Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 8 - Evidence - March 6, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 6, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 2 p.m. to study the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance is continuing its study on the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015.
[English]
We're pleased to welcome officials from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. Appearing this afternoon for a period of three quarters of an hour that we've set aside for this first session are Hélène Laurendeau, Associate Deputy Minister; Pamela D'Eon, Acting Chief Financial Officer; and Scott Stevenson, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Regional Operations.
Ms. Laurendeau, I understand you have some opening remarks and we'd be pleased to hear from you. Then we'll get into the Main Estimates.
[Translation]
Hélène Laurendeau, Associate Deputy Minister, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: Thank you for inviting me to outline Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Canada's Main Estimates for the fiscal year 2014-15.
I appreciate the role that the committee plays in reviewing the department's expenditures. Through these estimates, the department accesses the funds required to continue delivering on the government's commitment to improve the quality of life for Aboriginal people and northerners.
[English]
In the next fiscal year, 2014-15, we forecast budgetary and non-budgetary expenditures of approximately $8.1 billion. That's a net increase of $105 million, or 1.3 per cent above last year's Main Estimates.
This funding will allow the department to support initiatives that improve social well-being and provide opportunities for economic prosperity in Aboriginal and Northern communities.
Healthy, sustainable communities require robust infrastructure and reliable water and waste water systems. These Main Estimates include $26.7 million for 2014-15 following the renewal of the Gas Tax Fund, which will provide investments in infrastructure projects in First Nation communities.
Members of this committee will know that a significant part of the department's funding is appropriated through supplementary estimates. As has always the case — and I understand that Ms. D'Eon was here to talk about our Supplementary Estimates (C) of last year — the Main Estimates before you were prepared before the budget.
Economic Action Plan 2014, tabled on February 11, provides an additional $323.4 million over two years to address water and waste water issues on reserves by extending the First Nation Water and Wastewater Action Plan. Since 2006, we have spent roughly $3 billion to help communities manage their water and waste water infrastructure and in related public health activities.
These new investments build on the concrete action the government has already taken to improve water and waste water infrastructure. The recent passage of the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act will enable us to work with First Nations to develop enforceable federal regulations to ensure access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water, the effective treatment of waste water, and the protection of sources of water on First Nation lands.
[Translation]
Reconciliation is one of the touchstones of our work to renew the relationship between Canada and first nations. In this light, I am happy to note the support of all parties to the settlement agenda to extend the mandate of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to June 30, 2015. This will give the commission the necessary time to receive outstanding archival documents it requires and to write its final report.
The decision to extend the mandate by a year reinforces our government's unwavering commitment to achieve a fair and lasting resolution to the legacy of Indian residential schools, because we know it lies at the heart of reconciliation and the renewal of the relationship between Aboriginal people and all Canadians.
[English]
Another of our key initiatives last year is the Program Alignment Architecture. The changes to the 2014-15 Program Alignment Architecture, from that of 2013-14, reflect significant efforts to simplify and clarify the program structure to more meaningfully depict programs in relation to their expected results for Aboriginal people, northerners and for Canadians in general. The intended impact of the new Program Alignment Architecture is to improve the department's ability to tell a transparent results story, not only at the program level but also at the subprogram level. The changes position us to better assess program impacts over time, inform program management decisions, and ultimately improve outcomes for Aboriginal people and northerners.
In summary, the department will report on 15 — 16, if we include internal services — programs in its Program Alignment Architecture: three programs which have been restructured or reorganized from the previous Program Alignment Architecture; four programs with name changes and some realignment from the previous Program Alignment Architecture; and eight programs — nine if we include internal services — with relatively minor or no changes from the previous Program Alignment Architecture.
We have distributed ahead of time to this committee the from-to picture of the program architecture. I understand that our last appearance with Supplementary Estimates (C) was on the previous architecture, so you will have a depiction from-to and we will be happy to answer questions in that respect.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, the expenditures detailed in these estimates will ensure further progress for Aboriginal people, northerners and all Canadians. I will do my best to answer any questions that members of the committee may have pertaining to these Main Estimates.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much for your comments. We also acknowledge receipt of the architecture spreadsheet that helps us a wee bit in understanding matters. Your $8.1 billion is in the Main Estimates and, as you indicate, there will be other items that have been mentioned in the budget that we may see in one of the supplementary estimates. You indicated Supplementary Estimates (C).
We're very pleased that Ms. D'Eon was here and helped us out with Supplementary Estimates (C) for last year's fiscal year. Now we're into the next fiscal year. So it ties in nicely for the honourable senators to understand the relationship.
Senator L. Smith: Thank you for participating today.
Ms. Laurendeau, I have two questions. Your budget is $8.1 billion, but it appears in discussions with other departments; other departments have monies that go towards Aboriginal interests. What is the total amount of money that you have, either directly and/or indirectly from other departments? What's the total amount spent on your department? I think it would be helpful for us to have the real picture. It's $8.1 billion in your budget, but other departments invest in various programs within Aboriginal Affairs. It would be interesting to know that number to get the total perspective.
Ms. Laurendeau: You would be correct, senator, in that there are monies allocated for Aboriginal peoples that are outside of the departmental budget. The only access we have is to our own budget, which is what our own department spends, which is what is presented to you with the mains and eventually with the sups.
Senator L. Smith: It would be helpful if there was a way that you could access the other information, just to give us a one-page bullet, because there is a significant difference between $8.1 billion — and if you have another billion or two coming from other departments, people in our group would understand the total impact and growing importance of the contributions to Aboriginal Affairs. Could you do that?
Ms. Laurendeau: I could check, but I don't think we're in a position to do that ourselves, under our own authorities. I could check for you and confirm.
Senator L. Smith: That is a shame, to be honest with you.
My second question is the following: Since 2006 — on page 3 — we've spent roughly $3 billion to help communities manage their water and waste water infrastructure. My question is: Where are we?
I want to put that in context, at page 5, where you said:
The intended impact of the new Program Alignment Architecture is to improve the department's ability to tell a transparent results story, not only at the program level, but also at the subprogram level.
You were kind enough to distribute to us the changes in terms of strategic outcomes. Water management has been a very important topic to the Canadian public for some time. Can you could give us an update of how many projects, where you are, and your tangible results instead of generic?
Ms. Laurendeau: I can tell you that from 2006 up to now we have invested approximately $3 billion in First Nations water and waste water infrastructure, related to public health activity. It was announced in the economic action plan recently that there will be an additional investment of $323.4 million over the next two years.
With respect to specific projects, I think Mr. Stevenson could give you an overview of some of those projects that have been done so far.
Scott Stevenson, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Regional Operations, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: I would propose to highlight some high-level statistics and then give a couple of examples in order not to take up too much time. Here are some statistics first.
In 2011-12, performance inspections showed that the number of systems rated as high risk had decreased by 8.1 per cent from the 2009-10 national assessment. There had been an 8 per cent improvement in the number of high-risk systems. Similarly, there were improvements in the number of certified operators for systems, and there was an improvement in the number of inspections that were carried out on water systems.
We can provide the committee with additional details on those types of specific performance measures, if it would be of interest to the committee, Mr. Chair. I can also provide an example of the type of project.
In the Island Lake Tribal Council, in Manitoba, $5.5 million was committed towards indoor plumbing for retrofits of homes that did not have indoor plumbing. Additional spending on this kind of project was recently announced, and it's a phased progression to bring these four remote communities to have indoor running water, with the last instalment of money bringing an additional 218 homes to have indoor plumbing.
Senator L. Smith: Sir, I guess what I'm looking for is, from a simplistic perspective, do you have a strategic chart of all of the areas in the country that have requirements for upgraded projects for water? If so, it would be helpful for us, as users, to understand how many, where they are located, and how many you have completed since 2006, results oriented, as opposed to giving us 8 per cent improvement.
To be very blunt with you, it's sort of the same answers we get over time, which are not helpful, because they don't instruct us to understand how the problem is being addressed. If you could do that; to me it's quite simple.
You have a map, so you know where your locations are, where your needs are, and what you've been able to address. I would think you would have some chart that would show you exactly where you're at. If you could provide it to the clerk, I think it would be helpful to our group.
Ms. Laurendeau: We do have such a strategic plan, and we would be more than happy to provide it to you.
The Chair: Thank you. We'll look forward to that.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you all for being here today. My first question is on page II-164, where you compare the Main Estimates 2013-14 to 2014-15. You give the increases and the decreases. You have a decrease here of $105 million, reflecting savings identified as part of the Economic Action Plan 2012 spending review. Could you tell me what makes up that $105 million? What programs have been affected?
