THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 2, 2019
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8 a.m., in public and in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Sabi Marwah (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. My name is Sabi Marwah, and I have the privilege of serving as chair of this committee. I would ask each of the senators to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Dean: Tony Dean, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Josée Verner from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Wetston: Howard Wetston, Ontario.
Senator Doyle: Norman Doyle, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator Plett: Donald Plett, Manitoba.
Senator Housakos: Leo Housakos, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. Before we begin the official meeting, I would like to welcome Mr. Philippe Hallée, who has joined us very recently as our new Law Clerk. This is his first meeting at CIBA so be kind to him, senators.
Philippe Hallée, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It’s an honour to be here today.
[Translation]
I am happy to be joining you. I hope I will be useful to you over the coming years as much as I can be, along with my team, which is absolutely amazing. To date, I have had the privilege to discover an extremely welcoming institution.
[English]
I’m very pleased by the welcome I have received from all of you. I thank you for that. I think it shows an institution that is quite remarkable in every single detail that preceded my entry and function. I’m very happy to be here. Thank you.
The Chair: Senators, a copy of the public minutes from April 11 is in your package. Are there any questions or changes? Can I have a motion to adopt the minutes? Moved by Senator Dean. Agreed? Carried.
I was hoping, if everyone is in agreement, that we could have an update on the Translation Services first on the agenda because we have Mr. Stéphan Déry and Ms. Nathalie Laliberté here. Rather than wait until the end of the LTVP presentation we can hear them out and they can get on with their day. Is that okay, senators? Welcome again.
With that, Cathy, I would like to introduce you and your guests.
[Translation]
Catherine Piccinin, Principal Clerk, Chamber Operations and Procedure Office, Senate of Canada: On March 27, 2018, your committee tabled its twenty-seventh report in the Senate on parliamentary translation services. That report, adopted by the Senate on May 8, 2018, included recommendations of your advisory working group on those services.
A government response to the report was also tabled in the Senate on October 5, 2018. The Clerk of the Senate, Mr. Denis, appeared before your committee on October 25, 2018, to discuss the response.
Since July 2018, I have been the manager responsible for ensuring that the terms of the service agreement for language services between the Senate and the Translation Bureau are respected. When I began my responsibilities, I immediately set up regular meetings with my Translation Bureau colleagues to discuss ongoing issues, in accordance with recommendation 2(b). These meetings included Stéphan Déry and Nathalie Laliberté, who are with us this morning, as well as other Translation Bureau directors and Senate managers such as those from the Committees Directorate who have a direct interest in translation and interpretation issues.
[English]
Together, we review additional progress on your committee’s recommendations, as well as any issues that might arise from time to time and specific questions that senators might have about quality.
I have to say that our meetings have been very productive. Ms. Laliberté and Mr. Déry have been extremely helpful and responsive over the past number of months and I look forward to continuing our productive relationship.
We have submitted a table to you today as well as a briefing note that includes progress on all of the recommendations that you’ve made and a status report that we’ve kept updated since August 2018. That table that you have in front of you essentially forms the basis for our monthly meetings. You’ll see in that table that the majority of recommendations — eight out of 11 — have a status of completed, with significant progress made on the other three.
On a final note, the agreement that we have with the Translation Bureau expires in March 2020. The three of us are hoping that this meeting today will help to inform our discussions going forward in the year ahead as we look forward to establishing a new agreement with the Translation Bureau.
The briefing note before you also has some highlights and if you have any questions about those, the three of us are here to answer those questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Are there any questions for Mr. Déry? Do you have any opening comments, Mr. Déry?
Stéphan Déry, Chief Executive Officer, Translation Bureau: No, I’m here to support and answer questions.
The Chair: Any questions, senators, on the translation? I think Cathy tells me they’re happy with the progress that’s been made. There’s been great cooperation between the translation services and the Senate, and good progress on the recommendations and complaints we had in the past. I think things are moving well in the right direction.
Senator Wetston: Just a quick question. I have observed — and I don’t think this is a problem but more a question — that often there are many occasions when we need urgent translation for some reason when we need to turn it around in 10 or 12 hours. I do find it from time to time to be a bit of an — impediment would be the wrong word, but it’s something we need to overcome. How are you able to manage these urgent translation needs from time to time? Most of the time I would say it’s more committee related than I would say it would be in the chamber. Do you have any comments on that?
Ms. Piccinin: I have 20 years of experience with committees. One of the things I think that clerks and analysts will do at an early stage, if we know there is going to be a committee meeting on a bill or a report of a committee on a special study, we try at the earliest opportunity to convey a sense of what the committee might do and how urgent matters might be. We will contact our colleagues at the Translation Bureau to give them a heads up. I know my colleagues from the Committees Directorate are here. There’s a template that they use to determine how many pages they might anticipate, how much time it might take and when the committee might adopt its report. We try to do as much in advance as possible to avoid those urgent requests.
That being said, senator, you’re right, there are times when a committee meets and they want to attach observations to the report on a bill and they might be three, four, five, ten paragraphs, and we need to rely on urgent help from our colleagues at the Translation Bureau.
Mr. Déry: The more notice we have, the better. That’s why we’re working closely with the Senate. When we have a draft ahead of time, it’s better when there is an emergency. We’re here 24-7, we’re here to serve. We’re here to accompany the government to work with the government, to make sure we provide them with the service they need and ensure the quality of service they need. We work in the background to minimize those emergencies, but when they occur we’re here to serve and ensure they get quality documentation.
Senator Forest-Niesing: I have more of a comment, and it’s a positive one. As a relative newcomer, I was incredibly impressed by the speed and simultaneousness with which we would receive our documents in French and English. In discussing this with others, I understand that it is an indication of some significant progress from what might have been a source of concern or complaint in the past.
I can tell you that, since my arrival in October, I don’t feel that there’s any delay in receiving a French translation to an English document or the reverse. I appreciate that and I congratulate you for the progress that’s been made.
Ms. Piccinin: Thank you for that comment, senator. You’ll see in the table that we provided to you that one of the things that we’re trying to do is embed translators with committees when they’re looking at draft reports when possible and if the committee is in agreement with it. That way, at least if there’s some highly specialized terminology, we can establish that terminology in advance to help speed up the translation or to make sure that it’s consistent throughout the document.
We are working with our colleagues to try some new methods that would help to facilitate not only speed but quality.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Have you considered perhaps assigning the same translator to the same committee as much as possible, just to improve on the quality, where terminology can get quite technical?
Mr. Déry: Absolutely we do, and work is assigned by domain. Official languages is an example. So we try to make parallels between Senate and the House of Commons in Official Languages so that they have expertise in the domain and understand. And the fact that they can participate in some of the committee discussion, gives them an understanding of your thinking, your discussion. Style is also quite important in translation. It’s not just putting words on a page in another language. It’s also the style of the discussion and the intent behind the words.
So to reflect the intent, that’s why we would like to participate, at least when there are decisions being made and when the committee’s close to a final report. Participating in those discussions would give the translator more business intelligence and on the intent of the committee.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Thank you.
The Chair: Any other questions, senators? If not, thank you very much for coming this morning, Mr. Déry and Ms. Laliberté. It is very good of you to be the first item on the agenda, and 8 a.m. is a very early start. Thank you for coming. I think that there are so few questions is a testament to the success of the program so far.
[Translation]
Mr. Déry: Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: Senators, the next item is a presentation from Public Services and Procurement Canada on the Centre Block Rehabilitation Program.
I invite Rob Wright, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Parliamentary Infrastructure Branch; Jennifer Garrett, Director General of the Centre Block Rehabilitation Program; and Duncan Broyd, Principal Designer, Centre Block Program to the witness table.
I suggest that since Mr. Wright has a presentation, we can go to the presentation and then we’ll open it up for questions.
[Translation]
Rob Wright, Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and Parliamentary Infrastructure Branch, Public Service and Procurement Canada: Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I am happy to be here today to give you an update on the Centre Block rehabilitation program. I am joined by Jennifer Garrett, Director General of the Centre Block rehabilitation program, and by Duncan Broyd, Principal Designer at CENTRUS, which is in charge of the Centre Block program.
We are happy to be working on this exciting project in collaboration with parliamentary partners and to have the opportunity to discuss with you Centre Block’s rehabilitation this morning.
[English]
Since the historic move of parliamentarians out of Centre Block, Public Services and Procurement Canada has been working in collaboration with the administration of the Senate on preparing Centre Block for its major rehabilitation. This includes working hand in hand with Parliament to decommission the building so that it is fully separated from the rest of the Hill, which includes such things as rerouting underground IT duct banks and removing the building from the central heating and cooling plant.
Another key part of the decommissioning process is ensuring that the remaining art and artifacts in the building are safely removed and stored. We’ve also advanced the assessment program, which began when you were still using the Centre Block, and we have been opening up the floors, walls and ceilings to deepen our understanding of the building’s condition.
