Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 4th, 2020

[Michelle Kovacevic]

There are two things there.

I certainly did not characterize Minister Morneau's relationship with the Kielburgers as “besties”. I'm happy to speak to that email, if you like, but that is absolutely not what I said.

Again, I iterate that Minister Morneau and the Prime Minister, in advance of the April 26 announcement, did not sign off on anything related to WE. I can tell you, sir, that in my briefing to Minister Morneau on the 21st, where he verbally agreed on the $900 million and he verbally agreed on the ESDC minister to return, I, because we had attached the $12-million proposal to the briefing note without any information, had raised the spectre that if we want to get out fast, this organization might be able to have some immediate placements, while the minister of ESDC takes a few more days and weeks to conceive a design and return to cabinet.

The minister did not agree to it at that point in time—

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

Okay, but the minister was the one who received it. He received it from Craig Kielburger, someone who hired his daughter, someone who had flown him around the world, and it's listed in there that he approved it.

I'm concerned, because on April 17, Minister Chagger meets with Craig Kielburger and Sofia Marquez. They are briefed at that time about the details. Minister Chagger says they aren't, but according to Sofia Marquez's notes, they were given some key details.

My concern is that because they had such a close relationship, maybe other organizations were not considered. For example, the very next day you tell your colleagues not to call Shopify because ESDC has “a better way”. Well, that's the day after the meeting with Craig Kielburger.

On April 19, Ms. Wernick sends an urgent email to Craig Kielburger. Then she debriefs her department. That Monday— within three days—there's already a meeting with the Kielburgers on the Kielburger plan and nobody else. Shopify is not involved. YMCA is not involved. All the names that we've heard are not involved. It is only, from that moment on, the Kielburgers.

I'm not blaming you. I just think that, in the desire to satisfy a government that was so close to the Kielburgers, other decisions weren't checked out—for example, Shopify. Why were they dropped?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

I would say, sir, once again, that the $912 million you referenced was a mistake in the communications background. It is still $900 million. No WE proposal was approved by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance at that point.

With respect to why there are no other organizations, including Shopify.... You will see that it's very fluid in my emails over a period of 10 days. In fact, we went through many potential organizations as we were trying to land both a design and the potential delivery partner, including—

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

None of them were spoken to. Nobody was spoken to, only the Kielburgers.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We've run out of time on that round and need to move to the second round now.

This is a five-minute round.

Mr. Poilievre, go ahead.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

To start with, my question is for Ms. Fox.

Was the Deputy Prime Minister ever briefed on the proposed Canada student service grant and the awarding of that project to WE Charity?

[Christiane Fox]

She was not briefed by me, no.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

All right.

How is it possible that there are numerous points of evidentiary confirmation that she was briefed, in the earlier package we received, including an email from Mr. Kielburger that says you were planning to brief the Deputy Prime Minister?

[Christiane Fox]

I can't speak to emails I didn't draft.

What I can say is that my role was to be prepared to brief on everything and anything during the COVID period. At times we got through a number of files, and at times we didn't. I would always prepare, in the event this proposal were to move fast, to be knowledgeable enough to be able to brief; but in the end, we did not brief on this particular proposal.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

You do confirm that in the package of documents the committee received on this scandal there are two references to a briefing to the Deputy Prime Minister. One email indicates the briefing would have happened on April 23 by the deputy minister of intergovernmental affairs, which I presume is you; and second, there was an April 20 email you authored that suggested that WE Charity was working with the offices of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.

How could those documentary proof points suggest there was a briefing of the Deputy Prime Minister if in fact it didn't happen?

[Christiane Fox]

Thank you for the question.

I think I always had to be prepared and therefore I always had to indicate and be ready to brief her on anything, because things moved extremely quickly. I always wanted to make sure that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister were prepared for any engagement they would have with the premier. Therefore, on any package that went forward from the federal government, I really took it to heart to be prepared—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Yes, all right, so you—

[Christiane Fox]

In the end, I did not—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

If I could, you've gone way over and you're way off the question. The question was whether or not she was briefed. You're now claiming she wasn't, even though there's documentary evidence she was. Maybe that riddle will solve itself at some point, but you have not explained how it came to be in the first place.

I will move on to Ms. Kovacevic.

Was the $900-million grant to WE Charity approved by the Treasury Board?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

I don't believe it got to the Treasury Board stage. We certainly had a funding decision, so the Minister of Finance and the.... The next phase, of course, would be for the ESDC minister to develop a contribution agreement, and that's what goes to the Treasury Board.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Of course, but there was a contribution agreement. It was signed by the government and the money was transacted to WE Charity, all of which would have required Treasury Board approval, as you just correctly pointed out.

Was there approval by the Treasury Board before the money went out, yes or no?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

I'm not sure; I would have to confirm. However, it sounds like it must in fact have been the case.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

It must have been the case that the Treasury Board would have signed off on this.

Are you aware that Treasury Board officials reviewed the proposal and came to the conclusion that there was no evidence that.... I'm quoting here: “ESD [the department that negotiated this contribution agreement] has not provided evidence to suggest that WE Charities possess the capacity to undertake this work.”

Are you aware of that?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

I am aware of it because I've been reading it in all the documents that were produced for FINA, so I am aware of it now.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Okay, but would you not have asked whether or not Treasury Board had done due diligence to find out if WE Charity could deliver this program before you worked towards this grant?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

I believe the Treasury Board Secretariat and ESDC were asking the right questions that needed to be asked prior to giving their advice.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I understand that, but it turns out that Treasury Board officials say that WE Charity wasn't even capable of delivering this program, or at least there was no evidence that it could. Did you know that?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

I did not know that at the time.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Right, okay, but you and other members of the government have claimed that only WE Charity could do this. Now we find out from the Treasury Board officials that, in fact, WE Charity could not deliver this program. It sounds to me like your decision to move forward with this was not based on due diligence but on the relationship, the cozy relationship, between your minister and this organization.

You said in an email on May 7, “WE [Charity] is connecting with my [minister's office] (they are all besties).” “Besties”, I presume, means best friends.

You were aware that WE Charity was best friends—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Poilievre, we're over time.

With the magnitude of this question, I'm going to give—