Ms. Laurendeau: We certainly have some information with respect to the decrease of $105 million, and I will ask Ms. D'Eon to provide you with the details.
Pamela D'Eon, Acting Chief Financial Officer, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: The department, through the Budget 2012 savings measures, underwent a three-year exercise that did provide accumulation of $160 million of reduction over a period of three years. This reduction that you see here of $105 million was a combination and it is the last year of that $160 million reduction.
There was a variety of things. The department set out to not impact essential services, front-line delivery to First Nations communities. A lot of that was related to internal services to generate efficiencies. It did also entertain a new approach with regard to funding Aboriginal representative organizations. That would be more of a strategic perspective, project-based, aligned to the priorities of the department. So it had a variety of things.
Another item that was put forward for reduction was that an additional $5 million was the First Nations Statistical Institute as well, and that was impacted on the very first year.
There is a variety of efficiencies that have been gained, either through processes, savings and FTEs. The department committed to a savings of 480 FTEs over the period of the three years.
So, yes, there's a variety of things. We do have a listing. There is a posting on our website of the things that have been impacted.
Senator Callbeck: So there is a posting on your website for that $105 million, or $160 million?
Ms. D'Eon: For the total $160 million over the three years.
Senator Callbeck: Is there any detail there, or does it give the name of the program only?
Ms. D'Eon: It does align it by program architecture, as how the Main Estimates are established, and it does give you the vote 1 and vote 10 reductions over the three years. It has several initiatives. I have a copy here, and that can be made available to you as well.
Senator Callbeck: It would be great if you could make that available to members of the committee.
On page II-168, "Contributions to First Nations for management of contaminated sites" is the fourth from the bottom. It goes from $29 million in 2012-13 to $17 million, and then in 2014-15 it's roughly $4 million. That's a tremendous decrease. Has the responsibility for this been shifted somewhere else, or what's going on here?
Ms. Laurendeau: On the contaminated site front, we have identified funding. It's divided between the North and the South programs, south of 60. We are on track to do what we had planned to do. We have remediated 35 sites since its inception, for $307 million, and among those we also have completed 62 high-priority sites on reserve across Canada since the program's inception.
The remaining northern sites include some of the largest and most complex contaminated sites in the country, such as Faro Mine and Giant Mine. The current figures of $53 million show a decrease in funding, but this does not reflect the total funding as the renewal of some of the authorities for contaminated sites has yet to come. In other words, senator, you could expect that through the sups there would probably be an increase of that amount through the year.
Senator Callbeck: You say "of that amount." What amount are you referring to?
Ms. Laurendeau: What I'm saying is you see a decrease of $53 million, but we can expect that it will be increased again once we reconfirm the authorities. I wouldn't be in a position at this time to tell you exactly for what amount, but I'm telling you that we can expect that the figures will go up when we renew the authority.
Senator Callbeck: Last year, there was a tremendous decrease there, too.
Ms. Laurendeau: Indeed. I think Ms. D'Eon may have more information to add.
Ms. D'Eon: Although we have a basis of funding for a contaminated sites program, we are very much a part of the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan, led by Environment Canada, which covers a variety of departments. It was a 15-year program, established in 2005, with funding of $3.5 billion from the Government of Canada.
We are one of the departments that accesses funding to assess and remediate funding in the North and the South. We have just gone through the five-year, and it is an item that we need to keep come back for. That's why Ms. Laurendeau mentioned that you probably see this for supplementary estimates. We've seen it in the past. Some of the things sunset and then we do come back. It's closely monitored, and it's dependent on the level of assessments and remediation activities that we see and find that we can manage moving forward.
Senator Callbeck: So the responsibility hasn't shifted anywhere else; it's still here.
Ms. D'Eon: No.
Senator Callbeck: And we expect to see more in the supplementary estimates.
Ms. D'Eon: That's correct. It is a little different for the North and the South. When you're talking about the contribution program, that is for the South because it is funding provided to reserves where you fund the money to the First Nations communities and they entertain their own assessments and remediation. What we also have is the northern program, which is vote 1 operating resources, because that's the departmental responsibility to assess and remediate sites in the North.
Senator Buth: Thank you for being here this afternoon. I have a couple of questions in a couple of different areas.
Can you tell me the total number of First Nations communities?
Ms. Laurendeau: It's 640, plus or minus a couple. I could confirm the exact number.
Senator Buth: No, that's fine. What about the total population in these communities?
Ms. Laurendeau: On reserve?
Senator Buth: Yes, on reserve.
Ms. Laurendeau: I don't think I have that. We could send you that. There are about 900,000 people who have status cards, but they're not all on reserve.
Senator Buth: There are 900,000 with status, so that's on reserve and off reserve?
Ms. Laurendeau: Ms. D'Eon is telling me had I need to be corrected on this. According to the 2011 National Household Survey, we're counting roughly 1.4 million people.
Senator Buth: Who have status?
Ms. Laurendeau: No, who are Aboriginal, which includes status and others.
Senator Buth: Do you have the number of those on reserve?
Ms. Laurendeau: We have it somewhere. I don't think we have it with us today.
Senator Buth: If you could send that to the clerk, that would be great.
Ms. Laurendeau: Yes, we will.
Senator Buth: It might be new, depending on the changes you made to the program architecture several lines from the bottom, but on page II-168 there are contributions to promote social and political development in the North, almost a million dollars, $979,000. Can you tell me what that is? Is that a new program and what do you intend to do?
Ms. Laurendeau: I will turn to Ms. D'Eon, who is finding her papers.
Ms. D'Eon: It's not a new program as such. It is a reorganization of the initiatives, partly related to the PAA. But also a second component that we entertained last fiscal year was a streamlining of the transfer payment authorities, which is what you're going to see there. The whole concept of consolidating the authorities was to put together common themes, common groupings, to make it a little more logical and clearer in terms of presentation.
So you have the PAA, where we talk about the government and the people in the North, but then you have the transfer payments, which is the one you're referencing. The intent was not to change any levels of funding; it was just a simple regrouping of information.
Unfortunately, for the publishing of the Main Estimates, if it did not exist in previous years, it comes up as a zero, but we can assure you that there's really no change in funding. It's just that how they were displayed before is not displayed for the future, 2014-15, moving forward.
Senator Buth: So that's not a new program, and that's a contribution. That goes to First Nations communities, then?
Ms. D'Eon: It does.
Ms. Laurendeau: That's correct.
Ms. D'Eon: It's taking a variety of ones that existed before, grouped it together and created a new one.
Senator Buth: Is there anything in your regular operations, other than a contribution, that's focused on social and political development?
Ms. Laurendeau: There is funding that goes to organizations that are supporting governance issues in general. There is that specific line for that particular one. Part of the reason we reorganized some of those authorities is precisely to make it a little bit more transparent as to the types of activities that are funded. That would be an example of that, which was extracted from an existing authority that was much larger, to make it a little more clear and specific as to where the money goes.
Senator Buth: My second question is related to education. You have allocated approximately $1.8 billion towards First Nations education. Can you describe that program to me? How will that money be used in terms of elementary, secondary and post-secondary education?
Ms. Laurendeau: It's primarily going to fund education programs on reserve. It covers the money that is transferred to First Nations for their own schools. It provides for kindergarten to secondary education.
We have a specific program that is project-based for post-secondary education, but that would be outside that amount.
Senator Buth: How much would be going towards post-secondary education?
Ms. D'Eon: Post-secondary is $345 million related to 2014-15.
Senator Buth: How is that money allocated?
Ms. Laurendeau: Post-secondary education is through the program that is to provide access to post-secondary education for First Nation and Inuit students. It's based on different projects that are provided through — I would have to check that. It's project-based, basically.
Senator Buth: Could you get the clerk a description of the program in terms of post-secondary education? I'm interested in knowing how those dollars are allocated, if they're allocated to students or to schools and universities, anything specific.
Ms. Laurendeau: They are provided, by and large, to schools and universities, but we could give you a breakdown of that amount for post-secondary.
Senator Buth: That would be great. Thank you.
The Chair: I will go to two questions. If you can combine your answer to handling those two questions, that would be great. If you need to give us an undertaking to provide us the answer later, that's fine, too.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: My questions follow on the questions that have already been asked. My first question concerns drinking water on reserves. For several years, the budget has earmarked funds to set up a safe drinking water program on reserves. Do all the reserves now have safe drinking water or are there still some that do not?
