THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 8, 2021
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met with videoconference this day at 12:03 p.m. [ET] to study the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, before we begin, I would like to remind senators and witnesses to please keep your microphones muted at all times unless recognized by name by the chair.
Also, should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk and we will work to resolve the issue. If you experience other technical challenges, please contact the ISD service desk with the technical assistance number that was provided.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, the use of online platforms does not guarantee speech privacy or that eavesdropping won’t be conducted.
As such, while conducting committee meetings, all participants should be aware of such limitations and restrict the possible disclosure of sensitive, private and privileged Senate information.
Participants should know to do so in a private area and to be mindful of their surroundings.
[English]
Honourable senators, we will now begin with the official portion of our meeting as per our order of reference received from the Senate of Canada.
My name is Percy Mockler, senator from New Brunswick, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
Honourable senators and Madam Minister, I would like to introduce the members of the National Finance Committee who are participating in this meeting: Senator Boehm, Senator Dagenais, Senator Duncan, Senator Forest, Senator Galvez, Senator Gerba, Senator Gignac, Senator Loffreda, Senator Marshall, Senator Pate, Senator Richards, and also of the leadership ex officio, Senator Gagné.
[Translation]
We also welcome senators who are participating in this meeting.
[English]
I wish to welcome all of the viewers across the country who may be watching on sencanada.ca.
Today we will start our study of the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022, which were referred to this committee on December 2 by the Senate of Canada.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, we have the pleasure today of welcoming Minister Mona Fortier, President of the Treasury Board.
Minister, thank you for being available and for appearing before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
[English]
Honourable senators, the minister is accompanied by her team at Treasury Board: first, by the Comptroller General of Canada, Mr. Roch Huppé; by the Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer, Ms. Karen Cahill; Annie Boudreau, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector; Sonya Read, Acting Assistant Secretary, Digital and Services Policy; and Marie-Chantal Girard, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Employee Relations and Total Compensation. Welcome to all of you, and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear in front of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
We will now, honourable senators, welcome the minister.
[Translation]
Minister, the floor is yours. We will put questions to you afterwards.
Hon. Mona Fortier, P.C., M.P., President of the Treasury Board: Thank you. I am very happy to be joining you today, especially as this is my first opportunity to participate in a Senate committee. Thank you for this first experience.
I would like to take a moment to say that I am joining you from my Ottawa office, which is located on the traditional territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
I also want to take a moment to express my sincere condolences for the tragic loss of Senator Josée Forest-Niesing, who sat on the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance for a while, if I’m not mistaken. Please accept my sincere condolences.
[English]
Also, before I officially begin, Mr. Chair, I really want to extend my sincere thanks to all senators for fast-tracking Bill C-3, banning conversion therapy. My daughter told me this morning how pleased she was and very emotional. Thank you so much. You have made a difference in getting this done. Canadians are watching this one closely. My own children heard the news and felt proud to be growing up in a country that protects our most vulnerable from this harmful practice. I also want to say that, as a mother, I cannot tell you how important it was for you to help us get that done.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, thank you for the invitation to meet with you today to discuss the Supplementary Estimates (B) for 2021-22.
The supplementary estimates present information to Parliament on spending that was either not ready for inclusion in the main estimates or has since been refined to account for new developments in programs or services.
With these Supplementary Estimates (B) for 2021-22, the government is seeking Parliament’s approval of funding to address matters of importance to Canadians. This includes the government’s ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as infrastructure and services to address the specific needs of Indigenous communities.
Mr. Chair, the health, safety and well-being of all Canadians are of the utmost importance to the government. That is why approximately $1.2 billion of proposed voted spending is for the government’s ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
As you know, the Omicron variant is further evidence that, to end this pandemic here, we need to help other countries contain the spread of COVID-19. To that end, estimates seek $375 million to deliver on our Budget 2021 commitment to support access by developing countries to vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics.
[English]
Mr. Chair, I would now turn to the funding we are requesting in order to address the needs of Indigenous communities.
These estimates seek funding to deliver on our Budget 2021 commitment to close infrastructure gaps in Indigenous communities, with $725.2 million for critical infrastructure needs like housing, schools, health facilities, water and wastewater. This funding will also support the transfer of infrastructure to Indigenous-led organizations and will fund the operation and maintenance of Indigenous-owned infrastructure.
These estimates also request $412.2 million for the Specific Claims Settlement Fund as well as $361.3 million to fund prevention and protection services to support the safety and well-being of First Nations children and families living on reserve.
To ensure Indigenous peoples can access high-quality health care, Budget 2021 announced several measures, including one in these estimates, of $332.4 million to ensure continued high-quality care through the Non-Insured Health Benefits program.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, our government values our public servants and takes seriously its obligation to them.
These supplementary estimates include $1.5 billion to compensate affected organizations for salary adjustments from recently negotiated collective bargaining agreements, along with other changes to the terms and conditions of employment. This funding will also be used to compensate employees for Phoenix damages and for the extended implementation time frames of some collective agreements.
These estimates also request $327.7 million to cover a pay increase for the Canadian Armed Forces.
[English]
Mr. Chair, these estimates demonstrate our government’s ongoing commitment to improving outcomes for Canadians, including those living in Indigenous communities, and to furthering our contribution to the global effort to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
I am pleased to report that parliamentarians have online access to even more detailed information than what I have had time to present to you today. We will continue to make that information available because we believe Canadians have a right to know where public funds are going and how they will be invested on their behalf.
Mr. Chair, there is one last thing. I want to take this moment to thank the officials who are accompanying me today. As we respond to your questions and comments, it is important to know that we are here as a team to respond to those questions.
Thank you again.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Minister.
As I said earlier, thank you for being available to meet with the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
[English]
Now I would like to tell senators that, for this meeting, you will have a maximum of five minutes each for the first round. Therefore, please ask your questions directly. To the witnesses, please respond concisely. The clerk will make a hand signal to show that the time is over. That said, we will now go to senators.
Senator Marshall: Thank you, minister, to you and your officials for being here.
I’m going to start off with a very general question on a topic that’s especially important to me. It’s a point with regard to the estimates documents and how they are very difficult documents to use when we’re trying to track government expenditures.
First of all, the estimates document doesn’t include all expenditures; there’s limited information on statutory expenditures and almost nothing there on expenditures that are authorized by the Income Tax Act. When you look at Supplementary Estimates (B), I would estimate there would probably be $200 billion in voted expenditures that will be studied by the Finance Committee, and for the other $297 billion — we’ll have to see where they’re at, whether they’re statutory or authorized under the Income Tax Act.
The Minister of Finance hasn’t tabled the Public Accounts yet, so we don’t have that information to use in our assessment of the document. I know that Treasury Board has tried to provide some information; for example, there’s a reconciliation of Supplementary Estimates (B) with the budget. Then, when you go to your website, you can see a reconciliation of COVID spending in the estimates with the COVID spending in the budget.
This morning, I actually spent time trying to reconcile the two reconciliations. When you review the estimates document, you actually need to have a piece of paper with a pen and a calculator, and you have to cross-reference various documents. Your own website acknowledges that it’s an issue. It says:
. . . If you’re a little foggy about it, you’re not alone. Many Canadians don’t understand how public money is directed to programs and services, or how to track government spending.
That’s from your own website.
Previous ministers have tried to reform the estimates process. I’d like to know your plans or intentions. What will you be doing to improve the estimates process so that we, as parliamentarians, can hold the government to account and so that Canadians in general can see where government is spending the money?
Ms. Fortier: Thank you very much, Senator Marshall, for your very important question and also for sharing your experience studying the estimates and the whole budgetary process.
One thing I want to share with all of you is the importance of us being open, accountable and transparent. Those are the values we are projecting. We have developed different tools: the website and the different documentation. We also regularly publish estimates of the cost of tax expenditures.
Also, Senator Marshall, I do want you to know that we will table the Public Accounts by end of year, as we are mandated to. That will be coming very soon. Hopefully, we can find a way to continue to be open, accountable and transparent in our ways.
I might want to ask one of my officials to maybe respond more precisely to some of those links you mentioned. They might have a suggestion they could add to my comments.
Senator Marshall: Yes. Could I just interject here? I’m especially interested in whether Treasury Board is going to initiate some formal project to reform the estimates or if it’s going to be something that’s more disjointed. Maybe it’s going to be nothing at all. Previous ministers have had formal projects, which was really helpful. I would like to hear your comments on that. Thank you.
Ms. Fortier: Thank you so much, Senator Marshall. Through your experience and by sharing that with me, as the new President of the Treasury Board, I will take that advice into consideration and really take the initiative to make sure I can better understand how we can make this better, as my other colleagues have tried in the past. I will commit to looking into it.
Senator Marshall: There is $900 million in Supplementary Estimates (B), and the Parliamentary Budget Officer has noted in his report that that is for contingent liabilities. Why have contingent liabilities shown up as an expenditure item in Supplementary Estimates (B)? Why wouldn’t it be in the contingent liability section of the financial statements?
Ms. Fortier: Thank you, Senator Marshall. I will ask an official from my team to precisely answer your question.
[Translation]
Roch Huppé, Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Good afternoon. I have been the Comptroller General of Canada since October 2017, and it is my pleasure to be here today.
[English]
Senator, that is a really good question. The actual spend as it relates to contingent liability would be booked on an accrual basis and obviously reported in the Public Accounts of Canada. This is the estimates. When the departments actually need funding to, for example, make a payment, they would draw the money through the estimates. The estimates are on a cash basis. The $900 million that you’re seeing here is the funding requirements for a few departments to actually settle and make the payment in some of these cases. But you’re absolutely right that the actual booking has already happened through the booking of a contingent liability.
Senator Marshall: Thank you. I’ll pursue this in the next session.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you, Minister. I also thank your entire team for joining us.
