Connect with us

Business

Auditor General: $3.5 Billion in CEBA Loans Went to Ineligible Businesses, Recovery Efforts Lacking.

Published

15 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight

A $3.5 Billion Disaster Exposes Government Negligence, Corporate Greed, and a Total Lack of Accountability

Welcome to the latest edition of “What the Government Doesn’t Want You to Know.” Tonight, we’re talking about Canada’s Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA) program—a pandemic-era scheme that was supposed to help struggling businesses. Instead, it’s a case study in waste, corruption, and outright negligence.

Here’s what we learned during a bombshell hearing of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (PACP) Wednesday: $3.5 billion in taxpayer money was handed out to ineligible businesses, 92% of the contracts went to one company, Accenture, without any competitive bidding, and there’s virtually no accountability for any of it.

Let’s break it down.


$3.5 Billion Vanishes, and No One Cares

Here’s what we learned from the Auditor General: The Canada Emergency Business Account program—$49 billion handed out to almost a million small businesses during the pandemic—was a mixed bag. On the one hand, they moved fast. Great. But on the other hand, it was a fiscal train wreck in terms of accountability. And let’s be clear: “accountability” is supposed to be their job.

Now, here’s the kicker. We find out that $3.5 billion—yes, billion with a “B”—went to businesses that didn’t even qualify. That’s our money, taxpayer money, handed over to ineligible recipients. What’s their excuse? Well, they were in a rush, they say. Of course, they were. Crises always become the justification for sloppy governance and waste.

Then there’s Export Development Canada—the folks running this show. They outsourced 92% of their contracts for this program to one company, Accenture. No competitive bidding, no oversight, just one big fat sweetheart deal. And get this: Accenture essentially got to write its own terms. They gave themselves the keys to the vault. They even built systems that made EDC dependent on them until 2028. That’s right—they locked themselves in for years, turning a pandemic emergency into a lucrative, long-term cash cow.

What about the Department of Finance and Global Affairs Canada? Were they stepping in, asking tough questions, setting clear limits? Nope. They were nowhere to be found. Total accountability vacuum. And by the way, administrative costs for this program? Over $850 million. Think about that. You can’t make this stuff up.

And when the Auditor General says, “Hey, maybe you should track down that $3.5 billion and recover it,” EDC just shrugs. They “partially agree.” Partially? Imagine if you told the CRA you “partially agree” with paying your taxes. See how that goes.

Here’s the reality: This is what happens when a government prioritizes speed over basic responsibility. They let the fox guard the henhouse, and now they want us to move on and forget about it. But we shouldn’t. This isn’t just bad management—it’s a betrayal of public trust. It’s our money, and they treated it like Monopoly cash.

So, who’s going to be held accountable? Who’s going to pay the price for this colossal mess? The answer, as usual, is probably no one.

Accenture’s Sweetheart Deal

Here’s the part that should really make your blood boil: $342 million worth of CEBA contracts went to consulting giant Accenture. No competitive bidding. No oversight. Nothing. Just a blank check from EDC with your money.

And it gets worse. Accenture didn’t just get the money—they subcontracted work to themselves. That’s right, they paid themselves with your money. And here’s the kicker: EDC is locked into contracts with Accenture until 2028. So, for the next four years, taxpayers will keep paying this consulting giant, all because EDC couldn’t be bothered to shop around or demand accountability.

Lavery’s excuse? “We needed speed and expertise during the pandemic.” Speed doesn’t justify corruption. It doesn’t justify giving one private company complete control over a multi-billion-dollar program. This isn’t just incompetence; it’s a rigged system designed to enrich consultants at the expense of taxpayers.


$853 Million in Administrative Costs

Let’s talk about efficiency—or the lack thereof. The CEBA program cost $853 million to administer. That’s $300 per loan, according to EDC. Lavery called that “reasonable.” Reasonable? For what? Businesses reported that the call center EDC spent $27 million on barely worked. Think about that: $27 million for a call center where you can’t even get someone to pick up the phone.

