Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 2 - Evidence - April 10, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 10, 2014
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day, at 9:02 a.m., for the consideration of administrative matters and other matters.
Senator Noël A. Kinsella (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, the time we have scheduled for this morning is about an hour. I would suggest that we go right into a presentation by Public Works and Government Services Canada. We have with us the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Parliamentary Precinct Branch, Ms. Nancy Chahwan. She is accompanied by Enzio DiMillo, Director General of Major Crown Projects.
[Translation]
I think their presentation will be about 15 minutes, then we will have about 45 minutes for questions.
[English]
Welcome, Nancy and your colleague Enzio, and we give the floor to you.
Nancy Chahwan, Assistant Deputy Minister, Parliamentary Precinct Branch, Public Works and Government Services Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and senators, for having us here. We're very happy to be here this morning to have this opportunity to speak with you about very important work that we are doing on Parliament Hill. We will be able, as the Speaker mentioned, to answer your questions after we go through a brief presentation.
[Translation]
My department, PWGSC, appeared before this committee in June 2012 to discuss its strategy to relocate principle Senate functions during the Centre Block rehabilitation. Before I tell you about the progress of this project, I would like to give you a brief overview of the progress made in the long-term vision and plan for the Parliament Buildings.
[English]
The Long Term Vision and Plan, or LTVP, is a program of work designed to preserve and update Canada's historic Parliament Buildings. Its first priority is to ensure that you, your staff and visitors are provided with a safe and secure environment. The second priority is to update infrastructure throughout the precinct so that you have modern and efficient facilities that meet the expectations of a 21st century democracy.
Since 2001, we have worked on articulating and delivering the program of work under the LTVP with the Senate, the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament. Together, we have come a long way. In the delivery of 19 key projects, we have managed to contain costs and realize savings amounting to nearly $40 million for taxpayers.
In 2010, just prior to our initiating work on the West Block, the Auditor General concluded that sound project management practices were in place for the rehabilitation of the buildings. These findings were echoed in 2012 by an independent third party that observed sound project management systems, controls, outputs and practices in all six major Crown projects assessed, including the West Block, the Wellington Building and the Sir John A. Macdonald Building. We continue to follow a solid oversight and audit framework.
[Translation]
The rehabilitation of the Parliamentary Precinct is now well under way, and I am proud to announce that the approved schedules and budgets for all the major projects are being met. In the next few years, these efforts are going to be successful. In 2015, the rehabilitation project of the Sir John A. Macdonald Building will be the first major project to be completed since West Block was closed, and will provide Parliament with a new room reserved for ceremonies, as well as accommodations for support functions.
In 2016, the Wellington Building will become home to the offices of parliamentarians, including 18 MPs who are currently housed in East Block and who will move so that urgent rehabilitation of the masonry can begin.
[English]
In 2017, construction on the West Block will be completed, along with the first phase of the new Visitor Welcome Centre, a remarkable milestone in the delivery of the LTPV and a fitting contribution to the celebration of Canada's one hundred and fiftieth anniversary.
By 2018, the Senate and House of Commons will move from Centre Block into interim accommodations, thereby enabling rehabilitation work to begin on this asset.
Progress towards the LTPV can be observed not solely for major capital investments like the ones I just mentioned but also for planning, such as the efforts we have initiated to carefully lay out and scope the work needed on Centre Block, as well as recapitalization. The recapitalization program includes a series of urgent interventions, mostly related to masonry repairs required to ensure the ongoing viability of buildings and address health and safety issues. By undertaking these projects early, we are, in effect, reducing the cost and complexity of the future rehabilitation effort. One example of this would be the work undertaken in recent years on the towers of the East and West Block prior to the major rehabilitation of the asset itself.
[Translation]
You invited us here today with a specific goal in mind: to specifically address the long-term strategy as it applies to managing accommodations for the Conference Centre, and how that strategy fits within the Senate's functional program.
Our presentation centres around three key observations. First, the functions of the Senate and the Conference Centre require similar accommodations. Second, the building requires many repairs and updates, independent of its occupant. Lastly, the incremental costs associated with the Senate's use of the building reflect the interim nature of its occupancy.
[English]
At our last appearance before this committee, we presented a proposal to relocate Senate functions, including the interim chamber, to the Government Conference Centre, which I will refer to as the GCC. Doing so not only advances the rehabilitation of the Centre Block and reduces overall costs of the program, but it coincides with the need to rehabilitate a key Crown asset. This opportunity was created when the Senate encouraged PWGSC to explore lower-cost solutions south of Wellington Street. It was a timely development at a time when investigations revealed that the initial strategy of constructing the interim chamber in the East Block courtyard was more complex than anticipated.
