Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 1 p.m. to examine the
Supplementary Estimates (A) tabled in the Parliament of Canada for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2020.
Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
Honourable senators, welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on National
Finance. I’m Percy Mockler from New Brunswick. I’m the chair of the
I wish to welcome
all those who are with us in the room and viewers across the country who may be
watching on television or online. Also as a reminder to those watching, the
committee hearings are open to the public and also available online at
sencanada.ca. Now, honourable senators, I would like to ask the senators to
Joseph Day, New Brunswick.
Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Larry Smith, Quebec.
Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Michael Duffy, Prince Edward Island.
M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Loffreda: Senator Tony Loffreda, Montreal, Quebec.
Duncan: Pat Duncan from the Yukon.
Forest: Good afternoon. Senator Éric Forest from the Gulf region of
Thank you, honourable senators. I want to take this opportunity to welcome
Senator Tony Loffreda, who was appointed to the Senate last week. Senator
Loffreda is attending his first meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on
National Finance today.
you’ve chosen a good committee for your debut as a senator. You’ll certainly
make your mark, and you’ll be part of a great team. I’m sure that you’ll benefit
greatly from the experience of the committee members around the table, and I
have no doubt that all Canadians can also benefit from your extensive
experience. Welcome, and thank you for choosing our committee.
senators, I now want to introduce the clerk of the committee, Maxime Fortin, who
is also joining us for the first time. She has replaced Gaëtane Lemay.
Gaëtane, I have no doubt that you’ll be pleased with our committee.
I would like to
recognize and thank our two analysts, Mr. Alex Smith and Mr. Shaowei
Pu, who team up with the clerk to support the work of the Standing Senate
Committee on National Finance.
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. Today, we begin our consideration of the expenditures set out in the
Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020,
which were referred to us by the Senate of Canada. Please permit me to highlight
the mandate that we got from the Senate of Canada last week, moved by Honourable
Senator Grant Mitchell, Acting Legislative Deputy to the Government
Representative in the Senate, saying:
senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rules 5-5(a), 5-5(j), I
Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and
report to the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2020.
senators, for the first hour of our meeting this afternoon, we’ll be joined by
officials from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. They’ll introduce the
content of the Supplementary Estimates (A) and provide an overview of the
As we often say
in this committee, it is all about TAP. The acronym TAP is about transparency,
accountability and predictability.
We have from
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Karen Cahill, Assistant Secretary and
Chief Financial Officer.
is joined by Glenn Purves, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management
And we have
Senior Director, Expenditure Strategies and Estimates, Darryl Sprecher. I have
been informed that, Mr. Purves, you will make comments and then we will
proceed to questions.
the floor is yours.
Assistant Secretary Designate, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of
Canada Secretariat: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for
inviting me to speak on short notice about the supplementary estimates, the
first for 2019-20.
I will remind
honourable senators that in addition to the information in the tabled documents,
further details are available online, including forecasts of statutory spending,
allocations from Treasury Board central votes, expenditures by program or
purpose, and transfers.
I would also
remind the committee that the GC InfoBase is available to provide you with more
information on authorities and expenditures as you wish.
Estimates (A) for 2019-20 provide information to support the voted budgetary
expenditures of $4.9 billion, for a total of $131.4 billion in 2019 and
a 3.8 per cent increase in relation to the authorities to date. The
Supplementary Estimates (A) for 2019-20 seek parliamentary approval for new
voted expenditures of $4.9 billion. Most of these new expenditures are allocated
to the following eight items:
First, there is
$677 million for demand-driven programs and services which provide support to
eligible veterans and their families; $467 million to compensate departments,
agencies and appropriation-dependent Crown corporations for the impact of
collective bargaining agreements and other related adjustments to terms and
conditions of service or employment. The costs arise from agreements concluded
between April 1 and October 18, 2019; $296 million to help developing
countries address the impact of climate change; $197 million to support the
migration from 12 legacy data centres to enterprise data centres, as well as
activities to support the establishment and adoption of cloud services; $177
million to support and upgrade the armoured combat support vehicle fleet for the
Canadian Armed Forces; $176 million for the International Assistance Envelope
Crisis Pool Quick Release Mechanism, which will be used to provide humanitarian
assistance in response to major international crises such as natural disasters,
food crises, conflict, political upheaval, sudden intensification of low-level
crises or other unforeseen events; $171 million to advance reconciliation on
Indigenous rights and fisheries issues; and $166 million for consumer incentives
to buy or lease battery-electric or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
there is also one organization appearing in these estimates for the first time,
the Canadian Accessibility Standards Development Organization. This organization
will be responsible for developing and revising accessibility standards for
federally regulated organizations, including Government of Canada departments
and agencies. These estimates include $10 million for this new organization.
as mentioned earlier, these are the first supplementary estimates for 2019-20.
We expect to table the final supplementary estimates for 2019-20 in February, as
in previous years, with the appropriation bill to follow in March. We also
expect to table the 2020-21 Main Estimates in February, in the same time frame
as in the years prior to the two-year change to the standing orders.
At this point,
Mr. Chair, I would be happy to take any questions you or other senators may
have. And it’s a pleasure to be here.
Thank you very much, Mr. Purves.
Marshall: Thank you very much for your presentation.
Can you give an
overview of the status of estimates reform? In your opening remarks, I got the
impression that Supplementary Estimates (B) were going to be the final
supplementary estimates for this fiscal year. Is my understanding correct?
Mr. Purves: That’s correct. For this fiscal year, that
would be the last supplementary estimates, yes.
Marshall: My understanding is the last two years were effectively “pilot
projects,” which is my term for them, but that on April 1 we will revert to
the old way. Could you bring us up to speed on that?
Mr. Purves: I will back up and give a broader sense of
where we are with respect to estimates reform.
If you think
about it, there were three broad areas. There was about reporting, about timing
and alignment with the budget, as well as scope and basis of accounting. On the
first part, on the reporting part, in terms of departmental plans and
departmental results reports, those have been tabled over the last two years. We
expect to continue to table departmental plans alongside Main Estimates, as well
as departmental results reports after a fiscal year is concluded to be able to
align and check in with those departmental plans.
provided, as I said at the outset, a lot of information online as to how TB
central votes work, what has been allocated to date, including the purpose of
spending and aligning spending by core responsibilities. In terms of reporting,
we expect to continue on that path.
In terms of
timing and alignment with the budget, as you know well, there was a decision to
do a two-year pilot. Therefore the standing orders were changed temporarily for
two years to change the date upon which you have to table the Main Estimates on
or before March 1 and to move it to April 16. This was intended to
allow the Main Estimates to be tabled after the budget was tabled and for the
Main Estimates to be able to reflect spending items in the budget.
Unless there is a
change by the parties, an all-party decision to continue with the change, the
standing orders now revert back to where they were before. In my opening
remarks, I mentioned we are getting ready to table the Main Estimates before
March 1 and that is how we have to proceed, unless there is a change to the
standing orders. I gather this is something the government would consider, but
it’s not just a government decision, it’s really a parliamentary decision.
In terms of scope
and basis for accounting, you’ll recognize that in the last two Main Estimates
we’ve included an alignment of these Main Estimates with the budget. It starts
with the Main Estimates number and it walks through all the different stages,
and then you end up with the budget number. In the budget, it did the same
thing. It started with the budget number, moved along, and then identified the
Main Estimates amount coming out of the budget.
continuing down the path of aligning the timing of the Main Estimates after the
budget, it would probably be difficult to do because we won’t know what’s in the
budget because we’ll be tabling Main Estimates before. It depends on when the
budget is tabled.
Marshall: Who does the evaluation? We’ve gone through the two-year pilot. I
know it wasn’t perfect, but it seems like two good years where there was a lot
of effort put into the changes and now it’s going to revert back to the old way.
Who makes that decision? Is that the Treasury Board minister?
Mr. Purves: OGGO actually put out a report last year on the
experience of the estimates reform. It was an all-party report that came out and
gave specific views by party as well as specific views of the OGGO committee.
Ultimately, it would be the government but in consideration of the views of the
other parties to determine whether the standing orders are something that should
As an official,
we have to plan assuming the default where we’re tabling before March 1.
It’s up to the government, but Parliament, to think about that.
Forest: With regard to the question from my colleague, Senator Marshall,
this experience has enabled us to monitor expenditures a little more efficiently
for the past two years. The monitoring is quite a challenge, given the amounts
involved. It would be unfortunate to revert to the old system.
I have two
questions. The first concerns the $50 million over five years to support local
journalists. The funding includes $10 million. This provision was announced in
the February 2018 budget. Has any money been distributed in the past two
years? As we know, the issue is now becoming increasingly thorny and sensitive.
People say that information is power. However, for the regions of Canada, this
issue is about the ability to support local media. Funding was approved in
February 2018. To date, has any money been distributed to some, if not all,
Mr. Purves: Thank you for your question. I’ll respond in
In terms of the
$10 million, I should point out that you will have Heritage appearing later.
Again, this is an item that is part of their page proof for supplementary
estimates. I can only speak broadly on how the system works, in the sense that
this funding is provided to not-for-profit organizations representing different
segments of the news industry. Again, the idea is to find gaps in local media
and local coverage, and use and direct these funds through not-for-profit
organizations to be able to address these gaps, where in fact this coverage
isn’t being provided.
From a mechanical
standpoint I can speak to how the funds are flowing, but I don’t know if I’m
able to answer the question. I think what you’re asking is a more substantive
Forest: Not at the moment. I want to know whether a mechanism has been
established. Can money be used to provide tangible support to local media across
Canada in order to help these media survive and carry out their mission to keep
people informed in their communities?
