Information & Ethics Committee on March 22nd, 2021

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I'm going to call this meeting to order. This is the 25th meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Today I'd like to remind colleagues that the meeting is webcast and will be made available on the House of Commons website.

This meeting is being called pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), that a committee meeting be held today to consider the request submitted to the clerk by four members of the committee to discuss the motion to request further documentation and testimony in relation to the study concerning questions of conflict of interest and lobbying in relation to the pandemic spending.

Standing Order 106(4) effectively just calls the meeting. We will, I'm certain, entertain motions with regard to the specifics if members determine that they would like to move that motion. I think that's how we'll proceed. Today is the date on which we had intended to have a business meeting anyway, so I'm certain that there are other matters of business that we'll entertain. I do already have a speaking list that has started to develop.

We'll begin by turning to Mr. Angus, and we also have Mr. Barrett. I see that Madam Shanahan's hand is raised as well. We'll entertain members as we get through all of the business that we can in the next couple of hours.

Mr. Angus, we'll turn to you.

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

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

This morning I wanted to speak to two questions of privilege. I won't be too long, but I think it's important for the committee to consider them.

The first is that last week, when the Kielburger brothers came for their testimony, at the same moment that they launched their testimony they launched an attack website on me, referring to something like 101 lies I've apparently said. I don't lose much sleep over that. I feel like it was very juvenile. I feel like they were trying to stone me in the public square with popcorn.

What concerns me—and I put this to the committee because the issue of our work is serious—is the fact that we had to go a full week where they were actually undermining.... Their lawyers were claiming that parliamentarians shouldn't even be able to draw witness testimony. I've not been aware of attack websites on members of Parliament before. I think it is very concerning. Personally, I've been around a long time. I've got pretty tough shoulders, but I think it could certainly intimidate new MPs, and other groups may consider it.

As part of this first issue of privilege, at the same time that this attack website was launched on me, a Twitter doxing campaign was launched against my daughter. Her photograph was posted online. Her place of work was posted online. People began to target her employer about my daughter. I actually tried to engage with some of them, because they weren't bots. They were real people. I was trying to say, “Why are you making stuff up?” I realized that it was a deliberate disinformation campaign to intimidate me through my daughter over the fact that when she was 13 years old, she volunteered for a Free the Children event. I don't know that my daughter's 13-year-old behaviour in trying to save the world has anything to do with committee.

I'm not sure what I'm going to do with this. I want the committee to be aware of it because I think it is a pattern of intimidation when people draw our families in, when they try to intimidate us through harassing our family with photos of them and where they work and with other information. I think it is very concerning, and if it happens to me, it could easily happen to any of you. I wanted to put that out there. I'm not sure where I'm going to go with this, if anywhere. Again, I'd have to talk with my daughter, because it's about her personal space that was deliberately invaded because I was asking questions about the Kielburger operation.

I want to go now to my second question of privilege, which I think is definitely within the purview of this committee.

One of the problems we've had with the Kielburger WE study and pandemic spending is that we don't know, after eight months—and I challenge any of my colleagues to tell me if they actually know—how the WE organization works. We don't know anything about their financial structure. We don't know their real estate. We don't know how the donor issues work. We've been trying to get answers. It's about the due diligence that we have to do in order to finalize our report.

I'm pretty close to being ready to finalize this report, but one of those questions was to have Mr. Victor Li testify. We had to issue a legal summons against Mr. Victor Li. Mr. Victor Li said he couldn't come, and he asked us to go the extra mile to write him with the questions and he would answer those questions. Mr. Victor Li has opted not to answer a number of questions.

I think my privilege and the privilege of this committee have been undermined by the trust that we gave Mr. Victor Li, because these are key questions. I'm going to run through just a few of them, and I'm going to ask my colleagues—

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Angus, I apologize for interrupting. Apparently we are experiencing technical difficulties right now. We're being asked to suspend.

I apologize. We'll hopefully be back up and running as soon as they've got us on ParlVU.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, we will call this meeting back to order.

I apologize, Mr. Angus. We'll turn it back to you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to raise an issue of privilege relating to our work and our ability to get answers on the issue of the WE Charity scandal. I won't take too much time, but I think it's very concerning, because part of the role that we had to do in terms of finalizing this study was that....

After eight months, none of us around this committee actually has any real sense of how the Kielburger operation works. We know of WE Charity. We know that there's a multitude of side companies, but we don't really have a sense.... So when questions were being raised.... We cannot say we've actually done the due diligence. This was why we agreed to have Mr. Victor Li testify. We attempted for a number of months to have Mr. Victor Li. We issued a legal summons for Mr. Victor Li. He said he was feeling sick. I think we were all very reasonable and did something that I've never heard of being done before—offering to let him answer questions in writing.

