Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue No. 10 - Evidence - May 31, 2016 (Afternoon Meeting)
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 31, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 2:13 p.m. to examine Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017.
Senator Larry W. Smith (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, colleagues and members of the viewing public.
The mandate of this committee is 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 briefly the other members of our committee. To my left, from the Yukon, is Senator Dan Lang. Beside Senator Lang is our senator from British Columbia, Richard Neufeld. Beside Richard Neufeld, of course, is the former Auditor General, the woman who broke more heads in Newfoundland than any other person, Senator Beth Marshall.
This afternoon we are continuing our study of Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017.
To review the expenditures in the Supplementary Estimates (A), we have before us today representatives of three organizations: from the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, CATSA, John Stroud, Vice President, Corporate Services and Corporate Secretary; and Omar Rashed, Acting Chief Financial Officer.
From Shared Services Canada we welcome Manon Fillion, Director General and Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Services and everything else that needs to be done; and Graham Barr, Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Reporting.
Finally, from Public Services and Procurement Canada, we welcome Julie Charron, Chief Financial Officer; and Kevin Radford, Assistant Deputy Minister, Real Property.
We thank you all for being here. Each organization will have five minutes to make an opening statement. It will be followed by a question period.
John Stroud, Vice President, Corporate Services and Corporate Secretary, Canadian Air Transport Security Authority: Thank you for having us here. My name is John Stroud, I'm Vice President of Corporate Services and Corporate Secretary at CATSA.
As you may know, CATSA was established on April 1, 2002, as an agent Crown corporation fully funded by parliamentary appropriations and accountable to Parliament through the Minister of Transport. My opening remarks will be brief.
CATSA's mandate is divided into four aspects. First, there is pre-board screening, so that's the screening of passengers. Second, there is a hold baggage screening; the screening of checked baggage. Third is non-passenger screening. That's the screening of airport workers who access restricted areas at the airport. Last is the restricted area identification card. That's a biometric card that airport workers use in order to access their restricted area.
Through Supplementary Estimates (A), CATSA is seeking approval to access approximately $113 million of funds that were earmarked in Budget 2014 for enhanced non-passenger screening for fiscal year 2016-17. These funds will allow CATSA to continue to support the strengthened International Civil Aviation Organization non-passenger screening standard.
This program, which was based on a Transport Canada risk assessment, increases CATSA's non-passenger screening coverage to 100 per cent presence at designated access points in the air terminal building, and it also introduced a screening program for non-passengers and their vehicles that have access to the wider commercial apron at the airport.
In addition to the $113 million in funds, CATSA is seeking approval of a further $29 million in funding for 2016-17. These funds will be used to deliver a wait-time service level similar to that of 2015-16. Last year, 85 per cent of passengers at airports were screened in 15 minutes or less at Canada's eight largest airports. This funding will also accommodate changes in passenger flow at major airports that align with their airports' economic development plans.
As you mentioned before, I'm here with my colleague, Omar Rashed, the acting VP and Chief Financial Officer. We would be happy to answer your questions.
Manon Fillion, Director General and Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Services: Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here.
I want to discuss the Supplementary Estimates (A), but first a few words about SSC's mandate and progress. SSC was created to help modernize government operations through the transformation of information technology infrastructure services which will ensure a secure and reliable platform for the delivery of digital services to Canadians. SSC brought together people, resources and assets to develop and implement a transformation plan to improve the efficiency, reliability and security of the government IT infrastructure and to increase productivity across departments and agencies.
SSC currently provides IT infrastructure services across 43 departments, 50 networks, 485 data centres and 23,000 servers.
There have been challenges for SSC, but there has also been significant progress in improving the government's IT infrastructure.
This includes the establishment of new government-wide data centres, the awarding of contracts to Canadian companies for the development of an enterprise-wide secure network, and the start of migration to a single email service.
SSC also pursued the consolidation of security services to prevent, detect and recover from cyber threats and to secure and safeguard the integrity of data and technology assets. These accomplishments were made possible by establishing strong relationships with partner departments and by leveraging expertise in the IT industry to identify best practices and approaches to IT infrastructure transformation.
Through Supplementary Estimates (A) 2016-17, Shared Services Canada is seeking an additional $272.1 million mostly for Budget 2016 commitments in the following areas.
[English]
$232.5 million will be used to stabilize and update mission-critical information technology infrastructures. Investment from Budget 2016 will refresh mission-critical information technology infrastructures — computers, networks, storage, large-scale printers, facilities infrastructure and security devices — to deliver reliable and secure digital information and services.
Refreshing the Government of Canada mission-critical information technology infrastructures will help to reduce the risk of breakdown of existing infrastructure, reduce cybersecurity vulnerabilities and keep important government services reliable and secure for the benefit of Canadians.
[Translation]
SSC committed to modernizing the government's information technology infrastructure to deliver the reliable and secure digital information and services that Canadians expect.
The resources of $23 million will be used to strengthen government networks and improve security.
