THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 29, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 5:15 p.m. to study such issues as may arise from time to time relating to federal estimates generally, including the public accounts, reports of the Auditor General and government finance; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Larry W. Smith (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Colleagues and members of the viewing public, the mandate of this committee to examine matters relating to federal estimates generally, as well as government finance.
My name is Larry Smith, senator from Quebec, and I chair the committee. Let me introduce the other members of our committee.
To my left, from British Columbia, Senator Woo. To his left, but to the right, of course, is Senator Beth Marshall from The Rock.
From the beautiful province of Saskatchewan, where everything is golden right now, we have Senator Raynell Andreychuk.
From La Presse in Montreal, a real Quebecer and a great guy, Senator Andre Pratte.
To his left, from the northern parts of North Bay, Ontario, Senator Lucie Moncion. You were the big boss of the Manitou of that area, right? Congratulations, senator.
A man of distinction, from New Brunswick, Senator Percy Mockler.
And our long-time, outstanding player for someone who has the career in politics you have, which is very truthful, Senator Richard Neufeld.
[Translation]
From Rimouski, Quebec. It’s the first time in his life that he’s late. So you’re the coach?
[English]
That's an expression in English. We used to say that when the coach walks in the room, he always says, "The time is my time." So, Senator Eric Forest.
This evening we have before us officials from the Treasury Board Secretariat. They are here to present us their InfoBase, which is a searchable online database providing financial and human resources information on government operations. It is meant to offer multiple ways for users to access and explore information on government operations.
To hear more about this tool, from Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat we welcome Brian Pagan, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector; Andrew Gibson, Director, Expenditure Analysis; and Julie Van Audenrode, Analyst, Expenditure Management Sector.
They are accompanied by the technical support people in the back. If we need you, we'll ask you to participate.
You can proceed, Mr. Pagan.
[Translation]
Brian Pagan, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m pleased to be appearing before this committee again to support the study on the government’s budget process. During my previous appearances, I explained various budget documents, talked about our ideas for improving the process and made proposals.
I’m happy to be here this evening to show you the tool we designed to provide a better understanding of government spending. My colleagues, Andrew and Julie, will show you the Treasury Board Secretariat’s InfoBase, an online tool for parliamentarians and Canadians that provides real-time access to information on government spending.
[English]
This tool was developed in response to a 2012 parliamentary committee report requesting the development of a searchable online database of expenditure information. The creation of InfoBase and our ongoing work has been an iterative process involving expertise at Treasury Board Secretariat, departments and key stakeholders such as the PBO. The PBO has recognized InfoBase as the authoritative source of government expenditure information.
Before beginning the demonstration, allow me to say a few words about the data science team assembled by Andrew Gibson. This group of 10 people has a unique skill set in the fields of government expenditures and financial management, and data management and visualization. The InfoBase tool they have developed adheres to the following principles. It is objective — data-driven and non-edited information. It is credible information anchored in verifiable public documents such as the public accounts, estimates and departmental plans. And it is a living tool, constantly evolving to take advantage of new data and new developments in data visualization.
I will hand it over to Andrew and Julie. They will walk you through how this InfoBase tool can be used by this committee, by your researchers and by Canadians to access different entry points at the Government of Canada level, to be able to zero in on a particular data set or area of interest, to drill down and find a particular program in a department, and to show you how we are handling the issue of tagging information in a way which will support the presentation of programs that involve multiple objectives of the government.
Mr. Chair, with that as an intro, I'll now hand it over to Andrew and Julie. They will take about 15 to 20 minutes to walk you through this tool, and then we would be happy to address any questions you have.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Andrew Gibson, Director, Expenditure Analysis, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Good evening, everyone. What we will be walking you through is the brand new, soon-to-be-launched version of the InfoBase. There is significantly more information in this tool. What you would see online right now is information at the level of the Government of Canada and at the level of departments. What we have added is the ability to drill down to the program level, and also to reassemble programs into tag groups. We'll walk you through that concept later on.
The result of all this extra information is that navigation is very important. The government can sometimes be a little complicated for people to understand, so we want to give people a lot of different ways so they can explore in a way that makes sense to them. Some people are visual; some people need text and some people want to drill straight down in a directory structure like they are used to doing on their computer. As we walk you through the tool, we will get to the data in lots of different ways just so you can see the effort we have put in to allow people to find the data in a way that makes sense for them.
The way we will start first is to look at the government at a glance. This is an infographic for the Government of Canada. What you see here are topic areas about the government, financial data, people management, results. As I said, navigation is very important for people who are asking, "I found this information interesting, so where can I go next?" We'll start with the section about the government.
[Translation]
Julie Van Audenrode, Analyst, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat: Thank you, Andrew.
Good evening. The government’s goal is to provide an overview of the key statistics in the InfoBase. With one click, people can use the tool to get a sense of the government’s size in terms of spending and the number of employees. People can also use the tool to get a sense of the government’s structure, such as the number of ministerial portfolios or programs that will help organizations achieve their goals.
Senator Forest: When we look at the InfoBase, they’re not the same —
Mr. Gibson: As I said, it’s a new version. It hasn’t been launched yet.
