Public Accounts Committee on June 1st, 2010

[Michelle d'Auray]

If I may finish--

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

My question was about the cabinet, not the deputy heads.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Well, the deputy heads do inform their ministers. When those requests for funding are made, they are made to cabinet after the due process of examination and establishing the priorities.

So the short answer to your question would be “yes”.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Okay. Good.

We all wish there was one-stop shopping here--you may well wish it as well--and there isn't because of the dispersal of this stuff throughout government. That means perhaps nobody really carries the can on it, although Treasury Board seems to have a leadership role, but you have very few levers to pull.

Maybe that's food for thought. Maybe we can--

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay, Mr. Lee. Your time is up.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

That's a great misfortune.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

It depends on how you look at it.

Mr. Kramp, you have five minutes.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to all of our guests.

I'm not confused here, but maybe I'd just like to play devil's advocate for a second. We have the Auditor General stating that we have aging IT systems that are a major risk. We have all of the departments basically agreeing with the Auditor General that there have to be improvements. And yet, individually, all of the testimony here today from departments basically gives us the indication that things are in pretty good shape: 97% or 99% efficiency; really not a problem; things are in hand.

Well, then, where did the Auditor General get that information from such that 40 information officers requested...? Do you have a problem with spending more money to solve that problem? Do you need new systems? Who's going to say no if you have a chance to...?

I drive an old 2003, although I could probably drive a 2010 car. It works well, gets me by, and does a great job. Do I need the 2010 model? If I need it, we'll go out and buy it. It's very easy to ask if you would like the new and improved version of the same. Wonderful--but does the product that we now have work? Is it efficient? Do we need the Cadillac version of the Chev? These are some of the questions that I would like to expand on.

Auditor General, you're suggesting that for the safety and efficiency of this country, we need to spend, spend, spend more on our IT file to have it up to date. According to the chapter, we're already spending over $5 billion a year now. Obviously, somehow, in some way, this is either inadequate--it's not enough, or it's not being spent efficiently--or our systems are sadly outdated.

I'm really getting some mixed messages here.

[Sheila Fraser]

Chair, I don't think our report says “spend, spend, spend”. What our report does say is that aging IT—I'll come back to what we mean by aging IT—is a significant risk for the government. There needs to be a good assessment of what that risk is, and then there has to be a plan to deal with it.

We have seen, in the five departments we looked at, that there were three who had prepared longer-term plans and who had indicated that they had done the assessment of the funds they required. And the shortfall from their current funding levels is $2 billion. So to me, this is a significant issue. There are significant investments.

Now let me come back to what we mean by aging IT. It doesn't simply mean that a system is 30 years old. A system could in fact be that age and still be working efficiently and still continue on. But we note in the report that there are systems in the government in a language that is no longer taught in schools. And people are retiring, so there is a question of human resources and who is actually going to be able to modify these programs if modifications are needed.

There are issues with the infrastructure. We have a case of a data centre where the HVAC heating and ventilation system is no longer supported by the manufacturer. So if the air conditioning breaks down, those computers can't work.

At CRA, one of the major data centres is 40 years old and was never designed to be a data centre.

So there are major issues throughout government. What we are calling for is to have a good profile, good information about what these expenditures are going to be, recognizing that changing some of these systems is not a question of a few months or even a year. It can take many years, and if they all come in at once and they all need money, there will never be enough money to do it. So it's a matter of planning out how this is going to happen, making sure there is some coordinated approach to this, making sure as well—and the secretary talked about the administrative services review—that there is a thought given to how these services can be delivered in a different way. Some of the systems we have here are no longer....

I mean, we often talk about getting more efficiencies from government, and there probably are ways to make these programs more efficient, but it will require an investment in technology and a different way of doing things. Many of the programs have a lot of steps and a lot of complexity to them. To make it simpler to manage, you are going to have to change the way the systems work, and that is going to involve a lot of money.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I'm out of time. It's unfortunate, because I have so many questions.

Mr. Chair, perhaps we could schedule another meeting on this one. There are a number of questions that we really need answers to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

It might be an idea. We can discuss that later, Mr. Kramp. It might be an idea to just have another meeting in a year's time to see how things are.

Madame Faille, cinq minutes.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In various sectors, postings on MERX have increased. I have been following postings on MERX for five years, and over the last few months, I have noticed that there are more investments to be made, meaning that there are more requests for proposals on MERX. However, the government has asked everyone to tighten their belt. According to rumours, $1.4 billion in investments will be cut. Departments have been asked to tighten their belts.

I am trying to see whether your current projects are in conflict with the streamlining requirements that have been imposed. I would like to hear what the representatives of Public Works and of the other large departments have to say about this.

Incidentally, I would like to congratulate Mr. Chénier for the decisions he made last year. A little earlier, in the hallway, he said that he was working very hard at giving SMEs better access to contracts in various sectors, including information technology, which is one of the most important sectors in government, as well as in other areas, such as furniture management and so on. I therefore wanted to congratulate him, because he made a difficult decision, namely to pilot a project making it easier for small companies to bid on large projects.

I did not want to single you out, but sometimes good work needs to be recognized.

[Maurice Chénier]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will answer the many aspects of this question.

First, I do not have any information with me concerning the business volume on the federal government's request for proposals system. I therefore cannot answer the question, unfortunately. However, I can make a clarification.

It often happens that at the start of the year, when we get our information technology budgets, the money is spent on the first stages of a project. Therefore, it is not abnormal that some departments, like Public Works and Government Services Canada, have a small surplus at the beginning of the fiscal year. I think it is a sign of good management to begin a project early on, so that it can be finished on time and as authorized by the management team.

