Government Operations Committee on June 8th, 2006

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Fortier, I'd like to clarify some aspects of the 75-25 ratio. For Public Works and Government Services Canada, it's a square foot management policy. However, the original policy focused more on the jobs in the departments and agencies as a whole, in short everything that directly or indirectly concerned the Government of Canada.

I've tabled a private member's bill on this subject, and I would appreciate it if we studied it later. If you take into account not only the departments for which the Treasury Board is the employer or Public Works and Government Services is the space manager, but also the Public Service and Government Services as a whole, you see that the 77-23 ratio no longer applies. The 77-23 ratio concerns the square feet managed by Public Works and Government Services.

In the Outaouais, on the north side of the river, the big former Zellers store beside Highway 50 represents thousands of square feet. However, I believe there are only three employees in that building: one to monitor the sprinklers, another unlock the doors and a third to replace either one in case they're sick. So it serves no purpose in terms of jobs.

I'd like us to see whether all Government of Canada jobs are really compiled. Then we'd see that the percentage is much closer to 85 per cent on the Ontario side, in Ottawa, and 15 per cent on the Quebec Outaouais side.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Merci.

Mr. Warkentin, go ahead, please.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you, Ms. Chairperson.

Thank you for coming in. Thank you, Minister.

I want to pick up one of the questions Mr. Alghabra was talking about. He was discussing the building in Montreal. For the record, obviously Public Works was involved in trying to get a better deal. Who was it that put a stop to that move? I want to get some clarification. Was it Public Works that limited the moving or was it somebody else?

[Michael Fortier]

It's probably more appropriate for you to answer.

[David Marshall]

Madam Chair, the way it works is that the department, the client, has to give a request for what they want to do. We've talked a little bit about the history of this thing. Ultimately the minister responsible for the agency in Quebec sent a letter to the Minister of Public Works at the time requesting that his department remain where it remains, and we acted on that.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

So it was the minister that made the request to the other minister?

[David Marshall]

Yes, the minister was responsible. He made the request.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

So Public Works was not involved in putting a stop to that move, then?

[David Marshall]

That is correct. We responded to that request.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you very much. I appreciate the clarification.

Certainly last time we spoke, Mr. Marshall, we talked about real property and obviously the aging property that the federal government has. I wonder if the minister might talk with us a little bit about his feeling about the aging infrastructure, and about what we might do to ensure that the money is allocated now so that we don't come up with huge deficits and huge incurrences of cost down the road. Is there money being allocated? Are we, in our accrual accounting systems, ensuring that there are funds being allocated for the future retrofits of the buildings that are going to need major overhauls in the next number of years?

[Michael Fortier]

Thank you for the question. Actually that's a very important topic.

We own about 325 buildings across Canada. These are everything from strip malls in small urban areas, rural areas, to large buildings downtown here and in Vancouver and Montreal and what have you. The average age of the portfolio, as I said earlier, is 43 years. We have this wonderful portfolio. So we're sort of a real estate magnate, except that we don't conduct ourselves as a real estate mogul would with this type of portfolio. The reason we don't is simple. You need long-term planning to look after these assets. Governments, by definition, don't have long-term planning. When they do their budgets, they're 12 months by 12 months. So you accumulate deficits in terms of undercapitalization of assets.

In our case, that deficit, I'm told, is close to $4 billion, which is a humongous number. It's just a huge number. We've accumulated this deficit, so we can't allow this to continue. We close our eyes and just pass it on to the next guy after me and the next person after him or her. The reality is we need to be creative about this and find a way to address this significant undercapitalization. We've been looking at this for the past few months and are hoping to come up with a few ideas before the fall.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I appreciate that. It was a suggestion that was made, and maybe it isn't something that the federal government should look at. I'm wondering about a condo association type of process. I'm thinking in terms of having the funds available for particular buildings so that when a building is moved into, funds can be allocated on a yearly basis as part of the cost of running that building, and can be put towards the future retrofit of that building from the get-go.

[Michael Fortier]

That would certainly cover the future.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

It would work from here on in, but we can't go back.

[Michael Fortier]

We've got this accumulated deficit, which we need to seriously consider.

