Public Accounts Committee on March 27th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the 55th meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3) (g), the committee is meeting today to study reports 1 to 4 of the Auditor General of Canada, published in March 2023 and referred to the committee this Monday, March 27.

Now I would like to welcome our witnesses. From the Office of the Auditor General, we have Karen Hogan, the Auditor General; Carey Agnew, principal; Milan Duvnjak, principal; Susan Gomez, principal; and Sami Hannoush, principal.

Thank you, all, for joining us today. We will have a somewhat modified committee meeting. We're going to hear from the Auditor General with her opening remarks for five minutes or so. Then I'm going to do question rounds of about five or six minutes per member. Of course, it they would like, they could truncate those because then we will turn to rounds of questions for about three minutes until either we exhaust the time or we hit 12:15 p.m.

Ms. Hogan, without further ado, you have the floor for five minutes. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to clarify, my opening remarks are about twice as long because they are the same remarks that I'll be giving at the press conference.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Okay, I'm prepared to indulge that.

Go ahead, Ms. Hogan. We will listen to you.

[Karen Hogan]

Mr. Chair, I want to begin by acknowledging that this meeting is being held on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

I am pleased to be here today to discuss four performance audit reports that were just tabled in the House of Commons. These four audits cover a variety of government activities, yet they are linked by a common thread. That thread is inclusion.

These audits are important because every person, regardless of his, her or their health status, gender or location, has a right to participate fully and equally in society.

Consider this: It's frustrating enough to land after a flight only to find that your luggage didn't make it. Now consider the impact when that missing cargo is not your toothbrush or a change of clothes but your wheelchair, and without it, you are unable to move around independently.

Some people in Canada have to constantly fight for rights that others take for granted as basic rights. Whether access to these rights is delayed or denied, the impact is that some members of society are excluded or left behind. This is the current concern that these four audits are highlighting today.

Now let me turn to our findings.

Our first audit focused on whether Via Rail, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority and the Canadian Transportation Agency worked to identify, remove and prevent barriers for travellers with disabilities. In 2019 and 2020, more than one million persons with disabilities who travelled on a federally regulated mode of transportation faced a barrier.

We found that all three organizations had identified some barriers and taken steps to improve accessibility.

VIA Rail held consultations with persons with disabilities to design its new fleet. It also consulted on its accessibility plan and training programs, as did the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.

Despite improved accessibility, many barriers remained. For example, we found that websites were not fully accessible which is very concerning because this is a barrier that travellers with disabilities often face.

To further improve the accessibility of trains, planes and other federally-regulated modes of transportation, responsible organizations need to broaden their consultations, make their online content fully accessible and use complaint data to identify, learn about, and prevent barriers.

Our second audit examined whether Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and the CRTC had improved the accessibility, affordability, and quality of high-speed Internet and mobile cellular connectivity for Canadians in rural and remote areas.

At a time when so much takes place online, it's critical for all Canadians to have access to reliable and affordable high-speed Internet and mobile cellular services. This again is a matter of inclusion. When services are of poor quality, unaffordable or unavailable, people are effectively excluded from participating fully and equally in the digital economy; accessing online education, banking, medical care and government services; or working remotely.

We found that, overall, access to Internet and mobile cellular services has improved across the country since our last audit in 2018. However, Internet connectivity in rural and remote areas remains below 60%, and below 43% on first nations reserves. Therefore, while connectivity has improved in urban areas, the federal government strategy has yet to deliver results for many rural and remote communities and first nations reserves.

We also found that there were delays in approving projects that were meant to bring services to rural and remote areas. This means that the 1.4 million households that are already underserved—first nation reserves and people in rural and remote areas—are left waiting.

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada tracked only some dimensions of the quality and affordability of services. The department considers pricing, but not household income, to be part of affordability. I find this puzzling, because if the price of the service is beyond a household's means, then connectivity will not improve and some people will remain excluded.

These findings emphasize the persistent digital divide for people living on First Nations reserves and in rural and remote communities, compared to people who live in urban areas. The government needs to take action so that there is affordable, high-speed connectivity coverage for Canadians in all areas of the country.

Let’s turn now to our report on international assistance. Global Affairs Canada spends an average of $3.5 billion each year to support gender equality in low- and middle-income countries, but it is unable to show how this spending is improving outcomes for women and girls.

We found significant weaknesses in the department's information management practices. These included not having a standardized approach for storing, managing and using project information. In addition, the department has not set itself up to track long-term outcomes. So while it is able to show, for example, that money has been spent to provide nutritious meals, it does not know whether long-term health outcomes have improved for people who were supposed to receive these meals.

These weaknesses make it impossible for Global Affairs Canada to accurately track and report on the outcomes of funded projects against the goals set out in Canada's feminist international assistance policy.

