Public Accounts Committee on March 27th, 2023

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Hogan, thank you for these interesting and instructive reports. I notice that they have two underlying themes that keep coming up.

The first is that data management by government departments and agencies seems to be badly structured and a throwback to another decade. As we saw in the report on the renovation of Parliament, there is also a project management problem. In the private sector, it would not necessarily take two years to make a decision. This problem might be attributed to poor decision-making abilities or a lack of autonomy of the project managers. Both data management and project management leave something to be desired.

The second thing, which is unconscionable, especially for the average taxpayer, is that the government often presents itself as a champion of inclusion and rights for all, but in fact, we often see that these are just words and sadly the objectives are not being met. The song Paroles, Paroles or “Words, Words”, may have been written for the government.

It is really obvious in international assistance. If I understand correctly, in 2021 you were already flagging issues with objectives monitoring and project performance and there has not been any notable improvement since. A lot of money is allocated to programs to help women around the world, which is noble, but we have no way of knowing whether those women are seeing improved outcomes. It is truly a shame to see that. Having worked in that field, I know that donors, benefactors, often demand performance indicators. How is that in Canada, we are not more demanding of the government when it comes to the money we are sending abroad?

Ms. Hogan, you have conducted several performance audits: what is the best practice for monitoring projects and return on investment?

[Karen Hogan]

You raised a number of things, but I will focus on the last one.

In my opinion, performance indicators need to measure two things: products and the progress or results. In our audit on international assistance to support gender equality, 26 indicators were established to monitor progress. However, 24 of those 26 indicators measure only the products, not the results.

For example, we reviewed a project to make schools more welcoming for young girls, including by building washrooms for them and hygiene stations where they could wash their hands. Global Affairs Canada showed us that the washrooms had been built, but follow‑up had not been done on how often girls attend or use the school. That was the real objective.

In my opinion, we need to assess both, products and results, to be able to monitor the progress over the years. Usually several years need to pass before we can assess whether the main objectives have been met.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

What you said about results is very interesting. What is missing within the department? Is it a matter of data, organization or structure?

[Karen Hogan]

I would say it is all those things. The issue is knowing how the department is organized.

In this specific case, it did not give itself a chance to collect the information. At the beginning of the program, the department established performance or progress indicators, but omitted the result indicators. Not establishing them from the start prevented the department from gathering data for years. As I mentioned, it can take several years to meet an objective such as improving hygiene. We need to gather data at the beginning of the project and throughout and I think that is a question of planning.

I admit it is hard to evaluate the results, but it is very important to do so.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

We are talking about $4.5 billion to $5 billion for rehabilitating Parliament's Centre Block. Why was the other work related to rehabilitating Centre Block not included, the rehabilitation of West Block for example, destined to accommodate parliamentarians? Why was the scope of the audit not broader?

[Karen Hogan]

The work on West Block is over and West Block is currently occupied.

We want to focus on the current work. It is a large project that involves many partners. This is the second time that we are getting involved in the rehabilitation of Parliament's Centre Block. The first time, we noticed that the government was slow to make decisions. We wanted to see whether there had been any improvement since the work began.

We noticed that decision-making remains fragmented and takes time. Public Services and Procurement Canada needs to find ways to improve decision-making because many partners are concerned about this project. There needs to be a balance between the environment, accessibility, user needs, as well as the heritage nature of the building. There is a lot to manage and it is time to improve decision-making.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Your time is up, Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné. Thank you very much.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor for up to six minutes, please.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the Auditor General and her office for what I believe are good reports for us as members of the public accounts committee to review. In particular, I really appreciate your opening comments.

Oftentimes when I am in this committee, I find that there's a similar trend, which is that there seem to be processes that are intended to include Canadians, many Canadians from diverse backgrounds, and oftentimes they don't make the mark. For decades and decades people fall behind.

These issues that you're presenting, both the accessibility challenges for persons with disabilities and the digital divide, have been well known to Canadians for a long time. They have felt isolated and alone during that time, but I think what you're saying here in many ways verifies their truth, so I want to thank you for that. It's oftentimes the hardest piece for marginalized groups to obtain a credible assertion to these experiences and, without that, it is very difficult for the government in some part to understand fully the totality of these experiences, so I want to thank you for your work in truly centering people.

I want to talk about the importance of people and the importance of how these investments, or lack thereof, don't, in fact, help some people.

These clear audits, one being the accessibility challenges present within transport and Via Rail and the analogy you used about the lack of a wheelchair upon arrival.... I can only sympathize with that kind of pain and struggle. It would make me fearful of wanting to ever travel and experience the vastness of this great country.

There is a kind of sadness that I think many of us have been on the opposite end of. We have been able to go everywhere, whether it's by plane, train or car. We can go everywhere in this country. We can see the beautiful mountains in my home province, the Great Lakes, or the oceans at both ends. We have that freedom, but persons with disabilities still don't. It's a shameful reality, which I'm happy you have highlighted here, and I hope that our committee in our report truly identifies that changes need to be made within Transport Canada.

