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]

Thursday, May 31, 2001

• 1104

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order, colleagues. We have a quorum sufficient for our purposes at this point this morning.

We have with us today—we are actually delighted to have with us—two esteemed and experienced parliamentarians, two individuals representing two different streams of authority, in connection with the parliamentary precincts. They are the Honourable Alfonso Gagliano, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, and the Honourable John Fraser, our former Speaker and chair of the Parliamentary Buildings Advisory Council. Along with them are a number of other experienced individuals who are working in the envelope.

• 1105

I will allow Mr. Gagliano and Mr. Fraser to make appropriate introductions. We're dealing with renovations, past, present, and future, to the parliamentary buildings and precincts, so both parties and groups are in a position to make an opening statement, if they wish. If they do not, we can go immediately to questions.

Minister Gagliano, do you have an opening statement?

The Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Yes, sir.

The Chair: That's great. Why don't we get started with that?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Thank you.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like first of all to introduce the Honourable John Fraser, as well as Mary Anne Griffith,

[English]

who was, I believe, for years in this place. When she left us she was deputy clerk, so she knows the issues very well. She is here in her capacity as a member of the advisory committee. To my left is Mike Nurse, who is now promoted to Associate Deputy Minister of Public Works and Government Services and has been working on this file in his previous capacity for four years. We hope the four of us can answer all the questions.

[Translation]

But before proceeding to the question period, I would like to say how much I am pleased to appear before your committee to discuss the vision and long term plan for the parliamentary precinct, an initiative aimed at preserving, renovating and modernizing Parliament Hill. I am pleased to be joined by the Honourable John Fraser, a man who is very much at home within these walls.

[English]

Most recently Mr. Fraser served as chair of the Parliamentary Buildings Advisory Council, also known as PBAC. Mr. Fraser and his fellow council members did a remarkable job reviewing the state of the previous buildings, assessing the present and future needs of the users, and making a very worthwhile recommendation about how to proceed with the work that must be done. Last month Mr. Fraser presented us with a vision and a plan spanning 25 years, a plan that will permit us to preserve, maintain, and modernize Canada's most important historical monument. Thanks to this plan, never again will work be carried out piecemeal, project by project.

[Translation]

Thanks to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Buildings Advisory Council, we have now an excellent understanding of what really needs to be done. Now we are able to plan far enough ahead to ensure that every dollar invested in the Parliament buildings meets the criteria of sound public management. The vision and plan are ambitious but realistic. The total cost is estimated at 1.6 billions dollars. It is a considerable amount of money, but over 25 years, it represents an investment of less than $2 per year per Canadian.

Mr. Fraser and his colleagues concluded that this proactive approach ensures that Parliament Hill will be a welcoming, safe and modern environment for parliamentarians, their staff and visitors.

Deteriorating physical structures, outdated internal systems, insufficient infrastructure to support new technologies and serious space shortfalls compromise our ability as parliamentarians to adequately serve our fellow citizens.

The plan and vision propose realistic measures to remedy the situation in both the short and the long term. For example, between 2001 and 2007, the plan envisages addressing priority projects, such as the already approved and announced Library of the Parliament project, as well as the construction of a new facility for the House of Commons committee rooms. The government is still at the stage of looking at all aspects and considering all the major reports. However, it is obvious that we are now at a point where we will need to make a decision soon.

[English]

In the meantime, everything is on the table. Whatever the decision is, we must not forget that Parliament Hill is the most prestigious and celebrated of our Canadian monuments. It is also a workplace where hundreds of people are held daily to high standards of productivity and effectiveness. Finally, Parliament Hill is one of the most popular tourist attractions for Canadians and foreign visitors. We must therefore address all these aspects in a spirit of clarity, openness, and transparency. We must be diligent, to ensure that this symbol of democracy continues to be worthy of our great country.

• 1110

One thing is certain, Mr. Chairman, we have work to do. The Parliament Hill file is complex, wide-ranging, and essential. We must take the right decision in the interest of all Canadians, and we will do so, I hope very soon.

If you allow me, I believe Mr. Fraser would also like to make a statement.

[Translation]

The Hon. John Fraser (Chair, Parliamentary Buildings Advisory Council): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Minister.

[English]

The minister has covered much of what would ordinarily be said in an introduction, but I want to touch on a few things, in order to be sure that the discussion that will ensue has a context that is helpful and historically accurate.

The minister and I both served, some years ago, on the Board of Internal Economy, and we both have personal experience of some of the past difficulties in getting a sense of where we start on the restoration of the precincts of Parliament, what is needed for the future. We both can remember that there was a fundamental necessity to have, as far as possible, agreement among the stakeholders, and especially the honourable Senate, the House of Commons, the Library, the National Capital Commission, because the greater the agreement as to what needs to be done and the plan to implement the changes, the less need there is for the government, or in this case, immediately, the department, to make decisions because somebody had to finally force a decision in the absence of agreement.

When the committee was asked to take on this task, it felt it was very important that to the degree possible, we identify the functional needs of the people, the members of Parliament, staff, and support groups, who were going to use these buildings during a long and, as the minister said, complex period of transition. As is not perhaps fully recognized by some, if you set off to restore these buildings, to add space, to meet the requirements of more people and workload and modern technology, it is a work in progress. You can't just close down one part of it and let everybody go away. Everybody who's working in one part of it has to go somewhere else to work. So it is a complex undertaking, and while members here understand that, not always do people who are not intimately connected with the day-to-day affairs of the Hill fully understand it.

