THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 8, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met with videoconference this day at 6:45 p.m. [ET] to study the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024; and for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-258, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (reporting on unpaid income tax).
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I wish to welcome all the senators as well as the viewers across Canada who are watching us on sencanada.ca.
[Translation]
My name is Percy Mockler, senator from New Brunswick, and chair of the Senate Committee on National Finance. Now, I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves starting from my left, please.
Senator Forest: Welcome, everyone. My name is Éric Forest. I’m the senator for the Gulf senatorial division in Quebec.
Senator Gignac: Good evening. Senator Gignac from Quebec.
[English]
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Petten: Iris Petten, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Quebec.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, today we will continue our study on the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, which was referred to this committee on March 7, 2023, by the Senate of Canada.
[Translation]
Today, we have the pleasure of welcoming senior government officials.
[English]
We have senior officials from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Canadian Coast Guard, Shared Services Canada, the National Capital Commission and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Welcome to all of you and thank you for accepting our invitation. Senators will be asking questions in order to justify your budgets. That said, welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
Since there are so many officials — and thank you to all the officials — I’m going to introduce the officials that will give comments and statements. In the event that assistant deputy ministers, ministers and senior officials need to have officials answer a question, would those officials please introduce themselves as they answer the question? Then we’ll proceed with the other officials.
Honourable senators, we have with us the Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Mr. Richard Goodyear. From Shared Services Canada, we have the President, Mr. Scott Jones.
[Translation]
Thank you for accepting the invitation.
Also with us is the vice-president, public, legal and corporate affairs at the National Capital Commission, Véronique de Passillié, and Marie-Claude Guérard, assistant deputy minister, Corporate Management Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Thank you for accepting our invitation.
[English]
I will ask for comments, starting with Mr. Goodyear. The floor is yours.
Richard Goodyear, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Good evening, Mr. Chair. I’m pleased to be here today on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. I’m happy to be joined by Kate Ladell, Director General, Ecosystems Management; Mr. Adam Burns, Assistant Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Harbour Management; and Andy Smith, Deputy Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, today I’m appearing before the committee to discuss the 2023-24 main estimates on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard. Following these opening remarks, I will be happy to answer any questions you have.
[English]
Mr. Chair, the 2023-24 Main Estimates include $4.1 billion in planned spending. This represents an increase of $124.5 million compared to the 2022-23 Main Estimates. This variance in planned spending is attributable to changes to funding requirements for a number of existing and new departmental initiatives. Specifically, these Main Estimates contain an increase of $557.9 million for some key initiatives, including $314 million for projects related to the Canadian Coast Guard fleet, including new vessels; $89.8 million in new funding to support recovery efforts following Hurricane Fiona; and, $73.1 million to continue our work under the Oceans Protection Plan.
[Translation]
It’s important to note that this increase has been offset by $433.4 million in planned decreases to other spending.
This includes a number of planned funding profile changes related to Indigenous programs, the modernization of the Fisheries Act, the fish funds, and the protection of Canada’s nature, parks and wild spaces, in addition to sunsetting funding for the small craft harbours program from budget 2021.
[English]
It’s important to address one of the key decreases in our Main Estimates, and that is the $86.8 million funding profile change for Indigenous programs. While the change appears significant, it’s largely explained by planned reprofiles of funds into 2022-23 and does not reflect a change in the department’s commitment to reconciliation. The change relates to planned spending on modern treaty and other constructive rights and reconciliation agreements. This type of spending varies from year to year, depending on the stage of negotiations and other influences. This resulted in a relatively high level of planned spending in 2022-23, which caused an apparent decrease in 2023-24.
Mr. Chair, last fall Hurricane Fiona devastated small craft harbours in Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec. Funding was provided for recovery efforts, and in particular to repair infrastructure, retrieve lost fishing gear, and to help offset costs associated with things like engineering assessments and ensuring infrastructure can withstand the impacts of climate change and future storms.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, there’s no question that the demands on our oceans and marine resources are higher than ever before. That’s why budget 2022 set aside $1.1 billion over nine years and more than $70 million in ongoing funding to renew the ocean protection plan and build on its successes.
This plan is improving marine safety and environmental response on all coasts and has given us the opportunity to work closely with Indigenous communities.
[English]
Finally, Mr. Chair, you’ll notice the spending on the Canadian Coast Guard fleet is the biggest item in the department’s Main Estimates. The $314 million is a combination of new and reprofiled funding that is delivering new ships to the Canadian Coast Guard while also allowing us to do the necessary work to keep existing ships on the water.
In some cases, there have been delays and increased costs which were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, some projects are not advancing as quickly as planned, and so the Canadian Coast Guard has adjusted funding profiles to better align with shipyard construction schedules.
Mr. Chair, funding sought through the Main Estimates aims to ensure the department can fill its mandate on behalf of all Canadians. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Goodyear. Now I’ll recognize Mr. Jones from Shared Services Canada. The floor is yours.
Scott Jones, President, Shared Services Canada: Thank you and good evening. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you as the President of Shared Services Canada to discuss the Main Estimates for fiscal year 2023-24.
[Translation]
With me is Scott Davis, assistant deputy minister and chief financial officer.
[English]
Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge we’re gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
Honourable senators, Shared Services Canada provides the information technology structure for the Government of Canada. This means ensuring reliable and secure networks, digital communication tools and modern hosting solutions.
[Translation]
We’re hearing people proclaim the key to digital government’s success government-wide. Managing information technologies, or IT, enterprise-wide firstly simplifies maintenance and operations, secondly enables continuous improvements, and finally reduces costs.
[English]
To achieve this, Shared Services Canada, or SSC, is focusing on strengthening the foundational pieces of IT infrastructure to support a hybrid workplace and enhance security. SSC has identified four key areas that will focus on the needs of its partners, embed security throughout and strengthen the enterprise. These key areas are networks, security and access; digital workplace services; hosting infrastructure; and, service projects and enterprise advice. To support these activities, SSC has requested $2.6 billion in the Main Estimates, net of $853 million in revenue.
Since the pandemic, SSC has been called upon to support unprecedented demand for network services. With this money, we’re updating networks to improve bandwidth, implement Wi‑Fi services in buildings, and implement a zero trust security model. This includes equipping almost 1,000 buildings with either full or partial Wi-Fi services as of September 2023.
In addition, we’re working with our partners to implement their multi-factor authentication and network device authentication capabilities in support of zero trust and increasing cybersecurity in the Government of Canada.
[Translation]
We support and enhance the design, delivery and effective management of a secure IT infrastructure. Among other things, we identify ill-intentioned actors and keep them from gaining access to the network. We also work with the small departments and agencies, providing them with services to improve their cyber security practices.
