Délibérations du Comité sénatorial permanent des
Finances nationales
Fascicule no 4 - Témoignages du 9 mars 2016 (séance du soir)
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 9, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 6:45 p.m. to examine the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2016 and the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017.
Senator Larry W. Smith (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. My name is Larry W. Smith, a senator from Quebec, and I chair the committee.
Colleagues and members of the viewing public, the mandate of this committee is to examine matters relating to federal estimates generally as well as government finance.
Before we get to the specific topic of today's meeting, let me introduce the other members of the committee.
To my left is Senator Jane Cordy from the beautiful province of Nova Scotia; to my right, Senator Nicole Eaton from Toronto; Senator Percy Mockler from New Brunswick; Senator Elizabeth Marshall from Newfoundland and Labrador; and Senator Richard Neufeld from British Columbia.
[Translation]
This evening we are continuing our study of the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2016, and the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017.
[English]
To discuss these two subject matters this evening, we have officials from three departments. Our first panel is from Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada, who will share time. From Fisheries and Oceans Canada, we have before us Marty Muldoon, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer; Kevin Stringer, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management; and Jefferey Hutchinson, Deputy Commissioner, Strategy and Shipbuilding.
[Translation]
From Employment and Social Development Canada we have Alain P. Séguin, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Financial Branch, and Michel Racine, Senior Director, Planning and Expenditure Management.
[English]
They are accompanied by a delegation of other officials who, if required, may be called to the table to answer specific questions.
I understand each department has an opening statement. We will begin with Fisheries and Oceans, and then we will hear from ESDC, followed by a question period.
I would assume, gentlemen, that you will be able to present Supplementary Estimates (C) and your latest estimates together.
Mr. Muldoon, you have the floor.
Marty Muldoon, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is a pleasure to be here this evening and have this opportunity for this exchange.
Let me start with a brief explanation of Supplementary Estimates (C). We provided a deck for committee members, and I am on page 6 as I begin these remarks. In the interest of time, we know you will want to get into some of the exchange and discussion, so I will be very brief in these remarks.
Supplementary Estimates (C) for our department, this is the second time we have gone through the supply cycle this year. Normally we would be in (A), (B) and (C). We had a very large Supplementary Estimates (A) where we brought in over $200 million for the federal infrastructure funding. Then (B) was after the election, and only departments that had an immediate election item were in Supplementary Estimates (B), so we weren't there. That leaves us with Supplementary Estimates (C) that we will talk about today. It is a bit larger than we would normally have for the size of our department.
Moving on to slide 7, what is before you today for your consideration is a summary table right out of the published Supplementary Estimates (C), page 2-32 in the publication. It basically outlines that there are 25 items that make up DFO's estimates, and they total in the area of $184.5 million. They are listed here in the centre column of our table. It will bring our organization's overall budget authorities this year to some $2.4 million. I will just take a moment now to explain what the key items are that are driving our increase.
Moving to slide 9, if you are following along in the presentation, here are the key requirements provided through the publication that outline our increases.
The storyline, to summarize it before I go into any of the items, is all about capital investment. This is a key driver for us, both on our marine fleet, our land and, as well, you will see the supporting information below that outlines other pieces of our major capital story.
Number one — the biggest item here — is the Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels. This is a three-ship build that is well under way now at the Vancouver Shipyards under the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy. This year we are starting to ramp now the costs, so we are bringing in $116 million. When I give you my remarks in a minute on Main Estimates, you will see another bigger number there, just about a quarter of a billion dollars, as we roll into the heavy build year coming into 2016-17. That is really moving along.
These are supporting Canada's science agenda. These are the key vessels that deliver the science program.
I will not go through every item, but I will go through probably about seven of them.
Next is $23.3 million for incremental operating costs. The next one below is $16 million for incremental fuel costs. Both of these were in-year pressures that we sought relief for from the centre, and we are able to bring the funding in through the Supplementary Estimates (C) now.
The next one is $10.8 million, and this is another of those capital items I talked about for the procurement of 15 of the Canadian Coast Guard search and rescue lifeboats. This is an eight-year build program which will result in 15 new lifeboats, a $175 million program. In the first year we are bringing in $10.8 million, and next year in the Main Estimates we will see another increase in that investment.
A couple of renewal items are listed on the page here: $6 million for the renewal of the funding for the Major Project Management Office. This is what is described here as regulatory reviews for major natural resources projects. That was a program that was running. It was sunsetting in 2014-15, and it was renewed for a new cycle of five years, so we had to bring the money in through supplementary estimates this year. It will be in our Main Estimates again for the coming presentation.
There are two others just like that on this page. Near the bottom we have $1.8 million for marine transportation in the Arctic. That is a five-year program. It is really about developing a comprehensive strategy for the North on modernizing Arctic marine safety in the North.
The bottom item is $1.2 million for meteorological services and navigational warning. That is a five-year renewal of the Coast Guard's provision of navigational aids in the areas of the Arctic where they are required.
Moving along to the Main Estimates. I am switching ahead now to slide 14 in your presentation. I am skipping all the stuff that talks about supply cycles and how that all works, because I know this committee is well aware and familiar with it.
The highlights of our Main Estimates outlined on this page show you that as we move from this year to year, the increase for the organization is $352 million. Again, the story is capital, capital, capital. There is really no increase here for what we would think of as a traditional program increase. It is all about capital, federal infrastructure investment and then all of our major fleet and helicopter programming. That is the big story.
I will move along. None of these items that you see on these pages include anything that may come, obviously, through the budget process later this month. We will be back to see this committee on supplementary estimates, should we be one of the departments that receives any form of incremental investment through Budget 2016.
I am on page 15. It is similar to our Supplementary Estimates (C) story. I will give you the highlights of our Main Estimates.
You will remember I said $350-million-plus increase for the organization. Look at the quick addition on page 15: $290 million for the federal infrastructure initiative; $181 million for the Canadian Coast Guard offshore fisheries vessels that I mentioned earlier in our Supplementary Estimates (C) as well; $25 million for the search and rescue lifeboats — that is the second year of that $175 million build; and the $16 million again for fuel.
Then there are some decreases. It is a year where some things are changing.
The next item is $67 million, a reduction in funding profile for the light- and medium-lift helicopters. That is not a program reduction. We had authorities for a much higher cost structure this year. We have incurred that, and now we are scaling down the amount of authorities required to do year two of this particular build. In year one, in 2015-16 that we are living right now, we were able to acquire the first 15 of the helicopters out of a 22-helicopter program. That was the Bell 429s that were announced publicly. Those are all of our light-lift craft.
We are now turning the corner into the coming year of 2016-17. The plan for this year is to continue the pre-delivery phases of the medium-lift helicopter called Bell 412s. There will be seven of those, plus we will be acquiring a flight simulator for the training on both of these craft.
Long range — not in the Main Estimates for this particular year — is the two polar class helicopters that would go on our polar icebreaker. That will be a few years out yet, but they are part of the same bill profile I was talking about.
Turning the page, and the last one I will come to for these opening remarks is page 16. There are a few more changes. We see reductions. These are all changes that are planned.
Item one, $32.7 million, is the sunsetting of the Pacific and Atlantic Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiative. As well, we see below a couple of changes that occurred. The $23.3 million is called a funding re-profile. This is the other class of the marine fleet that we are building out of the Vancouver Shipyards. I described earlier the Offshore Fisheries Science Vessel. This is the Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel. There will only be one.
The deal here is the initial build for the three OFSVs, the fisheries science vessels, is slightly delayed in its launch. We are now getting that all on track, but it has pushed the fourth build off to the right a little bit. What we are doing here is simply re-profiling these dollars ahead to the right to match up when the build should begin.
The last two items before I end, $22 million for the sunsetting of the Small Craft Harbours program. This is not the actual sunsetting of the program. We had a two-year incremental increase of $40 million. Last year we spent $17.8 million, this year we spent $22.2 million for the $40 million, and that authority is now expiring.
The program continues. It is still well funded. In fact, it is one of the large benefactors under federal infrastructure initiative program that I was describing earlier, the big dollars. Under that program alone it has a $288 million increase over the year we are just finishing and the one that is coming.
Finally, $20.5 million to decrease the funding profile for the mid-life modernization program for the Coast Guard and vessel life extensions. Again, that is not a program elimination or reduction of any kind. It is simply sliding the investment to the right.
The deal with this is these are major refits on our marine fleet. We will bring in a substantial vessel for an overhaul. Sometimes we can't get them in the year we thought we were going to get them in.
This actually isn't very big money for the program. It is a minor slip, and we are moving that money to next year when we can get those vessels into dry dock and get that overhaul done on them.
It is a straightforward story for Fisheries and Oceans and Coast Guard this year.
The Chair: Mr. Séguin.
Alain P. Séguin, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Financial Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: I am pleased to be here before you in my capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of Employment and Social Development Canada. I have with me Michel Racine. I will also call upon some senior executives to assist me with some of the questions on our many programs within the department.
As you know, the department delivers a range of programs and services that affect Canadians throughout their lives. The department provides seniors with basic income security, supports unemployed workers, helps students finance their post-secondary education and assists parents who are raising young children.
The labour program is responsible for labour laws and policies in federally regulated workplaces.
Finally, Service Canada delivers ESDC's programs to citizens as well as other Government of Canada programs and services.
