:
Good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the committee.
I am pleased to be here today on behalf of the Privy Council Office. As you said, I am accompanied by Yvan Roy.
My introductory comments pertain to the 2010-11 Main Estimates for the Privy Council Office (PCO) and I will speak to these without further preamble.
PCO's Main Estimates for 2010-11 total $143.9 million. Resources are allocated as follows: 52% of our resources are spent on providing to the Prime Ministers and portfolio Ministers support and advice; 33% for internal services; 12% on providing Cabinet and Cabinet Committees advice and support; and 3% on providing the Public Service leadership and direction.
Since 2009-10, Internal Services are now being presented as a separate Program Activity (PA), in the Main Estimates as per the Treasury Board Secretariat standardized profile of the Government of Canada's Internal Services. In prior years, Corporate Services budgets and expenses were pro-rated based on the weight of each program activity.
[English]
For internal services, please note that PCO operates in a highly centralized and unique environment, where many costs normally assumed by line mangers are covered by the corporate services and not reallocated to the individual programs. These costs include all informatics and technical services, which include protected and classified networks, furniture and equipment, supplies, printing and graphics, messenger services, telecommunications, and review of cabinet confidence information in order to protect prior and current cabinet information.
The overall increase of $15.2 million to PCO's financial requirements, from $128.78 million for 2009-10 to $143.95 million for 2010-11, is mainly related to the following. There is $7.6 million to permanently fund the chronic funding pressures in the department and to ensure that PCO can continue to provide the necessary advice, services, and support to the Prime Minister's Office and portfolio ministers of the department.
The funding will be used for a number of purposes, including providing advice, services, and support to the Prime Minister; providing support to the Prime Minister and his office in the preparation of and during his participation at events in Canada and outside the country; providing communications advice, service, and support to the Prime Minister and his office; increased translation services associated with the dissemination of more communications products in order that Canadians may have access to as much information as possible on what the Prime Minister and his cabinet are doing on their behalf; and additional costs to support portfolio ministers' offices.
Any additional costs would normally be absorbed within a department, and this is the case with most departments that have only one minister's office. PCO provides funding to five ministers' offices, which includes the newly created Office of the Minister of State for Democratic Reform. We cannot absorb all costs within the existing appropriations from Parliament.
Finally, there are costs associated with providing ongoing corporate administrative services and support.
There is $3.6 million required related to the funding for the coordination of a government-wide communications strategy for Canada's economic action plan. The EAP money is time-limited for 2009-10 and for 2010-11.
There is $3.4 million for collective bargaining agreements.
There is $1.8 million for the ongoing operation of the public service renewal task force branch, which was transferred from the Canada Public Service Agency.
There is $0.69 million to permanently fund the Canada-Australia exchange program. This program will formalize the exchange of public servants between Canada and Australia, encourage the sharing of best practices, and provide professional and career development opportunities.
There is $0.1 million for the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182. This new funding is needed in 2010-11 only by the commission, since delays occurred in the availability and with the submissions of documents, slowing the drafting of the report. In order to provide useful recommendations to the Governor in Council, particular care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of the narrative and the practicality and appropriateness of any proposed solutions.
This is offset by the following decreases.
First is the $1 million for the winding down, in 2010-11, of operations for the Office of the Coordinator for 2010 Olympics and G8 Security. The office will cease its activities during the 2010-11 fiscal year.
Second, $0.3 million for the expenditure controls and public opinion research.
Third, the reduction of $0.3 million for the efficiency savings announced in budget 2007. This relates to procurement efficiencies.
Next is the $0.2 million for a permanent transfer to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade for the Canada-Australia exchange program. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade will provide all services related to the relocation, travel, and housing of Canadian participants under the common services abroad policy. An amount of $0.2 million is being transferred from PCO to DFAIT for that purpose.
Finally, there's the amount of $0.1 million for a permanent reduction for the implementation of a funding strategy for the comprehensive component of the 2011 census of population.
In closing, I would like to thank you for giving me this time to inform you of the initiatives in the 2010-11 main estimates.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will take just a few seconds at the beginning to deal with a comment made by my colleague.
There was a time, quite a while ago, when we actually did say we would like to see much more information on the results of the economic stimulus package. We did call for a much more substantive website. We were told that PCO was in fact spending money on a website, and to date we still have a website that does not actually give any of the real detailed information that for months we have been asking for. There is certainly not any information on job creation specifically related to projects, or even the state of the projects that have been started, where they are.
