THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 1, 2020
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 12:30 p.m. (ET), by videoconference, to study the Supplementary Estimates (B) tabled in the Parliament of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, my name is Percy Mockler, I am a senator from New Brunswick, and I am the chair of the committee.
[English]
At this time, I would like to introduce the members of the committee who are participating in this meeting: Senators Boehm, Dagenais, Deacon (Ontario), Duncan, Forest, Galvez, Klyne, Loffreda, Marshall, Richards, Smith and Pate.
I wish to welcome you and all viewers across the country who may be watching.
Today, we continue our study of the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates and the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021, which was referred to this committee on November 18, 2020, by the Senate of Canada.
[Translation]
For our first panel of witnesses, we welcome the Honourable Jean-Yves Duclos, President of the Treasury Board. He is accompanied by Mr. Glenn Purves, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Ms. Karen Cahill, Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer, Ms. Sandra Hassan, Assistant Deputy Minister, Employment Conditions and Labour Relations, and Ms. Kathleen Owens, Assistant Comptroller General, Acquired Services and Assets.
[English]
Welcome to all of you. Again, minister, your availability to us on this is remarkable. On this, I have been informed you have some comments to make. We will listen to your comments, followed by questions with the senators.
[Translation]
Mr. Minister, you have the floor.
The Honourable Jean-Yves Duclos, P.C., M.P., President of the Treasury Board: First of all, I would like to thank you for this wonderful, important invitation to appear before you and discuss the Supplementary Estimates (B) and the Main Estimates.
[English]
Mr. Chair, Canadians and the parliamentarians who represent them have the right to know how public funds are spent and to hold the government to account. This principle underpins our management of the government’s expenditure plans.
The 2020-21 Supplementary Estimates (B) present information on spending requirements that were either not sufficiently developed in time for inclusion in the Main Estimates or have subsequently been refined to account for developments in certain programs and services. As was the case with the Supplementary Estimates (A), which you considered earlier in the year, the Supplementary Estimates (B) continue to report on spending authorized through the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, providing both transparency and accountability in the use of public funds to deliver programs and services to Canadians.
As you can imagine, most of the spending planned in these estimates is for the government’s response to the public health, social and economic impacts on Canadians by the global pandemic. They present a total of $79.2 billion in budgetary spending, including $20.9 billion to be voted on by Parliament, including by the Senate, and $58.3 billion in forecast statutory expenditures. Of these amounts, roughly $15 billion — that is 74% — of the voted requirements and $57 billion — about 96% — of the additional statutory forecasts are for the government’s emergency and economic responses to COVID-19.
If I could briefly provide a few examples, the voted spending in these estimates for emergency and economic responses to COVID-19 includes $5.4 billion for medical research and vaccine development; $2.2 billion for purchases of PPE, medical equipment and supplies; and $2.4 billion in support for small- and medium-sized businesses, salary top-ups for essential workers, and funding for provinces and territories to safely restart their economies and bring students safely back to school. In addition, the Treasury Board Secretariat will receive $585 million for public service insurance plans and programs.
I would like to now speak briefly about the 2020-21 Main Estimates.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I would like to speak briefly about the 2020-21 Main Estimates.
The 2020-21 Main Estimates were originally tabled in the House of Commons last February. They were re-tabled on September 30 to allow for their continued study in this new parliamentary session.
These Main Estimates provide a detailed view of a total of $125.1 billion in budgetary voted expenditures and $87.2 million in non-budgetary voted expenditures.
I would note for the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance that the level of voted budgetary spending is about half a billion dollars lower than was presented last year in the 2019-20 Main Estimates.
These Main Estimates also include information on $179.5 billion of statutory budgetary spending and $3.0 billion of statutory non-budgetary spending.
The latter, as detailed in the documents, includes items such as loans, investments and advances.
Members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance will note in their study of the Main Estimates that the government’s spending plan is closely aligned with the priorities expressed by Canadians.
The planned expenditures also include $750 million for Treasury Board Vote 5 related to government contingencies, which provide for miscellaneous, urgent, or unforeseen expenditures that are not otherwise provided for in the authorities approved through departmental votes.
In closing, Mr. Chair, our government has a responsibility to ensure that Canadians have the support they need during the COVID-19 pandemic and to promote economic recovery and prosperity going forward.
We do this by investing in critical health care and supporting the safe restart of our economy. Our spending plans will help Canada thrive and succeed.
