THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 18, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met with videoconference this day at 11:02 a.m. [ET], to consider the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026, with the exception of Library of Parliament Vote 1, and to consider the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026.
Senator Claude Carignan (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone.
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, so as to protect the health and safety of the technical staff and translators.
Please keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphone. It will be turned on and off by the console operator. Please avoid handling your earpiece while your microphone is on; you may either keep it on your ear or place it on the designated sticker. 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. I am a senator from Quebec and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Now, I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Forest: Good morning and welcome. Éric Forest, independent senator representing the Gulf division in Quebec.
Senator Pupatello: Good morning. I am Sandra Pupatello from Ontario.
Senator Moreau: Good morning. Pierre Moreau, representing the Laurentides division in Quebec.
Senator Galvez: Good morning. Rosa Galvez from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: Good morning. Tony Loffreda, Montreal, Quebec. Welcome.
Senator Kingston: Joan Kingston, New Brunswick.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate, Ontario, from here in the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, senators. Honourable senators, today, we will resume our study on the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026 and the Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-2026, which were referred to this committee on May 29, 2025 and June 11, 2025, respectively, by the Senate of Canada.
We always have important people appearing before us, but when they are the people who hold the purse strings, they are especially important in the context of this work. Thank you for being here.
For our first panel, we are pleased to welcome today, from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Karine Paré, Executive Director, Expenditure Management Sector; Andres Velez-Guerra, Executive Director, Expenditure Management Sector; Emilio Franco, Executive Director, Investment Management Sector.
Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear today. We will begin with an opening statement from Ms. Paré.
You have five to seven minutes to make your statement. That will be followed by questions from senators, who are looking forward to hearing from you.
[English]
Karine Paré, Executive Director, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I’d like to acknowledge that we are meeting today on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people.
My name is Karine Paré, Executive Director of Expenditures Strategies and Estimates at the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, and I’m accompanied today by my colleagues Andres Velez-Guerra, Executive Director of the Results Division of the Investment Management Sector, and Emilio Franco, Executive Director of the Investment Management Sector. I also have other colleagues supporting us today.
[Translation]
Before presenting the details of the 2025-26 Main Estimates and the Supplementary Estimates (A), I would like to begin by giving you an overview of recent business of supply.
The usual business of supply was interrupted at the beginning of the year by the prorogation and dissolution of Parliament on March 23. The established procedure for obtaining appropriations during the period of dissolution of Parliament is to use special warrants from the Governor General, pursuant to section 30 of the Financial Administration Act. At the time of dissolution, Parliament had already approved four appropriation acts, namely the 2025-26 Main Estimates and the Supplementary Estimates (A) and (B), 2024-25.
[English]
However, Parliament had not yet approved any appropriation bills for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 2025. To allow government operations to continue, the Governor General approved the issue of two special warrants totalling $73.4 billion. The first was issued on April 1 for an amount of $40.3 billion and covered the period of April 1 to May 15. The second one was issued on May 2, covering the period of May 16 to June 29 for an amount of $33.1 billion.
This was the first set of special warrants issued since 2011-12, where there was a similar situation where Parliament was dissolved before approving supply for a new fiscal year. With general elections most commonly occurring in the fall after the approval of full supply, special warrants are not often required.
[Translation]
As for the Main Estimates, we would normally table them before March 1. Of course, we were unable to do so because Parliament was not sitting. Therefore, they were tabled on May 27, after the Speech from the Throne.
Overall, the 2025–26 Main Estimates provide information on $222.9 billion in voted spending and $264 billion in statutory spending, for a total of $486.9 billion across 130 organizations. Please note that these amounts are not in addition to what has been provided through special warrants. The budgets of organizations presented in the Main Estimates include both amounts that have been provided through special warrants and amounts that will be approved through the first appropriation act of the 2025–26 fiscal year.
[English]
The majority of expenditures in the 2025-26 Main Estimates are transfer payments, payments made to other levels of government, organizations and individuals. Transfer payments — including benefits for seniors, the Canada Health Transfer, the Canada Social Transfer and the Canada Disability Benefit — make up approximately 60.5% of total expenditures or $295 billion. Operating and capital expenditures account for approximately 29.4% of expenditures or $143 billion, while public debt charges are approximately 10.1% of expenditures or $49 billion.
Both the Main Estimates and supplementary estimates publications focus more on the voted portion of the spending, as that’s what will appear in the Appropriation Act bill. Of the 130 organizations presenting funding requirements, five are seeking $10 billion or more in voted budgetary expenditures: The Department of National Defence, the Department of Indigenous Services, the Department of Employment and Social Development; the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs; as well as the Department of Health.
Taking those five departments together, they account for almost 43% of the voted amount in the Main Estimates. Each organization in the Main Estimates has its own page where you can find a breakdown of planned spending by vote and by core responsibility, and listing of transfer payments and spending under statutory authorities. Departmental plans were tabled yesterday and provide additional information on program objectives and targets for upcoming years.
Finally, I’ll move on to Supplementary Estimates (A) 2025–26, which was tabled on June 9. As you are aware, supplementary estimates present information that is over and above those presented in the Main Estimates.
Supplementary Estimates (A) 2025–26 presents a total of $9 billion in incremental budgetary spending, of which $8.6 billion is to be voted. The remaining $467 million is related to employee benefits.
While many supplementary estimates cover a wide variety of organizations and initiatives, these supplementary estimates are focused to ensure that the Defence portfolio has a solid foundation of personnel, equipment, training and supports it needs to be ready to respond to today’s global security environment. The funding in the supplementary estimates is for only two organizations: the Department of National Defence, as well as the Communications Security Establishment.
Both organizations are seeking funding for digital tools and capabilities for a total of $550 million, and all other new spending falls under the Department of National Defence: $2.1 billion for recruitment, retention and support programs for the Canadian Armed Forces; another $2.1 billion for defence research and development and support for the Canadian defence industry; $2 billion for military aid to Ukraine and to expand defence partnerships; $1 billion for strategic military capabilities; and $833.7 million for new and existing Canadian Armed Forces equipment and infrastructure.
[Translation]
Yesterday, appropriation bills authorizing appropriations from the Main Estimates and the Supplementary Estimates (A) were tabled.
I hope this overview will help you study these two bills. My colleagues and I are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. You had seven minutes, but you took six minutes and fifty-four seconds. Well done.
[English]
Senator Marshall: You mentioned in your opening remarks about the departmental plans. We have been waiting for them for quite a while. We got the Main Estimates last month. They were only tabled yesterday, and, miraculously, it was the day before your appearance here.
I noticed over the last couple of years there seems to be a reluctance to provide timely information to parliamentarians. Is there a move afoot to slow down the provision of information such as the departmental plans, the public accounts, documents like that which we need to do our work?
Ms. Paré: Thank you for the question. I will let my colleague, Mr. Velez-Guerra, answer the question.
Andres Velez-Guerra, Executive Director, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you for the question.
On the DPs that were tabled yesterday, the delay was due to the prorogation and the exclusion of power limit, which paused all parliamentary business until after the election. New ministers were sworn in on May 13, and additional time was needed to give them the opportunity to review the plans, adjust them and reflect the new government priorities.
Senator Marshall: If I can stop you there. The Main Estimates came out at the end of last month. In order to author the Main Estimates, you would have to know what your departmental plan is. It seems like the two go hand in hand. This is why I cannot understand the delay. I’ll accept the explanation, but it’s very difficult to review the Main Estimates when we don’t have departmental plans.
In the Speech from the Throne, the government made the commitment that the government’s operating budget has been growing by 9% every year and that they are going to introduce measures to bring it to below 2%. I don’t see that happening in the Main Estimates. Could you give us some indication of what government departments have been told in order to reach that objective to bring the expenditures below 2%?
Ms. Paré: Thank you for the question. There was a refocus in government exercise that was initiated in Budget 2023. You might be familiar with that. There was a three-year progression of savings that were identified in 2023-24: $500 million reduction for travel and professional services. Last year, it reached $2.3 billion. Now this year, it is $3.5 billion. Departments have provided proposals. This is reflected in the Main Estimates that you have today. In addition to that, the government has announced —
Senator Marshall: Every department I have looked at, their professional services budget request has gone up significantly more than 2%.
Emilio Franco, Executive Director, Investment Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: I can touch on that, because I think it’s important to demystify what the Professional and Specialized Services category is.
Of that spending area, less than 5% is actually on consultants. The vast majority of spending in that category — I think this was mentioned by Public Services and Procurement Canada in their testimony — engineering services, business services.
As a good example of what results in increase, Defence spending. Engineering and architectural services, one of the biggest expenditures there is the Canadian surface combatant. So the work to actually equip the military is going to result in increases in spending in professional services.
Senator Marshall: Would they all be considered operating expenditures? This is what is confusing. It’s the operating expenditures that have to be reduced to 2%.
What exactly is in the operating expenditures? If you look through various financial documents of the government, there are different definitions depending on which document you look at. What exactly is the 2% aimed at? What are those expenditures? What expenditures should we be looking at to see that it is not going above that 2%?
Ms. Paré: The operating expenditures are normally composed of the salary dollars, the non-salary budget that departments require to deliver their mandates. It can be different things. It could be consultant or professional services, but it can also be training for employees or other types of requirements that are necessary to support the mandate of the organization. So operating normally is salary plus non-salary dollars to support the delivery of the mandate of the organization.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Welcome. Thank you for your opening statement.
My first question concerns the public service health care plan. In 2023, the plan’s administration transitioned to Canada Life. The transition was very complicated. Valid claims for reimbursement from thousands of public servants were denied. Parliament recommended a number of corrective measures, including compensation for members for financial losses incurred. Let’s not forget that this fiasco comes on top of the Phoenix fiasco, which we are familiar with from our study in the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. As the employer of the public service, what is the Treasury Board of Canada doing to resolve the problem and repair the damage?
Ms. Paré: My colleague David Prest will answer the question.
[English]
David Prest, Assistant Deputy Minister, Employee Relations and Total Compensation, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Good morning. I’m David Prest, Assistant Deputy Minister, Employee Relations and Total Compensation, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
It is true that following the transition of the Canada Life contract managing the public service health care plan back on July 1, 2023, there were service issues by the contractor. There was a six-month transition period that was built into the contract. Upon conclusion of that transition period, beginning on January 1, 2024, Canada Life was largely within contract expectations, and at this point are fully within their contract requirements. That said, there is still work that needs to be done in some areas that are more technical in nature behind the scenes. Some adjudication improvements are still required.
What the Government of Canada is doing, as Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat employees as well as Public Services and Procurement Canada, is to continue to meet daily with Canada Life and their senior leadership team, even after all of this time, to move forward on addressing some of those residual issues. But I am pleased to say the vast majority of issues that did exist at the outset, for example, long wait times for the call centre, et cetera, have been fully addressed.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Have the people affected been or will they be compensated? I am referring to those who made valid claims and have not received compensation.
[English]
Mr. Prest: There is a governance process that is set up within the Public Service Health Care Plan that allows any employee or retiree who is covered under the Public Service Health Care Plan to seek an appeal if they are dissatisfied with the end result of the adjudication by Canada Life. That is done by a third-party organization called the Public Service Health Care Plan Administration Authority. They have a board which manages appeals. That is one recourse mechanism that exists for any of those plan members who disagree with the ultimate adjudication decision by Canada Life.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: According to your information, are a number of civil servants’ claims currently affected by this mechanism? Are these cases being resolved at a satisfactory rate?
[English]
Mr. Prest: Yes, that is a good question. Right now there is a slight backlog through the appeals process, but it is manageable. In a normal situation, you would see appeal turnaround times in a matter of a couple of weeks. Now what we are looking at is around two to three months in order to address those appeal cases.
Most of the issues, as I mentioned earlier, have been addressed, but there are still some residual cases that have not been resolved. There was a spike in appeals, I would say, during 2024, and that has reduced now where we are back to more of a normal lot of appeals coming in. However, there are still some that need to be addressed.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: If we see you again next year, normally the situation should be resolved and cases shouldn’t be pending for several months, right?
Mr. Prest: Could you repeat the question?
Senator Forest: We look forward to seeing you again next year and hope that the situation will have returned to normal and that there will not be too many cases pending for too many months.
