THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 20, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:30 a.m. to examine Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019; and to give clause-by-clause consideration to Bill C-62, An Act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other Acts.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Percy Mockler, senator from New Brunswick and chair of the committee. I wish to welcome all those who are with us in the room and viewers across our country who may be watching on television or online.
[Translation]
As a reminder to those watching, the committee hearings are open to the public and also available online at sencanada.ca.
[English]
If you would permit me, honourable senators, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome a new addition to our National Finance Committee, Senator Peter Boehm.
Thank you for accepting to come to our committee. There is no doubt in our minds that you are a great addition.
[Translation]
That said, I would now ask the senators to introduce themselves individually.
Senator Forest: Éric Forest, Gulf Region, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon from Ontario.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall from Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
The Chair: I would like to recognize the clerk of the committee, Ms. Gaëtane Lemay, and our two analysts, Alex Smith and Shaowei Pu, who team up to support the work of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
[English]
Honourable senators and members of the viewing public, the mandate of this committee is to examine matters relating to federal estimates generally as well as government finance of the country. Today the committee begins its consideration of the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019, which were referred to this committee by the Senate of Canada on October 30, 2018.
We have two departments appearing to give us an overview of their funding requests in the Supplementary Estimates (A).
The second part of the meeting, honourable senators, will be on Bill C-62.
We welcome Claude Rochette, Chief Financial Officer/Assistant Deputy Minister (Finance), Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.
We also have Patrick Finn, Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.
[Translation]
We also have with us, from the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, Major-General Hercule Gosselin, Chief of Programme, and Mr. Rob Chambers, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Infrastructure and Environment. We also welcome back a regular witness at our committee, Mr. Arun Thangaraj, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Planning, Finance and Information Technology, from Global Affairs Canada.
I thank the witnesses for having accepted our invitation. I have been informed that Mr. Rochette will be the first to speak, followed by Mr. Thangaraj. After we hear your statements, senators will have questions for you.
[English]
Before I ask Mr. Rochette to make his presentation, I would like to ask two other senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Eaton: I apologize that I’m late, Mr. Chair. I am Nicky Eaton from Ontario.
Senator Neufeld: Richard Neufeld from British Columbia.
The Chair: Thank you, honourable senators.
[Translation]
Claude Rochette, Assistant Deputy Minister (Finance) and Chief Financial Officer, Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces: Mr. Chair, dear senators, thank you for the invitation to present the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019, on behalf of the Department of National Defence. It is always an honour to meet with distinguished members and colleagues before the committee.
[English]
Today I am joined by Patrick Finn, Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces; Major-General Hercule Gosselin, Chief of Programme, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces; and Rob Chambers, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister (Infrastructure and Environment) Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.
The defence policy Strong Secure Engaged was approved on June 7, 2017, and has now been in place for 18 months. Since the policy was announced mid-year, funding for 2017-18 was approved through Supplementary Estimates (C). This year, following normal timelines, we were able to access funding through the Main Estimates.
[Translation]
We are in the early stages of a 20-year plan. Our latest investment plan was approved by Treasury Board in March 2018, and published shortly thereafter. The investment plan’s publication satisfies a commitment to engage and be accountable to Canadians. It also creates a level of transparency for our investments in the future activity of National Defence.
[English]
As I have said during previous appearances before this committee, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces maintains a laser focus on strong fiscal responsibility and careful stewardship of resources in recognition of the fiscal environment in which we are operating. We respect the trust Canadians have in us to make the right decisions. The magnitude, complexity and increased transparency of the defence budget demands a cohesive, comprehensive and strategic approach to maximizing the efficacy of our expenditures and investments. As a consequence, the department continues to monitor and manage its fiscal requirements to ensure value for taxpayer dollars and support for government priorities.
Last year, before this committee, I stated that the department is committed to continue to reduce lapsed funding. I wish to report that the department has once again achieved that commitment for 2017-18 with zero residual lapse. It is important to remember that residual lapses would not be available for future years. The planned lapses — that is, funding available for future years — relate to frozen funding and budget carry-forward totalling $677.1 million. When the planned lapse is compared to the final authority to spend $23.6 billion, this represents managing to within 2.8 per cent of the plan.
[Translation]
In presenting the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019, I would like to direct the committee’s attention to the main points on page 2-53 of the English version, and on page 2-63 of the French version.
[English]
This year, the National Defence request from Supplementary Estimates (A) is $393.4 million. This request is significantly lower than previous years when, in November 2017, National Defence requested adjustments to authorities in excess of $1 billion through the supplementary estimates. With an approved policy and an investment plan, the clarity of direction has enabled the department to plan with more certainty earlier in the financial cycle and include funding it needs in the Main Estimates.
This request of $393.4 million is comprised of $56.3 million in funding related to operating costs; $313 million related to capital assets; and $24 million related to grants and contributions for NATO. Finally, the impact of transfers out of $75 million to other organizations and transfers in of $1.9 million from other organizations has the net effect of reducing the department’s authorities by $73.1 million or, if you prefer, a net amount of $320.3 million.
The major change in operating costs relates to funding for costs related to the implementation of the LGBT Purge Class Action settlement of $22 million, and the additional pay administration costs of $3.1 million.
In addition, a number of reprofiles from the last fiscal year were included: veterans health benefits, $17.3 million; cleanup of contaminated sites and maintenance and upgrade of infrastructure assets, $8.4 million; lease costs of the interim auxiliary oiler replenishment ship, $3 million; and the Innovation of Defence Excellence and Security program, $2.5 million.
