Government Operations Committee on Dec. 8th, 2011

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister and staff, for coming in today.

I want to pick up on the subject of e-mail. You stated there are more than 100 e-mail systems, or 100 e-mail systems for federal government employees right now. In my experience, that strikes me as very inefficient. Can you tell us more about this current state of e-mail systems across the government and some of your plans to streamline that, please?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

You're correct, there is obviously merit in consolidating e-mail, both for those who work within the government—thus making it easier to communicate between public servants and departments—and for those outside of government who are looking to contact people who work in the public service. There's currently no standard for e-mail across the Government of Canada, making it very difficult for ordinary Canadians to find the people they need to contact and for public servants to do their work.

There should obviously be a standard e-mail system that's more easily accessible. Shared Services Canada has a mandate to ensure that the most efficient e-mail system is in place for all of government. Most departments implemented their e-mail solutions in the late eighties and early nineties, at a time when there was little consideration of or opportunity to share common solutions. As you know, a lot has changed since then in the area of IT.

These e-mail systems that we have right now in the Government of Canada are not fully compatible either. While approximately 80% of departments use Microsoft Outlook, 15% use Lotus Notes, and 5% use Novell GroupWise for their e-mail systems. Departments have different versions and have adopted a variety of rules and practices. This results not only in fragmentation, but also in higher costs to the individual departments.

We know that e-mail consolidation is the smart thing to do and is considered a best practice by industry and governments alike. The operation of multiple e-mail systems across the government also means that departments are negotiating and maintaining separate licences and have their own technical support teams in place. This duplication is very costly and it's unnecessary.

Having so many e-mail systems also means that e-mail is less secure than it should be. It's imperative that the Government of Canada move to a single standard for e-mail.

Shared Services Canada will move the government to one e-mail system. As I indicated, not only will this save money and make it easier for Canadians to reach federal government employees, but we quite simply can't continue to maintain the duplication, the inefficiency, the low interoperability, and the suboptimal economies of scale and fragmentation that arise from each department managing its IT infrastructure independently. This is why Shared Services Canada was created.

E-mail will be our first transformation area. The goal is to consolidate into a single e-mail system both for internal government and for interface with businesses and Canadians.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

My follow-up question is around the data centres, which is another big item you talked about. You mentioned 300 data centres across the government and some big impacts in terms of employees, as well as real estate and energy costs.

The former Auditor General raised concerns about aging IT in her spring 2010 report. She noted, as you did in your opening remarks, that the IT systems are supported by some very old infrastructure, that they're at risk of breaking down, and that this could have some very severe consequences.

Could you tell us more about the current state of those data centres and again share with us some of the plans for improving that?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Right now, as I indicated earlier, there are over 300 data centres across the country that store data and computing equipment for departments. That's not reliable, nor is it economical.

In some data centres there is an excess of computing capacity that's actually barely used. At the same time, other data centres are straining to meet the demand. The silo nature of our current system prevents data centres from maximizing current capacity, and each data centre has different reliability and security standards on top of that.

As you pointed out, the Auditor General raised concerns about aging IT and said that many IT systems are supported by old infrastructure and are at risk of breaking down, which is why we're acting.

Older data centres are also less energy efficient than newer ones, as they have out-of-date heating and cooling systems that cost more than they need to, frankly, and are wasteful in terms of energy use. Shared Services Canada will save taxpayer dollars by reducing the overall number of Government of Canada data centres and making sure they're robust, secure, and energy efficient.

Over the medium term, this means reducing the number of data centres from over 300 to less than 20. Obviously, not only is this good for the taxpayer, but it's good for the public service, and it's also good for the environment.

A whole-of-government approach will be taken to consolidate and manage data centres. Data centres are considered mission-critical infrastructure and will be managed responsibly. The streamlining of data centres will be done in a gradual and prudent way. Consolidation is expected to be staged while moving to modern, secure, and scalable facilities.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Great.

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

You're over time already, Bernard. I'm afraid that concludes your time.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Minister.

