NRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 19, 1998

• 1103

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.)): I am pleased to call to order this Thursday, November 19, 1998, meeting of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations. This has definitely been ministers' week for our committee.

Today, we're pleased to have with us the Honourable Alfonso L. Gagliano, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, along with two officials, Michael Nurse, Assistant Deputy Minister of Real property Services and Bruce Lorimer, Director General of Real Property Services.

The minister is here to discuss with us the renovations to the parliamentary precinct. Mr. Minister, we are pleased to have you here. We welcome you. We invite you to make opening remarks of whatever length you feel is appropriate—10, 15 minutes or so, more or less—then we'll open the floor to questions. Thank you, sir.

[Translation]

The Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Colleagues, it is always a pleasure to come and speak with you about various aspects of my responsibilities as a minister.

Today I would like to discuss the renovation and restoration of the Parliamentary Precinct.

• 1105

It is easy to pinpoint what we are talking about. Everybody here knows the Parliamentary Precinct and the buildings within its boundaries very well. It is where you and I and our fellow parliamentarians work alongside some 3,000 staff dedicated to helping us in our mandate to uphold democracy and serve Canadians.

These buildings represent an important part of Canada's rich heritage. They are inspiring monuments to our freedom and independence.

[English]

The maple leaf and the Peace Tower are the two most recognized Canadian symbols, both here and around the world. With each passing year, more than one million tourists from Canada and abroad come to see these buildings and connect with our nation's history and identity.

I have been on the Hill for nearly 15 years. Every day I feel privileged to have been given the opportunity to work in such a prestigious and unique environment. I'm sure you have all seen the looks of admiration on the faces of your constituents as you show them around the Hill. They leave here with a renewed sense of national pride and a better understanding of our history and democratic values.

It is our duty to preserve this national treasure for future generations. I'm sure we all agree on this. What we must do together is identify the most efficient means of achieving our goal.

[Translation]

First and foremost, we must come to terms with the fact that preserving the Hill will always be a work in progress. It will never end. Nobody will ever be able to say, “our work is done, we can close the file for 25 years”. Such a foolhardy decision would do irreparable harm. During our time as stewards of this national monument, each and everyone of us must set the example by displaying patience and determination.

We must identify our priorities, devise a plan, and execute it step by step. We can move quickly or slowly, but the goal remains the same: to preserve the buildings in their historic state. In order to realize this goal, we need time, energy and considerable resources.

Secondly, we must consider the unique environment in which we are operating.

It is indeed challenging to restore, renovate and maintain any historical building. We, however, are faced with an even more complex challenge. On top of restoring, renovating and maintaining these historical buildings, we have to consider that Parliament is sitting, 3,000 people work on the Hill, and we welcome millions of visitors. We have to ensure the safety of all these people.

[English]

Every time we begin work on a building, we must find or build an alternative workplace for parliamentarians and their staff. All of this must take place in an environment in perpetual motion, where on average tens of thousands of people come and go, and work, eat, and visit every day.

I'm telling you this because I know through personal experience how difficult it is to work in this setting. I know everyone who works on the Hill has been affected by the work going on around us. At one time or another, we have all felt as though no progress was being made and the jackhammer would never stop. But the fact is we are moving ahead in several areas.

[Translation]

Two months ago I tabled the report Preserving the Hill, which provided a summery of our progress. I know that you have read it, so I don't need to go over it again right now. Later I will answer any questions you may have.

We are halfway through our long-term capital plan, covering 1992 to 2004.

The work that is currently underway is aimed at modernizing these facilities, equipping them to meet the needs of the next century.

The architects who designed these buildings may have been visionaries, but not even they could have anticipated the impact of the information highway, and its many technological requirements. We must therefore update the electrical wiring system and add kilometres of new cable so that we can all communicate effectively with the people of Canada, and the rest of the world.

• 1110

The original architects could never have imagined that the Hill would one day be as popular a tourist attraction as it has become. To accommodate so many tourists, we must put in place an appropriate welcoming facility. We must also improve our security system to better protect parliamentarians, our employees and our visitors.

[English]

Other problems must also be addressed. For example, there is the removal of asbestos insulation, and substantial repairs have to be made to the stonework to protect the historic nature of the buildings. In fact, since the inception of the plan in 1992, officials from my department have had to make a number of adjustments to respond to the new developments that have emerged in recent years.

I would like to address another issue: the coordination process. As the custodian of the parliamentary precinct, my department is responsible for its maintenance. In addition, our three major clients, the Senate, the House of Commons, and the Library of Parliament are also responsible for defining their own needs.

As well we are working closely with the National Capital Commission. It's responsible for the grounds and the public programming on the Hill. Finally, we receive advice from the Federal Heritage Building Review Office on issues related to their sector.

[Translation]

These various stakeholders all have very specific needs and demands. Furthermore, each one makes decisions, which necessarily have an impact on the other players. Finally, while each one is in touch with my department, they do not talk to each other, at least not in a formal structure.

As a first step, last year, we created a Coordination Committee involving the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Senate Clerk and the deputy minister of my department. This group's regular meetings have enabled us to make considerable progress.

A similar group is focusing on technological development. Together, they developed the Parliamentary Precinct Information Technology Program Charter that we signed last December.

These are concrete and efficient initiatives that will help us to better coordinate certain aspects of the file.

[English]

However, despite these measures, we still need some kind of umbrella committee to analyse the overall situation and make recommendations, taking into account all the aspects of the file. I have been thinking a great deal about this problem lately. I believe we can increase our efficiency by improving the level of information, consultation, and cooperation among our clients. The Auditor General is also studying this problem. His recommendation will be in an audit note he's planning to table soon, and I'm eager to hear his suggestions. I hope our parallel analyses will lead us to similar conclusions. Then we'll be able to move quickly to fill this gap.

[Translation]

In the meantime, I can affirm that my department is clearly working within the $480 million budget framework provided in the 1992 long-term plan. Up to now, a total of $435 million has been earmarked to finish all of the approved restoration and renovation work.

Clearly, at the end of the current stage, we will have to carry on with our work and launch other projects. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

Furthermore, I always make a point of carrying out mandates entrusted to me as best I can. These include the responsibility of protecting our Canadian national heritage, which has a special place right at the top of my priority list.