[Translation]
Capital investment in assets is required to establish and maintain defence capabilities. The new cash management approach approved by Treasury Board offers more flexibility. We are able to use surpluses in one project to fund demands in another project. This avoids unnecessary requests to relieve pressure in one area while funds would go unspent in another area of the investment portfolio.
National Defence monitors cash requirements on project to avoid lapses when projects are delayed and not going to use funding within the fiscal year, or when projects are ahead of schedule and would normally require a request for additional funding.
[English]
The change in funding for investment in capital assets of $313 million relates to: acquisition of equipment ranging from vehicles and cranes to lab equipment, $150.4 million; information management and technology, $61.2 million; ongoing modernization of the Carling Campus, $58.1 million; construction and energy projects at bases, $30.8 million; capital upgrades of Canadian Forces Intelligence Command, $10.5 million; and a $2 million investment in joint capability projects.
The request for $24.2 million in grants and contributions is related to projects in NATO that overlap our fiscal year and reflect our ongoing commitment to those projects.
[Translation]
We will continue to monitor projects, and measure progress in implementing SSE, the Strong, Secure, Engaged defence policy. Additional funding may be requested in Supplementary Estimates (B) as we move forward.
[English]
In closing, I hope that I have confirmed the department’s commitment to monitor and manage our fiscal requirements to ensure value for taxpayer dollars and continue our efforts in responsible spending.
My colleagues and I would be pleased to address any questions or comments you may have. Thank you.
[Translation]
Arun Thangaraj, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Planning, Finance and Information Technology, Global Affairs Canada: Good morning, and thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee. It is always a pleasure to be here.
Only a few weeks ago, I was here before you to present our Main Estimates, describing our department’s work to advance Canada’s foreign policy, trade and development interests through our global network of 178 missions.
Global Affairs Canada is committed to engaging with international partners to promote peace and prosperity in the world and to support Canadian businesses operating in an increasingly dynamic and unpredictable global environment.
[English]
We continue to leverage our position in international institutions to support Canadian interests and values and make meaningful contributions to solve global challenges.
Most critically, through our G7 presidency this year, Global Affairs Canada was able to advance important domestic and international priorities such as furthering gender equality and women’s empowerment, supporting our climate, clean energy and oceans agendas, and in building a more peaceful and secure world.
In fact, under Canada’s leadership, this year’s G7 was able to help mobilize $3.8 billion in new money to educate girls in conflict zones and to help rebuild their communities, and an additional $3 billion over the next two years from G7 members’ development finance institutions and their private sector partners for women’s economic empowerment.
[Translation]
Canada continues efforts through the United Nations to be able to advance our foreign and development values and priorities. Canada’s current United Nations Security Council campaign for a non-permanent seat is also a key component of the Government of Canada’s broader international and multilateral re-engagement.
Global Affairs Canada continues to demonstrate leadership by engaging constructively with international partners on its international trade agenda, and is expanding efforts to help Canadian enterprise diversify trade. Launched in 2016, our CanExport program provides support to Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises, and Canadian innovators to help them expand abroad. The program has already provided financial support to over 1,000 market diversification projects. Participating organizations have reported the collective impact of over $195 million in exports through new markets.
[English]
In total, through these supplementary estimates, Global Affairs Canada is seeking an increase of $383.5 million in authorities across all sectors of our political, security, development and trade mandates. These supplementary estimates respond to needs to support Canadian businesses operating in an environment with evolving challenges and opportunities. A total of $8.9 million is provided to help Canadian companies diversify exports. Funding will be provided directly to Canadian small and medium enterprises who may include under-represented groups in international trade, such as youth, women, exporters and Indigenous-owned companies who may lack the expertise available to larger companies. Funding will be provided on a cost-sharing basis to help expand their export markets and offset risk and to support services we provide to exporters through our foreign network of missions.
A further $5.5 million in funding is requested to help promote Canada’s creative industries and artists and help them open up opportunities in new markets around the world. It will provide further support and resources for Canadians looking to expand and help Canadian artists and creative sector entrepreneurs to develop a greater reach at cultural events and industry trade shows.
[Translation]
A further $2.7 million is requested in order to fully comply with the Arms Trade Treaty, and strengthen Canada’s arms export regime. Canada currently processes over 7,000 export permits per year related to the export of military, dual-use and strategic goods and technology, and this funding will help conduct enhanced verification and compliance of export permits.
Funding sought through these supplementary estimates aligns with Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy, which aims to promote human dignity and alleviate the suffering of those affected by conflict and natural disasters, taking care to address the specific needs of women, adolescent girls and children.
A total of $189 million is requested to replenish the International Assistance Envelope Crisis Pool Quick Release Mechanism. These funds will allow GAC to continue to provide timely responses to major natural humanitarian and man-made global disasters as they unfold.
[English]
When I was speaking to you on the Main Estimates just a short time ago, I spoke of Canada’s commitments to the Food Assistance Convention which aims to save lives and improve food security and the nutritional status of the most vulnerable in developing countries. These supplementary estimates include $70 million to meet Canada’s annual commitment and will be provided to trusted partners such as the United Nations’ World Food Programme and the Canadian Foodgrains Bank to help address food assistance and nutritional needs of vulnerable populations.
In support of the Government of Canada’s international priorities, the Government of Canada employs over 5,000 locally engaged staff in 110 countries. We are requesting a total of $18 million for pension benefits and social security obligations.
Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, these supplementary estimates respond to Canada’s commitment to engage constructively with international partners, to support the preservation and strengthening of the rules-based international order, to promote peace and prosperity in the world and support Canadian businesses through our progressive trade agenda. We will continue to work closely with our partners to achieve these goals.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: I would like to ask Senator Moncion, Andreychuk and Bellemare to introduce themselves please.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: Good morning. Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: Raynell Andreychuk from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Diane Bellemare from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much. My first question is for National Defence on something that Mr. Rochette was speaking to in his opening remarks. It is about the capital investment that you’re requesting, the $313 million. You mentioned moving the money around. You were saying that you are able to use surpluses in one project to fund demands in another project. That’s just within that capital account, is it? You can’t move money from capital to operating or operating into capital?
