Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to my colleague.
Through you, Chair, I'd like to talk first and then follow up on some of my earlier remarks, but in a slightly different tone because I don't think that this needs to be any type of adversarial conversation. I think it's a place for real collaboration. In fact, there's a real space here for working together, and that's how we always get the best outcome. At the core, I think that everybody around this table shares the same objective.
It's been really great getting to know all the people around this table, their context and what they bring. My colleague was a tradesperson. My other colleague across the way was a social worker. One colleague comes from a social financial background. I was an educator. We have a truck driver here. It's so neat to see everybody within HUMA.
We're the human committee. We look at social programs, and we look at helping all people throughout the whole spectrum, throughout vulnerabilities, throughout disabilities. I think that, because of everything we have and all the context that we bring, this is a real opportunity for us to try to work together. We all want transparency. We all want accountability. We all want to make sure that Canadians, especially those who rely most on our government programs or services, are being well-served.
Where we might differ is how we get there, the paths. It's really important to ground that discussion in this reality of this ministry we're dealing with. This is one of the only committees that deals with over five different ministries. For me, it's one of the most important, given the context of where I come from.
This department also serves the most vulnerable Canadians. These are the seniors, individuals with disabilities, low-income families, workers who depend on timely support to get by. For many of them, these programs are not just helpful; they're essential. When we ask this ministry or this committee to take on additional work, especially work of the scale within this motion, I think we have to think about the downstream impact here together because I think we know what the trade-off is.
This committee already has a very full agenda. We have a humongous list of motions, studies and reports that we're already actively working on. Officials are already spending significant amounts of time supporting that work, preparing materials, responding to some of these requests and appearing before us, which is what we were hoping to do today.
There's no question that information has been provided. There's no question that transparency has been provided. There's no question, through you, Mr. Chair, that I think we all want a common goal of helping to strengthen our programs and supports for everybody, which is what the Cúram system, at its core, mission and vision, is trying to do.
There is an opportunity in front of us, not to draw a hard line but to find a better path forward, one that respects the role of this committee and also recognizes the operational realities of the department. The motion, as it stands, is very broad. It will require a review and the production of millions of pages of documents across multiple departments. That's a significant undertaking, and it would inevitably pull resources away from service delivery. I think that, at the core of everything we do, it's the service delivery that we really rely on most. Not having that service delivery happen is not something that I think anyone here wants to achieve. I don't think that anyone else around this table wants to see delays for seniors waiting on benefits, for families waiting on support or for workers trying to access the programs that they rely on.
The question becomes, how do we get the information we need in a way that is effective, realistic and responsible? That's something that our minister, Minister Hajdu, has clearly represented in the House. I think that the answer also lies in how we now work together to redefine this approach. Maybe it means narrowing a scope or focusing on some specific time frames, Ms. Larouche.
We can look at specific types of documents, phasing the request by starting with a smaller, targeted set of materials and then building what's needed from there. It would mean adjusting timelines so that departments can respond without compromising service delivery.
To Ms. Larouche, my colleague across the way, I think everyone around this table wants the same thing at the end of the day, which is to help with service delivery. We all have recognized that some seniors have had their service delivery disrupted. The minister has clearly acknowledged that, provided information and reasoning in regard to how and why that happened and forged a plan on working in the future and helping those who did get caught up in this really large system.
I commend you on wanting to help all the vulnerable people who might not have received their OAS, but I also want to say that requiring hundreds of hours' worth of document production on a system that we knew was 60 years old and was clearly needing a technology reboot....
Sometimes there are ripples in the stream. There are also options here to keep the spirit of accountability intact while making progress more workable. At the end of the day, this isn't about asking for the largest amount of information possible; it's about asking for the right information. I think we're more likely to get meaningful insight if we take a more targeted approach in the way we go about seeing the system delivery model, rather than taking a sweeping approach and saying we want all the documents.
I also think it's worth acknowledging the work that's already been done here—the ministers who have already appeared, officials who have provided briefings and data that's been shared, including regional breakdowns and costing information. It gives us a strong foundation to build on. Instead of starting from scratch with a request of this magnitude, I think that if we could build from what we already have and identify what those gaps were, we could move on from here. That's more of a collaborative way forward.
Especially given the nature of this ministry, I also would like to say that we know that people really matter. In a department that serves some of the most vulnerable Canadians, capacity is directly tied to people's getting the support they need when they need it. If we can find a way to meet our accountability objectives while also protecting that capacity, I think it will be a win-win-win for everybody. It's a win for this committee, a win for the department and, most importantly, a win for Canadians.
