Public Accounts Committee on March 11th, 2026

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

Madam Chair, I’ll be honest with you. At the last meeting, I did have some concerns. I wasn't sure whether the Liberals were acting in good faith. It wasn’t a matter of filibustering. However, now it seems quite clear that this is the case.

What do the Liberals want? They want to ensure that information that should be made public in the case of the Cúram system remains confidential.

Personally, I don't like being taken for a fool. Quebeckers and Canadians don't like that either.

We're talking about cost overruns. If the budget had been adhered to—if it had actually cost $1.75 billion—I don't think that anyone would have questioned the need to modernize a system. The issue is obvious. The cost has risen from $1.75 billion to $6.6 billion. That's a cost overrun of over $5 billion. That money could have been allocated to any other program, such as improvements to the benefits delivery for seniors. The system has flaws, and they're obvious.

According to the figures submitted by the department, this affects 85,000 people. As an aside, I would like to mention that a question put by the Liberals to the Liberals revealed that this matter involved 85,000 cases. The problem stems from the poor design of the software. The software was poorly designed because the firms involved provided incorrect specifications for its development. The people who made mistakes are the ones who stand to profit from it. We're talking about $3.5 billion in budgeted funds going to IT firms. That's why we're calling this a fiasco. It's clearly an IT fiasco.

The amended motion fails to take into account that the current motion specifically addresses cost overruns in IT contracts, including Phoenix, ArriveCAN and the benefits delivery modernization programme. There are others. I hope that a report to the House will lead to an inquiry. At this point, we aren't talking about a study. We're talking about reporting to the House to say that an inquiry should be carried out.

We received a summons from the Auditor General regarding upcoming studies. Personally, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see new IT fiascos come to light. The federal government refuses to look at the mistakes that it makes when it enters into contracts with private firms, independent firms and IT firms. As a result, these people take advantage of the federal government's complacency and line their own pockets. We're talking about $3.5 billion to fix these issues.

I obviously reject the proposals put forward by the Liberal government. I believe that the government is refusing to show transparency. For the information of the member on the other side, when we talk about a public and independent inquiry, we aren't randomly selecting these words. This refers to section 2 of the Inquiries Act. This federal legislation requires a judge to delve into the details and authorizes the allocation of funds for inquiries. The goal is actually to depoliticize an issue of this nature given that it constitutes a scandal and a fiasco with costs running $5 billion over budget as a result of cost overruns.

Can we take this out of the political sphere to ensure that competent people, such as judges, get to the bottom of this and shed light on the mandates given and the reasons for these cost overruns? We want to know why things went so wrong. This potentially falls outside the jurisdiction of Parliament. Yes, studies have been carried out, including by this committee, mainly because the Auditor General took an interest in this issue.

I would like to add something. When the Prime Minister answered questions during question period, the least he could have done was to show due diligence and to refrain from referring to people's failure to attend a meeting that didn't take place. We were summoned this morning for a briefing that will take place tomorrow. The meeting has not yet taken place. I find that being told that I didn't attend a meeting—and not having a right to reply given the principle set out for question period—shows a blatant lack of respect. It shows just how much the Liberals want to hide something here.

We have a good idea of what this entails. That's why we want to shed light on these programs. This situation keeps happening over and over again. I believe that this committee has a responsibility to quickly adopt this motion. It calls for a report to the House so that we can shed light on IT contracts, fiascos that keep happening year after year.

Can we shed some light on this? I think that the taxpayers expect this from us. That's what we're asking for. We need to do this as soon as possible.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Mr. Deltell, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

On our end, we disagree with the suggestion contained in the government members' amendment for the following reason.

Not a single person disputes the fact that the system needed modernization. Remember that the first report or the first warning was issued during an investigation in 2014. This isn't a recent development. We understand and know quite well that anything related to computer technology that's more than a few decades old—some would even say just a few years old—quickly becomes obsolete. Obviously, everyone agreed that something had to be done. As I said, the alarm was sounded in 2014. In 2015, a new government took office. However, it took some time before the process was set in motion.

We're seeing now that, once the process is set in motion, it doesn't work. Of course, the government boasts about large and impressive figures. It says that seven million people are receiving their benefits. However, the system should at least work, considering that it was supposed to cost $1.6 billion or $1.7 billion and that an additional $5 billion has been spent. This is outrageous. Moreover, it isn't true that this matter involves only a few cases. In fact, 85,000 people have been shortchanged by this system.

