Public Accounts Committee on March 11th, 2026

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

What about the prospect of providing this information—forget about the bill—as a report on a quarterly or semi-annual basis? It would be something that says, “Here's a list of entities that have debts to the government, and this is the status of those debts, whether they're forgiven or written off,” or even a report of these various entities, with a list of obligations that have been or are about to be written off.

[John Daley]

If a report were required, it would follow circumstances similar to what would be in an online database, with the exception of having to house a system in order to make the information available online.

I'm not sure if the CRA has anything to add in terms of distinguishing between partnerships and individuals regarding certain types of debt deletions—for example, GST or HST.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Give a short answer, please.

[Jennifer Boudens]

I think that, as mentioned earlier, there is work involved. We have to verify that GST accounts are actually registered to corporations before they can be disclosed on this list.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Thank you to our witnesses for their testimony and participation in relation to the study of Bill C-230.

We will suspend briefly to go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

The meeting is resumed in public.

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

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Mr. Deltell, you have the floor.

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

Madam Chair, I would like to inform the committee that we have a gentleman's agreement with the government and Bloc Québécois members regarding the motion that I introduced two days ago.

The motion concerns the events involving Laval and the CRA. It invites the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, as well as CRA officials and the mayor of Laval, to appear before the committee. The motion will be discussed at the committee's next meeting.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

It has been noted.

Mr. Lemire has the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

At the last meeting, we didn't have time to vote on the motion moved by the Bloc Québécois on February 25, 2026. The motion read as follows:

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 Benefits Delivery Modernization.

We were supposed to move to a vote, but we ended up running out of time. I would like us to continue with the process and move to a vote.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Let's call the vote to resume debate.

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

There's no need for a vote to resume the debate. The debate is ongoing.

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

Madam Chair, I would like to call for a vote.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

The vote is to resume debate on the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

We are now resuming debate on the motion.

Are there any speakers?

I have Ms. Tesser Derksen and then Monsieur Lemire.

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

Thanks so much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank my colleagues for indulging me at the last meeting while I waxed eloquent—or maybe not so eloquent—about my feelings toward the motion. The gist of what I was trying to say was that I was hoping for something more holistic. I agreed in principle with the motion, but I didn't like the focus on Phoenix and that stuff. I thought it was distracting and not as holistic or as organic as it could be.

After thinking about it a bit, I decided to propose an amendment to the motion, if that's okay, Madam Chair. Do you want me to launch into that?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Yes.

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

I'm going to read the whole proposed amendment at the end, because I do have some comments I want to preface it with. Basically, what I'm looking to do is remove the words “a public and” and “overruns”, and then add “and that the inquiry also examine the accumulated costs of maintaining legacy systems and the risks associated with them.”

I'll get into my rationale a little bit here, because I feel that if my colleague Mr. Lemire is truly concerned about the IT contracts, then this amendment should work for him because it's looking at spending in a serious, responsible and more holistic way. We don't necessarily just want to examine the contracts, but also the enormous costs of maintaining outdated, older systems, because there's a cost associated with that. If you want to have an honest conversation, I think we can't ignore decades of accumulated costs that have been poured into maintaining these outdated technologies. As I said in my comments at the last meeting, taxpayers deserve a complete picture, not just of what modernization costs but of what failing to maintain it costs, because there's a cost associated with being outdated. I wasn't here for the witnesses in those meetings, but every witness who appeared before the committee, including the Auditor General and deputy ministers, made it clear that those aging systems are at the heart of delays, risks and expense—rising costs.

I just want to quickly touch on some of the previous testimony as well.

Intervene any time, Madam Chair, if I need to break things up. I know I read a bunch of amendments at the beginning. Maybe it's better if I deal with them individually. If I could, I'll make my points, and then I'll go back to the technical bits of the amendment.

The BDM, the benefits delivery modernization, from what I understand, is the largest and most carefully governed IT transformation in federal history. The testimony we heard showed that every step has been sequenced, piloted, tested and monitored. It's very thorough. It protects vulnerable Canadians, and it avoids Phoenix-style mistakes. This is something that my colleague was concerned about. He wanted those mistakes addressed. I think that was really at the crux of the whole motion.

It prioritizes modernization over riskier transformations. It's going to replace systems that are older than the Internet. I don't know if people remember when they first heard about the Internet, but I was pretty young. This is old technology. The Auditor General's office made it pretty clear that Canada relies on systems that are, in many cases, more than 60 years old right now. Those systems deliver benefits to more than 10 million people. There are a lot of people relying on these systems to work properly, and we can't allow them to fail. The Auditor General's office confirmed that the old systems pose increasing risks and that modernization today prevents catastrophic failures tomorrow. We do have to invest in updating and modernizing technology if we want it to work properly for us.

I don't think BDM is optional. It's a long-delayed modernization that protects Canadians' access to pensions, to employment insurance and to old age security, some of which people I love depend on. I'm sure it's the same for many folks around this table. The delays in modernizing the system that existed for decades before this government are exactly why BDM is structured, sequenced and very carefully managed. Vulnerable Canadians depend on these programs the most.

This is exactly why the modernization is structured to protect continuity above all else. Instead of rushing to an immediate launch of the BDM, it's migrating the highest-risk systems first, starting with old age security, to prevent any disruptions to seniors. I know this is of particular concern to our colleagues in the Bloc, as it is to all of us. The legacy system did its job for decades, but there comes a time when we can't rely on 60-year-old code to keep pace with the needs of seniors and families today.

I want to make sure there's a distinction between Phoenix and the benefits delivery modernization, the BDM. We heard from officials in 2023 that there were many lessons learned from Phoenix, and it's important that we don't forget those lessons. BDM is not meant to cut corners. It's not reducing scope recklessly, and it's not implementing changes without full and thorough testing. BDM is designed to avoid Phoenix by ensuring that system migration happens progressively, with safeguards and real-time oversight. I want to make sure that distinction is quite clear.

Although I didn't have a chance to hear from her, the former chief information officer, Catherine Luelo, who I understand was well respected around this committee table, did provide testimony. The committee heard from her that the BDM program was finally imposing standardization. Finally, there is one shared platform instead of dozens of bespoke, incompatible systems that were inefficient. Additionally, she pointed out that this unified approach is how we avoid future Phoenix-type fragmentation and issues.

This is where I'm coming from with this amendment. I'll read the whole amendment.

Would you like that, Madam Chair?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Yes, read the whole amendment and just this amendment, please.

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

Okay.

You just want my amendment. I read that at the beginning. It's just two little sentences and adding a bit at the end.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Read one amendment at a time.

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

Okay, the first amendment is this. There's a spot where it says “a public and”. I want to remove that.

I also want to remove the word “overruns”.

At the end, I would request that we add the following: “and that the inquiry also examine the accumulated costs of maintaining legacy systems and the risks associated with them.”

Do you want me to read the whole proposed final motion or go through those three amendments again, individually?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Read just the last part.

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

Okay. The addition at the end reads as follows: “and that the inquiry also examine the accumulated costs of maintaining legacy systems and the risks associated with them.”

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

All right.

Are there any speakers to the amendment?

We have Mr. Lemire, then Mr. Deltell and, of course, Mr. McKinnon.