Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 11th, 2018

[Linda Lapointe]

Fine.

[Stéphan Aubé]

Public Service and Procurement Canada is responsible for the handling of materials for all of the Hill, but in this case, this is a temporary solution we need in order to manage the work at the West Block in an efficient way during its renovation.

[Linda Lapointe]

Fine, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Now we'll go to Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, Hamilton Centre, NDP]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks very much for your presentation.

As I roll this around in my mind, it seems to me that most of the functions of the building are really not going to change. The basic structural fundamentals—we have the Speaker, the seats, the desks, and the ability to stand up and talk and be recognized—are not going to change even if they add electronic voting.

Parenthetically they may say that any opposition member who votes in favour of that doesn't understand what's going on, because sometimes the only time you're on TV all week is when you vote, so, opposition, keep that in mind. It's great for the government.

Anyway, I can throw these things out because I'm not running again, so I can just toss these things out and they're worth what everybody paid for them.

I am struck by the nature of some things that have changed, which are still fundamental to the building. I am thinking of security. I am thinking of Canadians with disabilities. I am thinking of the media. The nature of the profession is changing and their interaction with this place and with us changes—the rhythm, the approach, the time they can spend.

Family-friendly Parliament was mentioned. I had that on my list. I have to say I was a little concerned when I heard the answer, and I wrote it down: “We'll be looking to Parliament for feedback.” It seems to me that Parliament ought to be the lead on family-friendly. Nobody but nobody understands better what needs to be done to make it family-friendly than do MPs who have family. Now, it may just have been the way you responded, but words matter around here. I would be very disappointed if your thinking was, “Oh, we'll ask parliamentarians for their feedback.” No. It seems to me parliamentarians should be the lead on family-friendly since it's their families.

What I'd be interested in, Chair, is maybe some thoughts on.... I've criticized the way you're approaching the family-friendly Parliament. Obviously you have a chance to correct that if I'm incorrect, or give me answers that are a little better. I'd be interested in hearing what your approach will be with regard to security. Now that you have put the cart before the horse, in my opinion, when you said that you were going to look for feedback from parliamentarians, I am now listening very carefully regarding the process, as you now have it, for determining what changes need to be made vis-à-vis security, Canadians with disabilities, and the media as examples. What is your process for making those determinations, please?

Thank you.

[Susan Kulba]

I apologize for the misuse of words. I certainly didn't intend any disrespect in the use of feedback. The words should actually be “gaining your requirements”.

Essentially we are looking at a consultative process. We don't have it fully ironed out now, because it's related to the governance piece. We will be seeking consultation with parliamentarians on all of those key issues and those detailed functional needs, and then incorporating them into the project through the governance process.

[David Christopherson]

Yes. I don't know what the process is. I just leave with you that if I were going to be here in the next Parliament, I'd sure want to be apprised of what the thinking is about the process before it's initiated so that there is an opportunity to say, “Yes, you have it right from our perspective.” We don't know everything, even though we like to think we do. I'd like to hear exactly what your process is going to be, and if there are any changes, let's make them at the very front end rather than in some crisis meeting seven years from now where it will be, “Oh, we forgot to consider that.”

I will just leave with you that I, as one member, if I were here in the next Parliament, would be very interested in receiving a briefing when you have fleshed out what the process for consultation and the process for decision-making are going to be.

Thank you all very much for your presentation.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

We'll have Mr. Graham, Mr. Simms and Ms. Sahota.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Ruby can go first.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I'm just going to ask a quick question about what Mr. Christopherson was saying, and then I'll pass it over to David because he still has lots of questions.

In terms of the process, we've been talking a lot about going to the Board of Internal Economy in order to get details approved. I believe that is what you mentioned earlier. How about getting that process approved? Who is going to approve the process that you're going to use to gain this feedback and do these consultations? How are we going to know what that process is ahead of time so that, as Mr. Christopherson said, we're okay with that process?

[Stéphan Aubé]

As you know, we report directly to the Speaker. My first approach would be going to the Speaker's office with the recommendations, then we'd be leveraging the appropriate committees, such as the board or this committee, to seek the approval of the recommended governance that we'd like to put in place for approving requirements or also approving solutions to meet these requirements, from a solutions perspective and a design perspective.

The first step would be going through the Speaker's office, being from the administration, but it would be done also in consultation with PSPC because as you know, any requirements that we set forward will have an impact on cost, risk and implementation also. This would be a joint partnership between PSPC and us. Then we would leverage—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

It seems like we might just get cut out of this whole process because you're going to go to the Speaker and then decide. At what point do parliamentarians get to decide about whether we're okay with that process?

[Stéphan Aubé]

If you understood this comment from my statement, then I'm sorry, ma'am.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Okay.

[Stéphan Aubé]

What I'm saying is that you want to get the governance approved through the Speaker's office. Surely, if we're here today, it is because there has been a key requirement from the Speaker to be engaged with parliamentarians. I just can't speak to a solution today because we haven't established it yet. Since we're reporting to the Speaker, I would like for him to have a view of it before we would possibly even come back for discussion with committees, such as here and also the board.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Okay.

[Stéphan Aubé]

However, we're taking note that there is certainly some interest for this committee and in our coming here. I will actually make sure I relay that back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you. We have that message.

Just following up, Ruby said that it's incumbent on all parties, knowing that process and since they all have members on the Board of Internal Economy, to make sure they communicate with the Speaker that they want to be involved.

Next is Mr. Graham. The advantage of Mr. Graham is that he's been both a staff member and an MP here, so he understands the functional needs of the building very well.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I just want to make a comment, before I ask my question.

I think we'll have to follow this process much more closely than we followed West Block, as PROC and as members. As we move over the next two weeks, I think that we're going to see that it would have been nice to have had this conversation 10 years ago, at least maybe with Joe and things.

Let me start by reminding you all that you are on the record. I would like to hear from you what year we will really move back into Centre Block.

[Rob Wright]

Thank you very much for the question.

It's soon as possible.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Yes, 1992.

[Rob Wright]

As I indicated earlier, the next year will be about establishing the scope, which will drive the schedule and the budget for the project, through both the functional programming exercise and the full assessment of the condition of the building. I would say that we're too early in the preliminary phase to speak to the scope, which then flows into creating a budget and a schedule, so it's the functional programming that you have indicated you very much want to be involved in—

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Yes.

[Rob Wright]

—which will be a key driver of the timing and the budget.