In September of 2012, PWGSC and the parliamentary partners entered into a memorandum of understanding to proceed with a revised implementation strategy, which included three elements: temporarily relocating the Senate Chamber and legislative support functions to the Government Conference Centre for the duration of work on the Centre Block; relocating Senate functions that we are unable to fit into the conference centre into nearby leased space; and rehabilitating the East Block in two phases, beginning now with the urgent rehabilitation of the building's exterior. The remainder of the rehabilitation of East Block, including the replacement of the major building systems, will follow the Centre Block.
In addition to the benefits stated earlier, this approach allows us to prioritize the buildings facing the greatest level of deterioration and make the most efficient use of the existing building systems in the East Block, systems that we estimate can endure to 2030 with regular maintenance.
If you are following with me in the brief presentation that was distributed, I am now on slide 4.
PWGSC has secured the requisite approvals and authorities to proceed with this approach that I just described. We continue to work with the Senate administration to ensure that the functional requirements are reflected in both interim and permanent accommodations. In fact, work is guided by the principles approved by this committee in spring 2013. Those principles are the fact that funding is to be restricted to requirements deemed as basic necessities to support the ongoing operation of the Senate; focus is on the longer term use of the GCC rather than its interim use; and design options must strive to ensure that standard materials are of a mid-range quality, are selected to attain sustainable design goals and provide the best value for money for the duration of the interim accommodation.
[Translation]
On page 5 of the presentation, you will find a list of key components for rehabilitating the space, including the meeting room of the Upper Chamber, a large room and two medium-sized meeting rooms, as well as 21 desktop units for leadership and legislative functions.
Most importantly, page 6 provides an answer to the question this committee asked about the PWGSC's long-term plans for the conference centre. I can confirm that we intend to keep this property of heritage significance in our portfolio, returning it to its current role as Conference Centre after the Senate returns to Centre Block. This is in line with the findings of the study completed by a third party that concluded that this is the best use of the property located at 2 Rideau Street.
The issue is then matching the needs of the Senate to the long-term role of the building.
[English]
To answer this question, PWGSC has commissioned a report from DFS and AWA architects who compared the Senate's requirements and those projected for the conference facility. The report concludes that the Senate and conference centre functions require space that is very largely similar in nature. The architects then proceeded to estimate the incremental costs associated with the Senate's use of the building versus continued use as a government conference facility, as well as the cost that would be required to convert the building back to a conference facility after the Senate's departure.
As you can see on slide 8, the report demonstrates that $110 million, or 91 per cent of hard construction costs, represents investments that are required to bring the building up to the current building code standards and recapitalize the building, to modernize its systems, to renew its life cycle performance, and to correct environmental deficiencies.
Said differently, the report indicates that the incremental cost related to the creation of Senate-specific requirements, such as the chamber, the Reading Room and security, is estimated at $11 million, or only 9 per cent of the total construction costs, and less than 6 per cent of the total project cost of $190 million for the GCC rehabilitation.
In addition, the cost to convert the fit-up for the long-term use as a conference facility is currently estimated at $6.5 million. This estimate is not within the scope of the current project and will be subject to validation of the functional program post 2028.
As I said earlier, all analyses conducted by PWGSC and validated by third parties therefore point evidently to the conclusions that the GCC needs to be rehabilitated for future generations and for continued use in support of government programs. There is strong compatibility and correlation between the Senate and conference facility functions, space and technical requirements. The incremental cost for the Senate's use of the GCC as compared to what would have been required today for a rehabilitated conference centre is marginal, and the cost to reconfigure the building as a government conference facility upon the departure of the Senate is limited.
Significant progress has been made on this critical part of the LPTV. Early last month, initial phases of contracts totaling $6.2 million were awarded through a competitive process for the prime consultant and construction manager for the conference centre project. I'm thrilled to say that the process to vacate the building started just last week. Construction activities will begin this spring with site preparation, followed by demolition this fall. As I said earlier, occupation is scheduled for 2018.
Thank you very much, and I'll be happy to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Nancy, for that presentation.
Effectively, if we look at the Senate occupying that space for 10 years, the differential cost is $11 million, so that basically is about $1 million a year.
Ms. Chahwan: You're right.
