Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: My question is for the government leader in the Senate.

Senator Gold, my office has yet again received disturbing reports regarding online citizenship application procedures.

A permanent resident cardholder applied for their citizenship online and was sent a citizenship test link. However, the instructions clearly stated that they could only complete this online test between 12 a.m. and 1 a.m. that night. Fortunately, the applicant was aware of standard procedure and was ultimately given 21 days to complete the test.

Many applicants have undoubtedly found themselves in this situation, which is unacceptable and applies unnecessary additional stress on applicants who are not aware of their rights. My question, Senator Gold, is: What is being done to rectify these mistakes?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the time for Question Period has expired.

Senator Cormier would like to ask a supplementary question. Is leave granted?

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill S-222, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), and acquainting the Senate that they had passed this bill without amendment.

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moodie, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cormier, for the second reading of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Honourable senators, I rise today at second reading of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. I welcome the arrival of this bill in the Senate because it delivers an essential blueprint for society that will allow Canadian parents, especially Canadian mothers, to access the labour market. For many mothers, accessing the labour market depends in large part on access to affordable child care.

[English]

The purpose of my speech is to shed light on the issues of equity in access to child care services for children belonging to official language minority communities. The enactment of this law is an opportunity to give ourselves the means to achieve our ambitions so that these children have access to early learning and child care services of equivalent quality to those of the English‑speaking majority.

For francophone parents, access to French-language child care services is a question of language survival in the context of the steady decline in the demographic weight of francophones in Canada. For these parents, the transmission of the language — from early childhood onward — enables their children to enter the French-language education continuum. Serving as a vehicle for linguistic and cultural transmission, early childhood education and child care services contribute to the survival and vitality of official language minority communities from generation to generation.

[Translation]

Protecting linguistic vitality through early childhood education is also a matter of rights for these communities.

Access to child care services in the language of the minority is key to the implementation of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to minority language education.

To give francophone children an equal chance at success, they must have access to educational services in French, beginning in early childhood. The early childhood learning environment prepares children for school by giving them the language skills that are essential to their scholastic and academic success.

The other side of the coin is assimilation. Before they even begin to speak, children who don’t have access to child care services in their language are faced with significant pressure to assimilate that could compromise their chances of living in French.

Practically speaking, if these children end up in anglophone child care facilities because they don’t have access to French services, their parents could end up sending them to an English school because they are worried that their child doesn’t have the language skills they need to succeed in a minority language school. That’s one of the factors that might explain why we are seeing the demographic weight of francophones in Canada dropping little by little.

Indeed, access to French-language education throughout the education continuum is a monumental challenge for many francophone parents in predominantly English-speaking provinces and territories.

In a 2016 report entitled Early Childhood: Fostering the Vitality of Francophone Minority Communities, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages highlights some of the important issues facing francophone parents. The report states the following:

Programs and services for young children have been developed with various systems of governance, funding streams and training for staff. As a result, families face a highly fragmented early childhood landscape of unconnected options, diverse eligibility criteria and payment requirements.

These comments from the commissioner suggest that the needs of francophone minority communities must be at the forefront in the development of a national system of early childhood learning and child care.

The legislative framework for this system should clearly include a commitment from the federal government to ensure solid core funding for these communities.

Let me give you a few figures to illustrate the disparities that currently exist in some provinces.

[English]

According to Statistics Canada’s 2021 census data, we have 141,635 children aged zero to four who are French-speaking rights holders under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These children have a constitutional right to instruction in their language from early childhood. However, according to the Commission nationale des parents francophones, it’s estimated that only 20% of these children are served in French, as there are about 29,000 of these children in French‑language preschool daycare — it’s a difference of more than 110,000.

In New Brunswick, for example, 1,900 daycare spaces were announced — only 300 of these are reserved for francophones. This figure represents barely 16% of the population, whereas New Brunswick’s French-speaking population is around 30%. In Alberta, out of the 1,500 new spaces announced, only 19 are reserved for francophones — representing 0.013% of spaces for francophones, who account for 2% of Alberta’s population.

