THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 27, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met with videoconference this day at 6:45 p.m. [ET] to study Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025.
Senator Claude Carignan (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good evening, 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. Please make sure to 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 the viewers across the country who are watching us on sencanada.ca. My name is Claude Carignan, Senator from Quebec, 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: Good evening and welcome. Éric Forest, Golfe senatorial division, Quebec.
Senator Oudar: Hello. Manuelle Oudar from Quebec, La Salle senatorial division.
Senator Dalphond: Hello. Pierre J. Dalphond, De Lorimier senatorial division, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ross: Krista Ross, New Brunswick.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Quebec.
[Translation]
The Chair: Today, we resume our study on the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, which was referred to this committee on November 20, 2024, by the Senate of Canada.
We are pleased to have senior officials from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat here. With that, we welcome Antoine Brunelle-Côté, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector; Karine Paré, Executive Director, Expenditure Management Sector; Karen Cahill, Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer; Simon Crabtree, Executive Director, Employee Relations and Total Compensation Sector; and Stephen Burt, Chief Data Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Performance Sector, Office of the Chief Information Officer. Impressive title, impressive job. Thank you.
We will now hear opening remarks from Mr. Brunelle-Côté. Afterwards, the senators will have questions for you.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté, you have the floor.
Antoine Brunelle-Côté, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Good evening and thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I would like to recognize that we are gathered on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
As the chair mentioned, I am joined today by my colleagues Karen Cahill, Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer; Stephen Burt, Chief Data Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Performance Sector, Karine Paré, Executive Director, Expenditure Management Sector; and Simon Crabtree, Executive Director, Employee Relations and Total Compensation Sector.
As you know, on November 18, the government tabled the Supplementary Estimates (B) for 2024-2025, the second of three supplementary estimates planned for fiscal year 2024-2025.
The supplementary estimates contain information about needs related to spending that was either not sufficiently developed in time to be included in the Main Estimates or is being adjusted to account for unforeseen developments in some programs and services.
[English]
The 2024-25 Supplementary Estimates (B) present a total of $24.8 billion in incremental budgetary spending, which reflects $21.6 billion to be approved by Parliament and a $3.2 billion increase in forecast statutory expenditures. The spending is spread across 79 organizations.
Historically, the fall supplementary estimates are the largest both in terms of the number of organizations as well as the total dollar amount. By this point in the fiscal year, many departments have had the opportunity to present detailed implementation plans to the Treasury Board relating to spending announced in the federal budget.
Of the planned spending in Supplementary Estimates (B), approximately $6.4 billion relates to funding announced in Budget 2024. The largest dollar amounts connected to Budget 2024 measures are for Indigenous Services Canada and National Defence.
The Department of Indigenous Services has a number of Budget 2024 items, of which the largest are: $562.5 million for the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program, $311.4 million for mental wellness and substance use treatment services, $274.7 million for First Nations elementary and secondary education and $257 million for infrastructure projects in Indigenous communities.
The Department of National Defence has a pair of large Budget 2024 items: Military aid to Ukraine of $319.7 million and $299.2 million for the sustainment of the Halifax-class frigates.
In total, estimates to date have included roughly $8 billion of proposed Budget 2024 funding to be approved through appropriation bills. Of course, appropriation bills are not the only path to approval. Statutory expenditures are approved through other legislation. For example, the extension of the increase for Canada student grants and loans was authorized through changes to the regulations for those programs.
In addition to the funding announced in Budget 2024, you will find top-ups to many continuing programs in Supplementary Estimates (B). Some of the largest amounts include: $955.2 million for the First Nations Child and Family Services Program; $942.5 million for benefits and services to veterans and their families; $800 million of financial assistance to provincial and territorial governments through the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements; and $725 million for supports and services under Jordan’s Principle.
As employer for the core public service, there are also two major personnel-related items showing under the Treasury Board Secretariat in these estimates. There is $971 million in transfers to departments and agencies for negotiated salary adjustments and $643.6 million for group insurance plans for the public service, including health and dental benefits.
[Translation]
Regarding the statutory spending presented in the Supplementary Estimates (B), the increase of $3.2 billion is largely related to the Canada Carbon Rebate, including $2.6 billion for small businesses and $307 million for individuals. I would also like to draw your attention to an increase in the planned non-budgetary expenditures related to the following initiatives: $400 million in financial aid to Ukraine and $276 million in investments to the World Bank to help developing countries and advance the United Nations’ sustainable development objectives.
Mr. Chair, that concludes my opening remarks. I thank the committee for inviting us here today. We are available to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Forest: Thank you for your remarks. You are providing for $971 million for salary adjustment and $186 million for insurance adjustment. Nothing is moving through the House of Commons right now. Does that mean that if we don’t adopt the Supplementary Estimates (B), some departments would run into trouble? Do the estimates provide for contingency in that regard?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: That’s an excellent question. As a rule, most departments will have no trouble because most of their budget was allocated in the Main Estimates. They have already received the major portion of their annual budget. Since it’s only December, in theory they still have contingency and flexibility until the end of the fiscal year.
That said, it’s true that some departments could face pressure if some of their items are included in the Supplementary Estimates (B). Some departments could be more at risk. It’s case by case, but as a rule, the departments that receive a lot a money for wage settlements, as you mentioned, or ones that have a lot of programs focussed on one particular area might be more at risk.
In those cases, the departments need to manage on a case-by-case basis. There are methods to keep them from being caught short. They can delay some projects or do risk management. The Treasury Board has a $1 billion contingency fund, called contingency vote 5, for such cases. Lines of credit could be extended to the departments that need emergency funds. It would have to be evaluated case by case.
Senator Forest: In the Main Estimates, there is a $1 billion contingency fund. There is approximately $1.6 billion for insurance costs and adjustments, but we are not able to evaluate that because negotiations were underway when the Main Estimates were prepared. There is a continency fund, but it doesn’t necessarily take into account settlement scenarios.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: The contingency fund is annual. As you will remember, when I testified here in June about the supplementary estimates, the $750 million contingency fund had just been increased to $1 billion. The contingency fund has not been adjusted because the political situation is more volatile.
Senator Forest: That helps tide them over between the end of negotiations and the time the necessary credits are obtained.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Yes. The $1 billion remains a contingency fund. As you mentioned, there are $21.6 billion in expenditures in the supplementary estimates. The contingency fund is at $1 billion.
Senator Forest: It’s relatively modest.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: It’s relatively modest. The departments will need to be smart and cautious in the way they manage until Supplementary Estimates (B) is adopted.
Senator Forest: I gather that since the fall, you’ve been conducting tests with the new Dayforce system, which will replace the current Phoenix pay system. It will also replace the human resource management system in various departments.
The committee spent a great deal of time on Phoenix, and we are still concerned about it. Could you give us an update on the tests? I feel that there was a serious shortage of tests before the Phoenix application was launched. Do you take into account all the factors, references, ponderables and imponderables that could affect our pay system?
Karen Cahill, Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you for your question. First of all, there is funding in Supplementary Estimates (B) for Phoenix and the human resources system. However, that’s to support the Treasury Board Secretariat under the chief human resources officer as a business owner, so to speak. We would definitely like to adopt an enterprise approach rather than not a silo approach for the strategy for implementing a new pay system and a new human resources system. The approach has four pillars: payroll, human resources, data and management. The Treasury Board Secretariat will be able to use a new pay system that could potentially replace Phoenix.
I will refer you to my colleagues from Public Services and Procurement Canada, or PSPC, for your questions on the progress of the ongoing tests.
Senator Forest: I find that a little overambitious. As they say, it might be biting off more than you can chew.
The pay system that has caused us a lot of headaches will be replaced by a system that not only handles payroll, but also human resources and management. It will perform four functions. Are you not concerned it’s a little ambitious?
Ms. Cahill: As I said, our colleagues at PSPC are the ones doing the tests and handling payroll management. I don’t have that information, senator.
[English]
Senator Smith: I would like to look into the issue of delayed tabling of public accounts. Who should I talk to on that particular issue?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: I guess I would be the one.