[English]
In the 2023-24 Main Estimates, SSC has decreased its reference levels by 26.9 million compared to the previous year’s Main Estimates. The decrease in planned spending is due to the sunset or funding decrease of a number of initiatives, including for the Next Generation Human Resources and Pay initiative, the Workload Modernization and Migration program, the Secure Cloud Enablement and Defence Evolution, the Departmental Connectivity and Monitoring initiative from Budget 2021, and mission-critical projects from the Fall Economic Statement of 2017. This is offset by an increase in funding for new initiatives, such as Network Modernization and Implementation Fund from Budget 2021; and the standardization of mandatory network, security and digital services for small departments and agencies from Budget 2022. Some projects were reprofiled due to delays in awarding contracts and also as a result of the challenges from the pandemic and supply chain issues.
Honourable senators, Shared Services Canada is improving the process to prioritize IT modernization. SSC is also working with departments to maximize secure service delivery while mitigating the risks associated with legacy technology.
[Translation]
Shared Services Canada is the central provider of IT infrastructure and cloud services. We help departments modernize their IT platforms, among other things, with various cloud services.
[English]
Finally, SSC is currently working on initiatives to accelerate progress in areas of digital services, connectivity, hosting and cybersecurity. For each of these areas, SSC is building road maps that outline how it will collaborate with partners across the government to achieve excellence in technology. SSC is currently consulting its partners, and once completed, this will guide our service delivery, outline our key next steps, and provide predictability and clarity for the future. As a common service provider, we aim to build a better digital government, transform our service delivery and effectively manage emerging risks to the Government of Canada. SSC will continue to increase the reliability, effectiveness and capacity of the IT infrastructure to support the secure, efficient and reliable delivery of critical programs and benefits to Canadians.
[Translation]
We’ll be pleased to answer your questions. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Jones.
I will now turn the floor over to Ms. de Passillé.
Véronique de Passillé, Vice-President, Public, Legal and Corporate Affairs, National Capital Commission: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Honourable senators, Madam Clerk, thank you for inviting us this evening to discuss the main estimates for the National Capital Commission.
With me are Tania Kingsberry, vice-president of corporate services and chief financial officer; James Yang, director of strategic planning; and Alain LeQuéré, chief, financial management. Together, we will be able to answer your questions.
Building on nearly 125 years of experience, the National Capital Commission proudly embraces its role as long term planner and chief steward of the National Capital Region. Every day, the commission continues to evolve to meet emerging challenges and demonstrate leadership in building an inspiring capital.
For example, this year we’ve made good progress in our efforts to make the capital reflect the people it serves even better, and we’re successfully moving forward with the rehabilitation of some iconic assets.
As we roll out our first accessibility plan, we’re placing inclusiveness, fairness and diversity at the core of our operations. Our goal is to ensure that the national capital’s character reflect a full range of experiences and aspirations.
Across the region, we’re looking to make our parkways and waterfronts more welcoming and lively for residents and visitors to the capital. By making our parkways destinations in themselves, through our active mobility program, we create an unique experience contributing to our greenhouse gas reduction and sustainable mobility goals.
Securing access to dynamic locations in the public domain is also one of our priorities. Massive investment initiatives, including the redevelopment of major assets like Jacques Cartier Park, Kìwekì Point and the River House, are key steps in that direction and they strengthen the relationship between people, nature and the region’s rich heritage.
[English]
These types of initiatives illustrate the NCC’s dedication to striking a balance between urban development, sustainability, accessibility and our commitment to creating spaces and experiences that honour the uniqueness and symbolism of the capital.
I will now speak more specifically to the 2023-24 Main Estimates. This year’s Main Estimates provide the commission with $94.8 million. This represents a decrease of approximately $59.4 million when compared to the 2022-23 Main Estimates. This decrease is due to a return to the NCC regular reference levels following additional investments from the government to address the deferred maintenance in the NCC’s assets.
You may recall that in 2018, the NCC secured $55 million in funding over two years to support the restoration of critical assets. This was an important first step in our efforts to reduce our deferred maintenance deficit, as outlined in the Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Board of Directors of the National Capital Commission — Special Examination — 2017.
In May 2020, the government allocated an additional $173 million over three years to further address our most critical health and safety concerns. This funding targeted two interprovincial bridges, assets damaged by the 2019 flooding, as well as other priority assets.
For 2023-24, plan operating expenditures include the NCC’s major operation and maintenance contract for Quebec and Ontario urban lands, as well as for the National Capital Green Belt and Gatineau Park. Projects funded with the $22.4 million capital appropriations include, among other things, the Rideau Canal Lighting Rehabilitation project, work on Confederation Boulevard, the Rideau Hall fire suppression system and the Gatineau Park Rehabilitation Program. Finally, projects funded from the Main Estimates specific appropriation includes $3 million for property decontamination funded by the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan, as well as $500,000 for property acquisition.
I will conclude my remarks. Thank you for the opportunity to present to you tonight. We’re available to take questions. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. de Passillé.
Now it’s Ms. Guérard’s turn.
The floor is yours.
Marie-Claude Guérard, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Management Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Mr. Chair, honourable senators, thank you for inviting me to discuss the 2023-24 main estimates for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
It’s an honour to be here with you, and I’d like to begin by pointing out that we’re meeting today on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe Nation.
I am appearing today in my capacity as chief financial officer and assistant deputy minister of the Corporate Management Branch.
I’m pleased to be joined by my colleagues Liz Foster, assistant deputy minister of programs; Steven Jurgutis, director general, Policy, Planning and Integration Directorate; and Shawn Audette, director general, Finance and Resource Management Services, who will help me provide additional information as needed.
Mr. Chair, we’re pleased to meet with the committee members to provide an overview of the 2023-24 main estimates and answer your questions.
The department’s 2023-24 main estimates include approximately $1.8 billion in total spending in support of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s strategic actions to ensure that Canada’s agriculture and agri-food sector capitalizes on new market opportunities, uses science and innovation to strengthen its competitive advantages, and anticipates, mitigates and responds to risks to support its sustainable growth.
The 2023-24 main estimates anticipate a net decrease of $1.4 billion, or 43.8%, compared with the 2022-23 main estimates. This decrease can be mainly attributed to the expiry of services and programs under the Canadian partnership for sustainable agriculture, the federal, provincial and territorial governments’ five-year (2018-2023) policy framework for Canada’s agriculture and agri-food sector, and the direct payment program for dairy producers. In addition, the policy framework and the direct payment program for dairy producers have been renewed.
The 2022-23 main estimates include over $1.3 billion in grants and contributions that will be used primarily to: provide the tools to mitigate the financial impact of risks beyond producers’ control; support the implementation of the emissions reduction plan; support dairy, poultry and egg producers and processors; and support Canadian wineries.
I should point out that the main estimates are the first step in the fiscal cycle and do not include the other funding approvals and spending reduction measures announced in budget 2023. Funding for additional initiatives is and will be made from the budgets in the upcoming supplementary estimates.
For example, this year, the $1.6 billion in funding for the Canadian partnership for sustainable agriculture was obtained from the supplementary estimates (A). The supplementary estimates (A), combined with the 2023-24 main estimates, bring total spending authority to $3.4 billion, which is more than the $3.2 billion in last year’s main estimates.