For the Liberals, we have John McCallum for five minutes.

John.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

And thank you for being here, Minister, and Madame Forand and Mr. Westcott.

My first question goes back to a comment made by my colleague, Monsieur Blanchette.

I think it's a good idea for the minister to give us the broad outlines for this large and complicated project. Would it be possible for the officials to return relatively early in the new year to drill down into more detail on this for perhaps one hour? I think originally you were to come for two hours today. Would the officials be able to return for one hour, let us say, in the new year?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

I'll discuss that with them. It's—

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I'll ask them, then.

Do you mean you want them to answer the question?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

No, I think it's—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I don't think it's up to the witnesses to decide whether they're coming back. We can put that on the agenda when we're dealing with the Shared Services study.

I don't think it's been an issue. I think—

[An hon. member]

I'm sure there's—

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Wait a minute, we have a point of order on the floor.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

That was my point of order.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I think it's reasonable. If we want these witnesses back, we'll invite them and arrange a time in the new year.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I'm happy not to pursue it further. Thank you.

In general I'm not at all opposed to this project. I obviously agree that one should get good value for taxpayers' money, and I think over the medium term, if it's done well, it will save money. I note that according to PricewaterhouseCoopers it's a 15-year project, from 2011 to 2026, so we're talking pretty long term.

My concern is more with the timing. In general, if you have a 15-year project, the savings tend to come near the end. You have to make the investments or incur the costs before you can reap the savings—not entirely, but I think it's fair to say the bulk of the savings will only come after the investments and those costs have been incurred.

What I find very difficult to believe is the contention, I think by your colleague Tony Clement at a press conference, that this will save hundreds of millions of dollars in reducing the deficit when the deficit elimination is supposed to occur in three years. We're talking about a project of 15 years here.

My first question to the minister is in terms of the costs and the approximate timing of incurring those costs. Mr. Westcott gave a figure of $375 million. I notice, on page 26 of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, that these costs exclude capital investment. They exclude the cost of new facilities. They exclude many things. And IT costs generally overrun what is estimated.

Putting that to one side, of these costs of $375 million, can you explain approximately how much will be incurred, for example, in the first three years, versus later years—front-end-loaded costs, back-end-loaded costs, spread over equally...?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

I know Grant is dying to answer your question, but I'll just say I appreciate your “in principle” support of this project. This is a long time in coming. I think it's something that will allow us not only to make our IT infrastructure more secure, but more modern. It will transform the way we deliver services to Canadians.

In terms of our commitment, and I think that's what Tony Clement, the president of the Treasury Board, was referring to, we will participate in the deficit reduction plan, and our savings that we identify will be articulated in Budget 2012.

In terms of the overall transformation and the savings from that, I'm going to let Grant speak to it because I can see him chomping at the bit.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Could you do the timing of the costs and the timing of the savings together then?

[Grant Westcott]

As the minister has mentioned, we have to deliver 5% and 10% reduction targets, as other departments have. We have a commitment to do that within the first three years.

At the same time, we're developing our plans for the major transformational activities around e-mail, the data centre, and telecoms. The e-mail initiative will go first, and we believe we've found the funding to support the activities around that project. It will start to yield savings...starting with a little bit in year two, a bit more in year three, and then the substantive savings, based on our preliminary estimates so far, will materialize in year four.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

What about the costs?

[Grant Westcott]

We've sourced the costs. We've got them covered in the existing budgetary and fiscal frameworks. We know how to pay for it.

You're quite right that they do tend to be front-end loaded, but we've covered it within our budgetary frameworks. We're not asking for new money. It will yield substantial economies in year four, and then that becomes the source of funds to actually help us fund—

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Yes, but look, if you didn't do this project, you wouldn't have those costs. So if the savings don't come until year four, and the budget is balanced by year three, and you're incurring costs in years one, two, and three, how can this project possibly help to balance the budget three years hence? I agree, it could produce savings 10 years hence—

[Grant Westcott]

No, no, it's not 10 years—