My second question has to do with education for Aboriginal students. Why are certain sums of money allocated as subsidies while others are allocated as contributions? The Treasury Board told us that when it is a subsidy, there are few conditions, and when it is a contribution, there are more conditions and more reports are required.
It is also said that Aboriginal students receive less money for education than the Canadian average. Are you able to compare the sums of money received by Aboriginals to the sums that other Canadian students received?
Senator Bellemare: My questions are similar to those of Senator Chaput. My first question concerns the distinction between subsidies and contributions. We discussed this yesterday with Treasury Board. We know that subsidies are sums of money that are given and that there is no real evaluation done of those sums. Apparently, around 20 per cent of the sums allocated come in the form of subsidies.
The sums allocated for education are lower than the contributions. The only thing that changes is the word "contribution" or "subsidy" in the title, to promote the post-secondary or the primary and secondary school systems. The sums are quite scattered, and I think it is our right to expect results from these programs.
How do you conduct your assessments, notably for contributions, to see how the money is being spent and if there might be improvements to be made to the services provided to Aboriginal populations?
Ms. Laurendeau: There are many different aspects to address in those questions. If you like, we can start with the question of drinking water. I will ask Mr. Stevenson to answer the question about whether there are still some reserves that do not have safe drinking water.
Mr. Stevenson: Senator, I do not have an exact figure regarding the number of reserves. I have some data about improvements, but to answer your first question, I would like to provide a more broad perspective on the number of reserves which have access to safe drinking water and those that do not, if that is all right.
Senator Chaput: I asked the same question last year and the year before that and to date, I have not yet received an answer concerning the number of reserves that do not currently have safe drinking water. It seems to me that given the planning, strategies, and sums invested, since it is perfectly normal to have safe drinking water, we should know the answer to that question.
Mr. Stevenson: I can describe the context of the answer that I will give you.
Ms. Laurendeau: On the question of contributions and subsidies, I will ask Ms. D'Eon to draw that distinction. What I can say, is that often the form of the funding is shaped by the form of the commitment. Was the commitment made following a self-determination treaty? Or was it simply a transfer made to a band council or a band?
[English]
Ms. D'Eon: That is the general answer.
[Translation]
But there are some particularities when it comes to the difference between these two. Ms. D'Eon?
[English]
Ms. D'Eon: Grants and contributions, as mentioned, are very different in nature. A grant, as you know, is an eligibility up front; you put a proposal and on you go. With contributions, there's a lot more rigour. You put a proposal, you have terms and conditions you need to abide by, and you then need to respond on results or provide reporting requirements.
In our case, particularly when talking in regard to education, the grants that you have there would be going more to individual First Nations or students who may not be receiving monies or funds from a band council or tribal council. You'll see that, generally, the grants that we have available are a lot smaller in nature, or a lot less value, and that's why they're selective as to what does go in there.
We have a fair number of self-governing agreements or grants based on comprehensive claims or settlements that are specific, targeted, agreed to and negotiated upon, so that's the case. That's why the level of funding provided through grants is very limited.
When you look at the contribution programs, and you're looking at the post-secondary program, we provide funding to band councils, tribal councils or regional First Nation educational institutions to provide eligible funding to be available for First Nations and Inuit students. However, those organizations are the ones that choose who gets the funding, and that's why you see a much bigger number. Of the grants and contribution number of $345 million, $320 million of that would be going to band councils and tribal councils and so on. Another $22 million may be provided to universities for special programs related to education and post-secondary education.
The types of things that we fund are the cost of tuition, books, travel, living expenses, where applicable. We also provide funds to Indspire, which is a fairly new initiative provided through one of the most recent budgets, a non-profit organization dedicated to raising funds to offer scholarships and delivering programs that provide the tools for indigenous people, especially youth, to achieve their potential.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: For a young person living on reserve, whose local school only goes to grade 8, and who needs to leave the reserve to study further, does the allocated sum cover living expenses?
[English]
Ms. D'Eon: The one that I was talking about was post-secondary education where we are talking about living expenses. When we are talking about elementary and secondary education, we certainly provide transportation.
The Chair: We are down to five minutes and I have three senators left, so I will take the three senators' questions and comments. If you could make note of those and, with the time we have left, if you can answer, that's great; if not, we will look forward to receiving a written reply.
Senator Seth: Thank you for being here and for a good presentation. I'm going to ask a question about page II-164 of the 2014-15 Main Estimates. The Main Estimates state that the department is requesting a $62 million out-of-court settlement. Could you please explain "out-of-court settlements?" Also how many legal issues or how many trials is Northern Affairs currently involved with and with whom? Could you please explain?
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Ms. Laurendeau, on page 4 of your presentation, you say the following:
The decision to extend the mandate by a year reinforces our government's unwavering commitment to achieve a fair and lasting resolution to the legacy of Indian residential schools.
The word resolution suggests that we have undertaken and are in the process of finalizing a settlement. I understand that compensation has been given. Is the compensation given to the identified victim, or to the victim's descendants? Is it money given to the band council or is it additional investment from the government, in education, drinking water or recreational equipment?
[English]
Senator Gerstein: Thank you, panel, for being here today.
I read with interest the presentation you circulated to the committee on the Program Alignment Architecture. In particular, I was drawn to bullet two which states that, "Adjustments to the PAA were undertaken to better tell a transparent results-based story and simplify public reporting," for which I commend the ministry.
However, having read that, I reflect back on the question that Senator Smith asked at the outset of this discussion. Ms. Laurendeau, if I could kindly ask you to clarify, was your response to Senator Smith's question that you know and won't tell the committee; or that you don't know and will not attempt to find out the information and provide it to the committee?
Ms. Laurendeau: I just want to be clear. Could you remind me what question you're referring to? The total amount of money that is spent for Aboriginal people?
The Chair: That's correct, not just your department.
Ms. Laurendeau: I wouldn't want to leave you with the impression that I know and I wish not to provide you the answer. That would be far from my intention.
The roll-up of what would be spent on various Aboriginal programs outside of our department would probably be better answered by the central agency that has the central knowledge of all the expenditures that can be associated to programs that are outside of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
I am not personally in a position to be able to canvass the roll-up of what is spent outside of the department. I am aware that a few years ago the central agency had tallied such a roll-up, but I don't have information as to whether or not there is something more current about that. It's far from my intention of not answering the question for which I have the answer.
The Chair: There were two other questions.
[Translation]
Ms. Laurendeau: As concerns the residential schools? The settlements are given directly to the people who claim them. Obviously, in the settlements, once all of the claims have been evaluated, some leftover funds may be distributed as tax credits for education and may be given to people with a valid claim. We have just obtained court approval to set the amount of the expenditures and to start distributing the credit for educational purposes.
[English]
Ms. D'Eon: The reference that you're making to in the Main Estimates document is 2013-14. It was an increase we had received through supplementary estimates of $62 million. As an organization, we use out-of-court settlements to negotiate and settle claims. If I recall, that particular one was related to royalties or resource revenues that historically had not been calculated properly.
We do out-of-court settlements for a lot of reasons. There's a lot of rigor through that particular one. I think $60 million was the big one and there were some other small related ones included as part of that 62. It certainly doesn't go without scrutiny from central agencies.
The Chair: I thank you for being here, Ms. Laurendeau, and your team, Mr. Stevenson and Ms. D'Eon.
This should not be taken as a criticism. We very much appreciate the work you're doing and the fact that you have been able to come and help us on short notice, and undoubtedly we will be asking you again to do that. But I think the question Senator Smith was asking was we were hoping that you would use your good offices and that, if it's not on your desk or in your office, you might be able to get the information for us given that we're not dealing with a central agency again for some time. If you are able to help us with that by asking a question of a central agency that you think may have the information, then that would be very much appreciated.
Ms. Laurendeau: I will definitely see what I can do about that. I would be remiss if I were to commit to something on which I couldn't deliver, but I will certainly convey the question and try to find the answer for the committee.
The Chair: I've been sitting here wondering whether I should or should not comment on this, but I'm going to do so. With respect to your introductory remarks, page 4, the final paragraph, you state that, "This decision to extend the mandate by a year reinforces our government's unwavering commitment . . . ." It sounds like it's coming out of a minister's office as opposed to an independent department.
That's not intended as a harsh comment, but just as a comment and an observation. Do you wish to comment on that?
