House of Commons Hansard #100 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was amendments.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act First reading of Bill C-272. The bill proposes to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to prohibit the establishment or operation of supervised drug consumption sites in close proximity to locations frequented by children, such as schools and playgrounds. 200 words.
Fairness for All Canadian Taxpayers Act First reading of Bill S-217. The bill proposes increasing Canada Revenue Agency transparency by publicly listing tax evasion convictions, mandating tax gap statistical reporting, and improving data access for the Parliamentary Budget Officer. 200 words.
Public Accounts Members debate a Bloc Québécois motion calling for an independent public inquiry into multibillion-dollar cost overruns in federal IT projects, including the Cúram benefits delivery system, ArriveCAN, and the Phoenix pay system. Critics emphasize the negative impact on seniors and government mismanagement, while Liberals argue that modernization is essential and existing oversight mechanisms remain sufficient. 12100 words, 1 hour.
Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act Members debate a Liberal motion regarding Senate amendments to Bill C-12, legislation aimed at strengthening border security and immigration system integrity. Liberals argue the bill provides essential tools for managing migration, while NDP members express strong opposition, criticizing what they describe as "draconian" measures. Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois emphasize concerns regarding system dysfunction and the need for greater accountability and fair distribution of claimants. 12300 words, 2 hours.
An Act Respecting Cyber Security Report stage of Bill C-8. The bill moves to third reading following report stage, where a proposed amendment was rejected. Liberals characterize the legislation as a vital national security measure to protect critical infrastructure from cyber-threats. Conservatives, while acknowledging the need for cybersecurity, contend the original text granted the government excessive overreach and argue their committee amendments were essential to increase accountability and protect individual privacy. 4700 words, 35 minutes.
An Act Respecting Cyber Security Third reading of Bill C-8. The bill, which establishes a cybersecurity framework and amends the Telecommunications Act, passed third reading on division. While the Bloc Québécois and Conservatives praised the collaborative, multi-party improvements made in committee, including mandatory legislative review, critics like the Green Party argue that significant loopholes remain regarding privacy protections, warrant requirements, and ministerial oversight that require further sober second thought by the Senate. 4800 words, 40 minutes.
Addressing the Continuing Victimization of Homicide Victims' Families Act Second reading of Bill C-236. The bill, known as McCann's law, aims to require courts and parole boards to consider an offender's refusal to disclose the location of a victim's remains as a significant factor in sentencing and parole decisions. While Conservative members argue the legislation provides necessary accountability for victims, Liberal and Bloc Québécois members, despite supporting further review in committee, expressed reservations regarding its current legal implementation. 6800 words, 1 hour.
Adjournment Debate - Natural Resources Helena Konanz argues that the government’s regulatory failures and taxes restrict energy production and delay projects. Caroline Desrochers defends current Liberal policies, highlighting record production and ongoing federal-provincial coordination. Konanz also calls for an all-party coalition to address softwood lumber tariffs, which Desrochers agrees requires a unified approach. 1200 words, 10 minutes.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the government's responses to eight petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
Steven MacKinnon LiberalMinister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and to enact An Act to change the names of certain electoral districts, 2026.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Bill C-26 An Act to Authorize Certain Payments to be Made out of the Consolidated Revenue FundRoutine Proceedings
Saint-Maurice—Champlain Québec
Liberal
François-Philippe Champagne LiberalMinister of Finance and National Revenue
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-26, An Act to authorize certain payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of improving housing supply.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Judy Sgro Liberal Humber River—Black Creek, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and the honour to present today, in both official languages, the first report of the Liaison Committee, entitled “Committee Activities and Expenditures April 1, 2025-December 31, 2025”.
Dan Mazier Conservative Riding Mountain, MB
moved for leave to introduce C-272, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (supervised drug consumption sites).
Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation to ban supervised drug consumption sites next to children. Fentanyl, meth, crack cocaine and heroin are the drugs being smoked, injected and snorted both inside and outside of supervised consumption sites across Canada. Every supervised drug consumption site operates only because the federal Minister of Health approves it through an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. She has the power to act, but chooses not to.
