 
EXACTLY YOU CAN EXPECT AT 
AROUND 1:00 EASTERN.
THE KIELBURGER BROTHERS, CRAIG 
AND MARC, WILL BE IN THE 
HOTSEAT.
THEY ARE THE FOUNDERS OF WE 
CHARITY AND WILL BE ANSWERS 
QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THEIR 
CHARITY CAME TO BE CHOSEN TO 
ADMINISTER A NEARLY $1 BILLION 
STUDENT VOLUNTEER GRANT PROGRAM.
FIRST UP, THE COMMITTEE IS 
GOING TO HEAR IN JUST MOMENTS 
FROM MICHELLE DOUGLAS, THE 
FORMER CHAIR OF WE CHARITIES 
BOARD.
ALL OF THIS, OF COURSE, LEADING 
TO THE MAIN EVENT THURSDAY WHEN 
THE PRIME MINISTER, JUSTIN 
TRUDEAU, AS WELL AS HIS CHIEF 
OF STAFF, KATIE TELFORD, ARE 
SCHEDULED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE 
SAME COMMITTEE.
THE PRIME MINISTER, OF COURSE, 
WILL BE ASKED ABOUT HIS ROLE IN 
THE DECISION TO STRIKE A 
PARTNERSHIP WITH AN 
ORGANIZATION THAT HIS FAMILY 
HAS TIES TO.
I WANT TO BRING IN MY COLLEAGUE 
JANYCE McGREGOR AS WE WAIT FOR 
THAT TESTIMONY TO GET STARTED 
AND I'LL LET YOU KNOW THAT WE 
WILL BRING YOU TO THAT ROOM, 
THAT VIRT, ROOM, I GUESS, FOR 
THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 
TESTIMONY, MICHELLE DOUGLAS UP 
FIRST AS SOON AS IT HAPPENS.
LET'S START WITH THE KIELBURGER 
BROTHERS BECAUSE CERTAINLY A 
LOT OF ANTICIPATION ABOUT THIS 
TESTIMONY.
WE JUST GOT NOTICE, FOR 
EXAMPLE, IT WAS GOING TO BE AN 
HOUR AND A HALF.
IT'S NOW GOING TO BE FOUR HOURS 
LONG.
WHAT ARE YOU EXPECTING?
>> Reporter: YEAH.
MARATHON, RIGHT?
SO THAT MEANS WE CAN MOVE 
THROUGH THINGS SLOWLY.
THAT GIVES M.P. AS LOT OF 
ROUNDS, A LOT OF TIME TO CIRCLE 
BACK IF THEY HEARD SOMETHING 
AND IT OCCURS TO THEM THEY NEED 
TO GO BACK TO IT.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TIME IF 
THEY HAVE FOUR HOURS HERE.
WE CAN SEE SOME M.P.s SWAPING 
IN AND OUT AS THIS QUESTIONING 
WEARS ON.
THIS IS GOING TO BE FASCINATING.
AS YOU KNOW, UP UNTIL NOW, THE 
WE ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN 
COMMUNICATING WITH US BY PRESS 
RELEASE, BY E-MAILS FROM THEIR 
P.R. DEPARTMENT, THROUGH 
FULL-PAGED NEWSPAPER ADS, 
ORGANIZATIONS LIKE OUR, YOUR 
SHOW HAVE REQUESTED IN-PERSON 
INTERVIEWS WITH THE KIELBURGER 
BROTHERS.
THEY HAVE DECLINED.
THIS IS OUR FIRST CHANCES TO 
HEAR FROM THEM -- I GUESS NOT 
LIVE AND IN THE FLESH, BUT SEE 
THEM ANYWAY.
HEAR IN THEIR OWN WORDS WHAT 
WAS GOING ON HERE.
AND IN AN ENVIRONMENT THAT THEY 
ARE NOT IN CONTROL OF.
THE M.P.s ARE IN CONTROL OF 
WHAT QUESTIONS GET ASKED, WHAT 
POINTS ARE STRESSED.
AND IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO 
SEE HOW THEY TELL THEIR STORY 
IN THIS ATMOSPHERE AT A TIME 
WHEN REALLY THERE ARE SO MANY 
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING 
ON HERE.
I WOULD EXPECT, IN PARTICULAR, 
A LOT OF QUESTIONS ACTION 
TIMELINES.
NOW THE WE ORGANIZATION GAVE 
JOURNALISTS LIKE US THEIR OWN 
TIMELINE YESTERDAY OF WHAT THEY 
FELT WERE KEY DATES, KEY 
INTERACTIONS THEY WERE HAVING 
WITH THE GOVERNMENT.
BUT I SUSPECT A LOT OF THE 
QUESTIONS TODAY WILL WANT MORE 
DETAILS ON THOSE CONVERSATIONS 
BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, AS YOU SAY, 
THIS IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST 
CONTROVERSY FOR THE PRIME 
MINISTER AND THE FINANCE 
MINISTER.
WE NEED TO KNOW WHO TALKED TO 
WHO, WHEN, ABOUT WHAT IF WE ARE 
TO PROPERLY ASCERTAIN WHETHER 
WL *  -- WHETHER THERE WAS ANY 
UNDUE INFLUENCE BROUGHT ON TO 
THIS GOVERNMENT DECISION-MAKING 
PROCESS.
I THINK THAT IS WHY THOSE 
CONVERSATIONS COULD VERY WELL 
BE A KEY FOCUS TODAY.
>> Vassy: YEAH.
AND I SEE THE CHARITY OF THE 
COMMITTEE UP AT THE MICROPHONE 
RIGHT NOW.
I'LL WAIT FOR THE CONTROL ROOM 
TO LET ME KNOW WHEN THE 
PROCEEDINGS BEGIN.
WHAT YOU OUTLINED IS AT THE 
HEART OF ALL OF THIS.
WHAT M.P.s I IMAGINE ARE GOING 
TO BE GOING AFTER.
WAS THERE A SORT OF 
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WE AND 
MEMBERS OF GOVERNMENT THAT 
ALLOWED WE TO  OBCURE, OBTAIN 
OR ADMINISTER THIS PROGRAM.
I'M TOLD THAT THINGS ARE 
GETTING STARTED SO I'M GOING TO 
SWING BACK OVER.
WE'LL BE CHECKING IN WITH YOU 
ANYTIME THE TESTIMONY TAKES A 
BREAK.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR INSIGHT.
WE'LL HEAD OVER TO THAT 
COMMITTEE AND TAKE A LISTEN IN 
LIVE.
MICHELLE DOUGLAS IS UP FIRST, 
THE FORMER CHAIR OF THE BOARD 
FOR WE CHARITY.
>> SO FROM 1:00 TO 5:00 OTTAWA 
TIME THEY WILL APPEAR ON THE 
SECOND [INAUDIBLE] SO MEMBERS 
HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
SO, TO START, I A LIKE TO 
WELCOME OUR FIRST WITNESS, 
MICHELLE DOUGLAS, FORMER CHAIR 
OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE.
WE APPRECIATE YOU APPEARING AND 
IF YOU COULD HOLD YOUR REMARKS 
TO 10 MINUTES OR LESS, IT WOULD 
BE -- I WOULD BE HELPFUL AND 
GIVE US MORE TIME FOR QUESTIONS.
THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIR.
GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.
I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU, CHAIR, 
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE 
FOR THE INVITATION TO APPEAR 
TODAY.
MY NAME IS MICHELLE DOUGLAS.
I'M THE FORMER CHAIR OF THE 
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WE 
CHARITY.
I RESIGNED FROM WE CHARITY ON 
MARCH 27, 2020.
I WAS A VOLUNTEER WE CHARITY 
FOR APPROXIMATELY 15 YEARS.
FOR 30 YEARS, I WORKED AS A 
FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVANT.
I RETIRED FROM THE DEPARTMENT 
OF JUSTICE IN SEPTEMBER 2019 
FROM THE ROLE OF DIRECTOR OF 
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.
I'M ALSO A MILITARY VETERAN AND 
I HAVE BEEN A HUMAN RIGHTS 
ACTIVIST FOR MOST OF MY ADULT 
LIFE.
MY HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISM 
EMERGED AS A RESULT OF MY 
EXPERIENCE IN THE CANADIAN 
MILITARY IN THE LATE 1980s.
I WAS FIRED BY THE MILITARY IN 
1989.
I WAS A VICTIM OF CANADA'S 
SHAMEFUL LGBT PURGE AND ENDURED 
QUITE A DEVASTATING EXPERIENCE 
BEING SUBJECTED TO HORRENDOUS 
PRACTICES, DESIGNED TO RID THE 
MILITARY OF LGBT PEOPLE.
MY 1992 LAWSUIT RESULTED IN THE 
FORMAL ENDING OF CANADA'S ARMED 
FORCES POLICY OF DISCRIMINATION 
AGAINST LGBT PEOPLE.
THIS LIFE-CHANGING EXPERIENCE 
LAO *IFRJED MY INTO A LIFE OF 
HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISM AS A 
VOLUNTEER.
I'VE VOLUNTEERED ON SEVERAL 
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OVER THE 
PAST FEW DECADES AND 
VOLUNTEERISM IN SERVICE TO 
OTHERS ARE CENTRAL PILLARS IN 
MY LIFE.
CURRENTLY, I'M THE EXECUTIVE 
DIRECTOR OF A NOT-FOR-PROFIT 
ORGANIZATION THAT IS FOCUSED ON 
RECONCILIATION INITIATIVES, 
ASSOCIATED WITH THE LGBT PURGE.
I JOINED THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 
OF FREE THE CHILDREN IN 
APPROXIMATELY 2005, FOLLOWING A 
MEETING WITH MARKET KIELBURGER.
I'D BEEN INSPIRED BY HIS 
BROTHER CRAIG'S WORK AND I WAS 
EXCITED BY THE PROSPECT OF 
WORKING WITH AN ORGANIZATION 
THAT WOULD INSPIRE YOUNG PEOPLE 
TO CONTRIBUTE A MORE JUST -- TO 
A MORE JUST, HOPEFUL AND LOVING 
WORLD.
I WAS AN ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORTER 
OF FREE THE CHILDREN AND LATER 
WE CHARITY.
THE BOARD THAT I CHAIRED 
CONSISTED OF DEDICATED, SKILLED 
AND COMMITTED VOLUNTEERS.
BOARD MEMBERS INCLUDED 
ACADEMICS, EDUCATORS, HUMAN 
RIGHTS, ACTIVISTS, BUSINESS 
PEOPLE, A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, 
A LAWYER AND OTHERS.
IN ADDITION TO ATTENDING BOARD 
MEETINGS, BOARD MEMBERS COMMIT 
ADD TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TIME 
TO THE ORGANIZATION.
THIS TOOK VARIOUS FORMS.
FROM REGULAR MEETINGS WITH THE 
EXECUTIVE TEAM TO TRAVELING TO 
SEE THE CHARITY'S INTERNATIONAL 
OPERATIONS, TO SPENDING TIME 
WE'S EMPLOYEES AND TO ATTENDING 
EVENTS SUCH AS WE DAYS.
GIVEN MY PASSION FOR THE 
ORGANIZATION, IT WAS A 
DIFFICULT DECISION FOR ME TO 
TENDER MY RESIGNATION.
I DID NOT RESIGN AS A ROUTINE 
MATTER OR AS PART OF A PLANNED 
FORWARD TRANSITION.
I RESIGNED BECAUSE I COULD NOT 
DO MY JOB.
I COULD NOT DISCHARGE MY 
GOVERNANCE DUTIES.
IN MARCH, THE WE CHARITY 
EXECUTIVE TEAM WERE SCRAMBLING 
TO CONTEND WITH THE IMIMPACTS 
OF THE PANDEMIC AND THEY BEGAN 
TO LAY OFF LARGE NUMBERS OF 
STAFF.
AS THE DAYS WENT BY, THE NUMBER 
OF JOB LOSSES GREW QUICKLY, 
INTO THE HUNDREDS.
THE BOARD FELT, OF COURSE, A 
DUTY TO PROTECT THE 
ORGANIZATION AND TO CONSIDER 
THE INTERESTS OF ITS 
STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING ITS 
EMPLOYEES, ITS DONORS, 
PARTNERS, BENEFICIARIES AND 
OTHERS.
I CONVENED AN AD HOC COMMITTEE 
OF THE BOARD TO HOLD DAILY 
CALLS WITH THE EXECKTIVE TEAM 
FOR BRIEFINGS AND UPDATES AND 
WE PROVIDED KEY UPDATES IN TURN 
TO THE BOARD AT LARGE.
THE COMMITTEE MADE REQUESTS OF 
THE WE CHARITY EXECUTIVE TEAM 
THAT WE CONSIDERED NECESSARY 
FOR THE BOARD TO DISCHARGE ITS 
OVERSIGHT DUTIES.
BY MARCH 23rd, WE HAD NOT SEEN 
ANY WRITTEN EVIDENCE, REPORTS 
OR RAW DATA TO SUPPORT THE 
DRASTIC MEASURES THAT WERE 
BEING TAKEN BY THE ORGANIZATION.
OUR ORAL BRIEFINGS WERE LARGELY 
FOCUSED ON THINGS LIKE THE 
STATUS OF SUPPORT FROM SPONSORS.
WE WERE TOLD THAT THE EXECUTIVE 
TEAM WAS RUNNING DAILY 
FINANCIAL REPORTS TO INFORM 
THEIR DECISION-MAKING.
THOSE REPORTS WERE NOT SHARED 
WITH THE BOARD, DESPITE OUR 
REQUESTS.
IT WAS OUR VIEW THAT YOU COULD 
NOT FIRE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE 
WITHOUT VERY STRONG, 
DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE, AND EVEN 
THEN SHOULD EXPLORE MITIGATION 
MEASURES TO SAVE JOBS.
INSTEAD, THE EXECUTIVE TEAM 
WERE DISMISSING EMPLOYEES WITH 
GREAT SPEED AND IN LARGE 
NUMBERS.
GIVEN THE PACE AND VOLUME OF 
JOB LOSSES, THE BOARD COMMITTEE 
DEMANDED THAT THE EXECUTIVE 
TEAM PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS AND 
REPORT IMMEDIATELY THAT WERE 
SAID TO BE BEING GENERATED AND 
RELIED UPON ON A DAILY BASIS.
IF THE ORGANIZATION WAS MAKING 
DRASTIC DECISIONS BASED ON 
DAILY REPORTS, WE NEEDED TO SEE 
THEM.
THE EXECUTIVE TEAM, WHEN ASKED, 
DID NOT AGREE TO PROVIDE THESE 
DOCUMENTS.
ON MARCH 25, CRAIG KIELBURGER 
CALLED ME TO ASK THAT I RESIGN 
FROM THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 
WE CHARITY.
IT WAS CLEAR THAT THERE WAS A 
BREAKDOWN IN TRUST BETWEEN THE 
FOUNDERS AND ME AS THE BOARD 
CHAIR.
HE IS A FOUNDER AND MARC AND 
CRAIG KIELBURGER HOLD 
SIGNIFICANT POWER IN THE 
ORGANIZATION.
AS I WAS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE 
TO DISCHARGE MY OVERSIGHT 
DUTIES, I OPTED TO RESIGN 
IMMEDIATELY.
IN AN ACCELERATED PROCESS, THE 
REMAINDER OF THE BOARD OF 
DIRECTORS WAS REPLACED, BUT FOR 
ONE CANADIAN MEMBER AND TWO 
U.S. BOARD MEMBERS IN EARLY 
APRIL.
I WAS NOT ON THE BOARD AT THAT 
TIME AND, THEREFORE, CANNOT 
SPEAK TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF 
THE REPLACEMENT.
GIVEN THE NATURE OF THESE 
PROCEEDINGS, I'D LIKE THE ALSO 
ADD THE FOLLOWING -- 
HAVING RESIGNED ON MARCH 27, 
2020, I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE 
WHATSOEVER OF THE CANADA 
STUDENT SERVICE GRANT PROGRAM.
I WAS INVOLVED IN SOME 
DISCUSSIONS IN 2018 WITH THE 
BOARD OF DIRECTORS THAT 
CONCERNED AN ENTITY CALLED THE 
WE CHARITY FOUNDATION.
WHILE THE ENTITY WAS 
ESTABLISHED IN JANUARY OF 2018, 
THE BOARD WAS NEVER SATISFIED 
THAT THE OPERATION OF THIS 
FOUNDATION WAS IN THE BEST 
INTERESTS OF THE CHARITY OR ITS 
VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS.
TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, IT 
WAS NOT AN OPERATION AS OF MY 
DEPARTURE FROM THE BOARD.
THE WE CHARITY BOARD ALWAYS 
UNDERSTOOD THAT SPEAKERS WERE 
NOT PAID BY THE CHARITY OR THE 
RELATED ORGANIZATION TO SPEAK 
AT WE DAYS.
THE BOARD MADE DIRECT INQUIRIES 
ON THIS ISSUE.
AS I WRAP UP MY REMARKS, I WANT 
TO CONCLUDE ON TWO POINTS.
MY FAMILY HAS BEEN DEEPLY 
INVOLVED IN THE WE ORGANIZATION 
FOR MANY YEARS.
WE'VE FUND RAISED, VOLUNTEERED 
AND MY SISTER AND NEPHEW ONCE 
WORKED FOR THE ORGANIZATION.
MY FAMILY VALUES -- SERVING 
OTHERS.
AND WE ALLOWED US TO EXPRESS 
THAT VALUE OVER MANY YEARS.
I KNOW THAT ALL OF US ARE 
SADENED BY THE DEVELOPMENTS 
THAT HAVE LOAD US HERE TODAY.
FINALLY, I'D LIKE TO AFFIRM MY 
BELIEF IN THE VERY GOOD WORK 
DONE BY WE CHARITY.
I ALWAYS BELIEVED IN THE WE 
ORGANIZATION'S EMPOWERMENT OF 
YOUNG PEOPLE TO CHANGE OUR 
WORLD.
I'VE ALWAYS BELIEVED IN WE 
CHARITY'S INTERNATIONAL 
DEVELOPMENT WORK AND LIFE 
CHANGING IMPACTS.
AND FINDINGLY, I'VE ALWAYS BEEN 
INSPIRED BY THE AMAZING AND 
SELFLESS PROFESSIONAL, THE 
EMPLOYEES THAT WORK SO HARD TO 
IMPLEMENT THE MISSION OF WE.
THOSE PEOPLE HAVE MY RESPECT 
AND DEEP THANKS.
THIS CONCLUDES MY REMARKS, 
CHAIR.
THANK YOU.
>> YOU'RE MUTED, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[LAUGHTER]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. 
DOUGLAS, FOR THOSE REMARKS AND 
I KNOW I SPEAK FOR THE 
COMMITTEE WHEN I SAY THANK YOU 
FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY 
THROUGH THE MILITARY, YOUR 
SERVICE AS A PUBLIC SERVICE TO 
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND 
YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISM THAT 
HAS BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR 
CHANGING SOME OF THE SOCIAL 
POLICY IN CANADA.
SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.
THE SPEAKING ORDER WILL BE MR. 
POILIEVRE, MR. FORTIN AND MS. 
ANGUS.
MR. POILIEVRE, SIX MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE 
TO CANADA.
AND IF YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY.
-- AND FOR YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY.
YOU INDICATE THAT THE BOARD WAS 
TOLD THAT WE CHARITY DID NOT 
PAY SPEAKERS.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> HOW DID THEY COMMUNICATE --
>> LET ME BE MORE PRECISE, TOO.
AT WE DAYS.
>> AT WE DAYS.
OK.
WERE YOU UNDER THE IMPRESSION 
THAT THEY PAID SPEAKERS AT 
OTHER EVENTS?
>> EMPLOYEES SPOKE AT OTHER 
EVENTS AND, OF COURSE, THEY 
WERE COMPENSATED.
BUT IN --
>> SPEAKING FEES?
>> NO. 
I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
>> TO YOUR NONL,  -- KNOWLEDGE, 
NO ONE ON THE BOARD WAS EVER 
INFORMED THAT SPEAKING FEES 
WOULD BE PAID FOR OUTSIDE 
PARTICIPANTS TO COME TO WE 
EVENTS AND GIVE SPEECHES?
>> AT LEAST TO WE DAYS, WHICH 
WAS THE FOCUS OF OUR INQUIRIES, 
THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING.
>> SO, WERE YOU SURPRISED TO 
LEARN THAT MARGARET, SOPHIE AND 
SASHA TRUDEAU RECEIVED OVER 
$300,000 IN SPEAKING FEES?
>> I DON'T KNOW THE PRECISE 
NATURE OF WHAT THEY WERE PAID 
FOR, BUT IF IT WAS EXCLUSIVELY 
TO SPEAK ON THE WE DAY STAGE, 
THAT WOULD HAVE SURPRISED ME.
>> AND WOULD IT HAVE SURPRISED 
YOU IF IT WAS TO SPEAK AT ANY 
OTHER EVENT RELATED TO THE WE 
CHARITY?
>> I NEVER MADE INQUIRIES INTO 
THAT KIND OF AN ADJUNCT OR 
ASSOCIATED AREA.
SO, I JUST DON'T KNOW ABOUT 
THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT.
>> AND WELE -- AND THE 
KIELBURGERS, OR WE CHARITY EVER 
EXPRESSLY COMMUNICATE TO THE 
BOARD THAT SPEAKERS WERE NOT 
PAID FOR WE DAY EVENTS?
>> THEY DID.
>>  THEY DID.
OK.
>> BUT THAT MAY HAVE COME FROM 
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE 
ORGANIZATION, BUT I KNOW THE 
BOARD MADE INQUIRIES INTO THAT.
>> WHO WAS THAT EXECUTIVE 
DIRECTOR?
>> IT WAS ONE OF TWO -- I CAN'T 
BE PRECISE ON THE TIME.
I 
>> THANK YOU.
THE KIELBURGERS JUSTIFIED THEIR 
MASS LAYOFFS IN MARCH ON THE 
BASIS OF FINANCIAL TROUBLE THEY 
ANTICIPATED LINKED TO THE 
CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAK.
DID I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY 
WHEN YOU DESCRIBED THAT?
>> WELL, THEY WERE CERTAINLY 
SEIZED OF ISSUES SURROUNDING 
THE IMPACT FROM THE VIRUS.
BUT -- AND I KNOW THAT THE 
ORGANIZATION WAS BEING IMPACTED 
SIGNIFICANTLY, FOR EXAMPLE.
SCHOOLS WERE CLOSING.
WE DAYS HAD TO CEASE.
AND THE ME TO WE ENTITY COULD 
NO LONGER RUN TRIPS OR HAVE 
RETAIL OPERATIONS.
SO, THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT 
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE 
ORGANIZATION.
>> AND DID THE KIELBURGERS, OR 
THE MANAGEMENT OF WE, TELL THE 
BOARD THAT THAT'S WHY THEY WERE 
LAYING OFF PEOPLE IN MARCH?
>> ESSENTIALLY THAT WAS A 
REDUCED KIND OF ESSENCE OF WHY 
PEOPLE WERE BEING LAID OFF, YES.
>> SO, THEY WERE -- THE 
KIELBURGERS SUGGESTED THEY WERE 
HAVING FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AT 
THE TIME?
>> I WOULDN'T CHARACTERIZE IT 
AS FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, BUT I 
THINK THEY WERE LOOKING TO THE 
FUTURE IMPLICATIONS OF SPONSOR 
-- A SPONSORSHIP AND THEY WERE 
TALKING TO SPONSORS AT THE TIME.
BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THEY 
REFERED TO THE ORGANIZATION 
BEING IN A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP 
OR VULNERABLE SITUATION.
>> THAT WHY YOU OBJECTED TO THE 
LAYOFFS?
>> NO.
I OBJECTED TO THE LAYOFFS, NOT 
AS A MATTER -- A GENERAL MATTER.
PERHAPS IT WAS NECESSARY.
I OBJECTED TO THE FACT THAT 
THEY WERE BEING DONE WITHOUT 
THE FULL CONSULTATION OF THE 
BOARD AND HAVE DETAILED 
INFORMATION PROVIDED TO US THAT 
WOULD CONFIRM THAT IT WAS 
ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO PROCEED 
IN THAT WAY.
I ACCEPTED WHAT THEY WERE 
SAYING BUT WE NEEDED TO SEE THE 
INFORMATION.
>> RIGHT.
DID ANYONE ON THE BOARD DURING 
YOUR TIME THERE EVER EXPRESS 
ANY CONCERN ABOUT WE CHARITY'S 
PAYMENT TO OTHER NONARMS-LENGTH 
ENTITIES LIKE ME TO WE, ANY 
MEMBER COMPANIES OR 
ORGANIZATIONS THAT WERE 
CONTRACTED OR SUBCONTRACTED BY 
WE CHARITY?
>> WELL, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 
OF WE CHARITY WAS QUITE SEIZED 
ON THE ISSUE OF LOOKING AT 
TRANSFERS BETWEEN THE RELATED 
ENTITY, PARTICULARLY OF ME TO 
WE.
WE REQUIRED AN ANNUAL 
RECONCILIATION REPORT TO THE 
BOARD ON THOSE TRANSFERS.
I THINK WE WERE INTERESTED IN 
GETTING AS MUCH INFORMATION AS 
WE COULD ABOUT THOSE TRANSFERS 
AND IN THIS REGARD, WE ALWAYS 
INVITED THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 
OF ME TO WE TO AN ANNUAL 
MEETING OF THE WE CHARITY TO 
KIND OF PROVIDE US WITH AN 
UPDATE AND HELP US UNDERSTAND 
THE RECONCILIATION OF FUNDS 
BETWEEN THE TWO ORGANIZATIONS.
>> DID ANYONE ON THE BOARD --
>> LAST QUESTION, PIERRE.
>> DID ANYONE ON THE BOARD EVER 
EXPRESS CONCERNS ABOUT THOSE 
TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN WE CHARITY 
AND ME TO WE?
>> I DON'T THINK EXPLICIT 
CONCERNS WERE EXPRESSED, RATHER 
REQUESTS FOR ENHANCED 
INFORMATION IS THE WAY I WOULD 
PUT IT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, BOTH.
NEXT.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I WANTED TO ADVISE YOU THAT I 
WILL BE SHARING MY TIME.
COULD YOU PLEASE STOP ME AT 
MINUTE FOUR.
>> WILL DO.
>> THANK YOU FOR APPEARING 
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE TODAY AND 
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAST SERVICE 
AND FOR YOUR CONTINUED ACTIVISM 
FOR CANADIANS AT LARGE.
AS YOU STATED, YOU RESIGNED 
FROM YOUR POSITION AS CHAIR OF 
THE BOARD ON MARCH 27.
AND WHILE IT APPEARS AS THOUGH 
THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE 
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND WE 
CHARITY ON THE ADMINISTRATION 
OF THE CFSG, THE CANADA STUDENT 
SERVICE GRANT BEGAN ON APRIL 7 
WHEN MINISTER MORNEAU CONTACTED 
ME.
AS WELL AS A NUMBER OF OTHER 
ORGANIZATIONS TO GET THEIR 
THOUGHTS ON THE STUDENT 
VOLUNTEER PROGRAM.
WERE YOU AT ALL AWARE OF THE 
CANADA STUDENT SERVICE GRANT OR 
SIMILAR PROGRAMS PROPOSED BY WE 
CHARITY?
>> I WAS NOT.
>> AND WHILE YOU WERE IN THE 
POSITION AS CHAIR OF THE BOARD, 
WERE YOU AWARE OF ANY INTENTION 
BY THE WE CHARITY TO SUBMIT A 
PROPOSAL TO THE FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT?
>> COULD YOU CLARIFY THE TIME 
PERIOD?
I WAS THERE FOR A LONG TIME.
SO, ANY GENERAL SUBMISSION OR 
SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE 
CANADA SERVICE.
>> EITHER/OR.
>> GRANT APPLICATIONS WERE MADE 
TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY 
THE -- BY WE CHARITY.
AND CERTAINLY AWARE OF SOME OF 
THEM.
BUT I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR 
INTENTIONS OF WHAT BECAME THE 
CANADA STUDENT SERVICE GRANT 
PROGRAM.
>> WERE YOU AWARE THAT THERE 
WOULD BE A CONTRIBUTION 
AGREEMENT SIGNED BETWEEN WE AND 
THE GOVERNMENT AT ALL?
HAD YOU HEARD ANYTHING WHILE 
YOU WERE STILL CHAIR OF THE 
BOARD?
>> I HAD NOT HEARD ANYTHING 
ABOUT THAT INFORMATION OR 
PROGRAM.
I KNEW NOTHING ABOUT IT.
>> OK.
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT HAS 
BEEN RAISED IN THE PAST IS THE 
IDEA THAT A NEW BOARD OF 
DIRECTORS MAY NOT BE BEST 
POSITIONED TO GUIDE WE CHARITY.
IN ITS ADMINISTRATION OF A 
PROGRAM LIKE THE CANADA STUDENT 
SERVICE GRANT.
WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO COMMENT ON 
ANY POLICIES IN PLACE AT WE 
CHARITY THAT YOU WOULD -- THAT 
WOULD ENSURE THE SMOOTH 
TRANSITION OF BOARD MEMBERS?
>> WELL, BECAUSE I WAS ASKED TO 
RESIGN BY CRAIG KIELBURGER AND 
OPTED TO DO SO IMMEDIATELY AS A 
RESULT OF A NUMBER OF CONCERNS, 
I WOULD SAY I HAD THREE 
SPECIFIC CONCERNS, THERE WAS NO 
ORDERLY TRANSITION BETWEEN THE 
OLD BOARD -- CERTAINLY THE OLD 
BOARD CHAIR, ME, AND THE NEW 
CANADIAN BOARD CHAIR, GREG 
ROGERS.
I HAD MET MR. ROGERS BEFORE, 
BUT I DO NOT KNOW HIM WELL.
AND HAVE REALLY NO KIND OF 
RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE 
CIRCUMSTANCES OF MY RESIGNATION 
NAENL THERE WAS NO TRANSFER IN 
THE ORDINARY COURSE OF 
INFORMATION.
>> THE CHAIR OF THE WE CHAIR 
BOARD IN CANADA.
HOW MUCH SAY DID YOU HAVE IN 
THE OVERALL GOVERNANCE AND 
STRATEGIC DIRECTION OF THE 
ORGANIZATION?
>> I HAD THE VERY GREAT HONOR 
TO BE THE CHAIR OF THAT BOARD 
OF DIRECTORS.
A POSITION I WAS VERY PLEASED 
TO HOLD, GIVEN THE AMAZING 
PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE IN A TEAM 
BEHIND ME AND WITH ME.
SO THE BOARD HAS POWER TO MAKE 
DECISIONS AROUND GOVERNMENT -- 
GOVERNANCE, ESTABLISH A 
DIRECTION OF OVERSIGHT AND SO 
ON.
WE DEAL WITH FINANCIAL RECORDS.
BUT AS FOR MYSELF PERSONALLY, I 
WAS JUST ONE MEMBER OF THE 
BOARD.
ALTHOUGH I MET QUITE REGULARLY 
WITH THE EXECUTIVE TEAM.
>> OK.
WE WILL HAVE TO SWITCH OVER FOR 
A COUPLE OF MINUTES.
JULIE?
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, MS. DOUGLAS, 
FOR BEING HERE.
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
I REALLY APPRECIATED YOUR 
TESTIMONY.
CAN YOU CONFIRM -- I KNOW THAT 
YOU SAID YOU VOLUNTEERED WITH 
ME FOR 15 YEARS BUT THE BOARD 
CHAIR FOR 10 YEARS, RIGHT?
>> ACTUALLY, I THINK IT IS A 
LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN THAT.
BUT MY RECORDS AREN'T PRECISE 
ON THE POINT.
SO, I WOULD SAY A BIT LONGER 
THAN 10 YEARS, BUT 
UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T HAVE A 
START DATE THAT I CAN REFER YOU 
TO.
>> THAT'S OK.
I HAVE TWO KEY QUESTIONS 
BECAUSE I WANT TO FOCUS ON WHAT 
WE, WE AS A COMMITTEE, IS HERE 
TO DO.
ONE, IS THERE ANY REASON, 
ALTHOUGH YOU'VE LEFT, IS THERE 
ANY REASON WHY WE SHOULD DOUBT 
THE FINANCIALABILITY OF WE 
CHARITY TO DELIVER THE CANADA 
STUDENT SERVICE GRANT PROPOSAL.
SO IF THEY CONTINUED TO HAPPEN, 
WAS THERE ANY REASON FROM A 
FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE THAT THEY 
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO 
DELIVER IT?
>> WELL, IN THE FOUR MONTHS 
ESSENTIALLY FROM YESTERDAY THAT 
I HAVE BEEN AWAY FROM THE 
ORGANIZATION, I THINK A LOT IS 
POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN IN TERMS OF 
THE AGREEMENT, CERTAINLY I THED 
NOT HAVE IMMEDIATE QUESTIONS OF 
THE SOLVENCY OR FINANCIAL 
STANDING OF THE ORGANIZATION AT 
THE TIME I LEFT.
ALTHOUGH I WAS CERTAINLY DEEPLY 
APPRECIATIVE OF THE IMPACT OF 
COVID AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACT 
ON THE ORGANIZATION FROM A 
FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE.
>> SO WE HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION 
FOR YOU.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, ORIGINALLY 
OUR CIVIL SERVANTS LOOKED AT A 
NUMBER OF ORGANIZES AND IN THE 
SHORT PERIOD OF TIME THAT THEY 
HAD, THEY DECIDED THAT WE HAD 
THE BEST SORT OF CAPABILITIES 
TO DELIVER WE CANADA SERVICE 
GRANT PROGRAM.
DO YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT OF THE 
ABILITY OF THE WE CHARITY TO 
HAVE DELIVERED ON THE CSSG 
PROGRAM?
>> BECAUSE OF THE DATE OF MY 
RESIGNATION, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT 
THE SCOPE OF THE PROGRAM WAS AT 
ALL.
SO IT'S REALLY QUITE IMPOSSIBLE 
FOR ME TO, YOU KNOW, EXPLAIN 
WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE ABLE TO 
HAVE DELIVERED ON IT.
I DO KNOW THAT WE CHARITY HAD, 
AT ONE TIME, CERTAINLY MANY 
HUNDREDS OF EMPLOYEES.
BUT BY THE TIME I LEFT, MANY OF 
THOSE EMPLOYEES WERE LEAVING.
THEY HAD EXTENSIVE NETWORKS 
BOTH IN CANADA AND THE UNITED 
STATES AS WELL AS 
INTERNATIONALLY.
BUT IN SO FAR AS THEIR ABILITY 
TO RUN THAT PROGRAM, I JUST 
DON'T KNOW.
>> OK.
THANK YOU ALL THREE.
WE'LL TURN TO MINISTER FORTIN, 
FOLLOWED BY MR. ANGUS.
MR. FORTIN?
>> YOU'RE MUTED.
>> SORRY.
OK.
[Speaking French] 
[Speaking French] 
>> I DIDN'T MAKE ANY INQUIRIES 
INTO THEIR SPECIFIC STATUS.
BUT GENERALLY THE INFORMATION 
FOR THE BOARD WAS THAT NO 
SPEAKERS WERE PAID.
>> [Voice of Interpreter]: ARE 
YOU AWARE OF THE VARIOUS TRIPS 
OFFERED BY WE CHARITY TO SOME 
POLITICIANS, INCLUDING MR. 
MORNEAU?
>> I'M AWARE THAT A NUMBER OF 
PEOPLE TRAVELED TO SOME OF THE 
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 
LOCATIONS.
THE SO-CALLED WE VILLAGE 
LOCATIONS DEVELOPED BY -- OR 
SUPPORTED IS A BETTER WORD -- 
BY WE CHARITY.
AS FOR THE LIST OF PEOPLE WHO 
ATTENDED, THE BOARD DOES NOT 
GET INTO THE SPECIFICS OF EVERY 
SING GUEST THAT WAS ATTENDING, 
WHETHER THEY WERE POLITICIANS 
OR WELL-KNOWN PEOPLE.
SOMETIMES WE WERE AWARE OF IT, 
BUT NOT ALWAYS.
>> [Speaking French]
>> [Voice of Interpreter]: RI 
AWARE OF THE FACT THAT MR. 
MORNEAU, HIS WIFE AND AT LEAST 
MR. MORNEAU AND HIS WIFE 
TRAVELED -- THE SOUND IS 
CUTTING OUT, UNFORTUNATELY, FOR 
THE INTERPRETER.
WE CANNOT HEAR WHAT THE MEMBER 
IS SAYING.
>> MR. FORTIN, THE INTERPRETER 
IS HAVING -- MAYBE TRY RAISING 
YOUR MIC A LITTLE.
THE TRANSLATOR IS HAVING 
DIFFICULTY PICKING YOU UP.
TRY THAT.
>> [Speaking French] 
>> [Voice of Interpreter]: 
THERE'S SOME TECHNICAL 
GLITCHES, MR. CHAIRMAN.
CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES.
>> [Voice of Interpreter]: SO 
MS. DOUGLAS, I'LL START AGAIN.
I'M HEARING SOME ISSUES OVER 
THE LINE.
BUT ARE YOU AWARE OF THE FACT 
THAT MR. -- THE FINANCE 
MINISTER WENT TO KENYA IN 2017 
WE CHARITY, APPROXIMATELY 
AROUND THOSE DATES?
ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?
>> I -- I'M NOT SURE IF I'VE 
UNDERSTOOD THE INTERPRETER 
CORRECTLY.
SO PERHAPS A POINT FOR 
PRECISION, BUT I WAS UNAWARE 
THAT MINISTER MORNEAU WENT TO 
AFRICA IN 2017.
>> [Speaking French]
>> [Voice of Interpreter]: FROM 
WHAT I GATHER, THEN, MR. 
MORNEAU TOLD US LAST WEEK THAT 
HE OWED ABOUT $43,000 TO WE 
CHARITY FOR THOSE TRIPS TO 
ECUADOR AND KENYA.
YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF THE FACT 
THAT MR. MORNEAU HAD TO 
REIMBURSE SOME OF THESE FEES TO 
WE CHARITY?
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT 
PRECISION, MONSIEUR FORTIN.
YES, I WAS AWARE THAT THE 
MINISTER OF FINANCE MADE A 
REPAYMENT TO WE CHARITY.
I DON'T PRECISELY KNOW WHAT THE 
DETAILS WOULD ALIGN OR 
CORRESPOND TO.
I DON'T QUITE KNOW ABOUT THAT.
I'M AWARE THAT HE PERSONALLY 
AND MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY 
TRAVELED TO ECUADOR AND 
POSSIBLY I BELIEVE THAT OTHER 
MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY TRAVELED 
TO KENYA AT SOME EARLIER DAY.
BUT I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS OF 
THAT.
>> [Speaking French]
>> [Voice of Interpreter]: BUT 
YOU'RE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT 
HE HAD TO REFUND ABOUT $43,000 
IN TRAVEL COSTS, ARE YOU WEAR 
OF THAT?
-- ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?
>> I DID SEE THAT REPORT, YES.
>> FRO *IFRJ FRENCH
[Speaking French]
>> [Voice of Interpreter]: ARE 
YOU AWARE OF WHETHER OR NOT A 
BILL WAS ISSUED TO MR. MORNEAU 
FOR THOSE AMOUNTS?
>> I'M NOT WELL-POSITIONED AS A 
FORMER MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF 
DIRECTORS TO KNOW ABOUT THOSE 
DETAILS.
THAT THE EXECUTIVE TEAM WOULD 
UNDOUBTEDLY BE BETTER PLACED TO 
ADDRESS A QUESTION LIKE THAT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW INVOICING 
SYSTEMS WORK.
>> [Speaking French]
>> [Voice of Interpreter]: YOU 
WERE THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD.
THE MINISTER OF FINANCE TRAVELS 
WITH WE CHARITY, THE TRAVEL 
COSTS ARE ABOUT $100,000.
APPARENTLY HE HAD ALREADY PAID 
OFF $50,000.
THERE WAS SOMETHING AROUND 
$43,000 LEFT TO BE PAID.
YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT THE 
BOARD WAS UNAWARE OF THESE 
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS?
>> WELL, I DO KNOW THAT 
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE TRAVELED 
EVERY YEAR TO OUR INTERNATIONAL 
DEVELOPMENT LOCATIONS.
AND COMMUNITIES WITH WHOM WE 
WORKED CLOSELY.
BUT THE ACTUAL PARTICULARS OF 
PAYMENTS FOR, YOU KNOW, FAMILY 
MEMBERS OR COSTS OR ELEMENTS OF 
THEIR TRIP, THAT IS NOT A 
DETAIL.
IN FACT, IT IS QUITE -- YOU 
KNOW, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 
WOULD SEE KIND OF MORE 
OVERSIGHT OR AGGREGATE 
INFORMATION AND NOT SOMETHING 
QUITE AS SPECIFIC AS THAT.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT EXACTLY 
HIS INVOICE WOULD HAVE RELATED 
TO.
OR WHERE HE WENT TO ECUADOR.
>> [Speaking French]
>> [Voice of Interpreter]: WHAT 
WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO 
ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS AT WE 
CHARITIES, ACCORDING TO YOU?
>> I WOULD EXPECT THAT THE 
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF WE 
CHARITY OR ME TO WE OR PERHAPS 
THE CO-FOUNDERS COULD ANSWER 
THAT QUESTION WITH PRECISION.
>> [Speaking French]
>> [Voice of Interpreter]: 
CO-FOUNDERS ARE THE KIELBURGER 
BROTHERS.
BUT WHO IS THE EXECUTIVE 
DIRECTOR YOU'RE REFERING TO?
>> THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR I'M 
REFERRING TO IS MS. DELAL, THE 
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF WE 
CHARITY.
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ME TO 
WE IS MR. RUSS MCLEOD.
>> OK.
WE'LL HAVE TO END IT THERE.
GOING TO MR. ANGUS AND MR. 
ANGUS WILL BE FOLLOWED BY MR. 
BARRETT.
CHARLIE, YOU'RE UP.
>> WE, THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. 
KHAIFRMENT AND THANK YOU, 
MADAME DOUGLAS.
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PUBLIC 
SERVICE.
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
MY DAUGHTERS WENT TO FREE THE 
CHILDREN WHEN THEY WERE 
PROBABLY IN GRADE 4 AND 5 AND 6 
AND IT CHANGED THEIR LIFE AND 
MY OLDEST SAID IT SET HER ON A 
COURSE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 
ACTIVISM.
BUT THAT'S  A VERY, VERY 
DIFFERENT GROUP WHEN THEY WERE 
YOUNG AND IDEALISTIC TO WHAT WE 
HAVE TODAY WHICH I FIND HARD TO 
GET MY HEAD AROUND WITH THE 
MASS CORPORATIONS AND REAL 
ESTATE DEALINGS, THE VARIOUS 
WHAT'S FOR PROFIT, WHAT'S FOR 
PUBLIC.
SO GOVERNANCE IS A REALLY, 
REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTION.
AND GOVERNANCE IS SUPER 
IMPORTANT WHEN TALKING ABOUT A 
DEAL WITH THE FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT THAT MAY BE CLOSE TO 
$1 BILLION.
WE NEED GOVERNMENT AND 
OVERSIGHT.
SO, I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT 
THE SITUATION THAT WAS 
HAPPENING WITH YOUR BOARD IN 
MARCH.
SO, YOU SAID YOU WERE TRYING TO 
GET ANSWERS.
THERE WERE MASS LAYOFFS TAKING 
PLACE.
WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE 
CONVERSATION WITH MARC 
KIELBURGER, BY TELECONFERENCE, 
THAT HE WAS NOT FORTH COMING?
THAT HE WAS GETTING ANGRY?
>> I HAD A NUMBER OF TELEPHONE 
CALLS DURING THE PERIOD OF MID 
MARCH.
ACTUALLY, I THINK STARTING ON 
MARCH 9, BUT MOST PARTICULARLY 
MID MARCH WITH MARC KIELBURGER 
AND ALMOST ALWAYS DELAL, AND I 
WAS JOINED BY MY U.S. BOARD 
CHAIR COLLEAGUE AND 
COUNTERPART, JONATHAN WHITE.
DR. JONATHAN WHITE.
MY SENSE IS THAT THE 
ORGANIZATION WAS FEELING 
INTENSE PRESSURE FROM THE 
IMPACT OF THE ORGANIZATION.
I WAS HAVING SERIOUS IMPACTS 
AND I MENTIONED BEFORE THE 
CLOSING OF SCHOOLS AND TENDING 
OF WE DAYS, THE COMPLETION OF 
TRAVEL AND THAT KIND OF THING.
WE WERE PUSHING FOR INFORMATION.
WE WERE TOLD INFORMATION WAS 
AVAILABLE.
WE DIDN'T ASK FOR POWERPOINTS 
OR ANYTHING NEW.
JUST SIMPLY THE INFORMATION WE 
WERE TOLD REGULARLY WAS BEING 
GENERATED ON A DAILY BASIS AND 
THAT INFORMATION WAS NEVER 
PROVIDED, ALTHOUGH WE ASKED.
>> WELL, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 
MASS LAYOFFS, HUNDREDS OF 
PEOPLE -- AN ORGANIZATION THAT 
IS NOW VERY MUCH IN CRISIS.
WAS THERE A MEETING WHERE MARC 
KIELBURGER HUNG UP THE PHONE 
AND WAS THAT WHAT PRECIPITATED 
CRAIG KIELBURGER ASKING YOU TO 
RESIGN?
>> I WOULD SAY THAT THERE WAS 
ONE PARTICULARLY DRAMATIC OR 
MEMORABLE MEETING ON OR ABOUT 
MARCH 23rd WHEN THE AD HOC 
COMMITTEE-HIF  ---I MENTIONED 
THAT I HAD ASKED BE CONVENED, 
MYSELF THE U.S. BOARD CHAIR AND 
TWO OTHERS, ATTENDED THAT 
MEETING BY PHONE.
I DEMANDED THAT THE EXECUTIVE 
TEAM PRODUCE THOSE RECORDS.
I GAVE A SHORT KIND OF 
TURN-AROUND TIME BY LATER THAT 
DAY OR EARLY THE NEXT MORNING.
AND I'LL SIMPLY SAY THAT THE 
CALL WAS ABRUPTLY CONCLUDED.
>> SO YOU HUNG UP AND THEN HIS 
BROTHER CALLED AND ASKED FOR 
YOUR RESIGNATION.
THE ONLY REASON I'M ASKING TO 
GET INTO THIS IS BECAUSE THE 
CANADIAN PEOPLE HAVE GIVEN THIS 
ORGANIZATION CLOSE TO $BILLION.
AND WE NEED TO SEE KNOW THAT 
THIS IS AN ORGANIZATION THAT 
HAS A PROPER STRUCTURE.
IT'S NOT JUST THE KIELBURGER 
BROTHERS AND THEIR FAMILY.
THAT THERE IS OVERSIGHT.
SO, I WOULD SAY WE WERE ALL 
VERY SHOCKED THAT CONTRARY TO 
WHAT THE LIBERALS HAVE BEEN 
SAYING ON THIS COMMITTEE THAT 
WE CHARITY IS NOT OVERSEEING 
THIS PROGRAM.
IT'S A SHELL COMPANY, WE 
FOUNDATION, AND I LOOK INTO WE 
FOUNDATION AND I DON'T SEE A 
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE IN PLACE 
OTHER THANK IT LOOKS LIKE 
PEOPLE WHO WORK, THE 
KIELBURGERS, AND STATED NAME 
WAS HOLDING REAL ESTATE.
IT HAS NO ASSETS.
YOU SAID YOU HAD CONCERNS ABOUT 
WE FOUNDATION.
WHAT WERE YOU CONCERNS?
>> WELL, THE EXECUTIVE TEAM 
BROUGHT FORWARD THE IDEA THAT A 
FOUNDATION WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA 
AND PRESENTED IT TO THE BOARD 
OF DIRECTORS APPROXIMATELY IN 
2018.
THE BOARD HAD A NUMBER OF 
CONCERNS.
WE SIMPLY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH 
INFORMATION.
I CONSIDERED THIS MATTER 
PERSONALLY QUITE DEEPLY.
THINKING ABOUT THE INTERESTS OF 
STAKEHOLDERS, CONTRIBUTORS TO 
THE ORGANIZATION.
THINKING ABOUT ALL THE YOUTH 
WHO HAD DONE FUNDRAISING AND 
WANTED TO UNDERSTAND IN A 
MANNER THAT WAS CRYSTAL CLEAR 
WHY SUCH A FOUNDATION WOULD 
EXIST AND WHAT ITS PURPOSES WAS 
AND WOULD BE AND ULTIMATELY 
THERE WAS NO RESOLUTION BROUGHT 
BEFORE THE BOARD TO CONSIDER 
WHETHER THAT SHOULD BE 
ESTABLISHED.
I THINK THE BORE DID NOT HAVE 
SATISFACTORY INFORMATION OTT 
THAT TIME.
>> SO, WE HAVE THIS --
>> LAST QUESTION, CHARLIE.
>> A LD HOING COMPANY SET UP 
THAT THE BOARD IS TRYING TO GET 
ANSWERED.
THERE IS NO OVERSIGHT.
AND YET THIS IS WHERE THE 
KIELBURGER BROTHERS DECIDE TO 
FUNNEL $900 MILLION.
IT CERTAINLY PROTECTS THEM FROM 
LIABILITY BUT THERE IS NO 
OVERSIGHT MECHANISM WHICH I CAN 
SEE.
WOULD YOU SAY THAT THAT'S A 
FAIR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THIS 
FOUND DAYSING SET UP?
>> I DON'T KNOW THE PARTICULARS 
OF THE STRUCTURE AROUND THIS 
FOUNDATION.
SO I'M REALLY NOT WELL-PLACED 
TO TALK ABOUT ITS CAPACITY.
TO DO ANY WORK.
I JUST DON'T KNOW ENOUGH --
>> BUT IT HAD NO HISTORY.
>> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MR. ANGUS.
I DO THINK I HAVE TO POINT OUT, 
MR. ANGUS, YOU SAID THAT GIVEN 
THIS CHARITY $1 BILLION.
I WOULDN'T WANT THERE TO BE 
IMPROPER INFORMATION OUT THERE.
BASICALLY THE GOVERNMENT WOULD 
PROVIDE UP TO $912 MILLION.
>> CORRECT.
>> $912 MILLION TO BE FUNNELED 
THROUGH ON THE CSSG GRANTS OF 
WHICH THEY WOULD BE PROVIDED AN 
ADMINISTRATION FEE OF $43 
MILLION.
JUST SO THE RECORD IS 
ABSOLUTELY CLEAR ON THIS 
CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE.
OK.
MR. BARRETT FOLLOWED BY MR. 
FRASER.
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM, FOR YOUR 
TESTIMONY TODAY AND FOR YOUR 
SERVICE TO CANADA IN UNIFORM 
AND, OF COURSE, AND THE PUBLIC 
SERVICE AS WELL.
WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF 
THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING THE 
WE CHARITY FOUNDATION.
>> AT THE TIME THE BOARD 
CONSIDERED THE MATTER, IT WAS 
SAID TO BE FOR THE POSSIBLE 
PURPOSE OF HOLDING REAL 
PROPERTY ASSETS, BUT I DON'T 
HAVE A MEMORY OF IT, OBJECT OR 
PURPOSE BEYOND THAT.
>> OK.
>> JUST TO INTERRUPT FOR A 
SECOND.
MS. DOUGLAS, COULD YOU HOLD 
YOUR MIC UP.
THE TRANSLATORS AND THE  
INTERPRETERS IN THE BOOTH HAVE 
A DIFFICULT JOB.
SORRY, GO AHEAD.
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF HOW MANY 
ENTITIES EXIST UNDER THE WE 
BANNER OR ARE OPERATED BY THE 
FOUNDERS?
LIKE THERE IS A NUMBER OF THESE 
FOUNDERS, DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY 
THERE ARE?
>> PUT THAT WAY, I DON'T THE 
ACTUAL NUMBER, NO.
>> DO YOU HAVE AN ESTIMATION 
THAT YOU'D BE PREPARED TO OFFER?
>> I'M NOT SURE I CAN PROVIDE 
THAT WITH ANY PRECISION.
CERTAINLY THE ORGANIZATION 
WOULD BE BETTER PLACED TO 
PROVIDE THAT KIND OF 
INFORMATION.
>> OK.
AND DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY 
OVERSIGHT OF ANY OF THOSE 
ENTITIES?
OR, YEAH, OF ANY OF THEM?
>> I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS 
SPECIFIC OVERSIGHT.
