THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 10, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met with videoconference this day at 9:31 a.m. [ET] to study the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Before we begin, I would like to remind senators and witnesses to please keep your microphones muted at all times unless recognized by name by the chair.
Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk and we will work to resolve the issue. If you experience other technical challenges, please contact the ISD service desk with the technical assistance number that was provided.
[Translation]
The use of online platforms does not guarantee the privacy of our communications or that eavesdropping won’t be conducted. As such, while conducting committee meetings, all participants should be aware of such limitations and restrict the possible disclosure of sensitive, private and privileged Senate of Canada information.
Participants should take part in the meeting in a private area and be mindful of their surroundings.
[English]
Honourable senators, I wish to welcome all of the senators as well as the viewers across Canada who are watching us on sencanada.ca.
[Translation]
My name is Percy Mockler, Senator from New Brunswick, and Chair of the Senate Committee on National Finance.
[English]
Now I would like to introduce the members of the National Finance Committee who are participating in this meeting: Senator Dagenais, Senator Duncan, Senator Forest, Senator Galvez, Senator Gerba, Senator Gignac, Senator Loffreda, Senator Marshall, Senator Moncion, Senator Pate and Senator Richards.
This morning, honourable, senators, we are continuing our study on the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, which was referred to this committee on March 3, 2022, by the Senate of Canada.
[Translation]
Today, we have the pleasure of welcoming, virtually, officials from four departments: Global Affairs Canada, Infrastructure Canada, the National Capital Commission, and Environment and Climate Change Canada. Welcome to all of you, and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear at the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
I understand that four people will deliver opening remarks on behalf of their respective departments. First I want to welcome Anick Ouellette, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Global Affairs Canada. Our next speaker will be Nathalie Bertrand, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Services, Infrastructure Canada.
[English]
Also here today is Mr. Tobi Nussbaum, Chief Executive Officer from the National Capital Commission and to conclude will be Ms. Linda Drainville, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer at Environment and Climate Change Canada.
[Translation]
Anick Ouellette, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Planning, Finance and Information Technology Branch, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee this morning. It is an honour to be here to discuss the Main Estimates for our department.
I would like to begin by noting that I am speaking from the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people and I am grateful for the opportunity to be here on that territory.
[English]
I am joined by today by Annie Boyer, Director General, Financial Planning and Management, and Deputy Chief Financial Officer; Sue Szabo, Director General, Innovative and Climate Finance Bureau; Megan Cain, Acting Director General, Health and Nutrition; Andrew Smith, Director General, International Assistance Policy; and Tara Denham, Director General, Ukraine Strategic Action Team.
Let me begin by acknowledging the scope of our mandate. Under the leadership of three ministers, Global Affairs Canada is responsible for advancing Canada’s international relations; developing and implementing foreign policy; promoting international trade while supporting Canadian business interests; being a leader in delivering international development assistance, including humanitarian assistance around the world; and providing consular assistance to many Canadians who work, live and travel abroad.
In order to accomplish this mandate, Global Affairs Canada operates in 178 missions in 110 countries around the world. We do so in an evolving and sometimes challenging global, political and economic climate.
[Translation]
In its Main Estimates, Global Affairs Canada is forecasting increases of $745.8 million in its authorities, from the $6.7 billion Main Estimates of 2021-22 to $7.5 billion for this fiscal year.
This funding supports the work that Global Affairs Canada will do to address the priorities of the government and Canadians. The majority of the funding relates to the following activities: $358.9 million to help developing countries address the impacts of climate change, which is part of the $5.3 billion total committed by the Prime Minister at the G7 Summit in 2021. These funds increase support for developing countries to transition to low-carbon, climate-resilient economies.
[English]
There is $273.6 million related to the funding to support Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy, which has refocused our global development and humanitarian effort on advancing gender equality and the right and empowerment of women and girls, and aligns with Canada’s international assistance priorities; $151.4 million related to funding for the duty of care special-purpose allotment to support missions’ security abroad. This funding is to mitigate risk to physical infrastructure, mission readiness and security of information; $40 million is related to the funding for the strategic priority funds to address emerging international assistance funding priorities and pressure.
[Translation]
Seven million seven hundred thousand dollars is also projected for the impact of inflation on overseas activities.
There are also decreases in funding, including $42.6 million relating to the impact of exchange rate fluctuations on expenditures on overseas missions.
[English]
There is $34.8 million related to the cost of excess contribution and $22.7 million related to the adjustment reducing government travel.
[Translation]
The department continues to measure its performance and report its results to Parliament and Canadians, while focusing on responsible financial management to fulfill its mandate and ensure the highest standards of service to Canadians, particularly those requiring consular assistance abroad.
[English]
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to your questions about these Main Estimates.
Nathalie Bertrand, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Services, Infrastructure Canada: Thank you. I’m joined today by Alison O’Leary, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Communities and Infrastructure Programs; Gerard Peets, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Results; Glenn Campbell, Assistant Deputy Minister, Investment, Partnerships and Innovation Branch; Janet Goulding, Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Policy and Programs Branch.
Our department is working hard for Canadians to support a strong, sustainable and inclusive recovery and to continue investing in infrastructure that helps build strong communities, fight climate change and grow the economy. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss our work and our needs with you.
We work with all levels of government as well as Indigenous communities and other partners. Those partners are helping us to bring to Canadians major bridge projects, zero-emission transit options, affordable housing and action toward the elimination of homelessness in Canada. We are helping to improve ventilation in public buildings and investing in green and inclusive community buildings. We are investing in sustainable water, waste water and natural infrastructure.
Together with our partners, we are improving Canadians’ quality of life. That’s why I am proud to be here to share with you and discuss Infrastructure Canada’s 2022-23 Main Estimates.
Infrastructure Canada is seeking $9.3 billion in the 2022-23 Main Estimates. The majority of this amount, $6.8 billion, is toward grants and contributions. The remainder includes $242.7 million toward operating expenditures, $13.8 million toward capital expenditures, as well as $2.3 billion in total statutory authorities, mainly for the Canada Community-Building Fund.
The amount sought in this year’s Main Estimates represents a net increase of $2.5 billion compared to our 2021-22 Main Estimates, the majority of which is in grants and contributions funding. About 25% of the grants and contributions increase is for an unprecedented level of new programming announced through the 2020 Fall Economic Statement and Budget 2021 that will be delivered over the next few years.
[Translation]
These include a number of key programs, including the Green and Inclusive Community Buildings Program, the Permanent Public Transit Program, the Natural Infrastructure Fund, ventilation funding improvement projects under the COVID-19 Resilience Stream of the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program, and a top-up to the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund.
The remaining 75% of the grants and contributions increase is for existing programs, such as the Public Transit Infrastructure Fund and the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program, as well as the additional responsibility of Reaching Home: Canada’s Homelessness Strategy.
The increase in operating expenditures of $86.3 million includes resources secured to deliver the new programs as well as the mandated transfer to the department of responsibilities for the Homelessness Policy Directorate from the Department of Employment and Social Development, under the responsibility of Minister Hussen.
Statutory funding has seen as increase of $8.3 million, related to employee benefit plan requirements tied to the increase in operating resources and the addition of the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion’s salary and car allowance.
Capital expenditures, meanwhile, represent a decrease in capital funding of $52.4 million compared to the 2021-22 Main Estimates, due primarily to the sunsetting of funding in 2021-22 for land purchases related to the Gordie Howe International Bridge and the Samuel De Champlain Bridge Corridor project, with the latter set to be completed in late 2022.
It promises to be a busy and productive year for Infrastructure Canada. We are excited about the new programming at hand and new projects ahead for us.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have and to speaking further of our commitment to Canadians. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Bertrand.
I now yield the floor to Mr. Nussbaum.
Tobi Nussbaum, Chief Executive Officer, National Capital Commission: Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for inviting me today.
[English]
I have the pleasure of leading the National Capital Commission, a federal Crown corporation that is dedicated to ensuring that the National Capital Region is a dynamic place and an inspiring source of pride for Canadians.
