Government Operations Committee on June 7th, 2018

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

There was one thing I wanted to quickly ask the Auditor General. We had the President of the Treasury Board at committee here back in the fall and I was talking to him about the 4,000 civilian members of the RCMP who are going to be deemed into the public service. At that time, I asked him if it really made sense to be moving them into the public service and onto the Phoenix payroll system when it was obviously a mess and it wasn't working. He agreed that it didn't make sense and shortly thereafter workers were notified that the deeming would be postponed indefinitely. Subsequently, it's been reported in the media that the government plans to go ahead with that deeming process in 2020.

Do you think the government is in a position to predict when the problems of Phoenix will be resolved, and to take a serious decision, like transferring another 4,000 people onto the Phoenix payroll system, or are they not really in a position to predict when these problems will be resolved?

[Michael Ferguson]

To predict when the problems will be resolved, I think there needs to be an indication that the problems are starting to reduce. We've heard today that there are some signs, perhaps, that some of that is happening, and maybe the pod approach will help, but I don't think the signs have been significant enough yet to indicate the problem has been resolved.

Again, I can't speak to a decision like that, we haven't audited that decision, but in terms of the government's being able to predict when the system is on the route to stabilizing, I think that's going to be evident in the data and the analysis.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you.

You mentioned in your general message that there were changes that had to go beyond the recommendations you made in your report. You also made some comments today about the fact that the scope of your investigation doesn't cover everything.

Are there other types of investigation or other avenues that ought to be pursued to try to get some of the answers to the legitimate questions that fall outside the scope of your particular study?

[Michael Ferguson]

We do various types of audits. This audit is a performance audit. It is very much an audit of a government system, a government program, processes, and how all that rolled out. What we do in that type of audit is that we follow the paper trail. We also interview people and get corroboration on what they tell us, but we can only go so far and we can only comment on certain types of things that need to be based on what the evidence shows us.

That's our expertise. I don't have expertise in the other avenues that might be available, but the committee certainly needs to be aware of those things, what those other avenues are, and the government or the committee needs to decide whether it wants to avail itself of those avenues.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

We've heard a little today from some of the departments involved with regard to the steps they are taking to try to rectify this.

You've said elsewhere that government has a lot of good policy on the books in terms of project management that is supposed to help alleviate or prevent the kind of catastrophic failure we saw in the Phoenix case. How can Canadians have confidence that these things are being addressed and that they are not going to happen again?

In your general message you talk about a pervasive overall government culture. What are some of the signs that you would be looking for that the general culture, which helped lead to this failure, is changing, and that we're not just hearing the right form, or the right words, but without the substantive content to back it up?

[Michael Ferguson]

At the end of the message I prepared I indicated I don't have an instruction manual on how to change or fix a culture. The culture, however you want to define it, very much needs to reflect on the fact that, again as I said in the message, even though we are operating in a world that has many different types of controls in place already, which have been designed to prevent this type of thing and many of those controls probably were put in place in response to past Auditor General reports when we identified significant issues, somehow those controls did not work to prevent Phoenix from happening.

The first step is a general awareness within the culture that just following the form, I suppose, of policies is not going to prevent incomprehensible failures. There needs to be a real understanding of what the goals are, what the results are that departments are trying to achieve, and that they are focused on those things, and that when something looks like it's going off the rails, they feel they can and do bring those problems forward.

I don't have the answer to the problems with the culture or how to fix those problems. I was trying to raise awareness, and if there's at least some awareness about that, then perhaps that can contribute to preventing this type of situation in the future.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

With apologies to our witnesses, we are just going to take a brief detour. We're up against a deadline for the estimates. I had served a notice of motion on Tuesday to extend our study of the estimates until June 20, 2018, and I'd like to move that motion now. If you like I can move it right away. Do you want the motion read?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

I'll read the motion. It's in order.

It is: That, notwithstanding Standing Order 81(4) and the deadline contained in the Order of Reference, the Committee request permission from the House to table its report on the Main Estimates 2018-19 no later than June 20, 2018.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

The reason for presenting this motion is to try to create some more time to study the estimates. I respect our witnesses here and I don't want to take up all of the time that we have to ask questions of them on an important issue, but the fact is that these estimates are not like other estimates. The new central vote under Treasury Board pretty seriously and significantly alters the nature of parliamentary oversight over government spending. It's a case I've been trying to make in many forums. I've tried to make that case here at committee, but I've also tried to make that case in the House.

When making that case in the House, I've been told by the Speaker that the appropriate place to discuss the estimates is at committee, and we have heard from some witnesses. We've had a couple of different motions in various forms and in various stages of consideration to call other ministers to this committee to hear more about the initiatives proposed under vote 40. My motion to that effect was voted down. Other motions are extant, but we haven't had any time to consider the estimates proper either, even though we have over 200 amendments proposed to vote 40 alone.

If we're going to be told by the Speaker of the House that the place to deal with issues on the estimates is at committee, I think it's incumbent upon the committee to make some time for that. I would very much like to see that happen, and just haven't been able to make it happen so far.

