Public Accounts Committee on June 2nd, 2022

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I call the meeting to order. Good morning. I see we have a few people on Zoom as well.

Welcome to meeting number 22 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), the committee is meeting today to receive a briefing from the Auditor General and her team concerning the reports that were tabled in the House on Tuesday, May 31.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the directive of the Board of Internal Economy of March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members in their seats during parliamentary proceedings.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules for witnesses and members to follow. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself and please keep your microphone muted when you are not speaking.

For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I would remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Members in the room who wish to speak must raise their hand. Members participating via Zoom must use the “raise hand” function.

The committee clerk and I will do our best to maintain a consolidated order of speaking. Thank you for your patience and your understanding.

We will be taking 15 minutes at the end of the meeting for some committee business in camera. I'll notify you of that when we hit that time on the clock.

I'd now like to welcome our witnesses—our guests—from the Office of the Auditor General. Of course, we have Karen Hogan, the Auditor General of Canada. It's nice to see you again. Actually, it's nice to see you all again.

We also have Carey Agnew, principal; Carol McCalla, principal; and Nicholas Swales, principal.

Ms. Hogan, you have the floor, and then we'll turn to questions. Thank you, again.

[Karen Hogan, Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wish to acknowledge the lands we are gathered on are part of the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I'm pleased to be here to discuss four performance audit reports that were tabled in the House of Commons on Tuesday. My reports also include copies of the special examination of Farm Credit Canada and the Federal Bridge Corporation Limited. These two reports were made public by the Crown corporations in February and May of this year.

I am accompanied today by Carey Agnew, Carol McCalla and Nicholas Swales, the principals who were responsible for the performance audits.

As I near the third year of my mandate, I'm feeling more frustrated than hopeful. As much as I'd like to report that government programs and services improve once weaknesses are identified, I find that is seldom the case.

For us, the story is too often familiar—over years of auditing, we report slow progress and results that are stagnant or worsening. Information that could help Canadians understand whether results are getting better or worse is at best incomplete. In many programs and departments, it seems that too often people run into barriers when accessing programs and services they are entitled to.

Let me turn first to our audit of systemic barriers in correctional services. We wanted to know whether Correctional Service Canada delivered interventions that reflect the ever growing diversity of the offender population. This included whether corrections staff had the cultural awareness and sensitivity to deliver programs that meet the diverse needs of offenders.

While we set out to look at whether the department was meeting the needs of its offender population, what we found were outcomes showing that certain groups of offenders were disadvantaged by systemic barriers that affected their timely access to parole. In particular, we found that indigenous and Black offenders experienced poorer outcomes than any other groups in the correctional system. They also faced greater barriers to a safe and gradual reintegration into society.

A systemic barrier results from seemingly neutral policies, procedures or practices that disadvantage one or more groups. We found not only systemic barriers, but also, in my view, systemic racism in certain instances where those seemingly neutral policies, procedures or practices have persisted and have resulted in disproportionately different treatment of some groups of racialized offenders.

Correctional Service Canada has failed to identify and eliminate the systemic barriers that persistently disadvantaged indigenous and Black offenders in custody. We raised similar issues in our audits in 2015, 2016 and 2017, yet the department has done little to change the policies, practices, tools and approaches that produce these differing outcomes.

We found that barriers were present from the moment offenders entered federal institutions. For example, indigenous and Black offenders were assigned to maximum security institutions by staff at twice the rate of other groups of offenders. They also remained in custody longer and at higher levels of security before their release.

We also found that timely access to correctional programs designed to prepare offenders for release and support their successful reintegration into the community had continued to decline over our three past audits.

By December 2021, with the additional impact of the COVID‑19 pandemic, only 6% of men offenders had accessed programs they needed before they were first eligible to apply for parole.

Different outcomes for certain groups of racialized and indigenous offenders have persisted for too long.

Correctional Service Canada must identify and remove systemic barriers to eliminate systemic racism in corrections, including meeting its own commitment to better reflect the diversity of the offender population in its workforce.

The department needs to address representation gaps, namely, indigenous representation across all institutions, gender representation in women's institutions and representation at institutions with a higher number of Black offenders.

Next I will turn to our audit of hard-to-reach populations. We wanted to know whether the federal government ensured that individuals in low-income groups could access the Canada child benefit, the Canada workers benefit, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada learning bond.

The Canada Revenue Agency and Employment and Social Development Canada know that not everyone who could receive these benefits is getting them. These individuals who may be unaware of benefits available to them include low-income groups who are not easily served through regular channels: indigenous persons, seniors, newcomers to Canada, and persons with disabilities. These hard-to-reach populations often face one or more barriers to access benefits. As such, they require more help from government.