Because of that failure, used needles and crack pipes are being found on playgrounds. Children are walking past clouds of fentanyl smoke on their way to school and day cares are shutting down because children are no longer safe at these sites.
A decade of drug enablement policies has failed Canadians suffering with addiction and the communities surrounding these sites. Canadians understand that supervised consumption sites are magnets for drugs and disorder, two things that have no place next to children.
New peer-reviewed evidence now confirms that closing these sites actually leads more users toward life-saving addiction treatment, which is another reason to take action.
As a father and a grandfather, I hope all members will quickly pass this bill to protect children.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
moved that Bill S-217, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (reporting on unpaid income tax), be read the first time.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to sponsor this bill in this chamber. I would like to congratulate Senator Downe on his third time sending this bill, which deals with increased transparency at the CRA, into this chamber.
The names of those who are convicted of tax evasion, both in Canada and abroad, should be made easily and publicly available for all in Canada to see. In addition, this bill would require the CRA to publish statistics related to the tax gap, which is the amount the CRA assesses versus what it actually collects. It also includes provisions to make data more easily available to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
I look forward to working with all members in the House to shepherd this bill through this chamber. As I mentioned before, this is the third time it has come to this chamber for consideration.
I would like to thank the seconder in this chamber, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, who is a wonderful colleague and partner in this quest to introduce more transparency at the CRA.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, I move that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented on Monday, March 23, be concurred in.
First, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska, whose co-operation on this issue has been invaluable.
The motion we are debating is 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 the Phoenix pay system, ArriveCAN and Benefits Delivery Modernization programme.
First, I want to reiterate my support for the many seniors in need who do not have access to their benefits because of the problems with the Cúram software.
I will begin my speech by saying something that I think all my colleagues in the House will agree with. The Bloc Québécois knows that that the outdated computer systems had to be replaced. No one is denying that. We agree with modernizing our IT systems.
The government keeps claiming that we want to hang onto the old systems that date back to the early 1960s, but that is false. We are in favour of modernizing our IT systems. What we are speaking out against today is the skyrocketing costs associated with IT contracts and the government's lack of expertise in this area. That is why we are calling for an independent public inquiry on the management of IT contracts, and the Quebec National Assembly has also adopted a unanimous motion to that effect.
The Prime Minister made the same type of claim when answering a question that I asked him in the House. He said that the Bloc Québécois had not attended a technical briefing, when that briefing was actually scheduled for the next day. The Bloc Québécois did its homework. We take our work seriously. For me, the answers that senior officials gave to the media at a technical briefing last week clearly demonstrate the importance of calling an independent public inquiry. We need to put politics aside and have a judge examine this issue.
First, let me reiterate one critical point: The estimates were not reliable, and the department knew that. The official quoted in La Presse stated that there were no precise estimates and that the government knew the costs were going to balloon. They went on to say that cost overruns often happen with big IT projects. This means that some officials gave the department estimates they knew to be inaccurate. Ministers knew that, but they decided to move forward anyway.
This is extremely troubling for me. It means that Canada's public service does not have the necessary expertise to evaluate IT contracts. It cannot say whether IT consultants are telling them the truth or not, which means that expertise is now in the hands of the private sector, and the private sector has no compunction about putting both hands in the cookie jar. Officials also said they were surprised to learn that it would cost money to dismantle the system that they have to replace. Why was this analysis not done before an estimate was submitted? Analyzing the cost of a transformation is a no-brainer.
The Prime Minister and the departments justified the ballooning costs by saying that the benefits delivery modernization program was only delayed for old age security. However, briefing notes, question period notes and ministerial transition books consistently mention a figure of $2.3 billion to complete the benefit delivery modernization program. At no point does any document say otherwise.
The proof is that a note dated September 20, 2023, prepared for the member for Burnaby North—Seymour, the then minister of citizens' services, clearly states: “The December 2020 Budget of $2.2B included estimated costs for OAS, EI and CPP on the Benefits Delivery Modernization (BDM) Programme”.