These weaknesses were not new; they were flagged in a departmental internal audit in 2021. It is imperative that Global Affairs Canada act immediately to improve its information management practices and reporting on results to show parliamentarians and Canadians the value of Canada's bilateral international assistance to support women and girls in low- and middle-income countries.

Our final audit today focuses on whether Public Services and Procurement Canada effectively managed the cost, schedule, and scope during the early phases of the rehabilitation program of Parliament’s Centre Block.

Based on a 2021 estimate, the rehabilitation is expected to cost $4.5 to $5 billion. This vast program involves many partners, such as the House of Commons, the Senate, the Parliamentary Protective Service and the Library of Parliament.

We concluded that Public Services and Procurement Canada used flexible approaches to effectively manage the planning, design and early construction phases of the program. The department adjusted workflow to deal with delayed planning decisions on important user requirements, such as the number and size of rooms required by various partners.

We also found that the department consulted and worked with experts to balance environmental sustainability and accessibility elements while respecting the heritage nature of the building. Given the size and complexity of this undertaking, a streamlined decision-making process will be required to continue effectively managing the costs and timelines of the rehabilitation project as construction work accelerates between now and the planned completion date of 2030-31.

These four audits provide a snapshot of progress and concerns in specific areas. The public service has a duty to serve all Canada’s peoples, and that means working actively to provide as full and equal access as possible to services, opportunities and national heritage, both within Canada and abroad.

Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening statement. It would be our pleasure to answer questions from members of the committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Ms. Hogan.

We're now going to turn to our members.

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

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the committee members for coming here today.

I have to agree with the Auditor General here. This report is pretty startling, especially if you're living in rural Canada. It's nothing that we didn't know before. Over a million households in rural Canada and over half of first nations still don't have access to high-speed Internet. I think it's quite startling.

I have been hearing that. We have all been hearing this from rural Canada, and now the proof is in the pudding. I can't get over how the government keeps saying that they have Canadians' backs and they are looking after rural Canada, but the facts aren't lying here. This is quite detrimental to keeping Canada together.

I thank you so much for bringing out these important points.

Another kind of startling thing is why. Why is this all happening? In your report, you say that the universal broadband fund was supposed to be rolled out and awarded within 10 months. Actually, in your findings, it took up to 22 months to have the broadband fund award these projects. What was supposed to take only 10 months took 22 months. That's twice as long. The rapid response stream—we added up the numbers here—was supposed to be really fast and get to those shovel-ready projects. It was supposed to be five to 13 weeks, but it got extended out to 41 weeks.

Things are a mess. They are not reporting and there seems to be no accountability to this. This is quite troubling, for sure. Again, I thank you for shining some light onto these problems.

You raised concern about inaccurate connectivity data in your report: “We were told that network coverage information on the National Broadband Internet Service Availability Map was not only out-of-date but also sometimes inaccurate. One potential consequence of these inaccuracies was that households or communities without coverage could be shown to have coverage.”

Does this mean that the government's connectivity data is inflated?

[Karen Hogan]

You are right that this audit does point out that the digital divide in our country persists. You mentioned 1.4 million households. To put that into context for some people, that's like every single person who lives in the city of Montreal doesn't have Internet access. It's a lot of people.

When it comes to data, what we were talking about there was the broadband map. There is a map available online for service providers, anyone who might be interested in launching a project to increase accessibility, or even for the average Canadian to go check it out. We found that a lot of the data was inaccurate. It was often pointed out by service providers during our consultations that they repeatedly asked the departments to update it.

That doesn't speak to the statistics that we found and that we report on. When we talk about four out of 10 households in rural and remote communities not having Internet, growing to six out of 10 in first nations communities, those are accurate numbers. They are validated. We also look at Statistics Canada.

It's that map and that coverage that is used to help fund projects. You don't want service providers to think that an area is serviced and therefore not recommend a project or not try to get a project funded.

It's really about expanding the access, so we do recommend that the departments find better ways to ensure that information is accurate.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I think you can imagine the frustration from rural Canadians and first nations when they're being told that they have service and they know that in fact they don't. I think we have a long way to go in getting accurate data and acting on that deficiency as well.

The government claimed that they have lowered cellphone bills by 25%. However, you state in your report that the government's “strategy did not include any national indicators or targets to evaluate whether its affordability outcomes were being achieved.” Did you find any data that proves the government has made cellphone service more affordable?

[Karen Hogan]

Mr. Chair, I think that's an excellent question.

When I look at affordability, I think beyond the price. What we found was that the government is really just tracking price and comparing prices to ensure they remain affordable. They haven't set targets linked to household incomes, and I believe that's missing half the story. While you can expand access across the country, it doesn't mean that households will pick up the Internet service if it isn't affordable for them.

