THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 19, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met with videoconference this day at 6:45 p.m. [ET] to study Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025; and Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.
Senator Claude Carignan (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.
[Translation]
As much as possible, ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Only use a black approved earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times.
When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you all for your cooperation.
Welcome to all senators, as well as to viewers across the country watching us on sencanada.ca.
My name is Claude Carignan, senator from Quebec and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. I will now ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting from my left.
Senator Forest: Éric Forest, Gulf senatorial division in Quebec.
Senator Gignac: Clément Gignac, Kennebec senatorial division in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Pate: Good evening. Kim Pate. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez from Quebec.
Senator Oudar: Good evening. Manuelle Oudar from Lasalle division in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ross: Krista Ross, New Brunswick.
Senator MacAdam: Welcome. Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Kingston: Welcome. Joan Kingston, New Brunswick.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Quebec.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you. Honourable senators, tonight we continue our study of the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025. It is possible that we could receive Bill C-69 in the next few minutes, which means we may conduct a clause-by-clause study before the meeting ends, at or shortly before 8:45 p.m.
We are joined today by officials from Indigenous Services Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, Veterans Affairs Canada and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. I understand that one official from each department will be giving a short statement, about five minutes long.
I am pleased to introduce Philippe Thompson, Chief Finances, Results and Delivery Officer, Indigenous Services Canada, Darlene Bess, Chief Finances, Results and Delivery Officer, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, Steven Harris, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Service Delivery Branch, Veterans Affairs Canada, and Nathalie Manseau, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation. We’ll begin with Mr. Thompson, followed by Ms. Bess, Mr. Harris and Ms. Manseau.
Philippe Thompson, Chief Finances, Results and Delivery Officer, Indigenous Services Canada: Thank you for the invitation to discuss 2024-25 Supplementary Estimates (A) for Indigenous Services Canada (ISC). I am pleased to be here on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people. As Chief Finances, Results and Delivery Officer at ISC, it is a great pleasure to join you today with several of my colleagues to discuss and answer any questions you may have on these estimates.
ISC’s Supplementary Estimates (A), 2024-25 reflect a net increase of $2.2 billion. With this increase, ISC’s total authorities for 2024-25 will be $23.2 billion. These resources will help advance Indigenous communities’ priorities and continue the work, essential to establishing renewed relationships with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis based on the recognition of rights, respect and nation-to-nation partnership.
[English]
The key initiatives in these supplementary estimates include $774.3 million for the First Nations Water and Wastewater Enhanced Program. Everyone in Canada should have access to safe and clean drinking water. As of June 19, 2024, 144 long-term drinking water advisories have been lifted. There remain 30 advisories in effect in 28 communities.
The additional funding will allow Indigenous Services Canada to continue to support First Nations in ensuring long-term sustainable access to clean, safe drinking water for First Nations on-reserve through the replacement and upgrading of water and waste water treatment plants and distribution systems. The federal government is committed to ending long-term drinking water advisories affecting First Nations communities on-reserve.
The supplementary estimates also include $634 million to maintain and advance the reform of the First Nations Child and Family Services Program. This additional funding is intended to continue the long-term reform of First Nations child and family services, which is essential to ensure that First Nations children, youth, young adults and families have access to culturally based and substantially equal services that meet their needs and community circumstances.
This funding also aims to ensure that family, community and cultural connections are preserved for First Nations children in care, and to prevent First Nations children from coming into care.
The amount of $143.9 million is for the Indigenous health equity fund for First Nations, Inuit and Métis partners to increase access to quality and culturally safe health care services, and to support new innovative approaches to closing gaps and targeted priorities, such as urban Indigenous health, women’s health and 2SLGBTQI+ health.
[Translation]
The department is also receiving $121.6 million for the continued implementation of the Inuit Child First Initiative to ensure that Inuit children can access the health, social, and educational products, services and supports they need. In addition, the department is receiving $120.2 million for medical travel costs in Nunavut and Northwest Territories to enable Indigenous peoples in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories retain access to the critical health services they need, including those not available in remote and isolated communities, while a longer-term solution to medical travel is determined.
In addition to supporting these key initiatives, our department has continued to work closely with Indigenous partners and has made significant progress in closing socio-economic gaps and improving well-being in several crucial areas.
Firstly, in relation to health services, nearly 697,000 clients have accessed the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program. Additionally, over 4.86 million products, services and supports have been approved under Jordan’s Principle from July 2016 and March 2024.
[English]
To support children and families, we have facilitated the exercise of jurisdiction by Indigenous governing bodies through six coordination agreements and one bilateral agreement, with an additional 19 coordination agreement discussions currently under way.
Furthermore, 52 community safety and well-being projects continue to be supported through investments in the Pathways to Safe Indigenous Communities Initiative. In the area of education outcomes, we have concluded 10 regional education agreements, supporting close to 25,000 students across five provinces. There are now 524 First Nations elementary and secondary programs in place, supporting approximately 117,934 First Nations students on-reserve and off-reserve.
In response to natural disasters, we have created 255 emergency management coordinator notional positions to enhance emergency management capacity in First Nations communities.
[Translation]
Finally, in the area of infrastructure, 10,252 infrastructure projects have been undertaken, with 5,670 completed, serving approximately 477,000 Indigenous peoples. Of these, 4,982 projects supported housing through the development of new homes, renovations, upgrades and lots. I look forward to discussing any aspects of these estimates with you and welcome your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Darlene Bess, 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 2024-25 Supplementary Estimates (A) for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
Accompanying me today are senior officials from the department, who will help respond to your questions, if needed.
[Translation]
Let me begin by recognizing that we come together here today on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people. I would also like to recognize and honour the history, heritage and diversity of First Nations, Inuit and Métis in Canada, along with their past and present contributions, as part of National Indigenous History Month which is commemorated every year in June.
[English]
As you know, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada is committed to continue on the path toward reconciliation, namely by renewing the relationship with Indigenous peoples; furthering the modernization of institutional structures and governance in support of self-determination; acknowledging and addressing past wrongs; and advancing work enabling prosperity, sustainability and health in the North.
The 2024-25 Supplementary Estimates (A) reflect a net increase of $5.6 billion, including $1.9 billion in new funding and $3.7 billion of reprofiled funding primarily for the settlement of claims and litigation. This will bring the total budgetary authorities for 2024-25 to $16.6 billion.
Mr. Chair, I welcome the opportunity to highlight some of the work these supplementary estimates will allow the department to further in 2024-25, understanding that the majority will be used to recognize and resolve past injustices — a fundamental and concrete gesture of reconciliation that will support healing, rebuild trust and facilitate a brighter future for Indigenous peoples.
Specifically, $1.8 billion will support the implementation of the expedited resolution strategy for agricultural benefits claims, and an additional $1 billion toward the Specific Claims Settlement Fund. These readily accessible sources of funds are essential to resolve historical grievances, namely those created by the federal government’s failure to uphold past promises.
[Translation]
New funding, in the amount of $1.3 billion, will ensure the Government of Canada can meet its obligations towards the implementation of the Federal Indian Day Schools (McLean) and Indian Residential Schools Day Scholars Settlement Agreements (Gottfriedson), by covering costs associated with compensation of class members and administration of settlements.
[English]
As you know, the resolution of past grievances outside of the courts is instrumental in demonstrating the government’s commitment toward advancing Crown-Indigenous relations, namely for the thousands of Indigenous children and youth who suffered cultural loss and abuse at the hands of colonialism. As such, $500 million will be provided to cover compensation claims for more than 150,000 claimants under the Percival — Federal Indian Boarding Homes — litigation, as well as for over 21,000 validated Sixties Scoop claims. Additionally, $447.9 million in new funding will support the settlement of three historical claims with five First Nations, which will not only reconcile the past but also support social wellness and stimulate economic growth.
