THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 13, 2018
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8 a.m., in public and in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Sabi Marwah (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. My name is Sabi Marwah, a senator from Ontario, and I have the privilege of serving as chair of this committee.
For the benefit of those on the webcast or on the phone, I would ask each of the senators to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: Dennis Dawson from Quebec City, Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Forest: Éric Forest from the Gulf region of Quebec.
Senator Verner: Josée Verner from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dean: Tony Dean, Ontario.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Quebec.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Manitoba.
Senator Wetston: Howard Wetston, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Tkachuk: David Tkachuk, Saskatchewan.
Senator Batters: Denise Batters, Saskatchewan, where it never gets quite this cold.
The Chair: The first item on the agenda is the public minutes from December 6, 2018, which are in your package. Are there any questions or changes? If not, may I have a motion to adopt the minutes?
It is moved by Senator Batters to adopt the minutes. Agreed? Carried.
Honourable senators, the next item is a presentation from the Subcommittee on the Long Term Vision and Plan regarding the Kitchen Accord in the Senate of Canada Building. I would invite Senators Bovey and Joyal; and Caroline Morency, Acting Director General, Property and Services, to the witness table.
It is my understanding that Senators Bovey, Joyal and Tannas will make some remarks, which will be followed by questions from senators.
Senator Tannas: Colleagues, you have received a briefing note this week regarding the Kitchen Accord room in the Senate of Canada Building.
In November 1981, during Canadian constitutional talks that took place in Ottawa, the so-called Kitchen Accord was reached in a fourth-floor kitchenette of the Government Conference Centre. This was brought to CIBA’s attention in 2014, when our predecessors were informed that the space had been destroyed by a flood in the building. At that time, this committee asked Public Works to see about reinstating a replication of this historic site. Public Works agreed to provide the bare shell of the space, but told us it would be our responsibility to adapt and furnish the space as a museum.
The Property and Services Directorate subsequently developed a fit-up to preserve this space as a museum room. You will see a briefing note, along with a visual. The cost of this project would be approximately $30,000.
This matter was brought to the Subcommittee on the Long Term Vision and Plan, and we discussed it and thought that because of some concerns that were raised about the appropriateness of commemorating this space, it would be best to have that discussion here at CIBA.
With that, I will turn it over to my colleagues at the witness table to make any comments before committee members ask questions.
Hon. Serge Joyal, Senator, Senate of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the invitation to attend the meeting this morning, especially on this specific issue of historical importance for Canada. I would like to take two minutes to depict the context of that meeting in the kitchen that produced what we call the Kitchen Accord.
One has to go back to the fall of 1981, when there was a federal-provincial meeting convening the premiers of the provinces and the Prime Minister of Canada. The object of that two-day conference that took place on November 3 and 4, 1981, was to reconcile the views of the provinces that were opposing the patriation resolution, the entrenchment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the proposal put forward by the federal government for an amending formula whereby vetoes would be distributed amongst Quebec, Ontario, Western Canada and the Atlantic provinces.
That proposal was strongly opposed by eight provinces. The eight would be the provinces that were not New Brunswick and Ontario, because, you will remember, Premier Hatfield and Premier Davis were very supportive of the project from the beginning.
There were eight provinces opposed to the proposal of the federal government. The major contention of those opposed was that there should be equality among the provinces, that there should be no veto for any province, and that the Charter of Rights would supercede provincial jurisdiction; i.e., there was no notwithstanding clause.
The notwithstanding clause was strongly proposed by the Province of Saskatchewan, represented at that time by Premier Blakeney, and the issue of equality of provinces was strongly proposed by Mr. Lougheed, who was the Premier of Alberta, and Mr. Filmon, who was the Premier the Manitoba.
After two days of conferences on November 3 and 4, 1981, there was no agreement whatsoever. It was a stalemate and there was no progress. Hence, a discussion took place between the federal Minister of Justice, Mr. Jean Chrétien, the Attorney General of Ontario, Mr. Roy McMurtry, and the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, Mr. Roy Romanow.
After those two days, they broke from the conference to go and get a coffee in the kitchen because that was the only place to have a chat outside the meeting. It’s like here, if three of us broke away to have a coffee and see if we could find an agreement.
Those three federal and provincial ministers met in the kitchen, and they came to an agreement. I have a photocopy of the agreement here, which comes from the national archives and is written on two pieces of paper.
The agreement was, essentially, the following: Instead of having vetoes, there would be a need to have seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the Canadian population, maintaining the principle of equality of provinces but of substantial enough support to represent at least 50 per cent of the Canadian population.