Senator Smith: The Parliamentary Budget Officer continues to raise concerns about the delayed public accounts. A large portion of these estimates includes Indigenous spending as well as spending on personnel.
As the Public Accounts of Canada have not yet been tabled, there has been no complete audit of what has been spent and what has been lapsed in the last fiscal year.
Can you see why this is a major concern for us? What specific guidance does the Treasury Board Secretariat provide to departments to justify their supplementary funding requests in the absence of public accounts?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Thank you for the question. I was expecting this one. It’s a good question.
As you know, the production of the Public Accounts of Canada is a complex endeavour. It requires a lot of work to ensure the accuracy and that people are fluent in accounting standards et cetera.
The Comptroller General, with their partners, is working hard to produce the public accounts for this year. It is my understanding that the public accounts have been transmitted to the Auditor General for review.
As was pointed out during Mr. Giroux’s presentation yesterday, under the Financial Administration Act, the government has until the end of the calendar year to produce the public accounts, so by December 31. The government is committed to preparing the public accounts by that date.
That said, I fully recognize the importance of transparency and I fully recognize that without the public accounts, some decisions — in an ideal world, it would be better to have full information. We fully recognize that.
Senator Smith: If you had a three-step plan to try to get this situation back to a more acceptable level, what would those three steps be?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Three steps?
Senator Smith: It depends if there are three. I’m just wondering out loud whether there is a plan in place, and, if so, is it in a position that can be understood easily for people like ourselves so that we could be better informed?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: The government has committed, in a response to the public accounts committee, to producing the public accounts in the future by 2025 for October 2015 as of next year. That will be a positive step. This is more or less aligned with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
But the situation this year is somewhat unusual in terms of the late tabling. We recognize that.
Senator Smith: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: I’d like to add something. From what I understand, you have discussions with the Auditor General. You have sent different versions to the Auditor General and seem to be having discussions with her, but when will the final report be sent to the Auditor General?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: My understanding is that the Auditor General has received a report and we’re waiting for her final word. The government is promising to table the report under the legislation by December 31.
The Chair: What you sent was the final report. You finished your work and sent the final report to the Auditor General as you would like it presented?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Discussions between the Auditor General and the Comptroller General are confidential. I have no information about them.
The Chair: You can’t confirm that the final version of the aggregate statement report, which needs to be published under the legislation, was sent to the Auditor General. When do you plan to send it?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: I’ll check. I think it’s the final version, but I’ll have to check that.
The Chair: I hope you’ll be able to let us know soon, because we can’t wait until the end of December.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: I promise.
[English]
Senator Smith: I would like to look at the issue of incomplete progress on program performance indicators. The Treasury Board Secretariat has a target of 90% of government programs having performance indicators by 2024-25. But progress made in this regard has been incremental, standing at 87% in 2022-23. What systemic barriers are preventing the remaining programs from adopting performance indicators? How is the Treasury Board Secretariat addressing these challenges?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: That’s also a very good question. You are right. The goal is to have 90% of the programs with results measurements. We are at 87%, so we are falling short. Treasury Board has the centre for performance and results measurements. We are in discussion with departments constantly to ensure that they have results. When there is a Treasury Board submission asking for money, we ensure there is a results section in there so that the departments commit to measuring and tracking results. That’s our main tool.
We also have a policy on results that guides us, and we are currently reviewing our policy on results to ensure that departments measure results for their own programs.
Senator Smith: With those departments lagging behind in implementing performance indicators — if so — what targeted support or accountability mechanisms are in place to deal with this issue? Is there a specific plan in place to get those folks up to the acceptable level?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: It is the responsibility of the deputy heads to ensure they try to hit their own targets. They set the targets. We help them to set the targets, but it is the responsibility of the deputy head. The deputy heads are accountable to ensure that they meet the targets.
Also, when we publish the Departmental Results Report at the end of the year, the results are public, so it is for bodies like yours to put pressure on organizations and for Canadians to put pressure.
Senator Smith: Do you have a sense that you are going in the right direction?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: At 87%, there is still work to do. There is always room for improvement; we recognize that. But departments, more and more, are having meaningful targets. Because they are in charge of their own targets, there is always the danger that people will put in place targets that are easy to achieve. But it is not the case. We challenge them to make sure they are measurable targets, and they have the data. They don’t change their targets every year. In the past, a lot of departments were regularly changing their targets. Now we have a system in place where we review the targets. They cannot change their targets every year. That same target is there for at least three years so we can track progress. That’s the type of work we are doing to ensure that Canadians get value for the dollars that are spent.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
My first question is about immigration and citizenship. You mentioned that in your opening remarks. A supplementary estimate of $1.2 billion is proposed, half of which essentially goes to funding for asylum seekers in Quebec, or close to $600 million. Is that an agreement that was just reached before the Main Estimates were tabled?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: If that’s in the supplementary estimates, it’s accurate. We didn’t have that information when we drafted the Main Estimates.
Senator Dalphond: Therefore, $600 million was released in the few months between the Main Estimates and the Supplementary Estimates?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Yes.
Senator Dalphond: Does the $232 million go to funding temporary health programs related to asylum seekers? When the Main Estimates were drafted, no one knew that the amounts needed to be paid?
Karine Paré, Executive Director, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasure Board of Canada Secretariat: We often have to adjust the envelopes for health programs. That’s why it wasn’t in the Main Estimates. They have a budget that is included in the Main Estimates. We had to increase the budget related to those expenditures. That’s why it’s in the Supplementary Estimates (B).
Senator Dalphond: The envelope was increased because there are more refugees than expected?
Ms. Paré: I presume. The department could confirm that for you.
Senator Dalphond: I understand.
Ms. Paré: However, it should be related to demand.
Senator Dalphond: I will also talk about the Department of National Defence. I understand that they, and not you, make the supplementary estimates requests. However, you review them and include them in your overall demand.
For example, there is $300 million to fund a supply ship. There is another $300 million for frigates. Did the Department of National Defence decide to renovate the frigates since the budget? Is that the kind of thing that the Army plans years in advance? Why is that in the Supplementary Estimates (B)? Were you given an explanation for that?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: These are major capital expenditures. There is a bit of uncertainty. In the case of the frigates, they rolled the funds over from one year to the next. I don’t have the figures with me today. They had the funds for other years and rolled them over to other years. That’s what’s in the Supplementary Estimates (B).
Ms. Paré: The frigate is an item in the budget. It wasn’t quite fully ready for the employees. They don’t always have time to present their implementation plan. However, they have items that are complex projects, including the two you mentioned. They sometimes have to realign the funding as the project evolves. At this point, the funds are realigned. That’s why they’re presented in the supplementary estimates.
Senator Dalphond: Since the Treasury Board’s role is to monitor public finances, do you ever wonder what’s going on when a department requests $300 million for a project that has already been ongoing for a year or two? Do you wonder how it’s possible that their forecasts were $300 million under cost?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: That’s basically the role of the Treasury Board. That’s what we do every week. Each of the proposals you see in the Supplementary Estimates (B) is sent to the Treasury Board. The ministers have a discussion. Before the discussion with the ministers, the Treasury Board Secretariat obviously asks questions to make sure the ministers have all the information they need to make soundest decisions.
Senator Dalphond: How is it possible that it wasn’t included in the Main Estimates? You say it’s unfortunate that it wasn’t included, but you will include it because it seems reasonable to say that they need $300 million more? Do you lecture them a bit? Ask them to be more rigorous in their planning?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: It depends. There are different types of initiatives. For budget-related initiatives—
Senator Dalphond: They’re long-term.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: However, they’re budget-related initiatives. As you know, the Main Estimates were finalized before the budget this year. That’s why it was announced in the budget. That’s why it wasn’t in the Main Estimates, in this specific case.
Senator Dalphond: For example, the supply ship doesn’t have “budget” written next to it. It’s still $300 million. The ship exists, which isn’t specifically in the budget. It isn’t an item with “budget” written next to it.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: It was a financial decision that was made off-cycle, and therefore off-budget. That’s the kind of question that is asked or should be asked. I don’t have any information about that item in particular. The decision was made outside the budget cycle. Therefore, it was made off-budget.
