THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 25, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 6:46 p.m. [ET] to study Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Claude Carignan (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I wish to welcome all the senators and all 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. I would now like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Forest: Good evening and welcome. Éric Forest, an independent senator from the Gulf division in Quebec.
Senator Pupatello: Sandra Pupatello from Ontario.
[English]
I am an Ontario senator. I want to especially welcome Antoine Brunelle-Côté, who has spent much time with the people from the Government Representative’s Office, or GRO, in all of the briefings that we have had. It’s good to see you here live, in person.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Good evening. Clément Gignac, Kennebec division, in Quebec.
Senator Oudar: Good evening. Manuelle Oudar from Quebec. I’m substituting today for Senator Hébert.
Senator Dalphond: Good evening. Pierre J. Dalphond, De Lorimier division, in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ross: Krista Ross from New Brunswick.
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, today we are continuing our study of the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026.
For our first panel, we are pleased to welcome, from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Antoine Brunelle-Côté, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector; and Louis Charland, Executive Director, Expenditure Strategies and Estimates Division, Expenditure Management Sector.
From the Department of National Defence, we have: Jonathan Moor, Assistant Deputy Minister (Finance) and Chief Financial Officer; and Lieutenant-General Stephen R. Kelsey, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff. We are also hearing from Ms. Boyer. Could you state your title, for the record?
Annie Boyer, Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Good evening. I am Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary.
The Chair: Thank you.
We will now hear opening remarks from Mr. Brunelle-Côté.
Antoine Brunelle-Côté, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I would like to acknowledge that the land on which we are gathered is the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
As the chair mentioned, I am joined by Annie Boyer, Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer, and other colleagues to help me answer questions.
I am pleased to be here today to speak to you about the Supplementary Estimates (C) 2025-26, the third and final supplementary estimates planned for fiscal year 2025-26.
As members of the Senate know, supplementary estimates provide information on spending requirements that were not sufficiently well established when the Main Estimates were prepared or that were clarified after the Main Estimates were tabled to reflect changes in certain programs and services.
The Supplementary Estimates (C) 2025-26 provide for an additional $4 billions in budgetary spending, which includes the $5.4 billions that Parliament must approve and a decrease of $1.4 billion compared to forecast statutory expenditures. Expenditures are distributed among 56 organizations.
The Supplementary Estimates (C) 2025-26 include a few measures that were announced in the 2025 federal budget, including funding to modernize the CBC, expand the Canadian Coast Guard’s security role and renew the Canada Strong Pass.
[English]
The largest item, at $1 billion in the supplementary estimates, is additional funding for Canada Post.
Canada Post has recorded significant annual losses since 2018, fuelled by rapid changes in the postal and parcel delivery sectors, high labour costs and regulatory measures that impeded the company’s ability to evolve and compete. This funding will help to ensure that the corporation can maintain solvency and continue operating as it continues to deal with significant financial challenges.
Supplementary Estimates (C) also provides $1.2 billion in new funding for DND. While I will let my colleagues from National Defence speak about the funding for their department, I would like to explain a new vote under the Treasury Board.
These Supplementary Estimates include $1 billion for the new central vote Treasury Board Vote 50 for defence and security initiatives. The new central vote helps ensure that organizations are able to implement urgent defence and security spending by providing additional spending authority to organizations between estimates.
This will streamline the implementation of programs and initiatives and will better able Canada to meet its NATO spending targets.
To ensure transparency, all allocations will be published in an online annex for the next Supplementary Estimates or in a standalone document for a year in a location published on the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s website by late summer or early fall.
[Translation]
This concludes my presentation. I want to thank you for the invitation. We are available to answer your questions.
Jonathan Moor, Assistant Deputy Minister (Finance) and Chief Financial Officer, Department of National Defence: Good evening, everyone.
[English]
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to present the Supplementary Estimates on behalf of the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian Coast Guard.
Today, I am joined by the Vice Chief of Defence Staff, Lieutenant-General Stephen Kelsey, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Material, Heather Sheehy, and Deputy Commissioner of the Coast Guard, Marc Mes.
Through the Supplementary Estimates (C), DND is requesting a net increase of $1.05 billion to departmental authorities, made up of $1.2 billion in new authorities, partially offset by $179 million of transfers out to other organizations. These estimates will continue to support DND in delivering on the commitments set out in defence policy, and also Canada’s commitment to meeting NATO’s Defence Investment Pledge for 2% of GDP in 2025-26. This includes ensuring that our military members have the tools and equipment they need to perform the vital tasks we ask of them. The investments we are seeking through these estimates focus on capital spending, Canadian Armed Forces operations and personnel, and the expansion of the Canadian Coast Guard’s security role. I would like to highlight a few of these investments today.
The Department of National Defence is seeking new authorities and reprofiles totalling $564 million, including statutory authorities, in support of previously approved defence investments funded through the Capital Investment Fund. These investments will strengthen and enhance capabilities across the Canadian Armed Forces’ domains and also support Canada’s safety and security.
In addition, we are requesting $314 million for the Strategic Tanker Transport Capability aircraft project. This will deliver a permanent solution, replace the existing CC-150 Polaris fleet and serve as the Royal Canadian Air Force’s multi-role airlift platform for air-to-air refuelling and transport. Funding will also support the construction of infrastructure in three locations across Canada and the in-service support requirements of this project.
The department is seeking to increase authorities through these estimates to support Canadian Armed Forces’ operations and recruitment, including $67 million to support CAF northern operations, by enabling the continuation and expansion of activities and exercises in Canada’s Arctic region, as well as $49 million to continue to fund recruitment, retention and support programs for the Canadian Armed Forces.
In September 2025, the Canadian Coast Guard transitioned to the defence portfolio. To support the expansion of the Canadian Coast Guard’s security role, the department is requesting $129 million through these estimates. This investment will help strengthen Canadian sovereignty and national security, especially in the Arctic.
These estimates also include a number of other initiatives that will provide modern equipment and improve support services for members of our military.
In addition to this new funding, these estimates include $179 million in transfers to several other government departments and agencies that provide support to the Canadian Armed Forces and to the Canadian Coast Guard.
The funding we are requesting through these estimates is critical to protecting Canadians and supporting our allies and partners to help mitigate the threats now and into the future. They will also support Canada in its commitment to meeting NATO’s Defence Investment Pledge to spend 2% of GDP in 2025-26.
