HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, September 26, 2000

• 1105

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order, colleagues. We're going to be hearing evidence today—we don't have to make any decisions—and I see sufficient quorum in accordance with the practice of the committee for that purpose.

Today we're delighted to have with us Major General Cloutier, who is our Sergeant-at-Arms in the House of Commons. I also see that he has been able to bring competent staff and collaborators with him in connection with this issue of the substantial renovation project ongoing around Parliament Hill.

I will simply welcome you, Mr. Sergeant-at-Arms. I would ask you to introduce those members of your staff or the partners in the renovation project that you think should be introduced to the committee.

Major General G. Cloutier (Sergeant-at-Arms, House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This morning I would like to introduce Lyette Fortin. Lyette works for me. She is the senior architect for the House of Commons. I think you've met Lyette on previous occasions.

What we would like to do this morning, Mr. Chairman, is give you a brief outline, in the form of a briefing, of where we're going with the renovations, highlight them and the problems we have, and perhaps open up to questions. If we may proceed, we'll go ahead.

The Chair: That's great. Let's go.

[Translation]

Ms. Lyette Fortin (Special Advisor to the Sergeant-at-Arms, Long Term Architectural Planning Office, House of Commons): I'd like to speak to you about our renovation projects and to do so, I will be making a video presentation. Over the next 30 thirty minutes, I will be presenting an overview of the renovation projects planned for the Parliamentary Precinct.

I will be reviewing briefly the history of the Parliament Buildings, a history with which you are probably already quite familiar. Then I will focus on plans for the future. Lastly, I will update you on those projects that have already been completed, as well as those in the planning stages.

It is important to place the history of the Parliamentary Precinct in context in order to ensure its orderly evolution. In 1857, Queen Victoria chose Ottawa to be the capital of the Province of Canada. The site chosen for the future parliament building was ideal: a plateau on an impressive escarpment presenting a picturesque view of the Ottawa River. It was truly an enchanting location.

It was decided that the Parliamentary Buildings would be constructed in the neo-gothic style of architecture. This was considered an appropriate choice given that the vertical lines would enhance the escarpment and highlight the natural features of the site. The architecture in fact became an integral part of the site.

Originally, the boundaries of the Parliamentary Precinct were clearly defined. It was bounded on the north, east and west by the escarpment, and on the south, by the stone wall separating Parliament from the burgeoning city. The Centre Block was the main structure and site of various parliamentary activities such as House and committee sittings and caucus meetings as well as the offices of members of Parliament.

• 1110

The East and West Blocks housed government departmental offices. The Library of Parliament was located behind the Centre Block. The buildings' functions were well organized with clear, coherent and logical circulation patterns.

In 1916, fire destroyed the Centre Block, leaving one of the key components of our federal identity in ruins. Some suspected that the fire was an act of sabotage, given that the country was at war, but this was never proven. The government was determined to rebuild the Centre Block as quickly as possible.

Fortunately, the fire spared the Library of Parliament. Reconstruction of the Centre Block began in 1917. A more modern style of architecture could have been chosen, but parliamentarians were adamant that the neo-gothic style so characteristic of Canada's Parliament be retained.

Over time, demand for office space increased. The Confederation and Justice buildings were erected in the 1920s and 1930s to house expanding government departments. It is worth noting that the architectural style of these buildings complements the neo-gothic character of the Parliamentary Precinct.

Today, parliamentary activities are conducted not only on the north side of Wellington Street, but in buildings on the south side as well which were never designed to house committee rooms or parliamentary offices.

[English]

Having core parliamentary functions spread in the downtown core creates confusion. It creates kind of an identity crisis for the precinct. There is confusion not only from a functional and operational point of view, but also from an urban planning and an architectural point of view. So in planning for the future, we must try to reinstate harmony between the functions of Parliament and its setting.

Since the buildings were built in the late 1800s and early 1900s, there has never been a comprehensive master plan. Only emergency projects or punctual projects were undertaken to address needs. To plan for the future, a major comprehensive renovation plan is required and is being developed by Public Works, in consultation with the Senate, the library, the House of Commons, and also other stakeholders.

