THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 7, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met with videoconference this day at 6:49 p.m. [ET] to study matters relating to federal estimates generally and other financial matters.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I wish to welcome all of the senators as well as the viewers across the country who are watching us on sencanada.ca.
[Translation]
My name is Percy Mockler. I’m a senator from New Brunswick and the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. I would now like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting from my left.
Senator Forest: Éric Forest from the Gulf Senate division in Quebec. Welcome.
[English]
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Loffreda: Welcome. Senator Tony Loffreda, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Ross: Hi, everyone, Krista Ross from Fredericton.
Senator McNair: Hi, welcome. I am John McNair from New Brunswick.
Senator Kingston: Hi, Joan Kingston from New Brunswick.
Senator Pate: Hi, Kim Pate. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
We are meeting to hear from the Auditor General of Canada, Ms. Karen Hogan. Thank you to you and your team for accepting our invitation. We look forward to your comments, discussion and questions from the senators.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, Ms. Hogan is joined by Jean Goulet, principal; Markirit Armutlu, principal; and Carey Agnew, principal.
[English]
We also have Erin Jellinek, director. Thank you, each of you, for accepting our invitation. Thank you, Auditor General, for saying that you would come to the meeting on short notice.
Again, we will take this opportunity to ask the Auditor General to give us her remarks, to be followed by questions from the senators.
[Translation]
Ms. Hogan, the floor is yours.
[English]
Karen Hogan, Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Usually, I take about five minutes. Hopefully, with your indulgence, you will give me more time, given that there are five reports to highlight. Excellent.
I am pleased to be here to discuss the five reports which were tabled in Parliament on October 19, 2023. I would like to acknowledge that this hearing is taking place on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.
Two points stood out for me from these five reports: data and timeliness. In all of the reports, we found instances where data was weak or underused, and failures to take prompt action impacting the public service’s ability to meet the needs of Canadians.
I will turn first to our audit of antimicrobial resistance, an area that my office last examined in 2015. When it comes to public health, COVID-19 showed us that the cost of not being prepared is measured in lives lost. This is why antimicrobial resistance is concerning.
The rate of resistance to first-line antibiotics in Canada was estimated at 26% in 2018 and is expected to reach 40% by 2050. We found that the federal government has not done enough to address this problem.
While the Public Health Agency of Canada released a Pan‑Canadian Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance in June 2023, it lacks critical elements, including concrete deliverables, timelines and ways to measure progress. Without these, it is unlikely the plan will be successful.
We also found that the Public Health Agency and Health Canada have been slow to implement changes, such as economic incentives, that could improve Canadians’ access to antibiotics of last resort. Only two of thirteen new antibiotics used to fight drug-resistant infections are available in Canada, yet all thirteen are available in the United States.
To successfully fight antimicrobial resistance, Canada needs a full picture of antimicrobial use and resistance across the country and a solid plan.
[Translation]
Let’s look next at two audits that are closely related. The first examined the government’s overall approach to modernizing its information technology systems. The second focused on modernizing three benefits. These benefits are Old Age Security, Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance.
In the first audit, we found that about two thirds of the approximately 7,500 software applications used in the government were in poor health. This figure includes 562 applications that are essential to the health, safety, security and economic well-being of Canadians.
We found that several factors contributed to delays and cost increases. These factors include a lack of centralized leadership and oversight, a shortage of skilled people to carry out the work and a rigid funding approach. Every day that these systems aren’t modernized increases the risk that they fail and that Canadians lose access to essential services.
Our audit of the Benefits Delivery Modernization programme echoed these findings. Progress on modernizing the three systems that deliver benefits to Canadians has encountered delays, cost increases and staffing challenges. The programme is halfway through its 13-year timeline. All benefits are still running on systems that are 20 to 60 years old.
This audit also illustrates how the government’s funding approach is poorly suited to large information technology projects. When the programme was launched in 2017, Employment and Social Development Canada estimated that it would cost $1.75 billion. That number has since been revised twice to reach $2.5 billion in April 2022. It’s likely to change again in the face of further delays and challenges. These revisions amount to a 43% increase of the 2017 number. None of the three benefits have been migrated to the new platform.
[English]
We found that Employment and Social Development Canada adjusted its approach to address delays and challenges. For example, the department moved Old Age Security to the front of its migration priority list, as it is the oldest of the three systems and the one at the greatest risk of failing.
While Employment and Social Development Canada’s decision to focus on migrating the systems rightly prioritized the continuity of benefits, I am concerned that further challenges and delays could result in shortcuts to maintain the timelines or budget and cutting back on the transformation, as happened with the Phoenix pay system. This would result in a final product that fails to meet the needs of Canadians.
Our next audit looked at the processing of immigration applications for permanent residence. We found delays, backlogs and inefficiencies that affect the lives of people seeking to permanently make Canada their home, with the greatest impact on those applying to refugee programs.
While Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada improved the time it took to process applications and reduced backlogs in 2022, it did not meet its service standards for prompt processing in any of the eight programs we examined.
People applying to refugee programs waited the longest, on average close to three years. At the end of 2022, 99,000 refugees were still waiting for a decision on their application and will likely be waiting years.
We found that most delays and backlogs were caused by the department’s own processes. For example, the department did not always process applications in the order they were received, causing older applications to get further backlogged, or routed applications to offices without considering their processing capacity.
[Translation]
The department also didn’t assess whether its automated eligibility assessment tool reduced processing times or identified and resolved any unintended differential outcomes.
The department needs to analyze its backlogs to understand the root causes for differential outcomes. It must also ensure that the tools that it implements aren’t contributing to these differences. It must match workloads to available resources to improve processing times.
Our last audit looked at actions taken by six federal organizations to foster an inclusive organizational culture and correct conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by racialized employees. We found that all six organizations had action plans to address equity, diversity and inclusion. However, none of them measured or comprehensively reported on progress against outcomes.
Although the six organizations that we audited focused on the goal of assembling a workforce representative of Canadian society, that’s only the first step. It isn’t enough to achieve the change needed to create a truly inclusive workplace. For that change to happen, departments need to actively engage with their racialized employees, use their data to inform their decisions and hold their leadership accountable for delivering change.
[English]
These issues are not new. If COVID-19 taught us anything, it’s that being prepared and acting early costs less and results in better outcomes. I said it in March 2021 and I will repeat it today: the government should not need a crisis to understand the importance of prompt action.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening statement. We would be pleased to answer questions. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you for your statement, Ms. Hogan. Your participation here today helps our committee focus on our four broad unifying principles. These principles are transparency, accountability, reliability and predictability of the budget.
