Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 16 - Evidence - September 24, 2014
OTTAWA, Wednesday, September 24, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 6:45 p.m. to examine the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: First of all, honourable senators, I would like to introduce to you some special guests we have in addition, of course, to the special guests we have as our witnesses. We have Mr. Emmanuel Anyimadu, who is Clerk of the Parliament of Ghana; and Mr. George Brace, Senior Parliamentary Reporter and Secretary to the Clerk of the Parliament of Ghana. They are visiting us here under a parliamentary program, and they are accompanied by Mr. John Karalis from the Parliamentary Centre. Their particular interest is to better understand the roles and functions of oversight by committees and the support provided by parliamentary staff. We have introduced them to our committee staff, and they have had a chance to meet with our clerk. We would like to welcome you. Thank you very much for being here.
[Translation]
This evening, we will continue our study of the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015.
[English]
From the Canada Border Services Agency, we are pleased to welcome André Joannette, Deputy Chief Financial Officer and Resource Management, Comptrollership Branch; and Caroline Xavier, Associate Vice President, Operations Branch. Also on the panel this evening from Natural Resources Canada, we welcome Kami Ramcharan, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Management Services Sector and Chief Financial Officer; and Jennifer Hollington, Director General, Planning, Performance Management and Reporting.
We are continuing, as I have said, under the Main Estimates, so our references are in your plans and priorities and the Main Estimates that we received and were given a year mandate to deal with. We would like you to focus on the operations of your respective entities, and then we will go into a question and answer period following that.
We will begin with Canada Border Services Agency, and then we will proceed to Natural Resources Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Joannette, the floor is yours.
[English]
André Joannette, Director General, Deputy Chief Financial Officer and Resource Management Directorate, Comptrollership Branch, Canada Border Services Agency: Good evening. I would like to thank the chair and members of the committee for providing the Canada Border Services Agency with the opportunity to discuss our 2014-15 Main Estimates.
I am pleased to be here with my colleague, Caroline Xavier, Associate Vice President of the Operations Branch.
Mr. Chair, in the CBSA's submission for the 2014-15 Main Estimates, the agency sought funding in the amount of $1.7 billion, representing an increase of approximately $56 million, or 3.3 per cent, over the previous year. For 2014-15, the total funding submission is $1.4 billion in operating expenditures, $162 million in capital and $177 million for employee benefit plans.
[Translation]
The Main Estimates are reflective of some of the key investments made by the agency to enhance its capacity to provide effective border protection and quality services. I would like to take a few moments to outline some of these investments.
[English]
In the 2014-15 Main Estimates submission, the CBSA sought an increase of $218 million in order to continue to meet the Government of Canada's objectives related to integrated border management; invested in a smarter, more secure and trade efficient border using advances in science and technology and enhanced cooperation with our partners and stakeholders; strengthened our mutual security and the free flow of lawful trade and travel between Canada and the United States; and met key internal business and administrative priorities.
[Translation]
The increases in funding were sought for the following three main areas of activity:
to preserve the availability of funding for eight key projects that were unspent in the 2013-2014 fiscal year, and transferred to the 2014-2015 fiscal year, so as to ensure that the Canada Border Services Agency can meet its legal and project commitments on certain projects, such as the arming of CBSA officers, eManifest and balanced refugee reform;
to support the Beyond the Border Action Plan, which includes the modernization of our border infrastructure, the development of a single window approach, investments in enhancements to information technology and systems for several initiatives in both the traveller and commercial streams, in order to enable the agency to proceed with the next phases of an entry-exit information system; and
to make strategic investments in the processing capacity and effective workload management of the temporary resident and citizenship programs, which respond to the government's economic action plan commitments in 2012 to build a fast and flexible immigration system that is also responsive to economic needs.
[English]
In the Main Estimates, the agency's increases are offset by decreases totaling $162 million, primarily due to a reduction in its operating expenditures by approximately $70 million for the last phase of the Deficit Reduction Action Plan measures announced in 2012; transfers of responsibilities and funding to Shared Services Canada as part of the Government of Canada's initiative to centralize information technology services; and the winding down of funding for the replacement of aging large-scale imaging technology equipment.
In summary, the CBSA's first and foremost priority is to ensure that our front line officers have the tools and resources they need at home and abroad to carry out the vast responsibilities under their purview.
We also make strategic decisions about how to best use the resources available to us, which includes investments in technology and systems to improve efficiencies and effectiveness.
[Translation]
This concludes my presentation. I would be pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: We will continue with another presentation.
[English]
Kami Ramcharan, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Management Services Sector and Chief Financial Officer, Natural Resources Canada: It is a pleasure to meet with the committee to discuss Natural Resources Canada's 2014-15 Main Estimates.
[Translation]
I am the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Corporate Management and Services Sector, as well as the Chief Financial Officer for Natural Resources Canada. I am accompanied today by my colleague Jennifer Hollington, Director General of the Planning, Performance Management and Reporting Branch within the Science and Policy Integration Sector.
Mr. Chair, let me take a moment to briefly describe some key elements of my department's Main Estimates 2014-15.
[English]
The estimates show planned budgetary spending of $2.53 billion, which is a decrease of about $232 million from the previous fiscal year. This decrease is due to a number of factors across our operating vote, capital vote, grants and contributions vote and our statutory authorities.
NRCan is receiving $137.8 million less in operating costs, primarily due to the sunsetting of funding for the Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program designed for the cleanup of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited research sites.
This program has made significant progress in the past eight years in the areas of decontamination and demolition of the shutdown of nuclear infrastructure. The second phase of this program expired at the end of March 2014. This decrease was slightly offset by an increase in funding for the Port Hope Area Initiative to clean up local historic low-level radioactive waste and contaminated soils in the Port Hope area.
Also, there is $12.8 million less in planned capital spending, which is primarily related to the revitalization of Natural Resources Canada's satellite stations facilities. This work is near completion, so the funding is declining this year.
On transfer payments, the department is receiving $194.9 million less for two programs: The Clean Energy Fund, which is scheduled to expire at the end of March 2015, supports activities to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; and the ecoENERGY for Biofuels Program, which encourages domestic production of renewable fuels and has an incentive rate that declines over a nine-year program life.
[Translation]
These decreases in transfers are offset by an increase of $113 million in statutory authorities, which include statutory payments to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador through Natural Resources Canada under the Atlantic Offshore Accords Act. Increases in royalty revenue are expected because of changes in offshore oil and gas production levels and pricing. We are also forecasting an increase in the statutory grant to Sustainable Development Technology Canada for the Next-generation Biofuels Fund, which is designed to help create a Canadian biofuel industry that is supporting farmers across Canada.
[English]
In addition to the 2014-15 Main Estimates, Natural Resources anticipates increasing its funding in several areas that reflect the priorities outlined in the Economic Action Plan 2014. These investments include: New funding received under Supplementary Estimates (A) for the Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program in 2014-15 of $195 million for the next phase of the program. This is separate from the reduction I indicated earlier, which was tied to the second phase of the Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program; $90.4 million over four years for investment in forest industry transformation initiatives to foster job creation and innovation; and $11.4 million over five years to invest in state-of-the-art earthquake monitoring systems supporting the safety of families and communities and investing in innovation.
[Translation]
In conclusion, Mr. Chair, Natural Resources Canada's 2014-15 Main Estimates clearly demonstrate in what way this department is committing to deliver on the Government of Canada's policy, program and service delivery priorities, and to do so in a fiscally responsible manner.