Remember, Madam Chair. These people are our elders. They're the ones who built Canada. We owe them a great deal. Unlike my granddaughters—who are extraordinarily skilled with computers—they weren’t born with a computer at their fingertips. My granddaughters are indeed far more tech‑savvy than their grandpa. I think that we're basically in this situation.

We need to look out for seniors. Radio‑Canada broadcast a report by Valérie Gamache. The report featured real‑life cases of people—including a woman from Gaspésie and a man from Victoriaville—who were struggling with issues related to the new software. Eric Lefebvre, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, asked Ms. McLean the question directly in the House. He said that his constituent was listening to him. He urged her to provide an answer to that constituent. The answer came, but 85,000 people have suffered and are still suffering as a result of this situation. Our goal isn't to figure out how much it would have cost if we hadn't done this. Everyone agrees that it had to be done. However, we're now looking at a $5 billion hole.

Let me reassure my government colleagues a bit. These issues aren't limited to Canada. It's the same all over the world. The newspaper La Presse drew up a list—I think yesterday or the day before—showing that a number of countries are facing astronomical cost overruns in the IT sector.

We don't need to look at the situation in Europe. Let's just look at the situation in our own backyard. Quebec has the infamous case of SAAQclic, the system for the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec. It was supposed to be the most modern system to date. However, it had such spectacular glitches—to say the least—that two ministers lost their jobs over the issues.

This isn't about political partisanship. That said, when a budget was initially supposed to cost $1.5 billion and ends up costing an additional $5 billion, when 85,000 people are grappling with this and when cost overruns for IT programs have unfortunately become the norm or commonplace, then the time has come in Ottawa to address this issue and get to the bottom of it. The province of Quebec has done it. The rest of the world has done it too. In some situations, spending a little on IT programs ends up costing a fortune. We need to tackle this issue for the future and to figure out what went so wrong. We need to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

In conclusion, Madam Chair, I'll say it again. Regarding the amendment moved by our government colleagues, everyone understands that a change was needed. However, that change has turned into a bottomless pit of spending and hasn't yielded the expected results.

We'll be voting against the government amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Mr. McKinnon.

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

Thank you.

Let me start by mentioning that I remember the start of the Internet. We had no idea before that what was coming.

However, I take umbrage with the notion that we are trying to hide any information. There's nothing whatsoever in this amendment that reduces the scope of the original motion. What it does is add context. I think that's important to do. I think it's very important that we take a look at these prior systems, these legacy systems, and find out where they went wrong. If we don't know where they went wrong, how are we going to know how to fix them?

It will be very helpful if we can amend the context as Ms. Tesser Derksen has proposed. Therefore, I will support this amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Are there any more speakers on the amendment?

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

The amendment has been defeated.

Let's go back to the original motion.

I believe that Monsieur Lemire has the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My main points have already been covered. However, I just want people to realize that this amounts to $6.6 billion and cost overruns of around $5 billion. I'll refer to the Radio‑Canada article. We're talking about the construction of 13,200 homes under the Build Canada Homes initiative. We're talking about 3,133 public servants who could have worked from 2017‑18 to 2030‑31, at an average cost of $162,000 a year—including benefits and pension plan contributions—on an IT modernization project. We're talking about digital tools whose creation required the world's top experts, such as the video game Grand Theft Auto VI. We could have made five of them, since it cost $1 billion to make if you include everything. It was the most demanding in terms of modern technology. We're talking about three Champlain bridges.

This shows the magnitude of the cost overruns related to this IT project. The issues with the Cúram software were well known. We saw this in five governments around the world, including in Australia and Ontario. The Auditor General sounded the alarm about this. In 2017, Employment and Social Development Canada decided to proceed with the implementation of the Cúram software.

Who was the minister at that time? It was the same minister reappointed today to the same position. This shows a certain pattern, where lessons aren't learned from past mistakes. This is why we're calling for an independent public inquiry. We want to ensure that the mistakes of the past, repeated time and again over many decades and across numerous IT projects, are no longer repeated. Ultimately, the taxpayers are the ones who foot the bill.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Do we have any more speakers?

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 0)

The motion has passed.

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

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

We will suspend briefly to go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]