Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 9th, 2020

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

If I can just reference back, Chair, will you now allow that the committee do now adjourn?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

If somebody who has the floor moves that motion, then we have to go directly to the vote, Mr. Sorbara.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, first the Liberals attempted to throw out a motion, which they couldn't. They've been undermining the decision of the chair. Now Mr. Sorbara is attempting to shut the hearing down when he doesn't have the floor, as far as I know.

I would say to my Liberal colleagues, if they do not respect the decision of the chair, they can challenge the chair. Otherwise, they need to be quiet, allow the committee to continue its work and let the next speaker speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

I'm going to review the speakers list right now. We have Mr. Barrett, Madam Lattanzio, Mr. Sorbara, Mr. Fergus, Madam Shanahan, Ms. Gladu and Madam Gaudreau.

We'll now go to Mr. Barrett.

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

Thanks, Chair.

That was an interesting set of interventions we just saw. We're more than 25 hours into filibustering at this session of the committee, and we've heard reference back to the previous session, at length, about motions that were introduced and motions that were defeated. We heard from one of the previous speakers that the committee, when it comes to dealing with ethical matters, ought to only review the work of the Ethics Commissioner, but when a motion was put forward to have the Ethics Commissioner come and present his report, the “Trudeau II Report”, which was the second finding that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had broken ethics laws, the Liberal members of this committee voted against that happening. Now when we have a motion in front of us to take a look at a number of ethical issues, including the Canada student service grant administration and the awarding of that contribution agreement, they don't want to vote on that motion either.

I heard from one of the previous speakers great disappointment that there isn't an opportunity to deal with the agenda items they would like to put forward. We can deal with more than one thing at a time. The committee can work concurrently on two studies, but over a six-week period we've had dozens of hours of filibustering to prevent the opportunity for those other issues to come forward. If the committee viewed that those issues ought to be studied, those studies could happen concurrently with whatever else this committee decided. Eventually, this motion ought to come to a vote. When it does, if a study is the will of the committee, then that could happen. Perhaps other studies could happen concurrently, but nothing else will happen until the filibuster ends, until the cover-up is brought to an end. We've seen all of the tactics and all of the strategies on full display.

Interestingly, at the start of the meeting we heard something new, that Speakers' Spotlight has destroyed all of the records of speaking engagements for the individuals named in the motion, the Prime Minister and his spouse, for any period outside of seven years. Now, interestingly, this committee ordered those documents, and actually more documents, but it included those documents, in the previous session. Speakers' Spotlight requested an extension. They needed more time to assemble the documents. The committee granted them all of the time they requested. On the eve that those documents were to be released to the committee, and on the day that illegally redacted documents were released to the finance committee, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau prorogued Parliament. He shut down the House and locked out committees.

Speakers' Spotlight communicated with the committee clerk once this session started and even said that the documents were ready to go. We've just now heard that many of those documents have been destroyed.

I want to draw to the committee's attention a letter from the government House leader, Pablo Rodriguez. That letter is dated October 19, 2020. In that letter, on the second page, in the fourth paragraph, he states the following:

As a demonstration of transparency, the Prime Minister has asked that I proactively share exhaustive information with you about events organized through Speakers' Spotlight, for which the Prime Minister was a guest speaker. Speakers' Spotlight has confirmed the accuracy of the events and fees listed.

I'll stop quoting the letter there.

It's very interesting to me that Speakers' Spotlight was able to confirm the accuracy of those events and fees listed if any of them appeared outside of that seven-year period we're currently in now. I'm curious about that.

I think it's all the more important now, with the conflicting testimony that Mr. Angus spoke about, the contradictions we have seen and the disinformation campaign that we're seeing from the WE organization, the likes of which I don't believe have ever been seen in Canadian politics—and now this. Now there is this major discrepancy.

This motion we have does call for a member of that organization to testify at the committee, and I think that's important. Canadians need these answers.

What we have seen with dozens of hours of filibustering is the continuation of a cover-up, something else of a magnitude that has not been seen before. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau shut down the House, issued documents ordered by a committee that were redacted against the committee's orders, and then had parliamentary secretaries out in the news media saying no, the law clerk redacted those documents, that it was not PCO or other government officials. The law clerk had to write a letter to clear his own name, to say “No, ladies and gentlemen, these documents came to me redacted, against the committee's order.” It was highly inappropriate and highly unusual.