[English]
Mr. Prest: Yes, agreed. No question on that. There are lessons learned from this entire procurement process that will be applied for future procurement around the public service benefit plans.
The Chair: Thank you. You are on the record.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Thank you, Ms. Paré and everyone accompanying you, for being with us today.
My questions concern situations that really surprised me. I used to be president of the Treasury Board in Quebec. I don’t recall ever receiving a single report from the Auditor General that was as critical as the Auditor General of Canada’s report on the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, whether on the current use of federal accommodations and offices or on the professional services contracts that were awarded, particularly to GC Strategies. I view the Treasury Board — and correct me if I am wrong — as the guardian and watchdog of compliance with policies, notices and recommendations for the sound administration of public funds within government, whether national or provincial.
With regard to the current use of federal accommodations and offices, the Auditor General indicates that the Centre of Expertise for Real Property, which had been established by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, was dissolved in March 2024. Could you tell us why? Your work is horizontal and ensures that all policies are followed. You even set up this office to ensure horizontal control of spending in this area. Why was the centre dissolved?
[English]
Mr. Franco: Thank you very much for the question. We did appreciate the Auditor General’s acknowledgement that the work of our Centre of Expertise for Real Property was strong, good and supportive of the work of the community. The funding did expire. The Centre of Expertise was given a three-year funding mandate, and that funding concluded. Of course, with the absence of funding, we have had to scale back those activities. We are doing an ongoing review and looking at how we can prioritize the work that we have with the resources we have to continue to support the real property community. Funding decisions are made by government, and, of course, we will operate within the means that we are given to continue to deliver and support the community.
Senator Moreau: Should I understand that you don’t have the resources to do your job?
Mr. Franco: We have the resources to deliver on our mandate. The Centre of Expertise was a special organization that was created with a three-year mandate, and based on the results of the Auditor General, we delivered on that mandate. Of course, we would like to continue, but we are going to return to our normal activities.
Senator Moreau: If I may, if you have the resources, why don’t you continue on the follow-up of the recommendation by the Centre d’expertise en matière de biens immobiliers?
[Translation]
I see in the Auditor General’s report that, of the 119 recommendations from the horizontal fixed asset review, 21 — or 18% — were implemented. Where do we stand today with this 18% figure?
[English]
Mr. Franco: I don’t have those details in front of me, but we can get back to you with details on our delivery against the —
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Could you provide them to the committee clerk?
Mr. Franco: Yes.
Senator Moreau: On the issue of professional services contracts awarded to GC Strategies, I was struck by the fact that, of the six contracts awarded by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, five were awarded without a competition. What was the reason for that?
[English]
Annie Boyer, Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: I don’t have the details of why some contracts have been provided without being done competitively, but I can come back to the committee with that information.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Thank you. We are talking about $10 million in contracts, $8 million excluding taxes, and about six contracts that were awarded by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, five of which were awarded without competitive bidding.
Ms. Boyer: Exactly. For a total of $1.3 million.
Senator Moreau: For what reason?
Ms. Boyer: Unfortunately, I don’t have that information with me today.
Senator Moreau: So, are you going to provide the information?
Ms. Boyer: I will be happy to provide it to the committee.
Senator Moreau: My next question is for Ms. Paré.
When the Auditor General produced her report, particularly on the awarding of contracts, she considered 12 policies, notices or directives from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat that were not followed by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat itself. Can you explain how such a situation could occur?
Ms. Paré: Could you repeat the question, please?
Senator Moreau: To formulate her conclusions, the Auditor General states, on page 16 of 18 of her report —
Ms. Paré: Still on service contracts?
Senator Moreau: Yes. She considered 12 policies, notices or directives from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. She concluded that they had not been followed. Can you tell me why?
[English]
Mr. Franco: Thank you for the question. That’s a very important question that we —
Senator Moreau: I think so too.
Mr. Franco: The Auditor General did say, you know, the rules are there, they’re clear, but in these cases, they are not being followed. At Treasury Board we have been focusing on two things. How can we strengthen the management of procurement across the Government of Canada? Over the last several years, we have implemented a number of measures to support stronger documentation, stronger internal controls and stronger values and ethics across the public service under the responsibility of respective deputy heads.
We have also been focusing on — and this is something we have seen in the audit — is the role of managers and managers and their understanding of the procurement process so that when they are exercising a procurement, they know not just what the rules are, but what their role is, which is an important role. We have managers that make decisions around procurement, and then we have procurement professionals that support them in the achievement of those objectives.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Franco.
Senator Pupatello: Good morning. I wanted to ask about procurement and then determine maybe cutting, who is the appropriate one. We had heard the other day that there will be a 2% decrease in operations. We need to flatline the expenses and take care of the deficit over time. I had asked about attrition and what the rate of attrition would be. Is that how you intend to gain those savings? Line that up against consultants and the number of consultants that have been seen to be used and the idea that we’re going to continue down that path or not. What are the procurement rules and how have they changed since debacles like ArriveCAN? Tell me how it was, how those rules have changed and how that has aligned with the use of more consultants or fewer consultants in this environment of having to decrease by 2%.
Ms. Paré: In terms of the expenditure review and reducing the operating budgets for departments, the government has set clear objectives in terms of reducing the operating budgets in their platform — $6 billion in 2026-27, $9 billion in 2027-28 and $13 billion in 2028-29. We’re in the preliminary phase of this exercise in terms of defining the parameters of the review and how it will be done. This will be communicated to the departments eventually, and then they will determine where they could be readjusting their operating budgets.
I don’t have the details at this point in terms of if it will be focusing necessarily on professional services. It’s definitely part of what we will be looking at, but it’s not the only item that will be part of that review. More specific parameters are going to be defined, I would say, in the coming weeks.
Mr. Franco: On the subject of reducing consulting and professional services, I want to go back just to highlight that of the spending that we have in the professional services space, less than 5% is only management consultants, but we are looking at how we could further reduce that and how we have better controls around that.
Two things have been done over the last couple of years. One, our colleagues over in Public Services and Procurement Canada have implemented a number of measures around strengthening the controls on the tools that people use to buy professional services. Actually, just last week, they announced some additional measures, including caps on the size of professional service contracts and on the length of those contracts. That should play a key role in reducing the size of these contracts and how much is going to these types of firms.
At the same time, as I was mentioning earlier, we’ve been doing work to strengthen managers’ understanding and decision-making around whether or not to use professional services. Two years ago, we released a guide for managers to help them make the decision of whether to use professional public service or use consultants, and we have now embedded some of those rules and guidance into our policy. Now, before a professional services contract is signed, a manager has to attest to a number of things. First, if they thought about whether or not consultants were the right path to go forward, and if they go forward with that, that they’ve taken a number of diligent steps to make sure there’s integrity behind that decision and the right controls are in place before proceeding with that contract.
Senator Pupatello: Thank you. I had a stint with a consulting firm in the private sector after my public life, and I just want to share that the view of the consultant side is that is they need to hedge their risk when they’re making these offers to their client. I would suggest that they do that with how they make their submission and what they’re going to charge you. There’s an expertise that you’re paying for that we’re assuming you don’t have internally.
At some point, it is better for you to have that level of knowledge inside the government so that you are not paying for the risk. That’s when it becomes problematic to constantly go to consulting. I am not anti-consulting by any stretch because it’s a moving target. IT is probably like that. You can’t pay enough of a salary to get the level of IT knowledge that you need inside government. That seems to be the case at every level of government. I don’t want to be anti, I just want to be mindful that there’s a thought process around at what stage do you not contract and take that knowledge inside the government. There have been many debacles, not just at the federal level. Every province has probably had their own. I certainly saw many at the Ontario government. It’s because we don’t have that level of expertise for proper oversight. That’s my caution.
Mr. Franco: Thank you.
Senator Galvez: Thank you so much for your presence today. The mandate of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat Centre for Greening Government is to provide leadership toward net-zero emissions, climate resilience and green Government of Canada operations. The Auditor General found that while the Greening Government Strategy outlines emission targets, there is no system to track actual costs and savings over time.
Can you please provide examples of leadership, concrete actions and reports on how these initiatives are progressing?
Mr. Franco: I can share a little bit of insight. Unfortunately, it is not my area of expertise, but my team does work closely with the Centre for Greening Government.
One of the areas we’re particularly proud of is the electrification of the federal government fleet. As of 2023-24, 83% of the light-duty vehicles purchased by the Government of Canada are now a green vehicle. As well, greenhouse gas emissions from our real property and conventional vehicles fleet was reduced by 42% compared to 2005 levels, and we are continuing to work across Treasury Board, with departments and with Crown corporations to meet our net-zero targets by 2050.
Senator Galvez: The Working Group on Public Service Productivity was announced in 2024. In the assessment from the pandemic era, some weaknesses were highlighted, such as performance indicators focusing mainly on speed and volume but not on administrative efficiency and service outcomes or cost effectiveness.
What is being done? What is the progress on public service productivity and the digital transformation?
Mr. Velez-Guerra: On the indicators on productivity in the public service, we review targets on a regular basis and try to ensure that we move away from outputs toward more outcomes. What we try to do is every time there’s a new program that comes to Treasury Board Secretariat, we provide a challenge function on those indicators that are created, and we try to move departments away from transactional indicators or try to achieve ultimate outcomes on a regular basis.
We also provide capacity to departments to try to move away from measuring lower-level outcomes and try to achieve results for Canadians.
Senator Galvez: Can you give an example?
Mr. Velez-Guerra: Any program that comes to Treasury Board Secretariat — for example, outputs will be very transactional. The number of people being trained would be a good example. Instead of the number of people being trained, we try to see, okay, if you’re trying to make a change in the state of people trying to find employment, try to measure that, people who obtain employment as opposed to people being trained. That is more of an ultimate outcome as opposed to transactional, people being trained. We try to move people in departments toward ultimate results.
Senator Loffreda: Welcome to our Finance Committee. I’d like to learn more about Canada’s first AI Strategy for the public service, which the Treasury Board Secretariat launched earlier this year. I understand this strategy was developed following broad public consultations and is structured around four key priority areas, including the establishment of an AI Centre of Expertise to support and coordinate government-wide AI initiatives. I’m specifically interested in your department’s perspective on how AI can enhance the efficiency and quality of program and service delivery for Canadians. Just as importantly, how do you see AI playing a role in reducing the overall cost of running government operations? Everyone says AI will reduce costs. Do you see that happening?
Stephen Burt, Chief Data Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Performance Sector, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thanks for the question, senator. It’s good to see you again.
Senator Loffreda: Good to see you again. Always a pleasure.
Mr. Burt: Stephen Burt, Chief Data Officer for Canada at Treasury Board Secretariat.
Yes, we released the strategy in March. We have an accompanying implementation plan that will be released shortly now that the AI-related announcements at the G7 have come out this week. That will give details in terms of how we’re actually driving the 60-some specific activities under the strategy that will roll out over the next two years to drive a variety of things, including the stand up of the AI Centre of Expertise at Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat to coordinate that function.
I think from a Treasury Board Secretariat standpoint, one of the key deliverables we’re looking for out of the strategy is a register that will tell us what departments are using AI for and how they are using it. That would be publicly available, that register, so we can show the public where AI is being used.
But certainly the questions around efficiencies and savings are high on our list of things we are looking at and hoping to achieve with AI. I think the point I would make is that artificial intelligence, like many technologies in the business context, really has to be viewed through a lens of return on investment. You have to make some investments up front in order to change what it is you are doing in the technology space and to not just add the technology but to shift your business processes around the technology so that you’re delivering the businesses in a fundamentally different way.
So the AI tools will clearly be an important part of that, but it is too soon to tell. Even in the private sector, we’re only just getting some indications, some signs now over the last two years with generative AI of where savings and efficiencies are most significant across a variety of private sector business areas. So too soon to tell exactly where those savings are going to be.
Senator Loffreda: Good luck. Thank you.
I’d like to revisit one of the performance indicators I have flagged in the past, namely the statement that the government has good asset and financial management practices. Table 4 of your departmental plan tracks the percentage of key financial management processes for which a system of internal controls is at the continuous monitoring stage. The target is appropriately 100%, it should be 100%.
I want to highlight the significant progress made in this area from 46% in 2021-22 to 65% in 2022-23 and now 93%, a remarkable improvement over just three years. Congratulations. Could you walk us through how this progress was achieved and what specific measures or policies were introduced to strengthen internal controls and improve financial management across departments. Will you ever attain 100%? Is that possible or is it just a number put out there?
