Public Accounts Committee on June 15th, 2010

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

But it's still something that you might consider.

[Robert Wright]

Yes.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Paragraph 3.10 on page 9 refers to a report entitled “A New Approach to Governance of the Parliamentary Precinct” that was produced five years ago, in 2005.

A task force found that there were some major shortcomings at the time in the area of governance. I'm wondering if it would be possible to see that report.

I'd like to know how much money Public Works and Government Services Canada spent on this task force in order to get an idea of the extent of these shortcomings. Also, why were the task force's recommendations not implemented?

[François Guimont]

Mr. Chair, we will arrange to get a copy of the report to the committee. As far as costs are concerned, perhaps my colleague here has some idea of what it cost to draw up this report.

[Robert Wright]

In fact, the document was essentially done internally with the Senate, the House of Commons, the Library of Parliament, and Public Works participation. It was really a task force of the administration of these bodies, so other than the printing costs, there were no specific costs attached to the production of that report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Madame Faille.

Go ahead, Mr. Christopherson, for seven minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you all for your attendance today.

First, I cast my voice with those who want to acknowledge and appreciate the tour. That was really very helpful. Aside from being fun—it was kind of neat to get in there and look around—it really was very impressive. I want to say that I can see why the Auditor General, when she talks about this overall, the actual work being done, when it's hands-on, it's really quality work. I think we were all impressed. It looked like an archeological dig, with every single stone and rock marked. We were talking to some of the artisans there, and they're really into it and understand that this is like being allowed to restore art, which basically it is.

However, what we're dealing with is the governance issue. We don't need to go too far in the report or even beyond today's remarks to realize that for a long time, this has been the issue. The governance framework in place is inadequate to guide the overall rehabilitation of the Parliament Buildings, says the Auditor General's report. Acknowledging another task force that was done internally in 2005, there are key flaws in the current structure.

Three examples from Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, all of them lead back to the legislative branch, which is what we would call Parliament, being ultimately responsible.

Another one, page 11: “We found that the governance framework in place is inadequate to guide the rehabilitation of the Parliament buildings”.

Lastly, just today—I could go on, there's more in there—this is the strongest yet: in the second-last paragraph of the AG's presentation this morning, “In conclusion, Mr. Chair, the longstanding governance problem, which we and others have raised over many years, has to be resolved.”

There's not much more language left that the Auditor General can use and still remain within the confines of parliamentary language to say this needs to be done.

Then what do I get? I see the deputy minister come in and offer me a report with three steps that he's taken. They're all very well and fine. My problem is that it just continues the problem because his department stays responsible for deciding what the governance is going to be.

It seems to me, Chair, that right from the get-go, the parliamentarians ought to be responsible for this. That's what's being recommended. Ultimately, we take ownership. If it doesn't go right, we take the heat. Ultimately, there's a clear path for decision-making and representation. All the arguments are made there.

My problem, Deputy, is that what you have recommended keeps us in the same problem, in that it's being led by the executive side, and it's the legislative side that should be in control.

I'm at a loss. I don't expect you to be able to respond in a way that's going to satisfy me, Deputy. You've done what you needed to do. But I say to my colleagues, I really believe we've got to grab control of this. I think the deputy has made some great recommendations, but I think they ought to be led by parliamentarians right from the get-go. If we're going to look at what is going to be the governance structure, then shouldn't the review of the options and the ultimate recommendation of what is going to be put in place be done by the very people who are going to be assuming that responsibility?

Again, this is not a governance issue. On this one, we are united. This is about us as parliamentarians and our responsibility to represent our constituents in taking care of these buildings. We've got enough evidence that we need to change the way it's being done, including the recommendations in front of us today from the deputy, and we've got to seize control of this thing and make it work. If it doesn't work, then we're accountable. That's how the system works.

But right now, there's no accountability. You've got different players playing different roles. At the end of the day, those same partners don't have equal say in the funding presentations that are made to government. It all happens as if it were a regular government funding program, and it's not.

Auditor General, your thoughts? I usually ask questions with some idea of where you're going ahead of time. You may disagree. You may feel it's fine with the deputy, but I see it as more of the same.

[Sheila Fraser]

Actually, I am quite pleased with the progress that is being made. I think the reality is that government, or the minister and government, will have to do the preparatory work and do the analysis of options, and quite frankly, this is something that has not happened before. So the fact that the deputy is actually coming here to say that he is going to do these options and present them in the fall I think is a big step forward.