[Translation]
The heritage of our capital’s landscapes and cultural assets holds a special place in the hearts and minds of the people here.
[English]
I’d like to take a moment to reflect on recent investments by the Government of Canada that demonstrate our leadership role in managing and nurturing the capital for the benefit of all Canadians.
Following an injection of $55 million in 2018 to address immediate deferred maintenance projects, the government earmarked an additional $173 million in May 2020. More specifically, this funding has allowed for repair work on the NCC’s two interprovincial crossings, the Portage Bridge and Champlain Bridge and other high-priority assets such as Nepean Point and Champlain Lookout.
[Translation]
More importantly, these investments allowed for urgent repairs when the spring floods of 2019 caused damage, while improving the resilience of these properties to climate change impacts.
[English]
Despite this considerable investment, the NCC is still afflicted by a sizeable deferred maintenance deficit across its portfolio of assets. As many of you know, this is nowhere more apparent than in the official residences, a portfolio of assets that did not benefit from these recent federal funds.
Given this fact, securing solutions to rehabilitate and improve the condition of assets in the official residence portfolio is one of four key objectives for the year ahead. These historic properties play vital official roles, but they are also hugely symbolic in demonstrating Canada’s respect for our democracy, our leaders and our institutions. Decades of underfunding have limited the commission’s ability to invest in the maintenance and renewal of these properties.
[Translation]
The NCC continues to work with its government partners to find solutions for 24 Sussex Drive, as well as for the 55 official residences portfolio buildings.
[English]
Planning, rehabilitating and revitalizing key assets in the transportation networks in the National Capital Region is our second key priority for the fiscal year.
The revitalization of Nepean Point, one of the most spectacular lookouts in the National Capital Region, is a prime example of our ambitious vision.
[Translation]
On the transportation front, the NCC has been working very closely with Public Services and Procurement Canada on interprovincial linkages in Canada’s Capital Region. To support these efforts, the board of directors recently approved the NCC’s Integrated Long-Range Plan for Interprovincial Crossings, which it developed in collaboration with its partners.
[English]
The plan confirmed the vision, the policies and infrastructure priorities for sustainable interprovincial travel for a 2050 planning horizon and will serve to inform decisions around regional transportation.
Our third corporate priority for the organization for this year is to ensure that the inclusiveness and richness of Canada’s diversity are reflected in how we work.
[Translation]
The important work of the NCC is related to the daily lives of the residents of the National Capital Region, so it is absolutely essential that it reflect its population.
[English]
Further, NCC’s engagement with Indigenous communities builds on years of relationship building. The NCC is located, of course, on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Nation, and we are deeply committed to working closely with them.
Our last corporate priority for this fiscal year is our focus on showing national leadership in achieving an environmentally sustainable and climate-resilient National Capital Region. The climate crisis is one of the clearest examples of a global challenge that affects each and every one of us. I’m proud to say that a focus on sustainability is not new for us. We were one of only two Crown corporations to sign on as a designated entity under the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy. As we work to deliver on our objectives and mandate, we are also faced with the challenges presented through our guiding legislation, the National Capital Act, which remains largely unchanged since the NCC’s inception in 1959. With updates made to this legislation, the NCC would be better able to protect the environment and ecological integrity of critical national assets, namely Gatineau Park and the Greenbelt.
[Translation]
In short, we are pleased to be working to build an inspiring capital that is a source of pride for Canadians.
Thank you again for inviting me today. I will be happy to answer questions along with my colleagues Véronique de Passillé, Acting Vice-President, Public, Legal and Corporate Affairs, and Alain Le Quéré, Head, Corporate Financial Management. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Linda Drainville, Assistant Deputy Minister, Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Services and Finance Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Thank you for this invitation to discuss the 2022-23 Main Estimates for Environment and Climate Change Canada.
[English]
It is an honour to be here today as the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister of the Corporate Services and Finance Branch. I am also pleased to be accompanied by my colleagues, John Moffet, who is the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Environmental Protection Branch; Tara Shannon, Assistant Deputy Minister of Canadian Wildlife Service; Hilary Geller, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Strategic Policy Branch; Douglas Nevison, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Climate Change Branch; and Catherine Stewart, Assistant Deputy Minister of International Affairs. They will assist in providing additional information and perspective.
[Translation]
We are happy to meet with the members of the committee to present an overview of the 2022-23 Main Estimates.
The departmental 2022-2023 Main Estimates represents approximately $2.0 billion in total spending which supports the strategic actions that Environment and Climate Change Canada is taking to spur clean growth and fight climate change, help prevent and manage pollution, conserve nature, and predict weather and environmental conditions, which is key to the health and safety of all Canadians.
[English]
The 2022-23 Main Estimates represents a net increase of almost $270 million, or 15.8%, from the 2021-22 Main Estimates and includes over $770.3 million in grants and contributions, which will mainly be used to fight climate change, to conserve Canada’s land and freshwater, protect species, advance Indigenous reconciliation and increase access to nature, as well as to implement natural climate solutions in Canada. To note, the Main Estimates are the first step in the fiscal cycle and do not include additional approval of the funding announced in Budget 2022. Funding for future approval will be accessed through supplementary estimates.
The 2022-23 Main Estimates include more than $609 million to conserve nature and protect species at risk, which comprises $368 million in contributions. They also include over $478 million for taking action on clean growth and climate change. This includes more than $20.5 million in grants and over $332.1 million in contributions. There are also $2.1 million in grants and more than $291 million in contributions in support of the Low Carbon Economy Fund, which supports projects that help to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions.
[Translation]
There is also over $10 million in grants and $16 million in contributions to support Canada’s International Climate Finance Program.
This funding helps developing countries in their transition to sustainable, low-carbon and nature-positive economies.
[English]
In addition, there is more than $379 million for preventing and managing pollution. This includes contributions of more than $27 million to support initiatives such as the Great Lakes Action Plan and engagement with Indigenous partners to establish the Canada Water Agency.
[Translation]
As well, there is almost $282 million towards predicting weather and environmental conditions, plus over $219 million for internal services.
In conclusion, I hope this summary provides members with a good overview of the 2022-23 Main Estimates.
I thank you again for the invitation and I look forward to your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for your statement. We will now proceed to questions from the senators. I would like to tell the senators that you will have a maximum of six minutes each for the first round and a maximum of three minutes each for the second round. Therefore, please ask your questions directly. To the witnesses, please respond concisely. The clerk will inform me when the time is over by raising her hand. I would also like to ask the witnesses to introduce themselves and their department before speaking for the first time for the record of the National Finance Committee.
Senator Marshall: Welcome to all the witnesses. I’m going to start with Infrastructure Canada. Ms. Bertrand, in your opening remarks you talked about the substantial increase in your funding. I was somewhat surprised by the extent of the increase, especially since you had received a very critical Auditor General’s report last year. I noticed that you’ve only met about 30% of your performance indicators; 16 out of 51.
Has there been or is there any agreement with Treasury Board or any other organization, maybe the Privy Council Office, that you would improve your performance indicators, plus the corrected efficiencies that have been identified by the Auditor General in her report last year.
Ms. Bertrand: Thank you for the question. I will first start by addressing your comment on the significant increase in our Main Estimates. I just wanted to provide a bit of detail as to what that is for exactly. It is for eight new programs —
Senator Marshall: Excuse me, no. I know what the increases are because I’ve spent a substantial amount of time looking at them. I’m more interested in what corrective action is going to be taken by the department. We’re being asked to approve a significant increase in your funding, and I’m very concerned about the critical Auditor General’s report that you received, plus you’re not meeting your performance indicators. I’m more interested in what corrective action is going to be taken by the department to improve their performance and to improve the operation within the department.
Ms. Bertrand: Thank you. I’ll turn it over to my colleague Gerard Peets, and he can tell you about the interactions we’ve had with the OAG since that last report.
Gerard Peets, Assistant Deputy Minister, Infrastructure Canada: Thanks, Mr. Chair, for the question. I have a couple comments by way of context.
