Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 21st, 2025

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you. Your time is up, but if you had one, I was going to let you go ahead.

Mr. Lemire, it's your turn to take the floor. You have two and a half minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Auditor General, as the Bloc Québécois has often said, we often see the best results when money is transferred directly to the provinces and jurisdictions are respected. With the child care program, Quebec led the charge.

Obviously, as was mentioned, the federal program was inspired by what Pauline Marois did. Quebec met expectations. It was able to create more spaces than its demographic weight with the money transferred to it, namely 20,000 out of 110,000 spaces. In this case, it was a no-strings transfer, which we don't often see at the federal level.

Was the program basically well managed as a result of this no-strings transfer?

[Karen Hogan]

It was somewhat difficult for us to validate the results of the money transferred to Quebec because the terms of the agreement were unique compared to those of other provinces and territories. Quebec already offered child care services at $10 per day.

Furthermore, all agreements with the provinces stipulated that the latter had the choice of deciding how the funding would be distributed and used within the province to improve access to affordable child care services.

I would point out that one of our recommendations is to use the terms of the agreements to allow the federal government to collect comparable information across the country, including Quebec. By comparing results and obtaining an overall picture of the situation, the federal government would be able to demonstrate that the money spent is truly an added value for Canadians.

At this point, it is difficult to determine.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

We can see that federal bureaucracy has exploded in many programs. This is the case, among others, at the Canada Revenue Agency.

When money is transferred to the provinces and territories, we see that they are able to provide the agreed-upon services. Do you think the government should consider this approach more, particularly for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s housing programs, or even those of first nations, for which you have a report on service programs?

You mentioned housing, but among the obstacles you cited were often insufficient support to strengthen first nations’ capacity to deliver programs, as well as a passive and compartmentalized approach to supporting first nations.

How can we ensure that funds are transferred so that services are provided as close as possible to citizens, which is often more effective?

[Karen Hogan]

This is a complex issue.

I have not looked at how to improve this across the country. I have really looked at first nations programs, as you mentioned.

In general, when federal money is transferred to a province or territory, there should still be accountability so that the federal government can demonstrate to taxpayers that the money has been spent appropriately. I think this is a partnership that different levels of government need to establish and agree on. An unconditional approach is not always the best approach.

However, it is necessary to consult with first nations and understand their reality. At this time, the approach being taken does not take into account their unique situation. In my opinion, in order to move forward with reconciliation, the government must change its approach.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Up next is Mr. Kuruc.

You have the floor for five minutes, please.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Hello, and I would like to say congratulations on your first five years, Ms. Hogan. Hopefully your next five will be as good as your first.

I'd like to start on the recruiting for the Canadian military. In exhibit 2, we see that out of 191,000 applicants, 103,000 were dropped—that's 54% of the total applicants—and only one in 13 applicants completed basic training. Your report said that the CAF doesn't know why these applicants were dropped.

Why aren't they obtaining that data?

[Karen Hogan]

That's an excellent question. We really wanted to know why they were falling off at certain points in the process, and the goal of our audit was to try to figure out how to help them improve or identify if there had been bottlenecks.

I think one reason might be the time delay. The standard is supposed to be to treat an application within about 100 to 150 days, and we saw that it was almost twice as long. I would imagine that people—as they do with any job they apply to—abandon that pursuit because they find another employment.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I did find that, of the 191,000, almost 15,000 came on board, but that didn't meet the target. We still have a gap of 4,700. That is particularly scary because our CAF isn't equipped. What does it mean for our armed forces if we have a gap of 4,700 personnel?

[Karen Hogan]

You're right. During the period of our audit, only one in 13 people who applied ended up starting basic training. I think it's important. You highlighted exhibit 2. There's other information in there that talks about over 50,000 applications that are still in the pipeline and being treated. That's why I think it's important for National Defence to figure out why people are dropping off. You can't make changes to your process if you don't know why people are abandoning it.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to move on to the other military report. It's with regard to housing Canadian Armed Forces members. Your report shows that National Defence failed to meet housing needs. We're at least 5,200 units short. The ones that we do have are outdated spaces with no Wi-Fi. Some don't even have functioning sanitary waste systems. We also have stories that members are having to couch-surf. I think the low point is an article that came out in 2022 that said they were being advised to go to Habitat for Humanity to find housing. I find that concerning.