The Canada Revenue Agency and Employment and Social Development Canada lacked a clear and complete picture of the people who are not accessing benefits. The agency and the department also did not know whether most of their targeted outreach activities had helped to increase the benefit take‑up rates for hard-to-reach populations.

We also found that the agency and the department overstated the rates of people accessing benefits because they did not always account for people who had not filed income tax returns, a requirement to access most benefits. Though the agency and the department have taken some action, they still lack a comprehensive plan to connect people with benefits. As a result, they are failing to improve the lives of some individuals and families who may need these benefits the most.

Our third audit focused on the processing of disability benefit claims for veterans from the Canadian Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Overall, we found that veterans waited almost 10 months for a decision when first applying for benefits. Processing timelines were longer for francophones, women and RCMP veterans.

We also found that the department's data on how it processes benefits applications—and the organization of this data—were poor. Because of this, Veterans Affairs Canada was unable to determine whether its initiatives to improve the treatment of claims have sped up the process or made it worse.

We noted that both the funding and almost half of the employees on the team responsible for processing applications were temporary. The department also lacked a long-term staffing plan. The combined impact of these shortcomings means that veterans are waiting too long to receive benefits. They experience unacceptable delays that can significantly impact their and their families' well-being.

Our last report today is a follow‑up on our 2015 audit on the use of gender-based analysis plus in government, or GBA+. This is an analysis tool to help reduce existing and potential inequalities based on gender and other intersecting identity factors.

Overall, our audit showed that the government does not know whether its actions are achieving better gender equality outcomes for diverse groups of people. In many cases, the analysis had been completed, but we did not see a concrete impact on outcomes.

We found long-standing challenges that we previously identified continue to hinder the full implementation of GBA+ across government. Although the lead organizations have addressed some of our recommendations from 2015, many others date back to our first audit of GBA in 2009.

Some of the challenges include gaps in the capacity to perform a gender-based analysis and the lack of data available on demographic factors. In addition, we found that the government doesn’t know if GBA+ is achieving its goals, because its impacts have not been measured and reported on in a consistent and structured manner. The Privy Council Office, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and Women and Gender Equality Canada need to better collaborate and ensure that all departments and agencies fully integrate GBA+ in a way that produces real results for all Canadians.

To sum it up, these audits point to long-standing problems and barriers across a broad range of government activities. These barriers are unacceptable, whether faced by indigenous and Black offenders or by low-income individuals and veterans accessing benefits.

As to the barriers that GBA+ is meant to break down, while there is a greater dialogue and awareness today of gender and identity factors, actions have yet to catch up with words.

The federal government must do better. All of Canada's people, no matter their gender, race, ability or geographical location, deserve better—much better.

Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening statement.

We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Because we're losing a bit of time at the end, I'm going to be quite vigilant on times today. This means members should be aware that the auditor and her team need to be given time to respond. I want to get through five rounds to ensure that we all have time. If you are cut off, you'll have to use later time to get the answer you seek.

On that, I will turn to MP Duncan.

You have the floor for six minutes.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to everybody there in person.

Ms. Hogan, thank you for the work you and your team do. I have always said that I value your work and the work of the Auditor General's office, especially now. I think your comments have been blunt and frank, and resemble what lots of Canadians are feeling when it comes to the details of these reports and the quality of work being done by the government in the past couple of years.

I note that yesterday you said, “It's very frustrating and discouraging for the government to know, for many years, that problems exist, that barriers exist, but that little action is taken”. I think these reports are timely right now, because I know, as a member of Parliament with a constituency office, that customer service levels and response times are absolutely collapsing, frankly, as we come out of the pandemic. There were challenges accommodating and adjusting to the pandemic when it started, but as we come out of it and get back to a semblance of normalcy and return to normalcy.... I think of the services we deal with in our office: CRA, Service Canada, IRCC, Veterans Affairs, Passport Canada, NEXUS, the list goes on. We're seeing an absolute collapse and a total unpreparedness for trends and things that are going along.

Some of the observations that I have, just at the high level to your reports, which I appreciate, are how it backs up that spending money is not a result. I think you allude to this in your conclusions and observations in several of your reports. Very often we call for action from the government on addressing, for example, the backlogs for processing claims for veterans. They say that we're spending x number of millions of dollars to address this, and at the end of the day, the frank reality is that we're spending more and now getting less. The value for money and the per capita of this, frankly, is not matching the rhetoric or the responses that we get. We're not seeing leadership. We're not seeing good management, and we're not seeing innovation really happening. It needs to be happening in what we're doing here.

