There are more of us than usual around the table today. We're continuing our study of supplementary estimates (B) 2014-15.
We are fortunate to have with us today officials from the Department of Public Works and Government Services, and Shared Services Canada.
We look forward to hearing from you. You each have 10 minutes, and then the committee members will no doubt have many questions for you. So let's get right to it.
We'll start with the Department of Public Works and Government Services, represented by Mr. Lakroni, Mr. Mongeau, Ms. Chahwan and Ms. Caloren.
Over to you, Mr. Lakroni.
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I am pleased to be here today on behalf of Public Works and Government Services Canada, or PWGSC, to discuss the department's 2014-15 supplementary estimates (B) and its 2013-14 departmental performance report.
With me today are Nancy Chahwan, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Parliamentary Precinct Branch, Claire Caloren, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister of the Acquisitions Branch, and Pierre-Marc Mongeau, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Real Property Branch.
With responsibilities that range from preserving the heritage buildings here on Parliament Hill to issuing every payment for the Government of Canada, PWGSC provides services that support parliamentarians, public servants, and departments and agencies in the delivery of their mandate to Canadians.
For these supplementary estimates (B), the department is requesting $136.3 million to cover accommodation requirements in Crown-owned buildings and leased space.
This request represents a continuation of annual program funding and is consistent with real property portfolio management practices in previous years.
[English]
Of this amount, $80 million will provide a stable source of funding for the fit-up of PWGSC's accommodation portfolio. This amount will supplement the departmental existing fit-up budget and allow PWGSC to implement a 20-year fit-up cycle for its accommodation inventory.
The new fit-up budget is ongoing and replaces the annual request for incremental in-year funding.
There is $56.2 million for increases in non-discretionary expenses associated with crown-owned buildings and leased space, and is allocated as follows: $31 million to provide stable funding for PWGSC's office space inventory and to replace funding that had previously been sought annually to address accommodation fluctuations, and $25.2 million to cover the cost of inflation associated with PWGSC's real property portfolio.
The inflation rate for 2014-15 is estimated at 1.6% on an operating budget of $1.6 billion.
This funding request is consistent with those of previous years and will cover the increasing cost of utilities, security, rents, and property taxes.
PWGSC is also reimbursing a net amount of $11.1 million to other government departments, mainly for reductions in their accommodation requirements.
With the aforementioned items, the net amount sought in the supplementary estimates (B) is $125.2 million, which would result in a net appropriation of $2.9 billion.
Mr. Chair, I would like to turn to PWGSC's departmental performance report.
This report highlighted that in 2013-14 the department launched the defence procurement strategy to provide the Canadian Armed Forces with the equipment it needs in a timely and cost-effective manner, while creating jobs and economic growth for Canadians.
It supported Canadian small enterprises through the build in Canada innovation program by awarding a total of 77 contracts to support the testing of innovations at the pre-commercialization stage.
Last, PWGSC continued to work on the rehabilitation of the Parliament Buildings.
The department did all of these things while achieving, in 2013-14, cumulative planned budget savings of $154.7 million, which underscores its commitment to sound financial management in all of its operations.
We have been able to find efficiencies in every sector of the organization. For example, over the last four years, PWGSC has cut its travel expenditures by half, while leveraging the use of technology.
[Translation]
In keeping with the government's priorities of job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians, the department supports the consistent delivery of high-quality services to Canadians, while providing measured value for the dollars with which it is entrusted.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.
My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer your questions.
:
Merci, and good morning everyone.
I'm here today to talk about the supplementary estimates (B) 2014-15 as well as the newest departmental performance report, 2013-14, for Shared Services Canada. I will present the key results we've achieved to date as well as outline some of the next steps on the road ahead for SSC.
[Translation]
Joining me today are my two colleagues from the department. Peter Bruce is the senior assistant deputy minister of Projects and Client Relationships. He is available to answer questions about IT transformation and projects. Also with me is Manon Fillion, the deputy chief financial officer.
