Evidence of meeting #27 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 families.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
The committee is resuming for a business section. We have some decisions to make. I will begin with the easy one. It's the adoption of a press release the clerk has circulated to you regarding Bill C-222.
Are members in agreement to have it published? I see consensus. You should have it. It was circulated. I'm seeing thumbs up.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Good.
We have two items that have to go back to the Liaison Committee. They were circulated last week. The first one is for the study on Bill C-222, a budget of $35,400. The second is on the Cúram software, at $500.
Do we have approval for these two budget amounts?
Ms. Larouche, do you have a question on the budget?
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Mr. Chair, you just raised the issue of the Cúram software, and I would simply like some reassurance. We have received an email from the minister’s office stating the following:
Given PSPC’s limited role in this area, the minister’s office believes that the minister’s appearance would add no value to this meeting. […]
Yet we are talking about a major problem concerning the Cúram system, which affects tens of thousands of seniors. During her testimony before the committee, the minister said that 85,000 senior citizens could be affected by delays or payment issues relating to old age security benefits. There is also talk of cost overruns, which have risen from $1.7 billion to $6.6 billion, an increase of 277%.
We must get to the bottom of this issue, which is of concern to tens of thousands of older people, some of whom rely on their benefits to pay for their housing, medicines and food. For them, this is crucial. It is not merely an administrative issue. To restore confidence, I would like to remind the committee that on February 5, 2026, it adopted a motion explicitly calling for the appearance of the ministers concerned. Here is the text of the motion I tabled:
That the committee invite the following individuals to testify for two hours each: Ms. Patty Hajdu, Minister of Employment and Families, accompanied by officials; Mr. Joël Lightbound, Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works, and Procurement; To answer the committee’s questions about the Cúram software with the goal of developing a rapid and effective action plan to resolve problems in the processing of the Old Age Security (OAS) benefit claims and to provide an update on past and future cost overruns;[…]
I would remind you that we in the Bloc Québécois have shown ourselves to be open-minded. Initially, the motion referred to February 26, but, at the Liberals’ request, we agreed to postpone it to March 12 to accommodate the government. We have also learned from the media that public servants were given clear instructions not to discuss the Cúram case. In the circumstances, we believe the committee should shed light on this matter to get to the bottom of it. We really want the ministers to come and answer our questions in person to be held to account, as they are the ministers responsible.
We are still awaiting essential information. We had also managed to reach an agreement in committee to request figures regarding the number of people affected in each province. We would like to receive these figures before the ministers appear, so that we can carry out our work in a serious and informed manner.
I would therefore like reassurance on this point. It is essential that the ministers appear for two hours each, as provided for in the motion, by the specified date, namely March 12, so that they can provide explanations to the seniors affected by the payment issues linked to the Cúram software.
Liberal
Caroline Desrochers Liberal Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to set the record straight, because people keep talking about cost overruns, when in fact there have been no cost overruns. Every day, we repeat the same thing in the House: There have been no cost overruns. Unfortunately, the opposition continues to repeat this.
Cúram software enables benefits to be paid to 7.7 million Canadians. It is a modernized software system. We agree that there have been challenges, which is to be expected when rolling out a system as complex as software that processes payments for 7.7 million Canadians. The department is working on it. The motion calls for the implementation of an action plan, and one is already in place.
A task force is looking into complex cases, which are resolved within 24 to 48 hours. Every day in the House, Minister Hajdu, who is the minister responsible for this issue and who is working specifically on it with her colleague, the Secretary of State for Seniors, asks MPs to provide her with the names of those affected so that we can follow up. That said, we are not receiving those lists.
I want to make sure this is very clear: I am in no way downplaying the impact on the seniors who are affected. We are working day in, day out and we have an action plan to achieve this. The minister will be appearing before the committee. In fact, I believe the date of her appearance has already been set.
I would like us to stop spreading incorrect information. Firstly, we can stop talking about cost overruns. There has been no cost overrun on this project. It is a major project affecting 7.7 million Canadians. From the outset, it was anticipated that things would turn out as they have. There have been problems, but we are resolving them.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, I won't say much on the substance of this program.
On the central point around testimony, I agree that it doesn't make much sense for two ministers to come and testify concurrently. I don't think that's a great use of their time. Ministers are busy people. We want to maximize the opportunity for interaction when a minister comes to the committee.
It would make a lot more sense to me to have one minister come to answer questions, then another minister come to answer questions, rather than having two sit at the table at once. A minister would still have to sit there for the full hour but with proportionally less interaction with the committee. It would make more sense to have an hour each, or even 50 minutes each, so there's more opportunity for actual questions and answers.
