LIPA Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DE LA BIBLIOTHÈQUE DU PARLEMENT

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, June 10, 1998

• 1217

[English]

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe D. Gigantès (De Lorimier, Lib.)): I see a quorum. Forgive me for being late.

I need a member of the House of Commons. They sat until 3.30 a.m. or perhaps 5 a.m. this morning, so they are exhausted.

We have a member of the House of Commons. All right.

[Translation]

I presume you are Mr. Lavigne.

Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Yes.

The Clerk of the Committee: Fine.

[English]

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): Welcome to our witnesses. Facing me directly is the Parliamentary Librarian.

Mr. Richard Paré (Parliamentary Librarian, Library of Parliament): Good afternoon.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): Good afternoon, Mr. Paré. With him is Mr. François LeMay, Ms. Mary Soper, and Mr. Glenn Duncan. The meeting is open. Go ahead.

Mr. Richard Paré: Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. The purpose of the meeting today is to discuss the upcoming renovation of the library. I mentioned at the last meeting of the committee that we were going to have a major renovation in the library building. For that reason we would have to move out of the library.

We have with us Mr. Glenn Duncan from Public Works and Government Services. He is in charge of the project. He would like to make some comments and a presentation to you so that you will have a better understanding of what is coming up for the library. If it's agreeable, without further ado I will pass the microphone to Mr. Duncan.

• 1220

Mr. Glenn Duncan (Director General, Parliamentary Precinct Directorate, Department of Public Works and Government Services): Thank you very much, Senator. I would ask members of the committee to make reference perhaps to two maps that I've distributed, which lay out the overall program of work for the parliamentary precinct over the next decade or so.

I'll use three different words in regard to the library restoration—restoration, renovation, and conservation—and I'll explain them in the following way: a restoration is a returning back to what it was like before, a conservation is a stopping of the clock at a point in time so that it doesn't deteriorate any further—for example, the Peace Tower masonry was a conservation project—and a renovation is where we update the functionality of the building in terms of new air conditioning, or ventilation systems or information technology systems, to make it a more modern and more functional building.

The library project will actually comprise those three different elements. We will be doing some restoration, some conservation, and also renovations in terms of making the building function better.

With most of the projects on the Hill we are trying to empty the buildings in terms of finding alternate swing space so that the work can take place with a minimum amount of disruption to the work of Parliament or to the work of the library. We have currently the first project in this sort of domino game that will take place, the Justice building, which has been acquired for Parliament. The Department of Justice has been moved out into the East Memorial building, which we recently renovated. The Justice building renovation project is now under way and will be completed some time next summer, at which point we will be able to relocate the members of Parliament from the West Block into the Justice building and commence renovations of that building.

Likewise with the library, the strategy that was chosen was to relocate the library to the Bank of Nova Scotia building on Sparks Street. This building is adjacent to the La Promenade building, which we are in right now, and so we can make effective use of connecting between the two buildings. Then that will allow us, starting in about either late 2000 or 2001, to do the work in the Library of Parliament building, which would be empty.

I would just say that this overall plan has been distributed to members and senators by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, so it would probably not be the first time you've seen it. The other document, which is entitled “Parliamentary Precinct Accommodation and Investment Strategy”, is, I would say, the wish list of all the projects that we could do if funding is available and approvals are received.

I would ask members to refer to the deck of slides we've prepared, entitled “Library of Parliament Building: Conservation, Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project”.

In terms of the assumptions with respect to this project, we're assuming that the building will be vacant for the three years required for the construction work, that the main functions of the library will return at the completion of that work, and that the library will be located in no more than three locations at any one time, excluding branch libraries, and that these locations will be acceptable to the library from an operations perspective. In other words, they'll be able to serve senators and members of Parliament properly. So their operations will be maintained at all times.

In terms of the temporary location, the core reference functions and the staff will be moved from the library building to the Bank of Nova Scotia building at 125 Sparks Street. This bank building has been vacant for about 10 years, so this really is an opportune time to make good use of this asset. The bank is a classified heritage building and will be renovated to meet the needs of the library. We are just starting the planning work for that renovation, and right now we anticipate we will be able to provide linkages between the La Promenade building and the library such that we can provide efficiencies in the operations of the library.

• 1225

The rest of the collection will be relocated from the library building and will go to one of three possible locations, either the new Archives building in Gatineau—we are having discussions with Archives—the National Printing Bureau, where part of the collection is already stored, or Plouffe Park on Oak Street. There's a rare possibility that we might even go to a lease solution, but I doubt that seriously.

The overall budget for this project is $72.3 million, including the swing space. All consultant fees and design fees are included as part of that cost. The library building itself is a $57-million project. The Bank of Nova Scotia is $8.8 million. The collection swing space is estimated to be less than $6.3 million.

There is also a separate project that we are carrying out throughout the precinct that we refer to as furniture fixtures and equipment. Largely, it's the information technology backbone to permit Parliament to function into the next century with respect to videoconferencing, broadcasting, and all the other support services that will evolve over that time.

