Public Accounts Committee on June 7th, 2018

[Kelly Gillis]

Is it an incremental impact and does it have a significant cost factor? Those are all the elements that are being looked at now.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

When do you expect to have the figure for how much extra it's going to cost to maintain this bridge as a result of the increased wear and tear, the result of the government's decision to remove tolls on the bridge? When do you expect to have those figures?

[Kelly Gillis]

Those are being negotiated now.

[Natalie Bossé]

We would expect to have those figures by the fall.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

By the fall? Thank you.

Mr. Ferguson, are you going to revisit this issue when you have some figures to take a look at? I didn't see in your report any specific figures regarding the increased cost of the operation of this bridge due to increased wear and tear. You made mention that the increased vehicular traffic will no doubt increase the wear and tear on the bridge, but I don't think you had any hard figures on what those numbers will be.

[Michael Ferguson]

We didn't have any numbers because, again, the impact of removing the tolls is all being negotiated. As of right now, no, we don't have any plans to come back and revisit this piece of work. That's not to say we couldn't, but right now we don't have any plans to.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Okay. Thank you for that.

The other question I had is for the department, because I know that the Auditor General didn't specifically look at the greenhouse gas emissions as part of the audit.

There is a Federal Sustainable Development Act in place already, and Parliament is looking at passing a bill that would make amendments to that act. Section 5 of that act says that the government, in all its decisions, must not only accept the principle of an “ecologically efficient use of natural, social and economic resources”, but it needs to integrate environmental factors in the making of all its decisions.

My question for the department is this: Did the government take into account the increased greenhouse gas emissions that would result from the extra million cars and trucks that would cross this bridge each and every year because of the elimination of tolls?

[Kelly Gillis]

Thank you for the question. The department is complying with all environmental rules and regulations in the construction of this particular bridge.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

But did it take into account the increased greenhouse gas emissions that would result from the extra 10 million cars and trucks that would cross this bridge?

[Kelly Gillis]

I have not seen an assessment on that as of right now.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I think I'll finish with just a comment. I think it's important that we not lose the forest for the trees here.

To be sure, the increased cost of the bridge is a lot of money, at some $500 million. However—and I know this wasn't the focus of the audit—the decision to remove the tolls on this bridge has a far bigger impact on the fiscal framework than any other single factor, by a factor of six. We're losing $3 billion in revenue in the fisc, as they call it, over the next 30 years, as a result of non-collection of revenues.

We're also facing much greater increased operational costs of the bridge as a result of the 10 million extra cars and trucks crossing it. I assume that in the fall we'll get some numbers on that aspect. We're also facing significantly increased greenhouse gas emissions, which is particularly relevant because we don't yet have a comprehensive plan to get us to 2030.

I just make that point because I think it's important for those issues to be taken into account when we're reviewing the government's decision and the management of this bridge.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

I don't have any other questioners, but I would like to add another question here. Every once in a while our analysts will direct us to a question that they may be interested in.

Mr. Auditor General, on page 9 of your report, at exhibit 4.6, you go through the timeline of everything. For example, the report says that from 1999 to 2003, “Independent engineers found bridge degradation and structural problems”. There was no information put into the corporate plan of the FBCL, the Federal Bridge Corporation Limited corporate plan. It sounds like it wasn't mentioned, and consequently, action wasn't taken.

Then in 2004, “The JCCBI raised concerns that the bridge was reaching the end of its service life more quickly than expected,” and that the information provided to decision-makers was “Information on the reduction of the bridge’s life expectancy in the FBCL corporate plan”, and no action was taken.

Then in 2005, “The JCCBI found more structural concerns regarding girder deterioration. It requested an engineering firm to design an emergency truss for possible support of a failing girder.” They did the design. Was a girder then made in case there was this emergency? I'm not sure how this works. That never happened, right?

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Not in 2005.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, not in 2005, but were pieces being fabricated, ready to be put back into the bridge?

[Kelly Gillis]

I do not know the answer to that question, but I can ask JCCBI and get back to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It says that no action was taken, but it sounds like it requested an engineering plan.