Then we have come to this committee, where we have seen the same thing as at the finance committee and at other committees where government members are filibustering. They talk about wanting to get to work for Canadians and the importance of these other motions, but it's disingenuous at best to say that these other items are important if they are not willing to vote on the motion.

A previous speaker expressed frustration and disappointment that motions hadn't been moved by government members. Government members need to be reminded that they do not hold a majority in this committee or in this House, and the odds are against them on the order in which those members will be recognized.

On this issue, they can't just crush the questions the way we saw with the SNC-Lavalin scandal, which saw the Prime Minister found guilty of breaking ethics laws for a second time. This time they can't just shut down the committee. We have already seen Parliament and committees shut down, but now we're back. They were willing to force an election over this in the House, but here at committee they are just willing to give up any other work that this committee would do. That's their choice.

I can tell you that I'm ready for this item to come to a vote today. I have polled my Conservative colleagues on this committee, and they tell me they are ready for this to come to a vote today. I expect that if you canvassed other opposition members, you might find a similar willingness for it to come to a vote today, but the arguments we're hearing from the government are that we should be doing something else. Because they might not be next recognized when business is considered and their motion might be put in front of the committee, they are going to, as the saying goes, cut off their nose to spite their face. They are going to filibuster all work of this committee because they didn't get their way to this point.

Well, these are the realities of a minority Parliament. Canadians revoked the majority mandate of these Liberals for reasons, such as the Prime Minister twice being found guilty of breaking ethics laws. Will it happen a third time? We shall see.

Today this committee has a motion that is in order in front of it. The ruling of the chair on the admissibility of this motion has been upheld. While we heard multiple unofficial challenges against the chair and an undermining of the chair prior to my taking the floor, here we are. It's up to these Liberals to decide if they are going to continue the cover-up or if they are going to stand against corruption and stand for accountability.

Chair, I would invite you to ask members of the committee if they are prepared to bring this to a vote.

In that spirit of collaboration that Mr. Angus spoke about, I would not seek the floor in advance of Mr. Dong from the Liberal Party if he wanted to put his motion forward. In spite of the fact that he wanted to hijack this debate, I would be happy to debate his motion next.

Perhaps those studies can happen concurrently. There's the olive branch. Do you want to do two things at once? Let's do them. Today's the day.

That offer, of course, is an offer for a limited time only. Today I'm happy to move forward concurrently with multiple items for this committee, but I get the feeling, Chair, that this isn't about collaboration and it's not about doing other work. It's about a cover-up.

Canadians deserve the truth, Chair. Let's see if members of the Liberal Party have the courage of their convictions and are prepared to vote on this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barrett. I'll take a look.

I see no consensus at all, Mr. Barrett.

Now we go to Madame Lattanzio.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to reply in terms of some of the comments that were made this morning, and specifically in terms of what has transpired in the past with regard to where we are, or as one colleague mentioned, the chronology of events, but I'm going to stop short and focus on when the motion was voted on by a replacement of a member of the same political stripe as my colleague who sits on this committee.

I'm going to tell you how I see things. It's fine and dandy to accuse and to say that one party is wasting time and does not want to move on, and to allude to the fact that we do not want to work collaboratively. We do, and what I see from my perspective is that a vote was taken, and then a member came back and said it was an error.

I was not satisfied with that explanation. I think we need to respect the outcome of a vote. If we simply are of the opinion that another member of the same political stripe can come back and say, “Look, I would have voted differently” and then, because he doesn't have a chance to go back and reverse the outcome of the vote, he presents an amendment on the exact same paragraphs or writings that we disposed of....

We disposed of them because there was goodwill around the table. Another member had made amendments to the original motion, and I think there was goodwill among the majority of us to be able to move on with this issue. We want to move on with this issue because we heard the message from the Conservatives, loud and clear, that if we do not vote on this, well, we're not going to move on.

Then who is holding us back here? I can tell you from this side of the fence that we want to move on, but I'm afraid, Mr. Chair, that we are heading onto a slippery slope if we are of the opinion that we can vote on a subject matter and then, if we're not satisfied with the outcome of the vote, come back and introduce the exact same wording that we had already decided on.

If that's how we're going to be conducting ourselves in this committee, as a new member of this committee I wonder if we're ever going to be able to get past any motions or do any work. I'm afraid we're setting a precedent and an example that if we do not like the outcome of a vote, it doesn't matter; we can just come back and present the exact same thing, amend it into a motion that we're discussing, and that's that—and up until such time as we do not agree to that, well, I'm sorry, but everything will be stifled. Committee work will not be able to go on. We've heard that loud and clear. Either you do this and we move to a vote—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead, Madame Gaudreau.

