That's fine, Chair. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, we are pleased to be here today to meet with your committee to discuss chapter 3, on large information technology projects. Accompanying me today are Doug Timmins, Assistant Auditor General, and Richard Brisebois, Audit Principal.
Over the past six years the federal government has embarked on many large information technology projects. These large projects are no longer about introducing new computer hardware or systems but rather improving the quality and efficiency of public services. The recognition that there are increasingly complex IT issues that cross departmental boundaries has resulted in horizontal initiatives, such as government online and the secure channel.
During this audit, we attempted to determine whether the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat had adequately fulfilled its challenge and oversight responsibilities for the large IT projects in our sample. However, the government denied us access to information we needed, stating that most of the information and analysis that it collected and prepared was a Cabinet confidence that could not be disclosed to us.
As a result, we were unable to conclude whether the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat had carried a proper challenge and oversight role for these projects. However, I am pleased to report that since we completed the audit, our access to this information has been clarified by a new order in council.
In the last three years the federal government has approved funding totalling $8.7 billion for new business projects with significant use of information technology. Individual departments are responsible for managing their projects, but the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat plays a central role in ensuring that IT projects fit the government's priorities and follow sound management principles.
Overall, the government has made limited progress since our last audit of IT projects in 1997. The federal government still experiences difficulty in managing large information technology projects, despite the existence of a framework of best practices for managing them that dates back to 1998.
We examined a sample of seven large IT projects from four perspectives, governance, business case, organizational capacity, and project management. The seven projects were the global case management system of Citizenship and Immigration Canada; the secure channel of Public Works and Government Services Canada and the Treasury Board Secretariat; the expenditure management information system of the Secretariat; the integrated revenue collections of the Canada Revenue Agency; the 2006 census online of Statistics Canada; AgConnex of Agriculture and Agri-food Canada; and My Account, My Business Account of the Canada Revenue Agency.
The audit found that only two of the seven large IT projects examined—2006 Census online and my account, my business account—met all the criteria for well-managed projects. It is also important to note that these were smaller projects with development timelines of less than three years.
Five of the projects were allowed to proceed with a business case that was incomplete or out of date or contained information that could not be supported. Four of the projects examined were undertaken even though departments lacked either the appropriate skills and experience to manage the projects or the capacity to use the system to improve the way they deliver their programs.
The quality of governance varied widely from project to project. In four projects we found that governance responsibilities were not carried out adequately because key issues that had impact on project performance were either not reported or not resolved.
The persistence of these longstanding problems is extremely troubling, not only because they involve large public investments but also because of lost opportunities to improve business practices and service delivery to Canadians. The government has agreed with all our recommendations, and indicates that it is making improvements in managing large IT projects. The committee may wish to ask the government for a more specific action plan with precise timelines for government action.
That concludes our opening statement, Mr. Chair. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee members may have.