Since this is your first appearance before our committee, I want to use the opportunity to congratulate you on the confidence the Prime Minister has shown in you by appointing you President of the Treasury Board. I hope you will get a great deal of pleasure from the many challenges that will arise in the fulfilment of your mandate.
My first question is about Supplementary Estimates (B), which set aside a non-budgetary authority of $2.36 billion for payment to the Canada Enterprise Emergency Funding Corporation to purchase shares to support the large employer emergency financing facility. The amount is entered under the Department of Finance’s appropriations.
Why is it necessary to create a new corporation, the Canada Enterprise Emergency Funding Corporation, to manage this program, instead of putting an existing department or another organization in charge of managing it? One option would be the Business Development Bank of Canada. By creating a new corporation, the government is spending extra money to hire employees and to implement this new organization, as well as complicating the process quite a bit. I am wondering why a new corporation needs to be created when a number of departments or organizations could manage those disbursements.
Ms. Fortier: Thank you for your question, Senator Forest.
I want to make sure to give you the right information, so I will get back to you with a clear answer after I talk to my colleagues from the Department of Finance. I think we were looking to quickly implement various programs and had to adapt to the situation as we went along. I think that is why this solution was put forward.
If it’s okay with you, I will check whether an official has a more detailed answer. If not, I will get back to you later with a complete answer, if that suits you.
Annie Boudreau, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: As the minister said, the decision was made because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The goal was to provide funding to large businesses that could not use other programs implemented by the Department of Finance.
To answer your question about why we chose this mechanism over another, we must contact our colleagues from the Department of Finance to give you a more detailed answer.
Senator Forest: I am struggling to understand, as billions of dollars were already allocated through programs in the earlystages without new organizations being created. I feel that this could lead to delays.
I have a follow-up question. In terms of those disbursements, will it be ensured that the net is tight-fitting in this program? That would be contrary to the appropriations that have been provided — including for maintaining jobs — where some businesses have used public funding to increase their dividends or pay their senior executives bonuses, which I find completely immoral given the pandemic we are going through.
Ms. Fortier: Senator Forest, thank you once again for bringing this up.
Since we have had to move quickly by adapting to all sorts of measures that had to be rolled out to support families, workers and businesses during the pandemic, we did so knowing full well that we should carry out the necessary audits along the way and afterwards. We know very well that taking too long to implement those measures would have probably led to a loss of staff, a loss of jobs, or even resulted in people no longer being able to provide their family with the bare minimum.
I really understand your concern. I think it is important to continue to ensure that any business, small or large, is subject to audits concerning the use of those emergency programs that have been put in place.
Senator Forest: I think that experience is the sum of our errors, and I applaud the government on its diligence during the first stage of the crisis.
We must now be very sensible and deliberate, and we must ensure that public money is indeed being used to achieve the target — that of maintaining jobs and employability — and not to increase the dividends or bonuses of senior executives.
Ms. Fortier: If I may provide another important part of the answer, I would like to mention that the Auditor General will investigate and make recommendations along the way.
Of course, the government must look into those audits, and I think that will be another contributing element to the lessons learned. Different tools are used to contribute to the lessons learned and to move forward to improve our program roll out.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister.
I would like to bring something to your attention. Since you and your officials will get back to us in writing, I would like to ensure that you can send your answer to the clerk of the committee, Ms. Aubé, by December 13. Can we agree on that?
Ms. Fortier: Yes, Mr. Chair. I think we could respond by December 13, and I will ask my officials to send our answer to the clerk.
Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Gignac, welcome and go ahead with your first question.
Senator Gignac: Welcome, Minister. We have something in common this morning, since this is also a first time for me in my new role as senator as a member of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
Good luck in your duties.
I also want to join Senator Forest in highlighting the work your government has done since the beginning of this pandemic, and especially what public servants have done, as that work has been pretty amazing.
The government has been pragmatic, which undoubtedly explains why Canada has fared better than other G7 countries. Right now, more people have a job then at the beginning of the pandemic. We are the only G7 country where that is the case.
Let’s now move on to more specific issues. In the supplementary estimates, the Treasury Board Secretariat is requesting nearly $1.5 billion in payments to departments and organizations for adjustments to negotiated salaries. How many collective agreements have been signed during this fiscal year? How many still need to be negotiated?
Ms. Fortier: First I’d like to congratulate you, Senator Gignac, on your appointment. Since you are taking office in the midst of the pandemic, I assume you have a lot of experience with the virtual world. I thank you for being with us today.
As of today, 99% of the collective agreements have been concluded based on the mandate we received in 2018. So we are almost done. Unless I am mistaken — and I will ask Ms. Girard to complete my answer — there are only three small groups whose agreements remain to be negotiated. We are committed to reaching agreements with all bargaining agents that are fair toemployees, that take into account the economic and fiscal environment, and that make sense for Canadians.
As soon as I received my mandate, I began to look at Supplementary Estimates (B). The $1.5 billion allowed us to complete agreements that we had concluded in the last few months. The compensation adjustments made between November 14, 2020, and August 6, 2021, allowed us to sign collective agreements with several professional groups.
I’ll ask Marie-Chantal Girard to continue in order to provide you with more complete information.
Marie-Chantal Girard, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Employee Relations and Total Compensation, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Hello everyone, and thank you for the question, Senator Gignac.
Yes, 53 agreements were signed during the 2018 round of negotiations. They affect more than 270,000 employees, or 99% of public servants. Two units have merged. Related to the core public administration, we still have the police operations group, represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and the ships’ officers group, represented by the Canadian Merchant Service Guild. We also have four separate small employer units that are still holding discussions.
And that is all of the work for the 2018 round.
Senator Gignac: The annual reports on the results of departments and agencies are important and valuable tools for us as parliamentarians to make informed decisions, especially when we are asked for additional funding.
I believe these reports are usually tabled in the fall. We are already at the beginning of December. When do you expect these reports to be tabled?
Ms. Boudreau: The minister is having problems with her computer system, she cannot hear or see you. If you want, I could try to answer the question.
Senator Gignac: Yes, go ahead.
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you very much for your question. You are correct, departmental reports are usually filed in the fall. This time, they will be published prior to January 31, once public accounts are published in December.
Senator Gignac: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Richards: Thank you, minister, for being here, and congratulations. You have indicated many admirable things this morning — money for First Nations for infrastructure, clean water programs and reconciliation projects, which are all admirable — but you do not really say where this money is actually going, to which nations it is going or how it is going to be fairly distributed. We might not know where this money is actually being spent. I’m saying this about the money for First Nations, but I could say it about any of the funds that I have read over this supplemental. I’m just wondering if you could comment on that, please.
Ms. Boudreau: We do apologize, but the minister cannot hear the questions. If it’s okay with you, Mr. Chair, I would like to answer the question that has been asked.
The Chair: Please.
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you very much for your question. As you pointed out, Supplementary Estimates (B) provides a lot of money for two departments, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, as well as Indigenous Services Canada. In fact, a total of $3.2 billion, almost 37%, will be allocated to those two departments. We have in the supplementary estimates the broad programs where the money will go. Like the minister said at the beginning, we have money for infrastructure and health, as well as money for settlements of claims. In order to get more information, as you would like to have, by communities or by provinces and territories, those questions will need to be addressed directly to those two departments. They will be in a position to give you all the details that you are looking for.
Senator Richards: To follow up on this, when will they know about how these funds are being distributed, or do they already know? Do they already know, down to the dollar, where this money is going, or is it going to come later on after a certain length of time that they see where this money is going and how it’s being spent? I actually would like an answer and some kind of structure about where this money is going. That’s all.
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you very much for the follow-up question. If I can use an example, I will try with the infrastructure money. The infrastructure money will be divided into three buckets. Some money will go to First Nations on reserve, some money will go to Inuit people and some money will go to Metis. Those two departments that I have highlighted at the beginning, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs and Indigenous Services Canada, will be in a position to give you more details about at least those three groups. If you would like to have more information after that — by provinces, territories, communities — they will certainly be able to give you at least an estimate of the allocation.
Senator Richards: Thank you. It is an admirable thing that you’re doing. I’m just wondering if the money is going to get spent fairly, that’s all.
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you for the question.
The Chair: Ms. Boudreau, to follow up on the question from Senator Richards, you mentioned that you could provide it on a province by province basis. Do you think that you could provide that to the committee on or before the 13th, which is the last date because of our timing to report to the Senate on December 13?
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Chair. In fact, what I said is that that question will be better addressed to those two departments. Those two departments will have the information that you are looking for. At Treasury Board, we have the broad amount, but community by community, province by province — all the information would come from those two departments.
The Chair: Thank you for that clarification.
Ms. Fortier: Mr. Chair, I am back online. I’m terribly sorry I got cut off, but I am back and I can hear you well.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Madam Minister, you have returned at the right time. I congratulate you on your appointment and wish you well in your new role.
Now let’s move on to your duties. We agree that these are supplementary estimates related to COVID-19. Why are some expenses identified as non-COVID-related in this today? In summary, out of $16 billion, there is about $11 billion for non-COVID expenditures, which is still 70%. Has someone got the Main Estimates wrong?
Ms. Fortier: Thanks for your kind words regarding my new role.
I’d like to respond by saying that with the budget cycle — we know we are presenting the supplementary estimates — we wanted, given that we are in a pandemic, to specify that a certain amount, that is $1.2 billion, is associated with COVID, while other amounts have to do with other projects or programs, as was just said, including those for Indigenous communities, to help them with infrastructure and health. Water systems were mentioned, and this is in addition to the investments we made.
That said, we are following the direction that the government has set out in the 2020-21 budget and its desire to be transparent and open. To ensure that you have the right figures, we are providing you with the amounts that have been added to these supplementary estimates.
Senator Dagenais: I am grateful you’re here, but I will not hide my surprise that it is the President of the Treasury Board who is coming to defend the supplementary estimates prepared by the Minister of Finance.
