Government Operations Committee on May 26th, 2015

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

There seems to be a disconnect between the question and the answer, but I'm afraid we're pretty well out of time anyway, Mr. Byrne. Perhaps the answer may come up in the context of other questions, but now it's the turn of the Conservatives.

Mr. Brad Butt.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, everyone, for being here today.

According to the 2015-16 estimates, PWGSC is requesting $2.175 billion for accommodation and real property services, which represents an increase of $209.4 million compared with last year.

Can you explain what the increase is in the accommodation and real property services program estimates?

[Alex Lakroni]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.

When you look at the RPP, report on plans and priorities, you see that for the accommodation program for 2015-16 we are looking at $2.1 billion, in comparison with year-end spending of $2.2 billion. It's fairly stable.

There are increases and decreases, however, over the past few years, that I would like to cover. The most important thing in this plan is the trend over the next few years.

Over the past four years there was an increase of $164 million, as per the RPP, primarily because of parliamentary precinct rehabilitation, which went from $200 million to $384 million. That's an increase of $185 million. Also, there is the addition of Cape Breton operations, which were transferred to PWGSC in 2014-15; that accounts for $40 million.

These increases over the past four years were offset or reduced by the savings, which are referred to as “Budget 2012 saving commitment”, which account for $74 million. Over the last four years this accounts for a $164 million increase. In summary, it's because of parliamentary precinct work.

Moving forward, what is important to note for the real property portfolio is that there are some changes in engineering assets, to start with. Our working engineering assets are going to decrease by $53 million, not because of unfunded projects but because some projects are coming to a conclusion and others are starting. The decrease in engineering assets accounts for $53 million; that item is going from $73 million to $20 million.

The second item of note is parliamentary precinct rehabilitation. The work is changing by about $51 million less. Again, this is not a decrease in funding because of budget reduction, but just of cash flow, because some projects are just starting and some are ending.

Last, the item important to note is that there are additional reductions of $49 million. The real property portfolio is going to be saving $124 million by 2017-18, up from the existing $74 million that we have in current estimates.

In summary, this explains the reduction of $210 million.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Can I ask about the department's overall philosophy with respect to the leasing of space across the country? I'm assuming that there's a kind of checklist of what you're looking for, that it's not always based on...although obviously we want value for money when we're leasing any space across the country for the various government services that are provided.

I want to give you as an example the Service Canada location that services most of the Mississauga area, where I'm from. One of the issues the citizens are upset about is that the property is leased from a private owner—which is fine, and it's in a great location, very central—but there's paid parking on site. That really frustrates the residents who are coming to file an EI claim or coming for a citizenship ceremony or whatever at this particular location.

When we look at leasing property, are we looking at all of those variables—where the building is located and obviously what the rent rate is, but some of these ancillary issues—in the overall decision as to which property we're going to lease for services that are provided?

I'll leave it at that.

[George Da Pont]

Thank you for the question.

You asked about the philosophy. I think the underlying philosophy is to get the best value for money. That really is the critical aspect in determining whether we own or we lease a property.

For the specific details of how we make those decisions and the parking issue, I'll turn it over to Mr. Mongeau.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Give a very brief answer, please. We're actually over time, but I'm interested to hear the response as well.

[Pierre-Marc Mongeau, Assistant Deputy Minister, Real Property Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Chair, as the deputy minister explained, the majority of requirements are set by the different client departments. They determine their needs regarding the number of spaces, offices and parking spots. On the basis of what we receive, we then issue a call for proposals.

If we do not have office space in the buildings that we own, we issue calls for proposals in which we clearly list all of the requirements the departments submitted to us, and we add all of the normal requirements regarding accessibility and health and safety for buildings managed by the private sector. Generally, clients' needs are integrated into the request for tenders, in addition to a series of more standard requirements regarding the quality of the premises we wish to obtain.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I think Mr. Butt's specific point was why his constituents have to pay for parking. Could you answer that?

[Pierre-Marc Mongeau]

It is mostly because the department in question simply asked us to rent a certain number of parking spaces, which was a part of our contract. For us, that is the extent of the task.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

That's the best we can do, Mr. Butt. Thank you for a good lesson that all politics is local.

Mr. Brahmi, we have exactly five minutes, but I do remind committee members that we have to end this section of the meeting at 12:45 to deal with the votes so we can report the main estimates back to the House, and we also have a small amount of future business of the committee that will be done in camera.

You have five minutes, please, Mr. Brahmi.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Ms. Campbell, you work at the Acquisitions Branch. According to what I understand there are three secretariats. One which deals with marine acquisitions, a second that deals with defence equipment, and a third that is tasked with replacing the fighter jets, that is the CF-18s. These vehicles are in the air and not on water. Do we understand each other so far?

