[English]
EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, October 5, 2000
• 1113
[English]
The Chairman (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Colleagues, I see a quorum. We are in a sense continuing with an issue discussed with our Sergeant-at-Arms last week, concerning the proposals to update, renovate, and maintain parliamentary buildings and precincts.
We're delighted to have with us today the Honourable John Fraser, one of our former speakers, and Mary Anne Griffith, who is a member of the Parliamentary Buildings Advisory Council. They're both members of the council, Mr. Fraser being the chair of the Parliamentary Buildings Advisory Council, whose derivation may be somewhat obscure to some of us. Perhaps former speaker Fraser can enlighten us on the linkages and lines of authority, but I'm sure members have a lot of interest and have some questions. I'm sure former speaker Fraser has had an opportunity to review the transcripts of our earlier meeting and he'll have a sense of where our interests are and what our curiosities are.
• 1115
Having said that, I'd like to invite our witnesses
to perhaps make an opening statement, if they have one,
and then we can go to questions.
Mr. Fraser.
[Translation]
Mr. John Fraser (Chair, Parliamentary Buildings Advisory Council): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I consider it a privilege to be here this morning and to have the opportunity
[English]
to be with colleagues, some of whom I've known for some years, some of whom sat with me on the same side of the House and some of whom sat on the other side of the House.
[Translation]
Before I begin, I feel it might be important to say a few words about our committee so that you understand exactly how it originated.
[English]
So for a couple of minutes I'm going to give some historical background to put it in context.
You all know, and it was certainly set out in great detail by your witnesses last week, that the issue of the renovation of the buildings of Parliament, the repairs of the parliamentary precincts, the buildings within the parliamentary precincts, and the problems that go with it has been discussed and debated for many years. It would not surprise me if you thought that the discussion has gone on long enough. Certainly this is the view I think the advisory council takes, and there is a certain urgency, in our view, in having options presented to us that we can examine as to their viability and as a consequence make recommendations to the minister.
We were established over a year ago in pursuance to a recommendation made by the Auditor General in which he said there should be an independent advisory council to advise the minister, and in that recommendation it was to report to Parliament. The minister chose to make the terms of reference somewhat different. We report to the minister, and the idea behind this was to have a council that would consider the work the Department of Public Works is doing, the planning, the ultimate building schedule, and to ensure several things. One is that the ultimate plan that would be put forward would have the full endorsement of all of the stakeholders: the Senate, the House of Commons, the library, and also, of course, to a real degree, the National Capital Commission.
It is important to understand in any discussion what this mandate is really all about. The mandate of the council, and I'm reading from terms of reference, is to advise the Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada on various matters related to the renovation and construction program under way in the Parliament Buildings. In accordance with the Auditor General's recommendations, these matters include but are not limited to maintaining a due regard to the long-term costs of the program, the preservation of the buildings with a special reference to the unique heritage status facilitating the decision-making process related to the program.
The council is made up of a number of members from the House of Commons. The council includes Mary Anne Griffith, who is here with me, a former deputy clerk, former administrator of the House of Commons with many years experience; from the Senate, the Honourable Sharon Carstairs; from the Library of Parliament, Richard Paré, Parliamentary Librarian; from the National Capital Commission, Marcel Beaudry, Chairman of the National Capital Commission; Mr. Bill Peters from Canadian Heritage, who is the director general of the Canadian Conservation Institute; from the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, Mr. Terrence Williams, of Victoria, British Columbia; and from the Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada, Frank N. LeBlanc.
• 1120
First of all, we have to remember that most of these
members did not have any particular background in the
history of the parliamentary precincts or the various
plans for dealing with the difficulties. And I don't
want to go into this in great dramatic detail, except
to say that what we believe we are faced with is either
fix these buildings, repair them, renovate them, bring
them up to the standards needed for modern
communication, heating, electricity, etc., and also be
sure that the structural foundations and all that goes
with that are repaired, where necessary, and
strengthened, where necessary... Because if we do not do
this, we're going to lose the buildings. As I
say, I don't want to be overly dramatic about this, but
we believe—and I think that belief is shared by many
of us—that these parliamentary precincts are something
of very great value to all Canadians, not just to
Canadians who serve here, not just to Canadians who
have served here, but also to the public. It
crosses party lines, it crosses regional allegiances,
and it crosses all kinds of other affiliations.
We have seen in our history on many occasions that events, both dramatic and emotional, have taken place here. But the other part of it is that many years ago I had the privilege of speaking from time to time to students who were brought here from every part of the country, and I tried to be sure they went away with the realization that this is their place. It belongs to them. It belongs to all Canadians. And it is here because those who came before us cared about it and also cared about our country.
