Evidence of meeting #24 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 program.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Pardon me, we have a point of order.
I'll respond to the point of order of Monsieur Fortin.
2:35 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
The interpretation has stopped. The interpreter signalled they can't interpret what the witness is saying.
Perhaps the clerk could check with the interpretation people.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you.
This was highlighted before and the request was given to the Kielburgers through their lawyer that they be provided with headsets so that translation would be possible. I would ask the witnesses if it is possible to hook up your headset or some mechanism by which you would provide less echo.
2:35 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
We will speak closer to the mike, sir, we do not have our headsets.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
It would be very helpful if you could move closer to the device you're using. Let's try that.
2:40 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
Of course.
For the last nine months, we have sought to be measured in our comments, but the good of a children's charity has been destroyed by political crossfire. Today, we are taking a stance. We have been disappointed in the conduct of all political parties in this matter.
What was accomplished by educators and students in 7,000 schools is remarkable and deserves to be protected. It's been 25 years of helping to build over 1,500 schools and schoolhouses around the world; educating 200,000 children; improving access to health care and clean water for one million people and, here in Canada, running the nation's largest annual one-day collection for food banks, creating a mental health curriculum for Canadian students and, through WE schools and WE Day, supporting more than 5,000 charities and communities across Canada logging 70 million hours of service.
Committee members will likely pay lip service to these achievements. They may claim not to be attacking these good works, but their political games have cancelled many of these impacts, and they're jeopardizing the rest.
In the drive to do good, to do better, we confronted outdated models and prohibitions. Canada's charitable sector is in a crisis. There is a 30-year steady decline in the percentage of Canadians who give, yet federal law restricts how Canadian charities earn income. In response, we incorporated ME to WE Social Enterprises, to create empowering jobs in poor communities around the world and to generate revenue that helps to be donated 100% to WE Charity.
It's the same model as Newman's Own, the salad dressing, a true company that donates 100% of its after-tax profits, totalling hundreds of millions of dollars, to the Newman's Own Foundation. The company was owned by Paul Newman until his death.
Until recent politics, ME to WE Social Enterprises was celebrated as a new model of how to do good. Since it's founding, as mentioned, 100% of all profits have been donated to WE Charity, where we invest it to grow its social mission.
Craig and I started young. We grew, and we learned along the way that doing good is not simple. Not just for teenagers but for anyone of any age who wants to build something, who thinks differently, who tries to innovate for good, he's going to make mistakes, and we've made our share. We've apologized.
In the future, we'll surely make more mistakes, and we'll apologize again.
We heard the American journalist, Mr. Reed Cowan speak here two weeks ago. The death of a child is beyond words, and our hearts sincerely go out to him. Fifteen years ago, he said he wanted to help children in Kenya, and he did just that. He directly raised about $70,000 USD, and those donations supported four schoolhouses in Kenya. Two had plaques honouring his son, and one plaque was removed. Mr. Cowan is right to be upset, and no words are sufficient to erase the grief that this error has compounded.
Last month, when we first learned about the mistake, Craig called over to Mr. Cowan apologizing on behalf of the charity. They spoke for about 90 minutes. We immediately mounted the second plaque honouring his son Wesley. We're checking our records, as a second donor to the same Kenyan village about the same time—15 years ago—also had a problem with a plaque. We again immediately apologized and are working to properly recognize her generous support.
Working in developing countries is not easy. Ending extreme poverty is not simple. The African proverb is true—it takes a village to raise a child. That village requires schools, water projects, medical care and more. We fundraised more than the cost of building a schoolhouse because [Technical difficulty—Editor] school lunches and student vaccines. We fundraised more than the actual cost of simply drilling a [Technical difficulty—Editor] fuelled repairs to keep community projects going for years. WE Charity and most charities provide catalogues of goats, schoolhouses and wells, which are representative uses of funds, to help donors visualize the impacts in a community.
WE Charity and most charities clearly explain that if more funds are collected than needed for a particular catalogue item, those funds will be redirected to similar activities to help end poverty. This is to ensure that all essential programs receive the necessary support.
WE Charity, like most global organizations, pools funds to help the entire village, and our notice of pooling funds for the village and directing funds to the greatest need is clear and transparent. Hundreds of donors have shared with us that they understand this model, and they agree that this is the responsible approach to community development.