Here’s my first question: Have you received your mandate letter from the Prime Minister, which letter we haven’t been able to see yet? If you have received it, could you send us a copy? If not, I don’t know if you think it’s normal, but have you received an explanation as to why you haven’t received it yet?
Ms. Fortier: I understand that I will be getting my mandate letter very soon, and I look forward to confirming the priorities that the Prime Minister has for me in my role as President of the Treasury Board.
The second element is that I am responsible, as President of the Treasury Board ... imagine this, I’ve been told that I’m like the “air traffic controller” of the government.
So I have the responsibility of tabling Supplementary Estimates (B) 2021-22 as part of the budget cycle. I am working closely with my colleague Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland. Her role is to establish the budget and I have the privilege of ensuring that it is implemented properly. I also have the responsibility to present this report to the House of Commons and of course to the Senate, to ensure that we get through this stage of the budget cycle.
I would be happy to answer your questions about the government’s direction. If I cannot answer all your questions, I will invite the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to do so.
Senator Dagenais: In the current situation, regarding public servants who are not yet vaccinated and who have been put on leave without pay, are you considering their dismissal? One can understand that their situation certainly cannot become permanent.
Ms. Fortier: Firstly, I want to thank you for your question. I do want to say to you that civil servants have responded to the call of the mandatory vaccination policy. More than 95% have received the double vaccination and more than 98% have received their first dose. This is an approach where people have answered the call by prioritizing the health and safety of their colleagues, while demonstrating our leadership across the country.
Secondly, for those who have requested accommodation, that is not just a yes or no question. There is a process that involves assessment committees, who study the request for accommodation — whether it is medical or religious. Right now we are assessing the cases, and some of the staff who are not vaccinated are on leave without pay during this period.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, Madam Minister.
The Chair: Senator Galvez, you have the floor.
Senator Galvez: Ms. Fortier, I would also like to congratulate you on your appointment. We look forward to seeing your mandate letter and knowing the scope of the questions we can ask you.
I want to return to the issue of transparency and openness. Senator Marshall, Senator Forest, Senator Dagenais, Senator Richards and I all want the same thing: to find the data and to be able to reconcile the numbers that you are presenting with all the information that you are giving us. It is difficult because of the current form that this information is in. It’s not an issue from today; I think it’s an issue that’s been around for several years at this committee, so I’m going to address it more generally.
The government was committed to implementing the open government plan. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat is responsible for the full implementation of open government, so that we can find all this data. I would like to know when this implementation will be completed, since the Liberal government has repeated this commitment. At the same level, for me it’s an extremely important issue to be able to reconcile the promises made in terms of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, but also in terms of our commitment to the climate crisis.
Ms. Fortier: Can you repeat your last sentence, where you talked about climate change and indigenous communities? I’d like to get a better grasp of what information you want.
Senator Galvez: This was going to be part of my second question, but I’ll share it with you now. Recently, we’ve been looking at what is happening in the Wet’suwet’en community. On the one hand, you say that your budget includes money for infrastructure, schools and drinking water, but you are also going to give more money to the armed forces. So these two budgets seem to be in conflict in terms of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and consistency with our climate change commitments.
Ms. Fortier: Thank you, Senator Galvez, for your first comment on the presentation of data and how to navigate it.
As I said earlier, there is always room for improvement. I have just taken up my post, so you will understand that I am still looking at how we can continue to be open and transparent, and also make sure that the data is accessible. I would like to reassure you: on the open government website, all the information is available. It may be hard sometimes to connect certain projects more accurately, but I think we have the opportunity to answer those questions.
So, I’m going to be happy to look at how we can constantly improve in terms of reconciling the information that is presented on the open government site, as well as the presentation of data that is done through different tools, whether it’s online or even through documents that are shared with you and other Canadians.
In terms of our government priorities, as you know, the Prime Minister and the whole government team, of course, are committed to the issue of truth and reconciliation.
We have a lot to do, and a lot is being done. We are going to continue to prioritize several infrastructure-related projects, whether regarding education, health or Indigenous peoples, while working together to achieve them. As you know, there are a lot of co-development projects, so we can’t necessarily determine when a project is going to be completed or done.
We will continue to ensure that we publish updates about the various co-development projects we are undertaking with Indigenous peoples in the context of reconciliation.
I hope that was helpful.
The Chair: Thank you, Madam Minister.
[English]
Senator Pate: I join my colleagues in congratulating you, minister, on your election and your appointment as minister.
I want to ask you a bit about something that’s at the end of the supplementary estimates. It talks about the regulatory reviews and the External Advisory Committee on Regulatory Competitiveness. You’ve indicated that part of this role will be to provide expert advice on a wide range of initiatives affecting businesses and Canadians, including looking at the annual regulatory modernization bill.
I’m curious whether this includes an examination of the potential for the spending power to be used to look at things like guaranteed liveable incomes, given the provinces and territories interested in this and, particularly, what the impact of current mechanisms are on the social assistance programs in individual provinces and territories. I’m thinking specifically of some of the clawbacks that have resulted from some of the payments and the lack of collaboration with provinces and territories, and also whether there will be a look at the interplay with First Nations governance bodies.
Ms. Fortier: Thank you, Senator Pate. Unfortunately, I don’t know why the sound was not as good. I might have to review my answer if I don’t give you enough information, but I will start by saying on the issue of regulatory competitiveness, if I understand well, you’re talking about the reviews and the External Advisory Committee we brought forward.
The Government of Canada has pledged to help businesses adapt to the future and thrive in the wake of the pandemic. We want to continue to modernize our regulatory system, because it plays a part in reducing the administrative burden on business and industry. As you probably know, it was announced and funded through the Fall Economic Statement 2018 and through Budget 2019.
The External Advisory Committee on Regulatory Competitiveness has already provided some recommendations to help shape Canada’s regulatory modernization efforts and provided an independent perspective on regulatory barriers facing businesses, representatives and academics. The committee’s mandate ended in March 2021, and in the supplementary estimates, $2.3 million was requested to sustain the important work that the committee put forward.
Senator Pate: Thank you for that, minister. You will note, though, that the scope of the mandate included not just to look at businesses and industry but also to examine the circumstances of individual Canadians. I’m curious as to what, if any, analysis has been done on the regulatory impact of the provisions that were put in place and the interplay with provincial and territorial social assistance and other economic support schemes, recognizing that during this pandemic approximately 3.5 to 5 million Canadians either became worse off or have received no support.
Ms. Fortier: I understand your question. Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer for you at this time as the mandate that I have in front of me was looking at regulatory reviews for the burden of administration and businesses. Could I come back to you after finding where that answer might come from or if there is something to look forward to? It would probably be the best way I can answer your question at this time.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much, minister. I would appreciate that.
To follow up on Senator Gignac’s question, I wonder if you could provide a breakdown of which federal public servants were placed on administrative leave without pay, as well as what the cost of the collective agreement settlements were for each department.
Ms. Fortier: Thank you for that question. At this time, I will ask Marie-Chantal Girard if she has specifics. I know we are going to bring forward specific statistics as we move forward. At this time, I know we have offered the public the number of attestations the public servants have done, which is over 95%, as I said earlier, and 98% have received their first dose. We’re working with different managers of different departments on accommodation. I can offer no specific number because of privacy. There might be more information that OCHRO, the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, could share with you at this time.
The Chair: Could you provide that information, or have your officials provide it, on or before December 13, please?
Senator Boehm: Minister, it’s a pleasure to have you with us today. Welcome and congratulations on your appointment. I’ll be asking my question not only as a senator but also as your constituent, so that makes it doubly important, at least from my perspective.
I want to ask you about digital government. I realize, of course, that digital government has its own minister, but the Treasury Board Secretariat certainly has a hand in this. We’ve had many discussions in this committee and others about internet access for Canadians in remote and rural communities, the difficulty it poses for a nationwide digital strategy and, of course, more services online. That was accentuated during this pandemic period. That leads me to my question, and as is my tendency, it has a bit of an international angle.
Since 2018, Canada has been one of ten member countries of the so-called Digital Nations, which was founded as a way for the world’s leading digital governments to share best practices and expertise. There was a summit hosted by the U.K. I think you may have participated in that, minister. The idea is to share and look at best practices. Could you speak a little bit about what the Treasury Board is doing to promote these important principles within Canada? How much spending is there on these efforts? How much does Canada contribute financially to the Digital Nations? Is there a strategy in place to advance digital government in developing countries? I would think that the pandemic and its impact in developing countries also underscore this. That is a little bit of a package of questions there for you, minister. Thank you.
Ms. Fortier: Thank you very much. I’m glad I get to meet a constituent at the same time that I have this privilege of sharing my thoughts in my role as President of the Treasury Board at the Finance Committee. I have to tell you, I also have the privilege and honour to receive the digital strategy mandate now that the Prime Minister has brought it back under my portfolio. I will, of course, work with my good colleague Minister Murray, who has worked very hard on this prior to myself, as we want to make sure this is a priority for Canadians.
As you know, our government is committed to providing Canadians with the online services experience that we expect in a digital age: secure, reliable, easy access, and also easy language at any time and from any device. We do have a robust and modern strategy to deliver secure and efficient services to citizens, residents, visitors and businesses, and we are putting the right tools forward, systems and people in place.
I do want to say that these efforts are built upon a strong policy framework and, as said, digital principles characterized by preoccupation with accessibility, information and data, cybersecurity and, above all, Canadian user needs. Therefore, that is my guiding principle to move forward in making sure we invest and continue to make this accessible for Canadians.
I did have my first participation at the Digital Nations a couple of weeks ago, and, of course, the 10 partners have brought forward what I would call a memorandum of understanding, with the lack of the right title, to continue to work together, sharing best practices, also highlighting where we need to focus. I could share that information with you if you would be interested.