IF THERE IS A RELATE 
CORPORATION THAT REQUIRES OUR 
OVERSIGHT.
SO, HERE I'M THINKING OF THE 
ORGANIZATION, IMAGINE ONE DAY, 
CAN WAS KIND OF INTEGRATED INTO 
THE WE CHARITY ORGANIZATION.
THERE WAS A SEPARATE BOARD SO 
WE DID HAVE A SEPARATE ENTITY 
TO HAVE THEIR OWN OUTSTANDING 
BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
>> SO, IN YOUR UNDERSTANDING, 
WHO OVERSEES OR CONTROLS THE WE 
CHARITY FOUNDATION?
>> I DON'T KNOW THOSE DETAILS 
BECAUSE I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN 
SETTING UP THE ENTITY WITH ANY 
DETAIL.
I WAS AWARE IT EXISTED.
IT WAS REFERED TO IN THE 2018 
AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 
BUT IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING AT 
THAT TIME, IT HADN'T HAD ANY 
OPERATIONS.
>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE ROLE A 
FOUNDER HAS IN THIS 
ORGANIZATION, IF IT IS NOT AN 
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR TRUSTEE 
OR C.F.O.?
WHERE DOES FOUNDER FIT IN?
>> WELL, I THINK IT IS A 
TITULAR TITLE THAT SOMEONE 
WOULD HAVE WHO FOUND, YOU KNOW, 
ESTABLISHES OR IS THE FOUNDER 
OF AN ENTITY.
IN THIS CASE, THEY HAD 
SIGNIFICANT GOVERNANCE, POWER 
BECAUSE THE BYLAWS ALLOWED THEM 
TO MAKE DECISIONS ON 
ESSENTIALLY DISMISSING THE 
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OR OBLIGATED 
THE BOARD OF DROEK TOS TO REFER 
TO THE FOUNDERS AND INFORM AND 
CONSULT THEM ON SIGNIFICANT 
DIRECTIONAL SHIFTS IN THE 
ORGANIZATION.
SO, THEY DID HAVE GOVERNANCE 
POWER IN THAT SENSE.
THEY ATTENDED, AT LEAST MARC 
KIELBURGER, RARELY CRAIG 
KIELBURGER, BUT CERTAINLY MARC 
KIELBURGER ATTENDED MOST BOARD 
MEETINGS WITH THE EXECUTIVE 
DIRECTOR.
>> I WANT TO CIRCLE BACK TO THE 
SUBJECT OF THE BORE.
I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT A JUNE 
2019 ARTICLE THAT WAS PUBLISHED 
IN CANADALAND AND I'M SURE THAT 
YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH IT.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF YOU ARE 
FAMILIAR WITH IT AND 
SPECIFICALLY IF YOU'RE AWARE OF 
ANY ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE OR 
BULLYING AT THE CHARITY.
NOW THAT ARTICLE DID DETAIL 
SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS BY FORMER 
EMPLOYEES OF THE ORGANIZATION 
AND SOME OF THEIR EXPERIENCES 
AND COMMENTS RELATED 
SPECIFICALLY TO MR. MARC 
KIELBURGER.
ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OF THAT?
>> THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 
LOOKED INTO THIS QUITE 
SIGNIFICANTLY AND WE'RE 
TROUBLED BY WHAT WE HAD READ.
AND WANTED TO KNOW THE FACTS 
ABOUT THE SITUATION.
WE DID HAVE A NUMBER OF 
MEETINGS OR SOME MEETINGS ABOUT 
THIS.
ASKED FOR AN ACCOUNTING FROM 
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
HAD THE BENEFIT OF READING 
REPORTS FROM THE ORGANIZATION.
AND LATER, TO BRING IT TO 
TODAY, I MEAN, I'VE SEEN OTHERS 
REPORTING CONCERNING 
ALLEGATIONS.
SO, THIS DOESN'T FEEL VERY GOOD 
TO ME IN THE SENSE THAT I'M 
TROUBLED IF SOMEONE DID NOT 
HAVE A GOOD EMPLOYEE EXPERIENCE.
BUT I PERSONALLY NEVER SAW 
ANYTHING FROM MARC THAT 
DIRECTLY CONCERNED ME.
>> OK.
WE'LL HAVE TO END IT THERE.
SORRY.
TURNING THEN TO MR. FRASER, 
FOLLOWED BY MR. COOPER.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MS. 
DOUGLAS, FOR JOINING US TODAY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
AND MIGHT I JUST ADD THAT THE 
LGBT PURGE IN THE MILITARY IS A 
STAIN ON OUR NATION'S HISTORY, 
THAT I CONTINUE TO BE ASHAMED 
OF AND I'M SO SORRY FOR YOUR 
EXPERIENCE IN THAT REGARD.
TURNING TO THE MATTER AT HAND.
I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS 
ABOUT WHAT THE ORDINARY MRA 
WOULD LOOK LIKE AT WE.
YOU SAID YOU HAVE NO PERCH 
KNOWLEDGE OF THE CANADA STUDENT 
SERVICE GRANT.
I'VE DEALT OVER THE PAST NUMBER 
OF YEARS AS A LOCAL M.P. OR IN 
A ROLE AS PARLIAMENTARY 
SECRETARY.
BUT PROPOSALS THAT COME IN FROM 
GROUPS THAT WANT TO DO THIS OR 
THAT OR HAVE AN IDEA.
SOME OF THEM, FRANKLY , ARE 
PIPE DREAMS FROM PEOPLE WHO 
HAVE NO EXPERIENCE PUTTING 
PROPOSALS TOGETHER.
OTHERS COME FROM 
WELL-ESTABLISHED ORGANIZATIONS 
WITH INTERINGS NAAL  -- 
INTERNATIONAL REPUTATIONS THAT 
CAN TURN INTO GREAT IDEAS.
IN YOUR OWN WORDS, CAN YOU 
DESCRIBE WHAT AN ORDINARY 
PROCESS WOULD BE LIKE FOR THE 
WE CHARITY TO PROVIDE A PROPOSE 
TOLD A PROVINCIAL OR FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT?
>> RIGHT.
THIS WAS A VERY -- VERY MUCH A 
PROCESS MANAGED BY THE -- BY 
STAFF AT THE ORGANIZATION.
SO, THEY WOULD BE IDENTIFYING 
NEEDS AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
POTENTIALLY FILL -- BY 
PROVIDING SERVICES -- FILL A 
NEED OR LOOKING FOR KIND OF 
OPEN CALLS FOR GRANTS AND 
THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
THE ACTUAL WORKING PROCESS OF 
THIS WAS DONE INTERNALLY.
SO, I THINK THE NEXT WITNESSES 
COULD PROVIDE MORE OVERSIGHT OR 
MORE INFORMATION ON THAT.
BUT THERE WAS PROCESS AND THEY 
-- THE STAFF WOULD NORMALLY 
WORK THAT UP AND IF IT WAS 
QUITE A SUBSTANTIAL GRANT, FOR 
EXAMPLE, ONE GRANT OF $3 
MILLION, THE BOARD WOULD BE 
WELL-INFORMED ABOUT THAT.
>> OK.
I'M CURIOUS AS WELL.
WHEN THE -- OBVIOUSLY THERE 
WOULD BE SOME INTERNAL WORK 
THAT GOES INTO DEVELOPING SOME 
KIND OF PROPOSAL TO MEET THESE 
SOCIAL NEEDS THAT THE CHARITY 
WOULD IDENTIFY.
IN TERMS OF THE ACTUAL PITCH 
BEING MADE -- AND I INTEND TO 
ASK THE SAME QUESTION TO OUR 
NEXT PANELIST -- BUT IN TERMS 
OF PITCH MADE TO GOVERNMENT, 
WHO WOULD NORMALLY BE INVOLVED 
IN THAT KIND OF PROCESS?
>> FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I 
DIDN'T SEE THIS UP CLOSE AND 
DIRECTLY, BUT IT WOULD BE 
MANAGED BY THE EXECUTIVE 
DIRECTOR WHO WOULD HAVE OVERALL 
RESPONSIBILITY.
WE DID HAVE GOVERNMENT 
RELATIONS EXPERT WITHIN THE 
ORGANIZATION AND SO, AS FOR THE 
ACTUAL PITCH POTENTIALLY, MARC 
OR CRAIG KIELBURGER MAY BE 
INVOLVED.
BUT I THINK IT JUST DEPENDED ON 
THE SCOPE AND SIZE OF THE 
PROPOSAL.
>> SURE.
NO, THAT'S HELPFUL INFORMATION.
I'M CURIOUS JUST ON THE 
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS SIDE OF 
THINGS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT 
I FIND INTERESTING, A LITTLE 
BIT CURIOUS ABOUT WE AS AN 
ORGANIZATION IS A LOT OF THE 
CHARITIES I DEAL WITH GO 
THROUGH GREAT PAINS TO REMAIN 
NONPARTISAN.
I MIND WE CHARITY HAS BEEN, IF 
ANYTHING, MULTIPARTISAN AND 
THEY EMBRACE GOVERNMENTS OF 
DIFFERENT POLITICAL STRIPES.
THEY HAVE -- WE'VE HAD PICTURES 
OF DIFFERENT M.P.s AND PARTY 
LEADERS WITH THE KIELBURGER 
FAMILY, WITH THAT WE CHARITY 
EVENTS.
I'M CURIOUS IF THIS WAS A 
STRATEGY THAT WAS ACTUALLY 
ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OR WAS 
SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE 
INDEPENDENTLY BY THE FOUNDERS 
OF ORGANIZATION.
COULD YOU SHED SOME LIGHT ON 
THAT MULTIPARTISAN APPROACH TO 
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND 
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS?
>> YEAH.
THIS WAS NOT A MATTER THAT WAS 
DISCUSSED EXTENSIVELY BY THE 
BOARD.
BUT IT WAS ALWAYS OUR VIEW, AT 
LEAST IN THE BOARD OF 
DIRECTORS, THAT WE WERE, 
INDEED, NONPARTISAN, WHICH HAD 
THE POTENTIAL OF ENGAGING ANY 
GOVERNMENT, PROVINCIAL, 
MUNICIPAL, OR FEDERAL AND 
CERTAINLY I DID NOT SEE THIS AS 
MULTIPARTISAN -- RATHER 
NONPARTISAN AS AN ORGANIZATION.
>> SURE.
AND I DON'T MEAN TO SUGGEST 
THAT THERE WOULD BE AN EFFORT 
TO INGRATIATE THE ORGANIZATION 
WITH ONE PARTY OR ANOTHER, 
THAONL THERE WAS A SEEMINGLY A 
COMPLETE LACK OF FEAR ABOUT 
ENGAGING WITH DIFFERENT PARTIES 
AND DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTS.
SO I'M -- WHAT I'M ESSENTIALLY 
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HERE IS 
SORT OF THE TIE BETWEEN HOW THE 
ORGANIZATION WOULD DEVELOP 
THESE PITCHES AND USE CONTACTS 
THAT THEY MAY HAVE DEVELOPED 
THROUGH THIS GOVERNMENT 
RELATIONS STRATEGY TO GET AT 
ATTENTION OF DECISION-MAKERS ON 
POTENTIAL DIFFERENT 
POLICIESMENT IT SEEMS AS THOUGH 
THAT THERE IS A MIX OF 
DIFFERENT PROCESSES THAT MAY 
HAVE BEEN USED.
SOME INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT.
SOME INFORMAL OUTREACH.
AND EVENTUALLY THERE'S SOME 
CONVERSATION BETWEEN SOMEONE AT 
THE ORGANIZATION AND THE 
GOVERNMENT.
FROM WHAT YOU'VE SEEN OR HAVE 
LEARNED ABOUT CANADA STUDENTS 
SERVICE GRANT, I'M CURIOUS IF 
THAT -- IF THE ORIGIN STORY OF 
THIS PROGRAM IS REFLECTIVE IN 
YOUR OPINION OF OTHER PROGRAMS 
THAT PERHAPS WERE SUCCESSFULLY 
FUNDED BY DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTS 
AT DIFFERENT LEVELS?
>> I JUST CAN'T COMPARE THEM TO 
ANYTHING THAT'S CURRENTLY 
BEFORE YOUR COMMITTEE AROUND 
THE CANADA STUDENT SERVICE 
GRANT.
I JUST DON'T THINK I HAVE 
ENOUGH EXPERIENCE ON THE 
APPLICATION PROCESS.
TO BE USEFUL TO YOU IN 
ANSWERING THAT.
>> WE WILL HAVE TO END IT 
THERE, SEAN.
AND FOR MINISTER CONSUMER AND 
MR. FRAGISKOTAS, WE'LL HAVE TO 
GO TO 4 1/2 MINUTES EACH.
THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU, MS. DOUGLAS, FOR 
YOUR TESTIMONY AND FOR YOUR 
SERVICE TO COUNTRY.
I WANT TO ASK YOU A LITTLE BIT 
ABOUT CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING 
THE RESIGNATIONS OF OTHER BOARD 
MEMBERS FOLLOWING YOUR 
RESIGNATION AS CHAIR.
CAN YOU PROVIDE ANY INSIGHT 
INTO THAT?
WAS IT OUT OF SUPPORT FOR YOU 
OR CONCERN WITH THE LAYOFFS 
THAT WERE TAKING PLACE WITHOUT 
THE PROPER REPORTING OR 
TRANSPARENT REPORTING?
TO THE BOARD?
>> WELL, I DON'T HAVE 
PARTICULAR INSIGHT ON HOW THEY 
MAY HAVE EXPRESSED TO EACH 
OTHER OR, INDEED, BACK TO THE 
ORGANIZATION ABOUT EXACTLY HOW 
THEY WOULD CHARACTERIZE THEIR 
DEPARTURE.
BUT THERE WAS A PROCESS.
WE HAD ONGOING DISCUSSIONS WITH 
THE ORGANIZATION.
IN FACT, THE BOARD SET UP A 
ROTATIONAL CYCLE AS A GOOD 
PRACTICE FOR IT, MOVING PEOPLE 
ALONG IN A STAGGERED KIND OF 
NOT EVERYONE WOULD LEAVE AT THE 
SAME TIME IN A GIVEN YEAR.
AND PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD THEIR 
KIND OF ROTATIONAL CYCLE FOR 
SERVICE.
IN MY OPINION, THE CHANGE OF 
THE BOARD, THE REPLACEMENT OF 
MOST ON THE BOARD HAPPENED IN 
AN ACCELERATED WAY.
IT'S -- I KNOW THE MEMBERS OF 
AD HOC COMMITTEE DID HAVE 
CONCERNS.
WE SPOKE IN SOLIDARITY TO THE 
-- TO MARC KIELBURGER AND TO 
DELAL al-WA HEIDI ABOUT THOSE 
DEMANDS.
I DO KNOW ON MARCH 9, I WAS 
ASKED TO STAY ON AT LEAST 
ANOTHER YEAR BY THE CO-FOUNDER, 
MARC KIELBURGER.
>> AND THEN THREE WEEKS LATER, 
YOU WERE GONE.
>> RIGHT.
AND WHAT ABOUT THE 
CHARACTERIZATION THAT THIS WAS 
PART OF SOME SORT OF 
REORGANIZATION, BASED ON UPON 
WHAT YOU KNOW, I TAKE IT, WOULD 
DISAGREE WITH THAT 
CHARACTERIZATION?
>> YEAH.
I DID NOT SEE THIS AS BEING IN 
THE ORDINARY COURSE AND I 
RESIGNED BECAUSE I FELT I HAD 
TO.
>> HAD YOU HAD CONVERSATIONS 
WITH THE OTHER FORMER BOARD 
MEMBERS SINCE?
>> I'VE HAD A FEW 
CONVERSATIONS, YES, WITH SOME 
FORMER BOARD MEMBERS.
I'VE NEVER HAD CONVERSATIONS 
AGAIN WITH MARKET KIELBURGER, 
DALAL al-WAHEIDI --
>> BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS IT 
WAS UNUSUAL.
THERE WAS AN UNHEE VILLE  -- 
UPHEAVAL IN THE ORGANIZATION IN 
MARCH.
>> IT WAS A CONCERN TO ME.
I SDRIDS A NUMBER OF CONCERNS, 
YES.
>> IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF 
EMPLOYEES THAT WERE LAID OFF -- 
YOU SAID HUNDREDS IN A MATTER 
OF WEEKS -- CAN YOU EXPLAIN ON 
THE SCALE OF THE ORGANIZATION 
WHAT THAT REPRESENTS?
>> SO, AS WE WERE RECEIVING IS 
ORAL BRIEFINGS, I HEARD NUMBERS 
THAT LITERALLY CHANGED EVERY 
DAY THAT STARTED WITH, I 
BELIEVE THE FIRST NUMBER I 
HEARD ON OR ABOUT MARCH 9 WAS 
35 AND THEN MOVED UP TO 
APPROXIMATELY 100.
SOME OF THESE NUMBERS ARE 
COMBINED WITH ME TO WE SO NOT 
EXCLUSIVELY WE CHARITY AND THEN 
EXCLUSIVELY ENTERED INTO THE 
SEVERAL HUNDRED, MORE THAN 400 
AT LEAST.
>> AND THAT WOULD BE OUT OF 
1,000, 1500?
>> APPROXIMATELY 100.
>> SO, ALMOST HALF THE 
EMPLOYEES WERE GONE IN A MATTER 
OF WEEKS?
JUST TO BE CLEAR.
>> I THINK THE ORGANIZATION CAN 
PROVIDE GREATER PRECISION ON 
THAT POINT.
>> LAST QUESTION.
>> I THINK YOU CITED IN YOUR 
TESTIMONY PRETTY SPECIFIC 
REASONS FOR YOUR RESIGNATION.
I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU HAD 
STATED THOSE.
>> SO, THE FIRST I WOULD SAY, 
MR. COOPER, IS THAT EMPLOYEES 
WERE BEING LAID OFF AND THE 
BOARD DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH 
INFORMATION TO PROVIDE 
OVERSIGHT.
THE SECOND REASON I WOULD SAY 
-- I WOULD SAY IS WE WERE BEING 
DENIED ACCESS TO THE CHIEF 
FINANCIAL OFFICER.
WE HAD SOUGHT TWO MEETINGS WITH 
HIM AND THEY WERE BOTH CANCELED.
WE ASKED TO PARTICIPATE AS 
OBSERVERS IN A VIRTUAL MEETING 
WHERE MANY EMPLOYEES WOULD BE 
EXPLAINED THE KIND OF UPCOMING 
LAYOFFS PROCESS.
AND FINALLY, I HAD CONCERNS 
THAT, IN THE MIDST OF THE 
CRISIS, MARC KIELBURGER 
TRAVELED TWICE TO KENYA IN A 
VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME FOR 
REASONS I DON'T FULLY 
UNDERSTAND AND I ASKED THE 
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXPLAIN 
THIS TO ME AND I DID NOT 
RECEIVE A SATISFACTORY ANSWER.
>> OK.
THANK YOU.
LAST ROUND OF QUESTIONS.
AND THEN WE'LL LET MS. DOUGLAS 
GO.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MS. DOUGLAS, I ECHO THE 
COMMENTS OF MY COLLEAGUES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR 
EXTRAORDINARY SERVICE TO THIS 
COUNTRY, FOR YOUR ACTIVISM.
IT'S ADMIRABLE TO SAY THE LEAST 
AND THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE 
TIME TO COME OUR COMMITTEE 
TODAY.
I DO HAVE LIMITED TIME SO I 
WANT TO ASK YOU TWO OR THREE 
QUESTIONS.
THE FIRST RELATES TO YOUR TIME 
AT WE.
OBVIOUSLY 15 YEARS.
A VERY LONG TIME.
WITH THE ORGANIZATION.
DURING THAT TIME, DID YOU FIND 
OR SEE ANY IRREGULARITIES, 
FINANCIAL OR OTHERWISE, THAT 
WERE A  CONCERN TO YOU OR ANY 
OTHER LINGERING QUESTIONS ABOUT 
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE -- OF 
WE CHARITY?
>> I NEVER SAW ANYTHING THAT 
CAUSED ME DEEP CONCERN ABOUT 
THE INTEGRITY OF THE 
ORGANIZATION.
I ALWAYS FELT, THOUGH, IT'S MY 
DUTY, ESPECIALLY WHERE THERE 
ARE INHERENT TENSIONS BETWEEN 
CO-FOUNDER OR CO-FOUNDER LED 
ORGANIZATIONS AND THE BOARD OF 
DIRECTORS THAT YOU'RE ALWAYS 
PUSHING FOR ENHANCEMENT 
OVERSIGHT AND TRANSPARENCY IN 
AN EFFORT TO BE BETTER, BUT NOT 
BECAUSE SOMETHING WAS DEEPLY 
CONCERNING.
BUT WE WERE ALWAYS STRIVING TO 
GET GREATER INSIGHT INTO THE 
WORK.
>> THAT'S QUITE NORMAL TO SEE 
THAT BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN AN 
EXECUTIVE AND THE BOARD.
AND JUST TO CLEAR IT UP, AND I 
THINK YOU'VE BEEN EXTREMELY 
CLEAR WITH OUR COMMITTEE.
BUT THE "GLOBE AND MAIL" 
RECENTLY SPOKE, AND SAID THAT 
YOU LEFT THE ORGANIZATION FOR, 
QUOTE-UNQUOTE, CONCERNING 
DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE 
TRANSPIRING.
AS WE HEARD, THESE RELATE TO 
DISAGREEMENTS OVER WHAT WE'S 
CURRENT DIRECTION, AT LEAST IN 
MARCH, WHAT THEIR DIRECTION WAS 
BACK IN THAT MONTH AND ITS 
FUTURE DIRECTION REGARDING THE 
COURSE FORWARD.
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CANADA 
STUDENT SERVICE GRANT, NOTHING 
TO DO WITH THE CONTRIBUTION 
AGREEMENT THAT WE EVENTUALLY 
SIGNED WITH THE FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT, CORRECT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> OK.
FINAL QUESTION TO YOU.
I'M JUST -- AND I KNOW OTHERS 
HAVE SDHD QUESTION AS WELL.
THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF 
WE IS A COMPLEX ONE.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE WE CHARITY 
AND THEN IT IS BROKEN DOWN INTO 
VARIOUS PARTS.
THERE'S WE CHARITY U.S., WE 
CHARITY CANADA, OBVIOUSLY, WE 
CHARITY U.K., THE ME TO WE 
FOUNDATION, THE WELL-BEING 
FOUNDATION, WELL-BEING 
FOUNDATION AMERICA, 
WE365LPWE365 HOLDINGS, 
WE-365G.P. INC., IMAGINE ONE 
DAY INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION, 
ME TO WE SOCIAL ENTERPRISES.
I'M JUST LISTING THEM HERE OFF 
THE PAGE IN FRONT OF ME.
AGAIN, T A QUESTION THAT HAS 
BEEN ASKED BY CHARITY 
INTELLIGENCE AND OTHER 
WATCHDOGS OF THE CHARITY SECTOR.
WHY THIS ORGANIZATIONAL 
STRUCTURE?
VERY COMPLEX AND INTRICATE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY INSIGHTS ON 
THAT?
[PLEASE STAND BY] 
>> AND DETAILS ABOUT THESE 
RELATIONSHIPS AND FEES AND I 
EXPECT IT COULD HAVE BEEN AN 
AREA I CONTINUED TO PUSH ON, BUT
OBVIOUSLY THE CO-FOUNDERS ARE 
BEST-PLACED TO EXPLAIN THE 
COMPLEX STRUCTURE THAT WAS 
ESTABLISHED.
>> THANK YOU BOTH.
WE HAVE ANOTHER PANEL WHICH 
YOU'RE VERY AWARE OF.
ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE, I 
RE-EMPHASIZED MY REMARKS FROM 
THE BEGINNING.
THANKS FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THIS 
COUNTRY IN MANY ROLES AND THE 
HUMAN RIGHTS ASPECT AROUND THE 
WORLD AS WELL AND SPECIFICALLY 
IN CANADA.
WITH THAT, AGAIN, WE THANK YOU 
FOR APPEARING AND THANK YOU FOR 
ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS.
WE WILL SUSPEND FOR ABOUT THREE 
MINUTES TO GIVE THE CLERK TIME 
TO TEST THE MICS ON OUR NEXT 
WITNESSES.
MEETING SUSPENDED FOR THREE 
MINUTES.
>> Vassy: WE HAVE BEEN WATCHING 
HERE IN OTTAWA FOR THE PAST 60 
MINUTES TESTIMONY OUT OF 
PARLIAMENT HILL VIRTUALLY FROM 
MICHELLE DOUGLAS BEING 
QUESTIONED BY VARIOUS OPPOSITION
M.P.s AND LIBERAL M.P.s.
SHE'S THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF 
DIRECTORS FOR We CHARITY.
I'M VASSY KAPELOS COMING TO YOU 
WITH AN EXTENDED AND EARLY 
EDITION OF "POWER & POLITICS".
WE ARE AWAITING SOME PRETTY 
SIGNIFICANT TESTIMONY IN THREE 
MINUTES' TIME.
WANE EASTER FROM THE KIELBURGER 
BROTHERS, CRAIG AND MARC WHO ARE
THE FOUNDERS OF THE CHARITY.
I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT BEFORE 
TAKING YOU THERE A COUPLE OF THE
SIGNIFICANT THINGS THAT CAME OUT
OF MS. DOUGLAS' TESTIMONY.
SHE RESIGNED IN MARCH OF THIS 
YEAR AND SHE OUTLINED THE 
REASONS WHY AND THEY SPEAK TO 
SOME OF THE REASONS THE 
ORGANIZATION WAS GOING THROUGH.
IN PARTICULAR, SHE SAID THERE 
WERE HUNDREDS OF LAYOFFS 
HAPPENING AS THE PANDEMIC 
STRUCK.
SHE WAS ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD 
ASKING FOR A LOT MORE 
INFORMATION OR JUSTIFICATION FOR
WHY THOSE WERE NECESSARY AND SHE
WAS NEVER PROVIDED WITH THAT 
INFORMATION.
SHE WAS CALLED BY ONE OF THE 
BROTHERS AND ASKED TO RESIGN.
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD 
RESIGNED AT THAT TIME.
SHE WENT OVER THE DETAILS OF 
THAT.
THE SECOND SIGNIFICANT POINT 
ABOUT THE AWARDING OF THIS 
CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT TO CARRY 
OUT THE STUDENT GRANT IS SPEAKER
FEES.
WE FOUND OUT AFTER THE CONTRACT 
WAS AWARDED OR SIGNED THAT 
JUSTIN TRUDEAU'S MOTHER AND 
BROTHER WERE PAID BY We CHARITY 
FOR SPEAKING AT EVENTS TO THE 
TUNE OF ALMOST $300,000.
SHE WOULD BE SURPRISED THAT THEY
WERE PAID BECAUSE THE BOARD WAS 
TOLD SPEAKERS WERE NOT PAID.
MY COLLEAGUE JANYCE McGREGOR 
JOINS ME.
LET'S PICK UP THERE, IF WE CAN.
THIS SPEAKS TO SOME OF THE 
CONCERNS AROUND THE CONNECTIONS 
BETWEEN THE PRIME MINISTER AND 
HIS FAMILY AND THIS ORGANIZATION
WHICH OF COURSE ENDED UP GETTING
THE AGREEMENT WORTH $43 MILLION 
TO CARRY OUT THE STUDENT SERVICE
GRANT PROGRAM.
WHAT DID YOU THINK WHEN YOU 
HEARD MS. DOUGLAS SPEAK ABOUT 
THOSE SPEAKING FEES COMING AS A 
SURPRISE TO HER?
>> Janyce: YEAH, ON THIS AND A 
COUPLE OF OTHER ISSUES TOO, 
VASSY, YOU HAD THE IMPRESSION 
THAT THERE WERE OCCASIONS THE 
BOARD WAS LOOKING FOR 
INFORMATION OF A PARTICULAR 
NATURE, THE BOARD HAD CONCERNS 
ABOUT SOME THINGS AND WASN'T 
NECESSARILY GETTING FULL 
DISCLOSURE FROM THE MANAGEMENT 
OF THIS ORGANIZATION IN RETURN.
THE POINT OF A BOARD IS 
GOVERNANCE.
IF IT ISN'T GETTING ALL THE 
INFORMATION IT WANTS, IT CAN'T 
DO ITS JOB.
I THINK THE PHRASE SHE USED TO 
DESCRIBE THIS SITUATION WAS A 
BREAKDOWN IN TRUST AT ONE POINT.
BUT ON THE SPEAKERS' FEES IN 
PARTICULAR, INTERESTING.
SHE SAID THE BOARD SOUGHT 
INFORMATION ABOUT WHETHER 
SPEAKERS WERE PAID AND THEY WERE
TOLD THEY WERE NOT.
NOW, JUST FOR THOSE WATCHING AT 
HOME, IT WASN'T JUST MEMBERS OF 
THE TRUDEAU FAMILY, OTHER 
SPEAKERS TOO THE We ORGANIZATION
SUBSEQUENTLY DISCLOSED WERE PAID
THROUGH A CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP 
AGREEMENT USING SPEAKERS' 
BUREAUS AND SKIMMED THOSE FEES 
FROM THERE WHEN THEY APPEARED.
MARGARET TRUDEAU AND SACHA 
TRUDEAU, ALSO CHANTELLE 
PETIT-CLERC AND OTHERS.
THIS IS COMING OUT NOW IN LIGHT 
OF THIS CONTROVERSY OVER THE 
VOLUNTEER SCHEME.
FOUND THAT INTERESTING.
ALSO FOUND IT INTERESTING THAT 
SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE BOARD 
SEEKING MORE DISCLOSURE ABOUT 
THE MONEY THAT WAS BEING 
TRANSFERRED BACK AND FORTH 
BETWEEN THE We CHARITY AND THE 
ME TO We, THE SOCIAL ENTERPRISE,
THE FOR-PROFIT PART OF THE 
ORGANIZATION.
INTERESTING TO HEAR HER SAY 
SHE'S NOT EVEN SURE HOW MANY 
ENTITIES MIGHT BE REGISTERED 
UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF THE We 
ORGANIZATION.
ALSO FASCINATING I THOUGHT TO 
HEAR HER CHARACTERIZATION OF THE
ROLE AND THE POWER OF THE 
FOUNDERS IN THIS ORGANIZATION, 
THE SWAY THEY HAD IN THE GENERAL
STRUCTURE OF THINGS.
INTERESTING THAT SORT OF THAT 
FINAL CONVERSATION ASKING HER TO
RESIGN, IT WAS CRAIG KIELBURGER 
HIMSELF WHO CALLED HER AT THAT 
TIME.
SHE REALLY PAINTS A PICTURE OF 
AN ORGANIZATION WITH A UNIQUE 
AND COMPLEX WAY OF MANAGING 
ITSELF AND A BOARD OF DIRECTORS 
THAT WERE NOT ALWAYS IN THE LOOP
FULSOMELY ABOUT EMPLOYEE 
RELATIONS.
THAT WAS ANOTHER PART OF THE 
TESTIMONY ABOUT HOW THEY READ IN
CANADALAND'S REPORTING ABOUT 
SOME CONCERNS EMPLOYEES HAD AND 
HAD TO GO AND SEEK INFORMATION 
ABOUT THAT TOO.
YOU REALLY DO WONDER IF THERE 
WAS AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT LINE
OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE 
ORGANIZATION AND ITS BOARD.
>> Vassy: I THINK WHAT'S 
SIGNIFICANT HERE ABOUT THAT KIND
OR THOSE KIND OF REVELATIONS AND
LET'S LOOK AHEAD TO WHAT WE'RE 
ANTICIPATING ANY MINUTE NOW, 
WHICH IS THE START OF TESTIMONY,
FOUR HOURS OF TESTIMONY AND 
QUIZZING BY M.P.s OF THOSE 
KIELBURGERS IS THIS THAT YOU 
JUST HIGHLIGHTED.
THEY WERE IN FINANCIAL TROUBLE.
THAT'S CLEAR GIVEN LAYOFFS WERE 
ON THE HORIZON.
WE KNOW FROM CANADALAND'S 
REPORTING AND REPORTING FROM THE
CBC AND THE "THE GLOBE AND MAIL"
ABOUT DIFFICULTIES FACED BY THE 
ORGANIZATION.
WE ALSO KNOW THE GOVERNMENT 
DIDN'T LOOK INTO ANY OF THAT.
THEIR DUE DILIGENCE ONLY LOOKED 
INTO WHETHER OR NOT THE 
ORGANIZATION COULD ADMINISTER 
THE PROGRAM.
I THINK THOSE QUESTIONS WILL BE 
RAISED WHEN THE PRIME MINISTER 
TESTIFIES IN A FEW DAYS.
WHY WAS THIS ORGANIZATION 
LOBBYING FOR SOME SORT OF HELP 
VIS-A-VIS A PROGRAM AND WHY 
DIDN'T THE GOVERNMENT CHECK THAT
OUT.
>> Janyce: YEAH, YOU'RE SPEAKING
ABOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVY
COUNCIL CLERK, IAN SHUGART, WHO 
SAID THAT THERE WAS NOT SCRUTINY
DONE OF THE FINANCIALS OF THIS 
ORGANIZATION BEFORE THIS 
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT PROCEEDED
WITH THE We ORGANIZATION.
INTERESTING, IN TERMS OF WHO 
KNEW WHAT AT THIS, RIGHT, YOU 
HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THERE 
ABOUT WHERE THE CENTRE WAS AND 
HOW MANY PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE 
CENTRE REALLY KNEW WHAT WAS 
GOING ON.
WHEN SHE WAS DESCRIBING MARCH, 
WHICH I'M SURE WAS A VERY 
DIFFICULT TIME AT THE We 
ORGANIZATION AND THE LAYOFFS AND
THE FUNDAMENTAL THREAT TO THIS 
ORGANIZATION'S CORE ACTIVITIES, 
LIKE THOSE BIG We DAY RALLIES 
WITH THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS, THE 
TRAVEL PROGRAMS THAT COULDN'T 
CONTINUE BECAUSE OF COVID-19, 
SHE SAID THE BRIEFINGS THEY WERE
GETTING BACK WERE ABOUT THE 
FUTURE OF SPONSORSHIPS AND THEY 
WERE SEEKING MORE FINANCIAL 
INFORMATION AND NOT ABLE TO GET 
IT TO THE POINT THEY WEREN'T 
EVEN SURE -- 
>> Vassy: SORRY, I'VE GOT TO CUT
YOU OFF, I APOLOGIZE, BECAUSE 
THE COMMITTEE HAS RESUMED AND 
CRAIG AND MARC KIELBURGER ARE 
OFF.
WE'RE GOING TO SWING IN THERE 
AND LISTEN IN LIVE.
>> WE CAN SEE WHERE WE'RE AT ON 
THAT.
I WOULD SAY AS WELL, THOUGH, I 
BELIEVE IT'S PROPER THAT WE 
PROBABLY TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE 
BREAK AT THE TWO-HOUR PERIOD.
FOUR HOURS STRAIGHT TESTIMONY IS
PRETTY GRUELLING AND WE ALL MAY 
NEED A WASHROOM BREAK AT THAT 
TIME.
MADAM CLERK, IF YOU COULD DO THE
NEXT PROCEDURE.
>> OKAY.
GREAT.
WE'LL ASK YOU TO NOW ONE AFTER 
THE OTHER TAKE THE OATH OR 
AFFIRMATION.
YOU CAN REPEAT THE TEXT THAT IS 
IN FRONT OF YOU.
PLEASE SPEAK CLEARLY AND LOUDLY 
SO THAT EVERYONE CAN HEAR.
>> MY NAME IS MARC KIELBURGER.
I DO SWEAR THAT THE EVIDENCE I 
SHALL GIVE ON THIS EXAMINATION 
SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE 
TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE 
TRUTH, SO HELP ME GOD.
>> MY NAME IS CRAIG KIELBURGER.
I DO SWEAR THAT THE EVIDENCE I 
SHALL GIVE ON THIS EXAMINATION 
SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE 
TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE 
TRUTH, SO HELP ME GOD.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU, BOTH.
WE WILL NOW TURN THE FLOOR OVER 
TO YOU, IF YOU CAN HOLD IT AS 
VERY TIGHT AS YOU CAN IN TERMS 
OF TIME LENGTH.
THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
WELCOME.
>> THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS CRAIG KIELBURGER.
THIS IS MY BROTHER, MARC.
FIRSTLY, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
WE WILL MAINTAIN WITHIN THE 10 
MINUTES, IN FACT, AND OUR 
GRATITUDE TO THE REST OF THE 
COMMITTEE.
WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING FORWARD TO 
THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH 
YOU HERE TODAY.
[Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] OVER THE LAST 
FEW -- 
>> Interpreter: UNFORTUNATELY, 
THE INTERPRETER CANNOT HEAR 
PROPERLY.
>> IF I CAN INTERRUPT FOR A 
MINUTE, I'M NOT SURE WHAT SYSTEM
YOU'RE WORKING ON.
BUT WHEN YOU'RE SPEAKING FRENCH,
YOU HAD TO BE ON THE FRENCH 
CHANNEL AT THE BOTTOM OF ZOOM 
THERE AND THE ENGLISH ON THE 
ENGLISH CHANNEL.
THE BOOTH CAN'T PICK YOU UP 
OVER.
YOU CAN START THE FRENCH OVER BY
CHANGING THE CHANNEL.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] NO PROBLEM.
OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS, OUR 
TEAM HAS ANSWERED THOUSANDS OF 
QUESTIONS FROM THE MEDIA.
WE PUBLISHED DOZENS OF 
DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING AN 
ANNOTATED VERSION OF THE 
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT FOR THE 
CANADA STUDENT SERVICE GRANT, 
INFORMATION ON THE OPERATIONS, 
PROGRAMS, AND FINANCES OF We 
CHARITY.
ALL THE WHILE, WE ANNOUNCED THAT
ADDITIONAL EXPERTS WILL BE 
CARRYING OUT ANALYZES OF OUR 
SYSTEM IN ORDER TO STREAMLINE 
OUR ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE TO 
FURTHER IMPROVE OUR GOVERNANCE 
AND TO CONCENTRATE OUR EFFORTS 
TO HELP THE MOST VULNERABLE 
CHILDREN IN THE WORLD.
[end of translation]. 
>> JUST EXCUSE ME, GENTLEMEN, 
POINT OF ORDER, MR. COOPER, 
WHAT'S YOUR POINT?
>> YES, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I JUST WANT TO RAISE IT AT THIS 
POINT TO A DEGREE THAT MY POINT 
OF ORDER COULD IMPACT UPON OR 
SHOULD EITHER OF THE WITNESSES 
WISH TO REFRAME ANY ASPECT OF 
YOUR PRESENTATION, THAT GIVEN 
THE LARGE NUMBER OF 
ORGANIZATIONS THAT THE 
KIELBURGER FAMILY ARE AFFILIATED
OR OTHERWISE CONNECTED WITH, 
FROM NOW UNTIL THE END OF THIS 
MEETING, WHEN CONSERVATIVE 
MEMBERS MAKE REFERENCE TO "We" 
OR "YOUR ORGANIZATION," UNLESS 
OTHERWISE STATED, WE ARE 
REFERENCING IN THE BROADEST WAY 
POSSIBLE ANY CORPORATION, 
COMPANY, PARTNERSHIP, 
ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, 
ENTITY, OR OTHER STRUCTURE, 
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO We 
CHARITY, We CHARITY FOUNDATION 
OF CANADA, ME TO We, ME TO We 
SOCIAL ENTERPRISES, ME TO We 
FOUNDATION -- 
>> I'M TO GOING INTERRUPT YOU, 
MR. COOPER.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS A POINT 
OF ORDER, BUT A POINT OF 
INFORMATION.
I WILL REMIND YOU THAT WE ARE 
MEETING ON THE GOVERNMENT 
SPENDING We CHARITY AND CANADA 
STUDENT SERVICE GRANT.
THAT'S WHAT THE MOTION WE'RE 
DEALING WITH AS A COMMITTEE ON.
THE KIELBURGER BROTHERS CAN TAKE
YOUR COMMENTS AS INFORMATION.
WE'LL GO BACK TO YOU, 
MR. KIELBURGER.
GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
25 YEARS AGO, WE STARTED We 
CHARITY BECAUSE WE BELIEVED THAT
YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE MUCH TO OFFER 
THROUGH SERVICE.
WE STILL HOLD THIS BELIEF.
THERE IS A CRISIS IN CANADA'S 
CHARITABLE SECTOR.
OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS, CANADA 
HAS SEEN STEADILY DECLINING 
RATES OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND 
REACHED A RECORD LOW PERCENTAGE 
OF CANADIANS DONATING TO 
CHARITY.
We CHARITY SOUGHT TO REVERSE 
THIS TREND BY LAUNCHING We 
SCHOOLS ACTIVE IN 7,000 CANADIAN
SCHOOLS TO EDUCATE AND INSPIRE 
YOUNG PEOPLE TO LEARN ABOUT 
CAUSES, VOLUNTEER FOR THE FIRST 
TIME IN THEIR LIVES, AND 
FUNDRAISE TO MAKE AN IMPACT FOR 
THOUSANDS OF CHARITIES ACROSS 
THE COUNTRY.
THROUGH We DAYS, OVER ONE 
MILLION YOUTH EARNED THEIR FREE 
TICKET FOR LOGGING OVER 70 
MILLION HOURS OF SERVICE.
YOU'VE JOINED US TO BUILD 1,500 
SCHOOLS AND CLASSROOMS IN 
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AROUND THE 
WORLD, EDUCATING OVER 200,000 
KIDS IN CLEAN WATER AND MEDICAL 
PROGRAMS, REACHING OVER A 
MILLION BENEFICIARIES.
We LAUNCHED ME TO We SOCIAL 
ENTERPRISE BECAUSE TRADITIONAL 
MODELS OF CHARITY ARE TOO 
LIMITED IN CANADA.
ITS PURPOSE IS TO HELP END 
POVERTY OVERSEAS.
WE CREATE EMPOWERING JOBS AND 
BRING TO MARKET FAIR TRADE AND 
SOCIALLY CONSCIOUS PRODUCTS, 
HELPING MOSTLY WOMEN 
ENTREPRENEURS.
SINCE THE PURPOSE WAS NEVER 
SIMPLY PROFIT, SINCE ITS 
FOUNDING IN 2008, 100% OF 
PROFITS FROM ME TO We SOCIAL 
ENTERPRISE HAVE BEEN DONATED TO 
We CHARITY OR REINVESTED TO GROW
THE SOCIAL MISSION EVERY SINGLE 
DAY.
THIS MODEL IS CALLED A SOCIAL 
ENTERPRISE.
IT IS COMMON IN EUROPE, BUT IN 
CANADA THE CANADA REVENUE AGENCY
LIMITS A CHARITY'S ABILITY TO 
OPERATE A BUSINESS MODEL AS A 
SOLUTION TO SOLVING SOCIAL 
PROBLEMS.
IN 2019, THE SENATE OF CANADA 
RELEASED A REPORT WHICH 
RECOMMENDED THAT THE GOVERNMENT 
RECOGNIZE AND RECONSIDER THOSE 
RESTRICTIONS FOR CHARITABLE AND 
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.
WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THAT 
RECOMMENDATION.
WITH SUCH CHANGE, WE WOULD HAVE 
SIMPLY STARTED ME TO We SOCIAL 
ENTERPRISE AT THE CHARITY.
WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT OVER 25 
YEARS OUR ORGANIZATIONAL 
STRUCTURE HAS GROWN OVERLY 
COMPLEX.
OUR MODEL IS DIFFERENT, 
SOMETIMES MISUNDERSTOOD AND, 
YES, FAR FROM PERFECT.
BUT OUR PURPOSE HAS ALWAYS BEEN 
SOCIAL INNOVATION TO BETTER 
CANADA AND THE WORLD.
We CHARITY IS A NON-PARTISAN 
ORGANIZATION.
WE HAVE WORKED WITH FEDERAL AND 
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS OF EVERY 
PARTY ACROSS CANADA.
WE HAVE WELCOMED POLITICIANS OF 
ALL STRIPES TO THE We DAY STAGE,
INCLUDING CONSERVATIVE M.P. MIKE
LAKE AND THEN N.D.P.-PREMIER 
RACHEL NOTLEY.
WE'RE GRATEFUL TO THE PREVIOUS 
GOVERNMENT WHO HOSTED THE AFTER 
We DAY RECEPTION AT 24 SUSSEX.
THOUSANDS OF STORIES HAVE BEEN 
GIVEN ON THE We DAY STAGE.
WE WANT TO INSPIRE YOU TO 
VOLUNTEER AND SERVE WHICH IS 
WHAT OUR MISSION IS ALL ABOUT.
We CHARITY AGREED TO IMPLEMENT 
THE CANADA STUDENT SERVICE GRANT
NOT TO BE HELPED BY GOVERNMENT 
BUT TO HELP GOVERNMENT AND TO 
HELP YOUNG PEOPLE ACROSS CANADA.
THIS PROGRAM WAS DEVELOPED IN 
THE MIDST OF A GLOBAL PANDEMIC, 
WHEN GOVERNMENTS AND THE PRIVATE
SECTOR WERE SCRAMBLING.
SOME HAVE SUGGESTED THAT We 
CHARITY WAS IN DIRE FINANCIAL 
STRAITS PRIOR TO THE CSSG AND 
THAT SOMEHOW MOTIVATED OUR 
ACTIONS.
THAT SIMPLY ISN'T TRUE BECAUSE, 
LIKE MANY CANADIAN NON-PROFITS 
AND BUSINESSES, WE HAD ALREADY 
TAKEN DIFFICULT ACTIONS TO 
ADJUST STAFF NUMBERS AND TO 
PIVOT OUR PROGRAM TO THE NEW 
REALITIES OF COVID, AS YOU HEARD
A MOMENT AGO.
MY COMMENTS ABOUT THAT TIME IS 
NOT FALSE BRAVADO.
AS WE SEE THE ORGANIZATION 
TODAY, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE 
FALLOUT NOW FROM THIS POLITICAL 
PROCESS HAS RESULTED IN SERIOUS 
CHALLENGES THAT RISK THE ENTIRE 
ORGANIZATION AND OUR 25 YEARS OF
WORK.
AS YOU'VE HEARD IN PREVIOUS 
REMARKS IN THIS COMMITTEE FROM 
RACHEL WERNICK AND THE CLERK OF 
THE PRIVY COUNCIL, WE WERE NOT 
CHOSEN FOR THIS WORK BECAUSE OF 
OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH 
POLITICIANS.
WE WERE CHOSEN BECAUSE WE WERE 
WILLING TO LEVERAGE EVERY PART 
OF OUR 25 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE 
AND TO BUILD THIS PROGRAM AND TO
BUILD THIS PROGRAM AT THE 
BREAK-NECK SPEED REQUIRED TO 
HAVE AN IMPACT FOR CANADIAN 
YOUTH OVER THE SUMMER.
We CHARITY HAS EXPERIENCE IN 
THIS AREA.
WE HAD PREVIOUSLY BUILT TWO 
LARGE-SCALE YOUTH SERVICE 
PROGRAMS.
WHEN ONTARIO INTRODUCED THE 
MANDATORY 40 HOURS OF COMMUNITY 
SERVICE, WE DEVELOPED A PROGRAM 
FOR MANY SCHOOL BOARDS ACROSS 
THE PROVINCE AND A COLLEGE BOARD
WHICH IS THE LARGEST U.S. 
ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND 
UNIVERSITIES SELECTED We CHARITY
THREE YEARS AGO TO DEVELOP A 
NATIONAL U.S. SERVICE PROGRAM 
ACROSS ALL 50 STATES.
NOW TO THE CONTRIBUTION 
AGREEMENT ITSELF, AS PART OF THE
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT, We 
CHARITY WOULD ONLY BE REIMBURSED
ITS COSTS TO BUILD AND 
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 CSSG PROGRAM AND IT'S SIMPLY
INCORRECT TO SAY OTHERWISE.
THE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT HAD 
PROPER OVERSIGHT BUILT IN.
13 REFERENCES TO AUDIT AND 
TAXPAYERS WERE PROTECTED.
OUR TEAM WORKED INCREDIBLY HARD 
TO BUILD AND LAUNCH THE CSSG AS 
A NATIONAL BILINGUAL SERVICE 
PROGRAM.
THE RESULTS WERE EVIDENT IN THE 
FIRST WEEK.
35,000 YOUTH APPLICATIONS FROM 
EVERY PROVINCE AND TERRITORY, 83
NOT-FOR-PROFIT COALITION 
PARTNERS, 24,000 AND INCREASING 
SERVICE ROLES.
BUT THE PROGRAM QUICKLY GOT 
PULLED INTO POLITICS.
WE HANDED THE BUILT SYSTEM, 
TECHNOLOGY, EVEN THE CALL CENTRE
TO THE PUBLIC SERVANTS, HOPING 
TO SAVE THE PROGRAM.
WE DECLINED ANY REIMBURSEMENT 
FOR OUR COSTS.
WE THOUGHT THAT OUR ACTIONS 
WOULD ENABLE THE PROGRAM'S 
LONG-TERM SURVIVAL AND WE ARE 
DEEPLY SADDENED THAT IT DID NOT.
WE ALSO REGRET THAT THE FALLOUT 
HAS CREATED HARDSHIP FOR OUR 
STAFF, OUR PARTNERS, THE 
COMMUNITIES THAT WE SERVE.
WHEN EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL 
DEVELOPMENT CANADA ASKED US TO 
ADMINISTER THE CANADA STUDENT 
SERVICE GRANT, WE REGRET THAT WE
DIDN'T RECOGNIZE HOW THIS 
DECISION WOULD BE PERCEIVED.
WE WOULD NEVER HAVE PICKED UP 
THE PHONE WHEN THE CIVIL SERVICE
CALLED, ASKING US TO HELP YOUNG 
CANADIANS GET THROUGH THE 
PANDEMIC IF WE HAD KNOWN THE 
CONSEQUENCES, THAT YOUNG PEOPLE 
WOULD NOT GET THE HELP THEY NEED
NOW AND THE 25 YEARS OF We 
CHARITY'S PROGRAMS HELPING 
MILLIONS OF YOUTH WOULD BE IN 
JEOPARDY.
WE ARE MOST SORRY FOR THE 
STUDENTS OF CANADA.
WE KNOW THAT THIS PANDEMIC HAS 
PUT SO MANY IN DIRE STRAITS, 
UNSURE OF WHETHER THEY WILL BE 
ABLE TO CONTINUE THEIR EDUCATION
OR EVEN PAY THEIR RENT.
THIS COMMITTEE HEARD YESTERDAY 
ABOUT M.P.s' OFFICES BEING 
FLOODED WITH E-MAILS AND CALLS 
FROM STUDENTS DESPERATE FOR 
HELP.
THESE STUDENTS SHOULD BE 
VOLUNTEERING SERVING THEIR 
COUNTRY AND RECEIVING CRITICAL 
SUPPORT FOR THEIR EDUCATION.
WE RESPECT THIS PROCESS AND WE 
ARE HAPPY TO PARTICIPATE.
WE HOPE THAT THE PEOPLE OF 
CANADA WILL HAVE THEIR QUESTIONS
ANSWERED ABOUT HOW THE CONTRACT 
CAME ABOUT AND WHAT THE VALUE OF
MONEY WOULD HAVE BEEN.
WE ALSO HOPE THAT AS SOON AS IT 
CONCLUDES, ALL OF US, 
NON-PROFITS, GOVERNMENT, AND ALL
CANADIANS CAN GET BACK TO 
HELPING THE STUDENTS OF CANADA 
GET THE SUPPORT THEY NEED TO GET
THROUGH THIS TIME OF NATIONAL 
CRISIS.
MR. CHAIR, THANK YOU FOR THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE THE WORDS.
WE APPRECIATE THAT.
WE ARE READY FOR YOUR QUESTIONS.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU BOTH.
THE FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS 
WITH THE SIX-MINUTE ROUND, WE 
WILL START WITH MR. POILIÈVRE, 
MS. DERVITZ, MR. FORTIN.
MR. POILIÈVRE, THE FLOOR IS 
YOURS.
>> MARC, YOU WERE CAUGHT ON TAPE
DESCRIBING AN APRIL 23 CALL WITH
THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE.
YOU QUOTE THE OFFICE TELLING YOU
THE FOLLOWING.
YOU KNOW THAT ANNOUNCEMENT WE 
JUST MADE?
WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN 
HELPING US IMPLEMENT IT?
YOU NOW DENY THAT CALL.
WAS IT A FIGMENT OF YOUR 
IMAGINATION?
