Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 4th, 2020

[Christiane Fox]

I did. Not a lot, but I did. I had dealings with a number of youth organizations across the country, in part because over my time as deputy minister of youth, we did two, I think, major projects.

One was with respect to the Canada service program. In fact, WE wasn't part of our group of organizations that delivered the program. We had 4-H and the YMCA. There were a number of organizations.

When we launched our youth policy engagement sessions, we worked with a lot of youth organizations. For instance, The Students Commission ran the engagement process, because we really didn't want to have the federal government be the lead on engaging young people. We really wanted to take a different approach.

So I did work with WE. I found out about what they did, how they managed youth engagement. When we launched our youth policy, we organized the youth summit. That would have been in May 2019. We used some of the WE youth facilitators to manage the breakout sessions of our youth discussion points on the key elements of the policy. There were WE staff who were engaged to come. I did visit their global learning centre at one stage when I visited Toronto. I visited with a number of youth organizations, and that was one I visited at the time.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Did you discuss WE or their projects with anyone in the Prime Minister's Office?

My second question is, were you aware of the ties between members of the Trudeau family and the WE organization, specifically speaking jobs?

[Christiane Fox]

In the end, I did not brief members of the Prime Minister's Office or the Deputy Prime Minister's Office on the WE proposal.

In terms of their relationship, I think the WE organization has a number of relationships with figures across the country, including political staff. No, I did not know the details of those relationships in my role as deputy minister of youth.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks very much.

Ms. Kovacevic, in a May 7 email thread between you and Ms. Wernick, you were discussing increasing costs for WE to administer the CSSG. You described the rising costs by saying, “Money. Meh. No problem”. I have to ask if that was the culture or the train of thought with respect to pandemic spending.

[Michelle Kovacevic]

First, that was absolutely not and continues not to be at all anybody's thinking with respect to pandemic spending. The “money meh” comment you mentioned was literally—my emails are all public, and you know I'm very casual and colloquial in my speech—a joke between peers.

I might emphasize as well that in my colleague Rachel's email to me when she talks about a distribution change, it is still within the $900 million approved by the minister and the Prime Minister in the set-aside from the April 22 announcement. In fact, there was no more money at all. What she was talking to me about was entirely in scope within that $900 million.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

That is a remarkable sum of money.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We're quite over time, but I felt you needed the opportunity to answer that question.

Now we'll move on. The next questioner will be Madame Lattanzio for six minutes.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start with a few questions for Ms. Fox.

Ms. Fox, there has been a lot of conjecture from the opposition, both from members who have served in government previously and those who have not. A lot of the questions seem to revolve around the phrase “a normal practice” or “Is this how decisions are typically made?” However, I think my colleagues forget that back in March through May, we were not operating as per usual times or as business as usual or commonplace.

Can you enlighten this committee about how there was nothing normal or commonplace in how the government had to operate during the pandemic lockdown?

[Christiane Fox]

I can definitely speak to my experience working as the deputy minister of intergovernmental affairs during that period of time. It was extremely intense. I've been in government since 2002, and I probably have never lived something as intense as I did during that time.

We needed to be responsive to the very real health and security issues the country was facing. We were definitely trying to respond in real time, and in my role as deputy minister of intergovernmental affairs what I took extremely seriously was the important communication flow between myself and my colleagues in provinces and territories.

For months on end, every single day we held calls. They were not easy calls at times, and they were filled with challenges. We had to be creative and solution-oriented and had to work within departments across the federal government but also with our provincial colleagues, who had the same realities across their provincial or territorial departments.

It was extremely intense. I think we went seven days a week for months. When the summer months started picking up, we did see a bit of fall in the case count; however, we then began negotiating the safe restart agreement with provinces and territories, which kind of created its own intense negotiations and work.

Now I would say at Indigenous Services Canada, the team is being responsive and nimble to respond to the cases we are seeing in first nations across this country and in Inuit communities as well. I would agree it was pretty unprecedented times, and it took a lot of dedication and hard work to get through very difficult issues.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

To continue in terms communicating with the public and various stakeholders, was it not ordinary for stakeholders to contact you to seek a meeting or to pitch potential programs in the middle of a pandemic?

[Christiane Fox]

Yes, absolutely. Different stakeholders were contacting us for various reasons. It could be because there was an offer to help or it could be because they had a particular issue within their sector, industry or company. There was a lot of outreach and a lot of two-way engagement between public servants and outside organizations to be able to come up with solutions to these very real issues the country was facing.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Would you say that WE Charity was one of those?

[Christiane Fox]

Yes, I think they contacted me because of their proposal, because of my experience with the Canada Service Corps and because of the importance of youth service and what youth were facing in the middle of a pandemic. How could we be creative in that moment to be able to give opportunities?

I had worked a lot on the Canada service program. I knew a lot about how the pilots had gone in various parts of the country using different organizations. Although I can't speak to their motivations, I think that was part of our role, to try to find solutions and come up with innovative ways to respond to the COVID challenges.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you.

My next questions are for Ms. Kovacevic.

Ms. Kovacevic, consultation with stakeholders, including their “lobbying” with government, often has a negative connotation. However, if you were not able to consult stakeholders, or stakeholders were not able to talk to the government, what would this mean for the policy development process? Some might conclude that it would just be stagnant. What are your thoughts on that?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

I can't speculate and speak for other departments and their experiences, but I can tell you that in normal times—and even in COVID times—when elucidating a new program or a new policy, it is very normal that there are a number of perspectives brought into consideration. That includes research that perhaps the Department of Finance will do or the department will do. That will be opinions of a minister's office and exempt staff. That will be people from the outside, such as leaders in thought.

Quite frankly, all of those are brought in to bear. However, the advice we will decide on—certainly when I myself send something up the line to my deputy and my minister—takes all that into account, and the advice I give is my advice.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

We're going to pursue that in terms of advice.

Had there been a Conservative government or an NDP government earlier this year, with the idea of a student service grant in the way it was presented, would you have taken the same position and the same approach as you did with the current government?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

I can't speculate on other governments, but certainly the actions that I and my team would have taken in terms of considerations, policy, a financing decision, what makes sense, what the needs of Canadians are, whether there is a vehicle to deliver it and how much it would cost would be exactly the same irrespective of government.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

So your answer is, your recommendation—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Madame Lattanzio. That's all the time we have.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We'll now move on to Madame Gaudreau.

You have six minutes.

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

Good afternoon. I'm very happy to have you here.

I have only six minutes, yet I have many questions to ask you.

Ms. Kovacevic, I reviewed the meeting that I attended on July 22. You said that you give advice. I remember that we spoke a great deal about advice. For example, we wanted to know whether the registry of lobbyists had been checked or whether it was possible to ensure that there was no apparent conflict of interest between the government and an organization with which it would work.

Do you provide this type of advice to ministers and the Prime Minister?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

Thank you for your question. I'm sorry, but I'll answer it in English.

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

That's fine.

[Michelle Kovacevic]

With respect to whether I provided any advice with respect to lobbying to my minister, the answer is no. I believe it is the public office holder's duty to address that and not my duty. Also, with respect to anything else relating to lobbying, again, it is the public office holder's responsibility to address that, and perhaps their office, not mine.