Secretary Transition 2022 Briefing Book 2: Background

Privy Council Office Deputy Minister Committees

Public Service Management Advisory Committee

• Your Role: Co-Chair (with Christine Donoghue – Chief Human Resources Officer)
• Mandate: Forum for discussion of the public service management agenda, including approaches for external recruitment

Digitization of Services

• Your Role: Co-Chair (with Ian Shugart, Privy Council Office; Janice Charette, Privy Council Office)
• Mandate: Focuses on strategy and priority setting for digitization of services

Core Services

• Your Role: Co-Chair (with Paul Glover, Shared Services Canada)
• Mandate: Focuses on the transformation of core services

Enterprise Priorities and Planning

• Your Role: Co-chair (with Lori MacDonald, Employment and Social Development Canada)
• Mandate: Focuses on an integrated approach to Information Technology strategies across the enterprise

Coordinating Committee of Deputy Ministers

• Your Role: Member
• Mandate: Forum to discuss the implementation of the Government's policy agenda and priorities, including ensuring alignment of the work of deputy minister committees

Committee of Senior Officials

• Your Role: Member
• Mandate: Functions as the human resources committee for the senior executive cadre of the public service

Board of Management and Renewal

• Your Role: Member
• Mandate: Provide a forum to advance the management agenda and the renewal of the Public Service, with a focus on supporting efforts to build an increasingly agile, inclusive, and equipped Public Service

Mandate

• The Deputies Portfolio Committee will function as the executive management board for the Treasury Board Secretariat. As the key corporate decision-making body, it will set overall direction and priorities on policy, financial, human resources, and other operational matters.

Scope of Activities

• It provides direction and sets priorities related to the issues and initiatives of the highest importance implicating the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS). It also monitors the implementation of departmental priorities and ensures a coordinated approach on key issues, and engagement with partners. 
• Deputies Portfolio Committee activities include but are not limited to:
  • Departmental operational, human resource, and financial decisions (including review of federal budget asks and reallocation decisions);
  • Monitoring implementation of departmental priorities and mandate commitments, with a view to timely implementation of key deliverables and to make necessary course corrections; and
  • Setting an agenda and ensuring integrated approaches for key Treasury Board Secretariat policy initiatives (e.g., Treasury Board Policy Suite Reset, Medium-Term Planning).

Authorities

• The Deputies Portfolio Committee is the most senior committee with corporate decision-making authority.
• Items brought forward for consideration are considered approved with the endorsement of the Chair.

Relationship to Other Committees

• Executive Committee (EXCO) is both an advisory and information sharing body that supports departmental business. It can provide advice to the Secretary on issues and initiatives of strategic and horizontal importance to the department and government. In most instances, the Executive Committee will also be the final body to review presentations related to departmental priorities or mandate commitments before they leave the department (e.g., Cabinet, Treasury Board, or Deputy Ministers’ Committee presentations). The Deputies Portfolio Committee may request items be brought to the Executive Committee for discussion as required.
• Resourcing Committee (RC) plays a critical role in the monitoring and oversight of financial management within Treasury Board Secretariat, including reviewing quarterly financial statements and the department’s integrated investment and business plan. It oversees Treasury Board Secretariat-led projects at key gates. The Resourcing Committee also reviews major departmental Treasury Board submissions with resource implications, in particular, those referred to by the Treasury Board Submission Prioritization Committee, before they are reviewed by the Government Operations Sector (GOS). 
• TB Submission Prioritization Committee (new committee): brings together implicated Assistant Deputy Ministers to agree on the strategic direction and prioritization of Treasury Board Secretariat sponsored submissions. The Committee will advise the Chair of the Resourcing Committee of submissions that require a deeper examination by the Resourcing Committee. The Prioritization Committee will report to the Deputies Portfolio Committee periodically to provide updates.  
• Policy Committee is responsible for reviewing Treasury Board Secretariat-led policy proposals. This includes changes to the Treasury Board policy suite, strategic policy issues, medium term policy work, and Cabinet proposals. The Policy Committee supports the Deputies Portfolio Committee by working with sponsoring sectors early-on in the development of major policy initiatives, acting as a sounding board for proposals and helping connect related efforts. As required, the Policy Committee will provide summaries of the considerations of the committee to the Deputies Portfolio Committee and may flag policy issues that require the consideration of the Deputies Portfolio Committee. 
• Departmental Human Resources Committee (DHRC) provides strategic direction to the Director General of the Human Resources Division (DG HRD), Secretary, and sectors on issues and initiatives related to internal human resources management, including departmental policies, the departmental human resources plan, recruitment strategies, and talent management, ensuring a consistent approach across the Treasury Board Secretariat. The Departmental Human Resources Committee also reviews key Human Resource (HR) issues before they are presented to the Deputies Portfolio Committee for decision. This would include advice on items such as the Treasury Board Secretariat Human Resources Plan, Human Resources-related strategies (e.g., Analyst Learning and Development, Talent Acquisition), major policy changes, high-risk Human Resources transactions, and other strategic issues, (e.g., Talent Management Approach, etc.).  The Chair of the Departmental Human Resources Committee will advise the Director General of Human Resources Division whether items should be referred to the Deputies Portfolio Committee. 
• Ad hoc informal committees, created by the Secretary of the Treasury Board, for specific initiatives, may be required to debrief the Deputies Portfolio Committee on their activities, at the discretion of the Chair.

Membership

• The Deputies Portfolio Committee is chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury Board, or his/her delegate.
• Membership comprises the Associate Secretary, the Comptroller General of Canada, the Chief Human Resources Officer, the Chief Information Officer of the Government of Canada, and the Deputy Minister for Public Service Accessibility. 
• The Chief Financial Officer, the Senior General Counsel, the Director General of Human Resources, the Assistant Secretary of Strategic Communications and Ministerial Affairs the Assistant Secretary of Priorities and Planning (as Secretary to the Committee), and the Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Digital Service are ex officio members. 
• The Director General of Internal Audit and Evaluation will attend Deputies Portfolio Committee as required. 

Meeting Frequency

• The Deputies Portfolio Committee will meet bi-weekly, or as required at the call of the Chair.

Secretariat Support

• The Treasury Board Secretariat’s Committee Secretariat, Priorities and Planning, provides support to the Deputies Portfolio Committee, including: agenda management, advice to the Chair, document distribution, meeting logistics, InfoSite maintenance, tracking and monitoring, and information management.

Mandate

• The Executive Committee is the key forum for consultation and collaboration on policy and internal management issues.

Scope of Activities

• Provides advice to the Secretary of the Treasury Board on the issues and initiatives of highest strategic and horizontal importance to the Government of Canada and to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS).
• Is informed and consulted on key corporate initiatives and business (e.g., Government of Canada Charitable Workplace Campaign, Public Service Employment Survey results and action plans, financial updates, corporate risk profiles, etc.).
• Receives debriefs on the broad directions and operations of the Treasury Board on a quarterly basis, as well as debriefs from other formal governance committees, as required.
• Undertakes an annual self-assessment of performance, in support of accountability and continuous improvement.
• In most cases, Executive Committee review is required before items are presented to Deputy Minister Committees (the Public Service Management Advisory Committee (PSMAC)), Cabinet Committees or the Treasury Board.

Relationship to Other Committees

The Executive Committee is the main information sharing body for the department’s senior executives. Items will come to it from the Treasury Board Secretariat’s other advisory and decision making bodies including Resourcing Committee, Policy Committee and Deputies Portfolio Committee when required.

