House of Commons Hansard #42 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was program.
Chrystia Freeland LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the non-partisan public service recommended this structure as the only way to deliver the program in the required time. Obviously, the way this unfolded was regrettable, and that is why the charity is no longer administering the project. When it comes to the committee, we are co-operating with it, as we ought to do.
Andrew Scheer ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, it is odd that the public service would come up with this idea all on its own. Charity Intelligence, a watchdog for charitable organizations, says WE has no experience delivering this kind of program: “I'm not sure how you would assess the charity's track record or capability to do this if it had not previously done such work in the past.” That is from the managing director, Kate Bahen.
The Liberals say it was the public service that recommended WE, and yet it was WE that sent a proposal to manage this program directly to Rachel Wernick, on the same day that the Prime Minister announced the program.
Who in the Prime Minister's office prepped WE for this announcement?
Chrystia Freeland LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, as we heard clearly last week at committee, it was the non-partisan public service that recommended this structure as the only way to deliver the program in the required time.
Let me also be clear with Canadians that the way this unfolded was regrettable and the charity will no longer be administering the project.
Andrew Scheer ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the Deputy Prime Minister is saying; nothing has become clear from testimony at the committee. In fact, at the ethics committee, Liberal members shamefully filibustered and ran out the clock so they would not have to answer these types of questions. Getting up in the House of Commons and responding is not the same as giving an answer to very specific questions.
Charity Intelligence went on to say that “in 2018, the auditor flagged for the first time that WE Charity was in breach of its bank covenants. That is a massive, massive red flag.”
Either the Liberals were aware of these issues and still approved the decision, or they were incompetent. It is either corruption or incompetence. Which is it?
Chrystia Freeland LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, it is neither. Let me simply be clear. As we heard from Canada's excellent public service last week, it was our non-partisan public service that recommended this structure as the only way to deliver the program in the required time. Obviously, the way this unfolded was regrettable, and that is why it is important for me to assure Canadians that the charity is no longer administering the project.
Yves-François Blanchet Bloc Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Mr. Speaker, roughly an hour ago, exactly when is not important, I received a message from Louis Sansfaçon, who came to Parliament with his daughter Émilie Sansfaçon a few months ago and met with the Prime Minister.
During that meeting, the Prime Minister said that he intended to consider the request made by people who pay the same taxes, and whose families pay the same taxes as everyone else, to increase employment insurance benefits to 50 weeks for the seriously ill.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister consider this request now?
Chrystia Freeland LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
I want to acknowledge how important it is for our government to support Canadians at this time of serious economic crisis.
We understand the importance of supporting Canadians. We are doing that now, and I want to assure the House that we will continue to do so.
Yves-François Blanchet Bloc Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Mr. Speaker, I realize questions are not always sent in ahead of time, but that did not even remotely resemble an answer.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us that she will consider this request, that I will be able to ask a question about this issue, and that I will get a more detailed answer once the government has had some time to think about what it can do for people with serious illnesses who are collecting employment insurance?
Chrystia Freeland LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I can assure you and all members of the House and all Canadians that our government understands the importance of supporting all Canadians during this very serious economic crisis. We do understand the importance of supporting people with serious illnesses.
We are working on it, and we will keep doing this important work.
Jagmeet Singh NDP Burnaby South, BC
Mr. Speaker, the WE scandal is another example of the Liberal government saying all the right things in public, but working for its close friends behind closed doors.
If the Liberal government really wanted to help students, it could use existing programs.
Will the government admit today that the point of this scandal was not to help students, but rather to help its close friends?
Chrystia Freeland LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
What our government understands is the importance of helping young Canadians today. Economic history has shown that recessions pose a particular threat to young people, which is why our government is here to support that generation.
That is a promise from our government to all young Canadians.
Jagmeet Singh NDP Burnaby South, BC
Mr. Speaker, there were lots of ways to help students; this was not it. What this was was a billion-dollar bailout of close friends of the Liberal Party and of the Prime Minister. People with disabilities were told to wait for months before they could get help. People who saw their CERB about to end were also told to wait. People who needed help were told again and again by the government to wait, but when close friends of the Liberal government and close friends of the Prime Minister needed help, they jumped in with nearly a billion-dollar bailout.
Will the government admit that this was not about helping students but about helping its close friends?
Chrystia Freeland LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what this government believes in. We understand that economic recessions and depressions pose a particular threat to young people, and that is why we acted swiftly to support young Canadians. I want to say to all young Canadians that we will not allow them to be left behind. We will not allow them to be a lost generation.