[English]
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the committee. We would be pleased to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you for preparing these submissions and giving it to us to provide a basis for our questions. I have a number of senators who have expressed an interest, but before I go to the list, a couple of points of clarification.
Mr. Joannette, in your presentation you talked about seeking an increase in this year's estimates of $218 million. One of the items halfway down the page was "to preserve the availability of funding" for certain projects.
What does "preserve the availability" mean?
Mr. Joannette: If I can have some clarification, are you referring to the $116.3 million?
The Chair: The increases in funding were sought for three main areas of activity to preserve the availability of funding for some key projects that were unspent last year.
Mr. Joannette: Yes.
The Chair: Did you take advantage of the carry forward program?
Mr. Joannette: We did not take advantage of the carry forward, but it is a similar exercise. It is called the reprofiling of monies from last year to this year to better align to our planned spending. It is basically a carry forward.
The Chair: I am sorry Senator Gerstein is not here. He is our expert on reprofiling. Rather than using a carry forward, because it would be precisely the same, you used what mechanism?
Mr. Joannette: The reprofile.
The Chair: That's helpful. The other point of clarification is on the next page, the winding down of the replacement of aging VACIS machines. Does that mean you are getting out of VACIS machines or that you have all the replacements done?
Mr. Joannette: For this specific submission we were asked to replace a number of VACIS machines. We have done that and the funding for that initiative is completed. We continue to invest in large-scale imaging and we have some funding for that.
The Chair: The VACIS machines are used often at ports to see what is inside a large trailer, for example, or a container. This committee and others have had an opportunity to see the operation of those VACIS machines. That process and that equipment will continue; is that correct?
Mr. Joannette: That process will continue. VACIS is the trademark. It is like ski-doo.
The Chair: You call it large imaging?
Mr. Joannette: It is a large-scale imaging. The ones we were purchasing were VACIS.
The Chair: Senator Eaton is a member of our steering committee and is from Toronto. She will be the first questioner.
Senator Eaton: Ms. Ramcharan, in your presentation, $90 million over four years for the investment in forest industry transformation.
I don't know if you had a chance to read it, but under Senator Mockler's chairmanship of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, we just finished a study on forest innovation. One of the things we realized, after hearing many witnesses, is that none of the universities and architectural schools across the country — U of T, Laval and UBC — taught anything about wood in their architecture courses. They had the cement industry come and give them free seminars about how to use cement in the latest and best way, but they knew little or nothing about wood.
I am wondering if a place to start in your investments and forest industry transformation might be four or five chairs in those universities dealing with the use of wood and architecture, because we found countries like Sweden are constructing 20-storey buildings in wood, as is Japan. We are far behind. As you know, we are the most forested country in the world, but the use of wood in our architecture is not as prevalent as it should be.
I guess I am asking you: Have you considered anything like beginning to educate engineers and architects in the use of wood?
Ms. Ramcharan: Thank you very much for your question. Basically since 2007 the government has invested about $1.8 billion in initiatives that are commercializing innovative technologies, opening up new markets and securing Canada's forest sector position as a world leader in environmental performance.
A lot of the programs that currently exist within Natural Resources Canada really are looking at how we can better support architecture with regard to looking for different markets to do that. We have been involved in large-scale or small-scale demonstrations in terms of looking at using wood to build over four-storey buildings.
A lot of programs we have within the Canadian forest service are looking at that. We have not looked specifically at funding chairs; that is not part of our current program. However, I can take that back for my colleagues to consider in terms of going forward.
Senator Eaton: Thank you. This is something that Senator Mockler and I would like to pursue.
If I could now go to border services, there was an article in the newspaper the other day about your agency stopping three, I think, young Canadians from the west from going to Syria to fight with ISIS. This is just the beginning, I imagine, of either kids who want to be jihadis leaving the country or, if the war really gets to be uncomfortable, coming back to this country.
Do you have funds or something allocated to look into that problem? In other words, do you have the monies necessary to do what you have to do?
Mr. Joannette: From a funding perspective at this particular time, we have all the resources necessary to conduct this business. As I mentioned in the notes, we do reallocations of our existing resources to allow the investments in the priority areas. Maybe I could defer to Caroline for further information.
Caroline Xavier, Associate Vice President, Operations Branch, Canada Border Services Agency: In addition to what André has said, part of the mandate is to ensure that we are protecting the borders primarily on inbound; we also worry about what is going outbound. As that is part of our mandate, as André said, we are funded to be able to adhere to that mandate. We have various tools and mechanisms at our disposal to be able to ensure we are managing our borders effectively, things, such as what you have heard before, around our targeting systems and the fact that we use certain tools such as our lookouts and working with our other law enforcement partners to assist us in having the right information at our fingertips both at the port of entry but also with our liaison network that we have internationally abroad in over approximately 39 countries.
As you know, part of our mandate is about pushing our border out. We work very hard in that manner to be able to try to prevent any type of threat prior to their arrival even to our shores and ports of entry.
As André has said, we feel we are well funded to be able to do that because it is core to our mandate, to be able to continue to protect our borders.
Senator Eaton: When will your entry/exits start working?
Ms. Xavier: Our Entry/Exit Initiative has already begun, primarily in the land mode. It was implemented as of June 2013 in the land mode in our over 100 automated land ports of entry. We are now waiting for some additional legislation to be able to proceed with the air mode activities. That is scheduled to be in place, if all goes well, by June 2015. By then, our entry/exit will be fully implemented both in the land and the air mode. Part of the action plan is to explore the other modes as well.
In terms of what funding we expect to come, it is primarily the land and in the air mode at this time and by 2015.
Senator Eaton: As a point of clarification, when you say "legislation" I thought in the latest immigration bill that was passed, Bill C-24, in June, it was expected that you would have that entry/exit capability. That is not the case?
Ms. Xavier: It was not part of that bill.
Senator Eaton: Thank you.
The Chair: You are thinking about all individuals?
Senator Eaton: Yes, because it was said that to become a Canadian citizen you had to live in Canada four out of the six years, and one of the ways they would be able to track your residency requirement, fulfilling your residency would be your entry/exit stamp.
Ms. Xavier: That is correct. The Entry/Exit Initiative will be a support to that bill. We do not need anything from a foreign national perspective of those who would become residents; we have those authorities. We are fine in that space.
The Chair: I think that is important to clarify, that you will be starting to track everyone who leaves Canada and keep their names on record?
Ms. Xavier: We don't like to use the word "track" because that is not exactly what we will be doing.
The Chair: What word would you use, then?
Ms. Xavier: Basically, we will be ensuring that those who are entering, as well as leaving — for example, in land mode we are exchanging information with our U.S. colleagues. Basically they are giving us what is their entry, which becomes our exit, and vice versa. We are doing literally an exchange of information. In the air mode, we will be confirming with the use of airline manifest information who is arriving on our borders, as we do today, and we will be doing the same on exit. For the purposes of the example around permanent residency, ensuring that those who have arrived at our borders who are on visitor status, for example, who have a six-month period to stay here, are adhering to the reasons why they have been here and we are confirming their departure.
The Chair: We heard lots of discussion of that, so you are now implementing that?
Ms. Xavier: We are in the process of implementing.
The Chair: I am sorry to interrupt, but not just air, also land crossing?