Public Works, as you know, is the custodian department responsible for developing the long-term plan, and also for all of the renovation and construction projects for the parliamentary precinct. The three institutions—Senate, House of Commons, and library—are tenants of these buildings. The institutions provide input in the development of project plans. Other organizations, such as the National Capital Commission and the federal Heritage Building Review Office, provide feedback in the projects. The body overseeing the long-term plan is the Parliamentary Building Advisory Council. That is chaired by the Honourable John Fraser.

To plan for the next 50 to 80 years, the House of Commons requirement has been established in the report Building the Future. A copy was distributed to all members of the committee. The report was adopted by the Board of Internal Economy last fall and was tabled in the House of Commons in December 1999. It has also been available to the public on Internet since December.

• 1115

In Building the Future, the House of Commons has established guiding principles for the development of the precinct. The guiding principles are derived from an understanding of the design and planning concept that shapes the parliamentary precinct, as we saw earlier on. These principles are as follows: that all core functions—the chamber, committees, caucus, parliamentary offices—be located within a clearly defined precinct, as it was originally planned; that designs for renovations and new construction respect the original design intent, the heritage value, and the role of building and site as a symbol of Canadian democracy; that facilities be organized to reflect the relationship among parliamentary functions; that Parliament be open and accessible, easily understood by visitors, and reinforce public access to parliamentarians; that there be appropriate infrastructure for circulation, for security, for information technology; and finally, that all renovation and construction be built to last, and to protect and respect the environment.

In the report Building the Future, the requirements are based on a full assessment of members' four lines of business: in chamber, committees, caucus, and constituency.

The current chamber does not fully address the needs of members or the visiting public. With the number of members expected to increase, additional seating and layout of the chamber will have to be addressed. Also, currently temporary alterations are made to address specific needs for universal accessibility, etc. Long-term integrated solutions that take into consideration the special needs of visitors and members will have to be developed in future projects.

Presently members of Parliament have limited access to information technology infrastructure required to do their work in the chamber—for example, access to portable computers or even maybe future electronic voting. Unless appropriate infrastructure is put in place, it will be very difficult to accommodate evolving technologies.

For committees, the work carried out by committees has evolved greatly over time, and facilities have not kept up with the pace and magnitude of change. As a result, committee rooms are now far below the standard required to meet current and future needs in terms of number, in terms of location, and in terms of information technology. As we can see here, people are sitting, having no access to translation. Committee rooms of uniform quality are required to meet the needs of committees today and for the future.

For caucus, adequate committee rooms that are used by caucus must provide acoustical privacy and also security.

Also, the research functions of the five officially recognized parties are currently housed in buildings that are in the downtown core. Issues of proximity and security could be addressed by locating party research staff in a flexible, well-equipped, centralized space adjacent to the parliamentary precinct.

Finally, for offices, the demands on members and the way they do their work has changed significantly over the years. Office accommodation has lagged behind these changes. Office size, configuration, and quality vary widely, with some members working in sub-standard offices. Currently, some members are located outside the legal limits of the precinct.

Ensuring that all members have standard offices within the parliamentary precinct will require a gradual migration to the standards as existing buildings are renovated. As well, additional space will be required to replace those offices that are inadequate and also to address the increasing number of members of Parliament.

In Building the Future, requirement for support services is addressed. In future projects we must ensure that administration and support services are consolidated and properly located to provide the most effective service to members of Parliament.

• 1120

In terms of information technology, IT represents a vital link between parliamentarians and a range of services and information. The major renovations offer an excellent opportunity to integrate the required infrastructure to the buildings and site, to allow for constantly evolving technology to be upgraded while minimizing visual and physical intrusion to the heritage fabric of the precinct.

[Translation]

The Parliamentary Precinct is the ideal forum for those wishing to espouse a particular viewpoint or cause. Most often, it is the focal point of peaceful demonstrations. However, in recent years, Parliament Hill has often been the site of highly charged demonstrations, resulting in a corresponding increase in the threat of violence.

While existing security infrastructure addresses current risks, steps need to be taken to ensure that the Parliamentary Precinct can meet future challenges. Therefore, it is important that the security systems infrastructure be integrated into all building and site renovations projects.

