Government Operations Committee on April 24th, 2013

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, Minister, and your officials.

Let me just say, congratulations to you and your officials on the initiative to make this whole process more transparent for Canadians. I have to tell you, as a new member of this committee, that I feel a little bit like Indiana Jones, but we'll work through it.

In the 2013–14 main estimates under vote 1, program expenditures, the TBS is requesting funding of $3.5 million for human resource modernization. In its 2013–14 RPP, the Treasury Board Secretariat indicates that under people management program activity, it plans to modernize the delivery of government-wide internal human resources services, with a focus on common business practices, data structures, and system configurations. That's a worthwhile objective for sure.

I'd just like to know, how does the Treasury Board plan to spend that $3.5 million that has been requested? Will the focus be on personnel or IT?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Thank you. Certainly, I may defer to my officials after some initial comments, if you don't mind.

Absolutely, an important part of government accountability and efficiency in delivering services is to continue to modernize the structure of our human resources. Our people are critical to delivering services, obviously, so we continue to look for ways to do that. Part of it is reviewing back office operations.

What I’ve found in government is that there are a number of stovepipe activities where you have an agency, you have a department, they have their payroll department and they have their IT service department. There's a myriad of agencies and departments, each with their own back office. Quite frankly, not all of that is necessary now. So we are looking to consolidate back offices. It has no impact on the services that are going to be delivered to Canadians, but it's just common sense that you don't need three dozen payroll departments, as an example.

Yes, part of that modernization takes a look at that aspect of it, as well as ensuring that we have the right tools for managers to manage. We ensure that the expectations on the public servant are crystal clear so that he or she can meet and hopefully exceed performance.... That's our aspiration for those people as they develop their careers as well. It's a combination of things, in my mind.

Madam Baltacioglu, would you like to say a few words?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

We're focusing both on technology as well as what that technology is being used for. We can have the best technology and the best programs, but if we're not all following a more efficient process, then technology won't help us. As the minister said, we're looking at a common human resources process so that each department, more or less, will do similar steps, for example, if you're staffing a job. Then the second part of it is actually having a good technology solution so that we can have it across the government.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

If I may, Chair, what changes to system configurations are required? Will these changes be done centrally or will additional spending by individual departments and agencies be required?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Is this the IT systems you are referring to?

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Yes.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

There are a number of things happening simultaneously. One of them is the creation last year of Shared Services Canada, which is a common organizational platform for some IT services—about 40% of them, actually. A number of individuals have been shifted, personnel-wise, into Shared Services Canada, and there certainly is, in this year's budget, a continuing effort to consolidate those IT services there for procurement purposes and, again, getting rid of the stovepipes that existed.

Did you want to add anything?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

I think the money we have in the Treasury Board Secretariat is to ensure that the processes are common and that we work with the departments to bring to that.

In terms of investments, as the IT systems age and as new procurement happens, what we're trying to do is to cluster departments so that when we buy one, a whole bunch of departments can use the same system. Additional investments on an ongoing basis will be required as the systems age. But what we're trying to do is that whole-of-government approach as one organization, one enterprise.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Your time has concluded. Thank you.

Next for the Liberals is John McCallum. You have five minutes, John.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, and officials, for being with us.

I applaud you for your new database, but I don't think it's the most exciting thing. I think the most exciting thing is the plan to change the estimates to do it by program activity, because that would revolutionize the way we see things. When the Australian equivalent of the Parliamentary Budget Officer was in Canada, he showed me the way they do it, and I found it extremely informative compared with the way we currently do it. If we could move on that front, that would be a major, even an exciting, achievement.

Now, I know Treasury Board is going to be coming to this committee later and talking about the work that has been done. I think in round numbers the cost was in the ballpark of $60 million and it would take five years.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I thought it was $45 million.