I just want to make it clear that, yes, we did want a website that was akin to the one in the United States. Yes, we pushed for it. We were told that we were going to get it. We were told that was the reason PCO was spending so much money. We still haven't seen it.
I will simply echo the concerns of my colleague about $3.6 million. That's an awful lot of money that's not advertising, that's just coordinating advertising in a way that the ethics commissioner just recently suggested some aspects of which--I would suspect due to that coordination--were perhaps inappropriate.
My real question, however, has to do with spending. There has been, since this Conservative government has taken power, a steady increase in PCO spending from the 2006-07 year, including a 12% increase just being proposed right now.
I would like to go back to a colleague of mine, , who in 2005 put a great deal of effort into an expenditure review report that found, across all of government, $11 billion in savings over the course of four or five years; I think it was about four years. That included specific opportunities within PCO, that were committed to, of savings, reductions in spending, of $6 million a year in administrative savings.
Had that been the case and had any of those recommendations been implemented, rather than significant increases in PCO spending over the last few years there would have been in fact a decrease in spending.
So I have two questions. One is that I want to ask about the concern that we've raised elsewhere about padding significant increases in this spending and in this budget in order to then be able to cut back and say, “Aren't we wonderful? We've cut back both in the freeze and in the strategic review.”
But I want to ask first, were any of those recommendations ever implemented? As I say, they said they found they were able to see significant savings, and yet PCO has only spent increasing amounts every year.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to thank our guests for attending this afternoon.
It's rather interesting; it was suggested earlier by a colleague that somehow I'm hypersensitive to how we deal with our guests, and the innuendo, and the way that comments are made. I absolutely am: I think it's important that we treat our guests with respect and that we, at the same time, take a line of questioning that is equally non-partisan, as I believe you have been.
In fact, Mr. Roy, your comment was that public servants must serve their political masters in a non-partisan way, and I appreciate your comment.
I would also like to remark, Ms. MacPherson, that you talked in terms of the code of conduct and high ethics and integrity.
You know, my Cape Breton mom used to say that you've got two things in your life, your name and your integrity; you don't mess up one without messing up the other. And I believe in that wholeheartedly.
So I would like to commend our public service and the work that you do in the PCO, and I hope you would take that back. I think we have an obligation, as members of this committee, to ask things in a thoughtful manner so that we can get to the best answers that we can on behalf of the people who we all serve, in the same way that you're asked to do the best you can with the highest integrity for the people who you serve. So that's a very sincere thank you for that.
Madam MacPherson, in your formal comments you made reference to chronic funding pressures, and of course that has been a recurring theme in some of the questions that have been asked. As I try to get a sense of it, I think what I've heard you say is that some of the challenges have been that.... What you've done is you've had to put into the supplementary estimates what you are now putting into the main estimates, so that you won't have as much of that challenge in terms of chronic funding pressure.
Do you believe that will be the case as a result of the budget you've put in and provided with us today?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to appear before this committee to discuss the Main Estimates of Public Works and Government Services Canada. I would first like to introduce the people who are with me today: my Associate Deputy Minister Andrew Treusch, and Alex Lakroni, who is Chief Financial Officer.
As Committee members are aware, PWGSC is a common service provider that is central to the functioning of the entire Government of Canada. PWGSC aims to excel in government operations by delivering high quality services and programs that meet the needs of federal organizations and ensure sound stewardship, on behalf of Canadians.
Among the department's 14,000 employees are, for instance, architects, designers, IT specialists and security experts—ail of whom help the department fulfill its multiple roles. PWGSC manages a diverse portfolio of real estate that accommodates 255,000 federal employees in more than 1,800 locations across Canada. On average the department facilitates 60,000 transactions a year for the procurement of goods and services worth about $14 billion.
The Office of Small and Medium Enterprises, or OSME, with regional offices across the country, strives to reduce barriers to federal procurement activities.
[English]
Over the past three years, OSME, the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises, has assisted over 70,000 individuals and businesses in doing business with the Government of Canada.
Public Works and Government Services manages payments of $27 billion a year through payroll services for 110 federal departments and other organizations, as well as the pension accounts of 340,000 former public servants, members of the Canadian Forces, judges, and MPs.