In conclusion, Mr. Chair, the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian Coast Guard continue to deliver on their core mandate, while ensuring financial accountability and effective resource management.
My colleagues and I would be pleased to address any questions you may have.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Moor.
Senator Forest: My first question is for Mr. Moor. I would ask you to pay close attention because I’m sure you have not been briefed on this matter.
Through its spending power, the Department of National Defence has a significant impact on communities across Canada. We sometimes get the impression that there is a disconnect between what is happening in Ottawa and what is happening in all the regions.
Take, for example, the Fusiliers du St-Laurent, a reserve infantry unit based in Rimouski. Back when I was on city council, the community rallied together to purchase a school downtown to house the Fusiliers du St-Laurent. However, we recently learned that the department wants to expand a building in the industrial park to house them. This seems like an aberration from a budgetary standpoint, since the existing facility is located in the heart of Rimouski and meets the requirements. Relocating this institution disconnects it from downtown and requires much more travel.
Is the department making efforts to work with regional partners and consult with cities in order to make decisions that are most beneficial for local communities, on the one hand, and for the department, on the other hand? Can you commit to reviewing this decision and, at the very least, speaking with the City of Rimouski to assess the impact of this decision on the community? From a budgetary standpoint, it makes very little sense, since the current facilities are perfectly adequate.
Mr. Moor: Thank you very much for your question. For clarity’s sake, I will answer in English.
[English]
We have about $50 billion — well, $47.8 billion this year — to spend across a wide variety of different priorities and different functions.
I’m afraid the Assistant Deputy Minister of Infrastructure and Environment is not present with us today. We will be happy to reply to the question individually for that particular case.
However, what I would say is that we spend about 80% to 85% of our money in Canada across all provinces and territories, and we take our responsibilities for local engagement with communities very seriously.
I cannot comment on the precise reasons why they may choose the location. There will often be operational reasons in terms of our capacity and capabilities, but we will get back to you on that very specific question.
I would like to reemphasize that we do engage closely with our local communities to ensure we have a win-win situation, where we can actually help the community but also meet our capabilities.
I am not sure if you can add anything to that advice.
Lieutenant-General Stephen R. Kelsey, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence: I would only offer that each unit has different requirements. It starts by listening to what they need, as well as the community. There is a calculus that the real property operations for Quebec use, but it doesn’t always make sense. We will come back with a concrete answer on why the choice was made and see if there is flexibility in the decision.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I was made aware of this fact by the people from the Fusiliers du St-Laurent, who find the situation somewhat absurd, but we will await your response with optimism.
My other question concerns a situation we’ve also seen with Bombardier, where there seems to be a strong desire to strengthen the entire defence industry, in particular.
This morning, La Presse published an article about Cambli, a Quebec-based company, and Terradyne, an Ontario-based company, concerning tanks. According to the article, American companies were or are being awarded a contract without a competitive bidding process to build tanks that would be supplied to Ukraine.
There seems to be a dichotomy between wanting to enhance or strengthen our defence industries and what Canada is actually doing. Somewhat like what was done at the time with Bombardier, it seems that contracts to supply tanks were awarded to the American company General Dynamics, I believe. I don’t know the exact name of the company, and I find it hard to understand this decision.
[English]
Mr. Moor: Certainly. This year, we have received over $2 billion for the Defence Industrial Strategy, which was announced fairly recently, which is to focus on building up capacity and capability in defence industries across Canada.
I would also say that recently a contract has just been awarded to Bombardier for the replacement of our Challenger fleet. That was announced recently, and the contract is now in place.
If I could ask my colleague Heather Sheehy to join us at the table, she could give you more explanation about how we go about our procurement and how we ensure that we are making the options available to everyone who has the capability to meet them.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: In this case, we are talking about 66 General Dynamics 6S models and 383 Roshel Senator armoured vehicles, not from the Canadian Senate, but the Senator model by Roshel.
[English]
Mr. Moor: As Heather joins us, what I can say is that we do have contracts with General Dynamics Land Systems. They are operational both in Quebec and Ontario. Sometimes, when we look at our total expenditure figures, we assume that these costs are associated with the U.S. because they bill us from the U.S. They bill us in Virgina. However, many of those jobs are in Canada, and they are being delivered through both Quebec factories and also London, Ontario, factories.
Heather Sheehy, Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), Department of National Defence: Thank you for your questions. There were several questions that you asked. Maybe I will start with the Munitions Supply Program.
The Munitions Supply Program is a program we have in place that is managed through Public Services and Procurement Canada. It goes back to the mid-1970s. It is a long-term arrangement that we have with five different companies to provide ammunition to Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces.
From those suppliers, we do not receive all of our ammunition through the Munitions Supply Program. The last number I recall seeing was around 30%. Those are sourced using Canadian jobs — I will use that language — but not all of them are Canadian companies.
Last week, the government announced a new grant program, which is the Canadian Defence Industry Resilience Program, or CDIR. Through that program, we have actually given money to specific companies to develop their factories and their capacities in order to have a greater Canadian ability to build the ammunition that we need in Canada. To your point, some of those companies are not necessarily Canadian owned, but they are Canadian jobs for Canadian-made munitions.
From my perspective, it is important that we bolster our ability to provide munitions in Canada because it gives us more sovereign control over ammunition that we will need for the Canadian Armed Forces. You asked a little bit about that, so I hope that helps in that regard.
You also asked about the Senator armoured vehicles. That is done through the Canadian Commercial Corporation, or CCC, which is a Crown corporation. They have procured those for the purpose of donating them to Ukraine. I have that as 383 Senator armoured vehicles. They work with a variety of companies that are made in Canada for Ukraine.
The Chair: That is the mandate of the corporation?
Ms. Sheehy: Correct.
The Chair: Government to government.
Ms. Sheehy: It is interesting. At DND, I now work with the Defence Investment Agency as well as Public Services and Procurement Canada, or PSPC, to acquire the capabilities that the Canadian Armed Forces need. What the vice needs for his team, I work with my colleagues to procure those for him.
This particular procurement is not through DND; it is through the CCC, which procures things from Canada, and, in this case, we procured them on behalf of Ukraine.
[Translation]
The Chair: We have heard presentations from the Canadian Commercial Corporation, the CCC, on their mandate and on how things work for procurement. In fact, I think the Canadian government should draw inspiration from the CCC’s procurement method.