In terms of the schedule, there is some flexibility in the schedule. These dates are target dates that I've provided.

The library project will follow the Centre Block underground services project, which was the large hole in the ground we created and have now filled in behind Centre Block and to the west of the library. This houses electrical transformers, emergency generators, and other storage spaces. This precedes the Centre Block renovations, which we are now targeting for about 2003, 2004. The Bank of Nova Scotia swing space will be ready for library occupancy after November 1999, and the move back to the library will be in about 2003.

We are planning these moves to take place at recesses, preferably summer recesses, so that the services the library provides to Parliament will not be disrupted.

In terms of impacts, there will be scaffolding, a construction yard, and delivery trucks, which we've all had to endure over the last four years or so. The visible exterior work will start sometime after 2000 and there will limited visitor access during the construction period. We'll try to permit visitors to peek in to see what's going on during the construction work.

As for the current status, we're currently in the planning stages for the Bank of Nova Scotia project. The consultants have been engaged and are working. As for the main library building and the consultants for that work, this will be before the Treasury Board. We are waiting for their approval. The assessment of the various swing space options will be made by September.

I'll just conclude my opening remarks. I'm prepared to respond to any questions you may have.

The one comment I would make is that the Library of Parliament building is considered to be Canada's most important heritage building, so it's quite a challenge to do this building justice.

Thank you very much.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): I have a list. Senator Corbin has asked to speak.

Senator Eymard G. Corbin (Grand-Sault, Lib.): On a related matter, this is with respect to the information you have on the charts. I don't see any arrows or indicators pointing to the U.S. embassy across the street. The Americans will probably be gone by 2000. Is there anything on the burner with respect to that property as far as Parliament is concerned?

Mr. Glenn Duncan: At present, we are looking at probably having vacant possession late in 1999, and certainly by the year 2000. We have currently no plan for the reuse of that building at this present time.

Senator Eymard Corbin: Thank you.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): I appreciate the outline you've given us here.

During this work for and with the library, is there a project leader who is personally responsible for dates, times, completion dates, and the budget?

• 1230

Mr. Glenn Duncan: Yes, there is, and she's sitting beside me.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Great.

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): This is your millennium project.

Ms. Mary Soper (Project Leader, Parliamentary Precinct Directorate, Department of Public Works and Government Services): I guess.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Ms. Soper, how does that line of accountability work?

Ms. Mary Soper: I'm responsible for obtaining the approvals. The approvals are for a certain scope of work, a schedule and a budget, and I'm accountable for achieving those targets.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Then the rest of the project is accountable to you. Is that correct?

Ms. Mary Soper: Yes. I have a project manager, who is an architect. He hires the consultants and is in charge of all the contracts. He is accountable to me.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you very much.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): Honourable members, the cookies will be at the table if any of you want to have them. I did promise Miss Grey tea and cookies. She said that she would bring tea.

Miss Deborah Grey: I've come straight from caucus, so I'm guilty there. I'm awfully sorry.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): The first time I was guilty. Now it's your turn.

Miss Deborah Grey: Next fall we'll be even.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): I won't be here next fall.

Miss Deborah Grey: Oh, well.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): This is the last time I am meeting with you.

A voice: This is the Last Supper, then.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): I hope no one will be offended if I say that I prefer my grandchildren.

Miss Deborah Grey: Not at all. We wish you a long and healthy retirement.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): Thank you.

Miss Deborah Grey: Thank you for your work on this committee.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): Are you through, Mr. Mayfield?

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I am through. Thank you, sir.

Before I am through, I would just like to take an opportunity on behalf of the committee to thank you for your service and to wish you a very happy retirement with your family.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): Thank you.

In view of the mayhem you will cause in the next few years, it seems to be a good time to retire. So for you victims, we have Senator Grafstein.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein (Metro Toronto, Lib.): I've been a curious observer of construction on Parliament Hill for I guess three decades now. One of the things I watched personally was the stairwell that leads from the Senate building to the East Block. There were 15 stairs, maybe 14. Those stairs took two months per step. There was a stairwell between the two buildings and it took two months a step.

I'll make a brief introductory comment and then come back to this project.

From time to time, I've urged the minister responsible for the construction across the front of the Parliament Buildings to be expedited. Here is the most important building in Canada, and it's taken lo these many months to do a thousand feet of work on the roadway.

I measured this in Toronto. We got a thousand feet of roadway done in Toronto in three months.

I talked to the minister today and asked him about the bridge. I have to walk from the Château Laurier to my office. You see thousands of kids and visitors, and I think it's almost a national disgrace that it's taking the time to facilitate renovations in front of the most important building in Canada.

I've admonished the minister weekly. I never raised it in our caucus. I haven't raised it in the Senate.

One of the reasons I'm here today is to satisfy myself that the construction for this important project proceeds as expeditiously as possible. When people come up to Ottawa and they miss a visit, they miss a moment in their lifetime. They're not here that often.