The 2023-24 main estimates include more than $794 million for industrial risk, including $774 million in grants and legislative contributions to support business risk management programs. These programs help producers make up for the lower income they earn when facing production losses, severe cases of market instability, and the effects of extreme weather events and disasters that they are unable to manage.
The main estimates also include over $571.8 million for science and innovation. This amount will be used primarily to expand the sector’s knowledge base through innovative and scientific research supported by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and to improve the sector’s ability to turn ideas into new products, processes or practices.
The funding includes $240 million in grants and contributions that will be used primarily to support the implementation of the emissions reduction plan under the agricultural climate solutions program and the agricultural clean technology program.
In addition, Mr. Chair, over $319 million will be allocated to domestic and international markets. This funding will be used to support the sector’s competitiveness at home and abroad, increase access to international markets by eliminating or reducing trade barriers and strengthening market positions.
This funding includes grants and contributions of more than $256 million for supply management initiatives, the wine sector support program, food policy initiatives, the youth employment and skills strategy and the international climate cooperation program. In addition, nearly $142 million will be allocated to internal services.
Mr. Chair, I will stop here and hope that this summary has provided committee members with a comprehensive overview of the 2023-24 main estimates.
Thank you again for the invitation and I’m ready to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we will now move on to questions, five minutes each in the first round.
Senator Marshall: Welcome to the National Finance Committee.
I’m going to start with Mr. Jones from Shared Services Canada. I’ve been reading some of the reports of the Auditor General on information technology. My question is on your overall budget.
When I read the mandate, I don’t really understand the role of Shared Services. When I read what’s in the Main Estimates, it seems, based on what the Auditor General has reported, that Shared Services is not meeting its mandate. I’m very concerned about the state of information technology within government.
I did raise the issue today in the Senate with Senator Gold, the Government Representative in the Senate. He didn’t disagree. He indicated that, yes, there are concerns with IT throughout government.
Can you give us some idea as to what your mandate is? I don’t think you’re meeting your mandate, but I’d like to hear what the challenges are within your organization. I know that it’s not totally Shared Services. I know that Treasury Board has a role. Could you give us a broad overview of your role?
Hopefully, I will have a few minutes to ask Mr. Goodyear a question, because he has IT problems too.
Mr. Jones: Thank you for that. I think it’s a critical point in the Auditor General’s report, which hit on some critical issues.
The mandate of Shared Services Canada is to provide the foundational infrastructure for other government departments, but on top of that rides all of the applications that departments run.
Senator Marshall: Do you think you fulfill that base? You’re saying that you’re responsible for the base?
Mr. Jones: We’ve continued to run the infrastructure and ensure that it’s reliable and sustainable, but what we have to do is invest in building the new infrastructure for departments to migrate toward. That’s something we’ve changed in our strategy. When I talked about hosting services, this is an investment over the next year to proactively build capacity.
Shared Services Canada was in a reactive position prior to the pandemic. The pandemic offered a tremendous opportunity to shift some of our technology, and now we have to be proactive to give departments a place to land.
Senator Marshall: I don’t mean to interrupt you, but I’m just trying to understand. Are departments on their own? The Auditor General is saying there is no overall strategy and no overall plan. It makes it sound like Shared Services and Treasury Board should be the leaders. But listening to you now, are the departments on their own?
Mr. Jones: It’s an excellent question. It is a partnership. We provide the infrastructure. We need to ensure that Shared Services Canada is proactive in providing somewhere for departments to migrate their technology toward, and then departments need to invest in modernizing those applications that are there.
The Auditor General report highlighted that the majority of the Government of Canada applications are aging or are old, and that’s something that we have to work on together. We have to provide a place to land for those applications that have been modernized, and departments need to invest in modernizing or decommissioning those applications.
Senator Marshall: It’s been a problem for many years. Senator Gold even said that today in the Senate. What’s the problem? It seems like there is no momentum to address the problem. Is it money or what is it? The organizations can’t get organized?
Mr. Jones: The analogy that I’ve used is that IT in the government tends to be treated like how we treat our fences in our yards. We build them, we let them go for 20 years, they fall over, and then we hire somebody to build a new fence. We need to treat them like our houses, where we do continuous maintenance and continuously invest in them. It’s a change in how we work with our partners. Applications simply can’t sit there for 10 or 15 years.
Senator Marshall: Is it money or is it not enough people? It is a long-standing problem.
Mr. Jones: In my opinion, it is a combination of factors. One is that information technology isn’t necessarily the priority of most departments. They’re delivering on their mandate, and technology is simply an enabler. In some cases, we need to continue to build digital talent and move that around. In some cases, it is the result of, “It worked, so we moved on,” and some of these applications keep working. The problem is that they’re sitting on old infrastructure.
Senator Marshall: Maybe I can talk to Mr. Goodyear.
The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development just issued a report on your department. He wasn’t very flattering. He talked about IT, and timely data. I’m from Newfoundland and Labrador, and I remember when the fisheries were closed down in the 1990s. He’s saying that you’re not getting dependable and timely data. You don’t know whether commercial stocks are being overfished. The collapse of the Atlantic cod population in 1990 is an example of it.
If this is an ongoing problem, it’s something like the IT. Why isn’t it being addressed? It seems like there is no momentum to address these major problems and they just keep getting bigger.
Mr. Goodyear: Thank you for the question. First of all, we agree with the recommendations in the report. There’s always room for improvement, for sure. We continue to improve the management of our fisheries based on the best available scientific information.
I note that the report went up to December 2022. Since then, we’re working on a new Canadian fisheries information system to bring together the disparate pieces of IT into one system.
Senator Marshall: The Auditor General wasn’t complimentary about your information technology system. She also said that the commitments you made seven or eight years ago haven’t all been implemented. When you’re telling me that, what’s going through my mind is that she said that what you promised seven years ago — or whatever the time frame was — never got implemented.
Mr. Goodyear: Again, we recognize and accept the findings of the report. We’re doing our best to incorporate and work with them to improve our IT systems.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: My question is for Mr. Goodyear or Ms. Ladell, and it’s about the shrimp crisis, as stocks are dropping significantly.
The minister has announced that by January, after a stock assessment, normally we should see a moratorium or a radical reduction in fishing quotas. There will be very real consequences, especially in the Gaspé region, where people are already preparing for this crisis.
Is it possible to plan redfish processing activities which, in addition to global warming, is one of the biggest threats to shrimp?
Does your budget have the flexibility to implement transitional measures to help the region? The entire Gaspé Peninsula is feeling the impact of this major crisis, and the minister has promised an announcement by January.
[English]
Mr. Goodyear: Thank you for the question. There is funding. Of course, that’s both regionally based and functionally based in terms of science, our programs and enabling aspects of the department. Yes, there is funding, again, in the Gaspé region to help address some of these issues, and funding is provided to science, monitoring programs and our program sector to help address that.
I can’t point to where, in the Main Estimates, funding is for that specifically, but funding is provided to address those issues. If you want something more specific, I can ask some of my colleagues here from the programs.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: If I understand correctly, in your budget, you have funding programs specifically devoted to the shrimp crisis situation. I guess the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne in Mont-Joli must have shared the scientific data with you.