With respect to infrastructure, a total of $48.3 million will be used to implement the urban, rural and northern Indigenous housing strategy by addressing funding gaps for partners, as well as support the increase for housing adequacy and affordability. These funds will directly contribute to narrowing the housing gap as well as provide the foundation for economic prosperity and wellness for families and communities.
A one-time $20-million grant will also be provided as the Government of Canada’s contribution to Manitoba’s search of the Prairie Green Landfill for the remains of two murdered First Nations women in the hopes that this will support healing and closure for the victims’ families and communities.
[Translation]
These Supplementary Estimates (A) will allow the Government of Canada to recognize and resolve past wrongs as well as continue the concrete work to renew the relationships between Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Métis; and to advance the work in the North.
I am pleased to answer any questions.
Thank you.
[English]
Steven Harris, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Service Delivery Branch, Veterans Affairs Canada: Good evening, Mr. Chair and committee members. I acknowledge that Ottawa is built on the unceded and unsurrendered Algonquin Anishinaabe territory. The Algonquin people have inhabited and cared for these lands long before today.
It is a pleasure to be here with you today, and I look forward to discussing the Veterans Affairs 2024-25 Supplementary Estimates (A). Joining me today is Jonathan Adams, our Deputy Chief Financial Officer.
Honourable members, as you know, Veterans Affairs Canada is responsible for providing benefits and programs to veterans, Canadian Armed Forces personnel and their families in recognition of their service to Canada, and ensuring their achievements and sacrifices are honoured and remembered through commemorative activities.
[Translation]
Committee members, the department is extremely proud of its mandate, and equally proud to continue doing everything in its power to ensure that its programs and services always meet the needs of veterans and their families.
In March, we organized two very successful events in Montreal: the Canada Stakeholder Summit and the Women Veterans Forum. In early June, we hosted a number of commemorative activities in Canada and in France to mark the 80th anniversary of D-Day and the start of the Battle of Normandy. Over the past few years, major investments and multiple changes at Veterans Affairs Canada have significantly improved service delivery.
Since 2016, over $11 billion has been invested to ensure that veterans receive the services and benefits they are entitled to and deserve. This includes recent investments to clear a backlog of disability benefit applications, and efforts to ensure that essential health services provided under new mental health and telemedicine programs are delivered in a timely manner.
The Supplementary Estimates for Veterans Affairs Canada reflect our ongoing commitment to veterans in terms of guaranteeing them critical access to services and improving the long-term financial security and independence of sick or injured veterans and their families.
[English]
The 2024-2025 Supplementary Estimates (A) will provide Veterans Affairs Canada with $529 million in funding to allow the Government of Canada to fulfill its legal obligations as prescribed in the Manuge class action final settlement agreement, approved by the courts on January 17, 2024. This additional amount would provide Veterans Affairs Canada with a total budget of $6.7 billion to fulfill its mandate. This amount will ensure that all veterans who come forward during the fiscal year will be able to receive the benefits and services to which they are entitled.
In closing, these supplementary estimates reflect the continued investments that we have made to ensure Canadian veterans and their families are provided access to the benefits and services they so rightly deserve. With the help of the funding in the 2024-25 supplementary estimates, we will continue to put the well-being of veterans and their families at the heart of everything we do.
We will remain focused on improving the delivery of services to veterans and their families, and we will recognize their service and sacrifices.
Thank you. My colleague and I would be pleased to address any questions that you might have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Harris.
Nathalie Manseau, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Let me begin by acknowledging that we are meeting today on the traditional unceded territories of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
I am pleased to appear before the committee. I am joined by my colleague Darcy Pierlot, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Service Delivery.
I’d like to begin by stating that the global immigration and protection systems continue to be under significant pressure. Canada remains committed to supporting refugees and displaced people while upholding the integrity of our immigration system.
[Translation]
In order to continue meeting its commitments, the department is requesting $957 million to cover the needs of provincial and municipal partners, asylum seekers, refugees and newcomers to Canada. These funds will help us provide health care coverage to asylum seekers and refugees, and housing to asylum seekers. They will also allow us to meet our humanitarian commitments to people fleeing war and conflict, and advance our efforts to improve Canada’s immigration system.
[English]
The Supplementary Estimates (A) seek approval of $411.2 million for the Interim Federal Health Program. Budget 2024 provided this additional funding to fund temporary essential health care coverage to asylum claimants and refugees, as well as certain other groups, such as victims of human trafficking and persons detained under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, until they become eligible for provincial-territorial health insurance or, in the case of unsuccessful asylum claimants, leave Canada. The program also covers the cost of certain pre-departure medical services for refugees who have been identified for resettlement before they come to Canada.
The Supplementary Estimates (A) also include an amount of $314.5 million for the Interim Housing Assistance Program, which reimburses other levels of government for costs incurred to provide temporary housing to asylum claimants. A total envelope of $574.4 million was announced in 2023-24. As of March 31, 2024, the department had issued $259.9 million in payments to provinces and jurisdictions. The remaining amount of $314.5 million is being reprofiled to this current fiscal year via the supplementary estimates to ensure the Government of Canada is able to meet the expectations of provincial and other jurisdictions and deliver on the public commitment that was made.
[Translation]
The new funds in these supplementary estimates will also help build our interim housing capacity and reduce the risk of homelessness among this vulnerable population by extending the federal interim housing available at hotels with funding of $141.2 million. This will allow us to continue providing interim housing to more than 6,800 asylum seekers.
This program helps ease the pressure on shelters and social housing while we work on finding longer-term solutions for asylum seekers.
[English]
Finally, new funding of $90.5 million is sought in these supplementary estimates in order to proceed with building Canada’s modern, digital and data-driven migration system, the Digital Platform Modernization program. This funding will enable Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, to deliver an improved cross-channel experience for IRCC clients, as well as piloting digital visas and permits.
With the funding set out in the Supplementary Estimates (A), Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada will continue to provide its services to Canadians and newcomers.
Thank you. I’d be happy to answer your questions.
[Translation]
The Chair: We will now hear questions.
Bill C-69 has just arrived. Steering committee members have discussed the matter and decided that if we received the bill during the committee meeting, we would hold one round of questions lasting five minutes each, and a second round if there was interest in exploring a given item in more detail. Then, we would adjourn this meeting and proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-69. This way, we can complete the report tonight, and those who have speeches to give, like Senator Marshall, can return to the chamber.
Does everyone agree? So it’s good news for you, since you’ll be finishing a little sooner, and we, a little later.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Thank you to all the witnesses for being here. I want to start with Ms. Bess, because we’ve been trying to track all the claims, and we discussed this when you met with us last time.
Could you just explain this for me: For the $1.4 billion, there are two sets of claims there, which are McLean and Gottfriedson. Why would they be combined? Are they two separate claims and you can split the $1.4 billion? Am I on the right track?
Ms. Bess: Yes.
Senator Marshall: Could you tell me what the split is?
Ms. Bess: For McLean, it’s $1.4 billion in total, and for Gottfriedson, it’s $51 million. They were combined based on how we asked for the money from the Department of Finance.
Senator Marshall: Is Gottfriedson the same as the Gottfriedson Band class settlement, or is it separate?
Ms. Bess: They’re separate. Maybe I’ll ask my colleague Garima Dwivedi to come in —
Senator Marshall: [Technical difficulties] Thank you. Did you say you were going to have somebody else —
Ms. Bess: Yes. I’ll ask my colleague to come and explain the difference between the band class.
Senator Marshall: Is she going to come to the table?
Ms. Bess: Yes.
I’ll start by saying, senator, for the Gottfriedson Indian Residential School, it’s a national class action settlement to provide compensation for former students who attended but did not reside at Indian residential schools. This was a partial settlement, as the band class was separate.
