EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates NUMBER 125 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Wednesday, May 29, 2024 Le mercredi 29 mai 2024 Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE May 29, 2024 Committee NUMBER 125 NUMBER 125 NUMÉRO 125 125 29 05 2024 2024/05/29 16:30:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent des opérations gouvernementales et des prévisions budgétaires Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates OGGO Chair Mr. Kelly McCauley 1 44

(1630) [ English ]

The Chair (Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)) :

Good afternoon, everyone. I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 125 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, which even Minister Duclos recognizes as the mighty OGGO, the only committee that matters. Very quickly, regarding your earpieces, as always, please keep them away from the microphones, especially when not in use. There is a card provided for every MP. Please read that and follow along in order to protect our very valued interpreters. Colleagues, today we have Minister Duclos with us.

We'll go through our rounds, and then we will welcome the other minister. Canada Post will be with us for the last hour and a half or hour and 45 minutes, and then we have to get to the estimates votes before we finish up. I'm hoping we can get to the estimates votes at about 8:10. We'll see where we are in the rounds. We'll start with Minister Duclos for five minutes. Welcome back, Minister. The floor is yours.

[ Translation ]

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement) :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I’m very pleased to be with you here today. Thank you for the lovely invitation to participate in your meeting. Before we begin, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. With me today are officials in important positions, including Ms. Arianne Reza, deputy minister of Public Works and Government Services, and Mr. Scott Jones, president of Shared Services Canada. Also with me today is Mr. Matthew Tapscott, executive vice president and chief financial officer of Canada Lands Company Limited.

This is a very important company in terms of investments in affordable housing. We may get to that issue today. With me as well is Ms. Rindala El‑Hage, vice president of finance and controller of the Canada Post Corporation, as well as many other officials who are here to serve you. Public Services and Procurement Canada, or PSPC, is seeking a net increase of $448.6 million, bringing the total opening net budget to approximately $4.8 billion for 2024‑2025. Of that amount, more than $3.3 billion will be spent on property and infrastructure activities, including major rehabilitation projects across Canada.

For Shared Services Canada, or SSC, reference levels will decrease by $112 million for a total of $2.48 billion. As you know, SSC is working with central agencies, partners and clients to build an efficient and modern information technology framework, with defined and optimized processes, as well as consolidated systems and networks. [ English ] PSPC and SSC have many priorities, including continued efforts to modernize procurement with a focus on simplifying processes and increasing support for small and medium-sized enterprises.

As this committee is well aware, the government is also reducing spending on professional services by 15%, and that work is well under way. For the remaining contracts in this area, we are improving oversight and integrity. That is why PSPC has made important process changes to ensure decision-making and controls associated with professional service contracts uphold the highest procurement standards. Earlier this year, along with the President of the Treasury Board, I announced a series of new actions to strengthen the government's procurement and integrity regimes.

I am pleased to update the committee on PSPC's new office of supplier integrity and compliance, which will formally come into being in just two days, on May 31. This will allow us to better respond to supplier misconduct and unethical behaviour. [ Translation ] Of course, service delivery remains one of our priorities. At PSPC, that includes resolving outstanding pay issues for public servants and advancing work on the next generation pay and human resources system. Federal public service employees deserve to be paid correctly and on time.

At SSC, all efforts are made to ensure that departments are equipped with the digital tools they need to deliver programs and benefits to eligible Canadians. Furthermore, SSC will continue providing the technological services that allow public servants to work collaboratively and seamlessly across government. (1635) [ English ] Of course, one of our top priorities is to continue to support our government's response to the housing crisis. We've already taken action to accelerate the process of turning federal lands and buildings into housing.

With our new public lands for homes plan, which we announced in budget 2024, we have the potential to unlock hundreds of thousands of new, affordable homes. PSPC is leading on this plan, and work is already well under way. The plan includes identifying and even acquiring underutilized public lands and leasing them out to ensure they are set aside for the building of affordable homes that Canadians need. Mr.

Chair, we also continue to work in close collaboration with key partners to implement the Canadian dental care plan, which is already making oral health care more affordable and more accessible to middle-class and lower-income Canadians. [ Translation ] Since the launch of the Canadian Dental Care Plan, more than two million seniors successfully completed their application. To date, more than 120,000 claims have been processed. Beyond the numbers, seniors can now take better care of their oral health and respond to dental needs neglected too often, for too long. Mr.

Chair, those are but a few examples of important ongoing work. I am now happy to answer your questions.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Minister. We'll start with Mrs. Block for six minutes, please.

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC) :

Thank you, Chair. Through you, I will welcome the minister and ask the following question. Minister Duclos, under this Prime Minister and this Liberal government—and, more specifically, you as the former president of the Treasury Board and now the Minister of Public Services and Procurement—we have seen an increase in wasteful spending and corruption in the number of billions of dollars, and dozens of investigations, including by the RCMP. In fact, your own departmental plan has noted that fraud and other wrongdoing remain a key risk for your department. How much more contracting fraud has been discovered in your department?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

You are noting quite well that this department is key to making the lives of Canadians better and more affordable. That is the focus of this department, PSPC, and Shared Services. As we do that, as you also note, we need to make sure the process and the processes are rigorous. If there were to be fraud and wrongdoing, they would be first identified and then punished in the proper way.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

Thank you. Has the RCMP interviewed any government officials in your department?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

Well, you would need to ask the RCMP for reliable information. Obviously, the RCMP doesn't respond to political interference and pressure. The right people to ask the question to would be the RCMP.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

But you are aware of the investigations that have been undertaken by the RCMP: Is that correct?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

We are all aware of such investigations and we obviously fully support whatever RCMP efforts need to be supported and—

Mrs. Kelly Block :

Thank you.

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

—we are there to help their difficult job.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

In your opening remarks, you mentioned the creation of a new office to address supplier misconduct. What about misconduct within your own department?

[ Translation ]

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

That is an excellent question. I will summarize what the Office of Supplier Integrity and Compliance will do. The Office will increase the number of offences and issues the department can work on, such as corruption, funding terrorism, human trafficking and violating election laws. It will also collect more data and process it more efficiently.

[ English ]

Mrs. Kelly Block :

Minister, I am speaking specifically about issues within your own department.

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

It is indeed an office that will be able to look into the department's activities, but also beyond and also in collaboration with other governments and other countries, which is something that is not possible at this time.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

Thank you. Are you aware that deputy ministers across different departments have suspended public servants who worked on ArriveCAN that are not agreeing with their narrative?

(1640) Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

That's an important question to ask those departments, ministers and deputy ministers, as we are all.... We all follow the news. We are indeed aware of such events.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

Is there any responsibility on the part of your office to weigh in on these matters or to pay particular attention to what is happening across the public service?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

All departments, all ministers and all deputy ministers have the same obligation. If there is misconduct to be found within their public service, they are obligated—and we expect them to do that—to look into the matters and to punish in whatever appropriate way that ill behaviour.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

Thank you. We have seen Canada Post running higher deficits year after year as they struggle to make strategic changes to address the changes in the market, yet Canada Post has not had its corporate plan approved since 2019, prior to the pandemic. What has kept your government from approving a new corporate plan for Canada Post?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

Canada Post has the responsibility—and it's a difficult one—to deliver services across our country: Its purpose is a service first purpose. It needs to be fairly treating all Canadians regardless of where they live, and in remote and rural areas in particular, something that other organizations and private corporations in particular sometimes are unwilling or unable to do. We understand that the demand for mail has been falling over the last 20 years, falling by approximately 50%. They also serve more addresses, about three million more addresses in the last 20 years, so that is putting financial pressure on them.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

Thank you.

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

We are obviously working with them to make sure that they keep meeting their heavy responsibilities while doing this in a financially sustainable manner.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

It has also been reported many times that the government is looking to move on from the Phoenix pay system and that trials are being run at certain departments with the new system, NextGen, I believe. Would you be able to provide this committee with the names of the companies that bid on the contracts for the new system, how they were ranked and which departments they are currently running trials in?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

It may proceed in two quick phases. First, there is the objective of all of that, which is precisely and obviously the objective of serving public servants and paying them on time and accurately as they serve Canadians through their jobs. As we do that, we also need to consider the next path, which is—as you noted—NextGen.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

Minister, I appreciate the objective. I think we're all aware of what you're trying to accomplish by moving to a new system. However, I'm asking if you would provide me with the names of the companies that bid on the contracts for the new pay system, how they were ranked and which departments they are currently running trials in.

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

We will do that with great pleasure.

The Chair :

I will have to interrupt you, Minister. We are out of time. Perhaps you can provide that in writing to the committee. Mrs. Atwin, please go ahead for six minutes.

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, Lib.) :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to my colleagues and to the minister and his team for being with us this afternoon. It wasn't so long ago that you came to visit me in the riding of Fredericton, and we went to the Stepping Stone Senior Centre. We had a great conversation around dental care. Of course, I know that, according to the 2024-25 departmental plan, the Canadian dental care plan will be a key area of focus for Public Services and Procurement Canada. I'll take my time today to kind of delve into this really important program for Canadians.

Specifically, we were speaking to seniors, and many of them had questions and concerns. You were able to answer those questions for them and really bring assurances because in my home province of New Brunswick, 57% of those over the age of 65 do not have dental insurance. Could you explain how the Canadian dental care plan will address the needs of vulnerable populations, such as low-income children, seniors and people with disabilities?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

That's a wonderful question, and it was a wonderful visit that we were able to do together. We heard directly from seniors, something that other members of Parliament may not have heard recently, certainly not the Leader of the Opposition, Pierre Poilievre , who claimed on local radio in my region just a few days ago that this dental care plan didn't exist. He repeated that several times. He was asked about whether he would scrap it, and he said that he couldn't talk about it because it doesn't exist.

Well, there are two million people registered in the dental care plan across Canada, many of them in your own riding. More than 100,000 vulnerable seniors have been able to get care since May 1. That is remarkable. The reason we don't speak about this is because it's going really well. Obviously, there are some on the other side of the House who would prefer not to speak about it and not to see that it's working, and some are pretending it doesn't exist. However, for seniors in your riding, Jenica, it makes a great deal of difference.

