BOIE
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 203
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Welcome.
It's Thursday, March 12, 2020, and we'll proceed with meeting number three of the Board of Internal Economy.
The first item on the agenda is the minutes of the previous meeting.
Is everything in order? There are no adjustments; everything's fine. Do we have approval? Good.
The next item we'll look at is the parliamentary precinct long-term vision and plan.
Before we go to that, I want to inform everyone that we'll be going in camera should the person from Health Canada come here a bit earlier. Because it is a pressing matter, I want to make sure everyone is here. We may have to interrupt our meeting at some point to proceed with that.
We'll hear from our presenters: Michel Patrice, deputy clerk, administration; Stéphan Aubé, chief information officer; and Susan Kulba, director general, real property.
Mr. Holland.
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2020-03-12 11:19
Mr. Speaker, there have been very productive discussions among members of the board with respect to this item. I first want to thank my colleagues for those conversations, which have been very fruitful, and provide a recommendation. I thought it would be appropriate for me to start by summarizing as best I can the conversations we've had.
The intention would be to create a subcommittee, a working group, if you will, comprised of members of Parliament from all recognized parties that would be a subcommittee of the Board of Internal Economy, and would report its recommendations to the Board of Internal Economy. We've had some conversations on this to get the composition right. I'm proposing three Liberals, two Conservatives, one Bloc and one NDP for that working group.
From our own perspective, we'll be populating it with members of PROC to harmonize the process and the work PROC has been doing with the work we are doing.
The Senate would then choose its own working group format. It could have a conversation about matters specifically of import to the Senate, the Senate chamber, the Senate meeting rooms and that sort of thing. However, where there is overlap, those two bodies could meet jointly and try to find a way to get on the same page.
The Board of Internal Economy, though, and we would be seeking to do it at this meeting, would be looking to provide specific direction that the overriding principle be the preservation of heritage.
Candice, I know you had some specific thoughts about some of the pieces, some “thou shalt not touch” provisions: Thou shalt not touch the chamber. Thou shalt not touch the Hall of Honour. Thou shalt not touch the entrance for members. Thou shalt not touch la Francophonie. We would place specific direction to restore these elements of heritage and not contemplate any amendment or potential destruction of these elements of heritage.
I don't think this needs to be part of a motion, but it's important to state that the assistant deputy minister for parliamentary infrastructure of the Department of Public Services and Procurement, or his or her designate, would operate as liaison to the working group to make sure there's that connection between the ministerial side and the work of the parliamentary group. Obviously, it would be led by the parliamentary group, and the minutes of the working group meeting would be recorded and made public 30 days following a meeting.
Mr. Speaker, that builds on the conversations we had at the previous meeting, where we really heard from all members around the importance of—
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
Do we have that?
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2020-03-12 11:23
Yes, that is my understanding. I'm looking at Charles to see if this has been circulated to members.
I think the text is available in both official languages.
Members should have that in front of them. I'm suggesting that as a framework for the motion that we can hopefully proceed with today.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Julian, I'm sorry.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I feel that the text reflects our discussion quite well.
However, I would actually write that the government will have three members, the official opposition two members, and the third and fourth parties one member each. This would ensure that the subcommittee's work can continue if we have an election, whether scheduled or not.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
So what are you suggesting, exactly: more members?
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
I am suggesting replacing the reference to the Liberal Party by “government” and the reference to the Conservative Party by “official opposition”, and so on.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay, I understand. So we will use the terms “government”, “official opposition”, “third party” and “fourth party”.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
[Inaudible—Editor]
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The figures will stay the same.
Do we have consensus to proceed in that manner?
Is everybody in accordance—
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
On the numbers.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
—on the numbers? Well, I guess we would have to....
Madam Bergen, did you want to say something?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
I think the one thing we want to make sure of, and I think we would probably all be in agreement, is that this committee doesn't get too overly bureaucratic where they are calling witnesses and satisfying curiosities. I'd like to make sure that we have some of those parameters. Maybe right now isn't the time to do it. Maybe we want to establish that we will have this subcommittee made up of the composition that you outlined. Or do we want to lay down a few more parameters now?
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2020-03-12 11:26
I'm open. My thinking would be that we would allow that body to make a determination. The parameters are fairly tight. If the committee wanted to hear representation on public use of the front lawn and the implication on the design....