Senator Marshall: Okay. For the $1.4 billion, is that paid out into a separate fund and is going to be administered? Mr. Thompson was telling us about the child welfare one. It’s gone into its own fund, and Deloitte is administering it. Is this going to be the same?
Ms. Bess: That would be the same.
Senator Marshall: Both of them?
Ms. Bess: Yes.
Senator Marshall: Who will be administering them?
Ms. Bess: It’s Deloitte that’s administering both of them.
Senator Marshall: Deloitte is administering that one too. Okay.
Are they already set up in the public accounts? They are already in the public accounts, are they? Are they set up as a liability?
Ms. Bess: These ones, yes.
Senator Marshall: Okay. That’s great.
The last question I have is this: For the Restoule settlement, that was $5 billion?
Ms. Bess: That’s right.
Senator Marshall: Has that been paid out?
Ms. Bess: Yes, that was paid out.
Senator Marshall: Okay.
Mr. Thompson, to go back to the child welfare one that Deloitte is administering, is the cost associated with the Deloitte administration of the funds paid by the department separately or does that come out of the $23 billion?
Mr. Thompson: Thank you very much for the question. There was funding set aside for the administration of the claims. The funding is still with the department, and the money is being drawn as the settlement is occurring. As the administration occurs, we are paying for the administration costs. At the moment, we still have the vast majority of the funding that is still within our appropriation.
Senator Marshall: The money hasn’t gone over to Deloitte — or hasn’t gone over to a separate trust?
Mr. Thompson: The money that has been put into the trust is solely the money that is for the compensation, so it’s the money that will go to the recipients of the compensation. The funding for the administration is in the reference level of the organization, and it’s being disbursed as the administration is taking place.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Well, that explains something that the Department of Finance told us, because they indicated to us yesterday that they needed to borrow more money than they had originally planned since they needed the $23 billion to pay for the child welfare agreement.
Mr. Thompson: Yes. When we completed the contribution agreement, and when the settlement was done, we had to access additional funding to match the $23.34-billion settlement. The $23.34-billion figure is really for the compensation funding, and there is additional funding that is set aside for the administration. The funding that is set aside for the administration is not solely for Deloitte for administering the claims. There is also funding there to support people who will be receiving the compensation for mental health support, for instance, and for trauma support and things like that.
Senator Marshall: I will ask for a second round so that I can keep going. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you for joining us this evening. My first question is for Ms. Manseau.
At last week’s most recent meeting between the Premier of Quebec and the Prime Minister of Canada, the Prime Minister pledged that work permit processing time would fall from 100 days to 30 days — which seems like quite a feat — for applications submitted at domestic airports.
What direct role has your department played in this, and how do you intend to meet this challenge and cut the processing time by more than two thirds?
Ms. Manseau: Unfortunately, the Assistant Deputy Minister is not here to answer that question. I’ll check with my colleague to see whether he can give you more details. Otherwise, we can get back to you with an answer.
So I can confirm that we will be pleased to get back to you with an answer.
Senator Forest: It will have to be fairly quick because we are on break starting tomorrow evening.
Mr. Harris, with respect to the settlement agreement related to calculation errors affecting disability benefits, you’re requesting $471 million. That’s a hefty amount, and you say it could even climb as high as $817 million.
The truly astonishing thing is that an initial error was identified back in 2018. After that, the veterans’ lawyers had to go through the Access to Information Act to get details about the calculation methods used. In the process, they discovered other calculation errors related to benefit indexation.
Considering the small benefit amounts paid to our veterans, has a sufficiently rigorous and robust process been implemented to avoid these kinds of errors in the future?
Mr. Harris: I believe the answer is yes. A fairly rigorous process has been introduced to ensure that the amounts specified for veterans are correct.
Unfortunately, I believe that the error identified went on too long. In my opinion, the court proceedings, and the court case that recently ended, will solve the problem. We’re working with veterans and lawyers to ensure that this group receives compensation and that systems and procedures are put in place to prevent this kind of error from ever happening again.
Senator Forest: In your opinion, when can we expect a finalized settlement ensuring that all benefits are allocated fairly?
Mr. Harris: That will take time, because we’re not in contact with some of the clients yet. This error affects about 119,000 clients still in contact with Veterans Affairs Canada. We are going to settle their cases directly. As for the other 200,000 or more clients, an open-ended, simplified application process involving KPMG will make things easier and give people the time they need to apply.
Things can sometimes get complicated when deceased veterans are involved. In that case, family members approach us to resolve the situation. It takes a while. So I think we would need 18 months to settle these cases or receive people’s applications.
Senator Forest: Mr. Thompson, I see that part of the $769 million for improving the water supply system is earmarked for plant operator training. That’s a good thing. It addresses a gap mentioned by the Auditor General. Do you have any indicators to share with us concerning staff members trained annually and the number of additional operators currently needed to ensure that important investments like water treatment plants can operate effectively?
Mr. Thompson: Thank you very much for the question. I’ll ask my colleague Paula Hadden-Jokiel, Regional Operations, to give you more details on operator training and the statistics we have on that.
Paula Hadden-Jokiel, Assistant Deputy Minister, Regional Operations, Indigenous Services Canada: Thank you for the question. It’s a pleasure to be here on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
[English]
In terms of the announcement of water funding in the budget, those are the targeted investment funds, which we call our B-base money. It essentially replaces similar funds that were sunsetting. The vast majority of those funds are for Vote 10 projects related to infrastructure projects.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you.
Senator Gignac: To our witnesses, good evening and welcome. My first question is for Ms. Manseau, in follow-up to my colleague’s question, hopefully with a slightly more successful outcome.
You know that immigration is a hot topic in Quebec. You’re part of the public service, but not in a political capacity, so no comment will be made here on statements by the minister or the Prime Minister, but I’m trying to understand. I feel like asking the same question I asked a year ago, which was never really answered: How does your department measure a country’s capacity to absorb immigration? Do you engage in discussions with the Europeans? This is the biggest demographic boom in 70 years, and it happened in a very short space of time. We can hope all we want that residential housing construction will double in two years, but it isn’t going to happen. How is that measured? Can we get province-by-province details? Quebec’s francophone dimension makes it a distinct nation. Has there been any discussion of that?
Ms. Manseau: Of course, a lot of consultations are held when setting national immigration targets, including consultations with the various provinces and stakeholders. We will send you more details about how measures are taken. Unfortunately, I don’t have those details with me.
Senator Gignac: Thank you. I’ll have time this summer to look into how that works. Moving on to Mr. Thompson or Ms. Bess.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer presented us with a table on changes in Indigenous spending for the current year. I believe it amounts to $40 billion. It has become a very important line item, which I do not dispute. Through the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, I had an opportunity to visit Iqaluit, Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk. The needs are significant, and I am not really challenging that, but what are your starting criteria? On a scale of 0 to 10, where did things stand in 2015-16, and where do they stand now? Could you provide us with your parameters? We watch the news, we see reports and we get a sense that nothing is moving forward. However, there must be quarterly progress reports, is that right? Could you share them with us? Thank you.
Mr. Thompson: Thank you for the question. In the case of Indigenous Services Canada, the Department of Indigenous Services Act lists a series of services that the government is required to provide to eligible First Nations, Inuit and Métis citizens.
Eligibility criteria have to be identified in order to assess budget requirements, and that varies from service to service. In terms of uninsured health services, for example, the eligibility criteria are quite clear, and include a very clear list of medications that determines the funding needed during the period of the year when the service has to be delivered. In education, it’s the number of students eligible to receive education services, and criteria are used to allocate funding in amounts that match the funding provided by provincial services. The same applies to child services. In this case, we discussed the compensation framework, but protection and prevention services are also provided, depending on the public’s needs. Regarding infrastructure, we ask questions about any infrastructure gaps between comparable items, which also helps identify needs and establish funding amounts.