Senator Forest: I have the old version then.
[English]
The Chair: Senator, he just follows the screen.
Continue, please.
[Translation]
Ms. Van Audenrode: Each word or name you see is highlighted. These are hyperlinks that take you to a specific section of the InfoBase, such as a definition in the glossary or a specific section of the government’s infographic.
I’ll now give the floor to Andrew, who will talk about financial data.
[English]
Mr. Gibson: Moving on to financial data, the first thing you will see are the key terms and concepts. I'm sure some of you are familiar with the fact the government sometimes uses some rather obscure terms to define how it does business. In order to help people, we provide a mini-glossary for each one of these sections. We don't force people to read through all the terms, so we hide them. You can see it's complete so you can go there and understand everything we'll be talking about. If you close it, scrolling down a bit, you will see what we're calling our welcome mat. You will see a morphed version of this diagram as we navigate around the tool. The idea is just to give someone a little idea of what we're actually talking about. We want it to make it easy for someone to come in and get some bite-sized chunks. Five years ago Government of Canada spending was $228 billion as per public accounts. Last year the number of FTEs was 342,000, and planned spending in three years, according to departmental plans that were recently tabled, is $259.9 billion; just little bite-sized chunks of information and stylized graphics so someone can look at this and easily understand.
I'm not going to walk you through in detail all the graphics because there is quite a bit, but to give you a sense of what's there, here is a diagram that shows government spending for the past five years and then the amount of unused authorities.
You have a three-year history of the estimates authorities for the Government of Canada. Here you see the split of where the money has actually been appropriated during the soon-to-be-closing fiscal year. Of course it makes sense that most of that money was appropriated during Main Estimates.
You see the vote statutory split and that the majority of the spending is statutory in nature.
And here is what we're hoping is a friendly little diagram for both voted and statutory, but the one on screen is statutory so people can understand the major statutory items and how big they are compared to each other.
As I said, here we are at the vote level, and you'll see that National Defence is the largest vote for the Government of Canada.
Scrolling down even more, you'll see a history of grants and contributions spending split out by grants and contributions types.
Some of these diagrams are dynamic, so you can turn them on and off to focus in on things.
Finally, you have a five-year history of personnel spending for the Government of Canada, again as per the public accounts.
I'll hand it over to Julie to talk about people management data.
[Translation]
Ms. Van Audenrode: The people management data describes the demographic characteristics of employees in the federal public service. As is the case for the financial section, the InfoBase sets out the key terms and concepts used to help people navigate through the available information.
The InfoBase then shows different aspects of people management, including the population by employee type, such as student or indeterminate, by geographic region or by age group. If you focus on the population by geographic region, you can zero in on one province or region in particular. Automatically, on your left, the five-year history for Quebec refreshes to reflect the information you selected.
If you select another province, such as Ontario, the information refreshes immediately to reflect the five-year history for Ontario.
[English]
Mr. Gibson: Moving over to where I can go from here, because as I mentioned navigation is very important, what we're helping people do is say "Okay, that was interesting, but where can I go next?"
The first thing here is to our explorer tool. I'll actually be looking at that in a second.
The next one that we'll look at is the government interactive bubble chart. That's kind of my favourite because it gives people a more visceral sense of the size of organizations based on spending or number of FTEs and it helps people explore around and learn.
[Translation]
Ms. Van Audenrode: The tool for exploring government organizations by size helps us visually compare the organizations according to their total spending or number of employees.
For example, if you want to explore the government by total spending size, you’ll notice immediately that about a third of government spending is committed to the Minister of Finance’s ministerial portfolio. However, if you explore the information by the total number of employees, you see a different perspective and another picture of the federal government’s make-up.
[English]
Mr. Gibson: How would we actually go about using this diagram? You can use it in two different ways. One is if you just want to drill in and explore. What you see here is a large circle saying "Smaller Organizations." If you click on that, you can drill in and then you will see the next largest organization is the Ministry of Families, Children and Social Development. You can continue drilling in and you'll see all of the different ministries and go all the way down to the smaller ones.
What if you weren't sure or having difficulty finding it? You can go up here and let's look for Indigenous Affairs, so we click on that. The diagram guides you all the way through to the organization you were looking for.
I'll just draw your attention to what we call our planetarium. When we were designing this, we were thinking about books we read as kids where it would show you the sun and the planets and the moons, so you can get a sense of all the relative sizes.
What can you do now that you have navigated and you found Indigenous Affairs? You can click on it, and here we are back at the infographic, but now it's just focused in on this particular organization.
[Translation]
Ms. Van Audenrode: In the same vein as the government’s infographic, an organization’s infographic contains the same types of sections that have been somewhat modified to show the most relevant information for the level chosen.
For example, if we start with the "About this organization" section, instead of seeing an overview like the one that appeared earlier, we see a detailed organizational profile that includes the legal title, institutional form and appropriate minister. We also see links to the organization’s website and to the organizational reports, if the reports are available.
[English]
Mr. Gibson: Jumping over to financial data again, I'll go over this a little faster than at the Government of Canada level because you will see a similar style of presentation.