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
With officials.
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2020-03-12 11:26
With officials.
Again, if we want to be so prescriptive as to say that body wouldn't hear from anybody outside of officials and parliamentarians, I'm a little loath to place that restriction on them. I'd rather have them come to that conclusion as part of their process. I'd be interested in hearing you expand upon the....
If I could, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the officials, my understanding is that by placing the “thou shall not touch” provisions and the overall directive of preservation of heritage, it takes away some of the time pressure that was previously discussed. One of the biggest concerns was the decision on the size of the chamber, as an example, and that impeding the ability to proceed with construction in the summer.
Is that correct?
Michel Patrice
View Michel Patrice Profile
Michel Patrice
2020-03-12 11:27
That's correct.
Those kinds of instructions, directives or directions are very helpful in a way in going forward, for example, by taking off the footprint of the chamber. If we don't look at that and we keep the same footprint, then we can focus on other elements, yes.
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2020-03-12 11:27
Mr. Speaker, if I could just finish the point, I think we have more time as a result. If this direction is carried out, we have considerably more time than we had previously. The urgency is lifted a little. Therefore, my suggestion would be to leave it to that body to make a determination on how best to comport itself and how best to come to the conclusions for the recommendations they're going to give to this body.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
We have Mr. Strahl and then Ms. Bergen.
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As long as there is something in here, or there is some direction from us.... My worry is that we create a third body as opposed to creating one. Right now we have BOIE and PROC—we're not even talking about the Senate—and now this. As long as we are clear that this body, this group we are creating, is to replace the current work that is being contemplated by this body and by PROC, that we are not making it so that now PROC will hear from officials, we will hear from officials and the working group will hear from officials.... As long as we are making it clear through the motion and clear in public here today that this group is designed to take those functions away from BOIE and PROC and concentrate it here so there are not now three groups discussing this....
I've expressed this privately, but my worry is that when you get into a subcommittee as opposed to a working group, then you become another.... Subcommittees have rules and procedures and when as opposed to a working group it becomes a subcommittee, I'm worried that we might lose some of that streamlining that we're attempting to get to here.
If there's a way in the motion, or a way for us to make it clear that what we're trying to achieve here is efficiency and not duplication, we'd be in agreement with that.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Before we go any further, I just want to ask a question of all you who have come together. This is the first I have seen of it, and it seems you've put some thought into it and actually worked together, which is a good thing. My question for you is this. Do you all feel comfortable that this reflects Mr. Strahl's concern about concentrating everything in one committee or do you feel this is going to be split in different areas?
I'll just leave that one. I know we had some people—
Are you saying to leave it as a working group and that should cover the ground?
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
I'm worried that using certain terminology, although we might understand what it is, would in effect create more problems than it would solve. A working group is what I would like to call it and then we can be more flexible in how it is structured.
That would be my suggestion.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I don't want to complicate things, but do we need an appendix at the end explaining what a working group is? I just want to cover the ground now so that we don't—
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
Efficiency is what we are looking for here.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay, we'll make that note.
We'll go to Ms. Bergen, followed by Madam DeBellefeuille.
We now move to Mr. Holland.
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
The other question I had is this. How are we going to let the working group know, or the officials, or whoever needs to know, the list of “thou shalt not touch” rooms that we want to make sure are preserved?
What's the thought around that?
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
As a group, have you discussed that?
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2020-03-12 11:31
I have a reflection, but I'll wait for my turn.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Very good.
Mrs. DeBellefeuille, the floor is yours. Then it will be Mr. Holland's turn.
View Claude DeBellefeuille Profile
BQ (QC)
I have looked over the document that was provided to us. I find that it reflects all the discussions we have had. Above all, it clearly defines the parameters that Ms. Bergen, Mr. Strahl or the rest of the committee wanted, in order to give the team led by Mr. Patrice some direction and guidelines.
I understand the confusion we see in the French version—I don't know the situation in English—from the use of the words: “le BRI créera un sous-comité”. So let's take that out and put “le BRI créera un groupe de travail” instead. With that change, I feel that Mr. Strahl will be more comfortable.
