Prepared for:
Public Services and Procurement Canada
Prepared by:
EKOS Research Associates Inc.
November 21, 2016
PWGSC Contract: #EP771-170143
POR Registration: POR-012-16
Contract Award Date: 15/06/2016
Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français
To obtain more information on this report please e-mail
TPSGC.Questions-Questions.PWGSC@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca
Appendix A: Survey Instrument (English)
Appendix B: Sample Characteristics
Appendix C: Reviewed Comments
Appendix D: Details of Top 3 Ranking and Single Score Calculation
This certification is to be submitted with the final report submitted to the Project Authority.
I hereby certify as Senior Office of EKOS Research Associates Inc. that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research. Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leader.
Signed:
Susan Galley, Senior Vice President
EKOS Research Associates Inc.
The remarkable heritage building at 100 Wellington Street in Ottawa has a long and celebrated history. Built in the 1930s and located directly opposite Parliament Hill, 100 Wellington was the Embassy of the United States of America. In 1997 the Government of Canada acquired the property from the U.S. Government and the building was vacated in 1998.
The Government is committed to finding a public use for this important building and creating a space that is meaningful for Canadians and visitors alike. Over the summer of 2016, public consultations on the future of 100 Wellington were undertaken, including a stakeholder workshop, a media tour, a series of open houses, and a public information forum where a three-week, on-line bilingual public opinion survey was launched. Input from the public consultations will provide important information as the Government of Canada assesses options and makes a decision on the future use of 100 Wellington.
The public opinion study included two surveys using the same questionnaire: (1) an open survey that allowed all interested Canadians and international visitors to participate, and (2) a random, nationally representative survey to understand the broader Canadian landscape and provide a point of comparison for the open survey results. Between August 18 and September 9, 2016 a total of 7,137 individuals completed the survey: 5,557 through the open survey (including 4,983 Canadians and 574 international respondents) and 1,580 through the representative survey.
At the beginning of the survey, respondents were asked to consider the importance of:
Results highlight the strong value that Canadians and those visiting the Parliamentary Precinct place on these matters. The vast majority (90 per cent or more) in the open survey (both Canadians and international respondents) rated each as important. Results are similar in the representative survey with 80 per cent or more indicating that these matters are important.
Respondents were then presented with a list of six possible public uses for a revitalized 100 Wellington and asked to rate their “like” or “dislike” for each one. Respondents were provided an opportunity to comment on each of the uses and to provide suggestions of their own for the future use of 100 Wellington. In the open survey, Gallery is seen as the most appealing, with 57 per cent liking the idea. Canada House also has appeal (46 per cent), while the other options have limited appeal. From the reviewed Gallery comments, two in three supporting a Gallery commented on a “portrait” gallery specifically, mentioning longstanding promises for a National Portrait Gallery, and a need to finally move on this idea.
In the representative survey and among international respondents, Canada House clearly has the widest appeal, with six in ten or more indicating they like this idea. Museum and/or Indigenous Cultural Centre are second or third options. By comparison, a Gallery has less support, with only 38 per cent of the representative survey and 43 per cent of the international respondents expressing support for this idea.
Many who like these options comment about the appeal and value of a Canada House, Museum or Indigenous Cultural Centre. On the other hand, many in the open survey raise concerns about the limited available space for a museum at 100 Wellington, and the number of museums already in the region. Concerns about an Indigenous Cultural Centre at 100 Wellington point to the inappropriateness of the location and style of architecture for this purpose, saying that other more suitable options exist for such a use.
Support for a Gallery in the open survey is heavily concentrated among Canadians 55 years of age or older. Eight in ten of those 65 or older like the idea of a Gallery, but only a third of those under 25 and half of those 25 to 54 say the same. The reverse is true for support for Canada House, a Museum and Indigenous Cultural Centre which have considerably strong support among those under 55, particularly those under 35.
Respondents were asked to rank their top three preferences from the list of potential uses. The results were considered in two ways: (1) first choice results, and (2) top three choices weighted and combined into a single score.
The first choice results show that Gallery is the top choice for respondents in the open survey, whereas Canada House is the top choice in the representative survey. Canada House and Indigenous Cultural Centre are virtually tied as the first choice among international respondents.
The top three choices combined score was created for each use based on the percentages of respondents selecting it as their top three choices. Relatively more weight was given to a first choice selection, less weight to a second choice selection, and least weight to a third choice selection. The results show that:
Overall, results show that Canada House clearly has the widest appeal across all segments with the exception of Canadians 55 years or older who responded to the open survey. It is the first choice among:
Gallery is the preferred use among the 55 or older segment in the open survey. It is the least preferred option, however, among those in the representative survey and international respondents, and is not a clear preference among those under 55 in the open survey.
Therefore, Canada House is seen as a strong first or second choice across all segments responding to the survey. While a Gallery enjoys significant support, it is singularly concentrated among those 55 or older responding to the open survey.
The total expenditure for the public opinion research project is $42,835.48 (including Harmonized Sales Tax (HST)).
Supplier Name: EKOS Research Associates
Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) Contract #EP771-1770143
Contract Award Date: June 15, 2016
To obtain more information on this study, please e-mail
TPSGC.Questions-Questions.PWGSC@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca
The Government of Canada is looking to renew and repurpose 100 Wellington Street in Ottawa-a building that is important for its history, architecture, location and potential. The Government is committed to finding a public use with a national focus for this heritage building and is seeking input from Canadians on a range of potential uses.
100 Wellington was constructed in 1931-1932 by the United States government as the first in a series of purpose-built embassies around the world. As the first foreign mission in Ottawa it became a benchmark in Canada’s gradual assumption of sovereignty over foreign affairs and its strategic location opposite Parliament Hill was a strong statement about the growing importance of the U.S.-Canada relationship. This building is one of the finest examples of Beaux-Arts buildings in the country and it was designated a Classified Federal Heritage Building in 1985. In 1997, the Government of Canada acquired 100 Wellington when the U.S. embassy moved to its current location on Sussex Drive. The building has remained vacant since 1998.
