Skip to content
NFFN - Standing Committee

National Finance

 

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance

Issue 21 - Evidence - November 19, 2014


OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 19, 2014

The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 6:31 p.m. to examine the subject matter of Bill C-43, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014, and other measures; and the expenditures set out in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015.

Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance to order.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, it seems that the Minister of Finance is running a bit late. We are nevertheless going to continue with our study of the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015.

[English]

The representative from Transport Canada, which is one of the entities requesting funds under Supplementary Estimates (B), has kindly agreed to be here with the understanding that he might get bumped partway through by the Minister of Finance. We want to use our time as expeditiously as we can, and we thank you very much, Mr. Lapointe, for agreeing to come. I understand you have some introductory remarks in relation to Transport Canada, and then we'll get into questions and answers.

André Lapointe, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services and Chief Financial Officer, Transport Canada: Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to discuss Transport Canada's Supplementary Estimates (B) and Departmental Performance Report with you this evening.

[Translation]

The safety and security of our transport system have been, and still are, Transport Canada's top priorities. While the department continues to adopt measures to strengthen the safety and security of our transport system, we are still advancing the department's agenda by ensuring that core services continue to be properly funded and aligned with departmental priorities.

[English]

To further advance Transport Canada's agenda, we are seeking, through these Supplementary Estimates (B), $156.2 million in resources that will allow the department to take action on initiatives that were not sufficiently developed or known at the time the 2014-15 Main Estimates were prepared. Some of the requests for funding in these supplementary estimates include funding for the purchase of a replacement ferry vessel for the Saint John-Digby service and the continuation of the Ferry Services Contribution Program for Eastern Canada ferry services; funding to provide project and advisory services, various engineering and environmental work and studies for the advancement of the Detroit River International Crossing Major Crown Project; and funding for the assessment, management and remediation of federal contaminated sites.

You may have observed in our Departmental Performance Report for 2013-14 that we continue to experience some challenges on the HR front. We continuously analyze our workforce and focus on recruitment and retention of staff to ensure we put our resources where they will provide the greatest safety benefits. If an area requires additional resources, Transport Canada adjusts priorities and reallocates resources to those high-risk areas. Like other organizations, retaining and recruiting highly specialized employees has been and continues to be a challenge. Transport Canada has made recruiting these employees one of its main corporate priorities. Efforts are being deployed to address this challenge.

Specifically, the department has aggressively been recruiting and training new staff in several specialized areas to ensure we have the right level of employees to deliver our mandate. Transport Canada is also currently running a number of national staffing processes for oversight personnel, including inspectors.

I will be happy to answer any questions that the committee might have.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lapointe. I will start with senators so we can use our time as expeditiously as possible.

Senator Wells: Thank you very much, Mr. Lapointe, for appearing before us. I want to ask about the Digby ferry. It seems like we have heard about that for a number of years. Is the replacement ferry going to be a new build, or is that purchase of an existing vessel? Is there any expectation of delays of delivery and therefore delays of requirements for funding?

Mr. Lapointe: Actually, the announcement was made a few weeks ago. We are in possession of the vessel now. We have purchased the vessel. Negotiations are about to finish or are finished, and the vessel will be coming to Canada. The price was $44 million, I believe, overall. Then we need to refit because it is an older build. It was built in 2000. It has still another 20 good years. It's in very good condition. It's been inspected, and we still have some refit to do when it comes to Canada. It should be expected here within the next few weeks.

Senator Wells: That's excellent. Can you tell me the disposition of the existing ferry or the old ferry?

Mr. Lapointe: Right now the old ferry is still in working order. It is being inspected regularly and maintenance is continuing. Disposition would be the new vessel should be in service for the 2015 season, so we're hoping to be able to meet that.

Senator Wells: Any knowledge of what will happen to the old ferry or the existing ferry that's there? Will that be sold, transferred to another run?

Mr. Lapointe: I suspect it may not be transferred. It is a build from 1971, so it's getting on in years. It may be dismantled, salvaged, but I don't have those precise plans at this stage.

The Chair: Thank you, Senator Wells. I'm looking at Supplementary Estimates (B), page 2-90. The Princess of Acadia, which is the name of the vessel that I think is being replaced, you're asking for $13 million?

Mr. Lapointe: In operational funding, yes. That is a levy.

[Translation]

That is the vessel clearance. Given that the vessel is less than 129 metres long, it is not exempt from customs charges. We therefore have to pay for importation.

The Chair: Does that fall under operating costs?

Mr. Lapointe: Yes. In this case, we are talking about operating costs.

[English]

The Chair: I had thought that was a private business now, that it was no longer a government-run ferry crossing.

Mr. Lapointe: The ferries and the terminals actually are the property of the government, but they are run by third parties.

The Chair: The operation is by third parties?

Mr. Lapointe: Correct, in this case Bay Ferries Limited.

The Chair: That is the name I had recalled.

Mr. Lapointe: Bay Ferries runs the Digby ferry.

The Chair: Thank you. That is helpful. Senator Eaton?

Senator Eaton: Thank you, Mr. Lapointe. You were talking about HR and safety benefits and that if they occurred or arose you would change your priorities. In light of what happened at Lac-Mégantic, have you had to change any of your priorities? If so, where are they to be found in the estimates?

Mr. Lapointe: They wouldn't appear in the supplementary estimates necessarily at this stage. We're just sort of adjusting for some of the projects that weren't ready to go for the Main Estimates.

In terms of adjusting post-Lac-Mégantic, we have taken a range of measures, both on the rail safety and on the transportation of dangerous goods side, and we also are increasing inspector numbers and hiring additional auditors.

Senator Eaton: Is finding the inspectors difficult? Is that what you mean when you say you have HR difficulties?

Mr. Lapointe: Yes. The profile of the inspectors we generally recruit is a second career for many people. They will have spent 15 or 20 years in industry and they come to Transport as a second career. Attracting them to government is proving to be somewhat of a challenge, either with salary because of the pension transfer or sometimes location. We have activities across the country, in some cases in remote areas. It's a bit of a challenge to attract people to some of those areas.

Senator Eaton: So, we might expect to see expenses related to what happened at Lac-Mégantic next year?

Mr. Lapointe: We've already transferred some. When we say we redirect some funding based on risk, we have done that already within the budgets in the department.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: I also had some questions about recruitment, and I think you have enlightened me. Are you sure that you need experienced workers and cannot train young engineers? We know that today's labour market for young people is quite depressing.

Mr. Lapointe: One of the things that we are doing is actually reviewing the requirements for our inspectors. One of our challenges, as well as our reality, is that the inspectors on the ground act as an interface with the industry, be it in the airline, marine or railway industry, and they must be credible. The situation might be difficult and bumpy for people with little experience. As a result, we try to recruit people with experience. Even for experienced people, when they start working for the department, it can take them six to seven months of training to become independent inspectors.

Senator Bellemare: Would it be possible to set up a system to welcome both younger and older people at the same time so that they have the support?

Mr. Lapointe: Yes, we are looking into that. The models we are using have been around for a long time. We are trying to make adjustments and level the playing field a little; there are young people who are interested in engineering, of course. Perhaps it is a bit easier to attract young people to the aviation sector; the private railway sector is already having a hard time attracting a lot of people. The same is true for the marine sector, given the requirements for young people who enter into the profession, especially in their first years. We are trying to achieve a balance, but experience is a key factor.

Senator Bellemare: I have one last quick question about the operational expenditures and the $5-million transfer. Could you clarify something for me? There is a decrease of $5 million in the transfer column.

Mr. Lapointe: For Infrastructure Canada?

Senator Bellemare: It is on page 2-99, under Budgetary, Voted, Operating expenditures, vote 1b.

Mr. Lapointe: Just a moment; I will try to find it.

The Chair: In the French version?

Senator Bellemare: In the French version, it is on page 2-99.

Mr. Lapointe: What does the heading say? Can you read it to me?

Senator Bellemare: Budgetary; the operating expenditures that are being reduced by $5 million.

Mr. Lapointe: An amount of $5 million exactly?

Senator Bellemare: An amount of $5,118,433.

Mr. Lapointe: I cannot find it. It is under transfers —

Senator Bellemare: In Supplementary Estimates (B), it says that authorities to date amount to $1.465 billion. Then there is a transfer with a decrease under Operating expenditures, Capital expenditures, Grants and contributions, for a total of $6.95 million.

Mr. Lapointe: Okay, I just found it. The $6.95 million represents the total for all the transfers, inflows and outflows.

Senator Bellemare: However, I am wondering about the $5 million that is taken from operating expenditures.

Mr. Lapointe: According to the list of transfers I have here, the largest transfer is the one to Infrastructure Canada. Basically, there are two amounts: $640,000 and $4.4 million making up the transfer from Transport Canada to Infrastructure Canada. We have transferred the entire responsibility for the new bridge to Infrastructure Canada. It is therefore no longer the responsibility of the Minister of Transport; the responsibility now lies with the minister responsible for Infrastructure Canada, Mr. Lebel.

Senator Bellemare: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Lapointe: That is the largest portion of the transfer.

Senator Bellemare: I was wondering whether it was a human resources matter.

Mr. Lapointe: No, it is a block transfer from one department to another.

The Chair: Which bridges are we talking about?

Mr. Lapointe: There is oversight for the Jacques-Cartier Bridge and the Champlain Bridge. That is the project team for the new bridge being built.

The Chair: For the Champlain Bridge?