This is a trend observed across Canada, from province to province and territory to territory. According to data from Ontario’s Early Years and Child Care Annual Report 2022, there would be a shortfall of 36,567 French-language spaces to meet the needs of mother tongue French-speaking children in the province — not counting children whose first official language is French, but whose mother tongue is not French.

I propose to give you an overview of the bill as it relates to official language minority communities. It’s worth noting that the first version of the bill tabled in the House of Commons makes no mention of official language minority communities or official languages. This touches Quebec as much as it touches everywhere else in Canada. Needless to say, I was disappointed that the official language minority communities must constantly remain vigilant so as not to be forgotten by governments, whether provincial, territorial or federal.

[Translation]

Is that due to a lack of knowledge or an oversight of children’s language rights on the part of Employment and Social Development Canada, or a lack of collaboration between different departments, including Canadian Heritage?

I have in-depth knowledge of the modernization of the Official Languages Act, and I know that oversights like this one are, unfortunately, all too common within the government. We have to do better and expect better if official language minority communities are to be taken into account in legislation right from the start, when appropriate.

The bill was passed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on May 2, 2023.

Thankfully, amendments made by the committee of the other place greatly improved the bill in that regard. These amendments reassured communities, but concerns still remain. The Commission nationale des parents francophones, or CNPF, and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, who speak for francophone parents in Canada, expressed their concerns about the legislation as it was passed in the other place, especially regarding the omission of official language minority communities, or OLMCs, in section 8.

Three amendments passed by the committee added mentions of OLMCs in the bill.

Clause 7 sets out the objectives of federal investments in the area of early learning and child care. An amendment was made to this clause by adding the words, “. . . and of children from English and French linguistic minority communities, that respect and value the diversity . . . .”

The second amendment adopted by the committee adds a paragraph to clause 7 that sets out the government’s commitments. The new clause specifies that:

Federal investments in respect of early learning and child care programs and services subject to an agreement entered into with a province must be guided by the commitments set out in the Official Languages Act

The third amendment amends clause 11, which has to do with the appointment of members of the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care. The amendment specifies that official language minority communities must be represented on the council. Indigenous peoples were also added to this clause in the same amendment. It is rather strange that this was omitted.

This clearly shows the importance of a strong, unambiguous legislative text.

The government already has many obligations under Part VII of the Official Languages Act when spending money on early childhood education. Despite the lack of investments, the envelopes related to this act are usually given to the Department of Canadian Heritage.

As I said earlier, the first version of the bill did not include official language minority communities. OLMCs have fallen through the cracks at the Department of Employment and Social Development. That’s why it’s important to be cautious in drafting legislation to govern how the department manages its funds.

That makes me wonder if the text of the bill, with the amendments by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, is sufficient to ensure implementation consistent with the language rights of OLMCs under section 23 of the Charter and with the government’s obligations under Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

Even though most of the bilateral agreements between the federal government and provincial and territorial governments include provisions designed to meet the needs of OLMCs, they’re vague and don’t include specific targets.

Official language minority communities know these agreements are fragile and temporary. These bilateral agreements are based on legislation that should be muscular and unambiguous.

These are the lessons we learned during our study of Bill C-13 to amend the Official Languages Act.

As far as implementing the act goes, the omission of OLMCs in certain sections can have an impact on programs rolled out by the government through the public service, policies resulting from the bill and the negotiation and implementation of future agreements with provinces and territories.

In terms of statutory interpretation, when considering a bill, legislators must also examine the interconnection between the actual text of the bill and how the courts may interpret it in the future. Statutory interpretation requires judges to take into account a series of weighted factors in order to determine the true or best meaning of an act’s wording.

With the judicialization of language conflicts in Canada, legislators have to take this exercise seriously and make the wording as clear as possible and as close as possible to its true intention. We have to take a close look at the impacts of omitting to mention OLMCs, notably in clause 8, which codifies the commitment to maintaining long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services.