Through the operations of the federal treasury, the department also manages the preparation of the annual Public Accounts of Canada and a cashflow of more than $1.7 trillion per year. I'd like you to know that the government has received an unqualified audit opinion on the summary financial statements for 11 consecutive years.
The Translation Bureau translates more than 1.7 million pages a year for federal departments and agencies. It provides translation and interpretation services on more than 1,800 occasions for the House of Commons, the Senate, and parliamentary committees like this one.
Turning to the department's budget for 2010-11, Public Works will spend $6.3 billion this fiscal year to deliver on its mandate. The department is heavily revenue-dependent, with 56% of its expenditures, or $3.5 billion, covered by revenue primarily from client government departments for services rendered in support of their programs. As a result, Parliament is being asked to approve $2.8 billion in the main estimates, which represents our net appropriation requirements.
Public Works' financial structure is more complex than many other departments. Of the $6.3 billion total budget I referenced, $1 billion is needed to deliver on our core program of central purchasing and banking, public accounts, and payroll and pension services.
Another $2.4 billion is required to pay rent, fit-up, and utilities for government-wide accommodations; Receiver General treasury functions, such as banking fees paid to financial institutions and the purchase of cheques and envelopes; and translation services for Parliament.
The $451 million is capital needed to invest in Government of Canada buildings and infrastructure.
Lastly, $2.4 billion is related to providing other services, such as auditing, consulting, translation, and telecommunications and informatics services, to client departments.
In comparison to last year, the budget for 2010-11 represents an increase of $456 million, primarily related to three major initiatives. First, $224 million is to deliver on our commitments under the government's economic action plan. Second, $90 million is for price increases for expenditures such as rent and utilities. Lastly, $73 million is for parliamentary precinct projects.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, as the backbone of the government's everyday operations, PWGSC has also made key contributions to activities of national importance over the last year. First and foremost, PWGSC has played and continues to play a key role in the Economic Action Plan. Under Budget 2009, the department received direct investment funding of $431 million over two years, of which $332.4 million is for repairs and renovations to PWGSC-owned buildings across the country.
[English]
At the end of the two-year action plan, the department will have accelerated its infrastructure investments in many of its assets across the country while stimulating the economy. As well, Public Works and Government Services Canada is supporting other departments and agencies, such as Fisheries and Oceans, Natural Resources Canada, and Parks Canada in fulfilling their own obligations under the economic action plan.
Given the size and scope of what we do on behalf of the federal government, Public Works and Government Services Canada is, as should be expected, subject to rigorous scrutiny. We have a solid working relationship with the Office of the Auditor General. Our action plans, in response to recommendations, are usually put in place before the reports are even made public.
Indeed, reflecting our own culture of continuous improvement, the department rates highly on a number of other measures as well. For instance, on the Treasury Board Secretariat's measure of good management practices throughout the government, known as the “management accountability framework”, or MAF, Public Works and Government Services Canada ranks amongst the best.
Public Works' most recent rating by the Commissioner of Official Languages was 4.5 out of 5, or a B rating. Moreover, we scored a blue--which is the highest rating under the management accountability framework “people management” performance indicators--on employee engagement, employment equity, and performance management, .
Madam Chair, we are proud of our ever-strengthening management record, and we strive hard every day to keep getting better at doing what we do. Our goal is clear: it is to excel in our mission to deliver high-quality programs and services that meet the needs of federal organizations while ensuring good value for Canadians.
This concludes my opening remarks. I would be more than happy to take your questions.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[Translation]
Thank you for being here today.
Before asking questions, I would like to say that this Department is so complex and so large that managing it must also be a truly complex task. That is why I want to thank you for the work you do. We don't do that enough.
[English]
But we do have a few fairly key questions, and the first is on the expenditures. I note that in all of the years from 2004-05 through to 2009-10—and 2009-10, we know we don't have the finals, but based on the budget, the mains from last year—the expenditure of the department has been relatively consistent, and I think that's worth commending. There are a number of other departments, as you well know, that have not in fact kept their spending relatively stable. Public Works has, which on the one hand is commendable, I think, but it makes the increases of this year particularly noticeable. It's a massive increase, $456 million.
I understand that you have a couple of examples--one, by far the single biggest piece of this, to deliver on the commitments under the economic action plan. Given that this year is the second year of the economic action plan—last year was the first year—I'm not sure where, all of a sudden, we have a significant increase that ought, I think, to have shown last year.