>> MR. POILIÈVRE, THE CALL 
YOU'RE SPEAKING ABOUT WAS TO A 
GROUP OF POTENTIAL NON-PROFIT 
PARTNERS.
WE WERE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE 
PROSPECT OF THE PROGRAM.
I GOT A LITTLE BIT AHEAD OF 
MYSELF.
I DIDN'T HAVE FULL DETAILS AND I
MISSPOKE.
AS SOON AS I REALIZED I 
MISSPOKE, I APOLOGIZED AND 
APOLOGIZED AGAIN.
>> YOU NEVER CALLED THE PRIME 
MINISTER'S OFFICE AND THE PRIME 
MINISTER'S OFFICE NEVER CALLED 
YOU ON APRIL 23?
>> SIR, THAT IS VERY MUCH 
CORRECT.
THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE 
NEVER CALLED US.
CRAIG HAS THE DETAILS -- 
>> THAT'S ALL I NEEDED TO KNOW.
>> WE WILL LET THE WITNESS 
ANSWER THE QUESTION.
GO AHEAD, MARC.
>> MR. CHAIR, JUST BECAUSE WE 
ARE TOGETHER FOR I BELIEVE A 
RELATIVELY UNPRECEDENTED FOUR 
HOURS TOGETHER, WE WANT TO 
PROVIDE AS MUCH CONTEXT AS 
POSITIVE SO THE ANSWERS TO THE 
QUESTIONS CAN BE PROVIDED WITH 
FULL CONTEXT.
CRAIG HAS THE MOST SPECIFIC 
DETAILS, SIR, TO THOSE 
CONVERSATIONS BECAUSE HE WAS THE
ONE THAT WAS LEADING THEM.
THANK YOU.
>> SO YOU JUST IMAGINED A CALL 
ON A SPECIFIC DATE WITH SPECIFIC
WORDS SPOKEN AND YOU RECOUNTED 
WORDS THAT WERE SPOKE FOR A DATE
OF A CALL THAT JUST DIDN'T 
HAPPEN?
>> WHAT I SHARED WAS, AGAIN, 
INCORRECT.
I SHARED THAT WE HAD AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE THIS 
MESSAGE.
I WAS VERY EXCITED.
CRAIG AGAIN HAD THE DETAILS AND 
PART OF TODAY IS GOING THROUGH 
THOSE DETAILS WITH YOU IN A VERY
SPECIFIC MANNER.
I APOLOGIZE.
I WAS VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE 
PROGRAM.
>> THE "NATIONAL POST" OBTAINED 
A MOMENT IN WHICH YOU, MARC, 
SAID, "I'M THRILLED TO SHARE 
THAT WE HAVE BEEN INVITED BY THE
PRIME MINISTER AND CANADIAN 
HERITAGE TO HOST A UNIQUE We DAY
EVENT IN OTTAWA ON CANADA DAY 
WEEKEND 2017."
SO JUSTIN TRUDEAU PERSONALLY 
CALLED YOU OR WAS IT CRAIG THAT 
GOT THE CALL FROM JUSTIN 
TRUDEAU?
>> SIR, I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK TO 
THAT QUESTION.
IT WAS IN REGARDS TO THE FACT 
THAT THE PRIME MINISTER HAD 
ANNOUNCED $200 MILLION IN 
FUNDING SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
ACROSS CANADA FOR NATIONAL 
CELEBRATIONS ON CANADA 150.
HERITAGE WAS THE GROUP THAT WE 
ENGAGED WITH.
WE SUBMITTED A FORMAL PROPOSAL 
THROUGH HERITAGE -- 
>> THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION.
THE QUESTION WAS DID THE PRIME 
MINISTER PERSONALLY CALL?
THAT WAS THE WORDING OF THE 
STATEMENT THAT YOU WERE THRILLED
THAT We HAVE BEEN INVITED BY THE
PRIME MINISTER.
ANOTHER IMAGINARY INTERACTION 
WITH THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
OR WITH THE PRIME MINISTER 
HIMSELF?
>> GO AHEAD.
>> I CAN SAY WITH CERTAINTY THAT
NEITHER MARC NOR I HAVE EVER IN 
25 YEARS RECEIVED A PHONE CALL 
FROM THE PRIME MINISTER ON THIS 
TOPIC.
IN FACT, WHEN PEOPLE CALL -- 
>> THAT IS CLEAR.
>> MR. POILIÈVRE, WE ARE GOING 
TO ALLOW THE WITNESSES, THEY'RE 
HERE FOR FOUR HOURS -- 
>> WE'RE GOING TO -- 
>> -- WE WILL GIVE THEM 
RELATIVELY EQUAL TIME.
GO AHEAD, CRAIG.
>> WE UNDERSTAND THE POLITICALLY
SENSITIVE NATURE OF THE MOMENT, 
BUT TYPICALLY WHEN PEOPLE SAY 
THAT HERITAGE CANADA, THE PRIME 
MINISTER, ON CANADA'S 150th'S 
ANNIVERSARY HAS INVITED YOU TO 
ENGAGE -- 
>> CRAIG, DID YOU SPEAK TO 
ANYONE IN THE P.M.O. ON APRIL 
23?
>> MR. CHAIR -- 
>> DID YOU SPEAK TO ANYONE IN 
THE P.M.O. ON THE 23RD?
>> WE'RE HAPPY TO BE HERE FOR 
FOUR HOURS. 
>> GREAT, ANSWER THE QUESTION.
APRIL 23, DID YOU SPEAK TO 
ANYONE IN THE PRIME MINISTER'S 
OFFICE?
>> ORDER OR WE'RE GOING TO LOSE 
MORE TIME THAN GAIN.
THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED, 
MR. KIELBURGER, IF YOU COULD 
ANSWER IT AND I WILL NOT TAKE 
THIS TIME AWAY FROM YOU, PIERRE,
BUT THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF 
TROUBLE WITH YOUR MIC SOMEHOW, 
FELLOWS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU 
NEED TO SPEAK SLOWER, BUT IT'S 
COME THROUGH JUMPY.
WOULD YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION.
>> I WILL FOR THE FIFTH TIME.
DID YOU SPEAK TO ANYONE IN THE 
P.M.O. ON APRIL 23, YES OR NO?
>> NO, I DID NOT. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
DID MARGARET TRUDEAU GET PAID 
FOR HER PRESENTATION AT THE JULY
2 EVENT?
>> WE CHECKED OUR RECORD AND 
HAVE NO RECORD OF PAYMENT FOR 
HER FOR THAT EVENT.
JUST TO FURTHER ELABORATE -- 
>> YOU WERE CLEAR AND I 
APPRECIATE THE ANSWER.
DID SACHA, MARGARET, OR SOPHIE 
TRUDEAU EVER GET PAID TO SPEAK 
AT A We DAY EVENT?
>> YES.
IN FACT, CAN I TAKE A MOMENT TO 
SPEAK TO THIS?
>> NO, YOU DID ANSWER THE 
QUESTION.
I APPRECIATE THE ANSWER.
>> NO, WE WILL ALLOW THEM TIME 
TO ANSWER. 
>> THEY ANSWERED ALREADY. 
>> NO, HE ASKED FOR MORE TIME.
I'M GIVING HIM MORE TIME.
>> TAKE IT OFF YOUR CLOCK.
>> HAPPILY.
SO WE WERE ORIGINALLY ASKED THE 
QUESTION IN THE CRUSH OF 
LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF MEDIA 
QUESTIONS WE RECEIVED IN THE 
CONTEXT OF THE CSSG WHICH WAS A 
GOVERNMENT-FUNDED PROGRAM AND WE
MADE THE STATEMENT THAT We 
CHARITY HAD NEVER PROVIDED 
FUNDING TO A MEMBER OF THE 
TRUDEAU FAMILY TO SPEAK AT We 
DAY.
AT THE TIME WE BELIEVED THAT 
STATEMENT TO BE TRUE. 
>> FAIR ENOUGH. 
>> HOWEVER, IF I JUST SAY, THERE
IS A SOCIAL ENTERPRISE THAT 
PROVIDED THAT INFORMATION AND WE
SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE FORTHRIGHT
IN ACKNOWLEDGING THE SOCIAL 
ENTERPRISE PROVIDED THE 
SPONSORSHIP.
THOSE WERE ERRORS.
WE ACKNOWLEDGED IT IN NATIONAL 
NEWSPAPER ADS.
>> FAIR ENOUGH.
NONE OF THIS IS RELATED TO MY 
QUESTION.
I TRUST THE CHAIR IS NOT TAKING 
THIS FROM MY TIME.
IN ADDITION TO THE SPEAKING FEES
THAT THE TRUDEAUS HAD RECEIVED, 
WHAT IS THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT 
YOUR ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING We
BUT NOT LIMITED TO IT, HAVE PAID
IN EXPENSES, BENEFITS, 
REIMBURSEMENTS, FEES, OR ANY 
OTHER IN-KIND OR MONETARY 
CONSIDERATION OR SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE
TRUDEAU?
>> OF COURSE WHEN A SPEAKER DOES
COME, WE SPEAK TO THEIR 
COMPENSATION -- 
>> JUST THE TOTAL DOLLAR FIGURE.
>> WE WILL ALLOW THE WITNESSES 
TO ANSWER AS THEY SO DECIDE.
THE WITNESSES HAVE THE FLOOR.
>> IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF 
BUSINESS WHEN PEOPLE COME TO We 
DAY, WE PROVIDE THEM A 
REIMBURSEMENT FOR THEIR DIRECT 
COSTS.
THE INFORMATION WE HAVE 
AVAILABLE IS SACHA TRUDEAU CAME 
TO EIGHT We DAYS OVER A SPAN OF 
TWO YEARS AND THE AVERAGE 
EXPENSES WAS $2,447.
>> PER EVENT?
>> CAME TO A TOTAL OF 28 We DAYS
SPEAKING ON THE ISSUE OF MENTAL 
HEALTH FROM 2016 TO 2020, 
INCLUDING GROUPS LIKE We DAY IN 
THE UNITED KINGDOM, WHICH OF 
COURSE HAD AN IMPACT ON THE 
COSTS APPROXIMATE P THE AVERAGE 
EXPENSE THERE WAS $5,998.
SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE TRUDEAU CAME TO 
A TOTAL OF SEVEN We DAYS OVER A 
SPAN OF THREE YEARS AND THE 
EXPENSE WAS $3,386. 
>> CAN YOU ADD THOSE TOTALS UP 
FOR THE THREE OF THEM.
TO AVERAGE THEM, YOU MUST HAVE 
HAD THE TOTAL.
YOU NEED A NUMERATOR BY THE -- 
>> WE WILL NOT GET INTO NUMBERS 
ON THE FLY.
WE WILL ASK FOR THE TOTALS WHEN 
THEY CAN, SHORTLY AFTER THE 
MEETING IF NECESSARY.
>> WHAT IS THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT
YOUR ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDING We,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO IT HAVE PAID 
IN EXPENSES, REIMBURSEMENTS, 
FEES, IN-KIND CONSIDERATION OR 
MONETARY FOR ALL OF THE TRUDEAU 
FAMILY MEMBERS?
>> WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE 
THAT TO YOU RIGHT AFTER THE 
CONVERSATION.
NO PROBLEM.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
I'M GOING TO ASK YOU FELLOWS TO 
BRING YOUR MIC A LITTLE CLOSER.
AGAIN, THE INTERPRETERS ARE 
STILL HAVING SOME DIFFICULTY.
>> I WANT TO THANK OUR TWO 
PRESENTERS TODAY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION 
AND FOR MAKING YOURSELVES 
AVAILABLE FOR FOUR HOURS, WHICH 
IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL.
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I ALSO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR
THE TREMENDOUS POSITIVE IMPACT 
THAT We CHARITY HAS HAD IN 
ENGAGING YOUTH RIGHT ACROSS THE 
COUNTRY AND AROUND THE WORLD AND
FOR ALL THE AMAZING WORK THAT We
CHARITY HAS DONE TO REDUCE 
POVERTY.
THANKS FOR ALL OF THAT.
THERE IS A LOT OF MISINFORMATION
AND FALSE NARRATIVES THAT ARE 
BEING THROWN AROUND.
SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO GET TO 
SOME FACTS BECAUSE I THINK 
CANADIANS WHO ARE LISTENING NEED
TO GET TO THOSE FACTS.
THE FIRST IS WE'RE HEARING A LOT
OF A BILLION-DOLLAR CONTRACT.
IT GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT We 
WAS GETTING A BILLION DOLLARS.
INDEED, CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT IT 
WAS A $543-PLUS MILLION 
CONTRACT, CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
WITH THE GOVERNMENT TO DELIVER 
THE CANADA STUDENT SERVICE GRANT
WITH UP TO $45.3 MILLION GOING 
TO We AND UP TO $500 MILLION 
GOING TO STUDENTS.
CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT?
>> WHY HE, WE CAN CONFIRM THAT.
TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF 
CONTEXT, THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY 
HELPFUL PIECE OF CONTEXT THAT 
HAS UNFORTUNATELY BEEN 
MISSHARED.
THE FIRST TIME WE HEARD ABOUT 
THE FIRST NUMBER WAS THE FIRST 
TIME IT WAS ANNOUNCED.
THE CONTRACT IS UP TO THE $543 
MILLION.
THE UP TO IS RELEVANT TO THE 
YOUNG PEOPLE PARTICIPATING IN 
TERMS OF THEIR VOLUNTEER SERVICE
HOURS AND ALSO RELEVANT TO THE 
ORGANIZATION.
THIS WAS A CONTRIBUTION 
AGREEMENT BASED ON ELIGIBLE 
EXPENSES OR EXPENDITURES.
THE ORGANIZATION DID NOT STAND 
TO BENEFIT FROM THIS.
ANY MONEY WE RECEIVED WOULD HAVE
TO BE USED BY THE PROGRAM OR 
RETURNED TO THE GOVERNMENT.
THE OTHER MISCONCEPTION IS IT 
WAS UP TO THE $500 MILLION FOR 
THE YOUNG PEOPLE TO DO SERVICE.
BASED ON OUR MODELLING, THE 
AVERAGE PERSON MIGHT HAVE DONE 
100, 200, 300 HOURS OF SERVICE.
VERY FEW WOULD HAVE RECEIVED THE
500 HOURS FOR THE $5,000.
THE COST OF THIS PROGRAM WOULD 
HAVE BEEN LIKELY IN THE RANGE OF
$200 TO $300 MILLION.
>> JUST QUICKLY.
THE WAY IT WAS SET UP, THE 
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT, We 
CHARITY WAS NOT GOING TO BENEFIT
FROM IT, IT WAS ONLY TO 
ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> MY NEXT QUESTION IS HOW MUCH 
MONEY WAS ACTUALLY SENT TO We 
AND CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT ALL 
THOSE DOLLARS WILL BE COMING 
BACK?
>> YES.
SO A TOTAL OF $30 MILLION WAS 
SENT TO We BASED ON THE ESDC 
PROCESS.
AS SOON AS THIS PROGRAM WAS PUT 
INTO A POLITICAL NATURE, WE 
IMMEDIATELY DECIDED WE WOULD NOT
BE TAKING ANY OF THOSE FUNDS, 
THAT WAS A DECISION THE 
ORGANIZATION MADE.
WE WOULD BE LOSING APPROXIMATELY
$5 MILLION IN THIS PROCESS.
THIS WAS A VERY PAINFUL AND 
DIFFICULT DECISION, BUT WE FELT 
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS 
THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
ALL THE DOLLARS HAVE OR WILL BE 
SENT BACK.
THAT IS A PROCESS UNDERWAY THIS 
WEEK. 
>> THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT.
THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS, 
AGAIN, YOU'RE HEARING FROM THE 
OPPOSITION THAT IT WAS AS THOUGH
THE PRIME MINISTER OR THE 
MINISTER CALLED We AND SAID, 
HEY, DO YOU WANT TO DO THIS 
VOLUNTEER PROGRAM.
CAN YOU JUST CONFIRM THAT IT HAS
BEEN -- THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU 
HEARD ABOUT POTENTIALLY THE NEED
FOR A VOLUNTEER PROGRAM 
NATIONALLY WAS BY RACHEL WERNICK
OF ESDC?
>> I CAN CONFIRM THAT.
WE HAVE HAD MULTIPLE 
PARTNERSHIPS OVER THE YEARS.
SHE ASKED FOR AN URGENT PHONE 
CALL AND OUTLINED THE NATIONAL 
SERVICE PROGRAM.
SHE ASKED IF WE WOULD BE WILLING
TO ASSIST AND PROVIDE HER WITH A
PROPOSAL FOR HER CONSIDERATION.
IN THAT SAME PHONE CALL I 
OUTLINED THAT WE WERE ON A 
DIFFERENT PROPOSAL AND MATTER --
AND, IN FACT, I EVEN EXPRESSED 
SOME RESERVATIONS.
WE SENT THIS TO HER NONETHELESS,
AS PER HER REQUEST ON APRIL 22.
IT WAS RACHEL WERNICK'S REQUEST 
AND WE FULFILLED THE REQUEST.
>> MY SENSE IS THERE WERE A 
NUMBER OF OTHER ORGANIZATIONS 
BEING CONSIDERED.
SO THE QUESTION TO YOU WAS 
WHETHER YOU WOULD BE INTERESTED 
IN DELIVERING THIS PROPOSAL AND 
PUTTING IN THE PROPOSAL.
IT WASN'T, HEY, YOU'VE GOT THE 
DEAL, IT WAS WOULD THIS BE 
SOMETHING YOU WOULD BE 
INTERESTED IN DOING.
IS THAT HOW IT WAS PRESENTED?
>> YES. 
>> APRIL 22 IS WHEN THE PRIME 
MINISTER MADE THE ANNOUNCEMENT 
OF $900 BILLION OF AID TO 
STUDENTS.
YOU SUBMITTED THE PROPOSAL THAT 
SAME DAY.
IT WAS A QUICK TURNAROUND.
WAS IT BASED ON THE BASIC 
OUTLINE THAT MS. WERNICK 
PROVIDED TO YOU ON APRIL 19?
>> CORRECT, MS. WERNICK PROVIDED
THE POLICY OBJECTIVES AND WE 
FULFILLED THEM IN THE PROPOSAL. 
>> LAST QUESTION, JULIE. 
>> THE OTHER THING I'M UNCLEAR 
ABOUT IS I SEE THE CONTRIBUTION 
IN FRONT OF ME AND IT WAS SIGNED
ON MAY 5.
WAS IT SIGNED ON MAY 5 OR DID 
THE AGREEMENT BEGIN ON MAY 5?
IF YOU COULD JUST EXPLAIN THE 
LOGISTICS AROUND ALL THAT. 
>> THANK YOU FOR ASKING.
THE AGREEMENT TECHNICALLY BEGAN 
ON MAY 5.
WE WERE WORKING IN ADVANCE ON 
THE S.D.C. TO GET THE RESOURCES 
FOR THE PROGRAM.
THE TURNAROUND TIME WAS SO TIGHT
AND WE WERE SO PASSIONATE ABOUT 
HELPING YOUNG PEOPLE AT THIS 
TIME THAT WE GOT TO WORK RIGHT 
AWAY, WITH THE FULL RISK AND 
UNDERSTANDING IF THIS AGREEMENT 
DID NOT GO FORWARD, WE WOULD BE 
AT FINANCIAL RISK OF DOING SO, 
BUT WE ACCEPTED THAT RISK 
BECAUSE WE REALLY WANTED TO 
HELP. 
>> ON TO MR. FORTIN FOLLOWED BY 
MR. ANGUS.
YOUR MUTE IS ON.
[LAUGHTER]. 
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] HELLO, 
MR. KIELBURGER.
I DON'T HAVE MUCH TIME.
I WILL JUMP STRAIGHT TO THE 
MATTER AT HAND.
WE KNOW THAT MR. MORNEAU WROTE 
UP A CHEQUE TO We CHARITY TO 
REIMBURSE $43,000 WORTH OF 
EXPENSES.
WHEN HE APPEARED LAST WEEK, 
THAT'S WHAT HE SAID.
DID YOU RECEIVE THAT CHEQUE?
[end of translation]. 
>> YES, WE DID AND IF I MAY 
CLARIFY, THAT WAS A GREATER 
AMOUNT THAN THE COST OF HIS 
TRIP, BUT HE BASED IT ON WHAT 
ONE COULD CONCEIVABLY ON A TRIP 
LIKE THAT COST.
I JUST WANT TO CORRECT A LITTLE 
BIT OF THE PUBLIC RECORD THAT We
CHARITY DID NOT SPEND THAT TO 
HOST HIM, BUT WE DID RECEIVE A 
CHEQUE OF THAT VALUE, YES.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] DID YOU BILL 
MR. MORNEAU FOR THAT AMOUNT?
[end of translation]. 
>> WE DID BILL MR. MORNEAU WHEN 
HIS OFFICE APPROACHED US VERY 
RECENTLY TO SEEK A CLARIFICATION
ON WHAT THE COST OF THE TRIP 
WOULD HAVE BEEN.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] WHEN?
[end of translation]. 
>> THAT WOULD BE A DAY PRIOR TO 
HIS TESTIMONY.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] DO YOU HAVE THE 
DATE?
[end of translation]. 
>> MR. CHAIR, IF YOU COULD 
SIMPLY LET US KNOW THE DATE OF 
HIS TESTIMONY OR THE CLERK 
COULD, WE COULD GO BACK BY ONE 
DAY.
>> OKAY.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] SO YOU BILLED HIM 
ON THE DAY THAT HE CAME TO 
APPEAR?
[end of translation]. 
>> THE DAY PRIOR, SIR.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] MR. CHAIRMAN, ARE 
YOU STILL THERE?
[end of translation]. 
>> I AM, YES.
I'M LOOKING FOR THE DATE, BUT GO
AHEAD, MR. FORTIN.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] THE QUESTION WAS, 
WHAT WAS THE DATE WHEN We 
CHARITY ISSUED THAT BILL TO 
MR. MORNEAU?
[end of translation]. 
>> I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION, 
SIR.
COULD SOMEONE SEE THE DATE THAT 
MR. MORNEAU TESTIFIED AND BASED 
ON THAT -- WE'RE HAPPY TO SUBMIT
THAT.
WE'RE IN GOOGLE RIGHT NOW TO TRY
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] WHAT I'D LIKE IS A 
COPY OF THE BILL, PLEASE.
A COPY OF THE BILL.
[end of translation]. 
>> PROVIDE YOU WHAT WE HAVE ON 
RECORD.
>> THE CLERK HAS AN ANSWER AND 
HE'S WAVING HIS HAND.
>> MR. CLERK, COULD YOU GIVE US 
THE DATE THAT MR. MORNEAU 
APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE?
I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] I'M NOT ASKING FOR 
THE DATE -- 
[end of translation]. 
>> FROM YOU. 
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] BUT THAT'S NOT MY 
QUESTION.
IT'S NOT THE DATE OF HIS 
TESTIMONY, BUT A DATE OF THE 
BILL AND A COPY OF THE BILL.
[end of translation]. 
>> THE DATE OF THE BILL WAS THE 
DATE BEFORE MR. MORNEAU 
APPEARED.
IF WE GET MR. MORNEAU'S DATE, 
WE'LL SUBTRACT ONE DAY AND HAVE 
THE ANSWER.
MR. CLERK.
>> MR. MORNEAU APPEARED ON JULY 
22. 
>> SO THE BILL WENT OUT ON JULY 
21.
>> MR. FORTIN, I WON'T TAKE THE 
TIME FROM YOU.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] THANK YOU, 
MR. CHAIRMAN.
COULD WE GET A COPY OF THAT 
BILL?
[end of translation]. 
>> WE'LL BE HAPPY TO SUBMIT WHAT
WE HAVE ON RECORD.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] YOU'LL SEND THAT 
THIS WEEK?
[end of translation]. 
>> WE'LL ENDEAVOUR TO TURN THAT 
AROUND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] MR. KIELBURGER, IS 
ONE OF YOU REGISTERED AS A 
LOBBYIST IN OTTAWA?
[end of translation]. 
>> NEITHER OF US ARE REGISTERED 
AND BASED ON THE DEFINITION 
NEITHER OF US WOULD FALL IN THE 
ALLOTMENT OF TIME.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] HAVE YOU BEEN IN 
CONTACT WITH MEMBERS OF THE 
CABINET, ASIDE FROM MR. MORNEAU 
AND MR. TRUDEAU?
[end of translation]. 
>> SORRY, SINCE THE PROGRAM OVER
THE LAST 10 YEARS?
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] LET'S SAY OVER THE 
LAST TWO YEARS.
OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS, HAVE 
YOU BEEN IN CONTACT WITH MEMBERS
OF THE CABINET?
[end of translation]. 
>> YES, SIR.
I CAN TELL YOU WITH CERTAINTY 
THAT ON THE DATE OF APRIL 7 I 
HAD AN INTRODUCTORY PHONE CALL 
FOR THE FIRST TIME WITH MINISTER
NG.
SHE REPRESENTS THE HOME RIDING 
THAT We CHARITY STARTED IN.
ON THAT CALL SHE EXPRESSED THE 
DESIRE TO HELP YOUNG PEOPLE 
START SMALL BUSINESSES.
WE HAD A PROPOSAL AND I 
SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL TO HER TWO 
DAYS LATER ON THAT PROPOSAL -- 
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] MR. KIELBURGER, 
THAT'S INTERESTING, BUT THAT 
MIGHT CAUSE ME TO GO BEYOND MY 
FIVE MINUTES.
I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE NAMES OF
MINISTERS THAT YOU HAD 
DISCUSSIONS WOULD BE OVER THE 
LAST TWO YEARS.
[end of translation]. 
>> WE WILL GET THAT TO YOU.
I CAN SAY WITH CERTAINTY SINCE 
JANUARY WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS 
WITH MINISTER NG, MINISTER 
CHAGGER, AND MINISTER MORNEAU.
PRIOR TO THAT POINT, I WOULD 
HAVE TO DO A MORE EXTENSIVE 
SEARCH.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] OKAY.
AND EVERY TIME IT HAD TO DO WITH
GOVERNMENT GRANTS OR THAT TYPE 
OF PROGRAM?
[end of translation]. 
>> THE CONVERSATION WITH 
MINISTER NG WAS AN INTRODUCTORY 
CONVERSATION, NOT THE 
EXPECTATION OF A GRANT.
WITH MINISTER CHAGGER, THE FIRST
CONVERSATION -- ACTUALLY, NONE 
OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS WERE IN 
RELATION TO A GRANT.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] WOULD IT BE 
POSSIBLE TO PROVIDE A LIST OF 
THE MINISTERS WITH WHO YOU'VE 
HAD DISCUSSIONS OVER THE LAST 
TWO YEARS, THAT'S BOTH OF YOU, 
THE DATE OF THE CONVERSATION AND
THE SUBJECT MATTER.
IS THAT POSSIBLE?
[end of translation]. 
>> IT IS, SIR.
WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE 
THAT TO YOU.
>> LAST QUESTION, MR. FORTIN.
MR. FORTIN, ARE YOU FROZEN?
MUST BE A TECHNICAL -- THERE YOU
GO.
LAST QUESTION, MR. FORTIN, YOUR 
LINE FROZE ON US.
>> Interpreter: INAUDIBLE.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] I WAS ASKING A 
QUESTION BUT MY SCREEN FROZE.
DID YOU HEAR MY QUESTION?
[end of translation]. 
>> NO.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] MY SCREEN SAYS THE 
CONNECTION IS UNSTABLE.
>> Interpreter: IT IS VERY HARD 
TO HEAR.
PARTS OF THE COMMENTS ARE 
INAUDIBLE TO THE INTERPRETER.
>> MR. FORTIN, WE'LL COME BACK 
TO YOU A LITTLE LATER.
THE CONVERSATION IS BREAKING UP 
AND CAN'T BE TRANSLATED.
WE'LL GO TO -- ARE WE GOING TO 
MR. ANGUS OR MR. JULIAN?
SIX MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN, FOR 
PARTICIPATING TODAY.
THE QUESTION THAT INTERESTS US 
IS A QUESTION OF ACCOUNTABILITY 
BECAUSE IT IS A HUGE AMOUNT OF 
MONEY THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOUR 
ORGANIZATION.
CANADIANS ARE ASKING QUESTIONS.
SO WHEN WE HEAR FROM THE BOARD 
OF YOUR CHAIR THAT SHE WAS 
DENIED ACCESS TO FINANCIAL 
RECORDS, THAT SHE WAS DENIED 
ACCESS TO YOUR CHIEF FINANCIAL 
OFFICER, AND WHEN SHE PUSHED FOR
THOSE ANSWERS, MARC, YOU HUNG UP
ON HER.
IS THAT HOW YOU GUYS DO BUSINESS
WHEN YOU'RE CHALLENGED?
>> SO WE ARE GRATEFUL -- 
>> SORRY, MARC HUNG UP ON HER.
I'M ASKING ABOUT MARC.
SHE SAID MARC HUNG UP ON HER.
>> OKAY.
I'LL FOLLOW YOU.
WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR THE 14 YEARS
FROM MICHELLE.
THE TIME OF THE PANDEMIC WAS 
EXTREMELY CHALLENGING FOR 
CANADIANS -- 
>> I GET THAT, BUT YOU HUNG UP 
ON HER ABOUT FINANCIAL. 
>> SIR, I DON'T FEEL THAT'S A 
PROPER CHARACTERIZATION OF THE 
SERIES OF EVENTS.
WE WERE PROVIDING NEARLY DAILY 
BRIEFINGS TO THE BOARD UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES.
WE HAD TO MAKE QUICK DECISIONS, 
AS MANY CANADIAN NON-PROFITS -- 
>> I GET THAT.
CRAIG, YOU CALLED HER AND 
DEMANDED SHE DESIGN.
IS THAT YOU DIDN'T LIKE THE FACT
THAT SHE WAS ASKING FOR 
FINANCIALS AND THEN YOU SAY YOU 
WANT HER GONE AND YOU CLEAR THE 
BOARD?
IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF 
ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS IN 
YOUR ORGANIZATION, THAT RAISES 
RED FLAGS.
>> WE'LL GIVE CRAIG WHO'S GOING 
TO ANSWER TIME.
GO AHEAD, MR. KIELBURGER.
>> THERE ARE TWO THINGS BEING 
BROUGHT TOGETHER HERE.
ONE IS A PROCESS THAT STARTED IN
THE FALL FOR BOARD RENEWAL.
NAMES WERE IDENTIFIED -- 
>> THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION.
THE QUESTION IS DID YOU DEMAND 
SHE RESIGN?
>> MR. ANGUS, WE'LL SEE WHERE 
THIS GOES, BUT WE WILL ALLOW AN 
ANSWER AND THEN WE CAN GO TO A 
SUPPLEMENTARY.
MR. KIELBURGER.  
>> A WELL-PLANNED, WELL-EXECUTED
PROCESS TOOK PLACE.
BY WELL-PLANNED, NOT AS WELL AS 
WE HOPED, PROCESS STARTED IN 
FALL OF 2019 LOOKING AT BOARD 
RENEWAL AS WE APPROACHED 25 
YEARS AS AN ORGANIZATION -- 
>> OKAY.
>> I'M SEEKING -- 
>> SHE SAID YOU WANTED HER TO BE
EXTENDED AND THEN YOU DEMANDED 
SHE RESIGN.
LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT A 
WELL-ORDERED PLAN.
I'M TALKING ABOUT 
ACCOUNTABILITY.
THIS IS THE ISSUE, 
ACCOUNTABILITY.
>> THINGS WILL GO A LOT SMOOTHER
IF WE ALLOW AN ANSWER IN DETAIL,
IT WILL SAVE TIME.
MR. KIELBURGER.
>> THANK YOU.
IN FALL OF 2019, NAMES WERE 
IDENTIFIED FOR NEW BOARD 
MEMBERS, PROCESS UNDERWAY.
DURING THAT PROCESS, A GLOBAL 
PANDEMIC TOOK PLACE.
THERE WERE A TOTAL OF NEAR-DAILY
BRIEFINGS, 14 TO BE PRECISE, 
WITH THE BOARD MEMBERS, A FULL 
BOARD MEETING.
AND FULL FINANCIAL MODELLING 11 
DAYS -- 
>> THANK YOU.
MR. EASTER, WILL YOU LET ME 
CONTINUE MY TIME?
IF YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP -- IF 
YOU WANT TO INTERRUPT THE 
QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIR, BUT I'M 
DOWN TO LESS THAN HALF MY TIME 
NOW.
>> I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE TIME 
AWAY FROM YOU, BUT I WANT TO 
GIVE THE WITNESSES AN 
OPPORTUNITY FOR A THOROUGH 
ANSWER.
WE'VE GOT FOUR HOURS WITH THESE 
WITNESSES.
WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ALLOW THEM 
THE FULL ANSWERS.
IF IT WAS POLITICIANS, WE WOULD 
GET INTO THE FOUR-SECOND, 
FOUR-SECOND, BUT IT'S NOT.
COMPLETE YOUR ANSWER IF YOU CAN 
IN LESS THAN 15 SECONDS, 
MR. KIELBURGER.
>> WE RESPECT MICHELLE'S 
DECISION ON THE MATTER.
WE BELIEVE THE OTHER BOARD 
MEMBERS -- MICHELLE HAD ONE DATE
THAT SHE TRANSITIONED, BY THE 
WAY, WE ASKED FOR THREE MONTHS 
TO TRANSITION.
SHE CHOSE TO DO SO IMMEDIATELY.
THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WENT 
THROUGH A DIFFERENT PROCESS.
THE BOARD TODAY HAS -- 
>> WE'LL GO BACK TO MR. ANGUS.
>> WHAT WE HEARD WAS SHE WAS 
ASKING FINANCIAL DETAILS, MARC 
GOT ANGRY AND HUNG UP -- 
>> SIR -- 
>> WE'LL ALLOW THE QUESTION, 
GUYS.
MR. ANGUS.
>> THE LIBERALS KEEP TELLING US 
ABOUT THE GREAT WORK OF We 
CHARITY, AND I DON'T DOUBT THAT,
BUT We CHARITY ISN'T HANDLING 
THE MONEY, IT'S THE We 
FOUNDATION.
YOU MOVED THIS MONEY INTO 
ESSENTIALLY A REAL ESTATE 
HOLDING COMPANY.
DON'T YOU THINK CANADIANS WOULD 
HAVE QUESTIONS?
I'VE NEVER HEARD OF A REAL 
ESTATE HOLDING COMPANY GETTING 
MONEY TO DELIVER A PROGRAM.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
THAT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED 
INCORRECTLY AND WE HAVE SOUGHT 
TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION CHANGED
MULTIPLE TIMES.
IF YOU GO BACK TO THE SOURCE 
DATA OF THE GLOBAL NEWS REPORT, 
THEY HAVE CHANGED IT IN THE 
BODY, BUT NOT THE TITLE 
HEADLINE.
IT WAS NOT A REAL ESTATE HOLDING
COMPANY.
IT NEVER HELD ANY REAL ESTATE.
NO REAL ESTATE AND NO ASSETS -- 
>> I KNOW THERE'S NO ASSETS IN 
THERE, BUT IT DOES SAY IT IS 
THERE TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN 
FACILITIES TO HOW'S THE 
OPERATION.
COME ON BOYS, MEN, I'M NOT A 
REAL ESTATE LAWYER, I DON'T KNOW
LAW, BUT I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE A 
LOT OF -- YOU'VE GOT MULTIPLE 
CORPORATIONS AND YOU HAVE THIS 
ONE SET UP TO HOLD REAL ESTATE, 
BUT IT DOESN'T HOLD ANYTHING.
WHY IS THAT WHERE YOU DECIDE TO 
PUT YOUR MONEY?
THAT IS THE QUESTION.
>> CAN WE GET AN ANSWER.
>> I'M GLAD YOU ASKED THE 
QUESTION.
THIS IS INCORRECT AND WE'RE 
THRILLED TO BE HERE TO SET THE 
RECORD STRAIGHT. 
>> I BET YOU ARE.
>> IN THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
ESDC, THEY ASKED US TO ASSUME 
FULL LIABILITY FOR UP TO 40,000 
YOUNG PEOPLE VOLUNTEERING AND 
ACCEPT FULL LIABILITY FOR THOSE 
YOUNG PEOPLE AND ALL THE 
NON-PROFITS THOSE YOUNG PEOPLE 
WOULD BE VOLUNTEERING AT.
ON THE ADVICE OF PROFESSIONALS 
WORKING WITH US -- 
>> SORRY, YOU'RE TELLING US IT 
WAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S 
IDEA TO PUT THIS THROUGH A REAL 
ESTATE HOLDING COMPANY?
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING 
BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY STRANGE.
>> I WANT A FULL ANSWER HERE IF 
WE COULD. 
>> WHO IN THE GOVERNMENT SIGNED 
OFF ON GIVING THE MONEY, UPWARDS
OF $500 MILLION, TO A HOLDING 
COMPANY THAT YOU HAVE THESE 
ORIGINAL PURPOSE WAS TO HOLD 
YOUR REAL ESTATE?
COME ON. 
>> OKAY.
WE'LL COME BACK IF WE COULD FOR 
A FULSOME ANSWER ON WHERE THE 
MONEY WAS HELD AND THEN IF YOU 
KNOW WHO SIGNED OFF, YOU CAN 
GIVE THAT ANSWER AS WELL.
I WANT TO GIVE THE GENTLEMEN 
TIME TO ANSWER THE QUESTION 
APPROPRIATELY.
GENTLEMEN.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
WE APPRECIATE IT.
THIS INFORMATION SHARED BY 
GLOBAL NEWS WAS INCORRECT.
WE WANT TO STRESS THIS OVER 
AGAIN.
THIS IS NOT A REAL ESTATE 
HOLDING COMPANY AND THIS IS 
ACTUALLY A CHARITABLE 
ORGANIZATION THAT WAS SET UP TO 
HELP LIMIT LIABILITY.
A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION -- 
>> IT HAS NO TRACK RECORD AND 
HASN'T DONE ANYTHING.
COME ON.
>> COULD WE HEAR THE ANSWER.
YOU'RE ALLOWED TO MAKE A 
JUDGMENT ON THAT FOLLOWING THE 
ANSWER IF YOU COULD.
GENTLEMEN, ANSWER.
>> TO HELP LIMIT LIABILITY.
THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA ASKED 
US TO ASSUME MASSIVE LIABILITY 
AS PART OF THIS INITIATIVE FOR 
40,000 YOUNG PEOPLE VOLUNTEERING
DURING A PANDEMIC.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY 
DIFFICULT FOR US TO PUT THE 
ENTIRE ORGANIZATION AT RISK 
UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.
WE HAD THIS ENTITY PREVIOUSLY 
SET UP AS ONE TO LIMIT LIABILITY
AND ON THE ADVICE OF 
PROFESSIONALS WE USED THAT 
ENTITY -- 
>> BUT IT WAS YOUR BOARD -- 
>> MR. ANGUS, LET HIM FINISH -- 
LET THEM FINISH THE ANSWER, 
PLEASE.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. 
>> THEY HAVEN'T FINISHED THE 
ANSWER [ALL TALKING AT ONCE] -- 
CHARLIE, ORDER, ORDER.
ORDER, MR. ANGUS.
GENTLEMEN, ANSWER THE QUESTION 
AND WE'LL ALLOW MR. ANGUS ONE 
FINAL QUESTION. 
>> IT WAS A LEGAL STRUCTURE THAT
HAD THE ULTIMATE GOVERNANCE 
EMBEDDED IN We CHARITY, USING 
THE We CHARITY STAFF AND 
RESOURCES.
IT WAS A CONTRACT ESTABLISHED 
AND SIGNED WITH THE ESDC WITH 
SECTION 22 HOLDING THE 
PROVISIONS ON INSURANCE FOR THE 
GOVERNMENT, SIR.
THIS WAS A VERY WELL-ORGANIZED 
SYSTEM AT THE ADVICE OF ALL THE 
RESPONSE EXPERTS. 
>> OKAY.
LAST QUESTION, MR. ANGUS.
YOU'RE WELL OVER TIME. 
>> I GUESS WHAT'S REALLY 
CONCERNING HERE IF YOUR BOARD 
CHAIR WHO YOU DEMANDED RESIGN, 
HAD QUESTIONS WHY THERE WAS A 
SHELL COMPANY THAT WAS THERE TO 
LIMIT LIABILITY, AND LO AND 
BEHOLD, IT BECAME THE PERFECT 
AVENUE.
I DON'T HOLD A BUNCH OF NUMBERED
COMPANIES.
I THOUGHT YOU WERE JUST A 
CHARITY, BUT IT'S SET UP TO 
LIMIT YOUR LIABILITY.
IT WAS ORIGINALLY SET UP FOR 
REAL ESTATE AND THEN YOU CHANGED
IT.
DON'T YOU GET THAT THIS LOOKS 
KIND OF DODGY TO THE AVERAGE 
CANADIAN WHO SAY, DID WE GIVE 
THESE GUYS $500 MILLION AND PUT 
IT INTO THAT, LIKE WHAT IS THIS?
>> SIR, THE INFORMATION YOU'RE 
SHARING IS FUNDAMENTALLY 
INCORRECT.
WE'RE SEEKING TO SHARE WITH YOU 
THE PROPER INFORMATION.
>> BUT I'M LOOKING AT THE FORM, 
IT'S NOT INCORRECT.
>> MR. ANGUS, COME ON.
>> IT'S NOT INCORRECT.
>> THE PURPOSE WAS TO HELP LIMIT
LIABILITY.
THERE WERE MULTITUDE OF PURPOSES
FOR THIS INTERNET -- 
>> THAT'S REAL ESTATE.
>> IT WAS TO LIMIT LIABILITY.
IT WAS FORMALLY RECOGNIZED FOR 
THE VERY PURPOSE.
IT WAS AMENDED IN ITS STRUCTURE.
>> YES, IT WAS AMENDED, YOU'RE 
CORRECT. 
>> MR. ANGUS -- 
>> -- THE PROPER STRUCTURE IN 
PLACE WITH ULTIMATE GOVERNANCE 
WITH THE STAFF OF THE CHARITY.
THIS IS -- 
>> YOUR BOARD WAS YOUR 
EMPLOYEES.
THAT'S NOT GOVERNANCE. 
>> MR. ANGUS, COME ON. 
>> THAT'S NOT GOVERNANCE?
>> ACTUALLY, YOU'RE INCORRECT IN
THE STATEMENT.
HOW THE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNANCE 
WAS ESTABLISHED, IT WAS THAT THE
We CHARITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS 
WERE THE MEMBERS.
THEY HAD THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY 
THROUGH THE LEGAL GOVERNANCE AND
STRUCTURE IN PLACE.
I SAY WITH RESPECT -- 
>> THAT'S NOT WHAT YOUR FORMER 
CHAIR JUST SAID.
>> MR. ANGUS, WE ARE GOING TO 
END THIS ROUND THERE.
I WILL GIVE YOU GENTLEMEN AN 
OPPORTUNITY LATER TO EXPLAIN 
THIS SCENARIO.
WE WILL GO BACK TO MR. BAIRD AND
I WILL COME BACK TO THIS ONE 
WITH A QUESTION SO WE CAN HAVE 
PEACE OF MIND AND QUIET TO GET A
DECENT ANSWER.
MR. BAIRD.
>> WE NEED TO GET A TOTAL AMOUNT
OF ALL MONEYS, ALL BENEFIT PAID 
TO INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE 
TRUDEAU FAMILY.
SO DO YOU HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF 
YOU TODAY, GENTLEMEN?
>> SIR, AS REQUESTED, WE'RE 
HAPPY TO PROVIDE THAT 
INFORMATION TO YOU.
THAT WAS A QUESTION ALSO THAT 
CAME FROM MR. POILIÈVRE, IF I'M 
NOT MISTAKEN -- 
>> SO YOU COMMIT TO DOING A FULL
BREAKDOWN OF EXPENSE FOR EACH 
ONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS, NOT 
JUST REMUNERATION FOR SPEAKING 
FEES, BUT FOR GIFTS AND OTHER 
BENEFITS INCLUDING COVERING OF 
TRAVEL EXPENSES?
>> SIR, YES, WE ARE HAPPY TO 
PROVIDE THAT, ALSO WITH RESPECT 
TO REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL 
EXPENSES.
>> MS. MARTAING TRUDEAU WAS PAID
OVER A QUARTER OF A MILLION 
DOLLARS IN SPEAKING FEES.
DID ANYONE ELSE GET THAT MANY 
SPEAKING FEES?
>> THAT WAS A PRACTICE IN PLACE,
NOT TO PAY FOR THOSE ON THE We 
DAY STAGE, BUT AUXILIARY EVENTS 
IN DIFFERENT CITIES THAT 
SPEAKERS WERE BROUGHT IN.
IN ANY GIVEN YEAR, A SMALL LIST 
WAS IDENTIFIED, AKIN TO A 
UNIVERSITY SPEAKING SERIES -- 
>> TO BE CLEAR IN YOUR PREVIOUS 
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS, YOU DID 
SAY THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRUDEAU 
FAMILY WERE PAID TO ATTEND We 
DAY EVENTS.
>> IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE 
SPEAKERS WAS AUXILIARY EVENTS.
MARGARET TRUDEAU CAME TO SPEAK 
ABOUT THE ISSUES AROUND MENTAL 
HEALTH.
SHE SPOKE ON THE We DAY STAGE, 
BUT SHE CAME TO THE RECEPTIONS, 
SIGNED THE BOOKS, AND DID ALL 
THESE ADDITIONAL EVENTS.
IT WAS A SIGNIFICANT ASK OF HER 
TIME.
>> AT THOSE EVENTS, HOW MANY 
OTHER SPEAKERS WERE PAID?
>> THE VAST MAJORITY, SIR, WERE 
DONE AT NO COST.
IT WAS THE SMALL GROUP OF 
SPEAKERS WHO WOULD COME AND NOT 
MS. MADAM TRUDEAU, BUT A SMALL 
GROUP OF SPEAKERS WOULD COME NOT
JUST TO SPEAK ON THE We DAY 
STAGE, BUT THE ADDITIONAL 
AUXILIARY EVENTS WE HAD TO 
SUPPORT ON ISSUES THAT ARE 
RELEVANT -- 
>> I APPRECIATE YOUR QUESTION.
IT WASN'T UNUSUAL WHAT WAS 
TAKING PLACE WITH HER.
IT WAS A SIMPLE PROCESS.
>> HOW MUCH WAS MS. MARGARET 
TRUDEAU PAID FOR SPEAKING BEFORE
NOVEMBER OF 2015?
>> WE DID NOT ENGAGE HER BEFORE 
NOVEMBER OF 2015 FROM MY BEST 
UNDERSTANDING. 
>> SO SHE WAS ONLY EVER PAID 
AFTER NOVEMBER OF 2015?
>> IT WAS AT THAT POINT, SIR, 
WHERE We DAYS CONTINUED TO GROW 
AND WE NEEDED SOMEBODY TO SPEAK 
SPECIFICALLY ON THE ISSUE OF 
MENTAL HEALTH.
SHE CAME NOT AS MADAM TRUDEAU, 
BUT SOMEONE WHO IS VERY FOCUSED 
ON THIS ISSUE.
THIS AFFECTS ONE IN FIVE 
CANADIANS.
>> ONE IN FIVE CANADIANS. 
>> I THINK OTHER WELL-KNOWN 
CANADIANS WHO HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT 
MENTAL HEALTH WOULD BE SOMEONE 
LIKE THEO FLUERRIE WHO WAS 
INFORMED YOU DO NOT PAY 
SPEAKERS.
MY NEXT QUESTION -- 
>> [Indiscernible] -- 
>> THAT'S RIGHT AND THE FLOOR IS
NOT YOURS.
ARE THERE ANY MINISTERS WHO HAVE
RECEIVED LEVELS OF COMPENSATION 
FROM ANY ORGANIZATION WITH WHICH
YOU'RE INVOLVED?
>> WE DO FOR THOSE TWO DO THE 
AUXILIARY EVENTS.
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SIR, 
THE INDIVIDUAL THAT THAT 
QUESTION IS RELEVANT TO AS A 
CABINET MEMBER MR. MORNEAU AND 
THE McCAIN FAMILY AND I BELIEVE 
THAT IS ON THE PUBLIC RECORD. 
>> NO OTHER MINISTERS?
>> CORRECT.
>> WHAT ABOUT MINISTERIAL STAFF 
MEMBERS?
ANY FORM OF FINANCIAL 
COMPENSATION, FEES, CONTRACTS, 
SALARIES, REIMBURSES, 
COMPENSATION?
>> NOT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE. 
>> THAT INCLUDES KATIE TELFORD, 
MINISTER CHAGGER AND OTHERS?
>> NO.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION 
ART BOUND, HAVE THEY RECEIVED 
MONEY?
>> THEY FUNDED We CHARITY 
THROUGH THEIR EXTRAORDINARY 
PHILANTHROPIC COMMITMENT AND WE 
APPRECIATE THEIR LONG-STANDING 
SUPPORT IN THAT MATTER. 
>> HAVE THEY RECEIVED PAYMENT?
>> THE FUNDS HAVE ONLY GONE ONE 
WAY WHICH THEY WERE FUNDRAISING 
FOR SPECIFICALLY A SCHOOL FOR 
MUSIC IN EAST AFRICA SUPPORTING 
AN ALL-GIRLS PROGRAM IN KENYA 
THEY FUNDRAISED, BUT NO BENEFITS
WENT THE OTHER WAY.
>> JUST TO TIE THAT OFF, YOU'RE 
SAYING NO STAFF, PAST OR 
PRESENT, OF PRIME MINISTER 
JUSTIN TRUDEAU OR NO STAFF 
MEMBER PAST OR PRESENT OF 
MINISTER BILL MORNEAU RECEIVED 
ANY COMPENSATION AS OUTLINED BY 
ME ABOVE?
>> TO THE BEST OF YOUR 
KNOWLEDGE, WE CAN MAKE THAT 
BLANKET STATEMENT.
>> THAT WILL TIE OFF THAT ROUND.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU TO BOTH OF YOU FOR 
COMING TO THE COMMITTEE.
I WANT TO ASK ABOUT THE 
ADMINISTRATION FEE.
HOW MUCH WOULD IT HAVE BEEN HAD 
We ADMINISTERED THE CANADA 
STUDENT SERVICE GRANT AND FOR 
WHAT PURPOSES?
WHEN WE SAY THE ADMINISTRATION 
FEE, I'M NOT SURE IF MANY OR 
MOST CANADIANS WOULD UNDERSTAND 
WHAT IS MEANT BY THAT.
>> I APPRECIATE YOU ASKING THAT 
QUESTION.
IF I CAN START BY CLARIFYING.
IN FACT, IT WASN'T AN 
ADMINISTRATION FEE.
IT WAS A PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 
FEE.
WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS OFTEN IN 
THE CHARITABLE WORLD PEOPLE 
THINK OF BACK OFFICE FUNDING.
THIS WAS FOR THE DELIVERY OF THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN.
FOR THE FIRST 30,000 STUDENTS, 
We CHARITY WAS PROVIDED $14.5 
MILLION FOR ALL INCLUSIVE 
ASPECTS.
IT WOULD HAVE GONE UP TO $34.78.
WHAT WAS INCLUDED IN THOSE 
ASPECTS, FOR EXAMPLE, TECHNOLOGY
GRANTS FOR STUDENTS WHO NEEDED 
ACCESS IN RURAL AREAS, 
TRANSLATION OF RESOURCES FOR 
SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS, COACHING
IN SPORT, THE DIRECT SUPERVISION
OF UP TO 20,000 STUDENTS TO 
SUPPORT NON-PROFITS THAT 
COULDN'T OTHERWISE MENTOR AND 
SUPPORT THOSE STUDENTS.
LAUNCHING THE WEB SUPPORT, CALL 
CENTRE SUPPORT, INSURANCE 
SUPPORT, PAYMENT, T4 FORMS.
IN SHORT, THIS WAS A MASSIVE 
PROGRAM LAUNCHED DURING THE 
PANDEMIC TO SUPPORT UP TO 
100,000 YOUNG PEOPLE WITH A VERY
HIGH-TOUCH PROGRAM BECAUSE THE 
EMPHASIS WAS ON STUDENTS OF 
GREATEST NEED.
WE WERE TO TARGET PARTICULARLY 
INDIGENOUS STUDENTS IN RURAL 
PARTS OF CANADA.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.
I'M STILL LEFT CONFUSED ON A FEW
THINGS, MR. KIELBURGER.
NAMELY THE COMPLEX 
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE.
