EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities NUMBER 034 1st SESSION 45th PARLIAMENT Thursday, April 23, 2026 Le jeudi 23 avril 2026 Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE April 23, 2026 Committee NUMBER 034 NUMBER 034 NUMÉRO 034 34 23 04 2026 2026/04/23 08:15:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent des ressources humaines, du développement des compétences, du développement social et de la condition des personnes handicapées Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities HUMA Chair Robert Morrissey 1 45

(0815) [ English ]

The Chair (Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)) :

Good morning. [ Translation ] I call this meeting to order. [ English ] Welcome to meeting number 34 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, March 13, 2026, the committee is meeting on Bill C-20 ,

an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Witnesses are appearing in the room and virtually. Before we begin, I would remind all members that you have the option of participating in today's meeting in the official language of your choice. If you're in the room, please select the correct channel in front of you so that you can fully participate. For those online, please click on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen, and you will see the official languages to choose from. If there's an interruption in

interpretation, please get my attention. We'll suspend while it is corrected. The clerk has advised me that all those appearing virtually have had their sound tested and have been given the approval. I'll remind members to silence their devices and refrain from tapping on the mic boom in front of you for the protection of our interpreters. For this meeting on Bill C-20 ,

an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes, I would like to welcome the witnesses. From CentreCourt, we have Mitch Gascoyne, partner and senior vice-president of development. From UTILE, we have Laurent Levesque, chief executive officer, and Maxime Pelletier, director of public affairs. They are both joining us by video conference. From Welcome Hall Mission, we have Samuel Watts, chief executive officer and executive director. Each witness will have five minutes to give their opening statement. Before I introduce the first speaker, I note that a member has her hand up. I'll recognize Ms. Falk.

Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, CPC) :

Thank you, Chair. I understand that there have been conversations and that there's an agreement to invite the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and the Minister of Jobs and Families to testify, in relation to main estimates, for no less than one hour individually and no later than the end of May.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Ms. Koutrakis.

Annie Koutrakis (Vimy, Lib.) :

I can confirm that, for Minister Hajdu , we've locked May 28 as the date for her.

Rosemarie Falk :

Then we are in agreement. I'll read it again. I move: That the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and the Minister of Jobs and Families be invited to appear before the committee on the subject of Main Estimates 2026-27 for no less than one hour, individually, no later than the end of May 2026.

Annie Koutrakis :

Yes.

The Chair :

I see thumbs-ups, so there's agreement. (Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Falk. We will now go to the opening comment from Mr. Gascoyne. Mr. Gascoyne, you have five minutes.

(0820) Mitch Gascoyne (Partner and Senior Vice-President, Development, CentreCourt) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear today. My name is Mitch Gascoyne, and I'm a partner at CentreCourt, one of the largest high-rise developers in the city of Toronto, and by that measure, one of the largest in the country. Since our founding in 2010, CentreCourt has delivered over 12,000 homes, representing more than $6 billion in development value. My perspective today is grounded in the practical reality of what it takes to get a project built, what makes it work financially and what causes it to stall.

Before speaking to Build Canada Homes specifically, I want to put the current market into context, because the numbers are stark. My colleagues at BILD have noted that GTA new home sales in 2025 reached just over 5,000 units, which is the lowest since tracking began in 1991 and an 80% decline from the 10-year average. I can tell you from the front lines that the numbers reflect a stark reality. CMHC's own data confirms what we are experiencing in Toronto specifically. In 2025, Toronto housing starts fell to their lowest level since 2009, falling below Calgary, Montreal and Vancouver for the first time.

On a per capita basis, home building activity dropped to its lowest point since 1996, driven by a collapse in condominium starts. There hasn't even been a new condo launched so far in 2026 in the city of Toronto. The root cause of this contraction is not a lack of demand for housing, and it is not a lack of willingness of developers to build; in many cases, projects are ready and sites are approved. The issue is that the all-in cost of delivering housing remains too high relative to what the market can absorb.

Critically, it's not because construction and land costs are elevated, as both have come down materially from their peaks. Land values have fallen significantly, and construction costs have eased. What has not moved until very recently is the tax and fee burden. There's a second dimension that is equally important. New housing, particularly purpose-built rental, is competing for capital against every other investment opportunity in the world. Investors and lenders looking at a rental project today are comparing it to alternatives globally. The returns need to reflect that reality.

Right now, even with CMHC support, it is difficult to find rental projects that offer competitive, risk-adjusted return. We need to change that. I want to acknowledge the massive steps the government has begun to take on this front. The elimination of HST and the reduction of development charges by the federal government and the Province of Ontario are meaningful and necessary steps. In our own projects, we have passed along those savings directly to our purchasers, and we have seen a real, if early, uptick in activity as a result.

The direction is right, and I want to be clear that the industry is genuinely appreciative of the pace of change. The task is now to make those measures permanent rather than temporary and extend them further as conditions allow. Build Canada Homes fits directly into this broader approach, and I support the direction of Bill C-20 . From where I sit, BCH's most important role is as a provider of catalytic capital for affordable projects. Even with meaningful improvements on the cost side, there remains a significant gap between what it costs to build and what affordable projects can support financially.

The economics of affordable housing are simply not achievable without some form of government support. That is exactly where a flexible, low-cost and more patient capital provider can make the difference in getting projects into construction. BCH's direction, as I understand it, is to work in genuine partnership with the private sector, and that is exactly what is needed, as 95% of housing in Canada is delivered by private developers and builders. There's a real value in BCH's filling the gaps the market cannot fill on its own, particularly on affordable housing projects.

It is also worth being clear that BCH and tax and fee reform are not alternatives; they are complements. Reducing the cost burden on new housing, market housing and affordable housing for rental and ownership is important. BCH's capital goes to work on the affordable end, where market economics alone will not be sufficient. Together, these two levers cover the full spectrum of what Canada needs to get built. I would emphasize that Build Canada Homes should be viewed as additive to CMHC and not a replacement for it. CMHC's role in the current market cannot be overstated.

Almost every purpose-built rental project being built in Canada relies on CMHC products, whether it's construction financing or takeout financing. Without CMHC, the number of rental starts in this market would be substantially lower. BCH expands the federal tool kit through more flexible, project-level intervention. Both are needed, and both must be adequately resourced. From my interactions with BCH, I am confident that the goal is clear: Build as much housing as possible, as fast as possible. The case for action is straightforward: Canada is not building enough housing.

Across our major cities, starts are falling and the pipeline is thinning, and projects that will deliver homes in 2030 and beyond need to begin today. The path forward requires two things working together. First, we need to continue to cut tax on new housing so that the supply becomes viable market housing and affordable housing, including for both ownership and rental. Second, we need BCH to strategically deploy capital into affordable projects that the market alone cannot deliver. These two levers used together are how we close the gap. Supply is the solution. Affordable supply, market supply—we need all of it.

We need it to be financially viable. That is the test for this legislation and for the housing policy that follows. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

(0825) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Gascoyne. Who is doing the presentation for UTILE?

Laurent Levesque (Chief Executive Officer, UTILE) :

I will be starting.

The Chair :

Okay. You can share your time, if you so choose. [ Translation ] Mr. Levesque, you have the floor for five minutes.

Laurent Levesque :

Mr. Chair and committee members, thank you for the invitation. I'm the CEO of UTILE, a social economy enterprise that builds and manages affordable student housing in Quebec. Today, we have over 750 units already built in the past five years. Our team of around 50 people is currently working on another 1,000 units. We're a major partner of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, which has helped fund almost all our projects. This makes us one of Canada's leading non‑market housing developers. I should note that we carried out one of the largest modular prefabrication projects in eastern Canada.

Last year, we built 155 units in Rimouski using these modern methods. UTILE readily welcomes Bill C‑20 , given the urgent need to implement Build Canada Homes, especially now that the CMHC has less leverage in affordable housing owing to the end of the affordable housing fund. In recent years, Canada's national housing strategy has really helped create significant momentum in the non‑profit and affordable housing sector. We currently aren't alone in having a large stock of tens of thousands of units whose funding scenario remains uncertain given the end of the affordable housing fund.

The Build Canada Homes program is vital to maintaining the momentum and pace of affordable housing construction in Canada. If this program fails to hit its stride quickly, we risk losing some of these projects. I would also like to point out the need, in recent years, to explicitly integrate student housing into federal government policies. This approach is a key solution to Canada's housing crisis.

It helps to densify areas already served by public transit, to take action in urban areas and to increase supply at a lower cost, while freeing up for families rental units that would otherwise be occupied by student households. During the implementation of Bill C‑20 and Build Canada Homes, we believe that all policies must explicitly maintain the openness and integration of student housing, including off‑campus student housing. This must remain part of the continuum of solutions for housing in Canada in the years to come. I'll give the rest of my time to Mr. Pelletier.

Maxime Pelletier (Director, Public Affairs, UTILE) :

Thank you, Mr. Levesque. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for having us here today. In terms of what we expect from Build Canada Homes, we have three main messages for you today. First, we really want Build Canada Homes to implement a true portfolio approach to funding. Both the industry and the government realize that we can't emerge from the crisis on a project‑by‑project basis. Build Canada Homes has announced its intention to shift to a portfolio approach to funding.

In our view, for this to work, Build Canada Homes must establish partnerships with housing developers in order to fund a number of projects at once. The accountability structure must shift from a system where a funding agreement is established for each project to a system where accountability is reported across all units. This means that a housing developer would enter into a partnership with Build Canada Homes with unit targets across the entire portfolio. There could also be affordability targets and location targets.

This would give us, the housing developers, both predictable funding and the flexibility to optimize public contributions. That way, if a project needs less funding than expected because things are going better than anticipated, we could transfer the money to another project to increase affordability in other areas. This might prevent a project from stalling owing to unforeseen circumstances and a shortfall of one or two million dollars. This would really mark a turning point for housing developers if Build Canada Homes were to implement a true portfolio approach to funding.

Second, there's an urgent need to align the CMHC's programs with Build Canada Homes' programs. As far as we know, Build Canada Homes has no intention of handling major mortgages. This means that all non‑profit housing projects must still go through the CMHC, even with the implementation of Build Canada Homes. The CMHC programs, such as the apartment construction loan program, weren't designed with non‑profit housing developers in mind. As a result, certain challenges arise when it comes to implementing the loans.