Funding is required to address several key vulnerabilities in government networks, reducing the level of risk of security compromises, and avoiding the high costs associated with the recovery from future security incidents.
SSC is responsible for the procurement process of the next generation of supercomputing infrastructure, which will provide accurate and reliable weather information to Canadians. Therefore, $14.6 million will be used to upgrade Environment and Climate Change Canada's weather services.
The Government of Canada remains deeply concerned about the situation in Syria and humanitarian needs there and in neighbouring countries.
Shared Services Canada is proud to have played a role in the Government of Canada initiative to resettle 25,000 Syrian refugees in Canada before the end of fiscal 2015-16. We plan to use the $1.4 million for IT support to government-wide Syrian refugee resettlement efforts in 2016-17.
In fact, SSC will work as part of a national response to support five key departments to implement a national project that brought 25,000 additional Syrian refugees to Canada. SSC is responsible for providing overall telecommunications and modern, reliable, secure and cost-effective IT services to support all departments participating in Canada's mission. SSC's support includes provision of BlackBerry devices, upgrading services, and IT infrastructure.
[English]
Lastly, 0.6 million in the employee benefit plans will be used for additional staff requirements to support Budget 2016 implementation.
[Translation]
My colleague and I are ready to answer your questions.
[English]
Julie Charron, Chief Financial Officer, Public Services and Procurement Canada: Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for having us today. Joining me today is Mr. Kevin Radford, Assistant Deputy Minister, Real Property Branch.
Today, I'm pleased to discuss the 2016-17 Supplementary Estimates (A). With our broad mandate, Public Services and Procurement Canada supports federal departments and agencies in the achievement of their mandated objectives as the central purchasing agent, real property manager, linguistic authority, treasurer, accountant, pay and pension administrator and common service provider.
Our goal is to manage our business in the way that demonstrates integrity, accountability and transparency and adds value to our client departments and Canadians. Therefore, the department remains committed to delivering high- quality central programs and services that ensure sound stewardship while keeping in mind the importance of prudent financial management.
Greening initiatives received considerable support in Budget 2016. They contain measures to strengthen the middle class and investments in infrastructure to boost the economy. Among the budget's many green investments, I draw your attention to the $2.1 billion to allow Public Services and Procurement Canada to repair its large portfolio of properties and to green government operations.
Of this amount, $1.2 billion has been allocated to upgrade the outdated energy system that heats and cools over 100 buildings in the National Capital Region. Much of this energy infrastructure, which includes several plants, was built in the 1950s. This investment in modern technology will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by almost one-third and reduce annual operating costs by up to 20 per cent. It will result in a safer and more reliable system.
As you know, committee members, we're here today to discuss the supplementary estimates to adjust the department's in-year expenditure plan to account for additional spending requirements, which are mainly the result of the announcement in the budget.
[Translation]
We are seeking $351.6 million in additional funding to help us achieve our priorities, increasing our already approved net appropriations to $3.222 billion.
The additional funding is for the recapitalization of engineering assets, maintenance and repairs of federal buildings, as well as the maintenance and upgrade of federal infrastructure. It is also needed to implement the required enhancements of the Controlled Goods Program and to cover the Receiver General's card acceptance services and postage fees.
The increase is broken down as follows: first, $277.8 million for the recapitalization of engineering assets such as the Témiscamingue Dam and the Alexandra Bridge, as well as repairs and maintenance to federal buildings, to provide safe, healthy and secure workplaces. Some of the repairs are to preserve and maintain key heritage assets such as the Canada Four Corners Building, as well as repair structural and mechanical elements for federal buildings such as Lester B. Pearson and Postal Station B.
Secondly, $54.5 million is requested for the maintenance and upgrade of federal infrastructure assets over a two-year term. Budget 2016 incorporates measures to revitalize federal public infrastructure across Canada. Modernizing and investing in infrastructure supports the government's direction with the New Building Canada Fund while growing the economy. This initiative includes work on the Alaska Highway in Northern British Columbia, and Rideau Falls East Dam, in Ottawa, as well as the cleaning of various federal contaminated sites.
Thirdly, $15.8 million is requested for increases and expenses associated with the Receiver General's card acceptance services and postage fees. The increase in card acceptance services results mainly from the growth in e-commerce and payment cards, while the increase in postage fees is attributable to higher mailing rates since January 2015.
Fourth, $3.5 million is also needed to sustain measures, resources and program elements associated with the required enhancements to the Controlled Goods Program. The supported enhancements include initiatives such as a more robust registration process and tightened security assessment procedures for both the government and the industry.
In summary, this program addresses strong security concerns between Canada and the United States, and allows us to regulate the domestic possession, examination and transfer of controlled goods in Canada. This program also provides a competitive advantage for Canadian industry as it ensures access to the United States multibillion dollar defense trade market.
[English]
The Government of Canada made the commitment to invest in economic growth while remaining fiscally responsible. By investing in modernizing our infrastructure, we are spurring economic growth, job creation and broad- based prosperity for Canadians. The department supports the consistent delivery of high-quality services to Canadians while providing measured value for the dollars with which it is entrusted.
