THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 2, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:30 a.m., to study the federal government’s multi-billion-dollar infrastructure funding program (topic: status report on phase 1 of the Investing in Canada Plan), and to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-243, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (reporting on unpaid income tax).
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
[English]
My name is Percy Mockler. I am a senator from New Brunswick and chair of the committee.
On behalf of the committee, I want to welcome all of those who are with us in the room and viewers across the country who may be watching on television or online. As a reminder to those watching, the committee hearings are open to the public and also available online at SenCanada.ca.
[Translation]
I will now ask the senators to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Deacon: Marty Deacon from Ontario.
Senator Eaton: Nicole Eaton from Ontario.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh from Ontario.
[Translation]
The Chair: I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce the clerk of the committee, Gaëtane Lemay, and our two analysts, Alex Smith and Shaowei Pu, who team up to support the work of this committee.
[English]
Today, we will, for the first part of our meeting, resume the committee’s special study on infrastructure.
For a little bit of context, I would like to remind you that the committee started this study two-and-a-half years ago, on May 4, 2016. The committee wanted to monitor the implementation of the new funding program and learn from the experiences of previous programs from coast to coast to coast.
Since then, the committee has tabled two interim reports: one in February of 2017, entitled Smarter Planning, Smarter Spending: Achieving Infrastructure Success, and a second one in July of 2017.
[Translation]
It was entitled Smarter Planning, Smarter Spending: Ensuring Transparency, Accountability and Predictability in Federal Infrastructure Programs.
[English]
The government responded officially to both reports. On behalf of the committee, I want to take this opportunity to thank the government for their response.
You will recall, however, senators, that in the spring, we held three meetings on our study on infrastructure. We then heard from municipalities, the Minister of Infrastructure Canada and the PBO, or Parliamentary Budget Officer, who we invited to comment on his first Status Report on Phase I of the New Infrastructure Plan.
[Translation]
The incumbent of the PBO office may have changed since then, but its work on the topic of infrastructure has not stopped, and we certainly appreciate it.
[English]
Indeed, on August 22, they published a Status Report on Phase I of the Investing in Canada Plan.
[Translation]
With us this morning, we have the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Yves Giroux, whom we invited to comment on this report. Thank you for being here today, Mr. Giroux. As in the past, you are always welcome here, and should we require any additional information, rest assured that we will come knocking.
[English]
He is accompanied by Jason Jacques, Senior Director, Costing and Budgetary Analysis, and also Mr. Negash Haile, Research Assistant. We want to welcome you to our committee.
[Translation]
We’ll begin by hearing from Mr. Giroux, who will share his vision and analysis with us, and then, we will move into the question-and-answer portion.
Mr. Giroux, please go ahead.
Yves Giroux, Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer: Mr. Chair and honourable senators, thank you for inviting the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to continue working with your committee in the context of your study on the federal government’s infrastructure program.
We are pleased to be here today to discuss our latest report on phase 1 of the infrastructure plan and to provide you with an update following our March 2018 report, tabled by my predecessor.
[English]
At the request of this committee, the PBO sent information requests to the 11 federal departments and agencies responsible for implementing the $14.4 billion Phase I of the Investing in Canada Plan. Federal organizations responded in June and July 2018, identifying total planned spending of $13.7 billion over eight years. The gap of $0.7 billion between the original budget and current planned spending is partially attributable to a recent federal decision to transfer $200 million in spending from Phase I to Phase II of the Investing in Canada Plan. It is also due to incomplete reporting by some federal departments, namely, Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs.
Consistent with our previous findings, federal spending on infrastructure continues to be delayed compared to the original Budget 2016 timeline. In March 2018, we estimated that planned spending in the first two years of the Phase I Investing in Canada Plan would total $6.2 billion; the current figure is $6.5 billion. These spending delays are largely attributable to implementation delays by provincial and municipal governments.
[Translation]
The federal government can only spend money as fast as provincial and municipal governments can invest it. PBO monitoring of provincial capital spending indicates that there have been significant downward revisions between what provinces originally said they would spend and what they actually spent.
