Parliamentary privileges

by Katie Daniel | July 6, 2017 3:24 pm

[1]

By Brian Burton
When you come to Parliament on your first day, you wonder how you ever got here. After that, you wonder how the other 263 members got here,” said John Diefenbaker while addressing the Canadian speaker’s forum, the Empire Club, during the Canadian flag debate in 1967.

Diefenbaker—along with Lester Pearson, Canada’s 21^st prime minister—compared the Parliament Buildings to an ancient family mansion that has been lived in for centuries and must be maintained and preserved for future generations at any cost. The ongoing remediation on Parliament Hill reflects a similar sentiment expressed during the same speech—that the Parliament Buildings must “constantly evolve in order to meet the needs of the modern world” while remaining “changeless in … concept and tradition.”

In the time it takes to read this article, some of the more than 200 skilled masons currently working on rehabilitating Canada’s Parliament Buildings will have time to rake out and repoint another kilometre of mortar and complete another ‘Dutchman repair,’ or specialized stone indent repair, on these enduring Canadian landmarks.

[2]

A Canada with no capital
The original design and construction of Canada’s Parliament Buildings were uniquely Canadian undertakings in all respects. Work on this remarkable group of buildings, which began as the ‘Provincial Buildings Project,’ did not proceed without its share of conflicts, heated debates, and controversies, as the official record clearly shows.

As the Dominion of Canada approached the end of 1867, it had no permanent capital, and its parliamentary government had no fixed home. Acting on local advice, Queen Victoria exercised ‘royal prerogative’ and solved these problems by naming Ottawa as the seat of government. Officials moved quickly thereafter to requisition funds, hire architects, award contracts, and break ground after clearing off the structures remaining on what was known locally as ‘Barracks Hill.’ Overlooking the Chaudière Rapids on the Ottawa River—one of the gateways to the continent when canoes were the primary mode of transport—this area had previously served well as the site offices for the construction of the Rideau Canal under the direction of Colonel John By from 1826 to 1831.

A selection committee composed of government employees visited two other sites in addition to Barracks Hill, which, at the time of the visit in May 1859, still contained the Rideau Canal site’s buildings and infrastructure. Although there were no specific or formal requirements for the site selection, Ottawa, or Bytown as it was then known, had a relatively small population, and finding sufficient space for the proposed buildings did not present a problem. Little is known about the committee’s discussions regarding comparisons between Barracks Hill and the other two sites, but there was general agreement the former was well-suited for the project.

With the location of the capital finally established after moving it from one city to another for decades, workers were soon removing the small, self-contained village left behind by the Rideau Canal ‘sappers and miners.’ That same month, a competition was launched to find architects for the Parliament Buildings, with a deadline of August 1, 1859. Although no specific theme was specified in the design competition announcement, Public Works did suggest the buildings feature hammer-dressed masonry, materials from the surrounding area, neatly pointed features, and a plain, substantial style.

These suggestions were intended to provide direction to those interested in the advertisement for anonymous submissions. They also indicated the government’s intention to construct buildings with a focus on austerity, simplicity, and use of local materials.

[3]

Open competitions of this nature were intended to encourage innovation and excellence, and were common for government buildings at the time. Although the government did not specifically indicate any preferences for architectural influence or character, its request for a ‘substantial’ style implies, to a certain degree, the need for quality and attention to detail. Other government and legislative buildings constructed in Ontario and Manitoba, as well as several religious and judicial buildings, were similar in their predominant use of locally available natural stone and other basic construction materials.

Design submissions were evaluated in accordance with an adjudication system awarding points in 10 different categories, including:

• fitness of plan/interior arrangements;
• economy of construction, warming, ventilation, and lighting;
• adaptation to local materials, site, and climate;
• beauty of design; and
• safety against fire.

Although some official sources say 32 design concepts were submitted, other references suggest the total numbered more than 200. It is believed at least some of the design formulations were similar in some respects to buildings constructed in Québec City and Toronto around the same time. (Several government employees responsible for the construction of these buildings responded to official enquiries regarding the methodology used to determine their approximate cost estimates. This estimating methodology held some similarities to the Québec and Toronto buildings mentioned.)

