Government Operations Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2011

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

When you say “total failure”, do you mean death? What is the difference between the two?

[Sheila Fraser]

I suppose that the engineers could better answer that question. There is no doubt that “critical” means that there is a very high risk that a system does not work. By 2013, there is quasi-certainty that it will not be working any more.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

This is in reference to the West Block?

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

But that has been settled; it is closed.

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

It is settled, the occupants have left. What I am really worried about is the Centre Block. For now, it is occupied. In 2007, there was a mid-level risk. In 2013, which is less than two years away, the risk will be high.

Can you tell me what might happen? Will the Peace Tower come crumbling down? What should we expect?

[Sheila Fraser]

The risks are more linked to the heating, electricity and cooling systems. These are the basic systems which make the building functional. If there is no cooling system, or if there is no electricity in the building, it will not be functional.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Do you think it would be a good idea to have a committee, which we could call the Committee on the Parliamentary Precinct, which would help everyone become more aware of the situation? It would have to be a neutral organization. I really don't know who could get the job done. Do you still believe in the Department of Public Works?

[Sheila Fraser]

As we indicated in our report, when priorities are clear and everything has been ordered, Public Works does a good job.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Perfect.

[Sheila Fraser]

The problem is deciding on priorities, making them long term and obtaining the money to finish the job.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

The problem is that politicians are in politics to be re-elected. Therefore, a politician—and this is reflected in programs—works on the basis of deadlines which extend one, two or three years into the future. Instead, your recommendation is that we approve a budget of $5 billion or $6 billion spread over 10 years, so that the process does not have to be repeated every year. This is what you are recommending.

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes. We have picked up on this problem with regard to other projects, not only the one involving the renovation of the Parliament buildings. When you start a major computer project which is spread over two, three, four or five years, and when you have to go back every year to request new funding, this undermines the project. People are hired for a certain period of time, and there is no stability to ensure that the work is carried out efficiently.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Lemay.

Mr. Calandra.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Madam Fraser, I have to tell you that it's very good to have you here. One of the biggest disappointments I've had, and I've been talking about this a lot ever since I was elected in 2008, has been the condition of the buildings since I've been here.

I make no secret of the fact that although they're great occupations, I never really wanted to be a police officer or a firefighter; I always wanted to be the Prime Minister of Canada, ever since I can remember. I was so proud to be sworn in--right here in this room--but when I toured around the place and saw how badly it had deteriorated, it left me somewhat upset that we had all allowed this to happen.

We've been focusing this committee so much on trying to find a hidden skeleton in someone's closet, or something that we can pin on a government or something, but the reality is that when we had the architects here, they said:

When we did our first building assessment back in 1995, we found certain problems. When we came back in 2003-04, we were quite surprised at the amount of deterioration that had happened since that time. The project was stopped in 1999 for a period of time, and we felt that during that time the deterioration was tremendous. And it's continuing.

As you said earlier today, you found that once Public Works has the commitment of parliamentarians...and we've found that too, in the investigations we've had. They've done spectacular work. It's done properly. It's done ethically. The contracts are all top-notch. It's just a matter of getting the political will to get it done, even when we're in difficult circumstances.

You have a couple of models. I know that in Ontario the speaker is in control of the renovations of the legislature. He's provided a budget. In essence, since the mid-nineties, the structures every year are just being repaired. There's no question about it. The scaffolding just makes its way around the building and that's the end of it. After many years, we finally started to take care of that building.

I also want to quickly fold official residences into this, because it's not just the parliamentary precinct that's important. It's also the Prime Minister's home, the leader of the opposition's home, Rideau Hall--those structures as well. I think we've all failed miserably, no matter who's been the government in charge.

It's not a criticism of Public Works. They do spectacular work. But is there a way we can fold official residences into this?

[Sheila Fraser]

I wish I'd brought it, Chair, but we did do an audit of the management of official residences in probably 2006 or 2007. I can certainly provide a copy to the committee, if you're interested.

They fall under the National Capital Commission and Public Works. We found that actually there had been a lot of improvement made in most of the official residences, with the exception of 24 Sussex. Again, 24 Sussex is in need of serious repair. The difficulty there is that the Prime Minister and his family will have to move out for over a year. That has been one of the major factors, I think, that have delayed the work there.

For those residences, the funding does appear to be in place. There's a little more progress being made on that side, I think, than on the parliamentary precinct, but it certainly is something that could be looked at going forward.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Okay.

Go ahead, Ed.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Fraser and Monsieur Ricard.

Could I ask you, please, through the chair, to undertake to provide that audit of the official residences to the committee? I think that would be well received. We can factor that into our considerations.

Madam Fraser, you made a suggestion as well, which I think is a very good one, that this committee see what Public Works is doing and actually go take a look. I sat on the board of governors of the University of Western Ontario in London, and certainly the notion of building and renovating buildings was a very important part of our role. I can tell you that when you see some of the things first-hand, it increases your understanding.

For us, I think, particularly as you're making some suggestions about what Parliament's role might be, the notion of having a sense of exactly what they do.... I think Pat Martin might be the only one who has really hands-on construction experience, although Mr. Lemay, I think, looks pretty handy. I am not.

So the notion of being able to see what they do I think would be useful for all of us, and I hope that we would as a committee imagine that we could do that.

I'm wondering--

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That's it.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Okay.

I might have another round, so I'll be able to ask that, but again, thank you both for attending.

[Sheila Fraser]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

I have an image of Pat Martin in construction overalls--

[Voices]

Oh, oh!