Public Accounts Committee on May 4th, 2026

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I understand that you don't want to comment on the specific figure of $530 million, but speaking in general terms, if the government is cutting funding compared to what it used to invest in adaptation, do you think that's acting responsibly?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

The government is responsible for making budget decisions.

We want to see results and ensure that it uses the funds effectively to protect federal assets and build resilience, as well as to protect Canadians.

That said, the government is the one that makes the choices when it comes to how much—

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but I don't have much time. Thank you.

I understand that the federal government has identified more than 1,600 critical assets. Of these, 275 are at significant risk, yet you say that only 3% of these assets have a resilience plan in place—one that would enable the government to achieve results in terms of risk reduction. Furthermore, it has pushed back its targets. Previously, resilience plans were required by 2022; now, it says this will be by 2035, with no interim targets.

Do you consider this responsible? Isn't there a risk associated with delaying the requirement that these assets be resilient?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

As you can see in exhibit 8 of our report, this represents only 3%, even though there are more than 1,600 critical assets in total. We even had to enlarge the chart in exhibit 8 so that we could see the 3% portion representing the critical assets that have a resilience plan in place.

Of course, the government needs to pick up the pace when it comes to risk assessments, resilience plans and the implementation of those plans. That is the result we need to achieve.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

The 3% figure involves the assets.

Can we infer that the same applies to services and activities—namely, that only 3% of them are covered by a resilience plan?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Perhaps Ms. Grondin could address the service-related questions. None of our exhibits cover services.

[Marie-Pierre Grondin, Director, Office of the Auditor General]

This wasn't assessed in the same way. We focused specifically on critical assets. As for services, we took a more comprehensive approach to evaluating the implementation of measures.

All in all, what we observed overall was fairly slow progress when it came to moving from the information and analysis stage to concrete actions on the ground.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bonin.

We'll now begin our second round, which will consist of five members with various times.

Mr. Deltell, you have five minutes.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to greet my colleagues.

Welcome, everyone.

We are here, at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, first and foremost to ensure that taxpayers' money—that is, the billions of dollars they pay in taxes—is well invested and well managed.

Unfortunately, today we have another scathing report from the Auditor General. Sadly, this report concerns first nations. Once again, the program in question is very ambitious and has very laudable goals, but the results are slow in coming. The results are one thing; the management is even worse.

The Auditor General's report reveals that, while $6.5 billion has been spent over the past 10 years on first nations, no audits were conducted, there was no monitoring and the program was not properly assessed.

To quote the Auditor General, “More than $6.5 billion in grants has been distributed, but the department did not know whether the grants were achieving intended outcomes…”. Listen carefully to what comes next: “…including reducing socio-economic gaps between First Nations and other Canadians.”

This government has spent $6.5 billion over the past 10 years, and we are unable to clearly assess the positive outcomes for first nations.

Ms. Hogan, how can we convince Canadians to continue paying taxes and assure them that they are getting their money's worth?

[Karen Hogan]

When it comes to new financial initiatives for first nations, I think it's important to note that this isn't new money. It's the same money in a different form and under a different name. Furthermore, the transformative elements of the relationship are missing or underdeveloped.

The government has committed to using the community well-being index to assess whether the socio-economic gap between first nations communities and Canadians has been addressed. In our view, this index is not the right tool to use. First, it doesn't cover the 10-year grants on which the initiatives are based. This index is only provided every five or six years.

We have recommended that the government use the full range of information it already collects on indigenous communities and identify better targets for assessing outcomes. I expect that, every time a dollar is spent, the public service will consider its accountability to taxpayers.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Actually, let's talk about the public service and every dollar spent.

Paragraph 15 of your report states the following regarding a policy: “Department officials told us that they did not have sufficient funding to implement the policy or for capacity development support for First Nations.”

Auditor General, last week we learned that this government spent $24 billion on first nations, representing an 85% increase since 2018, and officials say they don't have enough money.

What is the problem? Is it that we're not managing things properly, or is it that we're not efficient enough?

[Karen Hogan]

I think there are many underlying causes. When we review programs for indigenous communities, we often find that a lot of money is being spent, but there are no measures in place to assess whether the intended outcomes are being achieved.

One of the government's key commitments in transforming its relationship with first nations was to provide better support to build their financial management capacity. However, this element is missing. That is what the excerpt from the report you just read refers to.

Last year, in my mid-mandate message, I called on the government to truly transform the way it works with indigenous communities, and I had high hopes for the new fiscal initiatives. However, I believe it has fallen short. It has succeeded in providing flexible and predictable funding, but it has failed to truly transform the relationship and assess whether socio-economic gaps are narrowing.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Ms. Hogan, thank you so much for sharing your testimony.

