THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday October 1, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to study the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, with the exception of Library of Parliament Vote 1.
Senator Claude Carignan (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down, on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you all for your cooperation.
I wish to welcome all of the senators as well as all the Canadians watching us on sencanada.ca. My name is Claude Carignan, senator from Quebec, and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Now, I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves starting on my left.
Senator Forest: Good morning. Éric Forest, Gulf senatorial division, in Quebec.
Senator Gignac: Good morning. Clément Gignac, Kennebec senatorial division, in Quebec.
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez, from Quebec.
Senator Loffreda: Good morning. Tony Loffreda, from Quebec.
Senator Dalphond: Good morning. Pierre Dalphond, De Lorimier senatorial division, in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ross: Krista Ross, New Brunswick.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Quebec.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, today, we will resume our study on the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, which was referred to this committee on March 19, 2024, by the Senate of Canada.
Today we are pleased to welcome senior officials from Shared Services Canada, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Parks Canada. Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation.
From what I understand, an official from each department will make a short statement. We are pleased to welcome Scott Jones, president, Shared Services Canada; Jason K. Cameron, vice‑president, Indigenous and Stakeholder Relations, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited; Andrew Francis, vice-president and director general of finance, Parks Canada. With that, I give the floor to Mr. Jones, who will be followed by Mr. Cameron and Mr. Francis.
Scott Jones, President, Shared Services Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[English]
Good morning. Before we begin, I would like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people. I thank you for this opportunity to appear before you and to discuss the department’s 2024-25 Main Estimates. I am accompanied today by my Deputy Chief Financial Officer Diane Peressini, who is behind me.
Mr. Chair, Shared Services Canada, or SSC, is the Government of Canada’s enterprise technology service provider. We ensure departments and agencies have reliable and secure networks, digital tools and modern hosting solutions.
[Translation]
As Shared Services Canada continues to modernize and consolidate the Government of Canada’s basic systems, we are seeing an optimization of resources, increased reliability and reduced operations and maintenance costs. All this is done by replacing legacy systems specific to the departments with consolidated modern business solutions.
[English]
SSC’s work is guided by its strategic road maps. These road maps are central to how we are advancing our operations in areas of digital services, connectivity, hosting and cybersecurity resilience. The report of the Auditor General correctly highlighted the unhealthy state of applications in the Government of Canada. While almost all of these applications are outside of the control of Shared Services Canada, SSC bears the cost of the legacy infrastructure required to support these outdated and often unstable applications. This is the most significant risk to our transformation plans.
The scale of SSC’s operations is as vast and varied as Canada itself. Our dedicated team supports the operations and service delivery at nearly 4,000 locations from coast to coast to coast and around the world. From traditional office work to scientists’ labs, front-line service delivery and national security, policing and defence operations, SSC is behind our partners. While my teams never get the credit they deserve, you can rest soundly knowing they are there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. This is a role we take seriously and where we feel the immense weight that rests on our shoulders.
[Translation]
It is in the context of this vast mandate that I am addressing you to discuss our Main Estimates for 2024-25. SSC asked for a total of $2.48 billion to support its role as information technology (IT) services provider for the entire Government of Canada. That amount represents a net decrease of $112 million over 2023-24.
[English]
In addition to these appropriations, SSC anticipates receiving $853 million in revenue to deliver on projects for departments and agencies.
While overall SSC appropriations have increased over the years to address emerging events such as COVID and new collective agreements as well as to secure the GC Information Technology, or IT, infrastructure, the base budget for the core services we deliver has remained at about $1.5 billion since 2017, all while demands, capacity and reliability have increased.
During that time, we have used savings from consolidation to increase services to departments and introduce new tools such as Microsoft Teams and Microsoft 365, amongst many other services. However, this is becoming more and more challenging due to inflationary pressures from suppliers, new technologies on the horizon and increasing cyber-threats.
Of the new funding sought in these estimates, $106 million has been designated for funding core IT services. We are also seeking $24.7 million to reinforce GC cybersecurity and an additional $22.2 million to safeguard access to high-performance computing for Canada’s hydrometeorological services.
The Main Estimates include reprofiled funding of $40.9 million for the Workload Modernization and Migration Program as well as $14.1 million toward the cyber and IT security project Government of Canada Secret Infrastructure Expansion.
[Translation]
Our main estimates also take into account the transfers with the other departments, including to respond to the reduced need for office space resulting from the consolidation of data centres or to support the development of the financial community.
[English]
Our Main Estimates also reflect other adjustments, including Budget 2023 reductions to refocus government spending, adjustments in funding related to multi-year initiatives and projects and statutory appropriations. All totalled, these estimates represent a net decrease of $112 million compared to the previous fiscal year’s Main Estimates of $2.59 billion.
[Translation]
As the Government of Canada’s IT services provider, SSC is determined to ensure that all the departments and agencies have the tools they need to provide services to the Canadian public. The funding in the main estimates 2024-25 will allow us to pursue this important work.
[English]
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to answer your questions.
Jason K. Cameron, Vice-President, Indigenous and Stakeholder Relations, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited: Thank you for the land acknowledgment, Mr. Jones. I’m grateful to the Algonquin people for stewarding this land since time immemorial, and it’s great to be back in front of the Senate Committee on National Finance. It has been a while, but it is great to be back.
It is my pleasure to appear before you today and to provide you with an overview of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited’s plans and forecast expenditures relevant to your study as well as to answer any questions you may have.
[Translation]
AECL is Canada’s nuclear crown corporation. It has a long and proud history of revolutionary nuclear science, including running laboratories and nuclear facilities in several locations, namely the Chalk River Laboratories that are located roughly 200 kilometres northwest of Ottawa.
These laboratories are the first fission reaction site in Canada, the birthplace of the CANDU reactors that supply 60% of the electricity in Ontario, and the seat of the cutting-edge nuclear development that has helped to provide millions of treatments to cancer patients here in Canada and around the world.
[English]
Our national nuclear laboratories are truly a premiere strategic asset and a critical component of Canada’s response to climate change, with existing and new nuclear energy production being key to Canada’s zero emission, highly electrified energy future.
While Canada can be proud of our nuclear history, our waste management practices of the past are not what we would do today. The federal government has asked us to take on cleanup activities for the benefit of Canada. Thus, we’re doing a huge amount of work now and for years to come to deal with historic and legacy nuclear waste from the past. It’s a big job, and represents the majority of current expenditures now and for the foreseeable future, which I’ll expand upon.
As we do this important work, we’re also embracing Canada’s commitment to reconciliation by increasing our engagement with Indigenous peoples across all of our sites and operations including something I’m personally proud of, which is signing a watershed long-term relationship agreement with the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation to involve that nation in the planning and monitoring activities at our Chalk River site. We’re still starting down this road, but we are making Indigenous engagement and reconciliation fundamental to everything we do.
[Translation]
Before talking about AECL’s plans for this fiscal year and beyond, I would like to give you an overview of our organizational model because it is unique among the federal institutions.
Since 2015, AECL has been operating under a government-owned, contractor-operated model. Under that model, a private company — Canadian Nuclear Laboratories — operates the sites that belong to AECL under the management of a contractor, currently Canadian National Energy Alliance.
[English]
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited’s role in this model consists of two major missions: providing direction to its contractor and providing oversight of its activities to ensure Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, or CNL, is doing the right things the right way and achieving good value for money. In this role, AECL is a small but mighty team of around 50 federal public servants, experts in contract management, nuclear science, nuclear security, waste management and more.
With that understanding, allow me to provide a high-level overview of AECL business plans, which are largely being implemented by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories. For 2024-25, our projected expenditures are $1.5 billion, broken into three major buckets: environmental remediation, capital and infrastructure and nuclear science and technology.
First, our biggest mission by expenditure and level of effort is the environmental remediation of our sites. In 2024-25, we forecast expenditures of $1.2 billion. AECL was formed at the dawn of the nuclear industry in Canada at a time when people did not have today’s knowledge or experience required to effectively manage radioactive waste appropriately. As a result, we are still living with the large mission of cleanup at our sites.
The big projects that are being managed include the creation of a Near Surface Disposal Facility at Chalk River for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste; and the in situ decommissioning of two old reactors, the Nuclear Power Demonstration Reactor at Rolphton near Chalk River and the Whiteshell Laboratories research reactor in Manitoba. Additionally, we will fulfill our commitment to the Government of Canada and continue to clean up historic waste in the Port Hope area, just outside Toronto, including major sites like their harbour and a large number of small-scale residential sites.