Senator Gignac: Do you have a chart or a graph you could send us showing the percentages? Is progress being made in terms of achieving objectives and providing services comparable to those available in the south?
I have a quick question for you, Ms. Bess. I see an item for $8 million. These funds are intended to provide the First Nations with funds for research, so that they can investigate and elaborate on their specific claims. It wouldn’t have surprised me to see this item in 2016, 2018 or 2020, but this is 2024, and we are still seeing this accompaniment and support item to help First Nations research their claims. Why is this still necessary in 2024?
[English]
Ms. Bess: It’s the research funding for our Indigenous partners to be able to settle those claims. Maybe what I can do is ask my colleague Garima Dwivedi if there’s enough time to just —
Senator Gignac: For the purposes of my colleagues, just send a written answer if it’s possible. Thank you.
Ms. Bess: Thank you.
Senator Smith: Mr. Harris, maybe I could ask you a question. In respect of the $471 million for the Manuge final settlement agreement, how much is related to administrative costs? How much of this funding is being distributed to veterans so that we can get the breakdown?
Mr. Harris: About 17% of the overall funds are related to legal fees. That will be part of the overall settlement agreement.
Senator Smith: You said 17%, right?
Mr. Harris: Correct, it’s 17%. In terms of the amounts that veterans may see at the end of this, as I noted earlier, some veterans will receive direct payments from us because we already have a payment relationship with them. Others will have to go through the settlement process and application process because the veteran may have passed, it may be in estate or there may be something else.
There are ranges in terms of what veterans might expect. Of the overall class size, 30% would receive somewhere less than $500. Another 40% would receive between $1,000 and $5,000. Only about 12% would receive something over $5,000.
The amounts that we’re talking about, while still significant, aren’t huge. We’re going to make sure we can make this process as efficient as possible for veterans and family members who come forward and make the application process. We’ll be working with the claims administrator and with veterans on that.
Senator Smith: It is my understanding that there will still be about 30% that will go to administrative costs. Is that what the breakdown —
Mr. Harris: I think the overall part that is administrative in nature is the 17% related to the legal fees.
Senator Smith: On timing, when is it going to happen?
Mr. Harris: Regarding the process for when the applications come in, let me find that for you specifically. There is a process by which claims need to be submitted by March of next year — so March of 2025 — and all claims are to be paid by March of 2026.
Senator Smith: What are you factoring for the total administrative cost? You gave me the breakdown, but, in reality, what is it going to be?
Mr. Harris: It will depend on actual demand. While we have 119,000 clients whom we know we can pay immediately, it will depend on the amount of the other percentage of the 214,000 claims that are possible to come forward from the other group. It will depend on the factor of the number of people who come forward through that process.
I couldn’t provide you with an exact estimate of what that would look like. It will be based on the demand out of that particular group to see what the challenge might be.
Senator Smith: Any sense about the interest or the demand, or the reality of demand —
Mr. Harris: It’s a difficult estimate to make, based on the fact that some of the amounts are quite small. In certain cases, families may need to go through an estate process or another application process for what could be a relatively small amount of money. So it’s hard to say, frankly, how many people might come forward through that process.
We are encouraging and communicating out broadly to the veteran community and to the family community to ask them to come forward. We will try to make that, as I said, as easy as possible. It’s really difficult to estimate how many people will actually go through that process at this stage.
Senator Smith: Thank you. Ms. Manseau, for the $84.6 million — or I think the other number bantered about was $90 million — being sought to modernize Canada’s migration system, it’s a multi-year, multi-phase business initiative meant to optimize IRCC’s business processes.
Can you provide an update on how far along you are with the Digital Platform Modernization program, and when do you anticipate you will move away from the legacy systems like the Global Case Management System?
Ms. Manseau: The project is divided into four tranches. We’re currently implementing Tranche 1. I can speak to some of the progress that we have seen in the last few months.
The ED investment allowed us to implement an application status tracker for multiple lines of business. Clients who have submitted the application in citizenship, family class and Express Entry, as well as temporary resident visa, study permit and work permit, now have access to the tracker available on the IRCC website.
In October, the offices of members of Parliament and senators also gained access to the application status tracker to better assist their constituents.
Back in December, IRCC introduced a refreshed, modernized online self-assessment tool to make it easier for clients to find programs that best suit their needs. Also, IRCC is now using advanced analytics to identify applications for streamlined processing by an officer and automate certain clerical functions. This has resulted in increasing productivity, distributing workloads more efficiently and redirecting staff to more value-added processing activities.
Most recently, IRCC launched a new account for a limited group of visitor visa clients, which provides the ability to change addresses, emails and phone numbers online, as well as a single location for communications to and from IRCC, status tracking —
Senator Smith: Is that all part of Tranche 1?
Ms. Manseau: That’s the work that we have done so far since the initiation of the Digital Platform Modernization.
Senator Smith: Could you please write something for us, indicating what your time frame is for delivery in terms of getting all of it completed? The other little question I have, which you might be able to give us some feedback on, is we’re talking about people coming from other countries to here. What type of sophistication are they going to need to have in order to answer some of the technical requirements to get into the system and have their issues settled?
[Translation]
The Chair: With a written response?
[English]
Senator Smith: Yes. That would be great, if you could give us something in writing.
Senator MacAdam: My question is for Mr. Thompson. I’m trying to get the department straight.
In 2021, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada tabled a report on access to safe drinking water in First Nations communities. The report examined the progress against the Government of Canada’s commitment to eliminate all long-term drinking water advisories on public water systems on reserves, whether necessary funding was provided to operate and maintain drinking water infrastructure, and reviewed the progress toward developing a regulatory regime for drinking water in First Nations communities.
According to the report at the time, Indigenous Services Canada did not provide the support necessary to ensure that First Nations communities had ongoing access to safe drinking water; yet, here we are, three years later, and the department is seeking an additional $770 million in these supplementary estimates for the First Nations Water and Wastewater Enhanced Program.
I’m wondering if you could explain why it’s taken so many years and so much funding to address this issue. As I understand from your opening remarks, there are — or maybe it was in the supplementary estimates document — still 30 long-term advisories in 28 communities.
Mr. Thompson: Thank you very much for the question.
That is correct; this was the number that I shared in my opening remarks.
I will ask my colleague Paula Hadden-Jokiel to give you more details on the progress and the work to be done.
Ms. Hadden-Jokiel: Thank you so much for the question.
Just to give a little bit more precision on the previous question around the breakdown of the funding that is available this year, of the $770 million for water, $750 million of it is in the Vote 10 category, which is in the grants and contributions to communities.
As Mr. Thompson mentioned in his opening remarks, since November 2015, there have been 144 long-term drinking water advisories lifted. There is an ebb and flow. There are some that are added; there are some that are removed. Like we see in the media now, for even large municipalities like Calgary, there can be unforeseen events and critical failures.
It’s also important to note that over 277 short-term drinking water advisories, which are ones that are in duration of less than 12 months — once they become longer than 12 months, they become long-term — but there have been over 270 short-term drinking water advisories lifted as well.
Of the ones that are remaining, there are significant action plans in place for each one of those. There is active monitoring. There are ongoing conversations with the communities to ensure the supports are there.
A number of them have completed the construction of the infrastructure required to make progress. There are about four remaining that are infrastructure building-related, and then there are other factors that have to be put in place for those drinking water advisories to be lifted. They relate to things like operator capacity or other community considerations in terms of moving forward on those.
Senator MacAdam: Do you have any idea when you’ll be successful in getting all of them lifted?
