Evidence of meeting #34 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 documents.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Jennifer McKelvie Liberal Ajax, ON
I can clarify. I was expecting you to come for quite some time. I had this in my agenda long before the agenda changed.
I was really surprised. You know, here we are, talking about a motion with an unprecedented scale of request. It mirrors a similar motion that was introduced at the public accounts committee last week. Members there are still debating amendments because of the sheer volume and complexity of what is involved.
When we have motions, I think we have to make sure that they're smart, that they are specific, that they are measurable, that they are achievable, that they are relevant and that they are time-bound. Frankly, I feel like we dealt with similar motions on the science committee. There were enormous document requests, and once we really looked into things and saw the breadth of what was being asked for, how many pages of documents and, importantly, what the cost was to translate—because it's very important that all this information be available in both official languages—we ultimately changed our minds on that and had something very scoped instead, a motion that was much smarter, so to speak. It wasn't only that; in terms of time, the translation was going to literally take years.
Producing the material that's being requested in this motion will cost millions of dollars. It is simply not feasible to complete within the time frame proposed, just 30 days. Expecting public servants to comb through millions of documents across multiple departments in a matter of weeks is simply not realistic. These individuals are already working at full capacity to deliver services Canadians rely on every single day.
That brings me to the impact. Every hour that's spent compiling documents is an hour that's not spent processing claims by the department, answering inquiries or delivering timely services to Canadians. This is at a time when Canadians expect efficiency. We see that. They're asking for that and for responsiveness. This motion really diverts public servants from their core responsibilities, and it slows down service delivery at a moment when we can least afford to slow down.
While I do respect that committees have a right to request information, it's important that we look at the broader context of what those implications are. The requests have to be targeted, and they have to be reasonable. If adopted, this motion sets something that's really unprecedented. It's unfocused documents across government, likely needing many thousands of hours of translation, and it's just not a sustainable or responsive approach to oversight.
I'll come back to what I was getting to at the beginning. This is taking away from equally important work here on this committee as well. We should be working on Bill C-20, Build Canada Homes. Last Thursday, this committee was unable to hear from witnesses who had taken time out of their day—some of them rearranging schedules, some of them travelling here—to appear before us on the important Bill C-20 legislation. Two of those stakeholders wrote to me personally and said how disappointed they were that they were unable to answer questions and fully convey what was important to them in this important legislation, Bill C-20, Build Canada Homes. Their testimony matters; their perspectives matter. We had to cancel because this committee was consumed by procedural wrangling related to this motion.
We owe it to those witnesses. We owe it to Canadians to stay focused on legislative work before us and not to go down these rabbit holes. Bill C-20, Build Canada Homes, is significant, and the committee has a responsibility to give that the attention it deserves. Continuing down this path of broad, unfocused document demands only delays that work further. Other committees have realized this and have backed off from things like this.
I want to acknowledge that we already have seen a lot of transparency demonstrated on this file. Minister Hajdu, Minister Lightbound and officials from both offices have appeared.
Officials provided technical briefings to critics. They supplied regional breakdowns and costing at the committee's request. There has already been substantial engagement, substantial openness.
Given all of this and the important work we need to be doing on Bill C-20, Build Canada Homes, coupled with the fact that this is not a smart motion—because it's not specific, measurable, achievable or relevant, and the time that's been allotted to it is just simply not realistic—I really think this will have a tremendous impact on service delivery by our public servants, who are very busy working for Canadians.
I'm very worried about the precedent it sets, especially in terms of how this could be years' worth of translation for something that may not even achieve the outcome people think it will. It's also a huge disruption to the important work for Bill C-20, Build Canada Homes.
That's why I am not in support of this motion. I wish we were talking about Build Canada Homes today, but I think it's important that I speak to how it can really be an ineffective use of, frankly, taxpayers' dollars to go down the road of this motion. We could use our time to be responsible, to be targeted, and to really focus more on the work that Canadians expect us to do.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to be here. I hope I will be back one day on Build Canada Homes and those important matters of housing and infrastructure that I'm so privileged to work on for Canadians.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I have a point of order, Chair, just while we have a break here.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, my understanding of the process is that we have a proposed calendar. We have agendas that are put out. I just want to encourage members, if they came here expecting one thing to be discussed, something that was never on the calendar or the agenda for today—
Conservative
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
—maybe members should consult that in advance.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I just think it's helpful, Chair, because Ms. McKelvie came here—
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
If I get interrupted again, we'll suspend.