While environmental remediation is about dealing with the past, we are also building the future through major capital investment in our Chalk River Laboratories campus. This year, we forecast approximately $159 million in that area. In addition to the maintenance of that site, the keystone project is the construction of the new Advanced Nuclear Materials Research Centre, to be completed by approximately 2029. This facility will be the centrepiece of that campus and the most significant nuclear research facility in Canada. It will contain the most modern hot cell, laboratories and fuel facilities unique within Canada and the world.
Third, beyond capital and infrastructure investments, we have an ambitious, multi-pronged nuclear science agenda under way today. Science and technology expenditures for 2024-25 are forecast at approximately $230 million, with a majority of this work self-funded by third-party and commercial margin, as approved by AECL, with only $91 million booked against the 2024-25 Main Estimates. That work primarily covers our Federal Nuclear Science and Technology Work Plan, a program that mobilizes our nuclear science assets to address the priorities of 15 different federal departments.
Mr. Chair and senators, this is just a brief overview of the complex picture of site operations, long-term plans, Indigenous engagements, advice to government and other areas where AECL makes a difference. I will be happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cameron. Mr. Francis, please go ahead.
Andrew Francis, Vice-President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, Parks Canada: Mr. Chair, it’s a pleasure to join you and the committee members to outline the 2024-25 Main Estimates for Parks Canada. I am joined today by two colleagues.
I would like to start by recognizing that we are meeting on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people. Like every Parks Canada place, people were there before us.
[Translation]
Before getting into the main estimates in detail, I would like to highlight some of the remarkable achievements of this fiscal year that have contributed to supporting Parks Canada’s mandate, which is to support and conserve the natural and cultural heritage of Canada’s most cherished places.
[English]
The devastating impacts of the wildfire in the Municipality of Jasper and Jasper National Park have been exceptionally difficult for Jasperites, Albertans and Canadians across the country to bear witness to. We acknowledge and salute the heroic actions of front-line staff and fire crews, who worked tirelessly to ensure the safe evacuation of over 20,000 people and who managed to save 70% of the town. Through the collective efforts of Parks Canada and our municipal and provincial partners, we continue to support the rebuilding and recovery of the community of Jasper through the Jasper Recovery Coordination Centre.
This year also marked the achievement of several milestones in our efforts to strengthen the network of protected places co‑administered by Parks Canada and Indigenous partners. Notably, in July, we announced the establishment of Pituamkek National Park Reserve in Prince Edward Island, which will be the 48th national park in Canada. We also signed a historic agreement with the Seal River Watershed Alliance and the Manitoba government to work together to protect one of the largest remaining ecologically intact watersheds in the world.
Relationships and collaborations are at the heart of Parks Canada’s commitment to protect nationally significant examples of natural and cultural heritage and to share the stories of these special places with the world. This year, we celebrated a decade of collaborating with the Kitikmeot Inuit in telling the story of the Franklin expedition’s world-famous wreck of the HMS Erebus.
[Translation]
We were also pleased to once again welcome visitors to the Bellevue House national historic site, the former residence of Sir John A. Macdonald, after the completion of major structural renovations and an overhaul of the visitor experience. Bellevue House now offers visitors a space to better understand current opinions and the strong and divergent points of view of Sir John A. Macdonald’s place in history.
[English]
I will now proceed to provide you with an overview of Parks Canada’s 2024-25 Main Estimates. The $1.2 billion allocation is composed of the following: a voted spending authority amounting to $1,000.7 million, or 81%, which consists of $657.8 million in operating expenditures, including grants and contributions; $307.2 million in capital funding; $35.7 million for the New Parks and Historic Sites Account; a statutory amount of $228.5 million, or 19%, which consists of $63.5 million for the employee benefits plan and $165 million as an equivalent to revenues to be collected.
That represents a net decrease of $64.8 million, or 5%, compared to the 2023-24 Main Estimates. This is primarily due to the reduction of temporary funding aimed at ensuring the long-term sustainability of Parks Canada’s built infrastructure and the impact of refocusing of government spending as directed by Budget 2023. The major variances are briefly described as follows: an increase of $52.7 million in funding resulting from the ratification of the collective agreements; an increase of $10.0 million in funding as an equivalent to revenues to be collected; an increase of $8.5 million due to renewed funding to continue efforts to protect species at risk, which is a horizontal initiative across a number of departments; an increase of $2.2 million due to new and renewed funding for the implementation of three Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreements in Nunavut and Labrador; an increase of $0.8 million resulting from new funding to settle land-related claims and litigation; a net decrease of $59.3 million in funding for the real property and asset program; a net decrease of $56.0 million for a number of initiatives included in previous Main Estimates, which changed the approved annual funding levels; a decrease of $23.7 million due to the impact of the Budget 2023 refocusing government spending.
With the funding received in Main Estimates, Parks Canada will continue to protect, present and manage Canada’s existing national historic sites, national parks, heritage canals, national marine conservation areas and one national urban park for the benefit and enjoyment of Canadians. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Francis.
[English]
We will start our question period now.
Senator Marshall: My first question is for Mr. Cameron from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. You mentioned the CANDU reactor in your opening remarks. There seems to be quite a push within Canada for the small modular reactors. My understanding is that Canada, in order to reach net zero, is going to need thousands of megawatts of additional power. Why is there an emphasis on developing these small modular reactors if — the CANDU reactor was very successful, and now there are billions of dollars being poured into developing something we don’t know is going to be successful or not. Can you just round that out for me?
Mr. Cameron: Thank you to the senator for the question. I will say that at AECL and across the sector, we have all done — there have been different analyses done in terms of how Canada collectively is going to meet its net-zero targets by 2050. I think in the province of Ontario alone, we are looking at 17,000 to 18,000 megawatts of electricity that will be needed in that time frame.
I wish a couple of years ago that I had coined a phrase “large and small, we’re going to need them all” in nuclear. A few years ago, the sector did look and is still looking at small modular reactors, and Chalk River is playing a role in that endeavour to make sure that the research and development is there to support that going forward. You see important developments at the Darlington nuclear station, where they have embarked on licensing and started the initial phases of construction for two small modular reactor units there. I think that was a business decision, senator and Mr. Chair, in terms of looking at that technology.
I will also say, speaking about CANDU for a moment, intellectual property for the CANDU reactor is still owned by the Government of Canada —
Senator Marshall: I only have five minutes. I am really interested in the small modular reactors. Where are we with regard — you are saying Canada is participating in the development, but then so are other countries.
Mr. Cameron: Absolutely.
Senator Marshall: Where are we with regard to other countries? I understand that the United States — I read somewhere they are going to start construction of a facility next year in Wyoming. Why are we spending billions of dollars developing something — it’s an unknown whether it is going to be successful. Why don’t we just rely on our trading partner instead of spending billions of dollars on something which is not a sure thing?
Mr. Cameron: I would say, senator, in terms of — Canada will lead in the small modular reactor development with the construction of these reactors at Darlington.
Strictly speaking from the role of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, we will make sure that the nuclear science is there and that the lab is able to support the sector if they choose to pursue small modular reactors in the province of Ontario and the province of Saskatchewan. But some of those are business decisions that are being made by utilities in the province.
Senator Marshall: But you would be participating, would you not?
Mr. Cameron: We are ensuring that the Chalk River nuclear laboratories are going to be there to support this country’s nuclear sector to 2050.
Senator Marshall: One last question. Would you know how much the Government of Canada has invested in the development of the small modular reactors?
Mr. Cameron: I would not know that, senator.
Senator Marshall: For Shared Services Canada, you mentioned in your opening remarks that the Auditor General carried out the audit with you and Treasury Board. You weren’t the only ones named. They did indicate that neither Treasury Board nor your organization had provided a leadership role with regard to implementing more modern systems, and she highlighted it as a very significant concern.
Two questions. What have you done since the report, but the first question is if she were to come in and carry out a follow-up audit at this point in time, would she say that you are making good progress, you are making progress, you are not making any progress? What do you think her audit result — I would like you to answer that question. Then I’ll ask you what you are doing.