Ms. Hadden-Jokiel: There are action plans in place. Certainly, regarding the work we’re doing with communities right now in terms of our action plans, for the 28 communities that currently have long-term drinking water advisories, 7 are anticipated to be lifted by September of this year, then 3 more by December the following year, and 1 by December the following year, and there are 19 that are still working to refine dates of completion.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Did you say that a boil water advisory of less than 12 months, 11 months and 2 weeks, for example, is considered a short-term advisory?
Ms. Hadden-Jokiel: Yes.
The Chair: All right. It’s a far cry from the situation in municipalities. A short-term advisory in a municipality is about 10 hours. I understand; we can simply change the definition. Senator Forest, we will adjust our parameters.
The other day, we heard a witness from your department speak to us about the number of projects, projects requested or approved, and projects under construction or completed. I think it was in answer to a question from Senator Galvez. We’ve not received this information yet. Do you have that table showing all the projects under review, in progress, approved or not approved, built or not built?
Ms. Hadden-Jokiel: Yes, absolutely. I can share that information with the committee as soon as possible.
The Chair: That’s good, thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Kingston: My questions are for Ms. Manseau, dealing with health care support for asylum claimants and refugees.
In the Supplementary Estimates (A) — this was provided to us by the Parliamentary Budget Officer — $411 million is to be spent there. That amount was requested by your department.
Something also seems to be knit into it, but I still don’t understand where the two parts are. Professional services are another part of the spending. Finance and the Treasury Board told us there are amounts in your department’s line. I assume that’s on top of the $411 million?
Ms. Manseau: No. The $472 million that you see in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for professional services includes the $411 million for the Interim Federal Health Program, which provides temporary coverage of health care benefits to resettled refugees and asylum seekers.
IRCC contracts a third party as a claims administrator. That’s why these expenditures are coded as professional services in the estimates.
Senator Kingston: Okay. I will ask you now if you’ve ever considered another way of providing those services. I’m thinking particularly of a local issue, which I’m sure is replicated around the country, where health care professionals, nurses and others are actually on site with the asylum seekers who are in a local hotel.
It’s my observation, being part of the primary health care system — our organization is a partner with the Multicultural Association of Fredericton — that this doesn’t work very well in terms of integration into the system. Many people who are asylum seekers in that situation, in our city, need to interact with other parts of the system to address their health care needs.
Those professional services are, if anything like travel nurses, very expensive. Has any thought been given instead to making arrangements with the Multicultural Association of Fredericton — for instance — or other like organizations that already have linkages with the health care system in the provinces? They may be able to provide better care for the asylum seekers. The refugees already seem to have some coordination through multicultural associations, but this group seems to be outside the system. The health care you’re providing doesn’t necessarily give them what they need. Do you have any comments on that?
Ms. Manseau: The health care services to which you’re referring — you’re correct — are located in the federal hotels to support the asylum seekers in those temporary accommodations. These are specific services for the asylum seekers living in the hotels.
The Interim Federal Health Program is for asylum seekers who go through our regular health care system, but don’t qualify for the provincial or territorial coverage. Those two types of services are provided to the asylum seekers.
Senator Kingston: It’s a little more complicated than that for the refugees. I’m quite familiar with the Interim Federal Health Program. My concern is that those health care services being provided on site don’t provide all the services, or even many of the services, that may be needed by the asylum seekers while located in the hotel. Have you ever considered some other system so they can access those services more easily?
Ms. Manseau: We would be happy to take back your questions and provide an answer on the alternative services that we’re exploring.
Senator Kingston: Thank you.
Senator Ross: Ms. Manseau, it sounds like the digitization project is going very well. What is the expected impact of this funding on the backlog of applications? Will it bring down the processing times?
Darcy Pierlot, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Service Delivery, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you for the question.
The processing times and backlogs, compared to past years, have been significantly reduced. All permanent resident lines of business are now within service standards. In the temporary resident lines of business, as you’re aware, a reduction strategy is in the works. This year, we will be incorporating temporary residency into the Multi-Year Levels Planning for the first time.
Beyond our ability, to date, to have reduced those backlogs and processing times, the solution provided to us through Digital Platform Modernization Phase 3, or DPM3, will significantly improve our ability in the longer term to streamline processing.
In addition to delivering the new client experience through the existing tranche, part of the requested funding is to support the planning for Tranche 2. Tranche 2 is the back-end processing system that our officers will use. It will significantly expedite their ability to process applications across permanent and temporary lines.
Senator Ross: Please comment specifically on the Start-up Visa Program. I come from Fredericton where that program is administered by Ignite Fredericton. The quick processing times for that program are important to help entrepreneurs get established in the start-up ecosystem. How is that going? How are the processing times? I know, at one time, it was taking upward of 18 to 24 months. Where is it now? Do you know?
Mr. Pierlot: Thank you for the question. We are focused right now on that area. Processing times continue to be much higher than we would like. The department is working on a strategy. We would be happy to return with a response to that from my program colleagues.
Senator Ross: Thank you. I appreciate it.
My next question is for Mr. Thompson. I’m not sure you can answer it, but I’m interested to hear your thoughts.
On June 13, the Senate, with nearly 80% support, passed third reading of Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.
How will this new act impact the items included in these supplementary estimates?
Mr. Thompson: Thank you very much for the question. You were right; that’s quite a question. Unfortunately, I’m not sufficiently familiar with the bill to provide you with an answer that would reflect the position of the department. I couldn’t tell you the impact on our estimates. I would need to be more familiar with the implication for Indigenous Services Canada.
Senator Ross: That would be something really interesting to explore. Thank you.
Mr. Thompson: Absolutely. Thank you.
Senator Pate: My question is for Ms. Bess and Mr. Thompson.
As you know, concerns were raised about the inadequacy of the funding to implement the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Calls for Justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, particularly with respect to the allocations in Budget 2024.
Last week, when we met on the estimates with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, he said it would be advisable — instead of repeatedly having to pay out compensation on class actions and other claims — to actually take a more proactive approach.
This afternoon, I had the privilege but also the responsibility of meeting with a number of residential school survivors, who talked about the inadequacy of programs, the shortness of contracts and the fact that just as contracts and programs were starting to be effective, they were cut.
Given the significant allocation for settlements and claims in nearly every round of supplementary estimates that we’re dealing with, what are the long-term financial strategies being looked at in both departments to address these issues in a proactive way — not requiring such limited short-term contracts? The inadequacy of supports so that people are then actually making claims means that the government is having to actually pay out more than if they had proactively planned for this.
I think it affects both departments.
Ms. Bess: Thank you for the question. I’ll start, and maybe Mr. Thompson has something to add.
I think for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, the big part of the settlements is acknowledging the past wrongdoings. A lot of it is litigation and claims going through our specific claims process. We have no choice but to honour those that are already in the process.
In terms of the long-term strategic outlook, we have a lot of permanent bilateral mechanisms with Inuit partners, Métis partners and First Nations partners to try to establish more long-term strategic priorities with them. It would be very colonial of us to establish those priorities on our own, so, as you were saying, we work with them to establish those priorities and get the funding that we need as much as we can. As you know, the funding goes with the government. There is only a certain amount of funding that we can have on a long-term basis. That’s what we try to do.
Mr. Thompson: Thank you very much. I won’t repeat what my colleague has already stated because it also applies to our department. We have had conversations in the past about the fluctuation of the budget for Indigenous Services Canada. In a previous meeting, you asked me why our funding is going down in future years. A lot of our funding is subject to parliamentary appropriation, so, from year to year, we have budgets that need to be renewed.
For the long-term strategy, we need to continue to work with partners so that we have more sustainable funding at Indigenous Services Canada to support our partners in making sure they can plan long term. Right now, we are very dependent on yearly appropriation, and that reduces the capacity to have long-term planning.
Senator Pate: That’s very helpful.