I will invite the official Ms. Read if she wants to add something more specific to your question at this time.
Sonya Read, Acting Assistant Secretary, Digital and Services Policy, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you very much, minister. Thank you, chair.
Actually, minister, you’ve done a wonderful job of covering off the commitments and the work and progress we’re making with the Digital Nations, including the MOU for our commitment to work together on priority areas.
I would add that the Treasury Board Secretariat also works very closely with our colleagues in Innovation, Science and Economic Development in respect of other international aspects as well as the application of the digital charter and the advancement of the work around that, which would probably be where we would find more information in respect to your question around online accessibility and internet access across Canada.
Senator Boehm: Do I have any more time, chair?
The Chair: No. The time has expired, Senator Boehm.
Senator Duncan: I’m speaking to you from the traditional territory of the Kwanlin Dün First Nation and the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council in the Yukon. Congratulations, minister, and welcome to the National Finance Committee. It’s a pleasure to have you here.
I’d like to follow up on the funding that you have discussed and expressed your commitment on for Indigenous communities throughout the country.
Minister, you’ve mentioned and used the words “on reserve” and Ms. Boudreau, in reference to the funding, used the terms “on-reserve First Nations, Inuit and Métis.”
I am deeply concerned because, in this vast country of Canada, one size does not fit all. In the Yukon we have 11 of 14 self-governing First Nations and a government-to-government relationship. Nunavut and Iqaluit, with their water situation, have an agreement with the Inuit and the territorial government. The territorial governments have transfer payments that are on a different schedule than the provinces. The needs of First Nations in northern Manitoba are entirely different from those in Ontario. We have recently seen, of course, the situation in British Columbia and how several First Nations have lost critical infrastructure.
My question, minister, follows up on my colleague Senator Richards’ question. Could we have by December 13 — in deference to the chair — a breakdown of the funding by province and territory? Could we also have an explanation from you as to how the department examines the implementation of this funding — in other words, equitable access that accommodates these different situations throughout the country? Also, could we have your assurance that there’s an examination of how the emergency funding that will be applied and distributed in British Columbia and other areas that have experienced climate emergencies or disasters in light of climate emergencies interplays with this funding as well? How is your department overseeing this funding and the departmental requests for funding?
Ms. Fortier: Thank you, Senator Duncan. I did not answer, unfortunately, the earlier question because I was off-line, but I do know that we were trying to share examples and not necessarily talk about all the different realities of the First Nations, Inuit and Métis living across our country. I want to make sure that you understand that we were not trying to departmentalize these initiatives.
As you know, we have many initiatives, not just in Budget 2021 but even in earlier budgets, where we are really concentrating on making sure we provide and work with Indigenous partners on many projects — infrastructure, water, accessibility, education, health, and I could go on.
One thing that I do want to specify is that in the Supplementary Estimates (B), there are five approved allocations totalling $136.4 million where you have some examples of Indigenous contributions. One of them is $40 million for the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs to support shovel-ready infrastructure projects in Indigenous communities. I understand you would like to have that breakdown on how that will be spent. Also, there is $25.3 million, again for CIRNAC to implement a coordination agreement with the Cowessess First Nation for child and family services. Those were the two I wanted to share with you.
I understand, Mr. Chair, that CIRNAC is coming to your committee either tomorrow or very soon. It might be an opportunity to also raise your very important questions and comments at that time. I’m hopeful that I answered part of your question, and I do understand the need to have more information on the different investments and the implementation and also the fairness question that you did ask: Does everybody have a chance to have access to different investments. Thank you very much for sharing that with me.
Senator Duncan: I have no more time left, chair?
The Chair: No, you don’t, senator.
[Translation]
Senator Loffreda: Thank you, Minister Fortier, for being with us. May I extend my congratulations on your appointment to cabinet and welcome you to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
I would like to discuss an issue that I have discussed before in our committee, which is the government’s real estate portfolio. I discussed it with your predecessor, Minister Duclos, when he appeared before our committee last December.
[English]
At the time, I asked Minister Duclos if the government had started to reassess its real estate portfolio in light of the pandemic and the new work-from-home reality. As you are well aware, the government manages one of the largest and most diverse real estate portfolios in Canada. The total property asset value is $7.5 billion, with approximately 88% of properties used for office accommodations. Minister Duclos told our committee that even before the pandemic, the government was already re-evaluating its real estate portfolio.
As you know, in Budget 2021, the government said it would support the conversion to affordable housing of the empty office space that has appeared in our downtowns by reallocating $300 million from another program. I appreciate this is a huge undertaking, but I feel there is a real opportunity to reduce government operating expenses while addressing affordable housing at the same time.
Can you provide us with an update on this assessment? What steps have been taken to convert these empty office spaces? We all want to ensure resources are soundly managed across government with a focus on results and on value for money. Is it time for the government to consider divesting some of these assets?
[Translation]
Ms. Fortier: Thank you very much, Senator Loffreda, for your question. I know that through your presentation, you conveyed your ideas and your question to my predecessor, Minister Duclos. He has not spoken to me about this, but we can discuss it together.
I think what is important at this point is that the government continues to take the real estate portfolio carefully into account. At Treasury Board, we should be getting an update soon on precisely that, on what has happened over the last year, to see where we’re headed to make sure we manage this matter.
I would like to add that Public Services and Procurement Canada is the lead department; Treasury Board is involved.
If I may, I will wait for a future invitation to give you a more complete update. Treasury Board is keeping a close eye on this file.
You will be pleased to know that I will soon receive my mandate letter, which will contain some priorities that I will have to take into account. Perhaps this mandate letter will give special attention to this issue.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
Mr. Chair, do I have any time left?
The Chair: Yes, you have time for a short question
[English]
Senator Loffreda: I’ll try to do this quickly. In these supplementary estimates, there’s considerable proposed spending on contingent liabilities — close to $900 million. We’ve already touched on contingent liabilities. As we see, since 2016-17, overall contingent liabilities rose roughly 50% — $8.4 billion, reaching $24.9 billion in 2019-20. I do understand that in the public sector accounting standards, a prescribed liability is only recognized when there is a probability of greater than 70% that it may exist and it can be reasonably quantified.
I’m looking at the chart, and there have been gradual increases. If we look at the 50% increase from 2016, is it mainly due to generally accepted accounting principles being applied the way they are being applied at the current time, or is it specific expenses that are contingent at this time? Will this continue in the future? My concern is the 50% increase. If we continue on this trend, where will we be going with the contingent liabilities? We’re close to $900 million at this point. That’s significant dollars. If you can answer that, I’d appreciate it. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Madam Minister, you have 30 seconds for your reply.
[English]
Ms. Fortier: Thank you very much for that, Senator Loffreda. As you know, we have mentioned that we will always be responsible in the way we invest and spend taxpayers’ dollars. With the approach that you presented, it’s too soon for me to answer at this time. However, I do have the officials here with me. I would invite Roch Huppé. I think he is the one who could answer your question better than I can at this time.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Huppé, you have 30 seconds to answer. Can you send a written follow-up by December 13?
Mr. Huppé: Yes, we can send you an answer to that question by December 13.
[English]
That’s a great question, Mr. Chair. There’s been an increase in the contingent liabilities over the previous year, and it’s due to a couple of things. But mainly, obviously, there are more and more cases. As some of these cases work through the — I’ll call it — legal system, we have more information. You explained the accounting standard very well, by the way, senator. You need to be able to estimate an amount before you start recognizing a liability in your books. As these cases work through the system and as we get more information, we are in a better position to assess our liability chances and the potential amounts that we would be liable for. This is one of the reasons why you’re seeing more of a reflection of contingent liabilities in the public accounts. As we start settling these, you will see that contingent liabilities will be decreasing over time.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you. You will follow up in writing?
Mr. Huppé: Absolutely.
The Chair: Senator Gerba, you’re about to ask your first question. Thank you for choosing to sit on the Finance Committee.
Senator Gerba: I must also take this opportunity to congratulate the minister. We’re arriving at the same time, she in the House of Commons and I in the Senate.
This is my first meeting here at the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Thank you for having me here.
As my colleague Senator Gignac said, I believe that Canada has managed the crisis very well and the budget before us is along the same lines. I congratulate the government on its initiatives.
Before I ask my question, I want to say that Canada launched a program this summer to support entrepreneurship in Black communities, called the Black Entrepreneurship Program, or BEP. This program is a partnership between the Government of Canada and Black business organizations led by members of the Black community, and financial institutions.
With these investments, Canada will be able to spend up to $350 million over four years to help Black business owners. This is good news because this has never been done before and, for once, it was done by the Government of Canada to support Black communities. So, I congratulate the government on this measure.
I am also pleased to see that the supplementary estimates provide $3,342,605 to assist Black entrepreneurs.
My first question concerns these entrepreneurs. We know that there’s a real issue with systemic barriers, particularly in terms of access to public procurement. Is the $3.342 million also meant to help these entrepreneurs access public procurement?
I’ll let the minister answer my first question before I ask my last quick question.
Ms. Fortier: First, Senator Gerba, I’m very proud to see you in the Senate. I’ve seen your excellent work with the Afrique Expansion group. We know that you have a wealth of experience that you can now bring to the Senate and the Government of Canada.
I’m very happy to see you in this position.
You’re absolutely right. The Government of Canada is promoting a Black entrepreneurship program because we know that things aren’t done the same way. There have been several barriers to entry in recent years, or even historically. In my constituency of Ottawa—Vanier, the Black community has come to me on several occasions to say, “We want to do business, we know how to do business, we need support.” That’s why this program has been implemented. It will provide mentoring, investment opportunities, loans and more to get these products and services off the ground in our communities.
You’re completely right. This program will make a big difference. Last June, I had the privilege of launching the first initiative in Ottawa—Vanier and Montreal for small and medium-sized businesses in Black communities, which can benefit from this partnership.