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

I would like something explained. Obviously, I am not satisfied with the member's comments. What's more, the person who replaced me, Mrs. Vignola, made it clear that statements she could not understand were not translated and that she certainly did not vote that way. It was a mistake.

Why does the committee not invite her to address that? Why does the committee not examine what transpired?

Members are commenting on what happened, but they need to be careful. We have not gotten to the bottom of the matter. Certain things were not confirmed. I did not ask her to vote that way. She even indicated that she could not, in good conscience, vote that way and that she did not have the information she needed. She had neither the text, nor the audio. That is serious.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thanks, Madame Gaudreau.

Continue on, Madame Lattanzio.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's important that we look on the other side of the medal and appreciate another perspective in what we have transpiring at this committee. I started with that and I'm going to end with that.

Now let me take a few moments and speak today in reference to the motion that is before us.

To be fair, Chair, after the defeat of this motion last week, I thought we might finally be moving on from this matter into items that Canadians are actually concerned with. There are several topics of study that we could be reviewing at this committee, including looking at the COVID Alert contact tracking application, facial recognition software and reviewing the Conflict of Interest Act, and I can go on and on and on. There have been several study recommendations, all of which merit a serious discussion and a serious review by this committee.

Now we are once again discussing a motion that, while it may be a legitimate topic of study, Mr. Chair, in practice does something vastly different. What I am trying to get to the bottom of, Chair, is that the purpose of this motion needs to be looked at carefully, because on the one side we see MP Gaudreau proposing a study on the procedures in place to prevent conflicts of interest in the PMO, which I think is a fair study, and then at the next moment we see her narrowing her study to only reviewing the current Prime Minister, and in particular the speaking fees he and his wife may have received.

Clearly—and it is apparent to me—this is a backdoor way to try to continue the review into the WE Charity matter, even though, as a committee, we had already decided this matter last week with a vote.

Furthermore, the information being requested in this motion not only goes back well before the time frame of the WE Charity matter, but also beyond the Prime Minister's time in government, back to when he was elected as an MP. I fail to see any relevance to this type of request, Mr. Chair.

In reviewing the motion of Madame Gaudreau, I would say that I can at least understand the purpose of this motion and the study being proposed. It has its merits, and I think there is a lot that could be learned by studying how all governments handled matters of conflict of interest and by reviewing the best practices to prevent them now and in the future.

As I also mentioned, I do find the scope of this motion rather bizarre. On the one hand, we are examining procedures that are in place to prevent conflicts of interest as they relate to the office of the Prime Minister. As I noted, on the face of it, this seems like a legitimate course of action; however, we also have provisions of this motion that have no relevance—and I highlight, no relevance whatsoever—to the stated topic of discussion.

At a minimum, I would challenge the relevance of why a topic that we may want to look into as part of this study is being established as part of the terms of reference of the study when no other matters that we may look into as part of the studies are being given that same consideration and honour.

The opposition is blatantly disguising this fishing expedition, as my colleague Mr. Francesco Sorbara has called it, as it relates to the WE Charity matter. They are pretty much saying, “It's fine. We want to get to the bottom of real issues. Let's take a look at how the PMO prevents conflicts, but by the way, while we are here, let's have the requested details and documentation that have absolutely nothing to do with the study on hand.”

My opposition colleagues know full well that there is no merit whatsoever in this request for documents from Speakers' Spotlight. The very idea that the Prime Minister's past speaking engagements are somehow related to this matter is just simply absurd. That is why we call this a fishing expedition. There is no proof to back up the claims being made by my colleagues on the other side, and therefore they are looking to reach all the way back to 2008 in the hopes that they find something.

There is only one issue with that approach: the information being requested by the members across the way has already been released. We've said this time and time again, as did the Prime Minister himself just a few weeks ago. Furthermore, the information that was released by the Prime Minister was already in the public sphere, as it was released by him when he first became the Liberal leader. Members of the media and the opposition have had over seven years to look at these speaking engagements, and in those seven years, nothing has come to light.

Our Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, followed all the guidelines and requirements as an MP when he took on those speaking engagements, and when he became the leader, he ceased doing them, as we've referenced this morning.