Do you want to elaborate on that?

[Karen Hogan]

National Defence is not managing their housing in a way that will meet their needs or the needs of their members at all. I think what was concerning for me was that we saw the poor condition of so many housing units. I think you and I would not want to live in them. We shouldn't expect our Canadian Armed Forces members to live in them.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I think they said they were 60 years old, on average.

[Karen Hogan]

There are two types of buildings. There are quarters, which are meant for basic training and temporary or transient housing. They're not supposed to be for the long term, although some people are living in those long-term. Then there are residential units, houses that are unfurnished. Some of the quarters are over 60 years old. One was built in 1930. When maintenance isn't being done—we saw that in about 25% of the cases regular inspections aren't being done—you don't know the needs for maintenance. That results in housing that's in poor condition.

As you mentioned, we saw in buildings a lack of safe or potable water to drink, toilets that didn't flush and exterior walls that needed repair.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Do we have a number on how many new units were built since the audit?

[Karen Hogan]

I don't have that number handy. What I can tell you is that over the audit period, there has been reduction in units available. It's clear that the plan needs to be adjusted in order to meet the needs. They need to consider more up-to-date information than what they're using in their plan, considering they want to recruit more than they currently have on the force.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I see also that 3,800 units will be built over the next 20 years. In response to this, we see that a friend of the Prime Minister, an RBC banker, has been appointed to this portfolio at close to $700,000 a year. My question is this: Is that what we need, or do the ministers just need to prioritize the Canadian military for the sake of our security and sovereignty and do their job?

[Karen Hogan]

I think you're talking about the appointment to the procurement agency for National Defence. They would not be dealing with the building of housing units. The Canadian Forces Housing Agency is a special operating agency that deals with the building of units. They did receive $2.2 billion to fund a plan over 19 years. It's really too early to know whether or not that will be enough.

I would encourage, as I have in other reports with National Defence, that they update their estimates on a regular basis with accurate information so that they have a better picture of what they need going forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Up next is Ms. Tesser Derksen.

You have the floor for five minutes, please.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks so much to the Auditor General and her team. Congratulations on your halfway point. I don't know whether to ask whether it was faster than you anticipated or much longer. Okay, it went faster. That means the next five years will go even more quickly.

I want to start by talking about the child care report. This one touches home for me. I'm the mother of four children. They're older now, but I paid a lot of money in child care while I was going to school and working. I know the impact it has on Canadian families. I'm sure many of us in this room do.

Your report noted that overall, child care has become more affordable, in part due to federal funding. The $10-per-day child care goal has been met in five provinces, I believe, and the three territories as well. Do you have any idea, or can you speculate on, what the holdup is in the other half of those provinces that have yet to meet that goal?

[Karen Hogan]

I couldn't speculate. I guess what I would tell you is that you're right that five provinces—Quebec, Newfoundland, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and P.E.I—have already reached the $10 per day. All three territories have as well. Some of them already had $10 a day before this all started. I think that's important to point out.

I would perhaps point you to the Auditor General of Ontario's report, who looked at the results in Ontario, to get some more specific information on a province. It's clear that it takes the co-operation and funding from multiple layers of government and also parents.

I think what's concerning here is that many provinces have flagged the sustainability of this going forward. That's why we've recommended that the government needs to act now to get more comparable and comprehensive information across the country before they start making future funding decisions, or as they're making those future funding decisions, so that they can be well informed.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Yes, I noted that your report mentioned a lack of information due to uncertainty in provincial and territorial plans. That was an objective of the funding agreements, I believe. Is that right?

[Karen Hogan]

The funding agreements had a few objectives. It was meant to improve the affordability of spaces and to improve the access, but it was also to look at the quality and the inclusive nature. In some of those areas, like access and quality, all the government did was look at plans. It's really difficult for me to know whether or not the funding is actually meeting its intended purposes, because the government can't say whether it is.

That's why it's not just about missing information; it's about the right information, so you can speak to outcomes. It's one thing to say that child care individuals are certified, but are they following training? That would be the next logical step.

Some of that information is missing, to be able to speak to quality and access.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Since it's actually an objective in the funding agreement, is it a positive onus on the government to enforce the collection of that data, or is it something the provinces are supposed to be reporting regularly on their own?