Public Accounts Committee on April 22nd, 2021

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I'm hoping that this amendment could get us back to the spirit of the committee, where we are trying to work together and certainly not trying to do things that are outside of our mandate. Within the amendment asking for all information, we won't we able to get all of the information that was used, because some of that was confidential, according to the rules of the Privy Council. In fact, I think that was the answer we were given by Mr. Sabia. He will share any information that is available to be shared. I think that was the spirit of the testimony we were also receiving from the Auditor General. She did do a review on all information and then prepared her audit based on the information that she had received.

I think this is a good motion to put forward just to try to get ourselves back on track as a committee, but I also think that while we were operating as a non-partisan committee, we were getting the information forward that was going to be available to us according to the rules of the Privy Council. This would just reinforce that, so I would support the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Lawrence.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you very much.

I was quite frankly a little taken aback and disappointed by my colleagues' comments with respect to this. I think my colleagues are conflating and even misunderstanding the definition of “partisanship”. In fact, our sole driving force and—whether it be Mr. Sorenson or Mr. Christopherson or Madam Block—our entire team's job as this committee is to get to the truth here. We are being obfuscated from getting to that truth.

It has to be said. It's intellectually dishonest to be calling out partisanship while you're filibustering. Why would we not just have a vote, get to the answers we need to have, and we get on with this matter? It's our job as a committee. We are a non-partisan committee. We're not here to protect the government; we're here to get to the truth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Blois.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Let me first speak to the amendment that Mr. Fergus has moved, then perhaps I can address some of Mr. Lawrence's comments and go back to some of the concerns I have with Mr. Berthold's motion.

What I like about Mr. Fergus' amendment is that this committee works in lockstep with the Auditor General. We study the Auditor General's reports. We have her and her team come in and hold government to account. We have an integral relationship with that office, and that's important.

I didn't get the sense from the Auditor General that she was obstructed in any way in terms of her work in being able to provide a report. We have to also remember that the Department of Finance, as part of its recommendations or its agreement to the Auditor General's report, has agreed to do a complete and full analysis of this type of program. That's important.

When I look at Mr. Fergus' amendment, it's important we bring Ms. Hogan before this committee in order to ask her the questions about whether or not she was satisfied with the information she was able to receive. She works with government all the time as it relates to getting information that is cabinet sensitive and other information that is not.

As opposed to going on Mr. Berthold's motion, which is to create the net as wide and far as we can, get every document under the sun that relates to one of the largest programs in Canadian history, a $100 billion program, and take the time of our civil servants who are literally going to have to spend weeks on end finding this information as opposed to delivering for Canadians, let's instead ask the Auditor General to come and then ask her what information, if any, she felt she wasn't able to access that would be important for us as parliamentarians to use to scrutinize the government. That is something I can support.

It also gives us time in the interim to look at Mr. Berthold's motion and see if we can find a way to actually make it a bit more narrow, keeping in mind that the first job of government is to provide for its citizens. Again, we're in the middle of a pandemic. These individuals are going to have to literally spend time on time to get every document under the sun.

My question to Mr. Lawrence would be, what truth haven't you been able to find? Maybe we can get those specific questions on the record, because there have been occasions when we've asked for information and we were able to get it as a committee. We were able to be specific. You asked the question around the price on pollution; we were able to get that information. It was important. I stand with you on that.

On this idea that we're going to get all the documents, all the analysis around one of the largest programs in Canadian history, what's the paper trail on that? It's massive and unreasonable.

Frankly, with all due respect to Mr. Berthold, because perhaps it's not his intention, the text of the motion reads as simply an obstruction to government. I want him to understand the amount of work and pressure. Frankly, I don't want to say “wasted time”, because yes, we want to hold government to account and we want to get information, but when you cast your net as wide as the ocean, it is a lot of wasted time in terms of the stuff that has to go on. Let's narrow this in. What is the truth that you're not happy about? What is the truth, the information, that you need?

We've had the information in terms of what this has meant for Canadians, what this has meant for individual employees and businesses. What information don't you have that is so crucial? I would ask that not just to my Conservative colleagues but indeed all members.