We did receive an audit from the Auditor General on the Investing in Canada Plan. That plan is the cross-government effort to invest in infrastructure that encompasses 23 departments and agencies.
Senator Marshall: A substantial amount of that is within your department. I can look at the numbers here and see $2.4 billion in the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program, so continue, thank you.
Mr. Peets: Yes, our role is twofold. As has been mentioned, it is to deliver a significant part of the programming, and it is also to provide horizontal reporting on the programming. We have developed a management action plan in response to the Auditor General’s recommendations, which we’ve accepted and which includes all of the legacy programs, the programs that were in place prior to the current government taking office, in the framework. That has now been done and has it has included updating our reporting on the horizontal initiative, which better reflects the contributions of all the departments to achieving the goals of the plan.
Senator Marshall: Will we be able to see a list of the projects fairly soon, a complete list and an update of the map that’s on your website? Because the list isn’t complete, and the map isn’t current. The information there is dated, so is that part of the plan?
Mr. Peets: The individual projects for each of the programs are, in the first instance, the responsibility of the departments that run those programs, so that information can be referred to them. The map on our website has information on it about recent programs, projects and the number of programs across the country. That map also, though [Technical difficulties] There are new programs that have been announced. As you may know, the Investing in Canada Plan reflects Budgets 2016 and 2017, so projects from programs following Budget 2017 are not included on that map.
Senator Marshall: But the map itself is going to be updated? Because I looked at some of the projects, and the problem is the same as several years ago. The information is dated, so somebody needs to fix the map.
For all the new programs, for example, this year’s Green and Inclusive Community Buildings grants, are there separate performance indicators for the individual programs, or do they fall under a group indicator? Can anybody from Infrastructure Canada help me with that one?
Ms. Bertrand: I will turn to Alison O’Leary, who is responsible for the Green and Inclusive Community Buildings program.
Alison O’Leary, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Communities and Infrastructure Programs, Infrastructure Canada: Good morning, and thank you for the question. The Green and Inclusive Community Buildings program was announced last year, so we are in the process, at this time, of reviewing applications. We’ve got an intake underway for small retrofits, so that’s a continuous intake process. Then, for larger retrofits and new builds, we had an intake that closed last year. It’s a competitive, popular program. We are in the process at this time of reviewing those project applications, and we look forward to having funding decisions made soon.
In parallel —
Senator Marshall: There is $50 million budgeted for that, so next year, will I see separate performance indicators on that program or will it be encompassed with your general indicators?
Ms. O’Leary: We are in the process of developing the performance measurement strategy, because this is a new program, to go along with that, so I can’t speak to whether that will be rolled up or separate at this point, but it is something that we are working on. Certainly, every program has its own indicators that we do track overall, so the Green and Inclusive —
Senator Marshall: Thank you. Mr. Chair, do I have time for another question?
The Chair: Second round.
Thank you, Ms. O’Leary.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you, witnesses, for accepting our invitation and enlightening us on our questions.
My first question is for Mr. Nussbaum from the National Capital Commission. It’s a technical question that I can’t answer for myself.
Currently, there is a dispute regarding payment in lieu of property taxes for Gatineau Park with several municipalities in the Outaouais. I’ll give you an example: for a small municipality like Chelsea, we’re talking about an amount of $1.4 million that is owed. In addition, this municipality had to spend $120,000 in legal fees to have this recognized.
Personally, probably because of my background as a mayor of a municipality, I don’t understand why taxpayers in these municipalities have to pay to go to court when there is a Dispute Advisory Panel for payments in lieu of taxes, which mediated this issue and is finding in favour of some municipalities.
Why does the NCC not respect the decisions of the mediation committee that recently ruled in favour of an Outaouais municipality? Does the NCC realize that these same Canadian taxpayers pay property taxes and that other taxpayers, those who do not pay, are obliged to compensate because this is an important part of the municipalities’ property tax revenues? I do not understand the NCC’s attitude in this regard.
Mr. Nussbaum: Thanks very much for the question. I will start to answer and then I will ask my colleague Véronique de Passillé to talk about the figures in a little more detail. I will perhaps say a word about the situation with the Municipality of Chelsea.
Actually, I will start answering the question in English, and Ms. de Passillé will continue with the numbers.
[English]
This dispute has, at its core, the fundamental issue of how we are going to value conservation lands. This is important. The heart of the disagreement we had with the Municipality of Chelsea was: Should conservation lands be assessed and valued as if they were developable, as if you could build a 10-story condominium on them? We felt strongly, for reasons of conservation and affordability for taxpayers across this country, that the answer was a resounding no. We had to treat conservation lands differently from a payment-in-lieu-of-tax methodology than we did lands that might exist in the middle of cities. Because of that, it is true we had a disagreement with the municipality on that specific issue, and we felt that we had a sound and a fair rationale using lots of comparators for how we could think of similar properties and how we should value them.
We made an assessment. We continued to pay payments in lieu of taxes. As I said, my colleague is going to mention those specific numbers in a moment. We made a decision. It was the municipality that challenged that in Federal Court. Importantly — and this is a very important point, Mr. Chair — we had made an offer to pay the municipality every penny of what the advisory board had recommended as a combination of both PILT and non-PILT payments. We will pay them every penny that advisory recommended. That offer was rejected by the Municipality of Chelsea, and they chose to challenge the decision in Federal Court where it now sits.
I will finish by saying that we, fortunately, have lots in common with the municipality and work cooperatively with them on a range of different issues on the management of Gatineau Park and others. This is an isolated issue. It’s true we have different views, but I’m happy to say the relationships with the new mayor and the municipality are positive.
[Translation]
Ms. De Passillé, can you give us the numbers regarding the payments?
Senator Forest: Thank you, that explains the situation well.
My second question is for Ms. Bertrand and it’s about the new $51 million green community building program.
I am thinking in particular of smaller municipalities, remote municipalities and perhaps even Indigenous band councils. Has a strategy been put in place to ensure that there is a fair distribution across Canada? The sum of $51 million is limited in terms of budget and the needs are enormous. Do you have a communication strategy at this level to ensure that all municipalities can have an equal opportunity?
Ms. Bertrand: Thank you very much for your question. I will ask Ms. O’Leary to answer it, as she is the person responsible for this program.
Ms. O’Leary: Thanks for the question. I will answer in English to be clear with the technical terms.
[English]
I believe you’re talking about the Green and Inclusive Community Buildings program and the grants that are identified there. To be clear, that program includes $1.5 billion in grants and contributions.
What we have done — and this is across all of our most recent programming — is that with respect to Indigenous communities, we’ve set a 10% floor to ensure we are providing equitable access to our programming for those communities.
We are in the process of decisions being taken on projects for the Green and Inclusive Community Buildings program. As I mentioned, the program was very popular, including with respect to Indigenous communities. We’re pleased to see a lot of interest in applications for Indigenous projects.
With respect to small communities, as we’re providing advice for projects to be funded, we look across the country and try to ensure that our programs are seeing an equitable and good balance of projects across regions and communities of different sizes. Those decisions for that program have yet to be taken, but we are mindful of trying to ensure a good balance of community types and sizes.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thanks, Senator Forest. You can ask your next question in the second round.
Senator Gignac: My question is about international climate change aid. I think it’s for Ms. Ouellette, if I understand correctly, but I’m not sure anymore, because the Environment and Climate Change Canada representatives also mentioned it. We’ll see.
To date, Canada has announced about $5.3 billion in international climate finance. I am having trouble situating myself in relation to the Main Estimates. I understand that there are grants and there are contributions. In fact, I’m going to put my question to Global Affairs Canada, because I understand you’re leaders in this area. Can you give me a breakdown of the amount? Is it grants, contributions, or repayable loans? I’m trying to get some clarity on that, because it’s a significant amount of money that’s being given.
Ms. Ouellette: Thanks for the question, Senator Gignac. You are right: in June 2021, the Prime Minister announced $5.3 billion for the next five years, from 2021-22 to 2025-26. There are four priority areas, if you want to know more.
