Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 26th, 2007

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wouters was saying he was in discussion with the President of the Treasury Board and also with cabinet, and so on, regarding this protocol on the new designation of accounting officers. I just want his opinion. Does he perceive the opinion of Parliament to be the overriding opinion, or does he perceive the opinion of government to be the overriding opinion?

If we happen to have a difference and a clash, how are we going to resolve this issue, because we know in the past that the government's own interpretation of, not so much confidence, but rules regarding governance has been much narrower than the generally accepted terminology. I think that's why it's important that we get this resolved.

But I also want to know where Mr. Wouters was coming from on this issue. Is he going to lean and take his direction from the government, or what role does Parliament have on this issue?

[Wayne Wouters]

I'm sorry if I've misled members. What I said was that what we are looking at is what does the accounting officer model mean—not so much the protocol, but when you look at the legislation, how do you interpret that legislation, the Federal Accountability Act, when it comes to the accounting officer? It's very clear in the legislation, if you read it, what the role of the accounting officer is now, as specified in that legislation.

So I think that would be the area where, if the government wanted it plain—is what was intended by the legislation. The protocol, I think, is something that this committee will want to determine, but I guess our only comment on that would be that we would hope that the protocol is consistent with the legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wouters.

We're now going to start round two, but I'm going to have to be brutal on the time.

Ms. Ratansi, welcome back to the committee. You have five minutes.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Did you miss us?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Yes, I missed you a lot.

My question is to the Auditor General.

You say there are two expenditure management processes, one that deals with the existing programs and one for the new programs, and then we hear there's a new system going into place. In your opinion, have you had any review of what the parameters of the system are going to be, and will that system overcome these problems that we have, going back to the supplementary estimates and all those fun things?

[Sheila Fraser]

The system that was being referred to we looked at in our review of the management of information technology projects. So simply from the question of how it was managed as an IT project, we have not looked further into the whole new system that is being put in place, because we're waiting for the detailed action plan and then to see if that will address all of the issues we have raised. That is what is coming in the next few weeks, I would presume, but once we get it, then we will be looking at that.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Okay, then my question is to either Mr. Wouters or to Mr. Maloney.

I know that legacy systems create problems and that their 30-year-old codes, etc., could create a lot of problems. Now we're spending money on a system, from $16 million to $53 million. How will that system help parliamentarians make the right decision? I understand the figures given to them are the correct and accurate figures, number one. Number two, how will it track the existing programs and reconcile it to new proposals?

[Wayne Wouters]

Those are good questions. I'll ask Mr. Moloney to respond to them.

[David Moloney]

I think it's important to take a step back. The expenditure management information system is a collection of pieces of software that we use to collect information from departments, to assemble the various vote structures, and to publish the main estimates and the supplementary estimates documents. It's an unfortunate double usage of the term “system”. That truly is a system. It's an IT system.

The expenditure management system that we're talking about also today is a framework. It is a set of processes and an information flow that supports cabinet in making its allocation decisions. So it does get at issues around performance, as well as spending. The IT system that we are replacing it with will help us have more confidence in our ability to look across departments. When we get this new IT system in place, progressively over a couple of years, we would be able to align spending for Parliament as well as for cabinet, together with results.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

How? I come from a background of systems myself, so I know the CFIS systems, etc. So I take it that a lot of legacy systems then collapsed or ran them parallel. I just want to know what parameters you are giving the system. Can we get an assurance that it will address problems of funding, accuracy, management information, of correct information?

[David Moloney]

I'll try to be brief. The Treasury Board put a policy in place effective in April 2005 called the management, reporting and results structure policy.

As of last year, the main estimates that come to Parliament have a set of strategic outcomes for each department—program activity architectures. Our new IT system is to align those planned results, and to align them with actual results with the spending in an IT system. That will not, in and of itself, provide cabinet decisions that reallocate; it's the information that cabinet has to bring to bear. We need a review process and a different decision-making process that exploits that information.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Ms. Ratansi.

Thank you, Mr. Moloney.

Mr. Sweet, for five minutes.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your time today. I appreciate the magnitude of the job you have in corralling this entire government and seven legacy systems.

I understand—and maybe this is just a confirmation to understand what you're trying to say—that the IMAA is an aggregate of processes, procedures, and technology in order to add some integrity to the management of the expenditures of the government. Is that correct?

[David Moloney]

The expenditure management system is that, yes.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Okay. That said, I'm certain the irony of building an expenditure management system and having the budget increased by 300% is not lost on you. That is a concern. Are we at the limit now? We're coming down the home stretch. You said it's going to be launched in November. Are we going to need to readjust this figure again?

[David Moloney]

We have not actually gone to Treasury Board to ask for the approval to spend up to that $53 million even this year, so we remain under that limit. As I said earlier, that was a multi-year plan.

We replanned the project's starting to last year. We had an internal audit that came along just before the Auditor General's audit, through the large IT projects. We came to the same conclusions: that project needed to be replanned.

I can't give you a final costing for taking that system to what the government may ultimately choose. We don't have a number bigger than $53 million today. As I said, we're still working inside the $53 million.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Can you give me to date what's been expended on this program, this system?

[David Moloney]

We're in the range of $35 million to $40 million over seven years. I think it's $35 million over seven years.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

We were talking about values and ethics earlier. One of the things—and I'm sorry, but there have been a number of reports—Madam Fraser, you had reported was that although these programs are available, they're seldom used. A very small percentage of individuals actually participate in this. Am I correct in that recollection?

[Sheila Fraser]

We did an audit of some of the departments in the national security portfolio. We looked specifically at the RCMP, Border Services, and Corrections Canada, and determined through a survey of employees that many were not aware of the programs in their own departments. Off the top of my head, I think it was around 50% who were not aware

As well, there was a reluctance to report. The employees indicated that they would report, but they didn't think that their colleagues would if they saw wrongdoing. They didn't believe that they would continue to be respected, and they also didn't believe that management would necessarily take it seriously, which is an indication to us that there continues to be a need for better communication and a commitment from senior management throughout these programs.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Okay, I was just going to confirm that this really needs to be a senior management leadership issue, not only in this instance but also for the Federal Accountability Act, with the whistle-blower provisions now, which people need to be informed about regarding what they're able to do, etc.

[Sheila Fraser]

Absolutely.

[Wayne Wouters]

I would just comment on that. The government has made significant amendments to the whistle-blower legislation, which will be coming into force in the near future.