THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 10, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 6:54 p.m. [ET] to study the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027, with the exception of Library of Parliament Vote 1; and to study the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027.
Senator Claude Carignan (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good evening, everyone. I would like 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’m 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: Éric Forest, independent senator for the Gulf division, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Pupatello: I’m Sandra Pupatello, an Ontario senator.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond, De Lorimier division, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ross: Krista Ross, New Brunswick.
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, today we are continuing our study of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027, and we are also studying the Supplementary Estimates (A), which have been added for the same fiscal year.
For our first panel of witnesses this evening, we are pleased to welcome Debbie Beresford-Green, Vice-President, Food Safety and Science, and Stanley Xu, Vice-President, Corporate Management and Chief Financial Officer, from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
We also welcome Ryan Higgs, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, as well as Lynne René de Cotret, Assistant Deputy Minister, Oral Health Branch, Health Canada.
Finally, we welcome Rod Greenough, Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Management Branch, and Dr. Natasha Crowcroft, Vice-President, Infectious Diseases and Vaccination Programs Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada.
Welcome, everyone, and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear before the committee. We will now hear the opening remarks from Ms. Beresford-Green, Mr. Higgs and Mr. Greenough. We’ll start with Ms. Beresford-Green.
[English]
Debbie Beresford-Green, Vice-President, Food Safety and Science, Canadian Food Inspection Agency: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and honourable members, for the opportunity to appear before the committee this evening. I am pleased to be here to present an overview of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s budget and to highlight the important work that we do for Canadians.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, is Canada’s largest science-based regulator with a dual mandate of protecting health and safety and enabling trade. Our primary responsibility is to safeguard Canada’s food supply and plant health and animal health. Our inspectors, veterinarians and scientists across the country inspect food for safety risks, protect plants from pests and invasive species, and respond to animal diseases that could threaten Canada’s animal and human health.
At the same time, CFIA employees help businesses to understand and verify their compliance with Canada’s federal regulations for food safety, plant health and animal health. This, in turn, allows us to open export markets for our high-quality Canadian products.
[Translation]
The CFIA plays a vital role in advancing Canada’s interprovincial and international trade agenda. Canada has one of the best food safety systems in the world, which is based on our Safe Food for Canadians Act and its regulations. It provides rigorous, internationally recognized standards for food safety and consumer protection.
Global markets are built on trust in national food systems. In 2024, Canada exported about $65 billion of food and seafood. In Canada, more than 20,000 food businesses hold a Safe Food for Canadians licence.
[English]
Recently, the CFIA introduced a concierge-style service that provides tailored, hands-on guidance to help businesses obtain federal licences so they can navigate the licensing process and sell across Canada and export.
Our work in this area has already helped companies obtain CFIA licences that will enable millions of dollars of additional internal trade. This is just one of many examples of how we are reducing red tape and removing barriers to trade, while ensuring our regulations are straightforward and practical to meet the real‑world needs of Canadians and the agricultural and agri-food sector.
Budget 2025 supports the vital work of the CFIA by delivering generational and transformational investments for agriculture and agri-food stakeholders. These important investments include nearly $150 million for the CFIA to support the government’s trade diversification strategy.
[Translation]
This funding will modernize digital trade tools and services, including AI integration. It will also increase market access for Canadian agriculture, agrifood, fish and seafood, and it will address trade barriers, improve regulatory cooperation and promote greater market entry.
[English]
The CFIA’s 2026-27 Main Estimates are $839.1 million. The Spring Economic Update will renew six CFIA initiatives, totalling approximately $83 million per year.
These initiatives fund core operational programming for the agency, including safeguarding the Canadian food supply, responding rapidly to animal and plant disease outbreaks, and maintaining access to international markets for Canadian beef and cattle.
[Translation]
The Spring Economic Update also includes a commitment to clarify the CFIA’s mandate to consider food security and food costs.
Further, it announced the government’s commitment to developing a National Food Security Strategy. This strategy will make it easier for Canadians to access affordable and nutritious food.
[English]
Mr. Chair, the investments outlined in the budget reflect our ongoing commitment to delivering real results for Canadians. These investments will help the CFIA to continue its vital work in safeguarding the food we eat, protecting our plants and animals, and supporting trade and market access, all of which builds a stronger foundation for Canada for the future.
Thank you. We look forward to answering questions.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. Higgs, you have the floor.
[English]
Ryan Higgs, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Health Canada: Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
Thank you for inviting me to discuss Health Canada’s 2026‑27 Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A). I appreciate the opportunity to outline some of the department’s key priorities and to update you on how the resources requested in the estimates will support the delivery of programs that contribute to the health of Canadians.
Joining me today are several colleagues who can provide more detailed responses to any program-specific questions you may have. In the Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), there is $11.2 billion in proposed spending, which consists of $4.7 billion in operating funding, $23 million in capital funding, $5.9 billion in grants and contributions, and $560.4 million is statutory funding.
Overall, this represents an increase of approximately $588.3 million over the authorities at this time in 2025-26.
I will now provide a high-level summary of some of the initiatives included in the $11.2 billion in proposed spending.
Through these estimates, Health Canada remains committed to protecting the health and well-being of Canadians. A key priority will be strengthening Canada’s health care systems, while ensuring our investments deliver results for Canadians.
Some significant areas of investment are as follows:
Funding associated with the federal-provincial-territorial health agreements under the Shared Health Priorities is projected to remain at $4.6 billion in 2026-27, supporting the following four priority areas: expanding access to family health services, including in rural and remote areas; supporting our health workers and reducing backlogs; improving access to quality mental health and substance use services; and modernizing health care systems with health data and digital tools.
[Translation]
We will also continue to uphold the principles of the Canada Health Act, ensuring that Canadians receive care based on need rather than ability to pay.
Oral health is another area where we are making tangible progress. Investments in the Canadian Dental Care Plan continue to support access to oral health care for millions of Canadians.
For 2026-27, over $3.8 billion is allocated to expand recipient eligibility and provide ongoing benefits to help our health system prevent dental disease, reduce emergency visits and improve overall health outcomes.
[English]
Improving access to mental health supports and help for substance use remains a core focus of our work.
Through the Youth Mental Health Fund, the Substance Use and Addictions Program, and the Emergency Treatment Fund, Health Canada will continue to expand its efforts to the youth population, provinces and territories, municipalities, and Indigenous-led organizations in improving physical and mental well-being.
[Translation]
Regulatory modernization remains a cornerstone of our agenda. With the renewal of the cannabis funding, $215.7 million over two years, the department will focus on regulatory, cost-recovery and enforcement activities to lower the cost of the program.
[English]
Finally, in order for Health Canada to meet its comprehensive expenditure review savings, the department will modernize and streamline programs and operations, focusing resources on its core mandates and high-impact activities, while ensuring that health and safety are not compromised. The funding reduction for this fiscal year for 2026-27 is $86.8 million for Health Canada.
[Translation]
In conclusion, Health Canada’s priorities are to reflect our vision of a healthier Canada — one where everyone has access to the care and support they need, and where our health care system is prepared for the challenges of tomorrow.
[English]
Thank you once again for inviting us, and we’re pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Higgs. Mr. Greenough, you have the floor.
[English]
Rod Greenough, Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Management Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada: Thank you for inviting us before the committee today.
My name is Rod Greenough, and I am the Public Health Agency’s chief financial officer. I am accompanied by my colleagues: Dr. Natasha Crowcroft; Vice-President, Infectious Diseases and Vaccination Programmes Branch; and Michael Collins, Vice-President of the Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention Branch.
[Translation]
It is an honour to be here to speak to some recent items included under the Main Estimates as well as Supplementary Estimates (A).
[English]
Before I address the items in the Main Estimates, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and thank the exemplary team of dedicated professionals I have the privilege of working with at the Public Health Agency of Canada, or PHAC.
Every day, our agency colleagues demonstrate an unwavering commitment to public health and public services that helps secure the health and well-being for all people in Canada.
[Translation]
To continue supporting the mental and physical health of Canadians, the Public Health Agency of Canada is seeking a total of $1.5 billion through the 2026-27 Main Estimates.
[English]
Key priorities, led by relevant, timely, and credible science and innovation, will focus on mitigating chronic and infectious diseases and strengthening Canada’s health security.
Notable initiatives include funding of $55 million to support the 9-8-8 Suicide Crisis Helpline, which provides Canadians with safe, high-quality, equitable, accessible and evidence-based crisis support through call or text, 24 hours a day, every day of the year in English and French.
The funding also includes $2.8 million to support backup pandemic influenza supply contracts, which helps strengthen Canada’s pandemic readiness posture and security of supply, and protects the health and safety of Canadians in the event of an influenza pandemic.
Additionally, the Main Estimates include an allocation of $4 million in grants and contributions towards the implementation of the Antimicrobial Economic Pull Incentives Pilot Project, which works to secure access to high-value antimicrobials that are currently unavailable in Canada. Facilitating access to life‑saving antimicrobials is a key commitment under the Pan‑Canadian Action Plan on antimicrobial resistance that helps address priority public health needs.