After that, in my opinion, the mandate and the description of the objectives in the French version answer all of our concerns and cover all the guidelines that we would like the House of Commons administration to abide by. So I find the document to be quite complete. If we have forgotten anything, Mr. Holland can add it. Personally, I am very comfortable with it.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2020-03-12 11:33
Thank you. Let me just go through a couple of little points that were raised.
On the first point raised by Mr. Strahl, Mr. Speaker, I think it is certainly the intention of this document and reflective of the conversations that we had that this would create a body, not three, so that it would give very clear responsibility for the adjudication of recommendations to this body, that the body would then be reporting back to BOIE. The intention really of doing this is to ensure that we don't have multiple different channels for the House administration to be dealing with, which is also partly the reason I don't want to be too prescriptive about how that body conducts itself, but ultimately it would be recommendations that would be coming back here.
If there wasn't clarity here, hopefully that clarity will be reflected in the conversations and will therefore be carried in the spirit of what is created. I'm comfortable with adding additional words, but I think that the unanimity of this body probably is sufficient. I wouldn't be uncomfortable with additional words if that made people more comfortable.
What I think would be sufficient to start with, to answer the question posed by Madam Bergen, is that we have some immediate ones that we've already agreed to as a group in our conversations that should not be touched. On the “thou shall not touch” list we have the chamber itself, the entrance at West Block and the Hall of Honour.
Then I would say that the list will certainly be more expansive than that, but I think we can start there and stay those categorically today.
Then, my recommendation would be to ask the House administration to come back to us with a list of heritage features that we can take a look at and potentially add to that list. I can tell you that when the chamber was closed and they had the opportunity to lock hallways, when all the doors were open and nobody was in the building, there were some rooms that I walked into that I didn't even know existed. They were just magnificent, and it would rip my heart out to see them transformed. I may not—or this body may not—even be fully cognizant of all of the heritage features that decisions have to be made on.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, to Mr. Patrice, would it be sufficient at this point to give you that specific direction on the pieces of heritage that I have identified, to come back with a more expansive list of heritage features that we could review for our next meeting and then make a decision whether or not to add to that list?
Michel Patrice
View Michel Patrice Profile
Michel Patrice
2020-03-12 11:36
That would be very helpful. It would be our pleasure to prepare such a list and submit it for your consideration, with maybe a little background on each.
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2020-03-12 11:36
On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I believe we are simpatico, if I'm reading the room correctly.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Very good.
Are we all in favour of this motion? Do we have unanimous consent?
(Motion agreed to)
Perfect, good.
We'll proceed in putting this together, and we'll include a list on there as well. I trust that the parties will be putting forward the people that they want to see on those committees.
Mr. Patrice.
Michel Patrice
View Michel Patrice Profile
Michel Patrice
2020-03-12 11:36
I think we're done.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
They did your work for you.
Michel Patrice
View Michel Patrice Profile
Michel Patrice
2020-03-12 11:36
Thank you very much.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2020-03-12 11:36
Mr. Speaker, obviously, we are waiting, but I think that some of that conversation would be beneficial even earlier, perhaps. Rather than suspending the meeting, I would make a suggestion that we break for a couple of moments and move in camera.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Yes. We don't have a lot left before we go in camera, so we can go in camera right away.
We are moving in camera, certainly, for the person who is supposed to be here at noon.
Now, I'll ask everyone to leave—well, not everyone—and we'll move in camera.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
We'll get this meeting started.
Welcome to our second meeting.
Our first meeting was a bit quick, but everything went well.
The first order of the day is the minutes of the previous meetings. Has everyone had a chance to look through them? Are we okay with them? For business arising from previous meetings, is there anything that should be brought up?
Mr. Strahl.
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do appreciate how rushed the December meeting was for reasons that the Conservatives certainly remember. I did ask a question that I wanted to get some clarification on, just because when I went back I couldn't make the numbers work. Again, I know we were very rushed.
I did ask a question about the reduction in the allotment in the estimates for the Office of the Deputy Clerk. There's a reduction of nearly $200,000 for the personal office of the Deputy Clerk-Procedure, André Gagnon. At the time, I was told that this was because of a reallocation of the Press Gallery Secretariat to the Office of the Deputy Clerk-Administration. However, looking at that, it happened in the previous year.