For this fiscal year, specifically for Global Affairs Canada, the budget request is $358.9 million. As for the breakdown, I would say that $5 million is allocated for salaries and $1.7 million for the operating budget. In terms of transfer payments, there’s $152 million in grants and $200 million in contributions. So that would be the breakdown that you were referring to.
Senator Gignac: Thank you. Can you tell us more? Does Global Affairs Canada have any partners? Where are these funds being spent? What are the main recipient countries? Perhaps you could send me a written response, if possible.
Ms. Ouellette: I would say to you that indeed there are several possible partnerships. I am thinking for example of the Climate Investment Funds — Accelerating Coal Transition initiative, which is an example of an initiative to help developing countries. If I may, I will ask my colleague Sue Szabo to complete my answer.
Sue Szabo, Director General, Innovative and Climate Finance Bureau, Global Affairs Canada: Thanks for the question. I will answer it in English to be more comfortable with the technical terms.
[English]
As you mentioned, senator, we have funds in grants and contributions as well as a form of loan funding, and we use those for different purposes. Often with the grants and contributions, we are working on projects with civil society organizations and in the area of adaptation and resilience, whereas our loan funding is aimed at working with the private sector, trying to shift the pathway of economic growth and to get private-sector players to change their behaviours — but, of course, not to make profits over and above what we need to change that behaviour — and hence we expect repayment back to Canada for some of those loans.
I can give some examples. When we are providing this additional funding, it is a mix between the ongoing projects, because, of course, projects often have a longer lifespan. What Ms. Ouellette was just describing with the new request in mains continues on with some of the projects we have begun.
Maybe it would help if I give an example of a project. We have the Amazon Business Alliance, a project that aims to work in the Peruvian Amazon through public and private investments in bio-enterprises. It aims to guarantee decent incomes to communities in the Amazon, including women and Indigenous people, while at the same time providing both adaptation and mitigation benefits in terms of climate change.
I can provide more detail, but let me see if that supports your question.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Do I have time for another question?
The Chair: You still have 90 seconds.
Senator Gignac: Very quickly, I have another question for Ms. Drainville from Environment and Climate Change Canada. I would like to ask you the same question that I asked the Department of Natural Resources last week. I didn’t get an answer, so I’m going to go ahead.
The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development gave a negative review after an evaluation of the government’s hydrogen strategy. In fact, he said that the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of the Environment are not even using the same hypotheses in terms of forecasting. They say that in your department’s case, clean hydrogen technologies will reduce emissions by 15 megatonnes by 2030, while the Department of Natural Resources says it could be as much as 45 megatonnes.
Why are two different federal government departments working on the same issue with different hypotheses?
Ms. Drainville: Thanks very much for your question, Senator Gignac. We are working closely with Natural Resources Canada. With respect to the specifics of this particular program, I will turn it over to my colleague Douglas Nevison, who is responsible for climate change.
[English]
Douglas Nevison, Assistant Deputy Minister, Climate Change Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Thank you very much. In response to your question, senator, the different projections result from very different objectives of the two studies. The Hydrogen Strategy for Canada that NRCan undertook was a broad, aspirational look at the role that hydrogen can play in the decarbonization of the Canadian economy. The estimates that ECCC has come up with are within the context of some of the broader work we are doing on climate change. As a result, there were certain modelling assumptions undertaken to help look at hydrogen. In this particular case, a proxy was used on blending ratios to come up with the ECCC number. The modelling undertook, for example, the strengthened climate plan and, most recently, the Emissions Reduction Plan. They were two different objectives.
There is also often a difference between estimates that are done at the project level but also at the macro level, which would be for the economy as a whole, which takes into account interactive effects between various measures under the climate plans.
Senator Gignac: Sorry to interrupt, but in order to respect my time, could you send me the written answer, please? I think it was perceived as an inconsistency but I understand your point.
[Translation]
The Chair: Ms. Drainville, as Senator Gignac mentioned, is it understood that you are going to complete the response in writing?
Ms. Drainville: Yes, there is no problem, Mr. Chair. We will provide you with a written response.
The Chair: I also want to tell you that we have a deadline. It is by the end of the day on May 17, 2022, please.
Ms. Drainville: Yes, no problem. We’ve taken careful note of it. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Richards: Thank you to the witnesses. Senator Gignac just asked much what I was going to ask of Global Affairs.
I will simply say that so much of this spending is based on very elusive targets. I’m wondering how these targets can ever be met if there is no following the money.
It doesn’t seem to me that I ever get an answer to this, and I have been asking it now since I have been on this committee for four years. A great deal of money is being spent by this government over these various concerns. It never comes back to me how well we are doing. I think Senator Marshall mentioned earlier that the performance indicator is always below what we would like it to be. I never know where this money for clean, sustainable energy and climate change actually goes.
I would like to ask the witnesses if they ever share my concerns over this, or if this is just part of the policy of this and other governments. The last real, significant decrease in carbon emissions was between 2007-09, I think. If anyone could comment on this, this will be the only question I ask.
Ms. Ouellette: Thank you, Senator Richards, for the question.
I would say that, in general, we have 43 performance indicators that we do report through the departmental results report annually. We are currently working on this to strengthen the overall performance measurement framework.
To your specific question about clean energy and climate change, I will turn to my colleague Sue Szabo.
Ms. Szabo: Thank you very much for that question.
In fact, it’s really important for us to be measuring results at the project level, and then looking for some common indicators where we can roll that up into results that we can report to yourselves and to Canadians. Right now, the climate change commitment of $5.3 billion is new. We are just getting projects rolling.
I can look back and tell you that for the previous five-year commitment of $2.65 billion, we fully delivered on the commitment to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 228 metric megatonnes. For the benefit of understanding what that means, we calculated that’s almost 100 million litres of gas that were not burned, the equivalent amount of emissions.
We also helped at least 6.6 million people adapt to the effects of climate change internationally. We do keep monitoring those types of indicators. We also monitor at project levels where we have detailed indicators that also speak to each project in each locale.
We are developing a very similar type of framework for the $5.3 billion commitment on climate change. In fact, we have a requirement to go back to Treasury Board by the fall with a very detailed list of indicators that will benefit from the initial investment plan so that we can actually understand the types of investment and be able to report back, including on our themes of clean energy, climate-smart agriculture, nature-based solutions as well as climate governance.
The Chair: Senator Richards, did you have another question?
Senator Richards: No. I will yield the rest of my time, sir.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My questions are going to go to Global Affairs Canada first. The government has finally reopened the Canadian embassy in Ukraine. Because of the risks that remain, I would like to know if there is an additional budget to ensure the security of our staff. If so, how much is it and who has been given responsibility for these expenses?
Ms. Ouellette: Senator Dagenais, thank you for your question. Indeed, we announced the reopening of the mission in Kyiv. This is part of our base budget. I do not have the exact amount of the cost of closing and reopening the Kyiv mission. However, in our budget, there is a specific amount of $52.7 million set aside for assistance to Canadians abroad.
As for that specific expenditure, it is part of the total amount. I know I am not answering your question specifically with regard to the Kyiv mission. If you want, we can do the research and submit the answer in writing.
Senator Dagenais: I would like that, because the Kyiv mission is not an ordinary mission. When you see what is happening now, you can imagine that security will be increased.
While I have you with me, I will take the opportunity to tell you about the budget for development, peace and security, which amounts to $760 million for international aid in Africa. I would say that this budget is five times higher than the $137 million allocated for Europe, the Arctic, the Middle East and the Maghreb. What explains such a difference?
Also, given that the Arctic is becoming a major issue for Canada vis-à-vis Russia, how much will be spent on the Arctic and how will the funds be used?
Ms. Ouellette: Thank you for your question, Senator Dagenais. The distribution of international development budgets is motivated in particular by our policy on feminist international aid, which targets 50% of our bilateral aid to the African continent; that is what explains this significant amount.
