Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue No. 69 - Evidence - June 7, 2018
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 7, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 12:15 p.m. to continue its study of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
[English]
My name is Percy Mockler, senator from New Brunswick and chair of the committee.
I wish to welcome all of those who are with us in the room and viewers across this country who may be watching on television or online. As a reminder to those watching, the committee hearings are open to the public and also available online at sencanada.ca.
[Translation]
Now I would like to ask the senators to introduce themselves, starting on my left please.
Senator Jaffer: Mobina S. B. Jaffer from British Columbia. Welcome.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Cools: Anne Cools, Toronto, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Day: Joseph A. Day from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Neufeld: Richard Neufeld, British Columbia.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton, Ontario.
Senator Andreychuk: Raynell Andreychuk, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
The Chair: I would like to recognize the clerk of the committee, Gaëtane Lemay, and our two analysts, Alex Smith and Shaowei Pu, who team up to support the work of this committee.
[English]
Today, honourable senators, we continue our consideration of the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019, for the budget of Canada.
To conclude our hearings on this topic and to discuss the Main Estimates 2018-19 in general, we have invited the President of the Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada. We welcome Minister Scott Brison to the meeting.
Thank you for accepting, as always, our invitation to share your comments, opinions and also your discussion with us.
[Translation]
Accompanying Minister Brison, from the Treasury Board Secretariat, are Renée LaFontaine, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary, Corporate Services Sector, and Marcia Santiago, Executive Director, Expenditure Management Sector.
[English]
Minister, I would like to thank you for the letter you sent us yesterday regarding the application and usage of the budget implementation vote, vote 40, incorporated in the 2018-19 Main Estimates. Your letter was shared with all members of the committee. However, we may have more questions on the matter at this meeting.
Having said that, minister, the floor is yours for your comments, to be followed by questions from senators.
[Translation]
Mr. Minister, the floor is yours.
Hon. Scott Brison, P.C., M.P., President of the Treasury Board: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank the committee for inviting me here today to talk about the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019.
[English]
Senators, I am delighted to be back with you at this committee. It struck me as very civilized of you to do the introductions going through, but the fact that I know pretty much every one of you from over the years shows you that I have been kicking around this place awhile. I will also note the strong contingent of Atlantic Canadians on this committee, which is always a good thing to see.
My officials have been introduced and they are here to support me and to support your work today.
As somebody who has been a parliamentarian for just over 21 years, and who has served in cabinet now for two prime ministers for around five years, 16 of my 21 years have been as a parliamentarian and during that period of time I have viewed the ability to follow the money as being paramount to Parliament. The scrutiny which Parliament provides over government spending is tremendously important. Parliamentarians and citizens deserve to know how public funds are being spent and to hold government to account.
[Translation]
That’s why we have made changes to the estimates process to make it easier for Canadians and parliamentarians to track spending.
[English]
In the past, new initiatives announced in the budget did not appear in the Main Estimates, because the Main Estimates were tabled before the budget. Parliamentarians were largely in the dark about how spending announced in the budget would be allocated to departments. The Globe and Mail rightly called the system “. . . bad to the point of absurdity, with spending estimates usually coming before the budget, and in a different accounting format, rendering them virtually meaningless.” In fact, the Globe went further and called it “. . . a discredited practice that has only served to keep MPs in the dark about how tax dollars are being spent.”
[Translation]
This is why our government has taken steps to address these problems.
[English]
First, we revised the Standing Orders so that the Main Estimates are much more likely to be tabled after the budget.
Second, we have included a budget implementation vote in the Main Estimates. Changing the sequencing allows the 2018-19 Main Estimates to include all the measures announced in the budget for this year. That means parliamentarians have more accurate information with which to hold the government to account.
By law, Mr. Chair, the money can only be spent on the measures announced in the budget tabled on February 27, 2018. Treasury Board does not have any discretion to use the funds for any other purpose. As the Auditor General has said that “. . . you have to allocate it on that basis, you can’t just decide somebody else should get more and somebody else can get less.”
In fact, we show Parliament exactly how the government plans to use the money in the budget. Specifically, parliamentarians will be able to track each and every allocation from this new central vote to a specific line in table A2.11 of the budget, which is repeated in Annex 1 of the Main Estimates.
