THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, September 27, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met with videoconference this day at 6:45 p.m. [ET] to give consideration to the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I wish to welcome senators and viewers across the country who are watching us on sencanada.ca.
[Translation]
My name is Percy Mockler. I am a senator from New Brunswick and Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
I will now ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Forest: Éric Forest, the Gulf senatorial division, Quebec. Welcome.
Senator Gignac: Clément Gignac, Quebec.
[English]
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
[Technical difficulties]
Senator Smith: Senator Smith, Hudson, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais, Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Today, we will continue our study on the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, which was referred to this committee by the Senate of Canada on March 7, 2023.
This evening, we are joined by senior officials from Infrastructure Canada, Indigenous Services Canada and Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
[Translation]
Thank you for accepting our invitation to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
Since there are so many of you, I’ll ask you to introduce yourself if you’re invited to answer a question, in view of everyone who will be making a presentation.
[English]
We have with us Michelle Baron, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Services, Infrastructure Canada; Philippe Thompson, Chief Financial, Results and Delivery Officer, Indigenous Services Canada; and Darlene Bess, Chief Finances, Results and Delivery Officer, Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. Welcome to all of you, and thank you very much again for accepting our invitation.
We will now proceed with opening remarks in the order I have outlined, so I will now recognize Ms. Baron from Infrastructure Canada, to be followed by Mr. Thompson from Indigenous Services Canada and then Ms. Bess from Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
[Translation]
Ms. Baron, you have the floor.
Michelle Baron, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Services, Infrastructure Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good evening, senators.
[English]
I’m pleased to join you this evening to discuss Infrastructure Canada’s Main Estimates for 2023-24. I’m joined by my colleagues Alison O’Leary, Gerard Peets, Marco Presutti and Janet Goulding. They will have an opportunity to present themselves as they come up to the table.
We appreciate this opportunity to return to speak with you on our plans for this year. Much has changed since we appeared before this committee in March 2023. We have welcomed a new minister and are taking the lead, in collaboration with our colleagues at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to tackle housing supply and affordability.
As I presented last March, Infrastructure Canada collaborates with all levels of government, Indigenous communities and other stakeholders to build strong communities. Our investments, including efforts to prevent and eliminate chronic homelessness, are helping to create more inclusive and sustainable communities across Canada. Our work means better transit, improved ventilation in public buildings, support for climate-ready infrastructure, sustainable water and wastewater and natural infrastructure. It also means investment in green and more resilient community buildings.
I am proud to be here to further discuss the Main Estimates for 2023-24.
Infrastructure Canada sought $9.6 billion to support our commitment to investment in infrastructure that delivers results for Canadians. The majority of this funding will support projects delivered through 22 programs, including the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program, the Permanent Public Transit Program and the Canada Community-Building Fund.
[Translation]
The amount sought in the 2023-24 Main Estimates represents a net increase of $294.5 million compared to the 2022-23 Main Estimates.
Specifically, the 2023-24 Main Estimates represent a net increase of $111 million for grants and contributions, including increased funding of $1.5 billion for the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program and the Permanent Public Transit Program. That is offset by decreases in funding of $1.4 billion, mainly for the Public Transit Infrastructure Fund, the Clean Water and Wastewater Fund and the New Building Canada Fund.
In addition, our Main Estimates reflect an increase of $80.1 million in capital expenditures related to the Samuel de Champlain Bridge Corridor project, as well as $98.6 million in statutory funding for the Canada Community-Building Fund. The remaining increase includes $4.8 million in operating expenditures related to new programs announced in Budget 2022.
[English]
During this fiscal year, our department will continue to provide targeted investment in resilient infrastructure, green and inclusive community buildings, community assets, and water and wastewater. These investments will strengthen local economies and protect our communities and environment, enhancing Canadians’ quality of life while driving toward a net-zero carbon, climate-resilient future. We will continue to make significant investments in public transit, including funding for zero-emission buses and active transportation and the development and implementation of permanent public transit funding to ensure sustainable mobility, create jobs and establish more prosperous and accessible communities.
We will also support communities and organizations to prevent and reduce homelessness, including Indigenous and veteran homelessness.
[Translation]
And of course, with a new combined mandate for infrastructure and housing, we are already working closely with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, municipal and provincial partners, the private sector and industry experts to increase the housing supply and affordability.
That is a glance at some of the work we are doing at Infrastructure Canada. We are proud of all we do for Canadians, and the role we continue to play in building a greener, inclusive and sustainable future. We will be pleased to answer any questions about our work and our commitment to Canadians. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Baron. Mr. Thompson, you have the floor.
[English]
Philippe Thompson, Chief Financial, Results and Delivery Officer, Indigenous Services Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators, for the invitation to further discuss the 2023-24 Main Estimates for Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) and respond to any additional questions you may have.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that we come together on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people.
With me today are Valerie Gideon, Associate Deputy Minister; Paula Hadden-Jokiel, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Regional Operations Sector; Danielle White, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy and Partnerships Sector; Marc Sanderson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Education and Social Development Programs; Lisa Legault, Director General, First Nations Children and Families Program and Partnership Branch; and Jessica Sultan, Director General, Economic Policy Development Branch.
[Translation]
As I said during my last appearance before this committee in March 2023, ISC’s 2023-24 Main Estimates total $39.6 billion. That represents a net increase of $5.9 million, or 0.01%, compared to last year’s Main Estimates; 98% of these resources are used to support or deliver services to Indigenous peoples.
The department has since received full supply in June as well as additional funding received through Supplementary Estimates (A), tabled in May. Supplementary Estimates (A) funding is mainly intended for the implementation of existing operations for the First Nations and Child Family Services programs, and for the final settlement agreement on individual compensation.
[English]
ISC’s core responsibility under its Departmental Results Framework is to support Indigenous well-being and self‑determination, with a mandate to ensure that First Nations, Inuit and Métis individuals have access to services for which those individuals are eligible; take into account socio-economic gaps that persist between Indigenous individuals and other Canadians with respect to a range of matters, as well as social factors having an impact on health and well-being; recognize and promote Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing; collaborate and cooperate with Indigenous Peoples and with the provinces and territories; and implement the gradual transfer of services to Indigenous organizations.
In partnership with Indigenous peoples, the department is focusing on priorities linked to its following six service areas: health, children and families, education, infrastructure and the environment, economic development and governance.
[Translation]
In the context of today’s session, I want to bring forward and recognize the critical importance of adequate and suitable housing, which can provide residents with a safe environment and prove essential to mental and physical well-being, and a higher quality of life. Where there is overcrowding, poor housing conditions, we may see impacts on the spread of infectious and respiratory diseases, and poorer mental health.
The 2021 Census data shows that the share of Indigenous First Nations living in crowded housing and in dwellings in need of major repair has declined from 2016, although the share of First Nations and Indigenous peoples living under such circumstances remains higher than non-Indigenous populations.
First Nations communities that receive annual funding from ISC for on-reserve housing can use these funds for a variety of housing needs, including construction, lot services, renovation, maintenance, insurance, debt servicing, planning and managing their housing portfolio, and mould remediation.
[English]
Since 2016, the department has invested $1.68 billion of targeted funds supporting 4,415 housing projects, of which 2,460 are completed. These projects will benefit 611 First Nations communities, serving approximately 474,000 people. Closing the housing gap in First Nations communities is one of ISC’s top priority, and ISC is committed to work with all partners to reduce the gap.
I look forward to discussing any aspects of these Estimates with you and my colleagues, and I welcome your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
Ms. Bess, the floor is yours.
Darlene Bess, Chief Finances, Results and Delivery Officer, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators, for the invitation to discuss the 2023-24 Main Estimates for Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
Before I begin, I would like to recognize that I am speaking to you today from the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people.