On the issue the Charter of Rights, there would be a notwithstanding clause, section 33, that would allow a province to suspend some rights of the Charter for a period of five years, but not all the rights of the Charter. For instance, the right to vote, section 3, was excluded. The rights for equality of languages, sections 16 to 23, were excluded, but some of the rights would be subjected to a possibility of suspension for five years, renewable after five years had lapsed. That’s the essential working of the notwithstanding clause.
The agreement came into being between the three provinces had to be sold to the premiers, because those three ministers were not the ones deciding; it was the premiers. That piece of paper was circulated later, at dinnertime, among the premiers and the federal Prime Minister, Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Mr. Trudeau did not want to accept this if Premier Davis and Premier Hatfield would not be in agreement, because they were the ones supporting the original package. Mr. Trudeau didn’t want to break away from them because it was the only support the federal government had at that time.
All those discussions took place from late in the afternoon — 5:30 to 6:45 — to before dinnertime in the kitchen of the conference centre; hence, the Kitchen Accord.
I personally was not in the kitchen, but I was in the surrounding area. You will remember that I was co-chair of the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons that studied the constitutional resolution and came forward with 57 amendments, major changes, to the original package, such as bringing in the Metis people as one of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada, with the First Nations and the Inuit peoples. There were major changes in terms of how we approach Aboriginal issues in Canada.
Now that the Senate is occupying that building, a plaque could be installed on the wall stating the existence of the Kitchen Accord, plus a short vignette explaining why, because walking by a wall and seeing “Kitchen Accord” means nothing for people today. For anyone wanting to understand why a plaque is there, I think there should be a brief text explaining what took place in that kitchen that led to agreement among the nine provinces and the federal government, ending with patriation and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is, in my opinion, a major element to commemorate in that building.
Most of you were active in those days, or, I should say, paying attention to political discussion. It is, of course, in the conference centre that all those constitutional talks took place, not only the Kitchen Accord but the three days of conferences that took place in that building. To have something to commemorate that as an historical element is, in my opinion, necessary if we want to honour the landmark discussions that finally gave Canada the capacity to master its own constitutional destiny and the Charter of Rights that protects us individually in all our distinctiveness and capacity.
Mr. Chair, that’s essentially what I wanted to add this morning.
The Chair: Any questions for the panel or for Senator Tannas?
Senator Dawson: I mentioned in the chamber at the beginning of the week Senator Joyal has always been a tough act to follow. I have to agree with him on most things, but I have a problem.
[Translation]
In Quebec, the debate is quite different. “The night of the long knives” is more of an interpretation of what happened — rightly or wrongly — because there was some exaggeration and I don’t want to get into a debate with Senator Joyal. That debate has created a lot of division in Canada, and in Quebec in particular. I see no need to get into it again right now. Four years ago, when we talked about the same kitchen and preserving it, I had the same reservations, saying that, symbolically, I didn’t think it brought back only good memories. With all due respect to my colleague, I think reopening this debate now is a mistake.
[English]
Senator Batters: Thank you to Senator Tannas and Senator Joyal for explaining that. As a political science undergrad who studied this topic, it’s fascinating and interesting to think that we are going to be in the same building where all of these things happened.
In relation to Senator Dawson’s point, I wonder if there is the possibility that this vignette, as Senator Joyal put it, could include a reference to that part of the history too, the part about Quebec. Perhaps wording could be arrived at which includes both sides of that particular story. That’s one of my questions.
And in the briefing note we received, it says that it should be noted that this space will not be available for viewing by the general public during the standard tour of the Senate of Canada. I’m wondering why that is, given the historical significance of that space. Is it because of where it is located in the building? If we are going to have this historical place, it would be nice if people could see it.
Senator Joyal: Well, before coming here this morning, last night I reread the memoir of Roy Romanow, and I know it would be of interest to you, senator. I refer you to pages 207 to 209, where Roy Romanow explained his role.
I would also like to refer you to the recent book by former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, pages 42 to 45 of his memoir — I have it here — where Mr. Chrétien gave his own version of what happened there.
As well, I would refer you to the memoir of Roy McMurtry. I also have it here. I wanted to consult it before coming here this morning because I pay respect to your interest in all of this.