In addition, we are increasing transparency by providing an unprecedented level of detail in the budget on new spending measures by departments.
As the year progressions, parliamentarian will be able to better track budget allocations because they will be reported in the monthly online reports, the next available supplementary estimates, the departmental results report after the fiscal year has ended, and through a budget implementation tracker on the GC InfoBase.
Mr. Chair, some have complained that the legal constraints on the use of the funds in the budget implementation vote are not sufficiently binding. That is simply not true. Annex 1 of the Main Estimates details line by line the legal limitations of the vote. It includes the specific measures, departments and maximum funding available for Budget 2018 through the central vote.
Using this vote in a way that exceeds the amounts listed in Annex 1 of the Main Estimates would be an unauthorized use of public money. Treasury Board cannot allocate additional funds or otherwise reallocate funding from other initiatives to support these programs.
[Translation]
Should circumstances change, a new and separate funding decision would be required. The government would then be asked to approve that item separately in future estimates.
[English]
For example, Budget 2018 proposes a number of important investments, including $154 million to Health Canada to address the opioid crisis. These funds are reflected in 2018-19 Main Estimates budget implementation vote. Let’s say that over the course of the year, the opioid crisis worsened, and the government decided it needed to spend more to address it. If the government wanted to increase funding for this or any other budget measure identified in the budget implementation vote, a separate funding decision would be required, and Parliament would have to be asked to approve that item separately in a future estimates.
I’ve recently spoken with the PBO about moving further and the idea of amending the wording of the vote for even more clarity and to provide him and Parliament with even greater assurance. We will be ensuring there is no room for misinterpretation and that the wording of the vote clearly ties it to the initiatives and the amounts — not just the initiatives but the amounts as well — detailed in Annex 1 of the Main Estimates. Again, the wording of the vote will clearly tie it to the initiatives and amounts listed in Annex 1 of the Main Estimates.
We also heard that the budget implementation vote does not allow sufficient oversight by parliamentarians. On the contrary, parliamentarians still have the opportunity to study and vote on the budget, estimates and the appropriation bills for the main and supplementary estimates. Additionally, Mr. Chair, parliamentarians can already see allocations to departments and remaining balances for the line-by-line budget measures in monthly reports on the Treasury Board’s website. This information will also be in the next available estimates.
We have taken a number of steps to improve transparency and accountability. We have made significant changes about which I’ve talked to this committee a number of times, including the sequencing of budget and estimates to a more logical point, where the Main Estimates actually follow the budget. We achieved that.
I have also spoken to the fact that this is a significant change that takes a period of time to work through the system in terms of departments, Finance and central agency Treasury Board. This is a significant step. Getting the sequencing right was a major step. The whole process, over time, is going to move us much closer to what I believe to be a standard, which is Australia’s, where the budget and estimates are presented contemporaneously. A lot of the work between Finance, Treasury Board and line departments is done in the lead-up to that. That is where I believe we will achieve that over time.
[Translation]
We have a lot of work to do, and I am confident that we are going to get there. I very much appreciate the work that your committee is doing in partnership with us on our budget modernization initiative.
[English]
In the work we’ve done together, you’ve been a great partner in progress on this. I look forward to continuing that relationship. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. We will go to questions.
Senator Marshall: Thank you, minister, to you and your officials for being here.
I wanted to start my questions on vote 40. I think I have attended every briefing you or our officials have had on reforming the estimates. When I became aware of vote 40, I must say I was profoundly disappointed in it. There has been quite a lot of criticism with regard to vote 40. The current Parliamentary Budget Officer issued a report on it. He spoke to us yesterday, as did the former Parliamentary Budget Officer. Also a number of parliamentarians have been very outspoken about it.
While the Auditor General’s response was positive or muted — I’m not sure which — he did qualify it, indicating that if the funding wasn’t spent as he thinks it should have been line by line, he says that’s exactly the type of thing we could audit.
The current Parliamentary Budget Officer said budget initiatives aren’t reflected in departmental plans; none of the 2018 initiatives in vote 40 have gone through Treasury Board analysis; and the government is requesting parliamentary approval in advance of the scrutiny. I think the solution to vote 40, if there is one, still has to play out.