I would that either to be clarified now or for it to be flagged so that someone can give me information on what that difference is, because I believe we were talking about different years when the Press Gallery Secretariat was explained as the reason for that. I'll just flag that. I don't expect that the clerk was expecting that question today, so if I can just put it on the record that I would like to get some more information on that, I'd appreciate it.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Charles Robert
View Charles Robert Profile
Charles Robert
2020-02-27 11:21
No, we'll look into it. I want to make sure that we provide you with correct information, so rather than doing something off the cuff, I will come back to you.
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Very good.
Are there any other questions concerning the business arising from previous meetings?
There aren't any. We'll move on to the third item.
Ratification of a walk-around special committee.
If there aren't any questions, we'll continue.
Everyone's in accordance. They've already signed.
We'll move on to number four, parliamentary precinct
We have two speakers addressing the fourth item, which concerns the long-term vision and plan for the parliamentary precinct. These speakers are Michel Patrice, deputy clerk, and Stéphan Aubé, chief information officer.
Gentlemen, you have the floor.
Michel Patrice
View Michel Patrice Profile
Michel Patrice
2020-02-27 11:22
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Actually, Susan Kulba will start. She and Ms. Garrett will provide an update on the activities that have taken place since our last presentation in June.
Susan Kulba
View Susan Kulba Profile
Susan Kulba
2020-02-27 11:22
Good morning and thank you, Mr. Speaker and members of the board.
Today, as Michel said, we're joined by Jennifer Garrett from PSPC, the director general responsible for the Centre Block program, and Duncan Retson, the ADM at PSPC. We will be providing you with an update on the LTVP for the rehabilitation of the Centre Block since we last met in June before the summer break and election. We have a small presentation.
Mr. Patrice will be speaking to parliamentary engagement and the way forward. When we were last here, we were joined by the working group members tasked by this board to work with us as a means of engaging the Parliament and in the decision-making for the LTVP. At that time, there was a recommendation to proceed with the construction hoarding location and to develop the design for the interpretive panels. A recommendation for a scalable approach on the size of our welcome centre was also approved to allow Public Works to move forward with the project while allowing us time to engage with parliamentarians to develop the final functional requirements. We have been working together with PSPC over this time, doing our homework and preparing information and options for that engagement.
In parallel, there has been a lot of activity going on, and Jennifer will speak to that in a little more detail. As we move forward with the functional programming and schematic design, there will be a fair number of key decisions requiring engagement and approval. We will bring to your attention some of those key elements and approaches to developing conceptual options so that we can continue to engage parliamentarians in revitalizing the Centre Block. Our goal is to ensure that we achieve an optimal balance between restoring one of the most important heritage buildings in Canada and ensuring that it meets the future needs of parliamentarians.
I'll pass it on to Jennifer.
Jennifer Garrett
View Jennifer Garrett Profile
Jennifer Garrett
2020-02-27 11:24
Good morning, everyone.
The Centre Block rehabilitation is a pinnacle project of our current long-term vision and plan, which is also under update.
In terms of the program, it remains on track, and several key milestones have been accomplished since our last engagement with BOIE. Enabling projects are largely now complete, allowing the construction manager the ability to commence demolition and abatement activities in support of both the rehabilitation of the Centre Block and construction of the phase two visitor welcome centre. We've commenced the excavation of underground infrastructure to ready for large-scale excavation activities that will come in the near future.
The comprehensive assessment program to understand the building condition is now complete. Results of this program will be outlined later in this briefing and have been integrated into the ongoing schematic design process. This program has provided valuable information and enabled the team to safely commence the demolition and abatement that I referred to earlier.
In collaboration with the administration of the House of Commons, we have advanced the functional program and launched the schematic design process. We are now at the point of input for parliamentarians in order to make the key decisions that have been referenced and will be discussed later in this presentation, to allow completion of the schematic design process and continuance of the rehabilitation program.
The rehabilitation of the Centre Block endeavours to provide modern accommodations to support parliamentary operations while retaining core heritage elements of the building. The scope has two main elements. The first is to modernize the Centre Block so that it can support parliamentary operations well into the 21st century.
The second is to construct phase two of the visitor welcome centre, which will primarily do the following. It will establish a safe security screen outside the Centre Block building footprint. It will provide additional parliamentary support space. It will connect the triad, the Centre Block, the East Block and the West Block, into one integrated parliamentary complex. It will enhance parliamentary outreach by providing a curated parliamentary visitor experience program that will supplement the current tours that are ongoing on the Hill.