First, you are totally right. The end result of the issue was divisive. Quebec refused to endorse the constitutional package, as we called it. Nevertheless, the Charter applies in Quebec. In fact, Quebec was the first province to invoke the Charter after its proclamation in 1982. A Quebec union of teachers invoked the Charter on the right of freedom of association, section 2(b) that we discussed recently. You will remember the postal strike. In other words, even though Quebec refused to endorse it, the protection of the Charter nevertheless applies everywhere in the country.
I would certainly not suggest that I write the briefing note. I think we should call upon historians at the national archives to propose text whereby we recognize that this breakthrough didn’t meet all the expectations and views of all those who were negotiating. I am of the strong opinion that it is not by erasing history or closing your eyes to history that it helps people understand what happened. Today, 40 years, more or less, after what happened, we have a perspective of history.
So I would suggest that you ask the national archives to prepare the text on the Kitchen Accord to explain that it allowed an opening for movement in terms of patriating the Constitution and entrenching the Charter of Rights, but there was opposition and the issue is still being debated among Canadians, which I think is fair. But I certainly would not be of the opinion that we should ignore it.
I don’t want to open a debate here. It is like removing the monument of John A. Macdonald because we don’t know what happened in Canada in those years. I don’t think that’s the way to do it. I think we should put up a plaque and explain the perspective of our contemporary views in relation to what happened in the past. That’s my humble, personal opinion.
The Chair: Could you answer the second part of the question, Senator Tannas.
Senator Tannas: I may ask Caroline to answer that.
Caroline Morency, Acting Director General, Property and Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: The space in question is it on the fourth floor, which is not part of the public space. It is part of the office corridor, and of course it’s not viewable by the public unless a senator brings people up.
The Chair: Understood.
Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much.
All of my questions have been answered. Senator Dawson alluded to one of them. Each province has a different recollection of what happened. Even former Premier Peckford of Newfoundland and Labrador, I don’t think he’s in agreement. I may be wrong, but I think he had a different take on what happened that night.
In terms of the historical accuracy of the video, Senator Joyal, are you suggesting that we would see whatever description is generated?
Senator Joyal: That’s my suggestion, senator.
Senator Marshall: Okay, that would be fine.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Is the $30,000 cost to do with the preparation for building the kitchen, which would have been built anyway?
Ms. Morency: It’s the cost of designing and building the space.
Senator Saint-Germain: Would that space have been a kitchen for the occupants of the fourth floor anyway?
Ms. Morency: Not at all. Right now, it is a vacant space.
Senator Saint-Germain: Right now?
Ms. Morency: Right now, it’s a vacant space. There are only walls.
Senator Saint-Germain: Is that really where those events took place? I know we talked about flooding.
Ms. Morency: Yes.
Senator Saint-Germain: Since it is not accessible, it would be useful to indicate this in all the documents and in all the advertising. However, is it really necessary to invest such amounts in what is, for some, the “Kitchen Accord,” and for others, “the night of the long knives”? It is important to provide a historical balance, because the room will not be accessible to the public. I wonder whether, by trying to do the right thing, we will receive more criticism than positive reactions.
[English]
Senator Munson: I know you’re going to find this hard to believe, but I was outside that kitchen and covered that story way back when, long ago, with Serge Joyal.
We are going to be working in a place of history. Just to put my words on the record, if you don’t understand your history, you don’t understand who you are today as a nation and where that journey may take you as a nation on the constitutional road or your personal road in understanding our country.
I agree with some of the comments made by Senator Saint-Germain and Senator Batters because I think this is important, no matter what your interpretation may be. In those days it was very confusing for all of us, but we knew we were covering history. And a plaque, a kitchen, a tour, this has to be revisited to show the respect for Quebec and to show the respect for the rest of country. Whatever decision is made, it has to be public.
If you walk into the conference centre, you hear the echoes of history even now, and the reporters will go into it later today. Memories come back of all those iconic pictures of Premier Lévesque, Prime Minister Trudeau and others around that table who were trying to work things out for a country called Canada. At the end of the day, whatever your interpretation is of what happened in the kitchen, it reflects what happened and what did not take place on the floor of the old conference centre and train station. I think we have to work collectively, not opening up old wounds, but building and healing the wounds with our Confederation.
The Kitchen Accord must have a plaque, as it was part of an historical process, so that those who come to visit us and see our work over the next 10 or 12 years will know that this is a very important part of who we are as a country. It has to be public.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: With all due respect to my distinguished colleague who offers us a very relevant historical reminder, I wonder what we are seeking to commemorate. The repatriation of the Constitution? I agree with that.
