Renewal of the Investment Plan and Associated Costing Requirements FMI PD Day – January 21, 2016

Overview 1.Context / Background 2.Costing requirements / approach for Investment Plans 3.Costing requirements / approach for TB Submission seeking approval of Investment Plan (CFO Attestation Requirements) 4.Direction provided by TBS 5.Lessons Learned 2

Context / Background The Investment Plan (IP) covers 5 years and is renewed every 3 years. Main elements of the IP include: –Department context and priorities –Governance / Planning / Decision Making –Planned investments –Organizational Capacity (OPMCA) –Performance / Risk Management Not a funding ask 3 categories of investments (projects, assets, acquired services) 3

Costing Requirements for IP DON’T PANIC! Need to show that your plan is affordable within your reference levels Health Canada approach was to cost the three categories first –Projects were costed through IP governance and gating process –Costing of assets done via IP governance / gating process and historical financial data –Acquired services costed through historical financial data and vetted with programs and their financial management advisors Use of ARLU reference levels adjusted for required expenditures –Residual is what is available to fund IP 4

Costing Requirements for TB Submission Funding is not main purpose of the TB Submission seeking approval of IP –Seeking approval of management principles, processes and approaches outlined in IP and approval of OPMCA HC’s documentation to support the CFO Attestation indicated that a major assumption was that funding was not being sought Risks being identified and mitigated were that we did not require resources from the fiscal framework and the OPMCA would not be approved. No actual numbers were mentioned other than the planned expenditures and emphasis on the affordability of these amounts. Costing work was essentially done during the development of the IP 5

Direction provided by TBS There were no direct questions about how we arrived at the numbers The following were the major categories of enquiry that we received regarding our draft TB Submission and IP: 1.Explaining how the IP relates to HC’s mandate / strategic directions / business priorities 2.Provision of context and clear rationale for IP projects – links between investments 3.Avoidance of jargon for project descriptions and clear metrics 4.Breakdown of acquired services categories and describe the services to be procured along with planned approach for procurement (HC/PWGSC; competitive/sole source) 6

Lessons Learned Comparability of data between IPs. Better documentation to align dollars in correct categories. Engagement of all stakeholders in preparation and development of the IP. Tell TB Ministers a past, present and future story with respect to IP Explain the difference between the planned investments and the actual expenditures Show how past performance has been used to improve current and future performance Demonstrate how planned investments will help mitigate risks identified in your Corporate Risk Profile (ie. Lab Infrastructure, health services and e- health) Overall level of investments is aligned to changes in reference levels Keep the financial details and methodology out of the submission but keep it in the IP. 7