Evidence of meeting #23 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was budget.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Mr. Oliphant, for the intervention.
We were dealing with what we term in this committee—we've used the term before—a friendly amendment, and the committee, by consensus—
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
On a point of order, could I ask where in the Standing Orders it exists?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
It was within the committee. The committee, by its consensus, can move that procedurally.
It was an amendment to the date, so let's just call it an amendment to the main motion. Does that satisfy everybody? It was an amendment to the main motion that there was a consensus on.
Now we're back to the main motion as amended.
I have Ms. Goodridge and then Ms. Desrochers.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is absolutely important to make sure we're studying because, frankly, the Phoenix pay centre debacle has left people still struggling to get paid. This is something that we are starting to hear.
I had someone reach out to my office back in August to share their concerns, because they had had an exceptionally long delay in getting their OAS. They had decided to extend getting their OAS to 67, and when they applied to get it, after talking to their accountant and financial planner, 150 days later they still hadn't received it. Each time they had to reach out, they were typically on hold 25 to 30 minutes, and it was very stressful.
This particular senior contacted our office not necessarily because she was in urgent need but because she was really frustrated with the system and knew full well that others, who perhaps didn't have the same luxuries and privilege she did, were going through this and had all kinds of frustration. This is really important to look into.
There are many news reports of this happening in Quebec, and people have gone to journalists because—this is my guess—they're not being listened to. These people have tried going to their Liberal members of Parliament and haven't been able to get any kind of answer. I know that when we brought this forward, we weren't able to get any kind of answer.
Perhaps this is a really important piece for us to look into to make sure this isn't the next Phoenix pay centre and make sure that all the ducks are in a row, because if we're planning to roll this out to other programs and other places where Canadians will get paid by the government, we want to make sure there are no bugs in the system. I still have people in my riding who work at 4 Wing Cold Lake who get overpaid and underpaid, all because the government decided to roll out a broken system that was the Phoenix pay centre.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Madame Desrochers, on the motion that is now amended, do you want to continue?
Liberal
Caroline Desrochers Liberal Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to propose an amendment to the motion asking that each minister testify for one hour as opposed to two hours. This is a very focused, targeted discussion on one issue. We're having the ministers testify for one hour on the budget implementation act, which is much broader, and that has proved sufficient, so I'd like to propose one hour for each of the ministers, accompanied by their officials.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
The motion has an amendment, so we will proceed to debate the amendment by Madame Desrochers
Go ahead, Mr. Genuis
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I'll just point out that I don't know if these amendments around the time that ministers are invited to appear are necessary anyway, insofar as ministers can't be compelled to appear.
If the minister comes back and says, “I'm going to appear for one hour”, we can all have whatever feelings we have about that. I would prefer that we have ministers for two hours on the BIA, but ministers will decide in any event.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Is there any further discussion?
Madame Larouche, go ahead on the amendment put forward by Madame Desrochers.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Mr. Chair, we'll see how long the ministers will appear for. I think that two hours go by extremely quickly; they have to make their opening remarks, and we ask them questions. In this case, the costs have skyrocketed by 277%, which is no small matter.
Minister Hajdu will be appearing, but I'd like to reiterate that we want to know what's going on and what impact it's having on seniors. We have gotten wildly different answers so far. I think that if we can try to shed light on the situation and find out the number of cases, that will be something.
I'd like to remind members that there was a cost overrun, as I said. In 2017, the cost was expected to be a little over $1 billion, but it has risen to almost $7 billion. That means the cost skyrocketed by 277%, which is enormous. That would be the focus of the questions we would ask Mr. Lightbound.
There have been other software programs whose costs have skyrocketed in the past. The House took the time to do things right. That means it will be good to look at cases with other software, for example; I think that's really important, because there have been a few in the past.
For that reason, I would keep the proposed two hours. To me, that's important. There was a friendly amendment that means we're going to give them more time before they appear; they have until March 12 to come testify. We have been co-operative, we have spoken with our counterparts, and I know that the three parties' whips have spoken to each other. On our side, we have been acting in very good faith from the start.
However, I wonder. As I said, at the start, we were told that there weren't any cases, but the answer changed after the fact. I think there's a form of bad faith there. I don't want to keep going back to this indefinitely, but you said at the outset that the 48-hour deadline hadn't been met. The notice of receipt was received on Tuesday at 1:53 p.m. It's necessary to give 48 hours' notice to call a meeting under Standing Order 106(4).
We have done this in good faith so far. I think the amendment states that the ministers have until mid-March to appear. For the rest, I would leave the motion as is, to give us some options.
It's possible that the ministers can come and testify for two hours, so we shouldn't limit ourselves by asking them to appear for one hour. They're going to come shed light on the skyrocketing costs so that we have a real idea of the number of seniors affected. I'm afraid that, with one hour, we won't be able to cover the 277% increase in costs. It was initially said that there weren't any cases; it was then said that there were 30, and, finally, it was said that the cases were in the order of 2%.
For all those reasons, I would keep the two hours provided for in the motion, and I wouldn't limit that to one hour.
Liberal
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'll just say how disappointed I am. I feel like this is typical Liberal behaviour. We want to see accountability and transparency. We're just asking for ministers to come. I know that past motions have been passed at this committee with timelines to have ministers appear. That has not happened. I absolutely think two hours is a fair ask.
We will be voting against the proposed amendment by the Liberals, which reduces transparency and accountability for their ministers.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Caroline Desrochers Liberal Trois-Rivières, QC
Yes, I'll withdraw the amendment so we can move on and properly use taxpayers' time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
You need unanimous consent to withdraw your amendment.
Do we have unanimous consent?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
We will now vote on the motion of Madame Larouche as amended.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Committee members, I would like some direction. Is it your wish to return in camera until 9:15?
Conservative