 
FINANCE COMMITTEE.
I'M HERE IN OTTAWA.
NOW IT'S NOT UNHEARD OF FOR A 
PRIME MINISTER TO BE QUESTIONED
BY A PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE, 
BUT IT IS RARE, UNUSUAL EVEN.
THE LAST TIME IT HAPPENED IN A 
VERY DIFFERENT SET OF 
CIRCUMSTANCES BACK IN 2006 WHEN
STEPHEN HARPER APPEARED BEFORE 
THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON SENATE
REFORM.
BUT REALLY TO TALK ABOUT 
POLICY.
TODAY THE STAKES ARE HIGH.
35 DAYS AFTER ANNOUNCING THE WE
CHARITY WOULD ADMINISTER THE 
STUDENT GRANT PROGRAM.
STUDENT VOLUNTEER PROGRAM.
WE STILL DON'T KNOW THE FUTURE 
OF THAT PROGRAM.
AND THERE ARE MANY QUESTIONS 
FOR THE PRIME MINISTER TODAY.
THE OPPOSITION CONSERVATIVES 
CONTINUE TO CALL FOR HIM TO 
STEP ASIDE.
THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER IS 
LOOKING INTO HIS ACTIONS AND 
FINANCE MINISTER BILL MORNEAU 
IN THE AWARDING OF THIS 
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT OR 
CONTRACT TO THE WE CHARITY.
AND THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN 
BOTH JUSTIN TRUDEAU AND BILL 
MORNEAU'S FAMILY TO THAT 
CHARITY.
SO LOTS TO COVER AS WE GEAR UP 
FOR WHAT WILL BE MANY HOURS OF 
TESTIMONY STARTING AT 3 O'CLOCK
EASTERN WITH THE PRIME 
MINISTER.
HE WILL TESTIFY FOR ONE HOUR.
AND THEN HIS CHIEF OF STAFF HAD
ALSO BEEN SCHEDULED FOR ONE 
HOUR BUT NOW WILL BE IN FRONT 
OF THE COMMITTEE FOR A TOTAL OF
TWO HOURS.
P AND TRYING TO LIMIT WHEN THEY
CAN TO BREAKING THINGS DOWN.
BE AIDED.
AND BELIEVE BY MY COLLEAGUES.
SENIOR REPORTER HERE AS WELL.
I SHOULD SAY VASY IS GOING TO 
PICK UP HER SHOW AT 6 F:30 AND 
SHE WILL STAY ON UNTIL 8.
BECAUSE IT WILL PROBABLY TAKE 
THAT LONG TO GET THROUGH 
EVERYTHING WE'VE HEARD AND GET 
LOTS OF DIFFERENT REACTION TO 
IT.
WITH YOU, WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU
CAN EXPECT TO HEAR FROM THE 
PRIME MINISTER TODAY?
WHAT COULD YOU WANT TO ASK HIM 
TODAY?
>> YEAH, LOOK, I THINK THE 
QUESTIONING FROM THE OPPOSITION
AND MAYBE EVEN WHAT THE PRIME 
MINISTER SAYS WILL REALLY BE 
INFORMED BY THE POSITIONS THAT 
BOTH SIDES, IF I CAN CALL IT 
THAT, HAVE PUT FORWARD SO FAR.
THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT FROM THE 
GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN THE REASON 
THAT WE AWARDED THIS 
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT OR 
CONTRACT WAS BECAUSE WE WAS 
BEST POSITIONED TO DELIVER ON A
PROGRAM WE THOUGHT WAS 
IMPORTANT.
AND HAD TO GET DONE SOON.
THE OPPOSITION CONTENDS THAT 
ISN'T THE CASE.
THAT IN FACT IT WAS AWARDED TO 
THE WE CHARITY BECAUSE OF QUOTE
UNQUOTE, COZY RELATIONSHIP 
BETWEEN THE FINANCE MINISTER 
AND THE PRIME MINISTER AND THE 
CHARITY.
I THINK THAT THE OPPOSITION 
WILL BE AND BASED ON MY 
CONVERSATIONS WITH MEMBERS OF 
THE OPPOSITION REALLY TRYING TO
DRILL DOWN ON THE RELATIONSHIP.
AND TRY TOKES POSE SOME NEW 
INFORMATION.
WE KNOW BOTH THE PRIME MINISTER
ADMITTED YES THERE IS A 
RELATIONSHIP.
EVENTUALLY WE FOUND OUT THAT 
THE PRIME MINISTER'S MOTHER AND
BROTHER WERE PAID BY THE 
CHARITY TO APPEAR AT AUXILIARY 
EVENTS SURROUNDING, SPEAKING 
EVENTS WITH WE CHARITY.
SO I THINK THAT THEY'VE 
ADMITTED THAT.
THEY'VE APOLOGIZED FOR IT.
BUT BASED ON WHAT I'M HEARING 
FROM THE OPPOSITION, THEY ARE 
GOING TO TRY AND GET MORE NEW 
INFORMATION.
CAN THIS MOVE THINGS ALONG?
IS THERE SOMETHING THAT HASN'T 
BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE PRIME 
MINISTER SPECIFICALLY ABOUT 
THAT RELATIONSHIP THAT WOULD 
THEN IN TURN CIRCLE BACK TO 
THOSE ARGUMENTS.
I PUT FORTH AT THE BEGINNING.
AND SORT OF SUPPORT THE 
POSITION THAT THE OPPOSITION 
HAS PUT FORWARD.
THAT THIS WASN'T ABOUT AN 
INNOCENT SUGGESTION FROM THE 
PUBLIC SERVICE.
THIS WAS ABOUT SOMETHING MORE 
NEFARIOUS.
NOW THEY'VE SAID THE PRIME 
MINISTER HAS REFUTED THAT 
CHARACTERIZATION.
AND SO HAVE VARIOUS MINISTERS 
IN THE CABINET.
THAT'S WHAT I'M ANTICIPATING 
HERE TODAY.
MORE OF THE SAME I THINK TO 
THAT DEGREE.
THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THE 
PUBLIC SERVICE PUT FORWARD.
IF THERE IS ANY SORT OF DIE 
VERSION AWAY FROM THAT 
ARGUMENT, THAT WOULD BE A BIG 
DEAL.
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW HIGH MY 
EXPECTATIONS ARE FOR SOMETHING 
NEW AS FAR AS THE WAY IN WHICH 
THE PRIME MINISTER DEFENDS THE 
DECISION.
AND HIS OWN RELATIONSHIP WITH 
WE.
BUT I DO THINK THAT'S THE PART 
THAT SO FAR HAS NOT REALLY 
PASSED THE SNIFF TEST.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE 
OPPOSITION WILL GLEAN ON.
THAT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 
LIBERALS BUT IN PARTICULAR THE 
PRIME MINISTER AND WE CHARITY.
THEY ARE GOING TO TRY AND 
EXPOSE SOMETHING NEW I THINK.
>> YEAH, AND DAVID, I THINK 
IT'S FAIR TO SAY, VASSY'S 
ASSESSMENT IS RIGHT.
AND THAT THE IDEA OF IT WE 
MIGHT GET NEW INFORMATION.
FROM THE MINISTER IN 
PARTICULAR.
I WOULD SAY MY EXPECTATION FOR 
THAT IS PRETTY LOW.
WHAT IT MAY END UP BEING IS 
MORE OF AN ASSESSMENT OF HOW 
THIS UNFOLDS POLITICALLY IN 
THIS COMMITTEE.
>> YEAH, THERE MAY BE SOME NEW 
INFORMATION FROM THE PRIME 
MINISTER.
THERE MAY BE SOME NEW 
INFORMATION FROM KATIE TELFORD.
I THINK AFTER HEARING FROM THE 
KIELBURGERS AND SERVICE CIVIL 
SERVICE AND BILL MORNEAU, AND 
FROM THE PRIME MINISTER HIMSELF
I FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE PROBABLY 
LAID OUT THE FACT THAT THEY ARE
GOING TO DISCLOSE AT THIS 
POINT.
AND QUITE FRANKLY FOR THE PRIME
MINISTER TO SHOW UP NOW WITH 
SORT OF A BOMBSHELL NEW REV 
LEAGUES WOULD BREATHE A LOT OF 
OXYGEN INTO THIS CONTROVERSY.
AND ONCE AGAIN PROVE THE 
DIFFICULTIES THEY HAVE WITH 
ISSUES MANAGEMENT AND THEIR 
INABILITY TO SORT OF DISCLOSE 
EVERYTHING.
ALL AT ONCE IN A QUICK AND 
TIMELY FASHION.
SO I THINK THIS IS MORE OF AN 
EMERGENCY OR MEDICAL PROCEDURE 
BEING PERFORMED BY THE PRIME 
MINISTER.
THEY NEED TO COTTARIZE THIS 
THING AND FAST.
BECAUSE THE LIBERALS HAVE BEEN 
LEAKING OIL NOW FOR WEEKS. AND 
THIS IS GOING TO BE AS MUCH AN 
EXERCISE IN DAMAGED MITIGATION 
BY THE PRIME MINISTER IN KATIE 
TELFORD AND ATTEMPT AT DAMAGE 
INFLICTION BY THE OPPOSITION AS
ANYTHING ELSE.
THESE COMMITTEES, THEY TEND TO 
BREAK IN PARTISAN ATTACK AND 
TALKING POINTS EXCHANGES.
SORT OF A BATTLE OF TALKING 
POINTS AND PROVOCATIONS.
RATHER THAN A REAL, HONEST 
ATTEMPT TO BRING NEW 
INFORMATION OUT INTO THE 
PUBLIC.
YOU'LL SEE THIS IN THE 
EXCHANGES GOING FORWARD.
BUT THE CONSERVATIVES AND NEW 
DEMOCRATS, ATTACKING IS 
AGGRESSIVE AS THEY CAN.
AND THEN PITCHING UNDERHAND 
FROM THE LIBERAL MPs WHEN THEY 
GET IN THERE TO GIVE THE PRIME 
MINISTER AND HIS TOP OFFICIAL 
AS MUCH TIME, AND LEEWAY TO 
MONOLOGUE ON THE VIRTUES OF 
WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO.
I MEAN THE PRIME MINISTER'S 
ARGUMENT IN THIS HAS NOT 
CHANGED FROM THE BEGINNING.
THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO HELP 
YOUNG PEOPLE.
THE CIVIL SERVICE RECOMMENDED 
THIS WHICH IS WHY THEY WENT TO 
WE.
AND WHILE HIM AND BILL MORNEAU 
MADE BIG MISTAKES IN TERMS OF 
THEIR HANDLING AND PERSONAL AND
FAMILY CONNECTIONS TO THE 
CHARITY, THEY HAVE APOLOGIZED 
FOR THIS AND EXPECT SOME SORT 
OF SANCTIONING FROM THE ETHICS 
COMMISSIONER ON THIS.
THAT ESSENTIAL THING IS NOT 
CHANGED AND THE TESTIMONY HAS 
TO SOME DEGREE SHOWN OR AT 
LEAST NOT REFUTED THE IDEA THAT
THE CIVIL SERVICE DID RECOMMEND
THAT THINGS GO TO WE.
NOW THE ISSUES WITH WE ARE KIND
OF A SEPARATE THING UNTO 
THEMSELVES.
BUT IT SPEAKS TO THE LEVEL OF 
VETTING AND INQUIRY THAT WAS 
DONE BY THE GOVERNMENT.
WHEN THEY SAID THAT THIS IS THE
ONLY ORGANIZATION THAT CAN DO 
THIS.
IT TURNS OUT IT WAS AN 
ORGANIZATION WITH SOME BIG 
PROBLEMS INTERNALLY.
>> YEAH, AND JUST TO GO THROUGH
THE NUMBERS IN RELATION TO THE 
PRIME MINISTER.
IN TERMS OF SPEAKING FEES AND 
EXPENSES.
SO FOR MARGARET TRUDEAU, HIS 
MOTHER 28 EVENTS.
SPEAKING FEES AND EXPENSES.
A TOTAL OF MORE THAN $400,000 
FOR HIS BROTHER.
SASHA TRUDEAU, EIGHT EVENTS.
A TOTAL AGAIN OF $52,000.
THAT'S SPEAKING FEES ON TOP OF 
EXPENSES.
AND EXPENSES.
AND FOR HIS WIFE SOPHIE TRUDY, 
SHE WAS NEVER PAID SPEAKING 
FEES.
$25,000 FOR EXPENSES ONLY.
BUT I JUST MENTION THAT AGAIN, 
VASSY, BECAUSE MAYBE I'LL JUST 
QUICKLY PLAY THE CLIP OF THE 
PRIME MINISTER WHEN HE 
APOLOGIZED BACK ON JUNE 13th.
NO-- JULY 13th SORRY.
THAT'S RELEVANT TO REMEMBER.
BECAUSE HE DIDN'T SEEM TO KNOW 
THE DETAILS OF ANY OF THAT 
BEFORE.
THAT'S WHAT HE SAYS.
BUT IT RAISES A QUESTION ABOUT 
WHETHER HE SHOULD HAVE.
OR WHETHER SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE.
OR WHETHER SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE 
SAID.
LIKE I'M JUST NOT SURE THAT WE 
SHOULD GO AHEAD WITH THIS.
OR LET'S ASK THEM MORE 
QUESTIONS.
LET ME JUST PLAY THAT CLIP OF 
THE PRIME MINISTER WHEN HE 
APOLOGIZED.
AND I SHOULD ALSO TELL VIEWERS 
ANDREW SCHEER IS STANDING BY.
THE LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL 
OPPOSITION AND WILL GET HIS 
TAKE TOO AS WE WAIT IN ABOUT 20
MINUTES' TIME TO HEAR FROM THE 
PRIME MINISTER.
BUT HERE'S WHAT HE SAID ON THIS
ON JULY 13th.
>> I MADE A MISTAKE IN NOT 
RECUSING MYSELF IMMEDIATELY 
FROM THE DISCUSSIONS.
GIVEN OUR FAMILY'S HISTORY.
AND I'M SINCERELY SERE ABOUT 
NOT HAVING DONE THAT.
WHEN IT CAME TO THIS 
ORGANIZATION AND THIS PROGRAM.
THE INVOLVEMENT THAT I'D HAD IN
THE PAST AND THAT MY FAMILY 
HAS, SHOULD HAVE HAD ME REMOVE 
MYSELF FROM THIS DISCUSSIONS.
I'M SORRY THAT I DIDN'T.
PARTICULARLY SORRY BECAUSE NOT 
ONLY HAS IT CREATED UNNECESSARY
CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES, IT ALSO
MEANS THAT YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE
FACING A DIFFICULT TIME RIGHT 
NOW, GETTING SUMMER JOBS, 
CONTRIBUTING TO THEIR 
COMMUNITIES, ARE GOING TO HAVE 
TO WAIT A LITTLE LONGER BEFORE 
GETTING THOSE OPPORTUNITIES TO 
SERVE.
>> VASSY I ONLY HAVE ABOUT 30 
SECONDS BECAUSE I DO WANT TO 
GET TO MR. SCHEER.
BUT YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT IN 
TERMS OF WHAT WE MIGHT HEAR 
TODAY?
I EXPECT IT WILL BE SOME OF THE
SAME THINGS.
BUT HE'LL BE PRESSED ON SORT OF
WHY HE DIDN'T KNOW THOSE 
THINGS?
>> YEAH, I THINK WHY HE DIDN'T 
KNOW IT.
AND WHY HE DIDN'T DISCLOSE IT 
EARLIER ON.
OR SOMEBODY DIDN'T DISCLOSE IT.
IT ENDED UP BEING CANADALAND 
THAT FIRST FOUND OUT THAT FIRST
OF ALL HIS MOTHER AND BRATHER 
WERE PAID.
THEN WE FOUND OUT A FEW DAYS 
AGO IN THE KIELBURGER'S 
TESTIMONY THAT THEY WERE 
REIMBURSED TO THE TUNE OF ABOUT
$212,000 INCLUDING SOPHIE 
GREGOIRE TRUDEAU FOR THEIR 
EXPENSES.
I THINK THE QUESTION WILL BE IS
THERE MORE-- SHOULD YOU HAVE 
KNOWN IF THERE IS MORE?
AND WHY WASN'T EVERYTHING PUT 
OUT EARLIER, FASTER?
AND JUST MORE TRANSPARENTALLY?
IT FEELS LIKE THAT IS 
DEFINITELY THE TRAJECTORY I 
SIGH THAT KIND OF QUESTIONING 
GOING DOWN.
>> YEAH, AND QUESTIONS AROUND 
JUDGMENT IN TERMS OF WHY HE 
DIDN'T DO THAT.
OKAY.
I'LL COME BACK TO BOTH OF YOU 
SHORTLY IF YOU DON'T MIND.
AND I'LL BRING IN THE 
CONSERVATIVE PARTY LEADER.
LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL 
OPPOSITION ANDREW SCHEER.
HE IS IN REGINA TODAY.
AND HE WAS OUT EARLIER SPEAKING
TO REPORTERS.
SPEAKING OF THE FINANCE 
COMMITTEE AGAIN.
AN UNUSUAL EVENT TO BE SURE.
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE IN THE 
MIDDLE OF A SCANDAL AND YOU'RE 
TRYING TO MANAGE YOUR OWN 
POLITICAL FUTURE.
ANDREW SCHEER, THANK YOU FOR 
MAKING THE TIME.
I KNOW THAT YOU CERTAINLY 
AREN'T HAPPY WITH THE AMOUNT OF
TIME THE PRIME MINISTER IS 
GIVING THE COMMITTEE.
IT IS STILL ONE HOUR.
EVEN THOUGH THE COMMITTEE TRIED
TO GET HIM THERE TO STAY 
LONGER.
BUT WHAT FOR YOU IS THE 
FUNTDMENTAL QUESTION THE PRIME 
MINISTER NEEDS TO ANSWER THIS 
AFTERNOON?
>> WE ARE, RIGHT?
DISAPPOINTED.
ONE HOUR IS NOT SUFFICIENT WHEN
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A $900 
MILLION SCANDAL.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME PRIME 
MINISTER HAS HAD TO APPEAR IN 
THIS WAY.
FACING HIS OWN ACCUSATIONS FOR 
HIS OWN ETHICAL BEHAVIOUR.
WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR TODAY 
IS SOME DIRECT ANSWERS.
WE ARE GOING TO BE POSING VERY 
SIMPLE STRAIGHT FORWARD 
QUESTIONS THAT CAN BE ANSWERED 
WITH EITHER A YES OR A NO.
OR FACTUAL INFORMATION LIKE ON 
WHAT DATE.
AND WE'RE HOPING THAT THE PRIME
MINISTER DOESN'T BOB AND WEAVE 
LIKE HE HAS DONE IN THE PAST 
BUT ACTUALLY SAY YES TO SOME 
QUESTIONS AND NO TO OTHERS 
DEPENDING ON WHAT THE 
INFORMATION MIGHT BE.
BUT THIS IS REALLY ABOUT MAKING
SURE THAT WHAT WE FIND OUT 
LATER, THE DOCUMENTS THAT 
REVEAL SOME OF THE INTERNAL 
WORKINGS BEHIND THE SCENES 
HERE, IF MR. TRUDEAU SAYS 
SOMETHING THAT ISN'T TRUE 
TODAY.
THEN HE'LL OF COURSE HAVE TO 
PAY THOSE CONSEQUENCES.
>> WHEN MR. TRUDEAU-- SHOULD 
HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE 
CABINET TABLE.
I'M SURE YOU AGREE THAT THAT IS
THE CASE.
BUT DO YOU THINK THAT BEYOND 
THAT THERE WERE OTHER MISTAKES 
THAT THE PRIME MINISTER MADE IN
THE WAY HE HANDLED THIS PROGRAM
AND THIS POLICY?
>> TRYING TO FOCUS ON THE FACT 
HE DIDN'T RECUSE HIMSELF.
THAT'S ONE VERY SMALL PIECE OF 
THIS.
THE PRIVY COUNCIL HAS SAID THAT
FINANCE MINISTER AND A PRIME 
MINISTER COULDN'T RECUSE 
THEMSELVES FROM A PROGRAM THIS 
BIG.
WHAT WE WANT TO KNOW IS WHY DID
THE GOVERNMENT JUST TAKE IT FOR
GRANTED THAT WE WAS THE ONLY 
ORGANIZATION THAT COULD DELIVER
THIS SERVICE.
THERE IS LITERALLY NO EVIDENCE 
BEHIND THAT.
THEY'VE-- WE NOW KNOW ALL THE 
DIFFICULTIES THAT WE WAS 
FACING.
THE FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY OF 
BREAKING THE BANK CONVENANTS.
WE KNOW THERE ARE OTHER 
ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE 
ANNOUNCED HEY WAIT A MINUTE, WE
WOULD HAVE AT LEAST LIKED TO 
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY 
FOR THIS.
WHAT JUSTIN TRUDEAU SHOULD HAVE
DONE.
IF IN FACT THIS CAME FROM THE 
CIVIL SERVICE THEMSELVES.
TO SAY WELL, GO GIVE ME A 
COMPETITIVE PROCESS.
AND WE'LL GIVE IT TO WHICHEVER 
ORGANIZATION IS BEST SUITED TO 
THE TASK.
NOT JUST SOMEONE THAT HAS A 
COZY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE 
LIBERAL PARTY.
AND THAT HAS PROMOTED THE PRIME
MINISTER.
IN A VERY POLITICAL WAY IN THE 
PAST.
>> THE FACT THOUGH THAT IT WAS 
THE PUBLIC SERVICE, I MEAN IT 
DOES-- THIS IS THE EVIDENCE 
THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.
THAT THERE WAS A PUBLIC SERVICE
THAT SAID COME BACK AND COME UP
WITH SOMETHING.
THIS IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO 
DO.
THAT THEY SAID THAT TO WE AND 
THEN THEY MOVED FORWARD.
IF IT CAME FROM THE PUBLIC 
SERVICE, IT MAKES IT HARDER TO 
MAKE THE CONNECTIONS THAT 
YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE THERE.
>> WE DON'T YET ACCEPT THAT AS 
GIVEN.
THERE'S STILL CONFUSION AS TO 
WHO IN THE PRIME MINISTER'S 
OFFICE SPOKE TO WE.
WE KNOW THAT WE WAS HAVING 
CONVERSATIONS THAT THEY 
SUBMITTED PROPOSALS.
IT'S UNCLEAR.
AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE 
GIVEN DIRECTION ON HOW TO MAKE 
THEIR PITCH.
WE ALSO BELIEVE THE BUCK STOPS 
WITH THE PRIME MINISTER.
WE KNOW WE PITCHES CORPORATE 
SPONSORS.
SAYS IF YOU GIVE US BIG BUCKS 
WE'LL PROMOTE YOU AND YOUNG 
KIDS AND YOUR ORGANIZATION AND 
COOPERATION IS COOL.
AND THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT THEY 
DID WITH THE LIBERAL PARTY WITH
JUSTIN TRUDEAU AND TAX PAYER'S 
MONEY.
AND THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE THIS 
SCANNEDLE IS ALL ABOUT.
THE FACT THAT THEY PRODUCED AN 
ELECTION-STYLE AD.
FOR JUSTIN TRUDEAU.
GAVE HIM A HUGE PLATFORM TO 
COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH YOUNG
PEOPLE INVOLVEED.
AND THEY GOT A SOLE SOURCE 
CONTRACT FOR ALMOST $1 BILLION.
THEY WERE ALLOWED TO TAKE 
MILLIONS' WORTH.
SO WE NEED TO GET MORE OF A 
SENSE OF HOW THIS CAME 
TOGETHER.
>> TO BE ACCURATE IT IS A 
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT AND I 
SAY THAT BECAUSE THAT IS A SORT
OF DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING THAT
YOU COME TO WITH A COMPANY.
NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT IS AN 
IMPORTANT DISTINCTION.
I ONLY HAVE ABOUT A MINUTE 
LEFT.
BUT WHAT HAPPENS AFTER TODAY?
WHERE DOES THE STORY GO FROM 
HERE?
HOW DO YOU INTEND TO KEEP IT 
MOVING FORWARD?
>> YOU MENTION AT THE TOP OF 
THE PROGRAM THAT THERE ARE LOW 
EXPECTATIONS FOR EXPLOSIVE NEWS
COMING OUT OF COMMITTEE TODAY.
I BELIEVE THAT'S PROBABLY AN 
ACCURATE ASSESSMENT.
WE'RE NOT EXPECTING JUSTIN 
TRUDEAU-- UNLESS HE ALSO HAD 
FOR EXAMPLE $411,000' WORTH OF 
EXPENSES THAT HE FORGOT TO TILL
PEOPLE ABOUT AS BILL MORNEAU 
DID.
WE ARE NOT EXPECTING THERE'S 
GOING TO BE THAT LEVEL OF 
REVELATION TODAY.
BUT WE ARE HOPING TO ACCOMPLISH
HIGHLIGHT TO CANADIANS THE 
PRIME MINISTER'S INABILITY TO 
BE FORTH RIGHT AS WE SAW WITH 
THE SNC LAVALIN SCANDAL.
WE HAD TO TEASE FOR WEEKS.
I BELIEVE THIS WILL BE A 
CONTINUING PROCESS THROUGHOUT 
THE SUMMER.
>> GOOD OF YOU TO MAKE THE 
TIME.
APPRECIATE IT.
MR. ANDREW SCHEER THERE IN 
REGINA.
LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL 
OPPOSITION.
WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A SHORT 
BREAK.
NDP LEADER JAGMEET SINGH WILL 
BE HERE AS WELL TO TELL US WHAT
HE WILL BE ATTEMPTING TO DO.
TO TALK TO THE PRIME MINISTER 
AND ASK HIM QUESTIONS.
IN JUST OVER 15 MINUTES' TIME.
AND WILL BRING YOU MORE.
OUR SPECIAL COVERAGE HERE IN 
OTTAWA.
AS WE AWAIT THE PRIME 
MINISTER'S TESTIMONY.
STRAIGHT AHEAD.
>>>  WELCOME BACK TO OUR 
SPECIAL CBC NEWS COVERAGE ON 
CBC NEWS TELEVISION AND 
NETWORK.
AS WE AWAIT TESTIMONY FROM THE 
PRIME MINISTER IN FRONT OF THE 
FINANCE COMMITTEE.
THAT WILL START AT AROUND 3 
O'CLOCK EASTERN.
AND WE WILL BRING IT TO YOU 
LIVE.
HE WILL TESTIFY FOR AN HOUR AND
HIS CHIEF OF STAFF FOR A COUPLE
OF HOURS AFTER THAT.
ALL OF THIS OF COURSE ABOUT THE
GOVERNMENT'S DECISION TO ENTER 
INTO A CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT.
ESSENTIALLY A CONTRACT WITH WE 
CHARITY ORGANIZATION.
TO ADMINISTER STUDENT VOLUNTEER
GRANTS FOR STUDENTS.
WHO WANTED TO VOLUNTEER DURING 
THE PANDEMIC AND WOULD BE PAID 
FROM ANYWHERE FROM 1,000 TO 
$5,000 TO DO SO.
THIS CAME-- FOLLOWED RATHER BY 
REVELATIONS THAT THE PRIME 
MINISTER'S FAMILY.
HIS MOTHER AND BROTHER.
HIS WIFE ON ONE OCCASION HAS 
BEEN PAID FOR DIFFERENT 
SPEAKING EVENTS.
THE PRIME MINISTER APOLOGIZED 
AND RECUSED HIMSELF.
BUT THE ETHICS ECONOMYINGER IS 
LOOKING INTO BOTH HIS DECISION 
AND INVOLVED IN THAT POLICY AND
PROGRAM.
AND THE FINANCE MINISTER'S 
DECISION.
BECAUSE HE TOO AND HIS FAMILY 
WAS INVOLVED WITH WE CHARITY.
AS WE WAIT FOR THE PRIME 
MINISTER, I'M GOING TO BRING IN
THE NDP LEADER JAGMEET SINGH.
AND HE JOINS ME NOW FROM 
BURNABY.
NICE TO SEE YOU MR. SINGH.
THANKS FOR MAKING THE TIME.
>> THANK YOU-- PLEASURE.
>> WHAT ARE WE EXPECTING?
WHAT ARE YOU EXPECTING FROM THE
PRIME MINISTER?
WHAT IS FOR YOU THE SORT OF THE
QUESTION HE NEEDS TO ANSWER 
TODAY?
TO HELP CANADIANS UNDERSTAND 
WHAT HAPPENED HERE?
>> AT THE HEART OF THIS IS THE 
FACT THAT CANADIANS NEED TO 
TRUST THE GOVERNMENT.
TRUST THE PRIME MINISTER.
AND WE'RE IN DIFFICULT TIMES.
AND WHAT THEY'VE SEEN IS THAT 
THE PRIME MINISTER WORKED 
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TO PUT 
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO THE 
POCKETS OF CLOSE FRIENDS WHICH 
IS HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE.
WE'VE SEEN MORE AND MORE 
EVIDENCE THAT HAS COME FORWARD 
THAT HAS REALLY HIGHLIGHTED 
THAT THIS WAS NEVER ABOUT 
HELPING STUDENTS AND WAS ALWAYS
ABOUT HELPING CLOSE FRIENDS OF 
THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HOPING 
TODAY THE PRIME MINISTER PUTS 
EVERYTHING ON THE TABLE.
IS TRANSPARENT.
I WOULD LIKE THE PRIME MINISTER
TO ALSO WAIVE THE CABINET 
CONFIDENTIALITY.
SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT 
HAPPENED IN CABINET.
WHY WAS SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY 
WRONG DONE AND WHY-- WHAT 
HAPPENED IN CABINET WHEN THIS 
DISCUSSION WAS GOING ON?
WE ALL KNOW IF YOU HAVE DIRECT 
FAMILY TIES.
PERSONAL TIES TO AN 
ORGANIZATION THAT YOU SHOULD 
NOT BE INVOLVED IN THAT 
DECISION.
THE FACT THAT THE FINANCE 
MINISTER AND THE PRIME MINISTER
WERE BOTH INVOLVED IS 
PROBLEMATIC.
>> I'LL TAKE A LITTLE ISSUE 
WITH THE CHARACTERIZATION THAT 
THEY WERE CLOSE FRIENDS.
ONLY BECAUSE BOTH THE KEEL 
BURGERS DENIED UNDER OATH THAT 
THERE WAS ANY SOCIAL 
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEM AND 
THE TRUDEAUS.
BUT OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS SOME 
SORT OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 
THEM IF FOR EITHER THE PRIME 
MINISTER WOULD APPEAR AT THESE 
EVENTS FOR HIS MOTHER AND 
BROTHER TO BE PAID FOR SPEAKING
ENGAGEMENTS.
WHAT DO YOU NEED TO SEE THOUGH 
GIVEN THAT THE PUBLIC SERVICE 
HAS CERTAINLY SUGGESTED THIS 
WAS THEIR IDEA?
WHERE IS THE LINE BETWEEN THESE
POINTS THAT NEEDS TO BE 
CLARIFIED FOR YOU THAT WOULD 
INDICATE THE PRIME MINISTER 
SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED 
IN THE DECISION?
HE HIMSELF ADMITS THAT.
BUT FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE?
>> SRNLY, WELL THERE'S A COUPLE
OF THINGS HERE.
ONE IS THAT THE PUBLIC SESHTH 
ALSO MADE IT REALLY CLEAR THAT 
THE PUBLIC SECTOR COULD DELIVER
THE EXACT SAME PROGRAM.
AND IT WOULD COST $40 MILLION 
LESS.
THERE'S ACTUALLY NO NEED TO GO 
TO THIS ORGANIZATION.
IN FACT, THE CRITERIA SET UP 
CONSISTENTLY WHERE THE ONLY 
ANSWER COULD HAVE EVER BEEN THE
WE ORGANIZATION.
WHICH IS ALSO PROBLEMATIC.
REALLY WHAT IT CAME DOWN TO IS 
THERE ARE SO MANY WAYS TO HELP 
STUDENTS.
THERE IS A CURRENT SUMMER JOBS 
PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS THAT COULD
HAVE BEEN EXPANDED.
GRANTS, MORE GRANTS FOR 
STUDENTS THAT ALREADY RECEIVED 
GRANTS.
A PROGRAM THAT ALREADY EXISTS.
THERE COULD BE HELP WITH 
STUDENT DEBT.
IF THE GOAL IS TO HELP 
STUDENTS.
THERE ARE MANY FASTER, PROVEN 
AND QUICKER WAYS MORE SIMPLE 
AND EFFECTIVE WAYS.
AND ACTUALLY WHERE THE PRIME 
MINISTER'S FAMILY THE LIBERALS 
GOVERNMENT DIRECTLY BENEFITTED 
THE ORGANIZATION.
THE ONLY ONE THAT WERE PAID-- 
OTHER SPEAKERS, PROFESSIONAL 
PERFORMERS WERE NOT PAID.
THERE'S SOME DEEP PROBLEMS WITH
THE DECISIONS OF THE LIBERAL 
GOVERNMENT IN THE CLOSE 
RELATIONSHIP WITH ITS 
ORGANIZATION.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT 
REALLY CUTS THE PUBLIC TRUST IN
THE PRIME MINISTER AND IN THE 
LIBERAL GOVERNMENT.
>> RIGHT.
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER TODAY THOUGH
MR. SINGH?
I ASKED THAT SAME QUESTION OF 
MR. SCHEER.
BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO SEE WHAT 
HAPPENS.
OBVIOUSLY TETHICES COMMISSIONER
WILL CONTINUE HIS 
INVESTIGATIONS.
BUT WHERE DO YOU THINK THIS 
GOES NEXT?
>> WELL WE NEED-- MISSING ALL 
DOCUMENTS.
SLATED IN THE RELEASE.
WE NEED TO SEEK CABINET 
CONFIDENTIALITY.
THERE'S STILL THE QUESTION OF 
WHAT HAPPENED IN CABINET.
AND HOW COULD SUCH A DECISION 
BE MADE?
A MASSIVE CONTRACT OF NEARLY A 
BILLION DOLLARS AWARDED TO AN 
ORGANIZATION WITH CLOSE TIES TO
NOT JUST THE PRIME MINISTER, 
BUT ALSO THE OTHER LIBERAL 
GOVERNMENT.
WE NEED TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF
THIS.
SO WE CAN ATTEST OTHER 
CONTRACTORS AND OTHER 
ORGANIZATIONS.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT REALLY 
WE NEED TO HAVE A LOT OF 
TRANSPARENCY AROUND.
>> AND I'LL JUST END ON THIS.
THE THING THAT I-- YOU KNOW, 
WORRY ABOUT FRANKLY IS ALL THE 
KIDS AND THE STUDENTS WHO 
APPLIED FOR THIS.
30,000 OF THEM.
A HUGE UPTAKE ON A PROGRAM THAT
SHOWS THAT PEOPLE WANTED TO 
HELP DURING THE PANDEMIC.
AND IT HAS NOT MOVED FORWARD 
YET.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO 
HAPPEN TO THE PROGRAM.
HOW WORRIED ARE YOU ABOUT THESE
PEOPLE THAT PUT THEIR HANDS UP 
TO DO SOMETHING POTENTIALLY 
SIGNIFICANT.
AND NOW STOP HANGING IN THE 
BALANCE?
>> WELL, I THINK THAT THOSE 
STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO 
A PLETHORA OF OTHER PROGRAMS 
THAT ALREADY EXIST.
WE CAN EXPAND THEM.
THE CANADA SUMMER JOBS PROGRAM.
STUDENT GRANT PROGRAM.
HELPING OUT WITH STUDENT DEBT.
THERE'S MANY THINGS WE CAN DO 
TO HELP STUDENTS THAT DID NOT 
REQUIRE CREATING A BRAND NEW 
PROGRAM UNTESTED.
UNPROVEN.
WE COULD USE EXISTING PROGRAMS 
TO GET HELP TO PEOPLE DURING 
THE PANDEMIC.
THOSE YOUNG PEOPLE DESERVE HELP
AND WE'VE BEEN PUSHING FOR 
THAT.
>> OKAY MR. SINGH, GOOD OF YOU 
TO MAKE THE TIME THERE IN 
BEAUTIFUL BRITISH COLUMBIA.
APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU.
AND MORE OF OUR SPECIAL 
COVERAGE OF THE PRIME 
MINISTER'S TESTIMONY IN FRONT 
OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE RIGHT
>>>  HELLO AGAIN.
ROSEMERYLY BARTON HERE IN 
OTTAWA.
THIS IS A CBC NEWS SPECIAL 
PRESENTATION.
IF YOU ARE JOINING US WE ARE 
AWAITING PRIME MINISTER JUSTIN 
TRUDEAU'S APPEARANCE BEFORE THE
COMMON FINANCE COMMITTEE.
EXPECTED TO START IN JUST 
MOMENTS.
LET ME BRING BACK MY COLLEAGUE 
THE HOST OF POWER AND POLITICS 
VASSY KAPELOS AND THE CBC'S 
DAVID CALK RON.
THAT OF COURSE IS PARLIAMENT 
HILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
WE EXPECT THE PRIME MINISTER 
WILL BE POSSIBLY AT HOME DOING 
THIS FROM HIS HOME OFFICE 
TODAY.
OBVIOUSLY ALL OF IT HAPPENS 
VIRTUALLY BECAUSE OF THE 
PANDEMIC WHICH MAKES FOR A 
DIFFERENT KIND OF DYNAMIC.
WE'LL STAY ON TOP OF IT THROUGH
THE AFTERNOON.
WE WILL BE HERE WITH OUR 
SPECIAL COVERAGE UNTIL 6 F:30 
EASTERN.
I'M NOT LYING WHEN I SAID IT 
MAKES FOR SPECIAL COVERAGE.
ALL SORTS OF PROBLEMS WITH 
INTERNET CONNECTIONS.
MUTING.
PEOPLE'S FACES VERY CLOSE TO 
THE SCREEN.
DIFFERENT START SORTS OF 
CHALLENGES IN FRONT OF A 
PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE.
AND I WOULD SAY IT TAKES AWAY 
SOME OF THE QUOTE, UNQUOTE 
DRAMA WHEN YOU ARE IN FRONT OF 
SOMEONE.
AS I'M SURE YOU TWO BOTH AGREE.
WHEN YOU ARE DOING AN INTERVIEW
IN FRONT OF SOMEONE IT CHANGES 
THE ENERGY AND THE NATURE OF 
THINGS.
SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT WILL 
DO TO THE TESTIMONY TODAY.
BUT-- I MEAN IT'S FAIR TO SAY 
THAT THE PRIME MINISTER IS WELL
EQUIPPED FOR THESE KINDS OF 
EVENTS.
EVEN THOUGH THIS IS EXTREMELY 
UNUSUAL.
IN TERMS OF HIS ABILITY TO 
PERFORM.
IN MOMENTS LIKE THIS AND UNDER 
PRESHER.
BUT IT WILLING INTERESTING I 
THINK TO SEE WHAT KIND OF TONE 
IT TAKES TOO.
AND TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE 
COIN THERE, WHAT KIND OF TONE 
THE OPPOSITION PARTIES TAKE.
BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY THEIR 
FIRST ATTEMPT IN A MINORITY 
GOVERNMENT TO REALLY SHOW THE 
PRIME MINISTER THAT THEY CAN DO
THINGS.
THAT THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO DO 
BEFORE.
>> INTERESTING.
I ACTUALLY FOUND YOUR INTERVIEW
WITH ANDREW SCHEER TO THAT 
RESPECT THAT THE PARTY DOESN'T 
THINK THEY WILL GET ANY MASSIVE
REVELATION OUT OF THIS.
BUT ALSO THE TYPES OF QUESTIONS
THEY PLANNED ON ASKING.
WE GOT A BIT OF A HINT WITH THE
KIELBURGER BROTHERS AND MOST 
ESPECIALLY THE FINANCE CRITIC 
FOR THE CONSERVATIVES PIERRE 
POILIEVRE WHO LIKES TO ASK A 
LOT OF YES OR NO QUESTIONS THAT
DOESN'T ALLOW THEM TO 
ELABORATE.
AND MR. SCHEER INDICATED THAT 
THAT'S THE KIND OF APPROACH 
THEY'LL BE TAKING WITH THE 
PRIME MINISTER.
SO THE QUESTIONS DO HAVE TO BE 
A LOT MORE FOCUSED.
AND YOU WOULD IMAGINE A BIT 
MORE BRIEF.
>> THOSE TYPES OF QUESTIONS AND
I DESIRE TO ELABORATE ON THE 
ANSWER.
IF IT IS EITHER YES OR NO AND 
IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THEY ARE 
GOING TO AT LEAST TRY NOT TO 
GIVE HIM OR AFFORD HIM THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.
>> YEAH, AND NOT LET HIM RUN 
THE CLOCK.
BECAUSE THERE IS A CERTAIN 
AMOUNT OF TIME PER PARTY TO ASK
THESE QUESTIONS.
AND FOR THE PRIME MINISTER TO 
RESPOND AFTER THE TESTIMONY BY 
THE KEEL BURGERS.
THERE WAS SOME CRITICISM OF THE
CHAIR.
LET'S JUST BRING UP WHAT'S 
HAPPENING INSIDE COMMITTEE.
BECAUSE THE CONSERVATIVES 
BELIEVE THE LIBERAL CHAIR WAYNE
EASTERN SAID TO BE NEUTRAL IS 
BACK TO PARTISAN.
THERE'S WAYNE EASTERN NOW.
STARTING THE COMMITTEE OFF.
LET'S LYSEN IN.
AND I WILL BRING BACK MY 
COLLEAGUES BACK IN DAVID AS 
NEEDED.
THIS NOW THE BEGINNING OF THE 
FINANCE COMMITTEE.
OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
WHERE THE PRIME MINISTER WILL 
BE ANSWERING QUESTIONS FOR THE 
NEXT HOUR OR SO.
>> IF IT BECOMES TOO PROPERLY 
I'LL DIP BACK IN.
>> SPENDING AT LEAST 90 MINUTES
WITH US.
WE APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH.
SO WITH THAT, I WILL TURN THE 
MEETING OVER FOR YOUR OPENING 
REMARKS PRIME MINISTER.
AND I BELIEVE WE WILL TRY AND 
HOLD YOU TO TEN MINUTES.
THEN WE WILL GO TO QUESTIONS.
SO WELCOME AND THANK YOU.
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  
THANK YOU CHAIR.
[ SPEAKING FRENCH ]
>> Voice of Interpreter:  WE 
WERE PLUNGED INTO THE DEEPEST 
CRISIS OF OUR GENERATION.
STILL TODAY PEOPLE ARE FALLING 
ILL.
AND TOO MANY OF US ARE STILL 
DYING FROM COVID-19.
FAMILIES ARE STILL GRIEVING.
THEY ARE LOSING THEIR JOBS.
AND THEY ARE GOING THROUGH VERY
TOUGH TIMES.
OUR GOVERNMENT HAD TO TAKE 
ACTION.
OUR COUNTRY IS FACING A 
CONTAGIOUS AND DEADLY VIRUS.
AND EVERYONE'S BEHAVIOUR AND 
CHOICES ALLOWS US TO PROTECT 
EVERYONE'S HEALTH.