Mr. Lapointe: Yes, to replace the Champlain Bridge.

The Chair: That is the one. What you have here is interesting.

[English]

We've been talking about the construction of a new bridge over the St. Lawrence River for some time. We understood that we had created a separate entity to look after the construction of a replacement for the Champlain Bridge.

Mr. Lapointe: No, and my colleagues from Infrastructure Canada can eventually provide more detail. The government is managing the construction project.

For the Detroit River International Crossing, a Crown corporation has been created.

The Chair: I recall that.

Mr. Lapointe: As well, there is a Crown corporation for Jacques Cartier/Champlain that is responsible for the Champlain, the Jacques Cartier, the Mercier and the tunnel. They are not responsible for overseeing the construction of the new bridge.

[Translation]

Senator Mockler: I would like to talk about vote 10b that says ±

[English]

± Transport Canada is seeking $20.8 million for a ferry services contribution program.

[Translation]

Could you tell the committee which organization will receive the funding and explain what process the government follows to allocate the grants for those contributions? What is the mechanism in place?

Mr. Lapointe: Are you talking about ferry services?

Senator Mockler: Yes, the ferry services contribution program.

Mr. Lapointe: Yes, the program provides funding to three ferry services. Let me list them. The first one is the ferry from Wood Islands, Prince Edward Island, to Caribou, Nova Scotia, and it is operated by Northumberland Ferries Limited. The second one is the ferry from Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Quebec, to Souris, Prince Edward Island, and it is operated by CTMA. The third ferry, which we talked about just now, goes from St. John, New Brunswick, to Digby, Nova Scotia, and it is operated by Bay Ferries.

Those companies must submit a business plan when the time comes for awarding contracts. Let me tell you that there are not a lot of takers for those operations. Those operators have been doing that for a long time, and they are equipped to do it; they have the staff in place. Competition over those contracts is therefore limited. These really are operational contracts. All shortfalls for those companies are reimbursed by the government based on established agreements.

Senator Mockler: You are talking about four different companies?

Mr. Lapointe: Three.

Senator Mockler: Three. Here is my next question.

[English]

What accountability mechanism will the federal government use to ensure that public funds are spent in accordance with the terms of that program with those three companies?

Mr. Lapointe: There's a team of people in Transport that oversees the contracts and makes sure the companies are respecting the clauses in those contracts. The claims that they put in for shortfalls, operations, capital or what-have-you are reviewed quite closely before any payment is made. When contracts are renegotiated, when the time comes, there's due diligence that takes place.

Senator Mockler: What's the process of your due diligence? Who is doing the due diligence when it comes to accountability?

Mr. Lapointe: The due diligence is done by our oversight folks within Transport. We have a team that does this. These are all TC personnel. We have accountants, policy experts, program experts who will review what is being proposed. There's a lot of challenge that goes back to make sure the companies are not pushing their salary envelope unduly, et cetera.

The Chair: After we last spoke about the bridge over the St. Lawrence, I see that one of the items is for about $640,000 and is a transfer out of Transport to the Office of Infrastructure Canada associated with the transfer of responsibilities for the oversight of The Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated.

So you're transferring $4 million and then $640,000, both to Infrastructure Canada, but they appear to be for two different things.

Mr. Lapointe: They actually are. The transfer of the new bridge, the $4.4 million, is for the team focused on getting the bridge project underway. This is the new bridge.

The $640,000 is the team in Transport that oversees the Crown corporation. They coordinate with the Crown corporation when they prepare their corporate plan. They submit their budgets. They put in requirements for capital, et cetera.

Transport has several Crown corporations for which the minister is responsible. For each of those Crowns we have an internal oversight capacity to coordinate what's happening in the Crown and the go-between, if you will, between the Crown and Treasury Board.

The Chair: Am I reading this correctly that that oversight responsibility is being transferred to Infrastructure Canada?

Mr. Lapointe: That's right.

The Chair: I didn't want it to happen that the oversight was by the same entity that was doing the work.

Mr. Lapointe: No, it is not.

The Chair: That's what it is starting to look like here.

Mr. Lapointe: But it's different people.

The Chair: But both Infrastructure Canada.

Mr. Lapointe: Yes.

The Chair: So Infrastructure Canada is overseeing another group of people within Infrastructure Canada?

Mr. Lapointe: There's a group of people within Infrastructure Canada that have the responsibility to oversee what Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated is doing as a Crown corporation. There's another group, much larger, within Infrastructure Canada now, that is responsible for the development of the new bridge project.

The Chair: So, the oversight is for that other entity and not for the entity —

Mr. Lapointe: Yes. Remember, the Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated is a Crown corporation, but they are not responsible for construction of the new structure.

The Chair: Right. You made that point earlier.

Could you tell us what funding for Ocean Networks Canada — Smart Oceans Contribution Program, $2 million, is about?

Mr. Lapointe: The Oceans Network was started in 2007 out of the University of Victoria and is essentially a science-based project that created the ocean observatories. They have facilities that monitor tides, undersea activity, whale movements, et cetera. The reason we've looked at what they do is that they also collect data that is very useful for navigation. We're providing them funding so we can access their data and also convert some of that data into usable safety-related navigation data.

The Chair: That's based out of the University of Victoria?

Mr. Lapointe: Yes.

The Chair: Some work goes on at Memorial University, as well. That's a different program?

Mr. Lapointe: Perhaps. I'm not sure if they're related.

The Chair: I'm just looking at these various items, at 2-90, and there is a reinvestment of revenues from the sale and transfer of real property. Perhaps you could explain to honourable senators how, when you sell property, revenue comes in, but that revenue goes not into a special account; it just goes into general revenue.

Mr. Lapointe: It usually goes into consolidated revenue, but the departments have the flexibility to access. They have to request the net proceeds of those sales in order to continue managing current assets with a view to divesting additional assets.

For instance, we sold one of the largest properties in this lot, at Mirabel, for $2.5 million. So we're asking to access that money to be able to conduct due diligence on additional properties that will also go up for sale.

Part of that funding is also used for the department's share of the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan which is focused on environmental remediation. We have to contribute 15 or 20 per cent, depending what we do, on different projects, and there's a central Government of Canada fund that exists, $3.5 billion over 15 years, to help remediate those sites. Part of the proceeds of sale is used to fund the department's portion of that.

The Chair: Those funds you receive as a result of a sale, in Mirabel or wherever, go into general revenue. Is it somehow flagged so you know you will get it when you need it two or three years down the line?

Mr. Lapointe: No, we can only access within a year and the last quarter, I think, of the previous year. It's not a multi-year exercise.

The Chair: This $2 million must have been in the last year.

Mr. Lapointe: It was in March 2014. It was in the last quarter of the last fiscal.

The Chair: The final point I have here is funding related to the assessment, management and remediation of federal contaminated sites. It's a horizontal item we talked about recently. Almost $8 million is Transport Canada's portion of sites that you're responsible for remediating?

Mr. Lapointe: Correct. We have remediation and assessments. The bulk of that is remediation. We're accessing part of that $3.5 billion I spoke of. That's part of our share for this year. The total share for Transport this year is $24 million and this is the latest installment of that.

The Chair: That $3.4 billion for contaminated sites is an estimate and a contingent liability, as opposed to an amount that has been set aside. Is that correct?

Mr. Lapointe: That's a good question. I'm not sure. The actual fund is not under Transport. It's under, I think, NRCan. I'd have to get back to the committee with that.

The Chair: If you could confirm that. We know it's a horizontal item and there is a lot of liability out there. My understanding is that it's a contingent liability.

Mr. Lapointe: It could be.

The Chair: The government has determined, to the best of our ability, how much it's going to cost to remediate those contaminated sites. There are quite a few sites that we haven't determined yet and they're not even part of that $3.4 billion. The $3.4 billion is really only a tenth of what potential contingent liability exists that is a responsibility of the federal government. Any information you could give us on the overall picture so we could know just what the contingent liability is that the people of Canada are facing that we hopefully clean up before it is our children who will be paying for that, that would be helpful.

Mr. Lapointe: I will verify with my colleagues at Environment Canada, who are responsible for it.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Colleagues, if nothing flows from any of those questions, then I would like on behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, Mr. Lapointe, to thank you very much for your forthright and knowledgeable answers and wish you well in your continued work at Transport Canada.

Mr. Lapointe: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Colleagues, we understand that votes have still not taken place in the House of Commons, so the minister's first responsibility is, of course, to be there for votes. We understand that, but he understands that we have responsibilities to study the estimates, so we will continue with that work, especially since some of our witnesses have arrived.

I'm very pleased to welcome from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Scott Stevenson, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Regional Operations; Paul Thoppil, Chief Financial Officer; and Stephen Van Dine, Director General, Northern Strategic Policy Branch. Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. Do you have a spokesperson? Mr. Thoppil, you have the floor, sir.

[Translation]

Paul Thoppil, Chief Financial Officer, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development: Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Supplementary Estimates (B) for fiscal year 2014-15 for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. I appreciate the valuable role that the committee plays in reviewing the department's expenditures.

These Supplementary Estimates (B) include $153.9 million in initiatives which will bring total investments to $8.6 billion for this fiscal year. Approval of these supplementary estimates will support and continue the Government of Canada's plan to improve the lives of Aboriginal people and northerners.

Specifically, Supplementary Estimates (B) will provide the financial resources to take action on a number of key initiatives. I will now briefly describe the major items.