In the end, plans from two different architectural firms were chosen and approved by Canada’s Governor General at the time, Sir Edmund Head. The Gothic Revival-style drawings of Thomas Fuller and Chilion Jones were used for the Centre Block and the Library, while those of Thomas Stent and Augustus Laver—similar in style to the first set—were employed for the East and West Blocks.

Researchers have been unable to clearly identify a statement of accommodation set forth for the design of the buildings. A statement or design guideline of this nature, if prepared today, would likely outline the need for edifices supporting the function and administration of our parliamentary political process.

[4]

The Parliamentary Precinct and the buildings contained within have succeeded in doing the above to an exceptional degree. Although they were “constructed with great haste,” they demonstrate remarkable quality, close attention to detail, and excellent craftsmanship. (To obtain this information, the author went to the Library and Archives of Canada and inspected the actual advertisements that were placed in newspapers at the time. This particular quotation comes from Carolyn A. Young’s The Glory of Ottawa: Canada’s First Parliament Buildings, published by McGill-Queen’s University Press in 1995.)

Shortcomings exhibited by the buildings over time can be traced to limitations regarding provision of occupant requirements and expectations, resulting from the country’s remarkable and sustained growth over time. It is also possible some faults may be somewhat more conspicuous given the continuous innovation that has occurred in construction, construction technology, and building science since the buildings were first designed and constructed.

Looking back, it is apparent the buildings were unable, within the prescribed budget, to provide the space and levels of occupant comfort typically taken for granted today. When the buildings were commissioned, they had no telephones or HVAC comparable to typical modern installations. There was only one operator-assisted elevator and, for the most part, little concern for security arrangements.

The Parliament Buildings’ design and initial construction required an exceptional collaborative effort on the part of Canadian construction professionals. This also held true when disaster struck in 1916 and most assets were consumed by fire in the middle of the First World War—professionals had to regroup, rebuilding these structures from scratch. (The Centre Block and Peace Tower were destroyed in a fire February 3, 1916, but the library, East Block, and West Block were spared. The cause has never been accurately determined.)

The design and construction of the Parliament Buildings is extraordinarily well-documented, and the buildings and site continue to evolve and change as time passes—something for which we should be grateful, although we cannot afford to be complacent. It is crucial to continue efforts to rehabilitate and preserve the buildings.

[5]

Natural stone: Past and future
If the ambitious remediation of the Parliament Buildings proceeds as planned, when members of Parliament (MPs) begin thumping their desks during opening session next year, the interior appearance of the House of Commons will be quite different than it was 150 years ago.

The sound will reverberate off the best of the faithfully restored original West Block façade and the state-of-the-art, newly built freestanding steel-and-glass pavilion, supporting a high-tech glazed roof covering the space (once the outdoor courtyard of the West Block).

Occupants will have the opportunity to observe the prodigious results of efforts to rehabilitate the West Block heritage façade up close while the Centre Block is rehabilitated over the next five to seven years. The new—albeit temporary—House of Commons, with its traditional viewers’ gallery, will serve as a transitory home for the elected assembly, media representatives, and numerous public visitors, as will three underground levels of a new visitors’ centre.

Even knowledgeable construction professionals will likely need a guidebook to fully appreciate the significance of the carefully restored natural stone façade, visible at eye level from the viewers’ gallery, and the sophistication of the new triple-glazed, energy-efficient glass and steel components overhead—utilizing, for the most part, high-quality Canadian materials, as the original buildings did.

The design professionals and specification writers working on the original Parliament Buildings devoted considerable attention to site selection and choice of materials, particularly the natural stone and the fenestration elements utilized for the building envelope. This is unsurprising, considering the great amount of space within which these professionals had to work. They anticipated using a great deal of dimensioned stone, envisioning a façade comprising approximately 50,000 masonry units, as well as more than 500 windows and doors/entrance assemblies.