Thank you again for taking the time to speak.
[English]
Before I recognize Senator Marshall for questions, as chair of the committee, I would like to welcome two new senators who are now permanent members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Thank you very much for choosing the Finance Committee. There is no doubt that your experience is laudable to all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I recognize Senator Joan Kingston from New Brunswick and Senator Krista Ross from New Brunswick.
We will now proceed to questions. I would like to share with senators that you will have a maximum of five minutes each for the first round and a maximum of three minutes each for the second round. Therefore, please ask your questions directly to the witnesses. Witnesses, please respond concisely, and the clerk will follow the clock.
Senator Marshall: Ms. Hogan, thank you and all your staff for being here tonight.
My questions relate to the two reports on the information technology systems. It was very concerning to me when I read the two reports because I got the impression that the systems in government haven’t been given the attention that they deserve. I raised the issue of your reports with Treasury Board officials as well as with Employment and Social Development Canada. I think I might have even mentioned them to Shared Services to try to get a handle on what is going on.
When Employment and Social Development Canada testified and I raised the issue of the concerns in your report, their response was fairly positive. What kind of follow-up do you do with regard to your audits and your audit reports? Do you track them, or do you wait until a period of time has elapsed before you go back? The story I get from them isn’t exactly consistent with what’s in your report. Could you just sort of bridge that gap for me as to what could have happened there?
Ms. Hogan: I would tell you the answer is really that it depends. There are times when we will keep a close eye on things and other times when we feel it’s best suited to give the government time to put some plans into action.
I think here what I would say is the government is doing a lot. They are spending a lot of money and time on maintaining old systems. While that is needed because the stability of Old Age Security and Employment Insurance is essential, they also need to spend some time deciding whether they want to build a new system or buy a new system. Really, the focus has been on the first part, just sort of the maintenance. I would kind of equate it to driving a 50-year-old car. You can drive a 50-year-old car; it’s just costly to maintain, it might not always be that reliable, and eventually, you have to decide if you need a new car.
Senator Marshall: What is the issue within government? Is it an issue with regard to leadership? Speaking with the department and speaking with Treasury Board officials and Shared Services, it sounds like the responsibility for systems development and systems within government is almost split between different groups. It’s hard to get a handle when talking to these different groups as to who exactly is responsible. You have the Benefits Delivery Modernization programme, which will be $2.5 billion, but it was really difficult to get a handle on who is responsible for it. Is it the department, or is it Treasury Board? It seems like I don’t even know if they know exactly who is in charge.
Ms. Hogan: Every time there is a big project like this, there needs to be a central department that takes accountability. The “business owner” is usually the terminology used in the public service. In the case of Benefits Delivery Modernization, it makes sense that it’s Employment and Social Development Canada, given the programs that we’re talking about. In another instance, it could be a completely different department.
What do I think are some of the big reasons that there hasn’t been a lot of time or money invested in IT? I think I would chalk it up to three buckets. I would tell you that there has been a lack of centralized leadership and oversight. It has been 24 years since the public service themselves identified that aging IT was a concern, yet there is still no plan to drive what that modernization might look like. Even understanding the total dollar value needed to invest to modernize is something that is missing. That lack of centralized leadership is definitely something that needs to improve. That would include oversight. While we’re seeing some additional oversight, Treasury Board Secretariat right now, where the Chief Information Officer of Canada is, can really only have oversight over 25 projects. Well, there are thousands of projects.
The second thing I would highlight is a lack of personnel with the specialized skills that might be needed to modernize. There are skills right now to maintain some of the older systems. While you need that to transition, you also need the skills to innovate and be different.
Then the last thing I would talk about is probably the slow and rigid funding approach. I would tell you that the funding approach is not really aligned with short-term, medium-term and long-term needs. It’s not very flexible or adaptable to the fact that you could identify how much money you need today to change a system in five to ten years, but the dollar today will not go as far as it will in five to ten years from now. The funding system needs to be adaptable.
Senator Marshall: Where did the $2.5 billion come from? When you’re looking at government programs, you can almost look at a program and say, “Oh, look, there’s the budget for it,” but when you look for the modernization program in ESDC and say the estimate is $2.5 billion, you can’t find that figure anywhere. Where is it? Is it split all over? Is it split in other departments? How do you track this information?
Ms. Hogan: I think that’s an estimate of the budget that might be needed — I’ll invite Jean Goulet, if he wants, to add something when I’m done — but it is really now the budget, so you won’t need all of that in year one. It will need to be flowed to the department over a period of time, but the first task is to have an accurate budget.
Senator Marshall: I have to check on my time. Do I have any more time?
The Chair: One more question, please.
Senator Marshall: In your report, you do a short report where you talk about the financial statement audits, and then you also talk about your audit of the consolidated financial statements. I notice that even in there you raise the issue of problems with some of the systems that generate information for the preparation of the Public Accounts of Canada. Can you just elaborate briefly on that? There wasn’t a lot of detail. I couldn’t get a good handle on it. You have it in your summary report, so you must be concerned about it. When I read it, I don’t get the same level of concern.
Ms. Hogan: The report you’re referring to is our financial commentary, which is a report that we issue annually when the Public Accounts of Canada are tabled. It includes observations that I make around the financial statements, including Phoenix.
When it talks about IT concerns that we raised there, there are IT concerns that we raise as we do financial audits across the Crown corporations and all of the departments. They would be less about changing systems that we’re looking at in these two performance audits and more around concerns that we see when it comes to putting together the financial statements. Many times it might be access control issues and that users who have access to financial information maybe don’t need it, or they have too much access to do their job. Those are really recommendations to improve financial controls as we prepare the financial statements. It is very different from replacing aging IT infrastructure.
Senator Marshall: Compared to what you’ve said about the ESDC system and what you have, the concerns are not of the same magnitude as the concerns that you have with regard to the information used to generate the Public Accounts?
Ms. Hogan: I would tell you that the current systems that process Old Age Security and Employment Insurance are feeding into the numbers that appear in the Public Accounts of Canada. Those systems are operating; it’s just that they are very old and at risk of failure. The older they get, and the longer the government waits to replace them, there’s a risk that they will fail and benefits won’t make it to Canadians. It’s very different preparing the statements versus delivering income support to Canadians that need it.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you for being here. We have the opportunity to learn some interesting yet worrying information.