[English]
Mr. Chair, just over three years have passed since Shared Services Canada was created. In August 2011 SSC was given the mandate to both operate and transform the IT infrastructure that supports the programs and services delivered by 42 departments and agencies.
The objectives are clear: consolidating, standardizing, and transforming the delivery of Government of Canada e-mail, data centres, and network services. Simply put, SSC is planning and managing the IT infrastructure for the Government of Canada with a view to creating savings and efficiencies and eliminating duplication. SSC is securing systems and building a modern IT platform that will better support departments in delivering benefits for Canadians. It is about applying solutions across the government that are modern and sustainable.
As detailed in SSC's most recent departmental performance report, we are making progress against these objectives. SSC has already generated savings of $150 million annually by consolidating contracts, modernizing telephone services, and keeping internal overhead low. In addition to this, SSC will be saving $50 million by moving government departments to a single outsourced e-mail service. SSC is also achieving $8.7 million in savings by consolidating workplace technology procurement.
[Translation]
There are four key activities where big changes are going to mean major improvements, better value and greater security.
First, there is email. SSC is taking 63 legacy systems from all across government and replacing them with one secure, robust, modern system. As you may have heard, there have been delays in how the rollout has progressed.
SSC continues to work with our suppliers to address the challenges and deliver a consolidated email solution for the Government of Canada. We are taking the time to do things right and ensuring that the system will be secure.
The second activity involves data centres. Two enterprise data centres are now up and running. At the same time, we have closed 18 legacy data centres. Once we're done our transformation, our footprint will shrink from 485 to 7 enterprise data centres. Enterprise data centres will be secure and modern so they can provide the Government of Canada with the technology it needs to be effective in the era of big data.
[English]
Third is cutting the cord on 20th century phones. As part of the Government of Canada's economic action plan, SSC launched the cost-effective telephone services initiative. To date over 37,000 land lines have been removed in favour of voice-over IP and cellular services with the objective of generating over $28 million in annual savings beginning in 2015.
SSC is also upgrading video conferencing systems to offer efficient remote meeting alternatives and to provide alternatives to travel.
Fourth is user devices. Another way SSC is cutting costs is by consolidating and standardizing the procurement of workplace technology devices. Budget 2013 announced this consolidation and standardization. Workplace technology device software includes operating systems software and basic desktop applications such as word processing software. The government spends about $660 million a year in this area. SSC is negotiating new contracts and now buys these essential tools in bulk, saving $2.1 million last fiscal year and $8.7 million this year.
[Translation]
As you can see, this work is a major undertaking. SSC is taking every action to deliver efficiently and to ensure that the work done today can be sustained in future. Right now, we maintain 24/7 IT service delivery to 43 federal partner organizations. That includes maintaining 2,100 different mission-critical systems for the Government of Canada.
SSC is responding to issues quickly and efficiently, even as we grow and take on more responsibilities. For example, problem reports closed over the last year consistently kept pace with new ones. That's meaningful because this was occurring as we were taking on so many new tasks. In cases where there's been a service disruption, 75 were the result of an SSC planned change. The balance was the result of a partner planned change.
SSC also strives to create a secure, centralized communications infrastructure that directly supports Canada's cyber security strategy. We work closely with the Communications Security Establishment and other partners to maintain supply chain integrity through coordinated response to issues such as Heartbleed, the incident at the National Research Council and, more recently, Bash.
[English]
With these considerations in mind, let me turn to the details of SSC budgetary matters for the 2014-15 fiscal year.
Supplementary estimates (B) for SSC represent an increase of $58.6 million in SSC's reference levels. That increase is attributed to $18.1 million in new funding and $40.5 million in net transfers, broken down as $38.6 million in net adjustments required from partner departments in support of SSC's mandate, and $1.9 million for various projects and initiatives.
The new funding of $18.1 million consists of $10.8 million to provide IT infrastructure for the 2016 census of population program with Statistics Canada, $5.1 million as part of the revitalization of Canada's weather services with Environment Canada, $1.8 million for activities to support the CRA implementation of programs identified in the budget implementation acts of 2013 and 2014, and $400,000 for a new express entry solution with Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
[Translation]
The $40.5 million in net transfers from partner organizations includes items such as transfers to support IT positions and missions abroad, and adjustments as a result of the creation of Shared Services Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer your questions.
