Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to begin by thanking and congratulating my colleague from Abitibi, Mr. Lemire, for his concern on this issue.
He first raised the fact that, as parliamentarians, we have the right to obtain documents. The documents were supposed to be tabled by the end of January. It is now February 2, and the documents still haven't come in. From a parliamentary standpoint, this non-compliance needs to be pointed out and corrected as quickly as possible.
Beyond parliamentary practice, there is the human aspect. Here, we're basically talking about cheques delivered to seniors. Regardless of our political stripe, we are all very aware of the vulnerable situation our seniors are in. For many people, this cheque is their only income for their twilight years or, in some cases, their later twilight years. In order to respect everything they have done to build our country and its wealth, the least we can do is ensure that they have a pension that complies with the government's commitment, but unfortunately, it does not arrive.
My colleague touched on another aspect of that. Beyond the lack of respect for parliamentary privilege, beyond the very serious human problems for the primary beneficiaries, meaning seniors, we see once again that the government is incapable of properly managing computer programs. We understand that these are old-fashioned systems dating back 30, 40 or 50 years. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons blamed it on the fact that these are old things that need to be changed. However, these people have been around for 10 years, and it took them a while to start modernizing. Let's also remember that there are astronomical cost overruns and that, as stewards of public funds, we can't let this happen. We also understand that these overruns are not the first to ever occur, because heaven knows that every computer project involves a subscription. It seems as though it's over, then starts again the next year. We've seen that at all levels of government. As a Canadian, I always wonder the same thing: Do large corporations, banks and systems with millions of customers face the same absolutely gargantuan inflation challenges when it comes to deciding on computer products and providing them, and the subscription model that rolls over every year and always involves cost overruns?
In closing, Phoenix has been a terrible burden for hundreds of thousands of Canadians. When Phoenix was being readied, the government of the day, the Conservative government, raised red flags three times. The ministers in office stopped the operation to conduct a review. When people voted in the 2015 election and a new majority government was elected, the Conservative minister in question told her successor to be very careful and feel free to stop the process if by chance he felt there was a problem. However, the process was not stopped. I remember it very well because I was the finance critic at the time when it became clear that no one was able to say exactly when Phoenix was given the green light. That way, no one was responsible. I remember that, in a parliamentary committee at the time, the witnesses were here, the senior officials were here. They identified three people who played a role. I remember very clearly that a senior official told me straight out that these were not the people who were responsible. I told her that I wasn't the one who had said it. The Auditor General, who was right next to her, had said it in his document.
It's not a matter of being partisan. As parliamentarians, we are all responsible for ensuring that our seniors have access to the money allocated to them. As stewards of public funds, every time there are major IT changes, we all have to focus attention on ourselves to learn from the mistakes of the past. Today, unfortunately, it is clear that we haven't learned much.