[English]

The largest item in these supplementary estimates, $40.6 million, will go to fund Operation Return Home: Manitoba Interlake Flood Remediation and Settlement. Flooding in Manitoba in 2011 led to the evacuation of people from 18 First Nation communities. Together with the First Nations and Province of Manitoba, the Government of Canada is working toward a recovery that will see all 2011 flood evacuees returned to safe, secure homes or permanent long-term accommodation in strong resilient communities.

[Translation]

The second largest item in these supplementary estimates is $38.2 million for the construction of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station and the implementation of the associated science and technology program. The Canadian High Arctic Research Station will establish a world-class hub for science and technology that connects a network of regional facilities across Canada's North. The station being built in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, will be a focal point of research, building partnerships and strengthening innovation and economic growth in Canada's North.

[English]

The third item of $11.9 million is funds being re-profiled from 2013-14 to 2014-15 for the continued implementation of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

These supplementary estimates also include $10.5 million for the facilitation of Aboriginal participation in West Coast energy development. Energy market diversification is a critical priority for Canada in order to reduce dependency on exports to the United States and capitalize on soaring global demand in emerging Asia-Pacific markets. Securing the support of Aboriginal peoples in British Columbia and engaging Aboriginal groups on issues of importance to them regarding the development of energy infrastructure near their traditional territories and facilitating opportunities for them to participate in these projects is a key component to diversify Canada's energy exports.

Also included in these supplementary estimates is $9.9 million for the provision of documents to the Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The nature and scope of providing over a century's worth of residential school documents held at Library and Archives Canada is unlike any other document production exercise that the federal government has been involved in.

Canada will also receive $4.9 million to meet its obligations for comprehensive land claims in Yukon and Quebec. These funds will be used on the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement Implementation Plan, the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Plan, Yukon regional land use planning and to support the operations of the Cree-Naskapi Commission in Quebec.

You will note that there are a number of transfers between the department and other government departments in these supplementary estimates of which the largest is a $28 million transfer from the Department of National Defence in Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan remediation funding as a one-time transfer. The goal of the contaminated sites programs is to reduce and eliminate, where possible, risk to human and environmental health, as well as the liability associated with contaminated sites.

Other smaller initiatives included in these supplementary estimates are $3.4 million to complete the work associated with the Northwest Territories Devolution Agreement; $2.1 million to support the implementation of the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Agreement and Financial Arrangements Agreement, $985,000 of which represents an out-of-court settlement; and with addition of the Glooscap First Nation to the schedule of the Mi'kmaq Education Act, a nominal amount of $14.8 thousand, in addition to the current level of funding, for Mi'kmaq education in Nova Scotia for the delivery of education services to the community.

[Translation]

In closing, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chair, and your colleagues for inviting the department to appear before the committee today and permitting me the time to share information on Supplementary Estimates (B) 2014-15.

My colleagues and I would be happy to respond to any questions and comments that the members of the committee may have pertaining to Supplementary Estimates (B) 2014-15.

The Chair: Mr. Thoppil, thank you very much for your presentation.

[English]

You're living a split personality here with your name. You've been going a long time calling yourselves Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, but legally are you still Indian Affairs and Northern Development? If that's the case, that's why I was looking under Aboriginal Affairs in these estimates and I found them under ''I'' for Indian Affairs.

Mr. Thoppil: That's correct. That's our legal name still.

The Chair: Are you just trying to stay hidden?

Mr. Thoppil: We have nothing to hide, senator.

The Chair: Why don't you get on with the job of calling yourselves one name or the other? I take that as a rhetorical question, then.

Senator Eaton: Good evening, gentlemen. Yesterday, when the Treasury Board was here, they talked about the Aboriginal participation in West Coast energy development. You referred to it yourself tonight, Mr. Thoppil. I asked them and they could not give me the answer. I asked them what that meant.

What will constitute success and effectiveness, in your view, for this wonderful-sounding program, Aboriginal participation and West Coast energy development?

Mr. Thoppil: Thank you, senator, for that question. As you know, this program falls under our Strategic Partnership Initiative program. That started some time ago, but it didn't contemplate the scale of the energy infrastructure projects currently being conceived by the private sector. As you may know, Aboriginal and treaty rights, as recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution, necessitate consultation with communities where projects may adversely affect their potential or established section 35 rights.

Senator Eaton: I guess I'm interested because I think the number is $61 million over five years.

Mr. Thoppil: That's correct.

Senator Eaton: Have you identified the number of economic opportunities? Do you have a number of partnerships established? Do you have a total value of projects and number of Aboriginal communities participating in these projects? How does one account for all this money?

Mr. Thoppil: Well, this is a horizontal initiative, a whole-of-government approach being done in order to engage with the Aboriginal communities on the West Coast. Roughly half of the 203 B.C. Aboriginal groups will be engaged, and there is a certain number also in Aboriginal communities in Alberta.

The funding is going to be used in four areas of activity, which may be helpful in this regard. The first is early and ongoing engagement. Many of the Aboriginal communities impacted by proposed energy projects are small and remote and have limited human and financial resources to engage with industry proponents.

Senator Eaton: Do they come to you, or do you go to them?

Mr. Thoppil: The departments involved engage with the communities to find out what their needs are to develop project proposals that then have to get through a governance committee of senior officials, being led, in part, by our department and the Major Projects Management Office in Vancouver in order to assess these proposals to determine whether they will advance the objectives espoused.

Senator Eaton: I'm sorry. I guess I don't understand what kind of proposals. Do they want a share of what's being done? Do they want jobs? Is it education they're looking for?

Mr. Thoppil: There are four categories, and I was trying to go through them. The first was early ongoing engagement, which permits them to start the dialogue with industry and government to understand what it is, because there is a capacity issue. The proposal is to understand their ability to understand what's going on.

The second is creating jobs and growth in terms of what you just said. As I said, these projects weren't designed to address the scale and scope of the opportunities envisioned, so there is a need for the government to coordinate regional strategic planning with Aboriginal groups, industry, educational institutions, training providers and other levels of government in order to make sure we can capture the opportunities for skills and employment for Aboriginal people there.

The third one is environmental action because, as you know, these Aboriginal groups are uneasy about development.

The fourth one is fish habitat restoration.

Senator Eaton: Fish habitat restoration is something nice and hard and easy to understand. The others are a bit fluey. This is not anything you've said. This is what the department has said. Perhaps you can't do it for me now, but perhaps the next time you come before the committee you could tell us about the actual measures of hard success for this money. How will you look at this and say that you've been successful or that $60 million just went down the drain? You must have some form of accountability.

Mr. Thoppil: That's correct. Performance measures are associated with each project proposal. That will have to be reported through the department's performance report plan, which is tabled in public so you can measure it. There is a series of —

Senator Eaton: Next year you'll be able to tell me what the performance is?

Mr. Thoppil: Based on the projects that have been completed by then, yes, that's true.

On the department's website, we have frequently asked questions related to the program so that people can understand what it's about the benefits going forward.

In the short term, performance measures are attached to each project but ultimately it's the longer term outcomes that we will have to wait to see evolve — how many jobs, the amount of Aboriginal business participation and, quite frankly, the degree of engagement and buy-in by Aboriginal communities for these significant infrastructure projects. It will be some time before we see the evidence associated with this program, as per your point, Senator Eaton.

Senator Eaton: When officials from Canada Mortgage and Housing were here, they talked about many hundreds of millions of dollars, if I'm correct, for Aboriginal housing. Is this the largest item in the supplementary estimates: $40.6 million to fund Operation Return Home. Is that part of the pot for Canada Mortgage and Housing, or is this another pot?

Mr. Thoppil: This is another pot. I'm going to ask my colleague, Scott Stevenson, to respond to that.

Scott Stevenson, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Regional Operations, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: Mr. Chair, as my colleague mentioned, Operation Return Home is to resettle four communities. It involves negotiations for the settlement of outstanding claims and litigation against the federal government and the Government of Manitoba. These specific —

Senator Eaton: You've explained it very well. I don't want to take up more of the committee's time. There are so many pockets where there is Aboriginal funding, so it's interesting to see. It would be fun one day if we had a long horizontal strip with all the pockets of money.

Mr. Stevenson: I'll try to answer the question more specifically. Of this $40 million, planned work for this fiscal year includes site preparation and infrastructure for the community of Lake St. Martin on lands that are above a certain level so they're not subject to flooding. It's the underlying infrastructure for the rebuilding of the community. I don't have the precise detail as whether it includes units of housing, but it does include money for completion of plans for housing and for future community infrastructure to be built over three years.

[Translation]

Senator Chaput: My questions follow on Senator Eaton's. The $40.6 million that you are requesting under vote 10b is for the floods in Manitoba, correct? You are referring to the 2009 floods?

Okay, the 2011 floods. There are still people who have not been able to return to their homes. Last year, some families were still living in hotels. How will the $40.6 million be spent proportionately? We need to look beyond the plans. In practical terms, how are you going to spend the $40.6 million?

[English]

Mr. Stevenson: I will attempt to provide additional information, but I would not be able to provide an exhaustive breakdown of the exact amounts in the specific planned project activities. That information is supplementary information that I could offer to provide subsequently.

The Chair: Why don't you give us what you can now?

Mr. Thoppil: If I may, I'd like to at least talk about what the expected 2014-15 results are envisioned to be, if that helps.

Senator Chaput: I'd rather have the reality than the expectation, sir, if you don't mind.