Mr. Chair, in English, we use the word "accommodations". That is part of our mandate. When it comes to real property, PWGSC's mandate spans a number of regions.
We deal with fit-ups and leases, so everything that makes it possible to provide thousands of public servants with a place to work every day. In fact, we provide 272,000 public servants with work environments. Our portfolio includes nearly 7 million square metres of space used for various purposes.
The biggest part of our real property mandate is providing office space to most government employees. This office space can be property that we lease or property that we have bought and own.
When I heard the word "accommodations", I thought it referred to housing. Now I understand it refers to office space.
[English]
I notice also in the departmental performance report an increase in the cost per square metre. It's higher than expected, I suppose, as I note that, on page 31 of the report, the actual came in at $332 per square metre when the target had been about $323 per square metre for office space.
Now, I understand there are many locations across Canada. Could you describe what's happening with office space across the country? Is there inflation with regard to office space? What's going on with office space that you're not able to hit those targets?
:
Thank you for the question.
The performance indicators we use tell us where we stand vis-à-vis the market and the situation in the private sector. They are based on previous year trends, as well as on the leases that we sign, including those signed in the past few years.
We also work with companies, allowing us to prepare forecasts of the real property portfolios of various companies. That enables us to determine pricing. As for the target of $323 per square metre, after looking at last year's results, we realized that we were actually at $332. In other words, we ran slightly over the target.
What factors contribute to such an increase? The markets, first of all. As Mr. Trottier mentioned, markets are up in some regions and down in others. In Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary, prices tend to rise more quickly. Our year look-ahead projections are not always an accurate reflection of the reality a year or a year and a half down the line, come budget time. So lease prices can be much more expensive in certain cities, and fit-up costs can be higher than anticipated, depending on the market. So that is how we can end up with such figures.
I should point out, however, that the $8 or $9 difference per square metre is not huge. It means that we came reasonably close to our target. What we will keep trying to do in the coming years is improve results through our negotiating. Bear in mind that our goal is full occupancy of our buildings. The vacancy rate hovers between 2.5% and 3% every year. So we perform very well when it comes to occupancy, but in some big cities, our performance is tied to the market. That is the reason that we ran slightly over our target. Be that as it may, we are already considering strategies to bring down our actual results. But I would just like to reiterate that $8 is not a huge difference.
:
Welcome to our witnesses.
I need to begin by saying, though, that as much as we appreciate and we benefit from the expertise around the table, and we don't question that we have the right people to answer very technical questions about the supplementary estimates, what's lacking here is the minister coming to speak to the supplementary estimates. I agree with the parliamentary secretary that it's a huge portfolio and I think he said it's very complicated, and it is. But the irony is that the only person who can actually grill the minister on this complicated portfolio is the parliamentary secretary, and he doesn't need to ask any questions of the advisers here today because he can talk to the minister any time he wants. We can't. I note the went before her standing committee to speak to her supplementary estimates. went before human resources. went before natural resources. went before Canadian heritage. went before the aboriginal affairs committee. Yet we don't have our minister to ask these complicated questions.
Every one of these people around the table can answer technical questions about the veracity of the documents that were delivered to us in the supplementary estimates and the departmental performance reports, but none of them can answer the questions about the big picture, about what the government is doing, why they're doing it, what they're seeking to achieve, and whether it could be done better. They aren't allowed to answer questions like that, so we're handicapped here. We're shackled. We're actually hobbled as a parliamentary committee because the minister doesn't have enough respect for our parliamentary committee to attend to ask for these hundreds of millions of dollars of spending in the supplementary estimates.
I have to voice my profound displeasure on behalf of the official opposition that our committee is being treated in this way. I say this with no disrespect to our witnesses, many of whom I know well, and I appreciate the technical expertise around the table, but it's the minister who should be here to defend his supplementary estimates. In the future, we hope that will be the case.