Bill C-35 could be improved to better consider the needs of OLMCs. I hope that my colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology will study this bill from the perspective of including official language minority communities, and francophones in particular.

I support sending this bill to committee as soon as possible.

Thank you for your attention.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. The government completely agrees with the importance of providing services in Inuktitut.

Many federal departments provide services in Inuktitut and the government is in the process of broadening and strengthening its efforts pursuant to the Indigenous Languages Act, with the support of the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages. This work is supported by the significant investments that the government is making in this area, namely, $840 million since 2019 to revitalize Indigenous languages across Canada.

There is a technical question about whether federal services are subject to the federal or territorial legislation, but that doesn’t change the government’s commitment to protect and promote Indigenous languages and Inuktitut in northern Canada and Indigenous languages across the country.

The Hon. the Speaker: Do you agree to give Senator Moncion more time to finish her response to Senator Cormier?

The Hon. the Speaker: Do you agree to give Senator Moncion more time to finish her response to Senator Cormier?

Hon. Senators: Yes.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-35, the Canada early learning and child care act as the official critic.

Let me begin by emphasizing the importance and need for early child care learning. As a mother and former educator, I intimately understand the critical need for accessible, high‑quality child care.

In principle, I support Bill C-35 which aims to provide accessible, affordable and high-quality child care for all Canadian families. However, there are a few areas of concern that I wish to address as the critic of this bill.

Bill C-35 proposes to enshrine into law the principles contained in the Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework and also makes reference to the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework as guiding principles for funding. Please allow me, colleagues, to talk briefly on both frameworks.

The Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework which:

. . . sets out principles to guide the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces in achieving the vision of all children in Canada having access to quality early learning and child care programs and services that support their development and enable them to reach their full potential.

It is used as the basis for the Early Learning and Child Care Agreements that the federal government signed with each province and territory.

The second is the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework, which was co-developed by the Government of Canada and Indigenous peoples and:

. . . sets out the principles to guide all interested parties in achieving the vision that all First Nations, Inuit and Métis children and families are supported by a comprehensive and coordinated early learning and child care system that is rooted in Indigenous knowledge, cultures and languages and led by Indigenous peoples.

While national frameworks can be useful as general guidelines, they can also overlook regional and local nuances.

In a country vast and culturally rich as Canada, a one-size-fits-all approach may not cater to the unique needs of each province, family and community, potentially leading to disparities in service quality and accessibility. It is crucial for the frameworks to be flexible to the different regional and cultural needs of all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

As we study this bill in committee, I think we need to ask ourselves three questions with respect to the importance of regional child care initiatives in promoting child development, supporting working parents and fostering local community growth.

First, does the bill address the importance of tailoring solutions to regional needs? Regional child care initiatives allow for customization of services to address the distinct requirements of local communities. They consider factors such as demographic composition, cultural diversity and economic conditions ensuring that child care programs are relevant and effective within their specific contexts.

Second, does the bill address accessibility and affordability? By focusing on regional solutions, initiatives can target areas with limited access to quality child care services with the aim to make child care more accessible and affordable for families, particularly those residing in underserved or remote regions, and help parents re-enter the workforce without sacrificing the quality of care their children receive.

Third, does the bill address the importance of community engagement and collaboration? Regional initiatives encourage collaboration among local stakeholders, including parents, educators and policymakers. This collective effort fosters a sense of community engagement and ownership in the development of child care programs, which leads to better outcomes for children.

As we inquire deeper into the nuances, the co-development of the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework, though commendable, raises some questions about the depth of this collaboration. Were all Indigenous communities equally represented?

The emphasis on being “rooted in Indigenous knowledge, cultures and languages” is significant, but there’s a risk of homogenizing diverse Indigenous cultures into a singular narrative. Recognizing diversity respects autonomy of Indigenous communities. It empowers them to shape their own education systems, ensuring that education aligns with their culturally unique values and needs.