You look at every single page, every dollar that is spent, and your conclusion is clear: After 10 years under this government, we haven't seen the results we would have hoped for.

For all those who pay taxes and want to help first nations, unfortunately, the system isn't working. The first victims of this mismanagement and this abysmal accountability are the first nations themselves. I can't say it enough: I'm very proud to represent the Wendat. Wendake is in my riding. It is an extraordinarily dynamic community in economic terms, one that takes charge of its own destiny and is open to all other first nations and, of course, to non-indigenous people. There are people who want this to work. There are people who are willing to invest themselves to make it work. However, after 10 years under this government, it's been nothing but disappointment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Let's move on to the next speaker.

Ms. Yip, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you.

Thank you for coming back for the spring reports. It's very nice to see you here today, Mr. DeMarco.

My question is in regard to the avian flu. The audit showed that there were 870,000 doses of avian flu vaccine and 95% of these doses were not used. They expired by February 2026. What happened there?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Avian flu was not easy to predict. The federal government was faced with an emerging risk, and they decided to move quickly to acquire doses for at-risk individuals, such as farmers and veterinarians, without having conducted much of an analysis as to how much was really needed. They purchased 500,000 doses, and a small portion of those were being used. There was not that much uptake.

Before they were ready to purchase more doses, they did complete a more detailed analysis. They determined that they only needed 300,000 doses in total, yet they purchased another 370,000 on top of the 500,000 that had already been purchased. They had an extreme oversupply. When those doses expired just two months ago, 95% had gone unused.

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

Why was there a duplication in ordering? Was the tracking not there?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Perhaps, if we were to return here with the departments alongside us, they could help explain their course of action. However, even in hindsight it is questionable as to why they were increasing their inventory when the existing inventory was being used at such a low rate. Why did they do that? The department is in the best position to answer that.

It's easy to look at the past and talk about the mistakes that were made, but as Auditor General Hogan mentioned, these aren't one-off mistakes in terms of the management of vaccines, going back to COVID, SARS, H1N1 and so on. Let's learn from these instances and do a better job, before the next emergency, to be ready. That's the focus of our recommendation in this audit.

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

Perhaps it was good that they were conscious of a need for the vaccine, and the concern was there.

You mentioned learning from this. What are some of the learnings that could be applied for the future?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

In particular, we'd like the Public Health Agency of Canada—and this is our recommendation number 72—to improve its systems and procedures regarding vaccine stockpiles, including on their use and distribution, and to collaborate more by implementing a plan, with provinces and territories, to secure data-sharing agreements for monitoring vaccine use so that they have a better handle on the uptake rate and so on, as well as being better able to manage the safe distribution and storage and to minimize wastage.

The agency has agreed to that recommendation. It remains to be seen whether they will act on it in a way that prevents our office from having to do another report of this nature the next time there is a large procurement of vaccines.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Hogan, one of the report's findings is that Indigenous Services Canada has not yet developed a mutual accountability framework. However, this finding did not come with an accompanying recommendation. Can you elaborate on why this is?

[Karen Hogan]

I'm a firm believer in not issuing recommendations that say, “Do what you already committed to do.”

Here, there is a commitment to co-develop a mutual accountability framework. They've begun that work. It stalled a little because first nations communities wanted to be the ones driving what the outcomes would look like. It's not one-size-fits-all for first nations communities.

I believe they know what they've committed to doing, and they need to act on it.

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

In terms of accessibility in the public service, what is the most important recommendation for all seven organizations to implement?

[Karen Hogan]

I can tell you that there has been good progress when it comes to fostering a workplace that is accessible to individuals with disabilities, but we highlighted two areas that need to be worked on.

The first is having better consultation with peoples with disabilities. The principle in the accessibility act of “nothing about us without us” needs to become almost second nature in the day-to-day of all departments and agencies.

The second is improving the process that is there to accommodate individuals so they can fully and equally participate in the workplace. A workplace should be designed as accessible by default. In the absence of that, and in the interim until everyone can get there, duty-to-accommodate processes are how individuals are supported. We saw varying degrees of how those requests were handled, from 24 days to over 300 days. That's a really long time to wait for someone to just be able to participate in the workplace.

The last thing I will tell you is that, while we only audited seven departments and agencies, I expect that every deputy head would be looking at the recommendations and our results here. We are all part of the public service, and everyone can learn from some of these findings and recommendations to improve their workplace.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you. That is your time.

Mr. Lemire, you have two and a half minutes.