Public Accounts Committee on March 9th, 2026

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

There are zero public transit users in Quebec. Is that correct?

We haven't received anything from the $2 billion that Ontario received. Quebec has received nothing from Canada when it comes to public transit. In other words, there are no public transit users in Quebec. Is that correct?

[Paul Halucha]

Yes.

As I have said, we've spent $6.5 billion on transit in Quebec since 2016, including almost $1.5 billion on the Quebec City tramway. I noted the projects. There are 11 projects and $400 million through the ZETF, 24 projects and $13.4 million through the RTF and 92 projects and $90 million through the ATF.

I would note that a number of them on our direct delivery side are waiting for M-30 approvals. That is a distinct feature of the programming in Quebec that can sometimes make it more challenging, which is why Build Canada Homes has put an agreement in place to meet regularly to share intelligence. It's so that when it does deals with specific municipalities, the transactions can be approved more quickly.

That's how I would answer your question.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

Part of your answers today tell us that the money can be carried over from one year to the next, and that that's fine.

One of the major problems is that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation had approved a project in last year's budget, and when the time came to spend the money, we were told that there was no money left and that a new fund had to be created to bring in money, but that it would depend on Build Canada Homes. There were issues on the ground in the meantime.

Thank you for being here today.

Madam Chair, I would like to come back to the motion I tabled at the last committee meeting. Basically, the motion says: That the committee report to the House to request that the government establish a public and independent inquiry into cost overruns on IT contracts, including Phoenix, ArriveCAN and Benefit Delivery Modernization.

The argument is that these three programs had cost overruns of nearly $10 billion. I think this more than justifies setting up an independent commission of inquiry. The idea behind this motion is simply that the committee report to the House of Commons to request this independent public inquiry.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

Mr. Deltell, you have the floor.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

We will support this Bloc Québécois motion for very obvious reasons. We're talking about yet another absolutely staggering cost overrun. We know that information technology is unfortunately a bottomless pit for many people, but there are limits to having a bottomless pit when it ultimately becomes a total abyss. Above all, there's no respect for the promises that were made and the signatures that were signed. There's also always something that happens at the last minute that forces the necessary costs to increase, not by 5% or 10%, but by double, triple, or ten times the amount. It's important to get to the bottom of this. It's important to understand what's going on in these situations, and that's why an inquiry deserves to be conducted.

Of course, this is part of a sad pattern under the Liberal government. We remember Phoenix, where on two occasions, when we were in government, our ministers stopped the process knowing that there were problems. When the new government arrived 10 years ago, the former minister issued warnings and cautioned the government against moving too quickly. However, in the middle of February—we don't even know who, when or how—the machine seems to have started on its own, and we know the outcome of Phoenix.

We're obviously talking about ArriveCAN as well, which our leader had renamed the arrive scam. Unfortunately, that was the only funny thing about it, because it was a real financial disaster. It went from $80,000 to God knows how many tens of millions of dollars and, of course, led to this situation.

I'm obviously a member from Quebec, as is my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. Quebeckers experienced the same thing with what was called the SAAQclic scandal, that is, the program from the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec. There were some terrible ordeals, to the point where two ministers stepped down as a result, whereas today we have before us a government that's abandoning all responsibility.

It should be noted that 85,000 seniors are directly affected by the poor functioning of this specific program. Seniors are the most vulnerable people in our society when it comes to dealing with information technology. They're also vulnerable when it comes to income, because for many of these people, that's the only income they have. They can't rejoin the workforce. Unfortunately, the Minister of Transport said that there were only a few cases, that it set a precedent and that things were going to be fine. It was adding insult to injury. It was completely disrespectful to the 85,000 people who were suffering.

It's important to get to the bottom of things, then. Let us hope that this request for an inquiry proves successful so that things can be managed better in the future, because information technology contracts aren't going to be scrapped overnight.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Is it the will of members to allow the witnesses to leave?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Okay. Go ahead, on a point of order.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

During my questioning, I kind of rushed through and passed on to the next question. Mr. Halucha had said that he could get us some information in regard to the split on rural. Could I just request that it be sent in writing, please?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Yes.

The witnesses may be released. Thank you for your time today.

Mr. Osborne is on the list, followed by Ms. Kusie.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm not arguing the motion so much. I need to remind the committee of the number of meetings, the number of witnesses, the resources and the time of public servants and others that were invested into ArriveCAN and Phoenix. At public accounts, there were 24 meetings and 90 witnesses. At OGGO, there were 23 meetings and 65 witnesses. We are still looking, in public accounts, at draft reports for 2024. OGGO is still finalizing a report on ArriveCAN. I've sat in on OGGO meetings, and it doesn't seem to me as though that's a priority.

While I'm not arguing the motion, I will put forward an amendment that we remove ArriveCAN and Phoenix from the motion. If an inquiry is done and they see fit to look at them, that's fine, but to make them the priority of the motion or an inquiry.... How many resources do we continue to put into these two items year over year?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Do we have any speakers for this amendment?

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In this context, the goal of the motion obviously isn't to hold additional meetings. We trust things. I also think that the information we get will enable us to improve a report that can be useful to the person, such as the judge or commissioner, who will lead this independent public inquiry.

For my part, I'm not going to withdraw those two programs, because in this case, there's a federal structural program that ensures direct accountability for IT program providers, which are themselves largely responsible for the errors and cost overruns.

