Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 19th, 2023

[Karen Hogan]

Since the action plan is missing concrete measures, I doubt it will lead to concrete changes. I can tell you, however, that funds that were spent did lead to an improvement in data and data surveillance, but there are still gaps.

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

Again, with health being an area of provincial jurisdiction, is there a good flow of data between the federal government and the provinces in relation to these activities?

[Karen Hogan]

What I can say is that the pan-Canadian action plan on antimicrobial resistance stems from a government commitment in response to our 2015 audit.

I am well aware that efforts were put on hold because of the pandemic. However, given how the health sector is administered in Canada, the different levels of government have to work together under the agreement they signed.

The federal government can help improve access to new antibiotics, but we found that it does very little to make them more accessible in Canada. In fact, Canada has access to only two of 13 new antibiotics of last resort, which isn't enough. Other countries have access to between eight and 13 of those new antibiotics. These drugs are essential, because as viruses mutate, they become more and more resistant.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor for three minutes, please.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Hogan, for being present and for tabling these very important reports.

In some comments that were made earlier already by some of my colleagues, they spoke about report nine on IRCC. This is something that, as I think most members of Parliament would be aware, has been bombarding our offices. We know from just the volume of requests from our constituents that there's something wrong.

I think your report nine is a true testament to the fact that we've been experiencing this and, worse, that we have real people, even as we speak, who have applications pending right now. Many of them are refugees.

You spoke in your report about how these are taking upwards of 30 months and even longer than that—some are three years—and the sense of the inadequacy of the existing system as it pertains to what people qualify for as the time of processing versus what they actually experience. Would you agree that it gives folks—in particular, some of the world's most vulnerable—a false sense of hope when they see a processing time that is completely unrealistic in terms of their experience?

[Karen Hogan]

I think it's important to note that the department does process hundreds of thousands of permanent resident applications in a given year and has been meeting increasing immigration targets, but I agree with you that the service standards are not realistic service standards, which is why we recommended to the department to be more transparent about exactly the amount of time that it takes to process an application.

There are many aspects that are outside the control of the department and getting access to documents from certain countries might be difficult, but most of the delays we saw were in processes well within the control of the government. I would describe it as poor management of applications and poor inventory management of files that contribute a lot to some of the wait time, and that's well within the department's ability to fix. Being transparent and addressing those issues would help.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

In my own experience, from my office and working on behalf of constituents on this, we often found, for example, more recent applications—that are of a similar nature to some that were filed years ago—being sometimes processed faster. To me, it seems like an unfairness that exists in that system.

Can you contribute as to what system in particular failed and why that's a result?

[Karen Hogan]

I could tell you that in our audit we found very similar things: that at times the processing of newer applications occurred before older applications.

I do acknowledge that some applications might take time and that you can't necessarily always treat them in the order that they come in, but what was concerning for us was that the department wasn't doing that analysis along the lines of race, country of origin or country of residence. We felt that it was important for them to analyze whether there were differential outcomes and to try to address what they might be.

One of the causes we found was where files were routed for processing. Some offices are receiving workloads that don't match their employee complement.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

We're turning now to Mrs. Gray.

Mrs. Gray, you have the floor for three minutes.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the Auditor General and her team for being here.

My first question is on “Report 7: Modernizing Information Technology Systems”. You've stated that two-thirds of the software applications used by government were “in poor health”, including 562 that are essential to the health, safety, security or economic well-being of Canadians.

Are you able to table, for this committee, what those 562 software applications are that you referred to?

[Karen Hogan]

I'm going to look to see if the public database is publicly available.

[Jean Goulet, Principal, Office of the Auditor General]

No, it's not.

[Karen Hogan]

It is not.

I would encourage the member to perhaps reach out to the department, Treasury Board, which really does gather all of that information.

There are 7,500 applications in that system and, as you rightfully said, 562 were deemed critical.

I would also point out that some of that information is old and outdated. Those were some of our recommendations: that we encourage Treasury Board to get more timely and accurate information to be able to prioritize IT modernization.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

That's great. Thank you very much.

My next couple of questions are on “Report 8: “The Benefits Delivery Modernization Programme”. The report says that the initial cost estimates for this IT project in 2017 were approximately $1.75 billion. As of April 2022, the cost was $2.5 billion, an increase of 43%. Then there was a PricewaterhouseCoopers report done in November 2022, which estimates that the final cost could be up to $3.4 billion, up to a 94% cumulative increase from the initial estimate.