Ms. Laurendeau: The comment is well taken. I would draw your attention to the French version of my opening remarks where it states "l'engagement firme du gouvernement." If the English translation was a little too potentially partisan, I would stand by the ones in the French version.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much. Are there other questions on the subject?
[English]
Thank you very much for the work you are doing. We are looking forward to receiving the undertakings that you've given us. Since we have to report to the Senate on this within the next two weeks, if you could expedite any information that we've asked for, that would also be very much appreciated.
Ms. Laurendeau: We will do our best.
The Chair: I welcome our new panel. I see some familiar faces down. From Infrastructure Canada, we welcome Yazmine Laroche, Associate Deputy Minister, Transport, Infrastructure and Communities; Su Dazé, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services; Jeff Moore, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Communications; and Natasha Rascanin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Operations.
Thank you all for being here. That's quite a team, but Infrastructure Canada is a very important department — not that the others aren't — and we very much appreciate the work you are doing for Canada.
From Revenue Canada Agency, we welcome back before this committee Brian Pagan in a new capacity, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Finance and Administration Branch and Agency Comptroller; Catherine Bennett, Assistant Commissioner, Strategy and Integration Branch; and her brother, Dave Bennett, Assistant Commissioner, Assessment and Benefit Services Branch.
It's good to have you all here. I understand that there will be introductory remarks from each of the departments. Why don't we begin with Yazmine Laroche, if that is acceptable, Mr. Pagan, and then you will be second.
Yazmine Laroche, Associate Deputy Minister, Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Infrastructure Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. It's a pleasure to be back with you. It's been, I think, three months. As I recall, my last appearance before this committee was my third day on the job. I'm very happy to be back here with you, notwithstanding this immense room. You look very small at the other end of the table.
I won't complete the introductions; you have very kindly introduced the members of my team who are accompanying me today. I would point out that the last time I appeared I had both Ms. Dazé and Ms. Rascanin with me. Our newest member of the team is Jeff Moore, who just joined us three weeks ago. We're delighted that Jeff has joined us as the newest ADM of Policy and Communications at Infrastructure Canada.
[Translation]
This afternoon, I would like to give you a short update on our work to implement the New Building Canada Plan, and to tell you about the Main Estimates.
[English]
The $53 billion New Building Canada Plan is the largest and longest federal infrastructure plan in Canada's history. It's intended to support provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure through three funds. The first fund is the Community Improvement Fund, which includes two components: the GST rebate for municipalities, as well as the Federal Gas Tax Program.
Infrastructure Canada manages the federal Gas Tax Fund, which provides $2 billion every year to municipalities for their local projects. The Government of Canada, as you may recall from our last conversation, has indexed the Gas Tax Fund at 2 per cent per year, starting this April. Together, these two components represent $32.2 billion over the 10 years of this plan.
[Translation]
The second fund is the New Building Canada Fund, which will provide $14 billion over 10 years for projects that contribute to economic growth, job creation and productivity. That fund includes $1 billon dedicated to projects in communities of less than 100,000 residents.
[English]
The third fund is the Public-Private Partnerships Canada Fund. It has been renewed, with $1.25 billion over five years, and it will continue to be managed by PPP Canada.
[Translation]
Six billion dollars in funding continues to flow across the country this year and beyond, under existing infrastructure programs.
[English]
As you are aware, the amounts requested in the 2014-15 Main Estimates do not reflect any contribution or operating amounts under the New Building Canada Fund that I just described. This is due to the fact that at the time the Main Estimates were written, the program details were still being finalized, and indeed the program details are still being finalized.
Our Main Estimates are based on the cash flow needs projected by the provinces, territories and municipalities that own and manage the infrastructure projects that we fund. Once we are in a position to provide funding through the New Building Canada Fund, projected spending will reflect the amounts required under these programs.
[Translation]
Infrastructure Canada is seeking a total of $3.3 billion in Main Estimates for 2014-15 for investment in public infrastructure. This funding is needed to support the $2 billion federal Gas Tax Fund and includes close to $850 000 million to support delivery of the 2007 Building Canada Fund as well as $450 million to deliver other sunsetting programs.
[English]
This represents a decrease from the 2013-14 Main Estimates, partly because of the cash flow estimates provided by our funding recipients, and in one instance due to the winding down of the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Program.
You will see two line estimates that represent increases over the 2013-14 Main Estimates. The Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk Highway is a new project for our department, and the Border Infrastructure Fund has forecasted increased spending for this year.
Infrastructure Canada has a strong, successful track record in delivering infrastructure funding to projects right across this country.
[Translation]
As we get ready to implement the New Building Canada Plan, we are continuing to work in collaboration with our partners, the provinces, territories, and the Federation of Canadian municipalities to ensure that it will be a success.
[English]
Thank you again so much for having invited us here today. After my colleagues have spoken, we will be happy to take any questions.
The Chair: That's great. Thank you very much.
Now we'll go to Mr. Pagan.
[Translation]
Brian Pagan, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Finance and Administration Branch and Agency Comptroller, Canada Revenue Agency: Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee to present and to answer any questions that you may have on the Canada Revenue Agency's 2014-15 Main Estimates.
[English]
As my colleagues joining me today have already been introduced, I will not reintroduce them. I would simply point out the common last name, no relation, and that I am one of three Brians on the Agency Management Committee at the Canada Revenue Agency.
[Translation]
The CRA is responsible for the administration of federal and certain provincial and territorial tax programs, as well as the delivery of a number of benefit payment programs.
Each year, the CRA collects hundreds of billions of dollars of tax revenue for the Government of Canada, and distributes timely and accurate benefit payments to millions of Canadians.
[English]
In order to fulfill this mandate, the CRA is seeking the approval of $3.86 billion through these 2014-15 Main Estimates. Of this amount, approximately $3 billion requires approval by Parliament through voted appropriations, whereas the remaining $0.9 billion represents statutory forecasts for programs that are already approved under separate legislation. These statutory programs include the softwood lumber disbursements to the provinces, children's special allowances, employee benefit costs, et cetera.
These 2014-15 Main Estimates represent a net decrease of $415.6 million, or 9.7 per cent, when compared to the 2013-14 Main Estimates. However, the largest component of this decrease is a reduction of $203 million in the projected statutory disbursements to provinces under the Softwood Lumber Products Exports Charge Act. This decrease reflects a revised forecast provided by the Department of Finance, which is based on improved prices and volumes in the Canada/United States lumber market.
In the area of voted appropriations, decreases to the agency's budget include savings of $119 million as a result of the Budget 2012 spending review. Most of these savings are included under two broad priorities, namely: making it easier for Canadians and businesses to access government services through the provision of faster, more efficient and secure online services; and the modernization and streamlining of CRA's back office and corporate support functions, including finance, human resource management and information technology.
There is a further reduction of $57.6 million as a result of savings identified as part of Budget 2013, where CRA's headquarter operations were reviewed. These savings do not affect services to Canadians and will be achieved by streamlining internal services, optimizing our information technology utilization and management, and improving our organizational alignment.
A $19.7 million adjustment is also included for the transfer from Public Works and Government Services Canada to the CRA, reflecting a decrease in our accommodation and real property costs.
A transfer of $18.7 million to Shared Services Canada is also included, representing the transfer of responsibility for the procurement of end-user device software, as well as an adjustment to the base funding to Shared Services Canada for technology systems.
These decreases are partially offset by new funding that is being sought in these Main Estimates, including an additional $17 million as part of a multi-year upgrade of CRA's personal income tax processing system. These upgrades will leave the CRA in a better position to address an increased number of tax filers, respond to new tax policy measures and implement new partnership agreements with the provinces, territories and other governments.
In addition, we seek an increase of $5.4 million for the implementation and administration of various measures affecting individuals, businesses and charities, announced as part of Budget 2012, including the one-year extension of the Hiring Credit for Small Business; the enhancement of transparency and accountability for charities; and the introduction of pooled registered pension plans.
[Translation]
In closing, the resources sought through these estimates will allow the CRA to continue to provide quality services to Canadians by ensuring that taxpayers meet their obligations, Canada's revenue base is protected, and eligible families and individuals receive timely and correct benefit payments.
My colleagues and I will be pleased to respond to any questions the members of the committee may have.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Pagan. I'm going to go right into the list of honourable senators who have indicated an interest in posing questions, and I'll begin with the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Smith.
Senator L. Smith: Ms. Laroche, maybe you can help, especially the Quebec senators, with the talk about the Champlain Bridge and the different dates of construction and completion. It's been bantered about that it could be ready by 2018. We're going into 2015 physically within the next seven or eight months.