With me today are Heather McLean, Assistant Deputy Minister, Implementation Sector; Eric Marion, Director General, Treaties and Aboriginal Government; Stefan Matiation, Director General, Resolution and Partnerships; Kate Ledgerwood, Director General, Policy and Strategic Direction; and Joshua Rose, Director, Northern Affairs Organization.
As discussed in the spring, the funding in the Main Estimates allows Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada to continue on the path to renewing the relationship with Indigenous peoples; to further its work to modernize institutional structures and governance to support self-determination; to progress on righting wrongs from the past, toward Indigenous reconciliation; and finally, to advance its work to protect the environment and ensure prosperity, sustainability and health in the North.
The 2023-24 Main Estimates will provide the department with $9.2 billion, a net increase of approximately $3.4 billion when compared to last year’s Main Estimates of $5.8 billion. The major items contributing to this increase include the funding for the Gottfriedson Band class settlement agreement of $2.9 billion, as well as $475.5 million for Comprehensive Land Claims and Self-Government Agreements and other agreements to address section 35 rights.
[Translation]
The department’s Main Estimates are composed primarily of transfer payments and operating expenditures.
Transfer payments account for 53% of the Main Estimates, or $4.9 billion, while operating expenditures account for 47%, or $4.3 billion.
[English]
Mr. Chair, I would like to take a moment to highlight some of the work these estimates will allow Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada to undertake in 2023-24.
With this funding, the department is accelerating the renewal of the relationship with Indigenous peoples. Specifically, the department will increase the number of treaties, self-government agreements and other constructive arrangements concluded, as well as the settlement of other claims. Work is also progressing to modernize institutional structures and governance to support Indigenous visions of self-determination by collaborating with our partners to advance joint priorities, co-develop policies and monitor ongoing progress. The department also continues to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action related to missing children and unmarked burial sites.
As well, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada is advancing work in the North through the establishment of regional governance mechanisms and implementation plans for Canada’s Arctic and Northern Policy Framework with territorial, Indigenous and provincial partners. The department continues to help make nutritious foods and essential items more affordable and accessible to residents of eligible isolated Northern communities, supports clean energy and climate monitoring projects, and continues remediation of Northern contaminated sites.
The 2023-24 Main Estimates also provides $695 million to close the Northern housing and infrastructure gap, as well as improve and expand Indigenous housing and infrastructure in Canada for self-governing and modern-treaty First Nations, Inuit and Métis. This investment is a key element allowing CIRNAC to support the development of essential housing and infrastructure needs in a self-determined manner by Inuit, Métis, self-governing, modern treaties and Northern Indigenous partners.
We look forward to discussing these estimates with you and welcome your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Bess.
Senators, I would like to bring to your attention that we will have maximum of seven minutes each for questions on the first round and three minutes on the second round.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today and for shedding light on the main issues of concern to us.
My first questions are for the officials from Infrastructure Canada.
You said you had already begun working with CMHC. According to the 2023-2024 Main Estimates, Infrastructure Canada has to contribute to public transit, affordable housing and homelessness programs, which is not necessarily in the department’s sandbox, considering what programs it has had in the past.
Exactly how much is allocated for these three areas, and what are your objectives?
Ms. Baron: Thank you for the question.
First, for public transit, Budget 2021 provided $5.9 billion in funding over five years, which was earmarked for the transit program. This year’s main estimates include $480 million for that program.
As to homelessness, our annual budget is $497 million, until 2025-2026. The budget will decrease thereafter, for the following two years, and will be roughly $216 million.
Finally, as to affordable housing, Infrastructure Canada does not have funding for that component; all the funding is for CMHC.
Senator Forest: I understood that the objectives were for public transit, affordable housing and homelessness, but there is no funding for that last component?
Ms. Baron: No. We play a policy role in that regard, I would say.
I will ask my colleague to elaborate on the role our department plays in cooperation with CMHC.
[English]
Janet Goulding, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Policy and Programs Branch, Infrastructure Canada: Thank you very much for the question.
With respect to homelessness programming at Infrastructure Canada, I’m not only responsible for the policy development related to homelessness but for Reaching Home, which is our primary program for homelessness in Canada. Reaching Home is a community-based program. We have grants and contributions funding that Michelle mentioned that we deliver directly to community entities across the country in 64 communities. We also have an Indigenous homelessness stream, we have distinction-based funding, and we also have funding available to rural and remote communities. That’s the main role that Infrastructure Canada plays in homelessness. That funding is primarily used to provide services in those communities, services such as housing prevention assistance, services like case management coordinators and services that allow our homeless population to access services in their communities.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Actually, I am trying to understand how things work in general, given what we know about Infrastructure Canada’s traditional programs, in partnership with the provinces, territories and municipalities.
For public transit, I suppose you work with transit corporations. Who do you work with for homelessness? Do municipalities and communities submit assistance projects to you? Is the provincial government involved? How is the financial support provided?
[English]
Ms. Goulding: Thank you for the question.
When you think about Infrastructure Canada’s role vis-à-vis, say, the investments in public transit and housing, that’s the stronger connection; it’s not so much linked to homelessness per se. Definitely in Budget 2022, the government directed Infrastructure Canada to consider how we can use our investments, for example, in public transit to incentivize housing supply, so we are working very closely with CMHC as we think about how we can roll out the new public transit fund. We’re looking at how we can ensure that public transit serves those Canadians who most need it and that we’re building around transit stations, densifying housing in those locations. Our objective is very much to think about how the transit funding supports inclusive communities, densification around transit stations and supports affordable housing for those who need it most.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Let me get this straight. With regard to densification, there is usually public transit in urban areas. What role does Infrastructure Canada play? By providing the service at a reduced cost? By increasing frequency? Do you work with cities and transit corporations?
In cities where public transit already exists, there is already some degree of densification. To increase density, you have to increase housing rather than public transit.
I don’t understand how you can contribute to densification of an urban area if public transit already exists.
[English]
Ms. Goulding: Thank you for the question. I will have my colleague Gerard Peets come join us at the table.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I am just trying to understand because this is not traditionally part of Infrastructure Canada’s mission. That is what I’m curious about.
Gerard Peets, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Results, Infrastructure Canada: Thank you for your questions about public transit.
[English]
Public transit is the single largest business line for Infrastructure Canada. We have had successive programming in this area for many years, and the goal of our investments in public transit is to provide Canadians with opportunities to choose to take different modes of transit that suit their needs, that provide lower GHG impacts and that are affordable for everyone.
Our current suite of programs encompasses a recently instituted set of programs under the permanent public transit envelope for zero-emission transit, which is focused on the electrification of fleets; for active transportation, which is focused on biking, walking and similar forms of active transportation; on rural transit solutions, which is focused on trying to find ways to provide mobility services to people in rural areas where there are low densities; and some important projects in the Ontario region.
Transit projects do take several years to run through. Right now, we have projects that are being executed from our Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program, some of which have been announced in the earlier years of the present government. We are very active in working with provinces, territories, cities and transit agencies to make sure those projects are a success.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Essentially, the suite of programs focuses much more on active mobility than public transit.
Mr. Peets: Both, I would say. In terms of public transit, we want to expand existing systems. Those are the most expensive and largest projects in the cities we are active in. There are also smaller projects, including fleet renewal, electrification and active transportation projects.
Senator Gignac: Welcome to the witnesses. My first question is for Ms. Baron and her team from Infrastructure Canada. I want to know more about your role in relation to climate change and making the Canadian economy more resilient.
We all witnessed the forest fires this summer. People in Yellowknife had just one road, and there were risks. We also saw municipalities dealing with flooding. Giving the increasing severity of storms, our telecommunication systems could be compromised.