As you will see during the presentation, we have also been working closely with parliamentary officials to define the functions requested for the Centre Block of the future. Another key element of the work being undertaken is phase 2 of the Visitor Welcome Centre, which will provide security screening outside of the footprint of Centre Block, services for visitors to Parliament Hill as well as functions that directly support the operations of Parliament, such as committee rooms.
You will see in the upcoming presentation that the design and construction of the Visitor Welcome Centre will join together the West, East and Centre Blocks into essentially one parliamentary complex.
As we move forward, thinking of the Centre Block as a central part of this parliamentary complex should provide some interesting opportunities. In modernizing the Centre Block so that it supports a modern parliamentary democracy, we are also taking care to restore this beautiful building. We have heard loud and clear from parliamentarians the desire, when you return, to immediately recognize the Centre Block and to feel at home.
Gaining your feedback on what functions should be contained in the Centre Block and the Visitor Welcome Centre, and how this space should work for parliamentarians, media and the public, will be invaluable for our work going forward. We are very eager to engage on this important project on an ongoing basis.
I will now ask Ms. Garrett and Mr. Broyd to walk you through the presentation and, of course, I will be very happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Jennifer Garrett, Director General, Public Services and Procurement Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair, senators and colleagues. Duncan Broyd and I are here to give you an update on where we are in terms of program status and give you some idea of where the initial design is headed with regard to the functional program requirements that have been given to us by the Senate.
In terms of the Centre Block program scope, we are doing a complete building upgrade of the Centre Block itself to modernize building systems, everything from the building masonry to seismic upgrades to modern mechanical and electrical. The other modernizing effort is making sure we can support parliamentary operations well into the 21st century, and that is the design program in response to the functional program requirements we have received to date and will continue to refine over the coming months.
In addition to that there is a new construction portion, phase 2 of the Visitor Welcome Centre, which was referred to in Mr. Wright’s opening remarks. Essentially out in the front of the Centre Block, we’re going to dig a very large hole and build support services for both parliamentary operations that cannot fit into the Centre Block, as well as provide support infrastructure for visitor services and a visitor experience program within that footprint in Visitor Welcome Centre phase 2.
The arrows that you see highlighted in yellow, purple and blue reflect the design process which is already launched and is under way. The yellow arrow outlines that design process with functional program requirements, which we have received and have a very good understanding of and will continue to refine until a February 2020 time frame, as well as allow for the launch of the design process.
Right now, where we are, we’re travelling both along the yellow line and the purple line. We have launched the schematic phase of the process and we have an initial schematic design view, which we are now consulting back, and one of the reasons we’re here today is to get your views on where that is headed.
Ultimately, at the end of the purple line, our intention is to land with a preferred design approach which we will then launch into detailed design along the blue arrow so we can develop construction level construction documents and start the construction process.
Having said that, we are trying to keep the program on track and minimize the amount of time that parliamentarians find themselves outside the building. We understand that we want to get you back into Centre Block as quickly as possible, so we are starting some early construction activities. Specifically we’re focused on targeted demolition and abatement in Centre Block proper late this fall and commencement of excavation in a winter 2020 time frame.
Now that we have our construction manager on board and we have a good understanding of the functional requirements that have come in, we have a better understanding of the projected size of the Visitor Welcome Centre footprint.
The slide in front of you depicts what our understanding is of the planned construction site, which you will see start to take shape sometime after Labour Day this year. Very shortly after Labour Day, you will see a fast fence go up, the site delineation and construction preparation activities start to occur. We’ve been actively working with the administration of the Senate, House of Commons, and Library of Parliament to delineate that line and next steps will be to define both the content and the design of the actual physical hoarding.
I’m not going to go into details of the next slide. Suffice it to say that we have an extensive functional program that has been provided to us by the Senate administration. This slide represents the highlights of or a high-level summary of that functional program that has been provided to us, as we understand it to date.
As we go through the design process, there will be some challenging decisions. Hopefully, we’ll be coming back to you on many occasions to seek your feedback and input so that we have a Centre Block that adequately meets your requirements going well into the future. But I would like to highlight three key design challenges that we know are facing us right off the bat.
The first one is that for those of you when you were working in the building, we were working in a very old building that hadn’t had a substantial rehabilitation in some time. So just to bring the building to modern code standards is going to take space. It is going to take space away from the functional program that exists in the building right now, and to the tune of about 2,500 square metres.
To put that in context, to give a sense of what that means in terms of space, in order to fit modern mechanical, electrical, et cetera, modern structure into the building, it will take approximately the equivalent of the office space on the fourth floor. Obviously that puts pressure on a functional program that is already robust in nature. So that will be a big challenge for us.
The second is the one that we knew going forward into the building as well. We are working in a high-level heritage building with some of the most significant heritage spaces in the country. The technical challenge of modernizing a building is going to be unprecedented, quite honestly, and some difficult decisions will have to be made. We are focused on making those decisions in lower-heritage areas to minimize the impact on the heritage fabric of the building, but there is a tension between the heritage that exists in the building and the modernization effort.
Lastly, the demand of the functional program, not just the Senate’s program but the culmination of the functional program that has been given to us by the Senate, the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament, exceeds supply. So we are going to have to take a bit of an appetite suppressant and start to work through some difficult decisions to remain within a reasonable affordability framework as we go forward.
In terms of the opening remarks that Mr. Wright made, part of those solutions are really looking at once the Centre Block project is complete, with the Visitor Welcome Centre, you’ll have a complete connection of the triad. Part of the potential solutions in addressing some of these tough challenges will come from looking at those three buildings and the connections between them as more of one complex that supports parliamentary operations.
I’ll close there and hand the floor over to Duncan Broyd, who will take you through where we are in terms of design.
Duncan Broyd, Principal Designer, Centre Block Program, CENTRUS: Good morning. This is a fantastic opportunity to set this building up to succeed for another 100 years. To have it meet current codes for life safety, to meet the goals for universal accessibility, to reduce energy use substantially and to plan for a building that allows a certain amount of flexibility over the next 100 years so that as things change they can be accommodated in a building that’s ready for that.
The next slide is an example of the work we’ve been doing. It’s to understand you, the building and our challenges. This is a combination of the drawings and the digital model that Simms, Carleton University, built that we inherited. This is high-definition photography of every space in the building, the physical assessments Ms. Garrett talked about that have started and will continue, and all of the technical and heritage research that we’ve been doing to understand where this building came from, the decisions that were made when it was originally designed and built, and how we can build on those.
We’ve been doing that to achieve a good background analysis of the whole project and also to frame a number of the options that we’re developing. We’re at a stage where we’re looking at what could we do and what might we do to allow people to make informed decisions.
The next slide is a fairly complex looking diagram. It’s one of many. One of the big challenges we have is to design a building that not only connects all three buildings on the Hill but also allows people to move through it in a safe, secure, and controlled way. One of the things we recognize in Centre Block today is that movement in those ceremonial corridors can be fraught at times, with the public, parliamentarians and media crammed into tight spaces. We have an opportunity to try and understand how that should work, how you want it to work and develop solutions with you to be able to move safely or mingle, your choice.
The next slide shows a first glimpse at what the Visitor Welcome Centre and Centre Block will look like together. That’s important from our point of view in connecting these buildings. This is a cut through the courtyard adjacent to the Senate Chamber and through the proposed Visitor Welcome Centre.
We’re highlighting a potential solution to one of our biggest challenges: How does someone in a wheelchair get from the front door all the way to a seat in the gallery of either chamber? You’re probably familiar that if you go around those galleries in the existing building there are more steps, narrow hallways, different levels and nothing works seamlessly.
By using the courtyards to connect these spaces, we can add space at the right floor levels that take those functions that are currently housed in the public circulation for secondary screening: coat checks, food service, those kinds of things. We can take them out of the ceremonial routes, relocate them in modern places and create space for the functional uses, but also informal meeting space, gathering space, without impinging on the program area that we need in the building.
We’ve also considered connecting all the floors for parliamentary staff by elevators out of the public eye and also to deal with material handling on all floors. Those would also be accommodated. Although this only shows from the basement up to level 3, this is one particular solution to the vertical circulation.
This next slide highlights one of the bigger challenges Ms. Garrett talked about with respect to heritage space. This is cut through the two chambers, the railway room and the reading room. If we recognize that we have to connect the building from top to bottom in a continuous way without impacting those major spaces, then using the courtyards is the prime opportunity to do that.
One of the other things we can do is to put lids on the courtyards. That does a number of things. It substantially reduces the amount of exterior wall, which then ultimately reduces the energy costs. It reduces the amount of building that we have to protect along security requirements. And also structurally, by holding the building together at the top, it substantially reduces the stress on the walls below as we go through the seismic upgrade in the building.
