Public Accounts Committee on June 2nd, 2022

[Karen Hogan]

I believe that's one area that we highlighted in our report on hard-to-reach people where there's a large opportunity for improvement. What we found is that a lot of the outreach actually didn't have that sort of hands-on, tailored approach for an individual who might be experiencing multiple barriers in order to access the program. You highlighted those who are housing insecure or those who are disabled. I would argue it could be someone who might be living in a shelter who is fleeing an abusive situation and may not have a permanent address and an inability to file a tax return and to access some of the programs that they might absolutely need on a day-to-day basis.

It goes back to that comment about needing to understand the barriers that these hard-to-reach populations are facing, and then how to break them down. The traditional route of filing a tax return might not be what best serves them.

I understand that these programs we looked at are mostly income-based, so the guaranteed income supplement program is actually piloting other ways to demonstrate income, other than filing your income tax return. There are individuals who are hesitant to file them, but not necessarily unwilling.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Hogan.

Turning now to our final and last round, Mr. Aboultaif, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you, Ms. Hogan and your team. I don't think you could be clearer over examining and highlighting the problems that we're facing.

The government, the public sector, has increased by I think 12% since 2015. We see a lack of outcome, less productivity, and that begs the question: Are we too bureaucratic? Are we outdated? Do you think that we need a serious strategy to restructure the whole governmental sector for the next 10 years, for example?

[Karen Hogan]

That's a very large question.

I do believe, based on a lot of the work we've seen, that at times the focus on process is much greater or on the machinery of government is much greater than the focus on outcome. That results in slow progress, slow activity and slow action.

I do caution the reverse, though, of eliminating all of it. We saw that with some of the pandemic relief programs. There needs to be a balance between the right amount of controls, the right amount of vetting, but also a speeding up of the process. The focus, again, shouldn't just be on the process. I think that's the key element. Adding value is looking at the outcomes for individuals, such as actually accessing the benefits and not necessarily just the activity to make them aware of the benefits.

I think it's about having the right focus, but also finding a better balance on the right level of controls and bureaucratic process to achieve the outcome.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Don't you agree that we need some kind of strategy in the next five or 10 years to even deal with the process? I agree. I hear from veterans for example. I had four cases in my office and they told me at the end, “It looks like the government is waiting for us to die before the application gets processed.” With that sentiment, I told the minister that this is what I've been hearing from our veterans, and that's in addition to other problems with social services, with CRA, with IRCC and every single department.

I think the problem is not just in one or two departments. You've highlighted a few things, but beyond that I think this is a problem across the board. I believe that maybe you are in a position to push for some kind of serious strategy, and maybe the restructuring of the whole governmental sector, to be able to improve. Otherwise, we are falling behind.

I do believe that at some point we were ahead of the world, but now we seem to be falling behind.

[Karen Hogan]

I believe my role is to highlight for you areas where I see weaknesses and barriers. Then it is up to the policy-makers to decide if a fundamental change is needed to the structure of the government. We also often see siloed thinking, lack of sharing of information and slow progress with a focus on process.

I highlighted those over many years. I believe my office has highlighted those over decades. How best now do we do it differently? That's why I mentioned in my opening remarks that I was pleased to see an increased dialogue about gender and equality and diversity and inclusion. It is time now for actions to catch up with all those words.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

The government or the politicians can talk about this, but who has to actually do the job? It's the people who work in those different departments. These people remain in the system. It doesn't matter if governments change.

Do the bureaucrats, if I may call them that, believe we have a problem? Are they willing and open to talk about this and to really put solutions in place, or, again, are they having the same fever and are also falling behind on their own? How did you see that throughout your research?

[Karen Hogan]

I'll be really honest with you and say that I believe there is an incredible desire and willingness in the public service to do right by Canadians and to improve outcomes, absolutely, but there is a constant tension. It is a healthy tension, but there is a constant tension between the short-term nature of a government.... Our government turns over every four years or less, typically, and that short-term focus sometimes takes away from that need to think long term.

We see it, I believe, in some of the lack of activity. Spending on preparedness, stocking a national emergency stockpile for a potential issue down the road, isn't a short-term issue. It's a long-term issue. You have to—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much on that point.

Thank you, all. We will turn now to the Liberal bench. I believe it's Mrs. Shanahan.

Are you splitting your time, or is it your turn?

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

I'll take the five minutes, if that's all right with my colleagues.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Wonderful. Very good.

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

Thank you so much.

There are two things I want to say right off the bat. I share Ms. Hogan's assessment of the public service. I think the goodwill and the desire to do better is definitely there, but it's part of all of our jobs to help that happen.

I would simply add that it was encouraging to hear the term “systemic racism” a number of times today. Unfortunately, it is not something we hear often.

It must be recognized that systemic racism is more than merely calling someone rude names. Systemic racism is truly rooted in our institutions, laws, regulations, processes, and so forth. GBA+ is a tool that allows us to uncover it.

I want to go to the report that is a follow-up on the gender-based analysis plus tool.