The Chair: Honourable senators, you will recall that that is quite a difference from the plan to build the bunker, which was in the hundreds of millions of dollars. I think that the members of this committee should be congratulated in getting on top of that and also thank Public Works Canada for the collaboration with our officials from the Senate and with members of this committee.
We're open for questions from senators.
Senator Lang: I have two questions. On the slide 2 referred to in the annex to the CIBA presentation deck, it's an LTVP track record. With all these acronyms, I'm never too sure what they stand for. It states that by taking advantage of new opportunities, PWGSC has advanced the estimated completion date of West Block by three years to 2017. Could you elaborate what those opportunities are? Is it new techniques? If it is, does that translate late into the renovations of future buildings and help with costs?
Second, how firm are these estimates that you have given to us in respect to looking forward for the purposes of budgeting?
Ms. Chahwan: Thank you, senator, for this question. I will start with your second point about the estimates that we shared.
These, at this point, are indicative estimates. They will be refined as the prime consultant that we just contracted with will refine the designs and as we are getting final confirmation of the functional requirements from the Senate administration. Normally, when we refer to indicative estimates, these are estimates that are well advanced, well enough for us to get initial authorization to start investing in the project. As I said, they are expected to become firm estimates and what we call substantive estimates as early as this fall, at which time we will have final approval to proceed with the remainder of the work and the contracts.
Senator Munson: Thank you very much for being here and for your excellent presentation. I have three questions. Two have to do with the long term.
What will become of the room where the kitchen accord took place in the Government Conference Centre? What is going to happen with that under the proposed design? History was made there.
Ms. Chahwan: History was made there. Thank you for raising this question.
We are very much aware that this is an important element of the heritage aspect of this building, and we are committed to protecting all of the heritage elements for the GCC.
I must mention that in that room, in 2013, the unfortunate event of a flood occurred, and there has been some repair done to it. It has been reconverted. What I do wish to mention, however, is that we will be working with heritage conservation experts and in collaboration with the house administration to ensure that, in the GCC, once it is rehabilitated, there will be adequate commemoration of the kitchen accord.
Senator Munson: What will happen with the tunnel from the Government Conference Centre? Are you working on plans to have that tunnel that goes to the Château Laurier stay open?
Enzio DiMillo, Director General, Major Crown Projects, Parliamentary Precinct Branch, Public Works and Government Services Canada: Thank you for the question.
The tunnel will remain essentially as is. It will remain useable. However, work on the tunnel is not part and parcel of the scope of this project.
The Chair: Who owns the tunnel?
Mr. DiMillo: That's an interesting question. The tunnel remains on land that is not owned by Public Works. We are currently investigating whether that tunnel is owned by the city or the Château Laurier owners. However, we know that it is not Public Works.
Senator Munson: I realize this is a long-term accommodation strategy, but in the short term, we've been hearing this ugly rumor that Public Works plans to put a shroud around the eastern portion of the Centre Block, thus covering up offices, for about two years I think, to do masonry work. If that's true, when does it start? If that's true, how do you think that's going to affect the offices of the Speaker and those of us who live in this part of the building in terms of air conditioning, natural light and noise? It affects a number of offices, not only the Speaker but also the Black Rod, much of the leadership on both sides and other senators' offices.
Was there any consultation, with the exception of a notice as recently as last week, with the Speaker that this was going to happen? If it's going to happen, we're going to fight it. At least I am.
Ms. Chahwan: Thank you for the opportunity to address this.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, a key element of the LTVP is to ensure the health and safety of occupants and visitors to Parliament Hill and inside the buildings.
I also mentioned that part of the LTVP, aside from the major rehabilitation work, like the work we're witnessing right now in the West Block, is the recapitalization program. That recapitalization program has allowed us to move faster than the target rehabilitation date for one asset in particular. When I say "move faster," it's really based on engineering, architectural studies that tell us where the risk lies.
In the case of the east portion that you just referred to, we have reports that speak strongly to the level of deterioration of the masonry. We need to proceed with work to stabilize the masonry, to stabilize the windows and to correct deficiencies to the roofing.
Doing this work now allows us to mitigate any risk to people. It will also allow us to reduce the cost of the work when we come to the major rehabilitation of Centre Block in 2018.
As you know, PWGSC has had similar initiatives before, for example, when we worked on the towers and the work we're currently doing on the towers in East Block. We do so with full respect for the tenants.
In response to your comment about how conversation and consultation occurs, we have extensive and elaborate governance at the working levels, at the more senior levels, with the house administration. Actually, I have just been offered the possibility to come and brief the Speaker more precisely on this project, per se, and we will have time to do so before the work proceeds as such.