[6]

Microfilm reports stored at the Archives and Library of Canada reveal the buildings came very close to being fabricated with the same bland, grey limestone used for the canal. However, the site selection committee noticed some Nepean sandstone lying about Barracks Hill, and requested an evaluation of this new material. After a technical review and calculation of what costs, if any, would be involved in building with this attractive stone, they chose to use it, making it an important element of these structures’ distinctive appearance.

In spite of the slight increase this choice caused in raw material and transportation costs, the readily available sandstone was the committee’s first choice. The stone was tested and evaluated by government geologists, who—along with the project’s design professionals—determined its transportation costs, colour, texture, and durability would be appropriate for the buildings.

This cream-coloured sandstone of the Potsdam formation was obtained from Nepean, approximately 16 km (10 mi) from Ottawa, and finished onsite in a stone-processing facility. Although samples of the stone in its natural formation can still be seen near present-day Kanata, the quarry itself closed in the 1960s. At the height of the Parliament Buildings’ construction (following the fire of 1916 in the Centre Block on Parliament Hill), the demand for stone was such that a total of seven quarries were required to supply sufficient tonnage.

When the buildings were constructed, using local stone for prominent government and religious buildings was common practice, because it promoted environmentally sustainable construction and also ensured the structures remained locally distinctive. For example, the Alberta and British Columbia Legislative Buildings both used Vancouver Island granite. Similarly, the Manitoba and Saskatchewan Legislative Buildings were constructed with Tyndall stone quarried at nearby Garson, Man. The Ontario Legislative Building complex was fabricated in 1886 using pink sandstone quarried from Orangeville, Ont., and the Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick Legislative Buildings also employed natural stone from nearby quarries.

The use of readily available local stone has numerous benefits; in addition to legislative structures, the material has been employed for many prominent commercial and institutional buildings in the past. As well as providing localized continuity and economic benefits for surrounding communities, locally available natural stone provides cost and logistic benefits for large-scale construction projects. Its durability, appearance, and versatility often makes it the material of choice, as was the case with the Parliament Buildings—even for the slate roof.

[7]

Focus on fenestration
Fenestration components were the focus of a great deal of attention by the Parliament Buildings’ designers, and are emphasized in some areas by natural stone accents such as distinctive ‘rubble’ stone treatments. With this design strategy, rough, unhewn, multicoloured building stone is set with great care in mortar, drawing the viewer’s attention to windows and doors and adding to well-defined balance to the building frontage.

The Parliament Buildings’ rows of symmetrical dormer windows—each of which originally had its own attractive slate roofcovering—and regular, well-portioned rows of pointed arch windows are among the architectural elements that make these buildings so recognizable and distinctive.

The original specifications for the structures’ windows, doors, and glazing were precise and very detailed. The material composition and operational requirements for all components were spelled out in concise terms, right down to the solid-brass fittings, cast-iron pulleys, and 63-mm (2 ½-in.), polished weathered-oak sills.

The original design documents (available in microfilm at the Library and Archives of Canada) detailed each and every component requirement and unit cost. Extracted from a document entitled Contract, Specifications, and Schedule of Prices of Departmental Buildings; Canada West; CW, dated 1859, one example reads:

Glazier; All windows to be fitted with the best British 32-ounce sheet glass/Laid in putty/Bradded and back-puttied as shewn. The outer and winter sashes to be similarly glazed with German sheet glass. Any windows in water closets or areas having borrowed light are to be glazed in obscured glass; All window frames and sashes to receive two coats of best quality paint and twice varnished.

Although the primary function of the building envelope (i.e. controlling movement of air, heat, radiation, and moisture) is vital, the façade must also provide strength and durability, as well as access and egress. In the Parliament Buildings, the façade also offers texture, definition, and architectural distinction.

This is accomplished in part by careful stone selection, incorporating more than 40,000 façade masonry units and stonework in many locations around windows and doors. More than 300 distinctive carvings and gargoyles, carefully sculpted in appealing Wallace sandstone, also bring the façade to life.