My question is in two parts. One, I don't think that's enough detail, quite honestly, to justify having such a significant increase after six years of relatively consistent expenditures.
Given that PWGSC is part of the freeze but also one of the departments subject to the strategic review, we've raised concern in a number of cases, and I will raise it again with you, of significant padding of the department's expenditures just so that then you can pull back to end up at the same place and look good.
There is a concern that when we have such an increase in spending in the environment that we have now, that can get lost in the economic stimulus requirements and big deficits, what happens if it's a little bit bigger and so on? These kinds of numbers can get lost in the numbers that we're looking at. I am worried that we're adding just so that later it'll be easier to then look good when we're cutting.
I would also like to ask then—I mentioned this before you arrived, but I'll mention it again—about the expenditure review report that my colleague John McCallum had done in 2005, and had found, across government, $11 billion in potential savings over the course of four years. PWGSC was one of the departments that exhibited an ability for significant savings. In that report, the commitment was that the department would be able to save $23 million a year. Over the course of four years, that's $100 million.
Can you comment, one, on the significant increase that we're looking at this year as opposed to the past five or six years? And two, what, if any, of the recommendations from the 2005 expenditure review report were implemented in PWGSC?
[English]
Thank you for the question, and thank you for your good words. I appreciate them, and my staff appreciates them.
Let's talk about the main estimates adjustments, if I can call them that, and more specifically the $456 million, which you rightfully single out as being a substantial amount of money. It's half a billion dollars.
There are three entries, and I'll just walk through them. They're pretty straightforward, at least from my perspective.
One of them, $73 million, is really reprofiling, and reprofiling as a result of work that could not take place last year...into the new fiscal year, related to the parliamentary precinct.
Frankly, I will tell members, we've made very good progress on the precinct, but we do find surprises. You poke at walls, things happen. You've got to start and take a fresh look. It takes time. We therefore—not the first time—reprofile, every so often, moneys that could not be wisely spent in a given fiscal year. So $73 million of the $456 million is for that.
The other entry is $90 million, for price increases. These are the hard realities--rent, utilities, electricity, things of that nature--which...that increment we get adjustment for systematically.
Otherwise, these increments in price, which are passed on to us...and we have to detail that, in excruciating detail, with Treasury Board and Finance. When they're satisfied that the case passes muster, they give us price adjustment.
The rest--
Sorry, we have only a very short period of time. I want to follow through on some earlier questions with regard to PCO.
Public Works and Government Services Canada has a tremendous amount of money and has a tremendous number of programs under its responsibility. I appreciate the work that you do and appreciate the fact that you're here today. A question came up earlier to the Privy Council Office concerning support to ministerial staff, and whether they have been put under pressure by the minister's office. One of the questions was around--I'll use the term--the “Jaffer affair”.
We have received a tremendous amount of information from your office, or from Public Works and Government Services Canada. There have been a number of e-mails and a number of discussions that were going on.
I have two questions. First, is it normal practice for the minister to ask you to meet with a potential supplier?
Second, this goes to a question from an e-mail from André Morin--I think he's a strategic adviser to you--who says,
The DM is concerned about this type of request
—I'm assuming it's the request for the meeting—
and by the fact that it can contravene and disrupt our daily operational or program requirements, task and work.
Can you elaborate on your concern for that?
Thank you.
:
Thank you for the question.
On the first segment of your question, I would say that it hasn't happened—I'm going by memory here—that the would ask me to meet with someone. Now, my office may be approached by the minister's office; that is a possibility.
The department has a number of points of entry. Our Office of Small and Medium Enterprises, in the last three years, if I remember the numbers, has had contact with 70,000, either individuals or companies, and we want to promote these relationships so that they can get a better appreciation for how to be successful at getting contracts.
In the department there's a basic rule, and it goes like this. When we tender, we don't talk to people. When it is a contract management issue, people can talk to people, because there's a contract in place and solutions must be found to the problem. Contracts can be complicated, in interpretation and otherwise. Very often our philosophy is to try to tackle issues and deal with them at the lowest common denominator: between the contract officer and the person who probably has an issue. And on the front end, as the small and medium-sized enterprise, or regarding representations that can be made by people outside a bidding, the department does have dealings with individuals. We have quite a few, actually. And in 70,000 contacts--phone calls or otherwise--there is a substantial amount of back and forth between the department and people who want to do business with the government.
