Public Accounts Committee on June 8th, 2021

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, respectfully, through you, this is a program that was meant to keep people employed. I don't think it takes any kind of complex analysis to acknowledge that a program that's meant to keep people employed ought to have parameters much like Denmark did, regardless of the context, that would have made private corporations that received it commit to no permanent layoffs.

Given that this actually occurred, will the Department of Finance, under recommendation 7.35, when they complete and publish their evaluation, include in their evaluation instances of companies that took wage subsidies and still laid off employees?

[Andrew Marsland]

We will conduct an analysis, Madam Chair, as comprehensive as possible with the data to see how well the program met its objective of supporting employment during the pandemic.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, again, would the witness then not agree that if a program is meant to keep people employed and a company takes $100 billion from the public coffers—from taxpayer dollars, from workers paying into the taxpayers' coffers for this program—in the biggest-ever transfer of wealth from the general public to the private sector, it would be a failure of that program if companies took the wage subsidy and still laid people off? It's a simple question.

[Andrew Marsland]

The wage subsidy was supported and wages were paid by employers on a period-by-period basis when employers could demonstrate that they'd suffered a reduction in revenue. I think we will do an evaluation to examine the extent to which the program might be subject to it.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Through you, Madam Chair, in that examination, what should be considered confidential and what should not? In our disclosure of documents, significant portions from this government have been redacted in ways that make it almost impossible to glean any information. For example, should assessments of the program's impacts on public spending, labour supply and output be confidential?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

As a point of order, Madam Chair, it seems like these questions are going into policy discussions versus—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Listen, that's not a point of order. That's not a point of order at all. That's an opinion of a member—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Excuse me—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—of this committee. That's not a point of order.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

This point goes to relevance, Madam Chair.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It's not to relevance. It's very relevant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much, Mr. Longfield.

Mr. Green, I assume that your question relates back to the recommendation that you referenced—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Of course. That's a ridiculous point of order, and I want my time back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

—in the Auditor General's report.

Please continue with your questioning as it relates to the Auditor General's report and the recommendation you cited.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I would also like to refer to how that intervention was on my time, and I'd like to reclaim my time.

To repeat that, what should be considered confidential and what should not be? Recommendation 7.35 suggests that there should be completed and published “an economic evaluation” of the “wage subsidy programs”.

For example, should assessment of a program's impacts on public spending, labour supply and output be confidential?

[Michael Sabia]

Madam Chair, through you, I think those three categories that Mr. Green has just identified are quite reasonable—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[Michael Sabia]

—and should be a part of the kind of analysis that we would otherwise always do.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Will the assessment also include an analysis of companies that took the wage subsidy and paid out dividends, as well as companies that took the wage subsidy and laid people off? Will they complete that and include it in their analysis and publish it?

[Michael Sabia]

Through you, Madam Chair, Mr. Green, you're asking us to speculate at this point, which is difficult for us to do. Certainly, in a report of that kind, we will be, as I think is appropriate and as I think you would acknowledge, careful with respect to either individual specific information—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It's already been published. It's already been published in The Globe and Mail and the National Post. It has been widely reported on and it is in the public interest.

Taxpayers want to know if major corporations took their money and paid out shareholders and CEO bonuses. We had to shame Air Canada into I don't even know what—reconsidering and doing the right thing?

I hope you'll take the feedback from this committee. I hope you'll take my outrage as the public's outrage in this moment of the largest transfer of wealth from the public sector to the private sector—from the public to the private—and I hope that's accounted for when it comes back. That's all I'm asking for.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much, Mr. Green.

We will now move on to our next round of questioning, which is a five-minute round, starting with Mr. Berthold.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to begin by thanking the witnesses for being with us today.

I know that having to put programs in place quickly during a pandemic has its own set of concerns and risks. As we read through the documents you sent us, we could see which risks had been raised and which had been proven to be real over the weeks and months.

My question is for Mr. Hamilton.

I was surprised to see that, in several places in the documents, there was reference to reputational risks to the Canada Revenu Agency.

Can you explain to me the extent to which these risks were considered among the major potential impacts? Why was so much attention paid to them?

[Bob Hamilton]

I thank the hon. member for his question.

The agency's reputation is important to us, both in times of pandemic and in normal times. It's important because for the tax system to work, Canadians need to have confidence in the agency. So, the agency's reputation is a factor in the decision to participate in the tax system, among other things.

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

You'll understand why I'm asking this question. This is a discussion I want to have because I want to understand what Mr. Gallivan was talking about earlier. He talked about the risk associated with the very small number of audits that will be done of individuals and businesses that received the wage subsidy.

Does the agency want to maintain that tough image, and has this program hurt that image, which you have to maintain to make sure that people pay their due to the government?