Government Operations Committee on Oct. 25th, 2012

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us.

One of the recurring themes in our interviews with witnesses has been the issue of the pricing of the transfer of risk. I think many of our witnesses have agreed that there is a lack of transparency in this area. We're told the risk transfer is $100 million but we're not told anything about how that figure is arrived at. A number of witnesses have also said that these numbers are picked out of the air.

I'd therefore like to ask both groups, are you confident with the quality of the analysis that goes into this pricing of transfer of risk? Do you think the methodology could be shared more broadly with parliamentarians and the public and made more transparent?

[Sarah Clark]

For one thing, we have a 100-page document on our website around our quantitative analysis. If anyone would like to read that, it's available.

What does make us confident in our approach—

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but it happens that the witness prior to you spoke about your website and said that the detailed information of the contracts was not there.

[Sarah Clark]

On our website we have every contract that's been issued. There are some things that are redacted, such as things that are commercially sensitive for the province or the proponent that would hurt their ability to compete in the future; that is true. But there is a plethora of information, including full contract documentation, on our website.

When it comes to risk analysis, it's important that everyone in the room understand the project. When they're looking at quantifying risk, a whole host of outcomes are reviewed, from the very probable to the highly improbable, to the lower cost to the higher cost.Those are evaluated, and then the range of results are reviewed. That gives people not only an understanding of what kind of exposure the owner may have in each type of procurement process, which then informs their budgeting, but it also informs the owner's team on how they should be running their project and looking at how they can mitigate those risks through their own project management.

[Tara Rogers]

I would add, on the private sector side the transfer of risk is backed by a security package and backed by the enforceability of the contract. When we, as the private sector, are putting forward our bids to win these projects, as equity we will pass down those risks, say the design-build risks, to our design-build contractor. Those design-build contractors will analyze the risks of the project and delivering the construction and their price will include those risks. Then they will stand behind that price with a security package to ensure enforceability during the delivery phase.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay, thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank our witnesses for coming today. Thank you for getting up early and joining in this discussion we've had. We're almost at the end of our study on P3s. Your input has been valuable. Thank you very much.

I'm going to move to suspend. We're going to go in camera.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Can I propose my motion before we do that?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

In camera you certainly can.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I mean now.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

No.

We're going to move to suspend to go into camera.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

I have a point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You do have a point of order. Yes, sir. We can let our guests go, though.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

I'd just like it to be noted before we go in camera that systematically, every time we have a motion on this side, we go in camera. This is a problem. If you disagree with this, maybe you should leave it for the public to hear.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Chair, once I have the floor, I am allowed to speak. I'd like to present my motion before we end this meeting.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You can present your motion, and then we will go to the next speaker.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay.

My motion is as follows:

That, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates conduct a study on the Public Pension Plan changes of the section of Bill C-45, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, which directly fall within the mandate of this Committee, namely Part 4, Division 23, and report of its findings to the House no later than Monday, November 5, 2012.

The reason for this motion is self-explanatory. These are issues that fall under the jurisdiction of this committee. I think it is appropriate that we should study it and report back to the House.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Cannan.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thought the subcommittee met yesterday. Normally, new business is dealt with in camera.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Are you moving to go in camera, Mr. Cannan?

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

I just want to know, isn't that the tradition of the committee?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

It's a tradition of the whole House of Commons, not just this committee.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

I move to go in camera, then.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay. The motion to go in camera to discuss future business has been moved.

All those in favour?

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Can we have a recorded vote, please?