[Translation]
Allow me to present to the committee an overview of ESDC's portion of the 2015-16 Supplementary Estimates (C) tabled on February 19, 2016. Supplementary estimates present information on spending requirements that were either not ready in time for inclusion in the Main Estimates or have subsequently been updated over the course of the year to account for developments in particular programs and services.
Through these estimates, we provide Parliament with an update on various statutory programs. Statutory items are included in the estimates for information only, since Parliament has already approved the purpose of the expenditures and the terms and conditions under which they may be made through other legislation.
[English]
As part of our supplementary estimates, you will note that budgetary statutory items forecasted increased by $4.7 billion. This is mainly due to the Universal Child Care Benefit. The increase in forecasted expenditures for the Universal Child Care Benefit is the result of Budget 2015.
Other than statutory items, ESDC is seeking an additional $238.6 million in voted appropriations. This includes $176 million related to the writeoff of debts owed to the Crown for unrecoverable Canada Student Loans. As a general practice, a separate vote is established for authority to write off debts, and Vote 9 was used for this purpose.
A loan to an outside body is considered a non-budgetary item, since the loan is expected to be repaid. The student loans are an asset for the Government of Canada and, as such, writeoffs become a charge against appropriation and therefore require Parliament's approval.
[Translation]
According to the Debt Write-off Regulations, debts should be written off in the year in which they are determined to be uncollectible. The Debt Write-off Regulations contain criteria under which accounts may be submitted for write-off. The criteria include deceased, bankrupt, cost-effectiveness, statute-barred and hardship.
The request under Vote 9 is consistent with such regulations, as it has been determined that these debts are uncollectible. The Canada Student Loans Program write-off of $176 million is primarily for debts of borrowers who defaulted in repayment in 2008 or earlier, for which efforts to collect the amount owed have not been successful.
The Canada Student Loans Program provides over $2.7 billion in student loans each year, with a total loan account of $17.6 billion at March 31, 2015. The program helps students in financial need access post-secondary education while ensuring accountability for taxpayers' money.
The government is assisting Canadians in managing debt loads through the Repayment Assistance Plan and by implementing measures to improve the repayment and recovery of Canada Student Loans.
[English]
Under Vote 1, operating expenditures, $42 million is requested to implement and administer reforms to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. The Government of Canada began implementing changes to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program in 2014. These changes include measures that focused on facilitating Canadians' access to available jobs, better leveraging labour market information to assess areas of labour shortages and establishing a more comprehensive compliance regime.
Also, ESDC is requesting $15.4 million for the Old Age Security Service Improvement Strategy. The OAS Service Improvement Strategy is ESDC's concerted response to address today's program needs, such as an aging demographic, client expectations and workload pressures and how the OAS program is administered.
In 2012-13, ESDC completed the implementation of automatic enrolment, Category 1, which eliminated the need to apply for the OAS basic pension for 45 per cent of clients. The OAS Service Improvement Strategy builds on this progress.
Finally, you will note a net decrease of $251 million for the non-budgetary statutory items, which include the Canada Student Loans and the Canada Apprentice Loan. This is mainly due to an estimated decrease in both gross loan disbursements and repayments.
I would now like to present to the committee an overview of ESDC's portion of the 2016-17 Main Estimates, tabled on February 23, 2016.
The 2016-17 Main Estimates for ESDC amount to $61.6 billion. Of this, $59.3 billion, or more than 96 per cent, will directly benefit Canadians through the OAS program and other statutory transfer payment programs.
As I noted previously in my presentation on supplementary estimates, statutory items included in the estimates are for information purposes only and have already been approved for the purpose of expenditure and the terms and conditions under which they may be made through other legislation.
You will note that the forecasted spending for the OAS program increases year after year, resulting from the aging population and the planned increase in the average monthly benefit.
In addition to statutory items under Vote 1, operating expenditures, the department plans to spend $608 million in 2016-17, an increase of $46 million from the 2015-16 Main Estimates of $561 million. The increase of $46.6 million is mainly related to additional resources to administer the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. I have already presented the measures that we will be implementing under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, as I indicated in Supplementary Estimates (C).
[Translation]
As for Vote 5 — Grants and contributions, the 2016-17 Main Estimates level is $1.7 billion, a slight decrease from the 2015-16 Main Estimates.
[English]
Through grants and contributions, the department provides funding to other administrations and organizations in the volunteer sector and private sector in order to support projects that meet the needs of Canadians in the workforce and in social development.
You will note that the Employment Insurance benefits and Canada Pension Plan benefits are excluded from the department's Main Estimates. The EI operating account and the CPP account are two specified-purpose accounts. The EI operating account is included in the consolidated data for the Government of Canada. The CPP is not incorporated into the government's financial statements, since it is under joint control of the federal government and participating provinces and territories. EI and CPP benefits are reflected in the department's report on plans and priorities, which I think is already tabled. It's usually tabled in March each year. I think it was tabled last week.
I hope this overview has given you a better understanding of our Supplementary Estimates (C) and our Main Estimates. My colleagues and I would be more than happy to answer your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Séguin. We will start with questions from our senators.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much. My question is for Fisheries and Oceans Canada. As expected, it is on the capital program, which you did a great job of going through for us in your opening remarks.
Can you give us more information? The three science vessels that you were talking about, the ones being constructed in Vancouver, is the estimated cost still around $600 million, or has that number moved?
Mr. Muldoon: Correct. I will let Jeff pick that up from the Canadian Coast Guard side, but you're right; it is still tracking to the adjusted number we reset about a year or so ago. We reset the build cost.
Senator Marshall: Are those three ships identical or are they different? Is it $200 million for each?
Jeffery Hutchinson, Deputy Commissioner, Strategy and Shipbuilding, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: The build cost for each ship is the same. There are minor differences among the ships themselves, but you can think of them as identical. If you had two cars with same colour and same model with different options in the interior, that would be the level of difference we are talking about between the vessels.
Senator Marshall: Are they all going to be finished at one time? I am looking for the date when you take delivery.
Mr. Hutchinson: They will be finished within a fairly short period. We will take delivery of the first ship in mid-2017. We will take delivery of the last ship at the end of 2017, according to the current schedules.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Please provide some information now on the 15 lifeboats. The number I had was around $40 million. Is that still the correct amount?
Mr. Hutchinson: There are two amounts that we are spending on lifeboats right now. Budget 2012 provided $105 million for lifeboats, and Budget 2014 is where you find authority for the infrastructure initiative, and there's more money there for lifeboats. We have $175 million in total to build lifeboats.
It will give us 15 new vessels, and they are our larger class of lifeboat. They're not the 47-footer that you might be familiar with. They're the larger Arun-class 55-footers.
Senator Marshall: What about delivery of those?
Mr. Hutchinson: Those contracts are under way, and we'll be taking delivery of those, if my memory serves correctly, between 2018 and 2020.
Senator Marshall: Finally, the helicopters. I don't have very much information on those, but I think initially in the opening remarks you indicated that there were 15 helicopters.
Mr. Muldoon: Fifteen light.
Senator Marshall: Yes. Did you say there were also two polar?
Mr. Muldoon: Correct. There are seven medium-lift in between. They will come much sooner.
Senator Marshall: What are the costs of those? Could you provide some financial information on those?
Mr. Hutchinson: Yes. Just give me one moment here. The light-lift helicopters are just over $7 million apiece. The medium-lift are just over $13 million apiece. The full-flight simulator is $17.5 million.
I don't have a final figure for you on the polar helicopters. We generally don't release figures on assets until we've negotiated the construction contract, because if we were to start talking numbers now we wouldn't have much negotiating position left, would we?
Senator Marshall: What about delivery on those? I have them now for the boats, ships and helicopters.
Mr. Hutchinson: We took delivery of the last 429, that's the light-lift, just a few weeks ago. They will all be deployed to their bases by the end of March. I have to tell you that that project was on time and under budget, and those are great helicopters.
We know that the medium-lift are under construction now. We've actually seen photos of them. We expect to take delivery of them in 2017. For the simulator as well, the construction will be finished in 2017. I should note that.
Senator Marshall: I had one other question. What is in the statutory number in the Main Estimates? There's a statutory number of $127 million.
Mr. Muldoon: That's our employee benefits.
Senator Marshall: They're employee benefits.
Mr. Muldoon: That's right. It's for information purposes in the publication. It's actually brought in through its own enabling legislation.
Senator Eaton: Thank you, gentlemen. Can you go over again the delays in some of the shipbuilding and retrofits for me?
Mr. Hutchinson: The broad storyline on the delays is this: In the 2007-08 time frame, the government ran two major RFPs for shipbuilding. Both failed, essentially.
Senator Eaton: Sorry, why would they fail?
Mr. Hutchinson: I think the bottom-line reason was that there wasn't a competitive shipbuilding industry in Canada capable of delivering on those contracts. One of them was for our nine midshore patrol vessels that we use generally in cooperation with the RCMP or Fisheries officers for enforcement purposes. The other contract was a DND contract for joint supply ships.
As a result of those failed procurements, the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy was constructed. The underlying reason for that was to identify yards that could create new shipbuilding capacity in Canada. As I'm sure everyone knows, Irving Shipbuilding was given the combat package on the East Coast, and Vancouver Shipyards was given the non-combat package on the West Coast.