It's extremely important to tie them in with the Build Canada Homes programs to ensure the prompt implementation of the projects funded by Build Canada Homes. Lastly, the final point concerns modern construction methods. We know that Build Canada Homes is geared towards modern construction methods. However, we currently lack a clear idea of the expectations. Needless to say, changing construction methods later in the project to comply with the Build Canada Homes requirements entails considerable costs. We want to say that we're ready to adopt modern construction methods.

That said, please tell us quickly exactly what you want so that we can develop projects accordingly. In short, we're keen to continue working with Build Canada Homes and our current federal partners, such as the CMHC. This will give us the opportunity to build more housing and above all to optimize the use of public funds. Thank you.

(0830) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Pelletier. [ English ] We'll go on to Mr. Watts for five minutes.

Samuel Watts (Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, Welcome Hall Mission) :

Thank you very much. I'll warn the interpreters that I will move between English and French.

The Chair :

That's fine. Just speak slowly.

[ Translation ]

Samuel Watts :

Mr. Chair and committee members, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak here today. [ English ] I'm Sam Watts. I'm the CEO of Welcome Hall Mission in Montreal. I also serve as an appointed member of the National Housing Council of Canada, and I chaired the working group that produced the council's March 25 report, “Scaling-up the non-market housing sector in Canada”. In it, I argued very strongly for something that, today, looks like Build Canada Homes.

The report that we issued forms a part of the evidence base for my remarks today. [ Translation ] I must say that I'm here before you as a strong supporter of Bill C‑20 . Before talking about these matters, I would like to briefly discuss the other challenges and not just housing construction. We aren't facing the challenge of a broken system. Rather, we're operating within a system designed to address the realities of people in need in the 1970s. It's now 2026. Successive governments have simply tried to do the same thing. However, these things worked 50 years ago.

The Canadian safety net components that serve the most vulnerable people need an overhaul to reflect the realities of the 21st century. [ English ] Bill C-20 is a step in the right direction, but it addresses a downstream challenge—we desperately need more affordable housing—and BCH must be accompanied by parallel upstream efforts. These upstream efforts would reduce the inflow into core housing need that no building program can address on its own. [ Translation ] These upstream efforts include agreements across all levels of government to fund targeted rental support and support services.

Four walls and a roof are important. That said, the support that helps people maintain residential stability remains the key part of the equation. [ English ] I say let's move ahead with Bill C-20 , but let's also be very clear that BCH on its own is not the only piece of the puzzle. I'm going to make one suggested amendment to Bill C-20 , which I know the committee has touched upon already, and that's the definition of affordable housing. Dr. Whitzman, who was here, pointed out that there are many different

definitions of affordable housing. Build Canada Homes has put one on its website that I think all of us tend to agree with, at least those of us in the sector. My suggestion is this: Why not put it in the legislation and not just on a website? A website can be changed, but for legislation, it's a little more difficult. [ Translation ] I'm asking the Parliament of Canada to make these developments permanent. [ English ] Good intentions are good; let's make those intentions

an act of law. Beyond the act itself, I have four other asks for the Government of Canada. They are not amendments to the legislation, per se, but they are upstream conditions under which this legislation can be successful. [ Translation ] First, Build Canada Homes should establish permanent and dedicated funding for transitional and supportive housing. [ English ] This is important, because those are component parts to permanent housing—getting people in the process. Second, the federal government must negotiate with provinces and territories to implement a targeted rental protection fund.

Rental protection falls under provincial jurisdiction—it can't be done unilaterally—so the federal government needs to lead it, but with urgency. If you can protect rental housing, it helps people stay in housing and is much less costly than having to build housing for them. (0835) [ Translation ] Third, when public funds are created for affordable housing, the affordability must be maintained in perpetuity. [ English ] We have to avoid the possibility that affordable housing eventually becomes unaffordable. My fourth ask should be an easy one.

I think the CEO of Build Canada Homes should sit on the National Housing Council as an ex officio member. If BCH becomes the most significant federal housing instrument, its leadership should be accountable to the broader ecosystem that it's meant to serve. I'll flag something else as well. There are many different players in the housing space in the Government of Canada: HICC, CMHC, BCH and Canada Lands Company. Without any formal coordination mechanisms—I've been around, peripheral to government agencies, for a while now, sitting on the council—there are going to be some mix-ups, and we need to fix that.

In conclusion, BCH is the right way to go; however, its credibility will eventually be measured not in units built but in lives changed. Thank you very much.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Watts We'll begin the first round of six-minute questioning with Mr. Aitchison.

Scott Aitchison (Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all the witnesses for being here. Mr. Watts, I'd like to start with you since you were the last one to speak. I appreciated your comments about the need for coordination among what I think are too many federal housing agencies. I'm wondering if you could tell us specifically what tools Build Canada Homes has been granted that the Canada Lands Company or CMHC didn't have or couldn't be granted to achieve the same objective.

Samuel Watts :

That's a really good question. I don't know the specifics, but I'll tell you about one thing that struck me, in the role that I have on the National Housing Council. Very clearly, housing was one of those things that tended to ricochet around policy-wise, depending on the temperature of the water in Ottawa and which government was in power.

I would feel, personally—and I think a number of other people agree with me on this—that in order to address the housing crisis and the vulnerability crisis we see in Canada, we are going to need to have something that transcends what government does and what government programs or agencies do. We need something that is going to be for a much longer term. The sense of BCH that I am seeing is that it is taking a longer-term, broader approach that is not going to be subject to four-year policy initiatives.

Scott Aitchison :

How? I'm sorry. I don't mean that glibly. The Canada Lands Company has been around for a while. It's a Crown corporation. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation started out as the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation after the war. It is also a Crown corporation that has been around for a while. Its mandate, I guess, has been changed over time. When the national housing strategy came in, it was plopped in CMHC's lap and it had to learn fast how to deliver that. What specifically about BCH leads you to believe it has some super, long-term vision and purpose that can't be affected by the political whims of the day?

Samuel Watts :

Again, that is a really good question. I hope I'm right on this. It seems as though the mandate that's been given to BCH—and this is why I doubled down on the affordability question—is to focus on deeply affordable housing. This is not something any of these other agencies will do consistently. Where we need to go is probably toward making sure that the mandate is anchored very carefully and that it is understood and considered to be long-term—not something that's going to shift and change. We did not get to where we are in Canada in a weekend, did we? It is not going to take us a year or two to get out of it.

We can get out of it. I can see the way. I'm an optimist; that's why I do what I do. We need to make sure we have a long-term view and focus on the affordability sector. If we can help Canadians who are struggling to get into housing, stay in the housing they have and maintain a certain sense of balance, it will free up dollars for all the other social services that we think of as part of the brand image of Canada. Right now, we are spending a lot of money solving problems that really need to be solved upstream. That is why BCH actually has a chance.

Scott Aitchison :

Thank you. I would like to talk to you more, but we don't have time to do it here, so I am going to reach out to you. I want to switch over to Mr. Gascoyne for a second because he is in the private sector. I am wondering if you can speak specifically to the relationship that you see between market housing, the burdens on market housing and how that impacts social and supportive housing.

(0840) Mitch Gascoyne :

When we talk about housing, there are various forms of affordability that need to be addressed. One of those is mid-range and moderate affordable housing, which is for the postman or the teacher who needs to find a place to live—to either own or rent. The overall housing solution needs to be sensitive to the deeply affordable housing that others are addressing. Mixed-use, market and affordable housing types are things that I think can, are and should continue to be delivered in a way that creates supply and creates affordable supply at the same time. That's what the thrust is.

Scott Aitchison :

Would I be putting words in your mouth if I said...would you agree that if all homes were more affordable, it would be like a rising tide that lifts all boats? Purposed investing into social and supportive housing, for sure, but if all homes were more affordable, would that be better for all Canadians?

Mitch Gascoyne :

Yes, as long as they're buildable and affordable. The numbers need to work so that they can be affordable, constructable and economical to bring out of the ground. Absolutely, my view and, I think, the view of others in my industry is that supply should lead to lower-cost housing, and that's okay. That's what we want to do. We want to bring the supply online and make it more affordable for all.

Scott Aitchison :

Okay. Thanks. Quickly, for Mr. Pelletier, you spoke, sir, about predictability and versatility, a portfolio financing type of approach. Are you suggesting that this is something Build Canada Homes needs to do or will do? Is it your impression that it will do this or that you need it?

Maxime Pelletier :

The investment document that was put out by Build Canada Homes says that it wants to do that, but in our experience, moving from a project-to-project logic to a portfolio logic has been difficult from the bureaucratic perspective, because you have to switch how you approach accountability. It's both something that Build Canada Homes said it wants to do and something that we want to see, but our message is that if we want it to work, it's important that government accepts that accountability will not work on a project-by-project basis anymore. It would work by having targets on all the projects that will be built within one investment agreement.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Aitchison. Ms. Desrochers, you have the floor for six minutes.

Caroline Desrochers (Trois-Rivières, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us this morning. I would also like to thank them for working with us over the past year as we developed this new agency, Build Canada Homes. It's actually already up and running. Mr. Watts, you spoke a bit about Build Canada Homes' different approach. That's exactly what we want to do, with looser criteria. That's why it isn't a program, but an affordable housing investment agency where we work closely with the private sector. My first question is for the UTILE representatives and Mr. Gascoyne. I'll then turn to Mr. Watts. Mr. Levesque and Mr.

Pelletier, I know that you have already dealt with Build Canada Homes. Mr. Gascoyne, I don't know whether you have already done so. I would like to know whether this approach, in particular the investment policy that we implemented with its fairly loose criteria, has been demonstrated to date. Obviously, some accountability is still required. However, do you think that things are moving in the right direction?

Laurent Levesque :

Thank you for the question. I would say that we feel that things are moving in the right direction. In terms of the philosophy, the methods of operation and the current status of the implementation process, the new agency is already much more flexible than the CMHC. We must remember that the CMHC also has a macroprudential mandate for the general housing market. I think that the CMHC has found it challenging to focus on its affordable housing mandate. It also has the mortgage loan insurance program, which makes it responsible for most of the housing starts, as Mr. Gascoyne reminded us. However, remember—

(0845) Caroline Desrochers :

It's useful, no pun intended, to have both sides. We need an agency with more flexibility when it comes to affordable housing, as long as we have coordination, as Mr. Watts said.

Laurent Levesque :

That's right. This part still needs fine‑tuning. As my colleague pointed out, the CMHC's remaining major mortgage or mortgage loan insurance programs don't always align properly with the reality of NPOs or with the various other levers for action available to Build Canada Homes or the provinces. We've reached this point in our initial discussions with Build Canada Homes. We're trying to figure out how to ensure that everything remains consistent.

