Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2017

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

I'll call the meeting to order.

Before we welcome our guests, let me say that I have had discussions with at least one member of each of the parties. We obviously anticipate bells ringing very shortly. What I will do at that point is ask for unanimous consent to sit for at least the first 20 minutes of the bells or so.

What I hope to accomplish by doing that is to allow for opening statements and then allow each party a round of questioning—maybe five minutes for each party. What would probably take place is that one or two of those rounds would occur before the vote. Then we would come back after the vote and carry on until either noon or at least until each party has had a chance to ask one round of questions. Then we would move to our second hour, which is with the Elections Canada officials.

I'm also going to suggest that we consider moving our committee business to Thursday, because we're going to be very tight on time, obviously, given that we're compressed as it is and that we will of course have a vote in there. I will suggest that at that time as well.

As long as there is no objection, we'll move on. When the bells ring, we will certainly ask for the unanimous consent to—

I see a number of hands.

Mr. Chan.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would propose that we get a couple of minutes of committee business in. I know we are pressed for time, but I would like to at least table the government's position with respect to managing the way we deal with committee business on Thursday.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

I don't know whether anyone else has comments on that.

From my perspective, it was Mr. Christopherson and I, and I think others, who raised at the last meeting last week the view that we felt it might be best to see where we are after Thursday before making those determinations. Obviously, this is part of the agenda. We'll let members make the decision at that time. It seems that there isn't a unanimous feeling on the question, so we can have that discussion, I guess, when we get to that point.

What I'll do, then, is welcome our guests and get started, so that we can at least get through some of the statements prior to having to miss....

I'll welcome the Speaker. The Honourable Geoff Regan is here with us.

I'll let you start. You can introduce any others who are giving opening statements.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Speaker of the House of Commons]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

Members of the committee, distinguished guests, as Speaker of the House of Commons, it's a pleasure to be back before this committee to present our main estimates for fiscal year 2017-18.

I'm equally pleased to present the main estimates for the Parliamentary Protective Service, or PPS, which maintains the physical security of the parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill and reports to me and the Speaker of the Senate on such matters.

Joining me at the table today are Marc Bosc, Acting Clerk; Daniel G. Paquette, Chief Financial Officer....

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Pardon me, Mr. Speaker.

I see that the bells are ringing now. I of course officially have to receive unanimous consent to carry on.

Do I have that consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

I'm sorry for the interruption. We'll let you have the floor.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am also joined today by Mike O'Beirne, Superintendent and Acting Director of the Parliamentary Protective Service; as well as Robert Graham, Administration and Personnel Officer at the same service.

I'll begin this morning's presentation by highlighting key elements of the 2017-18 main estimates for the House of Commons, which total $476 million and represent a 2.7% increase over the previous year.

The presentation of the main estimates for PPS will follow.

To help guide the first part of my presentation and facilitate our exchange, I have provided a handout that outlines each of the 14 line items included in the House of Commons' 2017-2018 Main Estimates.

I will address each of these in the order in which they appear, leaving, I hope, ample time for discussion.

As you will note, there are nine items included under the broad category of “Members, House Officers, and Committees, Associations and Exchanges”. Further down, there are four items under “House Administration”. Last, but not least, we have a final item related to “Employee Benefit Plans”.

To begin, we have sought a 1.8% increase to the members' office budgets and House officers' budgets. Together, these represent a permanent increase of $2.8 million, with the greatest proportion being allotted to the members' office budgets.

As you know, these budgets give members of Parliament and House officers the resources they need to carry out their parliamentary functions on behalf of Canadians. The adjustments were calculated based on the consumer price index as measured in September 2016. They were scheduled to take effect on April 1.

In addition, a 20% increase to the MOB supplements, which totals $1.5 million, has also been sought. The supplement assists members who represent constituencies that are densely populated, geographically large, or remote in responding to the needs of the people they represent.

The electoral list, which we use to calculate the amount of the elector supplement, was revised and published by Elections Canada in February 2016. That occurred after the submission deadline for the main estimates in 2016-2017. Consequently, the revised list of electors required that an adjustment be applied to the supplement, resulting in a decrease of $308,000 in 2017-2018 and in subsequent years.

Specifically, supplements recognize the challenges inherent in serving larger, more populated, or more remote constituencies, which members, I think, will understand. They help level the playing field to ensure that Canadians are well-served by their members of Parliament. The increase in supplements was made during the 2016-17 year and took effect on April 1, 2016.

Also on that date, members' sessional allowances and additional salaries increased by 1.8%. This amount reflects adjustments made every year on April 1 based on the average increase in Canadian wages resulting from major settlements in the private sector. The adjustment represents a permanent increase of $1.1 million for 2016-2017.