I think it would be fair to say that the timing around the original delivery dates was optimistic, that yards would reach their target state faster than they did. I won't speak to Irving; I'm not as familiar with that situation. In the Vancouver situation I can tell you they essentially rebuilt the yard from the ground up. They invested — the number that is generally used is $170 million. I know from the yard they invested more than that. They've constructed a yard that is on track to become competitive in the world market for certain classes of ships. It has just taken longer to move through that maturation process than was originally talked about.
Construction was started on our first offshore fishery vessel last spring. We have third-party consultants, industry experts, who are helping us, providing us objective advice, if you will. Their advice to us is that the yard is maturing at the rate we would expect it to, given where it started, given what it's undertaking. Everything they do in terms of building a large ship is the first time they've done it. They are encountering some growing pains. I don't think there's any secret about that.
But they're focused, they're in touch with us almost daily, and I would say those initial delays of rebuilding the yard are behind us. We now may see some slippage due to learning a new process, implementing a world-class process, but the yard is definitely moving into the full swing of production.
Senator Eaton: I don't know if you feel the way I do as a Canadian and a taxpayer, and you as a member of the Navy and Defence, but if war were to come tomorrow, we never seem to get our procurements right, do we? I understand what you're saying, because we're trying to recreate a shipbuilding industry from nothing, but we're paying a heavy price for doing it. I think we should do it, but we are at risk. We are the most highly coasted nation in the world, yet we can't seem to get anything on time or on budget. Somebody sits in your place every year here and does the same dance for us. It must be very frustrating for you; I'm sure it is. Thank you for your answer. It was very helpful.
Mr. Muldoon, I'm not that sophisticated financially. Could you explain to me why in the Main Estimates there is $181 million for the Canadian Coast Guard offshore fishery science vessels and then in the supplementary estimates there's $116 million for the same three Offshore Fishery Science Vessels?
Mr. Muldoon: I'd be happy to do that.
Senator Eaton: Is that reprofiling?
Mr. Muldoon: No, actually. This is our first opportunity this year to bring this money into Supplementary Estimates (C), the $116 million, for money we've been incurring on the build this year. So we're bringing it in basically at the eleventh hour, but we've risk-managed our way to be able to deal with this. We knew the money was coming. Normally I would have been before you on Supplementary Estimates (B) on that very amount. In the Main Estimates now, looking ahead to 2016-17, that is the requirement for that build.
The one thing I would say to your honest interpretation of the frustration, this isn't my first opportunity before this committee. Each year we've been talking about how we've been pushing money to the right. We're finally saying we're spending it in the year we needed it, so it's starting to settle down.
Senator Eaton: I think there will be a bottle of champagne.
Mr. Muldoon: Yes, we're turning the corner.
Senator Eaton: Thank you. May I ask one question of Mr. Stringer? We did an inquiry in the Senate last year on Atlantic salmon. Is there anything being done about the poor Atlantic salmon?
Kevin Stringer, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Thank you for the question. There was actually a ministerial advisory committee that also did a report in July on Atlantic salmon. A lot of people have done work on it.
Atlantic salmon, as you may know, is not in bad shape in Labrador and northern Newfoundland, but it's not in good shape the further south you go. The further south you go, the bigger the challenge there is.
We do have that formal report. We are planning to do a response to that report. We're working with the stakeholders, the Atlantic Salmon Federation, the watershed groups, and we have an Atlantic salmon advisory committee. We'll be looking at the Atlantic salmon policy, and we'll be looking at all of our programming and policy. We spend about $10 million to $12 million a year on Atlantic salmon: on science, management and habitat.
Senator Eaton: I see Pacific salmon. I don't see any —
Mr. Stringer: I don't think you'll find the term "Atlantic salmon.'' You'd find it in science, in integrated fisheries management and in fisheries protection, but we have, for various purposes, pulled out how much we actually spend that we could reasonably say goes into Atlantic salmon.
It's a significant amount, but it is a very complex species. There are hundreds of rivers and hundreds of populations. There are international considerations.
Senator Eaton: I think in Quebec — I don't know if it's changed this year — but you could still keep two salmon a week.
Mr. Stringer: And we have different rules in different provinces. In the southern part of areas where we manage Atlantic salmon we moved to catch and release. It has been unpopular with some groups. We're taking a look at what we'll be doing this year.
It is a big issue. We are on it, and there's been some good work done, including by this committee.
Senator Eaton: Will we get a decision from you before the salmon season starts?
Mr. Stringer: Yes.
Senator Eaton: Will you push debarbing the hooks?
Mr. Stringer: That's one of the elements under consideration. It's one of the things we looked at last year as well.
Senator Mockler: I know the industry in our area. On hook and release, do you foresee that we will maintain it, or will we consider what some of the associations are asking?
Mr. Stringer: Hook and release has been in place in some areas for years. Hook and release was reintroduced in a broader area last year.
We've talked to the stakeholders this year. We've got views from various folks, and we'll be making a decision. I don't want to presume what that will be.
The Chair: With the number of vessels that you've ordered, the delivery dates, et cetera, what do you have left in your existing fleet? Is the shelf life done on these vessels? I know you talked about it last year, but maybe a refresher for us just to put it in perspective.
You've talked about X number of ships, X number of helicopters and the delivery dates. What does that do to your existing fleet, and what do you do with your existing fleet?
Mr. Muldoon: I'll turn the floor over to the deputy commissioner. Just to remind you, one of the items that I presented was vessel life extension and mid-life modernization. Those are the key ways we're keeping the existing fleet going for the extended period of time until the replacement fleet comes on-stream.
For instance, the grand lady of them all, the Louis S. St-Laurent, will come in in 2016-17 for another big chunk of work to help that craft make its way to 2020-21, when the polar class will be available to us. There are solutions in place being played out through the funding available to us for vessel life extensions and modernization.
I'll let Jeff give you an idea of the overall size of the existing fleet and the replacement strategy.
Mr. Hutchinson: Before I answer, perhaps I could correct one date I gave earlier. The lifeboats will actually be delivered between 2017-18 and fiscal year 2021-22. That doesn't represent a delay. I just misspoke on that year.
In terms of our overall fleet, we have a fleet of 116 vessels, 43 of which are large ships. The 43 is where the real money is required for recapitalization. When we talk about the money that has been appropriated or identified so far, we're talking about replacing 23 out of the 43 vessels, but those would be the least expensive of the 43.
Where our next focus will be is on the icebreakers. We have 15 icebreakers in our fleet. A third of them are over 35 years of age today. To put that in perspective, commercial vessels are generally constructed for a 20- to 25-year service life. Our vessels are constructed to a heavier gauge. They tend to last longer. We look after them. We can get, in the case of the Hudson, 53 years out of a vessel, but 35 for an icebreaker is getting up there.
We are, as the CFO indicated, investing, through vessel life extension and mid-life modernization. We are mapping out where we'll have vessels out of service in a particular winter. We are renewing our fleet renewal plan. Our last one was fleet renewal plan 2012. We'll be submitting for approval fleet renewal plan 2017, and the focus of that renewal plan will definitely be around that icebreaking fleet.
We have $7 billion, as you know, in recapitalization. We would foresee a complete recap of the rest of the fleet being in the $15 billion range.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I'd like to ask both groups some questions, but I will start with some questions for Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I am interested in capital expenditures, perhaps not the vessels in particular, but the fact that capital expenditures account for most of the increase in your expenditures. That means that in future, once that money has been spent, the budget will decrease. In how many years do you think the budget will revert to what it was previously? I am also wondering whether you pay for these capital expenditures in the current year. Do you pay the total or do you take out a mortgage on these boats that you are going to build? Is this capital expenditure the amortization of the total value of your expenditures?
If so, the actual expenditure is associated with a debt, I imagine. I'd like to know whether there is a connection between your capital expenditures, the amortization and the debt incurred.
My second question is for Employment and Social Development Canada. You show an increase in appropriations for operating expenditures, specifically for the Foreign Worker Program. We know that there has been a reform; are these increased expenditures related to the fact that there are more foreign workers?
Could you talk about this program and the changes that have been made to it? Some businesses felt rather hard done by; I'd like you to talk about this and explain why there is an increase in operating expenditures when fees are billed now. Clearly, the program is not self-financing, and I'd like to understand a bit better why these operating expenditures are increasing in this way.
[English]
Mr. Muldoon: Thank you very much for the question. Your first question was about how long we foresee this augmentation of capital investment. 2016-17 will be the termination of year two of the major investment made under the Federal Infrastructure Initiative. We have quite a long horizon, well into 2021 and beyond, for the capital revitalization of the marine fleet, so quite a long ride for that particular program: multiple years for the marine renewal.
We'll see if a new infrastructure program occurs through the coming decisions to be made. That could change our horizon, but then we would, of course, right after the Federal Infrastructure Initiative, see our capital coming back down.
We were one of the largest recipients of investment under the Federal Infrastructure Initiative, with $551 million to be spent over two years. I'm pleased to say we're going to achieve the entirety of that spend. We're at 99 per cent in year one of the year-one plan. It's a remarkable ramp in a short period of time.
On your second question, the numbers here are cash requirements in year. We amortize our assets for accounting treatment, but this is our cash requirement.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: As for the debt, there is no particular connection? Those are your current obligations?
Mr. Muldoon: For the government or for the department?
Senator Bellemare: That's another question.
Mr. Muldoon: Not for the department.