Donors give, because the models have proven to end poverty in villages, and all the money goes to help children. However, perhaps for a lack of experience in giving to WE Charity, we are bewildered that one member of this committee irresponsibly compared this near-universal charitable practice to fraud.
Certain members of this committee have also advanced a false narrative that WE Charity was trying to avoid answering questions. The truth is that months earlier, we had confirmed our willingness to come voluntarily to this committee to answer all questions. This was in addition to voluntary testimony before the finance committee on the same issue for a record four hours, more than anyone who has testified, for example, even about COVID.
A week prior to our appearance, Mr. Angus wrote on member of Parliament letterhead demanding police and income tax investigations of WE Charity. Clearly, showing the political purpose of his actions, he announced this on Twitter, and his letter was immediately leaked to the press to generate headlines.
Imagine, the NDP calling in the police for clearly political purposes on a children's charity. Craig and I wanted nothing more than to come to talk to you to prove to you that such allegations are wrong. If this was about us, as individuals, we would have come here right away to refute some of the very personal attacks on our integrity, but it's not that simple.
This charity is more important than us. WE Charity's work must be carefully protected. You see, even as WE Charity winds down its Canadian activities, because of politics, it continues to operate life-saving humanitarian programs, such as a hospital in Kenya that is the only safe place for miles for women to give birth. By requesting a law enforcement investigation of WE Charity for political reasons in the middle of these proceedings, even before hearing from us, Mr. Angus knew he'd get headlines, while making it hard for WE Charity to defend itself.
Let's be clear, Mr. Warkentin, with respect, this forum doesn't give WE Charity, or us, the legal protections guaranteed to Canadians. Politicians are not impartial. Without recognizing our right to present our own evidence, this committee is trying WE Charity in the courts of public opinion and forcing testimony.
One member of Parliament, Mr. Poilievre, even threatened us with imprisonment before a summons was issued. Members of Parliament often speak of their privileges, and you just did a few moments ago. So that all Canadians will understand what you're referring to, the legal term, absolute privilege, means members of Parliament can say anything they want no matter how malicious and false. Canadians are powerless to hold members of Parliament accountable for a falsehood on social media, and on conventional media, it will share these statements and false accusations.
Over the past nine months, many falsehoods have circulated about WE Charity and those associated with it. Lies and innuendo have been spread about me, my brother, and our families. Not even our 80 year-old parents have been spared.
Trying to respond to the tsunami of misinformation, we have asked leading Canadians forensic accountants to conduct a thorough review to determine if there was anything improper arising from our relationship between us, our families or [Technical difficulty—Editor].
To be clear, no one asked us to do this, and we welcomed this inquiry from non-political experts. We provided everything the auditor asked for, from our personal finances to real estate. The forensic accountants concluded:
We did not identify any concerns in relation to interactions between WE Charity and M2WSE. We found no evidence of improper transactions which benefited the Kielburgers personally.
MPs have now demanded or initiated nine different inquiries relating to WE Charity with the Standing Committee on Finance; the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics; the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner and the Commissioner of Lobbying.
Thanks to Mr. Angus, and now potentially, the RCMP and the CRA.
WE Charity believes in fairness, accountability and transparency. It will work with any non-political agency investigating legal matters. To Canadians who are watching, I say, “If partisan politicians can use their powers irresponsibly, then they can do it to any organization or business.”
Consider what the politicians did to a Canadian-owned small business named Speakers' Spotlight which was [Technical difficulty—Editor] part of these proceedings. It pressured the owners to break privacy laws.
When that failed, they mounted a public relations campaign against the small business, a reckless, mean-spirited attack that resulted in doxing, online hate, harassment and threats of violence.
The Conservatives, the party of small business and free enterprise, initiated that, and to this day, no Conservative member of Parliament has apologized for the hate or the harm they have caused. When your sole talking point is that you have the power, you betray indifference to using it responsibly.
At the request of WE Charity's board of directors, joining us today is Will McDowell, a former associate deputy minister of justice who served under both Paul Martin and Stephen Harper. For context as well, we had our COVID tests this morning.
The charity is entitled to fairness and respect for its rights. If Mr. Angus had not changed the rules at the last minute, Craig and I would be here on our own as originally planned. Mr. McDowell is here to protect the interests of the charity because of Mr. Angus' actions.