I know you're all aware of what the Auditor General had to say about the department when she met with me before tabling her report. In particular, there was some reference to the fact that it's better to own than to lease. I disagree with her, because if you own, you have to have the means to own. As a government, as a Parliament, we're either going to give ourselves the means to own, or else we're not going to own, and we're going to lease. Owning entails responsibilities. It's not just having the key to the door; it's taking care of the place and maintaining the place.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Absolutely.

[David Marshall]

Excuse me, Madam Chair, I just want to help you understand the issue on the funding.

There is, in fact, a formula in which a certain amount of the necessary repair is allocated in a budget each year, but it's not enough. One large anomaly, for example, is when we lease to purchase, which makes sense in many cases. This is considered a leased building and not an owned building, so we don't get any money to maintain it, and so on. There is a formula, but it's not enough, even for ongoing.... But there is a substantial amount.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

But maybe there are ways we can--

[David Marshall]

Improve on that, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you very much.

Madame Thibault.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Fortier, I take this opportunity to address Bill C-2, more specifically the provisions on the Procurement Auditor. Obviously no one can be opposed to virtue. However, citizens need to understand what this is about. Internal audits are conducted in the departments, and there is an Auditor General. Now we have an Office of the Comptroller General at the Treasury Board, and that's very good.

However, since this is about creating an auditor position and assigning a group to serve that person, I'd like to know whether you can assure us that that won't cause any duplication, in any form whatever. I'd also like to know whether the auditor will examine acquisition practices. 22.1(3)(a) states:(a) review the practices of departments for acquiring materiel and to assess their fairness—

I'd like to know whether the work of this procurement auditor will focus only on the departments, that is your clients, or whether it will also include auditing existing internal practices. I'd like to know how that will differ from the findings of your normal internal audit and from those of the Auditor General.

Proposed subsection 22.2(4) states:(4) the Procurement Auditor may not recommend the cancellation of the contract to which the complaint relates.

The masculine includes the feminine. I say that with a smile, but I'd like to know what the powers of this auditor will be. I'm concerned that he may be able to cancel a contract where a complaint is filed and not well documented. We're going to audit, but we won't be able to do anything on the subject.

I'll give you the example of the Public Service Commission. If a department misuses its delegated power, it may be revoked. The department would then be put under trusteeship for a period of time. An appointment can even be revoked, if ever evidence is brought that it violates the established rules. I imagine this kind of situation would be very rare. One of my colleagues is a member of the legislative committee responsible for studying Bill C-2. I wonder why this kind of power wasn't given to the auditor.

Wouldn't you have liked to give these duties more teeth?

[Michael Fortier]

You're talking about the auditor. You have to be careful not to confuse the terms. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but I want to point out that his role is proactive. Since this morning, we've been talking a lot about the efforts being made to clean up the rules, about facilities and procurement. There's talk about getting closer to small and medium enterprises.

It's easy to make these kinds of announcements, but the devil is in the details. Long after I or my successor are gone, this auditor will have responsibility for ensuring that our rules are transparent and fair, that the entire process, the procurement code, for example, is maintained, and even improved. That person will have a proactive role. He or she will help Mr. Marshall and his team ensure that they are always at the forefront of procurement.

You attach a lot of importance to the word “auditor”, which makes you think of Ms. Fraser's duties. Whatever the case may be, that's the term used.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

But we're talking about “procurement auditor” in English and “vérificateur” in French. We're also talking about examining complaints.

[Michael Fortier]

I was getting to complaints. I'm going to talk about the matter of duplication, since you referred to it first. Nothing will prevent Ms. Fraser from looking into the department or any given sector. As for complaints, there are already tribunals for that purpose. The fact remains that this person will be able to help and advise suppliers who feel they have been harmed or claim should have won their case. You'll be able to hear their complaints and, in certain cases, immediately resolve the matter by directing those people to the appropriate remedies.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

If you're creating these duties, that means they don't already exist at the department.

Furthermore, you said in your remarks that you would soon be appointing an independent advisor who would report to you and who'd be responsible for examining contracting practices for public opinion research. You say the findings will be made public. Does that mean you'll table that report in the House?