ARCHIVED - 2012-2013 Financial Overview – December 2012

Archived information

This Web page has been archived on the Web. Archived information is provided for reference, research or record keeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

PowerPoint Format (1.64 Mb, 19 Pages)

PDF Format   (772 Kb, 19 Pages)

This overview does not reflect Budget 2012 announcements.

 


Table of Contents





Major Cost Drivers

Existing Federal Obligations

Demographic and Inflationary Pressures

Policy Commitments

Claims, Treaties and Rights

Devolution Issues

Return to Table of Contents





Fiscal Cycle

Note: Includes Supplementary Estimates (A) and (B)

Description of figure: Fiscal Cycle

This is an image of a bar graph showing the dollar amounts in the annual estimates cycle for the department including the dollar amounts for the Main Estimates, Report on Plans and Priorities, Main and Supplementary Estimates and the actual expenditures for the fiscal years of 2007–08, 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12 and 2012–13. The dollar amounts for the actual expenses for fiscal year 2012–13 are not included.

For 2007–2008 the figures are: $6.3 billion, Main Estimates; $6.8 billion, Report on Plans and Priorities; $7.4 billion, Main and Supplementary Estimates; $7.3 billion, Actual Expenses.

For 2008–2009 the figures are: $6.3 billion, Main Estimates; $6.9 billion, Report on Plans and Priorities; $7.3 billion, Main and Supplementary Estimates; $7.0 billion, Actual Expenses.

For 2009–2010 the figures are: $6.9 billion, Main Estimates; $7.3 billion, Report on Plans and Priorities; $7.8 billion, Main and Supplementary Estimates; $7.4 billion, Actual Expenses.

For 2010–2011 the figures are: $7.3 billion, Main Estimates; $7.3 billion, Report on Plans and Priorities; $8.3 billion, Main and Supplementary Estimates; $8.2 billion, Actual Expenses.

For 2011–2012 the figures are: $7.4 billion, Main Estimates; $7.4 billion, Report on Plans and Priorities; $8.0 billion, Main and Supplementary Estimates; $7.9 billion, Actual Expenses.

For 2012–2013 the figures are: $7.8 billion, Main Estimates; $7.8 billion, Report on Plans and Priorities; $8.5 billion, Main and Supplementary Estimates A and B.

Return to Table of Contents





Minister's Portfolio ($7.8 billion in the 2012–13 Main Estimates)

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada ($7,796.9 million) supports Aboriginal people (First Nations, Inuit and Metis) and Northerners in their efforts to improve social well-being and economic prosperity; develop healthier, more sustainable communities; and participate more fully in Canada's political, social and economic development to the benefit of all Canadians.

Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission ($7.7 million) has a mandate to learn the truth and to inform all Canadians about what happened in the residential schools.

Registry of the Specific Claims Tribunal ($2.8 million) facilitates timely access to the Specific Claims Tribunal through client service, quality of advice, efficient and timely processing and unbiased service delivery; ensures the smooth and efficient functioning of hearings; promotes awareness and understanding of the Specific Claims Tribunal Act and related rules and procedures; safeguards the independence of the Specific Claims Tribunal by placing them at arm's length from the Government of Canada.

Canadian Polar Commission ($1.3 million) monitors polar knowledge in Canada and around the world; works with Canadian and international institutions to determine scientific and other priorities; encourages support for Canadian polar research information to Canadians and fosters international co-operation in the advancement of polar knowledge.

First Nations Statistical Institute ($5.0 million) provides First Nations and other stakeholders with timely, accurate, relevant, on-target and properly interpreted statistical information that supports program and policy development decisions and fiscal transfers relating to First Nations.

Return to Table of Contents





Key Area Breakdown

2012–13 Main Estimates - Total $7,797 million
$7,108M is budgeted in 7 key areas on 15 major programs
(each more than $100 million)


(millions of dollars)


Source: 2012–13 Main Estimates

Figures may not add due to rounding

Return to Table of Contents





Departmental Finances

2012–13 Main Estimates - Total $7,797 million

(millions of dollars)

image of a pie chart

Description of figure: Departmental Finances

This image is of a pie chart showing the breakdown of departmental expenditures for 2012-13. The breakdown is shown as follows: $6,460 million (83%) transfer payments; $79 million (1%) loans; $22 million (0%) capital; $581 million (7%) statutory/fiduciary obligations; $378 million (5%) program delivery; $68 million (1%) negotiation costs; $209 million (3%) administrative overhead.

Of the $581 million for statutory/fiduciary obligations, about $465 million is for direct payments to recipients including: $380 million for obligations pursuant to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement; and, the remaining $85 million for claims related obligations, Department of Justice costs, out-of-court settlements, etc.