ALL CANADIANS HAD TO TAKE 
MEASURES TO LIMIT THE SPREAD OF
THIS VIRUS.
AND WE HAD TO MAKE IMPORTANT 
SACRIFICES.
PEOPLE HAD TO BE ABLE TO COUNT 
ON THEIR GOVERNMENT.
WE COULDN'T ASK PEOPLE TO STAY 
HOME AND TO NOT GO TO WORK 
WITHOUT GIVING THEM CONFIDENCE 
THAT WE WOULD HELP THEM TO PAY 
THEIR RENT.
THEIR MORTGAGE, OR THEIR 
GROCERIES.
WE KNEW THAT IT WOULD BE BETTOR
TAKE ACTION QUICKLY.
AND DECISIVELY.
THEN WE WOULD MAKE ERRORS ALONG
THE WAY.
IF WE ACTED SLOWLY TRYING TO 
AVOID ERRORS, IT WOULD HAVE 
BEEN WORSE THAN DOING NOTHING 
AT ALL.
WITH THIS PANDEMIC, AND 
ECONOMIC CRISIS.
OUR GOVERNMENT HAD TO SHOW 
CREATIVITY AND FLEXIBILITY.
COULDN'T HESITATE OR BE LIMITED
BE DOING THINGS.
OBVIOUSLY THIS PANDEMIC IS NOT 
OVER.
BUT ACTION TAKEN BY OUR 
GOVERNMENT TO HELP PROTECT 
CANADIANS ARE STILL IN PLACE 
THROUGHOUT THIS CRISIS.
CANADIANS HAVE BEEN 
EXTRAORDINARY.
CANADA IS RESUMING ITS ECONOMY 
AND OUR ECONOMY IS RECOVERING.
AND WE'VE SEEN THE BEGINNING OF
WHAT COULD BE A SECOND WAVE, 
HOWEVER.
EARLIER THIS WEEK, WE SAID THAT
WE HAVE TO REMAIN VIGILANT.
THIS PANDEMIC PRESENTS SEVERAL 
CHALLENGES FOR STUDENTS.
MINISTER-- DISCUSSED THESE 
CHALLENGES AND WHAT OUR 
GOVERNMENT DID TO REMEDY THESE 
ISSUES WITH THE COMMITTEE.
WE PUT FORWARD A $9 BILLION 
PLAN TO HELP STUDENTS GET 
THROUGH THIS DIFFICULT TIME.
WE IMPOSED A MORATORIUM ON THE 
REFUNDING OF STUDENT LOANS.
INCREASED NUMBER OF STUDENT 
SUMMER JOBS.
AND INTRODUCED A CERB FOR 
STUDENTS.
GIVING STUDENTS $1500 PER 
MONTH.
THE CANADIAN STUDENT SERVICE 
GRANT WAS ALSO PART OF THIS 
PLAN.
WHEN WE CREATED THE PROGRAM, WE
HAD THREE OBJECTIVES IN MIND.
FIRST, WE WANTED TO ENCOURAGE 
STUDENTS TO GET INVOLVED IN 
THEIR COMMUNITIES DURING THIS 
CRISIS.
SECOND-- WE WANTED TO HELP NOT 
FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS 
FULFILL THEIR MISSIONS AND TO 
SUPPORT CANADIANS IN 
DIFFICULTIES.
AND THIRD-- WE WANTED TO HELP 
STUDENTS WHO VOLUNTEER TO 
RECEIVE FINANCIAL COMPENSATION 
AS RECOGNITION FOR THEIR 
SERVICE.
>> FROM THE OUTSET, WE KNEW 
THAT TIME WAS OF THE ESSENCE.
AFTER ALL--.
>> MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A POINT OF
ORDER.
MR. CHAIR, POINT OF ORDER?
POINT OF ORDER MR. CHAIR?
>> UH, WHAT'S YOUR POINT OF 
ORDER?
>> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY AS 
PER YOUR RULING ON TUESDAY JULY
28th WHEN YOU SAID IF IT WAS 
POLITICIANS WE'D GET INTO THE 
FOUR SECOND.
I JUST WANT YOU TO CONFIRM FOR 
THIS THAT THERE WILL BE STRICT 
ADHERENCE TO THE PRACTICE OF 
EQUAL TIME FOR QUESTIONS AND 
ANSWERS.
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S A-- I 
WILL ALLOW IT AS A POINT OF 
ORDER.
I WILL EXPLAIN THAT WHEN WE 
START QUESTIONS MR. MORANZ AND 
THE ANSWER TO IT IS REALLY YES.
BUT I WILL EXPLAIN TO THE 
WITNESS WHY WE'RE UNDER 
COVID-19 RULES BASICALLY.
MR. PRIME MINISTER?
>> FROM THE OUTSIDE WE KNEW 
THAT TIME WAS OF THE ESSENCE.
AFTER ALL, EVEN THE BEST 
PROGRAM IMAGINABLE WOULDN'T 
MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF IT 
COULDN'T BE DELIVERED THIS 
SUMMER.
SO WE HAD TO QUICKLY CONNECT 
WITH THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS WHO 
WANTED TO VOLUNTEER WITH THE 
MANY COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS 
THAT NEEDED AN EXTRA HAND 
BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC.
AT FIRST, WE'D HOPED TO USE THE
CANADA SERVICE CORE WHICH WAS 
CREATED IN 2018 TO ENCOURAGE 
YOUNG PEOPLE TO SERVE AND 
CONNECT THEM TO OPPORTUNITIES 
IN COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE 
COUNTRY.
BY DEVELOPING NETWORKS CREATING
PARTNERSHIPS WITH EXISTING 
ORGANIZATIONS.
AND OFFERING MICRO GRANTS.
THE PLAN HAD ALWAYS BEEN TO 
SCALE UP THE PROGRAM OVER THE 
COMING YEARS TO ENSURE MANY 
THOUSANDS OF YOUNG PEOPLE COULD
SERVE THEIR COMMUNITIES AND 
COUNTRIES EVERY YEAR.
WHEN THE CANADA STUDENT SERVICE
GRANT WAS INITIALLY CONCEIVED I
EXPECTED THAT THE CANADA 
SERVICE CORE WOULD HELP DELIVER
THE PROGRAM.
IT IS AN IMPORTANT AND 
LONG-STANDING PART OF OUR 
NATIONAL YOUTH STRATEGY.
REQUIING A THIRD PARTY PARTNER
EXTERNAL TO GOVERNMENT AND THAT
WE CHARITY COULD ACT AS THAT 
SERVICE PROVIDER.
I FIRST LEARNED THAT WE CHARITY
WAS BEING PROPOSED TO DELIVER 
THE PROGRAM ON MAY 8th.
WHEN THE CSSG WAS TO GO BEFORE 
FULL CABINET.
UNTIL THAT DATE, I HAVE NOT 
SPOKEN AT ALL WITH MY STAFF 
ABOUT WE CHARITY IN RELATION TO
THE CSSG.
IN FACT, AS OF MAY 8th, MY 
EXPECTATION WAS STILL THAT A 
SUPER CHARGED VERSION OF THE 
CANADA SERVICE CORE WOULD 
LIKELY DELIVER THE PROGRAM.
BUT MY PERSPECTIVE, WE CHARITY 
HADN'T COME UP.
AS YOU KNOW, BY MAY 8th, THE 
PUBLIC SERVICE HAD ALREADY 
CONCLUDED THAT WE CHARITY WAS 
THE BEST OPTION TO DELIVER THIS
PROGRAM.
THEY HAD FORMALLY RECOMMENDED 
IT.
THE CSSG INCLUDING THE 
RECOMMENDATION THAT WE CHARITY 
BE USED HAD ALREADY GONE 
THROUGH THE COVID COMMITTEE OF 
CABINET ON MAY 5th.
I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN EITHER OF
THOSE STEPS.
ON MAY 8, I RECEIVED A BRIEFING
BEFORE THE CABINET MEETING AND 
LEARNED FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT
WE CHARITY HAD BEEN RECOMMENDED
AS A PARTNER AND WAS ON THE 
CABINET AGENDA.
I ASKED WHY THE PLAN DIDN'T 
INVOLVE THE CANADA SERVICE 
CORE?
WE WERE TOLD THAT THE CANADA 
SERVICE CORE WOULDN'T BE ABLE 
TO SCALE UP TO DELIVER THE 
PROGRAM IN TIME.
THIS WAS DISAPPOINTING, BUT 
ULTIMATELY NOT SURPRISING TO 
ME.
GIVEN MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE 
STATE OF THE CANADA SERVICE 
CORE'S DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER 
DEMANDS FACING THE PUBLIC 
SERVICE AT THE TIME.
OF COURSE POLICY STAFF IN MY 
OFFICE HAD BEEN WORK WITH THE 
PRIVY OFFICE AND OTHER 
DEPARTMENTS.
THEY KNEW THAT WE CHARITY WAS 
UNDER CONSIDERATION.
HOWEVER, I NEVER SPOKE WITH MY 
STAFF ABOUT WE CHARITY OR ITS 
PROPOSED INVOLVEMENT IN 
ADMINISTERING THIS PROGRAM 
UNTIL MAY 8.
I ALSO NEVER SPOKE TO CRAIG OR 
MARK KIELBURGER OR ANYONE AT WE
CHARITY ABOUT THE CSSG.
AS IT BECAME AFIERNT ME, MY 
CHIEF OF STAFF KATIE TELFORD 
ALSO DIDN'T KNOW THAT WE 
CHARITY WAS BEING PROPOSED.
 SO MY CHIEF OF STAFF AND I 
WERE FOUNDING OUT ABOUT THIS 
IMPORTANT PART OF THE PROPOSAL 
ONLY HOURS BEFORE THE CABINET 
MEETING.
EVEN GIVEN THE RAPID PACE OF 
THE CRISIS, THIS WAS NOT THE 
WAY THINGS WERE SUPPOSED TO GO.
WE LEARNED THAT THERE HAD BEEN 
TOUGH QUESTIONS ASKED ABOUT THE
PROPOSAL AND WE CHARITY DURING 
THE COVID COMMITTEE A FEW DAYS 
EARLYER.
WE BOTH FELT THAT WE NEEDED 
MORE TIME BEFORE THIS ITEM WAS 
PRESENTED TO CABINET.
TIME TO CONSIDER AND UNDERSTAND
THE REASONS BEHIND THE PROPOSAL
THAT WE CHARITY DELIVERED THE 
PROGRAM.
ON THAT ISSUE WE HAD SEVERAL 
QUESTIONS THAT WE WANTED 
ANSWERED PARTICULARLY GIVEN MY 
SPECIFIC EXPERTISE IN YOUTH 
ISSUES.
DURING THE PANDEMIC, GOVERNMENT
WAS WORKING VERY HARD AND VERY 
QUICKLY.
WE STILL ARE.
IT WAS NOT UNCOMMON FOR ME TO 
BE BRIEFED ON SOMETHING 
RELATIVELY CLOSE IN TIME TO THE
CABINET MEETING.
HERE HOWEVER GIVEN THE SCALE OF
THE PROGRAM, THE QUESTIONS THAT
HAD BEEN RAISED AND MY OWN 
COMMITMENT TO YOUTH ISSUES, WE 
NEEDED MORE TIME.
AS WELL, WE BOTH KNEW THAT WE 
CHARITY WAS KNOWN TO BE 
CONNECTED TO PEOPLE IN OUR 
GOVERNMENT INCLUDING MYSELF AS 
I'D SPOKEN AT THEIR EVENTS IN 
THE PAST.
SO WE KNEW THAT THE SELECTION 
OF WE CHARITY WOULD BE CLOSELY 
SCRUTINIZED.
WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
PROCESS AND DECISION WERE THE 
BEST POSSIBLE IN THE 
CIRCUMSTANCES.
SO I DECIDED TO PULL THE CSSG 
PROPOSAL FROM THE CABINET 
AGENDA FOR MAY 8th.
SO THAT FURTHER WORK COULD BE 
DONE.
THIS WASN'T AN EASY DECISION.
WE KNEW BY THE END OF APRIL 
MANY UNIVERSITY STUDENTS HAD 
FINISHED THEIR EXAMS.
WE WERE ALREADY A WEEK INTO 
MAY.
BUT WE PULLED THE ITEM FROM THE
AGENDA SO WE COULD BE CONFIDENT
WE WERE DOING THE RIGHT THING 
THE RIGHT WAY.
MY PRIMARY CONCERN WAS TO MAKE 
SURE THAT THE PUBLIC SERVICE 
COULD FULLY SUPPORT ITS 
RECOMMENDATION THAT WITHOUT A 
DOUBT, WE CHARITY WAS THE RIGHT
AND INDEED THE ONLY PARTNER TO 
DELIVER THE PROGRAM.
I WAS BRIEFED AGAIN ON MAY 21st
AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE TOLD ME 
THEY HAD DONE THE DUE DILIGENCE
WE'D ASKED FOR AND THAT THEY 
WERE CONFIDENT IN THEIR 
RECOMMENDATIONS.
IN EFFECT, THEY SAID THAT IF WE
WANTED THIS PROGRAM TO HAPPEN, 
IT COULD ONLY BE WITH WE 
CHARITY.
THE CHOICE WAS NOT BETWEEN 
PROVIDERS.
IT WAS BETWEEN GOING AHEAD WITH
WE CHARITY TO DELIVER THE 
PROGRAM.
OR NOT GOING AHEAD WITH THE 
PROGRAM AT ALL.
GIVEN THE PUBLIC SERVICE 
E
ADVICE, I WAS COMFORTABLE THAT 
THE CSFG COULD NOW BE PRESENTED
TO CABINET.
ON MAY 22nd, MINISTER CHAGGER 
PRESENTED THE PROGRAM TO 
CABINET.
AND CABINET GROUPS.
AFTER CABINET APPROVED THE 
CSSG, THE NEXT STEP WAS TO 
APPROVE ITS FUNDING.
HERE THE BRIEFING NOTE FROM 
POLICY STAFF IN MY OFFICE 
RECOMMENDED IMPOSING AN 
ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT REVERSAL.
I AGREE THAT THAT FOUNDATION 
AND DIRECTED THAT FOUR 
ADDITIONAL PUNCHES OF FUNDING 
WERE RELEASED.
PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE CSSG.
THE CABINET APPROVED THE CSSG, 
OBVIOUSLY I KNEW THAT I HAD 
SPOKEN AT VARIOUS WE CHARITIES.
I'D NEVER BEEN PAID TO DO SO.
I WAS ALSO AWARE THAT MY WIFE 
HAD AN UNPAID ROLE AT THE WE 
CHARITY AMBASSADOR AND ALLIES.
I KNEW SHE APPEARED AT WE 
CHARITY EVENTS AND THAT WHEN 
SHE TRAVELLED TO GET TO AN 
EVENT, WE CHARITY COVERED HER 
RELATED EXPENSES.
I ALSO KNEW THAT SOPHIE HAD 
RECENTLY LAUNCHED A PODCAST ON 
MENTAL WELLNESS IN CONJUNCTION 
WITH WE CHARITY.
THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER HAD 
APPROVED THIS ROLE INCLUDING WE
CHARITY COVERING HER EXPENSES.
I ALSO KNEW THAT MY BROTHER AND
MOTHER HAD WORKED WITH WE 
CHARITY AS WELL AS WITH OTHER 
ORGANIZATIONS HOWEVER, I DID 
NOT KNOW HOW MUCH WORK THEY HAD
DONE WITH WE CHARITY OR HOW 
MUCH THEY HAD BEEN PAID.
THESE WERE THINGS I ONLY 
LEARNED AFTER THE PROGRAM 
LAUNCHED PUBLICALLY.
THAT SAID, SOMETIMES RECUSING 
ONESELF CAN BE THE RIGHT THING 
TO DO.
EVEN IF IT'S NOT REQUIRED.
HERE MY MOTHER'S CONNECTION TO 
WE CHARITY AND THE OTHER 
CONNECTIONS IN MY FAMILY COULD 
LEAD SOME PEOPLE TO WONDER 
WHETHER THOSE CONNECTIONS HAD 
PLAYED SOME ROLE IN THE 
DECISION TO SELECT WE CHARITY.
THAT OF COURSE WAS NOT THE 
CASE.
WE CHARITY RECEIVED NO 
PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.
NOT FROM ME, NOT FROM ANYONE 
ELSE.
THE PUBLIC SERVICE RECOMMENDED 
WE CHARITY.
AND I DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO
INFLUENCE THAT RECOMMENDATION.
I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IF IT HAD 
BEEN MADE UNTIL MAY 8th.
AND WHEN I LEARNED THAT WE 
CHARITY WAS RECOMMENDED, I 
PUSHED BACK.
I WANTED TO BE SATISFIED THAT 
THE PROPOSAL THAT WE CHARITY 
DELIVER THE CSSG HAD BEEN 
PROPERLY SCRUTINIZED.
[ SPEAKING FRENCH ]
>> Voice of Interpreter:  WE 
CHARITY DIDN'T RECEIVE 
FAVOURABLE TREATMENT FROM 
MYSELF, FROM ANYONE ELSE.
PUBLIC SERVICE RECOMMENDED WE 
CHARITY.
AND I DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO
INFLUENCE THIS RECOMMENDATION.
I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THE 
RECOMMENDATION HAD BEEN MAID 
BEFORE MAY 8th.
WHEN I LEARNED THAT WE CHARITY 
WAS BEING RECOMMENDED, I HAD 
QUESTIONS AND I WANTED TO BE 
SURE THAT THE PROPOSAL TO CALL 
ON WE CHARITY WAS EXAMINED IN 
DEPTH.
AS I'VE SAID, I SHOULD HAVE 
RECUSED MYSELF FROM THIS 
DECISION TO AVOID ANY 
APPEARANCE OF FAVORITISM.
I KNOW THAT APPEARANCES CAN 
HARM A GOOD PROGRAM.
AND OF COURSE, THAT'S EXACTLY 
WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
AND IT'S TRULY UNFORTUNATE 
ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THIS PROGRAM
COULD HAVE BEEN VERY 
SIGNIFICANT.
FOR STUDENTS IN OUR 
COMMUNITIES.
TO CONCLUDE, NEITHER MYSELF NOR
MY STAFF TRIED TO INFLUENCE OR 
DICTATE THE RECOMMENDATION 
ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC SERVANTS 
CONCERNING WE CHARITY.
[ SPEAKING ENGLISH ]
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  TO
CONCLUDE, THERE WAS NEVER ANY 
DIRECTION BY OR ATTEMPT TO 
INFLUENCE FROM ME AND MY STAFF 
THAT THE PUBLIC SERVICE 
RECOMMEND WE CHARITY.
GETTING YOUNG PEOPLE TO SERVE 
HAS BEEN A GOAL OF MINE WELL 
BEFORE I EVER GOT INTO 
POLITICS.
SO I DEEPLY REGRET HOW THIS HAS
UNFOLDED.
THIS NOW JULY 30th.
OUR GOVERNMENT IS DELIVERING UP
TO $9 BILLION AID PACKAGE FOR 
STUDENTS.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE GRANT FOR 
VOLUNTEER SERVICE IS UNLIKELY 
TO BE PART OF THE PACKAGE THIS 
SUMMER.
AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I 
REGRET.
I'M PLEASED NOW TO TAKE ANY OF 
YOUR QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU PRIME MINISTER.
BEFORE WE GO TO QUESTIONS, JUST
FOR MR. MORANZ POINT AND FOR 
RELEVANCE, I WOULD REMIND THE 
COMMITTEE OF THE ORIGINAL 
MOTION.
AS PART OF IT STUDYING 
COVID-19, WE HOLD HEARINGS TO 
EXAMINE HOW MUCH THE GOVERNMENT
SPENT IN AWARDING THE $912 
MILLION SOLE SOURCE CROCKETT WE
CHARITY.
AND HOW THE OUTSOURCING OF 
CANADA STUDENTS GRANT TO WE 
CHARITY PROCEEDED AS FAR AS IT 
DID.
ON MR. MORANZ' POINT AND I 
THINK YOU ARE AWARE OF THIS 
PRIME MINISTER WITH THE WAY 
QUESTIONS WORK IN THE HOUSE OF 
COMMONS.
I CALL IT THE COVID-19 
QUESTIONING EXPERIENCE.
WHERE EACH MEMBER IS ALLOCATED 
SO MUCH TIME.
AND WE WILL STICK TO THE 
SIX-MINUTES FOR THE FIRST 
ROUND.
AND FIVE FOR THE SECOND TODAY.
FOR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.
BUT THE PROCESS WILL BE IF IT'S
AN 8 SECOND QUESTION, WE EXPECT
THE ANSWER TO BE 8 SECONDS.
AND I WILL TRY AND TRACK THAT 
ON MY IPAD HERE.
I MAY BE A LITTLE OFF FROM TIME
TO TIME.
FROM BOTH SIDES.
THERE WILL BE NO DOUBT 
INTERRUPTIONS ON THE PART OF 
THE CHAIR TO THE WITNESS 
YOURSELF PRIME MINISTER.
AND PROBABLY TO MEMBERS AS WELL
TO STICK TO THOSE RULES.
THE FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS 
WILL BE MR. POILIEVRE.
FOLLOWED BY A SPLITTING OF TIME
BETWEEN MINISTER FRAGOSGOTI IS.
MR. POILIEVRE SIX MINUTES.
THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
>> THANK YOU, WHAT IS THE TOTAL
DOLLAR VALUE OF ALL OF THE 
EXPENSES REIMBURSED AND FEES 
PAID AND ANY OTHER 
CONSIDERATION PROVIDED BY THE 
WE GROUP TO YOU, YOUR MOTHER, 
YOUR SPOUSE, YOUR BROTHER AND 
ANY OTHER MEMBER OF YOUR 
Y
FAMILY?
JUST THE TOTAL PLEASE.
>> MINISTER.
>> I DON'T HAVE THAT EXACT 
FIGURE.
THAT REIMBURSING EXPANSE IS 
SOMETHING DONE BY AN 
ORGANIZATION SO I DON'T HAVE 
THOSE TOTALS.
>> MR. SPEAKER.
POINT OF ORDER.
>> MR. CHAIR.
SORRY.
MY POINT OF ORDER IS WHAT'S THE
RELEVANCE OF THESE QUESTIONS OF
ANCILLARY FEES PAID TO FAMILY 
MEMBERS TO THIS OFFICIAL 
MOTION?
>> I DON'T THINK THAT IS A 
POINT OF ORDER.
BACK TO MINISTER POILIEVRE.
>> SO YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT 
YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH 
IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE 
BEEN PAID IN EXPENSE 
REIMBURSEMENTS BY THIS 
ORGANIZATION?
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  MY
MOTHER AND MY BROTHER ARE 
PROFESSIONALS IN THEIR OWN 
RIGHT WHO HAVE ENGAGEMENTS AND 
HAVE. 
>> DO YOU KNOW?
>>. 
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  I 
HAVE THE DETAILS FOR THEIR WORK
EXPERIENCES AND EXPENSES.
>> WHAT ABOUT YOUR SPOUSE?
WHAT IS THE DOLLAR FIGURE?
>> WE-- I THINK WE CHARITY HAS 
BEEN ABLE TO SHARE THOSE DOLLAR
FIGURES WITH YOU.
>> WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME SHE 
HAD AN EXPENSE REIMBURSED BY WE
CHARITY?
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  I 
BELIEVE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE 
TRIP TO LONDON WHERE SHE SPOKE 
AT WE.
BUT THOSE WERE CLEARED IN 
ADVANCE BY THE ETHICS 
COMMITTEE.
>> AND HOW MUCH WERE THOSE 
EXPENSES?
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  I 
DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER IN FRONT
OF ME.
>> PRIME MINISTER, IT'S VERY 
HARD TO BELIEVE YOU DON'T HAVE 
THAT NUMBER.
YOU HAVE BEEN EMBROILED IN THIS
SCANDAL NOW FOR OVER A MONTH.
AND THESE KINDS OF QUESTIONS 
HAVE BEEN ASKED REPEATEDLY.
I ASKED THESE WEEKS AGO.
YOU'VE HAD TIME TO GET IT.
SO I'LL ASK AGAIN.
HOW MUCH WAS YOUR SPOUSE 
REIMBURSED BY WE FOR HER RECENT
TRIP TO LONNEDEN?
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  TO
TAKE AN EXAMPLE FOR A PLANE 
TICKET THAT WAS BOOKED FOR HER 
FLIGHT TO LONDON, IT WASN'T 
SOMETHING THAT SHE WOULD HAVE 
PAID FOR TO BE REIMBURSED BY--.
>> WHAT ABOUT HOTEL?
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  
THE WE CHARITY WOULD HAVE 
ACTUALLY BOUGHT AND PAID FOR 
THAT TICKET ITSELF.
SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE THOSE 
ANSWERS ON OUR CREDIT CARDS, 
FOR EXAMPLE.
>> DO YOU DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA 
HOW MUCH THE WE CHARITY PAID 
FOR YOUR SPOUSE TO TRAVEL TO 
LONDON?
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  
TORE PAST NUMBER OF MONTHS I'VE
BEEN INVOLVED IN SERVING 
CANADIANS AND FOCUSED ON THAT.
BUT I KNOW THAT THE WE CHARITY 
THEMSELVES HAVE SHARED THOSE 
EXPENSES.
>> THEY HAVE NOT SHARED THOSE 
EXPENSES.
THEY HAVE REFUSED TO TELL US 
THE ITEMIZED EXPENSE FOR THAT 
TRIP AND THEY DIDN'T EVEN 
CONFIRM SHE WAS ON THAT TRIP.
WHAT HOTEL DID THEY PAY FOR HER
TO STAY AT?
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  I 
DON'T KNOW.
>> OKAY.
THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A VERY 
EXPENSIVE TRIP.
AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID FOR
IN MARCH.
YOUR GOVERNMENT THEN A MONTH 
LATER WAS AMASSING A PROGRAM OF
HALF A BILLION DOLLARS.
WHICH YOU NOW ADMIT YOU HELPED 
APPROVE A MOCKETT AFTER THAT.
HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY HAVE 
BELIEVED THAT IT WAS 
APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO APPROVE 
A NEARLY HALF BILLION DOLLAR 
GRANT TO A GROUP THAT ONLY 60 
DAYS EARLIER WAS PAYING FOR 
SUMPTUOUS TRAVELS FOR IMMEDIATE
MEMBERS OF YOUR FAMILY?
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  
THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER FULLY 
CLEARED SOPHIE'S VOLUNTEER 
UNPAID WORK WITH WE.
WHETHER IT WAS FOR HER PODCAST 
OR APPEARANCE AT WE EVENTS OR 
HER WORK AS A WE AMBASSADOR AND
ALLY.
IT WAS ALL ENTIRELY UNPAID.
BE THOUGH REIMBURSED EXPENSES 
AND THAT WAS CLEARANCE THAT WAS
GOTTEN IN ADVANCE BY THE ETHICS
COMMISSIONER.
>> MR. POILIEVRE.
ON EQUAL TIME HERE.
AND THE PRIME MINISTER STILL 
HAS TIME.
GO AHEAD PRIME MINISTER.
>>. 
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  
OBVIOUSLY THAT WAS NOT A 
CONCERN FOR ME.
KNOWING THAT THE ETHICS 
COMMISSIONER HAD APPROVED OF 
SOPHIE VOLUNTEERING HER TIME.
AND HAVING EXPENSES COVERED FOR
ENGAGEMENTS WITH THIS.
>> WHEN YOU BECAME INVOLVED 
WITH THE DECISION TO APPROVE 
THE HALF BILLION DOLLAR GRANT 
TO WE CHARITY ON MAY 5th, DID 
YOU THEN IMMEDIATELY INFORM THE
ETHICS COMMISSIONER THAT YOU 
WERE DOING THAT.
AND REMIND AND ALSO INFORM THE 
ETHICS COMMISSIONER THAT THIS 
GROUP WAS PAYING FOR EXPENSES 
FOR YOUR SPOUSE?
>> AS I SAID HE ALREADY KNEW 
BECAUSE HE HAD APPROVED SOPHIE 
VOLUNTEERING WITH THE WE 
ORGANIZATION.
A LONG TIME AGO.
AND SECONDLY, MY KNOWLEDGE OF 
WE BEING INVOLVED IN DELIVERING
THIS PROGRAM ONLY HAPPENED ON 
MAY 8th NOT ON MAY 5th AS YOU 
WERE SAYING.
>> ON MAY 8th DID YOU CONTACT 
THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER TO SEEK
PERMISSION TO BE PART OF THIS 
APPROVED HALF BILLION DOLLAR 
GRANT, YES OR NO?
>> ON MAY 8th I RECEIVED THE 
FORMAL RECOMMENDATION BY THE 
PUBLIC THAT THEY GO AHEAD.
WITH THE WE PROGRAM.
TO DELIVER IT.
AND I HOLD IT BACK FROM CABINET
AND ASKED THEM TO DO FURTHER 
DUE DILIGENCE BECAUSE I KNEW 
THERE WOULD BE QUESTIONS.
>> BACK TO MR. POILIEVRE.
>> TIME REMAINING?
>> YOU HAVE ABOUT 68 SECONDS.
>> MR. PRIME MINISTER, YOU 
ADMIT NOW THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE 
REMOVED YOURSELF NOW FROM THE 
DECISION TO GRANT THIS HALF 
BILLION DOLLAR GRANT TO THE WE 
CHARITY?
YOU WERE FOUND GUILTY OF TAKING
A FREE VACATION FROM SOMEONE 
WHO SOUGHT A $15 MILLION GRANT 
FROM YOU.
STRIKE ONE.
YOU WERE FOUND GUILTY OF 
INTERFERING WITH THE CRIMINAL 
PROSECUTION OF A LIBERAL-LINKED
CORPORATION.
STRIKE TWO.
>> POINT OF ORDER.
>> WHAT'S YOUR POINT OF ORDER.
>> HE HAS BROUGHT UP POINTS NOT
RELEVANT TO THIS COMMITTEE AND 
THE MOTION PUT FORTH.
>> I AM GOING TO ALLOW THE 
QUESTION BUT MR. POILIEVRE 
PLEASE LEAVE TIME FOR THE 
ANSWER IN YOUR SIX MINUTES AS 
WELL.
GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU, YOU ARE TWICE 
FOUND GUILTY OF BREAKING THE 
ETHICS ACT BEFORE.
STRIKES ONE AND TWO.
AND NOW YOU ADMIT A THIRD 
STRIKE BY YOUR FAILURE TO BREAK
TO OR RECUSE YOURSELF IN THE 
PROCESS.
YOU BROKE THE ETHICS ACT A 
THIRD TIME.
WHAT HAPPENS IN BASEBALL WHEN 
YOU HAVE THREE STRIKES?
>> THAT'S THE END OF YOUR ROUND
MR. POILIEVRE.
MR. PRIME MINISTER, YOU HAVE 
ABOUT 30 SECONDS TO RESPOND.
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  AS
I SAID TO CANADIANS A NUMBER OF
WEEKS AGO, I SHOULD HAVE 
RECUSED MYSELF KNOWING THE 
CONNECTIONS BETWEEN MY FAMILY 
AND THE PERCEPTIONS AROUND THIS
ISSUE.
HOWEVER, I DID NOT INTERVENE TO
MAKE THIS HAPPEN.
WHEN IT CAME FORWARD FROM THE 
PUBLIC SERVICE, I SENT IT BACK 
TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE TO SAY 
YOU REALLY NEED TO MAKE SURE 
THAT THIS IS-- INDEED THE ONLY 
ORGANIZATION THAT CAN DELIVER 
THIS PROGRAM.
AND THAT THIS IS DONE EXACTLY 
THE RIGHT WAY.
BECAUSE THERE IS GOING TO BE 
CAREFUL SCRUTINY ON THIS.
AT THAT POINT, INSTEAD I SHOULD
HAVE RECUSED MYSELF, BUT I 
DIDN'T.
I DECIDED TO PUSH BACK INSTEAD.
AND THAT I REGRET.
BECAUSE YOUNG PEOPLE AREN'T 
HAVING THE OPPORTUNITIES THEY 
WOULD HAVE HAD THIS SUMMER 
THROUGH THAT PROGRAM.
EVEN THOUGH THERE'S MANY OTHER 
THINGS WE'RE DOING FOR YOUNG 
PEOPLE.
>> THANK YOU PRIME MINISTER.
WE'LL TURN TO MR. FRAGISKATOS.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR AND PRIME 
MINISTER FOR BEING HERE.
FIRST OF ALL MR. PRIME 
MINISTER, IS THERE A PERSONAL 
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN YOU AND 
THE KIELBURGERS?
ARE YOU FRIENDS?
HAVE YOU SPENT SOCIAL TIME 
TOGETHER?
HAVE YOU HAD DINNERS TOGETHER 
OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
>> NO.
I HAVE SEEN THEM AT EVENTS.
BUT NOT OUTSIDE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I DO WANT TO ASK YOU.
SOME HAVE SUGGESTED THAT 
PERHAPS THE RECUSAL DID NOT 
HAPPEN.
BECAUSE THE PANDEMIC IS FORCING
DECISIONS TO BE MADE QUICKER 
THAN EVER BEFORE.
AND WHEN DECISIONS ARE MADE 
QUICKLY, MISTAKES ARE MORE 
LIKELY TO HAPPEN.
FIRST OF ALL TO WHAT EXTENT IS 
THAT A FAIR OBSERVATION IN YOUR
VIEW?
AND SECOND--.
IF IT IS A FAIR OBSERVATION, 
COVID-19 WILL CERTAINLY SET THE
CONTEXT WITHIN WHICH, POLICY IS
MADE FOR SOME TIME TO COME.
THAT IMPLIES THAT CHOICE IS 
ABOUT POLICY AND PROGRAMS WILL 
NEED TO CONTINUE TO BE MADE 
VERY QUICKLY.
ARE THERE MECHANISMS IN PLACE 
AT THE CABINET LEVEL?
OR IN OTHER INSTITUTIONS OF 
DECISION MAKING?
ARE THEY IN PLACE TO PREVENT A 
MISTAKE OF THIS KIND FROM 
HAPPENING AGAIN?
>> FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR 
THE QUESTION.
OBVIOUSLY YES, DURING A TIME OF
PANDEMIC, THINGS ARE 
ACCELERATED.
THEN AS I SAID FROM THE 
BEGINNING, AND AS I'VE SAID 
THROUGHOUT THIS PANDEMIC IN ALL
MY PRESS CONFERENCES.
WE'VE MOVED QUICKLY, TO TRY AND
GET HELP OUT TO PEOPLE AS FAST 
AS WE COULD.
AS FLEXIBLY AS WE COULD.
TO FIX THOSE MISTAKES AS THEY 
WENT ON.
WAIT UNTIL EVERYTHING WAS 
PERFECT BEFORE DOING ANYTHING.
BECAUSE OF THE HEALTH 
EMERGENCIES.
WE NEED TO ACT QUICKLY.
AND THAT IS PART OF THE 
CONTEXT.
THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN SOMETHING 
THAT I'VE BEEN DEEPLY INVOLVED 
WITH.
I CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THE 
SERVICE.
YOUNG PEOPLE BE ABLE TO HELP IN
YOUR COMMUNITIES.
CONVERSATIONS ACROSS THE 
COUNTRY.
SO THIS PROPOSAL MATTER TO ME.
INSTEAD OF ENCOURAGING LIKE 
SOME DAYS BECAUSE IT WAS 
SOMEHOW CONNECTED TO MY FAMILY,
I ACTUALLY DID SIT DOWN AND 
PUSHED BACK ON IT AND TRY AND 
MAKE SURE.
BECAUSE I KNEW THERE WOULD BE 
QUESTIONS ASKED OF THE 
FAMILIES.
BUT IN NO WAY WAS THIS.
FOR MY MOTHER OR BROTHER TO BE 
CREATING A GRANT FOR STUDENTS 
TO VOLUNTEER IN THEIR 
COMMUNITIES.
RIGHT ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR.
FINAL QUESTION BEFORE I TURN IT
OVER TO THE TRACK.
THE PRIME MINISTER TO THE POINT
ABOUT YOUTH.
THE CANADA STUDENT SERVICE 
GRANTS.
A GREAT IDEA, I AM WORRIED 
THOUGH ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE
PROGRAM WILL COME TO FRUITION.
I'VE ASKED THIS QUESTION TO 
MINISTER MORNEAU.
TO THE CLARK OF THE PRIVY 
COUNCIL.
I KNOW COLLEAGUES MIGHT ACCUSE 
ME OF BEING REPEATING MYSELF 
HERE.
BUT WE DO HAVE THE COMMITTEE.
I HAVE CONSTITUENTS ANXIOUS TO 
VOLUNTEER.
I HAVE MANY NOT FOR PROFITS AND
CHARITIES IN THE COMMUNITY OF 
LONDON, ONTARIO THAT WANT THAT 
EFFORT.
THE CHALLENGE.
WILL THIS PROGRAM GO AHEAD?
IF NOT, WHY NOT?
AND THE MONEY MOVED TOWARDS 
THIS.
IF THE PROGRAM DOES NOT GO 
AHEAD, WHERE WILL THAT MONEY 
GO?
>> TO THE PRIME MINISTER, KEEP 
IT PRETTY TIGHT SIR.
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  OF
COURSE, QUICKLY FIRST OF ALL, 
YOUNG PEOPLE ARE RIGHT NOW 
VOLUNTEERING IN THEIR 
COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
WEIR SEEING PEOPLE STEP UP IN 
BIG WAYS TO HELP OUT AND 
CONTRIBUTE IN THIS TIME OF 
CRISIS.
WHAT THEY WON'T BE GETTING 
THROUGH THIS PROGRAM IS REWARDS
OR RECOGNITION FOR A THOUSAND 
HOURS OF WORK.
4,000 OR 5,000 HOURS OF WORK.
THAT WAS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO 
ENCOURAGE YOUNG PEOPLE TO DO.
EVEN MORE VOLUNTEERING THAT 
WAY.
HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME, WE 
CONTINUE TO LOOK FOR WAYS TO 
ENCOURAGE VOLUNTEERISM.
TO ENCOURAGE YOUNG PEOPLE TO 
GET INVOLVED.
I KNOW THAT THE MINISTER 
CONTINUES TO WORK VERY HARD ON 
THAT.
AND I AM HOPEFUL THAT WE WILL 
BE ABLE TO CONTINUE.
AS WE ARE SUPPORTING THEM.
WITH BOTH EMERGENCY BENEFIT FOR
STUDENTS.
AND WITH LOTS OF JOBS FOR 
STUDENTS THROUGH THE SUMMER 
JOBS PROGRAM.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
I'M HAVING TECHNICAL ISSUES 
HERE.
SORRY.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
FOR ACCEPTING TO COME TO OUR 
COMMITTEE THIS AFTERNOON.
TO CLARIFY SOME REAL IMPORTANT 
ISSUES FOR ALL CANADIANS.
LET'S REMIND OURSELVES.
THE GREAT AND UNPRECEDENTED 
CRISIS THAT YOU AND OUR 
GOVERNMENT HAD TO DEAL WITH IN 
A REAL HURRY.
AS YOU YOURSELF SAID, TO ENSURE
THE SAFETY OF CANADIANS AND TO 
SAVE OUR ECONOMY.
MY QUESTION TO YOU IS THERE'S 
BEEN A SUGGESTION THAT WE 
CHARITY STARTED TO PAY YOUR 
MOTHER IN 2016 BECAUSE OF YOUR 
ROLE AS PRIME MINISTER.
CAN YOU PLEASE SPEAK TO YOUR 
MOTHER'S PERSONAL EXPERIENCE?
HERB ADVOCACY AND COMMITMENT TO
MENTAL HEALTH BEFORE YOU WERE 
ELECTED AS PRIME MIGHT BE 
CENTER IN 2015?
AND HER QUALIFICATIONS AS A 
SPEAKER ON THIS ISSUE?
AND AS A FOLLOW UP, BECAUSE I 
KNOW I'M SHORT FOR TIME, DID 
YOU AT ANY TIME ENCOURAGE YOUR 
MOTHER TO BE INVOLVED IN THE WE
ORGANIZATION.
OR OTHER CHARITABLE CAUSES?
>> . 
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  MY
MOTHER HAS HAD A FASCINATING 
BUT CHALLENGING LIFE IN MANY 
WAYS.
AND SHE SHARED THAT STORY IN 
HER 2010 AUTO BIOGRAPHY.
AFTER THAT, SHE STARTED 
SPEAKING AND SHARING STORIES.
AND ENCOURAGING DIFFERENT 
ORGANIZATIONS PARTICULARLY IN 
MENTAL HEALTH.
BUT IN OTHER AREAS.
AS SHE DID THAT.
SHE REALIZED THERE IS A NEED 
AND A DEMAND FOR MORE DESTIGMA 
TIEIZATION AROUND MENTAL HEALTH
ISSUES AND PERT ADVOCACY FOR 
IT.
SO SHE ACTUALLY WROTE ANOTHER 
BOOK CALLED "TIME OF MY LIFE" 
THAT IS FOCUSED ON MENTAL 
HEALTH ISSUES WHICH SHE 
PUBLISHED IN 2015.
AROUND PUBLISHING THAT BOOK 
WHICH ALSO INVOLVED WORKING 
WITH DOCTORS AND EXPERTS IN THE
FIELD OF MENTAL HEALTH, SHE HAS
BEEN EMPOWERING PEOPLE AND 
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS
THE COUNTRY.
PROFESSIONALLY FOR A LONG TIME 
SINCE THEN.
WITH A GREATER FOCUS ON MENTAL 
HEALTH THAT HAS COME OVER THE 
PAST FIVE YEARS.
IT IS NOT A SURPRISE AT ALL 
THAT VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS 
WOULD TURN TO HER EXPERTISE AND
HER INVOLVEMENT.
BUT I NEVER DIRECTLY OR 
INDIRECTLY ENCOURAGED HER TO 
WORK FOR WE OR ANY OTHER 
SPECIFIC ORGANIZATION.
>> OKAY, WE WILL HAVE TO GO ON 
TO MR. FORTIN?
SIX MINUTES AND YOUR MIC IS 
MUTED SIR.
THERE YOU GO.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH CHAIR.
PRIME MINISTER.
AT A CERTAIN TIME, ANY TIME 
DURING YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH 
WE CHARITY IN RECENT MONTHS, 
DID YOU CHECK THE LOBBY 
REGISTER TO ENSURE THAT THE 
GOVERNMENT WAS NOT DEALING WITH
THE COMPANY REGISTERED ON THE 
LOBBYIST LIST?
PERSONALLY, I HAD NO 
INTERACTION WITH PEOPLE FROM WE
IN RECENT MONTHS.
AND I WOULD EXPECT MINISTERS 
WHO HAD COMMITMENTS WITH 
VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS TO DO 
THEIR JOB.
TO CHECK WITH THE LOBBYIST 
COMMISSIONER.
I REALIZE THAT PERSONALLY DID 
NOT CHECK IT AND YOU DID NOT 
ASK YOUR CHIEF OF STAFF TO DO 
SO EITHER.
NO, MY CHIEF OF STAFF DID NOT 
HAVE AN INTERACTION EITHER WITH
WE CHARITY.
