Public Accounts Committee on June 15th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Kramp, five minutes.

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

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?

[Sheila Fraser]

Thank you.

We've clearly stated that the governance issue is problematic. We've seen examples of and pointed to delays in the project because people can't agree on priorities. It would be nice to have a single authority, but there will always be other people who have either influence or control over this.

When we talk about heritage buildings, there will always be the heritage assessors, or whatever, who will do that. There's the funding, which has to come from government, so Treasury Board will always have a role. But creating a body--however that will be structured, and the custodianship goes back to Parliament--will eliminate some of the difficulties in the current model.

So it would help to have this body, however it is structured, that would be more accountable for the decisions that are made, and would negotiate directly with Treasury Board for the funding. That would eliminate some of the disagreements that have occurred over the years.

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

Thank you very much. I certainly hope this committee will seriously consider a governance model and make a recommendation in our report going forward.

Mr. Wright, on the hypothetical scenario I threw out on the façade versus the structural thing and potential savings, is it potentially worth discussing? Is it something that either a committee or a particular segment of government could suggest? Obviously we can't contravene the acts of Parliament on preservation of heritage, etc., but is there a little bit of grass we can cut on this issue? What are your thoughts?

[Robert Wright]

I would first emphasize that the West Block, the East Block, and the Library of Parliament are structural load-bearing buildings and very well built. In restoring them, we've assessed and analyzed very deeply how they were built. We have a deeper recognition of how well they were constructed the first time. So I'm not so sure there would be any benefit to structural integrity by moving to a steel-frame building, like the 20th-century Centre Block, which is also a classified heritage building. I think it could get very murky whether there would be any cost savings or not.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Kramp.

You have five minutes, Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

Good morning, Ms. Fraser, Mr. Guimont.

I want to thank Ms. Fraser for addressing the problem of the management of the renovation work. You mentioned that the renovations being undertaken are unique and complex.

In a previous life, I was a project manager. I handled some complex projects, including the complete renovation of a court building that housed a detention facility, courtrooms and a registry office, without any interruption to day-to-day operations. Like the House of Commons, a court house cannot shut down. If the department plans the work and estimates the timeline properly, then it is possible to carry out some complex renovations and to come in on budget and on schedule.

As you pointed out, I think the problem has to do with governance. I'm not questioning the competence of PWGSC officials. I'm sure they have all the qualified engineers and personnel to get the job done, but no doubt they are caught up in government red tape. You mentioned that asbestos abatement in the West Block cannot be completed with the current appropriations. So then, another request for appropriations must be made to Treasury Board and in my opinion, that's an issue in terms of project management.

Attempts were made to reassure us earlier by saying that the budget needed to complete the work would likely be approved. However, until that happens, doubts persist and no work is done. Given the tender process, if the work is interrupted for even the briefest period of time, unless these are planned stoppages, costs automatically pile up.

I see that PWGSC wants to make an effort to resolve this governance issue. Yet, when I hear the department say that it wants to examine the governance framework in place in other provinces and countries, it brings to mind our committee. When committees are struck to look into a problem, often it takes a while for them to report back. I'm surprised that we have not progressed beyond this point.

Federal departments are generally perceived to be well structured and well organized. However, studies are still suggested to bring about some improvements. We need to move faster than that. If a department lacks the required skill, then it needs to be found quickly. I believe that is the mandate that has been assigned to you.

When I worked as a project manager, I was accustomed to seeing the full work order, along with the cost estimate. Obviously, projects are carried out with partners, with other departments and with Parliament, for instance, but someone is in charge. Someone is responsible for seeing that the project is completed on time. My question is for Mr. Guimont. Can you outline the project parameters for me? Is there an overall work completion schedule?

I've been an MP for six years and there has been talk about shutting down the West Block for the past three or four years. The building has never in fact been closed, but this year, it looks like there is some truth to that rumour. You mentioned in your opening remarks that you were four years ahead of schedule. That's quite a feat, but I'm not sure it's a good thing. To be either four years ahead of or four years behind schedule is indicative of a scheduling or planning problem.

Were you caught in a bind that prevented you from carrying out the project, or were you obliged to rely on Treasury Board's good will and to tackle the work in stages? Please enlighten me.

