Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 2nd, 2019

[Robert Wright]

The implementation of the long-term vision and plan has been quite an integrated and fairly holistic plan, but it has not addressed things like parking to the same degree as it has addressed buildings or material handling. All of that back-of-house infrastructure that integrates and supports how a campus or integrated space works is critical.

You will note that there is still a fair amount of surface parking on Parliament Hill. The vision over time is to get away from surface parking, to still provide parking for the operations of Parliament, but some kind of parking structure, probably somewhat underground, is envisioned that would allow a significant amount of the paved space to go green and to be replanted with trees, etc.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

There are a couple of things there. More green space also provides less parking area on the surface. I don't want to say there's less parking.

Are you looking at some underground parking? Has that been decided yet?

[Robert Wright]

That is part of the long-term vision and plan. There is no approved project at this point to implement that. However, that has always been part of the long-term vision and plan, to move away progressively from surface parking to an underground type of facility that is not designed and not approved at this point.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

If you have the right amount of soil above it, as you mentioned earlier, then that underground parking space can be as big as we wish, or that doesn't go out beyond campus.

[Robert Wright]

Right. We're well aware of the parking requirements and other requirements of ensuring that Parliament is able to operate.

Again, we work hand in hand with the officials to ensure that the operations of Parliament are supported and that we're able to restore appropriately and modernize the precinct so that it supports a 21st century parliamentary democracy.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Right, and the soil above the parking would be thick enough to support a tree of that size.

[Robert Wright]

Again, it's not designed at this point. The point is that we're trying to move towards more green space on the Hill, not away from it.

We do, unfortunately, run into these in-between moments when we're doing a major project that has an impact. I understand that the duration of this type of project is a significant period of time, but it is really part of restoring and modernizing the Hill so that it supports the precinct now and 100 years from now.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you. I have one more quick question.

The idea of the underground parking can't be cheap. Has it been incorporated in the budgeting?

[Robert Wright]

No, it's not a project that is approved at this point with a specific budget.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Ms. MacDonald, you referred to the previous reports. Apparently the one in May said the tree was in good condition. Has that cavity, all of a sudden, come since May?

[Lisa MacDonald]

No, that report actually mentions the cavity and does note the decay in the cavity as well. However, that was done in early May, so the tree hadn't leafed out. It's noted in the limitations of that assessment that there were no leaves on the tree at that point. Whether the cavity was directly influencing the tree's ability to sustain a healthy canopy in that part of the tree at that point wouldn't have been measurable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay.

Mr. Wright, when I asked the question right at the beginning about the possibility of you starting at the grey building and coming forward, you said it would have to reduce the visitor centre by 15%, but why would that be? The front lawn of Parliament is pretty darned big. It seems as though there would be unlimited room there to have that.

[Robert Wright]

We could always extend what is envisioned in the front of Parliament. You're right about that. It is the symmetry that would be affected. From all the evidence we have, it would be changing a major component of the plan—which is your prerogative. All the evidence we would have is that it would not lead to the tree living for a long period of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Chair, I'd like to move that the committee request a moratorium on the removal of the centenary elm and construction activity that compromises its health until the end of June to allow for a further evaluation of the health of the tree and of alternative plans that would allow for its long-term survival.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. We'll discuss that shortly.

Are there any other questions for the witnesses?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Chair, I was going to have questions, but why don't we just see if there's any interest in debating that, and if not, I would call for a vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, read the motion.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Andrew Lauzon]

The motion is:

That the Committee request a moratorium on the removal of the centenary elm and construction activity that would compromise its health until the end of June to allow for a further evaluation of the health of the tree and of alternative plans that would allow for its long term survival.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

We can ask questions to clarify that, right?

Since we still have the witnesses here, what would essentially be the effect of approving a motion such as this? If we were to wait until June, how far back does that set your plans? Could you just give us a better idea of what the repercussions would be?

[Robert Wright]

It would have a schedule and cost impact. There's no question about that.

For all of these precursor projects—the archeological work, the removal of underground services and the construction road—the devil would be in the details of how much we'd be able to do given that type of motion. That work was planned to essentially start now, so you would have essentially, I guess, a three-month impact with the escalation costs associated with that, which are significant.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Could you estimate what the costs would be?

[Robert Wright]

May I pass that over to Ms. Garrett?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead, but I have to intervene as soon as you're finished.