If it’s possible to communicate as clearly as we can, what I heard today from the survivors is that there are likely to be more class action lawsuits as a result of what is happening right now — not just historical — because of things like programs being started and then abandoned due to inadequacy of funding. I drew the comparison of how we don’t do the same thing when it comes to, for instance, funding prison beds, where the numbers of Indigenous people are going up, largely in response to the lack of services that we’re talking about. Perhaps that could be helpful in pushing for the resources you need.
Thank you.
Senator Galvez: I’m very happy that you are both here today together, because sometimes we find that there is some overlapping, or we don’t see the distinction between what one minister or the other minister does. Of course, we see that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada receives lots of funding — more than almost triple what the other services receive. As I said, there is some overlapping — for example, with respect to infrastructure or capacity building.
Before you address that difference, my question is this: How much of the funds that are requested for claims settlement and for litigation end up in the communities? How much is for the lawyers and the litigation process? Does some of this money also go to the municipal infrastructure they need?
Ms. Bess: Thank you very much for the question.
For these claims, they usually have a compensation framework that awards the individuals with the compensation. For the lawyers — in terms of the people administering the claims — it’s an administration cost for them to process the claims for the claimants. The money is going to the claimants themselves. It’s not like they are sitting on money and taking that funding away.
Senator Galvez: Would you say that 80% or 90% goes to them?
Ms. Bess: I don’t have that number. I would have to get back to you in terms of what the split is for the various settlements that I have in the Supplementary Estimates (A). I can come back to you on that.
Senator Galvez: Okay.
Ms. Bess: I’ll address the other part of your question. In terms of funding, in some of the settlements, we do have funding for community well-being as part of some of these claims — it’s not so much for infrastructure, but for support, well-being and to bring back the culture they lost.
Senator Galvez: Okay.
Do you have something to add, Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson: Thank you for the question. With regard to the split of responsibility, of course there is a lot of coordination between our two departments. We are working very closely together. But from an infrastructure standpoint, an easy way to make the separation is that the infrastructure part of Indigenous Services Canada would be for First Nations on-reserve.
Senator Galvez: With respect to the requested funds for the mercury care funding, how many nations are affected by the mercury? Right now, you just have two facilities. But how many are affected?
Mr. Thompson: Thank you for the question. I will ask my colleague Mr. Castonguay from the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch to come to the table to answer your question.
Julien Castonguay, Director General, First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Indigenous Services Canada: Thank you for the question.
The two communities that have been affected by mercury poisoning are Wabaseemoong Independent Nations and Grassy Narrows. The elements in the Supplementary Estimates (A) today are for the Grassy Narrows mercury care home, which has completed its design. We still work with Wabaseemoong on the design and the needs assessment in order to have a better sense of the facility that they want to meet their mercury care needs.
Senator Galvez: According to my past experience with mercury contamination in the Indigenous population, it is spread all over Canada. Where do you set the threshold to say that this community has needs but these other communities don’t have needs?
Mr. Castonguay: There was extensive testing in the 1980s and 1990s. There was also testing through the hair follicles. This was recognized by the Province of Ontario through the creation of an act and the Mercury Disability Board, which is really unique to the circumstances of the Wabigoon River. That was quite unique in terms of the particles of mercury in the water and in the fish. That had an impact for those two communities in a disproportionate manner that isn’t comparable to what we have seen in other communities in Canada.
Senator Galvez: Do you think you can send us these results? You said there must be criteria or an initiative of the province. Is this an initiative?
Mr. Castonguay: Yes, we can send more information on the Mercury Disability Board.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you to our witnesses for being here this evening.
My question is for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. I still often hear about delays and lack of responses, especially for family reunification. Of course, we can never reunite families quick enough. I see you are seeking close to $85 million to proceed with building Canada’s modern, digital and data-driven migration system, which we briefly touched on. The following is in your own words:
This system will be nimble, flexible and responsive enough to support growing volumes, actively helping us reduce application processing times; improve tools for our officers; meet the Government’s immigration and diversity priorities; and critically respond to the changing needs and expectations of clients as Canada seeks to out-compete other countries for the best and brightest.
That’s important. We have to out-compete other countries for the best and brightest.
A question was asked about the backlog, but how much better is this system compared to the old system? Why am I not hearing from our citizens that there is improvement? I’m still hearing that there is a lot of delay. They can’t talk to anybody in the department. I see there are outside contractors. Why do we have them? Is it really necessary? We are in an era where we want to be fiscally responsible. We frequently talk about costs in the Senate. I’d like you to elaborate on those matters, and thank you for all your effort and work moving forward.
Ms. Manseau: Thank you. On the outside contractors, we do need specialized expertise to deliver on this initiative. That’s one of the reasons we’re seeking outside contractors.
As part of the timelines for the Digital Platform Modernization which was asked before, we would be happy to provide you with a response to your questions.
Senator Loffreda: Okay, but given the increase in the employees we’ve seen and authorized, why don’t we have the in-house expertise? What kind of external expertise do you need?
Ms. Manseau: We can provide you with more detail on the types of expertise that we contract out, but it’s specific expertise that we would not have within the departments.
Senator Loffreda: Can you give me an example?
Ms. Manseau: They’re mostly in information technology.
Senator Loffreda: The $85 million is a lot of money.
Ms. Manseau: Of the $90 million, $60 million is for professional services.
Senator Loffreda: Out of the $90 million, $60 million is for external professional services?
Ms. Manseau: For professional services, correct.
Senator Loffreda: Wow. That seems like a large amount. Can you please give me an example? What don’t you have internally?
Ms. Manseau: We would be happy to provide you with that.
Senator Loffreda: I’m looking forward to that list. When can we expect the backlogs in family reunification to come down? Why is it a problem? Is it the levels of government? I have solid examples. I can forward you the emails, if you wish, related to family reunification. People reach out to senators; a lot of them are desperate. I’m talking about bankers from London who can’t get married to Canadians, and can’t get a visa to work. One man has been trying for three years, so why is that the case?
Ms. Manseau: I would be happy to provide more information.
Senator Loffreda: I was looking forward to an answer tonight, but that’s okay; I’ll wait for the answer.
[Translation]
The Chair: I have two questions. One is for Ms. Manseau, concerning statistics.
We have statistics on refugee admission by province. Earlier on, Senator Gignac spoke about society’s integration capacity. However, the integration capacity of cities or regions is also important. Could we get more specific statistics, either by region, city or census metropolitan area, also known as a CMA?
I remember that Montreal’s hotel occupancy rate was high at one point because the department had single-handedly rented three or four hotels. This has all sorts of indirect impacts, including high hotel occupancy rates for people who want to rent a room.
Obviously, the integration capacity of different locations is also a factor. Can you give us some statistics by city or by CMA?
Ms. Manseau: We would be happy to send you the statistics we have.
The Chair: I would imagine that you have this information considering that you rent hotels. I’d be concerned if you didn’t have it.
Ms. Manseau: We have the statistics and will send them to you.
The Chair: Thank you. My other question concerns Indigenous affairs, and it goes out to all the representatives.
I’m trying to identify the point in time when requested payments materialize through settlements, judgments or negotiations. You request funds, but we don’t really know when the agreements or judgments are reached.
Concerning the $471.4 million for Veterans Affairs Canada, for example, we see that the Federal Court approved the settlement on January 17, 2024. That tells us the date when the funds materialized; so far so good.
In another section, concerning $447.9 million in funding for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, we read that these funds are going to be used to negotiate agreements not yet entered. This tells us that nothing has materialized, yet you want the funds made available so that you’re ready to negotiate. In the other cases, we see no date showing when the amounts materialized.
For all demands involving claims containing requests for the payment of funds, could you specify the date when those funds materialized, either through an agreement, settlement or judgment?
Ms. Bess: Thank you very much; that’s a very good question.
