Publication Search

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Giroux and your team, for again coming to OGGO and providing some excellent responses.

Your report highlighted the significant investments that are being made for seniors. One dollar out of every six dollars in the budget is being spent on our seniors, and rightfully so. That includes programs like OAS and GIS.

Under the Conservative government, there were 2.7 million more Canadians living in poverty and 45,000 more seniors living in poverty. I wanted to ask you if the significant investments that the Liberal government is making in our seniors, in Canadians, through programs like OAS and GIS, are having a positive impact on Canadians' well-being.

I'm going to take that as a yes.

The 2011 Conservative Party election platform unequivocally states, “we will not cut transfer payments to individuals or to the provinces for essential things like health care, education, and pensions”. Less than one year later, they introduced cuts to the old age security, basically, by increasing the age of eligibility from 65 to 67. I wanted to ask you why the Conservatives would raise the age of eligibility for OAS from 65 to 67. What was the point of that?

Furthermore, what impact would that have had on our seniors had the Liberal government not reversed it in the very first year it came to office? What impact would it have had on our seniors if the Conservative cuts to OAS had been allowed to continue?

As I understand it, those Conservative cuts to old age security would have started taking place this year, in 2023. Is that correct?

There would have been hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of seniors who would have been robbed of average annual payments of up to $7,000 had the Conservative policy still been in place. Is that correct?

You could agree that trying to save money on the backs of our seniors is not a good idea, as the Conservatives have put forward. Is that correct?

Let me switch to some good news. This year, 2023, is the year when the basic personal amount, which was increased by the Liberal government in 2019, I believe, has been fully implemented. It's this tax year, in 2023.

How many seniors will benefit from the fact that the basic personal amount has been increased to $15,000? What impact will this have on our seniors?

This Liberal policy will put more money back in the pockets of Canadian seniors. Is that correct?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Wernick—and also thanks to Ms. Bonin—for your tremendous public service to Canada, our country, and for your exceptional work.

I want to say, Mr. Wernick, that I do have a copy of Governing Canada. I'm about three-quarters done. Thank you so much for writing that guidebook. Especially for new people who arrive on the Hill, that really is an excellent source of guidance. My only gripe with it is that it has a very small section on parliamentary secretaries, which I'm hoping the next edition rectifies.

This is the eleventh meeting that we've had studying McKinsey. It reminds me of the movies Ishtar and Green Lantern because there's a tremendous cast of characters—star-studded—and a lot of fanfare and anticipation about what this study is going to yield, what entertainment and what value it will provide. However, all it has done is lead us to a collective, profound yawn. There really haven't been any major insights or enlightenment from these eleven meetings. We've learned a lot about outsourcing. We have an outsourcing study that's on the books. It's too bad we couldn't simply continue with that. However, it is what it is.

Mr. Wernick, could you pick up the thread of some of the conversations about the public sector and the public service and the tremendous work our public servants do here in Canada and how we can help them out? You mentioned in one of your articles, dated this year, the following:

To improve the way the public sector works, governments should always invest in ways to bring in fresher and more objective perspectives and advice, challenge incrementalism and orthodoxy and help the public service craft implementable options for governments to consider.

Is it fair to say that bringing in consultants with experience working in the public sector and having best practices from around the world is one tool in the tool box in order to be able to achieve what you described in this quote?

You reminded us, as well, in one of your articles that about one in five Canadians work for the public sector. It's the largest employer in Canada. You also reminded us that there are public servants not just at the federal level but also at the provincial level and the municipal level.

Are there avenues for the exchange of best practices between federal public servants and their provincial and municipal counterparts? Does that happen?

Not on policy issues, but—

Do we create enough space in the public sector for grassroots, bottom-up innovation, design-thinking innovation?

Thank you.

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

Thank you.

I just want to take a quick second and say thank you to my colleague across the table. All of us were convinced that we could find the common ground, that common ground did exist and that we were all united in that pursuit. I just want to thank MP Barrett for his work in crafting a motion that, really, reflects all of our voices and concerns. I just want to say kudos and give credit where credit is due. Thank you for that. I appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree wholeheartedly with what Mr. Johns just stated. This is an opportunity to engage directly with the officials from the departments, ask them very difficult questions and shed some light. I want to highlight that these are also meetings that would take place in open sessions.

Again, I think we're missing a step here. I agree wholeheartedly with what Mr. Johns has brought forward. Quite frankly, I don't understand why the members of the Conservative Party would not want to take the opportunity to, again, question the officials—

I don't know what they're afraid of in terms of taking that step, having that conversation, engaging with the officials directly, having them respond and having them respond on the record. I agree wholeheartedly with what Mr. Johns has brought forward. I think it's a practical step.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A colleague across the table questioned the integrity and ethics of McKinsey. I just wanted to provide you, Mr. Palter, with an opportunity to answer that charge and that question.