So we felt that if we could identify the needs and if we could get agreement on those needs and agreement on the timing and the scope of the implementation plans, we would have gone a long way to assisting everybody here and the government of the day in getting on with the job the minister asked us to do.

• 1115

You all have our report in front of you, and you will also have had the document produced by the department. I'm not going to go into all that in detail right now, except to say that in our report, “The Hill: Past, Present, Future”, we selected option C, scenario one, and that is basically set out on page 11 of our report. There were other options, and there are other options, as the minister made clear at the press conference some weeks ago, that will undoubtedly be looked at by the government, but we chose this one because in our judgment, it met the requirements of function, and also it has the support of both the Senate and the House of Commons. I think, Minister, it's fair to say that we now have a unique window of opportunity to proceed, because we've not had this kind of agreement before.

That agreement didn't come about without a lot of debate and a lot of consideration. The committee spent a great deal of time trying to make sure that all the members of the committee understood what it was the members of Parliament needed. Of course, there's another dimension to that, what the members of Parliament wanted. Sometimes the two don't necessarily get included, but there were some fundamentals. One was that we would define the precincts of Parliament by a line to the west of the Justice Building and this side of the Supreme Court Building, everything north of Wellington, and on the east the canal. Let's have no illusions about it, this was a very big decision. As all of us can understand, when you've got buildings to the south of Wellington, some of which are owned by the government and some of which are leased by the government, there's a temptation to say, why don't we continue using them all? What we heard from all of you and others was that a decision had to be made as to where the members are all going to work and where most of the staff are going to work, so we've opted for north of Wellington.

The second fundamental was how to ensure that for the coming years, in which there are going to be more members and, undoubtedly, more demands for space, we meet this need, and how to meet the critical demand or committee rooms. We decided that it would be necessary not only to have additional space erected between the Confederation Building and the Justice Building as infill, but also to have a new building.

That basically is what we have proposed to the minister, and you will see on page 11 scenario one set out there in five phases with respect to the years within which each phase is to take place. Of course we are immediately concerned with phase one, between the years 2001 and 2007, and the costs implicit in that. We have said quite frankly that we can get a pretty good handle on the costs for maybe four, five, or six years in advance, and after that it becomes more problematical. It is why we recommended in our document—and I want to draw this to your attention—at the top of page 12:

Due to the magnitude of these projects and the long time frames involved, we suggest that PWGSC implement and keep current a fully comprehensive cost management system allowing for public accountability throughout the process.

• 1120

We think we have come up with a recommendation that will meet the needs. We emphasize that we have worked very hard to get substantial agreement from all the stakeholders—to use that overused term—so that we would have full support for what needs to be done.

Perhaps the last thing I can say at this point, Minister, is to thank you for giving those of us on the committee an opportunity to, I hope, be of service to this institution and to the country. I also want to express, as chair, my very great appreciation for all the members of the committee because they have put in a great deal of work.

I want to add something else. I hope, Mr. Nurse, you will take this back to your colleagues. We had throughout the most cooperative collaboration with many members of the department itself, and certainly the recommendation we have given, if one compares it to the difficulties the department was having in trying to focus on options a few years ago, I think illustrates just how far we have all come in those discussions. We want to express our appreciation to all of the public officials who helped us.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you both very much for your introductory remarks.

Colleagues, before we begin the questioning, I will be recognizing Ms. Gallant.

For the record, I just want to record the utter complexity of the task that faced our witnesses and that faces us as members of Parliament. The trick is in knowing whether you are a principal, a client, a trustee, or a contractor in something as large as this, and there is always the difficult question of who will speak for Parliament. Of course, the answer is that parliamentarians will, but in a task of this size and complexity, and in the length of time involved, we very much needed the inputs and expertise that have been brought to the table by former Speaker Fraser and his advisory committee, including Ms. Griffith, who is here with us today, and the assistance of the Department of Public Works. It really is complex.

Although there's a lot of money, the amount of money, of course, pales in comparison to our overall national undertaking historically. We are all, in a sense, trustees of the parliamentary precincts for Canadians.

Our task following this then is to reach a conclusion about the recommendations being made. We may or may not report to the House. It's up to colleagues whether we will. There is a recommendation here, a road map, very kindly and expertly prepared by the advisory committee and Minister Gagliano. You've had a chance to look at that, so now we'll begin our questioning. I would ask colleagues to focus—I'm sure we all will—on the precise task, which is the renovation road map prepared and presented by the advisory committee and the department in two separate reports. But they are of course very much interrelated.

• 1125

Having said all of that, I'll begin with Ms. Gallant, and then Monsieur Guimond.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming on such short notice.

In the spirit of your statement, “History is the continuum of actions taken in the present”, I'd like to start off.

This government is promoting the project as historical preservation and restoration, and it's been mentioned in the proposal that part of this is going to be new buildings as well. Could you give us an estimation of the breakdown between the cost of the proposed new buildings and the actual preservation of the existing buildings? Again, looking at potential future cost overruns, which has been an issue in the promotion of this whole project, we want to learn from the past. Next month MPs will be moving into the renovated Justice Building. So taking into consideration what we've learned from that project, can you explain why the move was originally intended to take place around 1998 but is just taking place this summer?

The Chair: Who did you want to address, Minister Gagliano or former Speaker Fraser?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Whoever would have the best answer for that.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I'll answer on the Justice Building. Yes, originally it was 1998, but in terms of approvals, in terms of permits.... This is the problem you incur when you try to renovate or restore an existing building of that nature. Nobody would have thought that inside the Justice Building we would have some heritage, whether doors or staircases and so on, that we had to preserve, and therefore we had to consult with the authorities and so on.

