We're just not hearing new points to this debate. It's just a regurgitation of the same points. I would suggest that we move on with the speaking list, please.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Ms. Falk. I'm chairing the meeting.

Ms. Fancy, you have the floor. You're speaking to the amendment.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Jessica Fancy-Landry Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

I'd like to thank my colleague from across the way for allowing me to get a water break. Thank you.

In terms of all the ministers who have already been here and spoken to this committee, they've also provided costing information. They've also responded to requests from members, including detailed follow-ups on contracts and program implementation. There has been engagement. There has been responsiveness. There has been transparency. The issue before us is not whether information is being shared. There's no cover-up here. The issue is this: We are going to adopt a motion that goes far beyond any targeted oversight and is now into something that's so broad, costly and unrealistic as to what we're actually trying to do here that it disrupts both public service delivery and our own legislative work.

As we might remember, I think we have 12 different motions that are kind of on the docket within our agenda. We have an agenda that's already set, with people like the witnesses who'd come here after spending hours on their briefs. Over half of them didn't get to speak because we were talking about a production of papers that falls under a completely different purview, a completely different ministry. Testimony got delayed and our progress was paused.

Canadians expect us to be doing our jobs and furthering some of these reports, which had already been adopted when we were working very well together. They also expect us to ask questions. They expect us to have this legislation moved forward. Instead, right now, with this two-page motion document, I don't know about you-all, but I feel kind of stuck.

Colleagues, that is our choice right now. Our choice right now is about our priorities, things that have already been set. Our choice is about how we use our time as a committee. It's a choice about how we signal what matters.

3:55 p.m.

A voice

[Inaudible—Editor]

4 p.m.

Liberal

Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

I'll suspend.

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

We're back in session.

Ms. Fancy, you have the floor.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Jessica Fancy-Landry Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

Thank you very much, Chair.

I believe this motion in its current form would push us even further in the wrong direction from what we're trying to achieve. I'd like to be very clear that I don't believe this is even an argument about transparency or an argument in regard to accountability. I think this might be an argument for both, properly, and for doing both responsibly and in a way that actually serves Canadians.

The Canadians we're here to represent do not benefit from motions that cannot be implemented. There's no implementation here. It's a fact-and-find search mission for something that's already been transparent and been given a pathway where people are able to come in and find out what's going on with this new software. In this way, Canadians are not benefiting from any service delivery. We don't benefit, especially as a committee, with this type of stalled legislation. What would people benefit by in this committee if we were not focused, effective and grounded in the reality or scope of what this motion represents?

We're HUMA. We're the human committee, a committee that respects its witnesses when they're called. I believe we are a committee that respects public resources wisely, a committee that advances legislative mandates. I believe we are a committee that conducts oversight in a way that's targeted, proportionate and also meaningful. This is the standard we should all be aiming for. It's the standard that Canadians expect. This motion, as written, does not meet that standard.

It is for all these reasons—the cost, the unrealistic timeline, the strain on the public service capacity, the precedent that something like this sets, the transparency that's already been provided and the direction disruption to our work on Bill C-20—that I cannot support this motion in its current form. More importantly, I would urge colleagues to reflect on what we want from this committee. Do we want a committee that is consumed by motions of this scale, at the expense of legislative work, or do we want a committee that is focused, disciplined and effective in delivering for Canadians? I believe that's the choice before us right now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

April 23rd, 2026 / 4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you.

I do have a lengthy speaking order.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Natilien Joseph Liberal Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Through you, I would ask members to conduct themselves in a manner befitting their role as parliamentarians and to address one another respectfully.

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you.

Monsieur Joseph, that is not a point of order.

Mr. Lefebvre, you have the floor.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Éric Lefebvre Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My colleagues are talking about respect. That has been the most important value I have held in my life for a long time. I give lectures to young dropouts, and I write the word “respect” on the board. I tell young people that if they respect people in life, people will respect them. I tell them that there's a mirroring effect.

