Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue No. 80 - Evidence - November 21, 2018 (afternoon meeting)
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 21, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 1:46 p.m. to examine the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Percy Mockler, senator from New Brunswick and chair of the committee.
I wish to welcome all those who are with us in the room and viewers across this great country of Canada who may be watching on television or online.
As a reminder to those watching, the committee hearings are open to the public and available online at http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca
[Translation]
Now I would like to ask the senators to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
[English]
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: Raynell Andreychuk, Saskatchewan.
Senator Eaton: Nicole Eaton, Ontario.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
The Chair: I would like to recognize the clerk of the committee, Gaëtane Lemay, and our two analysts, Alex Smith and Shaowei Pu, who team up to support the work of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
[English]
Honourable senators and members of the viewing public, the mandate of this committee is to examine matters relating to federal estimates generally as well as government finance. Today, honourable senators and viewers, the committee continues its consideration of the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019, which were referred to this committee by the Senate of Canada on October 30, 2018.
For the first hour, during the first part of our meeting, we have two departments appearing to give us an overview of their funding requests, their vote requests, in the Supplementary Estimates (A).
First, from the Privy Council Office, Mr. Matthew Shea, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services and Chief Financial Officer, Privy Council Officer.
[Translation]
I would also like to introduce Michael Hammond, Executive Director and Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Finance, Planning and Administration Directorate.
[English]
From Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, we have before us Mr. Daniel Mills, Assistant Deputy Minister, Chief Financial Officer, Finance.
[Translation]
We are also welcoming Christopher Meyers, Director General, Finance.
[English]
And also Mike MacDonald, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy.
To complete, Mr. Bruce Scoffield, Director General, Immigration Program Guidance Branch.
To all of the witnesses, thank you for accepting our invitation to have your comments, your explanation and your vision on the vote requested in the budget.
I have been informed by the clerk that Mr. Shea will be the first to speak followed by Mr. Mills.
Matthew Shea, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services and Chief Financial Officer, Privy Council Office: Thank you for inviting the Privy Council Office to review the 2018-19 Supplementary Estimates (A).
[Translation]
My name is Matthew Shea and I am the Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services Branch and the Chief Financial Officer of the Privy Council Office.
[English]
I am accompanied today by Mr. Michael Hammond, Executive Director and Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Finance, Planning and Administration Directorate, Privy Council Office.
As you know, the mandate of PCO is to serve Canada and Canadians by providing professional, non-partisan advice and support to the Prime Minister and ministers within his portfolio and to support the effective operation of cabinet.
[Translation]
Like the Department of Finance and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, the Privy Council Office is a central agency.
[English]
It exercises a leadership role across government departments and agencies to provide advice to the Prime Minister and cabinet as well as to ensure the coherence and coordination of policy development and delivery.
I would like to begin with a brief overview of the 2018-19 Supplementary Estimates (A). PCO is seeking $60.4 million overall for its core responsibility, which is to serve the Prime Minister and cabinet and for its internal services. This includes additional funding related to the extension to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls to complete the work of the commission, which is a combination of new funding and a reprofile of unspent funds from prior years.
Funding to support ministers for which the Privy Council Office has responsibility, including the creation of the new office of the Minister of Intergovermental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade.
Funding to continue to support the management and oversight of an open, transparent and merit-based process for Governor-in-Council appointments, a reprofile of unused funding previously provided to PCO through Budget 2016 to strengthen perimeter security and access control for PCO buildings and funding provided to PCO from the $25 million set aside for departments and agencies in Budget 2018 to increase support for employees dealing with pay issues in departments serviced by the pay centre.
This is a brief summary of PCO’s 2018-19 supplementary estimates and touches on a few of the means by which PCO continues to support the clerk as head of the Public Service of Canada, the Prime Minister and the cabinet as part of a whole-of-government approach.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide you with the context in which the PCO operates. We would now be pleased to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Mills, please make your presentation.
Daniel Mills, Assistant Deputy Minister, Chief Financial Officer, Finance, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: My name is Daniel Mills. I am the Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
I am accompanied today by Christopher Meyers, Director General, Finance; Mike MacDonald, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy; and Bruce Scoffield, Director General, Immigration Program Guidance Branch.
We are pleased to be here on behalf of IRCC to discuss the department’s Supplementary Estimates (A) for 2018-19
Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada’s 2018-19 Supplementary Estimates (A) includes new appropriations, transfers and statutory adjustments totalling a net increase of approximately $60 million in resources.
[Translation]
The most significant component of this increase is in grants and contributions, which cover the greatest amount of these estimates.
[English]
This includes $50 million to fund extraordinary costs related to the provision of temporary housing for asylum seekers. These amounts support funding announcements made by the government in the summer of 2018.
[Translation]
To briefly explain, Mr. Chair, Canada received more than 50,000 asylum claimants in 2017, of which 20,500 were intercepted crossing the border at locations that were not designated land ports of entry.
[English]
The high volume of claimants has placed a financial burden on provincial and municipal governments.
The most immediate pressure facing them relates to meeting the temporary and long-term housing needs of asylum seekers.
Of the $50 million announced in the summer, $11 million has been disbursed to the City of Toronto and $3 million to the Province of Manitoba.
In addition, given the recent election in that province, work continues with the Government of Quebec to deliver the remaining $36 million.
[Translation]
Also included in grants and contributions is the renewal of $3 million over five years under the Global Assistance for Irregular Migrants Program to support the renewed government’s migrant smuggling prevention strategy. This program provides funding to trusted international, inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations to help support services to intercepted migrants, such as the provision of basic needs, medical care and assistance to help them return and reintegrate into their country of origin.
[English]
Mr. Chair, these estimates also cover two other key categories. First, increases for operating expenditures of $7.1 million. This includes $2.7 million to expand biometric screening in Canada’s immigration system to verify the identity of all visa-required travellers seeking entry to Canada.
[Translation]
Appropriations of $2.1 million are intended to support the protection of classified information under Division 9 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA.
Finally, an envelope of $1.1 million will help support a strategy conducting an outreach to key populations to deter irregular migration in the Americas. It also is intended to support the creation of a dedicated team to conduct in-depth analysis of irregular migration trends, as well as demographic profiles.
[English]
Last, there are also capital expenditures of $8.6 million to improve IT systems in order to deliver key initiatives.
This includes $3.2 million to expand the biometric screening initiative.
[Translation]
There is also $3 million for the International Mobility Program and $2.4 million for the entry exit information exchange, to allow real-time exchange of traveler data between Canada and the United States.
[English]
In addition, IRCC also intends to transfer close to $9.4 million to other government departments, mainly Global Affairs Canada who support IRCC’s international network.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, taking into account spending authorities that have already been approved, IRCC financial authorities will increase to approximately $2.5 billion for 2018-19, if these incremental resources are approved.
We would now be happy to take your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. Before we recognize senators for questions, I would like to ask Senator Frum to introduce herself.
Senator Frum: Linda Frum, Ontario.
The Chair: The chair will now recognize Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much.
My first question is for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Do you have the information on the public accounts? I was looking at the public accounts, and I was trying to compare your actual expenditures with your budgetary approval last year. It looks like there was quite a bit of money lapsed. Could you clarify and compare expenditures to budgetary authorities that were provided? That would be Mr. Mills.
Christopher Meyers, Director General, Finance, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: I can answer that question. From the public accounts and our vote 1 operating last year, there was a $23.3 million lapse. That’s in the vote 1 operating vote. There are a couple of different components to that and why it arises. There are a number of what we call frozen allotments or special purpose accounts that the department, by rights, has to control or freeze for other initiatives going forward into the future. That was a large contributor to why.
Senator Marshall: What percentage of your budget lapsed last year?