[English]
In terms of the claims, from a fiscal perspective, they are recorded in the fiscal framework when we have a legal risk assessment that provides the likelihood that these will materialize. That’s when it hits the fiscal — from a funding perspective, we have to have the funds to be able to negotiate in good faith. I can’t really tell you at this moment, but when we get close to finalizing negotiations, we seek the authority to negotiate the settlement, and that’s where these funds come in and we get close to settling.
You can see even in these estimates that we’ve reprofiled some funding when negotiations didn’t go according to plan. We didn’t settle last year, so we bring forward the funding to this year when we want to settle.
It’s not a guessing game, but when we get close to the point where we need funding, we ask for it in the hopes that we are very close to settling.
[Translation]
The Chair: If an agreement already exists, let us know. If there is no agreement, let us know just the same so that we can tell what has been materialized.
Does that work for you?
[English]
Ms. Bess: Yes.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Marshall: I have another question for Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
Does Deloitte administer all of the claims and settlements? They’re the administrator for the large child welfare one, and, Ms. Bess, I think you mentioned they were the administrator for one of the other ones that’s in the supplementary estimates document.
Are they always selected, or how are they selected?
Ms. Bess: Thank you very much for the question. In terms of the other litigations we have, Deloitte is not the only one. Additionally, we have PricewaterhouseCoopers, and we have Collectiva as another claims administrator. They’re usually collected by the claimants or through the court process.
Senator Marshall: The government doesn’t pick them, do they?
Ms. Bess: No.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Who monitors the amount that they’re paid? I saw an article in the paper the other day about legal fees, and I think one of the settlements had quite high legal fees, and there was a dispute over them. Does anyone monitor what’s paid in administration fees?
Ms. Bess: We do, as a department. As my colleague Mr. Thompson said, as the claims are paid, we reimburse the administrator based on the number of claims that they have processed.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Pate: Ms. Manseau, in the document we received back from the minister with respect to concerns about the temporary placement of people in federal prisons as a result of the end of the provincial agreements to house immigration detainees, one of the things he wrote back was that Budget 2024 includes new funds to secure the services of medical personnel assigned to these facilities. This seemed to be in response to a concern raised by a number of witnesses at another committee about the significant mental health issues of a number of the folks who were defined as high risk.
Could you clarify how much funding is being allocated specifically for this purpose as well as the overall amount that will be utilized to temporarily house people in federal prisons?
Ms. Manseau: That would not be funding under the responsibility of IRCC. It would be a policy question for potentially the Correctional Service of Canada or the Department of Justice.
Senator Pate: Presumably, it’s a reallocation of resources from you to the Correctional Service of Canada because it’s an indication that it’s money to provide services to immigration detainees. But you’re saying it’s not, to your knowledge?
Ms. Manseau: Not to my knowledge. We’ll make sure to go back and verify, but, to my knowledge, it would not be under the mandate of IRCC.
Senator Pate: Okay. Thank you. If you could confirm that in writing, that would be great.
Ms. Manseau: Yes, we will confirm. Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much. That brings our meeting to a close.
I would remind the witnesses that you have until July 3 to submit your written, detailed answers. We eagerly look forward to receiving them and reading them over the summer break.
Once again, thank you for your excellent work. It’s truly appreciated.
I’ll take this opportunity to wish you all a great summer, but maybe not quite as hot as it was today.
We will now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-69.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
With your consent, is it agreed that the committee group the clauses according to the four parts in the analysis table of Bill C-69, as appropriate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
I will do so in French only. If I alternate between French and English, I might make mistakes and miss some clauses or lines.
We are at Part 1, Amendments to the Income Tax Act and Other Legislation, which contains clauses 2, on page 1, to 80, on page 188.
Shall Part 1, Amendments to the Income Tax Act and Other Legislation, which contains clauses 2 to 80, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Marshall: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Part 2, the Global Minimum Tax Act, contains clauses 81, on page 189, to 111, on page 472.
Shall Part 2, entitled the Global Minimum Tax Act, which contains clauses 81 to 111, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Marshall: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Part 3, Amendments to the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act, the Excise Act, 2001, the Underused Housing Tax Act, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and related regulations, which contains clauses 112, on page 473, to 148, on page 495.
Shall Part 3, Amendments to the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act, the Excise Act, 2001, the Underused Housing Tax Act, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and related regulations, which contains clauses 112 to 148, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Marshall: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Part 4, Various Measures, contains clauses 149, on page 495, to 420, on page 642. Here, I would simply point out that if you compare the version at second reading to the final version, please note that the House of Commons removed Division 38. By removing Division 38, the numbering has changed.
Shall Part 4, entitled “Various Measures,” which contains clauses 149 to 420, carry?
Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to add any observations to the report? We received a draft report from Senator Pate. I think it was shared with all senators.
We have a choice. We can either go in camera for this part of the meeting or discuss it in public. Would you like to go in camera or continue the meeting in public?
Senator Forest: In public. When we examine the proposed report, we should check, at least, in my opinion —
The Chair: Senator Pate is going to propose his observation, after which I will hear comments.
[English]
Senator Pate: Yes, some of this was in the pre-study report. As we heard from some of our colleagues in the chamber before we came to this committee — just before this committee — there are ongoing concerns about the types of issues regarding what is being put in budget bills, so we’re trying to reinforce that.
The first observation is identical to the one we added to the pre-study report. I can go through the rationale, if you want. The second observation adds a second paragraph. The rest is the same as what was in the pre-study report, but we also add a second paragraph there:
Your committee welcomes the amendments in the other place to Bill C-69 that resulted in the division on the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act being withdrawn from Bill C-69 —
— if it had been, but it has not been.
The Chair: Okay, we got it. It’s similar to what we have in the report on the pre-study.
Senator Pate: It’s reinforcing the same messages that we provided in the pre-study, but this time with the bill.
The Chair: Perfect.
Senator Loffreda: Senator Pate, thank you for your meticulous attention to detail and for bringing these observations to our attention. However, I would like to clarify that these points have already been thoroughly addressed and included in our eighteenth report, and reiterating them in subsequent communications would be redundant and could be perceived as excessive, especially at this late hour. Our aim is to maintain clarity and conciseness in our reports, ensuring that each one is as effective and impactful as possible. I think the eighteenth report was a good report. Therefore, we believe that reintroducing these observations is unnecessary and will detract from the overall efficiency of our documentation.
I’m not saying that what you put forward here is not fine; I’m just saying that we’ve already reported on this. We will eventually do a study on omnibus bills. We’ve discussed it, rediscussed it and overkilled it. I’ve discussed it in my speeches. I think words matter; they mean something. At this point, I don’t agree with including an observation that has already been included previously and is saying exactly the same thing in other words — and stressing and stressing. Where do we stop stressing at some point? I think I had 10 pages of my speech on that. I started with that, and a lot of people were thinking, “Is he really the sponsor?” At some point, words matter.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Gold: I agree with Senator Loffreda. I think the committee has done very substantive work, and to ensure that the bill is returned to the chamber efficiently for third reading debate tomorrow, I would not support appending observations at this stage, given that they all appear fundamentally in the eighteenth report, as Senator Loffreda said.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: I agree with my colleagues Senator Gold and the bill’s sponsor. One of the longest paragraphs, which I originated, concerns a measure not included in the bill. However, if we are appending observations from the pre-study phase, let’s include them all. Otherwise, it might seem as though the committee considers them unimportant. Most other observations were not included, and suddenly, a fairly similar observation is included. It makes it look as though the committee’s discussions changed direction, when in fact, it was never discussed.
I feel a little uncomfortable about that kind of approach. If we agree to add this observation, I would have liked mine to be added as well. It suggests that I gave up on it, when that is not the case. That’s why I’m uncomfortable that observations are being submitted at this stage.