[English]
The amount of money for us, what we require to actually acquire the asset, we'll amortize it for bookkeeping. The government has fully supplied the cash through these processes. I can't speak to the level of debt at the government.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I'd like to be sure I understand correctly. You say those are your cash requirements. Does that mean you make all your investments in cash?
Mr. Muldoon: Yes, that's right.
Senator Bellemare: That is what I wanted to know. You treat them exactly like operating expenditures.
Mr. Muldoon: Yes.
Senator Bellemare: Do you think it is a good public sector accounting principle to proceed in that way for the public accounts?
[English]
Mr. Muldoon: There are multiple points of view on that, whether or not we would treat it from an amortization perspective and finance our debts into the future. The departments don't, but I am not entirely sure how Finance Canada would treat it. I am sure they must be leveraging into the future.
[Translation]
Mr. Séguin: I will start by answering your question about the changes we have made to the Foreign Worker Program. My colleague Paul Thompson, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, can perhaps add to what I say.
First of all, the goal was to facilitate Canadians' access to jobs. That was the main goal of the changes made to the program. Investments have been made so that we can make better use of labour market information. Currently, we are relying on surveys to obtain more information about certain sectors of the labour market across the country. With this information, the department can meet the needs of businesses that are looking for foreign workers in certain sectors and certain parts of the country. Thanks to this information, we can answer yes or no. I am giving you a short answer, but we could go into much more detail.
Investments have also been made in the compliance program for investigations to ensure that there are no abuses. We have seen a significant increase in personnel. In the next estimates, there will be a net increase of nearly 240 people in the department. As I mentioned, that includes the compliance programs and systems. Investments have been made in computer technology to upgrade systems, because businesses submit their applications electronically. There are also investments in labour market surveys at Statistics Canada. That amount is $14 million a year and goes toward obtaining more labour market information, by sector and region. The program has been fairly extensively overhauled.
Senator Bellemare: Do you anticipate that those spending levels will be maintained for the Foreign Worker Program?
Mr. Séguin: We have included funding for this program in the 2015-16 Supplementary Estimates (C). We still have money for 2016-17. A program review is planned for 2017-18, and it will tell us whether the program is meeting its objectives.
Senator Bellemare: I have another question about the Foreign Worker Program. Are there any major differences in the categories of foreign workers? For example, businesses may be looking for low-skilled seasonal workers for the fishery. They may also be looking for skilled workers. Have there been any changes in the makeup of the foreign workers that people are looking for?
Mr. Séguin: I'm going to ask my colleague, Paul Thompson, the senior assistant deputy minister responsible for the program, to talk more about that.
[English]
The Chair: Paul, you will tell us exactly what you do?
Paul Thompson, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Skills and Employment Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: Indeed, I am Assistant Deputy Minister for the Skills and Employment Branch and responsible for, among other things, the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.
I will speak for a minute to the volumes of temporary foreign worker requests. There has indeed been quite a shift since the reforms. There has been an overall drop in the volumes but also a significant change in the composition, as you were suggesting.
We have seen a significant drop in the low-wage category. In 2013, there were 58,000 applications that we received that year. That has dropped down to about 11,000 in 2015. That is about an 80-per-cent drop in low-wage temporary foreign workers. The high-wage category has gone down, but not as dramatically. It has gone down about 50 per cent in the high-wage category. By contrast the agricultural stream for primary agriculture has seen a small increase, going from 45,000 to about 53,000.
The overall size of the program has gone down dramatically, but the composition among the different categories has changed at the same time.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: You need a larger operating budget to manage a smaller volume?
Mr. Thompson: Yes. There are two considerations when it comes to expenditures. First, for each case, there is more work because of the reforms. This additional work comes from the number of searches to be done and the review of each application for a temporary foreign worker. Thus, the cost of each file has increased, even though the number of applications has decreased.
[English]
Senator Neufeld: I have a few questions. In Supplementary Estimates (C) you have $16 million for incremental fuel cost and $16 million in the mains. What is magic about $16 million? Why does it pop up in two places?
Mr. Muldoon: The way that our funding model works for the Canadian Coast Guard's fuel requirements is we are funded to a threshold of X. Every year, for the last 10 years, we have needed a top-up. This is the first time we can come in this year to get the top-up, and this funding is struck as an up-to limit. If we do not use the full 16, we return it to the fiscal framework. It has been preapproved for next year, so we are getting it in the mains this time. That is a bit unusual. We have always gotten it in the supplementary estimates, but we have been approved this time around for a two-year cycle, 2015-16 and 2016-17, so I am able to call it in the mains.
Senator Neufeld: Royalties from intellectual properties. Can you tell me about that $2.2 million?
Mr. Muldoon: Sure. A small amount of royalties are earned by the department for the licensing of its intellectual property. For example, we are the purveyors of marine charts for the country. They are sold either by us or under licensing arrangements where retail suppliers sell the maps and they pay us a royalty for access to those maps. The Coast Guard does all the charting and mapping with the Canadian Hydrographic Service, which falls under Fisheries and Oceans, and we supply these maps that are used on the water.
Senator Neufeld: Okay. Not that I need that kind of stuff. I am on the water with someone else driving the boat.
The Pacific Salmon Foundation, $2 million, is that a continual program?
Mr. Muldoon: I will let the senior ADM responsible for the program answer, but that $2 million is a one-time amount. That was an announcement made in Budget 2015 by the previous government and identified an incremental investment in that organization. This is our flow-through to them.
Mr. Stringer: The Pacific Salmon Foundation is a project in the Salish Sea. It is related to getting a better understanding of what happens to salmon when they are at sea. It is about salmon mortality and at-sea mortality. There is a broad study being led by a group of partners, including the Pacific Salmon Foundation. The federal government's making a contribution to it. That is what this was about.
Senator Neufeld: Okay. The $1.8 million to enhance the safety of marine transportation in the Arctic, can you give me a bit of a rundown on what that entails?
Mr. Muldoon: Yes. Jeff may want to jump in on that. This is part of our world-class tanker safety programming.
Mr. Hutchinson: That is correct. There are two components, if you want to think of it that way. First there is an amount of $500,000 per year that will be used to fund search and rescue auxiliary units in the Arctic.
We already have some trained volunteers and some equipment, but we would like to extend the southern system. We are in the process of extending the southern system north so our volunteers in the North will be able to access formal tasking from the Coast Guard. They will be able to have insurance cover their activities, that sort of thing. We certainly see their role as being critical to search and rescue in the Arctic.
The second piece relates directly to the work that has been done around safe navigation over the last couple of years, some under the rubric of world-class and some under the rubric of a tanker safety expert panel.
We have some studies that are going on in the South looking at how to modernize navigation, how to better utilize on-water aids to navigation, as we call them, such as buoys, radar, those kinds of things, but also looking at the electronic systems, such as communications and the backup systems that are in place like DGPS, which is the highly accurate version of the GPS you might have in your car.
What we have done with this new money is extended those studies to the Arctic so we will know how to place search and rescue, communications and marine navigation assets. Prevention of an event in the Arctic is job one because the remote location means response to an event will always be difficult.
Senator Neufeld: Okay.
Mr. Muldoon: To finish that up, this is year one of a five-year funding model, so we will be booking that through the Main Estimates in years to come.
Senator Neufeld: I have been told there is a cruise ship that will go through the Northwest Passage this year. What involvement do you have with icebreakers or escorts?
Mr. Hutchinson: There is a cruise ship, the Crystal Serenity. It is not exactly the cruise ship you would find in Miami. This is one of the most sophisticated cruise ships in the world, illustrated by the price. It costs between $20,000 and $125,000 to book a cabin. They are sold out this year and are selling out for next year.
This vessel will be escorted by its own private, ice-capable, icebreaking partner vessel. It has its own helicopter onboard, which will be able to do both ice reconnaissance, which helps a ship choose its path through the ice; and it will also be able to do search and rescue and emergency response, if required.
They will have teams of experts onboard, including two people on the bridge who are deeply knowledgeable about the Northwest Passage. As has been said by a third-party expert, it is hard to imagine a ship being better prepared, and I think we share that view.
That doesn't mean it is happening on its own. Transport Canada is very involved with them in their planning. We are involved from our central and Arctic region, and both the Canadian and U.S. Coast Guards are involved. Yesterday we did a tabletop exercise with the owners of the cruise ship to go through all of the scenarios that could occur and how we would respond, how the Americans would respond and their capacity to respond.
Our central and Arctic regions have our Arctic experts and they're working on the planning. We have icebreakers in the Arctic during that time. They will be tasked to search and rescue, as they always are. Will we dedicate one to this vessel? I would say that is unlikely, unless the ice conditions warrant being closer to rather than further away from the ship. If that were to occur, I hope the ship would reconsider their plans. They consider ice avoidance to be their number one strategy for making the transit.
Senator Neufeld: When you retire an icebreaker — you say that will happen in the near future — what do you do with the old ones? What do you do with the old ships that you are done with? Do you just scrap them?
Mr. Hutchinson: That is an interesting question. It has been so long since we've retired a large ship. I don't mean that to be funny; it is just true. We do spend more time thinking about building new ships than what we will do with the old ships.
My expectation is that most of our ships would be sold essentially for scrap at the end of their lives. We always have requests, though. Memorial University in Newfoundland is always looking for ships for their training. We have our own college, and they are always calling Ottawa saying they need a ship for training. I couldn't rule it out, but I don't think it's likely.
