Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 9th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Genuis, you've already indicated your desire to speak, so we'll come back to you.

There is a long list of individuals to speak.

Mr. Nater, you have the floor.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm sure there are many folks who want to speak to this.

I do thank Mr. Drouin for making the note that December 16 will finally.... I am happy to have the information. I am not so sure I'll be as pleased with the actual information that will come out of the fall economic statement—

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

Just wait until you see the expenses on Stornoway....

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

—when we finally see what has been transpiring under the Liberal government, blowing through its deficits.

However, we'll get back to the matter at hand. We are debating a motion that will absolutely prevent us from doing any work. I did joke that this was a Liberal holiday from accountability and that they want to be able to pause their accountability, to pause their ability to be held accountable for the failures of the Liberal government.

I find this interesting as well. If we want to go back to the very first point about the CEBA, we can recall what was happening when the CEBA program was being dreamed up. I will point out first that I do find it very troubling that the Department of Finance failed to accept responsibility and that the Minister of Finance tried to blame the pandemic, saying that it was all the pandemic's fault and that the pandemic made her do it. However, the Auditor General was very clear that the pandemic does not excuse one from their accountability. It doesn't excuse one from the importance of following sound rules.

As the Auditor General mentioned today and again last week with the EDC officials, there were points along the line, even at the very beginning, where, if there were a more urgent situation to make things happen and to change things around, those things could have been corrected. There could have been added guardrails and procedures put in place as they went along, which could have prevented that.

It made me think about this: Why wasn't finance focused on those issues at the time? What the heck was going on at the Department of Finance at that time?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

We just don't know.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

We don't know, as my colleague Mr. McCauley says. However, I think “we” may actually know, because it was the WE Charity scandal. Perhaps the former minister of finance, at that time, was far too concerned about getting nearly a billion dollars—$900-plus million—to his friends at WE Charity and giving them hundreds of millions of dollars. Perhaps finance was more preoccupied with enriching friends of the Liberal Party.

It may shock Canadians. They may have forgotten this or may have blocked it from their minds, but members of the Prime Minister's family were actually being paid by the WE organization to give speeches. It was paying members of the Prime Minister's own family to give speeches, and then, lo and behold, it gets a nearly $1-billion contract from the government to encourage Canadians to volunteer.

I always find it interesting that it costs a billion dollars for folks to volunteer. I know we all have great organizations in our ridings through which people volunteer each and every day without a billion dollars from His Majesty's government, but obviously that's the Liberal way.

To the point at hand, while the Department of Finance should have been focused on putting proper guardrails and proper guidelines in place for this program, it was dealing with the massive fallout from the We Charity scandal. While I noted that the Prime Minister's immediate family members were being paid by the WE organization, something came out, as well, in an ethics report—and a damning ethics report, I might add—from the Ethics Commissioner. It was found that Bill Morneau, the minister of finance at that time, broke the ethics law, because he also had a close family member who was employed by the WE organization.

I might add that Bill Morneau actually just plumb forgot about, I believe, a $40,000 trip that he took courtesy of the WE organization. It was a $40,000 trip, and he just plumb forgot. Former minister Bill Morneau is also the one who plumb forgot about that French villa that he owned.

I sometimes forget where I put my car keys, but I can't imagine forgetting a French villa.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I have a point of order.

Were they French car keys or...?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I drive a little Hyundai.

This is what was going on at a time when the department should have been focused on CEBA and making sure there were proper accountability measures in place so we weren't seeing these sole-source contracts to Accenture—hundreds of millions of dollars to an entity that did not do loans. That's what we heard last week from EDC. They do not do loans. It did about 300 loans internationally, but they are focused on export development. They are not a lending institution.

To go a step further on the CEBA side of things, it's also interesting that the actual loans were delivered by the financial institutions—banks, credit unions and those entities. The money was going to Accenture for delivering the loans, which makes it even more appalling that this was allowed to be undertaken. Obviously, the Auditor General's report clarified that pretty clearly.

I will make a few more points to wrap up this particular thought on Bill Morneau.

This was obviously something that took up a lot of time at the Department of Finance and for the finance minister himself. Because of what happened, the minister had to resign. The former minister of finance was forced out of his job because of the WE organization scandal and the damning ethics report on this matter. As the Ethics Commissioner clearly determined, he participated in discussions on this matter when he had a pecuniary interest and a clear connection to a close family member involved with this organization. The way this all went down, I think, is absolutely appalling. The Liberals at the time were more concerned about giving nearly a billion dollars to their friends at the WE organization than focusing on the administration of this loan program.

What is interesting—I know the Liberals are laughing, since I guess they don't find fraud that interesting, or they find it to be a laughing matter—is the fact that there were at least 17 cases of fraud.

Chair, I think the translation may not be working. The Liberals don't seem to be hearing what I say.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I think the translation is working just fine, Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Okay. I guess they're just not paying attention.

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

Mr. Chair, the opposition thinks we're listening to them. I acknowledge the man. I respect him. However, we're not talking about—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

As is common for the Liberal backbench, there is no need to listen to what's going on in the front row.

Mr. Nater, you have the floor.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

The Liberals are not listening—

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor] spicy.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I'm not sure that type of commentary is appropriate, but I digress. Back to the point at hand—

[A voice]

Go back to the French Revolution, and then I'll listen.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I'll leave that to Mr. Stewart. My interest is on guillotine motions—rather than the guillotine as the focus of the French Revolution—and their accountability mechanisms, which were far more decapitating at the time.

I want to go back to the point here.

The Liberals were more concerned, at the time, about getting money to their well-connected friends rather than administering this program. They made the decision to give it to EDC, which had no expertise to do that. I had a question I wanted to follow up on with Finance. They said they looked at the options and there were not a lot, other than giving it to EDC.

However, the fact remains that there were a lot of options that could have been done. EDC contracted it out with a sole-source contract to Accenture, and then Accenture subcontracted that to one of its own subsidiaries. It begs the question of why they even would have gone to EDC when it was really Accenture that could have done this with any entity and may have had more accountability, because, as a Crown corporation, EDC was separate from certain accountability measures that could have been undertaken. EDC was a good example, as my colleague Mr. McCauley just highlighted. These are the issues at hand that are very troubling, and I think the Auditor General was right and appropriate in undertaking this study.

I know my reasonable amendment earlier was ruled out of order. Since I have the floor here, I would like to move a different amendment, if that is okay, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Yes, Mr. Nater, you have the floor.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would move the following amendment. First of all, in point one, the number “27” be replaced with “6”. It would then read, “take place after January 6, 2025”.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Nater, I'm sorry. Was it December 6?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

It was January 6. Did I say December?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Pardon me. You might not have. I just heard the date. I was just trying to pre-empt Mr. Drouin's concerns.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

The first thing would be the change from “January 27, 2025” to “after January 6, 2025”. That would be the first part of the amendment.

The second one would be under point three of the current motion. I would amend it by removing the words after “ArriveCAN” and inserting “the committee give drafting instructions to the analysts on Report 1, ArriveCAN”. That full clause would now read, “At the conclusion of the meeting on Report 1, ArriveCAN, the committee give drafting instructions to the analysts on Report 1 ArriveCAN”.

For point five, after the very end of that clause, we insert “provided all the aforementioned witnesses have appeared”. That would be at the end of point five.

Finally, point nine would be deleted.

That would be the amendment. I think I still have the ability to speak briefly to this, if that's—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You do.

I'm going to ask you if you have sent that in to the clerk.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I believe that if it hasn't been sent in, it's probably working its way through the Interwebs right now and hopefully will be with the clerk shortly.