Government Operations Committee on Sept. 28th, 2023

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I'm sorry. Can you repeat that?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I am just going to add the words “and other witnesses” after the witness list, to make sure we're implying that members will submit witness lists.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Are we fine with Mr. Kusmierzcyk's amendment, and then we'll amend it further?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

We can adopt his amendment, and we can add “and other witnesses” as well.

Is that agreeable?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Let's start with Mr. Kusmierczyk's amendment. I think I see everyone in agreement with Mr. Kusmierczyk's amendment.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Genuis has a further one, just adding “and others”.

Are we all in agreement, colleagues?

(Amendment agreed to)

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Then I have just one more suggestion, that we—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Hold on for just a few seconds.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I'm sorry. Just as a clarification, we've added the CEO of Canada Lands; we've added Canada Post, and then we've added “others”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's where we stand right now.

Mr. Genuis, if you have others, let's put them all at once.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Okay, this is the last one. After “real property portfolio to build”, I propose that we add “market and” before “non-market housing”.

We're looking at a study to identify opportunities. We can look at the arguments for and against market and non-market housing, what's appropriate and in what context, but I would suggest that in the context of the study we look at the possibility and the opportunities for both. That will provide a broader look at the situation and the opportunities, and it will provide people with an opportunity to argue against market housing, if that's their view. Let's look at it as well. Let's not exclude it from consideration.

It would be revised to read, “a study to identify opportunities within the Government of Canada's real property portfolio to build market and non-market housing”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I appreciate what you're saying. Just before we open it up, we should consider.... I will just mention quickly that Canada Lands does develop at-market housing, so if we are inviting them, perhaps it can be for that. I'm sure this subject will come up anyway, but I just wanted us to be aware that this is part of what they do as well.

I see Mr. Kusmierczyk is in favour.

Mr. Johns, do you want to speak to it?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

It'll be the only part we don't agree on.

I'm fine with not agreeing on the market piece of the motion. I know I'll get defeated here, and I'm fine with that.

Move it, and then let's get it over with so we can get on to the main motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I agree, because there are a lot of aspects to the housing thing as well. I'd hate to exclude anything, but I appreciate that.

Colleagues, can we do this on division, on Mr. Genuis's suggestion to add the words “and market”?

(Amendment agreed to on division)

Thank you for bringing that forward.

On the main motion, is it on division as well, colleagues?

[An hon. member]

I would like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Our colleagues the Liberals would like a recorded vote.

Mrs. Atwin, go ahead.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I'm sorry to disappoint you, Mr. Chair, but I'd like to move that we strike the ministers from the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Well, we're actually at the point of voting on the final motion as amended and everything else, so we're past the amendments. We're doing a recorded vote on the motion as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Colleagues, thank you very much.

Please bear with me. Mrs. Vignola has something very important. I'm not sure if we'll have time, but if Mrs. Vignola would like to introduce the motion and if we can agree to it in the next two minutes, that's wonderful. If not, we will have to save it for another meeting.

Go ahead, Mrs. Vignola.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I'll speak quickly, Mr. Chair.

As we all know, we changed insurance companies over the summer and several issues were raised by the company's customers. The motion I'm putting forward is intended to shed light on what happened. That way, if we ever have to change companies again, we'll know what needs to be changed so we don't have to go through this again. There are probably some solutions we can already apply or suggest to ensure that we and the civil servants aren't caught up in an administrative maze when it comes to making an insurance claim, or even that we aren't put on hold indefinitely, if not forever, when we need to speak to a customer service representative from said company.

Here's the motion I'm moving:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(c), the committee undertake a study on the changeover of the Public Service Health Care Plan (PSHCP) from Sun Life to the Canada Life insurance company and that, to do so, the committee examine matters including 1) the quality of the insurance coverage, taking into account the circumstances and needs of federal public service employees, 2) the efficiency and effectiveness of the new insurance plan, particularly as concerns the online claims service and the telephone service offered to participants and health professionals, 3) the mechanisms that Public Services and Procurement Canada used in awarding the PSHCP contract to ensure the contractor had the capacity to serve the entire federal public service and provide the expected services, and 4) the measures that will be taken to correct the situation;

That the Committee allocate at least four meetings to conduct this study and that it invite to appear, for two hours per panel, the following witnesses: (a) the Minister of Public Services and Procurement at the time the contract was awarded to Canada Life (in March 2023), (b) the current minister and officials from Canada Life, and (c) any other witnesses it deems necessary; and That the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Government table a comprehensive response.

I apologize to the interpreters for reading the text of the motion so quickly. I hope they had a copy in hand.

As with Mrs. Block's motion, this can be done after Christmas, but I think it's important that we look into it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Jowhari has a very quick suggestion. Perhaps we'll get to that. Then either we'll pass it or we'll adjourn.

Yes, Mr. Jowhari.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

We don't have an issue with this study. That's number one.

Number two is that we don't think it's going to take four sessions. We would actually like to remove the ministers and add the officials. Then, after hearing that, we can make a decision.

What we are studying in Mr. Genuis's motion is fine. We're suggesting that it won't be four sessions. We'll start with inviting the officials and everyone else for one session. Based on that, then we'll decide.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Are you speaking to his proposed amendment or something else, Mr. Genuis? Go ahead, sir.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

It is in this direction, but I don't know if we'll get it done in time.

My view is that if we're studying issues, it's important to hear from ministers. I've often found that officials are in the unenviable position of needing to defend the government line without having been responsible for it. That limits the kind of substantive dialogue that can advance. We can ask them technical questions, but we live in a system that's supposed to be based on ministerial responsibility, in which ministers are responsible for and direct the decisions that are made by their departments. I am fundamentally opposed to the idea that we would remove the opportunity to even briefly consult the ministers. If we're going to study an issue, let's have the spokesperson for the department, the person responsible for the department, address the committee.

I don't have a strong problem, in principle, with changing the number of meetings, but I would just underline that the issue of the ministers is important for us. If we're going to look at this issue, let's look at it properly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Yes, Mr. Jowhari.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Guys, there is no smoking gun here. There was a service contract that ended. There was an open bid. Nobody else but Canada Life bid on it. That's how it moved.

That's why I'm suggesting that we let the officials come to answer all the questions you have. If there is a smoking gun, we can have other meetings, call ministers and do whatever we want. There is a simple answer for this, and we can hear it from the officials. If you're not convinced, then we can have a much deeper conversation on that.

We are out of time, but that's really the genesis of it. There was a contract. The contract ended. There was an open bid. Nobody else but Canada Life bid. That's it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Just very briefly, we have commitments from the ministers for two hours on their mandates, as well as another hour for the estimates, before the first week of December is up. We will have an opportunity that way. That's just an FYI.

Yes, Mr. Genuis.