It also is intensely symbolic, because, unlike a lot of places in the world, this is a country where free speech is very much not just admired but treasured, and this is the place where this takes place. It is also a place where intense debates take place and where men and women of strong views from every part of this country have a place where their views are put forward, where the issues are debated, and where, ultimately, our laws are made.
Some people ask, isn't this going to cost a lot of money? And the answer is yes, it is. I can't tell you how much, but it is going to cost some money. And one could, if one wanted to be crassly pragmatic, say we might be able to do the whole thing for less money by bulldozing the whole place and building a steel and glass tower. I haven't found any Canadians I've listened to over the last couple of years who think this is an option that is realistically before us.
So we have to do it, but it is immensely difficult. First of all, it's not a case of just taking one building at a time and fixing it. We have to remember—and I don't have to say this to you, but sometimes we have to say it to the public and to other people—that this whole place is a work in progress. And if you fix one thing, you have to put everybody somewhere else and the system has to keep operating. The council members are intensely aware of this. They might not have all been aware of it when they first met a year ago, but they certainly are aware of it now.
• 1125
The other thing that I have gone out of my way to
stress in council meetings is that in being asked by
the minister to advise on an appropriate plan, it is
absolutely essential that we take into account the
needs of the members, because that is what it's all
about. Our view of what the needs of the members are
is determined by what we hear from the members and our
understanding of what the whole parliamentary function
is. Because this is so important, our view may well be
a little bit different from those in a bureaucracy who
are used to planning but who are not necessarily as aware
of or sensitive to the real life and work that goes on
here.
Having said that, in taking these things into consideration, it has at least partly been the cause of delays and changes of plans. We hope we're getting to a point where we can finally decide that we have in front of us some options that are the right ones and can make the recommendation to the minister. But we can't do that until we are absolutely sure that we have a clear picture of what the stakeholders want, which includes the Senate and the House of Commons, and that process is not yet complete.
The other thing is that as yet we have not been presented by the Department of Public Works with a set of options and the costs that might go with them. We have asked for this, but we do not have it yet. From what I can say, although I will be in a better position to respond next week when we hold an advisory council meeting and meet with some of the members of the department, I think they are not yet ready to give us the cost figures that we want to look at, but we will be insisting on getting them.
The other thing is that I said a few minutes ago that if one wants to be crass, one could say that you could build facilities for less money than it will take to repair and retain this great historic place. But that does not mean that the members of the advisory council are unaware of or indifferent to costs. The public has to know that the costs of whatever has to be done are looked at very carefully. The other thing is that the public has to know what those figures are.
It may not be possible to give all of the figures at this stage as to what it is going to cost over a ten-year or longer period of time to do everything that needs to be done. But as we proceed, the council believes it is absolutely imperative that there be transparency and openness as to what those costs are. It is almost impossible for a member of Parliament to support something if he or she cannot explain to their constituents what the costs are, what it is doing, and why it needs to be done. So we will be in a better position to deal with that. But we are not in a position to give those costs yet, because we don't have them.
I want to deal very quickly just for a moment with what we've done in the last year. If one includes the first meeting at the time everything was announced, we have had five meetings since then. The original announcement was in March of last year. It was followed by a meeting on June 29.
• 1130
I'm going to touch on some of the things the council
has had to address and to learn about, including an
historical overview of parliamentary precinct projects;
a presentation on the conservation, rehabilitation, and
upgrade of the Library of Parliament; and the whole
approach to reviewing the long-term planning framework
for the parliamentary precinct.
On September 13, 1999, some of the matters we discussed were the whole issue of the long-term planning framework, an assets integrity study, the West Block and committee room requirements, further work on the Library of Parliament, the Justice Building, looking at the results of a National Capital Commission survey for visitors to Parliament Hill, and a presentation on communications material and strategy developed by the department.
On November 16 of last year there was a very important presentation from the House of Commons entitled Building the Future, which set out all the requirements as the House of Commons sees them for the parliamentary precinct, and there also was the issue of advice to the minister and in what form.
One of the important things we discussed was do we wait until we can present to the minister some recommendations on a total plan that will take us right down through the years, or do some things lend themselves to an earlier decision? This is very important.
As we began to get a better understanding of the complexities of this, this is the difficulty we faced: How long do you keep delaying because you can't see around every corner what's ahead of you? What became very clear to us was that despite the fact that it had been presented to us that what really would be preferable would be a long-term plan that everybody could look at from beginning to end, we said just a minute; there is one thing we can do earlier than that. That was the library. The library, in our view, was a unit that could be renovated with a minimum of disruption to all of the other work that is going on on the Hill, and there was no particular reason we had to wait until the department could work out all the details of a longer-term plan. The question members put is why don't we do this now?
The consequence of that is that a great deal of work was done in listening to the experts, the construction people and the planning people. As you now know, on November 25, after recommending to the minister that we go ahead and the minister accepting that, the parliamentary decision was made.