The Government of Canada is now committed to finding a public use for this important building and creating a space that is meaningful for Canadians and international visitors alike. But before making any decisions, the Government wanted to hear from Canadians to obtain their views and input on the future use of this important building. The results of the public consultation will provide important information as the Government of Canada assesses options and comes to a decision on the future use of this building.
Public consultation on the future of 100 Wellington was undertaken during the summer of 2016 and included five elements:
The 10-minute public opinion survey was launched at the information forum on August 18 and was actively promoted to Canadians throughout the survey period by Public Service and Procurement Canada (PSPC) through their website, via print and broadcast media, social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and LinkedIn), as well as direct correspondence with interest groups in the National Capital Region and across the country. During the three-week survey period, PSPC staff and student volunteers encouraged tourists and visitors waiting in line for tickets to Parliament Hill to complete the survey on computer tablets.
The methodology for this study included two online surveys using the same questionnaire:
Survey questions were grouped into five areas:
The full survey is included in Appendix A.
Following a test of the questionnaire, a total of 7,137 individuals completed the online survey between August 18 and September 9, 2016: 5,557 through the open survey (including 4,983 Canadians and 574 international respondents) and 1,580 through the representative survey.
Respondents to the online open survey are 5,557 individuals (16 years of age and older) who were aware of the survey and motivated to participate in the future of 100 Wellington. Because they self-selected and are not random (i.e., a non-probabilistic sample), the survey is not considered to be representative of the Canadian population overall and no margin of error can be applied to the results. Quality control steps were taken in a review of the results – including a review of IP addresses, examination of combinations of demographic patterns and speeding through questionnaires – to ensure, to the extent possible, that there was not inappropriate use of multiple entries associated with individual respondents in the open survey. The online open survey includes 574 international respondents, capturing the perspective of international visitors to the region, providing valuable input for the future of 100 Wellington.
As a comparison to the open survey, a nationally representative online survey was also conducted of 1,580 randomly selected Canadians 16 years of age and older. The representative survey was launched late in August, with a participation rate of 21.6 per centFootnote 1, which is typical for this type of survey. The sample source used was the EKOS Probit panel, a pool of pre-screened respondents. These panel members are recruited through random selection of households rather than opt-in recruitment. This same process is used for to generate random samples for custom telephone surveys, and is considered to offer good coverage of the Canadian population. The sample is therefore considered to be probabilistic and margin or error can be applied. This survey sample size yields a level of precision of up to +/-2.4 per cent, 19 times out of 20, for the sample overall and +/- 7 to 11 per cent for most sub-groups isolated in the analysis (e.g., age, region). This sample provides a useful snapshot of the views of the “average Canadian” by which to compare the views of those most interested in 100 Wellington who responded in the open survey.
Survey results were examined overall for each of the three survey segments – representative, open (Canadian) and open (international respondents) – followed by an examination of differences in results within key sub-groups of interest (e.g., region, age) within the two larger survey samples. Results first examine percentages of those who agree (or disagree) with three questions related to the Parliamentary Precinct more broadly. This is followed by a review of percentages of respondents rating their “like” or “dislike” for six uses for 100 Wellington presented in the survey. Relative ranking of these same six uses, based on the percentage selecting each as their first choice are subsequently analyzed. Finally, a score was generated for each proposed use based on percentages of respondents selecting it as their top three choice. The score assigned relatively more weight to a first choice selection, less weight to a second choice selection, and least weight to a third choice selection. This type of indexing is applied as an acceptable practice for bringing together multiple data points to ease comparison across different survey samples or sub-groups within a survey.
The results of the representative survey are presented for all Canadians, combining those living inside as well as outside the National Capital Region (NCR). In order to combine the results in this way, the contribution from NCR residents is adjusted to reflect the normal concentration of the NCR in the population of Canada. Where there are substantive differences in results between those living inside and outside the NCR they are highlighted in the text.
Results from the open survey are also presented for the total 4,983 Canadians who participated. Results for those residing inside and outside of the NCR (which are roughly half and half) were simply combined as there is no way to accurately weight the open responses (i.e., population unknown).
Results are presented separately for international respondents who completed the open survey. These respondents were randomly selected on-site (along Wellington Street) by the PSPC volunteers and students.
Respondents were given an opportunity to provide comments on each of the six potential uses for 100 Wellington. Over 7,100 comments were submitted on the six potential uses, and an additional 1,612 comments received suggesting other ideas for the use of 100 Wellington. Given the number of comments submitted, a random sample of 10 per cent of respondents in the open survey and 25 per centFootnote 2 in the smaller representative sample were selected for review of any comments provided. Based on analysis, the comments were categorized into four to six broad themes of responses associated with each proposed use.
Comments for each use are discussed in Section 3 of this report. Further details of the reviewed comments can be found in Appendix C. All comments have been made available to the client for a deeper review of input.
Sample characteristics were reviewed and compared for Canadians responding to the open survey, international respondents who completed the open survey, and Canadians in the representative survey. Region, age, gender, and education were examined across all three. Responses to the open survey were also reviewed in terms of how respondents received or became aware of the survey, whether they have a special interest in 100 Wellington, and the number of years since visiting the NCR (if they live outside the area).
Details of the sample characteristics are presented in Appendix B. The following findings provide a snapshot of the survey respondents.
Image Description of "Regional Distribution"
Image Description of "Where They Live"
Image Description of "Education"
At the start of the survey, to help contextualize questions related specifically to 100 Wellington, respondents were told:
“For the past decade, the Parliamentary Precinct Branch has been implementing a coordinated, long-term plan to rehabilitate the Parliament Buildings and other buildings within the Parliamentary Precinct”.
On a scale of one to five, with 1 being “not very important” and 5 being “very important”, respondents were asked to consider the importance of the symbolism of the Parliament Buildings and their rehabilitation, and whether the government should make the Precinct a model for environmental sustainability. The following table illustrates the percentage of responses that ranked these matters as important (i.e. selected 4 or 5):
| Open Survey (n=4,983) |
Representative Survey (n=1,580) |
International Respondents (n=574) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Important (4-5) | |||
| How important are the Parliament Buildings as a symbol of national identity? | 95% | 83% | 94% |
| How important is it to preserve and rehabilitate the heritage buildings and grounds of the Parliamentary Precinct for future generations of Canadians? | 96% | 84% | 95% |
| How important is it to that the Government of Canada takes a leadership role in making the Precinct a model for environmental sustainability? | 89% | 80% | 89% |
Overall, results highlight the strong value that Canadians and international respondents place on the Parliamentary Precinct. The vast majority of individuals (i.e., 90 per cent or more) responding to the open survey rated each of the three as important.
