Government Operations Committee on Nov. 25th, 2010

[Christine Walker]

Thank you. That's a very good question. However, the scope of being here is to talk about the departmental supplementary estimates (B) for Treasury Board, Public Works, and PCO. That would be an excellent question for the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

So you're not going to answer any questions in regard to that?

I have a question for PCO then. The PCO is requesting $2.9 million to enhance its security to focus exclusively on the highest-priority elements directly related to the security of the department, Langevin Block, and so on.

Members of Parliament here, senators, whatever the case might be, are fairly secure in the perimeter of the Centre Block, East Block and West Block. When you take a look at where the Confederation Building is located and how easily that is accessible, the Justice Building, even the Supreme Court of Canada, any person can simply drive right up. Of course the Langevin Block is on the other side of Wellington, directly opposite the East Block.

Normally, when somebody is asking for money for security, it is usually because either something is falling behind, something has lapsed and it's time to bring things up to date, or there is a new threat or a perceived new threat that would require an increase in the amount of money being spent on security.

What kind of security are we talking about here? Are we talking about security systems for documents? Are we talking about security systems for computers? Are we talking about physical security, like adding more presence when it comes to securing the building? Exactly what are we talking about when it comes to security?

[Marilyn MacPherson]

Maybe I will start and Jean-Philippe may want to supplement my answer.

We're talking about a combination of those things. We don't perceive that there is an increased risk, but what we've been able to do over time is to reallocate within the department to ensure that we maintain a certain security profile. It's become impossible to keep up, and we haven't been able to enhance or upgrade our security requirements.

With respect to what we're specifically targeting, it's physical and access security, and notably strengthening the security layers in and around the Langevin Block. That would include improving video monitoring around the building. We need to increase the amount of top-secret space that we have inside the building and upgrading our access control to the building.

We also have a Corps of Commissionaires and other security personnel who have radio units that are now over 20 years old. They do need to be replaced. It has become extremely expensive to either replace those units or repair them. We are looking to buy new ones that have a broader range. We are also looking at an enhanced IT network monitoring capability.

As you know, cyber threats continue to become more sophisticated. By virtue of the work that we do in PCO, our information is extremely sensitive, so we want to strengthen the IT monitoring to ensure that we maintain the safety of our information.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you very much for that.

I guess I'll move over.... Hopefully I'll be asking a question within the realm of the scope that was defined by today's meeting. I'm not sure how that happened.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Calkins, I apologize. I was distracted for a moment. Regrettably, your time is up.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Well, I'd like to be here for several more years, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I was rather hoping you would wax eloquent on the benefits of dimmer switches.

Mr. Kennedy.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I just have to make a comment. It is unfortunate that for these sums of money we don't have the officials available who were requested by this committee. I think that's extraordinary. I chaired the estimates committee in the provincial government of Ontario. Never did a minister not attend when requested for review.

There are large expenditures here, new ones. For example, the MRIF program is an initiative of the former government that the government took a long, long time to give out, and yet there's a supplemental amount of money, $184.2 million, for a program that theoretically has run out. Where is that going? Is there anyone here who can give us insight into why there's an extra $184 million in cashflow for the MRIF program, which as far as I can tell was tapped out last year?

No one?

Okay. How about the fact that we have all this infrastructure spending? For example, the Building Canada fund sat unused for the first two years of its existence--unused. So billions of dollars that were promised and budgeted for were not spent. Then, because they had so many problems with the infrastructure programs that were supposed to help the economy, we had a big run on announcements from the Building Canada fund.

I'm assuming that Treasury Board has processes in place. And I'm assuming that Privy Council has given advice on the cost implications of having so much of the planned $11 billion in new spending, as well as these pre-existing promises that have been brought forward, all taking place in one year.

Is there anyone from the government who can tell us how much of a premium we will pay for infrastructure projects across the country because the government mismanaged the timing so badly?

By most estimates--in other words, from the Canadian Construction Association and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities--70% to 75% of the infrastructure projects are taking place in the current fiscal year. How much in extra costs are the municipalities or the taxpayers on the hook for as a result of that? Is there anybody who can give us some insight?

[Marilyn MacPherson]

No, I'm sorry, I can't.

[Christine Walker]

It's a good question. Unfortunately, we're not able to provide the answer.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I'm sorry...?

[Christine Walker]

I said that it's a very good question. Unfortunately, it's not within the scope of what we were requested to be here for.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Is there anyone here who can undertake to bring back to this committee the information we're requesting? Is that part of your purview?

[Christine Walker]

Yes, it is.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Okay, because these are fairly important questions, and the amount of money is significant. And Canadians are going to be asked....

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Treasury Board answered yes, but I didn't hear any response from either PCO or Public Works.

[Marilyn MacPherson]

We will certainly work with Treasury Board if there's any information we can add. We'll coordinate with them.

[John McBain]

From Public Works' point of view, the programs inquired about are not part of our mandate. They are not anything we are associated with, so we would have no information to add about those programs.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Just to clarify, for my purposes, because I don't want to waste the valuable time of these civil servants, Treasury Board surely has a mandate when there are cost overruns and when there are implications for government spending. No one's washing his or her hands of that. We just don't have the right officials here today with the particular mandate.

I don't want people, seeing the testimony here, to misunderstand. The government is not saying that they're not responsible; it's just that we don't have the people available to us today. Is that correct?

[John McBain]

No. My point, Mr. Chair, is that Public Works is not implicated in those programs and therefore cannot offer anything.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I have a question for Public Works. Where is the status report on the internal infrastructure programs Public Works undertook, which had a costed value of about $1 billion? The accounting value was different.

Is there any update on the value of the accomplishments? In the last economic action plan.... Because it's not subject to any scrutiny, it is a fairly unsure document. It doesn't tie back into any financials. Every time it's been published, it's been restated, so the average member of the public can't follow the promise from the first action report to performance in the next.

On this very specific thing, Public Works had $1 billion of infrastructure for harbours, bridges, and so on, and internal infrastructure commitments. Have those been met? There's been a lot of discussion. We just heard yesterday that the finance minister is not going to allow municipalities to go beyond. Is this money going to be rolled over internally? Is it all getting done on time? Can you give us an indication about that?

[John McBain]

Certainly, and thank you for the question.

Through the economic action plan, the department was allocated $417 million over two years, ending this fiscal year. In the first fiscal year, we had $237 million allocated for buildings, bridges, accessibility upgrades, and le manège militaire. The department delivered 95% of that funding for in excess of 1,600 projects.

We are under way with the second amount of money for this fiscal year, which totals $198 million. Our reports are part of the PCO website, which gives updates and provides information on the economic action plan. Our material has been included in each report to Parliament on the economic action plan.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Just to be very clear, some of the phrasing used in the past has been problematic for a member of the public who has a normal wish to understand. We've been told of projects that were under way that were dreamed about, basically—there's not one job, no shovel in the ground. So just to be clear, you're telling us that 95% of the Public Works internal infrastructure projects in that plan, nothing else added, are going to be done on time and within the two years and so on. Is that correct?

[John McBain]

Thank you for the question.

I'll be very precise. In fiscal year 2009-10, the department had an allocation of $235 million to spend on our owned assets.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Other departments had other projects, but yes.