I just looked at this briefly, but why does it take that much time to move?

Again, I'd like to take a look at the Toronto experience. They've moved libraries in six months from building to building.

• 1235

I recognize, by the way, that it has to be done during recesses, because the last thing you want to do is interfere with the.... I appreciate that. Given the time available, we're now looking at a recess, I assume, for three months in the summer. I assume it will be the same next year. There's obviously a shorter timeframe during the course of the year.

Is there any way of expediting this process, keeping in mind that is a national monument and we have to be careful? When I watch the labourers put a brick in at a time, or put one piece of stone in and it takes them four days to pull out that stone and put that one stone back, I just cringe. By the way, this is somebody who's just renovated the back of his house and had all the problems with cost overruns that we encounter.

It is, in a way, a national issue, particularly when, as I say, visitors come to Ottawa and they want to see their Parliament Buildings. They don't want to see it with scaffolding. They don't want to see it the way it is. That horrible mess on that bridge is just a national disgrace. We know they're not working full-time. We know it's not 24 hours. We're there.

I raise this as a way.... Subject to my friends in the Reform, I don't care if it costs another $1 million or $2 million or $3 million; every month that Parliament Hill is not renovated is a month that you deprive Canadian citizens of the right to see their national monument in full force. So can we shorten the timeframe here?

Mr. Glenn Duncan: I would indicate that the reconstruction of Wellington Street and the Plaza Bridge is the responsibility of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: I've been told that.

Mr. Glenn Duncan: Minister Gagliano met with, I believe it's the chairman, Mr. Chiarelli, to urge the expeditious completion of that work.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: December 1999 for that bridge.

Mr. Glenn Duncan: I know.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: It's unbelievable. It's unbelievable.

Mr. Glenn Duncan: One of the difficulties the region faces—and I've met many times with our colleagues, because we needed to coordinate the work we were doing on the Hill for sewer and water connections, etc.—is they have a lot of restrictions. For example, the Château Laurier Hotel doesn't want them working at night. Then they have other issues that restrict the number of hours they can actually operate, because a lot of the work is quite noisy and involves breaking rock, etc. So they've tried to do this work as expeditiously as possible, but these other factors constrain them somewhat in the length of hours they can work.

In terms of the program of work on Parliament Hill, we try to do the work in the following scheme of things. One, the operations of Parliament must never be interfered with, to the fullest extent we can do that. Secondly, the site must remain safe and accessible for visitors at all times. Of the important sites to visit—the House Chamber, the Senate Chamber, the Peace Tower, and the library—three will always be open for visitors to see. And where possible, we will interpret the work so that visitors, if they can't see the library, for example, because it's under scaffolding, at least will understand what we're doing and why we're doing it. Those are our commitments.

The difficulty with much of the work on the Hill is that it has to be done respectful of the heritage fabric of the building. Stonemasonry work is by nature slow and labour-intensive. As best we can, we try to get contractors to work extra hours. When we were doing the very disruptive work on the south drive, we did all that work at night. But you can only do that for a short period of time, because the tradesmen have families and lives outside their work lives. For short periods of time you can work overtime and you can get extra productivity, but after a certain point in time, studies have shown that productivity falls away and you actually don't make the gains you would think you could otherwise do.

So we're conscious of the impact we have. We're trying to do our very best to expedite this work and have it done in a way that disrupts the work of Parliament to the least extent possible. But it's a challenge; it's a real challenge.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

Senator Grafstein, are you satisfied with that answer?

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: To be continued, Mr. Chair.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): Okay.

• 1240

I have Senator Corbin asking for his second round at this time. Is there someone who would like to talk in the first round?

Senator Corbin.

[Translation]

Senator Eymard Corbin: I have a question for the Librarian, Mr. Paré. The witness has just told us that the move will be carried out with a minimum amount of disruption, ideally during periods when Parliament stands adjourned.

Basically, what needs to be moved are the collections and the staff currently on site. However, I believe the Library research staff already work out of another building.

Mr. Richard Paré: That is correct.

Senator Eymard Corbin: Therefore, their work will not be affected in any way and parliamentarians can continue to rely on their service, without any interruption.

Mr. Richard Paré: Correct.

Senator Eymard Corbin: That is perhaps the most important of the many services that you provide to parliamentarians.

Mr. Richard Paré: All of the services provided off premises will continue as is. I trust the quality of the services will remain the same as well. That includes all of the services that we provide at our Confederation, Promenada and Wellington branches.

Senator Eymard Corbin: What about the warehouse facility?

Mr. Richard Paré: The warehouse...

Senator Eymard Corbin: Will the warehouse be affected?

Mr. Richard Paré: No, unless someone decides that the warehouse... As Mr. Duncan mentioned, three proposals are currently under consideration. We want all collections to be housed in a single warehouse rather than in several different locations. This is important to us, because we feel that it is far more efficient to have all off-site collections housed in one location.