Senator Munson: When does the project proceed? It's fine that you're having these discussions with the administration, but we're the folks who are living in these offices. I thought that we would have that discussion long before this.
When do you plan to start doing to masonry work? There has been gaffer tape up there for about 15, 20 years holding this building together. I don't see that there any longer. Something must have been done. Are you starting this summer? Are you starting next week?
Ms. Chahwan: We are currently tendering for the work, and the physical work is not expected to start before the end of the summer, approximately. We will be working with the Clerk and the administration to convey to you more detailed briefings on this project.
Senator Munson: The Senate has lived, sometimes, under a shroud, but will it be a shroud as we see over the West Block? All the tenants were gone. Everyone was out of there before you did that incredible work. We've been allowed to go take a look at that masonry work, and you have to congratulate the men and women who are working there because the job is going to be a great job. Is it going to be a similar look here with having that all over this particular side of this building, on the east side and the front? Will it be that way, and how long will it be?
Ms. Chahwan: As I mentioned, Mr. Chair, I will be happy to address these questions at the time when I have all the details for the projects. I will give you all the information, and we will do this, as we did for the other projects, in full consultation and in full consideration of your needs inside the building.
Senator Poirier: I just have one question. In doing the renovations that you're doing right now, I assume and would hope that the historic look of these fantastic buildings is being maintained. The reason I say that is that I'm really hoping that you're going to answer me that these little windows that have been put in the slots where there used to be beautiful, big windows in West Block are just there temporarily while they're doing work.
Ms. Chahwan: I will be turning to Enzio to respond to the precise question on the windows, but I have to tell you that we proceed very carefully to preserve the heritage aspects of our buildings. Every step of the way, we work with the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office and seek their approvals. We do the same thing with the National Capital Commission.
Mr. DiMillo: Thank you for the question.
The windows that you see presently in the West Block are temporary windows for the construction phase. We will be purchasing all of the windows under one contract to ensure consistency of quality and economy of scale. The windows have been designed and approved not only by our heritage architects but also by our internal Public Works heritage conservation experts.
Senator Poirier: Thank you. That's reassuring.
Senator Seth: Thank you for your presentation.
On page 9, it is briefly mentioned that, after you finish the Parliament Buildings, the Government Convention Centre will be reconfigured to serve future generations. Could you explain that? How will it be reconfigured for future generations?
Ms. Chahwan: Yes, of course. Thank you for this question. I mentioned in my opening remarks that based on a third party study and on the strategic and heritage importance of this asset for Ottawa — as you may know, this building is part of a landmark node that the NCC has defined along Confederation Boulevard — PWGSC, in recognition of these elements, intends to keep the asset in its portfolio in the long term.
The planned use and vocation of the asset after the Senate vacates it to return to Centre Block will be as a conference facility in support of government programs. That means the vast majority of the work, which will start soon, will be reused and is actually an investment for the long-term viability of the asset.
The very limited investment reflective of Senate-specific requirements, which I explained earlier, was estimated at $11 million, or less than 10 per cent of the total project cost, and will need some rework. I must say that a lot of those investments will represent expenditures that we will be able to leverage for the longer term — for example, IT infrastructure or broadcasting capabilities within the large committee room. Another example is security. We will not be removing that when the Senate returns to the Centre Block.
We recognize that to use this as a conference facility, we will not have use for the interim chamber. This is what we mean by the comment on slide 9. We will need to do some minor reconfiguration of the interior fit-up to accommodate the Government Conference Centre use.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: Unlike my friend, Senator Munson, the Speaker of the Senate and other senators, my office is not in Centre Block but in East Block. I do not feel that I am in a conflict of interest, but I am asking because the building will be closed for 20 years. During that time, when suddenly no one will be in the building, the people who work here, the people who take on the leadership and Centre Block function, will be under a shroud, as my friend Senator Munson said. Why not wait until the building is empty to carry out these operations?
Ms. Chahwan: We are currently proceeding based on urgency. The way PWGSC makes decisions on the order of work, not only on the Hill but also for the surrounding buildings, is based on studies done by our engineers, by third parties—architects and engineers—who tell us where we need to invest our energy for the moment. We cannot take the risk of waiting, and say that we will deal with the work on Centre Block in 2018 and, until then, we will let the masonry deteriorate. There are serious indications that the masonry is deteriorating, particularly in that corner. The question is: why East Block, why not the façade?