Mr. Velez-Guerra: Thank you so much for the question. That indicator is specifically for the comptrollership program under the Comptroller General of Canada. We can provide that information in writing, as it is more specific to that part of the department as opposed to work which is more general.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: My question concerns the comparison between the Fall Economic Statement and the Main Estimates. Page 1–3 of the document states that all government costs were estimated at $554 billion in the Fall Economic Statement. Currently, the Main Estimates total $487 billion, to which must be added the $74 billion included in the Fall Economic Statement.
This brings us to approximately $560 billion, which is slightly above the forecast. Since then, we have had supplementary estimates of nearly $10 billion, and there will be additional Supplementary Estimates (B) and (C). Are we to understand that the fall forecast is no longer valid?
Ms. Paré: There are several components to your question.
When we look at the Fall Economic Statement, some things were indeed announced. However, the departments have not yet sought their funding because they are still working on their implementation plans. They will apply to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat at a later date. In principle, these funds would be included in future Supplementary Estimates (B) or (C).
Yes, the amount of $486.9 billion is already higher, with the $9 billion from Supplementary Estimates (A). It will increase further with the initiatives for which departments will seek funding in the coming months.
With regard to fiscal projections and deficits, my colleagues from the Department of Finance, who will be appearing later today, would be in a better position to answer that question. Usually, this is included in the budget. A budget is planned in the fall, but it would be better for them to answer that question. Yes, there are amounts that have not been paid and will be paid in the coming months.
Senator Dalphond: We would already exceed the original amount of $554.5 billion, and that does not include some new programs that have been announced for which departments have not yet requested funding. Is that right?
Ms. Paré: The $554 billion includes what was announced in the Fall Economic Statement. However, what was announced later on is not included.
Senator Dalphond: What are the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s forecasts for 2025–2026?
Ms. Paré: I can’t make any accurate forecasts because we don’t control when the departments will come forward with their implementation plan. It will depend on when they finalize their plans. They will request access to funds and that will appear in appropriation bills. It is difficult for me to give you an exact amount at this time.
Senator Dalphond: I assume that, since these programs were announced in the fall…. It will soon be a year since they were announced, so I assume that they should come into effect soon, right?
Ms. Paré: You are absolutely right. In principle, that should happen this year. In some cases, sums are announced, but the departments do not request them right away.
Senator Dalphond: As a good manager, you plan based on the scenario that you will spend what has been authorized rather than the opposite, right?
Ms. Paré: Yes.
Senator Dalphond: Do you anticipate that the $554 billion will actually represent $600 billion in spending?
Ms. Paré: I can’t give you the exact figure, as I don’t know what the next announcements will be yet.
Senator Dalphond: You have no idea of the order of magnitude?
Ms. Paré: No. There could be other decisions, other investments for which —
Senator Dalphond: I understand that new things may be announced, such as an increase in the defence budget, new budgets for housing or new national projects that may require investments. However, based on current forecasts, are you getting organized to comply with the fall statements or, on the contrary, are you realizing that they will be exceeded?
Ms. Paré: I don’t want to give specific figures because I’m not sure enough. I’ll refrain from commenting.
The Chair: We understand your cautious response.
Ms. Paré: I’m sorry.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Senator MacAdam: The government has committed that it will be guided by a new fiscal discipline. The Prime Minister stated that the government must become much more productive, including by focusing on results over spending. So last fall when the Treasury Board Secretariat came to our Finance Committee, it was highlighted that you were reviewing the Policy on Results. I’m wondering what progress has been made on that policy. When can we expect that new policy?
Mr. Velez-Guerra: The Policy on Results review was completed last year and the main finding was that it aligns very much with what the Prime Minister is saying about focusing on results in that we need a public service that has a culture of results. There is a lot of work to be done on that front to make results at the forefront for people in government across different departments. We are doing a number of things right now. We are reviewing the policy to make changes to it.
At the moment, we expect to go to Treasury Board for approval late in the fall with some changes to it, including, for example, giving — we are thinking about giving more prominence for deputies to influence the culture of results by having increased responsibility to advance that culture in departments.
There are a number of changes we are considering, but it would be premature for me to convey them yet, as we need to go through approval processes internally.
Senator MacAdam: Excluding the issue of culture, it was announced before we had a new prime minister that the policy was being reviewed. What were some of the issues identified — some of the problems or weaknesses with the policy that was in place?
Mr. Velez-Guerra: First, under the culture aspect, departments, for example, on evaluation, have a difficulty to pinpoint effectiveness very well. There is a lot of evaluation work that could be more on the impact evaluation side as opposed to not having a specific result on effectiveness and efficiency. That’s work that needs to be done.
Secondly, some of the thresholds that we have for grants and contributions, or G&Cs, evaluations have now lost their — so there is an exemption such that under $5 million of G&Cs, you don’t need to evaluate them. We need to update that threshold because that amount over five years is not the same as it used to be due to inflation. So we need to think about changing that threshold.
Another one relates to targets and indicators. We need to make sure they are more accurate. Some programs may not have indicators, so we may need to do work to ensure that all the programs have indicators and reflect the objectives of government. There are a number of them, but those are the key ones.
Senator MacAdam: Have these results reports been used to make decisions on scaling back, changing or eliminating programs? Or is it a paper-pushing exercise? What happens with that?
Mr. Velez-Guerra: Thank you for the question. Yes, they have been used. Every time there has been a focusing government spending exercise or a spending review, we have requested specific information on results based on evaluation and performance measurement to ensure that this information is factored in when programs are being reviewed in a spending review for cuts, and so forth.
Senator MacAdam: Returning to Senator Marshall’s question on the operating expenses and the basis for determining the 2% reduction, why wouldn’t you consider the audited consolidated statement of operations to be the actual operating expenses given that it’s the operating statement and it’s audited? I’m just trying to achieve some clarity on what you might apply the 2% reduction to.
Ms. Paré: As I explained before, we have not finalized the parameters of the review at this point. So I cannot confirm what the exact basis will be, but we are in the planning phase and eventually we will be able to confirm the basis for actually determine the 2% reduction.
Senator MacAdam: Okay, because my understanding is that that is integral to determining what the deficit might be, and that’s the actual statement that shows the deficit. That’s the point I wanted to make. Thank you.
Ms. Paré: Thank you.
Senator Kingston: I would like to ask you about your direction on prescribed presence in the workplace policy where you have apparently had full implementation in September of last year, and that that, of course, is the hybrid work across government departments and a minimum of three days a week. I would like you to talk about it in terms of how it ties in with your working group on public service productivity.
Also, the procurement group was here yesterday, and they are trying to free up office space and so on. Can you talk about how those three things are intertwined? Hopefully, you are freeing up some space. Hopefully, the productivity of federal employees has not been diminished by their being offsite more in the last few years. How has your full implementation been working?
Vidya ShankarNarayan, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, People and Culture, Treasury Board Secretariat: Thank you for the question, senator. I will speak about the actual hybrid presence, and then I will pass it on to my colleagues to speak about the productivity.
As you mentioned, every deputy minister has adopted the decision to have hybrid in the public service: three days a week for all employees and four days a week on site for all executives. Every deputy minister is not only implementing it but also monitoring it and ensuring that employees are able to have the duty to accommodate measures on site as well as all of the tools that they need — both technology tools and other tools required — in order to be as productive as they can be, both on site when they are in the office the three or four days and also when they are working remotely. I will now pass it on to my colleague to speak about the productivity.
Ms. Paré: I don’t have all the details of the productivity working group. I know they will be focusing on ways to improve service to Canadians, the use of technology to address barriers for individuals and businesses and increase capacity for innovation and flexibility.
In terms of the objective of reducing, my colleagues from Public Services and Procurement Canada, or PSPC, would probably be better placed to answer the question. However, my understanding is that they have based their plan on the hybrid model that we have established: three days at the office, which is a hybrid model. That’s what they were using to establish their targets in terms of reducing the footprint. We can come back, perhaps, in terms of the length of productivity work we’re doing because I realize that I’m not necessarily directly answering your question. Perhaps we could take that back and provide a more complete answer to that question?
Senator Kingston: As one concluding point, my understanding is that there have been individual exceptions or accommodations to hybrid working. What percentage of employees would that cover?
Ms. ShankarNarayan: You are correct, senator. Based on our policy for the duty to accommodate, as well as policies where we have persons with disabilities and the duty to accommodate for a medical reason or for other reasons, we have a specific request made.
As for the policy, every department has a committee at the level of the assistant deputy minister where the requests are presented for employ to receive exemptions — or not — in order to meet the policy on presence in the office. At this point, from a percentage perspective, I don’t have the percentage here, but we will provide it to the committee based on the latest data we have.
Senator Kingston: Okay. If you could do that, that would be great.
Senator Pate: In the interest of time, I will ask a number of questions and perhaps you can send answers in writing if you don’t have time to answer.
First, the Treasury Board is identified as a colleague department on the action plan measures to develop and implement the process and further direction for government departments and agencies to ensure bills and proposed regulations are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in their sustainable development strategy.
Given the concerns that are being raised right now and have been this past week by Indigenous peoples about Bill C-5 with respect to the UN declaration and consultation in particular, I am curious as to what role your department is playing in ensuring that bills are consistent with the UN declaration, how this played out as the government developed the contents of Bill C-5 in particular. Also, what process or directives are you developing or have you developed to implement Bill C-5 for the relevant departments? Could you share those with us?
In addition, given the number of lawsuits to redress discrimination and the fact that this is already on the horizon for Bill C-5, when the government is clearly violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — and I note, for instance, the class-action lawsuit in which the federal government spent $10 million defending discriminatory practices — once there is a requirement to remedy that, the costs are incredible, in terms of fighting those as well as the costs of then redressing breaches. What kinds of assessments are being done by each department in that regard? How do you weigh that? What directives do you provide from the Treasury Board about whether to pursue challenges when there is clearly discriminatory behaviour? There are a number of questions there.
[Translation]
The Chair: I understand that you will answer in writing?
[English]
Ms. Paré: We will respond in writing, yes.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
I will give my time to Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: When Ms. Boudreau appeared before the committee a while back, she said that the public accounts would be available by, I think, the middle of October. Last year we waited until December. Is that still the timeline, according to the plan?
Ms. Paré: I think it is still the plan. We can come back to the committee with a clear answer.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
Mr. Velez-Guerra: I don’t have the specific time for public accounts, but we are targeting October for departmental results report, as early as possible to align with the public accounts. I imagine October is probably going to be the time they are targeting, but I will confirm that.
Mr. Franco: I’m actually happy to respond to that. So, you know we are required to table public accounts no later than December 31st, following the end of the fiscal year, or within 15 days when the House reconvenes for that period.
For previous public accounts there was additional analysis required, which contributed to the late tabling date. But the government does remain committed to having the public accounts 2025 ready for tabling by October 15.
Senator Marshall: That is still the commitment?
Mr. Franco: Notwithstanding any extraordinary events.
Senator Marshall: Well, that would be very helpful. Because I recognize what the Financial Administration Act says, but I think that act was enacted 50 years ago, and we now have computers and artificial intelligence. It would be really helpful.
[Translation]
The Chair: That concludes our time with this panel of witnesses. We would greatly appreciate it if you could provide us with answers by tomorrow afternoon. We understand that the deadline is extremely tight. For questions that will take longer to answer, if you could send us the answers within the next 15 days, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.
We are pleased to welcome our friends from Public Safety Canada. Joining us are: Patrick Amyot, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Management Branch and Chief Financial Officer; Marcia Jones, Director General, Program Planning and Implementation; and Douglas May, Acting Director General, Emergency Management and Programs Branch.
[English]
Patrick Amyot, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Management Branch and Chief Financial Officer, Public Safety Canada: Mr. Chair, honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to join you today in order to share an overview of the 2025-26 Main Estimates for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, also known simply as Public Safety.
[Translation]
I would first like to point out that I am appearing before you today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
As you know, Public Safety Canada exercises national leadership to ensure the safety and security of Canada and Canadians. Its mission is to build a safe and resilient Canada. It contributes to our country’s resilience through the development and implementation of innovative policies and programs and through the effective engagement of domestic and international partners.
