Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 31st, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

You may continue, Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

As you previously said, the information wasn't provided on a project-by-project basis. We're talking about a total budget, which was submitted to and approved by the Treasury Board, and intended for the National Capital Commission to perform the renovation work.

Now we learn today that, as part of the renovation work, the old barn was torn down, razed to the ground, in order to construct a brand new building.

Isn't there a difference between approving a renovation project and approving a new construction that will even include fibre optics and elevators? That sounds like very high tech equipment for a barn.

[Lorenzo Ieraci]

With regard to approvals, the National Capital Commission's submitted master plans essentially provide the overall budget, divided into capital and operating budgets. The capital budget includes activities that enable us to undertake works for the construction, renovation and modernization of buildings under the NCC's responsibility.

As regards approval levels, I can't say whether they're different within the NCC. In the master plans, however, those works are treated as capital expenditures and considered from an overall perspective.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

I see. So no real distinction is drawn between renovation and construction.

I have a question about the total envelope allocated to the Governor General. Who approves the Governor General's budget?

[Lorenzo Ieraci]

I can't answer that question with regard to the budget for the Governor General in particular.

The National Capital Commission has an established budget, and, as I mentioned, the way to spend it is based on master plans. As regards—

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

That's fine. You don't need to repeat yourself; we understand.

I wanted to know exactly who approves the Governor General's budget. I know it's not approved by Public Services and Procurement Canada. I think it's more likely the Treasury Board.

Does the Treasury Board approve the Governor General's overall budget?

[Brian Gear]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. That's not within my line of responsibility at the Treasury Board, so I can't answer that question.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Does that mean that neither of these witnesses knows who approves the Governor General's budget?

[Lorenzo Ieraci]

That's beyond my area of competence, but, as far as I know, the only possible answer I can give you is that all budgets allocated by Parliament are set out in the main and supplementary estimates. That's the process that the government uses to allocate budgets to the various organizations. I couldn't tell you whether the Office of the Governor General is a separate entity.

However, you can find that kind of information in the main and supplementary estimates.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you very much for attempting to answer.

It becomes problematic when you see that the Office of the Governor General has a budget so large that it can afford to spend $117,000 on dry cleaning services and $71,000 on a limousine ride a few metres long in Iceland. I think our role here on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is to get some answers. It would be practical to know who approves that kind of budget and especially whether anyone other than us is looking at government or departmental spending.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné. Your time is up.

Monsieur Desjarlais, you have the floor for six minutes, please.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being present here today.

I do appreciate the Conservative members present here who initially put a motion for this important questioning, because I think it touches on.... I think this is a symptom, largely, of a greater issue. There seems to be an issue not so much within the procedures, procurement and operations of the NCC, but I think what's of the biggest concern to most Canadians, to be really frank, is the transparency, trust and accountability of these expenditures.

That, in itself, is something that I'd like to focus on, and how we can understand the processes of accountability and transparency that are already within the NCC—because in many cases we deal with large departments and large operations like yours—and better understand how these things are made more accountable within the NCC, because it's no secret that these issues affect a great deal of how the country looks at building trust with its institutions.

Not only is this barn a pretty serious circumstance of what one would expect versus what value Canadians get, but I think just to confirm some of the facts would be important for Canadians to better understand this.

My first question is in relation to the type of project. It's understood as “the Barn”—I understand that, of course—but my understanding is that it's attributed that name because it sits on the former historical grounds of the original barn that stood there, but it's no longer operationally a barn. Is that correct?

[Lorenzo Ieraci]

Thank you for that question.

That's my understanding as well. The terminology of “barn” is basically a reflection of the historical building that used to be there, but as I've indicated, the building really is a storage or repair workshop or vehicle facility.

While I know a barn conjures up images of certain types of buildings, for those of you who have had the opportunity to take a look at the National Capital Commission's website, where they have pictures—it was referenced before—it doesn't really look like a barn. It's much more of an industrial building with solar panels on top of it, a fairly large carport—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

This car garage, let's call it, does it maintain vehicles other than the Governor General's vehicles?

[Lorenzo Ieraci]

I don't have a definitive answer to that. What I do know from the information I have is that it's a storage area for vehicles for maintenance and operations of the grounds and the property. I presume it's things like snow blowers and trucks and whatever is used for ground maintenance, but again, I'm speculating a little bit.

