Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue No. 9 - Evidence - May 19, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 19, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 12:06 p.m. to examine the expenditures set out in Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017.
Senator Larry W. Smith (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. The mandate of this committee is to examine matters relating to federal estimates generally as well as government finance. My name is Larry Smith, a senator from Quebec, and I chair the committee.
Let me introduce the other committee members. To my left, from Newfoundland and Labrador, is Senator Beth Marshall; from the northern part of British Columbia, Senator Richard Neufeld.
[Translation]
To my right is Senator André Pratte, who used to work at La Presse and who is well-known throughout Quebec. Thank you, André.
[English]
Senator Ngo is standing in for some of our senators; we appreciate your presence today.
[Translation]
Today, we are starting our study of the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 2017, which was referred to our committee last week.
[English]
Today to give us an overview of the Supplementary Estimates (A) to answer all of our questions we have, from the Treasury Board Secretariat, Brian Pagan, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector; and Renée LaFontaine, Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Services Sector. Here to support her colleagues is Marcia Santiago, Executive Director, Expenditure Management Sector.
Thank you for being here today. As soon as you're ready, sir, go ahead.
[Translation]
Brian Pagan, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Mr. Chair, I am pleased to be here again with my colleagues, Renée and Marcia. I would first like to give you an overview of the Supplementary Estimates (A) for 2016-17. We would then be happy to answer your questions.
To start, I will briefly describe the government's spending cycle. We will then review how the Supplementary Estimates (A) information is organized and the total dollar amounts allocated in the supplementary estimates and for the entire fiscal year. Before wrapping up my presentation, I will speak to you about the implementation of the 2106 federal budget and compare it with the estimates.
[English]
On slide 3 we have a simplified representation of the supply cycle, which we have presented and discussed before this committee in the past.
At this point in the fiscal year, in the supply period ending June 23, we have had the first appropriation act for the year, otherwise known as interim supply. We've had that passed by both the House of Commons and the Senate. This allows us to commence the fiscal year.
A second bill, or full supply, covering the remainder of the Main Estimates introduced in February, will be brought forward by the President of the Treasury Board for approval by Parliament in June.
Today we are here in support of Supplementary Estimates (A), which support the third of five planned appropriation bills in 2016-17, and the appropriation bill for the Supplementary Estimates (A) will also be introduced to the house in early June.
Slide 4 of the presentation outlines the organization of the supplementary estimates and this is presented to you in three parts. The introduction, or Part 1, which is found at pages 1-1 to 1-19, summarizes estimates to date for the fiscal year and gives a total of the supplementary estimates.
It also provides summary level information on estimates for the previous year and actual expenditures for 2014-15. We have an innovation in the Supplementary Estimates (A) that is found in Part 1 and that is a chart, a reconciliation table, comparing the estimates of 2016-17 to Budget 2016 that was introduced in March. I will elaborate on this reconciliation table in a moment.
The introduction section also describes the 12 largest voted initiatives, those initiatives greater than $100 million, and also provides descriptions of horizontal initiatives where departments work together on a common purpose or in support of a common program. These supplementary estimates include 11 horizontal items involving multiple departments.
Part 2 of the supplementary estimates provides the detail by department and agency in alphabetical order. This is very rich in information as it displays voted requirements by operating grants and contributions and capital votes, and a description of the initiative. Information is also included on transfers, as well as a breakdown of additional grant and contribution funding by program.
In the annex to the supplementary estimates you will find the proposed schedule to the appropriation bill that will be introduced in June by the president.
Additional information is also found in online annexes. On the TBS website one can find information on statutory forecast estimates by strategic outcome and program; planned expenditures by standard object of the expenditure; transfers between organizations; and a new annex presenting information on major infrastructure programs that were announced in Budget 2016.
[Translation]
Lastly, I would like to remind the committee that the Treasury Board Secretariat's InfoBase provides additional current and historical information on government expenditures and jobs within both the government and the department.
[English]
Turning to slide 5, we see the aggregate totals of the supplementary estimates, which represent $7 billion in voted budgetary appropriations for 45 organizations. The new funding supports many initiatives announced in Budget 2016, as well as spending set out and approved by the government in prior budgets. The estimates also provide an update on forecasted statutory spending, and we see a decrease here. Again, I will elaborate on that in a moment.
Turning to slide 6, where we present a comparison of the 2016-17 estimates with the two previous fiscal years, including these supplementary estimates, total estimates for 2016-17 are $251.4 billion. Of this amount, $96.8 billion is voted and subject to the supply bills mentioned earlier. This represents approximately 38.5 per cent of total forecast expenditures of $251.4 billion.
These voted expenditures are higher than in previous fiscal years. In terms of a spring supplementary estimates, or Supplementary Estimates (A), we're bringing forward this year many more items: $7 billion in voted items this year compared to $3.1 billion or $2.4 billion in the previous two fiscal years. This reflects our efforts to move forward in a timely way on Budget 2016 items and to bring these forward to Parliament for approval.
Slide 7 presents the 12 major items over $100 million in these supplementary estimates. These 12 initiatives in the aggregate total just under $6 billion of the $7 billion in voted appropriations, or roughly 86 per cent of Supplementary Estimates (A).
