Evidence of meeting #157 for Public Accounts in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you, Mr. Genuis.
The committee is relieved that you do not suggest we meet after December 26, and you graciously allowed us to wait until the new year.
Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
First of all, Mr. Chair, I'd like you to tell me how much time is left in this committee meeting, since we're already past the scheduled time for the end of the meeting.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
The delays have cost us time, so let's say there's 20 to 30 minutes left.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné, we have a long list of people who wish to speak after you, including Mr. Vis and Mr. Cannings. You can speak if you really have something to say, otherwise we can come back to you later.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
First of all, I'm really disappointed that motions are preventing us from moving forward on the committee's agenda. This is the second time that because of proposed motions, we can't really do our work. The last time, it was the Conservatives; this time, it's the Liberals. In fact, today, I didn't even get a single turn to ask questions of the witnesses present. Last time, we were unable to hear the testimony of Mr. Doug McConnachie. Yet he is a key witness in the SDTC matter.
I still find this motion contains some relevant elements, including the fact that the wishes of the Subcommittee on Program and Procedure must be respected. The subcommittee discussed prioritizing the review of the report on the Canada Emergency Business Account, yes, but it had been agreed to finish the studies first...
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
May I remind you that subcommittee decisions are private in nature.
Thank you.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
That's true. Even if these discussions were held in camera, it would be relevant to discuss them again in committee. That would allow all the other committee members to discuss them as well.
The fact remains that the purpose of this motion is to conclude the SDTC and ArriveCan studies. The sub-amendment we're supposed to be talking about is neither interesting nor relevant in this meeting, but it still seems very important to us to mention this desire to finish these studies in the company of the witnesses who had been mentioned.
That said, I'd like to remind you that it's very contradictory of the Conservatives to unnecessarily prolong the debate on this issue, especially since they want to hold other meetings to replace those we've had to cancel due to systematic obstruction. It's all very ironic. What will come of all this? We'll be sitting for weeks when we're supposed to be with our constituents. I don't think that's really necessary, unless it's an emergency. In any case, in the event of an emergency, we can resort to the procedure provided for in Standing Order 106(4), of course. I say this in good faith; the proposal contained in point 9 of the motion could have been reworded, so as to clarify things and avoid meetings being called unnecessarily during the weeks when we're not sitting and we're supposed to be with our fellow citizens.
On that note, I'll wait until we finish the debate on this subamendment, which is really irrelevant, I repeat. It's just an attempt to buy time, and it's completely absurd, given that we could be working precisely during the hours that are allocated to this committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you.
Mr. Vis, you have the floor. After that....
Go ahead, please.
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As a point of clarification, I think you said in French that we have about 20 or 30 minutes remaining.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
We have a little less than that. I don't generally like to....
I have a long list, though. If you'd like to make your points, we can always come back to it.
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
The subamendment we're debating today is really whether or not Canada is going to be given sufficient time to study the damning report from the Auditor General.
In question period last week, I asked the Minister of Small Business why they would allow a company like Accenture, which was verified by the Auditor General, to write its own contracts, set its own terms and conditions and pay itself whatever it felt was acceptable. I asked the Minister of Small Business how in the world she finds it acceptable that $3.5 billion of taxpayer money could be misused, or in the words of the Auditor General, how we could have one of the largest social programs in the history of Canada show no value for money. I've asked the Minister of Small Business and officials here about the conflict of interest between Accenture and Export Development Canada.
I state all this because these are serious questions and we're in a time in Canada when people are divided. They're divided between the extremism of the Liberal Party, which is tearing new divides in Canadian society.... Violence against women is up. Extortion in my community in the Fraser Valley is up over 300%. The RCMP has had to devote hundreds of new officers to deal with major issues related to crime. I mention that because it gets down to the core of what many people are thinking, which is, “What the heck is the Government of Canada doing?”
We had the Auditor General come forward. She presented a bombshell report. We, as parliamentarians, have an opportunity to either investigate, get to the bottom of why some bad decisions were made, understand what the consequences were and hold the relevant officials accountable, or continue down the path of divisiveness that's been made by the NDP-Liberals, who are doing everything in their power to avoid possible corruption...but also, absolutely, accountability for the operationalization of government programs. It's because of this that Canadians are divided, Canadians are losing trust in the democratic process and they feel like their voices aren't heard.
All of us here, especially at public accounts—and I'm not a normal member of this committee.... The purpose of this committee is to do the hard work and examine why decisions were made. We look at the line-by-line spending of government departments to look back at why decisions were made, how they were made and the context in which they were made. What we have here today is the NDP-Liberals trying to avoid that accountability.
Let's recap some of the main findings that the Auditor General wants us to discuss and questions that I wanted to ask Auditor General Hogan and the officials from Finance Canada today.
One of the main findings is that although 91% of loan recipients met eligibility requirements under the CEBA program, the Office of the Auditor General found that the remaining 9% were ineligible recipients, amounting to $3.5 billion in loans. That's a fact. It's a fact that we're not studying.
The non-deferrable expenses stream was intended “to help small businesses cover a variety of expenses that could not be deferred during the pandemic, such as payroll, rent, insurance, and utilities.” When introducing this stream, Export Development Canada “introduced more pre-payment controls, which required additional processes to determine eligibility, including assessing the validity of expense documents submitted by applicants.” However, the Office of the Auditor General “found some issues with their implementation” and “found that about 19% should not have been deemed eligible based on the criteria of the program at that time and should be investigated further.” This represents “approximately 26,000 loans or about $1.5 billion.” That's 26,000 loans.
