Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 19th, 2019

[Susan Kulba]

Sure.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Okay. Maybe the clerk can get that from you at some convenient time.

Getting our heads around that is obviously helpful. We're not sure in 2022, or even 2020, for that matter, what the structure of Parliament will look like. Is it going to be a majority or a minority? Who will be the Prime Minister? We're not sure about all of that stuff. That would be really useful. Who is going to be in what position on this committee, or on the Board of Internal Economy?

Is phase two of the visitor centre considered to be part of the Centre Block renovation, or is that considered to be something else?

[Susan Kulba]

It is. That's correct. It's part of the Centre Block rehabilitation.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Is phase two effectively a fait accompli? We've all heard about the famous elm tree. I remember that elm tree from when I was a kid. I grew up in Ottawa. I have a certain amount of sentimental attachment to it.

Leaving aside my personal attachment, evidently other people have an attachment to it as well, as we've all seen. The plan is to have that come down, as I understand it, by the end of this month in order to harvest it for furniture. It's coming down in order to facilitate the expanded visitor welcome centre, or phase two of the centre.

I have to ask the question. First of all, is the tree's downing a fait accompli? Is the giving out of contracts, the locking-in of expenditures for the visitor welcome centre, also at this point a fait accompli, or is there still room for input prior to these things happening? I'm not sure I should be asking that, too, by the way.

[Michel Patrice]

The visitor welcome centre is obviously a big component of the Centre Block rehabilitation project because we have to look at a window of the next 50 years. Centre Block should be able to sustain the next 50 years of Parliament.

The visitor welcome centre is basically an addition of space to move certain functions out of Centre Block to provide more space in Centre Block, to recognize, for example, the growth in the number of MPs that is likely to occur during the next 50 years, and also the various services and so on.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Right.

[Michel Patrice]

I would say, yes, it's an integral part of the Centre Block project.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

No, no. I was not asking about that, but about whether or not contracts have been given out, designs have been made, expenses have been incurred in a way where an attempt to slow down and take a look at them would have the effect of causing—

[Michel Patrice]

I think the contracts have been given. I don't know when it's—

[Susan Kulba]

The overall project contracts were awarded—

[Michel Patrice]

Yes.

[Susan Kulba]

—for design and for the construction managers.

[Michel Patrice]

So a hole will be dug because the visitor welcome centre will be underground, but the design in terms of what's going to be contained in what room and what space has not been established.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Are the contracts that have been let so far in the public domain?

[Susan Kulba]

Yes. They were tendered by Public Services and Procurement Canada.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I realize you are not from Public Works, but would you be in a position to direct us or our clerk to that information?

[Susan Kulba]

Absolutely.

[Michel Patrice]

We will provide that information to the clerk.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

That would be very helpful to us.

I think I'm out of time, Mr. Chair. Maybe I will try getting back in the open round.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

If it's okay with people, we will do an open round after Mr. Christopherson.

But before we go to Mr. Christopherson, I want to get clarification on something related to what Mr. Reid was talking about.

I'm assuming that the ultimate authority for anything that happens in the parliamentary precinct is under the auspices of the Speaker and/or the Board of Internal Economy. No one can trump that. Do the Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy have the last say in everything that happens in the parliamentary precinct both inside and outside of buildings?

[Michel Patrice]

I would say that in practice it's a bit more complex than that in terms of the requirements for parliamentarians and Parliament. It's definitely under the authority of the Speakers and the boards of their respective Houses, but it remains a reality that the Parliament Buildings and the grounds are in the custody of or belong to the Government of Canada.

It's the same in terms of how ultimately they're the ones who obtain the funding for the projects, and it's the executive that basically grants the funds for the projects. It's a mixed model, I would say, but obviously in terms of requirements, needs and identifying the needs, it's the parliamentarians under the Speaker and their respective board.

There's also another player on the Hill, and it's basically the National Capital Commission with respect to federal land use in terms of the grounds themselves. It's sometimes a web of players that are involved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

[Michel Patrice]

I'm going to add that there's also what we call FHBRO, which is about the heritage, preserving the heritage fabric of the building. That is another entity that gets involved in terms of what we can or cannot do to the heritage buildings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

It's very helpful to understand that complexity a bit.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson]

Thanks, Chair. I'm glad you asked that question, because it's quite germane to the point.

Before I do that, though, I do want to just give us all a little pat on the back—nobody else can do it; I can tell you that. We started out getting a report on West Block. We became alarmed at the lack of MP input. We were determined, ourselves, at this committee, that it was going to change in the future, and we made a decision that we were going to make an overture to BOIE. Each of us was then asked to go back and lobby our respective whips and members of BOIE. It would seem that was effective, based on what I'm hearing now, that there was constant talk about “PROC, PROC, PROC”. That's good. I'd just start out by congratulating the chair and the committee on being able to do this. Having been around for a while, I can tell you it's pretty big, in the world of moving government and decision-making, that we've been able to insert ourselves in the way we need to.

That being said, based on your last answer, though, it seems to me that we should be pushing for a little more clarity. The very question the chair asked is the one that was on my mind. I thought the combination Speaker/BOIE was the end of the road. I thought, “They make the decision; that's it.” Now I'm hearing it's not quite that simple, because at least the government—in its capacity to allocate money but recognizing that Parliament, and not the executive, controls the purse strings at the end of the day, though they can ask for money, as they will do tonight.... It's Parliament that says, “Yes, you can have the money”, or, “No, you can't have the money.” We see what goes down, down in the States, when that kind of thing gets challenged.

Then there is, as you've mentioned, the National Capital Commission. It gets its oar in the water. There's something called FHBRO or something close to that. It gets its oar in the water. Now we're putting our oar in the water. I think, Chair, that we should ask the staff to come back and give us a flowchart, as well as they understand it. I see the look on your face, and that's why I want it. The fact that it's nebulous leaves us out in nowhere land. We can think we're an important part of this, but we're all politicians. We can make something something or we can make something nothing, starting with the same something—it just depends on what we want to do with it.

I would like to see that clarity. Doing that, Chair, I think would allow this committee to establish the exact role of that integrated working group. To me, their reporting, if you will, or their advice goes to BOIE, yet I think we should still maintain that the group come in to meet with PROC, I guess as a separate entity. We could even define it as a subcommittee of this committee to make sure that it still stays here.

The fact is the parties get to pick who they're sending. Again we're now back into the executive structure of how this place runs, potentially leaving ordinary members once out, meaning they get to pick who those people are. They may or may not be the ones the rest of us would see as the best representatives of our interests. I'd still like to see some kind of line item—not so much on accountability but on input and dialogue—between that integrated working group and this group.

To put all of that in a nutshell, I'd like to see, as well as can be determined—the fact that it's not clear is one reason I want to see it—the flowchart of decision-making. In that I would ask you to include where you see the working group or where BOIE sees the working group. Then, Chair, we'll have an opportunity to delve into the details of that.

I was surprised. I'll tell you I was a bit surprised that BOIE said, “We have decided.” I'm okay, because I think it's a good move, but I was hoping we were establishing the kind of working relationship in which it would say, “This is where we're thinking of going. Does this satisfy your needs?”

To me, there still needs to be a clarification of the relationship between BOIE and final decision-making, the integrated working group, and PROC, and how they actually fit into an actual process.