• Deputies Portfolio Committee (DPC) members decide what items and decisions made at the senior decision making committee, will be communicated with the Executive Committee.
• Resourcing Committee (RC) plays a critical role in the monitoring and oversight of financial management within Treasury Board Secretariat, including reviewing quarterly financial statements and the department’s integrated investment and business plan. It oversees TBS-led projects at key gates. RC also reviews major departmental Treasury Board submissions with resource implications before they are reviewed by the Government Operations Sector (GOS). As required, the Resourcing Committee will provide updates on the work of the committee to the Executive Committee.
• Policy Committee (PC) is responsible for reviewing Treasury Board Secretariat-led policy proposals, including changes to the Treasury Board policy suite, strategic policy issues, medium term policy work, and Cabinet proposals. For policy proposals proceeding to Public Service Management Advisory Committee or other external bodies, the Policy Committee will consider items before they are shared for information to the Executive Committee. As required, the Policy Committee will provide summaries on the work of the committee to the Executive Committee.
• Departmental Human Resources Committee (DHRC) provides strategic direction to the Director General of the Human Resources Division (DG HRD), Secretary, and sectors on issues and initiatives related to internal human resources management, including departmental policies, the departmental human resources plan, recruitment strategies, and talent management, ensuring a consistent approach across the Treasury Board Secretariat. The Departmental Human Resources Committee also reviews key Human Resource (HR) issues before they are presented to the Deputies Portfolio Committee for decision. This would include advice on items such as the Treasury Board Secretariat Human Resources Plan, Human Resources-related strategies (e.g., Analyst Learning and Development, Talent Acquisition), major policy changes, high-risk Human Resources transactions, and other strategic issues, (e.g., Talent Management Approach, etc.). The Chair will advise the Director General of the Human Resources Division whether items should be referred to the Deputies Portfolio Committee or the Executive Committee.
• Performance Measurement and Evaluation Committee (PMEC) is encouraged to debrief the Executive Committee on its activities.
• Ad hoc informal committees, created by the Secretary of the Treasury Board, for specific initiatives, are encouraged to debrief the Executive Committee on their activities, at the discretion of the Chair.

Membership

• The Executive Committee is chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury Board, or his/her delegate.
• Membership comprises of all Treasury Board Secretariat Deputies, Sector Heads (Assistant Secretaries, Assistant Comptrollers General, Assistant Deputy Ministers), as well as other direct reports to Treasury Board Secretariat Deputies.
• Replacements are permitted only when the member is away for three consecutive days. The Treasury Board Secretariat Committees Secretariat must be advised of any replacements.

Presentation Requirements

• The purpose of Executive Committee engagement must be clear. Presentations to the Executive Committee should also address: risks, financial, and horizontal considerations, as well as outcomes of prior consultations.
• Draft presentation material should be submitted to the Treasury Board Secretariat Committees Secretariat in one official language two weeks prior to the planned Executive Committee meeting date.
  • The Treasury Board Secretariat Committees Secretariat will work to review presentation material to ensure appropriate framing of issues and will communicate decision as to whether the item will be considered by the Executive Committee.
  • Final presentation material must be submitted to the Treasury Board Secretariat Committees Secretariat in both official languages one week prior to the planned meeting date.
  • The Treasury Board Secretariat Committees Secretariat reserves the right to defer items if presentation material is submitted late.
• Presentations (for decision or discussion) are limited to 5-7 minutes to allow up to 25 minutes for discussion.
• Updates (for information) are limited to 10 minutes, including time for questions.
  • The Assistant Secretary, Priorities and Planning, reserves the right to circulate information items secretarially rather than allocate time on the agenda.

Official Languages

• Executive Committee meetings are bilingual.
  • Debriefs, presentations, and updates must be delivered in both official languages; members may ask questions and presenters may respond to questions in the official language of their choice.
• The Treasury Board Secretariat Committees Secretariat will monitor the extent to which both Official Languages are used and report to the Secretary annually.

Meeting Frequency

• The Executive Committee meets bi-weekly, or as required at the discretion of the Chair.

Secretariat Support

• The Treasury Board Secretariat Committees Secretariat, Priorities and Planning, provides support to the Executive Committee, including: agenda management, advice to the Chair, document distribution, meeting logistics, InfoSite maintenance, tracking and monitoring, and information management.
• The Executive Director, Priorities and Planning, is the Secretary to the Executive Committee.

Actions to support flexible decision making

With the sudden shift to distributed work, the Treasury Board began to meet virtually and on a more flexible, ad-hoc schedule. This allowed the Treasury Board to consider and approve pandemic-related measures on an expedited basis. To support this “virtual” Treasury Board and expedite access to COVID-19-related funding, TBS adopted flexibilities related to Treasury Board submissions, such as permitting electronic signatures and submissions, clarifying classification requirements, and additional format and context-related flexibilities.

To support Treasury Board’s function as the Cabinet committee responsible for approving federal regulations, TBS and the Privy Council Office agreed on an approach to prioritize COVID-19-related regulatory proposals for consideration by the Treasury Board.

In addition, to expedite response efforts and prevent its own policies from unintentionally impeding the government’s COVID-19 response, the Treasury Board delegated to its President a number of authorities that it would normally exercise collectively. Under this new delegation (or “extraordinary authority”), the President could grant departmental requests for exemptions and exceptions to Treasury Board policies and forego the resource-intensive process of developing, submitting and considering a formal Treasury Board submission. This was not a blanket authority: it was time bound, limited in scope and its use was reported to the other members of the Treasury Board.^{Footnote 5} TBS also made use of existing delegations from the Treasury Board to the President and senior departmental officials to allow for expedited decision making and increase flexibility where appropriate. These flexibilities extended not only to the approval of new programs, but also reduced administrative and reporting burdens to allow departments to focus on the pandemic response.

In addition to these changes, the Treasury Board introduced specific authorities to support flexible decision-making by departments. For instance, on 20 March 2020, the Treasury Board approved temporary amendments to emergency contracting limits, including an unlimited emergency contracting limit for the Minister of Public Services and Procurement for COVID-19 vaccines.^{Footnote 6}

Guidance and advice to support flexible decision making

To support their pandemic response, TBS provided departments with guidance on Treasury Board policy requirements as well as advice on the implementation of new measures, such as the extension of contract limits. In some cases, existing policy instruments still applied, but guidance was necessary to advise departments on how they applied in the pandemic context.

TBS also mobilized government-wide functional communities to provide expertise and assistance. For instance, the Office of the Comptroller General (OCG) encouraged early engagement by departments of Chief Audit Executives and internal audit functions, who were able to advise on how best to document decisions and weigh risks in the light of probable future audits.

During the crisis, departments looked to TBS for much more guidance than is the case in ordinary circumstances. As a result, TBS shifted towards a stronger “advise and support” role than it has traditionally played. These expectations for guidance increased pressure on TBS. The development and provision of guidance is resource intensive, and there are inherent challenges in crafting guidance that is relevant and useful for departments and agencies that vary widely in terms of size and mandate. Given ongoing departmental expectations for guidance, TBS sectors have sought to distinguish between situations when whole-of-government advice from the centre is required and when tailor-made responses led by departments are called for.

Experiences of Departments and Agencies

"The feedback...on these flexibilities was overwhelmingly positive and uniform across departments and agencies."