We recommend not only that they set indicators to monitor the progress, but that they also consider household income as they evaluate whether or not the service is actually affordable.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

So is the statement that the cellphone service or bill has gone down by 25% inaccurate? How would Canadians judge that from what you're finding?

[Karen Hogan]

We did not verify in our audit actual invoices to Canadians about cellphone bills, so I can't comment on whether or not that would be an accurate one, but we globally sat back and said, “How are you measuring whether the service that is being provided to Canadians is affordable?” Just looking at price, in my view, is looking at only half the story, when household income is hugely important.

We saw in a recent audit about housing that they measured the affordability of rent by linking it to income. I think that might be a better way to monitor affordability, by looking at the two metrics.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That's your time, Mr. Mazier. We can come back to you if you'd like.

I'm turning now to Ms. Yip.

You have the floor for up to six minutes.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. Hogan, in your opening statement, you said, “These audits are important because every person, regardless of his, her or their health status, gender or location, has a right to participate fully and equally in society.” You also said, “Some people in Canada have to constantly fight for rights that others take for granted as basic rights.”

I want to thank you for reminding us with such a visual example, because those words, as well as your example of the lost luggage, really struck me. I think it's really important to remind ourselves of that, and also that there is still so much work to be done to be a truly inclusive society.

I'd like to ask you a question regarding the report on improving accessibility for travellers. What progress has been made to continue to achieve a barrier-free Canada?

[Karen Hogan]

We were looking at the accessibility act and many of the new regulations that came into effect in 2020. We found that the entities we looked at, which were Via Rail and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, which is the federal organization that does your baggage screening at the airport, had made progress in developing an accessibility plan, doing significant consultations and having those consultations inform their training.

While there is some progress, there is much left to be done in order to reach the federal government's goal of barrier-free transportation by 2040. I would highlight three things.

One would be making sure that websites are fully accessible. Many travellers start their journey there, and you want to be able to independently start a travel journey. The second one would be around training, to ensure that those providing services understand the lived experiences of persons travelling with disabilities. Finally, the third one is better use of complaint data to find systemic weaknesses or barriers that just aren't identified normally.

While progress has been made, there's still a lot that needs to be done.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Why was the online information not fully accessible?

[Karen Hogan]

There are many regulations for websites in order to make them accessible. We looked at the Via Rail and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority websites, and we found some gaps against some of the regulations. About 15% to 17% of the regulations had not yet been met.

Some of the information was inaccurate, so if you were using a reader to read their website you would get inaccurate departure times, which is critically important if you're trying to book travel. Also, information was difficult to find. For example, if you were trying to come through security at the airport with your service dog, it was very difficult to know what to expect or how to go about that.

Those are two of the many examples we saw, but there are significant regulations here, and it really is up to every service provider to show that they meet those.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Are there are enough resources towards improving online accessibility?

[Karen Hogan]

We didn't look at people's websites and their IT resources when we looked at Via Rail and CATSA. I think that's really a question to ask the departments. Some of the gaps were probably minor, but others were rather significant if you're going to get inaccurate information, so it's important for them to look at it.

I would point to the Canadian Transportation Agency, which is the federal department that regulates these service providers. What we found was that they have only four individuals who actually monitor all of the service providers and the over 400 different regulations. We made a recommendation to the agency to determine whether they have sufficient resources to enforce and monitor the regulations that do exist.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Why did the staff and management not always complete the accessibility training?

[Karen Hogan]

We heard many reasons. Sometimes it was just a timing issue. In some cases, it was not really clear that individuals who were in management had to complete the training. When they were made aware of that, improvement occurred.

We found that members of management were not taking their training on time. There's a time delay in which it needs to be taken, and then it needs to be renewed. It's really important that those who set policy, coach individuals, or have oversight over those actually dealing with individuals travelling with disabilities understand the policies and weaknesses.

I know that Via Rail has since ensured that its management has taken the training. CATSA will do so by March 31. That's an improvement, if everyone has done it in that short time frame.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You have about 30 seconds.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Do you want to comment about the data, the last point in your recommendations?

[Karen Hogan]

I would be happy to talk about the complaint data.

What we found was that Via Rail and CATSA were really focusing on addressing an individual's complaint. We made recommendations to sit back and really look for systemic problems across all the complaint data to see if maybe they have missed something.

We also looked at the Canadian Transportation Agency. We found that it doesn't really have access, or the right to have access, to a lot of the complaint data, for example from airlines. Without that data, it may be missing opportunities to provide better oversight or improve regulations in the future.

There are a few recommendations in our report related to using complaint data in a better way.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

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