I'm pleased to meet with the members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. With me today, as the chair has mentioned, is Robert Hertzog, who is the department's chief financial officer, and René Bouchard, who is the executive director of our portfolio affairs.
We appeared before the committee last May on the subject of the 2012-13 main estimates for the Department of Canadian Heritage and its portfolio organizations. At that time, I said that the total budget of the department was $1.28 billion. This figure consists of $202.8 million in operating expenditures and $1.078 billion in grants and contributions.
As well, the 18 Canadian Heritage portfolio organizations receive $1.9 billion in appropriations. As stipulated in budget 2012, Canadian Heritage and its portfolio organizations face planned reductions of approximately 6.9% by 2014-15. The total amount of these reductions, as well as their financial impact on our current year financial results, are explained in the department's quarterly financial reports. The first report was tabled in June 2012.
Let me now address the 2012-13 supplementary estimates (B) for the Department of Canadian Heritage and the portfolio organizations.
The supplementary estimates for 2012-13 were tabled in Parliament on November 8, 2012. Parliament is being asked to approve $7.5 million in additional resources for the Department of Canadian Heritage.
[Translation]
The new requirements are for the following initiatives.
$14,386,219 for Sport Canada's hosting program to support the construction of new facilities and the upgrade of existing facilities. This includes the related design and planning activities for the Toronto 2015 Pan American and Parapan American games. Funding announcements that have been made for these facilities include Markham, York, Welland, and others will be ongoing.
$3,000,000 for Sport Canada's sport support program to support activities of ParticipACTION and the Quebec-based fitness organization Le grand défi Pierre Lavoie. Both of these organizations promote more active lifestyles and healthier, stronger communities across Canada, with a particular emphasis on children and youth.
A $1,000,000 transfer from the sport support program to the athlete assistance program to provide increased living and training allowances to high-performance athletes.
$5,000,000 for the celebration and commemoration program to support the 100 th Grey Cup anniversary celebrations that took place in communities across Canada. Activities focused on the ten-week national train tour and week-long celebration in Toronto just prior to the Grey Cup game on November 25, 2012.
$2,500,000 for a grant to the Hnatyshyn Foundation. The foundation supports artistic and cultural development in Canada through a grant program that affirms the vital role of the arts and artists in strengthening the community and enriching the quality of life of Canadians.
$200,000 ofor government advertising programs related to the war of 1812. The Government of Canada has a series of activities to commemorate the 200 th anniversary of the war of 1812 over three years. Activities include a pan-Canadian public awareness campaign, learning materials for schools, funding for up to 100 events and historical re-enactments, a traveling War Museum exhibit, a permanent 1812 monument in Ottawa, and investments in national historic sites associated with the war of 1812.
[English]
Funds being provided to the department for these initiatives through supplementary estimates (B) are shown net of $17,541,000 in savings. These savings were identified in budget 2012 and are being achieved through efficiencies in operations and the reduction in 2012-13 of programs such as international expositions, for savings of $8,612,000, and the Canada interactive fund, for savings of $7,880,000.
Items in the supplementary estimates (B) for 2012-13 that affect the Canadian Heritage portfolio organizations include $32.2 million in funding for Canadian Broadcasting Corporation programming. Since 2001, CBC/Radio-Canada has received $60 million in annual funding to enhance and expand its Canadian radio and television programming. For 2012-13, the $60-million amount is reduced by $27.8 million, which reflects the reduction to the CBC's appropriations that were announced in budget 2012. As a result, the net amount to be provided to CBC in 2012-13 is, as I noted, $32.2 million.
There is $46,700,000 for the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. The museum will receive $21.7 million in operating funds for 2012-13, as well as a $25-million instalment on a $35-million advance on appropriations granted by the government. The latter is financial flexibility; this will provide the museum with the financial flexibility it needs to open in 2014.
Authority is also being sought for transfers to and from other federal government departments or organizations, for a net increase of $1 million. This comprises a decrease of $9.5 million in operating and an increase of $10.5 million in grants and contributions.