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Mr. Speaker, last week at the ethics committee, Liberal members filibustered the committee in an attempt to obstruct further examination of the Prime Minister's role in awarding a sole-source deal to his buddies at the WE organization. This comes after the Liberals blocked the Ethics Commissioner from testifying at committee regarding the “Trudeau II Report”, in which the PM was found to have broken ethics laws for a second time.
Where is the Prime Minister's commitment to transparency and openness when he sends members to committee to do his dirty work?
Pablo Rodriguez LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows full well that committees are independent and make their own decisions. The members who sit on these committees act in accordance with their priorities and their knowledge of the issues. They ask good questions and have good debates.
The government will never tell members what to do, because it understands that a committee's independence is too important to be disregarded.
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Mr. Speaker, like the Prime Minister, the finance minister has close family with financial ties to the WE organization. Despite this and his previous record of ethical breaches, the finance minister did not recuse himself from discussions or the decision to award a whopping $43 million taxpayer-funded bailout to the WE organization with its broken bank covenants and board in shambles.
Did the minister know the state of the WE organization when he signed off on this plan worth $912 million in taxpayer dollars?
Bardish Chagger LiberalMinister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth
Mr. Speaker, as I and our government have been clear, the health and safety of all Canadians remains our priority. The finance committee asked me to come to testify. I was present. The committee asked for officials to come. The officials testified. What is clear and has been shared and stated publicly is that the non-partisan professional public service made a recommendation and we accepted its recommendation.
Our focus remains on making sure that students have additional supports in this very challenging and unprecedented time. It was a contribution agreement that was negotiated and signed between the public service and WE Charity. I did sign off on that recommendation. It was the only one the public servants provided, and after due diligence, I am confident they did their important work.
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Mr. Speaker, on Friday, July 17, 2020, the Liberals had a lot to say at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, and they systematically obstructed its work. Meanwhile, Canadians have serious questions about the close ties between the Prime Minister and WE Charity.
Will the Liberal government continue trying to cover up this new scandal at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics?
Pablo Rodriguez LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that members act independently in committee. Far be it from us to try to influence committee work.
The Conservatives may like telling their MPs what to do, but on the government side, we are committed to protecting the independence of committees. The independence of members is absolutely fundamental to the proper functioning of the House and always will be.
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Mr. Speaker, to get to the bottom of this new scandal, the transparency of the Prime Minister's cabinet deliberations is important.
This time will the Prime Minister lift the veil of secrecy, waive cabinet confidence and finally tell us the whole truth?
Bardish Chagger LiberalMinister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth
Mr. Speaker, as I said, the aim of the Canada student service grant was always to connect post-secondary students and recent graduates who want to support their communities' COVID-19 response.
As I said, we will always work with the Ethics Commissioner. The Standing Committee on Finance asked me to come and testify and I did. We answered all the questions. The public service made recommendations and I accepted those recommendations.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Diversity says that she and the government did due diligence before granting this $912 million contribution agreement to WE Charity. Did this due diligence demonstrate, through the publicly available sources, that WE Charity had somehow accumulated over $40 million in real estate?
Bardish Chagger LiberalMinister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth
Mr. Speaker, members of all parties passed a motion at the finance committee to ensure that I could appear to provide these answers. They also requested that officials appear, and the officials also appeared last Thursday to provide this information in a public format so that the information could be available. As I shared at committee and continue to share, the non-partisan professional public service made a recommendation. I am confident that the public servants did their due diligence. Any of the information that was shared with me by the public service, I shared at committee to ensure that Canadians and members could have those answers. It was a contribution agreement that was signed because our focus was on students and not-for-profits in this very challenging time.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the question was to find out whether the public service or the government knew that the organization received over $40 million in real estate. Perhaps we will find out one day.
I will ask another question. Is the government telling the truth when it says that it respects the committee? The committee invited the Prime Minister to testify. Will the Prime Minister testify, yes or no?
Bardish Chagger LiberalMinister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth
Mr. Speaker, as we have stated, it is very regrettable the way the situation has unfolded. As the Prime Minister has also stated, he recognizes that he should have recused himself. We know that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is doing an investigation. We have stated that we would comply with him.
To the member's first question, any of the information that was made available to me, I made available to committee members, and it was their recommendation that I accepted, because our goal has always been to deliver for Canadians and provide additional support to students. We recognize that not-for-profits are also facing a very challenging time, so it was an opportunity to put in a program that would help people in a very positive way.