Public Accounts Committee on June 15th, 2010

[François Guimont]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your question.

As far as West Block goes, we are where we are, in the sense that the most important thing is being able to empty West Block and by the end of August relocate everything to La Promenade Building. As I say this, as we speak now, we have authority to go to Treasury Board, as you noted. We plan to do that in September to get proper funding to carry through what I would call the second phase of the West Block, which essentially means structurally putting the West Block in place, emptying it, and doing asbestos abatement. We have to empty everything and also do the so-called infill for the Chamber, as we noted to you. So yes, we have the authority to go to Treasury Board.

There will be a challenge. That's quite normal. And frankly, that is true for not only projects in the precinct. For any project for which we go to the board to seek what we call preliminary project approval, there's a challenge function, which I welcome, frankly. Our estimates should be sound and solid. We go through the challenge function. We get the money. We proceed. In the past, the moneys we obtained were sufficient to carry through with the projects.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

But your answer to my question was that you have the authority to go to Treasury Board. You do not have the spending authority to either start this project or finish the project.

[François Guimont]

When we receive approval from Treasury Board, we will at that time have the money to proceed with that phase of the West Block.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

But you're not at Treasury Board. You don't know right now whether you're going to receive that approval.

[François Guimont]

No. I understand the point, Mr. Chairman. We do what we need to do in Treasury Board submissions. Until Treasury Board ministers approve, I don't have an approval. But we have a program of work to carry through for the West Block plus other repairs in that second phase we're now moving into.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

This is no reflection on you, Mr. Deputy, but you can see my point. You are emptying the West Block, and as of today's date you do not have any spending authority to start the next stage of this process. Whether or not you will receive that spending authority or receive it in a decreased amount depends entirely on another body, another institution here in Ottawa, which you really have no control over, right?

[François Guimont]

I don't control Treasury Board, indeed. But Mr. Wright is also noting here, and I'll let him speak, that we have authority to proceed with demolition and asbestos.

I'll let Mr. Wright say a few words on this.

[Robert Wright]

As the deputy correctly pointed out, we are going to Treasury Board in the fall to get a large authority for the West Block. But we do already have authority from Treasury Board to proceed with 40% of the demolition and abatement work. We do not have to wait for Treasury Board authority to be able to initiate the project. That's a significant amount of work, so there will be no delays, no impact from going to Treasury Board moving forward. This is the traditional way we do move forward with projects.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay.

We'll now start the second round.

Mr. Lee, you have five minutes.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

I want to get back to this framework issue, away from the bricks and mortar again.

I just want to ask, which minister is leading this? It may not be Public Works. Who's going to lead this? Is the Board of Internal Economy involved? Is the procedure and House affairs committee involved? Has there been a person designated to actually be in charge of developing and creating the new governance framework? Is there some person, some minister? It should be a minister, perhaps, or maybe Mr. Christopherson. I don't know.

Can you tell me the state of that art, the organization chart on that governance structure renovation?

[François Guimont]

Yes. The answer is threefold. My minister is responsible for carrying out the analysis and developing various options. I am therefore the accounting officer supporting the minister. That line is direct. The senior assistant deputy minister given the responsibility on Friday, Madame Aloisi, will be the point person, the senior officer, working with central agencies.

I single out the department for what Madam Fraser said. From a distance, it looks simple; when we get into the details, it's going to get a bit complicated. It's the nature of the beast. That's the line of accountability. These are the players.

To your question, as we finalize, as we prepare this analysis and look at the various pros and cons and all the elements, we will then turn to our parliamentary partners we have dealt with in the past. But that's going to be subject to you. We've been dealing with the clerks as well as the librarian. They would be the points of entry. But then it is for the clerks to deal with BOIE, COIE, etc. That would be the way we would normally look at this.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Okay, I think that's a good answer. There's a particular person who is in charge and delegated this responsibility.

[François Guimont]

Yes, senior.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

He or she will move the ball along in accordance with the plan.

[François Guimont]

Yes.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

That's great.

Do you have within Public Works an identifiable branch or envelope that actually manages the Parliament Hill precinct?

[François Guimont]

Yes, we do.

When I joined the department in 2007, the parliamentary precinct used to be under the responsibility of our real property branch, under an ADM. I recognized the importance of having a senior person, full-time, in charge of the precinct. At that time, I deployed Madame Aloisi as the ADM, the assistant deputy minister responsible for the precinct. I severed the precinct from the real property branch. They have their autonomy, focus, and direct access to me. That's the framework.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Well, it's nice to know we're not just another piece of real estate. That's good.

At some point, if there were a chance in the organization chart, you would move that branch—it may not be a branch, but an envelope of the public service—over to a new governance structure. It's something you could just move out or move sideways, is it?

[François Guimont]

These things could be looked at in the context of the analysis.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Okay.

Looking at the chart of the Hill renovations, it looks like we're going to have a temporary chamber for the House of Commons in the West Block. It also looks like we're going to have a temporary chamber built for the Senate in the East Block. There are going to be two temporary chambers constructed. Is that correct?

[François Guimont]

Yes, that's the plan.

Ultimately, when the Centre Block renovations will be carried out these chambers that are temporary in nature would be reverting back to committee rooms.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

In terms of taxpayers' dollars, the fact that the Senate and the House don't want to share a temporary chamber is not going to be that wasteful--is that a good way to put it?

I would have thought that if you have to move the House and Senate out and you build a temporary chamber for them, they could have in sequence shared the same chamber. When you're doing the House of Commons, the MPs move out and then they move back into their chamber. Then the senators would move into that same temporary chamber while the Senate chamber is being renovated. That's not what's going to happen, I gather. Are you saying that's not wasteful?

[François Guimont]

I'll ask Mr. Wright to answer this. There may be an issue about sequencing that creates the need for the two chambers.

[Robert Wright]

Thank you. It is a good question.

I would underline two key points. One is part of the long-term vision and plan. There is a need for additional committee rooms, so that's in the plan. These will be converted into permanent committee rooms on the Hill, where there is limited space. In that sense, it is a use of prime real estate.

The other issue is this we've studied several times whether the Centre Block could be done in two phases. The analysis back from experts each and every time has been to do it in one shot, as the deputy termed it earlier for the West Block. That is, to relocate both the House functions and the Senate functions out of the Centre Block at the same time so that we will have full access to the Centre Block to do the rehabilitation.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.