Let me say that I believe the working relationship we had in the Justice Building will help us work together in this long-term plan, because now, finally, in the past couple of years we have managed, with all the stakeholders—and this was the spirit when you look at the composition of the advisory committee; we had all the stakeholders, not only on the Hill, but the National Capital Commission, Heritage Canada, and also the architects' association and the engineers' association.

I think we have learned some lessons, and I believe we can definitely...at least, I look very positively to the future. The objective—and I believe Mr. Fraser read page 13, on the accountability.... I think we have to put in place a mechanism that will assure us that the time schedule, the costs, are respected and maintained throughout the process, and not just at the end because we realize we are out of time and out of cost.

Once the government makes the decision to approve the plan, we'll have to immediately put a mechanism in place, and I'm working on that. I will make that mechanism public, which I'm sure will be very accountable in terms of costs, the time schedule, and respecting this point.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Was there a breakdown of the costs?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Yes. I will ask Mike Nurse to give you the figures.

The Chair: Mr. Nurse.

Mr. Michael G. Nurse (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works and Government Services): Thank you very much.

• 1130

I was just trying to do a little bit of calculation. What I want to explain here is, yes, there are some new buildings. For example, in the plan there is a building on the corner of Bank Street and Wellington Street. Also, there is a proposal in a later phase for an infill between the Confederation Building and the Justice Building. I just want to explain those two buildings.

In the costs, that totals roughly around $300 million. However, I want to stress that with that cost come the connectivity and components that must go with the building. Overall, my rough estimate in terms of the cost and new requirements would be about 50%. I cannot be more precise than that in terms of breaking out some of the numbers the way we set it up. But definitely we have the new building and the infill in terms of new structures going along with the restoration that we're doing. In conjunction with that, we have to install the normal security and communications systems and modern communication processes that are required for those facilities. My estimate is that when you add all this together, it's around 40% to 50%.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: On top of the $300 million, or included in the $300 million?

Mr. Michael Nurse: No, I was including the $300 million—excuse me. I was just trying to do some calculation of the support systems that go into a new building when you put a new building in place. I hope that's helpful.

Mr. John Fraser: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, through you, maybe I could help Ms. Gallant.

In order to fully get an answer to the question you put, which is not only legitimate but interesting, you have to also balance the situation against what we would have had to spend if, for instance, we do not build a new building for committee rooms and for Senate offices. Once you don't have the new building, it means that you have to spend a great deal of money making sure that we put all those committee rooms somewhere else. This means we would have had to use government office space, government buildings, and that would have required a great deal of alteration and restoration.

So in trying to answer easily your question, you have to keep in mind the alternative. If we didn't have a new building or an infill, all of that space that is going up there has to be found somewhere else, and there would of course be considerable costs in obtaining that and making it. You have to ask yourself, is that restoration space, or is that really another form of new construction? I just bring that to your attention.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré —Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is directed to the minister Gagliano. The map on page 10 of speaker Fraser's report shows the boundary of what is now called the parliamentary precinct. It says that this is a proposed boundary.

I would like to know how what the National Capital Commission presented a year or a year and a half ago, where they literally wanted to create a type of Champs-Élysées in front of the Centre Block starting at Queen Street, I believe, or Sparks Street—I do not remember—fits into this. Is this project now dead and buried?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: As minister responsible for the National Capital Commission, I know that the Commission considered this project. I cannot tell you where it is at, but the boundary that we proposed and that the Advisory Council recommends has been established taking into account the needs of parliamentarians. I remember having a discussion in the full committee and there was a discussion about including the visitor centre into this plan.

• 1135

We had a good discussion and came to the conclusion that we really wanted to limit ourselves to the needs and the objectives of the parliamentary precinct. All those things dealing with tourism and all the planning are not really the responsibility of parliamentarians but of the National Capital Commission which has been established precisely for this function. So we really separated the two aspects. Unfortunately, I am not able to answer your question but you can always ask Mr. Beaudry, the Chairman of the National Capital Commission or minister Copps to come before the committee and provide those answers.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Okay. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Jordan, then Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Fraser, this may be a redundant question, given your background on environmental issues. When we're talking about a project of this scope over 25 years, I'm hopeful that there are going to be various breakthroughs in terms of environmental technologies. Are you looking to incorporate existing technologies—solar power perhaps, or the capacity for co-generation, or waste water streams and garbage streams? Also, are you looking at making sure that retrofits could take place in the way you're designing these buildings, so that we can practise what we preach in terms of the sustainability aspect of these kinds of complexes?

Mr. John Fraser: I think that's a vital question. Members will remember that some years ago, when I had the privilege of serving as your Speaker, along with the appropriate standing committee in the House of Commons, we instituted a whole conservation and environment program on the Hill, which continues to this day. During the many meetings we had in the committee, this matter came up again and again. It was stressed that it's one thing to say we have to look after health and safety—well, we do, and that's fundamental. But today, perhaps much more than many years ago, health and safety has a much broader perspective than it perhaps used to have. That includes all of the environmental considerations. These of course involve new and better technology. So in all our discussions among ourselves and with the department, it was stressed that these matters have to be fully implemented into design plans.

I would defer to Mr. Nurse, who might want to add something to that.

Mr. Michael Nurse: Thank you very much.