Program delivery costs directly benefit First Nation and northern communities and include costs associated with education, social development, capital/ infrastructure, economic development, Indian government support, environmental initiatives and northern programming. Of the $378 million, about $135 million is for direct payments to recipients, primarily related to the assessment, management and remediation of federal contaminated sites.

This image also contains two tables; the first demonstrates the breakdown of forecasted operating expenses – which total $1,236 million – as follows: $1,166 million for operating expenditures (Vote 1); and the following statutory expenses: $65 million for employee benefit plans; $3 million for resource royalties and $2 million for loan guarantees. The second table demonstrates the breakdown of transfer payments – which total $6,460 million – as follows: $6,365 million for grants and contributions (Vote 10); and the following statutory expenses: $75 million for land claims settlement acts, $18 million for the Labrador Inuit Claims Agreement and $1 million for Indian annuities.

The source for the information for the chart is the 2012-13 Main Estimates. Figures may not add due to rounding.

* Of the $581 million for statutory/fiduciary obligations, about $465 million is for direct payments to recipients including: $380 million for obligations pursuant to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement; and, the remaining $85 million for claims related obligations, Department of Justice costs, out-of-court settlements, etc.

** Program delivery costs directly benefit First Nation and northern communities and include costs associated with education, social development, capital/infrastructure, economic development, Indian government support, environmental initiatives and northern programming. Of the $378 million, about $135 million is for direct payments to recipients, primarily related to the assessment, management and remediation of federal contaminated sites.

Figures may not add due to rounding.

Return to Table of Contents





Program Activity Architecture

2012–13 Main Estimates - $7,797 million

(millions of dollars)


Note 1: Internal Services are comprised of $209.4 million for Administrative Overhead and $84.1 million for Litigation Support.

Source: 2012–13 Main Estimates; additional details at sub-activity level extracted from departmental budget allocations.

Figures may not add due to rounding and do not reflect Budget 2012 announcements.

Return to Table of Contents





Expenditure Trend – Education

Overall, actual expenditures for education have increased by about 19% over the period 2004–05 to 2010–11 (or by about 2.9% annually).

Source: 2004–05 to 2010–11 as per Departmental Performance Reports (restated); 2011–12 as per Main Estimates (restated) and 2012–13 as per Main Estimates.

Note – To be consistent with figures displayed for 2012–13, figures for 2004–05 through 2011–12 have been restated to reflect the transfer of funding for Education Agreements to the Treaty Management Program Activity (as per the revised Program Activity Architecture for 2011–12) and the consolidation of Cultural Education Centres and First Nations and Inuit Youth Employment Strategy in Elementary and Secondary Education (as per the revised Program Activity Architecture for 2012–13). In addition, an adjustment has also been made to the DPR figures for the period 2004–05 through 2008–09 to provide consistency with the display of Internal Services as a separate program activity beginning in 2009–10 (ie. Internal Services was previously attributed across all program activities).

Figures may not add due to rounding.

Return to Table of Contents





Expenditure Trend – Social Development

Overall, actual expenditures for social development have increased by about 32% over the period 2004–05 to 2010–11 (or by about 4.7% annually).

Description of figure: Expenditure Trend – Social Development

This is an image of a bar graph showing the expenditures made annually by the department for social development, broken down for each year into expenditures for income assistance, child and family services, and other, from fiscal years 2004–05 to 2012–13. The "other" category includes other social development programs and initiatives: assisted living, family violence prevention, national child benefit re-investment and family capacity initiatives. These amounts are based on actual budgetary expenditures (2004–05 to 2011–12), and for 2012–13 two bar graphs are depicted – the first with Main Estimates, and the second with Main Estimates plus Budget 2012.

For 2004–05 a total of $1,222 million was spent on social development, with $655 million spent on income assistance, $385 million for child and family services, and $181 million for other social development programs and initiatives.

For 2005–06 a total of $1,278 million was spent on social development, with $683 million spent on income assistance, $417 million for child and family services, and $179 million for other social development programs and initiatives.

For 2006–07 a total of $1,342 million was spent on social development, with $704 million spent on income assistance, $450 million for child and family services, and $188 million for other social development programs and initiatives.

For 2007–08 a total of $1,426 million was spent on social development, with $742 million spent on income assistance, $490 million for child and family services, and $194 million for other social development programs and initiatives.

For 2008–09 a total of $1,484 million was spent on social development, with $764 million spent on income assistance, $524 million for child and family services, and $196 million for other social development programs and initiatives.

For 2009–10 a total of $1,557 million was spent on social development, with $806 million spent on income assistance, $553 million for child and family services, and $198 million for other social development programs and initiatives.