While you were speaking, I noted that 7,500 applications currently in use are in poor health. This includes 562 applications that are essential for health, safety, security or economic well-being. Examples include the Phoenix situation and failures, particularly when it comes to immigration.
After completing your report, can you verify whether any action has been taken?
I’m quite concerned about the apparent lack of coordination. It seems that short-term management is the order of the day, and that no one is really taking charge of this vital issue for the security of Canadians.
Ms. Hogan: Yes. I would say that there’s a lack of centralized leadership. This leadership should be provided by the Treasury Board Secretariat.
A number of departments were surveyed as part of our audit on modernizing information technology systems. A number of departments told us that they didn’t have enough money to modernize their systems, so they opted simply to continue running them.
The need for a different approach is clearly being felt across the government. This starts with centralized leadership to help identify all systems in poor health. The list is incomplete right now. It isn’t up to date, and some departments aren’t providing timely information on the associated cost. This information is needed to modernize all systems.
The government could then set priorities. To that end, one of our recommendations was really to prioritize the limited funding towards the most critical systems, in order to develop a real plan.
I must admit that this puzzles me. After 24 years, there still isn’t any plan.
Senator Forest: You said earlier that there were certain action plans, but no assessments. It seems that the concept of performance indicators and accountability isn’t found in all government functions.
Who is really accountable when it comes to a critical situation for the country and certain action plans and objectives? You brought up this issue in a number of your reports. Do you think that this concept of accountability and performance indicators is found in departments and agencies?
Ms. Hogan: Honestly, I think that it depends. That’s my answer. The public service does an excellent job of drafting action plans. However, often the implementation is delayed or misses the target.
We often focus on the fact that we’re doing something, rather than on making sure that outcomes are achieved.
In my opinion, accountability must be assigned to the deputy minister of each department. They must ensure that their action plans are actually implemented and determine their needs.
The response is that there has been a lack of investment in information technology systems for decades. Clearly, centralized leadership will be needed to address the issue. It isn’t just an issue in one department. There’s really a broader issue in the government when it comes to information technology systems.
Senator Forest: In reality, it isn’t “sexy” to want to update our information systems. Clearly, from a political standpoint, this may not be the top priority.
Who do you think should be responsible for putting their foot down and saying that we’re undermining our public services, including services related to health and safety? Should it be the Privy Council? Who do you think should take on this responsibility?
Ms. Hogan: It is true that the tension between politics and the public service is challenging. A politician’s field of vision is really limited to the short term, usually four years or less. The public service is responsible for taking a long-term view and ensuring that consideration is given to future generations.
It also depends on the issue. If only one department is affected, it’s up to the deputy minister to have a constructive discussion with their minister. When the issue has a wider impact on government, a central agency like Treasury Board would be paired with a department official to deliver the response. That official would then liaise with the minister responsible.
The government should expect to invest in systems that aren’t visible to ensure that they run smoothly for future generations.
Senator Forest: You said government organizations are adept at coming up with plans, but not so good at assessing whether they are meeting the objectives. Similarly, they aren’t so good at following through on their fine plans. They come up with a great plan, but it’s actually more like a dream or wish. They aren’t able to measure progress towards the objectives in their plans in a professional or meaningful way.
Ms. Hogan: Again, I would say it depends. When it comes to the IT audits, first, there is no plan. The government needs a modernization plan. That is the first step in the right direction.
In terms of our audit on inclusion in the public service, I would say that many good initiatives were undertaken, and they really changed the face of the public service. However, all the focus was on the actions, not on the outcomes. The gap lies in examining the outcomes to see whether racialized employees really feel valued and included in the public service or whether the face of the public service has merely changed.
I would say it’s both: having the right plan and being results‑oriented.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for being here, for the audit reports and your opening statement, although it is concerning.
If I could start where you started, with the audit of the antimicrobial resistance, you do make a bold statement in your initial comments where the rate of resistance to first-line antibiotics in Canada was estimated at 26% in 2018 and is expected to reach 40% by 2050. You found the federal government has not done enough to address this problem. Also, you say that the Public Health Agency of Canada released a pan‑Canadian action plan on antimicrobial resistance in June 2023, but it lacks critical elements. Both organizations know that successfully encouraging companies to bring new drugs into Canada will solve this issue or problem, but it requires regulatory and economic incentives. Have you identified these regulatory and economic incentives that are required? Why haven’t they been done as of yet? When will they be done? This is very important to Canadians. You conclude with a remarkable statement. These issues are not new. If COVID-19 taught us anything, it’s that being prepared and acting early costs less and results in better outcomes. You said in March 2021 and repeated today that the government should not need a crisis to understand the importance of prompt action. Those are very bold statements, and I would like you to elaborate as to what your follow-up will be. What economic and regulatory incentives should be identified and provided? Do we need new legislation? Then the follow-up on those issues.
Ms. Hogan: This is the second time that we audited antimicrobial resistance; we audited it previously in 2015. While we’ve seen some progress, I would say it is small progress. The World Health Organization ranks antimicrobial resistance as one of the top 20 global public health crises that face the world, so while we all paused and held our breath during the pandemic, this was something we were aware of before it. Better action is needed.
When it comes to the regulatory and economic incentives that you mentioned, it was known back in 2015 and acknowledged by the departments in that something needed to be done. When it comes to what needs to be done, I am not the one who tells the government what policy or regulatory framework should be put in place. I can only hold it to its plans and commitments and then whether they’ve acted on whatever new policy they have put in place.
When you look at this, access to new drugs is important because viruses are continuously evolving. Ensuring Canada continues to have access to new and emerging drugs would help individuals who might need them to survive. It’s concerning here because there are drugs available; it’s just that they are not available in Canada.
I would encourage that the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada need to actually dedicate resources and a budget. Up until this most recent year, all of the work done around antimicrobial resistance was found from their existing budget — there was no dedicated funding — so I would think that’s part of the reason why we’ve seen very little progress since our previous audit in 2015.
Senator Loffreda: Why is there no dedicated funding? Is it because it’s about perception, right? It’s not seen by the public so they don’t pay attention to it?
If you look at the U.S., you made a statement that 2 out of 13 new antibiotics used to fight drug-resistance infections are available in Canada, yet all 13 are available in the United States. Why the large difference?
I would like to give you some time to answer that, but I see you have made recommendations, like great auditors do — and you are doing a great job; thank you for that. The report is very insightful. I read it in detail. You’re making recommendations from 6.24 to 6.64. Do you feel those recommendations will solve the issue? If they are not put in place, what are the consequences for our government? In private industry, where I come from, the consequences are huge when you’re doing an audit and recommendations are not put in place. The people are accountable and will lose their jobs.