[English]
Based on the PBO’s updated monitoring, we now believe that Phase I infrastructure investment in 2017-18 increased GDP by between 0.13 and 0.16 per cent and created between 9,700 and 11,600 jobs.
Jason, Negash and I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have. I thank you again.
Senator Eaton: I have two little questions. Could you elaborate a bit on the provincial/municipal? We had cities come before us, and they all were talking about what they needed — transportation, renewal of sewers, social housing fixed up — so it’s kind of surprising that they haven’t come to some agreement. Is it because they’re not efficient? They’re too slow at making their plans? Is it because there’s a political discrepancy between the provinces and the feds as to where the money should go? What do you think has happened at that level?
Mr. Giroux: It’s difficult to say exactly what happened. I don’t think there’s one explanation; I think it’s a variety of factors. Some jurisdictions are experiencing financial difficulties, which could explain the delays in spending.
Senator Eaton: In other words, they can’t put up their match of the money? They can’t put up their 40 or 50 per cent of the money?
Mr. Giroux: For some jurisdictions, it’s likely the case; for others, it’s planning that was maybe a bit too ambitious; and for others, it might be a combination of all these factors.
Senator Eaton: Can you give us examples of provinces, for instance, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba?
Mr. Giroux: We have some information. In the cases of Quebec, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, it’s relatively stable, but some other provinces have had to revise down their capital spending, for various reasons. Ontario, Alberta and B.C., as well as Newfoundland, fall into this category of provinces that have had to reduce their capital spending.
Senator Eaton: I.e., they cannot match the federal?
Mr. Giroux: Or maybe they can but they have to reduce other types of spending to be able to match it, so they cannot keep the same level that the federal government expected them to maintain.
Senator Eaton: What I also find disturbing is that you’re not getting figures from the ministries dealing with Indigenous and Inuit, the North. Why do you think that is?
Mr. Giroux: Honestly, I have asked that question myself, and there doesn’t seem to be an obvious answer to that. We can speculate as to the reasons, but at least I don’t have a firm answer on that. Whether it’s willingness or lack of capacity to provide these numbers, it’s not clear to me.
Senator Eaton: We’ve heard from a couple of ministries that are looking after Indigenous and Inuit affairs that clean drinking water is very much a priority of the governments. I’m wondering why they wouldn’t give you figures and information about the money.
Mr. Giroux: That’s a good question, senator.
Senator Eaton: So you don’t know how much infrastructure money they have had or have spent? You have no idea?
Mr. Giroux: We don’t know how much they’ve spent; that’s for sure. They have not provided that information. Whether they don’t want to or they are not capable, it’s not clear which one it is.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: I’d just like to follow up on Senator Eaton’s question about the two departments that deal with Indigenous affairs. Do we know how much the departments were supposed to spend?
[English]
Jason Jacques, Senior Director, Costing and Budgetary Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer: We do have that information. Where the information gap primarily lies is on the forecasting side. In the current round, when we sent out the information requests, it was based upon the forecast spending over the medium term from those departments, and their ministries were not able to respond with details. That said, for the purposes of our report, we did use alternative data sources. Of course, they’re aggregate figures that were published as part of various other government policy documents that we were able to use and interpolate. However, of course, it’s less perfect in comparison to hearing it directly from the minister’s mouth.
Senator Pratte: Thank you.
[Translation]
Now for my second question. This isn’t the first infrastructure program or the first federal infrastructure program where the municipal and provincial, but mostly provincial, contributions take time. I want to get back to the original purpose of phase 1, which was to give the economy a boost at a time when it needed it. That was the reasoning.
This may be an exaggeration, but I wonder whether the conclusion we should draw from all this is that these types of programs — not to say that all infrastructure programs are bad —can’t really deliver economic returns in the short term, in a country like ours, where federal and provincial components come into play. After all, in your estimation, the economic impact of phase 1 was minimal in relation to the money spent. Isn’t that right?
Mr. Giroux: I would say the program can generate major economic benefits, provided that significant, or fairly significant, capacity or idle capacity exists in the economy. For instance, if we were in the depths of a severe recession, a program like this would benefit the economy.
