Finance Committee on July 7th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll go to Ms. Dzerowicz and then back to Mr. Julian.

You're making note of that I assume, Peter.

Go ahead, Ms. Dzerowicz.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say more accountability and transparency is extraordinarily important, particularly at this time during this pandemic when we're spending an exorbitant amount of money in a very short period of time during an unprecedented period.

I wonder though to what end is this motion and to what purpose. There is already someone highly qualified looking into the Me To We decision with respect to the Canada student service grant program. We have Mr. Dion, our Ethics Commissioner. He is a 40-year, seasoned, outstanding independent public servant who has agreed to do an investigation that will no doubt do a complete full accounting of the matter. I just wonder what this motion will add, other than duplication.

Given the fact that we have so many big issues in front of us for our bureaucrats to focus on, is this really how we want to be using their time? I just want mention.... I was a little fearful of mentioning this point because it always gives the perception of “Well, you're trying to cover up something. Do you not want more transparency?”, which is the furthest thing from the case. Absolutely, accountability and transparency on everything that we do has to be paramount. In terms of this motion, though, I wonder. It entails a huge amount of data gathering in a short period of time and to what end? Essentially the motion is huge data gathering exercise by August 8.

Those are my comments and thoughts for the moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll go back to you, Peter. While you're at it, I'm neutral on this, but is the August 8 deadline possible for people to pull that together? I don't know if that's doable in terms of a time frame. I've been involved in access to information too and have signed off on requests where I had letters in the system and I just don't know if the August date deadline is doable. That's what the motion says, but it's your motion. I just don't know if that's possible and I'm wondering if we're putting in too tight a time frame, but that's entirely up to you.

Go ahead. The floor is yours, Peter.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciated Mr. Fraser and Ms. Dzerowicz's comments. As always, they put it very eloquently, but I respectfully disagree.

In terms of access to information, as Mr. Fraser mentioned, providing the parliamentary counsel with that determination is something that is relatively commonplace with committees.

As to Ms. Dzerowicz's comments, the reality is that we were given the stewardship of the financial outlay through this pandemic. That's our responsibility. Parliament gave this finance committee the charge or the stewardship over all government expenditures related to COVID-19, so this is just doing our job.

I think the Ethics Commissioner may be looking into whether or not there is an ethical violation. This is a question of financial procedure, financial control, and these questions deserve answers, in the same way that we may find there are other issues that come up in the coming months that, as stewards of the financial outlay of the federal government, the finance committee is called upon to look into. The House of Commons directed us that way; that's our responsibility.

Hopefully we'll get answers in the coming weeks. I don't think a one-month timeline is, by any means, too onerous, but we'll have the answers and that will be responding to the stewardship that was given to us by the House of Commons back in March, at the beginning of the pandemic.

We don't know how long this pandemic is going to continue. We don't know what other programs may need to be brought forward to deal with the pandemic. We have the responsibility, any time there are unanswered questions, to delve a little bit deeper and get the information. That's what this motion is endeavouring to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We have Mr. Fragiskatos and then Ms. Dzerowicz.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With all due respect to Mr. Julian, I still have not heard an explanation as to why this matter constitutes an issue of national security. I could see why national security language was used in the motion that was introduced in the health committee, but why is the concept of national security included in here at all? I have not heard an explanation from Mr. Julian.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'll go to Ms. Dzerowicz, and I'll let Peter answer that then. I'll just keep things in order here.

Ms. Dzerowicz.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciated Mr. Julian's response.

I would say that my understanding is that there has been no money spent, so I'm not quite sure what financial accountability we're actually looking at by asking for all these documents. That's one.

The second comment—and I'm glad that the chair brought that up; I think it was an excellent point—is that it is a very short period of time for an extraordinary amount of data, and I wonder whether that is doable. You didn't get a chance to address that, and I would ask that you do.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Chair, can I get in on the debate as well, when you have a moment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes.

Peter is next on the list, and then Mr. Poilievre.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

In answer to Mr. Fragiskatos, this is the standard formulation. No, I am not tying this issue to national security. We have had in the past—as you are aware, Mr. Chair—governments, both Conservative and Liberal, ask to ensure that documentation not related to those things is put in the public domain. This is a standard process, standard wording, as a number of members have said, and it goes in the same way that other motions that look to the production of documents have been formulated as well. I am not tying it to issues of national security, and I think Mr. Fragiskatos is aware of that.

The one-month timeline is very realistic. We're talking about information that should be top of mind and easy to present, and it helps to clarify the issue and the questions people are asking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

We have Mr. Poilievre next, and then I'd like to get to Mr. Poilievre's motion too, if we could. I don't want to cut off debate, but we do have a group waiting at 3:30 Ottawa time.

Pierre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I too have a bit of an issue with the one-month timeline to produce all of these documents. It does seem a little bit long. These documents should be ready right now. The government has been seized with this controversy, and basically nothing but it, for the last 10 days since the scandal was revealed. It should not be hard for the committee to receive that documentation by, say, early next week.

