Public Accounts Committee on June 2nd, 2022

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Hogan, I appreciate your echoing my first round of questions about the context of spending more and getting less, the value for money and the premise of that, which is much appreciated.

I share the frustration, and we see this constantly through these reports on not sharing data, data trends and data information. It particularly hits home for the “Processing Disability Benefits for Veterans” report. This shows a culture and mindset where the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada aren't sharing information on those who are enlisting or those who have injuries and the age and demographics in order to understand these future trends.

This uptick in demand and applications should not be a surprise at all. The data should be there to know staffing levels and all this information, the number of veterans, when they're leaving, all these types of things. It's completely ignored and, as you alluded to, there's a hesitancy to share information. Frankly, it's almost a culture of lack of respect or compassion between the two departments that this is not shared.

I want to go specifically in my time here to report number 2 on veterans disability claims. There was a part that was really disturbing to me. I'll be a bit blunt in the question I'm asking, but in section 2.35, it says, “We also found that Veterans Affairs Canada did not always calculate its performance against its service standard consistently and accurately.” It goes on to say, “For the end date, the department used the date that the benefits decision was made”, but in some cases they didn't talk about the assessment step and other steps that go after the end date for the veteran—to your point—being successfully concluded and having their case done.

I'm going to ask you a blunt question, if I could, Ms. Hogan. Do you believe that is data manipulation? Do you believe it's unethical for the department's report to use an “end date” when they know very well that's not the actual end date for the veteran getting the service?

[Karen Hogan]

I will address your first comment first, and then I will get to your question.

One item I want to highlight about the lack or hesitancy of willingness to share information is that, oftentimes in these reports and in other previous reports, we hear privacy concerns as a reason the information isn't shared. I can appreciate that it's complex, but as a Canadian, if you sit back, you believe that you are interacting with your government and you would hope that there would be a way for the government to perhaps solve some of those issues.

When it comes to the end date, I do not believe that it was intentional manipulation of a date to deceive individuals. I believe that it was more of a focus on process. The start date doesn't start until all the information is gathered, so a veteran may have submitted their application and there may be weeks that go into a back-and-forth between the department and the veteran to make sure that the file is complete. Then you have to wait a little bit for some medical information. Then the clock starts ticking but, for the veteran, that application has already been in the queue, in their minds, for quite some time.

The same then happens at the end as you wait for the payment of the funds or the confirmation of the type of injury that was being classified. It's about giving the veteran a realistic picture of how long they're going to wait, instead of a service standard that hasn't been met in seven years.

It's about being more transparent, perhaps, about all the steps and the processes that would help a veteran better understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You have one minute, Mr. Duncan.

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

That's noted.

I would argue that they need to change the term “end date” because, when I hear “end date”, I think it's the end and that the veteran is getting a payment for the benefit for which he or she applied.

As was alluded in your report, it found in some cases that it didn't include the assessment step and the step to determine the severity including the impact. The end date also did not include the time it took for the veteran to receive it, which meant the veterans were waiting longer than the department had reported publicly. Perhaps calling it an end date, which is when the decision was made on the benefit.... The actual end date, I would argue, of when it concluded is when the veterans get the compensation they are entitled to.

My last question is this: Why were the processing times for critical injury benefits not reviewed in this audit? Are they not subject or assessed by the same officials that are reviewing VAC disability claims?

[Karen Hogan]

If I may, Mr. Chair, I'll ask Mr. Swales to answer that one.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm afraid the answer time is going to be short.

[Nicholas Swales, Principal, Office of the Auditor General]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We didn't look at that because our focus was on the main disability benefit, which was the issue that had been brought to our attention by veterans' groups in the past as being their primary concern. That's where we looked in this work.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor for five minutes, please. It's over to you.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the Auditor General and staff for coming today.

Auditor General, I want to read to you key recommendations—at least in my mind—from various reports in the time that I have allotted and get your thoughts on implementation based on your expertise.

The first report I'll point to is report 1, appropriately called “Access to Benefits for Hard-to-Reach Populations”. The recommendation that is especially highlighted is as follows:

To better understand the effectiveness of outreach approaches, the Canada Revenue Agency and Employment and Social Development Canada should develop and implement consistent results‑based performance measures for targeted outreach to hard‑to‑reach populations.

What would these results-based performance measures look like, exactly? As important, how would they best be tailored to hard-to-reach populations? What would be some suggestions there, zeroing in on and delving into that question of hard-to-reach populations that the report focuses on?

[Karen Hogan]

I'm going to attempt it, and I might turn to Mr. Swales to add.

We found that the departments were measuring the number of activities. For example, they would visit indigenous communities in the hopes of making individuals aware that, if they filed their tax returns, they could receive the Canada child benefit. They measured the quantity of visits, but didn't actually measure whether or not those visits ended up in individuals filing a tax return and, therefore, getting access to the Canada child benefit.