THE QUESTION WAS DID YOU ASK 
YOUR CHIEF OF STAFF IF THE 
KIELBURGERS WERE REGISTERED ON 
THAT LIST?
NO, WE DID NOT HAVE ANY 
INTERACTIONS.
EITHER MYSELF OR MY CHIEF OF 
STAFF.
NO.
YOU DIDN'T ASK TO CHECK IT?
YOU KNOW THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE 
ON THE CABINET THAT SHOWS 
MR. MORNEAU TRAVEL WITH THE 
KEELBURGERS.
YOUR FAMILY HAS TIES WITH THE 
CHARITY.
AND YOU COULD HAVE ASKED 
WHETHER IT WAS CORRECT TO GIVE 
CONFERENCES?
OR RATHER CLOSE TIES.
BETWEEN THE TRUDEAU FAMILY.
AND PEOPLE FROM WE CHARITY.
THESE WERE CLOSE TIES.
AND YOU NEVER CHECKED THE 
LOBBYIST REGISTER.
TO CHECK THIS.
YOU NEVER ASKED SOMEONE IN YOUR
ENTOURAGE TO DO SO?
MR. FORTIN, YOU'RE TALK ABOUT 
CLOSE TIES WITH THE 
KIELBURGERS?
I'M NOT FRIENDS WITH THE 
KIELBURGERS.
I KNOW THEM.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE CLOSE TIES.
YES?
FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
I'VE BEEN WORKING IN THE YOUTH 
SECTOR BEFORE I GOT INVOLVED IN
POLITICS.
SO I HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THEY 
ARE DOING.
I'VE PARTICIPATED IN EVENTS 
MANY TIMES.
BUT IN TERMS OF THE LOBBYIST 
COMMISSIONER YOU KNOW FULL WELL
IT'S UP TO THE COMPANIES TO GET
INVOLVED IN THIS.
IT'S NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF 
POLITICIANS TO GET INVOLVED IN 
THAT.
SO IN YOUR OPINION, YOU DON'T 
HAVE AN OBLIGATION WHEN SOMEONE
COMES TO YOU.
TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE 
REGISTERED ON THE LOBBYIST 
REGISTER?
WHEN THEY WANT TO DO LOBBYING, 
YES, ABSOLUTELY.
BUT THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY 
WHEN THE KIELBURGERS OR ANYONE 
ELSE FROM WE MADE COMMITMENTS 
IN TERMS OF LOBBYING WITH OUR 
GOVERNMENT.
PERHAPS NEVER, OR AT LEAST NOT 
IN RECENT MONTHS.
HOW MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS 
WAS PAID TO WE CHARITY?
OR AN ORGANIZATION IN THEIR 
NETWORK SINCE YOU WERE ELECTED 
IN 2015 MR. TRUDEAU?
I KNOW IT'S BEEN SEVERAL 
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THAT
PREVIOUS CONSERVATIVE 
GOVERNMENTS AND PROVINCES ALSO 
HAVE MADE COMMITMENTS AND 
CONTRACTS WITH THIS 
ORGANIZATION.
WHICH DOES REMARKABLE WORK FOR 
YOUNG PEOPLE ACROSS THE 
COUNTRY.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT-- I WANT 
TO KNOW IF THIS MONEY HAS BEEN 
PROPERLY MANAGED OR NOT.
AND OF COURSE THERE ARE 
CONNECTIONS THAT SEEM IMPORTANT
TO ASK.
BUT IN TERMS OF THE LOBBYIST 
REGISTER, SINCE 2015 WHEN YOU 
CAME TO POWER AS PRIME 
MINISTER, I'VE SEEN FIGURES 
EARLIER AT $5 MILLION OR $10 
MILLIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PAID TO
WE CHARITY.
YOU KNEW.
RECENTLY.
IN TERMS OF YOUR QUESTIONS.
CONTINUE RIP BUTIONS TO WE 
CHARITY.
ANY OF THOSE AGREEMENTS.
WE CHARITY IN TERMS OF 
MR. MORNEAU.
I DID NOT.
KNEW THEY HAD A DAUGHTER 
INVOLVED.
ANOTHER DAUGHTER WHO WAS WITH 
THAT ORGANIZATION.
MR. TRUDEAU.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY DIDN'T 
NOTICE SPECIFICALLY THAT 
MR. MORNEAU TRAVELLED?
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN EXACTLY?
IT DOESN'T SURPRISE ME BECAUSE 
I KNEW HOW MR. MORNEAU WAS IN 
MANY CAUSES INCLUDING THE YOUTH
CAUSE.
THAT HE HAD MADE SPECIFICS TO 
WE CHARITY.
BUT YOU KNEW HIS DAUGHTER 
WORKED FOR WE?
NO, SORRY.
I KNEW THAT ONE OF HIS 
DAUGHTERS HAD PROJECTS WITH WE.
SHE WROTE A BOOK ABOUT THE 
COMMITMENT OF WOMEN.
I DID KNOW HE HAD ANOTHER 
DAUGHT OR WORKED AS SUCH FOR WE
CHARITY.
>> ONE MINUTE LEFT MR. FORTIN.
>> Voice of Interpreter:  PRIME
MINISTER, DID YOU ASK 
MR. MORNEAU AT ANY POINT IN 
TIME TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE FROM
WE CHARITY WERE REGISTERED ON 
THE LOBBYIST LIST?
SINCE I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THERE 
HAD BEEN INTERACTIONS WITH WE 
CHARITY, IN TERMS OF THIS COVID
PROGRAM, I WOULDN'T HAVE HAD 
THE OPPORTUNITY OR REASON TO 
ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT LOBBYING IN
THE KIELBURGERS.
DID YOU ASK MS. CHAGGER THIS 
QUESTION?
AS I SAID, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT 
WE CHARITY HAD BEEN SELECTED TO
DELIVER THIS PROGRAM DURING THE
PROCESS I WAS TAKING PLACE.
SO I WOULDN'T HAVE HAD A CHANCE
TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT 
LOBBYING.
ON APRIL 9th, YOU ANNOUNCED A 
PROGRAM RIGHT AFTER WE CHARITY 
WAS INVOLVED.
AND OF COURSE YOU KNOW THAT WE 
CHARITY HAS BEEN INVOLVED FOR 
QUITE SOME TIME.
YOU NEVER ASKED ANY OF YOUR 
MINISTERS OR MEMBERS OF YOUR 
ENTOURAGE TO CHECK TO SEE IF WE
CHARITY WAS REGISTERED ON THE 
LOBBYIST LIST.
YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.
FIRST, THAT IS NOT THE ROLE OF 
THE PRIME MINISTER TO ASK HIS 
MINISTERS TO CHECK THE LOBBYING
LIST.
WE HAVE PEOPLE IN OUR OFFICE TO
DO THAT.
THEY HAVE TO DO THEIR JOB.
SECOND, WE CHARITY INVITATION, 
I ONLY RECEIVED IT ON MAY 8th.
ONCE ALL THE DECISIONS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS HAD BEEN MADE 
BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE.
>> SOSHY MR. FORTIN, WE ARE A 
LITTLE OVER.
WE WILL TURN TO MR. ANGUS FOR 
SIX MINUTES.
WE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY 
MR. POILIEVRE AND THEN MINISTER
MCLEOD.
MR. ANGUS?
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. CHAIR.
AND THANK YOU MR. PRIME 
MINISTER FOR JOINING US TODAY.
I AGREE WITH YOU.
CANADIANS ARE IN THE WORST 
MEDICAL AND ECONOMIC 
CATASTROPHE IN A CENTURY.
AND I THINK WHAT'S VERY 
FRUSTRATED FOR ME IS THAT WE 
WORK VERY HARD ACROSS PARTY 
LINES TO REASSURE CANADIANS.
THAT WE ARE PUTTING THEIR 
INTERESTS FIRST.
AND YET WE ARE HERE TODAY 
BECAUSE OF THINK THINK VERY 
UNNECESSARY SCANDAL.
AND IT COMES DOWN FUNDAMENTALLY
TO A QUESTION OF YOUR JUDGMENT.
THERE WERE NUMEROUS SUGGESTIONS
WITH THIS PROPOSAL.
IT FELL APART AS SOON AS IT 
CAME OUT.
BUT THE QUESTION THAT STICKS 
WITH PEOPLE IS YOU'VE BEEN 
FOUND GUILTY TWICE OF BREAKING 
THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT.
YOU SEEM TO HAVE THIS-- I GIVE 
AN IMPRESSION THAT YOU DON'T 
BELIEVE THAT THE YOU LAWS THAT 
DEFINE POLITICIANS CAN AND 
CANNOT DO APPLIES TO YOU.
AND SO HERE WE ARE WITH A CASE 
THAT WAS SUCH AN OBVIOUS 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST BECAUSE OF
YOUR CONNECTION WITH 
KIELBURGERS.
THAT HAS DERAILED SO MUCH GOOD 
WORK AND HURT STUDENTS.
DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE DAMAGE 
THAT HAS BEEN DONE?
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  
FIRST OF ALL, MR. ANGUS, 
THROUGH THIS PANDEMIC THAT AS 
YOU SAY HAS BEEN EXTRAORDINARY 
DIFFICULT IN THE PAST TO 
CANADIANS.
WE HAVE REMAINED FOCUSED ON 
THEM.
WE HAVE DELIVERED TO OVER 8 
MILLION CANADIANS THE CANADA 
EMERGENCY RESPONSE BENEFIT.
A WAGE SUBSIDY THAT HAS KEPT 
BUSINESSES GOING.
COMMERCIAL RENT ASSISTANCE.
SUPPORT FOR SENIORS.
SUPPORT FOR STUDENTS.
$9 BILLION PACKAGE OF WHICH 
YES, THIS VOLUNTEER PROGRAM WAS
A PART.
AND IT IS DISAPPOINTING THAT 
WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO 
GIVE GRANTS FOR STUDENTS WHO 
ARE VOLUNTEERING ACROSS THE 
COUNTRY SO FAR.
AND WE ARE STILL WORKING ON 
THAT OBVIOUSLY.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, 
MR. ANGUS, YOU NEED TO KNOW 
THAT WE HAVE DELIVERED 
CONCRETELY FOR CANADIANS.
WE ALSO, WHEN I RECEIVED THE 
INFORMATION THAT THE WE CHARITY
WAS BEING CHOSEN, RECOMMENDED 
BY PUBLIC SERVICE TO DELIVER 
THE STUDENT GRANT PROGRAM.
I PUSHED BACK.
PERHAPS BECAUSE OF THE 
EXPERIENCE THAT YOU HIGHLIGHT.
>> MR. PRIME MINISTER.
SO-- I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT
ALL THE EYES WERE DOTTED.
ALL THE Ts WERE CROSSED.
THE PUBLIC SERVICE WAS READY TO
FULLY JUSTIFY THAT CHOISZ OF WE
CHARITY AS THE ONLY 
ORGANIZATION.
>> WE WILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO
MR. ANGUS.
PRIME MINISTER?
>> I GUESS THE ISSUE IS THAT 
FOR CANADIANS, THE IDEA THAT 
THIS WAS THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN.
THAT WE WAS THE ONLY GAME IN 
TOWN.
I'M SURE AROUND YOUR CABINET IT
PROBABLY WAS.
BUT THE FACT IS THE KIELBURGER 
BROTHERS CAREFULLY CULTIVATED 
THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH YOU.
AND YOUR BRAND.
AFTER YOU BECAME PRIME 
MINISTER, THEY PUT YOU ON THE 
STADIUM CIRCUIT.
THEY HIRED YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS 
TO THE TUNE OF HALF A MILLION 
DOLLARS.
THEY HIRED THEIR DAUGHTER AND 
MADE THEIR STAFF GO TO HIS 
PARTIES.
DO YOU THINK THAT'S NOT 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
YES OR NO?
>> FROM THE VERY FIRST YOU WERE
UNFORTUNATELY MISLEADING PEOPLE
WITH YOUR PROPOSAL.
THIS WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE 
SELECTED.
THIS WAS NOT SOMETHING CABINET 
SELECTED.
CABINET WAS PRESENTED A CHOICE 
BY OUR PROFESSIONAL PUBLIC 
SERVICE SAYING IF YOU WANT TO 
DELIVER THIS SUMMER VOLUNTEER 
PROGRAM, SUMMER GRANT PROGRAM, 
IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE 
THROUGH THIS THIRD PARTY 
ORGANIZATION.
THEY DIDN'T GIVE US A CHOICE OF
TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT 
ORGANIZATIONS.
BUT WHEN YOU SAY IT WAS MAYBE 
THE REALITY AROUND THE CABINET.
BUT IT WASN'T NECESSARILY THE 
REALITY OUT THERE.
THEY ARE INTUNING THE VERY FINE
PUBLIC SERVANTS.
>> MR. TRUDEAU PLEASE--.
>> ACROSS THIS PANDEMIC 
DELIVERING FOR CANADIANS.
DELIVER THE SCALE OF GRANTS.
>> WELL MR. PRIME MINISTER.
THAT'S WHY YOUR DECISION.
REALLY CONCERNS ME.
IS THAT YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE 
QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT 
THAT YOU THOUGHT THAT YOUR 
CLOSE FAMILY FINANCIAL 
RELATIONSHIPS AND THE MORNEAU 
FAMILY, POST FINANCIAL 
RELATIONSHIP IS A CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST.
THAT IS WHY FULL SERVICE, WE'RE
HERE BECAUSE YOU DON'T SEEM TO 
UNDERSTAND MR. PRIME MINISTER 
THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST 
APPLIES TO YOU.
SO WHEN YOU TELL US WE CHARITY 
THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN.
OBVIOUSLY THIS DEAL FELL APART 
AND YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT
YOUR CONFLICT OF INTEREST HAS 
PUT YOU HERE.
>> MR. PRIME MINISTER.
>> MR. ANGUS?
YOUR STATEMENT THAT IN MY WORLD
OR IN OUR CABINET, WE WERE THE 
ONLY GAME IN TOWN, IS SIMPLY 
UNTRUE.
IT IS A PROFESSIONAL PUBLIC 
SERVICE.
THAT PUT FORWARD THE 
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT SAID TO 
US, HAVING DONE THEIR DUE 
DILIGENCE, THAT THE ONLY 
ORGANIZATION WITH THE SCALE AND
THE CAPACITY TO DELIVER THIS 
GRANT PROGRAM WOULD BE WE.
PERSONALLY, I THOUGHT WE WERE 
GOING TO BE ABLE TO DELIVER IT 
THROUGH THE CANADA SERVICE 
CORE.
WHICH I HAD CREATING TWO OR 
THREE YEARS AGO.
REWARDING SERVICE AND CREATING 
OPPORTUNITIES AND SERVICE FOR 
YOUNG PEOPLE.
I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO SEE IT 
SUPER CHARGED AND ACCELERATED 
TO BE ABLE TO DELIVER MANY 
THOUSANDS OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR 
YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY.
BUT THAT WASN'T ABLE TO BE 
DONE.
AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE 
THEMSELVES MADE THE 
RECOMMENDATION THAT WE HAD TO 
GO WITH WE CHARITY.
AT TIMES THIS WAS NOT INVOLVED.
>> LAST QUESTION MR. ANGUS?
AND IT WILL HAVE TO BE A VERY 
QUICK ONE.
>> WELL VERY QUICKLY, MR. PRIME
MINISTER, AS THE FORMER YOUTH 
VOICE, YOU COULD HAVE BEEN 
TALKING TO THE FEDERATION OF 
STUDENTS WHEN YOU WERE TELLING 
THEM THAT THEY WERE NOT 
ELIGIBLE FOR CERB.
WHEN YOU TOLD THEM TO WORK FOR 
LESS THAN A MINIMUM WAGE.
WHEN YOU PUSHED THIS DEAL WITH 
THE KIELBURGER BROTHERS AND 
REFUSED TO RECUSE YOURSELF.
AND NOT A DIME HAS GONE OUT THE
DOOR.
>> OVER TO YOU MR. PRIME 
MINISTER?
>> MR. ANGUS AND THE NDP HAVE 
SAID THIS A FEW TIMES.
THIS IDEA THAT VOLUNTEERING IS 
IS SOMEHOW WORKING FOR LESS 
THAN THE MINIMUM WAGE.
I'D LIKE TO REMIND THE LEGAL 
FEES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  AT
THE HEART OF THIS COUNTRY.
AND PEOPLE GET OUT AND 
VOLUNTEER.
NOT FOR MONEY BUT BECAUSE THEY 
WANT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN 
THE WORLD.
AND IF YOU START CALCULATING 
EVERY VOLUNTEER AS WORKING FOR 
LESS THAN THE MINIMUM WAGE THAN
YOU ARE MISING A REALLY 
IMPORTANT PART OF THE FABRIC OF
CANADA AND GETTING PEOPLE TO 
STEP UP AND VOLUNTEER IS 
SOMETHING--.
>> WE WILL HAVE TO END THAT 
ROUND THERE GENTLEMEN.
WE ARE GOING NOW TO FIVE MINUTE
ROUNDS.
AND WILL START WITH THE 
MINISTER POILIEVRE.
FOLLOWED BY MINISTER MCLEOD.
MR. POILIEVRE?
>> MR. CHAIR, I'LL BE TAKING 
MR. POILIEVRE'S TIME.
>> OH, OKAY.
WHO WAS THAT THAT YELLED THERE?
>> MP BARRETT, SIR.
>> OH, OKAY.
SORRY MR. BARRETT.
YEAH, I HAD MR. POILIEVRE ON MY
LIST.
I'LL NOT TAKE MY TALKING FROM 
YOU FR YOUR TIME.
YOU GET THE FLOOR.
>> THANK YOU.
PRIME MINISTER, JUST LOOKING 
FOR A NUMBER.
HOW MANY TIMES WOULD ONE OF 
YOUR MINISTERS NEED TO BE FOUND
GUILTY OF BREAKING THE FLEKT OF
INTEREST ACT FOR YOU TO FIRE 
THEM?
HOW MANY TIMES, SIR?
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  
OBVIOUSLY OUR CABINET IS FORMED
OF EXTRAORDINARY INDIVIDUALS 
WHO SERVE THEIR COUNTRY.
AND I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THEIR 
ABILITY TO DO JUST THAT.
>> HOW MANY TIMES WOULD THEY 
NEED TO BREAK THE ACT BEFORE 
YOU WOULD FIRE THEM?
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  
OBVIOUSLY ANY TIME SOMEONE 
CONTRAVENES THE ETHICS'S 
COMMISSIONERS ACT WE TAKE IT 
VERY SERIOUSLY.
AND WE'LL LOOK AT EACH 
SITUATION BASED ON THE GRAVITY 
OF THE SITUATION.
>> OKAY WELL YOU CLAIMED IN 
YOUR OPENING REMARKS THAT YOU 
HAD BASICALLY NO IDEA WHAT WAS 
HAPPENING IN YOUR GOVERNMENT.
WHO ARE YOU HOLDING ACCOUNTABLE
FOR THIS DECISION?
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  
MR. BARRETT, OVER THE PAST 
NUMBER OF MONTHS, AS A 
GOVERNMENT, AND AS A PRIME 
MINISTER, I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN
THE DECISIONS AROUND CERB AND 
AROUND THE WAGE SUBSIDY AND 
AROUND HELPING CANADIANS 
THROUGH THIS EXTRAORDINARY TIME
OF CRISIS.
WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN WORKING 
QUICKLY.
AND FLEXIBLY WITH AN 
EXTRAORDINARILY PROFESSIONAL 
PUBLIC SERVICE TO DELIVER IT 
TREMENDOUS PROGRAMS TO HELP 
CANADIANS.
>> BACK TO MR. BARRETT PRIME 
MINISTER.
>> PRIME MINISTER, THERE WAS NO
VETTING DONE OF WE CHARITY.
THERE ARE MARRIAGE CONCERNS 
WITH THIS ORGANIZATION.
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 
VETTING?
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  
THE PUBLIC SERVICE WOULD HAVE 
DONE THEIR DUE DILIGENCE TO 
ENSURE WHICH ORGANIZATIONS 
COULD DELIVER THE PROGRAM AS WE
HAD LAID IT OUT.
AND THEY FOUND THAT ONLY WE 
CHARITY HAD THE ABILITY TO DO 
THAT THROUGH THEIR DUE 
DILIGENCE PROCESS.
>> MINISTER BARRETT.
>> THE ORGANIZATION THAT YOU 
APPROVED SIR WAS YOU HAD A 
CONTRACT.
SHELL COMPANY.
WITH NO EXPERIENCE RUNNING A 
PROGRAM LIKE THIS.
THAT'S A PROBLEM.
SOMEONE SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNT 
ABLE.
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  
THE PUBLIC SERVICE WHICH HAS 
DELIVERED.
THIRD PARTY ORGANIZATION.
WE WANTED TO HELP FOOD BANKS.
THE PUBLIC SFRS REACHED OUT THE
FOOD BANKS CANADA TO MAKE SURE 
THEY COULD GET THEIR THAT HAVE 
MONEY OUT.
THEY'VE CONSISTENTLY WORKED 
ACROSS PARTY ORGANIZATIONS AS 
PART OF THEIR DECISION TO DO 
THAT, THEY HAVE DONE FULL DUE 
DILIGENCE ON THAT 
ORGANIZATION'S ABILITY TO 
DELIVER THE PROGRAM.
>> THE PRIME MINISTER IS 
RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISIONS.
NOT THE PUBLIC SERVICE.
A MAJOR MISTAKE WAS MADE.
SOMEONE IN CABINET SHOULD BE 
HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
WHICH MINISTER WILL YOU FIRE?
MINISTER MORNEAU?
WHICH MINISTER?
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  
THE DECISION IN CABINET WAS NOT
AS TO WHICH ORGANIZATION SHOULD
DELIVER THE CANADA STUDENT 
SUMMER GRANT.
THE DECISION IN CABINET WAS 
SHOULD WE HAVE A SUMMER GRANT 
PROGRAM?
OR NOT?
THAT WAS THE BINARY CHOICE 
GIVEN TO US AND CABINET MADE A 
DECISION TRADING OPPORTUNITIES 
FOR YOUNG PEOPLE TO SERVE.
>> DO YOU STILL THINK WE WAS A 
GOOD CHOICE TO RUN THIS 
PROGRAM, SIR?
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  WE
WILL NEVER KNOW.
BECAUSE THEY PULLED OUT OF THAT
BEING ABLE TO DELIVER THE 
PROGRAM.
PARTIALLY BECAUSE I HAD RECUSED
MYSELF.
-- I HADN'T.
AND CREATED COMPLICATIONS HERE.
SOMETHING I DEEPLY REGRET.
>> MINISTER BARRETT.
JUST AND NOT TAKE THE TIME FROM
YOU.
BUT SOMEBODY'S GOT THEIR MIC ON
AND SOME SOUND IS COMING 
THROUGH.
WERE YOU AWARE OF THIS?
HOW MANY TIMES DID YOUR FAMILY 
MEMBERS RECEIVE REMUNERATION 
FROM THIS ORGANIZATION SINCE 
YOU'VE BEEN ELECTED AS PRIME 
MINISTER?
>> AS I'VE SAID, MY WIFE WORKS 
ON AN UNPAID BASIS FOR WE.
AMONGST OTHER ORGANIZATIONS.
AND HAD IT CLEARED BY THE 
ETHICS COMMISSIONER IN ADVANCE 
FOR BOTH HER ENGAGEMENTS.
BECAUSE SHE'D BEEN AN ADVOCATE.
FOR FREE, WITHIN EXPENSES AND 
SOMETHING THAT WAS CLEARED BY 
THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER.
WHEN SHE FIRST WANTED TO BECOME
AN ADVOCATE AROUND THESE ISSUES
WITH THAT ORGANIZATION.
>> 11 MINUTES LEFT.
>> SO EVERY DOLLAR THAT YOUR 
WIFE RECEIVED IN REIMBURSEMENT 
OR IN PAYMENT WAS CLEARED IN 
ADVANCE BY THE COMMISSIONER?
>> AS I SAID MR. BARRETT, THIS 
WAS UNPAID WORK.
MY WIFE WAS DOING.
TO-- FOR A CAUSE THAT SHE 
BELIEVES IN DEEPLY.
TALKING WITH 
DECITYINGMATIZATION.
THE CHORUS, BRINGING YOUNG 
PEOPLE PARTICULARLY GIRLS.
THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT SHE 
BELIEVED IN DEEPLY.
AND YES.
WE GOT APPROVAL BY THE ETHICS 
COMMISSIONER THAT SHE COULD 
VOLUNTEER WITH THIS 
ORGANIZATION AND VEX PENCES 
RELATED TO THAT VOLUNTEERISM BE
REIMBURSED.
>> KEEP IT TIGHT.
>> I WANT TO KNOW IF THE PRIME 
MINISTER CAN TELL US WHAT DUE 
DILIGENCE LOOKS LIKE.
WE HAVE AN ORGANIZATION THAT 
HAD NO ASSETS.
IT WAS A SHELL CORPORATION.
THEY WERE IN VIOLATION OF BANK 
CONVENANTS.
A FIRED BOARD CHAIR.
THEY WERE FIRING EMPLOYEES.
AND THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA 
HANDED OVER A $500 MILLION 
CONTRACT FOR THEM TO 
ADMINISTER.
WHAT WAS THAT DUE DILIGENCE.
>> THE PUBLIC INSURANCE ENSURES
THAT ANY THIRD PARTY THAT WE 
WORK WITH ON DELIVERY OF A 
PROGRAM IS CAPABLE OF 
DELIVERING THE PROGRAM.
THEY HAVE A RIGOROUS AND STRONG
PROCESS TO DO THAT.
AND I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN OUR 
PUBLIC SERVICE TO BE ABLE TO DO
THAT PARTICULARLY.
MANY THIRD PARTY ORGANIZATIONS.
AND AN ABILITY TO GET HELP TO 
CANADIANS IN RECORD FASHION 
WHEN PEOPLE NEEDED IT THE MOST.
>> THANK YOU, BOTH.
TURNING THEN TO MR. MCLEOD WHO 
WILL BE FOLLOWED BY MINISTER 
POILIEVRE ON MY LIST.
MINISTER MCLEOD, YOU HAVE FIVE 
MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
AND THANK YOU TO THE PRIME 
MINISTER FOR JOINING US HERE 
TODAY.
I'M GLAD THAT WHEN THE QUESTION
WAS BROUGHT TO THE CABINET 
TABLE TO RUN A SUMMER STUDENT 
PROGRAM, YOU SAID YES.
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VERY 
IMPORTANT THAT WE DO SO.
AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE
SHOULD CONTINUE TO TRY TO 
ACHIEVE.
THIS IS OUR FIFTH MEETING ON 
THE TOPIC OF GOVERNMENT 
SPENDING.
WE AND THE CANADA SUMMER 
STUDENT SERVICE GRANT.
THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE STUDY.
NO LONGER ADMINISTERED THE 
PROGRAM.
THE PROGRAM WAS NOW IN 
JEOPARDY.
ONE FULL MONTH THAT THE YOUTH 
HAS MISSED OUT ON EXPERIENCES 
AND ASSISTANCES THAT THE CANADA
STUDENT SERVICE GRANT COULD 
HAVE PROVIDED.
IN MANY PARTS OF THE COUNTRY 
INCLUDING HERE IN THE NORTH, 
MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR 
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES FOR THOSE
THAT DON'T KNOW, AND INDIGENOUS
COMMUNITIES.
MANY OF OUR YOUTH ALREADY FACE 
MANY BARRIERS.
TO OPPORTUNITIES THAT OTHER 
PARTS OF THE COUNTRY ENJOY.
WE ARE REMOTE, WE HAVE 
STRUGGLED WITH CONNECTIVITY.
THERE'S A HIGH COST OF LIVING, 
I NEED TO ASK YOU IF THE 
GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO ADDRESS 
THE FACT THAT OUR YOUTH HAVE 
LOST OUT BECAUSE OF THIS DELAY.
>> MR. PRIME MINISTER.
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  
THANK YOU MR. MCLEOD FOR YOUR 
WORDS.
AND QUITE FRANKLY FOR YOUR 
ADVOCACY FOR NORTHERN YOUTH AND
INDEED ALL YOUTH ACROSS THE 
COUNTRY.
I SHARE THOSE CONCERNS.
AND THAT'S WHY WE MOVE FORWARD 
WITH MULTIPLE WAYS TO SUPPORT 
YOUNG PEOPLE THROUGH THIS 
PANDEMIC.
WE LOOKED AT A $9 BILLION 
PACKAGE TO SUPPORT YOUNG 
PEOPLE.
THAT INCLUDES DEFERRAL OF 
STUDENT LOANS.
CREATION OF SUMMER JOBS AND 
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEM.
AS@A TIME WHERE WE KNOW THAT 
THEIR REGULAR SUMMER JOBS MAY 
NOT EXIST BECAUSE OF THE 
PANDEMIC.
AND IT ALSO INCLUDED THE CANADA
EMERGENCY STUDENT RESPONSE 
BENEFIT.
$1250 PER MONTH TO STUDENTS WHO
NEED IT.
$2,000 A MONTH TO STUDENTS WHO 
HAVE DEPENDANTS.
AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE 
WORKED OUT WITH OTHER PARTIES 
AS WELL.
SO THERE ARE MANY, MANY 
DIFFERENT THINGS WE'RE DOING 
FOR YOUNG PEOPLE.
THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM, THE 
CANADA STUDENT SERVICE GRANT, 
WAS CREATED TO INCENTIVIZE AND 
TO REWARD YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE 
STEPPING UP IN THEIR 
COMMUNITIES.
IT WAS ABOUT GIVING A GRANT TO 
YOUNG PEOPLE FOR THAT SERVICE 
THAT THEY WERE SO MANY OF THEM 
DOING ALREADY.
WHAT WE CONTINUE TO SEE, EVEN 
WITHOUT THIS FINANCIAL REWARD 
WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO 
DELIVER ON THE COORDINATION 
ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
WE SEE YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE 
NORTH AND THE SOUTH RIGHT 
ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
STEPPING UP AND VOLUNTEERING IN
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS BECAUSE
THEY KNOW THAT THIS IS A 
HISTORIC TIME IN WHICH THEIR 
ACTIONS, THEIR VOICES AND THEIR
EFFORTS CAN SHAPE OUR COUNTRY 
FOR THE BETTER.
AND AGAIN, I AM ALWAYS DEEPLY 
GRATEFUL TO YOUNG PEOPLE.
AND THEIR LEADERSHIP WITHIN OUR
COUNTRY.
>> MINISTER MCLEOD?
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT RESPONSE.
I HEARD YOUR RESPONSE TO MY 
COLLEAGUE WHEN HE ASKED ABOUT 
THIS PROGRAM EARLIER.
I'M HOPING THAT I CAN USE THIS 
OPPORTUNITY TO ENCOURAGE THE 
DELIVERY OF THIS PROGRAM.
MAYBE THROUGH THE PUBLIC 
SERVICE INSTEAD.
AND CONSIDERATION TO ADJUSTING 
THE ORIGINAL ELIGIBILITY 
PERIOD.
TO SOME TIME DOWN THE ROAD INTO
OCTOBER.
OR FOR PERHAPS REPROFILING THE 
GRANT FUNDING TO ANOTHER 
PROGRAM TO SUPPORT YOUNG 
CANADIANS.
IS THAT SOMETHING CABINET WOULD
BE INTERESTED IN TALKING ABOUT?
>> RT. HON. Justin Trudeau:  
ABSOLUTELY.
WE KNOW ENCOURAGING YOUNG 
PEOPLE TO BE INVOLVED IN THEIR 
COMMUNITIES IS A GREAT WAY TO 
NOT JUST GIVE THEM EXPERIENCES 
BUT AN OPPORTUNITY AND TANGIBLY
HELP OUT SENIORS.
YOUNG PEOPLE, MARGINALIZED 
PEOPLE.
A COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION.
THESE ARE THINGS THAT YOUNG 
PEOPLE AND YOUNG STUDENTS 
STEPPING UP CAN MAKE A HUGE 
DIFFERENCE IN.
SO WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO 
LOOK FOR WAYS TO DO IT.
LIKE I SAID, THE CANADA STUDENT
CORE WHICH WAS CREATED A FEW 
YEARS AGO IS EXACTLY ABOUT 
THAT.
COORDINATING VOLUNTEER 
ORGANIZATIONS TO CREE YEAHS 
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE 
ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
IT WASN'T ABLE TO SCALE UP.
AS WE LOOK FOR OTHER WAYS.
INTERNAL GOVERNMENT SOMETHING 
PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT VERY 
CAREFULLY.
[ PLEASE STAND BY FOR 
CAPTIONING ]
>> THANK YOU.
WE'LL GO TO MR. POILIEVRE WHO
WILL BE FOLLOWED BY MISS ZEHR
DZEROWICZ.
>> "YES" OR  "NO," MR. PRIME
MINISTER.
YOU TWICE WERE FOUND GUILTY OF
BREAKING THE -- AFTER THOSE TWO
CONVICTIONS, DID YOU DECIDE TO
READ THE ACT?
>> YOU GOT 14 SECONDS, PRIME
MINISTER.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
YES, I HAVE READ THE ACT A
NUMBER OF TIMES.
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF SECTION 21?
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
YES, SINCE I READ THE ACT, I'M
AWARE OF SECTION 21.
>> WHAT DOES IT SAY?
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau: I
CAN PULL IT UP FOR YOU --
>> IT SAYS A PUBLIC OFFICE HOLD
CERTIFICATE OF WHICH YOU ARE ONE
SHALL RECUSE HIMSELF OR HERSELF
FROM ANY DISCUSSION, DEBATE OR
VOTE IN ANY MATTER IN RESPECT OF
WHICH SHE OR SHE WOULD BE IN A
CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
NOW, WHAT YOU'VE ADMITTED TODAY
IS NOT JUST THAT YOU WERE IN A
CONFLICT OF INTEREST BUT THAT
YOU CONSCIOUSLY RECOGNIZED, IN
YOUR MAY CABINET MEETING, THAT
SUCH A CONFLICT MIGHT EXIST.
THAT IT DIDN'T JUST SLIDE BY
YOUR DESK, THAT YOU WERE
CONSCIOUSLY AWARE THAT THERE WAS
AN INAPPROPRIATE LINK TO YOUR
FAMILY THAT WOULD PUT YOU IN A
CONFLICT.
WHY DID YOU, AT THAT MOMENT, NOT
CALL THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER AND
RECUSE YOURSELF?
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE,
MR. POILIEVRE.
THE ISSUE OF ADVANCING ISSUES
FOR -- BY THE WAY THE ETHICS
COMMISSIONER IS LOOKING INTO
THIS RIGHT NOW, AND I FULLY
TRUST HIS JUDGMENT ON
DETERMINING IT, BUT AT THE SAME
TIME, MY CONCERN AROUND RECUSING
MYSELF WAS A QUESTION AROUND
PERCEPTIONS BECAUSE I KNEW FULL
WELL THAT THIS CANADA SUMMER
STUDENTS GRANT --
>> YOUR 16 SECONDS IS UP.
>>  -- WAS NOT GOING TO DIRECTLY
BENEFIT MY MOTHER OR MY
BROTHER --
>> YOUR 16 SECONDS ARE UP.
YOUR 16 SECONDS ARE UP.
I'M GOING TO ASK YOU AGAIN.
NOBODY BELIEVES YOU WHEN YOU SAY
YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY
YOUR FAMILY HAS GOT FROM THE
'WE' GROUP.
YOU'VE HAD A MONTH TO LOOK INTO
THAT.
YOU KNEW YOU WERE GOING TO
TESTIFY HERE.
AGAIN, HOW MUCH MONEY TOTAL HAVE
YOUR BROTHER, MOTHER, AND SPOUSE
RECEIVED FROM THIS ORGANIZATION?
HOW MUCH?
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
THAT INFORMATION HAS BEEN
PUBLICLY SHARED, BUT I WILL
HIGHLIGHT --
>> WELL THEN TELL ME WHAT IT IS.
HOW MUCH?
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau: MY
MOTHER HAS --
>> JUST THE DOLLAR FIGURE.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
 -- THROUGHOUT HER LIFE --
>> THE DOLLAR FIGURE, PRIME
MINISTER.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
 -- AND I'M PROUD --
>> HOW MUCH?
I'M LOOKING FOR A DOLLAR FIGURE.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau: WE
CAN GET THAT NUMBER IF YOU LIKE.
IT'S BEEN IN THE MEDIA.
>> IT'S BEEN IN THE MEDIA BUT
YOU DON'T KNOW IT?
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau: I
DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.
>> YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH YOUR
FAMILY HAS RECEIVED FROM THIS
ORGANIZATION WHICH YOU TRIED TO
GIVE A HALF BILLION DOLLARS,
REALLY?
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
CAN I ANSWER, MR. POILIEVRE?
>> I'M WAITING.
YOU HAVEN'T DONE AN ANSWER SO
FAR.
LET'S MAKE THIS THE FIRST ONE.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau: MY
MOTHER HAS WORKED AS AN ADVOCAT-
>> THE DOLLAR FIGURE, PRIME
MINISTER.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
 -- SPEAKER FOR MANY GOOD
ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS THE COUNTR-
>> MR. PRIME MINISTER, YOU
ARE --
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
 -- AND SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO RELY
ON A HUSBAND OR A SON TO SUPPORT
HER BECAUSE SHE DOES HER OWN
WORK, AND I'M --
>> POINT OF ORDER.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau: I
DO NOT FEEL THAT --
>> ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
 -- RESPONSIBILITY TO PEER INTO
THE WORK MY MOTHER IS DOING
BECAUSE I HAVE --
>> POINT OF ORDER TO SUSPEND.
>> POINT OF ORDER TO SUSPEND,
PLEASE.
>> I'VE COME TO LEARN THAT THE
CHAIRPERSON'S POWER HAS GONE OUT
AND IS NO LONGER PART OF THIS
MEETING.
MAY I PROPOSE THAT WE --
>> THE PRIME MINISTER AND I CAN
CONTINUE TALKING.
>> NO, NO.
>> I SUSPECT THAT THAT MIGHT BE
A PROBLEM.
IT'S VERY CONVENIENT TIMING FOR
THE LIGHTS TO GO OUT.
>> LOOK, I GOT A MESSAGE TO THE
EFFECT THAT HIS POWER HAS GONE
OUT, I HAVE NO REASON TO
DISTRUST HIM.
>> I HOPE YOU DON'T PULL THE
FIRE ALARM NOW.
>> WELL, LOOK, THERE'S NO INTENT
IN MY OWN PRIVATE HOME HERE IN
THE MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC, I
DON'T HAVE A FIRE ALARM.
>> THE GENERAL PROCESS IS THAT
THE VICE-CHAIR ASSUMES THE
CHAIRING OF THE MEETING.
SO WE'LL CONTINUE --
>> THAT WOULD BE ME.
SO WE'LL CONTINUE THE MEETING,
AND I NOW GIVE THE FLOOR TO THE
MEMBER FOR CARLETON.
MR. PRIME MINISTER, YOU HAVE --
I'M GOING TO ASK YOU ONE LAST
TIME, HOW MUCH DID YOUR FAMILY
GET FROM THIS ORGANIZATION?
HOW MUCH?
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau: AS
YOU READ THE CONFLICT OF
INTEREST ACT, MR. POILIEVRE --
>> YES, I HAVE.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
HOW DOES IT DEFINE -- HOW DOES
IT DEFINE FAMILY?
>> I'M ASKING YOU HOW MUCH YOUR
FAMILY GOT?
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT
DEFINES FAMILY AS SPOUSE AND
DIRECT DEPENDENCE.
>> POINT OF ORDER --
>> YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ANSWER
THAT QUESTION.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
WELL --
>> SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ANSWER
THE QUESTION ABOUT HOW MUCH YOUR
FAMILY RECEIVED, OKAY, YOU'RE
RIGHT.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau: MY
WIFE --
>> HOLD IT, GENTLEMEN.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
 -- WORKING WITH 'WE' AND IT WA-
>> MR. PRIME MINISTER.
>> MR. POILIEVRE --
>> WAYNE EASTER, CAN I WELCOME
BACK WAYNE EASTER, A MAN WE
DEEPLY MISS?
COME ON.
>> LOOK --
>> I HAD THINGS UNDER CONTROL
FOR YOU WHILE YOU WERE GONE.
>> I MENTIONED THAT FEAR.
IT WOULDN'T BE THE FIRST TIME
YOU TRIED TO PUT MY LIGHTS OUT
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT
HAPPENED, PIERRE.
WE GOT A THUNDERSTORM HERE.
ANYWAY, YOU'RE WELL INTO YOUR
FIVE MINUTES, BUT GO WITH ONE
LAST QUESTION.
>> MR. TRUDEAU, I'M GOING TO
CONCLUDE BY ASKING YOU, YOU
CLAIM THAT YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE
OF THE AMOUNT THAT HAS BEEN PAID
IN EXPENSES TO YOUR SPOUSE.
YOU CORRECTLY POINTED OUT THAT
THE ACT DEFINES FAMILY AS
INCLUDING A SPOUSE.
THEREFORE, YOU KNOW YOU'RE UNDER
INVESTIGATION REGARDING THE ACT.
I'M GOING TO ASK YOU AGAIN, HOW
MUCH IN TOTAL, AND I'M LOOKING
FOR A DOLLAR FIGURE HERE, SIR,
HOW MUCH DID YOUR SPOUSE RECEIVE
IN REIMBURSED EXPENSES OR OTHER
BENEFITS FROM THIS ORGANIZATION?
HOW MUCH?
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION,
MR. POILIEVRE, WAS HOW MUCH WAS
MY IMMEDIATE FAMILY --
>> I ASKED YOU A DIFFERENT
QUESTION NOW.
>> MR. POILIEVRE, THE PRIME
MINISTER HAS THE FLOOR.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau: MY
WIFE HAS NEVER BEEN PAID SINCE I
WAS PRIME MINISTER.
>> REIMBURSED FOR EXPENSES, HOW
MUCH?
>> MR. POILIEVRE, COULD WE
PLEASE HAVE ORDER?
WE'LL ALLOW THE PRIME MINISTER
TO ANSWER THE QUESTION AND THEN
WE'LL MOVE ON TO MISS DZEROWICZ.
SORRY, JULIE.
MR. PRIME MINISTER, YOU HAVE
ABOUT 30 SECONDS HERE.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER HAS
FULLY CLEARED MY WIFE TO
CONTINUE HER ADVOCACY AND HER
WORK WITH 'WE' CHARITY AND OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS --
>> HOW MUCH?
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
 -- IN THE KIND OF WORK SHE'S
BEEN DOING ALL HER LIFE.
>> JUST A DOLLAR FIGURE.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
SHE IS UNPAID FOR 'WE', SHE IS
NOT PAID BY 'WE' FOR HER
ADVOCACY OR PODCASTS.
THEY ARE CERTAINLY REIMBURSES
HER FOR EXPENSES.
>> THANK YOU, MR. PRIME
MINISTER.
AND MR. POILIEVRE.
AND I'M SORRY FOR LEAVING THE
LINE.
WE'LL GO TO MISS DZEROWICZ NEXT
AND THEN WE'LL BE FOLLOWED BY
MS. GAUDREAU, AND THEN
MR. ANGUS.