What concerns me, and the reason I'm bringing it forward, is that a number of questions that were asked were not answered. I can only see that the decision not to answer key questions was deliberate. I would suggest that this is an infringement on the work of our committee.

I will not go through all of them, but some of them are key, as follows: What compensation, financial or otherwise, have you received from any of the related corporate companies or real estate? What other WE-related or Kielburger-related, entities are you involved with in any capacity, as a director, CFO or otherwise? We have been informed that some staff at Free the Children/WE Charity were paid through ME to WE, the for-profit arm. How many employees were paid through the for-profit wing while working for the charity? Do the founders have signing authority at WE Charity and/or any other WE organizations? How many organizations, corporations, charities, etc., are in the global WE family? Please list them and where they are registered.

He refused to answer that.

How many of these companies' organizations are owned partially or entirely by WE founders Craig and Mark Kielburger or Roxanne Joyal?

He refused to answer that.

Does WE Charity, ME to WE, or any subsidiary organization do any business with companies owned by the founders or their family members? This includes from rent on property and purchase of goods and services.

He refused to answer that.

What financial systems do you use to track and account for any donations coming into the Kielburger-related organization? How far do these records go?

He refused to answer that. We're dealing with a charity, and we're asking questions about donor tracking.

What systems and structures do you have in place to ensure the designated funding is actually spent in the appropriate places?

He did not answer that.

Please provide a list of all schools, along with the country, address, location and what donor funds went into its construction.

He did not answer that. That should have been one of the easiest questions to answer, because we were told about all the good work they're doing with children. This was an opportunity for them to explain exactly where the donor funds have gone and what they built.

Please indicate any schools that WE built for any other foundations.

We know that they've been involved. What have they done?

How may hospitals has WE Charity/Free the Children built in the past 25 years? Please provide a list of all hospitals, along with the country, address, location and what donor funds went into its construction.

He did not answer that.

How many villages were adopted in the last 25 years?

He did not answer that.

We asked about the property they owned.

The reason these questions are important is that we were told last week, time and time again, by the Kielburger brothers about the incredible good work they've done on behalf of children around the world. This was an opportunity for them to clear the record, particularly in light of the very concerning allegations raised by Bloomberg, by The Fifth Estate and by other journalists.

Mr. Chair, I feel that my rights as a member have been impeded by the fact that Mr. Victor Li was given a legal summons, we agreed to let him answer in writing, and he has not answered key questions about the financial structure and operations of this organization.

I would like to turn it over to the committee. I think this a serious issue. I think it is a prima facie case of contempt. The question is, do we give him a period of time to answer those questions? What should we do?

I think this is not just about me. This is about the work of our committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

With regard to the discussion on the question before the committee, I'll turn to members who have indicated that their hands are raised.

Madam Shanahan, we'll turn to you first.

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

Thank you very much, Chair, for giving me the opportunity to extend to Mr. Angus just how appalled I am that his daughter has experienced this attack on her. I think we've had this discussion before in this committee about how attacks on family members of parliamentarians are odious. In this light, particularly if it seeks to intimidate or to shut down a parliamentary member, this cannot be allowed to go unchecked. I just wonder if the member will seek whatever security and legal means that he needs.

We can explore our options. I think of, especially in social media, the attacks that have proliferated in the last few years on members of Parliament, and by extension on family members. I think we agree that an attack on a family member is essentially an attack on the member of Parliament, too, and therefore a question of privilege. I would like to see that we explore our options.

I do want to address the motion before us, as well, Chair. Unfortunately, the motion that we are here to discuss today, to me, is nothing but a fishing expedition by the opposition. [Inaudible-Editor] testimony on this issue, where I think we have shown, on the Liberal side, that we have been very collaborative in bringing forward—

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Madame Shanahan, I don't want to interrupt. I'm reluctant to, but I will interrupt. I just want to verify that right now we are discussing the matter of privilege that Mr. Angus brought forward with regard to the Li documents. Nobody has actually moved a motion with regard to the Standing Order 104(6) request for the meeting. I'm certain that will happen in due course, but I think it would be helpful for members if we debated these in order.

I'd like to get the sense of where the committee is with regard to the question of privilege that was brought forward first by Mr. Angus.

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

Understood. On the second question of privilege regarding Victor Li, again I think this is where we have shown our collaboration, and certainly our agreement that we can have our discussions about which witnesses we want to see in front of this committee, but once a witness is summoned, that is the wish of the committee.