The department plays an important role in three areas for Canadians: community safety, emergency management and national security.
[English]
Public Safety programs touch on borders, firearms, foreign interference, human and drug trafficking, auto theft, national security and emergency response, among others.
[Translation]
As I mentioned earlier, I am here as the Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Public Safety.
Today, colleagues have joined me to talk more about their respective areas of expertise.
Public Safety Canada’s Main Estimates reflect its mandate to make Canadian communities strong, safe and resilient.
[English]
The total Public Safety funding included in the 2025-26 Main Estimates is $2.2 billion. This represents a 35% increase over the Main Estimates from 2024-25.
The most significant item is $616 million for the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements, or DFAA, contribution program. This amount represents a $66 million increase from the previous year in Vote 5, Grants and Contributions funding for this DFAA program.
[Translation]
Given its vast geography, Canada faces a range of risks associated with large-scale natural disasters, including forest fires, floods, earthquakes and other events.
The current wildfire season is on track to become the second largest on record. The fires have consumed 3.7 million hectares so far, with devastating effects on Canadians across the country.
[English]
As many of you already know, the purpose of the DFAA program is to assist provinces and territories with the costs of dealing with natural disasters.
[Translation]
The second most significant item included in Public Safety Canada’s Main Estimates is $353 million in funding for the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program. That program addresses the priority of providing police services that are professional, dedicated and responsive to these communities.
[English]
Public Safety is also seeking $343 million in grants and contributions funding through these Main Estimates to secure the return of prohibited assault-style firearms from our communities and to keep our most at-risk communities safe from gun violence. The program responds to a recommendation from the Mass Casualty Commission, “to rapidly reduce the number of prohibited semi-automatic firearms in circulation in Canada.” Under this program, the department is offering fair compensation to eligible firearms owners and businesses to support them in complying with the law.
[Translation]
The 2025-26 Main Estimates also provide $35 million in contributions to fund a humanitarian workforce to respond to large-scale emergencies, including this year’s wildfires.
[English]
Finally, Public Safety is proposing $16.6 million in grants and contributions for the Canada Community Security Program that supports the Safer Communities Initiative. This is a program that secures community centres, places of worship and other places of gathering from hate-motivated crimes, particularly in the face rising geopolitical tensions.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, my colleagues and I are ready to discuss this budget with the members of the committee.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Thank you for being here today.
Witnesses from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat just testified on the previous panel. We had some discussions about the commitment in the Throne Speech that the operating budget in government has been growing by 9% every year and that government will introduce measures to bring it below 2%.
Have you received any direction from the Treasury Board as to the implementation of that policy? If not, have you done any calculations yourself internally?
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for the question.
We have not received any targets yet from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat to us, as a department. We are expecting that in the next few weeks. So far, in preparation for these potential reductions, the department is looking at various options and how we could address any targets coming to us.
Senator Marshall: Have you identified the targets — overall government? I estimate it will be $8 billion. Have you determined the target for yours?
Mr. Amyot: No.
Senator Marshall: Okay.
I know a lot of attention has been given to professional services lately. I don’t know if my numbers are correct, but it shows that in last year’s Main Estimates, you requested $27 million. This year, it is up to $124 million. Is that correct?
Mr. Amyot: Yes.
Senator Marshall: What is the reason for the significant increase?
Mr. Amyot: First, these are estimates in terms of how we will be spending the money. Second, this year, we have the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program — for professional services — meaning contracts — for the collection and destruction and collection of assault-style firearms — is a significant amount in the increase.
I have Marcia Jones here with me today. She is in charge of the program, and she could maybe give you more on that.
Senator Marshall: My next question was that, if I still have time.
I notice there is $260 million requested in grants and another $75 million under contributions. I was looking at your website, and it says that businesses must submit claims by April 30, 2025. I wonder how you came up with the estimates and whether you had all the applications received by April 30 and so, therefore, it is based on that. Can you tell us a little about that?
Mr. Amyot: I’ll ask my colleague.
Marcia Jones, Director General, Program Planning and Implementation, Public Safety Canada: Thank you for the question. If I understand correctly, the question is to understand the number of assault-style firearms that have been claimed under the program to date as of April 30.
Senator Marshall: How did you come up with the $260 million and the $75 million?
Ms. Jones: Over 12,000 assault-style firearms, as of April 30, which is the closing date, have been claimed under the program at a total compensation cost to businesses of a little over $20 million. However, there are additional costs for the program relating to the destruction of firearms by a third-party destruction services provider, as my colleague mentioned. To date for the business phase, $4.8 million has been invoiced. In addition, there are other services-related costs and staff costs. I’m happy to speak to the total program costs to date.
Senator Marshall: Would you be able to provide to the clerk the breakdown? It sounds like the $260 million and the $75 million is a breakdown — there is so much there with regard to destruction and also compensation. Is that how it works? I would like to see the breakdown.
Why is some of the money under grants while other money is under contributions?
Mr. Amyot: I can maybe answer the question and give you more information.
The $260 million in grants is for compensation to individual gun owners. That amount is based on the methodology — the forecasted number of prohibited guns that we are aware of when we are estimating. This is based on fair compensation. That’s the $260 million.
The $75 million in contributions is still for individuals. It is for a contribution agreement with provinces and territories that would be collaborating in collecting the assault-style firearms in their respective jurisdictions.
Senator Marshall: Could you send the breakdown of those to the clerk? I would be very interested. Thank you.
Senator Pupatello: It is good to see you here today.
I wanted to give you a little story so that you could answer the question of how you anticipate spending the additional funds that are being requested, both in defence and Public Safety. I come from an area that is largely surrounded by water — a baby, shallow lake that flows from Lake Huron along the Detroit River and into Lake Erie — hundreds of kilometres covered in that area. It is the number one border crossing in the country: 25% of all trade between the U.S. and Canada goes through that corridor of Windsor-Detroit, which is my hometown — over 1.4 million trucks a year, just for context.
I want to mention the state of security coverage at the Windsor-Detroit border. There is no electronic surveillance by DND, the Canadian Coast Guard, OPP or local police. There are no drones. The only tracking is done of ships by the Coast Guard, which is for commercial ships and only when they have their radar turned on to be seen. Needless to say, for any nefarious activity, they probably don’t turn that radar on to be seen on the water. No one can see vessels on the water around that area — largest trading point — ground zero for trade — in the country. Boats leaving our shore and perhaps coming back, among the many marinas around those kilometres of water, self-report when they come back to Canada; that’s the method used. The Canadian Coast Guard has no enforcement authority or night-vision capability at that epicentre of trade.
There is one program called Operation 3D. It involves two officers in a car, driving along the shoreline looking for things that seem suspicious that they would call in somewhere. However, usually there are no boats on the water 24-7. There is no 24-7 coverage by any of the police forces.
That territory goes from Goderich to Port Colbourne. That would be like St. John’s to Deer Lake and up to Port au Choix, just for some context. That would be like going from Gatineau to almost the border of New Brunswick; that is the distance that would be covered.
So the local police have one hour-eight shift, the OPP has a 10-hour shift and there is no coordination for 24-7 coverage at that epicentre of trade.
The RCMP do have two Black Hawk helicopters, but again, if they spot something, there isn’t necessarily a boat anywhere along those hundreds of kilometres of coverage.
A couple of weeks ago, four people were spotted underneath a boat that had capsized, and they needed to be saved. We didn’t know if they were human traffickers, criminals, drug smugglers or heavy drinkers. We didn’t have anyone to call to go and get these people out of the water, and the United States came to our defence and went to retrieve the people, which causes its own problems, because if the U.S. comes to get them, they are supposed to take them back to the U.S., but they didn’t know what their citizenship was.
To finish where I started, the Windsor-Detroit corridor is the busiest in the country. There are more guns and drugs captured at that intersection between America and Canada. In light of what is happening now with trade, with the community in Ontario being skewered by tariffs and our businesses that are suffering in that way, we have to not just do the work of security, surveillance and protection but be seen to be doing it in an effective way to make all of our colleagues around the world happy that we are taking care of these issues.
Really, this is the time for the Windsor-Detroit corridor to be a major part of new and modern investment to protect our citizenry and be seen to be protecting our more global environment.
To put this on the record — and I appreciate you don’t have the answers with a specific plan for this region — but in my understanding that is a long-standing bridge that has been there since about 1929, there is a new bridge on its way, there is a port that is gaining container capability, which has already begun, and it will only be bigger.
How can I feel comfortable that the Arctic discussion of defence is going to be done in an appropriate way given that what do have is so meagre, which is probably a kind word to describe the level of surveillance at this time.
If I could leave that with the appropriate individual.
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for the question. It is a very broad question.
On borders, the department of Public Safety Canada, which I’m representing today, has a small portion, but we do work with portfolio colleagues such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, and Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA. As well, if you are talking about bridges and other infrastructure, there is Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada and Transport Canada. That is just off the top of my head right now.
In terms of the border, as you know, there was a $1.3 billion investment announced in the winter of 2025. Public Safety Canada received $4 million in these Main Estimates to stand up and operate an information-sharing hub with the security and intelligence, or SI, community, provincial and law enforcement partners and international partners as required.
In other words, we are not on the ground. Public Safety Canada is not boots on the ground. We are more policy and coordination. That’s what I could answer for Public Safety.
Senator Pupatello: Thank you. I do appreciate that you are in that coordination role. I’m hoping you will coordinate to have the boots on the ground that we need.
In this modern day, that could be electronic devices, but it needs to be supported by people who look at what is being seen by these electronic devices.
Right now that Automatic Identification System, or AIS, that I described that only looks for commercial vessels is in St. Catharines somewhere, and they don’t have as many people there following to see what electronic device might show.
Recently the Windsor Police Service has purchased a helicopter, thanks to the Province of Ontario. Then they fight over who is going to operate the helicopter. These are things that a local police force in the scope of guns, drugs, organized crime and protection of international trade — which we want to grow, hence the investment of the Gordie Howe International Bridge and bringing the 401 right to the river — I think it is incumbent on us to have a plan where this is the epicentre of defence and public safety.
This is the hub. This is that funnel of 25% of the country’s trade. It’s hard to imagine that that has not been the focus yet, and we are left with less than 24-hour coverage, no night vision whatsoever and no activity to know what vessels are on the water.
They have caught cocaine in kayaks on the river by chance. My concern is that when these things happen by chance and when you actually start looking to protect, you will find, and that’s what we need to be seen to be doing, as well as to be doing it.
I appreciate that you will be focusing on this. We can take this offline, certainly, and I’m happy to have that conversation.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Good afternoon.
Senator Marshall was asking you about the programs that cost $260 million and $75 million. A third firearms compensation program costs $7 million. Can you explain why there are three programs? How do these programs differ?
Mr. Amyot: I understand the question. Thank you for asking it. I forgot to mention the $7 million. The program is divided into two phases. The first phase involves recovering firearms from businesses.
Senator Moreau: These are the arms dealers.
Mr. Amyot: Absolutely. The people who sell them.
Senator Moreau: Inventories.
Mr. Amyot: Inventories. The second phase, which hasn’t yet been launched, will involve recovering firearms from individual owners. The $260 million in compensation consists of grants paid in return for firearms recovered from individuals. The $7 million in grants can be explained as follows: The program for businesses began in December 2024, during the 2024-25 fiscal year, and ended on April 30, 2025, during the 2025-26 fiscal year.
Senator Moreau: It’s the tail end of the program.
Mr. Amyot: It’s the tail end of the program.
Senator Moreau: Okay. I can understand how you come up with your estimates for commercial inventories. However, how do you do come up with them for individuals?
Mr. Amyot: Good question. We have forecasts. I’ll ask my colleague to answer.
Ms. Jones: Thank you for the question.
[English]
Work is under way to prepare to launch the individuals’ phase later in 2025.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: My question is the following. How do you come up with your estimates for individuals?
Ms. Jones: Come up with the estimates?
Senator Moreau: You forecast $54 million. You estimate that this is how much it will cost to buy back guns from individuals. How do you estimate the number of guns that are owned by individuals and that you’ll need to buy back?
[English]
Ms. Jones: Thank you for the question, and my apologies for not understanding it.
Senator Moreau: No, no, it is lost in translation.