One can say that was easy. No, it wasn't easy, because as in all of the discussions that have taken place over the years on this entire project, there have been from time to time varying estimates of cost, and what we knew we had to do—at least to the degree that it was humanly possible—when we came out with the recommendation to go with Parliament was to be sure that we stated publicly, to the best of our ability, all of the costs, not some earlier speculation on costs, or even some earlier estimates.
• 1135
One of the reasons the announcement was
taken with approval by the people who were
paying attention and by the public generally was
because, to the degree possible, we were very
upfront about it.
We have a meeting coming up next week, and we were hoping this meeting would give us a more definitive set of options, with costs to go with it. As I said earlier, we're not able to do that yet.
One of the things we will be discussing will be the establishment of a process whereby as the cost estimates are brought to us and attached to elements of whatever plan is proposed, the council will retain experts to give us their advice on the efficacy of the cost estimates. This doesn't mean starting from zero and working right through. It does mean being able to look at the cost estimates from a professional point of view. It means being able to say we are experts in this, we understand construction, planning, architectural work, and design, and we say those figures being proposed by the Department of Public Works are in the ball park. That is going to be a key part of our discussion in several days.
That does not mean we are saying that you can't trust anybody. What we are saying is if we're going to recommend something we have to be morally certain that what we're going to recommend will stand up. That is the approach we're taking.
We still do not have from either the Senate or the House of Commons a definitive response to all of their considerations. We've invited the Board of Internal Economy to come to our meeting next week, and I think that is going to be extremely helpful.
That's about where we are. I suppose I should just emphasize one thing, and that is that we are dependent on the information and plans put forward to us by those who are charged with preparing the plans and work programs for the different pieces of work. In that, we have to look at what they're going to bring to us. You'll understand that because we're not the administration, we're not the bureaucracy, nor are we the House of Commons, nor are we the Senate, the library, or the NCC, we have made it fairly clear that we have some views about what this ought to look like when we decide. One of the things is that whatever plan we recommend, everybody has to be comfortable and prepared to support it.
We think for the most part the precinct should be north of Wellington Street. We are concerned if any plan spreads the installations, committee rooms, or members' offices so far away from the centre so that it is inefficient and difficult to move members around. We're aware of the security issues, which is one of the reasons why you don't want to be crossing Wellington Street. We're also aware that it's important to have cohesion in the operation of the parliamentary precinct, that people have a sense of being together, not too far apart. We heard this in no uncertain terms from representatives, and the council is not just sympathetic to that, but feels that is fundamental to where we go from here.
• 1140
I'll close on that for the moment, Mr.
Chairman. I would certainly invite questions,
keeping in mind that we will not have all the technical
answers at this point, but
we are very interested in the points you raise and the
questions you put to us. Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fraser. I've already extended a welcome, but I just wanted to recognize that since your retirement from the House, you have continued to be engaged in service to the public. I also want to recognize the significant experience in parliamentary perspective and context reflected by your experience and that of Ms. Griffith, and I'm sure it's serving us well. You pointed out it's one thing to look back a hundred years at the heritage of our parliamentary precincts, and quite another to look ahead a hundred years at the huge challenges there.
Your chair is not going to ask any questions today, since he was late getting into the chair, and I apologize for that. So I'll go to Mr. Reynolds to open up.
Colleagues, we'll cap the time windows at five minutes, if that's all right.
An hon. member: That's fine.
The Chairman: Mr. Reynolds.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): It's nice to see you here, John Fraser and Mary Anne Griffith.
I was thinking when I came in here that it was 30 years ago, roughly, that Mr. Fraser and I came to this place. The Confederation Building had just been remodelled, and I was one of the first MPs to be moving into it. At the time there was discussion about what was going to happen with the Hill. And I agree with your thoughts that everything should be this side of Wellington Street, because I see what happens now with people on the other side. They are late for meetings and you're traipsing down the street in a snowstorm trying to get to a committee meeting in the wintertime. It's not very convenient.
I also just learned a few minutes ago that in Belgrade today the opposition seized the parliament buildings there and burnt them to the ground. I don't think that's a solution for us all here, but it's an old building.
I just want to ask you certain questions concerning the job you're doing.
The Justice Building has been six years being remodelled and it still isn't ready to be moved into yet. If we're looking at any kind of plan at all and every portion of it takes six years, we'll all be dead and buried before this thing is done. I'm trying to get information right now.
As you know, Mr. Fraser, the Hotel Vancouver, which is as old as our Parliament Buildings, was totally closed down and remodelled. It was gutted and fixed up and modernized. It still has the same look on the outside, as beautiful as it ever was, just as these buildings are, but inside it's absolutely modern, with all the latest technology for computers. It was done in just a little over a year, perhaps 13 months.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): We weren't involved.