Caroline Desrochers :

Thank you. Mr. Gascoyne, would you like to add anything?

[ English ]

Mitch Gascoyne :

Yes, absolutely. We have had conversations with BCH, and I think that's exactly it. CMHC is great. It has programs. It can roll out the programs. BCH is flexible. You talk to them about what you need to make the project work. They're open to providing patient capital and coinvestment. They really want to be the last piece that makes the project work. In our case, we're dealing with a senior lender that is a big bank. It could mean that you already have CMHC financing lined up, but it's additive insomuch as they're not constrained. They want to drive toward the housing being built and are interested and open to talking about how that can happen.

[ Translation ]

Caroline Desrochers :

Thank you, Mr. Gascoyne. Mr. Watts, I would like to briefly discuss the issues surrounding homelessness. You spoke about transitional housing programs. Over the next 10 years, $1 billion will be allocated to transitional and supportive housing. We know that the homelessness crisis is often tied to housing affordability issues for 30% to 40% of homeless people across Canada. Moreover, we need to work closely with the provinces and municipalities. I gather that you agree that the federal government must play a role in providing support and leverage to get things moving in the right direction.

Do you think that the federal government must play a role in addressing the issues surrounding homelessness?

Samuel Watts :

Absolutely. In my opinion, the federal government must show leadership and help the provinces facing these issues across the country. My role at the National Housing Council gives me the chance or the opportunity to look at things across the country. I must say that the realities are different in British Columbia, Alberta and Montreal. This is really important. We need a continuum of services to address homelessness. First, we need upstream prevention. If we can turn off the tap, that will help. However, people will still often end up in difficult situations.

At that point, we need to meet with them quickly and help them find programs or housing, which is often transitional. My colleagues who are with us and my friends at UTILE—hello, Mr. Levesque—have a housing stock. As an organization, we always focus our efforts on programs that help people find permanent housing. That said, the continuum of services remains vital and the federal government must play a role.

Caroline Desrochers :

My time is almost up. I'll still ask you my question, Mr. Gascoyne, even if you don't have time to answer it. That said, feel free to send the committee your written response later. You spoke about construction costs. The municipalities need support to update or modernize their infrastructure. This aspect is often factored into construction costs. Yet if the municipalities cut all taxes, how will they come up with the money to meet these infrastructure needs? That's why we set up programs to help the municipalities. However, we need to find a way to tackle these challenges.

(0850) The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Desrochers. [ English ] Mr. Gascoyne, you'll have to provide that in writing to the committee. You can reflect on the question and then provide it in writing. [ Translation ] Ms. Larouche, you have the floor for six minutes.

Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us today. Mr. Gascoyne, thank you for your work. Mr. Levesque and Mr. Pelletier, I've been keeping up with UTILE's work, particularly on student housing in Rimouski, with my colleague , the local member of Parliament. It's great. Mr. Watts, I'm impressed with your work at Welcome Hall Mission. You said that credibility isn't measured by the number of units but by the number of lives changed. I hope to have the opportunity to revisit a key issue for us. It's the much‑discussed issue of how to define affordability.

That's why we're talking more about social and community housing in Quebec. I would like to commend the witnesses for joining us as we work on this bill, which will move forward and will play a key role. Before we go any further, I have a technical issue to resolve. I moved a motion, which I believe you received by email. I'll read it to you:

That the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities invite Cliff Groen, senior associate deputy minister of the Department of Employment and Social Development and chief operating officer for Service Canada, and John Ostrander, former technical head, benefits delivery modernization, for a period of two hours to answer parliamentarians' questions on the management of benefits delivery modernization and its impact.

I'll now let Ms. Koutrakis move her amendment so that we can resolve this issue.

Annie Koutrakis :

Thank you, Ms. Larouche. [ English ] We would like to add the officials from the department to be at this meeting, and we would also like to remove the person who is now in the Privy Council who is mentioned in the motion.

The Chair :

The motion is—

[ Translation ]

Andréanne Larouche :

Mr. Chair, Ms. Koutrakis proposed to remove the words “, and John Ostrander, former technical head, benefits delivery modernization” and to replace “two hours” with “one hour”. So the guests would be Cliff Groen and the deputy ministers. These are the only proposed changes.

Annie Koutrakis :

Yes.

Andréanne Larouche :

I agree with this amendment.

Annie Koutrakis :

We're removing the gentleman who is currently with the Privy Council Office.

Andréanne Larouche :

You want to remove John Ostrander. We'll remove him and replace “two hours” with “one hour”. That's all.

Annie Koutrakis :

Yes.

Andréanne Larouche :

Can we reach an agreement with our Conservative colleagues to adopt this motion?

[ English ]

Rosemarie Falk :

If the clerk could read me the amendment....

The Chair :

There seems to be unanimity, but I want the committee to be clear. I will ask the clerk to read the motion that the committee is being asked to adopt, with the amendment of Madame Koutrakis.

[ Translation ]

The Clerk of the Committee (Alexandre Longpré) :

Ms. Koutrakis, did you also propose to invite other officials from Employment and Social Development Canada to speak?

Annie Koutrakis :

Yes. We could add more officials.

The Clerk :

Here is the text of the amended motion:

That the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities invite Cliff Groen, senior associate deputy minister of the Department of Employment and Social Development and chief operating officer for Service Canada, accompanied by government officials, for a period of one hour to answer parliamentarians' questions on the management of benefits delivery modernization and its impact.

[ English ]

The Chair :

I'm seeing nodding heads. (Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Okay, the motion you adopted is the one that was read into the record by the clerk—so we're clear. With that, Madame Larouche, we'll go to you.

[ Translation ]

Andréanne Larouche :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Unfortunately, I need to resolve another technical issue. I need to follow up with you. On March 26, I requested a list of the contracts awarded as part of the program, including a detailed description of the requirements of each contract, the initial cost estimate for each contract, the actual cost of each contract, an indication of whether the contract is still in progress or complete and list of the contracts for each firm indicating the total cost for this program. Mr. Chair, this request was made when the ministers came to discuss Cúram.

At 8:52 a.m., you made a commitment on behalf of the committee to request these documents. We still haven't received these documents, so I want to know what will happen.

(0855) [ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Madame Larouche. I'm going to suspend for a minute while we get this clarified.

(0855) (0855) The Chair :

Committee members and witnesses, please take your chairs. We'll resume the meeting. As I suspended, Madame Larouche had a question. I'm going to ask the clerk to speak to it, and it should address the issue.

[ Translation ]

The Clerk :

I can confirm that, at the March 26 meeting, a number of requests for documents were submitted to the department for follow‑up purposes, including the aforementioned request from Ms. Larouche. I received an email this week. I'm just waiting for the translation of the correspondence. The department said that it was finalizing all the requests from this meeting. We should be able to receive responses to these requests by the end of the week.

Andréanne Larouche :

Good. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Mr. Chair, I hope that you will recommit to giving us this information as soon as you receive the documents from the departments. I can see that you agree. Good. I have one last thing to bring up. On March 26, I moved the following motion, for which notice was given:

That the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities request that the Department of Employment and Social Development, the Department of Public Works and Government Services, the Privy Council Office, as well as the Prime Minister's Office, provide to the clerk of the committee, within 30 days of the adoption of this motion, all reports, correspondence, emails and documents related to the management of the benefits delivery modernization since January 1, 2017, and that the departments and offices responsible for producing the documents apply redactions in accordance with the legal obligations set out in the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act.

I'm bringing this up today because the 30‑day deadline is approaching. Thank you.

(0900) [ English ]

Caroline Desrochers :

May we suspend, please?

The Chair :

It's a dilatory motion that Madame Larouche put forward, which would resume debate on the motion from the last time. This was in discussion, but I am going to suspend for a moment before I go to that to allow members to collect.... We'll suspend for a moment.

(0900) (0905) The Chair :

Committee members, the committee is back in session. We have a dilatory motion on the floor that we will proceed to a vote on. The motion is to resume debate on the motion that has been circulated. Clerk, can we have a recorded vote on the dilatory motion by Madame Larouche, which is a request to resume debate on the motion you have in front of you. (Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

The Chair: The motion has been carried, so we are resuming debate on the motion in front of you. I have a speaking order of Ms. Desrochers, Ms. Falk and Ms. Fancy.

[ Translation ]

Caroline Desrochers :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I think it's a real shame that this important study is being interrupted. We're almost done with the study on Bill C‑20 . Witnesses have come all the way here this morning to share their perspectives and opinions with us, and now this study is being interrupted. We had planned to begin clause-by-clause consideration of the bill soon. So far, we've heard from witnesses on both sides who've talked about the importance of building more affordable housing. Some families can't find housing that meets their needs. There's a bill before us.

There's a solution on the table, but people are once again deploying tactics to drag things out, to block proceedings, to prevent progress on a really important file. I wanted to say how regrettable that is.

Furthermore, the proposed motion calls for a huge number of documents from a department that is busy fulfilling its commitments on critical issues, including the Canada groceries and essentials benefit; Bill C‑222 , which we just voted on this week; the national school food program; and the recently announced Canada summer jobs 2026 program, which will create 100,000 summer jobs for young people so they can find work this summer. The department is busy helping the most vulnerable Canadians, yet some people are trying to delay things by filibustering and demanding documents from very busy departmental employees.

Just last week, after speaking with departmental employees, an opposition member talked about how they work a lot, often late into the night. Now some people want them to give them even more work to do. I don't understand. Why are they doing this? What's the point? The Minister has already testified on the Cúram file. She was here with all her officials. We got all the details for each province. We got information about the case. People are being kept up to date. There's a working group. I'm not sure why we're suspending debate on a very important issue at this point. Mr.

Chair, I'd like to move: [ English ] I move to adjourn debate on this so we can pursue the study we are here to do today. [ Translation ] Thank you.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Okay, we have a dilatory motion to adjourn debate on the current motion. Mr. Clerk, we'll have a recorded vote on the motion by Madame Desrochers to adjourn debate on the other motion. (Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

The Chair: We'll return to the speaking order I have. It's Ms. Falk.

(0910) Rosemarie Falk :

Thank you very much, Chair. I know we heard a bit about Cúram. It was not a lot, but I know we heard that there are seniors who need their benefits to pay for their housing. I would argue that it is very important for us to get these documents. I would like to propose an amendment to the motion on the floor right now to add “pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a)” after “That”, to delete everything after “the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities”, and to continue with this:

...order the production of documents related to the Benefits Delivery Modernization (BDM) initiative, including the Cúram platform, from the Department of Employment and Social Development, the Department of Public Works and Government Services, the Privy Council Office, and the Prime Minister’s Office; That these departments and offices provide to the Clerk of the Committee, within 30 days of the adoption of this motion—

The Chair :

Order, please.