SO YOU HAVE We AND UNDER THE We 
UMBRELLA THERE'S A NUMBER OF 
ENTITIES.
I'LL JUST LIST THESE.
>> YOU ALREADY DID BEFORE.
I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK TO THE 
QUESTION.
>> SURE.
IT'S A PARTIAL LIST.
WE HAVE We CHARITY U.S., We 
CHARITY U.K., ME TO We 
FOUNDATION BASED IN THE U.S., ME
TO We FOUNDATION IN CANADA, We 
CHARITY FOUNDATION, WELL-BEING 
FOUNDATION OF CANADA, WELL-BEING
FOUNDATION OF AMERICA INC., We 
365 L.P., We 365 HOLDINGS INC., 
We 365 G.P. INC., IMAGINE 
ONE-DAY INTERNATIONAL 
ORGANIZATION, AND THERE'S ME TO 
We SOCIAL ENTERPRISES.
COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THIS 
STRUCTURE IS ALL ABOUT BECAUSE I
THINK PEOPLE LOOK AT THIS AND 
HAVE JUSTIFIABLY SO, IT'S A 
CHARITY ON THE ONE HAND, BUT WHY
IS THERE THIS LABYRINTH THAT 
EXISTS UNDERNEATH?
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
FUNDAMENTALLY THERE ARE TWO 
OVERARCHING STRUCTURES, We 
CHARITY AND ME TO We.
IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, SECTION 
149 TO BE PRECISE, CHARITIES 
CANNOT OPERATE LIKE BUSINESSES 
TO SOLVE SOCIAL ISSUES.
THEY CANNOT LITERALLY OPERATE 
LIKE A BUSINESS STRUCTURE.
IT'S BECAUSE OF THIS UNFORTUNATE
REALITY OF THE STRUCTURING IN 
CANADA IS THAT ORGANIZATIONS 
LIFTING PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY 
COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN CREATED IN
CANADA.
SOCIAL ENTERPRISE IS BETTERING 
OF THE WORLD.
WE NEEDED TO ENGAGE THE BEST 
LAWYERS AND ACCOUNTANTS TO BUILD
A LABYRINTH TO ADHERE TO THE 
CANADIAN REGULATIONS.
WE GET CALLS FROM PEOPLE ASKING 
HOW THEY CAN DO IT THEMSELVES IN
THIS WAY.
THESE STRUCTURES EXIST TO ADHERE
TO EACH COUNTRY'S LAWS.
CANADA HAS THEIR OWN RULES AND 
REGULATIONS, THE U.S., THE U.K.
IT IS We CHARITY AND ME TO We 
SOCIAL ENTERPRISE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, 
MR. KIELBURGER.
ARE YOU THEN SAYING THAT THIS 
COMPLEX STRUCTURE WAS ABSOLUTELY
NECESSARY TO THE FUNCTIONING OF 
THE CHARITY?
AND IF YOU ARE SAYING THAT, ARE 
YOU ALSO SAYING THAT OTHER 
CHARITY ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS 
COUNTRY ARE FORCED TO ORGANIZE 
THEMSELVES IN THAT WAY?
YOU KNOW, I SUPPOSE THE QUESTION
IS HOW UNIQUE OF A STRUCTURE IS 
THIS?
IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE SEE 
WITH THE MAJORITY OF CHARITIES 
IN CANADA OR IS We ONLY ONE OF A
FEW THAT OPERATE IN THIS WAY?
ADMITTEDLY, I DON'T HAVE A 
BACKGROUND IN THE ORGANIZING OF 
CHARITIES AND ALL OF THE 
COMPLEXITIES SURROUNDING THAT, 
BUT IT COMES OFF AS A BIT 
STRANGE.
COULD YOU AGAIN TELL US WAS THIS
KIND OF A STRUCTURE ABSOLUTELY 
VITAL AND WAS IT THE CASE THAT 
MOST CHARITIES ADOPT IT?
>> THAT WILL BE THE LAST 
QUESTION IN THAT ROUND.
>> IF I MAY ANSWER YOUR 
QUESTION, IN CANADA TO DO WHAT 
WE SEEK TO DO, THIS IS THE LEGAL
WAY TO ADHERE TO THE C.R.A. 
RULES.
I WISH IT WAS DIFFERENT AND I 
HOPE THEY STREAMLINE IT.
YOU LISTED ENTITIES AROUND THE 
WORLD BECAUSE LEGALLY WE HAVE TO
INCORPORATE IN EACH COUNTRY WE 
OPERATE.
OVER 25 YEARS OF CREATING 
ENTITIES AND ORGANIZATIONS, WE 
PROBABLY COULD FIND A MORE 
STREAMLINED WAY TO DO THIS.
WHAT WE DO HERE IS NOT UNUSUAL 
IN OUR SYSTEM OF SOCIAL 
ENTERPRISE, BUT WE KNOW SOCIAL 
ENTERPRISE IS UNUSUAL. 
>> THANK YOU, ALL.
MR. COOPER, FIVE MINUTES TO BE 
FOLLOWED BY MR. FRASER.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU MARC AND CRAIG FOR 
BEING HERE AND YOUR TESTIMONY.
YOUR ORGANIZATION PROVIDED BILL 
MORNEAU WITH OVER $41,000 IN 
TRIPS TO ECUADOR AND KENYA.
EXACTLY WHAT DID THE $41,000 PAY
FOR?
>> I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THAT 
QUESTION, SIR.
WE EXTENDED AN INVITATION TO 
MS. McCAIN, WHERE SHE FIRST CAME
WITH HER TEENAGE DAUGHTER TO 
KENYA -- 
>> MY QUESTION -- I UNDERSTAND 
THE CHRONOLOGY, BUT MY QUESTION 
IS SPECIFIC.
WHAT DID THE $41,000 COVER?
>> I BELIEVE THAT'S THE ANSWER 
THEY'RE GETTING TO.
>> I KNOW THE TRIPS.
I JUST NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE 
$41,000 REPRESENTS.
>> UNDERSTOOD.
SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, 
SPECIFICALLY THE FIRST SET OF 
EXPENSES WAS FOR MS. McCAIN AND 
DAUGHTER -- OR THEY WERE ALREADY
IN KENYA LOOKING AT OTHER 
CHARITIES.
SO WE HOSTED THEM AT OUR SITE.
THE ACCOMMODATION, THEY STAYED 
WITH US.
THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS.
IF YOU DROVE AROUND AS THEY 
BUILT THE SCHOOLS, THEY HAD A 
DEVELOPMENT HUMANITARIAN SITE 
VISIT WITH US.
THERE WAS A SECOND TRIP THAT 
TOOK PLACE APPROXIMATELY SIX 
MONTHS LATER, THAT WAS THE ONE 
OF MR. MORNEAU AND MS. McCAIN 
AND THEIR CHILDREN.
IT WAS TO THE AMAZON.
THEY PAID FOR THEIR FLIGHTS AND 
WHAT NOT.
THE BUILD SITE SUPERVISION AND 
THE FOOD.
I MENTIONED THIS EARLIER BECAUSE
IT SEEMS UNUSUAL THE PRICE WAS 
SO HIGH -- 
>> OKAY.
THAT'S FINE.
THAT'S ANOTHER SUBJECT MATTER.
YOU WILL PROVIDE A DETAILED 
BREAKDOWN OR WILL YOU DO THAT?
>> WE WILL DO THAT.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
NOW, WHEN YOUR ORGANIZATION 
BOOKED THE KENYA AND ECUADOR 
TRIPS, WERE THEY BOOKED 
SPECIFICALLY AS AN ACCOUNT S AC 
RECEIVABLE?
>> We CHARITY AMONG THE MANY 
OTHER HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATIONS
INVITES RESPECTED DONORS TO 
WITNESS WHAT THEY DO -- 
>> SO THE ANSWER IS NO, IT WAS 
NOT AN ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, BUT 
A COMPLEMENTARY TRIP, IS THAT 
CORRECT?
>> IT IS TO HOST INDIVIDUALS WHO
HAVE AN INTEREST TO WITNESS OUR 
DEVELOPMENT WORK ON THE GROUND.
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IT WAS 
SEEN IN OUR MIND AS A 
COMPLEMENTARY HOSTING, GIVEN 
THEY WERE ALREADY IN THE COUNTRY
IN KENYA TO STAY WITH US AND IN 
ECUADOR TO LOOK AT THIS 
REDEVELOPMENT -- 
>> THANK YOU.
SO NO ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE.
SO DID YOU HIDE TO MR. MORNEAU 
THE FACT THAT THE TRIP WOULD BE 
COMPLEMENTARY?
>> THE ARRANGEMENTS FOR DONE 
THROUGH AN INVITATION TO 
MS. McCAIN AND ARRANGED WITH HER
AND HER TEAM.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY 
CLARITY OR CONVERSATIONS THAT 
FOLLOWED.
IN OUR MIND IT WAS AN INVITATION
TO A PROMINENT CANADIAN FAMILY 
WHO IS PHILANTHROPIC AND 
BENEFICIAL.
>> THANK YOU.
NOW, YOU'VE MENTIONED ECUADOR, 
KENYA, MORNEAU IN ECUADOR AND 
MS. McCAIN AND THE DAUGHTER IN 
KENYA.
THEY GET TO AN AIRPORT.
THEY TRAVEL BY COMMERCIAL 
AIRCRAFT.
HOW DID THEY GET TO THE SITE?
DID THEY TRAVEL BY PRIVATE 
AIRCRAFT AT ANY TIME?
>> WE WOULD HAVE TO CHECK THE 
RECORDS AND TO GO THROUGH -- 
>> HOW DO YOU GET TO THE AMAZON?
>> A DUG-OUT CANOE WITH A 
MOTORIZED -- YOU TAKE A 
COMMERCIAL FLIGHT TO A SMALL 
AIRSTRIP IN -- I DON'T REMEMBER.
IT'S A SMALL AIRSTRIP THAT'S 
COMMERCIAL AND THEN YOU GET ON A
MOTORIZED CANOE TO GO DOWN THE 
RIVER. 
>> AND THE OTHER POSSIBILITY, 
SIR, IS SOME GROUPS DRIVE DOWN 
AND DON'T GO ON THE FLIGHT.
>> IS PRIVATE AIRCRAFT A 
POSSIBILITY SINCE YOU DON'T KNOW
THE ANSWER?
IS THAT A MEANS PEOPLE GET TO 
EITHER OF YOUR SITES?
>> CERTAINLY NOT IN ECUADOR.
>> WHAT ABOUT IN KENYA?
>> PRIVATE AIRCRAFT IS A 
POSSIBILITY.
>> SO THAT'S IMPORTANT. 
>> LET'S HEAR THE ANSWER.
WE'LL GO BACK TO MICHAEL.
>> I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK TO THIS.
IT'S SIMILAR TO NORTHERN PARTS 
OF CANADA.
THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN ACCESS IS 
THESE PROP PLANES THAT YOU CRAM 
INTO AND FLY TO NORTHERN 
REGIONS.
WE WOULD HAVE TO CHECK OUR 
RECORDS [Indiscernible] -- 
>> I'M TRYING TO VISUALIZE THIS 
PLACE IN KENYA.
AS I'M LISTENING TO YOU PROVIDE 
AN ANSWER, WHAT I'M HEARING YOU 
SAY IS NORMALLY TO GET THERE, 
YOU NEED TO FLY IN?
>> SIR, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY 
CORRECT, YOU CAN ALSO DRIVE. 
>> BUT IT WOULD BE A LONG 
DISTANCE?
>> IT'S A FIVE-HOUR DRIVE THAT'S
LOVELY. 
>> MY TIME IS LIMITED AND I 
WANT -- 
>> YOUR TIME IS OVER BUT WE'LL 
ALLOW THE QUESTION. 
>> I JUST WANT AN UNDERTAKING 
FROM MARC AND CRAIG THAT YOU 
WILL CONFIRM EXACTLY -- 
>> WE WILL CONTACT OUR TEAM TO 
LOOK INTO THE QUESTION.
WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW, THAT WAS 
THREE-PLUS YEARS AGO.
>> WE HOST HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS
OF TRIPS.
>> WE'LL LOOK INTO THAT.
>> THANK YOU AND THAT 
INFORMATION WILL BE PROVIDED.
WE'LL GO TO MR. FRASER, BUT FOR 
THE TWO AND A HALF MINUTE ROUNDS
WE'LL GO TO MS. SCUDRO, 
MR. JULIAN AND MS. MAY.
>> I'M VERY MUCH ENJOYING THE 
BACK AND FORTH AND THE 
TESTIMONY, THOUGH I SOMETIMES 
HAVE TROUBLE HEARING THE ANSWERS
OVER THE QUESTIONS.
SO FIRST.
ONE OF THE RESPONSES YOU GAVE 
INITIALLY TO MY COLLEAGUES I 
FIND STUNNING.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE I HAVE MY 
UNDERSTANDING CORRECT.
OF THE $500 MILLION OR SO 
PROGRAM, THERE IS UP TO A $43 
MILLION ADMINISTRATION FEE 
DEPENDING ON HOW MANY STUDENTS.
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT 
WOULD GO TO THE ORGANIZATION FOR
ADMINISTERING THIS PROGRAM.
AM I CORRECT IN MY UNDERSTANDING
THAT EVERY PENNY OF THAT 
ADMINISTRATION FEE, IF THE 
PROGRAM WAS ACTUALLY EXECUTED 
PROPERLY WOULD NOT HAVE GONE TO 
THE ORGANIZATION BUT WOULD HAVE 
BEEN EXCLUSIVELY FOR EXPENSES?
>> SIR, THAT'S CORRECT.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUSIVELY 
FOR EXPENSES -- 
>> PROGRAM EXPENSES, NOT EVEN 
ADMINISTRATION.
>> AND NUMBER TWO IS NOT AN 
ADMINISTRATION FEE, BUT A 
PROGRAM FEE.
WE WERE DOING THIS ON BEHALF OF 
THE GOVERNMENT, HELPING THE 
GOVERNMENT.
WE WERE ASKED TO DO THIS BY THE 
GOVERNMENT AND THE ORGANIZATION 
WOULD NOT PROFIT.
WE WERE THERE BECAUSE WE WANTED 
TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE.
THIS WASN'T AN ADMINISTRATION 
FEE, BUT A PROGRAM FEE AND 100% 
HAD TO BE USED FOR THE PROGRAM. 
>> YOU'RE TELLING ME IN NO 
UNCERTAIN TERMS NONE OF THE 
ORGANIZATIONS STOOD TO BENEFIT 
FINANCIALLY FROM EXECUTING THIS 
PROGRAM?
>> CORRECT.
We SOCIAL ENTERPRISE HAS NEVER 
RECEIVED FEDERAL FUNDING.
AND TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, ALL
OF THE NON-PROFITS, BECAUSE 
THERE ARE ONLY NON-PROFITS, ALL 
HAVE THE SAME KEY ASPECTS ON 
AUDIT, FULFILMENT.
YES, EVERY PENNY WE SPEND ON THE
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION WILL BE 
RETURNED TO THE GOVERNMENT. 
>> I WANT TO TURN MY ATTENTION 
IF I CAN AND I'M SORRY TO CUT 
YOU OFF.
I HAVE LIMITED TIME.
MR. ANGUS IN HIS QUESTIONING 
SEEMED TO BE FRUSTRATED WITH THE
NOTION THAT THERE WOULD BE A 
SEPARATE CORPORATION SET UP TO 
LIMIT LIABILITY.
I USED TO PRACTICE LAW AND IT 
WAS ROUTINE TO SEE CORPORATE 
ENTITIES SET UP COMPANIES FOR 
THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF LIMITING 
LIABILITY.
I FOUND IT A LITTLE ODD IN THE 
CHARITABLE CONTEXT.
IT'S STARTING TO MAKE A LITTLE 
MORE SENSE.
YOU STOOD TO GAIN NOTHING 
FINANCIALLY, BUT YOU WERE ASKED 
TO TAKE ON ALL OF THE LIABILITY 
FOR 40,000 OR MORE STUDENTS 
DURING A GLOBAL PANDEMIC.
I TRUST IF YOU DID NOT HAVE THE 
ABILITY TO LIMIT YOUR LIABILITY,
YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN ON THE 
TASK OF EXECUTING THIS PROGRAM.
IS THAT FAIR?
>> YES, THIS WAS THE REQUEST OF 
THE ESDC AND THE TERMS OF THE 
CONTRACT WERE AGREED TO.
>> WHEN ESDC MADE THAT REQUEST, 
DID THEY REQUEST THAT YOU SET UP
A CORPORATE ENTITY OR TOOK ON 
THE LIABILITY?
>> THEY REQUESTED WE TOOK ON THE
LIABILITY.
WE FULFILLED THEM THE ONLY WAY 
TO DO THAT WAS THROUGH THE 
STRUCTURE.
THEY ANALYZED IT AND ENDORSED 
IT.
>> WE SHARED ALL THE INFORMATION
WITH THE ESDC IN TERMS OF WHAT 
THE STRUCTURES DO.
WE SPECIFICALLY EXPLAINED TO 
THEM THAT THIS WOULD BE OUR 
ABILITY TO LIMIT THAT LIABILITY 
AS PART OF THAT PROCESS AND THEY
WERE AWARE. 
>> THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE 
GOVERNMENT THAT We CHARITY WAS 
BEST PLACED TO EXECUTE ON THE 
STUDENT SERVICE GRANT WAS AFTER 
YOU MADE CLEAR TO THEM YOUR 
STRATEGY TO LIMIT LIABILITY 
WOULD BE TO SET UP A SEPARATE 
CORPORATE ENTITY THAT DID NOT 
HOLD ASSETS?
>> IT WASN'T A SEPARATE 
CORPORATE ENTITY, BUT A -- 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> I WAS ON THE CALL WITH OTHER 
INDIVIDUALS FROM THE 
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SIDE WITH 
ESDC.
WE MADE THAT CLEAR BECAUSE WE 
WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE 
REQUEST THAT WE WERE ASKED TO 
TAKE ON LIABILITY FOR 40,000 
YOUNG PEOPLE. 
>> I EXPECT I HAVE LIMITED TIME 
LEFT.
I'LL TRY TO GET ONE QUESTION.
I ASKED THE PREVIOUS QUESTION 
ABOUT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENTS AND 
UNSOLICITED PROGRAM IDEAS THAT 
ARE SUBMITTED TO M.P.s AND 
GOVERNMENTS.
I TAKE THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED AT 
LEAST WITH SOME DIFFERENT 
PROGRAM THAT PRECEDED THE 
STUDENT SERVICE GRANT, BUT I'M 
CURIOUS MORE BROADLY.
IS THIS SOMETHING We CHARITY 
DOES ON OCCASION?
HAVE YOU DONE IT WITH PREVIOUS 
GOVERNMENTS OR HAD OTHER 
PROGRAMS FUNDED WITH PREVIOUS 
GOVERNMENTS AFTER THAT BACK AND 
FORTH?
>> I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION.
SOMETIMES WE'RE RESPONDING TO 
FORMAL PROPOSALS, AS WE HAVE 
WITH HERITAGE CANADA FOR CANADA 
150.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE WORKED CLOSELY 
WITH THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT 
WITH MINISTER FLAHERTY AND OTHER
MINISTERS ON PROJECTS WE CREATED
WITH THEM.
THERE WERE PREVIOUS YEARS WHERE 
WE HAD A HIGHER PERCENTAGE GIVEN
BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAN 
LAST YEAR WITH THE TRUDEAU 
GOVERNMENT.
WE HAVE WORKED WITH A NUMBER OF 
GOVERNMENTS IN THE SAME MANNER. 
>> WHEN YOU WERE RECEIVING THOSE
GRANTS FROM THE PREVIOUS 
GOVERNMENT, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN
AROUND THE SAME TIME THAT WOULD 
HAVE BEEN CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH 
THE HOSTING OF We CHARITY EVENTS
OR ME TO We EVENTS AT 24 SUSSEX 
OR THE ATTENDANCE AT We DAY WITH
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT.
>> THAT WOULD BE A FAIR 
ASSESSMENT.
WHEN WE SUPPORTS EVERY LEVEL OF 
YOUTH IN THIS COUNTRY.
>> WE'LL END THAT ROUND THERE.
WE'LL GO TO MS. GOUDREAUX.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] HELLO, EVERYONE.
CAN YOU HEAR ME?
[end of translation]. 
>> YEAH.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] THANK YOU, 
GENTLEMEN, FOR THIS LONG AMOUNT 
OF TIME THAT WE CAN USE TO TRY 
TO FIND OUT MORE ON BEHALF OF 
ALL OF OUR CONSTITUENTS.
I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS DURING 
THE FIRST FEW MINUTES I HAVE.
FIRST QUESTION, DO YOU HAVE A 
GOVERNMENT EXPERT RELATION IN 
YOUR ORGANIZATION?
[end of translation]. 
>> WE DO HAVE A PERSON WHOSE 
TITLE IS GOVERNMENT AND 
STAKEHOLDER RELATIONS.
SO SHE SPLITS HER TIME BETWEEN 
MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDER GROUPS, 
INCLUDING GOVERNMENT.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] COULD I HAVE HER 
NAME?
[end of translation]. 
>> SOPHIA MARKEZ.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] EXCELLENT.
DO YOU KNOW IF THIS NAME IS ON 
THE LOBBYISTLIST, IN THE LIST 
OF LOBBYISTS?
[end of translation]. 
>> NO.
GIVEN HER PREVIOUS WORK AND THE 
MULTITUDE OF STAKEHOLDERS SHE 
ENGAGES, SHE IS NOT ON THE 
FORMAL REGISTRY.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] I SEE.
SO I UNDERSTAND THE STRUCTURE OF
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.
HERE'S MY QUESTION.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE ACCESS TO
THE GENERAL RULES OF We CHARITY?
[end of translation]. 
>> COULD YOU CLARIFY IN TERMS OF
THE GENERAL RULES, PLEASE.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] REGULATION NUMBER 
ONE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT GIVES ALL
OF THE DETAILS ON THE GOVERNANCE
AND THE OPERATING STRUCTURE OF 
THE NON-PROFIT ENTITY.
[end of translation]. 
>> WE'RE CERTAINLY HAPPY TO TAKE
THAT BACK AND SEEK GREATER 
CLARIFICATION.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] I'LL BE EVEN MORE 
SPECIFIC, IN FACT.
THIS IS PARTICULAR, ESPECIALLY 
IN THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC.
WE NEED TO HAVE THOSE RULES IN 
PLACE.
WE NEED TO REGISTER THEM.
WHAT ARE YOUR ASSETS IN QUEBEC?
[end of translation]. 
>> WE DO NOT HOLD FORMAL ASSETS 
IN QUEBEC, ALTHOUGH A MONTREAL 
OFFICE HAS BEEN ACTIVE.
WE'VE DONE We DAYS PROGRAMMING.
THERE IS NO FORMAL OWNERSHIP.
THE BANK ACCOUNT IS BASED 
[Indiscernible] -- 
>> TO THE BEST OF OUR 
UNDERSTANDING THERE IS NO -- 
THIS IS A VERY SPECIFIC 
QUESTION, AS YOU CAN APPRECIATE 
AND TO THE BEST OF OUR 
UNDERSTANDING.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] I HAVE ONE LAST 
QUESTION, MR. CHAIR.
WE HAD A WITNESS LAST WEEK WHO 
MENTIONED THAT YOUR ORGANIZATION
COULD PROVIDE PERSONAL DATA OF 
STUDENTS TO THE LIBERAL PARTY 
FOR ELECTION PURPOSES.
IS THIS TRUE?
[end of translation]. 
>> IF I MAY SAY IF A FRACTION OF
WHAT WE'VE HEARD OVER THE LAST 
FOUR WEEKS WAS TRUE PUBLISHED ON
SOCIAL MEDIA AND ON BLOGS AND 
SHARED BY VARIOUS POLITICIANS, 
OUR FACE WOULD GO PALE.
THIS IS ONE OF THE MANY THINGS 
THAT IS INCORRECT THAT IS BEING 
CIRCULATED.
>> MR. ANGUS, YOU'RE UP.
>> SOPHIA MARKEZ, HER BIO SAYS 
SHE WORKS AS A LIAISON WITH 
GOVERNMENT AND YET SHE'S NOT 
REGISTERED TO LOBBY.
WHY DON'T YOU GUYS REGISTER TO 
LOBBY THE GOVERNMENT?
>> I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK TO THE 
QUESTION.
SOPHIA MARKEZ WHO DOES 
STAKEHOLDER RELATIONS -- 
>> WHY DON'T YOU REGISTER HER TO
LOBBY?
>> THIS REPRESENTED 1.03% OF OUR
BUDGET -- 
>> HOW LITTLE MONEY YOU GET HAS 
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LEGAL 
OBLIGATIONS.
IT'S HOW MUCH MONEY IS SPENT.
YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THESE 
PROGRAMS WITH MINISTER CHAGGER, 
MINISTER NG.
BILL MORNEAU'S OFFICE IS 
INVOLVED.
ARE YOU TELLING ME SOMEONE IN 
YOUR OFFICE WAS NOT SPENDING 7.5
HOURS A WEEK IN YOUR OFFICE?
>> IF I MAY CLARIFY THIS POINT, 
THE GOVERNMENT CAME TO US.
PREVIOUS TO THIS POINT, THIS WAS
HIGHLY UNUSUAL FOR US TO BE 
SPENDING ANY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT 
OF TIME WITH THE FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT ON THESE TYPE OF 
PROPOSALS -- 
>> BUT YOU'RE GETTING LOTS OF 
MONEY FROM THEM.
YMCA REGISTERS TO LOBBY, THE 
HEART AND STROKE FOUNDATION, AND
THEY DON'T GET NEARLY THE MONEY 
YOU GET.
THERE ARE MANY ORGANIZATIONS 
REGISTER ED TO LOBBY AND NONE OF
THEM ARE HIRING THE PRIME 
MINISTER'S WIFE OR BROTHER OR 
FLYING BILL MORNEAU.
THE MESSAGE IS THAT YOU'RE 
GETTING INFLUENCE FOR THIS.
YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION AND YOU 
ARE NOT MEETING THAT OBLIGATION.
>> WE WILL GO TO THE ANSWER AND 
THAT WILL BE IT IF YOU COULD 
GIVE THE ANSWER.
>> I WILL HAPPILY STAND 
CORRECTED BY OUR COUNCIL, BUT MY
UNDERSTANDING THOSE THINGS YOU 
MENTIONED, HIRING THE ADOPTED 
DAUGHTER OF A GOVERNMENT 
OFFICIAL, HAVING THE PRIME 
MINISTER'S MOTHER AS A SPEAKER 
ON MENTAL HEALTH, THESE THINGS 
ARE NOT DEFINED AS LOBBYING -- 
>> THEY'RE DEFINED UNDER THE 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT AS 
FAMILY OF THE PUBLIC OFFICE 
HOLDERS YOU'RE LOBBYING.
BILL MORNEAU NEVER READ THE 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT -- 
>> MR. ANGUS, WE'RE GOING TO 
ALLOW AN ANSWER AND THEN WE'RE 
GOING TO MS. MAY.
>> THE PROPORTION PRIOR TO THIS 
CONVERSATION WITH THE GOVERNMENT
WHEN THEY APPROACHED US WITH 
THIS OPPORTUNITY, YES, WE HAD 
RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY GIVE OR 
TAKE $5 MILLION FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO THE BEST OF OUR 
KNOWLEDGE -- 
>> OVER MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS 
GOING BACK, AND THAT'S THE 
INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ME.
THAT IS A MINUSCULE PROPORTION 
OF OUR BUDGET -- 
>> IT'S NOT THE SIZE OF THE 
BUDGET -- 
>> MR. ANGUS, WE WANT AN ANSWER.
>> HE'S ALREADY SAID THAT.
>> MR. ANGUS, WE NEED TIME FOR 
ANSWERING ON THE LOBBY AND YOUR 
QUESTION ROUND IS OVER.
I'M GIVING THE GENTLEMEN TIME TO
ANSWER THE QUESTION AND WE'LL GO
TO MS. MAY.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
WE APPRECIATE IT.
MR. ANGUS, WE HEAR YOUR QUESTION
AND UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN.
PREVIOUS TO THIS WE HAD VERY 
LITTLE ENGAGEMENT WITH THE 
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SEEKING 
FUNDS -- 
>> YOU'RE HANGING WITH THEIR 
FAMILY, COME ON.
>> WE'LL GO TO MS. MAY.
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A
POINT OF ORDER.
[end of translation]. 
>> MR. FORTIN. 
>> [Speaking French] [Voice of 
Interpreter] MR. CHAIR, EARLIER 
I WAS CUT OFF BECAUSE THE DEVICE
WASN'T WORKING ANYMORE.
I HAD TO TALK ABOUT THE I.T. 
PEOPLE AND I'M BACK.
ABOUT HALF OF MY SIX MINUTES 
THAT HAD BEEN CUT.
CAN I GET THAT TIME BACK?
[end of translation]. 
>> YOU HAVE ABOUT TWO MINUTES 
COMING BACK TO YOU, MR. FORTIN.
TWO MORE QUESTIONERS AND THEN 
WE'LL GO TO YOUR TWO MINUTES.
SORRY, WHERE ARE WE AT HERE, 
GENTLEMEN, YOU WANTED TO GIVE A 
FURTHER ANSWER?
>> I APOLOGIZE.
THE CLERK PROVIDED THAT EVERY 
HOUR WE WOULD BE PROVIDED A 
FIVE- TO TEN-MINUTE PAUSE.
WE UNDERSTOOD THIS FOUR HOURS IS
UNPRECEDENTED.
I HAVEN'T EVEN SPENT FOUR HOURS 
WITH MY GIRLS.
>> I SAID WE WOULD TAKE A 
FIVE-MINUTE BREAK AT THE END OF 
THE TWO HOURS, BUT IF YOU REALLY
NEED A WASHROOM BREAK OR SUCH, 
WE'LL TAKE A -- 
>> IT WOULD BE LOVELY.
WE LOVE SPENDING TIME WITH YOU, 
BUT AT SOME POINT THAT WOULD BE 
GREAT.
>> WE'LL DO IT IN ABOUT 25 MORE 
MINUTES.
MS. MAY, TWO AND A HALF MORE 
MINUTES AND THEN ON TO THE NEXT 
SPEAKER.
>> JUST TO CORRECT THE RECORD.
I KNOW MARC AND CRAIG 
KIELBURGER.
YOU'VE NEVER ASKED THE GREEN TO 
ANYTHING OR ASKED ME TO BE A 
SPEAKER.
AT THIS POINT I DON'T KNOW 
WHETHER I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR 
THAT.
[LAUGHTER] 
[PLEASE STAND BY]
I NEED TO ASK YOU, WHY DID YOU 
GO TO KENYA TWICE AND WHY DIDN'T
YOU GIVE HER THE INFORMATION AS 
TO WHY YOU WENT?
>> OF COURSE, THANK YOU.
AND OUT OF ALL OF THIS, WE 
APPRECIATE YOUR KIND -- IN THE 
BEGINNING AS WELL.
VERY QUICKLY, GOING BACK THREE 
MONTHS AGO, THE WORLD WAS TOPSY 
TURVY.
I HAD A PRESCHEDULE TRIP TO GO, 
WE HAD STAFF THAT WERE LITERALLY
STUCK, AMERICAN STAFF THAT COULD
HAVE BEEN STUCK OVERSEAS THAT 
SOMETHING ENDED UP BEING UNDER 
AND WE HAD TO GET THEM OUT.
AS A LEADER IN THE ORGANIZATION,
I PUT MY HAND UP AND SAID I NEED
TO CONTINUE TO GIVE ASSISTANCE.
EVEN THOUGH I JUST CAME BACK, 
THE SITUATION BEGAN TO UNFOLD 
AND I WAS ONLY BACK IN KENYA FOR
24 HOURS AT THE REQUEST OF THE 
TEAM TO BE OF ASSISTANCE AND TO 
HELP ENSURE THE ORGANIZATION 
WOULD BE FINE, BUT MORE 
IMPORTANTLY OUR PEOPLE WOULD BE 
FINE.
I WAS DOING MY BEST.
THEY MAY NOT HAVE ARTICULATED 
THAT, BUT I WAS THERE FOR OUR 
PEOPLE.
>> MS. MAY, LAST QUESTION?
>> WERE YOU ABLE TO GET 
CANADIANS HOME?
I GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE HOME TO 
CANADA BY STAYING HOME ON ZOOM.
DID YOU SPECIFICALLY HAVE TO GO 
THERE TO GET PEOPLE HOME?
>> AS A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT YOU
HAVE MUCH MORE INFLUENCE THAN ME
IN THESE CASE, BUT THE TEAM, WE 
HAD DOZENS OF YOUNG PEOPLE 
THERE, VERY COMPLICATED 
SITUATION.
YES, WE WERE ABLE TO GET PEOPLE 
HOME.
>> IF I MAY CLARIFY, THEY HAD A 
HOSPITAL THERE TO TREAT STAFF.
WE HAVE A MADE COLLEGE.
MARC WENT IN TO MAKE THE MEDICAL
ARRANGEMENTS ON THE GROUND SO 
OUR LOCAL LEADERS WHO ARE 
EX-PATS WOULD HAVE CONFIDENCE TO
RETURN HOME AS PART OF THE 
EVACUATION.
IT WAS A DIFFICULT CHOICE.
THE OTHER DIRECTOR'S TRANSITION 
IN A DIFFERENT WAY, WE RESPECT 
THE CHOICE IN THE MATTER AND 
UNDERSTAND WHY SHE MADE THE 
CHOICE.
>> Chair: OKAY, WE'LL GO TO MR. 
CUMMING BACK TO FIVE-MINUTE 
ROUNDS.
JAMES, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
YOU'RE FOLLOWED BY TWO MINUTES 
FROM MR. FORTIN AND -- YOU BEGAN
WITH INCURRING EXPENSES ON MAY 
5TH, MORE THAN TWO MONTHS BEFORE
SIGNING AN AGREEMENT.
WHO IN THE GOVERNMENT TOLD YOU 
THOSE EXPENSES WOULD BE ELIGIBLE
FOR REIMBURSEMENT?
>> VERY GOOD QUESTION.
WE PUT OUR HAND UP TO GIVE 
ASSISTANCE BECAUSE THE DATE THE 
PROGRAMME WOULD BE LAUNCHING WAS
EARLY JUNE.
THIS WAS IN COORDINATION WITH 
THE SPC.
THEY WERE AWARE THAT WE WERE 
WORKING ON THIS PROJECT 
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE MONTH.
HOWEVER --
>> LET ME JUST ADD IT AGAIN, 
ALTHOUGH WE STARTED WORKING ON 
MAY 5, WE KNEW THAT WAS BUILDING
A NETWORK OF SUPPORT.
IF THE CONTRACT WAS SIGNED, WE 
WOULD NOT BE REIMBURSED.
WE TOOK THAT ON FULL RISK.
>> SPECIFICALLY, WHEN DID YOU 
RECEIVE THAT FROM WERNICK, WHAT 
DAY?
>> THAT WAS A CONVERSATION WE 
STARTED TO HAVE TOWARDS THE -- 
AS CLOSE TO THE 4TH OR 5TH, IN 
THAT BALLPARK.
>> WE WERE HAVING OFTEN DAILY 
CONVERSATION WITH SPC AT THAT 
TIME.
MANY CONVERSATIONS A WEEK IN 
COORDINATION AND NEGOTIATING THE
CONTRACT AND THE ORGANIZATION, 
IN ORGANIZATIONS SCHEMES 
TOGETHER, IT WAS VERY MUCH A 
COORDINATED EFFORT.
>> WAS THERE AN E-MAIL WHICH 
TOLD YOU WHICH EXPENSES WERE 
ELIGIBLE?
>> SO THE ELIGIBLE EXPENSES ARE 
DEEPLY OUTLINED IN THE CONTRACT 
THROUGH AN EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT 
OF DETAIL.
>> WHICH CAME OUT TWO MONTHS 
LATER.
WHICH MINISTERS DID EITHER OF 
YOU OR THE INTERMEDIARIES 
COMMUNICATE WITH IN MARCH?
>> NO MINISTER TO OUR KNOWLEDGE 
WERE WE IN TOUCH WITH IN MARCH 
AT ALL, SIR.
>> EITHER OF YOU OR YOUR 
INTERMEDIARIES?
>> TO MY KNOWLEDGE, LOOKING AT 
TIME LINES PROVIDED BY MY TEAM 
AND STAFF, THE ONLY TOUCH POINT 
WAS ON MARCH 6, WHERE THERE WAS 
A WHITE PAPER PRESENTED AT THEIR
REQUEST.
>> THAT'S TO THE BEST OF OUR 
KNOWLEDGE UNDER THE 
CIRCUMSTANCES.
>> IF THE MINISTER STAFF MEMBERS
OF MARCH, WHO DID YOU 
COMMUNICATE WITH IN MARCH?
AND WHAT DATES?
OR CAN YOU PROVIDE THAT?
>> I CAN SAY WITH CONFIDENCE, 
SIR, THAT WE DID NOT.
AND THERE WAS NOT THE SENIOR 
MOST LEADERSHIP OF ANYONE IN THE
GOVERNMENT IN MARCH.
THAT SAID, WE'LL CHECK MORE 
BROADLY IN THE ORGANIZATION IF 
THERE WERE ANY TOUCH POINTS.
>> IN APRIL, DID EITHER OF YOU 
OR INTERMEDIARIES COMMUNICATE 
WITH ANY MINISTERS IN APRIL?
>> YES, SIR.
HAPPY TO SPEAK TO THAT.
APRIL 7 WAS A CONVERSATION WITH 
MINISTER NG.
APRIL 9, THAT CONVERSATION 
PROPOSAL WE HAD CREATED A KNEW 
ENTREPRENEURSHIP, THAT WAS 
REPORTED TO MINISTER CHAGGER.
MINISTER MORNEAU GIVEN, FINANCE,
AND CARLA QUALTROUGH AND WAS IN 
TOUCH WITH MINISTER CHAGGER IN A
PHONE CONVERSATION THAT TOOK 
PLACE -- I WILL GET YOU THAT 
DATE SOMETIME IN THE MIDDLE OF 
APRIL.
AND IT WAS TO BRIEF HER ON THE 
CONVERSATION WE HAD WITH 
MINISTER NG ON SOCIAL 
ENTREPRENEURSHIP.
AND THERE WAS ONE CONVERSATION 
THAT ALSO TOOK PLACE, A PHONE 
CALL FROM MINISTER MORNEAU THAT 
TOOK PLACE ON APRIL -- IT WAS 
THE -- SUNDAY, THE 25TH?
26TH?
AND SHE CALLED ME ASKING A 
QUESTION ABOUT -- 
[INAUDIBLE]
CHECKING IN WITH BUSINESSES AND 
NON-PROFIT ON THE IMPACT.
I WILL PUT THIS INTO WRITING.
>> IN THAT CONVERSATION, YOU 
MEAN TO TELL ME THERE IS NO 
DISCUSSION AROUND THE STUDENT 
GRANT PROGRAMME?
THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ABOUT THE
POTENTIAL OF YOU BEING INVOLVED 
WITH THE STUDENT GRANT 
PROGRAMME?
>> CORRECT, HE CALLED ME TO ASK 
QUESTIONS ABOUT GENERALLY OUR 
VIEW OF THE NON-PROFIT SECTOR.
I DID RAISE WITH HIM THE FACT 
THAT WE HAD SPOKEN TO MINISTER 
NG AND SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL TO 
HER ON SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP, 
HELPING YOUTH CREATE SMALL 
BUSINESSES.
TO BE CANDID, AT THAT POINT, WE 
WERE INTERESTED IN THE SERVICE 
PROPOSAL.
AT THAT POINT WE WERE TRYING TO 
ADVANCE OUR OWN PROPOSAL.
THAT WAS THE ONE I DID RAISE 
WITH THEM.
WE DID NOT DISCUSS IT AT ALL.
>> LAST QUESTION.
>> YOU DID RAISE THAT YOU'VE PUT
A PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF ANOTHER 
DEPARTMENT, SO YOU DID RAISE 
THAT WITH MINISTER MORNEAU.
THIS WASN'T JUST A CONVERSATION 
ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE 
INDUSTRY.
THERE WAS A SPECIFIC 
CONVERSATION ABOUT A PROPOSAL 
FROM WE?
>> CORRECT, SIR.
I'D SAY THAT, OF THE LENGTH OF 
IT, IT WAS MAYBE TWO MINUTES.
I MENTIONED IT VERY QUICKLY, 
BUT, YES, SIR, I DID RAISE WITH 
THEM WE HAD SUBMITTED THIS TO 
MINISTER NG AND APRIL 9.
>> Chair: OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> NOT AN ITERATIVE.
>> Chair: OKAY.
THAT'S CLEAR.
MR. FORTIN.
GIVING YOU BACK DUE TO TECHNICAL
DIFFICULTIES.
[Speaking French][Voice of 
Interpreter] YOU SAID EARLIER 
THAT YOU HIRED MARGARET TRUDEAU 
AS A SPEAKER BECAUSE YOU 
CONSIDERED HER AN EXPERT ON 
MENTAL HEALTH.
SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT WEREN'T 
ANY OTHER AVAILABLE MENTAL 
HEALTH EXPERTS TO PARTICIPATE IN
YOUR CONFERENCES?
[Speaking French][Voice of 
Interpreter] 
>> SO WE HAVE AN ENTIRE 
FOUNDATION DEDICATED TO MENTAL 
HEALTH.
WE HAVE CURRICULUM ON K --
>> MARGARET TRUDEAU?
>> WE FIRST BROKE THROUGH THE 
ISSUE OF PUBLIC HEALTH.
>> [Speaking French][Voice of 
Interpreter] WOULD IT NOT BE 
ACCURATE TO SAY YOU HIRED 
MARGARET TRUDEAU BECAUSE SHE'S 
THE MOTHER OF JUSTIN TRUDEAU AND
THE FORMER WIFE OF FORMER PRIME 
MINISTER PIERRE TRUDEAU?
>> I WOULD SAY THOSE MAY 
INCREASE HER BRAND RECOGNITION 
TO THE PUBLIC, BUT WE HIRED HER 
AS ONE OF THE MOST KNOWN MENTAL 
HEALTH ADVOCATES --
>> [Speaking French][Voice of 
Interpreter] WHAT IS YOUR 
ACADEMIC TRAINING FROM MS. 
TRUDEAU?
AGAIN, THE INTERPRETER POINTS 
OUT THE SOUND IS BREAKING UP AND
IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO 
HEAR MR. FORTIN.
>> WE HAVE A NUMBER OF 
INDIVIDUALS WITH --
>> MARGARET TRUDEAU?
>> TO TO BE A SPOKESPERSON TO 
RAISE AWARENESS ON THE SUBJECT.
[Speaking French][Voice of 
Interpreter] WHAT IS HER 
ACADEMIC TRAINING, HER 
EXPERIENCE?
WHAT EXPERIENCE, MR. KIELBURGER?
>> WITH GREAT RESPECT, SIR, SHE 
HAS LIVED A LIFE -- I LOST A 
SISTER-IN-LAW TO MENTAL HEALTH 
ISSUES.
SHE HAS LIVED EXPERIENCES AND 1 
IN 5 HAVE THIS ISSUE.
TO SAY THEY HAVE TO HAVE --
>> WOULD YOU AGREE TO SAY THAT 
MANY PEOPLE IN QUÉBEC AND CANADA
HAVE EXPERIENCED MENTAL HEALTH 
ISSUES AND -- BUT YOU INVITED 
MARGARET TRUDEAU, SHE HAD BEEN 
CALLED MARGARET FORTIN, WOULD 
YOU HAVE INVITED HER?
AGAIN, THE INTERPRETER CANNOT 
HEAR ADEQUATELY.
>> Chair: MR. FORTIN, YOUR 
SYSTEM IS BREAKING UP AGAIN.
WE DID GET THE QUESTION.
AND, GENTLEMEN -- YOU CAN ANSWER
THE QUESTION -- 
>> OH, MY GOD.
>> Chair: MR. CRAIG, GO AHEAD.
>> SHE IS MORE THAN SOMEONE'S 
MOTHER OR SOMEONE'S WIFE.
SHE IS SOMEONE WHO IN HER OWN 
RIGHT HAS SPOKEN EXTENSIVELY ON 
MENTAL HEALTH AND IS A HERO TO 
MANY.
WE INVITED HER BECAUSE SHE SPOKE
ON MENTAL HEALTH.
WE INVITE INDIVIDUALS FROM GORD 
DOWNIE, FROM ROMEO DELAIR TO 
INSPIRE.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING 
HERE SIR.
MENTAL HEALTH IS A -- ON OUR 
ORGANIZATION AND THAT IS WHY SHE
WAS INVITED.
>> Chair: THANK YOU.
WE HAVE MR. MORANTZ FOLLOWED BY 
MR. McLEOD --
>> POINT OF ORDER, I'M SORRY, 
BUT I BELIEVE I'M THE NEXT 
SPEAKER AFTER MR. FORTIN.
>> Chair: OOPS, SORRY.
YOU ARE.
MY MISTAKE.
KOUTRAKIS.
SORRY ABOUT THAT.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU, MR. KIELBURGER OR 
BEING HERE TODAY AND THANK YOU 
FOR ALL THE GOOD YOU HAVE DONE 
TO HELP CHILDREN IN CANADA AND 
AROUND THE WORLD.
IT'S AMAZING YOU HAVE STARTED AT
SUCH YOUNG AGES TO BE ENGAGED IN
SUCH IMPORTANT ISSUES AND I 
COMMEND YOU FOR THAT.
I KNOW MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES 
HAVE ASKED ABOUT THIS, BUT I 
THINK I NEED TO ASK ONE MORE 
TIME TO FULLY UNDERSTAND IT 
MYSELF.
DO YOU REMEMBER HOW MANY 
CONTRACTS PREVIOUS FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENTS MIGHT HAVE AWARDED 
YOUR ORGANIZATION AND WHAT THEY 
WERE FOR?
>> WE'RE HAPPY TO SEEK THAT 
INFORMATION.
WE'VE RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM 
SPC, FROM HERITAGE, FROM 
ENVIRONMENTAL, OUR WORK DONE 
WITH YOUTH, IT'S BEEN A VARIETY 
DATING BACK BETWEEN THE CURRENT 
GOVERNMENT AND PREVIOUS 
GOVERNMENT, BUT WE'RE -- WE HAVE
DOLLAR AMOUNTS IF YOU LIKE THAT 
WE ARE PREPARED TO -- BUDGET.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HAVE FEDERAL 
CONSERVATIVES M.P.s, MINISTERS, 
PRIME MINISTERS APPEARED AT WE 
EVENTS OR HOSTED WE EVENTS?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
AND WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THEIR 
SUPPORT.
BRIAN PALLISTER, A GREAT 
SUPPORTER OF OURS.
PETER MacKAY'S SPOUSE.
WE APPRECIATE THAT.
ONE OF THE BEST EVER WAS -- 
LAYTON ON AUTISM.
MAY I ASK, N.D.P., RACHEL 
NOTLEY, WHEN SHE WAS PREMIER.
WAB KINEW, TALKING ABOUT 
INDIGENOUS ISSUES.
EVERY TIME WE HOLD IN THE 
REGION, WE HOLD THE LOCAL 
MAYORS, THE LOCAL PREMIERS WOULD
BE INVITED TO COME OUT, THE 
LOCAL EDUCATION MINISTERS.
SO, YES, THE PRIME MINISTER WAS 
INVITED AS THE PRIME MINISTER HE
WAS INVITED BECAUSE WE ALSO 
INVITE THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL, WE 
ALSO INVITE OTHER INDIVIDUALS TO
JOIN US AT THE CELEBRATION.
>> DO YOU RECALL IF DURING THE 
HARPER GOVERNMENT TIME, WERE YOU
EVER HOSTED AT THE PRIME 
MINISTER'S RESIDENCE, DID YOU 
RECALL BEING HOSTED AT 24 SUSSEX
AFTER WE DAY IN OTTAWA?
AND DO YOU RECALL WHO ELSE WAS 
THERE WHO MAY STILL BE A 
CONSERVATIVE M.P.?
>> YOU'RE GOING BACK A LITTLE 
BIT HERE, BUT, YES.
WE APPRECIATE MRS. HARPER 
HOSTING IT, THE WE DAY TOOK 
PLACE.
WE WERE JOINED BY A NUMBER OF 
GOVERNMENT LEADERS AT THAT TIME.
I WOULDN'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF 
MY HEAD WHO WAS PRESENT.
WE APPRECIATE OVER THE YEARS 
WE'VE HAD SUPPORT FROM ALL RANKS
AND TRULY WE APPRECIATE THE 
ISSUE OF SERVICE ISN'T A 
POLITICAL SERVICE.
AND -- SHOULDN'T BE A POLITICAL 
ISSUE THAT EVERY PARTY BELIEVES 
TO GETTING YOUTH TO VOLUNTEER 
AND SERVE.
>> FINALLY, AND I'LL GIVE YOU 
LOTS OF TIME WITH YOUR 
PERMISSION, MR. CHAIR, IF I 
COULD SPLIT MY TIME WITH THE 
KIELBURGER BROTHERS, BECAUSE I 
THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO 
MAKE SURE WE CLARIFY 
MISCONCEPTIONS AND THE BEST 
PEOPLE TO DO THAT ARE MARC AND 
CRAIG KIELBURGER.
WHAT ARE THE WORST 
MISCONCEPTIONS THAT YOU WOULD 
LIKE TO PERHAPS CLARIFY RIGHT 
NOW?
AND WHY WOULD WE AGREE TO TAKE 
ON THE RISK AND LOSE $5 MILLION 
IN THIS EXERCISE?
>> I'LL HAND IT OVER TO YOU --
>> MINUTE AND 15, GUYS.
>> LET ME ANSWER IT THAT WAY.
WE HAVE MADE AND COULD NEVER 
HAVE MADE ANY MONEY IN ANY WAY 
ON THIS, ON THE CONTRIBUTION.
THIS WAS THE ASK FROM THE 
GOVERNMENT.
WE DID NOT SUBMIT A PROPOSAL.
RACHEL WERNICK ASKED US AND WE 
FULFILLED THE REQUEST.
THE WE CHARITY FOUNDATION WAS TO
SOLVE THE NEED THE GOVERNMENT 
ASKED US TO SOLVE.
WE WERE NOT IN FINANCIAL DIRE 
STRAITS BECAUSE WE MADE 
DIFFICULT CHOICES.
ME TO WE SOCIAL ENTERPRISE THAT 
BEEN INCREDIBLY MISREPRESENTED 
IN THE PROCESS AND IS TO 
REPRESENT THE CHARITY WITH 100% 
OF ITS PROFITS.
CREATING JOBS FOR AT-RISK WOMEN 
AROUND THE WORLD.
THE REAL ESTATE, HAS EXPLODED ON
AN ISSUE.
WE USE REAL ESTATE LIKE A 
SCIENCE CENTRE OR SCHOOL.
WE HOST YOUNG PEOPLE.
WE ARE BUILDING A -- 
RETROFITTING A SERIES OF 
BUILDINGS TO CREATE A SHARED 
SPACE FOR YOUTH TO WATCH THEIR 
OWN SOCIAL ENTERPRISES.
SOMEHOW THAT HAS BEEN ATTACKED 
IN THE PRESS WHEN A FEW MONTHS 
AGO IT WAS BEING PRAISED.
I WOULD SAY THAT THE LIST 
CONTINUES, BUT FUNDAMENTALLY, 
IT'S THIS.
WE DID THIS TO BE OF SERVICE TO 
THE GOVERNMENT.
NOT FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO HELP 
US.
AND IT IS INCREDIBLY UNFORTUNATE
THE FALLOUT THAT HAS OCCURRED.
>> Chair: OKAY.
WE WILL GO TO MR. MORANTZ AND 
WE'LL DO THIS FIVE-MINUTE ROUND.
THEN WE'LL TAKE A 7-MINUTE BREAK
AND WE'LL START WITH MR. McLEOD.
MR. MORANTZ?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
FELLAS, WITH WHICH MINISTER 
STAFF MEMBERS DID EITHER YOU OR 
YOUR INTERMEDIARIES COMMUNICATE 
WITH IN APRIL?
WHO AND ON WHAT DATES?
>> HAPPY TO SPEAK TO THAT.
WE'LL SEND YOU A FULL LIST IF 
THAT'S OKAY.
BUT TO GIVE YOU OVERVIEW HERE, 
THE 7TH -- YES, THERE WAS A 
CONVERSATION WITH SINGH, WHO IS 
A POLICY ADVISOR IN FINANCE.