In terms of the “Kitchen Accord,” three people prepared a draft agreement. The agreement was reached at a dinner with Prime Minister Trudeau and seven of his colleagues. I don’t know where the dinner was held, but a plaque could be added to explain the context or historical background. To emphasize the fact that the Canadian Constitution was repatriated behind the back of one of the founding peoples seems to me to be completely inappropriate, especially since, when Premier Lévesque left his colleagues, he asked them to call him if something came up, which they did not do. If the idea is to show the setting in which the Canadian Constitution was repatriated, why not add a plaque to where the Canadian Constitution is? If I want to visit the place where the Constitution document is kept, if a plaque is placed next to it, showing the draft agreement in the Conference Centre, I have no problem with that.
However, I do not agree with $30,000 being spent on a room that is not and will not be accessible to the public. Let us remember that a draft agreement was reached there. Mr. Chrétien and someone from Ontario and Saskatchewan prepared a draft agreement. They were supposed to go sell it to Mr. Trudeau. Mr. Trudeau attended a dinner with seven of his colleagues and they reached an agreement. That’s my position. Personally, I am not in favour of marking the agreement there.
Senator Verner: I don’t want to revisit the history of Canada and the repatriation of the Constitution, and all that. It is a great source of division. I do not think that is something that Quebec really wants to highlight. I don’t think people will visit that place, and the $30,000 will be lost. However, I oppose any action that tries to deny history; the history of each country is marked by some more glorious episodes and some less glorious. People visit the buildings on Parliament Hill with the specific objective of learning about the history and events that have shaped our country. Like my colleagues, I think we could simply mention it in the documentation provided to groups visiting the building. A plaque could be installed somewhere, in an appropriate place, but that’s it. That’s really it.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: I think it’s not the kitchen that’s important, but the story, so I’m not that keen about spending $30,000 refurbishing a room that no one is going to be able to see. But I think the story should be told and other stories can be told.
That’s a pretty historic building, going all the way back to when MPs and senators used to arrive by train. The media used to be headquartered in the Château Laurier, and they’d run down the tunnel to meet them. We have that. We also have the Meech Lake Accord. There were many great meetings. I was there in 1982 at the first meeting a Prime Minister had had with First Nations. That meeting that week was a big deal and was very moving.
If we could find a way to tell the story in the entrance and refer to the kitchen and have pictures — it’s part of the office complex now — I think it would make the building more interesting. It is an interesting building that has a lot of our Canadian stories in it, and it is important that stories are told. When people are going on tours, I mean, what would be more interesting? “That’s senator what’s-his-name’s office,” or “Here is what happened in this place.” So I think we could find a way to tell the story that may not cost $30,000.
I have a lot of sympathy with the Province of Quebec, but there was division not just in Quebec; it was all over the country. It was very divisive in our province and very divisive in Manitoba, but remember Quebec too. The premier was a separatist, and we had Prime Minister Trudeau and Jean Chrétien who were also from Quebec. These are really interesting stories. They are 40 years old and they should be told so we can all talk about them, for God’s sake. I would like to see something like that; I think that would be great.
Senator Plett: I’m not really sure that I have an extremely strong opinion on whether we do this or not, but I do have a strong opinion on the arguments against doing it that I have heard here today. History is history is history, whether there are parts we like or parts we don’t. We are not in any way in any plaque saying this was a good thing; we are saying this is history.
I come from the province of Manitoba, where Louis Riel is hailed a hero. Many people in Manitoba have the exact opposite view of Louis Riel; they think he was a murderer and traitor. Yet, history says he is the founder of our province.
Senator Joyal, very rightly, talked about Sir John A. Macdonald. We are now taking statues down of Sir John A. because of comments that he made, when in fact probably most of his cabinet and the cabinet opposite believed the same thing. Because he was the Prime Minister and made the comments, we can’t have a statue of him anymore. Well, we shouldn’t talk about any of the people of that era, then, because they all largely had the same opinion.
I’m not terribly passionate about the issue, but I’m very passionate about us saying, “Well, my province was opposed to this, so we can’t talk about it” — that’s absolutely wrong. I like the idea of commemorating something that happened in a certain place, but I also agree that it should be open to the public. Maybe it’s not possible.
We tour East Block and we have all the archived offices there — Sir John A.’s, the old cabinet room. I don’t know whether there would ever be a possibility of doing something here. Maybe it isn’t. Maybe Senator Tkachuk’s idea is the correct one. But, colleagues, let us not, because there was division on something decided back then, say that’s not a reason any longer to commemorate it. It’s part of the history of our country.
The Chair: Thank you.