While we grapple with the complexities of national frameworks and their implications for diverse communities, we must also turn our attention to the pressing challenges of demand and limited availability of early childhood educators.

Ontario’s Financial Accountability Officer has estimated that demand for child care spaces will outpace the current expansion plans by a staggering 220,000 spaces by 2026. This looming gap in availability is further exacerbated by a concerning decline in the workforce. According to Statistics Canada, employment in child care dropped by 21% during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to 3% among other workers across Canada.

An article from the Early Childhood Education Report showed the following key findings from recent surveys of staff working in licensed child care across Canada. In Alberta, 62% of child care centre operators had to recruit staff in the last two years, nearly 30% reported facing hiring difficulties and 6% had unfilled staff vacancies lasting over four months. In PEI, 82% had difficulty hiring staff with the necessary qualifications.

Among early childhood educators who resigned their position in Ontario, the majority sought other employment outside of licensed child care. This decline not only highlights the challenges in meeting the demand for more qualified personnel, but also underscores the importance of ensuring that our educators are valued and supported.

We must therefore ask ourselves whether Bill C-35 addresses the critical questions on how we adequately compensate a profession that historically receives lower wages compared to their counterparts in the K-12 system, which often discourages potential candidates from pursuing a career in the field.

Coupled with low wages comes the fact that early childhood education workers often receive inadequate training and professional development. The field requires highly skilled professionals who can nurture development. However, limited access to quality training and professional development opportunities can deter individuals from entering or staying in the profession.

Another fundamental aspect of Bill C-35 that warrants attention is the role of parents in their child’s upbringing. Parents, undeniably, form the foundation of a child’s world, shaping their perspectives, values and beliefs.

Parents are a child’s primary source of emotional support and attachment. The close bond formed during early years has a profound and lasting impact on a child’s sense of security and emotional well-being.

Parents instill essential social and moral values in their children. Through modelling behaviour, teaching empathy and setting boundaries, parents contribute to the formation of a child’s character and values. These early lessons lay the foundation for future relationships and moral decision making. Parents play a pivotal role in transmitting cultural heritage and social identity. They expose children to their cultural practices, traditions and values, fostering a sense of belonging and identity.

The introduction of mandatory conditions for child care centres to be eligible to opt in for the government program raises some questions. How will these conditions cater to the rich tapestry of beliefs and values that Canadian families hold dear? It’s imperative that any conditions set forth respect this diversity and do not infringe upon the rights of parents to guide their children’s moral and social development.

Every Canadian family should have the freedom to choose the child care that suits their unique needs. Canada’s strength lies in its diversity. What’s suitable for one family might not be for another due to varying circumstances.

In its current form, Bill C-35 appears to favour public and non‑profit child care providers, potentially marginalizing the pivotal role played by private operators in the child care system. Private child care providers have, over the years, established themselves as vital pillars of support for a vast number of Canadian families. Their strength lies in their ability to offer a rich tapestry of diverse programs tailored to meet the unique needs, values and preferences of different families. These providers often fill gaps in regions where public services might be sparse or in areas that require specialized care. By potentially sidelining them, the bill risks creating a standardized child care landscape lacking the richness and variety that private providers bring to the table.

It’s crucial that the legislation recognizes and values the contributions of private child care providers, which are largely owned and operated by female entrepreneurs. To quote my colleague MP Michelle Ferreri, critic of this bill in the other place:

Feedback from the Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs said that the majority of private child care in Alberta is operated by women, with a large number being immigrant women, and that the impact of this agreement and the intention of the federal government to prioritize the business model of child care rather than the affordability, accessibility or quality of care is having the opposite effect on women. It notes that we are seeing a women-led industry targeted and pushed out of business, and that women across our province are facing bankruptcy and losing their homes because they signed on to this agreement because they wanted and advocated for affordable child care.