I also think we have to be careful not to underestimate the complexity of the structure that will be put in place. There are several...there is the House, there is the Senate, there is government. It will not be easy to do this, so I think there needs to be a good analysis done of structures that exist elsewhere, to try to propose a model that could work here in the Canadian context. But obviously parliamentarians have to be involved in this. The deputy can speak for himself, but I think what he is proposing is the first step, to do some of that legwork, to do some of the analysis, and then bring an option that then can be studied by parliamentarians. Quite frankly, if Parliament were to take it on, my question is who would do it? Are you going to give it to the two clerks?

So let somebody do the legwork on it, and I think there's a technical-legal issue too that currently Public Works is the custodian. So there will have to be changes to whatever—I don't know if it's laws—to transfer custodianship to Parliament.

So I say I think progress is being made.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, I hear you, but I've got to tell you, it's not often I disagree with you, but I'm not convinced, to tell you the truth. I think the same work can be done and it can go back to a group of parliamentarians. The difficulty with the current process is who we hold accountable if we're not satisfied with this process or any part of it. It's the minister, at the end of the day, and that's the very problem.

So to me the solution is still keeping us within the problem, and I don't know how we break out. You know, human nature.... I've been in government. There are vested interests that are protecting territory, just by human nature, but we're out of the loop. A lot of times, you know, he who pays the piper calls the tune, much like when you're doing consultancy and things like that.

I hear you, and I suspect the government will be relieved that you're on that side of it, because it feels more comfortable going with a recommendation like this, and if it has your blessing, that gives it a lot more comfort. My concern, however, is that it still remains in the hands of the government, by virtue of its being in the hands of the deputy, and we don't have any direction over deputies.

So if there's a guarantee, Chair, or if the deputy can in some way build it in that parliamentarians from all caucuses can play a role right from the get-go, that would probably raise my comfort level. It's just that solving the governance problem by using the current governance structure to come up with the recommendations to change the structure seems to me to be less than efficient. But we'll see.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Go ahead.

[Sheila Fraser]

Well, what I heard from the deputy—and we should probably let the deputy explain—is that they will be doing the analysis of options, but obviously Public Works cannot make the decision alone, and parliamentarians from both houses will have to be involved in this, clearly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Christopherson

Mr. Guimont, go ahead, please.

[François Guimont]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I won't be too long on this.

Essentially, what we intend to do is provide ourselves—people collectively—with quality analysis. I've looked at the model elsewhere in the world, and it's complicated. I'll tell you, professionally speaking, I would rather walk correctly than run on this, and get it right. We are going to look at this. We are going to do it correctly. Options and analysis will be put forward, so you can see the suite of possibilities that exist, and people will be involved. It's not going to be done in a vacuum. You will see the possibilities in the fall, after we do this over the summer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

We're now going to move to Mr. Saxton. Mr. Saxton, you have seven minutes.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to our witnesses for being here today.

I'd also like to thank Mr. Guimont and Mr. Wright for taking us on a very insightful tour of the parliamentary precinct last week. I think we all learned a lot about the extent, the enormous extent, of the repairs and renovations that have to take place. I think it was most remarkable to see the West Block especially, and the work that's being done right there. My colleague Mr. Christopherson talked about the artisans. It truly is a work of art that's taking place.

My first question is for the Auditor General, and it's also regarding the governance issue. You've done an audit. You've looked at the governance structure. There are other examples in other countries that have been mentioned—the United States, the United Kingdom. I'm wondering if you could share with us a model that you've seen that perhaps would be the best model we would look at for a governance structure.

[Sheila Fraser]

Thank you.

We felt we had gone pretty far in actually recommending that custodianship be devolved back to Parliament. I would really hesitate to recommend any particular model. I think this will be a complex issue to determine and it will have to be tailored to the Canadian experience. But clearly, there will have to be some body, entity, or organization established that can bring together the House of Commons and the Senate as a minimum to determine the priorities going forward and to look after the plans and do the funding requests, and all of that.

As to how it will actually be structured, I think it is very important to give due consideration to that and then to make the best choice for our circumstances here.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you very much.

My next question is for the Deputy Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

It has been mentioned that the project so far, in this phase, is on budget and on schedule and that there have been substantial time savings and cost savings. I just want to remark that the West Block, I think, is four years ahead of the original schedule, which is quite remarkable.

Can you share with us and explain to the committee how you were able to achieve those cost and time savings so far?

[François Guimont]

Thank you for the question.