The motion in front of us is that the design of the Kitchen Accord exhibition be approved, that the Property and Services Directorate work with the props department of the National Arts Centre to recreate the original kitchenette, and that National Archives Canada be approached to prepare a text that takes into account all views of the significance of the Kitchen Accord. The question is, would we care to have a vote or would you like an amendment?
Senator Tkachuk: Just so I’m clear, because I’m not, voting for this motion means that we approve $30,000 and that we have the museum in the kitchen and it’s not available to the public.
The Chair: We will have to find a way around that. Is there any way we could get that to work?
Senator Tkachuk: I don’t think so.
The Chair: If a senator is present, you can take your own guests, but the public will not be able to see it; is that correct?
Ms. Morency: That is correct.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: It seems to me that it should be displayed in a museum rather than in this building. We could put a plaque on the door instead of redoing the kitchen. Personally, I think that room could be used for other purposes. We could put up plaques, which would save $30,000 in costs. Redoing a kitchen will be useless — The Museum of History could commemorate the event. We could put up a plaque as a reminder that this is where it happened, but beyond that, frankly —
[English]
The Chair: We have different ways to approach this. Senator Tannas has suggested we defer it until we are in the building and then decide on the steps to best handle it in terms of whether there is a way to make it accessible or, to Senator Tkachuk’s suggestion, have it described somewhere else, or to come up with an alternative that works, taking into account all the views we have in front of us.
Is it okay to defer it, honourable senators? We shall do that.
Thank you for coming.
It’s a classic Canadian compromise. Whoever has to write the text for this plaque, it’s going to be harder than the agreement itself.
Honourable senators, the third item on our agenda is the second report from the Subcommittee on the Long Term Vision and Plan. I invite Mélisa Leclerc, Director, Communications Directorate, and David Vatcher, Director, Information Services Directorate, to the witness table.
Senator Tannas, again, you will make a presentation. Caroline, Mélisa and David will be there to answer questions from senators. Senator Tannas over to you.
Senator Tannas: Thank you, colleagues. This is my second report. It’s with respect to the move decision to the new Senate of Canada Building.
Colleagues, you will recall that back in June we reported to you on the status of the relocation of the Senate Chamber, the Speaker’s office and the leadership and administration offices from Centre Block to the Government Conference Centre. The original plan was for Public Works to hand over the temporary accommodations to the Senate in April, and then in August. At that time, because of several areas of concern with respect to timing, installation and integration of the essential systems, we recommended, and you approved, a phased move-in that would occur this fall of 2018, with the Senate becoming fully operational and secured in its new facility in January 2019.
The decision we made last spring was contingent on Public Works meeting several key milestones over the course of the summer. Since that time, several phases of the move have been fully or partially completed. As you are no doubt aware, an important milestone took place on November 19 when a soft handover of the Senate of Canada Building and 1 Wellington took place.
Last week, the subcommittee met with several directors of the Senate administration who are key to the operations in the new building, including the Executive Committee, Chamber Operations, Corporate Security, Communications, Committees, ISD and Building Services. Our directors reported that although they felt the new accommodations would be operational by January 2019, because the handover dates for the phased move were delayed, there were risks to certain critical services that will require further mitigation along with some delays to non-essential services.
In addition to a number of technical dry runs and testing, the administration reported to us they conducted one dress rehearsal of the Senate Chamber on November 30 and one dress rehearsal of simultaneous committee meetings on November 15 in the new building. The dress rehearsals tested a number of critical systems: the audio system, the network infrastructure and the broadcasting system. These systems are key to allowing senators to be heard, to understand each other in both official languages, and to transcribe, record and broadcast their work to Canadians.
One major deficiency that was uncovered during the rehearsals is the gap at the ceiling between the wall that separates the gallery from the foyer and the mezzanine. Although we had expressed serious concerns to Public Works repeatedly about this gap and the potential impact for noise transfer from the mezzanine and the foyer to the chamber, we were assured throughout the construction phase that there was no need to worry; any noise transfer would be minimal.
However, the administration told us that at the dress rehearsal the noise transfer from the foyer and the mezzanine was significant and disruptive to the proceedings inside the chamber. It made it virtually impossible for participants to hear the person who had the floor. The interpreters and console operator were unable to follow who was speaking in order to do their work. They had no choice but to pause the proceedings in order to wait for noise to settle.
Colleagues, it was clear to us that signage and creating quiet zones during Senate sittings would not be enough to mitigate the risk. Public Works has proposed, therefore, that a temporary drywall structure with acoustic insulation will be installed in January to fill this gap.