[English]

I can assure you I am dedicating all the necessary time and energy required to reach this goal. I strongly believe we can and must honour the financial commitments we have made. At this moment officials in my department are involved in the analysis and planning of the next step. This plan will cover the period between 2004 and 2007, and will be part of a longer-term framework. For those of you who may be interested, I can tell you that yes, the Centre Block will be included in this plan. We are now conducting a preplanning study, and we will proceed as soon as we get the results.

[Translation]

When the time comes, this new action plan will undergo a consultation and approval process which, I hope, will focus on clients, namely the Senate, the House of Commons and the Library. This will help us with even more efficient planning of our interventions in the Parliamentary Precinct for the benefit of its users and the Canadian taxpayers who pay for it.

• 1115

Thank you for your attention. I'm ready to answer your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. We appreciate those opening remarks. We'll proceed immediately to questions, starting with Werner Schmidt. Werner, would you lead us off, please?

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for appearing before the committee. I also thank your two very able assistants.

I would like to address my first set of questions to exactly the point to which I think you referred toward the end of your report, which has to do with the preplanning of the renovations of the parliamentary precinct.

Going through the report you gave us about two months ago, Preserving the Hill, I began to question who was involved in this preplanning. For example, is the Confederation Building part of that? Are the West Block renovations part of that? Are the Centre Block renovations part of that? Is the Library of Parliament part of that? Just what exactly is being looked at by this preplanning? This report refers to something like more than $3 million. I guess it's about $4 million by the time it all comes together. What is this preplanning group actually considering in its planning?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: If I may, Mr. Chair, in the report you mentioned, there is a series of projects that have been approved and are in the process of being worked on. And there is a series of projects that are not in the report that are in a preplanning stage. Even I don't have the results of those preplanning stages yet.

The preplanning specifically referred to the figure of $3-million-and-something. That's a preplanning strategy we're doing on the Centre Block.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That's only the Centre Block.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Yes. That's only for the Centre Block. The West Block and the Library of Parliament are already at an advanced stage in the sense of the planning, but this is in progress. But as for how we're going to renovate the Centre Block, the preplanning is not finalized.

The Centre Block, I think, is the centrepiece of the parliamentary precinct. It houses the two Houses, the House of Commons and the Senate. There have been different stories in terms of the vocation of the Centre Block, but it houses, if you will, three major clients: the Library of Parliament, the Senate, and the House of Commons. They're all in the Centre Block.

Therefore, the preplanning becomes very important before we can go ahead with that, but we hope this preplanning study will be completed as soon as possible so we can then put it into a long-term plan that is to be extended beyond 2004.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Two supplementary questions, Mr. Chairman, come from that. The first one is that there's no doubt in my mind that whatever preplanning is done with the Centre Block and whatever is done in the West Block are integrally connected, as are probably the Library of Parliament renovations as well. So if this preplanning group limits itself to the Centre Block, it seems to me we're going to have—at least there's a very strong possibility this will exist—expenditures that will be incurred again simply because there hasn't been this coordination.

Now, perhaps I misread your remarks, but surely there needs to be some sort of coordination between this preplanning group, the work that's already happening in the West Block and Library of Parliament, and the proposed new developments in Centre Block. That's because we're going to have to rehouse the House of Commons and so on. So there is a connection. Just what is the relationship now between the Centre Block preplanning group, as you described it, and these other two projects?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: There is a direct relationship. For example, in the renovation of the block, the preplanning study was done so as to have a temporary House. Where the cafeteria is right now and the other space that leads outside will be a temporary House. The House of Commons will move there. Once we finish the House of Commons side and the Centre Block, the Senate will move there. In order to finish the Centre Block, both Houses... Therefore, they have to take into consideration all of that.

• 1120

The preplanning on the West Block is done, and also the library. We have to decide in the preplan study whether, for example, the Centre Block is going to be just a legislative building that houses the two Houses and the House offices of the leaders of each party, the whips, and the House leaders, those people whose work is connected. Then we have committee rooms, and that means fewer MPs' and ministers' offices in the Centre Block. That is the preplanning, but naturally everything is linking together, not only the West Block but even the Wellington, even the East Block, because that's where we all work and live on the Hill.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I'm very happy to hear you say that, Mr. Minister.

The next question, of course, the other supplementary on this, is what's it going to cost? We have an approval now, I think, for overall renovations of about $483 million or $485 million. About $283 million of that has been spent. So how much will this preplanning increase the overall number? I notice in your remarks that you are going to stay within the approved budget, and that's fair ball, but this preplanning group now will obviously come up with additional expenses. Please help me if I'm wrong, and then please tell us.

Is it realistic to assume that the $483 million, after the preplanning is done, will in fact be for $483 million, or are we going to get up to, let's say, about $800 million or $900 million for the whole project?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I have no idea what recommendation will be made from the prestudy, but we need to make some decisions, and that's why I would like to see, as soon as possible, and as soon as the Auditor General tables his report, that there will be a group whose opinion we can seek as to whether this preplanning goes into the overall... We need an overall plan, an overall framework, because everything is interrelated.

I'll give you an example. A few years ago it was decided that the size of an MP's office was supposed to be 140 square feet. Then two years later there was another decision that the office space of an MP should be 1,000 square feet. Those decisions have an effect on all of the parliamentary precinct, because naturally, with the MPs' offices bigger, for the other plan to be there we'll have to find other space.

To answer your question, we have an approved plan from 1992 for $485 million, and as the progress report you have indicates, we have committed $435 million. So there is about $60 million that has not been appropriated yet, but naturally the final plan for the Centre Block is not there. Therefore, when that comes, we'll have to look at exactly what it costs, at what final things we're going to have, and how it's going to link with the others.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That's a good answer to say that it will probably increase.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I never said it would increase.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I know, but I think that's the upshot.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I'm not ready to say that it will be $100,000, that it will double.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: We don't know, and it's unfair to put you in that position too—

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I wouldn't put a figure—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: No, I don't want you to put a figure on it, but I would say that, for the assurance of the committee, I think we'd like to know if it is likely to be within that or above it. I think it's fair to say it will probably be above that.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: It probably will be above that.

The other thing I would like the committee to consider is that in 1992, when the original plan was considered, there was no plan that we had to move. The Centre Block could have been renovated without moving the two Houses. That's a considerable expenditure.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Chairman, we'll come back again. I have another subject I would like to bring up.

The Chairman: Yes, we can come back to you. I'm going to put you back on the list, Werner, for later.

I have Reg Bélair and then Ghislain.

[Translation]

Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—Baie-James, Lib.): Mr. Minister, first I would like to know to what extent the private sector is involved in the renovations on the Hill.