Senator Eymard Corbin: I have one final question, Mr. Chairman.

In addition to the ground floor and to the upper floors, you currently occupy two basement levels. Isn't that right? Has there been any talk of adding further sub-basements? I ask the question because when I visited the assembly buildings in Sydney, Australia, I observed that their facility was not a tall building, but instead, it contained the number of sub-basements. For heritage reasons, that is to preserve the appearance of the former building, seven sub-basements were added. Could we not do the same thing with the Library so that you could consolidate all of your collections in one location?

Mr. Richard Paré: I will only venture of partial answer because I don't have the required expertise. As far as I know, there are no plans to add further basements to the Library. Perhaps Mr. Duncan can answer your question.

[English]

Mr. Glenn Duncan: It's primarily a question of the library functioning without having the collection all in one spot. For example, it can function with using a satellite location for the majority of the collection, which will grow, of course, over the years.

The cost of providing a satellite location, both in terms of operation and the actual cost of a space, is substantially less than trying to construct a facility underneath the library. That would be a very expensive type of construction to carry out.

We did construct the Centre Block project beside the library, so we have some sense of what's involved in doing that kind of work.

Senator Eymard Corbin: Are there geological difficulties?

Mr. Glenn Duncan: Not really. Parliament Hill is solid rock and is quite stable. The slope stability problems are really surface problems, which are more along the edge of the canal and behind the Confederation Building. It's not a geological issue. It's primarily a cost issue.

Senator Eymard Corbin: Merci.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): Mr. Paré, what do you want from us?

Mr. Richard Paré: If you will allow me, Mr. Co-Chair, I will just make a few comments to indicate what the library will do during that period.

• 1245

We have already assigned a coordinator for the functional and operational plan for the move of the collection and the staff in the Nova Scotia building. That person is one of our junior managers and will be the coordinator for that project.

In terms of priorities, we are giving priority to the selection of the collections in the main library that will be relocated to the bank building. We have 13.5 kilometres of shelving for books and documents in the library, which represents roughly 280,000 or 300,000 books and documents. We will be able to put only 20% of that, roughly, in the bank building, so we very much have to select. The rest will be in storage and we will have a messenger service so we can provide the documents very quickly. We will also use the fax machine. But we have to select exactly what we want to keep in order to have these core collections close to the librarians and the technicians who provide information directly.

The other priority we have at this moment is that we are also planning to redesign the telephone inquiry reception system and service at the library. We believe we will need a different service for responding to inquiries. I don't mean for the users of the service, but for the providers.

For the renovation period, we have expressed the need to have the remaining collections that won't be moved to the bank building in the same area as those in the storage area. We've already expressed that.

We have also expressed a need for a room in the Centre Block during the same period in order to deliver appropriate reference and reading room services to parliamentarians. We have to remember that all the parliamentarians will be in the Centre Block during the period of time that the library will be out, so what we would like to have is a small room so that we can provide reference services from there. We have not had any response on that, but we have expressed that need.

So that gives you our plan in résumé. We also may have to go to supplementary estimates for the renovations in regard to costs that we were not expecting. I must say that Public Works has helped us very much financially, but they cannot do everything. We may have some expenditures that were not planned for in the budget and we may have to go to supplementary estimates for that. That gives you a résumé of our needs for this planned move.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Just on your last comment, Mr. Paré, do you have any estimate on the supplements you'll be requesting?

Mr. Richard Paré: No, not at this moment. If we can avoid it and we can absorb these costs, we will.

Do you have a figure in mind, Mr. LeMay?

Mr. François LeMay (Director General, Information and Documentation Branch, Library of Parliament): If we include the term staff that we have to bring in to do some specific jobs, we're probably looking at up to $200,000, maybe $250,000. We can't nail it down at the present time for sure, but we're not looking at a figure higher than that.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I have a lot of sympathy for what Senator Grafstein was trying to express about the scheduling and what seems to be a pretty slow rate. He was commenting on the economy of Reformers, and I'm not always sure that doing it the slow way is either the cheapest or the most efficient. I'm wondering about the nature of the contract. How open to supplements is this contract? Are the contractors tied into a contract price? How firmly has that contract been negotiated?

• 1250

Mr. Richard Paré: Maybe I can respond, just for the library. In the case of the library, just to give you an example, we are working on the selection of the documentation that will be moved. This is a long process and we need resources, but we have to use our very experienced people to do this. They put so much time in on that that we need to have support from younger people who come in on term or on contract to help them do the work they cannot do because they have to devote too much time to this project. This is the way I see it for us, and this is the way we spend more money, I think.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Will the basis of the contracts be firm contracts or are they—

Mr. Glenn Duncan: In terms of the construction, what Mr. Paré was referring to was the work that the library has to do around organizing its collection as it gets moved and replaced. The contracts for the construction of the library project itself are publicly tendered contracts and are what we call fixed price contracts. In other words, there's a firm price given by the contractor for doing all of the work described in the plans and specifications prepared by the architects. That's how we've done almost all of the work on the Hill.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): Miss Grey.

