Public Accounts Committee on April 22nd, 2021

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lawrence.

I need to allow any member who would like to intervene at this time to do so.

Mr. Longfield, go ahead.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

It's unfortunate that we're getting a motion table-dropped when we could handle this in other ways. I would simply say that in terms of our committee's mandate, we aren't here to change the policy of the Privy Council. We're not here to rethink the way that government releases documents that are held within confidence. We don't go on these fishing expeditions when we are really supposed to be looking at the report from the Auditor General.

The Auditor General has reported on what we've seen through the first stages of the CEWS implementation. I had some questions I was hoping to get to about the next steps on CEWS and what was announced in the budget going to September 25, and whether that would be included in the February taxation report that we may be getting from finance.

The process of preliminary discussions in cabinet in terms of how we would approach a program that would balance rapid delivery against the upfront needs of most government programs, including things like the SIN that we've talked about this morning, and rolling those out in a way that could benefit the Canadians that we had to help as soon as we could, were all part of the audit, and those were the things that we would normally be discussing at the committee, versus the process for releasing confidential documents.

I think that Mr. Sabia was quite correct in pointing out that we are working within the existing policy of government. We're working within the existing systems of governance, and if those systems needed to be changed, that wouldn't be done in this committee. That would be done in other committees.

Our committee has traditionally been non-partisan and should be non-partisan. In fact, in our training we had discussions about making sure it should be hard to determine from which party questions were even coming from. In other governments, questions were traded among members so that they don't have partisan games going on within this committee.

This committee is overseeing the operation of government, not the policy directions or the political part of government. How departments function is determined by the rules and regulations that they are given through the political sphere.

This isn't the House of Commons. This isn't the floor of the House of Commons. This is a public accounts committee that works in conjunction with the Auditor General. It's very unfortunate that we're going through this type of a discussion today in the way that it's being done. We could have looked at this in ways other than dropping a motion and demanding a vote.

I think it's something that we need to discuss.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much, Mr. Longfield.

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

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

Madam Chair, I agree with my colleague Mr. Longfield. Under your leadership, I believe we've achieved a rare feat: we're working together. I see a lot of cooperation among members from different political parties. In the vast majority of cases, the questions many members are asking aren't really indicative of the party they belong to.

During our training session, David Christopherson, a former chair of the Senate Committee on Public Accounts, told us he remembered a motion that had caused problems for one member in particular during the 42nd Parliament. She had asked her colleagues to amend the motion so it could be supported by all members and the committee could continue adopting all motions unanimously.

A number of things come to my mind when a motion like this one is drafted on the spot. I'd like not to be forced to vote without first having the opportunity to think about it. I find this unfortunate. I feel we have virtually no choice but to vote against the motion. However, I don't want to do that. I'd prefer that we be able to vote unanimously and thus continue our committee's positive trend.

The nonpartisan attitude and atmosphere here are exemplary. However, I'm feeling forced to vote without first thinking. I don't mean to blame my honourable colleague Mr. Berthold [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Mr. Fergus, we're having difficulty hearing you.

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

Can you hear me now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Yes.

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

Sorry. Unfortunately, I pressed the wrong button. I don't know why there are two buttons to mute the microphone.

I was saying that if I were not to support this motion, it would be against my will. If I don't get an opportunity to examine it properly or to put forward amendments, then I'd be forced to vote against the motion. But that's not what I want to do.

I'd prefer to continue with our laudable habitual practice, which is to check our partisan interests at the door—a virtual door in this instance—when we come to a committee meeting. Under your stewardship, Madam Chair, I think that we have succeeded over the past six months to accomplish something that's rare on Parliament Hill. That's one of the reasons why I'd like to be able to think about the motion. Would we be able to pause for a few minutes, Madam Chair. I believe you mentioned at the beginning of the meeting that we would deal with routine proceedings towards the end of the meeting. I may be wrong, but that's what I had understood. I believe this is very important.

This motion appears to be the outcome of rather cursory consideration, with Mr. Berthold arguing that the Auditor General of Canada was officially prevented from receiving information about the development of the Canada emergency wage subsidy. If my colleague Mr. Berthold would like the Auditor General to appear before this committee to give evidence on the subject, that would be entirely reasonable, in my view. However, I don't think that it's desirable to presume anything about these facts without first having called the question. I don't think this really reflects my colleague's intent, but I'll give him the opportunity to tell us.

As we all know, the Financial Administration Act gives the Auditor General the authority to obtain any information required to conduct this kind of audit. If, however, Mr. Berthold has concerns about the effectiveness of the Canada emergency wage subsidy, I believe the appropriate place to raise the matter is not our committee, because what we're doing here is assessing program implementation, but rather the Standing Committee on Finance, which could debate the policies that govern matters like these. Unless I'm mistaken, neither Mr. Berthold nor his colleagues have raised any concerns of this kind since I've been sitting on this committee.