Senator Dalphond: Off-budget means that it wasn’t foreseen during the initial budget request, then suddenly they say they need to renovate?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: No. It was a decision that was made. Budgetary decisions are usually made either within the budget or in the Fall Economic Statement. The decision was made between the two, hence off-cycle.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
Senator Oudar: I’ll continue in the same vein as my colleagues Senator Smith and Senator Dalphond. I’ll come back to the role of the Treasury Board. I did my homework before coming here. I’m subbing for Senator MacAdam today.
On your website, I read up on the Treasury Board’s role. I’m very familiar with the role of the provincial Treasury Board. I’m a little surprised to hear your answer to Senator Smith’s question. According to your website, the Treasury Board has four main priorities: government spending oversight, administrative leadership, the employer’s role and regulatory oversight.
Regarding your administrative leadership role, it says the Treasury Board has to guide government-wide initiatives, then establish the federal administration’s strategic directions. It needs to ensure that spending oversight is efficient, effective and contributes to government priorities. I could clearly see the leadership role you play with the departments and organizations to challenge and question spending and redirect some things. I hope you’ll reassure me.
Thank you for publishing not only your targets, but also your indicators. For one of those indicators, the government has good financial and asset management practices. The target was 100%. That’s wonderful. You’re about to publish your results. I only have the 2022-23 numbers, which show 65%. That means 35% of the targets were not achieved, which suggests that, in 35% of cases, the government doesn’t have good financial and asset management practices.
I’d like you to comment on Treasury Board’s role in correctly orienting departments and agencies and challenging and questioning them. As you said earlier, this is all being done for Canadians’ benefit. And yours, I’m sure. I’ll let you speak to that.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: That’s the challenge we’re dealing with. As you said, that’s Treasury Board’s role. I can assure you that, as I said, all of the expenses that were included were challenged. We asked important questions.
The same goes for results. When Treasury Board receives a request, we ensure that the department will measure the results and set targets. That is part of the submission to Treasury Board, and the ministers will see that. We monitor closely all year long. As you said, we play a leadership role in promoting best management practices.
Senator Oudar: Regarding expected results, I’m sure you’ll tell me that you can’t disclose the real 2023-24 results to us this evening. I’m sure you know them, but they haven’t been through the whole process. You set the 100% target yourself. Can you at least tell us if, when it comes to the target, the government has good management and financial practices for its assets? In other words, does it have good internal control systems to achieve effective ongoing monitoring in departments and agencies? Are you close to the 100% target you set for yourselves? Can you share the actual result? I would be happy to hear it.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: I’m not exactly sure. If the goal is 100% and we’re at 65%, then there’s a lot of work to do. The Treasury Board’s role is to make sure the work is getting done and to follow up on that. As an organization, we can’t be happy with 65% when our goal is 100%.
Senator Oudar: What action plan have you implemented? You’re improving: You were at 46% in 2021 and 39% in 2020. You could say you’re improving and you’re happy with that, but I’m sure you’re not.
What is your internal action plan? What measures are you implementing to achieve 100%?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: As you pointed out, there has been significant progress over the years. That significant progress happened because we implemented measures. Regarding this particular measure, I’ll have to get back to you. I have to take a close look at exactly what this measure is, because I don’t have all the indicators.
Senator Oudar: This being the finance committee, the performance indicator is the percentage of principal financial management procedures for which an internal control system has been implemented and which have reached the ongoing monitoring stage. That’s 100% in the indicator, and I congratulate you on setting that 100% target. That’s very good. It’s in line with our ambitions, as I’m sure it is with yours, but what target or action plan have you implemented internally to achieve that 100%?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: I have to admit that I don’t know all the indicators, so I’ll have to take a look at this one, but I promise I’ll get back to you with an answer.
Senator Oudar: Please send your answer to the chair and the clerk. However, in terms of my question, the deadline for hitting the target was March 2024. It’s now almost December.
Thank you.
[English]
Senator Kingston: Welcome, everyone. This is a follow-up question from yesterday with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I’m just wondering about this. It’s the statutory increase related to the Canada Carbon Rebate for small businesses. It’s $2.6 billion, and for individuals it’s another $307 million. When I was talking to him yesterday, he suggested that you may know — because you do question people, as you said — what they spent last year. They do have a revenue source for that, but can you explain those numbers? Why the $3.2 billion to small business?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: It is $2.6 billion. There is $2.6 for businesses and $307 million for individuals.
This is related to a Budget 2024 announcement that would return a portion to businesses. That is done through the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, and the rebate is estimated at $2.6 billion.
Senator Kingston: So that was not done in the last fiscal year?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: No. There was a promise to return these revenues to small businesses. It took a long time for the government to come to agreement on how to do this, and in the budget they announced that we will do it this way.
Senator Kingston: Does that cover just three months, does it cover 15 months or does it cover longer than that in terms of the rebate?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: That must cover — I don’t have this information. This is too detailed. I will have to ask the department in charge of the rebate.
Senator Kingston: Which department would that be?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: That would be the Department of Finance.
Senator Kingston: Okay. I have another question. I am thinking now of Indigenous Services Canada and the $955.2 million. I have seen this before in your documentation. One of your goals is to improve safe and adequate housing for children on reserve. Children, of course, live in families, so I presume those are homes, either renovated or built. You were talking about looking for outcomes. I am wondering how many houses have been improved or built as a result of this program in the previous year?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: This is also a policy question that would be better addressed to the Department of Indigenous Services Canada.
Senator Kingston: I do have another question. I’m looking at your own targets. I was a little bit concerned — and this is from the Treasury Board Secretariat 2024-25 departmental plan — the percentage of workers who believe their workplace is psychologically healthy. It has been sort of flatlining for the last three years at 68%. Your target for 2025 is more than 68%. Usually 30% would suggest a critical mass of people who don’t consider themselves psychologically healthy. I’m wondering what you are doing in terms of trying to improve those indicators?
Simon Crabtree, Executive Director, Employee Relations and Total Compensation Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Again, I’m not sure that is something that we have prepared as an answer for today given what we are here to speak about, but it is certainly something we can get back to you on as a department afterwards.
Senator Kingston: Will you put something in writing?
Mr. Crabtree: Yes.
The Chair: Good try. You will have the answer, but not now.
Senator Ross: Thank you all for being here this evening. Circling around to Senator Smith’s question, the Auditor General has the final statements, and it typically takes about 30 days after that for us to get the final report. Do you have a sense when that will be tabled? We’ve only got three sitting weeks left.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: The act stipulates that we have to table before December 31 if the House is sitting. If the House is not sitting, we have 15 days after the return of the House, and we are committed to table.
Senator Ross: Do you anticipate that it will be by mid-February?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Well, it could be December. Based on the legislation, the latest we can table is 15 days after the return of the House if the House is not sitting.
Senator Ross: Right. I am just asking if you any sense of the date. You don’t. Okay.
If we are looking at next year, you have committed to October 15. That would mean that your final reports would have to get to the Auditor General by mid-September. Is that doable? What will you do differently to get that so much more quickly?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: What will we do differently? That will be a question for the Comptroller General. I assume that if you plan earlier, you can probably try to do it earlier. I’m not privy to the discussions currently about why there is a delay. It is difficult to answer that question.
Senator Ross: I will go to another question then. I notice that there is a very large list of what are called “carry forwards,” including the Treasury Board at nearly $10 million, the RCMP is over $90 million — I’m just picking out a couple of big ones — Shared Services Canada is $150 million and National Defence is $720 million. There are a number of big ones. Is this taken into account in Supplementary Estimates (B), and would that be put against the Supplementary Estimates (B) requests? How does that work?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: The rules for the carry forwards are that the departments, at the end of the year, if they have money that is about to lapse, they can carry forward 5% of their operating budget from year to year or 20% of their capital budget. These are the carry forward rules. The numbers that you see are these carry forwards that were permitted by Treasury Board.
Senator Ross: So when they ask for Supplementary Estimates (B), is that taken into account? Are the Supplementary Estimates (B) on top of the carry forward?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Yes.