The government knew that the estimated budget was $2.2 billion in December 2020. It never questioned whether this amount would cover every phase of the benefits delivery modernization program. Even the Clerk of the Privy Council mentioned this to then-prime minister Justin Trudeau in a memo dated May 27, 2022. She wrote that there were concerns about Employment and Social Development Canada’s ability to deliver the program on time and on budget, and that was before the Auditor General’s report on the project was tabled in 2023.
When journalists questioned officials last week as to why there were nearly $5 billion in cost overruns, they did not receive an answer. What is even more concerning is that no one knows the system’s operating costs. In fact, the civil servant who provided the technical briefing was quoted in in La Presse as saying, “As for future costs, five or six years from now when the program is completed, I don’t have any specific figures.” He confirmed that there would be recurring costs to run the program.
According to experts consulted by La Presse, these costs, which include software licences, training, hosting and adjustments, should account for between 10% and 15% of the initial development costs. They will be at least $600 million per year for this program, which is insane. Why are these costs not known? Why is this not part of the contract analysis? Why is the person in charge of this program unable to answer questions about that? This clearly shows that the government does not have the expertise needed to evaluate these IT contracts. There is also the $3.5 billion that will go to private firms. Right now, nearly $1 billion has already been allocated to the program.
The Cúram program was previously deployed in Ontario and led to huge problems. Who knew about the issues with Cúram? The member for Markham—Stouffville was well aware of what Ontario went through. She is well aware of the report from the Auditor General of Ontario. She was an Ontario MPP at the time. The findings are damning: IBM missed data conversion deadlines, and the data contained errors. IBM did not provide adequate expertise. The Ontario ministry relied on the IBM project manager to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the Cúram consultants. In short, these findings raise questions about the data.
When the government uses consultants from private firms, it risks becoming dependent on them. The government is dependent on them. I should add that government programs always require adjustments and customization. We saw these kinds of problems with the Phoenix pay system: IBM was surprised that it had to provide a French version of the software, since the government is required to be bilingual because there are two official languages. The same thing happened with Cúram. According to the officials' report, the translations were not done properly.
We know that Canada has more than just one jurisdiction. This may be news to Deloitte and company, but in Quebec, we speak French. In Quebec, we also have our own tax return. We have the Public Curator and we have benefits from the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, or CNESST. Quebec's unique characteristics must be taken into account, and we seriously doubt that this was done in the configuration of Cúram.
The public servants' report clearly states that the French-language interfaces displayed instructions in English, and their solution was to use Google Translate. A Radio-Canada article from June 2025 reported that, after encountering an error involving a missing form, a francophone public servant was presented with an error message so badly translated that it was unintelligible. The government unequivocally states that developing a solution in-house would have been too risky, but public servants and the government are in the best position to identify organizations and needs, especially for systems like these. They need internal expertise to develop them. We are moving toward a world where technologies play a key role in management, but this government constantly wants to outsource that to private companies.
In her memo to the Prime Minister in May 2022, the Clerk of the Privy Council, Janice Charette, wrote that institutional knowledge about custom system design, function and interdependencies have not been captured and communicated over time, meaning the Government of Canada is critically low in the expertise needed for legacy IT maintenance and replacement. That is why we want an independent public inquiry.
This past Monday, in a report on modernizing the pay system, the Auditor General of Canada noted that Phoenix 2.0, known as Dayforce, was going to cost $4.2 billion and that the estimate was not yet detailed and did not include the cost of transitioning all departments to the new system.
The Department of Public Works and Government Services announced in June 2025 that it was moving forward with a $350.6-million contract with Dayforce. However, the Auditor General's report says it emerged in December 2025 that the cost of the contract had already nearly doubled to $565.9 million, an increase of nearly $200 million. Phoenix, a project that was supposed to cost $309 million, ended up burning through $5 billion of taxpayer money. Combined with Dayforce, which is scheduled to launch in 2031, the government will have spent $9.2 billion, almost $1 billion per year.
The Auditor General noted that Public Services and Procurement Canada did not even calculate the difference between the operating costs for Phoenix and Dayforce. Nobody even knows if it will save us money. This is essentially why we are calling for an independent public inquiry.
Public AccountsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, when we think of the Canada pension plan or the old age supplement programs, they are of critical importance. No one in Canada would even question that aspect.