They should not only be acknowledged but also be provided with equitable access to resources, training and support. Ensuring their inclusion and support is not just about fairness; it’s about preserving the diverse, multi-faceted nature of child care in Canada, which is essential for catering to the diverse needs of Canadian families.

In the diverse landscape of child care services, the province of Alberta stands out with 67% of its child care being managed by entrepreneurs. These are not public institutions or not-for-profit entities but entrepreneurial ventures, many of which have been successful and effective in catering to the region’s needs. This model, which has thrived in Alberta, is a testament to the fact that private enterprises can coexist harmoniously with public and not-for-profit sectors, delivering quality care.

Private child care providers offer a wide range of services, including daycare centres, home-based care and specialized programs. This diversity allows parents to choose the option that best suits their child’s needs and their family’s schedule, providing greater flexibility and convenience. Private child care centres may offer extended or non-standard hours of operation, making it more convenient for parents with irregular work schedules to access child care services.

For families with specific cultural or religious preferences, private child care providers can offer programs that align with these values and traditions, creating a culturally sensitive and nurturing environment.

The presence of private child care providers can stimulate competition and innovation in the child care sector, encouraging both private and public providers to continually improve the quality of care and programing they offer. It’s crucial for the government to recognize and value the contributions of these private entities and ensure a balanced approach that doesn’t inadvertently disadvantage a sector that has been instrumental in the province’s child care framework.

Another concern raised by MP Ferreri in her third reading speech is in regards to the national advisory council. She said:

Conservatives put forth concrete amendments to the bill for the national advisory council to track data on the implementation of the child care program, including the availability of child care services, the number of families on wait-lists for child care places and any progress made in reducing the number of families on wait-lists. It is accountability and tracking. How do we measure success if we are not tracking it? . . . what happened to this amendment? It was voted down.

Adoption of such an amendment would certainly have improved the bill, and perhaps the committee or our chamber could reconsider this amendment.

Reflecting on the details of Bill C-35 and the Canada-wide Early Learning and Child Care Plan, it is clear that while the government’s intentions to establish a national child care system are admirable, significant concerns need to be addressed. The proposed $30-billion investment, although substantial, may not fully address the multi-faceted challenges of labour shortages, long wait-lists and the lack of available spaces. The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s analysis further underscores potential shortfalls, with a notable gap between the number of subsidized spaces and the actual demand for a truly universal $10-per-day child care policy.

Honourable senators, while Bill C-35 represents a significant stride toward a national child care system, it is imperative to approach its implementation with a critical lens, ensuring that the diverse needs of all Canadian families are met, that the workforce is valued and supported, and that the lessons from history guide our path forward.

With that, I wish to acknowledge the work of Senator Moodie, the sponsor of the bill in our chamber. I trust that Bill C-35 will receive careful and thorough study at committee. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Moodie, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Moodie, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.)

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of September 27, 2023, moved:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, October 3, 2023, at 2 p.m.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(At 4:03 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, October 3, 2023, at 2 p.m.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Brent Cotter moved the adoption of the report.

He said: This report pertains to Bill S-212 introduced by Senator Pate some time ago in this chamber. I’ll take a moment to give you background on the bill and its consideration at our committee.

This bill relates to the reform of the records suspension mechanism at the federal level, contained primarily in the Criminal Records Act. The consideration of this bill included four amendments at our committee, brought by colleagues at the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

Primarily, this bill constitutes a more streamlined — and in most cases, automatic — process by which criminal records are suspended. We often think of this as a pardon, although the real, technical structure in the bill is a record suspension. More specifically, the bill amends the Criminal Records Act to provide for the automatic expiry of a criminal record, with certain exceptions. In most cases, an individual’s criminal record would expire automatically if they have had no further criminal involvement for a set period of time after completing their sentence. For indictable offences, that period is five years; for summary convictions, that period is two years.

In consideration of the bill, senators met eight times and heard from 28 witnesses — as well as the sponsor of the bill, Senator Pate — and I think we gave comprehensive consideration to the bill over an extended period of time.

