Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 9th, 2017

[Daniel G. Paquette, Chief Financial Officer, House of Commons]

The need for additional capacity there is due to a combination of things. One of them is with the continued increase in resources for members and House administration, we need to bring the number of pay advisers up to maintain a ratio to maintain the service.

There has also been an increase in inquiries relating to pension benefits, specifically for members, and there's a need for a subject matter expert on staff to do this. There is also the complexity brought on from the evolution of pay benefits, and making sure we have training capacity to keep them current.

The last element is, yes, there is an additional workload requirement for Phoenix that needs to be handled, and we did bring in a few people to help support that.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Okay, and I wasn't surprised to hear that.

I want to get a sense as to how much of a problem there has been in that regard. Obviously, in relation to the issues with Phoenix, I've been far more concerned for the constituents who are federal employees who are having issues with it, as I'm sure most or all members of Parliament would agree. In my riding I have some with Parks Canada who have maybe waited a couple of years to even receive pay, so I'm certainly far more concerned about them.

However, we're here to talk about the House of Commons specifically today. There was an article recently in The Hill Times about some of the payroll issues on the Hill as related to Phoenix. I want to get a sense as to how you feel the Phoenix system has worked for the House of Commons. Would you be able to give us some sense as to how many payroll problems there have actually been in the House of Commons?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

If I may intervene just for a second, it's strictly not for me to comment because, of course, this is a topic that's raised in the House and I can't comment on those matters, but I do want to say that obviously I want to see all the employees of the House paid accurately and on time.

[Michel Patrice, Deputy Clerk, Administration]

Obviously Phoenix has been a challenge for the House, but as we have retained a pay and benefits adviser, we've been able to monitor closely the issues that might arise with Phoenix, and our employees or members are not too adversely affected, as could happen in the rest.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Okay, but there have obviously been impacts. I personally have had people make me aware of impacts they've had. Do you have some sense as to how many people have been affected or what impacts they've actually had?

[Michel Patrice]

In terms of the actual members, we'll provide the information to the committee through the chair.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Okay. When I ask about it, I'm talking about the total number, in terms of House of Commons employees, and I suppose members and their staff would be included in that.

[Michel Patrice]

Obviously, yes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Could you provide us with that information?

[Michel Patrice]

Yes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Okay, I appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, the supplementary estimates also propose, I think you said, about $1.7 million for the committees and parliamentary associations in terms of an increase. Can you tell us a little more about what's being funded with that increase and how much spending was authorized for committees and associations in the main estimates this year? I don't have that in front of me. Do you happen to have that information?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I'm sure that one of the team here can tell me the answer to the second question, but you will recall my mentioning that we have seen an increase in committees meeting with the public and hearing from witnesses. The cost of more of those meetings and having more witnesses has changed things a bit and increased the cost for committees. There has been an increase in parliamentary associations doing their work and travelling to have the variety of meetings that they hold. Of course, we have more MPs now than we did before the last election, and that too has had an impact.

I'll go over to André Gagnon, who will first correct any errors I've made, no doubt, and complete the answer.

[André Gagnon]

I would like to correct the Speaker by saying that the Speaker never makes a mistake.

Mr. Richards, I didn't catch the last part of your question.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Just simply, how much spending was authorized for committees and associations in the main estimates this year?

[André Gagnon]

This year, $1.7 million was added to what existed in terms of a fund that was provided.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Yes, but I was asking what the existing funding was.

[André Gagnon]

It was $2.3 million, getting to $4 million.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

I note that when you take a combination of the main and supplementary estimates for the House for this year, it's about a 5% increase over last year's spending, which is obviously well ahead of inflation. Actually, it brings the House of Commons' spending to over $500 million for the first time as well.

Could you tell me a little about what's behind that very fast growth in expenditures?

[Daniel G. Paquette]

The big piece here is the additional 30 members added to the House and the impact of having the additional constituency offices and their staff, which makes up about $20 million worth of that amount of increase.