My question is the following. How do Infrastructure Canada’s investments improve the resilience of our environment? Since we have to plan for the next 10, 20 or 30 years, can you explain your role and what your thoughts on this are at this time? Will you play a leadership role in helping our economy adapt to climate change?
Ms. Baron: Thank you for the question, senator. Infrastructure Canada is responsible for the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, with total funding of $3.8 billion. More specifically, the department has a budget of $295 million. I will now ask my colleague to tell you more about that program.
Mr. Peets: Thank you for this question which is very important for Canada. Infrastructure Canada does indeed have a role to play in preparing the country for the challenges related to climate change.
[English]
We are active in a number of ways. I sometimes think of it as a value chain, and there are different parts of the value chain where we can help.
The first part is in standards and codes. There are building codes in Canada that exist, and all buildings that are currently being built have to be to code, but these codes are developed with old models of climate. What we have been doing is funding the National Research Council to do the science and to develop the engineering to update those codes. We have been having tremendous success. There have been a number of documents rolled out that will really help people who are building in Canada build to the climate of tomorrow, not the climate of yesterday. It is up to provinces and territories, ultimately, to put that good work into code, but we can start implementing it in our programs.
The second is helping people with planning. When tackling issues of climate resilience, it is not doing the same kind of investment that you did before. Sometimes it’s incorporating natural infrastructure, which is trees, plants and earth, to control things like flooding and water quality, the movement of water, stormwater or even wastewater. There are planning activities that we need to support so that municipalities and local governments that are undertaking some of these new kinds of projects are able to spend the money to plan it well. That is supported under our DMAF — Disaster Mitigation Adaptation Fund.
Also, it is the projects supported under DMAF as well. Those are important capital investments that physically mitigate the risks of a changing climate. It is mostly about flooding, based on need in Canada. It can be about permafrost. It can be about firebreaks, and it can be about coastal storms.
That is where we are. We are also starting with a new initiative called Open-access Climate Toolkits. We’re doing that because we did understand that municipalities do need extra help in getting their heads around some of these problems. They need capacity, in particular those that are small and those that are low capacity. We are going to have a help desk, an online portal and new tools, spoonfeeding municipalities and decision makers at the local level with what they can do in order to protect their infrastructure going forward. We are active in a number of areas, and that is a huge priority for our department.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Thank you very much; that was very informative. As a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, I think adapting the Canadian economy to climate change is an important issue.
My question is for Mr. Thompson and is on a related matter. At Indigenous Services Canada, how do we invest in First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities to fight the effects of climate change?
With all the climate events this summer, our thoughts were with Indigenous communities. What is your role, specifically? How do you help Indigenous communities adapt to climate change?
Mr. Thompson: Thank you for that very pertinent question, especially with the most recent forest fire season and the other natural disasters that we have had this year.
Climate change has an impact on nearly all Indigenous Services Canada programs, and especially the Emergency Management Assistance Program, which my colleague Paula Hadden-Jokiel is responsible for.
I think she can elaborate on the role we play, not only in emergency management, but also with respect to climate change.
[English]
Paula Hadden-Jokiel, Associate Deputy Minister for Regional Operations at Indigenous Services Canada: Good evening. I am the Associate Deputy Minister for Regional Operations at Indigenous Services Canada. That includes responsibility for the infrastructure programs, emergency management programs and the regions.
Thank you for the question. It touches on a number of the areas that we work with. I would say primarily and probably most prominent right now is how it impacts the preparedness and response to emergencies. You have seen on the news the disproportionate impacts to First Nations communities of the recent wildfires and floods. There are program elements of the Emergency Management Assistance Program to help prepare communities to be more climate resilient. Structural mitigation is one of the components of that. That is a component that we are continuing to expand upon and trying to reduce the backlog of projects.
There was a recent OAG report on emergency management, and that was one of the areas that was identified for improvement. We have already improved from 121 projects backlogged down to 51. That could be a range of things, as our colleague Gerard was mentioning, perhaps creating pathways to create a natural barrier between trees and communities to lessen the risk. Also, planning is very important, ensuring floodplains are well known and the community planning is considerate of the realities.
It is also important and our department is working hard to include Indigenous knowledge as part of the planning and consideration. Indigenous people who have lived on these lands for time immemorial have a very good appreciation and knowledge of the impacts of climate and the recent changes as well. We’re working hard to work with partners on identifying those risks and mitigating them to the extent possible.
Senator Smith: Ms. Baron, I would like to ask you a question. In Infrastructure Canada, your organizational Department Plan 2023-24 includes a new indicator, which is 1.2.6 which aims to provide 18,600 people with more “stable housing.” First, I wondered if you could provide an explanation of what this indicator is designed to achieve. What is the definition of “stable housing”? Why is the target set just under 19,000 people? How is this number distributed across the country?
Ms. Goulding: Thank you very much for the question.
The number is based on historical information that we have obtained from the Homelessness Partnering Strategy. That was the program that was prior to Reaching Home. Using that program, we came up with the results from the program in terms of how many people we were able to see stably housed through the funding. That represents a target for this coming year. I don’t have the year-by-year breakdown, but I can tell you through the first four years of the Reaching Home program we’ve been able to house over 69,000 people in more stable housing. The way we do that is we look at 3 months and at 12 months how many people are still considered stably housed through the program. We do that by reaching out to the community entities that are receiving the funding and ask them to report on their results. That is our target for this year. It is based on historical information in terms of what we’re able to do on a year‑over‑year basis with the funding. It recognizes that the funding is there to house people in a stable situation, but it also provides supports like education supports, income assistance supports and what we call case management supports. That is how we do it.
Senator Smith: If I understand correctly, you are saying the definition of “stable housing” includes better living conditions and better support in the community for these people.
How do you take 19,000 people over 640 nations? I believe there are about 640 Indigenous groups.
Ms. Goulding: Indigenous nations, yes.
Senator Smith: So 19,000 spread over 640. Do you have a specific focus? Where you are going to focus? The greatest number of people who will benefit from this opportunity?
Ms. Goulding: The Reaching Home funding is distributed to 64 communities across the country. That information is available, and we can share it with the committee. It is also available in the North, so it is across all of the communities that receive our funding. “Stably housed” means stably housed after 3 and then 12 months, so in a stable housing situation for at least 3 to 12 months.
Senator Smith: Mr. Thompson, your department is seeking just under $1.7 billion in these estimates in order to support new fiscal arrangements for First Nations. As I understand it, this new program is intended to allow First Nation communities greater autonomy and flexibility over their affairs. With this program, each nation will be responsible and accountable for funding they receive. Could you first provide the committee with an update on the number of First Nations that have signed these negotiated agreements with the federal government?
Mr. Thompson: Thank you very much for the question.
You see that my colleague Danielle White felt that she had to join the table. We currently have 138 communities that are under the New Fiscal Relationship 10-year grant and —
Danielle White, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy and Partnerships Sector, Indigenous Services Canada: It’s 143.
Mr. Thompson: It’s 143 — 13 more this year — that are currently under the NFR, and Danielle will give you more information about the grant and what it allows.
Ms. White: Thank you. I’m the Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy and Partnerships. I’m responsible for the New Fiscal Relationship work.
The New Fiscal Relationship grant began in 2019 to address concerns around the sufficiency, predictability and flexibility of funding for First Nations. It allows them to design programs and services based on community priorities with predictable funding agreements for up to 10 years, which is different than previously. Most of the funding arrangements go anywhere from a three- to five-year period.
The grant started in 2019. In Budget 2021, we did get approval of a fixed escalator for that funding, so the money in the grant comes from the existing programs but they were guaranteed an escalator on top of that which includes annual adjustments for inflation, population growth and a guaranteed minimum escalator of at least 2%. That is how the grant funding works.