Ms. Xavier: Yes, land crossings have already been implemented and have been in place for over a year now.
The Chair: Before I go to the next name on the list, for clarification purposes, Natural Resources Canada, you talked about receiving $137 million less in operating costs primarily due to the sunsetting of funding for the Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program. Do you remember that comment?
Ms. Ramcharan: Yes.
The Chair: That is looking at the Main Estimates, but this committee also looks at Supplementary Estimates (A), and Supplementary Estimates (A) show an increase that you requested of $195 million.
Ms. Ramcharan: Exactly. It is a program that ended last year, but then we requested an additional renewal for this year. Our funding for the program ended last year, but in Supplementary Estimates (A) we asked for additional money in support of that program itself.
The Chair: This implies that you were getting less for that particular program, but in fact you are getting quite a bit more for that particular program.
Ms. Ramcharan: The actual amount for the Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program last year was 175; the 137 that you see that is reflected here is a combination of a number of things coming in and going out, so the net effect of those things happening. In 2013-14 we had $175 million available for the Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program, and in 2014-15 we have $195 million available for the Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program.
The Chair: Just have in mind when you prepare these explanations that this committee also looks at Supplementary Estimates (A). We know what happens in the Main Estimates, but we also know what has happened since then, and Supplementary Estimates (A) is a request after the Main Estimates have gone through.
Ms. Ramcharan: Okay.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I have a quick question. With the cuts at your department, how many employees were dismissed, laid off or forced to retire? How many jobs were cut?
Mr. Xavier: Is your question for the Canada Border Services Agency?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Yes, please.
Mr. Joannette: I do not have the information or the exact data. However, I can tell you that there were about 10 involuntary departures from the agency. In light of those measures, a number of people left, but it was either a matter of attrition or voluntary departures.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I would just like the agency to send us the total figures. That is my only question for this witness.
The Chair: Would it be possible to obtain the figures?
Mr. Joannette: Absolutely. We have that information.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: My next questions will be primarily for Natural Resources Canada.
Regarding the $115.5-million cuts to the Clean Energy Fund, can you tell me what will disappear? What does that $115 million set aside for the Clean Energy Fund cover? Whom is this fund intended for? Who submits funding requests? Are the applicants private companies or government agencies? What does that really mean?
Mr. Ramcharan: Thank you for your question. I am checking my notes.
[English]
The Clean Energy Fund program has been in existence for a number of years. In 2015 the program will end. That's why you see the declining balance in terms of the resources we have available. The Clean Energy Fund has been able to help. Since 2006, the government has invested more than $10 billion to reduce emissions and protect our environment through investments in green infrastructure, energy efficiency, clean energy technologies and the production of cleaner energy and cleaner fuels.
We try to increase our competitiveness globally and create jobs for Canada, while at the same time reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Our support for clean energy demonstration research and development includes investments in the smart grid, renewable energy carbon capture and storage, energy efficient buildings and improving environmental performance in the oil sands. We have been able to do a lot of these things over the last number of years. The program is coming to an end this year. My colleague mentioned about reprofiling and funds moved from last year into this year to complete some of those projects.
In terms of your question with regard to the people involved, the program is not 100 per cent funded by the Government of Canada. It has partners through industry or provincial governments that participate in these initiatives as well.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: There is no more with this activity. We don't know for next year if there will be any money to spend there.
Ms. Ramcharan: Okay.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: There is another significant cut. I am talking about the contribution to and support for eco-energy for biofuels, an area where the budget is also being cut by $30 million. Can you tell me whether this is the same phenomenon?
[English]
Ms. Ramcharan: Partially. Much of the decision to return the unused funds is about the take-up from industry. When industry doesn't seek the funds from this initiative, then we return it to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. We don't use it for other purposes. Part of the reduction is the fact that we have returned some of these funds to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is in line with our commitment to ensure a balance in terms of priorities.
It is really about the take-up by industry requesting these funds. We have not had the significant requests for these funds that we've had in the past. That's why the numbers are decreasing.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: There is another figure that I have difficulty with.
[Translation]
I am talking about the contribution to and support for the Isotope Technology Acceleration Program, whose goal is to advance the development of alternatives to existing medical isotope production technologies. This is a fairly controversial issue. You had originally planned to invest $8 million, then the figure dropped down to $6 million and now it is at $3 million. Will there be another isotope shortage in our hospitals? Will the remaining money in the program help ensure that the entire Canadian medical system will have access to the necessary isotopes for cancer treatment?
[English]
Ms. Ramcharan: The Isotope Technology Acceleration Program was an initiative that the government identified in 2012 to provide $25 million over four years to further advance the development of alternate isotope production technologies to help secure the supply of medical isotopes for Canadians.
This is the last year of that program. The program also demonstrated that we have transformed the way medical isotopes are being produced in Canada and demonstrated the feasibility of commercial production of the Technetium-99M. Work is ongoing toward health licensing the requirements to advance business plans. It was an initiative to look at different ways of producing isotopes; and it is coming to the end. We have had some success but are now in the final stages.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: You are not answering my question. Will more be produced or not? Is the government withdrawing from that area of activity and turning it over to the private sector?
Jennifer Hollington, Director General, Planning, Performance Management and Reporting, Natural Resources Canada: I would say that the program's objective, by 2016, is to develop the private sector's capacity to produce isotopes instead of that being the government's responsibility.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Has an ideal formula been found for transferring that responsibility to the private sector? You are hoping that the private sector will take charge of that area. Will the research that has been conducted — with $25 million invested — give rise to technology that will enable the private sector to take over?
Mr. Hollington: We are investing in three projects led by innovative Canadian businesses. This program strengthens Canadian leadership in medical isotope production. We see potential in those three projects and future success.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: So you are assuring me that a product will be on the market for distribution in all hospitals that have equipment and need isotopes?
Mr. Hollington: We have with us the department's expert in this area, if you care to put the question to him.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I would like that, as this is something we have discussed here fairly often, but last time, we did not obtain all the answers.
Mr. Hollington: Jean-Frédéric Lafaille is in charge of this project, among others, for the department.
The Chair: Who do you work for?
Mr. Hollington: Natural Resources Canada.
Jean-Frédéric Lafaille, Director General, AECL Restructuring, Natural Resources Canada: I am Jean-Frédéric Lafaille, Director General at Natural Resources Canada. I am also in charge of the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) restructuring project, as well as the medical isotope program.
To answer your question, as of 2012, when the program was approved, the funding profile was structured so that more investment would be made in the beginning — in equipment and infrastructure. So the program's beneficiaries used that money to address capital requirements and make capital investments. The program is following the funding curve that was previously approved. It is normal for the funding to decrease at this stage, since the investments have already been spent.
Two types of technologies are supported under this program. The first type uses cyclotrons to produce medical isotopes, and the second type uses linear accelerators for the same purpose. The project's development is progressing according to schedule. The objective is for the projects to enter the market in 2016-17. All the reports we have indicate that the projects are staying on schedule and within their budgets.
Whether they will be available in 2016-17 depends on the market. To answer your question, the government's strategy aimed to bring those technologies to the commercialization phase. Once that phase has been reached, the market and the health system will decide what technologies will be adopted.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Are those companies Canadian?