SO MISS DZEROWICZ, FIVE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR.
AND YOU'RE ALWAYS CALLING ME
MISTER.
>> I KNOW THAT.
>> ANYWAYS, PRIME MINISTER, I
WANT TO SAY A HUGE THANKS FOR
YOU BEING HERE TODAY.
I ALSO WANT TO SAY A HEART-FELT
THANKS ON BEHALF OF DAVENPORT
RESIDENTS PARTICULARLY DURING
THE EARLY DAYS OF THE PANDEMIC,
THE DAILY ANNOUNCEMENTS THAT YOU
MADE WERE A LIFE LINE FOR THEM
BOTH IN TERMS OF INFORMATION AND
IN TERMS OF THE SUPPORT THAT WE
WERE PROVIDING.
THEY REALLY RECEIVED THE FEELING
THAT WE HAD THEIR BACK, AND SO I
WANT TO SAY A HUGE THANKS TO
YOU.
THE FIRST THING I WANT TO TALK
ABOUT IS JUST ABOUT RECUSING
YOURSELF.
YOU HAD INDICATED THAT YOU FELT
YOU SHOULD HAVE RECUSED YOURSELF
BECAUSE OF THE PERCEPTION.
I WANT TO ASK A QUESTION, IF YOU
WERE TO RECUSE YOURSELF FROM
EVERY DECISION THAT MIGHT
INDIRECTLY IMPACT YOUR FAMILY,
HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT YOUR
ABILITY TO SERVE AS PRIME
MINISTER AND MP FOR PAPINEAU?
>> YOU'RE MUTED.
THERE YOU GO.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I THINK OBVIOUSLY THAT IS AN
IMPORTANT QUESTION.
THERE ARE MANY, MANY THINGS I DO
AND WE DO AS A GOVERNMENT THAT
IMPACTS MILLIONS OF CANADIANS
ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
FOR EXAMPLE, MY MOTHER IS A LONG
AND WELL-KNOWN -- LONG-STANDING
ADVOCATE FOR MENTAL HEALTH
ISSUES, ONE OF THE VERY FIRST
COMMITMENTS WE MADE TO CANADIANS
WAS TO INVEST $5 BILLION INTO
MENTAL HEALTH SUPPORTS ACROSS
THE PROVINCES.
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT I SHOULDN'T
HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THAT
DECISION BECAUSE MY MOM IS A
WELL-KNOWN ADVOCATE AND WORKS IN
THE MENTAL HEALTH UNIVERSE.
OBVIOUSLY, THAT WOULD BE SILLY.
IT IS NOT A CONFLICT.
BUT THESE KINDS OF THINGS
CONSTANTLY COME UP.
THAT'S WHY, WHEN THE ISSUE OF
'WE' CAME FORWARD, MY CONCERN
WAS TO PUSH BACK ON IT, TO DELAY
IT FROM GOING FORWARD TO CABINET
SO THAT MORE DUE DILIGENCE COULD
HAPPEN.
IN THAT CASE, LOOKING BACK ON
IT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER
HAD, FOR PERCEPTION'S SAKE, I
SIMPLY STEP AWAY AND NOT BE
INVOLVED AT ALL AND PERHAPS THE
ORGANIZATION AND THE PROGRAM
WOULD BE DELIVERED RIGHT NOW.
BUT I ALWAYS LOOK TO TRY AND
SERVE CANADIANS THE BEST
POSSIBLE WAY AND AROUND YOUTH
PROGRAMS, I HAVE A LEVEL OF
EXPERIENCE ON THAT THAT MEANT
THAT I FELT THAT I WAS USEFUL IN
CONTRIBUTING, AND THAT NONE OF
THIS PROGRAM WAS IN ANY WAY
GOING TO BENEFIT ANY MEMBERS OF
MY FAMILY.
AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT I
WAS VERY COMFORTABLE WITH.
>> THANK YOU.
MY NEXT QUESTION IS YOU'VE MADE
IT CLEAR THERE WERE A NUMBER OF
QUESTIONS AROUND BOARD
GOVERNANCE FOR 'WE' AND THE
NUMBER OF LAY-OFFS THAT HAD
TAKEN PLACE AT 'WE' CHARITY.
AND YOU CLEARLY ARTICULATED FOR
CANADIANS AND ANYONE LISTENING
THAT THE DUE DILIGENCE IS THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF OUR CIVIL
SERVICE.
I DID WANT TO ASK, THOUGH,
MR. SHUGART TESTIFIED THAT NO
ONE IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE RAISED
ANY RED FLAGS ABOUT THE 'WE'
CHARITY FINANCIAL WELL-BEING SO
I WANT TO DIRECTLY ASK YOU, DID
YOU SEE OR HEAR ANY RED FLAGS
BEING RAISED ABOUT THE 'WE'
CHARITY'S FINANCES AND THE
RESOURCES?
AND THE SECOND PART OF MY
QUESTION IS YOU HAD ASKED
MINISTER CHAGGER TO SPEAK WITH
THE HEAD OF TREASURY BOARD FOR
SOME ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT SO IF
YOU COULD SORT OF TALK TO BOTH
OF THOSE BECAUSE I SEE A BIT OF
A CORRELATION THERE.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE
NOW CERTAIN MEDIA REPORTING AND
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE 'WE'
ORGANIZATION'S FINANCIAL
STRUCTURES AND ACTIVITIES.
THOSE OBVIOUSLY WEREN'T PUBLIC
KNOWLEDGE AND WEREN'T FLOODING O
ME AT ANY POINT DURING THE
MAY 8th CONVERSATION OR THE
MAY 21st OR 22nd
CONVERSATION.
IN REGARDS TO THE EXTRA
OVERSIGHT, I RECOMMENDED WE
BRING IN BETWEEN MINISTER
CHAGGER AND THE TREASURY BOARD,
THAT WAS TO LAY OUT THE PAYMENTS
TO THIS THIRD PARTY, 'WE'
ORGANIZATION, FOR DELIVERING THE
PROGRAM IN SPECIFIC TRANCHES
THAT WOULD PROVIDE AN UPDATE
BEFORE FURTHER FUNDS WERE FLOWED
ONCE THEY WORKED THROUGH THE
INITIAL COHORTS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> QUESTION, JULIE.
>> THANK YOU.
SO MINISTER MORNEAU HAD
MENTIONED TO US THAT OVER 70
EMERGENCY PROGRAMS WERE
INTRODUCED WITH A SPEND OF OVER
$200 BILLION.
CAN YOU GIVE CANADIANS AN IDEA
ABOUT WHAT IS YOUR INVOLVEMENT
IN THE BIG POLICY DECISIONS THAT
COME BEFORE CABINET?
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
THROUGH THE MONTHS OF APRIL AND
MAY SPECIFICALLY, I WAS WORKING
ALL DAY ON POLICY BRIEFS AND
DESIGN FOR THE CANADA EMERGENCY
RESPONSE BENEFIT, FOR THE WAGE
SUBSIDY, FOR SUPPORTS FOR
CANADIANS, FOR RESPONDING TO PPE
CHALLENGES.
IT WAS A TIME OF EXTRAORDINARY
ACTIVITY FOR THE GOVERNMENT AS
THE CIVIL SERVICE STEPPED UP TO
DELIVER THINGS THAT HAD NEVER
BEEN DONE BEFORE IN TIME FRAMES
THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN
UNIMAGINABLE.
AND AS A CABINET, AND AS A PRIME
MINISTER, WE WORKED TREMENDOUSLY
AT THIS AT THIS TIME BECAUSE WE
KNEW THAT CANADIANS WERE
COUNTING ON US TO BE THERE FOR
THEM, AS WE ASKED THEM TO DO
EXTREMELY DIFFICULT THINGS, TO
LEAVE THEIR JOBS, TO STAY HOME,
TO HUNKER DOWN SO WE COULD
DEFEAT THIS VIRUS OR SLOW THIS
VIRUS, WE NEEDED TO BE THERE FOR
THEM.
AND WE WERE DEEPLY INVOLVED IN
EVERY ASPECT OF HOW WE --
>> WE WILL HAVE TO MOVE ON,
PRIME MINISTER.
I HAVE MISS GAUDREAU NEXT, THEN
MR. ANGUS.
>> (Voice of Interpreter):
YES, GOOD AFTERNOON.
HELLO, CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO LEAVE
MY TIME TO MY COLLEAGUE -- I'D
LIKE TO GIVE MY TIME TO
MR. FORTIN.
>> BEFORE YOU START, RHEAL, FOR
THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION, WE WILL
HAVE A SLOT OPEN AND THEN WE
WILL END THE -- OKAY,
MR. POILIEVRE WILL BE ON, AND
WE'LL END WITH MR. FRASER.
MR. FORTIN.
>> (Voice of Interpreter):
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MR. TRUDEAU, WOULD IT NOT HAVE
BEEN SIMPLE, YOU ANNOUNCE THE
PROGRAM, YOU SHOULD HAVE JUST
TOLD PEOPLE ABOUT THE
RELATIONSHIP YOU HAD WITH 'WE'
CHARITY AND YOUR FAMILY.
ON
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:N
APRIL 29th, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT
'WE' CHARITY WAS INVOLVED IN
THIS, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THEY
WERE INVOLVED IN THIS PROGRAM ON
APRIL 29th.
THE DECISION HADN'T BEEN MADE
YET.
>> (Voice of Interpreter): YOU
DIDN'T ANNOUNCE YOU HAD TIES
WITH 'WE'.
AND ON APRIL 22nd, MR.  --
RECEIVED A CALL FROM YOUR
OFFICE, IT SEEMS TO SUGGEST
THIS.
 -- KIELBURGER.
>> (Voice of Interpreter):
MR. FORTIN, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE
CORRECT DATES.
>> (Voice of Interpreter): DO
YOU NOT FEEL YOU BETRAYED THE
TRUST OF QUEBECERS AND ALL
CANADIANS BY ACTING IN SUCH A
MANNER?
>> (Voice of Interpreter):
ACTING IN WHAT MANNER?
>> (Voice of Interpreter): YOU
RECUSED YOURSELF AND EVEN
DELAYED -- SORRY, EXCUSED
YOURSELF AND EVEN DELAYED THE
DECISION TO MAKE THE CHOICE OF
'WE' CHARITY BECAUSE YOU KNOW --
YOU KNEW YOU'D BE SUBJECT TO
SCRUTINY.
EVEN THOUGH YOU KNEW, YOU NEVER
RECUSED YOURSELF FROM THE
DECISION TABLE AND YOU KNEW THAT
WHEN YOU WOULD BE VOTING AT THE
CABINET TABLE, THAT THIS WOULD
BE AN ISSUE.
QUEBECERS FEEL BETRAYED,
MR. TRUDEAU.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
[ Voice of Interpreter ]
MR. FORTIN, I WAS NOT IN A
POSITION OF CONFLICT OF
INTEREST, AND --
>> (Voice of Interpreter): WHY
DID YOU APOLOGIZE?
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
[ Voice of Interpreter ]
I APOLOGIZED BECAUSE THE
PERCEPTION TIES WITH MY FAMILY,
I SHOULD HAVE RECUSED MYSELF.
>> (Voice of Interpreter):
YOU'RE SAYING THAT TODAY, BUT
YOU KNOW FULL WELL -- HOW COME
YOU DIDN'T DO AT THE BEGINNING?
[ End of Interpretation ]
>> MR. PRIME MINISTER, THE FLOOR
IS YOURS.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
[ Voice of Interpreter ]
WE KNEW THAT WE HAD TO RAPIDLY
DELIVER INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS TO
HELP PEOPLE WHO WERE IN A TOUGH
SITUATION AND THAT'S EXACTLY
WHAT WE DID.
[ End of Interpretation ]
>> LAST QUESTION.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
[ Voice of Interpreter ]
AS I SAID, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT
'WE' CHARITY WAS CHOSEN.
>> (Voice of Interpreter):
MR. TRUDEAU, YOU WERE BLAMED IN
THE SNC-LAVALIN AFFAIR AND OTHER
AFFAIRS, AND NOW YOU'RE BEING
BLAMED FOR THIS.
WHEN WILL YOU DECIDE TO STEP
ASIDE AND ASK MR. MORNEAU TO
STEP DOWN AS FINANCE MINISTER?
YOU SAID THAT LOBBYISTS REGISTER
WASN'T YOUR JOB TO LOOK AT
BUT --
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
[ Voice of Interpreter ]
MR. FORTIN, SINCE THE PAST FOUR
OR FIVE MONTHS, THE GOVERNMENT
AND THE MINISTER OF FINANCE IN
PARTICULAR HAS DELIVERED
ASSISTANCE TO MILLIONS AND
MILLIONS OF CANADIANS.
WHO WERE IN A VERY TOUGH
SITUATION.
[ End of Interpretation ]
>> THE FLOOR IS THE PRIME
MINISTER'S, IF HE COULD FINISH,
PLEASE.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
[ Voice of Interpreter ]
WE HAD TO MAKE ENORMOUS
DIFFERENCES FOR CANADIANS AND
THAT'S WHAT WE WERE FOLKED ON.
>> (Voice of Interpreter):
THAT'S VERY DISAPPOINTING,
MR. TRUDEAU.
[ End of Interpretation ]
>> THANK YOU, MR. PRIME
MINISTER, MR. FORTIN.
MR. ANGUS, TWO-AND-A-HALF
MINUTES.
AND THEN ON TO MR. POILIEVRE.
MR. ANGUS.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR.
MR. PRIME MINISTER, 2017, AFTER
YOU WERE FOUND GUILTY WITH THE
AGA KHAN DEAL, YOU SAID WE ARE
GOING TO WORK WITH THE OFFICE OF
THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER IN THE
NEW YEAR TO ENSURE THAT AS WE GO
FORWARD IN FULL AND COMPLETE
COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES IN
PLACE.
YOU TELL US THAT YOU HELD THIS
PROJECT BACK, YOU DID THE DUE
DILIGENCE, YOU WERE AWARE THAT
THERE WERE PERCEPTIONS THAT
MIGHT BE PROBLEMATIC.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT
PERCEPTIONS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BREACHES OF
THE LAW.
IN YOUR DUE DILIGENCE, WHY DID
YOU NOT BOTHER TO TALK TO THE
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
COMMISSIONER?
IT IS SO OBVIOUS, MR. TRUDEAU,
THAT THESE CONFLICTS WERE THERE.
WHY DID YOU THINK IT DIDN'T
APPLY TO YOU?
>> MR. PRIME MINISTER.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
MR. ANGUS, THE PUBLIC SERVICE
CAME FORWARD WITH A
RECOMMENDATION TO CABINET TO
MOVE FORWARD EITHER WITH THIS
SPECIFIC THIRD PARTY PROVIDER
THAT WAS 'WE' CHARITY OR ELSE
NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THE
PROGRAM AT ALL.
THAT WAS THE BINARY CHOICE.
I DID NOT INFLUENCE THE PUBLIC
SERVICE TO CHOOSE THIS
ORGANIZATION.
AND INDEED, WHEN THE PUBLIC
SERVICE CAME FORWARD WITH THIS
ORGANIZATION, I SAID, YOU KNOW
WHAT, LET'S PUT THE BRAKES ON
IT, LET'S MAKE SURE THAT IT'S
DONE ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING RIGHT
BECAUSE THERE ARE GOING TO BE
QUESTIONS BECAUSE OF THE
CONNECTIONS WITH MY FAMILY ON
THIS.
YES, IN HINDSIGHT, I SHOULD HAVE
RECUSED MYSELF, AND PERHAPS
THAT -- THE PROGRAM WOULD BE
DELIVERING FOR STUDENTS RIGHT
ACROSS THE COUNTRY RIGHT NOW.
BUT I DID NOT.
INSTEAD, I PUT THE BRAKES ON IT
AND SAID LET'S MAKE SURE THAT IT
IS DOING THINGS THE RIGHT WAY SO
THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY
COMMUNICATION --
>> BACK TO MR. ANGUS.
>> I GUESS, WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT, INSTEAD OF CONTINUALLY
THROWING THE CIVIL SERVICE UNDER
THE BUS, I'M ASKING ABOUT YOUR
JUDGMENT, YOUR LEGAL OBLIGATION
BECAUSE THE REAL LOSERS ARE THE
YOUNG PEOPLE.
IT'S GOING TO TAKE FIVE TO SEVEN
YEARS FOR THEM TO RECOVER FROM
THE DAMAGE.
WE HAD STUDENTS ASKING WHY THEY
WERE BEING DENIED CERB.
ASKING WHY YOU WERE TELLING THEM
THAT VOLUNTEER, IT'S GOING TO BE
GREAT, THEY CAN WORK FOR LESS
THAN MINIMUM WAGE.
FOR STUDENTS WITH MASSIVE LEVELS
OF STUDENT DEBT, THEY GOT GET
$41,000 CHEQUES TO COVER OFF
LOSSES.
THEY WERE LOOKING TO YOU AS
THEIR CHAMPION AND I'M REALLY
CONCERNED, MR. PRIME MINISTER,
THAT YOU THINK THIS ISSUE OF
PAYING STUDENTS, UNIVERSITY
STUDENTS FAIR WAGE IS SOMEHOW AN
ATTACK ON VOLUNTEERISM, TO BE
THE CHAMPION OF YOUTH ISN'T TO
DO A HIGH-FIVE WITH CRAIG
KIELBURGER --
>> MR. ANGUS, YOUR QUESTION,
PLEASE.
>>  -- BECAUSE NONE OF THE MONEY
GOT OUT, NOT A DIME.
>> YOUR QUESTION.
>> THESE STUDENTS ARE STILL
WAITING.
YOU FAILED THEM.
>> MR. PRIME MINISTER.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
I'M HAPPY TO CORRECT MR. ANGUS.
THE CANADA EMERGENCY STUDENT
BENEFIT SINCE MAY 15th HAS
GIVEN TO 724,000 APPLICANTS A
TOTAL VALUE OF $2.1 BILLION
DIRECTLY FOR STUDENTS.
THAT'S PART OF THE $9 BILLION
PACKAGE THE STUDENT CERB HAS
MADE A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
THE SUMMER JOBS WE CREATED, THE
DEFERRAL OF STUDENT LOANS.
YES, I REGRET THAT WE WEREN'T
ABLE TO --
>> MR. ANGUS, THE PRIME MINISTER
HAS THE FLOOR.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
 -- TO RECOGNIZE VOLUNTEERISM
THAT YOUNG PEOPLE ARE DOING
ACROSS THE COUNTRY, THAT IS A
PIECE OF IT THAT IS
DISAPPOINTING AND I REGRET AND
APOLOGIZE FOR, BUT THE ENSEMBLE
OF THINGS THAT WE'VE DONE TO
HELP STUDENTS ACROSS THIS
COUNTRY IN THIS HISTORIC
PANDEMIC HAS MADE A REAL
DIFFERENCE IN THE LIVES OF
STUDENTS AND IN COMMUNITIES
ACROSS THIS COUNTRY THAT ARE
SEEING YOUNG PEOPLE --
>> WE'VE HAD EQUAL TIME, PRIME
MINISTER.
WE'LL HAVE TO MOVE ON TO
MR. POILIEVRE AND THE CONCLUDING
QUESTIONS WILL GO TO MR. FRASER.
YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES,
MR. POILIEVRE.
AND PLEASE DON'T SHUT MY LIGHTS
OUT THIS TIME, WILL YOU?
GO AHEAD, PIERRE.
>> DON'T SHUT YOUR OWN OUT
EITHER.
YOU CLAIM THAT THE PROGRAM'S
PURPOSES WERE THREEFOLD.
HELP YOUTH THROUGH THE PANDEMIC,
HELP CHARITIES GET THROUGH THE
PANDEMIC, AND HELP STUDENTS PAY
FOR THEIR POST-SECONDARY IN THE
FALL.
WHICH OF THESE COULD THE CANADA
SUMMER JOBS PROGRAM NOT HAVE
DONE?
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
ACTUALLY, THE THREE AIMS THAT I
LISTED FOR THE CSSG WERE
ENCOURAGE YOUNG PEOPLE TO STEP
UP, HELP OUT COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS, AND RECOGNIZE
VOLUNTEERISM AND REWARD
VOLUNTEERISM BY STUDENTS AS A
WAY OF MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN
THIS PANDEMIC.
>> BACK TO MR. POILIEVRE.
>> SO YOU CAN'T NAME A SINGLE
ONE OF THESE OBJECTIVES THAT
HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED BY THE
CANADA SUMMER JOBS PROGRAM.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
THAT'S NOT TRUE, PIERRE.
THE THIRD ONE, RECOGNIZING
VOLUNTEERISM IS NOT DONE BY THE
CANADA SUMMER JOBS --
>> RECOGNIZING PAID
VOLUNTEERISM.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau: NO -
>> YOU CAN A YOU WOULD IT
VOLUNTEERISM SO YOU CAN TAKE IT
OUTSIDE OF THE CANADA SUMMER
JOBS PROGRAM AND GIVE IT TO YOUR
FRIENDS AT 'WE'.
MY NEXT QUESTION, WHEN YOU
DIRECTED --
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
SORRY, MR. POILIEVRE --
>> I DIDN'T ASK A QUESTION.
>> MR. POILIEVRE, THE PRIME
MINISTER HAS 8 SECOND TO ANSWER
THAT, THEN WE GO TO YOUR
QUESTION.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
THE CSSG WAS ABOUT RECOGNIZING
AND REWARDING VOLUNTEERISM.
IT'S NOT ABOUT JOBS.
IT WAS ABOUT VOLUNTEERISM, AND
THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, IS
SOMETHING THAT WE CAN'T DO
BECAUSE THE PROGRAM --
>> BACK TO MR. POILIEVRE.
>> YOU JUST MISUSED THE WORD SO
YOU COULD JUSTIFY OUTSOURCING A
PROGRAM THAT ALREADY EFFECTIVELY
EXISTS WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT.
WHEN YOU DID THAT, YOU DIRECTED
HALF A BILLION DOLLARS AND, YES,
YOU DID, YOU'RE THE HEAD OF THE
CABINET, DID YOU KNOW THAT THE
GROUP TO WHICH YOU WERE
DIRECTING THAT HALF BILLION
DOLLARS WAS IN VIOLATION OF ITS
BANK COVENANT?
"YES" OR  "NO."
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE
HAD AS INFORMATION AT THAT
POINT.
>> DID YOU KNOW THAT THE
GOVERNMENT MONEY WOULD GO INTO A
REAL ESTATE SHELL FOUNDATION
INSTEAD OF INTO THE 'WE'
CHARITY, "YES" OR  "NO"?
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
THE DETAILS ON THE PAYMENT WERE
WORKED OUT BY OUR PROFESSIONAL
PUBLIC SERVICE IN TERMS OF HOW
THE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
FLOWED.
>> SO DID YOU KNOW THAT THE
CHAIR OF THE BOARD HAD RESIGNED,
"YES" OR  "NO"?
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
NO.
>> SO YOU DID NOT -- CLEARLY DID
NOT DO ANY DUE DILIGENCE OF YOUR
OWN.
AS CHAIR OF THE CABINET
RESPONSIBLE FOR APPROVING A
DECISION, YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD
SOME BASIC FACTS.
SIR, YOU WERE USING HALF A
BILLION DOLLARS OF TAXPAYERS'
MONEY HERE.
YOU HAD A FIDUCIARY
RESPONSIBILITY.
WHY DIDN'T YOU ASK THESE
QUESTIONS?
>> MR. PRIME MINISTER.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
THESE INCLUDE TENS OF BILLIONS
OF DOLLARS THROUGH THE CERB,
THROUGH THE --
>> THE QUESTION ISN'T ABOUT THE
CERB.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
 -- VARIOUS WAYS TO HELP
CANADIANS AND WE WERE VERY, VERY
ACTIVE IN MAKING SURE THAT FLOWS
RIGHT.
THERE ARE MANY, MANY DIFFERENT
PROGRAMS AND IN CABINET
GOVERNMENT, WE TRUST THE
MINISTERS AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE
TO DO THEIR JOBS AND MAKE SURE
THAT THINGS ARE DELIVERED IN THE
RIGHT WAY, AND IN THIS CASE,
THEY DID.
>> (Voice of Interpreter):
MR. CHAIR, THE PRIME MINISTER
NEED TO STOP BLAMING CIVIL
SERVANTS.
IT WAS HIS DECISION.
[ End of Interpretation ]
>> HOLD ON, YOU'RE GOING TO
SWITCH TO YOUR FRENCH CHANNEL
BECAUSE I CAN'T MAKE YOU OUT.
I'M HEARING TWO LANGUAGES AT
ONCE.
>> (Voice of Interpreter):
IT'S TIME FOR THE PRIME MINISTER
TO STOP BLAMING THE PUBLIC
SERVICE.
HE IS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL WHO IS
RESPONSIBLE TOWARD CANADIANS AND
WHO NEEDS TO ENSURE THAT MONEY
IS SPENT PROPERLY.
IT'S NOT UP TO PUBLIC SERVANTS
WHO ARE FORCED TO FIND NEARLY
HALF A BILLION DOLLARS TO A
GROUP THAT PAID HIS FAMILY
NEARLY HALF A MILLION DOLLARS.
WILL THE PRIME
 PRIME MINIE
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR
APPROVING THIS ENORMOUS AMOUNT
WHICH WAS GIVEN OUT TO HIS
FRIENDS?
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
[ Voice of Interpreter ]
FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO MAKE
SOMETHING CLEAR.
I HAVE NOTHING BUT ADMIRATION
AND RESPECT AND DEEP GRATITUDE
FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE WHICH IS
PROFESSIONAL AND HAS BEEN ABLE
TO DELIVER EXTRAORDINARY
PROGRAMS DURING THIS PANDEMIC TO
HELP MILLIONS OF CANADIANS.
IT HAS HAD A REAL IMPACT ON THE
WORK THAT THEY ARE DOING AND IT
CONTINUES TO DO THIS WORK.
THEIR EXCELLENCE WAS APPLIED TO
PROGRAMS FOR YOUTH, AND I HAVE
CONFIDENCE THAT THEY MADE THE
RIGHT RECOMMENDATION TO DELIVER
THIS PROGRAM IN THE BEST WAY
POSSIBLE.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, IN PART,
BECAUSE I DID NOT RECUSE MYSELF,
THERE WAS A PERCEPTION THAT LED
TO NOT BEING ABLE TO DELIVER
THIS SPECIFIC PROGRAM, BUT THE
SUITE OF PROGRAMS THAT WE
DELIVER TO CANADIANS.
>> (Voice of Interpreter): I
HAVE A SIMPLE QUESTION FOR YOU.
I HAVE A SIMPLE QUESTION FOR
YOU.
[ End of Interpretation ]
>> 40 SECONDS.
>> (Voice of Interpreter): HOW
MANY TIMES DID THE MINISTER IN
YOUR GOVERNMENT NEED TO BREAK
THE ETHICS ACT BEFORE BEING
SACKED, HOW MANY TIMES?
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
[ Voice of Interpreter ]
WE TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY, EVERY
TIME THERE ARE ETHICS ISSUES.
>> (Voice of Interpreter): HOW
MANY TIMES?
HOW MANY TIMES?
[ End of Interpretation ]
>> MR. POILIEVRE, THE PRIME
MINISTER HAS THE FLOOR.
AND HE HAS THE RIGHT TO ANSWER.
MR. PRIME MINISTER.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau: WE
WILL ALWAYS TAKE SERIOUSLY --
>> HOW MANY TIMES?
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
 -- BREACHES OF OFFICIAL CODES.
WE WILL ENSURE THAT THERE ARE
CONSEQUENCES, AND WE WILL LOOK
AT EVERY SITUATION DIFFERENTLY.
>> FINE.
IN ENGLISH I'LL ASK MY LAST
QUESTION.
>> YOUR LAST QUESTION --
>> IN ENGLISH --
>> YOU'RE OVER YOUR FIVE
MINUTES.
LAST NIGHT, YOU PEOPLE WERE
GIVING ME THE GEARS FOR NOT
STICKING AND ADHERING TO TIME.
I'M ADHERING TO TIME TODAY.
MR. FRASER, YOU HAVE THE LAST
ROUND, FIVE MINUTES, AND THEN
THE PRIME MINISTER WILL BE
RELEASED.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU, PRIME MINISTER.
BEFORE I BEGIN, I WANT TO
EXPRESS MY GRATITUDE FOR YOUR
ASSISTANCE IN SECURING A PUBLIC
INQUIRY INTO THE MASS SHOOTINGS
THAT TOOK PLACE IN MY HOME
PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA.
IT MEANS THE WORLD TO US AT
HOME.
TO THE MATTER AT HAND YOU'VE
ACKNOWLEDGED DURING THIS MEETING
AND PREVIOUSLY YOU SHOULD HAVE
RECUSED YOURSELF FROM THAT
DECISION.
I APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO
ADMIT THAT.
YOU ALSO MENTIONED PUSH BACK,
I'VE GOT COMPETING CONCEPTS OF
CONDUCTING DUE DILIGENCE AND AT
THE SAME TIME RECUSE YOURSELF.
YOU REMAIN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
POLICY, DIRECTION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMS IN
CANADA, BUT I HAVE DIFFICULTY
HOW YOU WOULD HAVE SYME SANELY
EXERCISED THE KIND OF OVERSIGHT
THAT CAUSED YOU TO PUSH BACK AT
THAT MAY 8th.
HOW WOULD YOU RECUSE YOURSELF,
IF YOU HAD NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN
THE DISCUSSION AT THE CABINET
TABLE?
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
THAT IS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION.
THE QUICK ANSWER IS THAT OTHER
MEMBERS OF CABINET WOULD HAVE
STEPPED UP AND ENSURED PROPER
OVERSIGHT.
BUT YOU DO HIGHLIGHT ONE OF THE
CHALLENGES OF MAKING POLICY IN
AS CONDENSED A FASHION AS WE
HAVE DURING THIS PANDEMIC.
SO YES, THINGS WERE TRUNCATED,
THINGS WERE SHORTENED, PROGRAMS
THAT WOULD HAVE TAKEN SIX MONTHS
TO DEVELOP AND DELIVER WERE
SNEDDON IN A MATTER OF WEEKS SO
IT WAS A
PARTICULARLY-CHALLENGING
SITUATION.
AND IF YOU'LL ALLOW ME,
MR. FRASER, LET ME ALSO SAY
THANK YOU TO YOU AND TO YOUR
FELLOW NOVA SCOTIA MPs FOR
BEING SO STRONG IN YOUR ADVOCACY
TO MAKE SURE THAT ANSWERS GET
GIVEN TO THOSE FAMILIES, YOUR
LEADERSHIP ON THIS HAS BEEN BOTH
PERSONALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY
APPRECIATED.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SO THE PROCESS WE LEARNED THERE
WAS A PUBLIC RECOMMENDATION, WE
LEARNED TWO DAYS AGO WHEN THE
KIELBURGERS WERE AT COMMITTEE
THAT THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACTUALLY
RECOMMENDED THEY ADOPT A NEW
FOUNDATION ESSENTIALLY OR AT
LEAST APPROVE A NEW FOUNDATION
TO HAVE THE FLOW-THROUGH MONEY
TO MAKE SURE THAT THE 'WE'
CHARITY WAS WILLING TO ACCEPT
LIABILITY.
THEY SAID ONLY A THIRD PARTY CAN
DO IT.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT ABOUT
OTHER MEMBERS OF CABINET
PROVIDING THAT OVERSIGHT, THAT
IT WOULD HAVE GONE TO CABINET
COMMITTEE BEFORE IT CAME TO FULL
CABINET MAY 8th WHERE YOU
STILL PUSHED BACK.
IT SOUNDS LIKE YOUR RESERVATION
WAS THERE WOULD BE A PERCEPTION
YOU OR YOUR FAMILY WOULD
DIRECTLY BENEFIT.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
YES, THERE IS NO WAY THAT MY
FAMILY WOULD HAVE BENEFITED FROM
THESE.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU, PRIME
MINISTER.
BACK TO THE MATTER AT HAND, I
GOT TO SAY I WAS A FORMER YOUTH
LEADER, I TOOK PART IN DIFFERENT
PROGRAMS, CANADA SUMMER JOBS
PROGRAM, STUDENT GOVERNMENT AND
THE LIKE.
IT HUGELY SHAPED WHO I AM.
I WANT TO BUILD ON
MR. McLEOD'S LINE OF
QUESTIONING.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
I ACTUALLY STILL VERY MUCH
SUPPORT THE VALUES THAT YOU
OUTLINE BEHIND THE STUDENT
SERVICE GRANT PROGRAM.
I UNDERSTAND THERE'S GOING TO BE
DIFFICULTIES OVER THE COURSE OF
THIS SUMMER IMPLEMENTING
SOMETHING THAT WILL PROVIDE THAT
KIND OF OPPORTUNITY.
WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP, HOW DO WE
ACTUALLY GET THIS PROGRAM OR
SOME OTHER SUPPORT ON THE RAILS
TO ACTUALLY PROVIDE THE KIND OF
SUPPORT TO STUDENTS THAT YOU
HAVE CLEARLY COMMUNICATED AS
BEING IMPORTANT TO THIS
GOVERNMENT?
>> AND YOUR ANSWER, WE'LL HAVE
TO WRAP IT UP, PRIME MINISTER.
>> Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau:
FIRST OF ALL, THROUGHOUT THIS
PANDEMIC, WE'VE HAD TO DELIVER
CERTAIN THINGS AND SUSPEND OTHER
THINGS.
OUR PRIORITY IS HELPING PEOPLE
THROUGH THIS MADAM SPEAKER AND
THAT REALLY NEEDED TO BE OUR
PRIORITY, PARTICULARLY FOR
STUDENTS, WHICH IS WHY WE PUT
OUT THE STUDENT CERB, WHICH IS
WHY WE CREATED NEW JOBS, WHICH
IS WHY WE'RE DEFERRING STUDENT
LOANS.
THAT'S WHY WE CREATED THE CANADA
SERVICE CORPS A NUMBER OF YEARS
AGO.
YOUTH VOLUNTEERISM ACTUALLY IS
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT BROUGHT
ME INTO POLITICS A DOZEN YEARS
AGO, BECAUSE I WAS WORKING WITH
KATIMAVIK AND REALIZED WE NEEDED
TO DO MORE YOUTH VOLUNTEERISM,
YOUTH SERVICE IN THIS COUNTRY.
SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO BE A GOAL
OF MINE AND SOMETHING THAT
REALLY IS IMPORTANT FOR THE
COUNTRY.
TO SEE YOUNG PEOPLE STEPPING UP
IN THEIR COMMUNITIES, HELPING
OUT PEOPLE WHO NEED HELP,
DISCOVERING THE VALUE OF SERVICE
AND BECOMING ENGAGED, ACTIVE
CITIZENS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES,
IN THEIR COUNTRY FOR THE REST OF
THEIR LIVES.
THIS WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO FIT
IT INTO A COVID CONTEXT.
BUT EVEN AS COVID CONTINUES AND
EVEN BEYOND COVID, GETTING YOUNG
PEOPLE TO SERVE IN THEIR
COMMUNITIES WILL ALWAYS REMAIN A
GOAL FOR THIS GOVERNMENT.
>> The Chair: OKAY.
WITH THAT, ON BEHALF OF THE
COMMITTEE, PRIME MINISTER, I
THANK YOU FOR FIRST APPEARING
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE.
AND TAKING THE EXTRA TIME -- THE
EXTRA 30 MINUTES TO -- WELL, 32
REALLY NOW, TO SPEND WITH US
TODAY.
SO THANK YOU AGAIN.
AND WE WILL, MADAM CLERK, I
EXPECT THE CHIEF OF STAFF IS
WAITING IN THE WINGS.
ALL RIGHT.
WE WILL SUSPEND FOR FIVE MINUTES
AND COME BACK WITH THE CHIEF OF
STAFF.
THANK YOU, PRIME MINISTER.
MEETING SUSPENDED.
>> OKAY.
AND WE WILL JUMP IN HERE FOR
FIVE MINUTES AS WE AWAIT THE
PRIME MINISTER'S CHIEF OF STAFF
KATIE TELFORD WHO PLANS TO
TESTIFY FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS, A
SURPRISE THAT THE PRIME MINISTER
DID AGREE TO STAY FOR 90
MINUTES, MORE THAN THE HOUR THAT
HE HAD PREVIOUSLY COMMITTED TO.
LET ME BRING IN MY COLLEAGUES,
THE SENIOR PARLIAMENTARY
REPORTER DAVID COCHRANE AND THE
HOST OF "POWER & POLITICS" VASSY
KAPELOS.
AN INTERESTING 90 MINUTES TO SAY
THE VERY LEAST.
I'LL START WITH A COUPLE THINGS
THAT STOOD OUT FOR ME.
AND I'VE ALREADY E-MAILED THIS
TO THE OFFICE SO YOU KNOW WHERE
I'M GOING TO GO, IT WON'T BE A
SURPRISE TO YOU.
THERE DOES SEEM TO BE A BIT OF A
CONTRADICTION IN THE PRIME
MINISTER SAYING THAT HE SENT
BACK THE PROGRAM FOR FURTHER
SCRUTINY TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE
BECAUSE HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT THE
SCRUTINY IN TERMS OF THE
CONNECTIONS BETWEEN HIS FAMILY
AND 'WE' CHARITY, AND THEN HIS
DECISION TO NOT RECUSE HIMSELF
FROM THE TABLE.
THAT TO ME REALLY STOOD OUT AS
SOMETHING THAT I WASN'T SURE I
UNDERSTOOD HIS THINKING.
MAYBE I DO NOW OR MAYBE YOU DO,
VASSY.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I
UNDERSTAND ESSENTIALLY, BUT THAT
STOOD OUT FOR ME AS WELL AND I
ADD THAT JUMPS OUT BECAUSE IT'S
NEW INFORMATION THAT THE PRIME
MINISTER HAD NOT YET PROVIDED IN
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS ABOUT ALL
OF THIS.
AND THE BIG POINT OF THAT
INFORMATION IS THAT THE PRIME
MINISTER SAYS UNTIL MAY 8th,
HE DID NOT KNOW OF 'WE''S
INVOLVEMENT IN THIS PROJECT AT
ALL.
AND THAT AT THAT POINT, HE WAS
SUPPOSE -- HE WAS BEING BRIEFED
RIGHT BEFORE GOING TO CABINET TO
DISCUSS THE PROGRAM AND WAS TOLD
ABOUT 'WE''S INVOLVEMENT.
HE DELAYED THE DISCUSSION IN
CABINET BECAUSE AS YOU POINT OUT
HE RECOGNIZED THERE WOULD BE
ADDITIONAL SCRUTINY, HE KNEW HAD
HE AND HIS FAMILY HAD SOME
CONNECTIONS SO HE WANTED THAT
REVIEWED.
HE THEN SAID A FEW WEEKS LATER I
THINK IT WAS TOWARDS THE END OF
MAY, MAY 22nd, HE WAS
SATISFIED WITH WHAT THE PUBLIC
SERVICE PRESENTED, THAT IT
BECAME A BINARY OPTION, EITHER
YOU GO WITH THE 'WE' OPTION OR
YOU DON'T GO WITH THE PROGRAM AT
ALL.
HE EXPRESSED A COMMITMENT TO THE
VALUES BEHIND THE PROGRAM, HE
WANTED IT TO GO AHEAD AND
THEREFORE IT WENT TO CABINET.
HE IS
IT DOES RAISE THE QUEY
DIDN'T YOU RECOGNIZE THAT WHEN
YOU WERE BEFORE CABINET?
HE KEPT USING THE WORD
PERCEPTION OF CONFLICT VERSUS AN
ACTUAL CONFLICT WHICH I THINK
WAS INTERESTING AS WELL.
IT ALSO FOR ME I THINK RAISES
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT
EXACTLY WAS PUT BEFORE THE PRIME
MINISTER THAT CONVINCED HIM THAT
'WE' WAS IN FACT THE ONLY OPTION
TO GO AHEAD WITH THE PROGRAM.
AND HE DID FIELD A NUMBER OF
QUESTIONS AROUND THAT BUT WE
HAVEN'T -- WE DON'T KNOW THE
EXACT EVIDENCE THAT I GUESS WAS
BEFORE HIM AND NOW THAT, AND
HE'S GOT A LOT OF QUESTIONS LIKE
THIS ONE, NOW THAT WE KNOW WHAT
WE KNOW ABOUT SOME OF THOSE
ISSUES AROUND, FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT
THE FORMER CHAIR OF THE BOARD
SAID, THAT THEY COULDN'T GET THE
FINANCIALS, THE PRIME MINISTER
SAID HE WASN'T AWARE OF ANY OF
THAT AND IN A WAY SORT OF
ATTRIBUTED ALL THAT INFORMATION,
SAID THE PUBLIC SERVICE WAS TO
FIGURE ALL THAT STUFF OUT, WAS
TO DO DUE DILIGENCE, HE TOOK
THEIR WORD FOR IT AND THE
PROJECT WENT AHEAD SO I THINK IT
RAISES SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
THERE.
I THINK IT IS SIGNIFICANT,
THOUGH, THAT THE PRIME MINISTER
SAID HE WAS NOT INVOLVED PRIOR
TO MAY 8th IN ANY OF THE
DISCUSSIONS AND HE HAD HIS CHIEF
OF STAFF KATIE TELFORD COMING UP
WASN'T EITHER.
>> I GUESS THE OTHER PART THAT
STUCK OUT WAS THE SUGGESTION
THAT THE PUBLIC SERVICE, WHICH
WE KNEW, HAD MADE THE SUGGESTION
TO USE THIS ORGANIZATION, THAT
WHEN HE WENT BACK TO THE PUBLIC
SERVICE, AS YOU POINT OUT,
VASSY, IN TERMS OF NEW
INFORMATION AFTER MAY 8th AND
SAID, LISTEN, JUST GO AT IT ONE
MORE TIME, LET'S JUST MAKE SURE
THIS IS THE RIGHT CHOICE, THE
PUBLIC SERVICE COMES BACK AND
SAYS, NO, NO, SO IT'S THEM OR
IT'S NOTHING, I GUESS MY
PUSHBACK THERE WOULD BE BUT
YOU'RE THE PRIME MINISTER AND
THIS IS A GOVERNMENT THAT IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING --
CABINET IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
MAKING POLICY DECISIONS SO YOU
COULD HAVE SAID, AND WHY DID YOU
NOT SAY, OKAY, BUT WE WANT OTHER
OPTIONS, WE JUST WANT SOME OTHER
OPTIONS BECAUSE THIS MAY NOT
WORK, AND I GUESS THAT'S THE
OTHER PART THAT I WOULD HAVE
SOME TROUBLE, AND I CONTINUE TO
HAVE SOME TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING,
DAVID.
>> WELL, INC., FROM THE PRIME
MINISTER'S PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S
WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO DO
MAY 8th WHEN HE SENT IT BACK,
SAYING ARE YOU SURE THIS IS THE
ONLY OPTION FOR US, CAN WE CHECK
THIS.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE
THAT I TAKE AWAY FROM WHAT THE
PRIME MINISTER HAD TO SAY.
