Thank you, Mr. Guy. Mr. Bromley.

I appreciate that information and commitment. I think the Minister and deputy minister have got where I’m coming from and I’d appreciate that information. What’s the Environmental Liabilities Fund? I’m afraid I’m ignorant of that. Is it just within this department or is it a government-wide fund? Where does it lodge itself? How much is it?

I think that’s it. I will look forward to that information, and I will be prepared to ask questions on the Environmental Liabilities Fund when the Department of Finance comes up.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Page 7-23, Public Works and Services, activity summary, petroleum products, operations expenditure summary, $1.894 million.

Page 7-24, Public Works and Services, information item, lease commitments - infrastructure.

Page 7-26, Public Works and Services, information item, Technology Service Centre (chargeback). Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just in the context of full-cost accounting, and if I may call it an obvious technicality that I’m seeing, why do we charge back on TSC services but we don’t charge back on costs for utilities?

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For some specifics on that I will go to the deputy. With respect to the Technology Service Centre, we are providing a service to departments whereas with utilities we have management responsibility of the asset. There are some slight differences in the two.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Mr. Guy.

Thank you, Mr. Guy. Mr. Hawkins.

Is there a clear distinction as to why we would just not bother with the chargeback at all and just get FMB to fund, for example, Public Works an additional $20 million and avoid the additional, sort of, paperwork and the flow to each individual department and the accountability on that sense?

Because in some respects, I heard the Minister’s point. I realize it, which is it’s just a direct flow-through of payment schedule when it comes to, say, the power bill or the fuel bill. But in this one, what about maintenance? The department, say, maintains, I’ll say a school. That might not be the best example, but it is an example. But we don’t do a chargeback for that. Public Works is expected to absorb that cost as part of their mandate.

Wouldn’t one then be able to derive that providing technical services through our system – outside of maybe hardware, that is, because each individual department can prescribe or demand their own services as necessary – wouldn’t it then seem logical that we would do a consistent pattern with computer services?

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Abernethy.

The difference, as the deputy minister indicated, is in one situation the TSC, we are providing a service to a client department, as opposed to with the buildings we have the mandate to operate and maintain those facilities. They happen to have a client department in them. In some of our buildings we’ve got multiple departments, and it would be very difficult to start identifying who’s responsible for what percentage of power. We operate and maintain those buildings. We, therefore, like any landlord, would be responsible for making sure that the juice was on and that the fluids were flowing.

I’m not sure that I agree with the distinction. I mean, I would say that building maintenance, operation maintenance is somewhat identical to this and it’s split per usage, so based on percentage. If you have mixed usage, it would be based on mixed usage. Other governments do this. The federal government does this. Any organization using common area space would do this. You ask anybody in a condominium, they pay per square footage on their condo fees on common usage space.

I’m just curious why we wouldn’t do this on one but yet on TSC we do a direct chargeback. To me, it’s a paradox. As well as the other question, which seems to be, what is the actual cost to run this division? I see we have $12 million for other operations, and I’m just wondering, is that dedicated to the actual cost of running the TSC.

I get the Member’s point. I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I think there are some fundamental differences. With respect to the utilities, the way it’s working now, we’ve got the budget. We’re able to track. We’re able to provide reports, and we provide quality maintenance to buildings and monitoring of this particular situation.

With respect to the $12.211 million, the Member did ask some questions on this last year that were well pointed, and he indicated the title that is now recoveries used to be revenue. There was some confusion about that, and the Member suggested some changes. So we’ve changed that to recoveries rather than revenue because this is basically a direct chargeback.

The $12.211 million is actual for things such as $179,000 for travel, $72,000 for materials and supplies, $231,000 for purchased services, $11,000 for utilities, $1.036 million for contract services, $7,000 for fees and payments, $8,000 for controllable assets, and $10.667 million for computer hardware and software. We will provide that detail to committee.

I do hear his point about agreeing to disagree. I would maybe leave this point with asking what type of analysis would be required to maybe revisit this subject, which is, in essence, just blobbing the money together. Public Works’ budget is further bolstered with an additional $20 million, and we treat it in a similar manner as the operations, as noted earlier.

We believe things are working quite well with the assets management with respect to utilities. We’re able to provide real great reporting. We can show usage. We can do all the tracking, and we’ve got the budget to cover it. I don’t believe it’s causing any undue stress or problems with departments, but if committee wants to direct us to do that analysis, we’re happy to consider it.

I missed the other part of the question.

I guess I’m just after continuous, sort of, similarities there in the sense of continuous play. If we do this, it is one thing. But, no, I think I have enough information on this area, so no need to probe any further. Thank you.