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

I said “ballpark”, so I'll take $45 million. Do I hear $35 million?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

Nowhere has it been said whether you're committed to going ahead with this. So are you indeed committed to going ahead with this?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I was answering the question of the committee, which was to come forward with a work plan and costing associated with that initiative, so I have completed my work for the committee and was happy to do so. Let me just state this as well: $45 million is a lot of money. I would like, if you could permit me some more time, to see whether we can do anything with that number to get it lower, because we are dealing with taxpayer money here. As an example, a lot of it has to do with IT and how you track things, as you can expect. So we're going from the jalopy to the speed racer, and we have transition costs and so on. The issue is that since departments purchase IT all the time, are there ways that we could transition and piggyback onto their IT purchases over time that would reduce the incremental cost of this project? That's the question I'd like to answer.

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

I guess it depends if we're talking about weeks or months or years or decades of additional time. This was, I think, the most important priority of our report, and we'd like to see it happen sooner rather than later. If these tweaks of the system can be done in a few months, that might be okay, but if you're talking about another decade, that's certainly not okay.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I'll be looking forward to our discussion over the next decade on this, actually. But, in all seriousness, that's a fair question. I do not have an answer for you. I believe that I, in good faith, responded to the committee's request to do some of the research and to have my officials drill down a little bit. I would put it to you that there's more drilling to be done.

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

I commend you for that response. I'm not criticizing you. But we have had several reports over the decades on reforms to the estimates and virtually nothing has happened. You can see why we're wondering if anything will happen this time around. I think you have made a good start, but I would just hope that at the end of the day we can move reasonably expeditiously.

I take issue with you on your advertising numbers because I have the annual advertising numbers from Public Works for four Liberal years, and the numbers starting in 2002-03 were $111 million, $70 million, $50 million, and $41 million, for an average of $65 million. That's under the Liberals.

Then starting in 2006-07, the numbers are $87 million, $84 million, $80 million, $136 million, $83 million, and $78 million, for an average of about $90 million. So the average went from $65 million to $90 million, which means it went up.

I don't know how you got your number, but if you choose the highest Liberal number and compare it to the lowest Conservative number for example, then you can get something that works in your favour, but I think any fair-minded analysis of these figures would suggest advertising spending has been higher under the Conservatives than under the Liberals.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Let me reply to that. Of course, there are variations year-to-year within the Liberal times as there are during the Conservative times. Certainly, I don't think an averaging of Conservative expenditures is fair because of two factors. The first factor is that in the depths of the recession, there was a lot to advertise in terms of new governmental programs on EI for instance, on the home retrofit program, and other tax programs to help people do things. We made it clear to Parliament, and Parliament accepted our budget, that we were going to ramp up spending in many different areas, including advertising.

The second thing that happened during that period of course was the H1N1 virus, where we did a whole raft of advertising from a public health point of view.

I'm trying to compare apples to apples too. You might have a Gala apple and I might have a McIntosh, but we're trying to compare, and I think you have to be fair in your comparison as well.

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

I think to be fair, if we leave out the 2009-10 recession year, your spending was between $78 million and $87 million in the other years, and ours was $40 million, $50 million, $70 million, and $111 million.

We had special factors too. I just don't see how a fair-minded person looking at these numbers could possibly conclude that spending was not higher under the Conservatives.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

In the interest of fairness, we have to let Monsieur Jacques Gourde have his turn to ask some questions here.

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

So I'm over?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

You're way over time.

Monsieur Gourde, for five minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank the minister and the officials from his department for being with us today.

This year, you have presented us with a new, improved and easier to understand format of the main estimates.

Can you enlighten Canadians by telling us where the improvements were made?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

This year, the main estimates have a different look from those of past years. In my view, very important changes were made. I will explain them to you in English to be more precise.

Departments and agencies are now presented alphabetically which makes it easier to find particular organizations. As I said, bar charts and other graphics have been added, which will provide a visual summary of information in the tables, and information on 2011-12 actuals and 2012-13 estimates to date have been added to provide context for the 2013-14 amounts.

In conclusion, I would say that these changes are very important for Canadians, of course, but also for parliamentarians.

Given your work, it is important that you receive all the facts, but also in a way that is easy for you to understand.