Frankly, I can foreshadow, Ms. Hogan...without prejudicing your future worker decisions on what to study. Look, for example, at NEXUS cards. It's been in the news recently. Our office is dealing with this. There are no plans, no timelines and 300,000 applications backlogged. There's absolute chaos, at three years into the pandemic—let alone adjusting to that type of program during the pandemic. As we return to normal, there's still literally no leadership or plan, or anything.

I want to focus my first round, perhaps, on your report on Veterans Affairs and processing disability claims for veterans. I want to quote here from this report. You mentioned in your press conference and in the report that you were “left with the conclusion that the government has failed to meet a promise that it made to our veterans, that it would take care of them if they were injured in service”. That's a pretty bold statement and, rightfully, an accurate and important statement to understand the context of this.

One of the things that were very frustrating was not only the details of the report confirming what we're hearing from veterans and from constituents across the country, but also the response from the minister and the Department of Veterans Affairs. There was a CBC News article report that said, “The department said it accepted the criticism and recommendations but also blamed delays on a 40 per cent increase in the number of applications across the board and 75 per cent increase in first-time applications.”

Here's what frustrates me, and I'd like to get your comments on this. When preparing and using data and trends when it comes to Veterans Affairs and applications, the federal government should be able to look, for example, at another department—the Department of National Defence—to know the number of Canadians who are serving, who have injuries, their ages and the demographics to understand and be able to prepare and predict when a surge in services is coming.

Could you speak a little bit about the department's ability? Are they doing anything in terms of looking at what future trends in service levels and volumes may be? Is there anything you saw in your work that would suggest they're planning ahead appropriately for this?

[Karen Hogan]

There was a lot there. Thank you. I will try to respond to that.

What I can tell you is that, when we looked at their data, we did find that there were some issues with the quality of the data, in that there was a lot of activity to try to increase processing times and reduce wait times, but the department was unable to demonstrate and didn't know for themselves if certain activities had actually reduced or slowed down the wait times.

In the end, as you say, it's not about spending more money but about spending it in a more intelligent or creative way that actually targets the barriers. To do that, you need the data to understand. I think all too often we see that there is a lack of willingness or desire to share data, sometimes within a department, or even across a department. It's a growing theme that I'm actually seeing across many audits. We saw it during some of the COVID-19 support programs, and we see it again here. There are long wait times to share that information or a willingness to not share the information.

When it comes to forward-looking trends and what they're doing to tackle some of that problem, I don't know if perhaps Mr. Swales could add something a little bit more pointed to your question at the end.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Swales, I'm going to have to cut you off there, but I hope we will come back and get that answer from you.

Turning now to Mrs. Shanahan, you have the floor for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I, too, would like to echo the words of my colleague Mr. Duncan in acknowledging and thanking the Auditor General and her team for her work and for the bluntness of the work they do, because we need to hear it full, front and centre if we're going to get the work done that we need to do.

I am looking forward—and I know my colleagues on this side are looking forward—to studying each of the reports you have brought forward in greater detail with the departments involved because, yes, there are problems and, yes, we need to find out how, as members of the public accounts committee, we can help public servants do better.

Auditor General Hogan, I'm just reflecting. Members here know that I served on this committee from 2015 to 2018, when the previous Auditor General would bring forth themes—underlying themes, overarching themes—such as repeated gaps at indigenous services and gaps in data collection. Because I think we see a theme emerging here, if not two or three, I'd like to hear from you what you see as the overarching themes in the work you have done.

[Karen Hogan]

When I look at this group of audit reports that we've put together here, I would tell you that it's about individuals who are often forgotten, whether they be disabled veterans, incarcerated individuals or those who are the target of gender or other inequities. It's about the government always trying to apply the same recipe to every single individual. We're seeing that many programs are reaching a good portion of the people they are intended to reach, and now it's about time to reach those hard-to-reach individuals on the edge.

How can you change that recipe? I think you can change that with a good solid GBA+ analysis backed by some data.

It's not about only a new program but perhaps applying it to existing programs to see what inequities exist there that you're not aware of, but you need to gather information and do that analysis. I think the theme that previous Auditors General raised was about having data, having a good data strategy and knowing what you have, but then using it in a meaningful way.

I think this group of reports goes really well together and bundles that theme of figuring out how to identify a barrier that a group is facing, then using your information to target how to eliminate it and make the outcomes better. Let's not focus on process but focus on the progress of programs.

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

Thank you for that, because I think I and members of our caucus are extremely frustrated with, I believe, it's “Report 4: Systemic Barriers—Correctional Service Canada”. That is something that has the systemic racism that you identified in your report.

