Public Accounts Committee on June 15th, 2010

[François Guimont]

Okay, so I'm getting there.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

How do the politicians play a role, sir?

[François Guimont]

What we plan to do, if I may, is carry out the analysis over the summer--that's not that long--and in the fall be able to engage our parliamentary partners. Normally, the way that's done will be through the clerks and for them to tap into BOIE, COIE.... That's going to be their call. I will not dictate that. But we plan to engage parliamentary partners. Normally, the way I do this is through the House clerks, the librarian, and we have interactions with BOIE and COIE. We make presentations and that's normally the way we do our business. So we plan to use--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But sir, that's the problem. It's the way you usually do business. All the reports are telling us to change it, and all we're getting is the same old, same old, including the process for determining the options and who gets to pick the options. At what point do we acknowledge, instead of just saying it, that parliamentarians need to play a role? That's what I'm not seeing here.

[François Guimont]

But it will be, through the point I made, in tapping into the clerks and the two committees.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But that's consultation. I'm talking decision-making.

[François Guimont]

If I may, I think the consultation informs decision-making. It's part of the process.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But who makes the final decision? Let me ask you, right now, under your proposal, who makes the final decision of which governance option gets chosen?

[François Guimont]

It's not a proposal; this is a course of action. But ultimately--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay. And by the way, the appointment of that one person happened within the last few days, so again, things only happen when they're pushed to the nth degree. But again, to my point, who makes the final decision, sir, under your current thinking, your understanding?

[François Guimont]

It's the executive branch--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It's the executive branch.

Chair, I rest my case. We go all the way around the mulberry bush and we come right back to the recommendations being generated by the executive, the shortlisting of options generated by the executive, and the decision of which option is in our best interest gets chosen by the executive.

So to me, we've got a problem right from the get-go, and we're continuing it. And I say, with heavy heart, I really believe that a year from now some group of MPs is still going to be struggling with this issue. And that's not on you, Deputy. I realize I came across a little harsh on you, but you're the point person, and like us, that's why you get the big bucks.

We've got to take ownership of this. You can only go so far, and the fact that you can only go so far is indicative of the problem we have and we're not breaking that problem. But of course I am going to live with the majority. I accept that I'm a lone voice on this, and having said my bit, I will shut up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay. Having heard that, we will now move to Mr. Shipley for five minutes.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you.

Again, the same as everyone else, thank you for allowing us the opportunity to be guided through a great tour last week.

I appreciate the response. It may seem insignificant, but let me just talk about it. It is about the crack in the library stairs.

Let me take this through. That project, if I remember, finished in 2006. That means that project is now four years old. It is indicated in here that those cracks, the deterioration of the steps going to the library, are because of poor drainage.

I'm watching the steps of the Supreme Court building being torn apart. I've not had this type of response as to the reason, but I was told when I asked over there that it is an issue around some drainage and there are repairs being done.

We've just toured the West Block in amazement at the amount of work and how it is being done. We're exposing foundations, putting in seismic rods, all of this. Yet we have a deterioration of stairs because of poor drainage on two of our major buildings.

How do we build the confidence, if we can't build the stairs, that we're actually doing the right thing for the rest of the building? As much as I don't discredit what is happening, it raises, I think, a legitimate issue, quite honestly. If the small things are not lasting, how do we have the confidence that the large things are not going to be deteriorating? Stairs that should last 40 or 50 years, we're looking at four years. Help me with that.

Secondly, this whole governance thing has come up. Mr. Guimont, in your report, on page 5, there's only one recommendation—that's good news—but it's not the first time this recommendation has come forward. It has been going on for generations. I'm trying to understand why we're just moving ahead with it now. These have been issues in terms of being able to move ahead with the governance. You've assigned a senior assistant deputy minister, and I know you haven't been here forever, but it would seem to me that it is something that is just coming forward now. There have been recommendations, from my understanding, for many years. Why just now deal with an age-old problem that has been ongoing in terms of us being able to move ahead with long-term plans, long-term financing, and long-term reconstruction and maintenance of some buildings, according to Mr. Wright? Not to discredit that, but they have fairly significant deterioration—for example, the West Block.

Those are the first two questions, please.

[François Guimont]

I'll start with the second question, and I'll let Mr. Wright handle the issue of the stairway.

On the timing and why now, again, I'll speak from experience. When the report was developed by the parliamentary partners, the report referred to as the 2005 report, this was filed. At the time, people felt that the focus should be on moving with the West Block. That took the effort; that took the attention. It's not a perfect answer, but that's the answer. That's what happened.