Mr. John Reynolds: Well, that's my question.
Part of your council's job is to look at the bureaucracy that's involved in making these decisions here and the bidding process. I met with some professional engineers from across Canada just last week to ask them questions about that, and they informed me, and perhaps you might want to talk to the professional engineers, that the bidding process is the problem here. The way contracts are done and the costing of them is just not proper.
The professional people in this country, who represent a billion-dollar industry—it's probably about $3 billion, but a billion of it is exported—have been making suggestions not only to this government, but also to the previous governments—we're all guilty—of how to do the bidding process on these things. Nobody is listening to them. Rather than your council just overseeing what everybody is doing, can you not perhaps take a look at why this building has taken six years, the costs of it compared to what's happening in the private sector, and make recommendations to us in Parliament, to whoever is going to run this place, to make sure the bidding process is acceptable to the professional Canadians in the industry?
I agree with you when you talk about getting outside people to come in and tell you whether the pricing is fair, and I think they're prepared to do that. But my understanding is they have not been listened to, no matter who's been in government over the last 30 or 40 years. They don't get the ear, and that's why we have these problems.
• 1145
It's just ridiculous to sit here and think that we
have to work in some of the conditions we do.
With electronics, we all go home to our houses and can
plug our computers into cable and realize how fast that
is. If you plug one in here, half the time it doesn't
work or it's slow, and there are all these other
problems. We're not living with that modern technology
right in our system. We should be. I just wonder if
there is anything your council can do to look at those
sides of the issues as far as the bidding and the
speed-up processes are concerned.
I'm sure that over the next while we're going to come up with a system we all agree to with regard to buildings, etc., but it's going to be the system that gets it done that's important.
Mr. John Fraser: Let me respond to that particular point, Mr. Reynolds.
First of all, the pace at which the various stages of this plan can be implemented is going to depend to some degree on that very thing you have raised. Our people will be asking questions about that, because it goes right to what I said earlier: there is a certain urgency to this whole thing.
Secondly, the longer you have delay, the longer it is going to cost. The longer you delay, the more the likelihood that there is going to be somebody coming along who wants changes. We have to be in a position at some point to say it's complete and the debate is closed. One of the elements of that is how much time it takes to line up the contractors and to get the work done. So I think the point you raise is legitimate and important.
Now, I want to mention the Justice Building. Everything that was done or not done in the Justice Building took place or didn't take place before this council was appointed. We toured the Justice Building and looked at all the new premises, and they seem impressive indeed. The advisory council has not yet been given any particular information on some problems that have been alluded to in the Justice Building, but it probably will be given that information next week. I have been given some information. I don't speak yet as somebody who has been fully briefed, but we have some problems. I think there are members here who know that.
I can't tell you today what those problems may mean in terms of further work, delay, or cost. I can't because I don't know. I think we will know quite a bit more next week.
The Chairman: Okay, thank you.
I'm just going to go to colleagues in the order they looked to be recognized, beginning with Mr. Fontana, then Mr. Blaikie and Mr. Bergeron.
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, John and Mary Anne.
John, you ended off something by saying we need to know where we're going. Well, that's been the problem all along, eh? I think previous people were probably saying exactly the same darn thing twenty years ago.
I would agree with John, in that I'm part of the business world and this just doesn't make any sense. First of all, if we were to be as efficient as we possibly could be, then maybe we should suspend Parliament for two or three years, not have any elections, and let you get on with fixing this place once and for all. I'm saying that facetiously, of course. A work in progress always goes on, but that's part of the problem, right?
Secondly, John, I think you ask a very fundamental question of us and, through us, Canadians. There isn't a country in the world that I know of that would even consider destroying its heritage. In fact, there is a move around the world that you call it a treasure and therefore do everything possible to maintain that history and the historical and heritage significance of it. One should therefore even dispel any notion of the fact that somebody could give you a cost-benefit analysis.
True, you could replace some of this infrastructure very simply by taking it down and putting something else up that probably would never look as appealing and as historical. Many Canadians have told us that this is visually one of the best parliamentary precincts in the world to see from the outside and the inside. So I think we should discard that, because that is not an option.
• 1150
On this whole notion about money, as long as it's
transparent, as long as it's done by the book, and as
long as the system and the process should work... God,
Canada is known for its building trades and for being
able to do certain things very well. Assuming that the
whole process is supposed to work well, if you really
want to retain and maintain what we have in this
country, you're going to have to spend some money at
the end of the day.
Let's get out of assuming that the system is going to work well and that there isn't going to be any BS going on behind the scenes. The fact is that there are so many layers of government approval that the price just keeps going up through the roof. You should say that, as a plan, we're going to restore them, we're going to fix them, and on the inside we're going to modernize the technology. I'll tell you, we can be penny wise and pound foolish if we look at energy costs and if we look at the work environment the people's representatives have to go through. If we can't work as well as we can, then obviously we're not working as effectively as we can. Therefore, they are deprived of something.