What, exactly, are we going to see at the end of the day, when the estimates are reformed? It’s not going to be vote 40. What will we see? What’s the plan? I’d like to know.
I feel that we have been almost led down the garden path — I don’t know if that’s the right way to say it or not — for vote 40. It was not what I thought, because there was a lot of discussion on what Australia is doing and I was expecting to see something more along those lines. What will it look like at the end of the day? What is your end plan?
Mr. Brison: Thank you very much, Senator Marshall. I appreciate your experience in Newfoundland and Labrador. It’s helpful to our work today.
You’re quite right. I referenced Australia as a gold standard in terms of the baking in of the budget and estimates process. That does take time. Getting the sequencing right is a requisite to all the other work that can and must be done in terms of baking into the system the kind of work that brings together both Treasury Board’s work and that of the Department of Finance.
The objectives that I see and the vision I have looking forward — and it does take a period of time; changing the sequencing is a first step — over a period of time, is the Australian model in terms of both the analysis and the reporting occurring at the same time. Treasury Board/Finance work can be done contemporaneously and together.
The Department of Finance and Treasury Board work very closely together. That work has deepened over the years. During my time, about two and a half years, the work between Finance and Treasury Board has deepened in terms of budget and estimates processes.
Vote 40 enables us to have the budget items in the Main Estimates. If we need to revisit one of those items and the amounts for whatever reason, we would have to come back through the supplementary estimates process to Parliament. This does not obviate the role of Parliament or the need for Parliament’s approval if there’s any change beyond that. In the wording of the supply bill, it will clearly tie both the initiatives and the amounts to Annex 1, which is also tied to table A2.11.
I share your impatience, Senator Marshall, with getting this right and getting it moving. However, when we’re doing these kinds of things, perfection can be the enemy of the good. We need to get this done and we need to ensure that the objective that we will meet over time is to strengthen the accountability and transparency to Parliament. I do believe this is an important step forward.
Senator Marshall: What are the timelines? Your government came in in 2015. Now we’re in 2018 and now we have vote 40. What year will we see the Australian gold standard reflected in our estimates?
Mr. Brison: It’s very difficult to say. I can’t tell you we’re going to be there next year, but I can tell you we will have more progress toward that.
There’s an operational shift, a methodological shift and also a cultural shift in terms of the budget and estimates process within the system. There is enthusiasm both in the Department of Finance and in Treasury Board to do this. Treasury Board, as a central agency, has a lot of analytical capacity that can help strengthen the budget process at that stage. That is recognized and can actually help in the budgeting process as well.
Senator Marshall: Based on past experience, all the budget initiatives didn’t get into the departments at once. Some came in Supplementary Estimates (A) or (B); some didn’t come until subsequent years. At the end of this fiscal year, there will be money left in vote 40. You won’t get all the initiatives out to the departments. What will happen to that money that wasn’t allocated?
Mr. Brison: First, the allocations and the progress we’re making in terms of those funding flowing will be reported on throughout the year. You will be aware, as parliamentarians, and Canadians will be aware on an ongoing basis, of how that is flowing.
Senator Marshall: But it won’t all get allocated, because experience has shown you don’t get it all allocated. The budget initiatives don’t get out. What will happen to the amount that wasn’t allocated in vote 40?
Mr. Brison: First of all, we can make a decision on the reporting, but we will be coming back to Parliament to do that.
We have changed the reportage around lapsed funds to provide up-to-date information on lapsed funds, which was not available previously.
I will ask Renée or Marcia about the lapse, because that was a problem in the past in terms of transparency. Some of the changes we’ve made will make it easier to track funds where there is a lapsing.
Marcia Santiago, Executive Director, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: To answer the first part of your question, anything that is not allocated at the end of the fiscal year will lapse to the fiscal framework. It does not roll over or get reprofiled automatically.
Senator Marshall: It doesn’t get reallocated out somewhere else?
Ms. Santiago: No; it can’t. It has to come back to Parliament in future estimates.
Senator Marshall: I’m an auditor by profession and I tend to be very suspicious. Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much, minister, for being here. I appreciate you’re always making yourself available.
Minister, in your opening remarks I expected you to talk about the great work you’re doing on gender-based analysis. If my former colleague Senator Nancy Ruth was here, she would be happy on the progress and would have many questions, so I’m asking questions on her behalf.