Now 143 First Nations have those funding agreements. The application process for entry into the grant for April 2024 is currently open. There are 578 potential grant First Nations. That number excludes those communities that are already under a modern treaty and self-governing arrangement, those that continue to receive programs and services funding directly from the department. About half of those have formally expressed interest in the grant. There is a qualification process that communities go through, which is largely managed by the First Nations Financial Management Board which is an arm’s-length, independent institution. The requirement is that the communities have a financial administration bylaw or law in place. Their financial systems are reviewed and certified by the First Nations Financial Management Board, and then they are determined to be eligible for the grants. The decisions are made based on the FNFMB’s recommendation.
Senator Smith: As I understand, since ISC will not be assessing the adequacy of the programs under these agreements, how will the effectiveness of these programs be tracked? You mentioned about how many people or nations will be involved. What sort of metrics will be used to measure success?
Ms. White: The grant is only one component of the work on the New Fiscal Relationship. There is work under way to co‑develop a national outcome-based framework. That measure is not only what the department thinks is important but what matters to Indigenous communities and how they would define success in terms of the outcomes achieved. Prior, we had a heavy burden of reporting on outputs and activities from First Nations, but we didn’t actually look at those results over time. With a fixed arrangement of 10 years, you are actually able to see long‑term impacts in terms of the indicators.
Senator Smith: Are there any top metrics that you really focus on so that you can talk about specifics as opposed to general —
Ms. White: Yes. We’re not at that stage yet in terms of the co-development piece. One important metric that we use is the Community Well-Being index. Self-reported health status, educational attainment, housing adequacy and income are the four components of the Community Well-Being index. That is updated every five years based upon the census data. We’re just completing the analysis for the 2021 census, and that data will be available early in the new year.
Senator Smith: It would be great if you could give us some examples of that in writing so that we could really get to analyze the benefits of the program.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all of you for being here. It is nice to see many of you again.
My first question is for Infrastructure Canada. I am not sure if it is to you, Ms. Baron, or to somebody else. If you were listening yesterday, you may be anticipating this. Through the Innovative Solutions to Homelessness funding stream under the Homelessness Partnering Strategy, which I understand — and as you have confirmed — is the predecessor to the current Reaching Home program, ESDC funded the B.C. New Leaf project. This project has demonstrated that unconditional cash transfers — in that case it was $7,500 — to people who are homeless resulted in them finding stable housing more quickly. I think at the three-month stage, my understanding is almost all of them were housed, and at the 12 months most were still housed and actually many were also employed. It was provided to people who were homeless and resulted in them finding stable housing more quickly and generated savings of $8,277, or a net of $777 per person per year in terms of fewer days spent in shelters.
I asked CMHC this question yesterday, and they indicated that I should ask you or that you would be able to provide a more fulsome response. My question is, what concrete measures has Infrastructure Canada taken to integrate this information and this finding, in particular, into its approach to housing initiatives, especially those geared towards eliminating homelessness? Given the proven effectiveness of this cash transfer and, as you’re probably aware it is now in the second phase of this cash transfer approach, what steps are being taken to evaluate the role that a guaranteed livable basic income, a cash transfer that is sufficient to live on and provided to those with low incomes, can be playing alongside other housing, social supports and health supports to respond to homelessness?
Ms. Goulding: Thank you very much for the question.
I’m familiar with the project that you’re referring to, and what I could say is that Reaching Home doesn’t provide funding directly for income assistance or support. We don’t have a program that could provide that kind of direct funding. The innovation program that was used for that program was a contribution agreement that provided funding to an organization, and they designed a project and were able to run it using our terms and conditions under the program.
Right now, under Reaching Home, we do have a Community Capacity and Innovation funding stream. We are using that fund right now to fund some new research projects, looking at what we can do to really unpack the issue of chronic homelessness. Right now, Reaching Home is very much focused on helping the homelessness-serving sector organize itself in a way that it can most effectively make use of its resources. We know that homelessness is much more complex and that, for example, having systems alignment with correctional facilities, with our health facilities and with social assistance in communities is also really important.
Unfortunately, we don’t have a program that could fund direct benefits to individuals. That’s something that Employment and Social Development Canada manages, or, of course, the provinces also manage direct benefits to individuals.
Senator Pate: I want to pick up on the issue in corrections as well. Just along that line, in terms of the discussions you could have across departments, it strikes me as a really important finding that this saved money and actually freed up resources that could then be used for other people who are homeless, as well as providing resources that could be used for addiction supports and some of the other areas you have identified. I’m curious if there are any discussions happening across departments about the merits of that particular approach, given how profound the savings were and given the historic views that poor people would just waste money. Clearly, that showed quite the opposite, that, in fact, the money was well invested. I’m curious if there are any discussions happening across —
Ms. Goulding: Under Reaching Home, we share all of our information through the Homeless Hub, which is an online resource for communities in terms of best practices and things that work.
In terms of a guaranteed income assistance supplement, that’s something that Employment and Social Development Canada has had various conversations about. As far as I’m aware right now, though, there are no active conversations around a guaranteed income supplement at the federal level, but, again, Employment and Social Development Canada might be better placed to answer that question.
Senator Pate: I will pursue that when the opportunity arises.
In terms of prisoners, recently released prisoners often experience homelessness due to the lack of access to housing, employment and health-based supports. Approximately 8,800 Canadians will leave federal prisons every year. Those who have served their time and have been accountable for their actions face increased barriers due to the restrictive rules and costs that prevent record suspensions, and in many provinces, landlords and employers are permitted to discriminate against those who have not been able to obtain a record suspension. Previously incarcerated racialized and Indigenous people are particularly affected by barriers to housing.
I also put this question to CMHC yesterday in connection with their From Prison to Homelessness Solutions Lab, and they again suggested that I raise it with you. What work has been done to address homelessness and the barriers to housing for previously incarcerated persons? I think I know some of the answers, but I would like to hear greater expansion. Also, can you comment on how reducing barriers to obtaining relief from criminal records might assist and facilitate greater access to housing and housing initiatives?
Ms. Goulding: Thank you very much for the question.
In fact, in Budget 2022, the government announced $18 million for the department to launch some action research initiatives. We’re in the process right now of finalizing, we hope, some projects for ministerial approval, one of which will look at the systemic issues around homelessness and those leaving correctional facilities. The intent of the action research is really two-fold. It is to test and really think through what kinds of alignment we need at the community level to really help individuals who are exiting correctional facilities and trying to reintegrate into life and have a real plan so that homelessness isn’t where they end up. Part of the action research initiative is to learn and share that across the country.
The action research initiatives will cover a range of issues, one of which will be correctional services and how we can better align systems for individuals there, but we also hope to have projects that look at unsheltered homelessness as well as access to health care, with a particular focus on Indigenous individuals because we do know that Indigenous individuals are overrepresented in our homeless population. As well, looking at system alignment with child welfare and youth aging out of care can be particularly challenging.
We really hope to be able to announce those projects in the coming months and that we’ll be able to have some real results to be able to share, not just with this committee but with communities across the country in terms of what works and what they could be thinking about doing to better align those kinds of situations.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you to our witnesses for being here this evening.
My question is for Infrastructure Canada. You did mention $9.6 billion for 22 programs. We know Canada is faced with a housing crisis, and we also know that we need to accelerate the construction of new homes and apartments to meet current and future demand. As I have argued before, providing adequate and affordable housing is one thing, but we also need to build community amenities and offer proper services near and around these new homes.
I note in your 2023-24 departmental plan that one of your priorities is to align federal infrastructure and housing investments to increase housing supply overall, as well as support access to housing that is affordable and strategically oriented near transit, employment, services and amenities to meet the diverse needs of all Canadians.