I support this type of amendment. Let's bring Ms. Hogan in; let's ask her. We're not really in a good place to know what information was or wasn't available. Let's ask Ms. Hogan. Then we can get something a bit more narrow and table a motion unanimously in the spirit of how this committee is supposed to function to get the information that's needed.

Hopefully, you can sense my passion through this, because this is the kind of stuff.... Again, I'm very fortunate to sit on agriculture and on public accounts. I've had a very good experience in being able to work collaboratively. I understand that it's the job of Her Majesty’s official opposition to hold government to account. I understand, Mr. Lawrence, that you want to get the answers from government and have an obligation to your citizens to do so, but you have to be a bit more narrow about what exactly you feel government isn't providing.

Is it something from Mr. Sabia? Is it certain information? What do you want to actually have?

Let's make sure we have to work within the confines of what is cabinet privilege, which has been a historical tradition since Confederation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much, Mr. Blois.

Colleagues, I will give you an update. I have been informed by our clerk, who has worked very diligently, that we can meet until 2 p.m. After that it will become problematic. Obviously, question period will be starting at that time as well.

Colleagues, we have the amended motion, which has, I believe, been circulated to all of you via email. I could read it out or perhaps I could have the clerk read it out to you, and then continue on with the interventions that it looks like folks want to make.

Madam Clerk, could you read out that amendment for the amended motion?

[The Clerk]

Yes. The amendment is “ That the committee ask the Auditor General to again testify on her report on the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy before the 6th of May 2021, and to detail elements of the documents her office reviewed.”

After that the committee will consider Mr. Berthold's main motion. The amended motion would continue with what Mr. Berthold has submitted as the main motion, which reads as follows:

The committee requests that the Department of Finance and Canada Revenue Agency provide the committee with all studies, data and analysis used for the implementation of the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Colleagues, I will now move to Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thanks again, Madam Chair.

I really take exception to this being called a filibuster when we get table-dropped a motion in the middle of testimony and while we're preparing questions for the next witnesses and really getting into the work of the committee in terms of the review of the CEWS program.

Now we have a motion that we haven't had any time to prepare for. I'm thinking we heard during the testimony that this information was already being promised to us in the form that was available to us, respecting the terms and conditions of the Privy Council, which are in place for all governments, regardless of what the politics of the day are. Now we're being accused of filibustering when we're really trying to get down to the bottom of why we are doing this when it's information that we're already going to be receiving.

The information that we have from the Auditor General is that she was able to see the rationale for the program and that the program was in alignment with the confidential discussions in the Privy Council. To have her come back to say to us, “Okay, I know that we have a situation to deal with here because some of the members are uncomfortable with cabinet confidence and uncomfortable with transparency....”

We do have those rules in place for other reasons, and those reasons are that any government needs to have a space to have open discussions that can range over a lot of different areas before agreement comes from cabinet to go forward into the public realm. We are within the operation of government; this isn't a conspiracy to hide information; it's the normal operation of government.

As I'm listening to the discussion, I'm hoping that this committee can get itself back on track, because we were working quite well together. The amendment that's been put forward is for us to get back to our terms of operation, having the Auditor General maybe answer any questions about confidentialities or why things are done in the way they're done and about how she interacts as a confidential overseer of the government of the day and then reports back to Parliament, because she's not part of the government of the day but an officer of Parliament.

All of that should give Canadians confidence that we are operating within the normal governance of the Government of Canada and that there is no monkey business going on. If we could get through the amendment and if we did have support to have the Auditor General come back.... We've done this before when there were some statements in the press that we wanted to discuss with her, and we did bring her back under the conditions of a motion that we passed. If we could have that as the next step.... We are working with her and we don't want to be going around her, because she is the buffer between us and government and makes us non-partisan. We're working with her; we're not working with the government of the day.