Where would that money be? How would it be set up? How do you get it into your books if it's not already in your books as part of the base program that you outlined to us in terms of the three component parts?
Ms. Laroche: I can give you some details about the timing of the project, and then I'll turn to my CFO, who is the expert on the mechanics of how the funds flow and when and where they flow.
As some of you may know, our minister made an announcement this week about a call for a request for a qualification, and that's going to be launched very shortly, on March 17.
The request for proposals for the building of the new bridge over the St. Lawrence will go out in July 2014. The commitment that has been made is that the new bridge will, in fact, be in place by 2018. It is a very ambitious timeline, but we're very confident. It's a huge partnership initiative between several departments, and we're very confident that we're going to meet that deadline.
I will turn to my colleague. It's because the funding was not yet finalized, and that's why it doesn't show up in the Main Estimates yet. As was the case with the other funds that I mentioned, the New Building Canada Fund, they were announced in Budget 2014, but by the time we wrapped up the Main Estimates and the official process for actually putting the estimates in place, the books had closed before the budget was announced. So it's a little bit out of whack.
Su Dazé, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Infrastructure Canada: The process would be to go to Treasury Board and identify the plans for the bridge and the money that's required by year. Once it's approved by Treasury Board, part of that is getting approval authority to build the bridge and the other part is getting the money and approval to include it in the next supplementary estimates.
The first available supplementary estimates post-Treasury Board approval is when you would see the money, and then you would have an opportunity to review the amount in the supplementary estimates and then it would be approved.
Senator L. Smith: So you would do that on a year-to-year basis in terms of the amount per year, and that would fall into the budget ask?
Ms. Dazé: Correct.
Senator L. Smith: Would that already be in the back of your mind if you have a $53 billion infrastructure program over X number of years? Is that already forecasted in that budget?
Ms. Dazé: What would happen would be the estimates are approved on an annual basis. We would have a profile over the years, and then each estimate we would come. So if it was during the year, it would come in the supplementary estimates; otherwise, it would be in the Main Estimates.
The plan is to go to Treasury Board and come in 2014-15 in a supplementary estimate for 2014-15 resources, and then come next year, in the Main Estimates 2015-16, for the 2015-16 resources.
Senator L. Smith: If I understand correctly, the reality is you understand the project is in front of you, but you have to fit it in the numbers and then manage your priorities from there. Is that a safe assumption?
Ms. Dazé: Yes. And then in the Report on Plans and Priorities, it covers a three-year planning horizon. The first year becomes your Main Estimates, and in that document we talk about the plans over the next number of years.
Senator L. Smith: That's why Ms. Laroche feels like she's been in the job for three years after she's been here for three months; is that correct?
Ms. Laroche: That's an excellent assessment, senator.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Welcome to all of you. I am tempted to go back to the bridge, but instead I will ask my first question.
When you were describing infrastructure, you mentioned funds that are spread over 10 years, and others that are spread over 5 years. Ultimately, none of the funds has the same timeline. And we have to evaluate what the cost will be this year.
I figure that $14 billion spread over 10 years works out to $1.4 billion per year, not more. Then, if we have $1.25 billion spread over 5 years, we would divide that by five.
The way it is done, according to the estimates, is that the amount that we see is approximately what was requested for one year, while it is spread over 5 or 10 years.
Was the decision to inject annual sums of money made after consultation with the provinces and municipalities? How do you determine these sums, knowing that, even with the contribution of the provinces and municipalities, we will never be able to meet our obligations to bring our infrastructure up to an acceptable level? How do you divide up these budgets? Even if you say $14 billion, for me that is $1.4 billion per year.
Ms. Laroche: Thank you for your question. I will ask Ms. Dazé to give you the details of the financial mechanisms. But I can tell that this year's Main Estimates do not include the new funds that I just described because, when the Main Estimates were finalized, we had not yet received final approval for these new funds which were announced in the Budget 2014. That is why they are not in the Main Estimates.
However, in the 2014 budget, the government mentioned that there would be a new $14 billion Building Canada Fund, and that money would be spent over the next 10 years. When those funds are finalized and approved by Treasury Board, we will go back to the supplementary estimates to obtain Parliament's approval to spend that amount.
It can get a bit confusing, because we have the old infrastructure funds from 2007, each of which has its own terms and conditions, that are negotiated with the provinces and territories, and will continue to be spent until they run out. That is why it varies from year to year.
As for the new funds, we are currently in discussion with our partners, the provinces, territories, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, to define the parameters of that program, and that will allow us to better define the agreement with each province and territory. But the funds are not spent in the same way each year. Obviously, the provinces and territories each receive their own allocations from some of the funds. So we negotiate with the provinces and territories to determine which projects we will invest in. But we cannot determine, for example, if one province receives a billion dollars over 10 years, that it will spend $100 million this year and $100 million next year, because that depends on the project, and what the construction needs are. There are several variables.
That is why we cannot say today that we have a 10-year fund and that the fund will be divided up the same way year after year.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Can you explain why we operate with so called 5- or 10-year amounts? I understand that we must set a term, but we should always choose 10 years, and that way it would be clear. But when we end up with five years, it makes it difficult for the provinces, because they are the ones completing the projects, and that means there will have to be more negotiations for the project, for example, as part of the public/private partnership (PPP).
So it is $1.250 billion over five years; that alone is less than the cost of the bridge, because the bridge is supposed to be a PPP. So everyone says the bridge will cost more than $1.250 billion. You have spread that amount over five years. So even if construction were to start in 2015 and end in 2018, would it be in the federal budget or would the funding for the bridge simply be transferred to the private sector as was done with highway 401 in Ontario? It would not appear on the books except for the project supervision?
Ms. Laroche: The Champlain Bridge replacement fund is a separate fund and is not part of the funds that you see. The only fund based on a five-year period is the fund for PPP Canada, and I cannot speak to that; it was a government decision to renew the fund for a five-year period, in other words for $1.25 billion.
That is the time allocated for the fund. The other Building Canada Plan funds are, in fact, 10-year funds.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: So each year, even if you say that there must be a plan for each province, it can vary somewhat. But after 10 years, if the province of Quebec represents 22 per cent of the population will, it will receive around 22 per cent of the $14 billion fund?
Ms. Laroche: There is an allocation formula for one of the three Building Canada funds. For the provincial/ territorial infrastructure fund, there is an allocation formula. There is a basic fund as well as a per capita formula established. You are correct in saying that each province and territory has its own allocation.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: How much do you collect in administration fees from the provinces to administer their taxes? Since the Province of Quebec operates independently, what revenues do you collect from the other provinces for which you administer taxes?
Mr. Pagan: As regards tax collection, each province has an agreement.
[English]
These agreements set out the fees and the costs negotiated with the provinces to collect revenues on their behalf, so it varies from province to province according to elements of their tax code and benefit programs, et cetera. I have the exact numbers with me, and I'll dig those up in a moment, but it's in the tens of millions of dollars across the board. This is provided for within our statutory authorities and is something that you'll see included in these Main Estimates that are presented here today.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: It's a bit like the RCMP. They buy a service, you charge them to do their income tax and you return the money. Do you return the money every day, every week, every month, when you collect?
Catherine Bennett, Assistant Commissioner, Strategy and Integration Branch, Canada Revenue Agency: I think it is monthly that the provinces receive the revenue collected by the CRA on their behalf, but I can confirm that.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I think it's important to know. We pay for our own system, so I'd like to know if it's an advantage to deal directly with only one income tax. To fill in the forms, it's probably nicer to be in Ontario than in Quebec since we will have to fill out two forms in a few weeks.
Senator Buth: Thank you very much for being here this afternoon. The first question is just a follow-up from Senator Smith.
For the bridge, when you have a plan and you know what it's going to cost and when you have contractors, do you submit a proposal to Treasury Board for the complete plan for them to approve so essentially they know the money that's going to be needed to be allocated over the next four to five years to complete the bridge?
Ms. Laroche: In terms of the process, typically how major projects like this are addressed, first, usually there's a memorandum to cabinet that's prepared that seeks cabinet approval for the initiative; and then the details. You're referring to the details around how much it is going to cost, what is the approach to funding and what's the mechanism that's going to be used. All of that is done through a Treasury Board submission. You're right that it does go to Treasury Board to get approval before you can actually launch or undertake the project.
Senator Buth: So they essentially see the project outlined from start to completion, so that Treasury Board sees it and knows what dollars essentially you're going to be asking for on a yearly basis?