Mr. Lafaille: Yes, they are Canadian consortia. One of them is called TRIUMF, and it is essentially based in British Columbia. Another one is the University of Alberta, in partnership with other entities, including the University of Sherbrooke. The third company is based in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and its name is PIPE.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Thank you for being here this evening. My first questions are for the CBSA.
Looking at the material we were provided, it appears a significant amount of funding is going into either new systems or systems upgrades. Could you speak to that? I notice in capital expenditures for 2012-13, it was $78 million, and now in 2014-15, it is up to $161 million. Is most of that for systems development?
Mr. Joannette: We had a large IT improvement to our science and technology portfolio. Most of it is part of the Beyond the Border initiative. We have Caroline here who can speak to the automation. In her former life, she led this initiative.
Senator Marshall: I was more interested in the amount of your budget that's dedicated to either capital or operating with regard to information systems and information technology. I would expect that you rely on systems to do a lot of your monitoring, so I am trying to get a handle on how much of your budget is being devoted to that program.
Mr. Joannette: I could give you the exact amount of what the split between IT and other infrastructure investments are, but I would venture to say a very significant percentage is IT-driven.
Senator Marshall: Would it be about 50 per cent of your budget? Would it be as high as $1.7 billion?
Mr. Joannette: I would say it would be probably 80 per cent of the capital vote.
Senator Marshall: That's in capital?
Mr. Joannette: That's in capital.
Senator Marshall: What about operating?
Mr. Joannette: In operating, I would have to get back to you with the exact number.
Senator Marshall: So that's why your capital expenditure is increasing at such a rapid rate, because you are relying more and more on information technology, which is what we would expect.
Mr. Joannette: Yes, that's it.
Senator Marshall: One of the notes that we have refers to the $1.9 million decrease in funding for the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan. I found that kind of unusual for your department. What exactly is that program?
Mr. Joannette: Well, it is a government program, and we only have one site. Among all our ports of entry, there's one port of entry — the name escapes me exactly, but that port of entry is scheduled to be renovated in 2015-16, and we need to decontaminate the site before doing the construction.
Senator Marshall: Is it a physical site somewhere in Canada?
Mr. Joannette: Yes.
Senator Marshall: You don't recall it or you don't think we should be disclosing it in public?
Mr. Joannette: No, absolutely, I can find the information for you.
Senator Marshall: When it says a $1.9 million decrease, what is it decreasing from? Is it from $100 million down to $99 million?
Mr. Joannette: We received the monies in 2012-13. It was one-time money, which was intended to be disbursed last year. In part of our reprofiling request, the 116, preserving the funds, it was reprofiled to this fiscal year. So that's why. If you look at last year's Main Estimates, the money was there. In this year's Main Estimates it is not there, but it was successfully transferred to this fiscal year through a reprofile.
Senator Marshall: So how much was it?
Mr. Joannette: $1.9 million.
Senator Marshall: It's $1.9 million?
Mr. Joannette: There was nothing that was disbursed on this initiative in the last fiscal year. It has all been deferred.
Senator Marshall: Could you comment also on the status of Shared Services where you have indicated that $23 million has been transferred? Is that it, then? I understand that this is an ongoing process over a couple of years, so once the $23 million is transferred, is there anything left to be moved out in future years?
Mr. Joannette: These are some adjustments that occurred. As mentioned, this agency, Shared Services Canada, was set up last year and large amounts of money were transferred. These are adjustments as we're fine-tuning and understanding their mandate. We're transferring some monies. It is an adjustment, and it should be just about complete.
Senator Marshall: So there may be a little bit in a future year, but basically that's done?
Mr. Joannette: Yes.
Senator Marshall: Thank you. I have one question here for Natural Resources Canada, and it relates to Atomic Energy of Canada, where it's talking about an increase of $10 million from last year. I'm wondering, from what amount to what amount? Ten million is the increase, but what was the amount last year? Then I guess I can calculate the amount for this year.
Ms. Ramcharan: For Atomic Energy of Canada, I'm just going to take a look at the Main Estimates to see if it's in there. It's not clear in the Main Estimates, but the $10 million included in the Main Estimates for this year — one second.
Although I don't have the Main Estimates, I understand that the increase was provided for receiving third party support, third party advice related to nuclear, financial and legal advisers. A total of $20 million was provided to pay for these services: $8.5 million in 2013-14, $10 million in 2014-15 and then a subsequent $1.5 million in 2015-16.
So I don't know their overall budget, but that's what that $10 million is related to, to get the provision of some expert advice in those areas.
Senator Marshall: So is that the final amount of financing that will be provided for the restructuring, or is there an expectation that additional funds will be required?
Ms. Ramcharan: I'm not necessarily certain of that answer. I'm mostly responsible for Natural Resources Canada funding, and the Atomic Energy of Canada is a separate organization with their own governance structures.
Perhaps my colleague Jean-Frédéric could speak to that. He's the person within NRCan, Natural Resources Canada, who looks after that file, so he might be able to provide a little bit more detail for you.
The Chair: While he's coming down again, the money flows through Natural Resources. There's not a separate series of votes for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited now, is there?
Ms. Ramcharan: No, that $10 million flows to us and we use that. However, it is in support of Atomic Energy of Canada.
Senator Marshall: But our notes indicate it's an increase of $10 million, so I'm wondering, was there 10 last year and this year there's 20? This is from zero to 10?
Mr. Lafaille: This is money that is coming to NRCan to support the restructure of AECL and for NRCan to contract out third party expert services to help us conduct the restructuring of AECL. Basically, this money is used to pay the services of external legal advisers, external financial advisers and external nuclear advisers. So this money is temporary. It is just for the purposes of the restructuring of AECL. There was money in the Main Estimates last year, this year and 1.5 the following year.
Senator Marshall: So most likely that's not the end of the funding that will be provided? When we do Supplementary Estimates (A) or (B), we might see some additional funding provided?
Mr. Lafaille: Currently this is the money that is approved because the restructuring of AECL is anticipated to be completed in fiscal year 2015-16. That funding will not be required beyond that once the restructuring of AECL is complete.
Senator Marshall: I have one final question just generally on your funding. The statutory amount of the budget has doubled and your budgetary has decreased. Has there been a shift in expenditures from budgetary into statutory?
Ms. Ramcharan: No, our statutory program is pretty well varied. It is an in and out for us, and it doesn't affect our operating; so our operating funds that we operate with aren't affected by a statutory and vice versa. Our statutory funding isn't affected by our operating budget.
Senator Marshall: So there's been no transfer?
Ms. Ramcharan: No, no transfer.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My questions will be for the Canada Border Services Agency. Parliamentarians vote on laws and regulations, and it is your job to enforce those laws and regulations.
When crossing the border, we have to declare possession of amounts of $10,000 or more. Does that cover cash, checks or currency?
Mr. Xavier: It covers any form of money and any currency. If we are talking about foreign currency, the amount must equal CAN$10,000. That is what the card says. In interviews, individuals are only asked to be honest and to declare the amount.
Senator Rivard: Given that personal exemptions have increased rather significantly, have you noted an increase in the number of Canadians who do their shopping in the U.S.?
Mr. Xavier: I do not have the statistics on hand, but I think you asked a similar when we last appeared before you. I can tell you that no increase had been noted at land border crossings. The numbers have been relatively stable over the past two years. However, we have noticed an increase at airports. I hope this answers your question. I cannot be specific, as I do not have the statistics with me.
