Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 6th, 2017

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Excellent.

As for what we requested of Public Safety by December 2017, is that coming along?

[Malcolm Brown]

We have no hesitation in committing to sharing the results with the committee.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Perfect.

For the CBSA it's the same thing, right, June 2017?

[John Ossowski]

That's correct.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

How many minutes do I have, madame la présidente?

[The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

You have two more minutes.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you.

I would like to go back to the Auditor General's report.

Mr. Ferguson, you referred to Public Safety Canada and to the 2014-2015 horizontal report. You say that the picture presented by the department was incomplete. This is what your report says:

[...] Public Safety Canada provided an incomplete and inaccurate picture of progress and costs. In addition, although the report provided information on annual achievements, it did not convey a consolidated view of progress.

As an example, for the initiative on deploying border wait-time technology, the report stated that seven crossings had been completed. The report did not mention that six crossings had been completed years before the action plan was released. For the Shiprider initiative, the report did not mention that the second main commitment to expand pilot projects on land had not been started, or that there were no plans to pursue them. For the initiative on enhancing benefits to trusted trader programs, the report stated that there were 83 new members in the 2014-2015 fiscal year, but it did not mention that the long-term goal was to attract 1,700 new members.

Mr. Ferguson, is that inaccurate or incomplete? To what extent can we be satisfied with it? Are they misleading Parliament?

[Michael Ferguson]

Thank you for the question.

In the course of the audit, we noted certain weaknesses in public reports. It is difficult to explain why. However, we identified those weaknesses. We felt it was important to bring these issues to the attention of members and to Parliament, because these reports have to contain complete, specific and accurate information so that parliamentarians can understand the results of a project like that one.

[The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ferguson.

Mr. McColeman, you have seven minutes.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here.

As I read the Auditor General's report, I think of your positions in senior management of government. I was in business for many years, 25 to 30 years. If you read a report like this, it's pretty scathing in a lot of ways, in my opinion. What's your reaction?

I ask because, stereotypically, from where I come from, this is exactly what a lot of Canadians believe, namely, that there's inefficient use of our tax dollars. As senior management people, what is your view?

I'll go to the presenters, Mr. Ossowski first.

[John Ossowski]

Sure. Thank you for the question.

As the Auditor General noted, initially our focus was on getting this complex list of projects done, so mea culpa on that. Certainly, I can tell you, having just started a couple of months ago, there is a renewed focus on bringing these performance indicators into play and putting us in a better spot. However, as the Auditor General also said, performance indicators are sometimes hard. It's not always black and white.

What I was trying to allude to in my remarks is that some of these are to our benefit, in helping us manage risk better, and some of them are clearly for the benefit of the traders or the travellers with whom we're working on these programs. We've certainly made it a commitment. We will have better indicators in place for June 2017, and I look forward to presenting that material to you.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Can I just intervene here? Before we move on, I want to ask you a specific question relating to the first question. I want to drill down a bit on the single window initiative.

The report says: As of March 2016, almost $80 million had been spent on Single Window, which had been in place for one year. However, we found that this initiative was being used...[by]...less than one percent of shipments entering Canada.

Can you explain why spending $80 million on a program and showing that kind of result is acceptable?

[John Ossowski]

Thank you for the question. I would just say, as I said in my opening remarks, that we have met with the Border Commercial Consultative Committee in terms of an adoption strategy.

Just to help the committee understand, this initiative was at the request of industry. They wanted us to help simplify this process. This will replace 200 pieces of paper in terms of various documents they could be submitting.

Right now, we are still on-boarding one more federal department and some programs, so we're sort of midstream in the initiative. I'm confident that, with strategy we've developed, we will be in good shape by the spring or summer of 2018.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

What was the $80 million spent on?

[John Ossowski]

It was spent on the IT systems to link all of this together.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Okay.

Mr. Brown, maybe you would like to go next.

[Malcolm Brown]

Sure. I'd be happy to.

I'm not going to try to put words in the Auditor General's mouth, but I think it is worth underlining a couple of things. One, we have work to do on performance indicators. The report has also indicated that the vast majority of initiatives that are part of the beyond the border action plan are completed or near completion. Some have been delayed. So I think the question really is less about whether money has been wasted, but more in terms of showing the impact in terms of projects not being completed and that kind of thing. I think that's where we have work to do.

As recently as the last little while, we were having a conversation even about examples that have been used in the report, about shifting from projects completed—which was done, as my colleague John has described, at the request of industry—to demonstrating how it's having an impact on the paper burden on shippers. In the context of threat assessment, let's demonstrate the impact that this project might have had on the effectiveness of targeting. I think we have to think very differently from how we have in the past as public servants about demonstrating the impact, particularly for initiatives that cut across departments. For those that are within a single department or more confined, I think it's less of a challenge. However, I think you will see significant effort over the next 12 months by departments to do a better job with advice, building on the work of the Auditor General to fill that gap of explaining not just whether a project was done, at the request of the government of the day, but also its impact. That's the challenge.

We count inputs really well; we count outputs better. We don't count and describe outcomes very well. An outcome that might be important to public servants might not be the same outcome that's important to parliamentarians. So I think, frankly, there's going to be a bit of a dialogue.

I think we have opened up a new front of dialogue with the public accounts committee with what you will see over the next 12 months, because I'm sure you will have feedback and say, no, we'd like you to improve in this area or another. So I think it's a work in progress.

The other point I would just underline again is that this was not about $80 million, for example, being wasted. The projects were done as designed, and now it's about on-boarding. There may be gaps there to get the absolute top value for money, but that's where we need to do the work.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Okay, then I have one follow-up question for you. The Auditor General pointed out a lack of coordination of costing information, with projects not being costed properly, not being scrutinized. Is it your view that there was no waste of the $685 million, almost $700 million, spent, or do you think that this amount of money, which is fairly large in most people's books, was spent as effectively as it could be?

