in interest payments on unmatured debt. This is to line up documents with the most recent financial forecasts from Finance.
The Chair: Are these variations — increases and decreases — from the Main Estimates at the beginning of the year?
Mr. Matthews: Correct. Slide 9 is on horizontal initiatives, as is slide 10.
[Translation]
In the context of horizontal initiatives, organizations are working together to reach joint reserves, and the Supplementary Estimates (B) set out the funding needs of the 13 horizontal initiatives, as well as a brief description of each one.
As I mentioned, you can find this starting on page 22 in the French version and on page 19 in the English version.
[English]
So we have the list of horizontal items here for you. We have split them into two slides. The first slide is a catch-all. As I mentioned before, horizontal initiatives are initiatives where there is more than one department involved in the spending.
I will highlight for you the first one on this list, because I am conscious of time. The first one around existing community infrastructure, $42.3 million, is for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CED-Q in Quebec, FedDev Ontario and Western Economic Diversification Canada. That is reprofiles of amounts from a previous fiscal year, so they're carrying forward some funds.
If you look at the distribution across organizations, it's $4.4 million for ACOA, 13.8 for CED-Q, 19.8 for FedDev Ontario and 4.2 for Western Diversification. The reason you have such a variety in the amounts is because it's a reprofile of previous years' spending. So the departments that have lower amounts here, it's because they've spent their money in previous fiscal years.
That's the list, and if there are questions on these, I'm happy to take them.
On slide 10 we've grouped a whole bunch of horizontal initiatives that relate to immigration and border issues on this slide. There are a fair number of them.
The first one, CBSA and Citizenship, is around entry/exit data. You may be aware, senators, that the Government of Canada does not collect information on people who leave Canada, especially when they go through border crossings on land. This will actually improve the ability of the government to track people who are, for instance, temporary residents. It's important to know when they leave the country. So this will improve some tracking there. There's a whole series of initiatives related to immigration and border issues, as well as trade, so we've got those covered for you here.
With that, just to wrap up and take specific questions that have not already been covered, the $5.4 billion on slide 11 is what we're looking for here in voted expenditures. That is the amount that will correspond to the piece of legislation that will be put before you at some point in early December.
Sixty-two departments and agencies — if you're looking for an organization that you cannot find in here, it's because they didn't need any money. There is no obligation to be in supplementary estimates. It's only if they're looking for funding.
This is the second of three planned supplementary estimates, which is the norm, so I would expect you would see us again in the winter with the third supplementary estimates.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Matthews. Had you intended to go to any of the specific organizations? Did you have a couple picked out that would be helpful to us in understanding a lot of the points that you've made?
Mr. Matthews: I had not, but why don't we go to National Defence, since we've spent a fair amount of time there already.
The Chair: That would be a very good idea.
Mr. Matthews: On the English version, you're looking at page 2-63; and in the French version — I'll just wait for my colleagues to catch up.
To make estimates documents easier to navigate, you may recall a few estimates back we did them in alphabetical order, which means the order in English and French is different.
What you will see here for National Defence at the top of the chart is what they're requesting for operating expenditures. This gives you the year-to-date picture. Authorities to date, operating expenditures, 1b, that is what they would have for Main Estimates plus Supplementary Estimates (B). The greyed or darker section is what's happening in Supplementary Estimates (B). You're seeing some money from transfers, which is in and out, and money for adjustments, which is typically increases in spending, which you'll find some detail on that later on this page.
On the far right-hand side, you will have proposed authorities to date. We say ``proposed'' because Parliament has not yet approved Supplementary Estimates (B). But if Parliament were to approve Supplementary Estimates (B), this is what you would be looking at.
You'll notice the three votes, which I mentioned before is the normal way for our large departments: operating, capital, and grants and contributions. Under ``capital,'' you're seeing a transfer out of 76 million. One of our favourites: You will see a $1 item for adjustments. A $1 item is often something we use if we're adjusting the vote wording in an appropriation act. You can't have zero dollars in an appropriation bill. So if we're just trying to adjust the wording or do a transfer between organizations where there's no financial cost, we will use $1.
If you look up at the top, that's $713 million in adjustments. The breakdown is under the voted appropriations section. First up, you'll see 514.3 million for the Manuge action, which we've already spoken about. There's some detail there, mentioning the Pension Act and the related lawsuit.
Then you've got the funding for the Canada First Defence Strategy of 400. You'll notice some of the colours are darker than others. If you're wondering if that means anything, it's just that they're alternated to make new items stand out. There's no significance for the fact that something is darker than the one before. It's just to allow items to stand out.
Then you've got the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships amount, which we've mentioned before. The department is looking to reinvest royalties from intellectual property. Because that's increasing their spending authority, we have that in here as well.
We're transferring money between votes. There's no net cost there, so it shows up as $1.
I mentioned earlier that you've got available authorities. This is where we know the department has money that they've either got through Main Estimates or Supplementary Estimates (A) that they cannot spend this fiscal year. So we're subtracting that off the total of their ask, and that's how we get down to the 713. So that's the total voted.