As Mr. Fraser said, this was a very important consideration. In fact, I believe one of the many benefits is this gives us an opportunity to restore and create this facility in such a way that we can take advantage of issues such as energy conservation, for example. There are huge opportunities in this building. There are tremendous technologies that have come into play in the last ten years in the cause of what we call “greening” buildings. We have good experience in this area. In fact, our department is considered to be one of the leaders by Natural Resources Canada.

This is a tremendous opportunity on what is a symbol of the country to practise, as you say, what we preach. So there is very much a consideration in there in terms of some of the support systems. That's what you see in some of the costs—this technology does cost money, but it pays off in terms of huge energy conservation, reducing emissions, and many factors like that. So it's very much a part of it. It will be an element that I think we can all celebrate.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Johnston, then Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, witnesses, for appearing today.

• 1140

The new committee accommodation seems to be a great priority. In one of your presentations—page 12 of this document—there's a recommendation that “PWGSC implement and keep current a fully comprehensive cost management system”. That sounds great, but I'm wondering just how you would go about implementing something like that. I don't want to spend all morning talking about that, which I'm afraid we might be able to do. Do you have anything a little more definite as to how you see that functioning? When I look at a project that's going to take 22 years and involve a lot of heritage buildings, I think it's quite reasonable to assume that it will be difficult to manage cost overruns and keep the project on budget. I would be intrigued to know how you see that accountability process working.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: As I said before in trying to answer a previous question, the process of arriving at this long-term plan I think taught us something to which Mr. Fraser alluded in his opening remarks, and that is to definitely bring together everybody concerned. We had the privilege of working together on these files a few years ago, and we had all the users, all the experts together in this advisory committee. After two years of hard work, for which I want to compliment and thank Mr. Fraser and his committee, for the first time we have a determined percentage, an overview, a long-term plan. And I think it was reached with everybody involved and with cooperation.

We have a plan, and in the next phase we have to implement it. I agree with you. The challenges are enormous. I don't think this plan can be implemented—this two years' work really is what we needed—without an oversight committee. We had an advisory committee to plan. Now we have to make sure, once the government makes the decision, that at the same time—from day one—we have an oversight committee with all the experts and the people who will control costs to make sure that we stay to the plan in terms of site, schedule, and also cost.

I can assure you that this is my objective. Unfortunately, the government hasn't made the decision yet, so I'm not in a position to.... I intend at the time of announcing the government response to this report to definitely be able to announce the nature of the oversight committee. But I agree with you, we cannot go ahead with such a large, long-term project without having an oversight committee. I think Canadians across the country expect us to do that.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you.

Further to that, in the opening remarks Mr. Fraser alluded to the possibility of more members, more staff, more need for office space in the future. With all of that comes more vehicles. Not only are we putting up more buildings, but we're putting them on places where there used to be vehicles.

First, what is being done as far as security, and is there going to be any restriction to access vehicles on the Hill? And secondly, what are staff and members going to look forward to in the way of parking on the Hill?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: In response to those two questions, the first one is in terms of security and accessibility to the Hill. It's not up to me. I think we have discussions with the Sergeant-at-Arms and the RCMP who make those decisions. So I cannot give you a final position in terms of whether fewer vehicles will have access to the Hill with the new plan.

• 1145

Mr. Chairman, I don't know if these items were discussed in the committee, but perhaps you can comment.

In terms of the parking space, definitely we'll have a new building if we go, and therefore I hope we can look at the possibility of having some underground parking in the planning of such a building. When you dig, you're there. So let's make sure we do it the right way.

They tell me there is a provision that in the two new buildings an underground parking of 500 places is planned.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Is that the infill between the Confederation Building and the Justice Building?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Yes.

Mr. Dale Johnston: And the one that will be between—

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: The Bank building and the Confederation Building.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Yes, the one you referred to in the diagram as the Bank building.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Yes.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Okay. I assume that this is really a preliminary report and a preliminary stage. I would hope all of those things would be laid out in the final plan. We would understand what access to the Hill there is going to be for the general public and for vehicles.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Chairman, to assure every member, on all these issues and even in the preparation of this form, we have been working closely with the House officials, the Board of Internal Economy, the Senate committee. And this process will continue at the level of officials, if necessary, at the level of politicians. We look at this as our being the contractor—if I can use the phrase of the chairman at the beginning—and the House, the Senate, and the Library of Parliament as the clients.

This will be an open process. For example, if the government approves the plan and we have to start making preparations to build a new building or we need a contest, we have to make sure the kind of building we build fits within the Hill. And there will be a lot of consultation, a lot of time involved. My wish is that parliamentarians get involved, because it's us who will be in this place.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I'm just wondering what is the involvement of the National Capital Commission with your group.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: The National Capital Commission was represented on the advisory committee by its president and my department, because it's a member. Also, outside the committee, on a regular basis, officials from the National Capital Commission and my department worked on this matter because they have some jurisdiction on the grounds of Parliament Hill and also on approving the design. So they're very much involved.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you.

The Chair: Just for the record, this committee, Mr. Johnston, would appear to have a continuing window on the process under Standing Order 108.

I have a technical question. The answer may or may not be out there. Are we clear in which vote envelope all of the expenditures involved in this will appear in future years? Would it be under Public Works Canada or would it be under Parliament?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Public Works Canada.

The Chair: So the committee that supervises Public Works Canada would see the vote of the moneys, the relationship of the work to members, members' roles, services, and so on, and this committee would still have a window.