Members of the committee, thank you for your attention. My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer your questions.
Senator Marshall: I'm going to start with Shared Services Canada, if you can just give us an overview of the funding that's being requested for the Mission Critical Information Technology Infrastructure. Is that hardware, software, employees? Could you give us a bit of information?
Ms. Fillion: Yes. The amount we have received in the budget is $383 million. There is close to $100 million, $99 million, for O&M, which includes salary dollars; and there is capital money for a total of $232 million for 2016-17.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Will that enable you to meet the 2020 deadline?
Ms. Fillion: This investment is strictly to renew and invest in legacy infrastructures supporting mission critical applications where we had high risk of outage of the application. For example, maintaining the EI system, the Canada Pension Plan system and the CRA application system. This money is really to maintain and make sure the mission critical application is secure and reliable.
Senator Marshall: Are you saying that you won't meet your 2020 deadline, even with the funding provided? I'm trying to get a handle on this. We provide the funding. Will one of the measurement criteria be that you're going to meet your 2020 deadline? I'm getting the impression that's not what you're saying.
Ms. Fillion: You're right about that. This money is really to maintain services. It's not to invest in a transformation to meet or advance the transformation agenda. My colleague can add to the transformation agenda or the plan.
Senator Marshall: What would be the target date now for your transformation agenda?
Ms. Fillion: I'm going to ask Mr. Barr to answer.
Graham Barr, Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Reporting, Shared Services Canada: We're currently undertaking a comprehensive review of the transformation plan, looking at the original assumptions, the scope, as well as the timelines. We expect that review to be finished in the fall. As a result of that process, we'll have — if there is a new — a new timeline.
Senator Marshall: In anticipation of other supplementary estimates coming forward, I'm reading into it that you may be coming forward looking for additional funding based on the outcome of the review that you have just referred to?
Mr. Barr: This request doesn't preclude needing to come forward for new investment in the transformation. This investment is about maintaining and replacing the infrastructure that we inherited.
As we have talked about at this committee before, the transformation plan has taken longer to implement than originally expected, which means that we have had to maintain the old infrastructure longer than we expected; and now it's at the end of its life and placing mission critical services at risk. This investment is about replacing the servers and networks that support those mission critical applications so that we can get a few more years of life out of them.
Senator Marshall: Are you far enough along in your review to have some sort of assessment as to whether additional funding will enable you to meet the 2020 deadline?
Mr. Barr: We haven't completed the review. A big part of our review is engaging the services of a third party panel to help us validate the new assumptions, validate the target state that we have designed to ensure that it meets government requirements, validate the implementation plan to make sure that the timelines and approach are realistic, and part of that is the financing component. No, we haven't finalized those details yet.
Senator Marshall: I'll move on to funding to improve the security, $22 million. Was that determined internally or was it as a result of some sort of review? Could you just tell me how you came up with that project and how you determined the amount?
Mr. Barr: We're guided by the Communications Security Establishment standards that they put out. They have the top ten actions to ensure government infrastructure security. In doing an analysis of the gaps against that top 10, we identified certain gaps. In fact, there were four programs as part of that cyber investment.
Senator Marshall: Was this done internally?
Mr. Barr: Internal to government, yes.
Senator Marshall: Okay.
Mr. Barr: There are several departments involved in IT security and government security. The Communications Security Establishment does the foreign signals intelligence, and Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat sets policy. Our role is to ensure the security of the underlying IT infrastructure, and Public Safety has a big role as a coordinator of government response to various security incidents.
Senator Marshall: Is that it for this year, or is that part of a longer, more robust program and this is just what you're asking for at this time?
Mr. Barr: Budget 2016 identified $77 million over five years; so $22 million is for this year.
Ms. Fillion: In the Main Estimates.
Senator Marshall: As of right now, you don't foresee coming back with a supplementary request?
Ms. Fillion: No.
Mr. Barr: Not for those items.
Senator Marshall: What is your role with regard to the response to the Syrian refugee crisis? What exactly do you do?
Ms. Fillion: This is mainly to help the five other departments that are very involved in the program. It provides the BlackBerry devices, making sure they have the proper service and supporting the IT infrastructure for the two sides. We set up the booths at the airport to make sure we could receive those refugees. We were helping with the IT infrastructure for that.
Senator Marshall: Is that the total amount?
Ms. Fillion: The total amount over the two years, in 2015-16 we received $5 million. For 2016-17 it's $1.4 million.
Senator Neufeld: I have some questions for Ms. Charron. You said that $1.2 billion is allocated to upgrade outdated energy systems that heat and cool over 100 buildings. What caught my attention was the National Capital Region. Are you spending all that money in the National Capital Region on these 100 buildings? I can only assume you have many more buildings across the country. When you look at capitals, usually the employment rate is pretty good. If we want to actually look at the middle class and people who are losing their jobs across Canada, should we not be looking at other parts of Canada to actually do some greening of infrastructure? I'm thinking particularly of the Far North or the northern parts of the province.