The other aspect that I think needs to be raised in this whole process is how important it is that we modernize. We have to think of how times have changed and how we need to meet the challenge of that change.
The question I have for my friends in the Bloc is this: Can they give a clear indication if they are supportive of the principle of making that change?
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Madam Speaker, I did so right off the top. Once again, the member for Winnipeg North is being selective about what parts of this debate he listens to.
The issue is the federal government's ongoing difficulty determining up-front costs. There are cost overruns. I could point to other software systems, such as the Canada Border Services Agency's assessment and revenue management system, or CARM. The portal was supposed to cost $400 million, but it had already gone up to $700 million in July 2025. The Auditor General will be auditing it.
There is also ArriveCAN, which was supposed to cost $80,000 but ended up costing $60 million. This happens with every program. I honestly believe the government does not know how to assess its program costs and that taxpayers always end up footing the increasingly hefty bill.
Public AccountsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Éric Lefebvre Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for his excellent speech. I have a question for him about the impact on our seniors, who find themselves waiting for their benefits for six, seven or eight months. People have been talking about numbers a lot, but the human side of the story is just as important.
I would like my colleague to tell us a bit about the impact on our seniors.
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Madam Speaker, I want to sincerely thank the member for Richmond—Arthabaska for his leadership on this issue. He has been raising it in the House for weeks and giving specific examples from his riding.
Let us talk numbers. The government is bragging about the fact that there were 85,000 cases but now there are 69,000 or even 63,000. That is the number we were given this morning. Should we be commending the government for that, as though it did a good job of managing this situation?
Behind these numbers, there are real people who are suffering. Why? The reason is that the software was poorly designed, and there were glitches and errors. With gas prices being what they are nowadays, imagine if someone budgeted for $2 a litre but the gas ended up costing only $1.80 a litre. Should they be commended? No. Every delay is unacceptable.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, I think we are debating a rather straightforward matter here today. It is not very complicated. We want to know whether we need an independent public inquiry on the Cúram fiasco. It is simple. The debate should be focused on that request.
One thing we have learned is that, when problems arose, public servants were told not to tell the public that they were caused by the Cúram software. Does the very fact that public servants were asked to lie to people not emphasize the need for an independent public inquiry?
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean put his finger on something absolutely crucial. How was this managed internally? What instructions were public servants given? Were they given proper training in a timely manner? Were they given clear and accurate information?
There were cost overruns. The deputy minister told us today that about 5% of cases had errors. What is happening with the additional data on people who received overpayments? Oddly enough, no one seems to be talking about that. Where are the data on that? Is there transparency?
That is precisely the purpose of an independent public inquiry. Political games are being played here, which is why we need to shed light on this. We need an impartial judge who can conduct a thorough investigation, ask questions, ensure accountability and pass on clear documentation in order to get to the bottom of this situation.
We need to put political games and partisanship aside so that we, as taxpayers, pay less for dealings with IT firms.
Éric Lefebvre Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who has been fighting vigorously alongside me from the beginning.
The Cúram financial fiasco is about more than just numbers. It affects human beings, seniors who have worked their entire lives, citizens who have paid their taxes for decades. Now they are being forced to wait for the pensions they are entitled to. Pensions are not a luxury. They are a necessity and a right. However, because of the problems with the Cúram system, 63,000 seniors are currently in limbo, facing stress they should not have to endure.
Initially, the project was supposed to cost $1.75 billion. The total currently stands at $6.6 billion. The question is simple. How could a situation like this have been allowed to spiral so badly out of control? How does the minister explain the fact that the project's costs jumped from $1.75 billion to $6.6 billion without triggering effective oversight mechanisms? Who approved those cost overruns? How much more is this broken IT system going to cost taxpayers? It is a waste of public funds.
Our job is to responsibly manage the money that Canadians send here. It is important to remember that every dollar we spend here comes out of Canadians' pockets. As I said, the real scandal is not just the cost; it is the impact that this is having on people. Our seniors are the ones who are dealing with these delays and who now have unpaid bills. We know that the cost of groceries is problematic, and now some seniors' fridges are empty.