As you well know, more and more people visit Parliament Hill each year. A wide range of special events are staged within the Parliamentary Precinct. Therefore, renovations of any kind must take into account the need for readily accessible facilities and reception services for the visiting public.

That was a brief summary of the needs identified in the report Building the Future. I invite you to consult this document for further details. These requirements have been conveyed to the Department of Public Works so that they may be integrated into the drafting of the long-term plan.

[English]

Now I will take a few minutes to highlight some projects. I will talk about the exterior conservation of the Centre Block; then I will talk about the Centre Block underground service project; then I will talk about a project that is une actualité, the Justice Building renovation; then the library project; and finally, I will conclude with the West Block project.

The Centre Block exterior conservation was completed in 1997. As I mentioned to you earlier, construction of the new building started soon after the fire of 1916 that destroyed the original Centre Block, during the wartime period. In fact, a lot of the problems we have discovered in the Centre Block were because of the fact that it was built during the war, when there was a shortage of good-quality construction material and a shortage of skilled workers.

The Centre Block construction reflects the changing technology of the time, when the introduction of steel framing into the building was incorporated within the traditional massive masonry exterior walls. Why I am telling you this is because when you have open joints it is very problematic, because the water can penetrate these joints, reach the steel structure that is behind, and the steel structure can then start corroding, which we can see here from this photograph. In order to prevent the deterioration of this important building, it was really critical to address the masonry repair and conservation, which has been done.

The problems we encountered with the roof were due to the fact that the copper that was used was too thin and also that there was a lack of skilled workers. At the time of the war, copper was very difficult to acquire. If you look closely at this photo, you can see the copper has rippled and is cracked. This is due to the fact that instead of building an appropriate joint, which is flexible to allow for contraction and expansion of the copper, the joint was stiff. Again, inexperienced workers created poor workmanship. All the roofs of the Centre Block main facade were therefore replaced.

• 1125

Many people ask why the roof of the Peace Tower was not replaced, as we can see here. The Peace Tower was completed in the 1920s, after the war. At that time there was good-quality copper, the right size, and skilled workers to construct the roof properly. The roof of the Peace Tower is good for decades to come.

[Translation]

I would now like to focus on CBUS, or the work carried out beneath the Centre Block. Construction of a two-story underground facility adjoining the northwest corner of the Centre Block was completed in September 1998. The facility houses, among other things, the new heating plant, emergency generators for the Centre, East and West Blocks, as well as the communications control centre for Parliamentary Precinct systems. The area was landscaped to mask any evidence of construction activity.

[English]

Now for the Justice Building. This building was built in the 1930s to provide accommodation for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The building was later reassigned to the Department of Justice; hence its name. The building has been renovated to permanently house office suites for members of Parliament and their staff and also the necessary support services. The work in the building is almost complete. There are minor deficiencies and some technical problems that are presently being addressed by Public Works. For the interior of the building, the few spaces that did retain their original design and finishes, such as the main lobby, were restored.

There were some unfortunate interventions in the 1970s, so the wall partitions, suspended ceiling tiles, and inappropriate interior finishes that were added in the 1970s were removed, and the original layout, with central corridor, was recreated with suites on either side.

The standard office suite approved by the Board of Internal Economy was integrated in the renovation of the Justice Building. A member's office suite consists of three offices: office for member of Parliament, for executive assistant, and a central reception area for administrative staff.

Office suites in the Justice Building were divided following the approved standard floor area, while respecting the grid of columns, respecting the pattern of window opening, the original circulation pattern, and the architectural characteristics of the building. While all office suites respect the standards, they all are unique because of their location within the building and the intrinsic architectural characteristic of those areas.

With the intent of reinstating the original character of the building, which was lost through the years, details such as mouldings, light fixtures, fabric, carpets, and paint colours were selected to enhance the architecture of the building. A standard furniture layout will be implemented, as approved by the Board of Internal Economy. All suites will be furnished with appropriate furniture to complement the architecture, to comply with ergonomic principles, and to adapt to existing and future functional and information technology requirements. The inspiration for the furniture design comes from the original furniture items created in the 1920s for the Centre Block, designed by the architect of the building, as we can see here from this historical photo.