The next line item represents a funding adjustment to the travel status expenses account for 2013-14 and 2015-16 in the amount of $743,000. Specifically, this increase equals the total amounts approved over a four-year period by the Board of Internal Economy but not yet reflected in the main estimates. The increase will ensure that in the future, funding in the mains and the approved allocations will correspond.

Let me now draw your attention to the next four line items related to parliamentary associations and conferences.

I will first provide you with a bit of context.

As you may know, funding for these items is shared between the House of Commons and the Senate. As such, the amounts to which I will refer in a moment represent the 70% portion of the total budget that the House of Commons funds. The remaining 30% is paid by the Senate.

We have experienced a growing demand for Canadian parliamentarians to further engage internationally. It's something I hear about often from foreign delegations, ambassadors, and high commissioners who come to see me. While this pressure has been building for some time, it has recently become more prevalent.

Funding for this important work remained relatively stable for several years. However, a significant increase in 2013, coupled with increases in association membership fees and other costs—including travel—hampered association activities.

Add to this the unprecedented number of new parliamentarians, many of whom wish to play a role in the 12 parliamentary associations that support Canada's international efforts. For all of these reasons, the board recently accepted a recommendation from the Joint Interparliamentary Council to increase its share of permanent funding to Canada's parliamentary associations by $700,000.

Likewise, Canada will play host to the Interparliamentary Union's Global Conference of Young Parliamentarians in November. To support the conference, which brings the best and the brightest young parliamentarians together to address pressing challenges to democracies around the word, temporary funding of $324,000 has been sought.

The Canadian Parliament will also host two significant conferences in the second half of 2018.

The 64th annual session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly will take place in my hometown of Halifax in November of 2018. MPs from across the Atlantic alliance will gather to discuss important matters related to security. To support early preparations for this important event, $72,000 in temporary funding has been sought in fiscal year 2017-18.

Also next year, in July, the 56th Regional Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference will come to Ottawa. They'll probably have almost as good a time as they would if they were in Halifax. The conference will gather parliamentarians from across the Commonwealth to promote co-operation and good governance. To help host this event, $19,000 in temporary funding for 2017-18 has also been sought.

I think I speak for many around the table today in saying that we look forward to the results of the work of our parliamentary associations over the next 12 months, and in the future.

Let me now turn to the group of items listed under the general category of “House of Commons Administration”.

As you know, the administration plays a crucial role in supporting the work of each and every member of Parliament, as well as that of the institution, including helping to ensure our collective security in partnership with the Parliamentary Protective Service or the CSO.

The corporate security office—or for short, the CSO—is responsible for security in the House of Commons chamber, providing project management for security infrastructure, conducting investigations, coordinating visitor and event access, providing security accreditation, promoting security awareness, and administering parking services.

The CSO also develops and implements House-wide security policies, standards and processes aimed at preventing, detecting and responding to security risks and threats.

Since the 2015 launch of the integrated security model, in partnership with PPS, our understanding of the roles and responsibilities shared by the CSO and PPS have evolved.

As a result, and to better ensure our security, a permanent increase of $3.6 million to the CSO budget was sought, in addition to a temporary increase of $69,000 in 2017-18. This temporary funding will help to pay for additional staff and office space. It's worth noting that the security enhancement measures identified in 2016-17 and presented the last time that I appeared before you are either under way or being completed, so we are on track with those.

The House of Commons and its partner, Public Services and Procurement Canada, or PSPC, are also on track with the renovations and rehabilitation projects underway throughout the parliamentary precinct. To that end, we have sought an increase of $2.4 million in temporary funding to maintain and, in the longer term, replace crucial information technology assets; transfer the building components and connectivity program from PSPC to the House of Commons; and better meet those building requirements that are specific to our institution.

Remuneration under the page program, whereby top students from across Canada have the opportunity to support the work of the House and witness the legislative process first-hand, accounts for a permanent aggregate increase of $60,000, beginning this year. That increase is calculated on the basis of the average increase in tuition and residence fees at Carleton University and the University of Ottawa and is reviewed every year.

While we're on the topic of the page program, I'd like to take a moment to say how very satisfying it was to learn that the House administration had been recognized as an exceptional workplace for young Canadian talent in this year's Top 100 Employers national competition, as well as being named the top employer in the region.... Excuse me, “a top employer”. Darn it, just “a” top employer, but that's still good.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Of course, we've always known this, but this year's public endorsement by the Top 100 Employers project was indeed a welcome one.

Another highlight: the opening of the Sir John A. Macdonald Building, or SJAM as we affectionately call it, and more recently, the Wellington Building, resulted in a decrease of $99,000 to our main estimates for this year. The amount represents previously approved and temporary funding that paid for non-recurring costs associated with the renovation and rehabilitation phases of these very successful and now completed projects.

I look forward to your questions concerning the main estimates for the House of Commons, but first let me quickly turn my attention to the main estimates for the Parliamentary Protective Service.

