Evidence of meeting #40 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was departments.
A video is available from Parliament.
Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
What is it for the $25 billion itself?
Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
I don't have an answer to that, but I'm sure we can figure that out for you.
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
Danielle Martin Liberal University—Rosedale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My thanks to the witnesses for their presentations.
I would like to continue the discussion on defence, but in a different way.
My questions relate to the significant increases in defence and security initiatives under Treasury Board. Of course, we know that the primary purposes of these expenditures relate to meeting our NATO targets and protecting the safety of Canadians and the sovereignty of our country, but we also know there's a lot of focus on the concept of dual use and the notion that there may be ways in which we can meet those investment targets that will allow other benefits to Canada and Canadians domestically that may not necessarily relate to war.
I'm wondering if whoever is appropriate, I assume it might be Mr. Matthews, could begin by speaking a little to this concept of dual use and how we account for that in the way we look at the estimates. Also, maybe you could give us some examples of what you think are creative, innovative ways in which we're thinking about this notion.
Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
Certainly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The importance of dual use is growing. If you go back many years ago, a military asset was a military asset, and you would see examples of dual use but not that many. In today's environment, so many things the military uses are computer-based. Think about quantum as an investment that is dual-use: absolutely beneficial from a national security perspective but equally beneficial for other things. As the government looks to increase its presence in the north, and there will be a need for infrastructure in the north to support the military—it could be highways; it could be runways—there is a potential for dual use as well. You have something that's hard and tangible, such as infrastructure, but also something like quantum.
As the spending evolves, NATO has its own definition for what counts as military spending. It comes in periodically and makes sure that countries are counting on a consistent basis, and it is certainly aware of dual use. It is open to it. I'm a little removed in terms of any work it might be doing on revising the definition of dual use at NATO, but that might be a very good question to ask officials from National Defence if they are here, or if need be, we can do a follow-up.
Liberal
Danielle Martin Liberal University—Rosedale, ON
Thank you.
One could imagine, for example, that some of these infrastructure investments in the north and in the Arctic could be of tremendous—
Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
Absolutely.
Liberal
Danielle Martin Liberal University—Rosedale, ON
— benefit to indigenous communities that are at capacity, to ensure that essential services are brought to rural regions in the country, etc. These might all be secondary benefits from these investments that, strictly speaking, are defined as military spending but might have other significant social benefits to Canadians.
Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
I think that, yes, you could define military spending that has knock-on benefits to broader society, but you could also see spending in other departments that is counted because it's useful from a military perspective. If you think about, maybe, investments in quantum from the Department of Industry or in Wi-Fi coverage, etc., it could be both ways.
Liberal
Danielle Martin Liberal University—Rosedale, ON
Thank you. I agree that Wi-Fi coverage is another critical example for rural communities. I represent a riding in downtown Toronto, and there are some condominiums that are made of concrete blocks, so it's hard to get Wi-Fi there, but I don't think that I can relate much to that, or that my constituents can.
One of the areas that my constituents are very concerned about is health infrastructure. I'm curious to know whether you're aware of any examples around dual use, given the magnitude of the investment under your accounts in defence spending. We know that there's a tremendous need to build health infrastructure in the country, not just bricks and mortar but all kinds of infrastructure. Are you aware of any instances in which the concept of dual use is being applied, for example, to protect our supply chain with respect to essential medicines, or other forms of infrastructure that might be of direct benefit to the health of Canadians?
Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
I'm not aware of any examples that I can provide. I have no examples to provide today in terms of dual use that are specific to health, but we are happy to follow up on that front.
Liberal
Danielle Martin Liberal University—Rosedale, ON
That would be great, if it's appropriate to ask for some follow-up information on that for the committee. I know my constituents would be delighted to learn more about it.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We're always delighted to add more work for Mr. Matthews.
Madame Gaudreau, please go ahead.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Chair, the floor is mine for two and a half minutes.
Is that correct?
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Excellent.
Earlier, we talked about arranging and rearranging space.
We are also talking about budget cuts. People are asking which criteria led to the decision to bring people back to the workplace. We know that there will be some attrition and that some people will retire.
Let me ask you again. What was the decision based on?
Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
The number of public servants has increased in comparison to what it was in the past. That is clear. The government therefore decided not to provide each employee with their own office.
You are right. The plan is to reduce the number of public servants. That will take a little time because the reduced budget expenditures extend over three years.
The decision around returning to office was made not only knowing that some departments have more people than space, but also believing that it's better to have employees in the office more often to collaborate, to learn, etc.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Where does that come from?
The only motive on the table is to increase services to the public. Will that be done in the constituencies?
Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
It certainly is about the services.
However, it is also important to provide young public servants with the experience of others, with a sense of teamwork and with the need to collaborate in order to meet the challenges of the government. We need to either improve things or do them more quickly.
If you look outside the federal government—industry, municipalities, provinces—you will see the trend. If you're looking for a study that says this is a better way to do things, I don't have one. I would describe this as a philosophical choice of the employer and a belief that teamwork is better.