To address information technology, this is what will not be done in the Justice Building. The approach that was taken for the Justice Building is one that is integrated, as we can see here. An enhanced network infrastructure, combined with structured cabling, was integrated in the building, which will allow for easy future upgrades to meet evolving service requirements, while maintaining the architectural integrity of the building.

• 1130

The security systems are also integrated to respect the architecture of the building. Card readers are integrated behind the signage, which will be used to gain access for offices and other spaces in the building.

[Translation]

As far as the Library of Parliament is concerned, plans and specifications for the exterior restoration and interior renovation of the Library are nearing completion. Construction is scheduled for the years 2001 through 2003.

In order to carry out work in the main facility, the Library of Parliament will be temporarily relocated to the Scotiabank Building on Sparks Street which is now undergoing renovations for this purpose.

The final project on the list is the West Block.

[English]

This project, the West Block, will incorporate a temporary chamber inside the courtyard. As you can see here, the courtyard will have a permanent structure that will be used temporarily to house the chamber function. The intent is to convert this into committee rooms when chamber functions are no longer required, and the entire courtyard would be enclosed with a steel and glass roof.

Here is a cross-section that gives you an idea of the concept. Here is the building. Here is the courtyard. This would be the permanent structure that would temporarily house the chamber function. The government lobby and opposition lobby would be a temporary structure that would be removed when no longer required. A roof covers the entire courtyard, so it's usable space year-round, and the ground floor would house new, permanent committee rooms.

This rendering gives you an idea of the new chamber. It would be a contemporary space, but some elements, such as the Speaker's chair, would be brought in from the present chamber to be incorporated in the design.

So this gives you a bit of the flavour of the renovation for the West Block.

You will probably ask when this project will begin for the West Block. As I said, Public Works is presently developing the long-term plan, which will include the sequence of work, the scheduling, and the costs for all projects. Until this plan is reviewed and approved...then we will have more detail.

[Translation]

In conclusion, the goal of all of these future projects is to develop a Parliamentary Precinct that will meet the operational requirements of Parliament's three institutions, as well as the needs of employees and visitors for the next 50 to 80 years, while preserving at the same time the heritage of the buildings and of the site itself, the most visible symbol of our democracy.

The House of Commons is committed to ensuring that as all of these projects are realized, the history and vision of the people who originally designed Parliament Hill remain a source of inspiration to everyone who goes there.

That concludes my presentation, Mr. Chairman. We would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your attention.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much. That was very informative and, if I may say so, very professional. I'm sure it was useful to members.

I know members will have some questions, so I'll look first to Mr. Reynolds of the Canadian Alliance Party.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What is the process when Public Works are putting this together? Do they go out to tender for all the work that will be done? How is that handled? Is there a time line for it all when the tender goes out?

MGen G. Cloutier: Most of the projects you have seen were obviously under tender.

• 1135

Basically, we are at a different stage at the moment, where we are still awaiting the long-range plan approval by the Minister of Public Works.

Let's go back as far as the time line is concerned. Let's go back to last year, when the advisory council was formed in the spring of 1999. At that time, the minister asked the council to review the requirements of the Hill, produce a report, and from there he would consider the options available to him. I would suspect from there he would develop a further model, with the approved plan and the financing required to carry out this plan over a period of 25 years.

In our report Building the Future, we do make reference to the requirement for a solid financial framework for these projects. In the past, we've discovered that there were plans, projects, for building or renovations that would take place without us knowing ahead of time. It put the House of Commons in an awful position at that time because we were surprised by it. Just think of the support services that we do require if we have a new building or move to a different location.

To return to the time line, the staff of the House of Commons produced a report last summer and presented that report, Building the Future, to the board and subsequently to the Minister of Public Works in December. We didn't hear until May 2000 from the advisory council or the Minister of Public Works, although both of us were invited to make a presentation on our requirements to the council in late spring.

In the period between January and April, the library and the Senate, I suppose following a review of our plans and requirements, produced their requirements.