I'd also like to encourage colleagues to see this as an opportunity to work together to redefine this motion, work out some of these requests and make sure that what we're asking for is both meaningful and achievable, because when we want the same end result, the question is, how do we get there?
I'd also like to mention what we're already asking for. This isn't a neutral type of department in the machinery of government; this is a ministry that serves some of the most vulnerable people in this country. These seniors are relying on timely benefits to cover some of their basic costs. They may be individuals with disabilities who are navigating very complex systems to access the supports that they need. Some of them are low-income families that are trying to stay afloat. Some of them are workers who are in seasonal or even precarious employment and depend on programs like employment insurance to bridge the gap when work is not available. For some of these Canadians, this ministry is not optional; it's essential.
I think reality has to guide how we think about this motion that's in front of us, because every additional demand that we place on this department has a rippling effect. It does not exist in a vacuum. When we ask public servants to redirect their time and attention towards compiling massive volumes of documents, millions of pages across multiple departments—we know we have about four or five different ministries within this committee alone—we're also asking them to step away from the work that directly supports Canadians.
It's a trade-off—whether we acknowledge that or not. To be honest, we need to think about that.
We're also talking today about excess capacity here. This department is already under pressure. It's already managing very high volumes of applications, inquiries and program delivery demands. It's already working to improve service standard times and responsiveness for Canadians who, quite frankly, can't afford those delays. That is why our minister very plainly said to all Canadians, during a lot of different question periods, that if you are experiencing a disruption in your OAS payments, to please reach out to your MP or to the minister directly.
Now, I'd also like to emphasize one other thing that was raised earlier, because it bears repeating in stronger terms. This committee already has a significant workload within its file. We have a very long list of motions from all the different parties represented here. We have studies and reports that we're trying to actively work through.
Officials have already dedicated considerable amounts of time to supporting this committee work, preparing materials, responding to some of these requests, appearing before us and providing detailed information when asked. This isn't small; quite frankly, it's humongous.
Committee work was one of the things that caught me off guard the most when I became a member of Parliament. I have five university degrees, and I don't think that I've ever read more in my life.
What are my degrees in? Well, I have a premedical biology degree. I have a post-secondary professional studies degree. I have two university fellowship degrees from Memorial University; one in curriculum and instruction, and the other in educational leadership, with a specification in rural policy and economic development. I also have a degree in international leadership and comparative education.
Thank you for that question from my colleague across the way, who asked, “What the heck are your degrees in?” There they are.
Every item on that list comes with its own set of expectations and timelines. When I talk about the amount of reading and preparation for a committee like this among all of these different ministries, it's really important that we do the time, do the due diligence and get the work done. It does not replace any of this existing work; it adds to it. It stacks up upon ongoing studies, reporting requirements and requests for information. All of that work is being supported by the same pool of public servants within that finite system.
In terms of the reporting and the number of documents for the motion at hand, it's about capacity. It's a capacity issue as well.
We continue to want to expand the scope of what we're asking without acknowledging that there are limits to what can be delivered, at least within any reasonable time frame. Thirty days is a very tight timeline in terms of what you're requesting.
I think that the principle of proportionality also becomes very important. Yes, committees have a right to request documents. All members have a right to request documents, but I think those requests need to be focused and grounded in an understanding of operational realities.
This motion is clearly not targeted. It casts an extremely wide net. It would require our officials to comb through millions of different types of documents and access different departments to identify anything that might fall within its scope.
It would then require these documents to be reviewed, redacted for privacy and legal considerations, translated into both official languages and then compiled for production. That's an enormous task in a good year, let alone in a 30-day motion.
When we pair that with some of the existing workload, and consider the humongous list of motions and reports that are already in progress, it becomes very clear that it's not just ambitious; it's unrealistic. It's unrealistic in terms of timeline and in terms of cost. When I say cost, I mean the cost to Canadians.
It's not realistic in terms of the impact on that service delivery. I also think that it's important to acknowledge the work that's already been done within this file. That context really matters here. We've had our Minister Lightbound already testify to this. We've already had Minister Hajdu testify to this. Officials throughout multiple departments have provided other testimony. There have already been technical briefings. I believe that our minister offered multiple technical briefings to all party members, and I think even Miss Larouche actually attended.