There are some disadvantages, the main one being that this wall will reduce but not completely eliminate noise transfer. Public Works is looking at what other measures or technological solutions could be put in place to further reduce any noise.
Regardless, the subcommittee is of the view that this critical design deficiency must be corrected before the Senate returns in 2019. Therefore, your subcommittee recommends that Public Services and Procurement Canada, PSPC, implement their short-term solution to seal the ceiling gap completely and explore other measures to further attenuate noise levels from the foyer and the mezzanine before the return of the Senate in 2019. It is also recommended that PSPC propose a long-term solution to seal the ceiling gap that will be both visually refined and effective during the spring of 2019 for implementation in the fall of 2019.
As I mentioned, the audio system is critical to all Senate proceedings in the chamber and in committees. Without it, we cannot do our work. Testing of the audio system has uncovered mostly expected bugs that will require adjustments and modifications over the course of the next month. However, the construction of the temporary wall will be taking place right next to the audio console operator’s booth, and we simply don’t know what impact this construction will have on the current testing and rehearsing schedule which is already, as you can imagine because of some of the delays, tight.
Therefore, your subcommittee recommends that all further monitoring and testing of the audio system continue as scheduled and that the Senate administration and its partners report any issues regularly to the Office of the Speaker, the Subcommittee on the Long Term Vision and Plan, and the Executive Committee in order to ensure that each milestone is met so that the sound is acceptable for Senate proceedings.
With respect to broadcasting, extensive testing has already been done and a number of issues have been identified. Adjustments and modifications are ongoing. However, it is not yet known what impact the construction of the temporary wall will have on the current testing and rehearsal schedule. We think it will be prudent to start live broadcasting of the Senate Chamber after an appropriate testing period. Chamber audio will continue to be available to the public for this period as per usual.
Senate sittings that take place in the two weeks following the Senate’s return will instead be video recorded and shared with senators and technicians. Therefore, your subcommittee recommends that pursuant to rule 14-7(1) of the Rules of the Senate, the Clerk, in consultation with the Speaker and this committee, arrange for the live broadcasting of Senate proceedings once the Senate is meeting in the Senate of Canada Building, after an appropriate testing period, but not later than March 1, 2019.
The administration has advised us that the move of the remaining Centre Block occupants can take place over the holidays. However, with the delay in the handover dates over the summer and fall, installation, integration and testing that was supposed to have occurred over a four-month period has been compressed into two months in order for all systems to be operational by the scheduled return the Senate on January 29, 2019. When we decided in June to undertake to do a phased move, we knew these deadlines were tight. Subsequent delays make this time frame even tighter. We believe that addressing the ceiling gap is critical to the operation of the Senate Chamber. However, the construction of the temporary wall to close the ceiling gap will place additional pressure on an already compressed schedule to prepare for the Senate’s return on January 29, 2019.
Given this additional but necessary modification to the new chamber, we feel that it would be prudent to delay the return of the Senate in 2019 until we can be assured that construction is complete, that the mitigation measures to reduce the noise transfer are acceptable, and that sufficient testing and training has taken place.
Therefore, your subcommittee recommends that the relocation of the Senate Chamber, the Speaker, the Senate leadership, the Senate administration offices from the Centre Block to the Senate of Canada Building do proceed over the holiday adjournment.
Your subcommittee also recommends that when the Senate returns in 2019, it will do so in the Senate of Canada Building; that the Senate consider returning no earlier than February 18, 2019, with additional sitting days being scheduled on subsequent weeks; and that the necessary authorization for committees to sit after January 28 to February 8, 2019, be given, even though the Senate may then be adjourned.
Colleagues, if there are no questions, I move the adoption of this report.
The Chair: Are there any questions?
Senator Batters: Thanks very much.
You indicated that significant concerns were expressed for quite some time to the federal government’s Public Works department about that gap in the wall. Yes, that’s a huge problem. How early were those concerns expressed?
I also have a comment about the audio system. It indicates in the briefing note that without a fully functioning audio system, it’s not possible to provide simultaneously interpretation and produce official parliamentary publications. Another important part of that, of course, is that definitely prior to the televised proceedings starting — but also for the entire time after that — it would not, then, be possible for the public to hear our proceedings. As much as we want to have transparency and accountability, that’s a critical part of it.
As well, I’m glad to hear that you have the televised proceedings in your recommendation and that it would start no later than March 1. I think that’s very important because we have been pushing for televised chamber proceedings so the public can see what we do on a daily basis in addition to the committees, which we have televised for years. We have been pushing for that for five years. So I’m happy to see that will be happening no later than March 1.
