Government Operations Committee on Nov. 27th, 2014

[Pierre-Marc Mongeau]

Thank you for the question.

We bought the campus nearly three years ago. The price was extremely low, so it was an excellent deal. We were also able to save money with the acquisition of the campus. Employees covered by 40 or so leases in and around Ottawa are going to be consolidated in that space. Over a 25-year period, we will save $750 million, which is very significant. The work to fit up the offices is currently under way so the Department of National Defence can move in.

The move will happen in three phases. The first wave of employees to move in will begin officially in December 2015 and continue through June 2016. Between 3,000 and 3,500 people will move into the campus. So the first phase of the move will begin at the end of 2015.

The second phase will start a year and a half later, with another 3,000 people moving to the campus. The third phase will happen in 2019, at which point, 8,500 people will be at the campus.

The fit-up work is happening as we speak and is on schedule. You will start to see more cars in the parking lot beginning in December 2015, with the first wave of employees moving in.

[Gordon O'Connor]

My next question is on the same area. You have leased buildings and you have owned buildings. How do you determine whether you're going to buy a building, or lease a building, and the shares, etc.? What are the calculations that you do?

[Pierre-Marc Mongeau]

Thank you for the question. That is the fundamental question we ask ourselves every time we are called upon to meet the accommodation needs of other departments.

We already have a portfolio of about 350 buildings across the entire country, buildings owned by PWGSC. Any time the government approves a department's need for new accommodations, our first recourse is always to try to find space in our existing portfolio.

We proceed by doing an investment analysis. We take the accommodation requirements given to us and do an investment analysis to determine what the best solution would be over a 25-year period. We may end up using a building we have and renovating it. We may also end up simply taking out a lease. The rates can be much higher in some regions than in others, a factor our investment analysis takes into account. We also consider possible market fluctuations, as I've just mentioned.

We may also decide to undertake a construction project, which can take various forms. In Surrey, British Columbia, for instance, we entered into a P3. In that case, the developer is responsible for the building's construction and maintenance, and after a certain number of years, we take back the building. That solution allows us to spread out our capital and operating expenditures over a longer period.

We use the investment analysis to find the best possible solution, given the location and environment. That gives us an average. About 55% of our buildings are leased and 45% are owned. We always base the decision on an investment analysis that takes into account the accommodation requirements and, especially, the local markets. That is how we identify a solution.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. O'Connor.

It is now over to Ms. Day for five minutes.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Chahwan, earlier, you said that the cost overrun was due to the work being carried out more quickly.

Did I understand you correctly?

[Nancy Chahwan]

If I may, Mr. Chair, I would just like to reiterate that we did not overspend; we simply spent approved budget amounts more quickly.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Fine.

I will ask my next question.

On page 23 of your 2013-14 departmental performance report, the third-last paragraph begins with the following sentence: “A system to track schedule variance for a large number of complex projects from a central database is not currently in place within the Acquisitions Program."

Could you kindly explain that?

[Nancy Chahwan]

Are you on page 23, Ms. Day?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I'm going to reword my question because that paragraph has to do with defence.

Can you tell me whether you have a system to track schedule variances?

[Nancy Chahwan]

Absolutely. Thank you for the question.

When PWGSC appears before the committee and says that a project is still on time, on scope and on budget, it is not simply a claim our engineers and architects make; it is a statement that has been verified by a third party, a private firm that measures the performance indicators of the project. We have comprehensive systems to thoroughly track budget and schedule compliance, based on progress at key project stages. Not only do we track that information for every project, but we also do it for the entire portfolio. In fact, after reviewing our processes, the Auditor General confirmed that our systems were very robust.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you.

My next question has to do with performance.

Shared Services Canada's departmental performance report for 2013-14 indicates that the organization had 6,006 full-time equivalent, or FTE, employees in 2013-14 and that the planned number of FTEs was 6,450, a variance of 444 FTE employees. The report also states that "[t]he 2014-15 planned reduction is 50 FTEs".