Mr. Guimont, I am pleased to see you again at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. We are used to seeing you at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in connection with the Auditor General's reports.
You are required to answer to us under the federal Accountability Act, which is why it is important for you to be here today. As compared to other government agencies, your department has a large budget, in terms of expenditures. I think you are aware of the complexity and size of your department. The two biggest planned spending increases for Public Works and Government Services Canada come to $357 million. That is a 21% increase in expenditures on accommodation and real property assets management.
First, what interests me in particular is the $69 million increase, a 26% increase, in expenditures on internal services. To date, you have been open in explaining the legal cases involving your department that might have a financial impact on it. There was the Rosdev case, which is not over, I believe; the problems relating to the Integrated Relocation Program; and the disputes concerning various technology contracts. And I have to mention an incident that complicated things, the dismissal of one of your deputy ministers for conflict of interest.
In reply to a question from my colleague, you said: "When we tender, we don't talk to people." At some point, you receive representations. I want to try to understand the role of Cabinet. Has the Minister or have members of Cabinet ever asked you to take direct action against companies doing business with the Department or against employees of Public Works and Government Services Canada who are suspected of fraud?
:
If you will allow me, I will give you a few figures that speak for themselves. I just want to put things in perspective. The total amount, for the two years, is $431 million. The first year, this year, we invested $227 million. We were able to use about 96% of the figure planned—we are in the process of finalizing the figures, which is to be expected. More than 95% of the money has been spent, in terms of the plan established at the beginning of the fiscal year.
As well, we did not receive the money just in a general way. It was assigned specifically to sub-envelopes. For example, we received money for some of our buildings, that we own. The work was performed in part by SNC-Lavalin O&M, as contractor, and in part by ourselves, in a ratio of about 80:20—80% of buildings are the responsibility of ProFac and 20% are the responsibility of the Department of Public Works.
You're asking me for specific examples. We have done work on four bridges, including two here in the national capital region, so infrastructure bordering on Quebec and Ontario. The first was the Alexandra Bridge, to which access was barred. We did seismic stabilization, painted, and rebuilt the span. For the Chaudières Bridge, you will recall that we had to block it last year or the year before, for stability reasons. We are going to add a structure that will stabilize it. So it is very visible and very real. We are working on two other bridges: the Burilngton Bridge and the LaSalle Causeway, in the Lake Ontario region, near Kingston. In these two cases the work involves repainting, which is still important.
As well, $40 million—$20 million last year and $20 million this year—has been given to us specifically to improve access for persons with disabilities and to help people who have difficulties, whether by touch recognition or ramps or whatever. Obviously, this is applicable everywhere there are buildings.
Investments have also been made in the Manège militaire. As you know, we are preparing the plans and specifications for rebuilding it. We have been given $1 million to do preparatory studies. For example, some technical, environmental and archaeological surveys have been done.
[English]
The Alaska Highway; I know it's not necessarily in Quebec, or Ontario, but
[Translation]
the Department of Public Works and Government Services is responsible for the Alaska Highway. We have invested $12 million to rebuilt certain bridges—I think there are eight small bridges—and also for paved areas. That has been done, it's finished.
The point I want to stress here is that for the next fiscal year, this year, we have the same money coming in. We are continuing to invest in our buildings. I am going to give you some examples of work that affects various aspects of our buildings. It may be heating systems, windows, walls that have to be repaired, or other external work. We have seen that in some places. That's the type of work being done. Most often, the work doesn't call for huge amounts of money. A lot of the work costs less than $1 million.
There is a lot of work. Over 1,300 jobs have been identified for this year. A little under half of them, about 500, provide some environmental benefits. I have asked that this be documented. In other words, when a heating system is changed, it goes from lower quality to higher quality, and there is an environmental benefit. We have tried to identify this as much as possible.
This year, we are proposing to do the same type of work. It isn't the same work, because you don't do the same work twice, but it's the same type of activities. There is also a breakdown of the work by province.
We also have to take into account the geographic location of our buildings. Obviously, the way the money is allocated, in percentage terms, may vary from province to province. I will give you an example. In this year's budget, $25 million was invested in Quebec, compared to $12 million in the Atlantic region and $108 million in the national capital region. It isn't necessarily that we wanted to invest more money in the national capital region or in the western region and a little less in Quebec. It is based on the location of our buildings, essentially. We have several buildings and infrastructures in the national capital region. I mentioned the two bridges currently being rebuilt, although the region has more. This explains why more money was spent in the national capital region, in the context of the infrastructure program.