There are technology problems throughout this system. There are energy problems. There are health concerns. There are all of those things. Yes, esthetically we want to maintain and build and keep what we have. But we have to get with modern times. The fact is that some of us have to spend six or eight hours in the House of Commons during votes, and believe it or not, we have to bring in an extension cord to plug in our computers so we can do some work. To me, that's absolutely insane. We have to sit there and we can't even do our work because there's no apparatus.
Now, I understand that we've made some very good improvements in the infrastructure in the old House of Commons, John—I would agree with you totally—so my point is that if we should decide on a plan, obviously it has to be a plan that is perhaps long-term in its outlook, and one that may be phased in in its approach because of the fact that you have to move certain pieces around. But darn it, get a plan approved, get the work plan going, get the people in the industry that know how to build and put things together, say what it's going to be, and get on with it. I mean, if we continue to debate this ad nauseam and we wait and wait, you know what? Twenty years from now, someone else of your stature is going to come in and say here we were back in 2000, we submitted a report, and absolutely nothing's done. I think that's what's lacking here.
If someone's trying to say you can't approve a plan because you don't have the intestinal fortitude to tell Canadians that it may cost $300 million or $400 million... I bet that if you were ask Canadians right now if they were prepared to spend $10 or $20 of their tax money to make and keep and retain these fantastic historical and heritage buildings that represent Canada and democracy and everything else—that's what you're looking at—I don't think there would be very many Canadians who would say no. So I would agree with you. Let's get on with it.
I know you've told us that you're waiting for information. I know you want the costs, and that's properly so. We want to make sure of the approach. But at the end of the day, can you tell me if there is a plan that has been approved? I've been here for twelve years, and that's a short time. But I know that for twenty years before me, they were talking about the same thing I've heard for the past twelve years. Is there a plan?
Mr. John Fraser: There is not a plan that has yet been approved, but we are very much closer to something that will come in front of us. We can then say that's the option we're prepared to recommend to the minister. The reason is that the House of Commons and the Senate are far closer today in terms of knowing what they want and explaining it to us than has been the case up until now. So we're getting there.
Mr. Joe Fontana: Yes, but sometimes you can get to the one yardline in football or in anything else, but you may never get that last yard. The whole process and the whole system grind to a halt because you can't get to the finish line by virtue of a whole bunch of things.
Mr. John Fraser: Well, I'm very conscious of what you're saying, and the analogy is apposite. It's no use being on the one yardline when the whistle goes.
The Chairman: Miss Griffith.
Mr. John Fraser: You wanted to say something, Mary Anne.
Ms. Mary Anne Griffith (Member, Parliament Buildings Advisory Council): Yes, I just wanted to clarify and put us at a point in time in terms of exactly where we are.
• 1155
A set of options has been
presented to the Board of Internal Economy of the
House, and to the Senate as well. We're waiting to
hear back from the board.
We're hoping to get a response from the board at our meeting
next week as to what their preferred
options would be, and also from the Senate, the Senate
priorities, once they hear what the
House has decided upon as their priorities. Hopefully,
we can then put those two together and come forward
with a plan.
Mr. Joe Fontana: Assuming you get that decision from the Board of Internal Economy, how long is it going to take for you, John—and your group of excellent volunteers—to look at those options based on the consultations you're having, and then make a definitive recommendation to the minister for the final decision?
Mr. John Fraser: I can't give you a time in days or weeks. It is dependent on us getting some cost estimates, because we cannot just plump for an option unless we're pretty darn sure what it's likely to cost. We haven't got those figures yet.
The Chairman: Mr. Blaikie.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I speak as one who's never felt the need for an extension cord in the House of Commons—
Mr. Joe Fontana: We know you're not plugged in.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: —except maybe to prod some members on the government side with electrical shock therapy or something.
Mr. John Fraser: I'm ignoring all this.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: One of the concerns I would have, which Mr. Fontana alluded to briefly, is that in whatever planning you undertake, you take into consideration the health and safety concerns of people who spend a lot of time in the buildings—not just members, obviously, but particularly the employees of members and employees of the House of Commons—in terms of air quality and some of the problems we've had in the past with various substances in the buildings, etc. I just hope all that is being taken into consideration.
I believe a private member's motion from the member from Winnipeg Centre was recently passed in the House of Commons calling for new energy efficiency in all federal buildings, so being on the cutting edge of energy efficiency and energy conservation and all that would also be part of what you're about. I just wanted to register those two concerns.
Mr. John Fraser: The short answer is that the first criterion is health and safety of the members and the members' staff. We've had some very pointed discussions among the council members that the environmental considerations in all of this construction and the resulting work should be taken into account.