These are largely adjustments to ongoing initiatives with other Canadian Heritage portfolio organizations and government departments, and they include: the transfer of funds to Veterans Affairs Canada to support the Historica-Dominica Institute's memory project and help educate youth about the importance of remembrance; the transfer of funds from the Canada Council for the Arts to support a series of research reports on the arts in Canada, and the return of funding provided for the national translation program for book publishing that is not required
As I mentioned when I appeared before the committee last May, Canadian Heritage has long-standing financial targets and is continuing to meet these targets. We continue to do our part to achieve the government-wide productivity improvement and efficiency goals that have been established. The measures we have adopted support modernizing the department by maximizing investments, delivering results, and increasing the impact of our programs.
We would now be pleased to respond to any questions committee members may have.
Merci.
:
With pleasure, Mr. Blanchette.
If I remember correctly, when I appeared here in May, I explained to you that, about three years ago, our department was facing a structural deficit of more than $60 million. Actually, when salary increases were included, we realized that it was close to $67 million. Before Budget 2012, that is, before the deficit reduction exercise, we had already undertaken internal initiatives to reduce costs and cut some staff in order to reduce that deficit by $40 million.
At that point, we used that $40 million figure to adjust the budget and that led to a job losses numbering a little under 300. Some positions were lost in order to deal with the deficit and others were lost as fixed-term initiatives came to an end. When Budget 2012 came around, we had about $27 million to go. The effect of the budget itself in terms of cuts to programs and to the people who run them was that the staff cuts affected 38 people.
So if you are asking me very specifically how many people had their positions eliminated as a result of the measures in this budget, my answer will be 38 FTEs, full time equivalents. In terms of person-years that were cut in order to confront the additional cuts and our structural deficit of $27 million, it was 242 other positions, for a total of 280.
I have a couple of questions about the Governors General foundations. There is a request in the supplementary (B)s for a funding transfer or new funding of $2.5 million for the Hnatyshyn Foundation.
I have a couple of questions, both specifically about the transfer and why it is necessary, but also, if you could speak a little on this subject, about these foundations generally. It looks as though each former Governor General establishes a foundation at the end of their service to our country as a Governor General.
Could you speak about the mandate of the foundations, why they're created, where the funding comes from, and whether they are completely taxpayer-funded or there is some private sector support? Also, specifically, speak to us about the $2.5 million and why it was earmarked.
I'll ask one brief question and then pass this over to my colleague, Monsieur Blanchette.
I noticed that the CRTC has gone up from.... I don't have the main estimates here, but in the supplementary (A)s, they were at $11.3 million, and then it went to $16.2 million in total. In the programming money that your department provides to CRTC, do you include dollars to support interventions or applications for aboriginal radio and television programming where they are seeking support by the CRTC to run aboriginal programming? I think it's in your mandate—for sure for the CRTC—to be supporting aboriginal programming.
I'm just curious about this. Some regulators, such as energy boards and so forth, provide intervenor costs for those who might have trouble affording an intervention. I am wondering whether those dollar figures, including the increases—because I know there is increased interest in aboriginal broadcasting—include any additional money to assist them to intervene effectively?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, members of the committee.
I have some talking points that walk people through the specific items in the supplementaries. If it's agreeable to you, Mr. Chairman, I'll just leave that with the clerk for reference.
I'd just note that we have a busy agenda at the department. There are currently five bills before Parliament being debated at various stages in both chambers. We're busy on implementation of the March budget. There are both positive investments and deficit reduction measures.
Of course, we do have the supplementary estimates here. These are, in a nutshell, largely measures that flow from the budget, so the decisions came after the main estimates were put to bed. This is often a pattern with our department. There are significant supplementary estimates every year.
If you add together the main estimates, the supplementary (A)s, and the supplementary (B)s, we will be spending about $8.5 billion this year.
I'd be happy to take questions on any of the supplementary estimates items, of course, and on any other matters of interest to the committee.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thanks for your brevity. We actually probably have a lot of questions for you, so I appreciate that. Thank you for the background material.