In relation to the Prime Minister's spouse, Madame Grégoire Trudeau, we all know that she has worked with WE in the past. Nobody has denied that. It's well documented and recognized. Furthermore, this work was cleared by the Ethics Commissioner himself. There is no active investigation into her involvement. The Ethics Commissioner has publicly acknowledged that she was cleared to have the involvement she had and to be reimbursed for reasonable expenses, so colleagues, why are we looking into this matter?

I have to say that I am happy my colleagues have come to their senses and dropped the idea of looking into the private and personal lives of Madame Margaret Trudeau and Mr. Alexandre Trudeau. We really would have been sailing into uncharted waters if we as a committee had decided that we were going to start studying the private lives of parliamentarians' family members.

As we all very well know, we at this standing committee of Parliament are not an investigative body. We have an individual who does exactly that. There is no due process in the conduct of a parliamentary committee. There are no lawyers present. There are no judges present. There is no framework in which we can conduct ourselves with judicial fairness. This is non-existent.

This very idea that we would start going down the rabbit hole of investigating members of an MP's family was very concerning. While my opposition colleagues may have wished we were in the United States Congress, where investigations like this are commonplace, we're in Canada. We are not in the U.S. I'm happy we have at least partially moved on with the amendments brought forward by our colleague Mr. Angus.

That being said, here we are again today, and, as our colleagues keep reminding me and others of the many hours that we've been discussing this very motion, we are still looking to have documents produced by Speakers' Spotlight, and now with this motion, going one step further, requesting that representatives of this organization appear.

I think it's reasonable to assume that my opposition colleagues will not keep their questioning of these witnesses to the topic at hand. They have not shown that they are at all proactive at sticking to the facts or central points of discussion.

The Prime Minister has been open and transparent about his past work and speaking engagements. Documents have also been produced. Madame Grégoire Trudeau has also been open and transparent about her work. All documents related to speaking engagements are out in the public domain for everyone to scrutinize. All this motion seeks to do is to further tie up this committee's important work. So who is holding up this committee?

There is absolutely no purpose to the motion at hand. I think it's actually very important that we get down to the real business of Canadians and look at some of these and other very important studies that we have before us, which we have discussed even today—colleagues have made reference to some of the motions that have been put on the table—and over the past several weeks.

We as a committee voted on this matter last week. The matter was decided. We need to move on. We need to turn the page. Now it is time for us to get back to work and focus on the issues that really matter, colleagues. I ask that we move from this and get back to the motion that had been amended by our colleague Mr. Angus previously, that we move on and that we can get to doing the work that we have the responsibility to do.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madame Lattanzio.

Just as a reminder, our speakers list is Mr. Sorbara, Mr. Fergus, Madame Shanahan, Madame Gladu, Madame Gaudreau, Mr. Dong and Mr. Angus.

We will now go to Mr. Sorbara.

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

Thank you, Chair.

It's great to see everyone. As I said earlier on, it's great to be here this Monday. Obviously, it's been quite an eventful past few days in the world. We want to wish all administrations well. I think I put out a few tweets and points on Instagram. As someone who has lived and worked in and who has relatives in the United States—before I go back to the motion—I wish the administration and people of the United States, our great southern neighbours, bonne chance and good work. I look forward to working together as vice-chair of the interparliamentary association. It will be a great and constructive relationship, I feel, and with all administrations, of course.

Chair, one thing that's been brought up is the vote that happened a few weeks ago. There was a change of individuals. A member had to leave committee for whatever reason, obviously a valid reason, of course. They had to be replaced by a colleague and matters ensued. I really want to point out that the individual at hand asked questions in terms of clarification, listened intently and then voted. That's democracy. That's democracy, whether in the House of Commons or democracy as we see it here with respect to how committees work. If I look at the rules in terms of corrections in a vote, obviously it cannot be changed without the unanimous consent of the House or a committee. I, for one, don't believe in mulligans or do-overs. I just don't. That's not the way the world works in a democracy. Just because we don't like the result at the end of the day, it doesn't mean we can just go and vote on it again until we get the result we need.

I go back to Mr. Angus's intervention today on WE, which I actually found quite interesting and relevant. We're not here to investigate WE, and I'm not here to defend WE in any way. I listened intently to Mr. Angus's comments and concerns, what he pointed out with respect to the WE story, and the scenarios and narrations that followed on in the last couple of weeks, with certain organizations supporting or acting on behalf of WE, which Mr. Angus read into the record today. Frankly, I did not know about this organization prior to this happening where the proposed program was going to be announced. It was an organization I had never heard about. I have subsequently heard much about the organization from educators, principals and folks. Some of it has been constructive. I would say it's been constructive to learn about the goings-on. So I share Mr. Angus's concerns, absolutely. I'm a big believer in transparency.