You asked about access to public procurement. We want to establish a certain percentage to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses can access procurement. I know that my colleague, Greg Fergus, the newly appointed Parliamentary Secretary, is working with me to make sure that, along with Public Services and Procurement Canada, we give these opportunities to businesses. We still have a long way to go. However, I want you to know that we’re moving towards providing better access to businesses in Black communities.
Senator Gerba: Thank you, Madam Minister. I also noted that you’re providing $6,000,001 for the Canadian Race Relations Foundation.
Can you explain the parameters used to define the payment amount? Pardon my ignorance. When I see $6,000,001, I wonder how the amount is calculated.
The Chair: Thirty seconds, Ms. Fortier.
Ms. Fortier: Thank you for your question. Unless I’m mistaken, this falls under Canadian Heritage, which is managing the program. As a member of the Treasury Board, I don’t have the information on the delivery or implementation of the program in terms of criteria. You can visit the website to understand the program. Regarding the six million, I can get back to you on that. In terms of program development, I would encourage you to look at the program page online.
If we have any more information, my colleague Ms. Boudreau could give it to you in a few seconds.
The Chair: Ms. Boudreau, you have 30 seconds.
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you. My response concerns the six million. These are transfers that the referenced organization will receive.
[English]
We support anti-racism efforts by funding activities aimed at empowering racialized communities —
[Translation]
— and to help community groups combat racism in all its forms. This initiative will also increase the number of Canadians who recognize the value of multiculturalism in Canada and who participate in Canadian society in an equal manner. That’s why the $6 million was transferred from Canadian Heritage to this corporation.
The Chair: Thank you, Madam Minister.
Before I ask the minister whether she has any closing remarks, I want to inform the senators that the departmental officials will stay with us for the second part.
On that note, we’ll take a 20-minute break, after the minister’s remarks, before we come back with the second panel.
Madam Minister, the floor is yours.
Ms. Fortier: Thank you all for your thoughtful questions and comments. I’ll have to do some homework in order to send responses by December 13.
[English]
I want to thank you all for welcoming me to the National Finance Committee. Thank you for taking the time to continue your study with the officials in your next segment. I welcome, of course, meeting you again very soon. Thank you so much.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. As you have seen, our motto is about transparency, accountability, predictability and reliability for Canadians, from coast to coast to coast.
Honourable senators, for this second portion of this National Finance Committee meeting, we will continue our study of the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022, which was referred to this committee on December 2, 2021, by the Senate of Canada.
In addition to the officials introduced in the first panel, we also have the pleasure of welcoming Mr. Rod Greenough, Executive Director, Expenditure Strategies and Estimates, from the Treasury Board.
Senators, we will proceed directly to questions. Each senator has a maximum of five minutes for the first round. Please ask your question directly. To the witnesses, please respond concisely. The clerk will make a hand signal to show that the time is over.
Senator Marshall: I’m going to say “thank you” and “welcome” to the officials.
First off, I’m looking for some information on the reconciliation that’s on page 1-6. Could they send us a list — and follow up with the clerk — of what’s in the 33.8 billion related to Budget 2021? Also do the same for the 5.9 billion for other tax credits, the 12.9 for net revenue and the 12.4 for the accruals. If it’s already on the government website somewhere, you can send the link, but otherwise, I’d really appreciate the listing.
I want to go back to the question I asked earlier when the minister was here. Was the $900 million for contingent liabilities set up last year also? Because if it’s a contingency, there’s a possibility that it might not be paid out. My concern is that the money would end up being transferred elsewhere and used for another purpose. Could the officials address that question and that concern with regard to the $900 million possibly being used for some other purpose?
Ms. Boudreau: I can begin. Thank you for the question.
In terms of contingent liabilities, the $900 million has been referred to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We have three amounts. There is one amount for CIRNAC at $12 million for the Specific Claims Settlement Fund. Another one for CIRNAC is in terms of the Indian residential schools litigation, and the third one is $253 million for DND. Those will be payments that will be made this fiscal year. As you pointed out, if for whatever reasons the payment cannot be made, that money will be put in a special purpose account, and the money will stay there for that specific purpose. It cannot be used for something else.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Was there a contingent liability similar to that budget in last year’s estimates?
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you again for that question. I’ll use the example of the Indian residential day school litigation. Effectively there was an amount put in contingent liabilities. One of your colleagues mentioned the rule that governs the booking, the accounting principle of contingent liabilities. When we reach a threshold where we can determine the amount and the likelihood, it will be included in contingent liabilities. When we know the exact amount and when the payment will be made, we’ll remove that amount from contingent liabilities and we’ll put that as an accounts payable; and when the money is available, the money will be given.
Senator Marshall: Okay.
Ms. Boudreau: In this case, it starts in the contingent liabilities, goes to the accounts payable, and now it will be paid before March 31, 2022.
Senator Marshall: Okay. The problem that I’m having is that where we don’t have the public accounts, I can’t trace from last year’s supply to the actual payments. Okay.
The second question — and this is something the Parliamentary Budget Officer mentioned — is that the Indigenous-related spending has almost doubled in the past five years. I know the Treasury Board provides an oversight function of all the government departments. I would like to know what kind of oversight you provide with regard to the increase in expenditures in those two departments. I’m sure that you get some information, so I’m just curious as to this department. They might have hired more people. It’s really grown quite rapidly in a short period of time. What kind of oversight does Treasury Board provide to make sure that the department is operating properly?
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you for the question. You’re raising a very important point, which is oversight.
All the expenses in the current Supplementary Estimates (B) voted have to go first to Treasury Board for review. There is a Treasury Board submission that is presented. That will explain the implementation plan to Canadians, and to your point, senator, that will also include FTEs for that specific program. Once it is approved by the Treasury Board, it becomes the department’s implementation plan, and the implementation plan and the result will be part of the departmental plan, as well as the result report. That will be published before the end of January 2022.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Do I have time for another question, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: Yes, senator.
Senator Marshall: The departmental results reports — and a question was asked in the earlier session — are delayed. Do they not come up in the fall? I see my time is up, but if you could just say what’s the deadline for those reports?
Ms. Boudreau: There is not a specific deadline in any law or standing order. It has to be tabled after the public accounts of Canada.
Senator Marshall: Okay. That’s the cue. Thank you.
Ms. Boudreau: You’re very welcome.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I want to thank all the members of the Treasury Board for joining us.
The appropriations include $85 million for the implementation of the policy on COVID-19 vaccination. I have two quick questions. What types of costs are covered by these appropriations and, depending on the costs, will external services be used?
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you for your question. I’ll ask my colleague, Ms. Girard, to provide an overview of the cost envelope and my colleague, Ms. Cahill, to elaborate on the costs.
Ms. Girard: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair and Senator Forest. The total cost is $85.4 million. Of that amount, $3.5 million is for the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat headquarters to support departments and to ensure the implementation of the policy, and $81.9 million is to cover departmental costs for the implementation of the policy. This includes technical services, operational costs, support for agencies, distribution of testing where necessary based on the specific activities and operations of the department, and, in addition to testing, all communication, support and assessment activities for the verifications.
So there you have it. At this point, aside from the purchase of the equipment, the entire initiative is being led by the public administration.
Senator Forest: Which department estimated the $85 million appropriation? Who estimated the operational costs in every area?
Ms. Girard: I’ll first turn to my colleague, Ms. Cahill, to answer this question.
Karen Cahill, Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll introduce myself. My name is Karen Cahill. I’m the Chief Financial Officer at the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
First, in terms of the costs associated with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, this was done internally based on the needs that had to be met. There’s a combination of salary costs for our staff to work on this policy, and a cost for the implementation and design of the system for federal public servants to provide their immunization status. This system is called the GC-VATS.
In terms of the external costs, we consulted with the various departments and each senior official confirmed the cost development. We also worked with our colleagues to estimate the number of tests and vaccines. This was a collective effort by government officials to estimate, to the best of our knowledge and with the information available at the time, the costs associated with the implementation of the policy on COVID-19 vaccination.
Senator Forest: Does the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat control the development of this spending or is it broken down by department or program?
Ms. Cahill: Good question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat is definitely tracking its own spending and will be able to report on that spending at the end of the year.
In terms of the spending associated with other departments, we’ve established a control framework to send the funding disbursements to the departments. Very strict evidence must also be provided before we authorize the disbursement of this funding, which falls under the responsibility of the chief human resources officer of Canada. We have a very strict control framework in place. The departments must prove that they need the funding before they can receive it.
Senator Forest: So it’s necessary to justify the need before purchasing or starting the program?
Ms. Cahill: Before the transfer of funding to the departments.
Senator Forest: The spending can’t be initiated until authorization is given.
Ms. Cahill: Some departments will undertake risk management and then the spending will take place. It’s important to understand that, for this policy, the funding has been approved by the Treasury Board in advance.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Gignac: As a preface for the hundreds or thousands of people listening, either live or later on, my colleagues are right. It’s a bit dry when you look at a document like this. There are budgetary expenditures and non-budgetary expenditures. We currently have before us supplementary estimates of $13.4 billion in incremental budgetary spending out of a total already authorized to date of $284 billion, which is already a large amount.
We’re also being asked to approve $2.8 billion in non-budgetary spending, out of the $4.5 billion already authorized. That’s a 60% increase. I don’t have much information when I read, at the top of page 2, that it’s a $2.8 billion increase. It’s mainly for a $2.4 billion large employer emergency financing facility that provides short-term liquidity assistance to large employers affected by the pandemic.
I remember the Prime Minister’s statement at the beginning of the pandemic. He said that the programs to help big businesses were certainly not meant to increase executive compensation or to increase dividends to shareholders.
Here’s my question for the Treasury Board official. Who is in charge of making sure the public funds are used as intended? Is it the Department of Finance, the Canada Revenue Agency or Treasury Board? Is a mechanism like that already in place?