Miss Deborah Grey: I'm not sure if Public Works has anything to do with the road out here. I haven't been here for decades, but I've been here almost one decade, and if one half of Wellington isn't ripped up, the other half is. They no sooner get it paved side to side when, in the very next season, one half of Wellington is ripped up and the other isn't. The frustration we feel is just unbelievable, and I guess we have a sense of apprehension. How long is this project going to go on?

I live in Edmonton, as you know, where West Edmonton Mall was built by the Ghermezians, who came in under time and under budget. That's kind of what I'm used to operating with when I see what happens with large projects. I can't for the life of me figure out why Wellington has had to be ripped up at least twice, probably three times, since I've been here. And I don't want to see that happen to the library again. Do we have any guarantee that's not going to happen?

Mr. Glenn Duncan: As I mentioned, the Wellington Street project is a project of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

Miss Deborah Grey: Yes, okay, but it just gives a flavour to people, it's awfully close to Parliament Hill, and they just don't care—

Mr. Glenn Duncan: I wear these scars from their—

Miss Deborah Grey: I'm sure you do.

Mr. Glenn Duncan: To date I think we've had a very good track record in terms of being able to meet the deadlines and schedules we've set out. We've completed the 1910 wing of the East Block ahead of time. In regard to the CBUS project, which we started last summer, that site will be reinstated before Canada Day. It will not be 100% completed, but it will be reinstated, and the road will be reopened. The south facade project, which was an emergency project that we had to do, was completed fully six months ahead of schedule. The Peace Tower project was right on schedule.

I think we've done a good job to date of being able to keep to the schedules, and we've been very fortunate, I would say, in that we have had excellent architects and consulting engineers. There was a lot of good talent on the market and not a lot of business, so we've benefited from that. Likewise with the tradesmen and the contractors. They've been very good. If the construction industry starts to boom, we may not be able to benefit from that, but to date we've been quite fortunate.

Miss Deborah Grey: Now regarding the budget, when you say you just might have to come back for supplementary estimates, so many people get nervous about that, because we've heard it so many times. Have you thought about just saying that every contingency you could think of that might happen regarding collection selection, which is important for sure.... Have you thought of being able to say, “This is as close as we could tell”? I'm sure you've done this, and $250,000 in the great scheme of things isn't a lot of cash, but that means a lot of families sending in their entire taxes to cover just the “oops” or whatever else you might need. Would there be merit in saying, “This is what we need and we won't be coming back for supplementary cash”?

Because as soon as you do that.... We sat here until 3.30 this morning just walloping off $800 million here and $900 million there. It's just a grand old time. You have 71 votes just ringing up the cash, so—

Mr. Philip Mayfield: $30 billion.

Miss Deborah Grey: —I think there's a nervousness there.

• 1255

Mr. Richard Paré: The difficulty we face is finding what exactly is the amount we need when we prepare the budget. As a contingency, you could ask for it, but we don't want to have it in the budget after, just for that operation and that's all. That's the difficulty with it. But I understand what you mean.

Miss Deborah Grey: Thanks.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): That's because I treated her well when she was a page.

[English]

Honourable senators, may I have another digression? Miss Grey....

Miss Deborah Grey:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): I've been here fourteen and a half years—

Miss Deborah Grey: There you are.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): —and I will have cost you personally 20¢, which I now give you.

Miss Deborah Grey: Well, thanks.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): The way it's arrived at is as follows: the budget for the Senate, $42 million. There are 30 million Canadians. If you divide that, it's $1.40 per year per Canadian for the Senate. If you divide that by 100, it's 1.4¢; multiplied by 14.5 years, it's 19.653¢. You can say you've had a free senator.

Miss Deborah Grey: There we go, and cookies to boot. Thank you, Philippe.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): Senator Corbin.

Senator Eymard Corbin: Before somebody tells me to shut up, I'd like to suggest a private meeting.

[Translation]

Mr. Paré, what is to become of your rare book collection in the air-conditioned room? Are you planning to weed your collection further and hand some volumes over to the National Library? Will you take this opportunity to do that? Finally, will parliamentarians have free access to the stacks in the relocated premises? Currently, they do enjoy this privilege.

Mr. Richard Paré: Thank you for your question. First of all, as far as our rare book collection is concerned, we intend to relocate the collection to a facility with the same climatic conditions. We have not yet determined where that will be. There are between 3,000 and 4,000 volumes in our collection.

As for turning over some of the volumes in the collection to the National Library, that is something we do regularly. We also weed out our collection on an ongoing basis. We do not anticipate doing any special weeding at that time. We will simply continue to work as we always have.

As for your third question, members and senators will continue to have access to the collections when they are housed in the bank building. You will be able to access the stacks directly, just as you do now.

[English]

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): I guess my question would be for Mr. Duncan.