Chair, you have shown great flexibility in accommodating witnesses. I agree with Mr. Angus that this is something we need to pursue. Because we know there are health issues involved, perhaps a letter from the chair giving Mr. Li an opportunity to respond, again, to the questions that were asked, because that is what has been found deficient, would be a way forward. Thank you.

Then I do want to speak again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Right. Yes, we'll note that you were on the speaking list early as well with regard to the other issues.

We'll turn to Mr. Erskine-Smith.

Colleagues, again, we're debating the issue of the question of privilege with regard to the Li documents.

Mr. Erskine-Smith.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Very simply, I would just say I think Charlie raises a really important point, and not only with respect to his daughter. It is just unconscionable, the people online who are highlighting the work of his daughter, suggesting there is some sort of conflict of interest there. All of the allegations and the work online around Charlie's daughter is just so unconscionable and should be condemned by all of us.

On the second piece, though, in relation to privilege as it relates to Victor Li, I do think, just as a matter of our dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s, Chair, you should write a letter to Victor Li and his counsel, and set a specific timeline for these answers to be provided. Once that timeline has elapsed, whatever answers haven't been provided....

If no answers have been provided, it makes your job a little easier, but with those that have been provided, we can reconvene a meeting to specifically consider them and this question of privilege. We can determine whether the answers are sufficient or are still lacking and have shown contempt in some way. I would suggest five days from the date that your letter is sent, a short timeline. I think we do want to make sure that we are affording as much.... We want to act as reasonably as we can when we're undertaking something as serious, potentially, as referring the matter for contempt, which is where this would ultimately lead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

I'll turn to Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Good morning, everyone.

With respect to the points Charlie raised this morning, on the first one, I want to address Deputy Angus formally. I saw the tweets that were directed at your daughter and stuff, and I am vehemently and completely appalled—in the strongest language without using foul language—that this would happen to anyone's daughter. I have two daughters. I plan to continue being an MP for as long as the voters give me that privilege and that confidence. My daughters are growing up—the older one will soon be 10 years old, so they're a few years younger than Charlie's daughters—and they will have experiences with volunteer work and with employment. I would absolutely be disgusted if some organization—I am not saying that it was an organization, but in this circumstance it was an organization—or individuals potentially coordinated to attack me, and with that, attack my daughters. I don't know what can be done. I would love to get clarification from the clerk on that in terms of what we can or can't do. That would be great.

On the second question of privilege, which is in reference to the documents requested, in reading the rules and procedures with regard to parliamentary committees formed by the House of Commons and the elected individuals, my understand is that we have certain responsibilities but we also have certain powers to obtain documents when we are doing a study. I'm with my colleague, Nathaniel. We have asked these questions. We have asked for these documents. They do need to be provided. I think that is imperative. A committee cannot undertake a study without receiving the information it needs to finish that study. I am of the mind that a further five days or whatever pertinent period be provided so that a response can be made before the next steps are decided by the committee. The committee is the master of its own direction and domain, so I share Charlie and Nathaniel's view on this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Mr. Fortin, we'll turn to you.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I'll address the two points raised by our colleague, Mr. Angus.

Obviously, I can only agree with him. It's unacceptable that our families are being threatened or intimidated in this manner. Unfortunately, I don't think that the committee can do much about it. However, I'm sure that the police could handle a complaint on this matter. I'll always stand with the member in this type of fight. It's unacceptable that the families of parliamentarians are being intimidated or threatened. This covers the first point.

I also agree with the second point made by my colleague. I took the time to look at Mr. Li's responses as well. I may not have looked at them as carefully as he did, but I did notice some major shortcomings. When a person doesn't answer the committee's questions, it's as if they didn't show up to speak when called upon to do so. That's how to address the situation, Mr. Chair.

I suggest that you write to Mr. Li. You must inform him that the committee considers his silence a contempt of Parliament and that we're giving him one last chance to respond. You must repeat the questions that he hasn't answered and give him five days to respond. You must inform him that, if he doesn't respond to each question within five days, the committee will report back to the House and the House will decide how to proceed. In my view, his silence is clearly the equivalent of not showing up when he should have done so. I would agree that strong action should be taken with regard to Mr. Li and that it shouldn't just be an invitation to find out whether he wants to provide further responses. I humbly suggest this way of dealing with the second point.

The Bloc Québécois recommends that the due diligence report be prepared, because we think that it's important. I don't want to argue about this right now, because we can do so later. This goes along with what Mr. Angus wants with respect to Mr. Li's evidence. We must get to the bottom of this matter. We're talking about $43 million for WE Charity to manage almost $1 billion. We have a right to know where the government was putting our money.