The intention of
this fund is to provide support to local media. I can’t comment about whether
the amount is sufficient or whether it’s being targeted in the right way. I know
that it’s being dispersed to not-for-profit organizations who are identifying
the gaps that exist in local media in order to ensure that the coverage is being
Forest: This funding has been approved for two years. I’m wondering whether
any cheques have been written and sent to any local media in Canada. Is the
system running, or are we still at the intentions stage?
Mr. Purves: I know for a fact, in terms of these
supplementary estimates, the expectation of the department is that they need to
make a disbursement of actual cash to these not-for-profit organizations. Having
said that, I don’t know the schedule of when these payments are being made from
the not-for-profit organizations to these local media agencies and whether the
cheque has been sent.
I believe this is
a question that you can touch base with Heritage on because they are closer to
Forest: Or read our local media. Maybe they’ll make an announcement if they
receive the cheque.
Duncan: It may be that the witnesses redirect me to the website. In going
through the supplementary and looking at many of the contributions and so on, I
was looking for a line item breakdown. For example, in Indigenous Affairs:
Funding to renew 25 self-governing Indigenous fiscal transfer arrangements. My
query, in looking at items like this, is can I have a breakdown by province and
What I think I
heard in your initial presentation was that this is available on the website. If
I were to go online and do a word search by “Yukon,” could I get that
Related to that,
if I might, under your own particular area, Treasury Board Secretariat, the
funding for compensation adjustments, the other related adjustments, I wondered
if any of that was related to the Phoenix pay system, which has appeared before
questions in one. A detailed breakdown of line items is what I’m looking
Mr. Purves: Sure. In terms of your first question,
certainly GC InfoBase has further breakdown on many of these items. To answer
your question, what you have picked out as an example is fiscal financing
agreements related to comprehensive land claims and self-government agreements.
These are what we call horizontal initiatives.
You’ll see some
initiatives in these supplementary estimates that touch on multiple departments.
In the beginning of the supplementary estimates document, there is a
section on horizontal items, and it breaks down the total amount, which is
$18.6 million, according to which department is receiving that funding, and
provides a sense of where it’s going.
going to First Nations and Inuit in British Columbia, Yukon, Quebec and
Labrador. If you’re looking for more granularity, that is something that could
be touched on with — I believe you’re seeing CIRNAC this afternoon. CIRNAC
might be able to give you additional context. GC InfoBase does quite a good job
of giving additional breakdowns.
Duncan: Contaminated sites is another situation of horizontal funding. I
understand that part of it.
Mr. Purves: Exactly.
Duncan: What I’m hearing you say is yes, the breakdown by province would be
available on the database, or am I duplicating efforts by asking the question of
Mr. Purves: There is further information with respect to
what is provided to these in GC InfoBase. Certainly it would be useful to speak
to CIRNAC on these fronts.
We don’t do
specific earmarks for every dollar on a regional basis.
Duncan: Okay. That was my question.
Mr. Purves: There are many programs where it would be
virtually impossible to do that. The Passenger Protect Program, for instance, is
one of them. Gun and Gang Violence, I believe, is another horizontal initiative.
We don’t have the capacity to actually do that specific earmark by region or
Duncan: I have to ask the department then?
Mr. Purves: Yes, exactly.
Duncan: And on horizontal — the Northern Contaminated Sites
Mr. Purves: On contaminated sites it would be the same
thing. I believe that on the contaminated sites side, it speaks to certain
scopes, such as the North, north of the sixtieth parallel. In terms of
specifically which territory we’re speaking about, it’s not detailed, no.
Duncan: And the other?
Mr. Purves: The other question you had: When we speak about
collective bargaining, in the additional information — I believe your first
question was about the $467 million that is identified in vote 15 for collective
bargaining. We have online a detailed breakdown by department of where that
funding is going.
In terms of your
second question related to that, which was about Phoenix and Phoenix damages,
there is an item listed for $44 million in vote 10 that is specifically to
address that issue.
Duncan: Thank you.
Mr. Purves, going back to Senator Forest’s question about the media
fund, we get lots of questions from people we know in the media saying, “When is
the cash coming?” My rudimentary understanding of the estimates process tells me
that supplementary estimates are for programs or expenditures that were added
after the last Main Estimates were written.
that, in the supplementary estimates, there is $10 million for media. Has any of
that money flowed or is it simply a notional expenditure at this stage? If it’s
simply a notional expenditure, why would you not have waited until the Main
Estimates, which will come in a couple of months? If the cash hasn’t flowed to
this point, what is the rush to do it as a supplementary estimate?
Mr. Purves: Thank you for the great question, senator.
In terms of
orienting senators, when it’s an item in a budget, it’s in the planning
framework. It’s created in the fiscal framework, but it may not have been sent
to Treasury Board.
In this case,
when we’re coming forward in supplementary estimates, these are items where
Treasury Board submissions have been developed, they have been submitted, and
Treasury Board ministers have approved these items.
They are in the
supplementary estimates because they have been approved by Treasury Board. They
need to be briefed in the reference levels more broadly.
wait for spending items that once approved by Treasury Board, they go on to the
next supplementary estimates, then they are briefed in the reference levels
accordingly. But because there is another supplementary estimates this year, it
could be that in this one in particular there may be payments that are required
to be made by Heritage to these not-for-profits before the next supplementary
estimates are tabled and receive Royal Assent at the end of March.
So I understand what you’ve just told me, the money for the media can’t go
until these Estimates are approved by the Senate and the House of Commons?
Mr. Purves: This $10 million will be available to
departments for its programs, payments and activities upon Royal Assent by the
Thank you. That’s very helpful.
M. Deacon: Thank you for being here today as a team, and, of course,
thanks to the team behind the team. I see many of them. It’s important.
I want to
acknowledge something that seems so simple. On page 4 is a chart. I’ve been
looking for that for a long time. Although we kind of know it, the results of
machinery and your budget reflect it. Thank you for that simple page that
says, “Here is what we were, and here is what we are now.” That’s helpful for
organizing our thinking.
started bringing up a little piece of the Phoenix pay system. I think we all
have different touch points.
That’s one I
continue to monitor and wonder about. You talked about the $44 million. I think
we’re all looking forward to the day that it’s not on the page and it’s not
a conversation. What I’m trying to appreciate is with that money, with the
request for $44 million, where it’s putting us on claims and having a sense of
the number of claims that have been made, what we might anticipate in this chunk
of time and if you see this as a continued possible supplementary request. I’m
trying to see if we’re getting near and around the curve or near the end.
Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer, Treasury Board of Canada
Secretariat: With respect to damage, it’s a subset of the old claims
process. Agreement for damages was signed on June 12 with a number of
bargaining agents. It was to compensate current public service employees for
damages incurred through the Phoenix implementation. Current employees were
receiving five days of leave. They have been given their four days since 2016 to
this fiscal year. They will be credited an additional day for a total of five
days in the new fiscal year.
employees, on November 28, we launched a website where they can apply for
damages equivalent in money, cash payments of five days if they are eligible. We
have received a number of claims to date. As of this morning, close to 2,000
claims were received from former public servants. We have assessed about 550
claims to date.
This fund will
help reimburse departments for what they have been paying employees strictly for
M. Deacon: Thank you. I was trying to get a sense of the number of
folks who have come forward for claims thus far on that two-tiered process and a
sense of what percentage of the workforce that is. I’m trying to see what we
might anticipate as we move forward in time. You have mentioned 2,000.
Ms. Cahill: Yes. Current public servants who are currently
included in the damages, our estimate is 146,000 employees. Those are employees
of the bargaining agents who have signed the agreement for damages.
For former public
servants who were part of the bargaining agents who have agreed to the damages,
our data sets estimate at 16,500 public servants to date. That’s the data set we
have, but it can go up to 25,000 to 28,000 former public servants as time goes
The damages for
former public servants also applies to the estate of deceased employees who were
eligible for those payments.
M. Deacon: Thank you.
Bellemare: Thank you for being here. I apologize for being a little late.
Perhaps you’ve already answered my question, but I’ll ask it anyway.
Estimates (A), on page 1-6 — I think you referred to this in the slides —
include the major changes to the structure of government and the authorities
since the Main Estimates for 2019-20. My question may seem a little naive, but
I’ll ask it anyway. Do the changes in the structure of government entail any
costs? If so, are these costs accounted for, or do they have a completely
insignificant impact on the budget?
Mr. Purves: Thank you for the question.
At this stage,
any costs that are related to these changes, there are many statutory changes,
so they would already be captured on the statutory side.
As you know, when
we put out a supplementary estimates document, we will give a projection of
statutory spending going forward, but it’s not a voted item for members of the
house and the Senate. Effectively it’s the voted items that matter.
You’ll see, for
instance, that there is an area where we’ve created a new organization, the
Canadian Accessibility Standards Development Organization. That organization is
receiving about $10 million in funding. As a consequence, you’ll see that there
is a page in the supplementary estimates that identifies that organization,
including the $10 million.
That’s an example
of a situation where there is a structural change in the document that we’re
capturing and where there is a cost attributed.
I can’t say just
by looking at it that there is another one. I think that’s the only one, that
new organization, where it would be $10 million.
Bellemare: In other words, I gather that changes to business cards or email
addresses may sometimes entail certain costs. However, these costs are not
identified and they instead constitute general administration costs. Is that
Mr. Purves: No, they are not costs that are beyond the
authorities that have been provided to departments and agencies by
Bellemare: Thank you.
Thank you all for being here. First, you talked about the two-year
experiment. Are we going to get a report that we can review as to outcomes and
how that worked? We were very interested in supporting that initiative back when
it was first introduced or thought about.
Mr. Purves: Thank you, senator. As I mentioned to Senator
Marshall, there has been a report put out by the house about their experience
and what they thought of many of the actions that have been taken with respect
to the two-year pilot up to that point.
In terms of
whether the government will be putting out a report is not my understanding at
this juncture. I think it’s still early in a sense that we haven’t completed the
pilot. We’re about three quarters of the way through. There are ramifications of
not changing the standing orders, as I said.
