THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 28, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met with videoconference this day at 4:03 p.m. [ET] to study the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, before we begin, I’d like to remind senators and witnesses to keep their microphones muted at all times, unless recognized by name by the chair.
[English]
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 at the technical assistance number that was provided.
[Translation]
In addition, 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.
[English]
Participants should know to do so in a private area and to be mindful of their surroundings.
We will now begin with the official portion of our meeting.
My name is Percy Mockler, a senator from New Brunswick and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. I would like to introduce the members of the committee who are participating in this meeting.
[Translation]
We have Senator Boehm, Senator Dagenais, Senator Duncan, Senator Forest, Senator Galvez, Senator Gerba, Senator Gignac, Senator Loffreda, Senator Marshall, Senator Pate and Senator Richards.
Welcome to all of you and to all Canadians who are watching on the Senate of Canada website.
[English]
Honourable senators, this afternoon, we are continuing our study on the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, which were referred to this committee on March 3, 2022, by the Senate of Canada.
[Translation]
Today we have the pleasure of welcoming Minister Mona Fortier, President of the Treasury Board. Thank you very much, Madam Minister, for accepting our invitation to appear before our committee today. I understand that you will be with us for the first round of questions and that your team will be available for the second round of questions.
[English]
She is accompanied by members of her team from the Treasury Board, some of whom are in the meeting room with her and others who are joining us virtually. I will ask everyone to introduce themselves if they are invited to answer a question.
Welcome to all of you, and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear in front of the Senate National Finance Committee.
I would like to share some information with senators with respect to Minister Fortier. We will need to accommodate Minister Fortier with some time to register her vote in the House of Commons. It will be done with e-voting, and the committee will take a five-minute break to allow the minister to cast her vote, which I’m being told could be between 4:30 and 4:45. Following the vote, we will continue with the minister answering questions.
[Translation]
I invite you to listen to the minister’s opening comments and remarks. Ms. Fortier, the floor is yours.
The Honourable Mona Fortier, P.C., M.P., President of the Treasury Board: Thank you very, Mr. Chair, for having me today. It is a great pleasure for me to be here in person, to see you virtually and to have the opportunity to discuss with you the government’s Main Estimates for the 2022-23 fiscal year. Of course, as you mentioned, I have a team of officials from the Treasury Board Secretariat with me today. To my left is Annie Boudreau, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector; to my right is Karen Cahill, Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer for the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat; and joining us online are Marie-Chantal Girard, Assistant Deputy Minister, Employee Relations and Total Compensation; Monia Lahaie, Assistant Comptroller General, Financial Management Sector; Samantha Tattersall, Assistant Comptroller General, Acquired Services and Assets; and Paul Wagner, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy and Transformation.
Honourable senators, let me tell you that this is a great team. I thank them for being with me today and for their hard work.
[English]
Mr. Chair, as you know, the Main Estimates were tabled on March 1, setting out the Government of Canada’s expenditure plans for the 2022-23 fiscal year. Through the Main Estimates and related documents, the government describes how it proposes to allocate taxpayers’ money, ensuring that spending is transparent and accountable to parliamentarians and Canadians. I believe they describe a responsible program of government spending closely aligned with the priorities expressed by Canadians, including infrastructure investments, benefits for seniors and students, transfers to provinces for health care and child care and actions to reduce our emissions and green our economy.
These estimates also reflect the government’s ongoing commitment to protect and support Canadians while we continue to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes funding to procure vaccines, therapeutics and other supplies, funding for border measures and support for hard-hit tourism, arts, culture and heritage sectors.
[Translation]
The Main Estimates present information on a total of $397.6 billion in planned budgetary spending for 126 organizations to deliver programs and services to Canadians.
This amount can be further broken down into $190.3 billion in voted expenditures, and $207.3 billion in statutory spending, already authorized through existing legislation. The majority of expenditures in the Main Estimates are transfer payments made to other levels of government, other organizations, and individuals.
Transfer payments make up approximately 61% of expenditures, or $243.1 billion. Mr. Chair, I would like to point out some significant changes in statutory spending, to reflect the forecasts in the 2021 Economic and Fiscal Update. These include transfer payments for elderly benefits, the Canada Health Transfer and fiscal equalization, an increase in Climate Action Incentive Payments, and the winding down of benefits payments under the Canada Recovery Benefits Act.
[English]
My department, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, is seeking $7.8 billion in funding in these Main Estimates, of which $4.3 billion is broken down as follows: $750 million for government contingencies; $152 million for government-wide initiatives; $2.1 billion for operating; $750 million for capital budget carry-forward; and $600 million for paylist expenditures. These central votes support Treasury Board in its role as the expenditure manager, employer and general manager for the Government of Canada.
[Translation]
There is also approximately $3.2 billion to make payments under the public service pension, benefit, and insurance plans, including the employer’s share of health, income maintenance, and life insurance premiums. The remaining $320 million supports the operation and activities of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
[English]
Finally, as announced in Budget 2022, my department will also be beginning a new initiative focused on fiscal responsibility. We promised Canadians a strategic policy review, and we’re keeping that promise. Treasury Board will be leading a review to ensure government programs are effective on challenges like climate change, the pandemic and growing the economy.
It will also adapt government to our post-pandemic reality, such as digitization. This is about a smarter government, not a smaller government. It is about delivering our goals more sustainably and effectively.
Mr. Chair, in conclusion, these Main Estimates reflect our government’s commitment to investing in priorities for Canadians.
[Translation]
We continue to present information in an open, transparent and accountable way so that parliamentarians and Canadians have a clear picture of how the government plans to invest in matters of importance to Canadians.
[English]
As the chair mentioned, I will probably have a vote during the next hour, but as the day has been going on in the house, it also might not happen. I just want you to know that my colleague on my right will give me a little sign when the vote will be called, if it’s called.
Again, Mr. Chair, your committee’s diligence in undertaking its review and studies of these estimates is very appreciated, and it is necessary. I thank you for the time, and we look forward to having this discussion today.
The Chair: Thank you, minister, for your statement.
We will now proceed to questions. I would like to tell senators that for this meeting, you will have a maximum of six minutes each for the first round and three minutes for the second 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.
Senator Marshall: Thank you, minister, to you and your officials for being here.
I’m going to start off with a question I usually ask when you and previous ministers have appeared, and it is about what I call the misalignment of the budget with the Main Estimates. My question relates back to the old fiscal year that just ended. I thought I would use that as an example, so that will help me navigate the Main Estimates for this year. What I was trying to do was track the new Budget 2021 initiatives to the funding that you requested in Supplementary Estimates (A), (B) and (C).
Budget 2021, on page 324, said there were $49 billion of new initiatives, but then when I looked at your Supplementary Estimates (C), which is a summary of all your estimates for the year, it indicates that the Budget 2021 initiatives are $36 billion. Minister Freeland said $49 billion and you said $36 billion. That’s a difference of $13 billion. I was trying to find out what the difference is. What exactly is that $13 billion? I think it might be some 2021 budget initiatives that were not implemented. It may be some income tax expenditures or might also include the Canada wage subsidy, but I can’t tell. With the information I have access to, I can’t really provide a reconciliation.
My first question is this: Would you be able to have your officials provide the committee a list of what comprises that $13 billion? I want to make sure I’m clear about what I’m looking for. What I’m asking is that Treasury Board provide us with a reconciliation between the $36 billion and the $49 billion that would clearly indicate and account for the difference and identify which Budget 2021 initiatives have been implemented and which ones have yet to be implemented. I’m trying to get a commitment from you to get that information. If I could get that, I think it would be a big help in reviewing your estimates for this year.