How many Canadians are still waiting for their benefits because of the Cúram system? What is the actual average wait time to process a file right now? We are hearing about an eight- or nine-month wait. The government must be judged by the results it achieves, not its intentions. Right now, it is not getting any results.
My biggest concern is that we have seen this scenario play out before with the Liberals. We had the major IT fiasco with the Phoenix system, and now, people are asking whether the government has learned from its mistakes. Have the Liberals learned from their mistakes? What concrete measures have been taken to ensure that Cúram does not turn into another Phoenix? Has the Liberal government put the lessons it learned from Phoenix into practice? If the government is ignoring the lessons of the past, it is dooming Canadians to relive the same mistakes, and that is unacceptable. A crisis of this magnitude demands transparency.
Canadians are entitled to know who made the decisions, who approved the contracts, who is currently supervising the decisions and the fiasco, and who is tracking the contracts. Are there any tracking dashboards in place? How many contracts have been awarded to external consultants, and how much are these contracts worth? Have administrative penalties been considered? It has emerged that some officials actually received performance bonuses. Is it not unbelievable that bonuses were paid? The public's trust can be earned, but it can also be lost quickly when there is no accountability.
Canadians do not just want explanations. They want solutions. They want to know when the situation is going to be resolved and what concrete plan is in place for stabilizing the Cúram platform. They want to know if there is a clear, publicly available timeline and how much more it will cost to fix the problem. We have heard about operating costs potentially jumping from $600 million per year to $1 billion per year. Were these costs budgeted for at the time the contract was awarded?
Licences for the Cúram platform will need to be renewed. Was that taken into account? Was employee training factored into the expenditures? This is a crisis without a plan, and the crisis is getting worse.
This file goes beyond technology. It has to do with trust. In politics, people's trust is the thing we hold most dear. We have to earn people's trust. We have to protect that trust and maintain credibility with our constituents. Right now, the Liberals' credibility in handling this crisis has been eroded.
I have been putting questions to the Prime Minister directly for two months now, because we are talking about the biggest financial scandal in history, with cost overruns of $5 billion. For two months, I have been asking the Prime Minister to show leadership, take charge of this file and get to the bottom of the matter to see what is not working, implement solutions and create a crisis task force. We need some dashboards from which to track progress and outcomes.
Taxpayers deserve that. Taxpayers deserve strong stewardship, efficient services and clear answers. Right now, we do not have clear answers. My colleague and I have just had a question and answer session with the minister and we do not have a clear answer. I asked the minister to go out into the field and meet employees who use the Cúram platform, who have been telling us that the platform is not working. I got a letter from an employee who, naturally, wants to remain anonymous. He wrote to tell me that things are not working and that we have not seen the worst of it. The letter came from a government employee who uses the platform, and he is telling us that this is just the tip of the iceberg. That is disturbing.
I reached out to the minister. I offered to work with her and to go meet with employees on the ground so she could explain the Cúram issues to us in person, and so that we could put a team together to get results. The answer was no. The minister refused my offer to go meet with the employees. However, we here in the opposition will not give up. We will continue to stand up for Canadians because they have a right to their pensions. It is their money. The government owes it to them. Seniors, who built Canada and who built Quebec, should not have to wait like this for months on end. We will always be there to defend them.
This is the biggest Liberal financial scandal ever. The Prime Minister needs to show some leadership out of respect for Canadians. He needs to take charge of this situation and shed light on this file so that our seniors can be paid for the work they have done to build this country.
Public AccountsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member refers to the Phoenix issue. It was during the Phoenix conversion that Stephen Harper and the current leader changed, released or fired 400-plus public servants dealing with human resources. I can tell the member opposite that when they left and turned on the switch to the conversion to the new system, I received numerous calls in regard to the Phoenix system. I have yet to receive any call from a senior raising this particular issue with me. This is not to deny that there are seniors.
That is one of the reasons the minister has been appealing to opposition members, if they have situations, to bring them to the minister's attention. At the end of the day, it is a huge program that is ultimately modernizing an important system. Does the member support the modernization?