Why are we here today? It's because we have the biggest financial scandal in the history of the country, a project that has gone from $1.6 billion to $6.6 billion. That means there's a cost overrun of $5 billion. Our colleague was talking about respect.

The Liberal member Ms. Fancy was saying that this moves us away from our responsibility. What is our responsibility? Our primary role is to legislate. Our role is also to ensure sound management of the money that Canadians send to us, here in Ottawa. That's the respect we owe Canadians.

On top of that, the project we're discussing here, which has a $5‑billion overrun, doesn't work. Government employees themselves are telling us that it doesn't work. We're asking for thousands of pages of information, and Ms. Fancy is telling us that it's irresponsible, that it's going to cost a few million dollars. We're talking about $5 billion in cost overruns. What's irresponsible is to not shed light on the biggest financial scandal in the history of the country. That would be irresponsible: to not shed light on that.

What we need to do is get answers to our questions, as the motion calls for, because someone gave approval; someone said yes to a cost overrun of $5 billion. Someone agreed that the software doesn't work, that it doesn't deliver the expected results and that we should keep going in that direction.

That's our role as legislators. We were elected by the people of Canada, and the people of Canada expect results. I always tell my constituents that it's a great privilege to be their eyes, their voices and their ears here in Ottawa. That should be what guides us all: being the eyes, voices and ears of our constituents.

When we're faced with a financial scandal like this one, namely, a cost overrun of $5 billion, if we want to do our job, we have to be the eyes, voices and ears of our fellow Canadians and demand answers. That's our role as legislators.

We asked Minister Hajdu and Minister Lightbound to come and give us answers. How much time did we get? We were given one hour, that is, 30 minutes per minister. Did we have enough time to ask the questions and get the answers we expected? Of course not.

We're talking about a cost overrun of $5 billion here, and I only have 30 minutes; not 30 minutes for me alone, but 30 minutes for all of my colleagues to ask the minister questions. It's completely ridiculous. To go back to the word “respect”, it's a lack of respect for us as legislators to give us only 30 minutes to ask questions about a $5‑billion cost overrun. That's the respect the Liberal government has for the legislators who were democratically elected in each of the ridings to represent their fellow Canadians.

People work hard to earn their pay, and they send us practically half of their pay here to Ottawa. We have a cost overrun of $5 billion, and we shouldn't be asking questions because that will result in work for government employees. What would be irresponsible would be to not do so.

I wanted to be here because I'm a member of the Standing Committee on Finance and this is an unacceptable file for me. What's more, an article in the Journal de Montréal this morning talked about the fact that seniors are having trouble making ends meet. Once the rent is paid, they have a hard time paying for groceries. With the Cúram software, 86,000 seniors were unable to receive the benefits they were owed.

This is money that they're owed. They paid that money. It's our duty to be able to give it back to them. They have to wait eight to nine months to get their money. Some of our seniors are in distress. That's the reality for 86,000 seniors in the country. Would that mean our role is to not ask any questions, to accept that?

I will continue to fight for our seniors, and I will continue to fight for the Canadians who are working hard and place their trust in us by giving us a large portion of the pay they earn each week. They're asking us to provide services to Canadians in exchange for the money they send us every week, and we have a duty to manage it effectively and responsibly.

What we're currently seeing in this file isn't sound management. It isn't effective and responsible management. We owe it to ourselves to get answers, we expect answers, and I'm going to continue to fight so that we can get the answers, because someone, somewhere, approved those $5 billion in cost overruns. Someone approved the fact that this software doesn't work.

I reached out to the minister to meet with employees on the ground who use the Cúram system. They're the ones who use it every day. I suggested to the minister that we go together. I don't use the computer system. The minister doesn't use it either. I suggested that we meet with the people who use it, to understand the challenges they face on a daily basis, so that we can find a way forward, find a possible solution. We owe it to ourselves to get answers.