[Translation]
These investments represent only a small portion of the activities conducted by the agency.
[English]
In addition to the requests made through the Main Estimates, PHAC is seeking an increase of $54.4 million to its reference levels through Supplementary Estimates (A).
Initiatives include the following: funding to extend pandemic influenza preparedness of $43.6 million, which is comprised of $33.2 million to support pre-pandemic H5N1 vaccine and $10.4 million for secondary influenza vaccine contracts; funding of $0.8 million to help assess and minimize public health risks from prion diseases in Canada and contribute to Canada’s National Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Surveillance Program, which is led by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
In addition, PHAC is seeking $5 million to support the childhood vaccination advertising campaign, which aims to strengthen vaccine confidence, and $3.0 million to support ParticipACTION’s “Let’s Get Moving” initiative.
We are also seeking $2.0 million to support Canadians affected by autism spectrum disorder through the Autism and Intellectual Disabilities Knowledge Exchange Network.
This range of proposed spending contributes to PHAC’s important roles in health security, infectious disease prevention and health promotion. Fulfilling our important federal role continues alongside building trust in public health and supporting a diversity of needs across the country through a health equity-driven approach.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, it is a privilege for my colleagues and me to appear before this committee tonight.
[English]
We welcome your questions on the work we’re doing to safeguard the health of Canadians.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Forest: Thank you for being here this evening.
My first question is for Ms. Beresford-Green. On March 1, the agency closed its office in Sainte-Anne-des-Monts. The jobs were brought back to Rimouski. I’m the former mayor of Rimouski, so I shouldn’t complain, but above all, I’m a regionalist, and the elected officials of Haute-Gaspésie are speaking out against the situation. They really don’t understand this decision, given that the volumes from lobster fishing are increasing significantly. The lobster is moving west. We understand the efforts that have been made to reduce federal government spending, but Sainte-Anne-des-Monts is still two hours and 30 minutes from Rimouski. The community is really worried that there will be a loss of service. What can we say to these people?
[English]
Ms. Beresford-Green: Thank you for the question. Any closure of an office takes into account the volume of business that is done through that office. We work closely with our colleagues at Public Services and Procurement Canada on the real estate strategy and where we can continue to maintain leases or where we feel there may be efficiencies to be achieved. We certainly made sure that doing the analysis to determine whether we were still able to meet the service requirements of the regulated community was part of that decision, and while there is a difference in distance, as you have mentioned, we believe we continue to deliver that service, and we’re able to use our inspection capacity effectively even from Rimouski. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Does this mean that your agents will be on site in Saint-Anne-des-Monts or will they be travelling? How will the service level work?
[English]
Ms. Beresford-Green: Thank you for the supplementary question. It depends on the service that they’re providing as to how much they need to travel, and our inspectors do travel based on the regulations where we find our regulated parties. When we do have specific establishments where our staff are required to be on site full-time, we obviously take that into account. In other situations, it is more of a movement back and forth in the regular inspection cycle or serving clients when they need certificates signed. So it depends on the location and the services that are being offered.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you. My second question is for Mr. Higgs. I saw in your departmental plans that you have set a new indicator to measure the percentage of Canadians who can access their full medical records electronically. You’re aiming for 75%. Currently, the rate is around 39% or 40%.
First of all, it’s still quite unusual to set a new goal that falls under another level of government, the provincial government, especially at a time when the federal government is cutting back everywhere. It’s curious that we have money to give ourselves a new mission that falls under the provinces.
Can you tell us what measures and motivation preceded or explain this decision?
[English]
Mr. Higgs: I am not able to respond to that question here today. I don’t have the answer to that with me.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: You don’t have access to the medical records? You don’t have access to this file and you can’t answer the question?
[English]
Mr. Higgs: I just don’t have the answer to the specific question that you’re asking, but we would be happy to get back to you with that information.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Could you please send us the information in writing?
[English]
Mr. Higgs: Yes.
Senator Cardozo: I have three questions, which I will put to you quickly. My first question is with regard to the Canadian Dental Care Plan. I see in the Supplementary Estimates (A) that there is an amount here of $148 million. We were told that you expected that it would go up at the beginning and then possibly go down over the subsequent years. I’d like to know what the trajectory is because this just has the one year, as I see it.
Secondly, could you update us on pharmacare and where that money is noted? Those two questions are for Health Canada.
This question is for the Public Health Agency of Canada: What do you do to monitor possible pandemics? I’m thinking of Hantavirus and Ebola. What is your responsibility, and what are you doing in regard to these two situations?
Mr. Higgs: I can start responding to your first question. The $148 million that you see in the Supplementary Estimates (A) is funding for the delivery of the Canadian Dental Care Plan. It includes things like application verification and eligibility determination services that are provided largely by ESDC.
To get to your question about the projected funding profile of the Canadian Dental Care Plan, including the benefits piece, that is something that we are monitoring, and as data comes in — because it’s a new program — we continue to monitor, forecast and update forecasts, including working with the Office of the Chief Actuary to determine what the demand for those benefits will be, year over year.
Senator Cardozo: This $148 million isn’t money that goes to dentists for actual services?
Mr. Higgs: That is correct. The funding we have this fiscal year for the benefits, which is reimbursing oral health care providers for the services they provide to members, is $3.4 billion. The amount of $149 million that you see in Supplementary Estimates (A) is for the delivery and administration of the program.
With regard to your second question on pharmacare, I wasn’t sure if I caught exactly what you’re looking for, but I can tell you that, over a five-year funding period, pharmacare has a $1.5‑billion commitment, starting in the fiscal year 2024-25. Was your question more specific than that?
Senator Cardozo: Which provinces and territories have signed up so far, and what is happening in terms of the others?
Mr. Higgs: I’m going to turn to my colleague Daniel MacDonald, who can provide a more detailed response.
Daniel MacDonald, Director General, Office of Pharmaceuticals Management Strategies, Health Policy Branch, Health Canada: Thank you for the question.
In terms of national pharmacare, the progress to date so far, and what is reflected in the figures in the Main Estimates for the change in funding levels this year, we have four provinces and territories that have signed so far.
Senator Cardozo: Which provinces and territories are they?
Mr. MacDonald: Manitoba signed on February 27, 2025. Prince Edward Island signed on March 7, 2025. Yukon signed on March 20, 2025. Finally, British Columbia signed on March 6, 2025. What you’re seeing in the Main Estimates is the distinction as to when they implemented it. Manitoba and Prince Edward Island implemented it very early in the last fiscal year. So in the Mains for last year, you see pretty much a full amount for those two provinces. British Columbia implemented March 1, so the last fiscal year but just at the very end, and Yukon came on very early this fiscal year. So what you’re seeing in that change is mostly British Columbia.
Senator Cardozo: Are you having discussions with the other provinces and territories regarding the program?
Mr. MacDonald: In September, the Prime Minister was quite clear in his statement about wishing to move forward with the rest of the provinces and territories as quickly and equitably as possible, and his comments also made reference to the fact that the fiscal house on the federal side is something, given the wider environment that we’re in, that’s going to be a necessary precondition, if you will. So that’s the context.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Senator Ross: My question is for you, Mr. Greenough. I notice that in the Departmental Plan, the Public Health Agency of Canada, or PHAC, has indicated that your contributions to the 9-8-8 suicide crisis line are going to go from $75.6 million in 2025-26 all the way down to $4.3 million in 2028-29. Also, the Preventing Family Violence Program is going from $19.5 million in 2025-26, down to $14.5 million by 2027-28, and the Kids Help Phone is going from $2.5 million in 2026-27 and then ceasing the following year.
I wonder if you can give me a sense of why these evaluations caused these programs to be cut in this way. What explains the decrease? What is going to happen? These seem like very important programs.
Mr. Greenough: I will start, and then I will pass it to my colleague Michael Collins. We have a number of programs that have time-limited or sunsetting funding. In our Departmental Plan, they will sunset after a couple of years, but it doesn’t prejudge that there could be a renewal of the funding. The 9-8-8 funding was recently renewed for two years, so we have that two-year funding in there, for example, and then there is the possibility to renew it further. Perhaps Michael could elaborate on that answer.
Senator Ross: So the $4.3 million that is indicated in your Departmental Plan for 2028-29 is not correct?
Mr. Greenough: It’s correct right now, but the program could be renewed in a future budget before we get to 2029. It was recently renewed for two fiscal years: 2026-27 and 2027-28.
Michael Collins, Vice-President, Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada: Maybe I will just reassure you, particularly on the 9-8-8 piece. It’s an enduring program. This was never put into place as a program that pops up for two years and then, oh, we’ve given it the college try, and it disappears.
Given the fundamental response that it is providing to Canadians across the country, given the ongoing suicide rates that continue to characterize this country. As Mr. Greenough was just saying, through Budget 2025, we have just received renewed funding for the next two years, and what the agency is currently working on is a sustainability plan.
