Evidence of meeting #78 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was building.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:15 a.m.
Assistant Comptroller General, Acquired Services and Assets Sector, Office of the Comptroller General of Canada
It was in that year, but it would probably be about the same. It depends. Sometimes when we have big capital projects, we'll have an influx of funding.
Basically, custodians managed within their appropriations, so they're given funding on an annual basis based on the estimates—
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
10:15 a.m.
Assistant Comptroller General, Acquired Services and Assets Sector, Office of the Comptroller General of Canada
Those 26 custodial departments.
They're managing within their budgets and they're making their choices based on that, as Kevin can speak to being with a custodian department.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Do you have any idea how much the heritage component of that would be?
10:15 a.m.
Assistant Comptroller General, Acquired Services and Assets Sector, Office of the Comptroller General of Canada
No. I don't have that information.
10:15 a.m.
Assistant Comptroller General, Acquired Services and Assets Sector, Office of the Comptroller General of Canada
I will see if I can.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
10:15 a.m.
Assistant Comptroller General, Acquired Services and Assets Sector, Office of the Comptroller General of Canada
I'll see what I can do.
10:15 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Real Property, Department of Public Works and Government Services
I was just going to add to that if it's helpful.
I would say that there's a large component of the $10 billion that was mentioned by my colleague from the Treasury Board, that goes into the running costs associated with the building, like paying the utilities, paying the rent, paying for security in the buildings, etc., because they're occupied. There's money associated with that, within the $10 billion, and that's a significant component.
If you look at all the various custodians, some have very small budgets. Some have operating money, so they pay the rent, the lease, etc. However, when they make decisions about whether to maintain the facility, like fix the roof or put some pails around in the corners, it's choices that they're making between putting money towards the programs they're accountable for or the buildings that they're accountable for as well. You can see that, even in the long-term vision and plan. Sometimes it takes a long while. The building sits empty for a while as decisions are made, capital funding for the larger rehabilitation is received, and decisions are made on what those buildings will be used for.
Within our own budgets, we receive money to do small capital projects for other departments. In budgets 2016 and 2015, there was federal infrastructure programming money that was meant to go in, as a catalyst for the economy, if you will. A large component of the money that was disbursed to the various custodians, like Parks Canada, gave them and afforded them an opportunity to fix up some of the heritage assets that they simply hadn't been able to afford under their current operating levels to maintain or to rehabilitate. In this past year, 2016-17, on behalf of other departments, we spent about $600 million to $700 million supporting projects in the other custodial spaces to rehabilitate them.
I don't think you'll get a number of how much went into heritage, but by building classification, it might be easy to look at what monies went into a specific building type and whether it's classified or other.
10:20 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Real Property, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Thanks.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I have one last question that has to do again with greening our suite of buildings across the country. Just to follow up on an earlier question, when we take heritage buildings and preserve them, and we allow them to be used for another 10, 20, 50, or 90 years, that in itself is environmentally responsible and would fulfill some our sustainability goals because there's the inherent carbon storage in those buildings, correct? Is it presently policy that, as you procure additional space, the environmental element is taken into account as you issue RFPs and other kinds of contractual documents?
10:20 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Real Property, Department of Public Works and Government Services
There are two aspects to your question. When we procure, say, leased space, we are currently working with industry on adapting our clauses, such that they will be more favourable or give preference to greener facilities, that's for sure. An interesting point is that the clients who are in the buildings, from a productivity standpoint, seem to have an affinity towards having and working in a sustainable environment as well.
With respect to the second part of the question, which is how you get funding for a major rehabilitation, the standard in the past for a major rehabilitation has been LEED silver, and for a new build it is LEED gold. We are taking the Arthur Meighen Building, which is 25 St. Clair in Toronto, and we're affiliating our rehabilitation with the Canada Green Building Council. It's one of 16 prototype buildings where we're going beyond LEED silver rehabilitation and looking at GHG reduction, energy reduction, etc., to get that building to a net-zero carbon emitter status. That's an example.
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I'd like to continue a bit with what Mr. Fast is talking about on the budgetary piece. I'm having to go back a few years, but it seems to me that Treasury Board had a guideline, if I remember correctly, of 2% of asset value as the suggested reinvestment piece. Within Parks Canada, I don't think it ever hit 1%, given their budgets. Has that analysis been done on what the overall value is, what the 2% would actually equate to, whether we actually have the funds, or whether there is a shortfall or a surplus of funds for reinvestment in assets?
10:20 a.m.
Assistant Comptroller General, Acquired Services and Assets Sector, Office of the Comptroller General of Canada
You're right. It is in policy as the recommended investment. We take the top 10 custodians, and we ask them every year how much they reinvested. You're right in that very few departments actually meet that level, but we don't have the analysis on the global level of what that means.
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Would you be able to provide that? Would it be available to send in as a report, to give us a sense of...? Is it 2%, the Treasury Board guideline?
10:20 a.m.
Assistant Comptroller General, Acquired Services and Assets Sector, Office of the Comptroller General of Canada
Yes, it is 2%.
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Okay. I think the industry recommendation is always 5%, so Treasury Board was perhaps a bit modest, but it would be interesting to see where we are with the top 10 departments on investment.
10:20 a.m.
Assistant Comptroller General, Acquired Services and Assets Sector, Office of the Comptroller General of Canada
I'll see what we can provide.
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
But there wouldn't be any sort of heritage consideration within that, so no premium based on how many heritage assets you have.
10:20 a.m.
Assistant Comptroller General, Acquired Services and Assets Sector, Office of the Comptroller General of Canada
There wouldn't, no.
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Okay.
Another question, and another study we did, was on the Federal Sustainable Development Act. We had this discussion about where the authority is best positioned for certain things. On this question of heritage, a lot of the leadership falls with Parks Canada, which is a special operating agency. Do you have any thoughts on whether a central agency actually has more ability, as opposed to a line department, to influence the implementation of policies, or to show federal leadership?
Really, what I'm asking is about having things like the guidance for heritage fall within Parks Canada. Is that the appropriate place?