That said, there are mechanisms within the department itself that allow us to pivot our budget and make it flexible to direct it to crises or increased needs, such as in Ukraine most recently. Indeed, the Arctic is an issue that we are looking at to make more representations and budget for increased surveillance.
I don’t have the specific amount for the Arctic, but again, we can share that with you. I have to tell you that we are at the beginning of the year, and therefore in the middle of the process of specific budget allocations for each of the continents, countries and programs.
Senator Dagenais: I will now address Infrastructure Canada. I want to look at some of the budget items for the top 20 infrastructure projects that the federal government is involved in. I see $1.3 billion for the Blue Line of the Montreal metro. As a Montrealer, you can understand why I’m interested in this. Is this the total and final amount that Ottawa will pay for this public transit system, or will other amounts be added? According to the information available on this project, the work will not begin for 18 months, which will coincide with the next federal budget. Will this amount be adjusted for inflation, given the rising costs we are seeing now?
Ms. Bertrand: Thank you for the question. I can answer part of it. I will then hand over to my colleague Alison O’Leary so that she can give you more information.
In general, Infrastructure Canada does not pay or add funds to account for inflation or changes in costs related to certain projects. This is a guideline that has been adopted within the department.
For the Montreal Metro Blue Line project in particular, I will ask my colleague Alison to add something if she has any further information. If not, we can respond in writing.
[English]
Ms. O’Leary: Thank you for the question. Perhaps I can respond generally in terms of what our approach is with large construction projects such as public transit.
First of all, on your question with respect to the funding for public transit overall, we do have a number of different programs that support this type of infrastructure. For example, under the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program, there is a public transit stream that is suballocated into different envelopes for the provinces and territories. So the Montreal project that you’re referring to would be funded out of Quebec’s allocation under the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program.
We also have a number of other funding envelopes for public transit, including ones announced last year for active transportation, for zero-emission transit and for rural transit solutions.
With respect to your question on cost pressures, certainly this is something that infrastructure project proponents are facing given supply chain constraints in the pandemic. But as Nathalie mentioned, we are quite careful, as stewards of public funds, to ensure we are taking a cautious approach and not generating cost overruns or funding cost overruns for projects.
We are looking very closely at public transit projects and trying to work together with provinces and territories, or with project proponents depending on the situation, to look at good planning approaches and making sure that we have a good understanding of the planning associated with projects that have long construction tails, and then also working with proponents to ensure there is a good contingency set aside so there is an ability to look at what happens with costs as construction evolves.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all the witnesses for appearing.
My questions are for Ms. Bertrand and her team, starting with one of the issues that Senator Marshall raised.
In the Auditor General’s report, the examination of the extent to which the department has examined infrastructure according to the Sustainable Development Goals — to which Canada, of course, committed in September 2015 — has there been more work on that? And specifically, if there hasn’t, why? If there has, if you could please provide in writing, in the interests of time today, the plans according to the Sustainable Development Goals for the various departmental analyses that you have conducted, it would be extremely helpful.
Second, in the Main Estimates and in the budget, there is a considerable amount of money devoted to resources to end homelessness. As you’re no doubt aware, in 90% of the communities in this country, people working full time at minimum-wage jobs cannot afford to rent even a one-bedroom apartment. How are these resources going to be allocated in ways that are sustainable? How many people, who are classified in what is often referred to as deep poverty, will be assisted? And how will the ongoing nature of these issues be addressed, particularly in light of the clawback issues in many provinces and territories for those who receive supports, as well as the failure of many provinces to address rent control in a meaningful way?
I’m curious as to how you’re addressing this issue. In particular, as you know, the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations in Saskatchewan, as well as the AFN, have criticized significantly the lack of support for Indigenous homelessness, so how do you plan to address that as well? Thank you.
Ms. Bertrand: Thank you for the question. I will turn the floor over to my colleague Janet Goulding.
Janet Goulding, Assistant Deputy Minister, Infrastructure Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.
There were actually a lot of questions in there so I’ll do my best to be brief and give you a quick overview of the program.
The funding for homelessness is allocated through Reaching Home, which is Canada’s federal homelessness strategy. It is a community-based program. We allocate funding through five different streams. There is funding for Indigenous homelessness specifically, both through an Indigenous urban homelessness stream as well as through a distinctions-based and funding available for modern treaty holders, and we also have a territorial stream that, of course, is largely focused on Indigenous homelessness.
The program itself is provided through community organizations that provide service delivery directly to organizations that are supporting the service of the homeless in our communities across the country. These kinds of services supply support for housing coordinators. They supply support for shelter services. They also supply support for things like COVID-relief measures that have been put in place in shelters across the country.
There is probably a lot more detail I could offer, and we don’t have much time, but we would be happy to follow up in writing in terms of the nature of the program and how it works across the country.
Senator Pate: That would be great, thank you, and the SDG plans as well, please.
Mr. Peets: Would it be useful for me to provide an answer now on the SDG question?
Senator Pate: Yes, but also please follow up in writing with more detail.
Mr. Peets: Okay. Thank you. The Sustainable Development Goals are an important part of our consideration when we are developing programs. We do report in our contribution to the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy how our programs tie to the Sustainable Development Goals.
With respect to the OAG process, again, there is a distinction to be made between the horizontal framework for reporting on investments of a number of departments and for our own department. In the horizontal framework, the SDG reporting is coordinated by ESDC. That is not part of our horizontal role in the investing in Canada plans. However, we do contribute and we are an active contributor to the ESDC-led process to report on the Sustainable Development Goals.
We are the co-lead for two of them; I believe it’s 9 and 11.
With respect to our individual departmental contribution, we will certainly endeavour in the future to make sure we are drawing the links between our new programs and the support of the SDGs. In fact, almost all of our programs are contributing to things like climate change mitigation and sustainable cities. They’re very highly aligned in a number of ways with the SDGs.
Senator Pate: Am I out of time?
The Chair: No. Do you have another question?
Senator Pate: Perfect. Thank you. As you know, the number one SDG is poverty and ending poverty. As I’ve alluded to earlier — but I’ll now be a bit more specific — the Assembly of First Nations has indicated that the level of homelessness for Indigenous peoples is mostly in the deep poverty range and very extensive in urban settings as well as on reserve.
Could you also send us the specific plans of how to address that and if it’s all through organizations, which ones and how much they’re receiving to do the work of the specific projects? Thank you.
Ms. Goulding: Absolutely. We can provide that information in writing. Thanks.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today and answering our questions. My question is for Environment and Climate Change Canada. In the 2023 Main Estimates, your department is requesting $293 million in grants and contributions to support the Low Carbon Economy Fund. This represents a 30% decrease from last year’s Main Estimates. My first question is: How does this compare with the money the government is providing in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry? What are the reasons for the decrease in funding requested, and what are the criteria for requesting funding for this project, given the criticisms of the Commissioner of the Environment regarding changes in the approach to addressing climate change?
Ms. Drainville: Thank you very much for your question, Senator Galvez. I’ll talk about the decrease, but I’ll have my colleague Douglas Nevison, who is in charge of the program, talk about the criteria. The decrease in this year’s estimates is attributable to the financing of the fund, which was set to expire last year, fiscal year 2021-22, but we extended the fund for three years so that applicants could bring their projects to completion. Naturally, the pandemic, being what it was, delayed projects, so we provided some flexibility to contribution recipients so that they could complete their projects. The program was, however, renewed by the federal government in Budget 2022. What you don’t see in this year’s estimates is the new funding profile that will make it possible to seek the necessary approvals from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Next year, you will see an increase in funding. I will now turn the floor over to my colleague Doug Nevison to speak to the funding criteria and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development’s comments.
[English]
Mr. Nevison: Thanks very much Linda, and thank you, senator, for the question. I believe Linda answered the first part of your question with respect to the funding profile in terms of grants and contributions for the Low Carbon Economy Fund.
In terms of the criteria for projects under the fund, there are a wide range of projects under the various streams. For example, the largest part of the Low Carbon Economy Fund is the leadership stream, which applies to provinces and territories. There is also a challenge stream, which is a merit-based stream that applies to, for example, municipalities, universities, schools, hospitals, Indigenous communities and the like.
