Government Operations Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2011

[Sheila Fraser]

There are several major financial players, including the two houses of Parliament, the Department of Public Works and Government Services and, obviously, Treasury Board.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

In 2004, a report was given to the Real Property Branch of Public Works and Government Services Canada. At the time, this report was handed to Mr. Tim McGrath. The report said that PWGSC was having a lot of trouble managing its projects well. The study had been requested by the Real Property Branch, and its purpose was to compare the level of professional and technical resources, as well as the cost of service delivery involving major architecture and engineering projects, with the best practices of similar organizations.

The report mentioned that in almost every case, service providers indicated that when a project manager was assigned to a project in the private sector, this person remained in place until the project was completed. However, this is in stark contrast with the turnover within PWGSC. The report therefore corroborated something a long-term employee of Parliament had said: he followed the renovations closely, and said that there was far too much turnover within the ranks of management within the department. Managers continually came and went, and as a result, there was no organizational memory as far as the overview of a project was concerned. This created a dysfunctional system which made it harder to quickly create a project management structure. Further, project knowledge was lost, and it slowed down the projects themselves.

You also say that there was no consensus with regard to priorities. Can you tell us what you mean by this?

[Sheila Fraser]

I believe that we gave the example of the renovations and temporary space that was to be built or modified while the Parliament buildings were being emptied. Parliamentary partners wanted all of the activities to be held on Parliament Hill, to the extent possible, although other space was available on the other side of Wellington Street. There were, for example, some differences of opinion regarding the amount of time required, the number of members who were to be located outside of the parliamentary precinct, the acceptability of the costs, the investment that was to be made, the question as to whether or not buildings were to be renovated or the matter of whether people would be located there for only a few years or a longer amount of time. There were many hurdles to overcome. In order to meet Parliament's requirements, Public Works had to grapple with the constraints of government policies and rules, which led to a certain amount of tension.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

If I am not mistaken, these constraints and government policies came from the Treasury Board Heritage Buildings Policy.

In 2007, you issued a report which said that the Treasury Board policy made it difficult to make sound choices and set conservation priorities. Your report has alluded to this as well since you indicate that irritants hamper people from taking action.

[Sheila Fraser]

There is an even more fundamental difference of opinion. Are parliamentary buildings and activities subject to government rules?

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Oh, yes, the legislation is ambiguous.

[Sheila Fraser]

I think that the...

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

You had requested amendments and this did not happen, if I understand correctly.

[Sheila Fraser]

I believe that the people from Parliament would say that they are not subject to government rules and that they can establish their own. That we are to meet their specific needs, without necessarily taking government rules into account.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

The worst thing is that you are saying that there isn't any long-term financial commitment.

In your report of this year, on pages 17 and 18, you indicate very clearly that, even if parliamentarians are consulted when projects are set, they have no access to the government decision-making process. You indicated that the government does not always approve funding to cover the estimated costs, and you also stated that stable funding would make it easier to carry out projects.

That is, Ms. Fraser, how I see the current situation. There is a power struggle going on. In my opinion, on the one hand you have users and legislative partners. On the other hand, you have Public Works and Government Services Canada and the Treasury Board which hold the political power. So you have the legislative power, which needs space and services, and you have the political power.

PWGSC is authorized to award contracts. So there is a risk of influence-peddling. We know that there have been some instances where PWGSC has been taken to court because contract awarding rules have not been followed properly. I am saying this as an aside.

Supposedly, PWGSC held consultations. However, the requests made by legislative partners are not found in these plans, these five-year plans, when, in reality, we should have a comprehensive plan detailing the structures required in order to facilitate the renovation of the buildings. Let us not forget that PWGSC is asking Treasury Board for the funding required to do this work.

Treasury Board, which has the financial power, does not make it possible to make any adequate financial commitments, opening the door to influence-peddling.

Finally, Treasury Board is fully aware of how important it is for its partners, departments, to receive the money in order to proceed with this renovation policy.

If I understand correctly, all of the parties have known, for many years, that PWGSC did not have an effective decision-making process, for a wide variety of reasons...

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Madame Bourgeois—

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

... and everybody knew that the Treasury Board policy was not effective. Who is it serving, if not politics?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, we're out of time on the question.

If you wish, Madam Fraser—

[Sheila Fraser]

No, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Mr. Gourde, you have eight minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Fraser, Mr. Ricard, thank you for coming here.

Ms. Fraser, in your report, you stated that management of the Parliamentary Precinct project was generally good. Nevertheless, in the findings of your report, you no doubt noted challenges and these led you to form some conclusions.

In your opinion, what will the challenges be over the next few years with respect to the Parliamentary Precinct?

[Sheila Fraser]

It is clear that, for the past few years, we have noted a significant deterioration of the Parliament buildings. We noted in the report that some systems in West Block were deemed to be in a critical state. There is a risk. If ever the systems no longer operated, Parliament would no longer be able to function.

The situation is becoming increasingly critical. Renovation work has to be carried out. To do this, we need plans. There are five-year plans, but we also need a plan with a longer-term view. I think that it is appropriate to prepare plans for a five-year period of time. We need to provide stable funding given that, over the years, projects have often been stopped and restarted owing to a lack of stable funding. We have also noted that the whole issue of governance has been problematic for 20 years. Furthermore, Public Works is somewhat caught between two bodies, namely the parliamentary partners who are expressing their requirements and the Treasury Board that approves funding. So the department has to try to satisfy all of these requirements.

We believe that responsibility for the buildings should be put back into the hands of Parliament. Parliament must be given greater responsibility for this work and the funding and it must be accountable with respect to the progress achieved.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

With respect to this governance system that you are referring to, does Parliament have the required expertise to follow up on this work?

[Sheila Fraser]

Parliament needs to find a credible and solid mechanism to manage buildings and projects. I am assuming that Public Works would be used to carry out the work, but it is really a matter of governance, namely, deciding on priorities and providing for the funding. I would even say that the funding needs to be negotiated with the governments and there must be adequate monitoring. So Parliament needs to have a mechanism that will enable it to carry out the work.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

These mechanisms will have to be approved in the annual budget. Are you suggesting another way to do this?

[Sheila Fraser]

I think that this is a matter that needs to be examined. There needs to be stable funding which could be a multi-year vote for projects. Moreover, this is something that we think is needed for longer-term projects. If we always start work wondering whether or not, in six months time, we will have the money required to continue, this can have a significant impact on the effectiveness of the work and the staff. This situation could create a great deal of uncertainty and could also lead to delays, such as the ones we have seen over the past 20 years.

So I think that there are some existing mechanisms to provide for funding stability, so that work can be continued, without frequent stoppages.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

In light of your experience, do you know of something similar in other departments, or will a system have to be created?

[Sheila Fraser]

This is a fairly particular case, since it involves a mechanism which would fall under the purview of Parliament. In the past, other options were studied. The department indicated clearly, in response to our audit, that it would study the various options. We noted in the report examples from other countries. I believe that this situation is fairly unique, given the fact that Parliament is responsible for this project.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Therefore, we can expect the study process to be very meticulous. We will have to reinvent our benchmarks.

[Sheila Fraser]

As I mentioned, there have been studies in the past where different options were reviewed by the parliamentary partners and the government. The government has clearly indicated that it was willing to begin the study anew and consider different options. This was almost a year ago. I would have thought that the government was close to starting, if it has not done so already, and that there would have been discussions with the parliamentary partners, and that the government would have recommended options.

Obviously, some work needs to be done after a legislative or other type of change, in order to implement the chosen mechanism.