Senator Cordy: Thank you. I will start with a couple of follow-up questions to Senator Neufeld's comments.
First of all, he talked about the $16 million in supplementary funding for fuel. I would have anticipated there would be a significant lowering of costs for fuel this year, with the price of gas and oil. Have fuel costs stayed the same, gone up or are you using the ships more?
Mr. Hutchinson: The main driver on our fuel costs is usage more than fuel price. In the last couple of years, as people will know from the newspapers, we have had extremely heavy ice years, and our fuel consumption spikes during those years. The Louis S. St-Laurent, under full power, will burn more fuel in a day than a car will burn in its useful life. It can be in the range of 80,000 litres per day.
We burn diesel, not Bunker C. The price of marine diesel hasn't been as sensitive to the price of oil that you see in the media. It came down much more slowly. It has come down, but it is not having as big an impact on our fuel needs as it would for a car or a truck or other southern fuels.
Senator Cordy: Thanks. Another follow-up question was the cruise ship going through the Northwest Territories. I attended meetings a few years ago with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and we went to Denmark and Greenland. They were greatly concerned about cruise ships going up around Greenland, because no matter how safe we say a cruise ship is, we are never quite sure.
Their concern was, because the population is so sparse in the North, if something happened we have thousands of people on a ship. I am not sure how large this cruise ship is. It was for safety reasons of how a small village of 200 people, which could be 200 miles away from where the ship is going down, could possible rescue significantly large numbers of people.
What Denmark at the time was proposing was that no cruise ship be allowed to travel on its own, that two cruise ships would have to travel together so that you would have another large cruise ship nearby in case of problems.
What kinds of discussions have you had in terms of safety? We can say it is the safest ship, but so was the Titanic.
The Chair: That is an interesting question, Senator Cordy.
Mr. Hutchinson: Yes. The Canadian Coast Guard, to be clear, is not of the view that large incidents never happen. We plan for them to happen. We're never-say-never people.
When it comes to a large event on this vessel, I think the plan of having that escort ship with them that is really ice- capable is a sound one that approximates the Scandinavian plan of two cruise ships travelling together. If you think of a cruise ship getting into trouble, even if it is the size of 1,000 passengers onboard, if you have a partnership with another 1,000 people onboard, everyone is sleeping in the hallway. Again, I don't mean to be funny about it. I think that having that capacity as an escort is good planning.
In terms of the comment about the impact on communities, I know their planning goes beyond what would happen in the case of an incident. They are actually working with the communities they will stop in to pre-plan how passengers will disembark. Having 800 people go into a community like the one you described, there have been incidents in the past where those ship-borne passengers went ashore and bought all the produce the community had until the next re- supply. Those kinds of things have happened and they are being planned for with the ship. I think their planning is extensive.
Again, I don't mean to sound a note of the Coast Guard being sanguine about this. I just think that when we get to the point for a single ship that we sit down and do an international tabletop exercise around the planning, it is indicative that there is a very high level of engagement and a real seriousness around the planning.
Senator Cordy: I was looking on page 19 of your annex A, Main Estimates, and it says "Grants for the Disposal of Surplus Lighthouses.'' How many surplus lighthouses? What is the definition of "surplus lighthouse,'' and what do you mean by "disposal''? What about the program where community groups were taking over lighthouses? How successful has that been?
Mr. Muldoon: That is actually what we mean. I don't actually run the program, so I can't give you the information of how many.
It kind of works as you were thinking: We see how many of the lighthouses we have are eligible for the transfer of ownership to somebody else. The grants are set up in a way to prepare that lighthouse to be in a healthy condition for that transfer. Each year we will scale up or down the amount of the grant supply that is required based on that.
It is not from asking for incremental funding; it is from transferring funding out of our operating Vote 1 into our Vote 10 for the purposes of the grant or grants that year that may be required. We did three or four in the last few years, and they are all through a highly regimented, criteria-driven protocol that gets us to a point where the community or the not-for-profit group can take over and continue to run that location.
Senator Cordy: Thank you.
Senator Mockler: This is for Employment and Social Development Canada. You are requesting $176 million to write off debts. I noticed in the comments you made that the debt writeoff regulation contained criteria under which accounts may be submitted for writeoff, and then you say that the criteria included deceased, bankrupt, cost- effectiveness and hardship.
Could you explain and provide us more information when you talk about cost-effectiveness and hardship? Also, could you tell us what category of students historically has the highest percentage of bankruptcy?
Mr. Séguin: With respect to the cost of collection, that is one issue that we look at in terms of putting up a slate of accounts for writeoff.
For example, out of the total of $176 million, there are 17,833 that would have a balance on average of about $20. Of those, the cost of collection, et cetera, and pursuit, is an example of why we would write those off. The total is $43,000 for those. That is cost-effectiveness.
With respect to hardship and bankruptcy, unable to pay, family income below threshold, bankruptcy is another example, in this instance, of the $176 million that we are putting forward, it's 256,000. It is 0.1 per cent of the total that falls into that category for what we call hardship. It is not a large number; it is a quite small number.
The largest number by far is the statute-barred. After six years from the time a borrower acknowledges the loan and the debt, after six years of non-activity and no acknowledgement, at that point we are obligated to stop collection activity.
For that purpose, the loans are considered basically irrecoverable for purposes of accounting. For that reason we write them off to adjust the books of Canada. Otherwise it wrongly reflects them as an asset for the Government of Canada. There is still potential that these particular loans could all of a sudden generate payment and we would accept them. In fact, if a student were to return and request another loan, they would have to clear out the loan outstanding, even if it is statute-barred, before we would give them another loan.
Those are the largest. About 91 per cent of those are statute-barred.
Senator Mockler: The boat that was renting cabins, how much revenue does that generate?
Mr. Hutchinson: We don't have a program in the Coast Guard to rent space on our vessels.
Senator Mockler: But you mentioned a cruise ship earlier.
Mr. Muldoon: You were describing the Crystal Serenity.
Mr. Hutchinson: We don't extend our charging framework to the Arctic.
Mr. Muldoon: The cruise ship would not be paying us.
Mr. Hutchinson: There are no fees for the cruise ship.
Mr. Muldoon: The Crystal Serenity is part of a private cruise line that we just happen to be aware of that is planning to charter through the North.
Senator Mockler: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: You can send me the answer in writing. I just wanted to know what revenues were generated by the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.
Mr. Séguin: I will email the answer to you. For the 2015-16 fiscal year, revenues were approximately $41 million at March 4, 2016. Those revenues were generated by fees of $1,000 per application.
Senator Bellemare: Out of a total of how much?
[English]
The Chair: Do you have the answer, Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson: The estimated revenues for the fiscal year 2014-15 represent about 60 per cent of the total expenditures of the program. There are few parts of the program that don't charge the fee. It is not applicable to the agriculture stream, for example, but overall there is about a 60 per cent recovery with the fee.
The Chair: Mr. Séguin, Service Canada delivers ESDC programs to citizens. What is your relationship with Service Canada? We had them in earlier today, and I would like your feedback. Look at your eyes light up. Do you do all of your processing there? Are you one of their major clients?
Mr. Séguin: You may have had Shared Services Canada, which is a separate agency. Service Canada is just a branch.
The Chair: Right. Whenever you have an EI claim you phone Service Canada; correct?
Mr. Séguin: Yes. It is just part of ESDC.
The Chair: Do you do any business with the Shared Services group?
Mr. Séguin: Yes.
The Chair: Are you one of their major clients?
Mr. Séguin: We are one of the major clients, yes.
The Chair: How are they performing for you? Do they have their challenges?
Mr. Séguin: I think they have their challenges, but we are working through them.
The Chair: How long have you been a client of theirs?
Mr. Séguin: Since they became an agency. I'm not sure which year that was. I think it was 2011 or 2012; since their inception.
The Chair: Will you benefit from their new client service program?
Mr. Séguin: I imagine we will. I'm not sure what their new service program is.
The Chair: They are just implementing it because they have had some challenges, and I am not trying to pick on them, but there is an issue here, obviously, of a huge operation of departments. I think they are dealing with something like 92 departments, and they have had some challenges. The media have given them some static.
It's not without merit, but the fact of the matter is we're very hopeful that they will make progress because it's an important element to have that whole IT support function. Today they say one of the biggest factors towards innovation is the ability of corporations and/or businesses and/or groups to become advanced with high tech and IT, which go directly to productivity. One of the big issues we talk about in our country, of course, is productivity. I wonder if you have some comments. Do you fellows at Fisheries and Oceans deal with them also?
Mr. Muldoon: We do indeed. They provide us with all our mobile data devices, all kinds of services and data warehouses. All of that stuff migrated over initially, I believe, for the big 42 departments, which all moved on board when they were established. We're growing together.
The Chair: We would love to have any comments that you fellows have that could help us, because it's one area that we want to try to analyze in terms of performance.
Thank you. You've done a great job and we appreciate your time.
Welcome to the folks from Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, and thank you for your patience. We had a very interesting first session and are excited to have you here. We will hear form Paul Thoppil, Chief Financial Officer; Françoise Ducros, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Strategic Direction; and Daniel Leclair, Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Regional Operations.
Would you like to start with some comments, Mr. Thoppil?
Paul Thoppil, Chief Financial Officer, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada: Yes, I would, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for the opportunity to be here.
