Eric Janse
Clerk of the House of Commons
Opening remarks
In my recollection, it was several days after. Paul, do you know?
Meeting 31 · April 30, 2026 · 11:04–12:34 (1h 30m)
45-19 witnesses · 170 interventions · 10,395 words
The committee met to study the 2026-27 main estimates for the House of Commons and the Parliamentary Protective Service. Appearing were Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia; Clerk Eric Janse; Chief Financial Officer Paul St George; Law Clerk Michel Bédard; Parliamentary Protective Service Director Mitch Monette; Chief Information Officer Benoit Dicaire; Chief Executive Administrator Stéphan Aubé; Senior Officer Paul Mellon; PPS Chief Financial Officer Éric Savard; and Deputy Clerk Jeffrey LeBlanc.
Speaker Scarpaleggia presented the main estimates, totalling $669 million for the House of Commons, a 1.9% increase from the previous year, and noted that the Parliamentary Protective Service was not requesting additional appropriations. He highlighted cost pressures partially offset by efficiencies from a strategic internal assessment of operations, and outlined funding increases for a new off-site data centre, the visitor registration program, and cost-of-living adjustments for members' office budgets and salaries.
Eric Janse confirmed that a member's repayment for inappropriate expenses occurred after a letter from a member of Parliament raised the issue, and that the matter would return to the Board of Internal Economy. Michel Bédard explained that the board cannot impose fines but can refer matters to other authorities, and that in similar past cases, reimbursement was considered sufficient.
Mitch Monette described security enhancements including a Walk Safe escort program, a new training centre, and K-9 units added at no cost through RCMP collaboration. He said the service is satisfied with its current budget and has paused new programs to focus on expanding existing ones, while noting that overtime expenses have increased to $7 million.
Benoit Dicaire stated that cybersecurity remains a key priority, with investments protecting parliamentary debates and operations from sophisticated foreign actors. He confirmed that most parliamentary data is hosted in Canada, and that the House is working with national security partners to respond to incidents like the ransomware attack on Canada Life, which affected a government-procured service.
Stéphan Aubé reported that the incremental cost of hybrid proceedings for 2026-27 is projected at $7.4 million, up from $5 million in 2023, due to increased committee meetings. He noted that the House is reviewing potential efficiencies, and that the hybrid infrastructure also supports televised committee proceedings and electronic voting resilience.
Paul Mellon stated that threats against members of Parliament peaked in 2024 and have since plateaued, with most originating in Canada. He said the office maintains comprehensive records and can extract gender-disaggregated data, and that resources have been increased to manage threatening and misogynistic online correspondence.
Éric Savard explained that the overtime budget has been increased to $3.3 million to better align with actual expenses, which have historically exceeded $5.6 million and reached $7 million in the past year. He noted that overtime costs vary with statutory holidays, threat levels, and special events.
Jeffrey LeBlanc provided statistics on hybrid participation, noting that about two-thirds of public committee meetings have some virtual participation, with members participating virtually in 11% of meetings and witnesses in 41%. He estimated that the chamber component of hybrid costs $1.2 million annually, and that the decision to continue or modify hybrid proceedings rests with the House.
The committee also discussed interpretation services, with Eric Janse noting that priority is given to the House and committees, leaving some caucus and event requests unfilled due to a shortage of interpreters. Stéphan Aubé confirmed that the number of interpreter injuries increased after hybrid was adopted but has since declined, and that the House has met all health and safety requirements.
The committee agreed by unanimous consent to a motion, as amended, to schedule three meetings on Bill C-25, with the minister and officials on May 5, witnesses on May 7 and May 26, and to begin clause-by-clause consideration on May 28, with deadlines for witness submissions and amendments set for May 1 and May 25 respectively.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.
Eric Janse
Clerk of the House of Commons
Opening remarks
In my recollection, it was several days after. Paul, do you know?
Paul St George
Chief Financial Officer, House of Commons
Opening remarks
I don't have the specific date with me.