The Visitor Welcome Centre complex, the big hole Ms. Garrett talked about in front of the building, just to give you a sense of the scale, if you go to the bottom corner of the Vaux wall and look across the lawn, that is the south face of this diagram. The idea here is we take the Vaux wall out now and when it goes back it sits on the roof of the new construction. It means that any future 50 years out, 100 years out expansion, you wouldn’t have to touch the Vaux wall, you could continue to expand under the lawn.
In the centre is that main public and business visitor entrance. It’s on axis with the Peace Tower to maintain the formality and the symmetry of the original design. That’s where we deal with all the security screening and information and gets it out of the footprint of Centre Block, which makes it a lot easier to deal with from a security point of view. It frees up the entrance under the Peace Tower to be used for what it was originally meant for.
To the right, in red, is the space that’s allocated from the functional program to the Senate, which as Ms. Garrett said includes committee rooms, support spaces for operations and that connection to East Block. There’s also potential for committee rooms north of the building in a pavilion to be matched by a pavilion at the other side of the library for House of Commons committee rooms. The house space here is shown in green, and that central orange portion is actually the visitor experience, the exhibit space, the classrooms, everything that relates to the public coming to the building.
I should point out at this stage that this drawing includes all of the options that we’re currently studying for locations for committee rooms. There’s a fairly substantial ask for committee rooms. What we have done is provided up to 20 different potential locations for committee rooms, and when we make the decision as to which committee rooms are and where we build them, obviously the diagram would adjust and the size would adjust to accommodate that.
Ms. Garrett: We’ve talked about making some tough decisions. The key programmatic decisions are depicted on this slide, and they relate to both the base building and the functional program. What they effectively do is allow work on the program to be released and the program to go forward.
The key challenge here is to make enduring decisions up front in the program to make sure that we avoid change down the road into the project, because change is the enemy of schedule and cost.
I’m not going to belabour that, because I understand there’s a follow-up presentation and discussion coming on the Senate engagement strategy regarding that.
This is the last slide. Just to give you a sense, the slide depicts key activities that will be occurring over the next 12 months. Essentially, to give it to you in a nutshell, we’re on track to complete all the enabling project works and the comprehensive assessment program of the building by this December. We also intend to complete schematic design and hopefully landing and working through those decision points to come with a preferred design approach for the building.
Finally, we are initiating post-Labour Day the stand-up of the actual construction site and starting early construction activities, such as demolition abatement and the excavation that I mentioned earlier.
I’ll close by saying we can’t get this project done without the great support we’ve been receiving from the Senate administration. I’d like to personally thank my colleagues in the administration for all the great work and collaboration in order to make this project a success. Thank you.
The Chair: With that, we’ll open it up for questions. Thank you again for your presentations, they were very comprehensive and clear.
Senator Batters: Thanks very much. One thing I’m wondering as I listen to all of these different presentations today is, what is the projected number of years that the Centre Block renovation will take? For a while before the move it was said to take 10 years, and as we got closer to the move that time frame all of a sudden became reported in the media as bumped up to 13 years. We hadn’t even moved.
While I believe it’s absolutely important to complete this renovation in an appropriate and professional way, taking into account the fact this is one of Canada’s most important buildings we’re talking about here, taxpayers’ dollars have to be considered at all times as a top-of-mind priority. Obviously, more time in a construction project of that magnitude means much more money.
I found it interesting that, in a CPAC documentary they aired about Centre Block this past winter, they talked about how after Centre Block’s 1916 fire, the entire building from the ground up was completely reconstructed 100 years ago with horses in only four years. Now we’re talking about a time frame where it seems like it will take three years to determine how long the renovation will take and what it will look like. If you can please give us some input into that.
Mr. Wright: Absolutely. Going back to 100 years ago, which I think is an important reference point, a couple of things on that. I think extraordinary measures were taken at that time, which is fantastic and we’re trying to emulate it.
Two points: Parliamentarians did move back in, into a partially finished Centre Block. It was only partially finished and parts of it were occupied. Then it was completed in 1927. It kind of happened in phases, which is one thing we could consider with this project, but that would be up to parliamentarians.
One key element there is the Visitor Welcome Centre and the Centre Block. Those could open together, and that’s been the initial strategy. We could take an approach of trying to bring the Visitor Welcome Centre online first as one component. Those are things we could work through with parliamentarians in consideration, because I completely agree with you.
As far as baselining the project, it’s a fundamentally important thing. We want to be held to account for delivering on that project. There are really two fundamental pieces. One is the assessment program that we’re going through to pull that building apart to really understand it. Then it is what we are building, and that is part of the discussion today: What do parliamentarians want to be in that building? That will drive scheduling costs.
Senator Batters: Right now you’re still going with a 13-year time frame or not saying a time frame?
Mr. Wright: We’ve never officially said the time frame. As Ms. Garrett indicated, over this next year, by December, the completion of the assessment program and the completion of the functional programming would put us in a position to have a baseline scope, cost and schedule.
Senator Batters: When media used the number of 13 years, did that come from Public Works? Where did that number come from?
Mr. Wright: I think there’s been a lot of discussion in the media around the time frame, but there’s been no official time frame or budget given by Public Services and Procurement Canada.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you for your presentations.
I have a couple of concerns on your presentation, the first being the welcome centre and the security implications involved in that. This is a particular thing I noticed in our new chamber, the accommodations for our security and our staff. We have to put those in there so that they will be comfortable. It’s a hard job walking around these marble floors and keeping us all safe. I’d like to see them accommodated with good accommodations in this.
I’d like to know, on the welcome centre, the security implications. I look at this and I’m not 100 per cent sure that it’s a good idea, but I’m not an architect.
I’m absolutely sure, but just to make me feel better, have you been working with fire marshals? We had a good question yesterday from one of our senators on working to prevent something from happening like the Notre-Dame Cathedral. How are we doing with our fire prevention?
Mr. Wright: Thank you very much for the questions.
On the Visitor Welcome Centre, the visitor centre serves two purposes. Its origin comes from a security driver being number one. As you would know, when Centre Block was still in operation, the main security screening happened under the Peace Tower. Part of the plan for the past decade-plus with the plans for restoration and modernization of the Centre Block was to push that security screening outside of the building. So the Visitor Welcome Centre, one of its prime functions is to provide security screening for business visitors and tourists who are coming to the Hill to be able to safely do that screening outside of the building.
Phase 1 of the Visitor Welcome Centre now does that function for the West Block and will be connected to phase 2.
One of the other key functions, in addition to security screening, is to provide more program space for visitor services. Again, when Centre Block was in operation, you would see the long queue for tourists and visitors who wanted to have a tour of the Centre Block. It’s an iconic space. Only a small portion of those individuals could actually gain access to Centre Block for a tour. This will help to provide significant additional space for individuals, for Canadians and international visitors, to engage with Parliament and the meaning of parliamentary democracy in Canada.
Of course, the third thing that I think came through with the presentation is that it provides additional flex space for Parliament, for key operational space such as committee rooms.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you. And the second?
Mr. Wright: The second piece: Part of the modernization of the Centre Block is to bring it up to modern codes. Health and safety is the number one element.
The current Centre Block only had sprinkler coverage in about 20 per cent of the building, so there were significant deficiencies in the existing Centre Block and very little fire separation.
Two key elements in the Notre-Dame issue were lack of fire suppression and lack of fire separation. As we modernize it, that will be taken fully. There will be a very modern system.
In addition, during the construction phase, there will also be a number of measures in place to ensure that risk is mitigated. There will be heat sensors, 24-7 fire watch. We will have what are called standpipes in the scaffolding so it allows, if there is any issue, as the fire services arrive, to connect their hoses and water to be available in the construction site.
You might remember just over a year ago, in March 2018, we were doing many projects in the precinct and one of those projects is a building called Canada’s Four Corners at the corner of Sparks and Metcalfe. There was some welding occurring on the roof and there was a fairly significant roof fire. But because of all these measures, we were able to get it under control very quickly and there was limited damage.
Certainly we’re watching any of the lessons learned out of Notre-Dame. We’ve already done a review of our practices and feel quite confident, but are very open to putting in additional measures based on lessons learned.
Senator Munson: First of all, congratulations again for what you have done here, speaking of timelines. At the end of the day, it’s a gem of a building and you brought this historic building to life. I want to put that on the public record again.
On your magical discovery tour that you’re going to go on, you will be underneath the new Centre Block. Besides bodies being buried there, there is probably some other stuff there. We talk about asbestos. If you find asbestos, it has effects. There have been concerns about illnesses on the Hill over the past year, and how it connected to the Centre Block, certain areas.
Will you be transparent and open in what you find, not a year later? Let’s say in a year or two from now that you discover something that, my goodness, what is that all about? A lot of things have been stored. I don’t think a lot of senators know there’s a sub-basement below the basement and there are things there. That’s the first question about transparency.