Mr. Meyers: $24 million, approximately. It was about 5 per cent.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mills, you referenced in your opening remarks the irregular migrants. The number you gave was 50,000 asylum claimants in 2017, of which 20,500 were intercepted crossing the border. I think on your website it says 38,000, but I see you have a number of 20,500 there. Could you clarify or reconcile the two numbers for me?
Mike MacDonald, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you, chair. I’m wondering if the website that you’re seeing right now is the 2018 numbers, whereas the 2017 calendar year numbers were the 50,000.
Senator Marshall: So 2017 is the calendar year?
Mr. Meyers: Yes.
Senator Marshall: How many for the 2018 calendar year?
Mr. MacDonald: Asylum and refugee numbers we count in the calendar year. So far this year, we are having, roughly, around 46,000 asylum seekers. Of those, approximately 17,000 are those who cross irregular.
Senator Marshall: It’s not two different fiscal years; it’s two different calendar years.
Do you know what the average cost is in each calendar year to process one migrant?
Mr. MacDonald: Generally speaking, the cost to process an asylum claimant in Canada can vary depending on how long they may be in the asylum process, how long their case may be in challenges and so on. There is a gross number often used, which is around $15,000, but that’s a gross number, very much of an average number.
Senator Marshall: For the 20,000 in calendar year 2017, what was the cost? How do you track your numbers? Can you tell me the total cost for the calendar year 2017?
Mr. Meyers: The department spent approximately $24 million in the 2017-18 fiscal year.
Senator Marshall: That is just your department, right?
Mr. Meyers: That’s just IRCC.
Senator Marshall: What about so far this year?
Mr. Meyers: To date we’ve spent $34.2 million. That’s as of September 30, 2018.
Senator Marshall: For the $50 million, you indicated that it’s being distributed to three provinces. How do you decide how much goes to each province?
Mr. Meyers: Basically, the split between provinces was estimates based on their assertions to us in terms of the costs that they had experienced. It’s based on a proportionate share of the total financial burden that provinces expressed to us.
Senator Marshall: You’ll have to expand on that because it doesn’t give me a good idea as to how it’s split.
Mr. Meyers: Basically, provinces have communicated to us what their total costs related to housing have been with respect to irregular migrants. The $50 million was intended as an initial payment against those costs, and the share of the $50 million was based on their overall proportion of what those total costs were. In other words, the $11 million out of the $50 million represented Toronto’s share.
Senator Marshall: It sounds like it’s almost a negotiated amount. That’s the impression I’m getting.
Mr. Meyers: Ultimately, these will be negotiated through agreements with the provinces we’re dealing with. That’s correct.
Senator Marshall: I would expect that in Supplementary Estimates (B) there would be another request. Am I getting the right impression?
Mr. Meyers: It would depend on what the government decides to do. The $50 million that’s presented within these supplementary estimates represent the extent of public commitments that have been made to date. Should the government decide to provide additional assistance to provinces and territories within this fiscal year, we would need to come back.
Senator Marshall: There’s no commitment?
Mr. Meyers: That’s correct.
Senator Pratte: Mr. Shea, my question is about the budget and expenses of the Inquiry on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
You mentioned that your request in Supplementary Estimates (A) was a combination of new funding and re-profiling of unspent funds. Could you elaborate and give us a sense of the total budget that the inquiry now has?
Mr. Shea: Thank you for your question. When we first created the commission, the budget was $53 million over three different fiscal years. There’s been some money that wasn’t fully spent. So a portion of this is a re-profile, about $16 million of re-profiling, as well as some net new funding that results from the six-month extension that will be split over two fiscal years, the current one as well as next one. The total additional funding will be $38 million, which brings the net total impact for the entire process to $92 million.
I stress that’s an up to. The Commissioner of Inquiry indicated they will spend less than that, but when they did put the extension request in, they did want to make sure that they didn’t ask for less than they ultimately needed and not be able to finish it because this was a key opportunity for them to ask for additional funding.
Senator Pratte: Total expenses over three fiscal years would be $92 million?
Mr. Shea: Total budget. I would focus on the fact that that is a budget. The expenditures are expected to be lower.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: Mr. Mills, you say that things still need to be settled with the Government of Quebec in light of the election that just took place. As Mr. Meyers mentioned earlier, the amount is based on the expenditures submitted by the provinces. What exactly are you discussing?
Mr. Mills: Right now, we are looking at the costs incurred in Quebec in 2017 and the current costs for 2018. As I mentioned in my presentation, we are looking at the costs associated with temporary housing. For Quebec, we look at the figures and exchange information on the costs incurred last year, in 2017, and this year.
Senator Pratte: Can you give us an idea of the amount of the expenditures submitted that will be reimbursed? In other words, with regard to the $36 million paid to the Government of Quebec, and the $11 million allocated to Toronto, what proportion of the costs they estimate they have committed do those amounts represent?
Mr. Mills: I wouldn’t be able to answer at this time, because we’re looking at the costs of the expenditures incurred by Quebec. For 2017, from memory, the costs related to temporary housing were $55 million. For 2018, we have yet to obtain the figures. As you know, the year is not over yet. Discussions are ongoing at the moment.
Senator Pratte: Okay, thank you very much.
Senator Eaton: I would like to continue along the same lines.
[English]
My province, Ontario, said this summer that the illegal immigrants were costing them at least $200 million to look after. I gather from what you’ve said to Senator Pratte and Senator Marshall that negotiations are still ongoing with the provinces. It’s interesting that Ontario thinks or says, and I believe it, that it costs them $200 million and has already and you have a sum of $50 million here. It’s not going to go very far, is it?
[Translation]
Mr. Mills: As I mentioned, the $50 million was intended to cover the 2017 costs of temporary housing.
Senator Eaton: Temporary housing means until they have gone through the police.
[English]
Once they’re put on a bus to Montreal or Toronto, then it’s a further cost, is it not? Then you have housing, welfare, medical expenses and dental expenses. Is that not true or do we have it wrong?
Mr. Mills: This is true.
[Translation]
These appropriations are part of the costs that the provinces must incur. At the moment, negotiations are under way on temporary housing. So it’s between the interception at the port of entry and the time they find long-term housing. If they are temporarily housed for 40 or 60 days, that is the portion we are looking at.
[English]
Senator Eaton: With all of these asylum seekers, what is the backlog? If I come through as an irregular person tomorrow or illegally across the border, how long will it take me before I have my asylum hearing? That will determine the cost. Is it two months? Is it three weeks? Is it a year? How long do you think it’s extending?
Mr. MacDonald: Thank you for the question. I’ll just take a few minutes.
Senator Eaton: Please. It’s a complicated subject.
Mr. MacDonald: When asylum seekers are seeking asylum, they come under the federal processing portion, which is determining if they are admissible to Canada or not with security checks. Then if they are fine to move further, we do an eligibility consideration. Is this person eligible to make an asylum claim, for example, and have they made a claim before? If they’ve made a claim before and it was refused, they would not be eligible.
Senator Eaton: Coming across the border from the U.S., is there a third country agreement that if they’ve made a refugee claim in the States they’re not eligible for us?
Mr. MacDonald: If they come through a port of entry, exactly. That’s all part of the eligibility checks. During that period of time the asylum seeker could be with a federal officer for up to three days. Generally, everything is done within about a day. Then the asylum seeker is free to move into whichever province or location they choose.
What we’ve noticed with the irregular movement, the Province of Quebec tends to take in and take care of the carriage of the asylum seekers and move them into the City of Montreal, where they offer temporary housing, they help the person figure out where to go and so on. Other provinces, for example, they don’t do that. They don’t have those types of services. Then the person will officially have a period of a few weeks.
Senator Eaton: They get a date to appear before you.
Mr. MacDonald: Right. They’re assigned a date and then they go through a series of processes. It’s their choice.
Senator Eaton: What I’m asking you is how long is the date.