[English]
Mr. Goodyear: The HMCS Mont Joli is one component of our organization that would assist with some of the science and the assessment. We have people that are on the water and folks who are regionally based, as well as nationally based who help assess and deliver those programs.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you. I’d like to talk about the small craft harbours program. It’s very important infrastructure for the entire coastal region and for all the provinces on both the Pacific and Atlantic side.
I was mayor of Rimouski for a long time, and Rimouski has a Fisheries and Oceans Canada port. Some sections are currently closed because maintenance is not being carried out. The sheet piles need to be replaced. People have let our federally owned facilities go a little.
Is there a program right now to divest of or rehabilitate that type of equipment? It’s becoming more and more vital for the fishing business, among others. It’s really been taking off.
At home in Rimouski, one the highest tonnages of snow crab in Quebec goes through the port. Is there a program or strategic plan to upgrade our harbour facilities, such as small craft harbours?
[English]
Mr. Goodyear: The Small Craft Harbours Program encompasses a large swath of small harbours across the nation. We have funding provided to divest of harbours that are no longer a high priority. We direct our funding to the highest priority, looking at the safety and security of the harbours in terms of their use and layering on top of that the number of landings. There are a number of other priorities. It is a complex kind of process to determine how we fund harbours.
To your specific question, if it relates to divestment, yes, we have a small amount of funding to divest of non-core harbours with the majority of our funding going to those most important harbours across both coasts and in the Arctic.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: So you believe that ports should be rehabilitated and not retroceded?
[English]
Mr. Goodyear: We would divest where it makes sense, but where they need to be rehabilitated would be part of the plan as well. I can’t speak to specific harbours. If you’d like we can take that away, but I can’t speak to specific harbours.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I’d really like to know the budget history when it comes to the maintenance and retrocession of ports in the last four or five years. Is that possible?
[English]
Mr. Goodyear: Since 2016, there has been about $855 million in new funding to support small craft harbours. About 90% of the catch by Canadian commercial fishery harvest has landed. Recently, there was an injection of $100 million as a result of Hurricane Fiona of which $70 million was to rehabilitate small craft harbour, and $30 million for ghost gear.
We have an allocation of about $90 million a year to maintain the harbours that we have, and we regularly request additional funding on a temporary basis to improve our harbours outside of the normal recurring funding.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: I’d like to welcome all the witnesses. Thank you for being here with us in the evening; we’re very grateful to you.
My question is for the Fisheries and Oceans Canada representatives, and is about the Canadian Coast Guard component. I don’t know if your colleague will have to come forward to answer my questions.
Last year about this time, along with other senators, I had the privilege of visiting the Arctic as part of our Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs study on Arctic sovereignty and security. I was able to see what important work the Canadian Coast Guard is doing and how much the local communities appreciate that, whether it’s rescues, searches or community supplies.
Climate change is creating challenges. I realized that annual boat passage has tripled in the last 20 or 30 years. I’m a bit curious to know how well equipped you are and what challenges you face in meeting the demands; they may also be distress calls. I’d like to know the impact on your equipment. Do you have the equipment you need or will you need more, such as icebreakers and the like?
Mr. Goodyear: I will ask Mr. Smith to answer the questions.
Andy Smith, Deputy Commissioner, Shipbuilding and Materiel, Canadian Coast Guard: I’m mainly involved in fleet renewal for the Canadian Coast Guard.
As far as icebreakers in the north are concerned, the current fleet has an average age of 40 years or more. For those of you who own older cars, you can imagine that maintenance and upkeep costs increase over the years. The same issue is arising with today’s fleet.
On the other hand, we are working hard to ensure that the vessels currently at sea are reliable and safe for crews. We’re also working in close partnership to renew the fleet as part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy with our partners, the shipyards and Public Services and Procurement Canada; it’s a challenge.
As for our efforts in the Arctic, we have at least seven icebreakers deployed in the Arctic to ensure that commercial vessels are able to deliver goods to communities in the north.
Senator Gignac: I’d be curious to hear your reaction to the following; if you prefer, you can respond in writing. One of our committee’s recommendations was:
That the Government of Canada consider whether the two Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships procured for the Canadian Coast Guard should carry armaments in order to improve the protection of Canadian sovereignty, as well as secure the country’s Arctic coasts and waters.
We’re seeing more and more Chinese ships; are they fishing vessels or something else? We don’t really know. There’s some activity there. In the course of our discussions, we realized that, somewhere along the line, we may need to think about light, but deterrent, armament for the Canadian Coast Guard. Have you had time to consider this recommendation? You can respond in writing if you prefer.
Mr. Smith: The Coast Guard currently has no armed mandate. If ever a government were to revise the Coast Guard’s mandate, we would obviously act accordingly. However, we currently have no such mandate. On the other hand, we are always able to meet the needs according to government policy.
Senator Gignac: I understand that two new polar icebreakers will be added to the fleet. Even the Auditor General mentioned that your icebreakers are at the end of their life. Will there be a transition problem before you take possession of these polar icebreakers?
Mr. Smith: The plan is to have two polar icebreakers to ensure a year-round presence in the Arctic. As for the transition, we are working closely with Canadian shipyards to speed up the design and building of these icebreakers. In the meantime, we have received government funding to extend the life of today’s icebreakers, such as the Louis S. Saint-Laurent, among others.
[English]
Senator Smith: I wanted to follow up with Shared Services Canada, Mr. Jones.
You talked about the aging infrastructure. Do you have a specific plan in dealing with the infrastructure that you oversee and, of course, your interactions with the various departments? Is there a plan? Where are you, if you have that plan? What stage of the planning or execution are you at?
Mr. Jones: That’s an excellent question, Mr. Chair. It’s important.
First of all, we do have a plan. There are multiple parts to it.
When Shared Services Canada was created, we inherited a significant infrastructure deficit. The last few years, we’ve had investment that has let us renew the base infrastructure of the government. Through that, the core network of the government has been completely transformed into a modern network that supports a government that needs to work in the 2020s.
There is still significant legacy infrastructure, as the auditor general pointed out in her excellent report that she just tabled. There are a few things.
Number one, Shared Services always worked on a reactive model where a department would come to us. We would build the infrastructure. It would take about six months. Then it would be there for a department. We’re taking a proactive stance. We’re building capacity now through our hosting strategy, our hosting services, to put capacity before departments need it so it can be on demand.
Senator Smith: Do you have the people in place who are able to do this, or do you have to go outside?
One of the other questions I had was the key risk that Shared Services identified in its departmental plan is human resource capacity, skills and retention; the availability of highly skilled IT professionals is limited and will negatively impact on your operations.
I’m wondering, your department plan notes that Shared Services are working to retain an internal workforce. I’m interested in the specific initiatives that are geared toward mitigating the risk. How are you able to measure the success of these initiatives to keep your people?
Mr. Jones: Mr. Chair, there are a number of initiatives. The first one is we have a workforce plan. It’s our strategy for recruitment, retention and working through to retain people through development, capacity development, training, learning development, et cetera.