I read the write-up in the Toronto Star. I don't think the Toronto Star has ever stated that it's a right-leaning paper. It's more of a centrist paper, I would say, or maybe centre-left. I read the comments written there. I read the stories written there. I fundamentally believe in asking “Why?” when something is stated. Why are we doing something? Why should I believe in something? Where is it coming from? Where is the message coming from? Who is supporting it? Whether it's something written by the Fraser Institute or something written by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, I always question it. That's my nature. I don't believe the hype. I like to investigate and dig deeper on an intellectual basis as to whether I support a position. I don't believe in firebrand and populism or anything like that. I just believe in facts. I believe in helping put in place good policy to assist people. I want to make sure my constituents are informed.

Mr. Chair, the opposition is trying to turn this committee into a.... I don't want to use the word “circus”, but we're here, and it's 25 hours in or whatever number of days it is. The finance committee, which I participated in during the summertime, heard from the Kielburger brothers for four long hours. Whether we liked their testimony, whether we thought it was transparent and whether we thought it was forthright, that's for each committee member to decide. That's for all Canadians to decide.

In fact, I don't know these two individuals. I've never met them. I've never talked to them. I've never been in a room with them. I don't know who they are. What I can say is that when I look at our government's response to COVID-19 and as we continue to work in terms of allowing businesses to recover, having the backs of Canadians is what I'm focused on.

This meeting was remarkable. I'm referencing the meeting with the Kielburgers, Mr. Chair. For all the hype and for all the accusations that were made by the opposition, at the end of the day all the questions put forth were answered, and they agreed to provide to the committee all documents that were requested.

I do know that much of the last hour and a half of the meeting was basically a rehashing of the same questions by the opposition, over and over again. I remember that day vehemently. It's kind of imprinted. The questions in the first half were repeated in the second half. I was disappointed but not surprised at this, as the opposition knew for a fact, or at least should have, had they read the contribution agreement, that WE Charity would make zero dollars from this agreement. They knew that WE would only be reimbursed for eligible expenses, yet the opposition continued to promote the fallacy that WE was in it to make money, when in fact we knew it wasn't.

Again, I'm not here to defend WE. That's not my shtick at all. I'm here to go over something that we need to point out to the committee members. The opposition tried over and over but failed to find some sort of political interference with the selection of WE, when we know that it actually was the opposite.

It was the opposite. In fact, as the chief of staff to the Prime Minister pointed out, and as the Prime Minister pointed out, a lot of tough questions were asked in terms of why we were selecting that organization and what the program was about. I call it due diligence. In a prior life, due diligence was going into a data room, looking for facts and looking at the numbers. In this, it was just asking tough questions. We heard time after time that all the evidence pointed to what we heard from Ms. Wernick in her testimony. A decision was made after a proper assessment by the department with absolutely no—and what I define as zero—political interference.

It is something that I think obviously goes to the heart of our democracy. It goes to the heart of transparency and of how any government operates, whether it's a prior Conservative government or a prior Liberal government. Decisions are made, and bureaucrats are free to provide recommendations to ministers and their staff. In this instance, that was the case. The recommendation came from the bureaucrats, from the civil servants.

We've seen them do so much heavy lifting, Chair, over the last seven or eight months, whether it's the Canada Revenue Agency, ESDC or for the Minister of Seniors. We've seen so much from the civil servants. These are good folks. These are folks who are working for us and working for all Canadians.

I understand how disappointing it would have been for the opposition that none of the facts seemed to align with their narrative of some sort of collusion or political interference. For me, in my humble view, the opposition has consistently mis-characterized the contribution agreement as being bigger than it really is. The contribution agreement wasn't $900 million. It was for $543 million. The difference was just allocated and not committed, which is of course a common practice with income. We know that, Mr. Chair. You've been part of the government for many years. It's something that's very important. I would expect the opposition to know that.

Just to be clear, let me quote my learned friend when he was asked about a program that had money allocated that was not all spent. He said the following:

Thank you very much for your question.