Mr. Rochette: No, senator.
Senator Marshall: Okay.
How much is budgeted under the new defence policy for the current fiscal year? I read somewhere that it was $6 billion. Could you just confirm that or give me the correct number?
Mr. Rochette: It is, senator. It is $6.55 billion to be exact.
Senator Marshall: You mentioned in your opening remarks that the $313 million was for acquisition of equipment ranging from vehicles to — what kind of vehicles would they be?
Mr. Rochette: This is what we normally call minor capital based on wing commanders and the vehicles they need on base, from staff cars, normal vehicles to pickup trucks to bigger vehicles. But those are really utility vehicles, not the infantry —
Senator Marshall: Not the large items.
So what was initially included in the $6.55 billion? You’re saying that you can move money around. Under Strong Secure Engaged, $6.55 billion was earmarked for some type of capital equipment. What was initially envisioned to be included in that $6.55 billion? Was it the same as you indicated the $313 million was spent on, or have you moved money around?
Mr. Rochette: Thank you for your question.
Currently, in vote 5 we are asking for a total of almost $3.8 billion, including the $300 million in Supplementary Estimates (A) for this year of $6.6 billion. Of that amount there, we have approximately $147 million for what I was calling minor capital projects, where we were able to bring more money and do more this year to advance our plan.
Senator Marshall: How much of the $6.55 billion was for major capital items? Because from what you have in your opening remarks, I’m getting the impression that these are not major capital items. So what major capital items are in the $6.55 billion?
Mr. Rochette: The original plan of the $6.55 billion was almost all for major capital, $1.2 billion of that amount was for minor capital, which is what we normally have.
Senator Marshall: Your answer is giving me the impression that you’re not spending a lot of money on the major capital items. Am I getting the wrong impression?
Mr. Rochette: So on the $6.6 billion, we have not requested all the $6.6 billion so far. Only —
Senator Marshall: So you have requested $4 billion so far.
Mr. Rochette: Yes, just a bit shy of that.
Senator Marshall: How much of the $4 billion is going to be spent on the major capital items? I’m trying to reconcile what is in your Strong Secure Engaged policy, what you thought you were going to be spending this year on major capital items. So far, you’re requesting $4 billion. How much of that is being spent on the major items?
Mr. Rochette: Regarding the capital funding we’re asking for this year, it is for 98 major capital projects.
Senator Marshall: But the dollar amount?
Mr. Rochette: The dollar amount that we have requested so far is $3.7 billion.
Senator Marshall: You talked about major items and about minor items. I’m trying to get a handle on where you’re at with the major items, because it seems like what you’re asking for in these estimates is for minor items. So where are you at with your major items?
Patrick Finn, Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel) Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Thank you, senator. I don’t have the exact ratio, but I would say it’s probably roughly three quarters based on what we’re doing, a significant number of major capital projects. So on the ship side, our Arctic offshore patrol ships, we just launched the first one. We’ll be delivering it. We also have the joint support ship, the surface combatants, the Halifax Class modernization. On the air side, we have the Hercules aircraft, the fix-winged search and rescue aircraft, and a similar amount. So by dollar amount, the vast majority will go for the major equipment projects.
Probably another quarter is both on the infrastructure side and on my side in the equipment, and as the CFO said, it is a very large number. We have probably 300 projects under way at any given time. Probably 10 per cent of those are really major capital projects in the billions of dollars. The large part of our program is a significant number of smaller projects but equally important to the military, be they radios or other things of that nature.
Senator Marshall: But the $313 million is for minor projects. The $3.7 billion that you already have to date, are you saying most of that is for major projects?
Mr. Finn: Most of that is for major projects, yes.
Senator Marshall: Do you have a list of those? The last several times you have been in, I have asked you for detailed financial information on Strong Secure Engaged so I can look at what is in those numbers. It’s in your defence policy. It’s there as a 20-year conglomerate, but it’s not by year. I was looking for it by year. We have met with you several times now. Ms. Charron was here almost a year ago now, and when I asked for the information, she said, “I do not have the information with me today, but I can certainly provide the information.” I never got it. And when Mr. Rochette was here in May, he said: “The document was prepared and was sent so I don’t know where it is exactly. I thought that you had it already” — meaning me, but I don’t have it.
There is $6.6 billion in your Strong Secure Engaged policy, your new defence policy, and it’s broken down by project. I would like to see the list because when we start looking at your actual expenditures, and also start looking at the Main Estimates and the interim supply, there is no way that we can follow the money. It’s very difficult to follow the money because you are giving it to us in large conglomerates of dollar amounts.
When am I going to get the information? You say it’s available and you keep saying you’re going to give it to us, but we haven’t received it yet.
Mr. Rochette: Thank you very much, senator. In fact, I know that my colleague was in committee last week and the point was raised. I asked for the information, with my colleagues, from the assistant deputy minister of policy. They were mentioning that right now, they have the information. They are trying to make it accessible and in a format that will provide the information, but apparently there is some sensitivity associated with the information, and they want to fix that before releasing the information.
Senator Marshall: I would very much appreciate it because we get Main Estimates, then supplementary supply, and I can’t follow the money.
Do I have time for another question?
The Chair: Please bear with me for one second, Senator Marshall.
Mr. Rochette, you said they are looking at that plan. Can you assure the committee that the list will be provided to us? I want to know the timing of it. Is it before Christmas 2018 or Christmas 2020?