Where are we now? The requirements are in the hands of Public Works. The advisory council is reviewing those commitments, and I would expect they would come back to us, the House of Commons, with preferred options. They have consultants who are reviewing how Parliament Hill should be expanded. Should we keep the core functions north of Wellington? Should the committees be housed in a new committee building? All those options, I gather, are being reviewed now. I expect the council will probably report to the Minister of Public Works by Christmas with a set of options for his consideration. From that position, the minister will have to certainly not only review the functions but open a dialogue with the Senate, the House, and the library on Parliament Hill.

The Chair: Thank you.

Five minutes, Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Clearly, we face some major time constraints in so far as long-term planning is concerned. Earlier, someone said that this project was designed to meet requirements for the next 50 to 80 years. However, at the rate things have been going for the past several years, it might well take from 50 to 80 years for this project to be completed.

Having said this, it's likely that elections will be held sometime in the next few months. It is equally very likely that when MPs return after these elections, they will be assigned office space in the Justice Building. The West Block will be completely vacated so that the renovations can commence. This begs the question: Where will committees meet? Will they meet in temporary quarters and how much will that cost, or will we erect once and for all a building to accommodate parliamentary committees? My question is very simple: In the event elections are held sometime in the next few months, will Members' offices be relocated to the Justice Building and will the West Block be evacuated? In the affirmative, where will committees meet?

• 1140

MGen G. Cloutier: To answer your first question, as Lyette was saying earlier, we have yet to finalized arrangements for occupying two floors in the Justice Building, although I've made no official decision to go with these options. As Lyette mentioned, we are currently grappling with a number of technical problems, heating and otherwise. We are awaiting a definitive report on the status of the system and on several other points, including soundproofing. However, we are prepared to move furniture and we expect to be ready to relocate Members after the elections.

You also talked about the West Block and the committee question. As you know, a number of committee rooms are located in this building and a number of possible solutions have been advanced. It has been suggested, for example, that committee rooms be relocated to the fourth or top floor of the East Block and that four other committees take up temporary quarters in the Wellington Building. We have examined these options carefully and concluded that neither location would be suitable for this purpose.

Therefore, if elections are held within the year, we will certainly relocate members, but for the time being, we would not move committee rooms. We have rejected all of the options presented to us. Perhaps Lyette would care to say something further.

Ms. Lyette Fortin: The options put forward represent temporary solutions which fail to meet the minimum requirements for committee rooms. As Mr. Bergeron said, the ideal solution would be to have a permanent building ready to accommodate committees before the West Block is vacated. However, time is a factor here, not to mention the fact that the condition of the buildings is deteriorating.

We are, therefore, in somewhat of a difficult position. We are awaiting further proposals from Public Works to see if any options would meet the committees' requirements for temporary space while a permanent facility is being erected.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Are you saying then that to all intents and purposes, we could return following elections to an empty West Block, even though we would continue to use the committee rooms, thereby delaying the start of the renovations to the building even longer?

MGen G. Cloutier: That's correct. You're quite right. It's a distinct possibility.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That would delay everything, including the renovations to both chambers and the temporary relocation of the House of Commons to the West Block. As I was saying earlier, at this rate, work will drag on for the next 50 to 80 years and we won't have adequate facilities in the meantime.

MGen G. Cloutier: You may recall that in 1993, we were told that we would be moving into the Justice Building in the summer of 1997. The fall of 2000 is now upon us and we are still waiting. The plan presented to us at that time is behind schedule.

• 1145

Even the recommendations of the advisory committee, that is the options for the minister's consideration, have yet to be finalized. It's already the year 2000. I expect that we will be a few years late in meeting the objective set three or four years ago.

We're talking about a 25-year plan, therefore I don't think we need to be concerned. Take the Justice Building, for example. Renovations were first mentioned in 1993 and the work will be completed in the year 2000. Therefore, the process has taken seven years in all.

In the meantime, we are giving some thought to putting up a new building to house committee rooms so that these can be centrally located on Parliament Hill, as committees are a very important function of Parliament. Then we can proceed with the renovations to the West and Centre Blocks.

Since the plans have yet to be submitted and the work is scheduled to take at least 25 years, I don't expect the renovations to be fully completed before 2025 or 2030.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sergeant-at-Arms.

I suppose I should suggest that we're not moving so quickly on any of this that we're likely to lose our footing.

I do have a couple of short questions in the absence of another member indicating an interest.