Minister, as you know, I work with many groups around the world. They keep asking me, “Is Canada releasing how they do gender-based analysis?” I know the government has made the decision not to release how you are doing gender-based analysis. We’re only told that you’re doing it. I have no doubt that you’re doing it, but I’m hoping that, in your wisdom, you will release it, because as parliamentarians we don’t know what you’re doing. We just know you’re doing it.
I know you’re not going to tell me the substance, but can you tell me about the process? Other departments that have come here say it goes all to you. You may say to me that all the gender-based analysis comes to your department.
Don’t give me all the substance, but can you tell us what the process is and how the priorities are set? I understand — and I laud you for this — that you’re also doing gender-based analysis plus, which is a very big step. I’m very proud of you doing that — proud, but I don’t know what you’re doing. What are your priorities?
I would appreciate it if you could say how the process is working. I know you won’t tell me the process.
Mr. Brison: In terms of the process, when items come to cabinet, it is expected and required that the gender-based analysis has been conducted by the department that is presenting an item to cabinet. The last budget, in particular, was one with an unprecedented level of gender-based analysis to truly understand the impact — GBA plus, as you said.
As items are being considered at cabinet committees and at Treasury Board, this is something that is baked into the process. It has been important, and I think it’s going to get better over time, in terms of the rigour of the analysis. There are some proposals that may have more rigour attached to their gender-based analysis than others. If a minister is presenting something at our cabinet that has not had robust gender-based analysis, he or she will be called out in the course of those discussions, not to violate the principle of cabinet confidence.
Your point of what we can do to share that process broadly from an international perspective is important, and it’s something we should think about in terms of what part of our institution-building role and our contribution to the world could be. As we’re striving to get better at it here, we can share our experiences with other countries. I would agree that could be a positive contribution.
Renée may want to add on.
Renée LaFontaine, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary, Corporate Services Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: The president explained it very well. The only thing I would add is that Canada has been at this for several years, so all the new funding the president talked about — new proposals go to cabinet and to Treasury Board — are mandatory for gender-based analysis and departments are getting better and better. The issue has always been about getting the data on how Canadians use our services and programs.
One thing we’re also focused on is the base of spending, as well. You’ll start to notice it in our departmental plans, and we’re getting better at it. This was the first year departments were asked to talk about the gender-based analysis in their ongoing programs. So we’re adding that as well. Over time, you’ll find gender-based analysis is totally integrated.
In terms of getting more transparent about it and exposing it to you as parliamentarians or senators, that’s what the president referred to; we have to get better data and move forward on that. We’re working through those issues.
Senator Jaffer: Minister, from where I sit, and with the greatest of respect — I don’t mean to be rude — you say those words and then we see income sprinkling, which really affects women. What was the gender-based analysis on that? I won’t have you respond to that, because the chair will cut me off. I asked the finance minister. I’m asking you, minister, as somebody I’ve known for a long time and I miss working with, will you do a post? Will you table a post-gender-based analysis as to what groups were helped, how did you do it — after it’s done, even if you can’t do it before — so we know that you’re doing something? Just saying you’re doing it in a transparency age, when you claim it’s transparency, you claim it’s a feminist cabinet, but we’re not seeing that.
Mr. Brison: You posed that question to Minister Morneau. I can say that in terms of tax fairness —
Senator Jaffer: On the income sprinkling, I don’t want to take the time. It’s not fair to you.
Mr. Brison: I can speak on that. I’m proud to say that almost 70 per cent of our senior executives at Treasury Board are women, which is the top of the central agencies in the Government of Canada. I also have another reflection on the same, if you’ll indulge for a moment, senator.
Our cabinet, of course, is the first gender-balanced cabinet. Some people would say to me that it is really good for women. I can tell you that’s the wrong argument to be made for it. It’s good for the decisions we’re making. We’re making better decisions because we have 50 per cent of our cabinet reflecting the perspective of women —
Senator Jaffer: Minister, I know all that and I’m proud of all that, and the chair will cut me off. Will you tell me, yes or no: Will you table a post-gender-based analysis after this?