Senator Ross: The last time you were here, we talked about the contingency fund. Will those carry forwards end up being contingency funds for the departments? If they have not been used and are not needed, then we are giving them more money, how does that work?
Ms. Paré: Normally, the carry forwards are part of the financial planning of the departments. Departments will plan accordingly. They don’t want to be at zero for year-end because they have to be close to the line, but not too close, and they want to keep a certain amount to fund other priorities from year to year.
It’s part of their overall budget and we don’t net that out of the Supplementary Estimates (B) because normally what they have in Supplementary Estimates (B) are new initiatives or top-ups for funding, sometimes grants and contributions as well where they don’t have a carry forward amount to move from one year to the other. It is really an amount that the departments are using to manage their operation and their existing programs.
They use it to fund their programs. If they have less in a year, they need to plan accordingly as well if they don’t reach their maximum 5%.
Senator Ross: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: I’m looking at the voted initiatives for National Defence, and I see here $561 million. It says “Funding for the Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft project”. This project is to procure 16 Poseidon P-8A aircraft.
According to the announcements, this is a US$5.9-billion acquisition, and the first aircraft were slated for delivery in 2026. I don’t understand why there’s a request for $561 million for the year before that.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: These projects are usually done in stages. Big capital projects are split up into several stages. They receive portions of the funding depending on what stage they’re at in the capital project planning process.
The Chair: This $561 million is for a year and a half before the first delivery?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: That’s too specific a question. That’s a question for National Defence.
The Chair: Are we getting National Defence? They can hear the question, and I imagine they’ll have the answer.
I have a question, because that’s extremely fast delivery. The military materiel procurement process isn’t usually that fast. My understanding is that this is a government-to-government sale. There was no tender. The government bought the aircraft from another government. Do I have that right?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Again, I would suggest you ask National Defence that question.
The Chair: Didn’t you participate in the procurement process?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Not personally, no.
The Chair: You yourself didn’t participate.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: But Treasury Board—
The Chair: I wasn’t expecting that you bought a plane.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: I’m not aware of the details of that transaction.
The Chair: I’ll save my questions for National Defence. I’ll save some of the more specific questions.
Senator Forest: There’s something I want to ask you. When you say you challenge decisions, when National Defence came to you with this multi-million-dollar request, didn’t Treasury Board challenge that? Did other people assigned to National Defence challenge it?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Yes, Treasury Board challenged it. It went to Treasury Board and was discussed by Treasury Board. I have colleagues at Treasury Board who work in the operations sector who are directly responsible for departmental relations and who prepare Treasury Board submissions. These are branches within Treasury Board that are more informed and that ask the departments questions.
Senator Forest: Do they have a more sector-specific mandate?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Right, a sector-specific mandate. There’s a branch that handles programs for departments with social mandates, another for departments with economic mandates, another for departments with more international and public safety mandates.
Senator Forest: It would be good to have them along for the next appearances.
My question is about the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who pegged 2023-24 payroll expenses at $70 billion. The government is planning to shrink the public service by 5,000 full-time positions over the next five years. This isn’t the first time we’ve heard about such a plan.
Do you have any indications? Do you think there’s reason to be optimistic that this target will be achieved?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: As you know, the government announced phase 2 of its refocusing spending initiative in budget 2024. The results of phase 1 were announced last year. Phase 2 is under way. Ultimately, the goal is to save money and refocus $1.3 billion per year on a permanent, ongoing basis.
The Treasury Board minister recently sent the departments letters setting out their goals. We are currently receiving proposals and following up. I can’t tell you how many jobs will be impacted, but the process is under way. We’re receiving proposals, and we’ll be evaluating them over the next few months. The goal is to make the results of phase 2 of the refocusing spending initiative public when the Main Estimates are tabled in March.
Senator Forest: I chair the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets. My colleague, Senator Dalphond, is also a member of that committee. As an institution, the Senate has frozen the number of full-time employees. Could the same thing be done within the Government of Canada?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Each department is responsible for submitting proposals to hit their target. I’m sure some departments will be considering freezes.
Senator Forest: Is it Treasury Board’s culture or mandate to, say, cap the number of full-time employees for a certain number of hundreds of thousands of employees?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: That’s possible, but that’s not how this particular exercise will work. We’re letting departments decide how to achieve the targets. We haven’t sent a target or imposed constraints that apply to all departments.
Senator Forest: My question is about the Government of Canada’s digital ambition. Treasury Board is mandated to guide the government’s digital transition, the ultimate goal being to deliver better services to Canadians. You developed a roadmap in 2022 called the digital ambition. Can you tell us what that’s about and what progress there has been since 2022?
Stephen Burt, Chief Data Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Performance Sector, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: The 2022 plan is a three-year plan. We redo it every year, and we’re currently redoing it. It’s still a three-year plan. We change it every year based on the targets that have been achieved and the targets we want to change to advance certain aspects of it. There are three or four different aspects.
One aspect is to improve the government’s old technology systems. This is about improving and modernizing the systems themselves.
Another part is about data policies and information management. We’re making a lot of progress on that thanks to a specific data strategy for all departments.
There’s a third important part, which has to do with leadership and talent and how to manage the people who work for us. We’ve recently set up a new organization within the secretariat that deals with senior information managers across all departments, much like we do for senior finance officials across all departments. We’ll do our best to make sure we have talented people.
Senator Forest: Are you assessing ministers’ and MPs’ talents, or just public servants?
Mr. Burt: We’re having lots of conversations with various deputy ministers so we can ascertain the needs in their departments under different circumstances. That typically happens with deputy ministers more than ministers, but a kind of pairing does take place to make sure they have the right main information officers based on what they need.
Senator Forest: This three-year plan is updated annually. Are you able to see how many of the objectives are achieved each year?
Mr. Burt: There are multiple objectives. Off the top of my head, I don’t have them all, but with respect to questions about results in different departments, we have specific objectives for things like digital services provided to the public, and we can see what percentage of the services hit their targets every year. That’s also included in the annual reports tabled in Parliament — the number of services that hit their targets.
Similar to what my colleague said, there has been an increase since COVID-19, but we’re still a little too far from where we would like to be in terms of hitting the targets we want all the departments to hit.
[English]
Senator Smith: Just following up on Senator Forest’s question on digital strategy, the Treasury Board Secretariat Departmental Plan 2024-25 emphasizes the implementation of digital standards. You had mentioned 2022 before. This looks like a two-year issue. Using activity-based metrics such as the number of departments adopting the standards for implementing IT upgrades, this approach does not address whether digitization has improved key outcomes, such as reduced service wait times, or achieved cost efficiencies.
What concrete measures are the Treasury Board Secretariat taking to transition from activity-based to outcome-based metrics, for example, measuring whether these digital investments lead to tangible improvements in the delivery of services to Canada?
Mr. Burt: We look at both aspects of that. We do a lot of work through the project management side of Treasury Board Secretariat that we’ve been talking about to make sure big digital projects, for example, the digital platform modernization for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, which is in its third of four phases right now; the benefits delivery modernization at Employment and Social Development Canada for Old Age Security and Employment Insurance. We do project oversight with those specific chief information officers to make sure those projects are tracking well and that they are meeting in the different phases of the projects, the outcomes we set.
Separate from that work on modernizing legacy systems, we take a look at specific services to Canadians offered on the basis of those systems. We look at Old Age Security, specifically; we look at Employment Insurance specifically; we look at the passport program.
We have 25 high-impact, high-risk programs we are looking at right now to make sure they are attaining exactly, as you say, senator, the kind of outcome-based objectives we expect in terms of timeliness of service standards, the same way you would do in the private sector: How much is it costing? What’s the wait time? How much of a backlog is there? We talk to the departments. We get reporting from them quarterly, and we talk to them almost every week on how those things are going, particularly in the programs we are concerned about.
Senator Smith: For recording purposes, have you prioritized the top five or top ten in terms of tracking so that your reporting is going to be focused and you will be able to deliver the information that will benefit users and benefit the objectives of your department?