[English]
Senator Marshall: I don’t have a problem with including this, so I support Senator Pate. There’s nothing in there that hasn’t been said before or hasn’t been authored before, so I don’t have any problem with it. It’s fine with me. Thank you.
Senator Galvez: If I remember the rules correctly, our seventeenth report stays in the Senate, but this report goes to the other chamber. Is this the report that the other chamber considers and compares?
[Translation]
The Chair: The clerk has advised me that, since there is no amendment, the bill will not be sent back to the other place. It will stay here, like the pre-study. Had there been any amendments, a message would have been sent to the other place and they would share the message, but this is not the case.
[English]
Senator Galvez: Okay, so with more reason, what is the problem and what is the damage if it stays here?
Senator Gignac: I could repeat it in English, if you want. A lot of observations have been done in the pre-study, and one that I recommended was pretty long.
Senator Galvez: You can bring it here.
Senator Gignac: Yes. I will ask the clerk to copy and paste it because if we accept — it’s not, again, a new observation because we agreed on the observation; it’s the same. If it’s the same for you, it’s the same for me.
The question is how relevant it would be. The House of Commons is not there. They are closed for the summer, if I understand.
[Translation]
The Chair: I have a stewardship question. I have no objection to that, but if we add a lot of observations, the report might not be ready this evening. In that case, I would have to table it tomorrow. It’s not the end of the world, but from a practical point of view, it will have consequences.
[English]
Senator Gignac: For me, if there’s a delay in the process, I would propose not accepting any observations at all.
Senator Loffreda: I don’t believe what I’m hearing. We have to be practical at some point in time. We have the observation, and it’s in the eighteenth report; it’s the same thing. Are we now going to delay the report? There’s third reading tomorrow. We’re finishing our session. Let’s be realistic. It’s the same thing. We have it in the eighteenth report — we’ve said it. Now we want to add observations this late in the game. We never discussed this. I’m sorry; I’m not in agreement with this at all.
Senator Pate: We have dealt with this at lightning speed. We haven’t had time. We worked hard to try to get this organized in anticipation of receiving this today, as soon as we realized it was going ahead today.
I think there has been enough discussion about how important it is to send a message that we don’t want any more of these omnibus bills that repeating it — how can it delay this if we’re just lifting the same observations, making them again and saying, “Yes, this is still an issue. It wasn’t taken into account.” Obviously, what we said in our pre-study wasn’t taken into account, so why not repeat it?
[Translation]
The Chair: I suggest that we vote. So, will we vote on the two observations separately or together? We can do it at the same time.
Do members of the committee agree with the observations?
Hon. Senators: No.
[English]
The Chair: That’s not clear. We will call the vote.
Senator Ross: I have a question. Is there a moment for me to ask a question?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Ross: I’d like to preface by saying that I’m a new senator. Would it be typical to include the same observations in a pre-study and then in the actual report? Does that typically happen?
The Chair: I have never seen that.
Senator Pate: No, because usually we get the bill and then we attach observations in the report. This time, we had a pre-study where we attached observations that were ignored by the other place, so there is an opportunity to reiterate those observations. Normally, we receive the bill, look at the bill, do a report and make observations at the same time.
Senator Ross: May I ask if there is any actual harm in including them if they are already written and done and we can just append them?
Senator Pate: No harm.
The Chair: Senator Gold, if you could answer, and, after that, we will have the vote.
Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. First of all, I think, as Senator Tannas pointed out, the recommendations and the input from the pre-study were not ignored. The views of the Senate or the committees may not have been fully adopted, but significant changes were made, including lifting out a whole division and amending another one materially. It’s not correct that they were ignored, with all respect.
Second, I think, as Senator Loffreda and others have said, all of this is a matter of public record in terms of the pre-studies. It is important that we proceed to the third reading vote and that we finish the report without further delay. For that reason, and because there is not a precedent for doing this, that’s why I don’t support the inclusion of the observations — this says nothing about the content of them, leaving entirely aside the merits of them, which is not in dispute here, because they are on the record in our pre-study.
Senator Ross: May I ask an additional question?
The Chair: The last one.
Senator Ross: If it’s already written, though, would it actually delay anything? Second, wasn’t clause 68 removed before our observations? We didn’t have clause 68 in our observations, did we?
Senator Gold: There is ongoing dialogue between my office — or the Government Representative Office — and the government as a Senate pre-study proceeds. All of the testimony, the views of senators and the tendencies within committees were communicated. In that regard, the work of the Senate informed the decisions of the other place.
Senator Ross: Thank you.
Senator Galvez: Last question: It seems that the only obstacle is the speed at which you guys can go. Is that the reason?
[Translation]
The Chair: That’s one reason, but as the clerk said with full transparency, it’s already been translated. The report is already written. If we copy everything as is, it is no longer a matter of several hours of work, but rather, a cut and paste process that will take about 30 minutes.
We don’t know when the session will end, but we would at least have time to table all of the observations today.
[English]
Senator Gignac: I think we have two issues here. First, do we agree on including the observations or not? If we disagree, that’s it; the discussion is over. If we agree on including the observations, is it only my colleague Senator Pate’s observations or all the observations from the pre-study? In my case, I want all the observations or nothing.
The Chair: It would be those two, but you could also move a motion to add your observation or all the observations.
Senator Gignac: All of them or none of them.
Senator Pate: I’m fine with that.
The Chair: You could do that.
Senator Gignac: My recommendation is this: I think we have two votes here. Do we agree on including the observations or not? If not, the discussion is over. If we agree on including the observations, the other decision would be whether it is all of them or only one of them.
The Chair: That’s a good question.
Senator Gignac: In my case, I prefer no observations. But if we go with the observations, I absolutely want to have mine as well. Suddenly, it would look like my observations are much less important because I dropped them at the last stage, compared to the pre-study.
Senator Pate: That’s fine.
The Chair: Are we ready for the question?
[Translation]
The first question is this: Do you agree to add observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chair: If the answer is yea, the second question…. I will repeat the question: Do you agree to add observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: Nay.
Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chair: We will vote.
Mireille K. Aubé, Clerk: Honourable Senator Carignan?
Senator Carignan: Abstention.
Ms. Aubé: Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: Yea.
Ms. Aubé: Honourable Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: Yea.
Ms. Aubé: Honourable Senator Gignac?
Senator Gignac: Yea.
Ms. Aubé: Honourable Senator Kingston?
Senator Kingston: Yea.
Ms. Aubé: Honourable Senator Loffreda?
Senator Loffreda: Nay.
Ms. Aubé: Honourable Senator MacAdam?
Senator MacAdam: Yea.
Ms. Aubé: Honourable Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: Yea.
Ms. Aubé: Honourable Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: Yea.
Ms. Aubé: Honourable Senator Ross?
Senator Ross: Yea.
Ms. Aubé: Honourable Senator Smith?
Senator Smith: Yea.
Ms. Aubé: Honourable Senator Gold?
Senator Gold: Nay.
Ms. Aubé: Yeas: 2; nays: 10; abstentions: 1.
[English]
The Chair: So we agree to put the observations.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: My motion is to make a carbon copy of those observations in both official languages, as they appeared in the pre-study, in order to avoid delaying the process — exactly the same.
The Chair: The motion is to repeat word-for-word the observations in the 18th report of the pre-study of Bill C-69 in both official languages?
Senator Gignac: Yes.
Senator Galvez: Yes.
The Chair: Perfect. Does everyone agree with this motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: So it’s passed. Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to approve the final version of the observations, which are appended to the report in both official languages, taking into account today’s discussion, and making any necessary changes to the form, grammar or translation?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I will report on this bill with observations to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you very much. That concludes the meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, and also concludes our season.
Have a good summer, everyone. See you in September.
(The committee adjourned.)