Mr. Thoppil: That's true. Good point. With the $40.6 million, we'd like to demolish 49 homes for Pinaymootang; start construction of flood mitigation measures; construct a new community road and 50 replacement houses; and, of course, have all those evacuees returned home.

For Dauphin River, we'd like to complete house demolition as required; start constructing a landfill; construct 44 house foundations and move provincially provided housing to these foundations; provide interim water and waste-water servicing; design and tender a new school and new water and waste water treatment facilities; and start the design, planning and tendering of new house construction.

For Little Saskatchewan, we'd like to do complete planning, study, development and tender repairs; design the maintenance garage and fire hall; start the design and planning of new housing construction; complete phase one of housing construction; and design; tender new water and waste-water treatment facilities and waste-water servicing; and design and tender new community roads and a solid waste disposal facility.

For Lake St. Martin, we want a complete community development site; development drainage planning and phase one drainage design; power and phone servicing; flood mitigation measures; demolish 133 houses and other demolition; remove the road dyke; design, tender and begin construction on a new water treatment plant, a sewage lagoon and associated building and piping water and waste water servicing; design a new school; and design a public works garage, fire hall and solid waste disposal. We're doing this in concert with the government of Manitoba.

[Translation]

Senator Chaput: I understand, but when was that plan implemented? And when do you anticipate completing it? How many years does the plan cover?

[English]

Mr. Thoppil: Operation return home is a three-year, $253 million project starting this year.

[Translation]

Senator Chaput: To date, how much money has been given to Manitoba for the 2011 floods? How much money was given specifically for those needs?

[English]

Mr. Stevenson: The total sum of federal money to Manitoba for this flood would include money through the Public Safety Canada disaster assistance arrangements, in addition to funds that we have forwarded. I would undertake to provide that information supplementary to the question.

[Translation]

Senator Chaput: Who else will benefit from this additional amount of $40.6 million? To whom will you give the money to ensure that it is spent wisely?

[English]

Mr. Stevenson: A portion of this would be in a contribution to the Lake St. Martin First Nation, and it would be spent by the Lake St. Martin First Nation for the infrastructure to be built on their reserve.

[Translation]

Senator Chaput: To their association?

Mr. Stevenson: To the First Nation.

Senator Chaput: Not the firefighters?

Mr. Stevenson: No.

Senator Chaput: Who?

Mr. Stevenson: Managing the reserve infrastructure funds is the responsibility of First Nations.

Senator Chaput: I understand, but we are all aware that, a few years ago, Manitobans who received money from the federal government had a very hard time. I do not know what happened, but a lot of complaints were filed, and I am still not convinced that the money was spent according to the standards.

Who will get the $40.6 million so that it is distributed properly and the assistance goes to those who really need it?

Mr. Stevenson: Let me clarify the answer. I think the Lake St. Martin First Nation has third-party management.

[English]

In English, I'd say they're in third-party management, so the funds would be transferred to a third-party manager of their funding agreement.

Senator Chaput: And who is that third-party manager?

Mr. Stevenson: I don't have the name of the particular firm with me.

Senator Chaput: It's a firm?

Mr. Stevenson: Correct.

Senator Chaput: Hired by?

Mr. Stevenson: Hired by contract, by us, funded through the funding agreement between the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the First Nation.

[Translation]

Senator Chaput: The firm and a council will be the managers?

[English]

Mr. Stevenson: I would not want to provide you with an inaccurate answer and would therefore —

Senator Chaput: I understand and I appreciate that.

Mr. Stevenson: Because you've asked to whom does the money flow from these Supplementary Estimates (B). We would identify which contribution agreements they would flow through.

[Translation]

Senator Chaput: Does the department have any idea of the total amount that will be given to the victims of the 2011 floods in Manitoba? What is the total amount?

The Chair: The minister has arrived. The witnesses can leave their places, but we hope that they will stay with us, because we will continue the conversation afterwards. The minister is very busy with other duties, as you know.

[English]

Senator Chaput will continue when we get back. Put away your Supplementary Estimates (B) and take out your Bill C-43.

Mr. Minister, while our colleagues are getting their papers ready, for the purposes of those watching at home and those who are in our audience, I will give some brief introductory remarks.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, this evening we are continuing our study of the subject matter of Bill C-43, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

[English]

We're very pleased to welcome the Honourable Joe Oliver, P.C., M.P., Minister of Finance. The minister is accompanied by two officials from Finance Canada: Paul Rochon, Deputy Minister, and Brian Ernewein, Director General, Tax Policy Branch.

Mr. Minister, thank you for being with us tonight. We've heard from various government officials. In addition to Mr. Ernewein, we have quite a few of them with us here this evening and they've helped us very much. We've been through the bill for a first look. Heather Hickling has been very good in helping to coordinate all the different aspects of this rather major piece of legislation.

Sir, you have the floor.

Hon. Joe Oliver, P.C., M.P., Minister of Finance: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and senators. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance concerning Bill C-43, a second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

I will keep my comments brief to allow for questions for me or for the officials from the Department of Finance who have joined us here today.

The Economic Action Plan 2014 reflects our government's top priority, creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

[Translation]

This is our ninth budget, and in those years, Canada faced an unprecedented challenge: the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of 1929, a recession that destroyed 62 million jobs worldwide.

[English]

Since taking office we have never strayed from our core commitment to creating prosperity for this generation and the next, and our plan is working. Canada survived the great recession and is doing well compared to other developed countries. Canada is alone among the G7 countries to receive the highest possible credit rating from all the major credit rating agencies, which reflects our fiscal strength and contributes to lower borrowing costs.

Since the depths of the downturn, we've created over 1.2 million net new jobs. The Economic Action Plan 2014 builds on our strong record, with actions in areas that drive progress and prosperity, actions to connect Canadians with available jobs, foster job creation, innovation and trade, responsibly develop Canada's immense natural resource wealth, support families and communities and support our export capacity by fostering trade.

Let me give you a few examples of specific initiatives that will make this plan a reality.

[Translation]

First, Mr. Chair, while it is gratifying to highlight Canada's economic accomplishments, we recognize that Canadians face challenges connecting with available jobs. Today's legislation helps address those concerns.

Apprentices in skilled trades do most of their learning during on-the-job, paid employment, and participate in technical training from six to eight weeks each year.

[English]

They can face serious costs for educational fees, tools and equipment, and living expenses. That is why to help connect Canadians with available jobs, we introduced the Canada Apprentice Loan in the first budget bill. This initiative will help apprentices registered in Red Seal trades by providing access to over $100 million in industry loans each year to complete their training.

Given that the parameters of the Canada Apprentice Loan program are similar to those of the Canada Students Loan Program, we believe that both programs should benefit from the same treatment. Specifically, Bill C-43 proposes that the Income Tax Act be amended to extend a non-refundable tax credit available for interest payments on loans approved under the Canada Student Loans Program to interest paid on the Canada Apprentice Loan.

Second, Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn your attention to a measure that will promote job creation through enhancing trade. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Canada has built what the National Post has called a ''free-trade empire''. We've gone from five free trade agreements in 2006 to 43 deals today, which is a remarkable achievement. More than that, we've taken a wide range of actions to reduce taxes for families and businesses, improve the regulatory environment, promote competitiveness and strengthen the financial sector.

Today's legislation builds on this foundation by reducing barriers to the international and domestic flow of goods and services.

Harmonizing Canada's intellectual property regime with international norms will help improve Canadian access to international markets, lower costs and attract foreign investment by reducing the regulatory burden and red tape.

[Translation]

Economic Action Plan 2014 proposes to modernize Canada's intellectual property framework by ratifying or acceding widely recognized international treaties: the Madrid Protocol, the Singapore Treaty, the Nice Agreement, the Patent Law Treaty and the Hague Agreement. The government has tabled these treaties in Parliament, and Bill C-43 will complete the amendments to the Patent Act, Trade-marks Act and Industrial Design Act to better align Canada's intellectual property framework with international practices.

[English]

Third, let me touch on the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation equipment.

Canada is emerging as an energy superpower. Canada is increasingly looked to as a secure and dependable supplier of a wide range of energy products. Since 2006, our government has taken action to establish our country as a clean energy leader globally, including through: regulatory actions; investments in technology and innovation; and broad-based incentives.

In 2013, we encouraged businesses to invest in new clean energy technologies, by expanding the types of organic waste that can be used in qualifying biogas production equipment and the range of qualifying equipment that can be used to treat gases from waste.

Today's legislation builds on these actions, by expanding eligibility for the accelerated CCA for clean energy generation equipment, to include water-current energy equipment and a broader range of equipment used to gasify eligible waste.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is also about people — about hard-working Canadians who need to pay their bills and look after their families. I can assure this committee that our government is working to help them fulfill their obligations and achieve their goals through a host of initiatives.

[Translation]

For example, we have a strong record of responding to the needs of consumers in the telecom market. Since the last auction of wireless spectrum in 2008, prices have fallen by almost 20 per cent, and jobs in the wireless industry have increased by 25 per cent.

Today's legislation builds on this record by proposing to amend the Telecommunications Act and Broadcasting Act to prohibit service providers from charging their subscribers to receive bills in paper form — fulfilling a commitment in the 2013 Speech from the Throne to end ''pay to pay'' billing practices.

