Deputy Finance Minister Chris Forbes faced scrutiny Monday but declined to identify who approved the hiring of Brazilian contractor Accenture PLC to manage the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA) program, which auditors found was rife with irregularities. Blacklock's Reporter says issues included padded timesheets, inflated fees of up to $750 per hour, and mismanagement that led to $3.5 billion being paid to ineligible borrowers.“There weren’t a lot of options as to how to deliver this,” Forbes told the Commons public accounts committee, defending the decision to assign the program to Export Development Canada (EDC), a Crown bank that lacked the budget or expertise to handle it. “We knew we had to get the support out. Export Development Canada, it was determined, was the best option. I’m not saying it was easy for EDC.”Parliament launched CEBA in 2020 to provide $60,000 interest-free loans to small businesses affected by pandemic lockdowns. EDC outsourced the program’s management to Accenture for $209 million in fees, a decision auditors later criticized. “The program was not managed with due regard for value for money,” said Auditor General Karen Hogan in a December 2 report.Hogan highlighted significant weaknesses, including 14-hour workdays billed but not worked, skyrocketing costs for a Brazilian call center, and overall inefficiencies. “This program could have been delivered for less money,” she said.During questioning, Conservative MP Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West) pressed Forbes on who decided to assign EDC as the managing agency. “The government took the decision to use Export Development Canada,” Forbes said, attributing the choice to cabinet. “We would have provided options, the risks and benefits of various delivery options, and the decision would have been made based on that.”Liberal MPs adjourned the committee session without resolving key accountability questions. Hogan squarely blamed the finance department for CEBA’s failures, stating, “They really did fail.” Despite calls for clarity, Forbes refused to name those responsible for monitoring the program’s management, leaving unanswered questions about how $209 million in fees were spent on a program fraught with inefficiencies.