I'll begin by providing you with an overview of the PPS's main estimates request for 2017-18, which totals $68.2 million. This includes a voted budget component of $62.1 million and a $6.1 million statutory budget requirement for the employee benefits program. This 2017-18 main estimates request represents a $5.8-million increase from the PPS's 2016-17 main estimates submission.

In addition to PPS's permanent voted budget of $56.3 million, which was approved under the 2016-2017 Main Estimates and established as a result of Bill C-59, PPS is seeking an additional $5.8 million in permanent funding to support the ongoing implementation of security enhancements and to further stabilize the organizational structure.

Following the events of October 22, 2014, several reviews surrounding this incident were conducted, resulting in 161 recommendations on improving security on Parliament Hill. The PPS received funding approval in September 2016 to launch the PPS mobile response team initiative.

The implementation of this initiative will address a significant number of these 161 recommendations and enhance PPS's overall response capacity.

PPS is requesting permanent funding in the amount of of $1.2 million to further implement and sustain the needs of this initiative.

To support the continuation of the Senate's previously approved security enhancement initiatives, additional funding in the amount of $787,000 will be transferred to PPS given its direct alignment with the PPS's mandate.

The PPS is also seeking permanent funding in the amount of $3 million to stabilize the protective posture in the newly opened 180 Wellington building, and to uphold pre-existing third party security agreements throughout the precinct.

Given the anticipated increase in visitors to the precinct and grounds of Parliament Hill throughout Canada's 150th anniversary celebrations, a total of $400,000 is required in temporary funding to support the costs of the baggage screening facility at 90 Wellington Street through 2017-2018.

This renewed temporary funding will not only enhance the visitor experience, but it will also enable PPS to evaluate this facility's effectiveness, feasibility and long-term sustainability.

This results in a cumulative request of $5.3 million for previously approved and new security enhancement initiatives throughout the parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill.

In addition to the aforementioned operational enhancement initiatives funding requests, the PPS is seeking a permanent increase of $886,000 to fund a series of corporate service requirements. This includes the funding for full-time communications resources to support PPS's internal and external messaging, along with the funding necessary to fulfill the existing service level agreements with the House administration for the provision of human resource and information technology services.

PPS remains committed to operational excellence through the provision of professional physical security services throughout the parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill.

To further enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of its service delivery model, the PPS will focus on the ongoing implementation of existing and new resource optimization initiatives, the identification of opportunities to leverage innovation, and a strengthened commitment to collaboration with its various parliamentary partners.

This concludes my presentation.

My team and I look forward to your questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given the length of the presentation—which we appreciated, by the way, as it was comprehensive—and given our tight time frame, I think what I am going to do for now, rather than go into the rounds of questioning—I think we would start to push our luck a bit to do that—is to leave the rounds of questioning and have them following the votes. That will mean about 15 minutes, with five minutes for each party.

I'll ask our guests either to remain or to return as soon as the votes end. I know that some of you of course have a duty, as we do, to be there. I'll ask all members to then arrive here as quickly as possible, and we'll pick up as quickly as we can. However, that will probably require us to extend this a bit past noon.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is possible for you to remain for just a few minutes following noon.

Then, of course, what we would have to do is to start with the Elections Canada officials. I would ask my Liberal friends to reconsider the idea of moving the committee business to Thursday. If not, we will be very tight on time with the Elections Canada officials. If that's not something that we can get consent for, we will have to end that round of questioning. I'll just adjust the questioning accordingly. You can speak to me before or after the votes and let me know if that's possible, and we'll adjust the rounds of questioning according to what that decision is.

At this point in time—

I'll recognize you, Mr. Reid, but could you make it very brief? I don't want to push our luck.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Just to echo your point, on behalf of the opposition, I would request that we move the scheduling issues to Thursday. It will be very hard to have proper and fulsome questioning of the acting CEO if we don't do that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Thank you for that.

I will now suspend the meeting. We will be back as quickly as possible after the votes.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

We'll call the meeting back to order. Welcome back, everyone.

We'll now go into the rounds of questioning with the Speaker before we move to our Elections Canada officials.

We'll start with the Liberal Party and Mr. Graham.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for joining us after the bells and for your excellent summary and explanation of these estimates. It does help to translate them all into English.

The page program is indeed exceptional. You may recall that my daughter very briefly joined it at Halloween last year. I dressed her up.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

That's right.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

To nobody's surprise, my questions are mainly going to be for Superintendent O'Beirne.

I'll put it this way. We have noticed a change in our colleagues' uniforms recently with the introduction of the hats and these “Respect” stickers we have been seeing. I'm wondering if you could describe your relationship with the PPS unions and when we can expect to see a resolution to the obvious dispute currently taking place.

[Supt Mike O'Beirne, Acting Director, Parliamentary Protective Service]

Thank you.

