Public Accounts Committee on June 15th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Dreeshen, for five minutes.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I certainly appreciate this opportunity, and again I echo what everyone else has mentioned. We learned so much when we went on our tour, and certainly if governance is something that needs to be addressed, after what we saw, and your comments on shared accountability, I think Public Works truly has shown how departments can work to seamlessly make some of these major projects work efficiently, and I'd certainly like to commend you for that.

I'm just curious if you have any insights into some of the potential governance models that would benefit the goal of rehabilitation of the parliamentary precinct. Do you have any suggestions that you might be able to present?

[François Guimont]

I don't at this point, frankly. I have elements, and I made references to them earlier on, about accountability; ownership; transparency; how decisions will be arrived at; whether this will be reviewed, for instance, by the OAG; who will define results. There are a number of parameters that would compose what good governance would be. At the macro level, I would say that in my mind, governance implies clear decision-making functions, establishment of resources and results to be achieved, tracking those results, and reporting transparently to the public. But above and beyond that, there are plenty of models. They are all in my head, swirling, if you wish. Some have a person responsible, like on Capitol Hill, the architect. It used to be the Sergeant-at-Arms, in the case of the U.K.

So the basic elements are someone in charge, some unit that has the capacity to deliver, and some decision-making function that agrees on what the priorities are. I fundamentally believe, and Madam Fraser said so, that it starts with what the priorities are and why. When you agree to that collectively, things--in my mind--fall into place.

That's what you've seen with our execution. I'm very pleased to say we're very satisfied with what we've done. It has been recognized by the OAG. But at the end of the day, when people agree on what the priority is—number one, number two, number three, they agree on the game plan—things normally fall into place correctly. That's what we've seen when we're given the ball. And it could be anyone else, frankly—I believe that—who is capable and has the wherewithal. They will deliver because the priorities are clear and not shifting.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I was going to talk to you as well about the elements you spoke of. You spoke of leadership, transparency, oversight, delivery, implementation, and a few others that I didn't get jotted down in time, but I suppose that would be something you would be able to present to whoever it is who tries to put something together in governance and to have some input into that decision-making as well.

[François Guimont]

We haven't done a lot of thinking at this point. The senior ADM was appointed Friday. But in my mind, the first steps in any good analysis would look at the models, would dissect the models, would draw out what I would call common trends, elements that seem to be compatible from one model to another. It would look at the pros and cons, and Madam Fraser is right—and it's not easy to do that—it would then transfer this to a Canadian context. What are the adjustments? What are the legal impediments? What are the legal requirements?

Colleagues, I say that again, it looks like “why does it take so much time?” To get it right, to do it correctly, the analysis is a substantial piece of work. Then things will emerge out of the analysis that will be a bit more obvious to many, but it starts with a good analysis where you dissect the systems that are in place, pros and cons, how does it work, what are the pressure points—and adjustments vis à vis our Canadian reality, because we are different in some ways from other Westminster models, even if we have at the core the very same elements.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Wright, you spoke of some of the universities and research and pilot projects that you have done with them. A while back I was at the University of Manitoba, and they had gone through and were showing us some of the types of things that might be used, such as composite rods versus rebars. I am just wondering what the universities are gaining out of this type of project, and perhaps what you are gaining out of the work being done in different universities.

[Robert Wright]

Thank you.

This is one of those real win-win scenarios, I truly believe. We're gaining a lot. We're getting a peer-reviewed assessment done by the university. We've partnered in a very strategic manner, I believe, with three universities--specifically, the University of Calgary, University of Alberta, and the University of Manitoba, which you mentioned. Together we are looking at what are the best manners to rehabilitate these buildings, focusing first on the West Block, and to make sure that we have an evidence base to the approaches we take.

So it is informing our contract documents and the work that we put out to tender to general contractors and it's driving the advice we're receiving from our prime consultants. For the universities, there have been over a dozen peer-reviewed scholarly articles that have been published in international journals. There is also a capacity and interest in the university base that is being developed from an academic perspective that was quite lacking. So it really has been a great story, I would say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dreeshen.

I just have a question. There are a few minutes left over, and there are a couple of members who may want to ask a short question too.

I'm going to refer you, Mr. Guimont, to paragraph 3.52 of the audit. In that paragraph, the auditor makes reference to a 2009 report that was completed. I'll just quote it:

In its report, A New Approach to Governance of the Parliamentary Precinct, the task force concluded that there are “key flaws” in the current governance, including a narrow mandate split across a number of organizations; fragmented and complex decision-making processes; and a lack of stable and committed funding devoted to development and upkeep of the buildings. The report recommended the implementation of a new governance model.

