Debates of May 5th, 2026

Finance

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in case the Hansard did not pick it up, I want to make sure it is heard that it is the deficit-to-GDP ratio that is declining. The debt-to-GDP ratio is the lowest in the G7 by some considerable margin.

The deficit-to-GDP ratio and balancing operating spending with revenues are two of the key fiscal anchors that we are achieving. Again, I refer my colleague to page 12 of the spring economic update for some more context.

I would invite him to reflect on which of the investments and key supports we are bringing in on the affordability and business support side that he would cut. Would it be the groceries and essentials benefit? Would it be national child care, which is supporting thousands of people in my riding and, I know, in his riding? Would it be the Canada dental care plan, or the investments we announced yesterday to support the steel, aluminum and copper sectors, which are struggling because of the tariffs?

I think Canadians know that these investments are the right ones.

Public Services and Procurement

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's Cúram software platform has become the newest IT project to make the list of over-budget, chronically delayed programs it delivers to Canadians. The program was launched in 2017, just two years after the Liberals took office. The Auditor General found that, by 2022, the program had run into delays and into cost overruns that increased by 43% before a single benefit had been processed by the system. Reports from Le Journal de Montréal estimate that the once $1.75‑billion IT project meant to modernize old age security payments will cost up to $6.6 billion.

I wish I could say that this project was the first of its kind. Unfortunately it is the latest in the long list of Liberal-managed IT projects where costs ballooned, and connected consultants got paid. Members of the House voted to launch an independent inquiry into these projects, such as Phoenix, the arrive scam scandal and now Cúram, to find out how the same pattern of delay is followed by cost overruns and by a big bill for taxpayers to pay, while the people overseeing the projects are not held accountable, and why the middlemen involved walk away, getting paid every time.

During the arrive scam scandal, connected consultants working out of a basement apartment took millions of dollars without performing any work. They engineered a bid to build the ArriveCAN app, and they contracted out all the work to others while pocketing the difference. The project was originally projected to cost just $80,000 but ended up costing $64.5 million. The connected insiders kept millions of dollars, and Canadians were left footing the bill for an app that the Auditor General found did not provide value for money.

Cúram may not simply cost upwards of $6 billion. Reports from March indicate that tens of thousands of seniors were having issues with their benefits, and delays had reached up to 85,000 people. Members of the Liberal government stood up in the House, after taking questions, and first denied anything was wrong, but then they told members to reach out personally and to not make the issue political.

Since when has question period, a time when opposition members ensure accountability by asking questions of the government, become a time when the Liberals continually demonstrate arrogance by suggesting that by pointing out that the Liberals failed to deliver the Cúram program on time or on budget, or that nearly 85,000 seniors could not access their benefits, political opponents are playing politics? That attitude is beneath members of this place.

I will ask the minister the question again: Why do Liberal programs always massively exceed their projected costs, and why are seniors forced to pay the price for the Liberals' incompetence?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek for her concern and her engagement on this, and I want to convey, on behalf of the government, that we do take those questions seriously.

I want to address how the system is working at ESDC and issues around the accuracy of payments. I also want to clear up some misinformation surrounding program costs. Let us start at the beginning of this journey. In 2010, the Auditor General noted there was a high risk that in time, the IT infrastructure would not be able to support the delivery of core programs like OAS, EI and CPP, based on systems that were decades old. We knew an upgrade was essential.

Since 2017, we have been investing in benefits delivery modernization because Canadians deserve functional, responsive and dependable services. We knew that any interruption to accurate and on-time payments could significantly affect recipients' ability to meet their daily needs, such as buying food or paying rent, needs that are addressed significantly by those supplements and benefits. We also knew that this would be an incredibly complicated task and that doing the job correctly would require significant investment.

Between 2017 and March 31 of this year, the federal government spent $1.8 billion on the benefits delivery modernization program. The recently completed old age security on benefits delivery modernization project was delivered as planned and under budget. The total cost, however, has evolved, and that is due to what we now understand and what we are learning about some of the evolving threats and changes in the information technology space. Current estimates have evolved over time as we have gained a greater understanding of the complexity of unravelling 60-year-old systems.

The 2023 Office of the Auditor General report acknowledged the department's commitment to revising estimates, as I think is appropriate. The program's long-term estimate of $6.6 billion now covers the completion of four main projects by 2031: the full transformation of benefits delivery for all old age security, employment insurance and Canada pension plan payments, as well as modernizing all of ESDC's call centres.

What is different from when the estimates were first generated? Well, the cybersecurity landscape in 2017 was much less complex than it is today. Fraud and cyber-threats have been increasing in speed, scale and sophistication. This impacts the complexity and cost of the modernization. In other words, the threat environment raises the cost of keeping Canadians secure, and we are responding proactively, ultimately to protect the financial health of the program and the interests of Canadian taxpayers.