It doesn't mean that any of the points made, going back to 1985, as was noted—the Nielsen task force, etc.—were ignored. People were talking about them. I remember even in early discussions with the OAG's office that they were looking at the issue of governance, generally speaking, as they were carrying out their audit.

I would simply say this, and it may not be a perfect answer: the timing seems right now, quite simply. We have a mandate to look at various options, and we will do that. That mandate was not there before, quite simply. I take solace in the fact that we are going to look at this and look at it quite seriously. There's a senior person in charge. I'll be tracking this with other senior people in the department and central agencies. As I said, parliamentarians—whether it's late summer or early fall—will have a chance to see the work we are doing and contribute to it.

[Robert Wright]

On the issue of the stairs and confidence in the project, there are a few key things I can say. We had an independent assessment of the cause of the cracks in the stairs. The advice we got back was that it was a design flaw and a construction issue. So we are going to take steps to fix the issue, and then follow up with the prime consultant and the general contractor.

As far as moving forward and confidence, we're always attempting to gather strength, so we are taking lessons learned from the library, which is a fantastic finished product. The issue of the stairs is important, but we've improved our methodology since completing the library, and we gathered lessons learned from that project.

On the West Block, for example, we've done a couple of pilot projects on the southeast tower and the north tower, working with several universities and the private sector in innovative partnering relationships. We've developed a pretty robust monitoring program to understand how the building is acting, both in a deteriorated state and as we fix it.

We spoke earlier to the costing and scheduling. I think there should be confidence moving forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Shipley.

We'll move to Mr. Lee for five minutes.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

Although it may look like we're giving you a hard time, Monsieur Guimont, we're trying to get our framework renovated--no pun intended.

In your remarks earlier you were very frank that you communicate with and link up with the Board of Internal Economy and the Senate counterpart--the BOIE and the COIE. Nobody around this table is connected to BOIE and COIE. You referred to them as the two committees, but they are totally dysfunctional and disabled when it comes to transparency. Nothing that goes on in those so-called committees is ever public; nor is there any linkage between those committees and, in the normal course, members of Parliament.

So can you think of a way of overcoming this disability that may be there? As you've been trained to do, asked to do, or whatever, you're dealing with what you think are committees of the House, when they're totally disconnected from the day-to-day operations of the House, as most MPs see it.

I'm not being negative about those two bodies—they have a statutory function to fulfil—but they do not have a committee function that would represent the House in a fulsome way in the kinds of matters we're dealing with here. Maybe you weren't aware of that, but that's one MP's view. Do you think you might find a way to overcome that?

There are other committees. The procedure and House affairs committee, for example--and there's a counterpart in the Senate--would be a more typical committee to deal with. Can I just throw that issue at you?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Since this show is being televised, somebody should explain what BOIE and COIE mean.

I think we should allow you, Mr. Guimont, to do that, and then continue on with your answer.

[François Guimont]

I find it awkward to explain how the House and the Senate function, but the acronym stands for the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

And there's the Board of Internal Economy.

[François Guimont]

That's in the case of the House of Commons. The BOIE is the House of Commons, and COIE is the Senate. It's the same principle.

Frankly, I'm not well positioned to give suggestions on matters that should be dealt with by the legislative branches of the Senate and Parliament. I would be looking for a good point of interface that is meaningful from your perspective. There's a side of me that is tempted to say I have enough problems of my own, and I mean that in a.... I should call them challenges. I have my own challenges.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

In total fairness, Mr. Guimont, you did not design this two-headed monster. It was designed by our Constitution. I was just trying to suggest to you that as you and your ministry work with renovating the governance framework, there may be an organizational problem in everyone assuming that by hooking up with those two committees, BOIE and COIE, this solves the issue. From my point of view, I don't think it does at all. And certainly we would all have to recognize that there is a total absence of any transparency from those committees, as they were designed to be non-transparent. But you cannot assume, as you and your officials go about this renovation of the framework, that this is the appropriate touch point or hook-up with Parliament, in terms of consulting or seeking authority or approval. It may be the worst place you could go.

I just throw that back at you as an issue. I don't have a solution, and if there isn't a reply to that comment, that's fine; I'll close off my....

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Guimont.

[François Guimont]

I've made my point. This is not in my hands. The only point I would make, Mr. Chairman, that makes sense is that we would be looking for a meaningful point of entry into the legislative system of the Senate and the House.