I thank you again for inviting me to appear before you today. The senior officials here as my colleagues and I would now be pleased to take questions from the committee.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.
[English]
We will now proceed to questions. Senators, for this panel if we can have a rule of four minutes, this will enable all senators to ask a question. Therefore, please ask your questions directly. Witnesses, please respond concisely. I will be following the guidance of the clerk, who will make a hand signal to show that the time is over.
Senator Marshall: Thank you, minister, to you and your officials for being here today.
My question is specific to the Supplementary Estimates (B) and the COVID-19 programs. First of all, I would like to say that the Supplementary Estimates (B) document itself was easy to read, but the problem I had with it is that not all the information we required was included. I want to go through a few items that I couldn’t find anything about in Supplementary Estimates (B).
The Canada Emergency Response Benefit is showing projected expenditures up to the end of September of $88 billion, but the successive program through EI has nothing in Supplementary Estimates (B) to indicate the amount. For the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy program amended under Bill C-9, I know that $44 billion has been spent as per the most recent fiscal monitor, but there is nothing in Supplementary Estimates (B).
As for the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy program — which is also a topic in Bill C- 9 that we recently passed — the minister indicated it was going to be just over $2 billion, which would bring us up to near the end of December. There was also nothing in the estimates about the former rental subsidy program. In addition to that, the Crown corporations have been providing a lot of liquidity to businesses, for example the Farm Credit Canada, Business Development Bank of Canada, and Export Development Canada. The most recent number I have is just over $2 billion and that’s the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s estimate. I could go on.
We have Supplementary Estimates (B) and you’ve given us some information, but you haven’t given us all the information that we need to do our jobs. You indicated in your opening remarks that you’re providing the information so we can hold the government to account. When can we expect to see a complete estimates document that includes all of the COVID-19 programs?
Mr. Duclos: Thank you, Senator Marshall. Your questions are very good. I’m going to provide a brief answer and then turn to Glenn Purves, who is going to provide more details.
First, there are the accounting methods that differ between what you would find in the documents of the Department of Finance and what you would find in estimates. Estimates are about cash, and finance is about accrual accounting procedures.
Second, there are indeed types of expenditures, such as wage subsidies and EI expenditures, that are not incorporated in estimates for reasons that Glenn will mention now.
Senator Marshall: Could I mention something before Glenn speaks? One of the problems we have, minister, is that in order to track the expenditures and match them up with the estimates, we have to go back to legislation, to ministerial remarks, to the fiscal monitor and we have to access the Parliamentarian Budget Officer’s reports. We have to access a lot of documents. The government should be able to provide this information all in one place.
Glenn Purves, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you, senator. It’s a great line of questioning you’ve given here.
Let me provide some clarity. When we talk about the estimates, what we care about and all that we are allowed to report on — and this is the way it has been for decades — is for appropriation-dependent organizations that are accessing the Consolidated Revenue Fund. For tax-related measures and EI-related measures, these things are out of the scope of the estimates.
I want to go back to the point you were raising on having a one-stop shop. When you look at the estimates to date, including Supplementary Estimates (B) and building on everything that has been brought in Supplementary Estimates (A), as well as the Main Estimates, there is $475 billion that we’re showing for statutory as well as voted. That is part of the $640 billion that the Department of Finance has put into their Fall Economic Statement. But that doesn’t include —
Senator Marshall: That’s the problem; it’s only part. You’re telling us that there’s a big population out there that’s not even in the estimates. We’re looking at the estimates, and it’s only 75% of the picture. That’s the problem.
Mr. Purves: Just to be clear, the scope of the estimates has always included only appropriation-dependent spending related to those departments accessing the Consolidated Revenue Fund. What we could do, and what we’ve done, with respect to the estimates is to provide the links to that additional programming up to and beyond the estimates to provide that bigger picture as part of the InfoBase. That would give you the one-stop shop.
Senator Marshall: These are COVID-19 programs and this only goes back nine months, so history is not an issue.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Mr. Minister, thank you and your team for being with us this afternoon.
Since we have been studying the programs related to COVID-19 and the measures you quickly put in place, as well as other measures being called for, we have talked a lot about the need for a sector-based program or plan to help sectors in dire straits. I’m thinking, for example, of tourism, hospitality and restaurants.
Yesterday, I was at a hotel and I was told that the occupancy rate was under 3% or 4%. The Association hôtelière de la région de Québec, an area you know very well, is asking for direct assistance so that hotels can get through the winter and the tough times ahead. Two-thirds of the establishments in Quebec City do not believe they will be able to survive for more than six months.
