Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 4th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

No, you can't because we are talking about Mr. Nater's amendment now.

Once we have finished debating the amendment before you, you may speak again.

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

I just want to say, theoretically speaking, that I would like to remove items 7 and 9 from Ms. Khalid's motion.

I hope to propose an amendment to that effect.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That isn't possible because we are discussing Mr. Nater's amendment.

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

I am not proposing another amendment; I'm simply saying that is what I would like to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

As usual, we have to debate the amendment before us first. Mr. Nater's amendment would change the date mentioned in item 1 of Ms. Khalid's motion.

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

Mr. Chair, you do have some leeway, especially with your colleagues. I would also like to benefit from that leeway.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You have the leeway to speak.

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

That's right.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Nonetheless, I would rather you not propose any changes to Ms. Khalid's motion.

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

No, I said I would like items 7 and 9 removed from Ms. Khalid's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That's the same thing.

Isn't it?

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

No, because I am not tabling an amendment. I am expressing a wish. Since it is a wish, it's theoretical.

Once again, I think we should be on the same page with what the subcommittee decided. What the subcommittee decided does not pertain to studying Report 9 of the Auditor General entitled “Digital Validation of Identity to Access Services”. I don't think we want to add that right now.

Furthermore, I think item 9 of Ms. Khalid's motion is ill-advised since there could be an emergency during the holiday period. We can't rule that out.

That said, now that I have stated my wishes, I will turn it over to my colleagues.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné.

Ms. Khalid, you have the floor on the amendment to the motion.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I think, from what has been discussed around the table, that it is quite evident where members stand.

I want to clarify one point Madame Sinclair-Desgagné made with respect to point 9.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

This is what I was trying to avoid. By introducing point 9, she brought these in. These were wish lists. She will have an opportunity to table that. I'm not going to cut you off, Ms. Khalid, but I'm going to let Madame Sinclair-Desgagné...so you will have to talk it through. We're on the amendment to the motion. As I said, Madame Sinclair-Desgagné will have the floor immediately after we deal with this amendment. She'll be able to propose her motions then.

You have the floor.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you for that, Chair.

This speaks to the motion. I think the concern raised in the amendment as presented, with respect to the dates, was that we will not be able to have any meetings. However, what point 9 says is that, unless it's a 106(4), no meetings can be called. Yes, emergency meetings can absolutely be called. I would want them to be called on a matter of urgency.

The matters outlined in this motion are important. They should obviously be studied and discussed. What I'm proposing is something all parliamentarians can come together on, regarding a plan.

I don't agree with Mr. Nater's amendment with respect to the dates, because I feel I need to spend a lot of time with my constituency. I want to see my constituents on a regular basis. I barely get to see them on just weekends. This work is important, but it is not urgent enough for us to take time away from our constituents just so we can come back to this. I think we'll have ample time in the new year, once the House resumes on the 27th. I believe that is the first date the House sits again. We can resume our parliamentary duties when scheduled by the House of Commons.

I don't think we need to make this an urgency to the detriment of our individual and collective constituents.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Khalid.

Mr. McCauley, go ahead on the amendment to the motion, which is on the date. You have the floor.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I agree with the amendment, obviously. I think there are times when we do have to be here.

You know, it's funny. I'm not disparaging my colleagues here at this committee, but we went through exactly this same thing at another committee. We heard stories such as that they're working from their constituencies—that's fine; I do the same—that break weeks are sacrosanct, that they're with their constituents and cannot come, that they can't even virtually attend meetings because it's so important to be with their constituents.

I agree that time with our constituents is very important. However, we actually looked up the calendars of these members, through Facebook and Twitter posts, and it turns out that over a six-week break period when we weren't meeting, the five members had a total of 17 events that they attended.

Frankly, if we cannot take two hours or an hour of our time, regardless of whether it's a break week or a sitting week, to discuss important matters—

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I didn't hear correctly. Did Mr. McCauley perform an audit based on Twitter and Facebook posts?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That's not, Mr. Drouin—

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

No, I just want to make sure that I heard properly.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Well, you should call IT and have them check your headset then.

Mr. McCauley, you have the floor.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Kelly, I owe you a beer.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'm not sure what that was, but thank you for your intervention, Mr. Drouin.

The reality is that, sometimes, things are important and we have to plow through. I, as the chair of another committee, have to fly out to be there in person, because those are our roles. You would have to be here, as well, Chair. That is part of the job of being a chair. That's a sacrifice you have to make. The rest of us on this committee, including me, can sit in our homes and Zoom in for two hours. I do not think that is such a sacrifice, especially when we're looking at $3 billion of taxpayers' money given out to ineligible applicants.

I'm sorry. I hear a big sigh from the Liberal side. I apologize if they're worried about taxpayers' money being wasted.

We saw the same thing in this committee a couple of years ago, when the Auditor General pointed out $27 billion stolen from taxpayers through ineligible applicants. We heard from the CRA that they were not interested in tracking down this money. We heard the CRA—despite not putting forward any information of their own—state that the Auditor General was incorrect. In my riding of Edmonton West, we have.... I often speak about it. It's called the Veterans Association Food Bank. It's a food bank that provides food, pet food, diapers and a lot of goods to our veterans, RCMP members on pension and first responders. Now, in the city of Edmonton, which has one of the highest incomes in a country as wealthy as Canada, we have veterans relying on food banks. They went to the government to ask for $11 million, I think, for a refrigeration system, and they got back zero, yet, somehow, we have $3 billion to happily give away to people who are ineligible.

