Evidence of meeting #50 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.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I don't think there's an answer to that, unless Mr. Tassé wants to go ahead.
Mr. Fraser, you have the floor.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to start with the issue of the various entities that were involved in the contribution agreement. Specifically, I'll touch on the issue that Monsieur Fortin put forward. He made the suggestion, I believe, that there was gross negligence at play. For what it's worth, I've published on the issue of gross negligence in the atmosphere of the Alberta energy sector, and this ain't it.
The issue I want to flag with you and get your thoughts on is really the role of the WE Charity Foundation. From testimony we heard on the public record before this committee, the reason that the structure of the agreement was as it was, involving the foundation, was specifically due to the fact that the civil service asked WE Charity to bear the liability for the administration of the Canada student service grant. WE Charity responded by saying that they were not willing to take that risk entirely on themselves unless they could set up a foundation through which the contract would be delivered, specifically to avoid liability. You can imagine that if a student gets injured or something during one of these placements, who will they be trying to recoup their losses from?
After they made that proposal in response to the civil service, the civil service accepted it and then made the recommendation to the cabinet that the contract ought to proceed in that manner, with full knowledge of the structure that had been agreed to by the parties. Given the nature of the conversations and deliberations that would have taken place, and the advice of the civil service with full information, would you have had a problem with that kind of structure or arrangement to deliver a program such as the Canada student service grant?
6 p.m.
Senior Advisor, Canadian Centre of Excellence for Anti-Corruption, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Once again, it is difficult for me to express an opinion, because I did not have access to that information. Right now, I am basing my opinion on what you are telling me.
Personally, if I had a question, I would ask what processes would have been followed if we had not been in a pandemic. If it was the same program, what processes were followed because we were in a pandemic and what diligence was not applied, either because there was a time constraint or because it was not possible because of the COVID-19 pandemic. I think that would answer all your questions.
We need to determine whether both parties and their legal representatives understood the contract in question in the same way. It's important to find out how the senior officials understood the contract, how they documented it, how they concluded that due diligence had been done, and how—
6 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Monsieur Tassé, if I may, I think there are two distinct issues at play. I apologize for interrupting, but I think you were actually giving the answer to my second question, which I haven't asked yet.
The first question touches on the relationship between the various legal entities as a strategy to manage risk. Different members of the opposition have tried to make hay out of the fact that there was some confusing arrangement among various structures, such as the ME to WE social enterprise, the WE Charity, and the WE Charity Foundation.
The question I posed to you was simply whether there would be a problem, from your perspective, in using the WE Charity Foundation as an entity that was specifically created to limit the liability of the WE Charity for administering the program. This is not a question about due diligence that should have taken place—which is the subject of my next question, if I get there—but simply whether the structure of using the WE Charity Foundation was inappropriate, from your perspective, given that the civil service's recommendation was informed with that full information.
6 p.m.
Senior Advisor, Canadian Centre of Excellence for Anti-Corruption, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I liked what you said at the end of your remarks. However, since I don't have a lot of information, I cannot comment on it. We can certainly ask ourselves many questions, but we can only speculate on that until we see the documents that supported the decision. Unfortunately, we cannot give an opinion based on mere speculation.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Sure.
For what it's worth, members of this committee had the benefit of hearing live testimony, for which you of course were not present. We may be operating with an information asymmetry in today's hearing as well, which I appreciate.
The second question, which I know you have an opinion on because you started to answer it, touches on the due diligence that maybe should have taken place in advance of a contract award. One of the features that we heard was built into the contribution agreement—again, from the testimony by different ministers and the Clerk of the Privy Council as well—was that certain funds were to be released and flowed through to the entity delivering the program only when certain key performance indicators were met. This builds on my colleague Ms. Dzerowicz's line of questioning.
Despite the fact that you may have reservations about what level of due diligence could have or should have taken place, which you'll need to see documents for, I'm curious to know if you think that a feature of a contribution agreement that allows money to be released only once key performance indicators are met offers an additional layer of protection that could prevent abuses by a company that had a different arrangement, such as a true sole-source contract, say, through which it had an upfront cheque. Whether they performed or not, they could abscond with the money.
Do you think the requirement for certain key performance indicators to be met actually provides a level of protection for taxpayers' dollars in this instance?
6:05 p.m.
Senior Advisor, Canadian Centre of Excellence for Anti-Corruption, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Once again, it is difficult to give a clear and precise opinion on that. Perhaps the important thing is to look at the procedures that were applied, those that were not applied because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the professional judgment of the person who made a decision based on information they found satisfactory.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I do have a motion to introduce. I think my staff has just given you the notice of it.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I haven't seen it. You might have given it to the clerk.
That's not really a point of order, but what's your motion?
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
All right. Thank you very much.
It is as follows: “Whereas the Prime Minister shut down Parliament in March; whereas a modified and limited parliamentary committee of the whole has only met five times in the last two months, most recently today, August 12, 2020, from which the Prime Minister was absent to take a “personal day”; whereas his absence meant he could not answer questions about his $500-million grant he made to a group that had paid his family more than $500,000 in fees and expenses; whereas the Prime Minister has taken off 20 days in six weeks, meaning nearly half of the calendar days have been days off—”
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
It is, and here it is. It's that “The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance calls on the government to suspend the Prime Minister's pay until he returns to work and takes questions in Parliament.”
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I really don't think that motion is in order. I'll have to defer to the clerk, but I don't think it relates to the business of this committee, so I'm ruling it out of order.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Well, Mr. Chair, if I may, it does relate to the business of this committee because of the “whereas” referring to the $500-million grant to WE. That is a COVID grant that was authorized under COVID spending, for which this committee has been given the exclusive authority.
Furthermore, pay for members of the government is a financial matter.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
This is the finance committee, so it is very much in order.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Poilievre, I'm not going to argue with you. It may be a motion that could be put in Parliament, but as to the business of this committee, I am ruling that motion out of order.
Are we ready to adjourn?
The meeting is adjourned.