[François Guimont]

First of all, I have to say that the support we are getting to move forward with the renovations to the West Block is excellent. It truly is. There is much work to be done, of course, but we have received the necessary authorities and appropriations to start the project. That's the first point I want to make.

Before emptying out the West Block, we had to find an alternative location south of Wellington Street to house former West Block employees. Renovations to La Promenade building were complex. It took a while to find accommodation for that building's employees. Then we had to deal with Library of Parliament staff. We signed leases for office space in relatively close proximity to the Hill, for practical reasons. Phase one involved relocating employees and finding suitable office space for them. Phase two consisted in the actual renovations to La Promenade building, once the premises had been vacated.

While it might seem that the work at the West Block has dragged on for quite a while, we couldn't simply empty the building before we had found alternate accommodation for staff.

In phase one, we emptied out La Promenade and in phase two, we completed the renovation work. Now we can concentrate on the West Block. That explains why it has taken us so long. Had there been a simpler solution, we would have resorted to it. And I might add that our parliamentary colleagues were in favour of the multi-phased approach that I have just described to you. They recognized that this was necessary in order to move ahead with the West Block renovations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you.

We're now going to move to Mr. Young. Mr. Young, you have five minutes.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to note that this is a non-partisan issue. No one has suggested in any way that Treasury Board would not fund these important projects. The buildings are architectural art. They're unique buildings. In fact, they're living history. They're the residences of our democracy. We're all responsible--everybody here, everybody in Parliament--for the stewardship of the place in a non-partisan way.

I want to note that when I first arrived here, I discovered the incredible amount of activity in these buildings. I was amazed to have two houses, the Senate and the House of Commons, sit, once they start, throughout the day, with no break for lunch and no other breaks whatever. There are over 40 standing committees, plus special committees, that could be sitting at any time, any week, and sometimes twice a week. And every word is translated into French and English. So the activity is phenomenal.

On the other hand, we've been so focused on the issues that affect the lives of Canadians, there's a huge amount of deferred maintenance in the place. This has been happening for decades. We're in the position where we have to renovate our house while we live here, which in my town is known as a nightmare scenario; for us, it's at least staying in the same precinct.

Last week, when we had the tour--I thank you for the tour--I saw that it was more than renovating: people have to take down the building block by block, mark the stones, and then rebuild the building. In fact, these are artisans. They're not just builders. It's living art. They're rebuilding the residences of our democracy. That's expensive, and we understand that.

All that said, Mr. Guimont, I do have a question on timeframes. It's a long time to renovate or rebuild a building. Is there any chance, do you think, that you'll be ahead of schedule, or that you can do it a little bit faster in the West Block, for example?

[François Guimont]

I'll let Mr. Wright answer this question, please.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Okay.

[Robert Wright]

As I indicated earlier, we are always looking for opportunities to accelerate work. We break the work packages, if you will, into the type of work that can be done in parallel so that we can accelerate, if possible, the work and make the best use of the artisanal capacity, which can be limited in the industry.

While we are committed to meeting the 2018 deadline for the West Block, our hope is that we will be able to do it quicker.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

So the answer is “maybe”. That's a great answer; I appreciate that.

To Madam Fraser, you've pointed out the issues and your concerns regarding governance. We've heard from the deputy that 13 of the 15 projects--amazingly--finished on time and on budget. Once again, when I compare it with the private sector, it's an outstanding record.

Did you say that your concerns are allayed now, or that you still have concerns? Or are you just happy with the progress on the governance side?

[Sheila Fraser]

Thank you.

As we mentioned in the report, we didn't have major concerns around the project management. In fact, the report was actually quite positive about project management.

We had two major concerns. One concern is on the governance, that the governance needs to be resolved. This is an issue that's been identified for some 25 years now, so it's time to fix that issue. The other concern was on the funding. In this parliamentary system where you have yearly appropriations--and this is an issue that we've discussed with the committee many times--we really think, and other committees of Parliament have actually suggested this, that there be long-term, multi-year appropriations for these very large projects so that parliamentarians, first of all, know the total cost rather than just the yearly cost. They know the total cost of these projects, and the departments too have the funding allocated to them so they can complete this more efficiently. You don't have the stop and start with funding that could occur.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Has that occurred? Or are you saying it occurs?

