Finance Committee on July 30th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

This is your last question, Mr. Fortin.

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

Now, Ms. Telford, you agree that they should have never been at the decision-making table and the two politicians in question agree as well. How do you explain that, between May 8, when the first red flag went up—which should have been sooner, if you ask me—and the day the decision was made, all of you, together, decided to vote on the matter, and yet, here you all are today, saying you shouldn't have in the end?

How do you explain that about-face?

[Katie Telford]

I would just take you back to what we talked about in terms of what we were aware of at the time. The Prime Minister, when he became leader of the Liberal Party, disclosed all of his financials and proactively disclosed all of his previous paid speaking engagements in a way that I'm not sure any political leaders have done in the past. It's something we've been very transparent about.

I knew that he had never been paid to speak for any WE Day or WE functions. I similarly knew that none of Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's work since we were in government had ever been paid, and we had clearance from the Ethics Commissioner for the role she had taken on, so there wasn't discussion of conflict at that time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll go to Mr. Julian. You have two and a half or three minutes, Peter.

Following Mr. Julian will be Mr. Morantz.

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

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

Thank you.

I'm interested in going into the due diligence between May 8 and May 22 that Mr. Trudeau alluded to in his testimony.

We've already determined that the public service was perfectly willing and able to assume the program, so there's no longer this binary choice that seems to have been part of testimony to justify it.

I'm interested in the issue of liability. During that two-week period, was there an investigation, and were you aware that the contract would be signed with the WE Charity Foundation, which is basically a shell foundation with no assets? That would increase liability challenge for the students if they were involved with the program, but also for the federal government. Were you aware of that? What due diligence was done around that?

[Katie Telford]

I was not aware of the distinction between WE Charity and the WE Charity Foundation at the time. That is something that would be left for political staff to sort out the details, and it is wise, I believe, to leave it to the public servants to sort out the details of how a contract and how a contribution agreement should flow.

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

Okay, so there was no discussion of that.

The code of ethics governs teachers, and I'll mention BCTF. Of course, as you know, the Prime Minister was briefly a teacher.

Two sections of the code of ethics include the following. Section 2 says, “The member respects the confidential nature of information concerning students and may give it only to authorized persons or agencies directly concerned with their welfare.” Section 3 says, “A privileged relationship exists between members and students” and “The member refrains from exploiting that relationship for material...advantage.”

Of course, in the WE scheme, there was a $12,000 payment to teachers that, I think, quite clearly violates those two components of the code of ethics for British Columbia and would do so right across the country.

To what extent was due diligence performed to ensure that the scheme itself met codes of ethics for teachers across the country, who of course maintain the highest possible standards?

[Katie Telford]

I have, in my career, done a lot of work with teachers organizations and teachers associations as well, but I can't say. I was not involved in sorting out this part of the agreement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Be very quick, Peter.

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

Ms. Telford, who was in the room? Who was making these decisions for this proposal? Who was in the room? Are you aware of the people who made this decision? The public service, obviously, says that they could have done it. All of this mess has blossomed forward, and no one seems to be wanting to take responsibility for it. Who was in the room?

[Katie Telford]

I think you've actually spoken to quite a number of the people who were in the room, Mr. Julian. I think you've spoken to some of the most senior officials and you've spoken to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, so I'm not sure how you're confused on that.

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

I'm not confused. I'd just like to know if you are aware of who was in the room developing the a scheme and if you can provide those names to us.

[Katie Telford]

I would have to look into that with the Clerk of the Privy Council, but I believe you've actually already spoken to all of the key people who would be able to answer that exact question for you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you all.

I have Mr. Morantz on my list. Is he next? No, it's Mr. Poilievre. Okay. Mr. Poilievre will be followed by Mr. McLeod.

You have five minutes, Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

The WE Charity says it had authorization to begin implementing the program on May 5. Did anyone in the PMO speak to the organization on May 5, yes or no?

[Katie Telford]

Yes. I already stated that.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Who?

[Katie Telford]

I'm here on behalf of my staff—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Who?

[Katie Telford]

—and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have for them.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Who?

[Katie Telford]

Is there a question you have for them?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Yes. I'd like to know the name. What is your name, sir or madam, whoever it is?

[Katie Telford]

So you don't have a question for them—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Yes, I do.