[Lisa Campbell]

Yes. Thank you for the precision.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Can you reply to Mr. Byrne's question concerning what will happen in the next few months? In your opinion, will there be a first draft of the call for tenders before the election?

[Lisa Campbell]

To reply to the question that was asked earlier, I would say that no decision has been made. However, Canada is in a partnership with its allies so as to preserve the Joint Task Forces. If a political decision were taken, we would be ready to act to replace these aircraft.

To reply to your question about the secretariats, I would say that there is an evolution. There was indeed a governance structure for shipyards, but now there is a military procurement strategy that will cover everything. We are creating a secretariat that will absorb the previous secretariats and will have a governance entity for each of the major military projects, so as to take into account Canadian capacity and maximize competition and innovation.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

This means that the secretariat that had been announced by Mr. Nicholson, the Minister of Defence at the time, concerning the replacement of the CF-18s when it was realized that the F-35s no longer met the needs, will be absorbed into a larger secretariat. Is that what you are saying?

[Lisa Campbell]

The expertise will remain in the respective sectors. The expertise required for specialized sectors, whether we are talking about aircraft or ships, will remain there. However, the secretariat functions related to governance, to the presentation of reports and to follow-up will be centralized for the purpose of increasing efficiency.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

I see.

Has a short list of aircraft manufacturers been drawn up? I sit on the Standing Committee on National Defence. In 2011, preliminary discussions took place with various manufacturers, among them some European companies. Will this short list be updated? What is the situation on that?

[Lisa Campbell]

If ever a decision were made, we would be ready. A plan was made public so as to demonstrate our transparency and the way we would manage the process.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

I have one last question concerning the aircraft.

Since almost a year ago, six fighter planes deployed in Kuwait for strikes in Iraq have been extended to the intervention in Syria. These planes are rotated. Some witnesses explained to the national defence committee that the fleet of planes was managed at the Bagotville and Cold Lake bases. Does this exert more pressure to accelerate the aircraft replacement process?

[Lisa Campbell]

I would ask that you put this question to the Department of National Defence. Thank you.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

There is one minute left, please, for the NDP.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

What I find a bit worrisome in your reply is that we now know even less about the building of fighter aircraft in Canada. I think most people here would agree that we need these planes. In reply to my colleague's question, you confirmed that there is no more short list, if I understood correctly. Currently, there is no contract with aircraft manufacturers, but you are simply waiting to see if the politician or minister responsible will choose a plane.

Did I understand you correctly?

[Lisa Campbell]

Thank you for the question.

Our role is about procurement. When a decision is made about a specific need, we examine the options and determine what is most advantageous financially for Canadians.

We will continue to be a part of the international partnership so as to preserve our capacity to choose, and to allow Canadian companies to benefit from international business opportunities.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Ravignat. You'll have to be satisfied with that. As you get re-elected in future terms, you will get used to the frustration of replacing our fighter jet aircraft. We all do.

We thank our witnesses for appearing before us today and answering questions on the main estimates.

I'll ask committee members if they're ready to proceed with the votes that have been referred to our committee.

In the interest of time, I'm going to begin right away while our guests are excusing themselves. I should point out that in the main estimates for 2015-16, $10.8 billion have been reviewed through the consideration of the committee out of $88 billion that have been referred to us. That's not exactly living up to the standard we had set for ourselves of doing a more thorough and robust examination of the estimates process. Having said that, I'm going to proceed with the votes.

CANADA SCHOOL OF PUBLIC SERVICE

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$53,794,403

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

CANADIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE SECRETARIAT

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$5,549,653

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION AND SAFETY BOARD

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$26,290,301

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

GOVERNOR GENERAL

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$17,165,126

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$4,934,882

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

PRIVY COUNCIL

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$104,454,216

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$71,397,504

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$1,651,054,220

Vote 5—Capital expenditures..........$1,099,063,968

(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to on division)

SHARED SERVICES CANADA

Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$1,169,183,901

Vote 5—Capital expenditures..........$203,868,605

(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to on division)

THE SENATE

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$57,031,359

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

Note that there was a big division on the Senate.

TREASURY BOARD SECRETARIAT

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$219,601,334

Vote 5—Government contingencies..........$750,000,000

Vote 10—Government-wide initiatives.........$2,090,470

Vote 20— Public service insurance..........2,250,070,604

Vote 25—Operating budget carry forward..........$1,600,000,000

Vote 30—Pay list requirements..........$1,000,000,000

Vote 33—Capital budget carry forward..........$600,000,000

(Votes 1, 5, 10, 20, 25, 30, and 33 agreed to on division)

Shall the chair report the main estimates 2015-16 to the House?