Maybe tell me what kind of criteria you use to decide to do 100 buildings in the National Capital Region rather than just a few outside the National Capital Region.
Ms. Charron: I will ask my colleague, Mr. Radford, to take this question.
Kevin Radford, Assistant Deputy Minister, Real Property, Public Services and Procurement Canada: Thank you for the question. First I will say that the heating plants are not distributed across the country. The heating and cooling plants for buildings like the building we are in are located adjacent to the Ottawa River near the Supreme Court, if you're familiar with that facility. The facility is 1930s-40s technology — the pumps that pull the water in from the river in order to provide cooling and heating provisions. The heritage buildings along Wellington Street and many other departments and buildings are in need of repair.
Across the country, from a distribution perspective, your question is well taken. The program integrity funding that was mentioned, $277 million, I'll get into how that is being distributed across the country. The $1.2 billion is certainly for existing heating plants here in the National Capital Region, and they are meant to upgrade those facilities currently.
From a greenhouse gas perspective, infrastructure as a whole across the nation represents about 40 per cent of GHG contributions to climate. From a distribution of property perspective, about 50 per cent of Public Services and Procurement Canada's holdings are here in the NCR. About 50 per cent is distributed across seven other major centres, Montreal, Quebec City, Edmonton — largely the main cities across the country. About 20 per cent of the overall holdings are in more rural locations across the North, et cetera.
The program integrity funding is actually meant to upgrade buildings across the country, not just here in the National Capital Region. From an operating perspective it's meant to upgrade services, and from a capital perspective it's meant to repair and replace large HVAC, heating and cooling systems on buildings, et cetera.
That program integrity funding will largely be distributed and used where most urgently needed, but the $1.2 billion project that's specifically mentioned here is to look after the Cliff Street plant and heating plants that provide cooling and heating to the facilities across the Ottawa area. Much of that work will also be done in close consultation with the city as well.
Senator Neufeld: Will that $1.2 billion be spent this fiscal year?
Mr. Radford: No, it will not. It's part of a larger program to upgrade those systems, and if you include the funding that's already in the fiscal framework, it's a $2 billion program and will be spent over approximately 39 years of operation.
The $1.2 billion is not going to be spent this particular year, but I can go into the details of the funding that will be spent this year, if you like.
Senator Neufeld: Rather than take up time, maybe you could provide that to the clerk.
Mr. Radford: Absolutely.
Senator Neufeld: That would give me an idea of the green investments the $2.1 billion and the $1.2 billion will be spent on, and over what period of time.
Mr. Radford: Sure.
The Chair: I have a quick supplemental to that. How many jobs will that create? Will there be any job creation?
Mr. Radford: I believe there will be job creation. Right now the heating plants are operated by our technicians, but obviously when we move, from a construction standpoint, it will involve heavy support from the private sector and innovative technology, and it will be quite a long program over a long period of time.
The Chair: Will any of that start this fiscal year?
Mr. Radford: Yes. There is $13.5 million being spent this fiscal year as part of Budget 2016.
The Chair: You know the question I'm trying to ask. We're trying to assess the government's proposal to create jobs. Are they creating jobs, or are you spending money to fix up what we have with people we already have? Does that create new jobs and wealth for our country?
Mr. Radford: That's a great question. I apologize if I'm not answering it, but there are multiple programs associated with infrastructure. We named just the one that was associated with the heating and cooling plants, but there's also the federal infrastructure program where $1.8 billion was put into upgrading buildings and infrastructure and federal holdings across Canada.
I have to advise the committee that Public Works only represents about 30 per cent of those holdings. The remaining holdings are in the security portfolio, for places like National Defence bases and wings, and places like the science communities that have laboratories. They're what we call custodians, and in many cases those departments come to Public Works for our expertise in managing infrastructure, and they pay us, if you will, to manage projects on their behalf.
The federal infrastructure program that was announced in Budget 2016 is a two-year program. It's $1.8 billion, and about $700 million of that money has come from other government departments asking us to help them repair wharves for Department of Fisheries and Oceans or repair laboratories that are part of the science community, but that will be spent over two years.
Is that clearer?
The Chair: Following Senator Neufeld's question, would you be able to do a two-pager in bullet form that you could send to us? We're trying to understand all of these horizontal relationships.
Mr. Radford: I understand.
The Chair: It is quite confusing.
Mr. Radford: I apologize.
The Chair: Don't apologize, but we need your help to inform us.
Mr. Radford: Understood. We support about a $5.9 billion annual operation, much of which is paying utilities in the buildings that we own. It's paying to operate the buildings that we have. Much of the program integrity money was meant to enhance areas where we haven't been changing the oil on the car or changing the tires, if you will; we're actually going into those systems and trying to make them more efficient. This will generate jobs and put money into the economy because we'll be putting that money into, say, the Canadian Construction Association might be one good example.