When you talk about GBA+, this has been an ongoing theme or approach that you mentioned has been recommended since 2009, I think. I remember a key report also in 2015-16. Are we getting there with the GBA+? I think some departments do better than others. It is an evolving tool.

Are you seeing those tools being developed and being shared across ministries and departments?

[Karen Hogan]

I think the honest answer would be that it's a bit of a mixed bag. I am pleased to see an increased dialogue and awareness, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, about gender and other identity factors. Dialogue is a great place to start, but it's just the first step.

We see some departments or some programs that use a GBA+ analysis in a really useful way and have modified their delivery. There are other instances where it is almost seen as a requirement, a need to do it in order to get past a certain hurdle. Often we see data gathered, and then the data not used, or the data not gathered. It really is a bit of a hodgepodge. I don't know a better word to describe it.

It's about being a little bit more consistent. When you have a lead organization like Women and Gender Equality that has to summarize how this tool is materializing into concrete outcomes, but they don't have the information or the consistent reporting, they can't then demonstrate the actual outcomes the tool is producing.

Again, it comes back to good reporting and good data to tell people that activity is resulting in an outcome.

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

I understand.

I have just one last question if I have time, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You have 30 seconds.

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

What is the role of the Auditor General's office in interacting with departments when you identify gaps?

[Karen Hogan]

Most of the really important recommendations will show up in our audit reports, but we don't shy away from providing more informal comments to departments and agencies to help them improve. We made a commitment within our office to focus on the use of GBA+ as a tool, as well as on the SDGs. We've ramped up our own expertise and knowledge in that area, and we're going to try to mainstream it through most of our audits to see how equity, diversity and inclusion are factored in by the government on a day-to-day basis. We hope our mainstreaming will drive some change.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Many thanks to the witnesses for joining us, especially Ms. Hogan.

Ms. Hogan, thank you for your statement, which was very clear, as my colleagues previously pointed out. At the outset, you said you were more frustrated than hopeful. That first sentence is especially important, as it reflects the state of mind of many people in Canada, in Quebec, and even here, in committee. We realize that, in many cases, the government has not followed up and, more importantly, it has not taken public interest into account. It is showing a lack of desire or willingness to improve and provide Canadians with better services.

I want to remind everyone that your work is fundamental to a healthy democracy. You said it was important to have a government that takes care of those who are the most vulnerable, and I think my colleagues share this opinion. However, your reports unfortunately show the government's serious inadequacies in that area.

I would like to talk specifically about the treatment of veterans, which you have already discussed.

At a meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans, my colleague Mr. Desilets pointed out that there was an abysmal discrepancy between the processing of francophone applications and the processing of anglophone applications. In other words, it takes much longer to process francophone applications than anglophone applications.

Have you noted those kinds of cases in the past? Have you noticed that discrepancy?

[Karen Hogan]

Yes. In our audit on disability benefits applications, we looked at all of the department's data on the processing of those applications. As we said, we noted that the processing of an application took about 39 weeks. That is how long a veteran has to wait to receive a response to their application. When we separated the data, we realized that some groups waited for a response even longer than that, and they were francophones, women and Royal Canadian Mounted Police veterans. The reasons for that discrepancy vary from one group to another.

Your question was about francophones' applications, so I will talk about that.

A 2018 report from the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman notes that francophones wait longer than anglophones for a response to their application. Changes were made in the wake of that report. In 2018, Veterans Canada opened an office in Montreal to process francophones' applications. In 2020, the department also created a bilingual group to process the applications. The number of francophone applications has increased so much that the group cannot process them quickly. That is why francophones wait 46 weeks on average for a response to their benefits application, compared to 39 weeks for anglophone veterans.

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

According to the figures I have on hand from a Library of Parliament briefing note, the delays are now huge. According to the data from July to September 2021, francophones waited 76 weeks to receive a response, while the wait time for anglophones was 20 weeks. I am well aware that there are more applications from francophones. We already have the numbers on veterans. With more francophones joining the army, it would be normal for the quality of services they receive to be at least proportional to their numbers.

I find it surprising that francophones are considered a more vulnerable group. There is no reason for those who are considered a founding people of Canada to have to wait longer to obtain the same service. That is what is happening in departments and across nearly all areas of government, not to mention populations that are more vulnerable for other reasons, including systemic racism, as you mentioned. For example, members of first nations are treated differently, be it in prison or, in this case, in departments.

It is really important that you are pointing this out. I would like to know what you have seen when it comes to systemic racism. It would be very helpful if you told us more about that.