Mr. Brison: In order to track it longitudinally, I want to think about it. I like the idea, because I think over time, if you’re a results-focused government, tracking the impact of initiatives is a good idea. I really like the idea, Mobina, to think of it over a period of time, so we’re not just looking at gender-based analysis from the perspective of before the policy is implemented, but doing some sort of horizontal reportage over time so we really know. And I very much like that idea, not just on gender-based analysis but broadly on the results we’re seeking to achieve and reporting back to Canadians what we actually did achieve with that investment.
I like the idea notionally, but I want to think about it in terms of getting more granular.
Senator Neufeld: Thank you, minister, and your folks for being here today to answer some questions. I appreciate that.
You started off your remarks by saying you spent 21 years in Parliament and a number of those years as a minister. You’re the Treasury Board minister now. I spent a bit of time in government, too. I can remember in the eight years as minister going to Treasury Board very often to explain what I wanted to do and being monitored very closely as whether I lived up to what I was doing.
Would you agree that it’s Treasury Board’s responsibility to review, monitor and make sure the programs that ministers come to your board to ask for money for are actually happening? Is that part of your job, would you say?
Mr. Brison: Yes, and we had a Treasury Board cabinet committee this morning. In fact, as you know, we approve or we sometimes do not approve, or we apply conditions that require reportage back to Treasury Board as to the progress around specific things. We also put in milestones around particular projects such that we can monitor progress.
We’re starting to do a lot more of that, to be honest, on complex digital projects wherein we know that these are challenging for government. At some point I’d like to come back to the committee to talk about some of the governance we’ve made around major projects and project management, in terms of governing the implementation and execution of those projects over time, as well.
Senator Neufeld: So you agree with me that it’s an important thing for Treasury Board to do.
Vote 40 seeks $350.8 million to fix Phoenix, or to not fix it but to continue to keep it as operational as it is today. The AG has done a report, just out recently, that’s not very good.
In relation to what you told me before, to provide oversight and monitor programs, did you agree with the launch of Phoenix?
Mr. Brison: Phoenix was launched in February 2016. It was developed over a period of years, I think going back to 2010. It was scoped out as a project by the previous government and descoped, in fact, by the same government. When I say “scoped out,” the project was scoped out in terms of both the digital side of it and the IT part of it, but also the human resource system part.
To save money, leading up to an agreement, there was no legacy system. The problem is when you eliminate 700 pay advisers, which the previous government had done, to save $70 million per year to try and cobble together an illusory surplus on the eve of an election, you eliminate a legacy system. You either go forward or there’s no system upon which to fall back.
One of the good principles, Senator Neufeld, of good digital project management is you do not eliminate the legacy system until the new system is operating, and you try it in one area.
Going back to that time, the minister of PSPC at the time of the launch was Judy Foote. She was advised by public servants at that time this system was ready to go, and she moved forward with the information she was provided. Beyond that, the legacy system was not there.
As we move forward —
Senator Neufeld: Minister, I’m going to get cut off here pretty soon.
I appreciate that, because we’ve heard a lot of the stories of what happened. But we know in early January, Treasury Board Secretariat received some — and we have a record of it — excerpts from minutes that include: tests, less than 50 per cent success; system readiness is questionable; out of 25 outstanding defects, 10 are still critical and not fixed; testing results issued, 30 per cent errors, not satisfactory; at go live it will be bumpy; and testing results in relation to PeopleSoft is unknown, the most important part of it.
Treasury Board Secretariat received that in January, yet at the end of February, you launched it. I guess what you’re saying to me is you totally agreed that things were okay. You were telling me before that HR department people actually told Judy Foote that things were okay. This note says that they weren’t. That’s the information we get.
Mr. Brison: Treasury Board actually commissioned a report at that time. I believe that was the Gartner report at that time.
The challenge, senator, is you commission a report and that report identifies challenges, but there’s not a legacy system. That goes back to the folly of actually gutting a legacy system before the new system is operating.
I would add to this that we have made fundamental changes to digital governance that I would like to come back to this committee sometime to talk about, including the authorities of the CIO for the Government of Canada, to give the CIO a reach and a line of sight into departments and agencies, including new digital standards, which include end-to-end testing and user testing.
We have studied best practices from other countries and the private sector. We have also established an enterprise architectural review board that has to approve new digital projects and submit them to the rigour that would be expected.