Then in 2006, “The JCCBI conducted an independent life-cycle cost analysis for the existing bridge and concluded that maintaining the existing bridge would cost more than building a new bridge by 2021,” and the information provided to decision-makers was “Financial analysis results in the FBCL corporate plan”.

The reason I'm asking about this aspect goes back to an issue that we'll be looking at next Tuesday, which is your message in the most recent Auditor General report. That Auditor General report talks about the “obedient culture” in the public service. Because of this culture, the government's short-term perspective can conflict with the public service's more long-term view.

Mr. Ferguson, did you see that culture here in this audit of Infrastructure Canada?

[Michael Ferguson]

Again, that's the difficulty, and I think what you are struggling with is the difficulty that we had as well, as we were trying to work through the time frame on this project.

Again, as far back as 1986, there were indications that the bridge was deteriorating or that it needed repairs that were abnormal for a bridge of that age. From 1999 to 2003, they were starting to find these serious degradation issues, but when you look at the corporate plans of FBCL, which is the parent company of the JCCBI, you see that the information isn't really forthcoming about the seriousness of the situation. When they are talking about it, they're talking about needing a new bridge by 2021, and it's not until we actually get into a contract, or just before a contract, that all of a sudden it's discovered that the new bridge is needed by 2018.

To me, anyway, the prime issue is that the corporation didn't really know the seriousness of what they were looking at. They are engineers. They're very focused on making sure that the infrastructure they have is safe and useable, so they would be very focused on maintaining the existing bridge. They would turn their focus to a new bridge once they got approval for that, but they would be very much focused on trying to keep the existing bridge operating and serviceable, and that was taking a lot more time and effort.

Even once they started to bring forward the seriousness of the issue, they were still talking about needing the new bridge in 2021. The decision to put a new bridge in place was made in 2011, which would have given 10 years to replace that bridge, but it was later discovered that no, you can't wait until 2021; you need a new bridge in 2018.

How all of that went down between the ministers of the day, the deputy minister, and JCCBI is very difficult for us to know, again because we can't get in behind those conversations. It is clear to me, though, that during this time period, JCCBI should have been stressing more strongly than they did the importance of the need to replace the bridge, the importance of the degradation of the bridge, and the fact that it needed to be replaced.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you. I think we can leave it at that.

This Tuesday we are calling on the Clerk of the Privy Council because of a concern that our committee has. When we see audits and we see information isn't being passed to deputy ministers or to ministers, this is problematic. I think all parties recognize that, so we'll leave it at that. It's a very serious message that our Auditor General gave us in his last report, and one that we want to focus in on many times when we have different departments here.

We do want to thank you for being here and for coming and answering to the Auditor General's report and to his recommendations. We will be drafting a study of this meeting and of the information both from the Auditor General's report and from your testimony.

We would encourage you in a couple of ways. You've already committed to getting us some answers to some of the questions from Ms. Sansoucy and others, but if you leave here and you think, “You know, perhaps I could have expanded on this answer,” or “I could have given a clearer answer on that question,” please just submit that to our clerk, and we'll make sure it's included if it's relevant to our study.

We appreciate your being here, and we will be following up with the action plan. We typically do not say, “We've had the department here and we've had the group here, so now we won't see you until there is another audit.” If some of the action plan measures aren't being met in a timely way, you may well have an invitation back to our committee, which isn't all bad, but it may not be as good next time.

We will be suspended for one moment. I have one small item on committee business, just so that we can make sure that our clerk gets payment for a book that we purchased for a visiting delegation. We will suspend momentarily and allow the witnesses to make their way out.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I will call this meeting back to order. This should take about two minutes.

Thank you, committee.

I need to tell you that we are still public. We are not going in camera on this matter.

We were delighted to have a delegation and the Speaker from Guyana join us here last week. In that time, we instructed our clerk to pick up a little book or memento from Canada for the Speaker as a gift from the committee. The cost was around $23. She did it, and we presented it to him, but we need a motion in order for her to be paid back.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It is seconded by Mr. Deltell.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you, all.

Have a very good weekend. I trust that we'll see you next week.

Thank you to both our guests for being here.

The meeting is adjourned.