Mr. Rochette: I will bring a message to the department, Mr. Chair, and I will ensure that we push as fast as —
The Chair: Could you please contact the clerk so the clerk could inform the members of the Finance Committee?
Mr. Rochette: Will do, Mr. Chair.
Senator Marshall: My follow-up question is this: You told me that for Strong Secure Engaged for the current fiscal year, it’s $6.55 billion. Now with these estimates, you’re up to $4 billion. And here we are in December, so I’m expecting with Supplementary Estimates (B) that you will come back and you will be looking for $2.6 billion.
But I think — because you haven’t given me the numbers yet — there was also $6 billion in the Strong Secure Engaged policy for last year. And when I look at the Public Accounts of Canada for last years, it shows that your capital spending was actually $3.7 billion. That begs the question that if you had a $6 billion program under Strong Secure Engaged for last year, and you only spent $3.7 billion, what was the $2.3 billion for that wasn’t spent? Where is that now?
Mr. Rochette: Thank you, senator.
As you mentioned, last year we had $6.1 billion available and $2.3 billion of that amount was not requested. It stayed in the fiscal framework in what we call the Capital Investment Fund for the Department of National Defence. It is $108 billion over a 20-year period.
We requested only the funding that we knew we would be able to spend through procurement and purchase of infrastructure or vehicles.
Of that amount of $2.3 billion, at this committee I mentioned we had efficiencies of $455 million, roughly, on projects that cost less or where we did not use the contingency allocated for those specific projects. It was $1.8 billion that was supposed to be spent on specific projects that we did not spend. This year it is $6.6 billion, so $500 million more. Through the mains we requested almost $3.8 billion compared to last year at $3.1 billion. We asked for more funding up front because we know we are in the second year of the plan.
That leaves us with $2.8 billion, roughly. Of that, we expect, through the supplementary estimates, approximately $650 million. We have $300 million with these estimates, and we will ask for the remaining in Supplementary Estimates (B).
We continue to look at what we can advance in procurement in some projects. Right now, we are at $2.1 billion which we did not request of the $6.6 billion. It is already better than last year. We have $760 million in efficiencies this year because we have more projects going on, and we did not ask for the contingency for many of them. Right now, we are roughly at $1.35 billion that we were planning to spend, but, due to delays in procurement or other reasons, we are not going to spend it this year. That money is not lost. We did not request it from the fiscal framework. It stays in the fiscal framework, and we will reprofile with Finance in the year that we expect my colleagues from infrastructure or procurement —
Senator Marshall: But the money that you do not spend is not approved; it still has to go through a budgetary approval process in future years. The only money you are approved to spend is what shows up in the Main Estimates and what is approved in the supplementary estimates.
Mr. Rochette: That is right.
Senator Marshall: The impression being left is that you are behind on Strong Secure Engaged, and you are only in the second year.
I heard the minister in the house on Saturday morning. He mentioned Strong Secure Engaged, but the impression being left is that you are falling behind already. If that is not the case, you should be providing us with the financial information so we can tell otherwise.
Mr. Chair, I have been looking for this information for a year now. Could we have the deputy minister come here and see if we can get that information from her? Is that a possibility?
The Chair: That will be considered and we will bring it to steering, yes.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
Senator Pratte: I have a question for Mr. Thangaraj.
[Translation]
I would first like to quickly follow up on Senator Marshall’s comments. I would like you to tell us more, Mr. Rochette, and perhaps also Mr. Finn, on the fact that this year, like last year, you are going to collect a much lower amount than was originally planned. This shortfall is rather large, as compared to the amount of $6 billion that was to be requested every year. What is it that explains delays of this scope?
Mr. Finn: Thank you for your question, senator. As my colleague said, after analyzing our site in various categories, sometimes the efficiency of projects is at play. A certain contingency is built in for every project, every year. If the value of the Canadian dollar is higher, there are efficiencies that are folded into the projects. It’s money we put away to provide for contingencies in the face of these risks, and it helps us a lot.
In some cases, it involves suppliers’ performance. We always say that we will not accept equipment that was not built properly. In some vehicle projects, for instance, we don’t get the performance we asked for, and so we will not pay the suppliers before they deliver vehicles that perform well and can meet the requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces. These are things we did previously and that we continue to do to see to it that the Canadian Armed Forces and Canadians receive value for money.
We can sometimes also be the source of delays in projects where details in calls for tenders are concerned. It can happen that we are calling for tenders and suppliers ask for more time to complete their bids. This causes delays and we have to carry over the money from one year to the next, and it is the management of all of these aspects, generally, that leads to delays in some cases.
There are other projects that move forward at the same time. As regards the combat vessels project, for instance, we did not know the amount that would be needed for intellectual property, and we set aside almost 1 billion dollars for that expense. Finally, as we received proposals and analyzed them, we realized that it would be far less expensive than we had anticipated. So once again, this concerned the efficiency of the program in the context of setting money aside to deal with contingencies; but finally, we will not be needing it.
My colleague asked for the capacity to manage funds and move them from one project to another, because costs will sometimes be less in some projects and more in others.
Senator Pratte: The amounts involved here are rather large. The first year, you did not draw down almost half of the $6 billion envelope. This time, you say you will not be asking for $2.1 billion, which is almost a third of the overall amount.
These are really large amounts. When there are savings on some projects because of the exchange rate and gains in efficiency, can the money be used elsewhere? Or in a given financial context, if a project costs less, would the savings be as great?