I would like you to expand on this priority. To what extent does Infrastructure Canada consider these matters when approving major infrastructure projects? Are there any specific criteria or targets you need to meet to approve these projects? The holistic approach is the best approach, obviously. How are project approvals coordinated with provincial and municipal partners? Lastly, why is there no tracker for project construction?
Mr. Peets: Thank you for the question.
We are in the process of integrating housing and infrastructure in our single portfolio. It is something that is priority number one for us right now.
You have mentioned some really great tie-ins between investments in infrastructure and investments in housing and how the value of the investment in infrastructure really does depend on, in some ways, whether it is proximate to the right kind of housing. Is your community centre going to be in the neighbourhood that has the folks who will benefit most from it? Low-income Canadians, new Canadians. Those are considerations that we take into account.
The first thing that I wanted to mention is that the Green and Inclusive Community Buildings Program that we operate is a merit-based program, and that means that it’s applications to Infrastructure Canada from project proponents. They can be municipalities and provinces and others. One of the things that we do look at is the social relevance of that project and the merit of it in terms of that kind of community connection, with things like the Index of Multiple Deprivation that StatCan provides, which provides objective assessment for the whole country of determining whether people in need are living in this area where the new pool is going, where the new recreation centre is going, et cetera.
Now, two budgets ago, the Minister of Finance included a tie‑in directly of housing and that Canada Community-Building Fund. The Canada Community-Building Fund is $2.4 billion a year — formerly the Gas Tax Fund — which is provided through a series of administrative arrangements with provinces, and others, directly to municipalities. This money is up front ex-ante cash. It is not submit an application for a project and then submit your receipts and then get reimbursed. The policy direction was that, in future, that money should be used to leverage housing outcomes. Housing is not an eligible category of expenditure in that. There are a number of eligible categories of infrastructure expenditure there. As we move forward with that program — the administrative agreements that I mentioned are up for renewal, and the negotiations are sort of in the process of taking place right now — we will look for ways to leverage housing outcomes from that money. I can’t offer details at this point because it’s in the future.
The last thing I’ll mention is the Permanent Public Transit Funding Engagement. We consulted with Canadians. We received extensive feedback on how that permanent public transit funding should work. One of the things that came back clearly is that there are many voices out there who are connecting investments in both transit and housing. Again, we are working right now on the policy for that new program, and it should launch next year. That program will have approaches to make that connection to ensure that our investments in housing and transit are happening in tandem to build the kind of livable cities that we need.
Senator Loffreda: You’re satisfied with your work with the provinces and municipalities, and the coordination?
Mr. Peets: There are tremendous examples of alignment and coordination. To give you one example that we are really looking at closely, it’s the UBC extension in Vancouver. The province has a framework called the Supportive Policies Agreement, which means that when you’re making the investment in transit, you’re also doing things that are supportive for that investment that will make it a success. I think that kind of collaboration is something that many cities and provinces around Canada have caught on to.
Senator Loffreda: Excellent. When can we expect a tracker for every project?
Mr. Peets: In previous appearances, we have talked about the Investing in Canada Plan Project Map. We have kind of gone on to the next step now. We were limited in the Investing in Canada Plan because it was only initiatives from Budget 2016 and Budget 2017. As of a few days ago, we now have a new project map for Infrastructure Canada and CMHC which includes all of our projects that are mappable. If a project is doing a plan, we don’t map that. But if it’s mappable, it’s there. We have better data. We have more detailed data fields there so that Canadians, or anyone, can look at the website and find out what they are. In addition, Infrastructure Canada publishes its project list update of approved projects on a weekly basis on open data.
Senator Loffreda: In a 2021 audit report, the Auditor General of Canada mentioned monitoring, tracking and reporting progress should be improved. You’re satisfied that those recommendations are being put in place and won’t arise on the next audit report? That is, we’ll have the information necessary for us to follow?
Mr. Peets: Yes. The OAG report was on the Investing in Canada Plan, which is the cross-government exercise that Infrastructure Canada coordinates. We presented a management action plan, and we have executed it. The two areas I would like to highlight from that are, first, we have improved our performance measurement framework and made it clearer, more concise and much easier to demonstrate to Canadians the impact of the programs; and, second, we have included what we call legacy programs. There were programs that the current government inherited and continued to operate from the previous government. Those had been left out of the horizontal reporting initiative. They are in there now, so 100% of the program is in that reporting framework.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
I think this question would go to Infrastructure Canada. In 2022, the Auditor General of Canada published a report entitled Funding Climate-Ready Infrastructure. This audit focused on whether Infrastructure Canada designed and implemented a climate lens approach to designated projects under selected funding programs and whether investments under these programs contributed to more resilient, inclusive and less carbon-intensive infrastructure investments. There were six recommendations from that audit, mainly to improve the information used to assess and report on these climate infrastructure projects. What is the status of implementation of those recommendations? I know not much time has passed, but I am curious whether any of them have been implemented or what action has been taken to date.
Mr. Peets: Thank you very much for the question. I’m pleased to provide a response.
To recap, the climate lens is something that was instituted for the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program and the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund where projects over a certain threshold, $10 million, were subjected to a climate lens assessment. That assessment included a look at the GHG impact as well as the adaptation situation and whether actions should be taken there. The OAG looked at it and pointed out that there were some gaps in how the information was documented. We have relooked at our internal processes for vetting and for reviewing projects that come in, and we have put in place better documentation and better systems for managing that. That has all been implemented.
To give you an example of the kind of things that were pointed out by the OAG, when a document comes in from a proponent, it might have a number for GHG reduction, but then there might be some questions back to the proponent to say, “Are you sure?” In some cases, there’s an obvious error, and then the number will change. When the OAG reviewed our documentation, they did say, “There’s one number here and one number there, and they are different. Why are they different?” Well, they are different because they were at different points of the project cycle. Having documented that now, and having made that clearer, we have addressed that.
The OAG also pointed out that it wasn’t obvious how the work on the climate lens was supporting Canada’s goals in the SDGs. In line with a number of the goals in the SDGs, we have made that link.
The last thing was in terms of the climate lens and how it was being used by communities. Do they have the guidance? Do they understand what the requirements are? We did update our guidance documents with sector-specific guidance in certain areas, including transit. That guidance has been provided to provinces and territories so that they and the municipalities they work with have it. That’s our approach in the climate lens.
Going forward, we are integrating climate into each one of our programs. Rather than having a separate after-the-fact climate lens, our approach is to integrate the climate requirements into the application process so that they can be evaluated and the climate merit of projects can really be a factor in deciding what to fund.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My questions are for Mr. Thompson.
You mentioned that the budget for Indigenous Services Canada includes a $1.6 billion grant for renewing the fiscal relationship with the First Nations.
Unless I misunderstood the objective — and correct me if I am wrong — this funding will decrease because the government will be less involved in managing programs, which will be fully entrusted to First Nations managers.
Does that mean that the biggest investments in services will no longer be overseen by the government? If so, what happens if they are over budget?
Mr. Thompson: Thank you for the question.
Yes, $1.6 billion will be invested this year in renewing the fiscal relationship. Rather than a contribution, it will be a grant. So there are fewer requirements in terms of accountability to the government.
That said, the communities are accountable to their members. That gives the communities more flexibility in setting their own priorities.
I will ask my colleague Danielle White to elaborate on your question about accountability to community members and how program performance will continue to be measured.
Ms. White: I don’t have much to add to what Mr. Thompson just said.
It is really a question of transferring responsibility to First Nations members.