To me, that is not targeted to that group. As we've seen from statistics, many individuals on reserve are not accessing the Canada child benefit. Perhaps it is because they are unwilling or unable to file a tax return. Finding another way to ensure that an indigenous family can access a benefit they are entitled to would be a targeted outreach activity.

Sometimes there are individuals who need help filling out a form. Filling out the form might be the first step, but if they then also need to deal with a different department, they're on their own. There isn't an end-to-end service model that is focused on the individual and their barriers to accessing these benefits.

That's why we encourage the government to think differently about how they try to reach hard-to-reach people who are not accessing the benefits in the traditional way that everyone else is.

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

I suppose that's my question. Do you have advice or thoughts, based on your expertise, on how exactly this could move forward? For example, what are best practices or where has it worked internationally in other G7 countries? Do you have any thoughts there?

[Karen Hogan]

I'll leave some time for Nick to perhaps add to this. I believe what we're not seeing is a focus on the actual barrier that needs to be addressed.

We're really seeing the focus on having the hard-to-reach populations understand that this is the traditional access point to get these benefits and helping them get through that access point, instead of actually understanding the barrier.

Nick, would you like to add something about other countries?

[Nicholas Swales]

Mr. Chair, I could just add a couple of quick points.

In terms of your initial question about measurement, a key issue from our perspective is disaggregation. It's getting down into the community levels and collecting information there on what the take-up rates are and seeing whether the initiatives they're undertaking are having an impact at that level, instead of just leaving it to the country as a whole where the large numbers tend to obscure what's happening in those communities.

There is a report the British do. They produce a report on take-up rates every couple of years, which is based on some sophisticated ways of thinking about this problem. They do some modelling and some additional surveys. That is certainly an example we think could be looked at more closely.

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

Certainly there's always room for improvement.

The Canada child benefit has been mentioned here. I think it would inform the committee. I think most members will know this already, but it's important to put on the record the 300,000-plus children who have been lifted out of poverty because of that program, not to mention so many families right across the country that benefit each month. The means-based approach is central to that. As I say, we can always get your thoughts on how to do it better. That's just one example.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Fragiskatos, I'm afraid that is your time.

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

Okay. Very good.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Well said.

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In answer to my last question, you brought up three flagrant cases of lack of follow-up on serious issues you had raised.

Those issues were processing delays for veterans, the preparation for a pandemic after H1N1 and the huge discrepancies between the conditions of different populations in Canadian prisons.

It appears that the federal government still has a lot of work to do on certain aspects, including systemic racism.

Ms. Hogan, do you think the federal government has a lot of work to do over the coming months and years?

[Karen Hogan]

I think that Canadians face a lot of barriers every day in terms of access to programs and benefits the government has implemented to support them on a daily basis.

There is a great deal of work to do to determine what the barriers are and to find a solution for reducing them. The solution can often not be found in a vacuum. For instance, there must be collaboration with indigenous communities or with community organizations to support the populations that are the most vulnerable and difficult to reach. This is not an easy problem to solve, and a lot of work does need to be done.

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

Thank you.

I am saying this now, but I think the federal government really has its work cut out for it and has enough to do within its own institutions to fight the systemic racism that has been shown and quantified in the auditor general's reports.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You have 30 seconds left.

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

The federal government should not target provincial laws that are supported by the vast majority of Quebeckers. I think the federal government has enough on its plate.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor for two and a half minutes. Thank you.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I just want to begin by addressing my Liberal colleague's comment on room to improve. I think this room is far greater than that comment provides. This is, I think, a very serious situation that's provided by the government, and it has mounted. This is really a situation in which the whole house, not just one room, needs to be improved. This is an extreme situation.

Our country's most disadvantaged, as you mentioned, are being left alone to deal with these kinds of violences and barriers by themselves. The core of what this committee and our work here provide must be showing the government with urgency how this must seize their attention immediately.

We can't continue to disadvantage these groups for so long. I don't want to have to sit here for another decade and have to talk about the same thing Ms. Hogan mentioned. Some of these issues have persisted since 2009. That's just not acceptable.

I think that comment diminishes in many ways the reality of the severity of this and the people who are being left behind.

My riding is one of the largest in terms of its urban indigenous population. It's also plagued by a massive amount of poverty. Community members in my city have done extraordinary work to actually do this work on the ground level without the government. They've provided for themselves and tried their best to survive. They're literally selling bottles and doing what they can to feed themselves.

This is the condition in which we're seeing people in my community suffering right now. Without community members supporting each other, we wouldn't have a community where I'm from. It's really because of each other that it's happening.

Your report says really clearly that the outreach activities that ESDC conducted with indigenous communities were inadequate. Those were largely for rural communities. I just want to ask, given the fact that a majority of indigenous people now live in urban centres, how are they being consulted and did your report look at the condition of those populations as hard to reach?

[Karen Hogan]

In our report on hard-to-reach individuals, I don't believe we disaggregated whether communities were rural or in a more populous area. We just looked at the group of indigenous communities as a whole when we identified them and tried to disaggregate some data.