The visual that you see on your screen represents a high-level visual impact of how that visitor welcome centre enables the connection of the triad into one parliamentary complex. It will not necessarily be constructed in that actual footprint.
A very big aspect of reducing risk on a large-scale heritage program like this rehabilitation is to find out as much as possible about the building and to have that information influence the schematic design and downstream construction activities. Based on lessons learned and a best-practices approach, the assessment program for this rehabilitation has been the most comprehensive undertaken to date in the precinct.
The program was launched in 2018 before the relocation of parliamentary operations from the Centre Block to the West Block, but given the invasive nature, the program significantly increased in momentum and was completed once the Centre Block was emptied. This program, as I indicated, is now at an end, and its findings have already been incorporated into the schematic design process.
Just to give you a sense, here is a summary of the key findings that we have taken out of the program, but maybe I'll just bring to the attention of the members that it's a highlight of the few high-level key takeaways.
We have gained a comprehensive understanding of the heritage elements, which will enable the project team to develop a robust restoration strategy. We have determined that the underlying structural steel is in better condition than expected in many areas, which will create efficiencies during the structural reinforcement process. We know where the underground infrastructure is, the associated site conditions, and we are now clear for digging from an archeological perspective. We know, in great detail, the type and location of designated substances, so we can develop a comprehensive abatement strategy.
The biggest challenge, the key challenge for us that has come out of the assessment program—and it's not insignificant—is that we were really hoping that, when we started to dig behind walls and look above ceilings, we would find some room to provide modern building infrastructure like heating and cooling, and unfortunately, we have found very little space to run these services.
Despite this, we will be able to address these challenges. We will just have to use innovative approaches to do so, and we are already working with organizations like the House of Commons administration, their IT PMO organization and our designer to address the challenges and find ways to run modern services through the building.
The building modernization is only one aspect of the program. As previously indicated, we've been working with parliamentary administrations on their respective parliamentary functional programs. In this case, this also involves the Senate of Canada as a key client, and the Library of Parliament. We are at the point now where we're coming to you today to start the engagement process to get your views and incorporate them into the decision-making process to ensure that the building, when it is returned to you, not only functions from a building modernization perspective but also effectively meets the needs of parliamentarians well into the 21st century.
From a design perspective—and we will get into more key decisions later on in the presentation—we are facing challenging decisions such as the size and configuration of the House of Commons chamber, including public lobbies and galleries, and the space and location of parliamentary offices and committee rooms throughout the new complex.
For the visitor welcome centre, we're looking to establish, with your input, the size and operational functionality of that facility and to consider the location configuration and entry points for both public and parliamentary business into that complex.
At this point, I'm going to transfer the presentation back to my colleague, Susan Kulba, to take you through the chamber.
Susan Kulba
View Susan Kulba Profile
Susan Kulba
2020-02-27 11:31
Thank you, Jennifer.
The House of Commons chamber is one of the most significant spaces in the Centre Block. It's where Parliament resides, it's where you work. It holds symbolic and traditional significance to Canada, and it's one of the most recognized spaces within the building. It's one of the key elements that will require some consultation.
The House has been working with PSPC and design consultants over the break to do our homework, notably with respect to the chamber galleries and lobby, so that we could be well prepared to engage and start the conversation with parliamentarians about these spaces. The chamber requires change. We need to consider the long-term use and the investment and focus on what kind of change and how best to achieve it.
Our approach was to start with basic information on the existing chamber, the Fair Representation Act, and feedback we have received to date from parliamentarians, including PROC. There are a number of common trends from members so far.
In doing our homework, we have considered the Fair Representation Act, which came into effect in 2015, and it indicates that the average demographic projections would put the MP count at about 460 in roughly 50 years from now. By the time we return to Centre Block, the projections could put the number of MPs in a range of 350 to 370.
Knowing that the growth will need to be accommodated for future parliaments, there are a number of considerations to help achieve that. We could change the seating and the furniture; we could adjust procedures to be more flexible; and/or we could increase the size of the chamber.