Our focus when we're looking at data at the organizational level or smaller is to help put things into perspective. Again, you see the welcome mat for Indigenous Affairs. Then what you have here is a three-year history of appropriations for that organization, but if you wanted to, you could click on this and see how it compares to the Government of Canada. Like I said, it's to help people get a sense of perspective.
Scrolling down, you'll see a lot of these similar diagrams. You will see the same split, but just for Indigenous Affairs over the course of the past year.
Moving on, this is another set of diagrams where we try and put things in perspective. One of the major areas of work for Indigenous Affairs is grants and contributions. This first bubble shows, compared to all grants and contribution spending for the Government of Canada, how much is being spent which Indigenous Affairs; and if you compare the spending on grants and contributions to the total budget for that organization, how much that takes up. What you can immediately understand is that this is a major area of business for Indigenous Affairs.
We will go over to people management data now.
[Translation]
Ms. Van Audenrode: The people management data describes the demographic characteristics of employees who work in the selected organization. In this case, the infographic shows the data for Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada employees. The information is similar to what’s displayed at the government level, with perspectives of the total population for Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada in relation to the total population for the federal public service.
You see the same types of graphics as the graphics at the government level. However, the data that appears concerns only the selected organization.
[English]
Mr. Gibson: Again we ask, "Where can I go from here?" This was interesting or I hope it was interesting. What can we do? We can start drilling in and looking at all of the programs that make up Indigenous Affairs. You can see that some of these programs are greyed out and they have a little orange triangle. This goes back to what Brian was saying about the InfoBase being anchored in public reports and that it is important that it be credible. If you were to crack open the public accounts from maybe four years ago, you might find that Indigenous Affairs was reporting expenditures against this particular program. What we're indicating here is it is no longer operational. Those activities have been folded into another one. But if you do want to see that data, you can click on it and see what historical data is available within the past five years.
If we were to go down and take a look at the education program for this department, we have yet another infographic where you can get some information about this program. We talk about the work this program does, where it fits within the structure, and then the tags that have been applied to this program. We'll talk more about tags in a little bit.
We have, again, the financial data. Then you have the welcome mat again. You can see that spending five years ago was $1.7 billion, and in three years, according to the departmental plan, there will be 300 FTEs working in this program.
That was one way of exploring around the data, but what are some other ways of finding it? We thought it would be a neat exercise in transparency to show you the utility of this tool. We can use it to find our team that produces the InfoBase. We can show you a quick way to jump to it if you know how to find it and another way if you aren't sure and you wanted to search to see if you can find it.
The fastest way of doing is it is on the main page. You type in "Treasury Board Secretariat." You click on that, "Where can I go from here?" and drill in. We're part of the expenditure data analysis review program. This infographic comprises the work of my team as well as the work of several other teams within the secretariat. That worked if you knew where you were going to, but what if you weren't sure? What if you said, "This InfoBase is neat, but how can I find information about the people working on it?"
Going back out to the main page, we're going to go into our topic explorer. If we go in here, we have various ways of exploring and slicing and dicing the government, but the one way to do it here is just to search. We can do a text search and start typing "InfoBase," and it takes you into the program where we do all this work. You can click on "See the Data" and it takes you to that same infographic again.
Going back to this explorer, up until now we've shown you the ability to explore by organizations. That's good. That's how we're structured. However, it can be a little inside baseball for most Canadians who don't view the government the way we do. So there's more than one way of slicing the government pie. There is slicing it by organizations, but now you can slice it by tags. This is something that's going to be a major area of work for us.
What I mean by tagging is the government is composed of many different programs. If you were to ignore the organization they're affiliated with and instead go through and assign them attributes based on, for example, the people they serve, the style in which they deliver their service or a common outcome they're trying to achieve, then you can regroup government into virtual departments and you can see a particular area of activity.
A canonical example which we aren't presenting but helps make the idea concrete is the idea of the virtual department of water. You would see all the programs that help support clean water, reduce contaminants, environmental work, that kind of thing.
What we have to show you today are two other ways of slicing the government. I don't know if you're familiar with something called "Government of Canada outcomes," but we felt that was a slightly sterile title, so we've renamed it "What We Do"; that is, what are we actually trying to achieve? If you were to click on that, you would see a split of the government. There's "Crown Corporations," "Economic Affairs," and you can drill in and look at "Social Affairs." If you want to look at a vibrant Canadian culture and heritage, underneath are all the programs that contribute to that. If you want, you can see the infographic for it, and you can see all of the financial data. This is how much we're spending on it; these are the FTEs voted to it; this is the comparison of expenditures against authorities; and these are the three major players within this area.
The tag I just showed you, "What We Do," is what's called a one-to-one tag. I'm sorry if this gets technical, but the idea is we've decided this program can only contribute to one outcome, namely a nice, clean division of the pie. There are other ways of slicing the pie that are messier and get closer to reality. We all know some programs might affect more than one client group or deliver a service in more than one way. The issue there is you can get into double tagging.