Some of those seniors we met told us that they hadn't been able to visit a dentist or a denturist for years because they didn't have the money to do that. Now, that is leading, unfortunately, in too many cases, to much worse health outcomes. The longer these seniors have waited, the more difficult, the more costly and the more painful it is for dentists, hygienists and denturists to treat their oral health situations. It was remarkable to visit those seniors with you, Jenica. I applaud your leadership. You were there before the plan was in place.

Seniors were listening to you and asking if it was really going to happen. It is happening, thanks to your leadership and that of many others.

(1645) Mrs. Jenica Atwin :

I know that New Brunswick is having a challenge in getting our dentists to sign up. This is something that we'd certainly like to address. We know that last month Dr. Matthew Moore, former president of the New Brunswick dental association, told CBC that he'd already taken on a lot of the work of answering patient questions. I think there seems to be a lot of misinformation out there. We're seeing many of our colleagues actually talking down the program, which isn't helping spread the word of what this can actually offer to Canadians across the country.

If you could address the dental association in New Brunswick, what would you tell them? What advice would you give them as far as encouraging their membership to really get on board with this, I think, transformative program?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

I'd love to be a New Brunswick MP. Unfortunately, I can only be a Quebec MP, so I can talk to you about what I hear in my riding. I've been visiting dentists for the last few weeks. They are surprised at how well it goes. It's simple. It's fast. They get paid in less than two days and sometimes in less than 24 hours. Now their queries are quickly answered. They are seeing patients they should have been seeing many months and many years ago. Fortunately, these patients now come to their offices. In Quebec, more than 60% of dental providers have now registered.

We know that it's more challenging in other parts of Canada, including in New Brunswick, so I would invite all New Brunswick dentists, hygienists and denturists.... They're all good and well-intentioned, but unfortunately, they've suffered from some of the disinformation that Conservative MPs, in particular, have been spreading over the last few weeks.

Mrs. Jenica Atwin :

I'm really glad you mentioned the dental hygienists as well because they've really been champions for us in New Brunswick on this program, so I give a shout-out to the incredible independent dental hygienists out there. Minister, you also mentioned a bit about the health benefits of regular access to dental care, but I'm sure there are also economic benefits to this piece as well. Could you be more specific about how this can impact individual lives?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

Health is health care, and health care is health. Dental health and oral health care are absolutely essential when it comes to looking after your global health. Experts, hygienists and dentists in particular have pointed to the fact that good oral health reduces the risk of diabetes. It reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease. It reduces the risk of generalized infections, and reduces the risk of people not being able.... It increases the risk of cancer as well, and many other things that are connected to the mouth. Our mouth is obviously connected closely to the rest of our body.

Investing in oral health care is a good way to improve overall health. What we're also finding is that, by providing for better oral health of Canadians, we avoid having those Canadians having to go to the emergency department and emergency surgery, which would cost a fortune to the health care system and would make the lives of everyone a lot worse off.

Mrs. Jenica Atwin :

It's absolutely part of preventative health care, and it certainly could potentially reduce costs down the line as well for our government. I have 15 seconds left, but I thank you again, Minister, for being here with us today.

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

On a point of order, I wonder if the Minister can clarify something. Did he just testify that the the mouth is connected to the rest of the body?

The Chair :

That's not a point of order. We'll go to Mrs. Vignola for six minutes, please.

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) :

May I proceed? Thank you. [ Translation ] Mr. Duclos, Ms. Reza, Mr. Tapscott, Ms. El‑Hage, thank you for being with us. My first question is on divestment of land and real property to turn it into social housing, which is good news in and of itself. No one is against apple pie. That said, in the very recent past, it so happens that the government challenged the taxes paid on some of those lands and won in court. I’m thinking here of Chelsea, where taxpayers have to pay several hundred dollars more per year. Which laws will apply to federal lands and properties transformed into housing, particularly social housing: federal laws or those of Quebec and the Canadian provinces?

(1650) Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

That’s a very good question. You are alluding to the fact that budget 2024 proposes more tools, specifically for the Canada Lands Company, National Defence, Canada Post and my department, Public Services and Procurement Canada, beyond the traditional tool of selling these lands and buildings. In some cases, selling is the simplest or most useful tool. However, in other cases, it is faster and more useful, especially in the long-term, to retain ownership of these federal lands and buildings and, for example, make them available to nonprofit organizations, municipalities, housing co‑operatives or businesses.

Thanks to emphyteutic leases, for example, these organizations can access these lands and buildings to build the housing we need faster and at a lesser cost.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

I will repeat my question. Will federal legislation and regulations, or those of Quebec and the provinces, apply to the lands targeted by these new tools? For example, will Quebec’s legislation on housing apply? Will municipal taxes be paid based on the value of built or converted real property? Will the other residents have to pay the difference, if ever the federal government decides again to challenge the role of assessing property? Who will apply the regulations and take precedence?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

It will be the legislation that normally applies, meaning a combination of municipal, provincial and federal legislation, depending on the case. There may be considerations linked to urban planning, construction regulations or the National Building Code. Lands may be used by a variety of residents or be the object of a variety of partnerships. From a fiscal point of view, obviously, municipal, provincial and federal legislation will apply. That means upholding a combination of laws, as is already the case, although it’s rather rare, when land or a building is under federal ownership and other organizations benefit from it through the use of appropriate leases.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Can you assure me that the role of assessing real property built on federal land won’t be challenged, as is currently the case in Chelsea? Is that a guarantee that municipalities in Quebec and Canada can’t have?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

What I can assure you of is that everyone will work together. In Canada, and more specifically in Quebec, everyone is concerned about the housing crisis. We must build affordable housing faster and at a lesser cost for families who need it. Everyone is on the same wavelength on the issue, and everyone is being co‑operative. The Canadian government is there to support the government of Quebec. The government of Quebec supports municipalities. We will continue the excellent collaboration we need in Canada in 2024.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

In the case of Chelsea, it went all the way to courts of justice, in spite of any collaboration. The quality of this collaboration is, in my opinion, rather ambiguous, but I won’t spend any more time on it. That said, let’s hope that the past is not a guide to the future. In the budget, funds are requested to improve the Translation Bureau’s capacity. Furthermore, new tools were acquired, specifically GCLingua. That’s good news, because we’re short on interpreters. That said, it leads me to ask the following question: Will interpreters lose their jobs because we’re using GCLingua instead of human beings?

(1655) Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

I am very pleased with that question, Ms. Vignola.

[ English ]

The Chair :

You have 25 seconds.

[ Translation ]

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

First, we recognize the needs and challenges in translation and

interpretation. Translators and interpreters are also very familiar with these challenges. We are increasingly aware of them, because we are increasingly aware of the importance of

interpretation and translation work and practices. Second, budget 2024 includes significant investments, meaning $35 million, as well as grants to train more students in

interpretation and translation. Finally, we will make the lives of interpreters safer and, in some cases, better, by making tools available to them which they can use depending on the nature of their work and their needs.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you very much. Mr. Bachrach, go ahead, please.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Minister, for being with us today. I appreciated your enthusiasm for dental care. In your response to Ms. Atwin, you very correctly stated that the mouth is part of the body. I would add, more importantly—and here Mr. Genuis took great umbrage to that statement—I think what you were trying to get at is that oral health is integral to people's overall health. When people's teeth are in bad shape, eventually, they can end up in our hospitals and our emergency health system, and they can see a whole suite of really challenging situations.

I want to thank you for your support, but I have to say I am a bit confused, because in 2021, Jack Harris, my former colleague and a wonderful MP from St. John's East, brought forward a motion that read:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should establish a federal dental care plan as soon as possible for Canadian families earning less than $90,000 per year who are not covered by a dental care plan...

I'm looking here at the voting record, and there's a Mr. Duclos who voted nay to that motion. I'm all for people having a change of heart, seeing the light and enjoying the road to Damascus. I'm just wondering what changed your mind.

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

Let me start with the partial joke of MP Genuis. That's fine. We can have fun. However, it's a serious matter for many seniors when it comes to feeling the pain that comes with not having good oral health.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Absolutely.

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

Yes, you can make jokes about that, but in the end, it's something that will be very important to 9 million Canadians in total by the time this is fully implemented in 2025. We'll see whether we keep joking or smiling about this particular matter. The second thing is that, yes, there are priorities that were adjusted over time. One of them is investing in dental care. Your partnership at the NDP was crucial. Without you, we couldn't have done that, because we are in a minority government and the Conservatives are against it—the Bloc is too. The only way to make that real....

It's now real, contrary to the view of Pierre Poilievre , who says this is not in existence. It's there. It's changing the lives of seniors. Because of your leadership and partnership, we've been able to do that. We'll keep putting in as our priorities the things that matter to Canadians as we move forward.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

It's appreciated by the millions of Canadians who are going to benefit. I think the reason I brought up Mr. Harris' motion was that that was in 2021, and in the three years that have passed between that motion being tabled and voted on and being defeated, and the eventual creation of the dental care program we now see rolling out, thousands of Canadian seniors and people with disabilities and young people needed dental care very much.

While we appreciate that your party has finally recognized the incredible benefits of public dental care, man, it would have been nice to have it start three years earlier and have all those people get the care they need. Mr. Chair, how many more minutes do I have? I know the time flies. I have two and a half minutes. I'll shift to the issue of Canada Post. Of course, since your last visit to committee, we've seen the annual report from Canada Post and the fact that the corporation has lost over three-quarters of a billion dollars.

I believe that's the greatest deficit in the corporation's history, and at the same time we see in rural Canada some real challenges from the loss of rural post offices. You and I have spoken about this. This is affecting communities right across the country. Every year you provide a letter of expectation as minister to the head of Canada Post, which is an arm's-length Crown corporation. In those letters of expectation, has the minister responsible ever expressed specific concern about the closure of rural post offices in this country?

(1700) Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

Since you spoke about the things we are doing for Canadians, since 2021 we've put into place universal day care in Canada.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Minister, it's a serious question. It's a very specific question about the letter of expectation. I don't want to hear an answer about child care.

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

I know you, Taylor. I know how good and focused—

Mr. Taylor Bachrach: And serious I am—

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos: —and engaged you are. It is not that we haven't done anything since 2021.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

No, I didn't say that in my question.