Rosemarie Falk :

The cackling from the Liberals, Chair, is next level.

The Chair :

I called order.

Rosemarie Falk :

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that. The amendment continues:

a. all internal audits, evaluations, and risk assessments related to BDM since January 1, 2017;

b. all briefing notes, memoranda, and decision documents prepared for Ministers and senior officials concerning the BDM initiative or the Cúram platform;

c. all emails and electronic communications that relate to:

i. system performance issues,

ii. delays or backlogs in benefit delivery,

iii. cost overruns or project risks, and

iv. decisions regarding the Cúram platform and BDM implementation;

d. all contracts related to the Cúram platform and associated systems—

Caroline Desrochers :

Suspend.

Rosemarie Falk :

The amendment continues:

e. performance reports and data summaries tracking processing times, backlogs, error rates, system outages and instances of incorrect benefit payments, including overpayments and subsequent recovery actions or clawbacks.

Mr. Chair, we think this is an acceptable amendment, especially given the fact that the Liberals have tried to adjourn debate on this, for one. Something doesn't seem right in that the government doesn't seem forthcoming with these documents. I know that there has been filibustering at other times, including here at this moment, and then trying to adjourn the debate. It's imperative, especially with this power grab that Liberals seem to be taking to dodge all accountability and transparency. This is of the essence. It's impacting our seniors, who helped build this country.

Many we hear from at this committee have been struggling with food affordability, housing affordability and fuel affordability over the past several years. It's imperative that we accept this amendment so that not only Parliament but Canadians can receive the information that the opposition is requesting. Thank you, Chair.

The Chair :

Committee members, we now have an amendment to the motion moved by Ms. Falk. Debate will move to the amendment put forward by Ms. Falk. I had a speaking order in the past. Now I have an amendment, and I'm going to start over.

Rosemarie Falk :

It starts over again.

Annie Koutrakis :

Can we suspend?

The Chair :

We can suspend for a few moments.

(0910) (0920) The Chair :

Thank you, committee members. The committee is resuming. We are proceeding with debate on the amendment by Ms. Falk. I have three speakers on this new list to speak on the amendment by Ms. Falk. I'll begin with Madame Larouche and then go to Monsieur Joseph and Ms. Fancy. Go ahead, Madame Larouche.

[ Translation ]

Andréanne Larouche :

Mr. Chair, I'll be brief. Anyway, Mrs. Falk did a good job of explaining things. I think there is indeed a connection, because we're talking about housing here this morning. I also spoke with Mr. Watts, who said that seniors' fixed incomes are a problem, particularly when it comes to paying for housing. The goal is certainly not to block Bill C‑20 . The Bloc Québécois will support it, as the Liberals are well aware. I reminded Mr. Gascoyne about what's in Bill C‑20 and I also reminded the folks from UTILE, who are still here. My colleague, Maxime Blanchette-Joncas , can back me up on that. It's a terrific bill.

We're going to make sure that Bill C‑20 progresses. We're aware of the issues around social housing and homelessness. I support my colleague's amendments to obtain documents. In conclusion, we have a situation this morning, but it's not because we want to block Bill C‑20 and filibuster. I have to do this again this morning is because, yesterday, my colleague, Sébastien Lemire , tried to get this information at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I ran into him after his meeting, at an event, and he told me that he hadn't been able to get the information because the Liberals filibustered.

That's why we find ourselves in this situation this morning. I have no choice but to ask for this information again because it was requested last night, and that held up the work of another parliamentary committee. I just want to remind the witnesses that we support them, that we want to find solutions to social housing and homelessness issues, and that we're here this morning trying to get information. This will not block or delay debate on Bill C‑20, especially not if people work together.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you. As chair, I will advise the witnesses that they can leave. We have multiple debates on amendments to the motion. I'm unsure as to when we'll return to the agenda. At this stage, the witnesses can be released. Monsieur Joseph, go ahead. This is on the amendment by Ms. Falk.

[ Translation ]

Natilien Joseph (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, Lib.) :

Mr. Chair, I don't want to be brief, but I may be. This is the second time I've seen this kind of thing in committee. Surprisingly, it's because of the Bloc Québécois even though witnesses from Quebec came all the way here to talk about homelessness and affordable housing. You know, Quebec has tremendous expertise. It was a golden opportunity for them to share that expertise and for Canada to benefit from it. I can hardly believe that the Bloc Québécois is preventing witnesses from Quebec from speaking in committee. Last time, I told Ms.

Larouche that she missed a very good opportunity by voting against the 2025 budget. Here in committee, she applauds all of the programs and measures funded in this budget. I'm not going to use the word I have in mind because I'm in committee and I have a lot of respect for her. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois, the witnesses from Quebec also missed a good opportunity this morning, a golden opportunity to speak on behalf of Quebeckers and to show them that the Bloc Québécois really stands up for their interests in Ottawa. That's not my own opinion.

The Bloc Québécois has just proven to Quebeckers that it doesn't really stand up for their interests in Ottawa. Indeed, if I were from Quebec and a Bloc Québécois member was preventing me from speaking in committee, I would have questions. I'm going to talk about Ms. Larouche's motion. This motion calls for the production of several thousand pages of documents from several departments. A similar motion was moved yesterday at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, where members are currently debating an amendment.

It could cost millions of dollars, and it wouldn't be doable in the time frame proposed by the motion. It's not realistic to expect that many documents to be produced by the suggested deadline. Public servants would have to sift through millions of documents across several departments. That would have consequences. Every dollar spent on compiling documents is a dollar not invested in services to Canadians and, above all, Quebeckers. Canadians and Quebeckers expect timely services, but this motion would take public servants' time away from processing applications.

Our priority should be improving service delivery, not creating an administrative burden for public servants. The rules say that committees have the right to request information, but such requests must be focused and reasonable. If this motion were to pass, it would set a precedent for unlimited and overly broad applications. That's important. The work of gathering up documents from all over the government would be for nothing. It's not important. Parliamentarians know we have to use committee resources wisely.

I'm a Quebec MP who serves on a committee in Ottawa, but if I were a Quebecker currently in Quebec and I saw this kind of thing, I would have some questions and, when the next election rolls around, I would give the Bloc Québécois the boot, because people need to respect Quebeckers.

(0925) The Bloc Québécois says that it's here in Ottawa to represent and fight for Quebec's interests. This isn't how you fight for Quebec's interests in committee. These witnesses are Quebeckers. They're experts from Quebec who are here to talk about housing, homelessness, Build Canada Homes, Bill C‑20 and the continuum concept that includes services and transition houses with services. Make no mistake: I am stunned and shocked. If Quebeckers knew how the Bloc Québécois is behaving in Ottawa and especially in committee—and they will know, because I'm here now—they would never vote for the Bloc Québécois. I'll give someone else the floor.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Joseph. [ English ] Next on the speaking list is Ms. Fancy, and then I have Ms. Falk currently on the list.

Jessica Fancy (South Shore—St. Margarets, Lib.) :

Thank you very much. I didn't think this is where we would be this morning. As my colleague just talked about, having expert witnesses with testimony in regard to Build Canada Homes and creating this new Crown corporation that's going to highlight all the good work, collate it together.... People travelled from all over the country to be witnesses here today, and we just dismissed them because of a motion that we've already been trying to work out. I'd love to ground this discussion today in what's actually being proposed within this motion. As it stands, this is not a modest request.

The motion itself has five different subsections, and each of those is for very complex sets of documents to be produced within 30 days. I'm looking at this and the hours that it's going to take; not that it's not an important thing, but this is not a modest request. It's going to require production of what could be millions of pages of documents across multiple federal departments. Think about that. We are not going to talk about a discrete set of briefing notes or a defined dataset.

We're going to be talking about an enormous volume of materials—potentially years' worth of internal communications, analyses and records—that would need to be identified, reviewed and redacted, because of necessary legal arrangements, and then translated and, finally, compiled. To put it plainly, this is not a small administrative exercise. This is an enormous undertaking. We forget about how important this particular committee is. We have an umbrella of five or six different ministries, and we already have a very busy schedule.

We are dealing with some of the most vulnerable people in our country within this committee, so when we have these little willy-nilly.... I shouldn't say willy-nilly.... Well, it is willy-nilly. When we have motions like this that come out, wanting us to produce all of these different documents, we could be better focusing a lot of time, money and energy into the vulnerable people we're trying to help serve. I did not come to Ottawa to worry about all of these different, unnecessary amounts of documents that the Bloc and the Conservatives are trying to get us to produce right now.

I feel like this is a last-ditch grab, because of our newly formed majority, as a way to get us to—

(0930) Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) :

Are you against producing documents?

Jessica Fancy :

No, we're not against producing documents, but doing so in 30 days, under multiple different ministries and multiple different platforms, is way too much. It's also worth noting that a very similar motion was introduced publicly in the public accounts committee yesterday. They're currently debating it to bring that request into a more workable and realistic scope. That's something we should be doing here. That context matters.

It shows that even in another committee, one that routinely deals with larger volumes of documents, there is a recognition that requests of this magnitude are carefully collaborated in, with partnerships forming. I'd also like to talk a bit about the feasibility of what this motion suggests. The timeline simply does not align with the reality of how government operates. Producing this volume of material requires public servants to comb through millions of documents in multiple departments. This is not a process that can be completed in a matter of days, or in this case, 30 days.

This brings me to the financial implications. I don't think we can ignore the fact that this kind of request could potentially cost millions of dollars to fulfill. Every hour spent on a public servant's trying to review these documents is an hour funded by the Canadian taxpayers. When you multiply that across teams—in this case, across departments and across weeks—the cost very quickly escalates. It's not just financial. There's also a very real opportunity cost. The opportunity cost is what we saw today with the witnesses.

We had almost a dozen people lined up to provide testimony on Build Canada Homes, the report we're studying right now. That's lost. For every dollar spent and every hour dedicated to compiling documents such as these, that's time, money and resources wasted when we could be working on some of the things we had previously, as a group, agreed to work on. When Canadians are rightly expecting timely access to benefits, faster processing of applications and responsive government services, this motion counteracts everything you're trying to do. It redirects the public servants away from those core responsibilities.