Mr. MacDonald: I’m getting to that. They then have to put in a basis of claim, which is really my story about why I’m seeking Canada’s protection. They may seek legal counsel and so on. That can take a few weeks. Right now, the current backlog at the Immigration and Refugee Board, which is at the refugee protection division, which is where an asylum seeker would go to have a case heard, is around the 60,000 or a little bit more than that. The backlog is about 22 months for that person to proceed.
Senator Eaton: Back to my original question: Are the provinces then supporting that person for 22 months?
Mr. MacDonald: The provinces and the municipalities have a series of services and, senator, many asylum seekers themselves have either anchor relatives, family members or they have the means to support themselves. Albeit others are using, which Toronto is experiencing, as you know, the shelter system or any other type of social housing systems.
Senator Eaton: I guess what I’ve been trying to determine for the last year or so from your department is: Do we have an idea of how much this is costing?
Mr. MacDonald: As Mr. Mills says, there’s a partnership, and we’ve been working with the provinces to try to determine their cost.
Senator Eaton: But after a year, don’t you throw them over to the provinces?
Mr. MacDonald: When someone comes across. That’s why I explained the process.
Senator Eaton: So they’ve settled in Montreal, but after a year, you’re no longer paying their cost, are you? The Province of Quebec is solely responsible for supporting them, right?
Mr. MacDonald: No. There are costs that we provide. For example, the interim federal health is a cost that the federal government provides right at the very beginning, so the provinces offset those costs. When it comes to temporary housing or any social services or, for example, if the asylum seeker chooses to register their children in school, those would be costs borne by the municipalities and/or the provinces. Here’s where the transition occurs. After a period of time, the asylum seeker goes before the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Senator Eaton: Let’s say it’s two years.
Mr. MacDonald: In this case, yes, you are worthy of protection and you become a protected person. Then you can apply for your permanent residency and then the suite of settlement and integration services that we provide, the federal government, are available and kick into the person. There are various hand-offs as I call them.
Senator Eaton: You’ve just opened another door. Have you monitored what’s happened to the 25,000 Syrian immigrants that have come in, or the Yazidi woman found at the airport who was just there and nobody helped her? Do you monitor those people?
Mr. MacDonald: Very quickly, yes. A very important distinction is those who seek asylum are those who come to our country and claim asylum at a border or an airport.
Senator Eaton: I understand all that.
Mr. MacDonald: The Syrians and the Yazidis were overseas selected.
Senator Eaton: I agree, but have you kept monitoring to see if they are in language lessons and jobs?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, indeed. We are tracking the Syrian cohort or the Syrian movement, as well as all of our government-assisted and even privately sponsored. We track them.
Senator Eaton: Do you have any costs associated with that?
Mr. Meyers: Yes. Within our total reference levels for this year, there’s approximately $72 million in our settlement and integration program line item dedicated exclusively to the Syrian cohort.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I have two questions. The first is about the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. Last week, I met with people in the agriculture sector in Quebec and Ontario who are hiring workers from Mexico, particularly to meet labour needs during planting and crop maintenance periods. At that meeting, we talked about the famous market impact assessment and the time period for obtaining authorizations when workers make requests. Could you briefly explain the delays in processing requests? Some of those farmers even miss harvest periods because of those darned delays. This is a situation that they did not experience before and they are now.
[English]
Bruce Scoffield, Director General, Immigration Program Guidance Branch, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you for the question. It’s important, I think, to begin by clarifying that there are two parts to the process to bring someone to Canada to work as a seasonal agricultural worker.
The first part, the Labour Market Impact Assessment, happens here in Canada and is the responsibility of ESDC, so our colleagues who deal with labour market issues. Certainly, there have sometimes been delays in the process. I’m not in a position to speak in any detail to that process. It’s the responsibility of our colleagues in another department.
The second part of the process happens at our embassies and consulates in Mexico and in the Caribbean. Our processing times are actually very quick for seasonal agricultural workers, once we get the application and the LMIA.
We process work permit applications globally within an average of 40 days, but in fact in Mexico last year during the growing season, we were processing applications within seven days once we received the application and the labour market assessment.
Senator Moncion: So when you’re talking about the biometric system that you want to put in place, is that going to help with the process or is it something that’s very different?
Mr. Scoffield: We are rolling out this year, on December 31, our requirement for nationals of countries in the Americas, as well as Asia, to give us their biometric, their fingerprints and a photograph. This finishes a process that began in 2014, in 30 countries. It was expanded on July 31, this year, so a few months ago, for people in some parts of the world and we’re finishing it at the end of the year. It will introduce another step in the process. Biometrics will be collected by our visa application centres, which we have in Mexico and most of the main source countries for the agricultural workers. Because there’s an appointment process, we believe this will not, in fact, slow down the processing of agricultural workers. We have contingency plans in place in case we see a surge. For example, our visa application centres will open six or even seven days a week for up to 12 hours or even more if we find we need to do that, and we have the ability to take other steps as well.
At the moment, in the current process, people have been coming to our visa application centres to drop off their application. When they do that now in 2019, they will simply give us their fingerprints which are collected digitally as part of that same process.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
[Translation]
My second set of questions is for the Privy Council Office. I always sort of have a hard time when you ask for additional funding for your spending. When you prepare your budgets, you must have a good idea of the funding you need for the following year. Why do you need to request additional funds?
[English]
Mr. Shea: We’re seeking funding for a number of different items. I’ve already explained the funding for the inquiry, which is the lion’s share of what we’re seeking. The other areas where we’re looking for money, the GIC appointments piece relates to changes made a few years ago to have an open and transparent approach to this. It quickly became evident that the amount of work was far more than anticipated, so the costing done at the time was not sufficient to do the work that we’ve had to do. A large amount of work had to happen to do this.
The positive has been a significant amount of progress in moving this along. There have been 950 appointments made since starting that new open and transparent approach. So this funding is to normalize the work that’s already happening. We’ve had to fund it by moving money around from other sources and the reality is that we can’t continue to do that for a whole host of reasons, one of which is the recent collective bargaining that departments are having to absorb and other pressures that have mounted within the department. We got to a point where we put in additional funding requests to ensure we continue the work we’re already doing.
There was another piece around support for ministers that are supported by PCO. For context, most departments are asked to absorb the cost of their ministers’ offices and the support that goes with that. For a large department, supporting one minister’s office and having to absorb that is not necessarily a huge issue. For us now supporting four different ministers — we’ve added another minister and the Prime Minister also made the decision to be the minister for youth — that has created additional workload for us, and additional costs. Of the money being sought this year, about $2 million of that is strictly for the cost of the PMO itself, the ministers we are supporting and the growth we’ve seen over the last few years.
That’s something we’re seeking to normalize. Linked to that is the creation of this new minister’s office and so there is a portion of money set aside to create that minister’s office and also the support that goes with it. The other $4 million, plus or minus, that we’re seeking related to support for ministers’ offices is actually the PCO employees that are supporting those various offices, and the associated accommodation and internal services that go with creating those offices that we have.
The last two are — I won’t say housekeeping items — items that we’ve looked at the physical security. In Budget 2016, we sought about $100 million to increase our IT and security capacity at the department over a five-year period. For the most part, we’ve been able to manage those projects within the time period allotted. That particular project had some slight delays and therefore we’re asking to reprofile the funding in order to finish that work this fiscal year.
That final piece relates to the Phoenix government-wide, all departments were asked to submit and we’re getting $100,000 in order to support employees that are affected by pay issues.
Senator Andreychuk: I’ll restrict my questions as follow-ups to some of the other questions. We’ve talked about Ontario and Quebec and the additional funds for the asylum seekers going over the border, but it isn’t just Quebec and Ontario. How are we handling Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, et cetera? Are they asking for any extra funding or are the provinces absorbing it? Where would I find those figures? The previous budget?
