Michael Miltenberger

Just quickly to conclude the issue of the evaluation process framework and the interest of the committee to see that work, we could commit to share that information and get feedback so that we can design the best evaluation framework possible. We will work with the folks from program review as well, since we want to be consistent as we do our evaluations across government.

The issue of IT costs is a difficult one. One of the biggest issues, of course, is the short life cycles that a lot of the equipment has. I’m one of the older Members here. I come from the days when they still used Telex...

Mr. Speaker, clearly, those are responsibilities of the federal government, but we share the concern that there are things like cumulative impact work that are identified and are not properly funded. There are other concerns that some of the boards aren’t adequately funded, as well. We’ll be looking at all those issues as we come forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with the Member about the need.... I think it has all been identified, the issue of deferred maintenance both for buildings and equipment and the cost that there is built up if we don’t do it right. As the Member indicated, the 20 year needs assessment will be reviewed and revamped on an ongoing basis as some projects follow up and get built and other ones come on.

Just for the record I would like to note that the money going to communities is the $28 million from the capital formula that is being proposed and another $6.1 million under the Building Canada fund...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Work is being done in that area. As well, work continues to be done to address and analyze and be able to give a thorough response to the McCrank report, about which we want to deal with the new government once the election is over. That work is expected to be done for the McCrank report sometime in November, I believe.

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to reiterate for the record that this project is replacing Sir Alexander Mackenzie and Samuel Hearne, two fairly large schools, and as Mr. Aumond indicated, it’s going to provide the schools under one roof. Those are two large facilities. There’s a large school population. So we have to keep that in mind as well. It speaks to the size. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, first I’d just like to acknowledge the Member raising this concern about too much information on specific contracts that skewed the tendering competitive bid process. We’ve attempted to address that.

In terms of the evaluation process, as I’ve indicated — it’s been raised by yourself, Mr. Chair, and a number of your colleagues, including Mr. Hawkins — we will come forward in the final analysis, as we finalize the process, with that component built in.

The issues are to do more with issues tied to bonding issues and such.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The work of the infrastructure subcommittee that is looking at the whole capital planning process is, in fact, trying to identify and come to grips with recommendations to deal with issues that the Member has raised: the concern about overdesign, the cost factors, the issue of standardized designs, the moving towards bundling of projects so that we can in fact be more efficient.

For us the evidence over the years has been clear in terms of the cost, the number of carry-overs, the number of tenders where there was one bid or no bids or bids that are not even close in...

It’s subject to approval by the House.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There’s the broader work on the capital planning process. The first significant step is being carried out through the Cabinet Subcommittee for Infrastructure, working through and with the Refocusing Government Strategic Initiative Committee. Through that process we’ll commit, as we bring forward the whole package, that we have the appropriate checks and balances and that accountability is built in so that whatever we do, in the final analysis, is set up to have the proper support and set-up to succeed.