Again, I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to appear today on the 2016-17 Main Estimates and the 2015-16 Supplementary Estimates (C) for Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. This committee has an important role in reviewing the department's expenditures, and I welcome the opportunity, together with my colleagues, to discuss these estimates with you.
Before I begin, I would like to highlight the ambitious agenda we are facing, as outlined in the minister's mandate letter, with an overarching goal to renew the relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples. In this light, the department has supported the minister in making some initial progress: launching the design phase of an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls; meeting with survivors, families and loved ones across the country for their input into the process; beginning consultation with Northern communities on the Nutrition North Canada program; and moving forward, in partnership with indigenous communities, the provinces, territories and other vital partners, to work on fully implementing the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, starting with the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
I want to draw members' attention to a deck entitled "Main Estimates 2016-17,'' which I have tabled with you. The deck starts with an overview of how we deliver funding and the demographic and geographic profile of our clients, and then provides an overview of the 2016-17 Main Estimates and ends with expenditure information and trends for major program areas.
[Translation]
It should be noted that INAC is a highly decentralized department, with a presence in every region across the country. INAC's role is largely a support role, but it is a critical role in assisting our partners to achieve healthy, sustainable communities. In practical terms, this means working to ensure access to services and a quality of life comparable to that enjoyed by other Canadians, as well as establishing strong governments which operate in a transparent and accountable manner. About 80 per cent of resources are used to fund programs delivered by First Nations community governments, tribal councils, and so on, as the slide on page 2 shows.
[English]
On slide 2, Northerners look to the department to work in partnership with them to build strong, effective and efficient governance structures, and to develop and manage Northern resources and partnerships consistent with the principles of sustainable development.
On slides 3 to 5 they outline the demographic and geographic realities we face: an Aboriginal population that is young — almost half of Aboriginal people are less than 25 years of age — along with small and dispersed First Nations communities across this country. Specifically, there are around 1.4 million Aboriginal individuals in Canada, representing about 4.3 per cent of the total Canadian population, and 70 per cent of these First Nation communities have fewer than 500 inhabitants. Overall, 67 per cent live in rural, special access or remote zones, while 33 per cent live in urban zones.
[Translation]
The 2016-17 Main Estimates will be about $7.5 billion, a net decrease of approximately $726.3 million, or 8.8 per cent, compared to last year's Main Estimates. The net decrease is primarily driven by reduced requirements for specific claims, as well as reduced requirements for the continued implementation of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.
[English]
On slide 6, it should be noted that the 2016-17 Main Estimates, as you know, is the first step in the fiscal cycle and does not include additional approvals or funding that may stem from Budget 2016. Funding for additional approvals will be accessed through future Main Estimates and supplementary estimates.
On slides 7 and 8, the overall net decrease of $726 million is comprised of major increases totalling over $247 million, primarily for education programming, and the 2 per cent allowance for inflation and population growth for basic services, offset by major decreases totalling $973 million, with four specific claims and funding for the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement being the major components of the variants.
[Translation]
The 2016-17 Main Estimates for INAC include about $7 billion or 90 per cent in grants and contributions; and about $716 million or 9.5 per cent in operating expenditures. The remaining funding (less than half a per cent) is for loans to claimants involved in negotiations and for capital requirements, primarily for the Canadian High Arctic Research Station and system and software development.
[English]
On slide 10, of the $7.5 billion departmental spending, $7.3 billion is captured by four strategic outcomes, covering 15 programs, while the remaining funding of around $224 million is for an internal services program that supports all the strategic outcomes.
In addition, we have provided additional information to the committee, including an overview of the fiscal cycle, on slide 11, as well as trends in major program areas. These major program areas — namely, education, social development, infrastructure and capacity, specific claims and the North — account for about $5.4 billion, or about 70 per cent of the overall $7.5 billion in the Main Estimates.
[Translation]
I now want to turn your attention to a deck entitled "2015-16 Supplementary Estimates (C),'' which I have also tabled.
The deck provides an overview of spending over the past few years showing total funding in the Main Estimates — which is the first step in the fiscal cycle — as well as amounts drawn down through supplementary estimates.
It should be noted that over this period an average of about $650 million annually has been accessed through supplementary estimates beyond what was identified in the Main Estimates due to timing in the fiscal cycle.
[English]
On slide 3, with respect to financial highlights, Supplementary Estimates (C) includes a net increase of $233 million for initiatives, which will bring total investment for the department to about $8.9 billion for this fiscal year, to address the needs of indigenous people and Northerners.
On slide 4 of the deck, I briefly describe the major items. The largest item in these supplementary estimates — about $64.5 million — is for out-of-court settlements, most notably for a settlement related to alleged errors in the creation of a reserve and the settling up of reserve lands in the early 1800s.
[Translation]
The second largest item in these supplementaru estimates is $46.2 million, which is required to reimburse First Nations and emergency management service providers for on-reserve response and recovery activities.
[English]
The third item of $40.7 million will allow the department to continue the implementation of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. The department will continue to process and resolve independent assessment process claims in a timely manner through the negotiated settlement process.
The fourth item of $40 million was approved through Budget 2015 and will allow the department to continue supporting the Education Partnerships Program, as well as early literacy activities delivered through the First Nation Student Success Program.
[Translation]
The fifth item of $18.4 million will support other implementation matters for the settlement agreement between the Inuit of Nunavut, the Government of Canada and the Government of Nunavut. These funds will be used to provide increases to Government of Nunavut implementation funding to increase Inuit employment in government and Nunavut labour force analysis.
[English]
The department will also receive renewed funding of $16 million to continue its work on a proactive reconciliation and management of Metis Aboriginal rights and the management of Metis and non-status litigation.
[Translation]
The last few slides provide additional information pertaining to the key initiatives — including objective, outcomes, and status.
[English]
In conclusion, the funding provided in the 2016-17 Main Estimates and the 2015-16 Supplementary Estimates (C) will strengthen the department's ability to improve social well-being and economic prosperity in indigenous and Northern communities. It will further support the efforts of indigenous people and Northerners as they develop healthier, more sustainable communities and participate more fully in Canada's political, social and economic development.
Mr. Chair, I look forward to discussing any aspects of these estimates with you and your colleagues, together with my colleagues, and I welcome your questions regarding my presentation.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Mr. Leclair or Ms. Ducros, do you have any comments before people ask questions?
Françoise Ducros, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Strategic Direction, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada: No.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Thoppil, when we first met you made an excellent presentation. On behalf of our group, I think it's safe to say — although I can't speak on behalf of the rest of my colleagues — that this is a very thorough-looking presentation again. We will begin questions.
Senator Eaton: Minister Bennett has made public statements of late saying that the 2 per cent funding cap on spending for Indian Affairs will probably be lifted in the next budget. If the increase is likely to occur, have you thought of where the money would go? Is it anywhere in these documents you've sent us? Would it go for infrastructure or education? Have you thought about it?
Mr. Thoppil: The 2 per cent escalator that currently exists for basic programs and services is for a number of programs on reserve, such as education and social development. In a number of instances, as the minister has said publicly, it's insufficient for the costs that have evolved over time, as well as population growth.
Therefore there is a catch-up necessary, as well as a consultation process that she has said is required with First Nations, in what the appropriate escalator is going forward in order to deal with the realities of the various programs and services on the ground. So that's a consultation that she has committed to undertake.
Senator Eaton: If they lift the cap then she'll start consulting?
Mr. Thoppil: I think she wants to commence a process of consultation to figure out what that appropriate escalator is in order to deliver an appropriate base of programs and services for First Nation communities.
Senator Eaton: Right now we know that you have almost the better part of $10 billion that comes out of your department every year towards First Nations.
What kind of accountability measures do you have in place so that you know the money gets to the actual band, and that once it gets to the band that it's used for what it's supposed to be used for?
Mr. Thoppil: We have a suite of accountability mechanisms in place in order to ensure that the money transferred to First Nations is delivered for the purposes intended. It starts with the funding agreement, which defines the nature of the funding, what it's for — what are, for example, eligible expenditures — and what it's not for. Then we have regional staff who monitor those two quarterly reports. We also do, from time to time, recipient audits, and we respond to inquiries by First Nation members who come in with information and have conversations and dialogues on that. We also, of course, receive audited financial statements, and we do assessments of those as well with various schedules of remuneration and expenses that we specify.
Senator Eaton: I'm sorry. I guess I'm a bit thick. You actually go on the reserve and you do the audits? Or do you have a professional person go on the reserve and look at the outcome, or figure out the outcomes to a program?
Mr. Thoppil: The First Nations bring in professional auditors to audit the books, so there are those expenditures. In terms of outcomes, we do that through things such as the community well-being index. I will turn it over to Françoise Ducros to talk about the other outcomes associated with the funding.
Senator Eaton: I'm asking these questions because we had Canada Mortgage and Housing here last year, and they had a $400 million item for building houses on the reserves. But when questioned, they said they can't go on the reserves to inspect that the houses are built to code. Are you in the same position, or do you actually know that the money you're giving to a band, reserve or First Nations community is actually going specifically where it is intended to go?
Daniel Leclair, Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Regional Operations, Indigenous and Northern Affairs: Thank you very much, senator, for the question. I'm responsible for the infrastructure, and housing also is one of my responsibilities. With regard to the housing, we need to mention that the houses belong to the First Nation chief and council or the private owner. What we do in the program is transfer the money and the capital to the band and council, and they are responsible to determine where the needs are.