A lot of the money in the supplementary estimates is for technology projects. We have to keep up with modern technology and make sure we have the connectivity and the support for all MPs and their constituency offices. Our technology projects and the increase in number of MPs and constituency offices and their staff make up the mass of the trend.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Some MPs have had real problems with connectivity. Sometimes there is only one local service provider, one that charges an outrageous amount to serve the building where their office is, or what have you. That has been a job as well.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I have a couple more questions, but I'm out of time. Maybe I'll get another chance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Mr. Richards.

Now we'll go to Mr. Christopherson for seven minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Speaker, Clerk, and other guests.

Speaker, it won't come as a big shock to you that I'm probably going to focus most of my remarks and concerns on PPS. I don't want to let you down.

At the risk of sounding as if I'm bragging—because I'm not; I'm just laying out some bona fides—as a former solicitor general of Ontario, I was the civilian head of the OPP, so not only do I not have an angst about state police, I'm quite proud of them and proud of my previous affiliation with them. That said, I for one do not believe that the transition is going well at all. Again I want to underscore my belief that it is totally unacceptable for the Prime Minister to control the guns that are in Parliament.

Just as an aside, since it's my time, my good friend Raoul Gebert, who was a former chief of staff to Tom Mulcair, was bringing some guests from Germany, and they asked what we were doing and what I was going to focus on. They just about fell over when they found out that Parliament itself didn't control the guns that are in Parliament to protect Parliament.

Notwithstanding that I can't change that with one speech, I will keep making as many speeches as I can until I can reach critical mass and have it changed so that Parliament is in charge of its own security. However, we are where we are.

We're going to raise some issues in camera, so it's not my intent to play any games. Speaker, I think you know I don't do that. If you feel in any way that I'm getting too close to the confidential side of the negotiations, please jump in. I would urge you to do that. That's not my intent. However, I think it's fair game to ask the following questions.

The PPS are raising concerns with me about the new equipment being bought. The PPS side of things pays the bill, but the RCMP gets the equipment. I've even had vehicles pointed out to me, and people telling me they were bought with PPS money. The RCMP have that one, and that's the one PPS gets; it's an older vehicle.

This is what I'm told; I could be wrong. Weapons are being purchased that have the RCMP stamp on them, which in itself is fine, but if it's PPS money, their concern is that it's going to gravitate to the RCMP. They get shiny brand new weapons with the stamp and everything, and PPS is handed older brother's clothes.

I'm seeking some guidance, some edification, and ultimately some assurances with regard to this issue. I'll leave it there, Speaker, and ask you to comment and direct me to anybody with you who you feel is appropriate.

Thank you, Chair.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

You will know, of course, that the law passed by Parliament provides that we have a combined body, which includes what used to be the House of Commons guards, the Senate guards, and the outside RCMP, who are all now under the direction of the Parliamentary Protective Service. Before I hand over the speaking role to Superintendent MacLatchy, I have been very pleased with and I deeply appreciate, as I know all members do, the excellent work of all those guards, all the members of the PPS, who provide us with security protection within the precinct.

I'll turn now to Superintendent MacLatchy.

[C/Supt Jane MacLatchy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

You were expressing concerns about equipment purchases, etc. Any equipment we are in the process of procuring is for PPS use. The RCMP provides us a service for one of our divisions. They're a service provider to us.

In a moment I will refer to Mr. Graham for specifics on the procurement, if he's aware.

The firearms we have purchased are for our mobile response team, to my understanding. The mobile response team is an integrated group we've stood up very recently that provides us with an enhanced tactical capability across the Hill. It's an integrated group that involves RCMP and PPS members. In fact, the majority of members on that team are PPS protective officers. Right now, we're on a pilot with 14 members, and I believe two or three of them are RCMP, while the rest are PPS. Whether they're stamped or not I'm not aware of, but I was going to refer to Mr. Graham on this one.