THE NEW TIMELINE OF HE DIDN'T
LEARN ABOUT THIS UNTIL THE 8th
OF MAY?
THEY DIDN'T DECIDE ON IT UNTIL
THE 22nd OF MAY IS SET OUT
THERE TO INOCULATE HIMSELF ON
THAT HE WAS IN THIS EARLY AND
TRIED TO PUSH THIS ALONG AND
WHAT THE OPPOSITION SAYS TO
FURTHER HIS FRIENDS MARC AND
CRAIG KIELBURGER.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FORMER
MINISTER OF YOUTH, BUT IT WAS A
QUESTION OF SCALE AND CAPACITY
IT COULDN'T GET UP SO I WASN'T
INVOLVED EARLY, I THOUGHT IT WAS
GOING TO BE DELIVERED BY SOMEONE
ELSE, I WAS SURPRISED WHEN IT
WAS 'WE' SO WHEN IT WAS 'WE' AND
KNOWING ALL THE ISSUES WITH ME
AND 'WE', HE SENT IT BACK TO THE
CIVIL SERVICE AND PUMPED THE
BRAKES FOR TWO WEEKS.
RATHER THAN PUSHING IT ALONG HE
SLOWED IT DOWN TO MAKE SURE
EVERYTHING WAS BEING DONE
PROPERLY.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT EVEN AFTER
PUMPING THE BRAKES AND SENDING
IT BACK, AND BEING AWARE OF THE
PERCEPTION PROBLEM, AND SAYING I
WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING
THIS RIGHT, WE ARE STILL IN A
SITUATION WHERE HE IS LEAKING
OIL AS A PRIME MINISTER, WHERE
THEY ARE MIRED IN SCANDAL, THERE
ARE MULTIPLE PARLIAMENTARY
HEARINGS AND INQUIRIES GOING ON,
AND THE ENTIRE PROGRAM HAS
COMPLETELY FALLEN APART, NO ONE
IS GETTING MONEY, THEY MAY NOT
GET MONEY WE'VE HEARD TODAY, AND
THE 'WE' CHARITY ITSELF IS
FIGHTING FOR ITS SURVIVAL.
SO RATHER THAN PUMPING THE
BRAKES, THEY MIGHT HAVE LOCKED
HER UP AND STOPPED IT ENTIRELY
BECAUSE ACTIVE ENDED UP STEERING
THIS THING INTO THE DITCH AND
NOT GETTING IT UNDER CONTROL.
SO DESPITE THESE NEW REVELATIONS
OF WHAT HE CONSIDERS TO BE DUE
DILIGENCE, THEY HAVE STILL ENDED
UP IN A VERY SIGNIFICANT
POLITICAL FIASCO RIGHT NOW.
>> YEAH, OKAY.
WE ARE GOING TOCK BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH.
WE'LL BOTH BE WATCHING THE REST
OF THIS AS WELL BECAUSE THE
PRIME MINISTER'S CHIEF OF STAFF
KATIE TELFORD IS ALSO TESTIFYING
AT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.
SHE WILL BE ASKED PROBABLY MANY
OF THE SAME KINDS OF QUESTIONS
IN TERMS OF HOW THIS CAME ABOUT.
AND HERE IS MISS TELFORD MAKING
HER OPENING STATEMENT.
>> I'D FIRST LIKE TO THANK ALL
OF YOU FOR YOUR IMPORTANT WORK
AND FOR GIVING ME THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER YOUR
QUESTIONS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE CANADA STUDENT SERVICE
GRANT HERE TODAY.
LET ME START BY SAYING THIS IS A
REMARKABLE TIME, AND FROM THE
DAY THAT WE LEARNED A CANADIAN
HAD CONTRACTED COVID-19 TO WHAT
IS HAPPENING DURING THE TIME
PERIOD YOU'RE INTERESTED IN,
THIS PANDEMIC THAT WE ARE STILL
FIGHTING REPRESENTS A ONCE IN A
GENERATION CHALLENGE FOR OUR
COUNTRY.
I STARTED WORKING FOR THE PRIME
MINISTER AFTER MY MAT LEAVE AND
WHAT A JOURNEY IT HAS BEEN.
I RAN HIS LEADERSHIP CAMPAIGN IN
2012-13 AND WENT ON TO LEAD THE
2015 CAMPAIGN.
AND I'VE BEEN HIS CHIEF OF STAFF
EVER SINCE.
AND UNBELIEVABLY, MY SON JUST
TURNED NINE.
SO SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW THAT I'M
A PERSON INTERESTED IN DATA.
AND DATA HAS ALWAYS HELPED ME
ASSESS WHAT WE ARE DOING WELL
AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO BETTER
AND THESE PAST FEW MONTHS, EVERY
DAY, I WAS WAKING UP TO, WE WERE
ALL WAKING UP TO, SOME VERY
ALARMING STATISTICS.
THEY WERE MORE THAN STATISTICS.
HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE DEAD BECAUSE
OF COVID-19.
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE
APPLYING FOR THE CERB BECAUSE
THEY LOST THEIR JOB.
MILLIONS OF FAMILIES GOING
THROUGH A REALLY TOUGH TIME.
MILLIONS OF WOMEN IN LOWER-WAGE
JOBS BEING ESPECIALLY HURT.
WOMEN'S PARTICIPATION IN OUR
ECONOMY IS BEING SET BACK.
AND EVERY DAY, DAILY PROJECTIONS
WERE TELLING US, AND STILL TELL
US, THAT IF WE WEREN'T AND
AREN'T SUCCESSFUL IN SLOWING THE
SPREAD OF THE VIRUS, THINGS
WOULD GET MUCH, MUCH WORSE.
[ Voice of Interpreter ]
THE PRIME MINISTER'S WORK IS TO
HELP CANADIANS IN NEED.
MY WORK AS CHIEF OF STAFF IS TO
SUPPORT HIM IN EVERYTHING HE
DOES.
I HAD WORKED IN THE POLITICAL
SPHERE NOW AND WE HAD TO FACE
CHALLENGES THAT ARE
UNPRECEDENTED AND IT'S SO
GRATIFYING FOR ME TO MAKE A
DIFFERENCE IN THE LIVES OF
CANADIANS.
SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS
CRISIS, WE'VE ANNOUNCED A MYRIAD
OF PRECIOUS TO PROTECT THE
HEALTH OF CANADIANS.
AND TO HELP PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOST
THEIR JOBS.
AND PREPARE THE RECOVERY OF OUR
ECONOMY.
[ End of Interpretation ]
WE ACTED AS FAST AS WE COULD
KNOWING WE MIGHT MAKE MISTAKES
ALONG THE WAY BECAUSE PEOPLE
WERE REALLY STRUGGLING SO WE
NEEDED TO MOVE QUICK.
TAKE THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE
BENEFIT OR THE CANADA EMERGENCY
WAGE SUBSIDY, WE HAD ALREADY
ANNOUNCED THESE PROGRAMS WHEN WE
REALIZED WE NEEDED TO MAKE THEM
MORE ACCESSIBLE, MORE GENEROUS,
SIMPLER.
BUT JOB ONE WAS GET THESE
PROGRAMS OUT THE DOOR TO HELP
PEOPLE.
WHEN WE REALIZED THAT
IMPROVEMENTS WERE NEEDED, WE
MADE CHANGES.
THE CERB AND THE WAGE SUBSIDY
HAS SINCE HELPED MILLIONS OF
CANADIANS RIGHT ACROSS THE
COUNTRY.
BACK IN APRIL, OUR GOVERNMENT
ANNOUNCED A $9 BILLION PLAN TO
HELP YOUNG PEOPLE GET THROUGH
THE PANDEMIC.
IT INCLUDED MEASURES SUCH AS THE
CANADA EMERGENCY STUDENT
BENEFIT, DIFFERING STUDENT LOANS
AND, YES, THE CANADA STUDENT
SUMMER GRANT.
I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE FIRST
TIME WE DISCUSSED A POTENTIAL
AID PACKAGE FOR STUDENTS.
ON APRIL 5th, THERE WAS A
MEETING BY PHONE, AS THEY ALL
WERE AT THIS TIME, BETWEEN THE
PRIME MINISTER AND THE FINANCE
MINISTER.
IT WAS A STOCK TAKE ON THE
ENTIRETY OF OUR GOVERNMENT'S
ON-GOING ECONOMIC RESPONSE TO
THE PANDEMIC.
THERE WERE 15 DIFFERENT DECISION
POINTS ON THE CANADA EMERGENCY
WAGE SUBSIDY THAT SUNDAY EVENING
AND IT WAS BEING ANNOUNCED THE
NEXT DAY.
THAT WAS THE FOCUS OF THE CALL.
WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT AN ORPHAN
WELL PROGRAM FOR ALBERTA,
SASKATCHEWAN AND NEWFOUNDLAND,
TO HELP WORKERS IN THE ENERGY
SECTOR WHO HAVE BEEN HIT
ESPECIALLY HARD BY THE CRISIS.
AT THE END OF THAT CONVERSATION,
THE FINANCE MINISTER SPOKE ABOUT
GAPS HE IDENTIFIED IN EXISTING
PROGRAMS LIKE THE CERB.
WE KNEW THAT SOME PEOPLE WERE
STILL FALLING THROUGH THE
CRACKS.
PEOPLE LIKE SENIORS, SEASONAL
WORKERS, AND, YES, STUDENTS.
AT THE TIME, THE MINISTRY OF
FINANCE WAS THINKING ABOUT SOME
FORM OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE,
MORE CANADA SUMMER JOBS, AND A
MORATORIUM ON STUDENT LOAN
PAYMENTS.
WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT USING A
CANADA SERVICE CORPS TO
ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT YOUNG
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO VOLUNTEER AND
HELP THEIR COMMUNITY DURING THIS
PANDEMIC.
I WAS A VERY BRIEF PART OF A
LARGER CONVERSATION AND EVERYONE
AGREED THAT THERE WAS MORE WORK
TO DO.
JUST A FEW WEEKS LATER, AFTER A
LOT OF HARD WORK BY MANY PEOPLE
ACROSS THE COUNTRY, THE PRIME
MINISTER ANNOUNCED A $9 BILLION
AID PACKAGE FOR STUDENTS WHICH
INCLUDED THE ITEMS I JUST
LISTED.
THE CANADA SUMMER STUDENT GRANT
PROGRAM WAS ONE-TENTH OF A
PACKAGE.
[ Voice of Interpreter ]
WHEN I THINK BACK TO THE PERIOD
IN QUESTION, IT WAS AT THE END
OF APRIL, AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE
SENT US A BRIEFING NOTE ABOUT
THE POSSIBILITY THAT WE COULD BE
CALLING ON AN EXTERNAL
ORGANIZATION TO IMPLEMENT THE
CSSG.
QUESTIONS WERE RAISED IN TERMS
OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO
IMPLEMENT THIS PROGRAM.
AND WHETHER WE COULD DIRECTLY
PAY STUDENTS FINANCIAL
CONVENTION.
ON APRIL 8th I LEARNED FOR THE
FIRST TIME AT THE SAME TIME AS
THE PRIME MINISTER THE PROPOSAL
FROM THE MINISTER OF DIVERSITY
AND YOUTH STATING THAT THE 'WE'
CHARITY WOULD IMPLEMENT THIS
PROGRAM.
THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE
PUBLIC SERVICE WAS EXAMINED AND
APPROVED BY THE CABINET AND WE
LEARNED ABOUT IT A FEW MINUTES
BEFORE THE CABINET MEETING ON
APRIL 8th THAT WE WOULD HAVE
TO LOOK AT THIS RECOMMENDATION.
AS THE PRIME MINISTER SAID IN
HIS STATEMENT, WE BOTH HAD
CONCERNS, AND THAT IS WHY, ON
MAY 8th, WE TOOK THE CSSG ITEM
OFF THE CABINET AGENDA.
THE MINISTER AND MYSELF BOTH HAD
QUESTIONS.
WE WANTED MORE INFORMATION ABOUT
THE EFFICACY OF SUCH A PROGRAM,
AND USING AN EXTERNAL
ORGANIZATION FOR THIS PROGRAM.
AND TO BE QUITE HONEST, WE WERE
ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE'S
PERCEPTIONS.
IN POLITICS, IT'S IMPORTANT TO
LOOK AT HOW STUDENTS WOULD BE
PERCEIVED AND WE SEARCHED
SUPPORT FROM THE PUBLIC SERVICE
WHO STATED THAT THE 'WE' CHARITY
WOULD BE THE ONLY ONE THAT COULD
IMPLEMENT THIS PROGRAM AND
WITHOUT A DOUBT IT WOULD BE A
GOOD PARTNER FOR THIS
INITIATIVE.
WHEN THE FINANCE NOTE WAS
APPROVED, THE PRIME MINISTER
ADDED AN ADDITIONAL PROVISION
STATING THAT A MINISTER WOULD
HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE PRESIDENT
OF THE TREASURY BOARD TO SEEK
FINANCING FOR THIS PROJECT.
[ End of Interpretation ]
THIS PROPOSAL TO HELP STUDENTS
WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE PUBLIC
SERVICE.
THIS WAS NOT A CHOICE BY
DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS TO
DELIVER THE PROGRAM.
THIS WAS A CHOICE BETWEEN GOING
FORWARD WITH THE PROGRAM OR NOT.
I WILL ADD THAT WE HAD
PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED THE ETHICS
COMMISSIONER'S APPROVAL FOR
SOPHIE GREGOIRE-TRUDEAU WORK
ENGAGEMENT WITH THE 'WE' CHARITY
SO I WASN'T AWARE OF ANY
CONFLICT.
YOU HAVE HEARD THE PRIME
MINISTER SAY THAT HE REGRETS NOT
RECUSING HIMSELF.
I HAVE REGRETS ABOUT THAT, TOO.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN AS
WE INTENDED TO.
AND THIS IS NOT WHAT WE HAD
ENVISIONED AND I SHARE IN THAT
RESPONSIBILITY.
OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS, I HAVE
THOUGHT A LOT ABOUT THIS
PROGRAM.
I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT WE
COULD DO BETTER AND HOW WE COULD
APPLY LESSONS WE'VE LEARNED
GOING FORWARD.
IN HINDSIGHT, I RECOGNIZE THAT
WHILE WE DID ASK MANY QUESTIONS
TO MAKE THIS PROGRAM A SUCCESS,
WE COULD HAVE DONE BETTER
WE COULD HAVE DONE MORE.
WE COULD HAVE ADDED YET ANOTHER
LAYER OF SCRUTINY TO AVOID ANY
POTENTIAL PERCEPTION OF
FAVOURITISM.
MR. CHAIR, I WORK WITH A TEAM OF
COMMITTED, HARD-WORKING
INDIVIDUALS.
WE'RE NOT PERFECT, BUT WE ARE
COMMITTED TO BEING BETTER AND TO
DOING MORE, AND PERHAPS, MOST
IMPORTANTLY RIGHT NOW, WE REMAIN
COMMITTED TO SERVING AND
SUPPORTING AS MANY CANADIANS AS
WE CAN AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN.
AS THE DAUGHTER OF A RETIRED
PUBLIC SERVANTS, I HAVE THE
UTMOST RESPECT NOT ONLY FOR
PUBLIC SERVICE BUT FOR THOSE WHO
CHOOSE IT AS A CAREER.
AND I WANT TO TAKE THIS MOMENT
TO THANK THEM AND MY COLLEAGUES
FOR THE WORK THEY CONTINUE TO DO
UNDER ESPECIALLY-CHALLENGING
CIRCUMSTANCES.
I BELIEVE THAT WE ALL GET INTO
PUBLIC SERVICE TO HELP OTHERS.
AND WHAT A TIME FOR ALL OF US TO
BE DOING THAT.
WE THOUGHT RENEGOTIATING NAFTA
WAS A CHALLENGE.
WELL, THIS PANDEMIC, I AM SURE,
IS THE CHALLENGE OF OUR
GENERATION AND OF MY LIFE.
TO HAVE THE CHANCE TO TAKE UP
THIS WORK DURING THIS TIME WITH
THIS TEAM UNDER THE LEADERSHIP
OF THIS PRIME MINISTER HAS BEEN
AND REMAINS A PRIVILEGE.
WITH THAT, I'M PLEASED TO TAKE
YOUR QUESTIONS.
>> The Chair: THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MISS TELFORD.
THE FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS I
HAVE ON MY LIST FOR THE
SIX-MINUTE ROUND IS MR. BARRETT,
MISS DZEROWICZ, MR. FORTIN AND
MR. JULIAN.
MR. BARRETT, YOU'RE ON.
SIX MINUTES IS YOURS.
>> 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 EXTRA
HOURS TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
WHY COULDN'T THE PRIME MINISTER
RESPECT THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND
ATTEND FOR THE FULL TIME TODAY?
>> The Chair: I DON'T KNOW
WHETHER THAT'S ON THE TOPIC, BUT
WE'LL LET IT GO.
MS. TELFORD.
>> I BELIEVE, MR. CHAIR, THAT
THE PRIME MINISTER NOT ONLY
ACCEPTED THE INVITATION AND WAS
PLEASED TO COME BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE, AND ORIGINALLY THE
INVITATION WAS FOR ONE HOUR,
WHICH HE ACCEPTED.
AND THEN HE EXTENDED HIS TIME
AND STAYED FOR JUST OVER 90
MINUTES.
>> WILL YOU SCHEDULE HIM TO
ATTEND THE REMAINING TIME
REQUESTED?
>> I BELIEVE THAT IS PERHAPS A
DISCUSSION FOR ANOTHER TIME,
MR. BARRETT.
>> SO THIS IS THE THIRD TIME THE
PRIME MINISTER'S 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, THOUGH WE DID HEAR
AN ADMISSION FROM THE PRIME
MINISTER TODAY HE OUGHT TO HAVE
RECUSED HIMSELF SO WE KNOW THE
REGARD THE PRIME MINISTER HAS
FOR ETHICS LAWS.
IT'S BEEN REFERRED TO, I RECALL,
AS HARPER'S LAW.
SO WHY IS IT THAT THIS PRIME
MINISTER THINKS THAT HE'S ABOVE
THE LAW?
>> The Chair: I AM GOING TO
JUST TAKE A MOMENT HERE,
MISS TELFORD.
THE RELEVANCE HERE, AND I REMIND
MEMBERS, AGAIN, 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.
GO AHEAD, MISS TELFORD.
>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WHEN YOU
SUGGEST THAT THERE WAS AN
ADMISSION IN HIS REMARKS, IN HIS
ANSWERS TO YOUR MANY QUESTIONS
EARLIER, I WOULD JUST WANT TO
CORRECT YOU IN SAYING THAT
ACTUALLY IT'S SOMETHING HE SAID
TO CANADIANS SOME TIME AGO NOW.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THE PRIME
MINISTER AND OUR ENTIRE OFFICE
AND GOVERNMENT TAKE ETHICS
EXTREMELY -- IT'S VERY IMPORTANT
FOR US, AND IT'S WHY WE GO BACK
AND FORTH WITH THE ETHICS
COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE ALL THE
TIME AND WE DO ANYTHING THE
ETHICS COMMISSIONER ASKS US TO
LOOK INTO OR DO.
>> The Chair: BACK TO
MR. BARRETT.
>> I MEAN, 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?
>> I'VE ACTUALLY READ THE ACT
BEFORE THAT.
BUT WHEN YOU SAY THAT, AGAIN,
YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT THE
REASON WE'RE GOING BACK AND
FORTH WITH THE ETHICS
COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE IS FOR
REASONS, YES, THAT WAS THE CASE
BUT WE ALSO GO BACK AND FORTH
WITH THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER'S
ALL THE TIME WHETHER IT'S ANNUAL
DISCLOSURES OR QUESTIONS BECAUSE
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE
GETTING THE INTERPRETATION THAT
DO ALSO CHANGE OVER TIME, WE
INTERPRET THINGS AS ACCURATELY
AS POSSIBLE AS OFTEN AS
POSSIBLE.
>> The Chair: MR. BARRETT.
>> AFTER MARCH 1st, HOW MANY
TIMES DID THE PMO COMMUNICATE
WITH THE KIELBURGERS OR ANY OF
THEIR INTERMEDIARIES?
>> SO THERE WERE, I LOOKED INTO
THIS, AND 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 PERIOD OF THE PROGRAM, IT
WAS IN EARLY MAY WHERE ONE OF
THE POLICY STAFF DID WHAT IS
VERY, VERY NORMAL IN THEIR JOB
WHICH IS TO SPEAK TO STAKEHOLDER
ORGANIZATIONS, AND IT WAS A VERY
GENERAL DISCUSSION, AND THEY
ACTUALLY REDIRECTED THE
STAKEHOLDER, THE 'WE'
ORGANIZATION, TO ESDC OFFICIALS
WHICH WAS THE MORE APPROPRIATE
PLACE TO BE ABLE TO GET ANSWERS
FOR THE QUESTIONS THEY WERE
ASKING.
>> The Chair: WE'LL HAVE TO
COME BACK TO MR. BARRETT.
AND I DIDN'T OUTLINE AT THE
BEGINNING, MISS TELFORD, THAT WE
ARE UNDER WHAT WE CALL A
COVID-19 RULES, WE TRY AND KEEP
THE ANSWERS AS TIGHT TO THE
QUESTIONS AS WE CAN OR I TRY TO,
AND SOMETIMES I SUCCEED.
MR. BARRETT, I WON'T TAKE THAT
TIME FROM YOU.
GO AHEAD.
>> AND WHAT DAY DID THAT
INTERACTION OCCUR, MA'AM?
>> I BELIEVE IT WAS ON
MAY 5th.
>> OKAY.
AND ARE YOU ABLE TO TELL US
WHICH POLICY STAFFER MADE THAT
INQUIRY?
>> I WAS A MEMBER OF THE POLICY
TEAM.
>> OKAY.
SO THE PRIME MINISTER CLAIMS
TODAY THAT HIS STAFF WERE
WORKING ON THE PROGRAM BEFORE
MAY 8th.
CAN YOU PROVIDE THIS COMMITTEE A
LIST OF EVERYONE THAT WAS
INVOLVED, LIKE CAN YOU FURNISH
THE COMMITTEE IN WRITING WITH
EVERYONE THAT WAS INVOLVED IN
THE DECISION?
>> IT'S PUBLIC INFORMATION WHO
ALL THE STAFF IN THE PRIME
MINISTER'S OFFICE ARE AND I'M
HERE TO REPRESENT ALL OF THOSE
FACETS, THE SENIORMOST MEMBER OF
THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE SO
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR
ANY OF THEM, I'D BE HAPPY TO
TAKE THEM TODAY.
>> THE PRIME MINISTER TESTIFIED
TODAY THAT THE OPTION GIVEN TO
CABINET WAS 'WE' OR NOTHING
WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY THE
OUTCOME, WAS NOTHING.
WHY DID THE CABINET ACCEPT THIS
SUPPOSED BINARY CHOICE?
WHY NOT ASK FOR OPTIONS?
YOU KNOW, IS THIS A GOVERNMENT
RUN BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE OR IS
IT RUN BY CABINET?
BECAUSE THE ACCOUNTABILITY RESTS
WITH THE HEAD OF GOVERNMENT, IT
RESTS WITH THE CABINET.
SO I'M GETTING PRETTY FRUSTRATED
HEARING, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH
RESPECT THAT THE MEMBERS OF
CABINET HAVE FOR THE PUBLIC
SERVICE WHILE THROWING THEM
UNDER THE BUS INSTEAD OF TAKING
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THEIR
DECISION.
SO WHY WOULDN'T THEY HAVE
REQUIRED OPTIONS?
>> I WANT TO JUST ADDRESS TWO
THINGS YOU SAID THERE.
ONE IS NOT TRYING TO -- NO ONE
IS THROWING ANYONE UNDER THE BUS
HERE.
I'M EXPLAINING, AND I'M HAPPY TO
EXPLAIN, WHAT HAPPENED.
AND WE RELIED ON THE PUBLIC
SERVICE AND THEIR
RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEIR
RECOMMENDATION WAS TO PROCEED
AND THE QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING
AROUND, YOU KNOW, YOU BEING
FRUSTRATED, IT WAS A BINARY
CHOICE, THAT WAS EXACTLY THE
KIND OF QUESTION THAT THE PRIME
MINISTER AND I WERE ASKING ON
MAY 8th WHICH CAUSED IT TO BE
PULLED FROM THE CABINET AGENDA
THAT MORNING SO THAT WE COULD
CONFIRM THAT THAT WAS TRULY THE
CASE.
>> The Chair: LAST QUESTION,
MR. BARRETT.
>> FROM MARCH 1st UNTIL NOW,
WHEN DID YOU SPEAK WITH THE
PRIME MINISTER ABOUT THE 'WE'
ORGANIZATION?
>> ON MAY 8th WAS WHEN WE
FIRST LEARNED THAT THE 'WE'
ORGANIZATION WAS BEING PROPOSED
AS THE ORGANIZATION TO DELIVER
AND ADMINISTER THIS PROGRAM.
AND SO THAT IS WHEN WE SPOKE
ABOUT IT.
>> The Chair: THANK YOU, BOTH.
WE'LL TURN NOW TO MISS DZEROWICZ
FOR SIX MINUTES FOLLOWED BY
MR. FORTIN.
MISS DZEROWICZ.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR.
AND THANK YOU SO MUCH,
MISS TELFORD, FOR JOINING US
TODAY.
WE REALLY ARE GRATEFUL.
WE ALWAYS REMEMBER TO THANK OUR
MINISTERS, OUR PRIME MINISTER,
OUR BUREAUCRATS, BUT WE OFTEN
FORGET THE AMAZING TEAM OF
PEOPLE THAT SIT IN THE PRIME
MINISTER'S OFFICE.
SO I WANT TO SAY A HUGE THANKS
TO YOU AND TO THE AMAZING TEAM
THERE.
I CAN ONLY IMAGINE HOW CRAZY THE
LAST FEW MONTHS HAVE BEEN, SO
THANK YOU FOR YOUR EXTRAORDINARY
EFFORT.
MY FIRST QUESTION IS YOU RIGHTLY
TALKED ABOUT HOW WE'VE GONE
THROUGH AN UNPRECEDENTED TIME
AND THE IMFACT TO CANADIANS HAS
BEEN EXTRAORDINARY.
WE HAVE ASKED OUR POLITICIANS,
OUR CIVIL SERVANTS, OUR STAFF TO
WORK AT AN EXTRAORDINARY PACE TO
DELIVER OVER 70 EMERGENCY
PROGRAMS AT A SPEND OF OVER
$200 BILLION AND THIS IS JUST A
GENERAL QUESTION.
WERE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL
PROCESSES PUT IN PLACE OR ANY
SPECIAL OVERSIGHT MECHANISMS
BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED LEVELS
SPENDING AND THE SPEED OF THE
DECISION MAKING?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY ONE OF
THE THINGS I'VE BEEN REFLECTING
ON AND THE TEAM HAS BEEN
REFLECTING ON IN THIS LAST PART
OF THE, IS WHETHER THERE WAS
ADDITIONAL RIGORS THAT COULD BE
PUT IN PLACE EVEN IN A TIME OF
CRISIS.
OUR FOCUS, FOR THE REASONS YOU
SAID AND THE REASONS I SAID IN
MY OPENING STATEMENT, HAS BEEN
ON GETTING SUPPORT TO CANADIANS
AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN AND TO AS
MANY AS WE CAN.
AND THAT DOES NOT MEAN, AND THAT
IS WHY WE ALSO HELD UP THE
PROPOSAL ON MAY 8th THAT RIGOR
DOES NOT NEED TO BE APPLIED AND
WE KNOW THAT RIGOR HAS BEEN
BEING APPLIED BY THE PUBLIC
SERVICE THROUGHOUT, BY STAFF AND
MINISTERS' OFFICE AND MINISTERS
THROUGHOUT, BUT OBVIOUSLY THINGS
HAVE MOVED IN COMPRESSED TIME
PERIODS, AND THUS, YOU KNOW, THE
TIME ISN'T NECESSARILY SPENT IN
THE SAME WAYS AS IN THE PAST.
AND WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT HOW
TO ENSURE WE CONTINUE TO HAVE
RIGOR AS YOU WOULD IN A NORMAL
TIME AND A TIME OF CRISIS AS
WELL.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
MY NEXT QUESTION IS THERE'S A
LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT COME UP AT
OUR COMMITTEE AROUND THE CHANGE
IN THE 'WE' BOARD, THE LAY-OFFS
THAT TOOK PLACE, WHETHER OR NOT
'WE' HAD REGISTERED THEMSELVES
AS A LOBBYIST OR NOT.
AND WE HAVE HEARD THAT THE
BUREAUCRATS, THAT WE HAVE A LOT
OF CONFIDENCE OUR BUREAUCRATS
HAVE DONE THEIR DUE DILIGENCE.
MY QUESTION TO YOU, I WANT TO
MAKE SURE CANADIANS UNDERSTAND
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
BUREAUCRATS VERSUS WHAT ACTUALLY
COMES TO CABINET.
IF YOU COULD JUST MAYBE
ELABORATE ON THAT, I'D BE
GRATEFUL.
AND I THINK JUST ONE MORE POINT
I WANT TO MAKE, JUST BECAUSE I
THINK THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF
MISINFORMATION, WE DID RECEIVE
FROM RACHEL WERNICK THAT THERE
WERE EIGHT ORGANIZATIONS THAT
WERE ASSESSED BY ESBC OFFICIALS
TO POTENTIALLY DELIVER CSSG AND
WE HEARD THOSE OFFICIALS HELD
TWO MEETINGS TO DISCUSS THIS
PARTICULAR PROGRAM.
IF YOU COULD JUST MAYBE TALK SO
PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT
DIVISION.
>> WE'RE GOING TO SAY GOOD-BYE
TO OUR VIEWERS IN THE MARITIMES.
YOUR LOCAL NEWS COMING UP ON CBC
TELEVISION.
CONTINUE WATCHING THIS ON CBC
NEWS NETWORK.
"POWER & POLITICS" WILL CONTINUE
AFTER OUR SPECIAL COVERAGE HERE
ON THE NETWORK.
>>  -- ESPECIALLY IN THIS TIME,
EVERYONE WAS ROLLING UP THEIR
SLEEVES AND WORKING ON A NUMBER
OF DIFFERENT PROJECTS AT ONCE
AND DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS WERE
SUPPORTING EACH OTHER WITH THEIR
WORK IN TRULY UNPRECEDENTED
WAYS.
WHAT ULTIMATELY COMES TO CABINET
IS A MEMORANDUM TO CABINET THAT
SUMMARIZES THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS, SUMMARIZES THE
DUE DILIGENCE THAT HAS BEEN
DONE, AND IT WAS THERE THAT WE
SAW THAT THE RECOMMENDATION THAT
SAID THAT THERE IS THIS ONE
ORGANIZATION THAT IS ABLE TO
DELIVER THIS ORGANIZATION -- TO
DELIVER THIS PROGRAM.
I THINK ONE OF THE DIFFERENCES
IS THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF
BRIEFING NOTES THAT GO BACK AND
FORTH BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS ON ALL
KINDS OF DETAILS WITHIN IT THAT
WE'RE LOOKING AT SOME OF THOSE
ASSESSMENTS THAT YOU DESCRIBE
AND THAT I BELIEVE YOU'VE HAD
OFFICIALS, I KNOW YOU'VE HAD
OFFICIALS WHO HAVE COME TO
COMMITTEE AND DESCRIBED THEM.
AND THERE'S ALL KINDS OF WORK
DONE BETWEEN MINISTERS' OFFICES
AND DEPARTMENTS LEADING UP TO
THAT MEMORANDUM OF CABINET THAT
THEN SUMMARIZES THE INFORMATION
THEY HAVE PUT TOGETHER AND MAKES
A RECOMMENDATION TO CABINET.
>> THANK YOU.
MY NEXT QUESTION IS, I KNOW THAT
THERE WAS.
>> GOING BACK TO THE APRIL FIFTH
CONVERSATION THAT I REFERENCED.
AND IT WAS A RELATIVELY BRIEF
CONVERSATION.
BUT IT DOES KIND OF SUMMARIZE AN
ANSWER TO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT
THERE WERE GAPS IN OUR EXISTING
PROGRAMS AND THAT THERE WERE
CERTAIN POPULATIONS, KEY PARTS
OF OUR POPULATION THAT WEREN'T
YET GETTING THE SUPPORT THAT
THEY NEEDED.
AS I MENTIONED, WE TALKED ABOUT
SENIORS.
WE TALKED ABOUT SEASONAL
WORKERS.
AND WE TALKED ABOUT IN THAT CASE
STUDENTS.
AND WHEN IT CAME TO STUDENTS WE
TALKED ABOUT STUDENTS FIRST AND
FOREMOST JOB ONE WAS, YOU KNOW,
HOW DO WE HELP THOSE STUDENTS
WHO ALL OF A SUDDEN FOUND
THEMSELVES HEADING INTO SUMMER
BECAUSE WE WERE HIT NOT ONLY WAS
THERE A PANDEMIC.
IT WAS THE END OF THEIR SCHOOL
YEAR OR IT WAS ABOUT TO BE SOON.
SO HOW DO WE HELP THOSE STUDENTS
WHO HAD RENT TO PAY WHO NEEDED
TO PUT GROCERIES ON THE TABLE?
AND THEN OUR SECOND OBJECTIVE
AND A VERY IMPORTANT ONE WAS WE
WERE ALREADY STARTING TO SEE
RESEARCH AND STORIES BEING TOTAL
AND PEOPLE TELLING US DIRECTLY
ABOUT THE IMPACT.
AND I KNOW I HEARD SOME MEMBERS
TALKING ABOUT THIS IN THE
COMMITTEE AS WELL THAT YOU ALL
RECOGNIZE FROM YOUR CONSTITUENTS
AS WELL.
THE CONCERNS ARE ON MENTAL
HEALTH FOR YOUNG PEOPLE.
THE CONCERN ABOUT WANTING TO
MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE A LOST
GENERATION HERE WHERE THEY HAVE
TO SPEND YEARS CATCHING UP FROM
THIS PERIOD OF TIME.
SO THE WE WANTED TO SEE WHAT
WAYS WE COULD ENSURE WE WERE
CONNECTING YOUNG PEOPLE TO THEIR
COMMUNITIES AND ENCOURAGING
PEOPLE TO BE INNOVATIVE IN THAT
REGARD.
AND THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING THE
PRIME MINISTER HAS TALKED ABOUT
FOR A LONG TIME AS WELL.
>> WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE
ON HERE, MS. TELLFORD.
TURNING THEN TO MR. FORTIN FOR
SIX MINUTES.
[ Speaking French ]
>> Voice of Interpreter: IN
TERMS OF WE CHARITY, THE PRIME
MINISTER SAID HE DELAYED THE
DECISION ABOUT THIS BECAUSE HE
WASN'T COMFORTABLE, AND YOU
CONFIRMED THIS.
HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT HE HAS
ONCE AGAIN BEEN CAUGHT WITH HIS
HAND IN THE COOKIE JAR AFTER ALL
THESE PREVIOUS RED FLAGS?
[ End of Interpretation ]
>> MR. CHAIR, I HAVE TO REJECT
WHAT THIS MEMBER IS SAYING IN
TERMS OF WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
OTHER THAN YOUR OPENING
COMMENTS, SIR, WHICH WAS THE
PRIME MINISTER DID HAVE CONCERNS
AT THE MAY 8th MEETING WHEN HE
WAS FIRST BRIEFED ON THIS.
AND HE SAID HE WANTED TO GET
MORE BY WAY OF BRIEFING, AND
THAT'S WHAT HE DID.
>> Voice of Interpreter: AFTER
RECEIVING NEW INFORMATION, HE
WAS REASSURED?
HE DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS ANY
CONFLICT OF INTEREST YET?
THIS SEEMS TO BE THE CASE.
HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS.
[ End of Interpretation ]
>> WE WERE REASSURED THAT THIS
PROGRAM WAS THE ONLY WAY THIS
PROGRAM COULD HAPPEN THIS SUMMER
IN THIS UNPRECEDENTED TIME WAS
FOR THE WE ORGANIZATION TO
ADMINISTER IT AND DELIVER IT.
AND THAT WAS THE REASSURANCE WE
WERE GIVEN.
AND AT THAT POINT IT WAS
DETERMINED TO PROCEED.
>> Voice of Interpreter: YET,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE PUBLIC
SERVICE SAID THAT THEY COULDN'T
ADMINISTER IT.
DID YOU NOT BELIEVE THEM?
>> I'M SORRY.
WHAT?
>> MS. TELLFORD, I'M NOT SURE
MR. FORTIN CAME THROUGH IN
TRANSLATION.
IT WAS THE MEMBER OF PUBLIC
SERVICE ALLIANCE, WASN'T IT,
THAT SAID THEY COULD DELIVER IT?
THAT WAS THE QUESTION.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE PUBLIC
SERVICE ALLIANCE INDICATED THAT
THE PUBLIC SERVICE COULD DELIVER
IT.
WHY NOT?
>> SO WHAT WE WERE BRIEFED AT
THE TIME AS IN AND ACTUALLY ON
MORE THAN ONE OCCASION DURING
THAT PERIOD WAS AND IT WAS BASED
ON OTHER EXPERIENCES AT THE TIME
THAT THIS WAS THE ONLY WAY THE
PROGRAM COULD BE DELIVERED FOR
THIS SUMMER.
>> Voice of Interpreter: BUT
MR. TRUDEAU KNEW THERE WAS A
CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON MAY
8th AND HE SAID HE DIDN'T WANT
TO MAKE A DECISION RIGHT AWAY
BECAUSE HE WAS UNCOMFORTABLE.
YOU KNEW THIS THAT HE HAD
ALREADY BEEN CAUGHT TWICE
INFRINGING THE ETHICS ACT.
AND YET YOU MOVED AHEAD EVEN
THOUGH THAT THE MOTHER AND THE
BROTHER OF THE MR. TRUDEAU HAD
BEEN PAID BY WE CHARITY.
AND THE LAST TIME MR. TRUDEAU
SAID HE WOULD NEVER GET CAUGHT
AGAIN.
AND WHAT MECHANISM DID YOU SET
UP SO THAT WE HAVE THE SAME
ISSUE TODAY.
DID NO ONE LEARN FROM PREVIOUS
MISADVENTURES?
[ End of Interpretation ]
>> MS. TELLFORD.
>> THERE'S A LOT IN THERE.
I'LL START WITH THE FACT OF WHAT
WE KNEW AT THAT TIME AND HOW WE
WERE MAKING THE DECISION.
AND WHAT WE KNEW AT THAT TIME
AND THE PRIME MINISTER HAS
SPOKEN TO IS THE FACT THAT THE
PRIME MINISTER HAS GONE ON THE
STAGE FOR SOME WE DAY EVENTS.
HE WAS NEVER PAID FOR SPEAKING
AT THOSE EVENTS.
THEY WERE YOUTH EMPOWERMENT
EVENTS THAT HE HAD GONE TO AS
SOMEONE PASSIONATE FOR YOUTH AS
THE CRITIC AND LATER THE YOUTH
MINISTER IN THE FIRST MANDATE.
AND I ALSO KNEW THAT THE ETHICS
COMMISSIONER AS YOU SAID IN MY
OPENING REMARKS THAT THE ETHICS
COMMISSIONER WE HAD SOUGHT
ADVICE FROM AS IT RELATED TO
SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE-TRUDEAU'S ROLE
WITH THE WE CHARITY ORGANIZATION
AND RECEIVED CLEARANCE THAT SHE
COULD BOTH TAKE THAT ROLE ON AND
HAVE HER EXPENSES COVERED BY THE
ORGANIZATION.
>> WE WILL GO BACK TO 
MR. FORTIN.
>> Voice of Interpreter:
MS. TELLFORD, AS THE PRIME
MINISTER'S ADVISER AND CHIEF OF
STAFF, DID YOU ALREADY TELL
MR. TRUDEAU THAT HE SHOULD NOT
GET INVOLVED IN THIS DECISION?
[ End of Interpretation ]
>> AS I SAID ALREADY, WHAT WE
DISCUSSED AT THE TIME AND WHAT
WE KNEW AT THE TIME WAS THAT
THIS WAS A BINARY CHOICE AS ONE
OF THE MEMBERS SAID EARLIER.
IT WAS A CHOICE ON WHETHER TO
PROCEED IN THIS PROGRAM IN
SUPPORTING STUDENTS THIS SUMMER
AND CONNECTING THEM TO
COMMUNITIES OR NOT.
AND THERE WAS NO CONFLICT
DISCUSSED AT THAT TIME.
>> Voice of Interpreter: YOUR,
WHAT WAS YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO
MR. TRUDEAU?
DID YOU RECOMMEND HE PROCEED
DESPITE THE APPEARANCE OF A
CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
[ End of Interpretation ]
>> SO FIRST OF ALL AGAIN AS I
SAID IN MY OPENING REMARKS AND
AS THE PRIME MINISTER REFERRED
TO AND I BELIEVE THE CLERK OF
THE PRIVY COUNCIL MADE REFERENCE
TO AS WELL, I DID HAVE QUESTIONS
ON MAY 8th AND HAD SOME
CONCERNS.
I HAD CONCERNS IN TERMS OF
ENSURING THAT THE, THAT THIS WAS
THE RIGHT ORGANIZATION IN ORDER
TO DO THAT BUT IT WAS TRULY THE
ONLY ORGANIZATION THAT COULD DO
THIS.
THAT ALL OF THE T'S HAD BEEN
CROSSED AND I'S HAD BEEN DOTTED.
AND, YES, AS I SAID IN MY
OPENING REMARKS I HAD CONCERNS
AROUND PERCEPTION KNOWING THAT
IT HAD JUST BEEN RECENTLY THAT
SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE-TRUDEAU'S
PODCAST WILL BE LAUNCHED.
BUT I ALSO KNEW THAT THE ETHICS
COMMISSIONER HAD CLEARED THAT.
AND SO ON THAT BASIS, WE DECIDED
TO PROCEED.
THE PRIME MINISTER IN THAT.
>> WE WILL HAVE TO GO BACK TO
MR. FORTIN.
THE LAST QUESTION, MR. FORTIN.
>> Voice of Interpreter:
YOU'RE TELLING IT, MS. TELLFORD,
THAT THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER
TOLD MR. TRUDEAU HE COULD
PROCEED WITH THIS, AND HE
DECIDED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS IN SPITE
OF THE PERCEPTION OF A CONFLICT
OF INTEREST?
[ End of Interpretation ]
>> MS. TELLFORD.
>> WHAT I SAID IN MY OPENING
REMARKS WAS I HAD CLEARANCE FROM
THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER FOR
SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE-TRUDEAU TO DO
THE WORK WITH THE WE
ORGANIZATION.
>> MR. FORTIN, WE'RE OUT OF TIME
ON THAT ROUND.
>> Voice of Interpreter:
CHAIR, POINT OF PRIVILEGE.
POINT OF ORDER.
BECAUSE I'M ASKING, BECAUSE I'M
ASKING WITNESSES IN FRENCH
QUESTIONS, I'M LOSING ROUGHLY 20
TO 30% OF MY TIME BECAUSE OF THE
DELAY IN INTERPRETATION.