I realize perhaps when you're dealing with things of historic significance such as the library, you can't really—and I don't know if you do—subcontract it out. But let's take a look at Parliament Hill, say the road now, which is excluded from the regional municipality, which I realize is Wellington Street, and the bridge that Senator Grafstein is talking about.

I'd like to talk to Chiarelli about that, because I come from the field of business, and once you put out an RFP, there should be a definite time limit there. Really, if there are any cost overruns, it should be taken into consideration by the contractor of the day; it shouldn't cost the public purse anything.

My question to you, Glenn, would be, regarding, say, the roadway that is currently being reconstructed or the tunnels between the buildings, do you put an RFP out for that? Is that a contract out to the public?

Mr. Glenn Duncan: Yes. All of our projects, with very, very rare exceptions—for example, if it were an emergency, we wouldn't go out for a public advertisement; we would call in three or four contractors and have them bid.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Okay.

Mr. Glenn Duncan: But by and large, all projects go out for public advertisement on something called the MERX system, which is a—

Mr. Hec Clouthier: I'm aware of it, yes.

Mr. Glenn Duncan: What we do is engage, through competitive proposal, consulting engineers or architects to prepare fully documented plans and specifications. Those are then put out for bid. The various contractors bid, and then we select the lowest bid price.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: So then, really, speaking to Miss Grey's suggestion or concern—and I do share it with her—about the cost overruns, if it's on the MERX system, theoretically there should not be any cost overruns. If there are any cost overruns, they would be absorbed by the individual contractor. Am I right in saying that?

• 1300

Mr. Glenn Duncan: You're correct. In some of our projects we have a lump sum. Some are based on quantity. So, for example, if we're doing rock excavation it will be based on so many dollars per cubic metre, and then, depending on what the actual quantity is, that's what the contract would provide for.

The other thing you can have is if there is a change in the conditions, for example, when you're dealing with heritage buildings, oftentimes.... I'll give you a classic example. When we were doing the south façade project, the entrance way to the Senate was leaning badly. When we excavated to do the repairs to the foundation, we discovered there was no foundation. That was quite a surprise. So in that particular instance we asked the contractor to submit us a time and materials cost to do that extra work. But that's not a cost overrun per se; that's a change in the nature of the work.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: With regard to the library and the buildings that have some historical significance, would those people be hired exclusively from the public works department and that's where the cost overrun could come in? It's cost plus, or again, is it subcontracted out?

Mr. Glenn Duncan: It's contracted, and the contractors, of course, have their subcontractors. So it's all built in to be a lump sum contract, which is what the government pays for the work to be done. If the contractor runs into difficulties because of their management or whatever, they have to absorb those costs.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Also, would there be punitive damages if they don't come in on time?

Mr. Glenn Duncan: By and large, we don't have that in our contracts. I think it's only been in rare circumstances when we have damages, because you have to be able to demonstrate those damages and sometimes that's quite difficult to do.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Coming from the field of business, the petitio principii or the question that begs an answer is, why wouldn't you?

I would like to speak to Chiarelli and Mayor Jim Watson about the bridge, because coming from the field of business, that is what concerns me more than anything. When am I supposed to get this contract done? If I do not have it completed and done to the satisfaction of the RFP at this particular date, I'm going to be hit with punitive damages. It also gives me a deadline, and if I can finish that work prior to that, it's saving me money, especially on labour costs. I find it a little strange that perhaps there wouldn't be a deadline put in there and some punitive action if they don't make the time deadline.

Far be it from me to be agreeing with Miss Grey all the time on this, but it boggles my mind why some of this work wouldn't be completed sooner than later. I believe if there were a deadline—and I know, coming from the field of business, that when I see a deadline, I make sure I'm under it. But it seems in government planning, because there doesn't seem to be anything punitive in not completing the work on time, it just drags on and on. It's almost like, I hate to say it, a make-work project.

I'm a neophyte politician so maybe I'm looking at this from a slightly different perspective, but it certainly does irk me when I see things being done a second and third time. I'm just wondering what is going on.

Mr. Glenn Duncan: I have only a casual knowledge of the work on Wellington Street. As I said, we do interact with the people who are responsible for those projects.

My understanding is that the work was scheduled to be done over three phases. In order to keep the traffic circulation reasonable, they divided the work along Wellington Street into three different pieces of work. The Plaza Bridge was another piece that was separate and apart. My understanding is that the actual, original schedules are being met in terms of when each of those phases is to be finished.

One could ask why the region didn't just do it in one phase. I really don't know the answer to that. I suspect it had to do with—

Mr. Hec Clouthier: I don't want to make a splenetic remark about it, but it is some piece of work.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): Thank you, Mr. Clouthier.

• 1305

Senator Grafstein, then Mr. Mayfield.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: Having been critical, let me now be congratulatory. I am a heavy user of the parliamentary library. I use it as my research facility. It is my sole research facility. I shouldn't say my sole; other than myself, I share the research with them. I must say the service has been fantastic and timely.