For our part, we're going to continue the work. You'll understand that, when my colleague talked about respect, the disrespectful thing would be to not do the work we're doing right now. We owe it to ourselves to get the answers we expect. We have a duty to respect Canadians, who are also asking questions. Where are those $5 billion in cost overruns? What happened in the decision-making chain?

A set of measures were requested in the motion. We're going to make sure we have the answers we need to shed light on this file. We're going to make sure we get the answers we expect.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Mr. Lefebvre.

Mr. Généreux, you now have the floor.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Bernard Généreux Conservative Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC

Mr. Chair, thank you for having us here today.

I'd just like to look back a bit. Tomorrow, I will have sat as a federal member of Parliament for 12 of the past 16 years, and I'd like to come back to what my colleague was saying, which is that it sets a precedent to have a motion with amendments that fill one and a quarter pages.

I'm sorry to remind him that when the Conservatives were in power from 2009 to 2011, as well as from 2011 to 2015—though I unfortunately wasn't a member of Parliament—there were motions like this one. This is far from being a precedent. This is the reality of being in the opposition and, as a government, dealing with serious analyses that have to be done in response to problems that arise from the implementation of software and new legislation, among other things.

In this case, I think the government is quite able to see that the $1.7‑billion estimate that was done for the system's implementation in 2017 was vastly underestimated. That means we're now at $6.6 billion, and the system hasn't even been completely implemented from A to Z. There are still other steps to carry out, which will possibly cost even more billions of dollars.

Asking for answers through a motion like this one, amended by the Conservatives, is perfectly normal. It's perfectly normal to do so when there are cost overruns like these. I don't know if ArriveCAN rings a bell or if the sponsorship scandal rings a bell. Those are things that have happened in the past and that have called for reflection, studies and analyses on how the money was spent.

As the responsible government that you are—or say you are—and as a transparent government, as you say you are, I don't see why you would have a problem with this motion. Obviously, it will definitely cost money to be able to assess what happened. However, we would not have needed to propose this motion if the costs had been met.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Natilien Joseph Liberal Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, this is no longer about the amendment; this is about the motion.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Bernard Généreux Conservative Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC

It can't be more about the amendment than that. I can't be more on topic than that.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

No, it's not a point of order, Mr. Joseph. Monsieur Généreux is speaking about the text of the amendment.

Monsieur Généreux, you have the floor.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Bernard Généreux Conservative Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC

Thank you.

Honestly, it's the duty of all members of this committee to assess what happened. Ms. Fancy was referring to the committee's role at the start. Its role is obviously to conduct analyses and hold the government to account. That's part of the work for all our colleagues, and, frankly, with a cost overrun of $5 billion compared with the initial estimate, I think it goes without saying that an analysis is clearly necessary. There has to be a closer look at what happened during this system's implementation.

I fully understand what my colleagues are telling me, and I'm trying to be as open as possible to their arguments, which are that millions of Canadians were being processed on paper and that all that computerization can lead to cost overruns. We just experienced this in Quebec with the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec: it cost $1.5 billion. It's the same thing: It had been estimated at much lower amounts than that. The important thing for all Canadians is to know what really happened to prevent it from happening again.

Mr. Chair, if I may, I 100% support the amendment that my colleagues proposed to shed light on this important scandal. Let us call it what it is; that's the real word. I don't like to use it, but it's a scandal to see that a project estimated at $1.6 billion has ended up at $6.6 billion, as we speak, and it isn't done yet. Obviously, I think we need to get to the bottom of this.

Thank you very much.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Mr. Généreux.

Madame McKelvie, you have the floor.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Jennifer McKelvie Liberal Ajax, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here with you today.

I'm replacing Caroline Desrochers, who is a parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, as am I.

I thought I was coming because we were going to talk about Build Canada Homes, so it's a little disappointing that we're stuck on a motion that calls for the production of millions of pages of documents across multiple departments. This isn't an exaggeration when you read through the motion: The scale of the request really is unprecedented.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative