Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 25th, 2020

[A voice]

Yes.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I have no further questions.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Therrien.

Ms. Blaney.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

First of all, I want to thank you all for the tour. It was very informative, and as a person who once sat in that place, I was a little sad to see it under construction.

I see in your presentation to us that you do have key-decision timelines. I think that accountability and the finance are really important. I think of the people in my riding, who think they're getting a big renovation if they spent $100,000; that's a big deal to them. This is a significantly bigger renovation.

I'm wondering if you could speak to some of the decisions, for example, the House of Commons chamber. That's a pretty significant one. We know that the population of Canada is growing. As a result, eventually our Parliament will grow as a reflection of that.

How does that process unfold and how are these decisions made? Looking at it comparably to the financial ramifications, can you talk a little about the process and timeline?

[Rob Wright]

I think you underline a really important decision point, of which there are many. The House of Commons chamber is critically important for a number of reasons. Maybe I can underline three.

One, for all of the projects we undertake within the parliamentary precinct, there is a tension between heritage and functionality, as well as elements such as accessibility and security. The goal is always to find the appropriate balance point. The House of Commons chamber is perhaps one of the highest heritage places in Canada. The stress point between heritage and functionality is quite extreme there. We have to make sure that, as we move forward to restore and modernize that space, it meets the needs of Parliament and that we work together to ensure that we try to respect the heritage space while trying to find that balance.

There are also significant cost impacts of the decisions at play, which would have a material impact on the overall budget of the Centre Block. We had a question earlier about the governance interplay between the House and the Senate, and I guess it's a question for the House as well. We have to factor in all of these inputs from various parts of Parliament to get to one integrated solution. It is a challenge point as part of these projects, and probably more of a challenge with regard to the Centre Block, because we're working with all of the parliamentary partners. Again, it is difficult to sit at a committee of the House of Commons when, in a couple of weeks, we'll be going to a committee of the Senate where we'll need to rationalize those perspectives. Once that rationalization starts to come, then I think we'll be able to come back with cost comparisons. It's difficult to do that before we've had all those conversations. The feedback would be definitive for us as part of moving down a pathway together.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

One of the things that I saw very clearly in the renovation of this building, when the members came and the House officers' staff came, was that there were some very specific challenges. In your presentation, you talked about consulting with MPs and staffers on how the space is used. Hopefully we won't have those same challenges. I'm just wondering if you could talk about what that process is going to look like and maybe talk about lessons learned from this renovation.

[Michel Patrice, Deputy Clerk, Administration, House of Commons]

Thank you.

As I said before, and it's on the record, personally, I feel that members were not consulted enough with respect to the West Block project. Obviously, that's why we're here before this committee. We have also engaged in discussion with the Board of Internal Economy and provided you a list of points on which we feel that parliamentarians need to be engaged. Obviously, Rob talked about the expansion, or not, of the chamber, taking into account the projected growth of MPs. These decisions can be made by only parliamentarians, not by the administration and not by public works. It's very important for us that you are properly engaged. Also, if you look at the list, sometimes it goes into a level of detail that may appear trivial but is very important because it's your workplace and you need to define the environment for the future.

I know that it's difficult sometimes to project 10 years ahead, but the intent here, as said in the presentation the last time, is to rehabilitate the Centre Block for a span of 100 years. I know it's a difficult exercise, but I think Rob mentioned the iterative process. We're going to have to engage in presenting options and scenarios. You're going to give your feedback, and then we'll come back, regarding the options, to say these are the costs, for example. At that time, when we have more defined requirements, those costs will be clearer. Then it's going to be clearer for you in terms of making choices going forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Mr. Brassard.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Wright, and all of the people affiliated with the project who came in last week to give us a tour and have come back today to answer some of our questions.

Like Ms. Blaney, I kind of had mixed emotions in there the other day seeing this iconic symbol of our democracy reduced to a construction site. As we sat in there, the emotions were quite raw, but thank you for doing that.

Has the current minister been updated? Have you had meetings with her to talk about the long-term vision and some of the ideas you've presented to this committee?

[Rob Wright]

Absolutely., I can say that one of the first acts of our new minister was to visit the parliamentary precinct, the Centre Block in particular. The minister went on quite a significant tour of the facilities of the building, just as you did last week. There have been a number of briefings of Minister Anand and ministerial staff. I would say they are fully and deeply engaged, feel the importance of the file, and are committed to getting it right in partnership.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

As we speak about partnership, Mr. Wright, you've said that the parliamentary partners are important to this whole process. In the exchange of ideas, there are going to be a lot of ideas from members of Parliament and members of the Senate on just what the functionality of this building should be like. Take the committee rooms for example. We've already heard that the Senate has talked about the potential of 10 televised committee rooms.

Will you feel comfortable, and at what point, challenging some of those elements that are going to come forward with some of these great ideas, by saying that you cannot do something functionality-wise, in practical terms? Are you going to be comfortable pushing back when you need to, Mr. Wright?

[Rob Wright]

I would mention two elements on that. We work on a daily basis with the administration of the House, the Senate, the Library and the Parliamentary Protective Service. I would say there's a really healthy back-and-forth, in which there is challenge function every single day.

We see it as our responsibility to provide that challenge function and to consider a facility, an iconic building such as the Centre Block, within the broader precinct. Does everything need to be in that location? How does it fit in the broader campus? What can be in the West Block? What can be in the East Block? That goes on daily.

It is then the job of the administration to bring advice to parliamentarians. Then there is a second-level discussion. We provide that challenge function on a daily basis with the administration. Then there's that conversation involving parliamentarians, which we're really fully engaging in now. I would say there's been an ongoing challenge function beyond the last year and beyond that. That's a daily part of the exercise.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

That's good to hear, because you are going to get lots of ideas. Many of them, for practical reasons, as you stated, are not going to be sustainable in terms of the overall campus or look at the building.

My last question relates to the lawn. As it stands right now, as we stood there, it almost looks like a third of the iconic Parliament Hill lawn is not going to be part of this new process. I realize there are a lot of moving parts here, and there are decisions to be made, but can Canadians be assured that a majority of that lawn, which has been used for so many historic purposes throughout the history of this country, will be maintained? I'm not talking about green grass being maintained, just the space or area being maintained going forward?

[Rob Wright]

Absolutely. In fact, we're talking about green grass being maintained, sir. The visitor welcome centre will be built into the landscape—subterranean—much like phase one of the visitor welcome centre.

There are different options for the visitor welcome centre, but there are options put forward where, essentially, the vast majority of the lawn is retained and the visitor welcome centre is simply underneath the lawn. The entry point to the visitor welcome centre would be aligned with the Vaux wall, the traditional kind of stairway leading up from the great lawn to the Centre Block. It would just kind of be integrated into that.

There is an option, a larger visitor welcome centre, that would see an entry point, if there was a central entry point, projected a little further south. Even that would see the majority of the lawn retained.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Notwithstanding the historical value, I'm sure the Wednesday yoga attendees would appreciate that as well, Mr. Wright.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Wright.

That's the end of your time, Mr. Brassard.

Since we haven't had too much formal questioning in this committee yet, I'm just going to remind everybody what the process is. It seems like there have been some questioning looks.

The rounds go like this. The first round is for six minutes each, starting with the Conservatives, Liberals, Bloc Québécois, and then the New Democratic Party. The second round is five-minute questions, beginning with the Conservatives, the Liberal Party, then the Conservatives again, and then the Liberal Party. Then we carry into 2.5-minute questions, starting with the Bloc Québécois and then the NDP.

Right now we have started with the second five-minute round, and we will carry on with Ms. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the officials for coming not once but twice, and for what was a first-class tour. As people have talked about, Centre Block is an iconic heritage building. It is the heart of our democracy. It's not just a building. It is our past, and it is our future, and we all want to get it right.

