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

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.
Business
Is Government Inflation Reporting Accurate?

David Clinton
Who ya gonna believe: official CPI figures or your lyin’ eyes?
Great news! We’ve brought inflation back under control and stuff is now only costing you 2.4 percent more than it did last year!
That’s more or less the message we’ve been hearing from governments over the past couple of years. And in fact, the official Statistics Canada consumer price index (CPI) numbers do show us that the “all-items” index in 2024 was only 2.4 percent higher than in 2023. Fantastic.
So why doesn’t it feel fantastic?
Well statistics are funny that way. When you’ve got lots of numbers, there are all kinds of ways to dress ‘em up before presenting them as an index (or chart). And there really is no one combination of adjustments and corrections that’s definitively “right”. So I’m sure Statistics Canada isn’t trying to misrepresent things.
But I’m also curious to test whether the CPI is truly representative of Canadians’ real financial experiences. My first attempt to create my own alternative “consumer price index”, involved Statistics Canada’s “Detailed household final consumption expenditure”. That table contains actual dollar figures for nation-wide spending on a wide range of consumer items. To represent the costs Canadian’s face when shopping for basics, I selected these nine categories:
- Food and non-alcoholic beverages
- Clothing and footwear
- Housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels
- Major household appliances
- Pharmaceutical products and other medical products (except cannabis)
- Transport
- Communications
- University education
- Property insurance
I then took the fourth quarter (Q4) numbers for each of those categories for all the years between 2013 and 2024 and divided them by the total population of the country for each year. That gave me an accurate picture of per capita spending on core cost-of-living items.
Overall, living and breathing through Q4 2013 would have cost the average Canadian $4,356.38 (or $17,425.52 for a full year). Spending for those same categories in Q4 2024, however, cost us $6,266.48 – a 43.85 percent increase.
By contrast, the official CPI over those years rose only 31.03 percent. That’s quite the difference. Here’s how the year-over-year changes in CPI inflation vs actual spending inflation compare:
As you can see, with the exception of 2020 (when COVID left us with nothing to buy), the official inflation number was consistently and significantly lower than actual spending. And, in the case of 2021, it was more than double.
Since 2023, the items with the largest price growth were university education (57.46 percent), major household appliances (52.67 percent), and housing, water, electricity, gas, and other fuels (50.79).
Having said all that, you could justifiably argue that the true cost of living hasn’t really gone up that much, but that at least part of the increase in spending is due to a growing taste for luxury items and high volume consumption. I can’t put a precise number on that influence, but I suspect it’s not trivial.
Since data on spending doesn’t seem to be the best measure of inflation, perhaps I could build my own basket of costs and compare those numbers to the official CPI. To do that, I collected average monthly costs for gasoline, home rentals, a selection of 14 core grocery items, and taxes paid by the average Canadian homeowner.¹ I calculated the tax burden (federal, provincial, property, and consumption) using the average of the estimates of two AI models.
How did the inflation represented by my custom basket compare with the official CPI? Well between 2017 and 2024, the Statistics Canada’s CPI grew by 23.39 percent. Over that same time, the monthly cost of my basket grew from $4,514.74 to $5,665.18; a difference of 25.48 percent. That’s not nearly as dramatic a difference as we saw when we measured spending, but it’s not negligible either.
The very fact that the government makes all this data freely available to us is evidence that they’re not out to hide the truth. But it can’t hurt to keep an active and independent eye on them, too.
Subscribe to The Audit.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
2025 Federal Election
Carney’s Hidden Climate Finance Agenda