That said, in 2016, 2017 and 2018, Canada’s economy did pretty well. Therefore, in an economy that’s doing well, with certain regions at full employment, using infrastructure creation to stimulate the economy doesn’t generate much of a stimulus effect. Resources are being shifted, and that’s where planning delays occur as a result of a lack of labour and where inflation goes up slightly in connection with construction materials or labour. You’re right to say that, when an economy is doing fairly well and, in some cases, moving along at full tilt, the stimulus effect is much weaker.
Senator Pratte: I was thinking mainly about the fact that it takes time, when initially, in theory, it was all about shovel-ready projects. Quite clearly, the problem is that, even if the federal government announces funding, by the time it’s done negotiating with the provinces and the provinces have selected their projects and so forth, so much time has gone by that the economic downturn has passed. Isn’t that right?
Mr. Giroux: Indeed. They may have run out of shovel-ready projects sooner than expected. Infrastructure Canada could provide clearer answers to these questions.
[English]
Senator Oh: Thank you for being here.
You say that in March 2018 the PBO estimated that planned spending in the first two years of Phase I IICP totalled $6.2 billion. The current figure is $6.5 billion. Does it mean that it has run over the budget or estimate?
Mr. Giroux: No. The original plan was to have around $10 billion spending over the first two years, and that was Budget 2016. In March 2018, we estimated that it would be $6.2 billion as opposed to $10 billion. In August, we revised that figure upwards slightly from $6.2 billion to $6.5 billion. But it’s not going over budget because the initial thinking in the fall statement in 2016 had $10 billion of spending over the first two years, so it’s going slightly towards the original direction that was planned in 2016.
Senator Oh: Just to follow up on the question that Senator Eaton asked earlier, I got a lot of feedback from the municipalities saying that they are waiting for capital investment coming in from the infrastructure fund from the feds, but somehow I think there was always a delay and the project couldn’t go ahead. What is the actual cause behind the scenes?
Mr. Jacques: I don’t know that we have insight with respect to what’s going on behind the scenes. Echoing a point that the Parliamentary Budget Officer made, and a point we had made earlier, it is a very different economic context in comparison to the last time the federal government tried this type of approach in 2009, where there was significant slack in the economy, firms were laying people off, and provincial and municipal governments were able to let contracts quickly because there was that additional capacity, in comparison to now when there’s far less capacity within the economy.
The other point we’ve made previously is that it is important to keep in mind that of the $80 billion worth of public sector capital investment that happens every year, a very small part of it comes from the federal government. The provincial and municipal governments have the majority of the money on the table. They manage the majority of the projects. When you go on their various websites and consult with them, as we do, they do have medium- and long-term capital plans.
In 2016, when the federal government announces additional funding, that’s certainly something that I think nobody is necessarily going to turn down, but if you’re in the situation of being in the city of Vancouver, they did have a 10-year capital plan already in place at that point. To be required to shuffle around those various projects to accommodate the federal government and its priorities does take time.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for being here. My question ties in with an issue I’ve long been passionate about: gender equality. Under the program, are you able to measure the impact of the infrastructure projects on gender equality? Do you conduct a gender-based analysis? Are you able to obtain data related to both the selection of projects as well as their completion? As you know, it’s something that matters a lot to our government. I was told that certain programs are systematically subjected to gender-based analyses, which are not public, unfortunately. In this case, however, is there anything you can tell us about that?
Mr. Giroux: It’s an important issue to this government, which has said so publicly. From previous experience, I know the government conducts gender-based analysis on every budget measure. I also know that it’s very difficult, if not impossible, to access those analyses for those outside the public service or outside the inner circle of people privy to budget documents.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Did you request the information?
Mr. Giroux: I often find myself turning to the colleagues on my left or right to answer questions when they pertain to reports that were written and finalized before I took office. With that said, I’ll be relying heavily on Mr. Jacques and Mr. Haile.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m new as well.
Mr. Giroux: Thank you for understanding.