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

In many cases, you were supporting or even leading on some of these files. I want to acknowledge that, Taylor, because—

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

I appreciate it.

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

—you're progressive. You're an engaged and credible person. Now, on post offices and the rural moratorium in particular—

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

It's about the letter of expectations, specifically.

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

—and the letter of expectations. Yes, every year there is a letter of expectations that states not only the expectations but also the objectives that we believe Canada Post should be striving for. Now, we understand that Canada Post is independent and sometimes needs to, as we discussed last time, adjust to situations that are either not predictable or not controllable, such as retirement, deaths and fires, and all of these things that sometimes occur and make it difficult for Canada Post to maintain rural post offices in particular. However, that's not only the expectation that we are setting for them, but also the....

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Mr. Chair, I know my time is running out. It's probably run out.

The Chair :

Your time is out.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Can I just finish with a couple of words? Since your government put a moratorium in place in 1994, we've lost over 500 rural post offices. My question was a very specific one, and I'm disappointed that you did not provide a clear answer. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach. We have Mr. Brock for five minutes, please.

Mr. Larry Brock (Brantford—Brant, CPC) :

Thank you, Chair. Minister, over two months ago, on March 20, you appeared at committee, and you and Minister Anand announced to Canadians that collectively you had discovered, through a mix of tips and advanced data analytics, three subcontractors who were engaged in fraudulent billing over 36 separate government departments, totalling close to $5 million. All three had been referred to the RCMP. Ms. Reza, during one of her last appearances, actually gave us the names of those three subcontractors. They weren't companies per se, but rather individuals. My question to you is this.

I know there's been an ongoing dialogue between you, sir, your department, and the RCMP. Have the RCMP confirmed that those three individuals have been criminally charged, yes or no?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

Well, we need to distinguish two things—first, the work of my department and, second, the work of the RCMP. As you noted and summarized quite well, on March 20, it was made public that there were investigations.

Mr. Larry Brock :

Sir, that's fine. Has the RCMP confirmed with you or a member of your department that the three referrals have resulted in criminal charges, yes or no?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

As I was going to say, as for what pertains to the RCMP, it's for the RCMP to answer.

Mr. Larry Brock :

You don't know the answer.

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

I wouldn't be able to speak credibly on behalf of the RMCP.

Mr. Larry Brock :

That's fine. You indicated back then that this was only the first wave of what you expected to be a series of discoveries. You indicated at that time there were five to 10 further cases being examined. Of those five to 10, have referrals been made to the RCMP?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

That is because, as you noted, on March 20 there was also another piece of good news, which was the creation of the office of—

Mr. Larry Brock :

I don't care about the good news, sir. Of the five to 10 that you identified over two months ago, have any of those companies been referred to the RCMP, yes or no, sir?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

As I have said, RCMP matters are RCMP matters.

Mr. Larry Brock :

Sir, this is a decision you or your ministry would make to the RCMP. The RCMP on their own don't initiate the investigation based on your internal review. They rely upon your referral. Again, for the third time, sir, of the five to 10 cases, have any of those been referred to the RCMP?

(1705) Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

Again, the March 20 announcement was important. You listened to it carefully, obviously, and you understood it well. As you also noted, there are investigations on a number of others, the estimate being between five and 10. I am not privy to those conversations. My job cannot make me politically involved in that type of work because it would be political interference.

Mr. Larry Brock :

It's not a political decision, sir. Sir, you indicated that your department had identified five to 10 other cases of suspected fraudulent, criminal activity. This is not a hard question to answer, sir. Surely the investigation that was started over two months ago must be finished by now. The question is very simple, sir. I will ask it for the fourth time. Of those five to 10 investigations that your department started, have any of those been referred to the RCMP?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

When that information is known, it will be made public by the RCMP, presumably, or by the integrity—

Mr. Larry Brock :

Can you tell us, sir, with respect, please? This is not question period, sir. This is committee. This is where we actually hope to get answers from government officials. The answer, sir, is a yes or no. Did you or a member of your department refer any of those five to 10 cases to the RCMP?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

The answer, when it comes and if it comes, will come from independent officers and not political representatives.

Mr. Larry Brock :

Minister, why can't you answer the question?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

MP Brock, you wouldn't want a politician, including yourself, mingling with matters of an ongoing investigation—

Mr. Larry Brock :

Sir, you had no problem identifying three—

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

It wouldn't be appropriate. You now this really well.

The Chair :

Hold on for one moment, please, both of you. I have a point of order. I have stopped the clock.

Mr. Majid Jowhari (Richmond Hill, Lib.) :

I would appreciate it if my colleague, MP Brock, allowed the minister to finish.

The Chair :

We have brought this up many times. That's not a point of order. We do allow members to have their time. Mr. Brock has been very clear with his questions. I think he and members of this committee deserve a very clear answer. Minister, go ahead. Mr. Brock, I'm restarting the clock. Go ahead.

Mr. Larry Brock :

I'm going to ask the question, Chair. Minister, you and Minister Anand had no difficulty identifying three subcontractors that you referred to the RCMP, but now you have great difficulty sharing with parliamentarians and with Canadians whether any of the five to 10 companies that were under review two and a half months ago were referred to the RCMP. What are you hiding?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

That's because the independent officers in my department do their jobs with no political interference. When I become aware at some point, I suppose, of the results of these investigations, we will be able to share those results.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. Mr. Kusmierczyk, please.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Windsor—Tecumseh, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Minister, for rejoining us here at OGGO once again. We always appreciate your coming here and providing your insights and your testimony. You know, the number one issue that I hear about when I speak with young people in my community, students at the University of Windsor and at St. Clair College and young people who are getting their apprentices completed, is housing. I hear the same thing when I talk to seniors as well; housing is their number one priority.

The previous Conservative government, when it was in power and when the current Conservative Leader of the Opposition was the minister of housing at the time, lost 800,000 low-cost rental apartments. They also eliminated any federal involvement in the co-op housing program. They pulled the federal government out of the business of housing. They're coming back right now with plans. Their plan, if you look at it and delve into it, is to add additional taxes to the construction of rental housing. They also want to withhold critical infrastructure dollars for municipalities wanting to build additional housing.

Now, we the Liberal government have a different plan. We want to build 3.9 million homes in the next number of years. A critical aspect of getting those 3.9 million homes built is converting surplus federal lands into housing. It's a critical piece. It's part of the public lands for homes plan. I was really excited to see in this budget that the Department of National Defence is working with the Canada Lands Company and other partners to dispose of 14 surplus properties, including one in my hometown in Windsor, which is the HMCS Hunter building right downtown.

It's a perfect opportunity to build housing and revitalize our downtown core, because it's important. It's been sitting vacant for years. I know that you're leading the rapid review of the federal lands portfolio, so I want to ask: Can you share with this committee some of the measures that are being undertaken and led by your department in this rapid review?

(1710) Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

Thank you, Irek. Let me start perhaps with how you began in noting the Pierre Poilievre not only lost 800,000 low-rent units, but also created only six affordable housing units across the entire country during his entire mandate. That's one affordable home per six million Canadians. You can imagine how difficult it is for people in my province to hear him insult Quebec municipalities by calling them “incompetent” when they are building thousands and thousands of affordable homes with the support of the federal government. That's my little partisan bit.

It's important to provide a better context, as you have done successfully over the last minute. More important perhaps is: Where are we going? We're building on the work we've done since 2015. To give you an example, we spoke briefly about the Canada Lands Company a moment ago. The Canada Lands Company built approximately 2,400 affordable homes in the last 25 years, half of them since 2015, and it will be double that number in the next five years. We see the accelerated work of making lands and buildings owned by the federal government available to build affordable homes.

I say affordable homes, because the alternative is to sell the land and buildings to the highest bidder and not worry at all about whether the use of those lands and buildings will lead to affordable housing units. No, those federal lands and buildings need to be used for affordable homes as well as for homes that will meet other criteria, social and environmental criteria such as being close to services, being close to transit, serving the needs of the most needy communities and green homes.

These are also objectives that you wouldn't be able to achieve if you sold all of that federal property to the highest bidder. We take a different route. With your leadership in your riding, with the DND property you mentioned, with Canada Post properties elsewhere and with other properties from other departments and properties currently owned by PSPC, we can do a lot of good for middle-class and lower-income families.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Mrs. Vignola, please go ahead for two and a half.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We talked earlier about NextGen, but the announcement mentioned Dayforce. Can you confirm that it’s the same thing and explain why the name changed? Or rather, are they two completely different things, one being the test and the other being the official application?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

That’s a good question, Ms. Vignola. Indeed, there may be some confusion. The English term NextGen corresponds to ProGen in French, for prochaine génération . The concept designates the payroll system’s next generation, which we absolutely must move towards, because Phoenix is not a viable solution for the future. Many systems were considered, including Dayforce, which was tested in several departments and shows promise. We think it really could work well, but before implementing it, there’s definitely a lot of work to be done.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

I sincerely hope we won’t end up with a “Phoenix 2.0” system, because that would be a disaster. I will continue by asking a question about the Quebec City bridge, a jewel in the heritage of our magnificent 400-year-old city. The government announced the acquisition of the bridge. That’s good news. We’re now talking about $1 billion to rehabilitate the bridge, when it was $400 million just a few years ago. Over how many years will the billion dollars be invested? Could we finally, in the very near future, see the Quebec City bridge in its quasi-original splendour?

When we go over the Jacques‑Cartier bridge, we realize the huge difference in their condition, while the Quebec City bridge is a UNESCO treasure. Thank you.

(1715) [ English ]

The Chair :

I'm going to interrupt. We have only about five seconds. Perhaps you can respond to the question in writing to the committee.

[ Translation ]

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

Yes, unfortunately, if there’s not enough time, that’s what we will do.

[ English ]

The Chair :

If you don't mind my asking, Mrs. Vignola brought up and you commented on testing the NextGen. Are you able provide to the committee what departments you're testing on, what the error rate is and how many employees per department are part of the test?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

Yes, and that's aligned with what MP Block asked earlier.