Madame Khalid has the floor.
Conservative
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I appreciate that.
If that was nice, I wonder what the other part looks like.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Order, members.
Let's get back to the relevant matter, which is the amendment that's currently being debated.
So far the debate has stayed to the text of the amendment, so I encourage both sides to stick with that.
Madame Khalid, you have the floor.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I really appreciate how rigidly you run this committee. May I give you my biggest compliments?
Thank you very much, all members, for including me in this committee today.
I know that Mr. Genuis—and you, Chair—pointed out that we should stick to the topic at hand, which is the amendment that is before us today, but I too, with the indulgence of the committee, will take just 30 seconds to say that I wish we could talk about gig workers and how this committee can help support their employment insurance rights and support them better, as the nature of employment within our country is changing.
Those are my 30 seconds. I'll get to the amendment now.
I hope that members across this table can appreciate that many of us have been around here for a very long time. I've served on the public accounts committee. I currently serve on the government operations committee and also on the status of women committee. I see how we can use House procedure and committee procedure to stall. I don't think that's what Canadians are looking for.
When I look at the text of this motion, of these amendments—
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Are we good? You guys have had your laughs? Okay. Great.
When I look at the text of this motion, what I'm seeing, based on the experience that I've had over these past 10 years as a parliamentarian, is not that any one of our opposition members is going to read these millions of documents, but they're willing to spend so many dollars to use our public service to obtain them and then to translate them and then just stall the amazing work that this committee does generally. I think we're beyond that. We should be beyond that, because what ultimately is the objective here? What are we trying to achieve?
Again, I sit on the government operations committee. We're going through the comprehensive expenditure review. We're looking to see how the public service spends their dollars and to see how we can find efficiencies and make sure that our democratic institution, our parliamentary institution, is well maintained and is well supported and that our Canadian taxpayer dollars are well respected while we're doing that.
For me, as I come in here and look at what is being proposed here, I'm quite aghast, to be honest. My understanding is that the committee has already received briefings and has been provided with the documentation that's been requested and that officials are actually coming through to speak with committee members as well. Also, committee members have the privilege to ask witnesses, as they come forward, for individual pieces of information or areas of interest that they have and to receive that information specifically. When I see a motion like this, I'm thinking, why do you need all of these documents? Also, why do you need them within 30 days?
Members across the way have been here just as long as I have, if not longer. They know exactly the limitations of the resources of the House. When we're putting a limitation on the time frame and expanding the breadth of the documents that we expect to receive, while also maintaining and respecting that all of these documents need to be translated into both of our official languages, it really calls it into question: Why?
Our committees are tools to promote democracy. They have the ability to not only provide government oversight but also bring up the new issues Canadians raise with us in the areas our committees are targeted towards—that we are mandated for. When I see us using committee resources...to what objective, I'm not sure. I'm sure we'll find out from the opposition in a couple of weeks or months. Why do we need to waste those couple of weeks and months? Why can we not talk about the issues of our generation right now, especially in this committee—human resources, skills and development? It is unreal, to be honest. As I said, I've been through production orders in the past. Some of them have been successful. We had our House resources spend thousands of hours on translating documents that nobody really read.
That is ultimately disrespectful to the resources we have available, as members of Parliament. For me, a motion that demands millions of pages with unrealistic timelines is an insult to our House resources. We, as parliamentarians, can do better, and we should do better. We are elected to lead by example. We are elected to put forth the issues our constituents raise and represent Canadians here in this place. What we're doing with the valuable time we have sitting at this table is debating whether or not millions of pages of documents can be produced within 30 days and translated, following all the House rules. We can definitely be better than that.
Demand on public servants is great, and not just now. I especially remember how, during COVID days, we had very limited resources. There were a lot of shenanigans going on around the House. The awesome people who support us in committees—who support us in the work we do as parliamentarians—were left scrambling. There were many instances in which they had to go into therapy because of the toxicity of this place, due to the lack of resources and support for them.
Coming back to the motion, what is the objective here? Why do we not care about our public servants and the work they do? Why do we have to use them as a base to put forward our own political agenda, whatever that may be? It really doesn't make sense.
Here is the other piece of that: When we take away resources—