Results are also strong in the representative survey, where 80 per cent or more indicated the importance of these matters. Within the representative survey, residents of the National Capital Region consistently placed comparatively greater importance on each of the three than other Canadians (e.g., 94 per cent, 93 per cent, 84 per cent, respectively).
Respondents were presented with the following list of six potential public uses for a revitalized 100 Wellington:
These uses were presented in a randomized order and respondents were asked to rate the extent of their like or dislike for each one on a five-point scale from (1) strong dislike to (5) strong like. Respondents were also given the opportunity to comment on each proposed use and asked if they had any specific suggestions.
Respondents were also able to provide their own idea for a possible use for 100 Wellington with the question:
Canada House is clearly the strongest use from the perspective of the representative survey and international respondents, with 60 and 67 per cent saying they like the idea. In contrast, Canada House is liked by only 46 per cent in the open survey, and an even smaller proportion of the residents of the NCR (42 per cent like the idea, but 39 per cent dislike it).
Image Description of "Views on Canada House"
Across the survey samples, 1,068 comments were received about the Canada House use, including 774 in the open survey and 245 in the representative survey. A sample of 209 comments were reviewed in the open survey and just over 120 in the representative survey.
Reviewed comments focused largely on possible themes, including historical achievements in areas such as technology, arts and culture, sports, etc., with many describing a mix of themes. Some (about one in seven) suggest mixed use of the space including a Canada House and other possibilities such as a Gallery or focus on Indigenous themes. Suggested considerations when planning such a space included making it free to the public, consideration for a family-friendly environment, and including a place to rest, eat and purchase refreshments. Themed days were also suggested by a few.
About one in six comments explaining why a Canada House is not the best use of this space, including those who feel that the scope is too broad for the size of the space, and comments pointing to an overlap with existing museums.
A proportion of respondents in the open survey who like the idea of a portrait gallery took the opportunity when commenting on other uses to put forward a portrait gallery as the best use of the space. This represents a small proportion of comments made with regard to most of the proposed uses (less than 10 per cent), including Canada House.
Support is weak for a Capital Information Centre, particularly in the open survey where only 19 per cent like the idea. The response is somewhat more positive in the representative survey where one in three like the idea, but this is still the least positive response to a proposed use. Only international respondents expressed reasonably strong support at 43 per cent. This may be explained, at least in part, by the context in which international respondents were most often approached for the survey: tourists waiting in line for entry to a site.
Image Description of "Views on a Capital Information Centre"
Across the survey samples, 671 comments were received about a Capital Information Centre, including 481 in the open survey and 149 in the representative survey. A sample of 167 comments were reviewed in the open survey and 67 in the representative survey.
Those commenting about an information centre largely explained that this function is already addressed elsewhere and that the building is not sufficiently large for this use. Some also talked about the idea of combining this function under a Canada House.
Results show that support for a Gallery is strong in the open survey with 57 per cent indicating they like the use (rating it a 4 or a 5).
In contrast, a Gallery is liked by only about four in ten international respondents, and support in the representative survey is even weaker. One in four in the open survey and 30 per cent among each of representative and international respondents said they dislike the idea of a Gallery, and in the representative sample, almost as many said they dislike the option as said they like it.
Image Description of "Views on a Gallery"
Across all survey samples, 2,255 comments were received about the Gallery use, including 1,953 in the open survey and 254 in the representative survey. A sample of 420 comments on the Gallery use were reviewed in the open survey and just over 150 in the representative survey. In each case, roughly equal numbers of comments were reviewed among residents living inside and outside the NCR.
Over half of the reviewed comments in the open survey support the idea of a portrait gallery specifically. Some refer to a long standing government “promise” of a portrait gallery, and need to finally move on this idea. A further one in six specify types of portraits for consideration (e.g., Canadian icons/historical themes) or modelling such a Gallery after premiere examples in other countries.
A third to half of the reviewed comments in the representative survey suggested particular themes or mediums (unrelated to a portrait gallery specifically), such as Indigenous art, sculptures, artefacts, paintings, local art, and pieces from the National Archives.
Many also provided reasons why a Gallery is not a use they support at 100 Wellington, typically citing an overlap with the National Gallery of Canada (‘just down the street”).
An Indigenous Cultural Centre is a favoured choice with international respondents, with 61 per cent indicating they like the use. In the representative survey, 43 percent like the use and 33 per cent dislike it, while in the open survey it is the reverse with more people disliking the use (42 per cent) than liking it (32 per cent).
Image Description of "Views on a Indigenous Cultural Centre"
Across the surveys, 1,139 comments were received about the Indigenous Cultural Centre use, including 861 in the open survey and 231 in the representative survey. A sample of 250 comments were reviewed in the open survey and 146 in the representative survey.
Comments typically provide specific themes or suggested focus, including representation of all Indigenous groups, and equal focus on positive and negative aspects of the historical relationship. More than half of reviewed comments in the representative survey and at least a third in the open survey fell into this category.
Many comments in the open survey, and one in four in the representative survey, explain why respondents do not feel positive about this choice. Most explained that they do not see 100 Wellington as an appropriate choice (e.g., architecture and style of building), or that other more suitable locations (e.g., Victoria Island) are available. A few suggested that 100 Wellington should be more inclusive of all Canadians, rather than representing the history and culture of a specific segment of the population.
A few said that the Canadian History Museum already provides a number of high quality Indigenous exhibits. Smaller numbers of respondents described a mix of use of the space, as an Indigenous centre along with other themes, or espouse the importance and value of an Indigenous centre.