Mr. Jones: Thank you for the question. I’m a little scared to try to put words in the Auditor General’s mouth. What I would hope she would see, when her and the team comes back, would be that, number one, the hosting strategy for the Government of Canada gives us a platform now for departments to more easily plan out a migration to move forward with. Shared Services Canada has taken on some of the challenges of the back-office applications — a built application platform as a service — which is, for example, common apps for multiple departments to use.
Senator Marshall: Is that done now or is that something you are going to do?
Mr. Jones: The hosting strategy is under way right now. We are renewing the — so it is under way right now, and there are pieces in place and application platform as a service. The first application is available for departments with the next ones coming online in the next months.
Senator Marshall: What would she say if she came in and did her follow-up audit? Would she say you are making progress, you are making good progress or you are not making enough progress?
Mr. Jones: I would hope that she would say we are making progress. It is never fast enough, but that departments have to do their part of modernizing their applications.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you for being here. My first question is for Mr. Francis and has to do with the forest fires that, as you mentioned, ravaged 30% of the town of Jasper. According to the media, the situation could have been worse if not for the preventive work done by Parks Canada and its partners. It seems that for the past 10 years you have implemented 15 or so controlled burns, including to consume sectors of forest destroyed by the pine beetle. Have your budgets for forest fire prevention evolved over time as a result of climate change? Does Parks Canada have the necessary budget to deal with the pine beetle and the risks of forest fires?
Mr. Francis: Thank you for the question.
[English]
The budget for dealing with the forest fire program has changed over a number of years. It tends to be also compensated in the year if it is a bad forest fire year. I’ll not use this summer past, but the previous summer as an example where Parks Canada had some real records broken in terms of fires. We had over 1 million hectares burned, which was nine times the average. It was bad throughout the country, not just for Parks Canada. Many of you, whatever large city you were in, would have had some of that forest fire smoke. It was twice the previous record of fires for Parks Canada since 1981. We had $80 million of direct costs. Our Main Estimates did not have the money to cover off the need of the agency last fiscal year, but we were given compensation for a balance through an off cycle that was given to us in Supplementary Estimates (C) last fiscal year. It was just shy of $40 million.
So we do have a base budget that then has been compensated, for instance, in Budget 2022 where a sunsetting —
[Translation]
Senator Forest: My question does not have to do with the increased budgets in response to the phenomena that are occurring. I would like to know if you have adapted the budgets in order to be proactive and to do the types of things you did in Jasper, with the controlled burns that help reduce the impact of climate change events like the ones we saw.
[English]
Mr. Francis: Let me give you one example.
I just mentioned Budget 2022, but it was Budget 2021 that gave a little over $50 million toward these initiatives. That is actually going to sunset in fiscal year 2025-26.
So in terms of the needs for Parks Canada to do pre-burns, cutting forests and prevention get reassessed. We get renewed appropriations on a sunsetting scale, plus we do have a bit of resources within our base.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Does Parks Canada currently offer funding to a position that would help Canada be proactive in reducing the impact of these events?
[English]
Mr. Francis: Yes, we do in our forest fire program — to be reactive. I can probably look up some numbers in terms of what we spent for wildfire management. Just for context, in terms of budget, if I were to link it to people, we have 300 people working within the wildfire program who do everything from reacting to fires, to controlled burns, to planning and getting ready. We’re the sole entity in the federal government that employs firefighters. So we do have a proactive approach.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: That is a burning topic and perhaps you should address it carefully because it will have a major impact.
Mr. Cameron, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is conducting activities on the traditional lands of Indigenous Peoples. As you mentioned, the organization is committed to reconciliation with the First Nations peoples.
However, the First Nations and more than 100 Quebec municipalities along the Ottawa River have issued objections to the project because they fear that their primary source of drinking water will be contaminated.
The First Nations lament the fact that they were not properly consulted.
I understand that the project was approved by the Nuclear Safety Commission Are you prepared to move forward with this project, even though the First Nations oppose it?
What is the estimated cost of construction and of maintaining the dump, and how will it be funded?
Mr. Cameron: Thank you for the question.
[English]
I will say that the project is effectively paused for the moment while it’s under judicial reviews. Canada’s national nuclear laboratory at Chalk River needs a Near Surface Disposal Facility. It needs somewhere to put its low-level radioactive waste. Our contractor, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, has spent seven to eight years working on a licensing process that went through the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, as you explained.
We have been working hard with First Nations, Indigenous communities and municipalities on that project. We welcome continued engagement.
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission rendered its decision to indicate that the project could proceed, but it is now subject to no less than three judicial reviews. During that period, there is very minimal pre-construction work that is going on to be ready for that project to proceed. We believe it is the right project, but we will allow those judicial reviews to proceed and await the outcome before we decide what will happen next. In the meantime, we continue to engage with Quebec Algonquin nations in particular given the concerns they have expressed.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Do you have a cost estimate?
[English]
Mr. Cameron: At the moment, senator, the cost estimates for the Near Surface Disposal Facility are approximately $700 million; those are the current estimates of the project. That recognizes that even once it starts construction, it will take about 80 years to complete.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cameron.
Senator Gignac: Mr. Jones, in the main estimates, the capital expenditures are roughly $212 million; this is a 20% drop over last year. Can you explain this drop to us? What are the major capital expenditures that you foresee in the next year?
Mr. Jones: That is very interesting because information technology (IT) has changed a lot. In the 1980s or the 2000s, most of the spending was invested in computers and the technical equipment that was installed. Now, we are in a position where we are renting more of our equipment. Capital funds are being swapped for operational funds. The equipment lasts longer now.
The main change is that we are spending less on capital, but a bit more on changes in maintenance and software updates.
[English]
Senator Gignac: Could you please elaborate on the resources being committed to explore the application of machine learning, robotic processes and artificial intelligence, or AI?
Mr. Cameron: Absolutely. We’re tackling that in a few ways. One is by being a leader for the rest of the government on making sure we have systems and programs in place that other departments can lean on, such as a Centre for AI Expertise, robotic automation expertise, et cetera. Inside the department, we are leveraging that to gain efficiencies.
My favourite example to use is our Access to Information and Privacy shop, which has used robotic process automation to very much streamline our release of information as requests come in. So our success rate — I’m very proud of it — was 98.3% last year in terms of meeting on-time performance. It also reduces the manual work, which is very tedious.
Those are some of the examples, but those are absolutely key areas for investment.
Finally, when you take robotic process automation and you stretch it into artificial intelligence, we’re using various aspects for artificial intelligence, one of which is related to this. We have an AI tool that we use to improve the accuracy of our estimates. When departments come in with a proposal, we use artificial intelligence to look at it and find out the general cost. It has improved our forecasting efficiency as well.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: In his 2023 audit, the Auditor General was a bit more critical because I believe nearly 65% of your applications had not yet been launched.
Mr. Jones: Yes.
Senator Gignac: We can take advantage of your presence here to get an update and find out where you are in terms of implementing the application modernization. Could you give us an update on the comments made by the Office of the Auditor General?
Mr. Jones: The Auditor General was right because there is a bit of an imbalance between the economic model for Shared Services Canada and the model for the other federal departments. We provide a free service for the other departments, so investing in applications does not cost them anything.
[English]
I’m confusing myself here; excuse me.
It’s important that we look at — there are some pieces that SSC did not put in place that we are putting in place now. First, our hosting services were always on demand, and now we’re proactively building an enterprise-wide hosting service, so departments will have a place to build their applications on.
Second, we are focusing on building applications that can be used by multiple departments. We call it “application platform as a service.” It’s those things regarding which, commercially, there is no market for a commercial provider to be providing those to us to just lease or purchase. For example, we do Access to Information via audit software called TeamMate+. We have seen incredibly good results in terms of consolidation but also cost reduction with that.
The first one in place now is the audit software, TeamMate+. Being worked on right now are our two projects for Access to Information and Privacy, ATIPXpress and AMANDA. Then, there will be more to come after that.
Senator Smith: If I could stick with you for a question. I’d like to explore some key risks that you’ve identified in your departmental plan, and one key risk that stuck out to me is “incentives for modernization and enterprise.” Essentially different departments and agencies have different priorities and alignments related to IT. This lack of alignment across the federal government risks the modernization of government.
Could you talk a little bit more about how pervasive this risk is to your operations and how differences in interests across the government is a barrier to modernization? I’d like just to have some examples in differences, priorities and alignments across the departments.
Mr. Jones: Absolutely, and thank you for the question. In my last response, I talked about the mismatch of the free service, so why wouldn’t they continue on with the thing that exists today rather than investing in modernizing? I have a couple of simple examples.