I think we need to put the issue of lapsed funding into its proper context. It is the regular practice of governments to spend underneath the budget that Parliament authorizes for them, and there's a good 800-year-old reason for that, which is that departments are not meant to spend what Parliament has not approved, and it's unwise to spend right up to the limit for fear of going over it. It is good, prudent financial management to come in under budget and to leave a buffer between that which you have approved and that which we spend.

That, of course, was—I believe he was a minister in that Parliament—the Honourable Pierre Poilievre speaking. I can forward the link to you, Chair. I think it was during a HUMA meeting that he commented.

So it seems that at one point, the opposition did have an idea about the difference between money allocated...at no point did the opposition have an idea about the difference between money allocated and money committed to a program, with a healthy reserve set aside.

Let's take a real look at these numbers. To go back, Mr. Angus brought up some very valid points this morning on WE. I read that article. I was glad the Toronto Star put something out in terms of exactly where this information came from, because it's very important. We know that in life these days we need to understand the angle that organizations are coming from. Frankly, some organizations, like the Fraser Institute, are more centre-right, and some, like the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, are more centre-left. It's very, very important that we look at the biases.

Let's look at the numbers. First, let's look at the $912 million, the total value of the Canada student service grant when the program was announced by the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, on April 22.

I will slow down for the interpreters. You folks are doing a fantastic job.

Thank you for you hard work and patience.

A comprehensive table that lays out all federal emergency spending estimates still assigned that number to the CSSG program on July 28. Let's look at that and break it down: $543.53 million was the total federal funding allotted to the CSSG, according to the contribution agreement signed by both WE Charity Foundation representatives and the Honourable Minister Bardish Chagger; with regard to the $354.23 million, in order to access this, additional funding approvals would have needed to be sought; $500 million was the total federal maximum funding allotted for students who would be eligible to receive $5,000 paid in increments of $1,000 for every 100 hours volunteered; $43.53 million was the total maximum of federal funding possible to WE Charity Foundation for eligible expenditures associated with the design, implementation and delivery of the CSSG; $19.5 million was for cohort one of 20,000 students; $13.53 million was for cohort two of 20,000; $10.5 million was for the supplementary cohort of up to 60,000; $30 million was the amount to be transferred to WE Charity Foundation to get the program up and running; $5 million was the amount WE would transfer to other not-for-profits to enable their start-up and program costs; $30,000 was to be used for accessibility purposes; 40,000 was the number of students who could sign up for what this contribution agreement calls “WE volunteer service opportunities” across Canada, which included roles with both WE and the program's other non-profit partners; and 60,000 was the combined number of students who could sign up for what the contribution agreement calls “non-WE volunteer service opportunities”, which would be generated for not-for-profits that proactively reach out and would like to be part of the program.

Chair, let's have a very brief recap—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Madame Gaudreau, go ahead on a point of order.

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

I would like the member to slow down, especially when he is reading from documents the interpreters do not have, as they have signalled. The member needs to speak more slowly, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madame Gaudreau.

Continue on, Mr. Sorbara.

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

Thank you for pointing that out, Ms. Gaudreau. I will slow down.

Let us have a very brief recap of one of the finance committee meetings on this point. I will point out that it was much more informative and relevant than the testimony of some of the other witnesses that had been called before us on this study. As Craig Kielburger said:

When Employment and Social Development Canada asked us to administer the Canada student service grant, we regret that we didn't recognize how this decision would be perceived. We would never have picked up the phone when the civil service called, asking us to help young Canadians get through the pandemic, if we had known the consequences: that young people would not get the help they need now and that 25 years of WE Charity's programs helping millions of youth would be in jeopardy.

What a disgrace or shame that the founders of this organization, which has been helping elected officials from all parties and thousands of other people for the past 25 years, were, in many people's eyes, unfairly badgered during their appearance. Much of the focus was on whether, somehow, the Kielburgers were in it for the money. They promised to provide their T4 slips to the committee. I do note that they have already posted online the information with regard to their remuneration. I would like to read what it says into the record.

The independent review was undertaken by:

...the Honourable Stephen Goudge, a respected Canadian jurist who served on the Ontario Court of Appeal from 1996 to 2014. In 2013, Justice Goudge received the Law Foundation of Ontario’s Guthrie Award for his outstanding contributions to Canada’s justice system.