Mr. MacDonald: At Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, our federal relations are strong because of our immigration levels plan overall. When it comes to managing across the country, in partnership with Canada Border Services Agency and others, the overall response to the irregular migration and even the regular asylum flows, which are upwards this year, the structures and relationships are in place. What we’re seeing, and I’m looking at some of this, is that British Columbia does have irregular migrants crossing through the Fraser Valley area. You get a lot of the Latino-speaking movement, Chinese movement for where they are.
Interestingly, though, the numbers last year there were about 750 irregular migrants crossing into the British Columbia corridor, as I call it. This year it’s a little bit less. British Columbia is part of our groups, our operational response discussions at my level and so on, but British Columbia has not come to us with the financial ask. But we all agree we monitor carefully impacts, et cetera.
As you rightly point out, Manitoba is a traditional irregular migration pathway or movement through the port of entry, Emerson. Somali, Djibouti, it is those communities of Eastern Africa that you see positioned down in the Tri-Cities-Minnesota area. What’s interesting is that last year almost 700 irregular Emerson, Manitoba area. This year it’s about 400. So we saw a significant decrease. All that said, the Province of Manitoba has come and written to Minister Hussen with requests on financial impacts.
Again, when we receive those types of letters or the minister does, we engage our counterparts and unpack. What are the costs? Is it education, is it housing? What is it? Ontario receives very small numbers of irregular migrants. Ontario has a lot of water and so on. But Cornwall, that eastern part of Ontario sometimes does have people walking across the border between a port of entry.
When you move out to New Brunswick, and the Atlantic provinces, we have engaged on all of our working groups, the Atlantic provinces, because it is conceivable, from Maine and so on you would see irregulars. There’s none, really. There’s really not a number of irregulars — maybe one, two, three, four, but nothing substantial. Therefore, New Brunswick has not come to us with any financial asks.
Senator Andreychuk: My question was: Have you received requests from others, Manitoba?
Mr. MacDonald: Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Mills: We have already reimbursed the province $3 million this summer for the costs incurred last year.
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: Will we be able to see the actual cost? I’ve worked in social services. If you’re providing a service, you want to know at some point what it cost you. You want to know whether you’ve actually spent your money in a way that has been helpful so that you can justify it to the taxpayers. With all of these asylum seekers, everyone has a piece of it. So we really don’t know the actual cost per person coming over. Whether it’s a time delay and the appeals process, we have no idea. We spent a lot of time looking at refugees and immigrants, but this is a whole new phenomenon.
Is anyone tracking total costs so that we can see what the services are and where they’re coming from? Otherwise they are just figures and money. Have you started, at least, to think in those terms?
Mr. MacDonald: We have indeed started to think in those terms. In the federal responsibilities, those departments and agencies involved, we are tracking and collating as we go along. We need a partner in the provinces and municipalities to work with us to, first, come forward with their costs, explain their costs, and then we can come to a common understanding.
Mr. Meyers and myself, for example, worked closely with the City of Toronto and got a good understanding of the City of Toronto’s costs so that we all talk the same language, senator, if I can use that term. We also did the same with the Province of Quebec in helping to understand a gross number of impact costs, but help me understand exactly what that is.
Key to this full picture that you’re looking for is a full partnership in order to understand the cost. We are very engaged and aware of that, and doing that.
Senator Andreychuk: When will we be able to see it?
Senator Eaton: Every year we ask the same question.
Mr. MacDonald: Again, it depends on how our partners deal with us and how they come forward with the costs. Remember, it’s always a calendar year, so it takes a while to tabulate the last calendar year’s worth of costs.
Honestly, the provinces and some of the municipalities are still coming to us with letters saying: Here are my costs or part of my costs for 2017.
Senator Andreychuk: I can understand, because if you were at the municipality level, you have limited funds; they are designated, delegated funds from provinces. You don’t have much to work with, and you’ve got all your other competing needs. All of a sudden this flow comes in and you’re scrambling. That’s not in your accounting books. That’s not anywhere. It’s crisis management, basically.
It would seem to me the federal government has to take an initiative, and at least a project somewhere, so we know where the costs are. If you sit at the municipal level, and a mayor and an alderman is going to say to you: I have to provide housing for the people already here. Now you’re bringing in new people, which is federal — you’re the gatekeepers — and we’re housing them.
So there are competing demands. It puts pressure on a community. It really causes difficulty on the ground, which is not where you’re working from.
We need to know to justify costs, because we don’t know. Maybe it’s not that costly. We hear competing stories.
I think the federal government should take an initiative to work in this area, because there are too many myths out there and a lot of them are negative. We need to know whether there’s a justification for that hesitancy or whether it’s justified.
Mr. MacDonald: I’ll quickly respond with two points, chair.
The first is we recognize that, and we are working with partners and we remain committed. I have weekly phone calls with my counterparts in the Ontario government to try to work in the partnership.
Second, there is one great example, which is the intergovernmental task force that the federal government has. Mayor Tory from Toronto sits on it, for example, Quebec Minister of Immigration, Ontario Minister of Immigration. That is the exact body where these issues are surfaced, discussed, including contingency planning and so on and so forth. There’s a good example of a living leadership body where these issues are brought to bear, as an example.
Senator Andreychuk: It’s a work-in-progress, which we hear, but we need figures for this committee. That’s really the issue.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you all for being here this afternoon. I have two short follow-up questions. My colleague Honourable Senator Moncion asked quite a few of the questions I was interested in this afternoon.
With respect to Privy Council, you were talking about the increased funding to support ministers and staff. There was somewhat of a response given. The one piece I wanted to ask is if you have a sense of the actual number of staff, the increase besides, perhaps, the breadth and depth of the work, but what that might look like in the way of increase in staff size.
Mr. Shea: I will find the FTEs for you. We do have that. It is an increase. It’s not a large increase.
Senator M. Deacon: Okay, that’s great.
Mr. Shea: If you want to ask your second question, we’ll find that.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. Looking at that increase in funding through the budget to what I think you called strengthening the perimeter security and access control for all of the PCO buildings, can you dig a bit deeper in the description of that money, how far it’s going to take you, and to do what?
Mr. Shea: I’m cognizant of the national security interest of who is in those buildings, and I’d like to limit how much detail I give, but it’s about strengthening the physical security, making it more difficult for people who are not authorized to get into the building, to actually keep them out of the building. Responding to emerging threats, threat risk assessments are done. Based on that, it can be something as simple as ballistic-rated windows; it can be electronic surveillance and that type of thing. But I don’t really want to go into a lot more detail.
Senator M. Deacon: I understand that you need to keep some of the specifics private. I was just trying to ascertain whether it was physical enhancements that might be required or the use of intelligence. I was trying to get a sense of what that was, but we’ll leave that for now.
Mr. Shea: I can say that the focus of the Budget 2016 money was about accommodation, physical security, IT in general from usability, but also IT security. We have looked at all of those different angles and we’ve increased our capacity in all of those areas, from usability, accessibility and also security.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. To follow up, Privy Council, can you provide through the clerk the graph of FTEs for the year in question compared to the previous year?
Mr. Shea: Absolutely.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Boehm: I’d like to probe the IRCC team a little bit on biometrics. You’re asking for an increase of $5.9 million for biometric screening. How are you ensuring privacy and security? And are you talking about best practices with other countries that might be engaged in similar activities?
Mr. Scoffield: There are a couple of questions there, which I’m happy to respond to.
First of all, the money relates to a reprofiling of funds from last year to this year. I think we’ve reprofiled about $15 million, but we expect to spend about $5.9 million at this point.
We are actually, as I mentioned earlier in response to another question, in the middle of rolling out this biometric capturing process. We started at the end of July in Africa, Europe and the Middle East, and we’ll be finishing at the end of December in the Americas and Asia.