Mr. Jacques: We have asked for those analyses in the past, but as the Minister of Finance and Government of Canada officials have already explained to the committee, its privileged information. It falls under cabinet confidence. We think it would be very helpful to conduct more detailed assessments. We think it’s possible to go deeper.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: That’s too bad. Thank you.
Senator Moncion: Good morning and welcome. I’m going to start my question in French, and, then, I’ll be switching to English. I was on another committee recently, and we were discussing how challenging it is to get infrastructure projects going in Canada, because of the investments, environmental assessments, risks associated with the investments and investor fear around investing in the country. The delay before projects get off the ground is too long. The Trans Mountain pipeline is one example.
Last year, as it does every year, a group released a report on business risks. Entitled Top 10 Business Risks in 2018/19, the report indicated the following:
[English]
The recent cancellation of certain high-profile projects may serve as notice to project proponents and participants that social and political concerns must be addressed from the outset in planning such initiatives. Consultation and collaboration by governments, as well as public and private stakeholders, is now necessary to ensure the successful undertaking and completion of any major infrastructure project in Canada, whether public or private.
[Translation]
I’d like to hear your thoughts on that and on what I said before as far as various reports are concerned.
Mr. Giroux: It’s a valid point, but I would say it pertains primarily to private sector infrastructure. Federal infrastructure plans, which are carried out in partnership with the provinces and territories, deal largely with public infrastructure. Yes, they require consultations, but I don’t think those kinds of infrastructure projects generally give rise to the same negative perception that projects like the pipeline do. Public transit, green infrastructure and social infrastructure projects are the result of reasoned policies and enjoy a fair amount of social licence. Owing to that social licence, those types of projects meet with less hesitation and fewer barriers than do private sector infrastructure projects. Although I don’t think it’s a major factor, it can be in some cases.
Senator Moncion: We know that, for municipal projects, the money usually comes from three sources—the municipality, the province and the federal government—in accordance with the one-third model. In many cases, projects that municipalities are planning don’t get off the ground because of the property tax component. Property tax increases can’t keep pace with the needs identified in communities. Have you heard of that notable risk being evaluated, potentially affecting your analyses?
[English]
Mr. Jacques: It’s something that we’ve heard from municipalities in the past. As we’ve mentioned in the past, as part of our ongoing monitoring, we are in regular contact with the provincial governments as well as the larger municipalities across the country. I will say that in the case of the larger municipalities, it seems to be less of an issue in comparison to the smaller municipalities.
Senator Moncion: That was one of the comments we heard from the smaller communities, where they have problems getting projects off the ground because they don’t have the infrastructure money coming from taxes that is needed to get these projects going.
[Translation]
When the federal government decides to invest $10.1 billion, say, in project X, is a probability assessment done, or is there a figure attached to determine the amount that will be allocated in the budget, whether or not the project materializes? I imagine the thinking is that the project will materialize. If it doesn’t, it’s perceived negatively, even though it may not necessarily be a negative thing and may simply have to do with the money not being spent.
Mr. Giroux: I can’t speak at length to what’s happening right now, but, from my experience, I would say the amounts are determined based on the government’s financial flexibility. Further to high-level discussions with the provinces, territories and municipalities, it is expected that the project is achievable. As far as I know, then, no in-depth risk analysis of whether it’s possible to spend all the money in the allotted time frame is done. Perhaps it is and we just don’t know about it.
Senator Moncion: Would such an analysis be helpful?
Mr. Giroux: Yes, to avoid the kind of financial profiling we are seeing now, but I don’t think it would require a terribly in-depth risk analysis. All it would take is looking back at previous infrastructure programs to see that implementation is almost always delayed. Historically speaking, it’s easy to see that even a 100% target can’t be reached. Minor delays will always occur.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: I apologize for arriving late due to another meeting.
I think in one of the answers you said some of the problem may be that the objectives of the federal government were different from the provincial or municipal and that that may have caused the delay. Did I understand that correctly?
