[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, November 20, 1996
.1535 
[English]
The Chairman: I call this meeting to order. I want to mention that a vote may take place during this committee meeting, so we'll have to interrupt it for that.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee today will be briefed on phase two of the improved reporting to Parliament project, and then we will consider the Treasury Board Secretariat's performance report for the period ending March 31, 1996.
The purpose of today's meeting is to permit committee members to provide input into the continuing work of the subcommittee on the business of supply, which is chaired by Mrs. Catterall and is part of the procedure and house affairs committee. It is looking at the whole question of how the House deals with the estimates. It has already, through its parent committee, twice reported to the House, recommending among other things that performance reports be prepared as pilot projects for 16 departments and agencies. I understand the subcommittee hopes to have our input, as well as that of the other concerned committees, by November 25.
I will let our witnesses outline the details of the process for us.
Mr. Miller, perhaps you will introduce your colleagues for the record.
Mr. David W. Miller (Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Bernie Gorman had the pleasure of appearing before this committee yesterday. Bernie is the acting chief information officer. Alan Winberg was also here yesterday, and he is the assistant secretary of government review and quality services. Alain Jolicoeur is the secrétaire adjoint, Division des relations de travail et de la gestion des ressources humaines.
I would like to begin by taking the committee through a deck, which I hope will outline all of the procedures that have occurred to date, and then bring them up to speed on where this project is and the different elements of it.
There should be enough copies for all members.
Beginning with page 2, we are going to deal with the changes that are being introduced to the way in which the government reports its expenditure management information and all its different forms and variations. Most importantly, today we will try to show you how all of these fit together and what this will lead to as they're being fully implemented.
If you look at the principles in terms of what we're trying to accomplish through all of this, the first is to make sure we have a seamless and totally transparent integration of the information we're providing to the executive and to Parliament, and to make sure this information is provided on a timely and relevant basis. We are also trying to make sure it's consistent and that over time we have stable information so that parliamentarians can understand the kinds of changes that occur over a number of years. Our last objective is to ensure that for departments, the process is more streamlined and more efficient and takes advantage of things like technology.
Moving on to page 3, just to fill in the members on what kind of events have led up to this.... There's a whole series of processes and acronyms, but the reform of the estimates itself dates back to 1968, and then again to 1978, when the current forum was introduced. There have been a whole series of initiatives and management reforms, several different acronyms...management by objectives, program planning and budgeting system, operational performance measurement, and the policy and expenditure management system - all of which we're trying to integrate. The general concepts are still valid. Although we changed the names, the principles remained the same, and we're just trying to get a little closer to the overall objectives that were behind those initiatives.
There have also been several commissions and studies over the last number of years. As the chairman mentioned, a subcommittee on the business of supply is currently looking at the review of the supply process itself. If we were to divide the expenditure management system into two phases, the first one would have been in 1985, when we came in with the concept of business planning. Outlook documents were provided to the various committees, and from a resource allocation point of view, reallocation was the operative word and no special reserves or pots of money were set aside for new policy initiatives.
.1540
The second phase, which we will be dealing with today, is in relation to information provided to Parliament. One of the things that has occurred in the last little while is the president's report on review. The second report was recently tabled, and it's obvious that we have an expanding focus. We're moving from review into reporting on many other elements of performance and information from departments, and again, we'll be dealing with that a little later in the deck.
The final item on the page indicates the planning, reporting and accountability structure. I should point out to the members that when we have a program approved by Parliament through the estimates process, the level below that program is currently called an activity structure in the estimates documents. The planning, reporting and accountability structure will provide guidance to departments on how to more accurately reflect the way they manage themselves in those activity structures. So it's just the framework within which departments will be reporting on their programs as they roll up into the votes that are approved by Parliament.
On page 4, looking at core expectations, one of the themes we are trying to build into this process is to support the expanded role of parliamentary committees and to streamline the various reporting requirements. I am told that the estimates documents as presently tabled weigh over 50 pounds and consist of 12 million pages. We think we can do better than that and not lose any information.
Obviously, our objective is to increase the relevance and usefulness of the information put before Parliament. We'll do this within the continued emphasis on fiscal discipline using reallocation in the overall resource allocation process and by providing some flexibility within that. The planning, reporting and accountability structure will give us that stable results-oriented framework that will follow through all of the documents provided to Parliament.