[Sheila Fraser]

It has occurred in the past, I believe, and it certainly has occurred on other projects. We've clearly seen issues of that in other projects.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Guimont, we were very impressed, on the tour, with the quality of the work, with the planning, with the methodology, and frankly, with the people. In fact, on the tour, Mr. Wright could answer virtually every question himself, so he's clearly very hands-on.

I have a concern. I understand it's good human resources management to move people around every few years. We get the best out of the people and the people have a great career, but is there any way you can keep your best people on the job longer because they're so highly specialized?

[François Guimont]

Thank you for the question.

I would say that the precinct is rather unique in the sense that the people working there love their jobs. I'm not saying it's not the case elsewhere in my department, but it's very hands-on, it's very real. There has been a turnover. That's just the reality. It's true in my department overall and it's true in other departments, frankly, as some people retire and we have to replenish the ranks.

I would say that I want to keep I have—I made that point to Mr. Wright, and he's smiling. But more importantly, I think it is—I don't want to overstate it—fairly easy to get quality people because it is a meaningful place to work. It's real. I often get that feedback from the folks.

If I may, I'll make one last point. When parliamentarians take the time to come, walk, ask questions, it's a great reward for my people. These little things go a long way in saying to people or in people saying to themselves, “I have a meaningful job. I interact with people who actually use the premises, and that's democracy.”

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Young.

We're going to go back to Mr. Christopherson, for five minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

It would seem that I am evolving to be odd man out. It's not the first time I've been there, and I suspect not the last, but that's the way it is sometimes.

I accept that maybe I'm getting a little cynical. I was first elected in 1985, 25 years ago, as an alderman. I mention that not to talk about me, but to point out the fact that the first time this issue was raised was the same year, 1985. When I hear that suddenly everything is going to be fixed, I have my doubts about how quickly that's really going to happen. I note that the current plan, as put forward by the deputy in terms of all these consultations, says that this will inform the development of options and also discussions with the parliamentary partners this coming fall and winter. I am willing to predict--and I hope I'm wrong, and I'll say so publicly--that about a year from now this committee or some other committee is going to be dealing with the same issue. It will not be resolved. There's going to be another year go by.

I understand Mr. Kramp's comments. I think he shares some of my concerns. I appreciate what he said. He knows the respect I have for him and his role in this committee. I worry about politicizing the issue if it came in the hands of the politicians. Fair enough, but let's remember that all three of the examples that are in the report today have the equivalent responsibility back with the politicians. In Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, they felt they were able to overcome any potential partisanship by relying on the overarching responsibility, I think, that we all feel and accept as parliamentarians to this place, above and beyond our respective political parties.

Having said all of that, I realize that the process in front of us is likely the way it's going to be. So be it. It's democracy. I'll live with it. But help me understand, even in the proposal that's here, Deputy, where do the parliamentarians finally play a role? Even if you come up with all these options, unless we change something, the current decision on the options will still be taken by the cabinet. They might nicely consult with the rest of us mere MPs, but the fact of the matter is that under the current process the decision is exactly the same as if we were funding highways. So help me understand where we bring in the parliamentary role in this as we ultimately see the options lined up and a decision being taken. How does Parliament own that process if currently we stay with what we have, which is the usual executive and legislative?

[François Guimont]

Thank you.

I will repeat some of the points I made, and it's not disrespect. We are moving into something new here, and I'll make the following points.

We have a mandate to look at options. I have a senior assistant deputy minister who knows machinery issues, who comes from the precinct.

This is a priority for me. We have an OAG report, very clear, with one recommendation. Normally, Madam Fraser puts more recommendations on me than that, so that's very clear. There's no lack of focus. I am saying here, from experience, professionally speaking, that we want to do a good analysis; we want a good analysis to be done.

And I will make a bracket here. The various regimes that exist worldwide, including here in Canada, have seen adjustments. I want to see why the adjustments were made. A year and a half ago, I met the Sergeant-at-Arms--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You want to see. See, that's the problem: it's all about you and the department. I'm sorry, sir. All I'm hearing is justification. You're not answering my question.