We know it’s working because our attrition levels are far below what industry is seeing. We still, of course, have attrition, people retiring, et cetera.
The IT industry in general is lacking talent. As to the numbers, I can’t remember the Canadian numbers off the top of my head. We have an active recruiting program. We have been growing in the last number of years.
Senator Smith: Are you short-staffed at this time?
Mr. Jones: There are teams that are short of staff. We’re using prioritization. We don’t have teams where there are critical gaps. We are continuing to staff and continuing to hire people with specific skills.
Senator Smith: For your major projects, do you have enough people for those projects?
Mr. Jones: We do.
Senator Smith: Other projects, you may be a little light on your people?
Mr. Jones: Yes. We prioritize staff to work on the highest priority projects and deliver. As we consolidate more of our infrastructure to modern, which also reduces the number of people required, because we don’t simply have 1,000 different types of products out there anymore.
Senator Smith: When you folks tried to initiate the new payroll system years ago, there were questions about the quality of your staff; it was part of the problem that you had in trying to initiate the new system.
Consultants. In various departments, we always ask the question: where are you with consultants? How many consultants do you have? Is it a major part of your budget? Are you too dependent on consultants? Can you fill us in on that?
Mr. Jones: Shared Service Canada certainly does work with the private sector and brings in consultants.
In general, there are three broad groupings of consultants. Sometimes Shared Services has gone to a managed service where we’ve taken a product and asked the private sector to deliver it. They’re in a better position to do it. In many cases, there are things that wouldn’t make sense for us to do. We are not going to run cellphone towers, for example; we are going to rely on our telecommunications partners.
In other cases, we bring in consultants that will be staff augmentation. That should be temporary. That should be either as we hire people in, those consultants leave, or we use that to help to develop skills.
Senator Smith: I have 15 seconds left. I can hear the chair already.
What is your major priority? What are your top three priorities at this time?
Mr. Jones: My top three priorities, number one is delivering our hosting services and that proactive capability for departments to deliver.
Senator Smith: Right.
Mr. Jones: Number two, delivering the cybersecurity pieces that are necessary to move us into a next-generation environment, what we call zero trust. The third one is to continue to invest in our staff and staff development.
Senator Smith: If you were at a measuring point now, how would you measure the three in terms of percentage of completion?
Mr. Jones: Hosting services is very new. We have pilots being delivered now.
Senator Smith: What is your percentage of implementation?
Mr. Jones: Fifteen percent would be my gut feel.
Senator Smith: Fifteen or fifty?
Mr. Jones: Fifteen.
Senator Smith: Okay. Number two?
Mr. Jones: Number two, on cybersecurity, we’re in good shape. The threat environment changes very quickly.
Senator Smith: Where are you with your implementation?
Mr. Jones: We have exceptionally good defences on the network side.
Senator Smith: What percentage? You have to be working on completion versus need to get done.
Mr. Jones: The challenge we have with cybersecurity is that the environment always changes. We’re always doing new things. That’s a very stable base. That’s Shared Services’ big strength.
Senator Smith: Number three?
Mr. Jones: Number three, our people. That’s continuous investment to re-skill. The big challenge we’ve had is that our legacy environment has kept people working on old technology; now we are re-skilling as we bring in new.
Senator Smith: Thank you for helping us out. I hope your blood pressure didn’t go up too much. You blushed.
Mr. Jones: The watch gave me a warning. It is all good.
Senator MacAdam: My question will be for Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Coming from Atlantic Canada, Atlantic Canada has a lot of small harbours to support the fisheries in many areas: lobster, tuna, crab, to name a few. Obviously, fisheries is a major industry in Atlantic Canada. You mentioned $89.8 million in recovery efforts related to Hurricane Fiona. Was that mostly for harbours?
We had the Fiona recovery, $90 million approximately. That’s good that that effort was made. On a go-forward basis, given climate change, storms like Fiona — there will be more storms — what is being done by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada to proactively plan, prepare and not just wait for a storm to happen but get ahead of it, because that’s the future?
Mr. Goodyear: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. I’ll offer some initial comments, then I will turn to my colleague, Mr. Burns, to provide amplifying comments.
Any new funding that is directed to harbours, we always look at it from a climate resiliency lens. In fact, when we look at the harbours that survived Fiona best, there were those harbours where we had recently made investments, because the investments actually put an effort into climate resilience. Going forward, that will be key to us, to ensure that we’re ready for the next Fiona. Then we can minimize the time it takes to get the harbour back up in terms of operation and the money spent to do so.
I’ll hand it over to Adam Burns to amplify.
Adam Burns, Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Sector, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Thank you, senator, for the question. I’m Adam Burns, and I’m the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Programs Sector at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO.
Just picking up on your questions related to Hurricane Fiona, it’s absolutely true that the harbours we had made investments in — as my colleague pointed out — survived the hurricane better. The initial investments that the government has made to rehabilitate harbours focused primarily on dredging to get the harbours reopened, some basic repairs and engineering assessments of the damage. As a result of that work, we were able to fully serve the fishing industry this past fishing season.
However, there is significant work left to be done in order to return the harbours to the state they were in before Hurricane Fiona. That is a second round of work that we will need to undertake. As we do that, we will keep in mind the various lessons learned during Hurricane Fiona.
I’ll point out that we also receive advice from DFO science that enables us to identify which harbours are more at risk from an environmental risk factor, and that helps inform where and how we should be making investments to ensure the harbours are as climate resilient as possible.
Senator MacAdam: How much money is in the 2023‑24 Main Estimates for this type of investment that you’re talking about — for instance, to do more work on the harbours and not just respond to Fiona? Are there capital expenditures in your budget for that?
Mr. Goodyear: Yes, we have our normal allocation dedicated to all small craft harbours — approximately $90 million. Then we have the additional funding related to Fiona-specific issues as well.
Senator MacAdam: Is it being ramped up to deal with climate change, or is it just your normal capital expenditures that you would have had in the past?
Mr. Goodyear: We have the normal funding that is in this budget, and we will be going back with additional funding requests to continue to improve upon the work that we’ve done. As we cyclically do on an every two- to three-year basis, we’ll ask for an additional injection of funding to continue to improve our harbours and look at where we need new harbours.
Senator MacAdam: Do you know if that will be in supplementary estimates or main estimates in the future?
Mr. Goodyear: It will be in subsequent supplementary or main estimates.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Mr. Goodyear. I’m interested in the elver fishery in the Maritimes. Your department has taken 14% of the fishing rights away from private entrepreneurs and given them to Indigenous fishers. No compensation has been paid to the entrepreneurs, who are losing millions of dollars a year in revenue. This is a situation that is inconceivable, unacceptable from a business standpoint.
I’m still waiting for answers to my letters sent to successive ministers responsible for fisheries. You know that this is a very specialized fishery.
I know that, in August 2022, the Federal Court rejected the attempt to overturn Ottawa’s decision. Brian Giroux of Shelburne Elver, one of the plaintiffs in the case, says the court’s decision illustrates the “dictatorial” powers held by ministers.
