Public Accounts Committee on March 19th, 2024

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you for that.

In the early 1980s, there was a famous elder from Alberta, Harry Daniels, who said that the federal government's approach to supporting indigenous people is much like that of a person giving bread: The federal government requires an indigenous person—and at that time he used the word “Indian”—to ask for the piece of bread, and then he will break off a piece to determine how much.

In addition to that comment, he said the government only holds a few pieces of bread, forcing many of the nations to compete. This competition for a few dollars at the federal level results in larger nations that have more capacity having more access, and nations with less capacity—without a housing manager, for example—not getting anything.

I'm reminded of that comment. It was in the late 1970s and early 1980s that he made it, during the constitutional round table. There was a commitment by the government at that time that they would address this terrible approach. As a result of those dialogues—and many elders from across the Prairies will remember this famous elder's comments—he said we needed to change the approach, that the federal government could not continue to hold the breadbasket and ask first nations to beg for it, and that it was time they showed us where the bread was made and made a commitment to making bread together.

What a remarkable contribution to ideology and dialogue Mr. Daniels had at that time.

Are there any other comments you would like to share with us, Ms. Hogan, in relation to what kind of future you see for Canada-indigenous relations?

[Karen Hogan]

Just speaking to your comment about bread and making the analogy to funding, we did look to see whether there was an equitable allocation of funding.

You've previously asked questions about the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation using outdated data, which was missing 20 years of demographic changes. As we looked at it, it wasn't resulting in an equitable allocation. I will also tell you that Indigenous Services Canada's data, as we talked about around the homes, shows the communities with the poorest needs getting less money.

I think the focus was on giving funding to either shovel-ready or quick-to-complete projects, instead of really assessing the needs individually. That's why our recommendation to both of them was to look for and identify the communities most in need and to make sure they're getting their share in order to help them move forward.

In my view, it is a fundamental shift that is needed, rather than this passive application approach we're seeing right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much. That is your time.

I'll turn now to Mr. Nater. You have the floor for up to five minutes.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will just pick up on your last comments. It does seem outrageous that when it comes to something as fundamental as a roof over one's head, we're using old data. We're seeing examples that the communities most in need are the ones getting the least funding. It really does seem out of sorts that this is happening in Canada and in indigenous communities. It really does seem outrageous. I just offer that as a comment.

It flows from what we've seen in your audits today about the real lack of documentation or lack of data to support what's happening on the ground. One of the things that caught my eye was in paragraph 2.49 of the housing report, which states:

Specifically, the department had documentation certifying that only 8 of the 22 (36%) projects to build new housing units we examined met the building code standards. Similarly, we found that the department had documentation certifying that only 9 of the 22 (41%) repairs to existing units we examined met building code standards.

It seems like a real concern, from my perspective, when we're talking about the building code. It's not necessarily implying that they didn't meet the building code but that there wasn't documentation confirming they met the building code.

How did you come to that conclusion? Was it simply that they didn't have the documentation, or was it that the documentation wasn't readily available? Where did that come from?

[Karen Hogan]

It came from a few things.

I will start off by offering up that poor-quality housing is a contributor to the growth of mould. Hence, making sure that repairs and new builds meet at least the national building codes, or the stricter requirement of communities that have those, is important. It's a requirement in many of the funding agreements between the government and the communities.

The communities could ask for housing inspections to be done. We saw that less than 1% of the new homes or builds were being inspected. The communities told us about the lack of access to individuals who could do those inspections. However, really, as you say, it doesn't mean that the builds didn't meet the codes. It's that the government doesn't have proof that this requirement within the funding agreement was being met.

If I my turn my comments to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, some of their programs, when it came to repairs, did not require any of that proof, whereas new builds did require that proof.

It's about consistency, then, to ensure that federal money is going towards good, strong builds to help ensure that homes last longer and that mould doesn't begin to develop in those homes.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

With the interconnectedness—if that's a real word—of those challenges, where you see the mould and you see the poor quality of inspections, lack of inspections or lack of documentation confirming the inspections, it does all seem to be linked. The challenge of having inspectors available to do some of those building inspections is certainly important.

I think I have time to move on very briefly to the first nations and Inuit policing program audit.

Something that jumped out at me was in paragraph 3.24, which talks about “the funds transferred to the RCMP” and whether they “were being used for program costs or on other policing services.” You note, “According to Public Safety Canada, the department last performed a review in 2018–19 of RCMP expenditures to ensure that funds were used for the program. However, the department could not provide documentation of this review.”

It really surprises me that the department claims to have conducted a review but has no documentation whatsoever of said review. Could you elaborate on that? Was it simply that the department said, yes, of course they reviewed it, but then there was no report provided, no paper copy of anything that happened with that review?

[Karen Hogan]

To me, it's always concerning when we hear that something happened and there's no proof that it happened, but what's more concerning is that it hasn't happened since. Public Safety Canada is managing the first nations and Inuit policing program, and part of good governance would be to ensure that the funds you provide to a service provider, even if it is your federal partner in the RCMP, are used as intended. It's a good governance process that we would have expected to see happen, and it's one of the many reasons why we said that Public Safety Canada is really poorly managing the program. There are some critical gaps in how they're managing it.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I certainly think this committee has had some experience with the portfolio under Public Safety Canada, and I suspect we'll probably be hearing from them again as we review this audit.