Yesterday, you announced a loan program with terms and conditions to be determined. Hopefully, you will determine those terms and conditions as soon as possible, because people are waiting on the announcement like a Christmas present.
Why did the government choose to create a loan program, even with rates as low as they are, rather than commit to providing direct assistance to these small businesses, which are ultimately the backbone of Quebec’s tourism and hospitality infrastructure?
Mr. Duclos: Thank you for your question, Senator Forest. As you said, especially in my constituency, people are facing terrible challenges in the restaurant, hospitality, tourism, live event, arts and entertainment and transportation sectors. It’s devastating not only to the businesses, especially small- and medium-size businesses, but also to all the people who love working in those outreach and service industries. For reasons completely outside their control and responsibility, they are bearing the brunt of COVID-19.
Certain news outlets have placed a lot of emphasis on the loans of up to $1 million — which are secured, by the way, because one problem is that these businesses have trouble getting loans from banks because the loans are not secured. The Government of Canada guarantees them with very favourable terms, as you said.
The Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy also allows businesses to subsidize 75% of pre-crisis wages for all employees. So wages are covered, and we also have the rent subsidy program, which includes municipal taxes and covers up to 90%. We are talking about 90% of the fixed costs, rent and taxes, being paid back to businesses that are for the most part closed, including many restaurants and bars.
People can also rely on small business loans of up to $60,000, and they are secured. A portion of those loans, $20,000, is forgivable. On top of that, more direct assistance will continue to be available to those sectors that have been hard hit, as you said, Senator Forest. Some measures are indeed delivered through attractive and readily attainable loans, but we also provide direct assistance.
I will close by saying that, of the $380 billion in direct assistance to businesses and workers, 84% comes from the Canadian government. That is very good, since the Canadian government has the fiscal and financial capacity to support all of these individuals.
Senator Forest: If time permits, Mr. Chair, may I have two wishes?
Mr. Minister, while I am very aware that you’re willing to help those individuals, it is going to have to be done quickly, with better communication, because a lot of these small businesses do not necessarily have the staff to do the administration work, for instance.
You have listed a range of measures that will enable businesses to get the assistance they are truly entitled to receive.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Thank you to the minister for joining us, and welcome to your associates.
In the estimates, there is $20 million for the Application Modernization Initiative. I can only imagine that this is a very complex undertaking requiring a balance between increased pressure to contain costs while serving a growing number of people and managing growing amounts of data while simultaneously protecting and phasing out legacy applications. The bottom line is that I fully appreciate that the government must modernize and build applications that conform to today’s growing demands in a digital society.
I have five questions, but please provide as much information to the committee as you can. You can follow that up in writing if you wish.
Can you provide the committee with some insight into the scope and magnitude of this modernization, including the initiative’s total budget, how much has been spent to date and how the bidding process is conducted to choose a contractor, as well as who the lead contractor is? When will the modernization be completed? Finally, are there any Phoenix lessons learned that are being applied in this process?
Mr. Duclos: Thank you, senator, for this wonderful set of great questions. I will provide an initial answer and then ask Ms. Karen Cahill to go into more detail.
First, in terms of technology, you are entirely correct. We need to modernize the way in which the Government of Canada operates. Some of the lessons of COVID-19 have been particularly useful. To perhaps provide a hopeful note before I turn to Ms. Cahill, let me say, for instance, that distance access to facilitate teleworking has increased. The ability to facilitate the technology and connections has increased by 72% in terms of capacity in just a few weeks or months.
The number of teleconference minutes that public servants can access has increased from 1.6 million per day to over 5 million per day, again, just in a few weeks or months. Technology can move very quickly, but it also has to move appropriately and safely.
On that, I would turn to Ms. Cahill for more guidance.
Karen Cahill, Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: The application modernization is to benefit a number of departments. To your first question, $20 million will have been spent in 2020-21, and we’re adding another $20 million.
Just to be specific, this is not money that the Treasury Board as a department will be spending. It’s money that is to be transferred to other government departments to modernize their applications in order to transfer them to better state-of-the-art infrastructure, whether it’s to better state-of-the-art data centres managed by Shared Services Canada or to the cloud environment.
To date, we have modernized about 5,000 applications across the Government of Canada. The next generation of Phoenix is outside of this purview as this is a totally different project. This is to update existing applications that have been declared obsolete or need to be modernized so they can be transferred to the new infrastructure. Our colleagues from SSC could probably give you more details but this is a joint initiative between the Office of the Chief Information Officer and Shared Services Canada.