There are many
elements of the pilots and the estimates alignment exercise and estimates reform
that is beyond just the changing of the standing orders. There is reporting.
There is looking at the accounting basis and trying to do a better job of the
reconciliation of the accrual and the cash and so forth.
I guess it’s a
question for this body as to whether you were planning on looking at the
experience as well. We hadn’t heard that a report was forthcoming.
If this committee decided to look into this, would that be helpful to
Mr. Purves: I think that having the input of all
parliamentarians on these issues is very helpful. In terms of the house
committee, I would recommend people pick up the house committee report and
identify whether there is anything in there that has not been shared and that
the Senate may have a different view on. That would probably be the best
Thank you. Now, your comment with respect to the standing orders and what
happens with respect to this initiative will depend on the standing orders,
that’s a House of Commons standing order that you’re talking about?
Mr. Purves: That’s right.
We tend to follow whatever decisions are made. If there are some decisions
that are to be made that will impact us, then we should be looking into
Mr. Purves: I think, again, we’re planning on tabling Main
Estimates — as an official, my job is to make sure that we follow the
standing orders as they are and we’re back to factory default settings. The
standing orders are asking for us to table the Main Estimates by
I guess the one
thing I will say is that there have been a lot of innovations and improvements
through the estimates reform process that has seen terrific improvements over
the last few years, to the latest two. The kind of information we’re able to
provide, both online and through InfoBase, to help parliamentarians and
Canadians understand the spending that is going on is incredibly important. A
lot of that doesn’t go away; it continues. I think that’s important to keep in
I have a comment and then one more question, if the chair will permit me. My
comment is with respect to some of your answers, you’re referring to
abbreviations of departments. We are pleased that this committee and a number of
committees in the Senate are televised. The people watching may not know what
OGGO is, or CIRNAC, another one that you mentioned. I might put myself into that
Mr. Purves: I apologize. That’s a habitual thing as a
bureaucrat, I believe. OGGO is the Government Operations House Committee. CIRNAC
is the Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs department. I’m trying to
think if there was another one I may have mentioned. Certainly keep me honest on
That’s very helpful to us, to have you use the full department name when
you’re talking about these, especially when we see that departments are changing
names rather rapidly. We thank you for providing us with a copy of the list of
change of names of different departments — new organization, previous
The funds that
were in the previous organization that were appropriated for the previous
organization, how is that dealt with in an accounting sense? We used to see a $1
figure in there.
Mr. Purves: That’s right. One dollar is a placeholder to be
able to list it, but when it transfers over, there is no change in the amounts.
The amounts effectively transfer from one department under one name into the new
department and the new name.
It’s a full amount that happens to still be there, not a prorated
Mr. Purves: It’s sort of a convention that we do in the
estimates in order to ensure that operations may continue for that department,
despite the fact that there is a change in the legal name.
Thank you. My final point is that your horizontal estimates that you’ve
given us in the horizontal explanation, various departments involved, was
something you introduced several years ago. I encourage you to continue to do
that. It makes it a lot easier for us to follow your estimates when you have
these horizontal items.
One of the
horizontal items is planned International Education Strategy — and it looks
like it’s in at least two departments — for Canadians working outside of
Canada. We wouldn’t want a duplicate effort. The more money you can save
administratively to give to workers to travel abroad and gain experience I would
think we’d want to encourage.
Mr. Purves: You’re correct, senator, that the International
Education Strategy does touch on three different departments with three
different focuses. It’s useful for us to spell that out in that way. That’s why
there is a short description under each one, to nuance the difference in
spending and scope between one and the other.
Sometimes you’re using the same wording, “Canadians working abroad.”
Students are Canadians, and they’re working abroad as well. Two different
departments, two different funds.
Mr. Purves: Some target students; some target low-income
Canadians. There is a different scope of targeting.
Okay. Thank you.
Loffreda: Thank you for your introduction and welcome. I’m pleased to be
here with you. I’ll ask my question in English.
I’m looking at
the estimates page 1-9. Although every dollar counts, if we look at the
National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, it’s a topic of concern to
many. In 2017-18 expenditures, we don’t have any amounts. 2018-19 estimates to
date we didn’t have any. Now we’re looking at $19,523,508 with the supplementary
estimates. I’m just wondering: Is that simply a reclassification or is there
anything we should be made aware of regarding that expense?
Mr. Purves: The reason for that is it’s a new organization
with a new name that’s been created. Some organizations are just created; they
weren’t an existing organization with a different name. In this case, this is an
organization that has come out of — I’m trying to remember what the name of
it is. If you bear with me for a second, I will get it for you. SIRC, Security
Intelligence Review Committee.
Loffreda: It was working under a different name previously; it’s not an
Mr. Purves: It was the Security Intelligence Review
Committee. It’s been changed to this new organization.
Loffreda: I’m just curious if there is anything on national security we have
to spend more on because of certain issues. But if it is a new committee, that’s
fine. Thank you.
Mr. Purves: You’re welcome.
Marshall: The $4.8 million for the Government of Canada financial and
material management solution project, is that multi-year? Is that just for this
year or did that project start sometime in the past and will go into the future?
How big is the project?
Ms. Cahill: It’s a multi-year project. This funding was
identified a number of years ago in our TB submission. We’re just accessing the
$4.9 million this fiscal year to continue the project. This is mainly to bring
in 18 departments that are currently using the FreeBalance system, which, at the
end of 2021, will become obsolete.
We want to bring
18 departments on board ASAP. This fiscal year, by April 1, 2020, we will
bring in three of those departments, with the remainder to be brought on board
by April 1, 2021. This is an ongoing project. FreeBalance will no longer be
supported by the vendor. We have to help those small departments move to a new
Marshall: Okay. For the departments that are impacted, the cost to those
departments, are those costs in the departments or are they reflected in the
Treasury Board numbers?
Ms. Cahill: The cost of the impacted departments will be
reflected in the departmental budgets. This is simply the cost to the Treasury
Board Secretariat to stand up —
Marshall: For this year.
Ms. Cahill: — the SAP applications. We’re the centre
of excellence to bring the application up to date for those departments to be
using it. Once we have delivered the applications to the departments, they will
pay a licence fee, just like any other departments using SAP.
Marshall: Would you be able to provide to the clerk of the committee the
cost to date for each of the past fiscal years and then how much you’re
projecting it to cost in future years? I always find these multi-year,
multi-organizational projects span several years but also go across several
When you look at
the $4.8 million in relation to the overall numbers, it looks immaterial. But if
you look at the past and what’s going to be spent in the future — could you
provide that so we can get a handle on the actual cost of that project?
Ms. Cahill: I’d be happy to follow up with the full cost.
The cost is divided in two. We have the cost from the Consolidated Revenue Fund,
through a TB submission such as the $4.9 million you’re seeing today. But we
also have — and we’ve been to this committee because it has to go through
the supplementary estimates — contributions from other government
The total overall
cost since the project has started — of course, this is an estimate —
it’s estimated to be $138.7 million —
Marshall: Yes. It’s a big project.
Ms. Cahill: — since 2015-16, yes. I’d be happy to provide
more detailed table to the committee if you wish.
Marshall: That would be very much appreciated. Yes. Thank you.
Forest: In terms of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, various budget initiatives
are being presented with a view to restructuring the fleet. Is the $125 million
in funding part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy?
Mr. Purves: The amounts for $125 million, there is one for
$72 million, which is part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy as part of the
Canadian Coast Guard’s fleet recapitalization plan. Much of this was announced
in Budget 2018, including prior budgets, directing funds for the Canadian Coast
Guard to undertake studies.
The idea is there
was a study and there was a concept design that went forward. This funding is to
enhance the capacity and goes toward further recapitalization projects linked to
the fleet. There is a linkage to the National Shipbuilding Strategy, senator, as
you mentioned. I’m just wondering if that’s the specific one you were talking
about or is there a different one you were looking at?
Forest: For example, does the $72 million for the Coast Guard’s fleet
recapitalization projects cover the construction of new vessels or the
renovations and upgrades? What projects are included in the $72 million?
Mr. Purves: I’m looking at some details to help the
The plan is to
include the acquisition of up to 26 new large ships in four separate classes: 18
multipurpose vessels, six program icebreakers, one additional polar icebreaker
and one additional offshore oceanographic science vessel, as well as the
acquisition of 58 small ships and boats. I can’t identify within this amount
which of those vessels it’s going to be targeting. It is effectively going
towards the modernization of the fleet.
Forest: With this budget, if you consider the example of a polar icebreaker,
you can purchase only one piece of the icebreaker. You need a budget larger than
Mr. Purves: I think it’s important to note that these are
supplementary estimates. These are additional funds that are needed and that go
on top of funds that have already been provided.
talking about here is not just the planning and what’s the fiscal horizon of
this initiative over, say, four or five years. It’s about briefing into the
reference levels of DFO to be able to make payments of $72 million, of which $55
million is capital. It’s going towards actual initiatives, recapitalization,
revitalization of these fleets.
Forest: Thank you.
Bellemare: Since you’re here, I want to ask you a follow-up question. I can
see here that there are indeed funds allocated to the Employee Wellness Support
In recent years,
we’ve had extensive discussions on health and disability insurance programs
along with wellness programs for public service employees. At the Treasury Board
Secretariat, there was talk of reviewing the insurance approach for sick leave
cases. I want to know where things stand on this issue.
With regard to
the funding for the Employee Wellness Support Program, is there a link to the
approach that we want to review?
Mr. Purves: Thank you, Senator Bellemare. My colleague
Karen Cahill will answer your question.