To your point, senator, about the link with CMHC, when they provide a loan the band and council, or the owner of the house, will have to guarantee that the house is built to code.
[Translation]
Senator Eaton: They didn't have trained inspectors to go on the reserve or into the community. They told us last year that they had no right to go on the reserves.
Mr. Leclair: I could not comment on this specific case. However, I know that they have changed the process. Now, when a house is being built, someone is sent over, as a financial institution off-reserve would do before releasing payments. In this case, it's the chief and the band council who have say, for example, that the foundation is done, or the roof is done, or whatever the construction stage is.
Senator Eaton: That's great. Well done.
[English]
Mr. Thoppil: Senator, I wanted to add that we also do evaluations, periodically, of all our programs and services, and those evaluators do go on reserve in order to measure those outcomes.
Senator Eaton: That's good. We hear a lot of complaints that less money is spent on education in communities on First Nation reserves than, for instance, a child going to a public school in downtown Ottawa. I wanted to make sure that all the dollars that you pinpoint for education actually gets to them and that you have determined yourselves that there's a big shortage.
Mr. Thoppil: That's correct. As I said, we have that tool kit of accountability mechanisms related to audited financial statements, recipient audits, evaluation programs and internal audits. As a result of those reports and the reporting functions that are embedded inside the funding agreements, and the staff monitoring them, we make those assessments of how well they're doing with regard to the monies we are transferring over to them.
Senator Neufeld: In the 2016-17 estimates I see a line marked, "Loans to First Nations in British Columbia.'' In 2015-16 it was $30,400,000, but in 2016-17 it is 0. Can you tell me what took place there? What happened?
Mr. Thoppil: I believe, senator, those are loans not for B.C. that are now moved over to zero, whereas the loans for the B.C. process is still continuing.
Senator Neufeld: It says that in 2015-16 it was $30,400,000, and the 2016-17 Main Estimates is 0. Maybe I just do not understand your answer.
Mr. Thoppil: What that means is that there is not a requirement anymore for the loans for the negotiations of those. That's correct.
Senator Neufeld: Those were loans for certain negotiations that have been completed?
Mr. Thoppil: That's right. When we're in negotiations on treaties, to assist them in the treaty negotiations, we advance monies for them in terms of a loan in order to do that. Once through the treaty settlement, we deduct those loan proceeds from whatever treaty proceeds are embedded in that settlement.
Senator Neufeld: I understand that. I guess what that's telling me is that there are no treaty negotiations going on in British Columbia at all, or anticipated. Would you come back with a supplementary later on?
Mr. Thoppil: No. We're continually reviewing the best way to advance the treaty. That's not necessarily an indication of whether it's moving forward or not.
Senator Neufeld: I know there are treaty negotiations going on as we speak. I'm sure there are.
Mr. Thoppil: There are. That's what I meant, senator. That's why the zero is not necessarily a reflection of the fact that there are no discussions going on. There is constant dialogue going with First Nations communities, not just in B.C. but across the country, for treaty definition and settlement.
Senator Neufeld: I want to go to the management and remediation of federal contaminated sites, the $147 million. I believe it says it's sunsetting, but I see in your notes that you're in a renewal process, right? Can you give me a sense of how many sites you have to do and how many you would have done in the past year?
The Chair: Senator, that's a question that was asked last year. It's good for you, Mr. Thoppil, to give us an update on that, because that's one of the measurement sticks that I think a lot of people in the public, who read about some of the issues, feel very strongly about.
Mr. Thoppil: Thank you, senator, for the question. We have approximately 1,900 contaminated sites in the North and in the South. Last year, in 2014-15, we fully remediated about 125 sites. This year we are assessing, monitoring or remediating around 130 sites, and we'll get a precise number at the end of the year once all the reporting comes in.
Senator Neufeld: This year you're anticipating 130 sites, while last year it was 125?
Mr. Thoppil: We fully remediated 125.
Senator Neufeld: All right. That gives us a little bit. I wasn't here last year.
The Chair: It's a question that's important for us to have continuous updates on, because if we said you're averaging 125 to 130 a year, the next thing we're thinking about is when will we come to the end of that, or is there a continuous problem with contaminated sites? Is there a continuous problem?
Senator Neufeld: There will be at 130 a year, and there are 1,900 of them.
The Chair: The question is, will we ever get through the process? If so, will there be more sites that evolve? How does it work?
Mr. Thoppil: The portfolio was vast and they're not all the same. In that portfolio we have some contaminated sites. We have some significant, complex sites that will last for decades, quite frankly. One can talk about Faro Mine and Giant Mine as particular examples of those that are significantly world complex sites that require new engineering solutions that sometimes have yet to be created in order to address them for the long term. You have some sites on First Nations that are relatively easy to address related to a diesel fuel tank spillage that can be quickly remediated. We have a range of sites, of degrees of complexity that we are working on.
Senator Neufeld: When you mention those two mines, I am quite familiar with them. The 125 sites that you did, how would classify them? You may not have the answer now, but would they be small, medium-sized sites or a combination of a whole bunch? Could you provide that information to us? Is something in there that is working on Giant Mine or the Faro mine? There must be some dollars in there, or are you not doing anything at all right now? Give us some idea
Mr. Thoppil: I would be happy to provide a breakdown of details in terms of information on how that money under FCSAP is being allocated by project so that you have a sense of how it is going. It is not necessarily an amount of money that you need per se, but there is also a capacity issue in order to deal with it. There is also, depending upon the solution, a social licence requirement of public consultations, particularly when you are talking about trying to do anything related to, for example, Giant Mine, which is near a riverbed that is the source of the drinking water for Yellowknife. It is not a question of just mining, but also time and processes of consultation.
Senator Neufeld: Perhaps you could give us some sense of that in a form that — we are probably going to ask every year — we could keep up with, in a form that you can continue to move forward with so that there isn't something different every year and we can actually look through it as we go forward.
I just have one other comment on houses. Your answer that the banks or somebody would go on and make sure the money is spent correctly. When I look at some of the houses on TV, on the news, I am appalled. It tells me that nobody looked at some of the construction and some of the housing that these people are living in. I am not happy with the answer. I'm not satisfied with the answer that it is just all looked after and everything is hunky-dory. It's not. I live in the North. I don't live in Vancouver. I live in northern B.C., so I have had lots of contact with First Nations where I come from. Some of the housing is deplorable. Whose responsibility is it so that we can actually get these things fixed up to a degree that would make the general public happy that these people live in them.
Mr. Leclair: Senator, you have a very valid point. For the ones that we see on the news, I will not disagree with you. I also travel to certain communities. We are responsible for building the schools in the remote fly-in communities, and of course when we go there we also see the housing stock.
The fundamental point is the owner of the house and the owner of all the infrastructure. The owner of the house is the band and council, and sometimes it is the private owner. Of course nobody has enough money to do everything, but all the money that is transferred is to the band and council. The band and council decides how they will manage their stock, their portfolio. Some of the band councils decide to charge rent, for example, and some others do not.
If you have an opportunity to visit Wendake near Quebec City, the majority of the house owners there are private. It's been a process, so they also have authority around the land. They are very proud of their houses, and there is equity in the house. Of course, this is an extreme, the best versus the ones that probably need more support.
As our minister mentioned — this is our point also working with our colleagues at CMHC — we will start consultations and engagement because the solution is not an easy one. Your point is very valid. We see the extreme from the very good ones, versus the majority of the ones that we see that are not in very good condition because the house, again, belongs to chief and council and the owner. We said we will do nation-to-nation. We have to involve the First Nation to see how they want to do that.
This is all to say that there is not an easy solution. Money is one part of the equation, but it is only one part. There are also all of the other aspects. We need to work with colleagues like CMHC that are the experts in Canada about housing and also to compare with off reserve, with the municipality or with the province that are also responsible in order, at the end of the day, to change the situation. I agree with you that there is a long way to go there.
The Chair: The issue is jurisdiction. It is all about — which was mentioned by Mr. Thoppil earlier, if I understand correctly — people living in remote areas, and there are small groups of people of 4, 5, 600 people. Suddenly you are in a remote area and you have a problem with roads. You probably have a problem with electricity. There is a complexity of problems.
And then you have problems with the band council that says, "Screw you. We own this. You are giving us the money, and it's our jurisdiction.'' I think it's going to be interesting to see how the relationship evolves over time to see how you manage control of money. For any other folks, if you deal with the bank, then you have to provide collateral and some form of guarantee.
Senator Eaton: I will make a comment following the first question I asked. It is very discouraging to sit here. It was $400 million last year and $70 million in Iqaluit, yet we constantly see our First Nations brothers badly housed. It is a lot of money. It seems like a no-win situation. If you are the band chief, it is very hierarchical. You can choose who gets a good house. It is very complex, and I think we just can't keep throwing money at it when we don't get the results we all hope for.
Senator Mockler: My question is just to follow up on accountability. When you talk about promoting greater accountability, transparency and oversight, have you seen any changes in the last five years?
Mr. Thoppil: Over the last five years I have seen improved governance. I have seen members in the band council, quite educated, taking on ownership. In terms of our engagement, we see an increase in terms of accountability and trying to do right for their members. Is it all happening at the various levels at the same time across the country in the 600-odd First Nations communities? No, because they all have different levels of capacity and also, as the chair mentioned, some of them are in remote, isolated communities. Therefore, their access to services is very different from those close to urban areas.
