THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 26, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 6:45 p.m. [ET] to examine Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026.
Senator Claude Carignan (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I’d like to welcome the senators, and the viewers across the country who are watching us on sencanada.ca. My name is Claude Carignan, and I am a senator from Quebec and the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
I will now ask my fellow senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Forest: Good evening. I am Éric Forest, and I represent the senatorial division of the Gulf, in Quebec.
Senator Gignac: Good evening. My name is Clément Gignac, and I represent the senatorial division of Kennebec, in Quebec.
Senator Pupatello: Good evening. My name is Sandra Pupatello, and I’m from Windsor, Ontario.
Senator Dalphond: Good evening. My name is Pierre Dalphond, and I represent the senatorial division of De Lorimier, which includes the military base in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, in Quebec.
Senator Cardozo: I am Andrew Cardozo from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Kingston: Joan Kingston, New Brunswick.
Senator Ross: Krista Ross, New Brunswick.
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: I am Martine Hébert from Quebec.
The Chair: Today, we are resuming our study of Supplementary Estimates (B) for 2025-26.
We are pleased to have with us, from the Canada Revenue Agency, Hugo Pagé, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Commissioner, Finance and Administration Branch; and Melanie Serjak, Assistant Commissioner, Assessment, Benefit and Service Branch.
From Health Canada, we have Jocelyn Voisin, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Policy Branch; and Ryan Higgs, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer.
Thank you for agreeing to meet with us this evening. We will start with Mr. Pagé’s five-minute opening statement, followed by Mr. Higgs’s remarks. After that, we’ll proceed to the question-and-answer portion. We have an hour for this panel.
The floor is yours, Mr. Pagé.
Hugo Pagé, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Commissioner, Finance and Administration Branch, Canada Revenue Agency: Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee to present the 2025-26 Supplementary Estimates (B) of the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, and to answer any questions that you may have.
As you are aware, the CRA is responsible for the administration of federal and certain provincial and territorial tax programs, as well as the delivery of a number of benefit payment programs.
Through these supplementary estimates, the CRA is seeking an increase of $186 million in its voted authorities for 11 items. In the interest of time, I will highlight only some of the larger measures.
First, the agency is seeking $72 million to administer additional measures to combat tax evasion as announced in the 2024 Fall Economic Statement. The funding will enable the CRA to enhance the compliance coverage over non-filers with a high likelihood of tax owing, and to conclude audits of emergency business subsidy amounts. It will also be used to protect against tax schemes, stop unwarranted refunds and expand the capacity to review high-risk claims.
Second, $44 million is being sought for costs incurred and risk managed by the agency last fiscal year as a result of the disruption to the supply process due to the prorogation of Parliament and the subsequent dissolution ahead of the election. The CRA had to redirect existing program resources to address the workload associated with a number of Budget 2024 initiatives, including the Canada Carbon Rebate for Small Businesses, clean economy investment tax credits, and automatic tax filing. The funding will be used to address deferred operating requirements within the CRA’s core programs.
[English]
Third, the agency is seeking $34 million for the adjusted cost of the administration of the Goods and Services Tax, or GST, by the Province of Quebec. The funding represents incremental amounts payable to Revenu Québec and is based on the most recently conducted review of the costs the agency would incur to administer the GST in the Province of Quebec.
Fourth, $24 million is being sought for the administration of retroactive payments of the Canada Carbon Rebate for Small Businesses for the 2019-20 through 2023-24 fuel charge years. The funding has been reprofiled for activities initially anticipated to take place in 2024-25, but that were subsequently deferred to 2025-26. Post-payment activities include exception processing, answering inquiries, appeals processes, reassessments and collection activities.
While the federal fuel charge was removed effective April 1, 2025, the CRA continues to incur costs associated with the administration of the program, particularly legislated recourse rights. A costing exercise is currently under way to assess the remaining level of effort associated with the programs and the winding down of activities.
The balance of $12 million being sought through these supplementary estimates is largely associated with the implementation of the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework, including amendments to the Common Reporting Standard, as well as to maintain the integrity of information technology systems and data to support compliance activities for COVID-19 subsidies.
In addition, it includes amounts for government advertising programs and other initiatives announced in the 2024 federal budget where activities were deferred from 2024-25 to 2025-26. These supplementary estimates also include a statutory increase of $18 million associated with adjustments to employee benefit plans for new salary funding being sought through these estimates.
[Translation]
In closing, the Canada Revenue Agency is committed to contributing to the economic and social well-being of Canadians by providing a secure, intuitive and client-centric service experience. The resources being requested through these supplementary estimates will allow the agency to continue to deliver on its mandate.
On that note, Mr. Chair, we will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
[English]
Ryan Higgs, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Health Canada: Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Thank you for inviting us to discuss Health Canada’s 2025-26 Supplementary Estimates (B).
[Translation]
We appreciate the opportunity to share some of the department’s key priorities and tell you about the work we are doing to promote the health of Canadians.
[English]
Joining me today are several colleagues who can provide more detailed responses to any program-specific questions you may have.
[Translation]
Through the 2025-26 Supplementary Estimates (B), Health Canada is seeking a net increase of more than $1.6 billion, which would bring the department’s total proposed budget for the current fiscal year to just over $12.3 billion.
[English]
These additional funds will be used to finance several key initiatives: First, $1.6 billion is needed to sustain the Canadian Dental Care Plan, which has already helped millions of Canadians access oral health care that was once out of reach. Projections indicate that demand will be higher this year, as many Canadians have forgone dental care given the cost. It is anticipated that this demand will decline in future years once immediate needs have been treated. Consequently, we are shifting existing resources available in future years to better align with more immediate projected program need.
Next, there is $15 million to support Ontario’s efforts to provide mental health services to front-line health workers and first responders through the development of the Runnymede Healthcare Centre’s Post-Traumatic Stress Injury Centre of Excellence for First Responders.
[Translation]
Lastly, $3 million will go to Canada’s Black Justice Strategy, to build community capacity to intervene with and provide support to members of the Black community who are in crisis because of mental health, substance abuse or addiction issues.
[English]
Additionally, there are number of transfers — I also won’t itemize all of them but highlight a couple of key ones. There is a transfer of $800,000 to global health organizations via the Public Health Agency and the International Health Grants Program for Canada’s participation and collaboration in conferences, committees and negotiations regarding domestic and international health concerns to help strengthen Canada’s health system; and a transfer of $700,000 to support Indigenous communities, including initiatives related to clean drinking water, monitoring environmental impacts of oil sands activity and the distribution of 15,000 naloxone kits across Canada.
Other initiatives supported by Health Canada transfers include advancing Indigenous inclusion in the Interdepartmental Indigenous Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Cluster; supporting the National Drug Toxicity Indicator Harmonization Pilot; and hosting the Public Service Pride Network.
[Translation]
In conclusion, as per Health Canada’s mandate, we strive to improve and protect the physical and mental health of all Canadians, while respecting Canada’s cultural and economic diversity.
[English]
The department is committed to a health care system that delivers real results for Canadians and builds a stronger foundation for the future. The proposed spending in the supplementary estimates will ensure that the government can continue to focus on important health priorities that are designed to result in better health outcomes for Canadians.
[Translation]
Thank you again for inviting us to appear before the committee today.
[English]
We are happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Senator Marshall: I’ll start with the Canada Revenue Agency. I was looking at what they’re requesting in Supplementary Estimates (B), and then I’m looking at what’s planned for next year with regard to the reductions. Can you give us some insight into how you’re going to decrease the modernizing government operations? What do you plan to do there? It’s $118 million. Can you give us some insight, probably in a minute and a half?
Mr. Pagé: As part of the Comprehensive Expenditure Review, you would have seen that the agency contributed some savings, and those savings are being reinvested partially to generate more revenues for the federal government. And the objective with those reinvestments is to generate roughly, at maturity, $1.1 billion per year.
The savings will come from different areas. There are a number of programs that the government has decided to stop: the fuel charge, for example, the underused housing tax. So those are savings we’re putting forward. In addition, we’ve also been working toward improvement and efficiencies through the use of technology, and that’s where the savings that you mentioned are coming from.
Senator Marshall: Can you tell us something about tax collections? Because you’re saying you’re going to strengthen tax compliance and debt collection. And your receivables are going up each year, and the allowance is also going up each year. So are you going to strengthen the tax compliance and debt collection so all taxpayers feel they’re being fairly treated?
Mr. Pagé: You’re correct in saying that the tax debt has been growing. There are a number of factors that contributed to that. The fact that the revenues have also been growing would explain partially why the tax has been growing, as well as economic factors.
As part of the comprehensive review, there will be initiatives aimed at providing our employees with better systems, better information, tools that will help them, like as AI and others, such as process automation, to make it easier for employees to focus on the more challenging tasks with humans and leave the more day-to-day tasks to be performed with the help of those tools. We’re also proposing to retain some of the employees we had hired temporarily to help us.
Senator Marshall: It says you’re going to collect $655 million the first year, and then it will increase. How do you measure it? The Canada Revenue Agency has been given lots of money in the past to increase tax revenues, but we can’t make the connection. How are you going to measure that? How will we know you actually collect it back?
Mr. Pagé: We do have reporting requirements to the Treasury Board Secretariat. Whenever we get new funding either for collection or for compliance activities, there is always a target set, and we have to report back to the centre to see how we’re progressing.