The next one has to do with the terminology that has been used over the last little while that people haven’t talked about too much is the word “campus,” and the idea that Parliament will be a campus. When you envisage a campus, you see an area where it is a protected area. You think of university campuses and so on. It’s much more than just the Centre Block.
Could you talk a little bit about that? And we discussed this in the LTVP planning committee the idea of Wellington Street being closed, for example, if it’s a campus, if the LRT system will take care of all the traffic. If you could elaborate a bit on that too.
Mr. Wright: Absolutely. On the first question of hazardous materials and what is in the Centre Block, we will be taking, number one, a lot of due diligence on ensuring that all of the hazardous materials in the buildings are removed and stored appropriately.
In addition to that, and I think this more directly relates to your question, we will be making sure this is documented very clearly, and we’ll be working with environmental engineers and other experts to make sure that is done in a very professional way. Of course, we’re open to any level of transparency that’s desired on that or would be useful and happy to work in partnership with Parliament on that particular issue, absolutely.
On the second question, I think that’s quite an exciting opportunity for Parliament, thinking about the precinct as an integrated campus. We’re working closely with the administration of the Parliament. What we mean by this concept is having the services of Parliament much more integrated.
Think of security; that is one element. As more core functions of Parliament are on the south side of Wellington, how do we have a layered approach to security?
As we’ve approached each building one by one, it’s almost like approaching each building as being a fort and making sure that security is built in so that it’s able to stand on its own. If we think of security in a more layered, perimeter approach, it may allow us to think a little differently from a campus perspective, which would include elements such as thinking about the future of Wellington Street. Do we move to removing large trucks off of Wellington, which would have a benefit from a security perspective? Do we move to just having parliamentary vehicles be able to move on that, or just move to one lane of traffic?
There’s a continuum from status quo all the way up to making that a pedestrian type of zone and different steps in between.
We have initiated discussions with the City of Ottawa and the National Capital Commission on those types of discussions and there are lots more discussions to be had. But it would be interesting to understand the view of Parliament on that.
Things such as the movement of people and vehicles within the precinct and material handling, each building has a material handling loading dock. Can we centralize some of those components, putting in a tunnel infrastructure so that senators and members of Parliament can more easily move in between buildings, which again has a security element to it and would support the movement of material and goods on the campus.
Parking is another element, always a challenging piece within the parliamentary precinct, moving to some kind of centralized parkade. For all of those things, you have to think of the whole for any one of those individual pieces to really make sense. That’s really the direction we’re trying to move on the campus and I think there are a lot of exciting opportunities.
Senator Wetston: Thank you for your presentation.
Following up from Senator Stewart Olsen’s question, I’ve been advised — and I don’t have this information otherwise — that the greatest risk in renovations and restorations is fire often, and it’s in that stage of restorations and, of course, heritage buildings pose even greater risks.
What is the nature of the liability and indemnity insurance we carry with respect to the entire restoration of Parliament?
Mr. Wright: We take a couple of different approaches depending on the project. The government is self-insured for one element. But the large companies that we engage also carry insurance. For example, when we opened the West Block and there was the sprinkler head that burst in the cold weather, that was covered through insurance of the construction manager and then taxpayers did not pay for that.
Maybe I’ll pass this particular question and the specific reference of the Centre Block to Ms. Garrett.
Ms. Garrett: That’s a great question and we’re working on that now. As we formulate the construction strategy for the big rehabilitation, one of the terms to negotiate with the construction manager is a strategy on how much insurance coverage we actually want them to carry. We are going to be doing a detailed analysis and making a deliberate decision on where we want that threshold to be. There’s a balance between return on investment and the cost, amount of an insurance policy, versus assuming the risk. That strategy and those discussions are ongoing as we speak and we should have a better idea in the fall time frame of where that’s going and we are happy to bring that back to the committee.
Senator Wetston: One other quick question. I did notice that one of the technical challenges with modernization, you would be aware, of course, that one of the most significant sources of greenhouse gases in the country are buildings and automobiles. This is a major project. I might be appealing to Senator Plett when I ask this question, but perhaps not.
I think with the advances in clean technology and HVAC systems and distributed generation — and I realize you’re at the assessment stage, but this is a critical stage. How are you managing this evolving area of technology, realizing it may take 10 years or whatever period of time? Can you comment on that, please?
Mr. Wright: Sure. I’ll start with a high-level overview and pass off to Ms. Garrett. To a certain degree, this comes back to both the building and campus approach. Thinking of the campus allows us to have broader thinking on elements such as sustainability. With every project we’ve done in the precinct, sustainability has been a key objective. From the diversion of waste — and we’ve achieved well above 90 per cent in diversion of construction waste away from landfills, so thinking recycling — to making sure we have energy-efficient building systems, to some other elements such as solar panels, green walls, and some of these are boutique elements, such as the honeybee initiative we’re doing here with the Senate.
When we think more broadly, we’re working hand in hand with the modernization of the central heating and cooling plant, which will provide significant improvements from a greenhouse gas emission perspective. All of the parliamentary buildings will be hooked up to that modern heating and cooling plant. A fundamental improvement to the energy efficiency that the Parliamentary Precinct will face.
Since 2005, we’ve reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 56 per cent. We still have a long way to go, but it’s a fairly significant reduction over that past decade-plus.
With regard to Centre Block, it’s one of the prime objectives to try to push the edge a bit on sustainability and environmental measures.
Ms. Garrett: We do have a sustainability objective. In terms of the Centre Block rehabilitation we’re thinking big. I would like to highlight the fact that it’s much easier to achieve significant reductions in a new construct, particularly when it’s constructed underground. Nonetheless, we have lofty objectives.
We’re currently looking at sustainability options and they range from incremental improvements. It’s not just Centre Block the building, but how Centre Block works with and fits into the broader campus initiatives, to actually carbon neutrality. Whether or not we will get there is to be determined. We’d be happy to come back and brief on where we’re headed in terms of those options and let you know where the recommended approach will land.
We should have a better understanding of that. Again, we’re working through those options in the summer time frame and we’ll be prepared to have further discussions about that in the fall.
Finally, it’s perfect timing in terms of the launch of the Long Term Vision and Plan update because there is a real synergy and close collaboration between the folks working on that program and Centre Block to make sure we come up with a comprehensive strategy.
Mr. Wright: One more point I’ll add to that is some recent news. Ms. Garrett indicated that with heritage buildings, modernizing them for energy efficiency is one of the main challenges. We actually just applied for funding and were successful to do some research with the NRC on how to improve the thermal performance of stonemasonry buildings. We just got access to a central fund for $850,000 to do research into how to make improvements. We’re trying to move in a number of different directions and have many irons in the fire to help ensure that we do meet important sustainability targets.
Senator Housakos: It seems to me that we’re embarking on a strategic assessment process, which I understand will take a period of time. I don’t understand why we wouldn’t have done that while we were still in the building. Why wouldn’t we commence this process in 2017-18? The consultative stage and the strategic stage I think would be well served practically if we were still in the building.
I understand there has been consultation with the administration, both of the House of Commons and the Senate. That’s all fine and dandy, but the vast majority of the members of our administration and the house administration don’t even use the building, other than coming in to serve various purposes.
Has there been intense consultation and outreach to senators, members of the House of Commons and their staff in terms of the practical challenges we’ve had over the last few years from what the expectations would be to better serve the purpose? Again, I reiterate: I would think that would have been better achieved while we were still in the building and it’s fresh.
The other question has to do with space. My understanding is we’re not expanding the actual space of the house and the Senate, the Centre Block other than what I see in your proposal, which is adding other committee rooms, both for the house and the Senate side at the rear end, I guess the north end of the building. Have we also taken into consideration over the next 100 years there will be growth on the house side? If you look at the last 50 years there’s been significant growth in terms of the members of the house, their staff and their needs. They’ve encroached over the last 30 or 40 years onto the Senate side — and I say that politely and, of course, it was done in negotiation and in consultation.
Have we taken all those elements into consideration? Over the next few decades they will continue to grow, we will continue to stay at the numbers we are, more or less. I can’t predict the constitutional negotiations of the future, but I assume those factors have been considered as well.
Mr. Wright: Thank you very much for those questions. The consultative stage is always a balance on the timing. If we would have put the contracts in place several years previously, we would have been burning taxpayers’ money. It’s finding that balance of how to do that at the right time.
The opening up of the building and really getting a detailed understanding is based on years of lessons learned on de-risking the project so that we are ensuring we are proceeding in a way that takes care of taxpayers’ money in the best way possible. At the same time, while we’re doing that, doing the schematic design and the functional program in parallel makes good sense.
One of the things we’ve done on this project is bringing in the design and the construction managers at the exact same time, which will allow the designers and the constructors to work hand in glove. So you’re not working on a design and then handing it over to a constructor and then there’s a lot of rework that happens where the constructor says, “I can’t construct it this way,” and then you go back to the design team. We’re doing that all in an integrated way and we hope that will pay off.