Ms. Jones: We are estimating that there is a total of approximately 180,000 assault-style firearms to collect under the program. Those estimates are based on data provided by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for previously registered firearms. This allows us to forecast anticipated program costs for the individuals’ phase, in terms of what we will be collecting.
We are also in the process of establishing compensation amounts for the individuals’ phase. Those forecasts provide the data set under which we develop the cost estimates.
Senator Kingston: I’m going back to a question that you answered in written form last September, and it has to do with your departmental plan on planning pan-Canadian flood resistance.
I’m from the Fredericton area of New Brunswick, where flooding is not common but not irregular, I guess.
Your answer said that in 2020 the government of Canada created an interdisciplinary task force on flood insurance and relocation with the goal of establishing a set of viable options for a national flood insurance program in Canada. You also said that in Budget 2024, the government affirmed its intention to establish a subsidiary of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, to deliver flood reinsurance and provide $15 million to CMHC in 2025-26 to advance the implementation of a national flood insurance program by 2025.
It is 2025, so I thought I would ask where that was at.
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for the question. My colleague Doug May will be able to answer that question.
Douglas May, Acting Director General, Emergency Management and Programs Branch, Public Safety Canada: Good morning. Thank you for the question, senator.
What I would say is that through considerable consultation with provinces and territories, the Insurance Bureau of Canada and other stakeholders, we are looking to advance this work as a priority.
We’re still moving through the policy process for this, but I am not yet in a position to say when we will actually launch this. Right now, we are finalizing the design programs and operating mechanisms, and this involves continuation and discussions with provinces and territories.
Senator Kingston: Do you think it will be in this fiscal year, by March 31, 2026?
Mr. May: I’m not in a position to confirm this. I’m sorry.
Senator Kingston: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: I’ll start with an easy question.
[English]
Funding to enhance security around the parliamentary campus, $10 million.
[Translation]
It sounds like a new program, a new contribution. What exactly is it?
Mr. Amyot: My colleague can give you a more detailed answer. It’s a new program to provide funding to the Ottawa police for the Parliamentary Precinct for security both inside and around Parliament. A total of $10 million is earmarked.
Senator Dalphond: It’s a contribution to the City of Ottawa?
Mr. Amyot: Absolutely.
[English]
Chad Westmacott, Director General, Community Safety, Corrections and Criminal Justice, Public Safety Canada: That’s correct, yes. It is to support the Ottawa Police Service, given that it is their jurisdiction and the parliamentary district has a lot of additional costing for the services that the Ottawa Police will provide.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
My next question concerns the growing radicalization observed in certain groups and communities. What programs do you have in place? Are there community groups, local police forces, the RCMP and so on? Do any programs address radicalization, particularly among young people and people who use the internet a great deal to learn about certain things and then proceed to take action?
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for the question. I’ll start answering it. My colleague, Douglas May, can continue.
The Main Estimates include $15.1 million for radicalization. A total of $5.4 million is earmarked for operations. These aren’t contributions. They’re salaries to develop policy and manage our programs. The grants and contributions budget is $9.7 million, with $6.2 million for contributions and $3.5 million for grants. Money is allocated to radicalization. We’ll focus on two points. I would now like to ask Douglas May to provide further information.
[English]
Mr. May: Thank you. Our flagship program with respect to counterterrorism is referred to as the Community Resilience Fund. It funds research, as well as community programs to counter violent extremism, particularly among youth. To date, we have about 50 agreements in place with various academic institutions and other stakeholders to look at ways, means and models to prevent terrorism.
Senator Dalphond: You referred to 50 agreements with groups like academic institutions to develop programs or models to find out what type of person is easy to radicalize or what kind of behaviour you can observe through the internet? That is theoretical, so in practice, how is the information provided to the police force, the RCMP or the security agency?
Mr. May: These programs, yes, are models for the community. They are not intelligence or counter-intelligence programs that provide information to police.
Senator Dalphond: You don’t carry out that kind of counter-intelligence program?
Mr. May: Not through this program, no.
Senator Dalphond: Through other programs?
Mr. May: Not that I can speak to.
Senator Dalphond: I see. It is more developing ways to react and then finding local people, organizations you will look through —
Mr. May: Through programming, research and evaluations at the grassroots level to work with those who are at risk of violent extremism.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
Senator MacAdam: Looking at some of the requests in the Main Estimates, I see there are connections to climate change and I would like to ask a question more broadly on this topic.
In January 2021, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change was tasked to work with the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada and others to develop a national climate change adaptation strategy. Following a two-year consultation and comment period, the final National Adaptation Strategy was released in 2023.
Recently, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development issued a report on that subject and concluded that the strategy that was released lacked essential elements to make it effective, including a prioritization of Canada’s climate change risks, an economic analysis to assign appropriate resources to different federal adaptation actions, and a comprehensive federal action plan and an effective framework for measuring and monitoring results.
There were six recommendations identified by the commissioner in which Environment and Climate Change Canada must work with other departments, including yours, to implement the recommendations that came from that report.
Can you comment on how you will support this work and what the timeline is for taking action and collaboratively producing an adequate plan given that Canada was one of the last of the countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, to actually document and publish a plan? It’s been a long time coming.
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for the question. I will just start by saying that Public Safety Canada does have a part to play in that. We have $9.1 million proposed in the Main Estimates of 2025-26. The funding will be used in four areas. The first is a low-cost flood insurance program. The second is in the completion of the design for the new Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements, or DFAA. The third is the implementation of the federally identified flood-risk areas. The fourth is the creation a flood-risk awareness portal.
That’s what the money we have set aside in the broader picture of the question.
Mr. May: I can maybe add a little bit more to that. Thank you for your question.
Environment and Climate Change Canada does certainly lead the National Adaptation Strategy. We do have four program elements in support of that. The first one is the flood insurance program that I mentioned earlier. The second is the DFAA, and the DFAA modernization initiative, which was launched on April 21, 2025. We have new programming in place that is designed to be more proactive with respect to climate change and natural disasters as a result of climate change. The third and fourth are the flood-risk area and flood-risk portal. As of right now, we are doing final testing on the prototypes with the plan to launch that in the fall of 2025.
We’re putting together a number of concrete actions that are being implemented or are soon to be implemented to help support the National Adaptation Strategy.
Senator MacAdam: I was reading the Prime Minister’s press release at the conclusion of the G7 Leaders’ Summit, and Canada’s WildFireSat mission will receive funding of $68.9 million over nine years. The initiative will expand WildFireSat — that’s Canada’s satellite mission that will monitor wildfires in Canada on a daily basis — and, through these new funds, collect data from all regions of the world where wildfires occur to share critical data and products with other countries that experience wildfire.
I believe that WildFireSat is a program run through the Canadian Space Agency, but I’m wondering: Is Public Safety Canada involved in this program at all?
Mr. May: At this time, it is a Canada Space Agency program, and we are not actively involved.
Senator MacAdam: Even if it is emergency preparedness? Maybe in the future?
Mr. May: There are always some linkages from a broader perspective of what the Government of Canada is doing to mitigate fire.
I will turn the microphone over to my colleague.
Kenza El Bied, Director General, Policy and Outreach, Emergency Management and Programs Branch, Public Safety Canada: Thank you for the question. I want to start by saying this is an NRCan lead work. We have been working with them, but there is nothing that would come in to Public Safety Canada. Public Safety’s role on emergency management is to coordinate all the information and programming across all of the federal government. This is what we will be doing with them.
Senator MacAdam: So it is more coordination.
Ms. El Bied: It is more a coordination role, and this is our mandate as the Emergency Management Branch.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you all for being here. I have three questions. The Department of Public Safety’s Federal Framework to Reduce Recidivism Implementation Plan 2023-25 lists a number of things, including addressing the over-representation of Indigenous and Black Canadians in the prison system and the criminal system as a key priority, and fulfilling the commitment to TRC Call to Action 30, which would require an end to the over-representation of Indigenous people by the end of this year. And as we know, we are still at a situation where one in three men and one in two women are Indigenous in the prison system. As well, it has a focus on looking at mental health issues. We know that in 2019, the commissioner of Corrections and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety both confirmed in front of Parliament that Corrections received money in Budget 2018 to contract additional external mental health beds; not reallocation within Corrections but external new beds. Corrections has later told the committee it received no such money. In fact, it was in the budget.
Could you provide details as to what the money allocated in Budget 2018 and confirmed to Parliament by the commissioner and the parliamentary secretary in 2019 was actually spent on and provide details? Previously when I asked this, I received a list of contracts that preexisted those budgets, and it was a renewal of contracts, not new beds. Just to be clear, I’m looking for precisely what was spent on new beds.
With respect to Indigenous peoples, sections 81 and 84 contracts were originally intended, when the legislation was passed, to be contracts with Indigenous organizations. As you will know, most of those resources have gone into institutions and funding, whether they are called healing lodges or minimum security prisons/healing lodges. How has the government determined that they will assist Indigenous communities to develop capacity to allow them to have section 81 and section 84 agreements? How many agreements currently exist, where and with whom?
Finally, in the Departmental Plan 2025-26 released yesterday, it refers to the department receiving one year of funding of $150 million, from 2023-24 for the Newfoundland adult corrections facility project. Could you please provide details about that project? If I run out of time, if you could provide it in writing.
[Translation]
The Chair: I gather that you’ll be responding in writing, unless you have a tentative answer.
[English]
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for your question. Some of your questions should be directed to Correctional Service Canada for beds and all of that. They are in charge of the management of the penitentiaries. We will answer based on what we can provide.
[Translation]
The Chair: It’s indicated who should answer the parts of the questions identified.
[English]
Senator Pate: I agree that they should be. We have received inconsistent responses at four different committees from Corrections, and given that this is a Public Safety framework to reduce recidivism, it falls under those obligations, so I am asking for your assistance to actually get that data.
Senator Galvez: Continuing on the questions that Senator MacAdam asked you, I would like to say this: On your website, your roles include emergency management, disaster preparedness, response coordination, disaster financial assistance, national security, community safety, border and immigration enforcement, and intergovernmental coordination.
Thank you so much for your initial remarks talking about extreme weather events and the fires. We all know that Canada has experienced an alarming rise in extreme weather events, wildfires, floods, hurricanes, heatwaves and heat domes that disproportionately affect municipalities and smaller communities.
In fact, in your requirement for your budget, you have increased by 37%. You talk about giving support to municipalities for resilience and voluntary organizations, and supporting humanitarian workforce response to emergencies.
A few weeks ago, I was in Geneva. The United Nations organized Platform five, which discusses disaster risk reduction, national adaptation strategy, and, in the same day, framework progress and advancement. There was nobody from Canada, from the government, to answer, so they invited me to go there.
There is this discussion about there are no natural disasters. All disasters are human-made. And there is a discussion that these disasters are all preventable because we know the causes.
When I see the budget, you don’t make the difference between what is the part that goes to prevent the risk and what is the part that goes to disaster recovery. This seems to be connected, but you put it in silos. Are you, at some point, going to recommend that these things get interconnected so that we are more efficient in our response?
The cost of insurance losses has jumped from $2.2 billion in 2019 to 2024. Summer has not even started yet, and we are already at $8.5 billion. I have been told that these insurance losses are only two thirds, and you are preparing some public insurance for the floods.
Is this the way we will continue working, public funds going to insure regions such as Fraser Valley or Nova Scotia where the hurricane hit?
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for the question. I will ask my colleague Ms. El Bied to respond, but I will start by saying, yes, we have money in the Main Estimates for prevention and also combatting, prevention, flood mapping, flood-risk portal, et cetera. “Building back better” is through the DFAA.
Ms. El Bied: Thank you for the question. I heard your point about the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, or UNDRR. Actually, Public Safety representation was there. They were part of the conversation, part of the panel. We are really connected to this work, and we are trying to gather and respond to —
Senator Galvez: I would appreciate it if you could introduce me to this later.
Ms. El Bied: For sure. I would love that, because it is part of my team and my ADM. I was planning to go, but because of the wildfire situation, we had to reallocate our staff and do the work on the ground. I would be more than pleased to do that afterwards.
What you indicated, it is clear, and this is what we have been doing for the last couple of years. As other senators asked about the flood portal, the FIFRA, the DFAA modernization, it is one of the main programs that have been modernized and been implemented and effective since April 1.