Mr. Goudge wrote:

A. WE’s compensation of Craig and Marc Kielburger

I have reviewed a statement from the Chair of WE Charity’s board of directors, a statement from members of WE Charity’s board, a statement from the CFO of WE Charity and ME to WE, a letter from ME to WE’s accountants, and Craig and Marc Kielburger’s 2017 and 2018 T4 statements of remuneration.

Craig and Marc Kielburger’s T4 slips show that they each received an income of $125,173.02 from ME to WE in 2018, and that they each received an income of $113,461.54 from ME to WE in 2017. The CFO of ME to WE and WE Charity certifies that these amounts represent the full extent of any payments which the Kielburgers received from ME to WE in these years. WE’s CFO also certifies that neither Craig nor Marc Kielburger has ever received any form of salary from WE Charity or its predecessor, Free the Children. This is also the collective understanding of WE Charity’s board of directors.

WE’s CFO further certifies that neither Craig nor Marc Kielburger have ever received dividends from ME to WE. Moreover, ME to WE’s accountants state that ME to WE has never distributed—

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

The topic in hand is the motion and the amendment. It feels as though I'm reliving those four weeks in the summer members spent proclaiming facts pulled from the archives.

We could actually move on to something else if we could vote. I would like us to stay focused on the motion. We can talk about the rest afterwards, once we get to that stage.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.

As I have for all colleagues, I caution to stay relevant to the motion at hand.

Please continue, Mr. Sorbara.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I appreciate Ms. Gaudreau's comment.

It continued:

Moreover, neither Marc nor Craig Kielburger have received any form of salary from WE Charity or its predecessor, Free the Children.

I also contend and suggest to you, Chair, that the opposition members know fully—they would never admit this publicly and certainly not in front of members of the media—that this is nothing more than a red herring. It's nothing more than trying to throw dirt, to dig it up, in a thinly concealed and thinly disguised campaign to try to embarrass the government.

I'm not here to defend the WE Charity or the Kielburgers. I said that at the outset. I believe that they are more than capable of making their own defence. I do, however, take great exception to the notion that's still being promoted on this fishing trip of a study, which is that somehow the ESDC officials are engaging in some sort of cover-up to protect political members and their staff.

Not only is this argument extremely harmful to our professional public servants who have faithfully served governments of all stripes, but it has absolutely no basis in fact. There's not one iota of evidence to suggest that the testimony of the senior public servants who serve, irrespective of whatever government is in power, was anything but the truth.

I use this word very cautiously, but I must. I'm appalled that the opposition members have not issued an apology to the public servants who, in the midst of the pandemic, pulled together, with the private sector, a program that would have helped thousands of youth have an enjoyable, productive experience in volunteering for groups across the country.

I would like to remind members of Ms. Wernick's testimony at committee, where she said:

Our experience with the Canada service corps program had taught us many things about the key ingredients for a successful youth service initiative. First, to engage in [a] service the majority of youth—in particular, youth who are under-represented and who are from groups facing barriers—require additional supports ranging from orientation to mentoring to wraparound supports.

Secondly, the biggest influencers of youth are other youth. The success of the initiative required a strong start, whereby a large number of meaningful opportunities would be available to immediately grab youths' interest, so they would spread the word with their friends. Youth do not come to government websites, no matter how well we build them. There was a need for active outreach to find youth where they were. Promotion and communications tailored to a younger audience and that would reach them through all social media platforms were essential.

We know how important social media platforms are, although I believe there are more youth on Instagram and TikTok, which I'm still not sure how to operate sometimes, and less on Facebook. She continued:

The purpose was to create a digital platform that allowed for registration of students and not-for-profit organizations, including directly inputting information, logging and tracking of hours, and matching of students with opportunities.

This required analysis of what technological capability would be required, how it would meet all government requirements for bilingualism, accessibility and protection of personal information, and how to ensure the system [Technical difficulty—Editor]

She continued:

The third party needed massive speed, reach and scale, an ability to quickly mobilize the whole country. The third party needed a demonstrated track record—

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

I have two things to say.

One, I would ask the honourable member to slow down. Two, I have no desire to listen to him rehash what we've been hearing for the past few hours. It is redundant, and on top of that, I'm missing some of his remarks because he is speaking too quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madam Gaudreau.

Mr. Sorbara, please keep your cadence to a pace that the translators can deal with.

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

My apologies, Ms. Gaudreau, if I'm speaking too quickly.

The third party needed a demonstrated track record of mobilizing youth for service and to be technologically strong. Some of the bodies we considered and set aside were small advocacy groups with no program delivery experience. Other organizations did not have experience with youth, nor did they have strong technological capacity. Many had never delivered a program of such complexity.