Mr. Rochette: That is a very good question; thank you, senator. We have $108 billion for a 20-year period. When we prepared the new defence policy and studied the costs for each project, some projects were very preliminary; we knew we wanted vehicles, but did not know if they would be four- or six-wheel vehicles. Certain costing studies were preliminary, others were very advanced, and we knew what those would cost. Overall, we knew that certain projects would be less costly than anticipated, and others, more so. We can already see this fluctuation in the first year and a half. That is why we have a 20-year capital base that allows us to manage our funds. When a project proves more costly, we go into our reserve, and if not, the money is available for other projects.
Senator Pratte: I want to insist also, Mr. Rochette and Mr. Finn, on how important it is for the committee to have more information on the projects that are funded. We will really try to obtain that information, as otherwise, it’s impossible for us to do our work.
[English]
A short question about the quick release mechanism. The Supplementary Estimates (A) request is $189.3 million. How do you arrive at that amount when it is quick release and therefore related to something that is unexpected in theory? That is why a quick release mechanism exists, correct? How do you arrive at this amount?
Mr. Thangaraj: In the fiscal framework there is a structure that sets aside money to enable the government to respond to humanitarian crises. The total amount available is $400 million. In our reference level, it is $200 million. Anything unused from the previous year we request to be added. Last year, there was an unused amount of $189 million which we requested to be added to our reference level this year. That is what that amount allows us to do. For example, for the Rohingya crisis or other natural or man-made disasters where we have to respond on an urgent basis, we have sufficient funds within our budget so we can react quickly to mobilize funds for those.
Senator Pratte: Forgive me if I should know this, but I don’t. I know the mechanism has been around for a couple of years. What is the accountability for that money? Obviously if Parliament approves this, the money is there and it’s available for humanitarian crises and otherwise. Public accounts, is this the only way where we know how the money has been spent?
Mr. Thangaraj: Up front, before we even access that money, we are required to get concurrence from the finance minister, from the foreign minister as well as the Prime Minister. So even before we use that money, there is a gating process.
Once we have approval to use the money, our internal due diligence process kicks in. So we will look at what the needs are, the partners that we work with and how we mobilize those funds. In that process, we have audits. So if we work, for example, with the UNDP or an NGO, they will do audits of how they use those funds in a humanitarian situation. We will also go back and do our own verification of projects to make sure that the provisions of the agreement and project were complied with.
Senator Pratte: Are there lessons learned in that process? I don’t have it in front of me, but I remember a couple of weeks ago there was a report from the U.S. auditor, or whatever, about amounts that were spent in Afghanistan by both the U.S. but other countries also.
Mr. Thangaraj: For example, for that case in Afghanistan, that was a report for a World Bank trust fund. That is typical of how trust funds and other investments that we make on projects happen. In there you will have audits.
For example, in the Afghanistan case, that report came out in April. In May, in-country we mobilized other donors. We sent our staff along with the head of mission to review the findings with the World Bank and the monitor to ensure that all of the control points that were noted there were addressed. Afghanistan is a tough environment to work in, so we do have to rely on multilateral partners such as the World Bank and their monitors. What we have done since is we’ve looked at how we strengthen the controls given the environment.
Senator Pratte: Thank you.
Senator Eaton: Thank you, gentlemen. It is always a pleasure to have you here, even though it is very frustrating.
I think it would be useful for the committee, and perhaps for you, if we had a graph because we keep on hearing about the construction of the Coast Guard vessels being bungled on the West Coast, Davie being very unhappy with the way they’ve been treated, Irving being stalled, and Canada accepting used CF-18s from Australia while Australia is accepting new CF-35s.
It would be very nice if we had a graph with expenses and money, showing which projects are being delayed and why, because the numbers don’t always give us a complete story.
For instance, I was looking through the estimates to see if there is anything on the CF-35s. Are we still putting money into the development of CF-35s or have we stopped? Are we out of that altogether now?
Mr. Finn: Thank you, senator, for the question.
On the U.S. F-35 program — I say “U.S.” because they are leading it across the consortium — we remain within that consortium, so we continue to pay our annual dues. There are two reasons why. Canadian industry continues to benefit from that.
Senator Eaton: I support that, but I just couldn’t find that.
Mr. Finn: Understood, senator.
The second reason is we want to ensure that we maintain access on a preferential price as we go through the competition, as it becomes one of the contenders for the competition. Yes, we do, senator.
Senator Eaton: Before I ask you my next question, when you come back, would it be possible to give us a graph with the numbers showing us where each of the projects is so we can follow along with you over the next year regarding what has been built, what is in the design stage, where each of them are, and what is delayed? I think that would be very useful for us as a committee.
I would like to switch gears now and ask you about NATO. We hear President Trump complaining all the time about how we don’t pay our fair share. Can you explain to us how the funding for NATO works? Apparently there are different ways of calculating how much each country puts in. Perhaps it would be useful for us to understand Canada’s contribution financially and how it works, that is, how you calculate it and how the rest of the world sees us.
Mr. Rochette: Thank you very much for your questions, senator.
Our contribution to NATO is roughly $140 million roughly a year. GAC has roughly $25 million on average, so $165 million. You will see this year that we had $22 million in the Supplementary Estimates (A). That is a reprofile from last year because their fiscal year is different than ours. It is January to December. Ours is April to March. So they have some projects that were supposed to be spent before March. They have been delayed. So we will get the invoice in our fiscal year. That is why we reprofiled that funding from last year to this year.
This is the contribution, which is 6.6 per cent, basically, of the contribution in NATO for the administration of these projects, what we call a military budget and the infrastructure projects that they have there.
There are two other calculations that they look at regarding the 29 countries: defence spending and how they perform. As I say, the first one is the defence spending of the country. We keep talking about 2 per cent of GDP. The another formula used is a performance indicator, but we don’t hear about it too often. It is about our capital investment.