Therefore, first of all, we need to address her and then see what we can do going forward and whether we need to take it any further in terms of information availability. As has been mentioned, then we look at the next report, which won't be an interim report but an actual report on the CEWS program, and hopefully by September 25 we'll be through the pandemic and be able to take a rear-view mirror look at the wage subsidy program that we were talking about this morning.

With that, I'll turn it back over to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much, Mr. Longfield.

Colleagues, thank you to all of you for your thoughtful interventions. This is an important, critical conversation that we are having.

I will now go to Mr. Fergus, and then I will move on to Mr. Green.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your comments. Some good points were raised.

I'm going to give my time to my colleague Mr. Green. I'll have a chance to speak again later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Go ahead, Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

For those who have the privilege of seeing the screen, you'll know that I've been quietly listening to all the interventions. I've heard a range of opinions and expanded thoughts on this particular issue.

I'll note that the reason I intervened earlier on a point of order that called into question the delay of this vote was particularly the way in which I've experienced COVID technologies as a hard stop on the democratic processes of our committee. I've had the opportunity to sit through a couple of pretty significant filibusters, some with you and others without.

Look, at the end of the day, I think people heard in my interventions the frustrations about not having basic analysis presented to committee in order to have a generative discussion on the benefits and the failures of the programs, so much so that it's my opinion that this particular government is taking this notion of cabinet confidentiality.... It's not just on this committee. I'll share with you that on OGGO, I've had this protracted conversation for about a year and a half about how all information is presented to cabinet, and it automatically disappears into the ether. It is not about protecting the national interests or security secrets of the state. It has been an absolute black hole for transparency and accountability, so much so that even when I've done my own order papers and motions at other committees, what I receive back are pages and pages and pages of redacted information, information that I believe in a non-partisan way should be made available to parliamentarians and most definitely to Canadians.

I have to say that I'm bemused by the way my colleagues have invoked the name of my predecessor, David Christopherson, who I could assure you would be lighting his hair on fire if he was expected to vote and make a decision on a public accounts report, on an audit report, without having access to basic answers to his questions under this procedural guise of cabinet confidentiality.

Look, if every single piece of government information is to be deemed cabinet confidence, then we might as well just pack up and let bureaucrats make reports, show them directly to the general public, and kind of rubber-stamp whatever comes our way. There is a significant and material non-disclosure by this government during a process that has provided them with unique powers to spend and to create programs.

I acknowledge that we're probably not going to get to this vote by virtue of process, which is why I have no problems expressing myself in the fullness in which I'm expressing it, because again we're limited by these technologies.

In the good old days, I'm sure my predecessor, David Christopherson, would have advised me to get a good seat. I have one. Get maybe a good pillow for your back support on a good filibuster, because he can filibuster with the best of them, and we would have just dug in and been here maybe until 8:00 or 9:00 tonight. Alas, that's not going to happen. It's likely that we're going to pick up on this debate later.

I'll share with members of this public accounts committee that I have no intention of creating some kind of mythology around co-operation, absent of access to basic material information. I take seriously the responsibility of this committee to make informed decisions on what's being presented to us through staff that will require disclosure of material information. That's what I believe to be the mandate of this committee.

I'll share with you that it is very rare in political spaces, by the way, in this talk of non-partisan versus partisan, that you could get a New Democrat from Hamilton, a Bloc Québécois and a Conservative to all agree on something. I happen to think that this non-partisan space exists, because we're looking at the face value of what's before us in ways that have very different political applications to the work that we're all respectively trying to do in opposition.

Now, I say all that to say this: I would love to see a time when this government does become open by default. We have had Auditor General reports that have enumerated and listed in depth the ways in which this government has refused to provide the most basic information not just to their office but to the general public.

To the members and the parliamentary secretaries who are present here, the staffers, the whips who are online, if we want to get into this space of having this committee work in the way it is supposed to work, then let's operate in enough good faith that if I ask a basic question around analysis—“How did you come to this decision?”—I'm not just shuffled off by being told it's cabinet confidentiality and they won't even tell me if they made recommendations on this particular topic.

