Evidence of meeting #16 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was nicholl.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

David Nicholl  Corporate Chief Information and Information Technology Officer, Province of Ontario, Ministry of Government Services
Liseanne Forand  As an Individual
Benoît Long  As an Individual
Grant Westcott  As an Individual

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Colleagues, if I can gavel us in a few moments early, I'll go over a couple of things for your benefit before we turn our attention to the witness in front of us.

Colleagues, we will be conducting this meeting between the hours of 3:30 and 5. For those members on the subcommittee on agenda, we had been scheduled to meet from 5 to 6, but we will of course be interrupted by bells. When the subcommittee does meet, we'll discuss how long we can meet before we have to get back to Centre Block to make it in time for the votes.

The second thing I want to point out is that we had discussed at one time having two separate panels at this meeting. The first would be a panel of three former SSC officials, and the second panel, which would be half an hour, would be with the equivalent ministry in the Ontario government. Mr. Nicholl has graciously accepted our invitation to attend, but my feeling and that of the clerk is that since Mr. Nicholl has come here from Toronto, it might be a bit of an insult to have him appear for only 30 minutes. We have asked whether he can appear as part of the entire panel, which we will have for 90 minutes. I believe you have questions for all of the witnesses, mostly for three former employees and Mr. Nicholl. Hopefully, colleagues, that won't be problematic for any of you, but they will all be appearing as one panel rather than two separate panels.

With that, we'll convene the meeting. My understanding, lady and gentlemen, is that neither of you has any opening comments. We can go directly into questions.

Mr. Drouin.

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

The reason we agreed to 45 minutes and then half an hour was that Mr. Nicholl would have been alone. I thought it was enough for all of us to ask him questions. I know he's only here for half an hour, as opposed to 45 minutes, but now he has spoken with the other witnesses. We weren't aware of any changes to that plan, and had we been, we would have requested continuing with the previous agreed plan of having 45 minutes and a half an hour.

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Is your request then, Mr. Drouin, to excuse Mr. Nicholl for the first 45 minutes?

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Yes.

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

I would like comment from other members of the committee on that.

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

It was previously agreed.

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

I appreciate that. I'm in agreement with the chair and the clerk that, seeing as we have him here, it might be of value to have him available for the full hour and a half in case we were to spend more time on Ontario and focus on an area where it went right rather than dwelling in the past.

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Madame Ratansi.

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON

I would like to ask Mr. Nicholl if he's comfortable being here, because he might have things that he might want to say. I think the agreement was that he would come alone and present alone for his personal reasons, or whatever. If he's comfortable sitting here, then we are comfortable. If he is not, then we would be willing to accommodate your wishes.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

I think that's a legitimate observation.

Mr. Nicholl, would you care to join us for the full meeting, or would you care to appear separately?

3:30 p.m.

David Nicholl Corporate Chief Information and Information Technology Officer, Province of Ontario, Ministry of Government Services

Honestly I'm completely in your hands. I'm happy to be here. I would be happy to stay here for an hour and a half, or I'll sit for 45 minutes and testify on my own. It is up to you guys.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Madame Shanahan.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC

Can we vote on it?

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Certainly.

I assumed from Madame Ratansi that she was speaking on behalf of the government members, but obviously not.

First, Mr. Weir.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Erin Weir NDP Regina—Lewvan, SK

I agree with the chair on this one. I don't see the purpose of making Mr. Nicholl sit outside for 45 minutes. If members of the committee don't want to ask him questions until the last half hour, that's our prerogative, but it seems to make sense to have all the witnesses available, so that we can ask them questions as appropriate.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Lady and gentleman, this is a bit unusual, but I've always taken the approach of trying to get a consensus among the committee. Sometimes if consensus is not available, we do go to votes. I'm always at the will of the committee. In this case I will ask a simple question. Who would be in favour of Mr. Nicholl remaining for the full 90 minutes?

Mr. Nicholl, I would ask if you could please excuse yourself.

Francis, do you want Mr. Nicholl to physically be outside of the room, or just not sitting at the panel table?

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

No, I didn't request that. He can sit in the room. I just don't want to ask him questions at the same time as we question the other witnesses.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Mr. Nicholl, please remain in the room if you wish.

Now we'll start with our seven-minute round of interventions. We'll start with Madame Shanahan.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC

Thank you very much to the witnesses for being here with us today.