There are many programs. There's the operating program to manage our assets today; there's the additional funding that came in in the federal infrastructure program; there's the program integrity funding that also came as part of Budget 2016 for PSPC assets — for our department's assets — and then there is some capital money that came forward specifically to augment different buildings that are in a poor state of repair, like the Lester B. Pearson building here in Ottawa. Foreign Affairs works out of there; it's about 40 years old and needs a complete refit, but that will happen over multiple years.
The Chair: Does that include some of the military bases and military buildings in Montreal, like the 34th Royal Canadian Hussars, on the top of the mountain?
Mr. Radford: Exactly. It will fix up RCMP detachments spread out across the country and across the North.
Senator Neufeld: In one place you've allocated $54.5 million for the work on the Alaska Highway in northern British Columbia. That's where I live. Tell me how much of that $54.5 million goes to the Alaska Highway.
Ms. Charron: Out of this program, $16.5 million goes to the Alaska Highway as part of the $54.5 million receipt for infrastructure.
Senator Neufeld: That would be for new construction, I would assume, and upgrades?
Mr. Radford: It is for upgrading bridges, fixing pavement, asphalt, et cetera.
Senator Neufeld: To be perfectly honest, I've lived there most of my life and you folks are actually doing a pretty good job of rebuilding the Alaska Highway. You probably don't hear it enough, but you should hear it.
Mr. Radford: Thank you.
Senator Neufeld: I will go on to Ms. Fillion and the procurement process for the next generation of supercomputing infrastructure, which will provide accurate and reliable weather information to Canadians.
Ms. Fillion: Yes.
Senator Neufeld: Tell me a little bit about that and where that takes place. Is that something that's built in Ottawa or is that something that actually gathers weather information from across the country and from Northern Canada?
Again, I'm from Northern Canada; we have some weather stations where I live, and I'm wondering what happens. If you don't have the exact information, you can just provide it later, if you wanted to.
Ms. Fillion: I can give you a short answer, and if we have to provide more detail we will be pleased to do so.
This project is to renew the supercomputing facility in Dorval, near Montreal. We are buying a higher capacity and higher technology supercomputer to make sure we can keep up with weather systems across the country and manage and provide that information through Montreal.
The $14 million that we are receiving this year is the initial stage of this major initiative. This was included in Budget 2013. Money was earmarked at that time, and we had to renew the supercomputing contract with HPC. We are starting the implementation this year, but it will not be completed until 2023-24. It will cost $243 million.
Senator Neufeld: Okay. If you could provide where that work is going to take place across Canada to the clerk, we will all get it. I would appreciate if you could do that.
Ms. Fillion: Perfect.
Senator Neufeld: When you answered Senator Marshall's question about support for the Syrian refugees you said, "for now,'' and that was the end. I wonder what else you're going to do, because the first 25,000 refugees are here.
When you talked about the support including the provision of BlackBerry devices, that was pretty straightforward. Who did you provide BlackBerrys to? Why would that be significant enough to put in here? Were there thousands of BlackBerrys bought and provided, or were there hundreds?
Ms. Fillion: This money was for the initial 25,000 that we had before March 31, and this initiative was completed to have these 25,000 refugees in.
I said "now'' because we have a second phase of that to try to have another tranche of 25,000 refugees. There's a phase two. But this money was strictly for the phase one and the first 25,000.
The actual expenses for 2015-16 — we said we received $5 million, and we did receive the $5 million, but the actual expenses were $1.8 million. We spent less because there were fewer sites and less support required. There were only two sites, and the $5 million included three to five sites for those refugees.
BlackBerrys are not the majority of the costs. There's infrastructure, the wiring and the cabling for these booths. That's pretty much what it is: It's more the infrastructure to support the services and the network.
Mr. Barr: As Manon said, it was the arrival sites at the airports, but also the interim lodging facilities once the refugees are here. Also, in three of the countries — Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon, I think — sites were set up. In all of those sites we were providing the IT infrastructure, which included BlackBerrys, but also wireless hubs, wireless modems, networks — all that type of equipment — so that there could be rapid communications among the departments that were organizing those efforts.
Senator Neufeld: Were departments running around without BlackBerrys to start with? I haven't seen anybody who works for government who isn't reading their BlackBerry at some point in time.
Was there a whole bunch of people who didn't have BlackBerrys who all got BlackBerrys? Tell me how many BlackBerrys there were.
Ms. Fillion: For that particular initiative?
Senator Neufeld: Yes. You've mentioned it in your notes, so it must be important.
Ms. Fillion: We don't have the exact number of BlackBerrys that were related to that initiative, but I can tell you that there are 94,000 BlackBerrys in circulation in the government.
Senator Neufeld: Yes, I thought so.
Ms. Fillion: This is mainly the infrastructure. Like he mentioned, it is to try to have broad communication, and do it faster and more rapidly from a network perspective.
Senator Neufeld: Does that mean that you bought BlackBerrys for government employees; is that what you're saying?
Ms. Fillion: Yes.
Mr. Barr: I know you're asking about the BlackBerrys, but the BlackBerrys are just one component of it.
Senator Neufeld: I realize that.