Conservative MP Brad Vis summed it up perfectly: “For $27 million, you’d expect a call center that actually answers calls.” But instead, Canadians got more of the same—an expensive, inefficient system that’s great for consultants and terrible for everyone else.


Conservatives Demand Accountability for CEBA Mismanagement: ‘A Blank Check for Consultants’

The Conservatives didn’t hold back in yesterday’s hearing, demanding accountability for what they called a blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars. Conservative MP Brad Vis led the charge, grilling EDC President Mairead Lavery on the $3.5 billion in loans that went to ineligible businesses. He didn’t mince words, calling out the government’s failure to put basic safeguards in place. “How did this happen, and what’s being done to recover this money?” Vis asked repeatedly, only to be met with vague assurances that EDC was “working with Finance Canada” on the issue. Translation: Nothing is actually happening.

MP Kelly McCauley took aim at the $342 million handed to Accenture without a single competitive bid. “How can you justify giving 92% of CEBA contracts to one company without opening it up to competition?” he asked, pointing out that Accenture even subcontracted work to itself, effectively turning the program into a taxpayer-funded cash cow for consultants. McCauley wasn’t buying Lavery’s excuses about pandemic urgency, pointing out that this kind of procurement failure wasn’t just a one-time mistake—it was a systemic problem.

John Nater, another Conservative MP, zeroed in on the long-term fallout. He expressed outrage that EDC is locked into a contract with Accenture until 2028, ensuring that taxpayers will continue funding this flawed system for years to come. Nater demanded to know why no one at EDC or in government thought it necessary to implement oversight mechanisms once the initial rollout phase had passed. “This isn’t just about speed. It’s about accountability. Where was the oversight? Where was the plan to safeguard public money?” Nater asked.

The Conservatives’ message was clear: this wasn’t just a case of pandemic-related haste—it was a failure of leadership, oversight, and governance. They demanded consequences for those responsible and reforms to prevent similar disasters in the future. As McCauley aptly put it, “This wasn’t an emergency response. It was a blank check for consultants, and taxpayers are the ones paying the price.”


Liberals Spin CEBA Disaster as a Success: ‘Sweeping It Under the Rug

The Liberal response to this mess was as predictable as it was infuriating: deny, deflect, and downplay. Instead of addressing the core issues—like the $3.5 billion in loans to ineligible businesses or the sweetheart contracts handed to Accenture—Liberal MPs spent their time patting themselves on the back for the program’s “success” and running interference for Export Development Canada (EDC).

Take Francis Drouin, for example. He spent his time emphasizing how quickly the CEBA program got money into the hands of struggling businesses. Sure, the program distributed $49.1 billion, but at what cost? When confronted with the Auditor General’s findings about fraud, waste, and mismanagement, Drouin brushed past the hard questions and pivoted back to the pandemic. It was a textbook move: ignore the billions lost and focus on how hard the government worked. Typical.

Then there was Valerie Bradford, who followed the same script. Instead of demanding answers about why 92% of contracts went to one consulting firm without competitive bidding, she lobbed softball questions that gave EDC President Mairead Lavery the chance to repeat her excuses about “urgency” and “unprecedented circumstances.” Bradford didn’t challenge the inflated administrative costs, the useless $27 million call center, or the lack of oversight. Instead, she chose to frame the discussion as if this was all just the price of doing business in a crisis.

This wasn’t accountability. This was damage control. The Liberals weren’t there to ask hard questions—they were there to protect their narrative. To them, it doesn’t matter that taxpayers got fleeced. It doesn’t matter that consultants got rich while businesses were left waiting for answers. All that matters is spinning this disaster into a success story, no matter how far from the truth that is.

What’s most galling is the arrogance. The Liberals seem to think Canadians should be grateful for a program that wasted billions, enriched corporations, and locked taxpayers into a disastrous contract until 2028. It’s as if they expect a thank-you card for their incompetence.