We can get into debating the policy, but I think the gist of the intervention, for Ms. Larouche, was the concurrent scheduling. I don't think the concurrent scheduling makes sense.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Well, if we don't have a budget, neither problem will present itself.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
No, it wasn't.
Was the budget approved, just so we're clear? Is there unanimous consent on the two budgets I presented?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
I'm seeing the adoption of those two budgets.
The invitation has been extended. As chair, I've fulfilled my responsibilities.
Mr. Genuis, do you want to speak?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thanks, Chair.
With respect to our deliberations on Bill C-222, procedurally, if we want to expand the scope of the bill, we need the approval of the House in order to do so. I have drafted a motion that would request the approval of the House to do that. I want to note that this doesn't oblige us to adopt any amendments, but it would give the committee that option.
The motion reads:
That the committee report to the House its recommendation that, during its consideration of Bill C-222, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (death of a child), the committee be granted the power to expand the scope of the bill with a view to making provision for cases where a claimant in receipt of Employment Insurance parental benefits dies during the benefit period.
I'll move that now.
Again, that doesn't constrain the committee in its decisions. We have been clear that we don't want to move forward with amendments if those amendments will make a royal recommendation impossible. We want to work with the government on this. It's up to the government to decide, ultimately, whether to accept these amendments or not. This motion would simply give the committee the power to adopt those amendments.
I'm happy to suspend, if people want to look at this. I'm sorry. I honestly intended to give notice of this during the first part of the meeting. I got carried away. We would support a suspension.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Remember that I make those decisions, Mr. Genuis.
The committee can report to the House as it chooses.
On this, I would remind committee members that you all heard the testimony. I've been hearing that those who presented want this bill dealt with in due haste and presented to the House, without anything that may delay it. That occurred in the past.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
I have the floor, Mr. Genuis. I'm speaking, and then I'm going to Madame Desrochers, who had her hand up.
The committee chooses its particular direction.
We have Madame Desrochers, and then I will go back to Madame Larouche and Mr. Genuis.
Go ahead, Madame Desrochers.
Liberal
Caroline Desrochers Liberal Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to remind all members of the committee that we just heard very difficult testimony on the impact of this issue, which is outstanding, and on how long it has taken to deal with it. We all committed to the witnesses—in front of the witnesses—to deal with this hastily, yet we are bringing one more delay. We're proposing, once again, to reopen and expand a bill that has received royal recommendation.
I'm trying really hard to understand the strategy and the compassion. I'm having a bit of a hard time with that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
I have a speaking order. I believe it was Madame Larouche, then Mr. Genuis and Ms. Falk.
Go ahead, Madame Larouche.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Mr. Chair, we have just moved on to another subject, but before I turn to the motion, I would like to return to my previous question, to which I have not received a reply. I have allowed others to speak, but, with all due respect to Ms. Desrochers, she is not a minister, and my question was addressed to you, Mr. Chair.
I fear we may not have time to discuss the timetable, and I want to make sure I receive an answer to my question: Will the ministers indeed be appearing to give evidence separately, for two hours each, as the motion requests?
As I said, we received a response from the minister’s office stating that Public Services and Procurement Canada had a limited role and that the minister’s appearance would add no value to the meeting. However, at this point, it is fair to say that the government is attempting to downplay the matter. To shed light on this, I put the question to you again: Can we ensure that the motion adopted by the committee will be respected?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Madame Larouche, the committee extends the invitations to ministers. Ministers choose to respond as they choose. That's the extent of the committee's power on the particular motion. The ministers will respond to the committee.
Have they responded to the clerk?
They have responded to the clerk. They will both be appearing for one hour at the same time.
With that, I will go to Mr. Genuis and then Ms. Falk.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Before I make further comments on this motion, I think maybe what Ms. Larouche was conveying was that perhaps the committee could convey back to the ministers a preference for them to appear separately as opposed to concurrently. If people agree, then we could agree to convey that message to ministers. If there's not agreement to do that, then I guess we will simply have conveyed our own personal preferences in the process.
We have a motion on the floor now. Is there agreement of the committee to convey that preference to ministers or is there not?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
We are back in session.
Just before I give the floor back to Mr. Genuis, there was a discussion before the committee. The only motion before the committee was the one of Mr. Genuis. That's just for clarification.
Mr. Genuis, you have the floor, and then it will be Madame Desrochers.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I have some comments I want to make in follow-up on the motion, but before I do that, maybe just to close the loop on the previous item, was there agreement of the committee to convey the message to ministers, as discussed? If there isn't agreement, we'll go back to the motion. If there is, we can convey that message.