The other tagging scheme we have is called "How We Help." These are the different tagging groups. What you see here is a warning. The thing that can happen when you allow tagging a program to more than one particular way of delivering itself is that if you were to add up all the buckets, you could get to more than the total spending for the Government of Canada or more than the total number of FTEs. We try to be careful about saying this is how we're presenting the information. We have this warning which says that reporting is not done by tags but at the level of a program. We can't disentangle the spending or resources of a program according to its various tags, so double counting can occur here.
In a careful, data-driven way, if you look at all of the programs that deliver a contribution, you get a description of what a contribution is. Then you'll see a listing saying that all the programs under here, some of them are also tagged as regulation, legislation, grants, et cetera. Then if you were to go and click on "See the data for this," you would see is a slight shift in how we're presenting it. Again, you have the warning. Now you see this little warning here to say "maximum." What we know when you have this many-to-one tagging-style presentation is the resource is devoted to not more than this; it could be less than it.
We know it makes things messier; however, it meets people's expectations more. When someone comes in and they want to learn about the government, they don't have a department in mind. They think about a particular topic area or something of interest to them. That's why we're trying to help give people so they can really understand their data.
Mr. Pagan: This is a really key point for us moving forward.
When I appear before this committee, we're presenting estimates vertically by department, so Fisheries and Oceans or Transport Canada or the Public Health Agency of Canada. The point here is that the programming in these departments can touch multiple objectives. For instance, Fisheries could have programming that could be tagged as fisheries, environmental science or Aboriginal programming. The concepts we're developing here, to the observer who is not familiar with the organization of the Government of Canada and doesn't know where to find a program, if they want to query how much the government spends on youth or seniors or Aboriginal issues, this will increasingly allow more refined, whole-of-government data in terms of what we're spending.
Our accountabilities are still vertical to ministers and for departments to implement programs, but the idea here is that the programming of government does touch on more than one objective. It's a very important point for us moving forward.
Mr. Gibson: That, actually, is a nice point to conclude on. We know we've shown a lot of information and we scrolled through a lot of stuff, so we're happy to take any questions.
The Chair: We have two senators on the list so far.
Senator Marshall: There was a bubble there with "Results." Did you click on that? The one to the left of it was, I think, "Financial."
Mr. Pagan: Thank you for that question. It follows on the observation from Senator Forest as well.
What we're showing you here, and what is actually available on the InfoBase as it exists right now, is different. As I said at the outset, this is a constantly evolving tool. We're taking advantage of data that becomes available to us almost by the day and new visualization techniques. The version we're showing you here is not yet officially available. It is not launched.
Senator Marshall: Is there anything in that bubble at all?
Mr. Pagan: There is but we haven't done the quality assurance on it, so we won't be presenting that today.
Senator Marshall: I just want to make a comment on something Andrew was talking about under "Financial Data." He was talking about results and what it was achieving. He said that something might be double counted. The government is focused on results-based now and meeting certain objectives. I think that by mixing them up and saying stuff is going to be double counted and we don't know who is responsible for these good results will be confusing.
Mr. Pagan: That you, senator. That's what I mean by our quality assurance.
Again, the accountabilities to Parliament are vertical. Parliament will approve the appropriation of funds and monies are provided to departments to administer programs. In this respect there, let me be clear: There is no double counting. Parliament will provide, to the dollar, resources to a department for a program. Where we're going in the results phase is that we will be able to demonstrate or project the result expectations. There will be specific measures on the service level they hope to achieve and the partners or the community that they will be serving. What you will see eventually is the plan, and then, as the year is completed, the actual result — the achievement.
Senator Marshall: Can you tell what the lapsed funds are? We're almost at year-end now. When is the government's year-end? When do they cut off the books? Is it middle of April?
Mr. Pagan: That's a more difficult question than it seems. As this committee will know, the fiscal year-end is April 31. There is an accounting exercise once the year ends to actually close the books. Technically, it's called period 13, where we take account of the invoices that were sent out and the receipts that came in. Once period 13 concludes in April, the Comptroller General begins the process of finalizing the public accounts.
Senator Marshall: Then we can count the lapsed funds.
Mr. Pagan: Correct.
Senator Woo: Congratulations on a really impressive database, and I can only imagine the amount of work and thought that went into it. Well done.
I have three sets of questions, quite simple, I hope. If you can't answer them, I fully understand.
The first has to do with the use of this database for research or analytical purposes. Is there any provision for, first of all, time series data? Is there any plan to include time series data going back to a historical period so one can create a time series, to the extent possible? If so, is it possible to, as in a number of databases, download the raw data so that researchers can play with them?
Mr. Gibson: The tool right now goes back five years. All the data that you see is available in open data. So if you want, there's a very nerdy section that we did not go into called metadata. You will see that these are all the tables in there. Each one has an open data link, so if you want to go in and download it, you can.
We've decided to keep the window to five years. It's a sliding window of five years. If you let it go longer — and this was a judgment call on our part — reflecting the impact of machinery of government changes can get complicated. As organizations shift and morph, it's challenging. That's a judgment call we made, but it is all available.
Senator Woo: My second question has to do with the results framework of this project itself. I imagine that a lot of effort was put into designing this database. There will have to be resources allocated to maintaining it, because it's only as good as the data is current. Have you developed a framework for ascertaining the success of this initiative, and what would that be? Is it measured in terms of eyeballs?