Senator Rivard: I do not recall that question being asked. Sorry, I must be getting old. In order to obtain a NEXUS card — which is very practical and costs only about $50 — applicants have to meet with a U.S. customs officer and a Canadian one, who then investigate, take an eye scan, and so on. The process is based on the relationship of trust between the two countries. In order to be able to use the NEXUS lane when crossing the border by car, everyone in the vehicle must have a card. Given that the card is revoked when people cheat, why is it not enough for one passenger to be a cardholder to have the right to use the reserved lane?
Mr. Xavier: This is how the two countries manage the program, which we revise regularly to make improvements. This is not a discussion we have had so far. For the time being, the cardholder is the individual we trust. That does not mean your suggestion will not be adopter later on, but for the time being, this is how the agreement between the two countries works. But, as I was saying, we are constantly looking at ways to improve the program, and we are discussing them with our American partners. I will take note of your suggestion, so that I can discuss it with my colleagues.
Senator Rivard: All industrialized countries require amounts of $10,000 and over to be declared. In France, the amount to be declared is the equivalent of $10,000. I think this threshold was set in the 1960s. However, $10,000 in the 60s probably works out to $40,000 today. Why has the amount not been increased since?
Mr. Xavier: I do not know the answer to your question. I assume the reason has to do with the legislation, since travellers are asked the question under the piece of legislation whose name I cannot recall. I assume that is why the law has never been amended. I do not know. That is the amount we currently go by.
Senator Chaput: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My first question is for Natural Resources Canada. According to the 2014-15 Main Estimates, you expect a significant funding increase for a stakeholder engagement and outreach campaign to build prosperity for Canada. The increase is $20.9 million. Is this the first year you are running this campaign? What is its lifespan and what does it consist of?
Mr. Ramcharan: Thank you for your question.
[English]
I will refer to my notes. It is a campaign that exists for the past two years. It started last year and it continues into this year. There is a potential that it could move into future years at this point in time, but right now it was funding over two years.
The overall funding for this program was $30 million in total. However, what was originally envisioned in 2013 in terms of expenditures was actually lower, so we reprofiled money into 2014-15. The amount right now in 2014-15 is $20 million. That is the last remaining amount of funds for that program as it exists right now.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: What activity sectors are targeted through those campaigns? What exactly are we talking about?
[English]
Ms. Ramcharan: There are three specific activities under this campaign. One is for advertising expenditures; the other is an outreach fund, and the last part is salary and internal services. So if I break them down in terms of the components of those things, the advertising is roughly around $22.7 million; our outreach fund is about $4.5 million; and the salary and internal services are about $2.7 million.
In terms of what we are trying to achieve with this, it is to demonstrate and raise awareness in key international markets that Canada is an environmentally responsible and reliable supplier of natural resources. It challenges and corrects misinformation and seeks to balance the discussion about development of Canada's natural resources. That is more of the advertising component.
In terms of the overall component related to the outreach fund, it is about looking to others to get involved and to do some research on behalf of what we do. It is to support proposals from NRCan as well as other Government of Canada departments to develop and deliver tailored engagement activities targeting key international domestic stakeholders and stakeholder groups and to provide grants and contributions of about $1 million over two years and to support research by third parties to fill information gaps within the public dialogue or inform policy and outreach activities related to Canadian natural resources, primarily the energy sector.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: You are in the second year of this campaign; are you reaching your objectives? Do you evaluate the targeted objectives?
[English]
Ms. Ramcharan: We conducted an evaluation of the campaign in February 2014 and found that we had a strong respondent recall and a good recognition of the intended message. Overall, the advertising seems to be exceeding what we had expected. However, in terms of the overall programming and have we achieved all the objectives, we haven't completed a formalized evaluation of the program at this point.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Who replied to your evaluation, to make it possible for you to say that you have had good results? Who was involved in the evaluation, and who gave you feedback?
[English]
Ms. Ramcharan: I am not able to answer that.
Ms. Hollington, do you have it?
[Translation]
Mr. Hollington: No, we do not have that information with us, but we could send it to you.
The Chair: Could you send that information to our committee, please?
Senator Chaput: My other question is addressed to the Canada Border Services Agency. It concerns the fact that you asked for a funding increase of $6.9 million for costs related to the rise in the number of claims submitted through the Temporary Resident Program — I think we have all heard about the difficulties involving that program over the past months — and the Citizenship Program.
You asked for an increase of $6.9 million. What is your overall assessment of the Temporary Resident Program? Have you had trouble? Do you expect that there will be an increase, since you require more funding?
Mr. Xavier: As for the program itself, firstly, it is managed by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. We are partners in the management of the program. I expect that the funding increase you are referring to, as André Joannette stated, is related to a carry-over of funds. Part of the funding was allocated to the implementation of this project with CIC. The increase in these funds for the year we are talking about is due to a carry-over of funds from the previous year, since the implementation of that program has been done; it is now in effect. Up until now according to the agency administration, things are functioning very well; we are attaining objectives and respecting the timelines we have been asked to put in place.
Senator Chaput: If you carried over funds, how much did you spend last year and what amount is now included in the envelope you are requesting for 2014-15?
Mr. Joannette: I have the financial forecasts here. Last year in the Main Estimates there were no funds. We received the funds in the context of estimates. We received $2.4 million; we are now in the second year of a five-year plan according to which we are to receive about $45 million. When we say that we have received $6.9 million, that is as compared to last year's reference level, and so there is an increase. We received $2.4 million last year and this year we received $6.9 million; the funding will go to $9.1 million and will stabilize at around $15.2 million a year on a continuous basis.
Senator Chaput: Can you tell us how many temporary residents you are dealing with?
Mr. Xavier: I do not have the figures, and I don't know if my colleague André Joannette has them. According to the way the project was put in effect, it started with a certain number of countries, and then there was an increase in the number of countries as things moved forward. The implementation was done in phases. As more countries take part in the project, the number of residents increases. Unfortunately, I do not have the figures with me in order to tell you exactly how many residents we currently have, but we can get back to you with that information.
Senator Chaput: Mr. Chair, could we ask for that information?
The Chair: Could you send this information to our committee as soon as possible, please?
Mr. Xavier: Absolutely.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: I have a follow-up question to Senator Hervieux-Payette's question on the production of isotopes.
The program that she was asking about is contributions in support of isotope technology of Main Estimates $3.9 this year and last year it was 8.95. This is for a parallel program to the production of isotopes, right? This is a new program that will take into effect in 2016, but, while that is going on, there is the production of isotopes taking place at the nuclear plant presently?
Mr. Lafaille: You are correct. The Government of Canada has invested a lot of money in the NRU reactor operated by the Crown Corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to ensure it would produce medical isotopes up to 2016. That production, as you say, is going on right now and is expected to go on until 2016.
In parallel, as you said, starting in 2010, the government has invested in programs to develop alternative ways to produce medical isotopes. The first program in 2010 was for two years and the government invested $35 million in development of alternative technologies. The program we are talking about today, ITAP, was a four-year program approved in 2012 — so, from 2012 until 2016 — to bring to commercialization these alternative technologies we are talking about.
Senator Tkachuk: All right. Thank you very much.
The Chair: That is quite a complicated area, atomic energy, and where they are going as part of it is privatized. We have had some hearings on this in the past and then the isotope industry and the court cases going on in relation to that. It is good that we know who the contact person is now, Dr. Lafaille. Thank you very much.
