Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 7th, 2020

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

That's surprising considering the size of the mandate and the file. We are, after all, talking about a $1-billion program of the Canadian government. I must say I do find it surprising.

When you were contacted, I imagine you felt a sense of urgency on WE Charity's part to have something ready for May 22. Was that the case?

What exactly was the nature of that first contact with the organization? What were you asked to do?

Were you asked to put something together for cabinet's consideration on May 22?

[Martin Daraiche]

Absolutely not, Mr. Berthold. No urgency was expressed in relation to a specific date.

There was a need to explain WE Charity's role in delivering the Canada student service grant program if it received cabinet approval. On our end, that meant explaining how we could support them in getting out the information about the program. That was the focus of our communications.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Did you sign any agreement with WE Charity prior to May 22, in other words, between May 15 and 22?

[Martin Daraiche]

We had some back and forth to figure out the details of the service proposal. We ended up receiving confirmation of our mandate at the end of May. The mandate was confirmed and our work began at the end of May, after cabinet made its decision.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I'll be specific about what I'm trying to find out, Mr. Daraiche.

A major rule was broken in the awarding of the contract to WE Charity: an official languages impact analysis was not conducted, even though the Treasury Board Secretariat requires one. From the discussions that took place, I gather that WE Charity realized it could not provide service to francophones in Canada and decided to quickly reach for the panic button.

You seized the opportunity, and there's nothing wrong with that. That is your job, as a communications firm. Nevertheless, that back and forth, those discussions, take on major importance for those of us trying to figure out how a contract this big escaped the watchful eye of Treasury Board, the agency that was supposed to conduct the official languages impact analysis.

The reason we asked you to provide us with a copy of the contract is to shed light on that, not to find out any trade secrets or what have you. All we want to know is how that step was missed for a contract of this size.

You said you started contacting MPs after the press conference, and I think that was in NATIONAL's interest. There's something I want to check with you, though. At 8:06 a.m., before the press conference, we received communications from NATIONAL asking for our co-operation. It's a small detail, but since we are dealing with ethics, we should put things in their proper context.

How did you find out that your contract was terminated?

What information did you receive telling you that your services were no longer needed?

[Martin Daraiche]

Our client told us that they had handed over administration of the program to the government. Under the circumstances, it was as simple as that. On our end, there was no longer any reason to contact not-for-profit organizations and students. It was as simple as that.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

The government did not contact you to ask you to resume your mandate, then?

[Martin Daraiche]

No.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I'll give my last minute to my colleague, Mr. Gourde.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Unfortunately, only about eight seconds remain, not a minute.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's pretty much all we have for that round.

Madam Shanahan, you have five minutes.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I want to start by clarifying one thing. When we ask for documents during a meeting, it isn't the same as a motion for the production of documents. We're always grateful when witnesses can provide additional information in response to our questions. I think that we should make this clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Madam Shanahan, this is the first time I've ever had to interrupt someone.

To be clear, as the chair, I've demanded the documents. They are subpoenaed to the committee, or have the force of that level, so those documents on which I've been clear as far as NATIONAL Public Relations is concerned have been officially requested. It is not anything that is voluntary.

Go ahead with your time.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

All right. It is news to me that the chair can subpoena unilaterally, but I'll continue with my questions.

I want to give Mr. Daraiche and Ms. Benoit the chance to talk a little bit about lobbying.

Are your employees involved in lobbying activities? If so, are they following the rules of the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada?

[Martin Daraiche]

Certainly, yes.

The professionals who work in our firm are well aware of the rules, Ms. Shanahan. Every time they need to contact a public office holder, elected government officials or representatives of the officials' offices, it's a communication of influence. Our advisors will register with the registry of lobbyists in advance.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Just before continuing, Chair, I would like to understand what authority you have to unilaterally subpoena documents.

Could you give that reference to the committee proceedings? Otherwise, I'm going to challenge that ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's okay, Mrs. Shanahan.

There is one legality we have to clear up in regard to that. Mr. Gourde had requested the documents, and I had taken that as a motion and asked Mr. Daraiche for that.

I will ask Mr. Gourde for the official language of a motion in order to do that, but it was a request from one of the members of the committee. If Mr. Gourde wants that level of document request and moves that motion, that's what we would need to have those documents summoned.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I wasn't aware that when we ask for documents, we have to vote on a motion. We have asked for documents at committee before. If the committee requests it, we get documents. I don't believe we have to actually vote on a motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

No, but a member has to put a motion for the documents.

We'll suspend for a few minutes to make sure that everything is done appropriately.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Colleagues, we're back.

With regard to Mrs. Shanahan's and Mr. Angus's concerns, and my direction to the witness, generally speaking, most of our requests are voluntary.

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

Mr. Chair, the interpretation isn't working.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Please try again. I believe that has been resolved.

Generally, colleagues, when we request documents or anything else, even when we request witnesses, there's no objection. However, when we desire documents or desire witnesses, and someone has indicated they don't want to comply, as Mrs. Shanahan mentioned, it requires a motion.

We'll deal with that after Mrs. Shanahan's time, but that's the differentiation, Mr. Angus, with regard to requiring a motion.

Mrs. Shanahan, you have two more minutes, please continue.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

I'd like to return to Mr. Perelmuter. As I'm the last member to speak before the panel, I am extremely disappointed and shocked, but maybe not surprised, that Mr. Barrett was present here and that he did not use his time to offer a complete apology for his actions.

Mr. Perelmuter, would you expect and accept an apology from Mr. Barrett?

[Martin Perelmuter]

I don't know if I would expect one, but I would accept one, yes.