Evidence of meeting #12 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was charity.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Employment and Social Development
The first time I heard about WE in the discussion of the youth package was in that email.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
That was not my question. I wanted to know whether you heard others suggest that WE Charity could implement the program.
4:25 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Employment and Social Development
Are you asking me whether I heard suggestions like that before April 16?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
It could be before or after April 16, but before the announcement of the contribution agreement.
4:25 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Employment and Social Development
Actually, I was involved in this file only marginally, until the Prime Minister's announcement on April 22. Up to that point, WE Charity was a subject of the discussions that we were having with the Department of Finance and that I was having with Rachel Wernick.
4:25 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Employment and Social Development
However, it was only one of the organizations that was being discussed. It was not at all the proposal that was announced on April 22.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Someone in the Department of Finance mentioned it. Who in the Department of Finance suggested WE Charity?
4:25 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Employment and Social Development
I cannot answer that question because I do not remember. I think you would have to go back to the notes of the—
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
You recall that it was someone in the department, but not who. Is that right?
4:25 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Employment and Social Development
I remember that, in her testimony, Michelle Kovacevic pointed out that someone in the Minister of Finance's office had talked to a representative of WE Charity, but I do not recall the date or exactly who that was.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
In your opinion, the idea of assigning this contribution to WE Charity came from the Department of Finance. Is that correct?
4:25 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Employment and Social Development
I did not say that. I simply said that WE Charity was one of the organizations that was being discussed. I have no idea who it was. Really, the discussion—
4:25 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Employment and Social Development
It is one of the organizations that was being discussed as part of a proposal that was very different from the final proposal. So things evolved. In his testimony earlier, the clerk talked about an organic development, and that is appropriate in terms of the way this proposal developed.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Thank you.
The floor goes to Madame Shanahan for five minutes.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to revisit some of the earlier testimony, Minister. You were talking about the process of looking at proposals and the due diligence process, and you wanted to give the opportunity to Mr. Robidoux to address that. Minister, do you have anything to add to that, or can we just go to your deputy?
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Carla Qualtrough Liberal Delta, BC
Absolutely. Hopefully Benoît can provide more detail on what's in a contribution agreement specifically, particularly around due diligence.
4:25 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Employment and Social Development
I could do that, Minister.
Madam Chair, the bulk of the due diligence about the organization and its capacity to deliver and all the details that were discussed up to now is done within the contribution agreement. As others have testified today, it takes time to do that because of that, so as a result we have a special team at ESDC that does only grants and contribution agreements, to a large extent, and they are experts at that. They are supported by the CFO and by the legal team to make sure that Canadians get value for their money.
It covers accountability oversight measures. Built into these agreements are audit, financial control, monitoring and reporting requirements. Basically, as soon as a program gets cleared to go, with objectives and outcomes that are looked for in terms of the program, it can take the policy team a lot of time to develop that agreement, in this case with the WE Charity organization. All the controls are in that agreement.
In terms of the controls before that, it's not really the same type of control. There is no report before that. That could be the report you could go to when those documents are released, to see the back-and-forth on these controls. Before that, it's more control on the policy side to know if the organization could indeed deliver a program like the one that was announced on April 22. Are they able? Do they have the capacity? It's a high-level check and I was not involved in that, but the WE organization is one of the largest not-for-profits in Canada dealing and working with youth, so it's not very surprising to me that they were involved there, and it's why we had them discussed in the preliminary discussions I was involved with.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you for that, because I think there was some concern around the table about red flags and about due diligence. It's reassuring to know that those processes are in place, in spite of a pandemic going on and people not being able to work closely together. Certainly there were restrictions, people having to work from home in all kinds of conditions. We would expect no less from our public service, and I'm sure all the members here will agree with me on that.
Minister, you said that you offer no excuse or justification for the Prime Minister or the finance minister with respect to not recusing themselves from the decision to have We Charity deliver the program, and I respect that.
You've helped us to understand that things were moving at blistering speed at the height of the pandemic. Decisions were being made as quickly as possible to help as many Canadians as possible. I'd like to remind the members around the table that that's what was happening and it is still continuing to happen.
Given that, do you accept their apologies, particularly given your track record of ethical standards? Can you tell us why?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Carla Qualtrough Liberal Delta, BC
Thank you for the comments.
I would say, yes, there was a pandemic and things were crazy and we were going at breakneck speed, but we should not have dropped the ball on this. It's an unfortunate situation. I don't think it takes away, in any way, from the other really important—and I would say fantastic—work we've done for students and for Canadians, writ large.
But they should have recused themselves. They have apologized for not doing so, and I accept that apology. I believe we've learned from this and I really hope we soon get back to our focus on delivering for Canadians—not to say that's ever stopped, by the way. We've moved full steam ahead even as this has gone on.
It's been important for us to take responsibility for this. As I said, the ball was dropped, and we need to move on.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Minister, thank you so much for your time today. We very much appreciate your being with us and answering our questions. We hope you have a good rest of your day.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Thank you.
I'm going to suspend for five minutes.
We will then switch over to our next witness, Ms. Mary Dawson.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Ms. Dawson, it is so nice to see you.
We are so thankful for your patience. Yesterday you waited during the 45 minutes of committee time and for half an hour before that. You gave us a good chunk of time yesterday, and we are certainly very thankful for your patience and also, subsequently, for your willingness to come back today.
Ms. Dawson, thank you so much. We certainly owe you a debt of gratitude.
Ms. Dawson, as you know, on July 22 this committee passed a motion: “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), the Committee review the safeguards which are in place to avoid and prevent conflicts of interest in federal government procurement, contracting, granting, contribution and other expenditure policies”.
Ms. Dawson, you come here today at our request to speak to this motion, of course, with your expertise concerning ethics, as you did formerly serve as the ethics commissioner.
We are going to give you 10 minutes for opening remarks. From there, we're going to give members around this table the opportunity to ask their questions.
Ms. Dawson, I will do my best to be polite, but there may be times when I need to interrupt in order to bring a question round to an end in order to respect time and make sure that each member has an opportunity to ask their questions today.
Ms. Dawson, without further ado, I will turn the floor over to you.
You have 10 minutes for opening remarks.