One is fixed-line phones. Every department has them. There are hundreds of thousands of fixed lines out there. We’ve had a project to eliminate those for a decade, but the department has to do work because there are critical fixed lines. They’re used in operation centres for emergency backups, and we don’t always know which number is associated with which service so we need departments to work with us. We need — so we’ve reduced by 40,000 fixed lines.
Senator Smith: That represents how many?
Mr. Jones: It’s about 25% to 30% of the lines, but we need to reduce that to the bare minimum in the next three years. What we have done is set up a system of incentives, so for the next three years, my budget pays, but if departments don’t meet our targets, they will have to start picking up the cost for those so we’re changing the economic incentive. That’s an example of a legacy service that we’re paying for out of the appropriation that should be funding smart phones, multi-factor devices or other communications like Wi-Fi, et cetera.
Another example would be the applications themselves. Government applications have accumulated services over the years as they get built onto by IT people. The way I see it, it’s kind of like that storage room that people have, and they just keep pushing stuff in, and one day you have to go in and clean it out but you don’t want to. It looks horrible, and it’s going to take you a ton of time to clean it out to see what you have.
That’s the majority of the applications, and we need to start doing that so it’s not fun. It’s not good work. It’s not interesting. We want to work on the new thing and leave the old thing running.
Senator Smith: I just wanted to follow up on that. One of the risks is, in human resources, it’s become a bit of a trend amongst federal departments and agencies to say the labour market is limited and very competitive, which is especially true for people with specialized IT skill sets. Could you talk about a couple of things: Where are you with consultants and where are you with your staff in terms of the competency level to be able to move forward with these objectives that you’re talking about?
Mr. Jones: Thank you. That’s a great question. Maybe I’ll start with consultants, and I’ll divide it up. I think there are contractors, which tend to be paid. Their contract is hourly, and we pay them out. Essentially, it can be almost looked at as a supplementary workforce versus consultants who come in, they are actually there for a short time and answer a specific question. I think you’re probably asking more about the former where it’s this kind of perpetual shadow public service type of thing. And the last is managed services where we choose to outsource because it’s a benefit. We don’t have the right skills so, for example, I’m not building a cellular network. I’m going to purchase that from a provider.
On the consultant side, Shared Services Canada has far too many. It’s not that they’re not doing important work. They absolutely are. Our technical authorities are watching. We have not been using contractors where they need to be, which is for them to come in for a surge and then they go.
Senator Smith: How can they fix that?
Mr. Jones: We’re fixing that by changing the way the budget is allocated, and also —
Senator Smith: Is it budgets or people, though?
Mr. Jones: People turn into budgets and money. By moving the money from the operations budget into salary is one piece. The other piece is that we are undertaking a full zero-base review of everything that SSC does and that includes the money for consultants — contractors, sorry — and for staff to say where is the right —
Senator Smith: It would be great, Mr. Jones, if you were able to do a one-pager and send it to us because we’re getting to the point of “What’s the summary and how do you prioritize what you’re going to do in the near term?” If you could send us a one‑pager on that, it would be most appreciated.
Mr. Jones: Sure. The zero-base exercise is ongoing right now so we’re still awaiting the results. It will be in place before next year’s budget.
Senator Smith: If you could give us something that leads us into next year, that would be great.
Mr. Jones: Absolutely.
Senator Ross: Good morning. My question is for Shared Services Canada. Last week we had witnesses in from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, and they were talking about how they are on year four of a five-year digital platform modernization program at a cost in excess of $500 million.
What part of programs of this nature is owned by Shared Services Canada? What part is the department in terms of both the work and the money?
Mr. Jones: That is actually a great example of a department that is cleaning out its storage locker from my previous question.
We provide the infrastructure or the contracting services depending on what they’re looking for. In the case of digital platform modernization, we certainly support IRCC’s day-to-day operations, the current operational environment. In the new environment, they’ll be relying more on public cloud services. That is under the Application Hosting Strategy. Shared Services Canada is responsible for putting in place the contracts necessary for government use of the public cloud, and that ensures those contracts have built-in security, we get good value for money and the best price we can.
The other piece for us is how we connect to that cloud. How do we connect out from the Government of Canada information environment to the outside world and have a secure connection to that cloud environment? That’s the other piece that we would be responsible for.
Then, for the legacy system in the case of immigration, we would ensure that it stays up to date and work with IRCC on that but also support them in any migration or data migration. We play a role, but the project would be run by IRCC, and we would ensure that our part of that is integrated into their project.
Senator Ross: For example, I know we’re talking about mains but in Supplementary Estimates (A), they had approximately $90 million set aside at this time for the next steps in that project. What’s the real cost of the project in addition to the $90 million that they put in there? How much more of the cost is on top of that which would come through Shared Services Canada?
Mr. Jones: Because it’s relying on public cloud, the cost of running that would be based on that project.
Typically, though, if this was a more traditional IT build that we would be building on premises inside our data centres on our hardware, the part that would be in our infrastructure would be the hardware, the networking equipment, the service fees for that connectivity, the fibre-optic cabling, all that other stuff and all the way up to the kind of base software operating systems and then IRCC would be responsible for everything that is application-specific. The application layer, the licensing for that, et cetera, and that would be in there.
Senator Ross: When Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, was here to speak to us last week, we talked a lot about the Canadian Border Services Agency traveller modernization initiative, and there was a lot of talk about the airport kiosks, these types of things and the fact that other countries are so far ahead of us in terms of their modernization as well as the ease of people getting through in a timely manner. They talked about that completely being a tech or IT issue. Tell me what your role is in that piece of modernization.
Mr. Jones: The border kiosks are actually quite complicated in terms of what we provide because of the airport operators who tend to provide what we call the last-mile connectivity to the kiosks. The kiosks are not ours, they’re CBSA’s, so we don’t have enough knowledge to give you a good answer about that piece of it, but we provide the connectivity from CBSA to the airport.
That’s where it gets complicated in the service delivery model, and that’s something we’re working with CBSA on. How do we simplify that and make it easier so that those are more reliable to give them an upgrade path? That may be kind of where — because of the involvement of the entity of the airport operators, that tends to make things a little bit more complicated when there is an outage, for example. When it works, it works great, but for diagnosis, who did what and did they turn something off in the airport or something like that, we don’t monitor that, so it’s hard for us to be able to tell. That’s actually quite a complicated networking problem, but it’s one that we know how to solve.
Senator Ross: If you were to think of the whole of government, Shared Services and where we’re at in terms of IT, if it was a business, let’s say, what would you score government in terms of where they’re at in modernization, ease of use — customer service, shall we say?
Mr. Jones: Letter or percentage?
Senator Ross: Either one. Percentage.
Mr. Jones: So depending on — I would give most departments about a C on where they are for the technology that users use, and it is variable. Some would get an A plus and some would get an F, but an average would be a C. If you look at the applications, D, D minus. They’re maintaining their own, but it costs a lot for us to keep them running. They’re simply not designed to work in a cloud, AI-based —
Senator Ross: Obsolete.
Mr. Jones: — modern world. They’re just obsolete.
Infrastructure-wise, though, I’ll give us a B. We have modernized the base infrastructure. It’s stable. It’s supported. The applications on top of it aren’t necessarily where they need to be. But that would be kind of my overall grade. I can’t give a single grade, but it does work.
This is what worries me is the fact that it’s variable. It is like that old commercial that used to show your blood sugar line, and it shortens your lifeline. That’s exactly what it is like in IT right now. Because it is so variable, it really means we’re not being as efficient as we can and we don’t have the agility we need to be able to deliver new services.
Senator Galvez: I want to continue the line of questioning of my colleague Senator Forest with respect to Jasper. You know that we have had fires this year in California, Spain, Greece and Brazil. The Amazon is burning right now. So the link with global warning is there. The science is very clear about that. And my question is — this Jasper fire is incredibly costly and we don’t know what will happen next year, but I’m wondering, apart from the prevention that you are now doing, if you are going to do reforestation, and then I am wondering if you have some modelling that you’re doing to tell you, more or less, when it’s going to happen with fire next year?
Mr. Francis: Just quickly, before I invite Andrew Campbell, Senior Vice-President of Operations, who knows a lot about Jasper and has been out there and working with — the science of forest fires is evolving quickly as the reality of forest fires is changing. The idea of forest fires creating their own weather system is only, I’m going to say, talking to the scientists, about 10 years old. Now we’re in a position — you would have seen the newspaper articles last week — where they’re verifying that the storm system created by the fire was so large, it might have spawned tornadoes. So modelling, forecasting, we’re in a whole new world on that point.