One of the other things is that plans are developed by departments, eventually submitted to Parliament, and eventually we get around to reporting on results. Normally there is a two-year lapse between when those plans are introduced and when the actual results and performance are reported on. It was our view that because they are plans, and as such evolve over that two years, we should provide departments with the opportunity to update Parliament on how those plans have actually changed. So we were looking, on a pilot basis, to introduce a report that would provide an update to those plans that were provided in last year's main estimates, before reported the results on the fiscal year next fall.
The use of technology has been advanced significantly over the last number of years. The availability of information on the Internet - these are all areas we tend to explore as we go through this project.
One of our primary features is that we would like to ensure that the information we're providing externally is built on the kind of internal reporting that departments use themselves. In other words, how do they manage themselves? What information do they consider relevant to their day-to-day decision-making? That should be mirrored in the kind of information they're providing to Parliament and in justifying both their resource requirements and the performance they've achieved.
On to page 5, and this is probably our most important element in terms of change. We now look at it in terms of two periods of time: the spring planning and the fall performance.
One of the problems we've had in the past is that the main estimates have to be tabled thirty days prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. For the last nine or ten years the budget has come out at the same time as the main estimates, which has meant that if there are any items in the budget, it has been impossible for departments to reflect those in their plans, which are presented in the next day or two and are used by the committees for their review process. We wanted to break that up a little bit to provide departments sufficient time in the planning part of the process to reflect all those changes that may come down in the budget.
.1545
We would also like to align the plans that are provided to Parliament with the business plans that are required for the departments to develop and submit for a review by the Treasury Board and ensure that we're using the same set of criteria, basic guidelines and overall structure in both the information coming to Parliament and that which the department uses for its own purposes and provides to Treasury Board for its review.
This would then mean that we could integrate the outlook document by having a planning document in the spring that would cover a multi-year period of time. This would deal, for example in the coming years, with the fiscal years 1997-1998, 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. So in the planning document, there would be at least three years of future information, allowing parliamentarians to have an idea of the overall directions of programs and the resourcing impacts associated with the decisions and descriptions contained in those documents.
The last item that will be included in the spring is a series of results commitments. When you set out your plan, you establish and identify targets. Committees would have an opportunity to review and assess this and decide whether or not they were relevant to the program objectives. If they did, those would then be the basis upon which the departments would be reporting the results as we moved through and finished that particular fiscal year.
That leads me to the fall performance reports. First of all, we established these because we wanted to ensure that performance was treated with the kind of focus that we think is necessary. Before this, the performance information was buried in with the future information, and it was very difficult for people to focus on what had happened. By human nature, they tended to focus on what plans were going to take place. So by having a separate document in the fall that's dedicated to performance, we felt it would give parliamentarians, and in fact anyone interested in that, a much better opportunity to review it from that perspective.
I should add at this point that, as the chairman mentioned, we had 16 volunteers or pilots that were tabled at the end of October. It's important to realize that these were volunteers. We did not go out to tell departments or agencies that they had to do a performance report. They wanted to come forward to provide parliamentarians with an opportunity to look at the way in which they measured themselves, and most importantly, to get parliamentarians' feedback on whether or not they thought that was appropriate or whether there were improvements they could make for the next year.
So it was not intended to be a final document. These are very much pilots. Each of those departments and agencies were left on their own as to how they would express themselves in terms of performance and results. An important element of this is therefore to get the feedback of parliamentarians on how this will evolve and what kinds of changes or improvements we would see in future years in order to meet their expectations.
Oddly enough, by having the performance information in the fall, we actually provided this to parliamentarians six months earlier than was otherwise the case, because you would not see any detailed results, other than information in the public accounts, until the following main estimates.
We're giving it to you in the fall this year for the first time ever. It's in much more detail and it's much more structured then ever before. It happens to be six months ahead of what otherwise will take place for those departments that are not in the pilot phase.
There is also a direct link between these 16 reports and the president's report ``Getting Government Right: Improving Results Measurement and Accountability'', and there's a direct tie-in with the appendices included in this document, giving an overview of what general elements are there. Then you see the more detailed explanation of those in the individual performance reports themselves.
We're hoping to get feedback on these documents in time to implement some further changes going into the next budget and the main estimates cycle. In other words, that's for the 1997-98 fiscal year.
.1550
One of things that we feel is extremely important is to link the opportunity for parliamentary committees to review these documents, both the spring plan and the fall performance report, into the kinds of deliberations going on in, for example, budget consultations. So by having a planning document that covered three years into the future and by having performance information that may look at a program over 20 years in the past, you then have a much better focus on exactly the kinds of change or the kinds of directions the department is claiming to be headed towards. Therefore, your deliberations can include that and come up with what I consider to be valuable input to that overall direction into the future.