Most people will give us their biometric through our visa application centres, which are managed by a partner, a private sector company on our behalf, under contract with the Government of Canada. After the fingerprints are captured, they are analyzed and stored by the RCMP and then used either by IRCC or CBSA to confirm identity, to validate people as they’re coming into the country, for example, to ensure that we know whether someone has previously made an application and what experience we had with that individual.
We also in some circumstances share information with other countries, particularly countries within what we call “the migration five”: the U.S., Australia, the U.K. and New Zealand. In all of these phases — the capture, analysis, retention and sharing — we are extremely conscious of the need to protect the privacy of individuals and the security of the information.
We’ve gone through a rigorous process, including with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, to undertake privacy impact assessments. We have very strict rules about retention, disposal and onward use. For example, we can’t use this information for any purpose other than as set out under our legislation and our regulations. It’s the same thing if we share information with a partner like Australia, for example. It’s in a very limited way, to assess immigration issues. They’re not able to retain it or use it for other purposes.
Senator Boehm: Do you have mobile capabilities? If you’re sending your officers into a refugee camp in Jordan, for example, looking for more Syrians, do you have a capacity to do that?
Mr. Scoffield: We do.
Senator Boehm: Is it secure?
Mr. Scoffield: We do. We began collecting fingerprints from refugees being resettled from overseas in 2013. We used mobile kits when we go into a camp environment, as we do in Africa and many cases. It’s not so often in the Middle East.
The kits are always in the custody of the Canada-based officer, an employee of IRCC, accredited with diplomatic status in the country in which they’re working. Officers are trained and are very conscious of the need to maintain control over the equipment. We have had situations where a customs official wanted to inspect our equipment at an airport, for example. We don’t allow that. If necessary, the officer turns around and goes home on the next flight rather than allowing the equipment to fall into the hands of someone who shouldn’t have access to it.
Senator Boehm: I have one more question and it’s related to the migrant smuggling prevention strategy. You’re looking at services for migrants once they come through. CBSA has engaged in this. Global Affairs Canada is on the training and capacity building of officials in C2. How do you coordinate all of these efforts? We’ve seen budget items pop up in other areas and other departments.
Mr. Scoffield: Thank you for the question. One of my colleagues mentioned that IRCC plays a relatively small part of the larger Government of Canada’s strategy to deal with irregular migration, particularly migration coming to us by sea. Our role is implemented through the Global Assistance for Irregular Migration program, which is a funding program that allows us to support, through partners such as the International Organization for Migration, the basic needs of migrants who had been on their way to Canada as part of a smuggling operation but who were intercepted. It also allows IOM to offer assisted return to countries of origin for people who have been stopped along their journey to Canada.
Overall coordination of the entire strategy is, at present, the responsibility of Global Affairs Canada, which has a group there that coordinates across the federal government, including the public safety portfolio. IRCC is part of that coordination process.
The Chair: On the second round, we have four minutes left. We have consideration to be given to three senators.
Senator Eaton: You can take me off. Senator Boehm asked my question.
Senator Marshall: Just repeat or clarify something for me. When you’re talking about the costs that have been paid so far — the $3 million to Manitoba, as an example — what do you require? Do you require the Government of Manitoba to provide you with information on actual costs? Is that how the numbers are arrived at?
Mr. Meyers: That’s right. Manitoba provided their financial pressures to us, and we have delivered that $3 million to offset a portion.
Senator Marshall: For a portion? But you verified the numbers? Okay.
I know you said Global Affairs Canada is doing the overall costing for the irregular migrants, but is there any other ongoing study? I think awhile back, the Parliamentary Budget Officer was going to do a study — you’re shaking your head — but there’s nothing on his website, because I checked this morning. Mr. MacDonald, you’re nodding your head. Perhaps you can let us know your involvement or give us an update from your department’s perspective.
Mr. MacDonald: I’ll leave it to the PBO to announce when they’re going to put out the work they’re doing on that. I know they are doing the work, and it’s coming out very soon. I think we’re too early.
Senator Marshall: You’re providing the information that they need, is that right?
Mr. MacDonald: We are definitely providing the information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you for your co-operation.
Senator Andreychuk: I’ll try to be quick.
To the Privy Council Office, I have a lot of questions, but they will have to be at another meeting. The money being set aside for the Minister of Intergovermental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade — is that flow-through money to the ministry, or is that your money that you’re going to utilize within the PCO?
Mr. Shea: There are two components. The minister’s budget is part of the overall PCO voted reference levels. That’s why it’s included here. We work with his chief of staff to manage their budget for the office itself, and we have a fund set aside for that. The majority of it is for the support related to that minister within PCO, including the accommodation. So we need to get accommodations base to be able to put a new minister. We didn’t have this minister before, and we didn’t have space set aside. It’s about fitting up an area for them to be, providing all the support they have, giving them a deputy minister to support the minister and that type of thing.
Senator Andreychuk: Where would I go to find out what each minister’s office gets as support from PCO?
Mr. Shea: From a dollar perspective? The Public Accounts lay that out and shows the difference between the Prime Minister’s Office and each of the ministers within the portfolio.
Senator Andreychuk: Everyone?
Mr. Shea: Every one of the ministers, including the Prime Minister between his role for youth and his role as Prime Minister.
Senator Andreychuk: A final question on the pay centre. It provided $25 million set aside for departments and agencies in Budget 2018 to increase support for employees dealing with pay issues.
Again, is that a flow-through, or is that staying with PCO?
Mr. Shea: One-hundred thousand dollars stay with PCO. It’s within my branch for the HR group. It’s just to ensure that we have staff there to support employees who have pay issues. There are actual bodies there to support people if they want to call or email.
Senator Andreychuk: To PCO?
Mr. Shea: Yes. We have people, and they will interact with the pay centre. We have the ability to go into the system and enter certain types of transactions to take pressure off of the pay centre and help employees. It’s to keep that team whole.
Senator Andreychuk: I thought we had heard that there was money set aside within the ministry to do that. You’re also doing it; is that is it? We’ve been doing all of the Phoenix and all of the problems, and there was extra money set aside for that. Now this is on top of that?
Mr. Shea: In the federal budget, there was a piece for PSPC and TBS as they look into potential replacement systems. Then there was a piece set aside at TBS as part of the budget implementation — $25 million for all of government. All departments were given the opportunity to make a case why they needed some funding and how much they needed. That $25 million was divided up. Our share of that was $100,000. I would imagine most departments coming to committee have a line in there that is similar or maybe a little bit more.
The Chair: Thank you to Mr. Shea of the Privy Council and Mr. Mills of Immigration, Refuges and Citizenship Canada. Thank you very much for giving us your comments. We also have the same objective: It’s all about transparency, accountability and predictability.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, we continue our study of the Supplementary Estimates (A).
[English]
We have before us representatives from the two departments responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.
[Translation]
From Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, we welcome Alex Lakroni, Chief Finances, Results and Delivery Officer.
[English]
We also have Joe Wild, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Treaties and Aboriginal Government.
[Translation]
Accompanying him is Karen Turcotte, Director General, Resolution and Individual Affairs Sector. From Indigenous Services Canada, we also have Paul Thoppil.
[English]
He is Chief Finances, Results and Delivery Officer. Mr. Thoppil, there is no doubt that you are a regular to our meeting. Thank you.
We also have Marie Doyle, Regional Executive Director, Northern Region, First Nationals and Inuit Health Branch.
[Translation]
We also welcome Claudia Ferland, Director General, Regional Infrastructure Delivery Branch.
[English]
Welcome and thank you to the departments. I want to thank you for sharing your comments, your vision, in giving us and in asking us, as per your vote, in Supplementary Estimates (A). Your vote matters in explaining to the Finance Committee why we should say yes.
Alex Lakroni, Chief Finances, Results and Delivery Officer, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators, for inviting us today to discuss the Supplementary Estimates (A) funding related to Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, CIRNAC.
