Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 20th, 2018

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

No, I understand.

[Charles Robert]

Once there is something ready to show you...and certainly, you would be involved, if there is an agreement that this should go forward.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I see. I think for committee members' benefit, it's that point of engagement we're interested in. No one's questioning the validity of what you're suggesting.

To you, Speaker, since 2016, the PPS budget has grown from approximately $62 million to this year, when the request is $91 million. Is that correct?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

That's correct.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It's approximately a 50% increase from when we first unified the protective services on the Hill. Is that correct?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

It's gone up, certainly, and as the PPS has developed as a new organization, it's become clear that it needs foundational supports that weren't there at the beginning. I'm sure Chief Superintendent MacLatchy would be happy to explain that further.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Chief Superintendent MacLatchy, last time we spoke was at this place. It's only by coincidence that I'm here again, I assure you.

Mr. Christopherson is in lock-up, but he has done nothing illegal. It's just with the Auditor General's report. At least I think he's done nothing illegal. I can't confirm or deny.

The last time you testified here, I asked you about the quality and the professionalism of the people who protect us, the women and men, every day. You said that you're “impressed every day with the professionalism and the competence of the folks who work within this service, and that goes across all categories of employees who are part of this organization.”

We talked a lot about esprit de corps and the mood, but in the conversations I had with people in PPS, in a casual way.... Some were reluctant to talk at all, but when they did chat, the esprit de corps was not great. Your version of how the group was doing is not shared.

I have a couple of specific questions. How long have those under the PSAC union been without a contract?

[C/Supt Jane MacLatchy]

I believe it expired in 2014.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The two other groups that are represented by unions have been without a contract since when?

[C/Supt Jane MacLatchy]

I believe, though I would have to refer to my administration and personnel officer—

[Robert Graham, Administration and Personnel Officer, Parliamentary Protective Service]

It's since 2017.

[C/Supt Jane MacLatchy]

It was 2017, early.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

They recently—well not recently—received a labour board ruling to implore the management, in this case, you, to negotiate a contract. Why did they even have to go through that process?

This is the concern I had a year ago, and the concern I bring to you now. With the words we use, the Speaker, the MPs, the political leaders and the leaders of your department all praise the women and men for their professionalism, yet they have to go to the labour board just to get you to the table to negotiate a contract that's free and fair.

Do you understand why that doesn't seem to square? In as much esteem as we hold them, the members are forced to stand and wear caps to ask for the basic level of respect. I agree with them that it doesn't seem respectful that we have people serving us, protecting us, without a contract for five years, and others without a contract for more than a year who have had to go to the labour board just to get you to negotiate with them.

I say, “you”, but I mean the collective “you”, us, their management.

Do you understand why that doesn't seem to square?

[C/Supt Jane MacLatchy]

I understand the question, Mr. Cullen, and thank you for that.

The one thing I mentioned, I believe, previously in this committee—and I will try to explain—is that within the legislation that created PPS, under the Parliament of Canada Act, there were aspects on which we sought legal opinion. We—and I'm talking about my predecessor, before I actually assumed this position—sought legal opinion on whether we could go forward with collective bargaining as we saw the agreements expiring. We had multiple legal opinions, both prior to my arrival and since my arrival, that said that, no, as per that legislation, we were not in a position to collectively bargain until the labour board had made its ruling in terms of how many bargaining units would be present.

I was looking at that from an organizational perspective. I was being advised that there was a certain level of jeopardy, for lack of a better term, to go forward with any kind of collective bargaining until that labour board had made its decision.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It is not unusual for an employer, even an employer of protective services, to deal with more than one union in a negotiation. I don't know why the House has been dragging its feet because of this question. I know, someone—the Speaker, maybe, or maybe it was you—said that you'd prefer to have one union, but you don't. You have three. That's a historical thing that has been adopted, which has proven to be legal and sound within the laws of Canada. We all wish for different things that we don't have. This is the reality.

Further to this, my question is one of urgency. Are we going to be back here again with another report from the Speaker saying we still have not reached a settlement? Because it's not for lack of money. We've increased services. Is that the barrier? We don't want to pay folks more, or pay them an equivalency that they deem to be fair?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I think you heard what I said about the 6.75% increase that was paid earlier this year after reclassification, in accordance with the advice that the PPS received.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That's a good thing. You've triggered me, Mr. Speaker. There were mandatory overtimes last time we spoke. Have those been eliminated? Are there still mandatory overtime shifts that PPS are covering?

[C/Supt Jane MacLatchy]

They have been considerably reduced.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

What are we at now? We had some very bad scenarios in which people were working 70- or 80-hour weeks, which is not good for anybody, and certainly not for them. “Considerably reduced”—what does that mean?

[C/Supt Jane MacLatchy]

It's a rare occurrence now that we have to force somebody to take overtime, whereas at one time when I first arrived it was a fairly common thing.

You have the numbers, Mr. Graham, in terms of how much we're spending on overtime versus what we did before.

[Robert Graham]

Yes. There are some events, major events like Canada Day, which is sort of “all hands on deck” for both operational and non-operational employees as well, but we're forecasting a reduction for overtime expenses in the range of 10% to 15% this fiscal year.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Can I just clarify that, Chair? Is it a reduction in overtime expenses by 10% to 15%?

[Robert Graham]

That's correct.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Okay. I'm not sure if I had that question answered. When you say “rare”.... Those are interpretative terms. I don't know how to quantify it.

[C/Supt Jane MacLatchy]

I'm sorry. I don't have actual numbers for you, but what I can tell you is that when I first arrived in this chair it was a daily occurrence that we needed to...well, not daily. It was virtually a daily occurrence that we needed to bring somebody in on overtime and often had to order them in because they didn't want the excess overtime.

Now, as I said, I had the conversation with my operation commanders just this morning. They confirmed for me that it's a very rare thing now, but I don't have numbers for you.