This is a very specialized fishery. Is there any money in your budget to compensate elver fishers? Are you keeping track of what is happening to the 14% of fishing rights that have been given to Indigenous peoples?
[English]
Mr. Goodyear: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans doesn’t have economic programs to compensate fishers. If compensation is something the government would do, it would be done in conjunction with other departments.
In terms of the relationship with Indigenous fishers, of course, we take the rights they have and the relationship we have very seriously. We work with them as well as with commercial fishers to strike a balance.
I’ll turn to one of my colleagues to further elaborate.
Mr. Burns: Thank you, chair, and just to further respond —
[Translation]
— senator, to your question. We have undertaken a review of our management and allocation measures for that fishery. This work is ongoing. We expect the review to be completed. The minister will then make decisions on the management of that fishery in 2024.
Senator Dagenais: Those people came to meet with me at my office, back in May.
First, I wrote to Ms. Murray, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, who never wrote back. I wrote to Minister LeBlanc, responsible for the Maritimes, who never replied. I wrote to Ms. Lebouthillier, who kindly sent me an acknowledgement of receipt. I wrote to Chris d’Entremont, MP for Cape Breton in Nova Scotia.
It seems that, when we talk about this file, it’s as people are standing on a floor full of banana peels and it’s radio silence. None of the companies have been compensated. Between you and me, it’s pretty disappointing that these companies, which have been around for 30 years, including Neptune, are losing $5 to $6 million a year. This being done as part of the reconciliation objective is understandable. These people need to be compensated. It shouldn’t take two years to do it. That was my question.
I’ll move on now to 24 Sussex Drive. It’s sort of falling apart. When we heard from representatives from Public Services and Procurement Canada on this committee, they told me that your department was in charge of 24 Sussex Drive.
Since 2015, when the Liberals came to power, how much has the non-occupancy of 24 Sussex Drive cost? How much is available in this year’s budget for this residence? Who will use it? How long are we going to wait for a concrete plan?
Because every year it’s taxpayers’ money. I wouldn’t say it’s being wasted, but it’s being spent without knowing where the file is going.
Ms. de Passillé: Thank you for the question. In November 2022, the NCC made the decision to close access to 24 Sussex Drive. This decision was made for health and safety reasons, but also to ensure the integrity of that heritage building.
Starting last May, we undertook work to remove outdated systems and also address issues that involved hazardous materials, including asbestos and mould contamination. The work is ongoing. It will take approximately 12 months to complete. The total budget for this work is currently estimated at $4.3 million. This work must go ahead regardless of the government’s decision on this heritage building.
It is clear that the building is no longer habitable and can no longer be used in its current state. Once the government has made a decision about the future of the Prime Minister’s residence, it will be possible to determine what kind of investments will be made in this building.
Senator Dagenais: Am I to understand that it will be ready for the next election?
Ms. de Passillé: I can tell you that, over the next 12 months, the building will be protected and stabilized to ensure that there is no ongoing damage to it.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, Ms. de Passillé.
[English]
Senator Petten: My question is — being from Newfoundland and Labrador — around the cod moratorium that happened in 1992. Of course, Fisheries and Oceans has looked at the stock assessments, and just recently, it has been indicated that the stock has moved out of the critical zone to a different zone. My question is this: How much money is being spent on research, particularly around the reopening of the cod, seeing that it has been 31 years since the closure of that particular area? I haven’t seen any money that has been allocated under the research, so I just wonder how much money would be there.
Mr. Goodyear: Thank you for the question. The specific funding for northern cod, unfortunately, I don’t have that in front of me. It would be in the details of the Main Estimates, but I can take that away and provide an answer to you separately, if that’s okay.
Senator Petten: Okay. My second question would be to the National Capital Commission. I’m just wondering, how does your budget compare, to similar organizations from around the world?
Ms. de Passillé: We have a fairly small budget when we look at the value of our assets. Currently, our assets are valued at $2.2 billion, and as I mentioned earlier, the estimates that you see are a base appropriation. The investments that the government made in 2018 and 2020 have allowed us to make significant progress in addressing the deferred maintenance we were facing that the OAG had highlighted. That was a good start, but additional investments will be required to ensure that we continue to make progress.
Senator Petten: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: A big thank you to our guests this evening.
[English]
I have had the honour and privilege of being on the CCGS Amundsen, the Coriolis II, the Asterix, the HMCS Ville de Québec, and I have toured the St. Lawrence and the Saguenay in the Arctic. I’ve seen with my own eyes the struggles, and the problems caused by global warming.
What my colleagues have expressed about the loss of shrimp stock is caused by the waters’ warming and ocean acidification, and Hurricane Fiona was caused by extreme weather events that were caused by global warming. These things, as my colleagues have said, are happening more and more frequently. I don’t think the government has put aside an annual budget for it.
How are you planning on managing these events that are happening more frequently? I’m asking this because you have your Blue Economy Strategy, which needs to be financed, and you have promised that at least 55% of Canada’s key fish stocks will be in the healthy and cautious zones by 2026, which is tomorrow.
How are you planning to manage these things that are all happening at the same time? Will you have enough funds?
Mr. Goodyear: Thank you for the question. Will we have enough funds? We’ll never, ever have enough funds to do everything we want to do, but certainly it’s about prioritization of the resources we have, and conservation is paramount in everything that we do.
In terms of our infrastructure, I mentioned that with small‑craft harbours, as well as with our Coast Guard infrastructure and real property, we have climate resiliency in mind. We’re also a big partner in the Greening Government Strategy, which is pan-government. We’ve made great strides to reduce our emissions across the entirety of our assets. We are moving to zero-emission vehicles in terms of the vehicles that we use, and we’ve done research in terms of the greening of our fleet of ships.
Certainly for DFO and the Coast Guard, conservation, the environment and the impacts of a warming climate is something that is part of all of our plans and intertwined throughout our funding.
Senator Galvez: My next question is to Marie-Claude Guérard.
In your opening remarks, you mentioned substantial funds that are allocated to assist farmers in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. Again, it’s the same issue; climate warming is affecting flooding and lost crops.
In one of his reports this week, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said that we are not on track to meet our 2030 greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Now, some politicians seem to think that the carbon tax is causing inflation. That’s wrong, but anyway, that’s what they think. They also think farmers are being unfairly penalized by this tax. You are giving substantial funds to the farmers. How many tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions have your programs reduced in your sector, in agriculture? How does that compare to other sectors?
Of all the provinces, did they receive similar allocations in this assistance that you have provided in order to help them reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?
[Translation]
Ms. Guérard: Thank you for your question. I’ll ask my colleague Steven Jurgutis to answer it.
[English]
Steven Jurgutis, Director General, Policy, Planning and Integration Directorate, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Thank you for the question. My name is Steven Jurgutis. I’m the Director General of the Policy, Planning and Integration Directorate in the policy branch of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, or AAFC. Maybe a couple things to mention.