With respect to the general issue of oversight that I think this raises with Treasury Board vote 40, I think it's interesting that this motion comes in our last meeting before the estimates are deemed reported and that we're discussing Phoenix, because the Phoenix issue is really about a failure of accountability. It's about people, whose job it was to ask the right questions at the right time, either not asking those questions or not having the information that they needed in order to be able to ask those questions.

I would put to the committee that something similar is happening here. This committee hasn't heard from the people it needs to hear from in order to be able to ask the right questions about the proposed spending in vote 40, and if we're not going to make time in order to deal with the estimates, then we're not going to be asking those questions.

I think it would be unfortunate. We had a meeting last week where we ended 40 minutes early, after twice deciding not to deal with the estimates. It was a scheduled meeting. I think everybody normally sets aside the normal committee time in order to be there. The room was available. The translators were there. We had everything we needed in order to be able to deal with the estimates at that time, and we decided not to and to leave those 40 minutes on the table.

That's why I'm in the unfortunate position of having to take some of the time away from the Phoenix study today in order to try to make more time for what I think is a very appropriate item of business for the committee. I won't take any further time, but those are the reasons that I think we ought to adopt this motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Mr. Peterson.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thanks, and I appreciate the motion, of course.

Mr. Blaikie may not be aware of this, but under the Standing Orders, the Leader of the Opposition can pick a committee to extend the study of the main estimates. That motion is now on the notice paper and the leader selected OGGO, not surprisingly. We expect it will be deemed adopted later today or tomorrow, so the procedure of keeping the study of the estimates open that your motion seeks is actually already in place, and that authority already exists.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

One day, though....

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I'm not sure if your motion is necessary. We're going to have a chance to go over the estimates sometime next week, I would think on Monday, and have some witnesses in to testify, and of course, be subject to our questioning.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

We have Mr. McCauley first.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'll cede.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You'll cede to Mr. Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much for that.

What I would note is that this motion actually provides for a substantial amount of time in order to try to coordinate meetings, and if there are negotiations about a potential Monday meeting, I have not been approached either directly or through the government whip's office to the NDP whip's office about any negotiations for a Monday meeting. There may be some rumours circulating but there has been no formal discussion with me or with my party about that.

What I would say is that the mechanism that has been used by the leader of the official opposition only allows for an extension of the study—I'm sure Mr. Peterson will know—up to the third day preceding the last supply day. At the moment, our understanding, given the projected calendar of government business, is that the last supply day may very well be on Thursday, which means that the last possible day for consideration would be Monday, which is June 11, nine days before June 20, which is the date in my motion.

Notwithstanding any legitimate procedural efforts by the official opposition to extend the study, I think that the motion before us provides a lot more latitude in order to have a bit of extra time to study the estimates, to do it in a way that's more planned, rather than a rushed meeting on a Monday, not knowing whether Monday is going to be the last day or whether we'll have subsequent days.

This motion provides both more time and more certainty with respect to the committee planning its business.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Mr. Peterson, you're next on the speaking list.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I've heard Mr. Blaikie's argument and I've made mine. We obviously disagree a little bit, but I'm happy to vote on it, if you're ready, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Mr. Peterson is calling for the vote.

Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'll be very brief. I think we support Mr. Blaikie's comments.

Yes, there is the opportunity, perhaps Monday, for a meeting, though I think we should take time, considering it's $7.4 billion of spending. It's an unprecedented spending amount. We've heard repeatedly, in many other committees, that the minister shows up and is not able to address the $7.4 billion that's in table A2.11. We heard in the public safety committee and we heard in this committee that ministers have come but are not able to explain in detail one penny of what the money is being asked for. In fact, we actually heard, in this committee, a senior assistant deputy minister and a chief financial officer say it was preposterous for Parliament to ask for details of spending before we granted the authority.

I think we're addressing a culture issue, which Mr. Ferguson has brought up, in which we have assistant deputy ministers telling Parliament that it's preposterous to ask for details of the spending, saying that they want authority first to spend the money before they will deign to allow Parliament and therefore taxpayers to vote on it. I think it's a very important issue that Mr. Blaikie has brought up, and we fully support it.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Okay. I'll call the vote on it.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I'd like a recorded vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

We'll continue with the next round of seven minutes.

Mr. Drouin.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank the witnesses for being here.

Madam Lemay, I want to put on the record that we have access to.... Somebody did an ATIP request on a presentation. You were probably not there yet, but this was a presentation given to the DM and the minister's office.

The curious thing that I'm looking at is on page 3, “Where are we on Technology?” I have the following bullets:

—Automated 80,000 business rules —Completed 16,000 test scripts —Completed performance testing —Some outstanding issues for which manual processes have been developed until fixes are introduced in May and September 2016.

At the bottom of the page is written, in bold letters, “Ready to go!” There's the same thing on page 4: “Ready to go!” There's the same thing on page 5: “Ready to go!”

We now know, today, that it was not ready to go, but had you been there, how would you have reacted to this information? Obviously the information given to your office at the time and to the minister's office was essentially that this system was ready to go.

I don't see any alternatives here. Was there an alternative to the Phoenix pay system, had it not gone forward at that time? With the information that we have today, do we know that?