Perhaps because we have this bizarre situation of a parliamentary secretary leading the questioning on behalf of the Conservative members, you could convey that to the minister on our behalf, or perhaps the PMO's representative in the room could do that for us.
My question, if I have any time left, is very specific.
A voice: No.
Mr. Pat Martin: Am I out of time? I think I trust our clerk more than I trust my colleagues.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.
Indeed, as you outlined, the defence procurement strategy was announced in February 2014. Its three primary objectives are: delivering the right equipment to the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian coast guard; leveraging purchases of defence equipment to create jobs and economic growth in Canada; and streamlining the defence procurement process.
The defence procurement strategy itself represents, as you outlined, a new whole-of-government approach aimed at ensuring the timely delivery of equipment to our armed forces. The strategy itself is funded within existing departmental reference levels, so the various departments that are involved in delivering the strategy—of course the Department of National Defence, Industry Canada, Public Works and Government Services Canada, the Department of Foreign Affairs, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the coast guard—are all leveraging existing reference levels.
An interim Defence Procurement Secretariat has been put in place at PWGSC, with a planned staffing complement of some 20 resources for this fiscal year. Again, this secretariat is funded currently through existing reference levels in the department.
Going forward, specific elements of the strategy, for example, the Defence Analytics Institute which you referred to, Mr. Martin, may require funding, and the resource requirements in the funding model for that institute will be determined once the government has made a decision on the mandate and structure of that institute.
:
Yes, thank you very much for the question, Mr. Chair.
The first you asked about is the census of population 2016. That, of course, is Statistics Canada's largest statistical program. It collects data to permit recalibration of population estimates and to provide information on socio-economic characteristics. The role of Shared Services Canada in that will be to ensure that the IT infrastructure and telecommunication services required to support the census are delivered in accordance with Statistics Canada requirements. As well, Shared Services Canada will support the agency's e-mail data centre, networks, and telecommunications infrastructure in that regard.
Moving on, there is the $5.1 million for the revitalization of Canada's weather services. This is to renew their supercomputing solution at Environment Canada, to provide supercomputing capacity for the weather services. Again, the role of Shared Services Canada is to be responsible for the procurement process for that next generation of supercomputing infrastructure.
The next one is related to the enhancements to the non-compliance audit program and the CRA funding, I believe, which is to offset our costs of providing core information technology services in relation to those initiatives.
Similarly, on the budget implementation bill, it is to provide the information technology infrastructure and telephony activities in support for measures that were in those budget implementation acts.
:
Thank you for the question.
We bought the campus nearly three years ago. The price was extremely low, so it was an excellent deal. We were also able to save money with the acquisition of the campus. Employees covered by 40 or so leases in and around Ottawa are going to be consolidated in that space. Over a 25-year period, we will save $750 million, which is very significant. The work to fit up the offices is currently under way so the Department of National Defence can move in.
The move will happen in three phases. The first wave of employees to move in will begin officially in December 2015 and continue through June 2016. Between 3,000 and 3,500 people will move into the campus. So the first phase of the move will begin at the end of 2015.
The second phase will start a year and a half later, with another 3,000 people moving to the campus. The third phase will happen in 2019, at which point, 8,500 people will be at the campus.
The fit-up work is happening as we speak and is on schedule. You will start to see more cars in the parking lot beginning in December 2015, with the first wave of employees moving in.
:
Thank you for the question. That is the fundamental question we ask ourselves every time we are called upon to meet the accommodation needs of other departments.
We already have a portfolio of about 350 buildings across the entire country, buildings owned by PWGSC. Any time the government approves a department's need for new accommodations, our first recourse is always to try to find space in our existing portfolio.
We proceed by doing an investment analysis. We take the accommodation requirements given to us and do an investment analysis to determine what the best solution would be over a 25-year period. We may end up using a building we have and renovating it. We may also end up simply taking out a lease. The rates can be much higher in some regions than in others, a factor our investment analysis takes into account. We also consider possible market fluctuations, as I've just mentioned.