Even though the 9-8-8 system is relatively new and just launched in November 2023, which is pretty nascent as an overall government program, we’ve done an internal evaluation, we’ve done an economic model and we’re having discussions with the provinces and territories for the long-term sustainability of the program, recognizing that this is an enduring piece.
Just in terms of family violence — I’m not the CFO, so I don’t have all the details in terms of the financials — I can also reassure you that, in terms of the interventions that the Public Health Agency is making in family violence, which, in many respects, is complementary to women and gender equality, and in terms of the maltreatment of children and what have you, we have just entered into a whole suite of new programs to the tune of $14 million a year.
I would reassure the committee members, through the chair, that in terms of the Public Health Agency, we have continued to play a fairly vibrant role in these important social programmatic spaces.
Senator Ross: Thank you so much.
My other question is for Ms. Beresford-Green. There was a reversal of the decision to close the lab in Longueuil, Quebec, or at least, it was delayed from April of this year to 2028. I wonder if there are discussions or plans overall for consolidation of programs and any other imminent closures or anything like that coming and how it would affect the ability of the agency to respond quickly to food supply issues.
Ms. Beresford-Green: Thank you for the question. Maybe just to clarify, the closure of our lab in Longueuil was always intended to be in 2028-29. There were some unfortunate communication missteps in terms of the actual closure time frame, which is the third year of the comprehensive review exercise cycle. That runway was required for us to make sure that we were able to appropriately plan and execute on that plan to distribute the work to our other laboratories across the country — we have a network of 13 laboratories, 6 of which relate to food safety — and to make sure that we are able to move the testing and the vital work that is done. So it is consolidation rather than us getting out of any of that business.
There are no other plans, as a part of the Comprehensive Expenditure Review or under discussion at this time, for the consolidation of any of our other laboratory facilities.
Senator Ross: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Mr. Higgs, thank you for being here. Did I understand that correctly? You mentioned that the dental care program amounts to $3.4 billion annually?
[English]
Mr. Higgs: Yes, the funding profile for the benefits portion of the Canadian Dental Care Plan is $3.4 billion in this fiscal year: 2026-27. The funding profile does vary slightly year over year, but it remains within $3.4 billion and $3.9 billion for the next five fiscal years.
Senator Gignac: In the Supplementary Estimates, it’s very transparent that you asked for an additional $148 million. Could you indicate to me in the Main Estimates on which page, whether it is the French version or English version, we can find that $3.4 billion annual amount? I just can’t find it in the Main Estimates. It represents close to 35% of your annual budget, and I also cannot find the line for the Canadian Dental Care Plan. Maybe there is something missing, or maybe I have just checked it too fast.
Mr. Higgs: I totally understand your question. Since it’s an operating expenditure item, you won’t see a detailed, line by line split out of what this fiscal year is: $4.5 billion in operating items. But the amount does increase. You can see on the first page of the Main Estimates that last year the mains were $4.26 billion for Health Canada, and this year they are $4.471 billion. There are a bunch of increases and decreases there.
Senator Gignac: It’s included in the $4.4 billion?
Mr. Higgs: It’s included in the $4.471 billion. That is correct.
Senator Gignac: As parliamentarians, we have to approve the spending, and one of the major items that has been responsible for the significant acceleration of your budget is the Canadian Dental Care Plan, and we just have no clue. Thank you for your transparency.
Could you compare that to when it was announced three years ago? I remember the minister mentioning it will be $10 billion over the next five years, but $3.4 billion and what seems to run at $17 billion on the five-year period. Are you in the run rate or have you significantly underestimated the demand coming from Quebec? I remember when they launched the dental plan many decades ago, it was a surprise that people underestimated how popular the program would be.
Mr. Higgs: Thank you for that question. The original funding profile, when the program was originally approved, did ramp up. For example, in 2025-26, the original funding profile had benefits funding of $2.9 billion. You may recall that, in the supplementary estimates last year, there was an increase of $1.6 billion because the demand was exceeding the original forecast, but that $2.9 billion did ramp up and settle around $4 billion. It varies a little bit year over year, but it settles at approximately $4 billion per fiscal year for the dental plan benefits piece — the reimbursement to the providers.
We continue to monitor that very closely. It’s a relatively new program. We work with the Office of the Chief Actuary to sharpen our pencils when we get more data to update the forecast. As we get that, we would reprofile and move funding around as needed.
So the best answer I can provide for you right now is that, over the next five years, the current appropriations that we have approved are between $3.4 billion and $3.9 billion, but that could be updated as demand fluctuates.
Senator Gignac: Thank you. I remember that, at this committee, we had skepticism regarding the cost of that program and that it could be much more significant. It seems to have been proven.
[Translation]
The Chair: Since we started a little later, let’s split the delay time between the two groups of witnesses. We mustn’t overanalyze it.
Senator Dalphond: My question is for the Public Health Agency of Canada. I see that your budget has gone from $11 billion to just over $1 billion in four years. There was the pandemic, but it’s a drastic reduction of your budgets.
The number of employees has been significantly reduced.
What role can you play? How do you see the future and what are you currently doing, for example, regarding Ebola and other diseases on the horizon? Are you still involved in this or not at all anymore? Do you still have the capacity to respond if we start to see cases of Ebola in Canada?
Mr. Greenough: I’ll start, and then I’ll give the floor to my colleague.
[English]
To start, yes, our budget has been reduced significantly from the COVID era, but we still have more employees today than pre-COVID because we have taken on new roles and functions.
Dr. Crowcroft can speak to the Ebola current response.
The second thing to take into account is that the agency is using more modern tools as we go forward, in lieu of having large numbers of people. We have learned lessons and built more digital and other tools to support the agency as we go forward.
We do have a stable funding base inherent to the agency that allows us to execute our mandates. Given our nature for emergency response and crises, there is that ability to scale up, like during COVID, when needed and to take on additional roles.
I’ll turn to Natasha for the specifics of the current response.
Dr. Natasha Crowcroft, Vice-President, Infectious Diseases and Vaccination Programs Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada: Thank you very much for your question. We stand ready as a country to address the importation of infectious diseases and also to contribute to the international environment and system in which infectious diseases, such as Ebola, are detected and the response that happens. Right now, as an illustration, we’re involved at several levels in that.
We have, in the Public Health Agency of Canada, one of the best laboratories in the world for Ebola. It’s the laboratory that produced the first Ebola vaccine. That laboratory is, right now, in the middle of supporting the development of both an updated version of its vaccine that will work against the current outbreak’s strain and also supporting the development of new vaccines using mRNA technology for that Bundibugyo strain of Ebola.
We’re very actively involved internationally supporting the response from the World Health Organization, as well as working very closely with our provincial and territorial partners to help them be ready. It’s the health care system that really needs to be on guard in the case that someone arrives who is infected. Our role is at the borders to stop sick people arriving, which could cause additional problems. We have border measures in place, but should anyone in Canada develop Ebola, we have treatment centres for them. The health care system, from what we see, is ready to deal with the situation.
Senator Dalphond: So, I understand that you have the necessary resources to face a situation like Ebola or something else that could be coming? Do you have enough resources to face the situation? I understand you are the front gate for entering Canada. You are coordinating across Canada, so you have a key role to play.
Dr. Crowcroft: Yes, we do. If a case of Ebola comes to Canada — which has never happened before — the most likely outcome is that it will be one patient and that the health system’s infection control measures will contain that.
We don’t have any concerns. We’ve done a risk assessment. We have no concerns that Ebola is the type of infectious disease that would cause a global pandemic or any kind of major or significant outbreak in Canada. There are other diseases that continue to pose that risk, and we continue to be vigilant to detect and respond to those as well.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
Senator MacAdam: My question is along the same line, but in the context of the 2026-27 Main Estimates, could you just outline current trends in infectious diseases in Canada and how these trends are informing your priorities in the Main Estimates? How many human and financial resources have been dedicated to fighting against or preventing infectious diseases?
Mr. Greenough: I’ll start in terms of the resources and then pass to Natasha.
In our departmental plan, we identify three core responsibilities, one of which is infectious disease prevention and control. It has, for 2026-27, planned spending of $774 million. This covers some of the vaccine purchases that I mentioned in my opening remarks, as well as the work done by Natasha’s team and a host of other activities, including surveillance and laboratory science, antimicrobial resistance, sexually transmitted and blood-borne resistance and outbreak response.
I turn to Natasha for a description of the current infectious disease landscape.
Dr. Crowcroft: We’re very focused on pandemic preparedness. That’s one thing we’re looking at, but you were asking about trends. We’re vigilant even when there’s nothing there for those.