Mr. Pagan: First of all, you're quite right. It's been a lot of work from a very small team. At the end of the day, 10 people are working on this.
It is an iterative process. One of the reasons we're here tonight is to raise the profile of this tool and increase its use. I genuinely believe that the more comfortable you are with this, the fewer questions you're going to have for me when I appear before you to explain the estimates. There's some self-interest here.
The issue of results, as you know, is very important to this government. They've had machinery issues around more of a results focus. In our recent departmental plan that accompanied the Main Estimates was a specific reference to our objectives in this space. Unfortunately, I don't have the indicator in my head, but it is related to visits, to usage.
Mr. Gibson: There are two. One is related to the number of visits and another is related to an activity we're going to be undertaking soon to track user satisfaction. We want to find out if we gave you the data you needed.
Senator Woo: Do you have any idea of what would be a satisfactory number of eyeballs or visits, other measures of usage?
Mr. Gibson: Our goal is to be as popular as Google, but currently the exact number escapes me. It's somewhere in the region of 12,000 hits. We're aiming to up it to 18,000.
Senator Woo: In some sense, this database could be the portal to all government portals. You could take it in that direction. Where does this database stop and departmental websites begin? You could drill down all the way to the point where this is your one stop. Since everything is organized by program objectives, by expenditure categories and other measures, technically everything that the government does could be accessed through this website. Is that your intention?
Mr. Pagan: You're quite right, senator. Again, that question is perhaps a bit more difficult than it would appear.
This is a bit of a voyage of discovery for us. Again, with the results focus of this government, there's a keen interest in making the data available and communicating what government does.
This is a portal. There are others. There is a treasure trove of information on departmental websites. We are exploring now with departments and with the Privy Council Office ideas and options to bring this together. That's one of the reasons why we're not quite ready to go yet on the results side; there's a process there to sort out how we will stack or coordinate these so there can be a seamless transition from this into a departmental website.
In previous visits, I've commended the work of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. They have a terrific site on the Syrian resettlement initiative and a whole bunch of other sites. We're working toward the day where we can take you to the IRCC data and seamlessly into their departmental page so you can get even more detail than what we're presenting here.
Senator Neufeld: A number of my questions have been answered.
Is the "Results" bubble just the results of what has taken place, or is there someplace where there's a performance target so that you can work a target against results?
Mr. Pagan: This is exactly where we're going to build in the time series information that Senator Woo asked about.
In the recently tabled departmental plans that accompanied the Main Estimates for 2007-18, departments provided results expectations for all of their programs and identified specific indicators that they're using.
With the next iteration of InfoBase, which will be available very soon, we're planning on taking the information the departments have already committed to and reflecting it in InfoBase so that stakeholders can be aware of the commitment — what the target is.
Andrew mentioned that our target is to get to 18,000 hits on InfoBase. I have a target in this business to have 100 per cent of the budget reflected in the estimates in a fiscal year. That is a target that the President of the Treasury Board has signed on to. That's his plan and that will be accessible in our site.
That's the plan. Our performance is going to be told in our departmental report that will be available after the fiscal year closes. Once that information is complete, our actual results will also be available in InfoBase. There you've got your time series for one year, and we'll be able to see a progression over the five years of that program. That's our objective in this space.
Senator Neufeld: So what you're saying is there will be another bubble that says "Performance Targets." Would I be correct in saying that?
Mr. Pagan: No. The intention is that, as that's completed, it will be available through that "Results" bubble. You will be able to get both the plan and the actual achievement through that one link.
Senator Neufeld: You're trying to match those together.
Mr. Pagan: And minimize the number of clicks you have to go through and make it as easy to find as possible.
Senator Neufeld: That's very good.
What drew you to the number of 18,000 hits to make you think it's successful or that people are actually using it?
Mr. Gibson: We took a look at the current number of hits that have been relatively stable over the past while, and we thought we're going to be adding a lot more information to this. If we were to assume a 50 per cent jump in traffic, that level of ambition would help to drive us to do an even better product.
Senator Neufeld: You said it goes back five years, nothing more than five years. But I thought I heard Julie say something about going back ten years for one of the provinces. Maybe I misunderstood you.
[Translation]
Ms. Van Audenrode: The information on people management is for a five-year period.
[English]
It's only for five years as well.
Senator Neufeld: So everything on this site, everything that you want to ever look, at is five years?
Mr. Gibson: Like I said, the information goes all the way back to Confederation, if you want to stitch it together. It's just that telling that story in amongst all of the machinery-of-government changes, as departments merge and split and join, gets much messier. So the one editorial choice we took was to say, "Let's give people five years of history, but let's keep it a little simple so that we're not exposing people to all the raw complexity."
Senator Neufeld: I think it's great work. It will be a great tool. I certainly commend you folks for the work that you have done to put this together.
What is the department that is having trouble getting all the IT together?
Senator Marshall: Shared Services.
Senator Neufeld: Maybe you can go to Shared Services and help them out a little bit because they are having a bit of difficulty.
Mr. Pagan: I need Andrew right where he is.
[Translation]
Senator Mockler: As is the case for the other senators, I find the concept excellent.