Ms. Sheehy: It’s somewhat similar to the Foreign Military Sales program in the United States.
[English]
We work with the United States, in some cases, to purchase things, and we work through the United States Foreign Military Sales program.
Senator Ross: This question is for you, Mr. Moor.
DND is requesting $129 million to expand or fulfill the security role of the Canadian Coast Guard. I’m wondering if you could give me a sense of what that new mandate is in detail. How much of that will go towards NATO commitments? Who was doing that work before? Can you just provide an overview of what that money is being spent on?
Mr. Moor: Yes. I’m happy to answer that, but maybe I could also ask the deputy commissioner to join us.
The Canadian Coast Guard joined the National Defence portfolio on September 2. It is now under the responsibility of the Minister of National Defence, which allows for the entirety of its funding to be included in the 2%. That is one of the rules which NATO has applied.
I don’t think the bill has reached Royal Assent yet, but the bill identifies the Coast Guard as having a new security mandate to actually do primarily intelligence operations in terms of surveying and other intelligence gathering. Marc, I’m sure, can give you more detail.
Marc Mes, Deputy Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard Programs, Department of National Defence: Thank you for the question. The new mandate will allow the Coast Guard to leverage all of its assets — its 126 ships, all of its helicopters, all of its operations centres and communication towers — to be able to collect information for the purposes of security. That would allow us then to be able to share that information from a maritime domain awareness perspective and understanding what is happening on the water, below the water and above the water, with the use of drones, our ships and various sensors — both communication and sensors on our ships and on our helicopters — that will be able to provide this domain awareness, and we can provide this information back to our defence, security and intelligence partners.
It’s that enabling function that we can provide to the Canadian Armed Forces from a defence perspective. It’s very much an interoperable kind of perspective with the navy, as an example, but also with our defence and security partners.
The $129 million that has been allocated is for long-range radars. It’s for drones. It’s for various sensors that we can put on our ships and our helicopters. It’s also for secure communications so that we could then communicate and send information securely from our ships and our helicopters to the Marine Security Operation Centres or to other ships in the area. There are also the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities for our helicopters. These are the MX-10 cameras, and it provides that picture in support of Canada’s defence and, particularly, the sovereignty of Canadian waters.
Senator Ross: Who would have been providing those services before, first of all? Secondly, what kinds of changes would it mean from an HR perspective, because, obviously, with all this new and sophisticated equipment that wasn’t part of the Canadian Coast Guard before, the same people, possibly, aren’t able to do the same jobs, or new people have to be brought in? Tell me a bit about that.
Mr. Mes: There will be new capabilities that will be required, particularly when we’re dealing with operating drones, which is not something that we would normally do. We did have some drone operations in the delivery of some of our programs, but from a surveillance perspective, these are some new capabilities that we’re bringing in, as included in the funding that we have been provided for security.
It doesn’t change the mandate of the Coast Guard. We are still delivering the key programs for the Coast Guard. Search and rescue, environmental responses, marine communications and icebreaking are critical. This is complementary. It is using those assets that are currently delivering those programs that are then able to help support broader security and sovereignty.
Remember, the Coast Guard has been in the Arctic for some 50-odd years. We have been, really, the federal on-water presence in the Arctic. This is now just giving us those additional authorities to be able to use the sensors we already have on our ships and additional sensors to be able to collect and share information for security. We could always collect information for safety purposes and share that. This allows us to collect and share information for the purposes of security and defence.
Senator Ross: Do you think that this move that took place on September 2 of last year should have been done sooner? Would that have been a more efficient way to get this work done?
Mr. Mes: The geopolitical situation that currently exists has predicated the government to look at broader perspectives on how we can enhance sovereignty and presence. Presence is a big element of this, and this is the appropriate time for the Coast Guard to join with the defence family and be able to help contribute.
We are not military. We will never be militarized. At the same time, we are an independent, special operating agency that will remain civilian but can contribute from a civilian perspective to the defence and sovereignty of Canada.
Senator Ross: Are there any issues in that regard between having people doing those similar roles, some being CAF members and some not being CAF members?
Mr. Mes: We work closely with CAF. We have been doing that for years. That has never been an issue before.
The Coast Guard is still comprised of civil servants. We’re still public servants on all of our ships, and we deliver those services. It’s an additional authority that we have, but there are no issues with regards to CAF.
Do we do missions with the Royal Canadian Navy? Sure, we do. Do we do missions with the RCMP? Yes, we do. Do we do missions with the Fisheries and Oceans Canada on fisheries enforcement? We have always done that. This is just an expansion of that.
Senator Ross: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
The Chair: I have a quick question. Does the Canadian Coast Guard operate only in domestic waters or does it also go into international waters? I would just like a clarification.
Mr. Mes: Absolutely. That’s a good question.
It’s really domestic waters. It’s right up to the limit, absolutely.
[English]
But that doesn’t mean that we can’t participate.
For instance, over the last three years, we have participated in a mission called Operation North Pacific Guard with the Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and they do illegal, unreported and unregulated, or IUU, patrols in the North Pacific. The Coast Guard has supported that.
We will support the mandates of other government departments if that’s domestic or even international.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: I thank our witnesses.
My question is for Mr. Kelsey.
In June, in response to a question from our chair about whether the Canadian Coast Guard would be armed, you said the following. I will quote you in English:
[English]
I have read and heard some things in the media about plans to harm the Coast Guard, but this is not the case. It’s simply a matter of creating chemistry and positioning.
So things have changed. I think that now, more and more, it will be harm.
[Translation]
Can you give us an update on that?
Mr. Mes: Again, thank you for the question.
The Canadian Coast Guard will remain a civilian agency. It is not a military agency.
[English]
We will not be armed. We will not be militarized.
That said, does the Coast Guard support other government departments in their mandates and their arming? We have RCMP on two of our vessels in the Gulf, so we support the RCMP in the delivery of their mandates.
The same goes with fisheries enforcement in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, or NAFO. They are armed. They do armed boardings. We support that. We provide that platform.
There is no discussion about arming or militarizing the Canadian Coast Guard at this moment.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Does this mean that, in the Canadian Arctic, we won’t see Canadian Coast Guard vessels, sort of like we see Chinese vessels with water cannons or weapons in the South China Sea? There won’t be any ships like that, even in the Arctic region? The Canadian Coast Guard is not armed?