[English]

We are also proposing to amend the Telecommunications Act and the Radiocommunication Act to provide the CRTC and Industry Canada with the power to impose administrative monitory penalties on companies that violate established rules, such as the Wireless Code and rules related to deployment of spectrum, services to rural areas and tower sharing.

Legislative amendments will be proposed to enhance information sharing by the CRTC and Industry Canada, with organizations such as the Competition Bureau, which will benefit consumers; permit the CRTC to impose conditions on service providers that are not carriers, such as resellers, to help ensure that all consumers can benefit, no matter which provider they choose; clarify the prohibitions against violating Industry Canada's spectrum auction rules, to ensure fair and competitive bidding; and clarify the prohibitions against the manufacture, sale or use of jamming devices, to protect consumers.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to quickly highlight a couple of other important initiatives. They would amend the Employment Insurance Act to refund a portion of EI premiums paid by small businesses whose premiums were $15,000, or less in 2015 and/or 2016, saving 90 per cent of all businesses $550 million; and amend the Canada Marine Act to permit the government to develop regulations to a specific project on federal port lands.

[Translation]

Mr. Chair, as I have noted today, Economic Action Plan 2014 contains a host of benefits for all Canadians.

Through this comprehensive and ambitious plan, we will pursue strategies that made us so resilient in the first place: responsibility, discipline and determination.

[English]

This act marks an important milestone in creating a brighter future for our country. I urge you to help us get this legislation passed, so that we can continue working to create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for all Canadians. Thank you. I'd be very pleased to answer your questions.

The Chair: Minister, thank you very much. I can assure you that we're doing everything we can in the Senate to help move this legislation along and to make sure that what we do pass doesn't have any unforeseen difficulties with it. We're doing a pre-study of the bill, as you know, at the present time which means that we haven't even received the bill yet in final form from the House of Commons. But, we're studying it already. We thank you very much for coming along to help us out in that regard.

Senator Bellemare: Thank you, minister, for being here. It is a privilege for us.

[Translation]

I have a macroeconomic question. It is true that Canada is very resilient, thanks to all the action plans, but particularly thanks to the action plan based on infrastructure during the great recession of 2008. We have nonetheless navigated this crisis successfully but, as you say, there is still underemployment.

Our economic strategy is very much based on the export markets, and we have ratified a number of free trade agreements. You attended the G20 meeting with the Prime Minister; you also met with your counterparts in September 2014. It seems that Canada is pleased with how recent G20 discussions went; many countries made commitments then to stimulate their economic growth. This will be beneficial for Canada, given our openness to the world.

Could you tell us what the finance ministers of other countries intend to do in their financial approach to stimulate their economy? And are you optimistic that this will work?

Mr. Oliver: We play a leadership role within the G20 because, along with India, we share the responsibility for organizing, managing and creating specific plans to achieve the objective that we have set for the 20 countries; in other words, increasing growth by two per cent in five years, the outcome of which would be a $2-billion increase in GDP. The 20 countries have put forward more than 1,000 individual initiatives.

The most important projects are the ones that address structural problems, which include amending regulations related to employment, social programs, free trade, and barriers to competitiveness. These projects are very detailed. If all the projects develop as we hope they will, we will achieve this result. Obviously, that is not at all a guarantee.

There are dangers and some fragility within the global economy. Europe, in particular, does not have any, or has very little, economic growth, and its inflation rate is very low, as well. The growth rate in China, which was 10 per cent, is now a little over 7 per cent. Brazil is also having difficulty.

So there are dangers. Fortunately, the United States is starting to see a fairly sustainable economic growth, and according to some international organizations, Canada will also see stronger growth than other countries. That is a summary analysis, but it means that the Canadian economy is on the right track. Of course, the global economy and geopolitical problems always pose a danger.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Welcome, Mr. Minister. My question is complementary to the one about free trade agreements. In the budget, do you plan to set aside money for exports to support small- and medium-sized businesses? What is the total number of agreements that have been signed to increase or decrease the Canadian fiscal deficit?

Mr. Oliver: I do not have specific numbers. Obviously, it is essential for Canada, since 20 per cent of Canadian workers are employed in this sector. Half of Canada's GDP comes from exports. We have a bilateral trade relationship with the United States, and it constitutes the most significant trade relationship in the world, but 90 per cent of global growth in the next 25 years will come from developing countries. Creating agreements with other countries, such as China, for example, is essential.

The problems in Europe are real; but from another perspective, it is the largest economy in the world that has a GDP of $17 billion. Clearly, this is an advantage for large Canadian corporations, as well as for small Canadian businesses, which have the opportunity to export tariff-free.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: It would be good to have a monitoring process. I started looking at the number of agreements that have been signed, as well as Canada's performance with respect to exports. I must say, Mr. Minister — and I am talking about the number of countries, not the quantity — that aside from the United States and a few other countries, we are in very serious deficit compared with most of the countries we have signed new agreements with. It is therefore important to have support.

My second question is about youth employment.

Mr. Oliver: Perhaps I did not understand correctly, but you said that we are in deficit. What sort of deficit?

[English]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: A deficit with all the other free trade agreements we have signed. Besides the United States and a few other countries, in most of the other countries we are not winners; we are in a deficit position. What mechanisms are we putting in place to make sure that we have the proper staff and support to the small- and medium-sized businesses. The big ones like Bombardier don't need a lot of support from government, but the smaller ones really need some coaching.

The figures I have from different departments are that we should do better. Signing an agreement is a good thing, but having a benefit would be a better thing.

I don't expect you to give me the figures tonight, but if we can have access to them, it would be very much appreciated.

[Translation]

I have one last question about youth employment.

The Chair: Later; I will put you on the list for the second round.

[English]

Senator L. Smith: Sir, as you look at the global opportunities and risks, what's our biggest opportunity that will push Canada to new heights, and what is the biggest risk that we face?

Mr. Oliver: Let me deal with the risk first. That's easier to identify. The risk is external. It's that Europe goes into a deflationary spiral and some of the developing countries continue to decline. That volatility in the markets, which reflects a higher risk appetite, comes to grief and would destabilize financial markets. I'm not predicting that at all, but if you want to look at what would be disruptive, it would be that kind of thing.

The geopolitical risks are also fairly clear. Russian incursion in the Ukraine has resulted in sanctions being imposed on Russia. We very much are supportive of an independent, sovereign Ukraine that is free from foreign incursion and influence, but sanctions do have an impact, often on those imposing it.

We're not terribly affected. There has been some impact on agriculture, on pork in particular, but Europe is a different story because Europe imports about 35 per cent of its gas from Russia and in some cases of other countries it's 100 per cent. That is having an impact. It has already had an impact on German growth, as one example, and, of course, they're the big engine for growth. That's just one example.

So those are the kinds of risks. That's why it's so absolutely critical that we remain fiscally strong to be able to survive the shocks. We came out of the last recession quite well. There are a number of reasons for that. One of them was a very strong banking system. The World Economic Forum said for the seventh year in a row that it's the most stable in the world. That's a very good thing. Our natural resources are another strength, and the fact we had a robust but responsible fiscal approach to the downturn and now have emerged from the recession in good shape, a Triple A rating with a stable outlook, the best the one can achieve and the largest country to have it.

In terms of opportunities, I mentioned our natural resources. Provided we can get our resources to tidewater, we have enormous opportunities. In fact, we have some risks, too. On the energy side, 99 per cent of our oil exports and 100 per cent of our gas exports are to the United States. They've found vast amounts of their own resources. They're going to diminish as a customer and become a competitor, actually, in some respects. We have to find alternative markets, but they exist in those countries that are going to represent 90 per cent of the growth over the next 25 years. We just have to deliver. It's an enormous opportunity. That's one area.

We're influenced obviously by the United States because we trade $2 billion every day with the U.S. —We see every indication that this is solid. It's not as robust as it was before the recession, I should tell you, but it looks very sustainable. As the U.S. continues to grow, companies that have been sitting on cash will start using the cash that they're getting very low interest rates on. If they have the confidence that the market is there, they'll start expanding. That will start creating jobs. We've been waiting for it for some time.

We can't rely on one month, even on two, but when the numbers are very big, it indicates something. In the last two months, we were 43,000 and in the month before that 74,000 in new jobs. That's clearly a reflection of the U.S. growth and more confidence in Canada. Hopefully it will continue, but probably not at those levels. I'm not predicting any month, but we're hopeful that our growth will continue to increase. We see opportunities increasingly for the manufacturing sector, as well.

Senator Wells: Thank you, minister, for appearing, and your colleagues as well.

The things that you have been talking about that have been the foundation of Canada's success and our projected plan, which is the value of the Canadian dollar, the price of oil, all these are moving targets. The results of the projected free trade agreements — obviously CETA is not yet in force and the TPP is not yet in force — these moving targets will have a great effect on our economy. How can we be confident that we're on the right path with these moving targets that will have such a great effect on us, either positively or negatively?

Mr. Oliver: Well, I do want to go back to Business Development Canada to partially answer the question, but let me try to address your question directly.

When we move forward with CETA, we're moving forward with the largest economy in the world — as I said, $17 trillion. This is going to have, we believe, a very significant impact on our exports. We also will have the advantage, as consumers, of getting products more inexpensively. This is going to benefit in a number of ways.

Free trade is a very positive development, as I think almost all economists would agree, particularly for a country like Canada, which is a small market globally. It's particularly important.

