Evidence of meeting #62 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was contracts.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
What is the approximate cost for which you will have to find savings to fund the e-mail transformation?
9:20 a.m.
President, Shared Services Canada
We've identified a maximum cost. It's not the approximate cost. In terms of the maximum authority we have to spend on the e-mail project, it's $80 million over three years, but that is, I would say again, a maximum. It was for the purposes of getting project authority to launch the project. We will have a much better idea once we've identified a supplier in terms of what that might require.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
So your total savings would be a maximum of $80 million plus $150 million—$230 million over three years.
9:20 a.m.
President, Shared Services Canada
At this point, that's what we have the authority for.
9:20 a.m.
President, Shared Services Canada
I'm not saying we've realized that $80 million. That's what we have the authority to spend, and we're confident that we will be able to find it internally.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I must say you're looking very sharp today, with your sweater vest.
9:20 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
My thanks to our witnesses for being here this morning and for providing us with an update on Shared Services Canada.
I want to zero in on the IT Infrastructure Roundtable initiative. Could you elaborate on that? It sounds like a very important, innovative, and collaborative initiative. Could you tell us more about when the round tables began, how they're working, and the value that they're providing?
9:25 a.m.
President, Shared Services Canada
Thank you.
I'm going to ask Grant to answer this one. He's been spearheading our engagement with industry from the very outset.
9:25 a.m.
Chief Operating Officer, Shared Services Canada
Thank you.
This came about, as Liseanne mentioned in her speech, because at the beginning, when we first created Shared Services Canada, we knew that we had to have a very sound and fluid relationship with the private sector in order for us to be successful. We engaged all of the major associations like ITAC, which has appeared here, CITPA, CATA, and Communitech out of Kitchener-Waterloo, etc.
9:25 a.m.
Chief Operating Officer, Shared Services Canada
What we wanted to do was just work through what they thought was appropriate in terms of a sound working relationship. We touched on all kinds of issues around how innovation actually flows into the Government of Canada, what they thought about the existing procurement processes, and the best way forward in terms of us defining our requirements and this sort of thing.
After a four-month consultation process, where we also had partners with us, by the way.... Industry Canada joined us because of their sectoral interest, as did Treasury Board because of their oversight of the IT function writ large in the government. They were with us as we went through that process.
The conclusion was that it would be very beneficial if the government had a continuing and sustainable process whereby it could engage the private sector in a non-transactional way, so we could get the benefit of their views on how you formulate the right kinds of strategies, how you organize a view around the right architectural template to underpin what we're doing, how we organize the issues around innovation, and how we try to deal with attracting innovative solutions.
Governments are habitually very good a commoditizing things, but it doesn't lead you to very exciting things because they become commoditized, whereas our belief was that in order for us to support small business, it was integral that we find ways to bring innovation to the table. That is something that is important to us.
The associations all agreed. Then we created essentially four working groups to support the round table writ large. There is one on architecture, which has been the most active. There have been two working group sessions focusing on both our data centre and telecommunication strategies. They are helping us to organize how we think about these particular initiatives. The way it works is that we ask the associations to bring forward their subject matter experts, then we present what we think is the right way of going forward, and they comment on it. We work it backwards and forwards until we get to a comfortable place. That's how we put together all the tapestry of technologies that we have to work with.
In the three other areas of procurement, the work has not yet started because we've just stood up our own procurement organization, as Liseanne mentioned. Gina will actually work with the associations around things like procurement benchmarks, such as, what is an appropriate way of measuring performance? I think you've all been witness to procurements that take way too long and don't get to a result—the time is not helpful. That's another subject area that Gina is just about ready to launch.
Another issue that's also very important—and we use the term “smart sourcing”—is how we go through a process of actually figuring out what things should be outsourced versus what should be insourced. We owe that to our employees, for sure, to be clear and articulate on that. As well, it's something that I think needs to be studied in a very deliberate way in order to come to a foundation piece so we can determine the right way to move forward on that.
The final piece, as I've already mentioned, is on innovation. A number of our colleagues have started to formulate a working group on that particular subject. This will culminate in quarterly meetings as the working groups develop their thoughts. The first one is scheduled for November 22. The way that will work is that we'll have the associations plus their representatives there—they each bring one—and we'll be there with a number of other departments that are also interested in the subject. Then we'll convene a two-hour meeting that is structured around the topics at hand.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Thank you.
Thank you, Peter. You are well over time.
Just because you said something nice about my sweater, I can't give you extra minutes, as much as I'd like to.
9:25 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
9:25 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Committee members, that concludes our first round.
As the chair, I almost fell over when I saw the number of contracts that you listed here. My only question, on behalf of taxpayers, is that with 6,500 employees, why do we have to give Bell Canada $409 million in consulting fees, CGI infotech, $129 million, MTS Allstream, $191 million, and IBM, $33 million...?
It's a staggering amount of money. Where I come from, a million-dollar consulting fee is huge. What could Bell possibly be telling us for $409 million that we didn't already know?
9:30 a.m.
President, Shared Services Canada
That's a very good point, Mr. Chairman.
In fact, when we look at the contracts as they're listed there and the categories against which they're listed, I think the first thing that strikes us is how inappropriate the names of those categories are. For example, in the case of the $407-million secure channel contract, that was to provide technology support. It was the actual infrastructure—the pipes, the technology, and the networking—that provided secure Internet access and secure communications for the Government of Canada.
For example, IBM or Allstream...that's telephone services, networking services for telephones in government. A CGI contract would be for the provision of support and services—hardware and software—and maintenance. A lot of these things are labelled as management consulting, and we are in fact quite shocked at how these categorizations work. We would like them to better reflect what it is they do. All of the large contracts in that list are for large, managed services having to do with technology that is being provided, whether it's networking or hardware.
If you'd like more information, I'm sure Grant could give you more on what these things actually are, but they are not what you would consider to be individual management consultants. You'll often have the hardware, the software, the services, and the support.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
We shouldn't need these charges anymore, then. Under this new Shared Services Canada, we don't need to give Bell $400 million anymore, or IBM, or any of them, frankly. Is that the idea?
9:30 a.m.
President, Shared Services Canada
We continue to need to have contracts with the telecommunications companies, with the IT companies. We in the Government of Canada operate our programs, our systems, and the infrastructure. Just like any other organization, be it in the private sector or the public sector, we rely on IT companies to build the computers, the hardware, and the software that we use. That's what we buy, and then our own staff operate those systems and work very closely with the providers.
Just as a very brief example, we were talking about cyber incidents before. If an incident is detected, our staff are the ones who are on the front line and who monitor and mitigate what's happening, but they do that in conjunction with the company. They'll call Allstream and say that they have an issue on their system or their network, and then the solution will be worked out together.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Forand, at a conference, you stated that it would take six, eight or ten years to complete the transformation process. A lot of things can change over such a long period of time. Life cycles can last two, three or four years.
First of all, can you guarantee that the solutions you adopt will not be obsolete once the project has been completed?
Moreover, will our systems have the flexibility required to adapt to new technologies? I myself have worked in the government and saw, at that time, some supposedly very modern systems when we were still using the green screen 10 years later. There were some problems.