Éric Lefebvre Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Madam Speaker, my colleague is denying that there is a problem just because he has not received any calls. He has not gotten any calls, so the problem does not exist. Some 85,000 seniors are affected. The government has known about this for months. Again this morning, the minister told us that more than 63,000 seniors are waiting. My colleague is saying that no one has been calling him about it and so everything is just fine.
Canadians deserve more respect than that. Just because one MP did not get any calls in their riding does not mean that the problem does not exist elsewhere in the country.
I would invite my colleague to raise the level of the debate in this House.
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Richmond—Arthabaska for his wise words.
This member has special expertise because he served in the Quebec National Assembly, where IT cost overruns are taken seriously. When there were cost overruns of $500 million for SAAQclic, an inquiry was conducted. The Quebec government took that situation seriously. Heads rolled and the Government of Quebec learned from its mistakes. Why? It was so that it would not make those same mistakes again. The Quebec National Assembly adopted a unanimous motion calling on the federal government to conduct an independent inquiry. That is the subject of this debate.
Will my colleague support this motion to hold an independent public inquiry? Can he tell us why it is so important to do so?
Éric Lefebvre Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Madam Speaker, I also want to thank my colleague for his keen interest in this issue and for his commitment to standing up for our seniors in this place.
Naturally, the proposal for an independent commission of inquiry is of paramount importance. We are talking about the biggest Liberal financial scandal in history. We have a duty to shed light on this matter and use every means necessary to do so. This commission of inquiry is one way to find solutions that can finally shed light on this matter.
Once again, I thank my colleague.
Richard Martel Conservative Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague and my Bloc Québécois colleague. I think they are doing great work. We also see that this is not a political issue. It is an issue that people really want to see resolved.
I know that my colleague is close to his constituents. The Liberals seem oblivious to what is happening on the ground. I would like to ask my colleague whether any constituents have spoken to him. I think it must be mentally difficult not to receive a cheque. I would like my colleague to tell us about some of the cases in his riding.
Éric Lefebvre Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Madam Speaker, I would be happy to talk about a specific case. I already talked about Martial Lavoie here in the House; he has been waiting for benefits for eight or nine months. That is just one case among many in my riding. People are contacting me. This man always got a recorded message when he tried calling the government. This morning, we asked what the average wait time was. We were told it was a little over 20 minutes. Using the Radio-Canada article, I showed the officials that my constituent's wait time was one hour and 27 minutes. That is the reality on the ground right now.
It is not normal for a member of Parliament to have to take charge of this issue in order to resolve it. Investing $6.6 billion in a system that is not working is not going to fix the problem.
Public AccountsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, first, I take some offence when the member tries to give the false impression that I do not support or am not concerned about seniors. I spend a great deal of my time and effort defending and advocating for seniors, and every week, I address many different issues that seniors face today.
When I highlighted the fact that there was not one call or one senior who approached me from Winnipeg North, it was put into the context of the Phoenix issue, which was under Stephen Harper. Under that system, I received many calls as a local member of Parliament in Winnipeg North. I think we have to put it into the proper perspective. We understand, as a government, how important the benefits are, whether for individuals on unemployment, seniors collecting OAS or pensioners collecting CPP. That is the motivating factor for the government to take the actions that are necessary.
Now, we see the Conservatives opposite take the approach that we should not change the system. They believe that the old system is better and that we should just stick with it. However, when we take a look at the millions of Canadians who are very dependent on receiving that money, I would ultimately argue that this is why we should be pushing forward on this issue. At the end of the day, this is what motivates me in terms of the types of things that the government is doing.
For seniors or those on unemployment, we need to look at ways to modernize the system so that people will receive benefits in a timely fashion. However, when we make a change of this nature, we cannot believe that we are going to have 100% accuracy or that there is not going to be any individual who will go through a great deal of discomfort. Unfortunately, yes, it will happen. As with every system, even the current system that is there, we will find that there are complaints, but this should not cause us to be so fearful that we oppose modernization. To oppose modernization is to put our heads in the sand and not recognize the future needs of, for example, our seniors and individuals who are unemployed. It is a good thing that the government has taken action. It is a good thing that the government looks at such ways when there is a need to spend extra to protect the security of making sure that those payments are made. I do not see that as a bad thing.