You then move to statutory, which we've just got 416 here. If you're looking for information on the statutory, the additional information is actually online, because it's for information purposes only.
Finally, we've got transfers from other organizations. We have a transfer from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council — that's because there's federally funded research at the Royal Military College — and a second transfer for the same reason from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, so vote 1b.
Flip the page. I'm not going to go through the detailed list transfer by transfer, but you've got an itemized list of all the transfers. At the end, we get down to the total transfers of 19.8, and that's where we end.
The first greyed item under internal transfers: to reduce the amount of new appropriations required, $61 million. Senator Gerstein has already asked us about this type of thing.
In this case, because the department is asking for money but we know there is money elsewhere, we're actually doing a vote transfer because they're basically not able to spend all of the money in capital — if I've got this correct — we're moving into operating to net off the requirements. Senator Gerstein asked about this on numerous occasions and I am sure he will again.
Senator Callbeck: I wanted to ask about the 2012-13 Departmental Performance Report because it indicates there's been a savings here of $5.2 billion, primarily due to greater efficiencies and enhanced productivity. It goes on to say there's been a focus on reducing reporting burdens for departments. Does that mean we'll have less information from departments than we have now? I would like you to elaborate.
Mr. Matthews: I assume you're referring to the Treasury Board Secretariat's Departmental Performance Report.
Senator Callbeck: Yes.
Mr. Matthews: A few different types of reporting occur. One is reporting that departments do that ends up in public or in Parliament's hands, and there's a second slew of reports where departments give information to Treasury Board Secretariat to allow us to manage the departments and do our job. The focus of the savings that are actually referred to in the Treasury Board Secretariat's Departmental Performance Report are not related to reporting that would end up in Parliament's hands, but it's more around the internal reporting.
I can speak to a couple of examples of changes we've made to alleviate the burden on departments. There is something called the Management Accountability Framework, where departments do a fair amount of reporting into the centre on their management practices. There has been significant reduction in that area over the last couple of years.
I will mention another one. I don't think it's part of the savings, but worth mentioning is the one report I'm aware of that goes to Parliament that we are eliminating. You may recall a part of departments' reports was forecasted financial information. They had to forecast their spending and they still do that. They also had to forecast their spending on an accrual basis in addition to cash. They still have to do that, but we had them doing a forecasted balance sheet so they had to forecast out their assets and liabilities.
Frankly that was an awful lot of work. After two or three years no one had looked at the information, so we have decided to drop that one. That's the only requirement I'm aware of where actual public reporting is dropping off. The rest, as far as I know, is internal.
Senator Callbeck: It's a lot of money.
Mr. Matthews: Part of it is e-based, therefore away from the paper-based reporting as well, so it's not just straight elimination.
The Chair: Senator Callbeck, can you tell us what page you are at?
Senator Callbeck: I'm looking at the Library of Parliament, page 5 at the bottom.
The Chair: You weren't looking at the Departmental Performance Report of Treasury Board?
Senator Callbeck: No.
The Chair: We all have that briefing note from the Library of Parliament but we also have the departmental report for Treasury Board here, so I thought maybe you could refer to a specific clause in there.
Senator Callbeck: I have another question and, again, I'm referring to the Library of Parliament, on page 6, under question 7. It talks about saving $20 million in administration costs. That's for businesses. It has saved Canadian businesses nearly $20 million in administration costs. Could you tell us how?
Mr. Matthews: I'm sorry, but I don't actually have the Library of Parliament document. That's a benefit members get that we don't get.
I'm assuming it's the Treasury Board Secretariat again. The link to Canadian business was around the red tape reduction work that was done, led by Treasury Board Secretariat, which actually reduced some of the regulations that businesses had. That was the focus. I believe the Red Tape Reduction Action Plan was the name of the initiative, but if you're looking for more detail on those savings maybe a direct follow-up with the chief financial officer of Treasury Board Secretariat would be useful. I do believe it was related to the red tape reduction, which was largely around regulation.
Senator Callbeck: It was. I just wondered what it was exactly. What were the specifics?
Mr. Matthews: I'm afraid I don't have the specifics.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: My question is about research transfers within National Defence. There are transfers from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and transfers from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council.
We know that these social science and engineering budgets usually go to universities and researchers, and are not allocated to internal government research. Will these transfers ensure that the appropriations for university research outside the government be drastically cut?
Mr. Matthews: Thank you for the question. The keyword here is indirect cost. Funding is usually given to other organizations to do the research.
[English]
In this case, money is being transferred to National Defence to offset the indirect cost of federally funded research. National Defence is involved in the research. They're not doing the research themselves, but there's an indirect cost here in terms of support, so that's where the transfer is going.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: And it is the same for both?