The largest two amounts are for horizontal items, which reflect much of the new infrastructure spending announced in Budget 2016. The first item for short-term investments in public transit, green infrastructure and existing programs represents $1.75 billion to support improvements to solid waste management on reserve lands, upgrades to water distribution and treatment infrastructure, expansion and improvement of public transit systems and climate change mitigation and adaptation infrastructure projects.
The next item of affordable housing and social infrastructure comprises $1.65 billion among 12 organizations to help expand affordable housing, including shelters for victims of violence, early learning and child care, renewal of cultural and recreational infrastructure and improvements to community health care facilities on reserve.
A third example that I will point out of the 12 is from the Department of Industry representing requirements of $499.2 million for the new Post-Secondary Institutions Strategic Investment Fund announced in Budget 2016. This initiative is aimed at enhancing and modernizing research and commercialization facilities on Canadian campuses, as well as industry-relevant training facilities at community colleges.
Turning to slide 8, I have a word on statutory forecasts in these estimates. When we appeared here in February for Supplementary Estimates (C) to close out fiscal year 2015-16, the committee had a number of questions on statutory spending and so I would like to briefly explain the forecast changes in these Supplementary Estimates (A).
Senator Marshall, you may recall that in February you requested some additional information on statutory spending in the main body of the estimates document, and so on page 2 of the introduction under "Summary of Estimates'' we've added a paragraph about the major change to our statutory forecast.
The primary driver for changes to the forecast of statutory spending is the introduction of the new Canada child benefit, which is to begin July 1. The new benefit will be implemented through changes to the Income Tax Act and as such will be reported on through the annual report on federal tax expenditures and not through the estimates. As a consequence, the two benefits that it is replacing will cease at the end of June and the forecast expenditures that had been included in the Main Estimates will sunset. Overall, children's benefits are set to increase by $4.5 billion in 2016- 17 and about $5.4 billion in 2017-18.
The only other changes to statutory forecast at this time relate to employee benefit plans that are driven by planned increases in personnel as a result of implementation of Budget 2016 measures.
[Translation]
Page 9 states that the Supplementary Estimates (A) is the first opportunity to obtain parliamentary approval of the funding for programs and initiatives announced in Budget 2016. This year, 33 items in Supplementary Estimates (A) are directly linked to Budget 2016 priorities. These account for roughly $6 billion of the $7 billion to be voted by Parliament.
[English]
This is one of the fastest turnarounds from budget to estimates in recent years. It is an important step towards a more efficient appropriations process that is more closely aligned with the budget.
On slide 10, just a word about this effort to align estimates and the budget. Senators are well aware of Minister Brison's mandate to improve alignment and the overall information presented to Parliament. To that end, I would like to call your attention to new information in the Supplementary Estimates (A).
As mentioned previously, if one looks at the online annexes we have added a document providing extra details on three areas of infrastructure spending from Budget 2016. At close to $4 billion, these infrastructure initiatives represent over half of the planned voted expenditures in these estimates.
In addition, we've heard from parliamentarians about the difficulties created due to accounting differences between total expenses on an accrual basis in the budget and cash numbers presented in the estimates. To alleviate these difficulties, we have included a new chart on page 5 of the estimates, which I will discuss in detail here on the next slide.
The reconciliation begins with $251.4 billion, which is the total of Main and Supplementary Estimates (A). This is the cash basis of forecast expenditures at this time. From there we show a series of five adjustments, additions and subtractions, to reconcile to the expense forecast in the budget of $317.1 billion. The prime difference between the two documents is the first addition, which is to include spending in the budget but is not presented in the estimates.
Forecast spending on Employment Insurance of $21.1 billion and $20 billion for the new Canada child benefit are not presented or voted on by Parliament through the estimates process but are included in the Department of Finance expense forecast for the budget.
Other items that are not included in the estimates include expenses of Crown corporations as well as revenues credited to departmental appropriations.
The second adjustment shows the difference between total expenses on a full accrual basis of $4.8 billion. The third adjustment deals with information that is in the fiscal framework. There is an expense forecast in the budget, for which measures have not yet been brought forward by departments for approval by Treasury Board and therefore have not been presented to Parliament for approval. This totals $4.9 billion.
From these additions we have a subtraction. We know, as we saw in Supplementary Estimates (C), that departments are provided with maximum authorities with "up to'' amounts and that in a typical year they will not spend all the authorities available to them. The Department of Finance anticipates this in their expense forecast. They include a lapsed forecast, and so we reflect that lapsed forecast of $6.1 billion to help us do this reconciliation.
Finally an adjustment of $1.4 billion for other provisions in the framework, and these provisions would include unknown, at this time, liabilities and could relate to Aboriginal issues. They could relate to cost increases related to disaster financial assistance or other increases related to collective bargaining.
Slide 12 presents this reconciliation in a more visual form, and the picture is broken down into two significant sections. On the left top bar we show voted appropriations of $96.8 billion, which is the Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A). By looking at the other sections of the bar, you can see what other spending and revenues go into the final budget forecast for 2016. So if we took the voted appropriations of $96.8 billion, the other authorities of $35.7 billion, other major transfers of $118.9 billion and the public debt of $25.7 billion, that would add up to $251.4 billion, so there is your expenditure forecast. Your expense forecast in the budget is the program expenses of $291.4 billion and the public debt of $25.7 billion, and that will get you to the expense forecast of $317.1 billion.
And then finally your projected budgetary balance or your projected deficit, you'd find that by subtracting the expense forecast of 317.1 from the revenue of 281.7, and that would be your budgetary balance of 29.4.
