Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 9th, 2026

[Fares Al Soud, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

This is, of course, not a uniquely Canadian issue. Comparable governments face similar patterns. Are you aware of steps taken by other Westminster-style governments, like in the U.K. and Australia, to reduce reliance on consultants, and do those reforms align with concerns you've raised in Canada?

[Karen Hogan]

I'm not sure I can tell you that I've had those conversations with my counterparts in those countries. I do know that we all spend a great deal of time looking at procurement rules and making sure that processes are fair and transparent.

I'd have to look more in depth. It's not something I came prepared to answer. If I do find something, I can let the committee know.

[Fares Al Soud, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

That would be very much appreciated.

In the last 30 seconds I have, I'll note it's clear that asset values, amortization schedules and useful life assumptions rely heavily on management judgment. From your perspective, which asset classes or departments represent the highest audit risk in terms of valuation and amortization?

[Karen Hogan]

I'm sorry. Represent the highest what?

[Fares Al Soud, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

The highest audit risk.

[Karen Hogan]

It would probably look at IT systems in progress, so work in progress, making sure you're capitalizing the right things going forward.

In the long run, I think most of the Government of Canada's IT systems are used well beyond their estimated useful lives. That doesn't mean you should go back and correct, but it means you should think about it as you install new systems going forward.

I would highlight, finally, National Defence and their difficulty around how they record certain assets, one being asset-pooled items.

It's unique in each department what some of their concerns might be around capital items, but for the most part, capital items are well managed and well recorded in the financial statements.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Do you have a brief follow-up, Mr. Al Soud? Are you good?

[Fares Al Soud, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

I'm perfect.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much. I appreciate your questions today.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to make my Conservative friends happy, because I am going to talk about the carbon tax.

In 2024, Ottawa collected $10.5 billion from carbon pricing and redistributed $9.8 billion.

I am trying to understand something. In 2025, Ottawa collected $13.6 billion from carbon pricing, but redistributed $15.6 billion.

How is this possible?

[Evelyn Dancey]

There is a little description of this program in the budget. It says that the amounts will be balanced after a certain number of years. To redistribute the amounts, the government decided to use a few programs that were not in place when it had received the revenue. There was a difference between those two amounts.

However, as stated in budget 2025, it is projected that the government will receive no revenue from carbon pricing for the 2025–2026 fiscal year. All proceeds will be redistributed after this year.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Yes, because the carbon tax was abolished.

Does it happen often that money is paid out before it is collected through a program?

There is a loss, since dollars were overpaid.

Why has Quebec not received its fair share? Obviously, that is because the carbon tax did not apply in Quebec. However, the Liberal government gave every province and territory except Quebec and British Columbia a gift of $2 billion. Quebeckers paid, on an equivalence basis, $814 million for an election goody to eight provinces and territories without that money being collected in advance.

Do you think that is fair?

[Evelyn Dancey]

I think you already have the answer to the question. The government decided to make that final payment to citizens in provinces and territories that adhere to the pricing system. That is why it made that decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Lemire, you still have 30 seconds left because of the interpretation delay.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, this gives me an opportunity to make a comment.

With respect to the public accounts, we see that Quebeckers paid for something they did not receive. There is a major imbalance there. It is not up to Quebeckers to pay for transfers that were not made.

In this context, I think it would have been normal and fair for Quebeckers to be able to have this transfer or not to pay for it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

Ms. Kusie, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you.

This is for Mr. Leswick and Madam Boudreau.

In August 2023, then Treasury Board president Anita Anand announced that the government would be directing departments to find more than $15 billion in savings across departments. Looking through the public accounts, I was very eager to see these savings in action and looking forward to expenditures in departments going down. However, note 6 in section 2 of the 2024-25 public accounts indicates that expenditures are up for every ministry except four. It's similar under the same category in the 2023-24 public accounts.

This leads me today to the government's newly announced comprehensive expenditure review. You're pledging to save billions of dollars, but Canadians haven't even seen results from the last ill-hearted attempt at saving. What measures are currently being taken to ensure department spending is reduced across the board?

[Annie Boudreau]

Indeed, as you mentioned, there was a commitment to reduce spending. At the same time, as we know, the government is investing in DND, with $9 billion invested a few months ago. The government is also investing in housing and other commitments.

I don't think you will be able to see a decrease as compared to what was announced in the budget, because of additional commitments and funding in budget 2025.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Well, I'm sure you're aware....

Mr. Leswick, did you want to add something? My apologies for not giving you the opportunity.

[Nick Leswick]

No, thank you. Continue.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

That's a wise choice.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I'm sure you're all aware that the Government of Canada is now spending more on debt interest charges than it transfers to provinces in the Canada health transfer. How much did the government pay on public debt charges in 2025?

Mr. Leswick, go ahead.

[Nick Leswick]

I'm sorry. If you have the number available to you, you can say it out loud. I need to track it down in the volume.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

It's $53.4 billion. Health transfers were $52.1 billion in 2025. This is a $6-billion increase from 2024. Since the Liberal money-printing machine took office in 2015, our public debt charges have gone from $21.8 billion in 2016 to $53.4 billion in 2025.

Canadians are lining up at food banks in record numbers. Our youth are facing record unemployment levels, and the cost of housing in this country has doubled since 2015, as Madame Boudreau indicated in the last response. When we look at our public debt charges, it's no wonder why. The current Prime Minister is doing nothing but adding fuel to the fire, with his $78-billion deficit.

Does the finance department recognize the strain that's being added to Canadians' financial situations with the current government spending as it is?