AND SOMETIMES THE ANSWERS DON'T
RELATE TO MY QUESTIONS.
AND OBVIOUS THE WITNESSES IS NOT
UNDERSTANDING WHAT I'M SAYING.
AND YOURSELF, CHAIR, YOU DID THE
CORRECT TRANSLATION, BUT YOU HAD
TO TRANSLATE ONE OF MY QUESTIONS
TO THE WITNESS.
AND IN TERMS OF OTHER PARTIES, I
HAVE HAD MUCH LESS TIME THAN THE
LIBERALS TO ASK QUESTIONS, AND
THEY ARE JUST ASKING FOR
ADVERTISING WHEREAS I AM ASKING
REAL QUESTIONS.
AND I WOULD LIKE THE SAME
SPEAKING TIME AS THE
CONSERVATIVES, AND I WOULD LIKE
TO BE ABLE TO DO MY JOB
CORRECTLY.
THANK YOU.
[ End of Interpretation ]
>> THANK YOU, MR. FORTIN.
AND I ACTUALLY DO BELIEVE YOU
HAVE A LEGITIMATE CONCERN.
I AM ALWAYS WHEN YOU'RE ASKING
QUESTIONS, I AM HAVING A HARD
TIME KEEPING UP BECAUSE I HAVE
TO WAIT FOR TRANSLATION TOO.
WE WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT
AT A COMMITTEE LEVEL SOME TIME.
BUT I THINK IT IS A CONCERN.
MR. JULIAN, SIX-MINUTE ROUND
FOLLOWED BY MR. COOPER.
MR. JULIAN.
>> THANKS, MR. CHAIR.
THANKS, MS. TELLFORD FOR BEING
HERE TODAY.
WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING
AVAILABLE FOR THE FULL TWO
HOURS.
YOU MENTIONED, I HAVE A COUPLE
QUICK QUESTIONS TO START.
YOU MENTIONED EARLIER FULLY
COOPERATING ETHICS COMMISSIONER.
YOU'LL RECALL OF COURSE THE
PREVIOUS SCANDAL, THE
SNC-LAVALIN SCANDAL.
THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER SAID 11
MONTHS AGO THAT HE WAS, QUOTE,
UNABLE TO FULLY DISCHARGE THE
INVESTIGATEORY DUTIES CONFERRED
UPON ME BECAUSE HE WASN'T
GETTING THE DOCUMENTATION FROM
THE PMO AND PCO.
CAN YOU STATE THAT YOU ARE
WILLING TO QUOTE WITH BOTH THE
ETHICS COMMISSIONER AND ALSO
THIS COMMITTEE AND PROVIDE ALL
THE DOCUMENTATION INCLUDING THE
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WENT
FORWARD ON MAY 8th AND THE MAY
22nd, ALL DOCUMENTATION
CONCERNING THE WE PROGRAM.
>> MS. TELLFORD.
>> I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN HAPPY TO
COOPERATE AND COORDINATE BUT TO
COOPERATE WITH THE ETHICS
COMMISSIONER AND WILL CONTINUE
TO DO SO.
AND IN TERMS OF DOCUMENTS, I
WOULD HAVE TO LOOK INTO.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT DOCUMENTS
YOU'RE LOOKING FOR BUT I AM
HAPPY TO LOOK INTO ANY SPECIFIC
REQUEST.
>> THE SPECIFIC REQUEST IS FOR
THE MEMOS GOING TO CABINET ON
MAY 8th AND WENT TO CABINET ON
MAY 22nd.
THOSE ARE VERY SPECIFIC REQUESTS
AND THE PCO HAS ALREADY
INDICATED THEY WILL BE PROVIDING
THAT TO US.
AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE HAVING
THE COOPERATION OF THE PMO.
SECOND QUICK QUESTION.
WE KNOW YOU HAVE HAD A PAST
BACKGROUND WITH BOTH WE AND ITS
PREDECESSOR ORGANIZATION.
HAVE YOU OR ANY MEMBER OF YOUR
FAMILY EITHER DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY EVER RECEIVED EXPENSE
REIMBURSEMENT, FREE TRAVEL,
FINANCIAL PAYMENTS, USE OF WE
STAFF TIME?
>> NO.
>> THANK YOU.
NOW MY THIRD QUESTION IS AROUND
MR. MORNEAU'S DEEP CONNECTIONS
WITH WE.
WERE YOU AWARE OF MR. MORNEAU'S
CONNECTIONS AND HIS FAMILY
CONNECTIONS WITH THE WE
ORGANIZATION?
>> THE ONLY CONNECTION THAT I
WAS, THAT REALLY CAME BACK TO ME
RECENTLY WAS MENTIONED HIS
DAUGHTER HAD WRITTEN A BOOK.
WHEN I SAW THE COVER RECENTLY --
I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS THE FRONT
OR THE BACK -- BUT IT DID HAVE A
QUOTE FROM A KIELBURGER ON IT.
AND THAT WAS REALLY THE EXTENT
OF MY KNOWLEDGE TO THE
CONNECTION.
>> WERE YOU AWARE OF THE PRIVATE
TRAVEL THAT WAS NOT REIMBURSED,
THE USE OF PRIVATE AIRCRAFT.
WERE YOU AWARE OF ANY OF THOSE
CASES WITH MR. MORNEAU?
>> NOT UNTIL RECENTLY.
>> WERE YOU AWARE THAT WE USED
THEIR STAFF ON STAFF TIME AND
BASICALLY PROVIDED THEM WITH
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENTS TO HELP
FILL SEATS AND ACT AS BACKDROPS
AT MR. MORNEAU'S EVENTS?
>> NO.
>> GIVEN THOSE DIRECT BENEFITS,
WOULD YOU AGREE THAT MR. MORNEAU
WAS CLEARLY IN A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST AROUND THIS WE
PROPOSAL?
>> MINISTER MORNEAU HAS ALREADY
SAID THAT HE APOLOGIZED AND
WISHED HE RECUSED HIMSELF FROM
THIS CABINET DECISION, AND I
OBVIOUSLY SUPPORT THAT.
>> SO IF YOU BELIEVE HE WAS IN A
CONFLICT OF INTEREST, WOULD THAT
NOT APPLY TO MR. TRUDEAU AS
WELL?
>> THE PRIME MINISTER ALSO SAID
IN PERCEPTION, HE HAS ALSO
RECENTLY SAID THAT HE WISHED HE
RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THIS.
AND I SUPPORT THAT AS WELL.
>> BUT YOU WOULD AGREE THAT THEY
WERE BOTH IN A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST IN OTHER WORDS HAD
CONTRAVENED THE CONFLICT OF
INTEREST ACT?
>> NO.
WHAT BOTH OF THEM SAID IS THAT
AND WHAT THE PRIME MINISTER SAID
SPECIFICALLY IS THAT HE WISHED
HE RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THIS
PARTICULAR DECISION AT CABINET
SO THAT THERE WEREN'T ANY
CONCERNS ABOUT PERCEPTION OF
FAVOURITISM.
>> SO YOU SEE IT AS A
PERCEPTION, NOT AS A VIOLATION
OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT.
OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
NOW MOVING ON TO THE ACTUAL
DECISION.
WERE YOU INVOLVED?
OR WAS THE PRIME MINISTER'S
OFFICE INVOLVED IN ANY WAY IN
THE DECISION NOT TO ADEQUATELY
FUND CANADA'S SUMMER JOBS
PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS AS YOU ARE
AND MPS ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE
AWARE.
IT WAS BASICALLY A PROGRAM THAT
WAS SHORT CHANGED AND RIGHT
ACROSS THE COUNTRY POSITIONS
WERE NOT FILLED BECAUSE OF THE
INADEQUATE FUNDING THAT WAS
PROVIDED TO CANADA SUMMER JOBS.
WAS THAT A DECISION THAT YOU
WERE AWARE OF OR THAT YOU TOOK
PART OF?
>> I DO BELIEVE THAT DIFFERS
FROM THE ISSUE WE ARE DISCUSSING
TODAY, PETER.
BUT GO AHEAD, MANY MS. TELLFORD.
>> VERY RELEVANT, MR. CHAIR.
VERY RELEVANT.
>> I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THE
CANADA SUMMER JOBS PROGRAM IS
BOTH TO STUDENTS AND TO ALL OF
THE HONOURABLE MEMBERS IN THE
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
WE HEAR ABOUT IT FROM CAUCUS
MEMBERS ON A REGULAR BASIS HOW
IMPORTANT IT IS IN THEIR
RIDINGS.
AND I WAS PLEASED TO HEAR
RECENTLY THERE ARE OVER 85,000
JOBS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED
THROUGH THE CANADA SUMMER JOBS
PROGRAM THIS SUMMER.
>> MY QUESTION WAS ACTUALLY WERE
YOU INVOLVED IN THAT DECISION OR
WHO TOOK THAT DECISION.
BUT I'LL MOVE ON.
I WILL QUOTE FROM YOU FROM THE
PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF
CANADA NATIONAL PRESIDENT CHRIS
ALLWARD WHO APPEARED BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE.
HE SAID AND I QUOTE,
MR. TRUDEAU'S CLAIM THAT WE
CHARITY IS THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN
ADMINISTER THE NEW GRANT PROGRAM
IS NOT ONLY FACTUALLY WRONG,
IT'S ALSO INSULTING TO OUR
MEMBERS.
AND THAT MEANS BOTH IN TERMS OF
PRIME MINISTER'S TESTIMONY AND
YOURS THAT FACTUALLY YOU ARE
GIVING INFORMATION THAT IS
SIMPLY INCORRECT.
TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE PUBLIC
SERVICE ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN
THIS DECISION WHEN CLEARLY
PUBLIC SERVANTS WANTED TO BE
INVOLVED IN THE PROGRAM, WERE
READY TO BE INVOLVED IN THE
PROGRAM, AND DON'T APPEAR TO
HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IMPORTANT
AT ANY POINT IN THE
COLLABORATION OF THIS SCHEME.
>> SO WE CAN GO BASED ON THE
INFORMATION THAT WAS RECOMMEND
TO US AT THE TIME BY PUBLIC
SERVANTS.
AND PUBLIC SERVANTS THEMSELVES
SAID THAT THIS WAS A PROGRAM AT
THIS TIME THAT WAS BEST
ADMINISTERED BY A THIRD PARTY
ORGANIZATION.
>> I JUST QUOTED THE PUBLIC
SERVICE THAT SAID THE CONTRARY.
>> MR. JULIAN, I TOOK A LITTLE
TIME FROM YOU TALKING THERE, SO
I'LL GIVE YOU ONE MORE QUESTION.
>> THE PUBLIC SERVANTS HAVE
INDICATED THEY COULD ADMINISTER
THE NEW GRANT PROGRAM.
MY QUESTION TO YOU AND IT COMES
BACK TO THE CANADA SUMMER JOBS
UNDERFUNDING AS WELL.
WHO MADE THESE DECISIONS?
WERE THEY PASSED ON TO YOU?
WERE YOU AWARE IN THE PRIME
MINISTER'S OFFICE?
OR DID THE PRIME MINISTER'S
OFFICE PARTICIPATE IN THESE
DECISIONS THAT HAD SUCH WIDE
REACHING CONSEQUENCES?
>> IT'S MY JOB TO GIVE THE BEST
ADVICE I CAN BASED ON THE BEST
INFORMATION I HAVE TO THE PRIME
MINISTER ON ALL DECISIONS COMING
BEFORE HIM AND BEFORE THE
CABINET.
SO TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY OF THE
VARIOUS YOUTH AND STUDENT
PROGRAMS WERE COMING TO CABINET,
THEN I WAS GIVING ADVICE TO THE
PRIME MINISTER ON THOSE
PROGRAMS.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU BOTH.
WE'LL NOW GO TO FIVE-MINUTE
ROUND.
FIRST UP WILL BE MR. COOPER, MR.
MR. COOPER, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND THANK YOU, MS. TELLFORD, FOR
BEING HERE TODAY.
YOU SAID AND THE PRIME MINISTER
SAID THAT THE ETHICS
COMMISSIONER GAVE A CLEARANCE
WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTIVITIES
OF MS. GREGOIRE-TRUDEAU WITH
RESPECT TO WE AND SAID THAT
CLEARANCE HAD TAKEN PLACE A LONG
TIME AGO.
WOULD YOU NOT SEE THAT THERE
MIGHT BE A NEED TO TALK TO THE
ETHICS COMMISSIONER ON MAY 8th
IN THE FACE OF A HALF A BILLION
DOLLAR CONTRIBUTION THAT THE
PRIME MINISTER WOULD BE INVOLVED
IN DISCUSSING AND ULTIMATELY
DECIDING AT THE CABINET TABLE?
>> MS. TELLFORD.
>> SO WHEN CLEARANCE WAS SOUGHT
FOR THE WORK THAT SOPHIE
GRÉGOIRE-TRUDEAU HAS BEEN DOING
TO WORK ON DESTIGMATIZING MENTAL
HEALTH AND EMPOWERING YOUNG
PEOPLE, THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER
ACTUALLY EXPLICITLY STATED THAT
SHE WAS ASKED TO BE DOING THIS
IN HER OWN RIGHT, NOT AS WIFE OF
THE PRIME MINISTER.
AND THAT HER EXPENSES COULD BE
COVERED AS PART OF THAT WORK.
AND SO WE HAD THE CLEARANCE FOR
HER TO DO THE THINGS SHE WAS
DOING.
AND IT ALSO EXPLICITLY STATED
THAT IT DIDN'T PUT US INTO ANY
POSITION OF CONFLICT.
>> MS. TELLFORD, THAT WAS IN THE
ABSTRACT.
NOW YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU A HALF A
BILLION DOLLAR CONTRIBUTION THAT
WAS BEING DISCUSSED AND DECIDED
UPON AT CABINET.
DID YOU ADVISE PRIME MINISTER
THAT HE OUGHT TO CONSULT THE
ETHICS COMMISSIONER?
AND IF NOT, WHY NOT?
AND WHY DIDN'T HE?
BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT'S PROVEN AS
IT TURNS OUT TO BE OF SOME
INTEREST TO THE ETHICS
COMMISSIONER.
>> MS. TELLFORD.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS
ENTIRELY IN THE ABSTRACT.
WE HAD A VERY COMPLETE
DESCRIPTION OF WHAT SOPHIE'S
WORK WAS GOING TO BE.
AND THE KIND OF SCOPE OF IT.
AND THAT'S WHAT ACTUALLY
RECENTLY LAUNCHED.
THE PODCAST WAS PART OF THAT
SCOPE.
IT ALSO INCLUDED FOR HER TO BE
ABLE TO TRAVEL FOR SOME OF HER
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS WITH THE
ORGANIZATION.
>> YOU SAID AND THE PRIME
MINISTER SAID YOU WERE CONCERNED
ABOUT PEOPLE'S PERCEPTIONS.
I SUBMIT THAT I TAKE IT THAT
WOULD BE PERCEPTIONS OF CONFLICT
OF INTEREST.
I WOULD SUBMIT ACTUAL CONFLICTS
OF INTEREST.
SO IT'S INEXPLICABLE WHY YOU
WOULD NOT HAVE ADVISED HIM OR
WHY HE WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN IT
UPON HIMSELF TO GO TO THE ETHICS
COMMISSIONER.
BUT I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT MAY
8th AND THE WHAT YOU SAID AND
HE SAID NAMELY THAT HE PUSHED
BACK WHEN HE LEARNED ABOUT THE
PROPOSAL AND HAD QUESTIONS.
IF IN FACT THE PRIME MINISTER
PUSHED BACK, THEN HOW DO YOU
EXPLAIN THAT THE WE ORGANIZATION
WAS COLLECTING ELIGIBLE EXPENSES
AS OF MAY 5th?
>> MS. TELLFORD.
>> I THINK THAT IS A QUESTION
THAT IS, AND I AM AUTO SURE YOU
DID.
BUT IT'S A QUESTION BEST PLACED
TO THE OFFICIALS THAT MADE THE
ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE WE
ORGANIZATION.
I BELIEVE YOU ASKED THOSE
QUESTIONS OF THE WE ORGANIZATION
AS WELL IN TERMS OF THE
SPECIFICS WITHIN THE
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT.
BUT YOU SUGGESTED THAT IT WAS
PERHAPS, YOU SAID IF HE PUSHED
BACK.
I CAN ASSURE YOU HE DID ACTUALLY
PUSH BACK WITH A NUMBER OF
QUESTIONS IN THAT BRIEFING AND
IT'S WHY IT DIDN'T GO TO CABINET
THAT DAY.
>> WELL, BUT FOR TWO WEEKS
BETWEEN MAY 8th AND MAY
22nd, WE CONTINUED TO INCUR
ELIGIBLE EXPENSES.
SO IT JUST DOESN'T ADD UP TO SAY
THE PRIME MINISTER PUSHED BACK,
BUT IT WASN'T FROZEN.
THE MESSAGE WASN'T CONVEYED TO
WE.
AND THEY CONTINUED TO PROCEED
WITH MOVING AHEAD AS THOUGH THEY
WERE ABOUT TO ADMINISTER THE
PROGRAM.
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT?
>> AGAIN, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU
TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS ALTHOUGH
I'M SURE YOU DID OF THE WE
ORGANIZATION AND OF THE
OFFICIALS INVOLVED IN THE
CRAFTING OF THE CONTRIBUTION
AGREEMENT.
>> WELL, CLEARLY THE MESSAGE
DIDN'T GET VERY FAR IF THE PRIME
MINISTER IN FACT PUSHED BACK.
>> THE PROGRAM WAS LAUNCHED AS
YOU KNOW AT THE END OF JUNE.
AND IT WAS ONLY AT THAT TIME
THAT THE AGREEMENT OR JUST PRIOR
TO THE AGREEMENT THAT IT WAS
FINALIZED.
HOW THEY STRUCTURED THE DETAILS
WITHIN THE AGREEMENT, THAT I
CANNOT SPEAK TO.
>> WELL, THEY CONTINUE TO INCUR
EXPENSES AS THE PRIME MINISTER
SUPPOSEDLY PUSHED BACK.
BUT I WANT TO ASK YOU.
MR. JULIAN HAD RAISED THE ISSUE
OF OUTBOUND AND I WANT TO PICK
UP ON THAT AND ASK MORE BROADLY
WHAT IS THE TOTAL VALUE OF
EXPENSES, BENEFITS,
REIMBURSEMENTS, OR ANY OTHER IN
KIND OR MONETARY CONSIDERATION
THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE
WE ORGANIZATION OR ANY
ORGANIZATION AFFILIATED WITH THE
KIELBURGERS.
>> NOTHING.
>> AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE WITH
RESPECT TO YOUR TRAVEL WITH
CRAIG AND MARK KIELBURGER TO
KENYA IN 2011.
>> I DID NOT TRAVEL ANYWHERE.
>> YOU DID NOT TRAVEL ANYWHERE
IN FEBRUARY OF 2011?
WELL, I HAPPEN TO HAVE PULLED UP
AN ARTICLE PROFILING JASON
KENNEY IN WHICH IT NOTES IN
FEBRUARY OF 2011 THAT HE ALONG
WITH SEAMUS O'REGAN, CRAIG AND
MARK KIELBURGER, AMANDA ALVARO,
AND KATIE TELFORD AMONG MANY
EXTRAORDINARY OTHERS TRAVELLED
TO A REGION OF KENYA TO BUILD AN
ARTS SCHOOL.
YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THAT
TRIP?
>> I'M FAMILIAR WITH HOW THEY
WENT ON THAT TRIP.
I WAS NOT ON THAT TRIP.
>> OKAY.
>> OKAY.
WE WILL HAVE TO END IT THERE,
MR. COOPER.
AND WE'LL GO TO MR. FRASER
FOLLOWED BY MR. CUMMING.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
THANK YOU, MS. TELLFORD, FOR
BEING WITH US TODAY.
I WANT TO JUST PROD INTO THE MAY
8th MEETING A LITTLE BIT WHERE
THERE WAS PUSH BACK AND CONCERNS
RAISED IN RESPONSE TO
MR. BARRET'S QUESTION EARLIER.
YOU INDICATED THE KIND OF THINGS
THAT WERE PUSHED BACK ON WERE
THE BINARY CHOICE PRESENTED BY
THE PUBLIC SERVICE.
I'M CURIOUS.
DID YOU ACTUALLY PUSH BACK OR
THE PRIME MINISTER PUSH BACK ON
THE IDEA THAT IT HAD TO BE A
BINARY CHOICE.
DID YOU ASK IT CONSIDER OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS?
>> YES.
THOSE WERE THE TYPES OF
QUESTIONS WE WERE INTERESTED IN.
AND AS THE COMMITTEE HAS HEARD,
I BELIEVE, FROM SOME OF THE
PRECEDING WITNESSES, THEY HAD
ASSESSED A NUMBER OF OTHER
PARTNERS.
BUT THAT WAS THE KIND OF THING
WE WANTED TO KNOW.
>> AND NEVERTHELESS THEY
REMAINED CONFIDENT THAT THE
CHOICE WAS BINARY.
WE GO AHEAD WITH WE CHARITY OR
THE PROGRAM DOESN'T HAPPEN.
IS THAT FAIR?
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> OKAY.
DID YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE AT PMO
EVER ASK WE CHARITY TO
ADMINISTER THE CANADA STUDENT
SERVICES PROGRAM?
>> NO.
>> THERE WAS AN EVIDENCE
TENDERED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE
PREVIOUSLY.
THERE WAS SOME OTHER UNSOLICITED
PROPOSAL FOR A YOUTH
ENTREPRENEURSHIP STRATEGY.
DID YOU OR ANYBODY AT PMO EVER
HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
KIELBURGERS OR OTHERS AT WE
CHARITY ABOUT THAT PROGRAM.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
>> DID YOU, FRANKLY DID YOU EVER
SPEAK WITH THE KIELBURGERS
PERSONALLY SINCE, WELL, PICK A
DATE SAY THE 1st OF MARCH
BEFORE THE PANDEMIC BEGAN.
>> I'M PRETTY SURE BECAUSE I
HAVE BEEN WRACKING MY BRAIN ON
THIS.
I'M PRETTY SURE THE LAST TIME I
SAW MARK KIELBURGER WAS AT AN
EVENT WITH HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE IN
TORONTO WHERE I MET HIS WIFE AND
EXCHANGED PLEASANTRIES.
IT WAS A TORONTO LIFE EVENT OR
SOMETHING OF THAT KIND IN
DECEMBER OF 2017.
>> DID YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE IN
THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE HAVE
ANY ROLE IN ACTUALLY NEGOTIATING
THE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT.
>> NO.
>> SO ALL OF THE DETAILS AROUND
WHICH ENTITY WAS BEING PAID
WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE THROUGH THE
PUBLIC SERVICE, NOT THROUGH A
POLITICAL OFFICE.
>> YES.
IN TERMS OF WHICH, YES.
ON THE SPECIFIC, I WOULD SAY
MORE BROADLY THAT DIFFERENT
POLICY STAFF IN OFFICES WERE
MAKING SURE THEY WERE BEING MET
THROUGH NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT.
BUT THE NEGOTIATION WAS
ABSOLUTELY NOT HAPPENING.
>> THANK YOU.
AND I APPRECIATE THAT
CLARIFICATION AS WELL.
AND I'M CURIOUS.
AS A LOCAL MP, I GET UNSOLICITED
PROPOSALS ALL THE TIME FOR
PROJECTS USUALLY IN MY OWN
RIDING.
IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU FIND
COMES UP WITH ORGANIZATIONS THAT
ARE BIGGER THAN THE TBHUNS MY
BACKYARD THAT ACTUALLY PITCH
UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS TO THE
PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE FOR
POLICY IDEAS OR PROGRAMS?
>> THAT DOES HAPPEN.
IT DID NOT HAPPEN IN THIS CASE
BUT I RECEIVED ANY UNSOLICITED
PROPOSAL DIRECTLY.
BUT THAT HAPPENS FROM ALL KINDS
OF ORGANIZATIONS.
STAFF IN THE PRIME MINISTER'S
OFFICE IT'S SOMETHING I
ENCOURAGE IS BEING CONNECTED TO
STAKEHOLDERS AND ON THE GROUND.
TALKING TO MPS OF ALL PARTIES
WHEN THEY HAVE SOMETHING THAT
THEY WANT TO PITCH THAT THEY
BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE
DOING THAT ALLOWS US TO SERVE
CANADIANS BETTER.
>> AND IN FACT I THINK THERE
WAS, THE REASON I ASK, IS THERE
WAS SORT OF AN INNUENDO THROUGH
THE COURSE OF THIS COMMITTEE
HEARING THAT IT WAS SOMEHOW
INAPPROPRIATE THAT AN
ORGANIZATION WOULD HAVE HAD AN
INSIDE TRACK TO MAKE UNSOLICITED
ARE PROPOSALS.
BUT IN FACT I AGREE WITH YOU.
I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY A POSITIVE
THING.
IN FACT THOSE TYPES OF PITCHES
HAVE LED TO PROJECTS GOING AHEAD
IN THE COMMUNITY FROM NONPROFITS
ROUTINELY FRANKLY THAT DON'T
KNOW THE BEST WAY TO TURN.
I AM CURIOUS HAVE YOU ACTUALLY
SEEN PROGRAMS IMPLEMENTED AS A
RESULT OF THOSE KINDS OF
UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS?
I HATE TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT.
IF THERE'S NOT ONE FRONT OF ARE
MIND, I'LL LET YOU SKATE ON THIS
ONE.
>> I'M SURE THERE HAVE BEEN.
I CAN THINK OF A NUMBER OF
EXAMPLES OF WOMEN'S
ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE
CONTACTED ME OVER TIME IN
PARTICULAR WHO FELT THEY HAD AN
OPEN DOOR WITH ME TO SEE IF THEY
COULD HAVE MORE OF A ROLE
WORKING WITH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
I CAN'T THINK OF A SPECIFIC
EXAMPLE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
BUT THERE CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN
SOME.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS
CURIOUS ABOUT.
I WAS A LITTLE BIT INVOLVED IN
THE FINANCE MINISTER'S EFFORTS
TO TAKE FEEDBACK FROM
STAKEHOLDERS ACROSS CANADA ON
SOME OF THE EMERGENCY MEASURES
THAT OUR GOVERNMENT HAS PUT
FORWARD IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19.
FRANKLY THE CANADA STUDENT
SERVICE GRANT IS NOT SOMETHING I
WAS ENGAGED WITH CONSULTATION
PROCESSES ON.
BUT FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, HOW
MUCH TIME DID THIS EAT UP IN
COMPARISON TO THE OTHER
PROGRAMS?
I'M THINKING ABOUT CERB, THE
WAGE SUBSIDY, THE RENTAL
ASSISTANCE, THE PROGRAM TO
SUPPORT WOMEN'S PROGRAMS,
PROGRAMS TO SUPPORT CHARITIES,
ET CETERA.
I DON'T WANT TO JUST RHYME OFF A
LIST OF DOZENS OF PROGRAMS HERE
BUT WHAT WAS THE TIME BREAKDOWN?
WAS THIS A MAJOR TIME SUCK IN
TERMS OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT?
OR HOW DOES IT COMPARE?
>> THAT WILL HAVE TO BE THE LAST
QUESTION, SEAN.
MS. TELLFORD.
>> WELL, I CAN'T SPEAK TO
EVERYONE INVOLVED --
>> WE ARE GOING TO SAY GOODBYE
NOW TO OUR VIEWERS WHO MIGHT BE
WATCHING THE INTERVIEW OF THE
PRIME MINISTER'S CHIEF OF STAFF
KATIE TELFORD ON CBC TELEVISION.
IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE WATCHING
YOU CAN DO SO ON CBC NEWS
NETWORK OR CBCNews.ca.
WE WILL CONTINUE ON CBC NEWS
NETWORK WITH THIS TESTIMONY.
AND I WILL LET YOU KNOW VASSY
KAPELOS AND POWER & POLITICS
WILL BE STANDING BY AFTER THIS
TESTIMONY TO GIVE YOU ALL THE
ANALYSIS YOU NEED UP UNTIL
8:00 P.M. EASTERN.
I'M ROSEMARY BARTON.
THANKS FOR WATCHING ON CBC
TELEVISION.
COVERAGE WILL NOW CONTINUE ON
CBC NEWS NETWORK.
>> BRIEFINGS FROM ONE TO THE
NEXT.
AND THAT IS WHAT HAS MADE THIS
TIME SO UNPRECEDENTED THAT
THINGS ARE MOVE FROM AS I SAID
ON THE CANADA WAGE SUBSIDY THERE
WERE 15 DECISION POINTS ON APRIY
THAT WAS I THINK DESPERATELY
NEEDED BY CANADIANS AND CANADIAN
BUSINESSES.
AND IT WAS BEING ANNOUNCED THE
NEXT DAY.
THAT'S HOW QUICKLY THINGS HAVE
BEEN MOVING.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU BOTH.
TURNING TO MR. CUMMING FOLLOWED
BY MS. KOUTRAKIS.
WE HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
JAMES?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND
THANK YOU, MS. TELLFORD FOR
BEING HERE TODAY.
ON WHICH DATE SINCE MARCH 1st
DID YOU COMMUNICATE WITH
MINISTER MORNEAU OR HIS STAFF
ABOUT WE?
>> UM, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU MEAN
AHEAD OF THE CABINET MEETING.
I DON'T BELIEVE ON ANY DATE.
>> AND YOU HAD SUGGESTED BEFORE
YOU ARE AWARE OF THE MORNEAU'S
CONNECTION WITH THE DAUGHTER
WITH THE BOOK.
BUT I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY.
YOU WERE UNAWARE OF ANY TRAVEL
THAT MINISTER MORNEAU MIGHT HAVE
TAKEN OR THE FAMILY TRAVEL.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> BUT GIVEN WHAT WE KNOW NOW
ABOUT MR. MORNEAU'S INVOLVEMENT
IN THE PROJECT AND HIS FAILURE
TO RECUSE HIMSELF AND HIS
SPONSORED TRAVEL FROM THE
ORGANIZATION IN QUESTION, DO YOU
THINK THE MINISTER SHOULD STEP
DOWN?
>> I THINK SOME OF THE THINGS
YOU'RE SAYING HAVE NOT BEEN
DETERMINED AT ALL.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE, I BELIEVE
THE MINISTER OF FINANCE HAS
ALREADY SAID HE WISHED HE
RECUSED HIMSELF.
HE APOLOGIZED FOR THAT.
AND DOES NOT BELIEVE THERE IS A
CONFLICT BEYOND THAT BUT THAT IS
SOMETHING THEY HAVE AGREED ON TO
COOPERATE FULLY.
>> WHEN DID YOU BECOME AWARE OF
WE'S APRIL 9th PROPOSAL?
>> APRIL 9th PROPOSAL?
SO THIS WAS THE CANADA SUMMER
STUDENT GRANT PROPOSAL?
>> THEIR INITIAL PROPOSAL ABOUT
SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP.
>> RIGHT.
SO IT WAS IN A VERY LARGE
BRIEFING PACKAGE THAT WE
RECEIVED ON APRIL 20th AHEAD
OF AN APRIL 21st BRIEFING.
IT WAS ACTUALLY NX9 OF THAT
PACKAGE WHEN I LOOKED BACK TO
GET SOME OF THESE THINGS
STRAIGHT FOR ALL OF YOU.
AND ACTUALLY THAT ULTIMATELY WAS
NEVER FOLLOWED THROUGH ON AND
WAS TURNED DOWN FOR THAT
PROPOSAL.
>> AND WHAT WAS CONTAINED IN
THAT LARGE BRIEFING PACKAGE?
WHAT WERE THE SPECIFICS IN IT.
>> IT WAS SO LARGE BECAUSE THAT
WAS THE PACKAGE THAT LED TO THE
$9 BILLION ANNOUNCEMENT BY THIS
GOVERNMENT TO SUPPORT STUDENTS
SO THAT INCLUDED EVERYTHING THAT
WAS IN THAT.
IT WAS, AND THAT WAS AGAIN ON
THE 20th FOR AN ANNOUNCEMENT
THAT WAS COMING WITHIN HOURS LET
ALONE DAYS.
>> SO RELATED TO THAT
APRIL 9th PROPOSAL.
DID ANYONE IN THE PMO
COMMUNICATE WITH MINISTERS
MORNEAU, CHAGGER, OR NG ABOUT
THAT PROPOSAL?
>> I'M SURE THAT POLICY STAFF AS
THEY DO ON EVERY ISSUE THAT IS
COMING UP WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT
WERE TALKING TO EACH OTHER
BETWEEN MINISTER'S OFFICES.
>> CAN YOU PROVIDE THE STAFF
MEMBERS WHO WERE COMMUNICATING
FOLLOWING THAT PROPOSAL.
>> CAN I PROVIDE?
I'M HERE ON THEIR BEHALF SO I'M
HAPPY TO TAKE A QUESTION ON IT
IF YOU'D LIKE.
>> SO YOU WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT
LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION THERE WAS
REGARDING THAT PROPOSAL BETWEEN
THOSE MINISTER'S OFFICES.
WAS IT ONE PERSON?
WAS IT LOTS OF CHATTER?
OR WHAT WAS THE EXTENT OF THE
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OTHER
MINISTERS' OFFICES.
>> LOOK, THAT WAS A PROPOSAL
THAT ULTIMATELY IS NOT ONE THAT
THIS GOVERNMENT PROCEEDED WITH.
AND THAT THE PRIME MINISTER'S
OFFICE DID NOT APPROVE.
SO THERE WAS OBVIOUSLY ANALYSIS
DONE TO THAT EXTENT AND THERE
WOULD HAVE BEEN CONVERSATIONS
BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT MINISTERS
OFFICE TO COME TO THAT
DETERMINATION.
>> THE ISSUE THERE, THOUGH, IS
THAT THEY SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL
AND THEN LO AND BEHOLD WE
SUBMITS ANOTHER PROPOSAL.
SO WAS THERE ANY INSTRUCTIONS
BACK TO THOSE DEPARTMENTS OR TO
WE TO COME BACK WITH A MODIFIED
PROPOSAL.
>> THE WAY IN WHICH THE FIRST
PROPOSAL CAME THROUGH IN TERMS
OF A BRIEFING NOTE THAT I SAW.
IT WAS ACTUALLY RECOMMENDING
FROM OUR POLICY CHANGE TO NOT
PROCEED WITH THAT PROPOSAL.
THAT WAS THE TOTAL SUM OF THE
ADVICE ON THAT PROPOSAL WAS THAT
WE NOT PROCEED ON IT.
>> LAST QUESTION, MR. CUMMING.
>> SO WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME
THAT YOU COMMUNICATED WITH
MINISTER NG ABOUT WE OR THE
KIELBURGERS SINCE MARCH 1?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE
COMMUNICATED ABOUT WE OR THE
KIELBURGERS IN THAT TIME PERIOD
AT ALL.
>> OKAY, YOU GOT TIME FOR ONE
MORE, JAMES.
THAT WAS A QUICK QUESTION AND A
QUICK ANSWER.
GO AHEAD.
>> SO YOU DON'T BELIEVE OR YOU
DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU OR YOUR
STAFF OR ANYONE IN THE
DEPARTMENT HAD ANY KIND OF
DISCUSSIONS WITH MARRYING ABOUT
WE SINCE MARCH.
>> I THOUGHT YOUR PREVIOUS
QUESTION WAS ABOUT ME.
SO I PERSONALLY DID NOT HAVE A
CONVERSATION WITH MINISTER NG
ABOUT THAT PROPOSAL.
I WOULD HAVE TO -- I'M UNAWARE
OF STAFF HAVING SPOKEN DIRECTLY
TOO HER BUT I SAID SHE WOULD
HAVE BEEN SPEAKING HER OFFICE ON
THAT PROPOSAL.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU BOTH.
WE'LL NOW TURN TO MS. KOUTRAKIS
AND THEN MS. GOOD ROE AND
MR. JULIAN.
>> Voice of Interpreter: THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIR.
THANK YOU, MS. TELLFORD, FOR
BEING WITH US THIS AFTERNOON.
WE CHARITY SENT THEIR
ENTREPRENEURIAL PROKOAFL IN
APRIL 2020.
WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT PROPOSAL
AT THE TIME?
[ End of Interpretation ]
>> SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE RIGHT, ARE
WE TALKING ABOUT THE SOCIAL
ENTREPRENEURIAL PROPOSAL?
>> EXACTLY.
>> OKAY.
SO I WAS NOT AWARE WHEN IT FIRST
CAME INTO THE PRIME MINISTER'S
OFFICE.
AS I SAID, THERE WAS ADVICE THAT
CAME THROUGH FROM OUR POLICY
TEAM.
AND JUST, YOU KNOW, TO PROVIDE A
LITTLE MORE ON THAT, THE REASON
THAT, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE
REASONS IN MATERIALS OF NOT
PROCEEDING THAT PROPOSAL IS IT
SEEMED LIKE IT MIGHT BE A BETTER
PROGRAM FIT FROM A RECOVERY
STANDPOINT PERHAPS.
BUT IT WASN'T THE RIGHT THING AT
THIS TIME.
RIGHT NOW WE ARE FOCUSED ON
EMERGENCY MEASURES.
AND WE NEEDED EMERGENCY MEASURES
TO SUPPORT STUDENTS.
AND THAT WAS THE PHASE WE WERE
IN FROM APRIL, AND WE CONTINUE
TO BE IN.
>> Voice of Interpreter: AND
GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE AND THE
SCOPE OF THE CSSG AND OF THE
RAPIDITY WITH WHICH THE PROGRAM
WAS ELABORATED AND IMPLEMENTED,
THE PRIME MINISTER AND THE
MINISTER OF FINANCE, COULD THEY
HAVE FULLY RECUSED THEMSELVES
FROM THIS DECISION-MAKING
PROCESS?
AND COULD THIS HAVE HAD A
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON IN TERMS
OF THE TIME AND THE QUALITY OF
THE CSSG IF THE PRIME MINISTER
HAD RECUSED HIMSELF FULLY FROM
THIS DECISION?
>> SO BOTH THE PRIME MINISTER
AND THE MINISTER OF FINANCE HAVE
SAID THAT THEY WISHED THEY
RECUSED THEMSELVES.
IT'S HARD TO SPEAK IN TERMS OF
WHAT MIGHT BE THE CASE.
BUT I DON'T BELIEVE BECAUSE THE
PROGRAM WAS BEING OFFERED AS A
BINARY CHOICE, IT WAS WHETHER TO
PROCEED OR NOT PROCEED.
THAT THE PROGRAM WOULD HAVE BEEN
ANY DIFFERENT IF THEY HAD BEEN
THERE.
BUT THERE WAS I THINK IN
RETROSPECT, THEY HAVE BOTH SAID
GIVEN THE POTENTIAL FOR CONCERN
ABOUT A PERCEPTION OF
FAVOURITISM, THAT THAT WAS
REASON ALONE FOR THEM TO RECUSE
THEMSELVES.
>> AND CAN YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE
HOW A PROGRAM OF SIMILAR SIZE
AND SCOPE AS THE CSSG WOULD BE
DESIGNED, OUTSOURCED, AND
ADMINISTERED UNDER NORMAL
CIRCUMSTANCES?
CAN YOU COMPARE THAT PROCESS TO
THE PROCESS USED TO DETERMINE
HOW THIS PROGRAM WOULD BE
OUTSOURCED AND IMPLEMENTED GIVEN
THE CURRENT CRISIS SITUATION WE
ARE FACING?
>> SO I'M NOT SURE IT WOULD BE
ANY DIFFERENT IF WE WERE IN A
NONCRISIS TIME OR A NON-PANDEMIC
CRISIS TIME.
EXCEPT FOR ONE VERY BIG FACTOR
WHICH IS THINGS WERE MOVING
VERY, VERY QUICKLY AND THE
VOLUME OF WORK THAT WAS BEING
DONE.
WE HAD PEOPLE WORKING FROM THEIR
HOMES OBVIOUSLY AND EVERYONE WAS
SEPARATE FROM EACH OTHER AND
HAVING TO WORK RIGHT AROUND THE
CLOCK.
IT WAS 15 TO 20 HOUR DAYS SEVEN
DAYS A WEEK.
SO THOSE WERE SOME
NONSIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES THAT
DON'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING THAN TO
SAY THOSE WERE THE TRUE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NOW AND
PERHAPS A NORMAL TIME.
I WOULD ALSO JUST ADD THAT THERE
HAVE BEEN BOTH DURING THIS TIME
AND IN THE PAST, BUT SEVERAL
EXAMPLES DURING THIS TIME AS
WELL WHERE, AND I BELIEVE THE
PRIME MINISTER MAY HAVE
REFERENCED THESE AT LEAST ONE OF
THEM, THAT THERE HAVE BEEN MANY
OTHER EXAMPLES OF USING THIRD
PARTY ORGANIZATIONS, WORKING AND
PARTNERING WITH THIRD PARTY
ORGANIZATIONS TO HELP DELIVER
PROGRAMS DURING THIS TIME.
>> AND MY FINAL QUESTION,
MR. CHAIRF I MAY.
CAN YOU EXPAND, MS. TELFORD, ON
THE LESSONS LEARNED THROUGHOUT
THIS PROCESS AND COMMENT ON HOW
THESE LESSONS WILL BE APPLIED
GOING FORWARD TO AVOID SIMILAR
CONFUSIONS OR PERCEPTIONS OF
CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
WHAT MORE CAN WE PUT IN PLACE
IN, YOU KNOW, ALL CABINET
MINISTERS AND ESPECIALLY FOR THE
PM.
>> SO, I THINK AS I SAID IN ONE
OF MY EARLIER ANSWERS.
A REINFLICTION THAT WE HAD IS
KNOWING THAT THIS CRISIS IS
ONGOING IS HOW EVEN IN A CRISIS
WE ENSURE THAT WE ARE ADDING
LEVELS OF PROTECTION, ADDING
RIGOUR TO THE PROCESS AND NOT
EVEN IF IT MEANS SLOWING DOWN
SLIGHTLY DESPITE THE FACT THAT
WE STILL NEED TO MOVE VERY, VERY
QUICKLY TO SUPPORT CANADIANS AND
NEED TO CONTINUE DOING THAT.
AND FINDING THAT RIGHT BALANCE.
THIS HAS OBVIOUSLY GIVEN US A
PAUSE TO MAKE SURE WE KEEP
IMPROVING.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU BOTH.
MS. GOODREAU.
>> Voice of Interpreter:
HELLO, CHAIR.
I OMITTED TO TELL YOU THAT FOR
THE REST OF THIS SITTING, I WILL
BE GIVING MY TIME TO MY
COLLEAGUE, MR. FORTIN.
[ End of Interpretation ]
>> I WILL NOT TAKE THAT TIME
FROM EITHER OF YOU.
MR. FORTIN, YOU'RE ON.
MY APOLOGIES.
>> Voice of Interpreter: THANK
YOU VERY MUCH.
VERY KIND OF YOU, CHAIR.
I'D LIKE TO START FIRST BY
APOLOGIZING.
EARLIER I SAID THAT THE
TRANSLATION SERVICE CAUSED ME
ENORMOUS PREJUDICE BECAUSE I
WOULD BE LOSING TIME.