[English]
I have a few questions, however, on the concept.
What is the cost of InfoBase from when you started a few years ago to where you are now with this concept? How much is it costing government?
Mr. Gibson: So far, it's all been in salary dollars. We have used open source, lightweight technology, so we have no software licence fees or anything like that. There has been zero investment in that sense, so you are probably looking at something less than a million dollars.
Currently there are eight or nine people working full time on it. That will scale down as the redesign is over, and it started off as a two-person project. So something under a million dollars over the past four years, and that would be only salary dollars.
[Translation]
Senator Mockler: How many programs did you combine to prepare the InfoBase tool you showed us this evening?
[English]
Mr. Gibson: I think — correct me if I'm wrong, Julie — that's on the main page here. What we're presenting here is 745 programs.
Senator Mockler: How much more do you plan to add to complete the concept?
Mr. Pagan: We consider the concept complete now in the sense that this reflects the totality of government spending and all of the approved programs in the estimates.
That said, senator, as you know, there is a new results policy. Departments are in the process of reconceiving and rethinking their mandate and responsibilities, and so this number will change according to how the departments present their new responsibility framework.
I can give you a very specific example. If you look at the Treasury Board Secretariat, last year, under the previous policy, we had a way of presenting our program activities according to certain activities. Under the new results policy, Treasury Board has approved what we call a departmental responsibility framework, a results framework, where we now present ourselves as the employer, the general manager, the expenditure authority and the regulatory authority of government. Do you see that there? So spending oversight, administrative leadership, employer and regulatory oversight. Those are core responsibilities.
Common to all departments are internal services — finance, admin, HR, real property, et cetera. Why we exist at the Treasury Board Secretariat is to oversee the spending of government, to be the employer for the government, to exercise the government's regulatory responsibilities and our responsibilities for administrative policy. That would add up to four plus one — four core programs, plus internal services.
As I say, we were one of the first out of the gate with this new policy. Other departments are in the process now of developing their departmental results frameworks, so the number of programs will adjust, depending on how departments conceive of themselves and present their new mandates to ministers.
Mr. Gibson: To toot our horn a little bit, what you'll see here, as I mentioned before, is that we grey out programs that are no longer operational. You'll see that there are about five here. If you scroll up, you'll see significantly more active programs. The trend is towards more granularity, more information.
Senator Mockler: As we go up.
Mr. Gibson: Yes.
Senator Mockler: I remember very well when we started to modernize services across provinces and across Canada: Service New Brunswick, Service Nova Scotia, Service Quebec, Service Ontario, Service B.C, and Service Canada. Do you have departments that are reluctant to buy into the new concept?
Mr. Gibson: As Brian said, this covers all organizations, so if you spend public funds, you're data is going to be in here.
Senator Mockler: There is always a privacy side of it to expose, especially in view of NAFTA being renegotiated. There is no doubt that there will be people saying, "What information do you have?" or "Which companies have received grants?" How can we reassure Canadians? People receive grants from the government that can impact NAFTA or impact the new economic agreement that is being phased in. How can you answer that one?
Mr. Pagan: If I understand your question correctly, senator, just making sure that there is transparency in terms of what the government is doing in the grants and contribution space, I would argue that this tool is very much in aid of that transparency.
As it exists now, grants are listed in the estimates, so there is a requirement to inform Parliament of grants that the government is making to this group or that NGO, et cetera. The problem, of course, is that they're listed by department. One might not know where to look. This tool is going to allow for easier access because it is a "query-able" database. You can inquire by a number of different ways that Andrew has pointed out here to find that information.
Mr. Gibson: I don't know if you've noticed, but the name of a grant can morph over years, so tracking its spending historically can be challenging. We actually go to the trouble of chasing down all of these name changes and stitching them together so that you can say, as of the title this year, for this grant or this contribution, what its parliamentary authority has been and its spending has been for the past five years.
Senator Neufeld: When did you say you started working on this program?
Mr. Gibson: I believe it was 2012.
Senator Neufeld: So four years ago.
Mr. Gibson: Sorry, 2013.
Senator Neufeld: I wanted to make sure I heard that correctly because I can only remember a different administration being here when that took place. I wanted the chair to get that on the record just so the newer senators understood that some of these ideas came from before.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I’m happy to see that all the departments can have a vision. That’s what we want from our public managers.
The work you’ve done is tremendous in many respects, in particular from a software development perspective. I imagine that developing the site’s tree structure was a major challenge.
Another important point would be to bring all the other departments and agencies together to compile all the data. I have two questions for you. It seems that the main element is the fact we have a freely accessible database that contains the results of all the Government of Canada’s departments and agencies.
However, will we go further? Let’s say the Main Estimates allocate amounts to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for the divestiture program, in the order of $158 million, for instance. Would the InfoBase tool let me see, in September, which amounts were invested in terms of the initial funding allocation? Would this allow me to conduct a follow-up on top of the analysis of the results after the fact?
Mr. Pagan: Earlier in the presentation, Andrew mentioned that this database shows all Parliament’s programs and approvals. Four weeks ago, we tabled the 2017-18 Main Estimates in Parliament. The InfoBase tool was updated that day to reflect the tabling of this document.