Ms. Hogan: There are a lot of questions there.
I’ll start off with the difference in access. The difference between Canada and the United States is that most of the manufacturers of the antiviral drugs are in the United States, not in Canada. Canada has very limited manufacturing capability. In order to ensure that Canada has access, as you mentioned, the economic and regulatory incentives need to be there for manufacturers to want to support Canada.
I think our recommendations will definitely move the bar. I would expect that departments need to act on it in a prompt way. As I mentioned earlier, my thoughts about the lack of action is likely linked to the lack of a budget. You can’t really expect something to advance, even if you have an action plan, if you don’t have dedicated resources to move it forward. There was some funding in the 2023 Budget, and time will tell if the departments take the actions we expect.
Senator Loffreda: Budgets are made by the government. We’ve seen spending these last years really increase substantially, so I hope that’s taken into account going forward. You make those recommendations that they should prioritize health and safety.
Ms. Hogan: The government has many things to spend on, and that’s why they need to have a complete picture of what they need to address. Then every department needs to help prioritize the use of the funds they receive in the best ways possible. This is something that everyone’s well aware of, and progress needs to be made.
Senator Loffreda: Just to conclude, you don’t make a strong recommendation with respect to what should be prioritized; as an auditor, you just outline the weaknesses, make some recommendations and follow up?
Ms. Hogan: It’s up to every deputy head to decide how best to utilize their budget.
Senator Loffreda: Their budget. Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you all for being here, and I give you a special thanks for all the work you do. It’s much appreciated.
In reviewing this process and hearing particularly about the Benefits Delivery Modernization programme, you looked at Old Age Security, including the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors. In terms of the number of people this will potentially impact if this isn’t modernized, what do you see happening if they don’t actually streamline some of this? I ask particularly in light of the fact they are also now in the process of designing another Canada disability benefit. They are supposed to be reforming Employment Insurance because that system was shown not to be fit for purpose during the pandemic. Are there internal recommendations that you’re making to them about which ones could be streamlined if they are not readily apparent to the departments?
Ms. Hogan: I will start off by talking to you about how many people might be impacted by this.
In 2022-23, with the three benefits that we’re talking about, which are Old Age Security, Employment Insurance and the Canada Pension Plan, about $150 billion went to more than 10 million Canadians, so we’re definitely talking about a much bigger impact than when we would have looked at the Phoenix pay system. The scale is much, much larger.
The systems, as I mentioned earlier, are quite old. Some are up to 60 years old. In fact, the system that Old Age Security is running on is 60 years old. As I mentioned, there is a lot of time and effort put into repairing and maintaining it, and it is functioning. That’s why I was happy to see the decision to prioritize that benefit platform first, because it is the oldest. It is the most at risk of failing and the one that would impact many of the most vulnerable Canadians.
Prioritizing it in order to stabilize it is what they are doing now, but they have prioritized really that part of the transition. There is a second leg, which is modernizing the Old Age system. That’s what you have referred to about new systems or bringing it up to the needs of Canadians. I’m concerned that will be forgotten because it might take so much time and money to just modernize and stabilize such old systems. I hope that the government will remember the lessons learned from Phoenix, that you should not lose sight of the outcome and make sure that you not only stabilize your IT systems, but modernize the delivery of it.
When it comes to what should be modernized — that was probably your last question — that is really up to the government. The policy decision on how to structure Old Age Security or CPP or EI, that comes to the government on deciding what it should look like for the short term and for future generations.
Senator Pate: I guess I was trying to come at the question a bit sideways to leave it a little more open, but let me be really direct. There has been much made of the fact that we streamlined and modernized the Revenue Canada system. It was the only one that could roll out resources, as I understand it, as we have been told, during the pandemic in a more efficient way. The government has said that they are prioritizing bringing people online, particularly those who might be eligible for benefits but don’t even know it and don’t file taxes. Would a modernizing or prioritizing of that system, in your opinion, be a good starting point for the government?
Ms. Hogan: Are you referring to the system that Canada Revenue Agency uses, like My Account where we all interact when we file our tax returns? They are for different purposes, so it’s really hard for me to opine on whether improving My Account might help with delivering income support programs like this one. But I would tell you that the regulatory regime around these three programs is complex, which adds to the difficulty as you try to modernize the IT system. There are a lot of rules and regulations that need to be incorporated and thought about, and then add on protection of personal information and bilingualism. It’s complex to update some of these systems. So any streamlining of that would obviously make a project less costly and run faster, hopefully.
Senator Pate: I was thinking less of the program My Account, but the process of having a more centralized almost like a database or system that then could function —
Ms. Hogan: When we looked at some of the COVID programs, we talked about a digital identity. A taxpayer would have one identity and then interact with the federal government or all levels of government with that identity. We see that in other countries, and that would absolutely streamline for the user interacting with your government and accessing benefits, where maybe you don’t need to talk to many departments because programs are siloed based on which department is the owner or is responsible for the delivery. We’re actually considering looking at that again because we think it’s important to advance the modernization of the government.
I think it’s the Canada Revenue Agency — I’m going to ask Jean Goulet to maybe jump in — that is looking at a program to get more real-time information on payroll and salaries, and all of that modernizing would help improve income support programs or other programs that might be offered by the government to Canadians.
Do you want to add anything to that, Jean?
Jean Goulet, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Regarding the digital ID, this is another audit we started, looking at how the government is dealing with it. What we’re seeing is that every Canadian that wants to deal with the government has to deal with each and every individual department or even application, and we need a centralized approach in order to cut down on the number of passwords, for example. This is one of the ways of doing it. The government is moving in that direction, and we’re doing an audit on that to see how fast and how it’s going to unfold.
Senator Pate: When do you anticipate that audit?
Ms. Hogan: The fall of 2024.
Senator Pate: I’m looking forward to that.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you for being here, and thank you for the valuable work you do for Parliament.
I wonder if you’ll take a question on the commentary of the financial statements.
Ms. Hogan: I will absolutely take it. I can’t guarantee I’ll have a good answer, but we’ll try.
Senator MacAdam: We seem to be focused on the performance audits, but I did have a question. I appreciate that.
