Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2015

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Speaker Scheer, Mr. Watters, Mr. Bosc for being here. It's always good to see you again.

There are lots of questions and so little time. Let me start off with this.

One of the major expenditure items in both the mains and the supps is what you categorized as the long-term vision and plan. A major part of that is the new construction going on in the West Block—and also a couple of other buildings. But I want to focus on West Block. We're planning, I understand, to be in there in 2017. The new House of Commons would be there.

Could you give us an update as to the progress being made? Are we on time, on budget? What are the timelines to move everyone out of this place and into the new place?

As a final request, I would love, frankly, speaking on behalf of all of our colleagues on the government side, and I'm sure members of this committee would agree, to have a tour to see what progress is being made. Is there any way that you would be able to accommodate such a request, so that at least this committee, which represents all of our members, would have a chance before we rise for the summer to take a look at the construction and at what is happening to the new House of Commons?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

For the specific aspects of where we are in the construction and rehabilitation process, I'll turn it over to Marc and he can give us an update.

In response to your last question, I'd be happy to arrange for a tour. I was able to take a tour about a year and a half ago now with the Board of Internal Economy. All the board members were walked through. It was amazing. For those of you who have been in the West Block or have had offices there, we saw it right down to the bare bones, right down to the red bricks and steel girders, before they started putting things back. It was very interesting to see. It was completely unrecognizable, for those of you who have walked through it. It's a tremendous amount of work. I can't overemphasize how much work goes into completely removing everything from the structure and then putting it back in.

We will work with your committee chair to schedule an appropriate time that fits in with the construction cycle as well. We'll start coordinating that, and then I'll ask Marc to fill in on the specifics of your question.

[Marc Bosc, Acting Clerk, House of Commons]

With regard to your question about whether the project is on time, Mr. Lukiwski, right now we're looking at 2018, which is on schedule. Of course, Public Works is the main manager of the project. We work in close partnership with them. We have a staff of people who are dedicated to this initiative, and they work very well together.

As you can imagine, a project of this size and scope entails a vast number of details that are daily being dealt with, and we're always working several months and years ahead of the actual deadlines. On the whole, the project is progressing very well.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I know we've heard these numbers before, but I'd be interesting in your refreshing my memory. What are we talking about in terms of total costs for the renovations of West Block?

[Marc Bosc]

I'm not in a position to really answer that question. This is properly directed to Public Works as the main driver for the renovations.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Okay. Thank you.

Can you tell me this, then? Is everyone who currently has an office in Centre Block going to be relocated, or are we just talking about a renovation of the House of Commons itself?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

The entire Centre Block will be vacated, both the House and the Senate side, both chambers, and all the offices.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I assume you have a working plan already for the timeline for how long that move would take place and when it might commence. Could you share any of those details with us?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

I stand to be corrected by the people who work more on this on a day-to-day level, but it can't begin until West Block is finished, because we need to have a place to move members into, and obviously the chamber has to have a place to go to.

As Marc mentioned, the timelines are being met, so the expectation is that once West Block is completed, the move can start here.

[Marc Bosc]

If I can just add to that, I think it's important to note that the handover date of the building by Public Works to the House of Commons doesn't mean that's the occupancy date. We need to do a lot of work leading up to the actual occupancy, whether it is a fit-up or a final correction of minor defects and the like. That can take several months, so it's a little premature to say exactly when that final day will be. Hopefully it will be in 2018, as predicted.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I'll switch gears a bit.

I noticed in your main estimates that there are a couple of items where you're actually returning money, which is always a good thing. You're under budget. In particular, on a couple of conferences, the amounts are fairly significant.

By my tally, you were under budget by close to $400,000 between the two conferences. That also begs the question, then of why. Was it overbudgeting? Was it an error? Was it something where you were able to enact some cost savings when you actually went to these conferences? Do you anticipate that in future you would be able to see more of these cost savings in frugal expenditures by your office?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

If I could clarify that, these aren't reductions because the conferences came in below expected costs. These are represented there simply because when the funding was sought to host them in the first place, it was sought in the main estimates. Now that the conferences have been completed and we're not going to host them again, they're being taken out of the main estimates. We can certainly come back with information about the actual line item costs and what they ran to.

When parliamentary associations or international forums come for approval to be hosted, we do a lot of work to make sure they're done in a frugal way. There's always a budgetary process that looks at keeping costs in line and at practical considerations.

We can certainly come back on that specific item, but the reason you're seeing that reduction in the main estimates is simply because it was held and it's not being held again. They're being removed from the main estimates.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you. We'll cede our time, then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All right.

Mr. Scott, please, you have seven minutes.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for being here.

Mr. Speaker, you indicated that around $6.5 million will be needed for implementing new security measures and you described some of them. Others, obviously, you can't. Quite obviously, as estimates, this dovetails with aspects of the budget implementation act, wherein there's a new organization of security on the Hill with regard to something called the parliamentary protective services, the PPS. That's what we're now going to be calling it, PPS.