Going to your background materials, Mr. Wernick, I note that you emphasize that “an issue of great concern to the government” is safe drinking water. You also mention the safe drinking water bill, which of course is going through the House right now. It's finally in the House after being in the Senate for a while. You state that it “will enable the federal government to work with First Nations on a region by region basis, to create enforceable regulatory standards”.
Here is my first question for you, Mr. Wernick. Given the statement that safe drinking water for first nations is of great concern to the government, it's rather surprising that in the main estimates this year, there was a reduction of $159.2 million for water and waste water. The rationale given for that is that the waste water action plan ended in March of this year. Given the purported concern of the government for safe drinking water and for maintaining protection of the source water, I look forward to an explanation as to why they would not renew that for the long term so that there would be certainty of that funding.
My concern, and the concern of the first nations, goes hand in glove with the report from the national engineering assessment that more than a billion dollars is needed to bring all first nation water supplies up to the standards most Canadians benefit from. An estimated additional $80 million, according to the government-funded national engineering assessment, is needed for training, source water protection, and emergency response. Yet given the clear estimate by the independent engineering assessment that a billion dollars is needed, and when we have more than 100 first nation communities still on boil-water advisories, no new money is allocated in supplementary (A)s, as far as I can see. Then $136 million appears in supplementary (B)s over a two-year period.
Can you advise us as to whether the government is considering renewing its long-term commitment to safe drinking water and waste water for the first nations? And can you provide a rationalization, given the need, given the number of boil-water advisories, and given the number of first nation communities at risk? What is the timeline over which we can anticipate that each of those communities will come into the 21st century and have access to safe drinking water?
Thank you to our witnesses for sharing with us a little bit about Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as it's known in the supplementary (B)s.
I want to share with you the fact that I come from the Okanagan, from Kelowna—Lake Country, and am representing Westbank First Nation and the Okanagan Indian Band. UBC Okanagan recently renewed their agreement and framework for our aboriginal students in post-secondary. We all want clean drinking water on first nations, a good roof over their heads, and education.
As Ms. Duncan alluded to, there's somebody else with the surname of Duncan, our Minister , who has been working closely with our B.C. government in the First Nations Schools Association in reforming first nations education and, earlier this year, was able to sign an agreement. I notice that $45 million in supplementary estimates (B) has been allocated for the development of school systems “to ensure readiness” of first nations education. Could you please elaborate on how this money will be spent and where the schools will be constructed and renovated?
One of the concerns that has been expressed is about the announcement of the cuts to tribal councils and other organizations that support first nations and delivery of services. One of the big roles that the tribal councils have been providing, including some of the technical advisory groups under the tribal councils.... There's one in Alberta that has been doing terrific work on advising on resource developments and safe drinking water.
The 2009 audit by your department found that the first nation lands and resource boards and other first nation entities were strained and struggling under trying to respond to the plethora of resource and development projects. Of course, we have...what's the one along James Bay? There are all those mining proposals, and then in northern Alberta, of course, we have massive developments in oil and gas. In the Northwest Territories, it's diamond mining. In Nunavut, it's mining exploration.
I'm wondering if you could explain to us where in the supplementaries we might find those cuts to the support for those organizations, and how the department is rationalizing these cuts, given that the government has said—and to their credit—that they want to move towards and support first nations in self-governance. How do they rationalize the decision to take away the funds from the very entities that are supporting the first nations in self-governance, in trying to negotiate good benefit agreements with the resource sector, and in trying to deal with the massive environmental impact reviews and so forth?
:
I'll try to deal with those quickly, Mr. Chairman.
You won't find them in the supplementaries because these are reductions that only kick in next year and, for the most part, in 2014-15. They were announced with a fair bit of lead time for people to make adjustments—both the tribal councils and the representative organizations. They will show up in future estimates in terms of line items.
In some ways, I guess, you'd want to be asking the about resource allocation, but I'll do my best. If you're given a target to find reduction scenarios of 5% and 10%, you identify particular areas. The minister, certainly with my full support, decided to protect various areas.