Mr. Huppé: Ms. Boudreau, are you able to answer that?
Ms. Boudreau: Yes. Thank you for your question. That’s actually what your fellow senator asked earlier, about why a new mechanism had been put in place. Why weren’t existing mechanisms used? As promised earlier, we will be providing the committee with additional information by December 13, so we will include an answer to the question you’re asking.
Senator Gignac: It’s to help people understand. We are talking about many billions of dollars, after all.
Ms. Boudreau: Yes.
Senator Gignac: The biggest thing is the 60% increase in non-budgetary statutory spending. I think that’s worth a closer look.
My second question is this. Some of the initiatives for which you are seeking funding seem to have been launched already. Is that really the case? Have you already started to spend some of the funding being requested? Maybe the money was pulled from existing funding. We have to wonder whether there was extra money, which would make it unnecessary to spend the funds being requested today.
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you for your question. It’s an excellent one. My colleague Karen Cahill talked about this earlier.
Yes, some initiatives have already been undertaken. As you mentioned, some organizations already have available funding. They engage in something we call cash management, meaning they use existing funds in their core budget to launch these initiatives. Once the extra funding is approved by the House of Commons and the Senate, and Royal Assent is received, the extra money will go to the organizations, which recoup their money and redistribute it.
Cash management is an ongoing practice, where money is set aside for government priorities.
Senator Gignac: Thank you. My fellow senators can have the floor for their questions.
[English]
Senator Richards: Thank you very much for being here.
In your Canadian Forces pay increase, what constitutes an exceptional hazard allowance? It seems there’s a lot in the Canadian Armed Forces that could be considered an exceptional hazard allowance. How much of this $3.27 million pay increase might that entail? What standards are applied to that? Since I’m on the defence and veterans committees, I’d like to have an answer to that either today or in writing, please. Could someone help me out here?
[Translation]
Ms. Boudreau: I’m going to ask Marie-Chantal Girard to answer that question, if you don’t mind.
[English]
Ms. Girard: There are several types of allowance. At this time, I believe this one is related to COVID intervention at the outset of the pandemic, but I will reconfirm that in writing to you by December 13. Thank you for your question.
Senator Richards: Is it also for helping out with forest fires and evacuations? Would that come under the purview of that, or is that something different?
Ms. Girard: I confirm that it was only provided to the Canadian Armed Forces as an exceptional hazard allowance. Only those who were exposed in long-term care facilities are admissible to that special allowance, and it was not part of the sups B initially, I believe.
Senator Richards: Could give me the amount that was given out or in the supplementary?
Ms. Girard: I’ll validate with my colleagues, and indeed we’ll be able to provide you with that amount.
Senator Richards: Thank you.
Senator Galvez: I want to talk about the economic impact of climate change. Every single year, we are seeing new extreme weather events where the reconstruction is very costly. Some reconstruction costs have hit $700 million — $300 million in Alberta for the Fort McMurray wildfire. And now we are talking about the historical, record-breaking, expensive reconstruction to repair the damage in B.C. from the last floods. The numbers on how much these extreme weather events cost are mostly provided by the insurance companies, and we are talking about insurance damages. Everybody knows that the provincial and the federal governments are putting money into these recuperations, restorations and reconstructions. Where do we see these expenses in the budget cycle? Can you please explain to me?
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you so much for the question. If I may, I would like to go back to the Government of Canada expenditure reporting cycle, and that may help some of you. I heard at the beginning of the discussion that some of you are new, so if I may, Mr. Chair, I would like to maybe start with that in order to address the question.
The Chair: Absolutely.
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you very much.
As some of you know, the Government of Canada runs from April 1 to March 31. Usually the Minister of Finance will table the federal budget. It could be in March or it could be in April.
The first estimate that we table, Treasury Board, is called the Main Estimates, and it is the voted amount that organizations will need for the upcoming year. As an example, before March 1, we tabled the Main Estimates for 2021-22.
If the budget is scheduled to be tabled after the Main Estimates, obviously it’s impossible for us to provide organizations with the funding as announced in the federal budget. That’s why we have what we call Supplementary Estimates (A), and those estimates need to be tabled by June 26.
After Supplementary Estimates (A), which we’re looking at now, we have Supplementary Estimates (B), which should be tabled by December 10, and then Supplementary Estimates (C), which will be tabled in March before the end of the fiscal year.
Your question about expenses, senator, will be included in the Public Accounts of Canada, where we have all the expenses for the government as a whole. As the minister pointed out earlier, the Public Accounts will be tabled before the end of this calendar year, before December 31.
In the documents that we are providing you in terms of estimates, those are planned expenditures and not the real expenses. Real expenses will be in the Public Accounts of Canada.
I hope that answers a little bit of your question.
Senator Galvez: Yes, I understand the calendar. Thank you for the explanation, but it still doesn’t answer the question of where, on which line and in which chapter of these supplementary estimates or the planned expenses, we are being precautionary and putting some money aside for an event we know or think is going to happen in the next year, because every year we have extreme weather events and consequently the destruction of infrastructure, for example.
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you for the question. Let’s use your example, senator. Let’s say, in August, we are made aware of a problem — a disaster. If an organization has no money set aside in order to be able to help on the ground, they would request what we call an off-cycle budget letter from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. Once this has been approved, it triggers a Treasury Board submission. The organization would then come to the Treasury Board, and they would present their implementation plan. Once the Treasury Board gives them the authority to proceed, the expenditure is included directly in the estimates.
For example, if the organization were Natural Resources Canada, you could see, senator, in your document all the lines under that specific department, all the funding programs that have been authorized as of today. This is where you will see it, by organization.
Senator Pate: Thank you to the officials. You were here when I asked the minister questions. Here is one of the questions I have now is for you.
In the area of conducting targeted regulatory reviews and the role of the External Advisory Committee on Regulatory Competitiveness, I note that there is a comment about it pertaining not just to businesses but also to Canadians, as well as a mandate to examine the bottlenecks to economic growth. Who determines what is defined as a bottleneck to economic growth, and what is the process of that determination? How would the government undertake the types of reviews that would require looking at how the federal government’s spending power interacts with the regulatory regimes in the provinces and territories, particularly when it comes to things like, for instance, the payment of emergency benefits and the impact on disability benefits in the provinces and territories, as well as on social assistance schemes? That’s the first part of the question.
The second part of the question is what kind of details in that determination involve predominantly political decision making and what involves expert advice from, say, your department or outside individuals or bodies, whether it’s First Nations governance or federal-provincial-territorial tables?
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you for the question. As you mentioned, senator, you did ask the President of the Treasury Board that question. I think we committed to coming back with a written answer by December 13. We’ll add those additional sub-questions to that first question, and we will come back to you by December 13.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
One of the issues raised within the estimates is the cost of class actions and other legal claims against the government. I’m curious as to whether there is any analysis, by those bodies or somebody else, as to the manner in which the government could have precluded those kinds of class-action claims or could prevent future similar claims going forward.
[Translation]
Ms. Boudreau: Mr. Huppé, is it possible to answer that in terms of contingent liability?
[English]
Mr. Huppé: It’s a great question and not an easy one to answer.
What I can tell you is there are ongoing discussions around any type of litigation that the government faces, including the different types of class actions that we have. We’ve seen an increase in the number of class actions in the past years. I can assure you that there are discussions on many fronts. Different Deputy Minister committees, for example, and other committees, are trying to tackle the best strategies to make sure that we handle these cases more efficiently and that we try to ensure that we decrease any other potential class actions that could arise. It’s a balancing act, obviously, between litigation strategies and proactively limiting the number — understanding these cases and trying to limit the number of them — to the best of our capacity through, for example different programming.
Senator Pate: If I could have some particular rollout of, for instance, the impact of claims by prisoners and prisoner representative groups on topics like segregation and some of the accountability mechanisms — or lack thereof — within the Correctional Service of Canada, that would be of particular interest. Thank you.
Mr. Huppé: Mr. Chair, is it okay that we take that back to try to formulate a more detailed answer for the senator?
The Chair: Keep in mind, Mr. Huppé, the December 13 deadline.
Mr. Huppé: Yes, thank you.
Senator Boehm: I think this question might be best for Ms. Girard, but you can decide. It’s a question about the pay system that was named after the bird that was supposed to rise from the ashes but somehow hasn’t. We know that Phoenix has had massive problems, to put it mildly, for several years now. Part of the money that the Treasury Board is requesting in these estimates is obviously to compensate employees for the damages associated with Phoenix.
Here are my questions. Do you have a fairly precise idea of how many employees have been adversely impacted by Phoenix problems, whether there’s an ongoing list or whether this list is accumulating? How many people does this specific round of compensation cover? Further, how much of the $1.5 billion being requested is being used for this purpose? What’s the backlog of cases, and when do you think it will all be over? Thanks.
Ms. Girard: That was a long list of questions from Senator Boehm. Ms. Cahill will cover the numbers and the portion of the amount that goes toward this process.
Under the agreement of June 2019 with all bargaining agents, with the exception of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, we have a maximum of 118,000 current employees, in addition to 21,000 previous, retired or having-left employees who have been impacted. We also have an agreement, as you know, from 2020 for damages with employees. With the alliance, we have up to 2,500 agreements — I don’t have the full number of employees there — that are covered by the compensation.
In the catch-up clause agreement that followed for all bargaining agents, with the exception of the Public Service Alliance, again, you have the same amount of 118,000 plus 21,000. It’s almost a full complement of the actual current employees.
In terms of how we’re doing in terms of repayment, it is finding its way. We understand that our colleagues at PSPC are working extremely diligently on making sure that they reduce the backlog. The 2018 round of collective agreements are covered by those MOUs. As we begin discussions for the 2021 round of collective agreements, we will have learned from this previous round and will try to address that in the most efficient way possible.