My concern is, since I so heavily depend on the parliamentary library as a research facility, and a timely one, in the sense that if something comes up in the afternoon and I go there at 12 noon, by 1 or 2 o'clock in the afternoon I'll have enough material at least to satisfy myself as to whether or not I want to pursue a particular course of conduct....

I heard reference to the fact that there will be a service centre within the confines of Parliament Hill while the transition is made. Will there be any delay in the type of service we've received, bearing in mind that there will be a physical space differential between the Hill and the new resource? Are efforts going to be made to ensure that there is almost the same level of service, which I say has been, for me at least, extraordinary and satisfactory?

Mr. Richard Paré: The objective we have is to minimize those delays. This is what we would like to do to maintain the same quality of service we are providing now. This is something we have proposed and suggested to our staff as a challenge to meet in the next couple of years. This is what we plan to do.

This is really challenging. As you said, we don't know all the.... But we believe we can do it. We may use the fax machine more than we do now, to be able to send documents from one place to another place very quickly. Of course if it's a book of 200 pages, that will be difficult, but we may have messengers who will carry the books from one place to another place very quickly.

We know this is very challenging for us, but we will do our best, and the major objective is to maintain the same quality of service.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: I welcome those assurances. For those of us who rely upon you, it's essential for our work.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): Thank you, Senator Grafstein.

Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you, Senator.

I apologize for doing this in such a piecemeal way, but I find the burden of spending $30 billion in an evening to be fairly heavy.

What I want to mention though is that in the public accounts committee, on which I also sit, the Auditor General makes regular and frequent comments. One of the comments he makes is on what he calls the culture of spending to the budget rather than spending value for dollar. He's made some comments about having this culture within Treasury Board and Public Works changed to reflect value for dollar.

I would like to hear your comments—and perhaps this would be to Mr. Duncan and Ms. Soper—about what generally is your attitude, what your focus is on this. Would you agree with the Auditor General that simply because the heavy thinkers have decided this is what the budget should be, perhaps that should be the outside limit and you work on best value for dollar within those parameters?

Mr. Glenn Duncan: We're delighted when the tender prices come in below what the estimates were. That's what we are always striving to do—to look for ways to do things more efficiently.

One of the things we try to do is look not only at what the costs of the project are but at what costs the users of the facility are going to have to endure. In other words, we look at the large amount of costs. So, for example, if you build a piece of equipment but the maintenance of that equipment is such that you're spending more and more money over the year or you don't have the right kind of energy efficiency in your buildings and you're spending a lot of money.... In the way we do our work, we're looking at the life cycle cost of that.

• 1310

We're constantly making those kinds of adjustments to look at the cost to the users of the facility. Can they operate more efficiently by having the building operate in a different way? What are the costs of the building in terms of maintenance, heating, and other expenditures? We try to put that all together and make good economic decisions from the perspective of what the overall cost is going to be for that kind of a facility and to the users of that kind of a facility over its lifetime.

Does that respond to your question?

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I guess it does, in part.

I'm concerned that sometimes a budget of, say, $1 million is thought of as a licence to spend $1 million, and if the project perhaps could have been done using less time and less money, there's often a will to use the money anyway. I wonder if you're looking at means to economize.

There's one thing I want to say very clearly. I understand that we're talking about a national treasure, and I'm not talking about diminishing the value of that treasure by making short cuts or reducing funding that would do that. But within that, it's easy to spend money because it's there, when that money might not necessarily need to be spent.

We all know what it's like around here at the end of the year when the budget hasn't been used up. In January you have to economize so that you reach the end of the year, and then in February you have to spend like the dickens to get it all spent. That's the kind of culture I'm speaking against right now.

Mr. Glenn Duncan: I would say the challenge for the team at Public Works and Government Services Canada is that we really have what I'll refer to as a pressure or demand for work that far exceeds the amount of money we have available.

In other words, if we fixed everything that needed to be fixed and repaired everything that needed to be repaired, we'd need a lot more money than we currently have. So the challenge for us is to try to make the dollars we do have available go as far as they can in terms of making the necessary repairs and upgrades to the Parliament Buildings, the ones that are most critical and must be done.

So that's really our challenge. It's not to spend more money than we have; it's to make the money we have go as far as it can to do as much work as we can with those dollars that are available.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I'll look forward to reading the Auditor General's report on how you accomplish that.

Mr. Glenn Duncan: Okay.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you very much.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): Does anybody else have questions?

Mr. Hec Clouthier: I have one short intervention, Senator.

I don't know about the logistics of contracting in this particular field, but I come from the lumbering business and I have had RFPs through the Canadian government for crown timber. What really irked me—and once again I'm agreeing with Mr. Mayfield—is here's what they do, in the government, anyway, with contracting out the timbering: They would specify how much they are willing to pay.