Mr. Burt: The 25 high-impact, high-risk programs are the ones we’ve prioritized out of a list of several hundred services delivered across government. Within that, there are under 10 — I can’t remember the exact number — that we either have a concern or a warning against. Those ones we pay a lot of attention to in terms of how they are doing.
Senator Smith: Do you have a long-term cost-saving program set up and efficiency gains? Are you going to measure all of these issues?
Mr. Burt: Efficiency is part of it, as is outcome, in terms of whether or not the services are being delivered in a timely way without a backlog.
Our service standard metric is we expect departments delivering any services to Canadians to meet their service standard 80% of the time, which we feel is about the right measure, taking into account the kinds of more complex cases or other things that might take longer to solve. We think 80% is right because if you are meeting your service standards 100% of the time, there is probably an efficiency gain to be made in terms of either the service is underused or it’s over-resourced. But below 80%, we start to get concerned that you don’t have the resourcing to deliver what it is you are delivering.
Senator Smith: Long-term costs, efficiency gains resulting from the adoption of the digital standards — is this part of the plan?
Mr. Burt: Efficiency gains are part of the plan. Most of those efficiency gains will be tracked and realized within the departments themselves that will make decisions on how to reallocate money and people based on how efficiently they can deliver some of these things.
Senator Smith: Are you focused on X number of these issues that you can report on or do you have to report — you said 90 or 100 departments or groups — looking at this particular issue? Are you reporting on all those groups or are you reporting on a selected number of groups?
Mr. Burt: We monitor all those groups and get input from them in terms of the data that we ask them to report on. The ones we drill down on tend to be the ones on the higher-impact, higher-risk end of the spectrum. Does that make sense?
Senator Smith: It does. Is there is a one-page update you can write that will give us a clear indication of the actual execution and results?
Mr. Burt: We can give you a rundown on how we measure digital services and the kind of things we are looking at in that space.
Senator Smith: With a few examples, that would be fantastic, just to help us get a better understanding.
Mr. Burt: We can absolutely do that. We’ll take that away.
Senator Dalphond: I’m going to look at the funding for reforms to the First Nations Child and Family Services Program. This is not a Budget 2024 issue. It is a program that has been running for years, I think.
Can you tell me if this is a running program or a new program, the same for the Jordan’s Principle funding for access to products and services in relation to health? I think Jordan’s Principle is something we looked at last year. I think they are both running programs.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Yes.
Senator Dalphond: In terms of the budget for these running programs, including the additional amounts this year, are we in the same figures as the previous financial year or are we going up or just following inflation?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: We’ll have to check.
Senator Dalphond: I’m just asking these questions to go to my real questions.
My real question is a follow-up to what Senator Smith, Senator Oudar and Senator Forest asked before. This is a running program. This is not the first, second or third year, fifth year — I don’t know how many years. These are the two most important items. It is $1 billion for the First Nations Child and Family Services and $700 million for Jordan’s Principle. Both are designed to improve things.
What kind of measurement or indicia do you have to measure satisfaction of these goals and objectives in the previous years? When they come to you, knock on the door and say, “We need $700 million more this year,” fine, so they have goals and I’m sure they present things. But do you check performance for the previous year under the same program?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Yes, of course. We check on the performance. This is an integral part of budget allocation. Past performance is looked at. If past performance is deficient, of course, there will be questions like what you will do to improve your performance in the future, kind of guardrails and guidelines. These questions are asked at several stages. They are asked at the funding decision stage when the Minister of Finance and Department of Finance are looking at a proposal. Then it is looked at by cabinet. It is also looked at, of course, at Treasury Board when at the implementation stage. That’s the type of question we ask to ensure that there are results. The departments need to demonstrate that the money will be used for good purposes.
Senator Dalphond: If we take one of these two programs, let’s say we take the Jordan’s Principle program. What kind of measurements do you have? What are your indicia you measure and what are the results? Are we reaching targets? Are we achieving the goals? How can we measure that we have achieved the goals?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: I don’t know what the specific performance measures are that we have put in place for these two programs. I would have to look back.
Senator Dalphond: Can you follow up on these two programs — what were the targets and what are the achievements indicia or measurements for the last two or three years — to see if there is a trend of improvement or a trend of steady deterioration? Because we are talking about a substantial of money every year on these programs and it is difficult to measure what is improving health. I can define it in theory. In practice, it translates into how many services were provided, how many children were assisted and all that.
So I would like to know how you measure it, how your cycle works and how you measure the achievements. If they are not achieving what they said they would be achieving, what kind of feedback do you provide to say this is not an easy door where you just knock on the door and say we need that — no, we don’t give it to you; we need some more.
What kind of exercise was done and what kind of improvements were imposed by the Treasury Board on these programs?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: I will look for these two programs.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I have more questions about reducing the size of the public service. People started talking about that earlier in response to the questions we asked you. I’m happy with the responses I heard.
The goal is to cut 5,000 full-time positions over four years. To be clear, this is by attrition. The approach to hitting that target of 5,000 full-time positions will be selected, and that will save $15 billion and reduce the deficit.
When you answered my colleague’s question earlier, you said that the minister’s letters had been sent to the departments, that you are starting to get responses and that you are starting your evaluation.
Given that part of your mandate has to do with administrative leadership, did the letters indicate that services to the public should not be cut or reduced? Did the minister’s letter include guidance?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Yes, it did. Broad parameters were set in the budget. First, if there are job losses or cuts, it has to happen via attrition. The second main objective is that services to Canadians must not be affected.
This is a different exercise. Think about the refocusing spending exercise, the first part of phase 2. In phase 1, departments were allowed to cut programs and operating expenditures equally or proportionally. Phase 2 is only for operating expenditures, and departments were asked to ensure that operating expenditure cuts wouldn’t impact Canadians or to minimize that impact.
Senator Oudar: You said you would be receiving and evaluating submissions over the next few months, and you’ll be looking at whether services to Canadians are impacted. If they are, my understanding from what you just said is that you would have the department go back and do its homework?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: One of the important parameters of this exercise — and this was very clear — is to ensure that services to Canadians are not affected. That’s an important factor in evaluating the submissions.
Senator Oudar: I’m reassured to hear that you’ll be the watchdog for citizen services. I appreciate that. Thank you for your reply.
I do have one remaining concern, though. Earlier, we were talking about indicators and targets. As you know, in Quebec, there was a long article by an investigative journalist on the delays that exist in all areas at the federal level, particularly for passports.
How do you expect to improve results that have not been achieved, while cutting 5,000 positions and without affecting services to citizens? What will be your recipe for avoiding not only service disruptions or breakdowns, but also for achieving targets that are not currently being met because of delays? I’d like to hear what you have to say about this. I’m pleased with the answer I heard earlier, but I remain concerned.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Indeed, it’s a tricky exercise. That said, it comes down to achieving results. In the public service, there are places where we may need to free up or reallocate resources to put them where results are better achieved. This type of exercise makes it possible to reallocate resources. In this case, we’re not looking at individual programs, but rather at a more global shift from less to more effective programs. That’s what we’re trying to do.
Senator Oudar: We’ll invite you back to our committee next year, and not only will there not have been a service breakdown, you’ll have hit your targets.
Mr. Burt: I’d like to add something that touches somewhat on the question Senator Smith asked. There’s an aspect of the changes we’re making that touches on digital issues. There are a number of ways in which we can modernize citizen services to provide services with fewer people, greater efficiency and better performance. I’m always reluctant to promise at the outset that we’ll save money or be able to cut jobs. Often, when we do that with digital projects, quite frankly, our efforts fail, but it is true that at some point, when we create new services on new digital platforms, we often have opportunities to save money and offer better services to people.
Senator Oudar: I’ll continue in the same vein. The digital performance indicator is the measure that determines whether Canadians are successful in completing tasks on Government of Canada websites. The target is 70%. What’s published — and you probably have a more recent result than 2022-23 — is 48%. It’s below 50%.
How can you say today that digital services will be able to make up for this? We’re moving towards automating citizens on the web, but we’re far from the target. I’m sure you know what the current target is. I look at the published figure, and I’m concerned to see that it is 48%.
