Public Accounts Committee on April 22nd, 2010

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Certainly money has been invested. Is there any idea of the costs invested in modernizing technology?

[Sheila Fraser]

We don't have precise figures, but I think $5 billion is spent per year on information technology. It may be on modernization, maintenance, and so on. We don't have the breakdown between modernization and the other costs.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

At page 17 of chapter 1, it refers to the Employment Insurance Program. It says that two major initiatives were developed to address these risks. It says that the second initiative, the Application Modernization Project, is only at the preliminary stage. On the first one, the Infrastructure Renewal Program, which comes to $214 million over five years, there is no information to say whether it has been completed. Has it been done?

[Sheila Fraser]

According to the most recent information we have, the investment plan did not set an order of priorities. Nor did it provide a comprehensive view. It has not been very long since we completed our work, so it would surprise me if there had been a lot of progress since then.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Should we be concerned about the fact that the second project is only at the preliminary stage? You talk about the urgency and the really important situation that could affect people in terms of services. They give themselves five years. Should we be worried? What should be done in the next few years to ensure that this second initiative, the Application Modernization Project, is carried out?

[Sheila Fraser]

I don't want to start a panic and have people think that everything is going to break down tomorrow morning. But there absolutely does have to be planning to replace these systems in an orderly fashion and not wait for the situation to become critical. Making computer technology changes in the Employment Insurance Program isn't something that can be done overnight. It may take years to replace a system that complex. So it is important to have a good plan for modernizing or replacing it.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

So there have to be priorities set, in fact...

[Sheila Fraser]

Priorities have to be set for the entire government. It isn't a matter of one department's priorities compared to another's.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

So there really has to be a comprehensive view. As I understand it.

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Ms. Beaudin.

Mr. Christopherson, you have seven minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you all for your attendance again today and for your thorough report. I would like to return to the Parliament buildings.

Having served 13 years at Queen's Park, I'm no stranger to this issue. They're going through exactly the same thing. The buildings are of an age in the cycle of our country that these costs are coming up. Having served municipally and provincially, I know the easiest thing to do is push off maintenance costs when you're in a tight budget. It doesn't cause you an immediate crisis and problem. Of course, if you do that long enough you get into trouble, and this is the gold standard of trouble.

I read your report, and in a number of places you go out of your way as much as possible to make the case that we need a new governance model. It was interesting to note that this isn't the first time, though. In 2005 there was a Public Works task force that reviewed this very same issue.

If I'm reading this correctly, they came out with a recommendation half a decade ago that the governance model was problematic. Yet when I look on page 16 of your report and the response of Public Works, I don't see them agreeing with your recommendation and saying it's consistent with what they found five years ago. They say:

The Department acknowledges the recommendation, which is broader than PWGSC and in fact the Government, and will, within its mandate and authorities, work with other stakeholders to strengthen governance.

It doesn't really mean much. And it certainly doesn't mean they agree there should be a new governance model. So help me understand it.

[Sheila Fraser]

I think the difficulty in the response to this recommendation is that we address the recommendation to the Minister of Public Works, who has the responsibility, and this is not a decision the minister can make alone. So the department responds. They have to be cautious in their response because they can't really speak for the minister. They also have to involve the two houses of Parliament.

I admit that the response is a little cautious and probably not as precise as one would like, but we have had discussions with the three main players. Everyone appears to agree on this. It will be important as this develops to see the timelines, what will concretely be done, and who is actually going to hold the pen on trying to develop the governance arrangements for this.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that it is complex. I just thought that having come up with a task force report themselves, they could have been a little clearer, at least in their view if not their actions.

I'm curious about the governance model. I realize it's our decision to make as Parliament; however, what did you and your staff envision when you thought about it? Will it be an amendment to the Parliament Act to create a new entity, like a common BOIE with a sole purpose? How much of a legal mandate do we need? Will it take a legislative change? Can we do it through a cabinet regulation?

Assuming we muster the political will and get our act together, what do you suggest would be the path of a united view if we all did agree? What direction should we be going in, as far as the shape of that model?

[Sheila Fraser]

My understanding--and I may have to be corrected--is that there will be a requirement for some legislation to actually transfer the responsibility to Parliament or some body of Parliament. In the current legislation the custodianship is given to Public Works, so that would have to be modified. Further changes or modifications and how they are done will depend on which mechanism is put in place--a single body like the chief architect in the United States, or a committee of senior officials, a board.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You did point to other countries, I think at least three. You mentioned the U.S. just now. But there are at least two other parliamentary systems that have gone to the same thing. What model did they use? Do you recall?

[Sheila Fraser]

In the U.K., as we show in a table on page 9 of the report, the custodianship is transferred again from a government department to the House. There were organizations created within the Lords and the Commons administration to manage that. In Australia, they have what they call the Department of Parliamentary Services, which is a department of the federal Parliament. In those two cases, it would appear, it's not just one person who's been designated as the chief architect would be.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

My last question is on the governance model. I realize you can only suggest that there needs to be a better one as opposed to building it yourself. But is it purely parliamentarians? Would it be a combination of senior bureaucrats and parliamentarians?

[Sheila Fraser]

I think there are various models, various options that have been looked at over the years. One option that was certainly looked at was to have some sort of body in which there would be representation from government as well--Public Works, for example--that would obviously manage and oversee much of the rehabilitation work itself.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I guess technically we're just tenants right now, the way this is structured.

[Sheila Fraser]

That's correct.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I think that surprises people.

Okay, great. Thank you for that one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You have one minute.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have one minute. See? I do talk too darned much.

Quickly, Mr. Campbell, you and I had a chance to chat a little bit about the Northwest Territories and the importance of this report and the importance of some of the analysis that needs to be done that maybe isn't done. Could you just give us some further thoughts on that, on why this is such an important issue for the Northwest Territories?

Thank you, Chair.