• 1125

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: All major renovations, except for normal maintenance, are done by the private sector. Professionals, engineers and architects, are hired by calling for tenders and contracts are also tendered.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Could you explain to the committee how the approval process works, namely the tenders, appraisals and the rest?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: It works like any other government contract. First, a call for tenders is made in order to hire professionals, architects and engineers. Once the architects have been chosen, they prepare the plans and the cost estimates. After that we can put out tenders to hire a general contractor to carry out the work.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Are the tenders always competitive?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: They are always public. We publish them in our MERX system.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Are people still talking about the SIOS system?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: No, now we have the MERX system.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: It has been changed. I would like to know whether all private companies wanting to make an did have an opportunity to do so.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Yes. We have two systems. Your question also allows me to explain that we have the MERX system as well as the Contracts Canada Program, which was created following a suggestion of this committee, during the past Parliament, so that small- and medium-sized enterprises could have access to government contracts. All contracts are posted in the system. Everyone can see them and respond to the call for tenders.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Is there a system for challenging contract awards?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Yes, it is a transparent, public system that can be used once the bids are known and the winners' names have been announced, after the department has finished its study. We meet with those who did not win, upon their request, and we can explain to them why they did not win. Furthermore, they have of course the right to appeal. There is an appeal system that they can use if they think that their offer was not treated fairly.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Here is a somewhat more technical question, Mr. Minister. I don't know if it will be embarrassing. Everyone knows that the work being done is taking a tremendous amount of time. As you were saying just now, we live here and, we can see what is happening. The Wellington Street repairs took four or five months. It seems to me that we have companies who could have done that in six weeks or two months. Are any deadlines set when the tenders are called for?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I can't comment on the work on Wellington Street since it does not come under my jurisdiction, but rather that of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. As a matter of fact, I met the Chairman to ask whether the work in front of Parliament Hill could be completed by the timed Parliament returned in September, but it wasn't finished until now. I'm glad that it's finally out of the way.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Particularly since they chose to do that work during the summer. It's in front of Parliament Hill. Your department does not—

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Outside the walls on Wellington Street, we do not have any jurisdiction. It comes under the City of Ottawa or the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Yes, but isn't there any coordination?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Yes, we do communicate with each other. People from our department are in contact with them. As I was saying, I did ask to have a meeting with Mr. Chiarelli, the Chairman, to let him know that the work in front of Parliament Hill should be accelerated, not only for parliamentarians, but also for visitors. He gave me his timetable. The work in front of Parliament Hill was supposed to be finished by the end of October. I asked him if he could try to finish it in September in time for the return of Parliament and he told me they would give it a try. It didn't work out but the work did come to an end during the week when Parliament was adjourned. On my arrival on Parliament Hill on Monday I was pleasantly surprised to see that we could move about without difficulty.

• 1130

As for what is taking place on the Hill, we would also like to have this work completed as quickly as possible but it isn't always easy. For example, not so long ago, we rebuilt the bearing wall. I often ask questions, sometimes tough ones, of my officials because I would like to see this work progress more quickly.

Let me give you an example. When we laid the foundations, we could not pour cement because they are historic walls. Once the reinforcement was done, the stones had to be laid the way they were previously since it was a stone foundation. Of course it would have been easier to pour cement and to erect the outside wall, but we would have had to...

So, because they are historic buildings, we have to fulfil the requirements of those responsible for maintaining their original appearance.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bélair.

We have Ghislain Lebel, then Ray Cullen.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Good morning, Minister.

Don't you sometimes think that this entire process of completely renovating buildings is a bit like attempting to lay tiles on the kitchen floor when you're trying to get a meal ready? There's lots of coming and going and it doesn't make things easy.

I would like to know whether serious consideration was ever given to removing Parliament's activities from the Hill for a certain amount of time so that this work could be done as quickly and as cheaply as possible? When this kind of work takes place during the session, there are huge costs resulting from the fact that Parliament must function at the same time. It should have been taken into account.

Was there ever any study that suggested that Parliament's activities be removed to another location, either rented or otherwise? I know that it would have been a bit of a squeeze for many people, but it could have made things easier on Parliament Hill.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I agree that if we'd been able to do that, it would have been easier for everyone and it probably would have meant savings. As a matter of fact, in 1992, the original plan provided for renovating the buildings without requiring the two Chambers to move, but then there was a more exhaustive study that came to the conclusion it would be more efficient to relocate Parliament's activities. We then decided that that's how we would go about it.

House and Senate authorities later decided that a proper Chamber was necessary along with facilities to provide adequate services to MPs and senators. This is not something that can be done in a month or two. If we were able to get all of this done in two or three months, we would adjourn Parliament for that amount of time. But this is a very long-term undertaking. For example, the work on the facade of the Centre Block took quite a long time because of the need to take into account all the security aspects, put into place the scaffolding, etc.

We looked into the various possibilities. I'll ask my officials to answer. As far as I know, there's been no specific study on this but I can tell you that if we had decided to move Parliament's activities off Parliament Hill for a year, it would probably also have been very expensive. I'm not aware of any study indicating the precise cost.

[English]

Mike, do we have any studies?

Mr. Michael G. Nurse (Assistant Deputy Minister, Real Property Services Branch, Public Works and Government Services Canada): Certainly to my knowledge there was never consideration of the complete move of the Hill. In fact in 1992, with the input of the various organizations like the Senate, the House, and the Library of Parliament, the plan was definitely built around maintaining the presence of Parliament and the presence on the Hill as much as possible.

• 1135

Another key aspect was allowing access to people who may have only one or two chances in their lifetime to visit the Hill, so it was always premised on trying to have continuation. But it's a challenge, and in some individual cases we have taken people out of the building and relocated them. But it hasn't been a complete move. It would be equally difficult to do it that way. But it does present challenges.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Minister, the total project expenditures approved so far amount to $423 million, according to the information I have here. Does this amount include all the work necessary for the full renovation of the Parliamentary Precinct or only the projects that have been approved so far with the likelihood that we will end up spending $800 million and perhaps even the billion dollars mentioned by Mr. Duncan, who ended up being fired?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: First of all, Mr. Duncan wasn't fired. He is involved in an exchange between the department and the private sector.