Ms. Fortier: Thank you very much, Senator Marshall, for your question. Also, I see you have been doing your homework. Thank you for that.
I do want to say that financial reporting for the Government of Canada is very important. One thing I have learned since I’ve been President of the Treasury Board is that budget is to allocate the amounts we want to do for measures, whereas main estimates are to authorize the amounts that the organization needs during a fiscal year to do what is necessary when they ask us to authorize it. In this case with the Main Estimates, as I said, we are asking for a number of billion dollars to allocate for, if I’m not mistaken, 126 organizations. You can see that presented in the Main Estimates.
Now, on the difference you were explaining earlier, maybe I can encourage Annie to start the response. Also, if we are not done, we could send the rest of the response in writing so you can have more time in your questioning.
Senator Marshall: Yes, if you could send it in writing.
My second question is — and I’ve asked you this before — what are your plans for bringing the two spending documents in line? When you review the budget and then you review the funding requests that you put forward, it’s very difficult to match up the two. We are working with two documents, and we are always cross-referencing and trying to find out if it’s here or there and what the difference is. How are you going to bring those two spending documents in line so people can understand what the actual spending plan is?
Ms. Fortier: Currently we are trying, of course, to bring to parliamentarians the spending presentations as we go along. We had tried to do this when Minister Brison was the President of the Treasury Board. After trying didn’t work, we chose to move forward on making sure we were transparent and giving monthly financial results that were offered in the fiscal monitor and offering other means to make sure to inform where the spending was done. We will continue to also provide quarterly financial reporting. As you know, with Supplementary Estimates (A), (B) and (C), this is where we can also show where the spending authorities are asked that weren’t part of Main Estimates. Therefore, the cycle will continue to be the same, but we try to align as much as we can as we move along with different reports to make sure that everyone has the necessary information.
Senator Marshall: Have you considered going back and doing something similar to what Minister Brison did? He did try a couple of different options in two different years. They weren’t perfect, but they were better, if that’s the right word, than the system we are working with now. Is that something you would consider?
Ms. Fortier: Of course, we always want to consider ways to make things more aligned. We are trying to do this, but at this time I believe we will continue with the expenditure cycle that we have, the supply periods we have, and give as much information in my opportunity to come and see you more often to report on where we are asking for authorities for spending.
Senator Marshall: If I can get the reconciliation, that would be very helpful.
Do I still have some time, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: No, you have two seconds left. I’ll put you on second round.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Welcome, minister. I regret that I am not in the room to greet you. I think your participation is very important to the work of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
In your government’s 2022-23 budget, you announced a major program review with the goal of saving at least $6 billion over five years in government programs. This is of concern to many. We all had concerns during the period when there were some fairly drastic cuts, which affected the services provided to Canadians.
I have two questions about this. First, your government says it wants to take some of the lessons learned in the context of COVID-19 to try to find some savings. Can you elaborate on that? Secondly, how did you estimate the $6 billion target? Why not $6.5 billion or $5 billion? What was the exercise that was conducted to arrive at a target of $6 billion over five years?
Ms. Fortier: Thank you for the question. When I had the privilege of working in the last election, that amount was part of our platform — I just want you to know where it came from. After re-election, our government wanted to do this strategic policy assessment, to see if there were ways to do things better, to be more flexible and more strategic in investments, without necessarily being a smaller government.
Over the last two years, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, many investments have been made to support Canadians, workers, businesses, provinces and territories. Now, what we want to do is to see if we can save money and be more strategic in our spending ability. I gave an example in the last few weeks: We now have hybrid work, and it’s here to stay. So a lot of workspaces will be available. Can we turn them into housing and reduce the square footage of workspace available to us? That’s one context in which we could save money.
The other thing is that we will probably have to travel less. There are a lot of savings there. We can probably continue to work in hybrid mode, as we do today. Those are the two examples I wanted to mention, but I know you probably have other questions.
In the budget, the Minister of Finance has set targets and we will be working on them over the next year. In the next budget, I will be able to tell you where we are in terms of that exercise.
Senator Forest: Was the $6 billion that was indicated in the platform based on economies of scale in various programs, whether it be travel or space rental?
Ms. Fortier: I would like to clarify that this amount was indicated in the budget. When we did the platform exercise, there was no amount. Rather, there was a desire to conduct a strategic policy review. Minister Freeland challenged Treasury Board to work with those who had good ideas. The point was to be more strategic and more flexible in our approach, without necessarily having a smaller government, shall we say.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
The other issue I care about, like Senator Marshall, is the fiscal update. In last month’s report on the government’s December economic and fiscal update, the Parliamentary Budget Officer indicated that it was difficult to track government spending because the government’s audited financial statements were released late. The Parliamentary Budget Officer recommends that Parliament amend Canada’s transparency legislation to require that the financial statements be made public no later than the end of September each year as a way to improve reporting and accountability. I think you would agree with us when it comes to the goal of achieving transparency.
Can you tell us what the problem is on the government’s end? Do you think a deadline of September 30 for the publication of the financial statements is realistic?
Ms. Fortier: First of all, thank you for your question, and obviously I want to thank the Parliamentary Budget Officer for his recommendations.
We know that we carried out our work properly. We submitted the necessary reports as per the legislative calendar. Keep in mind that we had an election, which is why the public accounts were released, as some might say, a bit late. We nevertheless respected the deadlines for submitting the reports to Parliament.
I’m going to ask Ms. Lahaie to round out my answer by providing more information.
Monia Lahaie, Assistant Comptroller General, Financial Management Sector, Office of the Comptroller General, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: We are absolutely prepared to examine the situation and the proposed options, but it’s important to consider a number of factors. The public accounts cannot be submitted unless there is a sitting government, so obviously, election years can make it difficult to submit the report. Legislative changes would have to be made, and it’s a huge undertaking. We have to work with each department and with the Office of the Auditor General in order to complete the audit on time. We are certainly open to considering the recommendation, but not when it’s an election year. The report usually comes out in early October, but in election years, the date tends to be in November or December. We would be happy to work with you on the matter.
Senator Gignac: Good afternoon, minister. Welcome to the committee. Like Senator Forest, I wish I could be there to say hello in person.
Yesterday, Statistics Canada released data confirming a growing trend when it comes to Canada’s aging population. I’d like to talk about what that means for the workforce.
The segment of the population aged 50 to 64 is closest to retirement, and that is becoming a major issue. With the labour shortage becoming even more foreseeable, does workforce recruitment worry you? What does the federal government plan to do about it? What solutions or options do you plan to bring forward?
It is especially important to ensure that the public service retains its expertise. I’d like to hear your comments on that, and I may have another question afterwards.
Ms. Fortier: I’m glad you asked that because I think the situation is concerning to us all. If you have any ideas, naturally I would love to hear them.
Here’s one of the things we are examining. Although many jobs were lost during the pandemic, we are back at 119% employment as compared with pre-pandemic levels, so the unemployment rate is the lowest it’s been in a long time. You are right, however. Some sectors are looking for workers. In the public service, we have vacancies in a range of skill areas. That is why we developed a long-term, government-wide public service skills strategy; it includes increasing the number of public servants with modern digital skills and strengthening recruitment from outside the public service.
Also important is achieving greater diversity within the ranks of the public service and bringing in people who are ready to work, including persons with disabilities. In my mandate letter, I was tasked with hiring 5,000 new public servants with disabilities. I believe many people with disabilities have the skills required to support the federal government.
Coming back to your question, I would say we need to work together to hire workers in sectors where shortages are most critical. Last time — I can’t remember whether it was this committee or another — it was said that the construction industry was one that had been hit hard by the labour shortage. One thing the government is trying to do with its most recent budget is increase the number of apprentices and workers in the skilled trades. That’s one of the steps the government is taking to recruit workers.