These considerations emphasize the tension between space, functionality, accessibility and heritage. Key decisions regarding the chamber are required early in the project and during schematic design, because this direction will impact the structural design, which comes first.
We will also need to consider many of the elements in terms of life safety. They don't currently meet code, and we need to take all that into account while we're considering other factors.
There will need to be interventions to the heritage fabric of these spaces to accommodate the many requirements. What will be important is how we do that. We need to do it in an appropriate manner. We need to do it respectfully and in a complementary way to the original Pearson design while building a new layer of lasting heritage relevant to your time in Parliament and the history of the building. To do that successfully, we need to have great consultation with parliamentarians.
Given the challenge of addressing all those issues, we have undertaken studies on the chamber with all that basic information, and we have developed options to demonstrate the range of possibilities. Those options are at a conceptual level, but we would like to engage further with in-depth consultations to develop the direction on which way to proceed.
As mentioned earlier, the visitor welcome centre had preliminary approval by the board for a scalable size so that Public Works could continue with the project, but we still need to come back and work on the functional requirements with the House of Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament and PPS.
The building is a welcome centre and is an important element for security and interconnection of the buildings on the Hill, which all work together to accommodate the key functions of Parliament.
Over the break, the parliamentary partners continued to work with PSPC on two key elements of the visitor welcome centre: first, to refine the functional requirements and further develop the three options for consideration and in-depth consultation, and the final program requirements to determine the final size; second, to study the entrance design strategy to ensure that the visitor welcome centre phase 2 works in concert with the existing buildings and key entrances, which will remain in Centre Block, and to focus on providing secure and efficient entry for parliamentarians, business visitors and the public while meeting the operational functionality and considering intervention in the heritage landscape.
We will be seeking input from parliamentarians on the review of the public entrance and your requirements for meeting and greeting constituents in the visitor welcome centre. We will be discussing in depth the advantages and disadvantages of each to ensure that the most suitable option is pursued for further development in the schematic design.
Thank you.
Michel Patrice
View Michel Patrice Profile
Michel Patrice
2020-02-27 11:36
We've outlined the decisions that we believe parliamentarians should be involved in and consulted on so that they can share their opinion and ultimately make a decision. A number of decisions will be required in the coming months to continue making progress on the project.
It's not my intent to go into all of those decisions. Obviously, the objective of this meeting is not to get one decision on any of those topics, but just to give you a sense of what needs to be reviewed in designing the program and designing the building. I would say that governance is more the objective, in terms of putting that on the board's agenda to discuss and obtain direction on where the board wants to go.
In a simplified way, the governance for the parliamentary precinct involves many players.
First, the legislative power, in this case the House of Commons, determines the requirements for buildings and offices.
The executive power is the custodian and is responsible for carrying out projects and implementing budgets.
There are obviously other stakeholders, including the Department of Canadian Heritage, the National Capital Commission and the City of Ottawa.
The devil's in the details. That's simplified, but when it's time to really get to answers and discussion, the decision becomes a bit more complex. The parliamentary administration is the lead for engagement with parliamentarians. It is our responsibility to ensure that members are properly engaged to allow for effective decision-making as it relates to defining the requirements of your workplace for the next 100 years.
Historically, the board has been the decision-maker for LTVP and related projects.
In the previous Parliament, for example, the board appointed a working group that was created to help it make decisions. This concerned the excavation required for the future Visitor Welcome Centre.
We remember the discussions. It may not have been a perfect model yet, but the fact that you were kept informed and that you received help with making decisions was a step in the right direction.
I have reflected quite a bit over the past year on what could be an efficient decision-making process that would ensure that members are engaged in the level of details both on the requirements and potential cost of options.
Obviously, you must receive enough information to ensure that you're satisfied and assured that any potential decision will be made with full knowledge of the facts. In my view, our obligation as an administration is to act transparently and to respond to your requests and concerns.
I would add that our job is to make recommendations. Your job is to study them.
I believe that the working group named by the board is a good model, but we also need to reflect on the interplay with PROC, which also has an interest in the Centre Block or the projects. For example, as Susan has mentioned in terms of the chamber, one of the big decisions that will need to be made is whether or not to expand the chamber. This has implications and I believe it merits the necessary study by members to arrive at a conclusion. I believe that PROC would be well placed to do that kind of study and make recommendations to the board.
