Evidence of meeting #139 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was budget.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Chief Finances, Results and Delivery Officer, Department of Indigenous Services Canada
In terms of housing, it is true that living conditions vary from community to community. It depends on the community's capacity.
12:25 p.m.
Chief Finances, Results and Delivery Officer, Department of Indigenous Services Canada
If there is a technical capacity within the community to manage a home subdivision, because it isn't just installing a house. If you create a subdivision, you also have to create roads, sewers, lighting. You have to clear the lot. There are a whole bunch of different elements before you can get the house onto the lot. The building of the house is the final step in the creation of a home subdivision.
Obviously, we have 630-odd communities across this country, and there are various levels of capacity. We have those that are very strong, which have significant own-source revenues to supplement their parliamentary appropriations, and therefore, they have the capacity to create a number of home subdivisions. Others are very low capacity, and maybe we can only do one or two, based on their capacity to deliver.
It is one of the criteria.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Ms. Santiago, the “withheld” on the sources and uses is about $600 million. Is that all employee benefits, etc., that Mr. Pagan was referring to?
12:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
No, it isn't.
I'd like to back up quickly. I believe at the last appearance at this committee of the Parliamentary Budget Officer there was a comment on the lack of control and the lack of specificity in the language of vote 40.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
What would make up the other money in the $600 million?
12:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Most of that $592 million are the amounts at the bottom of annex 1 that are associated with allocations to be determined, and the net adjustment on a 2018-19 estimates basis. The reason we've frozen them and shown them as withheld is that, in response to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's comments, we will be introducing more specific wording into the supply bill along the lines of what the president mentioned in his last appearance here.
That means we're going to be in a place where we have to refer very specifically to combinations of departments, measures, and amounts, and because in these cases, with the allocations to be determined and with the net adjustment, no departments are specified, and with the net adjustment there aren't measures either, we can't allocate that cash from vote 40. That's why we're showing it as withheld; it's never going to leave vote 40.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Ms. Fernando, there are three items in vote 40. There is some $52 million for protecting parks. There's another item for protecting marine life. Can you briefly walk us through what you're hoping to achieve with that money?
12:30 p.m.
Director General, Policy, Planning and Partnerships Directorate, Meteorological Service of Canada, Department of the Environment
Absolutely. The first piece, protecting nature, is creating a fund, and the federal portion of that fund is contained in that amount you see there. The fund is to be partnered with NGOs and provinces and territories to purchase land and carry out conservation activities on that land. Part of that money is also to increase the federal capacity for protecting species at risk, and for implementing the Species at Risk Act.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Director General, Policy, Planning and Partnerships Directorate, Meteorological Service of Canada, Department of the Environment
The second item is with regard to weather and water services, two different items. The first piece relates to modernization of Environment Canada's ability to forecast and disseminate information on weather. The second piece relates to hydrological services, which is a partner program we carry out with the provinces and territories, and the ability to rebuild a lot of the infrastructure that is rusting, particularly in western Canada.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
You seem to be well aware of what the money is for. Can you tell me why it didn't make it into the departmental plans, and why it wouldn't be put in your main estimates?
12:30 p.m.
Director General, Policy, Planning and Partnerships Directorate, Meteorological Service of Canada, Department of the Environment
I think Mr. Pagan can address that, but—
12:30 p.m.
Director General, Policy, Planning and Partnerships Directorate, Meteorological Service of Canada, Department of the Environment
My understanding is that due to the process we have to undertake, which requires cabinet approval for the policy authority and then Treasury Board approval for the spending and the other authorities, some of these elements have already been through the Treasury Board approval process and others have not.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
What makes these three items different from the other items in your main estimates?
12:30 p.m.
Director General, Policy, Planning and Partnerships Directorate, Meteorological Service of Canada, Department of the Environment
Some have been approved by Treasury Board and some have not.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
That's bizarre.
Ms. Jordan, you mentioned that much of your funding is sunsetting funding. Is that correct?
12:30 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy and Programs Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Yes.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
If it's sunsetting funding, I assume you have all of the backup. You know what the money is going to be spent on, etc. Why is that money not in your estimates, and why is it not in your departmental plans if, as you were mentioning, it's sunsetting money going back to 2000? We know what the money is going for. We know what your planned results are. I'm curious about why it's not showing in your departmental plans. Why is vote 40 not in your estimates as it has been other years? We have all the information.
12:30 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy and Programs Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
The funding is sunsetting; therefore, we are not planning. We have to go through an approval process before we can plan for that money.
We have just gone through the approval process, and that will be reflected in our main estimates going forward.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
But it's not in your departmental plans. What I'm getting at is that you knew what the money was for. A lot of the departments have shown up saying, “We don't know what the money is for. Ask Treasury Board.” Others have told us, “It's preposterous to expect to know what the money is for until you pre-approve it.”
You know what the money is for. You've used it every year. My question is, why is it not in your departmental plans to show what the results are going to be for that money?
12:30 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy and Programs Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
We will put it in the plan once we have the approval. There's a timing issue at play here—
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
We've heard the plans have already been issued, so the plans are closed for this year.