Okay, I go to Mr. Bergeron and then to Mr. Borotsik.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Chairman, you will allow me, personally and in the name of my colleagues, to warmly and sincerely congratulate the minister and Mr. Fraser, the former Speaker, as well as their respective teams, for the excellent work they have done up to this point of the project. I have had an opportunity to work in close cooperation with both of them and their teams, and I am a witness to the fact they went about their task very diligently and responsibly. In some measure, for us who looked and worked at it from some distance, it was maybe even somewhat frustrating because they seemed almost a bit finicky, but this just goes to show they have done a very conscientious job and I want to say that we are all grateful for it.

• 1150

Mr. Johnston mentioned the issue of cost. I would like to ask a question along the same line, although I am aware—and I want to stress this fact—that we are talking here about priceless buildings. These are invaluable buildings and we must do whatever needs to be done so that we do not lose them. We have already experienced—not us personally because we were not there at the time—a fire that destroyed most of the first Centre Block.

We know these are old buildings and their systems are outdated. So I do not think we should quibble too much on the matter of cost at the risk of delaying the whole project.

That being said, when I was first elected some eight years ago, in 1993, we were presented with a renovation project of the parliamentary buildings where in the 36th Parliament, if I am not mistaken—and you will correct me if I am wrong—the House of Commons Chamber was to be moved to a temporary accommodation in the West Block.

In the 37th parliament, the Senate was to vacate the Center Block and to hold its sittings in this temporary chamber in the West Block. But here we are now in the 37th Parliament since last fall, the West Block is still occupied by MPs and we are now looking at moving our colleagues from the Center Block and the Wellington Building to the Justice Building this June, although we seem to be anticipating some delays. I really hope we will be able this time to stick to our schedule, but it seems that certain political parties have other priorities at this point in time and unduly delay the process of assigning offices and I do hope that we will still be able to move in June.

I was joking with the Sergeant-at-Arms a few weeks ago telling her that we would probably not move before the fall, and indeed there are reasons to believe there will be some delays.

In view of this, how can we be assured, this time, that things will happen on schedule? I think it was Mr. Regan who said at the previous meeting that the public often gets the impression that whenever something is supervised or coordinated by the government, the work takes twice as long. We can hardly blame them, seeing what happened with the previous renovation plan of the buildings of Parliament.

How can we be sure that the plan before us, with a time horizon of 25 years, will not take 50 or 60 years before being completed and that future governments will not alter the plan in such a way that we will again be faced with design changes and delays? How can we be sure there will not be other festivities such as for the year 2000 that will cause work to be suspended for a year or two and that we will be faced with new delays?

I read your mind, Mr. Regan.

• 1155

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Thank you for your question but you know obviously that we had a master plan. That was the plan that was laid out in 1992, I believe, in order to move ahead on some files following the report of the auditor general and we started doing some work. However, this time—and this is why I am so confident—we finally have a complete long term plan setting out several phases to complete the job, while the previous project was more of an emergency plan, dealing with things like the Center Block facade. So we did carry out some work, but you will remember that at some point there was this whole debate on the Hill about it costing more than anticipated and there was this impression—and it was true in a sense—that we did not have a master plan to really solve the whole problem. This is when I decided, as minister for Public Works, and therefore responsible for the parliamentary precinct, to stop. I had carried out the recommendation of the auditor general in 1991-92. So I said we would prepare a plan and I set up an advisory council to look at all recommendations and to submit a plan to the government's approval after consultation of all stakeholders. As you know very well since you are a member of this committee, the Board of Internal Economy submitted detailed documents setting out the needs of MPs. The Senate did the same thing, as well as the Library of Parliament and we consulted with the National Capital Commission and Heritage Canada, etc. So finally we have a plan where everything is well defined: the boundaries of the precinct and the various stages of the work to be done.

Now, if you are asking for a guarantee, I cannot give you one. Nothing is ever guaranteed in life. I cannot guarantee the future but I believe with this plan and a supervisory committee we can provide the assurance you seek that the plan will be carried out on schedule and within cost. This is my goal, my wish. As long as I will be the minister responsible, rest assured that I will be committed to carry this out.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik and then Ms. Gallant.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was paying specific attention to Mr. Jordan when he put his positions forward, and I'd like to ask Mr. Nurse, particularly, the following question.

When Mr. Jordan talked about the environmental aspects of the buildings and the greening of the buildings, the estimates now are simply preliminary cost estimates, I assume. Do we have any specifications developed for the buildings themselves at this point in time?

Mr. Michael Nurse: No, we don't have specifications developed. As a result of the hard work on the part of the House, the Senate, and the Library of Parliament, we have very specific requirements that were developed for us.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And those specific requirements are reflected in the preliminary cost estimates.

Mr. Michael Nurse: That's correct.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And what you're telling me is there are no specifications for the buildings developed at this point and that will be incorporated into the specifications when developed.

Mr. Michael Nurse: That's correct. I do want to be clear that we know the building very well and we know the kinds of technologies we have to put in place. But yes, you're right. The process is we have the requirements, we have done a specific cost review, and, subject to approval, we then proceed with the detailed specifications.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And are all the preliminary costs identified on page 11 of the report a current date costing of those developments?

Mr. Michael Nurse: They're based on current date costing. And I do want to clarify that there are two projects. The work we're doing on the Library of Parliament, which is under way, is where we've actually moved into the specifics.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you for that.

For my own curiosity, I know you spent an inordinate amount of time trying to site this whole precinct south of Wellington Street, north of Wellington Street. Was there ever any consideration given to the siting of the Bank building north of what it is right now and the parking areas to the north of the Bank parking lot right now?