According to the 2020-21 Management Accountability Framework Adapting in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic report:

The feedback...on these flexibilities was overwhelmingly positive and uniform across departments and agencies. Most departments and agencies reported that the temporary policy flexibilities were very helpful in obtaining the human and financial resources needed to focus on the COVID-19 pandemic response. Organizations also stated that the temporary policy flexibilities allowed key business processes, such as hiring and onboarding, to continue smoothly during the COVID-19 pandemic.^{Footnote 7}

Similarly, TBS’ Exemptions Report found that “Despite the higher relative risk involved, departments have indicated that these [policy] exemptions and exceptions were crucial for maintaining departmental operations and found that TBS was responsive in putting the exemptions and exceptions in place."^{Footnote 8} Given the relief afforded by these flexibilities, it is unsurprising that many departments have been eager to see them continue.^{Footnote 9} More broadly speaking, some have suggested a further simplification of the Treasury Board policy suite. As one department put it in a survey on TBS’ performance in 2019-20:

Overall, our feeling is that there is still value in reducing the 'web of rules' and placing more emphasis on the quality of leadership, management and the consequent results of our people, including both outcomes for citizens and also the way that they affect staff wellness and innovation.… It also means creating more mechanisms for non-compliance with rulesets when they are not in the public interest.^{Footnote 10}

Departments were appreciative of TBS guidance during the pandemic, with some pointing to the positive impact of ongoing calls with functional leaders at TBS. As OCG had advised, some departments integrated their internal audit function into their governance and decision-making processes.^{Footnote 11} When asked how to improve the implementation of Treasury Board policies and related instruments, departments called for increased access to TBS advice and for increased capacity at TBS to provide that advice.^{Footnote 12}

Actions to Support People Management and Wellbeing

As the employer, Treasury Board played an important role in responding to the impacts of COVID-19 on federal personnel. The Treasury Board, its President and TBS undertook a number of actions to support public servants and people management during the pandemic. Perhaps the most significant of these was the President’s 13 March 2020 announcement that public servants should work from home wherever possible. This facilitated a massive shift in the everyday working lives of public servants and the creation, overnight, of a largely distributed federal public service.

Through the Office of the Chief Human Resource Officer (OCHRO), TBS has assisted departments and employees in adapting to this new reality. Over 50 pieces of guidance in areas such as equipping employees remotely, the use of “Other Leave with Pay” (under leave code 699) and performance management in a remote context were issued by OCHRO over the course of the pandemic. OCHRO also developed resources related to mental health challenges for the public service, and put in place temporary measures for public service health care plans, including widening employee access to mental health care. In July 2020, OCHRO also released a guidebook to assist departments in preparing for an eventual return to federal worksites, recognizing that the situation was still in flux.

Responding to the pandemic required new approaches to mobilizing and deploying staff. Public servants volunteered to support new pandemic-related functions, such as call centres, and federal employees were also seconded to assist with provincial and territorial response efforts. This increased mobility was also reflected at TBS, where a number of executives and employees were seconded to the COVID-19 Task Force at Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Experiences of Departments and Agencies

The sudden shift to distributed work created new opportunities and challenges for people management in the Government of Canada. Distributed work arrangements have offered new flexibilities for employees, though concerns have been raised regarding the impacts of the pandemic and distributed work on mental health. According to the 2020 Public Service Employee Survey, “11% of employees indicated that the stress of the pandemic was negatively impacting their ability to carry out day‑to‑day work responsibilities,” and 21% of employees reported balancing work and caregiving responsibilities during the pandemic as a source of stress. At the same time, 68% of employees saw their workplace as psychologically healthy, up from 61% in 2019.^{Footnote 14}

A number of departments have called for timelier guidance from TBS on people management issues, including on the use of paid leave (under leave code 699) and the provision of equipment for teleworking employees. The development of advice on these types of people management issues was time and resource-intensive; as observed in the Exemptions Report, this process

required engagement with bargaining agents and departmental heads of HR and others. The specificity of guidance needs to recognize the challenge of developing guidance for a very heterogenous public service that was geographically dispersed across the country and hence, across several public health jurisdictions.^{Footnote 15}

Further, as this study notes, “Issuance of clarified guidance in November 2020 [on 699 leave] took time, particularly given the level of rigor, governance, and approvals.”^{Footnote 16} This suggests the potential value of iterative and ongoing guidance in future crisis situations.

Actions to support Digital Operations and Services

To support the shift to a “virtual” government created by the pandemic, the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) at TBS provided whole-of-government leadership to promote the communication of key information related to the pandemic, the effective delivery of digital services and the equipping of departments to maintain operations. OCIO assisted in managing the government’s legislative and policy responsibilities by providing guidance related to Access to Information and personal information requests, proactive publication and information management.

"Since March 2020, SSC increased SRA [secure remote access] capacity by 111% to support 290,000 simultaneous connections. As a result, public servants were able to continue delivering services to Canadians and maintain operations following the work from home order."

In response to the pandemic, the Government of Canada accelerated a digital shift previously underway that enabled continuity of government operations and of services to the public. OCIO and Shared Services Canada (SSC) worked together to strengthen and expand the Government of Canada’s network capacity and introduced tools, including Microsoft Teams, which supported distributed and collaborative work by public servants. The transition to distributed work also required that SSC increase the bandwidth and IT support structure to ensure that the government’s digital infrastructure could support a high volume of internet traffic. OCIO and SSC also worked closely to support departments on the front-line of the pandemic response, such as the Canada Revenue Agency and Employment and Social Development Canada, to ensure that the critical services offered by these departments were supported by reliable, secure IT infrastructure.

TBS leveraged internal and external relationships to support government-wide initiatives and deliver expedited results. For example, TBS collaborated across the federal government, with other Canadian jurisdictions and sectors, and across national borders, to establish a coordinated digital response to COVID-19. The Canadian Digital Service (CDS) worked with private sector partners, as well as provincial and territorial jurisdictions, to design, repurpose, and deliver products and services including the COVID Alert exposure notification app, which was launched using open-source code.

CDS worked with Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada to help introduce a new notification service called “Get Updates on COVID-19,” which was built using open-source code from the U.K. Digital Service. This work was also led by TBS employees on secondment to Health Canada. This email notification system provides updates and pertinent information to millions of people in Canada on a regular basis. This tool is, by design, easily scalable and has been adopted by other governments across Canada.

TBS also worked closely with digital partners and engaged with federal departments and agencies to accelerate publication and improve the usability and discoverability of open data and open information related to COVID-19 to support greater transparency.

Experiences of Departments and Agencies

The transition to distributed work significantly increased the need for and demands on network capacity and collaborative tools. OCIO and SSC played a significant role in supporting operational continuity and the shift to a distributed workforce. In interviews conducted to support the 2020-21 Management Accountability Framework assessment, “The support SSC provided to its GC partner organizations was the most frequently cited enabling factor to overcoming challenges departments and agencies faced as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the immediate need to move to a remote workforce."^{Footnote 18}

The rollout of Microsoft Teams was foundational to supporting a new digital workspace for public servants. Microsoft Teams enabled increased engagement with employees in fora such as digital town halls; it was used by departments to support hiring practices, onboarding and training, and sessions on mental health. Microsoft Teams also allowed for closer communication with regional employees. One department noted that the pre-pandemic adoption of Microsoft Teams had smoothed its transition to a distributed workforce, and departments that had already invested in and embraced a “digital first” mindset and related tools found it often made the transition more straightforward.