[English]
Mr. Mes: No, they will not be militarized. The only ammunition we have is basically a gun to prevent polar bears when we are in the ice, but that’s not necessarily arming. That’s not our role.
Our role — if you remember — is about icebreaking. It’s about community resupply and escorting those people into the northern communities that need to be resupplied, search and rescue, environmental response and community engagement. That’s really the element of our role in the Arctic.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Thank you for the clarification.
When you appeared here in June 2025, we were told that the 60% of the Canadian Coast Guard’s budget was included in the calculation of military spending according to NATO’s definition. Is that ratio still the same? Will it increase in the coming years?
My question is for Mr. Moor.
[English]
Mr. Moor: It has changed because the way the Government of Canada operates with the 2% is that we include everything which is in the defence portfolio, which is CAF, the Department of National Defence and Correctional Service Canada, or CSC. But also now that the Coast Guard is our portfolio, it can be counted as 100%.
Before then, we only counted the expenditures which were related to defence and the capacity for defence. That has changed. That is allowable under the NATO guidance because the NATO guidance says that when an organization is part of the ministry of defence — in our case, it is the Department of National Defence, or DND — you can count on 100% of expenditures.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: We would like to know what that represents in dollars or as a percentage of GDP. Currently, the target is 3.5%. This is higher. We are talking about 5% if we include everything.
[English]
How much does that 40% represent?
Mr. Moor: At the moment, our target is 2% in 2025-26. This is my focus at the moment: 75% of that is DND’s portfolio and 25% of that is other government departments. There are over 30 different departments, including the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, which actually charge defence-related activities to the 2%.
As we progress to the commitment for 2035, it is going to be counted in two ways: 3.5% for core national defence, which includes other government departments, and then 1.5%, not for defence, but for defence-related activities for security functions.
For example, the CBSA, the RCMP, more generally, will be counted in the 1.5% because they are about the defence of the country rather than international defence, which is covered in DND and other organizations.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you for the clarification. I apologize, but I feel compelled to speak up. I wear several hats: I am the Chair of the Committee on National Finance, but I am also a member of the National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee, and I serve on the NATO PA, so I am listening to you and I cannot help but speak up.
As I understand it, the Coast Guard — even though they’re unarmed and on civilian missions — count toward the 3.5% defence spending calculation because they fall under the National Defence portfolio. Is that right? So they could be doing gardening, they could have a baseball team, but if it’s under the National Defence portfolio, it’s part of the 3.5%. Correct?
[English]
Mr. Moor: That is correct under the NATO definition. We are now working on Canada’s interpretation of the definition because there are some uncertainties in there. For example, the NATO definition includes “industrial mobilization.” It doesn’t define what “industrial mobilization” is, so the Government of Canada is identifying their interpretation to include the Defence Industrial Strategy, for example. But all of the organizations within the defence portfolio are counted at 100% towards the 2% or 3.5%.
Senator Dalphond: I guess the same principles will apply for those who are doing maintenance on a military base — support staff, teaching staff, nursing and everything else. I guess the chair is referring to the gardener, but there are more people and civilians who are included within the organization.
Mr. Moor: That is correct, but I’ll hand over to the vice to provide more detail.
LGen. Kelsey: The important element is that if it’s part of the defence budget, it counts. That’s consistent with 32 other allies.
Canada has the advantage of geography. We have the disadvantage of geography. One of the core missions of defending the country is understanding what is going on. We ubiquitously call this Maritime domain awareness. With the Coast Guard and everything they do, we have now enhanced our ability, legitimately, to fill one of those things for which we had a vulnerability or a gap in defence.
This is not unique to Canada. There are other similar forces and other nations that are legitimately part of defence spending, but there is no intent to arm. We need help understanding what is happening in our Arctic. They are the experts who do that.
Senator Dalphond: I understand. To follow up on that, why is $1 billion being put under the budget of the Treasury Board Secretariat? It won’t be part of the budget, so that won’t be part of the 2% target for this year.
[Translation]
What is this $1 billion amount that is now being added to the defence and security initiative?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Vote 50, the amount of $1 billion, is not a source of funding, but a source of funds that departments can draw upon when they need them between two estimates.
Let’s take a very concrete theoretical example: A department associated with the Department of National Defence, which has expenditures eligible for the 2%, is unable to reach the 2% rate it promised to achieve by the end of the year, its contribution. The Department of Defence can then seek funding with authorization. We will advance the money to them so they can spend it on an activity that they had already planned. These are not new activities; the $1 billion is just a source of funds that we use.
[English]
It’s a cash advance rather than a source of funds.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: It has to be charged to the department for — It will be in the budget and will have to be paid in due course.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: They will spend the money on a specific initiative. Let’s suppose they make a contribution to a military mission, such as Operation Reassurance or another military mission outside Canada; that expenditure will count toward the 2%. The $1 billion in funds is just an envelope of money; it doesn’t count toward the 2%.
Senator Dalphond: But why not put it in their budget? Why not add $1 billion, since they need to cover expenses that are not yet covered? Why do they have to go through you? Is it so that you would have some control over the spending?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: It is so that we would have some control over the spending, but also because it’s not just money for the Department of National Defence; it’s money for all departments that carry out security or defence activities. So it’s to enable all these departments to have some flexibility, especially at the end of the year.
The Chair: Or an agency, for example.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Or an agency, if it defines itself as dealing with security matters, yes.
The Chair: Okay. Perfect.
Senator Dalphond: I have one last question. In terms of the compensation requirements, regarding the $140 million, are negotiations or discussions progressing well with the people at the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, who made a public statement in January to tell us that they no longer had sufficient funding to fulfill their mission because there had been an incredible increase in the number of complaints and requests they were receiving? They told us that they were in negotiations with you. The Government Representative in the Senate responded to a question I asked by saying that the discussions were ongoing. Have they concluded? Were you able to find some money to enable this organization to fulfill its duties?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Discussions on the budget of the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner are still ongoing, so I’m not aware of the decisions that have been made.
Senator Dalphond: There are only a few days left before the fiscal year ends.
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: I don’t know what is happening with that, but we can get back to you with more details.
Senator Dalphond: I would appreciate that, thank you.