Mr. Michael Nurse: When you say farther away from the corner of—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes, from Wellington Street and going north towards the river.... Was there a consideration of siting it there? The reason is that basically from the Confederation Building to the West Block and the Parliament Buildings, the Centre Block, sight lines will be impacted. I believe it's a ten-storey building, if memory serves me correctly. Was there a consideration given to siting it farther to the north?

• 1200

Mr. Michael Nurse: I can't specifically say in detail. My colleague Mr. Crête may be able to tell you. But I will tell you that in consideration of where we can locate these buildings, the basic recommendation from the site planners was that this was actually the best place to put it in terms of allowing for the future flow of traffic and opportunities like this.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Site planners sometimes have some weird and wonderful things, but we won't go there. That was for curiosity only.

However, this isn't for curiosity. This is a very interesting question, I think. In the detailed report, A Legacy for Future Generations, on page 26 there is a risk management matrix, which I appreciate, quite frankly. It shows a higher level of risk associated with certain buildings. The Confederation Building, for example, has a fairly high risk with regard to life and safety, as does the Centre Block, I believe. In looking at the phasing of this, however, the Confederation Building won't be phased in for renovations until 2017 to 2020. Do you anticipate doing any renovations prior to 2017? If you won't be, could I then relocate my office someplace else?

Mr. Michael Nurse: I can't answer the second question, but I'll definitely answer the first question, if I may.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Please.

Mr. Michael Nurse: First of all, we were very deliberate in wanting this in there. It was important for everyone to know the state of these buildings. I want to stress to you that although the statements talk about building interior mechanical systems, at no time did we feel these buildings cannot be worked in and operated. But what this states to us is that as these numbers move toward five, with the breakdowns and the number of issues that take place increasing all the time, the annual cost of keeping the buildings going goes up. But we consider these buildings to be safe. We believe we can put in the appropriate maintenance to keep the buildings going.

In terms of the scheduling, we obviously were trying to meet the specific requirements of the House and Senate. In our mind, we can keep the Confederation Building operating well and then do the maintenance at the appropriate time. We simply could not do all the work at the same time. That's the structure we put it in. But it becomes a matter of how much money you put in on an annual basis to keep these buildings going.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's also the responsibility of Public Works.

Mr. Michael Nurse: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Certainly over the next 17 to 20 years there's going to be a requirement, so that would be reflected in your operating budgets for these buildings. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Michael Nurse: That's right. We have an annual operating budget, which we receive approval for, and we have identified those costs for that budget. But the fact of the matter is that as time goes by, these costs do go up, and it becomes a major challenge.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Absolutely. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. I resist the temptation to draw parallels between the parliamentary buildings and military equipment.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You could draw those parallels if you wish, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: It works.

Ms. Gallant.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, you explained that the Justice Building project was a learning experience and that it should assist in avoiding similar problems in the proposed project before us. I've heard there were a number of deficiencies in the renovations. Can you describe these and what the cost implications were? On the issue of these deficiencies, is it true that the original contractor hired to do the work was let go before the completion of the project?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Mike, maybe you could comment on that before I do.

Mr. Michael Nurse: First of all, every building is a learning experience. I'll be frank with you, that's just the reality. When we're working with any heritage building, it's always a learning experience.

However, in our workings in terms of deficiencies, including some issues around the heating plant to ensure it can operate over the next number of years, we simply made a confirmation of those. Where we had to do some adaptation to ensure it was a system that can continue to operate, we did so. At all times we sought the support of the House in terms of it being satisfied with what took place.

• 1205

But there are also some requirement changes that take place. One thing I want to stress is that one of the biggest issues in managing projects is that requirements don't change. In other words, when the requirements are set for us, we operate within those requirements, and we usually can do very well in our planning and budgeting. But when the requirements change, that obviously involves scope change. So there is a balance in terms of any kind of oversight. It's not only controlling the project but also controlling the scope of the project and the changes that are taking place.

The challenges we faced in the Justice Building are challenges we're going to face in every heritage building. We find there are deficiencies and that there is work in areas we thought would be okay, so that we need to make changes. These are amendments that are going to take place all the time. We build in the contingencies. The Justice Building was managed to budget. What it meant in some cases is that we had to take some extra time to do the work. But we managed it very well to budget and with the full support of the House.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Based on what happened in the Justice Building, how can we be assured we'll adhere to the timeline and the cost projections for this project? We've had a series of cost projections on this project, and recent media reports have said these costs have already increased significantly from the original plan.

Mr. Michael Nurse: Do you mean the costs for the overall Hill project?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: It started at $265 million for part of it and then it went up to $465 million. Then the deputy minister came forth and said $800 million, and he was denounced for estimating that. Now we're up to $1.4 billion.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: That was not the Justice Building. That was the other—

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: I'm talking about this project.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Are you asking about this project or the Justice Building?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: This project.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: As I said, for years there were piecemeal suggestions that we do this, that we do that, that we have a tourist centre, and so on. They were working projects, but they were never discussed with the minister or even with the clients involved—the House, the Senate, the library, and so on. That's why at the time I said those figures were not approved. They were not discussed at the official level but were different hypotheses that some officials worked on.

For this one we started from scratch, and this is our report. As I've said from the beginning, we even asked an outside expert to look at the costs to make sure they were real and feasible, not just figures put there so that.... Naturally, it's very hard to predict what the final cost will be 25 years from now, but I can tell you that for the first phase in the next five years, those costs will be real and will have to be respected. A lot of things may be said in the media about these costs, but they don't necessarily reflect the reality.