Senator Marshall: What about for us Canadians and parliamentarians, because we can never see it?
Mr. Pagé: Specifically? There are some reports where we show progress in terms of our efforts in terms of compliance. The tax gap report that you’re familiar with is one of those reports. Some of that information would be in there, but we don’t necessarily have a report we chose specifically for this initiative, saying this is how much revenue is generated.
Senator Marshall: For Health Canada, I’ve seen the dental program is very expensive. There is $3.2 billion in the Main Estimates, and now there’s an additional $1.6 billion. I saw something that said 10 million individuals were costing $480 per person, but then I saw the minister said it was 6 million people at $800 per person, on average. What’s the right number?
Mr. Higgs: I’ll defer to my colleague Assistant Deputy Minister Lynne René de Cotret.
Senator Marshall: Has there been any review or audit activity in that area? We didn’t think that program was going to cost so much. Has there been any audit activity in that area?
Mr. Higgs: Yes, there was one financial controls audit that was undertaken and completed earlier this fiscal year. It was, overall, a positive outcome of the audits.
Senator Marshall: Is that audit publicly available?
Mr. Higgs: That’s a good question. I will get back to you.
Senator Marshall: Could you please send it to the clerk? I would be very interested in reading it.
If our new witness could give me the correct number, how many people?
Lynne René de Cotret, Assistant Deputy Minister, Oral Health Branch, Health Canada: To date, we’ve had 2.4 million members who have actually gotten care.
Senator Marshall: Only 2.4 million?
Ms. René de Cotret: Yes.
Senator Marshall: The minister said 6 million.
Ms. René de Cotret: That’s almost 6 million Canadians who are eligible to go to the dentist to get care. We’re enrolling people every day, so they may not have all gotten the chance to go get care yet.
Senator Marshall: So you’re saying 2.4 million people are costing $4.8 billion?
Ms. René de Cotret: Well, no. What we’re saying is that by the end of the fiscal year, we are anticipating this number to continue to grow because every day people are going to get care. By the end of the fiscal year, we are anticipating that it will have cost, for this fiscal year, about $4.32 billion.
Senator Marshall: Is there a cushion in there?
Ms. René de Cotret: A cushion? No, it’s what we’re predicting will happen at the end of the year, and we have to be able to pay the dentists for the care they’re providing. Because of the fiscal envelope and the fiscal timelines, we are asking for the reprofile now. It’s moving the money around from fiscal year. It’s not net new money.
Senator Marshall: So what happens to the savings if you don’t spend the full $4.8 billion?
Ms. René de Cotret: We will then reprofile it in future years.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you for being here this evening.
My first question is for Mr. Pagé or Ms. Serjak.
For a number of years now, I have been drawing attention to the fact that millions of Canadians don’t file income tax returns and so don’t get the assistance they should normally get from public funds. I’m pleased to note that budget 2025 will improve things a bit by making it easier for Canadians to register. Despite the pre-filled forms and the tax information exchanges, certain benefits require information from the agency that it doesn’t have. I’m thinking of medical expenses, donations, rent and so on. Has the agency come up with solutions to get around this issue of missing information so that pre-filled tax returns can be as accurate as possible?
Melanie Serjak, Assistant Commissioner, Assessment, Benefit, and Service Branch Canada Revenue Agency: Thank you for the question.
[English]
This is an initiative that we are currently formulating in terms of how it will work and how the procedures and pieces of information will be utilized to fill in a pre-filled tax return, for example. A lot of it is based on information holdings that the Canada Revenue Agency already has in its purview.
As we continue to analyze the rollout of that particular initiative, we will be identifying some of the information gaps and data-holding gaps that we may have and then attempting to source those pieces of information. That’s a review that’s currently in progress.
[Translation]
The answer to your question is that we will have to determine that. We’re going to try to get around that problem, but we will see how to do it and whether it’s possible.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
At this stage, in terms of objectives, are we able to know what benefits will be available through this pre-filled form?
Ms. Serjak: At this point, we can draw on expectations we have set in the past through our other programs that deliver services to improve an individual’s ability to file their tax return. We are talking about tens of billions of dollars in benefits that are provided to Canadians through these efforts. Although we don’t have a specific figure for the benefits we expect to provide through this initiative, we’ll be able to send you the information once we have those clarifications.
Senator Forest: When the program is developed in more detail… Do I understand correctly that this isn’t the same thing as the pre-filled tax return project that we have been waiting on for quite some time? It isn’t quite the same thing? Is that pre‑filled tax return project still in the works? Is this a first step in that direction?
Ms. Serjak: Yes, indeed, we have made a number of efforts so far to get to this stage. We have had various versions, if I can put it that way, for Canadians so that we can support them in their efforts, but there has never been a pre-filled return. We have simplified the process for certain demographic groups within the Canadian population to make it easier for them. This initiative is the next step in the continuum of simplifying the process for Canadians.
Senator Forest: We’re talking about the most vulnerable Canadians, the poorest Canadians in our society.
Finally, Mr. Pagé, approximately $34 million is earmarked for Quebec in administrative adjustments. What exactly does that include?
Mr. Pagé: In Quebec, as you may know, GST is administered by Revenu Québec. We compensate Revenu Québec for those efforts. Every five years, we reassess the costs; the amount represents an adjustment that we pay to Revenu Québec.
Senator Forest: It is retroactive?
Mr. Pagé: Yes.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: My questions are around the Department of Health and the focus on the Canadian Dental Care Plan. What we understand from what you’ve said today and what we’ve heard from the Treasury Board and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, is that the increased amount of $1.6 billion is because of the larger number of people who are accessing services than you anticipated.
Do you anticipate that, over time, the extra bump will go down and the overall program over the period of five years will be close to what is anticipated? Can you confirm whether that anticipated cost over a five-year period is $10 billion?
Mr. Higgs: The funding is ongoing in nature. The future-year funding amounts vary a little bit year over year in part because of the reprofile that you see in the supplementary estimates, where we take funding from future five years and move it back to this fiscal year. It eventually does level out at approximately $4.1 billion by 2030. Around there, it levels out at about $4.1 billion annually.
Senator Cardozo: Is that what was anticipated when we started this program? What year are we in now? Are we in year 2?
Ms. René de Cotret: Yes, we’re in year 2, barely year 2.
In terms of the outer years, as Mr. Higgs mentioned, we’re anticipating the funding to be more stable. What we have seen is pent-up demand that has been greater than we initially anticipated. We started off with the seniors. In large part, they haven’t seen an oral health provider for years, so there were a lot of fillings and dentures that we provided for. Dentures is a good one. You have a denture in year 1, and the next time you can actually go get a denture is in eight years. That fluctuation wasn’t accounted for when we first did our estimates. That’s why the profiling of the money needed to be adjusted to reflect the needs of the population.
Senator Cardozo: Can you tell me how the process works? Is it individual dentists filing with you for reimbursement? How smoothly is that process going?
Ms. René de Cotret: We have a contract in place with Sun Life, and they are the benefits’ administrator. So a member would go to the dentist. The member does not pay out of pocket because cost is the main driver as to why people were not going to get oral health care. The provider submits an estimate to Sun Life, and Sun Life is the one that reimburses the provider.
For the majority of services, this is done automatically, and I believe it is within 48 hours that the funds are transferred to the provider. For more complex procedures, like crowns, for instance, private plans submit an estimate. Sun Life responds as to what would be covered, and then the provider would provide care and submit the claim.
Senator Cardozo: Is it more or less like the public service process where we would file and get something like an 80% return as opposed to 100%? It seems to me you are saying the dentist would be reimbursed 100%.
Ms. René de Cotret: So the fees under the Canadian Dental Care Plan are not the provincial-territorial-suggested fee guide. They are aligned with NIHB, the Indigenous Non-Insured Health Benefits plan, and we cover, I would say, about 80%. Some procedures are a little more, depending on the service, but it is around 80%. It could be about 90%, depending on the service.
The member may pay something out of pocket if, for instance, the provider decides to balance bills, so charge the difference of what the plan doesn’t cover. Then we also have members who have a copay based on their net family income. So between $70,000 and $80,000, the government would pay 60%, and the member would pay 40%. If it is between $80,000 and $90,000, the government would pay 40%, and the member would pay 60%. So that is built —
Senator Cardozo: So the person knows that when they arrive at the dentist’s office?
Ms. René de Cotret: Yes. When they’re enrolled, they get their member card, and it is written exactly what their coverage is.
Senator Cardozo: The transfer from the Department of Health to the Public Health Agency of Canada for the World Health Organization, $125,000 — what is that? Is that money going to the World Health Organization as some kind of a fee we are paying to the WHO?
Mr. Higgs: I apologize. I would have to get back to you on the details of what that $125,000 is for.
Kendal Weber, Assistant Deputy Minister, Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch, Health Canada: I will be very quick. We transfer $125,000 to the WHO for the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. So it is a contribution to help build capacity in developing countries that have to put regulations in place to understand the emissions from tobacco products and also the ingredients going into tobacco products. Canada has these regulations already, but other countries do not, and so we are supporting them with that capacity building so that we can tackle the tobacco control issues globally.
Senator Ross: My question is also for Health Canada. It says $430 million was spent in 2024-25 for professional and special services. I’m wondering how much has been spent this year to date and whether any of the $1.6 billion in these estimates for the dental program is going to professional and special services. What does that cover and how much?