My first question is this: Do you have a list of consultants who worked on this project, what their scope was and what the breakdown of costs was for each of them?

[Karen Hogan]

Unfortunately, we didn't look at the contracting angle. We could provide you some information about some of the contractors that we know are in there. It might not be exhaustive. Again, I would encourage the member to reach out to the department. They have that information and can absolutely give it to you.

What we looked at when we looked at the cost increases was that we tried to understand why. At the beginning, it was because of an underestimating of what some of the costs might be, but as time goes on, the rising cost of labour, inflation and all those things will contribute to this continuing to grow. That's why action needs to be taken to modernize this quickly and to not continue to watch the price tag go up.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you. Could you table for this committee whatever information you do have?

For my second question, the report refers to staffing. Do you have any numbers on how many government staff have worked on this project, if it has changed year over year since 2017 and if there are any targets or projections? Those are just the staff numbers.

Thank you.

[Karen Hogan]

Again, these are all excellent questions that the department should be answering. They have all of that information. We didn't look at staffing and the complement. We were looking at the progress made and whether or not the government was learning from the lessons learned from other significant IT projects. We can provide some information to the chair, but the best source of information would be the department.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Of course we will have those officials in.

I'm afraid that is the time. I'm turning now to Ms. Bradford.

You have the floor for three minutes. Go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the Auditor General and her staff for being here this morning.

I want to turn to report number nine on the IRCC and processing applications for permanent residence.

You state that you found in 2022 that IRCC had improved its processing times for most of the permanent resident programs you examined. Economic-class applicants experienced the greatest improvement among all three immigration classes, and family-class applicants also experienced improved processing times, with the newer applications making up the majority of the applications process.

Can you tell us why that particular area seemed to have the most improvement and what contributed to that?

[Karen Hogan]

I believe it was because it was set as a priority in order to address that class of applications, and hence resources were focused on that. We see that often that, when the government sets immigration levels, they are divided by the different types of classes, whether they be humanitarian, economic or family reunification. However, at times, priorities come up. For example, in the past we would have seen that, when Syrian refugees were being accepted into the country, there was a priority. Resources get rerouted, and applications get processed more quickly. That means there is a domino effect for those sitting in the inventory.

That's why it's really important for the department to understand the capacity of their offices and to be able to route applications in a better way. Right now, it is definitely resulting in differential outcomes either across programs or across the country for citizenship.

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

Also, on the private sponsorship of refugee programs, I noticed that processing times are shorter for applicants residing in Canada. How much shorter, generally, are they? What challenges are there, specifically, for the applicants who are not residing in Canada?

[Karen Hogan]

I'm going to see if Carol might have some more details on exactly how much shorter they are. What I can explain to you from our understanding of the process is that one of the elements is interviewing applicants, which is easier to do when they're in Canada than in a country where there may be security concerns. Access to medical information and key documents might be facilitated when someone is already in Canada versus overseas or in another country. I'm going to see if Carol has now found the differences.

[Carol McCalla, Principal, Office of the Auditor General]

We could absolutely provide you with the processing times. It was a matter of a few months. Processing times were shorter for residents in Canada because of the travel restrictions during the pandemic. The government prioritized processing the applications for individuals who were in Canada because they could be finalized. They had to put on hold the applications that were overseas because those people with travel restrictions couldn't travel.

We did find that there was priority given to those in Canada, definitely, and that their processing times were shorter than those for applicants overseas.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much. That is the time, I'm afraid.

Auditor, we're going to keep you here for another 12 minutes, until a little past 11.

I'm turning now to Madame Sinclair-Desgagné.

Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné, you may go ahead for three minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Now I want to turn to reports 7 and 8, which pertain to the modernization of government IT systems. I went over everything the government has spent on consulting services in this area, mainly since 2017 and 2018. Many of the consulting firms specialize in the field. Accenture, Fujitsu and IBM come to mind. Naturally, they were hired to assess strategies, but does it really take eight years? I'm not convinced.

If we look at the outcomes for these modernization efforts, we see that they're pretty abysmal, and that's clear in your report. Even though the government's targets hardly seem ambitious, it hasn't been able to meet them. Of the 60% target, just 38% of IT systems have been modernized.

Can you tell us what you found regarding outcomes and the measures that were put in place?