The National Capital Commission would probably be able to provide a more definitive response.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Okay, sure.

I think what Canadians really don't understand is how these projects are reviewed for maintenance, how they're reviewed for operations and how they ultimately get precedence in terms of expenditure by the NCC.

I think other expenditures that I'd like to make a comment on are those of Stornoway. We see $644 for a new leader of the opposition to move in there. That's a huge price tag just to change the locks. Most Canadians don't go through that process. There's $170,000 for cleaning that same residence, taxpayer-funded, and over $100,000 for regular operations and maintenance. These things pile up. It's going to be way past $8 million in a short period of time. In the amount of time the opposition has been in there, it's been over $8 million.

In terms of the NCC, taxpayer-funded money, and the request, review and procedure by the NCC, within procurement, how are those functions actually dealt with in terms of the very initial setting of being reviewed as requiring maintenance? How do we reconcile the process? Could you walk us through that process so that I and other Canadians can have some understanding as to how the NCC operates in terms of reviewing need, assessing that need and then ultimately creating an expenditure?

[Lorenzo Ieraci]

The National Capital Commission obviously would be able to provide you with more detailed responses, but in terms of helping the committee understand how it operates, when they provide their corporate plan, as I mentioned before, they have expenditures within two buckets, for lack of a better term—operating and capital expenditures.

Within those activities, they will identify the suite of work that they need to do and prioritize those. Some of it will be for capital expenditures, in terms of needing to do upgrade or upkeep or construction of the numerous buildings and assets that they own in the national capital region, and others will be associated with the operations in terms of making sure that these assets are operating as intended.

In terms of how they prioritize within those two envelopes, and even whether that's the way they determine how to prioritize expenditures, within those envelopes, the National Capital Commission, again, as an arm's-length Crown corporation would manage that, including making decisions in terms of how it prioritizes them. That would be reviewed both by their CEO and, ultimately, by their board of directors.

I know that doesn't directly answer your question, but, again, I think they have a couple of different buckets of activities within which I'm sure they must have a process in terms of how they prioritize their respective activities.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

To the Treasury Board Secretariat, how do you participate in this process?

[Brian Gear]

Mr. Chair, as I explained, the decision to set up the NCC as a Crown corporation was enabled by legislation through the National Capital Act. They are governed by the rules stated in part X of the Financial Administration Act. The NCC is responsible for managing their day-to-day operations on their own because of their distinct mandate and the decision to keep them independent from government.

The involvement of Treasury Board and the Treasury Board Secretariat is solely contained within the corporate plans and the operating and capital budgets submitted by the responsible minister. Those, again, cover the significant major activities that are detailed. It's not a project-by-project approval in any way. It's up to the NCC to manage that, within the parameters of the corporate plan and budget, and with the appropriations given to them.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you. That is time.

We're beginning our second round with Mr. Stewart.

You have the floor for five minutes.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The witnesses today were asked to come to committee to testify on an $8-million barn, when nobody in Canada would think that it is in the best interest of the taxpayers of our country to have an $8-million barn laced with fibre optics, a private security detail during construction and an elevator that potentially goes underground. Nobody knows where it goes. Most people's storage sheds don't have elevators and fibre optics.

You didn't say anything about the $8-million barn. You didn't say anything about its function. You didn't say anything about how the cost reached $8 million. There's no accountability in any of that.

Let's talk about the communications firm. Why does the Liberal government need a communications firm for an $8-million storage barn?

Anybody can answer.

[Lorenzo Ieraci]

Mr. Chair, unfortunately, I'm not able to provide an answer to that question, in terms of specific expenditures, because—again—they would have been part of the National Capital Commission.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

That's fair.

Are they going to be conducting media interviews in the $8-million barn? Is that why? Perhaps the media would like to know how many tools are stored in the barn, or how many vehicles and the makes of the cars. This does not make any sense.

If the two of you came here today to be held accountable, we are going to have to get some answers.

Has either of you been inside the $8-million barn?

[Lorenzo Ieraci]

I have not, Mr. Chair.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

What's in there? Have you seen pictures of the inside? What's inside of it?