Ms. Cahill: Indeed, employee wellness and sick leave are
very hot topics. With respect to the $300,000 in our supplementary estimates,
the amount constitutes a reprofiling of funds from last year to this year. We
want access to these funds so that we can continue the work currently being
collective agreements with bargaining agents, we took a step back. That’s why we
must reinvest to recover the $300,000. The work is ongoing, and a great deal of
negotiating is being done with each insurance company. We’ll certainly be able
to provide more information on this subject in the coming year.
Bellemare: So far, nothing has been decided?
Ms. Cahill: So far, nothing has been decided. However, I
can assure you that the work is ongoing. The goal is to review the employee sick
leave policy in the coming year.
Bellemare: We’ll follow up later.
Ms. Cahill: Absolutely.
Bellemare: Thank you.
I have a question, if you permit me, honourable senators, for
Mr. Purves, but I think it will go to Ms. Cahill.
we know the public servants in Canada are hard-working people. I heard you say a
few minutes ago that 2,000 former public servants have made claims for
compensation due to the Phoenix pay system.
How many current
public servants across Canada have made applications?
Ms. Cahill: Definitely we understand that everybody works
hard, and Phoenix is on top of our list in terms of priorities. I’ll just go
back a little bit.
When the issues
started with Phoenix in 2016, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat created a
This was an
office where public servants, through their department, could submit claims for
loss of money, loss of investment, or the interest paid on a line of credit
because they were not paid their normal salary on time, or even some went for
months without receiving a pay cheque. Since 2016, I will have to follow up and
come back to this committee with the total number of public servants who have
The 2,000 claims
that were received, as I answered Senator Deacon, were for former public
servants. They were specifically related to the damage agreement where the
government committed to compensate former public servants for the damage
incurred by Phoenix. Whether they were impacted directly or indirectly, if they
were eligible, they would be paid the equivalent of five days at the rate they
were paid when they left the public service.
agreement also has two other portions which have not yet been launched. There is
a damage part 2, which is for current and former public servants who have
encountered severe financial issues. Again, loss of investment, paying interest
on a line of credit, et cetera. This one has a threshold of $1,500. The
minimum amount to be claimed under Part 2, or Tier 2, of the damage is
Then the third
part of the damage agreement is for public servants or former public servants
who have encountered serious damages, whether it’s psychological damage, they
lost their house, it’s way more complex than “I’m paying interest on my line of
credit.” This Tier 3 will be launched later in 2020. We are currently developing
the processes and making the agreements to be able to launch that.
Marshall: Last year, when we were studying Phoenix, it took us a long time
to get the total cost of the Phoenix implementation. I think the Comptroller
General eventually prepared something and gave us the costs. We looked at the
cost and then we saw the $44 million, but you’re saying there is going to be
Ms. Cahill: The $44 million is specific to the damage
agreement. It’s aside from the rest of the costs that were stated.
Marshall: Who is tracking the cost? Are we going to have to wait? Where are
we now? Christmas. In April, when you come back and we want to know how much is
Phoenix costing to date, is somebody calculating that on an ongoing basis or
will it take a long time like it did last year? Does somebody track the costs of
Phoenix on an ongoing basis?
Ms. Cahill: We do track the cost of Phoenix on an ongoing
basis. Departments are required to report on how much Phoenix is costing them. I
can assure you, senator, we will be able to provide accounting for the $44
million. We are tracking how much we are compensating public servants through
the damage or any other claims that were submitted in relation to Phoenix.
Tkachuk: I want to ask about the climate change ask of $2.65 billion for
contributions to the International Fund for Agricultural Development and the
World Bank. Can you tell us what the results of this initiative have been and an
example of what initiatives were undertaken? Do you have any evidence of how
effective they’ve been in addressing climate change?
Mr. Purves: I understand that one is for Global Affairs
Canada, and that amount is towards meeting the commitments of the Paris
Agreement on climate change. A lot of that funding is going towards supporting
the commitment to have other countries able to make adjustments in order to
support the broader effort on climate change.
At this point,
the funding is being made available. It’s here in order for Global Affairs
Canada to be able to disburse. Because it’s a fairly new initiative, you’re
meeting with colleagues from Global Affairs Canada this afternoon and they would
probably have a better line of sight as to the specific results they will be
targeting and how they want to action —
Tkachuk: But you’re the Treasury Board. This program has been going since
2015. Would you not have asked these questions of them?
Mr. Purves: In terms of this tranche and this specific
tranche of funding, and what is the objective of this specific tranche, once
Global Affairs receives that funding they disburse it and then are able to
monitor the results they want to achieve from those disbursements.
Tkachuk: Help me out here: This was in 2015, so has any money been
Mr. Purves: I’m suggesting is at this point Global Affairs
might be better to speak to that. I can’t talk to you about how much has been
disbursed at this point from that program since 2015.
Tkachuk: There is just one little question because it is somewhat odd. It’s
on the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, $175.6 million. We
haven’t been called Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development since 2015. It has
been called Global Affairs. Why is it Foreign Affairs, Trade and
Mr. Purves: It’s a legal name, effectively, until such a
time as there is a legal change to the act. We have to maintain it as its legal
name. If we put “Global Affairs Canada” as the title of an Estimates document,
the department would not be able to disburse on that funding.
Tkachuk: All Global Affairs is Foreign Affairs?
Mr. Purves: Well, as you can see, Public Works and
Government Services it is listed here. It’s called PSPC.
Tkachuk: Okay. Thank you.
To the officials of Treasury Board, thank you very much for your
On our next panel
will be officials from Transport Canada, National Defence and also
Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
We now have
before us representatives from three departments.
We’re joined by
Annie Boudreau, Chief Finances, Results and Delivery Officer, Crown-Indigenous
Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. She is accompanied by Martin Reiher,
Assistant Deputy Minister, Resolution and Individual Affairs Sector. We’re also
joined by Ryan Pilgrim, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister,
Corporate Services, Transport Canada.
He is accompanied
by Anuradha Marisetti, Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs, Transport Canada.
joined by Lieutenant-General Jean-Marc Lanthier, Vice Chief of the Defence
Staff, Department of National Defence. He is accompanied by Cheri Crosby,
Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance and Chief Financial Officer, and Troy
Crosby, Assistant Deputy Minister of Material.
Welcome to all of
you who represent those departments. I have been informed by the clerk that
Ms. Boudreau will be first to speak. Ms. Boudreau, you have the
Boudreau, Chief Finances, Results and Delivery Officer, Crown-Indigenous
Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair and
honourable senators for the invitation to discuss the 2019-20 Supplementary
Estimates (A) for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. I
acknowledge that we come together on the traditional territory of the Algonquin
Relations and Northern Affairs Canada Supplementary Estimates (A) include
initiatives totalling $274.1 million, which will bring total budgetary funding
for the department to approximately $6.1 billion for 2019-20.
supplementary estimates include urgent items that have been approved by Treasury
Board, with $87.5 million flowing through vote 1 operating expenditures;
$839,000 in vote 5 capital expenditures; and $185.8 million in vote 10, grants
and contributions. The $30,000 in statutory funding is for the employee benefit
I will now
briefly describe the major initiatives items included in Supplementary Estimates
The largest item
in these supplementary estimates, $94.9 million, is funding to renew 25
self-governing Indigenous fiscal transfer arrangements.
collaborative self-government fiscal policy was developed in a joint effort
between Canada and self-governing Indigenous governments. This funding is to
implement elements of this policy. This initiative is in line with the Budget
2019 commitment to ensure Indigenous governments have the fiscal capacity to
govern their people, communities, lands and resources effectively through
investments co-developed with self-governing Indigenous governments.
initiative is to advance reconciliation on Aboriginal rights and fisheries
issues, for $37 million. Through a three-year reconciliation agreement with the
Heiltsuk First Nation in British Columbia, the community will be able to begin
to address their priorities in self-government, housing and infrastructure,
economic development and language revitalization and preservation.
A total of $17.9
million is being provided to honour fiscal transfer arrangements for
comprehensive land claims and self-government agreements with the Labrador
Inuit; the First Nations of Tsawwassen, Maa-Nulth and Nisga’a; the Yukon
Environmental and Socio-Economic Board; and the Cree-Naskapi Commission.
initiatives covered in the document concern the reprofiling of the previous
year’s funding into fiscal year 2019-20 so that the important work on these
initiatives can continue. For instance, you’ll see items such as the funding to
assess, manage and remediate federal contaminated sites, reprofiling $34.9
million. Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada is responsible
for the management and remediation of a number of contaminated sites in the
challenging environment north of the 60th parallel, where weather can routinely
delay these projects. Reprofiling this targeted funding ensures that the work to
protect the health and environment of Canadians can continue.
The funding for
the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement of $53.2 million has been
re-profiled in order to complete Canada’s legal obligations under the settlement
agreement, which is anticipated by March 31, 2021.
these Supplementary Estimates will allow the department to make significant
progress on its priorities. I look forward to discussing any aspects of these
estimates with you, and I’ll be pleased to answer your questions on my
presentation. Thank you.
Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services,
Transport Canada: Mr. Chair and honourable senators, I’m pleased to be
here today to discuss Transport Canada’s Supplementary Estimates for 2019-20.
These Supplementary Estimates represent items within the Minister of Transport’s
portfolio, which includes Transport Canada, the Canadian Air Transport Security
Authority and Marine Atlantic Inc.
is seeking a total of $227.1 million in funding from the estimates, including
$4.6 million for operating expenditures, $223.3 million for grants and
contributions, and $234,000 in statutory authorities, bringing the total
authorities for 2019-2020 to $2.2 billion.
requested covers a variety of initiatives, including $165.5 million for the
Zero-Emission Vehicles Program; $31.5 million to address Indigenous priorities
and marine safety regarding the Trans Mountain Expansion Project; and $10.5
million for the Rail Safety Improvement Program. Also, an amount is included for
a transfer of $3 million from CATSA to Transport Canada related to negotiations
for the transfer of aviation security screening to a designated screening
supplementary estimates, the department will continue to offer Canadians a
trustworthy and dependable transportation system that allows them to safely and
efficiently reach their destinations and receive goods for their daily lives in
a sustainable manner.
