Thank you, Chair.
I wish to go to the governance question as well, but before I do, let me first say that I really am pleased and confident as a member of Parliament that Public Works appears to have a real sound handle on the work you're doing right now. You seem to follow that old saying: you plan your work and you work your plan. You do it very well. Honestly, I think every member who has both visited and had the opportunity to see what you do should feel very confident that Canadian taxpayers' dollars are being spent wisely, based on the responsibilities you have now.
I still have some serious concerns, however, about the ultimate authority. I'll get to that in a second.
In our tour, I just had one thought. It was a bit of a fascinating topic to me. We were having a discussion with regard to protecting the heritage and the history versus the actual structural capacity and the soundness of new building. The statement was made that basically Centre Block is not a true heritage building. Of course with the destruction a lot of it is new construction. It's built structurally sound, with the facade of a heritage context. So we basically appear to have, and certainly do have, the feeling and reality of what we are here.
I asked what the savings would be if we did the same thing to West Block, knowing full well that it's a structural governance building. It's not a facade building. It's a sound building. If we were to reconstruct with new technology and then put the heritage facade per se back on it, we would potentially cure both things. We'd save ourselves significant money, perhaps. You suggested maybe even $300 million. Of course, with the construction, the efficiencies, and the effectiveness, we would still potentially not lose our heritage factor.
Is it a viable option? Is it something we should consider?
This takes me right back to our first decision of governance and ultimate authority. Can you imagine the discussion on that? We have, of course, the House of Commons, the Senate, the library, and the capital commission. We have Heritage Canada. We have anybody else who wishes to get in on the argument too. Somebody has to make an ultimate decision here. There has to be an ultimate authority. We seem to lack that. In Madam Fraser's statement, the governance arrangements are hindering....
Well, we all would love to see a clear definition. I don't want to use the comparison of the private sector, but the private sector might have a project that is worth billions. Somebody is going to make a decision. That person or group or board will be accountable. Here, who makes the ultimate decision? Should it be, potentially, Parliament, as Mr. Christopherson stated? I would hate to see that decision politicized, because this is something for the long haul. I would fear that. Obviously, we are parliamentarians who are responsible to the public at that time. So there are a lot of discussions here.
Madam Fraser, I still want to go back to you. Do you still not feel that somehow, some way we need to move to a single authority so that we can get on with having a sense of real responsibility?