For the most part, the criteria are basically aimed at achieving greenhouse gas emissions over a certain period of time through the projects and also looking at energy efficiency and renewable energy-like projects.
Those are the basic criteria in terms of the Low Carbon Economy Fund selection process. Thank you.
Senator Galvez: Thank you. Please don’t forget to send me how this money that we are giving for this program compares with subsidies we give to the fossil fuel industry. My suspicion is that these are little drops in the ocean of the subsidies.
My second question to Environment and Climate Change Canada is on that I asked last week of NRCan, and they are not familiar with the Bay du Nord Project. The project has been approved under 137 conditions that will ensure that the project will attain carbon neutrality in 2050.
[Translation]
However, Article 82 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea allows countries with larger-than-normal continental shelves to extract offshore oil beyond their 200-nautical-mile limit. The condition is that royalties must be paid on the extracted oil, money which is then redistributed to developing countries. Thus far, the federal government and the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador have not reached an agreement as to who will be responsible for the royalty payments. How do you see the approval of additional fossil fuel extraction operations and the government’s commitment to fight climate change? What is the estimated annual royalty payment according to Article 82 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea? Thank you.
Ms. Drainville: Thank you for your questions, Senator Galvez. There were a few in there, so I will ask my colleague Mr. Moffet to answer some of them. If we don’t have time to answer all of them, we would be glad to get back to you in writing.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
[English]
John Moffet, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environment and Climate Change Canada: On your question about royalty payments and article 82 of the convention, we’ll need to get back to you in writing. We’ll provide a written response to that question.
On your question about the approval of the project and how it aligns with the government’s overall objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, I think it’s fair to say the decision was a difficult one. However, the decision reflects a couple of key points.
One is that all projections indicate there will be a continued demand — albeit hopefully a declining demand — for oil and gas. That demand will continue for the next few decades. Canada needs to be in a position to respond to that demand to the extent that we can ensure that our oil and gas is produced at the lowest possible emissions and intensity. The Bay du Nord Project is projected to be, if not the least carbon-intensive oil and gas project in the world, among the least carbon-intensive projects in the world. The second key consideration is that existing offshore oil and gas production is declining, so we’re not really increasing production. We’re replacing existing production.
Senator Galvez: Chair, can I ask a supplementary questions?
The Chair: We’ll have to go to second round, Senator Galvez, because we still have a few more senators on the first round.
Senator Duncan: Thank you to the witnesses who are appearing before us today. I’m grateful for the hybrid format and to be speaking to you from the traditional territory of the Kwanlin Dün First Nation and the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council.
I have a number of questions I’d like to put on the record and seek responses in writing. The first one is for Global Affairs Canada. There are two line items in the estimates that we are examining. They are for the Global Arctic Leadership Initiative. There is $700,000 in the grants section and $5.4 million in contributions. May I have an explanation of these funding allotments and would the officials please advise if these expenditures align with the Northern premiers’ requests for enhanced presence and attention and defence and security in Canada’s Arctic. I would like to have that response in writing, please.
I would like to support Senator Marshall’s request to Infrastructure Canada for an update to the map that’s provided. If we could have regional distributions of all of the different funding allotments; it would be appreciated if we could have that response in writing as well.
I’ll conclude my questions with a question to Environment and Climate Change Canada. The meteorological services were centralized in the early 2000s, and this was a significant change in the North. In the budget that we’re examining, there is funding for predicting weather and environment conditions. There is also a significant amount — in fact, it has doubled from the previous year — for contributions and support of predicting weather and environment conditions. I note that in a report on the department’s website, Evaluation of the Weather Observations, Forecasts and Warnings Program, recommendation 2 talks about:
. . . Northern and some Indigenous communities, who face different risks from a changing climate. Although the program has taken some steps in this direction, program representatives acknowledged the need to do more. Potential areas for improvement, identified by program representatives and external stakeholders, include: improving infrastructure and services to Northern Canada . . . [and] considering the impacts of weather and climate events on vulnerable populations . . . .
I would like to specifically ask Environment and Climate Change Canada if the enhanced contributions in support of predicting weather and environment conditions will address this recommendation.
The Chair: As a reminder to the officials that made the presentation — Ms. Ouellette, Ms. Bertrand, Ms. Drainville — that written responses must be directed to the clerk by end of day on Tuesday, May 17. Do we have that agreement from the four departments, please?
[Translation]
Ms. Drainville: Yes, that’s no problem for Environment and Climate Change Canada.
The Chair: Thank you. Is it the same for your department, Ms. Bertrand?
Ms. Bertrand: That’s fine for Infrastructure Canada.
Mr. Nussbaum: Yes, absolutely.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms. Ouellette: If I may, for Global Affairs Canada, we will confirm the amount of $700,000.
[English]
This amount is for grants for the Global Arctic Initiative and the contribution of $5.4 million for the Global Arctic Leadership Initiative.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you for your cooperation.
We will now go to Senator Moncion.
Senator Moncion: My first question is for Ms. Bertrand. It has to do with something you said in your opening statement.
You said that the Samuel De Champlain Bridge would be completed in late 2022. Can you tell us about the project, please? I thought the bridge had been finished for a few years already, so I would really like to hear more about it.
Ms. Bertrand: I am going to turn the floor over to my colleague Glenn Campbell. He can explain that the project involves more than just building the bridge; it also involves completing a number of connections.
[English]
Glenn Campbell, Assistant Deputy Minister, Infrastructure Canada: Good morning to you. I’m Glenn Campbell, the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Investment, Partnerships and Innovation Branch. Major projects and bridges, including public-private partnerships fall under my purview. It is with pleasure that I talk about the progress on the Samuel De Champlain Bridge in Montreal. As you know, the bridge is a more than $4-billion capital project that was opened to traffic about two years ago. There are still a number of project components that are underway, including the central corridor, which sees us working together with the constructors on the Réseau express métropolitain with CDPQ to ensure the REM light rail transit system travels across the bridge. That construction work is ongoing. There are still a number of finishing works to the bridge and lands that were not able to be completed during the pandemic.
I would also note that adjacent to the bridge, we are working with our colleagues from the JCCBI, the Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated, on the major and environmentally sustainable deconstruction of the old Champlain Bridge. There is still a lot of activity and construction taking place. We anticipate the final completion of the Samuel de Champlain Bridge in 2022, so this year. I hope that answers your question.
Senator Moncion: Thank you for the answer. So we shouldn’t be expecting any more funding for the construction of the Samuel de Champlain Bridge?
Mr. Campbell: There are still some small amounts that are part of the project that — [Technical difficulties]
Senator Moncion: I’ll go to my second question.
[Translation]
My second question is for Mr. Nussbaum and relates to what you called the official residences maintenance deficit. He also talked about the Nepean Point project.
With respect to official residences, could you tell us about the prevention program, if there is one, and what you are doing to avoid ending up with huge infrastructure projects.
With some prevention, building improvements get done as you go along, and therefore throughout the life of the project, not when buildings are about to fall apart. I’d like to know what prevention initiatives you have for the various types of infrastructure.
Mr. Nussbaum: Thank you very much for the question. I will begin answering it and then I will ask my colleague Véronique de Passillé to complete the answer. We have an annual budget of $3 million to maintain the official residence buildings, but it’s not enough.
I will now ask Véronique to continue answering the question by addressing our condition reports for the official residences.
Véronique de Passillé, Acting Vice-President, Public, Legal and Corporate Affairs, National Capital Commission: The NCC is responsible for maintaining six official residences, but also 49 secondary buildings that are part of the portfolio in the National Capital Region.
In 2017, the NCC commissioned an in-depth report on the condition of each of the buildings to obtain a real assessment of the work that needed to be done. The report was released to the public in 2018, and it showed that 58% of portfolio assets, half of which are main residences, are considered to be in mediocre or critical condition. We refreshed that analysis in 2021 using the same methodology and the latest conclusions confirm that the general state of the portfolio continues to deteriorate, with only 24% of assets in good condition, compared to 34% in 2018.