Mr. Graham, I guess I'll start by saying that at the PPS, truly, our strength is our people. The bringing together of the three separate entities upon the creation of the PPS connected corporate knowledge and experience. None of that is lost on us. We've been factoring all of that into every step we take in moving forward as an entity.

To your specific question, I guess what I can say is this. As you know, the creation of the PPS brought together three collective bargaining units: the SPSEA, the SSEA, and PSAC. Since the creation of the PPS, we have believed that it would be best for operations—our concept of operations and employees—if there were a single bargaining unit. It supports our objectives of effectively unifying all the personnel for the service under one operational umbrella, towards a common goal.

The associations have a different perspective, and it's certainly their right to do so. They have articulated that they prefer two bargaining units. In accordance with the law that actually created the PPS, the PPS and the associations have each submitted a request to the PSLREB as to what that right number would be. We currently have three. With this, we've been respectfully waiting for a decision, and we look forward to that decision, hopefully in the coming months.

In regard to the issues you've brought up, there has been some question about whether the PPS will meet with the associations. From our perspective, the PPS would prefer to continue meeting with all three of the bargaining units, as we share common interests and common goals. In the past, not all bargaining units have agreed to this approach, and we've had varying degrees of success in having attendance at some of the joint meetings scheduled by the PPS. We do understand that some would prefer to meet individually. It's very complex to accommodate this at all times. For example, we often deal with the exact same issue but then have to hold three different meetings with three different associations to discuss the very same issues.

I can assure you that at the PPS our strength is our people, and that's not lost on us. We continue to communicate with them at every possible turn, whether it's directly with the associations or directly with our PPS personnel.

I can close perhaps by letting you know that, further to the views we're not communicating, there is also a view that the PPS will not enter into collective bargaining. On the stickers question, I'll answer from this perspective. The SSEA's collective agreement has indeed expired, and they have requested that we enter into collective negotiations. In the legal opinion that the PPS has received, we've been informed that we cannot start negotiations of any kind with any of the bargaining units until the labour board decides on the actual number of bargaining units that in their view would be appropriate.

Again, the legal opinion that the PPS has received differs from the SSEA's legal opinion. To that end, I'll say that it's not a question of strategy or tactics but simply a question of what we understand to be legal. Because of the difference of opinions, we've asked the labour board to render a decision on whether or not we should bargain in the current environment, and we anxiously await the decisions of the PSLREB on that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Thank you very much. Time has expired on this round.

I did allow it to go just a few seconds over, but I'm going to be very strict about the times because of the compressed schedule we have today. I will just remind members, before I move to our next round of questioning, that the use of props, as is in the chamber, is not to be permitted in committee rooms.

I will move now to Mr. Schmale, for five minutes.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I will set my timer so that I adhere to your times.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker and the rest. I appreciate your taking the time. I would like to direct my questions to Superintendent O'Beirne, if I could.

In terms of the PPS, how many vacancies do you have currently in terms of personnel on the floor?

[Supt Mike O'Beirne]

Perhaps I'll turn it over in a moment to Mr. Graham here, who could perhaps clarify the numbers.

As you know there was a change in posture following the October 22 incident in 2014. Since the creation of the PPS, we've been working hard with our partners to find the right number. We're continuing to work alongside our partners in gaining a better understanding of the LTVP projects, the openings and closings of the buildings, to again find that proper number. It's not lost on us that our folks are working hard towards a common goal.

In regard to finding some respite in the short term, I can tell you that we have a class of graduating recruits, PPS members who just graduated yesterday. We have another class graduating in the middle of June that will bring some greatly needed support. We're anticipating that will bring the total to about 40 members. As the Speaker put forth in the main estimates, we've received funding for 45 more positions at 180 Wellington. These are all steps that are positioning us for future successes.

Perhaps I'll turn it over to Mr. Graham for some more analysis.

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

I want to make sure I come back with the facts. We're coming back on Thursday. I can bring you the specific number on Thursday. As Superintendent O'Beirne said, we have some vacancies that we've been filling. We had a new class of recruits that started just this week, and we're happy to have them on board.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

First, I apologize if I cut you off; it's all respect. It's just that I have three minutes left and a lot of questions.

Do you feel that you're filling these vacancies quickly enough? From what I'm hearing, there are a lot of people doing a lot of forced overtime, and these vacancies aren't being filled quickly enough in order to anticipate the demand that you have here.

[Supt Mike O'Beirne]

Our recruiting, hiring, and training cycle is approximately eight months, so we do have to really lean forward and anticipate future needs. As I mentioned, we're trying to be as nimble as possible in response to future needs. We have an attrition rate as well that we're always mindful of.

To your point about overtime, perhaps I can draw from my comments about the three separate bargaining units that we have. There are some limitations we have to work within in regard to these three units—two associations and one union—that we have to be mindful of. There are a few constraints and restraints that we're currently operating under in this environment.