Mr. Higgs: I can start with the second part of your question. The $1.6 billion you see in the supplementary estimates as a reprofile is not for professional services. It is for the benefits of the Canadian Dental Care Plan, so the payment of claims.
In terms of your first question, I don’t have that level of detail in front of me. I think your question was around the change in spending on professional services from 2024-25 to this fiscal year. That is something we can provide you quickly at a level of detail following this meeting.
Senator Ross: I have another question, also about the Canadian Dental Care Plan. One of the things we heard from the Canadian Dental Association is there was a concern businesses may curtail, cut off or lower their coverage for their employees in their own corporate dental plans. Have you seen this happening? Have you tracked the level at which that is occurring, or if it is, in fact, occurring?
Ms. René de Cotret: So that is something we’re watching, but I don’t have any data at this point.
Senator Ross: If that were to happen, it would seem to me that there would be increased costs to the dental plan or the dental program that were unanticipated, because I think your projections were based on people who don’t have dental coverage, but these are people who do have dental coverage but may lose it or get transferred to the plan.
Ms. René de Cotret: You are correct. If there is that displacement, then that would put pressure, for sure, on the plan. As I said, I haven’t necessarily seen it, but we are only one year and seven months in. We started off with seniors, who are typically retired. Now we have onboarded the 18- to 64-year-olds, so more the working population. We are watching. We do have a requirement for employers to disclose on the T4 and T4A whether a dental care plan was offered so we could track with time to see if there is any shift there. But I don’t have any data.
Senator Ross: Thank you very much.
I had another question. This one is for the CRA. One of the things that the Office of the Auditor General, or OAG, found was that there were challenges getting accurate and consistent answers from the call centres. I wonder if you can speak to what is being done about that and how you are going to address that going forward.
Ms. Serjak: Thank you very much for the question. With regard to the OAG’s audit, the CRA does agree with the findings and the recommendations. Perhaps I can provide a little bit more context or precision with regard to the accuracy and complete this piece that you ask about.
We have calls that come in to our general inquiries line that are either general or account-specific. The problem that the OAG found was really with regard to the 20% of phone calls we receive that are non-account-specific. They tested about 150 phone calls and resulted in a 17% accuracy rate for that 20% of non-account-specific calls.
Even though the CRA runs our own quality-assurance program where we test over 100,000 calls per year for accuracy — where we do achieve an over 90% accuracy rate — that particular finding from the OAG is as concerning to us as it is for anyone who reads the report. So we have committed to reviewing our quality evaluation framework that we have in place already for our agents to see if we have the balance right. We call them the agent scorecards, which is how we keep track of an agent’s not just performance on the phone but all their training and coaching needs that are necessary.
So we are reviewing and potentially calibrating some of the weighting that we put on their scorecards with regard to accuracy. We are also making adjustments to our training and coaching programs in order to have more just-in-time interventions, so to speak. So it is something that we take seriously, but I want to say rest assured we do have some robust evaluations in place. For the vast majority of the phone calls and answers we provide to Canadians, we do have a very high-level accuracy rate. It was just that one pocket that we are now addressing.
Senator Ross: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Welcome to our witnesses.
Ms. René de Cotret, we’re very lucky to have you, because we have a number of questions relating to dental care.
The public accounts that were recently published revealed that dental care cost $2 billion in the last fiscal year. There were two items in the public funds: one was dental care benefits, which amounted to $1.6 billion, and the other was the administration of the dental care plan, which amounted to $314 million. Am I to understand that the $341 million is going to Sun Life? Or is it because new public servants were hired, and that was very expensive? What does the $314 million in dental care administration costs represent?
Ms. René de Cotret: That budget line includes a number of partners who help us fulfill our mandate. Service Canada helps us determine eligibility based on the criteria we have established, so we’re talking about the systems and the call centres, and people can apply for the plan in person. Service Canada receives the money. The Revenue Agency also receives some money so that it can give us the information we need to determine, for example, where members live, adjusted net family income and the Sun Life contract.
Senator Gignac: How much of the $314 million will go to Sun Life? Can we have that in writing if we don’t have it tonight?
Ms. René de Cotret: Yes.
Senator Gignac: Thank you.
Second, I would like you to reassure me. When the 2023 budget was announced, the government said that it would cost $13 billion over five years, but that on a recurring basis, it would be $4 billion per year. However, we’re already above $4 billion for the current year. We learned earlier that of the 6 million Canadians who are eligible, only 2.4 million are registered. Please reassure me that the projected amount will still be $4 billion on a recurring basis, and if not, what are your new estimates? On a recurring basis, what will be the pace in two or three years?
Ms. René de Cotret: I think it’s $4.4 billion afterward.
Senator Gignac: However, that’s the case this year, but only 2.4 million Canadians are registered out of the 6 million who are eligible. That makes it hard for me to believe that it will really slow down, because I think we’re moving at a faster pace.
Ms. René de Cotret: There are 6 million Canadians who are now members and can go see a dentist. Of those 6 million Canadians, 2.4 million have done so. We’re already halfway through the year. We expect that more people will go each day, depending on when they can get appointments, and so on. We expect the number to continue growing between now and the end of the year. That’s why we have asked for some funds in advance so that we’re able to pay.
Senator Gignac: I’m not debating that. When it comes to the forecast that was made two years ago that it would be a recurring amount of $4 billion per year, do you think that’s still relevant, or do you think the dental care program will have a higher amount on a recurring basis? There was talk about $4 billion per year after four years of implementation. Are you still comfortable with that forecast? I say this because the program is more popular than you thought it would be; let us be honest.
Ms. René de Cotret: The needs are greater than we thought. Especially among people who hadn’t been to the dentist in several years, the needs were great. That’s obviously something we’re monitoring closely. We’re working to update our forecasts. I believe that once we have two years of experience — we barely have one year of experience; we’re so new — we’ll be in a better position to be more confident.
Senator Gignac: We will invite you back.
Last year, administrative costs were 15%. Two billion dollars divided by $300 million equals 15%. In your opinion, on a recurring basis, what will be the percentage associated with administrative costs when Sun Life, the Revenue Agency and others are included? Will it be closer to 5%, 2% or 10%?
Ms. René de Cotret: I can’t tell you tonight. We’ll have to get back to you with those figures and the trend we’re seeing.
Senator Gignac: If it’s possible to have an opinion.
Senator Dalphond: To continue with the question that was just asked, the $314 million represents the costs anticipated this year for the full dental program. With a budget that used to be $4.3 billion and is increasing to $6 billion, we’re talking about 5% and not 15% for administrative costs.
Senator Gignac: It was 15% last year.
Senator Dalphond: Does that mean administrative costs are heading toward 5% this year?
[English]
Mr. Higgs: I can get back to you with details on that. I think there are two separate pots of funding, both are special purpose allotments. One is the funding that is for the benefits, so payments of the claims. That is what the $1.6 billion relates to in the supplementary estimates. Then there is the contract with the third-party provider to administer the program, which is a separate set of funds. We can get back to you with ratios or percentages if that would be helpful.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
[Translation]
This question is for the Revenue Agency.
You mentioned earlier that the Canadian carbon rebate program for small businesses needed to be completed. In the spring, the government put an end to the rebate program for consumers across Canada, except in British Columbia and Quebec. How many full-time equivalent jobs do you estimate were assigned to managing those two programs?
Mr. Pagé: I don’t have the number of full-time equivalent positions, but I can tell you the approximate budget to give you an idea. We took the amounts received to administer those programs. That totals approximately $118 to $120 million.
Senator Dalphond: Per year?
Mr. Pagé: Per year, yes.
Senator Dalphond: Roughly how many full-time equivalent positions is that?
Mr. Pagé: If we divide the amount by 100,000, yes, that represents approximately 1,200 full-time equivalent positions.
Senator Dalphond: What will happen to those people? Will they become redundant? Will they be reassigned elsewhere, for example, to recover unpaid amounts?
Mr. Pagé: As I said earlier, in our proposal as part of the cost reduction exercise, we identify savings and then reinvest to generate revenue. There will be opportunities to reallocate funds and potentially reallocate people. We’re currently looking at what that means exactly. Do people have the right skills? Do they have the profile we’re looking for? That analysis is ongoing.
Senator Dalphond: Could you send us details on how many employees were assigned to the two programs that are disappearing, in full-time equivalent positions or in millions of dollars, so that we can see what’s going to happen at that level?
As for the recovery of unpaid taxes, how are things going with recovering emergency payments from the pandemic? There was talk of $8 billion to $9 billion. At one point, there was talk of $10 billion being recovered or collected. There were perhaps $2 billion or $3 billion that were the subject of settlement discussions. Where are things at now, five years after the payments were made?
Mr. Pagé: There are benefits paid to individuals and benefits paid to businesses.
Senator Dalphond: For the benefits for individuals.
Mr. Pagé: For individuals, there are still about $11 billion in benefits that need to be recovered.
Senator Dalphond: Out of how much in total?
Mr. Pagé: In terms of the total amount that was paid, I think roughly $70 billion was paid in total, the net amount.
Senator Dalphond: The clawback was $11 billion, then?
Mr. Pagé: Those are the amounts that are owed. Efforts have been made. We’ve already recovered $3.2 billion, but there is still about $11 billion to recover.
