Public Accounts Committee on May 3rd, 2022

[Michael Sabia]

I cannot give you a specific timeframe. We are working with our colleagues as quickly as possible. We are well aware of how important an issue this is.

As to your second question, I do not want to speculate right now on the order of magnitude. We have some work to do.

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

Okay. You have no idea whatsoever of the timeframe? Will it be by the end of the year, by 2025, or by 2030, for instance?

[Michael Sabia]

We are working as quickly as possible.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Next we have MP Desjarlais.

You have the floor for two and a half minutes, please.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to now pick up on questioning related to some of the emergency benefits that the government rolled out and to talk specifically about some of the instances where I believe misuse of the funds occurred. I believe Canadians would agree.

I want to highlight an issue that began in my city of Edmonton and is related to a company called CESSCO. CESSCO locked out their employees. They were given a notice. They've been locked out for over 300 days now. I think it's something around 400 days now that they've been locked out.

During that period of time, CESSCO applied for and received assistance through the CEWS program, the Canada emergency wage subsidy program. The program itself was intended to ensure workers could continue to operate and that workers were to get the benefit from this.

In this particular instance, this company did not provide that benefit to any of their employees. Rather, it locked them out and then hired scab labour in order to accommodate that deficit at a lower wage. To continue in that vein, that same company then paid over $2 billion to its shareholders between April and September. This is all well documented and was reported on in the news. However, the company continued to take in the benefit.

To all the Canadians whose taxes for the purpose of protecting workers went to a for-profit company that kicked them out, what do we tell those members and how can we get justice for the Canadian taxpayer when for-profit companies walk out with $2 billion? What does that process look like? You mentioned a process to my honourable colleague from the Bloc, a process for remedying damages. How do we remedy this kind of damage by private companies?

That's for finance.

[Michael Sabia]

Again, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You have about 35 seconds to answer the question, if you need it.

[Michael Sabia]

I'm sure that members will understand that we're not in a position to comment on a specific company—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Okay, sure, companies then, companies that misuse the public trust in the sense—

[Michael Sabia]

—a specific event or a specific set of circumstances. I do think it's important to stand back. The basic objective of that program was to rapidly deliver financial assistance to maintain the working relationship between a company and its employees. If, in a circumstance where there have been lockouts etc., again, I can't comment on specifics. Certainly we can look into it and pass it on to our Revenue Canada colleagues who are responsible for this to see whether there are any particular circumstances associated with that—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

But, to the question, what process? You mentioned a process. What does that process look like?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Desjarlais, I'm going to have to end it there, but you will have another round to come back to it.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Turning now to Mr. Lawrence, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you.

I'm going to split my time with Mr. McCauley.

I have just a couple of hopefully quick questions here.

For Mr. Huppé, when we look at the reopening of the account, it strikes me as strange because there certainly have been material events that have occurred in the last 20, 30 or 50 years, yet this is the first time we've reopened the books.

I'm curious. Were none of those other events that have happened—and we could go through them—over the last 50 or 100 years...? We've never, to my knowledge, reopened those books. What made this particular tribunal decision have so much more importance than, say, September 11?

[Roch Huppé]

First of all, when something happens, it needs to create a potential impact on one of the estimates that you've done in preparing the financial statements. Obviously, the financial statements had not been tabled at this time. We had an event that provided us with sufficient information that we felt the new estimate was very different. Again, we have materiality.

When the auditor audits us, there is a level of materiality, and this was way beyond the materiality. Again, we're getting in a zone of getting a potential qualification if it wasn't registered or accounted for in the proper fashion. There are subsequent events. Sometimes something happens—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you, but I have just a quick question. I appreciate that. My time is limited.

Just for the Auditor General, if, in fact, the books hadn't been reopened, would you have given a qualification on the audit?

[Karen Hogan]

That's a very difficult question to answer. The books were reopened. The amount was a significant amount, and it is a very unique and rare situation, but I believe that the adjustment was appropriate, so, if the adjustment had not occurred, I would have had to consider whether or not my opinion should be adjusted, yes.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

You would consider, but that's not yes or no. Would you have qualified...?You have all the facts in front of you, Auditor General. With respect, you should be able to let us know whether you would have given a qualification.

[Karen Hogan]

As I said, there are two types of subsequent events. This is the kind of event, because the books had been signed off and the opinion had been issued, where the responsibility to adjust rested with the Government of Canada. If it had happened before September 9, before we had issued our audit opinion, absolutely. If an adjustment had not occurred, I would have felt that the financial statements did not accurately represent the best estimate of the liability at that point, and that would have been part of—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

All right, I'll give the rest of my time to Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You have the floor for two minutes.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Sabia, welcome. It's kind of neat having the closest to a celebrity we'll have in public accounts.