The shift to distributed work meant many employees did not have access to the Secret Network. In some cases, this led to documents being correctly reclassified as not secret and dealt with on the normal network, but in other cases this limited the ability of departments to deal with secret material. While OCIO worked with SSC and functional communities to develop guidance on how to appropriately manage classified information while working remotely, some departments reported risk-managing the “safe handling of sensitive and secret information” while awaiting guidance from TBS.^{Footnote 19}

Departments have raised concerns regarding barriers to sharing data between federal departments and agencies, across jurisdictions and with other key stakeholders. Even when data is shared, there are challenges regarding interoperability and standardization, as well as a lack of understanding as to what data exists or is being collected by different levels of government. Some federal departments, including Statistics Canada, are supporting data communities of practice. Others have recommended that the government invest in enabling platforms to allow for the exchange of data across the public service.

The Covid-19 pandemic required governments to pivot and adapt in order to best respond to the crisis.

TBS, and the broader public service, were no exceptions to this rule. The flexibilities, guidance and hands-on support provided by TBS helped departments focus their efforts on the pandemic and protect and support the public. The experience also suggests several opportunities for action for TBS as it continues to support the public service in future challenges. TBS should aim to:

1. Increase its support for outcomes-based decision making.
2. Balance its role as an oversight and enabling organization, by strengthening its advisory capacity and clarifying departmental authorities.
3. Do more to support effective partnerships between federal departments and with other jurisdictions and sectors of society, including in sharing data.
4. Strengthen supports for front-line management in the Government of Canada.
5. Keep digital and process changes from the pandemic; extend those that require extending.

New challenges will no doubt emerge in the years to come. The more TBS can do to support and enable departments, helping them focus on and deliver concrete outcomes while ensuring that the appropriate controls are in place and risks are managed, the better prepared the public service will be for those future challenges.

Principles to Guide Departmental Hybrid Workplans Across Government

Work is underway to…

Determine how to best prepare the department operationally for a post- pandemic context*

1. Assess operational requirements: Examine position duties, accountabilities, and responsibilities
2. Determine infrastructure requirements: Assess Information Technology capacity to support a hybrid workforce
3. Engage employees: Potentially through workshops, surveys, and interviews to inform opportunities and challenges in an evolving environment. This includes staff, managers, and senior officials

*The original document provided to the Secretary contained an asterisk at this point corresponding to a note stating “See Annex C.” However, the original document did not contain an Annex C. Therefore, for the publication version, we have omitted the note.”

Work will need to be done to…

• Review internal policies for flexibilities to facilitate the hybrid model
• Determine the optimal hybrid model for the Treasury Board Secretariat that leaves flexibility between sectors
• Update Information Technology capacity and invest in workspace and building redesign

Work is ongoing to…

• Provide executives guidance for managing in a hybrid environment as public health measures evolve

Overview

Provide an overview of the operating vote and central votes of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS)

Current initiatives:

Enabling administrative policy development through continuous improvement, supported by the right processes, tools and data

Supporting horizontal integration across the Treasury Board Policy Suite

• Promoting more integrated, user-centric policy and helping to prevent duplication through the ADM-level Policy Integration Committee

Evolving Treasury Board Policy Suite infrastructure and processes to become more user-centric and streamlined

• Develop more efficient approaches to updating Treasury Board policy instruments (e.g., omnibus Treasury Board submission, delegations, etc.)
• Updating the Treasury Board Policy Suite webpage to become more user-centric and to help track, analyze, and report on the cumulative impact and trends in policies

Understanding and addressing unique concerns of smaller organizations

• Working with Heads of Federal Agencies (representing 80 small departments and agencies) to identify opportunities to reduce reporting burden

On the horizon:

Following Policy Suite Reset, the policy suite is better positioned to evolve through innovation and iteration

Adapting and adjusting the Treasury Board Policy Suite to a changing landscape and priorities

• Considering the Future of Work for the public service, lessons from the response to the Pandemic, and the impacts of the changes to Treasury Board Policy Suite from the first wave of Reset

Breakdown of Statutory Authorities

Of the $217.5B in planned 2021-22 statutory expenditures, major transfer payments account for 68.5%. Of the 250 statutory items listed as of 2021-22 Supplementary Estimates A, the 10 largest are:

Breakdown of Government of Canada Expenses

Text version

Pie chart depicting the four categories of Government of Canada Expenses. Transfer payments occupy 15%, other direct program expenses occupy 28%, major transfers occupy 50%, and public debt charges occupy 7%.

Government of Canada Expenses in 2019-20, by Type of Programming

Major transfers represent half of total government expenses, while other direct program expenses cover another third.

Note: Net actuarial losses included under ‘Other Direct Program Expenses’.
Source: Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada, 2019-20

Net Budgetary Expenditures

Planned statutory expenditures (payments made under legislation previously approved by Parliament) as a proportion of government spending are decreasing, from 60.6% in 2019-20 to 56.7% in 2021-22. Overall government spending is increasing from $303.6B in 2019-20 to $383.4B planned for 2021-22 due to the COVID-19 response.

Text version

Parliamentary Authorities

Supplementary Estimates A. Voted expenditures totaled 165.8 billion dollars (43.3%), while statutory expenditures totaled 217.5 billion dollars (56.7%).

Composition of Actual Expenditures

Pie chart displaying the composition of actual expenditures in 2019-2020. which totaled 303.6 billion dollars as at Public Accounts, 2019-2020. Voted expenditures totaled 119.7 billion dollars (39.4%), while statutory expenditures totaled 183.9 billion dollars (60.6%).

Parliamentary Authorities
$383.4B as of 2021-22 Supplementary Estimates A

	Voted	Statutory
*Other Budgets include: Treasury Board central votes, payments to Crown corporations. Source: Treasury Board Secretariat, June 2021
Transfer to Persons		$62.8B
Transfer to Other Levels of Governments	$2.6B	$86.6B
Other Transfer Payments	$61.6B
Operating and Other Budgets*	$91.3B
Capital Payments	$10.3B
Other Statutory Payments		$46.7B
Public Debts		$21.3B
Total	$165.8B (43.3%)	$217.5B (56.7%)

Voted Authorities and Expenditures

Government expenditures have generally risen over time, reaching $119.7 billion in 2019-20.

Text version

Comparative line graph describing voted authorities and expenditures. The X-axis shows the fiscal year, and the Y-axis shows dollars in billions.

Year	Authorities Available	Expenditures
2000-2001	$56,281,843,494	$53,537,319,238
2001-2002	$60,112,380,622	$58,511,725,864
2002-2003	$62,100,877,459	$58,511,725,864
2003-2004	$66,469,403,726	$61,037,036,358
2004-2005	$69,592,889,313	$64,217,385,492
2005-2006	$70,379,179,525	$65,210,027,059
2006-2007	$75,825,284,975	$69,633,087,434
2007-2008	$84,635,295,932	$76,603,718,101
2008-2009	$87,343,158,866	$80,677,910,663
2009-2010	$97,629,693,338	$87,471,108,579
2010-2011	$104,281,201,649	$92,636,171,227
2011-2012	$99,894,737,416	$89,717,871,422
2012-2013	$98,646,872,817	$87,708,965,710
2013-2014	$94,753,671,352	$86,881,410,076
2014-2015	$93,954,663,634	$84,160,464,446
2015-2016	$95,358,197,661	$85,169,699,945
2016-2017	$103,671,334,330	$92,748,873,806
2017-2018	$115,035,108,699	$103,688,179,872
2018-2019	$123,594,789,126	$109,783,245,643
2019-2020	$135,125,309,893	$119,731,891,080

* Budgetary authorities and expenditures exclude non-budgetary outlays related to loans, investments and advances.