Now I would turn to Ms. Boudreau and Ms. Cahill to report on the full amount and the portion for damages.
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you very much for the question. Your question was around how much of the catch-up clause and Phoenix payments to non-PSAC members are included in the $1.5 billion. The amount is $94 million. Thank you for the question.
Senator Boehm: I’m sorry, but is that only PSAC? There are others, of course, who would require compensation who are not members of PSAC.
Ms. Boudreau: That is correct. In that $1.5 billion that we are showing in Supplementary Estimates (B), it is only for PSAC, and it is $94 million.
Senator Boehm: You don’t have any other numbers?
Ms. Boudreau: Not as they relate to Supplementary Estimates (B).
Senator Boehm: Okay. Thank you.
Building on questions asked by Senators Dagenais and Pate earlier with respect to COVID and COVID attestations, in the Senate, we’ve had a bit of a different type of approach where our staff and, indeed, us ourselves had to attest, senators to the clerk and staff to us, to demonstrate that they had in fact received the vaccination.
Within the public service — and Minister Fortier spoke about a very high incidence of people getting vaccinated and doing their attestations — is there is a fail-safe on that such that supervisors would have to look at a statement of attestation or something like that? I realize that with 260,000 employees across the country, including RCMP, this will be very difficult, but I would be interested in knowing whether the honour system is really working or whether there’s a need to look at proof more closely.
Ms. Girard: Thank you for the question.
Senator Boehm, it is indeed a large endeavour. However, the system is very robust. The attestation system, the GC-VATS system we talked about, allows the employee to choose the category in which they fall, and it clearly states in there that lying or making a false attestation would represent a criminal offence that takes us outside of the administrative measures and to discipline measures. If it was proven that an employee had lied or made a false attestation, disciplinary measures could be taken.
You said that there is a large number of people. There is. The policy provides that managers, if they are in doubt, can ask to see the attestation that is issued by their respective province or territory, which is responsible for the proof of vaccination.
Thank you for the question.
Senator Duncan: Thank you, officials.
I’d like to be clear with my questions that I asked of the minister and to focus on the notions of Treasury Board’s oversight of programs and also on our commitment to transparency.
We have heard and understand that we will receive all the detailed funding under Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs. We will see the list of the funding. Can the department officials advise on Treasury Board’s role as to what steps are taken and what oversight exists to ensure there’s fairness in accessing the funds? We will look and see that the funds are fairly distributed, but what is your role in ensuring that there is equitable access to this funding? I refer again to my point that funding made available for on-reserve First Nations peoples is not necessarily available to everyone in the country. Could I have the officials respond to that question, please?
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you, senator, for your question. It is something very important to me. I remember meeting with you more than a year ago. At that time, I was the CFO of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, so I’m so glad that you’re asking that question today.
Once a department, either CIRNAC or Indigenous Services Canada, comes to the board with a Treasury Board submission, it is a very detailed implementation plan as to how they will use the money, to whom the money will be given and under which terms and conditions. Would it be a contribution? Would it be a grant? As you know, senator, all that information will be reported in the organization results report.
My answer to you is that when they come, our oversight is in terms of the authority. Do they have the right authority, and is it in line with what was announced in the federal budget? We want to make sure that it reflects the Government of Canada’s priorities, as stated in the federal budget.
The minister highlighted something very important at the beginning: It’s always about co-development. You will know, senator, as well, that we have self-governing First Nations. In the example I was using earlier, I said First Nations on reserve, but I could have also said urban. All of that is taken into consideration very seriously between Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs to make sure that nobody will be left behind.
Senator Duncan: Thank you, madam, for that response. I will ask a follow-up, then, in terms of transparency.
We’ve talked a great deal about the need for infrastructure in First Nation and Indigenous communities, and we’ve also seen a significant destruction of infrastructure due to the situations that have occurred during the beginning of this winter and over the summer. How do we ensure that there’s transparency between what infrastructure rebuilding money is funded under infrastructure funding for First Nations and what is funded under emergency funding? Is there transparency? Is there oversight? How do you ensure there isn’t finger pointing to, oh, it’s that department, or no, it’s that department? How does Treasury Board oversee that this infrastructure funding is directed and paid out and ensure that it meets the community needs?
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you for the follow-up question, senator. It’s a very important question. Here, I think we have to look at specific roles. I did explain the role of the Treasury Board at the beginning. Now I think it’s a question really in terms of specific organizations, specific ministers and specific deputy ministers, where they will look at what the budget decision was in the federal budget, and they will take that announcement and make sure that the money for that announcement follows the principle as mentioned in the federal budget.
Again, they will be working very, very closely with the NIOs, with all the organizations, to make sure there is a fair share of the money that was put aside for those very important initiatives.
I would like to mention that in this budget, Supplementary Estimates (B), we have $725.2 million to support the construction, renovation, operation and maintenance of housing, schools, health facilities, water, wastewater and other community infrastructure. This funding will also support the transfer of infrastructure to Indigenous-led organizations and fund the operation and maintenance of Indigenous-owned infrastructure. So it’s very broad.
Tomorrow, when CIRNAC meets with you, I would invite you to ask those very important questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Boudreau, for that clarification.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you to our officials for being here.
I would like to talk about the COVID Alert app. In your departmental plan for 2021-22, it’s noted that the Treasury Board Secretariat will help develop and improve services by delivering critical services, such as the COVID Alert app, and encouraging provinces and territories to adopt it so that all Canadians will have access to the app.
Can you provide our committee with an update on the app? As I understand it, the app was downloaded 6.8 million times, and there have been 37,312 one-time keys used, while there have been more than 1.8 million cases reported in Canada so far. Would you consider the app a success; and if not, what are you doing so it becomes a success? The financial investment in the app so far and the ongoing projected cost to run this app will be very important. How long do you expect the app to be active and supported, knowing that COVID, the pandemic, has probably become endemic? We are in a digital era, and we’re asking our businesses and our citizens, Canadians, to be more digital than ever, and I think tracking and reporting is key. Thank you for your response on this.
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. I will turn over to my colleague Sonya Read, who will be able to provide you with some information. Thank you very much.
Ms. Read: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the question.
On the COVID Alert app, I think we worked very hard with provinces and territories in terms of the implementation of that application and the rollout over jurisdictions during the course of COVID.
In respect of your question for an update and the process for the app going forward, that application was transferred in terms of responsibility to Health Canada, and therefore, I would have to defer to my colleagues in that regard.
In respect of the costs that were spent on the COVID app when it was the responsibility of the Treasury Board Secretariat, I would defer to my colleague Karen Cahill.
Ms. Cahill: The costs incurred would be reflected in our public accounts for 2020-21, as well as the remainder will be reflected in the 2021-22 Public Accounts for a very small portion of the COVID cost. Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: My question focuses on the public service job classification program and the $3.8 million that is being sought in these estimates by your department. Every dollar counts, but meeting this objective is of primary importance. As I understand it, the classification program supports a diverse workplace that ensures that the value of the work performed by public servants is determined fairly and transparently. It also ensures that qualification standards are free from bias based on gender, age, education, language, culture and income. While this commitment found its way into Budget 2021, it is nowhere to be seen in your departmental plan for 2021-22, even though the program was evaluated in 2017 and was deemed to be a needed program then.
Can you provide our committee with an overview of this program and what exactly it seeks to achieve? Are there any results that show positive signs of a more diverse core public administration? Will this program contribute to retaining employees in the public service, and will it allow for more competitive wages compared to the private sector?
Ms. Girard: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.
Senator, yes, the classification program is an absolutely key program to ensure that the construct of our workforce is built on fair and equitable rates of pay, but also types of responsibilities based on in-depth analysis of what each of those job categories have to do. It has to be modernized. There’s no doubt about it, and that’s why it’s an obligation that the government, the employer, must keep updating and keep this classification structure up to date.
We know that the labour market is evolving extremely quickly. There are jobs that no longer exist. Others are appearing as technologies are progressing and we have new types of demands in order to serve Canadians and to respond to their needs.
Right now we are proceeding with three key classification-related commitments. We are implementing the new information technology group and classification. Also, for the program and administrative service group, we are modernizing that, as we can see the labour market has evolved quite a bit in that world as well. It is the same thing for the controllership group. With the modernization of these three groups in the years to come, it will be approximately 50% of the public service that will be affected by these modernization activities.
A lot of work needs to be done, and it is very much intertwined with the objective of the Government of Canada with the introduction and the coming into force of the Pay Equity Act last August that will ensure that, as an employer, we offer competitive working conditions in the professional environment. Thank you for your question.
Senator Loffreda: Mr. Chair, do I have a follow-up or am I done?
The Chair: No, we’re on a second round.
Senator Loffreda: Sure, it’s just a little follow-up on that if we are on a second round.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you for being here. The supplementary estimates include $350,271,974 for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.
Three million of that is for the International Migration Capacity Building Program. What exactly is the money for? Will the funding be used to review the immigrant selection and visa system?
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you for your question. As you mentioned, the supplementary estimates include funding for a certain number of initiatives under Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada — three, actually. One program is the immigration plan for 2021 and 2023, and it has two components: permanent residence and temporary residence. Money has been set aside in the supplementary estimates for both of those components.
Senator Gerba: When it comes to the vaccination policy, the minister said earlier that the majority of federal public servants were vaccinated and did not need any accommodations. Nevertheless, those within the unvaccinated minority have surely asked for accommodations, so do you know what percentage of people have requested an accommodation or how many exactly?
Also, I’m wondering about federal institutions where an impact has been felt. Can you tell us whether the work done by that minority of people has been affected by public servants being on leave? I’m referring to organizations like the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, where, as we know, the processing time for visas has been excessive. Does that have to do with the accommodation requests and the resulting employee leave?
Ms. Girard: Thank you for your question, Senator Gerba. I’d like to clarify a few things, if I may. It’s actually the vast majority of public servants who are vaccinated, which is excellent news. Their vaccination rate is much higher than that of the general population. We have a high vaccination rate, so that’s the good news.