Andrew Campbell, Senior Vice-President, Operations, Parks Canada: On a couple of fronts — yes, on reforestation, there is reforestation in all of the national parks from two different perspectives. One, in Jasper we’re looking at new reforestation, so working with our friends over at Natural Resources Canada under the 2 Billion Trees initiative and other forestry partners, looking at how — what sort of resilient and more fire-resilient forests that can be created around, certainly, the town sites within national parks. As Mr. Francis had mentioned, we work through the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre for the modelling of —
Senator Galvez: So I agree that the regional assessment for this specific issue is developing very quickly, very fast.
Mr. Campbell: Absolutely.
Senator Galvez: Do you have an idea of why more forest fires are happening in Alberta or in the Prairies?
Mr. Campbell: Certainly I can talk specifically about the Jasper fire on that and certainly the year before, what we saw in Wood Buffalo National Park. We’ve never had drier years. We’ve never had hotter years. So the first time in the history of Jasper that there was a three-week period with no rain in the month of July was this past year, so there were temperatures over 30 degrees every day. There was no rain. The winds are coming at a stronger rate. The same thing happened the year before in Wood Buffalo National Park, where we had the largest forest fire ever in a national park. All of those types of conditions just continue to grow across the country.
Senator Galvez: So you have the budget for that, to — okay. Thank you. I want to continue with a question for Mr. Cameron.
This February, the test of wastewater discharged in the Ottawa River indicated toxicity to fish — lethal toxicity — there is this effluent that went from February to April being discharged into the Ottawa River, and it took so many months before something was done. Can you please tell me what was the analysis? Was it radionuclides? Was it bacteria? The toxicity was caused by what?
Mr. Cameron: Thank you, senator, for the question. I may start it, and I’ll ask my colleague Jeremy Latta to elaborate on the effluent issue, but I can reassure the committee that there were no radionuclides involved in that discharge. Mr. Latta, maybe you could respond to the senator’s question over the effluent issue earlier this year.
Jeremy Latta, Director, Communications and Government Reporting, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited: I’m Jeremy Latta, Director, Communications and Government Reporting at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. So your question is a good one, and it points to one of the things that we learned from analyzing how we responded, particularly in terms of communications, and that was actually being able to explain what is the effluent. It’s sewage. That’s what it is. And it was difficult to say that — or not difficult to say that, but I think we got turned in knots by saying, “It’s not radionuclides” that we weren’t clear about what it really was. It was sewage effluent from the plant. Effectively, the plant is a small town — Chalk River is a small town that has a sewage plant like any other town would. The biodigester — it is a micro-organism that effectively purifies the sewage — was disrupted, and therefore, the effluent that went into the river was untreated or improperly treated sewage.
Senator Galvez: So this created an issue — a legal issue with Indigenous people. Does it happen often that you have to distribute money, funds into legal expenses?
Mr. Cameron: Sorry, senator. Could you —
Senator Galvez: There was a legal suit related to this, and you are in —
Mr. Latta: Just to establish the timeline here, what happened in this instance was Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, did an inspection and found that it was a violation under the Fisheries Act, and they issued a compliance order which effectively said bring the sewage plant back into compliance with the Fisheries Act, which — under our oversight — Canadian Nuclear Laboratories did by both doing a survey to figure out what might have disrupted this biodigester — this micro-organism — and by working really hard to get it back healthy. I wouldn’t say — there weren’t legal expenses associated with that. It was more operational expenses to ensure that the plant was functioning correctly, and they’re currently doing an analysis and finishing an analysis to see if there are other things that they can do to prevent this from happening in the future.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: I have a few questions for the representative from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
It seems that, when it comes to what is known as the “graveyard”, or the most costly item under the polluter pays principle, nuclear power plant operators are paying a fee to cover the cost of waste disposal or storage. Can you tell us how much those fees are, who pays them and what the needs will be? I was reading that the nuclear entombment or nuclear graveyard project represents $23 billion. Will that be enough?
[English]
Mr. Cameron: Senator, that figure seems quite small. In terms of the polluter pays principle, maybe I will start with that one.
In terms of polluter pays, Mr. Chair, most of the waste that was generated that we are managing at the moment was generated by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited at the Chalk River site, at our Whiteshell Laboratories and at the other sites and locations that we operate. There is a project at Port Hope, which was not generated by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, but for which the federal government has asked AECL to look after. That’s the Port Hope Area Initiative.
In terms of polluter pays, there is a small amount of commercial waste that in the past has been brought into Chalk River. We are making sure that those entities that have generated the waste and if they are coming into Chalk River that they are paying for that waste appropriately.
[Translation]
The Chair: What is the plan for private companies? I saw that, in the United States, Amazon or Microsoft just bought nuclear power for its own use from plants owned by Constellation. What is the plan, here in Canada, for small modular reactors or reactors that would meet the needs of private businesses?
[English]
Mr. Cameron: Slightly beyond my remit, senator, on that front. I will say that when it comes to Canada’s overall nuclear waste framework in particular, there is modern legislation; there is a modern policy that Natural Resources Canada has put forward. That essentially has anyone that is generating spent fuel waste in particular contributing to a fund which would ultimately permit the nuclear waste management organization to build a facility for high-level waste. These projects that are being contemplated at the moment by IT companies that are speculating about small modular reactors, or SMRs, is a model that has yet to develop, senator. It is something that is currently in the news, as you note, but it is not something that has actually been brought to Canada yet.
[Translation]
The Chair: You haven’t started making more specific plans for this type of operation? Is it too far off?
[English]
Mr. Cameron: Very good question, senator. Of course, at the Chalk River site in particular, we have offered up that site for potential small modular reactors in a demonstration purpose. So we have a lot of research and development going on associated with that and one company that is proposing an SMR at Chalk River. But in terms of this particular model that you are asking, we do not have plans on that front, senator.
[Translation]
The Chair: My next question has to do with the sale of CANDU reactors. In 2011, when Canada sold the technology or maintenance to SNC-Lavalin, I believe the sale price was $15 billion and a royalty system was put in place. In the beginning there were not a lot of sales. However, I get the feeling that the nuclear market is picking up again. I see that SNC-Lavalin or the new company has obtained a number of contracts. Are we getting royalties or fee revenues from SNC-Lavalin’s operation of CANDU reactors? If so, how much are we getting?
[English]
Mr. Cameron: That’s a very good question, senator. I would have to look specifically at that. That’s slightly outside of the topic of the Main Estimates here. But what I would say, and I would repeat maybe what I was going to say earlier, that the Government of Canada still owns the intellectual property. So while you are correct that the sale of the CANDU division to SNC-Lavalin occurred in that time frame, the Government of Canada still retained the intellectual property rights to the CANDU reactor. Earlier this year, Atomic Energy of Canada and AtkinsRéalis — essentially the new SNC-Lavalin — have entered into a memorandum of understanding to update the terms and conditions for the relationship that exists between the Government of Canada and AtkinsRéalis on the CANDU front. But in terms of specific royalties, I may have to get back to you on that question, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: My question is for Parks Canada. In Main Estimates 2024-25, Parks Canada is seeking approximately $1.2 billion in spending authorities. This is a slight decrease from estimates to date for 2023-24, which sit just under $1.4 billion. I see that, according to your departmental plan, spending for 2025-26 is about $820 million, and then it drops even further to $655 million in 2026-27. That’s a significant drop in just a few years. Can you expand on how Parks Canada calculated these projections and where you will find these savings? What programs may be impacted? We do want to find savings. I’m interested in validating the factors that are contributing to this variance.
Mr. Francis: Thank you, chair, for the question. Inside the estimates cycle, Parks Canada is an agency that gets a lot of sunsetting money, which means we get funding for a period of a few years and then the funding falls off. That’s what you are seeing in those future reports. A good example is our capital. A lot of the capital we receive for investing across the country is received in B base. We have a land mass about six times the size of Nova Scotia that we look after. We have a lot of the Trans‑Canada Highway through a number of parks. We have assets related to visitor experience. We have a number of canals where we maintain the infrastructure. So we have to go back explaining our needs on the capital front where it gets renewed.