Senator Mockler: I have a couple of questions and I will start with Natural Resources Canada. I don't want to repeat what Senator Eaton said, but I want to ask a follow-up question for comments from the officials.
Regarding the Canadian forest sector, I know that since 2010 the government, with its action plan, has invested a lot of funds for innovation. Do you agree that the Canadian forest sector has a future based on innovation?
Ms. Ramcharan: I know that we have invested a lot of money to support innovation in the forest sector and we continue to do that.
For example, we have delivered $93 million from 2013-14 to 2015-16 to support research development in technology transfer activities in the forest sector and our forest sector innovation program will generate and advance high-value products and processes for commercialization in the forest industry and is helping to position Canada as a global leader in several technology areas, for example cellulose fibrils. The Forest Innovation Program includes support for FPInnovations, Canada's world recognized forest sector research organization; as well as the Canada Wood Fibre Centre. Over the duration of the program, funding is being reduced in a gradual and predictable way to allow for a transition for the industry and other stakeholders to ramp up their own investment.
We are hoping that it will be innovative. It is looking at expanding its market and looking at different use for wood. The new program, the IFIT, is related as well.
Senator Mockler: When we talk about investing in the Forest Industry Transformation program, can you comment on what the purpose of the funding is for the Forest Innovation program? How would you describe the state of the Canadian forestry sector today?
Ms. Ramcharan: Regarding the first question as to what is the Forest Industry Transformation program, it was created in 2010 with, at that point in time, a budget allocation of about $100 million to support Canada's forest sector in becoming more economically competitive and environmentally sustainable using targeted investments in game-changing technologies.
Investment in this program has provided funding at this point in time to 14 world class and Canadian-first technologies in several provinces across a range of subsectors in businesses. These projects will de-risk new technologies and encourage their broader adoption in the industry, becoming a true Canadian innovation success story.
Industries welcome the renewal of the program as well because we have renewed it for $90.4 million. What we see with regard to the forest sector initiative compared to, say, four years ago, it is on the rebound; the trend is improving within the forest sector. However, I wouldn't necessarily suggest that our work is done with regard to that sector. There is still much more work we can do to support that industry.
Senator Mockler: I certainly agree that the work is not done and completed; it is an ongoing transition.
That brings me to the next question, non-residential construction, commercial and industrial construction. I think we should foster a consensus among provincial and territorial partners, including all stakeholders. Last night I had the opportunity to talk to a leader in the industry, and that is Maritime Lumber Bureau CEO Diana Blenkhorn. There is no doubt that you know her.
When we talk about provincial-territorial partners to amend the National Building Code to permit the construction of multi-storey wood framed buildings to a maximum height of seven storeys or up to ten storeys, I would like to have your comments on that. Before you comment on that, could you inform senators at the table this evening about where we have construction of buildings of more than four storeys in Canada?
Ms. Ramcharan: I will start by talking about the program that we have. It is called the Expanding Market Opportunities Program. Over three years, from 2013-14 to 2015-16, we are investing $49 million to increase not only offshore experts in the use of wood but also the use of wood in non-residential and mid-rise construction in North America. It encompasses critical work to advance tall wood demonstration projects, greater than 10 storeys, and modernize the model National Building Code to increase height limits for wood structures. This project builds on a history of success. With the Canada forest sector market development initiative data supporting an additional $595 million in North American wood sales since 2007, we have seen a dramatic increase in forest products exported to emerging markets. We are currently doing that.
In terms of your subsequent question with regard to being able to do more, I would defer to my colleagues in the Canada Forest Service to be able to respond more directly to that. I can take that back for them.
Senator Mockler: Mr. Chair, could we ask the assistant deputy minister to bring it to the attention of the officials so we could have an answer on that?
The Chair: I think that is the undertaking and we would appreciate that.
Senator Mockler: When we look at expanding and use of wood first or Canada wood first, am I right to believe that we do not have enough chairs in Canada linked to universities — I would like to have your opinion, ADM, on this — insofar as assisting the construction industry so that they could be sensitized to the building codes, plus looking at chairs that would enable looking at new ways of using wood in non-residential construction?
Ms. Ramcharan: Unfortunately, I am not certain of the answer to that question on the number of chairs that we would have that are in support of the building codes using wood within Canada for commercial type of industries. That would be another question that I would have to take back to my colleagues in the Canadian forest sector to ask them to give a little bit more detail with regard to that and to be able to respond more directly to your question.
Senator Mockler: There is no doubt that you will provide the chair with this?
Ms. Ramcharan: Absolutely.
[Translation]
Senator Mockler: Now, since I was once a customs officer, I would like to ask a question regarding tax-free personal exemptions for travellers returning to Canada from abroad, especially those returning from the United States. In addition, I live in a small village close to the Maine border.
Since June 1, 2012, tax-free personal exemptions for travellers returning to Canada were increased, and are now $200 after an absence of at least 24 hours, and $800 after an absence of at least 48 hours.
What has been the impact of the increased exemptions for Canadian travellers visiting the U.S.? And what is the amount of duties, taxes and penalties collected each year by Canadian customs officers? What is the cost of the resources dedicated to this activity?
Mr. Joannette: I can say that since the exemption increase, we have seen a gradual decline in the revenues collected. Simply to give you an example, if we compare with June 2011, we used to collect $17.5 million in duties. This has decreased to $15 million in 2012 and $13 million in 2013.
This is more or less what we expected as a result of this process. We are seeing a decline that may be attributable to the increase in the exemption. Regarding the total amount of funds that are collected in duties, that is approximately $26 billion in revenue, either in excise taxes, duties or other fees or penalties. It costs us close to $130 million to collect this revenue.
Senator Mockler: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Oh: My question is for CBSA. I used my NEXUS card for the first time about four weeks ago coming across the border on the Queenston Bridge, at your new, beautiful building. This is the first time in three years that I came across by road. In my vehicle I have my wife who also has a NEXUS card, myself, and I have my son without a NEXUS card. I came across and told the border guard I have my son in the back without a NEXUS card. He said pull over. He sent me over to the building. The officer met me and said, "How come you have someone in your car without a NEXUS card?" I said my son is with me. He said, "Okay, this will be confiscated. You will forfeit it for two years. You are not allowed to use the card."
I said, "Okay, here is my passport. Do whatever you have to do." I didn't say, "Do you know who I am?" So they went in and then after about 20 minutes they came back out. I said, "I did not do it intentionally." I said, "There is absolutely no sign on this beautiful checkpoint to say that all persons in the vehicle must have this card."
Ms. Xavier: Is your question whether there should be signage?
Senator Oh: Yes. It should be marked clearly. It is a brand new checkpoint. Who knows? I have my son with me. I can't say, "You walk across the border and daddy will drive."
Ms. Xavier: That has happened. As part of becoming a NEXUS member, we do our best to be sure that NEXUS members are aware of all the rules of the program. They're issued pamphlets and information on the website clearly articulates the fact that if you are a NEXUS member and you are going to be using a NEXUS lane, you have to be sure all the members in the vehicle are NEXUS members. This goes to the question I was just asked by Senator Rivard.
We don't re-explain at land borders the details of the rules around NEXUS. We try to clearly articulate which lanes are NEXUS and assume that our travelers who are NEXUS members clearly understand the rules of the program. It is part of ongoing education to ensure that people remember that the rules are what they are and that they need to adhere to them. I'm pleased to know they didn't confiscate your card for three years and that they probably let you get away with a warning.