My understanding is that you have all been with Shared Services Canada at different times in the past. I'd like you to take us back. Maybe I'll address my question to Madame Forand.

Just take us back to the early days. Talk about the strategic plan and also the funding model. How was it bringing together these 43 departments under one roof with the three business areas that you had to address? How was that going to happen?

May 31st, 2016 / 3:30 p.m.

Liseanne Forand As an Individual

I was appointed to be the first president of Shared Services Canada in August 2011. I had been, as a deputy minister, a member of the advisory committee to the Clerk of the Privy Council Office, in advance of that establishment, on the whole administrative services review work, which included the consideration of consolidating IT infrastructure. It was a little bit of a surprise to me in June 2011 when I was invited to be appointed as the president, which happened in August.

It was a big change. As for the rationale behind it, there had been a lot of work done. Mr. Long can tell you all about that, because he was on the administrative services review team and did a lot of the analysis and thinking in advance. Essentially, we were patterning it on work that had been done in the private sector. When Mr. Westcott was at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, he did something similar in the private sector. One of the reasons that Grant came and joined our team was to help us out with that.

The idea was that the planned consolidation of the IT infrastructure was consolidating at the most generic level of IT. We're not talking about business applications that are different for all departments, but more about a kind of utility. You could consider IT infrastructure to be like the electricity in the walls. It doesn't matter if it's blue, green, red, or purple; if it all works together, is of good quality, and is well integrated, that has a lot of benefits, obviously.

Of course, there are benefits in terms of cost savings. That was a desired outcome from the exercise, but beyond that, there are a lot of other benefits that this exercise continues to seek to achieve. These include the tremendous enabling capacity of a standardized infrastructure to enable a single organization to be inter-operative, to network, and to build the capacity for large amounts of data and for rapid transmission of that data. If you look at private sector companies like IBM, HP, CIBC, and the banks, they have all done this so they can work together as a group. In government, that becomes very important.

That was the rationale behind it. There was a tremendous amount of planning done. Still, it's a huge exercise to take 40 parts of 43 departments and bring them together into a single entity. One of the things that I constantly said in the first year was that 43 was a big number. No matter what you're talking about, 43 is a big number.

Initially, there was a large group of 12,000 employees from what was then Public Works and Government Services, which was the IT shared services branch. They were the initial component of Shared Services Canada in August. Then we spent September, October, and November planning for the rest of the IT people from the other 42 organizations to join us. We had a little bit of time to plan there.

In the first year, the number one priority, absolutely, was maintaining operations. After November 15, when the 5,000 other IT employees were transferred, our main job was making sure that everything kept working, and we were successful in doing that. It was a seamless transition.

The people stayed where they were. They continued to do what they were doing. The only thing that changed was that they were now SSC employees. Our message to them was, please, just keep staying where you are, doing what you're doing, running the same IT infrastructure that you had, the way that you know how to do it.

When people asked me what was a surprise through this initiative, I would often say it was how wonderful the employees were.

We changed so much about the name of their department. We put them what in French you would say l'incertitude la plus totale on November 15. They didn't know this was coming to them individually and yet they continued to come to work, continued to do their best, and continued to work hard on what they had to do. That was our first priority, maintaining operations.

Our second priority was engaging with the employees. We gave 99% of our employees the opportunity for a face-to-face meeting—or for those really remotely located, a meeting by video conference—with Grant and me and the ADMs. We engaged with the industry. We set up a whole process to meet all of the industry associations.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC

Sorry for interrupting. It sounds like right from the beginning, there was no plan. That was in the first three, six, eight, or 10 months, because that's what we've heard from other witnesses.

3:35 p.m.

As an Individual

Liseanne Forand

I was just about to mention our third priority. Our first was keeping everything working, the second was engaging with everybody, and our third key priority was developing a transformation plan.

We had a plan for moving into the consolidation, but we were not created with the transformation plan already in place, because to do that, to do a transformation plan, we needed to know, first of all, what we had. So we spent a year counting things. There was no data in departments for how many servers they had, what kind they were, and when the contracts were up. People, equipment, contracts—we had to go out and count everything that we had.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC

So you were taking inventory—

3:35 p.m.

As an Individual

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC

—but how were you funding all of this? Were budgets transferred over?