Senator Gignac: Are there elements you could negotiate with the unions as far as achieving greater flexibility is concerned? I’m referring to things like part-time hours in order to keep experienced people in the workforce a bit longer. For instance, there may be people between the ages of 55 and 57 who have been working in the public service for 35 years. Perhaps it’s a good idea to explore incentives that could keep them in their jobs longer as a way to retain their expertise. Are those options you plan to explore?
Senator Forest: I see Marie-Chantal smiling because you mentioned strategies we adopted internally to create a larger pool of people who can meet our needs and offer important services to Canadians in a variety of ways, whether in person or remotely. I’d like to ask Marie-Chantal to provide some concrete examples.
Marie-Chantal Girard, Acting Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: You are right. In 2010, approximately 10% of our workforce was 55 or older. Today, that number is 20%, so it doubled in a decade. Everyone at the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer is working with partners to develop a future of work strategy, which includes ways of working, the circumstances in which they apply, the skills needed for the future and the types of services Canadians can expect from the public service. That long-term skills strategy will ensure that the type of recruiting we do is properly aligned, by broadening and diversifying the methods we use. Under the strategy, we will probably do more recruiting in the regions, since hybrid work models are now an option, and expand our recruitment pools. We know who we are trying to attract, and you are right to say that the tools available to employers — not just all the compensation and remuneration options, but also the benefits — can be adjusted to provide the flexibility people are looking for.
Senator Gignac: Thank you.
Ms. Fortier: We also understand that immigration is a pathway that will help us find people with the skills we need. I do want to point out that we have devoted a great deal of effort and investment to immigration.
[English]
Senator Richards: Thank you to the minister for being here.
Minister, expenditures are so often spoken about in such broad terms and with such great amounts of money that it’s really hard to follow. For instance, you have hundreds of millions for climate action incentive programs. I’m really not sure where that money is going, and most Canadians, unless they study it, probably wouldn’t know exactly where it’s going. We have $20 billion for First Nation child payments. I’m not begrudging them that, don’t get me wrong, but I am suggesting that we don’t know what the back end is going to be. I’m wondering, within all of this, are there any follow-ups and audits on where this money actually goes and how it’s being spent?
Ms. Fortier: Thank you very much for your question, Senator Richards.
Of course, as we allocate and budget the amounts we want to invest into different programs, different supports and initiatives across the country for Canadians, we do have to, as Treasury Board, look at all of these expenses and study them to allow authorities. That’s why today you have the Main Estimates in front of you, and we’re sharing what we’re going to be doing with these submissions that we’ve received from 126 organizations or departments to say how they will use this investment in the programs that they will be delivering. Therefore, we’re authorizing that amount.
I might let Annie add a bit more on the specificities that you have asked about.
Annie Boudreau, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you. I would like to take the example you used of the $20 billion for Indigenous Services Canada in terms of the CHRT rulings. This one is included in the Main Estimates. It is also included in the departmental plan. As you know, in the fall, they will come with the departmental results report, where they will be able to tell what has been done with the money that they have received. You will be able to follow via the document that Indigenous Services Canada will be presenting in the fall and in subsequent years as well how that money has been used. You will be able to follow that $20 billion.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much for that. I hope I will be. It seems at times that there’s a great deal of money that goes through our various departments that, in the end, doesn’t really get accounted for. Maybe it’s just me, but I think I’m not the only senator that worries about that. Thank you very much.
Ms. Fortier: Senator Richards, this is another role that I think the Auditor General also has to show us how we are investing and using our spending in the different departments that we have. Therefore, there are some times that we get audited, there are questions that are asked and we need to dig a little deeper to make sure we show where we are investing for Canadians. I think that we have many other financial reportings to make sure that we recognize these investments that we’re making for Canadians.
While I still have the microphone, I just wanted to inform you that I now have a bell of 30 minutes before my vote.
Senator Duncan: Thank you, minister, for being with us today.
I would like to follow up on Senator Richards’ and some of the other questions. Budget 2021 proposed $126.7 million over three years beginning in 2021-22 to take action to foster health systems free from racism and discrimination, where Indigenous peoples are respected and safe. In Supplementary Estimates (C), there was funding to address anti-Indigenous racism in health care in the Department of Health of 3.54894 and the Department of Indigenous Services of 18, so there was a total of 22. Then in the Main Estimates that we’re reviewing now, there is another $4.3 billion to address racism and discrimination in Canada’s health systems programs.
You mentioned in your remarks to us today that your department has fiscal responsibility and you’re looking at strategic policy initiatives. What steps are in place to avoid duplication of funding, to ensure that it’s different organizations or that there are programs that are most effective in achieving these goals? This is listed in several different places and several different amounts.
Ms. Fortier: Thank you. As part of our ongoing journey to reconciliation, I know we are committed as a government to making the necessary investments to settle claims and support for infrastructure and health and other services that are vital to Indigenous health. That is something that we have been doing for the last many years. They are always followed by making sure that we follow where the money is invested.
Maybe I’ll let Annie go into the details that you’ve asked. I know we have many investments in water, children and health, but for your specific question I’ll let Annie answer.
Ms. Boudreau: Maybe I’ll take your specific question and try to give an example at a high level. We discussed earlier the Strategic Policy Review. If you look back at chapter 9 in Budget 2022, there are two reviews to be undertaken this year. The first one is the Strategic Policy Review on programs. That’s one part, and it’s called Stream 1 in Budget 2022. We have Stream 2 that discusses the $6 billion over five years that we have discussed earlier.
Going back to Stream 1, it’s really to look at horizontal programs across the organizations, exactly to your point, to make sure we are efficient, there is no duplication and there is not a gap. If we see there is a gap, it’s our role to say that we found something that is not working.
We are doing some planning as we speak to decide which thematic we’re going to be using in the coming months and coming years in order to look at all those big programs, and it was also included in Minister Fortier’s mandate letter as well.
Senator Duncan: I appreciate what you’ve said, and I mentioned in our earlier discussion about this that there are existing programs in place that could exactly address these issues in some of the provinces and territories, and certainly in my own territory.
Another example of this is the grants to support the Giant Mine Oversight Board and research for arsenic in the Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs. In grants and in contributions, there’s transfer payments to the Government of Yukon for maintenance and closure of contaminated sites. That is in Crown-Indigenous Relations — and I understand there are different relationships between the territories — and then in the Department of Indigenous Services, there are grants for contributions to First Nations for the management of contaminated sites.
While we wait for this review, I understand that probably the Department of Indigenous Services are dealing with the non-settled First Nations and Crown-Indigenous are dealing with the government-to-government relationship, but how is the ordinary Canadian taxpayer reassured that there’s not a duplication?
Ms. Fortier: Thank you for that question. It is a very important question, because I, as the President of the Treasury Board, have the privilege of looking at all those submissions, and we always ask those questions. Are we sure we haven’t done this before? Have we checked with other departments? There is an oversight that is done with the work that we’re doing. We’re monitoring and evaluating, and I think that not only is there this Strategic Policy Review that I will be undertaking but, with a great team, there is the fact that we already do part of that job.
For the specific case that you just shared, maybe we can come back to give you examples of how there is not necessarily duplication but there is an effort to do the mandate that was given to one department or another to get the job done.
I think Annie wants to complement the answer that I’m giving.
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you very much for your specific question. Eight months ago, I was the CFO of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, and there is a distinction between the two contaminated sites that you just explained. One of them, which is Indigenous Services Canada related, is for contaminated sites on reserve, and the one for CIRNAC is contaminated sites in the North. That will be the distinction between the two grants that you mentioned earlier.