Mr. Burt: It shows how much of an opportunity we have to find better ways of doing things. There’s a lot we can do. We already know in our private lives, when we do business in the private sector with banks and the like, that we can do these kinds of things online much faster than we used to. There are many government services for which we haven’t yet put in place tools and processes that could take advantage of this.
The percentage of services that could be done online from start to finish is much lower than we’d like. We’re working with the same departments in the 25 high-impact and high-risk services to see how we can improve this.
Senator Oudar: In relation to Treasury Board leadership, what are the action plans to reach the target so that the tasks that are performed on the websites by Canadians are optimal?
I would add that we have vulnerable clienteles: I’m thinking of the elderly, or of people who are functionally illiterate or illiterate. So we can’t expect everyone to deal with digital technology. There’s certainly a clientele you’re targeting.
What actions and what game plan are you pursuing? Can you give us some concrete examples of how you’re helping Canadians reach this target?
Mr. Burt: I’d say it’s not one game plan, it’s several game plans, depending on the different departments and services. So, we’re talking to everyone to see how we can put more things on the Internet, in the digital domain.
Just as you say, we have to be aware of accessibility. We have no choice but to offer services in different ways to different people. We can’t just serve 80% of citizens; we have to serve all citizens.
It always takes more money in the private sector, because we can’t leave out more vulnerable people when we modernize services. It’s often slower than we’d like, and slower than if we were waiting —
The Chair: I have to interrupt you. This is very interesting. I’d have some questions myself; perhaps I’ll ask them when it’s my turn.
[English]
Senator Kingston: I am going back to your 2024-25 departmental plan. You have made some good improvements from 2021 to 2022-23 in terms of the percentage of government programs that have suitable measurements for tracking performance and informing decision making.
Can someone talk to me about the suitable measures for tracking? This will be interesting when other departments come forward in terms of what they’ve been able to achieve.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Yes, suitable measures to tracking — we work with the departments to ensure they have tracking mechanisms. We want the tracking, as I was saying earlier, to be permanent so that it will be able to compare twice. We don’t want them to change their tracking mechanisms all the time, so we ensure stability. That’s the first goal.
Then we have to make sure that the controls or measures they put in place — they are things they are directly responsible for. So we try to avoid indicators where there are external forces that could influence their own performance under the indicator. We don’t want an indicator that will be so vague that they will be able to blame the state of the economy or a provincial government’s actions for not meeting their targets. We want things that they can own.
Then we need to set other criteria that we would look for when we look for good indicators such as those that can be tracked with good data. Sometimes, people put into place some indicators with poor data, and then they claim they cannot track the indicator because the data are not good. So before we put an indicator, we make sure we have the right data. We do a lot of work with departments and Statistics Canada to make sure they have good indicators.
We also try to avoid the duplication of indicators so they don’t have so many indicators that it becomes meaningless. We want them to be focused. In the government right now, there is a quality-of-life index that the government has put in place. There are basic quality-of-life indicators that everyone will track. We want to make sure that, with the help of Statistics Canada and the departments, they frame their indicators based on these quality-of-life indicators.
Senator Kingston: Such as the number of houses improved or built in Indigenous communities?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: That could be a good one, yes.
Senator Kingston: As a follow-up to that, you have gone from 64% in 2021 to 87% in 2022-23. Does that indicate the number of departments that are now in possession of a suitable number of good indicators?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: I don’t know which you are referring to exactly, but I think you are right.
Senator Kingston: Overall, it looks like. You are talking about the percentage of government programs.
Were some departments always doing very well and now more are doing well or did they only track certain —
Mr. Burt: I just want to distinguish something a bit, senator, for the committee. The performance metrics under the policy on results that my colleague from Expenditure Management Secretariat looks at are global, big and complicated in that they run across all programs in terms of trying to work with departments to try to get them to deliver — exactly as Mr. Brunelle-Côté was saying — the kinds of performance indicators that are meaningful depending upon the program.
I’m really focused on service standards for the things that are citizen facing, which is a much narrower piece of the work government does as opposed to the performance metrics my colleague has to deal with. My job is easier than his in the sense that it is the stuff that is reaching out and touching Canadians. There are often good ways to find indicators that will be meaningful from that perspective. For some of the other programs we have to deal with in other places that are not public facing, it is much more complicated to figure out what those indicators are.
Senator Kingston: Thank you.
Senator Ross: We don’t have the public accounts yet, so I have a really easy question for you. Can you tell me the actual amount of money that was spent by Treasury Board for the last fiscal year compared to the authorized spending? We know how much is being carried over, so how much was spent?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: For the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat?
Senator Ross: Yes.
Ms. Cahill: Unfortunately, I will have to wait for the public accounts to be tabled and for this information to be published before I can disclose that.
Senator Ross: I have one final question. It is a bit of a challenging question or maybe even a fun question.
We have asked a lot of questions of you tonight, Mr. Brunelle-Côté and your colleagues, that might have been better directed to other departments, other people or that were too detailed. So if you were sitting in my seat asking questions of you and your colleagues, what would be the best question I should ask you to elicit really good information that would be helpful for the Finance Committee to have?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: First of all, I’m sorry we are not able to answer all the questions. It is just the magnitude, the size and the number of line items; it is difficult to know all the programs. But I promise we will get answers to you.
The line of questioning around results is good. The questions to our colleagues there on the other side of the table were excellent questions — difficult to answer but excellent. They keep us honest about what we are tracking, whether we are succeeding to meet the targets and what we will be doing to meet the targets. That was a good line of questioning.
There are also questions about our own situation at Treasury Board — specific Treasury Board-type questions. That’s why Mr. Burt, Ms. Cahill, Ms. Paré and Mr. Crabtree are here, to answer specific questions about the Treasury Board itself. General questions about the overall spending are good but more at the macro level than at the details level because it is very difficult to know all these programs in detail.
Senator Ross: Does anyone else have anything they would like to add?
I have been told that I have been here a year now, and so I am not allowed to say that I am a new senator anymore, but if you were giving advice to a new senator about questions to ask Treasury Board, what would they be?
Mr. Burt: I would agree with what Mr. Brunelle-Côté was just saying. The questions around how we played the challenge function with departments and the kinds of things that we press them on are good. We have the three policy centres in the Treasury Board Secretariat — the Office of the Chief Information Officer, the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer and the Comptroller General, who deal respectively with digital, human resources and financial issues. We are engaged with departments regularly on how they are performing in those areas and, as I said earlier in response to some of the questions, making sure that they have the departmental experts they have. There is a talent aspect to all of that to make sure that the departments have the right resources in them in terms of the kinds of people they need to deliver. Questions about that, about how we are trying to set the departments up for success and also holding them to account when they are probably not ones we can answer and would be useful to you.
As we were talking about line items on the defence side in particular, we do have analysts who are into that stuff and have really good ideas about what each department is doing. When you start asking questions about that, we are a bit limited because a lot of those things are going to the Treasury Board itself, so it gets into cabinet issues and the ability to be transparent on that, never mind having the exact right witnesses at the table for you. That will always be challenging.
Senator Ross: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you to the witnesses. I want to follow up on some of what you were discussing, and I apologize if I missed some of what you have said earlier.
As part of your role to look at regulatory oversight, the administrative leadership and spending oversight, when it comes to the types of outcome measures that you are talking about, what specific recommendations are you making to government departments that would allow us to know whether, in fact, we are seeing movement? My read of what we’ve seen so far on the kinds of outcome measures are so vague that it is often difficult.
How often are you recommending, for instance, that managers functioning and their ability to move through and up the public service is linked to those performance measures? How do you do that? I just came from a meeting with the special interlocutor on missing children and disappeared Indigenous children. It strikes me that we are about to be on the cusp of another series of lawsuits of the magnitude of what’s resulted from Jordan’s Principle and the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society. What kinds of projections are you doing there? What kinds of recommendations are you making to government departments in terms of proactive work as part of your oversight of those departments?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: First, on the results, yes. It is difficult to have metrics that are meaningful for people to make progress. This is the difficulty of our work. We have to play a leadership role. We are engaging departments to make sure that they have the best metrics possible to measure performance. We do this constantly. Departments have to submit plans about their metrics that we review, and we challenge them. That’s how we ensure that the metrics are as meaningful as possible. It is the role of committees like yours to challenge us and to challenge departments that are not meeting their targets. We do it, but you also play an important role in this regard.
