Human Resources Committee on Feb. 5th, 2026

[The Chair (Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Committee members, the committee is back in session. The committee moved to turn the session public, so we're now in public.

I have three people with their hands up: Madame Larouche, Madame Koutrakis and Madame Desrochers.

Madame Larouche, go ahead.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First, I'd like to reiterate that the request under Standing Order 106(4) was sent 48 hours in advance, which is the equivalent of two sleeps. That means I respected the deadlines; we respected the deadlines. We agreed to discuss my request under Standing Order 106(4), and I know there have been discussions on the Liberal side as well.

Journalists, particularly in Quebec, are currently getting calls from hundreds of seniors who haven't received their benefits for nine months—as we can see in the letter—because of the problems with the Cúram computer system. We don't have the figures; we have no way of knowing.

I received a message from an employee of the Minister of Jobs and Families, who said that if anyone had problems, they could write to her. However, that's not what's needed.

I made a request under Standing Order 106(4) and tabled a motion to shed light on the exact number of seniors who are having difficulties with the processing of their pensions.

We want the committee to invite Patty Hajdu, Minister of Employment and Families, along with officials, and Joël Lightbound, Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and Quebec Lieutenant, to appear for two hours each and answer the committee's questions about the Cúram software. The goal would be to develop a quick and effective action plan to resolve any issues concerning the processing of old age security claims and to provide an update on past and future cost overruns. We also ask that the ministers appear no later than February 26, 2026.

Seniors who are waiting deserve answers, as do public servants, who rated the Cúram software one out of 10. We're just looking for answers.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I'd like to suspend, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Pardon me? I didn't hear you.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Can we suspend, please? We have not seen the motion. It's being distributed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We'll suspend for—

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

We really have to stop doing this. Come on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Committee members, we'll suspend for two moments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The committee is now back in session. We're out of the suspension.

I just want to be clear on a couple of points.

The 48 hours' notice is simply a direction to me as the chair, Ms. Larouche, to call a meeting. It does not give you priority to move anything. The Standing Order 106(4) letter that I received is duly and correctly signed. The chair then must, within 48 hours, schedule a meeting, and the meeting must occur within five days.

We had not gotten to that. This was a regularly scheduled meeting, but the committee, as in all committees, by majority or consensus, can alter the agenda of the meeting. A motion was moved to go in public. We began in camera doing a review of the study. The motion to go in public was approved.

That's where we're at. You had your hand up, and then I had Ms. Koutrakis. We are now in public.

Madame Larouche, I believe you had the floor when we suspended, but you were referencing a motion you wanted to make. Then I was going to go to Ms. Koutrakis and Ms. Goodridge.

Go ahead, Madame Larouche.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

As I was saying, the motion's purpose is simply to shed light on a situation whose details are still largely unknown. I think the minister needs to be accountable to seniors and needs to come and explain herself.

One journalist received hundreds of calls from people who have been waiting for their benefits for nine months. At first, it was said that there was no problem. It was then said that there were 30 cases, which accounted for 0% and some change. It's now being said that the ratio could be as high as 2%. Some years have slightly fewer and other years have slightly more, but let us say that 500,000 new people retire on average. Two per cent still represents over 10,000 people. We have gone from “no problem” to 30 cases and then to 2%. What's the reality? That's what we want to know, plain and simple.

It's clear that this is a serious problem. There have been discussions among the whips of all political parties, a meeting has been requested pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), and a motion is now being proposed.

Yesterday, I spoke with FADOQ, a major group in Quebec. They were saying that the calls were just starting to come in. It's clear that the fact that it's been in the newspapers may be encouraging people to say that they haven't received their pension or that they haven't had any problems. It's important to talk about it to be able to shed light on all this.

I'd like to point out that the Cúram computer system is also being tested but that other federal benefits, including employment insurance benefits, will be covered by that system. To prevent issues from repeating for the people who are going to need their benefits, let us shed light on this now, before there are more cases.

Let us find solutions for Cúram by talking to the Minister of Jobs and Families and the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement.

I think the committee can do that. We propose holding two meetings, one with each minister, to shed light on this and find solutions. We can then see what the committee's next steps will be.

I think those two meetings, those two hours with each of the ministers, are crucial. Not all seniors are rich, and some need their pensions to pay for their housing and groceries. If a cheque hasn't come in for nine months, it's possible to end up in a poverty spiral. That's not what we want.

I think we can do this as adults and ask the ministers questions. So far, the answers to the questions we have asked in the House have varied a great deal. The proposal we were given was simply to say that if people have problems, they can write to the department. That's basically what was said in the email I received. That isn't a notice of meeting. Let us meet and talk. We need the ministers to come and explain the situation to us so we can find solutions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Larouche.

Madame Koutrakis, go ahead on the motion.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm wondering if our colleagues would be open to a friendly amendment only for the date: for mid-March instead of February 26. We're in agreement with everything but the date.

The reason for this is that we have been tasked by the finance committee to get back to them by February 27. February 26 would be too close for the BIA, so we're just wondering if there would be a willingness to do March 10.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I'll have to discuss that with my colleagues.

Mr. Chair, can we suspend to discuss this friendly amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We'll suspend for two minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The committee is back in session. There was a discussion surrounding the date proposed by Madame Koutrakis.

Do you want to formalize that, Madame Koutrakis? The discussion was on a friendly amendment, so we can get the will of the committee.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Yes. I would like to hear from our colleague, Madame Larouche, if she is okay with a friendly amendment. I said “mid-March”, but we can say “no later than March 12”.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

No later than March 12 is fine by me. I understand that we have to question people about the budget. That said, we don't want this to take too long, because we want to move on to the next studies. We have to give ourselves time so that the recommendations can be implemented as quickly as possible. I think that's a friendly and reasonable compromise.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Do I see a consensus on the amendment to the motion?

(Amendment agreed to)

Go ahead, Madame Desrochers.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

We would like to propose another amendment, which is that the committee invite to testify, for one hour—

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

We haven't voted on the first amendment.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I thought there was a consensus, so go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Yes, there was a consensus. I was reading a consensus on the date, which was an amendment. Now I'm open for discussion on the motion of Madame Larouche as amended.

Ms. Goodridge had her hand up.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank my colleague from the Bloc—

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I have a point of order. I have two, because I have a procedural problem.

The first is the concept of a friendly amendment, which does not exist in our Standing Orders, and the clerk may clarify that.

An amendment has been moved by Madame Koutrakis. I believe if you have consensus, it still needs to be noted as an amendment that has been passed. Then we can move back to the original motion. We already had an indication of a second amendment, but we should dispose of the first amendment first.

I just think for the matter of the public record—