The trends that concern us most, in terms of increasing trends, and the things I would highlight would be increases in HIV and tuberculosis, or TB, in particular, because those are focused very much in specific groups where we have what we sometimes call syndemics. Certain communities are particularly at risk, often due to the social determinants of health, such as poverty, housing issues, addictions and mental health issues. That all comes together to increase the vulnerabilities. Those infectious diseases are of particular concern, and we’re trying to take measures to address those in the communities, including Black and Indigenous communities in Canada. They are at particular risk, as are newcomers to Canada, who are at risk particularly for TB.
Those are the increasing trends that cause some concern. We see a slower increase, which appears in our budget as being of particular importance, and that is in antimicrobial resistance. That is a global problem. It really has to be approached from a one-health perspective because it affects animal health, the environment and human health.
We have a pilot to try to get new antimicrobials into Canada. That’s a challenge that many countries face. We hope our incentive pilot will address some of the issues because it’s very hard to get the pharmaceutical industry interested in this area in terms of addressing antimicrobial resistance. That complements our other activities that we have to try and reduce the emergence of antimicrobial resistance through health care, infection and prevention control programs.
That area is on the prevention side. Also, on the animal health side, my CFIA colleagues may have comments.
Senator MacAdam: What about screening programs for transmissible infectious diseases? Is that standard? What is your screening program?
Dr. Crowcroft: The Public Health Agency of Canada doesn’t run screening programs, but some groups are recommended to be screened. In health care, for example, there is a screening program for the human papillomavirus in many provinces and territories as a cause of cervical cancer, for which we also have a vaccine. Some groups are recommended to be screened for hepatitis B infection.
There are some programs in the health care sector, but, to my knowledge, we don’t run any screening programs for infectious diseases directly from the Public Health Agency of Canada.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I’d like to revisit the discussion we had earlier with the Public Health Agency regarding the 2026‑27 departmental plan, particularly the cuts to funding for family violence prevention, given that I’m the sponsor of Bill C‑16 on femicide as first-degree murder, coercive control offences and the prevention efforts we’re trying to undertake in these unfortunate circumstances.
Earlier, I was listening to the news: Unfortunately, there’s still talk of an increase in family violence. I’m really surprised to see a decrease of several million in the grants for the coming years. I’d like us to continue the discussion on this and to have an explanation for the reasoning that preceded these decisions. You talked about a sustainability plan. Are these subsidies part of the consideration or will this be a permanent reduction?
Mr. Collins: I was thinking of sitting next to Senator Dalphond, but apparently it causes audiovisual problems, so I have to move.
Thank you very much for the question.
[English]
I would reiterate my response to a question from Senator Ross. The work of the Public Health Agency in the context of family violence, in fact, overall, is increasing. I made reference earlier on that we’re now looking at programming of $14 million a year, pursuant to a call for proposals that went out in 2024, and then we have put into place a whole suite of new agreements with “les parties prenantes” across the country just in the last few months.
So we’re fundamentally investing $14 million. It’s about safer relationships. As Dr. Crowcroft was referencing, much of the work of the Public Health Agency is focused, not on providing health care services, but in terms of providing targeted investments that are focused on equity population. So in our case, it really is around Indigenous, newcomers, youth, rural populations, Black and beyond. So there is a very active suite of programming taking place.
I made reference earlier on that the work we do is very much complementary to women and gender equality in Canada to ensure that the overall interventions are, in fact, reinforcing each other.
The second thing I would emphasize in terms of the work done by the Public Health Agency of Canada, not so much in terms of dollars and cents, but also that we undertake very active surveillance across the country; for example, through the Canadian Child Welfare information system, which is really attempting to track incidences where there are child maltreatment and cases of family violence, with a fundamental view, then that reinforces what policy and programmatic interventions we need to make.
My overall response to the question is that, notwithstanding some of the financial — I’m not well versed in necessarily the estimates — from a programmatic perspective, we are still very much occupying a very vibrant and important space in combatting family violence, youth dating issues and intimate partner violence. In fact, that links to Minister Michel’s priority around a men’s and boys’ health strategy, which is being developed, recognizing that this also intersects with a number of other important files.
Senator Pupatello: My question is for CFIA, please. Some of our senators are concerned about the discussions between Canada and the potential engagement with Mercosur, the trade agreements with South America and those countries that have huge cattle farms and would be in direct competition with our cattle farms here in Canada.
One of the questions that one official answered is they were told they had not been to Brazil, for example, to examine the slaughterhouses there for their level of care and meeting standards since 2018.
I’m wondering if, in these Main Estimates, there will be funding available for reinstating those kinds of international visits of our officials to guarantee that South American cattle farmers are maintaining the same standards.
Ms. Beresford-Green: Thank you very much for the question. It’s an important one.
Whenever we have an expansion of trade with our partners to ensure that we are able to work with our counterparts, we must ensure that the food safety system that is in place within that trading partner’s country is equivalent to that of Canada. The work that we are doing in the food-safety space and in ensuring disease-free status for any imported animals will continue.
In fact, although not necessarily represented in our Main Estimates or Supplementary Estimates (A), there is a subsequent renewal of funding that is very much focused on keeping food safe.
Our trade diversification funding that I referenced earlier also allows us to be able to undertake those audits and inspections when there are new markets opened as well. So we are very alive to this, and we will ensure that any new trade agreements are based on — and the foundation is clearly in — that food safety and in the appropriate technical negotiations to ensure that equivalency of systems.
Senator Pupatello: Can you tell me what that renewal of funding would be that you just referenced?
Ms. Beresford-Green: It’s an initiative called Keep Food Safe!, and my colleague has the exact number there.
Senator Pupatello: Is that specifically for international testing or inspection?
Ms. Beresford-Green: No, it’s more generally for our inspection activities, which would include our international activities, but our trade diversification funding of $107 million will ensure we have the capacity to do the offshore audits.
Senator Pupatello: Can you tell me about how these estimates are influencing the work of CBSA in this same space, food coming back and forth, beef that’s already packaged, for example, and some other types of foodstuffs? They do their intermittent and random testing in various ways. Is there a comfort level that you’re aligned with properly or do you have the funding to be aligned with all of these new agreements that could come onside?
Ms. Beresford-Green: Thank you for the question. It’s a really important partnership that we have with CBSA for any food, plant and animal imports as well to protect the Canadian food system, plant health and animal health.
As we increase trade diversification, we work closely with them to make sure that they have the appropriate information, and, of course, it’s all done through certificates, both export and import: export from the originating country and then import from our side.
You’re correct that, depending upon the food commodity, there are different levels of inspection that happen, and obviously, there are different risks associated with the different food commodities.
Senator Pupatello: The difference in pricing between Brazil and Canada in how you raise a cow for beef is so significant. There is a real fear that we’re going to be completely wiped out if it opens up through Mercosur. The standards will be critical to this. If they have to meet our standards, their prices are going up. It is interesting that there is a tariff issue that is in play once they get to these. At a certain amount, a certain level of tariff applies. Do you have an influence on that or are you specifically on the safety side?
Ms. Beresford-Green: The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is part of the health portfolio and reports to the Minister of Health, but we also report to the Minister of Agriculture. So that’s where we have the opportunity to work closely with, in this case, Minister MacDonald and the staff at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to take into account exactly the issues that you’re raising.
Senator Pupatello: Would the non-tariff barrier that would be in place be done by your agency then?
Ms. Beresford-Green: From a technical perspective, that’s all negotiated by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you. My question is for the representatives from Health Canada.
You’ve certainly heard on the news that Canada is trying to do more trade with Europe. However, when we meet our European friends, they’re not very happy. They tell us that currently, cannabis is arriving by the ton in Europe, and it’s Canadian cannabis.
How do you operate on the inspection side? How many inspectors are dedicated to cannabis?
I’m giving you some figures that appear on your website. Between April 1, 2024 and March 31, 2025, there were only 197 inspections of medical cannabis. Of that number, 93 inspections had received a level 3 rating, meaning there was a serious danger, a clear risk to health and to the illicit market. Only 10% of the inspections were compliant and had no hazard or diversion rating.
For growers of medical cannabis, this represents only 889 inspections. For the large producers, we’re probably at around only 600 inspections. I’m surprised that there’s so much non‑compliance with so few inspections and that we’re starting to cause problems for our friends in Europe. How many inspectors do we have and how does it work?
[English]
Mr. Higgs: I will defer to my colleague Kendal Weber.
Kendal Weber, Assistant Deputy Minister, Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch, Health Canada: Thank you for the question. It’s a great question.
In Health Canada, we regulate cannabis for medical and non‑medical purposes. We have inspectors who will inspect processors to determine that they are aligning with our regulations.
There are individuals who operate outside of the regulated program. They could be organized crime. They could be those who choose not to be in the regulated regime. That is illicit cannabis.
If I understand correctly, you’re referring to shipments of illicit cannabis that have left Canada and that have maybe travelled to European countries. Is that correct?