You know full well that this wage subsidy gave support to more than 5.3 million employees across this great country. We know that it cost approximately $71 billion. Now if people don't agree that the employment relationship should be maintained—by which I mean keeping employees on staff at companies across Canada—and would prefer to take on staff in a period of austerity, then they should come out and say so. However, allow me to repeat that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is not necessarily the appropriate committee to address these issues, but rather the Standing Committee on Finance.

I trust that my colleague will be able to address these concerns soon. If so, I will listen attentively so that I can better understand his point of view.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fergus.

Mr. Blois is next.

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

Madam Chair, I had levied a few questions in my first initial round of prodding around this motion. I'll continue to raise those, but I think it might be appropriate to let Mr. Berthold answer some of the questions that have been raised. I would then love to have the chance to respond to Mr. Berthold.

For example, there are some elements that we might be able to support. To what Mr. Fergus had said, and for Canadians who are watching at home, if you look at my Hansard record from two days ago on Tuesday, you'll see I was quite sharp, frankly, with the officials. “Sharp” might not be the right word, but the questions I asked were not easy ones. I wanted to get to the facts and I was willing to do the tough questions. That's the type of work that this committee does. It's one of the only committees that has really tried to be non-partisan in spirit. It's tried to be factual, to get the facts and try to make a difference.

I would be interested in hearing from Mr. Berthold, because I worry that this type of motion is going to poison the well of what this committee has been about historically in this Parliament, and not just in this Parliament but in many Parliaments before it. I worry that it's going to tarnish a bit of the reputation of what the members before us have done.

We heard from those members earlier. We know that Mr. Berthold is greatly poetic in the House of Commons. He pushes the government. He pushes for accountability. That's all great, and he should do it in this committee, but we need to do it in a fashion that is amicable and compatible to the committee's desires and in the interest of what this committee represents. Mr. Fergus has already expressed that quite well.

If you'll permit me, Madam Chair, I would love to hear from Mr. Berthold. I would love to then be able to respond and perhaps propose some type of subamendment, once I can really get to the core of what he's getting at here.

Is that appropriate, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much.

Certainly with the indulgence of the members who have their hands up, I will go to Mr. Berthold if he is prepared to answer the questions that are being put to him in regard to the motion that he has tabled.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I hadn't asked to speak, because I know there are others who have something to say, so I will try to answer quickly.

In his responses, Mr. Sabia clearly said on two occasions that he could not supply documents to the committee. The Auditor General was also very clear in her address, and said even if her office had access to all the documents, she could not give Parliament detailed information about these analyses because they are classified as cabinet confidences or secret documents. She spoke afterwards about some of the shortcomings identified in the structure of the wage subsidy.

I think that the role of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts includes being aware of what's going on. I'm totally surprised and absolutely dumbfounded by my colleagues' reaction. I sincerely thought this motion would be agreed to quickly and that all members of the committee would support it, given that it would enable the members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to learn the truth about public accounts, rather than hear about it secondhand from the Auditor General, who has seen things that we've been unable to see. It's as simple as that. I just wanted to clarify things.

There's another point I'd like to clarify. While I would never attempt to have this committee depart from its tradition of submitting unanimous reports to the House of Commons, I would like to point out that motions don't have to be unanimous. In other words, we are not required to agree all the time. May I remind you that the committee has adopted a number of motions, but that it has also rejected others. Indeed, some motions put forward by colleagues like Maxime Blanchette-Joncas of the Bloc Québécois were negatived here in committee. So I don't see how our desire to collaborate and submit unanimous reports to the House affects our work.

I'll certainly admit to being surprised by the reaction of my Liberal colleagues to this motion, which merely requests documents from the Department of Finance and the Canada Revenue Agency. If they can't disclose these documents for one reason or another, they simply need to tell us and explain why we can't have access to them. Then at least no one will be able to say that the committee did not ask for access to the information it needs to conduct the same analysis as the one carried out by the Auditor General at this stage of the Canada emergency wage benefit program. It's as simple as that.

I find it amusing to hear my colleagues say they want to move quickly in order to have time to ask the witnesses lots of questions, and then take so much time to say so. We could have already put this motion to the vote and moved on to something else, including questioning the witnesses.

I hope I've answered my colleagues' questions. We could adopt this motion very quickly. After which, the Department of Finance and the Canada Revenue Agency could respond to the motion and then we, the committee members, could decide what to do with the answers we receive. For the time being, I think that it's legitimate, justified and very appropriate to continue…

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, we've been discussing a motion that was made in camera by the Bloc Québécois. In terms of privilege, I think we need to protect our in camera motions from public discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much. Your point is taken. I don't believe I heard the substance of the motion being discussed, but your point is taken. Thank you.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

You're absolutely right, Mr. Longfield, And I apologize. I also apologized to the members of the committee, but it was simply to say that sometimes in committee we don't agree. It has happened in the past and it will again. However, the purpose is to come up with a good report which, with the agreement of all members of this committee, would be submitted to the rest of Parliament.