We may also decide to undertake a construction project, which can take various forms. In Surrey, British Columbia, for instance, we entered into a P3. In that case, the developer is responsible for the building's construction and maintenance, and after a certain number of years, we take back the building. That solution allows us to spread out our capital and operating expenditures over a longer period.
We use the investment analysis to find the best possible solution, given the location and environment. That gives us an average. About 55% of our buildings are leased and 45% are owned. We always base the decision on an investment analysis that takes into account the accommodation requirements and, especially, the local markets. That is how we identify a solution.
My next question has to do with performance.
Shared Services Canada's departmental performance report for 2013-14 indicates that the organization had 6,006 full-time equivalent, or FTE, employees in 2013-14 and that the planned number of FTEs was 6,450, a variance of 444 FTE employees. The report also states that "[t]he 2014-15 planned reduction is 50 FTEs".
But one of the key risks identified in the risk analysis on page 15 of the report is that "the Department will not have the right people with the proper skills to deliver on its mandate."
Is there a conflict between, on the one hand, identifying as a key risk not having the right people to deliver the department's mandate and, on the other hand, having less staff than the planned number of FTEs with plans to further reduce FTEs?
I'm not sure who would like to answer that question.
Ms. Tromp, would you care to respond?
:
Thank you very much for the question.
Those numbers are consistent with Shared Services Canada's departmental performance report, so I'm happy to answer the question. Yes, we have planned numbers in excess of what the actual number of our FTE complement is currently. That gap is in part due to the reconciliation we continue to do due to the creation of Shared Services Canada.
When we were created, we were given positions, salary dollars, and often empty or vacant salary positions. We have chosen in many cases not to staff up, because if you look ahead to the next year, for example, at our planned numbers, they go down by 300. What we are really trying to do is manage within the envelope we have. We are putting the focus on making sure that we can minimize impacts on our indeterminate employees, and we are moving right away to a lean model of operating—
:
Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.
I'll give you a bit of background before I tell you about some examples of success under this program.
The program, build in Canada innovation, BCIP, was launched to bolster innovation and promote economic growth. It provides Canadian innovators with the opportunity to sell to the federal government their pre-commercial goods and services through a competitive procurement process. As of November, so as of today, 156 innovations have been pre-qualified and a total of 80 contracts have been awarded to 74 different companies to support the testing of these innovations over the life of this program. BCIP supports Canadian businesses by procuring and testing their late-stage innovative projects, products, and services with the federal government before taking them to market.
There are two components to the program, a standard component and a military component. The priority areas in the standard component cover environment, safety and security, health, and enabling technologies. Some of the examples I will give you in a moment cover those areas. The military component covers Arctic and marine security, protecting the soldier, command and support in cybersecurity areas, training, and in-service support. To date, 21 federal departments have participated in testing these innovations.
I'll turn now to some successful examples. The first example I'd like to cite is called the Aeryon Scout. It's a remotely operated aerial vehicle that was tested by the Department of National Defence. It enables the business to open new markets for their technology, with recent sales to the U.S. military, the South Korean army, and several Middle Eastern countries.
Another example I'd like to cite is called the speed bump radiation detector, by Bubble Technology Industries. It is a detector concealed inside speed bumps to sense the presence of illicit radioactive materials. The company has had three innovations pre-qualified under this program. It has sold their innovations to numerous law enforcement agencies south of the border and also has a number of solid business opportunities with international defence and law enforcement agencies.
There are many examples. As I said, we've given out 80 contracts so far under this program.
The last example is called the CargoKeeper, made by TekTrap company. It's an easy-to-install miniature covert electronic device combining GPS and door lock tracking with wireless and satellite. It remotely tracks the status and position of maritime containers worldwide. It's been tested by three separate departments. It has both military and civilian applications. It can be used by customs officials to increase security and efficiency of customs operations as well as by the Canadian military to track sensitive cargo. The participation of TekTrap in the build in Canada innovation program has opened up several new opportunities for this company in both security and non-security-based markets domestically and internationally. As a result of having their technology sold and used by the Canadian government, they now have a contract with U.S. Customs to apply to their security needs. They've also sold their innovation to U.S. law enforcement agencies.
