Finance Committee on July 30th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Barrett, this is your last question.

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

I should have about a minute and a half left, Mr. Chair. There were substantial interruptions and clarifications there.

Now, iwanttohelp.org is the name of a website to apply for the CSSG. Did the government create this website or was it created by WE? The reason I ask, ma'am, is that in the April 22 announcement, it mentions the “I Want to Help” platform twice, which is the origin of iwanttohelp.org. What I'm looking for is the origin of the “I Want to Help” branding, because that April 22 announcement includes branding from the company WE.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Barrett, you will have one more question. You are correct; there were interruptions.

Ms. Telford, if you could answer that, please, we will then go to one more question from Mr. Barrett.

[Katie Telford]

I'm sorry. I don't know the answer to that.

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

In fairness, ma'am, I'd ask that you commit to undertaking to provide that answer to the committee.

I guess my last question would be this. Between those dates that you mentioned before and that were referenced by one of the other members—between May 8 and May 24—what allowed you and the Prime Minister to take this project from yellow to green?

[Katie Telford]

It was having the opportunity to have a longer conversation with senior officials and senior staff around why it did come back the way that it did. As per one of your colleagues on the committee's question earlier, there had been different thoughts around what this might look like when it was first discussed, so we wanted to have a better understanding of that.

We also wanted to have an understanding that all the t's had been crossed and the i's had been dotted. As the clerk said, that's why we were asking questions around due diligence and making sure also that it was the right method to do this—that not only was it the right organization but entering into this contribution agreement was the right way to do it—and we were assured that it was.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, both.

Mr. Sorbara, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee members for asking all these insightful questions today.

Ms. Telford, thank you. It's nice to see you this afternoon.

First, what process is in place in your office in relation to consulting on issues of ethics?

[Katie Telford]

When staff start here, and oftentimes before they start in these roles, as was certainly the case in my situation and I know in others', we sit down with either the Ethics Commissioner, as was the case for me in 2015, or with one of the officers in the Ethics Commissioner's office to go through what all of the different considerations are in starting these positions.

There are a number of other documents. We have a head of HR. They make sure that a number of other documents are reviewed by staff when they're starting so that they're onboarded appropriately. We encourage all staff, all the time, to take all ethical matters extremely seriously. We are in privileged seats serving Canadians here, not only now but at any time. These are incredibly.... We're all very privileged and honoured to be in the roles we're in, serving Canadians, so we take that very seriously.

We encourage everyone, when they have a question, to check, to ask, to go to the Ethics Commissioner, to talk to one of the senior staff about it. We can help them if we know any history on it, but ultimately, it's always that we try to go to the Ethics Commissioner when we can to get clarification, or to go to the Privy Council Office.

Most importantly, it is ensuring that everyone is onboarded properly and that we follow all of the different interpretations and advice that comes from the Ethics Commissioner's office. When we're not sure, we check.

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

Thank you, Ms. Telford, for that very clear answer.

In terms of due diligence—because the words “due diligence” have come up quite a bit—our government has put in place a number of programs that are helping Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We see the Canada emergency response benefit, which is being delivered through Canada Revenue Agency, or we see the Canada emergency business account, which is being delivered through our financial institutions, everything from small credit unions to the big banks. Then we see programs like the emergency community support fund, which is being delivered through the United Way and various partner agencies.

Obviously there is a level of due diligence that is done by governmental officials that is higher. You know, you're dealing with the CRA, an agency that is well known to the government, part of the government, but then you're dealing with the United Way, or organizations in this place, volunteer organizations about which we receive recommendations from government officials, public servants who have done a phenomenal job for Canadians coast to coast to coast. The due diligence on our part is higher because we are dealing with third parties. We are not dealing directly with government organizations.

I would like to understand that process, looking at due diligence when it refers to third party organizations and how important it was for the Prime Minister, for you and for others around cabinet to ask those tougher questions with the information that is presented to you when you're looking at third party organizations.