But one of the key risks identified in the risk analysis on page 15 of the report is that "the Department will not have the right people with the proper skills to deliver on its mandate."

Is there a conflict between, on the one hand, identifying as a key risk not having the right people to deliver the department's mandate and, on the other hand, having less staff than the planned number of FTEs with plans to further reduce FTEs?

I'm not sure who would like to answer that question.

Ms. Tromp, would you care to respond?

[Elizabeth Tromp]

Thank you very much for the question.

Those numbers are consistent with Shared Services Canada's departmental performance report, so I'm happy to answer the question. Yes, we have planned numbers in excess of what the actual number of our FTE complement is currently. That gap is in part due to the reconciliation we continue to do due to the creation of Shared Services Canada.

When we were created, we were given positions, salary dollars, and often empty or vacant salary positions. We have chosen in many cases not to staff up, because if you look ahead to the next year, for example, at our planned numbers, they go down by 300. What we are really trying to do is manage within the envelope we have. We are putting the focus on making sure that we can minimize impacts on our indeterminate employees, and we are moving right away to a lean model of operating—

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Sorry for interrupting, but the report clearly says that the department will not have the right people with the proper skills to deliver on its mandate.

I appreciate that you would like to do more with less, but there is a problem.

[Elizabeth Tromp]

We have identified that one of our biggest challenges with the very complex agenda we have, and the transformation, is that we need to make sure we have the right people in the right place at the right time, so we are transforming how we do business and how we are doing our work, and with that, some of the skill sets we're going to need. We won't need some skill sets, but we're going to need people in other areas.

We have a workforce management strategy that the organization is very committed to. It is very much about ensuring that we are able to mitigate that risk and to make sure that we are, through strong HR planning, for example, understanding where we have needs and then looking at initiatives around re-skilling and mobilizing and moving our staff, giving them opportunities to align their career with those new opportunities, to be able to mitigate that risk and ensure as much as possible that our employees are able to fill those roles.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you. You are out of time.

Mr. Adler, you have five minutes. Please go ahead.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I have a number of questions.

I want to begin with you, Ms. Caloren, regarding the build in Canada innovation program. I'm wondering if you could tell the committee a bit about the kinds of projects that have been funded under the build in Canada innovation program.

[Claire Caloren]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

I'll give you a bit of background before I tell you about some examples of success under this program.

The program, build in Canada innovation, BCIP, was launched to bolster innovation and promote economic growth. It provides Canadian innovators with the opportunity to sell to the federal government their pre-commercial goods and services through a competitive procurement process. As of November, so as of today, 156 innovations have been pre-qualified and a total of 80 contracts have been awarded to 74 different companies to support the testing of these innovations over the life of this program. BCIP supports Canadian businesses by procuring and testing their late-stage innovative projects, products, and services with the federal government before taking them to market.

There are two components to the program, a standard component and a military component. The priority areas in the standard component cover environment, safety and security, health, and enabling technologies. Some of the examples I will give you in a moment cover those areas. The military component covers Arctic and marine security, protecting the soldier, command and support in cybersecurity areas, training, and in-service support. To date, 21 federal departments have participated in testing these innovations.

I'll turn now to some successful examples. The first example I'd like to cite is called the Aeryon Scout. It's a remotely operated aerial vehicle that was tested by the Department of National Defence. It enables the business to open new markets for their technology, with recent sales to the U.S. military, the South Korean army, and several Middle Eastern countries.

Another example I'd like to cite is called the speed bump radiation detector, by Bubble Technology Industries. It is a detector concealed inside speed bumps to sense the presence of illicit radioactive materials. The company has had three innovations pre-qualified under this program. It has sold their innovations to numerous law enforcement agencies south of the border and also has a number of solid business opportunities with international defence and law enforcement agencies.

There are many examples. As I said, we've given out 80 contracts so far under this program.