The Government of
Canada’s incentive program for zero-emission vehicles helps reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and contributes to a clean transportation system by increasing the
adoption of low-emission vehicles through purchase incentives. Over 30,000
Canadians and Canadian businesses have benefited from this incentive since the
program’s launch on May 1, 2019. Transport Canada has had to advance
funding from future years to meet the demand for this incentive.
Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project has the potential to create thousands of
jobs and generate billions of dollars. To help fund clean energy solutions,
Transport Canada is leading three measures that will address marine safety
environmental concerns raised by Indigenous groups. These measures include the
provision of access to maritime information to Indigenous coastal communities,
funding for marine safety equipment and training, and support of a program to
advance low-noise and low-emission crude oil tankers serving the Trans Mountain
The Rail Safety
Improvement Program has been integral in ensuring Canada has one of the safest
rail transportation systems in the world. This program provides funding to
improve rail safety and reduce injuries and fatalities related to rail
transportation. Activities supported by the program includes roadways and
intersection improvements, innovative safety technology and research to
further enhance rail safety.
initiatives supported by the supplementary estimates, Transport Canada continues
to ensure the integration and sustainability of Canada’s roads, railways, ports,
ferries and airports.
Anuradha and I will be pleased to answer any questions you have regarding our
Assistant Deputy Minister (Finance) and Chief Financial Officer, Department of
National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Thank you, Mr. Chair
and senators, for the invitation to present on behalf of the Department of
National Defence our insight into the department’s Supplementary Estimates (A)
for the 2019-2020 fiscal year. My colleagues and I look forward to discussing
this important information with you.
Today I am joined
by my colleagues Lieutenant-General Jean-Marc Lanthier, Vice Chief of the
Defence Staff; and Mr. Troy Crosby, Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel).
Let the record show that Mr. Troy Crosby is not my long-lost
brother-in-law. However, when we check our roots, we tend to end up in the same
I have prepared a
brief statement. After that, of course, we are at your disposal to answer
Defence is requesting $463.6 million through the supplementary estimates
process. These estimates represent an increase of 2 per cent of DND’s
current allocation for fiscal year 2019-20. The changes and additions are
summarized as follows:
in funding to support and modernize the armoured combat support vehicle fleet.
The project, identified in the Strong, Secured, Engaged policy, will acquire a
new fleet of 360 combat support vehicles for the Canadian Army to replace the
aging fleets of light armoured vehicles and —
— $94.1 million
to address competitive compensation for our people and provide specific funding
to create a special pay differential for pharmacy, medical and dental officers,
update the rates of pay for officer cadets and chief warrant officers, align pay
relativity between the Regular and Reserve Force, and adjust the environment
allowance for search and rescue technicians; $47.8 million to fund the expansion
of the defence team. As set out in Strong, Secure, Engaged, the Canadian
Armed Forces will increase its ranks by 3,500 Regular Force and by 1,500 Reserve
Force members. National Defence will also hire an additional 1,150 civilians to
support the military in areas such as intelligence, procurement and health and
— and also $42.1
million to fund the Canadian Armed Forces participation in the United Nations
peacekeeping operation in Mali in response to a United Nations request, and
$27.7 million to fund the project to recapitalize docking facilities at the
Canadian Forces Base in Esquimalt, British Columbia —
— $26.4 million
to fund the definition phase of the Hornet Extension Project for the Canadian
Armed Forces. The funding will enable definition of work associated with the
acquisition of avionics and mission support systems for aircraft of Canada’s
fighter fleet necessary to comply with regulator and interoperability
requirements to 2032; $8.3 million to fund a remotely piloted aircraft system
for the Canadian Armed forces. This project will acquire up to 14 drones and the
associated ground control stations, initial integrated logistics support,
initial weapons, stock and infrastructure.
$3.2 million to
fund the definition phase of the surface combatant project for the Canadian
Armed Forces. The funding is required to finalize the Canadian surface combatant
design and prepare for the project implementation phase.
And there is
$700,000 to support military members who are injured or ill, transition out of
the Canadian Armed Forces or rehabilitate and transition back to work.
Finally, we are
requesting the internal reallocation of resources for the Northern Atlantic
Treaty Organization, NATO, and the Vancouver Principles contribution program.
With respect to NATO, the $41 million will support Canada’s contribution to the
NATO Airborne Early Warning System, AWACS, the adaptation of the NATO Command
Structure, the new requirements associated with the Allied Ground Surveillance
system and the expansion of NATO Security Investment Programme.
$225,500 for the
Vancouver Principles Contribution Program to provide funding for the Romeo
Dallaire Child Soldiers Initiative to prevent the recruitment and use of child
the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces continue to
deliver our essential national mandate while embracing fiscal responsibility and
effective stewardship of resources.
Mr. Chair, my colleagues and I would be very happy to answer at this time
any questions that you might have.
Thank you. Senator Marshall.
Marshall: Thank you. My first question is for Ms. Crosby. Thank you for
your very interesting presentation.
My first question
relates to the armoured combat support vehicle fleet and the $176 million. Can
you give us a little bit more information on that project? Specifically, I’d
like to know the total value of the contract and how the payment schedule is
determined. I’ll leave you with those two items first.
Ms. Crosby: Thank you very much for the question. It’s my
pleasure to answer that.
As was announced
last August, the total project value is a $3 billion project. This particular
funding will go towards progressing the project to deliver the 360 combat
vehicles to the Canadian Armed Forces. We, of course, structure all our
contracts based on deliverables of goods and services in milestones. If you’re
interested in how that will proceed and the cash flow, I would suggest my
colleague Mr. Crosby could speak to that.
Marshall: Could you provide that to the clerk? You’re saying it’s $3
billion. Somewhere I had seen it might be $2 billion. Could we get a schedule
that shows when the payments are due and what the deliverables are so it would
be like a little two-column chart? Could we get that? I’d be very interested in
question I had related to the policy Strong, Secure, Engaged that was
released, I don’t know, maybe three or four years ago. It indicated at the
time — these are just estimates now — but $6 billion in capital
funding for each year approximately. I think this year it’s maybe $5.9 billion.
If we look at the estimates document we have now, you’re up to $4 billion, so
you still have $1.9 billion to go. I know you did fall short by about $2 billion
in each of the two preceding years.
Could you discuss
whether you think you’re going to meet the $5.9 billion this year and how you
will play catch-up for the years you haven’t met the targets?
Ms. Crosby: As you know, as was introduced three years ago
with Strong, Secure, Engaged, National Defence has the opportunity to
have a new funding model that enables us to plan for our funding over a 20-year
period. One thing I know for sure is the plans we make in year one and two are
going to change. It’s virtually impossible to plan with certainty and expect
things not to change.
What we do
internally in terms of managing our Capital Investment Fund is we continuously
refresh our capital forecast. We do this in many ways and we’re continuing to
improve. We move the money in our Capital Investment Fund to the time when it’s
required. That could be in the year or in future years.
The new Capital
Investment Fund gives us that flexibility. As senators may know from previous
appearances, when we plan, for example, to have $5.8 billion available for us in
this fiscal year, we take a number of steps to make sure that we only request
the money that we think we’re going to need.
For example, as a
project is evolving, in the Main Estimates this year we asked for $3.7 billion
of that $5.8 billion knowing what we had to start with and then we waited until
Supplementary Estimates (A) until projects unfolded and we have a much clearer
line of sight of what we need. That’s why we’re back now to request more.
At the end of the
day, if we don’t use that money, the $5.8 billion, if there are funds left
there, we do not lose that funding. That funding stays and will shift to where
we need it, to various projects. That’s why whether we take the cash now or not
may be a poor indicator of whether we’re actually making progress because we are
not losing that money that we don’t use. It gets shifted to when we need it.
Marshall: Based on what you’re saying — and I don’t know what number is
in Strong, Secure, Engaged — but the next year capital funding, have
the capital funding numbers been revised? I’m still working with the old numbers
in Strong, Secure, Engaged. Have they been revised?
Ms. Crosby: We are constantly revising and updating. It’s a
bit of a moving target. As projects move to the point of implementation where we
are actually signing contracts, that’s when we have the most clarity. You know
when we begin projects we’re always operating with a very rough order of
magnitude in terms of our costing estimates. As we progress through the planning
cycle and options are analyzed and so forth, when we finally get to definition
at that point and we’re signing contracts, we then have a lot more clarity.
In that sense,
there are 333 projects that are planned over the next 20 years. All of the
pieces are moving or many are moving at the same time. We constantly adjust and
amend. That’s how we manage.
Marshall: Can I get the revised numbers? I’m still working with the old
numbers that are four years old. Can you give me capital funding requirements
for future years that are more current, I would very much appreciate that. Do I
have time for another question?
On the second round.
Forest: You are ready for French section of the meeting.
Forest: I have a question about the armoured vehicles. The $3 billion
contract awarded without a call for tenders raises many questions for me.
According to your estimates, this order of over $3 billion is for 360 armoured
vehicles. If I apply the rule of three, we’re talking about over $8 million
per unit. You said that we didn’t issue a call for tenders because the new
vehicles will be similar to the old ones. How can we explain this choice to
award a contract for $3 billion in public funds without a call for tenders? In
addition, it appears that the contract includes a $650 million loan to the
company in question. This is a major concern for me as a manager of public
Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), Department of National Defence and the
Canadian Armed Forces: The contract value is in the order of $2 billion for
the provision of the 360 vehicles as well as the initial spares and the things
that it will take us to set up an actual capability. The values for the project
include other costs such as those for infrastructure, project management and
other things not associated directly with the contract.
for us to be able to work with General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada in this case
will also make the LAV 6 platform, which is the backbone of the Canadian Army’s
capabilities, provides us a real efficiency in terms of training in spare parts.