You will remember that I had the privilege of working very closely with the then House of Commons committee on the whole question of the greening of the Hill, and I want to assure you I'm very aware of this.
By the way, it also is good economics. Ultimately, you save money by doing it right.
The Chairman: Mr. Bergeron.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like my colleagues who spoke before me, I want to thank you for having joined us. It is always a pleasure, Ms. Griffith to see you again. I might go so far as to say that we do not have enough of such opportunities. I have never had the pleasure of sitting with you, sir, but I think that your presence here today is a great honour for us.
There are three very specific points I wish to broach: cost, time and space. Firstly, as concerns costs, I am among those who think that these buildings are priceless. Consequently, if it is important to Canadians that these architectural jewels laden with political symbolism be conserved, we should not place too much emphasis on cost. We will have to do what needs to be done, and see to it that theses buildings are safe, and that we do not lose them in an accident because, for instance, of some old cable that heats up in a ceiling and causes a fire. We must not lose these priceless jewels.
• 1200
That being said, sir, you said quite rightly that political
men and women had to be able to defend the financial decisions that
will be taken.
I remember that when I first arrived here in 1993, we were
told that there was a development plan for Parliament Hill. Very
few of the things that were contained in that plan have been
achieved and the costs have been very high for those that were. We
might have trouble justifying additional costs to the population in
the years to come, as we may already have difficulty defending the
cost of past undertakings.
I want to call on your experience and your wisdom. How can we defend considerable expenditure for the future, when we will already have trouble justifying expenditures incurred in the recent past?
As for the time it takes, I am sure you are fully aware, sir, of the fact that we have been discussing development on Parliament Hill for a very long time. But few things have been done. This very process may itself cause long delays. I will explain what I mean.
You said that you heard a presentation from the Senate as well as from the House of Commons. In the meantime, the Department of Public Works and Government Services, without taking these presentations into account, and perhaps without even hearing about them—I don't really know—prepared options that were submitted to the institutions concerned, that is to say the Senate, the House of Commons and the Parliamentary Library. We have to review these options in the light of the criteria we had set ourselves, redraft recommendations, and on the basis of these new recommendations you yourself will have to prepare recommendations for the department which will in turn submit new options that we will have to analyze anew and resubmit to the department. You can see that the discussions alone will take us 25 years.
I would like to raise a last point very briefly, Mr. Chairman. It concerns space. It is very obvious that we will need more space in the future for committees and members of Parliament, in light of the fact that there will be new MPs in addition to the 301 who are already here. While other buildings are being restored, repaired or renovated, we will need other premises to which we can move certain House operations.
I would like the council to consider the fact that we will not be able to operate in future solely within the existing buildings. It must be understood that we will have to spend the necessary funds to build new structures, new buildings, in order to create new space. I would like to open a brief parenthesis in that respect. In spite of the fact that new, modern buildings can cost much less, we must, architecturally speaking, ensure that these new buildings blend in and are in keeping with existing structures.
Mr. John Fraser: I think that what you have said is clear and very important, especially on the topic of costs and space.
[English]
Cost becomes very important because it affects the option we are prepared to recommend to the minister. “Time is of the essence” is an old expression among lawyers, but it comes back to what I said earlier about urgency. If I remember correctly, that was exactly your point at the Board of Internal Economy meeting that I had the privilege of attending some time ago.
• 1205
The longer we wait and delay, the more it is going to
cost and the higher the probability of having to change
the plans. And as some of you know—John Reynolds
knows, probably Bob knows—we have had propositions put
to us for a number of years and it always drifts away
because we can't have closure on any point along the
way. We have got closure on the library. The
council wants to get closure on an option that will
enable everybody to start work, to do what has to be
done. We may not have all of the particulars, because
some of it is going to be well in the future, but we
have to get started.
The space issue is absolutely vital. It goes to the root of everything we have been discussing. And one of the... I don't want to be unfair here, but let's be frank. We need a lot more committee space and we need more space for members and we will need more space again for the additional members you just referred to.
We have to recommend a solution to the minister. If it requires another building properly designed to fit into the precincts, then so be it. We are getting strong indications that this would be supported. And it may well be what has to be done. Now, it's easy to ask, “Can't we put off making that decision for a while?” The fact of the matter is that the longer you put off this decision about where we are going to have committee space, the longer you hold up everything else. So these are fundamental things that must be dealt with.
I'm going to take your remarks and put them, in your exact words, in front of the council next week, because I think you will have agreement there.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Kilger.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To the Honourable Mr. Fraser and Ms. Griffith, it is always a pleasure to have you both in our midst, particularly after both of you having such distinguished careers serving the institution of the Parliament of Canada.