We didn't touch the residential schools agreement. We didn't touch education. We didn't touch water and waste water. We didn't touch northern programs and so on. As you start to pull back from the total spending, there are only so many areas you can go to. We took a 10% reduction on the operations of the department—480 positions—so we know very well that we had to set an example and try to take the hit first on our own operations and bureaucracy.
The second sort of concentric circle out there was reductions to the aboriginal representative organizations and tribal councils. We never expected them to be happy about that, but we're trying to create fairly clear structures in terms of separating the role of the advocacy political organizations, on the one hand, from the tribal councils, which will move more and move into service delivery in the future, and to create a tiering structure that actually incents them to merge and form larger entities over time. We're seeing some early evidence that people are starting to discuss that. We're still in the period where they're unhappy about the funding reductions. That's a resource allocation decision.
All in, I think the minister would want me to underline that with the 5% scenario and the 10% scenario, the reduction to the department was 2.7% all in, mostly on operations, and was more than offset by the additional investments in water and education.
:
I'll make sure that I can identify the specific amount.
Specific claims, for members who aren't familiar with this, are allegations of violations of trust or sharp dealings, or a grievance of some sort. They're not the unresolved land claims. These are very specific issues, as the name implies. We had an out-of-court settlement model for them for many years, which people deemed was not very effective.
In 2007 or 2008, the government brought in legislation to create a binding tribunal to make final awards on these issues. The tribunal is a creature of legislation and is up and running now. The existence of the tribunal sets up a process of negotiating settlements. We're motivated to settle, and so are first nations, because of the existence of the tribunal.
We have invested significant resources in the last few years in clearing up the big backlog in the pipeline of getting legal assessments. Essentially, my negotiators can't offer a number until we've done a risk assessment of what we think the claim may be worth.
We have eliminated that backlog. We have made offers right across the country. We have actually, in some cases, also said no, that we don't think there's a basis for a settlement and that people are free to go to the tribunal if they think they have a good case.
In aggregate numbers, we are now at well above $1 billion in settlements. The list of communities showing where these are is on our website, and we have a progress report, and so on. Most of the claims are in British Columbia, but there are many across the west, as I'm sure you know. They can be as large as $200 million to $300 million, in the case of the Bigstone Cree in the northwest part of Alberta or the Coldwater claim in central Ontario. Or they can be very, very tiny: a railway or a road was being created, and reserve land was taken away, and now compensation has been paid. They can vary from a few thousand to several hundred millions of dollars.
We have essentially eliminated the backlog. We're well more than halfway done with what we inherited in 2007 and are on the path to resolving many of the others.
:
I think what the assessment tells you—and it's a very candid snapshot of the state of water and waste water facilities across the country—is what is the upper bound of what it could cost. It makes some assumptions about what kinds of solutions...they tend to be the high-end ones, the “we will extend piped water solutions”, in communities that are highly distributed. These are not compact subdivisions and are spread out.
The technology on water is evolving very, very rapidly, so that there are solutions now emerging in the marketplace whereby filtration and treatment can be delivered and installed basically under your kitchen sink in your own home. There are all kinds of different approaches being developed across the world. What we're trying to do, which is not easy, because we don't actually do the contracting and the building—the first nations do—is speed up the process of the adaptation of those new technologies.
I think the stats are always a little hard to read, because you may have a community in which almost everybody is hooked up, but there may be a back part of the reserve that is not hooked up. I'm not always sure whether they're counted properly. The other thing is that communities can vary from 10,000 people to 100, and so if you count by communities, you may not be getting the picture of population.
We've made a lot of progress on the percentage of population that is now served by low-risk facilities. The low-and-medium category is well over 75%. It is going to be hard to get that last piece, and we're hoping that some of the innovation and technology will help with this.
I would like to get on the record that boil-water advisories are not a good indicator, because they can be a very temporary phenomenon; sometimes one happens because of a break in the pipe or because of lake runoff in the spring. The City of Vancouver had a boil-water advisory. That doesn't mean that people in Vancouver don't have safe drinking water. We do feel that the risk assessment methodology that's in that statement is a better measure.