Support for this use for 100 Wellington is not as strong as other uses, such as Canada House, Gallery, Museum or Indigenous Cultural Centre. International respondents are the most supportive of an Interpretive Centre for Parliament, given that half like the idea. Support is also moderately strong in the representative survey, with 40 per cent saying they like this option. Respondents to the open survey, however, are generally not supportive of an Interpretive Centre for Parliament (only 28 per cent like the idea and half dislike it).
Image Description of "Views on an Interpretive Centre for Parliament"
Across the survey samples, 782 comments were received about the Interpretive Centre for Parliament, including 565 in the open survey and 176 in the representative survey. A sample of 184 comments were reviewed in the open survey and 102 in the representative survey.
More than half of reviewed comments from the representative survey and one in three in the open survey provide ideas about content, including suggestions for mock debates and tours, as well as content geared specifically to youth. Others talked about a tribute to past leaders. Just under half in the open survey and about one in five in the representative survey provided reasons why 100 Wellington should not be used for this purpose. The most typical comments argue that a separate location is not required for this purpose and is better suited within the Parliament Buildings themselves. A smaller segment also suggested a Parliamentary interpretative space as part of a mixed use including a Canada House or Museum.
About half of respondents in the representative survey and half of the international respondents indicated they like the idea of a Museum. Less appeal was expressed in the open survey (38 per cent), where an equal proportion says they dislike the option (39 per cent).
Image Description of "Views on a Museum"
Across the survey samples, 1,229 comments were received about the Museum use, including just over 900 in the open survey and 270 in the representative survey. A sample of 225 comments were reviewed in the open survey and 166 in the representative survey.
Half or more of the comments in the representative survey suggest specific themes including Canada-America relations and various aspects of Canadian history (e.g., Confederation, political, Aboriginal, military, cultural, immigration, architecture).
About one in four in the representative survey and one in three in the open survey suggest reasons for not having the space used for a Museum, typically citing the number of existing museums in the NCR, and/or that museums typically occupy much larger spaces than afforded at 100 Wellington. In the open survey, a much higher proportion of the comments suggested a portrait gallery as the best use of the space (one in four).
In addition to rating the six uses provided in the survey, 1,612 respondents provided their own idea of how 100 Wellington could be used. A variety of ideas – often along a particular theme – were suggested, including a centre for peacekeeping, architecture, wellness, cultural diversity, Canadian geography, history of immigration, Canadian achievements, innovation and contributions of women. Some also suggested the space be used for performing arts. There were also general suggestions around offering food, tourism shops and a family-friendly space. Thirty-seven per cent of reviewed comments in the open survey indicated support for a portrait gallery.
The following highlight a few of the more unique ideas put forward. A more exhaustive listing of ideas is included in Appendix C.
This is a summary of the previous sections, bringing together the percentage of appeal for each use across all three survey segments. Overall, results show that a Gallery has the highest percentage appeal in the open survey, while Canada House has the highest appeal rating in both the representative survey and with international respondents.
Image Description of "Summary of Appeal"
Once respondents provided input on each individual proposed use, they were asked to rank their top three preferences. Looking only at the first choice there is a fundamentally different pattern in the open survey, compared with the representative survey and with international respondents.
In the open survey, there is a clear preference for a Gallery, voted as the primary choice by 33 per cent. Canada House is the second most popular use, voted as a primary option by 20 per cent. An Indigenous Cultural Centre is the third most popular use, voted as a top choice by 14 per cent of respondents. The remaining one in three selected one of the other three choices.
In the representative survey Canada House is the clear first choice, according to 29 per cent who ranked it their number one option. This is followed by an Indigenous Cultural Centre and Museum, which are tied as the second most popular option. In contrast to the results of the open survey, Gallery is among the least favoured options in the representative survey.
Among international respondents an Indigenous Cultural Centre and Canada House are tied as the most preferred option, with 23 and 22 per cent selecting them as their first choice. A Museum and an Interpretive Centre for Parliament are tied in a second tier of options. As with the representative survey, Gallery is the least favoured option.
Image Description of "First Choice"
| Representative Survey | Open Survey | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canadians (n=1,580) |
Canadians (n=4,983) |
International Respondents (n=574) |
||||
| Score | Ranking | Score | Ranking | Score | Ranking | |
| Canada House | 139 | 1 | 115 | 2 | 124 | 1 |
| Capital Information Centre | 67 | 5 | 43 | 5 | 83 | 4 |
| Gallery | 67 | 5 | 140 | 1 | 54 | 5 |
| Indigenous Cultural Centre | 95 | 3 | 88 | 3 | 122 | 1 |
| Interpretive Centre for Parliament | 73 | 4 | 61 | 4 | 88 | 3 |
| Museum | 106 | 2 | 90 | 3 | 97 | 2 |
Accounting for first, second and third choices in one score gives a more complete picture of the rankings and helps to further focus the results. This type of index creation is an accepted methodology, often applied to summarize a number of data points. Scores are presented for each of the three main survey segments – representative survey, open survey (Canadians) and open survey (international) – with a relative ranking based on this score. Details of the methodology and calculation of the scores are presented in Appendix D.
Overall, results show that Canada House clearly has the widest appeal across all survey segments with the exception of Canadians 55 or older in the open survey. It is the first choice among:
Canada House is the second choice among those 55 or older in the open survey.
Gallery is the preferred use among the 55 or older segment in the open survey. It is the least preferred option, however, among those in the representative survey and international respondents, and is not a clear preference among those under 55 in the open survey.
Therefore, Canada House is seen as a strong first or second choice across all segments responding to the survey. While a Gallery enjoys significant support, it is singularly concentrated among those 55 or older responding to the open survey.
The former U.S. Embassy, at 100 Wellington Street in Ottawa, has been vacant since 1998. Located across from Parliament Hill in the heart of the nation's capital, this building is an architectural gem, in a unique location, with a special history. We are planning the future of this important heritage building and want Canadians' views on how best to transform this building into an important Canadian institution. This is a fresh start for 100 Wellington!