That is how we make our decisions. They are based on the opinions of experts and are validated and revalidated. We must take action for the health and safety of people and in order to protect the property. As the custodian of the property, PWGSC has a duty to take diligent care and ensure sound stewardship of these assets.
Senator Dawson: I will leave it to the specialists to discuss the issue of safety. We do a lot of things on this hill in the name of safety, and the way decisions are made is not always clear. It seems surprising to me that the occupants of this building were not informed earlier of this decision, which seems increasingly irreversible. We—the Senate and senators—are still the client.
My second question has to do with the overall process. I had the pleasure of going to Quebec City with the Speaker of the Senate and a number of you to see Quebec City do masonry work on the exterior of its building. However, while the work was being done, instead of putting up a huge white shroud, they reproduced the image of Parliament itself or an image like it on the shroud.
The national capital is a tourist destination that is in the process of being made ugly for 20 years. That can be changed by putting images on the tarpaulins. A number of countries do this. Given the capital's value as a tourist destination, how is it that PWGSC cannot consider making this effort?
Ms. Chahwan: Thank you for your question. We have already considered this possibility. We have gone so far as getting cost estimates for having tarpaulins printed with certain motifs, possibly the silhouette of the building or other commemorative aspects. We have approval to carry out the renovation and a very well-defined budget, and we have to be quite accountable about the use of these funds. So our decision is based on both considerations that you just described and on the best use of taxpayers' money. At present, the information we have regarding the market price for an "animated" tarpaulin indicates that the cost would be fairly significant. However, we are working with the National Capital Commission (NCC) to see what can be done if we work with them to acknowledge the visual impact of the construction work.
Senator Dawson: Quebec City and the parliament buildings we visited managed to do this despite the financial constraints they are also facing. They came to the conclusion that it was an additional cost—perhaps it is not up to you, PWGSC, to support it, perhaps it would be up to the NCC or the tourism department. One thing is clear: we cannot continue to damage the quality of Ottawa as a tourist product because you do not have the money to do so in your budget. It seems clear to me that this is for 25 years. If the building has to be shrouded in white for 25 years, we know already that it will have an impact on tourism.
It is undeniable that not being able to visit Centre Block will have an impact on the guided tours of students and on the pan-Canadian tourism that passes through Ottawa. If the building is made ugly on top of that, I think that an effort should be made. I would ask you to reconsider the matter; perhaps I will ask the Speaker of the Senate to confer with other government officials about the possibility of paying attention to this aspect. Perhaps it is not your responsibility, but it is still the responsibility of the Government of Canada to ensure that the national capital is worthy of the name.
Ms. Chahwan: Thank you for your comment.
[English]
Senator Lang: I would make one comment. An alternative, if you're forced to do a shroud, might be to do two floors at a time as opposed to the whole building.
I asked two questions and I didn't get my second question answered. I referred to the LTVP track record whereby taking advantage of opportunities we would save three years. How would you do that and how would it affect all of the projects underway? Were there new techniques? How did we save three years?
Ms. Chahwan: I have two factors that I can offer, senator, in answer to your question. One is that we have changed our strategy in delivering the LTVP from a 25-year horizon vision to rolling 5-year programs of work that support the long-term vision. That has allowed us to have better refinement of requirements and to take into consideration our lessons learned from the projects that are in progress or already delivered and take the best practices in terms of construction and planning for the future projects. That and the best practices we have garnered and developed in conjunction with the private sector have allowed us to generate savings in time and money.
One example I would provide is the hiring of a construction manager to oversee and coordinate all the pieces of the project. That has been extremely useful for us, not only in transferring the risk of the project to the private sector where they are well established and well capable of coordinating the work between the different métiers de construction but also in terms of an earlier involvement between the construction manager and the prime consultant working on the design. That allows a fully integrated view of the project very early on. That's one example.
The other element that has allowed us to avoid costs of $200 million just for the Senate requirements came from the review of the strategy that saw the Senate Chamber occupy an infill in the East Block. That change in strategy allowed us to explore new opportunities that are more efficient and that have allowed us to advance the work on the Centre Block before the date it is expected to become critical in terms of failure.
Enzo, would you like to add something about the West Block?
Mr. DiMillo: Yes. The other element or aspect of the work we've completed leading up to vacating the West Block that has assisted us in reducing that time line is the use of the former Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography as a committee room location. That allowed us to reduce the time line required — or to vacate the West Block simply by giving us a venue for housing committee rooms. That was another element along with what was stated.