The flood insurance is another program we are moving toward. All of that will help how to respond to disaster, to climate change and all the events that we have been facing for the last couple of years.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you to Public Safety Canada for being here. The common theme in the most recent election was public concern about crime and safety. The Liberal Party’s campaign platform stated bluntly that crime and violence are rising in neighbourhoods and online and acknowledged that increasing violent crime is making Canadians less and less safe in their daily lives.
Your departmental plan supports this concern. The crime severity index has been rising since 2020. The police reported a crime rate per 100,000 people increased from 5,301 in 2020-21 to 5,625 in 2022-23. If you look at the nominal numbers, given the population increase, it is even more alarming.
In partnership with law enforcement agencies and other key stakeholders, what concrete measures is Public Safety Canada taking to address this growing concern?
I believe Canadians would benefit from hearing about specific actions that have led to measurable outcomes and improving safety in our streets and in our communities.
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for the question. Mr. Westmacott?
Mr. Westmacott: Thank you for the question. There are a number of actions that Public Safety is taking to address rising crime rates. You are absolutely right that they have increased since 2014. We have seen in 2023 some positive signs of levelling out of those, although recognizing there are still crime rates rising at that time.
One of the things to point out, there are a lot of measures going on. We are trying to tackle this through supporting law enforcement through the RCMP, and supporting various actions like the national crime prevention strategy which provides around $65 million a year to support organizations to address the root causes of crime and to ensure that people don’t actually go into actually undertaking crime.
We have other programs in place like the Building Safer Communities Fund, and guns and gang funding and funding that addresses organized crime as well. All of those work to both do prevention actions, but also to support different activities. For example, the Building Safer Communities Fund is actually funding which goes directly to municipalities based on agreements that were developed with provinces, territories and municipalities in terms of action these can do to reduce crime on streets.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for that answer. I would like to explore some of the findings related to public trust in your 2024-25 departmental plan. I was particularly struck by three performance indicators with, frankly, concerning results.
According to the data, only 46% of Canadians believe the government respects individual rights and freedoms while ensuring public safety. And just 63% feel that the right mechanisms are in place to identify and respond to national security threats. That’s pretty serious, if you look at the reception of the public. Could you elaborate on these findings?
How was this data collected? What is your reaction to these numbers? More importantly, what steps might the government take to strengthen public trust in its ability to manage, mitigate and respond to security threats while also safeguarding Canadians’ rights and freedoms? It is an easy question.
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for the question. I have a colleague.
Senator Loffreda: For the well-being of all Canadians; Thirty seconds, better be good.
Colin MacSween, Director General, National and Cyber Security Branch, Public Safety Canada: Thank you very much for the question. A few initiatives I can list right away in terms of how we work with Canadians. Certainly, what we’ve tried do in the department is to lean forward in terms of transparency, especially on the national security intelligence side of the house where we’re undertaking consultations about the various projects that are under way.
One I can speak to in some detail would have been the National Cyber Security Strategy which was launched in February 2025. To build that strategy, the approach we’ve taken there and the way of addressing that building of public trust and whatnot was to undertake a significant number of consultations. We started work. The consultation process was a year long for that. We set up a portal for individual Canadians to build in. We did direct engagements with civil society, industry partnerships and basically anybody who would talk to us.
That’s one of the ways we are specifically trying to get at that issue of public trust is getting out, getting directly with the public, explaining to them what we are doing and why we are doing it and the nuances in the various initiatives that we are undertaking.
We’ve tried very hard as well to amend — maybe another thing I can point to as well, in terms of trying to address those concerns around privacy and whatnot. We worked quite closely with committees in the House of Commons and the Senate when we were looking at a previous piece of legislation. We ensured that we built in specific safeguards, for example, including references to the Privacy Act for example, in pieces of legislation just to give people reassurance that their privacy is protected. Taken together, that’s a big thrust of the work we are doing.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: I have a question that you can certainly answer in writing.
Could we have a breakdown of contributions to all funds? Sometimes we hear about contributions to the provinces for disaster financial assistance and payments to the provinces. Can we have a breakdown of the amounts paid for each contribution item and by province?
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for your question. We can certainly provide this information.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you.
My second question is for Ms. Jones.
I want to make sure that I understand correctly. In response to Senator Moreau’s question, you talked about how they established the data or estimated the cost of the buyback program. Are you referring to the data held by the RCMP and contained in the former gun registry?
[English]
Ms. Jones: So it is registered firearms.
[Translation]
The Chair: Okay. I thought that the data had been destroyed when a bill was passed. Can you explain that?
Ms. Jones: Thank you for the question. I can provide more details.
[English]
It is helpful to consider firearms in two categories, registered and unregistered. We have good visibility through the RCMP on registered firearms. With the discontinuation of the long-gun registry in 2012, there is less visibility in unregistered firearms, that is with the exception of the province of Quebec which has maintained a registry, there is a bit of a data gap in that regard.
[Translation]
The Chair: So the residual data was used?
[English]
Ms. Jones: That’s right. We were able to do estimates based on what was known in 2012.
[Translation]
The Chair: I understand. Thank you.
Senator Dalphond: I would like a quick clarification. We can see that, for the Major International Event Security Cost Framework, over $57 million was spent for the 2023-24 fiscal year. Nothing was included in the Main Estimates for 2024-25. In the 2025-26 Main Estimates, almost $53 million has been earmarked. Is this for a special event such as the G7 leaders’ summit in Kananaskis, for example?
Mr. Amyot: Yes. The money included in this year’s program will be used to provide security for the G7 summit.
Senator Dalphond: What does this mean? Are you planning the security? Will you be making contributions to police forces?
Mr. Amyot: Absolutely. The program will compensate police forces for their contribution to security.
Senator Dalphond: Not for security planning?
Mr. Amyot: The program was created to compensate police forces. They certainly do some planning. However, it’s mostly for security. Vote 1 also includes money for operations, coordination, preparations and so on.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Galvez: For next year, what is your prediction with respect to insurance for flooding? Do you expect that it will grow over the years?
Mr. May: The insurance for flooding —
Senator Galvez: Yes, you said that there’s going to be a program to replace private insurance.
Mr. May: It is in collaboration with private insurance, I would say. But if your question concerns the timing, again, we are still in the next step phase in terms of consultations with PTs, the Insurance Bureau of Canada and others, so I’m not in a position at this time to say when we will have something in place.
Senator Galvez: Do you think it will be the same for other types of disasters, like fires?
Mr. May: Yes. Right now, it is focused on flooding and for high-risk areas, which can encompass about 10% of Canadian households, which is about 1 million households. I cannot speak to whether there is consideration for fire, because fire is already insurable under most general home insurance policies. It is not something the DFAA would actually cover. This is meant to cover flood insurance for those high-risk areas where it is difficult to get insurance.
[Translation]
The Chair: We must stop to be fair to the next panel, unless it’s quite quick.
[English]
Senator Pate: In 2022, Public Safety announced it would be providing $18 million over four years to community organizations to assist people to make applications for records suspensions. I’m curious about whether you have evaluated the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of that as compared to alternatives like an automatic expiry process without application to the government. If you could provide that analysis, that would be great.
[Translation]
The Chair: I want to thank the witnesses. If you can, please send us as much information as possible by tomorrow afternoon. We’re aware of the tight deadline. Whatever you can’t provide on such short notice, we ask you to send us within 30 days.
Honourable senators, we’ll continue for the next hour with our friends from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC. Welcome. We’re always happy to see you again. We’re joined by Nathalie Manseau, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer; Annie Rémillard, Director General and Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Financial Strategy Branch; Louise Baird, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy; Jean-Marc Gionet, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Protection and Family Programs. Thank you for accepting our invitation to appear today. This isn’t your first appearance here. You know how things work.
Ms. Manseau, I’ll ask you to give brief opening remarks, if you have any. You have five minutes. We’ll then move on to questions from the senators.
Nathalie Manseau, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let me begin by acknowledging that we’re meeting on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe nation.
Thank you for the invitation. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss IRCC’s 2025-26 Main Estimates with you.
As you said, I’m joined by some of my colleagues: Jean-Marc Gionet, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Protection and Family Programs; Louise Baird, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy; Pemi Gill, Assistant Deputy Minister, Service Delivery; Annie Rémillard, Director General and Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Financial Strategy Branch.
To fulfill its mandate, the department introduced a total of $5.17 billion in its 2025-26 Main Estimates. This amount marks an increase of $979.6 million compared to the previous year’s Main Estimates. These budget forecasts show our responsibility to invest carefully, while addressing humanitarian imperatives and operational requirements.
Over 120 million people worldwide are forcibly displaced. This staggering figure has been rising for the past 12 years. This constitutes the largest displacement crisis on record, driven by conflict, persecution, climate disasters and economic collapse in a number of regions.
As Canada takes steps to strengthen the integrity and effectiveness of its asylum system, including the introduction two weeks ago of the strong borders act, we remain firmly committed to treating people seeking protection with fairness, compassion and dignity. This commitment reflects our identity as a country. That’s why Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is seeking increased funding this year. The goal is to support these vulnerable newcomers and the provinces and territories that welcome them and to improve the management of millions of applications to come to Canada, while better balancing the country’s overall immigration levels.
[English]
The department is seeking additional funding of $584.3 million for the Interim Federal Health Program to continue delivering essential health care services to asylum seekers and other vulnerable populations not yet eligible for provincial and territorial health insurance.
Similarly, the department requests additional funding of $400 million for the Interim Housing Assistance Program in recognition of the pressures on provinces and territories as they build more capacity to support asylum claimants.
While the Interim Housing Assistance Program initially focused on emergency measures, like shelters and hotels, the renewed model prioritizes cost-effective, sustainable solutions and long-term capacity building across Canada.
Addressing these humanitarian needs is essential. However, Canada must also invest in ensuring our immigration system operates efficiently, processes applications in reasonable timeframes and maintains the integrity Canadians expect.
That is why IRCC is seeking incremental funding of $134.8 million for its Digital Platform Modernization Initiative. It is working to deliver improved online services for clients, manage increasing application volumes, and use data to improve our programs and keep Canadians safe, healthy and secure.
The department also requests additional funding of $55.5 million to sustain and expand its biometric collection capabilities. This would allow us to continue providing secure identity verification services while extending biometric requirements to additional programs, such as citizenship and strengthening overall program integrity.
These additional requests are partially offset by areas where the department has planned reductions to funding. With the decreased immigration targets tabled in the 2025-27 Immigration Levels Plan, the 2025-26 Main Estimates reflects a decrease in funding of $195.7 million.
While funding of $41 million is needed to support Canada’s response to conflicts in Gaza, programs to support Afghan and Ukrainian nationals have evolved to require less operational support, and the funding associated with these initiatives is decreasing by $146.2 million and $60.6 million, respectively.
This is a brief summary of the key investments sought in the 2025-26 Main Estimates. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. We will be happy to answer questions.
Senator Marshall: Thank you for being here today. There were two items in the Speech from the Throne that will impact your department. I’m just wondering what the status is.
The first one says the government will cap the total number of temporary foreign workers and international students to less than 5% of Canada’s population by 2027. I know there has been some work done in that area. Is that a new target? Have you started work on it? I’m just wondering what the status is.
Ms. Manseau: Thank you for the question. I’ll turn to my colleague, Louis Baird, to answer.
Louise Baird, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you. It’s not a new commitment, it was a commitment made previously by the immigration minister. It was tied to some of the reductions we made in the levels plan that we tabled in the fall.
The commitment was 5% of non-permanent residents, 5% of the total population for both workers and students, as you mentioned. You might have seen there was a Statistics Canada release this morning, their latest release on population estimates, it showed that the non-permanent resident numbers have continued to go down for the last few quarters. We are tracking that closely. That includes other data but also includes our immigration data. So going toward the 5%, I think this morning StatCan announced it was at about 7.1%.
Senator Marshall: I noticed in your estimates of professional services last year you had requested $940 million but this year it is 1.5 billion. Would that be relating to this program whereby you are capping the international students and foreign workers? Why is there such a significant increase?
Ms. Manseau: The professional services, including in the Main Estimates, are mainly related to the Interim Federal Health Program. The program is claims that are administered by a third party, so it’s a contract. It represents approximately half of the professional fees. The other largest portion of the professional fees are the reimbursements of services for ESDC to administer the passport program, that’s about $300 million. And the last item that would be significant in the professional services are the biometric collection costs, which are also administered by a third party: So it is a contract.