Ms. Laroche: Exactly.
Senator Buth: I looked through the Office of Infrastructure Canada on page II-227, and I'm looking for the Gas Tax Fund and the PPP fund. I don't see lines that have those titles. Am I in the wrong part of the estimates? You have the Gas Tax Fund explained on page II-226, but when I look through expenditure by strategic outcome and program, I just can't see it. I'm looking for the Gas Tax Fund and the PPP fund.
Ms. Dazé: I can help you. We're required to report based on our program activity architecture, and it falls underneath the title "Permanent and Flexible Public Infrastructure Funding," which is the first line at the top of 227. You'll see the number 1,973,411,002.
Senator Buth: Is that the Gas Tax Fund?
Ms. Dazé: That is the gas tax. Because it's statutory, it appears down below, again, as the very last entry, called "Total Statutory." The top one actually is presented by strategic outcome, and it includes a little bit of operating money that goes with it, and that explains the difference between the two numbers. There's a slight difference. The top one is presented with operating included so you get a total cost of the program. The bottom is just the contribution amount, no operating.
The Gas Tax Fund is right at the very bottom. The statutory amount is the 1,973,269,432, the exact gas tax number.
Senator Buth: Could I make a suggestion that you just put "Gas Tax Fund" behind "Permanent and Flexible Public Infrastructure Funding"? If you're referring to Gas Tax Fund and then you can't find it in the listing, I think it would be helpful.
Ms. Dazé: It is a format prescribed by Treasury Board Secretariat, but we can feedback.
Senator Buth: Excellent. We'll tell Treasury Board Secretariat too when they come back, since they will be back. They're always looking for suggestions from us.
Where is the PPP fund?
Ms. Dazé: It would not be in ours. It would come forward in P3 Canada's plans.
Senator Buth: That's settled.
The Chair: PPP Canada has a separate page in the estimates that I should be able to find here?
Ms. Dazé: I have it with me. I will look for it, sir.
The Chair: I assume it has.
Ms. Dazé: I would assume too. I have just not looked for it.
The Chair: We just got these last evening for the first time, so we're just becoming familiar with them. Thank you for that.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you all for being here today.
My first questions are to Infrastructure Canada. How much money did Infrastructure Canada have lapse last year?
Ms. Dazé: This is our lapse question. I'm just looking in the Main Estimates, and P3 Canada is located on page II- 258. I can check for you after. In 2012-13, we lapsed $1.5 billion. In 2013-14, the current year that is not quite finished yet, we are anticipating or our current forecast is a lapse of $0.3 billion, so it's decreased significantly.
Senator Callbeck: Last year was how much?
Ms. Dazé: It was 1.5.
Senator Callbeck: How much of that was in this Building Canada Fund?
Ms. Dazé: Most of it. Last year, when we were here, we reported it was around $1 billion of the $1.5 billion related to Building Canada Fund major infrastructure.
Senator Callbeck: The money that's in here for the Canada Building Fund is in the estimates now, is it, and not from the new fund but the old fund?
Ms. Laroche: Correct.
Ms. Dazé: It's not the new fund; it's the old fund. It remains as the lapse. When we don't need the money in a particular year, it lapses, and then we come back to identify the year we need it in, put it in a supplementary estimate, come back to you for review and explain that this money lapsed in previous years and will be spent in the current year.
Senator Callbeck: In other words, it could have appeared in the estimates last year, it lapsed, and now it's going to be in the sups this year.
Ms. Dazé: It could be in the sups this year or it could be in the sups next year. It would be a matter of working with our recipients to identify their cash flow needs and look at the money we have. Then, the money that's needed we draw in as the cash flow requirements dictate.
Senator Callbeck: We are going to have a New Building Canada Plan, which you mentioned in your remarks. The money for that will come later in the sups. How far along is the government in getting the details down as to the municipalities and the provinces on this fund?
Ms. Laroche: Thank you for the question, senator. As the Prime Minister mentioned right after the budget this year, these funds will be ready to launch on March 31 this year. You can imagine that we have been very busy since then in consultation with the provinces, territories and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities so that we are ready. The program will launch on March 31. We are finalizing the details of the program so we can launch.
Senator Callbeck: You say the program is going to be launched, and then in the next sentence, you say you're finalizing the details so it can be launched. Are you sure you're going to have the details by March 31?
Ms. Laroche: I'm very confident.
Senator Callbeck: I met with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities not very long ago. I guess the members were all from my province. They were really concerned about this program because they couldn't find out exactly what it was going to be for. Here we have a program that's going to be in the coming sups starting April 1, and they don't know the details. How can they plan? Projects like this take a lot of planning. In order for them to really get in on it this year, it's pretty short notice.
Ms. Laroche: When I mentioned that the program is ready to launch, it means that the program details will have been finalized, and it'll be open then for the provinces, territories and municipalities to start identifying the projects they want to invest in.
It's important to remember that there is still $6 billion of existing infrastructure funding to be allocated. As Su was saying, infrastructure and investments flow over time; it works on a staggered basis. Our estimate is that we are spending, on average, about $5 billion a year in infrastructure investments, looking at all the different funds. That includes the Gas Tax Fund, which is $2 billion a year guaranteed that municipalities can use for a huge range of projects. That was legislated by the government and is a permanent source of funding that municipalities can use.
As I mentioned, there is still $6 billion remaining to be allocated and spent from current infrastructure programs. As some programs start to wind down, the new programs will start to ramp up. As I said, the estimate is that on an annual basis, we spend on average around $5 billion on infrastructure. The money continues to flow, but because there are so many different funds, it just flows at different frequencies.
Senator Callbeck: You are saying there is $6 billion to be allocated. There is $6 billion that has been announced that hasn't been allocated.
Ms. Laroche: I should clarify that. There is $6 billion remaining in the funds, much of which has been allocated: i.e. the projects have been identified but they haven't been spent yet. Again, it could be that they may not be ready to go, but there is $6 billion remaining.
Senator Callbeck: That's my point. The municipalities and the provinces need time to plan. Here we have a program getting launched at the end of March, and that's when they are going to really find out the details.
They can't come up with a project in a month's time. It takes time. I would hope that in future the government would look ahead a bit into the future, because we have a massive infrastructure deficit in this country. We really need to take it seriously. It seems that we have announced money this year and next year we're announcing the same money, and it's really difficult to get your head around all these programs.
Ms. Laroche: There are a lot of programs, senator. Thank you.
Senator Callbeck: I see for the provincial-territorial priorities it's dropping from 265 to 55. Can you explain to me what that is exactly? It's on page II-227.
Ms. Laroche: Thank you.
Ms. Dazé: Regarding the PT base, this program is in its next-to-final year. This program was subject to the economic action plan. Under it, there was an opportunity to advance funds and spend them earlier if there were shovel- ready projects, so some of the money was advanced and spent earlier. This is just simply a matter of cash flow requirements for existing projects that are in play. They have identified the amounts needed for 2014-15, which are significantly less than what was needed in 2013-14. It is simply a cash requirement situation.
Senator Callbeck: Is this for large projects, small projects, or what?
Natasha Rascanin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Operations, Infrastructure Canada: They could be a variety of projects. The PT base fund was announced as a base amount provided to each jurisdiction so that they would have predictable, ongoing funding. It was up to them to fund their core infrastructure priorities within that funding.
Senator Callbeck: That's dropping to 55. Really, will the program continue in the next two years, or is this it?
Ms. Dazé: The 2014-15 year is planned as the last year. The original program was $2.3 billion, and so this is the last $55.3 million that's planned to be spent.
Senator Callbeck: In infrastructure money it looks like there's going to be quite a decrease, I would say, this year and next year. Maybe we will get the budget balanced, and then we will rev up again.
Ms. Rascanin: It relates to what Ms. Laroche was saying about older programs going down and new ones starting to ramp up. In fact, the $5 billion that we see regularly is our anticipated going forward look as well. There are many programs, as we noted, and so it can look like the PT base fund is decreasing. Others will increase over time as we go forward.
Senator Callbeck: I've made my point in that I think it's important to give the municipalities and the provinces time to develop their projects. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: My first question also deals with Infrastructure Canada. The total statutory expenditures, for 2014-15, do include a significant increase over the actual expenditures for 2013-14. What are these variations?
Ms. Dazé: What page are you on, senator?
Senator Bellemare: On page II-225 in the English version. In the first table with the expenditures where there is a line in italics saying "Total Statutory."