[Malcolm Brown]

Again, I don't want to put words in the Auditor General's mouth.

Auditor General, correct me if I get this wrong. There was in fact costing on an initiative-by-initiative basis, project by project, within each department. I don't think there's a dispute about that. I think the breakdown was in the way in which it was reported across the initiative, across the 17 or 18 departments. That's where we fell down. We have work to do on that.

I think a review of each of the initiatives would demonstrate that the projects have been delivered in an effective way. Will there be room for improvement? I'm absolutely certain. No human endeavour is ever so perfect as not to have scope for improvement.

I think the challenge for us on the costing issue was in fact—and this is part of the reality of the horizontal initiative—that the guidelines are essentially provided by the Treasury Board Secretariat. We were working off that. The Treasury Board Secretariat and ourselves, and frankly the Privy Council Office, have work to do. Or, anyone who is in the position of public safety on another cross-cutting initiative like the beyond the border initiative will have to be clearer about what their expectations are and how those are enforced, so there is clout behind recognizing that's not filling our information requirement, as parliamentarians have identified, or as the Auditor General has identified. That's the kind of thing we need to do, in my view.

[The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Thank you very much, Mr. Brown.

Mr. Christopherson, for seven minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our guests.

Mr. Brown, with regard to your comments, just keep in the back of your mind that at the end of my remarks, I'm coming back to where you were.

[Malcolm Brown]

Okay.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I want to do what may look like we're belabouring something, which is exactly what we are doing. On the issue about data, about data being provided, about its being properly analyzed, we said some months ago, at the urging or guidance of the Auditor General, that this was going to be a priority for this committee, and that going forward we were going to spend a focused amount of time on this. It just happens that the issue in front of us is about all that. I am going to make the case, because we need to underscore it, but I am going to preface it by saying that I am somewhat encouraged by what I'm hearing. But we'll come to that in a minute.

The first remark in the Auditor General's report on page 5, paragraph 1.15, was:

Overall, we found that departments and agencies had not developed performance indicators to assess how initiatives have enhanced security and accelerated the legitimate flow of trade and travel.

And then we go on, and the case gets made very strongly on page 14, paragraph 1.55:

We found that the Agency had not developed performance indicators to measure how the Single Window initiative helps traders.

On page 6, paragraph 1.24, we find this:

However, we found that despite having completed most of the Action Plan commitments related to security, departments and agencies did not have reliable performance indicators in place to measure security benefits for 17 of the 19 initiatives.

On page 8, paragraph 1.30:

However, we found that while the Department had developed performance indicators for information sharing, it had not reported results to show that information sharing had improved immigration and border decision making.

I could go on and on. I'm not going to. I think the point is well made. I do however want to come back to the quote of paragraph 1.55. Again, you'll recall, it started with:

We found that the Agency....

—meaning the Canada Border Services Agency—

...had not developed performance indicators to measure how the Single Window initiative helps traders. Instead, it was measuring and reporting on project deliverables, such as the number of departmental programs that were using the Single Window and the number of forms that have been converted into electronic format. Because it was not measuring traders’ use of Single Window, the Agency could not show that this initiative was achieving the expected outcomes....

Now to your comments today, representatives, CBSA, Mr. Ossowski, I liked what you said, namely:

We agree and are already taking action.

We hear that a lot.

Last June, we launched a review of key performance indicators supporting the 10 initiatives that we led. This includes examining their outcomes and impacts, as well as reviewing, revising and developing indicators....

What I really liked was when you said:

This includes indicators to measure the impact our NEXUS program has on expediting travel for its members, which is, of course, one of the key objectives of the program.

Bang on. We had an in camera session with the Auditor General, going through another detailed report about some of our macro approaches. One of the big issues was that things were being measured in terms of being counted, but was that making a difference at the end of the day? So I was pleased with what you had to say. That's very good.

Public safety, that would be Deputy Minister Brown, I was very encouraged by what you said, sir. I think you got it. I particularly liked that you said you see a further engagement with this committee. We do a lot of reports in your area of responsibility, and the fact that you understand that things are shifting a bit and we need to look at things, and that this is going to be an improvement for all of us—that was something I really liked. I hope that...well, I know you meant it, and we'll get the opportunity to see that.

Lastly, as to the RCMP, same thing, I enjoyed the report.

However, here's the thing—and I've probably used up most of my time talking, as I sometimes do, but I get another turn, and you'll get another couple of minutes to jump in and respond—I want to hear from each of you just a little further on how much of a change you think this really is. I liked what Mr. Brown had to say, who can go last so they can't crib his notes, because I think he got it all in one go. I'm not yet convinced that everybody else who's come before us has. But drip, drip, drip, we do this often enough, hard enough, and seriously enough that there will be changes.

On that issue about the amount of shift you see, about doing different indicator reporting and performance analysis, all those kind of things, tell me how you see a brave new world upon us, because we're all going to do things differently.

[John Ossowski]

I'll start. Thank you for the question.

As my colleague said, we find the AG's report helpful. The work on performance indicators is challenging. I think the reality is that we'll probably end up having multiple indicators for any one particular program. For example, with NEXUS, it's not about the precise time of how long you were processed at the primary inspection lane. It's how short the lane was. It's your satisfaction with the overall program—how you apply, how you renew.

I think we have to look at it in a more organic way, and that will take some time. I'm happy to report that we've set up a benefits realization unit to actually start to capture this and look at it in a more organic way. Don't forget, though, there are also benefits to us in how we're managing risk, and that's an important part of the equation as well, as an outcome that represents value for money to Canadians.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Excellent. Thank you for that.