Senator Oh: I would say that a sign would be great so I won't use that lane but will go to a regular lane.
Senator Eaton: If you have your son with you.
Senator Oh: Yes, sure.
My second question is: Do we collect custom duties on online purchases for those goods coming across the border?
Ms. Xavier: Yes, we do.
Senator Eaton: I want to follow up on something Senator Mockler was asking about forestry. You will regret you came tonight.
Of the millions of dollars you have given to the forestry industry on innovation, do you think you could let us know what the outcomes are? It is all very well to put $70 million into innovation, but it would be nice to know what either the impact is or the outcomes are and what has come of that $70 million.
Ms. Ramcharan: I can't speak to it directly here. Part of our process, and Jen might be able to speak to this in more detail than I, is that we evaluate all our program expenditures to make sure we talk about what results they're achieving.
Jen, if I may turn it over to you, you can explain how we do that and where they can find the information.
Ms. Hollington: All evaluations are posted online. We are just undertaking the next evaluation of the forest innovation program. The last evaluation was about four or five years ago — the one online. The one that will evaluate the current suite of programs we're just undertaking now. It will be available in about a year's time.
Senator Eaton: You do outcomes and impacts. Do you rate the programs in any way?
Ms. Hollington: We don't rate the programs in evaluation, but we look at their immediate outcomes and their ultimate outcomes to the extent that the information is available for that. It can be difficult to have that information.
Senator Eaton: Next year when you come before us you will bring it with you?
Ms. Hollington: The evaluation?
Senator Eaton: Yes.
Ms. Hollington: Yes, we'd be happy to.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I received a birthday gift from my husband and when the person delivered it at the door, I had to pay $85 in cash to get it. So, yes, we pay the custom duties. I had to pay it to get my gift.
This is not my question but just to say that it happens like that.
[Translation]
I have a very brief question for Natural Resources Canada. I find it very strange that an initiative regarding a "sustained engagement program" only received $100,000. What did you do with that $100,000? It would seem to me that an awareness-raising campaign in Canada would cost a million dollars, rather than $100,000. That is the last item in the grants section. I wondered whether that amount had been allocated to a non-profit organization? How can you allow such a small amount for a program that is supposed to raise awareness and mobilize? I am very surprised.
It is in the French version I have in hand, under "Contributions in support of a sustained engagement and outreach campaign." I am intrigued by the fact that you would use such a small amount to conduct an awareness-raising campaign in a country that is 8,000 kilometres long, with a population of 34 million people. Whose awareness are you raising and why? The amount is minute. It is difficult to understand how this amount would serve you. While you are looking for the answer, I am going to put my question to the other group.
My question is about the increases under the "Refugee Protection System" heading. What is this? One hundred and sixteen million dollars was granted to fund three initiatives, one for the measures to reform the refugee protection system.
Where are you protecting them, exactly? In Canada, in their country, or elsewhere? What refugees are we talking about? What does this measure cover?
Mr. Joannette: This is a Treasury Board submission. These are appropriations we received. As I indicated in my presentation, the objective was simply to improve the fluidity of entry into Canada.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: To improve what?
Mr. Joannette: The fluidity of entry into Canada.
Mr. Xavier: This is Government of Canada initiative that allowed for the modernization of entry and the management of refugees who enter Canada. In other words, it was a reform of our refugee management system.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Yes, but it says "Protection." How do you protect them? Managing refugees is one thing, protecting refugees is another. When you write "Protection," there has to be some kind of protection. Unless that is not the right word?
Mr. Xavier: One of the first things we do with refugees is to protect them from their country of origin. When refugees are accepted here, they have the right to certain advantages that are a part of the immigration process here in Canada.
So, we protect them in the sense that they are here in Canada and far from their country of origin, and, if they are accepted as refugees, they are entitled to certain social benefits or to opportunities they have here in Canada which they do not benefit from in the country they left. I am not sure I have answered your question, but when we say that we protect them this means that we protect them from the country they left.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I would like a more specific answer to know how you protect them when they arrive here. I understand that you are making an effort, but we do not know what part of the $116 million amount is allocated to that measure and how you ensure the protection of refugees. If I do not understand and if you are having trouble providing specifics, you should ask what actions are taken by your department to ensure that protection. The other question I have for you concerns the Arming Initiative.
I am sure you are not launching bombs at Canada Border Services Agency, so what is the Arming Initiative? Are we talking about training customs officers, or purchasing arms? What is this exactly?
Mr. Joannette: A few years ago, the government decided to arm our customs officers, the officers who are posted at the borders. The funds allocated to us were intended for the training of all of our border services officers, to enable them to bear arms safely and appropriately.
I do not remember exactly in what year those funds were given to us, but the project will end in 2016.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Fine.
Mr. Joannette: From now until the end of 2016, we will have trained all of the border service officers in the employ of the organization. They must all be able to bear arms in an appropriate and safe manner.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: How many customs officers have weapons currently? How many must still be armed? And, how often have they used their weapons? This measure was put in place for a good reason, finally.
I suppose reports have to be filled out when officers use their weapon. We are talking here about lethal weapons. We are not talking about tasers, but about bullets. I would like to know how often your officers had to use their weapons in the course of the year. That will give us some idea of how the arming program works and how much time is needed for its implementation.
Mr. Xavier: The arming program began in 2006. As of April 1, 2014, we trained 4,125 officers who were given the weapons training. The agency has a very rigorous weapons use training program. We learned a lot from our law enforcement partners, such as the RCMP. We also learned how the others do things, and adopted best practices. As we implement the arms program we are continuing to refine it. We have a very rigorous program, and, yes, we do produce reports on all of the weapons-related incidents. Whenever a weapon is used we examine exactly why it was used. We do an assessment and we learn from that experience to continue to refine the training provided to our border services officers. There are approximately still 2,600 officers who will be receiving training between now and 2016. We are nearing the end of our program, which was approved by the government.
Several reasons can explain why a firearm was used. We complete reports even when a person uses a firearm in a "low-ready" mode. This means that in those situations the person did not use the weapon to fire on someone; he or she was on the point of using it. We have statistics on those cases.
As to the number of times firearms were fired, if memory serves, this only happened a few times. I can tell you that it was to shoot at an animal, such as a bear. For the moment I am happy to report that up till now we have not had to use firearms in the course if an incident as such, but we can confirm the figures to you exactly.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I am happy that firearms were only used against squirrels or bears; that is preferable to shooting people. Did you find the answer to my first question?
[English]
Ms. Ramcharan: I have been able to do a little bit. As I mentioned earlier, the stakeholder engagement had $1 million worth of grants and contributions available over two years. If you look at our mains, $100,000 was identified for the grant portion of it and $400,000 was identified for the contribution portion of it.
To be able to tell you specifically how that money was used, I don't have that detail with me, but I'm sure we will be able to explain how the money is used. That's what is proposed for this upcoming year. The year is not over so I won't have those details yet with regard to how they're being used.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: It is useful to us. As far as I'm concerned, you say there is no other amount of money, but we have no way of knowing without asking you. At the same time, it would be appropriate that we know what we're spending, even if it's a smaller amount of money.
Ms. Ramcharan: Okay.