Ms. Dazé: That is the gas tax. Under the former program, it was voted, now it is statutory. So that just shows the change between the two years.
Senator Bellemare: In your Main Estimates, can you identify, roughly, the proportion of expenditures that will have a lever effect on the economy? We know that the funds you are talking about are associated with provincial and municipal expenditures.
The beauty of infrastructure programs, to guard against international economic crisis, is that they allow project investment to be moved up because they involve contributions from several public investors, the provinces, the municipalities and the federal government. We know that that helped us a great deal in 2007.
We know that the funds and amounts set aside for the future do not even total 2007 amounts, but they could nonetheless generate a lever effect. Given what we have available for 2014-15, will these amounts have a lever effect, and can you give me a rough estimate of the percentage of lever effect? Is it one federal dollar for one provincial dollar?
Ms. Laroche: Senator, that is an excellent question. It depends on the program and the federal investment. Under some programs, the federal government investment is up to 25 per cent; in other programs, it is 33 per cent or 50 per cent.
We can try to provide you with an answer later, but today I am unable to provide an exact figure because it depends on the project and the program. As for the gas tax, it is a 100 per cent federal government contribution, but that does not mean that there is no investment from the provinces and municipalities. Even if it is a 100 per cent federal contribution, it is very likely that there will be a lever effect. We can come back later with an answer.
Senator Bellemare: To continue along the same lines, we know that some funds are spread over 5 or 10 years. In the event of an emergency, could these funds be used more quickly instead of spreading them out proportionally over 10 or 5 years?
Ms. Laroche: Absolutely.
Senator Bellemare: Thank you. My next question is for the Canada Revenue Agency. On page II-25, under the voted expenditures, capital expenditures and recoverable expenditures on behalf of the Canada Pension Plan and the Employment Insurance Act, it says here $72 million. What exactly will that amount be used for?
In addition, in your presentation you said that there would be a $5.4 million increase for the implementation of various measures affecting individuals, and you named, among other things, the pooled registered pension plans.
I would like to know what your department will do with the amounts for establishing these plans. What service will you be providing individuals through this budget?
M. Pagan: Thank you for the question.
[English]
First of all, with respect to the request for funding in these estimates of $5.4 million for implementation of Budget 2012 measures, as I indicated in the remarks, one of the elements announced in Budget 2012 was the pooled registered pension plans, the PRPP. The Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act was introduced in November 2011. PRPPs will be a voluntary, broad-based and low-cost, defined contribution pension vehicle available to employers, employees and self-employed individuals.
The tax rules have been designed so they will encourage take-up by employers and ultimately provide for greater pension coverage among Canadians.
The amount of the $5.4 million we are requesting in 2014-15, $2.5 million of that is specifically for this PRPP and, as I understand it, that is primarily for our systems and monitoring compliance costs to be able to enforce and monitor use of these vehicles.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: If I understand correctly, these expenditures are for staff and operations to provide information or capture information in your systems?
M. Pagan: That is correct.
Senator Bellemare: Is it the same for the $72 million amount for the Canada Pension Plan?
[English]
Mr. Pagan: Yes, that's correct. We administer some aspects of the CPP and EI, and are able to recover certain of our costs related to that.
Ms. Bennett: Perhaps I could add a little bit to that. We collect employer contributions for CPP and EI, and there are a number of other activities related to that such as compliance activities to make sure that the contributions are properly remitted, as well as rulings and appeals activities at that the CRA carries out for CPP/EI.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Do you also finance the cost of managing the Canada Pension Plan? Is that your responsibility or is it the responsibility of Employment and Social Development?
[English]
Ms. Bennett: It's not the CRA's responsibility.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: My questions are for the Canada Revenue Agency. Your document shows savings of $415 million. When you contact the taxpayers by mail, do you compensate Canada Post or does Canada Post deliver your mail to taxpayers without compensation? Do you pay for the mailouts when you contact taxpayers?
[English]
Mr. Pagan: I'll start, and perhaps Dave could speak to that.
The reductions that you speak of are reductions to our operating costs that have been proposed to the centre, to Treasury Board and Finance, and accepted. They reflect, in many cases, efforts to streamline our costs by trying to, as we say, optimize channel delivery: We have mail, phone and online service.
Part of our strategy in moving forward with our deficit reduction action plan, or contributions to the deficit reduction action plan, were to enhance our lowest cost delivery, which is on line. You're correct in saying that postal costs are a cost to the department, and if we correspond with citizens through the mail, either for notifications or advertisements, that is a cost borne by the agency.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Regardless of the savings, my question is this. When you communicate with a taxpayer and I receive what you send in the mail, for example, do you pay for the costs or does Canada Post provide the delivery free of charge?
Mr. Pagan: There is a cost for the agency.
Senator Rivard: Of the more than 30 million citizens, there are between 15 and 20 million taxpayers. Perhaps you cannot tell me exactly how many taxpayers fill out a tax return, but approximately 15 to 20 million would be quite accurate?
[English]
Dave Bennett, Assistant Commissioner, Assessment and Benefit Services Branch, Canada Revenue Agency: Each year we receive tax returns from approximately 27 million Canadians. Not all of those are done by paper. In fact, now roughly 76 per cent of them are done electronically, so they are not mailed to us. Yes, for the production of the notices that are sent to taxpayers after the processing of the return, the cost of the postage is borne by the agency.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: This year, as a taxpayer, I noticed, among other things, that I received a sticker for the federal government, but I no longer receive a paper copy as I did in the past. Is that new for fiscal year 2013, or did it exist before and I failed to notice? This year, people are advised to go to a drug store or a postal station to pick up a copy, or you encourage them to download the form on the Internet. Do people no longer systematically receive a paper copy of the tax return forms, part from the ones that can be found in public places like some banks, post offices and drugstores?
[English]
Mr. Bennett: Yes. In fact, last year, the previous filing season, the agency discontinued the mailing of personalized tax returns, on two parts: We are responding to the changing way in which Canadians want to file their taxes and want to do business with the government. Increasingly, we are finding that electronic is the method of choice.
Secondly, of the returns that were personalized and mailed out, we were able to track the ones that were sent back in, and roughly 35 per cent of those had gone unused and discarded, which is literally millions of pieces of paper.
The alternative to that — we still offer a solid service for those who are not yet ready, or not able, to change to electronic — as the senator has pointed out, you can go to Canada Post outlets, of which there are 6,000 across the country, various points of access. Service Canada sites also have tax forms available. In the province of Quebec, you have caisses populaires that distribute these.
In addition to that, you are able to call the agency, and you will be mailed one if you wish a paper copy; or you can go to the website and request a paper copy, and it will be sent to you.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: I have one last brief question. I more or less know the answer, but I will ask you the question. Your $415 million in savings do not include staff savings linked to auditors fighting tax evasion or fraud, do they? I hope that you are going to say no.
[English]
Ms. Bennett: You are correct; none of those savings are associated with the auditors who are dealing with tax evasion and aggressive tax planning.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: My questions have almost all been asked, except one for the Canada Revenue Agency.
In the agency's budget you talked about a $1 million increase for government advertising programs. If that is in fact an increase, what was the amount last year? And what is the total amount for this year?
Mr. Pagan: Thank you for the question.
[English]
In fiscal year 2013-14, the agency initially requested $6 million in advertising spending. Therefore, the request this year, the increase of $1 million represents a forecast or projection of $7 million in advertising in 2014-15 for an advertising campaign entitled "Encouraging Uptake of Tax Measures," which will cover both the 2013 and 2014 tax filing seasons.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: How will this campaign be led? Are we talking about brochures, TV ads or that type of thing? Will it be in both official languages, in English and in French?
Mr. Pagan: Absolutely. It is a multi-platform strategy for TV, radio, the Internet and even social media, including Twitter and so on.
[English]
Senator Seth: I'm looking at 2014-15, page II-226, which says that the Gas Tax Fund will provide $21.8 billion to provinces over the next 10 years for infrastructure development. Could you please outline some of the key projects that will be developed with this money?
Ms. Laroche: That's an excellent question, and thank you for it. This is the renewal of the gas tax program that, as I mentioned earlier, has been made permanent. It has many eligible categories, and so it really depends on two things. A province may have some particular priority areas for investments. We know that, for example, in Ontario, a lot of focus has been placed on public transit, and similarly with Quebec. It also depends on municipalities themselves, because this is a fund that is really to support municipal infrastructure.