** Voted authorities and expenditures are approved through supply bills with unused authorities lapsing at the end of the year. They exclude spending that is authorized on a continuing basis through statutes such as the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act or the Employment Insurance Act.

Source: Treasury Board Secretariat, December 2020

Expenses as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Expenses have remained relatively constant as a percentage of GDP.

Text version

Line graph describing expenses as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). The X-axis shows the fiscal year, and the Y-axis shows the percentage of GDP.

Year	GDP
2000-2001	15.8%
2001-2002	15.4%
2002-2003	15.4%
2003-2004	15.3%
2004-2005	15.9%
2005-2006	14.9%
2006-2007	15%
2007-2008	15%
2008-2009	14.9%
2009-2010	17.6%
2010-2011	16.5%
2011-2012	15.5%
2012-2013	15.1%
2013-2014	14.6%
2014-2015	14.1%
2015-2016	14.8%
2016-2017	15.3%
2017-2018	15.4%
2018-2019	15.6%
2019-2020	16.2%

*Expenses are recorded when incurred, as opposed to expenditures which are recorded when the cash is paid. Expenses encompass all spending by the Government of Canada, including direct program expenses, major transfers to people and other levels of government and public debt charges.

Source: Fiscal Reference Tables, 2020

Federal Government Compensation

Text version

A pie chart breaks down Federal Government Compensation costs in 2019-20.

Salaries totaled $34 billion, and made up 52% of total federal compensation costs.

Other wage costs totaled $2.5 billion, and made up 4% of total federal compensation costs.

Benefits totaled $17.5 billion, and made up 27% of total federal compensation costs.

Pensions totaled $8.1 billion, and made up 12% of total federal compensation costs.

Employer obligations totaled $1.9 billion, and made up 3% of total federal compensation costs.

Consolidated Crown Corporation personnel costs totaled $1.8 billion, and made up 3% of total federal compensation cos

*Note: Compensation costs by component, e.g., salaries, pensions and benefits, are not available for Crown corporations. The sum of compensation components may not be equal to the total compensation cost due to rounding. Data as of June 2021.

Source: Treasury Board Secretariat, June 2021

Personnel Expenses*

Text version

Comparative line graph describing Government of Canada personnel expenses. The Y-axis shows the dollars in billions, and the X-axis shows the date.

In the 2010 to 2011 fiscal year, personnel expenses were $42,297,102,000 and professional and special services were an additional $7,902,900,000.

In the 2011 to 2012 fiscal year, personnel expenses were $43,837,673,000 and professional and special services were an additional $7,997,818,000.

In the 2012 to 2013 fiscal year, personnel expenses were $46,133,475,000 and professional and special services were an additional $7,513,860,000.

In the 2013 to 2014 fiscal year, personnel expenses were $44,993,653,000 and professional and special services were an additional $7,753,524,000.

In the 2014 to 2015 fiscal year, personnel expenses were $43,810,483,000 and professional and special services were an additional $8,090,232,000.

In the 2015 to 2016 fiscal year, personnel expenses were $50,170,703,000 and professional and special services were an additional $8,353,052,000.

In the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year, personnel expenses were $50,107,857,000 and professional and special services were an additional $9,701,836,000.

In the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year, personnel expenses were $60,293,462,000 and professional and special services were an additional $10,404,283,000.

In the 2018 to 2019 fiscal year, personnel expenses were $57,682,000,000 billions and professional and special services were an additional $11,036,000,000.

In the 2019 to 2020 fiscal year, personnel expenses were $65,793,806,000 and professional and special services were an additional $11,042,332,000.

From 2010-11 to 2019-20, personnel expenses averaged $48.8B. As of 2019-20, personnel expenses were $65.8B.

Personnel expenses include ‘net actuarial losses’ which, as of the 2019-20 Public Accounts, displays this amount separately.  In 2019-20, personnel expenses increased to $65.8B from $57.7B in the previous year, largely attributed to higher amortization costs for benefits and pensions.

The approximate 16% average determinate workforce (term, casual, student) and other temporary service (professional and special services) provide some workforce flexibility.

*Data as of June 2021.

Source: Public Accounts of Canada

Public Sector Profile

Text version

The composition of the federal public sector. Text version below.

Federal public sector organizations	Core Public Administration	Separate Agencies	Royal Canadian Mounted Police	Canadian Armed Forces	Crown Corporations and Other
Number of employees	245,739	73,862	21,994	95,773	130,266
Human resource authorities	The Treasury Board has overarching responsibility for human and financial resources management within the Core Public Administration (68 departments).	Employers in their own right, responsible for classification, staffing, and amending changes to terms and conditions of employment for their employees. Separate Agencies must have their collective bargaining mandates approved by the President of the Treasury Board, in advance of bargaining (20 separate agencies).	Uniform and civilian members are employees of the Treasury Board. The Treasury Board has authority under the RCMP Act to set member’s pay and benefits.	CAF members serve at the pleasure of the Crown and are not employees of the Treasury Board. Treasury Board’s authority to establish CAF members’ pay and benefits is provided by the National Defence Act.	As separate legal entities, Crown Corporations have authority over internal human resources. The Governor-in-Council may require a Crown Corporation to obtain Treasury Board approval of their collective bargaining mandates in advance of bargaining.

The federal public sector has 567,634 employees and is made up of:

• the Core Public Administration (245,739 employees)
• Separate Agencies (73,862 employees)
• the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (21,994 employees)
• the Canadian Armed Forces (95,773 employees), and
• Crown Corporations and other organizations (130,266 employees).

The federal government is made up of:

• the Core Public Administration (245,739 employees)
• Separate Agencies (73,862 employees)
• the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (21,994 employees), and
• the Canadian Armed Forces (95,773 employees).

The federal public service is made up of:

• the Core Public Administration (245,739 employees), and
• Separate Agencies (73,862 employees).

Note: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police regular force (uniform) and civilian members as well as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police civilian staff hired under the Public Service Employment Act fall within the core public administration (CPA) according to the Financial Administration Act. However, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regular force and civilian members are not included in the Treasury Board Secretariat’s Core Public Administration numbers as their data is not captured in the pay system and thus cannot be reported on by the various demographics. For this reason, Royal Canadian Mounted Police regular force and civilian members are reported on separately to ensure that the Core Public Administration total aligns across various publications, reports and slides.

Source: Treasury Board Secretariat, March 2021

Geographic Distribution of the Federal Public Service Workforce

43.4% of public servants work in the National Capital Region (NCR). An additional 24.9% work in Ontario and Quebec (excluding the National Capital Region).

The Federal Public Service includes the Core Public Administration and Separate Agencies.
Excludes those with missing location information (8,845 employees). Source: Treasury Board Secretariat, March 31, 2021

Workforce Overview

Core Public Administration (CPA) by Occupational Group

About 38% of employees in the CPA work in Administrative Services (AS), Program Administration (PM), or Clerical and Regulatory (CR). Outside the National Capital Region, this proportion increases to 42%.

Text version

Six bar graphs showing the share of key occupations in the Core Public Administration population, from March 2017 to Marcy 2021.

The y axis shows the percentage of the Core Public Administration workforce, and the x axis shows occupational group.