Mr. Barr: A large component was the network capacity: building the network in places where there wasn't a network and making sure that we had that interoperability among the systems in places where there wasn't such a thing.
Yes, part of it was BlackBerrys, but the much larger portion was building a network and ensuring that network had the capacity to do what we needed it to.
Senator Neufeld: So the question was: Were the BlackBerrys purchased for people that work for government only?
Ms. Fillion: Yes.
Senator Neufeld: Thank you. I'll go on a second round.
Senator Lang: Do you want to borrow my BlackBerry?
Senator Neufeld: I might have to. I've only got two.
Senator Lang: I would just like to go back to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority in respect to your opening statement. I want to refer to the statement that was made:
This program, which was based on a TC risk assessment, increases CATSA NPS coverage to 100 per cent presence at designated restricted area access points ±
I'm going back to this because I want to ask a general question, and this doesn't necessarily apply just to airports. It applies to bus depots and could apply to any of those larger gathering areas that people come to that can be called "soft targets'' by terrorists. We all witnessed what happened in Brussels in the subway and in the area where they check in. That applies to our airports, as well.
This TC risk assessment, did you meet every recommendation that they put forward to you in order to be able to ensure that we minimize whatever risks we have? Was there ever any recommendation that we should begin to screen individuals prior to entering the waiting rooms or the terminals rather than dealing with them when they get into the terminals?
Mr. Stroud: In terms of the whole scope of the TC risk assessment, I'm not sure. The way this came about is that ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, sets international requirements. There is a whole range of countries that are signatories to the agreement.
Transport Canada represents Canada at those discussions, and in 2013 a new standard emerged around the screening of non-passengers.
What happened was that Transport came back and did a risk assessment of what is it that Canada has in place and the requirements. What incremental steps are required in order to close that gap between the existing standard and the new emerging standard?
Transport Canada set those requirements for CATSA. Transport is the regulator; we're the operator. They said, "We want you to do this.'' Then we built a program around that and phased it in over three years.
It was focused on the non-passenger screening, and I don't know that it looked at other areas of aviation security more broadly. This particular funding is linked to that specific ICAO requirement.
Senator Lang: I'll leave that as it is. I want to register this observation as a person who goes through a lot of airports on an annual basis.
Just from a layman's point of view I really see areas — what some call "soft targets'' — that, in view of the terrorism threat across the world, are becoming more and more prevalent. It is something that I think should be given much more serious consideration. Once you're inside the terminal your job is done, and we don't want that to happen.
I would like to move over to another area, and that's the question of cybersecurity. I noticed that there's a significant amount of money being committed in this area, and I think there should be. Cybersecurity is becoming one of the top threats to our country, if not the highest threat, even with the terrorist threat we face.
How do your programs tie in with meeting the criteria and the review that is going on within government to meet what they call the cyberthreat — and also with the provinces? The private sector is involved here as well. It's a very loose network, as I understand it, at the present time.
What are we doing to make sure that, as we spend this money and move ahead, we're going to, to the best of or ability, do the risk assessment and be able to minimize it? We all realize that we're very vulnerable on the cybersecurity side.
Ms. Fillion: I'm going to ask Graham to answer about the security strategy.
Mr. Barr: The Minister of Public Safety is currently leading a review of measures to ensure cybersecurity, and we're one of the departments supporting that review.
With respect to the investment that you have before you in the Supplementary Estimates (A), those investments go some way to improving cybersecurity. As I mentioned, the Communications Security Establishment has published a list of actions they believe, according to their expertise, are the top-10 actions to protect security. The four elements of our investment in the Supplementary Estimates (A) are targeted toward those.
At the same time, we're a full participant in the review that you're referring to. Cybersecurity, as you alluded to, is constantly getting more sophisticated. Cyber-threats are getting more complicated and more customized as well. Despite any of the best preventions, no organization is completely immune from a successful cyberattack.
We're currently reviewing the cybermeasures that are in place. Our role is really to look at the government infrastructure. As you say, Public Safety's review is also looking at the infrastructure of the private sector, and also helping Canadians make sure that they're secure in their online transactions, et cetera. We're definitely feeding into that.
This investment in the Supplementary Estimates (A) is a part of that picture, with more to come when the review is completed later this year.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: Ms. Fillion, first, I would like to know who defines the mission-critical information technology infrastructure. My concern is that a government may one day say, "There is a lot of money, we want to spend a lot of money'' and that all of a sudden, several things become mission-critical that were not before. Who determines that?
Ms. Fillion: Thank you for the excellent question. We already have a list that is managed by Treasury Board for IT. We do not decide ourselves what is on the essential applications list. The list is determined by Treasury Board according to a strict definition, and money can only be spent on those applications. It represents somewhat less than a third of the applications for all of the departments. So this is not an investment that will cover all of them. What is considered mission-critical amounts to approximately a third of all applications.
Senator Pratte: That is in the supplementary estimates. If the current government had not been elected, and if the Conservative government had been re-elected and had decided to adopt another budgetary policy, would all of the government services have collapsed because of a decision to not spend these $232 million?