Senators, that concludes my presentation. Before responding to your questions, perhaps just a word from Renée LaFontaine, our CFO, on the TBS portion of the supplementary estimates, and then we would be very happy to respond to your questions.
Renée LaFontaine, Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Services Sector,Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I need one extra minute to sort of sum up things for the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. I'm talking about the department itself.
Basically we are here seeking Parliament's approval to spend an extra $45.6 million in Supplementary Estimates (A), and the primary reason for that is the funding that we had received from other government departments to support our back office transformation initiative, we would like to re-profile that from last year into this year, and we need your approval to do that.
The remainder is $3.5 million of bridge funding to continue our program that we set up where the employer and the unions get together on our joint learning program to support the collective agreement process. Our third-party review of Shared Services Canada, that's where we, the government, promised to provide private- and public-sector expertise on the plan coming forward from Shared Services Canada, and another $500,000 just for the TBS oversight of the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan that you also see in these estimates.
That's everything we're looking for from the Treasury Board Secretariat. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Marshall, you look like you want to ask some questions.
Senator Marshall: I was just going to put up my hand to say I wanted to ask a question.
The Chair: I could see that look in your eyes.
Senator Marshall: Okay, thank you. First, I really like the chart on page 5, the reconciliation, but can you just go down through it? I just want to make sure that I understand everything, because the $60.7 billion — you have listed the three individual amounts that make up that amount — I thought there was a separate fund for the Employment Insurance benefits, so I was a little confused about that. Would that not show up in another set of financial statements?
Mr. Pagan: Senator, you are correct. The Employment Insurance costs are paid directly out of the Employment Insurance operating account, and so they are included in the Department of Finance's expense forecast, but they are not presented in the estimates. They are not a voted or a statutory appropriation, and that's the reason.
Senator Marshall: They show up in the budget.
Mr. Pagan: Yes.
Senator Marshall: The Employment Insurance fund, that separate fund, when the government does its consolidated financial statements it is incorporated, isn't it?
Mr. Pagan: It is, yes.
Senator Marshall: The children's benefits, that's the new program, right, the $20 billion?
Mr. Pagan: Correct.
Senator Marshall: We are backing out the costs of the old program, which is the 5.7.
Mr. Pagan: That's correct.
Senator Marshall: This other, the 19.6, what's in that?
Mr. Pagan: There are two primary elements to that. The first is expenses of Crown corporations, and I think that's in the order of 14 or $15 billion. We can check that. The second element is the revenues credited to departmental appropriations or net voting authorities.
Senator Marshall: That they are allowed to spend.
Mr. Pagan: Correct.
Senator Marshall: I understand the differences in accounting basis. The next item, the 4.9, what would be in that, Brian?
Mr. Pagan: That is the aggregate of those initiatives that have been identified by the government in Budget 2016 or in any other budget planning exercise which have not yet been developed by departments for consideration by Treasury Board and therefore for presentation to Parliament.
Senator Marshall: They will come in the Supplementary Estimates (B) and Supplementary Estimates (C).
Mr. Pagan: Yes. Let me qualify that. It is forecast in the budget that they would materialize this year, and that we would therefore be bringing them forward in Supplementary Estimates (B) and (C). If, for whatever reason, departments are not able to bring these forward, then those amounts could potentially be reprofiled, and we would see them in estimates exercises of future years.
Marcia Santiago, Executive Director, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: That's why there is the $6 billion reduction, because we already expect some of that money that has not shown up in estimates yet will lapse, as will some of the funds that are already in estimates.
Senator Marshall: So the $6.1 billion that lapsed, is that usual? If you had done this reconciliation last year, would you also have a reconciling item of the lapsed amount?
Mr. Pagan: The Department of Finance will include a lapsed forecast in each and every budget. What we did most recently in Supplementary Estimates (C) for 2015-16 was present to Parliament the known forecasted lapse as of the end of February. That was some $5.1 billion. The Department of Finance will adjust their lapsed forecast in each budget, depending on a number of factors. Then we have committed in supplementary estimates to update that forecast in Supplementary Estimates (C).
Right now you are seeing a forecasted lapse of $6.1 billion. We will come forward in Supplementary Estimates (C) at the end of the year with an updated forecast.
Senator Marshall: So there is another $6 billion figure that has been discussed, which was reported in the media as a $6 billion cushion embedded in the budget numbers because the figures used by the federal government weren't as optimistic as the private sector forecasts. I think I framed that correctly. So this $6.1 billion bears no resemblance to that $6 billion, does it?
Mr. Pagan: No.
Senator Marshall: It is so close I was suspicious. My last question is related to the chart. You mentioned in your opening remarks about the statutory. Are the percentages of statutory expenditures going up? I get the feeling there are more and more expenditures showing up in the statutory category. The percentage as voted is decreasing. Is my feeling correct or is it about the same?
Mr. Pagan: Senator, that had been a trend line over the last number of years. It was driven by two primary components. One was the escalators to provinces for the Canada Health and Social Transfer. There was a 6 per cent escalator driving up costs. Then of course we have demographic factors that influence higher CPP and OAS payments.
Another factor was the focus on reducing the operating costs of government over the last number of years, as the government moved to a budgetary balance. That was driving down voted expenditures. What we're seeing in these estimates is a slight reversal. Statutory spending is going down because of the elimination of the universal child care benefit. We are delivering that program through the Income Tax Act. Voted expenditures are going up by $7 billion.
