Evidence of meeting #22 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was charity.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Sofia Marquez  Former Staff Member, Government and Stakeholder Relations, WE Charity, As an Individual
Reed Cowan  Donor and Fundraiser, Wesley Smiles Coalition, Free The Children, As an Individual

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON

I concur with Madame Gaudreau's points.

Now I hear the chair presenting a specific date for receiving questions on the 5th and a response by.... Did you say the 12th?

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin

I said the 12th. There were some heads nodding.

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON

On a response by the 12th, I'm okay with that.

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin

Okay. I'm getting some thumbs up and some heads nodding, so that's very helpful in—

Oh, I'm sorry, Charlie. Go ahead.

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Thank you.

I think it's very important that we stress, whether it's done through an affidavit or just a recognition, that these answers have to be as if they were under oath. We need to make sure that Mr. Li is answering. We know that he's under medical leave, that he's under stress, but we need these answers to be his answers and we need them to be the absolute truth.

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin

Yes, absolutely. We will make sure that it is communicated that these would be as if they were presented in live committee, and that all of the requirements for testimony in person before a committee would be the same for this arrangement as well.

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

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

On that point, Chair, with members not having the opportunity to ask for the witness to be sworn in, we're taking an extraordinary step in allowing this witness to provide written responses instead of attending committee after multiple invitations. I would ask if there is consensus to explore through the clerk what we could do, and whether that is to have an affidavit sworn out or, I'm not sure, have it.... Yes, it would be to have an affidavit or have it sworn out in front of his lawyer and have it stamped accordingly. He's working through counsel.

I do think that there needs to be the full force of it being under oath, because we're giving the gentleman.... Whereas all of our other witnesses have to provide answers off the cuff, these are going to be prepared answers, with a week to respond, instead of a second to provide a contemporaneous answer to questions that are being asked. I think that just beyond the regular step, we need to do something that is equal to asking them to swear an oath.

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin

We will look into that. I will ask the clerk to work with me to see what arrangement could be established, but at the least, at the bare minimum, we will ensure that it is communicated that this is as it would be before a parliamentary committee with respect to all of the requirements. The repercussions of not being truthful would be intact in the same way they would when one is presenting before committee in person.

Second of all, colleagues, we have a question from the Kielburgers' lawyer with regard to their upcoming appearance. They have asked that we allow them to bring in an additional witness. Her name is Carol Moraa and she is the director of WE Villages in Kenya. She's the senior manager of Free the Children Kenya, and they are asking that she appear with them on March 8.

I'm interested in your perspectives, colleagues, and would be interested in how you would like me to respond to that request.

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Chair, does that mean that Mr. Spencer Elms, the director of many of their operations in Kenya, has not responded?

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin

That is correct.

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Okay. I don't know if it's necessary. I was hoping to get a key financial director, because, again, given the bombshell that we heard today and the fact that the main financial director is off sick, having one of the other key directors of their corporation in Kenya doesn't give us answers. Maybe we need to focus on just the two Mr. Kielburgers. That's my initial gut reaction. I open it up to my colleagues.

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin

Mr. Barrett, I recognize that your hand is up.

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

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

Again, we're providing maximum latitude to the witnesses to appear essentially at a date of their choosing many months after our initial request. We have requested a response from Mr. Spencer Elms, which we haven't heard. In lieu of that, we're being offered hearing from a witness on the same panel as theirs, a witness we haven't asked to hear from.

I think that the committee expressed a specific desire to hear from certain people associated with this organization, including both Kielburger gentlemen, Mr. Li, Ms. Marquez and Mr. Spencer Elms. This addition of another person.... I wonder if they could encourage the employee we requested to appear to make himself available and at least offer the courtesy of a response to the committee clerk.

Perhaps a second panel could be convened with the two employees. We could have the founders and then we could have a panel with the individual that they suggest and the other individual who hasn't seen fit to respond to the clerk of a parliamentary committee that is asking for a response, to which I take great exception.

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin

Madame Gaudreau, we'll turn to you.

3:10 p.m.

Bloc

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC

I'd like to share with you what concerns me.

I heard what you said, colleagues.

Are we minimizing the time we would like to spend on the Kielburger brothers' testimony?