On the engagement and consultation with parliamentarians, I would say maybe the simplest approach is we’re open to any engagement that you feel is appropriate. We’re working closely with the administration of the Senate and the house to essentially be the facilitators and mediators of that engagement with parliamentarians. We are open and willing to come and engage any time that it would be useful.
On the last question on the growth of the House of Commons, yes, we’ve been looking at that very deeply. One of the biggest challenges of many for this project is the House of Commons chamber. We have to design and build that in a way so that it can accommodate 400-plus members of Parliament, because of the growth projections. A little different challenge than the Senate Chamber when we go back.
That’s a significant challenge from a heritage perspective, from a structural perspective, as well as desire and what parliamentarians want. We’re working through that process right now. Does that mean growing the size of the chamber? Does that mean reconfiguring the chamber to be more like a bench kind of layout, like the Parliament in the U.K.? Or does that mean a different type of set-up altogether? There are some really important considerations and decisions that need to be taken, first and foremost by parliamentarians, over the next little while.
Senator Housakos: That is exactly my concern. That element of the job needed to be done well in advance before you brought in your designers. And I think it is incumbent on Public Works to come to us with a process of consultation — when I say “us,” I mean senators and members of the House of Commons — that fits your agenda. But it needs to be done because once the design process is in the can, it’s going to be very difficult to go back and revisit it.
So I see an element of weakness there in terms of the assessment plan, and I strongly recommend that you reach out to both senators and members on the House side to address some of those issues, particularly on the house side, or else we’ll find ourselves with 15 or 20 years from now with more MPs, more staff and more needs. And even with those additional committee rooms that will be built on the north end, we will be arm-wrestling with them for space.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: I will follow up on the comments made by Senator Verner and Senator Saint-Germain regarding the Notre-Dame Cathedral renovations. The fire at the Manège militaire in Quebec City occurred during renovations. That’s really a concern. Very often in history, renovation projects turned out to be disasters, to an extent. I want to come back to the Manège militaire in Quebec City. During its reconstruction, the aesthetic aspect was one of the areas of focus. Whoever goes to Parliament Hill over the next 12, 15 or 20 years will undoubtedly see that “wart”— I asked your predecessors —
[English]
It would be a big white tarp, including the phallic symbol of the Peace Tower being a big white condom. I told your predecessor at that time, tourism is an important element of Ottawa and in most historic capitals when they did these renovations, they put the tarp and visually put the same building on the tarp. When I asked that to your predecessors, they said, “We don’t do tourism.”
This is a tourist attraction. It’s as important to Canada as Notre-Dame was to Paris and as Manège militaire was to Quebec City. How are we going to be treating that aesthetic part of the operation? We’ve seen how it’s happening over the last two years. We haven’t been too preoccupied. It’s small elements. We’ve seen West Block. But what are we going to be doing on that side of it?
I came here when I was 9 years old and I was impressed by the building, and I’ve been coming since then. How do we want to look at it during the next 15 years? Do we want this big white tarp or do we want to try and try protect the image that young Canadians want to see when they come to visit the capital. I don’t know if you’re dealing with that, but I think it is an important element.
[Translation]
Mr. Wright: Thank you very much for your questions. First, the risk of fire is a significant issue.
[English]
I don’t want anybody to think we don’t take that seriously, and we have gone back and looked at all of our approaches. We are having discussions about what the best approach will be with the Centre Block to ensure that risk is mitigated as effectively as possible and if there is any issue, we have the measures in place to be able to respond as quickly as possible. We’d be happy to come back with a detailed approach on that if it was the desire of the committee.
On your second question, we agree, that is a very important issue. Parliament Hill is important for a host of reasons and one of them is a gathering place for Canadians and it is a central place for tourism.
We’ve been trying to work hand in hand with Parliament and other organizations, such as Heritage Canada, National Capital Commission and others, to ensure that the work that will be taking place on the Hill is thoughtfully done. It will have an impact, there’s no question about that, but it is to try and create alternative experiences and to ensure that the important experiences that occur on Parliament Hill are able to continue in the best way possible, perhaps in a modified manner.
We’ve done a lot of work for the sound and lights show, the changing of the guards, Canada Day, et cetera. On the question of a printed tarp, we’ve had many discussions about that. We are doing assessments on that. We’re, in fact, doing an assessment right now for the southwest tower of the East Block, on whether to put a printed tarp on that, and again use that as a bit of a pilot project. You may remember on the Postal Station B Building, which is at the corner of Elgin and Sparks, we used a certain style of printed tarp during the Canada 150 celebrations and that was a bit of a pilot project on how that would work and to assess feedback. Of course, there is a cost associated with printed tarps. So it’s a weighing of all those elements, and I think critical are your perspectives on those types of issues.
Senator Dawson: On the printed tarp, I think in Luxembourg or Strasbourg, they sold pieces of the tarp and made a little suitcase and they recovered lots of the cost. So I think that’s fine.
Another issue that preoccupies me and for those of you who have been following the distance that exists between the House of Commons and the Senate, I am on the JIC Committee and 95 per cent of the meetings of the bicameral organizations, both houses, are being held in the House of Commons. As we go forward, we’re becoming more and more distant from being partners with the House of Commons and being dependent on the House of Commons.
I don’t want us to be, for the next 10 years, the junior partners of the House of Commons, where we will live with their decisions. I want to be sure, Mr. Chair, that we always are preoccupied with the fact that this distance does not increase over the next 10 years. You’re dealing with the Senate and you’re probably having a meeting this morning at the House of Commons on the same issue. It’s very parallel and that scares me because, as you know, we were supposed to come in the building at the same time and we had to delay it and we had all those debates last year about who is really delaying it? Is it the House of Commons that’s not ready? I would hope for the next 10, 13 or 14 years, Senator Batters, that we don’t have that same tardiness.
The Chair: If we have another meeting going on at the House of Commons, we have the A team.
Senator Forest-Niesing: My question is on the topic of aesthetics as well, but I’m looking ahead to the completion. I might have appreciated a front elevation drawing, just to have a sense of what we might be looking at once this project is completed.
I’m particularly concerned about the Welcome Centre. I anticipate if it’s anything like the Welcome Centre phase 1 that exists in West Block, it’s going to be magnificent. The first phase is incredibly magnificent. I congratulate you on that. How much of it will be above ground and to what extent will it interrupt the view from Wellington to the beautiful, majestic Centre Block?
Mr. Wright: Thank you very much for the question. It’s not fully designed yet, but we can speak certainly very specifically to the intent, and the intent is for it to have as minimal an impact as possible. It is meant to be constructed underground, so that as described, the Vaux wall that is aligned with the main central staircase going up to the Centre Block, is really on top of the Visitor Welcome Centre. So it is very much like phase 1, where it is meant to kind of fit into the landscape of Parliament Hill, rather than in any way to dominate the landscape. And it really is meant to not have any impact on those sight lines.
I don’t know if there’s anything that needs to be added.
Mr. Broyd: Yes, absolutely correct. As we said, the Vaux wall goes back on the roof at the same elevation as it is today. We’ve tucked the whole building in underneath it. Obviously, we will have to get down to those entry doors, but that way, all those sight lines across the lawn are maintained.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Great news. My next question as a follow-up to that is one of safety. I’m certain that you have this covered, but I just want to make sure that if we’re tucking all of this underground, we will be very mindful of evacuation plans and that education for users of those will be done very efficiently.
Mr. Wright: Absolutely. To reiterate, the Visitor Welcome Centre fundamentally in many respects is about safety. It is about the safety of Parliament. The way it’s designed and built will be kind of a prime driver as a consideration, and the flow of how people move will also be key, not only in but out in a safe manner.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Thank you.
Senator Tannas: We’ve been through this at LTVP. Thank you for your presentation here today. It is amazing, to your point, senator, that we’re going to more than double the footprint of Centre Block underground and create all this extra space. I want to talk about the two proposed areas of changes above ground. We’ve heard a little bit, an inkling, in our committee of potential concern around these two new pavilions that would be on either side of the Library of Parliament and above ground, which will essentially change the look of the north side of the Parliament Buildings. I see them there.
My worry is this, and I’m wondering what you think we can do: The worst possible scenario would be that the public becomes alive to this at some point and everybody gets all up in arms two or three years from now and wants to stop it because of history and architecture and we get into a great big debate about it and it goofs up all our plans or stalls things. That’s where it could cost us a bunch of money and a bunch of time.
What can we do now to have the debate, make the decision and put it to rest around those two proposed pavilions that will be obvious for the future and fundamentally — we can debate fundamentally — will change the footprint of the historic building?
Mr. Wright: That’s a very good question and it goes to some of the decisions that Ms. Garrett outlined will need to be made. There are a lot of parameters at play in taking such a decision. One is clearly understanding the requirements of different spaces, where best they can fit and how much space is a challenge.
