Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 7th, 2019

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

If I may, Mr. Caron, Mr. Christopherson is very passionate about this committee having input into the Centre Block renovations.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I understand, but I have one question for Mr. Reid about this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

When I was at the public accounts committee, I remember studying the rehabilitation of some of the buildings. Is there such a project with the public accounts committee or with the AG?

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

The Board of Internal Economy does. I haven't heard of public accounts being involved at all, but that doesn't mean they aren't. It may just be that I'm ill-informed. Definitely, the Board of Internal Economy is involved.

The trouble, in a nutshell, is that the Board of Internal Economy can't report back to the House. Ultimately, it's the House itself that would want to assert—I hesitate to use the word “control”, because we're talking about a building that's shared with the Senate—the kind of oversight that lets us say definitively that we want this feature to be present, or we are profoundly unhappy with the timeline that's been proposed, or that cost structure needs to get signed off by somebody. It has to be the House of Commons as a whole.

The trouble is that the board can't report to the House. We can report to the House. It could be any committee, but it needs to be a committee of Parliament—an actual committee, as opposed to the board—doing the detail work of hearing the witnesses, keeping track of the changes from one year to the next through multiple Parliaments, because the Centre Block won't be finished until multiple Parliaments have gone through, and potentially multiple changes of ministers and even possibly governments.

All we can do is report to the House. Then the report can be debated and potentially enacted, and it becomes a House order to the people who are actually doing this work on our behalf. That's the logic of it.

Does that answer your question?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

It does.

I just wanted to see if what was taking place through public accounts or through the AG office was a punctual thing or a recurrent thing, but it seems to be punctual.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

David Christopherson is on public accounts. If they were doing anything on those topics, we would have heard loud and clear.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

He would have reported it.

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

May I respond to Mr. Bittle?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes.

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

First of all, I want to ask if it would be appropriate, in your opinion, for me to move the motion.

If it would be, why don't I do that? Then I'll speak very briefly to the question of how many meetings and that kind of thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Does everyone have this?

[A voice]

Yes.

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

Let me move the motion.

In speaking to it, I would just say that I don't have strong opinions on how many meetings we ought to have. Because the report date is the very last day we're sitting, I suggest that we don't have to tie ourselves in. We can fill in empty spots that arise with the other matters we're discussing here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Reid, for people listening on the radio, could you read at least the first paragraph of your motion, so they know what we're discussing?

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

Forgive me. I listen to this, too. Yes, I will read the motion:

That the Committee undertake a study of Standing Order 108(3)(a) to consider amending the Committee’s mandate to include the review, study, and report to the House on all matters pertaining to the Centre Block Rehabilitation Project and the Long Term Vision and Plan (LTVP) for the Parliamentary Precinct, notwithstanding other review or oversight authorities, by adding the following new subsections to Standing Order 108(3)(a):

Then it goes to (x) because there's an enumerated list. This is the end of a very long list in that particular standing order:

(x) the review of and report on all matters relating to the Centre Block Rehabilitation Project and the Long Term Vision and Plan (LTVP) for the Parliamentary Precinct, notwithstanding other review or oversight authorities that exist or that may be established;

I'll do the rest in French.

(xi) the review of an annual report on the Centre Block Rehabilitation Project and the Long Term Vision and Plan (LTVP) for the Parliamentary Precinct, including current and projected timelines, the current state of incurred and projected expenditures, and any changes therein since the last report on these matters, provided that the committee may report on these matters at any time, and that the committee annually includes a recommendation respecting the continued retention of Standing Orders 108(3)(a)(x) and 108(3)(a)(xi).”;

and, that it report its recommendations to the House no later than its last meeting in June 2019.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Good.

Maybe the minute-taker could use the motion we handed out, because it has the letters behind that you didn't read out.

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

Yes, that's right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Due to timing and everything, I would suggest that we try to do it in May, because you never know what's going to come before this committee. There could be points of privilege or something.

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

That's true.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We wouldn't want it to fall between the cracks.

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

I agree with that. I do want to say one other thing here, that we submit the recommendations to the House, essentially for the change to the standing order, and then we simply see. If the House is willing to support it by unanimous consent, we could go forward, or if not, we could just let the matter die in the House, but we would report back in time to give the House that choice.

I only think it makes sense to pursue something such as this if it has widespread support.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

What if it did die in the House for maybe one vote or something? Is there an option to recommend it to the PROC of the next Parliament? The PROC of the next Parliament can either agree or disagree with our recommendation, but at least it would be on their agenda.