Senator Pate: Let me drill down a little bit, if I may. How do you compare what’s happening between departments? Let me give you an example. The government has made a commitment to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action and the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Calls for Justice. One of them requires by next year to have reduced the mass incarceration of Indigenous people. What metrics would you put in place or would you suggest to make sure that Correctional Service Canada achieves that?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: The metrics themselves have to be developed by the departments first. We will work with the departments to come up with the metrics and the measures.
Senator Pate: So if the numbers keep going up, do you look and say that they obviously don’t have the right metrics or they are not achieving the objectives set out?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Yes, if they underperform their performance measurement significantly and consistently, that’s the kind of input we will use to call them.
Senator Pate: If you have examples that, it would be helpful to share them with the committee. For instance, do you look at the difference between what is being achieved in one department and how it will have a knock-on effect in other departments? If you have examples of those, could you let us know now or provide them to us?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: We will provide them as a follow-up. Off the top of my head, I don’t have any, but we will think about it.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: I’m going to follow up on Senator Oudar’s question, which was about information technology (IT). When you talked about the technological aspect, it was in the sense of increasing efficiency and effectiveness by replacing the tasks associated with the 5,000 positions abolished. In other words, you want to improve efficiency with the aim of having fewer human resources.
The focus was on direct IT services to citizens. However, I believe that some of the IT developments you are making are taking place in the background, outside direct services to citizens. There would be, for example, ERP software or internal systems that increase efficiency — systems that we don’t necessarily see when dealing with government. Do you have any projects of this nature?
Mr. Burt: This is done at different levels, both for large, complex projects and for systems modernization. For example, at Passport Canada there are call centres where a certain degree of efficiency can be achieved. However, to gain efficiencies, you need to know how the project is progressing, where the technology is located, and how the processes are changing.
On the artificial intelligence side, I’d say we’re starting to see more concrete possibilities. For example, with some of the tools we currently have, such as Microsoft Copilot and ChatGPT, it’s possible to summarize a meeting. We have a system that records voices, and it’s always possible to ask the system what important issues need to be followed up.
In a traditional government system, you have to work with a parliamentary affairs officer, but we know that with the new tools already available, everything can be done in 30 seconds after the meeting. We always need to check —
The Chair: We talk a lot about artificial intelligence, but more and more we’re talking to robots. It’s robots that do the first call sorting.
Ms. Cahill: If I may, where administrative services are concerned, I’d say we’re looking at using technology to do more repetitive tasks that are normally done by employees. A lot of tasks can be done by technology. We can now redirect resources or, if they leave, not replace them or assign them to other tasks that require more human intervention.
We’re looking at all this at the Treasury Board Secretariat. It’s possible to gain a great deal of effectiveness and efficiency. I also believe that the pandemic has done a great deal to improve the way administrative services work.
The Chair: Since I’ve been on this committee, I’ve noticed that there’s a lot of interdepartmental billing going on. So, I guess we’re reducing the number of employees when we use technology to do data entry or fill out purchase orders, for example?
Ms. Cahill: Indeed. With the systems we have in place — let’s take a financial system, for example, since you’re talking about billing — there’s a lot more opportunity to use the functions of those systems to pay the bills, to do the signatures, to move the bill from one place to another using technology in the business flow process. This helps a lot in finding efficiencies.
The Chair: Do people ever talk to robots in call centres? In the private sector, we’re talking more and more to robots that do the initial recognition confirmations and direct us to the right services, and then at a certain stage we talk to a real person when we haven’t had any answers. In the public service, in call centres, are there places where we talk to robots nowadays?
Mr. Burt: I can’t say whether we’re talking to robots right from the start in some call centres; obviously, we have some choices to make at the keyboard, but I’m not sure there are conversational robots. We advise departments that are starting to think about this not to put these tools in direct interaction with the public; we direct them first to agents who already know the files, because it’s always possible that there could be mistakes. Moreover, it’s preferable to test the system well before the robot is in direct contact with the customer.
The Chair: You may have listened to or seen the exchanges we had this week with the Canada Revenue Agency. We were talking about the frauds that the agency deals with. Sometimes, I find that detectability is increased, for example, in the case of banks and credit cards. There are cybersecurity systems that can manage and communicate on the spot with a large number of databases directly and instantaneously to report a series of claims that have been put on warning or alert. I was under the impression that the Canada Revenue Agency didn’t have such a system. Is this the kind of file you’re working on so that the agency can improve its security system, for example?
Mr. Burt: That’s the cybersecurity side. Yes, automation certainly provides new tools to improve security, but at the same time, automation gives new tools to malicious users who can find new vulnerabilities.
The Chair: Here’s an example, which is the one I was giving to the Revenue Agency. For a refund claim from a business located on Tomate Street in Montreal, to an on-line data management system, systems will be able to query a multitude of databases instantaneously; they’ll look up street names in Montreal, quickly see that Tomate Street doesn’t exist and that will trigger an alert. Do you have this kind of system in place?
Mr. Burt: I couldn’t say whether the various departments have this kind of system. We’re working mainly with Shared Services Canada to achieve a certain level of cybersecurity in all departments and to ensure that there’s a basic level of security just about everywhere. Different departments have different needs, and other measures need to be put in place beyond that. So I’m not in a position to tell you exactly which department has which system, but between the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security and Shared Services Canada, we’re working together on this. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat has provided us with funding amounting to $11 million in 2024 as part of the cybersecurity supplementary budget, with the aim of putting in place a strategy for the government to do just that.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Forest: In the same sense, Treasury Board has a responsibility. We were talking about the Government of Canada’s Digital Ambition. After all, Canada is part of the G7. I have an anecdote; I arrived at Oslo airport in 2016 and I was worried because no customs officer came to check my passport. The airport was equipped with biometric recognition systems. Do you monitor the web to find out about best practices and innovations in other kinds of organizations, because you have a leadership role to play in the digital transition? Do you have a team responsible for exploring the best technologies? Are individual departmental initiatives left to their own devices, or do you show strong leadership in this regard?
Mr. Burt: We have pretty strong leadership on this; we have teams working not only in Canada and with the provinces, but also with other countries to find out who is the leader in different types of technology. Canada is part of a collaborative forum called the Digital Nations, a group of 10 countries including the U.K., Denmark, Estonia and many others. We hold virtual or face-to-face meetings two or three times a year to see where all these countries are in their various initiatives. We’re also part of the OECD; I’m actually Canada’s e-leader on the political side with the OECD to work with them on different initiatives and to see where Canada is compared to other countries.
We do a lot of work to find out where we are in the different initiatives and to ensure that we put in place the best possible practices according to our needs.
Senator Forest: I’m thinking in particular of ArriveCAN, where there was a drift in terms of what we used as an external service. It’s a function that’s really functional and usable. We don’t seem to talk about it anymore; who’s responsible for saying: “Use it, it works well”? We were supposed to launch a new passport with important IT functions; we did, and there was some controversy about important figures who had disappeared, but the “country” function of this new passport seems to fall into a void. Is the e-leader putting his fist on the table?
Mr. Burt: This is an excellent example. We have one of the best passports in the world in terms of technology. We have a lot of options at airports to use the data that’s embedded in the passport to facilitate passage through border services, and then through immigration, where appropriate, depending on the country. We’re on point.
ArriveCAN has become a difficult issue in the House of Commons, but right now it’s an effort that has kept the border with the United States open at a difficult time. We benefited from it, and it continues today. I’ve just returned from Denmark, where I attended a meeting of the Digital Nations. I filled out my ArriveCAN declaration before arriving; it makes it easier to get through border services.
There are lots of things we’re doing right now in the various services offered to Canadians to put in place the best possible technology to facilitate everything.
[English]
Senator Smith: It must be the time of night. I must be getting old. I just had a question tying up some of the questions we have already asked. It’s sort of a supplementary question.