How early were those concerns expressed to the federal Public Works department?
Senator Tannas: Senator Munson and I recall actually talking about this issue at the very first LTVP subcommittee meetings. There was talk about whether we could do glass, or something, if that became an issue. It was agreed that if that became an issue, that would be something they would look at. But they assured us they had done the simulations and they were not expecting that to be an issue. That’s my own personal recollection.
Senator Batters: Two years ago?
Senator Tannas: Two years ago, yes.
Senator Batters: Wow, okay. Thank you.
Senator Wetston: Thank you for the report. It does seem that some of this is out of our hands, but have you been able to assess the costs to the Senate associated with these delays relative to the costs that will be absorbed by Public Works? And do you have any thoughts about the decisions around delays with respect to government business and other matters associated with the ongoing work of the Senate? I did note the fact that committees may be able to continue to work during that period, up to February 8.
Senator Tannas: So, with respect to the costs —
Senator Plett: More than $30,000.
Senator Tannas: Yes, more than $30,000.
With respect to costs, there is a mechanism whereby PSPC, as part of the project, takes on most of the costs that we actually incur in the Senate related to this, including salaries and a whole bunch of other things. So it gets booked into the right place, from my point of view. If there is a delay and we are putting more wood to the fire to get it done, that’s all covered and booked into the cost of the project as opposed to us.
With respect to timing, we have some flexibility. Moving from January 29 to February 18 or 19, in that range, is really six days out of our parliamentary calendar. So we have the balance of the time between February 18 and June 30 to make up those missed legislative days if we need to. I think given the time, we have got the flexibility to do that. So only to the extent the government needs something blessed by us in those three weeks, they will miss that. Otherwise, I’m confident we can make it up. I think that’s a discussion that has already taken place with leadership.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I have a question, and it is for you, Mr. Chair. It seems we are in a situation where responsibility and accountability seem to be rather weak. We had informed the designers and architects that we were very concerned about the design of this space that would not connect the ceiling to the chamber. We were told that there would be no problem, and now we find ourselves with a serious problem now that the work has been finished. We do not see these people; we have informed them, they have been paid handsomely, in my opinion. Is there no way to get them to appear before the committee to assume their responsibilities when faced with such major mistakes?
[English]
Senator Tannas: I had a feeling that might be one of the benefits of the costs going away from us and being booked somewhere else; we really don’t have a call on the responsibility for it because we’re not in charge of the money. But I get your point.
Senator Forest, you and I and others are on this committee. For the next phase, which is a whopper, the complete renovation of the Centre Block, I’m glad we have a small $200 million project to learn from because I think we’ll all be wiser when we’re on to the next big one.
Senator Munson: Just briefly, this is significant in the sense of having to “fill the gap,” so to speak. When I walk home, I sometimes talk to the workers. I want to put on the record that each and every day we have to be very cognizant of the fact that these men and women, who have worked tirelessly day and night, are very proud of what they have accomplished. They took this old train station, this drafty conference centre, an iconic piece of history, and made it into a jewel and a new treasure in this city. To me, it will be a go-to place because it will be the Senate of Canada Building; it will be an historic building.
We can have our issues with Public Works, but when we take a look at the thousands of men and women working day and night to revitalize that place and bring it to life again, we have to publicly compliment them for what they have done. They take as much pride in that place as we do. We will inhabit it for the next 10 years; then, for 100 years down the road, it will be something else. It will be something very important.
I just think, on behalf of our Internal Economy Committee, that we’ll get this done. My wife has always said, “Don’t be cranky; there’s always a solution.” So there is a solution. The solution will happen, and at the end of the day I think we’ll be very proud of where we’re working, and I think we should be proud of the men and women who did the work. Thank you.
Senator Plett: I want to briefly put a few comments on the record. I want to echo a good part of what Senator Munson just said.
It is not the men and women that walk there with their toolboxes and their hard hats that are the reason for our problems today. They need to be commended for the job they have done. They, however, often take the brunt of the criticism that the people who don’t show up before us are responsible for.
I have been clearly one of the most vocal critics at our Long Term Vision Subcommittee about how some of these things have gone and how they could have been corrected. Absolutely, for the record, the men and women that have been working there diligently are not the reason for the problem. There are people who were warned about issues who just simply turned a blind eye. I have worked with architects and engineers all of my life. I want to choose my words carefully here because I have not spoken to the architect or any of the engineers there, but often they are so concerned about their design and what they want something to look like supercedes all functionality issues. That was one of the things here: “This is what this building is supposed to look like, and you will simply have to suffer with some issues as a result of that. This is my vision of what this building should look like.”