[Translation]
The Chair: My question has two parts. First, regarding the number of inspections of licensed producers, I note that the level of severity and non-compliance is very high, while the volume of inspections seems particularly low to me. Then, given these flaws and the major risks of diversion, I link this directly to exportation. I understand that there may be exportation by organized crime that does not have a licence. Exporting cannabis outside the country in this way represents a health risk and a risk to our reputation.
[English]
Ms. Weber: Our regulated parties, when we go inspect them, we check for compliance with our regulations. There may be non-compliance with their sample program or perhaps with their quality program or their record keeping. Some of them may be minor infractions; some may be larger. Then we take compliance action.
It can be a small infraction, such as what I mentioned, that would make them non-compliant, and we would report on that in our inspection report online that you have just indicated.
The larger program of shipments of illicit cannabis that are leaving our country is not from the regulated parties and the non-compliance that you are referring to.
[Translation]
The Chair: How many inspectors do you have?
[English]
Ms. Weber: I don’t have that number. We can come back with it. I don’t oversee the inspection program. We can come back with the number of inspectors. It’s in our online annual report that outlines cannabis inspection compliance.
[Translation]
The Chair: The number of inspectors is not indicated.
Ms. Weber: I’m sorry.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: I have a quick question, Dr. Crowcroft. You provided most of the answer to Senator Dalphond with regards to Ebola.
But I’m just wondering about any other viruses, the hantavirus or others, if you could tell us about the other viruses that you are monitoring.
Dr. Crowcroft: Thank you for your question.
Influenza is a key one in terms of pandemic threat. COVID is another one, as are any of the coronaviruses.
We monitor other respiratory infectious diseases like RSV. You mentioned hantavirus. Hantavirus is reportable in Canada, and we had a Canadian-acquired case. Like Ebola, it has been assessed as not being at risk of a pandemic by WHO and by Canada. Those are some of them.
You were asking about how seriously we take pandemic surveillance, which is absolutely critical. We have a made‑in‑Canada system called GPHIN, which is monitoring all the time. We’re in constant contact with our colleagues at WHO. We are part of international laboratory networks that exchange information on trends in infectious diseases.
We work closely with some individual partners and pick up when things arrive in Canada, such as measles, which, as you know, is another infectious disease that we’re dealing with right now.
Does that answer your question?
Senator Cardozo: It does. With regard to hantavirus, the one person came —
[Translation]
The Chair: I’m sorry, our time is limited and out of respect for those who come after —
Senator Oudar: I’ll be brief. If the witnesses here want to respond in writing, it would be greatly appreciated. I’ll come back, generally, to the question I asked earlier.
I calculated that, with the major cuts being made to the suicide helpline, the funding was significantly reduced afterwards. This is what I talked to you about earlier, the prevention of family violence. An organization that I really like, the Kids Help Phone, and several others have had their funding completely cut. In total, nearly $24 million has been cut from NPOs, Indigenous governments, First Nations, Inuit and organizations supported by the federal government and research agencies.
Could you provide us with the list of organizations that had their funding cut by this significant measure?
Please let us know if you’ve received any responses from these organizations and what impact the cuts have had on their clientele. After all, we’re talking about a large number of organizations that will be affected by these cuts.
The Chair: Thank you. You’ll reply to us in writing, then. That’s it for today. Is five days enough for you to send us the written responses? Thank you very much.
For our second group of witnesses today, we are pleased to welcome Carl Delisle, Chief Financial and Technology Officer, and Martin Beaulac, Corporate Controller, from VIA Rail Canada, as well as Jaime Caceres, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial and Management Services, and Lola Paulin, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, from Transport Canada.
Carl Delisle, Chief Financial and Technology Officer, VIA Rail Canada: Good evening, Mr. Chair.
Today, I’m joined by my colleague Martin Beaulac.
As we approach VIA Rail’s 50th anniversary, the development of passenger rail is more prominent than ever.
We recently published our 2025–29 business plan. It outlines how we will leverage our expertise to deliver the best possible service to the approximately 400 communities we serve.
Our goal is clear: To make VIA Rail a model for rail operations.
[English]
Mr. Chair, we have a country to move. To do so, we have undertaken the most ambitious modernization program in our history, starting with the commissioning of 32 new train sets in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor.
Our maintenance facilities in Toronto and Montreal are also being upgraded with state-of-the-art technologies.
[Translation]
The 2024 federal budget marked another important milestone in this modernization plan by confirming funding for the replacement of our regional and long-distance trains.
This support reflects the government’s clear commitment to passenger rail.
The selection of equipment suppliers will be announced in a few months. Once in service, these new trains will transform the travel experience for our passengers across the country.
VIA Rail is continuing these initiatives while supporting the Government of Canada’s commitment to responsible spending.
We are deeply committed to maintaining a balance between providing essential services to Canadians and sound financial management in an operational environment that is sometimes unpredictable and challenging.
We improved our financial performance this year, covering 58% of operating costs with internally generated revenue. This is an important step toward long-term sustainability. For example, efficiency gains were achieved to reduce fuel consumption. Tight project management has also been essential to achieving our objectives.
Our work in this area was recently recognized by the Project Management Institute of Montreal, which awarded our Project Management Office the 2025 Elixir Award for its rigorous governance and the supervision of nearly 200 projects nationwide.
[English]
Highlights from our 2025 financial results demonstrate the rigour behind the management of VIA Rail: Our revenues have increased by $36.8 million compared to 2024. We maintained ridership levels year over year with 4.4 million passengers.
[Translation]
We intend to continue this momentum by increasing passenger numbers and revenues, limiting our operating deficit and reducing our use of public funds.
We would be pleased to answer your questions.
[English]
Jaime Caceres, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Management Services, Transport Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we are gathered today is the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe People.
My name is Jaime Caceres, and I am the chief financial officer at Transport Canada. With me today are several other Transport Canada officials: Lola Paulin, Deputy Chief Financial Officer; Nicholas Robinson, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security; Serge Bijimine, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy; and Erin Lynch, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs.
[Translation]
We are pleased to be gathered today to discuss the 2026‑27 Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A) of Transport Canada.
Transport Canada’s mandate is to ensure a transportation system that is safe, secure, efficient, environmentally friendly and innovative. We play a key role in ensuring that all components of the transportation network across Canada coordinate their activities effectively, working with various groups, including Indigenous peoples, industry, provincial and territorial governments, and international partners.
To support these objectives, the 2026-27 Main Estimates provide $3.9 billion for Transport Canada.
Compared to 2025–26, the Main Estimates increased by $764 million, or 24%. This increase is mainly attributable to new funding initiatives that were announced as part of the federal government’s mandate, namely $500 million to support trade diversification corridors, which will help achieve the government’s priorities, which are the construction and improvement of trade infrastructure that connects Canada; $444 million for the affordability of electric vehicles to support domestic demand by making electric vehicles more affordable for Canadians; and $150 million for the Arctic Infrastructure Fund, which will provide access to new global markets, and strengthen Canada’s sovereignty and defence capability.
[English]
Transport Canada’s contribution to the government’s Comprehensive Expenditure Review initiative, announced in Budget 2025, is also reflected in these Main Estimates. These savings will be achieved by implementing a more modern and flexible regulatory and oversight regime, deploying advanced technology and automation, refining our program portfolio to better align with core mandates and evolving industry needs, and reorienting operations and administrative structures.
Some additional initiatives in these Main Estimates include $820 million for the National Trade Corridors Fund to invest in critical assets that support trade and the physical movement of goods and people in Canada; and $482 million under the Safe and Secure Transportation core responsibility to sustain a variety of activities, such as ensuring the safety and security of air travellers through research and regulatory development, and the continued testing of motor vehicles, child restraints and emerging automobile technologies.
Now I will turn to the 2026-27 Supplementary Estimates (A), which have $90 million for Transport Canada priorities, including $39 million to support three interprovincial ferry services in Eastern Canada; $17 million to support connected and automated vehicle technologies and operating the Motor Vehicle Test Centre; $10 million to support the Remotely Piloted Aircraft System and other emerging aviation technologies; and $24 million for various other initiatives, including the operations of government-owned port facilities.
This funding will enable Transport Canada to support ongoing critical services and activities that benefit the transportation sector and Canadians.
[Translation]
Finally, these Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A) include $3.8 billion for Crown corporations in the transportation portfolio to enable them to carry out various essential projects related to their mandate. For example, $1.4 billion has been allocated to VIA Rail to ensure continued effective and viable passenger rail services in Canada, $710 million to Alto to develop and implement the high-speed rail project between Toronto and Quebec City, and $1.3 billion will be allocated to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority to ensure continued effective, consistent and professional oversight of the air transportation system in Canada.
[English]
These initiatives represent a sample of the diverse activities that Transport Canada and the Crown corporations in its portfolio undertake to achieve its mandate. This funding will ensure Canadians receive a trustworthy and dependable transportation system while meeting other Government of Canada priorities.