The Chair :

Thank you. We go to Mr. Bachrach, please, for two and a half.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Minister, your comments about ensuring that public properties are used for the community good, particularly affordable housing, made me think of a public property, a federally owned property, in Sandspit on Haida Gwaii, where Transport Canada owns the Sandspit Inn. It's been sitting empty for a number of years now, and the community would very much like that property to be dedicated to community use, either as a hotel, as it was formerly, or as affordable housing. My understanding of the divestiture process is that, eventually, properties like that go up for bids from whoever.

I wonder if you can lay out how the process for divesting of public properties is going to prioritize community uses, especially housing. Since your government brought forward this strategy for creating affordable housing, how have you changed the processes for divestment and development of public lands and properties in order to ensure that it doesn't get sold to, simply, the highest bidder? I think that's probably clearly articulated enough for you to provide some kind of answer.

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

Yes, it's very well articulated. I call that the “Triple P”: the places, the partners and the purpose. The places, we first need to have an inventory of them. Fortunately, there is already a partial inventory ready and available, but in the next few months there will be a lot more available, not only existing of surplus properties but of properties that could be surplus, if we were able to use office space differently, for instance, or recognize that there are properties that are not used to their full potential. The partners...very important.

We need to work with community partners, not-for-profit housing partners and private developers, if they can help speed up, obviously, the construction and perhaps the use of those properties. Then, most importantly, are the purposes for which those properties will be used. Yes, the key purpose is to build affordable homes. These homes have to be affordable for middle-class and lower-income Canadians. Other purposes, including socio-environmental purposes—as we know, we need to protect the environment—

The Chair :

I'm afraid I have to cut you off there. We're out of time. We'll have Mr. Genuis next, and then Mr. Sousa will finish this off.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Thank you, Chair. This committee is reviewing a list of contracts given as part of the indigenous procurement program. Some of these companies do seem to follow the GC Strategies model. That is, they are very small firms based in private homes in Ottawa—not on reserves, but in Ottawa—who advertise a specialty in government contracts management. In other words, they're in the business of simply getting contracts and subcontracting. Do you think the government should be contracting out to firms who use the GC Strategies model?

[ Translation ]

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

This brings us back to discussions we had on ArriveCAN, several months ago now. As you know, since then, significant measures are starting to be implemented, including assessing supplies—

[ English ]

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Minister, could you answer the question? I'm sorry. I have five minutes, and you're not answering the question. Do you think the government should be contracting out to firms who use the GC Strategies model? I'm not talking about ArriveCAN; I'm talking about the model, one where a company just receives contracts and subcontracts without actually working on the project. Do you think the government should contract to companies who use this model?

(1720) Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

I think the ArriveCAN model and the GC Strategies model have been well discussed and much investigated by all sorts of groups and committees and organizations. We have learned important lessons. Those lessons have been shared—

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

I'll give you one more chance to answer the question. It's a yes-or-no question. The record will show whether you answered it or not. Do you think the Government of Canada should contract to companies who simply receive contracts and subcontract? Should the government contract to companies who use this model?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

Well, I've just answered the fact—the important fact, as you point out—that the so-called model you just described is a model that has been heavily criticized by the Auditor General and other groups, including this particular committee. Obviously, those lessons have been well understood. Many of those recommendations have already been implemented over—

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

The question still hasn't been answered, but I have to move on. There's a particular problem here if the recipients of all or most of those subcontracts are non-indigenous. If you have a small, officially indigenous firm that is simply acting as a broker between the federal government and non-indigenous business, then they're masking the fact that actually, indigenous peoples and indigenous businesses are not getting the final business at the end of the day. Is there an expectation or a requirement that some percentage of subcontracts also goes to indigenous firms?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

That's exactly what we need to do. We need to make sure that indigenous businesses have access to the procurement opportunities that other Canadians also have. That's why—

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Right. Is that at the subcontracting level as well?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

—not only do we have a target of 5% and are moving towards that target, but in some of the departments we have exceeded that target already.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

I'm sorry, Minister. It's specific question. I'd like you to answer it. When a contract goes to an indigenous business that's acting primarily as a broker, is there an expectation that a certain percentage of the subcontracts goes to indigenous businesses?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

There are rules and regulations and expectations and targets—

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

What's that percentage, then?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

—to make sure that indigenous businesses have their fair share of procurement opportunities.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

What is the percentage required at the subcontract level?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

As you note, and as you well know, I suppose, the target is 5% of indigenous businesses having access to procurement contracts. That's a minimum. This is not the ceiling.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Minister, you're not answering the question. The question is about subcontracts. If a contract goes to an indigenous business as part of that 5%, and that indigenous business then subcontracts to someone else, what percentage of those subcontracts should be indigenous? If 100% of those subcontracts are non-indigenous, maybe there's a problem there. Of that 5%, for the subcontracts, what percentage, if any, must be indigenous?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

That is exactly one of the important things the department needs to do in collaboration with other departments, because PSPC is not the only department.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Just give me a number. What percentage is it?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

Those multiple levels include not only who does the job but also who owns the company and the impact in the communities where those contracts take place, for instance—

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Minister, it's a simple question. I'm running out of time. What is the percentage?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

I'm just trying to explain the context—

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

I'm not looking for an explanation. I'm looking for a number.

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

If you'd like to discuss it further, I'd be very happy to do that.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

I'm just going to say, Minister, that the committee ordered information on subcontracts and almost none was provided. The information we got from the vast majority of departments is that they're not even tracking subcontracts. I have a final question. There are over 600 indigenous nations in this country. Do you think it would be a problem if a single company were getting, say, more than 5% of the total amount allocated for indigenous procurement?

The Chair :

Give a very brief answer, please, Minister.

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

There are about 600 indigenous communities in Canada, and about 70 indigenous first nations. We work with all of them to make sure they have access to the proper services and procurement opportunities.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Chair, the minister didn't answer the question. I wonder if it could be posed to him again. Maybe there was a problem with the translation.

The Chair :

We are out of time. Perhaps you can get back to us with a real answer in writing, Minister.

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

If more is needed, we'll provide more.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

What would be too much for a single company?

The Chair :

Mr. Genuis, I'm afraid we have to move on. We have other ministers waiting. Mr. Sousa, go ahead for five minutes, please.

Mr. Charles Sousa (Mississauga—Lakeshore, Lib.) :

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Minister, for being here. I know you've done a lot of deliberation and work on adopting some of the recommendations made by the Auditor General and the procurement ombudsman officer relative to issues around procurement. Certainly, this was a long-held practice of the prior Conservative government—contracting and subcontracting in matters regarding IT as well as building properties. You get a property manager and he subcontracts out the various services to get it built. It's not different from what we've done in a number of applications here.

Through your deliberations, I know you've done a lot of work to try to ensure we support transparency and accountability in those measures, whether that is for indigenous members in the community or.... I know you're trying to advocate for small business, so we have greater use of procurement to enable Canadian companies to benefit from that. This is a statement I make on my part, and you can certainly elaborate on it: I'm rather excited about a development in my community. Canada Lands owns a property on Port Street. It has a waterfront. It's meant for mixed-use development with a park and affordable housing.

The community is very excited about it. It's been rather stagnant for years and years. The fact is that Canada Lands is stepping up through your leadership to try to look at redevelopment for that property. I'm very excited about it. It's also because, in budget 2024, we announced an overhaul to the mandate of Canada Lands and its ability to take on more development. I would ask if you could elaborate and explain some of these reforms regarding the Canada Lands mandate.

(1725) Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

Thank you, Charles. We're so glad to hear that the Canada Lands Company is already leading and partnering in your community. As you know, there is going to be even more of that in other places across Canada, because of not only a renewed but also a much enhanced mandate in budget 2024, with tools that will support your community. As I mentioned earlier, there are leasing tools. That's as opposed to going through what is sometimes too long and complicated a process, which is disposing of properties by selling them to the highest bidder.

Why don't we lease those properties over a long time to community developers, not-for-profit housing developers, municipalities and other groups that will then commit to building affordable homes in the long term? Affordability is key not only in the short term but also in the longer term. It's using that to support the efforts of co-operatives and public housing. In addition to leasing, Canada Lands Company would also have the ability to develop the projects themselves.

I should also add—I was going to forget—that, in budget 2024, there is a $500-million fund so the federal government can acquire public land that is not currently owned by the federal government. It could be owned by municipal or provincial governments. We can buy those pieces of land, make buildings and make them available to the community through, again, possibly lease agreements, with lots of positive economic, social and environmental outcomes.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

There are reforms now being made to enhance Canada Lands. Can you elaborate a bit more on how they extend or promote affordable housing—and promote housing throughout the country?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

The key word here is “accelerating.” Over the last 25 years, Canada Lands has built about 2,400 affordable homes. In the last eight years, they have built 1,200 homes. That's a lot more than in the previous 16 years. In the next five years, the Canada Lands Company will be able to build more than 5,000 affordable homes in partnership with others. It's a lot of ambition. The good news is that there are means to do it through your leadership and the leadership of other MPs in all political parties in this room and elsewhere.

Now we have, as the Prime Minister said today in question period, a housing crisis like we had post the Second World War. We had one when we had the boomer population trying to find homes in the 1960s. We have a crisis we can solve. We will be solving it with the partnership of many and the support of the Canada Lands Company.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

It looks like I have a bit more time.

The Chair: You have 11 seconds.

Mr. Charles Sousa: Do you want to respond to the recommendations that you've promoted regarding contracting and the procurement processes recently, to some of the recommendations that you've applied, for the benefit of this committee?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos :

I need a lot more time, because I have about....

The Chair :

You don't have time for that.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

I know you have.

The Chair :

Minister, we do need to turn over to the next meeting.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

They don't want to hear the results—there you go.

The Chair :

You're welcome to provide them in writing if you're able to, Minister. A motion has passed in this committee that if you're going to provide back to us on any requests that you do so within a three-week period. Minister, thank you very much for joining us. We're going to suspend for a few minutes as we switch over our witnesses.

(1725) (1735) The Chair :

Welcome back, everyone. Welcome, Minister Anand. The floor is yours for five minutes, please. Go ahead.

[ Translation ]

Hon. Anita Anand (President of the Treasury Board) :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. [ English ] Before I begin, I'd like to acknowledge that the lands on which we are gathered are part of the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples. [ Translation ] With me today are officials from my department to give you an overview of the 2024‑2025 Main Estimates. Canadians expect their government to be transparent, and they have the right to know how public funds are spent. Through our financial reports, our government commits to spending taxpayer money transparently, effectively and carefully.

