Government Operations Committee on Oct. 9th, 2025

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We can do it after October 23 and 28.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

Are there further witnesses we're expecting?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Well, the president of Canada Post, after...has indicated they have 45 days to return a report to the government. That was probably 10 days ago, so there are 35 days for that, and there are also issues around the labour disruption.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

Yes. My point is that I don't want to start this study until the completion of the Canada Post study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mr. Patzer.

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

Can I add something? I'm just wondering whether you would accept it if we just said....

I'm sorry, but I recognize that I inadvertently created a jam with the October 28 suggestion. Could we do “at the first opening”, or “at the chair's discretion” or something along those lines? To his point about what the timeline could look like with the Canada Post study, we might have some meeting openings in November that we could call these folks to.

I think it's standard practice for this committee to have more than one study on the go, if I'm correct, Chair. We know that schedules can change and move around a bit. There are multiple people on this list, so it might be easy to get two of them to come for a meeting on one day. You might be able to fill some gaps that we have in the schedule, so I would like to give you the flexibility for that rather than, perhaps, force you to have to do it by such-and-such date. Would that be acceptable?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Sure.

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

I guess I can't amend my own, but maybe....

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Well, we're discussing the amendment. Why don't we see what Ms. Gaudreau has to say first, and then Ms. Khalid.

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

Let's go back to basics, Mr. Chair. There are 41 million Canadians living at 17 million different addresses. They want answers. We have an opportunity and a forum—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm going to interrupt you. We're on the amendment to changing the date for—

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

Yes, it is just the preamble.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Okay.

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

This is urgent. We fleshed out the issue, so we need to study it. I'm flexible. If we're short of witnesses or they're not available, we could postpone to November 15. That's why I think it's important to focus on Canada Post.

I can speak more slowly if it helps, but please do the same when you're speaking in English. I'll repeat more slowly.

We mustn't let what was proposed as a priority fall by the wayside. I am entirely open to having a meeting on this new study in two or three weeks, because it's important. The motion speaks to the establishment of an agency. We have an opportunity to think about the structure of such an agency and discuss it. I think that's important.

We all want wins, but if we allow a little bit of leeway, everyone will get something. We all want our studies to be prioritized, but the announcement regarding the establishment of an agency just came out, so I'm sorry. We didn't know about this a few weeks ago. The news about Canada Post came out on September 25.

I'd like to propose a friendly amendment. We could prioritize the study on Canada Post, unless no witnesses are available. We don't want to waste a meeting. We could add a sentence to say that we give priority to the Canada Post study, but that if no witnesses are available for Thursday's meeting, we'll use the time for the other study. I think that's a winning proposition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Are you actually suggesting a date?

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

That's exactly what the amendment [Inaudible—Editor], Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Your amendment is to do it after Canada Post. Canada Post could very well be in January, because we don't know when that's going to actually finish. Is there an ability among the group to pick a date?

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

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We have until the end of October already covered. It could be around mid-November or the third week in November or something, just so we can set a date.

Ms. Khalid, go ahead.

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

Thanks, Chair.

If I may, we have Madam Gaudreau's motion, which I find to be very important, and I think this committee should be giving priority to this issue. I know that a lot of my and my colleagues' constituents have been reaching out about this.

This was a question for you, Chair, and that's why I waited for your attention. I'm just wondering when we will be doing the estimates.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I don't know when the government will be tabling them.

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

Would it be in November?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It depends on when the government tables them. I have no control over that. It just depends on when the government tables them, when we actually have them. There has to be nine days before the last supply day, but we could get them earlier.

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

I don't think it is an issue for us to prioritize Marie-Hélène's motion and the study on Canada Post. I doubt it will be lengthy or time-consuming to the detriment of the motion that the opposition moved today. I think both are possible, but in my opinion, priority should be given to the completion of Ms. Gaudreau's study before we start another one.

Mr. Patzer mentioned that, in the past, we have had multiple studies going on at the same time. I'm sure, as Mr. Patzer is a seasoned politician on the Hill, he would agree that it gets very confusing, and things are not prioritized properly with respect to how reports are done, when they're published and how we are going to move forward.

At this point, I really think it would be best for us to focus on Canada Post and to go through the estimates. However, as we're waiting for the estimates, we could bring in Mr. Patzer's motion. I think it's an absolutely solid study or testimony that we should definitely be hearing. However, I don't think it's fair for us to overtake in any way the importance that Madam Gaudreau has brought to the Canada Post issue. Therefore, I support this amendment wholeheartedly and say that we should not be starting any other study until the Canada Post study is completed or until we hear the testimony, at least.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We will go to Mr. Patzer and then Mr. Seeback.

Before we do, though, I will say that the committee did agree to two Canada Post days when we had our subcommittee, and that is what was adopted by the committee, so it does technically meet that obligation, with the intent that there will be more as things come out. We could still honour what the committee said; we could start the one and still have the time available.

Mr. Patzer.