A big piece of the drop-off this fiscal year involves real property funding. There was a budget announcement in the spring that actually renewed capital funding for the next three years. So for instance, next year, we’ll be increasing the amount you read by almost $300 million towards capital. We also have large sunsetters in Enhanced Nature Legacy, which covers a number of programs, I’ll just say covering the environment from species at risk to dealing with inside national park reserves.
There are some decreases, for instance, Budget 2023 refocusing government spending, which all departments and agencies are having to manage and bring down their appropriations by and make decisions to find savings.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you. My next question is for Shared Services Canada. I would like to discuss Shared Services Canada’s relationship with artificial intelligence. AI has the potential to unlock many positive opportunities that can lead to greater productivity and improved service delivery to Canadians. However, it does come with risk. I know the department is exploring the application of various emerging technologies such as machine learning, robotic process automation and intelligent automation. Can you speak to us about the work you are doing in this area and what opportunities do you see for artificial intelligence at Shared Services Canada? What risks might you also have to mitigate as services to Canadians evolve?
Mr. Jones: Thank you for that question. It is clearly the topic on many of our minds right now. There are a few pieces. I would say the first piece, the base for us is the ethical use of artificial intelligence in the Government of Canada and the work that has been done by the Treasury Board Secretariat and my colleague the Chief Information Officer. That sets the framework to make sure that we are looking at it in the right context.
The opportunities are vast. I have mentioned a few examples — robotic process automation or machine learning. In my previous roles, for example, in cybersecurity, those tools have brought us incredible advances in terms of defensive technologies and reducing manual efforts, et cetera. Robotic process automation and Access to Information, as I mentioned, have given us on-time performance but also reduced the drudgery work that needs to be done, such as looking for duplicate documents.
We can also use it in discovery. If you ask me to go and look for something, I look in three places and give up. AI doesn’t lose patience. So there are areas where it is excellent.
What do we see in the future? There are a few aspects I would look at. Number one will be an almost co-pilot beside you to help you when you need to complete a task or ask a question. For example, I noted that our departmental plan has been read. I sometimes wondered if it is only the minister and I who read it, so it’s rewarding to hear questions come from it. But we fed the departmental plan and the results report into it and told it to compare the two. Did we do what we said we were going to do? Perhaps I’m giving techniques for future visits, but it is really telling.
It can do things that are hard to do for humans, so that co-pilot piece — and I do not mean “co-pilot” in the commercial use of the word but as a person sitting beside you to help you out. I think it can be used to reduce drudgery.
It will fundamentally change how we do things. For example, instead of maintaining inventory, how do we work with partners and do more predictive analytics? AI is very good at looking for trends. We can replace something before we have a technology failure. Are we seeing a trend in a particular vendor’s product that is less reliable than others? AI is good at that.
There are many aspects. It is also just coming built into the products we are buying. The first place was cybersecurity, but it is also in optimization. Those are some of the examples.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much. My next question is for Mr. Francis.
Can you tell us what is happening with regard to the national parks in Newfoundland? I’m particularly interested in the aspect of forest fire suppression. You only have so much money. How do you rank communities or parks with regard to any action that’s required?
Mr. Francis: My colleague Mr. Campbell will come up and respond to this question.
Mr. Campbell: Thank you, senator.
Regarding forest fires in Terra Nova and Gros Morne National Parks, every park across the country has a fire rating that is based upon all sorts of factors, such as deforestation, how dry or wet that region is, whether it is in a temperate zone, et cetera. In fact, the two parks in Newfoundland are — I could talk about Labrador as well — but the two parks in Newfoundland each have a very different fire rating. On the western side of the island, due to the moisture in Gros Morne, it has a very different fire rating than Terra Nova.
In Terra Nova National Park, we do have a full fire plan that’s done. Right now, we are renewing the fire rating and forest fire plan in Gros Morne because of the spruce budworms going through there. We are seeing whether that has an impact on the fire rating.
The main piece is moisture load within the forest and whether they have a different moisture rating. There is a team out there right now doing that analysis to look at what sort of fire plan we would need after the spruce budworms strip the trees.
Senator Marshall: Who is responsible for controlled burns or cutting trees? Is that Parks Canada or do you leave it up to the communities?
Mr. Campbell: Gros Morne is the one strange park within all of that because there are still wood lot rights within Gros Morne National Park. So there are some local individuals who have the right to go into the park and, from a wood lot perspective, take trees out.
It is a great question. We have anomalies in lots of places across the country but, generally, it would be Parks Canada that does the prescribed burns across the country. To get back to another senator’s question, we have increased that budget dramatically over the past 10 years for prescribed burns. Jasper was one of the first spots we started to do this mechanical removal.
We have a layered system for fire protection and suppression in each of our national parks.
Senator Marshall: So you do take into consideration the fact that both of those parks have surrounding communities very close to the actual park?
Mr. Campbell: Absolutely.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
Going back to Shared Services Canada, what’s the largest system development being undertaken now by the Government of Canada? Is it the benefits modernization? I thought there was one larger than that.
Mr. Jones: I would say it is probably benefits modernization. That’s certainly one we are paying significant attention to because of its scope and size. My retired father will not forgive me if it doesn’t succeed.
But the digital platform modernization at IRCC would be up there. The third program we are really watching is Next Gen HR and Pay.
Senator Marshall: Are you able to tell us what the current budget is for the Benefits Delivery Modernization program? It was at $2.5 billion.
Mr. Jones: I would have to refer that to my colleagues at Economic and Social Development Canada.
Senator Marshall: Okay, the same answer you gave us last year.
Mr. Jones: Yes, I’m sorry.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: My first question has to do with Forillon National Park, which is of particular concern to me because it is located at the eastern edge of my senatorial division. We know that the relationship between Parks Canada and the people of Gaspé was tumultuous at first. Forillon was the first national park in Quebec and it was created by expropriating land. That left deep scars on the community, and 225 families had to leave their homes
However, I would note that a sincere effort seems to have been made with the Association of Persons Expropriated from Forillon and their Descendants. The city acknowledged this effort by developing a pass program to give six generations access the park, by creating commemorative signs and by consulting the association. What is more, 13 members of the association and its founding president, Marie-Laure Rochefort, received the Parks Canada 2024 CEO Award of Excellence in recognition of their collaboration. I wanted to point out these efforts to build bridges and commend you for them, but I would also like to know whether such efforts are also being made in other parks where the creation of the park left scars within the community.
Mr. Campbell: Thank you senator. Obviously, there are other parks across the country. I would like to begin by talking about the Indigenous people who were expropriated. They are likely the ones who were most often expropriated from land for national parks. In that regard, we have programs that promote the co-management of many parks across the country. That is how we usually work with Indigenous people who were expropriated.
However, in other cases, like the Kouchibouguac National Park, the expropriated groups were Acadian. We are in the process of doing almost the same thing that we did in Forillion, and the Forillion association is guiding the people who were expropriated from that area on how to establish a relationship with Parks Canada. That is a program that exists there and in Cape Breton, where people were also expropriated. That is something that happened in many parks across the country, but as I said, the majority of people who were expropriated were Indigenous.
Senator Forest: Thank you. It is nice to see people from out east paving the way for collaboration in Canada.
Mr. Jones, I would like to talk to you about outsourcing. You use external consultants to provide specialized expertise in many of your projects with a definite end date. Outsourcing is important in your area. Every year, Shared Services Canada is given $2.5 billion. However, the government decided to cut its use of subcontractors. Have your activities been affected by this decision? What percentage of your $2.5-billion budget is devoted to outsourcing or subcontracting?
Mr. Jones: Thank you for the question. In general, contractors are paid with money allocated to operations and maintenance. To be honest, we have responded to the government’s request to reduce our spending on subcontracting to expedite our plan, which involves focusing on employees of Shared Services Canada. The only problem with consultants is that they are not equally distributed across the country. Shared Services Canada is required to support government agencies no matter where they are, for example, border services offices, RCMP offices and so on. It is really complicated. We use subcontractors for tasks such as if we need to increase our team numbers to install Wi-Fi in these buildings. The challenge is to reduce the use of subcontractors when public servants can do the work. I would rather use subcontractors for older, outdated systems and public servants for new and emerging technologies.
Senator Forest: You can send this information in writing, but do you have any idea what proportion of the work is subcontracted out?
