Evidence of meeting #86 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was phoenix.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Can we get back to you on that? I don't know that we have the answer to that.
Conservative
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Ms. Campbell, I want to take another look at the potential acquisition of 18 Super Hornets. I'm pleased that the acquisition is still only a possibility.
Mr. Ferguson prepared a report on the potential acquisition of F-35s in 2011. The acquisition was considered a possibility at that time as well, based on what I know about the case. However, Mr. Ferguson specified in his document that Public Works and Government Services Canada and the minister at the time erred by not requiring a proper letter from the Department of National Defence, a letter that would have clearly stated the reasons for not proceeding with a tendering process.
As Mr. Ferguson said, the reasons were simple. It was the F-35 joint strike fighter program, which would have created tens of thousands of jobs in Canada, and so on. The Department of National Defence would have needed to clearly explain the reasons. However, the acquisition wasn't confirmed yet.
I may have trouble understanding how this works. However, how is it that you haven't yet received a letter from the Department of National Defence explaining why the potential acquisition should be an exception to the rules?
Liberal
Assistant Deputy Minister, Marine and Defence Procurement, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Thank you for the question.
To go back to the government contracting regulations, paragraph 3(1)(g) provides for an exception to government contracting regulations “for operational reasons, to fulfil an interim requirement for defence supplies...on an interim basis, and any related contract.”
In March, we submitted a letter of request to the United States government, explaining what the air force needs and what costs and capabilities we are looking for. The government's needs have been expressed to the United States government. We're also talking with Boeing about industrial benefits. We'll see whether this meets the cost capabilities and schedule requirements we're looking for.
Meanwhile, we're working hard on the competitive procurement process, which we hope to launch soon.
Liberal
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you.
Just to follow up on the last question, why is it taking so long to launch the search? The government has been there for quite some time, so why is it taking so long?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Marine and Defence Procurement, Department of Public Works and Government Services
We have been consulting with industry. Last summer, we went and talked to the five main manufacturers of fighter aircraft in the world, to gather industrial information. We are also waiting for the results of the defence policy review, which should give us key information such as the number of aircraft and the schedule.
According to our current plan, we hope to be in contract by 2022, with fighter aircraft in place by 2025.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Marine and Defence Procurement, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Any fighter aircraft willing to supply to Canada is going to be welcome to participate.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Interesting. All right. We'll follow that up in the other arenas.
Deputy, I'd like to turn my attention back to page 46 briefly, before I move on. It deals with the issue of official language document translation and looks at the percentage of document translation revised for Parliament within the deadline. The target was 95%. I would remind you that for 2015-16 the target was 96.7%, yet now the target is 95%. That's not very bloody ambitious.
I'd like to go to page 68, which looks at planned human resources and full-time equivalents, or FTEs. In the chart it lists linguistic management and services. If we look across the chart, for 2014-15 the number of full-time equivalents was 1,263.77. Then it dropped to 1,197. Then it dropped to 1,124.65. It's now projected to drop to 1,114.85.
Just as an aside, that's a decrease every year in the planned FTEs, yet when I look at the narrative on the same page, it says that the variation in the planned FTEs is mainly due to the increased numbers of FTEs in some programs and decreased numbers in other programs. You don't mention linguistic management and services as being on the decreased list, and I'm just curious as to why. I have to tell you that being in opposition, knowing that there's been some politics around this, it suggests that you don't want to draw any more attention to it than you can. But I'm willing to listen to your reason as to why it's not in there.
Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works and Government Services
I don't have a particular reason for that one, but I will tell you about the numbers in the table. I think that's what you were referring to, the messaging in the table and whether there's an explanation for the two.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
My first question was about why it's not there, and your answer was that you don't know. Now you're going to tell me about the numbers, so go ahead, please.
Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Yes. The numbers reflect the five-year plan that was in place and is finishing this year. You'll see that for the following years it's to be determined. It's all related to the new vision that will be established at the translation bureau. We have a plan for this year, obviously, but the numbers will be adjusted to reflect the future vision. We'll make sure that we do touch on the linguistic aspect. We did get some dollars in the budget this year. I believe it was $7.5 million to increase some of the capacities of the service.
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Deputy, I appreciate that, but again, you were shooting for your big target of 95%, which was less than the actual target of last year.
At any rate, it's less than, and we're showing less FTEs. On the one hand, you talk a game about wanting to improve, but your target is lower than your actual from the last fiscal year that's reported and you're still lowering the number of FTEs. I don't get it.
Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works and Government Services
I'll just repeat briefly that this reflects a plan that was in place for lowering. This year, and moving forward, we will revision and—
Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Marty, do you want to add to that a bit?
Marty Muldoon Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Administration Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Yes, I could add to that.
We're also just finishing a multi-year strategy to automate a lot of the functionality in the linguistic translation services and the linguistic dictionary. That's reflected in the plan that you see here. We've gone through that. We've modernized and automated a bunch of stuff, and here we are now, taking on the next strategy that Madam Lemay referred to.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
All right. In light of that, help me understand this. Let's go back to page 66 and look at another chart. For linguistic management and services, the 2015-16 expenditures were just shy of $51.3 million. The forecast spending for 2016-17 jumps up to almost $67.2 million, and then it drops back again in the 2017-18 estimates to $64 million.
To be fair, I'll go with the 2015-16 number of almost $51.3 million and compare it with the $64 million. That's still $13 million more that you're planning to spend, yet the results are going in the wrong direction. Please don't tell me about this magical, mystical plan that will appear, going forward. I want to talk about what's in front of us right now. Where did the $13 million go when your results are going in the wrong direction?
Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Administration Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services
What's reflected in these estimates documents that you see here is that we were going through that strategy that I just described, so you see the reduction in 2015-16. In the year that the government changed, 2016-17, we had quite a significant increase in costs in serving the parliamentary requirements. That's reflected in the 2016-17 forecast spending.
The government has supported us in continuing to realize that expenditure level, so you see the plan on the longer-term horizon levelling off in the mid $60-million range. The budget announced $7.5 million ongoing and annualized. The budget number isn't necessarily in our books right now, but it's in our planned spending horizon.