I acknowledge that we come together on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.
Further to the Prime Minister’s announcement of the creation of two departments, CIRNAC’s role is to accelerate progress towards self-government and self-determination agreements based on new policies, laws and operational practices. Also, CIRNAC supports the development of a recognition and implementation of an Indigenous rights framework and leads the Government of Canada’s work in the North.
[Translation]
Budget 2018 invested an additional $5 billion over five years to close significant socio-economic gaps, move towards recognition of rights, and build capacity for Indigenous self-determination. I believe it is important to highlight that Budget 2018 builds upon the historic investments of $8.4 billion in Budget 2016 and $3.4 billion in Budget 2017 for a total commitment to date of almost $17 billion of additional funding for the priorities of Indigenous peoples.
Budget 2018 outlined new steps the government will take to increase the number of modern treaties and self-determination agreements in the context of a recognition of rights approach.
The proposed funding in Supplementary Estimates (A) builds upon investments made in priority areas, which fall under the department’s mandate, as well as the results achieved in 2017-18.
Canada has continued to engage in recognition of Indigenous rights and self-determination discussion tables. There are currently over 70 discussion tables involving over 300 Indigenous communities across thecountry.
Major agreement milestones achieved in 2017-18 included: the passing of the Anishinabek Nation Education Agreement Act, which marks the largest education self-government agreement in Canada with 23 Anishinabek First Nations in Ontario; a bilateral stand-alone self-government agreement-in-principle with the Whitecap Dakota First Nation to advance their vision of self-determination; and the passing of the Cree Nation Governance Agreement Act, which advances self-determination for approximately 18,000 Cree on their communities’ land.
As for achievements in the North, the construction of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station has resulted in over 219,000 hours of employment for Inuit worth more than $7 million.
[English]
I will now move to the Supplementary Estimates (A) before this committee. It represents initiatives totalling $1.7 billion in new funding. These funds would bring total appropriations from $3.2 billion to $4.9 billion and would allow this government to take concrete steps to renew the nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown, government-to-government relationships between Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Metis to support self-determination and advance work in the North.
Vote 10. The largest portion of this funding, $1.4 billion, is in grants and contributions primarily for the settlement of special claims, infrastructure investments and the implementation of a renewed relationship with the Manitoba Metis Federation. I will refer to five of these initiatives.
Funding of $666 million is for the settlement of the special claim under the Williams Treaties in support of the resolution of the Alderville litigation. Through this settlement, which was achieved through dialogue, the parties resolved a dispute that had been outstanding for close to a century, thereby advancing reconciliation in a balanced way that respects the rights of First Nations and all Canadians.
Second, funding of $239 million is to settle the Treaty 8 agricultural benefits specific claim with the Little Red River Cree Nation. This negotiated settlement will help to right past wrongs, honour treaty obligations and advance reconciliation with the Little Red River Cree Nation for the benefit of all Canadians.
The third is funding of $139 million, which would be provided to key infrastructure projects for self-governing First Nations as well as in solid waste infrastructure and Inuit housing, all of which are aimed at making quality-of-life improvements.
Funding of $129 million would support the implementation of a renewed relationship with the Manitoba Metis Federation, based on co-operation, respect for rights and a commitment to end the status quo.
Funding of $116 million would be provided for specific claims settlements and specific claims tribunal awards to ensure Canada’s outstanding legal obligations to First Nations are discharged fairly and promptly.
As for vote 1, the department is seeking $307 million, of which the majority pertains to advancing the resolution of litigation and claims, including $155 million as a first step towards bringing a meaningful resolution to the painful legacy of the Sixties Scoop; $54 million for out-of-court settlements as a more effective and respectful process for resolving litigation, where possible; $46 million to achieve a fair, comprehensive and lasting resolution to the legacy of Indian residential schools.
Finally, vote 1 also includes a provision of $39 million to ensure planned assessment, management and remediation activities on several contaminated sites remain on schedule.
In conclusion, delivering on its priorities, CIRNAC will continue to emphasize sound financial management and efficiency of its operations and administration.
Mr. Chair, I have senior officials here with me, namely Mr. Joe Wild, as you mentioned earlier, and Karen Turcotte, who would be happy to answer your questions.
[Translation]
Paul Thoppil, Chief Finances, Results and Delivery Officer, Indigenous Services Canada: Mr. Chair and honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to discuss the 2018-19 Supplementary Estimates (A) for Indigenous Services Canada.
[English]
As you noted, I have with me Marie Doyle, Regional Executive Director, Northern Region of the First Nations Inuit and Health Branch. I also have the pleasure to have with me Claudia Ferland, Director General of Infrastructure Delivery Branch of the Regional Operations Sector of the department.
[Translation]
I would like to draw the members’ attention to a deck entitled 2018-19 Supplementary Estimates (A), which I have tabled.
[English]
Slide 3 shows that the Indigenous Services Canada Supplementary Estimates (A) includes initiatives totalling $1.2 billion, which will bring the total funding for the department to approximately $10.9 billion for 2018-19. This funding will support the department to improve access to high-quality services for Indigenous peoples; improve the socio-economic conditions, quality of life and safety in their communities; and facilitate the path to self-determination.
With respect to financial highlights, on slide 4 of the deck, it shows a net increase of $1.2 billion that is comprised primarily of $423.1 million for the First Nations water and waste water enhanced program, as well as to monitor and test on reserve drinking water; $323.3 million to provide health, social and education services and support for First Nations children under Jordan’s Principle; $287.4 million to fund various infrastructure projects in Indigenous communities; and $56.1 million to improve health outcomes for First Nations and Inuit.
Slide 4 also provides a display in terms of voted expenditures. A net increase of $38.2 million will flow through vote 1, operating expenditures, primarily for net transfers related to the creation of the Department of Indigenous Services Canada; a net increase of $2.9 million will flow through vote 5, primarily for internal transfers from contributions to capital for the repairs and health and safety upgrades to the Walpole Island and Wasauksing swing bridges in Ontario; and a net increase of $1.2 billion will flow through vote 10, grants and contributions, primarily for, as mentioned earlier, the First Nations water and waste water enhanced program, Jordan’s Principle and infrastructure projects in Indigenous communities.
[Translation]
I will now briefly describe the major items included in Supplementary Estimates (A).
On slides 5 and 6, the largest item in these supplementary estimates, $423.1 million, is funding for the First Nations Water and Wastewater Enhanced Program and to monitor and test on-reserve drinking water. This funding will improve on-reserve water and wastewater infrastructure, ensure proper facility operation and maintenance, and strengthen capacity by enhancing the training of water system operators. Funding will also improve drinking water monitoring and testing on reserve. As of October 26, 2018, we have lifted 74 long-term drinking water advisories.
[English]
On slide 7, the second-largest item is $323.3 million for the Jordan’s Principle Child First Initiative. This funding will ensure that all First Nations children receive access to the health, social and education products, services and support they need through this initiative. Since 2016, the vast majority of the requests received under Jordan’s Principle have been approved, totalling over 165,000 requests for products, services and supports.
The third item on slides 8 and 9 is $287.4 million for various infrastructure projects in Indigenous communities. There are a number of pictures on those slides which demonstrate concrete progress across the country with regard to these infrastructure projects. This funding will be used to fund housing, water and wastewater infrastructure, health facilities and community infrastructure such as roads and bridges. Since Budget 2016, we have been successfully supporting 3,385 infrastructure-related projects and 55 per cent have been completed. You will recall our presence a few weeks ago whereby we walked you through the First Nations targeted infrastructure investment interactive map available on our departmental website for which all Canadians can view to show the progress that we are making.
The fourth item explained on slide 10 will provide $56.1 million to improve health outcomes for First Nations and Inuit. These investments aim to address long-standing challenges in eight key health service areas, including maternal child health, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, children’s oral health initiative, mental health and suicide prevention, sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections, tuberculosis, home and community care and clinical and client care.