Moving to page 6, I talk about this document, which was tabled on October 31. This is the second time the president has tabled a document of this nature, but it is evolving. We are adapting every year to move more and more information, to tie it in more directly to what departments are doing on the performance side and to establish accountability links as well.
Rather than go through that, I would like to take you to the next page. It looks complicated, but allow me to spend a moment on it to explain these circles. The circles with the dotted lines are the three levels of involvement: Parliament is the outside line, cabinet the inner line, and the departments themselves the centre. The heavy circle to the right and the other heavy circle to the left represent the activities initiated by departments that then fit into this cycle.
So the main estimates, part I and part II; the plans and priorities document, which hopefully will replace that if the committees agree, and we have a motion to that effect; and the business plans coming in to the Treasury Board for review are all the planning cycle on the right-hand side and occur during the months of March, April and May.
On the left-hand side we have the performance information, which includes, obviously, public accounts, which gives all of the financial details; the performance reports, which we are talking about today; and the president's report on improving results.
All of these feed together. All of these hopefully will have an input ultimately into the kinds of decisions that may occur in relation to the budget, certainly the behaviour of individual departments and programs. The cycle continues on into the next year.
So this was intended to put all of the documents on one page and to show the interrelationship between the various elements.
I mention briefly on page 8...and I won't go into further detail on this other than to say that we have had supplementary estimates, and supplementary estimates have been tabled in the House. Effectively these allow Parliament's review of incremental spending authority and an update to those programs that already have legislation in place or are called statutory. What they do not show is the kind of trade-offs, changes in plans and adjustments to priorities that occur as a normal part of planning within a department.
Let me give you an example. You could have a $100-million program cancelled during a year and another $100-million program instituted and there would be no opportunity for Parliament to look at that until the end of the fiscal year, because no incremental resources were required. There was a decision made and these changes occurred. They may have been in the newspaper. They probably were, obviously, with that size. We felt it necessary that there be the opportunity for departments to come in and identify the kinds of changes in plans and priorities that are a normal part of that kind of process. Those should be available fairly shortly.
On page 9 we talk about the elements of this entire approach. There were six pilot part IIIs tabled in March. As a consequence of those, we had an evaluation done. The evaluation involved appearances before several committees involving a working group that I will mention in a minute. That led to motions, as the chair mentioned, on 16 pilot performance reports that were tabled a few weeks ago. That motion also allowed for the pilot of the same 16 departments and agencies for in-year updates, again to provide that update and plan some priorities.
.1555
We've been working very closely with the parliamentary group and have been attending several committee meetings, as I mentioned. Mr. Harvard was a member of the committee that helped us to assess the implications of those planning documents and the separation that occurred for those six pilots last March.
The Chairman: Mr. Miller, the bell is going for a vote that has been called for 4:20 p.m., and it's a half-hour bell. With respect to your briefing, if we could go until about 4:05, I would suspect that we could then be back at about 4:45. Perhaps we could then have have 15 or so minutes for questioning. Do you think you will be able to wrap up your briefing in the next 10 minutes or so?
Mr. Miller: I certainly can.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Miller: In fact, I think the important element now - and we are fairly close to the end - is that what we would like to do in December is go then to a division that clearly has a spring plan and a fall performance report, assuming that the evaluation that comes back on the performance reports is positive. What we would have then are the 16 pilots that developed their performance reports this fall simply submitting a spring plan this year. For all of the non-pilots - in other words, the other departments and agencies that have not participated in this project yet - they would give us the same information currently included in the part IIIs that we've had for the last 15 years, but they would be divided in such a way as to make a clear distinction between planning information and performance. So it would be one document, but it would be divided on that basis, which is similar to what we did for the six pilots before.
The next slide, on page 10, deals with this planning, reporting and accountability structure that I've already mentioned. I won't go into the details, but it is effectively the way in which programs as presented in estimates are divided up by departments. Again, you may look at your leisure at the kind of structure that is associated with that on page 11 of the deck.
I will just mention briefly, as well - this is on page 12 - what we intend to do with the information technology. Quite simply, it's to improve access to the information. We currently produce 12 million pages. It would be much easier to transmit that data electronically. We believe a lot of the people interested in reviewing and assessing the information have access to electronic means. The second thing would be to improve the search capability. Obviously we have eighty-some part IIIs. It is extremely difficult for any single individual to look across that information. Hopefully, technology will assist anyone doing that.