The Government of Canada invites all Canadians to take part in a research survey on the possible uses for 100 Wellington. Ekos Research Associates has been hired to administer the survey. The survey takes about 5 minutes to complete and answers will remain anonymous and confidential. The survey is registered with the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association. <Click here> if you wish to verify its authenticity. To view our privacy policy, click here.
Built in the 1930s, 100 Wellington was the first in a series of purpose-built embassies constructed around the world by the U.S. government. Its strategic location opposite Centre Block symbolized the important relationship between the U.S. and Canada, and the classical architecture suited its prominent location on the Confederation Boulevard ceremonial route.
Looking to the future, 100 Wellington is a keystone building in the Parliamentary Precinct. It is important architecturally, culturally and symbolically. Determining the future public use of this building is a critical step in developing long-term plans for the lands on the south side of Wellington Street and the broader Parliamentary Precinct.
Please click "Next" to proceed.
Please indicate in which of the following age categories you belong.
Check age if born in 1999, or no response, QAGEY
If… AQAGEX = 1999 or QAGEY = 9
Are you at least 16 years of age?
For the past decade, the Parliamentary Precinct Branch has been implementing a coordinated, long-term plan to rehabilitate the Parliament Buildings and other buildings within the Parliamentary Precinct. The strategic focus of this work is to:
How important are the Parliament Buildings as a symbol of national identity?
1 = Not very important; 5 = Very important
How important is it to preserve and rehabilitate the heritage buildings and grounds of the Parliamentary Precinct for future generations of Canadians?
1 = Not very important; 5 = Very important
How important is it that the Government of Canada take a leadership role in making the Precinct a model for environmental sustainability?
1 = Not very important; 5 = Very important
Please provide your opinions on the following six possible uses for 100 Wellington.
What do you think of the idea of using 100 Wellington for a GALLERY – a space to house a collection of artwork of national significance?
1 = Dislike; 5 = Like
If you support a GALLERY at 100 Wellington, do you have any specific suggestions?
What do you think of the idea of using 100 Wellington for a MUSEUM – a venue to exhibit national artifacts of historical and cultural interest?
If you support a MUSEUM at 100 Wellington, do you have any specific suggestions?
What do you think of the idea of using 100 Wellington for an INDIGENOUS CULTURAL CENTRE – a use to be determined in partnership with Indigenous Peoples to showcase culture, achievements and the prominent role of Indigenous people in the history and future of Canada?
If you support an INDIGENOUS CULTURAL CENTRE at 100 Wellington, do you have any specific suggestions?
What do you think of the idea of using 100 Wellington for a CANADA HOUSE – a venue to bring all of Canada to the nation's capital, giving a taste of the country's diversity and achievements and showcasing the best of the provinces and territories from coast to coast to coast?
If you support a CANADA HOUSE at 100 Wellington, do you have any specific suggestions?
What do you think of the idea of using 100 Wellington for a CAPITAL INFORMATION CENTRE – a centre to provide information and orientation services for visitors through the grouping of complementary services from federal, municipal and tourism organizations?
If you support a CAPITAL INFORMATION CENTRE at 100 Wellington, do you have any specific suggestions?
What do you think of the idea of using 100 Wellington for an INTERPRETIVE CENTRE FOR PARLIAMENT – a space to engage visitors with Parliament, how it works and its history?
If you support an INTERPRETIVE CENTRE FOR PARLIAMENT at 100 Wellington, do you have any specific suggestions?
Do you have ANOTHER IDEA for 100 Wellington? What public use can you suggest that would transform 100 Wellington into an important Canadian destination in the nation's capital?
Option "YOUR IDEA" only displayed if open response provided to Q4GB
Now that you have thought about each of the six uses for 100 Wellington (and possibly your own idea), please rank the top three in your own order of preference.
(Please select only 1 per column)
Q4GB is not empty
Q4GB is not empty
Q4GB is not empty
The following questions will only be used to help us understand the survey results. All of your answers are completely confidential.
Open link only
Are you a citizen or permanent resident of Canada?
Citizens and permanent residents, QCITIZ
If… QCITIZ = 1 or SAMPL is not empty
What are the first three digits of your postal code?
Hesitant, QPOSTCELL
If… QCITIZ = 1 and QPOSTCELL = 9
In which province/territory do you live?
NCR FSA or Ontario/Quebec
Are you a resident of the National Capital Region?
Citizens and permanent residents, QCITIZ and not NCR resident
Have you ever visited Canada's Capital?
Select all that apply
Past visitor to NCR
If… QCITIZ = 1 and (QNCR = 2,9 or QNCR is empty) and QVISITA = 2
How long ago did you visit the capital?
Non-Citizens/permanent residents, QCITIZ
If… QCITIZ = 2
In which of the following geographic areas do you live?
Web surveys only
If… SAMPL is empty and ISRC not = 2
How did you receive the link to complete this survey?
Open link only
If… SAMPL is empty
Do you represent a professional or special interest group related to a public use for 100 Wellington?
Professional or special interest group
If… SAMPL is empty and QSPECINT = 1
In which sector is your special interest?
What language do you speak most often at home?
What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed?
In what year were you born?
What is your gender?
Thank you for your input on the future use of 100 Wellington, an important public space in the nation's capital!
Eliminated
Unfortunately, this survey only applies to those who are 16 years of age or older. Thank you for your cooperation and your time. We hope to have the opportunity to work with you in our next survey.