That said, in the spirit of compromise, we're obviously going to support Mr. Julian's motion regardless. A month to produce documents on something like this is an extraordinarily long time. I think if the Clerk of the Privy Council were to put out a call to all the officials who were supposedly involved in this decision, he could probably summon those documents in a couple of hours. I do think Peter's suggestion that we wait until early August is extremely generous. Again, I would have preferred if he had suggested a shorter timeline, but given that he has in his judgment come up with this date, we will accept it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I don't see any other hands up or any other points being raised. Could we go to the vote, Madam Clerk?

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you. We'll now turn to the motion by Mr. Poilievre.

Go ahead, Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I will read the motion. Before I do, I should say that I made some very small changes to it to subtract a few witnesses from the list I had included in the motion as circulated. Other than that, the motion is the same as you all have seen:

That the Standing Committee on Finance, as part of its study on COVID-19, hold hearings in July 2020, for no less than four meetings for a duration of three hours each to examine how much the government spent in awarding the $912 million sole-source contract to WE Charity, and how the outsourcing of the Canada Student Service Grant to WE Charity proceeded as far as it did; that the committee produces a report on its findings to be tabled in the House of Commons; that the witnesses must include, but are not limited to the following: the Clerk of the Privy Council, Ian Shugart; the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Skills and Employment Branch at Employment and Social Development Canada (the official Mark Kielburger claims to have told him to deliver the $912 million-dollar Canada Student Service Grant); Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, Bardish Chagger; and Volunteer Canada.

We can add any witnesses whom committee members submit as part of routine planning for a committee study.

That is the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

It's open for discussion. Just as a point of clarification on my end, Mr. Poilievre, regarding “no less than four meetings”, at three hours each, I know that one should never make assumptions, but I'm assuming that the witness list would be somewhat proportional with our original motion at committee that stated that each party would have the right to give the clerk their witnesses—and the ones that you name are certainly a part of that.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

All right. Good. That's just so we're clear on it.

The floor is open. We have Ms. Dzerowicz, Mr. Julian and then Mr. Fragiskatos.

Ms. Dzerowicz.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I just want to mention that when I saw this motion come in I was super disappointed. Four meetings of the finance committee at three hours each during the summer to discuss a program where there's been zero evidence of the spending of any money.... In fact, I don't think there's been any money spent on the program, as it was just announced. If there was some admin stuff, I think that money has already been sent back. I mentioned when we talked about the previous motion that we have a highly qualified Ethics Commissioner who is looking into the actual decision around the Canada student service contract. I have no doubt that he will be very thorough in his investigation.

My understanding also is that the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates has also allocated four committee meetings to studying this as well. I just wonder, given everything that we have to look at and all our priorities, is this the best way to spend finance committee time?

There are major economic sectors that need our attention, such as the oil and gas sector. You have HR technology and resources leading the sector, and there is the issue of how we can develop while we're reducing emissions and moving to some sort of low-carbon future. How do we start the just transition process?

We have the arts and culture, tourism and hospitality sectors, where the rug has been pulled from under them. How can they be supported during this time and beyond?

These are the areas that I really believe need to be the focus of our finance committee. I will not be supporting this motion and am very disappointed that we wouldn't have some other options to be looking into at this moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

Mr. Julian, and then Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'll be supporting the motion.

I agree with Ms. Dzerowicz. You'll recall, Mr. Chair, that we brought forward a plan. The NDP wanted to work all summer and have a variety of meetings throughout the summer months. As far as I'm concerned, if Ms. Dzerowicz has other studies she wants to undertake at the same time, I'd be more than happy to consider them. This is a pandemic. We have to make sure that government programs are being put into place properly. That isn't the case, it seems, in this case. As The Globe and Mail reported this morning, there are a lot of unanswered questions that people certainly need to get to.

The finance committee is the principal steward, and I think that if there are other programs that Ms. Dzerowicz or any other member suggests need looking into, we should be prepared to do that. I'm certainly prepared to work all summer, because we have that responsibility from the House of Commons to do that stewardship and look over programs that are going well, but also programs that may not have been properly conceived.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As we've heard already, the government operations and estimates committee is devoting four meetings to the subject. I wonder if Mr. Poilievre would entertain a friendly amendment to the effect that we would have two meetings on this.

I would also put to him that the list of witnesses he has come up with is in some cases very relevant and in other cases not relevant at all. The Clerk of the Privy Council, for example, was not involved in this decision. If we're going to devote time on this, I would want to hear from people who were directly involved. Again, it's a matter of hearing from people who did participate in decision-making so that we can maximize our time as committee members.

I would also draw attention to Ms. Krause. This is certainly not a personal comment Ms. Krause—not at all—but what expertise does Ms. Krause have when it comes to this particular decision? She obviously did not take part in it. What commentary can she add that will help us understand the trajectory of the process in terms of the decision and what happened and what did not? Again, I would suggest that Ms. Krause be taken off this list, in addition to, as I mentioned already, the Clerk of the Privy Council.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

We'll have to see if it's a friendly amendment, Mr. Poilievre, for two meetings instead of four. We'll get an answer on that and then we'll go back to the list if there are any additions to it.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

No.