For the lawyers who are out there, although I'm not a lawyer, I would call this a material non-disclosure. I would like to see government become more forthcoming with the required information, and I'm looking with interest to my friends, who I'm sure will present for the next 25 minutes, maybe 26 minutes. It will be just until after we're about to be cut off and before we can get to this vote, and we'll likely pick it up again sometime next week.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much, Mr. Green.

Mr. Sorbara is next.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I was standing because yesterday I was sitting for 14 hours until the emergency debate was over last night. I needed to stand up a little.

Thank you, MP Green, for your comments. I say that very sincerely, Matthew. We sometimes don't agree on all policy positions, but there was much that MP Green said about transparency and accountability in the way the government operates and how it should be accountable to what I call taxpayers, and these are the hard-working Canadian citizens, independent of political stripe.

I did want to go back to MP Berthold's amended motion. Not only do I have the privilege of representing here my residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge, but I also have the privilege of being appointed by the Prime Minister to be the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Revenue. I see that the CRA commissioner and some of the vice-commissioners were here today to answer questions that we had. When I look at the documents that we received as parliamentarians and as members of the public accounts committee, I believe this is probably....

You know, there are important committees out there, but this is an important committee. This is the oversight of government programs and the oversight of government spending. I see the Canada Revenue Agency's detailed action plan that was put together in co-operation and conjunction with the Auditor General. The Auditor General went to CRA officials and obviously went over the CEWS program, and its implementation and execution were disclosed. The Auditor General highlighted certain strengths of the program in terms of the CRA's responsibilities and also had many recommendations for further improvement. The “unique identifier” was documented within a study. The CRA disclosed that they are working with ESDC and working on a unique identifier, a sort of sign-in portal, and about why the social insurance number was used or not used.

I was going to ask a question today about how important it is that, from the budget, we look at e-payroll, which is a small measure that is going to be transformational in having real-time data from businesses across the country sent to the CRA, so that a certain program like this could be launched very quickly if it needed to be, and also in providing very robust data to CRA and greater efficiency for our businesses.

When I see this motion put forward, I think to myself how co-operative the Canada Revenue Agency has been in providing the documents and the necessary information to the Auditor General and in responding to the Auditor General in laying out key interim milestones. I look at item 1.1 for October, and the dates, and it's even providing the responsible organization and point of contact. In this case, it was Marc Lemieux, and it's providing the phone number of the individual.

Then I go back to Mr. Berthold's original motion and I ask, “What are we getting at here in this motion?” in asking for all studies related to dit, dit, dit. I'm thinking to myself, “Wait a second; the Canada Revenue Agency and its wonderful folks, whom I've gotten to know, fully co-operated with the Auditor General on this program and the CEWS and the Canada emergency response benefit, all during a period when the Canada Revenue Agency is responsible for the implementation and execution of seven or eight programs to assist Canadians during this most extraordinary and unique period of time.”

I'm wondering a little why this motion, as Mr. Longfield so eloquently stated, was dropped on the table in that manner when many of us had more questions to ask. I'll completely agree that we have a right as members of Parliament to bring forward motions that we feel are necessary. I will never dispute that right, but it seems to me that there was something today....

I don't understand why, especially when I've read the report—I have it right in front of me—and I've read about the Auditor's General work. I've commented before on how much I actually enjoy reading these reports of the Auditor General's work, because they're about making government work better. It's about making government work better for Canadians. If we had issues, or any ideas that potentially the Auditor General did not receive the information and that in this case her office was unable to obtain what she may have thought she should have had, then there would have been no problem in having her come in front of committee or to put forward a motion to have her come to committee and to ask those questions. I think that would be very reasonable.

That's when I go back to MP Green's comments about being members of Parliament and no, everything cannot be cabinet secrecy and everything cannot be done without disclosure and transparency. At the same time, the mechanisms of government, of the Privy Council Office and of cabinet, require a certain element of that. We all know that, and we understand it currently as a government, and prior governments understood it as well.

I'm sure the chair, who has been a very wise and long-time member of Parliament, remembers that when her government was in power, cabinet secrecy existed. The Privy Council existed. The Auditor General's office did their work, and I think that's where I go back to.