Of course, with our excess natural resources, we simply don't need all the resources we've got and we're in the very fortunate position of being able to sell them. When you think about a country like Korea which has to import 97 per cent of its energy and here we are with excess energy that we could sell, this is a very good thing.

Prices are volatile in the commodity area, and that impacts how much we benefit, but when you take an intermediate and longer-term picture — which, of course, government has to do — it's very clear that with global growth energy demands will increase. We're looking for a 35 per cent increase in energy demand over the next 25 years or so, and fossil fuels will continue to be a big proportion of that, anywhere from two thirds to three quarters. There are different estimates. These aren't our estimates; they're estimates, let's say, from the International Energy Agency.

As government, one has to move beyond the immediate price and the immediate volatility and look at what the potential will be. We're affected in the short term, but it's the longer-term that determines the future, so we're comfortable we're on the right track. We're maintaining competitiveness for the country. We're keeping taxes low to attract and retain capital. We're opening up markets. We're open for business. Any foreign investment, of course, has to be a net benefit to Canada, but if it meets that test, the capital is welcome. In fact, just in the energy sector alone we're going to need $650 billion over the next 10 years to finance the various energy projects and, of course, there are many others.

Canada, of course, presents itself very positively. It's viewed very positively around the world. It's a stable, democratic country with a competitive tax regime that doesn't discriminate against foreign companies and has all sorts of very attractive energy and non-energy projects. We've got a highly educated workforce and we're open for business. This is all very positive.

[Translation]

Senator Chaput: Good evening, Mr. Minister. Lately, on Parliament Hill, we have been seeing university students who have been informing parliamentarians of the needs of students. They have a very interesting proposal, Mr. Minister. They are suggesting that, if the federal government were to use all the money that is currently set aside to help university students — be it tax cuts or loans — the total would be enough to give them non-repayable grants every year. They are convinced that the government and the students would benefit. The students would be less stressed, and this would encourage them to finish their university studies, without it costing the government a penny.

I am not asking for your opinion, but I would suggest you pay attention to them, if you could find some time for them. Their proposal was explained very well in a pamphlet. It is really well-developed, and very interesting.

Mr. Oliver: I have heard about these students' request. I have not had the opportunity to look at it, but I will.

Senator Mockler: Last night, at the agriculture and forestry committee, we heard from major industries, processors, producers and representatives in the grain industry. They told us that they were pleased with the new agreements that Canada was in the process of signing and the leadership Canada has shown around the world. As you mentioned, Mr. Minister, we have gone from six to 43 new agreements.

[English]

Canada is well positioned because we have the four ''Fs'' and the country that has the four ''Fs'' will succeed: food, fuel, fertilizer and forestry. We have those in abundance. My question to the minister is this: If we continue to develop our natural resources, what impact will it continue to have on the economic development of Canada within the G7 countries?

Mr. Oliver: Well, a great impact. It's interesting that you mention fertilizer as we're number one in the world in the production of potash. We're a huge forestry industry country. We're number three in the world in the production of oil and gas. I don't know what the numbers are for agriculture, but they're obviously pretty big.

The thing to note, certainly I know on the energy side, is that these have become high-tech industries. It's not like we're hewers of wood and drawers of water.

Take the oil sands as an example, which is the bulk of our oil. People knew forever that it was there. Aboriginal peoples used to use the oil for their canoes as it seeped out of the ground and the rivers. You knew it was there, but you couldn't do anything about it. Then you figured out a way to get it out, but it was too expensive. Then oil prices went up, the costs went down and, all of a sudden, something that was worth nothing became worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Of course, the technology continues to reduce the environmental impact and cost.

It's the same in agriculture and forestry, where the use of different forest products is changing the world.

We know that a billion people on the globe are without electricity and another billion and a quarter or so have an insecure access to electricity. No country can emerge from poverty without affordable energy. There are enormous opportunities for Canada, which in no way denigrates the science, the technology, the innovation and the high-tech industries that are also key to the future. This is Canada's century; we just have to go about it with determination and intelligence.

The Chair: We'll try to keep it to one question each as I want to respect the minister's time and availability. I would propose that we get all the questions on the record. If the minister can answer them quickly, that's great; but, if not, we will ask for a written reply.

Mr. Oliver: If you would permit me, there was one thing I wanted to add when we talked about how businesses can be helped to expand abroad. I want to make a comment about the Business Development Bank of Canada, which currently assists Canadian small- and medium-sized businesses that want to expand beyond their domestic market. They can only offer their financing to the parent company, which is located in Canada. Businesses can expand coast to coast to coast in Canada, but they're limited when it comes to expanding beyond Canada's shores. Bill C-43 will allow BDC to help finance an SME subsidiary in a foreign country and support its access to the global value chains. It will help all SMEs in Canada expand beyond Canada's borders.

The bill will also help small businesses expand into international markets and will help foreign investment in Canada by adhering to the Patent Law Treaty and the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs. That should standardize and simplify the administrative process when Canadian companies apply for a patent, and so on.

I wanted to mention that as I should have raised it in reply to your question.

The Chair: We appreciate that clarification, Mr. Minister.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: You just said that you met with the finance ministers in Europe in September. You told them that they should create a strategy similar to the one adopted in Canada, through infrastructure and investment projects. If all of Europe did that, it would greatly stimulate its economy. Do you think that the European countries will do it and be capable of borrowing? I know that it is complicated because of the euro, but it would certainly be a very interesting avenue for the world.

Mr. Oliver: Infrastructure was the focus of discussions. It is a problem for some countries that are not financially able to spend a lot of money. They have debt, and it is difficult for them to borrow money. It is possible for some countries, like Germany, but there is a kind of tension about the best fiscal approach for Europe and each country. The countries are different in terms of financial capacity and current growth. However, for Canada, support for public infrastructure has never been so solid, and the new Building Canada plan is the largest infrastructure plan in the country's history. It provides $70 billion in funding over 10 years, including $53 billion that will be transferred to the provinces and municipalities so that they can choose which projects to implement. We understand the importance of this. This is a huge task for China and India, the two largest countries in the world. It is a more complicated matter for Europe, but urgent, all the same.

[English]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I will speak in English and maybe you can answer today.

Last year, students were complaining that there were not enough jobs for them to supplement their bursaries or loans. Without a job, they create debts. If they have no job when they graduate, what will their future be? Do you have something specific in the budget that I have not seen which would support students so we have true jobs in small businesses, medium businesses and government places, so that next summer will be fruitful for our students?

The Chair: Senator Mockler, do you want to put your question on the record as well?

Senator Mockler: Absolutely, chair.

In talking about natural resources, Mr. Minister, even though I know that in spite of Maude Barlow coming to New Brunswick trying to convince New Brunswickers to say no to the West-East pipeline, she has not succeeded because a great majority of New Brunswickers support the pipeline. In your experience, can you tell us the benefits of that pipeline in Eastern Canada bringing oil to the biggest refinery in New Brunswick, Irving Oil?

The Chair: In Saint John, New Brunswick.

Mr. Oliver: I'd be happy to do so. Let me start with the question on youth unemployment. This is a real issue. Too many unemployed young Canadians are still looking for work. Happily, the decline in youth unemployment rates in some cases reflects young individuals leaving the workforce to concentrate on school. However, we know the rate is about double that of the population overall, although it's coming down. There is this problem of the Catch-22: You can't get a job because you don't have experience; you don't have experience because you can't get a job. The government has recognized this challenge and we're trying to help Canadians get the skills and experience they need.

We've taken a number of steps. We've invested over $10 billion annually in institutions, research and financial support for students and their families. We're introducing the apprenticeship incentive and completion grants to encourage apprenticeship training, which is crucial. We're introducing the Flexibility and Innovation in Apprenticeship Technical Training pilot project, which would expand the use of innovative projects to technical training. We're investing over $360 million in the Youth Employment Strategy. That will provide skills, development and work experience for youth at risk, summer students and recent post-secondary graduates. We're introducing the Pathways to Education Canada program to help youth in low-income communities to complete their post-secondary studies, to name a few.

When asked to acknowledge some cultural impediments — I put that as a broad comment — there are jobs in certain sectors and regions that are going wanting, and companies are looking desperately in some cases for skilled workers. They can't find them. Yet in other communities the youth unemployment rate is very high. Part of it is because they don't have the matching skills, so that's what we're trying to deal with. The other part is they sometimes just don't want to move. I've talked to businesses in Saskatchewan outside the major centres. They need skilled workers and unskilled workers. The jobs are there, but people don't want to move. That's one issue.

Another cultural issue is that a lot of parents like their kids go to university and sometimes they look down on skilled trades, which they should not do. There are opportunities for a lot of youth to get into skilled trades, earn very solid incomes, reliable, good quality jobs where they derive a lot of satisfaction and are able to bring up families and have a good standard of living, but they've taken a different route and it's hard to find employment. One can't snap one's finger and change that. It's up to people in a free, democratic country, but it is part of the issue going forward. That's why we have this Temporary Foreign Worker Program. We're determined to give priority to Canadians first, but there are a lot of people out there who would be happy to come to Canada to work in jobs that Canadians don't seem to want. It's an issue.

On the West-East pipeline, it's the opportunity for oil to come from northern Alberta to Eastern Canada, to the refineries in Quebec City, Montreal and Saint John. In Saint John, of course, we have the biggest refinery in the country, the Irving refinery. This would create jobs, economic activity, taxes for provincial governments and the federal government to support critical social programs. It would also provide energy at a potentially lower cost.