The last example is called the CargoKeeper, made by TekTrap company. It's an easy-to-install miniature covert electronic device combining GPS and door lock tracking with wireless and satellite. It remotely tracks the status and position of maritime containers worldwide. It's been tested by three separate departments. It has both military and civilian applications. It can be used by customs officials to increase security and efficiency of customs operations as well as by the Canadian military to track sensitive cargo. The participation of TekTrap in the build in Canada innovation program has opened up several new opportunities for this company in both security and non-security-based markets domestically and internationally. As a result of having their technology sold and used by the Canadian government, they now have a contract with U.S. Customs to apply to their security needs. They've also sold their innovation to U.S. law enforcement agencies.

Those are a few examples of successes under this program.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

The program seems to have met with a great deal of success. For constituents who live in York Centre, business leaders or business people, how could they take advantage of the program? What steps do they need to undertake?

[Claire Caloren]

As I outlined earlier, Mr. Chair, this is a competitive procurement program, so we call for proposals every year. The fifth call for proposals was launched just recently, in June 2014, and closed in September. We received 221 proposals, and they are currently under evaluation. We will regularly have calls for proposals, and any company in Canada, including companies that have already submitted innovations under this program, can submit proposals under this program. They will be rigorously, transparently, openly, and fairly evaluated. If they are pre-qualified, they will have access to potential contracts with federal government departments to test their innovations.

The Department of Public Works and Government Services has a network of small and medium-sized enterprise support offices across the country. Part of the services we offer are information sessions for small and medium-sized enterprises on how to access this program and all the other procurement programs we have in PWGSC.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you.

I have to stop you there to give Mr. Martin his turn. He has five minutes.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to begin by pointing out to anybody who might be interested just how far we've come, or just how far we've dropped the notion in the 41st Parliament of ministerial accountability. I don't want anybody—any rookie MPs, or anybody watching—to think that this is normal, that we now have parliamentary committees, even major oversight parliamentary committees such as the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, dominated and ruled by parliamentary secretaries, agents of cabinet and the PMO, the Prime Minister's Office, sitting here in the room dictating what witnesses we hear, and whether or not the minister will or will not appear before a parliamentary committee. This is not normal by any stretch of the imagination. It's unprecedented.

Somebody has to start sounding the alarm that incrementally the notion of scrutiny and oversight and accountability has been eroded to the point where it's unrecognizable to those of us who have been around for a little while.

Gerry's a veteran. I remember when parliamentary secretaries first started to be allowed on to committees. They sat at the very end and they kept their mouths shut. They didn't dictate what went on behind closed doors.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

I apologize, Mr. Martin, but I must interrupt you.

Do you have a point of order, Mr. O'Connor?

[Gordon O'Connor]

Yes. I think Mr. Martin's discussion about the theories of ministers, etc., and the status of Parliament is more for an in camera session. It has nothing to do with these people who are here to answer questions about estimates, and I recommend that he get back on his topic.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you for the point of order.

Is your point of order the same, Mr. Byrne?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Yes, it is.

Mr. Chair, we've had a number of points of order which generally evolve into points of order based on relevancy. It's incumbent upon the mover to actually state specifically their specific point of order when they raise the point of order. That's what separates debate from the standing orders and the generally accepted conventions of what a point of order is.

Now, you have ruled just recently. The point of order of relevancy was taken into consideration and you ruled in the affirmative towards the raiser.

Mr. Martin right now is speaking about the supplementary estimates and the role of the minister to participate in the supplementary estimates. This is relevant. While I accept and agree that you have great latitude in the execution of your duties as chair, we cannot engage in these constant points of order if the mover does not state specifically what the point of order is at the very beginning of their intervention, and then if you allow, that they make the case. I accept that there have been points of order that have been moved just recently in committee which were not relevant, and I also agree that there were points of order that were raised just yesterday that were relevant on the issue of relevancy, specifically.

Mr. Chair, please exercise discretion in your duties in making sure that those who raise points of order clearly state up front what the point of order is specifically, and if you allow them an opportunity to make that case, expect them to do so quickly.