Senator Richards: My question is a very specific one. I wonder how Phoenix is actually doing today. My sister-in-law worked there, and she was writing down her estimates and her calculations by hand because the computers did not work. Although she has an IQ of 153, it was rather difficult for her to do. You’re giving $19 million for Phoenix stabilization. I wonder how that will transpire over the next year.
Mr. Duclos: Thank you, Senator Richards. I will turn, in a moment, to Karen Cahill again for more specifics. We still have a lot of work to do, as you will hear from Karen. We have made some important and encouraging progress in the last while. We also, as you will know, are turning to the next-generation system, which will be better adapted to the reality and needs of the public service. But, Karen, I know you have more guidance on that.
Ms. Cahill: We’re continuing the work on Phoenix. There is still lots of work to be done to stabilize the application before we can move everything to the next-generation system that will come in a few years. This includes working on the business processes, cleaning the data and ensuring that departments have the right resources and policies in place to ensure an easier and smoother move to the NextGen application, when it is in effect. So we are continuing the hard work to stabilize Phoenix. This is work that is being done by our Chief Information Officer with departments, as well as by Public Services and Procurement Canada, which is also an important player in this initiative.
Senator Richards: I have one more quick question. Do you think it will be in a matter of months or years that this will take place, where things will be ironed out?
Ms. Cahill: This would be a question more for Public Services and Procurement Canada. What I can tell you is that we’re making progress, and we are planning. Shared Services Canada, who is now the leadership for the NextGen application, is also working on the planning of a NextGen pilot with Canadian Heritage. So as we move forward, we will be able to provide this committee with more information.
Senator Richards: Thank you.
Senator Smith: In your answer to Senator Marshall, you mentioned that accounting differences between the Department of Finance and the Treasury Board are some of the reasons it’s hard to match up spending programs with authorities. Given historic levels of spending, from the estimates to emergency legislation, what is your department doing to ensure cohesion and alignment between federal departments with respect to spending and reporting, so that we, as parliamentarians, can better follow the spending?
Mr. Duclos: Thank you. I can turn to Glenn later on for more details.
These accounting practices are standard and professional in the world. The cash versus accrual accounting practices are widely recognized and applied throughout the world in governments and in private businesses as well. When Glenn mentioned appropriation, he had in mind mostly cash accounting, and when Finance talks about accrual accounting, they have an eye to the fiscal framework, which is how businesses also operate.
Now, in terms of the difference between the fact that the tax expenditures and EI expenditures are not in the estimates, again, I will turn to Glenn for a reminder and, perhaps, a better explanation of the state of affairs.
Mr. Purves: Thank you. Mr. Duclos actually eloquently explained the accrual and the cash differences. In terms of what the Department of Finance puts out in terms of the Fall Economic Statement versus what we have in terms of our Supplementary Estimates (B) to date, there are really three distinctions between the two.
The first is, of course, a timing difference that has to be recognized. The Fall Economic Statement came almost two months after the preparation of Supplementary Estimates (B). So things such as the Canada Recovery Benefit, new decisions in the Fall Economic Statement and re-estimations of statutory spending are things that the Fall Economic Statement captured, including all the estimates that are there.
The second, of course, is the scope difference that I was mentioning during the conversations with Senator Marshall. The Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, EI and the Canada child benefit — things that are in the domain of tax expenditures through the Income Tax Act legislation, or through the Employment Insurance Act and draw from the Employment Insurance Operating Account — are things that are separate and distinct from the estimates, which are focused on appropriations that draw from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Ultimately, there’s a way to ensure that this big picture is taken into account from a fiscal standpoint. The Fall Economic Statement captures that, so it includes everything in Supplementary Estimates (B) and more. It provides considerable detail there on an accrual basis that captures the cash as well. I think it’s the lens that Senator Marshall was looking for. We also have the ability to do some reconciliation through GC InfoBase, and this committee has always provided, in the past, very valuable insights on how we can actually improve that line of sight.
Senator Smith: When we heard our finance minister talk yesterday about the financial situation and fiscal guardrails, I’m trying to understand the balance that the Treasury Board can play in terms of making sure information is passed back to us. If you wouldn’t mind, Minister Duclos, I would appreciate it if you could provide a comment about fiscal guardrails and fiscal anchors. Do you have a comment on where this is going to lead us directionally in the next six to twelve months?