I would add that the beauty of the system is that the more errors providers make, the more lucrative it becomes for them. They're the ones who are hired to be able to fix their own problems, since they're the ones who created their own system. As we have clearly seen in committee, the public service no longer has the expertise to address these problems.

Personally, I'll keep the three programs as they're worded. It will give the commissioner more leeway to get to the bottom of things. It should be noted that the Cúram software project was originally supposed to cost $1.75 billion. However, according to the memo that the Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario received in June, it cost $6.6 billion. According to the data that was provided to the committee, $3.4 billion from that amount is going into the pockets of IT companies.

Why was that money spent? Was it because the initial instructions for creating the program were wrong? Was it because the program was poorly designed? The professional services firm Deloitte also played a role that should be examined. Other firms were also hired.

I think that more than justifies establishing an independent public commission of inquiry, and it's important to avoid limiting ourselves and understand how IT companies operate. The name IBM comes up often, since those are very lucrative contracts.

Why are the same mistakes getting repeated? The Government of Quebec gave the private sector 20 times less money in total. Things were shaken up, and taxpayers are the ones who ultimately end up footing the bill. If we care about our seniors and our living conditions, the money we're sending to people who are already well-off isn't going to those who are most vulnerable.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Mr. Osborne.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Thank you.

To respond to Mr. Lemire, and with great respect to your motion, we have seen a lot of investment—a lot of money, a lot of time, a lot of witnesses and a lot of meetings. The numbers that I put forward were on ArriveCAN alone, the 24 meetings and 90 witnesses at this committee and similarly with OGGO. Are we chasing good money after bad?

I'm not arguing your motion. If IT needs to be looked at, my concern with highlighting these two things as part of an inquiry on IT or looking at IT is that whoever is conducting the inquiry will take it that these are the priorities. There's been a lot of water under the bridge on the many mistakes that were fixed. If IT is still an issue, IT is the issue and I think we need to focus on IT.

I think it's distracting to have these two things highlighted as part of the motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Is anyone else speaking to the amendment? No.

Okay, then we'll go back to the original list.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

We vote on the amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

All right, I'll call a vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 4; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Ms. Lewis, are you substituting for a member?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Mr. Stevenson is the substitute for Mr. Kuruc.

We're back to the main motion.

Ms. Kusie, you have the floor.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I would like to thank my colleague for bringing this motion forward.

As I indicated to the finance minister, who was at our last meeting, the government has a spending problem. When we have a government that spends too much, it's passed on to the taxpayer and to Canadians.

The best way to eliminate this spending problem is to evaluate how the government is overspending. The way we have seen this time and time again is with projects specifically, as well as consultants. I just brought up today the example of the $62 million increase at HICC between the two fiscal years. These three examples are very relevant. They are good examples from which we can learn.

If we look at Phoenix, it's been 10 years since the launch of Phoenix. It's still failing on a regular basis to deliver paycheques properly. Since 2017, the current government has spent over $5 billion responding to Phoenix issues. However, there are still 250,000 outstanding pay issues, many for more than a year. These are public servants who are suffering, in addition to Canadians. They are paying the price of these failing projects.

With ArriveCAN, I know the issue intimately. It was an $80,000 project that ballooned to $64 million. In the House of Commons, members of Parliament voted on a motion to get the money back, and the government has not acted. The funds have not been recouped for this, and we need to find out why.

The benefits delivery modernization program had an original cost of $1.75 billion and has now ballooned to $6.6 billion. It has tripled. In January 2026, there was a backlog of 85,000 new applications, which cannot be processed as a result of the government's failure.

This is an excellent motion that touches on the reasons for the government's inability to deliver successful projects and successful fund reductions. This is at a time when 2.2 million Canadians are visiting food banks. Canadians can't afford a home and there is an $80-billion deficit.

I very much support this motion. The finance minister is aware of my concerns. I made them very clear to him at the last meeting. We need to see some transparency from the government in terms of why it's incapable of reducing its expenditures. Evaluating the cost overruns of these three projects through an independent inquiry is a great step in that direction.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

I'll just raise that the analyst mentioned a correction to the motion in English for “Phoenix”. It is referred to in English as the Phoenix pay system. We will make the necessary adjustment. It is not just that “Phoenix pay system” is the correct term; the spelling of “Phoenix” in English will be corrected.

Are there any other speakers?

Ms. Tesser Derksen, go ahead, please.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Thanks so much, Madam Chair.

As my colleagues have said on all sides, in principle, the motion makes sense. We don't have an issue with transparency. We don't have an issue with the public being witness to our debates or our discussions around spending. That's what this committee is here for.

I'm new to the committee. I'm new to government, and I'm new to Parliament. Even I can tell that the amount of resources, time and expenses spent on these particular issues—Phoenix and ArriveCAN—was excessive. We have to answer to taxpayers. Certainly, they want to know where their tax dollars were going with respect to these programs, and no one is denying there were issues with these programs.

It's incumbent upon us to investigate, but it's also incumbent upon us to continue to be guardians of taxpayer dollars while spending resources on investigations. In this particular instance, I don't believe the means justify the end we're going to get.

I'm not sure what additional information is going to be found by specifically focusing on Phoenix and ArriveCAN. I agree with Mr. Osborne that it's going to be distracting. I wouldn't want the type of verbiage in the motion that would influence or direct the investigator to a particular place when there might be other things that need to be investigated. That's not to say—