Government Operations committee  If you look at that particular file, I think one of the issues that drove costs was the fact that the government was changing the objectives of the program as they were developing the software. For example, the decision—I'm not necessarily saying it was a bad decision—that we need spousal notification: when you introduce that element 90% through the process and the software developers are told they now need to do this, you close your eyes and open your wallet.

Government Operations committee  In terms of the management of the program, I suppose clarity is always good. To pick up on the point, what I was suggesting is that if we align the votes—the authorities to seek the money—with the outcomes, then it really depends on how you define the outcome. A program like that is fairly stand-alone.

Government Operations committee  I have a quick point. If committees would undertake to provide some of their questions in written form ahead of time to officials, you might get better answers than through the ebb and flow of what goes on with everybody being surprised.

Government Operations committee  I'm not that familiar with what they do specifically, but I can tell you there are private sector websites. There's one into which you can type the name of any company in Canada, and it will tell you if it's had any money under government contract for the last 10 years. If that information exists in the private sector, why isn't the government incorporating those things into its website too?

Government Operations committee  I will certainly endeavour to supply the clerk with the names of some private sector firms, based on my experience. I don't want to say them publicly, but I think there are some good ones, and there are some good Canadian companies that have done a lot of work in this area. In terms of clarity....

Government Operations committee  I'm thinking out loud, as I never really thought about it in that way. I think it is a bit of institutional inertia. A great deal of private sector organizations structure what they do around the timeline. You're talking about a rather disruptive change to the way we've always done things.

Government Operations committee  My sense—and, again, I'm an amateur—is that it probably exists, but it doesn't work its way up into the higher levels. As an example, when half of the voted authorities for a department are just simply referred to as “operating”, I've got to believe that if I drill down, I'll find they came up with that number for a reason.

Government Operations committee  I think it's a judgment call when you talk about how a government's got its hand on the levers and it is making these sorts of decisions. Speaking about it politically, what's important is that if the government has the authority to reprofile, it also has an obligation to address that change in the supplementary estimates.

Government Operations committee  I touched on it briefly. I think the estimates, DPRs, and RPPs deal with the nuts-and-bolts funding of the various departments and agencies that make up the operation of the government. The budget is a political document, and I don't mean that in any negative way. It's where the government identifies and funds the priorities over the next year, and, in some cases, over multiple years.

Government Operations committee  If it's found its way into the supplementaries, then it must be an adjustment against what they said they were going to do. I'll go back to the point I made earlier and say that the thing that concerns me is that I don't believe this random 12-month period necessarily fits and equips professional managers in the civil service to spend their moneys as efficiently as possible.

Government Operations committee  In terms of process, you probably want to pick small departments and try this approach, as opposed to making a complete change. I think there are certain departments autonomous enough that you could use them as pilots for a couple of different models. Rather than having data forced into this current template, there could be a website where people could access as much data as the government would be comfortable putting online.

Government Operations committee  I would suggest you've already got it. If you look at them by reporting agency, the department performance reports list the architecture and the strategic outcomes, and it's very good. It falls apart when the costing information doesn't continue consistently with that approach; it is listed in the estimates, and then you have to take a bit from here and a bit from there and speculate about what may or may not be in there.

Government Operations committee  That's the way we've always done it. It goes to the concept of zero-based budgeting. Maybe we need to revisit those things, but let's not kid ourselves about the extent of the work that would involve. I don't mean to scare you off doing it, but it would be a pretty.... Over some of the stuff they have no control.

Government Operations committee  Now I'm nervous, because I'm trying to remember if I was on that committee or not, because I certainly don't agree with allowing committees.... The current rules are “no, yes, or less”: you can reject it outright, you can approve it, or you can reduce it. You can't have parliamentary committees increasing it.

Government Operations committee  I'm not sure how that differs from increasing, if you're talking about this envelope to that envelope. I'm not sure what problem that solves. One of the things I am a bit concerned about is that I think the system forces the numbers. It's like an egg carton; a lot of effort is in making sure the eggs go in the carton properly, and then people think they have done a great job.