Senator Marshall: The trend is reversing itself?
Mr. Pagan: This year anyway.
Senator Marshall: For the 10,000 Syrian refugees, is the total amount $149.6 million? Is there money buried? When we talked about the costs of the Syrian refugees, there's money sprinkled everywhere, but on page 1.8 it says there is $149.6 million and it's for the additional 10,000. Is that it? Are we seeing all the numbers for the 10,000 in one spot?
Mr. Pagan: No, you're not. We actually used this initiative, senator, to point out some of the challenges of budget and estimates alignment just in terms of timing and the approval of processes. If you'll allow me a minute, I'll walk you through an accounting of the total.
In 2015-16, Parliament approved a total of $430 billion in statutory expenditures for the response to the Syrian refugee initiative. Of that $430 billion, $280 million was provided to Citizenship and Immigration in Supplementary Estimates (B). Basically the only contents of Supplementary Estimates (B) were to provide CIC with the funding they needed to support that policy priority.
Then in Supplementary Estimates (C) for that year there was an additional $147 million to the supporting agencies in this initiative: Canadian Border Services Agency for $15 million; Citizenship and Immigration, $18 million; Foreign Affairs Canada, $109 million; the Public Health Agency of Canada, $2 million; and Shared Services for $5 million. That was the $430 billion in 2015-16.
Then in 2016-17 we have seen $343 million presented to this point: $179 million was in the Main Estimates for Citizenship and Immigration; $163 million in the Supplementary Estimates (A) to Canada Border Services Agency, Foreign Affairs Canada and Shared Services. So the total over those two years is $773 million that has been presented to Parliament for approval.
Senator Marshall: Treasury Board must track the total cost of the program. I was just looking at it simplistically and said if that's at $149.6 million and there are 10,000 refugees, that is $14,960 per person on average. You would be doing some tracking of that in Treasury Board, would you not?
Mr. Pagan: We are, yes.
Senator Marshall: You would be looking at the program both for the initial arrival of the refugees plus in subsequent years? It's an on-going program?
Mr. Pagan: It is an on-going program. The initiative is being led by Citizenship and Immigration. They have a very innovative approach to reporting. They have a website online that provides close to real-time information on the number of claims processed, the numbers of claims accepted and the contact they are making with potential refugees through international bodies like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
As of the date of this note, April 24, Canada has welcomed 26,924 Syrian refugees since November 4. These are broken out by category. I won't go through them all because they are available on the website. Those 26,924 refugees have been settled in 274 communities across the country. Then they have information on the number of flights, number of applications in process, et cetera.
Senator Marshall: The total cost again?
Mr. Pagan: At this point, $743 million.
Senator Marshall: That's good. I know the departments are looking after the money, but Treasury Board must be overseeing this. You must be keeping tabs on it to make sure the information is accurate, do you?
Mr. Pagan: Yes.
Senator Marshall: Okay, thank you.
Senator Pratte: First of all, as a follow up to Senator Marshall about assumed lapse of authorities, I want to know more about how you come up with that number. Is that based on past experience? Is it a percentage of the authorities? How do you come up with that number each year?
Mr. Pagan: A little bit of all of the above, senator. First of all, it's not our number. It's the Department of Finance's forecast, and it is part of the art of budget-making. They look at the total amount of spending being proposed and will look at historical trend lines. They'll look at the type of spending. We know — from analysis internal to Treasury Board secretariat and the PBO has corroborated this — that some types of spending are more prone to lapse than others.
Infrastructure spending is especially complex, so that all becomes part of the calculations. At the end of the day, like most other things in the budget, it's a forecast, so it's based on the best information available. It will be adjusted by the Department of Finance as they do an economic and fiscal update during the year. That information will be reflected by Treasury Board Secretariat in the Supplementary Estimates (C).
Senator Pratte: Is there some kind of a trend over the years?
Mr. Pagan: Over the years, the lapsed forecast has increased. I don't have it in front of me, but my recollection is that the lapse has increased. That's something that has been commented on by the PBO.
Senator Pratte: Because of larger infrastructure spending?
Mr. Pagan: Correct.
Senator Pratte: Pardon my inexperience. I'm a rookie here, so that's probably why I'm asking such a dumb question. But I look, for instance, under Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, where there is obviously a very large increase in spending because of the increase in social housing. There is over a billion, and there is one line — "funding for affordable housing and social infrastructure projects,'' $1,069,800,000 — and that's it. Is that the information that parliamentarians will have for voting on?
Ms. Santiago: That item for Canada Mortgage and Housing is one part of the horizontal item on social infrastructure. It's exactly because of the scale of these expenditures that we have published a special annex on infrastructure. There are about two or three paragraphs on that billion dollars in the online annex. If you haven't seen it, I can give you my copy of it.
Senator Pratte: So we can go online and have a little bit more explanation of that billion dollars?
Ms. Santiago: Yes.
Senator Pratte: Instead of having one line, we can have two or three paragraphs?
Mr. Pagan: That's right, senator. The information is presented for each request of an organization. You will find the amount in section 2 in alphabetical order.
Depending on the initiative, we'll find additional information in online annexes. In the case of the budget infrastructure initiatives, we have a dedicated annex to that.