Senator Dalphond: Out of the approximately $14 billion in excess?
Mr. Pagé: If we want to round, yes. Those amounts still have to be recovered. You probably saw that the budget gave us funds for two years to continue our recovery efforts. Employment and Social Development Canada will receive the money, but it’s there to help us with our recovery efforts. At the agency, the challenge we face is that we have many tools to help us with recovery. For example, when someone is entitled to a tax refund, we can take that money as reimbursement, or when someone is entitled to a GST credit payment—
Senator Dalphond: It’s been five years.
Mr. Pagé: Yes, but as long as collection activities continue, the clock can sometimes start again depending on the situation. All that to say that these tools are available, except when we’re talking about people who live below the poverty line. One challenge we face is that, of the $11 billion, a significant portion of people don’t have much income. For that reason, we think it’s going to be difficult to recover that amount. In any case, we know that we won’t recover the entire amount.
Senator Dalphond: How much can the government expect to lose?
Mr. Pagé: Year after year, we set aside amounts in our financial statements based on what we expect to recover. According to accounting estimates — which aren’t necessarily what will actually happen — we believe we’ll be able to recover approximately $1.5 billion from the $11 billion.
Senator Dalphond: Does that mean the government is losing $9 billion to $10 billion?
Mr. Pagé: Potentially, according to the accounting estimates.
The Chair: Your departmental plan mentions the collection of $1.2 billion in outstanding tax debts attributable to investments made under the 2021 budget. Is that the $1.5 billion you’re referring to?
Mr. Pagé: If you look at our financial statements, the $1.5 billion is the balance.
The Chair: In the departmental plan, the $1.2 billion is roughly what you’re going to recover?
Mr. Pagé: Yes. My figure of $1.5 billion is as at March 31, 2025, so there may be a time lag as well.
The Chair: I had it in your departmental plan, and I wanted to balance out the number.
Mr. Pagé: That’s fine.
[English]
Senator MacAdam: The Supplementary Estimates (B) include $71.7 million for additional measures to combat tax evasion. I’m wondering if you could expand on that.
Mr. Pagé: There are a few initiatives included in this amount. Of the $71.7 million, there is $20.8 million to address schemes and unwarranted refunds, and that’s mainly for T1, so for individuals. We also have an amount of roughly $4.9 million for the T3 verification program to fight tax evasions with trusts.
We also have $30.2 million to continue efforts on the COVID programs for businesses. Earlier, I was talking about programs for individuals. The $30 million is for businesses. I think that’s it.
Sorry, we have $18.8 million for high-risk non-filers, so individuals who don’t file taxes but have taxes owed. With these efforts, we expect we will bring $2.9 billion in federal revenues over the next five years.
Senator Kingston: Welcome, everybody. My first question is for the Department of Health. Just to follow up on the dental care program, congratulations on your work on this. This really improves the health of a lot of Canadians. Although the federal government may not see the savings, I’m confident that the provincial governments will, in terms of oral health and all types of other things.
When you talk about members and you talk about the sliding scale — I like to think of it as how much people co-pay — you talk about family income; I heard you say that at one point. Are the members one member each? If I have four people in my family, it counts that my family income is what is assessed, but I actually have four members in that family, so you’re counting each person: children, parents and so on. Would that be correct?
Ms. René de Cotret: Yes.
Senator Kingston: The other thing I would like to ask you is how much is covered. There is dental care, and there is Cadillac care. Do you have a specific suite of things that you cover for people who are eligible for the program?
Ms. René de Cotret: Yes. There are many services that go from preventative scaling and polishing, exams and X-rays to diagnostic, some of what I’ve mentioned. It is a broad-based basket based on medical need.
Senator Kingston: I think about companies saying they’re going to scale back on their insurance coverage. If you think about Blue Cross for medical needs, for instance, I pay into Blue Cross, but I am also covered by medicare. So wouldn’t it end up to be something like that in the future in terms of how much the government kicks in, if you will, as opposed to the companies? I can’t see them being off the hook completely; it doesn’t make sense to me.
Ms. René de Cotret: If a company offers a dental care plan to their employees, that employee would be ineligible for the Canadian Dental Care Plan. If the company has offered and the employee has refused, they are still considered to have access to a dental care plan. They would be ineligible to the Canadian Dental Care Plan because it was meant to fill in the gaps.
Senator Kingston: They would probably be somewhere on the sliding scale and not completely covered anyway if the public plan was accessible to them.
Ms. René de Cotret: If the public plan was accessible and they had no other employer plan or private plan, then they would have access, like they have access to —
Senator Kingston: The copay would be larger depending on their income?
Ms. René de Cotret: Depending on their income.
Senator Kingston: One short question for the CRA about the Disability Tax Credit: There is a list of health care providers who can assess the need for that tax credit. It is a long list, but nurses aren’t on it. There are two things that are problematic with that, in my opinion. One is that very often a person has to pay to get the form filled out, and it’s far more likely that there is a registered nurse who is already employed by some health authority who could help out with that.
Second, it doesn’t seem to make any sense to me that an occupational therapist would necessarily have any more skill in assessing functionality than a nurse. I’m just wondering how that can be changed to increase accessibility for people.
Ms. Serjak: Thank you for the question. When it comes to the Disability Tax Credit, it’s a highly sensitive, highly complex application process because of all of the medical practitioners who need to be involved in the assessment and the subsequent evaluation. We are constantly looking at ways to either ease or simplify the process to ensure that those who are eligible for it are able to access it, pay the fee and get it in a reasonable amount of time.
We are in constant communication with the Department of Finance on ways to tweak either the legislation or the review that is required.
The issue of nurses has come up many times. Unfortunately, I don’t have more of a precise answer to give you as to the reasons why they have or have not been included to date, but we can certainly return with a little more information. Your question is noted, and it is a popular topic.
Senator Kingston: I would like to compliment you as well on your work on the automatic filing for people. For low-income people, that often makes the difference between being eligible for federal programs and provincial programs and not.
[Translation]
The Chair: This is a good night for receiving congratulations.
Senator Hébert: My question will be for the Canada Revenue Agency, and it follows up a bit on what my colleague asked about tax evasion.
Mr. Pagé, you mentioned that of the $71 million, some $30 million was allocated to the COVID business program. It is for recovering overpayments. Of the $2.9 billion to be recovered, what proportion is from businesses?
Mr. Pagé: I don’t have the breakdown with me. We can send it to you. For the COVID programs for businesses, we have a little less than $1 billion in outstanding accounts to be recovered. To that end, we periodically report to the Committee on Public Accounts. You may recall that there was an audit done by the Office of the Auditor General. As part of our action plan measures, we committed to responding to the Committee on Public Accounts. The report also contains some statistics.
Senator Hébert: I hope we can get our hands on it.
For the $2.9 billion in clawbacks, do you take a sector-by-sector approach? In the past, we’ve seen approaches that targeted certain industries, such as restaurants, for recovery and combatting tax evasion. Are those approaches still being promoted? If so, what sectors will be targeted by your measures?
Mr. Pagé: For these measures in particular, it is not so much sectors as types of behaviours. We target people who do not declare their income, for example, people who earn income but neglect to send us their tax return. We’ll be looking for that kind of revenue. We also target trusts. We know that when it comes to trusts, there are compliance opportunities to ensure that people pay their fair share of taxes. We also target situations where people are trying to defraud the system. For collecting money, those are the areas that we target.
Senator Hébert: Is there no longer a sector-by-sector approach to recovery for businesses? Is there no longer an approach as in the past, where specific industry sectors were targeted?
Mr. Pagé: I wouldn’t say that. That represents a small portion of the funds we receive. We have a much broader audit program, and in some cases, when there are industries that are more at risk, such as real property, we could have activities specifically targeted at this type of transaction. There are also risks at the international level. That niche exists, but it’s quite varied.
Senator Hébert: Will we be getting your figures for my first question?
Mr. Pagé: Yes.
Senator Hébert: Thank you.
The Chair: I have a question. For example, if someone lives in Outremont and declares $20,000, there may be a problem. Can you detect that? Do you target that in your criteria? Is that part of your investigative techniques?
Mr. Pagé: I’m not an expert, but I can ask our experts to come in, if you’d like. We have risk-analysis models, and many variables are taken into consideration.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Pupatello: A fantastic question. You should target all the houses with a very long sidewalk to the front door.
I have a few questions; I’ll ask them all and then I’ll let you answer. As a quick note, I met a group, and I didn’t even know there was an association for prepaid providers. In fact, Michael Penney, who worked here at the Senate, is now working for this organization. In any event, they suggest that loading cards for people versus issuing cheques would mean tremendous savings. Considering you have a big job to find savings in your department, this may be a serious one that actually works well for people. Everyone has a phone. Many people, even on the street, still have a phone. You can load it electronically, so it is actually quite easy. I was impressed with the story they gave us.
Also, I’m curious about the automatic filing. What do you do when there aren’t bank accounts for people? I ran into this in Ontario in our social service system. Many who really need the help don’t have a bank account. So once you do the automatic filing, does it sit in abeyance somewhere in the ether, all the money they’re owed, because you can’t get it to them? I’m curious what you do about that and if you’re working with some outreach to organizations for a special push to get people an account. It’s hard enough getting them an address so they can apply for welfare. I think this will take some special outreach on the social side. That may be something to consider.