Secondly, the report you are referring to is a progress report on all the work authorized so far in the budget. The report notes that the total amount has not yet been approved for the Centre Block. An amount was approved to carry out a preliminary study. Once this preliminary study is done, the extra funding will be added. The $420 million you mentioned includes all the other projects, namely the present renovation of the Justice Building, renovation of the West Block, with the installation of a temporary chamber, and the work on the East Block. So this includes all the work that has been done so far but not the renovations to the Centre Block.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Of course, you don't have the evaluation of the work to be done in the Centre Block at the present time, do you?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: No.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: No. We can assume it will cost a considerable amount.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I don't know. The cost of this work will certainly be considerable but I cannot tell you what exactly it will be. The decision, about what work we'll be doing, has not yet been taken. At the present time we have to see what remains to be done and include it in our comprehensive plan. In the past, we have had a number of planning problems because there are several tenants on the Hill. They all let the department know what their requirements are but decisions relating to one of them may have considerable financial repercussions for the other. Once I receive the Auditor General's report, I intend to set up a system to establish an overall plan. Whenever a proposal is made for a change, then the others will have to be informed and there will be a general discussion before making a recommendation to the department so that I can...

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Let me ask you a straight question, Mr. Minister. I know that you were not in your present position when this work got under way and that you had to take over in midstream, but knowing as you do the costs involved and the slow pace of the work, which is proceeding at a senator's pace, do you think today that the decision to proceed in this way was the right one? If you had been in your present position in 1992, would you have taken a different approach to renovating the entire Hill?

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Ghislain. Let the minister reply.

• 1140

[Translation]

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: In 1992, the Auditor General of the day addressed the situation in his report. First of all, he said that nothing was being done and that the Parliament buildings were in danger. It was at that time that the 1992 plans we are currently discussing were prepared. The Auditor General recommended that an independent advisory committee be set up. The committee was not struck at that time, but the decision was made to establish the Parliamentary Precinct.

If you are asking for my opinion, I can tell you that I think setting up a committee representing the various tenants and players on the Hill would have enabled us to prepare a comprehensive plan that would have been easier to follow. As I said in my opening remarks, since 1992, my department has had to make a number of adjustments in response to decisions that have been changed due to changes in requirements over the years, because either the Senate or the House of Commons had decided that their requirements were no longer the same. That has had an impact on the time frames and the costs involved.

I am eagerly awaiting the Auditor General's report in order to set up a committee to which everyone will be accountable and which everyone will respect. We have the Senate, the House of Commons, the Library and the National Capital Commission, but we also have Parliament Hill. We all coexist, and we must protect this heritage, but we must do so as effectively as possible and within the means that we have available to us.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Ghislain.

Roy Cullen, then Angela Vautour.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Minister Gagliano. I'm not going to flog a dead horse. I'll move on. In the private sector, my experience would tell me that if you were looking at a set of interrelated moves like this—and I'll draw the analogy of, let's say, upgrading your manufacturing plant—you might say there were different phases to that. There are the processing lines, shipping/receiving, and administration. So it's chunked up into different phases, and a lot of different things have to happen.

But at some point you'd go to the board and say, this is a set of integrated moves. The range of the cost is $1 billion to $1.2 billion, depending on how you spec it out and the price of the market. Then the board would say, well, within that range it makes sense. So now go do the detailed feasibility study. And because the projects are all linked, as you do the detailed feasibility, you get sharper costs. Then you get sharper costs, of course, when you take it to the market for bids, right? So the numbers get tighter and tighter. But it's viewed as an overall scheme that's interrelated, and the board has said yes, we will sanction it. You can't redo the processing line and leave shipping and receiving, etc. So they're all linked.

I understand in a government we have annual appropriations, etc., but I'm still puzzled, in terms of a broad range of costs—and I understand, as you say, that it depends on a lot of specs—that there's not been some sort of broad estimate of the overall cost of the project. But it's been beaten to death. I don't know if you wanted to comment any further.

I'd like to focus on the private sector. Do you have any idea of the kind of economic impact this will have? How many jobs will be created? Is there some expertise here that we're developing? How many governments do this kind of complex manoeuvre successfully? I'm sure in the final analysis we can take those skills and perhaps market them abroad. Is there any potential for that?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: In a moment I'll let an official answer your question.

I just want to say that I don't want to leave the impression that there is no plan, or that the things you mention are not done. The complexity here on the Hill is, first of all, because of the historical buildings. These buildings for many years were never renovated. We would just fix something when it was broken.

• 1145

In 1992 the Auditor General said in his report that we could not go on like this. These heritage buildings were in danger and we had to do something. So we started from a process that is very complicated. We had asbestos problems, they were old buildings, and so on.

The walls in front of the Centre Block were not in the plans to be redone, but the engineering report...we have electrical wiring and so on there. Also, they could fall down while tourists, or one of us, or our assistants were walking by. Once it becomes a security problem, I can't say no, even though they were not in the plan.

So we're dealing with older buildings, historic buildings, but we're trying to move forward. If we could put a system in place, hopefully soon, with the cooperation of all the stakeholders, a process where everybody can debate and we can put everything on the same table, then we could come up with a fund and everybody would then have to respect it.

In terms of our technology, I'll let Mike and Bruce comment.

Mr. Bruce Lorimer (Director General, Real Property Services, Parliamentary Precinct, Public Works and Government Services Canada): Mr. Chairman, I can think of a few examples. The first would be masonry. I think there has been a huge increase in our abilities or the private sector's ability in stone masonry over the last six years. I was the project manager for the 1865 wing of the East Block back in 1977 to 1980, and at that time we were quite concerned about the lack of stone masonry available to us in this area of the country. I'm very pleasantly surprised, having returned to the Hill, at just how much capacity there is now.

That's on the construction side. On the consultant side, at the same time, we've developed private sector expertise in a combination of exterior masonry, the copper roofs, and so on, along with building science. Upgrading buildings of this sort, where there is very heavy masonry, thick walls, and plaster on the inside, and then coming along and introducing information technology, individuals, workers who are used to having humidity in other buildings and in their homes...we've introduced humidity into these buildings. So the whole aspect of building science and the effect or the impact of humidity on the masonry and the plaster is, again, a skill that's being developed, and I think it's exportable to northern climates.

I don't have available with me total numbers on jobs created, though we can certainly assemble that kind of information.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Monsieur Cullen. I appreciate that.

Angela Vautour is next, and then Marlene Jennings.

Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Thank you. I have two comments and questions.

You are aware that the Wellington Building is having asbestos problems?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I'm aware of an incident that I think happened this week.