There is an opportunity there to leverage this both from a fiscal perspective
but also importantly from an operational output perspective.
the contract with the company, given our history with them, their understanding
of the Canadian Army’s needs, and our understanding of the LAV 6 as a platform,
allowed us to negotiate a contract with great advantage for the army in terms of
what we’ll be able to deliver, the various configurations of the vehicle.
includes the development work, the specific design requirements to meet the
Canadian Army’s requirements in about eight variants of the vehicle — some
of them less complex, like ambulances; others more complex, like militarized tow
trucks, I’ll say — to work with the other LAV 6s. That relationship and our
ability to work with the company has allowed us to leverage this to great
advantage to acquire the 360 vehicles.
Forest: When you analyzed the advantages and disadvantages, given the
amounts involved, if we’re talking about an order of magnitude — even though we
can’t make an exact comparison—were you able to say that you made this choice
because, ultimately, it’s the best choice in terms of the value for money of the
equipment in relation to the investment? Another major concern for me is the
$650 million loan to a company that has just been awarded a contract worth
almost $3 billion. Why did you grant this $650 million loan?
Mr. Crosby: The amounts don’t involve a loan. There is no
loan involvement. There are milestone payments associated with the delivery of
the vehicles, both as we work through the engineering process and on delivery of
the vehicles through the course of the contract.
We, through our
options analysis, always look at the various opportunities, different ways of
solving the problem. In this case, the opportunity to leverage the fact that the
army currently operates a fleet of 550 LAV 6 platforms provided a great
advantage in terms of efficiencies, operationally in terms of training, spare
parts and other considerations.
Forest: At the end of the contract, for the 360 units, by applying the
rule of three, I calculated $8,333,333 per unit. I rounded this amount down
to $8,330,000. Do you know the value of each individual unit at the end of the
Mr. Crosby: The value of each individual unit will depend
on its actual configuration. Some, as I mentioned earlier, such as an ambulance,
will be less expensive than the more complex variants, which may include
electronic systems or the ability to recover other damaged vehicles in the
battlefield. It’s important to recognize that the contract value, again,
includes not just the 360 vehicles but also the investments in spare parts,
training and other elements of support to the vehicles.
Forest: What is the proportion in relation to the different items such as
the other vehicles and the other commitments, training or spare parts?
Mr. Crosby: The majority of the contract value will be
associated with the vehicle cost.
Forest: So the proportion would be 80-20?
Mr. Crosby: I would need to verify that.
Mr. Crosby, can you provide through the clerk the answer to that
Mr. Crosby: Yes.
Tkachuk: My question is for the Department of Transport, Mr. Pilgrim.
On the incentives for purchase of zero-emission vehicles, can you elaborate on
exactly what this is? What is the purpose of the program, and how much is it per
Mr. Pilgrim: I’ll let my colleague take this one.
Marisetti, Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs, Transport Canada: Senator,
the way the program is structured is to give an incentive to individual
Canadians who are interested in buying either a battery-operated vehicle or a
plug-in hybrid. The idea is to encourage acceptance and adoption of
zero-emission vehicles in the market.
The way the
program works is that if an individual purchases a battery-operated vehicle that
is a fully long-range hybrid vehicle, the incentive provided is $5,000 per
vehicle. If it’s a plug-in hybrid with a shorter range, it’s $2,500 per vehicle.
At the point of sale of the vehicle, the individual would get the rebate; the
dealer would then come back to Transport Canada and we would reimburse them the
amount of rebate they offered the Canadian, the consumer.
Tkachuk: What about commercial-use vehicles? Is that part of the program? Or
a person buying a car for business, is that part of the program as well?
Ms. Marisetti: As of today, people buying it for business
get a business writeoff. A certain number of fleet vehicles are also included in
the incentive program. It has not yet been extended to commercial vehicles.
Tkachuk: If all the money was used up, how many vehicles would that entail?
Does it depend on the price? Does the person buy a $50,000 vehicle to get the
same amount of money, $5,000? I know some provinces have provincial rebates,
like Ontario. I think theirs is $8,000, but I’m not sure. So it’s like $13,000
off for a $40,000 vehicle?
Ms. Marisetti: In some provinces, this is over and above
the provincial rebates that are offered. In the two provinces where it exists
today, British Columbia and Quebec, it is added to the rebate that is already
Tkachuk: How many vehicles would that be?
Ms. Marisetti: As of today, we have processed close to
31,000 claims. That gives you a sense of the number of vehicles that have been
purchased and eligible to receive a rebate.
Tkachuk: You don’t really care whether the person drives 2,000 miles or
100,000 miles; you just give them the money, right? So it doesn’t really matter?
If I buy a vehicle and I drive only 3,000 or 4,000 miles a year, or 10,000
kilometres, is there any difference between me doing that and someone driving
Ms. Marisetti: No. The incentive is for the purchase of the
Tkachuk: What contribution will that make to CO2 emissions in
Canada per year?
Ms. Marisetti: As it is right now, light-duty vehicles
contribute about 50 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. With the
incentive program, the total number of vehicles sold in the country has gone up
by 32 per cent compared to last year.
Tkachuk: What was the last point?
Ms. Marisetti: Sales of zero-emission vehicles have gone up
by 32 per cent compared to last year, which we believe can be
attributed to the incentive program.
Tkachuk: How many would that be?
Ms. Marisetti: Between May and now, which is the last
week of November, we’ve processed about 31,000 claims.
Tkachuk: How many people would have bought vehicles in Canada last year?
Ms. Marisetti: I don’t have those figures.
Tkachuk: Millions? What would the contribution be of those 31,000 vehicles
to CO2 emissions in Canada? There must be some research done on this,
on how many emissions you save, or else why would you be doing it?
Ms. Marisetti: Yes. What I can tell you is these vehicles
that we’ve sold — like you have said, we have sold millions of vehicles in
the country. The sale of the zero-emission vehicles contributes to
3 per cent of the total number of vehicles sold in the country. At
this time last year we were at 2 per cent, so we have increased in
terms of percentage of vehicles sold, which contributes to the reduction of
emissions in the country. The goal is that by encouraging acceptance and
adoption of the vehicle, it will contribute to the overall reduction of
Tkachuk: Thank you.
Duncan: I thank all of the panel for your presentations. It’s very helpful.
My question spans all three presentations. Then I’d like to focus on
transportation in particular.
My question is
where. For example, in Crown-Indigenous Relations, there is funding for the
management of federal contaminated sites across the North. I’m looking for a
breakdown, if I could, through the clerk, of where, which contaminated sites
we’re talking about, and also, of course, a progress report related to that on
In terms of the
Department of National Defence, there are additional funds for a remotely
piloted aircraft system, and you mentioned drones and long endurance associated
ground control stations, initial integrity. Where is it intended that these
drones would be and where would the infrastructure be?
In terms of
transportation, following up on the funding incentives for low-emissions EVs,
electric vehicles, for many of the comments referenced by my colleague, Senator
Tkachuk, the answers are found in our Standing Senate Committee on National
Finance hearing with the electric vehicle folks and representatives on
May 30, which is when I believe that committee meeting was held.
In that committee
meeting, Senator Klyne, Senator Neufeld and I, all mentioned the applicability
of electric vehicles to Western Canada. The desire there for purchase is not a
car. It’s the dream of every 17-to-whatever-year-old to own a truck, not a car.
In that regard, may I again, falling on the where, you’ve indicated there has
been an uptake in the funds and 31,000 vehicles have been purchased. Where? If
it’s all southern Canada, I would suggest it would be more helpful to Canada as
a whole if we were able to expand the availability of funds to encourage the
vehicle manufacturers to meet the demand that is out there and is growing fast,
as was evidenced by our previous committee meetings and discussions on this same
Again, I would
emphasize, as Senator Klyne put it in that meeting, the light truck is the
family vehicle, it’s the office of the small business owner and the mode of
transportation for the family. In order to get from Regina to Meadow Lake or to
Flin Flon for a hockey game, you have to have the charging stations and you have
to have the vehicle capable of doing that. If I could have the breakdown.
I have three questions, one for each department. Defence is going to look at
hiring 3,500 regular forces and 1,500 reserve force members. This goes back a
couple of years when we used to ask those questions regarding delay when I was
active on the committee. Especially in the reverse forces, young men or women
who want to join, the problem was it would take 8 to 12 to 16 or 18 months
before anything happens and you actually get engaged. I’m wondering about the
type of tracking you’re doing. Is there an issue with not only reserves but also
the regular forces in terms of the time lapse before someone can get involved
and participate? I’m looking specifically at what sort of tracking you’re doing.
That’s the first question.
Going back to
Transport Canada, over 30,000 Canadians have used and benefited from the
incentive for this program. Are you looking at what you want to accomplish and
then what the industry has accomplished? Where I read or heard, the industry had
an objective of selling 500,000 electric vehicles or hybrid cars in the last
year or two years and they’ve only sold something like 100,000 or 150,000. What
type of tracking are you doing to balance between what your department is doing
and what industry is doing so you actually know what’s going on and you can
measure the effectiveness of your report, as opposed to just having numbers and
saying we’re going to do this or put money here, but how are you tracking the
affairs, there are approximately 640 Nations and everyone wants their own
self-government, as I understand. There may be amalgamations and mergers of
different bands and nations together. Do you have a tracking device in terms of
following the actual implementation and the success of the implementation in
terms of what’s being delivered to the local Indigenous people who are, to my
mind, shareholders to their leaders who are executing this.
Ms. Crosby: Mr. Chair, I’d be happy to answer the
question about growing the defence team. I will pass the floor over to the Vice
Chief of Defence Staff.