For the language around “evasion,” I would like you to consider using “omission” because “evasion” connotes a particular move to evade as opposed to — many people, with a complicated tax system, although not nearly as complicated as, say, the Americans’, really do make mistakes, and then it becomes errors and omissions. So, I think, just give them the benefit of the doubt that you’re chasing money that you’re owed, but it’s not necessarily because they’re evading. That is just a thought.
On the CRA, could you please clarify what you just said about the error rate? Because if I understood you correctly, that would have been very good information when the Auditor General tabled that report that the error rate is, in fact, far better than what we were led to believe. I’m really questioning why that wasn’t clearer in the first instance, because we should have known it was 70% on a very small percentage of the total.
I’ll add my kudos. I have never had a problem — I get through on the phone all the time. I do wait and find other things to do, but I have always found the people really helpful, so I was disappointed in the report. I hope there was more work that was done on that front.
On the dental care, could I ask how many provinces offered dental programs? How did you wrap in the federal program with them? Did you find a duplication of the provision so that maybe the provinces now are pulling out of the program in lieu of a federal program existing, so somebody saved there, perhaps? We should be aware of what we’ve saved, say, in Ontario, where we did have a program to help those people.
If I can get a written response, sure, but it may be a quick answer.
Ms. Serjak: Sure, I can take maybe two of the questions you just posed, very quickly. With regard to the clarifications around the OAG audit, yes, we did provide those clarifications. I believe there is potentially a finer print in the report that kind of differentiates that information, but it is there, and we did clarify it on many occasions. We hope to continue clarifying, just for the public’s awareness so that there is a continued trust in the accuracy and in the CRA as an institution, because we’re actually quite proud of the work that our call centre agents do, and the information that they provide is, by and large, accurate and complete. So that clarification was made.
With regard to bank accounts and the automatic tax filing, again, a similar response previously — as we lay out the framework and the process of this particular initiative, these gaps and how we’re going to close them are going to come to light.
When it comes to pre-filled returns, this will be for people we already know and who are in our system on a digital perspective for which we already have data holdings, including bank accounts. There is another piece to automatic tax filing that is just awaiting Royal Assent, and this is the deemed filing legislation that’s coming through. This is a slightly different nuance. So with a pre-filled tax return, a Canadian will have the opportunity to accept or not accept the return. It’s up to them because it’s an assessment that they have to agree to.
With deemed filing, we’re targeting a small part of the Canadian population whom we also know but who haven’t been active for the past year to three years in their tax filing who could benefit from filing a tax return. For those individuals, we will be able to file on their behalf without requiring their consent. This is a small pocket of the population. There are lots of parameters, as you can imagine, around that.
But with regard to the bank accounts, that has yet to be determined how we would deal with that if we did not have that information. More to come on that, but I will leave it there.
Ms. René de Cotret: Quickly, most provinces and territories do have some sort of dental programs. It varies quite a bit. Most would offer some programs aimed at children. There is a significant gap when it comes to seniors, for example, with different income thresholds and so on. We do coordinate benefits with provincial and territorial public plans, and we are the first payer, and the province would be the second payer.
I will provide the committee with a little bit detail — there are nuances in different provinces. In Quebec, we will not cover what is already covered by, for example, the RAMQ. It’s the legislation. We respect their subtleties. We can provide more information in writing about each province and territory.
[Translation]
The Chair: I have a quick question for the CRA.
I noticed in the departmental plan that contracts for Indigenous business in 2023-24 amounted to 12.87% of contracts. This year, it’s down to 5.8%. You’re projecting 5.8%. That’s a 50% decrease in agreements with Indigenous businesses. Is there a reason for that?
Mr. Pagé: The target set by the government is 5%. As a result, it depends on what we buy. Computer equipment purchases, for example, aren’t necessarily made in a linear manner.
The Chair: As we saw, there were fake Indigenous businesses. There was an investigation into them. Is the 5.8% related to that?
Mr. Pagé: No, not at all.
The Chair: Finally, I have a question for Health Canada.
You provide $15 million to Ontario for mental support services for front line health care workers. Does that exist in every province? Will that money also be allocated to the other provinces?
Jocelyne Voisin, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Policy Branch, Health Canada: No. The project is exclusively for Ontario.
The Chair: It’s a specific agreement?
Ms. Voisin: Yes.
The Chair: I hope Quebec hears us.
There is an amount of $2.9 million for Canada’s Black justice strategy. Why is it in the budget for Health Canada rather than the Department of Justice?
[English]
Mr. Higgs: That is an initiative that is led by Justice Canada but involves multiple departments. A portion of that work is under the mandate of Health Canada, but it is led by Justice Canada.
[Translation]
The Chair: Is the $2.9 million the total amount of the program or is that the Health Canada portion?
[English]
Mr. Higgs: It’s the amount for Health Canada. It’s $8.8 million over two years, and $2.97 million is the amount in 2025-26 for Health Canada.
[Translation]
The Chair: Great, thank you. That’s it for my questions.
We have reached the end of our time for the first panel. Thank you so much for appearing today.
Honourable senators, we will now proceed to our next panel. We are pleased to welcome, from the Department of National Defence, Jonathan Moor, Assistant Deputy Minister, Finance, and Chief Financial Officer; Heather Sheehy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel; and Marc Rodgers, Chief of Programme. From Indigenous Services Canada, we have Richard Goodyear, Chief Financial Officer; and Candice St-Aubin, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Health and Social Services.
Welcome, and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear today.
I think you’re regulars here. We’ll have a short statement of four to five minutes, and then we’ll go to questions.
[English]
Jonathan Moor, Assistant Deputy Minister (Finance) and Chief Financial Officer, Department of National Defence: Good evening, everybody. Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to present the supplementary estimates on behalf of the Department of National Defence, or DND, the Canadian Armed Forces, or CAF, and the Canadian Coast Guard.
Today, I am joined by Assistant Deputy Minister of Materiel, Heather Sheehy, and Chief of Programme, Marc Rodgers.
Through the Supplementary Estimates (B), DND is requesting an overall net increase of $35.6 million into departmental authorities. However, it is made up of $1.1 billion of new vote appropriations, which are mainly offset by $1.1 billion of net transfers out to other organizations.
These estimates will help to support DND in delivering on the commitments in our defence policy and delivering on Canada’s commitment to meeting NATO’s Defence Investment Pledge of 2% of gross domestic product in 2025-26. This includes ensuring that our military members have the right tools and the equipment they need to perform the vital tasks we ask of them.
Many of the investments we are seeking through these estimates are capital spending, which includes the request to approve four reprofiles from other financial years. I would like to highlight a few of these for you today.
The Department of National Defence is seeking $294.5 million in support of previously approved defence investments, which are funded through the Capital Investment Fund. These investments will provide modern capabilities across the Canadian Armed Forces as well as updated infrastructure at several of our bases and wings.
These are investments that matter to CAF members. For example, they include $23.7 million for the Counter Uncrewed Aircraft System, which is basically to help protect our Armed Forces deployed in Latvia from drone attacks; $30.5 million for providing modern accommodations for our Primary Reserve units in Sherbrooke, Quebec; $34.5 million for the Special Operations Forces recapitalization project to procure new equipment and vehicles; $47.6 million for the ground-based air defence project to help protect our Armed Forces on deployment; and $59.4 million for supporting our Domestic Ammunition Production Initiative.
The department is also requesting to increase its authorities in 2025-26 to accommodate four funding reprofiles for previously approved projects and programs which require additional in-year funding totalling $700 million. These funds will support the advancement of ongoing projects such as the Future Fighter Capability Project, for $476 million, and the River-class destroyer project, for $215 million, to meet contractual requirements and existing partnership obligations.
Funding will also support two contaminated site remediation programs: in North Bay at the Jack Garland Airport site and the temporary water treatment units for the City of Saguenay.
The Canadian Coast Guard transitioned to the Defence portfolio on September 2, 2025, and $1.76 billion of deemed authorities has since been added to the Department of National Defence’s spending authorities. Through these supplementary estimates, the department is requesting a further $22 million to support a number of their initiatives: $5.2 million for marine spot chartering, $12.6 million for emergency towing services on the West Coast and $3.6 million to reinvest revenue received which is associated with oil spills. These estimates also include other initiatives to provide equipment and improve support services for members of our military.
While these requests amount to a significant increase in our departmental authorities, they are largely offset by $1.08 billion in transfers to a number of other departments and agencies that continue to support the Canadian Armed Forces. Of this amount, $962 million relates to transfers in support of the government’s Defence Industrial Strategy.
The funding we are requesting through these estimates is critical to protecting Canadians and supporting our allies and our partners to help mitigate the threats both now and into the future.
In conclusion, Mr. Chair, the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian Coast Guard continue to deliver on their core national mandates while ensuring financial accountability and effective resource management.
My colleagues and I would be pleased to address any questions or comments you may have. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. Goodyear, please.
Richard Goodyear, Chief Financial Officer, Indigenous Services Canada: Good evening. Thank you for the invitation to discuss the fiscal year 2025-26 Supplementary Estimates (B) for Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC.
Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that I am here today with you on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe People.
As Chief Financial Officer at ISC, it is a great pleasure to join you today with several of my colleagues to discuss and answer any questions you may have on these estimates.
