Government Operations Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2011

[Alex Lakroni]

Some of it is. The others are reflected under Treasury Board, which acts on behalf of all government departments. Our share of that, to help the members, is the operating budget carry forward within Treasury Board authorities. It is $30.7 million...a paylist total of $31.7 million. Of the capital carry forward, because we manage our capital on a mid-year cycle, it is--

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Right.

My question to you, then--and it's probably not your doing, so I'll have to ask TB about this--is whether it would be possible to put a footnote beside it to say that “this is different from the mains and go here to see the difference”. Because it is somewhere. Is that correct?

I'm not trying to catch anybody doing anything wrong. I'm just trying to find out where we're spending and where we're not spending, because eventually we're going to have to look at where we are spending and where we're not.

That was my first question.

My second of many questions is whether vote 5 is for capital only.

[Alex Lakroni]

It is exclusively capital.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you very much.

Here's my third question. On vote 1, we talk about the authorities within the vote from “savings identified”, right? Are you allowed....? If I'm saving somewhere else--you get your $16 million or something in that range, or whatever the number is--can you just spend it somewhere else? Is it not to be paying down debt and deficits...?

[Alex Lakroni]

That's an excellent question. The $16 million is a portion of our contribution from strategic review. Basically it is savings: we are shaving $16.5 million from our appropriation and we are using it to reduce our legitimate ask for cash.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So you find the $16 million. You identify the $16 million as savings somewhere in the review and you're able to apply that against what the main bank account gives you to spend. Is that correct?

[Alex Lakroni]

That is correct.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mike.

For the NDP, we'll go to Denis Blanchette.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to share my time with Mr. Ravignat in this round.

I would like to ask a question about the epass Canada authentication system and what comes after it. Do you want to replace epass with something else, or are you asking that investments continue to be made in this system? Could you quickly explain the background to me?

[Alex Lakroni]

We are going to replace epass. The initial technology was epass and Bell Canada was the provider. The technology has evolved into the current Access Key, which is still provided by Bell. I have the details here regarding costs, and so on.

But the new technology that we are proposing and for which we are asking $16.5 million comes from SecureKey Technologies. That’s the technology that made it possible to develop the security system currently used for the banking systems of chartered banks. So the idea is to use this technology that has proved its worth and that is well established, and to benefit from the investments made by the private sector. That gives us some quite attractive prices.

In addition, we have to say that cybersecurity is now the responsibility of Shared Services Canada, whose representatives will appear before this committee on December 8, if I am not mistaken. They will then be able to provide you with a more accurate answer.

I could quote some numbers and go into more detail, if you wish.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I would really like to get those numbers, because, if I remember correctly, it was very expensive to set up the epass system. Could you tell me whether the amounts we see here are the total envelope for this new generation of cyberauthentication or are they just one of the implementation phases?

[Alex Lakroni]

That's just one of the phases. The amount of $16.5 million covers the design and development of the technology replacing the current technology. The total cost is $61.9 over six years, which comes to about $10.3 million annually. If we compare this amount to the $24.3 million required for the current technology, we see that we are saving a lot of money with the private sector technology.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

What usually happens in this type of situation is that costs tend to get out of hand. Do you have any provisions or safeguards to make sure that the budget is going to be respected, unlike what happened with the epass?

[Alex Lakroni]

I would like to answer that question, but I think it might be more appropriate for the people from Shared Services Canada, who are running the program. They would be in a better position to give you a specific answer.

All I can tell you is that the costs represent rather significant savings.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mathieu, the floor is yours.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

You have about 90 seconds, if you'd like to continue.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Let me go back to the second item on page 128. Could you tell me whether the large number of overbillings for property management, especially those of SNC-Lavalin, are included in that amount? If not, where are they?

[Alex Lakroni]

I’m sorry, but what amount are you talking about?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I am talking about the second item on page 128 called “Funding for the estimated cost of additional office accommodation provided to government departments and agencies”. I am talking about the first item too.

[Alex Lakroni]

What I can tell you is that, in the supplementary estimates (B) being introduced today, there is no amount for SNC-Lavalin.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Are those amounts going to appear in the supplementary estimates (C)?

[Alex Lakroni]

I don’t know. We use SNC-Lavalin to provide our services. That is included in the department’s supplementary estimates.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Even when there is overbilling, unexpected billings?

[Alex Lakroni]

As far as I know, there is no overbilling in the supplementary estimates (B) or in the department’s supplementary estimates.