Mr. Matthews: Yes, it is the same for both
[English]
Ms. Santiago: It's because the Royal Military College is funded out of the department's operating vote and normally a department can't receive a grant from another department. If it was a regular university, such as the University of Toronto or the University of British Columbia, it would be transferred as a grant from one of the granting councils to the university. In this case the Royal Military College actually receives its funding through the National Defence appropriation, so it has to be transferred in this way through Parliament rather than being paid as a grant directly to the college.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: That seems strange to me, but thank you for the answer.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: My question is perhaps not exactly conventional. Are all these transfers some sort of trickle-down theory where one side has the money and the other does not?
Do the deputy ministers telephone each other and say they need a couple million dollars? What is the process? I understand that there may be a mechanism, but I do not understand why it would be the Department of Defence. In a business — and I am using the private sector for comparison — if they need money, they do not usually go borrow it from the department next door.
I find the process in this case odd. Perhaps there is a logical explanation that I do not yet understand, but why go to defence and agriculture and agri-food? I am trying to see. I can understand within the same department there might be a program, but too much on one side, while the other does not have enough, but when you go from one department to another, how do those changes work?
Mr. Matthews: I will explain the transfer process between departments first.
[English]
There are two things. You will see departments get money directly from horizontal initiatives. I'm speaking generally first and we can get to this case in a moment.
We've mentioned that multiple departments are receiving funding. You will see departments who receive funding who know there is another organization they could partner with to better deliver the program. The best example I can give would be the frequent transfers between Agriculture Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency because their work is so interrelated.
You will also find more obscure transfers. If I recall correctly, you will have seen transfers in the past from National Defence to Environment Canada because they requested specific detail on weather forecasting that was important for their operations. Business between departments. In this case, it does look a little odd, but, as my colleague mentioned, it is indirect costs. We are dealing with the fact that a university is part of National Defence. It is functioning like a university — the college itself — so they are receiving the funds.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: So the $1,111,680 will go to the Royal Military College in Kingston?
Mr. Matthews: No, it is another transfer. It is a little complicated for foreign missions. In this case, there are a lot of departments that want to give funding to support employees who work in other countries.
[English]
In this case, because of the programs that the Government of Canada is running, sometimes you would have staff from National Defence stationed at embassies abroad. We have some work being done in the field of agriculture, so that is another one that may have employees working abroad. There is a transfer related to those employees as well.
Ms. Santiago: The transfers to and from Foreign Affairs happen several times a year, in both directions. It's because the departments are expected to pay for their own costs at the missions, so an estimate is made of how much their expenses will be. If a correction has to be made after the fact, the department gets reimbursed from Foreign Affairs. All of the transfers are done through estimates.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: You are talking about foreign affairs. I am talking about defence. Perhaps we could talk about the same thing.
[English]
You repeat, ``Foreign Affairs, Foreign Affairs.'' I'm talking about Defence and about Agriculture Canada.
Ms. Santiago: The transfers happen in both directions, to and from Foreign Affairs from all of these departments who have staff located at the missions.
Mr. Matthews: If Defence has staff located at a mission abroad — or if Agriculture does — there will be a transfer from those departments to Foreign Affairs to actually reimburse Foreign Affairs for the costs of having their people work abroad. If there is a correction necessary — they didn't stay as long as planned — there is a transfer back the other way. There is a whole group of departments listed here.
[Translation]
The reasons are the same for everyone. The other departments have employees who work in other countries, so someone must reimburse the Department of Foreign Affairs —
[English]
— for the costs they have incurred.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: For example, there are Department of National Defence people in Haiti.
Mr. Matthews: Yes.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: At this point, for the defence, foreign affairs, and agriculture departments, the exchange of funds is based on ground operations, is that it?
Mr. Matthews: Yes.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Okay. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: If I could ask you to look at page 2-46, House of Commons, in the English version, just to confirm how this is handled, you can see vote 5b has program expenditures, and there are adjustments here of $14 million. If you look down, $9 million is carry-forward of operating. That's what we were talking about earlier. You can see where it is voted again. We will be voting on this, but it makes it easier for us to vote if it is just money left over from last year that they're asking us to carry forward to this year.
Mr. Matthews: I will have Miss Santiago correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the process for the House of Commons for a carry-forward is different than for other departments. So you do see it distinctly. The House of Commons wouldn't have access to that 5 per cent regularized rollover, so that's why you're seeing it here.
The Chair: This is something extraordinary.
Mr. Matthews: Unique for the House of Commons, yes.
The Chair: I looked to see if the Senate of Canada had something similar, but I didn't find anything. I find these numbers interesting because there seems to be an exception for virtually everything.
Mr. Matthews: On the same page, you will see the amount for severance. Other departments also received allocations for severance because of the cessation of accumulation of severance, but the option is for the employee to cash out.
The Chair: I recall that. They could keep it in there, or they could take it out immediately or over time. We looked at that a year or so ago.
Seeing no other questions from honourable senators, it remains for me to thank you very much for being here again, Mr. Matthews, Ms. Santiago and Mr. Tremblay. We will look forward to seeing you again with Supplementary Estimates (C) in February, if not before.
(The committee adjourned.)