Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 29th, 2024

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Let me repeat that. When Pierre Poilievre was minister responsible for safeguarding our democracy, he did not ensure that officers of Parliament were funded adequately. Can you explain to the committee how your office is funded and what adequate funding means for the work you do?

[Karen Hogan]

I think every year, if you look at what we spend, it's a little different in terms of our funding increases, economic increases to employees and so on. What I would offer up is that we are part of the federal government. We seek funding as any other department does. We provide our annual budget to the Department of Finance, because that's the department my office reports through. This is why, as you may recall, that when I was initially appointed, I was seeking more funding, and we received the funding I was looking for.

I also mentioned at the time that once everything settled, I thought it was time to continue the quest for an independent funding mechanism for my office. I think all agents of Parliament should have independent funding mechanisms. It would ensure that we aren't turning to departments that we audit in order to receive the funding we need. An independent funding mechanism would include an accountability mechanism that might be played out right here by the public accounts committee, if they would like. Other countries have agents of Parliament that are funded independently. Here in Canada, some of the newer agents of Parliament that were established more recently, like the Parliamentary Budget Officer, have an independent funding mechanism outside of the core public service.

We haven't had issues with our funding, since we received additional funding in 2021, but that could always be an issue going forward. We are in the mix with all the other departments across the core.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné is next.

This is going smoothly. We have booked the witnesses for an hour and 15 minutes, so I'll add a truncated third round. That would give the NDP and the Bloc an additional two minutes after their next rounds, and government and official opposition members four minutes.

Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné, you now have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to continue in the same vein as before.

Ms. Lavery, was the call centre you refer to managed by Accenture or Export Development Canada?

[Mairead Lavery]

It was managed by Accenture.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

So it was managed externally.

Do you know how many people worked in that call centre? How many employees were there? When were they available?

[Mairead Lavery]

There were different numbers of employees at the call centre depending on the time of the program. In the very early days, when it was in ramp-up mode, I believe we reached up to 150 employees in the call centre. I would have to check.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Do you find it normal that the call centre cost $146 million over the two and a half years of the pandemic? I'm sure we can all agree that the website didn't cost $146 million. If so, there may be a problem.

[Mairead Lavery]

I'm not sure where the number $146 million comes from, and I do not have the costs—

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

It's from an article in The Globe and Mail .

[Mairead Lavery]

I would have to validate the specific numbers. What I can say is that at the peak of the call centre, it was in receipt of 10,000 calls a day.

Just to be clear, the cost of a call centre is not just the employees in the call centre. It's the technology that supports the handling and processing of calls. Many items required follow-up. It wasn't just the receipt of a call and the response thereto. There were actions that needed to be taken. It also included the production of material to train at the call centre as well as other activities to ensure that people received the responses they needed.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Ms. Lavery, I repeat that businesses dealt directly with financial institutions, and when they had questions to ask, the financial institutions couldn't even answer them. There was no one to answer the businesses' questions. It's a well-known fact. Everyone knows it. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business knows it. The Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec knows it. No matter who you talk to, it's unanimous: there was no one to answer the businesses' questions.

You said the call centre received 10,000 calls a day, which I find very hard to believe. Why would anyone have called a number managed by Accenture number if the loan came directly from a financial institution?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You have time for an answer.

[Mairead Lavery]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

They were calling the call centre because at one stage in the program, I believe with version three or four of CEBA—there were six versions—there was an expansion of the program to include a category called non-deferrable expenses. That was a category whereby the potential recipient of CEBA had to prove they had expenses they were no longer able to fund and had had those in the past. They were providing information, and depending on the sector, type of industry or type of business, they wanted to understand if these expenses were eligible.

Often, there were many dialogues around whether expenses were eligible for the calculation, therefore allowing them to be in receipt of CEBA. The banks were not able to advise on that. The banks were there to ensure that the funds were appropriately distributed after eligibility had been determined. That was conducted through the call centre.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

It's back to you, Mr. Masse. You have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to ask a question about ArriveCAN and the training money for CBSA. They are related.

Some $60 million went to this app. As I noted, I'm on the Windsor-Detroit border. Just across from me are three crossings that are understaffed. CBSA officers were not replenished during the pandemic. We lost around 800 graduates. We're not even filling in for attrition for the most part right now.

We spent $60 million on an app. I'm wondering whether it's the Treasury Board or the minister refusing to put extra money into training. Have there been any estimates done on training to bring the number of officers up?

When we have the Gordie Howe International Bridge built here in the next year, there will be an increase in staffing. We're already on mandatory overtime, so we're going to have problems in the New York area, in the Buffalo area, right at Niagara Falls, in Toronto and the GTA, down here and across the country, of course.

My question is about the $60 million for the ArriveCAN app. Is there more money allocated for any of this, or can we redistribute some of that surplus money, if there is any, to train officers? We need people on the ground more than we need an app.

[Monia Lahaie]

I'm not sure if the question is for the Treasury Board Secretariat. You would have to talk to the CBSA to get more information on the efforts that have been made to raise this important issue you're raising.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Was it the Treasury Board that made up the difference, or did the CBSA have to make up the loss of the $60 million?

[Karen Hogan]

I can try to answer that.

The funding for all of the expenditures linked to ArriveCAN—the development of the app, the cloud and all of those things—was mostly through the existing budgets of both the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency.

I'm not sure I understand the connection you're making to the loss of fund money, so I apologize. I can just tell you where I know the money came from.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm going to leave it there, but you will have another two minutes down the road, if you allow me to do that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm turning now to Mr. Nater.

I understand you're going to start for your side. It's over to you.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I have a couple of quick questions for the Treasury Board Secretariat.

In a written response to a question I had the last time the Treasury Board appeared before us, it was provided that the PSAC strike resulted in a $352-million reduced expenditure from salary and benefits not paid to striking employees.

My question is, where did that money go? That was $352 million in savings. What happened to it?

[Monia Lahaie]

I'm not sure I can answer the question today. I prepared for the public accounts, so—

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Would you be willing to provide us with a written response of where the $352 million in savings was reallocated?