Another aspect deals with the smart management of information technology investment. Yes, it is true that, given the current financial constraints faced by every department, it is not business as usual. Because of the way governance operates at Public Works and Government Services Canada, we agree with the Auditor General that we need to review our priorities and spend money on priority projects, and to keep in mind the issue of whole-of-government governance. We have already done this. As a result, we want to keep on investing in our priority systems. We do not want government employees to miss a single paycheque, which is important for a motivated and functioning public service. Further, it is important for future pensioners to receive their benefits. As you know, we are investing in these systems to modernize them, since we do not want to reach a point of crisis.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

You say that you feel the pressure of expectations. You realize that investments have to be made and systems maintained. Earlier, my colleague, who has in the past worked in IT, whispered to me that these investments increase productivity. So we have to modernize our systems, and do so in an intelligent and rigorous way. What you are telling us is that you are under a lot of pressure. The new directive is creating more pressure.

Have you explained this to the secretariat, and perhaps to others? I do not want to put you on the hot seat, but—

[Maurice Chénier]

We are constantly talking with Ms. Corinne Charette. The chief information officers meet every month. These discussions happen more and more frequently. Has the situation been explained in detail? I believe things will become clearer as we gather information, as Ms. Corinne Charette and Ms. d'Auray said today, in the interest of gaining a better picture of how these pressures affect government as a whole. Ms. Corinne Charette reviews every request for IT funding. She does so every year. So she is very aware of the pressure we are under right now.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

The government has asked you to make these cuts by December 31, 2010, correct? I want a clear answer. You say that you are under pressure right now, but I want to understand what the urgency or importance is with regard to this issue. Do you have until December 31 to table your report?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

If you can address that briefly, Madame d'Auray, we'll go to Mr. Shipley next.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a two-year action plan. We have two years to gather the information and to prepare the action plan. As for the operating budget freeze, let me distinguish between two different things. The freeze of operating budgets begins in fiscal 2010-2011, and it will apply over three years, namely 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. It is a freeze of operating budgets, rather than cutbacks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Shipley, five minutes.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you.

It would just appear to me that there is this pulling together of likely one of the most complex systems that I've ever tried to understand. And $5 billion a year is a lot of money. The Auditor General is saying that it's going to take $2 billion to be spent to bring it up to speed. The Treasury Board becomes the oversight of the agencies and departments in terms of being able to bring together a coordinated, compatible...and I don't know whether the issue is hardware or software, or both.

I also hear that you as departments and as ministry representatives have made some significant changes.

Ms. Bethell, I think you had one of the greatest images, that it was like fuelling a plane in flight. Quite honestly, I think it tries to reflect to us an understanding of how this thing is just ongoing. It's a program in motion.

You say in your report, “We take our responsibilities very seriously. The EI, CPP and OAS programs represent $80 billion annually in social benefits to Canadians, representing 85% of all Government of Canada payments to citizens. These payments all rely on technology.” You say as well that “Canadians are not at risk--there have been no IT failures as a result of aging IT infrastructure.”

I'm kind of hearing, though, that this isn't what the AG is saying to us. I ask those ones because there have been similar comments by the AG, similar comments to what Ms. Bethell has made in terms of your departments, about what you're doing.

So strategically--not one time, but strategically, going out--have you been moving ahead? I think there was an initial response in the 2006 report. Has there been strategic movement since then, and have you been hampered by a lack of budget funding?

I'll start with you, Ms. Bethell, and then I would look for some comments from others.

[Gini Bethell]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, from 2007 on, in fact to this point in time, we have been making investments on an ongoing basis.

The notion that I would hope we have clarity on here is that in the longer term, if my colleagues and I were not making investments and were not planning to renew the infrastructure, then we would be putting Canadians at risk--in the longer term. Where we stand today is that we are taking measured approaches on a year-by-year basis to ensure that whether it's the hardware, the software, or the applications themselves, they continue to be refreshed in such a way to be able to respond not only to the departmental priorities but also to any changes that we may have to make. For example, EI for the self-employed last year was something that our department needed to respond to, and we did so.

I think what we need to be focused on is that we are able to manage and deliver the responsibilities we have today. If we were to not make investments moving forward, for the next foreseeable future, we would be putting Canadians at risk. What we have been trying to demonstrate here today and with the support of the Auditor General is that we are aware, we are making those investments, and we are continuing to ensure that as we proceed forward, the availability of our systems continues to support the requirements.

So that's why, when you hear us talking about 98% or 99% availability, that hopefully gives you confidence that we are able to manage today. But longer term, if we were to wait two or three more years and not continue these investments, we would be in difficulty. Why? It costs more and more money to manage those older systems. Sometimes maintenance and expertise are no longer available. So the costs and the amount of workload that our people have to undertake to keep things running continues to grow. That's why in the longer term it is untenable for us to continue.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Just so that I can save some time, are those comments fairly reflective across the other departments?

Thank you.

And the nods were up and down, not crosswise.

I'm running out of time here, so I have just a quick question for the RCMP.

You made a comment in here that evergreening includes coverage increase to minimize “no signal” areas. What percentage of your areas now have no coverage? I know that municipally, provincially, and federally we put money to help fix this, quite honestly, not only for our enforcement people but for personnel people. What percentage of “no signal” areas do you have left?

[Joe Buckle]

I can't give you a percentage. What I can tell you is that we work with the policing agencies in each province as we renew the infrastructure. With the new bandwidth becoming available, that allows us to bridge some of those gaps. If we go from 170 megahertz to 400 megahertz to 800 megahertz, it gives us a little more latitude.

We would assess it on a case-by-case basis. For instance, the new system that we're looking at down in the Maritimes will address some of those low-signal areas in New Brunswick. Right now we're working with the province to determine exactly where we would position our towers to do this.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

So it's small in terms of areas.