ISC’s Supplementary Estimates (B) 2025-26 reflect a net increase of $1.3 billion, of which $1.2 billion is in vote 10, grants and contributions. With this increase, ISC’s total authorities for 2025-26 will be $26.7 billion.
[Translation]
ISC will continue strengthening emergency management in First Nation communities, while advancing equitable access to health services for First Nations, Inuit and Métis, supporting on‑reserve education, improving child and family services and reducing critical infrastructure gaps.
[English]
The key initiatives in these Supplementary Estimates (B) 2025-26 include $705.9 million for All Hazards Emergency Management in First Nations communities to reimburse First Nations, municipalities, provinces, territories and third-party emergency management service providers for eligible expenditures related to on-reserve emergency response and recovery activities. Climate-related emergencies have been increasing in frequency and severity, creating greater demand for emergency mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery funding.
New funding of $154.6 million is sought for the First Nations Elementary and Secondary Education Program, enabling the department to continue supporting First Nations elementary and secondary education on-reserve. This is based on the co‑developed policy approach implemented in 2019, by ensuring that First Nations students benefit from levels of support directly comparable to those available to students in provincial schools.
[Translation]
There is $87.9 million for reforms to the First Nations Child and Family Services program, ensuring the equitable delivery of child and family services. This funding will provide First Nation agencies with sufficient resources to deliver adequate housing for children and families.
There is $74.9 million for the continued implementation of the Inuit Child First Initiative, allowing ISC to ensure that Inuit children can access the health, social and educational products, services and supports they need.
This initiative contributes to the departmental result “Indigenous Peoples are physically well”.
[English]
Alongside supporting these key initiatives, our department has continued to work closely with Indigenous partners and has made significant progress in advancing its mandate to address socio-economic gaps in health and well-being between Indigenous Peoples and other Canadians while supporting Indigenous self-determination.
Foremost, we have facilitated the exercise of jurisdiction by Indigenous governing bodies, supporting the signing of eight new coordination agreements in 2024-25, bringing a total of 14 signed agreements under An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families by March 31, 2025.
As of March 2025, there were 18 coordination agreement discussion tables and at least four new tables expected to restart within six months. A total of 16 Indigenous child and family service laws aided by the act were in force.
[Translation]
In response to natural disasters, the efficiency of the emergency response and evacuation processes has improved since 2023-24, with the percentage of short-term evacuees that have returned to their community within three months increasing from 67% to 100% in 2024-25.
Additionally, the department has made clear progress in environmental and infrastructure outcomes on reserve, including major improvements in solid waste management, contaminated site remediation and waste water systems, where compliance rose to 97% from 60% just two years ago.
[English]
Indigenous Services Canada has also supported on-reserve housing needs in collaboration with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to advance new builds, renovations and lot servicing in First Nations communities. In 2024-25, this work included 619 completed projects, 1,040 new homes, 3,117 renovations and upgrades, 745 serviced or acquired lots and 3,299 ongoing projects.
Lastly, graduation outcomes are improving. On-reserve secondary school graduation rates are rising, and the number of First Nations students funded by the department who complete post-secondary programs has grown from 1,434 to over 2,000 in recent years.
I look forward to discussing any aspects of these estimates with you and welcome your questions.
Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marsee. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you.
Our round of questions will now begin.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Mr. Goodyear, I was surprised to see that there are savings mandated for your department of $494 million a year for the next several years, because based on testimony that we have received in the past, a lot of the programs are open-ended. They are services to children and families. I’m just wondering how you are going to achieve the savings with so many open-ended programs. Is there a plan to cap some of the programs? That’s my first question.
The second question is this: In the budget book, it says under Indigenous Services, “Final allocation between review themes to be determined following Budget 2025.” I was just wondering what that meant.
Mr. Goodyear: Mr. Chair, thank you for the question. With respect to the $494 million, note that it is 2%, when many departments were having to remit 15%. While absolutely any reductions are difficult, we will be looking at all matters of efficiency and measures that we can do through attrition and so on to meet the target with minimizing the impact on programs wherever possible.
Senator Marshall: Are you looking at caps on some of the programs? I’m thinking about the services to children. I’m looking at Jordan’s Principle and all those issues we have discussed in the past.
Mr. Goodyear: ISC is dedicated to ensuring we continue to provide service to all of our programs, and we will attempt to minimize the impact on all of our programs and use efficiency measures and attrition where possible to get to that target.
Senator Marshall: For National Defence, I met with some Parliamentary Budget Office officials this morning, and we talked about National Defence. I’m aware that the Parliamentary Budget Officer was looking for some information regarding the $81 billion and how it fits with the new defence policy and how it fits with your Departmental Plan. Also, how are you going to achieve the 5% NATO target and where that 1.5% is going to come from? I realize he is waiting for the information, so I don’t expect you to give me the information tonight, although if you have it there, I would be open to receiving it.
When can we expect to see something on it? I know we will get it from the Parliamentary Budget Officer eventually, but barring that, when could we expect to see that? Because with the $81 billion, we don’t have a good breakdown.
Mr. Moor: Thank you very much for the question. We are very happy to work with the Parliamentary Budget Officer and we provide the information to them whenever they ask those questions. In terms of the $81 billion that was outlined in the budget, it was provided to us over a number of different areas. Essentially, the decision which was made by the Prime Minister in June 2025 allocated to us $9.2 billion. The $81 billion is the five-year version of all of those decisions.
Senator Marshall: Is the $9 billion part of the $81 billion?
Mr. Moor: It is the first year of the $81 billion. We have received money for CAF pay. Early this year, pay rises were awarded to our CAF members of 20%, 13% and 8%. That is part of the ongoing funding which has been provided. That is part of the $81 billion. In addition, we received funding for the Defence Industrial Strategy, for Ukraine and all sorts of other activities. All of that is actually outlined in the budget decisions. We will be reporting on that also to NATO in December when we do the next NATO reporting round.
Senator Marshall: Why are there so many transfers in Supplementary Estimates (B)? It almost looks like there is something wrong with the budgeting; it is like there is money going everywhere. Why are there so many transfers? Why wouldn’t that money be budgeted in the departments that it is being transferred to? And for the money you are receiving, why wouldn’t it show up in your initial budget?
Mr. Moor: I think there are a number of different factors. I have to say, going through the details today, I was quite surprised how many there really were — in this over 40 different transfers. I would say they go into different categories. There are certain transfers which are regularly seen in Supplementary Estimates (B) where they are transfers for buying particular services. For example, we transfer money to Global Affairs Canada for them providing us services in missions abroad. They are fairly regular transfers which we operate. However, this year we also have all the transfers associated with the Defence Industrial Strategy.
So, in Supplementary Estimates (A), when I came here to explain to you, we did receive $2.1 billion for the Defence Industrial Strategy. Most of that money is now being transferred in Supplementary Estimates (B) to other government departments.
Senator Marshall: How much of the $2.1 billion has been transferred to other departments?
Mr. Moor: We have retained just under $100 million within National Defence for a number of our own projects, mainly associated with BOREALIS, which is the research and development organization that has been created.
The majority of the other transfers have gone elsewhere. Of that money, $1 billion has gone to the Business Development Bank of Canada, and that is setting up a defence fund for investment in innovation in the future. Others have gone across to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED, and various organizations. In fact, the Canadian Space Agency received $528 million.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you for being here.
Mr. Moor, regarding the fighter jets, we see in the Supplementary Estimates (B) nearly half a billion dollars for the Future Fighter Capability Project. As I understand it, the government is currently reviewing its order for 88 F-35 fighter jets designed by Lockheed Martin. Does that mean it’s a given, based on these credits, that we’re going to buy 16 of the 88 aircraft and the re-evaluation will be on what’s left of the contract?
Mr. Moor: Thank you for your question.
[English]
The Future Fighter Capability Project payments are in line with the existing partnership obligations for the F-35 program.
If you wouldn’t mind, I’ll hand over to Heather Sheehy, who can take you through the details of exactly how that partnership agreement operates.
Heather Sheehy, Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), Department of National Defence: Certainly. Thank you, chair.
As you have mentioned, the F-35 program is under review. The Prime Minister, in March, directed that there be a review to ensure that the F-35 program continues to be the best choice for Canada. That remains ongoing.
In the meantime, plans are progressing for the receipt and introduction into service of the CF-35A, and there are many components of that. There are elements with respect to training, elements with respect to infrastructure and elements with respect to the aircraft themselves.
In terms of direction, the direction right now is to continue with the memorandum of understanding that Canada has signed. We continue to work under that memorandum of understanding. Given that, we continue to be focused on making sure we have that infrastructure and pilots and training in place for the first delivery, which continues to be in 2026.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: When you talk about infrastructure in place, does the $294.5 million include the redevelopment of the hangars in Bagotville, which, according to the general audit, were not compliant?
[English]
Ms. Sheehy: There is money set aside in the CF-35A program to do infrastructure and supporting projects to do infrastructure. You are right; there is infrastructure in Bagotville as well as in Cold Lake. Though that infrastructure is under way, there remains work to be done. We also have in place an interim strategy to ensure that we have the interim capability that will be available as soon as we receive delivery of the first jets.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: The budget breakdown also provides $2,781,976 for the acquisition of temporary water treatment units for the City of Saguenay. Can you explain to me what type of unit they are? When we treat water, are we not treating it permanently rather than temporarily?