| Representative | Open Link | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NCR | Canadians | NCR | Canadians | Outside Canada | |
| n= | -- | 1064 | -- | 2612 | -- |
| Language | |||||
| n= | 516 | 1064 | 2371 | 2612 | 574 |
| English | 73% | 77% | 80% | 83% | 52% |
| French | 25% | 21% | 17% | 11% | 13% |
| Other | 2% | 2% | 2% | 5% | 32% |
| Prefer not to answer | 0% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 3% |
| Have you ever visited Canada's Capital? | |||||
| n= | -- | 1046 | -- | 2439 | -- |
| Yes, here now | -- | 3% | -- | 31% | -- |
| Yes, in the past | -- | 74% | -- | 70% | -- |
| No | -- | 23% | -- | 7% | -- |
| Prefer not to answer | -- | 0% | -- | 1% | -- |
| How long ago did you visit the capital? | |||||
| n= | -- | 1064 | -- | 2612 | -- |
| Within last year (incl. now) | -- | 20% | -- | 50% | -- |
| 1-2 years | -- | 8% | -- | 9% | -- |
| 3-4 years | -- | 9% | -- | 6% | -- |
| 5-9 years | -- | 10% | -- | 7% | -- |
| 10 years or more | -- | 25% | -- | 10% | -- |
| Never | -- | 23% | -- | 7% | -- |
| Not applicable – Live close to NCR | -- | 2% | -- | 7% | -- |
| Don't know / No response | -- | 3% | -- | 4% | -- |
| How did you receive the link to complete this survey? | |||||
| n= | -- | -- | 2371 | 2612 | 574 |
| Public Engagement Session (August 18th) | -- | -- | 5% | 5% | 12% |
| -- | -- | 4% | 1% | 0% | |
| -- | -- | 16% | 15% | 1% | |
| Government website | -- | -- | 23% | 11% | 2% |
| Other | -- | -- | 44% | 36% | 17% |
| Tablet, on site | -- | -- | 5% | 27% | 62% |
| Don't know / No response | -- | -- | 4% | 4% | 6% |
| Do you represent a professional or special interest group related to a public use for 100 Wellington? | |||||
| n= | -- | -- | 2371 | 2612 | 574 |
| Yes | -- | -- | 4% | 4% | 3% |
| No | -- | -- | 94% | 93% | 91% |
| Prefer not to answer | -- | -- | 3% | 3% | 5% |
| In which sector is your special interest? | |||||
| n= | -- | -- | 87 | 103 | 20 |
| Architecture, urban planning/design, heritage | -- | -- | 39% | 22% | 30% |
| Tourism | -- | -- | 9% | 24% | 55% |
| Government, public administration, various | -- | -- | 7% | 1% | 5% |
| Historical, museums, conservation, art museums | -- | -- | 6% | 9% | 0% |
| Neighbourhood community group | -- | -- | 5% | 5% | 10% |
| Arts/cultural organizations or professional associations | -- | -- | 5% | 6% | 0% |
| Artists, fine arts, visual arts | -- | -- | 3% | 15% | 0% |
| Education, information, academic, professors | -- | -- | 3% | 10% | 0% |
| Other | -- | -- | 10% | 3% | 0% |
| Prefer not to answer | -- | -- | 13% | 6% | 0% |
Comments from a sample of 10 per cent of respondents in the open survey and 25 per cent of the representative survey were categorized into recurring themes. Following are proportions in each:
| Representative Survey | Open Survey | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NCR | Canadians | NCR | Canadians | |
| Suggestions for support of a GALLERY | ||||
| n= | 82 | 72 | 227 | 193 |
| Specific themes/ideas | 36% | 58% | 12% | 16% |
| Portrait gallery (general agreement) | 31% | 8% | 52% | 49% |
| Portrait gallery (specific themes) | 7% | 1% | 15% | 15% |
| Mixed use | 1% | 3% | 11% | 7% |
| Rationale for non-support | 25% | 30% | 11% | 13% |
| Suggestions for support of a MUSEUM | ||||
| n= | 84 | 82 | 119 | 106 |
| Specific themes/ideas | 50% | 68% | 34% | 44% |
| Reference to portrait gallery | 10% | 4% | 29% | 25% |
| Rationale for non-support | 40% | 28% | 38% | 30% |
| Suggestions for support of an INDIGENOUS CULTURAL CENTRE | ||||
| n= | 70 | 76 | 142 | 108 |
| Specific themes/ideas | 36% | 51% | 35% | 37% |
| Considerations | 3% | 1% | 3% | 6% |
| Reasons for support | 14% | 7% | 10% | 9% |
| Reference to portrait gallery | 1% | 0% | 2% | 6% |
| Mixed use | 16% | 15% | 6% | 9% |
| Rationale for non-support | 33% | 26% | 46% | 38% |
| Suggestions for support of a CANADA HOUSE | ||||
| n= | 62 | 62 | 107 | 102 |
| Specific themes/ideas | 61% | 75% | 46% | 51% |
| Considerations | 11% | 9% | 10% | 16% |
| Reference to portrait gallery | 0% | 0% | 6% | 7% |
| Mixed use | 12% | 9% | 21% | 16% |
| Rationale for non-support | 23% | 10% | 22% | 15% |
| Suggestions for support of a CAPITAL INFORMATION CENTRE | ||||
| n= | 41 | 26 | 113 | 54 |
| Considerations | 12% | 15% | 11% | 13% |
| Reference to portrait gallery | 0% | 0% | 3% | 6% |
| Mixed use | 10% | 35% | 16% | 9% |
| Rationale for non-support | 78% | 50% | 71% | 72% |
| Suggestions for support of an INTERPRETIVE CENTRE FOR PARLIAMENT | ||||
| n= | 52 | 50 | 95 | 89 |
| Specific themes/ideas | 33% | 62% | 24% | 31% |
| Considerations | 11% | 12% | 5% | 15% |
| Reference to portrait gallery | 2% | 0% | 4% | 4% |
| Mixed use | 25% | 10% | 11% | 18% |
| Rationale for non-support | 37% | 20% | 57% | 34% |
| Suggestions for support of ANOTHER IDEA | ||||
| n= | 5 | 22 | 116 | 111 |
| Specific themes/idea | N/A | 51% | 41% | 45% |
| Considerations | N/A | 27% | 14% | 13% |
| Reference to portrait gallery | N/A | 0% | 38% | 35% |
| Museum | N/A | 14% | 9% | 10% |
| Indigenous cultural centre | N/A | 4% | 3% | 2% |
| Canada house | N/A | 5% | 3% | 1% |
| Interpretive centre for parliament | N/A | 13% | 3% | 2% |
| Private enterprise use | N/A | 0% | 1% | 4% |
| Mixed use | N/A | 28% | 14% | 5% |
Following are descriptions of the type of comments provided under each category of response assigned in the coding of a sample of respondents.