One of the challenges is certainly being able to measure the greenhouse gas reduction from certain types of activities, but I can say there have been investments made over the past number of years that total $1.5 billion, that go toward the agriculture sector. Initial indications give us a total of about a 13-megatonne reduction as a result of that. Some of those programs are specifically ones within our department.
The second part of your question was the relationship with the provinces and territories. We do have a shared agreement with the provinces and territories, agriculture being a shared jurisdiction in Canada. We have a five-year agreement that’s referred to as the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership. It’s $3.5 billion over five years. $2.5 billion of that is delivered by the provinces and territories, and that’s on a 60% federal funding envelope and 40% provincial-territorial.
While there’s a great degree of flexibility within the types of programs that can be offered within the provinces and territories, recognizing agriculture is very diverse across the country, there are some agreed parameters in terms of the priorities that we’ve set as part of the Multilateral Framework Agreement. One of them is to address climate change.
Specifically within that envelope to be delivered by the provinces and territories is the Resilient Agricultural Landscape Program, $250 million, specifically to help address climate activities to reduce greenhouse gases. As well, part of the partnership for the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership, or CAP, as we call it, we have set a target of initiatives contributing to a 2-to-4-megatonne reduction as well.
I would say there are a number of activities that we currently have in place with programming. One final point I would register is, we are developing a Sustainable Agriculture Strategy to look more specifically at targets both for 2030, as well as activities to try to move toward net zero by 2050. That has been under consultation now for about two years. We anticipate having that strategy out next year, and that will help set a path forward for agriculture within Canada to be able to meet some of those ambitious targets.
Senator Marshall: Thank you. Back to Mr. Jones, you’re familiar with the Benefits Delivery Modernization program, with Employment and Social Development Canada, aren’t you? Could you just explain what the role of Shared Services is in that project? It’s supposed to be the largest IT project that the government has ever had at $2.5 billion. What’s your relationship to that program?
Mr. Jones: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. Modernization is led by my colleagues at Service Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada, or ESDC. Shared Services Canada provides some of the infrastructure and also some of the contracting necessary for the IT procurement. For example, cloud connectivity with what we call “secure cloud-to-ground,” or SC2G, which is connectivity to the cloud for cloud services. We do some contracting for them on things like contact centre services, but primarily, we’re an infrastructure provider.
Senator Marshall: Who is the lead? Is the department the lead?
Mr. Jones: Yes.
Senator Marshall: You have a role, and the Treasury Board of Canada has a role.
Mr. Jones: Our role is as the infrastructure provider, so we provide them the critical underpinnings. They deliver the application and Treasury Board is the policy arm and oversight of how the IT is being delivered.
Senator Marshall: Do you see them going off the rails because, as the Auditor General mentioned, some changes have happened over the past couple of years? Do you have any input in that or do you just say, “Well, that’s their problem”? What’s your role there?
Mr. Jones: I sit as part of their advisory committee and their project oversight board. I sit there with the deputy minister who is responsible for benefits delivery modernization from Employment and Social Development Canada both in an advisory capacity and in a discussion capacity. If we did see something, we’re not sitting there quietly, we’re —
Senator Marshall: You’re going to make sure they come in on time and on budget.
Mr. Jones: That’s absolutely my goal: to do everything I can to support my colleagues.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I have two quick questions. Mr. Jones, regarding the Phoenix system, how far along is the deployment of the next-generation human resources system initiative, ProGen RH? In how many departments is this new system currently deployed?
Mr. Jones: Thank you for the question. The beginning of the ProGen project, which is now complete, has been evaluated — Ceridian’s software, now called Dayforce — to determine if it can work for the Government of Canada. We have now transferred the findings to the Associate Deputy Minister of Public Services and Procurement Canada to determine the next phase of pay systems.
Senator Forest: What’s encouraging is that you haven’t repeated the Phoenix mistake. You’re setting a benchmark for how the software works.
Mr. Jones: The project team determined that it was possible to use a commercial pay system, but it will be necessary to create cloud-based extensions to accommodate the challenges of the Government of Canada and the unique requirements of our pay environment.
Senator Forest: When do you think we can expect the roll out of this application in the department?
Mr. Jones: It would be better to let my colleague answer this question, as it’s his project to deliver for the government, but I’m here to help him as much as possible. I don’t know the exact date, it’s his project.
Senator Forest: Will he answer in writing? Is he here?
Mr. Jones: I’ll have to pass this question on to my colleague at Public Services and Procurement Canada.
The Chair: Ah, it’s another department!
Senator Forest: He could answer in writing.
Mr. Jones: We can pass the question on to my colleague.
The Chair: It would be ideal to do this, to look at Senator Forest’s question, which is addressed directly to that department, and the department could send the written answer to the clerk.
Mr. Jones: Absolutely.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Jones.
Senator Gignac: My question is for Ms. Guérard from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. As the son of a dairy farmer, I follow with great interest, especially in my family, the evolution of the supply management file.
I’ll put on my economist hat, as a senator who studies the main estimates. I think we’re not far from $300 million in terms of compensation for dairy producers. I think we’re talking about $1.2 billion total over six years or something like that.
It’s not uncommon for quota values to be close to 50% to 60% of a farm’s value. But the opening of our market has created a gap. We don’t know the future, especially if there’s a change in the White House or other negotiations.
Can you tell me what the value of dairy quotas is, how much it’s worth in Canada? What formula was used, exactly, to determine that opening up 6% to 7% of our market costs taxpayers about $1.2 billion over six years? How was it determined that 7% of the market is suddenly equivalent to $1.2 billion? Can you elaborate? You can do it in writing if your answer is too long.
Ms. Guérard: For questions about supply management programs, I’ll ask my colleague Liz Foster to come to the table to answer them.
Liz Foster, Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Thank you for the question, senator. Good evening, I’m Liz Foster, assistant deputy minister, Programs Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Concerning your question about the dairy sector, my team is putting programs in place to compensate sectors, including the dairy sector. In total, this represents $4.2 billion over several years. There’s a specific aspect for the dairy sector.
As for your question about the value of quotas, we don’t have that information at the moment, but we could perhaps provide you with other information from other departments, to answer that question, if that works for you.
Senator Gignac: Thank you. I would appreciate that.
The Chair: If you could give us the answer in writing and send it directly to the clerk, I’d be very grateful.
[English]
Senator Smith: Part of your department’s mandate is to work with your partners to conserve 25% of Canada’s oceans by 2025 and 30% by 2030. Could you provide a breakdown of the progress the department has made in this regard?
Second, the department seems to have stalled at around 14% over the last several years. Could you tell us what the factors involved with that number might be, and are these targets in line with our international partners?
Mr. Goodyear: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. I’ll call on my colleague here to help out with some insights.
Kate Ladell, Director General, Ecosystems Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Thank you very much. My name is Kate Ladell, Director General, Ecosystems Management. I will do my best to answer part of your question, but I think I will also have to follow up in writing for the other part. This is not my area of expertise, but I can tell you that you are correct. We have been successful in conserving 14.66% toward our effort to 25% by 2025.