In your commentary on the 2022-23 financial audits, you raised concerns about the government’s process for identifying and recovering overpayments or payments made to ineligible recipients of COVID-19 benefits. In your commentary, you reference a 2022 performance audit called specific COVID-19 benefits where your report estimated that at least $27.4 billion of payments to individuals and businesses should be investigated further through post payment verification to confirm their eligibility. You wanted CRA and Employment and Social Development Canada to update post-payment verification plans to identify payments to ineligible recipients of benefits. In your commentary, it states that your office remains concerned that government may not be investigating significant amounts of payments made to ineligible individuals or businesses. I am wondering if you can elaborate on this issue. Are you satisfied with the post-payment verification work that has been done to date? I would think, with that amount of money, that post‑payment verification work will take some time for them to do. I just wanted to get some more information on that issue. Obviously, you are very concerned about it if it’s in your commentary.
Ms. Hogan: I absolutely remain concerned about what I think is the lack of rigour and scope of the post-payment work. The plans that were set out by CRA and ESDC, in my mind, are insufficient. They are the normal post-payment work that the departments would typically do for what is a very unusual situation.
In many cases, if you look at the Employment Insurance program, for example, there is a rigorous process to vet an applicant to ensure that they are eligible to receive the benefits, and then there is still a degree of post-payment verification work done to confirm eligibility. When we looked at the COVID-19 programs, most of those were done with very little prepayment controls. That was done to expedite the payments, which is really a best practice that you see in time of an emergency. But when you reduce the amount of vetting prepayment, you really do need to have a rigorous post-payment plan in place. During some of our first audits on CERB and CEWS, those plans had not yet been established. When we looked at the specific COVID-19 benefits audit, we now were able to look at the plans. We felt that they were not rigorous enough. The follow-up was not treating all taxpayers fairly.
I think I would raise two concerns there. If you identify that there are, for example, 100,000 individuals who might not be eligible based on certain criteria, you should follow up with all 100,000, not a subset of those. At times, that’s what we’re seeing: only a group of businesses or individuals are being followed up when a larger population might not be meeting the eligibility criteria.
The second would be the time that it’s taking to do these. I acknowledge that it will take some time, but there is a regulatory time frame by which the government can only take so many years to let a taxpayer know that they may have received something in error. That time is quickly approaching. We’re concerned that the government will not be able to identify who may not be eligible.
We made many recommendations, the first being that they should first identify businesses and individuals who are not eligible, and then make the decision whether they expect to try and recover. They can make a decision that, for many reasons, they might not try to recover from everyone, but you have to do the first step to find out how many individuals and businesses received payments when they were ineligible to do so.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
Senator McNair: Thank you, Auditor General, to you and your staff for being here tonight. We appreciate it, and it’s informative for us.
You talk about the income support programs, Old Age Security, Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance, and tonight you mentioned the magnitude of it being $150 billion to 10 million Canadians. That is hugely significant, and there is the risk of failure. Do you get a sense that there have been any lessons learned from Phoenix and that we’re ready to move forward with, essentially, the sense of urgency that is needed to ensure no risk of failure?
Ms. Hogan: We absolutely looked at this through the lens of did the government learn some lessons from Phoenix and build on how they are delivering on this very important program. What we found is that there were definitely some lessons learned.
Independent external advice is being sought. Some of the reasons why the cost increases are there is that an external party was asked to come in and look at the initial budget and ensure that it included best practices in the industry and that it was comprehensive.
We’re definitely seeing some better oversight. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat was actually exercising oversight over this project. It’s one of the 25 that it is looking at, and it was one of their recommendations to prioritize Old Age Security and prioritize stabilizing that system before trying to modernize it. That has caused a bit of a shift. You can see that they are learning that external advice, and better oversight from senior management is important.
We also focused in on the information that those providing oversight had received, because that was a concern during Phoenix. What we found is that the information was honest, and it was better than what we had seen during Phoenix. It was accurate at the time. I mean, it’s a constantly evolving project.
That’s where my biggest concern lies, in that one of the most important lessons from Phoenix is not to forget the outcome, which is that the result was to have a pay system that would pay public servants accurately and on time. What was prioritized was budget at the cost of removing certain functionalities that impacted the ability to pay accurately and on time.
I hope that here with the prioritization of stabilizing the system, while it is a good step, that they won’t forget that they need to actually still modernize the system, so streamline, perhaps, the technicalities of it to ensure better access and make it more user-friendly to Canadians so they will be able to access these programs. Most Canadians at some point in their lifetime will receive a benefit from one of these three programs. It’s not just about now; it’s about future generations as well.
Senator McNair: Along the same line, I’m curious about your five audits which were delivered in October of last year. What has been the government’s response, generally, to you? Is it positive? Are you seeing them take any action to deal with the raised concerns or recommendations at this stage?
Ms. Hogan: Well, I might tell you that I’d have to look at everyone at the table with me to know whether action has been taken promptly.
I would tell you that I see a lot of conversations around modernizing IT and the Benefits Delivery Modernization. Dialogue is better than nothing, but, again, my statement is around how it’s great to have an action plan, but time will tell whether that action plan is implemented, I think that’s where I’m at on these five right now.
The biggest one I would raise is around inclusion in the workplace for racialized employees. We only audited six departments, but our findings should really be an alarm bell for everyone. Every department in the Public Service should look at that report and sit back and say, “What are we doing, and are we truly changing just the face of the public service, or are we making sure that people feel included when they come to work?”
I think time will tell on all of these, but they all need prompt action and long-term action.
Senator McNair: You mentioned inclusion in the workplace for racialized employees, and your message was loud and clear that this should be a message that goes out to more than just the six organizations. How did you choose those six organizations? Was there any reason you chose those six?
Ms. Hogan: We focused in on organizations that were responsible for safety and administration of justice. Together, they represent about 21% of public servants in the core public administration. We thought that by choosing a group of organizations that had a similar purpose or fell under a similar umbrella that, perhaps, there would be some sharing of best practices or something that we might see that they could do together. Really, what we found is that the results were all over the map. There were very different results, and you could take that and replace those six organizations with the names of six others, and it would probably be accurate.
It comes down to making sure that you’re doing more than just trying to meet employment equity targets but that you’re thinking about your culture and the inclusivity of your culture, that you’re holding senior management to account for actually driving the change needed for culture to be different and for people to feel included, and then it comes back down to the fundamental need for data. You need to be able to measure what you’re trying to change in order to see if you’re changing anything.
Senator Kingston: Thank you all for being here.
I am going to go back to antimicrobials, since that is an interest of mine.
The pharmaceutical industry over the last, I’d say, 34 years has done as much as any other part of the system to improve longevity, to save lives and all those things. I worked in neonatal at one time, and it’s massive there when you watch what is happening.