BUT THIS WAS NOT A CRITICISM OF
THE TRANSLATORS THEMSELVES.
I IT WOULDN'T SAY THAT.
MS. TELFORD.
YOU SAID IF YOU HAD TO DO THINGS
AGAIN, THERE COULD BE PROTECTION
MECHANISMS THAT COULD BE
IMPROVED.
AND THAT'S SURPRISING BECAUSE WE
KNOW THIS IS THE THIRD TIME THAT
THE PRIME MINISTER HAS BEEN
CAUGHT.
HOW COME THIS MECHANISM WAS NOT
IN PLACE GIVEN THE AGA KHAN
MISADVENTURE.
>> AS I SAID IN MY OPENING
REMARKS AND I THINK I HAVE SAID
IN A COUPLE OF MY ANSWERS
ALREADY, I THINK WE ALWAYS NEED
TO BE WORKING TO IMPROVE AND TO
FIND DIFFERENT WAYS TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE ARE BEING AS CAREFUL AND
COGNIZANT AS POSSIBLE EVEN OF
JUST THE PERCEPTION OF ANY
FAVOURITE SCWIFL OR CONFLICT OR
ANYTHING ELSE.
AND I THINK WE HAVE BEEN
REFLECTING ON THAT.
AND WE ARE GOING TO KEEP WORKING
HARD TO IMPROVE.
AND WE WILL BE WORKING WITH THE
ETHICS COMMISSIONER AND TAKING
ANY ADVICE THAT THEY HAVE AS
WELL.
>> Voice of Interpreter: OF
COURSE WE AGREE WITH THAT,
MS. TELFORD.
BUT WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS
HOW IT WAS NEVER DONE.
NEVERTHELESS, MR. TRUDEAU AND
MR. MORNEAU BOTH APOLOGIZED FOR
NOT RECUSING THEMSELVES FROM THE
DECISION AND REGRETTED NOT DOING
SO.
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION?
DO YOU AGREE WITH THEM THAT THEY
SHOULD HAVE RECUSED THEMSELVES
AT THAT TIME?
[ End of Interpretation ]
>> OF COURSE.
I SUPPORTED BOTH OF THEM IN
TERMS OF THEIR STATEMENTS TO
CANADIANS.
>> Voice of Interpreter: SO
YOU AGREE WITH THE FACT THAT
THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE
PARTICIPATED IN THE
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS TO GIVE
THIS AGREEMENT TO WE CHARITY?
>> I THINK THEY BOTH SAID THAT
IN HINDSIGHT AND UPON REFLECTION
THAT THEY BOTH WISH THEY HAD
RECUSED THEMSELVES.
>> Voice of Interpreter: BUT
THE QUESTION IS ABOUT YOU.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS THAT THEY
SHOULD NOT HAVE SAT IN ON THAT
DECISION?
[ End of Interpretation ]
>> I THINK I'M ANSWERING YOUR
QUESTION, SIR.
IT'S I SUPPORT BOTH THE MINISTER
AND THE PRIME MINISTER IN WHAT
THEY SAID.
>> OKAY.
OKAY.
>> LAST QUESTION, MR. FORTIN.
>> Voice of Interpreter:
MS. TELFORD, IF YOU AGREE TODAY
THAT THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE SAT IN
ON THAT DECISION AND THEY BOTH
AGREED THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE
SO, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT
BETWEEN MAY 8th WHEN THERE WAS
A FLAG RAISED, AND HOW COME
BETWEEN MAY 8th WHEN THE
DECISION WAS MADE THAT EVERYONE
SAID THEY ARE GOING TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH THIS.
AND NOW YOU SAY THAT THEY ARE
SAYING THAT THEY SHOULD NOT
HAVE.
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT CHANGE?
>> I THINK AT THE TIME, AND 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 HAS, YOU
KNOW, ACTUALLY WHEN HE BECAME
LEADER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY, HE
DISCLOSED ALL OF HIS FINANCIALS
AND PROACTIVELY DISCLOSED ALL OF
HIS PREVIOUSLY PAID SPEAKING
ENGAGEMENTS IN A WAY THAT I'M
NOT SURE ANY POLITICAL LEADERS
HAVE DONE IN THE PAST.
AND IT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE BEEN
VERY, VERY TRANSPARENT ABOUT.
I KNEW THAT HE HAD NEVER BEEN
PAID TO SPEAK FOR ANY WE DAY OR
WE FUNCTION.
I SIMILARLY KNEW THAT ALL OF
SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE-TRUDEAU'S WORK
AND THE PRIME MINISTER SINCE WE
WERE IN GOVERNMENT THAT NONE OF
THAT HAD EVER BEEN PAID AND WE
ACTUALLY HAD CLEARANCE FROM THE
ETHICS COMMISSIONER FOR THE ROLE
THAT SHE HAD TAKEN ON.
AND SO THERE WASN'T DISCUSSION
OF CONFLICT AT THAT TIME.
>> OKAY.
WE WILL GO ON TO MR. JULIAN.
TWO AND A HALF, THREE MINUTES,
PETER, AND FOLLOWING MR. JULIAN
WILL BE MR.MORANT.
MR. JULIAN.
>> THANK YOU.
I AM INTERESTED IN GOING INTO
THE DUE DILIGENCE THAT
MR. TRUDEAU ALLUDED TO IN HIS
TESTIMONY BETWEEN MAY 8th AND
MAY 22nd.
WE HAVE ALREADY DETERMINED THAT
THE PUBLIC SERVICE WAS PERFECTLY
WILL HANDWRITING AND ABLE TO
ASSUME THE PROGRAMS.
SO THERE IS NO LONGER THIS
BINARY CHOICE THAT SEEMS TO HAVE
BEEN PART OF TESTIMONY TO
JUSTIFY IT.
BUT 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 ACTUALLY BE SIGNED WITH
THE WE CHARITY FOUNDATION WHICH
IS A BASICALLY A SHELL
FOUNDATION WITH NO ASSETS.
AND THAT WOULD INCREASE
LIABILITY CHALLENGES OF COURSE
FOR THE STUDENTS IF THEY WERE
INVOLVED WITH THE PROGRAM BUT
ALSO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT?
AND WHAT DUE DILIGENCE WAS DONE
AROUND THAT?
>> UM, I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE WE
CHARITY, WE FOUNDATION
DISTINCTION AT THE TIME.
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT
WOULD BE LEFT TO AND IS WISE I
BELIEVE FOR POLITICAL STAFF TO
BE LEANING TO THE PUBLIC
SERVANTS TO SORT OUT THE DETAILS
OF HOW A CONTRACT AND HOW A
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT SHOULD
FLOW.
>> OKAY, SO THERE'S NO
DISCUSSION OF THAT.
THE CODE OF ETHICS GOVERNS
TEACHERS.
AND I WILL MENTION BCTF.
AS YOU KNOW THE PRIME MINISTER
WAS BRIEFLY A TEACHER.
TWO SECTIONS OF THE CODE OF
ETHICS INCLUDE NUMBER 2T THE
MEMBER TEACHER MUST RESPECT THE
INFORMATION CONCERNING STUDENTS
AND MAY GIVE IT TO ONLY
AUTHORIZED PERSONS OR AGENCIES
DIRECTLY CONCERNED WITH THEIR
WELFARE.
AND SECTION 3, THAT A PRIVILEGED
RELATIONSHIP EXISTS BETWEEN
TEACHERS AND STUDENTS.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE TEACHER MUST
REFRAIN FROM EXPLOITING THAT
RELATIONSHIP FOR MATERIAL
ADVANTAGE.
NOW OF COURSE IN THE WE SCHEME
THERE WAS A $12,000 PAYMENT TO
TEACHERS THAT I THINK QUITE
CLEARLY VIOLATES THOSE CODE OF
ETHICS FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA AND
WOULD RIGHT ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
TO WHAT EXTENT WAS DUE DILIGENCE
PERFORMED TO ENSURE THAT THE
SCHEME ITSELF ACTUALLY MET CODES
OF ETHICS FOR TEACHERS ACROSS
THE COUNTRY WHO OF COURSE
MAINTAIN THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE
STANDARDS.
>> I HAVE ACTUALLY IN MY CAREER
DONE A LOT OF WORK WITH TEACHERS
ORGANIZATIONS AND TEACHERS
ASSOCIATIONS AS WELL.
AND BUT I CAN'T SAY.
I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN SORTING
OUT THIS PART OF THE AGREEMENT.
>> VERY, VERY QUICKLY, PETER.
>> WHO WAS INFORM THE ROOM?
WHO WAS MAKING THESE DECISIONS
FOR THIS PROPOSAL?
WHO WAS IN THE ROOM?
ARE YOU AWARE OF THE PEOPLE THAT
MADE THIS DECISION?
BECAUSE THE PUBLIC SERVICE
OBVIOUSLY SAYS 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?
>> I THINK YOU HAVE ACTUALLY
SPOKEN TO QUITE A FEW OF THE
PEOPLE WHO WERE IN THE ROOM, MR.
YOU HAVE SPOKEN TO SOME OF THE
SENIOR MOST OFFICIALS, AND YOU
HAVE SPOKEN TO THE MINISTER OF
DIVERSITY, INCLUSION, AND YOUTH.
AND SO I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU'RE
CONFUSED ON THAT.
>> I'M NOT CONFUSED.
I'D JUST LIKE TO KNOW ARE YOU
AWARE OF WHO WAS IN THE ROOM
DEVELOPING THIS SCHEME, AND CAN
YOU PROVIDE THOSE NAMES TO US?
>> MS. TELFORD.
>> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK INTO
THAT WITH THE CLERK OF THE PRIVY
COUNCIL, BUT I BELIEVE THAT YOU
HAVE ACTUALLY ALREADY SPOKEN TO
ALL OF THE KEY PEOPLE WHO WOULD
ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT
EXACT QUESTION FOR YOU.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU ALL.
WE'LL RETURN TO MR.MORANT ON MY
LIST.
MR. POILIEVRE, OKAY.
MR. POILIEVRE WILL BE FOLLOWED
BY MR. MCLEOD.
YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES
MR. POILIEVRE.
>> WE CHARITY SAYS THAT IT HAD
AN AUTHORIZATION TO BEGIN
IMPLEMENTING THE PROGRAM ON MAY
5th.
DID ANYONE IN THE PMO SPEAK TO
THE ORGANIZATION ON MAY 5th.
YES OR NO?
>> YES, I ALREADY STATED THAT.
>> WHO?
>> I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MY
STAFF.
>> WHO?
>> AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE FOR
THEM.
>> WHO?
>> IS THERE A QUESTION YOU HAVE
FOR THEM?
>> YES.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW YOUR NAME SIR
OR MADAM.
WHOEVER IT IS.
>> SO YOU DON'T HAVE A QUESTION
FOR THEM.
YOU JUST WANT THEIR NAME?
>> PLEASE.
>> IT WAS OUR DIRECTOR OF
POLICY, RICK TICE.
A VERY LONG-TIME HARD-WORKING
POLITICAL STAFFER IN THIS TOWN.
>> RICK TICE.
OKAY.
AND DID, WAS THAT THE ONLY
CONVERSATION THE PMO HAD WITH
THE WE CHARITY OR ITS ASSOCIATED
GROUPS?
>> NO.
AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED, THERE
WERE A HANDFUL --
>> HOW MANY.
>> IN TOTAL.
WELL A HANDFUL USUALLY SUGGESTS
AROUND FIVE.
I DON'T HAVE AFTER EXACT NUMBER.
THERE WERE A FEW INTERACTIONS --
>> WHICH STAFF MEMBERS -- WHICH
STAFF MEMBER.
>> GIVE MS. TELFORD TIME TO
ANSWER, MR. POILIEVRE.
MS. TELFORD.
>> THERE WAS SOME BACK AND FORTH
THAT IS PERFECTLY NORMAL AND
ACTUALLY EXPECTED AROUND THE
TIME --
>> JUST THEIR NAME.
>> AROUND THE LAUNCH OF THE
PROGRAM.
>> OKAY.
SO WE WANT THEIR NAMES, AND WE
EXPECT THAT YOU WILL SUBMIT
THEIR NAMES.
WILL YOU GIVE US THE NAMES, YES
OR NO?
>> I CAN GET BACK TO YOU.
>> YES OR NO.
>> I CAN LOOK INTO THAT.
>> OKAY.
SO YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY TRYING TO
COVER UP WHO THEY ARE AND THEIR
IDENTITY.
>> NO, I'M TRYING TO ANSWER --
>> I'M SORRY.
I HAVE THE FLOOR NOW.
AND I HAVE A QUESTION RIGHT NOW.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT MIGHT
HAVE HAPPENED IN THE
CONVERSATION WITH RICK AND WE
THAT WOULD HAVE ALERTED WE THAT
THEY COULD BEGIN IMPLEMENTING
THE PROGRAM ON MAY 5th?
YES OR NO.
>> MS. TELFORD.
>> NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO AND AS
I ALREADY STATED, HE ACTUALLY
REDIRECTED THE ORGANIZATION
WHICH HE HAD A VERY GENERAL
DISCUSSION WITH THEM ON.
AND HE REDIRECTED THEM TO ESTC.
>> OKAY, THAT'S INTERESTING.
BECAUSE THEY CLAIM THE ESTC WE
ARE TOLD IS THE ONE WHO THEN
TOLD THEM THEY COULD START
WORKING ON MAY 5th.
VERY STRANGE BECAUSE THE PRIME
MINISTER CLAIMED THAT THE
DECISION WAS NOT MADE IN CABINET
UNTIL MAY THE 22nd.
SO IF THE PMO WAS NOT DIRECTING
THE WORK TO BEGIN, THEN WHO TOLD
WE THAT THEY COULD START WORKING
ON A PROJECT THAT DIDN'T EXIST,
WOULD NOT GO ON TO EXIST FOR AT
LEAST ANOTHER 12 OR 13 DAYS?
>> MS. TELFORD, YOU HAVE ABOUT A
HALF MINUTE.
>> SO AS ONE OF YOUR COLLEAGUES
ASKED ME ABOUT THIS, I WILL
REPEAT MY ANSWER WHICH IS THAT
THE PROGRAM ONLY LAUCHED AT THE
END OF JUNE.
AND IN TERMS OF THE DEBTS OF HOW
THE PROGRAM WAS CONSTRUCTED --
>> THAT'S NOT TRUE.
>> MR. POILIEVRE.
GIVE THE WITNESS TIME WITHOUT
INTERRUPTION.
AND WE GIVE HER EQUAL TIME.
GO AHEAD, MS. TELFORD.
>> THE PROGRAM WAS ANNOUNCED AT
THE END OF JUNE.
AND IN TERMS OF THE DETAILS
AROUND THE CONTRIBUTION
AGREEMENT, I WOULD REFER YOU
BACK TO, AND I KNOW YOU HAVE
ALREADY SPOKEN TO OFFICIALS
INVOLVED IN THAT.
>> RIGHT, SO YOUR OFFICE SPOKE
TO WE ON PAY THE 5th.
AND MAY THE 5th IS THE DAY
THAT WE BELIEVED IT COULD START
SPENDING MONEY AND IMPLEMENTING
THE PROGRAM.
IS THAT JUST A COINCIDENCE?
>> AND MS. TELFORD.
>> THE POLICY STAFF PERSON IN
OUR OFFICE DID WHAT THEY DO ALL
THE TIME WHICH IS TAKE PHONE
CALLS FROM STAKEHOLDERS.
>> YES OR NO.
>> HE TOOK A PHONE CALL FROM A
STAKEHOLDER AND REDIRECTED IT TO
ESTCC.
>> IT WASN'T A STAKEHOLDER.
IT WAS A GROUP IMPLEMENTING A
TAXPAYER-FUNDED PROGRAM ON
BEHALF OF YOUR GOVERNMENT, ONE
THAT HADN'T EVEN BEEN APPROVED
BY CABINET.
SO I ASKED YOU IF IT WAS A MERE
COINCIDENCE THAT WE BEGAN
IMPLEMENTING THIS PROGRAM ON THE
DAY THAT IT SPOKE, THE GROUP
SPOKE TO RICK IN YOUR OFFICE.
AND YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER THAT
QUESTION.
>> MS. TELFORD.
YOU WILL HAVE ABOUT 30 SECONDS
TO ANSWER THIS AND THEN YOU'RE
GOING TO HAVE TO SPLIT 30
SECONDS BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU.
THE FLOOR IS YOURS, MS. TELFORD.
>> I CAN'T SPEAK TO HOW THE
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
CONSTRUCTED THE DETAILS AROUND
HOW THEY LOOKED BACK AT THAT
TIME PERIOD.
BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE IT WAS
THAT.
IN TERMS OF THE CONVERSATION
INVOLVING MY OFFICE, IT WAS A
GENERAL DISCUSSION THAT WAS THEN
REDIRECTED.
IT ACTUALLY WAS AS SIMPLE AS
THAT.
>> MR. POILIEVRE.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE THE PMO
DIRECTED THE ESTC TO GIVE GO
AHEAD FOR THAT PROGRAM TO BEGIN
ON THAT VERY DAY BEFORE --
>> THAT IS NOT TRUE.
>> EVEN BEFORE CABINET APPROVED
THE DECISION.
>> THIS IS THE TIMELINE YOU ARE
EXPECTING US TO BELIEVE.
THAT THE PRIME MINISTER WOULD
NOT APPROVE THIS IN CABINET
UNTIL MAY THE 22nd.
EVEN THOUGH A MONTH EARLIER THE
DEPARTMENT HAD TOLD THE CHARITY
THAT IT HAD, THAT IT WOULD
RECEIVE THE PROGRAM, AND TWO
WEEKS EARLIER BEFORE THAT
CABINET DECISION, THEY WOULD
BEGIN WORKING ON IT.
THAT TIMELINE IS NOT JUST HARD
TO BELIEVE.
IT IS CHRONOLOGICALLY
IMPOSSIBLE.
>> MR. POILIEVRE THAT.
WILL END YOUR ROUND.
I WILL GIVE MS. TELFORD AMPLE
TIME TO REPLY IN DETAIL IF SHE
LIKES.
>> I WOULD JUST ADD THAT ON MAY
5th TO ADD TO THE THINGS HA
HAPPENED ON MAY 5, THAT WAS THE
DAY THAT ALSO THIS PROPOSAL WENT
TO THE COVID CABINET COMMITTEE.
AND SO IT'S POSSIBLE OFFICIALS
WERE IN TOUCH WITH THEM IN AND
AROUND THAT.
BUT I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.
WHAT I CAN SPEAK TO IS WHAT I
KNOW WHICH IS THAT IT WENT TO
CABINET COMMITTEE THAT DAY.
IT THEN CAME TO CABINET ON OR
WAS GOING TO GO TO CABINET ON
MAY 8th.
AND IT WAS THEN THAT WE WERE
FIRSTED BRIEFED ON THAT.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU BOTH.
WE'LL GO TO MR. MCLEOD AND WHO
IS UP NEXT FROM THE OFFICIAL
OPPOSITION?
YOU CAN GIVE ME A HAND IN A BIT.
MR. MCLEOD -- MR.MORANT, OKAY.
MR. MCLEOD.
YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES, SIR.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND
THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION
TODAY AND FOR JOINING US TO
ANSWER THE MANY, MANY QUESTIONS.
THERE IS A LOT OF WORK THAT'S
BEEN HAPPENING ON THIS ISSUE AS
I MENTIONED TO THE PRIME
MINISTER.
WE HAVE HAD NOW FIVE MEETINGS ON
THIS STUDY.
I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY GOING
TO BE TWO OTHER COMMITTEES IF
THEY'RE NOT ALREADY IN PLACE.
LOOKING AT THIST REVIEWING THIS,
AND STUDYING IT.
AND ALL OF THIS IS HAPPENING IN
THE MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC.
AND AFTER EVERY SESSION THAT WE
HAVE, I ALWAYS GET A LOT OF
CALLS.
PEOPLE ASKING ME ABOUT CERTAIN
CONCERNS THEY HEARD OR CERTAIN
ISSUES THAT THEY DON'T
UNDERSTAND OR TO EXPLAIN THINGS.
SO YOU MENTIONED A COUPLE TIMES
NOW THE COVID COMMITTEE.
COULD YOU JUST ELABORATE A
LITTLE BIT ON WHAT THEY DO AND
WHAT THE RESPONSIBILITIES ARE?
MY FIRST QUESTION.
>> YEAH.
SO I BELIEVE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN,
I'M NOT ENTIRELY CERTAIN OF THE
DATE, BUT I BELIEVE IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN IN EARLY MARCH.
MIGHT HAVE BEEN AS EARLY AS LATE
FEBRUARY.
BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS EARLY MARCH
THAT THE PRIME MINISTER STRUCK A
CABINET COMMITTEE THAT WE REFER
TO AS THE COVID CABINET
COMMITTEE.
AND THAT MINISTER, DEPUTY PRIME
MINISTER FREELAND CHAIRS AND THE
TREASURY BOARD MINISTER CHAIRS.
AND THE IT HAS BEEN A PLACE TO
BE ABLE TO MOVE AND TAKE
PROPOSALS INVOLVING THE
EMERGENCY MEASURES AND THE
RESTART.
AS WE ALL SAID, IT IS AN
INCREDIBLE TIME.
IT'S AN UNPRECEDENTED TIME.
THINGS ARE MOVING EXTREMELY
QUICKLY.
THEY HAVE BEEN MEETING MULTIPLE
TIMES A WEEK FOR MONTHS NOW AND
FOR MANY HOURS A DAY AT A TIME.
AND THEY LOOK AT ALL OF THESE
EMERGENCY MEASURES AND APPLY A
LENS THAT THE COMMITTEES
PRECOVID WOULD AS WELL.
THERE WERE PRECOVID COMMITTEES
ON RECONCILIATION AND ON THE
ECONOMY AND ON GLOBAL SECURITY.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE KIND OF
CONSOLIDATED THINGS TO DEAL WITH
THE EMERGENCY MEASURES AND
RESTART TO THE COVID COMMITTEE.
AND THINGS WOULD GO TO THE COVID
COMMITTEE BEFORE THEN COMING TO
A CABINET MEETING WHICH HAVE
ALSO BEEN HAPPENING MORE
FREQUENTLY THAN EVEN BEFORE
COVID.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE A VERY
BUSY COMMITTEE.
>> THEY ARE.
>> CAN YOU GIVE US AN IDEA OF
HOW MANY OTHER PROGRAMS THAT
HAVE GONE THROUGH THE COVID
COMMITTEE COMPOR CABINET DURING
THIS TIME MERD THAT THE CABINET
COMMITTEE WAS FORMED.
I KNOW THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS
ON THE GO RIGHT NOW.
>> I AM NOT SURE OF HOW MANY
EXACTLY SO I DON'T WANT TO GUESS
AT THAT.
BUT THERE HAS BEEN AS I
MENTIONED BETWEEN THE CANADA
EMERGENCY WAGE BENEFIT, THE
CERB, THE PROGRAMS FOR SENIORS,
FOR VACCINE DEVELOPMENT, FOR THE
MANUFACTURING SECTOR AND
BIOMANUFACTURING.
IT HAS BEEN AN ENDLESS NUMBER OF
PROGRAMS.
AND THAT WILL KEEP GOING FOR
QUITE SOME TIME.
THEY ARE DOING A LOT OF WORK.
>> SO ALL THESE PROGRAMS THAT
YOU MENTIONED AND THERE IS MORE
THAT YOU DIDN'T MENTION.
BUT THE ADVICE OF THE PUBLIC
SERVICE TAKEN ON THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF ALL THESE
DIFFERENT PROGRAMS?
IS THERE A MECHANISM FOR INPUT
FROM THE PUBLIC SERVICE?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
EVERYTHING THAT COMES AS A
MEMORANDUM TO CABINET IS
SOMETHING THAT IS CRAFTED BY THE
PUBLIC SERVICE.
>> SO I WANT TO ASK ONE FINAL
QUESTION BECAUSE IT'S VERY
IMPORTANT TO ME.
THE OPPORTUNITY TO HELP THE
STUDENTS THROUGH A SUMMER
VOLUNTEER PROGRAM WAS BROUGHT TO
CABINET.
AND THE DECISION WAS EITHER TO
MAKE IT HAPPEN OR NOT DO
ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
I'M GLAD THAT CABINET DECIDED TO
GO FORWARD.
UNFORTUNATELY IT KIND OF WENT
OFF THE RAILS.
NOW THE NEED THAT WAS IDENTIFIED
WHEN INITIALLY CABINET WAS
CONSIDERING THIS IS STILL THERE.
IS THERE OPPORTUNITY TO REVISIT
THIS ISSUE, MAYBE REJIG THE
TERMS, MAYBE HAVE A DIFFERENT
AGENCY DELIVER IT, MAYBE CHANGE
THE TIME FRAME SO THAT IT GOES
INTO OCTOBER EVEN.
IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO
SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
TO KIND OF SAVE WHAT'S LEFT OF
THE SUMMER AND LEFT OF THE FALL
BECAUSE THEY STILL NEED THE
HELP.
>> THEY DO.
AND FORTUNATELY THIS WAS ONE OF
MANY PROGRAMS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT
IN PLACE TO HELP YOUNG PEOPLE.
AND, YOU KNOW, AS I MENTIONED
EARLIER, THIS WAS WHICH IS NOT
TO DIMINISH IT AT ALL.
BUT IT WAS LESS THAN ONE TENTH
OF THE PACKAGE THAT WAS
ANNOUNCED EVEN JUST FOR THE
COVID PERIOD.
AND AS SOME OF YOUR COLLEAGUES
ON THE COMMITTEE HAD PREVIOUSLY
MENTIONED.
THERE'S A LONG STANDING CANADA
SUMMER JOBS PROGRAM AND OTHER
PROGRAMS IN PLACE TO HELP YOUTH.
HAVING SAID THAT IN TERMS OF
THIS PROGRAM SPECIFICALLY, I
KNOW THAT THE MINISTER OF
DIVERSITY, INCLUSION, AND YOUTH
IS LOOKING AT ALL THE OPTIONS
AND WILL, I HOPE THAT SOMETHING
AS YOU ARE SUGGESTING CAN BE
FIGURED OUT.
>> OKAY.
WITH THAT WE ARE A LITTLE
OVERTIME.
WE WILL GO TO MR.MORANT FOLLOWED
BY MR. FRAGISGOTTIS.
MARTY, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
>> I WANT TO RETURN TO THE
QUESTION OF THE TIMELINE THAT MY
COLLEAGUE WAS ASKING U ABOUT,
MR. POILIEVRE.
ON APRIL 22nd, THE PRIME
MINISTER FROM HIS TORONTO STEPS
ANNOUNCED THIS PROGRAM, THE
CANADA STUDENT SERVICE GRANT.
YOU TESTIFIED YOU DIDN'T LEARN
ABOUT IT UNTIL MAY 8th AND IN
FACT YOU DIDN'T KNOW WE WAS
BEING CONSIDERED UNTIL MAY
8th.
IN FACT YOU SAY THE PMO POLICY
PEOPLE DIDN'T SPEAK TO WE UNTIL
MAY 5th.
WHEN THE PRIME MINISTER
ANNOUNCED THIS PROGRAM ON
APRIL 22nd, WHAT DID THE PMO
THINK THIS PROGRAM WAS GOING TO
BE ADMINISTERED?
>> EXCUSE ME.
UM, SO JUST TO CLARIFY FOR YOU
ON APRIL 22nd WHEN HE
ANNOUNCED THE $9 BILLION AID
PACKAGE FOR STUDENTS AND TO
SUPPORT STUDENTS THROUGH THIS
TIME, YOU'RE RIGHT.
HE DID ANNOUNCE IT AS PART OF
THAT THE CANADA SUMMER STUDENT
GRANT --
>> THERE WAS NO PLAN FOR HAVING
IT ADMINISTERED THOUGH.
>> THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS
DURING THIS PERIOD.
IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE
TRANSPARENT WITH CANADIANS ON
WHAT WAS COMING.
IT WAS IMPORTANT TO LET STUDENTS
KNOW THAT THIS KIND OF PROGRAM
WAS COMING.
>> BUT YOU SAID YOURSELF THAT --
>> MR. MORANT.
>> THE PROGRAM IF YOU DIDN'T
KNOW IT WAS GOING TO BE --
>> MR. MORANT.
>> I'M JUST ASKING A QUESTION.
>> I KNOW.
YOU TOOK ABOUT 50 SECONDS TO ASK
THE QUESTION.
WE WILL GIVE MS. TELFORD WITHOUT
INTERRUPTION THE SAME TIME TO
ANSWER.
>> MR. CHAIR.
>> GO AHEAD, MS. TELFORD.
>> FGHTS SO AT THE TIME, AND I
BELIEVE THE PRIME MINISTER SPOKE
TO THIS IN HIS, WHEN HE APPEARED
BEFORE COMMITTEE EARLIER.
HE ACTUALLY BELIEVED THAT THE
OPTION IN TERMS OF DMIN STRG THE
PROGRAM MIGHT BE CANADA SERVICE
CORP. WHICH HE HAD LONG BEEN
WORKING ON AND WAS A BIT
DISAPPOINTED WHEN HE LEARNED
MUCH LATER THAT THE ONLY WAY IT
COULD BE DONE WAS TO GO TO A
THIRD PARTY ORGANIZATION FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS SUMMER.
>> SO IN OTHER WORDS THE PRIME
MINISTER ANNOUNCED THE PROGRAM,
A $9 BILLION PROGRAM PART OF
WHICH IS THE CANADA SUMMER
STUDENT BENEFIT AND REALLY HAD
NOTHING NAILED DOWN AS TO HOW IT
WOULD BE DELIVERED.
AND IN FACT ON MAY 8th, HE WAS
ADVISED IT WAS A BINARY CHOICE.
IT WAS WE OR NOTHING AND IT
ENDED UP BEING NOTHING.
IT STRETCHES CREDULITY.
LET ME ASK YOU IN YOUR LONG
TENURE IN POLITICS AND AS CHIEF
OF STAFF.
HAVE YOU EVER HAD A PROGRAM
ANNOUNCED AND HAVE NO IDEA HOW
IT WILL BE ADMINISTERED?
>> THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT
HAVE HAPPENED IN THE LAST NUMBER
OF MONTHS THAT I DON'T THINK ANY
OF US, ANY OF YOU ON THE
COMMITTEE OR ANY OF US IN
GOVERNMENT HAVE EXPERIENCED
BEFORE.
AND ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT I
THINK HAS BEEN REALLY, REALLY
IMPORTANT THAT THIS GOVERNMENT
HAS BEEN DOING IS LETTING
CANADIANS KNOW WHAT IS COMING,
WHAT WE'RE WORKING ON AND BEING
EXTREMELY TRANSPARENT INCLUDING
SAYING IT'S NOT ALL GOING TO BE
PERFECT.
AND WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO
ADJUST AS WE GO.
>> YEAH, BUT THIS IS DIFFERENT.
THIS IS ANNOUNCING, YOU KNOW, A
BILLION DOLLAR PROGRAM WITHOUT
KNOWING HOW IT'S GOING TO BE
ADMINISTERED.
HOW CAN CANADIANS HAVE ANY FAITH
THAT YOU ARE RESPECTING THEIR
TAXPAYER DOLLARS WHEN YOU
ANNOUNCE A PROGRAM, WHEN THE
PRIME MINISTER ANNOUNCED A
PROGRAM AND HAS NO IDEA HOW IT
WILL BE ADMINISTERED.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO ANSWER
THAT?
>> WELL, SURE, GO AHEAD.
>> YES, PLEASE DO, MS. TELFORD.
THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
>> I THINK CANADIANS CAN HAVE
FAITH IN HOW THIS GOVERNMENT IS
DELIVERING BECAUSE OF THE
SUPPORTS THEY ARE FEELING.
THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS
BEING RESPONSIVE.
>> NOT STUDENTS.
>> THE FACT THAT WHEN THE CERB
AND WAGE SUBSIDY WEREN'T AS
SIMPLE AND GENEROUS --
>> STUDENTS HAVE BEEN LET DOWN.
>> TO MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS.
>> YOU LET THEM DOWN.
VERY LET DOWN.
>> AND THERE WAS A $9 BILLION
PACKAGE ANNOUNCED FOR STUDENTS.
THE MAJORITY, THE --
>> WITHOUT YOU KNOWING HOW IT
WAS GOING TO BE.
>> MR. MORANT.
>> POINT OF ORDER, MR. CHAIR.
>> YES, MR. FRASER.
>> YOU HAVE MADE CLEAR A NUMBER
OF OCCASIONS THAT THE RULES OF
THIS COMMITTEE ARE UNDER THE
SAME COVID RULES THAT THE
PARLIAMENT HAS BEEN USING.
I SHOULDN'T SAY PARLIAMENT BUT
THE COVID COMMITTEE HAS BEEN
USING WHERE THE QUESTIONER AND
THE ANSWERER HAVE EQUAL TIME TO
GIVE THEIR ANSWERS AND QUESTIONS
WITHOUT INTERRUPTION.
I WOULD ASK THAT MY HONOURABLE
COLLEAGUES SHOW JUST A MODICUM
OF RESPECT TO OUR WITNESS AND
GIVE HER THE TIME O'ANSWER THE
QUESTION.
BECAUSE QUITE FRANKLY AS A
PARLIAMENTARIAN WHO IS TRYING TO
PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS GOING
ON, I CANNOT HEAR THE ANSWER
THAT IS COMING OUT.
I ASK YOU ENFORCE THE RULES YOU
MADE CLEAR WERE IN ACTION AT THE
BEGINNING OF THIS --
>> I WILL.
>> I THANK YOU.
I APOLOGIZE.
BUT I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE NOT
TAKE MY TIME AWAY FOR THAT
INTERRUPTION.
>> WE WON'T TAKE THE TIME AWAY
FROM YOU, MR. MORANT.
BUT I WILL GIVE MS. TELFORD TIME
TO RESPOND.
GO AHEAD.
>> I BELIEVE THAT ACTUALLY, YOU
KNOW, AN ADJUSTMENT THAT HAS
HAPPENED THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN BY
ANY GOVERNMENT DURING COVID THAT
HAS BEEN HUGELY BENEFICIAL TO
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A
GOVERNMENT AND FORTHCOMING THE
GOVERNMENT IS IN SAYING HERE'S
WHAT MIGHT BE COMING.
HERE'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
HERE'S HOW WE ARE GOING TO
ADJUST.
HERE'S WHEN IT'S NOT RIGHT
EXACTLY.
I ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT THERE
ARE MANY, MANY REASONS BUT --
THE PROGRAMS THAT GOT OUT THE
DOOR SO QUICKLY THANKS TO THE
VERY, VERY HARD WORK OF THE
PUBLIC SERVICE IN THE EARLY
WEEKS OF THE COVID SHUTDOWN.
>> OKAY.
WE WILL GO BACK TO MR. MORANT.
AND THIS WILL BE THE LAST
QUESTION.
>> I STILL HAVE NOT HEARD AN
ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.
HOW THE PRIME MINISTER ANNOUNCES
THIS PROGRAM.
MR. CHAIR.
AND I MAYBE THERE ISN'T.
MAYBE THEY DON'T HAVE ONE
BECAUSE THEY KNEW.
IT SEEMS TO STRETCH --
>> I'M HAPPY TO STRETCH AGAIN.
>> THAT THE PRIME MINISTER DID
NOT --
>> AND MS. TELFORD.
TO YOU ABOUT 30 SECONDS TO
ANSWER.
>> THE PRIME MINISTER ANNOUNCED
THE $9 BILLION PACKAGE TO
SUPPORT STUDENTS.
AND THAT PARTICULAR ELEMENT OF
THAT PACKAGE WAS STILL TO BE
DETERMINED.
AND HE HAD A NUMBER OF IDEAS AT
THE TIME OF HOW IT MIGHT BE
ADMINISTERED.
BUT IN MOVING ON TO WORK ON A
NUMBER OF OTHER EMERGENCY
MEASURES WHILE OTHERS.
THE ONLY WAY TO DO THIS I
DESCRIBED TO YOU.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
THAT'S IT, MARTY.
SORRY FOR THAT.
WE'LL GO TO MR. FRAGISGOTTIS.
AND THEN IT WILL BE MR. FORTIN
FOR TWO AND A HALF MINUTES.
MR. JULIAN.
AND IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE
COMMITTEE, I WOULD ALLOW MS. MAY
IN FOR TWO.
AND ON TO OFFICIAL OPPOSITION
AND PROBABLY WRAP UP WITH
MR. SABARA.
MR. FRAGISGOTTIS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MS. TELFORD, THANK YOU FOR BEING
HERE AND THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE
IN THE PAST FEW MONTHS.
FIRST OF ALL, MR. CHAIR, IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN GOOD IF READ THE
BLUES FROM THE MEETING WE HAD
THE OTHER DAY.
I HAVE THEM IN FRONT OF ME.
HE WAS TRYING TO CONNECT DOTS
THAT FRANKLY DO NOT EXIST.
LET ME QUOTE FROM THOSE BLUES.
AND I'LL QUOTE IT AS FOLLOWS: 
THERE IS ANOTHER THING THAT I'M
A BIT UNCLEAR ABOUT.
I SEE THE -- AND IT WAS SIGNED
ON MAY 5th.
WAS IT SIGNED ON MAY 5th OR
DID THE AGREEMENT BEGIN ON MAY
5th IF YOU COULD JUST EXPLAIN
THE LOGISTICS AROUND ALL OF
THAT.
MARK KIELBURGER REPLIED WITH THE
FOLLOWING:  THANK YOU FOR
ASKING.
THE AGREEMENT TECHNICALLY BEGAN
ON MAY 5th.
WE WERE WORKING IN ADVANCE WITH
ESDC ON PUTTING RESOURCES TO
HELP DEVELOP THE PROGRAM.
THE TURNAROUND TIME WAS SO TIGHT
AND WE WERE OF COURSE SO
PASSIONATE ABOUT HELPING YOUNG
PEOPLE AT THIS TIME THAT WE GOT
TO WORK RIGHT AWAY WITH
UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THIS
AGREEMENT DID NOT GO FORWARD, WE
WOULD BE AT THE FINANCIAL RISK
OF DOING SO.
WE ACCEPTED THAT RISK BECAUSE WE
REALLY WANT TO HELP.
SO THAT'S DIRECTLY FROM THE --
CHAIR.
OBVIOUSLY THE ORGANIZATION MADE
THE DECISION ON THEIR OWN
VOLITION TO PROCEED ON MAY
5th.
WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP BECAUSE
AS I SAID, MR. POILIEVRE IS
TRYING TO WEAVE THINGS OUT OF
THIN AIR AS HE OFTEN DOES.
BUT LEAVE THAT.
BACK TO THAT MEETING, IF I
COULD, MS. TELFORD.
I'M TALKING  ABOUT THE MEETING
WHERE THE KIELBURGERS BOTH GAME.
AND I WILL QUOTE FROM THAT
MEETING AS WELL.
THEY SAID IN THEIR INTRODUCTORY
REMARKS, I BELIEVE, AND I'LL
QUOTE HIM HERE NOW.
AS PER THE CONTRIBUTION
AGREEMENT, WE CHARITY WOULD ONLY
BE REIMBURSED ITS COSTS TO BUILD
AND ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM, HE
SAID.
TO BE CLEAR, THERE WAS NO
FINANCIAL ASSET FOR THE CHARITY.
WE CHARITY WOULD NOT HAVE
RECEIVED ANY FINANCIAL GAIN FROM
CANADA STUDENTS SERVICE GRANT
PROGRAM OF COURSE AND IS
INCORRECT TO SAY OTHERWISE.
MS. TELFORD, DOES THAT
CORRESPOND WITH YOUR
UNDERSTANDING.
>> I APOLOGIZE, MR. CHAIR.
SOMETHING HAS JUST COME UP ON
MY.
I JUST NEED SOMEONE TO COME AND.
SORRY, THERE'S A BIG --
>> WE CAN SEE YOU, MS. TELFORD.
AND WE CAN -- YOU'RE COMING
ACROSS KIND OF GRAVELLY.
CAN YOU ADJUST YOUR MIC
SOMEWHAT?
DID YOU HEAR WHAT HE SAID,
MS. TELFORD?
>> SORRY, I DIDN'T CATCH THE
LAST PART.
I HAD BIG EXCLAMATION MARKS
FLASHING AT ME.
>> OKAY.
>> SURE, I APOLOGIZE.
>> CAN YOU REPEAT THAT LAST
PART.
>> IT COULD BE THE CONNECTION.
I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT.
I WAS QUOTING FROM CRAIG
KIELBURGER WHO CAME AND
TESTIFIED A FEW DAYS AGO.
I'LL JUST REPEAT THIS STATEMENT
JUST BECAUSE NOT SURE WHAT PART
YOU HEARD AND WHAT PART YOU
DIDN'T.
SO HE -- ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM.
TO BE CLEAR THERE WAS NO
FINANCIAL BENEFIT FOR THE
CHARITY.
WE CHARITY WOULD NOT HAVE
RECEIVED ANY FINANCIAL GAIN FROM
THE CANADA STUDENT SERVICE GRANT
PROGRAM AND IT IS INCORRECT TO
SAY OTHERWISE.
MY QUESTION TO YOU, MS. TELFORD,
IS WHETHER THAT EXPLANATION
MATCHES YOUR UNDERSTANDING.
>> I BELIEVE IT DOES.
YES.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION RELATING
TO WE'S NETWORK.
THEIR NETWORK OF BEING IN TOUCH
WITH TWO AND A HALF MILLION
STUDENTS, 7,000 SCHOOLS.
WHEN THE PUBLIC SERVICE ADVISED
THAT WE WOULD BE THE CHARITY TO
MOVE AHEAD IN ADMINISTERING AND
BUILDING THE CANADA STUDENT
SERVICE GRANT, THAT WAS A KEY
REASON, RIGHT?
THAT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING AS A
COMMITTEE.
THAT'S COME UP BEFORE.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT AT ALL?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
I MEAN THIS WAS AN ORGANIZATION
THAT DESPITE ALL THE THINGS THAT
ARE BEING CAULKED ABOUT NOW,
THIS WAS AN ORGANIZATION THAT
WAS INTERNATIONALLY RENOWNED,
NATIONALLY RENOWNED.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT MY
9-YEAR-OLD SON KNOWS THE NAME OF
THIS ORGANIZATION AND NOT FROM
ME.
AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A
SCHOOL NAMED AFTER A KIELBURGER.
IT IS, THIS IS A VERY LARGE
ORGANIZATION IN THIS COUNTRY.
SO IT WAS NOT SURPRISING IN MANY
WAYS TO SEE IT AS AN
ORGANIZATION THAT COULD DO THIS.
HAVING SAID THAT, IT WAS STILL
SURPRISING TO SEE THIS AS A
BINARY CHOICE.
AND THAT'S WHY WE ASKED A LOT OF
QUESTIONS AROUND IT.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> FINAL QUICK QUESTION,
MR. FRAGISGOTTIS.
>> SURE.
AND THE QUESTION OR SOMETHING
ALONG THESE LINES HAS BEEN ASKED
ALREADY BY MR. MCLEOD.
I TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY EARLIER
WITH THE PRIME MINISTER TO RAISE
IT.