One of the great conundrums, then, that the government is facing is that we know from the private business exactly what they're willing to pay. So we could have five or six lumber companies in my particular region all submit bids, but we all know exactly from their RFP what they expect, so we're all pushing the limit, whereas if I had gone and bid on a lumbering contract for private business, whether it's E.B. Eddy or MacMillan Bloedel, they don't tell me anything about the figure.

I and other lumber companies would have to submit the bid once we've sat down, ourselves, with our accountants, and figured it out. Lo and behold, many, many times, the price is much less than say the government one would have been. I know I've done contracts with both, maybe 30 miles apart, or 35 kilometres apart.

I don't know if that's the way it goes here, but that's one of the difficulties I've found with the government, because they will throw the figure out there.

Now, in private business, I'd say, well, this is the best thing that ever happened to me, because I already know what they're willing to pay and so do the other private firms who are bidding on any contract.

What I'm saying to you, and perhaps in a more expansive way to the government, is that I believe this is not a good business policy, to actually plant in people's minds, such as myself, with private businesses, what we're willing to pay, because usually the name of the game is get the money and make as much as you can. When I know exactly what they're willing to pay, I'm pushing their limit. I'm not going about it in probably the best business sense, because I play with their figures and not my own.

That's just a comment.

• 1315

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): Thank you, Mr. Clouthier, for demonstrating why we taxpayers pay a little more taxes than we should.

Senator Corbin.

Senator Eymard Corbin: I'd like a clarification, if I may, on the chart “Parliamentary Precinct”, the one with all the black squares. You have between the Centre Block and the East Block an item called “CEBE 2002-2005 Construction”.

What is CEBE? Is it an enclosure for material?

Mr. Glenn Duncan: Basically what we're faced with is that from the Senate's list of requirements there are certain kinds of spaces and things they would like to see developed over the course of this decade. We just identified a potential facility that maybe could be located underground in that area, similar to the Centre Block underground services. It would be for storage space and that type of thing.

Senator Eymard Corbin: Thank you.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): This is also known as SBUS rather than CBUS?

Mr. Glenn Duncan: I think we called it the Centre East Block expansion or extension.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): I'd like to express a little beef, since I'm leaving, about the Auditor General. Because he hounds everyone, he has created the necessity for paper trails. You can't get a public servant to move unless he has covered his behind with sufficient receipts and vouchers to satisfy the Auditor General. That adds an awful lot to the cost of everything in government.

As well, since I've been here in Ottawa, since 1972, the Auditor General's department has grown the fastest, and their mass of salary and individual salaries have grown the fastest, of any other department in Ottawa.

Mr. Paré.

Mr. Richard Paré: This is just a comment, Senator.

You were asking before what kind of support the committee can provide to the library. I think we need the support of the committee to have access to a small space in the Centre Block to set up a small branch to ensure that we maintain the quality of service we can provide to the members and senators. This has not been settled yet.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): How do you propose we do that? Have you found the space?

Mr. Richard Paré: No.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): Well, could you identify a space, and then tell the committee? The members of the committee can then tell their caucuses and lobby and whatever to get you your space.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: It should be a convenient space, accessible to both chambers.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): Mr. Finlay, please, then you, Madam Grey.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Corbin, I thank you for your question, because I too had been puzzling over what CEBE was. I'm not quite sure; on this lovely chart those cross-hatched areas seem to cover under the ground, on the ground, and above the ground. It could be a building, it could be a parking lot, or it could be a service area.

I want to ask another question. There's a heavy purple line from the Supreme Court to the extreme north end of the West Block that says, “East Tunnel Repair”. Does that mean there's a tunnel there now? I presume it would be a service tunnel. It's not a walking tunnel for anyone.

Mr. Glenn Duncan: It's a steam tunnel. It runs from the Cliff Street heating plant, and it's used to heat and cool the buildings on the Hill. It was constructed quite a number of years ago. It's in rather a bad state and needs to be repaired.

Mr. John Finlay: I see. I take it the other deep purple line going down the east side of the West Block has something to do with the CBUS construction, or is that a steam tunnel as well?

Mr. Glenn Duncan: That's a duct bank that carries high-voltage electrical cables and communications cables.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): Does anyone else have a comment?

Madam Grey.

Miss Deborah Grey: I forgot what I was going to ask, actually.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): All right.

Honourable members and senators, the time has come for me to thank you. You have made this chairmanship very pleasant for me. I once chaired a committee of fellow senators and found that very unpleasant. You have been model boys and girls, and I take my leave of you with gratitude.

• 1320

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.)): I want to say a few words.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): Order. Hey, hey, hey! He's going to say something nice about me. Sit down and suffer.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: I hope this takes a long time.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi): Just a few minutes.

Members, most of you know that Senator Gigantès is retiring. This is his last meeting with us as joint chair for the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament.

I'd like to thank you, Senator Gigantès. I have gained valuable experience from you. Best of luck on your retirement, and may God bless you.

Have a safe and enjoyable summer recess, all of you.

Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Joint Chairman (Senator Philippe Gigantès): Thank you.

We are adjourned.