Government Operations Committee on Feb. 26th, 2013

[John McBain]

Thank you for the question.

There are seven projects distributed across the country on seven different assets that we will be spending that money on.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Can you tell me what they are?

[John McBain]

Sure.

They are: Latchford Dam; Timiskaming Dam; the French River Dam, in particular, the Big Chaudière Dam portion of the French River Dam complex; Des Allumettes Bridge; Macdonald-Cartier Bridge; the Esquimalt Graving Dock; and the Alaska Highway.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Okay.

When you look at the various projects that may need your attention, how do you go about determining which ones you will be working on in any given year?

[John McBain]

It starts with detailed inspections which are carried out on a regular basis for all of our major assets, in particular for bridges and dams because of the nature of the structures. Through that we assess their condition and we prioritize the needs that are identified for them. Through that we set priorities for the funding which we seek. Of course, our first priority always is health and safety. Second is protection of the taxpayer investment and the assets. Timely investment is all part of what we consider to be stewardship and then moving these assets and bringing them up to a green or a good condition as we detect issues with them.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Okay.

This might be a pretty obvious question, but do you have a capital asset management plan in place, where on an ongoing basis you're looking at all of these different assets and they fit into some sort of a plan?

[John McBain]

Yes, we do, is the short answer. In my particular case as the assistant deputy minister for real property, it is our core mandate. It is what we do.

Our entire business is a real property management framework, which includes an inventory, regular inspections, condition assessment, and setting priorities, moving those through our budget asks, and then prioritizing the funds that are available to move them. That is within the real property branch. Then, within the department, that plugs into the department's overall investment management plan.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you.

I'll turn it over to Jay.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Mr. Aspin.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you very much.

Welcome, guests.

I have a short follow-up question on the infrastructure. Congratulations on the infrastructure programs. With some $32 million extra, I think those are good projects to keep the economy rolling. It's very good indeed.

I'm just wondering about this $32 million, which is about 20% of the $148 million. Why did this expenditure not appear in the 2012-13 main estimates?

[John McBain]

It is just a question, I would say, in terms of machinery of government. The funds were identified in the budget. The department is required to seek government authority to access the funds. That is done through a Treasury Board submission. This is just a question of timing in terms of when the Treasury Board submission was heard, in terms of if it was in time to make which part of the estimates. It wasn't heard in time to go into the main estimates.

[Alex Lakroni]

Just for clarity in terms of the main estimates, as my colleague mentioned, it wasn't there, but it is certainly reflected in our RPP, our report on plans and priorities.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Okay.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

For the Liberals, we have John McCallum.

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

Thank you very much.

I'd like to ask a question about reallocations or funds available. I notice that in total it's about $48 million. Two of the larger ones here are the federal contaminated sites action plan, at $32 million, and the Sydney tar ponds, at $5.6 million. It means that of their total budget for 2012-13, they've failed to spend, in one case, $32 million, and in the other case, $5.6 million.

It would be interesting for me to know what the total budget was and what proportion of the total budget did they not spend. If the contaminated sites total budget was $50 million, then they spent $18 million and failed to spend $32 million. It would be interesting to know that number.

Also, I'd like to know, in the case of the contaminated sites and the $32 million, for example, does this mean that the money not spent in 2012-13 will be added to the estimates for the following year, 2013-14, so that what they didn't spend this year they will be scheduled to spend next year? If not, does it mean it just disappears off the face of the planet?

There are two dimensions to that question. What's the total budget? For the part that is unspent, is it transferred to expenditures in the following year?

[John McBain]

With respect to the contaminated sites funding that is being reprofiled, the total budget for 2012-13 was $48.3 million, so $15.8 million was spent. The $32.5 million is being reprofiled to 2013-14 and 2014-15. The amounts are $17.2 million for next fiscal year and $15.3 million in 2014-15.

This reflects the realities of getting projects implemented, construction seasons, and tendering results, etc., as we move through the implementation of these funds, but they will be used for the purposes sought and they will be used to implement the project. It's just that we are moving them forward into two other fiscal years.

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

What about the Sydney tar ponds?

[John McBain]

On the Sydney tar ponds, the money is being reprofiled to the next fiscal year, and the majority of it will be used to ensure the close out. That is the final year of the project. The project is in fact eight months ahead of schedule. It is on scope, and it is on budget.

Of that money being reprofiled, about $1.2 million of it is being held as contingency, so if that's not required, then we would be delivering it under budget. The rest is to ensure the close out of the project next fiscal year.

[Alex Lakroni]

To make sure that you have the full picture, let me say that the whole project's total cost is $428 million. The provincial share is $120 million. The federal share, managed by PWGSC, is $282 million, with an operating cost of $25 million.

In terms of how the project is doing—

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

I think that's enough. Thank you.

I have questions about Shared Services Canada. Should we have their officials here, or can you answer those questions?

[Alex Lakroni]

I think they should be directed to the SSC officials.

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

Okay.

That reflects the discussion that you and I had earlier, Peter, that perhaps we can get them for one hour at Thursday's meeting.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Yes.

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

I'll go ahead, then.

I see that you have a $23-million request for capital funds for consolidating the federal government pay administration. Can you explain the timelines and costs and possible risks associated with this project?

[Alex Lakroni]

Thank you.