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.
Conservative
James Cumming Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
So it was more around the Trudeau name, it sounds like.
Founder, WE Charity
No, sir, the environment is very important to us, as is mental health. There are a handful of issues in which we've been involved for many years.
Conservative
James Cumming Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
If you need some other strong environmentalists, I can give you a lot of names for that.
Founder, WE Charity
We loved having David Suzuki on stage. We loved having people from all walks of life on stage. These are good people.
Sir, I understand the point that people are trying to make here, but universities have lecture series and they pay people. Gala dinners take place. We did this in the regular course of business.
Now let me acknowledge, I understand that, in hindsight, this is a significant issue. I understand why people are raising it, I do, but from our perspective, you can google the fact that they've been on the WE Day stage. We never envisioned that this would emerge as a conflict, because it's all public knowledge; it's public information.
Conservative
James Cumming Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Okay, I want to move on.
We've referred to the foundation as a shell company, and you took offence to that, but with regard to the foundation itself, what assets did it have and what did it have for employees prior to entering into this contract?
Founder, WE Charity
Sir, it's not a shell company, because, number one, it's not a company, and number two, it's not a shell.
Conservative
James Cumming Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Okay, so what assets does it have? What employees does it have to execute this contract?
Founder, WE Charity
Sir, we have answered this question multiple times, but allow me to frame it this way. Any doctor's office in Canada, any small business in this country, understands the reality of liability. This is something that Canadians understand.
When we were asked, out of service to Canada.... The Government of Canada asked us to take on the liability. It's not something we sought. They asked us, in a global pandemic, at a time when people were stockpiling toilet paper and were afraid of touching the newspaper, to take on the liability for 40,000 participants and for all the non-profits, many of these aspects beyond our operational control. We agreed to do something in service—
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Cumming, we are going to have to get an answer on this one. It's been answered several times, but obviously people haven't heard the answer, so I am going to allow the time. However, I'll give you more time in your question period.
Founder, WE Charity
To answer your question, sir, this was established through the advice of our professional advisers. This was something that was previously on the shelf. As Ms. Douglas mentioned, it was created originally for an idea—never executed—so it was on the shelf. It was designed for legal liability. That's why it was there. We officially amended the purpose before all of this took place. We amended the purpose as part of the process when we codified the agreement with the Government of Canada. It has never held real estate. It has never had a dollar. It existed for a very simple purpose. However, it had extensive insurance: operational execution by WE Charity, the staff, the programs.
Sir, with respect, this was a favour that we were doing to be helpful to Canada, so it—
Conservative
James Cumming Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Whose idea was the front-end load, that all the capital was received prior to the execution of the contract? Whose idea was that?
Founder, WE Charity
Sir, that was outlined.... All the financial terms, the payment terms, were outlined by ESDC.
Founder, WE Charity
Let me clarify, sir. Those funds—again, widely misrepresented, sadly, by a number of individuals—were not administration costs that we received a blank cheque on, or any form.... These were funds that could be accessed only for eligible expenses as they occurred.
Conservative
James Cumming Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
But it was front end-loaded, so you received the money before you actually expended the funds.
Founder, WE Charity
Sir, we received funds for the first cohort of 20,000 young people, because we needed to ensure that those first 20,000 young people were engaged in the process.
Second, we were asked by ESDC to help ensure that we had the mechanism to help provide the financial payments to up to 100,000 young people in the course of the summer and into the early fall. As a result, it was their suggestion to ensure that this infrastructure was well set up in the beginning part of the summer so we could fulfill that mandate.
Conservative
James Cumming Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
So you have the foundation, which has no assets in it, for liability purposes, and you're running this and you have your charity, which is providing services, and other groups...because in 18.4, it does say that you can use other groups within the WE group.
You say, “recover costs”. Are the costs defined? Who defines the costs? Do you define the costs? How do you load your overhead in? Are your salaries covered? Is all the remuneration that you've received covered into those costs? How do you determine what the costs are for your multiple companies that will be charged back to the foundation? It's clear: 18.4 says that you will contract to your other groups.
Founder, WE Charity
Sir, it's inaccurate statements like this that are truly killing a Canadian charity, and I don't mean this to be dramatic in my statement. WE Charity is being raked over the coals by inaccurate statements like yours. No companies were party to this contract; only registered charities were party to the contract.
To answer your question, the contribution agreement outlined the eligible expenses exactly. We were not making this up on the side of a napkin. The Government of Canada, in the contribution agreement, outlined the eligible expenses.
But sir, with great respect, you do know this. People like members of Parliament don't reach this stage in their careers without understanding what we've explained hour after hour here. It's this blatant disregard for the facts that are being put out here, comments around companies and comments around money moving at inappropriate levels.... Frankly, by continuing this you're harming a Canadian charity, and you're harming young people in this country in the process.
Conservative
James Cumming Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
What have the two of you received in remuneration over the last three years, each of you individually, from any of the charities that are in this group—if you don't want to call them companies—the social entrepreneurship, all the groups?
Founder, WE Charity
Sir, Justice Goudge has done a review. It's actually available on our website. We'll happily send it to you. He took over our T4 forms because we wanted to be able to address this properly. We will send his review to you. It has our personal financial data in it. I'm not sure whether it goes to you and then goes to the world, but so be it, at this point, frankly.
Justice Goudge...and also a compensation consultant was brought in by our board of directors, who said that our level of compensation compared to those of a similar nature is at a lower end for the role we play. We will send you that personal information, as per your request, so that you have it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We'll look forward to that information.
We'll now turn to Mr. Fragiskatos.
After Peter is Mr. Fortin. I don't know if his system is working, so we'll have to clear that up. Rhéal, maybe if you click off the video and just go to voice it might work. We could try that, but you're next on the list.
Mr. Fragiskatos.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm deeply disappointed this afternoon to see issues around mental health politicized as they have been by some members of the committee. Margaret Trudeau has been an extraordinary advocate for mental health issues for many years, and efforts to stain her reputation here are beyond disappointing.
I want to ask the Kielburgers a question that has come up already. Mr. Sorbara posed it. It's around data. I understand you have said that the data of volunteers was not shared with the Liberal Party of Canada. At any point in WE's history, has the data of your volunteers been shared with the Liberal Party of Canada or any political party?
Founder, WE Charity
We can answer that question decisively, again.
Vivian Krause and others have made.... We have faced Charity Intelligence, which is four people making inaccurate statements. We have faced Jesse Brown and a blogger, who were involved in a legal action, to try to correct the record, and Justice Goudge, in multiple cases, has cited the inaccurate statements he's made. Now Vivian Krause has made these claims—I believe she said Twitter was her source—that we were sharing data with the Liberal Party of Canada.
It is just incredibly unfortunate that people are trying to further their own objectives and in the process negatively impacting a charity. I can answer the question decisively: We have never shared, not once, data with any party, including the Liberal Party of Canada.