I will raise some of the highlights in the 2024‑2025 Main Estimates, tabled on February 29, 2024. [ English ] This year's main estimates present a total of $449 billion in budgetary spending, with $191.6 billion to be voted on. Non-budgetary expenditures of $1.2 billion are also presented, Mr.

Chair. [ Translation ] This funding will allow the government to provide many programs and services, as well as transfer payments to other levels of government, to organizations and to people. [ English ] Some of the larger voted amounts proposed for organizations in these main estimates include $28.8 billion for National Defence investments, including support for Ukraine and training and equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces; $20.9 billion for Indigenous Services, for programs for indigenous communities and settlements; $8.4 billion for Health Canada, including funding to expand the Canadian dental care plan; and $5.6 billion for CMHC for much-needed housing infrastructure. [ Translation ] I also want to point out that these estimates present additional information on the initiative to refocus government expenditures, announced for the first time in budget 2023.

I am pleased to say that the 2024‑2025 Main Estimates set out an amount of $10.5 billion to be redirected from departmental budgets into Canadians’ main priorities over the next three years. [ English ] These priorities focus on health and housing. It puts in place an economic plan for our country. This is part of the savings announced in budgets 2023 and 2024. The fall economic statement last year also outlined our plans for refocused government spending. The total also includes the refocusing of $500 million that we reported in the supplementary estimates that were tabled last fall. What I mean by this, Mr.

Chair, is that what we are doing is looking across government for areas in which we can reduce our spending in certain areas, like third party contracting and executive travel, and refocusing that money toward our government's priorities. Over the next four years, based on historical rates of attrition, this will achieve the remaining savings of $4.2 billion over four years, starting in 2025-26, and $1.3 billion ongoing toward the refocusing government spending target.

TBS officials, some of whom are here with me today, are working on the methodology to determine these savings, and more details on the implementation of phase two will be available soon. I want to be clear. The goal of this exercise is about spending smarter so that we're investing in the areas and programs that matter most to Canadians and the country. Our government will continue to provide Canadians and MPs with the details of this initiative through the departmental plans and departmental results reports. Mr. Chair, I know you have read through many of those copiously over the years.

In conclusion, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak about these main estimates. My officials and I would now be more than pleased to take your questions.

(1740) The Chair :

Wonderful. Thank you for being on time. I will mention to Minister Duclos that he should learn from you how to do the opening on time. We'll start with Mrs. Kusie, please, for six minutes.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. When you tabled the main estimates, you stated that your government's ministers are acting like all other Canadians in "examining their own pocketbooks." That was your quote. Do you believe Canadians have examined their pocketbooks and decided they can spend more, the way you have? Is that really what you think? You think they are examining their pocketbooks and making the decision to spend more—and can spend more—as you are. I don't think they are. What would you like to tell Canadians on that, please?

Hon. Anita Anand :

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the question. The intention of that point was to say that this is a time when we need to be prudent with our spending. At the Treasury Board of Canada, our role is to oversee government spending and to ensure that we undertake a risk analysis of that spending at all times—

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

Being prudent with your spending, Minister—

Hon. Anita Anand :

When we table the main estimates, that is the goal.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

How do you think the younger generation looks at you and your government right now, with a $39.8-billion deficit in the current budget? Do you really think they believe you are being prudent with a $39.8-billion deficit that not only this generation, but the next generation is going to have to pay off? Do you really think that's being prudent, Minister?

Hon. Anita Anand :

Mr. Chair, we have the the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 and a AAA credit rating. At the same time, we are maintaining that fiscally prudent track. We are also providing supports to Canadians through dental care, pharmacare, contraception for women so that they can make their own choices about their bodies.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

Minister, Canadians, when they're standing in line at the food bank, don't care about the debt-to-GDP ratio. They don't care about that. They just care that their tummies are empty and want food on the table to feed their families.

Hon. Anita Anand :

Unlike the Conservative government before us—

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

No, Minister, the government is currently spending more on debt servicing costs than it is on health transfer payments—

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

Minister, sorry, there is a point of order. I will stop the clock. Mr. Kusmierczyk, go ahead, please.

Hon. Anita Anand: I'm just trying to respond to the question.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

Yes. Mr. Chair, I just want us to take into consideration our translators.

The Chair :

That's not a point of order. I will let you know—

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

It is a point of order because—

The Chair :

Sorry, Mr. Kusmierczyk. When the translators have an issue they will advise the clerk and the clerk will advise me. We will then interrupt. I appreciate your point.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

I'm just worried about their health and well-being.

The Chair :

Thank you. I have ruled, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

I see my MP colleague raising her voice. I'm just simply asking that we respect the translators.

The Chair :

I have ruled, Mr. Kusmierczyk. I appreciate what you're trying to do. I've made it very clear. I made it clear to one of your colleagues earlier. I appreciate we don't want to continue with interruptions.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your taking that into consideration.

The Chair :

Mrs. Kusie will continue.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Minister, in the main estimates, it stated $46.5 billion was required simply to service our debt. This is in addition to this year's $39.8 billion deficit. Now, in the supplementary estimates, you have come back and asked for another $1.9 billion, as though this $1.9 billion were an oversight to service the national debt. Why weren't these numbers properly accounted for in your main estimates just a few months ago? What can we as Canadians expect in the future in terms of further amounts that have not been accounted for as a result of your bad accounting?

Hon. Anita Anand :

Mr. Chair, on the issue of poverty, our government, unlike the Conservative government prior to us, has reduced poverty in this country by 22%. On the issue of the debt, I will say that our government has made a decision to ensure that we have strong fiscal markers, like a AAA credit rating and lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, while supporting Canadians and ensuring that we have affordable housing supports in place, and dental care available for our population and pharmacare as well.

(1745) Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

Minister, why are one in four Canadians skipping meals? Again, the one in four Canadians who are skipping meals really don't take comfort in these statistics that you are citing here today or in the House of Commons when you are responding in question period. Minister, in your last announcement on fraud as a result of the "arrive scam" scandal within the Canadian procurement system, you stated that the three individuals you found committing $5 million worth of fraud in contracting were only the first tranche of individuals.

Are you ready today to tell Canadians the number of individuals whom you have determined to be committing fraud and you have now turned over to the RCMP? Can you give that number, please?

Hon. Anita Anand :

That issue is within PSPC, but I will say that all fraud is unacceptable and that the RCMP has charge over those cases. If it determines to lay charges, we will be supporting the RCMP in every investigation it undertakes, just as we have done in the past.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

Okay, so you don't have a number for us today.

Hon. Anita Anand :

It is not within my purview.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

Can you tell us the total? It is within your purview. Especially given that you were previously the minister of procurement, you should have an idea as to these numbers. If you can't tell us how many individuals have been turned over to the RCMP as a result of fraud? Can you at least please tell Canadians how much they have been scammed out of, how much money has been paid out as a result of this fraud?

Hon. Anita Anand :

Actually, Mr. Chair, three individuals, to my knowledge, have been turned over to the RCMP. Secondly, Mr. Chair, what I am doing at Treasury Board—and this is within my purview actually—is to ensure that we have the policies and the governance in place to ensure that we have better management control over these types of incidents. Today, I released a new manager's guide with mandatory obligations on directors.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

This is my last question. You said at the last meeting that you would recoup the money from the "arrive scam" scandal. Can you report to Canadians that you have received that $60 million back for the "arrive scam" scandal?

Hon. Anita Anand :

I can report to Canadians that as soon as the RCMP report comes back on the ArriveCAN issue—

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

That's a no.

Hon. Anita Anand :

—we will follow—

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

You promised the last time I saw you that you would get the money back for Canadians. That's what you said.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

I have a point of order. This is—

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

That's what you said, and you are coming here—

Hon. Anita Anand :

Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Am I able to respond to that witness's question?

The Chair :

I'm sorry. Let me interrupt. We have a point of order from Mr. Kusmierczyk. Go ahead, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

Mr. Chair, I'm just asking my colleagues to please respect, again, our interpreters—

The Chair: Mr. Kusmierczyk, if you're going to—

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk: —and their health and safety.

The Chair :

I've made it clear. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I've made it clear that if there's an issue with the interpreters, they will contact our clerk. I would ask you to please stop your interruptions.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

It's not an interruption.

The Chair: It is, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk: I'm actually looking after the interpreters on this committee.

The Chair :

If you're going to continue this, time will be taken away from you. I've made my ruling very clear.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

Mr. Chair, if you won't look after it, I certainly will.

The Chair :

Mr. Kusmierczyk, please. I've stated before, and I've told one of your colleagues before this, that if there's an issue, they will advise the clerk the proper way. They will not advise you. They will not advise the other members. They will advise the clerk. I would you to please stop with such interruptions. Mrs. Kusie—

Hon. Anita Anand :

Can I respond? Can I respond at all here—ever?

The Chair :

Minister, I understand what you're saying. Mrs. Kusie, if you would please allow a question and an answer, you have 40 seconds.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you tell Canadians today, clearly, as you promised them the last time we spoke in a committee environment, that you have recouped the $60-plus million—because, as the Auditor General indicated, it is a minimum of $60 million—for Canadians, as you promised you would?

Hon. Anita Anand :

Mr. Chair, there is an ongoing investigation. Any wrongdoing will be taken into account. I stand by my comments that the government will seek to recover taxpayers' money that was spent inappropriately.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

That's a no, Mr. Chair. That's clearly a no.

Hon. Anita Anand :

We are waiting for the RCMP investigation to conclude.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

That's a no.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Minister—

Hon. Anita Anand :

That is not a no. We are waiting for the RCMP investigation to conclude, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you, Minister. We will now go to Mr. Bains. I'm sure you'll have an opportunity to answer during Mr. Bains' time. Go ahead, Mr. Bains.

Mr. Parm Bains (Steveston—Richmond East, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I want to give the minister an opportunity to finish her answer. I know that you were interrupted a number of times there. Feel free to please answer on the important work that you're doing.