From Energy Now
By Tammy Nemeth and Ron Wallace
It is high time that Canadians discuss and understand Mark Carney’s avowed plan to re-align capital with global Net Zero goals.
Mark Carney’s economic vision for Canada, one that spans energy, housing and defence, rests on an unspoken, largely undisclosed, linchpin: Climate Finance – one that promises a Net Zero future for Canada but which masks a radical economic overhaul.
Regrettably, Carney’s potential approach to a Net Zero future remains largely unexamined in this election. As the former chair of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), Carney has proposed new policies, offices, agencies, and bureaus required to achieve these goals.. Pieced together from his presentations, discussions, testimonies and book, Carney’s approach to climate finance appears to have four pillars: mandatory climate disclosures, mandatory transition plans, centralized data sharing via the United Nations’ Net Zero Data Public Utility (NZDPU) and compliance with voluntary carbon markets (VCMs). There are serious issues for Canada’s economy if these principles were to form the core values for policies under a potential Liberal government.
About the first pillar Carney has been unequivocal: “Achieving net zero requires a whole economy transition.” This would require a restructuring energy and financial systems to shift away from fossil fuels to renewable energy with Carney insisting repeatedly in his book that “every financial [and business] decision takes climate change into account.” Climate finance, unlike broader sustainable finance with its Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) focus would channel capital into sectors aligned with a 2050 Net Zero trajectory. Carney states: “Companies, and those who invest in them…who are part of the solution, will be rewarded. Those lagging behind…will be punished.” In other words, capital would flow to compliant firms but be withheld from so-called “high emitters”.
How will investors, banks and insurers distinguish solution from problem? Mandatory climate disclosures, aligned with the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), would compel firms to report emissions and outline their Net Zero strategies. Canada’s Sustainability Standards Board has adopted these methodologies, despite concerns they would disadvantage Canadian businesses. Here, Carney repeatedly emphasizes disclosures as the cornerstone to track emissions data required to shift capital away from “high emitters”. Without this, he claims, large institutional investors lack the data on supply chains to make informed decisions to shift capital to businesses that are Net Zero compliant.
The second pillar, Mandatory Transition Plans would require companies to map a 2050 Net Zero trajectory for emission reduction targets. Failure to meet those targets would invite pressure from investors, banks, or activists, who may pursue litigation for non-compliance. The UK’s Transition Plan Task Force, now part of ISSB, provides this standardized framework. Carney, while at GFANZ, advocated using transition plans for a “managed phase-out” of high-emitting assets like coal, oil and gas, not just through divestment but by financing emissions reductions. “As part of their transition planning, [GFANZ] members should establish and apply financing policies to phase out and align carbon-intensive sectors and activities, such as thermal coal, oil and gas and deforestation, not only through asset divestment but also through transition finance that reduces real world emissions. To assist with these efforts GFANZ will continue to develop and implement a framework for the Managed Phase-out of high-emitting assets.” Clearly, the purpose of this is to ensure companies either decarbonize or face capital withdrawal.
The third pillar is the United Nations’ Net Zero Data Public Utility (NZDPU), a centralized platform for emissions and transition data. Carney insists these data be freely accessible, enabling investors, banks and insurers to judge companies’ progress to Net Zero. As Carney noted in 2021: “Private finance is judging…banks, pension funds and asset managers have to show where they are in the transition to Net Zero.” Hence, compliant firms would receive investment; laggards would face divestment.
Finally, voluntary carbon markets (VCMs) allow companies to offset emissions by purchasing credits from projects like reforestation. Carney, who launched the Taskforce on Scaling VCMs in 2020, has insisted on monitoring, verification and lifecycle tracking. At a 2024 Beijing conference, he suggested major jurisdictions could establish VCMs by COP 30 (planned for 2025 in Brazil) to create a global market. If Canada mandates VCMs, businesses especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs) would face much higher compliance costs with credits available only to those that demonstrate progress with transition plans.
These potential mandatory disclosures and transition plans would burden Canadian businesses with material costs and legal risks that constitute an economic gamble which few may recognize but all should weigh. Do Canadians truly want a government that has an undisclosed climate finance agenda that would be subservient to an opaque globalized Net Zero agenda?
Tammy Nemeth is a U.K.-based strategic energy analyst. Ron Wallace is an executive fellow of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and the Canada West Foundation.
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Mark Carney Wants You to Forget He Clearly Opposes the Development and Export of Canada’s Natural Resources
-
International1 day ago
Pope Francis’ body on display at the Vatican until Friday
-
Business2 days ago
Hudson’s Bay Bid Raises Red Flags Over Foreign Influence
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Canada’s pipeline builders ready to get to work
-
2025 Federal Election23 hours ago
Former WEF insider accuses Mark Carney of using fear tactics to usher globalism into Canada
-
COVID-191 day ago
RFK Jr. Launches Long-Awaited Offensive Against COVID-19 mRNA Shots
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Canada’s press tries to turn the gender debate into a non-issue, pretend it’s not happening
-
2025 Federal Election9 hours ago
Carney’s Hidden Climate Finance Agenda