The report quite clearly highlights the missing funding required to restore and maintain these heritage buildings.
As Mr. Nussbaum said, we are given $3 million for the official residences portfolio, and it is now estimated that an infusion of approximately $175 million is needed to fill the maintenance gap. These funds would be used to address modern code and legislative retrofit and compliance needs, as well as universal accessibility and sustainability issues.
In addition to the $175 million infusion, we believe that approximately $26 million per year would be needed to do just what your question was referring to, which is maintenance in terms of renovations and repairs on an ongoing basis.
The Chair: Ms. de Passillé, further to Senator Moncion’s question, can we agree to have you provide a more detailed response in writing?
Ms. de Passillé: Yes, I can send you the reports I referred to, which list each of the residences’ needs.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: Thank you to all our panellists for being here this morning.
My question is for Global Affairs Canada and it’s on Canadian exports. I noted in your departmental plan that you will continue to promote Canada as an innovative, responsible and competitive leader in the global marketplace and that you committed to increasing overseas exports by 50% by 2025. According to your data, you hope to reach $296 billion in exports by 2025. The actual results for 2020-21 are $196.7 billion, a slight reduction from the 2019-20 results. I would assume this is due to the pandemic. Regardless, we need about $100 billion in new exports to reach the 2025 target. That’s a pretty sharp increase in three years.
Are you confident you will reach the target? What measures is Global Affairs taking to accelerate exports and help businesses reach new markets? Are specific red-tape-cutting measures being implemented to make it easier for Canadian businesses to have a global reach? I would like to hear what exactly you are doing to help Canadian businesses reach this ambitious target by 2025.
Ms. Ouellette: Thank you, Senator Loffreda, for your question. Indeed, the 2022-23 Main Estimates include funding of $375 million for trade and investment core responsibilities. We seek to advance three high-level results through this area of spending: building and safeguarding an open and inclusive rules-based global trading system; supporting Canadian exporters and innovators internationally; and ensuring Canada is a top destination for investment.
We will continue to promote open borders and free flow of goods, capital and people, to counter the impact of the pandemic. We will continue to strengthen our global trade markets through WTO reform and the Ottawa Group to promote more inclusive trade, specifically for the gender arrangement, climate change mitigation and adaptation objectives. Of course, we will continue to advance the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement discussion, CPTPP, CUSMA and ASEAN, as well as work on the close relationship with the United States.
In terms of your question about innovation, we are implementing an e-commerce strategy to support the digital industry and protect Canadian intellectual property through the Trade Commissioner Service.
Of course, we are supporting economic and environmental protection by focusing on innovation and green jobs, where we can have a more resilient, sustainable and competitive economy.
This is what we have in our departmental plan. Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you. To continue with your departmental plan, you say that Global Affairs Canada will launch a new responsible business conduct strategy to underscore the importance of responsible business conduct as part of Canada’s competitive advantage and help companies to mitigate related risks, particularly as they diversify into new markets.
I’m interested in this new strategy. Can you share with us when this new strategy will be launched? Whom are you consulting to create the program? What exactly will you seek to achieve and what competitive advantage does Canada have compared to other nations when it comes to responsible business conduct? I’m interested in knowing your detailed strategy, according to this plan, to help Canadian business.
Ms. Ouellette: Thank you, Senator Loffreda, for your question. As you may know, what we call the “core” was established about a year or 18 months ago. There are a number of activities involved and we were able to launch that initiative. That said, I don’t have details of the plan in order to answer your question. I will be pleased to ask my colleague who is in charge of that program to provide an answer in writing by May 17.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you. My next question is again for Global Affairs. I noted in the Main Estimates that Canada’s contribution to the World Health Organization is increasing considerably in 2022-23. It was about $18 million two years ago, it’s anticipated to be $20 million in 2021-22 and we are forecasting an increase to $45 million in 2022-23. Is this related to the pandemic? Is this similar to other countries? Is this a global trend? Do we have a say as to how the money is spent? How do we monitor the financial contribution to the WHO? Do we simply write a blank cheque and we don’t have any decision-making power or influence on how the money is used?
Ms. Ouellette: Thank you, Senator Loffreda, for your question. A large portion of the increase in the health programs is due to the impact of the pandemic. In terms of detail about how it is managed and the relationship with the WHO, I’ll pass this over to my colleague Megan Cain to answer the question.
[Translation]
The Chair: Ms. Ouellette, I’d like you to ask you this: Given the time factor, can you reply in writing for us, please?
Ms. Ouellette: Yes. Thank you.
Senator Gerba: Thanks to all our witnesses for their answers and their presentations.
I have two questions for Global Affairs Canada.
The African continent is booming; its population is expected to double by 2050 to 22.5 billion. Many African countries will have very high growth rates, with some even approaching 10%.
However, it seems that the Canadian diplomatic network has been shrinking in Africa for several years. For example, the High Commission of Canada in Cameroon covers three other countries: Gabon, Chad and the Central African Republic. The Embassy of Canada to Senegal covers four countries: Cape Verde, Gambia, Guinea and Guinea-Bissau.
How much of the estimates will be allocated to develop and deepen GAC’s network in Africa?
Ms. Ouellette: Thank you for the question, Senator.
We have 178 missions around the world, in 110 countries.
The estimates include $1.2 billion to support Canada’s presence abroad. I don’t have the exact amount allocated for the African continent. I’d be happy to submit that response in writing.
Senator Gerba: Thank you very much. I’m pleased that the envelope for Africa is growing, particularly for international development, and especially for the feminist policy. Regarding this policy, I’d like to know how the funds will be distributed. Will they come in the form of grants or loans? Which organizations have already been selected to receive the funds?
Ms. Ouellette: Thank you for the question. Yes, much of our budget for development will go to the African continent. Roughly speaking, we’re talking about at least $630 million.
We do business with several organizations. The list is very long and we work in partnership with them. These payments will take the form of grants or contributions, depending on specific needs. It could also be humanitarian assistance, and that is on top of the $630 million.
I would add, as I mentioned earlier, that we are currently developing a more specific investment plan by continent and country.
Senator Gerba: Could you send me a list of organizations you will be working with, or plan to work with, on the feminist agenda?
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we will move on to the second round of three minutes. I see that the clock is ticking, and we have approximately 20 minutes left.
Senator Marshall: I’ll just read my question into the record. It’s for Global Affairs Canada. I did want to make a comment on Environment and Climate Change Canada in response to Senator Richards, that the information we have indicates that they have met only 15 of their 56 indicators, which is about 27%. So they are one of the lowest of the government departments and agencies that report that information. I wanted to make that point.
For Global Affairs, here are my questions. They relate only to contributions because quite a few of the contributions are stipulated in foreign currency. I would like to know, why are the contributions in foreign currency? Are the amounts stipulated in an agreement? Are the amounts supported by agreements with deliverables defined? My other question is: Are the agreements themselves approved by some authority outside the department, for example, by cabinet or Treasury Board, or is it solely approved by the minister or some official within the department?
Those are my questions, and I will leave it at that, Mr. Chair, so my colleagues can ask their questions.
The Chair: Therefore, Senator Marshall, we will have a written answer.
Senator Marshall: Yes. That would be appreciated. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: My question is for Environment and Climate Change Canada. On March 29, the government announced its 2030 greenhouse gas reduction plan. The plan, which has been well received, calls for a federal government investment of $1.9 billion over the next eight years. Will any of those funds be invested this year? If so, are they included in these main estimates?
Ms. Drainville: Thank you very much for your question, Senator Forest. I must confess that I don’t have all the details at hand right now. I will ask my colleague Doug Nevison if he has that information. If not, we will be happy to respond in writing.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Nevison: Chair, would you like me to give a quick response?
The Chair: Absolutely, please.