Ms. Fillion: The government as a whole and Shared Services Canada would have been in a critical situation where our operative principle for the old infrastructure — the legacy — would have been to invest in the transformation. So we would have had greater risk exposure. There were critical applications that required investments in order to reduce the risk of interruptions or payments stoppages for employment insurance recipients or OAS recipients, and mainly for fiscal applications. Those are a few critical applications where system stoppages cannot happen, because services to Canadians would be affected in a major way.
Senator Pratte: So, Treasury Board representatives are the ones who question the departments as to whether applications are critical or not.
Ms. Fillion: Absolutely.
[English]
Senator Pratte: For the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, you had concerns, if I'm not mistaken, with the possibility of an increase in passenger wait times if budgets were not sufficient, and in the supplementary estimates $29 million is added. How far does that go to alleviate your concerns? I know it's just a year, but it's a significant amount. Are you satisfied with that amount? Is that enough? It's never enough, I guess.
Mr. Stroud: We did some forecasting and modelling. We looked at the level of service that was provided at the major airports last year, and that's 85 per cent of passengers being screened in 15 minutes or less. This funding provides a comparable level of service for this year. What you got last year is the level of service that you should see this year.
Senator Pratte: With $29 million additional?
Mr. Stroud: Correct.
Senator Pratte: I suppose an increased number of passengers are forecast for the next few years?
Mr. Stroud: Correct. So in coming to that figure, built into the analysis was the idea that passenger volumes would increase at 3.5 per cent. That passenger increase is baked into the model and that influenced the analysis.
Senator Pratte: The $29 million is for an increase in the number of agents?
Mr. Stroud: Yes, it's for an increase in the volume of passengers.
Senator Pratte: If we don't, then we have a situation like in the U.S.?
Mr. Stroud: You have an increased risk of that, yes.
The Chair: Would part of the $29 million be for enhanced equipment?
Mr. Stroud: It's mostly for labour, to purchase additional time or hours of screening officers at the checkpoint to ensure we have enough officers there to screen the passengers who show up.
The Chair: In the States you have those machines where you go in and you go around in a circle. We don't have the same number of those. Of the 89 airports that you're working in — the major airports in our country — how many would have those types of machines?
Mr. Stroud: Certainly, all the large Class I airports would have it. I can give you the exact number.
The Chair: How many Class I airports do we have out of the 89?
Mr. Stroud: There are 89 airports, and 8 of them are Class I airports. At the Class I airports, you'll have the full body scanner. Airports can have multiples of that, but I can give you the exact number.
The Chair: How do you compare the level of sophistication in your operations with major U.S. airports?
Mr. Stroud: In terms of level of sophistication, I think we benchmark well against international comparators.
This money that we're asking for, the $29 million, it's not related to capital, it's related to ensuring there are enough screening officers. The technology is good. This is about ensuring that you have enough people to operate the technology.
Senator Pratte: Basically, you would need a similar increase in amount for the next few years?
Mr. Stroud: As traffic increases, you need to be able to have more people at the screening point to make sure that they get screened in the same amount of time, or the wait times increase.
Senator Mockler: There is a recommendation that airports should be privatized: look at Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, Montreal and Halifax. If that's the route that is chosen, how will that impact screening with the other airports across Canada?
That's a concern that was brought to my attention when I was in the Moncton area last week. Would we not have then double standards, or could we live up to the standards we have now? I know you're doing a remarkable job.
Mr. Stroud: Are you talking about the CTA review?
Senator Mockler: Yes.
Mr. Stroud: I know the Minister of Transport is setting out on round tables to meet with industry about the CTA review. In fact, that's the very reason why our president wasn't able to attend, because he is currently at a meeting on the CTA review and engaging with the minister. I don't want to get ahead of those discussions.
If screening was to be decentralized to airports or some sort of privatization, that would create complexity in terms of consistency across the system. One of the things that CATSA was created to do was provide screening that is effective, efficient, consistent and in the public interest.
We have one Crown corporation looking at screening all across the country, and consistency is one of our core considerations. If you complicate the service delivery model, that becomes harder to realize.
Senator Mockler: If that were to happen, how would that impact your budget?
Mr. Stroud: I wouldn't be able to speculate in terms of what the financial impact would be. That's quite a complicated question for me to answer right here.
Senator Mockler: Thank you very much. This has to be followed very closely so that we don't have, in parts of Canada, top-of-the-line screening.
The Chair: A two-tier system.
Senator Mockler: A two-tier system. Because they are doing their job, and I think that's important.
The Chair: Especially in Moncton.
Senator Mockler: I'm talking about the 89.
The Chair: I'm just bugging you now; you know that.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much. When you get a NEXUS card and go to the States, they use your fingerprints to screen you. Do they still use the eyes in Canada when you come back in?
Mr. Stroud: In terms of how CBSA works?
Senator Marshall: I'm asking the wrong people?
Mr. Stroud: Yes. I'm not 100 per cent sure.
Senator Marshall: We'll have to get CBSA back.