Senator Cordy: The West Block finishing three years early is definitely a bonus. When will the Wellington Building be finished; what's the estimated time? What about the bank building?
Ms. Chahwan: The Sir John A. Macdonald Building, the former Bank of Montreal Building, will be the first to be delivered after we have emptied the West Block. That building is expected to be ready in 2015.
Senator Cordy: Going back to Senator Dawson's comments, I know the work has to be done and you're doing a wonderful job — you're ahead of schedule, which doesn't happen very often and you're below budget, which truly doesn't happen often, so congratulations on that — but when I look at the West Block being shrouded, the Wellington Building currently in chaos and the bank building being covered, and now if you're going to put something on the east side of Centre Block, to go back to tourism, can you at least wait on the Centre Block until after Canada Day this year? It's very challenging for people to come to the Hill, and when they do, they don't have access to even see the buildings here. You're doing great work.
When is work starting on the west side of Centre Block where the House of Commons is located, or is the condition of the masonry not as bad as the Senate side?
Ms. Chahwan: Thank you for your words regarding our construction. We are working very closely with Canadian Heritage to prepare for the commemoration of the one hundred fiftieth anniversary. Our commitment is that by the date for those celebrations, the Hill will be free from major construction work.
To your second question about the west side of Centre Block, there is work happening. We will be working on the ventilation towers on both the east and the west sides. Regarding the masonry, we will be doing stabilization work, but we recognize that the situation is affected by the proximity of the work area for the Visitor Welcome Centre and the West Block. So our measures will not be similar both on the east and the west; we will be taking into consideration the proximity of the work sites and the fact that work will be proceeding in a standard way.
Senator Cordy: You referenced the report from DFS architects and AWA architects and gave us information from another firm. I wonder if this committee could have a copy of the report.
Chair, I don't know if you have a copy of the report; I think that would be extremely beneficial. The person who is in charge on the precinct side should certainly have a copy to have that report.
Ms. Chahwan: That report can be shared with Senate administration, and you will see that the numbers and the conclusions I have shared in the deck are excerpts from that report.
Senator Cordy: So the chair will get a copy of the report?
Ms. Chahwan: I will share it through the Clerk.
The Chair: If I might build on what Senator Cordy is asking, Ms. Chahwan, so that honourable members of the Internal Economy Committee have an understanding, you used the phrase "the parliamentary partners." Are the senators partners? Who are the "parliamentary partners"?
Second, to the extent that the senators have any role to play — they certainly have a role to play, and I have a very definite responsibility for security of the chamber and the conduct of free and open debate in the chamber — if drilling into the bricks or hammering on the stones is done, would that be at a time when the Senate is sitting? That would be a serious —
Senator Cordy: That wouldn't be a good thing.
The Chair: Not to comment on what goes on at the other place, but our place is relatively serious and quiet. Banging on the walls and drilling into stone could be very disruptive. Please describe for the senators on this committee who are these parliamentary partners and where do the senators and the Senate fit in?
Ms. Chahwan: The parliamentary partners are the Senate, the House and the Library of Parliament. As you may know, the governance in place between PWGSC, the house administration and the Library is intricate and elaborate. We make sure that we work at different levels through well-established working groups, steering committees, and I'm very happy to say we have regular conversations with both the Clerk of the Senate, the Clerk of the House of Commons and the Parliamentary Librarian.
I believe that answers your first question.
[Translation]
With respect to possible disruption to Senate work, as I mentioned previously, we are keenly aware of this and we have so far proceeded with absolute respect and full deference to protect democratic functions. I am committed to having our work continue in this way and to not having the work obstruct your duties.
The Chair: On behalf of all my colleagues, I would like to thank you. Perhaps we could have this kind of discussion more frequently in the future.
Ms. Chahwan: It would be our pleasure. Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, there are two items that are urgent in terms of business. One is Item No. 2, "Compensation Payroll Modernization." It's on pages 28 to 30 of the briefing documents.
Darshan Singh, Director of Human Resources, Senate of Canada: Good morning, honourable senators. As the chair mentioned, we would like to bring this matter to your attention expeditiously.
We want to inform this committee and all senators of upcoming pay administration changes that will apply to Senate employees in the administration as well as in senators' offices. These changes are part of Public Works' multi-year compensation and modernization initiatives. They do not apply to senators themselves as your compensation is not processed through Public Works.