In 2017, the Administrative Services (AS) occupational group made up 14.4% of the Core Public Administration workforce. In 2018, it made up 14.7%. In 2019, it made up 15.4%. In 2020, it made up 16%. In 2021, it made up 16%.

In 2017, the Programme Administration (PM) occupational group made up 11.8% of the Core Public Administration workforce. In 2018, it made up 11.8%. In 2019, it made up 11.6%. In 2020, it made up 12.3%. In 2021, it made up 13.8%.

In 2017, the Clerical and Regulatory (CR) occupational group made up 10.8% of the Core Public Administration workforce. In 2018, it made up 10.6%. In 2019, it made up 10.2%. In 2020, it made up 9.2%. In 2021, it made up 8.5%.

In 2017, the Economics and Social Sciences Services (EC) occupational group made up 7.1% of the Core Public Administration workforce. In 2018, it made up 7.4%. In 2019, it made up 7.8%. In 2020, it made up 8.2%. In 2021, it made up 8.6%.

In 2017, the Computer Systems (CS) occupational group made up 6.8% of the Core Public Administration workforce. In 2018, it made up 6.8%. In 2019, it made up 7%. In 2020, it made up 7.2%. In 2021, it made up 7.2%.

In 2017, the Executive (EX) occupational group made up 2.6% of the Core Public Administration workforce. In 2018, it made up 2.5%. In 2019, it made up 2.6%. In 2020, it made up 2.6%. In 2021, it made up 2.6%.

Source: Treasury Board Secretariat, March 2021 (Pay System)

Official Language Status of Core Public Administration Positions

Text version

Bar graph describing the percentage of bilingual and unilingual positions. The x-axis shows the date and the Y-axis shows the percentage.

In 2000, 35.7% bilingual and 64.3% unilingual; in 2005, 39.8% bilingual and 60.2% unilingual; in 2010, 41.1% bilingual and 58.9% unilingual; in 2015, 43.4% bilingual and 56.6% unilingual; in 2020, 42.4% bilingual and 57.6% unilingual.

Source: TBS, March 2020

Text version

Bar graph describing the linguistic status of incumbents. The x-axis shows the percentage and the y-axis shows the year.

Source: TBS, March 2020

• The percentage of bilingual positions has increased from 35.7% in 2000 to 42.4% in 2020.
• In 2020, the National Capital Region (64.2%), Quebec (excluding the National Capital Region) (67.5%) and New Brunswick (50.7%) had the highest proportion of bilingual positions.
• Between 2000 and 2015, the percentage of employees meeting the language requirements of their positions steadily increased. It has remained stable over the past six years.

Note: Includes Core Public Administration (CPA) employees only, indeterminate and terms 3 months or more.

• Official Languages data in the charts are up to March 2020.
• Official Languages data for the FY 2020-21 will be published in the Official Languages Annual Report in 2021.

Employment Equity (EE) in the Core Public Administration

Text version

Four bar graphs describing employment equity in the CPA by designated group. The X-axis shows the date and the Y-axis shows designated group representation in the public service by percentage. Below the bar graphs is a chart showing the work force availability of employment equity groups in 2010 and 2020.

The first bar graph shows women. In 2010, women represented 54.8% of those in the public service and in 2020, this number increased by 0.2% to 55%. In 2010, the workforce availability for women was 52.3%; in 2020, it was 52.7%.

The second bar graph shows Indigenous Peoples. In 2010, Indigenous Peoples represented 4.6% of those in the public service and in 2020, this number increased by 0.5% to 5.1%. In 2010, the workforce availability for Indigenous peoples was 3%; in 2020, it was 4%.

The third bar graph shows persons with disabilities. In 2010, persons with disabilities represented 5.7% of those in the public service and in 2020, this number decreased by 0.5% to 5.2%.
The 2017 Canadian Survey on Disabilities expanded the definition of Persons with Disabilities (PwD) to include disabilities relating to pain and mental health. Work Force Availability in 2020 for PwD when adjusted to the former definition of PwD is close to 2010 representation.
In 2010, the workforce availability for persons with disabilities was 4%; in 2020, it was 9%.

The fourth bar graph shows visible minorities. In 2010, visible minorities represented 10.7% of those in the public service, and in 2020, this number increased by 7.1% to 17.8%. In 2010, the workforce availability for visible minorities was 12.4%; in 2020, it was 15.3%.

*The 2017 Canadian Survey on Disabilities expanded the definition of Persons with Disabilities (PwD) to include disabilities relating to pain and mental health. Work Force Availability in 2020 for Persons with Disabilities when adjusted to the former definition of Persons with Disabilities is close to 2010 representation.

Source: Treasury Board Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat-Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer as of March 31, 2010, and March 31, 2020

Overall, employment equity (EE) representation of women, Indigenous peoples and members of visible minorities across the public service has been improving, but there is much more work to be done.

Significant representation gaps persist at executive levels

Text version

A combination line and bar graph; the line graph describes the representation of women by percentage at the executive level, and the bar graph shows executive workforce availability of women by percentage. The X-axis shows the year, and Y-axis shows the percentage.

	2000	2005	2010	2015	2020
EX Work Force Availability		42.1%	44.7%	47.8%	48.0%
EX-01 to EX-03	28.8%	37.4%	44.3%	46.0%	51.5%
Assistant Deputy Minister	23.4%	33.9%	40.8%	40.8%	44.8%

	2000	2005	2010	2015	2020
EX Work Force Availability		42.1%	44.7%	47.8%	48.0%
EX-01 to EX-03	28.8%	37.4%	44.3%	46.0%	51.5%
Assistant Deputy Minister	23.4%	33.9%	40.8%	40.8%	44.8%

Text version

A combination line and bar graph; the line graph describes the representation of visible minorities by percentage at the executive level, and the bar graph shows executive workforce availability of visible minorities by percentage. The X-axis shows the year, and Y-axis shows the percentage.

	2000	2005	2010	2015	2020
EX Work Force Availability		6.4%	7.6%	9.5%	10.6%
EX-01 to EX-03	3.2%	5.3%	7.4%	9.1%	11.6%
Assistant Deputy Minister	2.2%	3.3%	5.0%	7.1%	9.3%

	2000	2005	2010	2015	2020
EX Work Force Availability		6.4%	7.6%	9.5%	10.6%
EX-01 to EX-03	3.2%	5.3%	7.4%	9.1%	11.6%
Assistant Deputy Minister	2.2%	3.3%	5.0%	7.1%	9.3%

Source: Pay System and Employment Equity Data Bank (EEDB) as of March 31st of each year. The Law Management (LC) occupational group is included in representation and Work Force Availability (WFA) as of March 31, 2020.
The 2020 Work Force Availability for persons with disabilities is based on the expanded definition of disability used in the 2017 Canadian Survey on Disability, which includes episodic and non-visible disabilities. The 2020 representation of persons with disabilities is based on a previous definition.

Text version

A combination line and bar graph; the line graph describes the representation of Indigenous peoples by percentage at the executive level, and the bar graph shows executive workforce availability of Indigenous peoples by percentage. The X-axis shows the year, and Y-axis shows the percentage.

