Public Accounts Committee on June 8th, 2006

[David Marshall]

Mr. Chair and Mr. Lake, a big part of the issue is fit-up costs, which is exactly what you pointed to in the chapter.

The fit-up costs are shared between ourselves and departments. Our systems have the costs we spend, while the parts a department spends are in the department's own numbers. The total fit-up would include not only the base building and risers, and so on, but screens, other electricals, and so forth. That's an issue since it's certainly desirable to have it all in one place.

At the moment, the way responsibilities are split, departments pay for their own fit-up, and therefore it's not captured in our system. It's not ideal. It doesn't affect us when we make recommendations for investment, because we take all costs in when we do the analysis. As you get into managing the building, the clients have their own costs in their own books, and we have our own. We should try to improve that.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Whose responsibility is that?

[David Marshall]

It's traditionally how responsibilities have been split.

In fact, the departments are approaching us and saying, look, we don't like the fact that we have to figure out what to fit up. Public Works, since you're the experts in real property, why don't you give us a turnkey—you know, here's the floor space and the layouts we need, then let's agree on that. You do it and you manage it going forward.

We believe that is a good solution, and we are talking to the Treasury Board Secretariat about a sort of turnkey all-in cost, in which case we would have control over it and be able to have it in our systems, and so on.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I want to comment on that.

I'd like to see a plan. It seems as if it's been four years, and nothing is happening there. It sounds like there are some good ideas, but I'd like to see them on paper. Is there something on paper that you could table with us to show where you're going with this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Perhaps I could ask you to deal with that issue as well in your written response, Mr. Marshall.

[David Marshall]

It's really just in the discussion stage right now. We haven't got any kind of agreement on it. All I can say is that when we do have something, we will try to table it with you. There's no paper or anything like that; there's just simply a sense that this is the right thing to do.

That's apart from bringing in new systems, in any case.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

We're going to now move to Mr. Christopherson.

Mr. Christopherson, you have five minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

On that last issue, I have to say that we went from this being a great answer to one that, when it was supposed to be on paper, was, well, not really on paper, but just kind of an idea. If anybody wants to pursue that, I'm open to having a note come my way.

Mr. McGrath, I'll follow up with you first, sir, on 55 Bay Street in Hamilton, the federal building.

We talked, and I won't repeat it; you know what we said. I need to ask you, though, about the formula you're using to determine that the Canadian taxpayers will be as well off financially as they would have been had the best option been taken at the time of the analysis.

When you make that statement, are you evaluating the building's worth as of 2008, as of today when you wrote the report, or as of the purchase price of the building at the time the original proposal came down?

[Tim McGrath]

We're going back to the time the original proposal was put in place; however, we will take into account whether we should be exercising the option based on the value of the building at that particular point in time.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But without knowing what that's going to be, how can you give the assurance to me at this committee that, guaranteed, if you take that option in 2008, we'll be back where we were? If you don't know the value of the building, how...?

[Tim McGrath]

I know what the purchase price is going to be, so that's a predetermined price. It's not formula-based; it's an actual price, a fixed price. We negotiated a reduction in that fixed price for 2008, so comparing it to the original financial analysis that we did, we will be able to show that it puts us in the very same financial position that we would be in if we had bought the building at that point in time.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Are all those numbers going to be in the material you're going to forward to me?

[Tim McGrath]

Absolutely.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Very good. Thanks.

Second, I received this in my office the other day. It's very pretty, it's in both languages, everything looks proper, but I was curious, because it wasn't really addressed to anybody or anything. It just says, “Dear Sir/Madam”, on a news release from the minister. It's not even a news release; it's a covering letter. It just says, “I am pleased to present you with a copy of Achievements 2005.”

Who is this for? Is this done annually, exactly this kind of report? Who is it really targeted to, given that it's not really addressed to anybody? It looks like a sort of “we're wonderful” report, but I'm open to listening.

[David Marshall]

Well, I suppose we haven't been very convincing, but we're trying.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[David Marshall]

I might just say that it's so very hard for a government department. We don't have a financial profit number or some other way to judge, so we try different ways to explain some of the things we do and what the useful things are.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I appreciate all of what the intent would be. Is it something you do annually, like an annual report?

[David Marshall]

Yes, we do.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Who are you targeting it to, since you don't address the letter to anybody? It's a nice bring-and-brag, but it costs a fortune. Who did you send it to? Who is it supposed to impress?

[David Marshall]

We hoped to have it in the hands of certainly deputy ministers and members of Parliament--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's it? We need this glossy report from the ministry to tell us how wonderful they are? I've got to tell you guys, if you're going to be running a tighter ship than the Libs, this is not the way to do it.

I'll move on. Mr. Campbell, the report notes that apart from the number of client accommodation service advisers, a number of resources that could improve risk management are in decline. Can you give me a sense of what you're referring to?

[Ronnie Campbell]

If I may, Mr. Chair, I'll ask Mr. Sloan to do that.

[Bruce Sloan, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When we looked at risk management, as Mr. Marshall alluded to, the number of staff who are processing these transactions has been reduced over the last period of time. These are people who are critical to capturing lease information about risks about leases right at the transaction level when transactions are being executed. That type of information, if you roll it up across all leases and across the department, provides a strategic perspective of risks that are affecting leases.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Christopherson.

We're going to go to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, for five minutes.