Although the actual component and material quantities are approximations—as the actual as-built construction often varied from drawings and construction documentation—the interior design features include more than 1200 interior doors and 6 ha (15 acres) of lathe and plaster.

[8]

Approach to heritage preservation
In a famous letter from 1864, George Brown wrote Sir John A. McDonald proclaiming “the [Parliament] Buildings are magnificent; the style, extent, site, and workmanship are all surpassingly fine. But they are 500 years in advance of their time… To say the truth, there is nothing in London, Paris, or Washington approaching to it.”

The ongoing rehabilitation is also highly innovative. Both projects represent the largest of their kind for the time, with no comparable model or prototype on which to base the initiative.

The restoration project involves:

• applying currently accepted industry standards for the conservation of historic buildings and sites;
• studying each component to establish an appreciative understanding of heritage values and elements;
• cataloguing, photographing, and numbering each component; and
• carefully restoring and placing them back into the original heritage ‘fabric.’

Intended to match the stone types in the original façade, specific stone types employed in the restored façade included:

• Berea (buff sandstone) for decorative and sculptural stones, as well as for quoins and window dressings;
• Nepean (also buff sandstone) for all rubble, jump and sneck, and scotch bond work (a term referring to the interlocking of brickwork courses);
• Potsdam (red sandstone) for accent stones around arches and in polygonal work;
• grey limestone for some steps and thresholds;
• Stanstead (salt-and-pepper granite) for steps; and
• a white-marble cornerstone from Québec.

The ongoing rehabilitation of the West Block façade also utilizes the same kind of tools today as those used by the original masons, according to Bobby Watt, president of RJW-Gem Campbell Stonemasons Inc., the masonry contractor on the project.

“The techniques and tools employed on this project haven’t changed a great deal over the centuries,” says Watt. “With the exception, perhaps, of laser-cleaning, which is certainly a new, effective, and innovative restoration technique.”

Laser-cleaning involves using pulses of light to clean stone or other elements of the building envelope without direct contact. This process overcomes some of the limitations common with conventional abrasive or chemical cleaning methods, and offers mobility, localization, and the ability for cleaning technicians to view and monitor progress. It also produces less waste and is less disruptive than traditional methods.

The remediation of the West Block is one of several restoration phases planned over the next decade in the Parliamentary Precinct; started in 2011, it will involve removal of hazardous substances, structural upgrades, and restoration of exterior masonry and fenestration components. In addition to replacement of HVAC equipment, the project will also include upgrades to IT equipment, media facilities, and various daylighting, interior lighting, security, and public and occupant access features.

Conclusion
For Canadians, the Parliament Buildings are much more than “a noble Gothic pile on the Hill,” as they were called by Prime Minister Robert Borden when reconstruction of the Centre Block started. The renovation project reflects his prediction that “an even grander Gothic pile will rise phoenix-like from the ashes.”

Most of the buildings contained in the Parliamentary Precinct are exceptional due to their symbolic and physical importance to Canadian self-government, educational and cultural value, and distinctive architectural importance, as well as their Canadian content. This is not to mention the Precinct’s demonstrated ability to evolve and adapt over time. The Parliament Buildings are a remarkable example of Canadian skill and determination—this was so 150 years ago, and still holds true today.

 

Brian Burton has written several feature articles for Construction Canada, covering topics ranging from ‘future-proofing’ buildings to the revitalization of Maple Leaf Gardens. He is a Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) Certified Construction Inspector, and has published more than 300 articles in Canadian, U.S., and international publications. Burton served on the technical committee that prepared CSA’s new certification program for fenestration installation technicians, and is a member of the International Network for Traditional Building, Architecture, and Urbanism (INTBAU) and Association for Preservation Technology (APT). He also publishes articles on his site. Burton can be reached via e-mail at blueblade49@gmail.com[9].

Source URL: https://www.constructioncanada.net/parliamentary-privileges-2/

---