On capital investment, we are doing extremely well. In fact, under the —
Senator Eaton: Explain to me what a capital investment metric is.
Mr. Rochette: Basically they are looking at how much is invested in defence but in capital, because some countries, like Canada, have not spent as much as they were supposed to in some years. The percentage they are looking for is 20 per cent.
At this point, we are a bit shy of 20 per cent, but with the new plan and the expenditures that will come during the years, by 2024-25, we expect to get 32 per cent. So we are doing extremely well on capitalization.
With regard to the 2 per cent, NATO has a formula and an explanation of what can and cannot be included. It is based on expenditures compared to GDP. For many years Canada looked mainly at what we were spending on defence, our actual expenditures. That is why we have a projection. When you look at their plan, they look at six years, but for the past two years they have actual expenditures, then forecasted. So they look at our forecast, and then after the fiscal year is completed, they look at the percentage. They include basically everything that Defence spends.
Two years ago, we went to NATO. I sent some of my staff to get a better understanding of what should be included and not included. We discovered that there are things, for example, such as the RCMP. They do have an international cell that can be used, for example, to send police offers to Afghanistan to teach policing. GAC has a section that is specifically for international support for NATO. So if it is something that supports NATO, it is a capability that can be used by NATO and can then be included. We have done the calculations and have included under our new formula departments like Veterans Affairs. The payment for benefits for veterans can also be included.
That is why last year, for example, we had a bump in the pension for veterans of $2 billion. That bumped up our percentage to GDP at 1.36. This year it will be a bit lower because it was a one-time injection of money.
We plan right now, based on our plan to spend under the new defence policy, to reach 1.4 per cent by 2024-25. The problem here is the GDP. Each time that we have a fall economic statement or budget announcement, when Finance does its projection on the GDP, each time you increase the GDP by a certain number — and last year it was almost $800 million a year — that has a huge impact. Even if we inject more and more money in defence, you can inject $100 million, but if the GDP increases by $800 million, your percentage reduces. This is a big challenge we are facing.
Senator Eaton: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: If I understand correctly, you have authorities of $108 billion over 20 years to make major military purchases, whether we are talking about aircraft or land or marine equipment. You do not have $108 billion that is deposited in an account. These are authorized credits. When a projet you estimated would cost $2 billion is completed and costs $1.8 billion, does Treasury pay out in the form of annual payments?
Mr. Rochette: Exactly.
Senator Forest: It should be possible for us to obtain information when a project is completed. We understand that you don’t want to publish your own assessment in order not to cause bids to go up. However, when a project is completed, and once the contract is closed, you disburse the necessary amounts.
Mr. Rochette: Yes.
Senator Forest: Is it reasonable for us to ask you for that?
Mr. Rochette: That information is available.
Senator Forest: The Auditor General of Canada has just tabled a report in which he indicates that the budget for the purchase of aircraft is a very large investment. Actually, 64 % of pilots are needed to pilot those planes. One of the major problems is that over two years, you trained 30 new pilots, and 40 pilots left. Are there not too many grounded aircraft as compared to the number of pilots who are able to pilot them?
Mr. Rochette: Thank you for your question, Senator. I am going to ask Major-General Gosselin to talk about the forces recruitment plan and about pilots in particular.
Major-General Hercule Gosselin, Chief of Programme, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: In the context of the implementation of our Strong, Secure, Engagement policy, we noted a 3,500 increase in the number of regular force members, and efforts were made in consequence to attract personnel to all the trades we need to be able to implement that policy. We are aware of the new capacities that are given to us, and again, through the Chief of Military Personnel, our recruitment teams try hard to attract people to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Senator Forest: You trained 30 over the past two years, and 40 pilots left. So, there is considerable work to be done in that regard.
Maj.-Gen. Gosselin: That is what we are doing at this time, Senator.
Senator Forest: We aren’t flying very high.
As for the additional credits, you are asking for $393 million at vote 1, and on page 1-6 there is an amount of $282 million for capital assets. What explains the gap between the two?
Mr. Rochette: The amount of $282 million specifically concerns funds requested for capital assets and small purchases, notably for projects like the new headquarters, equipment, small vehicles, vans and so forth. There is also $150 million for investments in information technology, $121 million of which will go to our data centres, $10 million for intelligence services at headquarters, and a joint capacity of $2 million. That is money for our small projects. The rest will be used to support major projects for Mr. Finn.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: I want to follow up on one question on the “training 30 and losing 40” concept. That has always been a problem with the training in the services. For example, pilots have left for commercial airlines. Is it worse or better now, and are the reasons the same as would have been 30 years ago?
Maj.-Gen. Gosselin: Thank you for your question.
We are all fighting for great people to join the Armed Forces. This is why more than ever we rely on the reserve forces to assist us. This is why we have a diversity strategy in which we want to enable as large as possible a number of people who want to join the Armed Forces to specifically see that there is a great opportunity to serve.
We understand that we are in competition with private industry, but, at the same time, there are unique opportunities for Canadians through serving in the Armed Forces regarding not only the quality of the equipment we have but the opportunity to serve the country here and elsewhere. We have unique advantages that we want to put forward so that people join the Armed Forces to address that specific issue.
Senator Andreychuk: I know there is a problem going into the Armed Forces, and we have to change how we recruit. I think you are addressing that, but also having them stay in and not leave early for commercial interests. Having been in Moose Jaw, that is a preoccupation. You train them up, and they don’t see the career there; they see it elsewhere. I haven’t heard anything about retention policies.