The remaining slides in the deck provide information pertaining to additional key initiatives, including their objectives, outcomes, status, results, those on slides 11 to 18.
Finally, I would like to also mention that in addition to the Supplementary Estimates (A) items, the department is also accessing funding for Budget 2018 initiatives through the budget implementation vote which is managed centrally by the Treasury Board. A list of items allocated from this vote for your information is included in Annex B of this deck, slides 20 to 25.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, these supplementary estimates will enable us to continue to take concrete steps to address the needs of Indigenous peoples.
I look forward to discussing any aspects of the Supplementary Estimates (A) with you and welcome your questions regarding my presentation.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thoppil.
[English]
The documents you have supplied are very professional and thank you for all the information.
Senator Marshall: Thank you for being here today. This question is for both of you. I’m trying to determine the funding that was provided under the one old department and compare it to the funding that’s budgeted for under both departments. I brought this up when you were here on Main Estimates, and I had anticipated getting a reconciliation from you, but I haven’t received anything.
Can you speak to that? It looked like, from the numbers that we were given for the Main Estimates in the spring, that there wasn’t an increase, that there might even have been a decrease. When you look at the Main Estimates for both departments, the money that came over from the Department of Health and at the increase in the staffing of the departments, it looked like the program funding had decreased. This request for additional funding under Suplemenatry Estimates (A) makes it look a little better. Can you talk about that? Has the funding for programs decreased now with the splitting of the two departments?
Mr. Thoppil: Thank you, senator, for the question. I can assure you that there has been no decrease in funding. You will notice perhaps notice sun setters that occurred, and therefore they will come forward in future supplementary estimates. There has been no decrease whatsoever. In fact, there have been increases.
Senator Marshall: Can you make that commitment again that you will provide us with the details whereby the numbers from the old department can be reconciled to the numbers that you have budgeted under the two new departments? Could you make a commitment that will be provided so we can see the numbers for ourselves?
Mr. Thoppil: It would be my pleasure, senator.
Senator Marshall: Thank you. My next question is this: The new departmental legislation, can you give us an update on the status? There will be new departmental legislation, right?
Joe Wild, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Yes.
Mr. Thoppil: That is the intent.
Mr. Wild: Yes, the intent is that there will be departmental legislation. The exact time frame as to when that departmental legislation will be introduced has not yet been determined.
Senator Marshall: So we don’t have any anticipated date? Because I’m looking forward to reading the legislation to make sure you’re complying with what’s in the legislation. But it’s been a while now since the departments have been split in two. There’s no date yet?
Mr. Wild: We still do not have a date yet, senator, no.
Senator Marshall: There’s no date. This question is for Indigenous Services and it’s with regard to the $323 million for the health, social and education services. How much of that is for education?
While you’re looking, I will expand on my question. Usually every year I meet with students from various organizations, and one of the issues that’s raised each year is that Indigenous students are looking for funding to complete their education, but they have to queue up, and each year there’s not enough funding. I’ve raised it before at other committee meetings and would like to know what the status is. Are they still queuing up? How many students have we helped and how many are in the queue?
Mr. Thoppil: Thank you for the question. I apologize for the delay. I was referring to my notes. The health, education and social services and support provided to First Nations children is under the Jordan’s Principle initiative. So that money is allocated for that, and that is to deal with compliance with the CHRT rulings and what was acknowledged was a gap in educational supports between province and the federal government in terms of what were standards and trying to ensure that we were meeting provincial standards. So that is addressing the gap.
Senator Marshall: How much of it is for education?
Mr. Thoppil: I will ask my colleague Marie Doyle to respond to that, senator, if you will.
Marie Doyle, Regional Executive Director, Northern Region, First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Indigenous Services Canada: Between July 1, 2016, and September 30, 2018, about 4 per cent was specific to education. Jordan’s Principle only addresses children, so up to the age of majority in whatever jurisdiction, so 18 or 19 years old.
Senator Marshall: Did you say 4 per cent?
Ms. Doyle: Four per cent. Just over $12 million. That would support things like specialized educational assessments, learning supports, in some cases classroom assistance for children with complex needs. Under education there’s a variety.
Senator Marshall: How many children would that help?
Ms. Doyle: The way the requests come in, there’s a count around the number of services, but we don’t have precise numbers around the child, because a child can be accessing multiple services, and in many cases they are. The same child who might have an educational assistant might also be accessing speech pathology services, possibly mental health counselling. So we don’t have a distinct number of children.
Senator Marshall: But there must be an average per child based on what the department knows about that program. There must be an average cost per child, and then you can take your $12 million and divide it by the average cost and come up with an idea as to how many children you can help.
Ms. Doyle: It’s a good point, senator. One of the things we’re focusing on, because there’s been such an enormous increase in uptake of Jordan’s Principle, is trying to make sure those types of metrics and data systems are in place. It’s really challenging to do the per-child count because of the range of needs. You have children with very complex needs, so the per-child amount tends not to work because you have some kids who are accessing services in a really limited way, with a very specific need, and then other kids who have a multiplicity of needs and are connecting around multiple services.
Senator Marshall: That’s a pretty important program because you said this is for children under age 18 or 19. So you’re trying to get a foundation for them to go to university or college and become self-sufficient. Can every child who needs the service access it or do the children have to queue up?
Ms. Doyle: No. There are two ways that First Nations children are able to access Jordan’s principle. We have a 24-7 call centre within Indigenous Services Canada, and in those instances any parent or caregiver makes a request based on the child’s specific needs, and we respond within 12 hours for urgent cases and 48 hours for non-urgent cases. That’s about 10 per cent of the requests that come in.
The other 90 per cent are via communities, where they identify a group of children who might have the same types of needs. Those requests, again, come to the federal government, and we have 48 hours for urgent requests and seven days for non-urgent requests for those kids. We’ve seen the growth in many different places for different types of needs.
Senator Marshall: That comes back to my question. If a child needs the services, can they access the services right away? I’m not thinking about the emergency; I’m thinking about services on an ongoing basis. Because, for example, if you have an autistic child, you need services on an ongoing basis. Are services available as soon as the diagnosis is made, or does the child end up on a wait list program, do they have to queue up and wait until funding becomes available?
Ms. Doyle: They’re not waiting on the funding, but depending on the location it can still take some time to put services in place. It’s why we’ve seen a shift towards group requests. Because what communities are doing is rather than waiting for, let’s say, a speech pathologist, you can often have long wait lists, looking at how to bring those services into the community, maybe train local workers to address a group of kids’ needs.
Senator Marshall: But the lack of funding will not prevent a child from accessing the services that they need?
Ms. Doyle: No, absolutely not.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: My question is about the maintenance and inspection of the infrastructure you are building, whether in terms of water or houses. I am talking about the services you make available to people. In the budgets, are there any funds allocated to maintain all these infrastructures or, once they are built, is it up to the community and the people on the reserve to look after them?
[English]
Mr. Thoppil: I’ll ask my colleague Claudia, responsible for infrastructure, to address this, senator.
[Translation]
Claudia Ferland, Director General, Regional Infrastructure Delivery Branch, Indigenous Services Canada: To make sure the buildings last, at this time, any new project must have an implementation plan. We also set aside funds for maintenance, but the maintenance is done by First Nations.
Senator Moncion: What kind of inspections do you conduct to keep the infrastructure in good condition?
Ms. Ferland: We are working to develop human resources to give First Nations the capacity to maintain infrastructure. We also give them access to qualified inspectors. They must comply with provincial or federal standards, depending on where the reserve is located.
Senator Moncion: You already have some people in place and you are training others. Funds are set aside for ongoing maintenance.
Ms. Ferland: Yes.