Ms. Angela Vautour: Yes, this week.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I'm waiting for a report. I know dust was picked up and sent to Health Canada. The contractor that was doing the work is a contractor that had the technology and the know-how to make sure the necessary health measures would be taken.

We have the asbestos problem in different buildings, but every time there is a job to be done, we hire contractors with a certain expertise and certain precautions are to be taken, so we're investigating how and why this happened.

Ms. Angela Vautour: Yes. How do we know? I'm not too sure there's actually enough warning being sent to the offices, enough details in your memos when asbestos is being removed.

The residue, the material we found—actually, in the office next to mine—is certainly very alarming, and I would hope there are going to be better measures in the future.

Our staff ended up going home yesterday afternoon. You can't have people working and not knowing what's sitting on their desks after work has been done.

• 1150

It seemed to be very sloppy work. I'm just wondering about what kinds of contractors you have and the kinds of background checks you really do on your contractors when they do that work.

That may be the problem. But what really kind of bothered me is the fact that when we walked into our offices that evening, they were cleaning. So I don't think all the precautions were taken. I hope you're taking it very seriously, because we're certainly taking it very seriously.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I can assure you that I take it very seriously. I was even surprised that it happened, especially in the Wellington Building, on which we did extensive work for years. A lot of asbestos was removed. But it seems that this still exists on some pipes going into the building.

I'll ask my official if we can have an interim report.

I asked for a full investigation, because we hire contractors who are supposed to... Also, a notice should be given to the employees. I was surprised yesterday after question period when I was told this accident had taken place.

Mr. Bruce Lorimer: Mr. Chairman, as the minister explained, the contractor we used was licensed for work with asbestos. I was informed that they did indeed use a HEPA filter vacuum upon completion of the work.

I certainly take your point that we should review our procedures, but I understood that the proper procedures were followed. We're still waiting for the formal report from Health Canada on the review of the samples. As soon as we have that, we'll look at our procedures to determine if any changes need to be made.

Ms. Angela Vautour: Here's my other point. I guess we'll be getting an answer from that as soon as—

Mr. Bruce Lorimer: Yes.

Ms. Angela Vautour: Here's my other concern. I come from a background where I'm used to cutting corners a little bit, and we know we're tightening our belts everywhere. Although I think we have to agree there's a need for renovations on the Hill, it's very difficult to justify this to the rest of Canadians when you're cutting into health care, education, and unemployment insurance.

For instance, consider the tunnel going from the East Block to the Centre Block. We know tunnels are nice when it's cold outside, but is it a necessity at this point when we're saying that Canada needs to tighten its belt and pay off debts and whatnot? I'm wondering how you can justify this to the Canadian public at this point?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Well, this tunnel has been there for a while. It was put on the back burner every time it was raised for the same reason you're concerned about. I'm concerned too; I approved the go-ahead on the tunnel.

First of all, there are some security reasons. Second, there are some economic reasons. It may be hard to believe, but in the long run, having the tunnel might save us some money.

There is an historic room in the East Block that we call the 1910 wing. Tourists go there. Right now, tourists come in through the Centre Block. So they go through the security process. Then when they go into the East Block to visit that historic place, they go through another security check. Once the tunnel is completed, tourists can just go through the tunnel without that. So there's that issue.

The other thing is that once we close the West Block to renovate it, it will be completely closed. There are a number of services that right now are in the West Block. People go through the tunnel in the West Block to the Centre Block. This flow of traffic will go to the East Block. When we close the West Block, we'll be losing the cafeteria there. There's a smaller space to open a cafeteria there. So there is that flow.

One of the other considerations I had was about our own staff. Most of the time, we make them work during lunch, but sometimes they have time to run to get a sandwich. Those are considerations that I took in terms of the amount of the expenditure, which is not a large item like the other expenditures that have to go into the other building. I know there were reports that it was done for the senators, but I really took into consideration both the people who work and the visitors. Naturally, those who have offices in the East Block will benefit from that during the winter, but we considered the fact that once we close the West Block, the traffic that will be going to the East Block will be heavier because we won't have the facilities that we have in the West Block any more.

• 1155

Ms. Angela Vautour: Well, we have to also take this into consideration: I doubt very much that we could sell that to the public at this point in time.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Unfortunately, it's not always easy to sell everything we do around here to the public.

Ms. Angela Vautour: Okay, thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Angela.

We have Marlene Jennings, and then Mr. Gilles Bernier.

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Minister. I have just a couple of very brief questions.

From everything you said, it's evident, to me at least, that the 1992 long-term capital plan was flawed at best, because there were a lot of considerations that were not foreseen. As you put it, your bureaucrats have had to first

[Translation]

make adjustments on several occasions.

[English]

Second, what was included in that plan for the Centre Block is no longer feasible. You therefore have this planning committee that's going to cost $3 million, and then there will be an integrated plan. Do you have a deadline for when the 1992 plan will be updated with the new plans for the Centre Block as they become developed? Has a timeline been established for that?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: We don't have a final date, but I would say that we hope it's before the end of next spring. We should have the preliminary study, and we can then put it into a long-term plan.

I don't think we can say the plan of 1992 was flawed. Rather, a few things have happened that I don't think could have been foreseen. For example, in 1992, we didn't expect the technology. We have even created a technology committee. When I was a member of Parliament then, we had small computers. Now we're talking about systems through which we will be able to communicate between our Hill office and our constituency office. All of that technology has come up. It was not included then, so you have to consider all the wiring and all the cabling that we have to do.

Here's something interesting that I didn't raise in my preliminary remarks, but I think it's a good example. At the federal level in Canada, we had the three political parties the majority of the time. We had three whips, three House leaders, and three leaders, and therefore three different organizations that worked on the Hill. Since the last couple of elections, we have had five. That has automatically created another problem, because you have to provide five sets of offices for whips and five sets of offices for House leaders, and naturally you have more party leaders.

This is ongoing. We are going to try to predict as much as possible and plan as much as possible, but in a democracy the people sometimes say that's the way it's going to be, and we have to respect that democracy.

I hope in the next few months we'll be able to have a process that is better than it was in the past, because all of these stakeholders could talk at the same forum, at the same table, whenever a decision is made. Everybody will know what the House needs are, what the Senate needs are, what the Library of Parliament's needs are, and what the National Capital Commission's needs are. And as a minister, I have to go before Treasury Board to make sure the money is there to do it.