| Comments | |
|---|---|
| Suggestions/Comments for a GALLERY | |
| Specific themes/ideas | Popular suggestions for specific themes and mediums include sculptures, artefacts, paintings, Aboriginal art, local art or art from across the country, a blend of historical and modern pieces, and pieces from the national archives. |
| Portrait gallery (general agreement) | Comments reveal general support for a portrait gallery. Several mention previous government promises of a portrait gallery, and suggest they still believe it is a good idea. |
| Portrait gallery (specific themes) | This group has specific ideas for a portrait gallery. Some would like to see it modeled after successful galleries in Britain and D.C, others highlight the importance of reflecting both Canada’s history and the current cultural diversity of the country. |
| Mixed use | Comments support inclusion of a variety of themes and artistic mediums. They would like to see diverse content including a mix of paintings, sculptures, photographs, and cartoons |
| Rationale for non-support | Those against using the building as a gallery argue it is a redundant use of space with the National Gallery nearby. |
| Suggestions/Comments for a MUSEUM | |
| Specific themes/ideas | Comments suggest Canadians are interested in a museum focused on a variety of topics. Several suggest that focusing on the history of Canadian-American relations would be a good way to honour the history of the building. Other popular topics include confederation, Aboriginal history, political history, military history, cultural history, immigration, and the history of Canadian architecture. |
| Reference to portrait gallery | Some suggest that a portrait gallery could be used more like a museum by including portraits associated with confederation and/or having information available about the historical importance of the portrait. Other comments suggest preference of a portrait gallery over a museum |
| Rationale for non-support | This group overwhelmingly espouse the view that there are enough museums in Ottawa already. A few also criticize that the building is too small for this project, and that the lack of parking would make visiting difficult. |
| Suggestions/Comments for an INDIGENOUS CULTURAL CENTRE | |
| Specific themes/ideas | Many emphasize making Indigenous Canadians equal partners in the project, showing the variety of Indigenous cultures from all across Canada, and showing the less favourable parts of Canadian history in addition to celebrating the culture. A focus on truth and reconciliation was also mentioned by several |
| Considerations | Comments highlight the importance of consulting members of the Indigenous population in planning and employment, as well as making a space where all Canadians welcome to participate. Some also believe the space should have free entry to Canadians feel. |
| Reasons for support | These participants offer general support, citing that it is a good learning opportunity, a great way to embrace Indigenous populations, and a prominent location to house an important project. |
| Reference to portrait gallery | Comments suggest preference for a portrait gallery that includes Indigenous displays. |
| Mixed use | These participants mention wanting to see Indigenous culture incorporated into a space that celebrates all Canadians, such as a museum or Canada House. |
| Rationale for non-support | Comments reveal that many support the idea of an Indigenous cultural centre, but believe this is not the appropriate location to create one, with some citing Lebreton Flats or Victoria Island as more suitable options. Other reasons for disagreement include wanting a space more inclusive of all Canadians. |
| Suggestions/Comments for a CANADA HOUSE | |
| Specific themes/ideas | Popular ideas for specific themes include Canadian achievements, technology, scientific discoveries, cuisine, music, sports, art, and cultural contributions. Some participants would like to see a mix of these themes. |
| Considerations | This group offers suggestions like having free entry for all Canadians, a comfortable location for children and adults, a large coffee shop to relax in, and themed days for special occasions. |
| Reference to portrait gallery | Comments advocate for a national portrait gallery, which several argue is a more appropriate use of the space, and has the ability to display Canada’s heritage and diversity as effectively as a Canada House. |
| Mixed use | Comments support mixing two or more ideas together to create a multifunctional space. Specific themes/functions suggested for inclusion are a gallery, a celebration of cultural history, representation of Indigenous culture, and a museum. One person mentions that tackling a broad spectrum of ideas means installations could change and encourage visitors to come back for more. |
| Rationale for non-support | Some feel the scope of the project is too broad for the size of the building, others believe the suggested topics are already covered in museums throughout Ottawa, a few fear the topic would not attract enough visitors, some citing similarity to the Canada and the World museum that already closed. |
| Suggestions/Comments for a CAPITAL INFORMATION CENTRE | |
| Considerations | Ideas for additional functions include storage for luggage, having businesses that stand to make financial gains pay for the majority of the function, include a shuttle from nearby museums, tour guides, restaurants, washrooms, and make it a comfortable place for tired tourists to relax. |
| Reference to portrait gallery | Comments express preference for a portrait gallery. |
| Mixed use | Comments show preference for an information centre becoming a small part of a richer purpose like a Canada house, portrait gallery, or an exhibit. |
| Rationale for non-support | Comments show hesitance due to similar functions being performed in other buildings in the city, the building being too large to hold such a narrow function, and there not being enough cultural significance for a historic building. |
| Suggestions/Comments for an INTERPRETIVE CENTRE FOR PARLIAMENT | |
| Specific themes/ideas | Suggestions for specific content includes mock debates, youth geared information, the history of this (and surrounding) building(s), tribute to past leaders, supplement (not overlap) parliament tours, and historical context |
| Considerations | Considerations for features include cost being tied in with parliament tour fees, having specific children’s programming, a cafeteria or restaurant, and most popularly, interactive displays. |
| Reference to portrait gallery | Comments express preference for a portrait gallery. |
| Mixed use | Comments suggest this should be an included part of Canada House, portrait gallery, or a museum of Canadian cultural significance |
| Rational for non-support | Respondents argue that this could be accomplished through tours of parliament directly. Several also suggest that if additional space is needed for an interpretive centre, it should be located on parliament grounds. |
| Suggestions/Comments for ANOTHER IDEA | |
| Specific themes/ideas | Comments vary widely for suggested themes. Specific suggestions include sustainability, peacekeeping, Canadian history, architecture, wellness centre, cultural diversity centre, history of immigration, Canadian geography, Canadian achievement, Canadian history library, concert hall, women’s contributions, Canadian innovation and business, and Canadian contributions to the world. |
| Considerations | Considerations for building features include restaurants, shops/tourism, a digital guestbook, café with Indigenous foods, and family friendly space. |
| Reference to portrait gallery | Respondents contend that a portrait gallery is the best use of this historic space |
| Museum | Respondents suggest a variety of themes for a museum including environmental, science, history of Prime Ministers, hall of fame, kids’ museum, cultural, export, and minority contributions |
| Indigenous cultural centre | Respondents express preference for an Indigenous cultural centre with information about residential schools |
| Canada House | Comments indicate that creating a Canada House is the best way to show the strengths of the entire nation. |
| Interpretive centre for Parliament | Comments stress the educational benefits, especially for youth, of having an interpretive centre for parliament |
| Private enterprise use | Comments suggest selling the building for private use, suggesting it could become a hotel, shopping, or a restaurant. Some express fear that the space will be too costly with government involvement. In fact, one person suggests giving the profits back to tax payers. |
| Mixed use | Respondents express interest in combining two or more ideas into a multi-functional building, or to have the purpose change on a rotational basis. |
Some comments provided by respondents, with specific ideas presented in “your idea” are:
Following are the percentages of each of the three respondent groups selecting each use as their first, second or third choices. The total of first, second and third choice is provided at the end of each row.