I also want to mention the digital divide and how hurtful that digital divide has become, particularly while we navigate COVID. COVID-19 is still with us. It has had a devastating impact on rural and remote areas, more so than urban areas at times. Part of that is the challenges that parents and particularly teachers in rural settings have had.

I have spoken to many teachers whose students didn't have connectivity. That meant that for years, children, particularly on first nations reserves, were unable to learn. That has long-lasting effects. We're talking about the kind of society we want to build, and when we don't include people within our digital space, which is a growing space in Canada and one that first nations find themselves continuously excluded from, it's clear from these reports what has to be done in terms of closing the gap. I really appreciate the Auditor General's work in making sure that these are identified.

Last, I do want to comment on the report on the global efforts toward better outcomes for women, and the fact that, during this really challenging time across the globe, when I believe women's leadership is necessary now more than ever, we're seeing at the same time troubling concerns with the lack of attention towards violence against women, not just here in Canada but right across the globe. It's imperative that our country be a leader in this space and demonstrate the value of women in government and in every organization. It's troubling to hear that the investments toward this end aren't hitting the gaps.

You mentioned, for example, the construction of bathrooms in a school and not knowing how many girls are going to that school. This is a really important piece for us to understand because, of course, we're in Canada, and sometimes we're isolated from these realities. We think that it's awesome that we're investing in this, but often we don't see the gaps of our results, and that's an important piece I also want to mention.

I want to turn directly to the digital divide in first nations communities and speak to some particularly troubling facts.

On your website, you published today, in association with your reports, clear statistics of accessibility challenges for first nations. In my home province of Alberta and right across the Prairies, you can see clearly that we have a huge gap between first nations and the rest of Canadians in those places.

I will just read some of these facts. Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba average below 25% in terms of first nations' accessibility. In Alberta, 26.9% of first nations have digital connectivity. Saskatchewan is at 10%, and Manitoba at 14%, but if you look at comparable jurisdictions just beside Alberta across the border, first nations have 71.5% access. If you look north to the Northwest Territories just north of my province, which is even further, even larger and more remote, it's 74.89%.

Ms. Hogan, why are Alberta and many of the Prairies so far behind these other statistics, particularly for British Columbia and the Northwest Territories?

[Karen Hogan]

It's an excellent question. I knew, when we published this map, that we would get this kind of question, but we really sat back and didn't dissect it by province. Our objective was to see whether the government was meeting its goal overall. When you look at all of the first nations reserves together, it's clear that, when six out of 10 households do not have Internet, that is the majority.

It's really a fundamental need in today's society. The pandemic has just accelerated that need. I would point to the slowness in the approval of some of the funding projects that are available. We know the funding is there. It's just that the two entities are slow to approve those projects, and the longer it takes for projects to get out there, the longer individuals in the Prairies and other parts of the country will wait.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

We'll turn now to Mrs. Gray.

You have the floor for three minutes.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to everyone for being here today.

My questions are on “Report 1: Accessible Transportation for Persons With Disabilities”.

My first question is this. Were you concerned by the delayed or failed uptake in accessibility training by the senior management at Via Rail and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, even when it was mandatory?

[Karen Hogan]

I am always concerned when training isn't taken, but more so here, when it comes to accessibility needs. The training of supervisors and executives is just as essential as that of those who actually deliver the services, because they either set the policies or guide and exercise oversight over individuals who provide direct services.

Here, the training needs to be done within 60 days of employment, and then it needs to be repeated; it needs to be refreshed. It really does help identify unconscious biases and tackle what I would say is an attitudinal barrier sometimes, perhaps, when it comes to accessible transportation.

Via Rail has told us that, since our audit, all their executives have completed that training. At CATSA, they will do it by March 31. I am happy to see that they take it seriously, and hopefully they will continue that trend.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Great. Thank you.

The report mentions that there was only one on-site inspection, and 47 virtual, by the Canadian Transportation Agency to identify, remove and prevent barriers. Do you think that inspections in person would be required to fully identify accessibility issues? Did you find virtual inspections to be as effective as the in-person ones?

[Karen Hogan]

In our audit, we didn't compare the virtual inspections to previous years when perhaps they would have been done in person. Virtual is the mode used mostly during the pandemic. In my view, what we saw in those inspections, however, was that they were really just focusing on the design of the service instead of the actual service delivery. The fact that they are now moving back to in-person inspections will, I believe, help improve the oversight mechanism, and then, hopefully, help remove barriers.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you.

The Canadian Transportation Agency is responsible for enforcement, yet they don't have access to complaints. My understanding is that there is an obligation for airlines to report in other countries, such as the United States, but not in Canada. This applies even to Canadian airlines operating in the U.S. There appears to be less oversight in Canada by the Canadian Transportation Agency.

Are there rules that are in fact different? How does this play out practically? Is there something that should be changed?

[Karen Hogan]

The accessibility requirements in Canada and the United States are rather similar. What is different is some of the authority that the Canadian Transportation Agency has in its oversight. It is the reporting and monitoring that are different in the two countries.