• 1200

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I have one point in terms of whether or not these tunnels are needed. I'm originally from Montreal, and Montreal is probably known as the underground city not just of Canada but of North America in terms of underground tunnelling that connects apartment buildings, commercial complexes, subway stations, you name it. There are probably studies easily showing that in this kind of climate having underground connectedness between buildings that have significant operations is cost-effective in the long term. I don't have a problem with selling it to the people in my riding.

On another note, I don't use the tunnel because I smoke, so I take advantage of going outside to have a cigarette as I'm running between the West Block and the Centre Block. So it's not on a personal basis that I'm saying I think, generally speaking, the tunnels can be cost-effective.

The last thing is that I'm looking forward to seeing the overall plan. I think you're wise when you say there needs to be a process where all of the partners and stakeholders are brought into the planning, and not necessarily the operationalization of the plan but the objectives. So I commend you on that, and I'm looking forward to seeing the overall plan.

When do I have to move from the West Block over to the Justice Building? Maybe one of your officials can answer that.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I can. The original...and I think it makes sense. I don't know if we're going to be able to do it, because I don't decide when the next election will be—the Prime Minister has that priority—but I think it was originally said that we would like to have that move during an election. During every election there is a moving around of the members. Therefore, in order to save money and make life easy, it would be appropriate that during the election, while we're campaigning, our officials here prepare everything so that when we come back the whips will assign offices, taking into account the new plan.

I hope we'll be able to do that, but there are still things we are doing. We have to make sure there is the necessary committee space so that Parliament is able to function. We cannot tell a committee it cannot sit because we don't have a room. I don't think we want to get to that stage. We want to make sure democracy plays its role.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Marlene.

Gilles Bernier is next, and then I have Werner Schmidt.

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the Minister of Public Works and his officials for meeting with us this morning.

We all know why we're here. We had $423 million approved for those Hill renovations. Then last summer Mr. Duncan went out and said that this number could double to $800 million or even to $1 billion. Then, Mr. Minister, you came out on September 23 with Preserving the Hill to show us and Canadians that you were under budget and you would stay under budget.

But after we read and studied your report, it became very evident to us that many important projects were left out of Preserving the Hill, and I'll list a few. These are projects that were approved, some of them are finished, and some of them are ongoing.

We have the East Memorial Building renovations, $58 million. There is the St. Andrew's Tower purchase or renovations, but I think that $18.4 million is only for the purchase. We have the north slope stabilization, $16.6 million; the West Block masonry repairs, $764,000; the west terrace project—now, that's the preplanning cost, and from what I heard, you're not doing that any more, but it cost over $1 million just for the preplanning—the base building renovations, $1.8 million; the Centre Block and heating plant tunnel, $4.6 million.

So my question is very simple. Why did you leave over $240 million worth of projects out of your Preserving the Hill report?

• 1205

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Well, I don't think I left anything out that's on the Hill. As for the Memorial Buildings renovations, I don't think the Memorial Buildings are part of the Hill.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Okay. My next question is this. In order to renovate the Centre Block—

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: In the report there was a certain amount called “miscellaneous”, because there was certain masonry work in the West Block and so on. But we did as much as possible to put everything in.

I would like to remind the committee that this is the first time that all the work on the Hill has been put into a report that was made public. We are innovating here by opening up the books, because this is a process that belongs to all the people. As Mrs. Vautour said, should we spend the money on other things that maybe are not necessary? Canadians ask those questions: why do you spend? We have to open up, and I think that was the process. I believe that we put everything in there. If something was not included, I would like to know and definitely we will make the amendments, because it was part of the exercise.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: My assessment of it as a contractor is that in order to fix the Centre Block—I don't have any figures for it, and you don't, and I respect you for that because the preplanning is ongoing—we had to create what they call a domino effect. Because we will have to build an infill for the West Block, we—including myself because my office is in the West Block—will have to move to the Justice Building. The people who were at the Justice Building had to move to the East Memorial Building. The East Memorial was renovated for that. Now that they have moved the people from the Justice Building to the East Memorial, they're in the process of renovating the Justice Building. But all those buildings, except for the Centre Block, which is part of the parliamentary precincts, are not in your Preserving the Hill report.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: The Justice Building is in Preserving the Hill.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: The only talk of the Justice Building in Preserving the Hill, if I'm not mistaken—is that you're going to build some kind of connection from Confederation Building to Justice Building.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: No, no, it's the renovations that we're doing right now. The Justice Building is included.

While the officials find the page, let me say that all of this was not done just because we wanted to renovate the Centre Block. First of all, the West Block has to be renovated because of asbestos. There was a study a long time ago that clearly indicated that for health reasons...the West Block is the building that has the most asbestos on the Hill, and therefore there was a recommendation to move people out and redo it completely inside.

Second, let's not forget that the Senate always has the some numbers, but the House of Commons has been increasing with time.

Another thing I didn't say at the beginning and that I should have said was that after the election in 1993, there was a House of Commons committee that, after a study, decided every committee room had to be televised and a radio system was put in. This needs more space and it needs more work.

We are coping with the changes and demands of members of Parliament, and all of these decisions were taken by all parties. It was not a vote; it was a unanimous decision by all the parties. So I want to make sure it's on the record that the decision for all this work... Naturally, once it was decided it was more efficient to renovate the Centre Block by moving everybody out, we had to find a place to create another House, and that's why we created it in the planning of the West Block, which is an extra expenditure, and it's mentioned in the books too.

So if there are things that we didn't put in... If you want to include the work that was done on the East Memorial Building in Preserving the Hill... In those days—I remember because I was a member of the Board of Internal Economy—we were looking at where we were going to go. We needed the extra space. Should we buy the Chateau Laurier? Should we rent a building on the other side of the Wellington Building?

• 1210

All the parties represented on the Board of Internal Economy said we needed something on this side of the Wellington Building. Since we had the Confederation Building, the most logical next step was to get the Justice Building. The House of Commons, Parliament, had priority over Justice, and I tell you Justice was not very happy to move. But this was the most logical building to get to extend the Hill and have the appropriate accommodation. Parliamentarians decided...I mean, this was a collective decision.

The Chairman: Make it very brief, Gilles.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: My point again is that the list of renovations that have been ongoing—some of them have been finished—is not part of your Hill renovations. I'll give you another example of that. In your Hill report, if I remember correctly, on page 18 you state you acquired the U.S. embassy for $4.5 million. But according to the estimates, the real cost is $12.4 million. So why is there a difference of $8 million?