Now, as far as possible accommodations are concerned, employees must attest that they are requesting an accommodation. Departments then determine whether the documentation provided to support accommodation measures is valid, and departments are in the process of doing that. A request for accommodation may be granted on the basis of a medical condition or pursuant to a right in the charter of human rights.
Departments are working on that now, and while the process is under way, the employee continues working. In the case of employees who may be accommodated or who are already receiving an accommodation, the goal is precisely to keep them in their jobs.
Telework could be an accommodation. However, if the person is in an occupation that absolutely requires them to be on site, they might have to undergo testing by the employer at least three times weekly. That means that employees who are being accommodated are performing their duties. I want to conclude by saying that we have not heard of any departments whose operations have been affected in any way by the introduction of this new employment requirement.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
Senator Dagenais: Mr. Huppé may be able to answer my first question. Mr. Huppé, I’d like to discuss Mr. Duclos’s performance as Treasury Board President. Once the pandemic began, how much control did he have over government spending? Was every cent of funding announced by the government spent, or was Treasury Board able to contain the cost of certain programs?
Mr. Huppé: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. As President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Duclos — along with his cabinet colleagues — was really responsible for performing a challenge function vis-à-vis every decision and the planned rollout of measures. People at the Treasury Board Secretariat provided oversight in the program development phase. Then, obviously, the programs reported their expenditures. It’s important to understand that the requirements for some programs were based on estimates. You’re right in that regard.
That does not mean that the amount spent will line up exactly, so on Treasury Board’s website, you can see that, over the past few months, expenditures for announced programs have been posted with to-date spending on a comparative basis. To be sure, some programs will probably have an excess of funding.
I will leave it there. The President of the Treasury Board exercises control when the programs are being developed to make sure that the measures are adequately implemented. After that comes the reporting. If you consult the forthcoming Public Accounts, you will be able to see the spending for certain programs.
Senator Dagenais: Now I have a question for Ms. Boudreau. You talked about the funding for Indigenous communities. The needs are especially high and growing. Just yesterday, a report came out on the social costs of Indigenous homelessness, where community members leave reserves for big cities like Montreal. As you know, cities don’t have the funding to address this new reality.
Do you think that, logically, your government should take some of the money allocated to communities and give it to cities so that they could help Indigenous people?
Ms. Boudreau: As you mentioned, the question concerns government priorities. We, as public servants, are here to see to the government’s decisions and implement them. Unfortunately, I can’t provide you with any more of an answer than that, because your question has more to do with political priorities.
Senator Dagenais: I want to revisit the issue of public servants who have been suspended without pay. As we’ve heard, employees can be exempted from the vaccination requirement for religious reasons. As of yet, no one has been able to explain the religious reasons that could warrant an employee not getting vaccinated. Are you able to answer that and tell me what those reasons are?
Ms. Girard: Thank you for your question. I want to be as clear as possible, senator. When an employee requests an accommodation further to the Policy on COVID-19 Vaccination, the purpose of the accommodation is to keep the employee in their job. An employee is placed on administrative leave without pay when they are unwilling to declare their vaccination status, or when they are not vaccinated and do not qualify for an exemption or their request for accommodation is not admissible. Administrative leave is used only in those situations.
A request for accommodation based on the Canadian Human Rights Act is assessed by the person’s manager, and if the manager needs assistance from their labour relations or human resources team, they receive that assistance as well as support from the Treasury Board Secretariat. The request has to be based on one of the 14 grounds provided for in the act, including religion. The employee must submit an affidavit signed by a commissioner for taking affidavits to demonstrate the sincerity of their religious belief.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Ms. Boudreau.
The Chair: I listened carefully to Senator Gerba’s questions, and further to her comments, I have a question for the witnesses. Ms. Girard may wish to answer this.
As we know, over time, it has been necessary for municipalities big and small, as well as provincial and territorial governments to adapt in relation to their workforces. At the federal level, we have roughly 268,000 employees. We’ve seen a number of big research firms engage in marketing across the country to ascertain how cost-effective and efficient the work of the government has been. What proportion of the 270,000 federal public servants will continue teleworking, do you think?
Ms. Girard: Thank you for your question, Mr. Chair. The pandemic has certainly accelerated the shift toward more flexible working arrangements and more frequent telework, on a scale that no one could have anticipated.
We are in the process of reviewing research and studies to learn everything we can from this experience. Of course, we saw what happened vis-à-vis the delivery of services — and I say this in all humility — federal public servants were commended by many for their ability to deliver programs and services despite the incredibly fast switch to telework. Does it apply in every circumstance? As the country’s largest employer, the federal government encompasses a diverse and wide range of occupations and functions that differ greatly when it comes to requirements. Each deputy minister is responsible for examining what makes sense within their own organization and how they can keep up this productivity, since it can vary considerably.
Two messages are extremely important, however. First, workplace health and safety is a core value, and for that reason, it is the first thing we ask of every employer across the public service. Second, having learned so much from this experience, we will continue incorporating flexibility into our work methods, so as not to lose the gains and efficiencies we have achieved thanks to this shift towards telework. Hybrid solutions will continue to be implemented where possible as long as it makes sense to do so.
The Chair: The path forward for public servants could look different, then?
Ms. Girard: There is not a single path forward. Broad principles come into play, and they provide the foundation for the professional delivery of programs and services that Canadians expect. The path forward will be more responsive and more flexible, taking into account lessons learned.
The Chair: In terms of lessons learned, have you consulted provincial and territorial governments at all?
Ms. Girard: Absolutely. We participate in OECD working groups. We also consult with our provincial and territorial counterparts, as well as with our partners, meaning bargaining agents and unions, which hear from their members — our employees — and with labour relations think tanks. All of that informs our environmental assessment to ensure that we have a good understanding of the situation and are able to adapt. A cut-and-paste approach is not appropriate given how much departmental mandates differ. That is why the head of each and every organization needs to determine how to apply those lessons in a productive way, while ensuring the health and safety of their workforce.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, within the context of my five minutes, I have no more questions. We will now move immediately on to the second round.
Senator Marshall: The departmental results reports were referenced several times. I have looked at quite a few of those, and I’d like to know if anybody ever looks at what’s being used as a result. In looking at some of the departments — I’m thinking about the Indigenous departments, Department of Transport — I must say, I don’t see the sense in some of the results they are measuring. Who decides and who approves what’s being measured?
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you very much for your very important question about results.
As I was saying at the beginning, once a program is announced in a federal budget, the next step is to present a memorandum to cabinet in order to present what the project will be and what the result will be to help Canadians. Once it is approved by cabinet, it will come to Treasury Board, where we discuss the implementation of this specific program.
This section of results is determined by organizations. They have the knowledge. They have the ability. They work with their partners in order to put on the table what makes sense to them and the people they serve. So that really is a discussion between everybody involved in order to be able to deliver that specific program.
As you pointed out, once it is decided, it will be reported back to Canadians via the Departmental Results Reports, or DRR, which are tabled once a year.
Senator Marshall: I was just going to suggest that somebody independent should be looking at those performance measurements. Some of them don’t make sense. Some indicate it will be measured several years down the road, and others are very odd measurements. They’re not quantifiable. It’s more quality as opposed to quantifying. It would be much more informative if the measurement were in a quantity. I just want to make that point because I’ve been tracking those reports for a number of years now, and when I read some of the indicators, I have to wonder who’s making them up.
Senator Loffreda: I’m glad to have the last question on this interesting and insightful session.
The pandemic has reinforced and constantly shown us and continued to show us how important it is to take care of our people, our employees. I wanted to follow up on the public service job qualification program. I had initially asked the question and you gave me a fine response. Thank you. But I want to elaborate. Is there a time plan on that? Is it being driven internally or externally? Are some of the corporate best practices being used at this point? Are independent consultants being used, sharing some of these practices? I’d like you to elaborate on that. In these estimates, we’re looking at $3.8 million, and every dollar counts, but could we make a greater investment in this program? What is the time plan?
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you very much for your question. You are correct that $3.8 million is a lot of money. The data I have in front of me is the implementation dates of the new job evaluation standards are in fiscal year 2021-22.
Senator Loffreda: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Boudreau: You’re welcome. Thank you.
Ms. Girard: Perhaps I can supplement that answer to other parts of your question. Those qualification standards set minimum requirements that relate to education, professional certification and official languages. We have capacity internally, but the Treasury Board Secretariat also gets a little portion of this to support the experts in classification in each of the departments to make sure that those assessments are made, yes, with the use of tools that are best practices out there in the labour market, however, that are applicable to the realities of the federal government. For example, we seek special expertise from our groups that do policy on official languages, which you won’t find in other areas of the labour market or for other employers. TBS supports that exercise.
As another example you were looking for earlier, we recently updated the qualification standards for the CO group, which are the commerce officers. We included flexibility to make sure that Indigenous employees had better chances of being successful in entering that job classification. The post-secondary education criteria were reviewed to make sure to increase the access, and we also looked at barriers that would preclude an inclusive way of assessing these job classifications.
Finally, I would mention that this funding also targets development of a broader plan that is to come to cabinet next year for a longer-term strategy for the modernization of the classification program for the federal public service.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Girard.
We have completed our agenda. To the witnesses, our senior officials of the department, you have again shown how professional you are. I’d like to remind you, through Ms. Girard and Ms. Boudreau, that we will be waiting for the written answers. As you know, our time frame to report to the Senate is the end of the day of December 13.
Honourable senators, before I adjourn the meeting, our next meeting is tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Eastern time, and we will start our first panel with the PBO, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, to be followed with a second panel from ISED, Innovation, Science and Economic Development, which is responsible for regional economic development agencies from coast to coast to coast.
Honourable senators and senior officials, I now declare the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)