What has happened in the past is there’s been no digital standards for IT projects, which would be kind of like operating the Government of Canada without any financial standards. The Government of Canada is not the first government to have a challenge around an IT project.
Senator Neufeld: They should have looked at Australia, the gold standard.
Mr. Brison: You’re right, but they had the same problem with their pay system in Queensland. In the United States, on October 1, 2013, the U.S. Government launched Obamacare. Some 4.7 million Americans tried to register on that day and only six actually succeeded.
Going forward, the digital standards we’re putting in place and the governance around the CIO will not prevent there being future IT problems, but it will encourage failure early and off-ramps, as opposed to projects lumbering on under the tyranny of sunk costs, which is often what happens in government.
I would like to come back. Also in Budget 2018 is a provision for Treasury Board and a funding decision to undertake the development of a new pay system. That’s a project that we are working on now in earnest, to develop a new pay system such that while we’re stabilizing the existing pay system — which is important and tough work — we are also in the process of developing a new pay system, which will be the next generation in terms of technology and methodology.
Senator Moncion: Why would you be looking at a new pay system right now?
Mr. Brison: The methodologies and technologies available to the previous government 10 years ago are very different from those today. From a technological perspective, we’ve recently gone to a cloud-first strategy as a government, as opposed to old mainframe data-based systems or data systems.
There has been a sea change in terms of pay systems and in terms of how these things are managed, including the complexity of transactions that pay systems today are able to accommodate technologically. There’s also been a change in methodology in terms of how governments and big businesses approach digital projects.
There’s a book I’d commend to you that, probably of all the books I’ve read on these things, brings together the best synopsis of modern digital compared to, say, 10 years ago. It’s called Delivering on Digital by William Eggers. It’s not revolutionary in terms of all the information out there looking at different governance, but that book, better than any other book, methodically goes through best practices of countries like Australia, the U.K. and the U.S.
Now, I will say as well, our new CIO, Alex Benay, has joined us and is making a lot of significant changes across government. He and his team are doing a solid job.
We’ve also attracted President Obama’s digital government services czar, Aaron Snow, one of the former members of the U.S. government’s digital services team that was founded after the Obamacare failure in 18F. Aaron Snow, who has joined us, was executive director of the U.S. government digital services under President Obama. He’s moving his wife and children to Ottawa from Washington. He made that decision during the winter, which shows you the degree to which he’s committed to helping us get this right.
It is a very interesting area of study that I feel very passionately about, because we’ve got to get this right. If a business doesn’t get digital right today, it’s out of business. If a government doesn’t get digital right, it’s out of touch. This is something I’d really like to come back and talk to you about sometime.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. We’ll give you that opportunity.
Senator Eaton: Thank you, minister. Thank you for trying to re-sequence the estimates in the budget.
One of the things I find very difficult when we’re doing line departments is that there’s no sense of accountability for a lot of the programs. We vote the money in, and the year following they come and they can’t tell you.
For instance, if I look at the Department of National Defence, the problem is that even though they might set targets, performance indicators are different from previous years. So it’s very difficult to see whether there’s been improvement or movement. They’re also, very often, not available.
I’ll give you a couple of examples. Extent to which the future security environment assessment remains valid: for 2014-15, not available; 2015-16, not available; 2016-17, not available. Date to achieve target: March 31, 2019. That’s a whole year away.
Degree to which future security assessments and capability deductions remain coherent with those of our allies and partners: again, not available.
Degree to which future capabilities required to ensure an operational advantage over defence and security threats have been accounted for in Defence plans: when we go to see that, 2014-15, not available; not available again in 2016; and not available in 2017.
Are there plans in the Treasury Board so that it would be easier, when line departments come with their budgets, and if we want to look at whether they’ve achieved their previous targets, or if the money has actually been spent for what it should have been spent for and the results, do you think it will eventually happen where we’ll just see it all?
Mr. Brison: I’m glad you raised this. The reason why that information was not available for those years is that we brought in a completely new system of departmental results reports which replaced the old program performance architecture in the past.
The old reports didn’t tell you very much. They were very bureaucratic, and they did not actually focus on results. They were very focused on outputs, but not really on outcomes.
What we’ve done with the departmental results reports is focus on results that matter to people, not just parliamentarians, which is important as an objective in and of itself, but important to Canadians. We have a process. Every department, minister and deputy minister, has to come to Treasury Board and defend their departmental results reports. That is a process that has been welcomed within the system.
