Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 30th, 2020

[Marc Tassé]

Thank you for your kind words.

An integrity program is already in place, and it's quite effective. It simply needs some adjusting to address some of the emergency measures related to the current context. It's also important to share the information with people and to tell them where things stand during the pandemic.

Most people are not necessarily ill-intentioned. Sometimes they forget. They assume they aren't required to do X or Y, or they misinterpret a certain rule. That is where short videos and the like can play an important role, reminding people what they have to do in a given situation.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I appreciate how absolutely crucial it is to educate people and give them the right tools. A little flashing light needs to go off when certain actions are taken.

Beyond that, even though people are well-intentioned, are the penalties or consequences serious enough when an order is issued?

[Marc Tassé]

You make a very good point. The act has to have teeth. When people violate the act, the penalty has to reflect the severity of the violation. Simply because it is a person's first violation, that does not mean the violation is not serious. The severity of the action is what matters, not the number of times the person acted that way. It is not enough to inform the person of the rules the first time and to tell them that, the second or third time, they will face such and such a consequence. Clarity is also needed around what constitutes a serious violation versus a minor violation. All violations can't be put in the same category.

At any rate, it's fine to show people some understanding, but serious questions still need to be asked. How could you have made such a mistake and showed such a lack of judgment? Don't you think you should have had someone validate your decision?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

The people in my riding are asking me how elected officials can apologize time and time again, whether for a mistake they didn't know they had made or for turning a blind eye to something. My take-away is that they should have been more diligent to avoid having to say “I'm sorry” in the first place.

[Marc Tassé]

First of all, when someone apologizes, it's a polite social behaviour that people quite appreciate. Second of all, saying “I'm sorry” is often about recognizing your mistake, and telling people what you learned and what you are going to do so it doesn't happen again.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you. I have two minutes left.

I have a question about the contract awarded to FTI Professional Grade involving Baylis Medical. No doubt, you heard all about the matter.

Like us, you follow the news, so you will recall the Prime Minister saying that he had to protect his sources.

Is that a valid reason when the Prime Minister has a duty to act with integrity and to disclose where taxpayer money is going? Ethically speaking, is it reasonable to refuse to reveal information in order to protect one's sources?

[Marc Tassé]

It's a matter of transparency. A person can protect their sources in a number of ways while still being transparent. I know that doesn't quite answer your question, but it's about transparency. A person can be transparent and disclose what they can while being respectful of their sources.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

What penalty would be significant enough to make everyone stop and think before they act?

[Marc Tassé]

Unfortunately, not having had access to the details of the case, I can't say what the right penalty would be in order to make an example of the situation, but I am certain that—

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Another option would be to say, “three strikes and you're out.” In life, that is often how things work.

[Marc Tassé]

If you follow the ball, you will agree. Otherwise, I don't know.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

All right.

Am I out of time, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Well, you have 10 seconds.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Tassé.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Now we'll move to Mr. Angus for six minutes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Sir, thank you. Your testimony has been very fascinating.

I think one thing that was really striking about this group WE is that we realized, when we began with the finance committee, that the government had little comprehension of how this organization worked. It knew of WE Charity, but basically it knew of Craig and Marc Kielburger because Craig and Marc Kielburger were so closely connected to so many key ministers. They invited Minister Qualtrough to one of their big events and fêted her. They had the Prime Minister's mother and brother at their events, and his wife was working with them. Minister Morneau was closely involved. Minister Chagger was involved. There was very little due diligence about the actual operation. I'm wondering about that.

I'm not blaming the civil service. However, because there was such a sense of closeness between the Kielburgers and all the key government officials, it seemed that this was a group that could actually deliver the services, but the questions of their capacity to actually do this were not asked. Do you think this was one of the problems that got the government into so much trouble with this scandal?

[Marc Tassé]

Well, the way you explain it, I would have to say yes, but what has really been documented might give us another light on this issue. I agree with you. We knew a lot about the founders, but we might not have known a lot about the organization itself. You're right. Due diligence has to be done, not only to know about the people who actually manage a corporation but also to know about the corporation itself. You want to know the financial structure of the corporation. You want to know the financial stability.

In this case, I'm quite sure that someone must have documented the decision-making and the due diligence process that was done. I would assume that it was documented. I don't know what came out of it and the recommendations that were made. If the due diligence was not done, then that would be very surprising. That would need to be documented.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Well, I think so. One would assume that these questions would be asked, but in the 5,000 pages of documents, those questions don't seem to have been asked.

For example, our committee found out that the board of directors was fired in the middle of the pandemic for asking for financial statements as the Kielburgers were firing hundreds of staff. My understanding of a charity is that the charity board is there to oversee financial propriety. However, Michelle Douglas told us that she had been fired, was told to go. The other board was removed. None of the questions about financial capacity was asked in any of the documents the government looked at. It just assumed that the WE group, under the Kielburgers, delivered.

Do you think that would be problematic?

[Marc Tassé]

That would be questionable for sure.

I do think that it's all about what information was accessible for them at the time of the decision. What was the information that they could have asked to obtain before making the decision? What was the information that was probably protected under non-disclosure agreements, such as when they were having issues with the board members? Now we know why they left, but at the time of the decision, was that information available?

Those are the questions that we would normally ask senior officials. We'd ask what they did as a part of their due diligence and how they satisfied themselves.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

We don't see any of those numbers at all, so when the question of capacity comes up.... For example, to make this program work, they had to reach 20,000 students, which, in the case of a pandemic and in a short few months, was quite a number, yet the Kielburgers claimed they could take 10,000 students immediately. That really reassured the civil service.

Personally, I think it was questionable that one charity could take 10,000 students when they had fired all their staff. Can they really do this? Is this possible? When they were asked about it, they said they had an agreement with Imagine Canada. Imagine Canada turned around and said they did not have an agreement. They were very clear that they did not sign up. They thought there were serious problems, yet months after Imagine Canada made it clear that they weren't getting involved, the government was still using the claim that the Kielburgers were working with Imagine Canada and could take 10,000 students.

That due diligence isn't there. I'm not blaming the civil service. You talked about the bypass routes for certain actors. I'm asking if perhaps, because of the comfort with the Kielburger brothers and all the key ministers, the civil service just assumed that things would be okay because, hey, it's Marc and Craig Kielburger.

[Marc Tassé]

I agree with you. One thing they could have done— they might have done it, and maybe it's in the 5,000 pages that you mentioned—is ask for a letter from the other party answering the question, “Did you enter an agreement with the WE Charity that you would actually collaborate with them and deliver recruits?”

This is what would have been normal due diligence. Whenever someone is reporting to a checklist, you ask for supporting documents to validate it. That's the first part.

The second part is that sometimes with corporations we talk about the risk appetite. We do a risk assessment and consider what is an acceptable risk and what is not. In these situations, I would be very curious to see what the risk assessment of that special project was.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

That's a really good question. We don't seem to have that.

When the agreement was signed, we were all surprised to find that the agreement was actually set up with a shell company, the WE Charity Foundation, which the documents said was set up to handle real estate. The Kielburgers had many of these numbered shell companies. The federal government was going to deliver over $500 million to a shell company, and the board of directors of that shell company were employees of WE. To me, it's extraordinary. There don't seem to have been any questions.

Would you feel that this would be a questionable corporate structure if we were going to give so many federal dollars to basically a shell company that limits liability to the Kielburgers?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Please be as brief as possible, Mr. Tassé.

[Marc Tassé]

I would say it be questionable. You would need to document it and you would really ask yourself why they needed to use those corporate structures.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.