Michel Bédard
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Opening remarks
The Board of Internal Economy is in charge of financial administrative affairs for the House of Commons and its members. It doesn't have the power to impose fines or to impose punishments, but it can take measures within its traditions. The board can always refer matters to another authority if it feels that the matter needs to be addressed. In similar cases in the past, when there have been reimbursements of expenses that have been asked for by the board, usually the reimbursements sufficed and the board did not take any further measures.
Mitch Monette
Director, Parliamentary Protective Service
Opening remarks
I would say that this is part of the responsibilities of the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms and Institutional Security, as well as ours at the Parliamentary Protective Service. I can discuss the security environment and then the efforts being made in general, given that we are testifying in a public hearing today. It is clear that in our budget, particularly the most recent one, there has been an increase in funding for programs that specifically contribute to the safety of each member of Parliament on the Hill itself. We have added programs to ensure that our parliamentarians feel safe when arriving in the Parliament Hill area. We have created a program called Walk Safe, which is an escort program, to ensure that every parliamentarian approaching Parliament Hill feels completely safe. We have also significantly increased our staffing for member training. I am pleased to announce that we recently received the keys to our new PPS training centre, for which we held a grand opening recently. This will increase our capacity to effectively train our staff and create scenarios that will allow our members to familiarize themselves with our duties. We have also been developing an…
Benoit Dicaire
Chief Information Officer, House of Commons
Opening remarks
Thank you, Mr. Monette. I will discuss cybersecurity issues. We are also working closely with the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms on foreign interference, as well as in partnership with national security representatives. Cybersecurity remains a key priority for the House of Commons. Parliament remains a prime target for highly sophisticated actors. Therefore, the investments you see in what we presented a few years ago make a significant contribution to maintaining the infrastructure necessary for the secure conduct of debates in the House of Commons, as well as to the continuity of the institution’s operations, regardless of the sources of risk. Thus, these investments aim to protect Parliament and ensure the continuity of parliamentary activities.
Stéphan Aubé
Chief Executive Administrator, House of Commons
Opening remarks
For 2026-27, we're projecting the cost to be around $7.4 million for hybrid proceedings. That's the incremental cost to our budget for offering the service. It started in the range of $5 million in 2023, as you identified. We're now up to $7.4 million, based on a decision of the board to make sure that we can support an increase in committee meetings over pre-pandemic committee meetings. That's why it went to that level. We continuously make an effort to review and assess whether there are opportunities, as the clerk mentioned. We've been going through review exercises, and that's one of the services we were asked to review. We are in the process of discussing whether there are potential opportunities for efficiencies.
Paul Mellon
Senior Officer, Risk Management and Investigations, Corporate Security Operations, House of Commons
Opening remarks
We've had an increase in resources, not just with our open-source intelligence folks but also with our assistant sergeant-at-arms, all of whom are investigators, to manage not just the increase in threatening behaviour but also the increase in nuisance, malicious and misogynistic types of online correspondence. In that regard, we have a very robust records management system whereby we correlate every incident and file. We can differentiate between different categories as to whether they're misogynistic, etc. We can extract that information if we want.
Éric Savard
Chief Financial Officer, Parliamentary Protective Service
Opening remarks
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.
Jeffrey LeBlanc
Deputy Clerk, Procedure, House of Commons
Opening remarks
Mr. Jackson, of course the decision will ultimately be left to members as to what they would like to use. There are costs associated with the chamber. That is clear. The main use of the system in the chamber today is for the voting application. There are very few members who participate virtually in order to give speeches, for example. There are some, but not very many. The main value, I think, is in the event that there's a failure with the voting system. Then members have an opportunity to participate by video conference and have their vote count. Is there an alternative means to accomplish that? If members wanted to say that there was no longer a desire to have hybrid participation in the chamber, could we come up with an alternative? We probably could, and there would probably be savings associated with that.