It's not insignificant. That is a meaningful level of transparency and engagement. Again, I think that we have to ask what the incremental value is of requesting millions of additional pages of documents beyond what has already been provided. Will it genuinely enhance our understanding, or will it simply create a volume of information that is difficult to process, time-consuming to produce and costly to compile? More information is not always better information. That's what I always used to tell my students when I taught. In fact, overly broad requests sometimes obscure rather than clarify. They can bury key insights under mountains of paperwork, making it harder, not easier, for committees to do their work effectively.
A targeted approach, on the other hand, zeroes in on specific information that's actually needed. It can be delivered more quickly. It can be analyzed more effectively. It can be analyzed in a more timely fashion. It can achieve the goal of accountability while also not imposing unnecessary strain on a system that's already heavily burdened. That is the balance that I think that we're all trying to strive for here. I'd also like to say that Canadians expect us to be responsible not just in how we hold government to account, which I completely agree with, but in how we use public resources.
This motion would cost millions of dollars to implement. It is not speculative that the reality of this level of effort required to fulfill it goes beyond what I believe they're asking for. At a time when Canadians face affordability challenges and when they are expecting better and faster service from government, we now need to be mindful about how we allocate those resources. Every dollar spent on compiling documents is a dollar not spent on improving services. Every hour spent reviewing records is an hour not spent helping someone access a benefit, resolve an issue or get the support they need. That's what I feel is opportunity cost.
In a ministry that serves some of the most vulnerable people in our country, that opportunity costs even more. The margin of error can be even smaller; the consequences of delay can be greater, and the expectation that government will be here when needed is higher. I come back to that same point from the beginning, with even greater emphasis: We really need to be careful here in the way that we treat our timelines, our agenda and what we are hoping to accomplish with our motions, being thoughtful and being realistic.
We already have a significant body of work before this committee, a humongous list of motions, studies and reports that require attention. We already have ongoing engagement from our ministry, from our officials. I believe we have some ministers coming in a couple of weeks on another topic. We already have information that has been provided in good faith. We've already provided all party members and members of Parliament with transparency sessions that allowed the minister to break down those specific areas as to how some of the data didn't get pulled into this new system. It's saying that it's not a perfect system. They're in the process of updating something that's 60 years old, and there were going to be, unfortunately, some people falling through those cracks. Our minister very clearly and transparently said that, if there are some seniors that did not get their OAS payments, they can directly contact either their member Parliament or contact her directly, and they can get that money to you.
The questions right here are as follows: What's the right way to go about doing this? What's the right thing to do? I think that the ministry in this case has demonstrated that already. In my view, asking for millions of pages of documents across multiple departments with an already unrealistic time frame while the ministry is already under pressure serving some of the most vulnerable Canadians is not the right approach.
There are some specific gaps in the information we have. Let's identify those. If there are particular documents that would help clarify an issue, let's request them. If there are timelines that need to be adjusted to reflect operational realities, let's adjust them. Those are constructive steps.
Maintaining a motion of this scope without refinement risks doing more harm than good. It risks diverting resources away from service delivery. It risks overwhelming both the departments and this committee with volume rather than insight and action. It risks setting the precedent that a broad, unfocused approach to requests is the norm rather than the exception.
In this case, we don't want to create that norm and further burden departments. We want to create an exception that is exact. What about that program made it unable to onboard seniors in the correct fashion? What about that program did not allow some of those transfers to go through? Those should be in the motion as specific asks, not “Let's take every single bit of information about the department, throw it in a box, redact it, translate it and compile it for the committee.” That doesn't really seem like a serious ask. It risks overwhelming the departments and this committee. It risks setting the precedent that broad, unfocused requests are the norm rather than the exception.
I think we can all do better than that, as a group. We can uphold accountability while also respecting the capacity of the system and the needs of Canadians. This ministry supports some of our most vulnerable constituents—some of the most vulnerable people. That balance is really important and essential.
On this matter, we can look at what some of those specific things are that didn't bridge gaps in the creation of this new onboarding and data system. What are the specific gaps that didn't allow that transfer in the information system? Those are the types of service delivery models that need to be implemented in a motion such as this, not a swath of everything that might have “Cúram”, “technology”, “updating” or “data” in a document, which then gets pulled.
We also have to remember this: After getting all that information, you have to use the resources in your own offices to go through this and see for yourselves what some of those different service delivery models are. Capacity—