Of the $473.4 million announced in the 2026 spring economic update, $176 million over two years will be used to increase OAS processing capacity and for OAS system maintenance and support.

In terms of some of the questions the member has raised regarding the selection of proponents, we are fully transparent and we follow standard practices. Every contract includes clear deliverables. All contracts are competitively awarded and proactively disclosed in accordance with the rules in place.

In terms of the beneficiaries, of who is benefiting from this transformation and the hard work that has been done by hard-working public servants and others, 7.4 million old age security clients were migrated to the new platform last year. Each one continued to receive payments as planned. The new system is currently providing 7.7 million seniors with pension benefits every month, many of whom rely on OAS as their primary or only source of income.

The system is operating correctly, and 89.6 million payments have been issued with a value of nearly $84.7 billion. The number of clients waiting beyond their first month for payment has declined, and the department continues to ensure that these cases are processed and that clients have access to the benefits to which they are entitled.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General did find we needed a new system. That much is true.

However, she did not advise the Liberals to manage the program so poorly that 85,000 seniors could not get their benefits in a timely way. The Auditor General certainly did not tell the Liberals to manage the program so poorly that it cost an extra $5 billion.

The Liberals want to pretend these failures of Cúram are not their fault. Cúram is yet another example of how Liberal overspending and underdelivering affects everyday Canadians. There is always someone else at fault, and no one is held to account. The pattern is clear, and Canadians see it.

Under the Liberals, connected, costly consultants get paid while projects fall further and further behind, running over budget by the billions, and Canadians are left paying the bill.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the issue of missed payments. Some seniors have waited longer than they should. These delays were operational issues for files largely involving new applications or changes to payments. The department has worked to improve processing times with an OAS action plan implemented to improve service delivery, which has led to a 41% decrease in the inventory of new OAS applications.

It is important to compare the question that the hon. member asks with the cost of not acting quickly. If we had not acted quickly, millions of OAS, EI and CPP recipients would have been stuck with an old system that would have potentially led to much worse outcomes for them.

We are very proud of the transformation that is happening, which is taking place in a responsible and transparent manner, in a series of well-planned and prudent phases within the appropriated budget.

Health

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be here tonight. I would first like to begin by extending my congratulations to Louise Arbour on her appointment today to serve as Canada's next governor general. She is a human rights champion, and she has had a remarkable career. She will, no doubt, continue to serve our country well in this new role.

With that, I would like to turn the topic of debate this evening to Alberta's Bill 11 and the Canada Health Act.

In the last election, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that a Liberal government would protect our values and way of life. The Liberal platform highlighted our public health care system as an example of Canadians' belief in the common good and a key difference between Canada and the U.S. The Liberal platform pledged to defend the Canada Health Act and told Canadians, “It’s time to return to the foundational values upon which our national health care was developed: free of charge, fair, universal, and accessible.”

Today, those values are under threat, but instead of fighting for what matters to Canadians, the federal government is looking the other way. This morning, an independent legal opinion was published that confirmed what many have been saying for months. Alberta's Bill 11 violates both the letter and the spirit of the Canada Health Act. The legal opinion, commissioned by the Canadian Health Coalition, explains that allowing people to pay privately for faster access to medically necessary care creates unequal access based on one's ability to pay.

In plain terms, Bill 11 would create an American-style, two-tier health care system. It is time for the minister to make clear that the government will keep its promise to Canadians and defend the Canada Health Act. The minister has called herself “the guardian of the Canada Health Act”, but since December, she has failed to act on this threat to our public health care system.

Today, the Canada Health Coalition held a press conference with health and legal experts, calling for the minister to act, to take a clear position against Bill 11 and to speak about the threats the bill poses for all Canadians.

Jason MacLean, chair of the Canadian Health Coalition, spoke about how the crisis in our health care system, fuelled by Conservative premiers, is seen as a business opportunity by major insurance companies. That should concern every Canadian who believes that health care is a right.

Dr. Melanie Bechard, the chair of Canadian Doctors for Medicare and a pediatric emergency physician at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, also spoke today in Ottawa. She spoke about how allowing dual practice will impact wait times, stating, “If we are...prioritizing...patients who can pay privately, that means that the majority of patients who rely on the public system will have to wait longer.”

Let us be clear. Canadians deserve quicker access to the health care they need, but a two-tier health care system is not a solution to long wait times.

Chris Gallaway, the executive director of Friends of Medicare in Alberta, also spoke in Ottawa today and called on the minister to take action to stop Bill 11. He said bluntly, “no more delays. No more stalling. No more talking about looking at regulations and implementation. We need you to do your job and show leadership”.