Let's think about that for a moment. On top of that, during question period our minister diligently reported multiple times that they are working with the groups of people who might have been affected through this technology—people 60 years old, whom they are now trying to onboard and realign. They said that if any of us, the 343 members of Parliament, have constituents and seniors in our ridings who are affected by this, we should reach out.

We're also asking the same public servants who at this time process EI claims, who support seniors accessing benefits, who help newcomers navigate immigration systems and who ensure that programs are delivered efficiently to pause and do this work. Making them do this is not efficient. At the least, it's significantly slowing down other services in other areas in order to sift through millions of pages of records. That's the trade-off. It's what they're asking for today. I don't think Canadians would support this trade-off right now.

Our focus as parliamentarians, in this room and on the Hill, should be on improving service delivery, on ensuring that government works better for people and on holding the government to account in a way that is effective and proportionate. Our team went through the motion. In its current form, it does not achieve that balance. Instead, it creates an administrative burden that risks undermining the very services that Canadians rely on. Let's be clear: Committees absolutely have the right to request information. This is a fundamental part of the role in ensuring transparency and accountability.

However, with that right also comes responsibility, which I don't think they've taken into account today. In terms of making requests that are targeted, relevant and feasible, this motion does not meet any of those standards. It is not targeted. It does not clearly define the scope in a way that would allow departments to respond efficiently. Instead, it casts an extremely wide net, capturing vast amounts of material that may have only a tangible connection to the issue at hand. That lack of focus is not a practical problem. It's a procedural problem. That's a huge concern.

(0935) If we adopt such motions without careful consideration, we also risk setting a precedent for unlimited, unfocused document demands across government. Today it is this file; tomorrow it could be another. Over time, this approach overwhelms the system, making it harder, not easier, for committees to get information they actually need and to hear testimony from experts to develop and strengthen our programs that we need.

A well-crafted request that zeroes in on specific documents or a specific time frame, working with all committee members and our public servants, will provide information that a blanket demand for everything under the sun.... That's what this motion is. A well-crafted request allows departments to respond quickly and more accurately, and it enables committees to do their work more effectively. That's the standard the people in this room.

It's especially important to keep that standard in mind when we consider the work that we're doing and that's also been done on this file already, such as what our ministers talked about when the Bloc was broaching the subject of Cúram. Multiple times since way back in October, our minister has said that, yes, we are onboarding a program that is old with new technology. I believe it's 30,000 or so people right now—of the millions of people who were being onboarded—who are affected.

She said, to all 343 MPs and reaching out to our senior populations, that if there is anybody who is still affected by this, they can reach out to the minister directly. This is something she has said diligently, multiple times, during question period in public for everybody to hear and see. There has already been quite a bit of transparency within this engagement. Minister Hajdu has appeared before committee. Minister Lightbound has also appeared. Officials from their offices and from relevant departments have already provided testimony and have answered questions.

I'm wondering if my Bloc member was actually there before initiating this type of motion. If they've already offered technical briefings to critics and have already offered to ensure that members have a detailed understanding of the issues, I don't see why producing millions, potentially, of documents and large amounts of paper is going to do anything except prove a point: that, at the will of whoever wants to, they can stall our public service. At the request of the committee, officials have also been provided regional breakdowns and costing information into this program. That's not insignificant either.

That is substantive. It is detailed information that helps inform our understanding and that supports our oversight role here as a government. The idea that there has been a lack of transparency simply doesn't hold firm. There has been engagement. There has been disclosure. There has been a willingness to provide information and to answer questions.

(0940) Kyle Seeback :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

Be very specific.

Kyle Seeback :

The member seems to be reading notes from her phone. It might just save the filibuster if she produced those notes for the committee members to read themselves.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Seeback. That's not a point of order. The member has the floor and is debating the amendment to the motion. You have the floor, Ms. Fancy.

Jessica Fancy :

I'd really like to commend my colleague over there very quickly for realizing that I am a good reader and that I am also a really good note-taker. Thank you for that, colleague. Would this be meaningful to enhancing our understanding of the actual problem at hand, or is it simply to create overwhelming volumes of material that is difficult to navigate, time-consuming to produce and costly to compile? In this motion, you want all of that done within 30 days of adoption. I would argue the latter, and that's why I believe that we need to approach this a lot more thoroughly and work together as a team.

Yesterday, our Prime Minister talked about how important it is to work as a team within government and create those partnerships and a lack of transparency barriers. Let's ask for the documents that are directly relevant to those concerns without a defined timeline or in a way that's feasible for departments to deliver. I don't think this is working as a team. Just to let my colleague know, I did not read that off my page. Let's talk about how we strike the right balance between accountability and practicality. At the end of the day, our goal is not to generate paper.

It's to generate insight, and it's to ensure that we have the information we need to do our jobs effectively without imposing unnecessary burdens on that system or diverting resources away from Canadians, which is what we're doing right now. We had all of these witnesses here today to talk to us about the implementation of Bill C-20 in the building of Build Canada Homes. We had them all here, specialists in their area, some of our top-notch people—only to say that they could come here, pay the money to come as a witness and then have to go home before our first round even got finished.

If you talk about people who are facing real challenges, they're also navigating affordability challenges, accessing services and relying on government programs. They expect us as parliamentarians to be responsible stewards of public resources and to prioritize outcomes that make a difference in daily lives. A motion that would cost millions of dollars of taxpayer money, that would take months and months to complete and that has to be done in 30 days.... I don't think this motion helps to prioritize outcomes or makes a difference in daily lives.

This makes us go to our constituents to say that, unfortunately, we are onboarding a brand new program that's been almost 60 years in the making of change and implementation, and if we have any vulnerable people in our constituencies who are affected by this, to help work with our constituents. It's our job to help our constituents. It's not to try to get tons of papers, when Minister Hajdu has already provided information and transparency about this, as has Minister Lightbound . It might sound like some strong accountability but, in practice, this also risks being counterproductive.

I would encourage colleagues to take a step back, consider a more balanced approach and recognize the work that's already been done. Let's acknowledge information that's already been provided, and let's focus on identifying any of the gaps that remain. This would allow us to address them effectively without creating undue burden. That could mean amending a motion to narrow scope or specifying particular documents or specific time periods. It could also be about setting a more realistic timeline that reflects the complexity of this task. There are options to this motion.

Maintaining the motion as it currently stands, in my view, is the right path forward. It's about how we as a committee choose to exercise this type of authority. It's about setting a standard for how we balance that transparency with practicality, with accountability and then with responsibility. We have the tools that we need to do our work effectively. This is a question, I believe, of whether we do this wisely.

(0945) In this case I would suggest a more targeted, realistic and proportionate approach that would serve both this committee and Canadians and that would help us deliver what's currently being proposed far better.

The Chair :

Thank you, MS. Fancy. We'll now go to Ms. Falk.

Rosemarie Falk :

I wanted to respond, through the chair, to some of the things I have heard. Mr. Joseph commented about how this would set a precedent. I don't think that's true. There have been production orders requested over many different Parliaments, whether in the House or in committees, and they have been produced. I don't think that is a factual argument. It isn't something that will set a precedent, because it's been done before. As for Ms. Fancy's point about vulnerable people, I would argue seniors are a vulnerable population and many weren't receiving their OAS given this system changeover.

I also see a contradiction in that. Our committee is responsible for a lot of different things. What we're responsible for is maybe a debate for another day, but at the end of the day I know that this has been brought up in other committees. It's interesting to me that the Liberals are filibustering at different committees. We're hearing a lot about how we're not listening to the witnesses. If the Liberals would stop filibustering and stop talking, and stop doing whatever the PMO is wanting them to do, then we would pass this and move on.

They can start, whoever it is in the department, getting the things that are being asked of this committee so that we can be here for those we represent, which is also our seniors, some of whom aren't receiving their OAS payments. At the end of the day, it's Liberals who are obstructing, they're filibustering, they're delaying, and they're avoiding transparency. To say that the minister has done everything she can.... We never suggested it would be millions of pages or cost millions of dollars. If the Liberals are saying that, it makes me wonder what they are hiding.

What is being hidden when it comes to the benefits delivery modernization? Cúram is just one aspect, and we're here wanting to know why. These are pretty simple questions. The Liberals need to stop filibustering, stop delaying, stop obstructing and vote for this amendment so that we can be transparent with Canadians and effective for Canadians, and at the end of the day, serve them in the best of our capacity to do the work here. Pass the amendment. Let's move on and let the bureaucracy do what they need to do, which is to produce these documents, and then we can get to the work that Ms.

Fancy so urgently wants to do. I would say that she should encourage her whip's office and the PMO to stop filibustering this at both committees in which this is happening and let this pass so that we can move on to finish our housing study and other studies that we have on the docket. I look forward to the Liberals' yes vote on this. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Falk. Madame Koutrakis, go ahead on the amendment.

Annie Koutrakis :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's quite interesting to hear how the Liberal government is being accused of not being transparent, when we all know the work that has been done to date. Both Minister Hajdu and Minister Lightbound , as well as their officials and offices, have appeared on the issue. The officials have provided a technical briefing to critics. Officials provided the committee with regional breakdowns and costing at the request of the committee. There has already been significant transparency and engagement on this file.

For months and weeks, we've heard over and over questions in question period about the Cúram system from all the opposition parties. I don't know how anyone can think that's not being transparent. As my colleagues have mentioned, this motion is requesting millions of pages across multiple departments. This could cost millions of dollars, and it would not be completed within the time frame suggested in the motion.

A 30-day timeline is completely unrealistic, especially when we've already heard the opposition members say that our seniors are a vulnerable population and they need to receive their OAS payments on time. That's exactly what the department is trying to do, to make sure that they do serve the population not only for the OAS, but also for so many other programs that are being delivered through that department. There are 40,000 employees working in ESDC. It's one of the largest ministries that we have in government.

I always say that from the moment someone is born to their end of life, all the programs in between come through that department. To think that 30 days is a reasonable amount of time to ask for all of this documentation is completely unrealistic.

Everyone watching us today, Quebeckers and Canadians from coast to coast to coast, must be scratching their heads and thinking that if there really is a problem with this system and there are kinks or issues that need to be resolved, how is it helping by wasting the time of this committee, which is working on so many other important studies and legislative pieces that Canadians rely on? One of them is Bill C-20 , on delivering affordable housing in a timely manner. I'm sure many Canadians who are watching are scratching their heads today.

This would require the public service to comb through millions of documents across multiple departments. Although we haven't seen the estimate of the costs, you can imagine if you've been in private business.... When you are using resources in the department in this way, work in other areas that needs to be done is not being done. It costs money. Resources cost money. They're not free. Every dollar that we are using is to make sure that Canadians are delivered the services that they expect. Canadians expect timely service. This motion would redirect public servants away from the processing claims.