Mr. Duclos: I certainly can testify to the importance that my colleague, Minister Freeland, communicated to everyone yesterday, which is the importance of focusing on the emergency of the situation now, while making sure our investments are rigorous and transparent, and helping every one of us get through the pandemic. I think you will want to go back to that extensive piece of information that was produced yesterday through the Fall Economic Statement and through the other tools that Glenn mentioned quickly.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for being with us today, Minister Duclos. The question is a little more complex, but planning is very important. As they say, you can never start planning early enough. Has the government started to reassess its real estate portfolio? It costs billions of dollars a year to manage and maintain all those sites. This is reflected in your estimates for modernization and technology costs. I feel people will continue to work from home. It will become the norm. A huge number of offices across the country are going to be left vacant. Should we start looking at selling off some real estate? People are talking a lot these days about financial resources. It would help us rebuild our financial resources.
Mr. Duclos: Thank you very much, Senator Loffreda, for asking us that question that’s been on our minds for some time. Even before the pandemic, we knew we needed to improve how we manage such a large real estate portfolio. The pandemic has provided additional food for thought. This will lead to concrete action at the end of the pandemic.
I would like to add two things: all this is related to other programs. As you very rightly said, flexibility is important, and worker productivity in the public service may, or in fact may not, be improved through greater flexibility with respect to telework. We have to be careful, however, because not all public servants feel comfortable working from home. We see a variety of reasons for keeping work in the office. The other thing is the environmental footprint of these buildings, the energy consumption and, of course, the maintenance work we need to do, which carry environmental costs. Finally, I would like to extend an invitation to you, Senator Loffreda, and to all honourable senators. Please don’t hesitate to share with me, directly or otherwise, any advice or ideas you may have on this important matter. We want to get it right, as it involves the appropriate use of our real estate holdings from an economic, social and environmental point of view, both in the short and longer term.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you. Do I have time to ask another question?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Loffreda: I have a quick question. Diversity has suffered enormously during this pandemic. Yet it is so very important to our economy. It was a priority in your 2020-21 departmental plan. In terms of the public service and everything related to government, are you preparing to accelerate the plan, both because of the pandemic and because diversity is so important to our economy?
Mr. Duclos: The answer is yes in terms of the information and indicators we need to use, the targets we need to achieve, and the ability to work collaboratively with the people who represent diversity in all kinds of ways. They would not only like to play a stronger role within the public service, but they also have a strong voice that must be heard. This is clearly all in a context where the Government of Canada is even more responsive to the diverse reality of Canadians and therefore better able to reflect that diversity within the public service.
Senator Dagenais: Yesterday, I shut myself into a room in the Senate for three hours in order to read the economic statement. As many analysts have done, I noticed many words but few details on several major government portfolios. As a senator from the Montreal area, I am going to talk to you about Aéroports de Montréal (ADM), which announced that it could no longer afford to build the station for the future train to the airport. We are talking about a $600-million commitment from ADM, which is significant for Montreal’s economic development. ADM has been losing $15 million a month since the beginning of the pandemic. Will Ottawa formally commit to paying for the station at the airport to be built? If so, where is that money in yesterday’s economic statement? I saw an envelope of $500 million over six years for all of Canada’s airports combined, even though the bill in Montreal will be $600 million.
Mr. Duclos: I have a keen interest in that issue. As you know, in my area, Quebec City, the Government of Canada has made a clear commitment to improve the public transit infrastructure. You also know that the government’s current public transit plan is the most ambitious in Canada’s history. You are absolutely right to say that linking large airports like Montreal’s to city centres is absolutely essential. Everywhere else in Canada and around the world, major airports like Montreal’s are reliably and efficiently connected to the downtown core. We must do this. We are not the only ones who believe it, so does the City of Montreal. We believe that the Quebec government will want to get involved in this project, because all Quebecers stand to gain from it, not only those who live near the airport; everyone stands to benefit from this major investment.
Senator Dagenais: Quickly, of course, I want to talk to you about support for airlines. I believe it’s on page 36 of the policy statement. We know that most major countries have helped their airlines. However, yesterday, I noticed that we were focusing on a mysterious process instead. I asked questions and was told that it was confidential. I don’t know where the government is headed. The other thing we have to think about is refunding tickets purchased by Canadian taxpayers. We are talking about a process. I have to tell you that, if I were President of the Treasury Board, I would be concerned about making forecasts based on a process. Could you tell us about the assistance you will be providing to the airlines and, more specifically, about providing refunds to people who have purchased tickets?