Firstly, there is to be constructed at some point in the future a second chamber, which will be used by the House and the Senate while the main chambers are being renovated. Has there been any view to retaining the second chamber after its main use is completed and to using it as a second chamber, as the Parliament in Westminster has done? They run a second chamber in tandem with the main House of Commons, and it's put to use quite effectively by members. Has some view been given to that in the long-range plan?

MGen G. Cloutier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There has been some talk about it exactly in the way you mentioned, using it as a second chamber, or if we do not have the committee building, then using the space there for committee rooms.

The Chair: Thank you.

Secondly, I know this is not your responsibility, but it appears that the advisory council is carrying on and generally representing the House of Commons. You may or may not have an answer to this, and I may be leading you a little bit, but I had noted that there was a senator sitting on the advisory council, presumably representing the Senate, and I had noted that there was not an MP sitting on the advisory council, which causes me to question how we are represented there. I know there is a linkage, and I believe the Speaker has carefully constructed whatever representation is there, but could you describe how we as members of Parliament and I suppose you, representing the House, are represented on the advisory council?

MGen G. Cloutier: We are represented at the moment by a former deputy clerk for administrative services, Mary Anne Griffith. How this came about is that Ms. Griffith was retiring from the House of Commons at that time. She had had a lot of experience in the House and had been involved in many of the discussions we had on this subject either in executive committee or on the board, and following a review of the situation, I think the board felt she would be a very good representative of the House. Therefore, she was selected to be a member.

The Chair: Okay. I guess that's a good explanation. I have no doubt about Ms. Griffith's confidence either. But I did want to flag that superficial and apparent absence of direct representation on the council, whereas the Senate, the other place, did have someone. I'll leave that issue for members if they wish to comment.

• 1150

Thirdly, there is the definition of the parliamentary precinct. If I had an office in the Wellington Building, which I do not, although some of those around the table may—there are a number of members of Parliament with offices there—I would question why we hadn't yet gotten around to redefining the parliamentary precinct to include them in their offices.

Added to that, am I right in my understanding that the Confederation Building is not defined legally as being within the parliamentary precinct at this time?

MGen G. Cloutier: This was brought up at the meeting for the estimates last year as well. At that time I mentioned that we had lawyers looking at this project. Since then we've had our own lawyers and the justice department inquiring and seeing what definition applies to the parliamentary precinct. For the time being, they say that any building where members of Parliament are housed is part of the precinct.

If you recall, my concern was not only the office space on the south side of Wellington Street, but also the extension of Bank Street. At one stage they were thinking of opening up the water frontage north of the Wellington Building as well. In the expansion of the parliamentary precinct and the construction to try to locate within the core area without extending it way beyond the Supreme Court, it became sort of a thorn in our planning. Who owns Bank Street? Who owns the extension of Bank Street? I've received a legal opinion in the last month from the justice department that it's certainly the House and that the Bank Street extension is part of the precinct.

The Chair: Are there any downside risks or negatives associated with us accepting and living with a de facto parliamentary precinct, as opposed to a legally defined parliamentary precinct?

I'll just go back to the Wellington Building or the Confederation Building. I have an office in the Confederation Building. If it is our collective will and view as parliamentarians that this should be properly and legally defined as parliamentary precinct, then why wouldn't we just do it and include the Wellington Building, the Justice Building, and whatever else? Some people may regard that as a mere technicality of interest to intellectuals only. So I'm asking, is there a practical aspect that might be negative for us in failing to properly legally define the parliamentary precinct as it exists?

MGen G. Cloutier: No, there isn't, and I think we should do it. I don't want to get into the privilege aspect here, but, as you know, we do apply privilege within the precinct. As far as I'm concerned, certainly from a security point of view, we ought to have this. That's why we've been striving with the justice department to make sure that the legal rights of members operating within the legal precinct of Parliament should be well understood by everyone. I think you're going to see that.

The Chair: If this committee were to draft a bill to redefine the precinct and to send it to the House, would you be able to provide us with your advice on that?

MGen G. Cloutier: Yes, indeed.

The Chair: And you could flag any reason we should not do it.

