Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon.
Mr. Cochrane, regarding governance, which obviously involves the Treasury Board Secretariat, according to the Auditor General, the audit revealed that Secure Channel, one of the key initiatives of Government On-Line, contained significant shortcomings in this area; departments and organizations have not yet agreed on how to continue the project and on its potential advantages; the project has no budget or complete program reflecting total cost of living expenses, and the results did not meet expectations. That was true for 2006. The report was tabled last fall.
Yet in 2003, the Auditor General tabled a report on information technologies, which also addressed the Government On-Line initiative, and in which she stated:
For the 2005 GOL deadline, the Treasury Board Secretariat should clarify the expected outcomes in meaningful, measurable, and time-limited terms. If the GOL initiative is extended beyond 2005, the Treasury Board Secretariat should develop a comprehensive strategic plan that clearly sets out what GOL is to achieve.
This is part of the Treasury Board Secretariat's response:
The Treasury Board Secretariat will continue to work with departments and agencies... Departments and agencies will also be required to report against the new Management Accountability Framework, which sets out the Secretariat's expectations for management excellence... the government should develop a comprehensive strategic plan and implementation targets.
I find it fairly contradictory that despite the significant warning given in 2003, the Auditor General's recommendations and the commitments made by the Treasury Board Secretariat, there are still governance problems today. And this is only one aspect of all information technologies.
How can you justify that?