[English]
Senator MacAdam: My question is for National Defence. The Supplementary Estimates include $309 million in operating expenditures, including $49 million for recruitment, retention and support programs within the Canadian Armed Forces. In her October 2025 audit report on recruiting for the Canadian military, the Auditor General concluded that the Canadian Armed Forces did not recruit and train enough applicants to meet its operational requirements and that recruitment and training processes were inefficient.
Where expenditures and the number of employees are expected to grow, how does the department intend to ensure it recruits more qualified personnel effectively?
Mr. Moor: I could start that answer, and then I’ll hand it over to the vice.
In Budget 2025, we received just over $2.1 billion for 2025-26 for CAF pay and retention. You will all see the announcements about the CAF pay raise: 20% in the junior ranks, 13% for other ranks and 8% for the most senior ranks.
The $49 million you’re referring to was an additional sum of money which wasn’t accessed in Supplementary Estimates (A). This relates to rations and conditions for people who are undergoing training, so it allows us to repay the rations and conditions costs during the training period.
I will hand over now to the vice, who can tell you more about our process in terms of improving recruitment and retention.
LGen. Kelsey: The report was hugely informative in how we oriented our business transformation, and whether it was this committee or perhaps the National Defence Committee, the success that we have had with the business transformation is something we haven’t seen in decades. In fact, for the production of young recruits coming in, for the first time in many decades, we hit our strategic intake. That was last year. Next week, we start a new fiscal year, and we’ll hit it again.
This is the result of doing business transformation by removing some of the barriers that have been long-standing but not lowering any of the standards.
This includes streamlining our process of probationary enrolment, growth in our security clearance enterprise, which may be counterintuitive but is a huge part of how we get folks in the door, and a complete revamp of our capacity, process and priorities.
We’re in a position now where we have no shortage of applicants. We actually have quite a bit of choice. Now we’re trying to close the gap between the force that we have, which is somewhat hollow, to get to the 71,500 regular forces, 30,000 reserves and trained-effective strength. We’re trying to close that gap.
In fact, the CAF grew by 2,000 last fiscal year. We’ll know in another few days, but we think it has been about 1,700 more. The changes have been quite substantial in how we do business.
Again, we have not compromised standards. Some of the work in the report you alluded to, senator, was powerful in how we oriented our work. We’re quite proud.
We now have catastrophic success, and we have to figure out how the rest of the enterprise adapts to be able to take on these fine Canadians who want to join and serve.
Senator MacAdam: With regard to responding then to the Auditor General’s recommendations, I’m assuming you agreed with all the recommendations and have an action plan in place.
LGen. Kelsey: Absolutely.
Senator MacAdam: Have you appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on this report?
LGen. Kelsey: I will get an answer to you, senator. I know that we have been to a committee to comment, to accept and also to give a progress report. It was our Head of Military Personnel, Erick Simoneau, who delivered that. Yes, I will get you the proper answer.
Senator MacAdam: I’m wondering about this Capital Investment Fund. There are funds requested for that in the Supplementary Estimates (C). Could you elaborate on that fund? You mentioned reprofiling from the previous year. I think that is what you mentioned. I want to get a clear idea of what that is about.
Mr. Moor: Our Capital Investment Fund covers all of our Vote 5 expenditures over a 20-year period. It is governed jointly by DND, Treasury Board and Finance.
We have about 360 projects in that Capital Investment Fund, and it covers hundreds of billions of dollars over that 20-year period.
In order to make sure we meet the 2% target this year, we have reprofiled some of that money forward from a future year into this year to allow us to make the payments which are contractually committed because we have accelerated the expenditure on some of these projects.
This is very much part of the focus of defence, to actually accelerate its capability building and many of its projects. So we required money to be moved from the outer years into this year to actually spend that money.
It’s not dissimilar to Vote 50, which also allows us some flexibility to move projects forward to actually spend the money this year, where projects are being accelerated.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: My question is for Mr. Moor. I would like to continue discussing Canada’s strategy to meet its NATO commitments, and more specifically cybersecurity, as NATO views cyberspace as an operational domain, just like air, land and sea.
For some time now, NATO has been pushing Canada to accelerate its investments in artificial intelligence and cyberdefence to protect our critical infrastructure, such as electricity grids, pipelines, and so on. This justifies the repeated requests for funding in the supplementary estimates.
When we talk about 2% of GDP by 2025-2026 or NATO’s target of 5% by 2035, what amounts are planned for cyberdefence as part of these investments?
[English]
Mr. Moor: I’m happy to start answering that question, and I’m sure the vice will want to come in as well.
We have allocated the fund across all domains. As you mentioned, maritime, land and air, but also cyber is one of our domains. Space is one of our domains as well.
The CAF identifies the capabilities required, and the funding has been provided for the first five years through the Budget 2025 decisions. We are now developing, with the vice leading this work, the plan for the following five years.
We will be in a position to present our plan for the 3.5% by 2035. That will include cyber, digital and all the other domains.
I will hand it over now to the vice to speak specifically about cyber.
[Translation]
LGen. Kelsey: The short answer is this: Because of the target, the amounts will increase significantly. One of the foundations of Canada’s Defence Industrial Strategy is to leverage Canada’s capabilities in sectors where we are among the best in the world. The policy on scientific integrity is an example of that, as is the Communications Security Establishment Canada. Because of that, with the Defence Industrial Strategy, we will —
[English]
— leverage not just the expertise and workforce we have, but advances that are being made academically as well as industrially.
[Translation]
The 5% rate is an incredible opportunity; it represents a significant amount. We have a choice to make: Are we going to buy the same things we already have, such as ships, tanks and aircraft? Or are we going to focus our efforts on our strengths, such as the policy on scientific integrity and space? Generally speaking, industry is one area, it’s one of the conversations we are having with NATO, and it’s thanks to the change in allocated funds because of the 5% target that we’ll be able to leverage the expertise we have in Canada. The policy on scientific integrity is the cornerstone of our approach.
Senator Oudar: To be more specific, concerning the 5%, this figure is broken down into 3.5% of GDP allocated to core military capabilities and 1.5% allocated to ancillary defence and security activities. Do you fall under the 3.5%, the 1.5% or both?
[English]
Mr. Moor: In Budget 2025, the government made a statement saying that they considered that the 1.5% was already being budgeted for, and expended in, other government departments.