Senator Marshall: The other comment in the Speech from the Throne references the government’s operating budget. It says the government is going to introduce measures to bring it below 2%; it has been growing at 9% a year. Has there been any work done internally within your department to work on that initiative?
Treasury Board were here this morning and they said they had not sent out any direction to the departments. I’m just asking departments if they have made a start.
Ms. Manseau: We have not received the guidance yet from the Treasury Board. We haven’t yet received any targets also for the department. But we are turning our efforts to planning for that reduction exercise, yes.
Senator Marshall: Do you have an estimate of what that reduction would be for your department?
Ms. Manseau: We do not yet, no.
Senator Marshall: My last question is on the Interim Housing Assistance Program, which you mentioned in your opening remarks. What does that pay for, the $385 million? Is that for hotels or apartments or subsidies for purchases for homes? What’s being paid for?
Ms. Manseau: The Interim Housing Assistance Program was approved in Budget 2024: $1.1 billion over three years. It is to provide funding to provinces and other jurisdictions to support temporary housing for asylum seekers.
Senator Marshall: When you say temporary housing, would that be apartments?
Jean-Marc Gionet, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Protection and Family Programs. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: It is a program that is intended to shift away from asylum seekers being housed in hotels. The drive of the program is to move toward more longer-term, sustainable setups in municipalities for example, like shelter systems and investments in certain infrastructure, which can be used now to deal with certain pressures related to asylum seekers but would be sustainable over the long term for other needs as they go.
Senator Marshall: Would it be like apartments? I’m trying to achieve a grasp of the arrangement. What is the arrangement?
Ms. Manseau: I can add to that.
Senator Marshall: It is not a hotel?
Ms. Manseau: They are not hotels. We have a different program for hotels. Examples are reception centres that were put into place in the Peel region and also in Ottawa. It is to provide support for temporary housing.
Senator Marshall: Why was there nothing requested in the Main Estimates last year?
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Thank you, Ms. Manseau, Ms. Baird and Mr. Gionet. Welcome.
To follow up on Senator Marshall’s question, Ms. Manseau, you said that this involves construction in the Peel and Ottawa regions. What are you doing for Quebec? Is there anything planned for Quebec?
Ms. Manseau: Yes. Since 2018-19, we’ve invested $542 million in the province of Quebec. This funding helps the various municipalities support asylum seekers.
Senator Moreau: My understanding may be wrong. Please correct me if necessary. In Quebec, temporary residences are often hotels, aren’t they?
Ms. Manseau: There are different programs for hotels, including temporary accommodation in hotels. These are two different programs. For temporary accommodation assistance, the various provinces and governments determine their needs based on program criteria. For example, it could be shelters and different services provided to asylum seekers.
Senator Moreau: Does your department contribute financially through grants to cover part of the costs?
Ms. Manseau: Exactly. It’s compensation for the costs that provinces and municipalities incur to support asylum seekers.
Senator Moreau: In your opening remarks, you said that the total budgetary expenditures of $5.174 billion marked an increase compared to the 2024-25 budget. However, this figure marks a significant reduction compared to the actual spending for the 2023-24 fiscal year and the estimates to date. The expenditures to date for 2024-25 amount to $6.379 billion, or $1.2 billion more than requested in your 2025-26 Main Estimates.
How do you explain this significant discrepancy? It’s also significant in relation to the actual spending in the 2023-24 fiscal year of almost $1.82 billion.
Ms. Manseau: Thank you for the question.
Various programs have been scaled back for 2025-26. One of them is the immigration plan tabled for 2025-27, which shows lower immigration thresholds. This means a $195 million decrease in our reference levels.
The Interim Federal Health Program was also cut by $191 million, mainly owing to lower immigration levels. Lastly, the temporary housing assistance program referred to earlier was also cut by $126 million. These are the main programs accounting for lower reference levels.
Senator Moreau: Do you see any challenges in fulfilling your mandate with the estimated budget for 2025-26?
Ms. Manseau: The budget is based on the immigration levels approved and set out in the 2025-27 immigration plan.
Senator Moreau: I have a question about the grant for the Francophone Immigration Support Program. What is it exactly? It doesn’t account for a large proportion of the department’s budget. The figure is 0.03%. Is this the total effort devoted to francophone immigration in Canada?
Ms. Manseau: I’ll ask my colleague to answer that question. We have some information with us. However, again, it’s based on the immigration plan tabled in 2025-26. I’ll give the floor to my colleague to provide more details.
Ms. Baird: I can talk about the program and the targets in the immigration plan.
[English]
In the annual levels plan, we always include targets for francophone immigration. Part of that is toward the commitment that was made in the modernization of the Official Languages Act to try to get back to the demographic weight of francophones in Canada. This is for francophone outside of Quebec. We have fairly ambitious targets: 8.5% in 2025, 9.5% in 2026 and 10% in 2027. More recently, the new government made a commitment to increase that further to 12% by 2029.
There are a series of efforts that we do in the department to promote francophone immigration. We have some pilot projects in place right now. We do some promotions overseas, but a lot of the work — the financial element that is in the levels plan — is particularly linked to the targets that we are trying to achieve annually.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Do the figures for this program refer exclusively to francophone immigration outside Quebec?
Ms. Baird: Yes. It’s for francophones outside Quebec.
Senator Moreau: Is this program intended exclusively for francophone immigration outside Quebec? I understand that the targets that you provided are for francophone immigration outside Quebec. However, is the Francophone Immigration Support Program primarily intended for francophone immigration outside Quebec?
[English]
Senator Kingston: Thank you for being here this morning. I would just like to talk a little bit about refugees in particular and, to some extent, asylum seekers.
According to the Auditor General’s report, since 2018, there has certainly been an increase in the percentage of refugees in Canada and an overall increase, of course, in immigration in total. The first thing I would like to talk to you about is immigration itself — if we are talking about us bringing people or provincial nominee or under another family class — is different, in my mind, than our obligations as a fairly wealthy country to take in refugees from places in the world of crisis. Is that correct? When you are decreasing the number of immigrants, how do you square the circle of our obligations around accepting refugees from the world?
Ms. Baird: We have certain international obligations, as you alluded to. Mr. Gionet might want to speak to that. When we are looking at the levels plan, we are giving consideration to the mix, which is divided up between economic immigration, refugees, protected persons and humanitarians, although refugees and protected persons is probably more to do with what you are talking about. We do significant consultation to determine some of these numbers. In the case of refugees, we’re talking to some of the international organizations, such as UNHCR and others, that we work with in terms of identifying refugees and bringing them to Canada. Mr. Gionet might want to add a little more to that.
Mr. Gionet: I think that’s a fair reflection. Last year, we resettled through the UNHCR referral program, for example, or private sponsorship just north of 49,000 refugees from across the world. As my colleague mentioned, those targets leave in the ecosystem of the broader immigration targets and the realities of the consultation, the pressures and the resources. We’re still a pretty significant player in that sphere, with strong partnerships with civil society across the country who help us achieve those objectives by sponsoring the refugees, welcoming them and finding accommodations for them. We’re lucky from that perspective.
Senator Kingston: Do you expect your total percentage of immigration, the portion that includes refugees, which has been sitting at about 20% when it used to sit at 15%, is it going to grow as a result of the obligation versus the mandate to decrease the number of immigrants?
Mr. Gionet: I will turn to my colleague in a second, but maybe just a slight clarification. The resettlement program is a voluntary act of states, for example. They are contrasting that to asylum seekers who present themselves in Canada and make a claim. There we have obligations to ensure we process their claims.
That said, as you’ve mentioned, historically, there has always been a good percentage in the overall levels plan that is dedicated and funding allocated to ensure we’re able to meet the commitments we make to certain populations across the globe through consultations with the UNHCR in terms of where people are most in need. Louise might want to add to that.
Ms. Baird: Just looking at some of the statistics in the levels plan that we tabled in the fall, refugees were 15% of the overall numbers in the plan. That’s probably a net smaller number given the overall number was lower, but we generally try to maintain the percentages of the mixes between the different categories. It was at about 15%, which I think is fairly typical to what it has been.
Senator Kingston: It is dropping down, actually, to about 2018 levels as opposed to 2022 or 2023 levels of 20%.
I guess my concern again would be the decrease in funding to the Multicultural Association of Fredericton — I’ll just give an example — a group that works to provide settlement services to refugees. It seems as if their pot of money will probably decrease, even though, as you say in some of your documents, the pressure to bring refugees in does not abate. The crises in the world are many.
I was just wondering how you’re thinking about the partners in the community and what impact some of your decisions this year are going to have on them.
Ms. Baird: I think the unfortunate reality, if we have a total overall lower number of immigration and we look to somehow manage that across the different categories where we’re trying to bring economic benefits to the country, we’re trying to support family reunification and we also want to do our part as a world leader protecting vulnerable people through refugees, it’s that balance that we try to achieve as we work on the annual levels plan. An overall reduction means a reduction across the board in those different categories.
Canada, in terms of international comparisons, is quite generous in its settlement programming and the funding that it provides to settlement services across the country. That settlement funding is linked to our levels plan. Where there is a reduction in levels, we would also see a reduction in some of that settlement funding. I don’t know if there’s more you want to add.
Mr. Gionet: In conclusion, we rely greatly on partners such as the organization that you have referred to. We will negotiate targets in terms of making sure they are funded to receive the refugees that are destined for Fredericton, for example. Just to note as well, numbers will fluctuate. Afghanistan resettlement, they’re seeing a surge there, so it’s kind of coming down a bit as a result of the wrapping up of those commitments.
Senator Kingston: On the second round, if there is one, health is another question on my mind.
Senator Pate: Thank you. I have questions about funding in the Main Estimates, but first I want to ask you another question.
Your website indicates that to apply to overcome criminal inadmissibility, you must show that you meet the criteria, have been rehabilitated and be highly unlikely to take part in further crimes. Also, at least five years must have passed since the end of your criminal sentence.
I’ve received many calls this past week about a certain G7 attendee who was convicted barely a year ago on 34 crimes. Typically, a person with these kinds of criminal convictions would not be deemed admissible to Canada. I’m curious whether it is the use of a diplomatic passport or other measures that allowed him to be exempt from the usual practices. I know that many people are asking that question. I have not been able to provide an answer, so I’m seeking it from you.
While you’re getting ready for that answer, in the Main Estimates, I was trying to discern and could not, how much of the funding directed to IRCC is for community-based, independent alternatives to immigration detention of the sort recommended by the United Nations and how much is for what about a year ago was approved in a budget implementation bill to implement immigration detention in federal prisons. I’m curious how much money has been allocated, where the individuals are being detained and what the race, gender and grounds for detention are for those individuals who have been detained. I would like the breakdown of how the resources have been spent, as well as who is being detained in the federal prisons that were being allocated according to the budget.
The Chair: If you could start an answer and after that provide detailed information by writing.
Ms. Manseau: Thank you for the questions. On the second question, IRCC would not have that information. It would be CBSA.
Senator Pate: And on the first question?
Pemi Gill, Assistant Deputy Minister, Service Delivery, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Within the immigration legislation, there are various mechanisms to overcome admissibility as well as prohibitions related to security, criminality, et cetera. It’s case specific in terms of which mechanisms can be utilized and whether a person is coming in for permanent residence or temporary purposes as well is part of that consideration. I wouldn’t be able to speak to the specific case in question.
Senator Pate: But you would be able to confirm that most people wait at least months, often years, well beyond the expiry of the five years of non-criminal activity to get that kind of access to the country?
Ms. Gill: It is assessed case by case and dependent on the intent of entry to Canada. There are mechanisms for people seeking to come in for permanent residence and citizenship versus temporary purposes, so it would be different. Depending on whether it’s a permanent resident — for example, in citizenship, there are also prohibitions relating to admissibility — there would be different wait times associated there as well.
Senator Pate: You wouldn’t disagree with me, however, that there are academics who sometimes have records that are 20, 30, 40 and one that was 50 years old who have not been provided access just to come and speak in Canada?