If there’s a desire for high-security cybersecurity, for example, being one element, the initial assessment is that that type of pavilion might be one of the easier places to accomplish some of those objectives. It is also the initial assessment that that might be a lower cost as compared to trying to put some of those highly functional spaces either into the heritage Centre Block or even into the Visitor Welcome Centre because the space demands are moving to a max.
We’ve heard quite clearly in all of our engagements so far that parliamentarians really want to retain the look and feel of the Centre Block, and we’re taking that very much to heart. So if we were to proceed on this basis, trying to do that in a way that retained the look and feel of the Centre Block would be a prime driver.
As Mr. Broyd indicated, we’ve come up with 20 different types of plans, and maybe finding a way to go through some of those in a more detailed manner would be the appropriate way to kind of touch bottom on some of those decisions.
Senator Tannas: I would just say that I think we ought to do this on purpose and we ought to do it soon. If that involves a more detailed look and feel so that people can be assured of what it’s going to look like rather than just a lump at the back, I think that would be appropriate. I’m very concerned that we will have second thoughts about it somewhere down the road and get in our own way.
We’ll work on this and maybe let’s keep alive to this. If we need to make an on-purpose decision as Parliament — the other thing is, you don’t want the Senate saying “no” and the House of Commons saying “yes” to their pavilion. So we need to coordinate this and we should do it this fall at the latest, in order to allow the rest of the plan.
The Chair: I must admit, I agree completely with Senator Tannas. This is something that is better done sooner rather than later because this could be a debate and we don’t want to be offside three years from now and cost three times as much by not changing anything.
Senator Dean: Just to follow up, we’ve all been focused on the front elevation. I think now we’re talking about that view from the bridge and the other side of the river, where we really enjoy that iconic view of the Library. Just so we’re all clear, I think that’s the view we need to have in mind as we think about this issue.
Senator Plett: For those of us on Long Term Vision — and Mr. Wright will appreciate when I make this comment — I find myself in the very uncomfortable position of defending Public Works this morning.
Mr. Wright: I’m writing that down, sir.
Senator Plett: I say that partly in reference to the very first question that we had here today from Senator Batters, and I agree with her about the time frame of the initial building. These are a few comments, and then I have a question, chair.
I think we need to keep in perspective a whole lot of differences. Probably 100 years ago they weren’t working 35- and 40-hour work weeks. They were working 16- and 18-hour work days. They didn’t have the safety features and concerns that we have today. They didn’t need to concern themselves with that. Probably they didn’t do any hoarding and preparation. They just went in and started building. They weren’t concerned about a carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions.
The fact of the matter is, as Senator Tannas just said, this building is twice as big as the other one was and half of it will be underground. We don’t know what we’re going to see when we open walls. Many times, renovations take a whole lot longer than building a new building. We appreciate all of that.
I certainly understand, Mr. Wright, when you say we can’t give a definite date. However, I do not agree that we haven’t been giving dates. We were given dates of West Block. We were told we wouldn’t start East Block until Centre Block was done, and anyone who has offices in East Block knows that went out the window. There we are under complete construction in East Block and have been for some time.
We were told we would be in this conference centre for 10 years. To me, that means Centre Block will be done in 10 years because there is no other place for us to go. We have been given dates.
Mr. Wright, let’s either not give any dates or — and we were given some by Ms. Garrett today on preparation. By 2020 this would be done. Maybe those are the dates we should be given as opposed to an end date. This is when this phase will be done. This is when this will be done. We need to be kept up to speed. I think on Long Term Vision I’m not complaining that we haven’t been kept up to speed, but we are making changes regularly. Then I hear crazy comments that we are on time and on budget. Well, we’re never on time and on budget if that changes from the very initial one, so we shouldn’t be doing that.
Those are only a few comments. I commend you for the work you’re doing. I’m not necessarily happy. I’m certainly not happy with what’s happening at East Block at this point. The jury’s out on Centre Block.
The only question I have is this: How many committee rooms are we going to have that are going to be connected to Centre Block when we’re done? We need at least 10 broadcast-capable committee rooms in buildings that are connected to Centre Block, not somewhere else. I’m quite happy with the way we are connected here with our committee rooms. I think that’s good. It’s much better than what it was before. Are we going to have that when we’re done? Are we going to be able to have ten broadcast-capable committee rooms connected to Centre Block or are we going to have to walk across the street like we did before?
Mr. Wright: That’s an important question, and I think we all have to wrestle with that because there are significant implications that all of us, eyes wide open, need to consider as we make decisions.
We talk — and I take the point very seriously — we talk about the campus and we talk about the parliamentary complex on the Hill. As we’re moving forward on the campus, we’re trying to work on tunnel infrastructure. What is connected becomes part of a meaningful discussion, for us as a group because it’s important for us to understand clearly where you sit on particular issues like that. If we’re able to make a much more integrated campus, does that resolve some of those concerns? It may or it may not. So that will be important.
The more that we kind of ask of Centre Block and that space, the more impact there will be on cost and schedule. There’s no question about that, but that’s a tradeoff that we have to make together. There are probably some upper limits of what can be placed. Putting in one space may result in not having a different type of space. Those are the types of conversations that will be critical over the next while, making sure that we’re clear and transparent about that and comfortable, so that we don’t end up with adjustments later.
Senator Plett: Well, I sincerely hope that either long-term vision or this committee will be kept abreast of those decisions and that we’re not told when we’re done that we couldn’t fit in 10 committee rooms, so we gave you eight.
Further to what Senator Dawson said about House of Commons and us, yes, we want to keep a connection, but we want to have our own meeting rooms. To me, connected to Centre Block would be anything from the east side of the centre line in Centre Block to East Block that would be connected to Centre Block, in my opinion. Hopefully before decisions get made that we could only fit in eight, we’re part of that discussion.
Mr. Wright: One element of that as we move forward, and it will be important — I don’t think we’ve really had deep discussions on this yet — as we move towards the campus and the redevelopment of the three city blocks that face Parliament Hill, is the middle block which has the former American embassy on it and two empty plazas. Part of the long-term vision and plan is to redevelop those three city blocks to include two new buildings for Parliament, one for the Senate and one for the House of Commons, which would be intended to be connected by a tunnel through to East Block. Does that facility figure into that type of factoring or not? This is where I think making sure that we are all on the same page about how the campus should operate and what is connected, I think that would provide tremendous opportunity to have an eastern spine of the hill from Centre Block, the Visitor Welcome Centre, East Block, to that new complex, which are essentially all interconnected in a line on the east side of the Hill, essentially.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Wright, thank you again. I have one last question. Often in projects of this magnitude and of this length of time there’s a risk assessment done on projects. Do we have such a risk assessment? If so, would it be possible for us to have a copy or for LTVP to have a copy?
Mr. Wright: Absolutely, there is an integrated risk approach that is done in coordination with the officials of the Senate and the House of Commons and the other administrations of Parliament. We’d be happy to share that.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much. Again, thank you very much, Mr. Wright, Ms. Garrett, and Mr. Broyd. We appreciate it, very thorough and comprehensive. I’m sure we’ll be seeing you again soon.
Senator Housakos: Can I make a comment to the chair and steering of internal economy? It seems from the briefing today that we’re still in the assessment stages. I think our long-term planning committee led by Senator Tannas and whoever else is on it needs to address the issues brought up, particularly those of Senator Plett in terms of space.
For context, a few years back — and even geographic territory — the Hall of Honour was always the dividing border between the Senate and the House of Commons geographically in Centre Block. A number of years ago, obviously with the growth of the needs of the House of Commons, like I said in my question earlier, they have been encroaching. For example, the Commonwealth Room. The Commonwealth Room was always under the administration of the Senate, and it was our room. Over the last number of years, it has become the room of the House of Commons because their needs have grown. As a result, we have taken a lot of our committee needs and we’ve taken them to Victoria and taken them outside of Centre Block.
I think, from a perspective of geography and positioning, and going back to the question of Senator Dawson, we need to redefine our territory and our needs. Being respectful of those of the House of Commons, but making sure that the decision which seems to be unilaterally made already that we’re not expanding space, but if you’re not expanding space you’re not modernizing and fulfilling the growing needs of the House of Commons and the Senate. I wanted to make my colleagues aware of those elements.
The Chair: Senator Tannas, I hope you will be taking note.
Item 3 is a presentation of the Governance Framework. I invite Caroline Morency, Acting Director General to the table. The purpose of this framework is to provide greater clarity, improve decision making, avoid duplication and speed of decision making, all of which serve to reduce costs.
Caroline Morency, Acting Director General, Property and Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, as you can appreciate, a lot of key decisions and milestones will have to take place over the next 12 months as they relate to the Long-Term Vision and Planning initiatives, mainly the Centre Block Rehabilitation Program. Building on lessons learned from the Senate of Canada Building project and in order to clarify which stakeholder has the final decision on each file, we have prepared a proposed governance framework for your approval. This framework has been endorsed by the subcommittee on LTVP and the Speaker’s office.