Here’s the reality: the Liberal response wasn’t about addressing the scandal. It was about sweeping it under the rug. And unless Canadians demand better, this is the kind of governance they’ll keep getting: one where failure is rebranded as success, and no one ever takes responsibility for the consequences.


Final Thoughts

So, what did we learn from this so-called committee meeting? We learned that billions of taxpayer dollars can be wasted, handed out to ineligible businesses, and funneled into the pockets of consultants without anyone in government blinking an eye. We learned that accountability is a foreign concept in Ottawa, where “working on it” is the go-to excuse for incompetence and outright negligence.

Export Development Canada failed. The Department of Finance failed. The Liberals in charge failed. But here’s the kicker—no one will pay for it. Not the bureaucrats who bungled the program, not the consultants who profited from it, and certainly not the politicians who allowed this circus to happen.

Instead, we got a performance. A parade of excuses, vague promises, and shameless spin. The Conservatives tried to hold the government’s feet to the fire, but the Liberals spent their time running cover for the mess they created. And the Bloc and NDP, while occasionally landing a punch, ultimately let the bureaucrats wiggle off the hook. This wasn’t accountability; it was theater.

The CEBA program wasn’t just a failure—it was a lesson in how the system really works. When there’s no oversight, no consequences, and no urgency to fix anything, corruption and incompetence become the norm. Consultants get rich, bureaucrats get a pass, and taxpayers get the bill.

And the people running this committee? They’re part of the problem. They don’t want to fix the system because the system works perfectly for them. It rewards their friends, protects their power, and keeps them unaccountable. This wasn’t a hearing; it was a farce. And unless Canadians demand real change, this won’t be the last time their government lets them down.

So, ask yourself this: How much more are you willing to let them get away with? Because as long as you stay quiet, they’ll keep doing exactly what they did here—wasting your money, spinning their failures, and walking away without a scratch.

Please consider subscribing to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Cost of bureaucracy balloons 80 per cent in 10 years: Public Accounts

Published on

By Franco Terrazzano 

The cost of the bureaucracy increased by $6 billion last year, according to newly released numbers in Public Accounts disclosures. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on Prime Minister Mark Carney to immediately shrink the bureaucracy.

“The Public Accounts show the cost of the federal bureaucracy is out of control,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Tinkering around the edges won’t cut it, Carney needs to take urgent action to shrink the bloated federal bureaucracy.”

The federal bureaucracy cost taxpayers $71.4 billion in 2024-25, according to the Public Accounts. The cost of the federal bureaucracy increased by $6 billion, or more than nine per cent, over the last year.

The federal bureaucracy cost taxpayers $39.6 billion in 2015-16, according to the Public Accounts. That means the cost of the federal bureaucracy increased 80 per cent over the last 10 years. The government added 99,000 extra bureaucrats between 2015-16 and 2024-25.

Half of Canadians say federal services have gotten worse since 2016, despite the massive increase in the federal bureaucracy, according to a Leger poll.

Not only has the size of the bureaucracy increased, the cost of consultants, contractors and outsourcing has increased as well. The government spent $23.1 billion on “professional and special services” last year, according to the Public Accounts. That’s an 11 per cent increase over the previous year. The government’s spending on professional and special services more than doubled since 2015-16.

“Taxpayers should not be paying way more for in-house government bureaucrats and way more for outside help,” Terrazzano said. “Mere promises to find minor savings in the federal bureaucracy won’t fix Canada’s finances.

“Taxpayers need Carney to take urgent action and significantly cut the number of bureaucrats now.”

