Evidence of meeting #145 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was data.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Associate Vice-President, Government and Stakeholder Relations, H&R Block Canada Inc.
Again, I can't speak or give an informed opinion on statistics that I'm hearing second-hand just now.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Okay.
Mr. Chair, through you to Mr. Davis, can he please provide to the committee, in writing, a policy in the event of a breach of client data? Basically, what I'm requesting is H&R Block Canada's policy in the event of a breach of information for client data.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Green. The clerk has made a note of that. We'll follow up with Mr. Davis and make sure that that information is supplied.
Mr. Barrett, go ahead for five minutes.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Mr. Chair, on December 6, I gave notice of a motion that I'm going to move now:
That the committee undertake a review of the data privacy and contracting policies employed by Export Development Canada (EDC) during the implementation of the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA) program, that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House, and that the committee invite the following witnesses to testify:
(a) Accenture CEO Julie Sweet and officials;
(b) EDC CEO Mairead Lavery and officials; and
(c) Auditor General of Canada Karen Hogan
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Barrett. The motion is in order.
Do you want to speak to it?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay.
Mr. Davis, I am going to ask you to leave, if you want. I would expect that, with the transition to the next panel and some discussion on this, this will conclude your testimony before the committee.
As I said earlier, the clerk has made note of the request of the committee. She'll share that with you, and the expectation of the committee is that you'll send that back to us in a reasonable time frame. The clerk will provide a date by which to provide that information, and it won't be Christmas Day. I guarantee that.
Thank you, Mr. Davis, for your testimony.
I'm going to go to Mr. Barrett now.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Mr. Chair, can we have the text of the motion? Usually, you give us some indication of what's coming.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay.
Madam Clerk, was that motion sent to committee members previously?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay.
We'll send it out, Mrs. Shanahan, but I'm going to go to Mr. Barrett to keep things going here.
Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Mr. Chair, on December 2, the Auditor General issued a report, which is the basis for this motion. This was “Report 8: Canada Emergency Business Account” with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic. It's an independent auditor's report. On December 2, there was widespread media coverage on this very issue. Then, a notice of motion was given and distributed in both official languages to all members of the committee on December 6, so they've had ample time to become well apprised of both the motion and the situation in the official language of their choice. The Auditor General's reports, of course, are available in both English and French in their complete form online and were available in printed format, in advance of being tabled in the House, in an embargoed form, for all members.
To the issue, Canada's Auditor General found that Export Development Canada gave $314 million in sole-source contracts to administer loans. The government selected EDC to administer this emergency loan program. Then EDC turned around and said, “We don't have the capacity to do that, so we're going to outsource it.” They outsourced hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in contracts.
Some of the details of these contracts are incredibly concerning. They were paying 14 hours per day to Accenture for their call centre work, but the call centre is open for only nine hours a day. The hourly per-person rate ranged between $60 and $750. Equally concerning is that Accenture outsourced some of the work to a Brazilian subsidiary. Therefore, these folks were receiving rates of $750 per person per hour to administer a program EDC was supposed to be delivering. “Generous” is an understatement. I'm quite certain there are no members of the public service who, in their capacity as public servants, are being paid $750 per hour. We have a massive conflict of interest here.
In concluding my brief remarks, I'll offer a quote from Karen Hogan, who is the Auditor General. She said, “not managing that conflict of interest, in my mind, was unacceptable”. I couldn't agree more with the Auditor General. Of course, we're dealing with Canadians' personal information, Government of Canada programs and the type of conflict of interest that gives rise to a great concern. That conflict of interest was deemed “unacceptable” by the Auditor General.
Of course, that fits within the mandate of this committee. It's important. I don't think the study would take many meetings. The mandate of this committee is dealing with those conflicts of interest. While other committees can do what other committees do, this committee should do what only it can do. That's why I have put this motion forward today.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Barrett.
I saw Mr. Drouin first. I'll go to Mrs. Shanahan after that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I'm sorry, Mr. Green. I was wondering whether your hand was up. The backdrop is contrasted against something red that makes it difficult to see.
I'm going to Mr. Green first, because I was wondering whether he had his hand up. I couldn't tell, but he did.
Go ahead.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
It's just a simple question on the motion.
There is no timeline for this. I want to make it abundantly clear to this committee that I do not intend to be called back on some kind of surreptitious prerogative of the chair or Standing Order 106(4). This is an important issue; I agree. I think it is one that deserves our full attention when we return once the House is sitting. I want to be very clear about that.
Mr. Chair, can I ask whether that is the intention of this motion, or whether this is something they're looking to revive in the early weeks of January because there's a slow media cycle or something like that?
Conservative
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
It's an honest question, through you, to the mover of the motion, because they did not provide a date or say, “when we return to the regular sitting of the House”. Right now, it's just open.
I wouldn't want to be in a situation where we're called back from our constituents and families.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
The other issue here is that it doesn't define the number of meetings, Mr. Green. I've made note of that as well.
Do you want to respond to that quickly, Mr. Barrett? Go ahead.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
We would, of course, be comfortable with an understanding in place of an amendment—that the committee is operating with the understanding, or the chair is charged with the understanding, that this motion will be dealt with following the resumption of the House in the last week of January. If the motion passes, I think we can all share that understanding without it being explicit.
With respect to the number of meetings, I think it could be few.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Yes. Based on the number of witnesses in there, it would probably be no more than two.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
We would have no objection.