MGen G. Cloutier: Right now most people feel that the legal boundary is the river, Wellington Street, the Chateau Laurier canal, and the Bank Street extension. That's what people think about when they talk about the parliamentary precinct. But it has grown. It now includes the Confederation Building, as you mentioned, and there's the Justice Building coming up and whatever other buildings will be incorporated within that land.

• 1155

The Chair: Okay, thank you. I think I'll just invite the clerk to formally ask you—copy the Speaker, I guess—to advise on an appropriate definition of the parliamentary precinct, and your view as to whether or not we should proceed to amend the definition in the Parliament of Canada Act.

MGen G. Cloutier: You want more than what we have now.

The Chair: That's correct, yes.

Members, are there questions or comments? Mr. Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I was just listening to the discussion today, and it's a pleasure to see this unfolding in front of us. But I have never heard anything about whether there should be some concerns by the members of Parliament about anything in here—that in its development, there is anything that could be overlooked in the human side. I mean in the sense of the members of Parliament. I haven't heard anything about that. Certainly the bricks and mortar have been pre-eminent, and the architecture. But when you get into it, all of the concerns or all of the agitation that may come with something like this, whether you perceive it or not, there will be some hiccup, and it will be attached to the human dimension.

So I just wondered if you might keep that in the forefront, if possible. It's always the one little thing that sticks out. They say, why didn't you look at that when you were going along with it? Well, if we just keep in the back of our mind the human dimension, I don't think there will be any squawking from the MPs—as long as it is considered.

MGen G. Cloutier: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's an excellent point, and perhaps we can give you a couple of ideas of how we think that way.

There's a tendency, of course, from departments, particularly owner departments, to say, hey, you're just the tenant in there; we have the budgets and we'll tell you what to do. Well, we have entered into a different era. There is a tenant. We are the tenant and we are also a very important person that you have to satisfy. If you look at the big picture, for example, of whether we should expand beyond the Supreme Court for the future, we had better look at that, because even now some nights I have problems bringing members of Parliament to a vote. As you all know, at the bottom of Bank Street I have to have the RCMP to make sure we stop the traffic to allow you to come to vote on time.

Secondly, when we looked at the development of our future committee rooms, we felt we needed input from members, and I'm very thankful to the Liaison Committee, who spent many, many hours with us—and Lyette—to try to get a design that would meet the requirements of all members of committees.

Perhaps Lyette.... That's a very good point.

Ms. Lyette Fortin: Yes. Just to continue on with what the Sergeant-at-Arms has said, the fact that the House of Commons has a knowledgeable client is important to communicate to Public Works—the requirements of members of Parliament. It's not an outside department that tells the House of Commons what they need, and that's really important. All the needs that are identified are validated and reviewed by members. Particularly for committee rooms, as the Sergeant-at-Arms has mentioned, the input was really essential, because you are the ones who work in the space, who know how the day-to-day activities go on. It is really critical to know all these details so that the designs that are put into architectural vocabulary reflect exactly the human aspect of day-to-day life.

So that's an excellent point. Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Catterall, for five minutes.

• 1200

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Can you give us a brief summary of what the unresolved issues are from the point of view of the advisory committee? In particular, what are the issues they are and will be dealing with that affect members of Parliament, their office space, parking—whatever affects us in how we do our jobs? What are those decisions that are pending, and what's the timeframe for these decisions to be taken?

MGen G. Cloutier: I think the main one is the occupancy of the Justice Building. As you recall, at one stage we had told our members, after the election of 1997, that they would be moving within a year or a year and a half. So the whips are sort of in a spot right now, if I may say so, because nothing has happened since. I feel we should clarify that situation for the members, in that we certainly expect to be in there by the election.

The next point I think we have to clarify is the committee work. You have members who are going to the Promenade Building, 151 Sparks Street, doing committee work in rooms that really are not up to it. They are complaining, and rightly so; it's just awful there. We've promised to have upgraded committee rooms by the year 2000. Well, as I mentioned earlier, no doubt there will be a delay. So the pressure should be on now for that advisory committee to produce their options a little bit quicker maybe, and to get on with that.