(1750) Hon. Anita Anand :

Thank you so much. Yes, I was interrupted a number of times. I feel it was inappropriate, as well. I'm here to answer questions in good faith. I would appreciate being given the opportunity by colleagues across the House to provide the answers that I'm here to give. There is an ongoing investigation by the RCMP. That investigation has not concluded. We as a government have stated that we will comply with the recommendations from the RCMP. We will also ensure that anybody who abused taxpayers' money will face consequences. The government will seek to recover taxpayers' money that was spent inappropriately.

That is our commitment. Certainly, at Treasury Board I take the purview and the prudent spending of our government extremely seriously, as do my colleagues at Treasury Board. Thank you.

Mr. Parm Bains :

Thank you, Minister. I really appreciate the work you're doing. I'm very encouraged by the spending review you've administered. I look forward to the upcoming updates on this. I'll go to my first question. The 2024-25 main estimates signal a $2.3-billion reallocation of funding in your refocusing government spending initiative. That's up from a $500-million reallocation in the previous fiscal year. What impact do these massive funding reallocations have on the delivery of important services that Canadians rely on?

Hon. Anita Anand :

Unlike the opposition, our goal is to ensure that vulnerable Canadians are able to have supports. In budget 2023, we made a commitment to refocus government spending to not only ensure prudent fiscal management of taxpayer dollars but also to be able to utilize that funding to provide supports for Canadians. The main estimates reported on the planned reallocations of over $10.5 billion over the next three years, as a result of the refocusing government spending initiative, what was tabled in the main estimates at the end of February.

I will say that the refocusing government spending initiative was one that all ministers participated in, looking at their portfolios to see how they could refocus both money spent on operating costs as well as grants and contributions towards the government's priorities. The refocusing government spending initiative is an initiative that is a commitment to prudence while continuing to support Canadians by creating growth and opportunities for all.

You saw that commitment in budget 2024 with supports for affordable housing, for a national school food program, for dental care and for additional child care through ECE supports. Those are the types of initiatives and social programs that we believe are important. If the opposition cares about poverty, then I would think they would support initiatives like a national school food program, like the Canada child benefit, and like $10-a-day child care, which ensures that families have support to get by.

Mr. Parm Bains :

Thank you. With respect to that, are there any negative impacts that Canadian taxpayers could face due to the refocused spending should parliamentarians choose to vote for or against these important main estimates?

Hon. Anita Anand :

As I said, Mr. Chair, the refocused government spending initiative does not cut supports for Canadians. In fact, what it does is take a look across government at where spending might not be necessary, such as in the areas of executive travel and third party contracting, to say that money could be better spent and would gain greater utility when used for another purpose. That is the way we are using this exercise. The PBO, when commenting on the first phase of refocused government spending, opined that government services would not be cut as a result of those measures.

Mr. Parm Bains :

I'm going to shift my focus a little bit, because I think the cybersecurity threat is real. I think we all know about the ever-evolving threat of cyber-attacks. In fact, in my city of Richmond, B.C., London Drugs, which is headquartered there, was recently targeted by a major cyber-attack. I wanted to ask about the cybersecurity strategy and how you're working to ensure that the Government of Canada's enterprise networks are safe.

(1755) Hon. Anita Anand :

The area of cybersecurity is one that I take very seriously, especially given my time at the Department of National Defence, where I had oversight of the Communications Security Establishment. Treasury Board has a leadership role in setting the direction for government IT modernization and driving momentum on the whole-of-government solution for cybersecurity. Last week, I announced the first-ever cyber-strategy for the Government of Canada. Rather than having individual departments and ministries utilize their own cyber-strategies, we now have a whole-of-government approach that will be run out of Treasury Board and Shared Services Canada together with the CSE. We are implementing this—

The Chair :

I'm sorry, Minister. We are out of time. Perhaps you can finish off in the next round or get back to us in writing.

Hon. Anita Anand :

Thank you so much. Thank you for the questions.

The Chair :

Thanks, Mr. Bains. Mrs. Vignola, please go ahead for six minutes.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for giving me my speaking time. Minister, the Treasury Board Secretariat is responsible for applying the Official Languages Act. You set an example in terms of learning French, and I thank you for it. Some officials also set an example when it comes to using their mother tongue. Even if they are bilingual, some respond to anglophones by using their mother tongue, since

interpretation is available and it’s offered not only from French to English, but from English to French as well. Nonetheless, we see a certain lag in implementing regulations. The Commissioner of Official Languages called on you at the beginning of the month to publish regulations for

Part VII of the Official Languages Act. When can we expect the regulations to be published?

Hon. Anita Anand :

I thank the member for her question. I want to start by saying that it’s important, even crucial, to have an environment where we can work in both official languages. It’s crucial for me, as Minister, to make sure everyone can work in both official languages, and to do so throughout the country and in all departments. You asked a question about the date when regulations will be published. When will we have a framework for public services? This spring, we will make an announcement on that. I will be able to share the announcement with you over the coming weeks. Then, next month, we will also publish a training guide for federal institutions.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Thank you very much. Since spring ends on June 20, we can expect—

Hon. Anita Anand :

It will be next month.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

It will be around June 18 or 19, right before the end of spring.

Hon. Anita Anand :

Yes.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

In the Main Estimates, I saw that the amount the Treasury Board Secretariat requested to monitor expenditures went from $44 million in 2022‑2023 to over $5 billion in 2024‑2025. That is more than one giant step. We just crossed the Atlantic and the Pacific in a single bound. What can explain this extraordinary increase for a budget request to monitor expenditures?

Hon. Anita Anand :

Mr. Chair, first of all, it’s to support the most vulnerable in our economy and have essential programs for our country, such as a dental care program and a pharmacare program. It’s also about investing in affordable housing. As for your question, I invite my colleague to share her comments with you.

(1800) Ms. Annie Boudreau (Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat) :

Thank you very much. Is your question about the $5.1 billion for central votes? I think yes. If so, it’s about the same amount as last year. We always make changes from year to year. I don’t know if you’re comparing the same numbers with last year’s, Mrs. Vignola.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

If I remember correctly, last year, it was just over $3 billion. That's a massive increase compared to $44 million for 2022-23. It sure made my jaw drop. Under the Treasury Board Secretariat's core responsibilities and internal services, for 2022-23, $44,076,954 was earmarked for spending oversight. For 2023-24, I said it was $3 billion, but it was actually $2,680,659,291. I'm sorry. It went from $44 million to over $2.5 billion, and this year it's over $5 billion. What is spending oversight, and what justifies spending $5 billion on it, when it was $44 million two years ago?

Ms. Annie Boudreau :

There must be a mistake. I'm sorry, but we'll have to send you a written answer, because a jump from $44 million to several billion dollars is impossible. Maybe the central votes are part of that amount, but it would be best for us to send you a written response.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Okay, thank you.

[ English ]

The Chair :

You have 10 seconds.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

I will come back to this later, so thank you for giving me some speaking time despite my nameplate mishaps.

[ English ]

The Chair :

I'm sure Mr. Bachrach appreciates that. Go ahead, sir.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for being here today. Not long after you were given this new role, you sent a letter to your ministerial colleagues asking them to identify areas to cut within their respective departmental budgets in an effort—I'm reading from a Global News article—to reduce spending by $14.1 billion between now and 2028. Why is it $14.1 billion? It's a very specific number. What's it based on?

Hon. Anita Anand :

This was the first-ever refocused government spending initiative that our government has done since 2015. We wanted to be prudent, as other G7 economies are, with an exercise of this nature. We wanted to differentiate ourselves from the Harper DRAP program, which was much more severe and involved serious cuts to services and programs in the public service, so we chose a prudent amount to begin the first phase of the refocused government spending initiative. It's not just $15.8 billion. It is also that amount over a five-year period and then $4.8 billion every year thereafter.

It's actually a continuous process of ensuring that we are reducing our spending in some areas and refocusing it on others. Finally, there's a phase two of the refocusing government spending initiative that was enunciated in budget 2024.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

I appreciate all that, Minister, and I think you've laid out your rationale for it, but you didn't answer the question. The number in this

article is $14.1 billion. The number you gave is $15.8 billion. They're both very specific numbers, and I'm wondering what they're based on. Arguably, you could provide the direction to find cost savings, and this assumes that there's some sort of slop in departmental budgets. I don't think anyone would argue that there isn't, but why are there specific numbers: $14.1 billion and $15.8 billion? What are they based on? Are they based on some kind of preliminary evaluation? This is out of honest curiosity.

Hon. Anita Anand :

I will say that we needed to begin with a baseline for an initiative that our government had not undertaken at that time. [ Translation ] I'll let Ms. Boudreau give a supplementary answer.

[ English ]

Ms. Annie Boudreau :

In the budget announcement, it was based on discretionary spending, so it was 3% for operating discretionary spending and 15% for professional services and travel. If you take those two percentages, and you apply them to the main estimates, you're going to get those specific numbers that you just referred to.

(1805) Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Thank you. That's a very clear answer. I appreciate it, and I would encourage you to pass on your answering ability to the minister that we had here prior to this, because he seemed to really struggle with answering simple questions that obviously have answers. The CBSA border officers voted 96% in favour of a strike. They've been without a contract for two years. They provide really important services, as everyone around the table knows.

After the strike vote, the Canadian government said in a statement that a strike was “unnecessary”, but they also said that the government was ready to return to the table, “at any time”. I guess the question is: Has negotiating resumed, and why did it take a strike vote for the government to offer to return to the table?

Hon. Anita Anand :

We have already reached collective agreements with 80% of public servants comprising 17 bargaining units, and we look forward to being at the table with the CBSA at the beginning of next week. There's an independent mediator who will be overseeing the negotiations. There is the public interest commission report, which is available publicly now and contains independent recommendations from that mediator. Those will form the basis of the negotiations that we will undertake at the table with these very important public servants.

You'll recall the essential work the border folks do, the CBSA folks do, and we're very grateful for that work, I will say, and 90% of CBSA employees are performing essential services for Canadians. We want to reach a deal that is fair for employees and fair for Canadian taxpayers, and we will look forward to doing that at the bargaining table.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Thank you, Minister. This is my last question. I know there's a lot of concern and interest in the return-to-work directive that your government provided to public sector workers. I think one of the curious things about this is the core rationale for that directive. We see that most of the departmental reports have indicated that productivity has either gone up or at least remained level for public sector workers working at home. What was the core rationale for providing that directive?