Considering the 5,000-position reduction, which is mainly due to attrition, how is the Treasury Board Secretariat working to ensure that cost savings with respect to personnel do not compromise service delivery? There are, what, 400,000 civil servants; 5,000 is like a drop in the bucket. Is there a potential concern that cutting 5,000 people is going to affect service delivery standards?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: No, because our role is to make sure that it doesn’t.
[Translation]
It’s like a guardrail; it’s a clear directive.
[English]
It must not have an impact on services, so 5,000 should be easily manageable.
Senator Smith: Why would the 5,000 concept be used and not a bigger number if there was a serious attempt to start to control costs in a more effective way?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: The objective is not a job-cutting exercise. The objective is to find dollars. That is the main objective of the initiative. We receive proposals. We have not decided that it should be that many jobs.
Senator Smith: Attrition is taking care of retirement, so I’m with you.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: We believe this 5,000 is a conservative number. The objective is to find $1.3 billion ongoing. We receive proposals, and it’s the departments that have to come up with their own plan.
There are different ways to achieve these savings. They can cut travel. They can cut professional services. There are a lot of things in operating services; it is not only salary dollars, of course.
Senator Smith: I’m trying to get a sense of what the thinking is from a leadership position in the Treasury Board Secretariat to address the issue if there is going to be an 8% increase in compensation costs going into 2025. I’m just wondering — when you talk about increasing compensation, then the next thing is about a potential decrease of people through attrition and retirement — is that where the focus should be? Are there bigger numbers? Is it more complete?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: It’s one of the focuses. That’s why there is the 5,000 figure. There are job numbers attached to this initiative, but as I said, the goal is to find dollar savings.
Of course, the size of the public service is something that we need to pay attention to. The general thinking is if you look at the ratio of the size of the public service to total expenditure, it is relatively flat. There is no increase. We have more civil servants, but we deliver more programs generally speaking.
The real question goes back to the discussions we were having earlier. I have no problem with having a big public service in theory as long as we deliver the services well and we get results. That should be the prime objective.
The size of the public service is not the issue in itself. There is an issue if we have a big public service and we fail to deliver the services that Canadians need.
Senator Smith: My last question, basically, is how do you manage non-performing departments? What type of motivation are you giving them to increase their performance levels? It all comes down to whether they’re performing, what their performance levels are and what they are doing to correct or improve their position so we can move forward. The whole issue of making sure that we manage the national accounts and our economy effectively so we are not increasing deficits this year. We are going to have a $47 billion to $50 billion deficit. That’s a lot of money, and it affects our standing with other nations internationally.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: That’s why this type of exercise, the first phase, is critical because it allows departments to identify areas where there are programs that no longer serve their purpose or are not very efficient. To reallocate the money from these programs to where it is needed and where it is effective is the whole purpose of these types of exercises. That’s why they are so important.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: In the list of major items in the presentation, the last item is $5.32 billion based on an upcoming settlement related to First Nations land claims. At the end, it reads:
[English]
This funding will ensure that the Department is in a position to quickly implement negotiated settlements, should agreements be reached.
[Translation]
What are Treasury Board’s policies on claims that are not yet settled, where the amount is not yet final and known, regarding awarding a certain amount up front? I understand it’s public, so there are people reading this who know there’s at least $527 million on the table. The starting figure is known.
I understand there are several negotiations going on, so we have to try to see where the envelope is going to go.
What are Treasury Board’s policies? Why grant advances for amounts we don’t know, even though we know we’ll have to pay something? How do we arrive at this amount?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: There are certainly a multitude of agreements. The overall figure is not a negotiation. Usually, when it’s a negotiation, of course, the figure isn’t public; it’s below the line and you can’t see the figure. So it’s a global envelope.
As for the policy, I’d have to ask my colleagues at Indigenous Services Canada, because they’re the ones who’ll have the answer.
Senator Dalphond: It’s not 100%, but you grant an amount that represents something. Why do it in advance rather than waiting for the settlement to take place?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Yes.
Senator Oudar: I still have a lot of questions, but I’m going to limit myself to a subject that still concerns me a lot and that has to do with Phoenix, because Phoenix has been a major human distress issue and because employees see that the system will be replaced in the next few years. I know that you’re currently testing the Dayforce payroll platform; I don’t know if these tests are conclusive, but there were statements from Public Services and Procurement Canada last spring about the integration of artificial intelligence. They’re thinking of including all elements relating to collective agreements in addition to the payroll system.
I’ll take you back to the Auditor General of Canada’s exercise following the Phoenix fiasco, the recommendations he made and what we expect from Treasury Board.
The first recommendation was, and I quote:
For all government-wide information technology projects, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat should
carry out mandatory independent reviews of the project’s key decision to proceed or not [...]
Has this independent review been done, and may we have a copy?
Mr. Burt: The independent review of the Phoenix replacement? I’m pretty sure it has; we’ve done some checks with outside services to see where we are in the project right now. I don’t know if that information is available.
Senator Oudar: We’ll check. I understand that this review must be entrusted to the deputy ministers and executives responsible for implementing this new tool, and that they must follow your recommendations following the independent review. The independent auditors have made recommendations to you that you must implement and which must be followed by those who will manage this system, in particular.
The Auditor General also recommended that an effective oversight mechanism be put in place and that it be documented and maintained for any government-wide information technology project; this mechanism must be approved by Treasury Board. I’d like to know what this mechanism is and if we can get a copy.
Mr. Burt: We’ll have to get back to you on this.
Yes, the mechanisms to look at this kind of thing exist, but for the details, it’s not my area.
The Chair: Can you send us this information?
Senator Oudar: You don’t know. That seems egregious. We’re talking about all public service employees.
[English]
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: It’s probably too big of a question. You are talking a lot about setting indicators. It occurs to me, having been a researcher and doing evaluation, that you are dealing with so much complexity. There is, on the one hand, the setting of indicators that would be so pedantic that they are almost meaningless in that it’s a check box, but, on the other hand, cancelling out the innovation that could occur because there is an affinity to indicators that are devoid of an understanding of the complexity of the work that you are doing.
It’s a big question, but I think that when we hear about percentages of meeting the indicators that have been set by the department, how do you account for innovation inside those indicators that they are stuck having to meet?
I know it is a big question. It’s probably an over-a-beer question where you are talking about research theory. It seems it is so impossible to make sure you are measuring the right things.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: You point to the difficulty that we face in the public service. We are not producing widgets. In the private sector, they have a bottom line. It is easy; they know what they are doing.
In the public service, we are trying to achieve big general societal outcomes. You are right. You cannot set the objective so broadly that it is meaningless. It is a tension.
It is a bit of learning-by-doing. The Government of Canada is one of the first countries to have started performance indicators on a regular basis. We have a long history. But there is a bit of learning-by-doing to see what types of indicators work and the ones that do not work. This is part of the work we do and the challenge that we face.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much. They’ve worked hard. Thank you very much for your presentation and your answers.
You have 12 commitments in terms of coming back to us with answers. I could make an exception. I’ll give you until the 11th —
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: If it suits you, I’ve sent an email.
The Chair: That’s why I wanted to make a distinction. Can you get back to us tomorrow on the issue of sending the financial statements report to the Auditor General? If it’s been sent or not, and if so, when, or when do you plan to do it?
[English]
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: It has been sent for a final review, so I imagine that she has the final report. I will double-check to make sure. You are right; there has been a lot of back and forth.
[Translation]
The Chair: That’s what we understand. Especially when it takes this long.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: I’ll make sure she gets the final report. I think so, but I’ll check.
The Chair: If she doesn’t have it, the commitment is to tell us when she does.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Yes.
The Chair: And for the other points, if we gave you until December 11, would that be okay? Thank you very much. We’ll wait for the information on December 11, 2024.
Before I close, I’d like to remind senators that our next meeting will be on Tuesday, December 3, at 9 a.m., and we hope to welcome representatives from National Defence.
Before closing the meeting, I’d like to thank all the staff — the analysts, the clerk, the pages, the translators and all the systems. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)