Mr. Nevison: Thank you very much, senator, for the question. As Linda mentioned, we can provide precise details, but there are expenditures in 2022-23, but they will not be, to my knowledge, in the Main Estimates at this stage. For example, as Linda already mentioned, the Low Carbon Economy Fund was announced in both the Emissions Reduction Plan back in March, the extension of $2.2 billion, but that is not included in these mains and will be included in future estimates. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: My question is for Global Affairs Canada. I see in the documents that your department plans to contribute $28 million to NATO. I also note that the Department of Defence will be contributing $158 million to NATO. That contribution seems to be for programs and yours is for civil administration. My question is quite simple. Why is it not only the Department of Defence that’s involved with NATO? Why do you absolutely need to be involved in monitoring or management?
Ms. Ouellette: Thank you for the question, Senator Gignac. I will turn the floor over to my colleague Andrew Smith, Director General of International Assistance Policy. I’m sure he will be able to answer your question.
[English]
Andrew Smith, Director General, International Assistance Policy, Global Affairs Canada: I would need to specify that my colleague responsible for strategic foreign policy would be better placed to respond to this. Perhaps we could respond in writing.
NATO funding does not fall under the international assistance envelope spending that is the responsibility of my bureau, so perhaps we could look at responding in writing to this question.
Senator Gignac: Yes, exactly. Just to explain why two different departments send money to NATO rather than one. Thank you.
Senator Richards: This question can be answered in writing at a later date. Does Global Affairs make any policy demands on the nation it supplies money to for climate change operations or anything else? Since China is a main monetary contributor in many of these states and is not concerned with climate change the way Canada seems to be, does Global Affairs run into conflict with this nation during these negotiations or settlements that they do with other nations? I would like that in writing if you can’t give it to me at this moment, please.
Ms. Ouellette: Thank you, Senator Richards, for your question. We may tentatively try to answer it. I will pass to my colleague Sue Szabo.
Ms. Szabo: Thank you for that question. There are a number of different ways we can respond to this. Generally, we are not actually providing the climate change money to country governments. We are often providing the money either to private sector actors or to civil society actors.
That said, there are often types of policy constraints or regulatory constraints that actually impede effective programming. In those kinds of cases, we will look to different mechanisms wherein we can actually have dialogue with the government in order to try to fix that entire environment so that both the actions that we’re trying to achieve and what the governments themselves are trying to achieve through their nationally determined contributions are actually going to have more impact. But this is always done in collaboration with the country and in recognizing that we often have mutual goals in the area of climate change.
Senator Richards: I mentioned China, too, so maybe you can give me that in writing. I was wondering about the level of governmental interference that Canada commits on foreign nations with this money. I’m wondering if that happens, and perhaps that could be answered in a letter, too. Thank you.
Ms. Szabo: Of course.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: I wanted to complete the energy profile for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I also asked Enercan about this last week. The Liberal government was very instrumental in getting the Muskrat Falls project carried out. Canadians have contributed to construction and we don’t know where the project stands. This year, the government decided to approve the Bay du Nord project. Why not complete one project before starting a new one? Also, the Bay du Nord project is somewhat problematic with respect to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
How do you intend to resolve disputes over royalty payments with the government of Newfoundland and Labrador? Could the oil company share that responsibility?
Ms. Drainville: Thank you very much for your question, Senator Galvez. If I may, I’m going to turn the floor over to my colleague John Moffet, and if we can’t answer both your questions, we will do so in writing.
[English]
Mr. Moffet: Thank you, but I will start with an apology, senator. I’m not sure I really understand the question. The two projects are very different. They involve the generation of different types of energy. In one, yes, there is a significant federal government financial role. In Bay du Nord, there is not. I’m not sure what kind of conflict you’re talking about with the Government of Newfoundland with respect to the Bay du Nord project. We’ve been working very closely with the province, and I’m not aware of any conflicts.
Senator Galvez: It concerns article 82 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
[Translation]
How do you intend to settle the payment of those royalties? Could Equinor, the company promoting Bay du Nord, share that responsibility?
[English]
Mr. Moffet: We will have to follow up in writing with regard to the issues raised by article 82, and we will do that.
Senator Loffreda: My question is for Infrastructure Canada on alternative financing. I noted in your departmental plan that Infrastructure Canada will serve as a policy centre of expertise for the Government of Canada as it conducts research and analysis of trends and innovations in project finance and alternative partnership models, both domestically and internationally.
I’m quite interested in learning more about your work in this area with the Canada Infrastructure Bank. What have you discovered so far that might help Canada achieve better returns on infrastructure investments for Canadians? What unique approaches might Canada want to promote to partner with the private sector to finance and deliver public infrastructure projects?
Ms. Bertrand: Thank you for the question. My colleague Glenn Campbell will be happy to respond to that question.
Mr. Campbell: Thank you, senator, and thank you for the interest in alternative finance. Infrastructure Canada reorganized itself in 2017 when the ministry integrated some of the policy and support activities of public-private partnerships that emanated from the former P3 Canada Fund or public-private partnerships Canada. Also, we took the major bridges and projects where we were operationalizing our own oversight of Canada’s largest public-private partnerships, the P3s, the Champlain Bridge, as well as the Gordie Howe International Bridge.
When we became an oversight body on behalf of the minister to support the Canada Infrastructure Bank, we began working together with the Department of Finance on ways in which to facilitate the stand-up of the bank and how to support the Canada Infrastructure Bank going forward.
Our efforts of late have been on monitoring what the other provinces as well as what other municipalities are doing in Canada, ways to bring in P3s and what the Canada Infrastructure Bank represents as the next generation of public-private partnerships, to find more creative ways to attract private capital to help achieve public policy outcomes.
We’re also looking at lessons across Canada and, frankly, across the globe, when many countries are now looking to crowd in private-sector finance, not just for infrastructure but also to facilitate the transition to a low-carbon economy.
We continue to support the minister and the Government of Canada internally, as well as to provide support as needed to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, including their engagement with many government departments around town where they are partnering to better leverage scarce public funds to meet wide objectives.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I have a quick question for the Global Affairs Canada representatives. I see an amount of $43 million. How will that money be allocated for Prince Charles’ and the Duchess of Cornwall’s upcoming visit? Will a special budget be required? Does the protocol include costs for security, for which the RCMP will be responsible?
Ms. Ouellette: Thank you for your question, Senator Dagenais. If I may, I’d like to correct a response I gave earlier with respect to the embassy in Kyiv. The amount in question for that embassy is part of the $1.2 billion budget line to support Canada’s presence abroad. I apologize.
With respect to the official visit, I don’t have the amounts allocated, but it is certainly be a collaborative effort with several departments and the RCMP. I will try to find information on the specific costs associated with the official visit for our department in particular.
Senator Dagenais: If you prefer, we can see what the actual costs are after the visit.
Ms. Ouellette: That would be even better.
Senator Dagenais: There are always inevitable adjustments to be made.
Ms. Ouellette: Thank you.
The Chair: Honourable senators, to complete the second round, I am going to ask Senator Pate if she has one more question before we adjourn the meeting.
[English]
Senator Pate: Yes, to Infrastructure Canada, in the projects that you’re looking at, you mention that about 25% of the projects are for-profit companies and for-profit sector projects.
I’m curious — and you can send in this writing, please — what’s the rationale for funding the private-sector projects? How many private sector projects are being funded? And what’s the total amount of funding that has been allocated to private sector thus far, including, of course, the rationale for each company and each initiative? Thank you very much.
The Chair: Honourable senators, before we adjourn, I would like to remind Ms. Ouellette, Ms. Bertrand, Mr. Nussbaum and Ms. Drainville that written responses should go directly to the clerk by the end of day on May 17, 2022. We have a deadline, and we appreciate your cooperation and collaboration for providing the answers in writing, to which you have agreed. I would also like to say thank you to the senators.
Our next meeting will be Tuesday, May 17, 2022, at 9:30 EST to begin our study on the subject matter of Bill C-19, an Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.
That said, honourable senators, and to the supporting team through the clerk, Ms. Aubé, thank you very much for your leadership. With this, I now declare the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)