For 2010–11 a total of $1,611 million was spent on social development, with $824 million spent on income assistance, $585 million for child and family services, and $202 million for other social development programs and initiatives.

For 2011–12 a total of $1,678 million was spent on social development, with $843 million spent on income assistance, $655 million for child and family services, and $180 million for other social development programs and initiatives.

For 2012–13, the Main Estimates indicate a total of $1,605 million will be spent on social development, with $861 million spent on income assistance, $640 million for child and family services, and $115 million for other social development programs and initiatives.

For 2012–13, the Main Estimates and an adjustment $12 million from Budget 2012 indicate a total of $1,617 million will be spent on social development, with $861 million spent on income assistance, $640 million for child and family services, and $115 million for other social development programs and initiatives.

Overall, actual expenditures for social development have increased by about 37 per cent over the period 2004–05 to 2011–12 (or by about 4.6 per cent annually).

* Other includes Assisted Living, Family Violence Prevention, National Child Benefit Re-investment and Family Capacity Initiatives.

Source: 2004–05 to 2010–11 totals as per Departmental Performance Reports; 2011–12 and 2012–13 as per Main Estimates; to be consistent with figures displayed for 2009–10 to 2012–13, figures for prior years have been restated to remove Internal Services which was previously attributed to program activities.

Figures may not add due to rounding.

Return to Table of Contents





Expenditure Trend – Community Infrastructure

Overall, actual expenditures for community infrastructure have increased by about 36% over the period 2004–05 to 2010–11.

Description of figure: Expenditure Trend – Community Infrastructure

This is an image of a bar graph showing the expenditures made annually by the department for community infrastructure, broken down for each year into expenditures for water and sewage, infrastructure, education, and housing, from fiscal years 2004–05 to 2012–13. These amounts are based on actual budgetary expenditures (2004–05 to 2011–12), and for 2012–13 two bar graphs are depicted – the first with Main Estimates, and the second with Main Estimates plus Budget 2012.

For 2004–05 a total of $958 million was spent on community infrastructure, with $316 million spent on water and sewage infrastructure, $292 million for infrastructure, $213 million for education infrastructure, and $136 million for housing infrastructure.

For 2005–06 a total of $974 million was spent on community infrastructure, with $316 million spent on water and sewage infrastructure, $304 million for infrastructure, $189 million for education infrastructure, and $165 million for housing infrastructure.

For 2006–07 a total of $1,099 million was spent on community infrastructure, with $350 million spent on water and sewage infrastructure, $300 million for infrastructure, $195 million for education infrastructure, and $255 million for housing infrastructure.

For 2007–08 a total of $1,053 million was spent on community infrastructure, with $370 million spent on water and sewage infrastructure, $277 million for infrastructure, $250 million for education infrastructure, and $155 million for housing infrastructure.

For 2008–09 a total of $1,088 million was spent on community infrastructure, with $308 million spent on water and sewage infrastructure, $454 million for infrastructure, $208 million for education infrastructure, and $117 million for housing infrastructure.

For 2009–10 a total of $1,295 million was spent on community infrastructure, with $380 million spent on water and sewage infrastructure, $437 million for infrastructure, $277 million for education infrastructure, and $200 million for housing infrastructure.

For 2010–11 a total of $1,300 million was spent on community infrastructure, with $395 million spent on water and sewage infrastructure, $410 million for infrastructure, $304 million for education infrastructure, and $191 million for housing infrastructure.

For 2011–12 a total of $1,0970 million was spent on community infrastructure, with $311 million spent on water and sewage infrastructure, $452 million for infrastructure, $201 million for education infrastructure, and $132 million for housing infrastructure.

For 2012–13, the Main Estimates indicate a total of $1,045 million will be spent on community infrastructure, with $194 million spent on water and sewage infrastructure, $481 million for infrastructure, $225 million for education infrastructure, and $146 million for housing infrastructure. 

For 2012–13, the Main Estimates and an adjustment of $162 million from Budget 2012 indicate a total of $1,207 million will be spent on community infrastructure, with $330 million spent on water and sewage infrastructure, $481 million for infrastructure, $250 million for education infrastructure, and $146 million for housing infrastructure. 

Overall, actual expenditures for community infrastructure have averaged about $1.1 billion annually over the period 2004–05 to 2011–12.

Source: 2004–05 to 2010–11 totals as per Departmental Performance Reports (restated); 2011–12 and 2012–13 as per Main Estimates; additional detailed information extracted from the Long-Term Capital Plan; to be consistent with figures displayed for 2009–10 to 2012–13, figures for prior years have been restated to remove Internal Services and capital and O&M funding for the James Bay Crees, the Ouje-Bougoumou Crees and the Naskapi bands of Quebec.

