I'm listening. What's your point of order?
Evidence of meeting #45 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was sir.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #45 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was sir.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:15 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I am raising a point of order for the following reason.
I am using the device that Parliament provided to me. I have the microphone, the device and all of Parliament's equipment. The IT service called me to try to help and I was not successful.
Mr. Chair, if I cannot do my job as a member of Parliament because Parliament's devices are out of order, my privileges as a member of Parliament are being curtailed. I call upon your wisdom to make a decision and resolve this matter so that, once and for all, members who participate in committee meetings are provided with all the equipment they need to be heard properly. Otherwise, our job as parliamentarians is at stake. This is a very critical period; being unable to question the Kielburger brothers properly is unacceptable to me.
It will be Mr. Trudeau's turn on Thursday and I have a feeling that the same thing will happen. It is my privilege, the privilege of all my colleagues, the other 337 members of the House of Commons, to be heard. We have the right to be heard on this committee and the witnesses must answer our questions.
Mr. Chair, I would therefore ask that you step in to ensure that we are provided with adequate equipment.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, Mr. Fortin.
We will have IT look into that. I understand that it isn't the mike or the equipment. It may be the Internet. You are right; you need to be able to participate fully in the hearings, and we will have somebody look into it.
3:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to both of you for being available for four hours. We have a lot of questions, and we're seeking answers.
My first question is just to clarify previous answers. Is it true that no payments on expenses and no speaker fees were paid to any member of the Trudeau family prior to the Prime Minister's election in November 2015?
3:15 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
Sir, there was one payment, and we disclosed this, prior to Mr. Trudeau being in public life, to Sophie Trudeau, who came to speak at one of our WE Days in Montreal, I believe. The payments range, from our understanding, between $1,400 and $1,500. Let's go with $1,500, just to be safe. But that was many years ago, sir.
3:15 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
There have been no subsequent payments to Ms. Grégoire Trudeau.
3:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you for that. You'll be providing full information, so we look forward to comparing the period prior to the Prime Minister's election with the period after the Prime Minister's election.
I want to come back to the important point you made about the WE Charity Foundation and limited liability. Of course, in a program like this, there are considerable liability issues, as you've mentioned. In the event of a significant lawsuit, if the foundation were basically invested with the liability and didn't have assets, that would substantially increase the risk to the federal government.
Did you clearly communicate to ESDC, through the process of signing the contract on June 23, that the WE Charity Foundation had no assets and would not be able to sustain any significant liability issues?
3:20 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
Here's the good news, sir. We were very clear, and it was also in the contract, if I'm not mistaken, that we had tens of millions of dollars of insurance, which we added as [Inaudible—Editor] to the foundation to ensure that this whole initiative was protected. Of course, in the case of liability, the government, specifically the program, and the taxpayers were well protected. We took that issue very seriously, sir.
3:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
That wasn't my question. My question was this: Were you very clear in communicating to ESDC that the contract was being signed with the WE Charity Foundation, a foundation that had no assets?
3:20 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
Sir, we didn't have a specific conversation about the amount of assets, but ESDC was clear that this was with the WE Charity Foundation specifically to help limit liability.
3:20 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
On the first page in the contract—I'm sure you've seen it—it is in big, bold letters, sir. It was a thoughtful conversation that we had multiple times with ESDC on this matter.
3:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
But at no point did ESDC or any ministers raise the fact that the assets of the other associated companies and the charity were actually elsewhere, and that the WE Charity Foundation had no assets. Is that a fair indication of what was discussed with the federal civil servants and the ministers?
3:20 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
As discussed with the federal civil service and as written into the contract in section 22, there was insurance to mitigate the very concern you've expressed.
3:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
On the issue of liability and the teachers' incentive, you did mention you got a lot of liability advice. We have, of course, heard from witnesses that the teachers' incentive could also provoke liability issues around other issues, such as privacy. What advice did you get on the issue of liability and the teachers' incentive that was part of the overall offer?
3:20 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
Sir, can you clarify the teachers' incentive? We are unclear about your statement.
3:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
There were potential payments made to teachers who recruited students to the program.
3:20 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
We're very glad you asked that question, because that's another misconception.
3:20 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
Yes, sir, I appreciate that. There were no payments for recruiting students. That was an inaccuracy reported in the press and shared, unfortunately, by certain individuals.
The program structure was such that.... During the pandemic, non-profits were reeling, and many of them didn't have the in-house staff to manage and supervise the volunteers. ESDC asked WE Charity to personally ensure that it would hire staff—these teachers you referred to—to directly supervise up to 20,000 young people for their service work with various non-profits. These teachers were not.... They could make it available, of course, to their students, but they were specifically hired, just like summer teachers over the course of the summer months, to work directly with a cohort of students to support them, match them, coach them, check in and verify their service. It was a very active, involved role that they played, because we didn't want this to be a burdensome program on the non-profits to have to accept these young volunteers.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We've got to go back to Mr. Julian.
We're considerably over time, Mr. Julian, but we'll go with one more question.
3:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I'm concerned that you're not answering our questions. You're answering other questions, but not answering this one.
3:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
What would the issue of liability mean to this overall program? The risk to the federal government obviously was considerable. It doesn't appear there was real discussion beyond the issue of some insurance, but that doesn't cover overall liability. Was there any discussion with ESDC around the liability contained within the overall program, whether you call it a teachers' incentive or teachers' supervisory grant or whatever, and what advice did you get from your lawyers on setting up this program?
3:20 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
Absolutely, sir. The conversation with ESDC was about liability. ESDC was asking us to take on the liability. That was the concern with ESDC and the Government of Canada, that the liability for the first 40,000 young people would rest solely with WE Charity. Under those circumstances we explained that we were very concerned about the circumstances of having 40,000 young people volunteering during a pandemic, and our assuming full liability for that. We explained that we had a different structure and that we needed to have the liability and, of course, the corresponding insurance in that structure in case something went wrong. That was the conversation we had.