Because this is both a major item and a horizontal item, there are also descriptions of the amounts in section 1, in the introduction, that set out the other organizations that are involved in this.
In the area of affordable housing and social infrastructure, Canada Mortgage and Housing is getting just over a billion dollars. We also see Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Canadian Heritage, Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, Employment and Social Development, Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, Health, Indian Affairs, Industry, Parks Canada and Western Economic Diversification. That's on page 1-16. I believe that's 11 — I would have to add it up. There are a number of different organizations involved in the delivery of this program, but CMHC is by far the largest.
The Chair: When we go over the 12 line items over $100 million in terms of the estimates, going back to part of the question that Senator Pratte was asking, with infrastructure, we're talking about line 1 on page 7 of $1.7 billion. Then we go to what Senator Pratte just brought up, $1.6 billion. We know there is about $3.9 billion that is going to infrastructure.
When you talk about, in the second line, affordable housing, 12 organizations, early learning, child learning, the various elements, are these new projects or are carry-forward projects? We are trying to do a study on infrastructure, and we're trying to find out where these projects are. Are these all new projects, or are these projects that have been accepted by the past government and now are going to be implemented by the new government?
When you look at the infrastructure program, as outlined by the minister, we're talking about phase 1. We're talking about phase 2. How many of these projects are shovel-ready projects? How many of these projects are more phase 2 projects, because there is a phase 1 and a phase 2. One idea was to get the money out quickly so you could get projects that are ready to go, operating, then there was more of a strategic approach.
Public transit is not a shovel-ready project. It's a strategic project, I would assume. We know of two major projects, which are Toronto, with Mayor Tory, and then Mayor Coderre in Montreal. When you guys sort of list public transit, I'm trying to understand whether these are new or old because it seems to be interesting that this is coming up in Supplementary Estimates (A). We're supposed to be on phase 1, which are shovel-ready projects.
Mr. Pagan: Senator, this is new funding; this is incremental funding. In many respects, it's a combination of both. This will be new initiatives that have never previously been brought forward and, in some cases, it will be incremental funding to existing initiatives that have already been started, where provinces, municipalities, Aboriginal communities, have identified an ability to do more initiatives that had already been underway.
The Chair: Do you have a list of all of those projects yourselves? You received a list of those because you're the people funding this $7 billion. Are you aware of the exact projects through your horizontal relationships?
Ms. Santiago: At this point, not all of the projects have been confirmed yet. What we have tried to do, in that online annex, is outline it. For example, for public transit, we're showing that part of the funding for the Infrastructure Canada is to establish the fund. There are a lot of other places where we've named some projects that are already known to have been identified and are pretty close to shovel ready. But, for the other ones, just in the time in between the budget and Supplementary Estimates (A), the department is basically saying, "We have established the program,'' but some departments haven't actually gone out and signed agreements yet, for example. Not all of the projects have been confirmed yet.
The Chair: All of this information is online?
Ms. Santiago: As much specific information as we have on those three largest horizontal items is in the online annex on infrastructure spending.
Mr. Pagan: Just as an example of some of the detail that is available there, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, for instance, is receiving $2 million. They have identified the specific laboratory. It's a laboratory in Lethbridge. Industry Canada is getting $10 million. That's for the Communications Research Centre at Shirleys Bay, here in west Ottawa. Where detail is known, it's provided. In others, we simply identified the number of projects planned, but those details have not yet been confirmed.
The Chair: We're trying to understand in our study, for the projects being carried forward from the past regime to now, which ones they are so that we understand how the implementation phase is really working.
Senator Mockler, did you have a supplementary question you wanted to ask on that?
Senator Mockler: Listening to your comments in response to a question from the chair, I look at:
[Translation]
Investments in social infrastructure. I see here $23 million for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario and Western Economic Diversification Canada. Therefore, the funding for opportunities and social infrastructure, which did not meet the conditions set out before, is now secured through new projects.
Mr. Pagan: Yes, absolutely. As I mentioned, it's a combination of new projects, and in some cases, additional funding and projects that are already in progress.
[English]
If I may speak to a specific example, Health Canada, in funding their health facilities program, has identified a mix of new and existing. The funding Health Canada is looking at is $95 million, and this will go to support construction of 31 new facilities, repairs to 8 existing buildings and design for one new building project. That's a mix of both completely new and top-ups or incremental funding to existing projects.
[Translation]
When the information is available, the details are included in the annex.
Senator Mockler: I would like you to list these projects, for example, for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's $2- million project and for the Canada Border Services Agency's $20-million project.
Can you provide details on how the funding is spent and for which projects?
Mr. Pagan: Yes, of course. For the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, it's only one project, a laboratory in Lethbridge. It's a $2-million project. That's all.
Senator Mockler: What is the Canada Border Services Agency's project?
Mr. Pagan: The project is to improve health and safety infrastructure. It's a $20-million project.
[English]
The Chair: To fix up the ports of entry at various locations, right?
Mr. Pagan: Right, numerous ports of entry across the country.
Senator Mockler: Can I ask you to itemize or divide that $20 million into five regions of Canada?
Mr. Pagan: We would not have that detail.
Senator Mockler: Who would have that?
Mr. Pagan: Each department is shepherding their own projects and would have inventory of their own projects and programs. For that detail we would have to go to the departments.