I find it a little bit devastating in a way that it takes so long to get things done. You can put a hotel up in this city in 27 months, so when I'm told that it takes about six to seven years to put a four-storey building up, I sort of lose my patience a little bit. As a result of this, we find ourselves now slipping. I have a lot of patience, because the first time the Justice Building was mentioned at this committee, the members' services committee, was in 1980. It took 20 years. I'm very happy that I'll see it before I retire.

You can appreciate that the other issue is parking. Parking is always close to everybody's mind and everybody's heart. Everybody wants parking and everybody wants parking very close to the building where they work. Well, we have to change our approach on that. When you put a building up.... Obviously we're going to have a committee building. We're going to have an extension probably to the Confederation Building to meet the requirements we've outlined in the Building the Future report. We're going to move people out of these parking spots. It's very simple: just dig down, and put the parking under the buildings, rather than push them up, push them up, push them up. So now the NCC and Public Works are well aware of our position on that. Yes, we need parking; just don't push parking. But we don't want to see parking....

If you look at the back of this building, we had a lot more parking than we have now. We have 40 parking spots at the moment all around here. When you face Parliament Hill from the front, what do you see? You're seeing a lot of green area this way, and you see a whole bunch of cars on the side of the Senate. It looks like.... Parking has become a priority for the workers. A lot of the time I go by very close to the building and I just check the plates, and they're not the senators; they're not senators' plates. Sometimes they're not members' plates either. We can green the area a little bit more but have the right location for parking.

Now, the chairman of the NCC, Mr. Beaudry, has told me that in his plan he has a major facility right close to Wellington Street. So I'm looking forward to that, where we can go in there as well. For our staff we can relocate. So parking is always an issue.

Is there anything else?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Access to the Hill, allocation of space in the Centre Block.

• 1205

MGen G. Cloutier: Well, the allocation of space in the Centre Block is being reviewed again by the council, by the advisory board. I believe we'll retain the space the House of Commons has in the Centre Block. We have 66% of the building.

How we will use the building in the future, and whether it will be a legislative building more than it is today—that decision has not been made yet.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: These are some of the issues that I'm not even sure members of Parliament are aware are up for discussion. I wasn't even aware of that issue, as a member of the Board of Internal Economy.

I think the chair raised an interesting question, and that's representation of members of Parliament on the advisory council. Is Ms. Griffith there to represent the House of Commons, or to represent the members of Parliament? They're two distinct things.

MGen G. Cloutier: Good point. Not only that, as you look at the future, that advisory council has been on and off for two years, really. Members who will be members of the next Parliament would perhaps be more au fait with their requirements than someone who has retired, who has worked in the last twenty years here. You might want to consider that. You might want to consider at least discussing that.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Does the Senate have representation in addition to the senators having representation?

MGen G. Cloutier: No.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: So Senator Carstairs represents the institution as well as the senators.

MGen G. Cloutier: That's right.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thank you.

The Chair: Okay. Are there any further comments or questions from members?

Seeing that there are no further questions, I want to thank very much our Sergeant-at-Arms, Major-General Cloutier, and Madame Fortin for a very good presentation. We've at least touched on a number of the issues. Your testimony and presentation has been very helpful to members.

Did you wish to say something?

MGen G. Cloutier: Yes, just one more point, Mr. Chairman.

Once we have the options from the advisory council, you might want to think about getting a briefing so that you'll see at least what is the long-range plan for Parliament Hill. Right now we've talking very.... We say we need a new committee building, but the options will crystallize in the next six months. So you might want to hear from us, or the advisory council, or whatever.

The Chair: I'm sure we will, and thank you for your advice on that.

Colleagues, I just want to bring to your attention the possibility that we may need to call a quick and special meeting of the committee tomorrow for the purpose of adopting the committee memberships throughout the House of Commons. It's only by doing this that we'd be able to adopt and table within the timelines in the Standing Orders and to allow a couple of committees our colleagues sit on to get up and running by the end of the week. So please note for your own agenda and your staff's that a meeting notice could drift in. And if it were to occur, it would be only for the purpose of confirming committee memberships. That would essentially be a five-minute meeting. Okay? Even if it isn't okay, that's always a possibility.

Seeing no further business, we'll adjourn, either to the quick Wednesday meeting or to Thursday. We're adjourned.