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.