We found that the CTA doesn't really have the authority to ask for all the complaint data, for example, from airlines. If you look at the United States, where Canadian air carriers are required to report to the U.S. authority any damaged or stolen wheelchairs, or lost wheelchairs, or any issues with service dogs, that same mandatory requirement does not exist here in Canada. We identified that as a gap and made a recommendation to the CTA that they should try to find ways to get access to it. It might be the policy-makers giving them that authority, or them working collaboratively with airlines to get access to that information in order to improve oversight.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Gray. You can come back if you have further questions.

Committee members, this is informal, so if you have questions, catch my eye. If not, we'll go to those members who do.

Mr. Genuis, you have the floor for three minutes, please.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm the lead for our party for international development, and I was very struck by your report 4, which looks at the dissonance between the words the government uses around empowering women and gender internationally and the reality of what's happening. We know the Liberals love to talk about gender in international development. Your report shows that they're not measuring results: 50 out of 60 projects that you looked at didn't have complete data. Only 35 of those 60 projects actually measured policy indicators, and the vast majority of those policy indicators actually had nothing to do with results. Two out of three of the spending commitments were not met. Those are spending commitments, not results commitments; those are simply spending commitments. So, there's a massive gap between the rhetoric on gender and the reality in terms of what is not being measured and what is not being achieved. I think, sadly, this underlines that the government is trying to push a particular message to a domestic audience about what it does and doesn't care about, yet it can't be bothered to consistently track the data.

I want to ask you to share a bit more about the challenges you had in accessing this data. What kinds of challenges did you experience in getting access to the data that the government did have, and how do you explain the fact that in so many cases there's no data being gathered around outcomes whatsoever?

[Karen Hogan]

We looked at how Global Affairs is managing international assistance to support gender equality in low- and middle-income countries. We found out that it wasn't able to show us how all the spending—$3.5 billion a year—actually improved the lives of women and girls. I would point to two issues, and they will link to the issue that we had about getting access to information.

The first was the significant weakness in information management. That is fundamental, and it was systemic across the organization. It was from gathering data to how you store it, how you manage it together, how you roll it up and use it for decision-making. A lot is done by paper or not even in the same IT system—if there are IT systems. It took us about about four months to gain access to the information that we needed to do our work. That just shows me that senior management is not using it for day-to-day decision-making. Then we saw that it really is an incomplete external reporting because it's only putting about half of its projects in its external reporting.

The second thing I would point to, as to why they couldn't show us how the investment was improving the lives of women and girls, would be with regard to the indicators. They didn't set themselves up to monitor outcomes. Twenty-four out of 26 of their indicators really just looked at results along the way, little things along the way. I'll give you an example, about providing nutritious meals to women. They may track how many meals were delivered, but then they did not set themselves up to monitor whether health would improve over time. Sometimes results, especially in these kinds of programs, take time to measure, but they haven't set themselves up. So, it's really about the design right at the outset of these projects, and then about the management of all the data linked to it to show the value of this investment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

We turn next to Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mrs. Shanahan, I do see you online there.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Hogan, for your report, and thank you to your staff, as well.

I want to put the matter in context but think more broadly, as well. That's why I want to ask about the international situation. In the course of your work, did you look at what other democracies are faced with in terms of connectivity in rural and remote areas and how Canada compares?

[Karen Hogan]

We did try to do some comparisons. We turned to the OECD, as well, to look at what they were doing. It is difficult to compare Canada to some other countries. We have a very geographically vast country with low population density in many areas. If we look at our urban centres, they're being served to 99%. It's really those hard-to-reach.... The issue of getting to the last few is going to be costly. We recommended that the departments really look at how much it will cost to get there. That's why linking it back to household income, when you look at affordability, is essential. Most other countries focus just on price. We do think that, given the nature of Canada, looking at household income is essential because of how costly it will be to reach the last few.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I understand.

You just used the phrase “the nature of Canada” and, in the early part of your answer, you talked about the uniqueness of this country when looking at the OECD and making comparisons. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but in some ways it sounds as if I'm asking you to compare apples and oranges. Your point is well taken, in that regard.

Based on that, can we say that Canada finds itself in a unique position—among democracies, certainly—when it comes to the whole question of ensuring connectivity for all citizens? Not every country has the remoteness of Canada. It's a vast landscape, and it's very hard to serve all Canadians. That does not mean we shouldn't make every effort to do so. There are many improvements to be made in getting to that goal.

Are we unique among democracies? Is that a fair understanding?

[Karen Hogan]

I'm not sure I would go that far.

I don't think every country has the means of Canada, as well. We found that funding is available. It's just slow to see projects approved and get rolled out. While you can compare us with other countries and see that we're doing well—if we look at pricing, we're following the same sort of metrics other countries are—when you sit back and look at it, four out of 10 households in rural and remote communities have no Internet, and six out of 10 on first nations reserves.

When you look at today's society, where Internet is a fundamental need, I think there's a lot of work left to be done.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Most certainly. I have no disagreement on the importance of the issue and the work that needs to be done.

You looked at previous years. For example, 10 years ago, where were we when it came to connectivity, in terms of indigenous focus and rural and remote areas more generally? Can we put that on the record? I think it would be interesting to have that.