To return to the description of the bill, as I said, it constitutes a primarily automatic process by which records are suspended. There are certain exceptions to that process that apply in circumstances when an individual is convicted of another offence during that waiting period I mentioned, or where there are outstanding charges against the individual — or the individual was under investigation for such charges — at the end of the waiting period, or where the record relates to the conviction for a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence under the Criminal Code. These are sexual offences. In these cases, an individual would be required to apply to the Parole Board of Canada for a record expiry.

Just so that it is clear — under Bill S-212, an expired record is not erased but must be kept separate from other criminal records at the federal level.

I think other members here will speak in somewhat greater detail about the bill. The process I just mentioned — by which records are kept separate — is similar to the existing system. Furthermore, an expired record must not be released or shared without the approval of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

The bill was amended in four respects at our committee; two of the amendments are of substance, and two are technical in nature, realigning the numbering of sections. I won’t speak to those. The more substantive amendments were along the following line and were proposed by Senator Pate. Given the expressions of concern that we heard from — among others — the policing community, with respect to access to information in the interest of justice or in the case of national security, under clause 11, the minister’s approval to disclose an expired record is not required in certain circumstances for offences related to unpaid fines and victims’ surcharges. The clause was amended to limit this type of disclosure to police only when it is in the interests of the administration of justice or the safety or security of Canada and its allies.

The second amendment allows for the definition of the circumstances where the release of an expired record relating to unpaid fines would be, again, in the interest of the administration of justice or the safety or security of Canada and its allies. As I said, the last two amendments were technical amendments.

I think this bill was given meaningful consideration, and I trust that in third reading here, it will receive the same treatment. Thank you, Your Honour.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, entitled Arctic Security Under Threat: Urgent needs in a changing geopolitical and environmental landscape, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on June 28, 2023.

Hon. Tony Dean moved:

That the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, entitled Arctic Security Under Threat: Urgent needs in a changing geopolitical and environmental landscape, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on June 28, 2023, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-23(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of National Defence being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report, in consultation with the Minister of Northern Affairs, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Colin Deacon, pursuant to notice of March 29, 2023, moved:

That the Senate call on the Government of Canada to replace its outdated program delivery and information technology systems by urgently accelerating the implementation of user-friendly, digital solutions that transform the public service delivery experience of Canadians, and ultimately reduce the cost of program delivery.

He said: Honourable senators, surveys reliably report that most people would rather lose their wallets than their phones. Yes, I’m speaking about that device that I’m competing with right now for your attention.

Do you ever wonder why we call it a phone? Take a minute sometime to check your settings. Don’t do it now, please, but when I did it, I found that, personally, I use my phone, my mobile device, for 2% of the time. The other 98% of the time I’m benefiting from a diversity of conveniences that I could hardly have imagined a generation ago.

We get frustrated when things can’t be done quickly or easily on our phones. When the Rogers network crashed on July 8, 2022, over 12 million Canadian citizens and businesses lost wireless and internet services. People couldn’t call 911, businesses couldn’t process payments, and other information services that we rely on, minute by minute, were suddenly gone.

These conveniences are always so accessible, we take them for granted. We constantly expect better, more reliable services in all facets of our lives, whether it’s virtual banking, virtual medical appointments, collaborating on documents through the cloud, booking flights or ordering just about anything to be delivered directly to our doors. The organizations that provide the best, most trusted, most convenient services are the ones that succeed.

Conversely, when digital government services do exist in Canada, they’re often complex, confusing and clunky. There’s a wide and growing gap when comparing government services to the convenient digital experiences in other aspects of our lives. That gap is increasingly concerning to me because trust is earned when people believe in your motives and your abilities and respect what you accomplish when you apply those motives and abilities.