The Gas Tax Funds can be used to support any number of different projects: water, waste water, sewage, recreation, community sports centres. It's a huge range. It's really wide open. It would be difficult for me to give you specific examples, because for the Gas Tax Fund, the decisions are made primarily at the local level, with the involvement of the province.
Senator Seth: My next question pertains to the same. Do all provinces receive the same amount of money? If yes, why do all provinces receive the same amount of money when the needs of different provinces are different?
Ms. Laroche: The answer to that is they don't all receive the same amount of money because the Gas Tax Fund is done primarily on a per capita basis. For the three territories and for Prince Edward Island, because their populations are so small, they get a dedicated amount of money of $15 million. But for all of the other provinces, and for the new Gas Tax Fund, it's based on the 2011 census data. It's per capita, so it's not identical.
The Chair: While you're talking about gas tax — and, Ms. Laroche, I'm speaking about page 2 of your introductory remarks — the last time we looked at this, that 2 per cent escalator only triggered at each $100 million lump-sum increase and then the increase came into effect. But you seem to have dropped that explanation here, and I'm wondering if that's no longer applicable.
Ms. Laroche: No, the flow is the same. There is a 2 per cent escalator, and it's allocated by $100 million a year.
The Chair: So that $100 million a year, it could go for a number of years before the increased $100 million triggers the 2 per cent increase, could it not?
Ms. Laroche: Yes.
The Chair: That was my understanding from the last time we looked at this.
Ms. Laroche: That's correct; it hasn't changed.
The Chair: Colleagues, that's at page 2. You may wish to clarify the comment made there.
I have three names on the second round, and we have five minutes left.
Senator L. Smith: Mr. Pagan, in Canada Revenue Agency's most recent annual report to Parliament, it says that, in 2012-13, the CRA resolved $37.3 billion in outstanding tax debt on behalf of federal, provincial and territorial governments. As a watchdog, obviously trying to get uncollected debt, tax debt is one of your objectives. Do you have two or three other areas that you focus on trying to recover money? What are they?
Mr. Pagan: Thank you for the question, senator. In the first instance, our focus is on voluntary compliance.
Senator L. Smith: I understand. I read your report. I'm just trying to get the other side of it. As a watchdog, what are your two or three areas you focus on besides tax debt collection?
Mr. Pagan: The pillars of the agency are service, integrity and compliance. It is clearly a focus for us to make sure that we manage your tax information and mine in a way that is secure, that the people we have behind the desk on the street are acting in a professional manner with integrity and, as I say, that Canada's voluntary tax code is applied.
Senator L. Smith: The question is: Do you have two or three strategies besides trying to collect $37.3 billion in outstanding tax debt? Are there another couple of areas that the CRA focuses on? That's all I'm asking you. It's a strategy question. If you don't have the answer, maybe you could ask one of your colleagues at home and send it to us, because I think it's of interest to us.
Ms. Bennett: I will try to answer the question, senator. Collecting tax debt is obviously important but, in terms of getting the right assessment up front, our focus would be at the moment on offshore compliance, it would be on aggressive tax planning within Canada, and it would also be on the underground economy.
Senator L. Smith: So underground economy, money laundering, tax debt. Was there another one?
Ms. Bennett: Offshore compliance.
The Chair: Do you have a figure as to the total amount at the present time that is outstanding, due and owing as a tax debt to the federal government? The figure of 37.3 is a little bit old, and we're wondering if you could bring us up to date on that.
Ms. Bennett: I think the current total tax debt is $32 billion, but I would like to confirm that in writing.
The Chair: If you could, please; and if you do confirm that to be the case, congratulations. You've brought it down from 37. Thank you for that.
I'm going to ask Senator Callbeck and Senator Buth to both put their questions on record, and then we'll see if we can get short answers or undertakings.
Senator Callbeck: The first question you can get back to us on is regarding the decreases on page 3 that you talked about, Mr. Pagan, the $119 million through the 2012 spending review and the $57.6 million as part of the 2013 targeted review. Would you supply the committee with a breakdown on these items and a written explanation for each, please?
The other question I had was on page II-27, "Taxpayer and Business Assistance." I see that's decreasing a considerable amount. What does that involve?
Mr. Pagan: Quickly, on your first question, we have previously provided to the Parliamentary Budget Office an accounting of our reductions for both the deficit reduction action plan of Budget 2012 and the targeted review in Budget 2013. We would be happy to provide that same material to the committee.
Likewise with respect to the reductions in taxpayer services debt management, I'd be happy to provide a more fulsome answer. Essentially, this does reflect some of the back office and process reductions that were put forward by the agency relating to amalgamation of management functions, in particular the closure of counter service as we migrate to e-service or online. I believe Mr. Bennett referred to the 76 per cent of Canadians now filing online. It reflects a way of reducing our costs and improving our service.
Mr. Chair, there was one earlier question related to administration of tax revenues on behalf of the provinces. I do have a figure here that I could provide to the committee.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Pagan: In 2012-13, we collected, on behalf of provinces, $94.8 billion in provincial revenue, on top of $210 billion in federal revenue. Those administrative costs, by and large, are borne by the agency, so, in response to the question about efficiency, it's very efficient in that respect.
Where there are unharmonized measures, where a province wants to make a particular emphasis on a tax matter, these unharmonized measures are subject to negotiation and we will recover our cost. As an example, Catherine mentioned the underground economy. This was a priority of the Government of Ontario as well as the federal government, so we entered into an agreement with Ontario where we enhanced our capacity to work on the underground economy and were able to recover from the provincial government $20 million devoted to that initiative. As I say, I'd be glad to provide that detail on our SOR and targeted review.
The Chair: Thank you. That would be appreciated.
Senator Buth: I have a question for Infrastructure Canada. What is your relationship with the municipalities? Is it on an ongoing basis? In my experience with the municipalities especially, the Government of Manitoba has already announced their five-year infrastructure plan, so they're ready to go. I understand that you couldn't talk to the municipalities about the amount of money that was coming, but the municipalities that I've talked to knew that there would be a new fund coming, essentially, if not the amount. I'm just wondering about how often you are in consultation with municipalities.
Ms. Laroche: We deal primarily through the municipal associations, so the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is a very important partner. They have been involved from the start of Infrastructure Canada in providing advice and input into the development of our programs, so they're a very important partner. In Ontario, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario is actually one of the signatories to the gas tax program. The answer would be that it varies. Obviously the federal government is very respectful of provincial jurisdiction, so our relationships will be governed by the relationship that the province has established. We're very mindful of provincial jurisdiction, but we do deal primarily through the associations.
Senator Buth: Most of your dealings, then, would be with the provincial governments?
Ms. Laroche: Most of the negotiations and most of the transfer of funds goes through provinces and territories.
The Chair: Ms. Laroche, do you have on your wall in your office a chart with all the different infrastructure programs, and some that are in fine print are the ones that are declining, and the other ones that are in the bolder print are the ones that are growing? If you have that, would you able to make that available to us?
Ms. Laroche: I don't have something like that on my wall. It's an excellent idea. Let me see what we can come up with, because I really do take your point. There are many programs and, as some are declining, new ones are starting. Let me see what we can come up with, senator, and see if we can give something back to the committee.
The Chair: There must have been a briefing book you were given when you first arrived in the department to explain all the stuff that's going on.
Ms. Laroche: It was all in writing, and I think a chart would have been a great idea.
The Chair: Thank you.
What's your relationship with PPP Canada, Public-Private Partnerships Canada?
Ms. Laroche: We work with them, because of course they bring a significant amount of expertise with respect to a particular funding arrangement for infrastructure. As you know, they are part of a separate portfolio. They report through the Minister of Finance, and we report through the Minister of Infrastructure. We have a close working relationship.
The Chair: They have their own administrative overhead, and you have your own administrative overhead?
Ms. Laroche: Correct, and they report separately. I think we have found the page reference for them in the estimates.
The Chair: I found it and gave it to you, incorrectly. If somebody could give it to me again? I think it's at II-258.
Ms. Dazé: Correct. The question you had earlier was regarding whether or not the $1.25 million was included. The top paragraph on page II-259 indicates it will be coming through supplementary estimates.
The Chair: Thank you. So supplementary estimates might be the reason for us meeting again in due course.
Thank you very much, Infrastructure Canada and Canada Revenue Agency. We very much appreciate your being here. I'm sorry to have kept you a little bit over time, but there were a lot of important questions that senators had to ask and your responses were very helpful.
(The committee adjourned.)