I would like to make one last important point to the committee members, Madam Chair. Our infrastructure program is not a different program. In reality, the money allocated to the economic program corresponds to what is called the Accelerated Infrastructure Program. In other words, we establish our base for work to be done, from year to year. We have priorities set by managers, not by senior management.
In these programs, we can do as much as we can with the money we have, about $450 million per year of capitalization. We have had an increase, so we have expedited those projects. We went lower on the scale of priorities, to take action to fix problems that would probably have ended up being fixed over time, but over a longer time. The more money put in, the more we can do to fix the problems. Obviously, that has the indirect effect of stimulating the economy.
:
Thank you for the question.
I'll be brief. I know you want me to be brief, but I just want to say a few things before, if you don't mind, and I'll answer the question very clearly.
Members, Madam Chair, when we're given a mandate on the precinct, we do pretty well. With a clear mandate, plus the money, and we're just left to operate....
I can give you examples. The kitchen that used to be in the West Block, which has now been relocated, was under budget 10% and before schedule. We have done the same thing with the museum of photography. Now we're going to be able to have committee rooms there. On the other side of Wellington, the La Promenade Building was done, if I remember, below budget as well.
The point I want to make... I know it's not perfect, but when we have our hands on the project, generally speaking, setting aside surprises--with the Library of Parliament, there were a few surprises there, but most people now say it was well done--we can do a good job. I think it's important for my folks and me, since we spend hundreds of hours on this, to be able to say that.
On your point about governance--
:
It's staggeringly expensive.
Mr. François Guimont: It is. You're right.
Mr. Pat Martin: I come from a construction background. We would have a new office building there if the price didn't keep doubling, tripling, and quadrupling, to where we're talking hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars for a simple office building. There's nothing more simple in the world than building an office building, but it was going to be three times the price of a hospital, which has operating rooms, MRIs, and equipment. It's just insane. So building in Ottawa is three times what it costs anywhere else in the country. Building on Parliament Hill is ten times more expensive. It's out of control.
But I have to move on to other issues here.
Our whole reason here is to try to get best value for tax dollars. Another thing that bugs me about the real property is the federal building initiative. I remember when this was created, because I was doing energy retrofitting in my own career at the time. The government owns about 50,000 buildings, many of which are absolutely sick buildings, energy hogs, because they were built in a time when nobody cared about that.
The federal building initiative was supposed to reduce the operating costs and create a healthier work environment and better indoor ambient air quality by energy retrofitting all these buildings. Yet, out of 50,000 buildings, maybe 500 or 600 buildings have been done. We'd have to do 5,000 a year to get the federal building initiative to actually energy retrofit. The retrofitting they do is things like changing the light bulbs. They never do the building envelope. They do the low-hanging fruit.
Could you briefly give me the status of the federal building initiative, how much priority it's getting, and how much attention it's getting within Public Works?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Coady.
To be clear, we love information, so we don't want to cut you off. Our frustration is that we have so little time in order to get the information. In fact it's very refreshing to have you be so keen to volunteer as much information as you have.
I had asked a question in the first round that did not have a chance to be answered, and I will add a second one. The first one referred to the expenditure review report that was done in 2005, which had significant recommendations. I wanted to know what, if any, of the recommendations from that report were in fact undertaken at PWGSC.
And the second question is that the Auditor General, as you know, issued a report relatively recently, a relatively scathing report on information technology. PWGSC did not escape the review. Some significantly challenging comments were made by the Auditor General.
I note the one area in the PWGSC numbers for the main estimates that is actually proposed to go down is information technology. That is of significant concern, particularly in light of the Auditor General's report.
If you could answer both of those questions, I'd much appreciate it.
:
Thank you for the questions. They are clear, so I'll remain focused.
With regard to 2005, the reference is made to the approach we took in the context of the way forward, and more specifically the savings that were to be accrued out of the approach we would take, for example, in changing the footprint. We had a footprint per employee of 21 square metres, on average; we went down to 18 square metres. These are essentially savings. There are investments to be made, but ultimately savings.
If I remember, we were able to meet the target to about 80%. This was successful. These resources have been essentially taken from the real property budget. We moved from that footprint that was more substantial in nature to a smaller footprint and we effected the savings.