Senator Duncan: Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you, minister, for being here with us. It’s always a pleasure to see you.
My question is on cybersecurity. In your 2020-21 performance results report, you acknowledge more work is needed in certain areas, including in cybersecurity. It’s indicated that 69% of Government of Canada websites delivered digital services to citizens securely. I strongly believe this must be a priority, particularly in light of increasingly more frequent cyberattacks and threats from around the world, and we all know why. What work is being done in this area? Can you reassure Canadians that their data is secure? For example, I do know that Canada is trailing behind many other nations when it comes to adopting digital identification for accessing government services online. Can you elaborate on that? Thank you.
Ms. Fortier: Thank you for the question.
If you were online Tuesday, I kind of received this same question by the OGGO committee. Thank you for letting me focus on the fact that cyberstrategy is something we are working on. Our government is always working and continuously working to enhance our cybersecurity and preparing for all types of cyberincidents, protecting Canadians and their data. That is our prime objective.
TBS works with the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, Shared Services Canada and other partners to really investigate and respond to cyberevents as they are reported. As you know, this is happening at different levels, but it is happening daily. I have to tell you we have robust systems and tools in place to monitor, detect and investigate potential threats and, of course, take active measures to address and neutralize these threats. We know this will be continuing, and our government is reinforcing all of the tools that we have.
I would appreciate it if maybe Paul Wagner would like to add and complement the response to the question.
Paul Wagner, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy and Transformation, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you, Senator Loffreda, for the question.
Following on what Minister Fortier said, working closely with the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, we are looking at enhancing and improving our monitoring around compliance with the security expectations that we have across departments. There’s a policy on government security that applies to 110 organizations across the government. We’re augmenting our ability to ensure the expectations that are set out in terms of cybersecurity, which is a bit of a team sport. There’s a lot of work that gets done at the centre with Shared Services Canada and the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, but each department has a role to play in that as well.
We also have a cybersecurity event management plan so that when cyber incidents do occur, there is a formal process that’s followed. As we have had events that have obviously affected us over the past years, and continue to, we learn from those. There are extensive lessons learned taken from those events to improve that cybersecurity event management plan as we move forward.
I can assure you that we put all of the resources in place and all of the policy tools in place to ensure that our organizations and systems are as secure as possible.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
Ms. Fortier: Senator, I will also add the fact that the latest National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians tabled a report, and we agree with the recommendations. We are really working on them as we received the suggestions or recommendations by NSICP.
Senator Loffreda: That’s reassuring. Thank you.
I’ve been discussing the real estate portfolio and downscaling the real estate portfolio with Minister Duclos since 2020. You mentioned the strategic policy review, and you’re looking at the real estate portfolio with the virtual work that we all are doing and that there might be some savings there. Can you elaborate? Is there an update on that portfolio? I know unions were in the news lately, and there is a lot of talk and discussion around it, but I’ve been on this for a few years now, and I’m wondering if there is a thorough update. Maybe you can tell us in writing when you eventually do get there.
Ms. Fortier: I have two things to say about this. I just got the official mandate in the last budget, which was tabled three weeks ago. Therefore, I will be reporting back in the next budget on the efforts that we’re doing.
The second thing I’d like to share is that I’m sure the committee here would have a lot of great thoughts on how we could engage into this strategic policy review, so please don’t hesitate to share your thoughts and experience, Senator Loffreda. I know you’ve had these conversations.
Senator Loffreda: Yes.
Ms. Fortier: I am very open to that conversation.
The thing I want to really reinforce is that following two years of pandemic and the fact that we have a future of work that is transforming, we also have a lot of square feet that will probably be available. We have to be smart about how we’re going to use them.
I know many businesses have been asking me this: When are public servants coming back to the downtown core? There will be hybrid work, and we will continue to have hybrid work. Therefore, we need to transform our downtown. There are probably some buildings that we could either find ways for them to be either affordable housing — I’m talking about exploring at this time, because I think we have to be smarter in how we use the capacity that we have. Then we maybe need to work with other organizations to fill in the space. Thank you. I’m very passionate about this strategic policy review, by the way.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you. So am I.
The Chair: Being passionate is a very important element of our jobs. I would ask you, minister, to follow up with additional information in writing to the clerk by the end of May 5. That particular date is the timeline we have. Thank you, minister.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Since we are all passionate people, I’m going to ask this next question with passion.
I watched your appearance yesterday before the House of Commons committee. I have to tell you, Mr. Paul-Hus’s line of questioning was especially tough. I don’t plan to ask you the same questions he did in regard to the $15-billion discrepancy in the Department of National Defence’s budget, but I’m not so sure today will be much easier. It is your responsibility to authorize public spending, but unless I’m mistaken — and I mean no disrespect — you control Treasury Board decisions, or do you? In certain cases, is it really the Prime Minister’s Office or the finance minister’s office calling the shots?
Are you wholly responsible for all the decisions your institution makes, or are you in charge solely of authorizing expenditures that are clear and verifiable by taxpayers?
Ms. Fortier: Of course, yes, I have the authority to make decisions. I have the privilege of being surrounded by a team that works hard to make sure that we get well-explained bids for the implementation of a program and the number of people it will take. This is part of the process.
There are also the Treasury Board members who meet regularly to review all the items we are asked to authorize. We do this responsibly, to ensure that we are getting the full value for every dollar invested in the programs.
Senator Dagenais: I will continue on the national defence file. I want to talk about the rather surprising announcement that Canada is going to provide Ukraine with eight armoured vehicles that, as I understand it, we do not have at the moment. They will have to be purchased. You know, you don’t necessarily get armoured vehicles at Canadian Tire.
Were you presented with a fait accompli by other ministers in your government, who would have told you that you had no say and that the vehicles were being sent over there? Can you explain how this decision was made? How much will this cost, in which budget will it be found and, above all, what is the delivery date? We know that the war is going on and I would not want it to be over by the time the tanks arrive. It is already difficult to get cars at the moment; they have to be ordered two years in advance. So I’d like to know how this decision was made and how your department was involved.
Ms. Fortier: Thank you for your question. There is a certain answer that we should get from the Minister of Defence, because she is the one who put this issue forward to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance has decided to invest an additional $8 billion in the 2022 budget for defence needs.
When the submission is made, Treasury Board will have all the information it needs to properly assess the use of this spending. Thereafter, we will authorize — or not — some or all of the expenditures to meet the request of the Minister of Defence.
At this time, there has been no submission to Treasury Board on this matter. When that is done, we will proceed expeditiously.
Senator Dagenais: Of the $240 billion transferred to the provinces that you mentioned earlier, can you give us a picture of how much will go to Quebec? Obviously, I am particularly interested in Quebec. Are these amounts still subject to federal-provincial negotiations?
Ms. Fortier: That is a good question. I will ask the officials, but I can tell you that the amounts are identified in the Main Estimates.
Ms. Boudreau: Indeed, all the amounts are in the budget. However, it is a global amount. We do not have them for each province and territory. We will come back to you with the details. It’s not part of our budget, it’s part of the federal budget, where you can find the spending province by province.
Senator Dagenais: I would like to receive them in writing, please.
Ms. Boudreau: Yes, by May 5.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much. Do I have time to ask another question?
The Chair: You have one more minute, Senator Dagenais.
Senator Dagenais: Look, either I went too fast with my questions or the answers came too quickly —
Ms. Fortier: Maybe I could elaborate on the issue of the investments that have been made in health over the last two years. You know, senator, Canadians needed support. The Government of Canada invested heavily in health care to deal with COVID, whether with vaccines or with help on the ground. There has been a major effort in relation to transfers.
