Finance Committee on July 22nd, 2020

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

I would like to know how many people were with you.

[Michelle Kovacevic]

One, Suzy.

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

You said that the person named Suzy, Rachel Wernick and yourself were present, but that there were other people as well. How many people were there in addition to the three of you?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

That's what I don't know. This was a teleconference, so I don't know if there was anybody else on the phone. I don't recall.

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

In terms of awarding the contract to WE, I would like to know whether you considered issuing a call for tenders. You explained earlier—and you did so very well, by the way—that the time frame was short and that you had to act quickly. We understand that.

Did you consider a simpler call for tenders, with shorter deadlines, to make the awarding process more transparent?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

The decision to choose WE and to enter into a contribution agreement, whether sole source or open tender, was a recommendation put forward by Minister Chagger. The Department of Finance considered that proposal and made our recommendation, which was favourable.

At no time would I have been in a discussion at all negotiating this contribution agreement. That is solely the responsibility of ESDC.

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

I asked you whether you had considered the possibility of a simpler call for tenders, with shorter deadlines, or whether you had talked about it.

Ms. Kovacevic, did you personally discuss that?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

I don't recall exactly what was discussed, but I can say that we were in agreement with the proposal as put forward, recognizing all the work and policy that we had done upstream in terms of the capacity and the timing for delivery. We were in agreement, and fully supportive of the proposal as it was put forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you both.

All the best at your next committee, Mr. Fortin.

Next on the list is Mr. Angus, for four minutes, and then Mr. Cooper.

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

Thank you so much for participating in our hearings.

Who was the key point person for WE, when you discussed the proposal?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

The key point person where? In the Department of Finance?

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

For WE. For discussions with WE, who was the point person you discussed with?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

I only had one discussion with WE, on April 24. This was a discussion—

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

There was a proposal back around April 7 or 9 that was circulating, and it was a different proposal. Then WE changed their proposal to meet the guidelines. Who in your department spoke with...? Someone was speaking with WE. They weren't coming up with this from the Ouija board. Who was the person at WE who was the point person?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

Pardon me, I understand your question now.

I can tell you that on April 20, from my minister's office Amit Singh connected with somebody at WE—I'm not sure who—and they were talking about volunteer opportunities. That is the part that I read in my opening statement, about enhancing from 8,000 to double that.

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

I guess what I'm finding really surprising here is that we have a proposal, and it's not the one that the government needs. Then another proposal is written that's much closer. There had to be negotiations back and forth with WE in order to make this thing credible—or was this just done on the back of a napkin?

Was there work done so that this second proposal met the requirements, so that you could then say, this is as close as we can get; this is a group that can do it?

Who was that point person?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

I can't speculate and I don't know who would have been talking to WE, if anybody. It was certainly not me or Department of Finance officials.

I would clarify for the committee that in this second proposal, which was building on the first one, in addition to social entrepreneurship and business service placements there was a service placement stream, for COVID, for the arts. That is still not the ultimate proposal and what the government agreed to do for a third party administrator.

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

How many other proposals were brought forward by charities between the first proposal by WE and the second? How many other proposals came across the desk at Finance from other groups?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

The proposals that came to me.... None of these, actually, came to me. I am aware that there was a proposal from U15 with respect to universities.

You'll recall that this is an entire student package, not just the student grant.

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

For this specific plan, it seems odd that there's an original proposal that is not the same thing at all, but then it begins a series of discussions. A second proposal then comes forward and it's very close, and then WE becomes the only group.

You guys don't do things on the fly. We're talking about $900 million. There had to be a number of other proposals you looked at. There had to be serious negotiations that you were involved in.

Were there other proposals on the table besides WE's for this specific kind of program? Did you check other groups to ask what they could deliver and how fast they could turn it around?

[Michelle Kovacevic]

What I could say, sir, is that the PM's announcement on April 22 was high-level. There was no identification of a party. It was just a set-aside, and ESDC then did follow-up with respect to how to deliver this and with whom.

It would, then, be ESDC who would make the determination, if there—

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

I guess the issue—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

This is your last question, Charlie.

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

This program seems tailor-made for WE. WE has been involved in discussions. Politically exempt staff are involved—you haven't named who they are. The question we're asking is—and we're not blaming you, but we're talking about your higher-ups—was whether WE was given the inside track.

We haven't seen anything that tells us that between the first and the second proposals there were a bunch of other proposals on the table. What we've seen between the first and second proposals is that WE was certainly able to really refine their position, so that when Rachel Wernick called them, they had all the right answers.

I need to know, then, who at WE was involved in the discussions and how many discussions went back and forth so that the second proposal was a lot closer to what you guys agreed to. That's the answer I'm not hearing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, ma'am.