[Katie Telford]

I think you just touched on exactly why we paused and, as someone else described it, went from yellow to green, or perhaps went from green to yellow. It had already gone from the cabinet committee and was heading towards cabinet ratification when we actually turned it yellow. Part of the reason was what you said. It was a third party organization, and we wanted to make sure that everybody was perfectly comfortable with it and that the public service truly was recommending it as the way to go. They stood by that recommendation over the coming two weeks, and I think all the reasons you're noting are really important.

I'm sure there will be a lot of reviewing done in the coming weeks and months to make sure that as much due diligence as necessary is always done on these third party organizations, but at the time, the assurances were given that this was the right organization to proceed with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

This is your last question, Mr Sorbara.

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

In terms of moving forward, I think about the number of youth across Canada who had signed up for this program and how important it was for them to sign up. I've read some of the statistics. Over 50% came from marginalized or racialized communities, whichever term you would prefer, and it is disappointing to now know that we had to hit the pause button on this program. Other programs are running, and I'm glad we did expand the Canada summer jobs program by offering an extra $60 million for that program. But I do hope that going forward we can restart a similar type of program to which youth are invited to apply to get that volunteer experience, because we know how valuable and enriching that volunteer experience is for them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Telford.

[Katie Telford]

I hope the same. I know there are people working very hard on this. It is really important. As I said, there were, kind of, two jobs as we saw it when we talked about youth and young people and students back on April 5, which feels like a lot longer ago now than the date implies. When we talked at that time, job one was making sure we got students, which we did to the best of our ability, the support they needed to be able to pay rent and put groceries on the table. Number two was finding ways through existing programs as well as potentially through some new programs, which we were hoping this would be, to allow young people to stay connected to their communities and even to have an experience that they might not otherwise have had during this pandemic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, Ms. Telford. We thank you for your testimony. We have now reached the two hours that we asked you to come for and which you accepted. We're a little over it actually.

I would also, before we close off, certainly like to thank the translators and the Library of Parliament folks, who have worked so diligently this week in order to make all of these meetings that we've had possible.

With that, Ms. Telford, you are free to go.

Are we ready to close the meeting?

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that the committee ask the Prime Minister's Office to release the names of all of the staff members who spoke to the WE organization, to the Kielburger brothers and to any affiliates of the WE organization after March 1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. The motion is, I believe, in order.

Is it, Madam Clerk? Go ahead.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Caroline Bosc]

Could he repeat it so that I could have it for the record?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. Could you repeat it fairly slowly, Mr. Poilievre?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I move:

That the Prime Minister’s office release to the committee by the end of the next calendar week the names of all staff from the Prime Ministers’ Office who communicated with WE Charity, the Kielburger brothers, or any affiliates of the WE Charity, since March 1, and that the Prime Minister’s Office provide the dates, participants, and contents of those meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. The motion is on the floor.

Do you want to speak to it further, Mr. Poilievre, or will I go to Mr. Julian?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I'll speak very briefly. I think there should be no controversy about this issue. The chief of staff was asked repeatedly. She said, as to whether or not there were PMO staffers who spoke to the WE organization in the period in question, that, yes, there were. A handful of staff members in the Prime Minister's Office, a handful she later defined to be five, spoke to the Kielburgers during the period in question. Then she said she would not release their names and she did not release a chronology of the dates of their conversations, nor did she release the content of their conversations.

Obviously we need to know this, because the government's entire case is that this whole strange program was dreamed up by the public service with no involvement or influence by the political arm of the government or the staff of the Prime Minister, but if these conversations occurred, then that might contradict that.

Finally, the Lobbying Act requires that all of these interactions be registered, and we have no registry of any such conversations, so we need to find out if the Lobbying Act was violated in the course of these conversations.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

I'm just wondering if this is already included in the correspondence from the Clerk of the Privy Council.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian. The floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be supporting the motion, but I'm offering a friendly amendment to Mr. Poilievre that we include the cabinet memos with recommendations on WE for the May 8 and May 22 cabinet meetings.