At this time, my colleagues and I are happy to answer any questions the committee might have.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Forest: Thank you for your presentations. Here’s my first question. We’re in a time where we have fundamental needs for public transportation. Furthermore, the quality of service encourages people to use it. I remember that not so long ago, there was one train per day departing from Rimouski. One used to leave in the morning for Quebec City and return in the evening; there were three trains per week and a closed station; how can we explain such a significant difference in service between what we had the 1980s and what we have today? Your chief executive officer, Mr. Paquet, is in Gaspésie; is there any intention to restore passenger train service in Gaspésie?
Mr. Delisle: Thank you for your question, senator. I’ll start with the question about Gaspésie; I was present at those same meetings. We’re constantly reviewing the possibility of reinstating routes based on the available equipment. It’s one of the questions we were asking ourselves. In my opening remarks, I said that we need to find a balance in how we resume certain routes based on our financial capacity, due to the financial constraints we have in place. Sometimes, there are service reductions. We generally try to reassess our ability to serve Canadians based on our equipment.
Senator Forest: What’s coming up in Gaspésie? Are there any timelines? Is there a firm plan?
Mr. Delisle: There are discussions to see what kind of services might be possible based on the available equipment.
Senator Forest: Then we won’t be buying train tickets tomorrow morning.
Mr. Caceres, regarding the ports, one paragraph concerned me about the merger of certain key ports and the possible sale of some other ports.
Can you explain to us what is being considered? What is concerning is that nine of the ten ports owned by Transport Canada in Quebec are located in remote communities. For these communities, ports are vital infrastructure that belong to the federal government. Can the department reassure communities about the sustainability of these facilities?
[English]
Mr. Caceres: Thank you for the question. Ports are a very indispensable and crucial piece of infrastructure for communities. I will ask my colleague the Assistant Deputy Minister for Policy to elaborate a bit more on the nature of the services we provide.
[Translation]
Serge Bijimine, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policies, Transport Canada: Thank you for the question. I can assure you that the ports in small communities will not be sold. We’re not thinking about it. As for the other ports, we try to encourage collaboration between the ports because, ultimately, Canadian ports compete with American ports. The more they collaborate, the stronger they are, which allows them to export and import and have greater efficiency in the supply chain.
Senator Forest: One thing often happens when Transport Canada owns the port. I look at what happened in Rimouski: They let the port fall into disrepair. Do you have a maintenance program for all of these examples of infrastructure that are costly to maintain but are essential for the economy and transportation? When it comes to doing business with countries other than the United States, Canadian ports are important gateways.
[English]
Mr. Caceres: I think the key thing here, Mr. Chair, is that, right now, the importance of having port infrastructure and its support is going to be crucial in terms of being able to advance the efficiency of our economy and of the transportation system. I think, as my colleague has mentioned, this is an area that is being looked at very closely in terms of how to move that forward.
[Translation]
Mr. Bijimine: If I understand your question correctly, it’s about whether there are any infrastructure projects planned for these ports.
Senator Forest: I’d take a ticket for the second round, by train or by boat.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: I have a bunch of questions; I’ll ask them quickly. First, Mr. Delisle, do I understand that you can answer questions about Alto, as well?
Mr. Delisle: No. Alto is a completely different organization.
Senator Cardozo: What about VIA HFR and VIA TGF?
Mr. Delisle: Yes.
Senator Cardozo: I have two questions regarding VIA.
One, I agree with you that it’s the best possible service; it has been a model for rail operations. However, I have to tell you that literally 10 out of 10 people that I talk to when I sing the praises of VIA Rail say that the timing is unreliable. So what can you do that? That seems to be the single reason why people don’t want to travel by train.
Second, with regard to platforms, in Ottawa, they raised the platform to be at the level of trains, like the situation in Montreal, but most other places don’t do that. I suggest that’s a major problem for a lot of passengers, such as seniors or people with mobility issues. Are there any plans on that?
Just on the ports, I will just leave you with a question. If you could file with us a list of the ports: those that are federally owned and those that are not. That would be interesting to have. The issue has come up, as my colleague just raised.
[Translation]
Mr. Delisle: I will start with your first question, which was about travel time. In travel time, there are two components: what we control and what we don’t control. Regarding the component we don’t control, the railway infrastructure does not belong to us, so we depend on the owner to operate on the infrastructure. We are not given priority on the tracks and, on top of that, speed limits have been imposed on us at level crossings for several years.
This combination certainly affects our travel time. We work hard to ensure optimal reliability and that trains depart and arrive on time. It’s a necessity that we work on every day.
As for the platforms, we still intend to review their accessibility to make it as simple as possible for everyone. I’m therefore taking note of your question and we’ll see what we can do. I’d say that, across all VIA Rail infrastructure, depending on the funding we receive, we always prioritize these aspects to ensure that the onboard service is as optimal as possible and that it’s easy to get on board.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Coming back to the first issue, time reliability has been a problem for a long time. What can we do to solve it? People have heard that answer and, therefore, are not travelling by VIA Rail. Do you need to buy more rail? My thought is also with high-speed rail, you will have more people migrating to high-speed rail and less on VIA Rail.
[Translation]
Mr. Delisle: We definitely look at the infrastructure and the passenger as a whole. The idea is to expand the range of services as much as possible to ensure that the passenger’s needs are met. To answer your question, all potential investments to create additional demand are always under consideration for future years.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Ross: My question is for you, Mr. Caceres. I’m interested in the $52.3 million in the Main Estimates for ACAP. Many airports on federal lands that are part of the NAS system, like the one in my hometown of Fredericton, are not eligible for ACAP funding. It poses a significant problem, especially for smaller airports or those with fewer than 525,000 passengers annually. They can’t access many other federal programs. Is there any thought on amending ACAP to allow some of those smaller airports in the NAS system that are under that cap to apply for funding or relaunching programs like the Airport Critical Infrastructure Program? What projects specifically is the $52.3 million earmarked for?
Mr. Caceres: Thank you very much for the question. There is a list of different types of projects that this is intended to fund, naturally, in terms of providing the safety and financing for different capital projects to be able to make sure that we can have the continued safety for the travelling public.
The key is, obviously, that there is a prioritization that has to take place in order to make sure that we can allocate the funding, given the limited number of funds. So, there are some funds here in terms of looking at the different types of criteria associated with that. Again, the program has been operating for a number of years, in terms of how it has been taking place, but to your question, senator, the key thing here is that there are always opportunities to be able to look at the program in terms of whether there are other projects that are eligible in the future.
I would also indicate that that call letter — as it is going through every year — there are new projects that are then considered in that. There are a variety of different sizes of airports. There is not any particular size that has to qualify for that. The key is to make sure that it meets those particular criteria that essentially the program is designed for.
Senator Ross: Okay. So my understanding is that you’re saying the Fredericton airport would be eligible for funding for ACAP, even though they’re under the 525,000-passenger limit.
Mr. Caceres: It depends.
Senator Ross: What about for the runway program?
Mr. Caceres: It would have to be re-evaluated every year to see if it would qualify and whether the parameters would meet the —
Senator Ross: It hasn’t qualified yet.
Mr. Caceres: Exactly, so this is where if the conditions were to change where that was needed —
Senator Ross: Which conditions would need to change?
Mr. Caceres: Well, I believe the parameters of what the program — in terms of either from the point of view of the number of travellers that would be present to Fredericton or maybe from the point of view of the type of infrastructure that will be taking place.
Senator Ross: My question was if there has been any thought to amending the program to allow these types of projects to be included?
Mr. Bijimine: I can jump in here. It is something that we’re currently exploring very seriously for a number of reasons. One, there was more money put into ACAP, so that allows for more projects to be funded. We’ve heard a number of requests, concerns and pleas from airports that are currently not qualifying to take a look at the actual terms and conditions. So we are doing that.
The other reason we’re doing it is because we’ve launched the Arctic Infrastructure Fund, which also funds airports and runways in the Arctic and the North, which helps liberate more money.
I can’t provide a definitive answer, but I can tell you that we’re definitely looking at how we could make sure that more airports are able to benefit from ACAP, given that we have more money.
Senator Ross: That’s great news. I’m glad to hear it. What is the $52.3 million that’s currently in ACAP for this year earmarked for?
Mr. Caceres: My Deputy CFO might have them handy in terms of what there is.
Lola Paulin, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Transport Canada: Right now, the project selection itself is ongoing, so we do not have the list of confirmed projects. I know that, in recent decisions, one of the airports that we have been investing in is the TC-owned Îles-de-la-Madeleine Airport. So, that is part of what the funding is being used for, but right now, the process is ongoing to determine which facilities would qualify for that next round of funding.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: In your VIAction 2030 Strategic Plan, which was published in 2024, there was a lot of material on the Quebec City-Windsor corridor. Since then, the Alto project has been launched. Have you revised your strategic plan or does it not really have an impact because, by 2030, the Alto train probably won’t be in operation yet?
Mr. Delisle: That’s a very good question, senator. The Alto train will definitely not be available by 2030, so we are focusing on services today and for the next five years. The plan is still in effect and remains our priority for the coming years.
