Government Operations Committee on Oct. 9th, 2025

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

I think part of the complexity with the Canada Post study has been the postal strike, which has kind of thrown some dates to the side because of the nature of the strike. We just haven't been able to get people. We had the president, and then we didn't have the president. Now we have the president. It has kind of been an on-again, off-again kind of thing.

By prescribing that this has to happen after the Canada Post study really puts it into the breeze here, kind of at a whim.

With regard to the estimates, what I'm reading about the process coming—and you're all on the government side, so maybe you can enlighten us on this—is that there needs to be a standing order change to allow for the budget to become a fall process rather than occur in the spring, right? It sounds like there's going to be a structural change done to allow for that to be the regular practice and not a one-off, so I guess until we get clarity around that, we don't know when the estimates are going to be.

Like the chair said, until the government tells us when it is going to table them, we don't know. However, if there have to be standing order changes done to allow for a fall budget cycle rather than a spring one, that's really going to muck up timelines here. I think having this study in the barrel here, ready to go....

Of course, we have the two meetings for Canada Post as a priority, but if, because of the strike, for some reason now we all of a sudden can't get some of the witnesses we want, this study then allows us to fill that while still having the Canada Post study, as Ms. Gaudreau said, be the priority. It allows us to fill a day if we need to fill a day.

I would like to get to mine as soon as we can, but I also appreciate that the chair might need the flexibility to be able to make that happen. I'm not trying to overtake the Canada Post study. I'm merely trying to say that because there's some uncertainty around how quickly we can finish it, this would be a good substantive motion that I think everybody around this table would like to be able to ask some questions on. Defence procurement is top of mind for a lot of Canadians, and it's a very key piece, I think, for the government going forward. It's certainly of interest to those of us on the opposition side as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Seeback is next, and then we have Ms. Gaudreau and Ms. Sudds.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm new to the committee. It's my first time here.

When I was vice-chair of the international trade committee, we often had multiple studies going on at the same time. We always gave the chair the discretion to fit things in where it made sense. You might not have any witnesses for the study you're currently working on.

It would seem to me the Liberals are saying that if you don't have witnesses, we will only do Canada Post, and then the committee doesn't meet. That doesn't make sense.

That was a Liberal-chaired committee. We had no problem saying that we trusted the chair to fit in witnesses to deal with multiple priorities.

All studies are a priority. The absolute priority is this Canada Post study. That should be the priority, and the chair should be instructed that it's the priority. The chair should try to get the witnesses on the Canada Post study as a priority. If that does not happen, for a variety of reasons, this committee should not adjourn and not work. The committee should move to something else.

We should all have faith that this will be done properly and fairly, as I did with the vice-chair on the trade committee. We would always agree that the Liberal chair would try to fit everything in where it makes sense. That's how the committee operated very smoothly for a number of years.

That's my advice to this committee. You can say that Canada Post is the priority, and the chair should absolutely make sure that's the first thing on the agenda. If there are witnesses unable to attend or if we can't fill that spot, then we move to another study. That seems to make logical sense to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

That has been the habit here, where sometimes we've actually had, I think, up to eight on the go at one time.

I have Ms. Khalid, Ms. Gaudreau and then Ms. Sudds.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I have no comments, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Ms. Gaudreau.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I'd like to come back to the amendment proposed by Ms. Sudds to make sure I understand it correctly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I think the amendment was that they're fine with it but not to do any studies until the final Canada Post....

However, the committee did agree in the subcommittee—and the committee adopted this—that we would start with two. We have committed to the two, and we're fulfilling the two. This does not mean we're only going to do two, but....

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Chair, may I interject, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Yes.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

The question is what the actual language of the amendment is that we are looking at right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Why doesn't Ms. Sudds provide it to us?

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

The amendment would strictly be that this study start at the completion of the Canada Post witness testimony.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's what I noted.

Is that clear for you?

Can we vote on the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

[Technical difficulty—Editor] study.

We'll do a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Can we vote on the motion as amended?

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 8; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we will get to Mrs. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess great minds think alike, because I too want to take the opportunity to introduce a motion today. I think it's just as timely as the motion that my colleague brought forward earlier.

It is on illegal labour, and it reads as follows:

That, in light of recent reports of illegal foreign labour being used on federally funded infrastructure projects, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates hold at least two meetings with officials from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and other government officials, and representatives of the building trades across Canada to examine this issue within the context of federally funded infrastructure projects.

I'll make a few points as to why I believe this is important.

Illegal labour has gutted entry-level opportunities for young Canadians trying to get involved in the trades. Improper labour regulations undermine safety, drive down wages and, ultimately, erode trust in our industry. This isn't just a labour issue; it's a criminal issue. Illegal labour creates a shadow economy that helps criminal networks thrive. When taxpayer-funded projects use illegal labour, Canadian taxpayers are footing the bill. Canadians expect their infrastructure dollars to support Canadian workers, not unregulated illegal labour.

We're seeing a two-tier labour market, one where Canadians follow the rules and another where exploitation is the business model. We're cursed without legal protections. We are vulnerable to abuse and have no recourse when something goes wrong.

Federally funded infrastructure should reflect Canadian values, which are fairness, safety and respect for the rule of law.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Are you sending it to the clerk?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Yes, we will definitely send it to the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I would ask for your and the clerk's esteemed knowledge and advice on the relevance of this in this committee and whether it is admissible as a motion here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Sure.

Perhaps I could get a copy of it.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Sure, sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

You're referring to federally funded projects. Right?