I don't see how this motion deals with the concerns that are being raised. Our focus should be on improving service delivery and not creating an administrative burden. Having been in the private sector for many years, I can tell you this is not the correct way to use money, whether it's in the private sector or in the public sector. This is not what Canadians are expecting us to use their taxpayer dollars for: to produce more papers, to sift through more papers, and to take up committee time—not only our committee time, but the time of other committees that are looking at this very same issue.

I think our government, the ministries involved and the officials have provided more than adequate information. If there is any reason more technical briefings or explanations are required of the officials, I am sure they would be more than willing to meet with HUMA committee members to provide them with any additional information they have, to better understand how complicated it is to replace a 60-year-old system with a new modern system of delivering benefits. It's really not an easy feat. I'm sure everyone around this table agrees with that, but we are where we are.

(0950) It's not an easy time. I understand that opposition members may be frustrated. Perhaps things will change in the near future, and this is their way of showing how unhappy they are. I really do understand that. If we're going to continue to work together and deliver for Canadians, we need to take a step back and ask ourselves if we are really using the time in this committee and other committees to do what Canadians expect of us. Isn't it a shame that we couldn't continue listening to the witnesses who were invited here to discuss Bill C-20 ?

Here we are talking more about answers that we've already been given by officials and by the ministers. As I said, for queries that are still unanswered, I am certain that any information that committee members need would be given within a time frame that is feasible. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(0955) The Chair :

Thank you, Madame Koutrakis. My speaking list moves next to Madame Acan.

Sima Acan (Oakville West, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I would like to tell Mr. Seeback, through you, Mr. Chair, that I'm going to be reading from notes. Those notes were prepared by me while listening to the debate—which is actually debate, not filibustering. The motion presented by the opposition requires a technical and administrative undertaking that is functionally impossible within the mandated 30-day time frame.

As a person with an electronics background married to a brilliant mathematician who is a successful IT person, and for whom IT is daily life in my house and at the family table, I argue that a request for all emails and electronic communications since January 1, 2017, across five major departments and the Prime Minister's Office, involves the retrieval and processing of massive volumes of unstructured data spanning nearly a decade. From a technical perspective, fulfilling this would require the following.

First, for data retrieval and discovery, we'd be running keyword queries across the servers of six distinct entities to capture every communication regarding the current platform and the BDM's performance. For a project of this scale, a conservative estimate is that this could be 500,000 to one million individual records. Second, the motion explicitly requires redactions in accordance with the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act.

Based on standard industry benchmarks for legal document review—I am drawing from my general IT project management knowledge—a manual or even AI-assisted review for sensitive or personal identifiable information takes approximately two to three minutes per page. Third, there are human-power requirements. If we process 500 pages at an average of two minutes per page, the task requires 16,666 man-hours.

To complete this within a 30-day window, the government would need to immediately divert approximately 104 full-time equivalent staff to work exclusively on this project for 40 hours a week, with zero margin of error or technical delays. In the technical world, we have margins of error and delays. Please do a simple calculation. Multiply these numbers by two or three if we are talking about one million pages of documents. Please do a further calculation if we are talking about 500,000 to one million individual records, where the number of pages could definitely double or triple.

Fourth, extracting data summaries and tracking processing times, backlogs and error rates in the current platform over a nine-year period involves querying legacy databases and normalizing data from different systems' iterations. Technically, this is not a simple export function. It is a very complex data forensics and semantics task that usually requires weeks of validation to ensure the accuracy requested by the committee. Demanding this volume of audited, redacted and synthesized technical data in 30 days ignores the reality of IT architecture and data governance protocols.

It is obvious that this motion and the Conservative amendment are without thought, in terms of technicalities, and without any calculation. Ultimately, the motion by the Bloc and the amendment by the Conservatives demonstrate a profound lack of technical literacy regarding the operational life cycle of a large-scale IT infrastructure project such as the BDM. Demanding nine years' worth of granular system logs, performance summaries and unsiloed communications across six separate government bodies in a mere 30-day window is not a legitimate exercise in transparency.

It is a deliberate attempt to reduce the administrative and technical capacity of the civil service. As a technical person, I see this for what it is: an impossible set of requirements designed to force a system crash—for it will definitely force a system crash—of the departments' work for political leverage. This is a transparently dirty game of procedural sabotage intended to paralyze the government's delivery of essential benefits before committee majorities can be established.

(1000) Canadians are smarter than the opposition thinks. They see that this isn't an oversight. It is a calculated effort to break the system from within, while ignoring every fundamental principle of data governance and system architecture. Those are a few of my calculations and a few of my words to be considered. It is technically very difficult. It's impossible to do it within a 30-day time frame. Looking at all these documents is a risk for our system, so I would ask the opposition, both parties, to look at those words that they put outside. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Acan. Before I move to the speaking list, I'm going to advise the witnesses that they can leave. It is unlikely that we will return.

Kyle Seeback :

Is there anyone on the list?

The Chair :

Yes. There was a motion moved, which was within the members' prerogative in their speaking time, that returned the committee to debate the motion. We're now in debate on the amendment to that motion, which is the prerogative of the members of this committee.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Order. It is left to the witnesses. If they wish, they can leave. The next speaker is Monsieur Joseph. Please go ahead.

[ Translation ]

Natilien Joseph :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If only you knew how it breaks my heart to see the witnesses waiting in a corner and then being asked to leave. They left their homes, their jobs, their families—

[ English ]

Kyle Seeback :

Stop talking, then.

[ Translation ]

Natilien Joseph :

How about a little respect, please.

[ English ]

Kyle Seeback :

You're the only ones talking.

[ Translation ]

Natilien Joseph :

How about a little respect, please.

[ English ]

Kyle Seeback :

You're the only ones talking.

The Chair :

Order.

Kyle Seeback :

Apologize to the witnesses yourself.

The Chair :

Order.

Kyle Seeback :

You're the only ones talking. Apologize to the witnesses yourself.

The Chair :

The meeting is suspended.

(1000) (1005) The Chair :

The committee has resumed. Mr. Joseph was speaking, but before I go on, I'm going to recognize Mr. Aitchison, as he has— Is there no

interpretation?

An hon. member: No.

The Chair :

Yes, but it's remote

interpretation. Mr. Joseph has the floor. I have a speaking order, but I am going to entertain Mr. Aitchison's motion as it relates to the witnesses. He has a motion. If there is no objection, I will let it proceed.

Scott Aitchison :

Thanks, Mr. Chair. The motion is very simple. I move that the prepared opening statements of Kevin Lee, Pedro Barata and Gary Gladstone be taken as read and appended to the evidence of today's meeting.

The Chair :

Do we have consent on that? It's the only way the witnesses can have their prepared statements submitted and considered in the testimony.

Some hon. members: Agreed. [ See appendix —Remarks by Kevin Lee, Pedro Barata and Gary Gladstone]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Aitchison.

Scott Aitchison :

Thank you.

(1010) The Chair :

The motion has been carried. We'll return to Mr. Joseph. I have a speaking list of Ms. Fancy and then Ms. Falk.

[ Translation ]

Natilien Joseph :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm putting myself in my colleagues' shoes. I sympathize with their frustration and that of their leader. With respect to the motion that would require public servants to shift gears—

The Chair :

Just a moment, Mr. Joseph. [ English ] Is there a point of order?

Rosemarie Falk :

Yes, Mr. Chair. I want to make note that we do not give implied consent for you to adjourn the meeting today. We would move that, upon the expiration of resources, the committee will suspend until 3:30 on Monday. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you. I can consider that at the time. We have a hard stop at 10:40.

Rosemarie Falk :

That's great. I'm just saying that we do not consent to adjournment. We consent to suspension.

The Chair :

That will be the will of the committee when we hit the time.

Rosemarie Falk :

Right. What time did you say?

The Chair :

We have resources until 10:40.

Rosemarie Falk :

Until 10:40. Okay. Thank you.

The Chair :

Continue, Mr. Joseph.

[ Translation ]

Natilien Joseph :

Mr. Chair, I'll start over. I sympathize with the frustration my colleagues and their leader are feeling. Public servants are being asked to redirect their efforts and stop processing the backlog of files for seniors in Quebec, Atlantic Canada, Ontario, western Canada and the territories. Do you really expect them to stop doing the work on seniors' files that would give those people access to what they're entitled to, and to start gathering millions of pages of documents, which the opposition parties might chuck into a drawer without a glance? Why would anyone want that?

The opposition parties are obviously playing political games. Witnesses were sitting in the corner, waiting for a chance to speak. Some took a day off work or gave up a day with their family. They drove for hours or took a four- or five-hour flight to get here. Does anyone think it's okay for witnesses to come to Ottawa, only to be told to leave and go home? If we aren't careful, one of these days, witnesses will decline invitations to appear before the committee. What would be the reason for that? The reason would be dilatory motions, motions that do absolutely nothing to meet the needs of seniors.

Is someone talking at the same time as me? I understand my colleague's frustration.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Committee members, I will suspend the meeting if it loses order and decorum in the House. Please respect each member as they're speaking. Believe me, I have to listen to all sides. Mr. Joseph can continue.

[ Translation ]

Natilien Joseph :

Honestly, Mr. Chair, I wonder why the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois want to redirect government resources instead of letting public servants work on things like the old age security pension arrears that seniors are waiting for. That's my question. I'm going to respond to Mrs. Falk, who said that the Liberals are the ones filibustering. We are not filibustering. We just want to leave public servants be so they can work through the old age security files that are currently on hold, because that's very important. These people are not just in Quebec. There may be seniors in her riding who are affected.

I don't know what province her riding is in. There may be some in Mr. Seeback's, Mr. Reynolds' or Ms. Larouche's ridings. When I visited seniors' residences, hardly anyone mentioned having this issue. However, that doesn't mean that it's not happening in Quebec. There are some 9,222 cases pending in Quebec. Ms. Larouche, in the future, I would ask you to be careful with dilatory motions so as not to use committee and government resources for things that don't matter. Mr. Chair, that's all I wanted to say. I don't want to speak just for the sake of speaking, as some of my colleagues do.

I'll yield the floor to someone else.

(1015) [ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Monsieur Joseph. We have Ms. Fancy.