Those were the answers to the questions I was asked. Thank you.

I suggest that we proceed to a vote immediately, if you agree. There would be no problem with voting and then continuing our meeting. I would even be prepared to extend the meeting to speak with the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much, Mr. Berthold.

I have members who would still like to intervene. I will go back to Mr. Blois, who turned over his time to have his questions answered.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Look, I do appreciate my honourable colleague at least speaking somewhat to the particular motion in question. One of the questions I asked was about the resources for the government and the fact that right now we are in a third wave in this country. We know that there are challenges. Indeed, there's a rising case count right now in my own province of Nova Scotia, unlike what we've seen since the start of this pandemic.

Before I became a parliamentarian, Madam Chair, I was a lawyer at McInnes Cooper in Halifax. I also have a public administration degree from Dalhousie, a master of management and public administration. I say this because I actually know individuals who work in the public sector, whether it be provincially or federally, and when opposition members go on what is not really a narrow motion....

I'll take the committee members back to Mr. Berthold's motion:

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

We just talked about how this was one of the largest undertakings by the Government of Canada—the Auditor General's report says it—in the history of our country. Mr. Berthold's motion makes no mention of what exactly he needs from these particular reports and studies and analyses that he's trying to ask for. What exactly is he looking for?

It's very clear, at least from the testimony I've heard today, that the Government of Canada weighed the options between not putting out support as quickly as possible, thus risking large dislocation of employees from their employers and further impacting the economy and creating further economic turmoil, or we could go ahead and make some of these program choices, as the Auditor General has pointed out. Could there be issues? Absolutely. That's already been highlighted, but it was a better choice than the alternative.

There are lots of things we have to parse out. One is cabinet confidence and cabinet privilege. That is a legitimate convention we have in this country that we need to consider. There's no mention of that at all in this motion. There's no mention about protecting those documents. I have to assume that Mr. Berthold, as a senior and seasoned member of Parliament in this House, would know that. Perhaps that could be a friendly amendment that he would be open to as we start to discuss and debate this motion.

What exactly is it that he's trying to get to? I don't want to put the Auditor General in a difficult position, but she did not express that she was limited. In any other work that goes on, when there are elements that deal with confidence and recommendations to cabinet, those are documents that everyday parliamentarians are not necessarily able to see. Perhaps at some point, although it might not be today, we will have to ask the Auditor General to come back to this committee and testify to whether or not she was unduly limited, especially given that Mr. Fergus said in his testimony that there are powers under legislation for that information to be retrieved and found by the Auditor General.

This is so large and so vast. I'll go back to the point that I have some friends I went to school with who work in these public sector places. It takes weeks on end to go and get the information, scan it and create the books. We saw this with the health committee. We saw this with other committees. It is so large. It's not really focused on what the actual objective is. It's not clear to me from Mr. Berthold's testimony what exactly he needs.

I would be amenable to a motion that this committee could pass that tries to get that further information that this committee deems important, but not all studies—not everything, not this huge wide net, not this fishing expedition that we've seen in other committees that will poison the well of public accounts.

Other members want to speak, Madam Chair, so I will pass my time off to my colleagues, but this is the problem I have with these types of motions. I will listen to my other colleagues and take a look at the text of the motion. I think I'll probably be coming with some type of amendment, so I hope you'll watch for my hand before we even consider going to a vote. I think I'll have an amendment to propose.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much, Mr. Blois.

Colleagues, before I go on to our list of speakers, it is one o'clock. I will invite our witnesses to take their leave of our meeting.

I will also ask the clerk to determine whether or not we can have technical support for the next 15 minutes. Our situation is that we may need to adjourn by 1:15 if we do not have technical support. Obviously, we will also have to vote on this motion.

I note that our witnesses are taking their leave. You are certainly free to do so.

All right. Thank you very much, colleagues.

I will wait to hear from the clerk. We will continue on with our discussion, unless she knows right now—

[The Clerk]

We can continue for the next 15 minutes for sure, and I will check to see if we can go further.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Sorbara.

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

Chair, can you go over the speaking order before I begin, please?

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

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Yes, go ahead.

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

As a new member of Parliament, I have not been involved in these types of protracted debates on motions before. Given that we are at the end of our time, is it your discretion, as chair, to be able to extend, or do we need unanimous consent? What are the rules?

Can the clerk explain a little bit about the procedure in that regard?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Sure. I will have the clerk explain that.