I will highlight what the department, from a caucus perspective, has to say in regard to this particular initiative. The Government of Canada is dedicated to simplifying and improving how Canadians access core government benefits and services. This process is to ensure that Canadians continue to receive the benefits they rely on. We are talking about things such as old age security, the Canada pension plan and employment insurance.
As I have indicated, the benefits delivery modernization program is the largest transformation initiative ever undertaken by the Government of Canada. Its success is one of the government's highest priorities. As I explained, why it is such a high priority is that we are talking about the vulnerable in our society.
I would like to take this time to highlight some of the key historical milestones of this program, what it has accomplished and its overall importance to Canadians. I will also share with Canadians why programs of this scope and scale are done and achieved correctly.
The technology foundation of Canada's legacy benefits system is obsolete and has become increasingly difficult to maintain. I believe the Conservatives might oppose that principle, but it is the reality. The old age security system is more than 60 years old and eligible for retirement, quite frankly. The employment insurance system is actually 50 years old, and the Canada pension plan system is 20 years old.
As far back as 2010, the Auditor General report raised the alarm that this system needed to be modernized and failure to do so would endanger the benefits that Canadians rely on. That was back in 2010. Where was the leader of the Conservative Party back in 2010? He was sitting around the government's caucus, which chose to do nothing even though this was flagged as far back as then. That reinforces the idea that modern-day Conservatives have stayed away, without recognizing the true value and need for change.
A study of that report by several standing committees, including public accounts, concluded that upgrades are critical to ensuring that Canadians receive the benefits they so much rely on. We took action to ensure that millions of Canadians who rely on these critical benefits receive them on time and without interruption. Every policy change added a new code and complexities to the legacy system, and built a technical debt.
This technical debt is what the government is actively and ferociously addressing. The cost of not properly maintaining and upgrading those platforms would mean an inability for Canadians to make ends meet. It is not an option, unless one is a Conservative, of course. It is not an option. These changes have to be made. Simply put, addressing technical debt allows our government to invest more in Canadians while spending less in delivering the benefits Canadians rely so much on.
We also know that failing Canadians is not an option for the Prime Minister, this government or any Liberal member of Parliament. We began this modernization journey knowing that switching from the old technology to more modern systems actually has significant risks. Whenever we make a change of this magnitude, we have to expect that there are going to be factors of risk that are at play. We knew it would be a time-consuming and complex process. We needed to prevent these already fragile and ancient systems from reaching a point of failure and interrupting Canadians' access to their benefits. That would have been the ultimate tragedy. That is the direction we were going in if we were not prepared to modernize.
The platform that was selected, Cúram, was selected through an open and competitive process, in collaboration with the Department of Public Services and Procurement. The procurement adhered to the requirements set out by the Treasury Board. We needed a platform designed specifically for social programs, and Cúram delivers. It has proven to be a product with an excellent track record. It has been successful at implementing 970 government social programs in 12 countries, in 14 languages, with 187 million citizens served and protected in one way or another. Those are incredible numbers that often get overlooked by opposition members.
Canadians deserve a government that invests in systems that ensure their benefits are delivered accurately and protected for generations to come, but we could not achieve that with outdated mid-20th-century technology, with legacy systems that were designed before man even landed on the moon, quite frankly.
To us, modernization means accessible services for all Canadians, no matter where they live, in cities, towns and remote northern areas. Canadians expect a high level of convenient service when dealing with their government and the benefits their government delivers. That is precisely why we are bringing our benefits platform into today's more efficient digital world while maintaining the safety and integrity of Canadians' personal information, which is so critically important. Nowadays, we talk a great deal about protecting personal information. In the past number of years, how many debates have I participated in where we have talked about personal information and the security thereof?
The point is the complexity of the data and the type of information that has to be fed into the programming. There is a lot online. We are modernizing old age security, employment insurance and the Canada pension plan through a phased approach, with the expected completion date in and around 2030-31, with a singular goal of migrating these three benefits together into one secure, user-friendly platform, one that Canadians can rely on for generations to come. That is the bottom line: a system that is supported by cutting-edge security software, tested in several countries and allowing clients to manage their information seamlessly online.