As I said earlier, we are also working on a process to measure outcomes, which is more important for community members. We place a lot of emphasis on the qualification process for this kind of grant. The process of the First Nations Financial Management Board involves working on First Nations financial management laws and granting certification for their own financial system. That also serves to strengthen accountability between the First Nations governments and their community members.
Senator Dagenais: Can you provide some background on the policy discussions that led to that decision?
Ms. White: Yes, a co-development process was established... I think the work began in 1917 between the government and the Assembly of First Nations and First Nations financial institutions. The Aboriginal Financial Officers Association Canada had an expert panel involved in that process, including certain experts from outside government. They conducted the consultations with the First Nations and made recommendations to the minister to move forward with a direct grant.
As I said earlier, there are also ongoing co-development processes in this regard, including the national framework based on results and other factors. We are still working on that.
Senator Dagenais: How will these changes improve the situation? Do you think the First Nations will meet certain objectives more quickly, as compared to the public service that you represent?
Ms. White: That is a matter of opinion. Indigenous Services Canada has the statutory mandate to transfer all those services eventually. In this regard, we believe that the communities are at the heart of long-term solutions. There is also evidence from treaties and self-government agreements that were negotiated by our colleagues [technical problems] over the past 30 years. This evidence also shows better results for communities that have greater control over their services, programs and governance.
Senator Dagenais: One last question about the $1.6 billion: Are there management fees for the transfer of project management to the First Nations? If so, how much will those fees be? If that will be done by public servants, that would be part of their job, wouldn’t it?
Ms. White: Under the new fiscal relationship, the administrative fees for grants are not high. There are programs to support the bands, known as Band Support Funding. That is one of the programs that is eligible for grants. The amounts transferred come from the programs. There are no other funding sources apart from an escalator that is added. That is added to all programs, not just administrative programs.
Senator Dagenais: I’ll save some time for the second round of questions.
The Chair: We will move immediately to the second round of questions.
Senator Forest: Mr. Peets, you mentioned earlier that, in the context of fighting global warming, you were going to spoon‑feed municipalities.
What do you want to spoon-feed them? We’re talking about municipalities, and when we think of global warming, we know that it’s a global problem and that we need to take local action. Municipalities are key players, and are behind many of the initiatives that are helping to meet this challenge. I’d like to know what menu you’re going to spoon-feed them for the coming year.
Mr. Peets: Thank you for the question. I had some problems with the French, but I understood the expression “spoon-feed.”
It’s true that municipalities are at the centre of the fight against climate change. Urban planning decisions have an effect on the greenhouse gases that come out of cars. Whether or not we decide to use natural infrastructure can change the effect of climate change on people’s health, particularly with heat sources. These decisions, which are very local, are very important.
[English]
Notwithstanding that, as I mentioned — and we hear this quite a bit — when we put in place new requirements or we try to convince municipalities to invest in natural infrastructure, there is no person in the municipality whose job it is to say, “I’m the person in charge of natural infrastructure,” so there are questions about there not being a framework within which they can even make those decisions. We invest in things like data, and the Canadian Centre for Climate Services at Environment Canada says that in this municipality, in 2050 or in 2070, the heat will be at X level and Y level. That’s good information, but what do I do to fix that? When we work with the National Research Council to note that their buildings should have this and that considered — roof reinforcements so they won’t fly off in a coastal hurricane, distances between the wall and the nearest source of trees — with those things, they sometimes wonder if that applies to them. “Is that for me? What kind of building? What are my options?” Those are the kinds of questions that decision makers who are planning projects will have.
Our climate tool kit is in the process of being developed. We have staff who are working really closely with folks in the not‑for-profit sector and in the private sector. I anticipate that we’re going to have a range of tools that will be drawn from the real experts — the people out there who are delivering services, understand municipalities and understand the issues — and that we will put together a menu that is relevant to all parts of the country. As to what the specific items are, we haven’t done that yet.
I don’t know if I have helped you understand a little bit what we’re trying to do with the climate tool kits.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I also want to be reassuring. Having lived for a long time in the municipal world, I know that elected municipal officials have a lot of initiative and are really open to working together, because this is a challenge that affects them on a daily basis, particularly because they are the first level of government for citizens. I am convinced that they are more than willing to work with you to concoct a menu that will be effective and efficient in meeting this challenge.
Do I have any time left?
The Chair: If we can have a third round, you’ll be first.
Senator Gignac: My next question is for Ms. Bess, from Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. I’m interested in a program called Nutrition North Canada. Let me give you some background. I’ve had the privilege of going to the Canadian Arctic, to Iqaluit, Inuvik and other villages with the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, which is studying sovereignty in the North. When I spoke with leaders of remote Indigenous communities, they often brought up the subject of food prices and food security. That was a year ago. Imagine what’s happening now with inflation. What’s more, we know that it’s the poorest who are most affected.
I’d like you to tell me a little about the Nutrition North Canada program. According to the website, this program aims to make certain nutritious foods and essential products more affordable and accessible. How does it work? What is the total budget for this program?
[English]
Otherwise, it could be the next round. I am very specific, but we have an opportunity to hear you, and that topic about the price of food is very important, particularly for people in the North of Canada. Thank you.
Ms. Bess: Thank you very much for the question.
In the Main Estimates this year, for Nutrition North Canada program, we have $127 million. Of that, we have funding for Northern food security which is seeding local food systems in the North. There is a Harvesters Support Grant and Community Food Programs where they can determine how they want the subsidies applied. It is kind of in the same spirit of reconciliation where the communities are using the funding how they want to. We have another $59.5 million for Northern isolated communities for Nutrition North as well. The program is doing some great things. Where we are seeing food prices in the south and inflation increasing tremendously, we’re not seeing as much of an increase with the Nutrition North program.
Senator Gignac: We still have a gap, of course. It is much more expensive.
Ms. Bess: Oh, yes.
Senator Gignac: Is it 30%, 40%, 50% more expensive when you compare apples to apples? When you compare Inuvik to Montreal, for example, it is still much more expensive.
Ms. Bess: Yes.
Senator Gignac: And we should expect to see significant increases in the Main Estimates for next year?
Ms. Bess: Yes. We expect it to continue.
Senator Smith: Ms. Bess, you are suddenly popular. We were worried that you were not going to get enough interaction with us. You were looking very composed.
Another topic, of course, is energy. Diesel is one of the main sources of energy in Northern communities. Your department seeks to move away from the use of diesel fuels and promotes the use of clean energy. In your department’s plan for 2023-24, your organization has a goal of offsetting 7 million litres of diesel each year with clean energy, yet you’ve had a bit of a challenge and only been able to avoid 700,000 litres in 2021-22. Could you provide us with an explanation of where your organization is going and why your organization is meeting less than 10% of your goal in this respect? Is it a realistic target to start with, given just how unforgiving the climate in the Northern communities can be?
Ms. Bess: Thank you for the question, senator. I just want to confirm that you are referring to our target indicators?
Senator Smith: Yes.
Ms. Bess: I might have to get back to you on that one specifically. Usually, most of our indicators are determined with our Indigenous communities. Sometimes it has to do with the timing. Sometimes the target date is later, in the future. That could be one of the reasons. In other instances, we’ve had to change the indicator, so the results are not out yet.
Senator Smith: Could you give us a more complete answer?
The goal was offsetting 7 million litres of diesel each year with clean energy. Basically, you hit 700,000 litres in 2021-22. Can you explain where the program is going and what the options are to improve that performance? What is the definition of “clean energy”? We understand that clean energy is being used in northern communities, and I imagine the same types of clean energy in the southern parts of the country may not be as effective as in the North. Could you give us a status update on the clean energy program? What are some of the obstacles to success? Where do you see it going?
Ms. Bess: A lot of our work, as you said, is about getting off diesel and, as well, working on some of the hydro projects, like the Atlin Hydro Expansion and some others. That has been our main focus in those areas, getting off diesel and then working on some of the hydroelectric projects in the North as well.