Lieutenant-General Jean-Marc Lanthier, Vice Chief of the Defence
Staff, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces:
Mr. Chair, I’m pleased to report that last year 10,118 Canadians joined the
Canadian Armed Forces, both the regular forces and the reserve forces. In terms
of recruiting, we have been authorized to an effective strength of 68,000 in the
regular force. We’re currently standing at 67,600 and some, so we have made a
significant dent in the numbers that we were short.
In terms of
reserves, the big changes over the last three years has been the delegation of
recruiting authorities to the services. Having been the previous army commander,
I can tell you that last year the reserve group netted over 2,000 people in the
Canadian Army alone. The numbers are increasing. That delegation has allowed us
to significantly increase the speed at which we recruit further reserves.
remains to try to recruit a new member into 30 days. At this point, about
20 per cent or so of the files meet that standard. That’s a clean
file. There is no medical issue. There is no problem contacting the references.
You need three references to be able to enroll in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Other files will
take longer and some will take multiple months, as we try to reach a reference
or require a more detailed medical before we can enroll the person. I think
we’re making significant progress.
Mr. Pilgrim: In terms of tracking results and how we’re
doing, if 30,000 is good or bad or indifferent, we were given $300 million over
three years for this incentive program. We’ve asked for $165 million in extra
funding in our supplementary estimates because our sales are higher than what we
expected. Things are going well. It seems low volume, but it’s higher than what
the numbers have been in the past and higher than what we expected. From our
perspective, things have been good. There is take-up and there is definitely
more take-up in provinces where there is the additional incentive. Sales in
British Columbia and Quebec are quite a bit higher than the rest of the
There are more
cars coming online all the time. Pickup trucks were just announced from Tesla
and other manufacturers. That should help our cause. We’ll keep evaluating the
types of vehicles that are permitted in this program. They have to meet certain
criteria. As more vehicles come available we’ll keep assessing those and adding
to the pool of available vehicles, making the incentive program even more
attractive to a wider group of Canadians.
perspective things are good. We’re ahead of schedule in terms of sales that we
have forecasted at this point.
What type of communication do you have with industry to see the actual
results of what they’ve accomplished so you can measure your results against
theirs and for all Canadians?
Ms. Marisetti: We are in regular contact with all the OEMs
in this field, as well as the dealers themselves. With the OEMs the conversation
is about ensuring that the vehicles are there and they are meeting the demand.
What we’ve heard so far is that they are meeting the demand and they are
responding to the request for vehicles.
Now, are we
tracking their target? I don’t have information about what the industry was
tracking. I will go back and if that’s something we have we can come back to
you. We are tracking the assumption that we would spend $300 million in three
It would help if you tracked so you would also have the relevant
information. That’s just a suggestion.
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you very much for the question. With
respect to those 25 self-governing funds that we are receiving from the
Supplementary Estimates (A), on the amount that was to be received, the
methodology was co-developed with Indigenous partners, which is a great step
towards reconciliation. In my department, we have also created a sector called
“Implementation Sector.” Once those agreements are completed, we’re going to
pass that to the Implementation Sector and they will be able to provide us with
information about the outcomes.
However, I have
something here that’s quite interesting. We’re seeing that self-governing
Indigenous peoples have better socio-economic outcomes. More of their children
finish high school. Fewer of their people are unemployed and health outcomes are
better. That is some of the information we are getting right now with respect to
Just to add one point to the very interesting discussion on zero-emission
vehicles. It’s like we’re repeating what we had done earlier with the Budget
Implementation Act, but it’s very valid nonetheless. Just a comment: I would be
hard pressed to see a Tesla truck rolling through wintery Canadian roads, but
that’s just a personal view. Secondly, the related portion in terms of being in
touch with the industry that Senator Smith made, I think that’s very important,
because we would have to look as well — and I’m sure you’re doing
this — at infrastructure and charging stations, particularly if you are
looking for pick up in rural areas or more remote areas of Canada.
My two questions
are for National Defence, and specifically about the participation in the UN
peacekeeping operation in Mali, the additional $42.1 million. Is this
attributable to mission extension, or is it attributable to changing conditions
on the ground? It’s a very dangerous mission. We know that. There have recently
been French casualties.
Second, in a
similar vein, does the $41 million to support Canada’s contribution to NATO
include the announcement that the Prime Minister made at the tail end of the
NATO summit with respect to increased activity for Canada in Latvia?
Ms. Crosby: I’ll start and I’ll be supported by my
colleagues, of course. The funding for the operation in Mali, as you might be
aware, for all of our operations that we conduct on an annual basis, we always
come around this time of year, Supplementary Estimates (A), Supplementary
Estimates (B), because we have a better line of sight in how much our different
operations have cost. This falls into that bailiwick. In fact, the money we are
asking for in Mali is covering the first five months, from April to August,
to fulfill the one-year commitment that we made. The funding will also
contribute to the small flexible footprint that we are leaving as we ramp down,
as we redeploy people back to Canada. Again, the vice can speak to that.
Very quickly on
NATO, the funds that we’re requesting in Supplementary Estimates (A) do not take
into account that particular pressure in terms of what the U.S. has done. We
have accounted for that in other ways. This funding is specifically directed to
other common services and activities, including AWACS, that have arisen, and we
expect to continue to be there in upcoming years.
Lanthier: What I would add about the Mali mission is compared to the initial
plan, we stayed a little longer to facilitate the transition of the Romanian air
task force. We provided strategic airlifts for C-17s to assist in ferrying their
equipment to Mali, so those two factors changed the initial plan, but as the CFO
indicated, we are cost-capturing and cash-measuring and asking at Supplementary
Estimates (A) for the difference.
Bellemare: I also have a few questions for the officials from the Department
of Transport regarding zero-emission vehicles. We can see that the subject
generates a great deal of interest. I did not attend the Senate debate at this
committee. However, since there’s considerable interest, you should focus on the
effectiveness of the program.
A program that
offers an incentive to purchase a vehicle may not necessarily make a difference.
Perhaps the people who are currently purchasing this type of vehicle already
have a good income and a greater propensity to fight climate change.
My question more
specifically relates to the infrastructure of charging stations. Does your
program fund charging infrastructure that I believe would have a major impact on
the electrification of cars? This infrastructure may have an even greater impact
than the vehicle purchase incentives. I was wondering whether you’ve considered
this, and whether the program includes anything in terms of charging
Mr. Pilgrim: Yes, it’s part of the plan. The approved
program has $700 million at its disposal, of which $300 million has been
allocated to Transport Canada for car purchase incentives. A total of $400
million has been allocated to other departments for the charging station
infrastructure that will be implemented across the country, to ensure that
people have the facilities that they need to be —
— more appealing,
the purchase of the vehicle. It’s not just our portion, it is a government-wide
Bellemare: Who receives the infrastructure grant? How does the program work
and is it running?
Mr. Pilgrim: This doesn’t concern our department, so I
don’t know. However, I assume that the grant program is also available to the
provinces and municipalities.
My first question is a point of clarification. We just had the Treasury
Board people before us. They were helpful in pointing out that the reason why,
when we look in these estimates, a particular name of the department is used.
It’s the legal name for the department even though you are starting to use
another name. In your presentation to us, you’re using the current name that
isn’t a legal name, but is a successor to the legal name. Department of
Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs legally changed its name from
the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. There is also another
department of Indigenous Services.
Can you tell me
if all the money from Indian Affairs and Northern Development was moved over to
the new department of Crown-Indigenous relations? What about the other
department of Indigenous services and that appropriation?
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you for the question. You are right.
There was a split of the two departments back in November 2017. The former
department, Indian Affairs, was split into two: Indigenous Services Canada and
Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. Everything that has to
do with services to the First Nation was kept in Indigenous Services Canada. For
all the original operations, education and social assistance, all the money we
got was transferred to Indigenous Services Canada.
The amount of
money that we kept pertains to the reconciliation we undertake with the
Indigenous peoples, including the First Nation, the Metis and the Inuit.
Thank you. Those two departments continue to exist separately.
Ms. Boudreau: That is correct.
You’re here representing one of the departments.
Ms. Boudreau: That is correct. I’m representing
Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
National Defence, if you could help us in this internal NATO transfer. It’s
going from a vote 1a, $41 million, which I understand to be operating in
salaries, to a vote 10a. Why is it going to the different vote, and just explain
to us a little bit about that?
Ms. Crosby: For as long as I have known, at least, it is
really a mechanism to pay our share of the common services to NATO, the
mechanism being a granting contribution. Of course we have different colours of
money and different votes. You’re right that vote 1 is the operating money. We
go into that bank account, we transfer it into vote 10, which is grants and
contributions, so that we can pay, and that’s the way we pay our contribution to
the common services. In supplementary estimates, it’s not a request for a new
fund, just to change the colour of the money.
You’re moving it out of operating to a grant or contribution, which is our
share to the common fund for NATO. But that comes every year, and why would you
put it in operating and then take it out? Why wouldn’t you have a line item for
that on an annual basis? We know it’s going to be there.
Ms. Crosby: Yes. We have seen some evolution of what we are
paying. We are still the sixth-largest contributor in terms of the common
services contribution, but the actual amount that we pay varies for a variety of
reasons. We have talked about other things going on on the political side, but
we were also out of AWACS and back in.
As things change,
we tend to wait until we have a clear line of sight as to our contribution and
then we adjust accordingly.
Just a comment that you’ll tuck away and bring up at the next meeting when
you’re sitting there talking about what amounts should go in each line item.
It looks to me
like there is funding available for members of the Armed Forces transitioning
out of the Armed Forces to veterans. There is a significant amount for that line
item in Veterans Affairs and an equally significant amount from National
Defence. Are you getting together on this? Are you duplicating? Can you reassure
me that this money is going where we want it to go — to the veterans and
Ms. Crosby: I will clarify that this particular request in
Supplementary Estimates (A) is specifically meant to go to the team of folks at
Defence who are supporting current CAF members as they are rehabilitating and
transitioning one way or the other. The vice can explain more broadly how we do
collaborate with VAC and others to make sure that there is a seamless gap in
terms of transition.