I have three points, and I'll just throw all of them at you. First of all, does that specific report make reference to an actual model, or does it just say that a new model is needed? Secondly, can you provide the committee with a copy of that report? Thirdly, is there any specific reason that nothing was done back in 2005? Basically, that report mirrors a lot of what the Auditor General is saying here today.

[François Guimont]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To your three questions, I have three answers.

The report will be made available to you. I made that commitment before.

The second point I would make about the report, having gone through it, is that it's a mixture of what Madam Fraser has done, what I would call an analysis of what the issues are. So it was not a straight “this is what the model should be”. It goes through an analysis of the issues that we and the parliamentarians are facing from a governance perspective. That's one point.

My next point is that goes through a number of principles. Frankly, some of them I have used, principles that should be considered in looking at governance models.

Thirdly, it does propose governance options.

There is also the custodianship model.

There are various structures that involve BOIE and COIE, etc. The only point I would make on this, and it's more an observation than a criticism, is that the analysis portion of the report--i.e., the actual models--is somewhat brief. This is where it needs further analysis, to me as a person who likes to dig and understand the ramifications of certain things. But the substance of this report will not be excluded from the analysis that we will do over summer—far from that.

That's what the report is about. It was not singularly about the models, but really was a dissertation on the issues and principles, and it offered a couple of models.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We have two minutes left over.

Mr. Kramp, you have a question. You have a couple of minutes.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Okay.

Just going back to the governance, I still have the concern that we have too many cooks in the kitchen. It's really difficult. If you only have a body or a few bodies trying to make a decision, you can come to a decision. Time is money. When you have multiple bodies all bearing the responsibility, it's really difficult to have a clear sense of direction, and I think that really puts people in Public Works in a difficult position.

You do extremely well, given the parameters you have right now, but I think we have to close this loop. We cannot allow this to continue; somehow, some way, we have to close the loop, step by step. I think you've made a great first step: you've assigned a senior assistant deputy minister, and she's going to report sometime this fall or this winter. I would suggest let's tighten the timeframe on that; let's have a definite date when she's going to report. I certainly want this committee to see the results of that report. I would certainly hope that in the meantime I think this committee should talk up this subject well around the precinct of Parliament. We need to have a clear sense of direction. I think we could be of great assistance to you if you had a clear sense of direction.

I thank you for your move forward on this. I think it's a step forward. I think the consultations you're doing on this certainly demonstrate that you not only have heeded the words of the Auditor General, but in many cases you've started to work pre-emptively on this matter, so we thank you.

Just on one quick little sidebar, on the steps where the crack was, you put in a supplementary report in which you've stated that you're going to go ahead and repair that and then go back to the contractor for redress afterwards. Have you contacted the contractor first and said we have a problem that needs to be fixed? Have they refused to, or do we have a delay that you were forced into doing this yourself and seeking redress after? Just a quick response, please.

[Robert Wright]

We have contacted both the prime consultant and the general contractor. As I indicated, that was on the basis of an independent assessment of the issue. I would say at this point there is a disagreement between Public Works and those bodies. We do not want to wait; we want to avoid any health and safety issues. We'll repair it and then in parallel seek redress.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you very kindly.

In closing, I would just state for the record the statement of our deputy minister, Mr. Guimont. I think it really says the substance of what this committee's responsibility is right now. You said: “In closing, I feel we are at a crossroads for setting a long-term path for the rehabilitation of the parliamentary precinct.” I couldn't agree with you more. But at the crossroads we need a sense of direction. Right now we're doing a shotgun approach to it, yet we have to have a rifle shot with a clear sense of direction. Certainly it would help you, I think it would help the Canadian taxpayer, and it will save time, effort, and money to get rid of some of the confusion going forward. I think we have to bear responsibility for that. Too many of our parliamentarians have sat on this and not acted, and I think we have a responsibility to do so. We thank you for your good work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kramp.

Madame Faille, two minutes.

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

Thank you.

I would like to come back to the technical questions I asked earlier about the tendering process. I assume that a fairness monitor will be hired to ensure the impartiality of the tendering process.

[François Guimont]

Which tendering process would the member be referring to, Mr. Chair?

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

Earlier, I asked you when you planned to call for bids for the West Block renovations.

[François Guimont]

Okay.

[Robert Wright]

As I indicated earlier, we plan to start work this fall, so that would mean an initial call for tenders this summer.

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

Will you be engaging the services of a fairness monitor? We are, after all, talking about large sums of money.

[Robert Wright]

When we go for the major call, yes, there will. That is our recommendation, to have a fairness monitor.

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

Will you be calling for a public consultation process? Will you be holding an interest call?

[Robert Wright]

For the major proposal, yes, it will be a full, in-depth process.

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

And when would that be?

[Robert Wright]

I don't have a date at this point.