The Chair: The senator is very interested in making sure the area he represents gets the proper proportion of funding. It is a sensitive subject we are trying to understand as infrastructure money monies are allocated. Did that cover your inquiry?
Senator Mockler: Yes, thank you, chair.
The Chair: We have a very interested questioner from the northern elements of British Columbia, Senator Neufeld.
Senator Neufeld: Thank you, chair. Is there some way that you can inform us of how many dollars are actually being spent on First Nations? I don't think it's a secret to anyone that there is a huge undertaking to take place on First Nation reserves.
I see it, in these twelve, anyhow, splattered over three different divisions. Is there some way you can tell us how much is actually going to First Nations reserves for new housing, water and sewer, social services, firefighting and all those things that we all know they are short of? This just gives a bulk number along with a whole bunch of other figures.
Mr. Pagan: We could endeavour to undertake that, senator. It will take a little bit of time to pull all that together. As we know, one of the strengths — and, maybe, limitations — of our system is that we allocate and control money vertically by department and by vote.
You're touching on an issue that has been subject of some discussion at this committee and others, and that is having a more horizontal view of spending, whether it's Aboriginal programming, science or environment. If the information is available we'll work with departments to get that. Of course, the primary service providers are Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency, but we can pull that together in total spending on Aboriginal areas.
Senator Neufeld: That would be very good, because I think there are four areas here where money is being spent. I appreciate what you're saying.
The Chair: We have it noted to follow up with Marcia and Brian.
Senator Neufeld: I think we would like to follow that more closely and see exactly what is being spent.
The Chair: We'll have to get those departments in for our infrastructure study to have them give us that type of information.
To reinforce what Senator Neufeld is talking about, with the commitments made in terms of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the priorities as outlined by many the leaders of the Indigenous communities, there is a huge need to be filled. It would appear to us that there is also a huge amount of planning and prioritizing that needs to take place so the actual critical areas that need to be addressed are going to be addressed, as opposed to throwing money out there.
We are not saying that has happened, but there seems to be some issue that needs to be addressed, from both sides, in terms of the planning and prioritizing. I think Senator Pratte was trying to get to that with his questions, too. We list all these monies, and I know it's early in the process, but I hope that there is background study that supports why these monies are being doled out as they are.
Mr. Pagan: Senator, there are two dimensions to that. First of all, in terms of the budget process and the analysis that goes into making budget decisions, there is a good deal of information analysis done to support the need. It's always a question of making choices between spending in one area or another. That's very much part of the planning process. We have been doing that for a long time.
A more recent development, and I think a very encouraging one that goes to what we're talking about here, is the creation of a cabinet committee — the Agenda, Results and Communications Committee — that will be working to lever the cabinet process on the key themes and top priorities of the government.
I believe Minister Brison spoke of our interest not only in aligning the budget and the estimates, but improving the reporting with a better focus on results and what is actually being achieved with this. Senator Eaton has identified this as a need in previous appearances.
The creation of that central focus at a cabinet level, to drill down on some of these areas is, I think, going to go some way to addressing what we're talking about here in terms of that coordinated, horizontal view.
The Chair: We are asking you these questions because our understanding is you're the conduit to most of these organizations. I hope you don't mind.
Mr. Pagan: Not at all.
The Chair: We figure we will go to the top of the animal.
Senator Marshall: On that point, I know it's in the budget that the government is focused on evidence-based decision making, and that's what you're saying there. Are there systems in place that would accumulate the information that is needed? I know we have had a number of witnesses come in, but I keep thinking that we're going to be looking for all these results. I don't know if the systems are there to accumulate the results. I think that's going to be a big challenge. Do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Pagan: It will be a challenge, senator, but I believe the government is organizing itself to be able to respond to that, first of all with the creation of this cabinet committee that is going to bring some focus and ministerial attention to this area. We all know that ministerial attention can drive behaviour in business processes.
Secondly, a unit has been created in the Privy Council Office, led by Matthew Mendelsohn, providing a secretariat to support cabinet and to work with the public service on identifying challenges and some gaps. We're working very closely with Matthew and his team, and you're quite right to identify data and systems as a limitation or an obstacle, but it is a known obstacle and challenge. We are in the process of addressing that.
There has been a request that every department, for instance, identify a chief point of contact for results, number one, and then for data. It can be one and the same person, or it can be in a different area of the organization. Just to be able to reach into any organization and identify who is responsible for data is a tremendously important starting point.
Finally, on the systems side, I mentioned in my opening remarks there is a lot of information here in the estimates, but there is a great deal available online. We're really trying hard to educate and communicate about that.
TBS InfoBase, if you've not been there you should check it out. We have the website in the presentation, and those watching at home can google "TBS InfoBase.'' It provides detailed information, both current and historical, at the Government of Canada level or disaggregated by department or by program. We see that as a very important foundation to be able to do more in the area of aggregating our data and making it accessible. It is a big part of Minister Brison's agenda on results.
Senator Marshall: Open and transparent.
Mr. Pagan: That's right.
Senator Ngo: You are asking for an extra $3.9 billion. I look at the organizations here, and at number four more than one third goes to the office of Infrastructure Canada. Could you give me more details about the $1.7 billion for that office?
Mr. Pagan: I want to make sure we are speaking about the same numbers. Which page are you on?
Senator Ngo: On page 2.
Mr. Pagan: I don't believe we have the same document.
Senator Ngo: You don't have that one.