I keep going back to the non-partisan nature of this committee, which I'm very much enjoying. I enjoy reading these public account books and going line by line through items on the financials and understanding how the Government of Canada works. These are the linkages. This is like the Encyclopedia Britannica that we had as kids instead of the Internet, if I can date myself.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, it's very important for me to point out that the Canada Revenue Agency has worked very well with the Auditor General. The commissioner has appeared several times now. The ACs—if I am getting their titles correctly—have also appeared several times, fully answered questions and identified strengths and also shortcomings in terms of how we can improve things for Canadians. I think that's very important, Chair.

At the same time, with regard to this amended motion, I hope we can continue debating it. I hope we can reach a resolution so that the committee can restart the business we are here to do, which is to review these reports.

We must also remember, colleagues, with these reports—and for some levity in life I am going to hold this up, because I like the colour purple—we have to provide feedback through a draft report. In those draft reports we can make recommendations and alterations to what's been recommended. We have done that in other reports. We have worked on a committee. Sometimes, as they say—if I can make this analogy—many people enjoy eating sausages, but maybe not many people enjoy making the sausages. I like to do both.

Sometimes when the draft report is given.... I see MP Longfield smiling, and he knows exactly what I'm talking about, because he and I have talked about that subject. When we get the draft report on the COVID-19 pandemic with regard to the Canada emergency wage subsidy, we committee members will be able to make recommendations or alterations to the recommendations in there, which the analysts do in the fantastic job they do. We as committee members should not forget about that element, because it is so important.

Again, I go back to MP Green's very wise words, because I agree with you, Matthew, if I can call you by your first name. The idea that MPs need to be able to do their jobs is a fundamental one. Our job is to represent our constituents, the hard-working people who get up every morning and go to work and do the right thing for their families. We need to be able to do the right things for them, so I fully agree with you there.

I see other hands up from what I am going to say are my distinguished colleagues, especially the one wearing the bow tie today, because it is bow-tie Thursday, and I will hand it to them because I know they'll want to speak.

Again, on the co-operation we've seen on the CRA side—despite their employees working from home, as many of us are doing—in running and implementing and executing seven programs now and working on the new incentive program that's coming into place to get Canadians back to work, I need to applaud and I need to point that out.

Let's read this action plan by the CRA in conjunction with their response to the Auditor General's recommendations, because this is what our committee is about. It's about tracking what's happening here, to make sure that it's fulfilled and that we can offer better services.

I go back, Chair—and I'll finish in 30 seconds—to what was in the budget on that measure, not to talk about the budget but to the measure for the e-payroll, because I think that's going to be transformational for many years to come in getting data moving between employers and the CRA.

I would have loved to ask the question, because that goes to the heart of one of the weaknesses pointed out or one of the improvements that the Auditor General could be pointing out in questions she had with regard to this report.

That's the work we need to be doing. Those are the questions we need to be asking. You can understand my disappointment from my original comments when I first read the original motion that was dropped on this committee today.

I'll pass it over to one of my colleagues, Madam Chair. Thank you for your patience. I know we're neighbours in the Valour Building, and hopefully one day soon we'll be able to walk past each other to the elevator bank or go off to Parliament and attend question period or House duty.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you for your comments.

I have Mr. Blois and Mr. Longfield and then Mr. Fergus.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, I hate to keep showing my newness to Parliament here since being elected in 2019.

Obviously Mr. Berthold's original motion talks about all documents pertaining. Before I carry on with my comments—I particularly want to respond to Mr. Green and some of the other individuals who have raised points—can you provide a clarification to me about what happens when a committee asks for documents that indeed have privilege from cabinet? What happens then? What takes priority? Are we asking cabinet and the government to breach the privilege that is normally accorded? Can the clerk speak to exactly how this would play out?

Then I'll carry on with my comments, if I could.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk]

The committee does have an extreme amount of power to request documents.