Maj.-Gen. Gosselin: The people at the centre of the defence policy, Strong Secure Engaged, are working hard to make the Canadian Armed Forces an area where people can contribute in a meaningful fashion but also have the opportunity to push their limits and be in a position to have a unique environment where they can serve their country.
Retention is certainly one of the factors. The chief one is looking at how to keep on being an employer of choice in Canada.
Senator Andreychuk: I have been trying to track how much the G7 meeting in Canada cost us in total. I have heard that it is still being compiled. We have heard about the 631 vehicles that were purchased through the RCMP that have been discounted. When and where will we be able to get a global look at the G7 concept?
Part of it is that there are discussions that this was an interesting concept and a good technique a long time ago — not the G7, but having a G7 summit — but that it has had its time and that the costs are now much more in every sense of the word, yet it doesn’t bring as much to foreign policy and to Canada’s interest as it might have 10 years ago. Where would I go to find the sum total and the breakdown?
Mr. Thangaraj: The sum total of the budget allocated to the G7 would be shown under the horizontal items in the estimates because a number of departments, as you said, were involved.
The total budget of the G7 was $604.5 million. It was budgeted to be less than the previous G7 summit.
In terms of the full accounting, our presidency lasts until the end of the year, so there are still ongoing activities. We have a dedicated team looking at all expenditures horizontally so we are not just managing it in stovepipes. There is horizontal coordination and oversight. Early in the new year, once the presidency wraps up, we will have a full accounting of the expenditures.
Senator Andreychuk: This bid for the UN non-permanent seat, is there a place we can go to find the actual money beyond your department? First, it would be good to know how much dedicated money — and that is administration costs, moving personnel to do work. I know that in embassies and everywhere there is a focus on drawing away from other programs to do the work of trying to get a UN seat. I know other departments are doing it, ministries, et cetera. What is the total estimated cost for this bid?
Mr. Thangaraj: I would have to get back to you on what other departments are spending because we don’t collect that information.
In terms of what we as a department are doing in these supplementary estimates, you will see an amount for travel for envoys to small island states to promote Canada’s bid for the non-permanent seat.
In the department, this has been a focus for the last number of years. With any initiative that we have over time, certain initiatives come to prominence and certain ones fall away. We have reallocated resources internally from other areas of programming, especially in our multilateral programming branch, where the focus of our efforts are, as well as our missions throughout the world. It’s just an added activity that they do. It doesn’t require additional resources per se, which is why you don’t see a request through these supplementary estimates. What we have done is just an internal reprioritization.
We can get back to you with the internal costing of what we have allocated towards the Security Council campaign.
Senator Andreychuk: I have a final question. Was the department given a mandate with objectives of what it is we’re trying to achieve by obtaining a seat on the UN?
Mr. Thangaraj: I don’t have that information with me, but I can certainly get back to you on that.
Senator Andreychuk: You say that a total of $18 million is included for pensions, benefits and social security obligations for locally engaged staff in 110 countries, 5,000 of them. Was this negotiated? Quite frankly, we used to use locally engaged staff on the cheap, and they are some of our best resources, particularly in the trade I know?
Mr. Thangaraj: They are indeed some of our best resources, and they bring local knowledge and expertise that we otherwise couldn’t have. What this reflects is our pension and benefit obligations. We have base funding of a little over $50 million for that funding. Our regime of managing pay and benefits is that we are to be consistent with local law and local practice.
So when either the pension regime changes or the cost of the pension or social security benefits change, we do a re-evaluation every year and request additional funding through supplementary estimates. This $18 million is the difference between what we were funded for those pension and benefit obligations and the actual value of those obligations.
Senator Andreychuk: I would be interested to know if the increases have come from, say, our European colleagues and the U.S. as opposed to perhaps our African missions, et cetera. Where did the increase come from?
Mr. Thangaraj: I should be able to get that to you, but maybe not with that level of granularity. I should be able to get you at least a narrative of where that comes from.
The Chair: Could you provide the information through the clerk?
Mr. Thangaraj: Will do.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for being here.
Similar to Senator Andreychuk, I look forward to hearing more about the strategy around the seat on the UN council and the why, what that’s going to cost and how it will be of most benefit beyond what we think is an obvious conversation. I do look forward to receiving that.
I want to ask you about Global Affairs, coming back to food. Yes, we have seen and listened to you at the table before. In the 2017-18 Main Estimates, there was information that funding was declining by $70 million due to the sunset of the funding for the Food Assistance Convention. In these supplementary estimates, we’re looking at requesting $70 million for Canada’s commitment to the Food Assistance Convention. I wanted to circle back to that and understand more deeply the percentage of Canada’s contribution to the big picture of funding for the Food Assistance Convention, the main recipients of the food assistance, and the total need for food assistance worldwide. Where does our work really fit here?
Mr. Thangaraj: We had time-limited funding for our obligations under the Food Assistance Convention, and that’s why you saw a decrease of $70 million in the Main Estimates. What you see here is the restoration of that funding in our reference levels on an ongoing basis. Next year in our Main Estimates you will see an increase of $70 million year over year.
In terms of our share of the overall treaty obligations, I would have to get back to you and provide that to you. Our main recipients are the United Nations World Food Programme as well as other NGOs, such as the Canada Foodgrains Bank as I indicated in my opening remarks.
Notwithstanding the fact that our obligations are about $250 million a year, we typically spend more than that given the needs that are there. For example, in 2017, our treaty obligation was $250 million and we spent $344 million. That’s a pattern that has existed for a number of years, but again I can get back to you on the details of our share of the overall commitment.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
The Chair: On the second round we have four senators. Could I ask the senators to each ask one question, please, so that we’ll respect the time frame that we have for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-62?