If the answer is maybe, I'd like to tell you that I want to stick to the time we had estimated we would need for our meeting with the Kielburger brothers.

If we want to lump everything together, then I don't agree. If we want to add witnesses, I'm all for it, if we all agree on it.

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin

I see a consensus developing here. We'll turn to Mr. Dong now, and then Mr. Angus.

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON

I'm sorry about that, Chair.

During today's testimony, I noticed a lot of raised eyebrows and interest in what's really happening with the operation in Kenya. I think it would be fair to hear more testimony and it would give a different perspective, I suppose, on what's happening there.

I also agree with Madame Gaudreau's comment that this shouldn't be a tactic to minimize the chance to question the Kielburger brothers. I would suggest prescribing a specific time for the presentation from the staff that oversees the operation in Kenya.

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin

Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Thank you.

I certainly agree totally with Madame Gaudreau that we should have the time with the Kielburgers so that we can get answers. I would go back to what Mr. Barrett suggested, if I understood him correctly, which is that if Mr. Spencer Elms is willing to testify, then we also have the person that the Kielburgers have suggested should testify, and they can testify together.

I would be very uncomfortable having their major director of their Kenyan operations not answer any questions and go to ground, and then having someone else whom we've never asked for, whom we've never heard of, put forward to say “Don't talk to this person.” It feels to me like we're being manipulated here. If they are not willing to have Mr. Spencer Elms here, who is a key partner and a secretary of their schools, who helps with all their corporate structure.... If he's not willing to testify, then I say thanks, but no thanks, for anyone else.

If he's willing to testify, then they can bring someone else with them. I think we should be very clear that we're not going to be played here by having them choosing who we get to hear from as witnesses.

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin

Mr. Erskine-Smith is next.

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

Just to follow on that, I'm reasonably comfortable with the idea that if Spencer Elms comes, which was in the purview of the original understanding of the study, we can say that the new witness would go alongside Spencer Elms.

I would say, though, that if Spencer Elms has refused in some way and hasn't gotten back to us—and I don't know what the status of all of that is—I personally have no issue with this witness providing a statement in advance, not taking any time at committee and being alongside the Kielburgers for our committee, so long as there's an understanding that she or whoever it is does not answer unless called upon by one of us specifically to answer one of our questions.

I take no personal issue with that. As long as everyone is on the same page here, we're not spending any time that would otherwise be spent by a member wanting to ask questions of the Kielburgers.

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin

Ms. Lattanzio, we'll turn to you.

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question in terms of how I hear colleagues around the table saying that possibly we're going to work on having this other person from Kenya come later on if we deem it necessary. I just wanted to ask committee members how this functions in terms of jurisdiction. Can we compel someone who's out of the country, out of Canada, to come to testify in this committee?

I want to have clarification. Maybe it's because I'm a rookie here, a new member, a new MP, and I probably haven't learned all the functioning yet, but I want to understand this. Can we actually compel someone who is not Canadian or is out of Canada? I know that we've had Americans come here to testify, but that was on their own willingness.

Can we, Mr. Chairman, have the answer to that in clarification of whether this committee has the power to compel a non-Canadian to come and testify before this committee?

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin

I'm happy to provide clarification. We are not able—we don't have the power—to compel somebody who is not on Canadian soil, but I don't know that anybody was suggesting that we do that in this case. I think there was a suggestion that we request that individual to appear. I think there was a consensus that we simply put forward another request.

I've now heard what is clearly the consensus, which is that this additional individual should not be testifying at the same time as the Kielburgers. As was suggested by Mr. Erskine-Smith, if the member they've suggested wanted to supply us with a brief, that would be something that would be extended to anybody who would want to supply something to our committee. She is well within her rights to do that. That would be something, and if that satisfied committee members, then.... She's well within her right to do that, and the Kielburgers can ask her to do that. We will accept that, as we would from anybody else.

We'll leave it to committee members to determine additional witnesses, but I think what we got was a consensus that we wouldn't invite her for the meeting at which the Kielburgers would be testifying.

Thank you, colleagues. I think that covers everything I needed to know for this meeting. If there's nothing further, colleagues, I will adjourn the meeting.

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Thank you.