This is a toss-up. The government may come back to the committee with some kind of compromise. I would really like to have an opportunity to do a bit more research on this, because it's not something that comes up very often. It's actually a conflict between two sets of privileges, which are the committee's privilege to request all documents that exist from anyone and the government's privilege to maintain cabinet confidentiality. There are some recent cases I would like to look at. If the committee would permit me, I will get back to you.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you. I appreciate that explanation. I don't want to pretend to speak for the other members of this committee, but perhaps that could be helpful to understanding the jurisprudence as it relates to a parliamentary privilege versus a cabinet privilege.

I want to read a quote from the AG's report for my colleagues here. These would obviously be the words of our Auditor General, Ms. Hogan, through her staff, who would have prepared this:

Overall, we found that despite facing a historic pandemic, the Department of Finance Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency worked within short time frames to provide decision makers with information to assist them in developing the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy and to implement the subsidy. Although the Department of Finance Canada performed a partial analysis of the initial design of the subsidy program, it later provided a sound and complete analysis to inform adjustments to the subsidy.

Those are the Auditor General's words.

Again, I go back to the Auditor General, and it didn't appear to me that she was handcuffed in terms of her ability to provide an analysis.

This is where I'll go to Mr. Green's comments. I will call it as I saw it. Some of the questions that were asked today I think left something to be desired in terms of how they were responded to. Mr. Green, I thought you asked a fair question around compensation and stock dividends and things of that nature. I thought there could have been an angle for our officials to talk about, and I think you left that door open in saying you didn't need to know the contents and you didn't need to know the recommendation but only whether there was some level of analysis done. You didn't get that answer. That resonates with me, and I hear where you're coming from on this issue.

Where I'm coming from, respectfully, is that the motion put forward by our honourable colleague Mr. Berthold is so wide in scope. It relates to all documents, all analysis. It's anything to do with implementation. That goes all the way back to March of last year.

This is one of the largest programs. Think of the number of documents that would be out there. Think about the time that our civil servants are going to have to do, poring over electronic resources. Look, I've heard it first-hand: This would be weeks and months on end.

Mr. Green, you just talked about how one in five businesses in your community of Hamilton Centre are not reapplying for a permit with the city. That's concerning, I agree, so why do we want our civil servants to instead be poring over such a wide and open-scoped motion, as opposed to trying to get the information that this committee actually needs? It's not clear to me. I haven't heard from Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, and to be fair, Mr. Green never really opined on whether or not he supports the idea of bringing the Auditor General back to get some relevance about the areas in which we can get that information.

Mr. Green, I know that you understand the idea of cabinet privilege. I know you expressed that you think this government has gone too far in using that. I'm willing to work with you as a committee member to look for areas where we can focus, instead of asking for all documents. I mean, there would be hundreds, thousands. I have no idea, but it's a large, large scope. I think it's an overreach by this committee, frankly.

Mr. Green, certainly on this committee and in this House you have recognized the important role that the public servants are playing to meet the needs of Canadians. To you and to other members of this committee, let's find a way that we can get the information that you're seeking. Mr. Lawrence, you talked about the time it would have taken to implement the number of SINs. What type of process would this have taken?

I don't want to speak to whether or not that should be cabinet privilege, but those are legitimate questions. Let's narrow down some of the questions that the committee members had today. Let's bring the Auditor General in, focus on the contents of her report, see where we weren't really satisfied as a committee with some of the answers we got, and then work backwards, in a collective and collaborative nature, to try to find a better-worded motion that can get us to the information we so desire and need, as Mr. Green and others have expressed very articulately. This is truly just a fishing expedition when we say we want every document.

Of course, I agree with Mr. Lawrence that it is the job of an opposition party to oppose. It's Her Majesty's loyal opposition, but it should not be Her Majesty's loyal obstruction of government. That's where we're coming from on this piece. It is an overreach. I ask members of this committee to approve this amendment so that we can hear from Ms. Hogan. It is important to hear from her.