When the Parliamentary Budget Officer did their report, they focused on the 3.5% and not on the 1.5%. We are still doing work to collect information around the 1.5%, and we are required to report that to NATO in May of this year.
The work the vice and others are doing right now is focusing on the 3.5%, and certainly cyber is considered to be a military domain; therefore, that’s where it will rest.
Senator Pupatello: Good evening, everyone. I’m sorry, I cannot see your name tag; otherwise, I would call you by name. Thank you very much. I need glasses.
I was asked a question from the floor in the chamber on Supplementary Estimates (C), because we were debating it yesterday in the chamber.
I had an interesting question about the 2%, 3%, gaining to 5%. It wasn’t a nice question; let me start with that. I thought my answer was pretty good. I was sort of speaking on your behalf, so I am hoping that you will give me the same answer that I gave.
The idea was that they were eventually trying to reach the 5% and included things like landscaping at military bases, pension payments for non-military employees of certain departments, as well as Coast Guard expenses, which had not been previously included.
There was a $7.13-million grant for Hydro Ottawa to upgrade infrastructure and mention of a water treatment plant in Saguenay. They don’t seem to be defence-related items and yet are accounted for in the 2% NATO target.
First, I wish for you to clarify items like that. If there is a list like that, we are in line with other EU countries and parts of NATO are also including, so that you are looking at a definition across the board. We are not doing anything untoward in what we count in our percentages to reach our commitment to NATO. Could you confirm that?
I also have a couple of sidebar questions as soon as you are through with that.
Mr. Moor: I’m happy to answer that.
As the vice said earlier, all 32 countries count the entirety of what is being spent by the Department of National Defence. That is a standard practice across the whole of NATO.
Senator Pupatello: So in Washington, D.C., the statues on the premises are all included, for example?
Mr. Moor: I’m not really sure I can really comment on behalf of the United States. But what I can say is that, clearly, there are some maintenance requirements in our infrastructure which would be counted.
Just picking up on a couple of points about Saguenay. Saguenay is a round of remediation of contamination that was not necessarily caused by CAF facilities there, but it is a part of our working with local communities to make sure that any responsibility is recognized.
Yes, in the infrastructure and in the environment, we do include all of the work which we are doing around the federal programs related to contaminated sites, but we also work with local municipalities where there is a common, dual-use requirement. For example, we have just approved a project in Halifax, which will be providing some dual-use facilities for the city around heat and light, water and electricity.
Senator Pupatello: One billion dollars was assigned in Vote 50 and another billion dollars in defence in these Supplementary Estimates (C) all go towards meeting the 2% by the end of this fiscal. Is that correct?
Mr. Moor: Everything for the Supplementary Estimates (C) relates to DND —
Senator Pupatello: In fact, meet the 2% by the end of this March?
Mr. Moor: That is our government’s intention. I would say there are still six days to go, and we have a very good plan. We also have a good contingency plan. As Antoine said earlier, Vote 50 is also helping us to make sure that we meet that target.
Senator Pupatello: A couple of other things that are very different.
The drones that have been mentioned that we’re purchasing, how far can they go? Do they stay in Canadian airspace? Are they armed? Describe the type of munition if they are, in fact, armed. Are they destined for other places besides Canadian use?
Mr. Moor: I am sure the vice will want to come in on this one. My understanding is that one of our projects relates to having drones on our warships. Therefore, they potentially will not be in Canadian waters. I will hand it over to the vice.
LGen. Kelsey: I believe you are referring to the Remotely Piloted Aircraft System. This is for domain awareness in the Arctic. They are not armed. These are surveillance and ISR platforms. There are many levels of unattended sensors of all sizes and shapes, but the one that is the major capital investment is explicitly for us to enhance our domain awareness in the Arctic.
Senator Pupatello: Is there consideration around all of the borders of Canada beyond the Arctic — East, West, South, North?
LGen. Kelsey: Absolutely. Three oceans, and more so across the southern border, yes.
Senator Pupatello: Okay.
LGen. Kelsey: That is distinct from what I just described for the drones that are being optimized for the North, but not to say they couldn’t be repurposed for whatever our defence and security needs are.
Senator Pupatello: Okay. These drones could be armed if required?
LGen. Kelsey: No. The packages are very precise based on what we’re acquiring. The intention is not to arm them. That creates another complexity about control and precision. That is not what the purpose of this —
Senator Pupatello: I think we are gaining that with Anthropic these days: some knowledge about that with what is going on in the U.S.
LGen. Kelsey: Yes, there are tremendous Canadian companies doing amazing things of all sizes, from firefighting to logistics. These are major acquisitions, but they are very specific ISR —
Senator Pupatello: It is quite interesting that the Canadian dialogue has never been around defence or even understanding this terminology; that has not been our history here. It is a big learning curve for the Canadian population to understand what we need to do to get up to speed in a hurry with what is happening in the world because our position has changed.
To that end, how long before this rocket, this space launcher capability is going to actually happen? There was a report 14 years ago in an aerospace review that suggested that Canada should have its own rocket launcher capability and not be beholden to private sector interests or other countries in the lineup to even throw up a telecom satellite. That is how long ago we recognized that this was a real need for Canada. Today, that is even more the case. Where is that?
There is $182 million in the budget. I’m not sure what tranche it will come out in.
Mr. Moor: This was a part of our Defence Industrial Strategy. I don’t know the details. I’m seeing if the vice can find the details while I talk. It has definitely been something that we are investing in through the Defence Industrial Strategy. I might look to Heather to see if she knows. I don’t think we have the right people in the room to answer that specifically, but we can get that to you.
Senator Pupatello: Okay, thanks.
LGen. Kelsey: There is a recognition that we are one of the only G7 countries that doesn’t have an indigenous space launch capability. Our minister just launched a capability in Nova Scotia. There is investment, not necessarily in Supplementary Estimates (C), but through different space-based projects. The industrial strategy will unlock collaboration with industry to do something right here at home.
Senator Pupatello: It is in this budget, so I am assuming that the interim supply that we’ll talk about next, I’m sure, is going to identify at least in what quarter that $182 million is moving. If you could find that out for me, that would be great.
Mr. Moor: We can certainly find out for you, but there was money in 2025-26 in the Defence Industrial Strategy. The difference is that it is not being spent by us. In Supplementary Estimates (B), we transferred more than $1 billion of the Defence Industrial Strategy money to other government departments.
