Evidence of meeting #47 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cabinet.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you very much, Ms. Telford.
The first round of questioners I have on my list for six-minute rounds are Mr. Barrett, Ms. Dzerowicz, Mr. Fortin and Mr. Julian.
Mr. Barrett, you're on for six minutes.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Ma'am, this committee passed a motion calling on the Prime Minister to testify for three hours. This meeting is the only one listed in his schedule for today. Frankly, I find it a bit disrespectful to Canadians that he couldn't find a couple of extra hours to answer questions. Why couldn't the Prime Minister respect the House of Commons and attend for the full time today?
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I don't know whether that's on the topic, but we'll let it go.
Ms. Telford.
4:45 p.m.
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
I believe, Mr. Chair, that the Prime Minister not only accepted the invitation, and was pleased to come before the committee, but that originally the invitation was for one hour, which he accepted, and then he extended his time and stayed for just over 90 minutes.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Will you schedule him to attend for the remaining time requested?
4:45 p.m.
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
I believe that is perhaps a discussion for another time, Mr. Barrett.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
This is the third time the Prime Minister is under investigation for breaking ethics laws. He's already been found guilty twice of breaking the law, and we'll see what's going to happen a third time. We did hear an admission from the Prime Minister today that he ought to have recused himself.
We know the regard the Prime Minister has for ethics laws. I recall it's been referred to as “Harper's law”, so why is it that this Prime Minister think he's above the law?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I am going to take a moment here, Ms. Telford.
On the question of relevance, I remind members again that we are here 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.
I'll allow that question.
Go ahead, Ms. Telford.
4:50 p.m.
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
First of all, when you suggested there was an admission in his remarks and his answers to your many questions earlier, I want to correct you by saying that he said this to Canadians some time ago. I believe the Prime Minister and our entire office and government take ethics extremely seriously. It's a very important thing for us. It's why we go back and forth with the Ethics Commissioner's office all the time, and we fully cooperate with anything the Ethics Commissioner asks us to look into or to do.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
He's been found guilty of breaking the act twice. I know the back and forth goes on often, and that's because he's been under investigation so many times.
As his chief, did you read the act after the first time he was found guilty of breaking it?
4:50 p.m.
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
I actually read the act before that, but when you say that's.... Again, you're suggesting the reason we're going back and forth with the Ethics Commissioner's office was for reasons that.... Yes, that was the case, but we also go back and forth with the Ethics Commissioner's office all the time, whether it's annual disclosures or questions, because we want to make sure we're getting interpretations that do also change over time, so that we interpret things as accurately as possible as often as possible.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
After March 1, how many times did the PMO communicate with the Kielburgers or any of their intermediaries?
4:50 p.m.
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
I looked into this. There were a handful of interactions with the Prime Minister's Office and the WE organization around the Canada summer student grant between then and the launch of the program. There was only one prior to the launch of the program. It was in early May, when one of the policy staff did what is very normal in their jobs, which is to speak to stakeholder organizations.
It was a very general discussion. They actually redirected the stakeholder, the WE organization, to ESDC officials. ESDC was a more appropriate place to get answers for the questions they were asking.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We'll have to come back to Mr. Barrett.
I didn't outline at the beginning, Ms. Telford, that we are under what we call the “COVID-19 rules”. We try to keep the answers as tight to the questions as we can—or I try to. Sometimes I succeed.
Mr. Barrett, I won't take that time from you. Go ahead.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
What day did that interaction occur, Ma'am?
4:50 p.m.
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
I believe it was on May 5.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Okay.
Are you able to tell us which policy staffer made that inquiry?
4:50 p.m.
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
I was a member of the policy team.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
The Prime Minister claimed today that his staff were working on the program before May 8. Can you provide this committee with a list of everyone who was involved?
Can you furnish the committee, in writing, with the names of everyone who was involved in the decision?
4:50 p.m.
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
It's public information who all the staff in the Prime Minister's Office are, and I am here to represent all of those staff, as the senior-most member of the Prime Minister's Office. If you have questions about any of them, or for any of them, I am happy to take them today.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Okay.
The Prime Minister testified today that the option given to the cabinet was WE or nothing. Ultimately, the outcome was nothing.
Why did the cabinet accept this supposed binary choice? Why not ask for options? Is this a government run by the public service, or is it run by cabinet? The accountability rests with the head of government. It rests with the cabinet.
I am getting pretty frustrated hearing how much respect the members of cabinet have for the public service while throwing them under the bus instead of taking accountability for their decision.
Why wouldn't they have required options?
4:50 p.m.
Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister
I want to address two things you said. First, no one is throwing anyone under the bus. I am explaining, and I am happy to explain, what happened. We relied on the public service and their recommendations, and their recommendation was to proceed.
The question you're asking about your your being frustrated that it was a binary choice is exactly the kind of question that the Prime Minister and I were asking on May 8, which caused it to be pulled from the cabinet agenda that morning so that we could confirm that that was truly the case.