Table: Cost of bureaucracy and professional and special services, Public Accounts

Year Bureaucracy Professional and special services

2024-25

$71,369,677,000

$23,145,218,000

2023-24

$65,326,643,000

$20,771,477,000

2022-23

$56,467,851,000

$18,591,373,000

2021-22

$60,676,243,000

$17,511,078,000

2020-21

$52,984,272,000

$14,720,455,000

2019-20

$46,349,166,000

$13,334,341,000

2018-19

$46,131,628,000

$12,940,395,000

2017-18

$45,262,821,000

$12,950,619,000

2016-17

$38,909,594,000

$11,910,257,000

2015-16

$39,616,656,000

$11,082,974,000

Continue Reading

Business

The UN Pushing Carbon Taxes, Punishing Prosperity, And Promoting Poverty

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Samuel Peterson

Unelected regulators and bureaucrats from the United Nations have pushed for crushing the global economy in the name of saving the planet.

In October, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialized agency within the U.N., proposed a carbon tax in order to slash the emissions of shipping vessels. This comes after the IMO’s April 2025 decision to adopt net-zero standards for global shipping.

Had the IMO agreed to the regulation, it would have been the first global tax on greenhouse gas emissions. Thankfully, the United States was able to effectively shut down those proposals; however, while these regulations have been temporarily halted, the erroneous ideas behind them continue to grow in support.

Proponents of carbon taxes generally argue that since climate change is an existential threat to human existence, drastic measures must be taken in all aspects of our lives to address the projected costs. People should eat less meat and use public transportation more often. In the political arena, they should vote out so-called “climate deniers.” In the economic sphere, carbon taxes are offered as a technocratic quick fix to carbon emissions. Is any of this worth it? Or are the benefits greater than the costs? In the case of climate change, the answer is no.

Carbon taxes are not a matter of scientific fact. As with all models, the assumptions drive the analysis. In the case of carbon taxes, the time horizon selected plays a major role in the outcome. So, too, does the discount rate and the specific integrated assessment models.

In other words, “Two economists can give vastly different estimates of the social cost of carbon, even if they agree on the objective facts underlying the analysis.” If the assumptions are subjective, as they are in carbon taxes, then they are not scientific facts. As I’ve pointed out, “carbon pricing models are as much political constructs as they are economic tools.” One must also ask whether carbon taxes will remain unchanged or gradually increase over time to advance other political agendas. In this proposal, the answer is that it increases over time.

Additionally, since these models are driven by assumptions, one would be right in asking who gets to impose these taxes? Of course, those would be the unelected bureaucrats at the IMO. No American who would be subject to these taxes ever voted for the people attempting to create the “world’s first global carbon tax.” It brings to mind the phrase “no taxation without representation.”

In an ironic twist, imposing carbon taxes on global shipping might actually be one of the worst ways to slash emissions, given the enormous gains from trade. Simply put, trade makes the world grow rich. Not just wealthy nations like those in the West, but every nation, even the most poor, grows richer. In wealthy countries, trade can help address climate change by enabling adaptation and innovation. For poorer countries, material gains from trade can help prevent their populations from starving and also help them advance along the environmental Kuznets curve.

In other words, the advantages of trade can, over time, make a country go from being so poor that a high level of air pollution is necessary for its survival to being rich enough to afford reducing or eliminating pollution. Carbon taxes, if sufficiently high, can prevent or significantly delay these processes, thereby undermining their supposed purpose. Not to mention, as of today, maritime shipping accounts for only about 3% of total global emissions.

The same ingenuity that brought us modern shipping will continue to power the global economy and fund growth and innovation, if we let it. The world does not need a layer of global bureaucracy for the sake of virtue signaling. What it needs is an understanding of both economics and human progress.

History shows that prosperity, innovation, and free trade are what make societies cleaner, healthier, and richer. Our choice is not between saving the planet and saving the economy; it is between free societies and free markets or surrendering responsibility to unelected international regulators and busybodies. The former has lifted billions out of poverty, and the latter threatens to drag us all backwards.

Samuel Peterson is a Research Fellow at the Institute for Energy Research.

Continue Reading

Trending

X