If the federal government fails to enforce the Canada Health Act now, it sends a clear message far beyond Alberta. It tells provinces that the rules can be bent. It tells private interests that our public system is open for profits. Canadians did not build Medicare so that it could be quietly replaced with a system where wealth determines who gets treated first. If the federal government does not act now, it risks opening the door to further privatization across the country.

I will ask this again: Will the minister stop stalling, enforce the Canada Health Act and stand up for a health care system that serves everyone equally?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the incoming governor general, the Hon. Louise Arbour, who is a voice for human rights, a voice for women in the law, a voice for official bilingualism and a voice for many of the values we hold sacred in this country. I want to congratulate her on her appointment.

I also want to share my resonance with the values the hon. member is identifying. I am the son of two physicians who were immigrants and chose Canada over the United States because of their belief in providing health care regardless of the cost and regardless of someone's ability to pay. Indeed, my first interest in politics came from hearing their stories about their bedside conversations about what was happening in the hospital where they were working and their concern that medicare was maybe under threat.

The hon. member and I are just two of the millions of people who care passionately about our universal public health care insurance system and share our commitment wholeheartedly, something that has become key to our national identity. It is one of our defining nation-building achievements, reflecting who we are and what we value as a nation: a simple, enduring principle that access to medically necessary care can be based on need, not the ability or willingness to pay, and something that has a strong cross-partisan consensus.

The Canada Health Act, an achievement of previous Parliaments, puts that principle into action, safeguarding universal access to medically necessary hospital and physician services without financial barriers, and setting the standard that provinces and territories must meet in order to receive their full share of the Canada health transfer payment.

As guardian of the Canada Health Act, and of those payments, the government will uphold it with resolve and care. When a province or territory allows patient charges for medically necessary services, dollar-for-dollar deductions are made from that jurisdiction's Canada health transfer payment, as I think Canadians would expect. Since 2015, those deductions have totalled more than $329 million. Deductions are not taken without some serious consideration of the potential violation that is involved.

I think that is evidence of the federal government's steadfast commitment to the values at the heart of medicare, values that are a shared duty, a shared responsibility, if we are going to protect them. Our health care system is strongest when governments at all levels work together to ensure that Canadians can receive the services they need without financial barriers. This shared duty guides how we enforce the act. Our goal is not to penalize provinces and territories at the first sign of non-compliance but to uphold the principle of medicare through collaboration, through connection and through communication.

When issues arise, we reach out. We listen. We gather the facts and share information openly. We work with our provincial and territorial partners to resolve challenges, as I know the minister is doing. We apply the act fairly and consistently, always mindful that co-operation, not confrontation, has kept medicare strong for generations.

This approach has actually delivered results. Since 2018, more than $227 million has been returned to provinces and territories after they took action to eliminate patient charges for medically necessary services. This shows how collaboration protects access to care based on need, how the collaboration we do results in a reaction by the governments we are engaging with.

We bring that spirit of collaboration to the work before us today. We will remain engaged, reviewing proposals in good faith, asking questions early and keeping lines of communication open. Where adjustments are needed to respect the Canada Health Act, we will work together to ensure that they are made. That is how we protect patients. That is how we keep medicare's promise.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here we are. We are the last people here again. It has been four weeks in a row that I have dragged the government in here because it has not done its job to fulfill its promises when it comes to protecting our public health care system or to enhancing our system. In fact, it has failed to even protect it from the threats it is facing. This is no slight to the parliamentary secretary of industry, but it is shameful that the Minister of Health or her parliamentary secretary could not show up for this very important debate tonight. It is very disappointing.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the member. He cannot refer to the absence or the presence of a parliamentary secretary or any member of the House.

I will let the member continue, but he cannot make a reference in that way.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.

Chris Gallaway was here today. He is from Friends of Medicare from Alberta. He highlighted that the minister, who has claimed over and over again in questions from me and from my colleague, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, that she is the guardian of the Health Care Act, has not told Canadians what she thinks about the act, what her plan is, and what regulations would suit her needs and what ones would not. She has not communicated publicly on this issue, which would really help us know what her thinking is, how we can move forward on regulations and what is happening. She has not shared that as our federal health minister.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, the shared commitment to medicare, as expressed through the Canada Health Act, is a very strongly held commitment. We are very fortunate to have a minister who is a fierce guardian of that commitment.

The exact way in which we engage with any one situation, again, relies on those principles that I mentioned around collaboration to ensure that access to medically necessary care remains based on need, not on the willingness to pay a loan. Enforcement is one tool, yes, but there are other tools we can use to engage provinces and health care providers constructively in this conversation.

I know that commitment, on this side of the House, is very firm, and it comes from a very deep place of commitment to our values as a party and to national identity.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. The House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 6, at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:08 p.m.)