Mr. Duclos: Senator Dagenais, you did note the condition that it was imperative that the tickets be refunded. Minister Garneau — and I invite you to speak with him, because he would have a lot to tell you about it — made it clear that the condition is a sine qua non. He also said another important thing, which is that, like no other country around the world, Canada has taken action that has been very important to the airline industry, such as the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Approximately $1.3 billion in wage subsidies have been given to the major airlines, which is very good because it has allowed them to maintain employment and pay wages to tens of thousands of workers, many of whom are in the greater Montreal area.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
[English]
Senator Galvez: Thank you very much, Minister Duclos, for being with us this afternoon. Congratulations for your Greening Government Strategy: A Government of Canada Directive, which I’m happy to have read last December. Your department, the Treasury Board, has a mandate to effectively look at greening Parliament and to increase transparency. Maybe you can answer me in written form or verbally.
There are some institutions like the RCMP, Parks Canada, CRA and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada that have received important amounts of money. I would like to know if there are conditions with respect to the climate goals on those transfers. In particular, I’m curious about the 2016 Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, where both aspirations were initiated. In these last four years, has your department used the framework when disbursing funds? Thank you.
Mr. Duclos: Thank you, Senator Galvez. It’s always great to hear your views on this forward-looking agenda on protecting the health of the environment but, equally importantly, protecting the health of people. The health of nature and our natural environment is obviously supportive of the health of people themselves.
Thank you for mentioning the Greening Government Strategy. As you will have understood, that’s absolutely essential since the Government of Canada also needs to demonstrate leadership when it comes to fighting climate change and to fighting the impact of climate change through mitigation measures.
Climate change is everywhere and fighting for a clean environment is everywhere in the assessments that we make of different policies and programs, through cabinet and through all sorts of procedures that the Treasury Board Secretariat uses to monitor, to assess and to enforce the programs and policies implemented by other departments.
So it’s everywhere, and it needs to be everywhere, because climate change is the most important existential challenge of humanity.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for being here this afternoon. I think the caveat for a lot of our questions is absolute acknowledgement of the pivot, work and response that COVID has enforced amongst your team. I know that we’re trying to dig a little deeper with some of our questions, but thank you for the work that has been done to move and shift quickly.
One of the things I wanted to ask you about today is that I noted in the Greening Government Strategy released a few weeks back the government is looking to make working from home a more permanent fixture for our public service.
I wonder, for our purposes, has the work begun? Is there any early analysis or some forecasting on the costs and benefits of a work-from-home strategy for a fairly sizeable public service? If there are, are there any money figures that might be available on costs and initial thinking? I am thinking of things like remote conferencing services, devices and home set-ups, amongst other things. I have a second part to this question, but I wanted to first ask you that, given the challenges you’ve had.
Mr. Duclos: Thank you, Senator Deacon. First, on technology, which I mentioned quickly earlier, in the last few months, however difficult — and sometimes very difficult — the professional and personal lives of public servants have been, now there have been important developments in making working from home possible and, in all cases, productive. Technology has advanced very quickly.
That being said, I would also add the caveat that I alluded to briefly earlier, that the professional and personal circumstances of public servants vary widely. We need to talk about this particular topic in a very respectful manner. Yes, there are costs and benefits to teleworking, but these costs and benefits vary widely. So we need to be very engaged with these public servants and with their agents and their unions, so we do that in the right way.
As we proceed in the right manner, with the lessons learned over the last weeks and months, I do believe there will be a new world after COVID-19 where teleworking will end up being beneficial to everyone overall, but it needs to be achieved and done in a very adaptive, focused and respectful manner.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. I suppose as we turn that curve, there will be some space, land and assets that will certainly be up for some possible downloading, but we’ll wait for that.
Now, for the other question I have. Your mandate letter tasks you and your team with working with other ministers to increase the number of women in senior decision-making positions across the government, particularly in central agencies and in our security services.
Again, I know the pandemic has upset most of our best-laid plans, but I am wondering if there are any numbers or more information on this project that you could give us so we can get an idea of where that may fit right now.
Mr. Duclos: Thank you so much. I know there is little time to answer that, so I would invite Sandra Hassan, if she can, to provide specific details on that agenda and the success we have started to achieve.
Sandra Hassan, Assistant Deputy Minister, Employment Conditions and Labour Relations, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you. We have not yet achieved parity with all the workforce availability estimates for the employment equity groups, but progress is being made, and there is deliberate talent management of diverse executives who are selected for the Governor-in-Council appointments, such as assistant deputy ministers, because that’s the feeder group for higher-level positions.