[English]
Mr. Moor: We have two different programs under way at the moment with the City of Saguenay. We are assisting in terms of the temporary water units which are providing drinking water for the population. We are also working on a project to completely replace the water treatment centre.
At the moment, in this year, we are continuing to fund an element of the cost of temporary treatment facilities, and we will also be investing in later years in the new treatment facility.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: The units are temporary until a permanent water treatment plant can be set up. Will this plant provide drinking water to the city or to the Bagotville base?
[English]
Mr. Moor: To the whole municipal area, so the city and also the Bagotville base, as well. This is a two-pronged project. One is around the temporary facilities, and then we are well advanced in designing with the City of Saguenay the permanent facilities, which we are also agreeing to fund.
Senator Ross: My question is for you, Mr. Moor: In these estimates, you have $476 million for the Future Fighter Capability Project, and that’s for procurement of aircraft, weapons, associated equipment, infrastructure, training software and so on.
Last year, when you were here talking about Supplementary Estimates (B), I asked you about the Future Aircrew Training Program, and, at that time, there had been a request for $659 million. That was to begin training in 2029. I wonder if you can give me a sense of how the Future Aircrew Training Program aligns with the Future Fighter Capability Project. And of the $659 million from last year, how much was actually spent, what was it spent on, and how much lapsed?
Mr. Moor: Thank you very much for the question.
There are three different initiatives which are going on at the moment. The Future Aircrew Training Program is an initiative to establish a Canadian-based training program for all flight crew, so for all pilots and all the flight crew.
The second initiative is around the Future Fighter Lead-In Training program, which is developing up the approach to take the initial pilots and then turn them into fighter pilots.
The third program, which is under way at the moment, is the Bridge Fighter Lead-In Training program, where we are using pilot training overseas with NATO partners to make sure that our fighter pilots are trained in the intermediate time before the new Fighter Lead-In Training is in place.
Those are the three different projects. I cannot tell you exactly how much we have spent on each of those three projects, but what I can say is that last year we lapsed less than 2% of our budget. We are allowed to lapse up to 5% of our vote 1 budget. We were lapsing at least 5% around COVID time, but we reduced that consistently over the last few years, and in 2024-25, it was less than 2%.
Senator Ross: Thank you. Just to follow up on that, in the 2024-25 Public Accounts of Canada, you had approved funds of $34.7 billion, and $772 million lapsed. What programs had lapsed funding, and in what amounts? What did lapse?
Mr. Moor: We lapsed in different areas. As I said before, in vote 1, which is our operating lapse, it was less than 2%.
We also lapsed money in vote 5, which is our capital expenditure. However, because we have the Capital Investment Fund, the majority of that money can be reprofiled into future years, so we do not lose that. Technically, we lapse it, but we actually do not lose it, which means it gets carried forward.
There is a third category of technical lapses, which are Treasury Board lapses, and I talked earlier about the $1 billion with the Business Development Bank of Canada. That will actually be a technical lapse. Because the vote was in our reference levels, we cannot spend it, so the Department of Finance has said to us, “Please do not spend that $1 billion, and we will give it to the Business Development Bank of Canada separately, and we will treat it as a lapse.”
So the money is being spent. It’s just not going to be shown in our accounts.
Senator Ross: Thank you very much.
Senator Kingston: I would like to follow up a little bit on the Saguenay situation. I would like to understand if this is an issue because the base needs better water treatment and it is old, or if something happened. How did it come to be that you got into this situation with the municipality of Saguenay and their water treatment?
Mr. Moor: I’m not a technical expert, and I certainly cannot say what PFAS actually means, but it is a contamination as a result, to my understanding, of foam and things which they had used in the past to insulate particular tanks. That has leaked into the water system.
It is not a unique thing for the Department of National Defence. I think a number of different departments also have the same problem with PFAS, and the Treasury Board has actually encouraged all departments to set up a remediation strategy for actually dealing with groundwater contamination.
We are not saying it is unsafe. The water is being treated. It is making sure that we have a long-term solution to the contamination and that we clear up the contamination.
Senator Kingston: Thank you.
My next question is for Indigenous Services Canada. You talked about sport in terms of the $154.6 million for the First Nations Elementary and Secondary Education Program. I wonder if parts of those programs have to do with — I’ll call it — the reclamation of language. Are you working with the First Nations to focus on having available language, appropriate language or traditional language in the school system, particularly starting in elementary school?
Mr. Goodyear: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. I’ll ask my colleague, if I may, Karen Campbell to come forward, from the program.
Karen Campbell, Director General, Children, Families, and Learning, Indigenous Services Canada: Good evening. I’m Karen Campbell, Director General of Education at Indigenous Services Canada.
The answer to your question is yes. Our allocations for education include specific amounts for language and culture that are provided to all First Nations in their education programming. They control their education programming according to their priorities and are able to set up systems that reinforce language learning and culture in their schools.
Senator Kingston: Thank you. Just one more little follow-up on the continued implementation of the Inuit Child First Initiative. Can someone talk to me about that and how that is working?
Candice St-Aubin, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Health and Social Services, Indigenous Services Canada: Thank you for the question.
We continue to work together with our Inuit partners on the long-term way forward on the Inuit Child First Initiative, or CFI, so there was a reprofile included in funding for this. We are, of course, waiting for future decisions with regard to additional funding.
In fact, Minister Gull-Masty was speaking to this just this week with Inuit partners, that we as a department remain committed to supporting the needs of the Inuit children who access this program, but also working across our federal family, as well as with other partners, to ensure that the full suite of determinants is met for children.
We do see a heavy demand, of course, for food security, and you may have heard that previously. We do recognize that there is an ongoing need to look beyond just food and bringing in other areas, such as infrastructure investments and income supports as well.
Senator Kingston: There is no educational money, money for early childhood or elementary school embedded in this particular program?
Ms. St-Aubin: It is not embedded into the program per se. Of course, education in the North is provided through the territorial governments, but there is Aboriginal Head Start and other Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care, or IELCC, programming that is available to communities to access. However, what the purpose of Inuit CFI is, much like Jordan’s Principle, is to address any gaps. While there are other investments going in, we do still see, of course, a continuing and growing need as cost of living increases.
Senator Kingston: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: My two questions have already been asked. I’ll give someone else a chance.
Senator Gignac: Thank you to our witnesses for what you do. It’s very important. We have both National Defence and Indigenous Services. These are big budgets that we have to analyze.
I’ll turn to Indigenous Services.
Going back more than a decade, in March 2013, the government of the day passed the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. Two years later, the newly elected Liberal government put all of this on hold and suspended the act, which required First Nations to prepare and disclose financial statements.
However, a few days ago, the Federal Court ruled in favour of an appellant who requested access to the community’s financial documents that Indigenous Services Canada refused to share with the community. Correct me if I’m wrong. The Federal Court ordered the department to provide them with all requested documents within the next 30 days.
My question is this: In light of this decision, does the federal government intend to comply or does it plan to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court? Your budget is still some $20 billion. There is no doubt that the needs of Indigenous people are very important. However, financial transparency and accountability are equally important to us as parliamentarians.
[English]
Ms. St-Aubin: Thank you for your question. I don’t feel that we are necessarily the ones to speak on the choice of the Government of Canada to proceed in any fashion.
What I will say, though, is that we do work with our partners within the communities to be able to provide reporting and audited financial statements. We also work with them in the areas of capacity. As I’m sure you are well aware, there are varying degrees of capacity to be able to report back in a timely fashion, both externally, in trying to find relevant auditors, but also with the need for transparency with regard to the funding and the spending — I will not speak for my colleague here, but I’m sure his role predominantly is to ensure that we do have those audited financial statements in a timely fashion to ensure transparency to all Canadians with regard to where those taxpayer dollars are going.
In terms of whether the federal government will choose to proceed to the Supreme Court, I am unable to address that.
Senator Gignac: I am reading between the lines: You are not opposed to providing information, and you’re opening the door to maybe helping them to provide the financials. That particular case is 1%. That community suspects that something is going wrong with the money, and they want to have information but are unable to get the information, but you have an open mind to help the community to prepare the financial statements in order to be sure that the money is well spent.
Ms. St-Aubin: I can’t speak to that particular case, because it is before the courts, as you know, and there are people being paid far more than I am to work with the legal system in that area. Across all of our areas of services, we always try and build support and capacity where we can. There is a responsibility on the part of communities to be able to deliver those documents, so we do provide capacity in that area to help them prepare it. Whether this case will proceed . . .
Senator Gignac: Since this law has been suspended — because it was adopted in 2013, and the Trudeau government decided to put on hold this application — do you have any community that has released a financial statement, or do you have no community at all that has already had an annual public statement?
Ms. St-Aubin: Thank you for your question. Communities do continuously have to demonstrate their financial audited statements to their citizens. It is not necessarily to us; rather, they are responsible to report to the citizens who have voted and elected them in through various election practices.
So I cannot pinpoint which ones have, given the sheer number of communities within reserves. There may be some that are late or behind, but they are all required to post.
Senator Gignac: For my final question, could you make a request to the Indigenous Services Canada, with a budget of more than $20 billion a year, that you make a survey in all the First Nations communities as to how many of them — what percentage — provide financial statements? In fact, it is quite important, as —— has been a local councillor, and I think all the taxpayers want to know what we’re doing with the money and how much compensation people have when they run government.