Jessica Fancy :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to my colleague. Through you, Chair, I'd like to talk first and then follow up on some of my earlier remarks, but in a slightly different tone because I don't think that this needs to be any type of adversarial conversation. I think it's a place for real collaboration. In fact, there's a real space here for working together, and that's how we always get the best outcome. At the core, I think that everybody around this table shares the same objective. It's been really great getting to know all the people around this table, their context and what they bring.

My colleague was a tradesperson. My other colleague across the way was a social worker. One colleague comes from a social financial background. I was an educator. We have a truck driver here. It's so neat to see everybody within HUMA. We're the human committee. We look at social programs, and we look at helping all people throughout the whole spectrum, throughout vulnerabilities, throughout disabilities. I think that, because of everything we have and all the context that we bring, this is a real opportunity for us to try to work together. We all want transparency. We all want accountability.

We all want to make sure that Canadians, especially those who rely most on our government programs or services, are being well-served. Where we might differ is how we get there, the paths. It's really important to ground that discussion in this reality of this ministry we're dealing with. This is one of the only committees that deals with over five different ministries. For me, it's one of the most important, given the context of where I come from. This department also serves the most vulnerable Canadians.

These are the seniors, individuals with disabilities, low-income families, workers who depend on timely support to get by. For many of them, these programs are not just helpful; they're essential. When we ask this ministry or this committee to take on additional work, especially work of the scale within this motion, I think we have to think about the downstream impact here together because I think we know what the trade-off is. This committee already has a very full agenda. We have a humongous list of motions, studies and reports that we're already actively working on.

Officials are already spending significant amounts of time supporting that work, preparing materials, responding to some of these requests and appearing before us, which is what we were hoping to do today. There's no question that information has been provided. There's no question that transparency has been provided. There's no question, through you, Mr. Chair, that I think we all want a common goal of helping to strengthen our programs and supports for everybody, which is what the Cúram system, at its core, mission and vision, is trying to do.

There is an opportunity in front of us, not to draw a hard line but to find a better path forward, one that respects the role of this committee and also recognizes the operational realities of the department. The motion, as it stands, is very broad. It will require a review and the production of millions of pages of documents across multiple departments. That's a significant undertaking, and it would inevitably pull resources away from service delivery. I think that, at the core of everything we do, it's the service delivery that we really rely on most.

Not having that service delivery happen is not something that I think anyone here wants to achieve. I don't think that anyone else around this table wants to see delays for seniors waiting on benefits, for families waiting on support or for workers trying to access the programs that they rely on. The question becomes, how do we get the information we need in a way that is effective, realistic and responsible? That's something that our minister, Minister Hajdu , has clearly represented in the House. I think that the answer also lies in how we now work together to redefine this approach.

Maybe it means narrowing a scope or focusing on some specific time frames, Ms. Larouche.

(1020) We can look at specific types of documents, phasing the request by starting with a smaller, targeted set of materials and then building what's needed from there. It would mean adjusting timelines so that departments can respond without compromising service delivery. To Ms. Larouche, my colleague across the way, I think everyone around this table wants the same thing at the end of the day, which is to help with service delivery. We all have recognized that some seniors have had their service delivery disrupted.

The minister has clearly acknowledged that, provided information and reasoning in regard to how and why that happened and forged a plan on working in the future and helping those who did get caught up in this really large system. I commend you on wanting to help all the vulnerable people who might not have received their OAS, but I also want to say that requiring hundreds of hours' worth of document production on a system that we knew was 60 years old and was clearly needing a technology reboot.... Sometimes there are ripples in the stream.

There are also options here to keep the spirit of accountability intact while making progress more workable. At the end of the day, this isn't about asking for the largest amount of information possible; it's about asking for the right information. I think we're more likely to get meaningful insight if we take a more targeted approach in the way we go about seeing the system delivery model, rather than taking a sweeping approach and saying we want all the documents.

I also think it's worth acknowledging the work that's already been done here—the ministers who have already appeared, officials who have provided briefings and data that's been shared, including regional breakdowns and costing information. It gives us a strong foundation to build on. Instead of starting from scratch with a request of this magnitude, I think that if we could build from what we already have and identify what those gaps were, we could move on from here. That's more of a collaborative way forward.

Especially given the nature of this ministry, I also would like to say that we know that people really matter. In a department that serves some of the most vulnerable Canadians, capacity is directly tied to people's getting the support they need when they need it. If we can find a way to meet our accountability objectives while also protecting that capacity, I think it will be a win-win-win for everybody. It's a win for this committee, a win for the department and, most importantly, a win for Canadians.

I'd also like to encourage colleagues to see this as an opportunity to work together to redefine this motion, work out some of these requests and make sure that what we're asking for is both meaningful and achievable, because when we want the same end result, the question is, how do we get there? I'd also like to mention what we're already asking for. This isn't a neutral type of department in the machinery of government; this is a ministry that serves some of the most vulnerable people in this country. These seniors are relying on timely benefits to cover some of their basic costs.

They may be individuals with disabilities who are navigating very complex systems to access the supports that they need. Some of them are low-income families that are trying to stay afloat. Some of them are workers who are in seasonal or even precarious employment and depend on programs like employment insurance to bridge the gap when work is not available. For some of these Canadians, this ministry is not optional; it's essential. I think reality has to guide how we think about this motion that's in front of us, because every additional demand that we place on this department has a rippling effect.

It does not exist in a vacuum. When we ask public servants to redirect their time and attention towards compiling massive volumes of documents, millions of pages across multiple departments—we know we have about four or five different ministries within this committee alone—we're also asking them to step away from the work that directly supports Canadians.

(1025) It's a trade-off—whether we acknowledge that or not. To be honest, we need to think about that. We're also talking today about excess capacity here. This department is already under pressure. It's already managing very high volumes of applications, inquiries and program delivery demands. It's already working to improve service standard times and responsiveness for Canadians who, quite frankly, can't afford those delays.

That is why our minister very plainly said to all Canadians, during a lot of different question periods, that if you are experiencing a disruption in your OAS payments, to please reach out to your MP or to the minister directly. Now, I'd also like to emphasize one other thing that was raised earlier, because it bears repeating in stronger terms. This committee already has a significant workload within its file. We have a very long list of motions from all the different parties represented here. We have studies and reports that we're trying to actively work through.

Officials have already dedicated considerable amounts of time to supporting this committee work, preparing materials, responding to some of these requests, appearing before us and providing detailed information when asked. This isn't small; quite frankly, it's humongous. Committee work was one of the things that caught me off guard the most when I became a member of Parliament. I have five university degrees, and I don't think that I've ever read more in my life. What are my degrees in? Well, I have a premedical biology degree. I have a post-secondary professional studies degree.

I have two university fellowship degrees from Memorial University; one in curriculum and instruction, and the other in educational leadership, with a specification in rural policy and economic development. I also have a degree in international leadership and comparative education. Thank you for that question from my colleague across the way, who asked, “What the heck are your degrees in?” There they are. Every item on that list comes with its own set of expectations and timelines.

When I talk about the amount of reading and preparation for a committee like this among all of these different ministries, it's really important that we do the time, do the due diligence and get the work done. It does not replace any of this existing work; it adds to it. It stacks up upon ongoing studies, reporting requirements and requests for information. All of that work is being supported by the same pool of public servants within that finite system. In terms of the reporting and the number of documents for the motion at hand, it's about capacity. It's a capacity issue as well.

We continue to want to expand the scope of what we're asking without acknowledging that there are limits to what can be delivered, at least within any reasonable time frame. Thirty days is a very tight timeline in terms of what you're requesting. I think that the principle of proportionality also becomes very important. Yes, committees have a right to request documents. All members have a right to request documents, but I think those requests need to be focused and grounded in an understanding of operational realities. This motion is clearly not targeted. It casts an extremely wide net.

It would require our officials to comb through millions of different types of documents and access different departments to identify anything that might fall within its scope. It would then require these documents to be reviewed, redacted for privacy and legal considerations, translated into both official languages and then compiled for production. That's an enormous task in a good year, let alone in a 30-day motion.

When we pair that with some of the existing workload, and consider the humongous list of motions and reports that are already in progress, it becomes very clear that it's not just ambitious; it's unrealistic. It's unrealistic in terms of timeline and in terms of cost. When I say cost, I mean the cost to Canadians.

(1030) It's not realistic in terms of the impact on that service delivery. I also think that it's important to acknowledge the work that's already been done within this file. That context really matters here. We've had our Minister Lightbound already testify to this. We've already had Minister Hajdu testify to this. Officials throughout multiple departments have provided other testimony. There have already been technical briefings. I believe that our minister offered multiple technical briefings to all party members, and I think even Miss Larouche actually attended. It's not insignificant.

That is a meaningful level of transparency and engagement. Again, I think that we have to ask what the incremental value is of requesting millions of additional pages of documents beyond what has already been provided. Will it genuinely enhance our understanding, or will it simply create a volume of information that is difficult to process, time-consuming to produce and costly to compile? More information is not always better information. That's what I always used to tell my students when I taught. In fact, overly broad requests sometimes obscure rather than clarify.

They can bury key insights under mountains of paperwork, making it harder, not easier, for committees to do their work effectively. A targeted approach, on the other hand, zeroes in on specific information that's actually needed. It can be delivered more quickly. It can be analyzed more effectively. It can be analyzed in a more timely fashion. It can achieve the goal of accountability while also not imposing unnecessary strain on a system that's already heavily burdened. That is the balance that I think that we're all trying to strive for here.

I'd also like to say that Canadians expect us to be responsible not just in how we hold government to account, which I completely agree with, but in how we use public resources. This motion would cost millions of dollars to implement. It is not speculative that the reality of this level of effort required to fulfill it goes beyond what I believe they're asking for. At a time when Canadians face affordability challenges and when they are expecting better and faster service from government, we now need to be mindful about how we allocate those resources.

Every dollar spent on compiling documents is a dollar not spent on improving services. Every hour spent reviewing records is an hour not spent helping someone access a benefit, resolve an issue or get the support they need. That's what I feel is opportunity cost. In a ministry that serves some of the most vulnerable people in our country, that opportunity costs even more. The margin of error can be even smaller; the consequences of delay can be greater, and the expectation that government will be here when needed is higher.

I come back to that same point from the beginning, with even greater emphasis: We really need to be careful here in the way that we treat our timelines, our agenda and what we are hoping to accomplish with our motions, being thoughtful and being realistic. We already have a significant body of work before this committee, a humongous list of motions, studies and reports that require attention. We already have ongoing engagement from our ministry, from our officials. I believe we have some ministers coming in a couple of weeks on another topic. We already have information that has been provided in good faith.