The Government of Canada has enhanced the business continuity plan to make sure Canadians are not left without their benefits. Rigorous testing takes place to make sure the program is on track. This includes a trial period occurring before anything gets migrated onto a larger scale. We have checks, balances and contingencies to mitigate any potential project delay, with a rigorous testing process to ensure that benefits are fully migrated and delivered accurately to Canadians. Before any new services go live, final decisions would be taken by the deputy minister in consultation with the project team.
We have a great deal to lose by not moving forward with modernization. As has been pointed out, this is important money. We are talking about hundreds of millions, going into billions of dollars of financial support being delivered to Canadians. Modernization is not optional. We look to both the opposition and the Bloc to recognize that. Yes, it is not 100% foolproof. Some issues will need to be brought to the attention of the floor of the House, but to suggest that there is a need to have a public inquiry, at the very least, is premature.
At the end of the day, we have some of the best, if not the best, civil servants working within the different sectors to ensure that we have a modernized system that will ultimately be there for future generations and seniors and the unemployed, for example, today. Members of the Liberal Party and the government want to see this advance. At the end of the day, it is good for Canadians. It is long overdue and something we should all get behind, promote and encourage.
In situations where seniors are in hardship, then let us talk about them. They should be brought to our attention and served the way we serve our constituents in multiple different ways. In my case, I do a lot of immigration work. At the end of the day, we are there to serve our constituents, so when they have problems, we can assist them in getting what they require, whenever possible.
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Madam Speaker, to be honest, I suspect that the government still thinks it can pull a fast one on us. With that in mind, I think that the parliamentary secretary is once again putting himself in the minister's shoes and saying that Cúram is worth celebrating. The problem is clear: The federal government does not have the necessary expertise.
According to an article in La Presse, a public servant costs an average of $162,000 a year, including benefits and retirement. The $6.6 billion that Cúram is costing could pay for 3,133 federal employees for 13 years. These employees could then ensure that every person receives their old age security benefits.
The reason we are here today is not complicated. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts passed a unanimous motion. By “unanimous”, I mean that the motion also had the support of the Liberal members. Does the member for Winnipeg North agree that we need to move forward? Will he be voting in favour of today's motion for an independent public inquiry into the cost of this system?
The $6.6-billion price tag for the system is equivalent to five times the budget for Grand Theft Auto, which cost $1.4 billion to make and is considered the most technically complex game ever made. It is equivalent to 13,200 build Canada homes programs, 21 F-35As and 3 Champlain Bridges. That is the scale of what this cost represents. That is why an independent public inquiry is necessary. I could also mention CARM, Dayforce, Phoenix and all the other examples. That is why the system needs to be changed.
Will my colleague fall in with this proposal?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I totally disagree with the need for a public inquiry. I do not understand why Bloc members feel we cannot have a more effective standing committee, potentially, dealing with the concerns the member is raising today. At the end of the day, they want to spend x millions of dollars on a public inquiry, when we have a standing committee made up of members of Parliament who are already paid to do the work of sitting on the committee. They should see if they can get it onto an agenda. We should be more productive where we can. Standing committees have great potential here in Parliament.
I believe we should take a look at the bottom line results and the millions of individuals who have already benefited through the program itself. As I have pointed out, there are going to be some issues that will come to the surface, but members should take a look at the magnitude of the program itself. At the very least, let us recognize that there is a role for standing committees of the House of Commons to be able to deal with some of the issues or concerns that the Bloc members have.
Gaétan Malette Conservative Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON
Madam Speaker, why do we need an inquiry? To keep it very simple, it is because of the attitude and the answers we are getting that nothing is wrong. That is why.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I was in opposition for many, many years. For most of my political career, I have been in opposition, and I can tell members that a lot depends on the questions we are looking at and what is taking place in the committee itself. If the member is genuine about working co-operatively, I question why he would be demanding a public inquiry.
It seems to me, and I reflect on the last number of years in particular, that the Conservatives are eager to jump up and down and try to associate corruption to anything. By doing that, they then lead into character assassination. As opposition members, they are entitled to do that, but the government and the Prime Minister need to continue to be focused on the issues facing Canadians.