Government Operations Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2011

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

--fixing the Parliament buildings, which probably we shouldn't go for.

Thank you, my Liberal colleagues, for an opportunity to ask some questions.

I agree with Mr. Cannan that it should be on every Canadian's bucket list to visit this place, although I don't relish the end of the bucket list, because it's usually....

This is unfortunately a bit of a whited sepulchre, because they look nice on the outside, but on the inside these buildings are pretty grim and they need something done. And essentially, as I see it, the governance structure is unfixable. There are just way too many fingers in the pie, and there needs to be a new governance structure. That responsibility falls to us--nobody else.

You mentioned an interesting point: that the devil was in the details. The U.K., Australia, and the U.S. all have a separate entity to take care of not only the governance structure but also the capital and operating functions. Could you offer the committee an opinion with respect to the limitations, the pros and the cons, if you will, of that form of separate modelling?

[Sheila Fraser]

First of all, I would think that if an organization like that were established, it would be an officer or agent of Parliament. Ahead of that, there would have to be questions around how the appointment process is made, the qualifications, how that office would be established, who they would report to, what would be the role of parliamentarians, what committee would that organization report to, and what authorities they would have.

I think one of the big issues that has to be resolved is the whole question of funding. How do you interface the funding requirements here with the fiscal framework of the government? That, I think, has always been a bit of tension between the priorities and the needs that the parliamentary partners would establish and the funds that government has available to do these renovations. So that whole issue about how that would play out I think has to be given some serious consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Why would you disaggregate the funding that Parliament currently receives, which is, I don't know, $300 million or $400 million? Why would you disaggregate that or make it more difficult if in fact Parliament took on more responsibility for its own capital improvements? Why would that be more complicated?

[Sheila Fraser]

I would say just probably because of the amounts of money involved and--

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

So it's an issue of amount rather than an issue of model.

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes, it would be an issue of amount, and if this body or intendant or whatever decided they needed a billion dollars per year, will that work in the fiscal framework of the government?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

But that money is being spent now, one way or another. The issue is that it's being spent inefficiently or....

[Sheila Fraser]

Well, I wouldn't even say it's being....

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

[Sheila Fraser]

One of the problems was that it wasn't being spent.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes.

[Sheila Fraser]

The projects would be designed, but the funding was never given to do the projects. I think that's one of the major reasons for delays through all those years: the funding was just not made available to be able to carry out the projects.

In approving of a plan, be it a five-year plan, the long-term funding should go with that. So it's I guess the tension with government to say how much money comes out of the fiscal framework for these projects.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Gourde made an interesting point about Parliament not really being set up to manage its own physical premises. On the other hand, there's no real reason why Parliament could not take that on as a separate agency or take on that expertise as part of a parliamentary function.

[Sheila Fraser]

That's right. It's done elsewhere.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

I run very hard on my colleagues about time, so I'll run on myself.

Colleagues, Mr. Martin has yet to have an opportunity, and I would propose, unless I see strenuous objection, giving Mr. Martin the last five minutes. Is that...?

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Where are his coveralls?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes.

And I'll give Mr. Holder the last couple of minutes.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Five minutes for Mr. Martin, the remaining time to Mr. Holder, and then we'll call it.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you very much to you and to the committee.

I apologize. I had to be away for some of your presentation, Madam Fraser.

Madam Fraser, in your brief to us today, you point out quite rightly that the Parliament buildings are the centrepiece of our national political life. The site, the style, and the building layout were designed to convey an image of ceremony and order. The difficulty we have is that the renovations now have become a metaphor for waste and indolence, and even corruption, and we observe an element of incompetence, not due to the individuals involved, but perhaps it's that there are just too many chefs spoiling the soup.

We in this committee have been studying the fact that the renovations of the West Block have turned from a fiasco to a farce. Everything on Parliament Hill.... I come from a construction background. I'm a carpenter by trade. Everything on Parliament Hill costs 10 times as much and takes 10 times as long as building something in the real world.

I mean, there was that building we had to cancel because of cost overruns, which would have solved all of our committee room problems. The cost was getting up to $350 million. We just built a full, huge, 350-bed hospital in Winnipeg for $280 million, and office buildings don't cost as much as hospitals. For some reason, things are completely out of whack here. I appreciate and I agree with you that this long-standing government problem has to be resolved.

Just as an example for my colleagues here, I think a lot of Canadians would be shocked to learn that we're actually tenants in our own house here. We're not masters of our own house. We have to ask permission to do anything. I tried to have the flag lowered when a Canadian soldier was killed overseas. The reason that we couldn't wasn't because of any lack of political will: it was because we have no control over when the flag is raised and lowered. That's done by Public Works and Government Services and therefore we have no say.

It's time for a tenants' revolt. We should take back direction and control of our Parliament buildings so it's by Parliament, because the other guys, frankly, have messed it up to the point that it's an untenable situation.

I know I've missed some of the questioning. This question may have been asked, but from a best practices point of view, do you have any model internationally, in other jurisdictions, that you prefer over others?

[Sheila Fraser]

Chair, I will just briefly remark that we note in the report examples from England, Australia, and the U.S., where in all cases the responsibility and accountability for their legislative buildings have been given back to their legislature.

There have been studies in the past of different models. Government certainly agreed with our recommendation that they come forward with an option.

I would just add, too, that at the time of discussing the recommendation, we did discuss it, of course, with government and with the parliamentary partners, and everyone seemed quite favourable to moving in that direction, so now it's really to decide upon the best mechanism to put in place and to move forward to do that.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Could I ask, Mr. Chair, through you to the clerk, to find this out if we can? I understand that four globe-trotting senators went on a fact-finding mission on their own--unilaterally, I think, without consulting our committee--in February of 2010. They went to these jurisdictions to study the governance of those parliaments. I wish they had consulted us, because I think we would have a great interest in their findings.

Could we find out about the report that our globe-trotting friends may have written in conclusion? In their lucid moments maybe they made some notes, and we would benefit from those notes.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

After the meeting, you can be a bit more specific as to who these folks might be.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, I believe it was in February of 2010. Four senators visited other jurisdictions to investigate how guardianship of Westminster and other capitals was undertaken and to help assess the viability of such a program in Ottawa. So clearly they had the same thing in mind when they took off to investigate this, and I think our study would benefit.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.