We've already provided all party members and members of Parliament with transparency sessions that allowed the minister to break down those specific areas as to how some of the data didn't get pulled into this new system. It's saying that it's not a perfect system. They're in the process of updating something that's 60 years old, and there were going to be, unfortunately, some people falling through those cracks.

Our minister very clearly and transparently said that, if there are some seniors that did not get their OAS payments, they can directly contact either their member Parliament or contact her directly, and they can get that money to you. The questions right here are as follows: What's the right way to go about doing this? What's the right thing to do? I think that the ministry in this case has demonstrated that already.

In my view, asking for millions of pages of documents across multiple departments with an already unrealistic time frame while the ministry is already under pressure serving some of the most vulnerable Canadians is not the right approach.

(1035) There are some specific gaps in the information we have. Let's identify those. If there are particular documents that would help clarify an issue, let's request them. If there are timelines that need to be adjusted to reflect operational realities, let's adjust them. Those are constructive steps. Maintaining a motion of this scope without refinement risks doing more harm than good. It risks diverting resources away from service delivery. It risks overwhelming both the departments and this committee with volume rather than insight and action.

It risks setting the precedent that a broad, unfocused approach to requests is the norm rather than the exception. In this case, we don't want to create that norm and further burden departments. We want to create an exception that is exact. What about that program made it unable to onboard seniors in the correct fashion? What about that program did not allow some of those transfers to go through?

Those should be in the motion as specific asks, not “Let's take every single bit of information about the department, throw it in a box, redact it, translate it and compile it for the committee.” That doesn't really seem like a serious ask. It risks overwhelming the departments and this committee. It risks setting the precedent that broad, unfocused requests are the norm rather than the exception. I think we can all do better than that, as a group. We can uphold accountability while also respecting the capacity of the system and the needs of Canadians.

This ministry supports some of our most vulnerable constituents—some of the most vulnerable people. That balance is really important and essential. On this matter, we can look at what some of those specific things are that didn't bridge gaps in the creation of this new onboarding and data system. What are the specific gaps that didn't allow that transfer in the information system? Those are the types of service delivery models that need to be implemented in a motion such as this, not a swath of everything that might have “Cúram”, “technology”, “updating” or “data” in a document, which then gets pulled.

We also have to remember this: After getting all that information, you have to use the resources in your own offices to go through this and see for yourselves what some of those different service delivery models are. Capacity—

The Chair :

Committee members—

Jessica Fancy :

I'm sorry, Chair.

The Chair :

—we're out of resources. Is it the will of the committee to adjourn?

Rosemarie Falk :

No.

Kyle Seeback :

Let's suspend.

The Chair :

The committee will suspend to the call of the chair. [ The meeting was suspended at 10:39 a.m., Thursday, April 23 ] [ The meeting resumed at 3:32 p.m., Monday, April 27 ]

(11130) The Chair :

Good afternoon, committee members. We are resuming meeting number 34 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members can attend in person and remotely using the Zoom application. Today all members are here in person. I want to remind all members that when the meeting was suspended, Ms. Fancy had the floor. When we resume, we will start with Ms. Fancy. I want to remind members to select the channel that gives them the official language in which they wish to participate. If there is an issue with

interpretation, please get my attention and we will suspend while it is being corrected. Again, as you're aware, direct all questions through the chair. As I indicated, when the meeting was suspended, we were debating the amendment by Ms. Falk to the motion from Madame Larouche. The debate was on the amendment. With that, we will return to the speaker who had the floor. Ms. Fancy, you have the floor.

Jessica Fancy :

Thank you, Chair. Today, I'd like to start by grounding this discussion in something that's very simple but also very important: the work that we do here, and the responsibility that we carry when we sit around this table. I know we're here initially regarding the motion by my colleague, Ms. Larouche:

That the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities request that the Department of Employment and Social Development, the Department of Public Works and Government Services, the Privy Council Office, as well as the Prime Minister’s Office, provide to the clerk of the committee, within 30 days of the adoption of this motion, all reports, correspondence, emails and documents related to the management of the Benefits Delivery Modernization since January 1, 2017, and that the departments and offices responsible for producing the documents apply redactions in accordance with the legal obligations set out in the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act.

That was the initial motion we received on Thursday, March 26. Later we moved on and had a motion for amendments. These are the amendments that our colleagues across the way have proposed:

That the Standing Committee on Human Resources Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities order the production of documents related to the Benefits Delivery Modernization (BDM) initiative, including the Cúram platform, from the Department of Employment and Social Development, the Department of Public Works and Government Services, the Privy Council Office, and the Prime Minister’s Office;

First, I'd like to take a moment and say there are eight different offices or departments from which they want documents. It continues:

That these departments and offices provide to the clerk of the committee within 30 days of the adoption of the motion:

a. all internal audits, evaluations, and risk assessments related to BDM since January 1, 2017;

That's similar to the original motion, but then it goes on to ask for:

b. all briefing notes, memoranda, and decision documents prepared for Ministers and senior officials concerning the BDM initiative or the Cúram platform;

c. all emails and electronic communications that relate to:

i. system performance issues,

ii. delays or backlogs in benefit delivery,

iii. cost overruns or project risks, and

iv. decisions regarding the Cúram platform and BDM implementation;

d. all contracts related to the Cúram platform and associated systems;

Finally, the last

part is:

e. performance reports and data summaries tracking processing times, backlogs, error rates, system outages and instances of incorrect benefit payments, including overpayments and subsequent recovery actions or clawbacks.

Ladies and gentlemen, in the first seven minutes of this meeting, I've just read the motion and amendments to the motion that we're looking at. I believe it refers to six different ministries, with five paragraphs requesting many different types of briefing notes, etc., that they're requiring regarding the Cúram software.

(11135) When we're around this table, we are entrusted with two things. The first thing is to conduct oversight in a responsible, measured and effective way. I think we can all agree on that. The second thing is to advance legislation that Canadians are watching, are waiting for and are expecting us to study with care. We're struggling to do either one. This motion is almost two pages long, and in its current form, it's pulling us away from both of these responsibilities—conducting oversight and being responsible in an effective way—to advance this legislation. I'll start with the impact we're seeing.

Last Thursday, this committee was scheduled to hear from witnesses on Bill C-20 , which is the implementation of the Build Canada Homes act through our housing and infrastructure ministry.

(11140) Rosemarie Falk :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

State your point of order clearly.

Rosemarie Falk :

I'm not hearing relevance. She's talking about housing. That's not what the amendment or the motion on the floor is about.

The Chair :

I would ask Ms. Fancy to—

Iqra Khalid (Mississauga—Erin Mills, Lib.) :

On that same point of order of relevance, Chair, I think that Ms. Fancy is getting to a point. I think we should allow her—

The Chair :

Thank you—

Iqra Khalid :

—to lay out where we need to go by making sure that the context is relevant.

Rosemarie Falk :

On that, Chair, I would note the precedent you had on this. There has not been grace to allow the context, so I would ask that the same be applied in this situation.

The Chair :

Thank you. Ms. Fancy, you have the floor. Stay relevant to the amendment to the motion being discussed.

Jessica Fancy :

Thank you very much, Chair. I was discussing how we can further legislation. When we have witnesses come here, they fly in. They prepare their documents and briefing notes. Sometimes it's frustrating for committee members and for witnesses. We want people to be respectful. That's what I was referring to. We cancelled last week due to this motion and the discussion regarding it. It wasn't an emergency, but it was due to a technical issue. We're consumed by a procedural debate on this motion. That matters for the credibility of this committee as a whole.

It matters for the integrity of the process in the committee and for the message we're sending to Canadians about how seriously we take our work. When those witnesses take time to appear—

[ Translation ]

Bernard Généreux (Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, CPC) :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Clearly state your point of order.

[ Translation ]

Bernard Généreux :

Mr. Chair, my colleague just implied that we aren't doing our job. Frankly, we're not here to waste our time. We're here to study a proposal and amendments. I don't know why she's insinuating—

[ English ]

Iqra Khalid :

I'm sorry, Chair, but that is a point of debate and not a point of order.

The Chair :

Thank you. I have recognized a point of order from—

[ Translation ]

Bernard Généreux :

I don't know why she's insinuating that we're here to waste our time. I don't understand. In fact, Mr. Chair, I raised my hand because I want to speak, so I look forward to doing that.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you. For any further points of order, I will insist that you clearly reference the point of order. That was outside of that. Ms. Fancy, you have the floor.

Jessica Fancy :

I'm just furthering what my colleague had mentioned. That's not really how a committee should function. I'm agreeing with him on that point of order. Let's turn to the motion itself, then. What this motion is actually looking for is the production of literally millions of pages of documents across multiple departments—millions of pages. It's not a really targeted request. It's not a really scoped request. It's a request of magnitude that is, quite frankly, pretty unprecedented within this committee.

When we're looking at some of these motions and trying to find out the actual scope of what they're looking for, you can't just say that you want every single click of a keyboard that's happened and want it all in a box so that we can peruse it. Even though we heard, multiple times during question period, that our minister was asked this, and she gave a coherent and transparent answer saying that—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Jessica Fancy: Oh, that's also up for debate, but if I didn't say that, then you'd “point of order” me for not saying that. The minister has already said that we have a 60-year-old program that we're trying to onboard. We have a couple of million seniors here. I believe that all together a little under 30,000 hadn't been completely onboarded due to paper.... The minister told us that if there are any MPs who have seniors right now who had missed payments to please contact their MP or their constituency office.

Also, she's made note of saying that if there are any seniors out there who have not received payments to please contact her ministry. When you have a system that is 60 years old, and they're trying to onboard it with technology, sometimes there are bumps along the way. She's been transparent with that within the department. We're saying that the number keeps going down as we go to try to get the seniors their cheques. We don't need to speculate on that. This past week, a similar motion was also introduced publicly to the public accounts committee. Members immediately raised concerns.

I think they're still debating those motions as well. The scale of that request, once again, was also vast and cannot be implemented as written. I think this should give us pause, because the same issues that are going on there are also applying here. Producing millions of pages of documents will cost millions of dollars. That's not an abstract estimate; that is an operational reality of what's being asked within this motion. We have an almost two-page motion here with all of the different types of information platforms, electronic communications and risk assessments.

If you're requiring all of these teams to comb through these enormous amounts of materials, Chair, like emails, briefing notes, technical reports, contract files and internal correspondence, that's just the beginning of what this could be. Each document would need to then be reviewed line by line for privacy—because then there's the section