Evidence of meeting #31 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was hybrid.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you very much.
Somewhat related to that, since a number of incidents do happen, I'd like to hear your opinion on whether or not the number of officers responsible for the safety of parliamentarians has increased. There was a reference to overtime in the opening remarks.
Is there a high level of staff turnover in the Parliamentary Protective Service? If so, is it necessary to rely on overtime more than in the past? Could you provide an overview of the situation?
Director, Parliamentary Protective Service
That's a fairly complex question, given that our staffing depends heavily on the environment itself.
Clearly, on a day‑to‑day basis, we have a core workforce. Depending on the threat or risk, we increase our staffing levels. It's done progressively. When the chambers are sitting, we obviously increase the number of staff. In addition, given the required hours, we need to increase our staffing levels. All of this is determined internally.
In terms of our numbers, I would say that, by and large, we are satisfied. It's very difficult to determine the required staffing levels, as the situation fluctuates regularly. When we reach a certain plateau or observe a trend, we can begin to reassess those levels. However, at present, I would say that we are satisfied with our staffing. We are fully able to do our job with the workforce we currently have.
Perhaps Mr. Savard could talk about overtime.
Éric Savard Chief Financial Officer, Parliamentary Protective Service
Absolutely.
As a result of these main estimates, our overtime budget has increased to $3.3 million. So this is a component of our budget.
However, historically, the Parliamentary Protective Service has always incurred overtime expenses in excess of $5.6 million. For the year that has just ended, overtime expenses amounted to $7 million, which gives you a general sense of the situation. However, in certain years when there was a great deal of disruption, if you will, overtime expenses rose to as much as $11 million. So these are costs that we have to manage internally.
We do have some flexibility in our budgets, but as a result of these main estimates, we decided to increase our base overtime budget, because it's a regular and ongoing expense. Statutory holidays lead to overtime. There's no getting around that.
For the rest, it really depends on the day-to-day operations, the level of threat and specific events. In years when there were Canada Day activities on the Hill, there were significantly more overtime hours.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you so much.
Mr. Monette, I do understand that you probably spent the first 20 years of your career speaking right into the radio, and we appreciate your service and commitment to public safety.
Mr. Calkins, you have five minutes, please.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Ponoka—Didsbury, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Monette, if you find the chair disagreeable, feel free to run a 10-28 and a 10-29 on him any time you want and see what happens.
I'm going to ask a couple of questions going back to the cost of hybrid. Could we get some statistics on usage, just for the edification of the committee? This is not me pre-positioning any negative connotations. I was sick two weeks ago, and I actually joined this committee both days at that time because I didn't want to get anybody else sick, but I am fundamentally curious about what the uptake is, because by and large, everybody seems to be back at work. I know it was a different time. I'd like somebody from your crew to get back to us with this.
I want to differentiate this a bit too. I would imagine, Mr. Aubé, that you'd be the person to answer this question. Prior to having Zoom and prior to having the first virtual Parliament and then the hybrid Parliament, committees did have the ability.... There were committee rooms that were equipped to do video conferences and teleconferences. Are we still maintaining that technology, or has that completely been replaced by what we're doing now?
Chief Executive Administrator, House of Commons
We did completely replace the infrastructure within the committee rooms. If you remember, pre-pandemic we used to have studios across Canada that we would lease—
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Ponoka—Didsbury, AB
I remember it very, very well. It was very primitive. The COVID pandemic basically brought on a massive surge forward in technological capabilities here and in the House. That's why I'm wondering. We've gotten rid of the legacy....
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Ponoka—Didsbury, AB
Now every committee room in the House is able to host somebody virtually, and Zoom is the only platform we use. Is that correct?
Chief Executive Administrator, House of Commons
It was the platform that was chosen for interpretation requirements at the time. Yes, it is still the platform that we're using, sir.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Ponoka—Didsbury, AB
Okay, but it also created some issues when it came to interpretation. I can't disclose what I used to discuss at the Board of Internal Economy, but can you give us an update on where we are with the ability to have adequate interpretive services for events outside of official House of Commons duties?
We used to be able to request interpreters for special interest caucus meetings. We can't get interpretive services for some of those things. Can we find out a little more about the status of interpretive capabilities?
Clerk of the House of Commons
Maybe I'll start, and then Stéphan can jump in.
We can come back with more statistics, but you're absolutely right, Mr. Calkins, that unfortunately there are still meetings, events, etc., for which there is not an interpretation capacity, so those requests cannot be fulfilled. It has been the subject of much discussion at the Board of Internal Economy, to the point that at the board's last meeting, the minister responsible for the translation bureau appeared in order to discuss the issue.
It's largely a translation bureau issue in terms of human resources capacity. The House has invested a lot of time and money in the technology to ensure that the systems are safe for our interpreters, but it remains an issue for sure.