	2000	2005	2010	2015	2020
EX Work Force Availability		3.7%	4.3%	5.2%	5.1%
EX-01 to EX-03	2.0%	3.1%	3.8%	3.6%	4.2%
Assistant Deputy Minister	0.9%	0.7%	2.5%	1.8%	3.0%

	2000	2005	2010	2015	2020
EX Work Force Availability		3.7%	4.3%	5.2%	5.1%
EX-01 to EX-03	2.0%	3.1%	3.8%	3.6%	4.2%
Assistant Deputy Minister	0.9%	0.7%	2.5%	1.8%	3.0%

Text version

A combination line and bar graph; the line graph describes the representation of persons with disabilities by percentage at the executive level, and the bar graph shows executive workforce availability of persons with disabilities by percentage. The X-axis shows the year, and Y-axis shows the percentage.

	2000	2005	2010	2015	2020
EX Work Force Availability		2.6%	4.0%	2.3%	5.3%
EX-01 to EX-03	3.0%	5.6%	5.9%	5.4%	4.7%
Assistant Deputy Minister	1.7%	3.3%	2.5%	2.2%	3.8%

	2000	2005	2010	2015	2020
EX Work Force Availability		2.6%	4.0%	2.3%	5.3%
EX-01 to EX-03	3.0%	5.6%	5.9%	5.4%	4.7%
Assistant Deputy Minister	1.7%	3.3%	2.5%	2.2%	3.8%

Source: Pay System and Employment Equity Data Bank (EEDB) as of March 31st of each year. LCs are included in representation and Work Force Availability (WFA) as of March 31, 2020.
The 2020 Work Force Availability for persons with disabilities is based on the expanded definition of disability used in the 2017 Canadian Survey on Disability, which includes episodic and non-visible disabilities. The 2020 representation of persons with disabilities is based on a previous definition.

State of Information Technology (IT)

Text version

Comparative bar graph describing Government of Canada Information Technology (I.T.) Expenditures. The X-axis shows the year, and the Y-axis shows dollars in billions.

Year	Departments	Shared Services Canada
2009 to 2010	5.5 billion dollars on I.T.
2010 to 2011	5.3 billion dollars on I.T.
2011 to 2012	4.9 billion dollars on I.T.
2012 to 2013	3.4 billion dollars on I.T	1.7 billion dollars on I.T.
2013 to 2014	3.1 billion dollars on I.T	2.0 billion dollars on I.T.
2014 to 2015	3.2 billion dollars on I.T	2.0 billion dollars on I.T.
2015 to 2016	3.4 billion dollars on I.T	1.9 billion dollars on I.T.
2016 to 2017	3.7 billion dollars on I.T	2.1 billion dollars on I.T.
2017 to 2018	4.0 billion dollars on I.T	2.3 billion dollars on I.T.
2018 to 2019	4.4 billion dollars on I.T	2.4 billion dollars on I.T.
2019 to 2020	4.9 billion dollars on I.T	2.6 billion dollars on I.T.

Source: Departmental Information Technology Expenditure Reports

Text version

Pie chart describing Government of Canada Information Technology (I.T.) Expenditures by Category.

$722 million was spent on I.T. Program Management.

$420 million was spent on I.T. Security.

$1362 million was spent on Telecom and Networks.

$1202 million was spent on Production and Operations Computing.

$2640 million was spent on I.T. Applications.

$1189 million was spent on Distributed Computing.

Source: Departmental Information Technology Expenditure Reports for 2019-20

Access to Information and Personal Information Requests

While the number of Personal Information Requests has fluctuated since 1983, the number of Access to Information Requests has steadily increased due mainly to a significant increase in requests submitted to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada since 2012-13. The number of requests to other institutions has been largely stable or in decline. Operational costs related to these requests are also rising. 

Text version

Comparative bar graph and line graph describing Access to Information and Personal Information requests. The left side of the Y-axis shows the number of requests, and the right side shows the cost of operations in millions. The X-axis shows the fiscal year.

In the 1983 to 1984 fiscal year, there were 1,513 access to information requests, and 17,109 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 14.81 million dollars.

In the 1984 to 1985 fiscal year, there were 2,229 access to information requests, and 27,547 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 18.95 million dollars.

In the 1985 to 1986 fiscal year, there were 3,606 access to information requests, and 38,606 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 19.35 million dollars.

In the 1986 to 1987 fiscal year, there were 5,450 access to information requests, and 42,292 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 18.15 million dollars.

In the 1987 to 1988 fiscal year, there were 7,301 access to information requests, and 49,626 personal information requests.
The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 15.78 million dollars.

In the 1988 to 1989 fiscal year, there were 8,853 access to information requests, and 59,631 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 21.59 million dollars.

In the 1989 to 1990 fiscal year, there were 10,234 access to information requests, and 55,505 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 25.01 million dollars.

In the 1990 to 1991 fiscal year, there were 11,093 access to information requests, and 48,430 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 23.67 million dollars.

In the 1991 to 1992 fiscal year, there were 10,387 access to information requests, and 49,732 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 21.33 million dollars.

In the 1992 to 1993 fiscal year, there were 9,729 access to information requests, and 42,713 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 27.93 million dollars.

In the 1993 to 1994 fiscal year, there were 10,422 access to information requests, and 39,060 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 24.47 million dollars.

In the 1994 to 1995 fiscal year, there were 12,861 access to information requests, and 42,147 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 29.60 million dollars.

In the 1995 to 1996 fiscal year, there were 13,124 access to information requests, and 43,137 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 32.02 million dollars.

In the 1996 to 1997 fiscal year, there were 12,476 access to information requests, and 47,532 personal information requests.
The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 33.16 million dollars.

In the 1997 to 1998 fiscal year, there were 12,206 access to information requests, and 43,648 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 32.25 million dollars.

In the 1998 to 1999 fiscal year, there were 14,340 access to information requests, and 41,498 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 35.20 million dollars.

In the 1999 to 2000 fiscal year, there were 19,294 access to information requests, and 41,585 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 39.37 million dollars.

In the 2000 to 2001 fiscal year, there were 20,789 access to information requests, and 104,133 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 57.79 million dollars.

In the 2001 to 2002 fiscal year, there were 21,265 access to information requests, and 36,137 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 52.77 million dollars.

In the 2002 to 2003 fiscal year, there were 22,977 access to information requests, and 37,863 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 54.62 million dollars.

In the 2003 to 2004 fiscal year, there were 25,234 access to information requests, and 54,377 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 50.55 million dollars.

In the 2004 to 2005 fiscal year, there were 25,207 access to information requests, and 36,316 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 51.58 million dollars.

In the 2005 to 2006 fiscal year, there were 27,269 access to information requests, and 36,090 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 68.38 million dollars.

In the 2006 to 2007 fiscal year, there were 29,182 access to information requests, and 34,559 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 65.25 million dollars.

In the 2007 to 2008 fiscal year, there were 31,487 access to information requests, and 39,134 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 77.79 million dollars.

In the 2008 to 2009 fiscal year, there were 34,041 access to information requests, and 36,454 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 86.36 million dollars.

In the 2009 to 2010 fiscal year, there were 35,154 access to information requests, and 41,621 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 85.79 million dollars.

In the 2010 to 2011 fiscal year, there were 41,641 access to information requests, and 48,755 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 94.22 million dollars.

In the 2011 to 2012 fiscal year, there were 43,194 access to information requests, and 50,524 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 102.32 million dollars.

In the 2012 to 2013 fiscal year, there were 55,145 access to information requests, and 55,355 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 102.53 million dollars.

In the 2013 to 2014 fiscal year, there were 60,105 access to information requests, and 56,263 personal information requests.
The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 105.96 million dollars.