You say 13 new antibiotics of last resort lagged behind many other countries as of 2020. When you’re talking about that, are you talking about a variety of things? You talked about drug resistance, which, in my mind, is a little bit different category than all of them. Did you look at antivirals, new antibiotics and antibiotics for drug resistance? How is that 13 made up, I guess, of what we’re lacking access to in Canada?
Ms. Hogan: I’m going to put Markirit Armutlu on notice that she might need to jump in here to give you some of the details.
I think I would bundle it backwards to how there are antimicrobial drugs, like antibiotics or an anti-fungal, that everyone goes to. If those are overused or overprescribed, or if they are present in food for animals that we then eat, the body develops a resistance to them, and then you need to go to the next layer of antimicrobials.
When we talk about the 13, we’re talking about those of last resort — the ones that should be preserved and used when all the others don’t work. Having access to the newer ones gives the country the ability to provide health care as viruses evolve. The government isn’t really focused on getting us better access to that. They have done very little in that regard in that they haven’t done any of the regulatory changes or the economic incentives that we see in other countries to open up access to those.
I’m going to ask Markirit whether she wants to add anything to that, and then I’ll find out whether we did a good job answering your question.
Markirit Armutlu, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: You did a really good job.
By the end of our audit period, there were 29 antibiotics of last resort that were available internationally. Of those, 13 were antibiotics developed in the last 10 years, so they are considered newer. Of those, we had access to only two. Our understanding is that Budget 2023 will be dedicated to helping improve access. That’s what we were told during the course of our audit, so there is some initiative in that regard.
Senator Kingston: That speaks to a plan. When you speak of no coverage, what exactly do you mean? I understand no plan. The Public Health Agency of Canada is obviously involved in making the plan and the regulatory things that need to be involved in making those available in Canada, but when you say no coverage, a lot of the drugs you’re talking about are used in the acute care system where you don’t need individual coverage.
Ms. Armutlu: Are we talking about market access?
Senator Kingston: I wrote down from your remarks — I thought you said no plan and no coverage. Did you mean coverage for the antibiotics in the financial sense?
Ms. Armutlu: Yes.
Ms. Hogan: There is no dedicated budget to try to get access to those. Right now, the Public Health Agency and Health Canada find funding in their existing budget and try to dedicate it towards advancing research or gathering information. You need dedicated funding if you want to actually have economic incentives or regulatory changes made, so people devoted to doing it and the funding to support and move that forward.
Senator Kingston: The economic incentives interest me because, obviously, things are being developed all over the world. That’s the way it is with new drugs. What do you think would be economic incentives that would work?
Ms. Hogan: Again, I’m not the one who will write the policy on what an economic incentive might be, but if you look to other countries, at times it’s incentives to come and manufacture here, or it might be incentives to provide better access to the drugs, even though there isn’t a large market. It is standing ready to serve Canada, even though there might not be a large demand. Pharmaceutical companies will need incentives to do that. That’s what we see in other countries.
Senator Kingston: I would love to talk another time about orphan drugs. Thank you.
Ms. Hogan: I’m sure you could probably help us understand orphan drugs better.
Senator Ross: Thank you very much for the reports, and thanks for presenting them here this evening. It was really interesting to hear what you had to say.
You mentioned that there were a lot of delays in the modernization projects. What did you hear or what is your perspective of what caused the majority of the delays that have happened so that the projects haven’t been able to be completed or get even halfway through, I guess?
Ms. Hogan: I’ll ask Jean if he wants to jump in again.
I think the biggest delay I would start with is the acknowledgment made by the government 24 years ago that it needed to do something to come up with a plan to modernize IT infrastructure. Here we are, 24 years later, and they still need to come up with a plan. I think that’s the first concern for me.
There is limited funding and limited resources available, so you want to prioritize them to mission-critical systems when you can. When we look at Benefits Delivery Modernization and we see some of the delays there, there are a few reasons. It is a lack of skills and resources and a lack of budget at times to move it forward. Skills is a concerning one. Now, with the fact that they have split it and decided to stabilize first and then modernize, we’ll see other delays coming. From a user perspective, you want the modernization. Canadians will want the modernization versus the stability, but the government is taking the right approach in trying to get there. Why we’re halfway through 13 years and this is where we’re at is a question best asked to the departments who are trying to move this forward, so to ask Employment and Social Development Canada why it’s taking so long.
Senator Ross: In the work that you did, did you see any best practices in other IT projects that could be used to at least help guide what is happening with these programs?
Ms. Hogan: I’m going to look to Jean to see if he wants to jump in. When we looked at this, we looked to make sure lessons learned and mistakes would not be repeated. We were happy to see some positives that way. Jean is really our expert in IT. I’m going to see if he wants to raise a best practice that he might have seen.
Mr. Goulet: We didn’t really look at best practices. We looked at what happened with Phoenix, obviously, to see if they were applying it. We also compared with similar projects worldwide just to see how things were evolving. It’s not really looking at it from a best practice perspective. You have to understand that IT is a very evolutionary thing. We’re talking a lot about agile projects lately, so it’s very difficult to pinpoint this. We did look at what is happening elsewhere in the world.
One of the things that we realized is that, even at that point, BDM was underestimating the cost and the schedule compared to similar projects elsewhere. This is one of the things we did tell them.
Ms. Hogan: The government trying to identify the root cause around funding and maybe some of the ripple effects that has, the rigidity of the funding system, is that causing the fact that initial budgets might not be as fulsome or as accurate? Is it because there is a skills gap around innovating? Is it the complexity? I think there are a lot of reasons that the government needs to look at the funding mechanisms for big IT projects and try something different.
Mr. Goulet: If I can add to that, the funding mechanism is one of the reasons why there are delays, because it takes a long time for Treasury Board submissions to be prepared, submitted and then finally approved.
Senator Ross: One of the things that jumped out at me in your comments was that there are IT systems that are 60 years old. What is an IT system from 60 years ago?
Ms. Hogan: The Old Age Security system is 60 years old. It’s almost old enough to receive Old Age Security. It’s written with COBOL language, so it’s time for it to be modernized.
Senator Ross: Wow. Thank you.
The Chair: Honourable senators, before we move to the second round, I would also like to recognize Senator Dalphond, who has joined us. Thank you for being at the Finance Committee.