AND WITH SOPHIA, 7TH OR 8, WE 
HAVE TO CHECK THAT DAY.
SOPHIA WAS CONTACTED AS WAS 11 
OTHER NON-PROFITS ASKING FOR THE
IMPACT INFORMATION ON COVID IN 
THE SECTOR.
THERE WAS A CONVERSATION THAT 
TOOK PLACE WITH MICHELE ON APRIL
9, ALONG WITH RACHEL WERNICK -- 
SORRY, WE'LL PUT THIS IN 
WRITING.
>> IF WE COULD GET THAT IN 
WRITING, THAT WOULD BE GOOD.
>> WE'LL PUT IT IN WRITING SIR.
>> AS SOON AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN.
HAVE YOU OR YOUR INTERMEDIARIES 
COMMUNICATED WITH THE PRIME 
MINISTER'S OFFICE SINCE THE 
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WAS 
CANCELLED?
>> WE CERTAINLY HAVEN'T.
TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, 
THERE HAS BEEN NO FORMAL 
COMMUNICATIONS.
>> SO YOU ARE DISCUSSING, 
THOUGH, THE REPAYMENT OF THE 
FUNDS, SO THERE MUST BE SOME 
COMMUNICATION?
>> THAT IS DONE WITH E.S.C. AND 
THE CIVIL SERVICE AT ESDC.
>> HAVE YOU DELETED ANY E-MAILS,
TEXT MESSAGES OR OTHER 
COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THIS 
SINCE MARCH?
>> NO.
APRIL?
>> NO.
>> MAY?
>> NO.
>> EVER DELETED ANY 
COMMUNICATIONS?
>> NO.
>> SINCE MARCH 1ST, HAVE YOU 
DIALLED INTO THE GOVERNMENT'S 
CONFERENCE CALL LINE?
>> SINCE MARCH 1ST?
YES.
OF COURSE WITH PART OF THE ESPC.
>> CAN YOU TELL US WHEN THOSE 
CALLS TOOK PLACE?
>> WE HAD MANY CONVERSATIONS 
WITH THE ESDC DURING THAT TIME.
THEY PICKED UP --
>> AND ANY ZOOM CALLS, DID YOU 
USE, OR ANY OTHER CONFERENCING 
TECHNOLOGY WITH ANY M.P., 
MINISTER OR MINISTERIAL STAFF 
MEMBER SINCE MARCH 1ST?
>> I CAN SPEAK WITH RELATIVE 
CERTAINTY THE ONLY THING WE USED
WAS TEAM BRIDGE OR PHONE CALL 
BRIDGE, BUT TO THE BEST OF MY 
KNOWLEDGE, NO ZOOM OR OTHER --
>> AND DID YOU KEEP RECORDINGS 
OF THOSE PHONE CALLS?
>> THAT IS NOT STANDARD 
PRACTISE.
>> DO YOU HAVE A DIRECT E-MAIL, 
CELL, COMMUNICATION CONTACT WITH
THE PRIME MINISTER OR MR. 
MORNEAU?
>> WE DO NOT HAVE FOR PRIME 
MINISTER, NEVER HAD.
WE HAVE TO HAVE ALL THE 
INFORMATION FOR MORNEAU IN THE 
DATABASE, E-MAIL, PHONE, 
EMERGENCY PHONE, AS PART OF 
POST- --
>> AND SUNDAY, JULY 12TH, YOU 
STARTED TO LAY OFF 450 PEOPLE 
YOU HIRED TO DELIVER THE CANADA 
STUDENT SERVICE GRANT.
ON WHAT DATE DID YOU BEGIN THE 
PROCESS TO HIRE THESE PEOPLE?
>> THAT'S ACTUALLY INFORMATION 
IS NOT CORRECT IN THE NUMBER OF 
LAYOFFS.
THE CHARITY LAID OFF 283 PEOPLE 
OF WHICH WE STILL HAD HUNDREDS 
WITH THE TEAM.
WE'LL GET YOU THE EXACT 
INFORMATION.
>> AND DID YOU HIRE THOSE 450 
PEOPLE BEFORE THE --
>> ACTUALLY, I HAVEN'T, JUST TO 
BE VERY CLEAR, WE HAD 390 
EMPLOYEES AND THIS WAS A 
DIFFICULT DECISION WE HAD TO 
MAKE WITH THE PANDEMIC, SO I 
THINK --
>> NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT HIRINGS
RELATED TO THE AGREEMENT.
>> MY APOLOGIES.
>> WE'LL GET YOU THE NUMBERS.
>> SO WHEN DID YOU START TO HIRE
THOSE PEOPLE IN ORDER TO EXECUTE
ON THE UNSIGNED CONTRIBUTION 
AGREEMENT?
>> WE STARTED REACHING OUT TO 
ASK IF PEOPLE WERE AVAILABLE 
PRETTY QUICKLY.
>> DID YOU HIRE ANYONE BEFORE IT
WAS SIGNED?
>> WE PROBABLY DID, YES.
>> AND SO -- 
>> Chair: LAST QUESTION.
>> HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU HIRED 
BEFORE THE AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED?
>> WE CAN GET THAT TO YOU, SIR.
>> Chair: OKAY.
THANK YOU, ALL.
I'LL GIVE YOU THE LINEUP, MARC 
AND CRAIG, YOU CAN TAKE A BREAK 
WHILE I GO THROUGH THE LIST 
HERE.
WE WILL COME BACK AT 4:01.
AND SO THE LINEUP FOR QUESTIONS 
WILL BE MR. MacLEOD FIRST, MR. 
FORTIN NEXT AND -- ONLY FOR TWO 
AND A HALF MINUTES, BUT CAN 
SOMEBODY CHECK HIS TECHNOLOGY TO
MAKE SURE IT'S GOING TO WORK.
MR. JULIAN I BELIEVE IS ON FOR 
THE NEXT TWO AND A HALF.
THEN FIVE-MINUTE ROUNDS 
POILIEVRE, MR. FRAGISKATOS -- 
NO, MR. POILIEVRE, MR. INTARA 
>> Vassy: WE'RE GOING TO PULL 
AWAY FROM THE TESTIMONY FOR A 
FEW MINUTES WHILE THEY TAKE A 
BREAK.
THEY'RE TAKING ABOUT A 7-MINUTE 
BREAK AND THEY WILL RESUME.
OH, MAY THEY'RE NOT.
I JUST WANT TO -- NEVER MIND, I 
THINK WE'RE CORRECT HERE IN 
THEY'RE TAKING A BREAK FOR A 
LITTLE WHILE.
IF YOU'RE JUST TUNING IN, THIS 
IS AN EARLY AND EXTENDED EDITION
OF "POWER AND POLITICS".
WE'VE BEEN WATCHING MARC AND 
CRAIG KIELBURGER TESTIFY BEFORE 
THE FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR TWO 
HOURS.
THEY HAVE AN ADDITIONAL TWO 
HOURS OF TESTIMONY COMING UP.
THEY'RE TESTIFYING AND TAKING 
QUESTIONS ON THE CHARITY WE 
FOUNDED, WE CHARITY, WHICH WAS 
SUBSEQUENTLY AWARDED A 
GOVERNMENT CONTRACT, OR WHAT 
THEY CALL A CONTRIBUTION 
AGREEMENT.
SIGNED A CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT 
WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO 
ADMINISTER A STUDENT GRANT 
SERVICE PROGRAMME.
SO BASICALLY STUDENTS WHO 
VOLUNTEERED WOULD BE COMPENSATED
FOR THAT.
WE WAS SET TO ADMINISTER THE 
PROGRAMME UNTIL IT BECAME 
EVIDENT THROUGH REPORTING ON 
CANADALAND AND "THE GLOBE AND 
MAIL" AND CBC, THAT THERE WERE A
NUMBER OF CONNECTIONS TO THE 
PRIME MINISTER HIMSELF AND HIS 
FAMILY AS WELL AS THE FINANCE 
MINISTER.
WE AND THE GOVERNMENT THEN 
DECIDED TO END THE AGREEMENT FOR
THE PROGRAMME AND SUBSEQUENTLY 
WE HAVE SEEN A HUGE AMOUNT OF 
POLITICAL FALLOUT TO THAT.
THE BROTHERS TAKING A NUMBER OF 
VERY POINTED AND SOMETIMES TESTY
POINT OF QUESTIONS AND EXCHANGES
BETWEEN M.P.s AND THEMSELVES.
I WANT TO GO OVER FOR YOU, WE 
HAVE SOME OF THE SALIENT 
DETAILS, IT'S VERY DENSE 
TESTIMONY, TO BE SURE, BUT I 
WANT TO GET ACROSS SOME OF THE 
IMPORTANT STUFF.
FOR THAT, I WANT TO BRING IN 
JANYCE McGREGOR WHO HAS BEEN 
FOLLOWING ALONG THE TESTIMONY 
WITH MYSELF AND ALL OF YOU.
I'LL START OFF WITH A COUPLE OF 
THINGS THAT STUCK OUT TO ME AND 
YOU WEIGH IN ON THE SIGNIFICANCE
THERE.
FIRST OF ALL, A LOT OF 
DISCUSSION AROUND THE TIMING OF 
THE CONTRACT.
THAT IS NOT A SURPRISE BECAUSE 
THERE IS SORT OF THE INSINUATION
HAS BEEN MADE BY CRITICS OF THE 
GOVERNMENT THAT WE WAS FUNDY 
SHORE PUSHING THIS PROJECT TO 
THE GOVERNMENT KIND OF LAID IT 
ALL OUT FOR THEM AND THEN ENDED 
UP BEING THE ONLY GROUP THAT 
COULD ADMINISTER IT AND, OF 
COURSE, THEY STOOD TO BENEFIT 
FROM IT.
WE DIDN'T MAKE ANY MONEY, IN 
FACT, WHEN WE PAID THE 
GOVERNMENT BACK, WE LOST $5 
MILLION.
SO THAT STUCK OUT TO ME.
THEY INSIST THEY WERE NOT 
INVOLVED IN THE POLITICAL 
PROCESS.
AS WELL WHAT STUCK OUT, THEY 
ITEMIZED THE EXPENSES.
WE KNEW THAT MARGARET TRUDEAU, 
THE PRIME MINISTER'S MOTHER AND 
BROTHER HAD RECEIVED NEARLY 
$300,000 FOR SPEAKING.
THAT'S THE SORT OF PAYMENTS, BUT
NOW WE KNOW EXPENSES.
LOOKS LIKE SOPHIE 
GRÉGOIRE-TRUDEAU, MARGARET 
TRUDEAU, THEY GOT REIMBURSED TO 
$212,000.
AND THEY DIDN'T START PAYING 
MARGARET TRUDEAU UNTIL THE PRIME
MINISTER WAS THE PRIME MINISTER.
YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE BIG 
TAKEAWAY FOR THE AUDIENCE SHOULD
BE DURING THE TESTIMONY SO FAR?
>> Reporter: YEAH.
I'LL JUST PILE ON THE SPEAKING 
FEES.
THERE WAS ONE MORE THAT I CAUGHT
THAT I THOUGHT WAS REALLY 
INTERESTING.
NOT ABOUT, SORT OF SOMETHING 
THAT HAD TO DO WITH KIND OF MORE
CURRENT THINGS, BUT GOING BACK 
TO THAT STORY ABOUT THE EVENTS, 
THE CANADA 150 EVENT WHERE 
MARGARET TRUDEAU APPEARED.
THAT WAS AN EVENT PAID FOR OF 
THE HERITAGE DEPARTMENT BUDGET, 
BUT THEY WERE ASKED ABOUT IT, 
BECAUSE IT HAS BECOME PART OF 
THIS CONTROVERSY.
THEY SAID THEY HAD NO RECORD OF 
MARGARET TRUDEAU BEING PAID FOR 
THAT PARTICULAR APPEARANCE ON 
PARLIAMENT HILL.
I THINK IT'S JULY 2ND, IN THE 
CANADA 150 YEAR.
SO THAT'S INTERESTING THAT 
THEY'RE SORT OF RULING OUT THERE
WAS A PAYMENT IN THAT INSTANCE.
BUT AS YOU SAY, ON 28 OTHER 
OCCASIONS, MARGARET TRUDEAU WAS 
PAID AND NOT PAID A SMALL AMOUNT
OF MONEY.
THEY POINTED OUT THAT OFTEN HER 
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS WERE ABROAD
AND THAT IS WHY SHE WAS 
AVERAGING CLOSE TO $6,000 IN 
EXPENSES EVERY TIME SHE WAS 
DOING WORK FOR THEM.
I ALSO FOUND -- THEY WERE PUSHED
ON THIS ISSUE OF PAYING SPEAKERS
AND THEY WERE TRYING TO TAKE 
SOME PAINS TO EXPLAIN SORT OF 
WHY SOME PEOPLE WERE GETTING 
PAID AND WHY SOME WEREN'T.
THEY SEEMED TO BE SETTING UP A 
CRITERIA I THINK WAS NEW, IF YOU
DID AUXILIARY EVENTS, IF YOU 
WERE ALSO INVOLVED IN OTHER 
RECEPTIONS, YOU GAVE MORE OF 
YOUR TIME, THAT SEEMS TO BE THE 
JUSTIFICATION THEY WERE USING 
FOR PAYING SOMEONE LIKE MARGARET
TRUDEAU, WHEREAS OTHER PEOPLE 
WERE TOLD, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD
A NUMBER OF PEOPLE, CELEBRITIES,
WHO HAVE SPOKEN AT WE DAYS COME 
FORWARD AND SAY, YOU KNOW, THEY 
WERE TOLD WHEN THEY ASKED THAT 
WE DAY SPEAKERS DON'T GET PAID.
SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS 
INTERESTING TO SORT OF GET THEIR
CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
THE OTHER ASPECT OF THIS THAT I 
THINK IS KIND OF INTERESTING, 
BEFORE THIS ALL STARTED, WE WERE
TALKING ABOUT TIME LINES AND WHO
TALKED TO WHO WHEN AND WANTING 
TO PIECE THESE THINGS TOGETHER.
AND JUST A FEW SPECIFIC FACTS 
THEY WERE INSISTING ON.
THEY SAID THEY NEVER RECEIVED A 
CALL FROM PRIME MINISTER JUSTIN 
TRUDEAU.
THOUGHT THAT WAS INTERESTING.
THERE WAS THE RECORDING OF MARC 
KIELBURGER ASKED TO DO SOMETHING
BY THE PRIME MINISTER.
STICKING TO THE LINE THEY TOLD 
THE "NATIONAL POST", WHICH WAS 
THAT, NO, HE WAS MISTAKEN, NEVER
ACTUALLY TOOK A CALL.
AND ALSO THEY SAID KIND OF LATER
IN THE TESTIMONY THAT THEY 
HADN'T TALKED TO ANY MINISTERS 
AT ALL IN THE MONTH OF MARCH AND
THAT THEY HADN'T HAD ANY 
COMMUNICATIONS WITH SENIOR 
LEADERS IN THE GOVERNMENT IN THE
MONTH OF MARCH.
THEN THEY WENT INTO THINGS THEY 
ALREADY KNEW, WHICH WAS 
CONVERSATIONS THEY HAD WITH MARY
NG FOR EXAMPLE, BILL MORNEAU IN 
APRIL.
THESE WERE PART OF THE TIME LINE
PIECED TOGETHER WITH THE 
TESTIMONY.
DID YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE 
LOBBYING STUFF?
>> Vassy: I JUST WANT TO MAYBE 
TAKE A STEP BACK FOR A SECOND 
AND SORT OF LOOK AT THE BIG 
PICTURE IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT 
WE HEARD FROM THE GOVERNMENT SO 
FAR.
OPPOSITION M.P.s ARE TRYING TO 
GET INFORMATION OUT OF THESE 
BROTHERS THAT MIGHT UNDERMINE 
THE CASE THE GOVERNMENT HAS PUT 
FORTH SO FAR.
DID YOU HEAR ANYTHING THAT MIGHT
CONTRADICT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT 
SAYS OR THE STORY THAT HAS BEEN 
PUT FORTH WHY THEY AWARDED THEM 
THIS AGREEMENT, WHY THEY WANTED 
DO THIS PROGRAMME?
WAS THERE ANYTHING THAT STUCK 
OUT THERE THAT MIGHT EMBOLDEN 
THE OPPOSITION'S CASE?
>> YEAH, THE SMOKING GUN.
THE ONE AHA, PROOF THEY 
INFLUENCED THIS.
I THINK WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR 
THAT TESTIMONY, RIGHT?
I DON'T THINK WE'VE HEARD THAT 
YET.
WE HAVE TWO HOURS TO GO, MIND 
YOU.
BUT YOU KNOW, THEIR PORTRAYAL.
I THINK WAS CRAIG WHO SAID THIS,
THE GOVERNMENT WASN'T HELPING 
US, WE WERE DOING THIS TO HELP 
THE GOVERNMENT.
THEY ARE INSISTENT THE REASON 
THEY PITCHED THE STUDENT SERVICE
PROGRAMME WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE 
ASKED TO DO SO BY THE 
GOVERNMENT.
THAT IS THEIR LINE.
IF YOU'RE RATING THEM ON THEIR 
MESSAGING SO FAR, I THINK YOU 
WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT THEY HAVE
BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN STICKING TO 
THAT LINE IN TERMS OF EXPLAINING
THEIR INTEREST IN ADMINISTERING 
THE GRANT.
>> Vassy: WHAT WAS YOUR 
IMPRESSION I GUESS ABOUT THEIR 
OVERALL TONE SO FAR?
I THOUGHT SOME OF THE COMMENTS 
WERE PRETTY INTERESTING, 
ESPECIALLY AROUND THE AMOUNT OF 
TIME THEY'RE SPENDING, IT'S 
UNPRECEDENTED.
THEY WENT TO GREAT LENGTHS TO 
TALK ABOUT -- SORRY, I THINK 
THEY'RE COMING BACK.
I MIGHT WAIT FOR THEM TO COME 
BACK UP.
I SEE WAYNE EASTER THERE.
THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE 
FALLACIES OUT THERE ABOUT THEIR 
ORGANIZATION.
IT'S CLEAR THAT THE ORGANIZATION
HAS TAKEN A HIT.
>> Reporter: YEAH.
THEY EMPHASIZED -- I THINK IT 
WAS $5 MILLION I THINK THEY 
SAID.
THEY HAD SALARIES AND THINGS 
INCURRED, AND THEY HAD TO GIVE 
IT ALL BACK.
THEY DIDN'T CLARIFY WHAT THE $5 
MILLION WAS.
MAYBE THEY'LL BE PUSHED TO DO 
THAT IN THE NEXT ROUND.
INTERESTING ON THE LOBBYING 
FRONT.
YOU DID HEAR KIND OF A PROLONGED
DISCUSSION ABOUT A PERSON ON 
THEIR STAFF NAMED SOPHIA 
MARQUEZ.
WE LEARNED THAT NO ONE AT WE WAS
REGISTERED TO LOBBY THE 
GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS WHAT YOU 
WOULD EXPECT.
>> Vassy: I'M GOING TO CUT YOU 
OFF ON THAT POINT.
MY APOLOAPOLOGIES.
>>... COMING FORWARD, WE'RE 
HEARING A LOT OF INFORMATION.
I REPRESENT THE NORTHWEST 
TERRITORIES.
I'M THE M.P. FOR THE NORTHWEST 
TERRITORIES AND I HAVE TO ADMIT 
THAT WE HAVE A LIMITED PRESENCE 
IN THE NORTH WITH THE WE 
CHARITY.
AND IT CERTAINLY A COMPLEX 
ORGANIZATION AND IT'S BECOME 
VERY APPARENT THAT IT IS 
SUPPORTING ALL PARTIES AND ALL 
PARTIES HAVE PEOPLE THAT HAVE 
PARTICIPATED WITH WE.
THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF MEDIA 
ATTENTION ON YOUR ORGANIZATION 
PAYING FOR HIGH-PROFILE 
INDIVIDUALS TO TRAVEL ON WE 
TRIPS TO OTHER COUNTRIES SUCH AS
AFRICA, TO SEE THE IMPACT OF 
WE'S GLOBAL PROJECTS.
YOU SAID IN A STATEMENT A FEW 
DAYS AGO THE WE HAS INVITED 
SEVERAL PEOPLE, AMBASSADORS AND 
OTHER PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN 
THESE TRIPS AND THAT THIS IS 
SOMETHING THAT MANY 
INTERNATIONAL CHARITIES AND 
HUMANITARIAN AGENCIES DO.
THEY OPERATE IN A SIMILAR 
MANNER.
COULD YOU TELL US IF WE CHARITY 
HAS TAKEN OTHER CONSERVATIVE OR 
OTHER PARTIES, BE IT 
CONSERVATIVE OR POLITICIANS IN 
THE PAST TO GO ON SOME OF THESE 
TRIPS?
THAT'S MY FIRST QUESTION.
>> YES, SIR, WE APPRECIATE THAT.
SERVICE IS NOT A POLITICAL 
ISSUE.
HOPEFULLY, IT'S NOT A POLITICAL 
ISSUE.
THAT MANY POLITICIANS HAVE 
JOINED US IN SERVICE.
I SAY THIS NOT -- 
[INAUDIBLE]
-- OPPOSITE, BECAUSE I KNOW HE'S
GETTING FLAKED.
SCOTT MOE CAME AND WORKED LIKE 
CRAZY OVER THE WINTER BREAK.
HELPED OUT TO BUILD, TO TEACH, 
TO SERVE WITH HIS WIFE.
THAT'S HOW HE CHOSE TO BUILD AT 
OUR COLLEGE, KENYA COLLEGE.
OUR MEDICAL PROJECTS THERE.
PEOPLE LIKE CHARLIE ANGUS, HIS 
OWN CHILDREN HAVE JOINED US IN 
THE PAST TO NICARAGUA.
IT'S NOT A POLITICAL ISSUE WHEN 
SOMEONE'S CHILDREN JOIN US.
WE WELCOME PEOPLE FROM ALL WALKS
OF LIFE WHO BENEFIT THROUGH 
DOING THESE TYPE OF SERVICE 
PROJECTS THAT WE'RE ABLE TO 
PROVIDE.
>> I WAS QUITE IMPRESSED.
I LOOKED AT THE ORGANIZATION AND
IT IS VERY COMPLEX.
IT HAS MANY DIFFERENT 
Y
SUBSIDIARIES AND IT ALSO HAD 
MANY PARTNERSHIPS.
THE ONE THAT CAME TO THE 
FOREFRONT WAS THE ABORIGINAL 
EDUCATION INITIATIVE.
AND THE WE STAND TOGETHER 
CAMPAIGN.
PROMOTING INDIGENOUS HISTORY IN 
THE CLASSROOMS AND CREATING 
AWARENESS OF FIRST NATIONS, 
INUIT AND METIS REALITIES FACING
OUR COMMUNITIES.
IT'S SOMETHING I TALK ABOUT ON A
NONSTOP BASIS, SO IT WAS VERY 
IMPORTANT TO ME.
I WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH THE 
NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT COME TO 
YOUR ORGANIZATION AND SPEAK ON 
THESE INITIATIVES.
COULD YOU MAYBE CLARIFY FOR ME 
WHEN PEOPLE COME AND THEY DO A 
CROSS-CANADA SPEAKING TOUR, I'M 
TAKING THAT NOT TO BE A WE DAY, 
BUT AN AUXILIARY EVENT THAT YOU 
SPOKE ABOUT AND THEY DO GET 
COMPENSATED OR THEIR EXPENSES 
GET COMPENSATED.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE 
SEPARATE THE WE DAY ENGAGEMENTS 
FROM THE EVENTS SO PEOPLE CAN 
UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> OUR WORK GLOBAL HAS BEEN 
DOCUMENTED.
CLEAN WATER MEDICAL.
NOT AS WELL KNOWN IS THE 
DOMESTIC WORK.
I THINK THAT'S SOMETIMES 
MISUNDERSTOOD.
FOR EXAMPLE, SACRED CIRCLE IS A 
PROGRAMME WE RAN FOR OVER A 
DECADE.
IT'S A LEADERSHIP TRAINING 
PROGRAMME FOR INDIGENOUS YOUTH 
IN COMMUNITY IN CANADA.
HELPING THEM TO BE SOCIAL 
ENTREPRENEURS.
TO IDENTIFY PROBLEMS IN THEIR 
COMMUNITIES AND HELP TO SOLVE 
THAT ISSUE.
LIKEWISE, WE STAND TOGETHER, IS 
AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMME TO 
TEACH NON-INDIGENOUS STUDENTS TO
UNDERSTAND THE PAST, PRESENT AND
FUTURE OF INDIGENOUS STUDENTS IN
CANADA.
IN FACT, PART OF WHAT WE HAVE 
BEEN DOING IN CANADA IS TRYING 
TO BUILD THESE VARIOUS SYSTEMS 
TO HELP YOUNG ENTREPRENEURS IN 
CANADA AND SOMETHING THAT HAS 
BEEN UNDERSTOOD AS BEING IN 
TORONTO, WE'VE ESTABLISHED A 
SERIES OF BUILDINGS TO RETROFIT 
TO CREATE FREE SPACE TO WELCOME 
YOUNG ENTREPRENEURS TO SET THEIR
OWN CHARITY, FOR THEIR OWN 
SOCIAL ENTERPRISES.
UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE OF 
COVID-19 IT'S ON PAUSE.
BUT THESE ARE THE TYPE OF 
INNOVATIVE PROJECTS IN CANADA WE
TRY TO DO TO SERVE YOUTH.
YOU'RE RIGHT THAT OUR OPERATION 
IS COMPLEX, BECAUSE IN OUR HEART
WE'RE ENTREPRENEURS.
WE CREATE NEW SYSTEMS.
WE WANT TO BUILD TO CREATE.
>> WE ALSO STARTED WHEN WE WERE 
A KID, BUT IT'S LIKE BUILDING A 
HOUSE.
YOU HAVE A SMALL LITTLE HOUSE 
AND YOU ADD A WING, A SKYLIGHT 
AND THEN A LITTLE MAKESHIFT 
SWIMMING POOL FOR THE KIDS.
YEAH, WE RECOGNIZE WE HAVE A 
COMPLEX ORGANIZATION, THAT'S WHY
WE'RE BRINGING IN TO HELP US.
BUT THIS WASN'T DONE OUT OF 
MALICE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
IT WAS DONE AS --
>> OKAY.
I'LL 0 STOP YOU THERE.
I WANTED TO GET CLARIFICATION ON
A COUPLE OF THINGS.
>> Chair: ONE QUICK QUESTION 
THERE, MICHAEL.
>> MICHELE DOUGLAS APPEARED 
BEFORE YOU.
FORMER CHAIR OF THE BOARD.
SHE STATED SHE DIDN'T KNOW 
SPEAKERS RECEIVED FEES FOR 
SPEAKING AT WE EVENTS.
WHY WOULD SHE NOT KNOW THAT?
>> SO THANK YOU FOR ASKING.
AGAIN, I'M GOING TO REITERATE 
THIS TO BE IMPORTANT.
WE BELIEVE SPEAKING ON THE WE 
STAGE IS ON HONOUR, A PRIVILEGE,
TO ADDRESS 25,000 YOUNG PEOPLE 
TO SHARE YOUR STORY.
IT'S 2, 3, 4, 5 MINUTES MAX ON 
THE STAGE.
IT'S NOT HARD TO GET PEOPLE TO 
WANT TO SPEAK IN FRONT OF 
20,000.
THE CHALLENGE IS HAVING SOMEONE 
COME INTO THE CITY TO DO 
MULTIPLE EVENTS, GALA EVENTS.
JUST LIKE OTHER CHARITIES, WE 
ENGAGE WITH A SPEAKING, SOMEONE 
TO HELP US FIND THE TALENT TO 
ENGAGE IN THOSE ACTIVITIES.
WE DON'T DO TELEMARKETING, WE 
DON'T DO MASS MAILING.
WE DON'T DO FUNDRAISING OF THAT 
NATURE.
BUT BY BRINGING IN SPEAKERS, IT 
ALLOWS US TO BRING PARTNERS TO 
THE TABLE.
THIS IS OUR MODEL AND IT WORKS 
WELL.
>> 
>> Chair: THANK YOU FOR THAT.
  I'M GOING TO ASK FOR A PAINT 
OF CLARIFICATION.
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THEN, IS THE
INDIVIDUAL IS NOT REALLY PAID 
FOR THE WE-DAY EVENT, THEY'RE 
PAID FOR THE OTHER EVENTS 
AUXILIARY TO THAT, IS THAT 
CORRECT?
>> THE CONTRACT IS WITH WE DAY.
THE PURPOSE OF THEIR 
COMPENSATION IS FOR THEM TO COME
AND HELP US WITH THE AUXILIARY 
EVENTS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IS 
LOTS OF DAYS AND THAT'S THE 
UNDERSTANDING THAT WE HAD WITH 
THESE INDIVIDUALS.
>> Chair: THANK YOU.
MR. FORTIN, HOPEFULLY, YOUR 
INTERNET IS WORKING THIS TIME.
THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
TWO HALF MINUTES.
[Speaking French][Voice of 
Interpreter] THANK YOU.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THE TECHNOLOGY.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY WHAT WE WERE
SAYING.
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT MARGARET 
TRUDEAU.
ARE YOU HEARING ME, MR. 
CHAIRMAN?
>> NO, YOU'RE COMING THROUGH IN 
BOTH LANGUAGES AT THE SAME TIME.
ARE YOU ON THE FRENCH --
>> OH, NO, I'M NOT.
>> Chair: START OVER.
>> I'M ON THE FRENCH CHANNEL 
NOW, MR. CHAIRMAN.
[Speaking French][Voice of 
Interpreter] SO WHAT I WANTED TO
KNOW, MR. KIELBURGER, IS THIS, 
YOU HIRED MARGARET TRUDEAU 
BECAUSE SHE IS THE FORMER SPOUSE
PIERRE TRUDEAU AND THE MOTHER OF
THE PRIME MINISTER.
YOU HIRED THE BROTHER OF THE 
PRIME MINISTER.
YOU HIRED THE PRIME MINISTER'S 
WIFE, SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE-TRUDEAU.
ALL TO SPEAK.
YOU HAD MR. MORNEAU AND HIS WIFE
ON VACATION.
ALL OF THOSE LINKS -- WELL, IN 
FACT, YOU ALSO MENTIONED DURING 
A CONFERENCE YOU ACCIDENTALLY 
MENTIONED YOU SPOKE TO THE PRIME
MINISTER, BUT I SEE THAT AS A 
VERY CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 
YOU AND THE TRUDEAU AND MORNEAU 
FAMILIES.
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT 
YOUR LINKS WITH THE TRUDEAU 
FAMILY AND THE MORNEAU FAMILY 
ARE CLOSE LINKS?
CLOSE TIES?
>> WELL, SIR, I WOULD ANSWER THE
QUESTION THIS WAY.
I'VE NEVER SEEN THE PRIME 
MINISTER OR SOPHIE 
GRÉGOIRE-TRUDEAU IN A SOCIAL 
SETTING.
NEITHER OF US HAVE.
WE'VE NEVER HAD A MEAL WITH 
THEM.
WE'VE NEVER SOCIALIZED WITH 
THEM, EVER.
SO IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOUR 
DEFINITION OF CLOSE IS.
WE HAVE WELCOMED SOPHIE 
GRÉGOIRE-TRUDEAU TO BE THE 
AMBASSADOR FOR OUR MENTAL HEALTH
PROGRAMMES AND SHE HAS BEEN 
EXTRAORDINARY IN RAISING 
AWARENESS.
WE HAVE WELCOMED MARGARET 
TRUDEAU BECAUSE SHE IS A MENTAL 
HEALTH ADVOCATE.
IN THE CASE OF THE MORNEAU 
FAMILY, THEY -- THE 
McCAIN-MORNEAU FAMILY ARE 
GENEROUS PHILANTHROPISTS AND 
WE'VE HOSTED THEM ON 
HUMANITARIAN TRIPS.
ALL OF THIS IS IN FURTHERANCE OF
THE CAUSE.
WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE AGAIN IS 
FULFILLING THE PURPOSE OF OUR 
CHARITY.
AND THAT IS A DIFFERENT THAN 
PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP.
>> [Speaking French][Voice of 
Interpreter] WELL, I UNDERSTAND 
CLEARLY, AND IF I WERE YOU, I 
WOULD HAVE SAID THE SAME THING.
ONCE YOU SAID ALL THAT, HOW CAN 
BE EXPLAIN YOU NEVER REGISTERED 
FOR THE LOBBYIST REGISTRY AND IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR GOVERNMENT 
RELATIONS THERE IS A GREAT DEAL 
OF MONEY AT STAKE HERE.
THE LAST CONTRACT WE'RE TALKING 
ABOUT WHICH WAS FOR $900 
MILLION, YOU WERE -- AGAIN THE 
INTERPRETER APOLOGIZES, BUT THE 
SOUND CONTINUES TO BREAK UP FOR 
MR. FORTIN.
HOW -- 
>> Chair: MR. FORTIN, I DON'T 
KNOW WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOUR 
INTERNET SYSTEM, BUT IT IS 
DOWN -- AGAIN, IT ISN'T YOUR 
MIC.
I UNDERSTAND IT'S THE INTERNET.
DID YOU PICK UP ENOUGH OF THE 
QUESTION, EITHER MARC OR CRAIG 
TO ANSWER THAT.
IF YOU CAN ANSWER THAT, WE'LL GO
TO MR. JULIAN.
>> ALLOW US, OF COURSE, TO 
ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SIR.
THAT FIRSTLY -- AND I SAY THIS 
WITH GREAT RESPECT -- MARGARET 
TRUDEAU IS MORE THAN SOMEONE'S 
MOTHER.
SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE-TRUDEAU IS MORE 
THAN SOMEONE'S HUSBAND -- WIFE.
WE LIVE AND ENGAGE WITH 
INDIVIDUALS ON THE MERIT THAT 
THEY BRING THEMSELVES AS 
INDIVIDUALS TO THESE IMPORTANT 
CAUSES.
I FEEL I NEED TO CORRECT THE 
RECORD ON THAT.
BUT THE HEART OF YOUR QUESTION, 
WHY WE DIDN'T REGISTER IS 
BECAUSE BASED ON OUR UNDERSTAND 
ONGOING OF THE TIME DEFINITION 
INVOLVED AND THE VAST MAJORITY 
OF THESE CASES, WHAT WE'RE 
DESCRIBING, EVERYTHING UNTIL 
LAST MONTH, OR TWO MONTHS AGO I 
SHOULD SAY, THIS WAS A MINIMAL 
AMOUNT OF TIME TO FILL OUT A 
GOVERNMENT APPLICATION FOR A 
GRANT.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT WHEN WE WERE 
APPROACHED BY  ESDC, THE AMOUNT 
OF TIME INCREASED.
WE'RE WORKING WITH OUR TEAM TO 
DETERMINE IF THAT SHOULD HAVE 
TRIGGERED US.
WE'RE HAPPY TO LOOK INTO THAT 
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT APPROACHED 
US.
WE DIDN'T THINK AT THAT POINT 
SOMETHING WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE 
THEY WERE CALLING US TO BE 
HELPFUL TO THEM.
WE'RE LOOKING INTO THE MATTER.
WE'RE HAPPY TO -- 
>> Chair: THANK YOU, I'M SORRY, 
MR. FORTIN, WE'RE WELL OVER 
TIME.
MR. FORTIN, WE CANNOT -- YOU ARE
BREAKING UP.
WE CAN'T HEAR YOU AND YOU'RE 
OVER TIME.
SO, MR. JULIAN -- MR. JULIAN, 
THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
>> POINT OF ORDER, MR. CHAIR.
>> WHAT IS YOUR POINT OF ORDER.
>> POINT OF ORDER, MR. CHAIR.
[Speaking French][Voice of 
Interpreter] MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A
POINT OF ORDER.
>> Chair: I'M LISTENING.
[Speaking French][Voice of 
Interpreter] MY POINT OF ORDER 
IS THAT I'M USING THE DEVICE 
THAT PARLIAMENT HAS PROVIDED.
I HAVE ALL THE EQUIPMENT THAT 
I'VE BEEN PROVIDED -- THAT HAS 
BEEN PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
THE I.T. SERVICES ARE COMING AND
I CAN'T DO MY JOB BECAUSE THE 
EQUIPMENT FROM THE PARLIAMENT IS
NOT WORKING, THEN I CAN'T 
FULFILL MY DUTIES.
MEMBERS PARTICIPATING IN 
COMMITTEES ARE USING ALL OF THE 
EQUIPMENT NECESSARY, OTHERWISE 
IT'S OUR WORK AS 
PARLIAMENTARIANS WE CANNOT 
FULFILL.
THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT 
SITUATION.
AND I CANNOT ACCEPT THAT I CAN'T
PROPERLY INTERVIEW THE 
KIELBURGER BROTHERS.
AND ON THURSDAY, IT WILL BE THE 
PRIME MINISTER.
THE 330 MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT, 
WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD 
AND TO HAVE OUR QUESTIONS 
ANSWERED.
I WANT, MR. CHAIR, FOR YOU TO DO
SOMETHING SO I GET THE ADEQUATE 
EQUIPMENT.
>> Chair: THANK YOU, MR. FORTIN.
WE WILL HAVE I.T. LOOK INTO 
THAT.
I UNDERSTAND IT ISN'T THE MIC OR
THE EQUIPMENT, IT MAY BE THE 
INTERNET ITSELF.
BUT WE WILL -- WE WILL LOOK 
INTO -- WE'LL HAVE I.T. LOOK 
INTO THAT.
YOU ARE RIGHT.
YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO 
PARTICIPATE FULLY IN THE 
HEARINGS AND WE WILL HAVE 
SOMEBODY LOOK INTO IT.
MR. JULIAN, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THANKS TO BOTH OF YOU FOR BEING 
AVAILABLE FOR FOUR HOURS.
WE HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND 
WE'RE SEEKING ANSWERS.
MY FIRST QUESTION TO CLARIFY 
PREVIOUS ANSWERS.
IS IT TRUE THAT NO PAYMENTS ON 
EXPENSES, NO SPEAKER FEES, WERE 
PAID TO ANY MEMBER OF THE 
TRUDEAU FAMILY PRIOR TO THE 
PRIME MINISTER'S ELECTION IN 
NOVEMBER 2015?
>> SIR, THERE WAS ONE PAYMENT 
THAT WE HAD DISCLOSED.
PRIOR TO MR. TRUDEAU BEING IN 
PUBLIC LIFE.
TO SOPHIE TRUDEAU WHO CAME TO 
SPEAK AT ONE OF OUR WE DAYS IN 
MONTREAL I BELIEVE.
THE PAYMENTS RANGE FROM 1400 TO 
$1500.
LET'S GO WITH $1500 TO BE SAFE.
BUT THAT WAS BACK MANY, MANY 
YEARS AGO.
>> AND NO SUBSEQUENT PAYMENTS TO
SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE-TRUDEAU.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
AND YOU'LL BE PROVIDING FULL 
INFORMATION.
SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO COMPARING 
THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE PRIME 
MINISTER'S ELECTION TO THE 
PERIOD AFTER THE PRIME 
MINISTER'S ELECTION.
I WANT TO COME BACK TO THE 
IMPORTANT POINT YOU MADE ABOUT 
THE WE CHARITY FOUNDATION AND 
LIMITED LIABILITY.
NOW, OF COURSE, FROM THE EVENT 
OF A PROGRAMME LIKE THIS, THERE 
ARE CONSIDERABLE LIABILITY 
ISSUES AS MENTIONED.
IN THE EVENT OF A SIGNIFICANT 
LAWSUIT, IF THE FOUNDATION WAS 
BASICALLY BEING VESTED WITH THE 
LIABILITY AND DIDN'T HAVE 
ASSETS, THAT WOULD INCREASE THE 
RISK TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
DID YOU CLEARLY COMMUNICATE TO 
ESDC THROUGH THE PROCESS OF 
SIGNING THE CONTRACT ON JUNE 
23RD, THAT WE CHARITY FOUNDATION
HAD NO ASSETS AND WOULD NOT BE 
ABLE TO SUSTAIN ANY SIGNIFICANT 
LIABILITY ISSUES?
>> HERE'S THE GOOD NEWS, SIR.
THAT WE'RE VERY CLEAR, IT WAS I 
BELIEVE IN THE CONTRACT, IF NOT 
MISTAKEN, WE HAD TENS OF 
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO ENSURE 
THAT THIS WHOLE INITIATIVE WAS 
PROTECTED AND, OF COURSE, IN THE
CASE OF LIABILITY, THE 
GOVERNMENT AND SPECIFICALLY THE 
PROGRAMME AND THE TAXPAYERS WERE
WELL PROTECTED.
WE TOOK THAT ISSUE VERY 
SERIOUSLY.
>> THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION.
MY QUESTION WAS WERE YOU CLEAR 
IN COMMUNICATING TO ESDC THAT 
THE CONTRACT WAS BEING SIGNED 
WITH THE WE CHARITY FOUNDATION, 
A FOUNDATION THAT HAS NO ASSETS.
>> WE DID NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC 
CONVERSATION AROUND THE ASSETS.
THE ESDC WAS CLEAR THIS WAS TO 
HELP LIMIT LIABILITY.
>> THE CONTRACT IS IN BIG 
LETTERS.
>> IS THAT A FAIR INDICATION OF 
WHAT WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE 
FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE?
>> I DISCUSSED WITH THE FEDERAL 
CIVIL SERVICE AND WRITTEN INTO 
THE CONTRACT IN SECTION 22, THE 
INSURANCE TO MITIGATE THE THREAT
YOU DESCRIBED.
>> THE ISSUES AROUND LIABILITY 
AND THE TEACHERS INCENTIVE, YOU 
DID MENTION YOU GOT A LOT OF 
LIABILITY ADVICE.
WE'VE HEARD FROM WITNESSES THAT 
THE TEACHERS INCENTIVE COULD 
ALSO PROVOKE LIABILITY ISSUES 
AROUND ISSUES LIKE PRIVACY.
WHAT ADVICE DID YOU GET AROUND 
THE ISSUE OF LIABILITY AND THE 
TEACHERS INCENTIVE THAT WAS PART
OF THE OVERALL OFFER?
>> SIR, CAN YOU CLARIFY THE 
TEACHERS INCENTIVE?
WE'RE UNCLEAR ABOUT THE 
STATEMENT.
>> WELL, THAT THERE WERE 
POTENTIAL PAYMENTS MADE TO 
TEACHERS WHO RECRUITED STUDENTS 
TO THE PROGRAMME.
>> WE'RE GLAD YOU ASKED THAT 
QUESTION, ANOTHER MISCONCEPTION.
>> I APPRECIATE IT.
THERE WERE NO PAYMENTS FOR 
RECRUITING STUDENTS.
THAT WAS AN INACCURACY REPORTED 
IN THE PRESS AND UNFORTUNATELY 
SHARED BY CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS.
THE PROGRAMME STRUCTURE WAS THAT
DURING THE PANDEMIC NON-PROFITS 
WERE REELING AND MANY OF THEM 
DIDN'T HAVE THE IN-HOUSE STAFF 
TO MANAGE AND SUPERVISE THE 
VOLUNTEERS.
SO THE ESDC ASKED WE CHARITY TO 
PERSONALLY SHARE TO ENSURE 
HIRING STAFF -- THESE ARE THE 
TEACHERS WE REFER TO -- TO 
DIRECTLY SUPERVISE UP TO 20,000 
YOUNG PEOPLE WITH THEIR SERVICE 
WORK WITH NON-PROFITS.
THESE TEACHERS, THEY WERE 
SPECIFICALLY HIRED JUST LIKE 
SUMMER TEACHERS OVER THE COURSE 
OF THE SUMMER MONTHS TO WORK 
DIRECTLY WITH A COHORT OF 
STUDENTS TO SUPPORT THEM, TO 
MATCH THEM, TO CHECK THEM, TO 
VERIFY THEIR SERVICE BECAUSE WE 
DIDN'T WANT THIS TO BE A 
BURDENSOME PROGRAMME ON THE 
NON-PROFITS TO ACCEPT THE YOUNG 
VOLUNTEERS.
>> WE WANT TO GO BACK TO MR. 
JULIAN.
WE'RE CONSIDERABLY OVER TIME.
ONE MORE QUESTION.
>> I'M CONCERNED THAT YOU'RE NOT
ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS.
YOU'RE ANSWERING OTHER 
QUESTIONS, BUT NOT ANSWERING 
THIS ONE.
>> PLEASE ASK IT AGAIN.
>> THE ISSUE OF LIABILITY, WHAT 
THAT WOULD MEAN IN TERMS OF THIS
PROGRAMME, THE RISK TO THE 
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS 
CONSIDERABLE.
IT DOESN'T APPEAR THERE WAS REAL
DISCUSSION BEYOND THE ISSUE OF 
SOME INSURANCE, BUT THAT DOESN'T
COVER OVERALL LIABILITY.
WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WITH 
ESDC AROUND THE LIABILITY 
CONTAINED WITHIN THE PROGRAMME, 
WHETHER IT'S A TEACHER 
INCENTIVE, SUPERVISORY PLAN, 
WHATEVER, WAS THERE DISCUSSION 
ABOUT THE ESDC ABOUT THE 
LIABILITY ISSUES AND WHAT WAS 
THE ADVICE YOU GOT FROM YOUR 
LAWYERS AROUND SETTING THIS 
PROGRAMME UP?
>> ABSOLUTELY, SIR, THE 
CONVERSATION WITH ESDC WAS ABOUT
LIABILITY.
THEY WERE ASKING US TO TAKE ON 
THE LIABILITY AND THAT WAS A 
CONCERN.
THE LIABILITY RESTS SOLELY WITH 
WE CHARITY AND UNDER THOSE 
CIRCUMSTANCES WE EXPLAINED WE 
WERE VERY CONCERNED OF HAVING 
40,000 YOUNG PEOPLE VOLUNTEER 
DURING A PANDEMIC, ASSUMING FULL
LIABILITY FOR THAT.
WE EXPLAINED WE HAD A DIFFERENT 
STRUCTURE AND WE NEEDED TO HAVE 
THE CORRESPONDING INSURANCE IN 
THAT STRUCTURE IN CASE SOMETHING
WENT WRONG AND THAT WAS THE 
CONVERSATION WE HAD.
>> SO THEN THAT'S WHY YOU CHOSE 
THE SHELL COMPANY STRUCTURE?
>> IT'S NOT A SHELL COMPANY.
I WANT TO STRESS AGAIN.
THIS IS AN INACCURATE.
IT'S A REGISTERED CHARITY.
THE FOUNDATION.
SO CHARACTERIZING IT AS A SHELL 
COMPANY IS NOT ACCURATE.
>> WE'RE GOING TO END IT THERE 
CONSIDERABLY OVER TIME, BUT 
THAT'S THE FIRST TIME MR. JULIAN
WAS IN.
THE LINEUP, FIRST WILL BE MR. 
POILIEVRE FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THEN MR. INTAR.
>> HAVE YOU OR ANY OF YOUR 
INTERMEDIARIES COMMUNICATED WITH
THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE 
SINCE THE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
AS CANCELLED?
YES OR NO?
>> WE HAVE NOT AND TO OUR 
KNOWLEDGE, THERE HAD HAVE NOT 
BEEN.
>> SO YOU HAVE NO INTERMEDIARY 
WHO ARE COMMUNICATED WITH THE 
PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE SINCE 
THE CANCELLATION OF THE 
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT?
>> SIR, YOU'RE ASKING TO OUR 
KNOWLEDGE, NO.
TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, WE ANSWERED 
THE QUESTION.
WE HAVE NOT.
>> YOU'RE UNDER OATH.
>> SIR, I'M VERY MUCH AWARE OF 
THAT.
>> GOOD.
DO YOU HAVE -- DID YOU HAVE ANY 
DIRECT E-MAIL, CELL OR INSTANT 
COMMUNICATIONS WITH ANY MINISTER
AFTER MARCH THE 1ST?
>> ANY MINISTER AFTER -- DIRECT 
COMMUNICATIONS, YES.
>> I SAID E-MAIL, CELL, INSTANT 
COMMUNICATION OR OTHER 
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION.
>> YES, WITH THREE MINISTERS.
MINISTER NG, MINISTER CHALER, 
AND MINISTER MORNEAU.
>> DO YOU COMMIT TO SHARING 
THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE 
COMMITTEE?
>> YES, SIR.
>> HAVE YOU HAD ANY SIMILAR 
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION WITH 
STAFF MEMBERS OF MINISTERS' 
OFFICES?
>> YES.
>> YOU BEGAN INCURRING EXPENSES 
ON MARCH 5TH, ELIGIBLE EXPENSES.
WHO TOLD YOU WOULD BE ELIGIBLE 
FOR REIMBURSEMENT GIVEN THAT THE
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WOULD NOT
BE SIGNED FOR MORE THAN A MONTH.
>> ESDC WHEN WE DID THE CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS, WE AGREED MARCH 5 
WOULD BE THE START DATE.
>> WHEN DID YOU STATE THAT?
>> DURING THAT TIME --
>> CONTRACT NEGOTIATION.
IT WASN'T A CONTRACT.
>> Chair: MINISTER POILIEVRE, 
PLEASE ALLOW THE GENTLEMEN TO 
ANSWER THE QUESTION.
IF WE HAVE TO GO OVER, WE WILL.
>> WE WERE WORKING DILIGENTLY 
THROUGH THE PERIOD.
ESDC WAS AWARE WE WERE WORKING 
DILIGENTLY.
THEY SUGGESTED THAT DATE, THE 
DATE YOU MENTIONED --
>> WHEN DID THEY SUGGEST THAT?
>> WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO OUR 
RECORDS, SIR, BUT WE WERE ALL 
WORKING IN COORDINATION.
>> WAS IT BEFORE THE 5TH OF MAY?
>> I'LL CHECK MY RECORDS.
>> OKAY.
DID ANYONE ELSE SUGGEST TO YOU 
THAT YOU COULD BEGIN INCURRING 
ELIGIBLE EXPENSES OTHER THAN THE
ESDC?
>> NO, SIR.
>> DID EITHER YOU OR ANY OF OUR 
INTERMEDIARIES COMMUNICATE WITH 
ANYONE IN THE OFFICE OF BILL 
MORNEAU AFTER MARCH THE 1ST?
>> YES.
>> WHO?
>> OH.
WELL --
>> I MEAN HIS STAFF, NOW.
>> YES.
MULTIPLE TOUCH POINTS ON TWO 
MATTERS.
ONE WAS --
>> AND THE DATE.
>> APRIL 7TH.
REACHES OUT TO HAVE A COVERS 
WITH SOPHIA MARQUEZ AND 11 OTHER
NON-PROFITS.
WE CAN GET YOU THE TOUCH POINTS 
WITH MINISTER NG.
AND ALSO WITH MICHELE --
>> SHE'S NOT IN HIS OFFICE, 
SHE'S IN THE DEPARTMENT.
>> SORRY, SIR.
WE WOULD HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS 
SUBSEQUENT TO THE TERMINATION 
WITH THE OFFICE OF MR. MORNEAU, 
OR THE FAMILY OFFICE.
WE NEED TO LOOK INTO THAT IF 
IT'S A FAMILY OFFICE -- ON THE 
PAYMENT RELATED TO THE TRIP OF 
THE McCAIN MORNEAU FAMILY.
>> DID YOU EVER HAVE CONTACT 
WITH KATIE TELFORD?
OR YOUR INTERMEDIINTERMEDIARIES?
>> NO.
NOT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE.
>> BEN CHIN?
>> NOT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE.
I MET HIM BEFORE ALL THIS TIME, 
BUT NO.
>> AND THE CHIEF OF STAFF TO MS.
CHAGGER?
>> YES.
COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?
>> SINCE MARCH THE 1ST?
>> YES.
>> ELDER MARCUS?
>> I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT IS?
>> OFFICE OF THE FINANCE 
MINISTER.
>> NO.
>> JUSTIN TRUDEAU APPEARED IN A 
WE ARE CANADA VIDEO.
DID HE COME TO A STUDIO TO POSE 
SO THE CAMERAS COULD CIRCLE HIM 
AND BEAM THOSE VERY IMPRESSIVE 
LIGHT HIGH TECH IMAGES ON HIS 
FOREHEAD AND ACROSS HIS BODY?
>> SIR, THE -- WHAT YOU'RE 
REFERRING TO WAS A VIDEOS THAT 
TOOK PLACE TO 10 INDIVIDUALS IN 
A SERIES.