Mr. Giroux: I don’t recall saying that. It’s possible that I may have said it. It’s always difficult to perfectly align the objectives of the federal government, provinces and territories as well as municipalities. It’s quite possible that, in some jurisdictions, the most dire needs are in the health care sector but the allocation under the Investing in Canada Plan favours green infrastructure or public transit. It is quite possible that this is a source of delays in some jurisdictions.
Senator Andreychuk: The municipalities are closest to the people. They know what they desperately need at the time, and it’s often fundamental. Then the province has the mandate under the Constitution, so they are a source, and then you have the federal government. Then you say the infrastructure had its own objectives. Why would the objectives of the federal government not align with the provincial and federal if we’re talking infrastructure? We have known for years what we need. We know we have neglected the infrastructure. Why would their objectives be different when, in fact, if you worked it through and consulted, surely there would be common ground? I was on municipal government, and we were not consulted in those days. We were just told that there is a pool of money you might be able to get, and what can we do with the shovel-ready? But shovel-ready isn’t often the real urgent need on the ground, and we know we have aging infrastructure. There is a mismatch in the objectives.
Mr. Giroux: It’s quite possible, with one of the stated objectives being stimulating the economy, that that may lead to favouring projects that are ready as opposed to those that are the most necessary. That in itself might be one of the competing or contradictory objectives: stimulating the economy in the short-term as opposed to investing money where it’s most needed. I can only speculate on that, but I suspect it’s probably what happens with a good chunk of the projects.
Senator Andreychuk: You said stimulating the economy was the federal objective; yet the money was not spent, and most of it is long-term.
Mr. Giroux: It is probably a mix of both. Stimulating in the short-term but also investing for greater efficiency in the medium- to long-term. As I mentioned in answer to Senator Pratte’s question, when you stimulate an economy that is already going very well, you don’t really stimulate; you contribute to overheating, to a certain extent.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you all for being here.
Looking at the history and trending and looking forward, we talk about implementation delays. There have been some pieces already asked this morning. Is this just, moving forward, what we expect now? You have given a couple of reasons for these delays. Is this something that is almost the cost of doing business, or will we see this getting better as we move forward?
The other part with that — because it could be connected — is the term of significant downward revisions. Folks go out and ask for X number of dollars, and they don’t spend that. My piece with that is that can, from community to community, become a very significant number. I’m trying to understand the why of that and if that’s just a common trend or the cost of forecasting.
If you could comment on either or both of those, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Giroux: I will answer part of your question, and I will ask Negash and Jason to step up and answer the other part that I will not have answered.
Whether it’s the cost of doing business to have this mismatch between the planned and the actual spending, with the experience that governments have collectively gained, we or they should be getting much better at that. Once you have launched an infrastructure program in 2009, you see the delays, and then you launch another one, and every year that goes by you experience delays due to a variety of factors. Provincial and municipal priorities are different, whatever the reasons. It’s fairly easy to see that history is repeating itself. You would think that after a short while, people who plan for these programs have gained the experience and have learned from their experience. That’s my hope. That’s certainly something you learn very quickly when you manage a budget. As an executive in the public service, you learn quickly that you will never spend all your money as you think because people leave and you end up with money that you cannot spend. It’s simple. You would think that great minds like those developing these programs would factor that into it.
Whether we are getting better or not, I don’t know if my colleagues have insights based on their experience. My feeling is that if we are getting better, we are not getting significantly better.
Negash Haile, Research Assistant, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer: We have already seen two major revisions for Phase I. From Budget 2016, we saw a downward revision in Budget 2017 and another revision in Budget 2018. We are now moving into Phase II, and that’s probably something this committee can pay attention to and focus on to see if that trend will continue.
Mr. Jacques: I would go back to testimony that we provided several months ago to the committee, highlighting that in as much as being in the forecasting business, I recognize how challenging it is. Having some insight into the process that Infrastructure Canada uses to forecast, they are heavily relying upon the provincial and municipal governments. A point that we made as part of our analysis is that there are significant revisions in provincial budgets over a period of three to six months. There seems to be, conceptually, very limited incentive for provincial governments to come to the table with a realistic estimate because there is no cost to them.