Senator Moncion: Let’s talk about education now. I didn’t see anything in the document, but it was probably mentioned elsewhere. I would like to know what is happening with broadband Internet access for First Nations. What sort of investment is being made in Internet connectivity?
[English]
Mr. Thoppil: We are working under the other community infrastructure asset classes, and working with ISET, who has a broadband infrastructure fund to ensure that remote communities, including remote Indigenous communities, are connected through. That is primarily being led by ISET, but there are opportunistic partnership opportunities when they do roll out proposed projects whereby we can connect both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities on their plans. That is one basket of various elements under our funding for infrastructure projects in Indigenous communities, a horizontal item in Supplementary Estimates (A).
Senator Moncion: Thank you. My last question is in regard to Jordan’s Principle. You have Indigenous communities where the needs are much larger than in others that are a bit more well organized or not as remote as some of the reserves. How do you assess or how do you establish the priorities on who will be getting the service at which time? How do you establish that?
Ms. Doyle: As I had indicated in response to the previous question, there are fairly strict time limits around response. It really is all the requests that come in to the federal government. So if they come in as individual requests for urgent cases, there’s a response within 12 hours.
Senator Moncion: I understand that. In the remote areas, some of them won’t necessarily know about the programs or they won’t necessarily ask for the programs. How do we prioritize?
Ms. Doyle: One of the key features of the rollout of Jordan’s Principle has been the introduction of a service coordination function, so a front face, a community function to create awareness and help support families around accessing and documenting their needs.
Senator Moncion: So it has to come from them and it’s not us.
Ms. Doyle: That’s right. There had been a series of public-facing advertisements, a lot of promotion through the parties, but communities or family members are coming to us. It’s a responsive approach.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
Senator Eaton: Mr. Thoppil, I’ll continue on Senator Moncion’s question about fibre optics. At the Arctic Committee we were given a presentation by a group of people who wanted to put a fibre-optic line on the west of Hudson’s Bay, right up to the North. It would hit many communities. As you know, they can’t download a lot of stuff. Iqaluit is hopeless, as well as Inuvik. We went through the Arctic this fall. Is it one of the priorities for the government? Because it does impact both health and education and other programs to get fibre optic available up there, because the satellites just don’t do it. I think to download the Canada Council for the Arts program in Inuvik takes 24 hours, so it’s impractical.
Mr. Lakroni, when you say in your speech that Budget 2018 invested an additional $5 billion over five years to close significant socio-economic gaps, and you talk about $17 billion of additional funding for the priorities of Indigenous people, I would think in the North both housing and fibre optics would be priorities. Do you have projects in mind? Are you working on getting them done?
Mr. Lakroni: Thank you for the question, senator. Yes, we have funding for infrastructure in the North.
Senator Eaton: That sounds great, but if you don’t have it with you could you send me a list of infrastructure projects? It would be very useful. I could take it to the Arctic Committee. We saw how terrible the housing is. We saw, for instance, Mr. Thoppil, you were talking about tuberculosis. In Kuujjuaq they don’t have an X-ray machine that operates year-round because of the tundra and it moves.
There just seems to be so many lacunes, as we say in French. It would be very useful if we could see what projects. When you talk about housing for Inuit, I think there was somewhere in here in one of your presentations how many houses and where. It’s really at a crisis up there; you have 15 people living in three rooms. It’s crisis proportions.
Mr. Lakroni: We can certainly provide you with that information.
From a CIRNAC perspective, we have three initiatives in terms of infrastructure, as we mentioned the last time we appeared here.
In addition to the Inuit housing, we have investment for waste management facilities, as well as clean energy and climate change. We’d be happy to give you a list of projects.
Senator Eaton: Clean energy, that would involve setting up electrical grids, not everything on diesel?
Mr. Lakroni: That’s the plan. It’s to alleviate the dependence on diesel.
Senator Eaton: Thank you. That would be very helpful.
The Chair: Mr. Lakroni, you will provide the information through the clerk, the subject matter that Senator Eaton raised?
Mr. Lakroni: From a CIRNAC perspective, and I think from ISC, we should do the same.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for your earlier responses connected to education. They were very helpful. I’m always looking for more information in that area.
Another part that was touched on was, of course, Indigenous Services Canada, the First Nations Water and Wastewater Enhanced Program. We have heard different reports — part of it through the Arctic Committee, and part of it earlier through National Finance — of some progression and good news around the number of communities that have had drinking water advisories removed. This is a good thing. This document talks about 20 long-term advisories being lifted.
I’m trying to get a sense, in 2018, of how many water advisories are still active, and looking to that target of 2021 to have none. How are we doing on that pathway? How does this increase in supplementary funding help us get there?
Mr. Thoppil: Thank you, senator, for the question. To start off, we are on track to eliminate all long-term drinking water boil advisories by March 2021, consistent with the government’s commitment.
Budget 2018 actually provided extra money in that regard in order to double down to ensure that we’re doing that. There are periodic reviews, in fact, with the Prime Minister every two months to ensure that we’re on track with regard to making that March 2021 commitment.
That’s notwithstanding the fact that the minister, in January of last year, expanded the scope of what she considered drinking water advisories that she determined, based on a revised definitional scope, expanded the base of what were the government’s obligations to make that commitment.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Boehm: Thank you for joining us today. In my previous life, I was able to observe the division of the one department and the creation of the two, so I know how difficult that has been in terms of budgets and full-time equivalents and all of that.
My question for you today is related to the Williams Treaties and the settlement going back to September. I want to make sure that I understand it correctly, because the idea would be that the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario would share the compensation in terms of the negotiated settlement, the payments of $666 million at the federal level and $444 million for Ontario. Then the First Nations involved would be able to use the funds to buy land on a willing-buyer, willing-seller basis and then apply to Canada to have the land added to their reserve land base.
How is this going, or is it going yet? On what basis is the financial compensation divided between Canada and Ontario? What is the role of the federal government in terms of First Nations land purchases anyway?
Mr. Wild: In terms of the first part of the question, which is around how it is going, we haven’t made the payments yet, because it’s dependent upon this process. We are very pleased that we have been able to execute the agreements to settle. That is a fairly historic thing to have been able to accomplish.
This is a very long-standing claim and grievance that has been outstanding for many decades and has been very difficult to find a path forward.
The way it works is that approximately 11,000 acres are deemed to be available for them to bring forward as an addition to reserve, and they have to follow the usual policy process that the department has in place around additions to reserve. So willing-buyer, willing-seller and then those lands go through an environmental assessment and then eventually, by ministerial order, they can be added to their reserve.
How long it will take for them to be able to accomplish all of that will be dependent upon all kinds of things, including what lands are available on the market, what lands they decide to purchase and so on.
Our role is to ensure that the lands that are being added to reserve are appropriate to an environmental standard that’s acceptable to the use that they are going to be put to. That’s the main role that we play around, as well as continuing to have engagement and consultation with municipalities and so on to ensure people are aware of what’s going on.
In terms of the division between Canada and Ontario, that was a matter of negotiation between Canada and Ontario. I think it is significant in that it is representative of a partnership between Canada and Ontario in terms of accepting responsibility for what went on. Maybe that’s not always as frequent as we would like in some provinces, but we’re very pleased that Ontario was a full participant in this negotiation and a significant partner with us in actually coming up with a settlement package that would work for the First Nations involved.
Senator Boehm: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. To the witnesses, the information that you have provided has been for clarity. We have the same objective about transparency, accountability and predictability of the vote that you are asking the National Finance Committee to accept and recommend.
With this, Mr. Thoppil and your team, thank you.
Mr. Lakroni, thank you for providing the information.
Senator Marshall: Could I mention, once again, for reconciliation between the old department and the two new departments, I’d like to look at how the funding goes from the old department into the two new departments? I want to take a look at how much is being spent on internal services and new staff. I would appreciate it if you could send us that information.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Marshall.
(The committee adjourned.)