A positive experience fosters recurring use, word-of-mouth referrals and an enhanced reputation. I offer to you that to be credible and trusted, governments need to meet citizens where they are, not where they were. This reality demands that governments must start to deliver a level of convenience and service to citizens and businesses that they’ve grown to expect in our increasingly digital world.

That’s my motivation behind Motion No. 107: to relay a sense of urgency to the government so that the ministers and public servants who desperately want to make these changes benefit from increased political support.

The Speaker has just read Motion No. 107 again to you. The tabling of this motion triggered a study on the part of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, released about two weeks ago, on September 15. Over the next few minutes, I’ll briefly review the state of digital government services in Canada, and then I’ll review some of the PBO’s findings and other issues that need to be managed if Canada is going to make progress in the delivery of digital government services.

Let’s start with what is happening today. Canada is falling behind other countries in the race to embrace digital transformation. Despite having exceptional capacity with leading research programs, universities and companies, Canada is not a digital competitiveness leader. In the United Nations E‑Government Survey 2022, Canada placed thirty-second, down from third a dozen years ago. Boston Consulting Group’s e‑government ranking suggests that Canada’s digital government services are the lowest of 40 nations.

Unsurprisingly, ServiceNow found that 8 in 10 Canadians believe consumer companies provide better customer service than government, and 8 in 10 Canadians think navigating government services would be simpler with more digital tools. Canadians also identified that lengthy and confusing processes are high on their list of complaints.

Simply put, Canadians want better digital government services, and our governments are not keeping up as the rest of the world accelerates. But convenient access to government services is far from the only challenge. Limited technology investment increases cybersecurity risks and their incalculable costs.

In her annual report last November, Auditor General Karen Hogan raised concerns about the Canadian government’s cybersecurity controls, highlighting inconsistent practices that may place sensitive information and digital infrastructure at risk of cyberattacks. She also highlighted that Canada’s public servants are more hesitant to adopt new technologies than their global peers.

The last point was confirmed by Accenture when they reported that only 28% of public servants in Canada received cybersecurity and data security training — this despite 100 plus world-class digital and data courses available through the Canada School of Public Service that are supported by global technology leaders. Not enough of our senior public servants are insisting that they themselves and their teams prioritize this essential upskilling.

Convenient and secure digital services are becoming commonplace in other countries, even countries at war. You’ve heard me speak many times about Ukraine’s Diia app. Regardless of where they are in the world, Ukrainian citizens use their mobile devices to access their most important credentials, like driver’s licences and passports, as well as all of their most important government services. Today, more than 90% of Ukrainian adults interact with their government digitally, not because they have to but because they value the convenience and ease. This success was thanks to President Zelenskyy making the Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine a political priority and recruiting both top technical talent and experienced policy and regulatory experts to the cause. Both skill sets are critical to ensuring progress.

We need to find a path forward, so let’s look at the PBO findings. The PBO highlighted the need for greater transparency. Budget 2021 allocated $1 billion to be invested in digital transformation over seven years. However, clear and insightful answers are difficult to find, such as how projects are being prioritized, how funding is allocated or what results and benefits are being achieved.

I found it concerning when the PBO observed that:

It is possible that some of this funding may be used to maintain existing systems rather than expand the digitization of government services.

It’s very worrisome that the government’s billion-dollar commitment might not be invested in digital transformation at all and could be consumed by the ever-increasing maintenance and repair costs of legacy systems. Simply, we have to learn how to build reliable and convenient alternatives to our old clunkers before they finally fall apart. Transparency is crucial to tracking progress and establishing effective incentives.

Furthermore, the combination of security and convenience offered by a single, high-security log-in credential should be a priority. Currently, there are over 270 different log-in points to digital services in the federal government. This isn’t just inconvenient, but it also increases the cyber breach risk by 270‑fold.

I’m of the view that improvements in the quality and convenience of service delivery to Canadians should be the driving force behind the digitization of government services. Yet, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, could not find any key performance indicators to guide improvements over time. Also, there’s no analysis of expected cost savings compared to those actually achieved. Since departments don’t track this information, they were unable to provide it.