Also, the Clerk of the Privy Council has recently outlined commitments on diversity and inclusion for all deputy ministers, and this will increase representation through promotion and recruitment.
Senator Boehm: Good to see you, minister. Thank you for joining us.
I met last week with the National Police Federation, which represents over 20,000 RCMP members across the country. One of their big issues was the question of filling vacancies across the country, which are down about 12% because the salaries are more attractive at local levels.
Second, the sidearm that they carry is 25 years old. Parts are no longer being made properly for that, and there’s a 20% failure rate in the weapon.
Then there’s the question of body cameras as well, all of which will require additional funding. I know the salary issue is probably open to collective bargaining of some sort, but is this something that is being looked at seriously in the estimates as you look down the road?
Mr. Duclos: Indeed, it’s very nice to see you again, Senator Boehm, though in a different environment than the last time we met in Charlevoix some time ago.
On the salary issue, I’ll turn to Sandra in a moment to update you on the state of the collective bargaining, which obviously, as you said, is related to salaries.
More broadly speaking, as you will have noted in the last few weeks and months, we are working very hard with the RCMP to make them an even better agency to serve Canadians in all its diversity and visibility to provide security and confidence in the country. It’s a big agenda with multiple dimensions. Unfortunately, there’s not enough time to address all of them, so I’ll turn immediately to Sandra on the more specific collective bargaining issue.
Ms. Hassan: Thank you, senator, for your question. It’s very timely, as we are, this week, at the table with the National Police Federation. They are in the process of negotiating their first collective agreement. As you surmised, the question of salaries is one that will be discussed at the collective bargaining table. There are many other issues that will be discussed for this first collective agreement, such as equipment and safety, but on your question on costing, I would need to turn to my colleague Glenn Purves.
Mr. Purves: I think it’s still early days in terms of the costing. We certainly work with Ms. Hassan on those fronts to make sure that we’re aligned and that at some point, in some jurisdiction where this actually moves into the estimates, we have it lined up.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Duncan: Thank you, minister and officials, for your attendance here today. I’d like to outline my questions and perhaps invite you to respond in writing in order that we can get to some other questions.
First of all, I’d like to recognize, as some of my colleagues have done, the pivot and Herculean efforts by public servants and the work that’s been done in responding to the pandemic and the needs of Canadians; in particular, the efforts of the Canada Revenue Agency and their staff.
I understand the security and management challenges of working from home. I’d like to briefly talk about that. There are benefits as well to the government as a whole. Other colleagues have mentioned real estate, for example. If we give up real estate, we’re harming small communities — or we may harm some small communities. If we decrease travel, that’s a cost to the airlines.
Is there a point person, either in Treasury Board or throughout government, who is tracking these savings and the unexpected consequences of them, similar to if you hearken back 40 years ago, to the Task Force on Program Review? Is there a point person assigned to deal with the unexpected savings and the consequences in government?
I’d also like some information regarding the more than $585 million for the Public Service Insurance plans and programs. I understand this would be a cost of the plan. Could I have the details on the plans and programs identified in the line item? What is the increased cost to employees? That wouldn’t be included in this amount, but I’m assuming or guessing that there would be an additional cost to employees. So is there an evaluation of the plan under way? What information are we getting from the plan from this request for increased premiums, and what are the programs? What disability issues are we addressing or are we learning are the result of this increased cost of the plan?
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Minister, I’m sure you heard the senator say that you could also respond in writing. Do you have any comments before we give the floor to another senator?
[English]
Mr. Duclos: That’s what we will do. Senator Duncan, I appreciate your kind words on the public service. That’s always important to remind us.
Regarding the savings and the point person on teleworking, I will ask the secretariat to get back to you and give all of you senators a point of entry into your thoughts on teleworking and the future of the real estate in particular.
On the public service insurance plan costs and impacts, if we don’t have time now I can also ask the secretariat to provide written material.
The Chair: Is that fair, Senator Duncan?
Senator Duncan: Yes, it is. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Before we go to Senator Pate, who has joined us, I have a question for the minister.
[Translation]
Mr. Duclos, the percentage of single individuals who need help from a food bank has almost doubled in the past 20 years. That amounts to approximately 4 million people in Canada. I have carefully reviewed the various programs that have been created and announced. However, one group of people —
[English]
Between 1.4 million and 1.5 million single Canadians under the age of 65 are living near or below the poverty line in Canada. Many of them are unemployed or underemployed, do not have enough to eat, have poor health, are isolated and are even homeless. However, supports for single individuals living in poverty are considerably less generous than those for families.