Senator Forest: You’re talking about the 2017-18 estimates?
Mr. Pagan: Yes.
In a few weeks, the Speaker will table the 2017-18 Supplementary Estimates (A). Again, an update will be done that day to reflect the information presented to Parliament. It’s done in real time. The information is updated constantly to reflect what’s presented to Parliament and what’s approved by Parliament.
Senator Forest: We’re currently at the stage where the money allocated can be updated, but not the money spent.
Mr. Pagan: It’s different.
Senator Forest: It’s very different. It will become a very useful tool for analyzing data and results, but we’re still not able to follow up on the progress of the allocated funding. I understand the reason. It’s quite complex.
Mr. Pagan: Yes. This tool shows the authorities given by Parliament to the departments. In terms of the departments’ progress when it comes to their programming, we’re currently not able to do this.
Senator Forest: However, it’s still very useful to analyze current and past comparisons in relation to the budgets allocated.
Mr. Gibson: During the fiscal year, we include the departments’ quarterly reports to have a small overview of the spending progress. Unfortunately, it takes about 60 days to prepare these reports and 30 additional days to review and release the information. There’s a significant delay, but we try to provide the data for the current fiscal year.
Senator Forest: Yes, the intention is there. I’m aware that it’s a major challenge to achieve this goal.
I want to ask my second question, which concerns the update. The credibility and use of this tool are related to the timeliness of the data. Given the significant number of departments and agencies, how can you make sure the data will be continuously updated?
Mr. Gibson: Senator Forest, we’re unable to show you the data warehouse. It’s a very complex system that ensures the credibility of all the data. We verify the data in a number of different ways so that each value corresponds to a value found in a report.
Senator Forest: I have one last question. When will the tool be available in Rimouski?
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: Maybe I'm going to display my ignorance, but you use terms here, and there is data from other departments. There is a disparity between this, which I think would be for analysts, parliamentarians, anyone doing research, but Canadians also go on all of the websites for services and information for their own purposes. Are all the terms the same and interrelated? I'm finding that NGOs — small ones in some places — and individuals are becoming quite adept at analyzing the large figures and their own needs.
You have said we have changed this because it sounds better and changed that. What assurance do we have that we're looking at the same programs, the same terms, and that the numbers match everywhere?
Mr. Pagan: Thank you, senator. That’s an excellent question.
As this committee is well aware, this is a very complicated space. We do acknowledge the tendency — because we are so close to this — that we use terms quite flippantly that may be a foreign language to the non-initiated. Andrew will explain the rigour that we have in terms of using common terms and making sure they are consistent with other reporting in the government.
Mr. Gibson: Your concern makes perfect sense. The reason we have made some of these changes is based on the feedback we have received where people have said things like, "What do you mean by voted and statutory? That doesn't mean anything to me." But those are important terms. They are baked into legislation, the Financial Administration Act.
So in the text, we try and use friendlier terms. We might say mandatory or discretionary spending, for example. But then you'll be able to hyperlink over to this glossary, where you will find the approved official definition so that everyone has a common understanding.
Mr. Pagan: Perhaps you could show it.
Mr. Gibson: Jumping over to financial data, here we have, for example, this panel on estimates. If someone wanted to understand what we mean by "budgetary," click on that and it will take you to the budgetary expenditures definition and someone will be able to better understand.
Again, we wanted to present the information style for two reasons. One is that it better meets people's expectations, more of a Wikipedia style where you don't have to understand everything but if you want to know, you can click on the link and get that definition. Like I said, we wanted to use the friendlier terms for people.
Senator Andreychuk: That answers half of my question. The other is Veterans Affairs, for example. If I were a recipient and feeling that I was not being treated well or that I wanted to avail myself of a service, I would want to know things on your website compared to others so that I could make decisions on whether I was being treated fairly. I want to know whether the terms you're using are the same as everyone else in the government.
I work in the area of foreign affairs? There was the START program, but now it's called something else because a new government has a tendency to put their own label on it. So it's very hard for me to figure out whether a program in Sudan that I am interested in is getting the same amount of money this year as last year.
If I were a recipient, I would want to know whether Saskatchewan is being treated the same as New Brunswick. It's that type of thing. I want to be sure that I can cross reference all over the place and actually get an answer that is consistent.
Often we get the answer, "Oh, we do this this way, but the department does it that way." I want continuity of information. I don't want to be the one that has to discern what it all means. I think the government has a responsibility to have it complementary at least if not —
Mr. Pagan: Senator, thank you. You're quite right in that governments will change priorities, programs and terms.
We ensure that there is no light between what the approved program is, how it's described and what we're presenting in InfoBase. That's not to say that that can't create some confusion because it was known as one thing last year and is known as another thing this year. We have no control over that. If a department decides on a new priority and a new program, they will name it what they name it, and then we will use their exact terminology to make sure it is reflected accurately and consistently in their information and our information.
This is Andrew's point. The principle here is that it is objective, non-edited information. It's based on public documents and can be verified.