Although Canadian politics have cancelled WE Charity in Canada, in countries like Kenya, the endowment we set up will continue to help children for generations. It will help operate Baraka Hospital where, in December, 158 babies were safely born. It will help run secondary schools, delivering education to help hundreds of girls, many avoiding the slavery of early, childhood marriage. Many good people are delivering these projects. They do not deserve to be political pawns.
The stated mandate of this committee is to investigate pandemic spending. Here's a simple fact. Given the chance to do good for 100,000 students and other charities during the pandemic, WE Charity agreed to help. That's what charities do. They help where that is needed.
We didn't advise the Prime Minister and Mr. Morneau not to recuse themselves. We never prorogued Parliament. We were not involved in the decision to filibuster the committee this fall. This is a political scandal for the government, not WE Charity.
The government hid behind a children's charity by letting it take the fall for the government's political decisions, and the opposition allowed it. Not a single member of Parliament has spoken up for the millions of Canadian children around the world who benefited from this organization. As MPs, of course, you have the power to summon who you please. Let me ask you this: After a year of political games, what has been the result? What have you accomplished?
March is the one-year anniversary of the WHO declaring a pandemic. Hundreds of thousands of Canadian kids will once again need employment this summer. Where's the replacement program for youth opportunity? Who among you has developed a better plan to match non-profits in the volunteer sector they so desperately need? How are Canadian youth...? How has any of this made them, as young people in Canada, more likely to serve or more likely one day to go into politics?
It's easy to tear down irresponsibly. It's, however, difficult to build and much more difficult to replace what you destroy. WE Charity wasn't perfect, but Canadian youth, Canadian young people, were better off because of it.
Winston Churchill warned that some people's idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like but that if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage. Just as Churchill predicted, some of you may be outraged that we point out the politics at the root of all this. If today is anything like our committee appearance nine months ago, you will make your speeches, denounce us, ask your questions, answer them yourself and then ignore our answers. As you do, we will think of the remaining dedicated staff pouring heart and soul into doing good, like operating a hospital and a secondary school in Kenya.
Today will be another day of bombardment from you, but tomorrow we will return to the good work of helping children.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. McDowell would like to say a few words.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Pardon me. That completes the 14 minutes. Of course, Mr. McDowell hasn't been given permission by this committee to speak.
We will turn to Mr. Barrett now for the first round of questions.
2:50 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I didn't want to interrupt Mr. Barrett when he was asking his questions, so I thought it better to do it now.
The witnesses' equipment—headsets, mikes and such—should have been tested before the meeting.
Where they provided with the right equipment? Was the testing done?
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Their lawyer was advised with regard to what the technical requirements were for preparing for this committee hearing. The decision was made by them not to comply with those requests and those requirements. It has made it very difficult for the staff and the interpreters for this committee, but I think we've been able to work with it.
We would ask that the witnesses speak slowly and clearly, as the interpreters require the ability to interpret the words that you speak.
Mr. Barrett, we'll—
2:55 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Can we know why the witnesses [Inaudible—Editor] something that should have been fixed? I assume it's not just to make life difficult for the interpreters. There must be a reason.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
We haven't been provided with that.
Mr. Barrett, we'll turn to you now for your first questions.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Through you to the witnesses, have you been contacted by an officer of Parliament regarding the Canada student service grant or lobbying?
2:55 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
Can someone define an “officer of Parliament”, please?
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Have you been contacted by the Ethics Commissioner, the lobbying commissioner or any commissioners who report to Parliament?
2:55 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
We can confirm that we've worked with multiple commissioners to provide information requested.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
When was that, and what was the nature of the communication?
2:55 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
We want to be respectful of those non-political groups—the processes—so we will defer to them in their requests. If they ask us to share that with you, we'd be happy to, but they're the non-political branch of government.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Well, Chair, the witnesses are required to answer the questions that are asked, but I have more.
Have you been contacted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regarding any events surrounding the Canada student service grant?
2:55 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
We understand...and, of course, Mr. Angus put a letter out to the RCMP, but we haven't been contacted in response to that matter.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Have you been contacted by auditors or investigators from the Canada Revenue Agency about any of WE organization's operations or organizational structure?
2:55 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
Mr. Angus, once again, for political reasons, put that letter out recently to the CRA, and we've yet to be contacted by them.