Senator Eaton: Yes, but, when they come before us, we get blank, blank, blank, talking points, talking points, talking points. We’re not trying to skewer them. We just want to make sure the money has gone to where they’ve said it has gone and whether it has done what you’ve said or hoped it was going to do.
Mr. Brison: Going back, the challenge we have right now is that, having brought in what I believe to be a more transparent and pertinent departmental results report, those indicators that you cited were not available for those years because what we’re doing is new. They will be much more valuable as we move forward.
For instance, when we talk about gender-based analysis, you could do a longitudinal study of the impact of a program over a period of time. In the same way, these results reports get quite granular, if you go through some of the categories you read, some of the indicators. But it’s looking back and we don’t have the benefit of those indicators going into history. They weren’t there. They are now, and three or four years from now or five years from now, we will be able to see what the results were from those investments.
Again, I want us to be more outcome-focused, as opposed to output-focused, as government, and much more results focused.
Senator Eaton: Will you tell the Department of Defence that, please?
Mr. Brison: We have. You don’t mess with the people with the weapons.
We are working very closely with the Department of National Defence on defence procurement, and our cabinet committee on defence procurement is — I’m very involved in defence procurement and in IT procurement, and I don’t know which one is more challenging. Some day, Percy, I’d like to have a job where I was one of those ones out cutting ribbons. That would be kind of nice, but they always give me these ones.
The Chair: If you’d permit me, we have two senators left. If we could be short because the minister has parliamentary responsibilities, and I know that we’re going beyond the 45 minutes.
Mr. Brison: If you’re going to keep me here a while, keep me here through Question Period.
The Chair: If that’s the case, there are a few questions.
Senator Andreychuk: If you waited any longer, I wouldn’t have any voice in this cold room.
To pick up on this, it’s all very well to talk about having indicators and results-based later. The problem is that the programs change. The responsibilities in the departments change, and then you split departments. I don’t think we’re ever going to have this longitudinal. That’s the problem.
What I heard the Auditor General saying is we need a culture shift, and we need some accountability about that. Departments are defensive, protecting their programs, because the culture is of risk aversion, because they’ve been called on the carpet. That is not something that’s happened overnight. That’s part of the problem of working in the civil service.
What are you doing on the culture shift? How are you changing so that people feel comfortable to not only talk about when they succeed on this longitudinal or just on a program basis, but that they are actually saying, “This program didn’t go because of some very valid reasons?” There has to be sort of an honesty system built into it.
Are you just looking at digital, or are you really looking at the fundamental things? We want to know. We’re talking about complex social problems. We’re talking about procurement problems. We need to know what’s going on.
NATO, for example, if we want to talk about procurement, had the same sort of, “Well, we can’t tell parliamentarians everything that goes on.” What parliamentarians asked for was, “What is the process? Give us the objectives.” When I go to GBA, you can answer that one. I don’t think I want to know what you did in a particular program, but I want to know what the objectives of GBA are and how it is applied in the department so that we know what the process is, at least, as a starting point.
Mr. Brison: One of the things, going back through time, is that there has been, I think, a culture of risk aversion in government for a long time, not unique to our government. I think that there was a bit of a culture of fear and intimidation for a period of time. I’m trying not to be too partisan, but there was a period of time, in terms of the relationship of the government and the public service, during a period of time under the previous government. I think it was a period where there was some damage done in terms of the ability for public servants to feel that they could speak truth to power on some key areas.
When I was first elected, because we’re the employer of the public service, I kept pushing them where I wanted to say more about encouraging public servants to take risks. So they put in my speeches that we want to build a culture of intelligent risk-taking, and I kept saying it. I didn’t feel entirely comfortable with it, because you’re telling people to take risks as long as they work out. So what I’m putting in my speeches now is asking them to create and work towards a culture of experimentation, where we encourage public servants to try new things in teams and individually, and to encourage pilots, where you actually try something new and actually learn from the experience. If it fails, then you report back the failure because we actually learn something from failure. You don’t try to hide it.