The Chair: I have a couple of follow-up questions. The first one is for Natural Resources Canada. You will recall that earlier this evening we discussed the Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program. It concluded last year, and you pointed out in the Main Estimates there wasn't money for that, but then in the supplementary estimates there's $195 million. This is described in your notes as Atomic Energy of Canada Limited research site contamination. Is it only AECL contaminated sites and what is the total that you estimate for cleanup?
Mr. Lafaille: If you allow me, I will answer that question. There is already liability recognized on the Public Accounts of Canada, currently at $5.69 billion, and that money was set aside to do what we call decommissioning and waste management. Over the course of the last decades since Canada started nuclear research, principally at Chalk River, two hours north of here, there has been a lot of research and, therefore, contamination of buildings, equipment, a lot of waste that was generated and Canada has to look after it.
The Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program is managed by Natural Resources Canada, but delivered by Atomic Energy Canada Limited, the Crown corporation. To answer your question, the waste that is being managed is mostly at AECL nuclear sites. So the money, the $195 million in 2014-15, whereas it is managed by Natural Resources Canada, the activities are conducted and delivered by Atomic Energy Canada Limited on their sites, their laboratories.
The Chair: The polluter is being given money to clean it up.
Mr. Lafaille: So as part of the funding —
The Chair: You said yes to that?
Mr. Lafaille: Yes. To the extent that it was the taxpayer that funded the research that created the waste, the taxpayer is paying the bill to remediate the —
The Chair: Nuclear contaminated sites, other than ones where AECL had been involved, such as Port Hope, are dealt with differently and not under this particular fund?
Ms. Ramcharan: Port Hope is not under this fund. We have funding available for Port Hope, yes.
The Chair: There are other contaminated sites across Canada, like the former DEW line early warning stations that were across Canada, and there's a lot of contamination in the Canadian North and the near North. There's a different program for that as well?
Ms. Ramcharan: That one I'm not familiar with. I know the ones that are affiliated with Natural Resources Canada, which are Port Hope, Port Granby as well as the Nuclear Legacy Liabilities. For other nuclear contaminated sites, I'm not familiar with where the funding is. It could come from a contaminated sites program, but I'm not familiar with that. I could find out.
The Chair: Could you find out?
Ms. Ramcharan: Sure.
The Chair: You could take the adjective "nuclear" away from that, maybe a contaminated site that is not necessarily nuclear and it might be some other chemical contamination. That is the responsibility of the Canadian taxpayer. That's what we're interested in. What is the total liability that is outstanding?
So for the $5.69 billion that has been identified, we have recently appropriated $195 million to be applied to that.
Ms. Ramcharan: Right. The intent is as we spend money under that program, it reduces the overall Government of Canada liability.
The Chair: Yes, exactly.
Senator Marshall: The total liability shows in the Public Accounts, doesn't it? Is that the $5 billion, or $6 billion? That figure would be revised each year, would it not?
Mr. Lafaille: Yes.
Senator Marshall: There would be new estimates done up each year and the adjustment made in the Public Accounts. That's right, is it?
Mr. Lafaille: It is correct. The number will vary depending on the amount of money that is being paid to do the work and based on revisions to the cost estimates of carrying on this waste plan. Currently there's a 70-year waste plan that is being delivered, so it depends on the cost.
Senator Marshall: Following up on Senator Day's question and the answer you provided, the funding is not going through one department, is it? It seems like it is scattered through various parts of various departments. It is not all in just one department, because we saw some here. We saw the nuclear aspect budgeted somewhere, but I get the impression that it is not all budgeted in one site, in one area of the Public Accounts.
Mr. Lafaille: It depends what kind of contamination we're talking about.
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Mr. Lafaille: If it is nuclear then Natural Resources Canada would have a lead in remediating that.
The Chair: That's the $5.7 billion?
Mr. Lafaille: That is correct.
Senator Marshall: It is an interesting topic to see what kind of progress we're making.
The Chair: There's a long way to go, 70 years.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: So I might not be there.
The Chair: We will all hope there isn't any new contamination.
I have another clarification question, which will give everybody a chance to understand the CBSA's role. You implement certain aspects of between 90 and 100 different public statutes; is that correct?
Ms. Xavier: That's correct.
The Chair: That's in relation to everything coming and going at the border?
Ms. Xavier: Anything related to food, plant and animal to customs to national security.
The Chair: You must go through quite a training program to become familiar with all of that.
Ms. Xavier: We do. Over 90 acts are implemented, as you said.
The Chair: At a normal crossing — not a large or a small crossing but a medium crossing — would we expect to find government personnel in customs and immigration as well as border services, or are you the only ones there?
Ms. Xavier: No. Since the creation of the agency in 2003, we are the sole organization that oversees anything related to the border at the port of entry. From anything related to our mandate, food, plant and animal, with regard to the Customs Act and with regard to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, we are the border services agency that manages that whole mandate.
Our officers are trained to clearly understand those core mandates, and then we do act on behalf, as we said, of many other organizations. So we work in partnership with others. At the majority of the ports of entry you will tend to see primarily border service officers. But we may often call on the RCMP or the local police authorities, PHAC, the public health agency, depending. They work with us as well for reasons of quarantine, for example, and different purposes.
So depending on the port of entry, as you are saying, and the types of risks that exist there, you could have other government entities available to us or potentially even occupying space in our buildings. Primarily it is border services officers.
The Chair: Border services officers calculate and collect the tariff due and owing on something coming in?
Ms. Xavier: That's correct.
The Chair: Are they armed? Do they use a gun to make sure that people pay?
Ms. Xavier: All our border services officers at our primary inspection lines in the land are expected to be armed, that is correct.
The Chair: That includes calculating and collecting tariffs?
Ms. Xavier: That's only one part of their overall duties. A person who is doing the calculation and the collection of revenue could potentially also be in the primary inspection line in the next hour of their shift.
The Chair: So they are armed?
Ms. Xavier: They are.
The Chair: I was being somewhat facetious in that question. That is interesting. Any other questions that follow?
Senator Mockler: I have a question in respect to border patrols and Canadian officers. I will take an example between the state of Maine and the province of New Brunswick. I know I could take any other example, but I will take those two. I will talk about the Saint John River. Let's say a Canadian has a canoe or a small plane landing on Canadian waters or he has a motor boat and he zigzags on the Saint John River. If he goes beyond halfway of the Saint John River to the American side, what are his obligations vis-à-vis U.S. customs? Namely, is it by law that he has to report to the nearest customs agency in order for him to continue doing what he's doing, or could the American border patrol stop him immediately and charge him?
Ms. Xavier: It would be inappropriate for me to comment on what the role of the U.S. customs border patrol is. I can speak to what we do from the Canada border perspective.
With regard to the Canada border perspective, as soon as a ship, canoe or whatever type of water vehicle you are using enters Canadian waters, as per the same rules for when you are on land or in the air, you are expected to report to the closest port of entry or telephone reporting centre.
Having said that, we have also put mechanisms in place to permit that as soon as you are in that proximity and haven't yet necessarily anchored but have the intention to anchor, you are also able to do telephone reporting by mobile phone. We have put in place certain procedures to be able to facilitate that.
Senator Mockler: Thank you.
The Chair: Seeing no other questions, on behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance, I thank our witnesses from the Canada Border Services Agency and Natural Resources Canada. Thank you very much for being here. You have helped us understand the important functions that you perform for Canada, and we thank you for that.
(The committee adjourned.)