Those are a few examples of successes under this program.
:
Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to begin by pointing out to anybody who might be interested just how far we've come, or just how far we've dropped the notion in the 41st Parliament of ministerial accountability. I don't want anybody—any rookie MPs, or anybody watching—to think that this is normal, that we now have parliamentary committees, even major oversight parliamentary committees such as the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, dominated and ruled by parliamentary secretaries, agents of cabinet and the PMO, the Prime Minister's Office, sitting here in the room dictating what witnesses we hear, and whether or not the minister will or will not appear before a parliamentary committee. This is not normal by any stretch of the imagination. It's unprecedented.
Somebody has to start sounding the alarm that incrementally the notion of scrutiny and oversight and accountability has been eroded to the point where it's unrecognizable to those of us who have been around for a little while.
Gerry's a veteran. I remember when parliamentary secretaries first started to be allowed on to committees. They sat at the very end and they kept their mouths shut. They didn't dictate what went on behind closed doors.
Mr. Chair, we've had a number of points of order which generally evolve into points of order based on relevancy. It's incumbent upon the mover to actually state specifically their specific point of order when they raise the point of order. That's what separates debate from the standing orders and the generally accepted conventions of what a point of order is.
Now, you have ruled just recently. The point of order of relevancy was taken into consideration and you ruled in the affirmative towards the raiser.
Mr. Martin right now is speaking about the supplementary estimates and the role of the minister to participate in the supplementary estimates. This is relevant. While I accept and agree that you have great latitude in the execution of your duties as chair, we cannot engage in these constant points of order if the mover does not state specifically what the point of order is at the very beginning of their intervention, and then if you allow, that they make the case. I accept that there have been points of order that have been moved just recently in committee which were not relevant, and I also agree that there were points of order that were raised just yesterday that were relevant on the issue of relevancy, specifically.
Mr. Chair, please exercise discretion in your duties in making sure that those who raise points of order clearly state up front what the point of order is specifically, and if you allow them an opportunity to make that case, expect them to do so quickly.
:
Thank you for clarifying that.
Mr. Martin, this is not a debate, but a point of order.
I certainly cannot guess the point of order. For my own information, I would like the member to start by telling me the nature of the point of order and to then explain it. Committee members are perfectly within their right to raise a point of order. If the point of order is in fact not one, I will say so and move on.
The point of order in this case had to do with the relevance of the member's comments to the agenda topic. Mr. Martin had five minutes to discuss supplementary estimates (B) and the practices governing ministerial accountability to the committee with respect to supplementary estimates. He can use his five minutes as he chooses, provided that his comments are relevant to the agenda topic. And that seems to be the case. If he chooses not to ask any questions during his five minutes, that is his right. I can't force him to ask questions if his comments are relevant to the topic on the agenda.
Everything he has said in the 2 minutes and 47 seconds he's had so far is relevant to the topic in hand. So I will let him continue for the remainder of his time.
Mr. Martin, you have two-and-a-half minutes left.
:
Thank you very much for the question.
Mr. Chair, we have essentially been given the mandate initially in three areas, e-mail, data centres and telecommunications, and then subsequently in the workplace technologies or the end-user device space. Some of the savings and economies that we've realized are in all three of those areas.
I'll start with telecommunications. Certainly, by consolidating the acquisition of telecommunications services for the Government of Canada we achieved a scale that got us discounts that were beyond what any individual department could achieve previously and that resulted in some savings. We've also taken an initiative to remove unused lines. When we had this big picture of what was being done across all of government, we actually found that there had been telephone lines, legacy centrex services, that had been in place for a long time. People had been provided with a mobile telephone device and the centrex lines were no longer in use or no longer needed. We're trying to move more and more public servants, wherever possible and wherever it makes sense, to a single device. It can be one of these or a land line depending on which one is needed, but we anticipate about $28 million a year in savings just in that one specific measure.
On the consolidation of data centres, we've been able to close 10 data centres already. We're on track to close about 50 legacy data centres this year. By establishing three new enterprise data centres, which are all ready now to start taking the application workload of the Government of Canada, we are able to shift workload out of legacy data centres that were running old equipment in an old space that was already deteriorating and that were not as reliable nor as efficient in its operation. We're also getting economies there.