The Chair: It's page 7 in your document.
Mr. Pagan: Just to frame it, if you will, these supplementary estimates identify requirements totaling $7 billion voted. Of that amount, almost $6 billion is related to Budget 2016. Of the $6 billion in the supplementary estimates from Budget 2016, almost $4 billion is related to infrastructure. We see that in the area of what we call funding for short-term investments in public transit green infrastructure and existing programs, it's $1.7 billion.
The lion's share of that is going to the office of Infrastructure Canada, but it is a horizontal initiative as funds will also go to Indian and Northern Affairs and Natural Resources Canada — I have the list here. We also see money going to the office of Infrastructure Canada, $1.4 billion; Natural Resources Canada, $14.5 million; Indian Affairs and Northern Development, $308 million and Health Canada, $25.6 million. This is found on page 1-16 of the estimates.
Senator Ngo: The office of Infrastructure Canada is nearly $1.4 billion, which is nearly one third.
Ms. Santiago: There are more details for Infrastructure's funding provided in the online annex. I'll give you a quick summary. The bulk of that funding is to establish the public transit infrastructure fund. There's also funding for the clean water and waste water fund as well as to establish an asset management fund and capacity building for climate change challenges. There is additional funding for the New Building Canada Fund, the provincial and territorial infrastructure component. In that case, it's particularly targeted at regional projects like the Lion's Gate Wastewater Treatment Plant in B.C. and Lake Manitoba. There is a small amount as well to develop codes, guidelines and specifications for more climate-change resilient infrastructure. A general description of that is available on the online annex. It was too much to include in the book.
The Chair: We are learning more through our infrastructure study that we just implemented. When they say "horizontal,'' it means that money comes down through Treasury Board to the infrastructure department. The infrastructure department then has horizontal relationships with various departments and the money is distributed.
At this time through the planning process, you are putting the money into an envelope, distributing some of the envelopes, and the actual people have to make sure that the plans are associated with the amounts that they receive so they can start to execute.
Senator Ngo: Is the $1.4 billion for projects and so on?
Mr. Pagan: Right.
Senator Ngo: It says "office'' so I thought administration, human resources and so on.
Ms. Santiago: The funds are voted by Parliament to an organization. That's all it means.
Mr. Pagan: To be more precise, in the case of the office of Infrastructure Canada, Parliament allocates monies by particular vote. So they have an operating vote, which goes to pay salaries and operating expenses; and they have a grants and contributions vote, which is how they allocate money to the provinces and municipalities. Of the monies we are talking about here, they are seeing $14.6 million for operating costs to pay the salaries of people delivering the programs, and $1.38 billion on contributions. That money, as Senator Smith said, will flow to the provinces and municipalities for the projects that have been identified.
Senator Ngo: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Mockler instituted through the various groups yesterday, a fasting day. I'd like to keep this meeting going until 1:30, if agreeable, so we can continue the fasting tradition initiated by our honourable senator from New Brunswick.
Senator Pratte: Briefly on the website annex, I want to understand exactly the choice there. An online annex can be very practical but it can also be complicated because of the way that information is not available in one document and you have to go online all the time to have information. It's very useful to have something online if it's living information where you can bring it up to date all the time. Is that the case or is it simply a way to save paper?
Ms. Santiago: It's a way of saving time. We have very compressed time lines to produce supplementary estimates. Producing the book is almost entirely automated. We have narrow margins for how much we can add to the book, so if we have additional text we tend to put it online.
Senator Pratte: Some information I saw on the annex is still vague as to what the projects look like. I understand you don't have all the information at this time. Will that be brought up to date as more information becomes available?
Ms. Santiago: Not normally by us. It would be posted by the departments when they are ready to produce their performance reports and other kinds of reporting. They are primarily responsible for doing their own reporting.
Senator Pratte: Understood.
Mr. Pagan: I have one comment with respect to the online annexes. The Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer yesterday produced a report on Supplementary Estimates (A). They acknowledged as a helpful benefit the creation of a new annex on Infrastructure. Also, they previously cited TBS InfoBase as the definitive source of spending information. They have actually adopted that as their own tool. You will find that very useful in terms of the level of detail and the way in which you can manipulate the information according to your areas of interest or curiosity.
Senator Marshall: On page 1-17, you talk about assessment management and remediation at federal contaminated sites. This came up when we were doing the Main Estimates. Would Treasury Board have a list of all the sites that each department has received funding for or will receive funding for?
Mr. Pagan: We would have that and could get it for you.
Senator Marshall: For example, there is $22 million for Transport. Would Treasury Board have that information?
Ms. Santiago: We have information on the sites that are under remediation. We don't have a specific relationship between this amount of funding being approved now and which particular sites they are going to go to.
Senator Marshall: For example, if there is $22 million budgeted for Transport, do you know if it's these six sites even though it's not broken down into dollar amounts?
Ms. Santiago: We would be able to tell you that Transport has received some amount of money over time for managing contaminated sites and which sites are currently being worked on. We can provide that.
Senator Marshall: I would like to see that.
Ms. Santiago: Specifically for Transport?
Senator Marshall: I would like it for all of them. Indian Affairs and Northern Development, there is $199 million there, which is a lot of money.
Mr. Pagan: Senator, we'll get that information. In the case of Indian and Northern Affairs, there are a number of sites in the North, especially the Far North, related to mining activity.