For example, if the decision is not to expand the chamber, we know because of the growth in the number of MPs that the rules will have to be adapted. Because of the growth in those numbers, assigned seating will no longer be possible. There are all sorts of procedural implications that would need to be examined with respect to the rules.
I believe that another aspect could be the level of effort for other types of decisions, as we did in the past for the visitor welcome centre, for example. I suggest that for a series of the decisions, it will take hours of iterative discussions between members, the administration and Public Works, so that the members, whoever they are, feel they have all of the information necessary to make a decision in the best interest of the House of Commons, and also Canadian taxpayers.
I would suggest that the level of effort, in terms of the members engaged in that exercise, would be a minimum of probably two hours per week.
I'm leaving you with that at a very high level. That's how I see the way that everybody could work in a complementary fashion in a working group, PROC and the board itself. I will leave it at that.
I am ready for questions.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
We have a running list for questions and comments, with Mr. Holland, followed by Mr. Rodriguez.
We'll start with Mr. Holland.
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2020-02-27 11:42
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair/Mr. Speaker.
I am confused about which title to use.
I have a couple of things. First, thank you for the work done to date. This is a project that I think is near and dear to the hearts of all parliamentarians, but really Canadians. It is the symbol of our democracy in this country and it's not only an enormous expenditure of money, but this building represents a critical piece of heritage that I think all Canadians are invested in.
On that basis the consultation that is going to take place is exceptionally important, not only for the stakeholders who are going to be using the building—members of Parliament, staff, House officials, media and the public—but also, I think, because that heritage represents something important to people who never step foot in the building. We shouldn't lose sight of that.
When we're trying to think about how it functions for the purposes of our work, what that heritage means to the nation, I think, is incredibly important and, therefore, I have particular opinions. I won't go into them for long, but my viewpoint is that not a lot should be changed, and we have to try to work within the existing heritage.
I think a body does need to be created. A couple of things concern me on that. One is that we don't want to have two parallel processes with PROC and BOIE where we have two decision-making bodies where there is confusion.
I think the solution to that...and I am not suggesting we do it today, but I think we are probably going to need to do it very soon, is to have have a meeting of the Board of Internal Economy in the week that we're back to make sure that we get this issue done.
When you start working back in those timelines, I'm hearing that we have to have a decision on the size of the chamber before we leave for the summer. If you think about our setting up the committee and that committee having its meetings and hearing from people, then it has to take that decision to BOIE. We don't have a very long timeline, even if you triage those decisions on the basis that they need to be made on a prioritized basis.
I think one of the answers could be to have a committee that's populated with members of PROC and if there are people from BOIE who want to be on it, fine. We'll have to talk about its size and composition, but it would report back to this body, as the decision-making body. There would have to be a body that makes recommendations as opposed to just hearing input, because my fear would be that they would have all of these consultations and then we'd just get data dumped back at BOIE and we'd be left trying to thrash out all of this and we simply don't have the time or enough meetings to be able to do that work.
It would be my hope that the body would make recommendations to BOIE. It could be composed of members of PROC; therefore we'd have one decision-making channel. But given the timelines involved—and maybe we could flesh those out—am I correct in stating that without incurring costs and significant delays, we need to make a decision on the size of the chamber before we leave in June?
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2020-02-27 11:46
Okay, so just draw that backwards. That's not a lot of time.
I haven't had a chance to speak with my colleagues around the table, so I'm not suggesting that we make that determination today. That said, given the calendar and how it looks for March, I don't think we can put this off until the end of March when we meet because, by the time, we then constitute a committee and won't meet until mid-April. That gives it a couple of weeks to have consultations; that's not acceptable.
I have outlined my thoughts on it. I am open to other ideas, but I think we have to come to a determination and create that body when we come back after the constituency week in two weeks' time.
The only other point I'll mention is a question related to the relationship with the Senate, because some people are saying that we need to have this be a joint body with the Senate. I have some concerns with that because I think it's going to slow down the process.
In your conception, if we had two different bodies that were making recommendations, how would that input be consolidated into one decision? Is there a need to have that consultation on a joint basis, or if it were done separately, how do you metabolize the recommendations from both those bodies in such a way that they're not contradictory?
Results: 1 - 60 of 203 | Page: 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data