If you say you are going to spend $2 billion, and then six or nine months of the year along the way, you sit down with Infrastructure Canada and say, “Actually, it’s $500 million,” that’s problematic for Infrastructure Canada in terms of forecasting. The Government of Canada certainly looks like they don’t know how to forecast properly, but the responsibility squarely rests with the provincial government that is responsible for implementing the programs and who came up with a bum forecast in the first place.
To the extent that the Government of Canada needs to be sitting down with provincial governments and having a hard discussion around those forecasts, that is a fair point, but at the same time, these are provincial and municipal partners who manage $70 billion out of the $80 billion spend that happens on an annual basis. If you are sitting down with the Deputy Minister of Finance for British Columbia or Alberta or Ontario or Quebec, they would come across as credible individuals and you would take what they are telling you very seriously.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: My apologies for being late. I was in another meeting.
My question is a follow-up to Senator Deacon’s. Is there a federal-provincial forum for infrastructure investment, similar to the Forum of Labour Market Ministers or the forum of education ministers or representatives? Is there such a forum that brings together federal and provincial officials?
Mr. Giroux: I’m not aware of one. I’ll ask my team. If there isn’t one, it’s an inexcusable deficiency, considering the amounts spent on infrastructure. I’ll ask my colleagues, Jason and Negash, whether they know of any.
Senator Bellemare: If you are not aware of one, it probably means it doesn’t exist. I’ll check the list myself, and I agree with you that there should be one.
I’m going to ask another question, but you may not know the answer since there isn’t a forum. Are labour shortages emerging in trades that play a big role in infrastructure projects at the municipal or provincial level?
Mr. Giroux: Further to your first question and your comment, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the forum doesn’t exist just because I don’t know about it. As I often tell my colleagues, I have a 19-year-old daughter and a 15-year-old son who remind me all the time how little I know.
What was the question again? I’m sorry.
Senator Bellemare: Recognizing that you aren’t part of a forum, if one indeed exists, I want to know whether you are aware of any labour shortages in the municipalities or provinces where these investments are being made. Couldn’t that explain some of the delays?
Mr. Giroux: Yes, of course. We are currently working on a labour market report. It’s an issue that’s very important to us. There’s no doubt that some sectors are experiencing a labour shortage. In some regions, workers are desperately needed in building trades, so, yes, the shortage does explain why certain projects are delayed. That is crystal clear. Some regions have relatively low unemployment, masking a severe shortage of workers in a number of sectors.
Senator Bellemare: Are the contracts associated with the infrastructure spending resulting in cost overruns?
Mr. Giroux: I’m going to ask my colleagues to answer that, if they can.
Senator Bellemare: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Jacques: We haven’t had access to those data, sadly.
The Chair: If I look at the time frame that we have before we go to Bill S-243, one question each on second round would permit us to be on time.
Senator Oh: I have a small question. We are always saying in the business world that private projects always finish on time and under budget spending, receiving bonuses. For public projects, never on time, cost overrun. What is the reason? Can you comment? Is it because of red tape or is there a provision set aside for cost overrun?
Mr. Giroux: That’s a good question that I probably don’t have a good answer to because it’s something that probably warrants looking at every project specifically. My knowledge is that most projects have some contingencies planned into them. The perception is true that most projects tend to be over budget or beyond the allocated time, but I’m not sure that is the reality. We tend to focus on those that are over budget and beyond the allocated time.
We would have to look into more details as to the breakdown of the projects funded by the Investing in Canada Plan. Maybe my colleagues already have some information on that but, off the top of my head, I don’t have a good breakdown as to whether most of them, the majority of them or the minority of them are on budget and on time. Maybe Jason and Negash have a more complete answer to that.
Senator Oh: That could save taxpayers a lot of money.
Mr. Jacques: It’s a very good question. It’s one that’s likely potentially better posed to the Auditor General of Canada. We tend to look at things in a prospective, looking-forward basis.
Senator Andreychuk: I wanted to follow up on the projects in the North and the federal responsibility for Aboriginal issues and on reserve. Was there allocation to actual reserves, or was it for the territorial governments?