Ms. Gill: I wouldn’t be able to speak to that, senator.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Senator Galvez: I would like to explore with you, after the arrival of these immigrant refugees, how are they integrated into society? At the beginning of your presentation, you divided the people coming to Canada as coming from conflict zones. You said they are coming because of climate-related disasters, then foreign students and then temporary workers. I believe that it is relatively easy for foreign students and temporary workers to find jobs after a period here. What about the others? How long does it take for them to integrate into Canadian society?
Ms. Manseau: Thank you for the question. I will turn to my colleagues to see if they can provide some input. If not, we can give you more information in writing.
Mr. Gionet: Thank you for the question.
I will start by speaking of the resettled refugees to continue that portion of the conversation. Within that program, we do partner with a number of organizations across the country and in Quebec. We call it “destining” those newly arrived refugees to communities. Before arriving, they will get pre-departure counselling support to know what to expect when they arrive in Canada. Upon arrival, there is a suite of support services that is offered. For example, for government-assisted refugees, they will get up to 12 months of income support that is usually pegged around social assistance rates within the province of reception, access to employment support services, help for finding accommodations for themselves and their families and the basics of what one would need to start a new life as well as supports through the Interim Federal Health Program.
The suite of programs will vary. Resettled refugees will have extra support. A permanent resident who arrives through an economic program also has access to settlement supports, but it depends upon the category they are in.
Senator Galvez: Given the new bills the government is proposing for new infrastructure and nation-building projects, do you expect that the number of people coming to Canada will drop or increase? Do you we need new people?
Ms. Baird: One of the other commitments the new government made was around a talent-attraction strategy. As we discussed already, the immigration levels are lower than they have been in the past. We are looking at how we can be more targeted, particularly in the economic space; we are talking about skilled trades workers and how we are able to bring people in.
Of course, we want to use immigration to augment Canadian workers and people who are already here who may have access to re-skilling or retraining to take some of those jobs. Unemployment has slightly risen in the last couple of months, I think, but we want to make sure that Canadians are working. Of course, where there are opportunities to bring in top talent or skilled people from overseas, we can use our immigration pathways to do that. We have something called category-based selection where we identify particular sectors where there are labour gaps in the Canadian market, and skilled trades is one of them. For example, nation-building projects might be how we could use immigration to support some of that work.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
The Chair: Could you provide the breakdown by category, meaning the total number, the breakdown by category and the province where they arrived or settled? Could you include the past four years to date?
Ms. Manseau: Part of this breakdown is already included in the immigration plan tabled.
The Chair: It’s a plan for the future.
Ms. Manseau: Do you want it for the past?
The Chair: Sometimes plans aren’t followed through. Quite often, in fact. I would like the actual figures, meaning the total number, the breakdown by immigrant category and the intake or destination province for the last four years up to now.
[English]
Ms. Baird: We are required under the act to release an annual report on immigration which reports on the year —
[Translation]
The Chair: So it will be easy to do.
Ms. Baird: Probably. However, I don’t have the figures with me today.
The Chair: That is why I am asking for it in writing. I understood that it was a question for which you did not have an immediate answer.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for being here.
Much has been said about Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program. In many ways, it remains a contentious issue; some support it while others have concerns. Personally, I recognize the need for the program and the economic benefits it brings, although I also believe there is room for improvement.
According to your departmental plan, the department has set a target of 130,000 to 160,000 temporary workers to address labour market needs where Canadians are unavailable. In 2022-23, the actual numbers came in just under 136,000.
Could you elaborate on this performance indicator? How was the target range established? How does the department determine that Canadians are not available for specific positions? Any insight into this process would help us better understand the implications.
Also, in a related question, table 2 of the plan highlights the economic contributions of visitors and international students. Before the pandemic, this contribution was estimated at $45 billion annually. Your current target is $36 billion. Do you anticipate surpassing that figure in future years? What factors might influence the outcome?
Ms. Manseau: Thank you for the question. I will turn to my colleague.
Ms. Baird: There were a lot of numbers there; I’m not sure I caught all of them.
The Temporary Foreign Worker Program is managed by our colleagues at ESDC. In terms of your specific question around ensuring that Canadians are considered before we would have a foreign national to fill particular positions, they have a process called the Labour Market Impact Assessment wherein they have to look to first to see if there are any Canadians. That’s recently been expanded, where employers also have to consider asylum claimants who are here in Canada for those jobs — so people already in the country. That’s one thing they look at, and they work closely with employers around doing that work to ensure Canadians are given the first opportunity to take those jobs.
Regarding some of the statistics you cited around economic contributions of visitors and international students, visitors are not captured in the immigration levels plan because they are here for a short period of time. They are in and out of the country; they are not included StatCan’s annual population estimates. Those numbers remain, and they can provide that economic injection when they come to the country. I don’t have specific numbers, but we can look for that.
Of course, we implemented a cap on the number of international students who can come to Canada, so that has been reduced. The logical conclusion is that the economic contributions they make in terms of local injections in housing, food, living — all the things they would do — obviously, their tuition fees and otherwise — would be reduced in proportion to the number of students brought into the country. However, we can probably get you some specific figures on that.
Senator Loffreda: I have a quick question.
One of the major line items of the Main Estimates is the $385 million one-time grant for the Interim Housing Assistance Program, or IHAP, an increase of $125 million compared to 2023-24. Your most recent departmental plan describes IHIP as a cost-sharing grant program designed to support provinces where necessary — municipal governments — address extraordinary interim housing pressures due to increased volume of asylum claimants. Can you provide our committee with an update on the current trends in asylum claimant numbers? Are we seeing any signs of a slowdown?
Mr. Gionet: Thank you for the question.
When we look at the number of asylum claims for the first four months of the current calendar year compared to the same period last year, there has been a decrease of approximately 36% or 37%. That’s nationwide, and across all modes of claims.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: The various programs have descriptions of grants and contributions. That does not necessarily include everything involved in refugee or immigration applications. The Department of Justice itself reports an $83-million contribution per year for refugee and immigration legal aid. A different department pays for the contribution.
Are there other departments that also pay other contributions related to refugee and immigration applications? I understand that there is also a separate budget of $350 million for the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, which processes appeals, among other things. I would like to know.
Ms. Manseau: You are right. Our expenditures show only the contributions for the department. I do not know if there are other immigration grants or contributions in other departments. My colleague will be able to answer.
Mr. Gionet: The department’s mandate is indeed shared with our partners in Public Safety Canada, who were here just before us and handle the security clearance of immigration applications, refugee and asylum claims, and so on.
Senator Dalphond: The subsidy amount that will go to Quebec this year under the Canada-Quebec Accord is $867 million. That is an increase from previous years. Does that suggest that there will be even more refugee applications than before or that costs have gone up?
Ms. Manseau: Not necessarily. Funding is provided under the Canada-Quebec Accord. That funding is based on a formula that is a percentage related to the increase in immigration spending from one year to the next and the non-francophone immigrants outside Quebec. It is based on a formula. The accord states that the funding for one year cannot be less than the previous year.
Senator Dalphond: Does that include housing?
Ms. Manseau: That includes immigration support services provided by the province of Quebec. That does not include the temporary housing in hotels that the IRCC funded.
Senator Dalphond: Do the other provinces have access to settlement programs? Those programs are not temporary, but more permanent. In Quebec, would it be the Canada-Quebec Accord rather than that kind of program?
Ms. Manseau: That is correct.
Senator Dalphond: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: In Quebec, are the amounts you are referring to also used to pay for education and health care? Is that part of it?
Ms. Manseau: No. The Canada-Quebec Accord covers only immigration-related services, not other social services.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Pate: In the 2023 Auditor General’s report, it shows refugees waited an average of 30 months for a decision on their permanent residency. This is a marked increase from the 2010 average of 19 months which, at the time, was a crisis so severe it resulted in systemwide reforms. What are your plans to address the nearly three-year waiting times? Will those plans be affected by the recent IRCC staff cutbacks?
Can you tell us what IRCC learned from conducting the surveys you did that were also discussed in the 2023 Auditor General’s report regarding race-based and ethnocultural data? How does Main Estimates spending reflect these lessons?
Ms. Manseau: I will start and my colleague will complete the answer.
The staff reductions IRCC undertook are a reflection of reduced funding in the immigration plan, as we’ve discussed, and also responsible government spending. Our funding is commensurate to the efforts we need to make to deliver on our mandate.
I turn to my colleague, Pemi Gill, for the other parts of the question.
Ms. Gill: On the two questions about the processing times for refugees, we have different categories of refugees. There are the government-assisted refugees and privately sponsored refugees. There are different processing times associated with each of those.
One of the implications we are seeing for privately sponsored refugees is, with the overall reduction in levels, we were continuing to see high demand. Application intake continued while our admissions were being reduced, which does lead to some application lines of business seeing higher processing times.
One of the recent policy implications of that was a pause on intake for privately sponsored refugees, so the inventory does not continue to grow and allows us to make sure we are being responsive to the demands.
Government-assisted refugees are somewhat different as they are annual referrals from the UNHCR. There are additional programs in there.
With the government-assisted refugees, we intake based on our planned approvals and admissions for the year. You tend to see a quicker processing time in that line of business.
The second question?
Senator Pate: It was regarding the Auditor General seeing differences in terms of some nationalities seeing favourable or unfavourable treatment, and a recommendation that you have a plan to collect race-based and ethnocultural data.
Ms. Gill: We can submit that response in writing. We previously provided an update against our intents there. There are some pieces we can collect, however, others we cannot. We can provide that in writing. There is clarity around that.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Given the current situation in the U.S., the business community and the governments at large are calling for efforts to be made to attract academics, researchers and scientists in the U.S., or to do promotion in the U.S. so that they will come to Canada and eventually obtain citizenship, or at least enrich the knowledge we have here in Canada. It is a known fact that the U.S. has thinkers, scientists and intellectuals who disagree with the U.S. government’s opinions and the White House’s definitive stance.
Has the department received any instructions, or does the department have any initiatives to recruit the American citizens who could significantly contribute to enriching the knowledge here in Canada?
Ms. Manseau: Thank you for the question; my colleague Ms. Baird will be able to answer.
Ms. Baird: Thank you for your question.
[English]
Ms. Baird: I referred briefly in the Prime Minister’s mandate letter there were seven priorities listed, one of which was related to talent attraction and sustainable immigration levels.
The talent attraction part we are looking at broadly. The government has pointed to the opportunity right now with the situation as you describe it in the United States where there are academics and researchers who are disgruntled with the policies of the current administration. We are part of that conversation.
We have colleagues in other federal departments, ISED — I can’t remember the whole title of it — ISED, former Industry Canada, are doing work in that space. They have relationships with universities and academics. They are looking at that. They are also working with provinces and territories.
Some provinces, as you might have seen, are doing some active recruitment. They are looking at their regulatory framework so they are able to bring people in more quickly. At Immigration, we can support that through priority processing. We are having those conversations now.
It was something the government laid out, about trying to take advantage of either repatriating Canadians who might be in the U.S. or U.S. citizens who might be interested in moving to Canada given the current circumstances.
Senator Moreau: Who would be responsible for the coordination of those efforts? Would it be your department or another one?
Ms. Baird: We have a part of it in that if it is an immigration situation, if it’s a foreign national, an American citizen or someone else, a foreign national living in the United States, we would have a part of it in terms of facilitating entry through one of our immigration pathways. But certainly there are other federal departments involved in it.
Senator Moreau: But are you aware of a special group that would regroup many departments to ensure that those efforts are coordinated?
Ms. Baird: Those conversations are happening now. I think we are the overall lead in that specific priority that was listed in the Prime Minister’s mandate letter, which just came out a couple of weeks ago. We are looking at how we can work on this broad talent attraction strategy in line with our immigration levels. But there is a lot of work happening in different parts of the federal government right now.
Senator Moreau: At this time?
Ms. Baird: At this time.
Senator Moreau: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: That concludes our meeting. Thank you, witnesses.
For those who have promised to send us additional answers, we would greatly appreciate receiving them by tomorrow afternoon. We understand that this is extremely short notice. For questions that will take longer to answer, we ask that you send us the answers within the next 15 days. That would be greatly appreciated.
Colleagues, that concludes our meeting this morning. I would like to remind you that our second meeting will take place this afternoon at 6 p.m. We will be in room C-128.
Thank you, everyone. Thank you to our team for supporting us.
(The committee adjourned.)