It's sort of paradoxical that we have all this energy in the west, yet there are tankers going up the St. Lawrence from North Africa and the North Sea providing oil to Quebec. The reason that's happening is it's been less expensive to do it. That's why, but that isn't necessarily the case any longer. There is also an issue on security of supply. It makes sense, if there is an economic way to do it, for Canadians to use Canadian resources and to have the jobs created in Canada.

I can't support a specific project when it's under regulatory review, but in principle it makes a great deal of sense for us to get our oil to tidewater, to export the oil we don't need, and to potentially use it in parts of the country that so far don't have access to it.

The Chair: Mr. Minister, the time that we had allotted and you've been able to make available to us has expired. On behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, I'd like to thank you and your team very much for being here.

When I introduced Mr. Ernewein and Mr. Rochon along with you, Mr. Oliver, I did not introduce Mr. Rob Stewart, for which I apologize. He's the Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch at Finance Canada. I appreciate all of you being here to help us with not an insignificant amount of material in this bill of 460 pages.

Colleagues, we will ask Fisheries and Oceans Canada to give their presentation and then we'll have questions. I still have some names from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on my list and I will go to that list, as well as any others. We will have to restrict everybody's question to one fulsome question, because we only have 15 minutes left.

From Fisheries and Oceans Canada, we welcome Marty Muldoon, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer; Kevin Stringer, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management; and Michel Vermette, Deputy Commissioner, Vessel Procurement. We were talking about vessel procurement a while back.

I understand that you have a brief statement, and then we'll go into questions and answers. Will that be you, Mr. Muldoon?

Marty Muldoon, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Yes, sir. Thank you very much for asking Fisheries and Oceans to appear here this evening. I've prepared very brief remarks. It won't take long. We would like to spend as much time as you would like to go through any questions the committee may have.

If you have the presentation, I'll skip right past slide 2 as I say to you that Supplementary Estimates (B) are the first time this year that Fisheries and Oceans is approaching Parliament for any augmentation in our authorities.

I'll move to slide 3 and point out a couple of pertinent facts about what the supplementary estimates contain for us. It's a very small amount in operating. The vast majority is in capital at $123.3 million. It's kind of an important storyline given that this department is one of the largest capital holders in the government, outside of perhaps a department the size of National Defence.

The table extracted here is made of information that's familiar to the committee that's contained in the supplementary estimates. You would find it easily on page 1-12 and 2-39.

The point of this slide is just to get at the fact that the totality of our Supplementary Estimates (B) is $178 million. They're made up of the three components there, as well as the statutory amounts that are, as you know, not voted.

I'll move to the crux of the presentation and end quickly following that on slide 4.

These are the key items, just to give you a flavour for what the organization is bringing in through these supplementary estimates. The first item at $32.2 million is known as the Pacific or Atlantic Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiatives, and these are monies that help First Nations fishing enterprises integrate into commercial fisheries and for those First Nations to participate in fisheries management decisions.

The next item on our list at $17.8 million is a program that has been quite successful and widespread across the country in assisting small craft harbour, the core fishing harbours across the nation, with essential development. It's either through construction of wharves, maintenance to those wharves, repairs, dredging activities or whatever it may be that is required for that fishery to remain as a commercially viable fishery.

This funding is first of two years of $40 million over two years approved in Budget 2014. I should have mentioned that so is the AICFI and PICFI amounts as I note in this category.

The last item is an augmentation to a program we've been a lot of having success with for the restoration of fisheries habitats, and it's called the Recreational Fisheries Conservation Partnerships Program. In 2013-14 we had $5 million and it was supposed to be another $5 million in 2014-15. These supplementary estimates will augment this year's amount by doubling it from $5 million to $10 million, and then it adds a third year for a $10 million increase — sorry not in these sups, but we will see a $10 million increase in 2015-16. That program will run at $5 million, $10 million and $10 million over those three fiscal years. We should see about 385 fishery rehabilitation projects or rather fish habitat restoration projects through that initiative.

The big item in our supplementary estimates, and I go back to this being capital-intensive sups for us, is the Coast Guard fleet renewal. Here we see $78.8 million, and this covers three big dimensions for us. There will be $63.6 million dedicated towards the offshore fisheries science vessels. These three vessels that we are in the process of gearing up to procure through the Vancouver shipyard project under the National Shipbuilding Strategy will support essential science work to sustainable development in our oceans and fisheries management.

The second item under this is $9.5 million, which is what we call our horizontal engineering and procurement planning. It's a joint expenditure initiative to help the Vancouver shipyard basically find its sea legs and get going as a production facility.

Finally, the third item that makes up the $78.8 million is $5.9 million for refitting our largest icebreaker called the Louis S. St-Laurent. That refit is essential now that we know our polar class icebreaker project will be delayed for a number of years, so refitting the Louis S. St-Laurent will allow her to remain in service until 2021.

I'll end with the last two items, the light helicopter project. You're probably well aware we have a nearly half a billion dollar major capital initiative to replace our light-duty, medium-duty and to introduce our polar class helicopters into the renewal of the fleet for the Coast Guard. In this first instalment here, this $20.6 million we're bringing in, we will see the delivery of our first light-duty helicopter, the first of 15, and we'll get a number of essential design and program preparatory costs behind us, as well as the building put in place for the simulator that will be used for training purposes on all of the helicopters that will come off the assembly over the next number of years.

The last item on here is $7.1 million for the project known as the defining of the outer limits, which basically is mapping the sea in the Arctic. In this particular project, it's just simply a timing issue. We were putting a rather significantly large 20-metre long camera or multi-beam sonar in the belly of the Louis S. St-Laurent and we undertook work that in this fiscal year rather than the last. It's just a timing issue. The work was done successfully, and the Louis S. St-Laurent is at sea and, thankfully, isn't leaking, so we're in good shape.

Just ending on slide 5 with a quick reference that we have a relatively modest small number of transfers in and out. They're listed in great detail in the supplementary estimates, and I'm sure if there are questions we can get to those.

Last, I thank you for the time to make these remarks, and I know my colleagues and I are happy to entertain any questions you may have.

The Chair: Mr. Muldoon, thank you very much. That report you've given us is very helpful. We were following the pages 2-39 and following in the supplementary estimates to see what all these figures were that you were talking about.

Honourable senators, I will go first to the list that was left over from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. If your question has somehow escaped you over the past half hour or so, I would understand why.

Senator L. Smith: Mr. Thoppil, following up on Senator Chaput's question and Senator Eaton's, you'll notice there was some sensitivity when we talked about housing with First Nations. The press has been very vocal in the last couple of years about the quality of some of the homes.

I think we all read with great interest, out of the $40.6 million which will go to the operation return home Manitoba program, you said that, together with First Nations in the province of Manitoba, the Government of Canada is working towards a recovery that will see all 2011 flooding evacuees return to safe, secure homes or permanent long-term accommodation.

The sensitivity is due to the fact that there's significant money through programs such as this, and of course I think there's a $300 million program you have also that you put into special investments in housing throughout First Nations. The frustration may be whether that money is being put to the proper use to get the proper facilities to house First Nations people.

When we had the CMHC people in, we asked who demands the guarantees from the local First Nations folks to ensure the quality going into these homes. To be honest with you, the answer was, ''We don't know.''

If you originate money through third parties such as CMHC, who handles some of these monies that go into First Nations housing, there would appear to be an opportunity to develop a check system to ensure that all of that money is being properly utilized. I think that might have been some of the sensitivity that we had. We see this as an opportunity for a management practice that could be improved. We're not criticizing people, because it's a maze, but we suggest that if this is an issue, it may be an opportunity. Maybe you could comment on that.

Mr. Thoppil: I can comment in a couple of ways.

First of all, I think that your commentary actually is also a reflection of a recent internal audit on the issue whereby there needs to be an improved coordination between the department and CMHC on the issue of inspections, and the department is committed to get that coordination right related to that. I think, senator, you're quite correct in pointing that out. That is as a result of our ongoing internal audit and evaluation procedures on all our programs and they're trying to strengthen the department's internal procedures.

I do want to comment on the accomplishments, though, because it is easy to focus on the issues that we don't get right or maybe perceived to not be right. On housing, we have done a lot of work on that, $1.3 billion worth since 2006 in housing on First Nations. There are about 11,364 new units and 21,212 renovations on houses that we have done. I want to put it all in perspective whereby, yes, we have to continue to improve. That is always the department's focus on efficiencies and effectiveness and getting our processes right. The internal audit practice within our department has pointed to that, as you have rightly said. I also want to note that we are still committed to improving the housing lot. I think the track record of what we have done since 2006 speaks to that.

Senator L. Smith: Do you have another measurement besides the number of homes or total investment dollars? Is there a percentage of completion so that you know that 70 or 80 per cent of these houses, or even a higher number, have passed or exceeded expectations so the general public will know that the biggest percentage of success is in the quality that exists as opposed to maybe some minimal numbers that don't have that quality? Do you know, besides the number of dollars spent, the success rate or the measurement you've been able to ascertain of the success of these types of investments?

Mr. Thoppil: Are you talking about post-completion and then its life-cycle maintenance afterwards?

Senator L. Smith: No. I'm talking about the quality of the homes that have been built.

Mr. Thoppil: I don't have access to that type of information.

Senator L. Smith: I think for us, and for the public, it could be a great sales tool for you folks to have, because you're spending huge amounts of dollars. Knowing that we're doing it right would probably be a great communication tool for your department and others.