My question to you, minister, is what is the government doing to help these approximately 1.4 million forgotten Canadians who live in extreme poverty on less than $10,000 a year?
[Translation]
Mr. Duclos: Thank you for saying that in such an eloquent and heartfelt manner. You are clearly concerned about it, and I am too. As we have seen over the last few months, people do not go to food banks because they are happy about it, they go because it is the last resort, the only thing left. That is why programs like the CERB were created. They were not perfect; they never are. But they helped 8.9 million Canadians put food on the table for children and seniors in particular. That’s 8.9 million people who perhaps did not end up having to go to a food bank. On the 20th of each month, the Canada Child Benefit reduces child poverty by 40%. This measure has been in place since July 2016 and it has a significant impact not only on low-income families, but also on middle-class families, for whom times are also very tough.
[English]
On this group of people that we often forget about, but many of whom live in poverty — the group of singles between 55 and 65 years old — that population is vulnerable for all sorts of reasons, such as often living with disabilities or without enough skills or experience to join the labour market. They are left alone and often live in poverty. That’s because they’re not yet entitled to Old Age Security.
At 65 years old, when the federal government comes into play, the level of poverty for those individuals falls by about 30%, but before then they are on welfare and social assistance provided by provinces and territories and, as you know, those levels of social welfare are often insufficient.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you, minister, for all your work and expertise both before and since you’ve been a minister.
As you acknowledged in yesterday’s Fall Economic Statement, those most economically marginalized have disproportionately borne the health and economic consequences of COVID-19, and it has exposed and deepened existing systemic inequalities.
As growing groups and numbers of voices, including this committee, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Bank of Canada, have pointed out, there is a great potential for a guaranteed livable or basic income as a vital and cost-effective part of economic recovery and a protection for all against the type of economic consequences that Senator Mockler just spoke about. It could also help address future emergencies, as well as the means of allowing people to definitively rebound out of poverty. We know that the human, fiscal and social costs of poverty and inequality in Canada have been starkly revealed these past months.
My question for you, minister, is: What measures will the government undertake to address such ongoing economic oppression and inequality, including the possibility of national standards that lay the groundwork for implementing a guaranteed livable income prior to the next budget, and what steps are being taken to do that with Indigenous, provincial and territorial counterparts?
Thank you, minister, and to my colleagues.
Mr. Duclos: Thank you, Senator Pate, for this heartfelt and well-informed question.
Systemic inequalities that existed before the crisis became systemic vulnerabilities during the crisis. An unequal society becomes a society with significant vulnerabilities when we enter into the sort of crisis that we’ve seen both on the health and the economic side over the last few months, and you have noted some of them very well, Senator Pate.
If I can start answering more immediately your question about livable income, the CCB — the Canada child benefit — is a guaranteed minimum income and a level of support that is both flexible, easy to administer and more generous to those that need more support; I mentioned the 40% reduction in child poverty every month. Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement have also provided a guaranteed minimum income for Canadians beyond 65 years of age for many decades.
We have already announced, as the Prime Minister has made clear in the Speech from the Throne, that EI is going to be reformed so that we close some of the obvious holes in the system that allow people to fall into a poverty trap or a vulnerability trap. That has started to be done through the CERB and now the Canada Recovery Benefit and the enhancements to EI. There is a lot of work to be done. We know we can count on you, Senator Pate, and your colleagues in the Senate, to help us find and implement the right design.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. We have reached the end of the meeting. Before we go, if you have any comments to make in conclusion, we are all ears.
Mr. Duclos: I will keep my comments brief. Thank you very much for everything you normally do, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. Your wisdom complements the role of those elected to the House of Commons. I encourage you to continue your good work. You are very worthy and credible people. I invite you to continue to help with us your ideas and advice, to talk to people like myself and my colleagues who manage other portfolios. Keep the momentum going. You know the best lines of communication. Keep up the excellent work and share it with the elected members of the House of Commons.
The Chair: Our thanks to you, Mr. Minister, and to your team.
[English]
Honourable senators, our next meeting is scheduled for Monday, December 7, at 11 a.m. EST. Additional information will be forthcoming from the clerk. On this, minister, officials and honourable senators, thank you once again.
(The committee adjourned.)