I thank you for your time today and I appreciate your thoughts.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Nater.

I'll turn now to Ms. Bradford for five minutes.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be sharing my time with MP Shanahan.

First off, I'd like to look at the national trade corridors fund report.

Your report indicates that Transport Canada has already approved its project performance monitoring. Was this change made before or after your audit?

[Karen Hogan]

The change was made during the period under audit.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Do you think the changes are enough, or do they still need to do more in this area?

[Karen Hogan]

The changes are being incorporated into new contribution agreements, so the most recent nine agreements we saw included those new requirements. However, the recommendation still stands that they need to figure out how to do this for all of their projects.

There is a clause in all of the agreements saying that recipients need to provide performance and outcome measurements. Given the long-term nature of the projects to be completed and the time it will take for these kinds of infrastructure projects to show that, over time, fluidity has improved, Transport Canada has the opportunity now to fix that going forward so they can gather better data and have a much more robust performance measurement framework in place.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Do you think they have a plan in place? Is there a tool or something in place that will address that?

[Karen Hogan]

They at least changed their performance measurements and made them consistent across projects.

I'll see if David wants to add to that.

[David Normand, Principal, Office of the Auditor General]

Sure.

During our audit period, we saw that the department was taking steps to improve the way they monitor the successes of their projects. In exhibit 4.7, there is a list of the core project-level performance indicators that they need to put in place. As we just said, these new indicators were applied to nine projects so far, but of the 116 that are currently under way, another 107 need to be adjusted to take into account these performance indicators.

Really, the consequence of this so far is that by not applying the proper project-level indicators, the department has been unable to demonstrate, basically, the outcomes of the program overall because they don't have the information they need to show results for the whole program.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Due to the nature of these projects going on for years, how does your office assess whether the department is doing enough in these areas?

[Karen Hogan]

That will come down to whether we decide to follow up on this as a full audit. As this committee is well aware, we have an online database where we do follow-up on past audit measures and recommendations. We might put that in there to follow up on it, but it will be years before projects are completed. So far only 30 out of the 181 that have been allocated funding have been completed, so this is a long-term outlook before you can see some real, concrete improvements.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you.

Brenda, go ahead.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you very much.

I want to take a moment to thank the Auditor General and her team for the overview of these three reports. I think we've all been struck by the fact that two of the three reports concern systemic long-standing issues regarding Indigenous Services, and I for one—and I think I share this with other colleagues here—would like to see this committee devote an important part of its time to studying these reports.

Auditor General, in the past, we've had upwards of seven, eight or 10 reports tabled by your department at any one time. Why is it that we're only seeing three reports at this time?

[Karen Hogan]

There are a few contributing factors to the number of reports being released today.

As you know, in February, my office released a report on ArriveCAN, and we have three more reports coming in May. We've spread out some of our reports that are typically all tabled in March in order to respond in a nimble fashion to requests from the House of Commons to audit certain matters. There will be about seven reports, if you look, between February, today and May coming under my banner.

I will also tell you that we've devoted more time to environment and sustainable development work. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development in the past would issue throughout the year probably five or six reports. He is on track to releasing 10 this year. It's just about making sure that we are focusing on matters important to Canada and spreading them out. You'll see some of his reports next month.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Auditor General, thank you for that work. I think the independence and professionalism of your office are without par. Without the work of the Auditor General's office, we would not have the attention to these issues that we should have.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Ms. Hogan, I have a question from the chair, something I don't indulge in often.

I'm curious. I often listen to these meetings and try to pick out what's unique. By design, your office does not comment on policy, and I think that makes a lot of sense; you're there to look at results. However, your comments today stating that we need a rethink suggests that the policy is not working.

I'll ask you to comment on my observation. The policy is not working, so this would imply that doing the same thing over and over again for years ahead is going to result in the same thing. It's going to end up with the same results, which means more disappointment.

Could you address this, please? This puts us on terrain where I think this committee and lawmakers at large have to consider a policy rethink when it comes to housing policy in first nations communities. Can you respond to that, please?

[Karen Hogan]

I'm sitting here, after 20 years of findings from my office across four different reports, and showing you that the housing gap persists. It's clear to me that in those 20 years, which is really an entire generation of indigenous people, the improvement in housing hasn't been concrete.

It is time to rethink the approach, but I would tell you that it extends beyond just housing. There are previous audit reports I have issued on safe drinking water, on emergency preparedness, on access to health practitioners and on the first nations and Inuit policing program. They all have the exact same model: They are within a certain federal entity and a community needs to apply to multiple programs to access funding. That isn't really supporting, in my view, reconciliation and self-determination, where you really need to understand the needs, the cultures and the traditions of communities and tailor how you support them.

It's not just about resourcing programs and providing funding, but about ensuring that there's a transfer to first nations communities, and we're not seeing progress in that transfer, at least through these two programs, toward self-determination.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

You certainly wouldn't say this, but I will: One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for different results. I think you proved today that, over 20 years, that's exactly what we've been doing. It's time for a look. I'm sure this is a topic the committee will be investigating.

I thank you and your colleagues for being here today.

I will now adjourn this meeting and remind colleagues that we're back at 3:30 after question period to continue our study on ArriveCAN.

Thank you. I'll see you all later.