Recently, Minister Duclos announced that the federal government would be providing $2 billion to the provinces and territories, notably to help them reduce surgical wait lists. We have an opportunity to make sure we support health care across the country, and I wanted to give you this example of transfers to the different provinces that were announced by Minister Duclos just recently.
Senator Dagenais: Moderna will set up in Montreal.
[English]
Senator Galvez: In your speech, you talked about climate change and greening the government. I’ll give you the opportunity to expand on how the government is assessing climate change risk in the investments that the government makes. How is the greening of the government progressing with respect to the reduction of emissions in attaining net zero 2050? Thank you.
Ms. Fortier: Thank you, Senator Galvez.
As you know, climate change is the number one priority of our government, and we are investing billions of dollars to make sure we are putting all efforts to get to zero emissions by 2050. If I can go a little bit on what I’m doing as President of the Treasury Board, I have the opportunity to lead on the greening government initiative. We want to modernize, for example, fleets with zero emission, hybrid, alternate fuel vehicles. We are also building zero-carbon buildings and maximizing energy efficiency with the existing ones, using nature-based solutions to protect assets from threats like flooding; and a fourth one is transitioning to a net-zero circular economy through green procurement. All these initiatives are brought forward to be able to invest in Canadians, of course, but making sure that we get to that target that we have given ourselves for a net-zero economy. I hope I’m giving you some part of the answer.
Senator Galvez: Yes.
We are experiencing more destructive and very expensive extreme weather events every year. Some of the assets of the infrastructure that you said we invest in can become a stranded asset. An example is the pipelines. You know that we invested in the pipelines and that insurers don’t want to insure pipelines anymore. At the same time you are working on greening the government, the government is also investing in assets that may become stranded. How do you reconcile these two sort of opposite activities?
Ms. Fortier: Thank you for that. Apart from my answer, I might invite Samantha Tattersall to complement the information you just shared in the second part of your question.
Samantha Tattersall, Assistant Comptroller General, Acquired Services and Assets Sector, Office of the Comptroller General, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you, senator.
In terms of the role of the Treasury Board Secretariat, in addition to greening government, which focuses on a strategy, we actually set up the administrative policy for all departments across government as to how they manage the life cycle of those assets, taking into account, when they make those investments, how they can ensure that they are environmentally sound in their management, in their costing and in their plans. A really important thing that we just introduced is the concept of portfolio plans so that departments, when they are setting out how they are managing their assets, are not just looking at it sector by sector but in a comprehensive portfolio approach. Thank you.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much, minister, and all the departmental officials for joining us.
Minister, your mandate letter includes a commitment to ensuring the government policy is developed by continuing to refine and strengthen the quality of life framework to ensure that we achieve long-term outcomes that benefit people. The Treasury Board’s Measuring What Matters report on this framework emphasizes that it aims to incorporate factors beyond traditional economic measures into federal decision making and budgeting, including factors relating to economic security and deprivation. The government is committed to implementing the Calls for Justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, including the call for a guaranteed livable basic income.
I’m curious about two questions. What steps have been taken to evaluate that particular recommendation through the quality of life framework? What research has been considered that has been either dismissed or a decision to incorporate indicating the ability of the guaranteed livable income to improve economic, social, health, and justice outcomes, particularly for those who are most marginalized? Secondarily, what kind assessment and accountability and transparency framework will there be for us to be able to examine and see how those measures are being evaluated?
Ms. Fortier: First of all, thank you for your advocacy and all the work you have been doing, Senator Pate.
On the quality of life framework, as you know, I had the privilege of receiving the mandate two years ago already from the Prime Minister, basing ourselves on the experience of New Zealand, Iceland and Scotland, because making better decisions on how we invest in Canadians is what we need to do, not just based on one indicator like the GDP but many indicators that will show how it changes and helps people’s lives.
On the ones you are giving more specifically, I would have to reflect more on how to answer you, but I can tell you that during the budgeting process — and you probably saw it again — there was a second book in this Budget 2022 where we evaluate and go through that quality of life framework to better understand how that will have an effect with the measures we decide to allocate in the budget. Those were studied or analyzed with every budget submission inside Budget 2022, and that was also done in the Annex 4 of Budget 2021. I know that exercise was there specifically.
As for other means, I cannot tell you that it has been evaluated or looked at or dismissed, as you used the term, to assess both examples that you gave. If you would give me the opportunity, I could ask if colleagues have anything to add. If not, we would bring another written response.
Senator Pate: Certainly. If you could provide something in writing, that would be incredibly useful, particularly because of the fact that reconciliation and these calls for action and calls for justice are also part of your mandate.
Ms. Boudreau: We see the quality of life framework as the umbrella. We will have other frameworks that will help us improve. One of them will be the gender-based analysis plus framework, reconciliation, integrative climate plans, as well as sustainable development goals. All of that will help us give more definition and enhance the framework and ensure we are including everything in it.
Senator Pate: If you could provide in writing the assessment in terms of the particular issues I raised and the anti-poverty measures, that would be fantastic. Thank you.
The Chair: Minister, we do agree it will come in writing?
Ms. Fortier: Yes, senator, it will, and I understood your date of May 5. I believe we will be able to go forward with a response.
Senator, I have been tagged to vote. I’m in your hands. I know other senators are on deck for questions, but I do have to just take some time, unless you want to end this portion with me. I’m in your hands.
The Chair: Minister, there is one senator left. Certainly, I would like to have him ask the question now.
Senator Boehm: Thank you for your indulgence, minister. The advantage of going last is that my colleagues have asked a lot of questions.
Ms. Fortier: But this is dessert, going last.
Senator Boehm: I’ll remember that. Thank you.
I wanted to just elaborate a little bit on what Senator Gignac was asking you about, the strategic policy review. In my previous life, I was involved as an official in government in the program review of the Chrétien government and in the deficit reduction action plan of the Harper government. The challenge was setting priorities. No one could really set priorities, so inevitably you run into a percentage cut, and that leaves no one satisfied.
You, I would submit, could have a bit of a different approach, because early on in your government you established a “deliverology” philosophy to monitor and see what the impact of your programs were. You also had very public mandate letters. It seems to me that with those tools at hand, it should be easier to come up with some fixes this time, or you could, in fact, use the “deliverology” officers or chief whatever they are called these days to, sort of, invert and look inward. I’m wondering if you have any thoughts on that.
Ms. Fortier: Thank you for your question. You have had the experience of doing some strategic work and policy review in other governments, and I think that experience will be helpful for me and others to take into account.
One thing I want to stress is the fact that we have to find ways to be smarter as government and to make sure that the value of every tax dollar is understood. We know that is so important for everyone, especially parliamentarians, when we look at how we are investing in Canadians.
We have lived over the last two years through many ways of adapting, of changing and of creating different programs in very short periods of time to support Canadians, workers and businesses, for example. Therefore, we have to take that experience and make sure that when we identify these amounts to help reduce the investments that we need to deliver services to Canadians, we will be undertaking, of course, that approach.
I don’t know if anybody else wants to add at this time, but I will tell you that since I just received the mandate, I am taking the time to really explore how we can be more creative and more innovative, not only through digitization but maybe other means to collaborate and engage with different partners or stakeholders to look at where we could be better in how we deliver services and programs to Canadians. That would be my introductory context to the work that I will be undertaking with, of course, my colleagues at the cabinet table but also with, I hope, many stakeholders that will engage in this process.