The Chair :

Give a quick answer, please.

Hon. Anita Anand :

The decision of the public service relating to hybrid work was made as a result of its view that it is fully within their ability to do that under existing policy without being a breach of collective agreement, because this stands outside of the collective agreement. In terms of an explanation of the policy, because it was not a political decision, I will turn to the public servants to answer that question.

The Chair :

I'm afraid we're out of time. We can follow it up on Monday when the officials are back with us, unless the minister wishes to stay past her hour.

Hon. Anita Anand :

That's very kind of you, Mr. Chair. I will defer to the officials on Monday.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mrs. Kusie, for five minutes, please.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

Minister, the CBSA border officers voted last week to approve a strike due to the lack of a contract for the last two years. Their demands include wage parity, protection from management retaliation, access to telework, and protection from CBSA's obsessive reliance on contracting out—very similar to your own government and your own department, Minister. Now, you have outlined briefly the process that you are undertaking.

However, if you are not successful, like your predecessor—in fact, I think her legacy, unfortunately, is built on that lack of success in reaching these negotiations in a reasonable amount of time—can you share with Canadians how this will have an effect, in the billions, on the Canadian economy? Can you tell Canadians that, please?

(1810) Hon. Anita Anand :

Actually, it is premature for us to put precise figures on the table. We are still in the midst of ensuring that we reach a fair and reasonable agreement with the CBSA. We are committed to working with bargaining agents to reach an agreement that is fair and reasonable, and we will do so at the table. I would be more than happy to return to this committee and speak to the particular numbers. However, at this time it is premature for me to put numbers on the table in response to the type of question I've just received.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

I don't think it is premature, Minister, because if we look at the cost of the port strikes in both Vancouver and Montreal last year, we see that it had a $10-billion effect on this economy, especially at a time when your government has out-of-control spending, when we so badly need this economy to function. Your government failed, your predecessor failed, in getting these negotiations resolved in a timely manner, which cost the economy $10 billion—and, of course, it was also a hit to our tax revenues. Are you not concerned that we might see these numbers again should you not be successful? Do you have any comments for Canadians regarding that?

Hon. Anita Anand :

Of course I have comments about our expenditures. I am the president of the Treasury Board, after all, and I will say that I will at all times have oversight, and prudent oversight, of government spending. What I mean by ensuring that we have a negotiation that occurs at the table is just that. The demands that are going to be the subject of those negotiations will yield, if all goes well, a fair and reasonable—

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

Minister, I don't want to talk about—

Hon. Anita Anand :

—agreement for the border services workers—

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

—a hypothetical, please. Minister, I wouldn't be so excited to share my title with a $39.8-billion deficit. Relative to that, you've stated that your department is happy to return to the bargaining table to negotiate in good faith.

Hon. Anita Anand :

Yes, we are.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

However, it's been two years without a contract, so why are you only just trying now to complete this negotiation? Like I said, your predecessor failed, and you're in the process of failing. What are you going to do to ensure that you get this process in in time?

Hon. Anita Anand :

I actually do not think that we are in the process of failing; we are in the process of seeking a deal that is fair and reasonable to Government of Canada employees and to the Canadian taxpayers. I would not think that hypotheticals of the sort that are being posed in this question would be useful in seeking to reach a fair and reasonable deal.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

In the official opposition, Madam President, we look at results.

Hon. Anita Anand :

And hypotheticals....

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

In August 2023, you were excited to announce that you were going to find $50.4 billion in savings across all government departments over the next five years. However, in budget 2024, more than $52.9 billion in new spending over the next five years was announced. This new spending is now more than three and a half times as much as you announced in savings in August. How has this initiative done anything to show fiscal restraint with your, as you have said, being the president of the Treasury Board, and to prove to Canadians that your government can responsibly handle money?

Hon. Anita Anand :

I would take a look at the external markers that indicate fiscal prudence, Mr. Chair. A triple-A credit rating is actually an independent assessment—

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

Minister, this is cold comfort for Canadians—

Hon. Anita Anand :

Mr. Chair, am I going to be able to respond to these questions?

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

If you will not listen—

Hon. Anita Anand :

Mr. Chair?

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

—to the Prime Minister's Office regarding your leadership campaign, I hope you at least listen to Canadians. Thank you very much.

Hon. Anita Anand :

I would really like to be able to respond to questions, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

I appreciate that.

Hon. Anita Anand :

It's very unprofessional to interrupt me when I'm actually just trying to respond—unbelievable.

The Chair :

We are out of time, unfortunately. However, luckily and fortunately, next up is Mr. Jowhari from the Liberals. You'll have an opportunity to respond, I assume, during his time. Mr. Jowhari, go ahead, sir.

Mr. Majid Jowhari (Richmond Hill, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Madam Minister and officials, welcome to the committee. Madam Minister, please take as much time as you want to respond. I think it is important. I have questions along the same line of holding the government accountable, but I'm sure you'll notice a different tone. We can ask tough questions in a very respectable way, and I ask my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Minister. Go ahead. The floor is yours.

Hon. Anita Anand :

I simply wanted to respond by saying that independent credit rating agencies, like Standard & Poor's for example, have consistently rated our economy and our government's work on the economy with a AAA credit rating. It is not “a nothing”. It is actually an assessment of the fiscal health of our economy. To denigrate the work of those third party analysts about our economy is, simply, to misunderstand the importance of that credit rating. I will further say that those are economic markers that indicate the fiscal health of a country.

At the same time, what we as a government have chosen to do is to actually respond to poverty, to homelessness and to the need in educational institutions to support researchers, masters and doctoral students with supports to feed the pipeline of brilliance and of the AI and digital economies. There's a clear choice that is being made here between the plan of our government in budget 2024 and the absence of a plan from the opposition: They simply criticize with no actual alternative on the table.

(1815) Mr. Majid Jowhari :

Thank you for that clarification. Madam Minister, in budget 2024-25 main estimates for the TBS, I see that you're asking $9.3 billion in voted expenditure. When I did a little digging, I realized that's the fifth highest of any federal department. Can you please share the rationale behind this high degree of spending in your department? Can you explain what the initiatives are that this spending is being focused on?

Hon. Anita Anand :

Thank you for the question. These are values that we care deeply about—in particular, creating a diverse, equitable, accessible and inclusive workforce. I highlight the action plan for Black public servants that I announced in February, which provides mental health supports for Black public servants, as well as supports for career development, especially at the Canada School of Public Service.

In addition, we're supporting health and safety through the public service health care plan, strengthening and modernizing the public service through HR-to-pay, enhancing the work environment and reinforcing the values and ethics of the public service, which are also goals of our government and are implemented by Treasury Board. [ Translation ] As I said, we continue to promote and protect both official languages. [ English ] We will also bargain in good faith.

As I said, we already reached collective agreements with 17 bargaining units, representing 80% of public servants, and we look forward to doing so with the remainder because it is important to negotiate in good faith at the bargaining table.

Mr. Majid Jowhari :

Thank you. I go from the year's focused spending increase now to some refocused government cost-saving, as I would call it. Madam Minister, in your responses you talked about phase one and phase two. With 30 seconds of my time left, can you talk about the priority areas for the second phase of the refocused government spending that you'll be focusing on?

The Chair :

There is about 20 seconds left now.

Hon. Anita Anand :

The methodology is currently being undertaken. I will say that we had co-operation and participation from all ministers. The initiative is about examining our budgets. We have to find means to strengthen our spending on priorities, and reallocation of funds from other areas is absolutely necessary. Also, it's not about cutting services that Canadians rely on. We need to ensure that we support the priorities that I've outlined already today. We are examining phase two and we will share more details in the future.

The Chair :

Thanks very much. It's Mrs. Vignola next, then Mr. Bachrach. I'll have to keep exactly to the two and a half, two and a half, five and five, in order to get the minister out at a decent time. Please go ahead, Mrs. Vignola.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Minister, my question is about the passage of Bill C‑290 , which would better protect public servants who disclose wrongdoing. A task force is studying the issue. I have two questions about the task force's budget. Has the task force's budget been updated since 2022, and, if so, how? Is the budget considered sufficient, and what is the task force spending money on?

(1820) Hon. Anita Anand :

Mr. Chair, I'd like my colleague to give me more details, because I don't know which task force she's talking about.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

In its 2024-25 departmental plan, the Treasury Board Secretariat states that it “will continue to support the task force reviewing the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act”. Here are my questions. Has the budget for this task force been updated since 2022, and if so, in what ways? Also, what is the task force spending money on?

Hon. Anita Anand :

Thank you for your questions. That was before I became minister. May I provide a written response to the committee? I'd have to look into what's going on with that task force. [ English ] I would also like to mention that I am very committed to whistle-blower protections. We supported the private member's bill of the Bloc when it came forward. I'll say, as a general matter, that I'm very supportive of the issue. On the specific question and the group's activities, I will come back to you with the expenditures, as well.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, do I have any time left?

[ English ]

The Chair :

That's a very good question. I think Ms. Boudreau is back with us Monday. Perhaps she can present us with that information on Monday. Please be quick, Mrs. Vignola.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. According to its 2024-25 departmental plan, the Treasury Board Secretariat expects that at least 80% of high-volume government services will meet service standards by March 2025. Personally, I thought that everyone had to meet the service standards once they were set, no exceptions. Maybe I'm too naive. Why does the Treasury Board Secretariat expect only 80% of government services to meet the service standards, and not 100%? My time is up, so please send us a written answer.

[ English ]

The Chair :

[ Inaudible—Editor ] perhaps in writing, or perhaps on Monday. Mr. Bachrach, please go ahead, sir.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Minister, I think a lot of Canadians were pretty shocked to discover that this individual, David Yeo, was working for the federal government at DND, while at the same time securing millions of dollars in government contracts. Treasury Board has promised a new risk framework to ensure departments are managing themselves accordingly and avoiding situations like this, where no conflict of interest disclosure was provided and it wasn't flagged by the department or dealt with properly. Can you talk a little about how this new risk framework, if it had been in place, would have caught this situation and dealt with it appropriately?