Mr. Giroux: If I’m not mistaken, I think it was probably a mix of both. The federal portion, delivered by Indigenous Services and from Crown-Indigenous Relations, had per reserve projects that they had already identified, and there was also a territorial allocation for each of the three territories, taking into consideration the specific needs of each territory and the fact that there are often remote communities with costs of construction that are higher than for most other communities in the south.
Senator Andreychuk: Is that data available to you?
Mr. Jacques: It is, and we’d be happy to collate it and pull it together. We can share it with the chair of the committee and the clerk.
Senator Andreychuk: Please.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I’d like to take 30 seconds to correct something I said earlier. I had a quick look online, and I found out that a federal-provincial-territorial meeting of ministers on infrastructure took place in Halifax on September 27 of this year. No documentation is available on the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat’s website, though. Is it a standing or special meeting? It would be helpful to look into it further. I think it’s an excellent idea, as you pointed out.
Mr. Giroux: Senator, if I may, that confirms what I said earlier: my not knowing about something isn’t necessarily evidence that it doesn’t exist.
The Chair: On that note, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to meet with us. We will no doubt have more questions for you.
I have a few questions, myself, but the clerk will pass them along. I’d like some details related to a dozen or so letters the committee sent out to various departments looking for answers — answers that are still outstanding. We’ve since learned from the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s previous report that the projects in question were confidential. Recently, we received a few responses, which were unclear, if not vague, and they indicated that the committee should turn to you for more information. We will send you the documentation so you can have a look at it and, if possible, provide us with answers through the clerk.
[English]
With that, honourable senators, we will move on to consider Bill S-243 and to give you some general information and background on both the process and the procedure.
As background, Bill S-243 was introduced in the Senate of Canada on November 22, 2017, by our colleague Senator Percy Downe. It received second reading on June 5 and was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance on the same day.
Colleagues and members, as we will proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-243, I would like bring to you general information for the procedure. Colleagues and members of the viewing public, we are now about to go through Bill S-243, clause by clause. Before I do this, I would like to remind senators of certain points of information.
[Translation]
I know the committee members want to do the best possible job so that when the bill is referred to the Senate at third reading, it is the best possible bill it can be.
[English]
If at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. We should, at all times, have the same understanding of where we are in the process.
[Translation]
On a procedural note, I would remind senators that, when more than one amendment to the same clause is moved, they must be moved in the same order as the lines of text being amended. Therefore, before the committee considers an amendment to a clause, I will check whether any other senators are planning to move an amendment to an earlier line in the same clause. If so, they will have the chance to do so and provide further details.
[English]
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I would remind you that, in committee, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but rather to vote against the clause standing as part of the bill.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, I would also like to point out that certain amendments can have significant repercussions on other parts of the bill, so it’s extremely important that the committee be consistent in its decisions and apply them consistently throughout the bill.
[English]
It would be very useful to this process, honourable senators, if a senator moving an amendment identifies other clauses in this bill where this amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it could be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision-making process. Staff will endeavour to keep track of the places where subsequent amendments need to be moved and will draw our attention to them. Because no notice is required to move amendments, there can have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which ones may be of consequence to others and which may be in contradiction.
Finally, I wish to remind all honourable senators that no seconder is required in committee and, if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or show of hands, the cleanest route should be to request a roll call vote, which provides clear results.
Senators are aware that any tied vote negatives the motion in question.
At this point, are there any questions on the above information I have shared with you? If not, we will move immediately to clause-by-clause consideration.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I have a general remark regarding the order used last year. I am here as an ex officio member, but I don’t have the right to vote.
The Chair: Thank you for clarifying that. Any other comments?
[English]
Seeing none, I’ll ask Senator Black to introduce himself, please, for the record.
Senator Black: Douglas Black from Alberta.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
We will now go to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-243, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (reporting on unpaid income tax).
Is it agreed, honourable senators, that the committee do now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-243, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (reporting on unpaid income tax)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed, thank you.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
[Translation]
Shall clause 1, which contains the alternate title, stand postponed?
Shall clause 2 carry? I will now turn the floor over to Senator Pratte regarding clause 2 of Bill S-243.