:
What happened in the budget, as I'm sure you remember, is that the government declared its intention to have legislation in place by the end of this Parliament. There is a process under way with the Assembly of First Nations and other regional groups. We had a national panel on K-to-12 education, which went around the country and reported. You can find that report on our website, as well as the Auditor General's report, which gives advice, as well as the Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples report, which gave advice.
There has been a lot of first nations input into this. I'm sure people will say that there wasn't enough, but we can document who participated in all of these things. And there will undoubtedly be further consultation before the bill is tabled next year.
The money for programming is.... While we expect a fairly noisy debate about the legislation, to get on with the school success programs and the partnerships on the ground, which are making a difference in outcomes, there was a significant investment in those in 2008 and there was another investment. If I remember the math, the put in $275 million: $175 million went for schools and $100 million for programming, or the other way round. The idea is that we're not going to wait for the legislation to make progress on the ground with communities.
You're seeing partnerships. On the same theme, local school boards 10 years ago didn't want to talk to the Indian reserves in their community. There are all kinds of partnerships now on curriculum development, teacher training, and so on. Those are really starting to make a difference, and we're hoping the legislation will provide that structure of accountability that will accelerate progress.
Thank you to our witnesses for appearing before us today.
It is abundantly clear that our government is focusing on our first nations communities. I would venture to say that the number of pieces of legislation we have seen and the ones that are before us today is perhaps unprecedented in our Parliament.
I can see from even the additional ask, the additional request in the supplementary estimates, that roughly $471 million represents about 6% of the overall budget of the department, so clearly there's a focus on the first nations communities. I believe it's the right way to go if we indeed are serious—which we are—about long-term, sustained progress in first nations communities.
With respect to the supplementary estimates, I want to expand a little on the question of the development of systems and supports and the construction and renovation of schools on reserve. Can you elaborate a little on the school portion of it? I'm particularly interested in youth programming and youth education. Of course, that is a priority for every community in our country, and especially for our first nations communities.
:
I do have some of the details of what the specific injection this year is going to. It hasn't been fully allocated, as I'll come to in a second.
The minister made an announcement earlier in the summer. In particular, we're focusing on some of the big, expensive projects in remote communities that were always difficult to find resources for. Two big ones are Fort Severn and Pikangikum in northwestern Ontario. There's a school replacement in Kwakiutl in British Columbia and also another in—I'm not going to say that name right, but perhaps you can help me, Ms. Duncan—Tl'etinqox-t'in, British Columbia. There's a full school replacement in Lax Kw'alaams, a major renovation and an addition in the Peter Ballantyne community in Saskatchewan, and a new K-to-12 school in Shamattawa, which is a very troubled community in Manitoba. There's a $25-million expansion in St. Mary's.
Sometimes the renovations are very effective. In some provinces, to graduate from high school, you must have a credit in physical education, or you don't get your diploma. And we have schools where there's no gym, so simply adding the gym is going to help with graduation rates and so on. It isn't always a new build that will make a difference in the community.
We have held back some money in Manitoba. The chair will know these communities very well. We think we're going to have a bundled arrangement for two, three, or four communities where we would build all of the schools in one go, which obviously has some efficiencies.
I want to thank you for your cooperation. I hope you don't feel that you're being grilled down here. I really appreciate your good answers. You have a massive department, which means we have a lot of questions. I wish we had more time with you.
I want to laud you for your plans and priorities report, which we finally got, because you have in there, on page 27, the whole description, supposedly, of delivering on the 's undertaking on this new cooperative nation-to-nation relationship. It's described there.
I notice also that in the main estimates you actually come and say that, for the department, one of the efforts is to have first nations “participate more fully” in the political process. In the plans and priorities report, you allocate almost $800 million, going down to $360 million, to forge this new relationship. But what I find puzzling is where we find that in the main estimates or the supplementaries. I would have thought there would be an actual line now. Is it intended that this will happen sort of by the by, through everything else that is going on? I'm surprised that there's not a line in the estimates and the budget for this new process, which would have costs of its own.