I'll give one example and then refer specifically to the West Block.

It's interesting that when we do long-term planning on the precinct, there are two elements that come to mind to me as the accounting officer and as I deal with my colleagues from the precinct. Sometimes there are surprises, and sometimes surprises can create delays or cost increments. You've seen the deterioration of the West Block.

When you start to do work, if something is unstable you have to deal with it. That may create a bit of a time lapse and cost increments. We have provisions for that: we have contingency provisions set aside. That's the first point. As I said, there will be surprises and we have to be ready for them.

With the Library of Parliament, that is exactly what happened. Yet, on the other hand, sometimes an opportunity arises that can allow us to go faster. That's what happened with what we refer as “1 Wellington”, the former photography museum next to the Château Laurier. It became available. This was not planned; it just became available. The NCC asked if we were interested. We looked at it and spoke to our parliamentary partners and we said that we could do committee rooms in there. We got the money to do that from the fiscal year. It was not planned. That move saved two years, in the sense that instead of doing a two-step process in the rehabilitation of the West Block, we can now empty it totally. We don't have to keep committee rooms operating in the West Block.

So the West Block will be empty as of this fall, and we're going to be able to work at it in one shot. It's structurally easier engineering-wise and in terms of health and safety, and cost as well. Time is money. That is an instance of having surprises sometimes. On the other hand, we have opportunities. When they present themselves, we have to be nimble enough, with the cooperation of our colleagues, to jump and take a step, as we did.

The other example I will give, Mr. Chairman, is the relocation of the kitchen. As you know, the West Block had a kitchen for providing food for parliamentary buildings. We have, essentially through tender, developed an off-site kitchen. It's not too far away, but it's not as close as it used to be in the West Block.

If I remember, Mr. Wright, the realization from the project was something like 20% below budget simply from good management. Anyway, you will correct me if need be. We had good estimates. The work was done correctly and the kitchen is fully and seamlessly operational for members of Parliament.

Could you add to this, please?

[Robert Wright]

In addition to being approximately 20% under budget, as the deputy mentioned, it was also approximately six months ahead of schedule. Within a two-year project schedule, that's a significant time saving.

We are always looking for opportunities, Mr. Chair, to accelerate the projects. As we discussed in the tour last week, I think there are a number of examples that can be underlined, and the deputy has certainly emphasized a couple of key ones.

[François Guimont]

If I may add briefly, Mr. Chairman, in the case of the kitchen, it is interesting to note that when we build a new facility, it's easier to have fewer surprises. It is a new facility with new equipment. So the project management characteristics are a bit easier to handle, if you wish. When we do renovations, I will say again that you can have surprises despite the best plans. When we do our planning, the engineering firms that are working with us do intrusive testing to make sure that their estimates are as good as they can be. Despite that, there will be further surprises.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

My next question is also for the deputy minister. It's regarding the costing methodology the department has in place. Can you explain a little bit more about that methodology and how it's helped you to save money so far?

[François Guimont]

I'll let Mr. Wright answer this.

[Robert Wright]

Mr. Chair, it's a very good question. I think we've developed a very robust costing methodology over the past few years. Essentially, in costing as well as scheduling we try to triangulate everything, which means we have our own in-house experts. We also rely on other sections of Public Works, the centre of expertise, to provide us with expert advice, and then we bring on specific cost specialists or scheduling specialists. Then we also work with our prime consultants. We ensure that we have a number of points, and if they are all lining up, we feel very comfortable with the costs or the schedule. It keeps everybody sharp. It's a challenge function to ourselves. We replicate both our costing and our scheduling every month. So every single month we produce a new schedule and new cost estimates for all of our projects.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Saxton.

I just have a point arising from that, if I can bring it up now to you, Mr. Guimont. It has been indicated that this is a massive rehabilitation project that's under way now. You do have a lot of momentum, and it's obvious that once your department starts, it certainly does have the wherewithal and the capacity to do a good job. But my concern is the appropriations process. West Block will be emptied as of the first of September, I believe, and you're going to start a massive rehabilitation project on that building. Do you presently have the authorities and the appropriations to start the project, and if so, do you have enough appropriations to finish the project? As you know and as everyone in this room knows, you're at the whims of higher-ups, the Treasury Board, and you could have a memo that you're being subject to a 10% or 20% cutback and you have to look for savings.

This is a major project. You're in the process of emptying West Block, which in and of itself is a major project. Do you have the appropriations to start and to finish this major project?