In this case, we did transfer almost half a billion dollars to the Canadian Space Agency.
Senator Pupatello: They would be doing it? Very good. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: You mentioned drones. In people’s minds, when we talk about drones, we’re always talking about aerial drones. However, there are also underwater drones. Does the equipment purchased include underwater drones to inspect and monitor underwater infrastructure, such as cables, fibre optics and underwater electrical grids, in order to prevent sabotage?
LGen. Kelsey: The purchases do not yet include underwater drones, but the intention is there. It is essential to gain the upper hand with a suite of air, surface and underwater capabilities at sea. However, that is not yet the case. A number of Canadian companies have the capability to experiment with drones of various sizes for this purpose. The goal of Canada’s Defence Industrial Strategy is to break through this bottleneck and find solutions right here.
The Chair: We are in a public meeting and I don’t want to go into too much detail, but am I to understand that we do have strategies to monitor this infrastructure at the moment?
LGen. Kelsey: I’m not sure.
The Chair: I will repeat my question. It is my understanding that currently, with the Coast Guard and the Canadian Armed Forces, all critical infrastructure is protected and monitored. Is that right?
LGen. Kelsey: I can answer the question you are asking regarding the non-confidential portion.
The Chair: That’s why I don’t want to get into it.
LGen. Kelsey: Clearly, we lack the capacity to counter these threats. That is one of the investments we will be able to leverage thanks to the 3.5% target.
The Chair: That answers my question. I’m surprised to see transfers from the Department of Defence for the fight against greenhouse gases, drug manufacturing and initiatives related to CTI Life Sciences Fund. Why are these funds being transferred to other departments? Is this related to research involving the military sector?
[English]
Mr. Moor: There is a wide range of different reasons why we transfer to other government departments to actually conduct activities on our behalf. Usually, it relates to efficiency and effectiveness; they have the expertise to do it.
All of these numbers, which we transfer to another government department, are then recorded in the 2% by the other government departments as a defence expenditure.
If I look through this list, we actually transferred $75 million this year to the Canadian Blood Services, which is actually to make sure we have a blood supply for the military. But Canadian Blood Services is better positioned to actually have the reserves to provide that for us. This is fairly standard practice at the DND. We make these transfers at the end of the year.
[Translation]
The Chair: On the issue of funds, almost all of the $1.230 billion is being transferred to funds for the strategic aircraft project, funds for expanding the security role, funds for operations and funds for childcare. We get the impression that the funds will be taken out of your budget; technically, they will be taken out before March 31, but the money will be spent later. From an accounting standpoint, within your 3.5%, is the money spent before or after March 31?
[English]
Mr. Moor: It very much depends upon where money is going to. If it is within the Government of Canada, it is considered to be spent within the Government of Canada. If it is not spent, then that would be a lapse.
So when I am looking at the 30-odd departments which contribute to the 2%, literally, day by day, I am now monitoring their expenditure to make sure they have spent the money.
If it is being passed to something like a NATO Trust Fund, then once it has left Canada, it is considered to be part of the 2%, but I can’t guarantee it will be spent in the financial year. That is standard practice across NATO trust funds. Once the money has been sent, it is included in the 2%.
[Translation]
The Chair: What will be the total spent this year as of March 31? We sometimes hear that you have so much money that you can’t spend it all, but I see that you’re resourceful and are finding ways to do it because you can’t create $5 billion or $6 billion in funds.
What is the actual percentage of funds spent in the fiscal year as of March 31? What we hear on the ground is that people are saying, “Don’t build the building right away; even if you do it today, with the time it will take for procurement, we won’t be able to spend the money, so it will carry over to next year,” because the approval process is so slow that we can’t spend all our money. That’s what we are hearing on the ground. You can correct me. What percentage do you plan to spend in your budget?
[English]
Mr. Moor: I am confident, but it’s not the end of the year. I’m confident that we have the plan to deliver the 2% by the end of this year. In terms of our expenditures, we have to bear in mind that they are 34% higher than our Main Estimates at the start of the year. It is significant additional expenditures of $12.17 billion, which we will spend this year. I can guarantee you that I am being caught up every day, and I am reporting every day on our expenditures.
To answer your question, we are professional accountants. We have to make sure we comply with the government’s rules and regulations.
We can only make an advance payment if it is in the contract to make an advance payment. We can only make a foreign military sale in which the money is required in advance. Actually, quite a lot of foreign military sales and NATO contributions are required in advance. For a NATO Trust Fund, you have to pay 100% of the money up front before they actually spend it themselves.
We are pursuing three different approaches here: We are making sure that we can make the payment; we are making sure that it is compliant with the procurement rules and regulations; and we are making sure that it is compliant with the accounting policies and our rules with the receiver general.
It is a complex process, but we are going through each of those stages to ensure that we are not spending money that we are not permitted to spend or we’re not spending money that is not contractually bound.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you. That is very clear.
Senator Forest: I have a quick question for Mr. Brunelle-Côté, so that he doesn’t think that we are not interested in the Treasury Board. In mid-March, the government tabled the departmental plans. These documents give us an overview of the cuts that are being considered. For example, Employment and Social Development Canada’s departmental plan notes that funding for skills training for Indigenous workers and learning aids for students facing barriers is about to end and that no renewal is planned. Is it possible to get a list of the programs that will not be renewed to get an idea and assess the impact of the program review for services to Canadians?
Mr. Brunelle-Côté: Thank you for the question. It’s an interesting question because often, from what I’ve seen in the media in recent days, there is confusion about the Main Estimates and the cuts announced by the government in the budget following the comprehensive spending review and the creation of temporary programs. A lot of temporary programs are announced in departmental plans. As of today — the departmental plans were finalized in February — the department did not yet know whether it would receive additional funding.
The decision was made between February and April 1, and it’s quite possible that, in the coming months, in the Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), (B) and (C), these programs that have been identified as temporary will receive funding. There must be a list at the Department of Finance that accounts for all the programs that are expiring; I’m not sure if it’s public, so we have to rely on the departmental plan. I agree with you that it is confusing. I am willing to admit that some departments are saying that their funding is temporary, even though they will be receiving money in the coming months. It’s just that the decision had not been made when the departmental plans were drawn up.