Senator Boehm: Minister, with your indulgence, next week is Mental Health Week in Canada, and as the employer of the public service, with some 320,000 employees, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat has a special responsibility. These two years have been very difficult. People have changed the way they work and, in many cases, the way they live, and there have been various sudden shifts. Transitioning back to offices will present its own difficulties, and you have mentioned that. What specific mental health programs might Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat be implementing to help public service employees, are you consulting with the unions in this particular context, and how do you see the support that your department will give as Canada emerges from the pandemic?
Ms. Fortier: Thank you again for that very important question, and this is a priority from the OCHRO team. I know Marie-Chantal will probably add to what I have to say, but mental health impacts of COVID-19 have been hard on many people, not just public servants, but Canadians at large.
We did make free virtual mental health resources available through the Wellness Together Canada portal and also helped Government of Canada employees easily access their departmental employee assistance programs for mental health support. That is one thing we did during COVID-19. We will continue to build on that.
There are tools like the Public Service Employee Survey that will help us gather information. The data we’ll get from that survey will help us share where those supports are needed.
Maybe I will ask Marie-Chantal to add a little bit more on what specifics OCHRO is working on, but it is a very important priority that we have.
Ms. Girard: Thank you, Minister Fortier.
Senator Boehm, we certainly recognize how stressful it has been and all the work public servants had to deliver on to support Canada throughout this pandemic. We are seeing prevalence increase. We also recognize, on the other hand, that the stigma around mental health is slowly decreasing, and employees are talking more about it, which is why, as the minister was referring to the Public Service Employee Survey, it is important to understand where the areas of need are. We have a Centre of Expertise on Mental Health, which, during the pandemic, has increased its activities, and they have a hub where they emphasize certain needs related to the pandemic. Also, we paid attention to employee equity-seeking groups that have faced very unique and specific issues that we need to be better at understanding and responding to.
[Translation]
The Chair: Ms. Girard, could you provide a written response to Senator Boehm’s question by our May 5 deadline, please?
[English]
Ms. Girard: With pleasure.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
This concludes the first round of questions. We’re going to release you so you can go to vote.
Ms. Fortier: I’m going to be annoying and tell you, Senator Mockler, that I voted while Ms. Girard was speaking. I had no choice, because if you do not vote within three minutes, you get a slap on the wrist. That was not my intention today.
The Chair: Thank you very much for coming to testify and for being available with your team whenever asked. As we agreed at the beginning, with the deadline of May 5, we will no doubt be able to flesh out the report that we are going to submit to the Senate. With that, thank you very much.
[English]
Honourable senators, we will move to the second round, and I’m being told it will be with the officials. I would ask the officials of the Treasury Board of Canada to answer the questions. As chair, I would ask Annie Boudreau and Karen Cahill to either answer the questions directly, or, if not, and they want to ask other officials to participate in answering the questions, this will also be accepted.
Senator Marshall: Thank you, officials, for staying.
Two of the documents that we use quite extensively are the Departmental Plans and the Departmental Results Reports. I’ll start with the Departmental Results Reports. I’m wondering what kind of review or what kind of input Treasury Board has with regard to those documents.
For the Departmental Results Reports, for a lot of the departments that we are seeing, when you look at the reports and the percentage of their objectives that they meet, a lot of them are below 50%. In a lot of cases, they don’t have their targets set, or they are not going to report on the targets for several years into the future. What kind of review do you do with regard to the performance indicators?
The second question I have is on the Departmental Plans. I know, Ms. Boudreau, that one of the senators had asked about Indigenous Services and the $20 billion that was extra in the health and social services in their request for this year. When I looked at their Departmental Plan, they indicated the dollar amount, and I think it was included in a figure of $28 billion, but there was no explanation whatsoever in the plan as to what the money was to be used for and there were no performance indicators indicated.
What kind of review do you do on the Departmental Plans, and what kind of review do you do on the Departmental Results Reports? Because the documents are disappointing.
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you for your question.
Maybe I’ll try to go a bit before that. Every time that there is a Treasury Board submission brought to the board, my team will look at the results section, we’ll look at the performance indicators, and we have a discussion with the department to make sure that we understand where they are going and to understand that what is there is reasonable. One thing we also need to keep in mind is deputy ministers are the accounting officers of the organization, so the information they provide belongs to them.
You did mention some of the performance indicators or targets will not be there, or they will be very low. The reasons for not being there could be, for example, that the information is known only every two years or it is based on the census. If that is the case, obviously, departments will not be able to assess themselves every year because of that.
Another challenge that we saw last year and the year before was COVID-19. Because of that, some departments were not able to continue to follow service standards. They had to provide services to Canadians very quickly, and they made the decision that they would put that aside for a little while.
Senator Marshall: As parliamentarians, when we go to review their request for funding, for example, Indigenous Services — not to pick on them, but to give them as an example — are asking for a significant increase in funding. You look at what kind of performance they have had with their indicators, and it shows less than 50% of their indicators are met. Then you go to their departmental plan, and there is no explanation as to what they are going to use the increased funding for. We are left with the explanation we get during testimony.
Treasury Board is the oversight body within the government. Is there something Treasury Board can do that would improve both those Departmental Plans plus the department’s performance indicators? I think Senator Duncan was referring to problems with that earlier. If the officials come before us, we can ask them and get some verbal explanation. Some of the performance indicators are qualitative as opposed to quantitative.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: They are a problem. They are disappointing, is probably the best way to sum it up.
The Chair: Ms. Boudreau, can you answer Senator Marshall’s questions in writing, please?
Ms. Boudreau: Yes.
Senator Marshall: What can you do to make it better?
Ms. Boudreau: And we’ll do it by May 5.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you, witnesses. My question is about the COVID-19 tests. We were surprised to learn in the Supplementary Estimates (C) that Health Canada used two different budget channels to obtain funding for the COVID-19 test kits. It was learned that the funding requests were duplicated in supplementary estimates in other bills. The Senate Committee on National Finance deplored this confusion and reiterated that it complicates its role in budget monitoring.
I understand that the pandemic required swift action. Can you tell us whether this practice of requesting funds through two different budget channels has been used for other initiatives? Are you open to accepting the recommendation of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance to end this funding practice and avoid such opacity in the future?
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you for your question. It is true that when Supplementary Estimates (C) were tabled, we included $4.2 billion in voted and statutory spending for Health Canada. As you know, there were two bills tabled, Bill C-8 and Bill C-10; only one of them was passed. This highlights that having two options on the table provided the tests that Canadians needed to get screened.
That said, we have oversight within Treasury Board. When statutory expenditures are used to pay, there is automatically a reduction in voted expenditures. So you can’t use the amount twice.
To answer your question about whether this practice has been used before, the answer is yes. At the beginning of the pandemic, an envelope was allocated to the Red Cross; it was a voted item and a legislative item. Again, it was for emergency reasons, to get on the ground as quickly as possible to help Canadians, and again, the money was used only once using the controls that we have in the Treasury Board Secretariat.
Senator Forest: Thanks, that’s pretty clear. As far as transparency is concerned, it would be interesting if a yellow light were to be switched on; this would make it easier for us to spot the fact that this same expenditure is being requested in two places, at two levels in legislative expenditure and current expenditure. It would really clarify the process and the very laudable goal of being as efficient as possible quickly. It would remove some of the skepticism about the manoeuvre.
Senator Gignac: Last week, representatives from Employment and Social Development Canada appeared before our committee and I raised questions about child care. In the negotiations with the provinces, I understand that the provinces that don’t already have child care have to commit to the $10‑a‑day price and the number of spaces. However, inflation is much higher than what was anticipated a few months ago during the negotiations. Is the Treasury Board Secretariat involved in these negotiations? What will happen if inflation is higher than the federal government has forecast? Will the provinces have to absorb 100% of the increase or will it cost the federal government more? Will there be fewer child care spaces available than presented in the budget?