Hon. Anita Anand :

Actually, today I published a new manager's guide. This is building on the announcement Jean-Yves Duclos and I made on March 20. That new manager's guide makes it mandatory for managers to have looked at all alternatives within the public service. Also, there's a requirement to disclose conflicts of interest before a contract is signed. The manager has to attest that no conflict exists. Essentially, that is the difference. There's the requirement to do so in writing, and it has to be done at the time of contracting. You will recall that, with regard to the individual you mentioned, that disclosure was made and caught.

(1825) Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

The disclosure was made, but I think it took 150 days after he was hired by the department, when the department's own requirement is that it be disclosed, I believe, within 30 days. Is that not the case?

Hon. Anita Anand :

As soon as it was caught, the individual was terminated. I was not actually at defence at the time, but I know Francis is conducting the horizontal audit across government, so he, as the comptroller general, will be able to speak more specifically to that case.

The Chair :

Answer very briefly, please.

Mr. Francis Trudel (Associate Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat) :

The requirement, as it relates to contracting with the Government of Canada when you are an employee, requires that the actual authority be given by the deputy minister prior to the actual work to be conducted. It's not 30 days afterwards; it's actually a requirement prior to it.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

That's under the new rules. Is that correct?

Mr. Francis Trudel :

It's under the current rules.

The Chair :

Thanks very much. Mr. Genuis, please go ahead, sir.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Thank you. Minister, you oversee government spending and related rules. Can you assure this committee that you've never used government resources as part of a leadership campaign?

Hon. Anita Anand :

I most definitely can confirm that I have never done that and would never do that. I actually am surprised that you would ask the question. I have never done that.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Thank you, Minister. I think people understand that it's an important question. Have any directives been issued to ensure that other ministers are following the rules as well?

Hon. Anita Anand :

Ministers and public servants are expected to follow all rules, period.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Have no directives been issued specifically on that?

Hon. Anita Anand :

It is important for everyone to follow the policies of the Government of Canada, as well as the conflict of interest policies that all MPs are required to follow.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Thank you, Minister. I think it's clearly on the record what was asked and what was answered. We're here reviewing indigenous contracting as well. Documents have been received that reveal that a small number of nominally indigenous firms were able to act as brokers between the federal government and other potentially non-indigenous companies by simply getting contracts and subcontracting. This allows the contracts to fit into an indigenous contracting quota, even though indigenous people do not actually benefit because the subcontractors may be all or mostly non-indigenous.

These companies are essentially using the Dalian or GC Strategies model. I want to ask you, when a company gets a contract under an indigenous set-aside, is there an expectation or a requirement that some percentage of subcontracts also go to indigenous firms?

Hon. Anita Anand :

Indigenous Services Canada manages the list of indigenous businesses that are qualified indigenous contracting companies. PSPC manages this overall, and I will say that departments are responsible for making a request to ISC to conduct a post-award audit. The audit has to be requested when there's any suspicion at all that the requirements of the applicable policy haven't been met through delivery and Indigenous Services Canada [ Inaudible—Editor ]—

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Can I just clarify my question, Minister. I'd love to hear your response on this. Do the requirements include that a certain percentage of subcontracts from an indigenous contracting situation go to indigenous companies? Are the subcontractors tracked in any way?

Hon. Anita Anand :

Right now the percentage is 33%. In other words, it's the contractor's delivery of goods or services and monitoring the contractor's compliance with the 33% indigenous content requirement for contracting companies.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

That's what I was looking for. I appreciate that—the one-third requirement there. Is that tracked? The committee asked for subcontracting information and we received, in almost all cases, zero information about subcontracts. I'm a bit mystified about how the government would know if that requirement is being met if subcontracting is not being tracked in any case.

Hon. Anita Anand :

I actually want to clarify my answer, then I want to add one thing. It's 33% for the contract. That would be verified in the post-audit that ISC does. On your question about subcontractors, I actually think it is a good point. I think that we should do continual work to be able to track the suppliers in the subcontracting process.

(1830) Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Minister, I really appreciate that comment. That's the first time I've ever questioned a minister and had acknowledgement of an important point. I think there is a gap. We receive no information on subcontracts. We didn't get an answer from the previous minister, so I hope we'll have agreement from this committee, and from you, to refine that process so we're tracking subcontracting information. I want to ask one more question on this. There seem to be instances where a small number of companies are getting an outsized proportion of overall contracts.

How much would you say is too much for a single company to get of that total share of indigenous procurement? Keeping in mind there are over 600 indigenous communities in this country, how much would be too much for a single company to get of that total?

Hon. Anita Anand :

I do not have the ability to respond to that question without the overall amount of the actual contract. I will say that the principle we operate under is fair, open and transparent competition. The 5% floor for indigenous contracts that we established as a government was meant to ensure indigenous suppliers have access to government contracts.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. Mrs. Atwin, go ahead, please.

Mrs. Jenica Atwin :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'd like to address this very quickly. I see that Mr. Genuis is particularly interested in the indigenous business procurement strategy, which is great, but I would caution him to be very careful with the language he's using. I'm not sure where he's going with the words, “nominally indigenous”. I think indigenous identity is very complex. I would caution him to be careful around that discussion. Minister, systemic racism, bias and discrimination are issues that everyone has a responsibility to resolve.

Across Canada, there are still numerous barriers to entry, retention or promotion for marginalized groups in places of employment. Statistically speaking, it disproportionately impacts Black Canadians. How is the Treasury Board working to address systemic racism and discrimination in the ranks of the public service? What benefit does the funding provided to the department in the main estimates offer to the broader public service, as well as the department itself?

Hon. Anita Anand :

I have been very pleased that, at the Treasury Board of Canada, there is a responsibility to ensure that we're addressing discrimination in the public service. Discrimination is a reality. We need to do more, and we need to do more faster. I appreciate the question. It is a priority that I am taking extremely seriously. We have a restorative engagement program that we are responding to as a result of recommendations we received from an expert panel. In fact, I'm building on my work at the Department of National Defence, where we also had a restorative engagement program.

Part of that is going to ensure that we do whatever possible to address discrimination in the public service. In addition to the restorative engagement program, we have the supports for Black public servants that we announced in February, including supports for mental health for Black public servants by ensuring that we have Black counsellors who are able to assist where needed. In addition to that, we have the School of Public Service, where we are ensuring that there are professional development and career supports for Black public servants.

I'll say that, when I announced those supports for Black public servants, one of the Black public servants in the Government of Canada came to me and said, “My son has now said that he can see himself working in the Government of Canada.” I will say that there's way more work to do, but it gives you hope that things can get better when you hear comments like that.

(1835) Mrs. Jenica Atwin :

Indeed. Thank you, Minister. I now want to ask about the HR and pay systems of the public service. As we all know, there's been much controversy surrounding the Phoenix pay system and the various issues our public servants have faced through its implementation. It certainly affected many of my constituents. I'm in the capital city of New Brunswick. There are many federal departments, and CFB Gagetown, as well. Could you discuss how your department is working to ensure that Canada's public service receives adequate pay services, as well as any new measures that are being taken regarding the public service's human resources system?

Hon. Anita Anand :

I am definitely committed to making sure that federal public servants are paid properly and on time for their work. It is something that I have been focused on since my days at Public Services and Procurement Canada. The government and a number of public service unions have reached agreements to compensate current and former employees who were affected by the implementation of the Phoenix pay system in 2016. Those agreements cover general damages from April 2016 to March 2020. All employees covered by the damages agreements have now received their general damages compensation.

Also, there is a claims process in place to allow eligible current and former employees to file claims where there are severe damages. I will say that there continue to be issues that the government needs to address. We need to resolve outstanding pay issues for public servants. We need to modernize the processes and systems to improve the overall human resources and pay experience for employees, and we will always work with all partners, including bargaining agents, to simplify human resources and pay processes.

Mrs. Jenica Atwin :

That's excellent. Thank you—

The Chair :

You have enough time so say thanks, basically.

Mrs. Jenica Atwin :

Okay, thank you very much, Minister.

The Chair :

That is all the time I have as well. Minister and witnesses, thanks for being with us.

Hon. Anita Anand :

Thank you.

The Chair :

We will suspend for about five minutes or so to set up our next round of witnesses. We are suspended.

(1835) (1845) The Chair :

Welcome back, everyone. We are back in session. We would like to welcome our friends from Canada Post. Mr. Ettinger, welcome to OGGO. We appreciate your joining us. We'll turn the floor over to you for five minutes for an opening statement. Please go ahead, sir.

Mr. Doug Ettinger (President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Post Corporation) :

Thank you, and good evening, Mr. Chair. I'm joined today by my colleagues Manon Fortin, our chief operating officer, and Rindala El-Hage, our vice-president of finance and our comptroller. Thank you so much for having us today, and to the committee for undertaking this very timely study on the postal service in Canada's rural and remote communities. [ Translation ] The work you're doing is very important. [ English ] I look forward very much to this report. Like so many other businesses, Canada Post must adapt to the dramatic changes in how Canadians live and work—and shop, in our case.

Our recently released annual report makes it crystal clear that the postal service is facing major challenges financially and operationally. My focus is on how we can best meet the needs and expectations of Canadians both now and into the future with a focus on them, our customers. Canada Post provides a service and a network that Canadians consider essential. We connect all 17.4 million addresses daily in the second-largest country in the world. We connect our country and our economy. Canadians depend on us because we deliver everywhere—not just where it would be most profitable for us.

Our service can be a lifeline for many Canadians. For small businesses, it allows them to compete in a market dominated by large, multinational e-commerce giants. For Canadians in rural and remote areas, Canada Post is one of their only delivery options. As the postal system changes, these rural and remote communities cannot get left behind. [ Translation ] We have to be there for them; we want to be there for them. [ English ] By now you've seen—and we've seen—our financial results, so I won't get into all of the details, but let me highlight a few of our challenges.

First is lettermail, which used to be our primary revenue source but continues to decline, as it does around the world in this advancing digital age. In 2006, each household received an average of seven letters a week. Last year, it was just two. At the same time and going in the opposite direction, a growing population means that we deliver to more addresses every year—in fact, three million more compared with 2006. More addresses mean that our delivery costs continue to rise, and, year after year, the financial gap between the price of postage and the cost of providing the service widens.

We've also seen challenges in parcel delivery. Parcels are the very f