In the 2014 to 2015 fiscal year, there were 68,193 access to information requests, and 67,399 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 113.30 million dollars.

In the 2015 to 2016 fiscal year, there were 75,387 access to information requests, and 70,833 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 113.66 million dollars.

In the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year, there were 91,880 access to information requests, and 70,490 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 111.43 million dollars.

In the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year, there were 106,255 access to information requests, and 67,967 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 117.99 million dollars.

In the 2018 to 2019 fiscal year, there were 123,421 access to information requests, and 74,566 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 123.90 million dollars.

In the 2019 to 2020 fiscal year, there were 156,255 access to information requests, and 78,565 personal information requests. The total cost of operations (real dollar 2020) was 130.03 million dollars.

The Access to Information Act and Privacy Act provide a right to request government information and one’s own personal information held by the Government of Canada. The spike in personal information requests in 2000-01 followed the Privacy Commissioner’s 1999-2000 Annual Report which highlighted a database that contained significant personal information about Canadians.
Source: Treasury Board Secretariat

Digital Access and Service Channel Preferences

Text version

Pie chart describing digital access and service channel preferences. It outlines service channel use for Government of Canada services according to the Citizens First Report. Online occupies 40%, telephone occupies 23%, in-person occupies 12%, email occupies 5%, other occupies 5%, and don't know occupies 15%.

Source: CitizensFirst 9 National Report (Institute for Citizen-Centred Service)

Overall, internal and external clients completed 425 million* transactions with the Government of Canada across various channels. Three of these channels were accessed as follows:

1.  40% 
   online
2.  21% 
   by telephone
3.  26% 
   in-person

20% of Government of Canada Services offer services online, by telephone and in-person. Usage rates are different when clients can choose from these three available channels

1.  12% 
   online
2.  75% 
   by telephone
3.  4% 
   in-person

Source: Government of Canada Service Inventory (2019-2020) - open.Canada.ca
*Includes border crossings

Government of Canada External Services

Overall Scope

• 74 Departments*
• 474 Programs
• 1,117 Services
• 360 Priority services

Transactions Processed

157M Online Applications

91M Telephone Calls and Applications

33M Mail Applications

17M In-person Applications**

Service Performance

Out of a total of 207 priority services from Large Departments and Agencies

42% of GC services can be completed on-line from end-to-end

Overall, 54% of all steps required to receive a service were available online

79% of GC services met their service standard targets in 2019-20

*Out of 84 organizations subject to the Policy on Service and Digital
** In-person applications does not include border crossings of 94 million (also known as traveller processing).

Note: Remaining transactions processed are via other channels such as email, fax or radio.
           Clients include: persons (citizens and non-citizens), foreign entities, businesses, non-profits, provinces, territories and communities

Source: Government of Canada Service Inventory (2019-2020) - open.Canada.ca

What We Own: Government of Canada Assets

Treasury Board sets the policy direction for the management of assets and acquired services and makes decisions on departmental proposals, such as investment plans and individual projects

Text version

Pie chart describing Government of Canada tangible capital assets, for a total of 83.6 billion dollars in net book value in the 2019 to 2020 fiscal year.

Vehicles occupy 15.3 billion dollars. Machinery and equipment occupy 12 billion dollars. Buildings occupy 17.8 billion dollars. Works infrastructure occupies 12.1 billion dollars. Land occupies 2.1 billion dollars. Assets under construction occupies 20.1 billion dollars. Finally, other assets occupy 4.2 billion dollars.

Source: 2019-20 Public Accounts Volume 1, Tangible Capital Assets and Volume III, section 5; the Directory of Federal Real Property (government-owned land and buildings)

Procurement

A very steady pattern of concentration of high-volume, low-value contracts and low-volume, high-value contracts has been seen over the past decade.

Federal Real Property

Text version

Pie chart displaying the percentage in Crown-owned land area by the top three reporting organizations. Parks Canada Agency occupies 92%, Environment and Climate Change Canada occupies 6%, National Defence occupies 2%, and all other organizations occupy 1%.

Text version

Pie chart displaying the percentage in Crown-owned floor space by the top ten reporting organizations.

National defence occupies 44%, Public Services and Procurement Canada occupies 14%, Correctional Service Canada occupies 6%, Canada Post occupies 6%, Royal Canadian Mounted Police occupies 4%, Transport Canada occupies 4%, Parks Canada Agency occupies 3%, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada occupies 2%, Fisheries and Oceans Canada occupies 2%, National Research Council Canada occupies 2%, and all other organizations occupy 13%.

• Federal real property belongs to the Crown in right of Canada: administration entrusted to 16 departments, 22 agent Crown corporations and 16 port authorities
• 11,997 properties (39 million hectares) and 33,696 buildings (23.8 million square meters of space)
• Inventory includes office buildings, military bases, laboratories, light stations, penitentiaries, embassies, national parks, customs border crossings and infrastructure such as bridges and dams*
• Approximately 21% of Crown-owned buildings and 21% of floor space are in poor or critical condition

Note: Directory of Federal Real Property as of June 23, 2021. Data includes Crown owned interest type for all reporting organizations.
Source: Treasury Board Secretariat
* Engineering assets are not reported in the Directory of Federal Real Property and thus are excluded from the graphs presented above.

Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2019-20

The Greening Government Strategy defines how the Government of Canada will transition to net-zero carbon and climate-resilient operations, while also reducing environmental impacts beyond carbon, including on waste, water and biodiversity.

Text version

Pie chart describing sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the estimated procurement of air travel and commuting. For a total of 4671 kilotons (Scope 3 - Indirect emissions), the pie chart breaks this down into seven categories.

Procurement: Fleet/equipment maintenance occupies 895 kilotons. Procurement: energy occupies 658 kilotons. Procurement: construction occupies 367 kilotons. Procurement: IT occupies 225 kilotons. Commuting occupies 328 kilotons.
Air travel occupies 220 kilotons. Procurement: other goods and services occupy 1978 kilotons.

*All numbers in kilotonnes (kt) of carbon dioxide equivalent. ** Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions are indirect emissions resulting from an organization’s operations.
Source: Treasury Board Secretariat, July 2021

As of fiscal year 2019-20, emissions from government-owned and leased buildings and conventional fleet have been reduced by 34.6% relative to 2005-06 levels, on track to meeting the 40% reduction by 2025 target.

Text version

Pie chart describing buildings and conventional fleet. For a total of 1177 kilotons (Scope 1-2), the pie chart breaks this down into four categories. Buildings (heating and cooling) occupy 736 kilotons. Aircraft, marine, and other occupy 53 kilotons. Buildings (electricity) occupy 318 kilotons. Road vehicles occupy 71 kilotons.

Text version

Pie chart describing national safety and security fleet. For a total of 951 kilotons (Scope 1), the pie chart breaks this down into three categories. Aircraft occupies 592 kilotons. Ships occupy 278 kilotons. Land occupies 81 kilotons.

*All numbers in kilotonnes (kt) of carbon dioxide equivalent.
** Scope 1 greenhouse gas emissions are those produced directly from sources that are owned or controlled by the Government of Canada (for example, from the combustion of fuels in vehicles or in heating buildings). Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions are those generated indirectly from the consumption of purchased energy (electricity, heating and cooling).
Source: Treasury Board Secretariat, July 2021

The Federal Regulatory System

*includes all statutory orders and regulations (Governor in Council, Ministerial and independent)

Source: Treasury Board Secretariat, June 2021