Mr. John Fraser: I wonder if I could just add something to what the minister said in answer to the honourable member's question. Many years ago, what became very apparent to those of us who were reviewing various presentations about possible building plans was that the constant changing of the proposals really meant that nothing ever got started. It meant that there was really no recovery in terms of the amount of money that kept getting spent on coming up with one plan after another. What this committee was insisting on in all its deliberations and discussions with everybody else was that we finally have to have a plan that when accepted is not constantly amended.

• 1210

The best guarantee.... I know everyone is very cautious about giving guarantees, and somebody once said they didn't want to make predictions, especially about the future. But the committee feels that if the schedule that is set out here is accepted by the government, is maintained, and if there is a clear and disciplined resistance against anybody coming along from time to time saying you didn't think of this or you didn't think of that, or we would like something more in addition to this, then the department and the people who have to put together the plans, the specifications, and the estimates have a far better chance of staying within budget.

There's one other thing that we were told again and again, and especially by some of the members of our committee who are experts in both architecture and engineering, and that is that the difficulty in trying to project costs into the future is very serious indeed. All it takes, for instance, in this area is a modest or significant increase in construction costs at any given time and it will throw out the best endeavours of the estimates we have.

My point, and I think the members of our committee would want me to make it, is that perhaps the best guarantee of ensuring we keep costs within appropriate bounds, and of course subject to an oversight committee, is that we stick with this plan and we don't constantly keep changing it.

The Chair: Mr. Gagliano.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Also in terms of cost, why the costs were changing from this—and you referred to $100 million and now it's $1.6 billion—is it's not the same plan. We have two new structures added and so on. But also, in the past we were costing in terms of renovating the infrastructure, but part of all the clients' requirement, all the technology, the installation and so on, was in the budget of the House and the Senate. Now, after discussion with the House and the Senate authorities, they decided they want us to do everything. So there is an addition, a very important amount, that is included in the cost.

Earlier the question was asked under which vote are we going to find this expenditure. Everything now will be under Public Works. Before it was what was physical in terms of a wall, in terms of electricity, but what was communication, for example, and security infrastructure was in the House or the Senate budget. So there is also this factor to take into consideration when we look at the figures.

The Chair: Thank you.

We have two apparently short interventions, one from Mr. Macklin and one from Mr. Regan.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Since we're dealing with past, present, and future, right at the moment one of our considerations here is we're looking at the potential for electronic voting within the House. This raised a question. We have renovations coming up this summer with respect to the wiring within the House itself. Will there be sufficient wiring incorporated into that to allow for a substantial amount of electronic facility at each member's desk, or is that something we should be looking into?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: When a building is renovated, we think of all the future foreseeable things we can add if we definitely have enough space. This is definitely the experience we have right now. We don't have to go far away. For this building here, every time somebody asks to add an electrical plug it becomes problematic. So we are very conscious of this, and I believe that all this was taken into account in the preliminary plans.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: This summer, it will be taken care of?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: No. Are you talking about the electronic vote this summer?

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: No, I'm talking about the wiring, the facilities. I understand that the chamber itself is going to be rewired this summer.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Not that I know of.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: That's very good information.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: You scare me. Once you open up that.... It's in the plan. It's a major project, but it's a few years down the road.

• 1215

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: We were having information provided to us that wiring was occurring within the House.

An hon. member: New microphones and new audio?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: If the House decides to have an electronic vote, then naturally we'll have to provide the necessary wiring and the necessary logistics to have this electronic vote work. But wiring all the Centre Block—

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: No, just within the chamber itself.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Yes. If the House is positioned for an electrical vote, yes, everything necessary will be done.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: But there isn't anything planned at the moment for this summer?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I don't know.

The Chair: Order.

Mr. Michael Nurse: We don't know.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: You don't know. All right. That's fair then.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Until they ask us to do something, we don't do it.

The Chair: Order.

Just for the record, I believe it is the information of the committee—my recollection is it's from the Sergeant-at-Arms—that this summer the chamber will be rewired for a new sound system or new wiring for the internal House sound system. And Mr. Macklin's question was merely to confirm that in the course of this, if the House isn't already wired to accommodate an electronic voting mechanism, could it be?

I understand the witnesses here today are focused on the long-term renovation plan. The rewiring for this summer, however, is a short-term “must do this summer” project. And we won't rely on the witnesses to give us a full answer to that.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: If we are asked to do it or get involved, definitely we will. But I have been informed by my officials that so far the House authorities have not asked Public Works for any assistance in that matter.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, first of all, even though Mr. Bergeron has stolen my question, I'll recognize that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I guess I can live with that.

I do want to join in congratulating the minister and former Speaker Fraser and your staffs for the work you have done. There's been a tremendous amount of work, obviously, on this.

I note that one of the benefits your material suggests will result will be a modern, productive work environment that fully meets government standards for health and safety. And one of the challenges I foresee is to maintain those benefits during the construction period. In other words, for people who have offices in the Justice Building and the Confederation Building, I'm foreseeing quite a bit of noise and some disruption during that period. I want to ask you about that. What do you foresee, and what can be done to minimize that?

Mr. Michael Nurse: There is no doubt that we are attempting to carry out and continue to carry out major renovations while people are working on site. There's no doubt about that. And that will always be a challenge and sometimes results in very difficult situations.

We try to maximize construction time when the House is not sitting. We put a lot of effort into that. We provide a lot of information to people to alert them, at least, that there are periods of time when there may be some noise so people may be able to plan their schedules a bit. We try to communicate effectively. But at the end of the day, I'm not going to kid you: we have a construction site, and sometimes unplanned maintenance requirements because of the state of the buildings that we have to try to maintain in the best manner possible.