Figures may not add due to rounding.

Return to Table of Contents





Expenditure Trend – Claims

* Includes funding for negotiation, settlement and implementation of claims; excludes non-budgetary (loan) funding.

** Reflects $1.1 billion one-time payment to the Cree of Quebec for matters arising from the implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

Return to Table of Contents





Program Delivery at AANDC

Highly Decentralized with 10 Regions

South of 60°

North of 60°

Return to Table of Contents





Program Delivery – Demographic Realities

* Other refers to individuals who reported more than one Aboriginal group, and those who reported being a Band member with no Aboriginal identity and no Registered Indian status.

Source: 2006 Census of Population, AANDC tabulations. Data from the 2011 Census will be available in early 2013.

Return to Table of Contents





Program Delivery – Geographic Realities (Small Communities)

Description of figure: Program Delivery – Geographic Realities (Small Communities)

This image is of a bar chart showing the distribution of the 865 First Nation reserves by population size based on Statistics Canada 2006 information. The chart indicates that 319 reserves have a population of 100 or less; 173 have populations of between 100 and 249; 150 between 250 and 499; 135 between 500 and 999; 67 between 1000 and 1999 and; 21 with populations of more than 2000. There are 642 reserves with less than 500 inhabitants. The source for this data is from AANDC, derived from 2006 Geosuite, Statistics Canada. Data from the 2011 Census will be available in early 2013.

Note: N=865 out of a possible 1,176 First Nation communities delineated by Statistics Canada in 2006. Not included are unpopulated reserves and 22 incompletely enumerated reserves that did not participate in the Census.

Source: AANDC derived from 2006 Geosuite, Statistics Canada. Data from the 2011 Census will be available in early 2013.

Return to Table of Contents





Program Delivery – Geographic Realities (Dispersed Communities)

As of 2011, 66% of Registered Indians on reserve lived in rural, special access, or remote zones; 34% lived in urban zones.

Description of figure: Program Delivery – Geographic Realities (Dispersed Communities)

This image is of a pie chart showing the population distribution by percentage of the on-reserve population by geographic zone. The population distribution is as follows: Rural, 44.7%; Urban, 34.3%; Special Access, 17.3% and; Remote, 3.7%. The definitions for these categories are: Urban: the First Nation is located within 50 km of the nearest service centre with a year-round road access. Rural: the First Nation is located between 50 and 350 km from the nearest service centre with a year-round road access. Remote: the First Nation is located over 350 km from the nearest service centre with year-round road access. Special Access: The First Nation has no year-round road access to a service centre and, as a result, experiences a higher cost of transportation. Source: Indian Register Population by Geographic Zone, 2011. This data does not reflect the impact of the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act (Bill C-3) or the creation of the Qalipu First Nation in Newfoundland.

Note:

Urban: The First Nation is located within 50 km of the nearest service centre with a year-round road access.

Rural: The First Nation is located between 50 and 350 km from the nearest service centre with a year-round road access.

Remote: The First Nation is located over 350 km from the nearest service centre with year-round road access.

Special Access: The First Nation has no year-round road access to a service centre and, as a result, experiences a higher cost of transportation.

Source: Indian Register Population by Geographic Zone, 2011. This data does not reflect the impact of the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act (Bill C-3) or the creation of the Qalipu First Nation in Newfoundland.

Return to Table of Contents





Program Delivery – Socio-Economic Realities

image of a line graph

Description of figure: Program Delivery – Socio-Economic Realities

This image is of a line graph showing the average Community Well-Being scores of First Nation, Inuit and other Canadian communities for the years 1981, 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006. The Community Well-Being Index is a method of assessing general well-being of Canadians at the community level in terms of education, labour force activity, income and housing. The scores are plotted on an XY axis chart where the "X" axis are the years 1981 to 2006 and the "Y" is the Community Well-Being Index scores from 30 to 100. The chart shows that the scores for First Nation communities were: 47 (1981); 51 (1991); 55 (1996); 57 (2001); 57 (2006).

The scores for Inuit communities were: 48 (1981); 57 (1991); 60 (1996); 61 (2001); 62 (2006). The scores for other Canadian communities were: 67 (1981); 71 (1991); 72 (1996); 73 (2001); 77 (2006). The source for the data used in the line is Statistics Canada’s Census of Population for 1981, 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006. Data from the 2011 Census will be available in early 2013.

Source: Statistics Canada, 1981, 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006 Census of Population. Data from the 2011 Census will be available in early 2013.

Return to Table of Contents





Operating Environment – Departmental Accountability for Spending

Return to Table of Contents





Operating Environment – Accountability of Funding Recipients

Return to Table of Contents





In Summary

Return to Table of Contents


Date modified: