Government Operations Committee on Nov. 27th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

You have two minutes.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I have lots of time.

Let me ask about the national shipbuilding strategy. My understanding is that there was government money available for purchasing new Coast Guard vehicles.

Are those tenders out, and when do we expect the contracts to be granted for that? Will those contracts be offered to the three shipbuilding companies that are part of the national shipbuilding strategy or to other companies?

[Arianne Reza]

Simon, can I turn to you for the details?

[Simon Page]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

I'm not exactly sure about the Coast Guard vehicles. I will assume it's the remainder of the portfolio of the Coast Guard's small vessels to be competed for.

The way the national shipbuilding strategy is structured, the three large shipyards will have their respective portfolios, as per their umbrella agreements. Within these umbrella agreements, they have larger ships.

At the moment, our policy statement says that everything above 1,000 tonnes will be going through the three large ship constructors. The vessels you're talking about here are expected to be below the 1,000-tonne mark, so they would be going to the second pillar of the strategy, which is the construction for smaller vessels. Those are expected to be competed for across smaller shipyards in the nation.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Are there a number of Canadian companies that have put in offers for that contract?

[Simon Page]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

The projects are going to be dealt with one by one. We are applying the buy-in-Canada policy to the national shipbuilding strategy, so it will be Canadian shipyards bidding on the construction of these vessels.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Page.

Thank you, Mr. Powlowski.

We'll go to Mrs. Vignola, please, for six minutes.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Mr. Page. I'll try to get a response regarding the replacement of the CP‑140 Aurora aircraft. My question is straightforward.

Why not put out a call for bids to obtain a complete list of the options available now and in the coming years, instead of sticking with the 30‑year‑old aircraft model?

[Simon Page]

I want to thank the member for her question, Mr. Chair.

The Canadian multi‑mission aircraft project is an active project that involves ongoing decision‑making. All I can say now is that each procurement strategy decision is based on the variables explained by the minister in the first hour of the meeting. The first variable includes capacity, performance and availability. The second variable includes the ratio, value and price. The third variable is economic benefits for Canada.

Every strategic decision reflects these three variables as a whole.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Indeed. That said, a complete overview of the responses to each variable listed is impossible without a call for bids.

A call that you made in the past received a response from 23 companies. The department followed the recommendations of a consulting firm. Could you send us the list of the 23 companies that provided options? Could you also send us the consultation report that chose Boeing, the only company to have anything right now?

I'm trying to understand the choice of this aircraft when modifiable aircraft from other companies are currently available. I want to understand.

Could you send us this list of 23 companies and the consultation report?

[Simon Page]

I want to thank the member for her question, Mr. Chair.

Yes, you can have the list of 23 companies that responded to our call for information.

The request for the report was submitted earlier. We'll follow up on this request, as discussed in the first hour.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Page.

Regarding the persistent refusal—I'm trying to find the right words to avoid offending anyone—to put out a call for bids, the wildest rumours are flying around right now. I have no wish or desire for this to be true, but we need to know.

I asked the minister earlier whether an agreement with the United States forced us to award the contract to Boeing.

Is there an agreement?

[Arianne Reza]

No, there isn't any agreement.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you.

I'll turn to the budget currently under consideration. I've asked this question before, but I'll ask it again. Why wasn't this foreseeable? This is one of the things that I've written most often in the margin of the budget. For example, the Department of Public Works and Government Services is asking for $26,948,069 in funding for the federal sciences and technology infrastructure initiative. Why wasn't this funding included in the main estimates?

The same goes for capital investments. Why weren't they included? No capital assets are falling apart right now. About $175 million is included in the supplementary estimates instead of the main estimates.

To cover the operating costs of the electronic procurement solution, $17 million has been requested. For the electronic procurement solution, $11 million has been requested. To provide supplies for the health system, $7,300,000 has been requested. In the case of all these amounts, I can't figure out why they weren't included in the main estimates.

I can understand this in the case of employees when it comes to pension funds and negotiated agreements. However, why wasn't this funding included? It just magically appeared in the supplementary estimates (B). I'm trying to understand why these amounts weren't included in the main estimates.

[Arianne Reza]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I think that these expenditures were properly anticipated. However, timing was a factor. For example, with regard to funding for capital investments, we bought a building. We had the money, which we took out of future years' budgets. We used that money to purchase a building that will be used in part by the Parliamentary Precinct. That's one reason for its inclusion in the supplementary estimates. In terms of the other amounts listed, concerning funding for capital investments...

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm afraid I have to ask you to wrap up your answer real quickly. Or perhaps you can get back to us in writing.

[Arianne Reza]

Of course.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

Mr. Johns, you have six minutes.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

I want to get back to outsourcing gone wrong and Phoenix.

Again, we're talking about the Conservatives bringing in the Phoenix payroll system. It was supposed to save $80 million. The last we heard, it was $2.3 billion. This is eight years in. The Liberals have carried forward with this outsourcing privatization scheme. How much has it cost us to date? What is the amount right now?

[Arianne Reza]

Thank you. I will turn to my CFO for more precision.

[Wojo Zielonka, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Department of Public Works and Government Services]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.

The total investment in Phoenix to date is $3.5 billion. The vast majority of that investment is actually not outsourcing, to be clear. It is for public servants who work on the Phoenix pay system, who work on paying public servants every day, and that's where the vast majority of that investment has been made to date.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Was that for fixing it?

[Wojo Zielonka]

It's not only for fixing it. When I quote the number of $3.5 billion, it also includes maintaining the system to continue to pay public servants on a regular basis. That total number includes both the cost of continuing to pay public servants and dealing with items like the backlog, as well as continuing to improve the system so that it can accurately pay public servants.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

That's for a system that was supposed to save us $80 million a year.

I'm going to refer to my constituents, because they're calling me on a regular basis in dire situations. A lot of them have been unpaid. One person was actually worried about losing their home. Public service workers, which you are as well, have suffered untold financial and emotional hardship from being owed thousands of dollars—sometimes tens of thousands of dollars—and in some cases for years. Now I'm hearing from PSAC that no one at the pay centre has the ability or authority to prioritize individual cases and ensure their resolution.

Is it true that there aren't any employees who can escalate or prioritize a case or manually ensure it gets resolved as soon as possible? If so, why? Especially in really extreme cases, in emergencies even, there should absolutely be a process in place to elevate those cases.

[Arianne Reza]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the question.

To be clear, there's a whole centre of expertise at the pay centre that's a hardship centre. There are people working on the backlog who are dedicated to that. We'll have to work with the various MPs' offices to get kind of that process through so people know where to go.