[English]
Senator Pratte: I have an amendment to this clause, and there will be another amendment proposal for the next clause. Both of these amendments have the same goal, which is that the CRA would estimate and report on the fiscal gap once every three years and not once a year. The CRA explained that it was a very complicated process and therefore once every three years would probably be more realistic. Besides, the fiscal gap varies very little from year to year; what counts is really the long-term trend. When Senator Downe appeared before us, I asked if he would agree to such an amendment, and he said “yes.”
So both these amendments, the first and the second, deal with the fact that the estimate would be made once every three years for the fiscal year three years before. You remember the CRA told us that, to make an estimate, they can only do it once three or four years have passed. They can’t do it for the last year. This summer and last summer, they published reports on the fiscal year 2014. That’s what this amendment does, and the next amendment, to clause 3, simply has the effect of deleting where it says that it would be an annual report.
The Chair: Senator Pratte, could you please read your amendment for the record — the first one?
Senator Pratte: At clause 2, page 1, it’s moved:
THAT Bill S-243 be amended in clause 2, on page 1,
“2(1) Subsection 88(2) of the Canada Revenue Agen-”; and
(3) once every three years, commencing with a year that is three years after the coming into force of this subsection, the annual report required to be submitted under subsection (1) must include the statistics referred to in subsection 88.1(2) for the fiscal year that ends in the year that is three years before the year the annual report is submitted.
[Translation]
Has the other document been handed out?
[English]
When you read the amendment, it’s a bit confusing, but if you look at this paper here, it becomes much clearer. It’s complicated wording simply to provide that the estimate is made once every three years and not annually.
The Chair: There is an amendment from Senator Pratte on clause 2. Are there any questions for Senator Pratte on the amendment, honourable senators? If not, for clarification, did you say, Senator Pratte, that you shared this information with the senator?
Senator Pratte: Not the amendment per se because we wrote the amendment this morning, but when Senator Downe appeared before us, I asked specifically if he would agree to an amendment that would require the report is made once every three years instead of yearly, and he said he agreed.
The Chair: Thank you for clarification. Any further questions?
If not, clause 2, is it agreed as amended by Senator Pratte?
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: You’d like me to read it in French?
The Chair: Yes, please, Senator Pratte.
Senator Pratte: It is moved:
Que le projet de loi S-243 soit modifié à l’article 2, à la page 1 :
a) par substitution, à la ligne 7, de ce qui suit :
“2 (1) Le paragraphe 88(2) de la Loi sur l’Agence du”;
b) par substitution, aux lignes 13 à 15, de ce qui suit :
“(2) L’article 88 de la même loi est modifié par adjonction, après le paragraphe (2), de ce qui suit :
(3) Tous les trois ans, à partir de l’année qui survient trois ans après l’entrée en vigueur du présent paragraphe, le rapport d’activités devant être présenté en application du paragraphe (1) contient les statistiques visées au paragraphe 88.1(2) pour l’exercice ayant pris fin trois ans avant l’année au cours de laquelle le rapport d’activités est présenté.”
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, do we agree with the amendment presented by Senator Pratte?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Next, shall clause 2, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Shall clause 3 carry?
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: Further to the previous amendment, this amendment merely removes the reference from new subsection 88.1(2), which begins as follows:
(2) The Minister shall, on an annual basis, collect, compile, analyze….
This time, the reference “on an annual basis” is simply being removed.
[English]
In English, subsection (2) says, “the minister shall on an annual basis” and what we do here is simply delete “on an annual basis.”
The Chair: Thank you. Any questions on the amendment put forward by Senator Pratte?
If not, shall the amendment carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 3, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, honourable senators.
As we proceed, shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, honourable senators, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Honourable senators, as amended, that any necessary consequential changes be made to the numbering of provisions and cross-references as a result of the amendment to this bill carry; do you agree?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Thank you.
A question can be posed, and I’d like to share this with the committee. Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Thank you. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Honourable senators, is it agreed that I report this bill, as amended, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Thank you.
Honourable senators, if there are no additional questions or information, I now declare the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)