I want to pick up, interestingly enough, from the witness's last remarks. Certainly I agree with all my colleagues that we've talked about this for a very long time. Time is absolutely of the essence. Time is money, and so on and so forth. There are all sorts of sayings. But in the end, I think Mr. Fraser has touched on an issue that touches all members of Parliament in our daily workings, and that is the committee rooms.
I think we accept that we are not going to tear down any buildings. We understand the difficulty of working within the confines of certain other buildings while the House still functions, and know that in itself is quite a challenge. But to build a new, free-standing building for committee rooms somewhere on the precinct where we are not going to be tearing down a building—in other words, disrupting any of the goings-on presently within the work of Parliament—I strongly sense is something on which all of us agree. I am sure you will continue to hear that very strong message that insofar as a free-standing committee building is concerned, there is an opportunity to do that without interrupting the workings going on within any of the other facilities existing on the hill, and that it should be given a very high priority.
Mr. John Fraser: The council will be very pleased to hear that.
Of course I cannot today tell you what the council will recommend, but the council will be very pleased to have that message brought to it when we meet next week.
The Chairman: Mr. Pickard.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fraser and Ms. Griffith, I would like to add my comments of respect and thanks to you for taking on this task.
• 1210
There's no question that over many years these
discussions have been on and off, on and off.
The reality I hear around this table is yes, go ahead, do
it in a timely fashion, make certain that committee
rooms are available, make certain the restoration moves
ahead in a timely way.
I know that you have to work with many different organizations and you've gone over that very clearly this morning. That creates a real hazard for progress, to say the least. The requirement to obtain all kinds of permissions creates a hazard. Creating a fundamental plan that everybody agrees to is a hazard. But it seems to me there's something about will that isn't there and hasn't been there. If the will had been there it would have been underway and much further along the line.
I am not sure what the barriers are, why the will isn't there, when everyone espouses that they agree to what you've said. They agree to the urgency, they agree to the need.
When we discussed even minor things, like a tunnel to the East Block, it became a political football and everything was put on stop. When this committee discussed it, I remember getting into difficult times with the press. Why in God's name do you need any renovations there?
Is that happening? Is there concern over the public image about the movement of this, and is that the reason for the foot-dragging? Your committee has one difficult job at coordinating and getting everything moving, but I find that if what I hear around this table were consistent, your job would be easy. That's not happening.
Mr. John Fraser: Let me try to respond.
I know that time is running out. The job wouldn't be easy anyway.
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Easier though.
Mr. John Fraser: But what has happened since the committee was formed and the committee started to meet with people and started to say give us some answers and also that we've got to have a plan that all of you will support and agree to is that you now have a committee to talk to, a council to talk to. You're not talking to a bureaucracy. What I think is happening both in the Senate and the House of Commons, and clearly we had it with the library and now with the NCC, is a coming together, because everybody feels there is a place to go where, first, they're going to be listened to, but secondly, it's a council that is determined to make some decisions and is prodding everybody to bring to us what we need in order to make those decisions. We're a lot further ahead right now than we were one year ago, a great deal further ahead, and, as I say, we've settled the library.
I have to say this: There is a long history of exasperation and frustration and difficulties and delays and new plans and different plans and all that sort of thing. But the council's job is to bring everybody together and to say “Come on, we have to make some decisions; this cannot go on and on and on.” And the council isn't going to sit back and let it go on and on and on. Even if there are difficulties, we're not going to just listen to their difficulties. We're going say, “All right, and what's the answer to it?”
Coming back to what Mr. Bergeron said a few minutes ago, there were expenditures in the past that one might say are not easy to explain, and we may hit some when we're trying to look at some of these options that aren't that easy to explain. But we cannot keep delaying; we've got to get on with it. If this committee, this council that's been established, gets the kind of support that is around this table, it would be very hard for anybody to just keep putting things on the “too-hard” shelf.
• 1215
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Do you feel the committee or council has the leverage to move the issues as required so that we can expedite the building?
Mr. John Fraser: I think we have the leverage, but I also think we can be called in front of your committee any time you want us to be here. A very healthy sense of urgency goes with those kinds of requests. In other words, we're accountable. We have to tell you what we're doing and where we are.
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Do you see any major roadblocks in your way at this point?
Mr. John Fraser: I would like to know definitively just how big a problem we have with the Justice Building, but I'll leave that for the moment and deal with it next week.
The Chairman: Mr. Bergeron.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, this is urgent, we all agree on that. That being said, Mr. Reynolds pointed out quite rightly that it took about a year to renovate the Vancouver Hotel. With all due respect to the members of the advisory council and to you, sir, the committee has been in existence for over a year. I was referring earlier to the time it takes to send and receive advice, and all the back and forth submissions that are involved. Pardon the expression, but we have been playing ping-pong for over a year and we have yet to dig a single hole or lay a single stone.