Senator Marshall: I have a question on the Public Accounts of Canada. We have talked about your reports quite a bit. This is something I’ve been looking at for quite a while and haven’t been able to get an answer on. It relates to a note that is in the Public Accounts. It says that that last year, the government recorded an expense of $26 billion related to Indigenous claims. It said that if these expenses had not been posted, the budgetary deficit would have been $9 billion. The deficit was actually $35 billion because they posted that $26 billion. I’ve been asking a number of departments what is in that $26 billion. Finance and Treasury Board couldn’t help me. They referred me to ISC and CIRNAC, so I asked them. Quite often in committee, the departments will respond and say they don’t have the information here and they will get it and send it in. What they sent in was very unsatisfactory. We’re talking about $26 billion, and transparency is an issue.
My first question to you is this: Is there somewhere in the 1,000 pages plus of the public accounts where that $26 billion is itemized to some level lower than $26 billion?
My second question is this: Who in government would be the best organization or individual to come to the Finance Committee and present on the public accounts? We spend so much time on the budget and what the government plans to do, and when the public accounts are released, nobody cares what the government actually did.
Where in the public accounts is there a breakdown for the $26 billion, and do you have any suggestions that I can make to the steering committee of our committee on the public accounts?
Ms. Hogan: The short answer to your question of whether there is an itemized list in the three volumes of the public accounts of Canada about the $26 billion is no. I would imagine you’ll get a slight breakdown in the note related to contingent liabilities. I do not remember the number of the note.
Senator Marshall: I can certainly comment on that, because the $26 billion is just an example of my problems. I also have a lot of questions on contingent liabilities. The information is lacking. As parliamentarians, if someone gives a number of $26 billion or there’s an increase in contingent liabilities of $20 billion and no further details, it’s very, very difficult to be a member of the Finance Committee and not be able to get answers to those questions.
Ms. Hogan: I can assure you that my office sees those details. We definitely see the more detailed breakdown.
I guess it starts with understanding the nature of the contingent liability. A contingent liability, especially when it comes to Indigenous claims, is likely related to a pending litigation or a claim made by a community against the Crown. Then, Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada will make an assessment about the likelihood that the Government of Canada will have to pay out and what that might look like. In any organization whose financial statements you look at, when it comes to litigation, lawsuits and contingent liabilities, you will get very little detail. It would divulge their position and perhaps prejudice the outcome. Therefore, it’s unlikely you’ll see that kind of detail.
I will answer really quickly, because I think our time is up, about who you could bring here and who in the government would be best positioned to talk about the public accounts of Canada. If it’s about Indigenous services, it would be Indigenous Services Canada, but if it’s about the public accounts in general, I would tell you the Comptroller General, the Receiver General and the Secretary of the Treasury Board as well as the Deputy Minister of Finance. They are all signatories to the Government of Canada’s financial statements, and they should be able to answer questions about the public accounts.
Senator Marshall: Well, some of those individuals do testify, and they have either been unable or have decided they are not going to answer the questions. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Again, thank you for being here. It’s the start of 2024, and the beginning of the year is when people tend to create their wish lists.
In the past, various officers of Parliament have given the government recommendations on how their respective enabling statutes should be amended. The Information Commissioner and the Parliamentary Budget Officer are two who come to mind. It’s always enlightening, since you are in the perfect position to tell parliamentarians how to create the best possible environment for you to fulfill your mandate.
You’ve been at the Office of the Auditor General since 2006, and you were appointed to the position of Auditor General in 2020. Do you plan, at some point, to provide parliamentarians with any observations or legislative recommendations aimed at strengthening the crucial role your office plays in Canada’s parliamentary system and creating a more conducive environment in which to carry out the important mandate you have been given? That is not to say you aren’t doing a fine job, but perhaps it could be made easier.
Ms. Hogan: Thank you for your question. I’ve discussed the Auditor General Act with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which is the committee I regularly report to.
I would absolutely love to see the Auditor General Act modernized. I’ll give you four major areas where I’d like to see the act modernized. The first is clarity around my office’s access to confidential information. It’s not that we tend to have problems accessing information in the course of our audits, but I think it’s important. It’s time to clarify the language around access to information in the public service.
The second pertains to our mandate involving Crown corporations. I would like the act to clarify that they are, or can be, covered by performance audits, not just special examinations and financial audits. I’d also like some flexibility in conducting special examinations.
Right now, a Crown corporation like Canada Post is subject to the same special examination as the Canadian Museum of Nature. They are completely different in terms of their size, but we have to do exactly the same work. I would welcome some flexibility in order to better support the needs of Crown corporations.
The third is a funding system that is independent of the departments we audit. Currently, our funding comes from the Department of Finance. Our office is treated the same as any department. Some parliamentary officers have independent funding systems. We would still be accountable to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Accountability is a must, after all.
The last area covers more administrative elements, but I’ll give you one that is quite important to me. It really matters in French. The issue is more easily understood in French than in English. I am the Auditor General, but Auditor General is masculine in the French title of the act, Loi sur le vérificateur général. The act refers to son bureau, lui, ses décisions — “his office,” “him,” “his decisions.” They are all masculine. I would like to see more inclusive language. The act needs to be reviewed and modernized.
Senator Forest: To help us help you — which ultimately helps us because better quality information is then available to us — would it be possible to provide those observations to the committee in writing?
Ms. Hogan: Yes, absolutely. I’ve already shared them with the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I could forward that letter to you or address a new one to this committee.
Senator Forest: This is a public meeting, so we are counting on you to forward us that information.
Ms. Hogan: Thank you.
The Chair: You can send it to the clerk of the committee, who will make sure it goes out to all the senators.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: I would like to question you on the audit of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. You did say in your remarks that you found that most delays and backlogs were caused by the department’s own processes and that the department did not always process applications in the order they were received. Why is that the case? Is there a reason why they weren’t processed in the order they were received?
Also, the department did not assess whether it’s automated eligibility assessment tool reduced processing times or identified and resolved any unintended differential outcomes. Is the due diligence still there as to the criteria that have to be followed to allow the refugees or immigrants to come into Canada? I ask because we see a lot of, let’s say, concerning trends lately in the country.
Ms. Hogan: There are many questions there. I guess I’ll start with the first one.
There are many reasons for the long wait times and the delays. Some are outside the control of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, and others are well within their control. For example, those that are outside their control would be the immigration levels that are set annually by the government. At times, some of the programs start the year with an inventory or backlog of applications that exceeds the level that will be accepted in a certain bucket of immigration. That’s outside their control.