Wendake is privileged, as my colleague Daniel mentioned, in terms of the fact that it is in Quebec City. So its ability to get access to necessary services and the education to have that capacity is very different from one that is in the North where you have to get services through fly-in or winter roads.
Senator Mockler: Just a comment, chair, before I leave the subject matter. We do have very good success stories. One I'd like to bring forward is the Madawaska Maliseet reserve in northern New Brunswick. They are a business- minded community with very high-level schools, trades, you name it. It's linked directly to the public system. We do have success stories.
But when we look at certain aspects, such as housing, and we are being told at a point in time that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has absolutely or almost no authority, tonight we are asking: Who has the authority?
The Chair: Possibly Mr. Thoppil and his associates feel very frustrated with that because it is one of the realities, I would assume, that you face in your job.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I would like to go back to somewhat more basic issues concerning the figures before us, because this debate is fundamental. I'm surprised by the decreases in the Main Estimates, particularly the significant reduction in the operating budget. I would like to know a little more. You touched on it briefly. When we look at operating expenditures to date in the Supplementary Estimates (C), they are approximately $1.5 billion. In the 2016-17 Main Estimates, I read $658 million. This is a significant decrease. Do you have any comments on that?
Ms. Ducros: What page are you on?
Senator Bellemare: I'm on page II-12 in the French. I see significant decreases. Moreover, in the supplementary estimates, there is $1.5 billion with respect to the authority to date.
[English]
Mr. Thoppil: Thank you, senator, for the question.
There are decreases in Vote 10, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, which is our grants and contributions vote item. There is a reduction, and that is because of the timing related to specific claims and Indian residential school settlements, for which we will come back in a previous supplementary estimates.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I'm talking about Vote 1.
[English]
Mr. Thoppil: Inside Vote 1 is also monies included for contaminated sites, FSCAP that we talked about earlier, senator. There was a timing of renewal of that. You will not see it captured in the Main Estimates, but you will see it in Supplementary Estimates (A) when we come back to the committee.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: The money allocated to decontamination is included in the operating expenditures.
Mr. Thoppil: Absolutely. It's a combination of Vote 1 and Vote 10.
[English]
The Chair: Of the 25 contamination sites cleaned up, what would you have spent on that, Mr. Thoppil?
Mr. Thoppil: That is not an easy answer, senator, because it really depends on essentially looking at each site. As I said, they have various degrees of complexity.
The Chair: That is understood. Excuse my ignorance, but as a business guy I would ask: How long will it take me to fix those if we're not increasing the number by X percent? You are doing 130 a year. Worst case scenario, it takes X number of years to get it cleaned up. What is your budget?
It is a major accomplishment for you folks to be able to do this type of remedial work, and it shows results to the community. I wondered if you had a running total in your mind, even if it was an approximation. Not to hold you to the fire but just to understand it because that, to me, would be a tremendous feedback that you could give your constituents about some of the successes that you have.
Mr. Thoppil: Senator, thank you for the question. There is an envelope for dealing with contaminated sites Government of Canada-wide. We work with other ministries in terms of allocations within an overall pot that is determined by the government of the day. Given the magnitude and the number of sites that we have, we are at about 50 per cent of that contaminated sites spending envelope.
Could we use more? Of course we could use more but, as I said, it is not necessarily just a matter of money, senator, because depending on the complexity of it there is engineering, a capacity issue, and there is also a public consultations issue as we move forward on remediating certain types of sites.
The Chair: We are aware of that because we have an example, I believe down near your community, Senator Cordy, where we had the Sydney mines. The Sydney mines were left with a huge environmental issue which, as I understand, will be solved over time. It is a very costly project, but once it's done it will be a success in terms of remediating an area that was a potential environmental disaster. Is it fair to say that?
Senator Cordy: The Sydney tar ponds, you mean.
The Chair: Yes.
We have 10 minutes left. Colleagues, you have done a fantastic job. Excuse my rough language, but from the environment I come from sometimes when you get emotional, you use words that you wouldn't normally use as a fine- tuned, polished individual.
Mr. Thoppil, you did a great job presenting to us. One of the things that I think you did a super job with, because it really gives us a cross-section of the $7.5 million, and I am not sure whether all of our colleagues have had a chance to look at it, but if you could to spend five minutes to explain where that $7.5 million will go in terms of the four pillars that you have with your program.
One of the last questions most of us would like to ask you before the budget comes out is: What anticipation do you have for changes, incremental amounts, et cetera?
Senator Eaton: I asked him that.
The Chair: Did he answer that?
Senator Eaton: No, he skated. He said the minister would.
The Chair: Sorry for that terminology. Maybe you could give us a quick run-through of this. After that, if there are no other questions, because I know we are tired, perhaps you could give us a final summation of what you'd like to share with us, if that's okay with the group.
Mr. Thoppil: Sure. On page 10 of the Main Estimates 2016-17 deck, we have something called the program alignment architecture, or the PAA, which tries to take the money that Parliament allocates with its approval by vote structure and converts it into something in terms of reallocating it through strategic outcomes — what that money is really trying to do — and get past what we call the colour of money, which is the vote structure.
The department organizes, with the government's approval, the money in these four pillars. For example, the people, that is where we are allocating money which touches individuals. You will have, in education, K to 12 and post- secondary as the individuals who are receiving the benefits of education services. Of course in social development areas it would be income assistance, National Child Benefit, assisted living for the elderly and family violence prevention. These are all examples of services being provided through funding transfers that touch individuals on reserves.
The Chair: Does the $1.497 billion include Mr. Leclair's responsibility for building schools?
Ms. Ducros: No.
Mr. Thoppil: No, senator, because it is not touching an individual per se, the program or service. In terms of where you would find that, senator, you would find it under infrastructure capacity, which is the benefit that we call impacting the land and the economy on a First Nation.
The Chair: So for $306 million, you will not build very many schools, are you? How many schools would you be able to build with $306 million?
Mr. Leclair: Thank you for that question, chair. For schools, we got money in Budget 2014, and we received the money we normally allocate. As we speak right now, we are doing 25 schools and, depending on if we get more money, we are in a position to do more schools.
The Chair: And are those 25 schools prioritized? Those are the biggest need locations?
Mr. Leclair: That is an excellent question. For all the assets for which we are responsible, we have a priority ranking system. For the schools, I don't have the exact number, but around 115 schools that need immediate attention, and on that we prioritize them with our ranking system. Of course first we are doing the ones that raise a health and safety concern or are in such a state that they need major repair.
The Chair: Any other questions on that?
Mr. Thoppil, keep going.
Mr. Thoppil: The easiest one to understand is the North, because it is fairly clear that it will go to programs that touch Northerners. Either it is Nutrition North, which we have talked about before at committee on previous supplementary estimates; climate change adaptation and its impacts; and science and technology initiatives such as the Canadian High Arctic Research Station. Of course our accountabilities in terms of regulations related to minerals and resources are all defined in a geographic way through that pillar.
Finally you have the government. The government is funding for band support services, also for Metis, for specific claims and comprehensive claims and for treaty negotiations as well.
The Chair: Would specific claims include land claims? We asked your predecessor a few years back how many claims there are, what percentage of claims you have settled and how many more claims are left to settle.
As a committee, it would be fantastic to understand directionally, because I think you did a great job in presenting the breakdown of how you structure your allocation of money, but to give us some pieces of information that could be helpful to understand. From your own perspective of public relations, I am sure you have that under consideration.
Mr. Thoppil: I would be pleased to provide you with some specifics now.
We have a current specific claims inventory of around 320: 100 in assessment and 220 in negotiations. At the Specific Claims Tribunal itself there are about 66 claims. That is essentially the number.
The Chair: That would be a great piece of information for Ms. Ducros to send us. Perhaps you could help us and get it to us, because we asked for some information last year that we did not receive. This year we're going to try to assert ourselves more in a nice way, when we ask for information, to get it.
We are interested in trying to work with you, not to be critical of you but to support you, because the work you are doing is so important to our country.
Mr. Thoppil: On specific claims, senator, I want to provide you with some degree of comfort in knowing that since 2007-08 we have settled 125.
The Chair: For a total value of?
Mr. Thoppil: A total of $2.2 billion. We are making headway, but it's all subject to our assessment processes and the negotiations, and that takes time.
The Chair: That type of information would be really helpful to give us perspective and to help us advocate for you folks too. We are advocates, no matter what colour or stripe we are, for Canada, for Canadians and for sharing information so that people are better informed.
Mr. Thoppil: We would be happy to provide the information that the committee would like.
The Chair: Gaëtane will follow up. Do you have anything else to add? We have about three minutes left.
Senator Eaton: They could come back for another two hours.
The Chair: We would love to have you come back for another two hours.
Mr. Thoppil: It would be our privilege to do so.
The Chair: I think we have worn out our welcome with you. You've done a great job, and super information. We look forward to receiving more from you and to our next visit.
Mr. Thoppil: That is right. There are Supplementary Estimates (A).
The Chair: That was our last question that we asked an hour ago: Mr. Thoppil, what do you expect is coming forward in the new budget?
Mr. Thoppil: I think I will defer to the Minister of Finance for that.
The Chair: That's right, because you were told not say another word until you heard.
Unless there are further questions, the meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)