Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 29th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Okay, I'll come back to you, but we're going to suspend for two minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I call the meeting back to order.

If I could ask members to take their seats, we have a motion in front of us that I will read and then I will look for speakers:

That the committee request the Auditor General to conduct an audit of the management of CEBA, including the roles and responsibilities of suppliers.

Do I have any speakers?

Mr. May, you have the floor.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to say that I'm just a lowly guest here today, filling in for my honourable colleague, but I do want to speak to this just a bit, given what has just been added by the Auditor General in terms of the fact that this is something the Auditor General is looking into. We talked a little earlier in the meeting about potential...the optics of this.

The Auditor General is independent. We need to continue to strive for that independence, and we talked about financing and looking into having an independent financing model for the Auditor General.

To suggest that we dictate what the Auditor General is to undertake in terms of a study, I think, is inappropriate—number one. We just heard her indication that they're already looking into this. I think it makes this motion redundant. Any suggestion that we could be influencing the Auditor General by having her here today and then suggesting that she undertake this study would also be inappropriate.

Again, I'm just simply a guest here today, so I'm not sure of the conventions of this particular committee. However, I have been in your seat, Mr. Chair, for a while, whether it was human resources or veterans affairs. I do know that there is a time and place for motions, and it is not when we have witnesses lined up.

I'm going to be brief on this, because I would very much like to get to the witnesses and not carve up their time any more than we have to, but I would ask that the member opposite, the honourable member, consider pulling this motion given the fact that the Auditor General is in fact already looking into this as a potential study topic.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you for that.

I'm just going to address this from the chair, diplomatically.

On the first point, the Auditor General is independent but does certainly respond to Parliament. The ArriveCAN audit came after Parliament voted in favour of it, and I believe, in reading the tea leaves and in discussions with the OAG, that the auditor and the office also look to this committee for what I'll call guidance.

A motion that is passed unanimously by this committee is going to be given greater weight by the auditor than one that is split, but it is certainly not interference and it is certainly not inappropriate for Parliament or this committee to pass these motions. At the end of the day, Ms. Hogan will use her independence as she sees fit and pursue an audit or not. On that first point, that has been the custom. The Auditor General has spoken many times about her office receiving correspondence from individual parliamentarians and that's acceptable as well. It's something the office considers. For a parliamentary committee to weigh in is not out of bounds.

On your second point on this motion, I too want to hear from witnesses. That's why we worked so hard to get them here, but this motion is directed at the business at hand and it is in order. If it had not been.... We had a motion that came at the top of this meeting that I was felt was not, and it would have required UC. We didn't get that, so we moved on. However, I take your point, Mr. May, about that.

Are there any other speakers?

Mrs. Shanahan.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

We discussed the motion at some length and, as we heard from the Auditor General, I want to propose an amendment to replace the word “request” with the word “recommend”. It will be the same word in both versions. That comes from our committee.

Perhaps it's just a matter of nuance. It's not a request, but a recommendation. Since this directly affects the work of the Auditor General, I don't think it changes a lot of things.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Do you want to respond to that, Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné?

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

Yes, I accept that recommendation as an amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Okay. This change will affect only the French version.

I'll look for a vote to make that amendment.

Are there any objections to changing...?

What is the word “demande” being replaced with?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

We are replacing “demande” with “recommande”.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Okay.

Are there any objections to that?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 5; nays 0)

I appreciate the witnesses remaining.

I am going to turn now to Mr. Masse.

You have two minutes, please.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

For my question, I want to go to the Auditor General, please.

I was shocked, I think, with a lot of people, in December, when the Conservatives singled out and voted against the completion of the Gordie Howe bridge, specifically a line item vote of $335 million. The project had billions already put into it, not only into the roadway there. It would have literally become the world's most expensive viewing platform, albeit it would be noted as such on the American and the Canadian sides, because, at that time, in December, it was just being finished; the connection was not done yet. It is now connected.

Since that time, we have also had Bridging North America and the Government of Canada reach an additional funding agreement of $700 million. The government could have insisted that it live up to the original contract, but it went ahead and renegotiated this P3.

Would this be something in line with a potential study? I believe this is new funding, and I thought we were past this, unfortunately, because, originally, Conservatives supported the DRTP, which was a rail tunnel through south Windsor. The Liberals, under Joe Volpe, were opposed to this project in the past, and I thought we were past all these things. I'm worried that there will be additional funds that might get thrown through the wash cycle and also that the contract has been amended versus lived up to.

[Karen Hogan]

I'm sorry. I have to admit that I'm not sure what the question was in the end, but I can tell you that we do the financial audit of the bridge, the corporation. When it comes to funding, that is a government decision that's made. We simply audit the financial statements of the bridge.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Really quickly, the question is about this: We have another changed contract that the government has done with the P3 sector. The government has amended its contract, and that came after all these things took place. We have to put another $700 million in, or whatever it might be, but we've amended the contract.

I'm just wondering if the AG's office would look at the amended contracts the government has had with P3s, because they have been looked at in the past.

[Karen Hogan]

We wouldn't specifically target that. We don't have that slated as a performance audit. We would look at the management of the public-private partnership when we do the financial statement audit of the bridge.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Just to bring everyone up to speed, if you lost track, we have two more individuals. Mr. Viersen has four minutes, and then, I believe, Mr. May will have four minutes at the end to round us out.

Mr. Viersen, you have the floor for four minutes.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like the Treasury Board to answer a few questions around the emergency contracting authority that is given to ministers. How often has that happened in the last four years? Has this been authorized to many ministries?

The report I read was just that the Department of Public Works got this authorization, but I'm wondering if it has actually used it and if other ministries have pursued this.

[Monia Lahaie]

I don't have the information. You could ask my colleagues next week when they come. The contracting expert will be here.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Okay.

It looks like the Auditor General wants to jump in on that. I'll give her the floor.

[Karen Hogan]

What I could offer up is that, during the audit of the ArriveCAN app, we found that some of the contracts that were issued invoked the national security emergency exemption, which means that certain requirements in the normal procurement processes don't have to happen—certain compliances or elements. I know that it was used there. How often it is used across the government is not a question that I can answer, but I can tell you that it was used in the ArriveCAN contracts, for sure.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Could you confirm that the authorization to use it had been given? They were probably saying—

[Karen Hogan]

We did see communication and authorization around that linked to some of the contracts for ArriveCAN, but off the top of my head, I can't tell you if it was invoked in all of them or not.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Okay. It's just that sometimes one group does its homework on it, and then the next group just sees that it's doing that and uses the same authorization. You didn't really see....