Stéphan, do you have something to add?
Chief Executive Administrator, House of Commons
Mr. Calkins, we feel that the interpretation systems that are being used, including the remote ones, are very secure. The statistics have demonstrated that the number of incidents we've had since the beginning of the pandemic has completely gone down. Statements are coming back from people that our systems are world-renowned compared to other parliaments that are using approaches similar to ours. We feel very confident from a health and safety perspective.
As you know, in the last years, we've also worked with the Treasury Board and the health and safety board, because there were some incidents. We met all of the requirements that were asked of us to ensure that the health and safety concerns of the interpreters were addressed. We take this very seriously, sir, as an institution.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Ponoka—Didsbury, AB
I appreciate that. Thank you very much.
The plan, then, is to continue, even though it costs a few more million dollars, to upgrade the capacity of being able to do, essentially, a hybrid Parliament, not necessarily for the benefit of MPs but for the benefit of witnesses at committee. Do I understand that correctly?
Clerk of the House of Commons
There was a decision made that hybrid would continue, despite the pandemic coming to an end, and that it would apply for members in the chamber and in committees as well as for witnesses.
As a result, we, the House administration, had to—
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Ponoka—Didsbury, AB
My point, Mr. Janse, is that if we were going to say that hybrid is no longer an option for members and senators, we would still be using the same infrastructure to deliver witnesses to committees, at the very least. Do I understand that correctly? Would that be the proposal the administration would offer?
Chief Executive Administrator, House of Commons
That would be the proposal, sir. We could maybe look again at some of the technologies that are being used, but to actually offer that service, we need similar technologies in these facilities.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Okay. Thank you so much.
We'll go to Mr. Louis for five minutes, please.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
I want to thank the Speaker and all of the witnesses for appearing before our committee today. It's an important opportunity for us to understand how Parliament and its supporting institutions are resourced to help everyone carry out their responsibilities. That includes everyone being supported in their work and the parliamentary precinct remaining safe and accessible to all. I thank you all for your service.
My entire time was going to be spent almost exactly on what Mr. Calkins was talking about. Just in the interest of moving on to my next topic, did anyone have anything they wanted to add? I wanted to speak of the importance of interpretation.
Canada is a country with two official languages.
It's important. Before I heard the last testimony, I wrote down that it's important for us to be able to communicate with each other, but it's also important to keep everyone safe. Also, technology is constantly changing. One of the things we saw when we came back was that there were pop screens, I think they're called, on the desks.
Is there anything else that you wanted to share with us regarding the importance of interpretation, the resources you need or what decisions to make?
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
As I understand it, yes, you're absolutely right. The business of the House must be properly communicated by using interpretive services in both official languages. My understanding, based on the discussions we've had at the Board of Internal Economy and on discussions that included an appearance by the minister responsible for government transformation, is that there isn't a huge surplus of interpreters in the country. This is becoming a major challenge.
In any event, translation and interpretation are a service of Public Works and Government Services Canada. While many frustrations have been expressed by members about the quality of interpretation, it is the responsibility of that government department to ensure that high-quality services are offered when needed. The Board of Internal Economy has been engaging with that department on a constant basis. Mr. Perron deserves a shout-out for being assiduous in tracking that issue.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you. I learn a few words each day from the interpreters, so I thank them for their service.
Mr. Speaker, in your opening remarks, you mentioned the visitor registration program as something new. There's a constant balance, and Mr. Savard, you mentioned Canada Day on the Hill. Canadians want to participate. We want them to be part of democracy.
There's a balance. We have to maintain strong security measures, and at the same time, we have to ensure that Parliament remains open and accessible to everyone. Can you tell us a bit about the new visitor registration program and how you're helping to balance accessibility with security?
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
This has been a bit of a pet peeve for me, actually. As a parliamentarian, I often have large groups of students coming to a building like the Wellington Building for a seminar of sorts. I found that the time required to process these visitors through security was taking far too long, so I brought it up with Mr. Monette and with others. They're implementing a system to help process visitors more quickly.
I believe there are two components. There's hiring more staff, if possible, but there are also systems improvements. As I understand it—and correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't have the full picture on this—as people arrive at, say, the Wellington Building, the security guards can go to a centralized system to see the names on the list, which should save time on the checks they have to do. Is that correct?
Director, Parliamentary Protective Service
I'll hand over the question to the Sergeant-at-Arms' office, given that they've been leading the upgraded program on visitor registration.
Senior Officer, Risk Management and Investigations, Corporate Security Operations, House of Commons
For the visitor registration program, we've identified deficiencies in the current processes. We've worked diligently with the SRP to improve those processes and speed up the flow. We've taken over certain aspects of it. We're there to ensure that we know who is in our buildings at all times without impeding access to the buildings. That's the main goal of what we're doing. That's what we endeavour to do.