Right now, as a pilot — and we have some Atlantic Canadian members of your committee — we’re doing the Atlantic immigration pilot, where we’re trying a new approach to immigration around labour market needs. We’re trying it in Atlantic Canada, which is a region of the country that has some of the most dire demographic trajectories in the country. We’ve taken some of the Manitoba model — which I think has been quite a unique and quite a successful model for a long time — and we’re doing it in a region.
The instinct of the system, including departments, when you’re trying a pilot, is that the system and departments in Ottawa don’t necessarily like pilots. They really don’t like pilots, and the argument made to us is, “Well, if you try that in one region, you have to do it in all.” No. We’re going to try it in one region. We’re going to see how it works and, if it works well, maybe we can learn from that experience and try it somewhere else. If it doesn’t work well, we can analyze why it failed and then we can try that.
We are actually pushing very hard to turn that to more of a culture of experimentation. The other thing, too —
Senator Andreychuk: Minister, we’re going to get cut off by the chair.
Mr. Brison: But one thing, though. Let’s be very clear. We do have a world-class public service, one of the most effective in the world. Oxford University, I believe, said, in terms of effectiveness, the best in the world. Better is always possible, and I believe one of the areas we need to strengthen is that idea that we encourage people and public servants to take risks and to try new things, and to report back both successes and failures, and to incent that.
The other is a human resource capacity, and that’s a longer discussion.
Senator Andreychuk: I’m being cut off, so I want to make the point, minister, that it was not the previous government, nor the previous one. This is an age-old problem within the civil service. What I want is not a culture of risk aversion per se, but a culture that says we’re serving Canadians. That’s where it has to go. Therefore, transparency and openness will come with it, and they’ll feel comfortable with it.
The Chair: The last question goes to Senator Deacon, short and sweet.
Senator Deacon: I’ll make this short and reduce my two to one. I’m going to carry on in the vein of the honourable senator who has just spoken on this culture and culture of progression, looking at this digital aging, looking at structure versus function, function versus structure in the Treasury Board. Do you take the time to step back and ask, are the people at the table in the Treasury Board best representing Canadians? Do we have the right fit? I don’t mean the personality of the day, but do the people who are at the table have the right fit to be able to achieve that function of serving all Canadians? Do you review the Treasury Board to say, “You know what? We need to take a closer look at this area as we’re trying to be progressive, and it’s not reflected at the table.” I’m just wondering your thoughts on that.
Mr. Brison: At the officials level of the Treasury Board, we have a strong team of people who have served in various departments and I’m not just saying this because I’m President of the Treasury Board.
Peter Wallace, our new deputy and secretary, comes from Ontario and Toronto and was a strong public servant at senior levels there. Previously, Yaprak Baltacioğlu, one of the finest public servants in this generation of public servants, built a team of people who are still with us and who are excellent. I think we have a very strong contingent of public servants at Treasury Board.
In the Treasury Board cabinet committee, the ministers we have play a very strong challenge function with other ministers and departments. This answers both yours and Senator Andreychuk’s earlier question.
There are human resource issues around some key areas for us to be good at governing, for government be really effective. The shiny objects to which people are attracted, both in politics and government, are policy and communications. The idea is that if you get the policy right, and you communicate it right, then the policy just implements itself.
In my view, in government we need more plumbers, if you will. Nobody cares about the plumbing until there is a pool of water on your bathroom floor. We get into these big projects with their execution problems because, in part, we need to build a human resource capacity in government around project management and around procurement. A prestigious career path around project management within the Government of Canada is important in terms of making sure we get the execution of projects right. Ministers need to be interested in these things.
Corporate boards, as an example, as a matter of good governance practice, now have some members who understand digital projects, because it’s too big a thing not to have efficacy and understanding of these matters at the very top level.
We are building those capacities. We recognize the need to do it and we are doing it. In addition to culture, it is a matter of expertise and making sure we have that expertise within the Government of Canada. We have it. We just need more of it.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. To the minister, you have given us a generous amount of your time. As you alluded to the plumber, every house needs a plumber.
Our objective has been and has always been transparency, accountability, predictability and reliability. If you have closing remarks, minister, we will accept that. If not, I now declare the meeting adjourned.
Mr. Brison: Thank you very much, senators. I look forward to coming back on a number of these items and I always enjoy appearing before your committee. I appreciate the work you do and the contribution you make to good governance here in Canada. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)