Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 24th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Simms asked a question that I was going to ask. In the event that the decision is not made in June to move so that we are in the West Block for September, is it then a delay of a full year? I think the answer we got back was that it could be a full year or it could be six months. Is that correct?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

That's correct.

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

I am going to speculate that the fact that we're talking at the end of April about a decision being made in June without any other comforting language that one normally gets—such as, “Formally we're making the decision in June, but we're pretty darn sure it's going to happen”—suggests to me that there is a high probability that we're not going forward this September. To the extent you're able to speculate, does that seem like a reasonable assumption for me to be making?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

The House administration is working very closely with Public Services and Procurement Canada, as I said in my opening comments. You've perhaps been through the West Block. You know there's been a great deal of work done. It's coming along extremely well. Naturally, the board wants to be absolutely confident that the details are dealt with and that the myriad things we need in place are functioning properly. I think we're very close, but we'll have that assessment in June, and we'll have to make that decision then. No, I'm not going to speculate.

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

That's fair enough.

We've been discussing this as a Board of Internal Economy decision. The Board of Internal Economy is a House of Commons body. Two legislative bodies occupy this building, the other being the Senate. I assume that there would not be a situation—although I can be corrected if I'm wrong—in which we would move to the West Block and the Senate would remain in Centre Block. I think that's correct.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

That's a very good question. In fact, we're very clear that, if one is not ready, the other will not be moving. That's what I understand from the Senate side.

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

That raises the obvious question. We have the West Block. Renovations have to be finished there and brought up to a standard. You were giving me a pitch as to why that's important, but I think we can all see the common sense that everything must be in place. There's the issue of the visitors centre being ready. I understand. It may not be obvious to an outsider, but the importance of ensuring that Parliament is a publicly accessible facility cannot be overstated. There is no point in our history when it has not been.

The other question is about the former train station, to which the Senate is moving. I realize you're not directly involved in that, but can you report back on whether that is going to be ready, for sure, in time for a summer move?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

The first thing I want to do is to indicate my agreement with your statement about the importance of the public being able to have access to the House of Commons. That is an important part of our history and of the operations of Parliament in a democracy.

I wonder if one of the representatives here with me can answer the question. We don't work on the Senate side, but perhaps the clerk, who has some experience with the Senate, might be able to address that.

[Charles Robert, Clerk of the House of Commons]

The work is progressing very nicely in the Government Conference Centre, but I think the same challenge that we have here in the House remains also with the Senate. It's not simply completing the renovation and restoration work; it has to do with its operability. Just as it is with the House of Commons, that has to be something that is resolved before a final decision can be made.

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

Thank you.

The next question relates to the part of the presentation where you indicate that, by 2019, the House will have taken ownership of $200 million in new assets. You didn't specify what those assets were. Could you elaborate a little bit?

[Daniel G. Paquette]

It's basically all of the furniture, the technology, that we have to maintain and go forward. So when we look at the LTVP, it's been going on since about 2001, so it includes the assets for the Valour building, the committee rooms that were in there, it includes 131 and 181 Queen, and more recently the SJAM and 180 Wellington, and what will—

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

Sorry, these haven't been transferred yet? Have these not already been transferred? We're using some of those buildings.

[Daniel G. Paquette]

Yes, they have been transferred and we have control over them, but now part of the funding we're asking for is that, because it's been over 10 to 15 years for some of these assets, we have to start life cycling them. The technology in the committee rooms in the Valour needs to be updated.

It's just to give an order of magnitude of what all of this LTVP project is having on the House administration to be able to maintain and support that technology and keep it current and working for us.

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

Is it primarily AV technology, or is there more to it than just that in the committee rooms?

Actually, I'm out of time so I'll just ask this question. Can you just submit some additional information on this? It's a large amount of money and it would be helpful if we had more information as to the amortization or depreciation that goes on with this equipment.

[Daniel G. Paquette]

Yes, we can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Mr. Graham.

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

Thank you.

Going back to Mr. Cullen's and Mr. Simms' points earlier, if the integration of the bargaining units is integral to the team-building needed for a functional integrated protective service, what is needed to ensure the integration of PPS with the RCMP on the HIll?

[C/Supt Jane MacLatchy]

The RCMP are not employees of PPS, as you know, Mr. Graham, and they are, for lack of a better term, a service provider to PPS. They are—

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

But they do have to operate as an integrated unit in order to provide security here.

[C/Supt Jane MacLatchy]

Absolutely, and we do have interoperability now on our radios, which was one of our goals from the beginning. We do joint training. Our mobile response team is an integrated unit. It includes RCMP and PPS members.

One of the other pieces that we're looking at right now is that integrated training piece. How can we make that even more robust than it is right now in terms of the MRT, so an exercise planner, integrated exercises, all of that type of thing.

Our standard operating procedures include both the PPS and RCMP sides of the operation, and it's a work-in-progress there is no doubt. We are striving to improve the relationship and that ability for folks to work together, to share information, to work side by side, inside and outside. Particularly during major events and those sorts of things you're going to see far more integration between the RCMP and PPS.

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

I think that's my point.

If the RCMP and PPS are able to integrate without merging unions, because I don't believe the RCMP is even unionized—

[C/Supt Jane MacLatchy]

Not yet.

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

—why is it necessary for the PPS unions to all be one? I'm hearing both things here, and that's why I'm asking.

[C/Supt Jane MacLatchy]

There are different points of view, absolutely, in terms of this particular situation.

In the current situation within PPS I see a separation, not between the RCMP and PPS necessarily, but between PPS—