The principle behind this governance framework is that issues related to base building are the decision of Public Services and Procurement Canada.
For the Centre Block Rehabilitation Program, for example, decisions on seismic approach or asbestos removal, the LTVP subcommittee will be informed or consulted, but ultimately the PSPC will be accountable.
On the other hand, for decisions affecting senators and Senate operations, the final decision clearly lies with the LTVP subcommittee and CIBA, of course. The LTVP subcommittee will have an opportunity to endorse or review all items that will be brought forward to this committee’s attention.
Finally, what relates to the Senate Chamber and security is ultimately the decision of the Speaker.
The governance framework is divided by quarters. I would like to quickly run over the items for spring 2019.
In June, you will receive a presentation on the Senate accommodation end-state vision for the parliamentary precinct for approval. During the same meeting, you will be receiving a presentation on the Centre Block rehabilitation and LTVP update initiative, engagement and communication approach for approval.
Finally, the Speaker will be making the decision with respect to construction hoarding that we just talked about, that will be erected around the perimeter of the Visitor Welcome Centre excavation and the Centre Block construction site.
This Speaker will also make all decisions around the Senate Chamber. This framework will ensure that every key step of each Long-Term Vision and Plan project is supervised in order to ensure the best interests of the Senate. We will update this governance framework every quarter and bring it for your approval. It will continue to cover a 15-month span. This road map will allow us to stay on track to meet the Long-Term Vision and Plan project timelines.
I’m seeking your approval today for the governance framework put before you. Mr. Chair, I’m happy to answer any questions at this point.
Senator Tannas: I want to make committee members aware of the fact that with a lot of what we talked about with the last presentation, and as you kind of bring your minds to it, we need to make the decision. You’ll see in spring 2019, that second-last thing that says, “Senate accommodation end state vision for the Parliamentary Precinct.” This will be a very important decision we will make that will be for the next 100 years for the Senate, how we accommodate ourselves on the precinct and how that will connect with our share of the real estate of Centre Block.
I’m in full support of this framework. I thought it was a brilliant idea to actually lay out the decisions that we need to make and when we need to make them, decisions others will make we’ll be told about, others where we may have a chance for input but the decision gets made somewhere else or in consultation. I think it’s a good document for all of us to keep in our binders as we go forward. Thank you.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much. I’m glad that Senator Tannas brought up, after the previous presentation, the Library of Parliament and these two pavilions on other side. I’m glad he’s on the Long-Term Vision and Plan subcommittee, which I am not, because I actually had no idea that was potentially being proposed to have a pavilion on either side of it above ground. To me, one of the most beautiful aspects of Parliament Hill is that view. I’m quite alarmed to hear that could change. Thank you for bringing that up. That obviously needs to be factored into this time frame.
Perhaps this is a well-known construction term that I am not aware of, but when I see on this page the reference to “construction hoarding,” referring to the temporary structure or something like that, is that a commonly used word in construction? I’ve never heard of that before. The only place I’ve heard of hoarding is on the A&E TV show, and I wondered if there’s potentially another phrase that can be used or if that’s so well known in the construction industry that it wouldn’t make sense.
Senator Plett: It’s a common phrase.
Ms. Morency: It’s common terminology, but we would be happy to refer to a different name at this table if necessary.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Any other questions? If not, can I have a mover for the following motion: That the governance framework be adopted?
Senator Dean: I do have a question. Governance frameworks are important. I think a good job is being done in recommending this. It does suggest a fairly significant mandate for the Long-Term Vision and Plan committee, I’m going to point out, and I do that particularly because I’m a member of that committee. There’s high-level governance, low-level detail and it seems to me that the Long-Term Vision and Plan committee will get everything in between on this scheme.
We’ve been meeting weekly. I don’t remember whether this is front-end loaded, to some extent, in the context of calendar gap we’ll be experiencing, which is of unknown length. Could we have some sense of the degree to which the Long-Term Vision and Plan committee will be continuing to meet to dialogue, with what frequency, with what depth, over what could be the next five, six or seven months, on some hugely weighty issues? I wouldn’t be raising this if I wasn’t a member of the committee. I’m sure this gives lots of comfort to those of you who aren’t on that committee.
Could we get some sense of what we’re in for, in terms of responsibility, workload, the requirement to set time aside over the next several months? Because I don’t think this is the sort of thing that you just skip over at a meeting like this.
Senator Tannas: Maybe I can answer, and Caroline and Josée can add if they need to.
We’re one of the committees that has intersessional authority. So we carry on even when Parliament is dissolved. That then flows through to the subcommittee. My view is that we will need to meet from July 1 through to whenever Parliament comes back. Obviously, for efficiency, we would do it where we would take a day and come to Ottawa and deal with things. To the extent the full committee needs to be involved, we’d have to consider that as well.
Senator Dean: Thank you.
The Chair: Can I have a mover for the following motion: That the governance framework be adopted? Senator Dean, thank you.
All agreed, senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you.
The next item is the updated mandate for the Subcommittee on Long-Term Vision and Plan.
Senator Tannas: Thank you, colleagues. Our mandate was primarily to see us into this building, and now we are shifting our focus to Centre Block and the larger precinct, East Block, the potential new Senate building, the Victoria Building renovation that will happen, et cetera. We have an updated mandate that has been worked through steering and through the Speaker’s office and so on, that we’d like to present here. I need to read it; it’s a motion.
I move:
That, pursuant to the decision of this committee on March 10, 2016, respecting the creation of the Subcommittee on Long-Term Vision and Plan to supervise the move of the Senate from Centre Block to the Senate of Canada Building, the mandate of the subcommittee be extended to include the following: To supervise all steps, processes and decisions, excluding those areas that are under the authority of the Speaker, relating to the program of work for the Long Term Vision and Plan for the Parliamentary Precinct, and in coordination with the Senate administration, to examine the best ways to ensure the rehabilitation of Centre Block, East Block and all other buildings that will be occupied by the Senate in the end state respect the heritage and the best interests of the Senate, without compromising the integrity of security. For greater certainty, all matters under the authority of the Speaker will be referred to the Speaker or his designate.
The Chair: All agreed, senators?
Senator Batters: First of all, Senator Tannas, thank you. But this did not come through steering, actually. This went straight from your subcommittee directly to CIBA, because I received this document with —
The Chair: And the Speaker as well.
Senator Tannas: And the Speaker.
Senator Batters: Right, but not through steering. I have one suggestion, the very last part of the phrase. I’m not sure why we would need to see all matters under the authority of the Speaker will be referred to the Speaker or his designate. I would suggest we don’t need to have that final phrase in this particular mandate. It’s a pretty important mandate. I don’t think we want to be allowing a designate that’s undefined within that particular purview.
Senator Tannas: I think if the Speaker wants to designate somebody, that’s up to him, right?
Senator Batters: That’s up to him, but I think we shouldn’t include it directly in the mandate.
The Chair: Up to him.
Senator Tannas: I would then suggest that we amend my motion to remove “or his designate.”
The Chair: All agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed, carried.
The next item is the Senate standard for parliamentary office units. Caroline is already here. Any comments? Please go ahead.
Ms. Morency: Thank you. I would like to seek your approval on the direction received from the Long-Term Vision and Plan subcommittee regarding an important element of the Senate’s end state office accommodation, which is the parliamentary office units. More specifically, we require your approval to proceed with some updates to our accommodation standards, which will be our working assumptions for all Senate office space under the Long-Term Vision and Plan.
Specifically, we are seeking your approval for the following: To increase the Senate accommodation standard for a Parliamentary Office Unit from 80 metres squared to 90 metres squared. This is being done to allow for future growth in the size of senators’ office staff. We recognize that this standard may not be possible for all office units in the Centre Block and East Block, given the heritage constraints of the buildings, but it would be the goal for all new construction. That’s the first approval we’re seeking.
The second one is the standard for Senate leadership parliamentary office units would be two offices: one for their leadership activities and one for senator functions. All non-leadership senators would be allocated one office unit. This recommendation is in keeping with the general feedback from the LTVP subcommittee on this item, and consistent with the current practice.
The third one is that steps will be taken to standardize the amenities of all parliamentary office units. For example, any washrooms in standard senators’ offices will be removed to provide a standard approach to office space.
The fourth is that any additional support staff beyond those that can be accommodated in the office unit will be located in support space, such as research pods, or in a single office unit that can accommodate one or two small desks. Ideally, these spaces would be in the same building and same floor, but additional work will need to be done to confirm that that can be achieved. It is important to recognize that the higher number of support spaces on Parliament Hill, the fewer number of actual senators in close proximity to the chamber. It is a trade-off that we need to consider and plan for in the design of future space.