Therefore, if I'm asked to spend two hours on a break week to determine how we can stop $3 billion from going to ineligible people and redirect it to the Veterans Association Food Bank, another food bank or other charitable causes, yes, I will find those two hours to do so. I'm the chair of a committee, like you. I would expect that, for something this important, you will get on the plane yourself, Mr. Chair, and get out here for the two hours and find the time. Members of Parliament are given incredible leeway to set their own schedules. Being able to set two hours aside for something so important.... Regardless of whether it's a break week or a sitting week, it's still a working week. I'm sure every one of us—all 338 in the House—can find those two hours for something so important.

My other concern about this motion as written, and I'm glad my colleague addressed it.... It allows for a 106(4). I was conferring with my colleague, Mr. Nater, who is probably the most learned about Bosc and Gagnon in the House. I often just call it “the big green book”. A 106(4) doesn't call a set of meetings, such as the one we're having today on this mega-billion-dollar scandal. It calls a meeting to decide whether there will be a meeting. If we have a 106(4) and gather on a break week, I'm sure the Liberals will find time for that. We bring through a motion to have meetings. Is that then stopped by this motion? We went through this with Phoenix, which, by the way, the Liberals fought against way back in 2016. A 106(4) doesn't set up meetings to look into things. It sets up a meeting to allow for a motion for an investigation. The way I read this motion—not the amendment but the motion itself—is that we can have a 106(4) for something urgent. Again, I'll ask my colleague Mr. Nater to correct me, and perhaps the clerk. If we look at a 106(4), we could come in, have the meeting, put through a motion to study it, and the Liberals with their NDP colleagues could vote that down.

Having an option for a 106(4) meeting over a break week is basically.... Perhaps I understand the intent. I won't attribute it to malice. It does not allow emergency meetings. It allows an emergency meeting to call a meeting, which would then be voted down by the Liberals and our NDP colleague.

I will support Mr. Nater's amendment. As much as I dislike being here on a break week, I will get on the plane or I will get on Zoom if necessary to look at these important issues.

Whether it is $3 billion, Finance Canada saying, “We're not responsible; EDC is,” or EDC saying, “Well, we'll oversee it with Finance Canada,” which we heard today.... This is despite the fact that Finance put in its response to the AG report that it wasn't responsible; the board was responsible. However, EDC said it would work with Finance to recover the money.

I don't think EDC even read the report or the responses, because Finance said it's not responsible for clawing back any money; the EDC board is. EDC is saying, “Well, we'll work together with Finance Canada.”

I think we need to get at this as soon as possible to see how we're going to get that money back. Are we leaving it to Accenture to claw the money back?

I find it's the ultimate irony. If you look at the EDC website, it actually states that EDC offers insurance to “Protect your business against the risk of unpaid invoices.” Here's EDC offering insurance. It's in the business of protecting businesses against the risk of unpaid invoices, and it cannot look after unpaid invoices; it has to send them out to Accenture.

I'd like to find out why the CRA is not going after this. It goes after student loans. It has all the documentation. I assume it has social insurance numbers to be able to claw back the money from tax returns, like we do with overpayments for EI.

I found this out when I spent a couple of years as an EI appeals chair. Even if the government makes a mistake and tells someone, “Yes, go ahead and fill out the EI form that way,” it's up to the constituent, the citizen, to ensure that they're filling it out correctly. Even if EI gives them the wrong information, they're still accountable. There are 1,800 pages of rules, and they're still accountable. However, if they make that mistake and EI claws it back, it will go after them by reducing their child benefit and taking it back from tax returns.

We haven't heard what they're doing. They'll do this against an ordinary Canadian who makes a mistake, but here we have fraud. There are only 17 cases. I'd like to find out how many more there are, because it doesn't sound like they were thorough.

Here we have $3 billion in ineligible payments, and there's no talk of sending the CRA after them. There's no talk of withholding tax returns or sending them to collection agencies. It sounds like they're waiting for the contract to expire with Accenture.

I think this requires looking after immediately, not waiting. I think in the original amendment there's a month and a half to look at this. This requires immediate attention.

We saw with the EDC president and the people who showed up today that they couldn't have less concern about this. They even have a senior vice-president of legal—it's right on their web page—and CEBA is right there in his job title.

EDC couldn't be bothered to show up today. I was polite to them. I'm frankly disgusted that these high-level executives could not get off their butts to walk two or three blocks to be here in person to talk to us about this scandal. This is outrageous. There were billions wasted, and they can't even be bothered to show up.

They couldn't even be bothered to send the person responsible for CEBA, who's listed proudly on their website.

I apologize. I'm like a teenager. My voice is cracking again.

I'm just dumbfounded. We sit here again and again at this committee, for years now, and we hear from the bureaucrats, “We'll get around to it later.” You then have a Liberal saying, “Well, you know, a year and a half is too quick a time to get a response back.”

Good Lord. At a 7-Eleven, a worker making minimum wage has more accountability for their actions than executives who are making $200,000 or $300,000. EDC got bonuses—

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I question the relevance. Where's Mr. McCauley headed? It has nothing to do with the amendment right now.