The figures are approximate. We always try to maintain a balance between what we lease and what we own. Being the owner gives us considerable flexibility. That flexibility increases when we use the private sector for our various rentals and leases all over the country. We make every effort to maintain that balance.
We also make every effort to maintain a balance between the number of employees we have working in Ottawa, on the one hand, and in Gatineau, on the other. That is another percentage we keep an eye on. About 75% of the workforce is in Ottawa and 25% is in the Gatineau area. We are able to closely monitor where we stand financially and, above all, where our portfolio stands using a number of measures and performance indicators.
The figure you mentioned, Mr. Maguire, varies slightly from year to year, but we always strive for the same proportion. And that also maximizes our flexibility when new programs are put in place or major moves need to be carried out.
:
Mr. Chair, the long-term vison and plan, or LTVP as we know it today, was redefined in 2010 to allow for rolling programs of five years of work. I can say that since its inception, we have invested $1.4 billion in the rehabilitation of our parliamentary buildings.
The government has approved another $1.6 billion for the continuation of the phases of work that have been approved. Those include mainly the West Block rehabilitation, the East Block work that has already started, the Sir John A. Macdonald Building south of Wellington, as well as the building at 180 Wellington. We have basically six major capital projects. Aside from those I just mentioned, I would add the Government Conference Centre, to be used as an interim accommodation space for the Senate while we rehabilitate Centre Block, and the visitor welcome centre.
As for the end, it's really by project. This is a long-term vision, so we are doing very intricate sequencing of the work, including interim space, so that we can vacate the buildings we need to get to and rehabilitate them before the building systems become critical, in risk of critical failure.
I can give you a few end dates. We are very happy to say that the Sir John A. Macdonald Building will be the next one to come online, in 2015. We expect to have finished the building at 180 Wellington, including 70 parliamentary office units and committee rooms in 2016. In 2017 we'll see the reopening of the West Block, including the interim chamber. In 2018 we will deliver on the Government Conference Centre rehabilitation.
:
Thank you for the question.
That $1.9 million is actually for transfers from partner organizations, mainly Environment Canada for weather services renewal, and a small amount for the Department of National Defence. There was an $865,000 transfer for Transport Canada, and amounts for Industry Canada and Infrastructure Canada.
Those amounts are separate from the $18 million in voted appropriations and the $38 million in transfers because that money had already been appropriated to those departments for the initiatives in question. So it does not represent new funding but, rather, transfers between departments.
That is why the amounts for these projects appear separately.
I'm not sure whether that is clear.
As an observation, it seems that committee members of our oversight committee have worked really hard to try to better understand the continuum of government financing through estimates, budget, and public accounts, etc. It seems that you just learn the game and they change the rules on you, because lately, there has been a real expansion in both dollar value and frequency of lapsed funding in a number of government departments. It's almost right across the board. It's either really bad budgeting, or it's a deliberate subversive attempt to cut budgets without telling Canadians, or without telling oversight committees. Then the minister has this wonderful surplus at the end, pulls a sedated bunny out of a tattered top hat and declares. “Shazam! I have a surplus”.
Can you tell me if this lapsed funding issue is going to be something we have to watch for in the public works area? Do you anticipate this notion of lapsed funding popping up as something that we have to deal with in this committee?
:
You could anticipate inflation though. That is predictable. It's been 1% or 2% pretty constantly for the last 20 years.
Actually, if you don't mind, I'm going to drop that line of questioning. I think I understand where it's going, given your lead-up.
My last question, in the time I have left, has to do with one of the most thorny public works contracts we've dealt with in this committee over the last decade, and that is the relocation contract through public works for RCMP, military, public servants, etc.
I understand the Government of Canada has now had to pay out to the griever, the guy who maintained all along that he got screwed. We just paid him $35 million. Are we now ready to admit that the Government of Canada was wrong and that he was right, and that Royal LePage should never have got that contract over and over again and that Envoy had a legitimate claim to damages because Public Works did not treat the contract fairly? Also, where will that $35 million come from? Will it be from your budget, or from the RCMP, or from National Defence or whichever the members were being located from?