[Karen Hogan]

If I understand correctly, your question is about systemic racism in correctional services.

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

Exactly. You can also talk to us about any systemic racism you have noted in other departments or reports.

[Karen Hogan]

In correctional services, we have really noted that outcomes were different for some offenders based on their race or ethnicity. We have noted that indigenous offenders faced obstacles practically at every step when they arrived in a federal institution. We could be talking about the tool used for security classification, to determine whether inmates should be in a minimum, medium or maximum security institution.

We noted that indigenous and Black offenders were incarcerated in higher security institutions twice as often as all other offenders, and for women, it was three times as often. The results of the tool could be modified. We saw that they were modified in 53% of cases for indigenous women, so that they would be incarcerated in higher security institution. We saw that, as a result, indigenous people were spending about two months longer in federal institutions.

Those were really disproportionate outcomes based on race or ethnicity.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Desjarlais, go ahead for six minutes.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being present with us today.

What we see here are four very damning reports that I think our ministries and the government have known about. You said that in your opening statement. They've known about these issues persisting. What I have to say is that, in many ways, the people who are experiencing this discrimination have known about it for far longer. People with disabilities and the indigenous community members have been saying this for decades and decades.

This level of systemic discrimination is overt. It's dangerous and it's killing people. I know this. In my community in Edmonton Griesbach, and I'm sure in every single constituency here, we have people in our communities, every single one of us, who are being impacted by the systemic problems that continue to plague our public service. It's literally killing people.

I want to thank you, Auditor General, for outlining what I think is a terrible process and a lack of accountability in our systems. On the fact that you've had to table these multiple times, I can feel your level of frustration. I understand that level of frustration deeply from my own experience of interacting with these systems. We can even just look around this room and know that a GBA+ analysis is probably warranted in every single ministry. Understanding what that looks like and ways to actually improve it are things that I'm concerned about.

The fact that these issues persist and they continue to persist is eroding our trust in these public institutions. I'm concerned about how we regain that trust with the community members who are cited in these reports, in particular indigenous and Black community members and persons with disabilities. We know, not just from these reports but from their own experiences, that these issues persist.

When I looked at some of these reports, I couldn't help but feel that we've more than failed these populations. Our government has, and subsequent governments since as early as 2009. It breaks my heart to think that we could have done so much more in those times. These recommendations could have helped people in those times from 2009 to today, which is a long period of time. We're talking about people's lives at the end of the day here and about how we can actually make them better.

I'm concerned with the fact that oftentimes, especially in my short and limited time in this place, I've already found that there's an incredible amount of information but so little action. There is so little action that it makes me incredibly frustrated.

I can only sympathize with you, Ms. Hogan, and understand that your role in this is incredibly difficult, knowing that you'll be coming to this committee, like many times before in the last three years, and you'll likely be facing the same answer: We hear you. We're going to shelve this report. We're going to look at it real good. It's going to be awesome. We can't wait for your next one.

That's 99% likely what's going to happen here, but that's not what should happen here. That's the problem. I challenge my colleagues and the government to really take seriously what these reports really mean. I'm going to work with you folks to make these things better. We're all standing ready to work with you to make this better, but why aren't they getting better?

That's my question to you, Ms. Hogan: How can we actually enforce some of this? Canadians don't deserve this. People with disabilities shouldn't have to go through extraordinary hoops and hurdles to get the basic services they're entitled to. Indigenous peoples should not be incarcerated at the rate they are by folks who have obviously learned the language of GBA+ but are not acting on that information. I'm wondering how we actually enforce change in these institutions, because it's near criminal.

[Karen Hogan]

I wish I had a good answer to tell you how to resolve this.

If I look at some of the work that we've done in the last two years, when there's a focus on the actual outcome of an individual, and we saw that very often during COVID relief programs, we see the concrete impact that it has on Canadians in a direct way. What I find all too often happens, and these reports are examples of that, is that there is a lot of focus on the machinery, on the process, instead of the outcome. It's almost like too much attention is put to all the steps to get somewhere and we forget about where we were going.

I think that if the attention we saw, the shift that we saw during the pandemic to really focus in on outcomes, is applied with a GBA+ lens and a real desire to understand that the way we did perhaps shouldn't be the way we should continue to do, it would hopefully drive some meaningful change. But I'm not the only one who can help drive that change.

All of Parliament plays a role in continuing to apply pressure to government to take action to demonstrate that their actions actually result in outcomes, and all of Canadians can. I agree with your statements. I expect better from the government and I believe all Canadians expect better from their government.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

You have 10 seconds for a statement, but I see you waved back to me.