Senator Dalphond: You referred to the Alto project a little earlier. Not long ago, a bill was passed as part of the budget implementation measures that grants special powers to Alto. However, it’s clear that the communication strategy hasn’t been a complete success so far, because there were plenty of people on Parliament Hill this afternoon protesting against the Alto project. We’re receiving a lot of emails from Ontario and Quebec. Agricultural movements are organizing in certain regions. One of the arguments that has been raised repeatedly is that the figures are unrealistic and that it will cost two or three times as much as was announced.
Can the department reassure Canadians that the budget is realistic and that everyone who is expropriated will receive fair compensation?
[English]
Mr. Caceres: Thank you very much for the question, senator. Maybe I’ll ask my colleague to answer that.
[Translation]
Mr. Bijimine: Certainly. Thank you for the question.
We currently estimate that the costs will range from $60 to $99 billion, and this estimate is based on the information we have. I have no reason to doubt it, since it is based on the information available as we speak. Unless someone has information contradicting this figure, we believe these numbers are accurate, based on what we know.
As for expropriation, my understanding is that the first step will likely be to find a willing buyer and a willing seller.
Senator Dalphond: A transactional deal.
Mr. Bijimine: Exactly, a transactional deal. If they ever have to carry out an expropriation, it will be based on market value. These are two commitments Alto has made, and they’ve stated them publicly as well, so it’s official.
Senator Dalphond: However, the message isn’t getting through. They say the law on expropriation has been amended, that the rules of the game have been changed, and that they’re going to expropriate them for an approximate price. That’s what was said today on the Hill. I happened to be passing by while they were there.
Mr. Bijimine: What Alto’s representatives have said — particularly their CEO — is that this will be done at “fair market value.”
Senator Dalphond: Do you have a way to encourage Alto to run a better communications campaign? It doesn’t seem to be heading in the right direction right now.
Mr. Bijimine: I’ll pass on the message.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
The Chair: This is going off the rails — no pun intended.
Senator Dalphond: There are even two of them meddling to derail the whole thing.
[English]
Senator MacAdam: My question is for Transport Canada. In Supplementary Estimates (A), Transport Canada is requesting $39.2 million for Eastern Canada Ferry Services. I wonder if you can provide further details on the use of these funds. Did the 50% fare cut for Eastern Canada Ferry Services announced in 2025 have any impact on the amounts requested in Supplementary Estimates (A)?
Mr. Caceres: Thank you very much for the question, senator. I’ll ask the Deputy CFO, Lola Paulin, to answer it.
Ms. Paulin: For the $39.2 million in the 2026 Supplementary Estimates (A), that funding is to continue maintaining the six ferry terminals, their associated port infrastructure and four ferry vessels. That’s to cover the three routes between Saint John, New Brunswick, and Digby, Nova Scotia; Wood Islands, Prince Edward Island, and Caribou, Nova Scotia; and the Magdalen Islands, Quebec, and Souris, Prince Edward Island. The funding is mainly to help address cost pressures related to the fuel and labour costs that we’re seeing right now and vessel maintenance for those particular vessels, as well as for safety-related infrastructure investments, which include a new transfer bridge in Souris, Prince Edward Island, and the rehabilitation of break water in the Magdalen Islands.
Senator MacAdam: Is there any funding in the Main or Supplementary Estimates regarding compensation to ferry service operators as a result of the rebate, like the reduction in fares for ferry services? Is that something that’s in these estimates somewhere?
Ms. Paulin: Any funding that we will have received — and we did receive funding to compensate certain small ferry operators, such as, for example, the Confederation Bridge — would already be captured in our Main Estimates. So it was part of the 2026-27 reference levels.
Senator MacAdam: According to the 2026-27 Departmental Plan, Transport Canada will prioritize the creation of many new programs, such as the Trade Diversification Corridors Fund, or TDCF, and the Arctic Infrastructure Fund, or AIF. As announced in Budget 2025, the TDCF will receive $5 billion over seven years, and the AIF will receive $1 billion over four years.
I’m wondering if you could elaborate on these programs. Do you have any updates on any progress made to implement these two funds? Are there any milestones which may have been achieved so far? What criteria do you plan to use to select projects to be funded under these new programs?
Mr. Bijimine: There is an amount of $5 billion for the TDCF and the AIF. Both programs were launched earlier this year, and we have started receiving applications. I believe we have over 20 applications for the TDCF, and for the AIF, I believe they are continuing to come in.
I’ll just talk about the differences between the TDCF and the National Trade Corridors Fund, or NTCF. For the TDCF, the approach we have taken for project selection is very much grounded in which project helps the corridor as a whole, instead of which project is a stand-alone project for a certain organization. We have identified trade corridors. For example, if we’re looking at Western Canada, we would look at projects that are helping ship more goods from Western Canada to the Port of Vancouver or the Port of Prince Rupert. So we’re taking a corridor approach instead of a company-based approach.
For the AIF, we’re looking at it through a lens of sovereignty, but also security: Arctic security and Arctic sovereignty. Those are the lenses through which the project will be evaluated for the AIF. We expect to be in a position to be able to provide advice on projects in the coming months.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I have a question for VIA Rail, but before I ask it, I’d like to ask you for a favour. I take the train every week, several times a week, and if it were possible to pass this message on to your employees, I’d like to say that the service is excellent every time. It’s not because they know we’re senators. Most of the time, they don’t recognize us, since our schedules change a lot; sometimes we take the train on Sunday or Monday, sometimes on another day, but the service is always exceptional.
Mr. Delisle: My pleasure. Our employees who deal directly with customers are among the best in Canada when it comes to customer service.
Senator Oudar: Thank them, then. It’s true that, unfortunately, the train is often late, but the passengers stay calm and don’t complain. It’s thanks to the staff that the atmosphere on the train remains pleasant — because sometimes the wait is even longer than an hour—but you can see that they’re committed to ensuring passengers have an exceptional customer experience, despite any setbacks that may arise. Please pass that message along to them on our behalf.
Mr. Delisle: My pleasure.
Senator Oudar: That’s exceptional.
Senator Gignac: Senator Oudar will be featured in VIA Rail’s upcoming ads!
Senator Oudar: We are not allowed to advertise.
The Chair: There is a former judge who learned that she could not do that.
Senator Oudar: I believe in public transit, so I’m doing a lot of promotion to encourage the use of VIA Rail.
Mr. Delisle: I saw this as a thank you, not as advertising.
Senator Oudar: In the supplementary estimates, VIA Rail is requesting $262 million be allocated to employee salaries, fuel, onboard supplies and the inspection program. Without the exact figures, could you break down this $262 million for us, in terms of employee salaries versus other line items?
Mr. Delisle: Without going into exact details, I’ll start by saying that payroll generally accounts for about 45%. Next, fuel costs account for between 5% and 7%. Maintenance accounts for 20% to 30% of total costs.
For the most part, this explains part of those $262 million.
Senator Oudar: In the business plan overview, you reviewed your expenses in order to reduce the operating deficit. How will this review impact payroll?
Mr. Delisle: The goal is not to cut the number of employees, but to optimize processes as much as possible. The current government’s goals were to make greater use of technology, optimize processes, and find innovative and different ways to save money.
Our 2025–30 strategic plan states that we wanted to achieve savings through continuous improvement. We began this initiative two years ago and have already managed to save $18 million. Our goal is to continue these efforts through 2030 so that we can meet our target of reducing the total deficit by 15%. So far, we are on track to do so.
Senator Oudar: You quickly moved on to the 2025‑30 strategic plan. However, I’d like to make sure I understand correctly. In the overview of the business plan, regarding the reduction of your operating deficit, is there nothing that affects employee salaries or the employees themselves?
Mr. Delisle: We’re still in “optimization” mode. The goal is more to maintain the number of employees and reassign them to other tasks — in order to generate more added value — rather than to eliminate positions.
This is the approach we prefer if services need to be cut or if restructuring is required, but for now, that is not our goal.
Senator Oudar: Time flies by too quickly in committee. Thank you for your answers, Mr. Delisle.
Mr. Delisle: You said it: Our employees are the key. Thank you.
Senator Gignac: Welcome to the witnesses. I think your comment about the quality of service was very well founded.
You won’t be surprised to hear that I’d like to revisit the figures. I believe you mentioned that 58% of the funds are self‑generated. Four or five years ago, what was that figure approximately? I know it can vary from year to year, but was it closer to 70% or 40%? I’m trying to put this 58% figure into context.
Mr. Delisle: Perfect. I’ll take it step by step and compare it to last year, when we were at 55%.
Why was it more difficult four or five years ago? Because of COVID-19.
Senator Gignac: And before COVID-19, let’s say?
Mr. Delisle: Before 2019, I would say that I would ask my colleague to respond.
Senator Gignac: Could you provide us with that information?