The fifth recommendation is that the Centre Block will accommodate all leadership senators and key legislative functions that support the chamber as the highest priority. Some non-leadership senators may be allocated offices in the Centre Block for accessibility reasons.
And the last recommendation will be that all non-leadership senators who cannot be accommodated in Centre Block will be situated in either East Block and another building, either north or south of Wellington.
This completes my presentation on this topic and I’m available to answer any questions, Mr. Chair.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I have two questions. When you talk about washrooms, you are talking about the Parliament Building and the East Block and not other offices?
Ms. Morency: Right now, those are the only offices with a private washroom in certain circumstances. Indeed, no parliamentary offices in the Senate will have washrooms following a redesign, new construction or building rehabilitation.
Senator Moncion: So if we are talking about the Victoria Building, there are washrooms in all the offices, and they will all be removed.
Ms. Morency: Once the building undergoes full rehabilitation, yes.
Senator Moncion: I would like to mention a problem that has been noted in the new building. It has to do with the number of washrooms and their locations. That should be taken into consideration. I agree that we don’t need a washroom in our office, but it should still be ensured that the existing washrooms are large enough to accommodate everyone and that they are close to our workplaces.
Second, some employees who work in offices don’t have a window. That’s extremely unhealthy. In the new building, in the conference room, I find it astounding to see that employees are working in windowless rooms. I brought this up when we toured the building during construction. I think that is unhealthy.
[English]
Senator Batters: I’m glad Senator Moncion brought up the washrooms because I wanted to say we need to ensure there are enough washrooms, and in areas that are quickly accessible to committee rooms and to the chamber. Because frankly what we’re seeing in this particular building is an example of what not to do. We used to have several washrooms for men and women behind the Senate Chamber, because many times we’re in there for eight, 10 hours at a stretch. It would be preferable if we had a washroom to go to that was very accessible to the chamber.
Currently, we have one washroom for 105 senators and pages and all the people who work in the chamber. It is not really acceptable.
Another example is this particular committee room. I can’t just run out like I could have 160-S in Centre Block in two minutes. I have to go considerably down the hall and it’s not an accessible place to have washrooms. Please take that into account. Thank you.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you for your presentation. I’m wondering where the request for enlarging offices is coming from, because space is at a premium. Many of our offices are huge in East Block. I’m wondering why you can’t renovate.
I have two staffers. They each have an office. But I’ve worked in a lot of places where you shared offices or you had smaller offices. I don’t think we need palatial accommodations like that. I would like you to look at it, more so that senators could be together in the same space, perhaps in the same office space.
I worry a bit about when you’re saying a new building, that this would be for all new buildings. I don’t know what you mean with that, but that’s kind of a blanket thing that you have out there that there’s going to be a new building that some senators will be accommodated in, and I’d like to hear more on that. Because that’s always problematic.
Ms. Morency: Thank you for the questions. To your last question, the preliminary feedback or result we have from the preliminary schematic design is that, of course, not all of the senators will be accommodated in both Centre Block and East Block. So there’s a need to have a third building, location yet to be determined. Mr. Wright has alluded to possibilities on the south side, but again this will have to be brought to this table for approval.
Second, with respect to your first question about where this comes from, we’ve seen a lot of increase in staffers in senators’ offices. On average, there are over 2.5 employees per senator’s office. At this point, when we look at the more recent offices that were created, like here or in the Chambers Building, there is not typically enough space to accommodate them all.
In heritage buildings like Centre Block and East Block, of course, some of the offices are much larger and may accommodate additional staff.
The other thing is that with the heritage fabric of those offices in Centre Block and East Block, we will not necessarily be able to demolish walls in order to resize the suite, the Parliamentary office unit. So that has to be taken into consideration as well. Some senators will have larger offices like they used to have, because of that constraint.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I hear what you’re saying, but I’m pretty sure most senators would be fairly accommodating if you said, “Let’s put two desks in one large space.” It’s not ideal, but this is going to be an incredible cost to the long-term planning. We’re already blasting out half of the rock up here.
I would suggest for this committee, because I’m not a member, the committee be presented with any plans and drawings before you move ahead, and especially before you choose the new building and how far it will be. For new senators coming, it’s a hard thing to do to be off somewhere and try to make your way back and things like that.
I would urge a bit of caution with that going forward.
Senator Tannas: On that, Senator Stewart Olsen, the decision around what building and where, it is for this committee to make, and we intend to put the proposal forward on June 13. That’s the one I was pointing out in the governance framework that will set out our footprint as a Senate, what buildings we’re going to occupy for the next 100 years.
With respect to office space, we’re talking about the minimum size, basically, of an office. Ninety square metres, by my reckoning, is roughly 1,000 square feet. That would be the smallest senator’s suite that we would have in any building, anywhere, whether it’s East Block, Centre Block or the new Senate building, wherever it winds up being put.
There will be offices that will be larger but none that will be smaller; is that correct, Caroline?
Ms. Morency: Maybe Josée knows more about the heritage offices.
Josée Labelle, LTVP Executive Advisor, Real Property Planning and Services, Senate of Canada: In terms of Centre Block and East Block, evidently some of the offices may be slightly larger in size. It wouldn’t pose a problem fitting in that additional furniture.
That being said, within the new construction, such as Victoria or at the chambers or even in this building, we have encountered challenges with the restraint of the actual standard. It is 80 square metres, plus or minus 10 per cent. Sometimes there’s a column or other infrastructure that also diminishes the size of the footprint which then poses a challenge in the configuration of how those 80 square metres are laid out, whether it’s rectangular or square. All those issues in combination pose a challenge to be able to fit in even one additional staff member when requested.
Just that extra 10 square metres will help alleviate the pressure on how we can manage demand and expectation. Really, what we’re facing here is for the next 50 years. So it’s not even a 10- or 12-year period. We really have to think about projections in terms of how we’re accommodating space and very long-term requirements.
Senator Forest-Niesing: I will be extremely brief. My points have been covered. I had concerns about the windows. I was on the same page as Senator Stewart Olsen.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: I would like to come back to and stress the point raised by Senators Moncion and Batters on washrooms. That is a real problem. I cannot believe that we are sitting here in 2019, in a new centre where the washroom configuration is a disaster.
I would like to emphasize another issue that concerns washrooms for people with disabilities. For a person with a disability, using a washroom requires elements other than just having a larger door. It also means that there must be at least one shelf on which they can leave their things inside the washroom. Right now, if you have to use the washroom for people with disabilities, there is a very large door — I will give you that — and a very large space inside. However, there is no shelf for documents, a handbag or a briefcase. Please, something other than a large door must be planned for washrooms for people with disabilities. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Plett: A quick question, Caroline, and then I have a comment.
Our offices here, my whip’s office, how many square metres is that office?
Ms. Morency: That’s 80 metres square, plus or minus 10 per cent. All of the offices here, including leadership offices.
Senator Plett: It’s a decent-sized office. Clearly my East Block office is much larger and it’s a heritage office. It’s large enough. I want to assure Senator Stewart Olsen that certainly long-term vision and this committee will be very much a part of deciding on office space and configuration.
My whip’s office, although the size is enough for a regular senator, I don’t think it’s large enough for leadership offices, but we were limited here so I understand that. I hope that’s taken into consideration for leadership offices, because we often have fairly large delegations in any leadership office, even from our own caucuses, having meetings. That needs to be taken into consideration.
For the regular Senate offices, like I say, it’s a large enough space. I hesitate to agree entirely with my colleague Senator Stewart Olsen that we can put two desks into one space. My Director of Parliamentary Affairs many times takes meetings for me, and he should not be sitting together with my receptionist when he conducts those meetings for me. He needs his own office.
We need to be cognizant of size, for sure. However, I would suggest every Senate office has at least three rooms to it, one for the senator and two for the staff. If they have more than two members of staff in there, then maybe they need to share, but not the policy adviser or director of parliamentary affairs. I think they need his or her own office.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I hear you and I certainly — you could decide your own things. I’ll be killed for this, but I don’t think leadership needs two separate office suites and spaces. I think you have one, and if you’re not the whip anymore, you get another office. I just think it’s a waste of the space that is available.
Senator Plett: What do I do with my staff, my regular Senate staff?
Senator Stewart Olsen: You could accommodate in your brand new — you don’t need regular Senate staff.
The Chair: Caroline, you can factor all of these issues into your planning and I’m sure you will do that.
I have a mover for the following motion:
That the POU standard for accommodation be increased from 80 square metres to 90 square metres plus or minus 10 per cent.
Is it okay if I do not read it out? It’s in your handout. Can I have a mover? Senator Tannas. All agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. I think we have three minutes left and we have one item for the LTVP end state committee rooms. I’m sure there will be lots of discussion, so I suggest we defer that to the next meeting. There’s nothing else on the agenda that is urgent so we’ll defer that to the next meeting. Is that agreed, senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: There’s nothing in camera that needs to be discussed.
(The committee adjourned.)