Mr. Bruce Lorimer: Mr. Chairman, the $4.5 million was the amount of money that went to the U.S. government for the site. There were transfers within the government between our department and the National Capital Commission.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: But the total amount is $12.4 million just the same.

Mr. Bruce Lorimer: Yes.

Why was only $4.5 million listed in Preserving the Hill? That means in Preserving the Hill, the true cost of acquiring the U.S. embassy should have been $12.4 million, not $4.5 million.

Mr. Michael Nurse: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. In terms of the management of accommodation, there are items around the precinct that we have responsibility for, that we manage through. What we identified here is that in securing space for the new American embassy, we needed to acquire land where they're presently building their embassy. We worked that exchange in terms of our departmental responsibilities.

In terms of payment to the American government for the precinct, in terms of the acquisition, from the precinct point of view of the use of that building, that's the amount we identified.

We're not trying to hide any costs. It's a matter of explaining the cost to the precinct. The cost to the government in terms of larger responsibilities beyond the precinct were identified and recorded in the estimates. But the intention was to identify in Preserving the Hill what we've done. The American embassy was identified as a potential use for the precinct, and we identified that funding.

The fact that as a larger department in support of the minister we needed to ensure that we secured proper land for the American embassy is what we did with the main estimates.

The Chairman: If we have time at the end, we can come back to you.

Werner, please.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have two questions. They're unrelated, but relatively quick, I think.

The first one has to do with the identification of suppliers to provide certain services and contracts for building, renovations, and things like this. I think there are three categories: requests for quotations, invitations to tender, and requests for proposals. There are three different categories of contracts. I'd like to know exactly how these suppliers who would be asked to submit a tender, present their request for proposal, or provide a quotation would be identified.

Mr. Bruce Lorimer: Mr. Chairman, the request for proposal method is for use with consultants—architects, engineers, and so on. Generally speaking, it is a two-stage process where we use the MERX, the electronic bidding system, so it is announced nationally. In fact, I believe it's available to NAFTA, depending on the amount. Anyway, it's nationally advertised on the MERX system, and then any firm or team that believes they're capable of fulfilling the requirements is able to submit a statement of qualifications at the first phase.

These are then shortlisted, normally down to five teams, and the five are invited to return with a proposal through a request for proposal stage. Generally speaking, that has two components, a technical component and a cost component. The consultant teams are evaluated on their experience, their applicability to the particular project, and the approach they intend to take to the project, plus consideration is given to their fee proposal.

• 1215

Generally speaking, we again use MERX for construction, and they are based on a public tender system. It's seldom that we vary beyond the public tender for a construction contractor. For small consultant contracts, we have a system called SPEC, and I apologize for the fact that I don't recall what that stands for. As I said, though, it's for very small contracts, and it's a computer system that uses an electronic, rotational system so that it's unbiased. What this does is avoid the cost to the private sector of having to prepare a proposal. Private sector firms become very concerned about the cost of preparing a proposal when the fee is low. So it allows selection of a consultant for a very small contract.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: So let's now take that proposal and go to the decision that was made by Public Works to enter into a multimillion-dollar contract with Brookfield Lepage Johnson Controls—I think that's who it was. When this firm subcontracts, what is the procedure of the subcontracting that was used directly with the public works department earlier but is now with this other firm, an umbrella firm? Are they as open, and what are the contract specifications for these subcontractors?

Mr. Michael Nurse: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll respond to that.

When we went out with the Brookfield Lepage Johnson Controls contract to take over the management of our properties on our behalf—the accountability still remains with the minister—one of the principal issues was to ensure that if they do subcontracting, they must follow a certain set of principles that we had applied. In the contract proposal, when the bidders came in, they understood that there were certain principles that we expected in terms of fairness, and that they would ask for a bidding process. Obviously, they have their own system, but we were ensuring that a number of companies have the opportunity to bid and that the basic principles and values that we set forth in our contracting principles were written right into the contract when they bid on it. They understood fully that this was expected of them.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: What is the monitoring system in the event that this contractor with the umbrella contract does not observe the openness, the principles, and the guidelines that you've established? I think you indicated rather clearly that the minister is ultimately responsible here. If there is a misdirection here, or a misapplication or non-application, if you will, what happens in that case? Is the appeal to the minister, or is there an appeal process? Could you explain exactly what happens in this instance?

Mr. Michael Nurse: If subcontractors do a contract for this firm and are not happy, they have various means. First of all, they can inform us, and they can obviously inform the minister in one way or the other. We work with the company all the time, and when we hear of situations in which there was a real or perceived concern identified over the fact that they were not included properly, we talk to the company about it. We reaffirm that and ask the company to investigate and to satisfy us that they have followed the procedures.

This is a three-year contract with four one-year options, and there is a regular review in terms of the audit of the contract, what's been happening, and what's been taking place. So, first of all, we take the reactions of the private sector company very seriously if something is raised, and we follow things through. Obviously, we will ask the company to give us an explanation. There will always be a review process to establish whether or not the contractor met all the conditions, which include these principles of contracting that would be in the contract.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I would add that this is an important contract that we have.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: A very significant one.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: While the work is on, because there's provision to renew the contract for an extra year, we'll therefore follow through and make sure we are satisfied when the time comes.

• 1220

Mr. Werner Schmidt: It's particularly significant, because I think it's the first time this has been done. So it's very significant that an appropriate precedent be set here, and I think that one needs to be very careful.

Mr. Minister, if one of us as MPs becomes aware of these kinds of cases, would you want to take them seriously and give them some priority?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I always welcome any cases, on this contract or any other case, that are brought to my attention. I always take them seriously. My priority is whatever comes from members of Parliament.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, one short question?

The Chairman: Very short. We have to leave at 12.30 p.m. and we have a couple of short questions to get in before then.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That's great. I'm sure he can answer this one within two seconds. The tunnel between the Centre Block and the East Block, how much will it be over budget by the time it's finished?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: As far as I know, it's on budget.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: It's on budget.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Yes. It had better be on budget.

The Chairman: Thank you, Werner.

Ghislain Lebel, please. We have to keep it short.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Minister, you told us to bring these cases to your attention. I have one for you.