That said, I also just want to remind you that I hope that we'll have time to consider the motion that brought us here this morning, pursuant to section 106(4). As we discuss the motion, I'll expand on the arguments concerning this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I want to thank all of my colleagues for their solidarity. I actually find it really hard to even raise this issue because I like to think that I live in a world where I can defend myself and be myself. It's a tough world in politics. I don't mind the brickbats, but to even have to mention that my family has been dragged into it is something I have not wanted to do. However, I think it's important that we're aware of it. I recognize that my colleagues from all parties carry themselves with dignity on these issues and would not support these kinds of side attacks, but they are something that we need to consider.

I don't think I will take it to the House as an issue of privilege, but I want people to be aware of it because I think we have to start seeing the kinds of pressures that are being put on us at times for issues that we raise.

I appreciate my colleagues also on the second point. I have to say I'm just getting rather frustrated with this sense of entitlement that we've seen from an organization that seems to think we're picking on it. It's about getting answers. We just need to get answers. We need to finish this report. We need to do due diligence. This is our work. This is our right as parliamentarians. Questions about the finances of an organization are absolutely fair questions to ask, and I think we've gone out of our way to do this in a fair way.

To Mr. Erskine-Smith's point, I think it is really important that we dot the i’s and cross the t’s. This committee has certain powers, but it has to exercise those powers within a context of making sure that we follow the rules that are given to us as parliamentarians. I'm very frustrated that I didn't get answers and that we've gone out of our way. I think the next step is to say that five days is more than enough, and we want those answers. If we're not getting those answers, then I will refer it to the House. We need to move on with this report. We don't have time to play games when it's about the work and the right of parliamentarians to get answers.

I would support my colleagues who say let's do this right; let's ask him one more time; let's say five days and if not, then we'll refer this to the House. I'm more than willing to accept the suggestions made by my colleagues.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Very good.

Mr. Carrie, I think you're the last person who has indicated a desire to intervene on this.

Go ahead.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and colleagues.

I want to thank you, Mr. Angus. I think any action by witnesses that could be perceived as intimidation of a committee member is extremely serious, and the fact that they involved or the consequences involved your daughter.... I think all of us see how that would affect us personally and how we do our jobs here at committee, so I think this is extremely serious. For you to bring it up so we can address it is very important, and thank you for that.

On the second point, with respect to Mr. Li, I agree with Charlie about trying to figure out how this charity works in relation to its for-profit arm. I know that during my questioning, I was deliberately trying to get answers about the separation of WE Charity from the for-profit arm. There seemed to consistently be a deliberate attempt to move things back to the charity. For example, when I talked about their sponsors of the WE Day event, which is a for-profit event, they kept on saying our donors are extremely generous. But it's so confusing. I think some of their donors don't even realize—or I should say “contributors”, because it wasn't a donation to a charity. They certainly weren't donating to WE to build schools and help kids in Kenya. This was a promotion and public relations event, and some of their sponsors were giving money and they may have actually thought that they were giving to a charity when it was a for-profit event.

I think we do have to dig a little deeper to find out how these organizations work. It's extremely important for us as far as moving this report forward, so that everyone can understand that there is a distinct difference between a charity event and a for-profit event and where the money goes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Okay. I think I have seen a consensus, and if committee members are amenable to it, we will write the letter and give Mr. Li until Friday to answer the questions. However, we will require the assistance of committee members.

Those committee members who have submitted questions who don't believe they have been answered, we will need you to indicate to us that those questions need to be answered so we can include those in the letter. We want to be very specific about the questions that we do not believe have been answered. Mr. Angus has given his list. That may not be an exhaustive list.

Members, if you could get those questions that have not been answered to the clerk by the end of today, then the letter can be produced and we can get that sent off.

I think that's settled.

Mr. Angus, with regard to your daughter, I believe that in the intimidation of members, especially when it involves a family member, it would be seen by this chair as an issue of privilege. Certainly if you desire at some point to bring that forward—obviously, you have the backing of every committee member who has spoken thus far—this chair, of course, would pursue that, not only on behalf of the committee but as a father as well.

Next, we're going to go to the speaking order.

I have Mr. Barrett, Ms. Shanahan, and then Mr. Fortin has indicated he would like to move the motion. I'm not sure if we would like to do this in reverse order—if it would be helpful.

Madame Shanahan, we'll turn to you, but it seemed like you were looking to debate the motion that Mr. Fortin is about to move. I think that maybe it would be more productive if we had the motion moved by Mr. Fortin, and then we could begin the debate on that.

