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.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
Let me have a look at my timeline here on the dates. I don't have a record of a cabinet meeting on May 8. I have a record of a cabinet meeting on May 22 that I participated in.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Okay.
On May 8, we learned that the Prime Minister had reservations about the contract and that he postponed the decision until the next cabinet meeting, on May 22. So, if I understand correctly, you were not at the meeting on May 8, but you were at the meeting on May 22.
Was there any discussion of a potential conflict of interest for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
We had a meeting on the 22nd. This is where we as a cabinet discussed this item. Of course, I'm not going to get into the details of the discussion at cabinet, but I know that both the Prime Minister and the finance minister have spoken to this committee and publicly and indicated that they should have recused themselves from that May 22 cabinet meeting, and have apologized for not doing so.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
You were at the May 22 meeting. Was there any discussion of that issue?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
Monsieur Fortin, I am not at liberty to share the discussions in cabinet, but I can say that both the minister and Prime Minister have indicated that they—
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
This is the last question, Mr. Fortin. We're a little overtime, but I took some of your time.
Go ahead.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand that you cannot tell us about the May 22 meeting. So I will ask you a question.
At the May 22 meeting, or anytime before then, did you see a due diligence report on the financial and legal status of WE Charity or the WE Charity Foundation of Canada?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, Mr. Fortin and Madam Minister.
We'll go back to Mr. Fraser.
My apologies, Mr. Fraser. You're up, and then we'll go on to Mr. Julian.
Sean.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know that I'm completely forgettable here, so I'll forgive you this time around.
Thank you, Minister, for being with us today. One of the issues I want to explore a little is the role of unsolicited proposals that come in. I've made the point during previous meetings. It's the kind of thing that as a local MP you may get and that you may get as a cabinet minister. In your case, in the present circumstances, perhaps it's both.
For what's it's worth, actually, you mentioned the investment made in Futurpreneur. I know that prior to that announcement, they reached out to my office in my role as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
When your office receives an unsolicited proposal, I'm curious about what the normal process would be to make an assessment of whether it's something worth pursuing or something you're going to reject. What kind of process does an unsolicited proposal go through in your office?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
Let me put it into the context of this time period during COVID-19. During COVID-19, it was really important that we were providing supports to help Canada's small businesses and entrepreneurs throughout the country. As I said earlier, my department and my staff had a daily call with businesses from all across the country, including groups that represented businesses. At times, there were literally over a thousand businesses on that morning call.
There were proposals, there were suggestions and there were ideas that would come through. In fact, because of the urgency and the time compression, we were literally working as just one team. There was no such thing as a political team or a departmental team. We just worked together, listening to businesses and hearing from them. We were also hearing from members of Parliament from all sides of the House about solutions that might be had. It just came into our department, and we were listening, on the one hand, to what the needs of businesses were, and then seeing, on the other hand, if there were solutions or ideas or programs that might actually work to help businesses.
The process simply was that should there be ideas that came in, or solutions, our department would look at them, they would vet them, they would do the analysis and then they would make a recommendation to me. We would, of course, engage in conversations with Finance, because this was also a time when it was really important to see how we might be able to take an idea forward. The CEBA loan is a perfect example. We knew we had to get that liquidity out to businesses, but they were delivered by Canada's banks. Then you'll know, of course, that we also had to make changes. They are delivered through the credit unions as well.
So it really came in, and we responded by looking through to be sure that there were solutions that met the needs of businesses; if so, there was an analysis done, and a recommendation.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thank you.
I just hope that the folks who've been watching these proceedings over the past few months don't become concerned that they shouldn't be reaching out to their local MPs or to the government. I know that some of the most valuable feedback I've received came from other members of Parliament from all parties right across Canada. When I saw that thousands of businesses were reaching out to hundreds of members of Parliament, ultimately coming across my desk, it spoke to me that there were items that we needed to act upon.
I want to dig a little bit into the proposal you received initially for WE Charity's student entrepreneurship program, which was rejected. When did you communicate to WE Charity that the program had been rejected?
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
I'm just looking at my timeline here. We received it on April 22, and we communicated to WE.... Let me just see....
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I see some movement from the chair, so I might be quickly running out of time.
In any event, you communicated the—
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
We did communicate. We communicated after my department did an analysis and said that it likely was not within my mandate. We communicated that we were not going to proceed with that proposal.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
You have no reason to believe the genesis of the Canada student service grant was tied in any way to the unsolicited proposal that came in on the Canada entrepreneurship program. Is that correct?
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Okay. I'll ask one final question.
Minister Qualtrough, who was before the committee just moments ago, indicated in no uncertain terms that she remained confident that a third party administrator for the program would be essential if it was going to do everything the program was asking of the service provider rather than, for example, going through the civil service. The Prime Minister gave testimony to the effect that there was a binary choice presented during that May 22 cabinet meeting, which you were present for, according to your testimony today, saying that this was a binary choice: We were either going to go forward with WE Charity administering the program or there would not be a service grant program this summer.
Do you have any reason to believe, based on the information you had at the time, that there was another option, that in fact the civil service could have delivered the program in the manner contemplated by the government?