Senator Marshall: That's what I would think. I would like to see that information. We had asked for some information from other departments, but I was not satisfied with what we received so we have to go back. I'm very interested in what sites have been identified. Thank you.
Senator Mockler: I would like to understand where the money is flowing to. When I look at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, $14.9 million, approximately $15 million. Can you appraise the committee on how that will be divided up and where?
Mr. Pagan: Senator, this was Canadian Institutes of Health Research; is that right?
Senator Mockler: The Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Mr. Pagan: Right. This funding from CIHR responds to a Budget 2015 commitment to provide $15 million per year ongoing, starting in 2016-17. There are two components to this funding. A strategy for patient-oriented research is about ensuring that the right patient receives the right intervention at the right time. In order to expand the strategy in order to advance health care, innovation and partnerships with provincial governments, research institutions and the private and not-for-profit sectors, $13 million being used.
To support research into understanding and addressing health challenges presented by anti-microbial resistance, we have $2 million per year. C. difficile is an example of that initiative.
Senator Mockler: What percentage would be going to the Société Santé en français?
Mr. Pagan: I would have to check.
Senator Mockler: Would you share that information through the chair? I would like to know where la Société Santé en français is in that particular vote.
Could you give us additional information on employment and social development? When I look at the supplementary estimates, we have $5.4 billion in brackets. Would you explain that difference?
Mr. Pagan: This is the reduction to this forecast of statutory spending as a result of introduction of the Canada child benefit and the termination of the two previous programs. The Main Estimates had included forecasted spending for the universal child care benefit. As a result of the new plan announced in Budget 2016 that universal child care benefit will terminate effective July 1, so no further spending. The new programming will be delivered through the Canada child benefit.
Senator Mockler: That's basically a reflection of what is happening in their ordinary budget?
Mr. Pagan: It simply reflects the fact that an existing program is being terminated, wound down, and a new program and new mode of delivering that program is being introduced effective July 1.
Senator Mockler: Was that part of a platform?
Mr. Pagan: It was a platform commitment of the government and was in Budget 2016.
Senator Mockler: I would like to have additional information on the National Research Council of Canada, $54.2 million. Could you send the committee your breakdown of that number and where it will be invested?
Mr. Pagan: Senator, we will do that. In some cases the detail you are looking for, when you want specific partners and geographic breakdown, we would not have that at the Treasury Board Secretariat. We would work with departments to provide the information, but it will take us some time to do. We will be glad to do that.
Senator Mockler: Tell me if I'm mistaken, but you have access to have them provide you with the information that you can send to the committee?
Mr. Pagan: Yes.
Senator Mockler: Thank you.
The Chair: On Page 7, "resettle 10,000 additional government-assisted Syrian refugees in 2016.'' Is that over and above the 26,924 refugees you have already settled in 274 communities?
Mr. Pagan: Correct.
The Chair: If I understand correctly, you are at $740 million plus dollars spent to date?
Mr. Pagan: Presented to Parliament to date is $740 some odd million, and that includes this additional.
The Chair: This includes the additional 10,000 that you will resettle?
Mr. Pagan: Yes.
The Chair: That's $150 million that you forecast spending on those 10,000? That's what I'm trying to understand.
Mr. Pagan: I will double-check.
The Chair: That goes back to what Senator Marshall was trying to figure out, the cost per refugee. Then she probably went back to the original. Will the 10,000 be over and above the 26,000 or is that part of the 26,000?
Mr. Pagan: There were two commitments made by the government. The first commitment upon return of Parliament in November was to resettle 25,000 refugees by December 31. They subsequently amended that to end of February 2016. Subsequently there was an additional commitment to resettle an additional 10,000.
The Chair: Over and above the 26,ooo?
Mr. Pagan: Yes. The numbers presented to Parliament to this point total $773 million, and that reflects the known requirements for both commitments.
In terms of breaking that down by cost per refugee, that is going to be a rough calculation because that 35,000 in total represents a combination of privately sponsored and government-sponsored refugees.
The Chair: I just wondered what your total spend will be by the end of this exercise, because I think we heard that it was somewhere around $900 million to $1 billion. Will you be on budget?
Mr. Pagan: I can tell you that the initial commitment included numbers for contingency. Those numbers have not been accessed. It was not necessary to access those. They have met the target of 25,000. This is still under way but I expect that, as a result of that first commitment, you will see it came in under budget.
The Chair: On Shared Services we notice another $220 million. You had suggested there has been a committee set up to oversee the strategic direction of Shared Services because of the problems they have had. Just to be reassured when we look at this graphic and Shared Services and the money going to them, we want to make sure that Shared Services is getting its act together. I would assume that you are overseeing, with a couple of other groups, what is going on and where Shared Service is at. Are they making progress?
Ms. LaFontaine: To start, in support of what the Treasury Board is going to oversee, we're asking for $2.1 million so we can have a third party, outside expert with a combination of both government experts and private-sector experts in this kind of area to look at all the submissions that Shared Services Canada will be sending to Treasury Board. We want that extra piece of advice. Treasury Board is overseeing how this is unfolding.
The Chair: That is a very interesting consulting contract that Senator Neufeld was smiling about.
Folks, thank you very much for giving us this update. I'm sure we will be talking to you again in the near future. We appreciate your involvement and the sharing of information with us. Thank you.
This meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)