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

I agree, Chair. You can move me to after Mr. Fortin and Mr. Barrett. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Sure thing.

We'll move to Mr. Fortin, and if he wants to move the motion that this meeting was called in regard to, then we can begin the debate.

Monsieur Fortin.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Chair, I won't mindlessly read the motion again. We've all read it. It speaks for itself, in my view.

Basically, we've been investigating the WE Charity scandal since last summer. I understand that Parliament was prorogued, with the associated consequences. However, the fact remains that, for several months, we've been trying to shed light on a government agreement to pay $43 million to a charity so that about $900 million could be distributed to volunteers. In my opinion, it was already a bit odd to want to pay volunteers, but oh well.

As we know, there was a series of investigations into this initiative. Mr. Trudeau and the Kielburger brothers appeared and gave evidence several times before the Standing Committee on Finance. A number of witnesses have been heard from. The bottom line is the following: on what basis did our government enter into this agreement?

For both ethical and financial reasons, if I want to invest in an RRSP or any other type of pension, I won't do business with the first peddler that comes along. I want to know where my money is going: to a bank, a fund, a trust? At the very least, I want to do my due diligence in proportion to the amount invested and the situation.

If I go to a bank to invest a $2,000 RRSP, you'll agree that the due diligence will be fairly straightforward. If I'm comfortable with the bank representative, I'll sign the documents and I'll be satisfied. I'll have done my job, and I'll have acted diligently.

If I'm the Prime Minister of Canada and I give $43 million to an organization, I must do even greater due diligence. I think that, in a case such as the one before us, an audit should have been conducted. From the start, we've heard that this case is somewhat odd, because there was no competitive bidding, an existing process. The ethics specialists who have spoken so far have said that, if you don't have a competitive bidding process, which involves a routine audit, you must do even greater due diligence before you give a contract to someone.

I want to know what the Prime Minister did. He didn't proceed with a competitive bidding process. We understand the reason. He explained that it was because of the pandemic and that things were urgent. We may or may not agree with his reason. However, I want to know what audit he conducted if he didn't proceed with a competitive bidding process. Last August, at a Standing Committee on Finance meeting, Mr. Shugart, the Clerk of the Privy Council, was asked about this. He responded that due diligence had been done.

I included the text of the relevant comments in the letter. Mr. Shugart's response to my comment is quite clear. I said: “Obviously, we'd like the contribution agreement as well, but it was the report containing the due diligence that was carried out that Ms. Gaudreau was asking for. I'm not sure whether the witness understood that.” He responded: “Chair, I understood perfectly, and I undertook to provide both.” It was the due diligence report and the contribution agreement.

We obtained the contribution agreement, but we never obtained the due diligence report. To this day, we still don't know what audits the federal government conducted before giving the $43 million, or rather our $43 million, to this company. By asking questions and conducting investigations, we learned that, contrary to what cabinet members believed, the money wasn't invested in WE Charity. WE Charity is a well-known entity. The money was placed in a new shell company created specifically for this investment. When I asked the Kielburger brothers about this, they told me that it was normal to create a new shell company. Their counsel reportedly told them what they should do to protect WE Charity's assets.

What's this about? Our government didn't invest $43, but 43 million of our dollars in an empty shell with no financial history. In my opinion, this was done without any due diligence. I'm concerned.

I hear that the audit report exists. I want to read it, but no one is sending it to us. I find this questionable. We need this audit report to shed light on the audit conducted. Obviously, there's the underlying issue of conflict of interest, but I don't want to go on all day about it. However, in terms of the due diligence report, I think that we must know what made the government in power feel comfortable making such a significant investment.

With respect to the witnesses, I think that Mr. Barrett wanted to comment on this matter. I agree with him completely. During a question period last week, Mr. Poilievre referred to some form of communication on LinkedIn in which Mr. Kielburger thanked Mr. Chin for his help. At the same time, Mr. Kielburger told us that he had sent many of these types of messages to thank people whom he didn't need to thank. Between you and me, I find this questionable. The explanation doesn't make sense. If I were Mr. Kielburger's counsel, we would have had a proper discussion, because I don't find his version very credible.

I think that we need to hear from these people as well to get to the bottom of the matter. I can come back to this if necessary. However, I think that I've said what I needed to say regarding this motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

We have Mrs. Shanahan first on the speaking list.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to go after Mr. Barrett, given that it's his motion. As well, I'd like to hear what he has to say. You can put me afterwards.

Thank you.