Lanthier: On average, there are about 8,000 to 9,000 people who transition
out of the Canadian Armed Forces every year. Some are regular force, some are
reserves and some are the cadet organization known as the “COATS.”
group administers and takes care of making that transition smooth. Some are easy
to transition and others will be released under medical releases because of a
medical condition caused by service or not by service.
happens, in the CAF transition groups, there are a series of units across the
country that administer and take care of those people working very closely and,
in many places, co-located with the VAC services office to ensure a very smooth
transition between the service life and the transition to civilian life.
Tannas: Ms. Boudreau, following on what another senator asked, my
understanding is that CIRNAC and Indigenous Services were formed out of the old
Indian Affairs and Northern Development; so it was split in two. But as part
that reorganization, the expenditures in Health Canada found their way into one
or both of your departments; is that right? That’s why we see that it looks like
Health Canada’s budget shrunk. It wasn’t because they were doing a great job of
saving money; it just got sent somewhere else. It’s all now in those two
departments; is that right?
Ms. Boudreau: A sector of Health Canada was transferred to
Indigenous Services Canada, and that portion is called FNIHB — First
Nations and Inuit Health Branch.
Tannas: I was doing some math and saying that the amount of the budget
shrinkage year over year, when I’m looking at the amount of money being spent by
both departments, if you add them together, it’s $18 billion. When I look at
taking the total reduction of the budget of Health Canada plus the two old
departments, 17-18, it looks like that was about $14 billion. We have ramped up
spending in the Indigenous section significantly over the last while. As a
member of the committee, I’m pleased about that.
That’s a lot of
extra money, and I want to make sure — and I think Canadians want to make
sure — that gets into the hands of Indigenous people and doesn’t support a
bloated bureaucracy in Ottawa.
Can you give us
any figures you have with respect to a head count in your own department from
the day that you came into existence as CIRNAC until now?
Ms. Boudreau: I have an employee head count by department,
November 2019; so for CIRNAC, the amount is 1,959; and for Indigenous
Services Canada, we have 6,356. The total amount in November 2017, prior to
the split, was 5,160.
Tannas: That didn’t include the Health Canada people?
Ms. Boudreau: You are correct. Unfortunately, I do not have
the information here for Health Canada, but I will be —
Tannas: Would you be able to? That would be a nice baseline for us to work
from is what is the combined 5,160 plus the Health Canada FTEs that were
transferred over, and then we can compare that with what is now over 8,000
Ms. Boudreau: I will get back to you.
Ms. Boudreau, could you send that information to our clerk? Thank
Loffreda: Thank you for your presentation. A question for National Defence,
and to follow up on Senator Day and Senator Smith’s question. You need $47
million for an expanded team for National Defence. There is a lot of talk about
that at the NATO meetings. Demographics is more and more of a challenge for
corporations across Canada with respect to succession, recruitment and
Does that pose a
problem for the Canadian Armed Forces? The $47 million requested, is that to
solve some of those issues or additional national and international deployments?
The EV incentive
program, which is clearly popular with Canadians — there are 31,000 claims
in six months, which is obviously why you are asking for more funds — as it
stands now, is this fund unlimited? Is there a limit of claims the government
will accept before it ends the program? Or is there no end in sight? With this
subsidy, is there a way of evaluating the cost per tonne of GHG eliminated? This
was in line with what Senator Tkachuk was trying to get at, right?
I have a note
that on the Canadian website, out of 14,000 claims, it is anticipated that we
will reduce emissions by 36,000 tonnes, or 429,000 tonnes over the expected life
span of these vehicles.
Lanthier: On average about 40,000 to 50,000 Canadians apply to join the
Canadian Armed Forces a year. We recruited 10,118 last year. Out of those
numbers, our effective strength will be growing. The Canada Defence Policy
published in June 2017 will grow the regular force from 68,000 to 71,500.
It will grow the reserve from 28,500 to 30,000, and we will grow the public
service sector by 1,050. That growth will take place over a number of years.
We have been
asking for this year to grow the regular force by 350, the reserve by 150 and
the public service — I don’t have the exact number — I think it was
also 150. I would have to come back to you.
Those funds aim
to do two things. The first is that planned growth of the Canadian Armed Forces
and the public service is also related to the O&M to train and retrain. When
you add a soldier to the Canadian Armed Forces, it comes with a training and
education bill. That’s what the money will be for.
Mr. Pilgrim: As of today, the Government of Canada will
continue to operate the ISEF program until the existing funding is exhausted.
Canada we have $300 million, of which we have asked for this year it will be
$236 million of the $300 million we will have asked for in this fiscal year,
leaving $65 million for next year. When that is exhausted, the government will
review the strategy going forward. Should it be renewed in a different form? Is
it working? Emission savings for the country versus cost and so on and so forth.
Unfortunately, we don’t have the data with us on costs versus tonne, what it is
costing us to implement this program versus the savings and emissions.
Are you can you provide us with the data, Mr. Pilgrim? Thank you.
Tkachuk: Can I ask a supplementary?
When you talk
about the number of vehicles this would affect, I think we talked about a number
of 3 per cent. Was that 3 per cent of new vehicles
Ms. Marisetti: Yes.
Tkachuk: What would the percentage be of total vehicles on the road?
Ms. Marisetti: I would have to come back to you. I don’t
Tkachuk: That’s an important question.
Thank you. You can provide the information, please? Looking at the clock and
the other witnesses, honourable senators, I would ask the following senators to
ask only one question. Senators Deacon, Duffy and we’ll close with Senator
M. Deacon: Thank you and your team supporting you this afternoon for
being here. It’s greatly appreciated. Very quickly, I hope, I’ll just ask one of
the questions. When we talk about the 31 — transport, is where I’m going,
talk about $31 million for the Green and Innovative Transportation system as
listed to address the Indigenous priorities in the Trans Mountain Expansion
Project. Certainly it’s one of the bigger-ticket items, and what I’m wondering
about is what you have learned or are learning in the consultation process and
what might be taking up the big chunk of that amount of money, so we can have a
sense. We hear bits and pieces, but perhaps if you could let us know that. I’ll
leave my other question.
Ms. Marisetti: As you are probably aware, to implement the
Trans Mountain expansion, a number of departments were funded. The main
departments being transport, National Resources Canada, and Department of
Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada. Through the consultation process
that you had with Indigenous groups, a number of issues were raised around what
was important to them, and where we were with the project would infringe on some
of their rights. As a result, what came up was what — the plan was to
implement a certain number of accommodation measures which would address the
issues raised by mainly Indigenous communities in the area, as well as other
issues that were identified.
They were in the
area of marine. In the area of marine, one of the things we heard was the
impacts on the southern resident killer whales. A big investment or the
accommodation measures is about initiatives to reduce the noise, underwater
noise, in the Salish Sea, which is one of the big determining factors for the
survivability and recovering of the southern resident killer whales.
M. Deacon: Anything else?
Ms. Marisetti: Another big-ticket item we heard from
industry groups was their own safety on the water. So along with that, to
respond to that, there are initiatives like the Enhanced Maritime Situational
Awareness, marine safety equipment. The Coast Guard has a similar program. The
third thing we heard from the Indigenous groups was they wanted to be involved
in co-developing some of the responses towards marine safety and any incidents
that may occur. To that end, the Coast Guard is also implementing some of the
initiatives around co-developing a community response to incidents. But
M. Deacon: I think we’re out of time. Thank you.
To the chair, I’m
wondering if I could ask to be added to Senator Duncan’s list about the where
theme, where the $813 million for Northern Transportation Adaptation, where is
the focus on that? If I could add that to her list earlier, I would greatly
appreciate that. Thank you.
You could provide the clerk, please, with the information? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is for the Department of National
Defence relating to the funding for the definition phase of the Hornet Extension
Project. When you look further down the page, you see funding for the definition
phase of the Canadian Surface Combatant project, which is ships. The ships are
$3.1 million and the definition phase of the Hornet Extension is $26 million. If
we’re defining as opposed to buying hardware — well, please explain to me
the difference, and why is there such a variation between the amount of money it
takes to define our combatant ships, compared to the Hornet Extension?
Mr. Crosby: Thank you for the question. One is a matter of
timing. In the case of Canadian Surface Combatant, this is incremental funding
over funding that was already provided for the definition phase, whereas for the
Hornet Extension Project or the Remotely Piloted Aircraft System projects, also
in definition, they were approved during the year. This is new money. During the
definition phase, we’re really focused on clearly defining the requirements in a
way that can be brought into a request for proposals. In the case of the
Canadian Surface Combatant, we have a contract. It’s for the design of the ships
which will go on for some period of time yet. But in a competitive process, like
the Remotely Piloted Aircraft System, we are really developing the request for
I look at the Hornet, $26 million, surely we know what the mission is and so
on. We have been flying Hornets for too many years. I don’t understand why a
redefinition would be so expensive and take so long.
Mr. Crosby: During the definition phase, the costs that
we’re incurring are generally associated with salaries for the staff involved in
the work, as well as travel and other costs, such as that.
In the case of
the Hornet Extension Project, the teams are looking at the requirement as well
as the procurement methodologies that will be followed. We’ll be working with
the United States government in some cases for foreign military sales cases.
Those have to be developed so we can submit them. There may be some other
elements that will be competitively acquired, and the request for proposals will
have to be developed for that.
Are we doing something similar to the F-35? My final question. Just yes or
no. Or is the F-35 now off the board?
Mr. Crosby: Our contributions toward the F-35 memorandum of
understanding right now are simply to remain in the MOU.
Thank you very much for sharing and answering the questions to the