Senator Gignac: My question is for Parks Canada, and perhaps Mr. Campbell would also like to weigh in. It is a follow up to the question asked by Senator Galvez. According to NASA, in 2023, our wildfire greenhouse gas emissions were four times higher than our fossil fuel emissions. In fact, only three countries produced more emissions than us: the United States, China and India.
When Mr. Campbell answered Senator Galvez’s question, I felt like I wanted to hear more about this. We know that the frequency and intensity of forest fires will increase with climate change, so what is the plan? Will we have our own fleet of Canadair jets or more drones? I am trying to understand what the plan is because, as we know, unfortunately, forest fires are only going to get worse. I am curious to know how Parks Canada will be proactive in countering this phenomenon.
Mr. Campbell: As I already mentioned, with climate change and the intensity of forest fires, we need different strategies to protect our forests, but also the cities and towns located near forests. Natural Resources Canada is our real partner in doing that through its FireSmart program, which is designed to protect cities and towns located near big forests across the country.
We also need to use more technology and systems to monitor the forests in terms of humidity and vegetation levels. With all that data, we were able to change the model that is used across the county to predict the intensity of forest fires and other factors. That has really changed how we fight forest fires.
Senator Gignac: My question is not meant to be a reproach but I am just trying to brainstorm here. If I understand correctly, we are talking about larger buffer zones for cities and towns. If I’m not mistaken, the provinces are the ones that have water bombers, not Parks Canada.
Mr. Campbell: No.
Senator Gignac: At the same time, you are working across the country. I was under the impression that, from the outset, in Jasper, there were problems with the availability of water bombers and helicopters and that you were not the one making these decisions. Did that experience make you think and start to question certain things? At the very least, have you sat down with the provinces? There are several elements at play in the fight against climate change. There is also climate change adaptation. In terms of equipment, are you thinking about a capital investment plan for Parks Canada?
Mr. Campbell: The equipment generally comes from three groups and everything is coordinated by the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre. One of the three deals with subcontractors. Many of these subcontractors have contracts, particularly when it comes to helicopters and other aircraft. The second is provincial and is coordinated by the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre, or CIFFC. The third group is the Canadian Armed Forces.
With regard to the forest fires in Jasper, we have all the equipment that we need. There has been excellent collaboration with the Government of Alberta and the Canadian Armed Force to ensure that we have the equipment that we need.
[English]
Senator Smith: Mr. Francis, I will stick with you guys.
One important risk that identified in your departmental plan relates to Parks Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples in the context of the evolving jurisprudence. Can you comment on Canada’s commitment to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, and how does this evolving jurisprudence of the UNDRIP Act impact your organization’s work with Indigenous people?
Mr. Campbell: We have six measures that we are taking out of the UNDRIP action plan as Parks Canada. Certainly, those we are moving forward with —
Senator Smith: Can you give us an example of a couple?
Mr. Campbell: Yes. Co-management would be one of them.
Senator Smith: What does co-management mean?
Mr. Campbell: That would be together with Indigenous nations and communities across the country.
Senator Smith: Could you give us an example? Sorry to rapid-fire you.
Mr. Campbell: No, it’s all good.
With the Haida Nation, for example, we have a joint management of Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve. Within that, we have a council of the Government of Canada and the Haida Nation that determines what management actions we take within that park.
Senator Smith: How is that working out?
Mr. Campbell: It is working out excellent.
Senator Smith: What are the highlights of the relationship? What are the strongest and weakest points of the relationship?
Mr. Campbell: The community development perspective on their side, and economic development, would certainly be one. Our ability to manage the forest with both Western knowledge and traditional knowledge would be another strong point.
Probably the weakest point within that relationship is just that the Haida government and our government change. When those things happen, readjusting people’s priorities is probably the most difficult.
Senator Smith: Do you have a measurement system to measure the relationship? If so, could you give us an example of one or two of them?
Mr. Campbell: Yes, we do.
I’ll use another one. In Torngat Mountains National Park, which is co-managed with the Nunatsiavut Government, we have a co-written management plan and co-written monitoring plan. Again, both of those are public documents online, and you can see the benefits of that.
One of the big benefits is then looking at Indigenous protected conservation areas and us working with the Nunatsiavut Government now to look at a national marine conservation area right off the coast of Labrador, which would take into consideration Torngat and how far that goes. Again, it is great to use both traditional and Western knowledge.
Senator Smith: What are the anticipated challenges in advancing Indigenous co-management and stewardship agreements? How does Parks Canada plan to address them? How will Parks Canada ensure that Indigenous perspectives are respected and integrated into the establishment and the presentation of heritage sites? If you have no time, you can send us a one-pager if you want.
Mr. Campbell: There is a risk of announcing something that the government will soon announce, which I won’t do, but we have been working with an Indigenous stewardship council now for a few years in working toward an Indigenous stewardship policy, which we will be happy to share when it is fully announced and celebrated.
Senator Smith: When do you anticipate it being completed?
Mr. Campbell: In the near future.
Senator Smith: “In the near future.” That’s a hell of an answer.
Senator Galvez: Mr. Cameron, I am a little bit confused. The Near Surface Disposal Facility is expected to take three years of construction at a cost of $475 million. You will also have some operating, surveillance and monitoring costs.
Have you run a risk analysis of the project, which is going to be just one kilometre away from the Ottawa River? How does it compare with what you are doing right now with your nuclear waste — what it is — and the cost?
Mr. Cameron: Absolutely, senator. Thanks for the question.
There has been an extensive analysis of that project, and that was all laid before a public hearing of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission over five days. Six years’ worth of analysis was brought to that public hearing a few years ago. So the analysis has been done on that front.
Today is the 100th birthday of former President Carter. You might know the story behind President Carter visiting Chalk River in the early 1950s to help out with the accidents that took place there.
The connection that I draw to Jimmy Carter’s presence, his birthday and that site is that Chalk River, I would argue, is the most analyzed site in this country. So when we make statements on the record that the Ottawa River will be protected, it’s protected because of the 70 years of science that tells us what will happen on that site — the engineered barrier that will be built in order to protect the low-level waste that is ultimately installed there.
What’s happening right now is temporary storage on site. Essentially, as buildings are taken down or as waste is imported, particularly from Manitoba, they’re essentially stored in sea cans that you would see on trucks or on rails. That sea can yard is growing at Chalk River. It’s being monitored. The waste is surveilled while we await, ultimately, to pass through the judicial reviews.
Senator Galvez: What is the volume that you are right now storing?
Mr. Cameron: I would have to get back to you in terms of the volume of waste that is currently being stored, but the amount itself will ultimately hold 1.1 million cubic metres of low-level waste, 90% of which will be generated at the Chalk River site. A small percentage will come from Manitoba, and a very small percentage on top of that will come from universities and hospitals for which there is no other location in the country at the moment but Chalk River.
Senator Loffreda: My question is for Shared Services Canada.
The public service is under increased pressure to reduce spending and find savings opportunities across all departments and agencies. We all know that the size of the public service has increased considerably in the last 10 years. Our Parliamentary Budget Officer has written about that as recently as last April.
I noted in your departmental plan that the workforce at SSC increased from 7,955 in 2021-22 to a forecasted 9,356 in 2023-24. That’s about 1,400 new full-time equivalents, or FTEs, in two years. I see the department hopes to reduce the size of its workforce by approximately 350 FTEs by 2026-27 down to 9,011.
I have a number of questions. How did the department determine that number, and what positions might be eliminated? Is the reduction in FTEs attributed to retirement only? Can you speak to us about the needs of your department that justified 1,400 new positions over two years? Where have most of those jobs gone?
Mr. Jones: Thank you for the question.
SSC was created extremely lean to try and encourage savings, which is a laudable goal. However, one of the challenges we had was that it was too lean, so it wasn’t able to advance its modernization agenda. It was basically in a position for the first four or five years where it was only fixing something when it broke. That requires a certain amount of workforce. Granted, that’s very active monitoring.
As we’ve grown and as investments have come in for us to modernize — for example, we had the IT Replacement and Refresh project, ITRR — we hired people on to start modernizing the underlying infrastructure. Some of those people would be in our network infrastructure. With our network hubs, there used to only be two and only located in Ottawa, but because of the public service and how things are working, there are now five spread across the country — six, if you include the way we connect to the cloud. That adds resiliency and performance across the country. That would be an example of where the growing has happened.