I did engage WE Charity as a potential partner—

Again, this is Ms. Wernick's testimony:

—letting them know the broad parameters of what the government was looking for. They were an obvious option as the largest youth service charity in Canada, with high technological capacity and a Facebook following of four million youth. They had already provided to several officials and ministers a proposal related to social entrepreneurship and indicated it could be adapted as needed.

On April 22, WE Charity sent me a detailed proposal to quickly develop tens of thousands of volunteer placements for youth within a few weeks. Given the need for speed and scale, I determined, with my team and colleagues, that their draft proposal was the best available option in the time we had to work with. The team proceeded to work up the proposed initiative in a form that could be vetted by central agencies and considered by cabinet.

I sent the draft cabinet proposal to the deputy minister for approval, and her office sent it on to the minister in early May.

To be clear, the department's recommendation was that a contribution agreement with WE Charity to mobilize other not-for-profit partners was the best available option, given the requirement for speed, scope, scale and to reach a broad diversity of youth.

There has not been one single iota of evidence of any interference by ministers, their staff or any others in the awarding of this contribution agreement, and when the Prime Minister made his appearance before this committee, it should have been clear to all Canadians, with of course the exception of the rabid partisans who never let the facts get in the way of their arguments, that there was no political interference, either direct or implied, in the awarding of the contribution agreement.

I find it appalling that in the middle of a pandemic, with real work before the committee, we spend any more time on this study.

We know we are here in reference to the amended motion that began from Mr. Angus's motion. I think I said this in the last meeting we had. Obviously we are on the break week and because of the call for today's meeting, many of us have had to rearrange our schedules, which is fine. These are, like the TV series, The Facts of Life.

I would go back to Mr. Angus's original motion and how we worked together on it. We removed, I believe, two of the bullet points that were really not of significance: “an examination of the use of partisan resources and processes in the appointment of federal judges that may have constituted violations of the privacy rights of nominees” and “an examination into MCAP and Rob Silver's involvement with the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy and the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance program”.

I would go back to that original motion, the motion that Mr. Angus put forward on October 22 of this very remarkable and unique year of 2020. Yesterday we lost two great Canadians—Mr. Howie Meeker, a former Progressive Conservative member of Parliament and great champion of ice hockey, someone I watched for many years; and Alex Trebek, no explanation needed.

Let me read Mr. Angus's motion:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), this Committee undertake a study into issues of conflict of interest and the Lobbying Act in relation to pandemic spending;

that this study continue our work relating to the Canada Student Service Grant, including this committee's work to review the safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest in federal government expenditures; government spending, WE Charity and the Canada Student Service Grant; and the administration of the Canada Student Service Grant and WE Charity;

I apologize, interpreters, if I am going too fast.

The motion then states that the study would include four bullet points, two of which we removed; we voted on and passed it.

I would say to Deputy Angus, for whom I've always had a great deal of respect, which I'm not just saying because we're sitting here at the ethics committee—I would say this privately and publicly—that to me this was very constructive. I thought we could move forward from that motion. Then we had the mulligan, and the mulligan came back in terms of amendments brought forth by Ms. Gaudreau. To me, we've gotten to a place that I just don't think I would call correct and right. I don't think we should have gotten there. I think, looking at Mr. Angus's original motion, everything that was here encompassed what we needed to study and encompassed where we should be going. We could have moved forward in a constructive manner. We have a lot of stuff to study. We have a lot of stuff to do and a lot of stuff to learn.

It's fascinating, with everything going on in this world, how technology is leading us in different directions. As members of the ethics committee, we know full well and with full conviction.... I always hear about the conviction of your values or the conviction of your thoughts. For me, the conviction of my values right now is to make sure the interests of my constituents are represented not only at the ethics committee but obviously in everything I do, but here specifically there are privacy interests. Whether it's facial recognition or whether it's going back to the Privacy Commissioner's report of a few weeks ago, we have a lot of work to do.

I believe there was another.... I don't know if it was another motion by Mr. Angus. It was on facial recognition. I have much interest in it and would be glad to support it when it comes up during the appropriate period.

Chair, I will stop in a couple of minutes. I'll try to be done by hopefully three o'clock or so.

As we know, all committees are masters of their own domain. We are free to study what we choose, when we reach unanimous consent or if the committee decides to—