Two changes will take place over the next few months, the first being a transition to pay in arrears and the second being a transition to electronic online pay documentation from the current paper-based model.
A third change is also targeted for July 2015. It is a transition from Public Works' 40-year-old legacy systems to a new commercial pay solution.
[Translation]
The first change will be the transition to payment in arrears, which will apply to all current and future employees starting in May 2014. This means that instead of paying employees for a period of two weeks ending the day the pay is deposited in employee bank accounts, employees will be paid for the work done in the previous two-week period.
All new employees not on the payroll on April 23, 2014, will be paid in arrears. There is a comprehensive list of questions and answers on the PWGSC website. The link to the site is in the briefing note and will be provided to employees.
I will now turn things over to Peter Nunan, your corporate services manager.
[English]
Peter Nunan, Manager, Learning, Employee Relations, Wellness and Compensation, Senate of Canada: As an example of pay in arrears, yesterday, April 9, was a payday. Yesterday, all Senate employees were paid for the period of March 27 to April 9. If we were already operating under the pay-in-arrears model, the April 9 pay would have been for work performed for the period of March 13 to March 26. This change is being applied across the board by Public Works, so it will apply to all public servants in the government and in separate employers.
To avoid any financial hardship for employees, a two-week transition payment, equal to two weeks' pay, will be made to employees upon the transition. As such, this change should be seamless for current employees, with no impact on their take-home pay.
The second upcoming change is to the compensation web application. The pay stubs employees currently receive in an envelope every two weeks will be replaced with secure access to online pay and benefits information. This provides employees with several other value-added benefits, including access to past biweekly statements, health and benefits information, T4s, pension information and the ability to do pension estimates using their actual compensation and employment data. Most of the federal public service has already moved to the compensation web application. The Library of Parliament and the House of Commons deployed it in the past year.
It will first be rolled out on a directorate-by-directorate basis within the administration so if there are any bugs, it can be worked out. It will then be rolled out to your offices. We anticipate this rollout will be completed in July.
In a small number of cases where senators' offices are using generic email accounts, the Information Services Directorate will provide employees with email accounts so they can access the compensation web application. Employees will log on to the application to view their pay statements. The pay will nonetheless be deposited into their bank accounts in the normal fashion, whether they choose to log on or not. They just won't be getting paper statements any longer.
As mentioned earlier, the third change is targeted for July 2015. It's the transition to the new Public Works pay solution. This is more of a back office change, and Senate administration personnel are collaborating with Public Works over the next year and a half to prepare for this.
Finally, a communication plan is in place to inform senators and employees of these changes, and to facilitate the employees' move to the compensation web application. The IT Service Desk personnel have been trained to assist employees.
The Chair: Senators, are there any questions? As indicated, we will all get detailed information.
Senator Cordy: I don't have a question, but I'm pleased to see that you're using transitional funding for our staff members because I think that's extremely important. Thank you very much. It seems what you're going with is a change that's in place at most other places now.
The Chair: With your agreement, honourable senators, we'll move to the fifth report of Subcommittee on Committee Budgets.
[Translation]
Senator L. Smith: Honourable senators, it is my pleasure to present the fifth committees budget report, which covers the budget applications of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples in relation to its special study on infrastructures on First Nations reserves.
[English]
You may recall that the subcommittee had asked the committee to resubmit their budget with a more detailed identification of the destinations to which they would like to travel. We were pleased to receive this information and we met earlier this week to review the request for funding.
The budget is comprised of the following four activities: fact-finding on Vancouver Island and in the B.C. Interior; fact-finding in several locations in Ontario, as well as public hearings in Thunder Bay; fact-finding in Maniwaki, Quebec; and fact-finding in several locations in Nova Scotia.
Your subcommittee notes that the committee is budgeted for 8 senators to travel rather than the usual 12.
[Translation]
Senator Patterson said that he expected at least eight senators to be able to travel, so the committee would not have a problem adopting a reduced budget.
[English]
In any case, the committee must work within the activity envelopes as approved by the Senate. Having received a more detailed budget application from the Aboriginal Peoples Committee, we are comfortable recommending the release of the funds requested, an amount of $359,060.
Just as a small point on the four activities, the detailed site locations have been provided. Everything we asked for as a committee, between Senator LeBreton, Senator Cordy and myself, have been provided and presented.
I move the adoption of the fifth report, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Discussion? Moved. Seconded.