We've had a lot of cooperation. There will be some noise. We try to keep it to a minimum. And we definitely try to have a high level of construction when members are not here. We definitely try to plan around that. But this is a major project.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: To add to that, for the year 2000, for example, I instructed my department not to do any work because it was millennium year and we expected a lot of visitors, so the visitors could go around and enjoy the beauty of Parliament Hill. But naturally, now we have to start doing the necessary work, because we are risking damaging historical buildings. And I have to thank my officials for trying to do the utmost to do the least possible work, or make the least possible noise, during the time the House is sitting.

• 1220

The Chair: Mr. Fraser.

HMr. John Fraser: I just wanted to add to the joint answer that Mr. Regan is getting. I notice he said imitation is the greatest form of flattery. So if we get the same questions, then we have to ask, what about repetition? Because we would be giving the same answers, wouldn't we? This just occurred to me.

Actually, the question you've just asked was a little different. One of the things I would like to bring to the committee's attention is that a lot of time and effort was spent on trying to find a way to renovate the Centre Block in such a way that we could keep some of the members and some of the senators in the Centre Block during renovation. The committee really looked at this, and it was our collective view, also supported by some of the representations from the department, that we had to get away from this idea of trying to do the Centre Block while people were still in it. If you'll notice, on page 11, in phase three, we don't start the Centre Block until 2012, and it's going to be done by getting everybody out of there, so it will all be done at one time. That will eliminate, to quite a remarkable degree, the concerns you have, Mr. Regan, at least as regards the Centre Block. But it will also do something else. It should enable us to build and make those reservations at far less expense. As the minister has said and as Mr. Nurse has said, there will be places and times where there will be some inconvenience and nuisance. I don't know how that can be completely avoided.

The Chair: Okay.

That will conclude the questions, colleagues. We have three important....

Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: When is this going to cabinet? That's all I want to know. When is it going?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Right now it's before cabinet.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. That's all I wanted to know.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Borotsik. Good question.

That will complete our consideration of these two excellent reports.

Again, I want to alert members that we have three important administrative matters to take up, but we won't need our witnesses for that. Before they go, I want to thank them all very much on behalf of all the members of the House of Commons, in particular the advisory committee represented here today by former Speaker Fraser and Ms. Griffith, and also, from the Department of Public Works, our minister, Mr. Gagliano, Mr. Nurse, and Mr. Crête, who are here today. I wanted to recognize them. Thank you very much for your ongoing work on this. You will all be rewarded in heaven, and you are now free to get there.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. John Fraser: It is a long-term work plan, but I don't know whether you wanted to put it that way.

The Chair: Thank you very much; you're free to take your leave now.

The committee will now turn to administrative matters. There are three. One is the formation of a special committee to deal with illegal drug use. The second is modification to the membership of the liaison committee to provide for associate membership. The third is that the chief government whip has asked that some documents be tabled in connection with the matter raised by Ms. Gallant earlier. I'll deal with that first.

I have a copy of a letter from the chief government whip to Ms. Gallant dated May 24, with personal names expurgated. I also have a memorandum dated May 23 to Ms. Catterall, the chief government whip, with names expurgated, and a memorandum dated 1998 to a former member of the House of Commons, also with the appropriate names expurgated. So this should, I hope, clear up the matter. I will table them with the clerk, and members are free to have a look at them and make copies as the need arises.

• 1225

Second, let's deal with the liaison committee. I understand it has been the decision of the House leaders and/or whips to name associate members to the liaison committee. That is the committee of committee chairs, and up to now there has not been an associate membership. It would be very helpful, according to the chair of that committee and others, to have associate membership. The proposal, then, is to name all of the existing committee vice-chairs of all parties as associate members of the liaison committee. That report would be tabled as a membership report, the way your chair here tables those reports.

If that is acceptable, I would receive a motion to do that and complete that task some time today.

Mr. Bergeron, on that.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, this could be part of the solution, but the problem is this. All chairs and vice-chairs are presently members of the two main parties in the House. So the problem we have on our side is how to be involved in funding decisions of committees since neither we, nor the New Democrats nor the Conservatives have any chairs or vice-chairs. So if you limit associate membership to vice-chairs, the three smaller parties will continue to be excluded. If the goal in having associate members is to include the three smaller parties, you are not solving the problem by restricting associate membership to vice-chairs.

[English]

The Chair: The point you raise is a good one, it's a real one. I'm advised that all the party whips are going to be collaborating in the list that is to be provided later today or tomorrow. There's certainly no rush in this.

Why don't we just leave it, pending further discussion among the party whips, and let this simply be notice of intention to deal with this over the next few days. If there's another solution out there, that's great.

The third item involves the creation of a special committee. You will recall that the motion adopted in the House, the motion of Mr. White, called for the creation of a special committee to look at the non-medical use of drugs, and the House agreed to that. The task of creating the membership of the committee was referred to this committee, and as I understand the order of the House, we now simply have to report to the House, the deadline being today. All the parties have been consulted and there is now a committee of 13 constructed. The number 13 arises as a result of an accommodation made by the Alliance and the Liberal Party. We've backed off the big committee number 16 in the hope of keeping the membership reduced, and the Alliance has agreed to that.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I would move, Mr. Chairman, that the list be confirmed and that it be reported to the House.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. We'll be back in business Tuesday next.

The meeting is adjourned.