I'm wondering if there are two things that could be tabled with the committee. The first is the projected costs of a 338-member Parliament versus a 450-member Parliament. What are the costs associated with this and with the resources that will be required?

I also believe there was a study done in 1996 about increasing the number of seats within the chamber to 400 or 400 plus.

Can those two things be tabled with the committee?

[Rob Wright]

I'll start with the second one first. We do have a lot of studies on how the chamber could be.... We could put in additional seating. Right now, we're in the the existing footprint, in the 420-some zone, of how many seats could be integrated there.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Wright, sorry. If I could....

Thank you. You don't have to....

[Rob Wright]

Oh, sorry.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

If you could just table those two if you don't mind....

I have a report here—and I'd like the committee to be aware—done on April 24, 1916. A joint parliamentary committee was struck to oversee the reconstruction, so I think it's important.

I, too, like Mr. Gerretsen, am concerned about the governance of the project. Picking up on my colleague Mr. Brassard's comments, I will ask this: Can you explain how the governance for key decisions relative to functional requirements is being taken, i.e., how are the decisions being prioritized and challenged to ensure a highest and best use?

[Rob Wright]

It's multi-layered. The governance is complex and the Canadian example is unique. In most countries, the legislative branch is fully responsible for the parliamentary buildings. Nation building, as you would know, went through cycles around the globe, and most countries went through a nation-building cycle in the mid to late 19th century, so parliamentary buildings are in the same condition as ours around the world. We've developed an international network in which there are about 17 countries involved, so we do have a fair amount of engagement there.

Countries are facing governance challenges as they move into these major initiatives. For example, the Palace of Westminster is developing a sponsor board and a delivery authority. The Austrian Parliament legislated a private company to undertake the work. In the United States there's the Architect of the Capitol, which is a fully set-up kind of office.

There are differences around the world, but I would say there's a division between the executive and the legislative branch, and then the two houses of Parliament are independent as well.

As we move through it, we have to work with each Parliament. Before a major initiative goes forward, we go to the Senate committee; we go to the Board of Internal Economy at the House of Commons, traditionally; then we would take that and go for government approvals at the cabinet and Treasury Board levels; and then we would implement that.

When we have an integrated project like the Centre Block and the visitor welcome centre, that becomes even more complex than the West Block or the Government Conference Centre.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thanks, Mr Wright.

Could I just raise one last thing? I was going to talk about the lawn. I too am concerned that, when Pearson designed the building, it was as a complete work of art. How do we ensure that the decorative elements—the oak desks, the clerk's table—are preserved?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That's all the time you have. Maybe the answer can be incorporated into Mr. Duncan's answer.

Perhaps—it depends on what your question is, Mr. Duncan.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for being here.

I take a bit of a different angle. I was a Hill staffer for nine years in Centre Block, so with the baseboard heating and the wires all over the place and the random sinks, it was definitely time to do some work on the building.

If I mention the phrase “the Holyrood Inquiry”, does anybody know what I mean by that? That is the report on what happened with the Scottish Parliament. Just as a quick background, that building was to be completed around 2001. It was several years late. In the original estimates, it was supposed to cost between $17 million and $70 million. It ended up being $731 million.

It's riveting reading. It's 200 pages. I've been through most of it. Yes, I have no life. I acknowledge that, but I will say with that I do find a lot of similarities or concerns, respectfully, with the process. This is not so much a shot at you as it is at the overall governance going back to some of the questions that had been raised about the decision-making ability here and who exactly has that.

Yes, and the other aspect of it is deadlines. I will build on that a little bit.

That report goes through the whole management, cost increases, design changes and those types of things. Frankly, I get a little worried in saying this, respectfully. We're digging a hole on the front lawn but we don't know what's going to be in it, and we don't know how much it's going to cost.

To me, I think average Canadians who would be watching might be a bit concerned by that, so I'm just worried a little bit, and it's not so much about the tools you've been dealt, trying to see this project through, but about some of that governance.

I don't know if you have any comments on the Holyrood Inquiry, if there are lessons learned from that, but maybe I can give you a chance to comment on it.