We have done nothing but discuss and blather on about projects, options, opinions. Now, if we want construction to take place quickly we will have to up the tempo considerably and all of us will have to agree to lay the first stone at last.
Mr. John Fraser: You are right. I agree completely.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Kilger.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could follow up on Mr. Bergeron's intervention. First, though, I want to go back to an earlier remark from Mr. Speaker Fraser. Since the advisory council has been struck, I feel things in fact are moving more quickly, more efficiently.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: “More efficiently” means...
Mr. Bob Kilger: Well, in fairness, let's not forget that last year we suspended all the workings on the Hill because of the year 2000. In fairness to the members of the advisory council, they were certainly learning on a very steep learning curve—and this is maybe not for Speaker Fraser and Ms. Griffith but for the other advisory council members—and for the first time they were familiarizing themselves with the inner workings of our institution and coming to the reality that lies in “Yes, it's nice, and we want to do this, but don't forget that Parliament has to sit.” A whole range of other obstacles comes into play.
Again, I think the committee has done a great deal in a short period of time. Certainly it gives me a great deal of confidence that there will be more apparent progress in the months to come that will encourage all of us, and particularly Canadians, who will in fact see some real and concrete progress being made. I think it's up to us to support the advisory council and to work with it to arrive at that happy ending as quickly as possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I don't want to get into a debate with Mr. Kilger.
[English]
The Chairman: Just a moment. Mr. Fraser may have a response to Mr. Kilger.
Mr. John Fraser: I think your remarks are helpful in the sense that we do have to remember that because of the millennium, the minister wanted a pause during the year 2000. Our view is that when you have a pause in construction, you don't have to have a pause in starting to make up your mind about what it is you're going to do.
• 1220
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's it. Quite so.
[English]
Mr. John Fraser: As I said, this council is of course established by the minister, and the minister wants us to give advice that helps everybody get on with this thing. The other thing is that we have to be accountable to the House of Commons, through your committee, at any time you want to come and ask us questions. That accountability puts the appropriate pressure on this council to put the appropriate pressure everywhere else that's needed. And some pressure is needed. Everybody wants to get on with this, but deadlines clarify the mind mightily, if I can put it that way.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Bergeron.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: What I wanted to raise has just been said.
[English]
The Chairman: Fine.
If I may, since we appear to be winding down to a close here, I just want to clarify the role of the advisory council. I hope, Mr. Fraser or Ms. Griffith, you'll correct me if I have it wrong.
The clients in this exercise generally are the people of Canada, represented by 301 MPs and a hundred and some senators. So the client, in terms of making decisions on where we go, on crystallizing planning, on execution, is kind of dispersed, and that has impaired our collective ability to lock in and begin execution on a plan.
I am assuming that all of our colleagues in the House accept and support the generation or the putting in place of the advisory council to fill that role of speaking for the clients, the 301 and the hundred-odd parliamentarians. I think I've got that right, that a lot of us, or all of us now, would look to the advisory council as either a catalyst or a player in the locking into a plan, making the decisions to move on, but not without reference, of course, to the Speaker, the Board of Internal Economy, and the Speaker of the Senate.
If I've got that part right, then there's only an add-on that I would like to throw out, and that is on the issue of accountability. There's the dynamic phase of planning and decision-making. Then there's the part that involves execution of the plan, the construction, the renovation, the spending. But at the end of that there has to be accountability, and throughout.
The 400-odd clients are all running around doing their jobs and may not think of accountability, so I am flagging that for the council as a yet-to-be-addressed issue. I realize how important are the locking-into plans, making decisions, consulting, and execution, but as representatives of the public in the House, we want to be sure that as we go about the task there is an accountability mechanism so that we know who stands accountable for the money being spent.
This is not like a ministry getting a new office building built, where it relies on Public Works to develop it. The client ministry always has a deputy minister or an assistant deputy minister or whoever stands accountable for the whole project and whose career is either going to continue or not continue, depending on how well they do. But we don't have that in Parliament, because there are 400-and-some of us.
I hope you'll take that as a representation of my own... and hopefully colleagues around the table will agree that throughout the process your council will have to represent us on the accountability function as well.
You may have a comment in response.
Mr. John Fraser: I think the council is very cognizant of that. In any event, I'll ensure that your remarks are brought to their attention.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Colleagues, anything else?
Thank you very much, Mr. Fraser and Ms. Griffith. In the days or months ahead we may well have a chance to consult further with you.
• 1225
Mr. John Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I just want to correct one thing. I'm advised that I said that the Board of Internal Economy was coming in front of our committee next week. That was incorrect. The Clerk of the House and the Sergeant-at-Arms and the architect will be coming in front of us, but not the board itself.
The Chairman: All right.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It might be a good thing that the board be invited to take part. I would come back.
The Chairman: Thank you for clarifying that.
We stand adjourned.