Senator Smith: Can we have some feedback on your hydro projects? Where are they in terms of start, midpoint and completion? If you could give us the status on there, that would be helpful.
Ms. Bess: I will get back to you in writing on that.
Senator Smith: Could you do that?
That was so fast. Where do I go from here? The only place that I can go at this particular time is to Mr. Thompson and his group, and I have the big one here. Recruitment and retention of on-reserve nursing and medical staff have been challenges for ISC, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Your departmental plan for 2023-24 talks about addressing these shortages through a comprehensive Nursing Human Health Resources Framework and the nursing recruitment and retention strategy. Could you provide us with an update on these plans? What is the current shortage in terms of nurses on reserve, and how is it being addressed?
Mr. Thompson: Thank you for the question.
Absolutely, recruiting nurses remains a big challenge for the organization. There is a lot of work that has been done, and it continues to be done. The best person to answer that question is Associate Deputy Minister Valerie Gideon.
Valerie Gideon, Associate Deputy Minister, Indigenous Services Canada: Good evening. I am from the Mi’kmaq First Nation of Gesgapegiag from la belle province du Québec.
Speaking to your question, our vacancy rate has been higher since the COVID-19 pandemic, at around 68%. We have been mitigating that impact by contracting at least 700 resources in order to be able to decrease that rate to closer to 33%, which is around what it was, actually, when I was managing the Ontario regional office 16 years ago. We have been able to bring it to a level that is more manageable. That being said, it is certainly not the quality of service that we would want to provide across communities.
We also looked for innovative ways to support community health care by expanding on interdisciplinary models of care. We have contracted paramedic resources with a more expanded scope in some jurisdictions. That has been very helpful. We are also working with partners on cross-jurisdictional licensing issues, as well as offering more supports for nursing work. Just before the pandemic, we actually had made a decision to establish a Nursing Services Response Centre, which is essentially a case management service for our own employees. When they are contacting us with an IT issue or a pay issue or any type of support issue, we have a one-stop shop to help them to navigate those services. That has been done to support the retention of our nursing workforce.
Senator Smith: The North is incredibly huge from a land mass perspective. What about focusing on educational institutions in targeted areas, depending upon the strength of those institutions, for the development of nurses? Can you identify four or five areas where there is educational capacity so that you can actually set up a plan? How many can you turn out from these particular places so that you can service the population, which is in need?
Ms. Gideon: Post-secondary institutions are not within our particular jurisdiction in the department, so we would rely on partnerships with post-secondary institutions and Indigenous partners to build those types of networks. We do have dedicated training capacity within our department to ensure that nurses can practise within their scope in the North, which is quite unique.
Our responsibilities are to fund or directly provide nursing services in 79 remote or isolated communities across Canada. We directly operate 50 nursing stations in those isolated communities. We have historically also wanted to partner with territorial governments, for example, or other jurisdictions that are facing similar nursing shortages.
Senator Smith: How is the relationship with these territorial partners?
Ms. Gideon: We have been looking, for example, at cross‑jurisdictional licensing and other things to be able to look at best practices. I would say that the last few years have put a lot of pressure on the system.
I can also say that in Budget 2021, we did access $354 million over five years to assist us to implement the framework that you had referenced.
Senator Smith: Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: My question is for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. Considering the geopolitical tensions in the world today, I think Canadians are becoming increasingly more aware of the importance of the Arctic and the need to properly defend, protect and support our land and communities in the North. Having said that, I am particularly interested in CIRNAC’s work in promoting the safe use, development, conservation and protection of the North’s natural resources, and promoting scientific development. There is an $85 million contribution in the Main Estimates to that effect.
Can you provide us with a breakdown of some of the natural resource development projects being considered in the North? What role does CIRNAC play in ensuring Indigenous peoples are properly consulted and involved in the impact assessments? How is CIRNAC ensuring that projects are good for the North from an economic, cultural and environmental perspective? I know the North has many rich minerals, including lithium, which is highly in demand these days, as we increase electric vehicle protection around the world.
Ms. Bess: Thank you for the question, Senator Loffreda.
I think you are referring to the Arctic and Northern Policy Framework, which is a lot of the work we do in the North to co‑develop the policies. The framework was launched in 2019 with the territorial, Indigenous and provincial partners, and we’re now at the stage of focusing on implementation. The framework looks at safety, security and defence, which is working with the Department of National Defence as well. We’re continuing to work with our partners to ensure that the northerners’ needs are met. That is very important to us at CIRNAC. The 2022 leadership committee meeting that we had was on September 29 in Yellowknife, and it served as a significant opportunity to hear directly from partners about their priorities and included presentations on defence. Northern security and defence was one of the top priorities.
In 2019, the framework was released. Goal 7 of the framework talked about the Canadian Arctic and North and the people being safe, secure and well defended, so we’re looking at strengthening Canada’s cooperation and collaboration with domestic and international partners on safety, security and defence issues; enhancing Canada’s military presence, as well as to prevent and respond to safety and security incidents in the Arctic and the North; strengthening Canada’s domain awareness, surveillance and control capabilities in the Arctic and the North; looking to increase the whole-of-society emergency management capabilities in the Arctic and northern communities; and looking to support community safety through effective and culturally appropriate crime prevention initiatives and policing services.
This framework provides a broad definition of security-encompassing goals. Goal 1 is for Canadian Arctic and northern Indigenous peoples to ensure that they are resilient and healthy, so addressing their needs for housing, food security, mental and physical well-being; and addressing all forms of violence against Indigenous women and girls and closing the gaps in education outcomes. Goal 8 of the framework is looking at reconciliation supports, self-determination and nurturing mutually respectful relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples.
The Minister of Northern Affairs had been mandated to work with the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and partners to assert Canada’s Arctic sovereignty and implement the framework to create a vision and future where Canada’s northern and Arctic residents are thriving, strong and safe.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
Senator MacAdam: I have a question for Infrastructure Canada. The estimates include funding for homelessness, and earlier there were comments about veterans’ homelessness included in those investments. What is being done for this group of people, and how is it being coordinated with Veterans Affairs Canada? Are there specific dollars earmarked for veterans’ homelessness, and what is being achieved in this regard?
Ms. Baron: Thank you for the question, senator.
Maybe I will start with the financials related to the program. Through Budget 2022, $106.8 million over five years was announced for veteran homelessness specifically. However, this is not yet reflected in the Main Estimates, and we will be accessing that funding through Supplementary Estimates (B), and for future years as well. With that, I will turn it over to Janet to talk about the program.
Ms. Goulding: Thank you, and thank you for the question.
The Veteran Homelessness Program is a new program that the department launched with a call for proposals in April of this year. The call closed in July. We are currently assessing the applications that came in. We are working very closely with Veterans Affairs Canada. We have a joint assessment process. We will make joint recommendations to Minister Fraser on which community entities we think are best placed to run this program for us.
The program will provide both rent supplements and wraparound services to veterans. It is very much based upon the concept of housing-first. Housing-first is a concept that does exactly what it sounds like. It provides not only housing but also the wraparound services that are necessary, including medical, mental health and employment services to ensure that the individual is stably housed in the long term.
We hope to have the contribution agreements in place by the end of the calendar year so that the program can begin serving veterans. Our process is to work closely with Veterans Affairs not only in the selection process but also in the rollout so that the organizations who end up receiving the funding have close collaboration with their counterparts in Veterans Affairs so that the veterans are able to access all of the benefits that are available to them. One of the things that we find most often with homeless veterans is that they are not actually accessing the benefits available to them through Veterans Affairs. We want to ensure that not only are they accessing homelessness services but also accessing the benefits they are already entitled to.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I will continue with Mr. Thompson. In the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, I saw a new request for $431 million in grants to coordinate child and family services. That’s a lot of money to coordinate, and I’m sure you’ll remember it.
