Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 24th, 2018

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I think that the cost would be more associated with Centre Block. Of course, when you plan to start renovations at one date and it changes, that can have an impact.

My preoccupation, I want to make very clear—and I think the preoccupation of the members of the Board of Internal Economy—is that we want to be confident that the House can operate fully and normally in the West Block, and there's a myriad of details that have to be absolutely ready for that to happen. We're optimistic. We're looking forward to the June report, and then the board will have to make its decision of whether it's entirely satisfied that that's the case. If there are some other things that remain, we'd have to look at what the options are.

Sorry, the rest of your question was on—?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

The costs.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

The costs, whether there are any PPS costs or other costs to administration for a delay in the move.

[Michel Patrice]

Not from a House of Commons perspective, as the Speaker has mentioned. It would be more deferred costs as opposed to the expenditure. It would not occur related to the move, it would happen a bit later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

I'd now like to welcome to the committee the member from the second most beautiful riding in the country, Nathan Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP]

There you go, point of privilege again, Chair. You'll be hearing from me later this afternoon, don't worry.

Thank you for coming, and thank you to all your officials for being here.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to focus a bit on the PPS and the current state of affairs. I don't think there's much we often all agree on as parliamentarians, with perhaps a few exceptions, but one of them is the quality and professionalism of the security that keeps us and the public who visit the House of Commons safe every day.

I'm thinking of this in serious terms. We're all reminded of the importance of security just with the unbelievably tragic events yesterday in Toronto. The Prime Minister just spoke to the need for good security, as best as we can, in a complicated city. We have a complicated place here with media and public presence.

You and I were both here in October of 2014. I was actually in this room. There's a bullet hole in that door. I was trying to leave the room that morning to make a call during caucus. One of our security professionals came through the door the other way and physically shut the door, preventing me from going out. That's where the bullet lodged—one of our own, actually, as it turned out—in that door. It made it through one door and got lodged in the second, right by his head, as it turns out.

I saw Mr. Son this morning. He's working detail in front of the House of Commons. He got shot in the leg that day.

We welcomed the same security force into the House of Commons. I don't know if you were in the chair that day. I don't think you were; I think it was Mr. Scheer. We saluted them to thank them. I've seen a lot of people, great people, saluted in the House of Commons with applause. I'm not sure I've ever seen applause of such duration and such warmth as that day we had our security officials in front of us to thank them for what they do, for the risks they take for us and the public. I find it difficult that same feeling doesn't transpire over when we're sitting down with those same professionals to negotiate a fair contract.

We all, as MPs, pass by our security officials every day. They're wearing their caps, asking for respect. It's not a lot to ask for, yet it's been more than a year since the House of Commons security has had a contract, similarly on the Senate side, and it's more than three, almost four years, I think, since the people who work at the scanners have had a contract.

You and the Speaker of the Senate are, as you said, responsible for PPS. With all respect, why are we in this situation? Why have we not been able to break the impasse and negotiate in good faith with the people who keep us safe every day?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

You'll recall that the PPS is by law an autonomous organization. By law, the director of the PPS is a member of the RCMP. Yes, she reports on aspects of her work to the Speaker. She reports to us. She doesn't take our.... We don't direct her. That's a very important distinction. She also, obviously, works with the RCMP on operational matters.

I'm going to let her respond to the other matters.

[C/Supt Jane MacLatchy]

Absolutely. Thanks for the question, Mr. Cullen.

First off, I would like to say that I fully agree with your description, your depiction, of the security force that makes up the Parliamentary Protective Service. I'm 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.

That being said, when the Parliamentary Protective Service, the PPS, was created, under the legislation that created it, there was an allowance within that legislation for any of the parties to make an application to the PSLREB, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board, now the FPSLREB, to rule on how many bargaining units would make up the uniforms within PPS.

[Nathan Cullen]

Is it the intention of PPS to have just one bargaining unit between the House of Commons, the Senate, and the folks working at the screening?

[C/Supt Jane MacLatchy]

That's correct. We see one bargaining unit as completely in alignment with the unification of PPS integration, the interoperability. From my perspective going forward, when I look at this organization 10 to 20 years down the road, I think it would be very valuable to have one solid bargaining unit that covers all aspects of PPS.

[Nathan Cullen]

To get back to that admiration we all share for this security force that keeps us safe, they have filed a bad faith negotiation. If it's not toward the Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy, then it's toward you, not you personally, but the bargaining that's coming from the RCMP.

I understand you want to unify, but there's resistance to that unification, and in the absence of the unification, we have not had a substantive hour of good faith negotiations with the people who keep us safe. I don't understand why.

[C/Supt Jane MacLatchy]

For starters, respectfully, I would have to disagree in terms of the allegations of bargaining in bad faith. We have been working extremely hard to try to find an avenue to move forward with our bargaining units as they exist right now. We're honouring the previous collective agreements. All of the legal advice I've been given is that until the labour board makes its ruling on how many bargaining units we will go forward with, I'm not in a position to enter collective bargaining with any of those units.

[Nathan Cullen]

Let's look at the status quo, then. We have officers working in this place 60, 70, sometimes 80 hours a week. Overtime is voluntary until the shifts aren't filled, then the overtime becomes mandatory.

[C/Supt Jane MacLatchy]

It can be.

[Nathan Cullen]

It can be, and this is one of the complaints. My concern is that, according to the status quo, until these issues are resolved we will have people working 80 hours on their feet, on shift, to keep us safe. That doesn't seem to be a healthy or good working space for people whose work we both require and greatly respect.

[C/Supt Jane MacLatchy]

You are correct. We are working very hard to try to find a way to address the overtime issue. We are seeing folks working far more overtime than I would like to see them working. I'm very interested in ensuring that all of our employees have access to adequate leave, time off, and work-life balance. We've gone through a whole hiring process. Over the last year, we've hired 114 new protection officers and, I believe, 57 detection specialists to try to alleviate some of those—

[Nathan Cullen]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but would you say the overtime being served, the extra stress on family, remains a concern?

[C/Supt Jane MacLatchy]

Absolutely. One of the other pieces we're going forward on is an employee wellness program within PPS. We are hiring a wellness coordinator to start working towards finding avenues to address employee wellness across the PPS.

I don't know if you have anything to add to that, Mr. Graham?

[Robert Graham]

The other aspect is that, as Chief Superintendent MacLatchy mentioned, we have filled all of our operational vacancies. The other side of the equation is a review of our posture in every post throughout the precinct to examine whether that post is, in fact, needed. There may be areas where we can reduce the need for shifts and posts, but the priority needs to remain ensuring security.

[Nathan Cullen]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Now we'll go to Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Ms. MacLatchy, let's continue with that for just a moment. With the hires you've just said you've done, you have a full complement now of full-time staff. Is that correct?

[C/Supt Jane MacLatchy]

All of our operational positions are filled. However, we do have a certain vacancy rate based on long-term illness and various...I think it's about 8% right now based on “mat and pat”, things like that.

[Robert Graham]

Yes, it's related to accommodated individuals. We're accommodating them for health reasons, people who are on long-term leave. It's about 8% of the operational working force.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

This includes high stress rates, is that correct? Stress is one of the major factors?