>> WE WILL ALLOW THE KIELBURGERS
TO ANSWER THE QUESTION WITHOUT 
INTERRUPTION AND THEN ONE FINAL 
QUESTION, MR. POILIEVRE.
>> I DO APPRECIATE YOU RAISING 
THIS, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S 
STRONGLY --
>> DID HE GO TO A STUDIO?
>> Chair: THEY'LL ANSWER THE 
QUESTION AND THEN YOU'LL GET 
YOUR QUESTION, PIERRE.
>> PART OF 150, CANADA, THERE 
WERE RESOURCES PUT TOGETHER THAT
INCLUDED A 50 PORTRAIT SERIES 
ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND 
INDIVIDUALS WHO ENGAGED IN FORMS
OF SERVICE.
THE PRIME MINISTER WAS IN ONE 
VIDEO.
IF IT WAS DONE IN A STUDIO, I 
HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT.
>> WE'RE NOT AWARE, SIR.
>> Chair: LAST QUESTION.
>> THE 10 PORTRAITS PART OF THE 
PROGRAMME, THAT WAS ALL PART OF 
THE HERITAGE CANADA FUNDED GRANT
THAT YOU RECEIVED, THE $1.18 
MILLION?
>> WE'RE NOT SURE IF THAT VIDEO 
ITSELF WAS PART OF THE 
INITIATIVE.
IT WAS DONE JUST BEFORE THE 
CANADA 150, BUT IT WAS ALSO FOR 
THE WE DAY WE HAD ON PARLIAMENT 
HILL.
SO WE HAD TO LOOK INTO THAT.
>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, ALL.
WE'LL TURN --
>> POINT OF ORDER, MR. CHAIR.
>> Chair: WHAT IS YOUR POINT OF 
ORDER?
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I 
UNDERSTOOD THE RESPONSE ON THE 
POINT OF WHETHER OR NOT THE 
$1.18 MILLION CANADA HERITAGE 
GRANT WAS USED IN PART TO 
FINANCE THIS ADVERTISEMENT?
THEY SAID THEY PLEDGED TO LOOK 
INTO IT.
THAT'S NICE, WILL THEY GIVE US 
THE ANSWER IN WRITING?
>> Chair: I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S
A POINT OF ORDER, BUT WE WILL 
ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL ANSWER AND 
IF THEY'RE TO PROVIDE FURTHER 
INFORMATION, THEY WILL.
>> WE HAD BOTH GOVERNMENT FUNDS 
PROVIDED WE ALSO HAD FOR CANADA 
150, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS 
SERIES, WHERE THE FUNDING CAME 
FROM FOR IT.
WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT AND GET 
THAT.
>> Chair: FIVE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.
A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON 
CLARIFICATION, IF WE CAN BE 
QUICK IN ANSWERS, I WOULD 
APPRECIATE THAT TO THE 
KIELBURGERS.
FIRST THING, YOU MENTIONED IN 
TERMS OF PAYMENTS TO SPEAKERS, 
THERE WAS A DIFFERENTIAL IN 
TERMS OF NOT PAYING PEOPLE, OR 
HAVING THE USUAL PRACTISE OF 
PAYING PEOPLE AT AUXILIARY 
EVENTS.
CAN YOU LIST FOLKS AND HOW MUCH 
THEY WERE PAID FOR THOSE 
AUXILIARY EVENTS?
>> SIR, SO ONCE AGAIN, THE 
SPEAKERS, YES, THEY WERE INVITED
TO COME TO WE DAY AND THE 
CONTRACT REFERENCED WE DAY, BUT 
IT WAS THE AUXILIARY EVENT THEY 
SHARED.
THAT WAS WHERE WE NEEDED 
SUPPORT, HELP.
AND PEOPLE PARTICIPATED.
THE SPEAKER CONTRACT WE HAVE -- 
ARE CONFIDENTIAL, SO WE HAVE TO 
LOOK INTO THAT ISSUE.
>> TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE NOT TRYING
TO HOLD ANYTHING BACK, BUT WE 
WANT TO RESPECT THE PRIVACY OF 
INDIVIDUALS.
WE MAY NOT WANT TO DRAG THEM.
>> I WOULD SAY IT'S AN IMPORTANT
CONVERSATION.
THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE, WITH
REGARDS TO -- AND I READ THROUGH
THE FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN WE
CHARITY FOUNDATION OF CANADA AND
THE MINISTER'S OFFICE -- THE 
$500 MILLION PROGRAMME THAT WAS 
ALL FUNDS DIRECTLY GOING TO -- 
WELL SUPPOSED TO BE GOING TO 
$40,000 
>> THAT'S INCORRECT.
IT WAS UP TO $543 MILLION 
DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF 
VOLUNTEER HOURS OF SERVICE.
OUR ASSUMPTION BASED ON THE 
MODEL WE DID, THIS WOULD BE 
CLOSER TO 200 TO $300 MILLION 
BASED ON THE NUMBER OF 
VOLUNTEER.
>> SO 100,000 STUDENTS RECEIVING
APPROXIMATELY $3,000 EACH FOR 
VOLUNTEER HOURS ACROSS THE 
COUNTRY.
>> CORRECT.
>> AND THE WE CHARITY FOUNDATION
OF CANADA WAS TO HAVE MADE ZERO 
DOLLARS FROM ADMINISTRATING THIS
PROGRAMME, CORRECT?
>> THIS WAS ALL DONE AS PART OF 
AN EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 
INITIATIVE.
AND THAT'S HOW THE CONTRACT WAS 
SET UP.
IT'S ALL ABOUT ELIGIBLE EXPENSES
SO ALL THE DOLLARS SPECIFICALLY 
FOR THIS PROGRAMME NEEDED TO BE 
USED FOR THE PROGRAMME AND 
ANYTHING ELSE WOULD BE RETURNED 
BACK TO THE GOVERNMENT OF 
CANADA.
>> IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT THE 
CORPORATE ENTITIES AND, LOOK, I 
SAT ON THESE THE STANDARDS IN 
CANADA, IN MY PRIVATE LIFE, 
WHICH I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF 
DOING SO, AND I'VE LOOKED AT 
THOUSANDS OF FINANCIAL 
STATEMENTS ON A QUARTERLY OR 
ANNUAL BASIS AND UNDERSTANDING 
ORGANIZATIONS HOW THEY'RE 
STRUCTURED.
WHEN YOU ENTERED INTO THIS 
CONTRACT WITH THE PERTINENT 
FEDERAL AGENCIES IN TERMS OF THE
ADVICE YOU RECEIVED IN-HOUSE AND
OUTSIDE, IT WAS ADVISED TO YOU 
THAT YOU NEED TO STRUCTURE YOUR 
CORPORATION OR ENTITY TO RUN 
THIS PROGRAMME IN A CERTAIN 
MANNER, IS THAT NOT CORRECT?
>> SIR, CORRECT.
WE HAD ALREADY THE WE CHARITY 
FOUNDATION SPECIFIC RULE.
WE WERE GIVEN PROFESSIONAL 
ADVICE BASED ON THE SPECIFIC AND
VERY SIGNIFICANT REQUEST FROM 
THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO 
ENSURE THAT WE WERE ASSUMING 
FULL LIABILITY FOR THE FIRST 
40,000 YOUNG PEOPLE VOLUNTEERING
DURING A PANDEMIC, WE NEEDED TO 
HELP INSULATE LIABILITY BECAUSE 
OF THAT SITUATION.
>> AND I READ THE SECTION IN 
TERMS OF INDEMNIFICATION AND 
INSURANCE.
I UNDERSTAND THE INSURANCE WAS 
PURCHASED FOR AND YOU WERE 
RUNNING THIS PROGRAMME ON ZERO 
EARNED BASIS TO HAVE 100,000 
YOUNG PEOPLE ACROSS THIS 
COUNTRY, THIS EXTRAORDINARY 
PERIOD OF TIME IN CANADA'S 
HISTORY AND THE WORLD'S HISTORY,
BENEFITTING FROM THIS PROGRAMME.
THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE 
PROGRAMME.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, BASED ON THE 
SITUATION WITH SOME OF THE 
POLITICS AND SOME OF THE 
INACCURATE REPRESENTATIONS, THIS
HAS BEEN MISCHARACTERIZED.
WE SIMPLY WANTED TO HELP KIDS.
WE DID NOT ASK FOR THIS 
INITIATIVE.
THIS WAS REQUESTED OF US.
WE SIMPLY WANTED TO HELP.
WE WERE ASKED TO HELP.
AS CANADIANS WHO CARE DEEPLY 
ABOUT THESE ISSUES, WE PUT UP 
OUR HANDS.
>>ND DO YOU HAVE A TRACK RECORD.
I NEED TO POINT THAT OUT.
I'M NOT HERE TO ASK FAVORABLE OR
UNFAVORABLE QUESTIONS, BUT I 
WANT TO GET CLARIFICATIONS.
IN THE MEDIA IT'S BEEN REPORTED 
OUT THERE THAT THE DATA YOU 
FOLKS COLLECT, THAT YOU -- YOU 
KNOW, YOU HAVE THOUSANDS OF -- 
REGISTERING, YOUTH REGISTERING, 
VERY WELL INTENTIONED, THAT DATA
HAS NEVER BEEN SHARED AND THERE 
IS -- INVESTMENT BANKING, THERE 
IS ROLLING BETWEEN DIFFERENT 
SECTORS AND GROUPS, THAT DATA 
HAS NEVER BEEN SHARED TO A 
POLITICAL OR CORPORATE ENTITY, 
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> SIR, INDEED.
THEY MADE THAT ALLEGATION AND 
THIS IS ONE OF MULTIPLE 
ALLEGATIONS FRANKLY WE CAME HERE
TO ADDRESS AND CORRECT.
WITHOUT SOURCING BACK CHECKING 
AND WHAT WE'VE SOON ONLINE AND 
HEARD FROM INDIVIDUALS ON THIS 
AND OTHER MATTERS, IT'S SIMPLY 
FALSE.
WE HAVE A 25 YEAR RECORD AND 
HOPE THAT WILL BE JUDGED IN 
CONTEXT.
>> Chair: VERY SHORT QUESTION.
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, I WANT TO
REMIND EVERYONE, THE TWO 
GENTLEMEN THAT ARE HERE WITH US 
ARE UNDER OATH.
I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THEY 
ANSWERED THOSE QUESTIONS CLEARLY
AND GOT THEM ON THE RECORD.
I THANK YOU FOR THAT, CHAIR AND 
I'M FINISHED WITH THE QUESTIONS.
>> Chair: YOU HAD AN ADDITIONAL 
ANSWER THERE?
>> I WAS GOING TO ADD OUR MOTHER
IS 80 YEARS OLD, RETIRED 
SCHOOLTEACHER.
SHE SAYS DON'T BELIEVE 
EVERYTHING YOU READ ON TWITTER.
SO I WISH THAT ADVICE.
>> CHAIR, IF I COULD FINISH OFF 
MY 10 SECONDS.
I UNDERSTAND THE KIELBURGERS ARE
FROM THE THORNHILL PART OF YORK 
REGION WHICH IS NEIGHBOURING 
NEXT TO MY RIDING.
>> Chair: I THINK YOU'RE OUT OF 
TOWN.
>> MINISTER BARRETT.
>> YOUR ORGANIZATION BEGAN 
WORKING ON THE PROGRAMME WEEKS 
BEFORE THE OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
AND BEFORE IT WAS APPROVED BY 
CABINET AND YESTERDAY IN 
"TORONTO STAR", IT SAID THAT YOU
BEGAN INCURRING ELIGIBLE 
EXPENSES ON MAY 5TH.
SEEMS RISKY.
WHAT GROUNDS DID YOU HAVE TO DO 
THIS?
AND WHAT ASSURANCES DID YOU HAVE
FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA 
ABOUT SPENDING MONEY FOR THE 
PROGRAMME WAS APPROVED?
>> WE WANTED TO HELP.
THE DATE OF THE PROGRAMME LAUNCH
SHIFTED MANY TIMES.
THIS WAS ORIGINALLY SUPPOSED TO 
BE EARLY JUNE AND IT ENDED UP 
END OF JUNE.
WE WERE GIVEN NO FORMAL 
ASSURANCES.
WE TOOK THE RISK ITSELF.
>> WE RUN A CHARITY, THIS IS 
WHAT WE DO.
WE WERE WILLING TO TAKE THE RISK
AND SERVICE THE YOUNG PEOPLE.
>> SO A FEW TIMES YOU'VE SAID 
THAT THE GOVERNMENT REACHED OUT 
TO YOU.
TESTIFIED THAT ON APRIL 20TH, 
SHE TESTIFIED, THE NEXT DAY, MY 
MINISTER'S OFFICE CONNECTED WITH
WE CHARITY AND DISCUSSED THEIR 
ABILITY TO DELIVER VOLUNTEER 
OPPORTE AND INCREASE THEIR 
CURRENT PLACEMENT OF 8,000 TO 
DOUBLE.
SO IT SOUND LIKE THE -- THERE 
WAS A PROPOSAL MADE AND THE 
GOVERNMENT REWORKED THAT WITH 
YOU.
IT WASN'T THAT THEY PROACTIVELY 
REACHED OUT TO YOU.
YOU INITIATED FIRST CONTACT WITH
THE GOVERNMENT.
>> I'M GLAD YOU ASKED THIS, 
THANK YOU.
>> WE HAD SOCIAL 
ENTREPRENEURSHIP, SO THE TARGET 
AUDIENCE WAS OUT OF SCHOOL.
IT WAS A YEAR-LONG PROGRAMME.
IT WAS LINKING WITH CORPORATE 
CANADA AND THE PURPOSE WAS TO 
LAUNCH BUSINESS.
THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 
ESDC.
AND THE MONETARY WAS BETWEEN 8 
TO $14 MILLION FOR THE TOTAL 12 
MONTHS.
SO THIS WAS -- THIS WAS NOT AN 
ITERATIVE APPROACH.
THESE WERE TWO SEPARATE 
PROPOSALS.
>> HOW MANY VARIATIONS OF THOSE 
PROPOSALS DID YOU SUBMIT TO THE 
GOVERNMENT?
HOW MANY VARIATIONS OF ANY 
PROPOSAL DID YOU SUBMIT TO 
GOVERNMENT AFTER MARCH 1?
>> WE SUBMITTED ONE.
THERE WERE NO ITERATIONS.
SADLY, IT DID NOT GO ANYWHERE.
WE SUBMITTED ONE ON THE EARLY --
[INAUDIBLE]
-- WHICH GOT THE 19TH.
THAT WAS ON THE 22ND.
AND WE WORKED FOR ESDC WITH 
MULTIPLE ITERATIONS.
>> WOULD YOU BE PREPARED TO 
PROVIDE THE PROPOSALS TO THE 
COMMITTEE?
>> WE'LL CLEAR UP ONE OF THE 
QUESTIONS.
>> THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF $10 AN 
HOUR FOR VOLUNTEER SERVICE, 
WE'RE VERY MUCH CONCERNED ABOUT 
THAT.
WE VOICED THAT CONCERN AS AN 
EXAMPLE.
>> WE LOOK FORWARD TO READING 
THAT IN YOUR SUBMISSION.
>> SIR, JUST ONE MOMENT, PLEASE.
THESE ARE SOME OF THE PIECES WE 
FELT PASSIONATE ABOUT AS PART OF
THE PROCESS.
BUT WE WERE WORKING WITH WHAT 
WAS ASKED OF US.
>> WHICH MINISTERS OR 
MINISTERIAL OFFICES DID YOUR 
ORGANIZATION SEND PROPOSALS OF 
ANY KIND AFTER MARCH 1ST?
>> SAME STORY.
NG, CHAGGER, MORNEAU.
THE SECOND WAS SENT ON THE 22ND 
TO THOSE THREE MINISTERS.
>> POINT OF ORDER, POINT OF 
ORDER, MR. CHAIR.
MR. CHAIR?
>> GO AHEAD.
HAS THE -- RUN OUT OF QUESTIONS.
MR. POILIEVRE REPEATED MR. 
MORANTZ QUESTIONS AND NOW HE'S 
REPEATING THE PREVIOUS 
CONSERVATIVE QUESTIONS.
HAVE THEY RUN OUT OF QUESTIONS?
>> I DON'T THINK THAT'S A POINT 
OF ORDER.
YOU MADE YOUR POINT.
>> MR. CHAIR, MR. CHAIR --
>> ON THAT POINT OF ORDER, MR. 
CHAIR.
>> Chair: YES.
>> ON THE POINT OF ORDER, MY 
QUESTIONS ARE UNIQUE.
THEY ARE MINE TO ASK.
SHE WANTS TO PLAY DEFENCE FOR 
HER TEAM.
I'M LOOKING TO GET ANSWERS FOR 
CANADIANS.
IF I COULD CONTINUE MY TIME 
UNINTERRUPTED, I WOULD 
APPRECIATE IT.
>> Chair: YOU MAY CONTINUE YOUR 
TIME.
IT'S NOT A POINT OF ORDER IN ANY
EVENT AND YOU HAVE A MINUTE AND 
A HALF LAUGH.
>> WITH RESPECT TO EVENTS AROUND
WE DAY, WE HEARD THAT THE EVENT 
THAT MARGARET TRUDEAU SPOKE OF, 
SHE WASN'T PAID FOR THAT EVENT, 
WAS SHE PAID FOR OTHER EVENTS 
THAT WEEKEND?
>> NO, SIR, SHE WAS NOT.
WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.
>> WITH RESPECT TO THEO FLEURY, 
DID HE PARTICIPATE IN ANY EVENT 
OUTSIDE OF THE WE DAY STAGE?
>> I BELIEVE ONE.
WE HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR HIM.
HIS ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE OF WE DAY
WERE LIMITED, BUT I CAN'T ANSWER
THAT DIRECTLY.
>> SO HE WAS NOT REMUNERATIONED 
FOR THE HALO EVENTS?
>> WE'RE NOT SURE IT WAS THE 
HALO EVENTS.
BUT WHEN WE BRING IN SPEAKERS 
WHO ARE PAID IT'S FOR THE 
AUXILIARY EVENTS THAT ARE 
FORMALIZED -- ALLOW ME --
>> SIR --
>> 
>> I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT WAS
THE REASON HE WAS REMUNERATED.
A WONDERFUL PERSON.
AS ARE THE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE 
OVER THE WE DAY STAGE TO WELCOME
MILLIONS OF YOUNG CANADIANS.
>> 
>> Chair: LAST QUESTION.
>> WITH RESPECT TO THE CHANGE IN
THE FALL OF 2015 AND YOUR 
INTEREST IN PAYING MEMBERS OF 
THE TRUDEAU FAMILY TO SPEAK.
WAS THERE A PARTICULAR CHANGE IN
THEIR QUALIFICATION, OTHER THAN 
THAT JUSTIN TRUDEAU HAD BEEN 
ELECTED AS THE PRIME MINISTER?
BECAUSE I'VE HEARD BEFORE 
LIBERAL MEMBERS REALLY WANT TO 
TALK ABOUT THE WIFE OF FORMER 
PRIME MINISTER STEPHEN HARPER, 
LOREEN HARPER, DID HOST AN 
EVENT, SO THEY WERE KEENLY 
INTERESTED IN THAT.
SO I'M WONDERING IF MR. LAKE, 
MADAME HARPER, MR. PALLISTER, 
WERE THEY PAID BY YOUR 
ORGANIZATION OR DID THEY ENGAGE 
YOU WITH A HALF A BILLION DOLLAR
CONTRACT?
>> SIR, WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE
FACT THAT AS PREMIER, PREMIER 
PALLISTER DID A WELCOMING AT THE
BEGINNING.
WE APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT 
GIVEN HIS WORK FOR AUTISM AND 
THE MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT MIKE 
LAKE SPOKE WITH HIS SON MULTIPLE
TIMES ON THE WE DAY STAGE.
WE APPRECIATE THAT MARGARET 
TRUDEAU AS AN ACTIVIST ON MENTAL
HEALTH.
1 IN 5 CANADIANS, SIR, THIS IS A
MASSIVE ISSUE WITH YOUNG PEOPLE 
IN THE COUNTRY, WE INVITED HER 
TO COME AND SPEAK ON THE TOPIC 
AND NOT JUST THE WE DAY STAGE, 
BUT TO GO TO COUNTLESS EVENTS TO
RAISE AWARENESS TO HELP WITH 
DONATIONS RAISED FOR CHARITY.
THIS WAS A VERY SUCCESSFUL AND 
SMART THING FORT CHARITY.
WE DON'T DO MASS FUNDRAISING.
THIS IS HOW WE AS A CHARITY 
FURTHER OUR MISSION.
I APPRECIATE THE INTEGRITY OF 
THE QUESTION.
I SINCERELY DO, BUT SHE WAS 
THERE AS A MENTAL HEALTH 
ADVOCATE.
>> WE DID INVITE FORMER PRIME 
MINISTER HARPER MANY TIMES TO 
SPEAK AT EVENTS.
>> Chair: WE'LL GO FOR FIVE 
MINUTES, THEN TO MS. GAUDREAU 
FOR TWO AND A HALF AND MR. 
JULIAN.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I DO HAVE THREE QUESTIONS, BUT I
WANT TO CLARIFY QUICKLY.
THERE IS -- I WANT TO CLEAR UP 
THE MISPERCEPTION THAT THE ONLY 
PEOPLE PAID FOR AUXILIARY 
PROGRAMMES WERE IN THE TRUDEAU 
FAMILY.
CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE A LIST TO
US.
IT MIGHT NOT BE A LIST OF NAMES,
BECAUSE THERE ARE PRIVACY, BUT 
MAYBE EVEN A LIST TO SAY, IN 
2019, WE PAID 100 PEOPLE AND IT 
WAS THIS TYPE OF ARRANGEMENT.
JUST GIVE US SOME SORT OF 
DOCUMENT THAT PROVIDES US WITH 
DATA THAT SHOWS THERE HAS BEEN A
WHOLE BUNCH OF SPEAKERS PAID FOR
AUXILIARY PROGRAMMES AND IT'S 
NOT JUST THE TRUDEAU FAMILY.
WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO DO THAT?
>> I WANT TO CONFIRM UNDER OATH 
IT'S NOT THE TRUDEAU FAMILY.
VARIOUS SPEAKERS HAVE 
PARTICIPATED.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
AND ANOTHER COMMENT, MR. CRAIG 
KIELBURGER, YOU MENTIONED THAT 
MR. MORNEAU HAPPENED TO CALL YOU
AND DURING THE CONVERSATION -- 
IT WAS A CONVERSATION HE WAS 
ASKING IN GENERAL HOW THINGS 
WERE GOING AND YOU SAID YOU 
SUBMITTED THE ENTREPRENEURSHIP 
PROGRAMME.
CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY YOU 
SUBMITTED THE PROGRAMME AS 
OPPOSED TO DISCUSSING THE 
PROGRAMME?
>> CORRECT.
I SAID I SUBMITTED IT TO 
MINISTER NG AND WE DID NOT 
DISCUSS IT AT GREAT LENGTH.
>> NOW I'M GOING TO GET TO MY 
QUESTION.
ONE OF THE KEY THINGS WE HAVE TO
DETERMINE HERE IS HOW DID WE GET
TO SELECTING WE CHARITY.
CAN YOU FOR 20 SECONDS EXPLAIN 
WHAT SETS WE APART.
WHY IS IT THAT WE CHARITY WAS 
THE BEST AT ORGANIZATION TO --
>> POINT OF ORDER, MR. CHAIR.
POINT OF ORDER.
>> Chair: POINT OF ORDER.
>> JUST -- I JUST WANTED TO 
CONFIRM THAT SHE WAS CONCERNED 
THAT POINTS WERE BEING RESTATED,
SO SHE'S ASKING THEM TO RESTATE.
JUST WANT TO BE -- TRYING TO BE 
CONSISTENT, MR. CHAIR.
>> NOT RESTATING ANYTHING.
>> Chair: WE'LL NOT GET INTO AN 
ARGUMENT HERE.
WE'LL GO BACK TO QUESTIONS.
>> ALLOW ME TO ANSWER THE 
QUESTION THIS WAY.
IT'S WHAT THE CLERK OF THE PRIVY
COUNCIL SAID, RACHEL WERNICK.
25 YEARS, WE SERVICE PROGRAMMES,
WE HAVE THE LARGEST Facebook AND
SOCIAL MEDIA PRESENCE ENGAGING 
YOUTH COAST TO COAST TO COAST.
WE WORK WITH INDIGENOUS 
CANADIANS, NEW CANADIANS.
WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO BUILD 
SERVICE PROJECTS.
WE'VE DONE THIS TWICE IN THE 
PAST WITH THE THINK GROUPS AND 
WE WERE WILLING TO DO THIS AT A 
DROP OF A HAT.
WE THOUGHT THIS WAS SOMETHING 
THAT CANADA NEEDED.
I HAVE TO SAY, THE FALLOUT IS 
UNBELIEVABLE AND DAMAGING SO 
MANY OF THE SERVICE PROJECTS.
>> I HAVE TWO MORE QUESTIONS.
THERE WAS -- MS. DOUGLAS 
MENTIONED TO US THAT SHE HAD 
LEFT THE BOARD, REDESIGNED AND 
THERE WERE A -- RESIGNED AND 
THERE WERE A NUMBER OF BOARD 
MEMBERS THAT RESIGNED.
DOES THAT MEAN THERE WAS A GAP 
IN GOVERNANCE AND YOU DIDN'T 
HAVE PROPER GOVERNANCE FOR A 
PERIOD OF TIME?
HOW WAS THAT DEALT WITH WHEN MS.
DOUGLAS AND OTHER BOARD MEMBERS 
LEFT?
HOW WERE YOU SURE THERE WAS 
PROPER GOVERNANCE OF WE CHARITY?
>> DURING THE PANDEMIC, THE 
SENIOR STAFF AND MS. DOUGLAS HAD
A -- NATURE OF REPORTING A DAILY
ORAL BRIEFS WERE BEING PROVIDED 
OVER THE COURSE OF THE MONTH.
BUT WE RESPECT WHAT SHE WAS 
ASKING FOR IN WRITING.
DUE TO THE EXTRAORDINARY 
CIRCUMSTANCES THE TEAM WAS NOT 
ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT.
WE HAD A CONVERSATION.
I ASKED FOR THREE MORE MONTHS.
SHE DECIDED AT THAT MOMENT TO 
STEP ASIDE.
WE RESPECT THAT DECISION.
THAT TOOK PLACE.
SEPARATELY, THERE WAS A PLANNED 
RENEWAL PROCESS THAT TOOK PLACE 
WITH OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, SO ON 
A DIFFERENT SPACE POINT PERIOD, 
THE BOARD MEMBERS MADE A 
TRANSITION WHERE, TODAY, THREE 
OF THE EIGHT BOARD MEMBERS 
CONTINUE TO SERVE.
THEY SERVED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE
PROCESS.
THEY'RE THE HEAD OF FINANCE AND 
BOARD.
A FORMER BLACK ROCK INDIVIDUAL 
ARE HEAD OF THE PARTNER.
AND FORMER DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
OF TORONTO PUBLIC, ALL CONTINUE 
TO SERVE IN ADDITION TO FIVE 
INDIVIDUALS WHO JOINED WHO HAVE 
BEEN PRE-IDENTIFIED BEFORE THE 
PANDEMIC TO BRING THEIR SKILL 
SET.
I AM GRATEFUL TO MRS. DOUGLAS 
FOR HER SERVICE.
SHE'S RIGHT, WE HAVE TO DO 
BETTER, BUT THIS WAS PART OF A 
LARGER SLIGHTLY MORE NUANCED 
UNDERTAKING THAT TOOK PLACE.
>> I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.
THIS ACTUALLY IS ANOTHER THING 
THAT MS. DOUGLAS MENTIONED.
SHE HAD SAID THAT PART OF HER 
CONCERN WAS THERE WAS THE 
CAPACITY OF THE ORGANIZATION -- 
WELL, SORRY, A LOT OF THE 
LAYOFFS.
SHE SAID AROUND 400 OF THE 1 
THOUSAND WAS LAID OFF.
THERE WAS A HUGE CONCERN.
MY CONCERN WAS, WHEN WE WERE 
SELECTING WE CHARITY, DID YOU 
HAVE THE CAPACITY TO BE ABLE TO 
DELIVER THE PROGRAMMES?
IF YOU COULD ADDRESS THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
WE VERY MUCH HAD THE CAPACITY.
TO THE LAYOFFS WENT FROM 390 
EMPLOYEES AND WE WERE DOWN TO A 
TEAM OF 187.
SO THE TEAM WAS IMPACTED.
WE NEEDED TO MAKE STRONG 
DECISIONS BECAUSE OF THE 
PANDEMIC.
WE HAD AN ALUMNI NETWORK.
WE HAD A GROUP OF OTHER TEAM 
MEMBERS THAT WERE WILLING TO 
COME BACK ON SHORT-TERM 
CONTRACTS.
WE HAD RELATIONSHIPS WITH I HAD 
CATERS WHO WANTED TO -- 
EDUCATORS WHO WANTED TO HELP.
AND YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A GREAT 
NETWORK.
AND, YES, YOU KNOW, WE WERE VERY
MUCH READY.
HERE'S THE WONDERFUL THING ABOUT
THIS.
IT'S UNFORTUNATE, BUT AT LAUNCH,
WE WERE READY TO DO SOMETHING 
TRULY WONDERFUL FOR THESE YOUNG 
PEOPLE.
WE HAD 36,000 YOUNG PEOPLE 
SIGNED UP FOR THIS INITIATIVE.
64% WERE INDIVIDUALS OF MINORITY
POPULATIONS.
WE HAD TENS OF THOUSANDS OF 
VOLUNTEERS -- 
>> Chair: WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
MOVE ON TO MR. ANGUS, GENTLEMEN.
MR. ANGUS --
>> WE WERE READY TO DO SOMETHING
REALLY SPECIAL THANKS TO ALL THE
AMAZING PEOPLE AND THANKS TO THE
AMAZING TEAM.
>> Chair: OKAY.
SORRY, MS. GAUDREAU, YOU'RE NEXT
FOR THREE MINUTES AND THEN MR. 
ANGUS.
AND THEN ON TO MR. COOPER.
>> [Speaking French][Voice of 
Interpreter] SO I HAVE A 
QUESTION.
YOU MENTIONED THE FINANCIAL 
SITUATION OF WE CHARITY.
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE 
PRECARIOUSNESS OF IT.
AND THIS IS MY QUESTION.
OF ALL THE STATEMENTS YOU'VE 
MADE BECAUSE YOU REALLY TALKED 
ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS AND I 
REALLY APPRECIATE IT, WHAT ABOUT
THE MORE OR LESS $10 MILLION IN 
FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES?
I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE 
TO SAY ABOUT THAT?
>> THAT'S THE BANK COVENANT 
ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN 
MISREPRESENTED IN THE PRESS, 
PARTICULARLY BY ONE ORGANIZATION
CALLED CHARITY INTELLIGENCE.
SPECIFICALLY, THE BANK COVENANT 
ISSUE WAS REALLY NOT AN ISSUE.
WE DECIDED AND THE BOARD DECIDED
TO CHANGE OUR FINANCIAL YEAR 
FROM THE CALENDAR YEAR TO THE 
ACADEMIC YEAR.
BY DOING SO, WE WERE ENABLED TO 
BE FOCUSED ON THE PROGRAMMES 
DELIVERABLES BECAUSE IT WAS TIED
TO THE -- 
[INAUDIBLE]
-- HERE.
WE HAD TO DEFER A HIGHER AMOUNT 
OF REVENUE.
WE DID THIS KNOWINGLY.
AND BY THAT DEFERRAL, WE HAD A 
TECHNICAL BREACH OF THE BANK 
COVENANT.
THE ORGANIZATION WAS IN FINE 
FINANCIAL SHAPE AS A RESULT.
>> COULD I MAKE THAT -- AT THE 
END OF THE DAY, THE SAME AMOUNT 
OF MONEY WAS COMING IN, BUT THE 
YEAR SHORTENED BECAUSE WE HAD A 
DIFFERENT FISCAL YEAR AND THE 
MONEY WENT TO RECOGNIZE IN A 
LATER YEAR, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO 
RECOGNIZE THE MONEY WHERE YOU 
SPEND IT.
NO FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY AND THIS
IS SOMETHING MISREPRESENTED BY 
THIS WEBSITE FOR WHATEVER 
REASON, BUT THE ORGANIZATION WAS
IN A VERY SOLID OPERATIONAL 
STATE, INCLUDING EIGHT MONTHS OF
ASSETS AGAINST OUR LONG-TERM 
PLACEMENT.
>> [Speaking French][Voice of 
Interpreter] THANK YOU VERY 
MUCH.
I WAS WONDERING IF ANYBODY FROM 
THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE 
CONTACTED YOU EITHER TO OBTAIN 
INFORMATION ON DOCUMENTS 
REGARDING YOUR FINANCIAL 
SITUATION OR IF THEY ASKED ABOUT
THE AUDITING SYSTEM YOU HAD IN 
PLACE FOR WE CHARITY OR WE 
CHARITY FOUNDATION?
>> THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE 
WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE VETTING 
FOR THE GRANT.
IT WAS THE ESDC.
SO NO ONE FROM THE PRIME 
MINISTER'S OFFICE CONTACTED US.
>> OKAY.
>> [Speaking French][Voice of 
Interpreter] OKAY, SO WHEN WE 
HAVE A NEW CONTRACT COMING UP, 
THERE IS A NEW -- THERE IS 
OBLIGATION TO DO THEIR DUE 
DILIGENCE.
DO YOU KNOW IF THE GOVERNMENT 
DID THIS DUE DILIGENCE TO ENSURE
THAT YOU HAD THE MEANS TO 
DELIVER?
[End of Translation] 
>> I WOULD DEFER THE QUESTION TO
THE GOVERNMENT, BUT RACHEL 
WERNICK FIRST VISITED OUR 
OPERATIONS IN 2017.
TOURED OUR BROADCAST FACILITY, 
THE CLASSROOM, SKYPE POD.
WE HOST SCHOOL GROUPS ON A 
REGULAR BASIS.
SAW WHAT WE WERE DEVELOPING IN 
THE NEIGHBOURHOOD, HOSTING OTHER
ENTREPRENEURS.
OVER THE YEARS, WE'D HAD 
MULTIPLE GRANTS WITH THE SBC --
>> [Speaking French][Voice of 
Interpreter] YOU DIDN'T OPEN UP 
YOUR BOOKS?
>> IT'S ACCESSED BY THE 
GOVERNMENT.
I DEFER WHETHER THEY LOOK AT 
THEM.
>> Chair: LAST QUESTION.
>> [Speaking French][Voice of 
Interpreter] SO YOU MENTIONED 
THAT YOU HAVE DONATIONS FROM 
VARIOUS DONORS.
WHAT KIND OF DONORS DO YOU 
ATTRACT EITHER FOR YOUR 
FOUNDATION OR WE CHARITY.
COULD YOU GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES?
>> CERTAINLY.
THE DONORS RANGE FROM, YOU KNOW,
YOUNG PEOPLE COLLECT MILLIONS 
OF -- 140 MILLION PENS ONE YEAR 
THAT WENT TO SUPPORT CLEAN WATER
PROJECTS AROUND THE WORLD, TO 
GROUPS THAT FUND OUR OPERATIONS.
WE RECEIVED EVERYTHING FROM THE 
GATES FOUNDATION HAS FUNDED OUR 
PROGRAMMES, SUPPORT TO YOU KNOW 
CANADIAN WELL KNOWN GROUPS THAT 
HAVE -- ALL WALKS OF LIFE.
>> IT'S A WIDE VARIETY OF 
SUPPORT AND WE'RE PROUD OF THAT.
>> Chair: TURNING THEN TO MR. 
ANGUS, FOLLOWED BY MR. COOPER.
WELCOME, MR. ANGUS, THREE 
MINUTES.
THEN ON TO MR. COOPER.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
WE ARE HERE BECAUSE OF CONFLICT 
OF INTEREST.
WE HAVE TWO UNPRECEDENTED 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE PRIME 
MINISTER, INTO THE FINANCE 
MINISTER AND CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST IN THEIR RELATIONS WITH
YOU.
AND SO WHEN THE BOARD OF THE 
CHAIR -- WHEN THE CARE CHAIR OF 
THE BOARD WAS SHOCKED TO LEARN 
THE TRUDEAU MEMBERS WERE PAID --
[please stand by]
 -- PUSHED OUT A DOCUMENT TO
VARIOUS MINISTERS, THAT'S YOU
LOBBYING, AND YET YOU'RE NOT
REGISTERED TO LOBBY AND YOU'RE
VERY SURPRISED AND CAN'T
UNDERSTAND HOW THIS ALL, YOU
KNOW, IS GOING WRONG FOR YOU.
THE REASON WE HAVE THE LOBBYING
REGISTRY IS SO WE CAN TRACK HOW
GROUPS LIKE YOURS INTERACT WITH
GOVERNMENT.
WITH YOU GOING UNDER THE RADAR,
WE DON'T HAVE A CLUE, SO WE HAVE
TO TRUST YOU.
BUT I THINK THE ISSUE IS IS IT
BECAUSE OF THE ISSUE OF
CONFLICT, THE ISSUE THAT WE HAVE
TWO INVESTIGATIONS ON-GOING,
POSSIBLY A THIRD NOW WITH
MR. MORNEAU?
THE FACT THAT YOU DIDN'T BOTHER
TO REGISTER TO LOBBY AND YET
YOU'RE PROMOTING A PROJECT
THAT'S GOING TO NET HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
I JUST DON'T SEE HOW GUYS AS
SOPHISTICATED AS YOU DON'T
RECOGNIZE THE OBLIGATION TO
FOLLOW WHAT EVERY OTHER CHARITY
IN THE COUNTRY DOES, TO
REGISTER, TO BE TRACKED, SO
THERE'S ACCOUNTABILITY.
IT'S THE LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY
THAT'S REALLY GIVEN US A HARD
TIME BELIEVING YOU.
>> I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THE
THREE-PART QUESTION.
NUMBER ONE, AS TO MARGARET
TRUDEAU AND HER SPEAKING, SHE
WOULD COME TO MULTIPLE AUXILIARY
EVENTS.
IF THE DECISION IS MADE BY
PARLIAMENT THAT THE MOTHER OF
THE PRIME MINISTER SHOULD NOT BE
ABLE TO SPEAK AT EVENTS, WE
WOULD HAPPILY FULFILL THAT.
SHE SPEAKS TO MULTIPLE
CHARITIES.
AND EVERYTHING MY MOTHER TELLS
ME TO DO, I DON'T DO.
>> YOU WERE BUYING THE NAME,
COME ON.
>> MR. ANGUS, YOU TOOK ABOUT TWO
MINUTES TO ASK THE QUESTION, I'M
GOING TO GIVE THEM THE TIME TO
ANSWER.
>> NUMBER TWO, SIR, AS PER
LOBBYING, WE'VE SPOKEN AT THIS
EXTENSIVELY, WE'RE HAPPY TO
SPEAK FURTHER, SIR, THAT BASED
ON UNDERSTANDING, IT IS A
CALCULATION ON TIME, THAT
UNDERSTANDING IS SUCH THAT WE
HAVE LOOKED AT THAT MATTER.
WE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE
DESCRIBING BEFORE APRIL, WE HAVE
HAD MINIMAL FEDERAL FUNDING AND
MINIMAL TIME INVOLVED IN THE --
>> SO YOU NEVER REACHED OUT FOR
FUNDING BEFORE --
>> MR. ANGUS, PLEASE.
>> COME ON.
>> THAT'S NOT THE APPROPRIATE
DEFINITION OF LOBBYING, SIR, AND
I BELIEVE YOU KNOW THAT.
>> WELL, I THINK YOU WOULD
UNDERSTAND IT WELL, TOO.
>> AND NUMBER THREE, WITH GREAT
RESPECT, WE TRUST WITH CHILDREN
FOR --
>> I DON'T TRUST YOU NOW.
MY CHILDREN DID GO THROUGH YOUR
PROGRAM, MY CHILDREN LEARNED SO
MUCH FROM YOU GUYS WHEN YOU WERE
A MUCH YOUNGER OPERATION BUT I
SEE HOW MANY YOUNG PEOPLE,
SOMEONE WHO WROTE ABOUT LEAVING
WE, ABOUT YOUR DISREGARD, THE
TOXIC WORK ENVIRONMENT, THE
DISREGARD FOR RIGHTS, HOW WE
CAME ANOTHER PRIVATE SECTOR
COMPANY --
>> POINT OF ORDER, CHAIR.
>> MR. ANGUS, DO YOU HAVE -- MIX
OF SUN AND CLOUD
[Indiscernible Conversation]
--
>> PRIVATE SECTOR COMPANY --
>> MR. SORBARA, A POINT OF
ORDER.
>> MY DAUGHTER, SO I THINK --
>> POINT OF ORDER ON THE FLOOR,
MR. ANGUS.
A POINT OF ORDER ON THE FLOOR.
MR. SORBARA.
>> CHAIR, DEPUTY ANGUS WAS
ASKING A SET OF QUESTIONS AND
VEERED OFF TO SOMETHING THAT WAS
NOT RELEVANT TO WHAT HIS
QUESTION WERE AND WHAT WE'RE
DISCUSSING TODAY.
>> OKAY, IT'S NOT -- GO TO YOUR
QUESTIONS.
>> I THINK IT'S JUST VERY SIMPLE
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S -- MY
DAUGHTERS, YOU GUYS CHANGED
THEIR LIFE, AND I THINK THAT'S
FAIR, AND I WANT TO PUT THAT ON
THE RECORD BUT THEY TALK TO A
LOT OF FORMER WE STAFF,
INCLUDING ONE WHO SAID THAT WE
BECAME ANOTHER PRIVATE COMPANY
WHO'S NUMBER ONE AIM IS MONEY
AND I WANT TO WORK AT AN
ORGANIZATION WHERE FEAR IS NOT
USED AS A TACTIC TO ACHIEVE AN
END.
>> OKAY.
>> THAT'S WHAT I HEAR FROM THE
YOUNG PEOPLE THAT MY DAUGHTERS
WORK WITH SO I THOUGHT THAT
SHOULD BE ON THE RECORD.
>> THAT'S YOUR FINAL QUESTION.
>> THAT'S MY FINAL QUESTION.
>> AND I'LL LET THE KIELBURGERS
ANSWER THAT AND WHEN THEY'RE
ANSWERING IT, I WANT THEM TO
TELL US, BECAUSE I'VE HEARD
DIFFERENT TESTIMONY ON THIS
TODAY, MR. ANGUS SAID IN HIS
REMARKS THAT GOING TO NET
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS,
I WANT YOU TO ANSWER THAT
QUESTION AS WELL.
>> SIR, WE ARE NOT A PRIVATE
COMPANY.
WE CHARITY IS A CHARITY.
AND I KNOW -- IS A FRIEND OF
YOURS AND HE'S BEEN SPREADING
FALSE INFORMATION, TOO.
>> ACTUALLY, HE'S NOT A FRIEND
OF MINE.
>> MR. ANGUS --
>> HE'S NOT A FRIEND OF MINE.
>> YOU ARE DONE.
CHARLIE --
>> DON'T SAY HE'S A FRIEND.
THAT'S CHEAP.
DO TRIG THING.
>> I WOULD APPRECIATE IF THE
FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.
THE FACTS IS SIMPLE.
ME TO WE SOCIAL ENTERPRISE
HUNDRED PERCENT OF PROVINCES
HAVE GONE TO SOCIAL GOOD.
WE CHARITY IS A REGISTERED
CHARITY.
THE IMPACTS OF OUR PROGRAMS THAT
HAVE BEEN TORN APART IN THIS
POLITICAL PROCESS DUE TO THE
FACT THAT 70 MILLION HOURS
LOGGED BY CANADIAN YOUTH WHO
VOLUNTEER, 7,000 SCHOOLS.
SIR, GLOBALLY, 1500 SCHOOLS
SINCE CLASSROOMS BUILT, 200,000
CHILDREN GOING THROUGH, A
MILLION PEOPLE WITH CLEAN
WATER --
>> YOU DIDN'T ANSWER ABOUT THE
TOXIC WORK ENVIRONMENT.
>> AND WE BELIEVE THAT AS A
CANADIAN CHARITY, IT SHOULD NOT
BE DRAGGED OVER THE COALS FOR
POLITICAL PURPOSES.
>> WELL, IF YOU REGISTERED TO
LOBBY --
>> SORRY, MR. ANGUS, YOUR TIME
IS DONE.
NOW I'M GOING TO ASK THIS
QUESTION MYSELF BECAUSE YOU SAID
EARLIER, YOU SAID EARLIER THAT
YOU BASICALLY -- WE WOULD NOT
MAKE MONEY OUT OF THIS, THERE'S
BASICALLY BEEN AN ACCUSATION
HERE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO NET
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
WOULD YOU ANSWER THAT CLEARLY,
PLEASE.
I WANT IT CLEAR ON THE RECORD
WHERE THIS IS AT.
>> SIR, IF WE COULD ANSWER ON
TWO LEVELS.
NUMBER ONE, THE CSSG, WE WERE
ONLY BEING REIMBURSED FOR COST.
>> PERIOD.
>> WE WOULD HAVE MADE NO MONEY
AT ALL ON THIS GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM.
AND SECONDLY, SIR, ON A PERSONAL
LEVEL, AND WE'VE HEARD SOME VERY
UNFORTUNATE THINGS AND I'D LIKE
TO SPEAK TO THIS FOR A MOMENT,
AS A PERSONAL LEVEL, AS TO OUR
FAMILY, OUR FAMILY, AND PARENTS
ARE DRAGGED INTO THIS, OUR
80-YEAR-OLD PARENTS.
>> POINT OF ORDER, MR. CHAIR.
POINT OF ORDER, MR. CHAIR.
>> The Chair: WHAT'S YOUR
POINT OF ORDER?
>> YOU USED AN INTERVENTION TO
MAKE A POINT ABOUT THE AMOUNT
THAT HAS BEEN NETTED BY THIS
ORGANIZATION.
THEY CONTINUE TO SAY, WELL, THEY
WERE JUST GETTING EXPENSES
REIMBURSED.
WELL, THAT'S OF COURSE THE CASE.
WE ALL KNEW THAT ALL ALONG.
WHEN THEY PAY EXPENSES TO
THEMSELVES, THAT WOULD BE
REIMBURSED UNDER THIS
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT.
>> The Chair: I THINK WE'RE
INTO --
>>  -- A PROFIT IN ORDER FOR
SOMEONE TO BENEFIT.
[Indiscernible Conversation]
>> The Chair: INTO DEBATE,
IT'S NOT A POINT OF ORDER.
>> IT IS A POINT OF ORDER.
>> The Chair: NO, IT'S NOT.
>> AND A NECESSARY ONE.
>> The Chair: IT'S A POINT OF
DEBATE.
AND WHEN A MEMBER ALLEGES THAT
THERE'S GOING TO NET HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, THAT NEEDS
TO BE CLEARED UP BECAUSE WE HAVE
DIFFERENT INFORMATION ON THE
RECORD.
AND I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS FACT.
>> POINT OF ORDER, MR. CHAIR.
POINT OF ORDER.
[Indiscernible Conversation]
>> I KNOW THAT YOU'RE REALLY
GOING OUT OF YOUR WAY HERE, BUT
I NEVER SAID THAT THE KIELBURGER
ORGANIZATION WAS GOING TO BE
MAKING THAT HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS -- HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS
WERE GOING TO FLOW THROUGH THEIR
ORGANIZATION AND THEY WERE
CERTAINLY GOING TO GET MONEY OUT
OF THAT TO COVER AND FOR A GROUP
THAT WAS JUST IN FINANCIAL
FREEFALL IN MARCH, THIS IS
CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT COULD
BE SEEN AS SO HOW MUCH THEY
ACTUALLY GET, WE DON'T KNOW,
MR. CHAIR, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
HERE TO INVESTIGATE.
>> The Chair: MR. ANGUS, YOUR
EXACT WORDS, WERE GOING TO NET
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS,
I WROTE IT DOWN.
LET'S HAVE CLARITY ON THE POINT.
THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR.
WE NEED TO ESTABLISH THE FACTS.
AND SO IF YOU, GENTLEMEN, IF YOU
COULD ESTABLISH THAT, WE WILL GO
ON TO MR. COOPER FOLLOWED BY
MR. FRASER, MR. CUMMINGS AND MS.
>> I WANT TO BE EXPLICITLY
CLEAR, SIR, THIS WAS A
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT.
WE WERE NOT KNELTING HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, THAT IS NOT
CORRECT.
 -- NETTING.
SIR, WE WERE DOING THIS AS A
REQUEST FROM THE MPC AND ONLY
REIMBURSED FOR EXPENSES.
>> PAID TO YOURSELF.
PAID TO YOURSELF.
>> THAT'S NOT CONTRADICT.
>> IT'S CORRECT.
IT'S RIGHT IN THE AGREEMENT.
IT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
>> The Chair: MR. POILIEVRE,
LET'S HAVE SOME ORDER.
>> SIR --
>> WE DO ALREADY.
IT'S IN THE AGREEMENT.
>> The Chair: MR. POILIEVRE,
YOU'RE ON THE LIST LATER ON IF
WE GET THAT FAR.
SO MR. CRAIG --
>> YOU'RE GOING TO PAY THE
EXPENSES TO YOURSELF.
>> The Chair: MR. POILIEVRE.
>> SIR, THAT'S ACTUALLY
INCORRECT, AND, SIR, THE
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT --
>> 18.4.
>> SIR, PLEASE, WITH A
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT DEFINES
EXACTLY THE EXPENSES --
>> RECIPIENT MAY ENTER INTO
CONTRACT FOR GOODS AND
SERVICES --
>> The Chair: MR. POILIEVRE --
>> FROM WE CHARITY, ME TO WE
FOUNDATION.
>> The Chair: MR. POILIEVRE.
>> WITHOUT PROVIDER CONSENT OR
APPROVAL.
>> The Chair: MR. POILIEVRE,
DO I HAVE TO SUSPEND THIS
MEETING BECAUSE ILL?
NOW THERE WILL BE ORDER AND I'LL
SUSPEND THE MEETING, AND THAT'S
IT.
IT'S YOUR CHOICE.
MR. CRAIG, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
>> SIR, EVERY ENTITY THAT WAS
PARTY TO THE CONTRACT WAS HELD
TO THE SAME STANDARDS.
THE CONTRACT -- THE CONTRIBUTION
AGREEMENT CLEARLY IDENTIFIED
ELIGIBLE EXPENSES, ELIGIBLE --
>> POINT OF ORDER, MR. CHAIR.
>>  -- IN IMPLEMENTING --
>> POINT OF ORDER, MR. CHAIR.
>> The Chair: WHAT'S YOUR
POINT OF ORDER?
>> WHAT IS THE STATUS NOW, YOU
ENTERED THE WHOLE MEETING INTO A
DEBATE, WHO'S GOT THE FLOOR,
WHO'S --
>> The Chair: THE PERSON WHO
HAS THE FLOOR, I ASKED FOR A
POINT OF CLARIFICATION ON THE
GOING TO NET HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
>> WHO IS NEXT?
>> The Chair: NEXT ON THE LIST
IS MR. COOPER.
>> RIGHT.
>> The Chair: FOLLOWED BY
MR. FRASER, THEN MR. CUMMINGS,
MS. KOUTRAKIS.
FINAL EASE YOUR
FL
GO ON TO MR. COOPER.
>> LET'S BE CLEAR, THE
ORGANIZATIONS PARTY TO THE
AGREEMENT WERE ALL REGISTERED
CHARITY.
>> AND HAVE THE SAME AUDIT, ANY
MONEY SPENT NOT DIRECTLY ON
IMPLEMENTATION HAS TO BE
RETURNED TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
>> The Chair: OKAY, THANK YOU.
AND MEMBERS DO HAVE COPIES OF
THE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT FOR
THEIR READING PLEASURE AND TO
DETERMINE THE FACTS OF THAT
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT.
MR. COOPER, FIVE MINUTES,
FOLLOWED BY MR. FRASER.
>> RIGHT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND TO THE KIELBURGERS, YOU
INDICATED IN YOUR TESTIMONY THAT
EFDC HAD REPRESENTED TO YOU THAT
ELIGIBLE COSTS WOULD BE COVERED
EFFECTIVE MAY THE 5th, THAT
THAT OCCURRED AROUND THAT TIME,
AND THE COSTS WERE INCURRED.
WHO AT ESDC MADE THAT ASSURANCE?