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you. It is impossible for me to answer this question. This question should be directed to Employment and Social Development Canada officials. Unfortunately, I could not shed any more light on this. It is also impossible for me to follow up. The only thing I can tell you is that in the estimates before you, on page II-109 of the French version, you will find $5 billion allocated to this initiative. Thank you.
Senator Gignac: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: Thank you to our witnesses.
My question is on the Employment Equity Act and the review of the Employment Equity Act. In the minister’s mandate letter, she has been tasked to work with the Minister of Labour to accelerate the review of the Employment Equity Act and ensure timely implementation of improvements. This commitment was reaffirmed in the budget earlier this month, with $1.9 million in investment to complete this review by the fall of 2022. The government noted that continued progress has been made to address inequalities, but some workers are still facing barriers to employment and promotion, and many federal workplaces fail to reflect the full diversity of Canada’s population. Can you provide our committee with an update on this review? Are there discussions to redefine or expand the four target groups within the act? We do know that those target groups are women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and the members of visible minorities.
Ms. Girard: Thank you for the question, senator.
Yes, the review is very much under way. An independent task force is responsible for consulting with the federally regulated private sector, the public service and separate employers. Treasury Board Secretariat, the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, is responsible for the consultations within the public service and is currently undertaking those consultations. That includes not only all of the departments but also specific discussions with equity-seeking groups, networks of employees and various functional communities within the public service. In the coming weeks, we will be gathering all this information, and the Chief Human Resources officer will report back to the independent task force on May 26. At that point, the task force will go on international information gathering, and I believe that a report is due next fall.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Ms. Girard.
Ms. Girard, we know that human resources are under the responsibility of Treasury Board, so I would like you to give us a picture of the effects of the pandemic on federal employees. There is surely an additional bill that comes with this and a projection of expenses for the future; I would like to know how much the bill is.
Also, could we know how many federal employees were affected by the illness? Obviously, this includes the number of days absent and the number of employees who left or lost their jobs because of restrictions or actions taken to combat COVID-19.
In closing, to meet current needs, how many more federal employees were needed?
I know that’s a lot of questions, but you can check and answer me in writing, if you don’t have time to answer.
Ms. Girard: Thank you for the question, senator.
Indeed, there is a long list and I may need your help. I’ll start at the beginning of your question.
Yes, employees were affected, but appropriate measures were also quickly put in place to support them as part of the response to COVID-19. I have to say that in the governance context, where you work with bargaining agents, they have been excellent collaborators and they were consulted on what could be done to help the employees.
We’ve put flexibility measures in place, we’ve also expanded that flexibility under the health care plan, we’ve simplified the procedures for disability care plans, so that it’s easier and simpler for employees to submit their applications. We made sure — you’ll recall the initial difficulties with travel — that we repatriated everyone so that everyone could return home safely. We also put in place, as I mentioned to Senator Boehm, a series of measures to support mental health. We have increased the work and the service offer for employee support programs. We have expanded eligibility for mental health care for employees, because it was limited to psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers in remote areas. Given the increased needs and availability in the labour market, we expanded the support we provide to social workers and counsellors during this period.
I would like to have a clarification in terms of the numbers of staff that have been affected. You’re asking me, as part of the mandatory vaccination measures, how many employees were put on administrative leave without pay, is that correct?
Senator Dagenais: Yes.
Ms. Girard: On that matter, I can come back to you with the last figure, but I can confirm that no employee has lost their job; it is indeed, in these specific cases, administrative leave without pay.
Were there any other questions?
Senator Dagenais: I will send my questions to the clerk, as our time is limited. She will send them to you, and you can take the time to answer me in writing.
Ms. Girard: Perfect; it will be my pleasure.
[English]
Senator Duncan: Thank you again to the officials.
This answer can be in writing as well. Treasury Board has the whole-of-government approach, and the minister spoke about innovation, government technology and so on, and looking with a new approach. My concern is the digital divide in the country. I’m looking for some kind of marker or recognition by the government that not every Canadian has access to that online government, and it’s not just only access. In some situations, it’s ability to access. If I could have the reassurance in writing that that is somewhere on the radar screen of Treasury Board and the government, I would appreciate it. If you respond in writing, it would allow time for other questions.
Senator Pate: Thank you again to the witnesses.
When the Parliamentary Budget Officer appeared before us, there were a number of questions about some of the expenditures. In particular, there were amounts in the supplementary estimates that didn’t quite fit with some of the information that Health Canada was indicating. Health Canada advised us that Treasury Board would be able to give us some idea of how you ensure that every dollar is spent in the statutory authority and that, if it’s not, it will be frozen in appropriations so it cannot be spent twice.
One of the issues was the rapid tests. I have some other questions about how you assess the validity of those tests, given what we know in the last number of variants of how unreliable they’ve been. What kinds of assessments are being done to assess things like those expenditures to determine whether it’s not just something that’s required but the wisest expenditure to proceed with, particularly in light of what we know in the last couple of waves which may be very different this wave? I think of the ineffectiveness, for instance, of the rapid antigen test to detect Omicron and now the new variant.
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you for the question.
In terms of the validity of the test, it is not a question that we will be able to answer. It would be better posed to Health Canada or PHAC. I understand that PHAC was with you a couple of days ago.
In terms of the first part of your question, voted versus statutory, that’s a question I answered earlier, but if you like, I can repeat my answer if it was not clear.
Senator Pate: How do you ensure that there’s not a duplication? My apologies if I missed that and was on a mental vacation at the moment you described it.
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you. The mechanism we have in Treasury Board is that every time an expense is put towards the statutory authority, we automatically remove the same amount in terms of the voted authorities that we gave them and we put that in a frozen allotment. Those are the words we are using, but it’s really a control to ensure the money is not spent twice.
Senator Pate: Thank you. And in terms of the other, saying it’s Health Canada, I missed my chance. Fair enough. Thank you.
Senator Boehm: I’m building on Senator Dagenais’s question. I know we’re getting a written response on this, with a few other points.
Since the deadline of April 6 has passed with respect to vaccinations for public servants and a review is being undertaken, I would like perhaps the written response, if that’s possible, to indicate whether there is a timeline for the review and whether an updated policy will be released. Minister Fortier has said she’s being guided by science, and that’s what we’ve heard, but this may also have an impact on that small number of employees who may have been non-compliant. Thank you.
Ms. Girard: Thank you for the question, senator.
I can confirm that the policy says that the mandate policy has to be reviewed at the six-month point. So it was not the deadline; it was the point at which it had to be reviewed, which is what we’re currently doing. You’re absolutely right; it is based on science, epidemiologic data and an environmental scan of where we are around the world with this pandemic.
You’re right that the review is under way. We expect a decision, based on the review, supported by Treasury Board and Health Canada, to be coming shortly and communicated to all employees — those who are currently working and also those on administrative leave without pay.
Senator Marshall: On the operating budget carry-forward, the $2.1 billion in your budget, there’s a rule, isn’t there, that applies to that? Can you refresh my memory? It applies to all government departments, doesn’t it? I want to know what the rule is, and then I want to know if it is just the amount that’s put in your budget or does there have to be a listing of what the money is going to be used for?
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you for the question.
You have a great memory. Effectively, it’s for all departments, and the maximum amount is 5% of their current budget. We do our due diligence. We discuss with departments to ensure those are expenses that have been delayed, and that they want to keep the money to pay in the new fiscal year. Once we allocate that money to departments, we also publish a listing on the website. You will be able to see the individual organizations that received the carry-forward.