I hear that not all the questions were answered to the extent that members wanted, so let's hear from the Auditor General. I'll be willing to sit there and listen to the Auditor General. Let's ask the same questions and come to a motion that is more narrow in scope, that is focused on getting the information you want for your constituents and for Canadians but is not going to be a fishing expedition that's going to tie up potentially hundreds of civil servants. I don't even know what the objective is and I haven't heard enough from my other colleagues about what questions they actually want to ask.

Mr. Green, I agree with you. You want to know whether CEO compensation and stock dividends were considered in terms of the wage subsidy. That's a fair point. We don't want to get into cabinet discussions and privileges, but it is a fair question to ask whether or not it was part of an analysis. You didn't get that answer. Let's get it, but let's not go on some expedition that is going to do nothing to benefit the interests of committee members, the interests of parliamentarians and indeed the interests of Canadians, to be fair in my comments.

I guess I'll leave it at that for now. I'd be interested in hearing from Mr. Blanchette-Joncas about whether or not he thinks it's reasonable. I know he has great respect for Ms. Hogan. He asked her many questions. He asked her a line of questioning today about this particular report. However, what does he think about bringing her back and letting her explain what areas of analysis she thinks could have been helpful so that we can get answers to those questions?

I will leave it there, Madam Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Mr. Longfield, please go ahead.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

I think, as I consider where we've come today through all of these discussions, I wasn't surprised to see the question being raised by Mr. Green. In fact, when I was doing my prep work and reading the documents provided on the audit and saw the word “secret” used, I thought, “Okay, that's a flag. I know there will be questions on that.”

As I was mentioning earlier, in other governments people on this committee would actually write questions and trade them with each other. I could almost have written the question Mr. Green was going to ask on that because of his passion around open communications and open government and government open by default. It was not a surprise to see the question coming.

I think the Auditor General rightly said we should ask the Department of Finance why the decision was made to keep some of that information within cabinet confidence. That was asked as well, so I think we were asking the right questions.

My problem this afternoon is that when we got this motion, we were still in the middle of testimony. I would like to review the answers we got to see whether we enough information was promised to us such that we could then review and do the further work of the committee when it comes to the report stage or whether we need to bring in the Auditor General again and say, “You know, you choose your words carefully. The word 'secret' was used. That's a word that put some flags up for many of us who have read the report.” In fact, questions came back in the committee, which is the work of the committee.

If Mr. Green hadn't asked the question, I was asking the question in my head about “secret” and thinking we should talk about why things aren't divulged and what the process is for divulging. We've had a lot of conversation around the table about that this afternoon.

I was hoping to see some of the other members talk about whether we should bring in the Auditor General to get her to clarify some of the comments that were in the report, as well as to look at what information we are to get back from the Department of Finance that they were promising us. Again, I believe they promised us, but I would have to look at the blues to see that. However, I'm pretty sure we were going to get the information we were requesting, to the extent that we're able to under all of the laws that the public service is working under.

I think we were on the right track then. I think having the Auditor General come back and clarify would be our next step if we're not getting the information we need. We have more steps we can be taking. We have another report coming to us early next year, or in the middle of next year, that will talk about the more detailed analysis of CEWS. I was going to ask a question about GBA+ and whether that was part of the analysis the finance department was going to be following when they do the subsequent report on CEWS.

According to the data around who was getting it and who wasn't getting it, Imperial Oil and some large companies were getting it. Some of the start-ups in Guelph that I've talked to weren't getting it because they weren't qualifying under the terms of CEWS. On that part of the analysis of whether we reached all of the right people, the right Canadians, I would be very interested in the answers to those questions as well. I know businesses I've talked to are asking why the big companies got relief when they're saying, “I'm working off a line of credit from my mother-in-law's house. She's going to lose her house because of this. I can't qualify because I'm not meeting some of the requirements of the CEWS program.” These are very real questions we get every day, and I think we need to get back to the answers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much, Mr. Longfield.

It is two o'clock. That is a hard stop for us.

Colleagues, seeing that the committee hasn't come to a decision on this matter, I would like to suggest that we suspend this meeting until our next scheduled time. Are we in agreement?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I just want to say on the record what an incredible example this is of the ability to run the clock out. I look forward to picking it up where we left off.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.