Senator Marshall: My question is for Global Affairs. One of the line items is funding to implement the Arms Trade Treaty and to further strengthen Canada’s export control regime, for $2.4 million. It says there is Budget 2017. Does that mean that it was originally envisioned to be spent in the previous fiscal year and for some reason wasn’t?
Mr. Thangaraj: No. Budget 2017 announced the funding, and then through the process of Treasury Board submission, drafting the regulations and Canada acceding to the Arms Trade Treaty, which happened last year, it’s just a timing difference of when all of that occurred and the seeking of funding.
Senator Marshall: At the time the budget was passed, was it envisioned it would be spent in 2017-18?
Mr. Thangaraj: We cash managed a certain amount of that, but when we did the costing of the budget request in 2017, we knew what the funding profile was, so we knew the bulk —
Senator Marshall: You knew it would be in the current fiscal year?
Mr. Thangaraj: That’s correct, yes.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
Senator Eaton: Mr. Thangaraj, with the $9 million for the Migrant Smuggling Prevention Strategy, could you tell me what that means?
Mr. Thangaraj: This program was created in response to migrants that arrived on a number of boats. This program is aimed at working with countries and their law enforcement agencies and capacity building within those countries to prevent that from actually occurring. I don’t have the numbers offhand, but I think over 1,000 incidents of potential migrant transfers were prevented through this program.
Senator Eaton: So it doesn’t apply to the U.S., I guess?
Mr. Thangaraj: No.
Senator Eaton: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: My question will be brief, Mr. Chair. A $3 million budget has been allocated for an auxiliary oiler replenishment ship. Was that amount for a long period of time, or for a specific operation?
Mr. Finn: Thank you for your question. I’d say it’s a budget update. We pay $6 million a month for the auxiliary oiler, in addition to the operational costs for the crew and fuel. The amount planned for in the budget was around $123 million. For the current fiscal year, we have reached $126 million. Since the beginning of the fiscal year, the auxiliary oiler replenishment ship has spent most of its time at sea, on both the east coast and the Pacific coast. Right now it is in the western Pacific area, and will return to Victoria in December.
Senator Forest: Does that mean that the oiler requires an annual budget of $125 million?
Mr. Finn: Yes. There is about $72 million for the ship itself, and the balance represents operational costs. The amount depends on the number of days it spends at sea per year. This year, it has spent a lot of time at sea. We estimate a sum of $125 million a year.
Senator Forest: I imagine that you compared this with your decision not to go forward with a second contract for the Obelix replenishment ship. That would have led to much higher annual costs.
Mr. Finn: That was indeed one of the factors. Previously, in the defence policy, there was the issue of priorities and the matter of funds distribution. As you said, there was a cost of $125 million for a five-year contract with the possibility of extending it. That was one factor among others, like the priorities and other budgetary investment requirements.
Senator Forest: With hindsight, do you think that was a good choice?
Mr. Finn: It meets the navy’s requirements, and is consistent with what we had requested from our suppliers.
[English]
The Chair: To the officials from the Department of National Defence and Global Affairs Canada, as a reminder, additional information you shared with us is to come through the clerk. Thank you very much.
Colleagues and members of the viewing public, we are about to begin our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-62, but before we do, I would like to remind senators of a number of points of clarification and information.
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]
With regard to the procedure, I want to remind senators that when we propose more than one amendment to a clause, the amendments must be proposed in the order of the lines of text to be modified. Consequently, before we examine an amendment to a clause, I will check to see if other senators intended to propose an amendment to a previous line of the same clause. If that is the case, they will have the opportunity of doing so as prescribed.
[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.
I would also remind senators that some amendments that are moved may have consequential effects on other parts of the bill. It is very important that the committee remain consistent in its decisions and that they be consistently applied throughout the whole bill.
[Translation]
It would be very useful if a senator who moves an amendment could tell the committee what other clauses of the bill his amendment may affect. Otherwise, it could be very difficult for our committee to remain consistent and precise in its decisions. Our staff will try to note where subsequent amendments are to be proposed and they will let us know.
[English]
Because no notice is required to move an amendment, there cannot have been any preliminary analysis on the amendments to establish which one may be of consequence to others and which ones may be contradictory.
Finally, I wish to remind all honourable senators that no seconder is required in committee and that if there is ever uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or show of hands, the cleanest route for clarity is to request a roll call vote, which provides clear results. Senators are aware that any tied vote negatives the motion in question.
Honourable senators, are there any questions on any of the above? If not, I believe we can proceed.
I would ask the clerk to inform the committee so that everybody is clear who is a member in good standing of the committee and is therefore allowed to move a motion and to vote on any motion. I would ask the clerk to read out loud the membership as it stands this morning.
Gaëtane Lemay, Clerk of the Committee: This morning we have the chair, the Honourable Senator Mockler. Around the table we have the Honourable Senator Andreychuk, the Honourable Senator Bellemare, the Honourable Senator Boehm, the Honourable Senator Deacon, the Honourable Senator Eaton, the Honourable Senator Forest, the Honourable Senator Marshall, the Honourable Senator Moncion, the Honourable Senator Neufeld and the Honourable Senator Pratte.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Madam Clerk.
[English]
Is it agreed, honourable senators, that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-62, An Act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other Acts?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 10 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 11 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 12 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 13 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 14 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 15 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 16 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 17 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 18 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 19 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 20 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 21 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 22 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 23 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 24 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 25 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 26 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 27 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 28 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 29 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 30 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 31 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 32 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 33 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chair: Shall clause 34 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 35 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 36 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
[English]
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the title carry, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Does the committee wish to consider appending any observations to the report? I see there is no intention. Thank you very much, honourable senators.
Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate this afternoon?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)