Mr. Delisle: I’ll send you the information, since I don’t know it by heart. Just to give you an idea, last year it was 55%, and we’re now at 58%. The goal is to reach a higher level in the coming years.
Senator Gignac: How many millions of passengers is that?
Mr. Delisle: We had 4.4 million passengers.
Senator Gignac: That’s what I understood. With a capacity of about 5.3 million, isn’t that right?
Mr. Delisle: Approximately.
Senator Gignac: In your strategic plan, you want to increase your capacity by 18% over the next five years — just to discuss. We understand that Alto is a special case, but why increase your capacity by 18% and have capital projects? My view is that there’s a fairly significant risk of cannibalization. People in Quebec City, if they have a choice between the HST and VIA Rail, are likely to choose the HST.
In your capital plan, you state that you have a capacity of 5.3 million passengers, even though you currently have 4.3 million passengers; yet you want to increase your capacity by 18%. I’m trying to follow your reasoning. In my opinion, you’ve made some estimates . . . . The word “cannibalization” might not be the right one, but there will potentially be a shift in passenger numbers once the HST is operational.
Mr. Delisle: Thank you for the question.
Our goal is to increase rail ridership as much as possible. Whether it’s the HST or a traditional train like VIA Rail, the goal is to increase ridership as much as possible to ensure that demand is there when the transition to high-speed rail takes place. Our main competitor is the car, so we want to attract as many customers as possible to the train to create demand.
Senator Gignac: These won’t be the same railcars. I’m trying to follow your line of thought. We all want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and I think you’re heading in the right direction. Are you going to buy the railcars rather than lease them? Is their lifespan 30 or 35 years?
If, after 10 years, you still have half your capacity but no longer need it—I’m trying to follow your reasoning—was your capital expenditure plan based on that assumption? If you need to update this capital expenditure plan, should we expect it to be scaled back to reflect this adjustment? That’s my opinion, anyway.
Mr. Delisle: In fact, what we need to keep in mind is that the goal is to achieve overall growth, so we need to ensure that demand for the HST remains at a certain level and that demand for conventional trains also increases. We’re supposed to be complementary services, so this will ensure that we can meet the growth targets for both segments.
Senator Gignac: I don’t want to put you in the hot seat tonight, but am I wrong in saying that 90% of your passengers each year travel along the Quebec–Windsor corridor?
Mr. Delisle: I confirm that it is 90% to 94%.
Senator Gignac: For Quebec-Toronto, is it about 80%?
Mr. Delisle: That’s correct.
Senator Gignac: Ultimately, you will have to adjust if the high-speed rail project moves forward — and we assume it will — but we’ll have to wait and see. We’ve seen other instances where people have backed down. The more progress is made on the high-speed rail project, the more you’ll have to adjust, and there may still be some synergies to be explored.
Mr. Delisle: The goal is to provide complementary services for passengers. As we mentioned, the route for Alto isn’t fully determined yet, but a service will need to be offered for every city between Montreal and Toronto and between Montreal and Quebec City. That’s where the service will become relevant for the traditional train.
Senator Gignac: In any case, thank you for being there.
[English]
Senator Pupatello: I would like to speak to the people from Transport Canada who are here. Thanks for coming. Tell me about these Main Estimates as it relates to air traffic control, or does that funding come through the Canadian Transportation Agency? Do you influence how these other agencies are spending their money?
In terms of the lack of the air traffic staff, how does that influence airports outside of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, in places like my hometown in Windsor, which now has fewer flights? When there are shortages in those big hubs, what are the impacts on the smaller airports around those big hubs?
In Ontario, for example, all of those smaller outer cities are larger than most of the big cities in the other provinces. But they are suffering from an extreme lack of service. Air traffic control is one of the reasons.
When you’re busy bulking up in terms of how you’ll fine the airlines, I’m afraid a bit of management is needed for all the issues that everyone is contending are the causes of fewer planes flying into small and more rural communities.
Mr. Caceres: Thank you very much for the question. For these particular Main Estimates, there are two classes of airports: airports that Transport Canada is directly involved in and those that others — airport authorities — are managing.
In the case of those managed by Transport Canada, we are more directly involved in the support of those.
Senator Pupatello: How many are those? Like 10 or 15?
Mr. Caceres: We can get that specific number for you, but it’s around that number. There are smaller passenger volumes at those airports. For larger airports, obviously, it’s a different situation in terms of what they face. Their particular costs are covered through their own types of budgets, so that’s not included in these Main Estimates. In terms of the specifics of how we’re running — in terms of the number of airports, I don’t know if we have that handy.
Ms. Paulin: There are approximately 21 to 22 Transport Canada locally owned airports.
Senator Pupatello: My question is about the influence you’ll have as a ministry related to NAV CANADA’s air traffic control program and hiring to see that we have the same number that we require and that it doesn’t impact the lack of flights. Apparently, it is influencing that today. We do not have the same number of flights post-COVID that we had before, and there is a demand there. The airlines are getting buffeted a little bit between a bunch of issues which they cannot control and some that they can.
I am curious about your influence on your own budget as it relates to this and those colleague agencies, like the Canadian Transportation Agency, or CTA, and NAV CANADA.
Mr. Caceres: The main driver within that is the safety regulations that we have in place. Now I will turn to my colleague Nicholas Robinson.
Nicholas Robinson, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Transport Canada: Thank you for the question.
With regard to determining air traffic controllers at any airport, we look at the flight segments, or the volumes coming in and out of the airports, as well as the complexity of the operations. Regardless of how many air traffic controllers or air traffic specialists that NAV CANADA may or may not have on the roster, the department will determine what sorts of services NAV CANADA has to provide at those airports based on the operations and the volumes of those airports.
That’s how we influence what resources NAV CANADA has to bring on staff in any airport across Canada, and that runs the gamut right across Canada.
We are also influencing NAV CANADA on the training that those air traffic controllers and air traffic specialists must undergo and the proficiencies they must show in order to operate in one of those two roles within Canada. NAV CANADA has to show that compliance for their staff in order to be able to operate at the airport.
Senator Pupatello: Are you aware of shortages right now?
Mr. Robinson: Absolutely. We are aware that NAV CANADA does have labour shortages across the system. We know that NAV CANADA is working quite diligently in trying to attract additional air traffic controllers and air traffic specialists within Canada. We don’t want them to compromise the training standards in order to hire them.
NAV CANADA puts those officials through quite a comprehensive training program, and they must demonstrate the proficiencies in order to be able to work in all environments as well as some of the most complex environments that we have.
Senator Pupatello: Can you quantify the shortage, please?
The Chair: Sorry, Senator Pupatello, we are over by five minutes.
I have one question.
[Translation]
How does accountability work? You’re giving Alto $750 million this year. How does Alto report to the Department of Transportation on the funds spent?
Yesterday, the news reported that Alto was a sponsor of the Festival franco-ontarien to promote . . . . I don’t know what. There are several expenses that the public is questioning. How do you oversee Alto’s spending?
[English]
Mr. Caceres: Mr. Chair, in terms of specifically related to the expenses or the spending that Alto is actually doing to get the particular locations and where it might be found, that’s a question that you would have to direct to Alto.
[Translation]
The Chair: This is a check for $750 million. How does accountability for this amount work? Do they have carte blanche?
[English]
Mr. Caceres: From our understanding, they will have a particular corporate plan in terms of how they’re going to be focusing in terms of where they’re doing spending, either in terms of the type of planning as well as trying to promote the nature of what they do, but again, the question is probably best directed to the Crown corporation specifically in terms of being able to answer your specific question.
[Translation]
The Chair: Do you have a signed agreement with Alto or a memorandum of understanding that specifies what they must do with the money, or are you simply making an unconditional transfer?
[English]
Mr. Caceres: At this point now, they are receiving appropriations directly from Parliament to be able to do a certain number of different activities, per their corporate plan. So there isn’t an MOU or an entente between Transport Canada and Alto to guide its spending. That’s something that they have a specific act in order to be able to guide the Crown corporation and it is governed through its own corporate governance to be able to make that happen.
Ms. Paulin: What I can add is that, through the parliamentary process, all of the Crown corporations must come through the ministry department to get access to their funds. In doing so, they do have to provide a level of information in terms of the amount of money they need and the types of activities that they’re spending it on. That has to align with their corporate plan and the plans that we are working closely with Alto on as a supporting organization. So that does take place, and it takes place regularly; it’s done on a monthly basis.
And then, in terms of working through different types of actions, we are supporting them as well. Mr. Caceres is correct in that they are responsible for their corporate plan and outlining their activities and getting into the definitive, finite details, but there is oversight that is prepared, which is done by Transport Canada in order to release funding to this organization. It is done on a monthly or bimonthly basis just to make sure that this organization is doing what it’s supposed to be doing before any of this money is released to it.
[Translation]
The Chair: We are now coming to the end of our meeting. Thank you very much for accepting our invitation. Have a safe train ride home — I imagine — on your end. Thank you also to the technical team.
(The committee adjourned.)