We now find ourselves in a situation. However, as Senator Tannas has said, when we look at moving in there on February 18 versus January 29, it sounds like we’re extending it three weeks — we’re not. Many times, the Senate comes back a week later than the House of Commons for obvious reasons; many times we also stay a week later. There was already some talk about maybe we were coming back February 4. We are not extending three weeks. As Senator Tannas says, maybe six days. That’s two weeks of Mondays and Fridays that I think most of us would be quite willing to sit, as we have been doing for the last few weeks, and make up for that; and committees are allowed to sit. It’s the right solution, chair.
We need to be proud when we move in there. We need to make our appreciation known to the men and women who worked there. Right now, I would have a problem thanking some people that have been involved in the design because I think that’s a problem.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Senator Plett has basically answered my question. The Senate was considering resuming its work on February 18 at the earliest. There would then be additional sitting days on Mondays and Fridays to compensate for the two weeks’ delay. So I guess those two full weeks will be the next two weeks. Is there a delay? Do we know how many weeks we will have to sit on Mondays and Fridays?
[English]
Senator Plett: That’s up to the Speaker and the Leader of the Government.
Senator Joyal: I’m a member of the subcommittee. That’s why I intervene.
I want to echo the comments made by Senator Plett and honourable senators that a good conceptual design integrates functionality needs. I’m told by Public Works that they have the same problems in the other chamber, and even worse. We are only at one end of the rectangular shape of the room, while in the other place they have the four sides being submitted to the same kind of noise inconvenience. We are fortunate in a way, but it outlines what I’m saying, namely, that a good architectural conceptual design integrates all the functionality. It’s not one thing on one side and one thing on the other side. That’s part of the reality. I subscribe totally to what Senator Tannas has proposed, namely, that we should do this work.
Senator Dean: I have one short point. I was reminded during the course of this conversation about the Pink Floyd song that refers to another brick in the wall. We could have done with a few more bricks in the wall here.
This project has been risk-managed very well. We always should expect the unexpected in large projects and perhaps small ones, too. What was critical here was the full-fledged dry run during normal operating hours, with the normal use of the building going on. Without that, we probably wouldn’t have known about this issue today. That’s a testament to our administration and to the project managers of this who put in the time and effort to fully staff the chamber and to do an actual dry run of the Senate. I think that should be recognized.
Senator Tkachuk: There’s only one thing that politicians do in the chamber and that is debate. You would think that that would have been high on the level of what was going on in that place. I think our people, right here from the Senate, were way ahead of those guys, whoever did it. We shouldn’t let them get away with trying to say “I’m sorry,” because the main reason we’re moving to the building is to debate, and they screwed that up. I think that’s terrible.
Hon. Patricia Bovey, Senator, Senate of Canada: I would like to make a quick comment, if I may. Dealing with the domino effect of building the wall, we all know from home construction what sanding drywall does. I want to pay tribute to the staff who are moving the historic artifacts and the works of art over there. This new dust is going to delay that move, so they are going to have to work in a very compressed time frame and be mindful of the resulting effects of drywall dust. Therefore, they’re having to change their time frame as to what they are going to move and when. I think we need to be conscious of Senate staff and movers having to deal with that.
The Chair: Thank you.
It is moved by Senator Tannas that the second report and the four recommendations outlined within be adopted.
Is it agreed to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
The next item is “Other Matters.”
If there are any other matters, Senator Munson, could I defer that before going in camera? Senators Tannas and Saint-Germain have a 9:15 deadline, so they have to go. If not, we will go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: The last item, Item No. 4, is other public business. Senator Munson, you had some issues.
Senator Munson: I have been informed by the Chair of the Senate Human Rights Committee that they plan to appeal the Budget Subcommittee’s decision on the denial of international travel, and they plan to bring it to this committee in February of next year.
The Chair: It is always their prerogative. If any travel is required, if they want to appeal, they are welcome. I look forward to that presentation.
Is there other public business, any other matters?
Before we adjourn, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the Senate administration and staff, including our translation staff, for the hard work, dedication and support they provide to this committee. It is greatly appreciated.
I would also like to thank all my colleagues here for their contributions over the past three months and wish everyone a wonderful holiday season. We will see you in the new year.
(The committee adjourned.)