>> IT WAS PART OF THE
CONVERSATION AND THE NEGOTIATION
WITH THE ESDC TEAM.
>> WHO WAS THE PERSON?
>> THE LEGAL TEAM FROM ESDC, OF
COURSE RACHEL WERNICK WAS --
>> IS IT INTERESTING THAT
MS. WERNICK NEVER MENTIONED THAT
IN HER TESTIMONY.
>> SIR, SHE WAS AWARE OF ALL THE
DETAILS OF THE CONTRIBUTION
AGREEMENT.
>> CODIFIED IN THE CONTRIBUTION
AGREEMENT.
>> AND THAT WAS BEFORE THE COVID
COMMITTEE HAD APPROVED THE
PROPOSAL BEFORE, INDEED IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN ON OR THE DAY BEFORE
YOUR MAY 4th PROPOSAL WAS
SUBMITTED, AND YOU GOT THAT
ASSURANCE.
>> SIR, OTHERWISE THE LAUNCH OF
THE PROGRAM IN TERMS OF OUR
SIGNATURE OF THE PROGRAM, THE
LAUNCH WOULD HAVE BEEN TWO DAYS
LATER.
HOW ELSE WOULD WE HAVE HAD
20,000 VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES
ALREADY, HOW ELSE --
>> YOU JUST WANTED TO PUT UP
YOUR HAND -- YOU JUST WANTED TO
PUT UP YOUR HAND AFTER YOU HAD
LAID OFF HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE A
MONTH LATER, SOME ASSURANCE.
NOW, I WANT TO ASK YOU --
[Indiscernible Conversation]
>> The Chair: WE'LL GO TO THE
QUESTION AND THEN WE'LL COME TO
THE ANSWER.
MR. COOPER, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
>> I WANT TO GO THROUGH SOME OF
THE PROPOSALS THAT YOU'VE
SUBMITTED, AND YOU'VE GONE
THROUGH THEM, AND THERE WAS ONE
ON APRIL 9th, THERE WAS ONE ON
APRIL 22nd, THERE WAS ONE ON
MAY 4th, RIGHT?
>> THE MAY 4th YOU'RE
REFERRING TO, SIR, THERE WAS ONE
ON THE 9th ON YOUTH
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND ONE ON --
>> FINE, I'M REFERRING TO
MS. KOVACHIC, SHE SAID THERE WAS
ONE SHE RECEIVED FROM ESDC ON
MAY 7th SUBMITTED ON MAY 4th
THAT HAD BEEN PROVIDED BY WE
CHARITY.
THAT'S WHAT I'M REFERRING TO.
>> I DEFER TO MISS KOVACIC.
>> THERE WERE TWO PROPOSALS, AND
ONE WAS ABOUT A TEN-PAGE
PROPOSAL, THE OTHER WAS A
22-PAGE PROPOSAL.
WHO WAS INVOLVED IN PREPARING
THOSE PROPOSALS?
>> CERTAINLY, SIR.
I'D BE HAPPY TO SPEAK TO YOU.
THE FIRST WHICH YOU REFERENCE AS
A TEN-PAGE, THAT WAS A PROPOSAL
WE ALREADY HAD ON YOUTH
ENTREPRENEURSHIP THAT WE
REPURPOSED WITHIN SHORT ORDER TO
SERVE ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE
ON PREY SURESHIP.
THE -- I'M NOT SURE OF THE WORD
COUNT, BUT I BELIEVE YOU, THE
22-PAGE INCLUDED THE ORIGINAL
ONE ON YOUTH ENTREPRENEURSHIP
AND A SECOND ONE THAT WAS
CREATED AT THE REQUEST OF
MS. WERNICK ON HOW A NATIONAL
SERVICE INITIATIVE COULD BE
CREATED AS TO THE POLICY
OBJECTIVES OF WHAT SHE HAD
IDENTIFIED.
SO WE SUBMITTED BOTH TOGETHER
EXPRESSING OUR --
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
NOW, WHO WAS INVOLVED IN
PREPARING IT, HOW MANY PEOPLE,
BOTH PROPOSALS?
>> IT'S A GOOD QUESTION, SIR, I
HAVE TO GET THE EXACT BUT WE
HAVE A STRATEGY TEAM, WE HAVE A
FINANCE TEAM, WE HAVE A YOUTH
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT
TEAM, SO WE WOULD HAVE, IN A
VARIETY OF MANNERS, POTENTIALLY
PEOPLE INVOLVED, BUT IT WAS
ENTIRELY A WORD DOCUMENT SO I
THINK ONE PERSON TOOK THE LEAD
IN TYPING UP THE PAGES SO I
THINK IT WAS ONE TOOK THE
PRIMARY LEAD.
>> BUT WE HAD A WHOLE TEAM
WORKING ON IT.
>> OF COURSE A WHOLE TEAM AND
THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN DOING
THINGS INCLUDING RESEARCH,
PLANNING --
>> WELL, WE TURNED IT AROUND A
DAY LATER.
SHE ASKED US ON THE 19th, WE
GAVE IT TO HER ON THE 20th.
>> WE HAD A WHOLE SERIES OF WORK
ALREADY ON SOCIAL
ENTREPRENEURSHIP.
>> AND WE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED A
WHITE PAPER TO THE GOVERNMENT ON
THIS VERY TOPIC.
>> YOU TURNED IT OVER TO HER ON
THE 22nd.
>> SO IT WAS DATED AS YOU'LL
NOTE ON THE 21st.
>> OKAY.
HOW MANY HOURS WOULD HAVE BEEN
INVOLVED IN RESEARCHING,
COMPILING INFORMATION --
>> I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE
SPEAKING TO GET AT HERE.
THE SIMPLE MATTER OF THIS, SIR,
IS THAT WE HAVE VAST -- I'M
HAPPY TO WALK YOU THROUGH THE
DOCUMENTS, ANYONE ON THE
COMMITTEE, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE
DOCUMENTS, HOW IT'S STRUCTURED
IS -- PRETTY QUICK TO PUT
TOGETHER, OVERVIEW OF OUR
PREVIOUS NATIONAL SERVICE
PROGRAMS.
WE CUT AND PASTE THOSE.
OUR BEST PRACTISES --
>> SO I'D ASK YOU A QUESTION, I
DIDN'T ASK -- I HAVE THE TWO
PROPOSALS, I'VE GONE THROUGH
THEM, I'M JUST ASKING YOU GIVE
ME A NUMBER, APPROXIMATE HOW
MANY HOURS.
>> A HANDFUL OF HOURS, SIR, IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN A PRETTY QUICK
TURN-AROUND.
>> A HANDFUL, YOU'RE UNDER OATH,
A HANDFUL OF HOURS TO DO THE
RESEARCH AND PREPARATION FOR THE
APRIL 9th REPORT.
>> OH, FOR THE APRIL 9th,
FORGIVE ME.
>> THERE ARE TWO PROPOSALS HERE.
>> THE APRIL 9th ONE --
>> I'M ASKING YOU IN THE
AGGREGATE.
>> APRIL 9th WAS A
PRE-EXISTING PROPOSAL THAT WE
ALREADY HAD.
SO THAT ONE WAS STRETCHED OVER
NOW MONTHS, TWO YEARS WE'VE BEEN
TRYING TO GET A SOCIAL
ENTREPRENEURSHIP ASPECT OFF THE
GROUND.
>> The Chair: LAST QUESTION,
MR. COOPER.
>> COULD YOU JUST PROVIDE A
NUMBER?
>> OVER TWO YEARS?
>> NO, JUST THE NUMBER WITH
RESPECT TO THE SECOND PROPOSAL.
>> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A HANDFUL
OF HOURS.
>> The Chair: THERE YOU GO.
MR. FRASER FOLLOWED BY
MR. CUMMING AND THEN ON TO
MS. KOUTRAKIS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I'LL START BY JUST SAYING HOW
FRUSTRATING IT'S BEEN TO BE A
PART OF THIS COMMITTEE MEETING.
I AM GLAD THAT WE'VE GOT AMPLE
TIME, THANKFULLY.
THE INABILITY OF MEMBERS TO
REMAIN SILENT WHEN IT'S NOT
THEIR TURN TO SPEAK IS DEEPLY
DISCOURAGING.
I FIND IT DISRESPECTFUL.
THESE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS
THAT WE LEARN HOW TO DO IN
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
WITH RESPECT, I KNOW THERE WAS
SOME CONTROVERSY OVER THE POINT
MADE BY MR. ANGUS ABOUT HOW MUCH
MONEY HAD GONE.
THIS IS A THEME THE NDP HAS BEEN
PUSHING FOR WEEKS NOW.
I NOTE THAT THE LEADER OF THE
NDP HAS PUT OUT A FALSE TWEET
SUGGESTING THAT THE PRIME
MINISTER HAS GIVEN $900 MILLION
TO HIS WELL-CONNECTED FRIENDS AT
WE.
THESE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS
THAT WE DEAL WITH AND YOU KIND
YOU ROLL YOUR EYES OVER.
THERE'S SOMETHING I WANT TO
FIGURE OUT BECAUSE THERE'S A
LEGITIMATE ISSUE GOING ON.
WE'VE ALREADY HAD THE ISSUE
DISCUSSED TODAY ABOUT THE FACT
THAT THE PRIME MINISTER'S MOTHER
IS A WELL-KNOWN MENTAL HEALTH
ADVOCATE, BUT WHEN I FIRST SAW
THAT THERE WAS IN FACT A PAYMENT
THAT WENT TO HER AND THAT THE
GOVERNMENT OF WHICH HER SON IS
THE PRIME MINISTER AWARDED A
SIGNIFICANT PIECE OF WORK TO
HAVE THIS STUDENT GRANT
ADMINISTERED, I THOUGHT, OKAY,
LET'S LOOK INTO THIS WHEN THE
OPPOSITION PITCHED THE STUDY,
AND I WON'T PRE-JUDGE WHAT
ANSWERS I HEAR.
I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS
ABOUT THOSE PAYMENTS AND WHETHER
THEY WERE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE
OF THINGS FOR AN ORGANIZATION
LIKE YOURS.
WHAT I'M REALLY CURIOUS ABOUT,
IS THIS THE KIND OF THING YOU DO
OFTEN?
YOU SAID THERE WERE OTHER
SPEAKERS THAT HAD COMPARABLE
RATES.
WHO WERE THEY, HOW MUCH DID THEY
GET PAID AND WAS IT TO A SIMILAR
SCALE MADAM TRUDEAU WAS PAID OR
MUCH DIFFERENT, HOW ARE YOU
ARRIVING AT THESE RATES?
WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
HERE IS IF THERE'S A HABIT OF
THE ORGANIZATION FOR GIVING
SIGNIFICANT GRANTS EXCLUSIVELY
TO THE GOVERNING PARTY OF THE
COUNTRY, THEN I THINK THERE'S
SOMETHING THAT WE GOT TO LOOK
INTO.
IF THIS IS THE KIND OF THING
WHERE YOU TAKE NOTABLE SPEAKERS
WITH EXPERTISE IN DIFFERENT
AREAS AND IT WAS MORE OR LESS
MAR FOR THE COURSE, I'M ALSO
INTERESTED IN SHOWING THAT.
SO IF YOU COULD GIVE ME ANSWERS
ON HOW MUCH YOUR OTHER SPEAKERS
WERE PAID, WHO WERE THEY AND THE
NATURE OF HOW THOSE
RELATIONSHIPS EVOLVED, I WOULD
BE VERY INTERESTED.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION,
OF COURSE.
IT WAS PAR FOR THE COURSE.
ONCE AGAIN, PEOPLE THAT WANT TO
DO THAT, IT WAS ANTANAS
SILEIKAARY
 AY
EVENT.
WE HAVE 137 WE DAYS SINCE WE
STARTED WHERE WE ASK INDIVIDUALS
TO GIVE THEIR TIME, USUALLY ONE
OR TWO ANCILLARY DAYS OUTSIDE
THE WE DAY.
WE NEED SOME SUPPORT FOR THAT
PROCESS, IT'S NOT JUST THE WE
DAY, TO BE REALLY, REALLY CLEAR,
IT'S ANCILLARY EVENTS.
WE NEED TO BE RESPECTFUL TO
OTHER SPEAKERS BUT WE CAN
CONFIRM VERY MUCH THIS IS THE
REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS AND
MADAM TRUDEAU HAS BEEN ON THE
LOWER END OF SOME OF THOSE
PAYMENTS.
AND SHE CAME NOT BECAUSE SHE WAS
MADAM TRUDEAU, SHE CAME BECAUSE
MENTAL HEALTH IS A VERY
IMPORTANT ASPECT OF OUR WORK AND
I WANT TO SAY THAT OVER AND OVER
AGAIN AS A REMARKABLE MENTAL
HEALTH ADVOCATE, SHE HELPED US
FULFILL OUR MISSION.
>> AND TO BUILD ON THAT, WE
CREATE EDUCATIONAL CONTENT.
WE DO THESE EVENTS, WE DO
THOUSANDS OF EVENTS A YEAR, IN
BIG AND SMALL COMMUNITIES.
WE'VE DONE BREAKFASTS WITH
TEACHERS, EVENTS, OUTREACH, ALL
THESE THINGS WE DO AT ANY GIVEN
YEAR.
WE HAVE A MASSIVE EVENT PRIOR TO
COVID-19 IMPACT.
BROADCAST, TV SPECIALS ON ABC,
CTV, MILLIONS WHO FOLLOW US ON
SOCIAL MEDIA, BILLIONS ON SOCIAL
MEDIA, IT'S A HUGE PART OF WHAT
WE DO.
>> IF I MAY, ONE OF THE ASPECTS
OF MY QUESTION, AND I THREW A
LOT AT YOU THERE, BUT I WOULD
LIKE YOU TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE.
ARE THERE OTHER SPEAKERS THAT
YOU CAN SHARE WITH US THAT HAVE
ACTUALLY BEEN PAID FOR THEIR
SERVICES AT THE AUXILIARY EVENTS
AROUND WE DAY.
>> YES, SIR, ABSOLUTELY, AND
AGAIN, WE WOULD LIKE TO
RESPECTFULLY ASK THE PERMISSION
OF THOSE SPEAKERS TO SHARE THEIR
NAMES.
>> ALL WALKS OF LIFE, SIR, AND
VERY WELL-KNOWN CANADIANS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MR. CHAIR, I'M PROBABLY QUITE
CLOSE TO THE END OF MY TIME, IS
THAT RIGHT?
>> The Chair: YOU'VE GOT TIME
FOR ONE MORE QUESTION.
>> YOU KNOW WHAT, I HINTED AT
THIS EARLIER ON IN ONE OF MY
QUESTIONS.
I JUST WANT TO KNOW, YOU MENTION
YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON THE
PREVIOUS STUDENT SERVICE
PROPOSAL THAT YOU HAD DEVELOPED
OVER THE COURSE OF A COUPLE OF
YEARS.
HAD YOU SUBMITTED THINGS LIKE
THAT BACK, BEFORE 2015, WHEN WE
ARRIVED IN OFFICE OF THE
GOVERNMENT, HAD YOU ACTUALLY
SUBMITTED INFORMAL, UNSOLICITED
PROPOSALS TO PREVIOUS
GOVERNMENTS OR OUR GOVERNMENT
BEFORE THIS INSTANCE?
>> YES, WE DO IN THE REGULAR
COURSE OF BUSINESS, WE DIDN'T
ENGAGE FREQUENTLY WITH THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUT IN
CONVERSATIONS WHETHER IT BE --
WE WERE HONOURED.
THESE ARE GREAT MEN, SPENDING
TIME WITH PEOPLE LIKE TONY
CLEMENT, MINISTER FLAHERTY.
>> MINISTER MOORE.
>> MINISTER MOORE.
(Indiscernible).
>> SORRY.
>> WE WOULD, SIR, WE WOULD
SUBMIT IDEAS FOR HOW WE COULD
WORK WITH GOVERNMENTS.
LET ME CLARIFY, SIR, AND TO
EVERYONE, WE RUN A CHARITY.
WHEN I SAY WE, WE ARE FOUNDED OF
THE CHARITY, BUT WE DO THIS IN A
MANNER TO WORK IN PARTNERSHIP TO
FULFILL SOCIAL OBJECTIVES OF
GOVERNMENT.
WE WILL DO OUR BEST ALWAYS, AND
YOU SAID SOMETHING AT THE
BEGINNING, IF I MAY GO BACK TO,
THAT TWEETS HAVE GONE OUT AND
ACTIVE STATEMENTS AND DOLLAR
AMOUNTS AND PEOPLE THINKING
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
HAVE GONE INTO THE COFFERS OF A
CHARITY OR REAL ESTATE, THINGS
THAT JUST ARE ACTUALLY
INACCURATE.
THIS HAS BEEN DEVASTATING IMPACT
ON OUR CHARITIES.
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO FULLY
ARTICULATE THAT THESE MESSAGES,
BECAUSE THEY'RE COMING FROM
CREDIBLE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
PUTTING OUT FALSE INFORMATION.
AND IT IS JUST ABSOLUTELY
DEVASTATING TO A CANADIAN
CHARITY AND TO OUR ABILITY TO
FULFILL OUR MISSION AND MANDATE
AS A RESULT.
>> The Chair: OKAY.
I AM GOING TO END IT THERE.
MR. CUMMING, YOU'RE ON DECK, AND
YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED NOW BY MR.
MR.--
>> IN THOSE PARTICULAR ONES, WE
BROUGHT HIM IN BECAUSE MARGARET
WAS NOT ABLE TO, MADAM TRUDEAU,
IN THAT CASE AND WE WERE
SPEAKING TO FILL AN URGENT NEED
SO WE WORKED WITH HIM ON THAT
PARTICULAR YEAR.
HE WAS WITH US ONE YEAR AND ONE
YEAR ONLY.
>> IT WAS MORE THE TRUDEAU NAME
IT SOUNDS LIKE.
>> THE ENVIRONMENT IS VERY
IMPORTANT TO US AS IS MENTAL
HEALTH.
THERE'S A HANDFUL OF ISSUES
WHICH WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED MANY
YEARS.
>> IF YOU NEED OTHER STRONG
ENVIRONMENTALISTS, I CAN GIVE
YOU NAMES OF THOSE.
>> WE HAD DAVID SUZUKI ON STAGE,
WE LOVE PEOPLE OF ALL WALKS ON
STAGE.
I UNDERSTAND THE POINT PEOPLE
ARE TRYING TO MAKE.
UNIVERSITIES HAVE GAL A DINNERS,
WE DID THIS IN THE REGULAR
COURSE OF BUSINESS.
LET ME ACKNOWLEDGE, I UNDERSTAND
THAT IN HINDSIGHT, THIS IS A
SIGNIFICANT ISSUE.
I UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE ARE
RAISING IT, I DO, BUT FROM OUR
PERSPECTIVE, YOU CAN GOOGLE THE
FACT THAT WE HAVE BEEN ON THE WE
DAY STAGE SO WE NEVER ENVISIONED
THAT THIS WOULD EMERGE AS A
CONFLICT.
IT'S PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.
>> I WANT TO MOVE ON.
SO WE'VE REFERRED TO THE
FOUNDATION AS A SHELL COMPANY,
AND YOU TOOK OFFENCE TO THAT BUT
THE FOUNDATION ITSELF, WHAT
ASSETS DID IT HAVE AND WHAT DID
IT HAVE FOR EMPLOYEES PRIOR TO
ENENTERING INTO THIS CONTRACT?
>> SIR, IT'S NOT A SHELL COMPANY
BECAUSE NUMBER ONE IT'S NOT A
COMPANY AND NUMBER TWO IT'S NOT
A SHELL.
>> WHAT ASSETS DOES IT HAVE,
WHAT EMPLOYEES DOES IT HAVE TO
EXECUTE THIS CONTRACT?
>> WE HAVE ANSWERED THIS
QUESTION MULTIPLE TIMES BUT
ALLOW ME TO FRAME IT THIS WAY,
ANY DOCTOR'S OFFICE IN CANADA,
SMALL BUSINESS IN THIS COUNTRY
UNDERSTANDS REALITY OF
LIABILITY.
THIS IS SOMETHING CANADIANS
UNDERSTAND.
WHEN WE WERE ASKED OUT OF
SERVICE TO CANADA, THE
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA ASKED US TO
TAKE ON THE LIABILITY, IT'S NOT
SOMETHING WE SOUGHT, THEY ASKED
US IN A GLOBAL PANDEMIC, A TIME
WHEN PEOPLE WERE STOCKPILING
TOILET PAPER AND AFRAID OF
TOUCHING THE NEWSPAPER TO TAKE
ON THE LIABILITY FOR 40,000
PARTICIPANTS AND FOR ALL THE
NON-PROFITS BEYOND OUR
OPERATIONAL CONTROL, MANY OF
THESE ASSETS --
>> OKAY, I APPRECIATE THAT.
AND --
>> The Chair: MR. CUMMING,
MR. CUMMING, WE ARE GOING TO
HAVE TO GET AN ANSWER ON THIS
ONE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN ANSWERED
SEVERAL TIMES, AND OBVIOUSLY
PEOPLE HAVEN'T HEARD THE ANSWER
SO I AM GOING TO ALLOW THE TIME
BUT I'LL GIVE YOU MORE TIME IN
YOUR QUESTION PERIOD.
>> SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION,
SIR, THIS WAS ESTABLISHED
THROUGH THE ADVICE OF OUR
PROFESSIONAL ADVISORS.
THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS
PREVIOUSLY ON THE SHELF, AS MISS
CREATED ORIGINALLY FOR AN -- WE
OFFICIALLY AMENDED THE PURPOSE
BEFORE, YOU KNOW, ALL THIS TOOK
PLACE.
WE AMENDED THE PURPOSE AS PART
OF THE PROCESS.
WE CODIFIED THE AGREEMENT WITH
THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA.
IT HAS NEVER HELD REAL ESTATE,
IT NEVER HAD A DOLLAR, IT
EXISTED FOR A VERY SIMPLE
PURPOSE.
HOWEVER --
>> IT HAS --
>> OPERATIONAL EXECUTION BY WE
CHARITY, THE STAFF, THE
PROGRAMS, SO WITH RESPECT, THIS
IS -- IT WAS A FAVOUR THAT WE
WERE DOING TO BE HELPFUL TO
CANADA.
>> The Chair: OKAY.
BACK TO MR. CUMMING.
>> WHOSE IDEA WAS IT TO FRONT
END LOAD THIS THAT ALL THE
CAPITAL WAS RECEIVED PRIOR TO
THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT,
WHOSE IDEA WAS THAT?
>> SO THAT WAS OUTLINED, ALL THE
FINANCIAL TERMS, THE PAYMENT
TERMS ARE OUTLINED BY ESDC.
>> AND LET ME CLARIFY, SIR,
THOSE FUNDS, AGAIN
MISREPRESENTED SADLY WIDELY BY A
NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS, THOSE
WERE NOT ADMINISTRATION COSTS WE
RECEIVED A BLANK CHEQUE ON.
THOSE WERE FUNDS FOR EXPENSES AS
THEY OCCURRED ELIGIBLE ONLY.
>> BUT IT WAS FRONT END LOADED
SO YOU RECEIVED THE MONEY BEFORE
YOU ACTUALLY EXPENDED THE FUNDS.
>> SIR, WE RECEIVED FUNDS FOR
THE FIRST COHORT OF 20,000 YOUNG
PEOPLE BECAUSE WE NEEDED TO
ENSURE THAT THE FIRST 20,000
YOUNG PEOPLE WERE ENGAGED IN THE
PROCESS.
SECONDLY, WE WERE ASKED BY ESDC
TO ENSURE WE HAD THE MECHANISMS
TO HELP PROVIDE THE FINANCIAL
PAYMENTS TO 100,000 YOUNG PEOPLE
IN THE COURSE OF THE SUMMER INTO
THE EARLY IN ALL AND, AS A
RESULT, IT WAS THEIR SUGGESTION,
TO ENSURE THAT THAT
INFRASTRUCTURE WAS WELL SET UP
IN THE BEGINNING PART OF THE
SUMMER SO WE COULD FULFILL THAT
MANDATE.
>> SO YOU HAVE THE FOUNDATION
WHICH HAS NO ASSETS IN IT FOR
LIABILITY PURPOSES.
AND YOU'RE RUNNING THIS THAT
YOU'VE GOT YOUR CHARITY WHICH IS
PROVIDING SERVICES, AND OTHER
GROUPS, BECAUSE 18.4, IT SAYS
THAT YOU CAN USE OTHER GROUPS
WITHIN THE WE GROUP.
SO YOU SAY RECOVER COSTS.
ARE THE COSTS DEFINED, WHO
DEFINES THE COSTS, DO YOU DEFINE
THE COST BEINGS, HOW DO YOU LOAD
YOUR OVERHEAD IN, ARE YOUR
SALARIES COVERED, IS ALL THE
REMUNERATION THAT YOU'VE
RECEIVED COVERED INTO THOSE
COSTS?
HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHAT THE
COSTS ARE FOR YOUR MULTIPLE
COMPANIES THAT WILL BE CHARGED
BACK TO THE FOUNDATION?
BECAUSE IT'S CLEAR 18.4 SAYS
THAT YOU WILL CONTRACT TO YOUR
OTHER GROUPS.
>> SIR, IT'S INCONTRACT
STATEMENTS LIKE THIS THAT ARE
TRULY KILLING A CANADIAN
CHARITY.
AND I DON'T MEAN THIS TO BE
DRAMATIC IN MY STATEMENT.
THE WE CHARITY IS BEING RACKED
OVER THE COALS BY INACCURATE
STATEMENTS LIKE YOURSELF.
NO COMPANIES WERE PARTIES TO
THIS CONTRACT, ONLY CHARITIES,
ONLY CHARITIES, REGISTERED
CHARITIES WERE PARTIES TO THE
CONTRACT.
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT OUTLINED
IS EXACTLY THE ELIGIBLE
EXPENSES.
WE WERE NOT MAKING THIS UP OFF
THE SIDE OF A NAPKIN.
THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA IN THE
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT OUTLINES
THE ELIGIBLE EXPENSES.
BUT SIR, YOU KNOW THIS.
YOU DO KNOW THIS, WITH GREAT
RESPECT.
AND PEOPLE -- AS MEMBERS OF
PARLIAMENT, DON'T REACH THIS
STAGE IN THEIR CAREERS WITHOUT
UNDERSTANDING WHAT WAS EXPLAINED
HOUR AFTER HOUR HERE, AND IT'S
THIS BLATANT DISREGARD TO FACTS
THAT ARE BEING PUT OUT HERE,
COMMENTS AROUND COMPANIES, AND
COMMENTS AROUND MONEY MOVING IN
INAPPROPRIATE LEVELS THAT
FRANKLY BY CONTINUING THIS,
YOU'RE HARMING A CANADIAN
CHARITY AND YOU'RE CHARGE YOUNG
PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY IN THE
PROCESS.
>> The Chair: LAST QUESTION,
MR. CUMMING.
>> WHAT HAVE THE TWO OF YOU
RECEIVED IN REMUNERATION OVER
THE LAST THREE YEARS, EACH OF
YOU INDIVIDUALLY, FROM ANY OF
THE CHARITIES THAT ARE IN THIS
GROUP?
IF YOU DON'T WANT COMPANY,
SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP, ALL THE
GROUPS.
>> THE JUSTICE HAS DONE A
REVIEW, IT'S ON OUR WEBSITE,
WE'LL HAPPILY SEND IT TO YOU, WE
WANTED TO PROPERLY ADDRESS THIS.
WE WILL SEND HIS REVIEW TO YOU
AS OUR PERSONAL FINANCIAL DATA
IN IT, I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT GOES
TO, AND GOES TO THE WORLD BUT SO
BE IT AT THIS POINT, BUT JUSTICE
GOUGE IS ALSO A CONSULTATION
CONSULTANT WAS BROUGHT IN BY A
BOARD OF DIRECTORS THAT SAYS OUR
LEVEL OF COMPENSATION COMPARED
TO THOSE OF A SIMILAR NATURE ARE
AT A LOWER END FOR THE ROLE THAT
WE PLAY.
WE WILL SEND YOU THAT PERSONAL
INFORMATION AS PER YOUR REQUESTS
THAT YOU HAVE.
>> The Chair: OKAY, THANK YOU.
WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO THAT
INFORMATION.
TURNING THEN TO MR. FRAGASCATIS,
AND AFTER PETER IS MR. FORTIN
BUT I DON'T KNOW IF HIS TEAM IS
WORKING SO HE'LL HAVE TO CLEAR
THAT UP OR MAYBE RIEL, IF YOU
WERE TO CLICK OFF THE VIDEO AND
JUST GO ON VOICE, IT MIGHT WORK,
BUT YOU WERE NEXT ON THE LIST.
>> I'LL DO IT.
>> The Chair: OKAY.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I'M DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED THIS
AFTERNOON TO SEE ISSUES AROUND
MENTAL HEALTH POLITICIZED AS
THEY HAVE BEEN BY SOME MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE.
MARGARET TRUDEAU HAS BEEN AN
EXTRAORDINARY ADVOCATE FOR
MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES FOR MANY
YEARS, AND EFFORTS TO STAIN HER
REPUTATION HERE ARE BEYOND
DISAPPOINTING.
I DO WANT TO ASK MR.  -- THE
KIELBURGERS, EXCUSE ME, I WANT
TO ASK YOU A QUESTION AND IT'S
COME UP ALREADY, MR. SORBARA
POSED IT.
FROM DATA, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU
HAVE SAID THAT DATA WAS NOT
SHARED, THE DATA OF VOLUNTEERS
WAS NOT SHARED WITH THE LIBERAL
PARTY OF CANADA AT ANY POINT IN
WE'S HISTORY.
HAS THE DATA OF YOUR VOLUNTEERS
BEEN SHARED WITH THE LIBERAL
PARTY OF CANADA OR ANY POLITICAL
PARTY?
>> WE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION
DECISIVELY AGAIN, WE HAVE MADE
CHARITY INTELLIGENCE WHICH IS
FOUR PEOPLE MAKING INACCURATE
STATEMENTS, WE HAVE FACED JESSE
BROWN AND A BLOGGER FRANKLY
INVOLVED IN A LEGAL ACTION
TRYING TO CORRECT INFORMATION,
JUSTICE GOUGE, AND NOW VIVIAN
CROUSE WHO MADE THESE CLAIMS I
BELIEVE SHE SAID BY TWITTER WAS
HER SOURCE THAT WE WERE SHARING
DATA WITH THE LIBERAL PARTY OF
CANADA.
THIS IS JUST INCREDIBLY
UNFORTUNATE THAT PEOPLE ARE
TRYING TO FURTHER THEIR OWN
OBJECTIVES IN THE PROCESS.
I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION
DECISIVELY THAT WE HAVE NEVER
SHARED NOT ONCE DATA WITH ANY
PARTY FOR THAT MATTER INCLUDING
THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT
REVELATIONS TODAY, AT LEAST FOR
ME, HAS BEEN, AND I KNOW
MR. KIELBURGER, YOU JUST SPOKE
ABOUT IT MOMENTS AGO, BUT IT IS
A CRUCIAL REVELATION.
THIS IS THE IDEA THAT THERE WAS
NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FOR YOUR
ORGANIZATION IN BUILDING AND
ADMINISTERING THE PROGRAM.
THE PROGRAM BEING THE CANADA
STUDENT SERVICE GRANT.
MY QUESTION RELATES TO, YOU
KNOW, I SIT BACK AND HEAR THAT,
AND I TAKE YOU AT YOUR WORD, OF
COURSE, BUT WHAT WOULD YOU SAY
TO THE AVERAGE CANADIAN WHO
WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, SO WHY ARE
YOU INVOLVED IN SOMETHING LIKE
THAT, WHY THE INTEREST IN THE
CANADA STUDENT SERVICE GRANT?
WHAT'S IN IT FOR YOU, IS THERE A
PERSONAL -- WAS THERE A PERSONAL
GAIN, WAS THERE SOMETHING ALONG
THOSE LINES, COULD YOU JUST --
AND I'M NOT MAKING THAT
JUDGMENT, BUT I THINK A LOT OF
CANADIANS WILL SAY WHEN THEY
HEAR YOU, MAKE THE STATEMENT
THAT THERE WASN'T GOING TO BE A
FINANCIAL BENEFIT.
WHAT'S IN IT FOR YOU GUYS,
WHAT'S IN IT FOR WE?
>> SIR, WHEN YOU'RE 12 AND 17
YEARS OLD AND START A CHILDREN'S
CHARITY AND CONTINUE THAT ROLE
FOR 25 YEARS, THAT'S THE ANSWER
TO YOUR QUESTION.
THIS IS WHY WE DO WHAT WE DO.
IT IS SOMETHING WE CARE ABOUT
DEEPLY.
WE HAVE AN EXTRAORDINARY TEAM
THAT WORK VERY HARD, AND IT IS
JUST INCREDIBLY UNFORTUNATE
THAT, IN THE PAST 25 DAYS, WE
HAVE SEEN THE INTEGRITY OF AN
ORGANIZATION, THE SERVICE BY
THOUSANDS OF TEACHERS ACROSS
THIS COUNTRY, THE WORK OF
STUDENTS WHO HAVE VOLUNTEERED,
CALLED INTO QUESTION FOR
PURPOSES THAT HAVE BEEN
THWARTING OTHER PEOPLE'S AGENDA
WHEN FACTS ARE VERY CLEAR, SO
WHY DO WE DO WHAT WE DO IS THE
SAME REASON 25 YEARS AS WE DO
NOW.
WE WANT TO HELP YOUNG PEOPLE AND
WE WANT TO HELP CHILDREN AND
THIS IS OUR FORUM AND THE
GOVERNMENT ASKED US IN THE
MIDDLE OF A NATIONAL PANDEMIC
WOULD WE WORK OUR HARDEST EVEN
THOUGH WE HAD, YES, HAD TIGHTEN
OUR BELTS BY LAYING OFF STAFF,
THAT WAS TERRIBLE.
OUR TEAM HAD TO WORK DOUBLY HARD
TO IMPLEMENT THIS.
>> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT --
>> THIS IS WHY WE DID WHAT WE
DID, SIR.
>> MR. KIELBURGER, LET ME ASK
YOU ON THAT POINT, AGAIN TO PLAY
DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, AND I KNOW
CANADIANS WILL BE ASKING THIS
TYPE OF QUESTION.
IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, YOU
SAID THAT, AND I QUOTE, WE
CHARITY WOULD NOT HAVE RECEIVED
ANY FINANCIAL GAIN FROM THE CSSG
PROGRAM AND IT IS INCORRECT TO
SAY OTHERWISE.
YOU TALK ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION
NOT BEING IN A DIFFICULT
FINANCIAL POSITION.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OBSERVATION
THAT WE HAD RECENTLY LAID OFF
MANY EMPLOYEES AND WOULD THAT
NOT HAVE PUSHED THE ORGANIZATION
IN THE DIRECTION OF WANTING TO
FIND A PROGRAM TO ATTACH ITSELF
TO TO GAIN SOME SORT OF BENEFIT?
AGAIN, I'M NOT MAKING THAT
JUDGMENT, BUT CANADIANS WILL
HAVE THAT QUESTION.
DO YOU HAVE A RESPONSE?
>> The Chair: AND THAT WILL BE
YOUR LAST QUESTION.
>> AND AT ANY POINT, DID YOU
RAISE THE ENACT THAT WE HAD
F
EMPLOYEES WITH ANY GOVERNMENT
OFFICIAL.
>> SIR, OUR OBJECTIVE WAS TO
HELP WHEN RACHEL WERNICK ASKED
US TO HELP.
THAT WAS THE OBJECTIVE.
AND WE HAD TO MAKE VERY
DIFFICULT DECISIONS, AND THAT
WAS THE SITUATION WITH THE
WITNESS BEFORE, MICHELE DOUGLAS,
WE MADE VERY HARD DECISIONS AND
WE WERE VERY MUCH FINANCIALLY
ABLE TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.
AND WE WANTED TO HELP, AND WOULD
THE ORGANIZATION HAVE NOT BEEN
BETTER OFF OR WORSE OFF BECAUSE
OF OUR DESIRE TO HELP.
WE SIMPLY WANTED TO HELP.
>> TO THE LAST POINT, WAS THE
MATTER OF WE LAYING OFF A NUMBER
OF EMPLOYEES RAISED WITH ANY
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AT ANY
POINT?
>> SIR, WE DID EXPLAIN TO ESDC
THAT WE HAD TO STAFF UP FOR THIS
EXPERIENCE.
WE WERE VERY CLEAR WITH THEM
THAT WE HAD TO LET GO SOME OF
OUR STAFF IN THE PANDEMIC, AND
WE EXPLAINED THAT WE WERE KEEN
TO BRING SOME OF THOSE STAFF
MEMBERS BACK TO HELP US WITH
THIS EXPERIENCE IN THE
SHORT-TERM ROLE.
AND IT WASN'T DONE FORMALLY
THROUGH AN EMAIL BUT IT WAS DONE
THROUGH CONVERSATIONS AND THEY
ASKED US IF WE HAD THE STAFFING
CAPACITY TO DO SO, AND WE WERE
VERY TRANSPARENT IN SAYING THAT,
YES, YOU KNOW, UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CAN LOOK TO
SOME OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO DID
GO THROUGH THOSE LAY-OFFS AND WE
COULD POTENTIALLY BRING BACK ON
A SHORT-TERM CONTRACT TO BE OF
ASSISTANCE AND A LOT OF THOSE
INDIVIDUALS KINDLY PUT OUT THEIR
HAND AND THEY WORKED REALLY HARD
AND WE WERE ABOUT TO LAUNCH
SOMETHING VERY SPECIAL.
>> The Chair: OKAY.
FOLKS, WE'RE STARTING TO GET
DOWN IN TIME.
WE'LL GO TO MR. FORTIN FOR THREE
MINUTES AND HOPE HIS SYSTEM
WORKS AND THEN ON TO MR. JULIAN.
MR. FORTIN, GO AHEAD.
>> (Voice of Interpreter):
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. KIELBURGER, I HAVE A
QUESTION.
GIVEN YOUR EXPERIENCE WHEN IT
COMES TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
ASSETS, THE WORK YOU DO ACROSS
THE WORLD, AND GIVEN YOUR LINKS
WITH THE TRUDEAU FAMILY, AND I'D
LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT I'M NOT
CRITICIZING THE QUALITY OF MADAM
TRUDEAU, HER PARTNER, ANYTHING,
BUT GIVEN THE CLOSE LINKS THAT
YOU HAVE TO THOSE PEOPLE, YOU
HIRED THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE THE
TRUDEAU FAMILY OR THE MORNEAU
FAMILY, AND GIVEN THE EXCHANGE
OF GIFTS, SOME THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS THAT MR. MORNEAU REPAID
OR DIDN'T OR WHETHER WHEN HE
DECIDES TO DO WHEN HE WAKES UP
IN THE MORNING, BUT GIVEN THE
ABSENCE OF ASSETS IN THE WE
CHARITY FOUNDATION, THERE ARE NO
ASSETS TO GUARANTEE THE QUALITY,
SO GIVEN ALL THOSE FACTORS, IS
IT NORMAL TO YOUR MIND THAT YOU
WOULD RECEIVE A CONTRACT TO
MANAGE $900 MILLION WITH NO
TENDER CALL, WITH NO AUDITING,
HAS THAT HAPPENED BEFORE, DOES
IT HAPPEN OFTEN?
>> THANK YOU.
I FEEL THAT FOR THE PAST NOW
THREE HOURS AND 40 MINUTES THAT
WE HAVE SOUGHT TO CORRECT FACTS
THAT HAVE BEEN INACCURATE IN THE
MEDIA AND SHARED WIDELY.
SO ALLOW ME TO TRY AGAIN, SIR.
IT WAS NOT A $900 MILLION
CONTRACT.
IT WAS CLOSER TO 543 TO BE
PRECISE, SIR, UP TO.
THERE WERE 13 REFERENCES TO
AUDITS, SIR, SO THERE WERE
MULTIPLE CHECKS AND BALANCES
THROUGH THIS.
AND TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION,
THOUGH, AT THE HEART OF IT, I
THINK WE WERE IN A TIME WHERE
NOTHING WAS ORDINARY.
WHERE PEOPLE WERE SHUTTING THEIR
OFFICES EN MASSE, WHERE THE
CIVIL SERVICE WAS TRYING TO
ORGANIZE NATIONAL PROGRAMS THAT
FIT DURING A PANDEMIC WHERE
EVERYBODY WAS CONCERNED FOR
THEIR OWN CARE AND OUR STAFF,
DESPITE THAT, DESPITE ALL THE
HARDSHIPS, HAVING THEIR OWN
CHILDREN UNDER THEIR FEET,
WORKING AROUND THE CLOCK, TRYING
THEIR BEST TO LAUNCH A NATIONAL
SERVICE PROGRAM, DID THIS OUT OF
SERVICE AND OUT OF A DESIRE NOT
TO BE HELPED BY GOVERNMENT BUT
TO HELP GOVERNMENT.
>> (Voice of Interpreter): YOU
DID THAT TO HELP THE GOVERNMENT,
BUT YOU RECEIVED $43 MILLION TO
DO SO.
NOW, THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS IN THE
CONTRACT.
NOW, IF I PROVIDE A SERVICE, I
DON'T RECEIVE 43 MILLION, NOR A
MILLION NOR A QUARTER OF A
MILLION.
NOW, WHETHER IT'S 900 OR
500 MILLION, BUT BEYOND THE
NUMBERS, I UNDERSTAND, FROM YOUR
EVIDENCE, THAT THERE WASN'T DUE
DILIGENCE, MS. WERNICK CALLED
YOU, YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T TALK TO
MR. TRUDEAU.
WHEN I ASKED MR. MORNEAU, HE
SAID -- THIS WAS DONE AND I
UNDERSTAND THIS WAS DURING THE
PANDEMIC, IT WAS URGENT, BUT DO
YOU NOT FIND IT ODD TO RECEIVE A
CONTRACT TO MANAGE, SAY, HALF A
BILLION DOLLARS, WE WON'T GET
BOGGED DOWN IN THE DETAILS ON
THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT A CONTRACT
TO MANAGE THAT FOR WHICH YOU'RE
PAID 43 MILLION, WITHOUT THE
AUDIT AND I'M NOT TAKING
ANYTHING AWAY FROM THE WORK THAT
YOU'VE DONE, MR. KIELBURGER.
YOU'VE GOT A MISSION, MAYBE
YOU'RE THE FUTURE MOTHER THERESA
BUT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT HERE
IS LOOKING INTO WHAT THE
GOVERNMENT'S DOING WITH OUR
MONEY.
IT SEEMS SO STRANGE.
I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT
SO I ASK YOU AS YOU'RE IN THE
FIELD, DOES IS THAT HAPPEN
OFTEN?
ARE YOU OFTEN ASKED TO MANAGE
HALF A BILLION DOLLARS?
WE'LL PAY YOU 43 AND SIGN IT ON
THE CORNER OF THE TABLE ON A
NAPKIN, DOES THAT HAPPEN OFTEN?
>> The Chair: OKAY, THANK YOU,
THAT WILL BE THE END OF THAT
QUESTION AND YOU WERE COMING
THROUGH LOUD AND CLEAR,
MR. FORTIN, IN THIS FORMAT.
MR. KIELBURGER.
>> SIR, I'LL LET CRAIG PROVIDE
SOME CONTEXT BUT NOTHING AT THIS
TIME WAS ORDINARY.
THE CERB IS NOT ORDINARY.
IN 7 #
 75% OF CANADA'S WAGEH
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT ORDINARY.
HAVING A CONVERSATION AROUND A
PANDEMIC, HAVING PEOPLE GO AND
LITERALLY MONTHS AGO STOCKPILE
TOILET PAPER WAS ALSO NOT
ORDINARY.
AND DETAILS, WITH RESPECT, SIR,
DO MATTER, BECAUSE IT'S
912 MILLION ONE MOMENT AND
543 MILLION THE OTHER MOMENT AND
THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY IN BETWEEN
AND ONCE AGAIN, SIR, THIS WAS
ALL ABOUT ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES.
AND UP TO $543 MILLION, AND OUR
PORTION WAS ONLY FOR ELIGIBLE
EXPENDITURES, WE WERE MAKING NO
PROFIT, WE WERE ASKED TO DO
THIS.
>> (Voice of Interpreter):  --
>> The Chair: SORRY,
MR. FORTIN.
>> (Speaking French).
>> The Chair: MADAM CLERK, I'M
GOING TO GET YOU SHUTTING DOWN
MICS.
MR. FORTIN, YOUR TIME IS UP.
THE GENTLEMEN ARE FINALIZING
THEIR ANSWER.
>> THE CONTRACT SPEAKS TO THIS
IN GREAT DETAIL.
43 OF THAT, 8.75 WAS IMMEDIATELY
PAID TO OTHER CHARITIES AND IT
WAS SIMPLY IMMEDIATELY
TRANSFERRED.
MORE FUNDS WERE BEING PAID TO
TECH BILLS TO SUPPORT YOUNG
PEOPLE SO THEY CAN PARTICIPATE
IN THE PROGRAM.
WE WERE HELPING TO DELIVER A
PROGRAM WITH CALL CENTRE
SUPPORT, TRANSLATION, ACCESS
ACROSS THE COUNTRY, 20,000 YOUTH
FOR DIRECT MENTORSHIP, HELPING
WITH RECRUITMENT, THE LEGAL, THE
FEE PAYMENTS, THE -- THIS WAS A
MASSIVE UNDERTAKING AND, AGAIN,
ONLY THE ELIGIBLE EXPENSES, NOT
ONLY WOULD WE HAVE MADE NO
PROFIT, BUT FRANKLY A CHARITY
CAN'T EVEN MAKE A PROFIT.
>> The Chair: THANK YOU.
THAT WILL END THE ANSWER TOO.
MR. JULIAN FOLLOWED BY -- I'LL
GIVE YOU THE LINE-UP THAT WILL
TAKE US TO THE END OF THE
MEETING.
MR. JULIAN FOR THREE, THEN
MR. MORANTZ, MR. MacLEOD,
MR. POILIEVRE AND
MISS KOUTRAKIS.
GO AHEAD, MR. JULIAN.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
QUITE FRANKLY, I'M NOT SATISFIED
WITH THE WHOLE RANGE OF THE
ANSWERS THAT WE'VE GOTTEN TODAY,
MANY OF THEM HAVEN'T BEEN
ANSWERS.
THEY HAVE BEEN, I THINK,
SPEECHES.
BUT WE'RE LOOKING FOR ANSWERS
HERE.
THE ANSWER OF THE INSURANCE
COVERING POTENTIAL LIABILITIES,
WHICH YOU'VE ADMITTED IS
MASSIVE, IS SOMETHING THAT
DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IN THE
CONTEXT OF PUTTING IT -- PUTTING
THE CONTRACT INTO WHAT IS A
SHELL FOUNDATION, A SHELL
FOUNDATION IS A FOUNDATION WITH
NO ASSETS.
SO I WOULD ASK THAT YOU MAKE ALL
THE INSURANCE DOCUMENTS
AVAILABLE TO US AROUND THE SDFC
CONTRACT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE
HELPFUL FOR US TO FIND ANSWERS
THAT HAVE NOT BEEN FORTHCOMING
DURING THIS COMMITTEE MEETING.
I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE
BOARD TRANSPARENCY.
MICHELE DOUGLAS TESTIFIED
EARLIER THAT THE BOARD DID NOT
APPROVE THE SETTING UP OF THE WE
CHARITY FOUNDATION.
SO MY QUESTION IS HOW MANY OF
THE MANY ENTITIES, AT LEAST A
DOZEN IN CANADA, MANY, MANY MORE
OVERSEAS, HAVE BEEN SET UP
WITHOUT THE BOARD ACTUALLY
APPROVING THE SETTING UP OF
THOSE ENTITIES.
>> SIR, ALLOW ME TO NUANCE
BECAUSE NUANCE AND FACTS MATTER,
SIR.
IN THE CONVERSATION THAT TOOK
PLACE, THE WE CHARITY FOUNDATION
WAS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED AS AN
IDEA TO HOLD THE LEGAL LIABILITY
FOR WE CHARITY.
FOR EXAMPLE I WAS ON THE BOARD
OF SCOUTS CANADA FOR MANY YEARS,
GREAT ORGANIZATION.
LIABILITY BECAME A SIGNIFICANT
ISSUE I LEARNED FROM MY OFFICE
ON THAT BOARD.
THEY LOOKED AT THAT VERY ISSUE,
WE LOOKED AT THAT VERY ISSUE.
AS PER MISS DOUGLAS AND OTHER
BOARD MEMBERS WE CHOSE NOT TO
PROCEED AS A GENERAL STATEMENT
FOR WE CHARITY TO USE THIS
VEHICLE.
THAT'S WHY IT WAS PUT ON A
SHELF.
IT WAS UNUSED AS PER THE BOARD'S
REQUEST.
HOWEVER, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT OF
CANADA ASKED US TO ASSUME
LIABILITY DURING A GLOBAL HEALTH
PANDEMIC FOR 40,000 YOUTH AND
ALL NON-PROFITS INVOLVED, THAT
ENTITY WAS REPURPOSED, AMENDED
IN A STATEMENT AND REPURPOSED TO
SERVE THIS NEED, SIR.
>> I'M SORRY, YOU HAVEN'T
ANSWERED MY QUESTION, WHICH IS
WHY, WHEN THE BOARD HADN'T
APPROVED THE SETTING UP OF THE
ENTITY YOU SET IT UP JUST THE
SAME AND YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED
THE QUESTION OF HOW MANY OF
THESE VARIOUS ENTITIES HAVE BEEN
SET UP WITHOUT BOARD APPROVAL.
OR WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THE
BOARD.
BUT TIME IS PRESSING SO I'M
GOING TO GO TO THE U.S.
REGULATORY PROCEDURES.
CAN YOU CONFIRM TO US THAT THE
WE -- VARIOUS WE FOUNDATIONS,
BOARDS, COMPANIES, CHARITIES ARE
ACTUALLY BEING FULLY DISCLOSED
AND MEETING ALL OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF U.S. REGULATORY
FILINGS INCLUDING THE ISSUE OF
DISCLOSURE OF NON-ARMS LENGTH
RELATIONSHIPS, EITHER MARITAL
RELATIONSHIPS OR RELATIONSHIPS
THAT ARE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS?
>> SIR, WE UNDERSTAND THIS
INFORMATION IS COMING FROM A
GROUP CALLED CHARITY
INTELLIGENCE.
I WANT TO PUT SOME CONTEXT INTO
YOUR QUESTION.
THIS GROUP LOST THEIR CHARITABLE
STATUS IN 2012.
>> I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT THEM,
I'M ASKING ABOUT YOU.
I'M ASKING ABOUT YOU.
>> I UNDERSTAND.
THREE BOARD MEMBERS BASED ON THE
2019 FILINGS OF WHICH TWO OF
THOSE INDIVIDUALS WORK FOR THE
ORGANIZATION.
SO FOR US, YES, WE HAVE THE U.S.
ENTITIES AND AS PART OF OUR OWN
REVIEW WE'RE EVALUATING THOSE.
WE NEED TO LOOK EXACTLY AT THIS
VERY SPECIFIC INFORMATION YOU'RE
ASKED ABOUT AND WE'RE DOING SO.
>> The Chair: TIME COMING UP,
PETER.
>> YES.
INSURANCE POLICIES THAT WERE
SIGNED IN REGARDS TO THIS
PARTICULAR CONTRACT WITH THE
SDC, WILL YOU MAKE THAT
AVAILABLE TO THE COMMITTEE?
BECAUSE THE LIABILITY ISSUE, OF
COURSE, IS FUNDAMENTAL.
WE'VE HEARD TESTIMONY THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS PUT AT
GREAT RISK BY PROCEEDING THE WAY
IT CHOSE TO PROCEED SO OF COURSE
HAVING INFORMATION ABOUT
INSURANCE POLICIES IN PLACE
WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY VITAL.
WILL YOU SHARE ALL OF THAT
INFORMATION WITH THE COMMITTEE?
>> TWO POINTS, SIR.
YES, WE'LL SHARE IT AND THE ONLY
ORGANIZATION THAT WAS BEING
ASKED TO BE PUT AT GREAT RISK IS
WE CHARITY BY ESDC BY ASKING US
TO TAKE 40,000 YOUNG PEOPLE AND
ASSUME LIABILITY.
>> THAT'S WHY YOU PUT IT IN A
SHELL FOUNDATION.