So I am just curious to know if ISC is open-minded to make a survey as to what percentage of First Nations, on an annual basis, issue an annual statement.
Ms. St-Aubin: Thank you for that question. We will take that back, I’m sure, but I do appreciate the honourable member’s suggestion. Again, we work with communities to make sure they provide those financial audited statements for their citizens, to whom they are responsible to report, but also working with my colleagues within the financial branch to ensure we receive that in a timely fashion. Thank you.
Senator Dalphond: My first question is to the Department of National Defence. Welcome, sir; it’s a pleasure to have you. Among the transfers you referred to, $528 million, which represents slightly more than 1% of the budget of the Defence Department, is going to be transferred to the Canadian Space Agency, or CSA. According to the PBO, this is no longer being part of the commitment of Canada to reach the 3% target, because it’s no longer under the Department of Defence. Is that going to have an impact on our ability to reach the 3% target?
Mr. Moor: Thank you very much for the question.
I’m in a difficult position here because the Defence Industrial Strategy has not yet been announced by the government. When the government announces the Defence Industrial Strategy, all the details associated with it will be announced at the same time. So I can’t really comment specifically on the proposal around the Canadian Space Agency until the government has made that announcement.
I can say, though, that all of the Defence Industrial Strategy expenditures will be counted within the 2% or 3.5% because all of them have been designed to actually support defence. The Canadian Space Agency is supporting defence in the work it will be doing, which will be announced in due course.
Senator Dalphond: So I understand that the content of the work cannot be disclosed at this time. Maybe it’s about the famous Golden Dome; at least at $500 million we can have a part of it — it’s only one year — half a billion dollars this year.
So you are considering that it will remain part of the commitment to the NATO target, and you disagree with the PBO report that was presented to us last week that says it will no longer be a commitment to the NATO target; is that it?
Mr. Moor: We work very closely with NATO on our reporting. We reported our current forecasts in May of this year. We actually spoke to their Assistant Secretary General last week about the reporting, and we’re going over to Brussels to actually talk about, line by line, exactly what we do include and what we don’t include. So there is a very clear NATO definition of what can be included in the 2% — or the 3.5% in the future — and we work within that guidance.
However, every country has an interpretation of it, and that’s because every country operates slightly differently. For example, my home country of the United Kingdom has a very different health system than Canada does. Therefore, they don’t count the health expenditures the same way we do. That’s true of all the 30 countries.
I’m confident that the CSA funding will be included in the 2%, but I’m also confident that, in total, we have over $30 billion that is being spent by a whole host of different government departments, which also have to comply with the guidance.
Senator Dalphond: So it’s 2%, not 3%, as I mentioned; it is going there but not yet.
My next question is for ISC. It’s about the emergency program. Is it a program that is similar to the one offered by Public Safety to people living off-reserve, in the villages that are maybe 10 kilometres away from the reserve that have to be evacuated as well?
Mr. Goodyear: Thank you for the question —
Senator Dalphond: Do you apply the same kind of guidelines and the same type of compensation?
Mr. Goodyear: While they are similar, they are not the same. I do have a director general here who can help me with that question.
[Translation]
Simon Joubarne, Director, Regional Development, Indigenous Services Canada: My name is Simon Joubarne, and I am the director responsible for emergency management at Indigenous Services Canada.
Thank you for your excellent question.
To answer the question, I have to go back to 2009. At the time, Public Safety Canada managed the on-reserve emergency reimbursement fund.
That said, it wasn’t perfect, and Indigenous communities told us so. What needed to be done at the time — and still needs to be done through the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements program, which is the Public Safety Canada program — is as follows. People file a claim with the provinces and territories. At the time, Indigenous communities, when they were incurring expenses related to emergency management, had to submit their request to the respective provinces and territories. As you see, it wasn’t perfect, and the communities asked to have a direct relationship with the federal government, which was done through the Emergency Management Assistance Program, better known as EMAP. It’s the same as what would be done for a neighbouring, non-Indigenous community. We will always make sure that our lens also respects Indigenous specificities and that we meet Indigenous cultural needs.
It’s not an identical program. Public Safety Canada’s Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements will reimburse only emergency-related expenses. In the case of floods or forest fires, for example, Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements will reimburse the province or territory. We do that as well, but we also handle the other two pillars of emergency management, which are preparedness and mitigation. We offer a variety of programs to help communities prepare for emergencies.
[English]
Senator Pupatello: My question is for Mr. Moor. Can you tell me, of the $9 billion ongoing annualized spending, how much is a portion going to enhancing the compensation for personnel? In the first Supplementary Estimates (A), when we first saw that number, there was a recruitment and retention line; I’m assuming that is an ongoing expense, and I think it is a big chunk of it, which is great. I think there is some trouble getting enough people.
Mr. Moor: Thanks for the question. There is a significant line around CAF pay and compensation, but also within that number there are recruitment and retention allowances. So the pay rise decision, which was 20% for the most junior members, 13% for the vast majority of CAF members and 8% for the most senior members, that’s now a permanent allocation, and that will clearly grow with inflation.
Senator Pupatello: What percentage of the amount is that? A half?
Mr. Moor: The total amount at the moment is $2.2 billion, of which around $2 billion was for pay and allowances. It is not just for pay rises; we also have retention allowances and special sort of expertise allowances as well.
Senator Pupatello: The Coast Guard activity that is now being rolled into Defence — I assume they will also be upping the level of military activity. If you have to shred us after the committee if you tell us what they are doing, I understand, but will they be doing more than their Coast Guard activity?
Mr. Moor: There is a bill in Parliament at the moment around, I think, the Oceans Act, which will expand their responsibilities to military surveillance.
Senator Pupatello: Okay.
Mr. Moor: So at the moment, they don’t do that function.
Senator Pupatello: One other comment. I’m wondering how much would be assigned to the new electronic surveillance technology that is a big assistance in much more coverage of a greater area, like in the Windsor-Detroit corridor, which is 25% of international trade and is an international river that does not have 24-hour surveillance across its waterways, from at least Walpole Island around to Amherstburg, which requires 24 hours, which can be accomplished with electronic surveillance. So I’m hoping that I just leave that one with you on your desk so you continue to hear about this requirement for the most significant cross-border area in the country.
Mr. Moor: So I can’t really comment on how it will operate once the legislation is in place, but what I can say is the Coast Guard do operate in those waterways, and there will be an opportunity to use their ships for a range of different defence and security-related activities, but it’s for the government to decide how that happens.
Senator Pupatello: I will just mention that the Great Lakes are, in fact, great lakes. One boat covers a lot of ground, which is very difficult for them. It really is a matter of resourcing. Thanks for that.
[Translation]
The Chair: I have a quick question for Indigenous Services Canada.
In the Supplementary Estimates (B), an amount is identified as funding for the writeoff of debts owed to the Crown by First Nations as part of legal settlements. It’s $9,549,976. What are the debts owed to the Crown by First Nations? I don’t think I’ve seen that very often.
Mr. Goodyear: Thank you for the question. This is not money that is owed to the government. This is debt that has been written off.
[English]
So, part of the agreement which you’re referring to were accounts receivable that were part of the agreement that would be written off. To have it written off, it needs to be in estimates and approved via this means.
[Translation]
The Chair: The way it is drafted, it reads: “debts owed to the Crown by First Nations,” which suggests that First Nations owe the Crown money as part of the settlement.
[English]
Mr. Goodyear: Unfortunately, it’s probably very technical language, but it is debt written off related to.
[Translation]
That’s how it works. It was like an account receivable that was owed. It’s part of the agreement, so that’s the way we do it.
[English]
We proceed via the supplementary estimates to have that debt written off.
[Translation]
The Chair: Would you like to finish, Ms. St-Aubin?
[English]
Ms. St-Aubin: It’s just normal procedure where there is a debt writeoff, and communities often have debt writeoffs, but we have to put it through the supplementary estimates because it’s part of our core funding.
[Translation]
The Chair: I appreciate that. It’s just that to write off “debts owed to the Crown by First Nations,” you need an amount owed by the First Nations.
Ms. St-Aubin: Yes. Those are the funds that have been granted by the Crown to First Nations.
The Chair: It’s a kind of overpayment?
[English]
Ms. St-Aubin: Yes, or if they were unable to spend and they don’t have proper documentation; it would then become a debt, and in order to write off a debt due, which has to go through various steps and scrutiny, it would be entered into supplementary estimates.
[Translation]
The Chair: Now it’s clear.
[English]
Senator Marshall: There’s funding there for the Montana First Nation settlement agreement, and I’m wondering if that was set up as a contingent liability.
Mr. Goodyear: I do not believe so.
Senator Marshall: Can you just send it to the clerk? Can you check it?
[Translation]
The Chair: That concludes today’s meeting. Thank you all. Thank you to the guests for participating. It’s always a pleasure.
[English]
Senator Dalphond: I may have misled you with my question. I want to correct myself. What is written is that as a transfer rather than an increase in expenditures, it will not further contribute, so it will not be counted twice. I think that’s what you meant and what you said, so I’m okay.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you to the entire technical team, the interpreters, stenographers and analysts from the Library of Parliament. Your work is always appreciated.
We’ll see you on Tuesday, December 2, at 9 a.m.
(The committee adjourned.)