That gets us to the last item, which is simply economy and efficiency in the way in which documents developed for Parliament are produced and distributed. The timeframe for this project is outlined on the last page. On October 31, as I've already mentioned, the president's report and 16 pilots were tabled. During this month there will be an evaluation on these performance reports, which this committee is also interested in.
From November to January we will have workshops with all departments and agencies on results, measurement and reporting. Obviously, we're not total experts at this. It's a new area and we're feeling our way. We'd like to help departments, both in terms of best practices and in understanding the basic concepts to move towards improvements in the future. In December we would also hope to have a motion in the House to change the format and timing.
By March 1997 the 16 pilots would have a planning document, while the others would have modifications to their part IIIs. All departments and agencies would then have fall performance reports by October 1997, and in the late fall we would have this new structure approved in the way that departments put their programs together. By March 1998 all departments will be on this basis.
That concludes my presentation on this particular item.
The Chairman: Thank you. I think we can get at least some questioning in.
Mr. Fillion, would you like to start? Do you have any questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion (Chicoutimi): Yes, I certainly have some questions.
.1600
I am referring to page 23 of the English version of your Performance Report and to Business Line 4 Information and Technology. Under the heading ``Funding for the Business Line'', we see that the figure for this activity in the main estimates was $11.5 million, whereas the actual expenditures totalled $14.5 million. So there was a $3 million discrepancy. Could you tell me what accounted for such a large cost overrun? What happened? Might there be a similar increase in expenditures during the year, or will the $14.5 million be enough according to your projections?
[English]
Mr. Bernie Gorman (Acting Chief Information Officer, Chief Information Officer Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat): In fact I believe the difference there was that the $11.5 million did not include the reprography expenditure, which we separated out. That expenditure is paid by the government to compensate for copyright. We separated that.
If you wanted to have the actual comparison between the $14.5 million and the $11.5 million, you would have to include the $2.5 million on top of it. I believe the answer is that the $2.4 million is not included in the $11.5 million. We've separated it.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: You did not anticipate that you would be involved in a new agreement entered into with the publishing sector at that time. Did the government inform you about this agreement some time during the year?
[English]
Mr. Gorman: No, the publishing costs were planned, but we separated that from our normal operating expenditures. It's a separate allocation. It's controlled separately. It's not part of the normal government expenditures. It's a regular expenditure to cover the cost of that, but we do not include it in our normal operating expenditures.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: After listening to the presentation we just had on the performance of various departments and the pilot projects you will be carrying out, I am not convinced that people seeking service will actually get improved service.
The objective must be to provide people with better service at the best possible cost. I am still wondering, in light of everything you told us about your various structures, which I find quite cumbersome - one almost has to be an expert to figure out everything you said - whether direct service to customers by the departments in question will actually be improved.
We should not wait two years while you make a full study of the results of these projects. What can you say, at the moment, that all this will really improve the situation?
Mr. Alan Winberg (Assistant Secretary, Government Review and Quality Services, Treasury Board Secretariat): The accountability system will be improved. The results obtained by each department, as compared to their set objectives, will be better delivered to the public, and better measured and reported. This improved accountability should have a impact on a delivery of quality services to Canadians.
Mr. Fillion: You sincerely believe that the use of new information technologies will improve the services offered to the people of this country.
.1605
Where we are talking about the Internet or voice boxes, you sincerely believe that service will be improved by eliminated human contact?
Mr. Winberg: I sincerely believe that, yes. We have to match up the various types of communications with our various groups of customers. We have to know the people we are serving. And those who can use these new delivery techniques should have access to them. In the case of those who cannot use them, we must provide the most efficient communication resources we have. The way of determining this is by maintaining contact with the people who use these programs. That is the basic idea behind the quality services initiative.
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Chairman, in order to see the results of your pilot projects, I invite you to come and spend a week in my riding office. There you will see that your current projects are not producing the desired results. Most people want to be able to talk with human beings, not machines. Problems are not solved by kicking a voice box or an automated banking machine.
On the basis of my three years' experience as a member of Parliament, I would simply say that you are making a mistake with your emphasis on new technologies. You are getting further and further away from people. Many many people get no response to their telephone calls. It takes 15, 20 or 30 minutes to get information. I don't think you should be spending two years assessing these experiments. Just go around the various ridings and you will see what is happening. If you really think that you're improving the situation I beg you to come into our ridings and see the results for yourselves.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Fillion, I'll ask you to hold that thought. I'm going to suspend the meeting until approximately 4:45 p.m., when we can come back and perhaps hear a response to that and allow other members to pose some questions.
Thank you.