Senator Forest: I’m asking the question because we are often asked about this, particularly in the context of support programs for students with learning difficulties. It’s a problematic situation that is growing in scope. According to the information we have, there is no renewal, so this information is important to properly assess the consequences of this program review.
The Chair: Thank you very much to all the witnesses. You can see why we sit on the finance committee and how passionate we are about finance. Thank you very much, and keep up the great work; it’s impressive.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: This has been a great witness panel. People who follow us regularly probably noticed that one of our distinguished members — I believe she was the longest-serving member of the committee — Senator Marshall, is not on the committee this week. The reason is that she has decided to retire early. She will turn 75 this summer, so she decided to step down a little earlier.
I would like to move a motion to thank her for her loyal service and the quality of her presentations, questions and speeches. She put her skills as a former Auditor General to good use.
She has served Canadians extraordinarily well.
So I want to move a motion to thank her. I knew Senator Marshall as a caucus member, of course, so I have a few more months of seniority than she does. I was fortunate enough to be the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and Senator Marshall was on my leadership team — she was the whip.
Since you have seen the structure and discipline that Senator Marshall possessed, you will understand that she was also an extraordinary whip.
It was a really fantastic meeting for me; she is a woman I admire greatly.
I hope she has a fulfilling retirement.
Senator Forest: I have been a member of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance for over nine years, and Senator Marshall was there before me. She made an exceptional contribution, regardless of group or party, and Canadians have benefited from her expertise. She provided extremely detailed and competent analyses of any budget issue.
She has been a role model for me; she was a person of exceptional integrity, competence and efficiency. We wish her a happy retirement.
I am sure she will miss the numbers, as she took great pleasure in doing her micro- and macro-level analyses of all budget proposals, including appropriation acts.
Thank you, Elizabeth. I wish you good health and hope you enjoy the coming months and years.
Senator Gignac: I’ll share a story with you, colleagues. Senator Marshall is very generous with her time. I arrived four years ago, and accounting in Ottawa is very different from what I was used to in Quebec City. I’m talking about the Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (B) and (C). She offered to explain to me how it all worked. I spent almost two hours in her office; she took the time to explain everything to me.
We are losing a colleague, but also a mentor, in my case.
Thank you, Senator Marshall, for all the time you have given us. We will miss you.
[English]
Senator MacAdam: I will say a few words. It is hard to put into words the fact that Senator Marshall has resigned and is no longer in the Senate, but her dedication, expertise and contribution have been invaluable for National Finance and for the Senate as a whole. I will miss her. I will miss her friendship.
We went way back in terms of accounting and audit, so we were in the legislative audit community together, and I was proud that she was my sponsor when I joined the Senate. I want to thank her for all the work that she has done. She set a high standard for the National Finance Committee in the Senate, and I think the committee is well respected across Canada. So I wish her all the best in her new retirement, and lots of health, happiness and fun with her family. We will all miss her.
Senator Ross: I have only been a senator here for two and a half years, but I joined the National Finance Committee in January 2024, and Senator Marshall was so welcoming, so kind and so helpful to me. I still carry around, to every meeting I attend, a chart that she gave me explaining how everything worked and how the schedule would work. She was a tremendous mentor. I know she has done that for other new senators as well.
I also admired the good nature and the demeanour with which she asked questions of our witnesses, and the respect with which she took the time to try and understand their answers, and she was just wonderful. Her depth and breadth of knowledge were tremendous, and we’re all going to miss her. She was a great asset to the Finance Committee and to the Senate, but really to Canada. She helped make sure that Canadians understand where the money is going and how it’s being spent, and she helped us always to understand those things as well. So she’ll definitely be missed.
I did send her a message immediately after I found out about her retirement, and she told me to keep asking the good questions. So we all have to keep asking those great questions that she would have asked and think, “What would Elizabeth Marshall say?”
I wish her the very best in her well-deserved retirement.
Senator Pupatello: I just want to say that I regret that I’ve been here too short a time to get more out of all of her experience. I met Elizabeth Marshall as a finance minister in Newfoundland, which is where she was before she came to the Senate. She was renowned there, as she had quite a formidable reputation at the provincial government level that we all knew about — I was in Ontario, and she was in Newfoundland. She spent her whole career giving a level of public service that everyone should be envious of and appreciative for. I want to say, thank you, Elizabeth Marshall. I think she has left us all with some impact on the role of the Finance Committee, the role of asking clever questions and how important it is around transparency.
I hope that some of us will pick up the mantle, because there were several questions that she has repeatedly asked. One of those was that Part 1 of that subset that we had actually gone back to organize a meeting with, sending the bureaucrats to her office to go into detail. Of course, that likely won’t happen now. At some point, we will send her the information of that one question that she kept asking.
Thanks so much for giving us a chance to say some remarks about Elizabeth Marshall.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: I will add my voice to all the tributes paid to Senator Marshall, which are well deserved.
I didn’t know many people in Newfoundland and Labrador, but I used to work for her husband; I found that out in the Senate when I was talking to her.
What struck me about this woman was her curiosity. She never stopped putting effort into her work as an analyst and finance critic.
In the Senate, she was the critic for nearly every spending bill we approved, Supplementary Estimates (A), (B) and (C) every year, the first interim budget. Every time, she would get up and deliver a speech lasting about 20 minutes, breaking things down and saying, “There’s this aspect, that doesn’t work, and so on…”.
I admit that I didn’t always listen to those speeches, but when it was her, I listened because I found it really interesting.
Now I have to listen to Senator Pupatello, who is also very interesting. Estimates are not always the most exciting part of our work.
[English]
She is a very wise person. Every time she makes comments, sometimes a bit sarcastic, it is very well done and she has never been biased. She has an approach to the job of being a senator, and also, because of her background, she has always been very reasonable in her approach and very contributive to our work. We will miss her.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: On behalf of Senator Hébert, who is a member of the committee, and myself, I want to thank Senator Marshall for her exceptional, cross-cutting and bipartisan contribution. She possessed a rigour that she always showed us with a great deal of respect. She left her mark on each and every one of us. On behalf of Senator Hébert and myself, I thank her.
The Chair: There are things we owe to this exceptional senator.
We have a unanimous motion to thank Senator Marshall and recognize her exceptional contribution to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to the Senate and, of course, to the public interest. Thank you very much.
We will suspend the meeting for a few moments and then resume in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)