AND I HAVE RAISED IT BEFORE
SIMPLY ON BEHALF OF CONSTITUENTS
THOUGH I HAVE TO ASK AGAIN.
FOR YOUTH GOING FORWARD IF THE
CANADA STUDENT SERVICE GRANT
DOES NOT MATERIALIZE, WHAT CAN
MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT TELL YOUTH
IN THEIR COMMUNITY ABOUT
SUPPORTS THAT WILL CONTINUE TO
BE MADE AVAILABLE THE OBVIOUSLY
THERE'S THE CANADA EMERGENCY
STUDENT BENEFIT THAT'S BEING
ACCESSED BY SO MANY YOUNG PEOPLE
ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
BUT IN TERMS OF FURTHER
SUPPORTS, THAT CAN BE THERE FOR
STUDENTS ON THE ONE HAND BUT
ALSO FOR NOT FOR PROFITS.
>> QUICKLY.
>> MANY IN MY COMMUNITY THAT ARE
REELING RIGHT NOW.
WHAT IS IS THE MESSAGE THAT YOU
WOULD PUT TO THEM.
>> LOOK, I THINK THERE'S A LOT
OF OTHER PROGRAMS THAT ARE THERE
TO SUPPORT STUDENTS.
AND OBVIOUSLY THERE IS MORE WORK
TO CONTINUE TO DO.
AND AS I SAID, I KNOW THE
MINISTER OF DIVERSITY,
INCLUSION, AND YOUTH IS
PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS AND
WORKING VERY HARD ALONG WITH HER
COLLEAGUES TO LOOK AT MORE
SOLUTIONS AND SUPPORTS FOR
STUDENTS.
IN TERMS OF THE NONPROFIT SECTOR
OR MORE BROADLY AND WITH RESPECT
TO YOUTH.
IT'S INTERESTING THAT THESE ARE
ORGANIZATIONS THAT WERE ACTUALLY
USED AS THIRD PARTY
ORGANIZATIONS AND CONTRIBUTION
AGREEMENTS WERE ORGANIZED LIKE
THE CANADIAN RED CROSS, UNITED
WAY AND OTHERS.
AND THERE'S A LOT OF
DIFFERENT -- MINISTER HUSSAIN
HAS BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED AND
ANNOUNCED A NUMBER OF SUPPORTS
FOR NONPROFITS AND THE
CHARITABLE SECTOR AS WELL.
>> OKAY.
WE WILL HAVE TO MOVE ON TO
MR. -- IF SHE CAN GET THE
TECHNOLOGY PEOPLE TO LOOK AT
THAT MIC THERE,
MR. FRAGISGOTTIS.
MR. FORTIN.
>> Voice of Interpreter: THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MS. TELFORD, NOW AS CHIEF OF
STAFF AND THE ROLE OF YOUR TEAM
IS TO ADVISE THE PRIME MINISTER.
WHEN WE SEE THAT THE PRIME
MINISTER AND MINISTER OF FINANCE
TELL US THAT THEY DID NOT SPEAK
TO THE ISSUE IN MAY.
WHEN WE HEAR TODAY THAT THEY
REGRET AND APOLOGIZE FOR NOT
HAVING RECUSED THEMSELVES, DO
YOU AGREE THAT THEY SHOULD NOT
HAVE.
ARE YOU HAPPY THEN WITH THE WORK
DONE BY YOUR TEAM ON THIS FILE?
>> LOOK, AS I SAID IN THE OUTSET
IN MY OPENING REMARKS, THIS
OBVIOUSLY DID NOT GO THE WAY IT
SHOULD HAVE GONE.
AND I DO SHARE IN SOME
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THAT.
OF COURSE I DO AS THE PERSON WHO
WAS GIVING ADVICE TO THE PRIME
MINISTER.
BUT I DO THE BEST I CAN WITH THE
INFORMATION I HAVE.
AND THAT'S WHAT I WILL KEEP
DOING TO SERVE AND SUPPORT
CANADIANS.
>> Voice of Interpreter: HOW
MANY DISCUSSIONS DID YOU HAVE
WITH THE PRIME MINISTER BETWEEN
THE 8th AND THE 22nd OF MAY
BEFORE THE DECISION WAS MADE?
AND I'M TALKING ABOUT
DISCUSSIONS ON THAT SUBJECT.
[ End of Interpretation ]
>> IF IT WAS MORE GENERALLY -- I
WOULD HAVE NO IDEA.
IT'S BEEN A LOT DURING THIS
PERIOD.
UM, SPECIFICALLY ON THIS SUBJECT
DURING THAT PERIOD FROM MAY
8th TO THE FOLLOWING CABINET
MEETING THAT IT WENT TO.
IT WAS ABOUT TWO WEEKS LATER.
WE CERTAINLY HAD A BRIEFING
AGAIN AHEAD OF THE NEXT CABINET
MEETING.
AND THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER
BRIEFING I BELIEVE JUST BEFORE
THAT AS WELL WHERE WE WENT AND
TOOK A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME TO
GO THROUGH THE DETAILS.
>> Voice of Interpreter: WHO
PARTICIPATED IN THOSE BRIEFINGS?
[ End of Interpretation ]
>> IT'S PRETTY USUAL.
IT'S THE SENIOR OFFICIALS WITHIN
THE PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE AS WELL
AS SENIOR STAFF WITHIN THE PRIME
MINISTER'S OFFICE.
>> Voice of Interpreter: AND
NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WERE ABLE
TO PREVENT THE PRIME MINISTER
FROM RECUSING HIMSELF FOR THE
GRANTING OF A CONTRACT ON MAY
22nd?
NO ONE SUCCEEDED IN CONVINCING
HIM TO RECUSE HIMSELF?
[ End of Interpretation ]
>> AS I HAVE ALREADY STATED WE
SPENT OUR TIME DOING DUE
DILIGENCE ON THIS IN MAKING SURE
THIS WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO
FOR STUDENTS AT THAT TIME.
AND WE KNEW THE FACTS AS WE KNEW
THEM AT THE TIME IN TERMS OF THE
PRIME MINISTER'S HAVING SPOKEN
AT SOME EVENTS AND IN TERMS OF
SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE-TRUDEAU'S
CONNECTION TO THE WE
ORGANIZATION AND WE KNEW IT WAS
CLEARED SO THERE WASN'T
DISCUSSION AT THAT TIME.
>> LAST QUESTION, MR. FORTIN.
>> Voice of Interpreter: AND
THE MINISTER OF FINANCE HAD
TRAVELED AT THE EXPENSE OF WE
CHARITY, HE KNEW THAT AS WELL?
[ End of Interpretation ]
>> NO, WE DID NOT KNOW THAT OR
DISCUSS THAT AT THIS TIME.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU BOTH.
THERE JULIAN.
THE FLOOR IS YOURS AND IF IT'S
OKAY WITH THE COMMITTEE,
FOLLOWED BY MS. MAY.
MR. JULIAN.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THE PRIME MINISTER'S TESTIMONY
SEEMS TO BE COLLAPSING LIKE A
HOUSE OF CARDS.
FIRST HE SAID HE DIDN'T KNOW
ANYTHING.
AND THEN HE SAID HE DID ALL HIS
DUE DILIGENCE.
BUT TO DATE WE HAVE NOT HAD A
SINGLE INDICATION OF WHAT DUE
DILIGENCE WAS DONE.
THIS, THESE POSITIONS WERE
ADVERTISED AS VOLUNTEER JOBS AND
YET THAT OF COURSE WOULD VIOLATE
BOTH MINIMUM WAGE LAWS ACROSS
THE COUNTRY AND LABOUR STANDARDS
LEGISLATION.
TO WHAT EXTENT WAS DUE DILIGENCE
DONE ON THIS PROJECT, ON THIS
SCHEME TO ACTUALLY ASSURE THAT
IT WAS IN CONFORMITY AND LEGAL
ACCORDING TO MINIMUM WAGE LAWS
AND TO LABOUR STANDARDS ACROSS
THE COUNTRY.
>> MS. TELFORD.
>> LOOK, A MEMORANDUM DOES NOT
GO TO CABINET WITHOUT DUE
DILIGENCE DONE.
AND IT WAS HELD UP SO EXTRA
LAYERS OF DUE DILIGENCE WERE
DONE SO EVERYONE FELT
COMFORTABLE RECOMMENDING TO
CABINET A SECOND TIME.
AND AS I ALREADY SAID, THIS
DIDN'T GO THE WAY IT SHOULD HAVE
GONE.
AND THERE ARE ADDITIONAL LAYERS
OF SCRUTINY OR QUESTIONS KNOWING
WHAT WE KNOW NOW THAT WOULD HAVE
BEEN GOOD TO ASK AT THE TIME.
BUT WE ONLY KNEW WHAT WE KNEW
THEY BE.
>> HAS THE RCMP CONTACTED THE
PMO, ANY OFFICIALS IN THE PRIME
MINISTER'S OFFICE SO FAR SINCE
THE SCANDAL BROKE?
>> NO.
>> OKAY.
>> Voice of Interpreter: I'LL
NOW SWITCH TO FRENCH.
NOW, THIS IS THE THIRD TIME THIS
HAS HAPPENED.
THE PRIME MINISTER SAID AFTER
THE FIRST CONTROVERSY IF I HAD
TO REDO IT, I WOULD HAVE DONE
THINGS DIFFERENTLY.
I WOULD HAVE TALKED WITH THE
COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE FROM THE
OUTSET.
DID YOU HAVE APPROVAL FOR
EVERYTHING THAT WE WERE, WE DID.
SO INDEED NONE OF THAT OCCURRED.
SO HERE'S MY QUESTION, WHY?
WHEN SUPPOSEDLY THE PRIME
MINISTER, HE APPARENTLY
SUPPOSEDLY SHOULD HAVE LEARNED
FROM THE PREVIOUS SCANDALS, WHY
ON THIS THIRD OCCASION IS IT SO
CLEAR THAT NONE OF THE
PROCEDURES WERE FOLLOWED.
>> WE TALK TO THE ETHICS
COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE ALL THE
TIME OR I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO
TELL YOU WE RECEIVED CLEARANCE
FROM THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER'S
OFFICE FOR WHAT SOPHIE
GRÉGOIRE-TRUDEAU WAS DOING WITH
THE WE ORGANIZATION.
SO WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT
IT IS AN OFFICE THAT EVERYBODY
IN OUR OFFICE PS CAN, THAT WE
TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY, AND THAT WE
GO BACK AND FORTH ON ON A VERY
FREQUENT BASIS.
>> MR. JULIAN.
ARE WE HAVING TROUBLE?
>> Voice of Interpreter: NO.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
SO, BUT THE QUESTION IS SIMPLE.
WHO'S RESPONSIBLE?
IN THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
FOR ENSURING THAT LAWS ARE
FOLLOWED OR RESPECTED?
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT?
IS IT THE PRIME MINISTER?
IS IT YOU?
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS
VIOLATION OF THE, OF ETHICS
LEGISLATION?
>> MS. TELFORD.
AND THAT WILL BE THE END OF THAT
ROUND.
MS. TELFORD.
>> SO I WILL REPEAT WHAT I
STATED BEFORE WHICH IS THAT THE
PRIME MINISTER NEVER RECEIVED
ANY PAYMENT OR INCOME OF ANY
KIND FROM THE WE ORGANIZATION
BOTH BEFORE AND SINCE BECOMING
PRIME MINISTER.
AND THAT WAS SOMETHING WE WERE
CLEAR ON.
THAT WE HAD GONE TO THE ETHICS
COMMISSIONER IN TERMS OF THE
POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT.
WE WENT BEFORE THERE WAS ANY
INVOLVEMENT.
GOT IT SIGNED AHEAD OF TIME IN
TERMS OF SOPHIE'S VOCHT IN TERMS
OF PODCAST, POTENTIAL TRAVEL,
POTENTIAL EXPENSES.
AND SO WE TAKE THOSE STEPS VERY
SERIOUSLY.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO
ALLOWING MS. MAY IN FOR A COUPLE
OF MINUTES?
AND WHO DO I GO TO FOR THE FISH
OFFICIAL OPPOSITION AFTER HER?
>> BARRET WILL GO WITH THAT ONE,
MICHAEL BARRET.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
MS. MAY, COUPLE MINUTES.
YOU HAVE BEEN AT EVERY MEETING
THE GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOUT COLLEAGUES.
I JUST WANT TO SAY FOR CANADIANS
WHO MAY FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE
THAT CIVIL SERVANTS AND CABINET
MINISTERS AND EVERYBODY
INCLUDING A BUNCH OF US ON THIS
SCREEN WORK 20 HOUR DAYS SEVEN
DAYS A WEEK DURING THE PANDEMIC.
WE ALL WITNESSED IT AND I DON'T
WANT TO LET THAT REMARK YOU
MADE, MS. TELFORD, GO FORWARD
WITHOUT CORROBORATION.
YOU GUYS ALL, WOULD, YOU ARE
KILLING YOURSELVES IN THIS
PERIOD.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE
CAN'T INVESTIGATE.
I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT
THE PRIME MINISTER WAS, AND I'M
NOT DOUBTING ACTUALLY I JUST
WANT TO KNOW.
HE SEEMS VERY CONVINCED THAT HE
THOUGHT CANADA SERVICE CORP. WAS
GOING TO DELIVER THIS PROGRAM UP
UNTIL MAY 8th.
HE ANNOUNCED IT ON APRIL 22nd 2.
FROM THE TESTIMONY OF CIVIL
SERVANTS INCLUDING RACHEL
WERNICK, WE KNOW THEY WERE
CONSIDERING WE AT LEAST A WEEK
BEFORE THE ANNOUNCEMENT.
AND ON MAY 5th, AS WE KNOW
MINISTER CHAGGER TOOK IT TO THE
COVID COMMITTEE CLEARLY PUTTING
THE WE CHARITY AS THE AGENCY TO
DELIVER THIS.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW IT'S
POSSIBLE.
DID NO ONE WANT TO TELL THE
PRIME MINISTER, BURST HIS
BUBBLE, TELL HIM HIS FAVOURITE
OPERATION CANADA SERVICE CORP.
WAS JUST NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO
DO IT?
WHY DID NO ONE TELL HIM BEFORE
MAY 8th THAT CANADA SERVICE
CORP. WAS OUT OF IT AND WE
CHARITY WAS DELIVERING THE
PROGRAM?
>> MS. TELFORD.
>> UM, I THINK TO BE FAIR THAT
WAS A QUESTION HE ACTUALLY HAD
ON MAY 8th AS WELL WHICH IS
WHY IT WAS PULLED BACK SO THAT
HE COULD GET A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF THINGS.
AND IT PARTLY SPEAKS TO THE
SPEED AND THE VOLUME OF WORK
DURING THAT PERIOD AS WELL AS
OTHER EVENTS DURING THAT PERIOD
THAT I KNOW I DON'T NEED TO
REMINDED ANYONE ABOUT.
IT HAS BEEN AN INCREDIBLE TIME,
YOU KNOW, ABOVE AND BEYOND THE
PANDEMIC IN TERMS OF WHAT THIS
COUNTRY HAS BEEN HAVING TO GO
THROUGH.
AND I GUESS ONE THING TO HELP
CLARIFY THAT WOULD BE ON I
BELIEVE IT WAS APRIL 20th.
IT WAS IN THE IMAGE THAT I WAS
REFERENCING EARLIER.
IT WAS A VAR LARGE PACKAGE THAT
CAME AHEAD OF THAT ANNOUNCEMENT
THAT HAD THE NINE ANNEXES TO IT.
ON ANNEX 4 PAGE 5, IT ACTUALLY
TALKS ABOUT THE CANADA SUMMER
STUDENT GRANT.
AND IN IT, IT TALKED ABOUT THE
NEED OR THE POTENTIAL NEED AT
THAT POINT BECAUSE THAT WAS ALL
THAT WAS WRITTEN INTO IT AT THAT
TIME, THE POTENTIAL NEED FOR A
THIRD PARTY TO BE ABLE TO MAKE
THIS WORK.
AND IT DID TALK ABOUT THE
EXAMPLES OF DELIVERY AGENT,
ADMINISTRATOR, THAT KIND OF
THING, EXAMPLES AT THAT TIME.
BUT IT WAS AN EXAMPLE OF A
POTENTIAL METHOD OF DOING IT.
SO THAT WAS AS FAR AS IT HAD
COME TO IT.
WE KNEW PEOPLE WERE WORKING ON
THESE THINGS.
THE CANADA SERVICE CORP. WAS
STILL SOMETHING IN HIS MIND AND
WAS STILL IN THE MIX.
WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY SEE THE
RETURN ON THEIR FURTHER WORK ON
THAT UNTIL WE SAW IT ON MAY
8th.
>> OKAY.
I WILL HAVE TO HAVE END IT
THERE.
SORRY, ELIZABETH.
BUT WE WILL GO TO MR. BARRET WHO
WILL BE FOLLOWED BACK INTO FIVE
MINUTE ROUNDS.
MR. BARRET WILL BE FOLLOWED BY
MR. SABARA.
>> MA'AM, YOU SAID A HANDFUL OF
PEOPLE SPOKE TO WE BEFORE IT WAS
ANNOUNCED.
YOU HAVE GIVEN ONE NAME.
WHO ARE THE OTHER FOUR?
>> I ALREADY SAID THERE WERE
SOME COMMUNICATIONS STAFF AROUND
THE TIME OF WHAT WAS A BIG
ANNOUNCEMENT AND A LAUNCH.
SO IT'S PERFECTLY NORMAL FOR
COMMUNICATIONS STAFF TO GO
BORTS.
>> WHAT WERE THEIR NAMES
INVOLVED.
>> I SAID I WOULD LOOK INTO THAT
FOR YOU.
>> SO YOU COMMIT TODAY TO
PROVIDE THOSE NAMES TO THE
COMMITTEE AND THE DATES WITH
WHICH THEY COMMUNICATED WITH THE
WE ORGANIZATION?
>> I WILL LOOK INTO IT.
I CAN CONSULT WITH THEM.
>> POINT OF ORDER, MR. CHAIR.
>> YES, MR. POILIEVRE.
>> THIS IS INFORMATION THE
COMMITTEE IS ENTITLED TO
RECEIVE.
THE WITNESS KNOWS THE NAMES.
IF SHE DIDN'T, SHE WOULDN'T BE
ABLE TO ENUMERATE HOW MANY THERE
WERE.
SHE IS OBLIGED TO ANSWER THE
QUESTION.
I ASK THAT YOU REQUIRE THAT
ANSWER RIGHT NOW.
THE NAMES OF PMO STAFFERS WHO
SPOKE WITH WE.
NO NEED FOR A COVER-UP.
>> I BELIEVE MS. TELFORD IS
AGREEING TO PROVIDE US WITH THE
NAMES WHEN SHE LOOKS AT HER
RECORDS.
>> POINT OF ORDER, MR. CHAIR.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE HAVE BEEN
TOLD.
>> OKAY.
THEN I'LL ASK FOR CLARIFICATION
FROM MS. TELFORD.
CAN SHE PROVIDE US THE COMMITTEE
THE NAMES AFTER SHE LOOKS AT HER
RECORDS.
MS. TELFORD.
>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, MR. CHAIR.
IT'S NOT MY RECORDS.
I WILL NEED TO GO AND CONSULT
WITH INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED.
AND I WOULD ASK THE MEMBERS THAT
I AM HERE ON THE STAFF'S BEHALF
AND HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS
THAT THEY HAVE FOR THEM.
>> I THINK THE QUESTION WAS A
LITTLE MORE THAN THAT.
I'LL GO TO MR. BARRET WHILE WE
THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A MOMENT.
MR. BARRET.
>> WELL, UM, MA'AM, YOU'RE
REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THIS
INFORMATION.
IT'S A NECESSARY FOR US TO KNOW.
THIS IS WHY WE HAVE THINGS LIKE
A LOBBYIST REGISTRY.
WE NEED TO KNOW WHO HAS
CONTACTED WHOM AND ON WHAT
DATES.
THIS IS JERMAINE TO THIS STUDY
AND THE COMMITTEE'S WORK.
AND I ASK YOU AGAIN TO COMMIT
TO PROVIDE THE NAMES AND THE
DATES OF THE COMMUNICATION.
>> I WOULD AS WELL POINT OUT,
MS. TELLFORD, I BELIEVE THE
CLERK REQUEST THE COMMITTEE FOR
DOCUMENTS THAT WAS CARRIED IN
THE CLERK -- TO GET THOSE
DOCUMENTS.
I'M NOT -- THAT IS WHERE WE'RE
AT.
MS. TELFORD.
>> SO JUST TO BE CLEAR.
I DIDN'T ENUMERATE EARLIER THE
EXACT NUMBER OF STAFF.
I SAID THERE WAS --
>> A HANDFUL AND THANK YOU SAID
THAT MEANS FIVE.
>> YES.
SORRY?
>> GO AHEAD, MS. TELFORD BEFORE
YOU WERE INTERRUPTED?
>> SO YES.
IN AND AROUND THAT NUMBER.
AND THERE WAS ONLY THE ONE PRIOR
TO AROUND THE TIME OF THE
LAUNCH.
AROUND THE TIME OF THE LAUNCH,
THERE WAS SOME BACK AND FORTH
USUAL MEDIA RELATIONS KIND OF --
>> DO YOU KNOW THE NAMES OF ANY
OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE IN
THE ROOM?
>> I WOULD WANT TO CHECK BEFORE
I GIVE THEM TO COMMITTEE.
>> OKAY, MR. BARRET.
>> SO HOW ARE WE ONLY LEARNING
TODAY THAT THE PRIME MINISTER
CAME AND PULLED THE AGREEMENT
FROM CABINET ON MAY 8th?
WE HAVE HAD TESTIMONY FROM THE
CLERK OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL
FRAMEWORKS MULTIPLE MINISTERS
INCLUDING MINISTER MORNEAU AND
THE PRIME MINISTER UP UNTIL
TODAY HAS NOT SAID THAT.
HOW IS IT THAT YOU JUST SAVED
THIS AMAZING STORY FOR TODAY?
>> WHEN YOU SAY THE PRIME
MINISTER JUST SAID THAT, WELL
THE PRIME MINISTER WAS ONLY JUST
A WITNESS AT YOUR COMMITTEE.
AND HE WAS -- THIS INFORMATION
AS AM I.
I BELIEVE -- DID MAKE REFERENCE
THROUGH THE QUESTIONS I WAS
ASKING AROUND THIS.
AND THE DUE DILIGENCE AROUND
THIS THAT WE WERE PUSHING ON.
>> MR. BARRET.
>> HE DID NOT SAY THAT THE PRIME
MINISTER PULLED IT.
CORRECT?
>> NO.
I BELIEVE WHAT HE SAID WAS DUE
DILIGENCE.
MS. TELFORD.
>> I'M NOT CERTAIN WHAT THE
CLERK SAID TO THE COMMITTEE
OTHER THAN I DO KNOW THAT HE
MADE REFERENCE TO THE DUE
DILIGENCE THAT WE ASKED FOR
NMPLETS YOUR OFFICE ARE PEOPLE
TYPICALLY HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR
ERRORS?
LIKE WHO IN GOVERNMENT DO YOU
THINK HAS BEEN HELD RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE ERRORS THAT LED TO WHERE
WE ARE TODAY?
>> LOOK.
AS I HAVE ALREADY SAID, THIS IS,
THIS OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T ROLL OUT
IN A WAY THAT WE WOULD HAVE
LIKED.
AND THERE'S A NUMBER OF US
INCLUDING MYSELF WHO SHARE IN
THAT RESPONSIBILITY.
>> IF THIS COMMITTEE ORDERED ALL
COMMUNICATIONS, EMAILS, AND
TEXTS BETWEEN PMO AND WE, WOULD
YOU COMPLY WITH THAT ORDER?
LIKE THIS WAS A COMMITMENT MADE
BY YOUR GOVERNMENT WHEN YOU CAME
TO OFFICE THAT THE PMO WOULD
RELEASE THIS TYPE OF INFORMATION
FREELY.
WILL YOU HIDE BEHIND CABINET
CONFIDENCES AND THE ACCESS TO
INFORMATION ACT?
OR WILL YOU DISCLOSE THIS
INFORMATION?
>> MR. BARRET, I WOULD HAVE TO
SEEK ADVICE ON WHAT I CAN AND
CAN'T WHEN IT COMES TO CABINET
CONFIDENCES.
>> MR. BARRET, THIS IS YOUR LAST
QUESTION.
>> I SHOULD HAVE A MINUTE AND A
HALF LEFT, MR. CHAIR.
THERE WERE SUBSTANTIAL
INTERRUPTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS
THERE.
BUT Iwanttohelp.org IS A
WEBSITE TO APPLY FOR THE CSSG.
DID THE GOVERNMENT CREATE THIS
WEBSITE OR WAS IT CREATED BY WE?
THE REASON I ASK, MA'AM, IS ON
THE APRIL 22nd ANNOUNCEMENT IT
MENTIONS THE I WANT TO HELP
PLATFORM TWICE WHICH IS THE
ORIGIN OF I WANT TO HELP.
SO WHAT I AM AUTO LOOKING FOR IS
THE ORIGIN OF THE I WANT TO HELP
BRANDING BECAUSE IN THAT
APRIL 22nd ANNOUNCEMENT, IT
INCLUDES BRANDING FROM THE
COMPANY WE.
>> MS. TELFORD AND YOU WILL HAVE
ONE MORE QUESTION.
YOU ARE CORRECT.
THERE WAS INTERRUPTIONS.
MS. TELFORD.
>> WELL, IN FAIRNESS, MA'AM, I
ASK THAT THANK YOU COMMIT TO
UNDERTAKING TO PROVIDE THAT
ANSWER TO THE COMMITTEE.
AND I GUESS MY LAST QUESTION
WOULD BE THAT BETWEEN THOSE
DATES THAT YOU MENTIONED BEFORE
AND WERE REFERENCED BY ONE OF
THE OTHER MEMBERS, WHAT BETWEEN
MAY 8th AND MAY 22nd, DID
THE PRIME MINISTER TAKE THIS
PROJECT FROM YELLOW TO GREEN?
>> HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO
HAVE A LONGER CONVERSATION WITH
SENIOR OFFICIALS AND SENIOR
STAFF AROUND WHY IT DID, IT DID
AS PER ONE OF YOUR COLLEAGUES IN
THE COMMITTEE'S QUESTION
EARLIER.
THERE HAD BEEN DIFFERENT
THOUGHTS AROUND WHAT THIS MIGHT
LOOK LIKE WHEN IT WAS FIRST
DISCUSSED.
AND SO WE WANTED TO HAVE A
BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THAT.
WE ALSO WANTED TO HAVE AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT ALL THE T'S
HAD BEEN CROSSED AND I'S HAD
BEEN DOTTED AS THE CLERK SAID.
THAT'S WHY WE WERE ASKING
QUESTIONS AROUND DUE DILIGENCE
AND MAKING SURE ALSO THAT IT WAS
THE RIGHT METHOD TO DO THIS.
SO NOT AM WAS IT THE RIGHT
ORGANIZATION ENTERING INTO THIS
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WAS THE
RIGHT WAY TO DO IT.
AND WE WERE ASSURED THAT IT WAS.
>> THANK YOU BOTH.
MR. SABARA.
YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND
THANK YOU TO THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS FOR ASKING ALL THESE
INSIGHTFUL QUESTIONS TODAY.
FIRST QUESTION, WHAT PROCESS IS
IN PLACE IN YOUR OFFICE IN
RELATION TO CONSULTING ON ISSUES
OF ETHICS?
>> IN THESE ROLES.
IT WAS CERTAINLY THE CASE IN MY
SITUATION, AND I KNOW IN OTHERS.
WE SIT DOWN WITH EITHER THE
ETHICS COMMISSIONER THEMSELVES
OR WITH ONE OF THE OFFICERS IN
THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE
TO GO THROUGH WHAT ALL OF THE
DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS ARE IN
THESE POSITIONS.
THERE IS A NUMBER OF OTHER
DOCUMENTS.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE A HEAD OF HR.
AND THEY MAKE SURE THAT THERE IN
BOARDED APPROPRIATELY.
AND WE ENCOURAGE ALL STAFF TO
TAKE ALL ETHICAL MATTERS
EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY.
WE ARE IN PRIVILEGE DEEP SERVING
CANADIANS HERE AND NOT ONLY NOW
BUT AT ANY TIME.
THESE ARE INCREDIBLY, WE'RE
PRIVILEGED TO BE AND HONOURERED
TO BE IN THE ROLES THAT WE'RE IN
SERVING CANADIANS.
AND SO WE TAKE THAT VERY
SERIOUSLY.
AND WE ENCOURAGE EVERYONE WHEN
THEY'VE GOT A QUESTION TO CHECK,
TO ASK, TO GO TO THE ETHICS
COMMISSIONER, TO TALK TO ONE OF
THE SENIOR STAFF ABOUT IT.
AND WE CAN HELP THEM IF THEY
NEED ANY HISTORY ON IT.
BUT ULTIMATELY IT'S THAT WE TRY
TO GO TO THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER
OR GO TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL
OFFICE.
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT IS
ENSURING THAT EVERYONE IS ON
BOARDED PROPERLY AND THAT WE
FOLLOW ALL OF THE DIFFERENT
INTERPRETATIONS AND ADVICE THAT
COMES FROM THE ETHICS
COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE AND WHEN
NOT WE CHECK.
THAT VERY CLEAR ANSWER.RD, FOR
IN TERMS OF DUE DILIGENCE
BECAUSE THE WORD DUE DILIGENCE
WAS COME UP QUITE A BIT.
AND OUR GOVERNMENT HAS PUT IN
PLACE A NUMBER OF PROGRAMS THAT
ARE HELPING CANADIANS FROM COAST
TO COAST TO COAST.
AND IF WE SEE, YOU KNOW, THE
CANADA EMERGENCY RESPONSE
BENEFIT WHICH IS BEING DELIVERED
THROUGH THE CANADA REVENUE
AGENCY OR WE SEE THE CANADA --
DELIVERED THROUGH OUR FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS EVERYTHING FROM
SMALL CREDIT UNIONS TO THE BIG
BANKS.
AND THEN WE SEE PROGRAMS
EMERGENCIES.
SO OBVIOUSLY THERE IS A LEVEL OF
DUE DILIGENCE THAT IS DONE BY
GOVERNMENT, BY GOVERNMENTAL
OFFICIALS THAT IS HIGHER.
YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE CRA, AN
AGENT WELL KNOWN TO THE
GOVERNMENT.
BUT THEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE
UNITED WAY AND ORGANIZATIONS
WHERE WE RECEIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM GOVERNMENT I SHALL IFS,
PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO HAVE DONE A
PHENOMENAL JOB FOR CANADIANS
FROM COAST TO COAST TO COAST.
BUT THE DUE DILIGENCE ON OUR
PART IS HIGHER BECAUSE WE ARE
DEALING WITH GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS.
I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT
LOOKING WITH DUE DILIGENCE WHEN
IT REFERS TO THIRD PARTY
ORGANIZATIONS AND HOW IMPORTANT
IT WAS FOR THE PRIME MINISTER --
THE INFORMATION THAT IS BEING
PRESENTED THANK YOU WHEN WE ARE
LOOKING AT THIRD PARTY
ORGANIZATIONS.
>> WELL, I THINK YOU JUST
TOUGHED ON IT AND WHY WE PAUSED.
AND AS SOMEONE ELSE DESCRIBED
IT, IT WENT FROM YELLOW TO
GREEN.
AND OR PERHAPS FROM GREEN TO
YELLOW.
IT HAD ALREADY GONE FROM THE
CABINET COMMITTEE AND WAS
HEADING TOWARD CABINET FOR
RATIFICATION WHEN WE ACTUALLY
TURNED IT TO YELLOW.
AND PART OF THE REASON WAS FOR
THE REASONS YOU STATED.
WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT
EVERYBODY WAS PERFECTLY
COMFORTABLE WITH IT.
AND THAT THE PUBLIC SERVICE
TRULY WAS RECOMMENDING IT AS THE
WAY TO GO.
AND THEY STOOD BY THAT
RECOMMENDATION OVER THE COMING
TWO WEEKS.
BUT I THINK THE REASONS YOU'RE
SAYING THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT
AND THERE WILL BE A LOT OF
REVIEWING DONE IN THE COMING
WEEKS TO MAKE SURE THAT AS MUCH
DUE DILIGENCE FROM THIRD PARTY
ORGANIZATIONS.
BUT AT THE TIME, THE ASSURANCES
WERE GIVEN THAT THIS IS THE
RIGHT ORGANIZATION TO PROCEED
WITH.
>> LAST QUESTION, MR. SABARA.
>> IN TERMS OF MOVING FORWARD
AND I THINK ABOUT THE NUMBER OF
YOUTH ACROSS CANADA THAT HAD
SIGNED UP FOR THIS PROGRAM AND
HOW IMPORTANT IT WAS FOR THEM TO
SIGN UP.
AND I READ FROM SOME OF THE
STATISTICS THAT OVER 50% CAME
FROM MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES
CALLED RACIALIZED COMMUNITIES.
WHATEVER TERM YOU PREFER.
AND IT IS DISAPPOINTING TO NOW
KNOW THAT WE HAD TO HIT THE
PAUSE BUTTON ON THIS PROGRAM.
OTHER PROGRAMS ARE RUNNING IN
PLACE.
AND I AM GLAD THAT WE HAVE
EXPANDED THE CANADA -- EXTRA
$60 MILLION INTO THAT PROGRAM.
BUT I DO HOPE THAT GOING FORWARD
THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, RESTART A
SIMILAR TYPE OF PROGRAM WHERE
YOUTH ARE INVITED TO APPLY, GET
THAT VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE
BECAUSE WE KNOW HOW VALUABLE AND
ENRICHING THAT VOLUNTEER
EXPERIENCE IS FOR THEM.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>> AND I KNOW THERE ARE PEOPLE
WORKING VERY, VERY HARD ON IT.
IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
AS I SAID, WE THOUGHT WHEN WE
TALKED ABOUT YOUTH AND YOUNG
PEOPLE AND STUDENTS BACK ON
APRIL 5th WHICH FEELS A LOT
LONGER AGO NOW THAN THE DATE
IMPLIES.
BUT WHEN WE TALKED AT THAT TIME,
YOU KNOW, JOB ONE WAS MAKING
SURE THAT WE GOT WHICH WE DID TO
THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY.
THEY NEEDED GET STUDENTS THE
SUPPORT THEY NEEDED TO BE ABLE
TO PAY RENT AND GET GROCERIES ON
THE TABLE.
AND NUMBER TWO IS FINDING WAYS
THROUGH EXISTING PROGRAMS AS
WELL AS THROUGH POTENTIALLY SOME
NEW PROGRAMS WHICH THIS WAS
HOPING TO BE TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW
YOUNG PEOPLE TO STAY CONNECT TO
THEIR COMMUNITIES, TO EVEN HAVE
AN EXPERIENCE THAT THEY MIGHT
NOT OTHERWISE HAVE DURING THIS
PANDEMIC.
>> OKAY, MS. TELFORD.
WE WILL THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY.
WE HAVE NOW REACHED THE TWO
HOURS THAT WE ASKED YOU TO COME.
AND YOU ACCEPTED ORDER A LITTLE
OVER IT ACTUALLY.
SO WE WILL THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY TODAY.
AND I WOULD ALSO BEFORE WE CLOSE
OFF CERTAINLY LIKE TO THANK
THE --
>> Vassy: FOR TWO HOURS.
BEFORE THAT OF COURSE THE PRIME
MINISTER, HER BOSS, TOOK
QUESTIONS.
LET'S BRING IN VASSY KAPELOS THE
HOST OF POWER & POLITICS AND
DAVID COCHRANE.
JUST WANT TO GET -- WHO HAS LOTS
OF SMART PEOPLE STANDING BY TO
MAKE SENSE OF ALL OF THAT.
I'M NOT SURE THAT THE TESTIMONY
BY KATIE TELFORD GRAMMATICALLY
CHANGED ANYTHING.
WE HEARD FROM THE PRIME
MINISTER, VASSY, BUT AS WE, YOU
KNOW, MOVE INTO WHAT HAPPENED
NEXT, WHAT ARE YOU LEFT WITH
TODAY.
>> Vassy: YEAH, THAT WAS A
GOOD TESTIMONY.
IT WAS VERY DENSE.
FOR ME I CIRCLE BACK TO THE
PRIME MINISTER'S TESTIMONY.
THE BIG NEW PIECE OF INFORMATION
THAT HAVE DELIVERED IN THAT THE
PRIME MINISTER SAYS AND
ALONGSIDE KATIE TELFORD HIS
CHIEF OF STAFF.
THEY DID NOT KNOW UNTIL MAY
8th THAT THE PUBLIC SERVICE
WAS PUTTING FORWARD THIS
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PROGRAM
THAT THEY HAD ALREADY ANNOUNCED
AND ADMINISTERED, OUTSOURCED TO
BE ADMINISTERED BY THE WE
CHARITY.
I THINK IT'S A SALIENT POINT AND
ONE THAT I IMAGINE WILL INFORM
SOME OF THE DISCUSSION AND
DEBATE GOING FORWARD BECAUSE
CENTRAL TO THE OPPOSITION'S
CRITICISM OF THE GOVERNMENT
RIGHT NOW IS THE CONTENTION THAT
THE REASON WE GOT THIS IS
BECAUSE OF THE PRIME MINISTER'S
RELATIONSHIP AND HIS FAMILY'S
RELATIONSHIP AND OTHER TOP
LIBERALS' RELATIONSHIPS WITH WE
CHARITY.
THERE WAS TOO COZY A
RELATIONSHIP ACCORDING TO THE
OPPOSITION AND THAT IS WHAT
INFORMED THE OPPOSITION TO AWARD
THEM THIS CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
OR CONTRACT AS SOME HAVE CALLED
IT.
I KNOW THAT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE
THE PROPER TERM BUT BASICALLY
THAT'S WHAT IT WAS.
THAT THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT
CAME FROM THAT, LIKE, WHY DID WE
KNOW THAT BEFORE?
BUT I DO THINK IT SPEAKS TO THE
CRITICISM THAT THE PRIME
MINISTER HAS RECEIVED SO FAR AND
THE GOVERNMENT HAS RECEIVED SO
FAR.
AND IT DOES CHANGE THE
CONVERSATION GOING FORWARD ON
WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO
SAY TO DEFEND ITS POSITION.
AND NOW I'M CURIOUS TO SEE HOW
THE OPPOSITION OR IF IT ALTERS
COURSE.
>> Rosemary: IT'S STRANGE,
DAVID, BECAUSE THE VERY THING
THE GOVERNMENT IS POINTING TO AS
QUOTE UNQUOTE DUE DILIGENCE THAT
WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THERE IS
ALSO EVIDENCE THAT THE
GOVERNMENT KNEW THERE WAS
POTENTIALLY A PROBLEM COMING
DOWN THE PIPE EVEN IF THEY
DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY THE DETAILS
AROUND SPEAKING FEES AND WHAT
HAVE YOU.
>> David: YEAH, WHAT WAS
INTERESTING ON THAT IS THE PRIME
MINISTER REFERRED TO THIS AS A
PERCEPTION ISSUE.
THAT REALLY HE FAILED TO
PROPERLY MANAGE BY NOT RECUSING
HIMSELF.
HE WAS VERY PRECISE IN WHY HE
CONSIDERED TO BE THE CONFLICT
ISSUES HERE.
THAT WAS MORE OF A PERCEPTION OF
THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST BECAUSE
URN THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
ACT, REALLY YOU ONLY SEE THE
IMMEDIATE FAMILIES, YOUR WIFE
AND KIDS WHO ARE COVERED.
HIS BROTHER AND MOTHER GETS INTO
A WHOLE DIFFERENT WEAR THAT MAY
NOT IN FACT BE COVERED BY THIS.
SO TECHNICALLY YOU MAY NOT BE IN
VIOLATION OF THE CONFLICT OF
INTEREST ACT WHICH IS SOMETHING
MARIO DION WILL DECIDE.
BUT FROM A PERCEPTION
STANDPOINT, HE FAILED TO RECUSE
HIMSELF TO PROTECT HIMSELF FROM
ALLEGATIONS THAT HE CONSIDERS TO
BE UNFOUNDED.
WHERE THIS WHOLE THING REALLY
GOES SIDEWAYS FOR THEM IS FROM A
PUBLIC PERCEPTION POINT OF VIEW
IS THE SHEER VOLUME OF MONEY
THAT WENT TO HIS MOTHER AND
BROTHER THE THOSE NUMBERS ARE
EYE POPPING AND PEOPLE LOOK AT
THAT AND WHATEVER THE TECHNICAL
READING OF THE CONFLICT OF
INTEREST ACT, MONEY FROM
GOVERNMENT TO CHARITY AS AN
ISSUE.
AND THEN THE BILL MORNEAU
REVELATIONS.
WE DIDN'T GET ANY REVELATIONS
EXCEPT A TIMELINE THAT PUTS A
FIREWALL BETWEEN THE PRIME
MINISTER AND ANYTHING BEFORE THE
8th OF MAY.
THAT ALL THE STUFF THEY HAVE
BEEN SAYING INVOLVES CHAGGER'S
DEPARTMENT OR THE LOWER LEVELS
OF THE PRIME MINISTER'S
HIERARCHY.
HE WASN'T INVOLVED UNTIL THE
8th AND THEN HE SAID LET'S
TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THIS TO
MAKE SURE WE'RE OKAY.
WHEN BILL MORNEAU TESTIFIED AND
SAID HE GOT A $41,000 CHEQUE FOR
TRAVEL.
THEY HAD BEEN USING PANDEMIC AS
AN EXPLANATION FOR THIS.
POLICY IS DONE ON THE FLY.
YOU NEVER WOULD HAVE ANNOUNCED A
BIG GRANT PROGRAM IN APRIL OR
MAY TO ROLL OUT IN JULY IN
NORMAL TIMES.
IT WAS DONE IN THE PANDEMIC.
WHERE THAT FALLS APART FOR THE
FINANCE MINISTER, THERE WAS NO
PANDEMIC WHEN HE WENT TO ECUADOR
OR THE NEXT YEAR OR THE YEAR
AFTER THAT WHERE HE NEVER TOOK
CARE OF HIS AFFAIRS AND CLEANED
THIS WHOLE THING UP.
SO THE SPILLAGE OF ALL OF THAT
HAS JUST HAUNTED THEM FOR THE
PAST MONTH.
YOU KNOW, HE SAID IT WAS A
BINARY CHOICE BETWEEN WE OR
NOTHING, ROSEMARY.
THEY CHOSE WE.
>> Rosemary: OKAY, THANK YOU
BOTH FOR ALL YOUR HELP WITH THAT
LONG COVERAGE.
YOU CAN CATCH DAVID COCHRANE
LATER TONIGHT ON THE NATIONAL
AND VASSY WILL BE COMING UP WITH
LOTS OF CONTINUING COVERAGE
INCLUDING A BIG POWER PANEL
RIGHT AFTER THIS SHORT BREAK.
SO WE'LL TAKE A SHORT BREA