The other place is as the work environments have gotten more complex. So about 4,000 I mentioned in my opening remarks — we have about 4,000 locations that Shared Services Canada provides core IT services to. That would be the local area network, Wi-Fi, in some cases conference facilities, video conferencing. That’s another area where it’s grown.
The third area where we grew was as the government invested in the enterprise service model. So functions that were previously done by departments consolidated into SSC even further. An example of that is mobile phones. For the 43 departments, we run all the mobile phone service. We buy the device and we issue it to people, and we take care of all the management steps for it now, including reissuing, recycling, disposals, everything. So some people came with that.
Those would be some examples of where we grew and where the people went, but spread across the country is the kind of geographical description.
Where will the reductions happen? Some of these are a result of sunsetting funds or projects completing that won’t require us to have the people working on the legacy environments, and so a lot of the attrition right now is primarily through retirement.
We have seen a significant decrease in our attrition rate this year, which means it’s getting harder to meet the reductions. We have seen more people staying in position, which on one hand is great. It means we have less turnover and less training. On the other hand, it makes these types of activities harder.
Where are we looking to shift people from? In a lot of cases, it won’t be eliminating the people, but the job will change, and we’ll be looking to retrain. For example, I mentioned earlier fixed lines. We have people who move the lines from desk to desk in buildings. We want to make sure that — I have plenty of work in the regions. They’re almost always located outside of the National Capital Region, although this is my biggest region to support, but there are other things we need to do. We have lab facilities that we support where we need people who can provide broader IT services on that. So we’re looking at more retraining, but between retirement, et cetera, we expect that to cover. We don’t expect to have to do anything more drastic.
Senator Loffreda: You were saying you were too lean. How did that impact results and justify the increase, per se? When the increase did occur, do we see an improvement in results? What improvement have we seen on the investment?
Mr. Jones: Some of the improvements we’ve seen is the base infrastructure of the government is much more modern and stable. We’re less driven by replacements as things break, and we are more proactively maintaining the infrastructure layer. That translates directly into services to other government departments and then ultimately to Canadians in terms of stability.
Many of the modernization projects accelerated. COVID was a forcing factor. For example, moving away from legacy email systems to more modern Microsoft Office 365, et cetera. COVID helped us force that, but that has certainly put the government in a better position for the tooling that we need for the modern environment.
Where we need to continue to build on, though, is — there still are elements of that legacy environment that have been retained. We need to do that. We need to continue to consolidate our data centres. We have closed hundreds of data centres. We’re down to about the last 220 of 700 or so that we inherited. And I say “or so” because the number changes every once in a while as we find something. We’re down to about 250 or so left to go, but they’re probably the most complex. They hold the hardest applications to move, the hardest systems to move. So this year we project closing 22 whereas last year we closed over 50.
There are things like that where we’ve certainly seen impact. We’ve seen an improvement, but there is still a long way to go. I’m not going to pretend that it’s all green grass and sunshine.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
Senator Ross: My question is for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and for Mr. Cameron. In New Brunswick, NB Power and the government are actively pursuing SMR technology and opportunities. Can you give me a sense of AECL’s role in this opportunity for New Brunswick? Secondly, you’ve talked a lot about other regions and areas. I wonder if you can give me a sense of where New Brunswick is in this equation. And, third, it’s my understanding that NB Power has an application in place for Point Lepreau for site prep, environmental impact assessment, and it’s with Arc Clean Technology. Can you comment on that project?
Mr. Cameron: Senator, I’m not aware of specific arrangements between AECL and NB Power in regard to their applications for SMRs at Point Lepreau. I will say that what we strive to do at AECL through Canadian Nuclear Laboratories and in part through our Federal Nuclear Science and Technology Work Plan or through commercial work that we would do with utilities is to ensure that the lab infrastructure that we have at Chalk River is there to support utilities as they proceed through their SMR programs.
You can imagine that the backbone of Canada’s national lab has been the CANDU reactor technology, and it is very well‑known, but the investments that we’re making in terms of the science and technology programs that we’re putting in place for the future is to ensure that companies like NB Power — as they work with ARC to develop unique, advanced small modular reactors with different fuels and different technologies than we’re used to — can call on Chalk River to be ready as they go through those application processes. So it’s more in terms of making sure that the investments that we’re making in the infrastructure and the laboratories and in particular that Advanced Nuclear Material Research Centre.
Recall, as I said earlier, much of the lab infrastructure at Chalk River does date to the 1950s and 1960s, and we’re dealing with hot cell facilities that need to be replaced. As companies like NB Power, Ontario Power Generation here or SaskPower in Saskatchewan look at those different SMRs, they’re going to need a national lab and those hot cell facilities as well as those fuel facilities to be there as they’re working through those applications going forward.
I’m not aware of any commercial arrangements that exist between either AECL or CNL with NB Power or ARC.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you. I would like to continue with Mr. Cameron. Is the giant repository project still on the back burner? If so, you said that $23 billion was a number that seemed rather low. How much do you think such a project would cost today?
[English]
Mr. Cameron: Just a question of clarification. Are you referring to the Near Surface Disposal Facility at Chalk River?
[Translation]
The Chair: It was an article that I read that talked about a large nuclear waste repository where all nuclear waste would be stored.
[English]
Mr. Cameron: Okay. Now I understand. That is a different project, senator. I think that the project to which you’re referring, of course, is one that is run by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization. Of course. It is and will be the ultimate repository for all of Canada’s spent, used nuclear fuel. Sorry. I had heard “million,” and you’re referring to $23 billion. Yes, that is a project that is being run by a different organization, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, and I would leave them to attest to their numbers.
What I would say, from an AECL perspective, is we do contribute a very modest amount to that project because we do have spent nuclear fuel that will ultimately end up in that location once it’s developed in a few decades from now.
[Translation]
The Chair: Great. I have a question for Shared Services Canada. I see that you have an expo on October 24 for public servants. Do you have a hard time making the public service aware of your services? Does that undermine the implementation of certain technologies and the advancement of the public service? I was surprised that you had to hold an expo just for public servants to make them aware of your services.
Mr. Jones: Thank you for the question. Indeed, most public servants think that Shared Services Canada is only useful in their private lives and prefer to forget the role we play.
I want to change the understanding of our organization, because our team is always thinking in terms of innovation and system modernization, and it also wants to support our clients.
The public service often tends to stay in the past when it comes to technology, and generally speaking, it believes that technology will be replaced with a similar vision of technology. I believe there’s often a better solution to solve the problem.
[English]
What we are trying to do with the Innovation Fair is number one show people that, no, SSC is thinking about the future and we are building now. We want them to see possibilities and change their approach. Look at what we’re able to do and see if we can deliver it differently.
A good example is our use of low Earth orbit satellites. Right now, a lot of organizations are saying, “Well you need to get fibre-optic cable deployed to my isolated site.” That’s almost impossible in certain parts of the country. It is not commercially viable. Low Earth orbit satellites is the way to do this and here is how we do it in a way that gives you redundancy, not just dependence on one or another, we have multiple contracts, et cetera.
Another one would be in the context of forest fires. People forget that we actually support the RCMP. The RCMP does not leave until they absolutely have no more choice. They will be there. So we have to provide them with communications after the cellphone towers have burnt down, after the fibre-optic cable has melted in a forest fire, we make sure that there is a communications pack there. My team has developed a thing that they can fly in, connect to whatever is available; it’s really cool. But they probably wouldn’t know about it because it’s being done in the bowels of our organization.
That’s why we’re doing this. It’s to let other departments see what we’re able to do so at SSC and let people see what is happening in their own organization. One of my biggest challenges is my people are located in 263 federal facilities across the country, and that’s not just the ones they support as they drive around a lot. In Ottawa alone, I have people in 43 government buildings because we never consolidated. There is no SSC headquarters, so there is no place for our people to see each other. The networking team will be here and then the digital service team doesn’t necessarily see what’s happening. That’s part of why we’re doing it as well. If you would like to come, we would be happy to show some of the innovation we have.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you. I noticed that people could sign up on the spot.
Are there any other questions? If not, I believe we’ve gone around the table.
This concludes today’s meeting. I want to remind those who have committed to provide documents or more detailed answers to please do so before October 15, if possible.
Before we adjourn, I remind senators that our next meeting is scheduled tomorrow, October 2, at 6:45 p.m. We will be continuing our study of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025.
I want to thank everyone, our support staff and our new clerk, who just completed her first meeting. Thank you, and we’ll see you tomorrow.
(The committee adjourned.)