These results provide a more complete picture of which uses are selected as a top three choice most often within each respondent group. The chart also provides some clarity of whether the use is more often selected as a first choice, versus a second or third choice.
Image Description of "Top 3 Choices"
These same first, second and third choice percentages selecting each use (as shown in the previous chart) can be used to create an overall score. In order to take first versus second versus third choice into consideration, first choice percentages may be tripled; second choice percentages may be doubled, and third place choices may be used as they are (i.e., multiplied by 1). These values may be added together for an overall, single score. In the table below these percentages have been multiplied as described and overall scores presented for each of the three main segments described throughout the report. A relative ranking has also been assigned based on this score.
| Representative Survey | Open Survey | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canadians (n=1,580) | Canadians (n=4,983) | International Respondents (n=574) | |||||||||||
| Choice | % | Multipl Footnote 3 | Score | Rank | % | Multipl Footnote 3 | Score | Rank | % | Multipl Footnote 3 | Score | Rank | |
| Canada House | First | 29 | 87 | 20 | 60 | 22 | 66 | ||||||
| Second | 18 | 36 | 139 | 1 | 18 | 36 | 115 | 2 | 21 | 42 | 124 | 1 | |
| Third | 16 | 16 | 19 | 19 | 16 | 16 | |||||||
| Capital Information Centre | First | 9 | 27 | 5 | 15 | 13 | 39 | ||||||
| Second | 13 | 26 | 67 | 5 | 8 | 16 | 43 | 5 | 15 | 30 | 83 | 3 | |
| Third | 14 | 14 | 12 | 12 | 14 | 14 | |||||||
| Gallery | First | 7 | 21 | 33 | 99 | 7 | 21 | ||||||
| Second | 15 | 30 | 67 | 5 | 15 | 30 | 140 | 1 | 10 | 20 | 54 | 5 | |
| Third | 16 | 16 | 11 | 11 | 13 | 13 | |||||||
| Indigenous Cultural Centre | First | 19 | 57 | 14 | 42 | 23 | 69 | ||||||
| Second | 14 | 28 | 95 | 3 | 16 | 32 | 88 | 3 | 19 | 38 | 122 | 1 | |
| Third | 10 | 10 | 14 | 14 | 15 | 15 | |||||||
| Interpretation Centre for Parliament | First | 9 | 27 | 7 | 21 | 14 | 42 | ||||||
| Second | 14 | 28 | 73 | 4 | 13 | 26 | 61 | 4 | 14 | 28 | 88 | 4 | |
| Third | 18 | 18 | 14 | 14 | 18 | 18 | |||||||
| Museum | First | 18 | 54 | 9 | 27 | 14 | 42 | ||||||
| Second | 18 | 36 | 106 | 2 | 22 | 44 | 90 | 3 | 18 | 36 | 97 | 2 | |
| Third | 16 | 16 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | |||||||
| REPRESENTATIVE SURVEY | OPEN SURVEY | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canadians (n=1,019) |
Canadians (n=2,882) |
International Respondents (n=418) |
||||
| Score | Ranking | Score | Ranking | Score | Ranking | |
| Canada House | 136 | 1 | 130 | 1 | 134 | 1 |
| Capital Information Centre | 66 | 5 | 48 | 6 | 77 | 4 |
| Gallery | 63 | 5 | 106 | 2 | 57 | 5 |
| Indigenous Cultural Centre | 96 | 3 | 100 | 3 | 127 | 2 |
| Interpretive Centre for Parliament | 79 | 4 | 69 | 5 | 79 | 4 |
| Museum | 105 | 2 | 95 | 4 | 100 | 3 |
| Representative Survey | Open survey | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canadians (n=554) |
Canadians (n=1,683) |
International Respondents (n=123) |
||||
| Score | Ranking | Score | Ranking | Score | Ranking | |
| Canada House | 147 | 1 | 96 | 2 | 98 | 3 |
| Capital Information Centre | 63 | 5 | 34 | 6 | 99 | 3 |
| Gallery | 69 | 4 | 186 | 1 | 44 | 5 |
| Indigenous Cultural Centre | 89 | 3 | 73 | 4 | 109 | 2 |
| Interpretive Centre for Parliament | 64 | 4 | 53 | 5 | 124 | 1 |
| Museum | 101 | 2 | 79 | 3 | 91 | 4 |
A total of 7,650 panel members were sampled and sent an invitation to participate. Of these, 345 emails bounced back as “return to sender”, leaving 7,305 valid cases in the sample. Of these 1,580 completed the survey for a participation rate of 21.6%.
10% of the sample was randomly selected from the open survey responses of 5,557 as a sufficiently large sub-sample (n=550) to have confidence that the main themes of the comments were accurately and comprehensively identified. Because of the smaller size of the sample in the representative survey, a larger proportion of respondents were selected to ensure the reliability of the review.
First place percentages are multiplied by 3. Second place percentages are multiplied by two and third place percentages are multiplied by 1. These multiplied percentages are then added together to create a single “score”. Rankings are assigned based on the relative score.