Let me take you back to a discussion we had in June 2022 at this committee, where you couldn’t tell me who the third party was to whom the government was proposing to entrust the management of $2.1 billion for a program — I see your smile, so I see you remember it very well. This government program was linked to Jordan’s Principle. I’d like to know where we are on this $2.1-billion issue. What does it have to do with this $431‑million subsidy? If there’s no connection, can we have some information on the nature of the spending that will be done in coordination and where that money will go?
Mr. Thompson: Thanks for the question. There are indeed links to be made between the different sums. The amount that is part of the grant, as we’ve mentioned, is provided in the context of the transfer of responsibilities to the communities. There are some communities that are taking over children’s services.
When we had a discussion in June 2022 about the third party, it was in the context of compensation, and therefore of the agreement that was being negotiated and is currently being reviewed by the Federal Court. We are still awaiting a decision from the Federal Court. Then we can start making the payments, and the third party can take care of making those payments.
I see Valerie has joined me. I don’t know if she wants to add anything.
Ms. Gideon: The only thing I can share with you in relation to the implementation of Jordan’s Principle is this: Between the year 2016 and June 2023, we approved $3.23 million in products and services for First Nations children and spent $4.3 billion specifically on this initiative. Separate from the compensation agreement Philippe mentioned, we are also responsible for the direct implementation of this initiative.
Senator Dagenais: To continue the discussion, I may not have understood you correctly, but in the matter of the $2.1 billion I mentioned, can you give me some information, particularly on the disbursements made? Where has this money been used?
Ms. Gideon: Is this the $2.1 billion required to implement the administration of the compensation agreement, Philippe?
Mr. Thompson: You told me about the amount that was in the budget. That’s not the amount you’re referring to.
Senator Dagenais: No. Actually, I’m talking about the $2.1 billion. I want to know the status of that, but I don’t know if you can give me—
Mr. Thompson: The $21 billion, the budget regarding compensation, the agreement?
Senator Dagenais: Yes. There are so many billions!
Mr. Thompson: This is the negotiation in relation to the agreement in principle reached with the communities regarding a settlement agreement on the children’s services file. That’s right.
Ms. Gideon: This compensation-related agreement has been approved by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. We are currently awaiting our Federal Court hearing, scheduled for October 23. Our goal is to obtain Federal Court approval to then implement the compensation agreement, which has now reached $23.4 billion.
Senator Dagenais: Excellent. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Pate: Thank you to all of the witnesses.
My question is again for Infrastructure Canada. The 2022 Auditor General of Canada report showed that your department spent $1.36 billion between 2019 and 2021 on preventing and reducing homelessness, which was about 40% of the total funding committed to the program. However, the Auditor General also reported that Infrastructure Canada did not know whether chronic homelessness and homelessness overall had increased or decreased since 2019 as a result of this investment. They claim that your department did not analyze up-to-date national shelter use data and did not have up-to-date complete data on its program, data it needed in order to understand the homeless population in Canada to best serve that community.
In your 2023-24 departmental plan, you indicate that Infrastructure Canada would develop research data and economic analyses to measure the outcomes of the investments going forward. I am curious as to whether you are now able to clarify the effects of your spending on homelessness so far and, in particular, if you would please share data — particularly data disaggregated by gender, age, race and region — concerning the impact of Infrastructure Canada’s funding and spending from 2019 to today, if possible, on reducing homelessness and chronic homelessness.
Ms. Goulding: Thank you, senator, for that very detailed question. I think that we will have to get back to you on all of those specifics.
What I can tell you is that at the time of the audit report, it covered the period from 2019 to 2021. As you all know, that was the very period of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, it is true that ESDC, who was administering the program at the time, made a deliberate decision to put less emphasis on reporting for our community entities who were receiving the funding to allow them to focus on the serious health crisis that was in front of them.
I can tell you that of the $1.4 billion that was referenced in that report, over half of that money went to emergency measures to allow shelters to put in place health measures to protect their clients from the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, it contributed to identifying more than 27,000 temporary accommodation spaces. Those spaces were used by over 220,000 individuals during the course of the pandemic to allow them to have safe places to social distance and quarantine during that time.
I can tell you also that the department has all of the data that we didn’t have at the time of the audit. It has all been received. We have data for the first four years of the program. That data shows that the funding for the program was able to house more than 69,000 people stably and that over 122,000 people received homelessness prevention supports and assistance, which means they were able to maintain the housing that they were currently in. Over 30,000 people received income assistance, over 7,000 people started job training and over 11,000 people started new paid employment. We do have detailed data. I do not have data for you right now, though, by gender, race and region, so I can’t speak to that.
The other thing that I can tell you in terms of shelter data and the data around chronic homelessness is we also now have the shelter data information for 2021. We hope to be able to publish the data for 2022 before the end of this calendar year. We have made real efforts to automate some of our data quality measures. The shelter data reports we get come from the shelters across the country. As you can imagine, the reporting sometimes requires a lot of data validation to ensure that we understand the information.
The other thing that we need to flag is that while we do get data from a large majority of shelters across the country, we still need to do an estimate of homelessness because we don’t have complete data for everyone. Also, we fully recognize that shelter data does not account for all of the unsheltered individuals. We have certainly seen that rise in unsheltered homelessness.
In fact, our most recent data from the point-in-time counts that we conduct were conducted over a series of three years given the pandemic in the interim. They started in 2020, and our last communities finished in 2022. In fact, the Quebec data was just recently announced. Clearly, it shows us that chronic homelessness has remained fairly stable over the last five years, with around 30,000 individuals. Sheltered homelessness is declining slightly, but I think that’s more than offset by the unsheltered homelessness. I think we saw during the pandemic that people were less comfortable going to shelters for a number of reasons.
We have also recently done a survey of communities on encampments, and we have some data that we are about to release on that as well that just demonstrates that the reasons people choose to live outside are varied for certain. Some of it has to do with barriers in shelters. In a number of shelters, as you can imagine, for example, pets are not always able to be in a shelter. Shelters are not always well suited for families in some communities, and shelter capacity is an issue for certain. Even though we’re seeing fewer people using shelters, we’re seeing people staying in shelters longer. The shelter usage is staying very constant, and it is very high.
I do think that we have made huge strides in improving the availability and the quality of our data. We would be happy to try and share more of those specifics with you.
Senator Pate: If you could send that in writing, that would be very much appreciated.
I think you mentioned there is also income assistance. More details and disaggregated data about the kind of income assistance would be much appreciate as well.
Ms. Goulding: For certain. Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
The Chair: To the officials, there is no doubt that with your experience here this evening, you have seen we have a common denominator, which is transparency, accountability, reliability and predictability when we look at budgets. There is no doubt in my mind that we have seen this evening through the officials of the three departments that you have been very informative and enlightening, so this will certainly be reflected in our report. Maybe we could call you back if we want additional information.
I would like to remind you that when it comes to written answers, because of the order of reference by the Senate of Canada, we have an end date that I would like to share with you for the questions that you have agreed that you will follow up to in writing, which is direct written responses directed to the clerk of the committee, Ms. Aubé, by the end of the day Friday, October 13, 2023.
Honourable senators, I would like to remind you that our next meeting will be Tuesday, October 3 at 9 a.m. We will continue with Main Estimates 2023-24.
Also before closing, I would like to thank the entire support team for this committee, those at the forefront of the room as well as those behind the scenes who are not visible. Thank you all for your work, which contributes enormously to the success of our work as senators.
(The committee adjourned.)