Senator Munson: I'm curious. Thank you for this report. Did they explain why it's just Maniwaki in Quebec? It seems like quite an extensive look at British Columbia, Vancouver Island and Atlantic Canada, but just one spot in Quebec. Does that give them a good picture of the infrastructure on reserves in this country?
Senator L. Smith: Between Senator Patterson and the group, they seem to have a very strategic focus and they seem to have provided complete information to the subcommittee. Don't forget, what we're trying to do is ascertain value for money. They have set up objectives and they have set up the expected returns from their objectives. Maniwaki is a big physical area of land, if you'd like, in terms of the reserve and is a major player in Quebec. So I think it probably is the right thing to do.
Senator Munson: Thank you.
Senator L. Smith: Senator Cordy, maybe you want to add something?
Senator Cordy: I think what we also heard from the committee was they were interested in seeing a wide variety of reserves across the country, some that are doing extremely well — and I would say Membertou in Nova Scotia would be one of those — and others that may not be doing so well. Again, we're looking at geography. They're trying to look at as many reserves in different areas of the country as they can; I think that is the explanation we received.
Senator Lang: I wanted to make a couple of observations. I had the good fortune of being at the steering committee when the presentation was made by Senator Patterson and Senator Tannas. It's a study that's long overdue, and I think it's going to have some serious implications for Canada and for First Nations at the end of the day, and maybe a very positive way forward for our First Nations communities.
I think there's another aspect here that I've raised a number of times and I want to raise it again. Senator Patterson is doing an excellent job as the chair of this particular committee. He's taken it on full time. He's also a member of the Energy Committee, on the steering committee, and his resources within his office are very taxed. I think we're going to have to, as I've said at other times at this table, look at the chairs and deputy chairs of those committees that are taking these responsibilities on, and that staff is provided for their office. Also, there's the point of view of allowing political staff to travel with them when they're doing these visitations because political staff, in most part, are writing these reports. It seems ironic that they're not able to go along with the members when these visits are taken.
I just want to alert that you that that's an issue that I as a member of Internal want to continue to pursue. I know it's not part of this submission but something for down the road.
The Chair: Thank you for raising it, Senator Lang. I'm pleased to report to the full committee that the steering committee is seized with this and we're working on it, thanks to you raising it some time ago. We will be reporting back on that.
Senator Munson: As whip, this is a selfish question. Senator Smith, did they give you an indication of when they're going? Or when they want to go?
Senator L. Smith: My understanding is they wanted to do this before the end of our session this summer.
Senator Munson: The difficulty is, as Senator LeBreton would understand from another time, that numbers are numbers. When too many committees are travelling at the same time, we have to juggle that to accommodate our work in the Senate. I know we would have a lot of empathy and sympathy from Senator LeBreton on this issue because she lived that at a certain time of her life.
Senator L. Smith: All committees are aware of the importance of dealing with their whips on this particular situation in terms of making sure there is proper attendance in the Senate itself.
Senator Cordy: As much as I appreciate what you're saying, it is not the role of our subcommittee to interfere in the works of the whips and we would never try to do that. Ours to look at the budgets that are proposed by the various committees and determine whether or not we feel that they accurately reflect what the committee should be doing and that it's being done in as reasonable and inexpensive way as possible. The rest of it, I'm afraid, is up to you and Senator Marshall.
The Chair: Are we ready for the question? Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are through our agenda. Just before we rise, I would like to wish everyone who is celebrating Seder or Passover or Easter to make sure that they find time for a little bit of rest. The work going on around here in all of the committees, including this committee, is quite heavy. So Happy Easter to everyone.
Senator Cordy: Chair, thank you very much for those good wishes. I think a break will be good for everybody.
A question was raised to me by another senator in the chamber, and I said I would raise it. It's just a simple question as to whether or not anybody from Finance is in touch with senators who have retired within the last two years to keep them up to date on what's happening with the Auditor General's audit, because some of them might feel that they're out of the loop and not getting much information. I don't know how much they're getting.
Jill Anne Joseph, Director, Internal Audit and Strategic Planning, Senate of Canada: Senator Smith, I think, can answer this as well. The question is how senators who are retired are being kept informed? To my knowledge, the chair and deputy chair of the audit subcommittee are making calls to various retired senators, keeping them abreast of how things are progressing and of any concerns.
The Chair: They could be advised to contact Senator Marshall.
Senator L. Smith: Senator Marshall and Senator Furey are talking to members of their particular sides to make sure that the retired people have been kept up to speed.
Senator Cordy: Thanks. I will let the person know. I appreciate that.
(The committee adjourned.)