Senator Marshall: Let’s take yours as an example, the $2.1 billion. If I go to that listing, will I be able to see what that money will be spent for? Is the money earmarked for specific items, or is it just in a pot and you will put a purpose for it later?
Ms. Boudreau: You will not be able to see any details. You will see how the amount has been allocated by organization.
Senator Marshall: But do you know? I put a lot of faith in Treasury Board. You’re responsible for the financial oversight. Would you know? You have a listing and it’s just not publicized?
Ms. Boudreau: We have a listing. We have business cases from organizations telling us why they want to use that money, why they’re asking us to carry forward that money. We do our due diligence. We have a checklist, and we have discussions with departments to ensure we are comfortable with the money being requested.
The Chair: To follow up from Senator Marshall and the comments you just made, Ms. Boudreau, is that list available to be shared with the Finance Committee?
Ms. Boudreau: The list of individual organizations that will get the money?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Boudreau: That list will be available, if I’m not mistaken, in the summer. I will ask my colleague Justin Stuart to confirm that.
Justin Stuart, Acting Senior Director, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The list will be presented as part of Supplementary Estimates (B). When we table that, we’ll have online the list of central vote allocations.
Senator Marshall: And know what the money will be used for. Okay.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: I am a new senator and I am less used to the workings of the federal government compared to Quebec. I know that the Treasury Board was behind all the important decisions. I was a bit surprised by your answer on child care, in that you don’t seem to be really involved. In terms of the dental plan that’s going to be implemented, which seems to be more of a subsidy to the provinces for dental care than a dental insurance plan, are you involved in that initiative? I’m trying to understand the relationship between the Treasury Board at the federal level and the various departments. We’re talking about billions of dollars here.
Ms. Boudreau: Thank you very much. Indeed, this was an initiative included in the 2022 budget. Once the organization is ready to apply for the funds, it will make a submission to Treasury Board, which will look at the rationale for the request, and more importantly, the implementation. Care is taken to ensure that due diligence is done in this regard. Once the department is ready, the request will be forwarded to us and once the request has been accepted, you will see the money appear in Supplementary Estimates (B) or (C) depending on when the request was made.
Senator Gignac: You are not involved in setting the parameters because it can make a difference to the growth of program costs. Are you being presented with a fait accompli, or are you an integral part of the negotiations of the parameters, whether it’s with the provinces or in the case of plans that are put in place, like these?
Ms. Boudreau: I can come back to you with a more specific answer. The parameters are set through the department and the responsible deputy minister, with the relationship with finance and the provinces and territories, obviously, as you mentioned.
Senator Gignac: Thank you; I would appreciate it if you would send a full response in writing. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: I’d like to address the employment in the public service. Canada’s public service, as we know, has a stellar reputation around the world. Public servants have worked hard to deliver programs, offer services and support Canadians in countless ways. I thank them for that, especially in the difficult times we have gone through with COVID and what have you. I would like to explore the Treasury Board’s work in providing strategic leadership, direction and guidance to help organizations across the federal public service recruit and retain talent. My question is twofold.
First, does the government have any difficulty retaining its employees? That is a challenge for many corporations today in this environment. Of course, the public service is an attractive employer, but are we able to offer competitive wages to keep the best talent within the bureaucracy? I have numerous times said since the pandemic that the return on capital is up here and the return of labour is down here and we have scarce resources. It’s a problem we have to address because of innovation and productivity.
Second, I know that the newly created $12 million Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion is housed at TBS and that one of its priorities is to develop innovative solutions for recruitment and talent management. What is the status of this initiative? Are you gathering best practices from other jurisdictions? Are new policies being developed, and when might they be implemented? An update on the centre’s work would be appreciated. Thank you.
Ms. Girard: All of those questions are for me. I will take the first one in compensation and competitiveness vis-à-vis other employers in the labour market.
You’re absolutely right. It is a tighter and tighter labour market, and our population is aging. Having said that, the employer responsible for the overall compensation has several levers at its disposal to present a strong value proposition to the best experts in each of the fields that we’re looking for.
How do we base our compensation when we negotiate? We base it on four criteria. We look at external competitiveness, we look at internal relativity, we look at performance, and we look at the capacity for the employer to pay. We’re talking about taxpayers’ money, so we factor that into our analysis. In our total compensation approach, you have the base salaries, but you also have other levers such as the pension plan and the benefit plans. We have long-term disability, dental and health care that provide a lot of benefits that are non-negligible as an employer and make us very competitive. Also, the fact that we are serving the population attracts a number of professionals who want to have their work contribute to the betterment of this country.
Regarding what we’re doing and how we’re planning for the future, I mentioned very quickly earlier that we have a future of work approach, and we are developing in that thinking of continuing to have a good value proposition and being able to deliver the best services for Canadians. We’re looking at the environment, yes, making it very agile, more digital, more responsive, but also human resources are our number one resource and the skills that we’re looking for. There is a long‑term skills strategy under development to respond to that, and also how we work more efficiently with others.
Reading diversity and inclusion, a lot has been done on that front as well.
[Translation]
The Chair: Ms. Girard, I apologize for interrupting you. For this question and the one that follows, could you please respond in writing?
[English]
Ms. Girard: Certainly, diversity and inclusion. I have answered the first two, so I will provide the full response on diversity and inclusion and what the centre does.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much for your professionalism, madam.
Senator Dagenais: I have already sent my question in writing to the clerk, who will send it to Ms. Girard. She will answer me in writing. In any case, it is a question that can be better answered in writing.
[English]
Senator Pate: Thank you again.
I was fascinated reading this quality of life strategy for Canada. I noticed one of the issues raised is differentiating Canada from some of the other jurisdictions that are involved in looking at a new sort of approach rather than just GDP. One of the comments made was because of provincial, territorial, municipal and Indigenous governance, there are some different challenges, although I noted that in the presentation I believe it was 61% of expenditures are actually transfers.
I’m wondering what work is being done to look at the health and social transfer and taking some of the guidelines that were particularly developed during the pandemic and really developing additional national standards in terms of how those transfers are administered, not just around childcare, which is, of course, a new one in health care, but also economic resources.
The Chair: Ms. Boudreau, could you answer that in writing, please?
Ms. Boudreau: Yes, Mr. Chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Could you please respond quickly?
Ms. Boudreau: I can respond in writing.
[English]
If I may, I really believe in the question of Senator Duncan in terms of the cloud and making sure we don’t leave anyone behind. We would love to answer that if we still have two minutes. Paul Wagner would be happy to do that.
Mr. Wagner: Thank you for the question, and I’ll actually tie it back to a question that Senator Loffreda had around digital ID in terms of Canada and where we stand in that.
The question was around the digital divide. As we decide on and design digital services, one of the key tenets in there is that no Canadian is left behind. As we move forward and think about how we provide services to Canadians in a digital fashion using digital ID, using digital platforms, we’re also looking at ways that we can leverage the kind of standards and approaches in a digital way to deliver services in an analogue fashion as well. No Canadian left behind is absolutely a tenet of our digital agenda.
The Chair: Ms. Boudreau, is that satisfactory?
Ms. Boudreau: For me it is.
The Chair: Ms. Girard, you will follow up with the written response.
Honourable senators, we’ve completed our agenda.
To the officials of the Treasury Board, your professionalism shone again today. As Chair of the Finance Committee, I want to say thank you. Every time we have asked you to be present, you have said yes to the committee. That also is part of your professionalism and delivering for the people of Canada.
I would like to remind the officials to submit their written responses to the clerk by the end of the day May 5.
(The committee adjourned.)