As a business person, for me the first thing is, if you've spent money, have you done it right and do you have the right results? You can spend $100 billion, but if $90 billion of it has not been spent properly because of the lack of execution, then you may have wasted money. It's just a thought.

Mr. Thoppil: Thank you very much, senator, for the constructive suggestion.

The Chair: Senator Smith's question was prompted by a question from Senator Chaput.

You have the floor, if you had another follow-up question on that.

Senator Chaput: Senator Smith said it so well.

[Translation]

I would like to know how many First Nations individuals have not yet been able to return home. Do you know how many First Nations individuals have not yet returned to their homes or to their communities?

Mr. Stevenson: Is this after the 2011 floods in Manitoba?

Senator Chaput: Yes, we are talking about the 2011 floods in Manitoba.

Mr. Stevenson: In Manitoba, after the 2011 floods, I think there were 1,762 people.

Senator Chaput: To date?

Mr. Stevenson: No, those are the most recent figures from October, but I could get you more specific data.

Senator Chaput: Roughly what percentage is that?

Mr. Stevenson: There are some communities where all the residents have already returned home. In the Pinemutang community, there is only one person who has not yet returned, but for the Lake St. Martin community, none of the residents have returned home.

[English]

Senator Oh: Your department is requesting $38.2 million for the construction of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station. How much work has been done? Are the drawings completed? Has any contract been awarded? How long will it take to construct?

Mr. Thoppil: I'll ask Stephen Van Dine, who is responsible for that area in our department, to respond to your question.

Stephen Van Dine, Director General, Northern Strategic Policy Branch, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: Thank you for your question. Construction has begun. We began this summer in August when the Prime Minister was touring the North on his seventh tour in the region. We are looking for a completion of the facility in time for Canada's one hundred and fiftieth anniversary on July 1, 2017. That's the construction time.

In terms of what benefits are occurring today, I'll just look to some references here.

The $29 million in capital funds that we have noted here are for construction and the purchase of the land for the facility. We've started construction. We have an interim land arrangement that allowed us to do that. We have $8.2 million for the operations and implementation of a science and technology program which began this past summer. This includes $1.7 million for the Polar Continental Shelf Program with our colleagues at Natural Resources Canada. About $1 million is set for delivery of the science and technology program in grants and contributions money going out to other science institutions.

In terms of job creation, during the construction we are estimating about 150 people will be employed locally and across the North, and in more specialized sectors elsewhere in the country. We've gone with a construction management approach which has allowed us to break down the size of the project into smaller bid packages. The benefit of the smaller bid packages is to allow more local companies to be able to take advantage of the opportunity that's there.

To date, we have 15 work packages that have been tendered and awarded for a total of approximately $30 million. Over 60 per cent of the value of the work will be undertaken by Inuit-owned or Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, NTI, registered firms. These are article 26 benefits under the Nunavut land claim agreement.

Once operational, we're envisioning about 30 to 50 full-time scientists and support staff will be based in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, and other positions may be supported through local contracts for maintenance, catering and snow removal.

That gives you a bit of a picture.

Senator Oh: Is this going to be a future international scientific research centre?

Mr. Van Dine: We're very excited. It's going to be a world-class science facility for Canada. We are having the world knock on our door today to participate in science and technology programming, which we've started. We're looking at international partnerships.

Bill C-43 has a particular proposal in there for the governance component of this facility, which we can talk about in the appropriate time. We've briefed some of your colleagues in the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources on that particular proposal.

Yes, it's a world-class facility. We're very excited. There's lots of international interest in working with Canada.

Senator Oh: This building will be on top of the world.

Mr. Van Dine: It will be on top of an important part of the world, yes.

The Chair: I'm going to propose that we go with two senators. You can make note of the first question and go on to the second. I have two groups of two, so four senators total. We've run out of time, but I would like to get their questions on the record. If you can answer them quickly, that's great. If not, if you could provide us with a written answer, that would be equally good.

[Translation]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: First, I would like to know why this falls under your department. Second, there is an item of $9.9 million for the provision of documents to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I heard at one point that some Aboriginal people did not want the documents to be made public. I would like to know what the relationship is between this expense and these documents, and the fact that, apparently, some people who testified before the commission had been promised that the files would be destroyed. It would seem that this matter was not entirely resolved. So I would like to know if this relates to the documents of the residents who took part in the commission.

[English]

Senator Eaton: Could you send the committee a breakdown of the $32.2 million for the Pacific and Atlantic Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiatives with First Nations? It would be nice to know how the money is going. How is it spent?

The Chair: It would be nice if you could answer both those questions with a ''yes.''

Mr. Thoppil: I could respond to the first question, if you want.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission can only take documents in a digitized form. There are over 60,000 boxes of documents at the Library and Archives in documents that have to be converted into a digital format before they can take it, and 7.2 next year. Then it's done.

Senator Wells: Thank you, gentlemen. I have a question for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans gentlemen on AICFI and PICFI. I note that AICFI — this is the Atlantic Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiative — started in 2007 and was a four-year program at $55 million. The concept of an initiative is to begin something. There's a request now for $32 million in Budget 2014. Is that for, I'm guessing, one year? Will the financial obligations for this initiative continue into the future and is this part of Canada's obligation on some sort of social engineering for First Nations fisheries? Could you give some explanation around that, please?

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: My question is for the official from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and has to do with the funds set aside for meeting Canada's obligations in implementing the land claims agreements in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and in Quebec. The amount is $4.8 million. I would like to know, in writing, exactly what that is about. In the case of Quebec, I would like to know how that amount is allocated. Is it given to the government or to the community as well?

Senator Mockler: My question is for the official from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. I have three quick questions.

First, how many employees does your department have? How many employees in your department are Aboriginal or from the First Nations? How many Aboriginal employees in your department, percentage-wise, hold executive positions?

[English]

The Chair: Are any of those questions questions you would like to answer now, or would you like to undertake to provide us with them?

Mr. Thoppil: I'm here, so I want to be responsive. If you have a few minutes, I'd like to respond.

In terms of the question with regard to the Yukon and Quebec, there are a number of boards that are associated with implementation, and this funding is a renewal of funding for these boards. In terms of the one in Quebec, which the senator has asked for, it's actually to support the operations of the Cree-Naskapi Commission, so it's very specific. It's related to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. In terms of the boards in the Yukon, there's a series of them, which I mentioned in my opening remarks, such as the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board.

In terms of employees, I will say that I can only give you the gross figure; our planning figure for this year is 4,700 FTEs, full-time equivalents, but I don't have the breakdown of the Aboriginal component. I will say that it is a priority of the deputy minister to increase the Aboriginal component. We are already above the public service percentage for Aboriginals, as we should be, but, quite frankly, we need to be a leader within the public service for Aboriginal hiring. While we're already above the public service participation rate, the desire and priority of the deputy minister is to make that even more significant.

Mr. Muldoon: We're happy to answer the AICFI-PICFI questions, the two parts raised, if you will.

The Chair: You can do that fairly quickly?

Kevin Stringer, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: We'll provide some information quickly.

It was started, as the senator pointed out, in 2007. It was a five-year program. It's been renewed once. It's now renewed for two years, so it's $22 million over two years. The objective really is creating self-sustainable, commercial fishing enterprises in First Nations that are integrated into one integrated commercial fishery. We're creating the conditions for success. It's about business enterprise management and about fisheries management. It's not meant to necessarily be a long-term initiative. We have a suite of programs. These programs speak to those issues in particular.

There are three elements. We can give a breakdown, but particularly in the Pacific Integrated Commercial Fisheries program, there is access acquisition, but there's also support for First Nation capacity-building in terms of fisheries management and in terms of business enterprise management for those fisheries organizations. In addition, there's support for integration of fisheries with enhanced accountability and collaborative management. We have those streams in the program. In the East Coast, there is not the access acquisition component.

Senator Wells: It notes $32 million in the sups request.

Mr. Stringer: That's between the Pacific program, which is 22, and 11 for the Atlantic program.

Senator Wells: Thank you.

Senator Eaton: Part of that was my question as well, Senator Wells. In other words, you're buying boats, setting up factories and teaching them how to fish?

Mr. Stringer: These types of things. On the West Coast, in the Pacific program, there is some access acquisition, but it really is about ensuring we're providing the support for them to effectively manage those fisheries enterprises and become full partners in one integrated fishery.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have got through our list. I apologize for keeping you here a bit later than we had anticipated, but it has been very helpful to us in looking at the Supplementary Estimates (B). You also had a chance to hear the minister, which is good for all of us. Thank you very much, on behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.

Colleagues, thank you all very much. This was a tough week for all of us. What we have planned now is that today the work we have just done concludes our work on Supplementary Estimates (B). We will now allow the Library of Parliament to prepare a report. The next thing you should receive on Supplementary Estimates (B) is the report. You will have a chance to review it and make any suggested changes. We will have a meeting probably Wednesday night to deal with that.

In relation to Bill C-43, we have a meeting tomorrow afternoon with the Royal Canadian Mint and CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. That should be our last meeting on Bill C-43 tomorrow afternoon as well, unless something else comes up.

We have to do a report on that, so we'll let our scribes work on the report. Probably the latter part of next week we should have a chance to deal with that report and then, the week following, we wait for the two bills to come: the supply bill and Bill C-43.

Thank you very much. The meeting is concluded.

(The committee adjourned.)


Back to top