I'm the critic for small business. One of the biggest complaints I receive from small businesses in our country is that, when they get a question from the Canada Revenue Agency or they're contacted by the Government of Canada, they basically have to stop what they're doing.
It might be a minor discrepancy, but it's at the discretion of an individual auditor to review how they're conducting their business. In some cases, this can mean major losses for a small business, but these are absolutely major inconveniences without any consequences for the auditors at CRA, even if they are found to have been completely in the clear.
I want to apply that same type of pressure on the decision-makers in government because, when 26,000 loans are deemed ineligible to the tune of $1.5 billion, that's a big concern. That's a big concern for the small businesses paying taxes that have felt the wrath of CRA upon them numerous times in their business careers.
According to the Office of the Auditor General, 90% of the errors “were due to loans being wrongly assessed as eligible based on the documentation provided by the small businesses.”
The OAG further found that “EDC approved loans based on the assessments performed by its vendor even though documentation clearly indicated ineligibility or basic information was missing. For example, documents were accepted without a business name or for expenses outside of the eligible period of the program.” In other words, Accenture wasn't doing its job with the sweetheart contract it got with EDC.
The Auditor General wrote that “EDC conducted no post-payment verification” for the non-deferrable expenses stream, and “therefore did not discover the extent of [its own] errors.”
The Auditor General concluded that too much control given by EDC to a third party vendor to administer CEBA contracts had grave consequences. She found that “EDC decided to make extensive use of external contractors to minimize the impact and separate the CEBA program from its own core operations” because, according to EDC, “it did not have the capacity to embed CEBA in its regular operations”.
This resulted in $230 million in administrative spending going to contracts with third parties, of which 91% was awarded to a single vendor. That is Accenture.
Today we had Finance Canada officials before us. My line of questioning was going to be focused on how these decisions were made, how EDC was first given authority to run this government program and how EDC made the decisions to sole-source most of it to a global multinational firm. These are important questions and we're not getting to them.
EDC was dependent on Accenture to deliver the CEBA program. In total, EDC awarded 19 non-competitive contracts to Accenture out of 48 CEBA-related contracts, “representing approximately 92% of the total $342 million awarded in contracts to support the delivery of the CEBA program.”
EDC, DFC and GAC—that's the Department of Finance and Global Affairs Canada—“identified the reputational and financial risks—
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I have a point of order, Chair.
I appreciate Mr. Vis's intervention as it is, but I don't see how it speaks to anything in this motion. I've been hearing, for the past however long he's been speaking, about things that are not being discussed in this motion at all.
Conservative
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
The point is, Chair, that we are on a subamendment. We are on an amendment to an amendment and what Mr. Vis is saying is not in the scope of that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Very good. I was allowing a little latitude as it's his first time speaking, but...all right.
Mr. Vis, can you focus on the subamendment to the amendment with respect to having a carbon tax election and why, in the words of the subamendment, that's necessary?
Conservative
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The purpose of my outlining the key findings of the Auditor General speaks to the need for the public accounts committee to address the very important findings of the Auditor General. If they don't want to discuss these issues, then, indeed, we can go to a carbon tax election. I think we're coming to that, Mr. Chair. Canadians, per my previous points, do not have trust in the government to manage public finances in an efficient way. That is why one of the core tenets of the Conservative Party right now is to fix the budget. Underpinning our commitment and our desire to have a carbon tax election is fixing the federal budget.
What I'm experiencing here today, as a non-regular member of the public accounts committee, is that what we're doing is in the best interests of Canadians, because the Liberal and NDP members and their coalition want to avoid accountability. They are obfuscating the parliamentary process to review and approve taxpayer money to the point that the average Canadian would say that our governmental system is corrupt.
If we can't examine, in detail, how $3.5 billion was given to ineligible businesses, what can we do as a country? We are a G7 nation, but we don't act like one, primarily because we can't get to the bottom of how public money is used. There are so many layers of decision-making that are not being exposed to the public, even though, at this time, as we reflect on hope during the second week of Advent, many Canadians are without hope.
Food bank usage is through the roof. Violence against women is through the roof. Extortion is through the roof. Child poverty is rising at alarming rates. Why? It's because we're not properly accounting for how money is being used.
Our men and women in uniform serving in the Baltic states right now are having to resort to buying their own equipment, because the government can't get its accounts in order. The Government of Canada is not operationalizing its responsibilities in a way that is acceptable to the average Canadian citizen.
I will continue. EDC, the Department of Finance and GAC—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Could I ask—this is a plea from the chair—you to yield your time? We are running out of time. I would like to hear from Mr. Cannings just to get the flavour of the room. I try to govern this committee with consent. I will come back to you—
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
On a point of order, Chair, it's inappropriate to cut off another member.
December 9th, 2024 / 1:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
It's a request, Mr. McCauley, and I can make it. He can certainly decline, and if he does, that's within his rights. However, I would like to hear from Mr. Cannings, if it's possible.
Mr. Vis, you can certainly decline, but I would appreciate it, as the chair, if you would yield the floor. I will certainly put you back on again to pick up exactly where you left off.
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
Just on a point of clarification, if I yield the floor to Mr. Cannings, will you return to me after Mr. Cannings has finished speaking?