I don’t know that I would characterize it as having stalled out. Quite a bit of significant work is under way to help us advance toward achieving our 25% target by 2025. I think that’s where I would like to be able to follow up in writing, however, to give you an answer to your question in terms of what the breakdowns are of where we’ve gotten to and what our plans are to move ahead.
I can say that we did recently announce our pathway to the 2025 target which included announcing the BC Northern Shelf Bioregion Marine Protected Areas Network Action Plan including a new refuge in Lull Bay and Hoeya Sound as well as prepublication of the Tang.gwan – hačxwiqak – Tsigis Marine Protected Area regulations for public comment. So this is a large offshore area.
Senator Smith: Are these in the Northern part of the country?
Ms. Ladell: That’s on the West Coast. There is additional work that we have been doing in terms of recent investments of up to $200 million in 2021-22 and feasibility assessments and consultations with partners and stakeholders to establish new protected and conserved areas toward the achievement of the 25% by 2025 target. With that, my suggestion would be that I stop there and we follow up in writing.
Senator Smith: A quick question. Are there are a couple of highlights you could give us that would encourage us or give us confidence that you’ll be able to potentially obtain these objectives in whatever time frame is set out in the plan?
Ms. Ladell: Certainly, the announcement of a pathway forward for the Northern Shelf Bioregion Marine Protected Areas Network is significant. That is in an area of the West Coast that is a significant area and identifies multiple different areas and the approaches to achieving a Marine Protected Areas Network in that part of the country. There is work under way across the country, both in the North and on the East Coast, where we are exploring additional areas of interest.
Senator Smith: Could you let us know because I can hear the deep breathing of the chair.
Ms. Ladell: That’s why I would like to be able to follow up in writing with the details.
The Chair: If you could, we would appreciate that, please.
Ms. Ladell: Sure.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Ms. Guérard, the pork industry has been severely battered in recent months, particularly in Quebec. I’m thinking of the closure of the Olymel plant, some of the producers going bankrupt and others committing suicide; it’s a real debacle.
How does your department plan to intervene in this sector, which was especially lucrative not so long ago? Will there be budgets to help that industry?
Ms. Guérard: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. I’m going to ask my colleague, Liz Foster, to talk about programs for the pork industry.
Ms. Foster: Thank you for the question. With regard to the pork industry and how Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada can intervene to help the industry, I would say that we are currently working closely with the provinces and with the Quebec Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to consider this situation. So I don’t have any more information at the moment about specific initiatives, but that’s a topic of discussion for us.
Senator Dagenais: Can I ask another question?
The Chair: You can ask your question, and we’ll ask for an answer in writing.
Senator Dagenais: Concerning the $79-million budget for the Wine Sector Support Program, we know that this is being done in different regions. Could you give us an idea of what winegrowers can receive for their development? How is the money distributed across the country?
The Chair: Ms. Guérard, that’s almost three questions in one. We ask you to take note of Senator Dagenais’ question and answer us in writing.
Ms. Guérard: I’ll be happy to do it.
The Chair: To conclude the first part of our meeting this evening, Senator Galvez.
[English]
Senator Galvez: Just two quick questions. To Ms. Guérard, if you could provide me in writing the breakdown of all the assistance to the farmers, by province, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, I would appreciate it.
My next question is to Ms. de Passillé. You have talked a lot about funds being used for historical buildings, parks, clean mobility, but I’m sure if Senator Pate were here she would be asking what is being done for the homeless in the national capital. We have seen an increase of homeless people, especially in the market area, and there is also evidence of drug abuse, substance abuse and a rise in criminality. Do you have any plan to manage this situation?
[Translation]
Ms. de Passillé: Thank you for your question. As part of the NCC’s mandate, we are looking to develop and maximize the use of land that is currently vacant. We are exploring a strategy whereby we could put forward certain lands that could be used for real estate development, with an emphasis on affordable housing, among other things.
The Chair: I’m going to have to intervene because of the time factor. Could you answer Senator Galvez’s question in writing, please?
Ms. de Passillé: With pleasure; thank you for offering that possibility.
[English]
The Chair: I would like to remind the witnesses to please submit written responses to the clerk by the end of the day, Wednesday, November 22, 2023.
Before we proceed, honourable senators, to the other subject matter, which is Bill S-258, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act, clause by clause in the second part of our meeting, as chair, to the officials this evening, we have a common denominator. It’s about transparency, accountability, predictability and reliability of the budget system. I want to bring to your attention and congratulate you because you were well prepared, and it was seen as your professionalism. It was very informative and also enlightening.
I can say, honourable senators, when we look at the previous departments, you are the group sending the fewest answers in writing. So you were well prepared, congratulations.
Honourable senators, we now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-258. I have been informed by the clerk that we have not received on Bill S-258 any comments or suggestions from senators on either making amendments and/or observations. So we will proceed immediately on the subject matter of Bill S-258, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (reporting on unpaid income tax).
Honourable senators, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-258, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (reporting on unpaid income tax)? Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, honourable senators.
[Translation]
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the alternate title, stand postponed? Is that agreed or not, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Thank you.
[Translation]
Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, honourable senators. Shall clause 3 carry? Agreed or not?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 1, which contains the alternate title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. There being no amendments or observations, shall the title, carry, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried, honourable senators. Does the committee wish to consider appending any observations to the report, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: No.
Senator Smith: We’d like to make sure that this three-year window for review, that we would be updated on a complete basis so that we see if the objective that this bill tries to implement, has some results. I’m not sure if it’s realistic, but I wonder what the members would think about making sure of that. This is going to be a bill that could be really important if it’s executed properly, but part of the execution would be that it shows results. Maybe I’m out of order.
They have a three-year review period, but it would be nice if we could have someone come in and share the results with us. I know Senator Marshall likes to dig up all the information, but it would be nice to have some department come in and give us some feedback. This can disappear very quickly.
The Chair: Yes. Okay. Thank you for the comment, Senator Smith. It’s appropriate.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: The comments are quite relevant. However, if the bill receives Royal Assent and the government doesn’t do its homework, we’ll have to take responsibility for saying that, as set out in the legislation, an evaluation must be done over three years. We have a responsibility to follow up if the bill receives Royal Assent.
[English]
Senator Marshall: The legislation requires that it would be provided in the annual report of the minister. There’s a legislated requirement there. I don’t think we need to do anything else other than that. It’s required in legislation. It’s a statutory requirement, and I think that’s as good as it’s going to get.
The Chair: Mr. Pu, any comments?
Shaowei Pu, Analyst, Library of Parliament: No. I agree.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Smith, for clarity.
Is it agreed that I report the bill to the Senate as soon as possible?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Senators, this concludes our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-258. Again, thank you very much for your time and also for the quality of work that you do.
Senator Dagenais?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I see we’ve skipped over the following paragraph:
Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version
The Chair: That’s because there were no comments. It was exactly as it was in the drafters’ text of the bill.
Senator Dagenais: I wanted to show that I was still following.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
Thank you, honourable senators.
(The committee adjourned.)