However, concerning for me was that they were not doing anything about the elements within their control. You mentioned a few. Processing things in the order in which they are received is one. Why is that important? They have an operating policy that you should do that so that older applications don’t sit there and get even older while new ones are processed quickly. I acknowledge that you can’t always do that. At times, if you receive an application and a key piece of information is missing and you have to return to the applicant to get that piece of information, you’re not going to stop and not process any more applications waiting for that to come in. You will move on to the next one. It’s not ideal, but you need to always go back to your older applications and not forget about them.
I think the most concerning part about the processes there in processing applications would be where they send them. The last time we audited permanent resident programs, the department committed to look at the capacity of their offices and allocate the work accordingly, but we found that they were not doing that. An application is sent to a certain office based on the country of residency of the applicant at the time they apply. I’ll give you an example. We looked at two offices, one in Rome and one in Tanzania. They have roughly the same number of people who work in the office, but the Tanzania office receives five times the applications as the Rome office, so the backlog is growing in one office versus the other. That’s simply because one country of residence always goes to the Rome office and another country of residence always goes to the Tanzania office. So they really need to look at the capacity of their resources and better allocate them.
You then talked about the automated tool. This was one of the improvements that was put in place to reduce wait times and speed up application processing, but this tool had an unintended consequence that the department was not evaluating. The intent was to speed up assessment of eligibility, and those that were assessed by the automated tool could be pushed through quickly, and the resources you would free up from the manual assessment would then be put to those that sort of get defaulted aside. We found that certain countries of eligibility were never being automatically approved, but the resources had not yet been reallocated to balance out the wait times. It’s that unintended consequence and the lack of analysis along the lines of country of residency or country of application that we highlighted and made many recommendations regarding so they could improve what’s within their control.
Senator Pate: One of the agencies audited as part of report 5 was Correctional Service Canada. In 2019, as part of an audit with respect to workplace, you identified Correctional Service Canada’s approach to dealing with harassment, discrimination and violence in the workplace did not do enough to promote and maintain respectful workplaces. I’m paraphrasing. CSC knew that these problems were present in the workplace, yet had not developed a comprehensive strategy to address them, including a way to measure and report on their progress toward reducing harassment, discrimination and workplace violence.
Two out of three Corrections employees surveyed agreed that organizational culture is a serious or significant concern. Given the impact that the treatment that staff would have on each other and the fact that we know that upward a third of the men and half of the women in federal custody are Indigenous and one in ten are Black, how would that potentially impact? Have you also been looking at the impact it has on prisoners? If staff are treating each other that way, how does that impact the people they have virtually absolute control over?
Also, could you expand on the connections between report 5 and this previous report, particularly with respect to racialized employees?
Ms. Hogan: This report was not a follow-up of that 2019 report, so we didn’t really look at the actions taken on those recommendations. We were really looking at the actions the federal public service has been taking largely in response to the clerk’s call to action around creating a more inclusive public service.
I would also highlight the audit we released a few years ago on Correctional Service Canada where we looked at the outcomes for inmates. There, we did find that, based on the lines of race or ethnicity, there were differential outcomes, and some of the tools put in place to reduce those or eliminate those were not working as intended.
I think that Correctional Services has a lot of information at their disposal to try and change their culture. That’s why having them included in our inclusive public service audit was really important in order to see whether they were measuring whether all of this activity and all of these recommendations they were acting on were actually making a difference in their culture. We found that, like some of the other departments, they didn’t set themselves up to measure that. They were very focused on the activities — as were others — in meeting employment equity targets. As I said previously, that just changes the face of the public service and doesn’t mean that individuals feel more inclusive.
Correctional Services Canada has also added an extra layer of complexity in that they not only want to meet the employment equity targets but they feel that their employee base should match the population of those in the penitentiaries, so in some locations, they will need a lot more Indigenous representation, a lot more female representation, et cetera. While they have those targets, they are just targets, and they are really not looking at the culture.
One of the things we did in our audit was actually talk to racialized employees. We had confidential interviews. That’s one of the things many departments should be doing to really understand the lived experience of their racialized employees and use that to help inform some of the actions they take. Some of our recommendations are centred around that.
It might not be an answer you like to hear, but time will tell whether they take some action. It took the public service decades to get where we’re at. I hope it won’t take decades to change the culture in the public service so that everyone feels valued and welcome.
The Chair: I will take full responsibility as chair, Ms. Hogan, in that we have gone beyond the time limit that we had agreed upon with you.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond, you get to ask the last questions today.
Senator Dalphond: My apologies for being late. I was at another meeting.
After reading your report and recommendations as well as the Library of Parliament briefing note, I wondered whether the government allocated additional resources for the various special immigration measures programs to prioritize applicants such as Syrians, Afghans and now Ukrainians. Conversely, did the government simply pile those emergency response programs on an already backlogged system?
Ms. Hogan: That was one of our findings. When an immigration levels plan is already in place and then the government issues a special guideline to the public service to prioritize a certain group of applicants, it is out of the department’s control.
A domino effect happens. Resources are reallocated in response to that urgent and imminent need. The other applications are put on hold, so processing times grow and a backlog of applications that aren’t processed in a timely fashion builds up.
Senator Dalphond: We know that there are emergency response programs and that there will be more such programs. The world is plagued by problems, so we have to respond to humanitarian crises.
Should these types of programs be given dedicated teams or funding? At the end of the day, the family reunification process takes longer and refugees wait. In your report, you talk about refugees who waited as much as three years. For the system, that’s three years of costs, since more than half the applications will be refused.
It also represents costs for the provinces, which then have to negotiate with the federal government. It’s like the system is clogging itself, like it’s sinking in quicksand.
Ms. Hogan: Obviously, when you impose a requirement on a department or ask it to do something, without giving the department the resources it needs, chances are it will struggle to meet the objective, or the outcomes of other programs will suffer.
Take the antimicrobial resistance program as an example. It wasn’t allocated any funding, and there has been very little progress since our 2015 audit.
Taking on more applications and expecting the public service to do more with the same or fewer resources is quite the challenge. We have to recognize that immigration levels have gone up over the years and that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is able to meet its objectives. However, there is a major backlog and many applicants wait a long time.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, there’s no doubt in my mind that we have commenced our year 2024 with a great group of witnesses from the Auditor General’s Office. Ms. Hogan, thank you very much. I’ll say in French and in English the message I want to give as chair.
[Translation]
You are an exemplary witness, Ms. Hogan. You were able to answer all our questions without hesitation and without asking to submit written answers at a later date. Many departments could surely use your appearance tonight as a model, when answering the questions of any committee. You demonstrated transparency and accountability.
(The committee adjourned.)
[English]