It won't be any surprise to you that at least this opposition party has some concerns about how all of this could play out. It's important for everybody to know that the new bill requires that the new director of the PPS be an active member of the RCMP, who will serve under the dual authority of you and I believe the Speaker of the Senate. Apart from the PPS being entrusted with security throughout the precinct and on the Hill, there's also some reference to “an arrangement” for the RCMP as an independent entity to somehow fit into all of this.

The employees association for the House of Commons protective services has just appeared before the public security committee to express some of its concerns, and I think they relate to how well this money is going to get spent. Are there problems?

Ultimately, they say, “Our concerns about upholding parliamentary privilege remain”, and the organization “does not believe that it is in the interest of our democracy to give control of security within the Legislative power to the Executive power, this said”—and this is important—“with the utmost respect for the quality of the work of the RCMP in its primary mission—which is not the protection of the Parliamentary Precinct.” That's the concern that's been put on the table by the current people who are protecting us within the buildings as such, and I think we need to take them seriously.

The first question I have is this. Is it clear from the way this has now been structured that you, as Speaker, and the Speaker of the Senate will jointly be in charge of appointing, or deciding, and/or recommending the new director of the service? Is that clear? Or could that turn out to be something that comes from elsewhere in the system?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

I can touch on a couple of points or areas in your remarks.

As we all know, a motion was passed by both the House and the Senate back in February requesting that each respective Speaker begin the process. You probably have the wording there. It had two aspects. One was to have the overall direction of security on the Hill be taken over by the RCMP, but in a way that would not only respect the rights and privileges of members and the institutions but also protect the employment of the existing House of Commons and Senate security officers.

After that motion was passed, Speaker Housakos and I had the opportunity to meet with Commissioner Paulson to do exactly what the motion asked us to do. We had a very robust discussion on all the things you've just mentioned. My impression of that meeting and the ongoing discussion is that all the partners on the Hill want to make this work. There's a real desire to accommodate those concerns through the lens of improving security. We've had great cooperation going back and forth, including the drafting of an MOU that would flesh some of this out and that maintains the position of both Speakers as the embodiment of the powers of each House and the rights of each House.

Because the budget implementation bill is still before the House, I can't go into too much more on that. It has to be passed and receive royal assent, so I don't want to get too far down the road on that.

But I can tell you, based on the discussions we've already had with RCMP personnel in looking at how this will work, that there is a great spirit of cooperation and mutual respect on both sides. I'm confident that we'll get to a place that satisfies both the concerns of individual members and the need for security, and in a third way, recognizes the great contribution the men and women of our security forces played on October 22, played before October 22, and continue to to play today.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you. I respect the way you've had to answer that, Mr. Speaker, but at the same time, with respect, it hasn't directly answered the question of whether or not the selection of the head of the PPS, who has to be an actively serving RCMP officer, will be for you and the Senate Speaker. Could that somehow end up as the association is concerned? I quote:

It is entirely possible that this “arrangement” [within the budget bill] provides that the decision-making level in the selection process lies somewhere in the RCMP, somewhere in the [Privy Council Office], or within the Department of Public Safety...which would appear to [the employees association] to be yet another dent into parliamentary privilege and into our democratic system.

We could ease their concerns if we knew that the appointment of the director of the PPS, an RCMP officer, is actually the choice of you and the Speaker of the Senate.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Yes, the Speakers are fully involved in the search and selection process. As you know, the act that is before you prescribes that it has to be a member of the RCMP, but beyond that, the Speakers have to be satisfied that they are the right person for the job.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There's another concern. There's going to be a triple reporting mechanism for the head of the PPS: the Speaker of the Senate, you, and I guess the head of the RCMP, or the deputy commissioner, perhaps, for federal policing of the RCMP. It's not at all clear how the coordination will take place. One of the concerns that the employees association for the current House of Commons protective service has expressed is, “The triple-allegiance—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Scott...?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Could I just read the quote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Really fast, because you're now out of time.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Okay. I quote:

The triple-allegiance of that person...[the head of the PPS]...would inevitably create a conflict, since the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and oaths made under this legislation would compel the new PPS Director to disobey the House or Senate Speakers, and obey only the Commissioner of the RCMP.

I'm just putting it on the record on behalf of the employees association that this continues to be a concern for them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Lamoureux for seven minutes, please.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do have a few very technical questions that I would like to start off with by asking Mr. Watters, if I may.

Then I have a question for you, Mr. Speaker.

What we need to appreciate is that what we're reviewing, of course, are the main estimates for 2015-16. Do these estimates factor in the anticipated recovery of the $2.7 million from some of the NDP members for inappropriate use of parliamentary resources related to the satellite office?