Another recurring theme was that past practices block the adoption of best practices. To be fair, this problem is not limited to government. It’s an issue within any large or long-established organization. Too often, a change-averse culture prevents the needed transformation and reinforces the status quo — we see this problem in the Senate. Costs continue to rise, but calls to make efficiency-enabling changes are rebuffed.

Amanda Clarke, Associate Professor of Public Administration at Carleton University, as well as a thought leader in this space, spoke about this problem during her appearance before the House Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on November 17, 2022:

. . . very little has been done to hire and train public servants such that the government could make sensible, accountable and strategic decisions about technology.

She continued:

. . . leading digital-era governments are now aggressively hiring technologists. . . . [and] appointing senior leaders . . . who have a deep understanding of technology and its role in the policy process.

There are also structural barriers preventing transformation. To this end, the PBO offered that “Internationally, other governments have identified existing legislation as a potential obstacle to digital service delivery.”

Canada’s legislative structure enshrines the siloing of departments, which reduces the interoperability of government programs. This is frustrating for citizens and inefficient for government. To get around this problem, over the past decades, over a thousand highly specific data sharing agreements have been created between programs, agencies, departments and provinces. If government is to become more citizen-centric, departments need to be empowered to build a common software architecture that can deliver dramatically more convenient services for those citizens who choose to interact digitally with the government.

The PBO identified that the Privacy Act, the Financial Administration Act and the Access to Information Act need to be clarified if citizens are to be provided with the right to control the use of their personal data across departments and agencies, and between levels of government.

I would offer that Ottawa still faces another obstacle when it comes to digital transformation: the ghost of the Phoenix payroll debacle. Beginning with the earliest planning work in 2007, those who structured the Phoenix project ignored the software industry’s agile and iterative development practices. Our National Finance Committee’s 2018 report documented the issue well, but I’ll highlight one point: The identified benefits of this investment were minuscule relative to the risks.

When issued in 2011, the $310-million contract to create one centralized federal pay system was expected to save about $70 million per year. In isolation, that sounds like a reasonable return, but the enormous project was destined for failure when you consider the complexity and risk. At the time, Canada had 290,000 federal employees governed by 105 collective agreements with more than 80,000 different pay rules, and a total payroll of $22 billion per year. Experts report that if Phoenix had been broken into component pieces, with each being robustly tested and systematically scaled, the resulting problems would have been avoided.

I think the lessons of Phoenix have been learned. Consider the remarkable speed in which the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, or CERB, was designed, implemented and systematically scaled out to Canadians in April 2020 — at a time of enormous crisis in our country. It wasn’t perfect, but it indicates that there are both leaders and practices within the public service that know how to avoid past mistakes and design new platforms.

In recent years, ownership of and responsibility for digital transformation has bounced between departments almost like it’s being shunned. Clearly defining who has responsibility, authority and the resources to deliver digital government services to citizens is crucial to making progress.

Colleagues, to summarize, we need to prioritize end-to-end digitization of convenient and cost-efficient government services over the slower and more costly analog, paper and people-based services.

Success depends on increasing transparency — not just related to costs, but also to the savings and quantified improvements in service delivery. It depends on prioritizing best practices over past practices by enabling legislative, regulatory and policy changes necessary for ensuring that government services become citizen-centric. It depends on becoming comfortable with iterating our progress, learning from both successes and mistakes. Finally, it depends on empowering those ministers and public servants who are determined to transform the citizen experience.

Let me finish where I started: To be credible and trusted, governments need to meet citizens where they are — not where they were. This requires governments to deliver a level of convenience and service that citizens and businesses have grown to expect in our increasingly digital world.

Colleagues, I invite you to speak on this motion, and I ask for your support on this motion when it comes time for a vote. My hope is that we help empower the dedicated and talented public servants who desperately want to make this change, with the political backing that they need.

Thank you, colleagues.

[Translation]