I have a couple more questions for Shared Services Canada.
As to the cybersecurity review that Mr. Barr mentioned, you said that Minister Goodale was leading. Who is doing that review? Is that internal to government? Who is the leader in the review?
Mr. Barr: The lead department is the Department of Public Safety, but there are many other departments supporting, including Shared Services Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, as well as others. Part of the review is going out and talking to industry experts, as well as some public engagement.
Senator Marshall: So everybody involved in that review, it's all internal to government, is it? There are no external parties?
Mr. Barr: The departments are internal to government, but part of the process is reaching out to industry experts, private-sector experts.
Senator Marshall: So they do have private sector, okay.
Mr. Barr: Yes, as well as Canadians. A pillar of the strategy is to protect private-sector infrastructure, because it's a critical link in the whole chain of the Canadian infrastructure as well as helping to ensure that Canadians are safe and secure in their online transactions.
Senator Marshall: What precipitated that review? Was it something internal, or was it a review by the Auditor General of Canada?
Mr. Barr: The largest impetus is the fact that cybersecurity threats are rapidly evolving and getting more complicated. The current cybersecurity strategy dates back to 2010. It has been updated since but, given the rapidly changing nature of the threat, it was deemed to be very important to take a thorough review.
Senator Marshall: The review that you referred to earlier, regarding the 2020 deadline, is that an internal review or an external one? Is it just internal?
Mr. Barr: No, it's not just internal. Part of our review is a third-party review, so private-sector experts, people who have done IT transformation before, whether in other levels of government or in the private sector, taking a close look at our situation and our plan to help us to determine its validity, relevance and reasonableness for accomplishment.
Senator Marshall: Are they the lead, or are you the lead?
Mr. Barr: The government is the lead.
Senator Marshall: You're using them.
Mr. Barr: That is correct.
Senator Marshall: What is the estimated cost to involve the outside party?
Mr. Barr: The external-party review is being led by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. They are paying for the review, and we don't have those figures with us.
Senator Marshall: What would be the estimated completion date?
Mr. Barr: Of the review?
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Mr. Barr: In the fall.
Senator Marshall: Okay. I was wondering if it was going to be before 2020. That's good.
The Chair: We apologize; we are running out of time.
I would like to just give you a minute each to give us your top three issues that you face in your day-to-day operations that you have to overcome in the next fiscal year. This will give us a chance to understand, operationally, some of the challenges that you face.
Shared Services?
Mr. Barr: Our top three challenges: one is to ensure the financial sustainability of the department and the IT modernization and consolidation program that we have ahead of us. Another key priority and challenge for us is improving service levels to the departments that we serve, so ensuring that they understand what our services are, what the service targets are and that we measure their satisfaction with those services. Third, and probably most important, starts at home, it's with our own employees. It is improving SSC employee morale.
As you might have observed, several months ago SSC was in the press quite a bit, and that has an impact, that and other issues have — the delays in the transformation plan, as well as the service levels — an impact on employee morale. That's the key challenge that we're facing and that we're actively trying to resolve.
The Chair: Thank you.
Public Services and Procurement.
Mr. Radford: I empathize a little bit with Shared Services Canada. I worked there for four years running operations. Any organization that is trying to take an enterprise approach, a horizontal approach, to delivering services on a federal government scale faces its challenges working in a Westminster system.
I would say making sure that we're providing services in the most efficient way as a collective, as a federal government, as opposed to within each silo, for some of the infrastructure services that we provide. That's one piece. Delivering pay services or delivering translation services, et cetera. That's one challenge.
Another challenge is improving our own client service models and how we engage with those that we serve and making sure we are putting them at the centre of our service strategy going forward. The third piece, I would say, would be capacity. When you look at the Public Service Employee Survey and look at our demographics in the public service, I would say our age, and I'm a good example of it. I got my top security clearance. It said my height, my weight, 200 lbs, 5'10, blue eyes, but my hair changed from brown to grey.
Making sure, from a capacity perspective, that we're bringing new talent into the public service and growing the public service and maintaining the relationships with our stakeholders in the construction industry or in the banking industry, et cetera, so that we're all working together to improve and make sure we can deliver services to Canadians and putting public service first versus our own individual departments.
The Chair: Thank you.
CATSA.
Mr. Stroud: A continuation of part of the reason we're here is the long-term, stable funding to provide the service levels at the airports. Second, it's investing in innovation and the constant threat-environment changes. We need to make sure that we're on top of that and that we're investing in the right technologies and the right procedures.
Lastly, it's a more of a technical issue, but our service delivery model is built around the idea that we contract out our service to screening contractors. Those contracts are coming to an end. We're going to begin the process of renewing those contracts, we're hoping, in the coming year. Making that smooth transition with our screening contractors is going to be important in the coming year.
The Chair: It's keeping your relationship and then keeping your relationships with your own suppliers.
Thank you very much, folks. We're sorry that we had to cut it off. We could have kept on going for a long time, but we have to scoot into Question Period. We thank you again for your time.
Meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)