A Quebec contractor came to see me. He told me that Quebec contractors were not getting their share of the contracts awarded here on Parliament Hill. When the Centre Block mortar joints were redone, the building was literally wrapped in scaffolding from the ground all the way up, even though a Quebec firm had submitted a bid to use a kind of scaffolding that moves up and down. His technique was used to build the stadium in Atlanta and is in use more or less throughout the world. Here on Parliament Hill, it was rejected. A considerable amount of money could have been saved. They were told that it did not meet Ontario standards. Do Ontario construction standards prevail here on the Hill? Why aren't Quebec standards sufficient?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I was not the minister back then, I was the whip, but I, too, heard from Quebec businesses that did not win the contract and that came to see me.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: In fact, none of them were awarded contracts. They do not win them very often.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: No, no. Some do. We have a bidding process and when a bidder is successful, its tender must be accepted. We cannot change the rules just because we are not happy about who won the contract. We cannot do that.

As for the applicable safety standards, Parliament is, of course, on this side of the river. If it were on the other side of the river, then Quebec standards would have to be met. On this side, Ontario standards apply. We have a national capital. Perhaps we should adopt a system like the one in the United States where Washington is a district, not a state. That decision is not up to me, but if Parliament were to move in that direction, we would respect the decision.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I have a technical question for you. The choice of stonework for the Parliament buildings was made a long time ago, of course, but we often hear that it is not good quality. It crumbles and does not stand up as well as a number of other materials like granite, for example. Are we limited to the choice of stone that was made in the last century? Does that mean that in 60 years, if we spend $1 billion or $1.5 billion to renovate everything with the same stonework... The Centre Block was built in 1917. In 1960, a mere 60 years after it was built, flaws were detected. The same stonework is being used in the renovations. Has the right choice been made?

The Chairman: Thank you, Ghislain.

• 1225

Mr. Bruce Lorimer: Mr. Chairman, I believe we have no choice. Heritage experts are of the opinion that we must use the same process and materials as those that were used in the past. I agree that the stonework does pose a problem, but the choice has been made. Heritage principles require us to proceed this way.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you. We have a couple of minutes left. Gilles has a one-minute question and John has a one-minute question.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman.

I have many more questions to ask you, Mr. Minister. It's sad that time is limited.

The original project approval in 1992 to renovate the West Block amounted to $66.3 million. Under the former minister, Diane Marleau, the budget increased to $86 million. Under your stewardship, the budget has snowballed to almost $152 million, knowing that now we'll have an infill in the West Block of $47 million.

How can you as the minister justify allowing these costs to go so out of control?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: It's not that the costs are out of control. It's that the decisions are made by the people who use the building, the parliamentarians. As I said, originally we were supposed to do this reparation while we remained in our own office. Then it was decided that we move out, and then it was decided to have a House. With the costs of building the House, and the requirements of each political party that we have the same lobby so the people can come and listen to us, the cost of creating that environment became expensive.

Then you have all the technological aspects that you have to take into account. That's why I said from the beginning that we need a plan here. We cannot have one tenant who decides to go this way and the other one the other way. They all talk to us, but they don't talk to each other, and the costs are becoming prohibitive. That's why I hope that after the Auditor General tables the report—

Mr. Gilles Bernier: It's going to raise this cost by a lot.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: We'll see. I don't like to change budgets; therefore, I will be very conscious to make sure the costs won't increase that much. But again, I think we'll have to ask our tenants...and put everything on the table, if that's the way they want to go. We're all going to be responsible to the people, because if we put more money into the buildings, we're going to have less money for something else.

The Chairman: Thank you.

John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I wish to follow up on a question that was raised by my colleague Angela Vautour earlier in the meeting regarding the Wellington Building. With respect to the building, as you know, there's a lot of oral and written history about the fact that it's a sick building.

I just came from meeting with the Speaker, the Sergeant-at-Arms, and the Clerk of the House of Commons, Mr. Marleau, on this issue, on which they are in the process of developing an action plan to respond as soon as possible.

The issue is that the NDP have ten MPs in the Wellington Building. As of this morning all of the staff have walked out because of the reports that have been provided with respect to the air quality and other dust sampling that's been taken. I want to inform you, Minister, of this because it's a very serious matter. We have 21 MPs in our caucus. As a former whip—and as a whip myself—you would appreciate that if half of your caucus can't function from now until a change is made, we have a very serious problem.

I wanted to let you know that what has transpired is there were some air samplings taken. The results as of this morning were that the air samples seem to be okay, but the dust samples have found certain particles that at this point appear to be asbestos, the poisonous kind of asbestos, so the staff have walked out.

The NDP is also the only party on the Hill, as you would know, that has a collective agreement, and according to the health and safety regulations, they've exercised their rights under those collective agreements.

I'm asking you, Minister, would you be able to meet with either your officials, or somebody, and as soon as possible come forward with some solutions for us? We do have a very significant problem? As I indicated, the Speaker has told me that he'll respond no later than Monday morning with an action plan as to what we might do.

What's happening with the Wellington Building is a very serious problem.

• 1230

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: As I said before, I am very concerned. When I learned of the incident yesterday after question period...and I thank you for telling me what's happening, because I didn't get the report of the samples. I know there were samples at Health Canada.

The way you describe it, the situation is worse than I thought, and definitely I'll take all the necessary measures. My officials are ready to sit down after we adjourn this meeting, and I'll be on top of the file to make sure that, first of all, the health of all the employees and the members will be protected, and at the same time, if we find it's necessary, to find accommodation somewhere else so that you can function properly with your staff and attend to your duties and responsibilities. You have my total collaboration.

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you all for the questions. Thank you, Mr. Minister, and your officials for coming. We appreciate this. You've been very generous with your time, and we look forward to having you back maybe some time in the next year.

Before we adjourn the meeting, as a reminder on amendments for a clause-by-clause on the Mint bill, that clause-by-clause is Tuesday, so get them in to the clerk as soon as possible. It makes it easier at the committee meeting.

Werner, did you want to raise your question while we're still in session?

Werner wants to raise a question.

Go ahead, Werner.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: The question I have is that there is still a lot of stuff that has to be done with regard to the franchisees, and I think there was an indication that there would be a meeting with the Canada Post people and the franchisees. I wonder if the committee would be interested in hearing what has happened with regard to that and where that conflict or that dispute rests at the moment.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): We have a committee meeting tomorrow, don't we?

The Chairman: It's on Tuesday, a clause-by-clause.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: But I can bring your report on Tuesday.

The Chairman: Maybe after clause-by-clause on Tuesday.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I think we need to either indicate what the progress will be or whether we should meet as a committee.

The Chairman: On an interim basis, would you accept a report from Carolyn after a clause-by-clause?

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Sure, of course. We'll see what we have to do then.

The Chairman: Thank you all. We're adjourned.