With respect to the second point, on the IT, you're right, we have had challenges expressed by the OAG. I agree with her assessment, and I was quite clear in the response of the department.
There are two points I will make on that. The place where I have more challenges is in a properly defined and integrated IT investment plan. We have bits and pieces in the department. For years at the department it's been a bit of an amalgam of various components that came through time--the latest in 1993--but we had various bits and pieces that came together, and now we're forming a department. We have bits and pieces of a plan, but it's not integrated. If it's not integrated, you don't totally understand what your risk is. We're running big systems and you should totally understand your risk.
More importantly, an integrated investment plan means you're going to be putting in money. Right now, with my management team, I am essentially putting together an investment reserve to be able to fuel the investments that need to be done every year so that my legacy systems are corrected and my new systems are working correctly.
So we do acknowledge the need to move in that direction.
:
Thank you for the question.
First, West Block will be emptied this fall sometime in October.
Second, members will be going to La Promenade building. It is operational, and I encourage all of you to tour La Promenade building to see the quality of the work that has been done there.
With La Promenade building, the committee rooms we have in that building, and the committee rooms that will be operational in the photography gallery close to the Château Laurier , we will have the equivalent of what the West Block offers. The lease we have at the photography gallery has allowed us to accelerate the West Block renovations by almost four years.
Instead of taking a two-step process in doing the West Block, which would have been really challenging, we'll be able to do the West Block in one shot. So when the West Block is sealed down and being worked on, people will be dealing with La Promenade, La Promenade committee rooms, and the photography museum committee rooms for operational reasons.
I mentioned earlier that the kitchen that used to be in the West Block is now operational. The West Block will be available to do what we have to do. That will be a fairly long-term project. If I remember, it will probably span five years, plus or minus. It will be a substantial renovation. It's probably the most deteriorated of our buildings, which is why we are starting there.
We will follow up with the East Block and then do the Centre Block. That's why we call it a long-term vision over 20 to 25 years, with five-year segments so that we can readjust plans if need be. But that's the sequence in the short term for the West Block.
:
Okay. Fine. So that's a request for information.
I just want to remind committee members that we have three major departments that we have to look at the estimates for: the Treasury Board, PCO, and PWGSC. The committee is not obliged to go through and accept it, because by May 31 it is deemed to be accepted.
You have received from the clerk a page like this. I'd like to do block voting. I wonder if the committee can spare one minute to do block acceptance of the estimates.
Is it okay by the committee? Thank you.
To the witnesses, thank you for being here. You are now free to go.
I'll take the first block, which deals with Canadian Heritage. It's part of our mandate to look at Canadian Heritage. These are votes 105, 110, 115, and 120.
If you're trying to figure out what pages these are on, they will be on your third page.
They're all in order: $28,588,824; $3,100,250.75; $1,229,127.75; and $411,000.
Public Service Commission
Vote 105--Program expenditures..........$28,588,824
Public Service Labour Relations Board
Vote 110--Program expenditures..........$3,100,250.75
Public Service Staffing Tribunal
Vote 115--Program expenditures..........$1,229,127.75
Registry of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal
Vote 120--Program expenditures..........$411,000
Shall these votes carry?
Mr. Pat Martin: On division.
(Votes 105, 110, 115, and 120 agreed to on division)
The Chair: Thank you.
The next one is the Governor General, and that's the first vote. It's in the amount of $4,275,959.
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GENERAL
Vote 1--Program expenditures...........$4,275,959
Shall that vote carry?
(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to on division)
The Chair: The rest is Treasury Board for $59 million; $687 million; $1,553,750; $555,948,377; $300,000,000; $125,000,000; $14,053,511; and $1,508,250.
Vote 1--Program expenditures...........$59,147,761.25
Vote 5--Government contingencies.........$687,500,000
Vote 10--Government-wide initiatives..........$1,553,750
Vote 20--Public service insurance..........$555,948,377.75
Vote 25--Operating budget carry forward..........$300,000,000
Vote 30--Paylist requirements..........$125,000,000
Canada School of Public Service
Vote 35--Program expenditures..........$14,053,511
Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
Vote 45--Program expenditures..........$1,508,250
Shall those be carried?
An hon. member: On division.
(Votes 1, 5, 10, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 45 agreed to on division)