Through you, Chair, I'd like to get Ms. Hogan's assessment of where we are with that tool, which has been evolving over at least 20 to 25 years plus. Canada may have come a little later to the game, but how are we doing in relation to our peers in the OECD, for example?

[Karen Hogan]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I may ask Carey Agnew to add some thoughts on this.

As you mentioned, the Government of Canada has made commitments that date back 25 years on gender-based analysis and more recently gender-based analysis plus. I was disappointed to see that there wasn't more concrete proof that all the activity has resulted in better outcomes across different intersectional lines.

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

If I may, can I just break in there? Measurement is always an issue, but you do note in your report that progress has accelerated over the five years. In terms of measurement, for example, we had an initiative to increase the number of women in leadership positions. We know that the number of women on corporate boards has increased approximately 2.5% each year since 2016. Is that an example of a measure that's both efficient and effective?

There are also the investments we've made in gender-based violence. We do have statistics that show that the homicide rate has decreased by 33% in cases of gender-based violence. In pay equity and pay transparency, the pay gap has indeed narrowed three cents since 2015, when we began that policy.

I just want to have your feedback on measures like that. Is that what you're looking for?

[Karen Hogan]

We're definitely looking for targets that are measurable and specific. You need to monitor and measure progress over time. At times we are seeing that. You raised a few, but we're not seeing it across the board, the completeness of it.

Earlier on when we talked about this tool I said it is a mixed bag of results. When you sit back and try to get a global picture, you realize that's not simple when the reporting is inconsistent or when not everyone sets a measurable or specific target.

If you like, we can talk about what other countries are doing. I could ask Carey perhaps to add something.

[Carey Agnew, Principal, Office of the Auditor General]

Thank you.

Just to go back to the measurable and specific targets, they really do drive the achievement of gender equality and beyond. More so it needs really to be the right type of data for the indicators to be able to monitor the intersectional impacts and the process.

In our exhibit 3.4, disaggregated data is not available for those indicators, and there's no plan to change that yet. This is why we recommended that Women and Gender Equality Canada, in collaboration with others, develop more specific and more measurable targets for the gender results framework, and for any other framework it contributes to, and that the development and implementation of a plan to monitor these results will “improve the availability of data for the intersectional identity factors relevant to all indicators...in related frameworks.”

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

Very good. I look forward to studying that report. Better is always possible, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm afraid that's the time, because I want to squeeze everyone in here.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to talk about something that is mostly overlooked, namely, the government's treatment of seniors. We try to talk about it as much as possible, but we do not always achieve the desired results, unfortunately.

Can you tell us more about the vulnerability of people who already apply for the guaranteed income supplement, or GIS?

[Karen Hogan]

That is a more specific question.

If I may, Mr. Chair, I will ask Mr. Swales to comment on this.

[Nicholas Swales]

This is what I would say in relation to our report. We found that when the government measures its success in relation to this population, it does not always include those who have not filed a tax return.

In our opinion, the entire population has to be considered. This benefit is not intended solely for those who apply for it; it is intended for the entire population. Se we need data about the entire population.

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

Very well.

A lot of people who apply for the GIS are already very vulnerable and face many obstacles, including applying for the GIS and filing a tax return. What do you think about automatic enrolment for the GIS?

People would not necessarily have to apply for it. Those who need the GIS would already be identified as vulnerable individuals and would thus be automatically enrolled.

[Karen Hogan]

There are other seniors' benefits for which enrolment is automatic. I think that is a question for the policy-makers. That said, this is one way of managing the access issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

That was an excellent answer as well—as was expected, I should say.

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

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I want to thank the witnesses for being present.

I know that this is our final round. We don't often have the pleasure of seeing all of you, so it means a lot that you're present today on what I think is really an important set of work. I think the theme, if we could summarize it in some way, Mr. Chair, is that of the overt systemic barriers that continue to plague our public service and continue to create irreparable harm to Canadians across the country, particularly those who are the most vulnerable.

On behalf of the folks who are watching this, of course, and all the people who are experiencing this, it's only fair, I believe, that your reports have tabled recommendations that call on the government to do better in a whole swath of regions. My only hope, and my challenge, in many ways, is that we actually get this done.

I've mentioned in my previous statements how I believe it's overwhelmingly likely that the reports will be put on a shelf somewhere, but I hope to be proven wrong on that. That's the reality. That's just the truth of how these reports have been treated in the past. I don't want to see that.

I believe that your office and your institution have an incredibly important role in our country, and when we do not heed the advice of your office, which is independent of our partisanship.... It's important that we all listen and that we take seriously how important those recommendations are, and that we don't defend the fact that we have these other data points like the three cents—with all due respect to Ms. Shanahan. That's important, of course, but the reality is present to us that it's not working. It's not enough. We need to have stronger data points. We actually need to have follow-up, and we actually need to have accountability. That is what's important here to me.

I really thank you for being present. I don't know how much more time I have, but I wanted to relay that, if there are any other comments that you or any of your colleagues want to make mention of, I'll yield my time to you and your colleagues.