:
Thank you for the question.
What factors enter into the big decisions when it comes to our portfolio?
Let me first say that decisions regarding other departments' mandates are not made by PWGSC, clearly. Departments receive their mandates and are instructed to deliver certain programs. Then, they come to us with a list of everything they need, in terms of equipment, personnel and space. Essentially, that is how the process starts.
So from there, how do we make our decision?
As I mentioned earlier, our decision-making is based on certain factors. We begin by looking at the region in which the services will be delivered. We also take the environment and sustainability into consideration. We try to incorporate environmental criteria in our decision-making.
Furthermore, we always take into account value over the long run. We look at how much we are going to invest today and how much we are going to invest down the road, and whether we are dealing with a short-term or long-term program. We may opt for a different solution in the case of a short-term program.
The markets also play a major role in our decision-making. In the Ottawa area, for instance, our portfolio used to be heavily concentrated in the downtown core, but in the last few years, we have been moving out towards the suburbs. That is why we purchased the Carling campus a few years ago. It was a business decision. The building was for sale and it cost less. It made good business sense.
We take all those factors into account. To keep costs low, we consider suburban options, as I just said. We assess whether we can move away from the downtown core without affecting the downtown market. In Ottawa, we are also taking a serious look at Tunney's Pasture. We plan to significantly develop that area.
We have another promising property in Ottawa, 530 Tremblay Road. We take into account what we have in our portfolio and the market conditions. In each case, we carry out a detailed analysis of the investment. As I mentioned earlier, the situation can vary from market to market. The market in Toronto or Vancouver is completely different from the market in the Maritime provinces, which means the prices will be different and, in all likelihood, so will the solutions.
We look at all those considerations before doing our financial analysis. And what we end up with is the value of the investment over a 25-year period. So those are the factors that motivate our decisions.
We are no different from a bank or other large institution that owns equipment and buildings, Mr. Chair.
In their requests to us, departments list their requirements, properly speaking, things like the number of square metres and the equipment they need. Departments also have the option of requesting a certain number of parking spaces. But the job of managing additional spaces often falls to the department.
Since you've asked the question, what we can do, if it is amenable to the committee, is get back to the committee with an answer once we have had time to look into it. I am not totally familiar with that file. I believe Shared Services Canada is in charge of that.
Mr. Chair, I think we could get back to the committee with an explanation.
:
My sincere thanks to everyone for being here today.
If you have further information to provide the committee, you may do so through the clerk, who would be glad to pass it on to the members.
It is now time for the committee members to vote on the supplementary estimates. You can stay if you like to find out whether your requests are approved.
For supplementary estimates (B) 2014-15, I call the following votes:
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
ç
Vote 1b—Program expenditures.......... $1
(Vote 1b agreed to)
CANADA SCHOOL OF PUBLIC SERVICE
ç
Vote 1b—Program expenditures.......... $1
(Vote 1b agreed to)
TREASURY BOARD SECRETARIAT
ç
Vote 15b—Compensation adjustments.......... $151,651,354
(Vote 15b agreed to)
ç
Vote 1b—Operating expenditures.......... $4,416,885
Vote 5b—Capital expenditures.......... $13,613,656
(Votes 1b and 5b agreed to)
PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
ç
Vote 1b—Operating expenditures.......... $56,248,925
Vote 5b—Capital expenditures.......... $80,000,000
(Votes 1b and 5b agreed to)
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the following motion?
That the chair report vote 1b under the PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, vote 1b under the CANADA SCHOOL OF PUBLIC SERVICE, vote 15b under the TREASURY BOARD SECRETARIAT, votes 1b and 5b under SHARED SERVICES CANADA, and votes 1b and 5b under PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES to the House.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: I will report those to the House.
Thank you to our witnesses today.
We will meet again on Tuesday, at 8:45 a.m.
The meeting is adjourned.