Senator Andreychuk: You're absolutely right to say that, which answers one of the problems. But two different government sources are not giving different answers about today's budget. I want to know how much money was being expended on humanitarian aid into Sudan. One government is calling it one thing and has it in one department, and then it moves over to another. How do I analyze that over five years? The government is saying it's a new program when in fact we know it's a repackaged one.
I think of the START program that I was involved with. All of a sudden Foreign Affairs was doing some humanitarian work and it was called START. Now all of a sudden it's called a long name that I just saw today and I can't even remember the name of it. Yet, basically it's the objectives of the program and the government has put its own spin on it. I'm not arguing about that. As a Canadian, I just want to see how much money is being expended on that initiative.
I'm not sure this is going to help me much. This is going to reassure me that what the department is saying and you're saying in one year is okay, but I'm not sure I'm doing the analysis of the program. I do that for international reasons, because as parliamentarians, we often have to withstand the test that we're cutting our aid, that we're doing this. And I have to say, "No, we're not; we are repackaging." I can't answer those questions if I can't get the data.
Mr. Gibson: Your concern makes perfect sense. What you're talking about is at an even more complicated level than machinery-of-government changes at the department level. You have to prioritize work. For now, we have prioritized getting all this information in here, getting it linked.
Senator Andreychuk: A first step.
Mr. Gibson: One interesting area of work will be, for example, if you're looking at a program to say, "What has happened to this program the last five years? What was the title last year? What was the title four years ago?"
Senator Andreychuk: And where was it, which ministry?
Mr. Gibson: Yes. Basically provide a full history of this program as it has moved around and changed. Presented in that way, it's a way of delivering even more on the idea that we're linked to published reports: "Here is a program in this year's estimates. Last year, though, if you look up in public accounts, this was the title. Then if you go back five years, it was called something completely different." That's an area of work that we're looking at, and we have to prioritize it against all of the other activities we're doing.
Your concern makes perfect sense, though. Following this stuff can be very challenging.
Senator Andreychuk: I think it's something we could put to ministers, because they want to have their territorial integrity over their program. They say, "No, it's different." I think the public has a right to know the subject matter and where the money is going. I am wondering if there is political resistance to this. I'm not making that comment against this government. I think it's symptomatic of governments wanting to put their own stamp on programs.
Mr. Pagan: Again, senator, we certainly appreciate the interest here, and the challenge of following the bouncing balls. The fact that we're here today to demonstrate this tool speaks to the commitment of the President of the Treasury Board to make this information available. He has spoken very passionately about his interest in results and linking the dollars that Parliament provides us with outcomes and services for Canadians.
I think if you learn anything about the online world, it’s that once it's out there, you can't take it back. We have now created an interest and an appetite. It really has grown. We have come a long way in the three or four years since we started.
When we look at the possibilities that are out there, Andrew mentioned, somewhat jokingly, that our standard is Google. But in a way, our standard is Google because you can find anything in this world now by googling it. We aspire to the same reach in terms of finding information in the Government of Canada.
Senator Andreychuk: I will make an editorial comment. I think it's an excellent first step for those of us who will be embedded in this. But I'm just warning you, you are getting that Google standard because the more this goes up, the more appetite there is. They are not going to be satisfied with just this, because you're going to get a new consumer appetite going that is beyond the experts, the think tanks and the analysts.
Mr. Pagan: We acknowledge that, and I don't think there was any alternative. The option of staying offline is not an option.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: My question is along the same lines as Senator Mockler’s question. Laws are currently being changed in the United States to allow companies such as Google and Facebook to sell data. We’re moving more and more toward a world of open data. In keeping with the tool’s philosophy, how will you be able to handle this desire to outright monetize information collected on users? A number of people have reacted by wanting to leave Facebook.
The situation is rather delicate. On the one hand, we want more open data. Canadians are increasingly expecting their government to provide public, transparent and open data. I think you’re moving in that direction. On the other hand, businesses are increasingly asking to be able to monetize personal information. How will we be able to protect... If I’m always searching through programs, at some point, it will be known. There’s an opportunity, but also a threat. Have you thought about it?
[English]
Mr. Gibson: This is all Crown information, obviously. It's always going to be given away for free and there is no intention to monetize it.
In terms of having any information to sell, the InfoBase does not track any of the users. We have no personal information about anyone on it. Hopefully that shouldn't be an issue here.
[Translation]
Mr. Pagan: That said, we acknowledge that this information has value. As Andrew mentioned, the information is open and available, but the private sector may want to use it to create applications that have value for Canadians.
[English]
That's something we embrace. The open government partnership is a multi-country initiative to take government information and get it out there so that private companies can use it and create products that can add value to citizens and to consumers. If they can make money doing that, that's fine. We have no problem with that.
[Translation]
Obviously, security is important to us. As Andrew mentioned, a section in the InfoBase deals with the private information of Canadians. It’s simply open data on government spending.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Pagan, Mr. Gibson and Ms. Van Audenrode, thank you very much for being here. I think I speak on behalf of my colleagues when I say that it was an outstanding and impressive presentation.
We wish you the best in terms of continuing this initiative and making it even bigger and better. We hope you obtain your objective of 18,000 hits and maybe double it within the next year to two years.
(The committee continued in camera.)