>> The Chair: PETER, I THINK
THE INDIVIDUALS HAVE SAID
SEVERAL TIMES THAT IT'S NOT A
SHELL ORGANIZATION.
>> IT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF
A SHELL FOUNDATION.
>> The Chair: WE WILL --
>> THERE ARE NO ASSETS.
>> The Chair: WE WILL HAVE TO
DETERMINE THAT.
>> IT IS.
>> The Chair: OKAY.
WE'VE GOT FOUR QUESTIONERS LEFT.
AND WE'LL HAVE TO GO TO
FOUR-MINUTE ROUNDS.
MR. MORANTZ, MR. MacLEOD,
MR. POILIEVRE, AND
MISS KOUTRAKIS.
MR. MORANTZ.
>> I'M TAKING MR. MORANTZ'S
TIME.
>> The Chair: OKAY.
MR. POILIEVRE, A FOUR-MINUTE
ROUND, YOU GOT IT.
>> PARAGRAPH 5.1 OF THE
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT ALLOWS
MONIES TO BE SPENT ON SALARY
FROM THIS CONTRIBUTION
AGREEMENT.
WAS THERE ANYTHING IN THE
AGREEMENT THAT BANNED EITHER OF
YOU FROM RECEIVING THAT MONEY?
>> WE ARE NOT PAID BY WE CHARITY
AND WE HAVE NEVER BEEN PAID BY
WE CHARITY AND THIS WAS
ESTABLISHED WITH THE ENTITY THAT
PAYS US, SIR, IS ME TO WE SOCIAL
ENTERPRISE WHICH IS NOT A PARTY
TO THIS CONTRACT.
>> ME TO WE, THOUGH, IS A
SUBCONTRACTOR TO THIS CONTRACT.
>> THAT IS INCORRECT, SIR.
>> IT IS RIGHT HERE, IT'S
RIGHT --
>> The Chair: MR. POILIEVRE,
YOU CAN QUOTE THAT PART OF THE
AGREEMENT IF YOU LIKE.
AND WE'LL ALLOW THE KIELBURGERS
TO ANSWER.
>> ME TO WE FOUNDATION IS LISTED
IN 18.4 AS A SUBCONTRACTOR.
ME TO WE FOUNDATION OF CANADA,
IT'S RIGHT THERE, SO IT'S TRUE,
UNLIKE WHAT YOU JUST SUGGESTED.
>> The Chair: OKAY.
NOW WE'LL GO TO THE ANSWER,
PLEASE.
>> AS PER MY STATEMENT, SIR, ME
TO WE SOCIAL ENTERPRISE IS WHAT
PAYS US, ME TO WE SOCIAL
ENTERPRISE WAS ESTABLISHED, IT
IS DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FROM ME
TO WE FOUNDATION, SIR.
ME TO WE FOUNDATION
ADMINISTERS --
>> The Chair: MR. POILIEVRE,
WE'LL GO TO THE ANSWER, PLEASE.
>> RIGHT.
WE'RE WAITING FOR THE ANSWER.
>> ALL ENTITIES IN THE CONTRACT
ARE NOT FOR PROFIT.
>> MR. KIELBURGER, WITH RESPECT,
YOU'RE WAY OFF MY QUESTION NOW.
NOBODY HAS EVER QUESTIONED
WHETHER OR NOT THESE ARE NOT FOR
PROFIT.
YOU MAKE A HELL OF A LOT OF
MONEY AS AN INDIVIDUAL WITHIN A
NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION BY
PAYING IT IN SALARIES, AND I SEE
HERE, IN SECTION 5.1, I DO HAVE
THE FLOOR, THAT YOU CAN PAY
SALARIES, AND YOU DON'T EVEN
NEED TO SUBMIT TIME SHEETS TO
PROVE THAT YOU DID THE WORK.
THAT'S EXPLICITLY STATED IN 5.1,
AND I ASK A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION
TO YOU, STILL NOT ANSWERED IT,
WAS THERE ANYTHING IN THIS
AGREEMENT THAT BANNED YOU OR
YOUR BROTHER FROM RECEIVING A
SALARY?
"YES" OR  "NO."
>> The Chair: KIELBURGERS,
YEAH, YOU SAID YES.
>> LET ME EXPLAIN, SIR.
WE ARE NOT PAID BY --
>> "YES" OR  "NO"
."
>>  -- BY EACH OF THOSE
ORGANIZATIONS.
>> THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION.
>> WE ARE NOT PAID BY EITHER OF
THOSE ORGANIZATIONS.
>> "YES" OR  "NO."
>> SIR, BY DEFINITION, WE ARE
NOT PAID BY ANY OF THOSE
ORGANIZATIONS.
>> THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION.
>> AND ME TO WE ENTERPRISE IS
SEPARATE --
>> WE UNDERSTAND NOW, MR. CHAIR,
THERE WILL BE NO ANSWER TO THE
QUESTION.
>> 15 MORE SECONDS, PLEASE.
>> YOU CAN HAVE 3 MORE SECONDS,
IT'S MY TIME.
>> The Chair: GO AHEAD.
>> SIR, WE HAVE SAT THROUGH FOUR
HOURS, THIS IS FOUR TIMES MORE
THAN ANYONE AT SNC OR THE DUFFY
AFFAIR.
>> THAT'S FACTUALLY WRONG.
>> The Chair: WE ARE NOT --
LISTEN, WE'RE GETTING OFF THE
TOPIC, I KNOW WE'RE ALL GETTING
A LITTLE TIRED.
>> CAN I GET TO MY NEXT
QUESTION, MR. CHAIR?
MR. CHAIR, CAN I GO TO MY NEXT
QUESTION.
>> NO, NO, NO, SIR, THAT'S A
SIGNIFICANT ALLEGATION.
>> WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO
INVITE YOU BACK IF YOU DON'T
WANT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION,
ANOTHER FOUR HOURS.
>> The Chair: MR. POILIEVRE,
WE WILL ALLOW AN ANSWER TO THIS
QUESTION.
GO TO YOUR NEXT ONE AND THEN
WE'LL SOON MOVE ON.
ONE OF THE KIELBURGERS.
>> ANY ALLEGATION AND FALSE
CLAIM THAT WE WOULD HAVE
FINANCIALLY BENEFITED AS
INDIVIDUALS FROM THIS IS SIMPLY
THAT.
FALSE.
NO INSTITUTION, NO CHARITY
LISTED HERE PAYS US A SALARY OR
ANY FORM OF FINANCIAL, PERIOD.
SIR, IT'S INCREDIBLY INSULTING
THAT YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT OUR
ANSWER ON THAT.
>> The Chair: BACK TO
MR. POILIEVRE.
>> BECAUSE I HAVEN'T GOT ONE.
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE
WAS ANYTHING IN THE CONTRIBUTION
AGREEMENT THAT WOULD BAN YOU
FROM RECEIVING ANY SALARY, YOU
STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED THAT.
I'M NOT ASKING IT AGAIN BECAUSE
YOU'VE HAD TWO TRIES AND REFUSED
BOTH TIMES.
>> The Chair: YOUR LAST
QUESTION.
>> (Voice of Interpreter):
WHAT SURPRISES ME IS THAT THE
FACT THAT YOUR ORGANIZATION WITH
NEARLY HALF A BILLION DOLLARS --
>> The Chair: SO WE CAN HEAR
THE TRANSLATION AND NOT IN TWO
LANGUAGES.
>> (Voice of Interpreter):
THANK YOU.
WHAT SURPRISES ME IS YOU NEVER
THOUGHT THAT YOU NEVER THOUGHT
IT ODD TO PAY HALF A MILLION
DOLLARS TO THE TRUDEAU FAMILY AT
THE SAME TIME AS YOUR
ORGANIZATIONS DEAL DIRECTLY WITH
THE GOVERNMENT JUSTIN TRUDEAU IS
LEADING AND THAT THERE IS NEARLY
HALF A BILLION DOLLARS GOING TO
YOUR ORGANIZATION.
CAN YOU NOT SEE THE CONFLICT OF
INTEREST THAT THE PRIME MINISTER
IS RECEIVING NEARLY HALF A
BILLION DOLLARS FROM YOUR
ORGANIZATIONS AT THE SAME TIME
THAT HE IS PARTICIPATING IN
PROVIDING YOU WITH A
CONTRIBUTION?
>> SIR, MAY WE ASK, MR. CHAIR,
THE TRANSLATION THAT WE GOT WAS
THAT WE WERE PAYING THE PRIME
MINISTER HALF A BILLION DOLLARS
TO THE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT,
I'M ASSUMING THAT WAS INCORRECT.
>> The Chair: IT MIGHT HAVE
BEEN.
BASICALLY, THE PREMISE OF THE
QUESTION IS THAT THERE WOULD BE
MONEY GOING TO THE PRIME
MINISTER'S FAMILY AND HALF A
BILLION DOLLARS GOING TO YOUR
ORGANIZATION, DO YOU NOT SEE THE
CAN EX?
>> SIR, WE RESPECT THAT THE
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA HAS ITS
PROCESSES ON CONFLICT OF
INTEREST.
WE RESPECT THAT YOU'RE LOOKING
INTO THAT.
AS IT RELATES TO OUR ROLE AS A
CHARITY ON THIS MATTER, WE
FOLLOWED PROPER LAWS, WE ENGAGED
SOMEONE THROUGH A SPEAKING
BUREAU TO GIVE TALKS ON MENTAL
HEALTH.
MANY ORGANIZATIONS DO THIS.
THERE WAS NOTHING IMPROPER IN
THESE ACTIONS.
AND FRANKLY, SIR, WE UNDERSTAND
WHAT YOU'RE ASKING US AND WE
RECOGNIZE THAT FRANKLY I WISH IT
WASN'T THE SOLE-SOURCE CONTRACT.
I WISH WE COULD HAVE COMPETED
WITH OTHERS.
I WISH DIFFERENT DECISIONS HAD
BEEN MADE ON THE FINAL DECISION
MAKING ON ALL THESE MATTERS.
THAT WAS NOT OURS TO DECIDE.
WE WERE ASKED TO BE OF
ASSISTANCE AT A TIME OF NATIONAL
PANDEMIC, AND WE DID OUR BEST
WITH THIS.
SIMPLY THAT'S THE CASE.
>> The Chair: THANK YOU.
WE'RE OUT OF TIME,
MR. POILIEVRE.
YOU WILL HAVE ANOTHER ROUND IF
YOU'RE TAKING THE NEXT SLOT.
MR. MacLEOD, MR. POILIEVRE,
AND MISS KOUTRAKIS.
MR. MacLEOD.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND
THANK YOU TO THE WITNESSES FOR
PATIENTLY ANSWERING ALL THE
QUESTIONS --
>> WE ARE NEEDING A BATHROOM
BREAK RATHER URGENTLY, MARC HAS
WHISPERED TO ME TWO TIMES NOW.
>> THIS WHOLE CSSG CONTRACT, THE
INCIDENT AROUND IT, HAS RECEIVED
A LOT OF MEDIA ATTENTION, AND
IT'S, I THINK, BEEN A LOT OF
FALL-OUT FROM ALL SIDES ON IT.
I THINK YOUR ORGANIZATION HAS
TAKEN A LOSS, TAKEN SOME
MONETARY HIT BUT MAYBE EVEN A
BIGGER CREDIBILITY HIT.
OUR GOVERNMENT, THE GOVERNMENT,
ALL THE COMMITTEES WILL PROBABLY
BE DEALING WITH THIS FOR THE
REST OF THE SUMMER.
WE GOT, I THINK, WE HAVE UP TO
THREE COMMITTEES INVESTIGATING
SO IT'S GOING TO CONSUME US
PROBABLY FOR THE NEXT MONTH OR
SO, IF NOT LONGER.
BUT WHAT WE'RE NOT HEARING ABOUT
IS WHAT THIS WHOLE INITIATIVE
WAS FOCUSED ON AND THAT'S THE
YOUTH.
THAT'S WHAT CONCERNS ME THE
MOST.
WE KNOW THE YOUTH HAVE NOW --
ARE FACING A REAL LOSS OF
OPPORTUNITY, AND THERE MAY BE NO
REPLACEMENT PROGRAM, HAVEN'T
SEEN IT YET.
COULD YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT
SHUTTING DOWN OF THIS WHOLE
INITIATIVE, THIS WHOLE PROGRAM,
IS GOING TO COST THE YOUTH?
BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF YOUTH
THAT WERE INTERESTED IN THIS.
>> THANK YOU, SIR.
A QUESTION WE HAVE NEVER BEEN
ASKED BY ANY JOURNALISTS OR
ANYONE HERE TODAY IS WHAT WAS
LOST WHEN IT CAME TO YOUNG
PEOPLE IN THIS PROCESS.
WE HAD AN EXTRAORDINARY SERVICE
OPPORTUNITY THAT HAD BEEN LINED
UP WITH ROTARY AND OTHERS TO
LINK YOUNG PEOPLE TO SENIORS, TO
HELP DOCUMENT THEIR LIVES, TO
HELP OVERCOME THE REALITY OF
DEMENTIA WITH SO MANY SENIORS
BEING IN SOCIAL ISOLATION.
WE HAD THIS BEAUTIFUL PROGRAM
LINED UP WITH HOSPITAL NETWORKS
WHERE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN
SUPPORT FOR NURSES.
AND WE HAD ANOTHER -- AND FOR
THEIR KIDS AT HOME, ESSENTIALLY
THEY HAD A DIGITAL MENTOR, THE
NURSES WHO TAKE CARE OF US AND
NOT BE AFRAID.
WE HAD A BEAUTIFUL PARTNERSHIP
LINED UP WITH TIM HORTONS
CHILDREN'S CAMPS AND OTHERS
BECAUSE ALL THE CAMPS STOPPED
OVER THE SUMMER SO YOUNG
CANADIANS WOULD HAVE HAD DIGITAL
CAMP COACHING EXPERIENCES FOR
THESE YOUTH, TO HELP MENTOR AND
TO SUPPORT THEM THROUGH THIS
PROCESS.
SO ALL OF THIS GOOD WAS LOST,
ALL OF THESE EXTRAORDINARY
SERVICE OPPORTUNITIES WERE LOST.
THE FALL-OUT HAD YOUNG PEOPLE
NOT EARNING THE INCOME TO
SUPPORT THEIR TUITION.
I KNOW IT WAS CRITICIZED BUT
THESE TEACHERS PUT UP THEIR HAND
OVER THE SUMMER TO SUPPORT
20,000 YOUTH WITH DIRECT
SUPERVISION AND FRANKLY, WE
CHARITY, TO YOUR COMMENT, SIR,
THE 5 MILLION THAT WE INCURRED
IN EXPENSES IS -- THAT'S NOT THE
REAL ISSUE HERE.
THIS IS FALSE INFORMATION THAT'S
BEEN CIRCULATED, HAS BEEN
DEVASTATING TO THE CHARITY.
THE CHARITY GOT TAGGED THE WE
CHARITY SCANDAL ON THIS WHEN IN
FACT THE CHARITY DIDN'T MAKE THE
FINAL DECISION AND WASN'T
INVOLVED IN THE DECISION OF
DECLARING THIS AS A CONFLICT.
EVERY MEDIA IS CARRYING THIS AS
A WE CHARITY SCANDAL AROUND THE
WORLD.
THIS HAS BEEN -- IT'S
DEVASTATING TO A CANADIAN
CHARITY THROUGH THIS WHOLE
PROCESS, AND AS I SAY, FRANKLY
THERE ARE DAYS THAT WE JUST WISH
THAT WE HAD NEVER ANSWERED THE
PHONE ON APRIL 19th WHEN
RACHEL WERNICK CALLED ASKING US
TO HELP.
AND IT IS INCREDIBLY UNFORTUNATE
THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BEARING
THE WORST COST OF ALL THIS ARE
YOUNG PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE
THEIR SUMMER PLACEMENTS, AND
BECAUSE OF THE HARM CAUSED TO WE
CHARITY, SO MANY OF THE YOUNG
PEOPLE AND CHILDREN IN CANADA
THAT WE SERVE WHO WE WON'T BE
ABLE TO PROVIDE THE SAME
PROGRAMS TO IN THE YEARS AHEAD.
>> The Chair: OKAY.
I'M GOING TO END IT THERE,
MR. MacLEOD.
FOUR MINUTES FOR THE LAST FOUR
SPEAKERS, THANK YOU FOR THAT
QUESTION AND ANSWER.
MR. POILIEVRE, FOUR-MINUTE ROUND
FOR YOU, AND THEN WE'LL END WITH
MISS KOUTRAKIS.
MR. POILIEVRE, ARE YOU THERE?
>> SECTION 5.1 OF THE
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT ALLOWED
YOU, YOUR ORGANIZATION TO BE
COMPENSATED FOR SALARY BUT
EXPRESSLY SAID THAT YOUR
ORGANIZATION WOULD NOT HAVE TO
KEEP TIME SHEETS.
WHY DO YOU THINK IT WAS
IMPORTANT NOT TO PROVIDE TIME
SHEETS TO SHOW WORK HOURS FOR
WHICH YOUR GROUP WOULD BE
COMPENSATED?
>> SIR, WE'VE ACTUALLY SET OUT
IN THE MEDIA OR IF ANYONE WOULD
LIKE TO LOOK AT IT, WE SENT A
VERSION OF THE CONTRACT WITH
VARIOUS SPECIFIC NOTES, VERY
DETAILED NOTES, AND THE REASON
SPECIFICALLY IS THE PROVISION
THAT WE WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO
MAINTAIN TIME SHEETS AND RECORD
KEEPING REFLECTED THE FACT THAT
WE STAFF HAD BEGUN TO WORK
IMMEDIATELY ON THE PROJECT IN
ADVANCE OF THE FINAL FUNDING.
[ Please Stand By ]
THOUGH, IT COULD BE SUMMER OR 
FULL YEAR.
SHE KNEW IT HAD TO BE LAUNCHED 
IMMEDIATELY, ALTHOUGH THAT TIME 
HAD SHIFTED.
THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS 
THE BROAD OUTLINE IS IT PAYS 
SUMMER SERVICE PROGRAM FOR 
YOUTH, SHE KNEW THE FINAL 
NUMBERS, THE DATE, AND THE 
PAYMENT AMOUNTS.
THOSE WERE ALL DETAILS THAT 
POLICY OBJECTIVES WERE DECIDED 
BY OTHER PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT.
>> YOUR TESTIMONY CONTRADICTS 
HERS.
YOUR TESTIMONY CONTRADICTS HERS 
BECAUSE SHE SAYS THAT SHE DIDN'T
HAVE THE DETAILS AND SHE ALSO 
SAYS SHE DID NOT SAY THAT SHE 
ASKED YOU TO RUN THE PROGRAM.
SHE SAID THAT SHE CALLED TO ASK 
YOU FOR YOUR INPUT AND THEN IT 
WASN'T UNTIL THREE DAYS LATER 
WHEN THE PRIME MINISTER MADE AN 
ANNOUNCEMENT AND YOU VERY 
CONVENIENTLY HAD A PROPOSAL 
READY, THAT AT THAT POINT YOU 
BECAME THE SERVICE DELIVERY 
ORGANIZATION.
SO WHY THE CONTRADICTION?
>> The Chair: Mr. KIELBURGER, 
YOU CAN FINISH YOUR PREVIOUS 
ANSWER AND CONCLUDE ON THIS ONE.
>> SURE.
I'LL JUST JUMP STRAIGHT AHEAD AT
THIS POINT, SIR.
I WILL HAPPILY SUBMIT TO YOU THE
APRIL 22nd E-MAIL FROM MYSELF TO
MISS WERNICK THAT SAYS AS PER 
YOUR REQUEST, THE KEY WORDS 
INDICATING WE WERE SENDING THE 
PROPOSALS AS PER YOUR REQUEST.
>> THOSE WERE THE WORDS YOU 
WROTE.
VERY CRAFTY, WELL DONE.
>> The Chair: LAST QUESTION, 
Mr. POILIEVRE.
>> HAVE YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON 
YOUR BEHALF INCLUDING A LAW FIRM
EVER HIRED A PRIVATE 
INVESTIGATORS THAT MAY HAVE 
LOOKED IN TO MEDIA PERSONALITIES
LIKE Mr. JESSE BROWN OR REPORTER
DARREN KERR?
>> SIR, IF I MAY SAY WITH DUE 
RESPECT, YOU ARE REACHING TO THE
BOTTOM OF THE BARREL IF JESSE 
BROWN IS NOW WHO YOU'RE QUOTING 
TO -- 
>> I ASKED YOU A QUESTION AND 
YOU'RE NOT ANSWERING IT.
>> WELL, I CAN ANSWER IT VERY 
CLEARLY.
THERE WAS A PUBLIC EXCHANGE 
BETWEEN JESSE BROWN -- 
>> YOU'RE NOT ANSWERING.
>> SIR, I AM, YES.
Mr. CHAIR, I'M GOING TO ANSWER 
VERY CLEARLY WITH TWO POINTS.
NUMBER ONE, THERE'S A PUBLIC 
EXCHANGE ON Mr. BROWN -- 
>> DID YOUR LAW FIRM HIRE -- 
>> The Chair: Mr. POILIEVRE, 
YOUR QUESTIONS ARE DONE.
Mr. KIELBURGER HAS THE RIGHT TO 
RESPOND AND WE WILL CONCLUDE -- 
>> JUST CALL YOU BACK IF YOU 
DON'T ANSWER.
>> The Chair: AND WE WILL 
CONCLUDE WITH MISS KOUTRAKIS, I 
BELIEVE.
Mr. KIELBURGER.
>> WE WILL HAPPILY SUBMIT TO YOU
THE TWITTER EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE
LAWYER INVOLVED WITH JESSE BROWN
AND IT ANSWERS THE QUESTION 
DECISIVELY.
WE'VE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.
>> POINT OF ORDER, Mr. CHAIR.
>> The Chair: WHAT'S YOUR POINT 
OF ORDER?
>> THE STANDING ORDERS CLEARLY 
STATE THE WITNESSES ARE REQUIRED
TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS PUT BY 
WITNESSES OR RISK BEING FOUND IN
CONTEMPT.
THE QUESTION WAS YES OR NO 
WHETHER THE WITNESS'S LAW FIRM 
HIRED A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR TO 
LOOK IN TO JESSE BROWN AND 
DARREN KERR.
THE WITNESS THEN REFERS TO A 
TWITTER EXCHANGE.
I'M LOOKING FOR AN ANSWER.
YES OR NO.
DID YOUR LAW FIRM HIRE A PRIVATE
INVESTIGATOR TO LOOK IN TO THE 
REPORTERS, YES OR NO?
>> SIR, WE'VE BEEN HERE FOUR 
HOURS AND NOW YOU'RE THREATENING
US.
WE JUST FEEL THIS IS NOT 
APPROPRIATE.
>> YES OR NO.
>> The Chair: WE WILL GO TO.
>> YES OR NO.
>> The Chair: WE WILL GO TO MISS
KOUTRAKIS.
FINAL QUESTION.
>> THAT'S A YES.
>> The Chair: THANK YOU, 
Mr. CHAIR.
I JUST WANTED TO CORRECT 
SOMETHING Mr. KIELBURGER SAID 
EARLIER CALLING IN A SOLE-SOURCE
CONTRACT WHEN IT'S A 
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT.
I ONLY RAISE THAT TO CORRECT 
THAT.
>> THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME.
WE HEARD THROUGH YOUR TESTIMONY,
AS YOU SAID GRUELING TESTIMONY 
OVER THE LAST FOUR HOURS, TIME 
AND TIME AGAIN, THE VARIOUS 
THEORIES THAT ARE OUT THERE, BUT
I THINK THAT IT'S VERY, VERY 
IMPORTANT THAT WE END TODAY'S 
MEETING BY GIVING YOU THE 
OPPORTUNITY ONE MORE TIME TO 
CLARIFY CERTAIN UNTRUTHS SO I 
WILL BEGIN BY SAYING THAT 
THERE'S A THEORY OUT THERE 
THAT'S BEING, YOU KNOW, PUT 
FORWARD, IMPLICIT AND EVEN 
EXPLICITY BY THE OPPOSITION AND 
THE MEDIA WHICH COMES DOWN TO 
THE FOLLOWING: WE WAS IN 
FINANCIAL PROBLEMS AND A SCHEME 
WITH YOU PUT TOGETHER WITH THE 
CURRENT SENIOR MEMBERS OF THE 
GOVERNMENT TO CREATE A LARGE 
STUDENT AID PROGRAM USING THE 
PANDEMIC AS AN EXCUSE AND TO 
DIRECT THIS CONTRIBUTION 
AGREEMENT TO WE TO SAVE THEM 
FINANCIALLY BASED ON THE PROFIT 
THEY WOULD MAKE.
THE IMPLICATION IS THAT THE 
PROFIT THAT WE WOULD MAKE WOULD 
BE A PAYBACK FOR SPEAKING FEES, 
TRAVEL EXPENSES, A JOB, A TRIP, 
GIVEN TO THE PRIME MINISTER OR 
MINISTER OF FINANCE AND FOR 
POLITICAL HELP TO THE LIBERAL 
PARTY OF CANADA.
IS THIS A TRUE REPRESENTATION OF
WHAT HAPPENED?
AND IF NOT, PLEASE ADDRESS ANY 
INACCURACIES THAT EXIST IN THIS 
THEORY AND I KINDLY REMIND YOU 
THAT YOU ARE UNDER OATH.
>> The Chair: OKAY, GENTLEMEN?
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
THIS IS DECISIVELY NOT A TRUE 
REPRESENTATION OF WHAT TOOK 
PLACE.
ALLOW ME TO WALK THROUGH STEP BY
STEP ON THE TIME FRAME YOU 
OUTLINED.
IN THE SPRING LIKE EVERYONE 
ELSE, WE WERE AFFECTED BY 
COVID-19.
LIKE SMALL BUSINESSES, 
NON-PROFITS AND OTHERS ACROSS 
CANADA, WE HAD TO MAKE MANY 
DIFFICULT CHOICES AND AS THE 
PREVIOUS WITNESS TESTIFIED, MISS
DOUGLAS, IT WAS A DIFFICULT 
TIME.
WE HAD TO LET PEOPLE GO WHO WERE
LIKE FAMILY.
WE HAD LONG-TERM CONTRACTS WITH 
PARTNERS TO IMPLEMENT PROJECTS 
AND WE WERE IN A SOLID FINANCIAL
POSITION BECAUSE OF THOSE 
PRUDENT CHOICES.
WE WERE APPROACHED BY THE 
GOVERNMENT SPECIFICALLY MISS 
WERNICK ON APRIL 19th TO 
IMPLEMENT A SERVICE -- ASKED US 
IF WE WERE WILLING TO IMPLEMENT 
A SERVICE PROGRAM.
IN THAT CASE, WE SENT OUR BEST 
SUGGESTIONS AS PER FIRST REQUEST
FOR HER CONSIDERATION, THERE WAS
AN INTERNAL PROCESS IN 
GOVERNMENT WHICH WE FRANKLY 
CAN'T SPEAK MUCH TO THAT LED AT 
THE END OF THE DAY FOR HER 
REQUEST FOR US TO WORK TO CREATE
THIS DURING A PANDEMIC, 
EXTRAORDINARY TIME OF NATIONAL 
CRISIS, WE DID OUR BEST, CREATED
A PROGRAM THAT HAD OVER 35,000 
YOUTH APPLICANTS, 64% PEOPLE OF 
COLOUR COAST TO COAST TO COAST 
INCLUDING THE NORTHWEST 
TERRITORIES, SIR, AND EVERY 
OTHER REGION REPRESENTED AND 
THROUGH THIS PROCESS, 
UNFORTUNATELY, AT THE MINUTE IT 
WAS ANNOUNCED, IT GOT IMMESHED 
IN A POLITICAL CONTROVERSY.
WE DID OUR BEST.
WE HANDED EVERYTHING OVER TO THE
GOVERNMENT.
WE ARE HEARTBROKEN THAT IT 
HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO CONTINUE.
WE'RE HEARTBROKEN THAT THE YOUTH
HAS FACED THESE SIGNIFICANT 
CHALLENGES AS A RESULT AND 
FRANKLY, WE WERE HEARTBROKEN 
THAT THIS WHOLE PROCESS HAS 
FRANKLY NOT BEEN A GIFT TO OUR 
CHARITY OR FAR FROM IT.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MAY 
DESTROY 25 YEARS OF WORK TO 
BUILD A NATIONAL CHARITY IN THIS
COUNTRY.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAD 
ONE PURPOSE AND ONE PURPOSE 
ONLY.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT
HELPING WE CHARITY.
WE CHARITY SOUGHT TO HELP THE 
GOVERNMENT TO HELP YOUNG PEOPLE.
>> The Chair: OKAY, WITH THAT, 
IT'S A VERY GOOD NOTE TO END ON.
SORRY WE'RE OUT OF TIME.
WE'RE ACTUALLY OVER TIME.
I DO WANT TO, GENTLEMEN, ON 
BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE THANK 
YOU FOR FIRST REQUESTING TO 
APPEAR FOR I BELIEVE IT WAS AN 
HOUR AND AGREEING TO THE WILL OF
THE COMMITTEE TO MEET FOR FOUR 
HOURS.
WE'VE HAD I THINK A LOT OF 
INFORMATION TABLED TODAY.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR FORTHRIGHT 
ANSWERS AND I THANK MEMBERS FOR 
THEIR QUESTIONS AS WELL.
SO WITH THAT, THANK YOU, AGAIN, 
ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE FOR 
APPEARING AND THE MEETING IS 
ADJOURNED.
>> THANK YOU, SIR.
>> THANK YOU.
>> Vassy: HI THERE.
WELCOME TO "POWER & POLITICS" ON
THIS TUESDAY EVENING.
WE HAVE BEEN WATCHING, IF YOU 
CAN BELIEVE IT, YOU CAN SEE ON 
THE SPLIT SCREEN THERE WITH ME, 
JUST OVER FOUR HOURS OF 
TESTIMONY FROM THE KIELBURGER 
BROTHERS, MARC AND CRAIG 
KIELBURGER IN FRONT OF THE 
FINANCE COMMITTEE, WHAT BECAME 
AT TIMES VERY DENSE AND VERY 
HEATED EXCHANGES BETWEEN 
OPPOSITION MPs IN PARTICULAR AND
THOSE TWO BROTHERS.
THEY ARE THE FOUNDERS OF THE WE 
CHARITY.
I JUST WANT TO KIND OF BRING TO 
YOU OR EXPLAIN TO YOU SOME OF 
THE THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO
KNOW ABOUT THIS STORY AND ALSO 
THE MAIN POINTS THAT WERE MADE 
DURING THOSE FOUR HOURS.
I PROMISE I'LL KEEP IT SHORT 
BECAUSE WE HAVE THE POWER PANEL 
STANDING BY TO WEIGH IN ON 
EVERYTHING THAT WE JUST HEARD, 
BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO 
SUM UP WHAT THEY SAID.
FIRST OF ALL, WE'VE BEEN TALKING
ABOUT THIS CONTROVERSY FOR A 
NUMBER OF DAYS.
ESSENTIALLY THE GOVERNMENT MADE 
A DECISION TO ENTER IN TO AN 
AGREEMENT A CONTRIBUTION 
AGREEMENT WITH WE CHARITY TO RUN
WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ORIGINALLY 
A $900 MILLION PROGRAM IS WHAT 
THE GOVERNMENT SAID, NOW WE 
FOUND OUT ABOUT $500 MILLION.
THEY WOULD HAVE PAID WE $43.5 
MILLION TO DO THAT.
AFTER THAT AGREEMENT WAS 
ANNOUNCED, A LOT OF THINGS CAME 
TO LIGHT DUE TO THE VARIOUS 
REPORTING OF CANADA LAND, THE 
"GLOBE & MAIL," OF CBC AROUND 
CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE TRUDEAU 
FAMILY, IN PARTICULAR THE PRIME 
MINISTER'S MOTHER AND BROTHER 
WHO WERE PAID BY WE TO SPEAK AT 
VARIOUS EVENTS SINCE JUSTIN 
TRUDEAU BECAME PRIME MINISTER AS
WELL AS THE FINANCE MINISTER WHO
HAS MADE TRIPS WITH THE 
CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION AND AS 
WELL HIS DAUGHTER WORKS FOR THE 
ORGANIZATION.
SO ALL OF THAT CAME TO LIGHT.
WE AND THE GOVERNMENT END UP 
BREAKING OFF THE CONTRACT, AND 
WE ARRIVE HERE.
WE'VE HEARD FROM OTHER PEOPLE 
INVOLVED IN THIS.
WE ANTICIPATE WE ARE EXPECTED TO
HEAR FROM THE PRIME MINISTER 
HIMSELF WHO WILL TESTIFY BEFORE 
THAT VERY SAME COMMITTEE ON 
THURSDAY ALONG WITH HIS CHIEF OF
STAFF, BUT TODAY WE HEARD FROM 
THE TWO MEN BEHIND THIS CHARITY,
WHICH IF YOU HAVE A KID IN THIS 
COUNTRY, YOU'VE HEARD OF THE WE 
ORGANIZATION.
THEY ARE VERY BIG.
THEY RUN WE DAYS.
THEY ALSO DO THINGS WITH RESPECT
TO INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
TODAY THE MAIN THESIS PUT 
FORWARD BY THE KIELBURGERS WAS 
THEY WERE NOT IN THIS TO PROFIT 
IN ANY WAY AND THAT THEIR 
RELATIONSHIP WITH LIBERALS IS 
NOT OVERLY COZY, THAT THEY 
DIDN'T STAND TO GAIN FROM THIS 
AGREEMENT.
THE MAIN POINT THEY PUT FORWARD 
IS BECAUSE OF THE CONTRIBUTION 
AGREEMENT, THE WAY IN WHICH IT 
WAS SET UP, THEY WOULD NOT MAKE 
ANY PROFIT FROM ALL OF THIS.
THEY WOULD INCUR EXPENSES, THOSE
WOULD GET BILLED BACK TO THE 
GOVERNMENT AND THEY DIDN'T 
NECESSARILY, THEY MADE THE 
POINT, HAVE A STAKE IN THE GAME.
THEY WENT TO GREAT LENGTHS TO 
SAY THEY DIDN'T HAVE A 
PARTICULARLY COZY RELATIONSHIP 
WITH THE TRUDEAUS IN PARTICULAR 
OR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE LIBERAL 
GOVERNMENT.
THEY USED LOTS OF EXAMPLES OF 
OTHER ENDEAVOURS WITH VARIOUS 
POLITICIANS FROM VARIOUS PARTIES
TO TRY AND MAKE THAT POINT.
I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT THE 
OPPOSITION DID NOT BUY IT AND 
THAT JUNCTURE IS WHERE I WANT TO
BRING IN THE POWER PANEL TO 
WEIGH IN ON HOW THIS FITS IN TO 
THE GREATER NARRATIVE AROUND 
THIS CONTROVERSY.
JOINING US FROM EAST TO WEST OR 
WEST TO EAST I SHOULD SAY.
IN VANCOUVER, SHACHI KURL.
SHE'S THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF 
THE ANGUS REID INSTITUTE.
I'LL SKIP OVER A FEW PROVINCES 
BECAUSE YOU SEE FRANCOISE 
BOIVIN, OF COURSE, FORMER NDP MP
AND POLITICAL COMMENTATOR IN 
GATINEAU.
NEAR SASKATOON, FORMER DIRECTOR 
OF COMMUNICATIONS TO PRIME 
MINISTER HARPER NOW MANAGING 
PARTNER AT RUBICON STRATEGY, 
KORY TENEYCKE, AND IN TORONTO, 
TIM MURPHY, MANAGING DIRECTOR AT
McMILLAN VANTAGE.
HI, EVERYBODY.
GREAT TO SEE YOU.
IT'S EXCITING TO BE ABLE TO TALK
BECAUSE WE JUST LISTENED TO SO 
MANY HOURS OF TESTIMONY.
SHACHI, YOU HAVE A REAL KEEN 
SENSE OF HOW CANADIANS, TO WHAT 
DEGREE THEY'RE PAYING ATTENTION 
AND HOW THEY PERCEIVE THIS SO 
FAR.
I WANTED TO KNOW FROM YOU BOTTOM
LINE BASED ON WHAT YOU HEARD, 
WHAT YOU HEARD TODAY, DO YOU 
THINK IT HELPED OR HURT THE 
GOVERNMENT'S CASE?
>> SO THERE'S THE ISSUE OF THE 
GOVERNMENT AND THEN THERE'S ALSO
THE ISSUE OF WE, AND I KNOW THE 
PRODUCERS ARE SAYING KEEP THIS 
TIGHT.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT.
I DON'T THINK THIS HAS HURT THE 
TRUDEAU GOVERNMENT.
I DON'T THINK THIS HELPS THE 
DREW -- TRUDEAU GOVERNMENT.
YOU HAVE FOUR HOURS OF MARC AND 
CRAIG KIELBURGER ON SCREEN 
GETTING IN TO DENSE TESTIMONY, 
THE MINUTIA OF THE WAY THEY'RE 
SET UP.
THIS IS TOO MUCH FOR PEOPLE WHO,
UNLESS YOU'RE SUPER, SUPER 
ENGAGED, TO REALLY FOLLOW ALL 
THOSE BOUNCING BALLS.
THIS IS NOW A HYDRA HEADED 
THING.
IT'S LIKE DODGE BALL AND THEY'RE
ALL GOING AT THE SAME TIME.
BUT WHAT IT DOES IS IT 
REINFORCES AND UNDERSCORES, EVEN
IF YOU'RE JUST KEEPING HALF AN 
EYEBALL ON THIS THAT THE TWO 
GUYS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS 
CONTRACT THAT'S UNDER SCRUTINY 
JUST SPENT FOUR HOURS ANSWERING 
QUESTIONS AND ALTHOUGH THEY DID 
SEEK TO CLARIFY THE RECORD ON A 
NUMBER OF FRONTS, ALTHOUGH THE 
MAIN POINT THAT THEY WANTED TO 
GET ACROSS IS WE WEREN'T IN THIS
FOR US, WE WEREN'T DOING THIS 
FOR PROFIT, THERE WAS NO BIG 
PAYOFF FOR US, THAT MAY GO SOME 
WAY TO TAKING THE TEMPERATURE 
DOWN, BUT ULTIMATELY, AT THE END
OF THE DAY, YOU'RE STILL LEFT 
WITH A STORY AND A SAGA OF A 
GOVERNMENT AND A CHARITY THAT 
WAS REALLY MUTUALLY BENEFITING 
FROM EACH OTHER'S STAR POWER AND
ULTIMATELY CANADIANS ARE GOING 
TO HAVE TO JUDGE WHETHER THAT 
WAS AN APPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIP 
AND WHETHER THE DECISION TO SOLE
SOURCE THE CONTRACT TO THIS 
ORGANIZATION, EVEN WITH ITS 
QUALIFICATIONS, WAS THE RIGHT 
DECISION GIVEN THAT REALLY, I 
THINK THERE'S BEEN AN 
ESTABLISHMENT THAT BOTH 
ENTITIES, GOVERNMENT, THE 
TRUDEAUS BENEFITED FROM THE 
KIELBURGER STAR POWER, THE 
KIELBURGERS CERTAINLY DID NOT 
HURT FOR HAVING THE TRUDEAUS 
SHOW UP AT THEIR EVENT.
>> Vassy: THERE WAS SOME 
INTERESTING POINTS OR DETAILS 
THAT THE BROTHERS RELEASED ON 
THAT TOO.
FIRST, WHEN IT COMES TO MARGARET
TRUDEAU, THE PRIME MINISTER'S 
MOTHER, THAT FIRST OF ALL, SHE 
WAS PAID FOR NOT SPEAKING AT WE 
DAY EVENTS BUT AUXILIARY EVENTS,
THINGS LIKE FUND RAISING OR 
GALAS.
SO IN A WAY, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD
CERTAINLY SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, 
CHARLIE ANGUS LOOK AT, WELL, 
YOU'RE TRYING TO LEVERAGE ACCESS
THERE.
ON THE FLIP SIDE, THERE WERE, 
YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A GREAT DEAL
OF DETAIL PROVIDED BY THEM ABOUT
HOW THEY HAVE NOT SOCIALIZED 
WITH JUSTIN TRUDEAU, THE PRIME 
MINISTER, THEY HAVE NOT HAD 
LUNCHES WITH HE AND HIS WIFE OR 
ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO THEY DID TRY TO I THINK MAKE 
THE POINT THAT THEY AREN'T, YOU 
KNOW, AS I SAID AT THE 
BEGINNING, AS COZY AS 
NECESSARILY HAS BEEN 
CHARACTERIZED, BUT I THINK 
SHACHI HAS A POINT AS WELL.
THOSE QUESTIONS ARE STILL GOING 
TO PERSIST PROBABLY.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
>> WELL, WE'RE HAVING A SHOW 
ABOUT IT, SO I GUESS THE 
QUESTIONS ARE GOING TO PERSIST.
BUT I THINK IT'S UNSURPRISING TO
ME THAT A CHARITABLE 
ORGANIZATION THAT'S TRYING TO 
ATTRACT CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND
CROWDS FOR ITS PURPOSE IS 
LOOKING TO HAVE PEOPLE SPEAK AT 
EVENTS WHO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF 
AREAS THAT ARE CONCENTRATING IN 
MENTAL HEALTH, FOR EXAMPLE, AND 
LOOKING IN TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE 
GOT SOME DEGREE OF FAME IN A 
COUNTRY IN WHICH WE'RE 
OPERATING.
SO MARGARET TRUDEAU IS KIND OF A
NATURAL POTENTIAL FOR THAT.
I DIDN'T GET ANY SENSE OUT OF 
THIS THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS 
TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, OR THEY 
WERE TRYING TO LEAVE HER -- 
LEVER ANY SPECIAL ACCESS TO THE 
GOVERNMENT ABOUT THAT.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY FIRE 
THERE.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THE SAD PART, 
LOOK, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING 
ABOUT WE CHARITY, NEVER MET 
THEM, BUT IT'S KIND OF SAD TO 
WATCH A, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO WE
FIRST MET WHEN THEY WERE 
TEENAGERS DOING MAJOR THINGS, 
HAVE BEEN AT 24 SUSSEX WITH, YOU
KNOW, THE HARPERS AND HAVE 
CONTINUED TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, 
TALK TO GOVERNMENTS OF ALL 
STRIPES AND WATCH WHAT I THINK A
LOT OF YOUNG PEOPLE THOUGHT WAS 
A GREAT ORGANIZATION HAVING SOME
REAL PROBLEMS BECAUSE OF BEING 
DRAGGED THROUGH THE MUCK OF THIS
PROCESS, WHICH FRANKLY, MUCH 
FIRE THERE.
>> Vassy: I WOULD SAY THERE ARE 
SOME VALID QUESTIONS, THOUGH, 
JUST QUICKLY ABOUT THE WAY IN 
WHICH THE CHARITY HAD CONDUCTED 
ITSELF.
IF YOU LISTEN TO THE TESTIMONY 
PRIOR, FOR EXAMPLE, I DO 
UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING 
THAT THEY CERTAINLY ARE GETTING 
TARGETED VERY MUCH, BUT SOME OF 
THE TESTIMONY FROM THE CHAIR OF 
THE BOARD PRIOR WHO RESIGNED 
BECAUSE SHE SAYS SHE COULDN'T 
GET, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE LAYING 
OFF MORE THAN A HUNDRED PEOPLE 
AND SHE COULDN'T GET ANY DETAILS
OF THE FINANCES OF THE COMPANY, 
BUT I TO AGREE WITH SHACHI, IT'S
ALMOST LIKE THAT'S ONE PART OF 
THE ISSUE AND THE OTHER IS WHAT 
THIS DID FOR WHAT THE GOVERNMENT
PUT FORWARD SO FAR AND KORY, 
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?
>> I THINK IT'S PRETTY RICH TO 
THINK THAT MARGARET TRUDEAU IS 
WORTH A QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS 
TO DO SPEAKING AT GALAS OR 
WHATEVER THE STATED PURPOSE IS 
NOW.
I DON'T THINK THEY HAD A VERY 
GOOD DAY TESTIFYING.
I AGREE THAT IT WAS PRETTY DENSE
STUFF AT TIMES, BUT I DON'T 
THINK THEY WERE WELL HELPED BY 
SMIRKING THE WHOLE TIME.
I THINK THEY HAVE HAD A VERY 
CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH JUSTIN 
TRUDEAU AND PEOPLE CLOSELY 
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, HIS 
ADMINISTRATION, AND I THINK 
THEY'VE PROFITED FROM IT.
WHETHER IT'S PROFIT IN A 
TECHNICAL SENSE OF, YOU KNOW, 
WHAT THE FEES, THE 40 SOME 
MILLION DOLLARS IN FEES ARE 
GOING TOWARDS, THEY'VE CERTAINLY
DONE VERY WELL FOR THEMSELVES IN
ATTRACTING GOVERNMENT DOLLARS BY
PLAYING THIS SORT OF GAME.
IT'S NOT A VERY APPROPRIATE GAME
IN THE EYES OF A LOT OF 
CANADIANS AND I DON'T THINK IT 
LOOKS GOOD ON THE TRUDEAU 
GOVERNMENT.
>> Vassy: THE ONLY POINT I WOULD
MAKE BACK ON THAT IS THEY DID 
TALK ABOUT A PORTION OF THE 
DONATIONS THEY GET IN, THE 
GRANTS FROM THE PREVIOUS 
GOVERNMENT WERE A HIGHER PORTION
OF THAT THAN THIS GOVERNMENT.
THEY DID TALK ABOUT ALL THE 
OTHER POLITICIANS FROM OTHER 
PARTIES INVOLVED WITH THEM.
THOSE POLITICIANS HAVEN'T 
NECESSARILY DECIDED TO ENTER IN 
TO A CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT, SO 
I TAKE THE POINT THERE, BUT EVEN
WHEN IT COMES TO MARGARET 
TRUDEAU, SHE WAS ON THE LOWER 
END OF SPEAKING FEES, THEY SAID 
AS WELL.
SHE WAS WELL KNOWN FOR ADVOCACY 
AROUND MENTAL HEALTH.
I THINK THAT'S HARD TO DISPUTE.
>> SHE HAS A REPUTATION AROUND 
THAT AND HAS BEEN WORKING IN 
THAT AREA FOR SURE.
BUT IF YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, THE OLD
SAYING ABOUT THAT YOU MUST NOT 
ONLY BE VIRTUOUS, YOU MUST 
APPEAR TO BE VIRTUOUS, AND WHEN 
YOU'RE HAVING THOSE KINDS OF 
ARRANGEMENTS FOR THOSE AMOUNTS 
OF MONEY AND THAT IS A VERY 
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY, 
LIKE I CHALLENGE YOUR VIEWERS 
BACK HOME TO THINK HOW MANY OF 
THEM ARE MAKING A QUARTER 
MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.
PROBABLY NOT MANY.
QUITE A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY, 
AND I DON'T THINK IT'S 
APPROPRIATE.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE TALKED 
ABOUT BEFORE AROUND THIS IS I 
THINK THE MOST INAPPROPRIATE 
THING IS THE CAMPAIGN STYLE ADS,
DIGITAL ADS THAT, WE CHARITY WAS
PUMPING OUT.
YOU KNOW, THEY MAY HAVE SOME 
RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER 
GOVERNMENTS, BUT LET'S CALL A 
SPADE A SPADE.
THE KIELBURGERS ARE LIBERALS AND
THEY HAVE VERY CLOSE FRIENDSHIPS
WITH LIBERALS.
THESE ARE IDEOLOGICAL FELLOW 
TRAVELERS.
>> Vassy: FRANCOISE, TIM IS 
ENTERTAINED BY THAT, SO WE'LL 
GET A REACTION LATER, KORY AND 
TIM ALWAYS ENTERTAINED BY EACH 
OTHER.
>> NO ONE ELSE IS.
(Laughter)
>> Vassy: I'M ALWAYS.
>> THE SHOW IS FOR US.
(Laughter)
>> Vassy: FRANCOISE, I DID WANT 
TO GET YOU TO WEIGH IN AS WELL.
I GUESS ON THAT CENTRAL IDEA 
THAT THE IDEA THAT AND KORY 
SPOKE IT TO IT AS WELL AS TIM 
BUT THAT THEY WERE EXTRA, THERE 
WAS SOMETHING ABOUT THE 
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LIBERALS 
AND THIS CHARITY.
THAT IS CENTRALIZING TO WHAT 
THEY TRIED TO DISPUTE DURING 
THIS TESTIMONY.
I'M WONDERING IF YOU THINK THEY 
WERE SUCCESSFUL OR UNSUCCESSFUL 
IN THAT.
>> WELL, THEY WERE, IN MY BOOK 
AND I'M SO NEUTRAL, THEY WERE 
PRETTY SUCCESSFUL IN A SENSE 
THAT JUST REMEMBER, WHEN WE WERE
ALL TALKING ABOUT GREAT THINGS 
ABOUT WE CHARITY UNDER ALL OF 
ITS SHAPE AND FORM, EVERYBODY 
WANTED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE
WE CHARITY.
THEY MADE A POINT SAYING THAT 
EX-PRIME MINISTER HARPER'S WIFE 
WAS INVOLVED AT SOME POINT IN 
TIME.
THE WIFE OF PETER MacKAY, 
PROBABLY, THE NEXT LEADER OF THE
CONSERVATIVES WAS INVOLVED.
SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT 
CHARITY AND BIG ORGANIZATIONS 
THAT COLLECTS FUNDS ARE ALL 
ABOUT.
THEY DON'T WANT JOE BLOW FROM 
GOD KNOWS WHAT STREET THAT IS 
NOT KNOWN BY ANYBODY.
THEY WANT NAMES THAT ARE GOING 
TO BE RECOGNIZED AND SO ON.
SO I THOUGHT THEY WERE PRETTY 
SUCCESSFUL THERE.
DID I LEARN MUCH IN THAT FOUR 
HOURS?
I LEARNED THAT SOME OF THE MPs 
ARE RUDE AS HELL AND I'M NOT 
AFRAID TO SAY IT.
HONESTLY, I MIGHT NOT BE A 
LIBERAL NO MORE, BUT YOU DO NOT 
ATTACK THE RIGHT OF MARGARET 
TRUDEAU.
YOU MIGHT SAY, HEY, IT'S BECAUSE
OF HER NAME TRUDEAU THAT SHE WAS
INVITED, BUT I THOUGHT THOSE 
LINE OF QUESTIONINGS WAS SO 
CHEAP TO TRY TO HAND THAT SHE 
HAD NO CREDIBILITY ON THE FIELD.
I FELT BAD FOR MARGARET TRUDEAU 
FOR ALL THE TIME THAT THEY WERE 
ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS.
SO THAT DIDN'T BODE WELL 
NECESSARILY WITH THE OPPOSITION.
THE LAWYER SIDE OF ME WAS 
APPALLED THAT THEY DIDN'T GO TO 
THE REAL POINT OF THOSE 
MEETINGS, WHICH IS TO KNOW WHAT 
DID THE GOVERNMENT DO?
WHO DID IT?
WE ALREADY KNOW THAT THE PRIME 
MINISTER AND HIS MINISTER OF 
FINANCE DIDN'T RECUSE 
THEMSELVES.
WHEN THE KIELBURGERS ARE SAYING 
THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE 
HEARTBROKEN FOR THE KIDS, THEY 
SHOULD BE MAD AS HELL AT THE 
GOVERNMENT FOR REALLY, YOU KNOW,
REALLY LOSING THE BALL AT THE 
GOAL LINE ON SUCH MAYBE A GOOD 
PROJECT, AND YES, IT MIGHT BE 
THE KIDS WHO PAY THE PRICE AT 
THE END OF TIME.
SO I WAS SURPRISED THAT THE 
OPPOSITION DIDN'T GO MORE IN TO 
THE CONTRACT.
WHY WAS THAT ORGANIZATION DEEMED
SO BRILLIANT BY THE CIVIL 
SERVANTS?
WHAT WAS IN THAT CONTRACT?
NOT NECESSARILY JUST A LITTLE 
CLAUSE OF SALARY PAYMENT AND TO 
THE KIELBURGER, BUT THE OFFER 
THAT THEY WERE GOING TO OFFER TO
KIDS THAT THEY COULD CREATE IN 
EXACTLY 24, 48 HOURS.
THERE WERE SO MANY LINE OF 
QUESTIONINGS THAT WOULD HAVE 
MADE IT NOT SO MUCH A KANGAROO 
COURT LIKE SOMEBODY SAID ON 
TWITTER, IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN.
>> Vassy: SHACHI, HOW DO YOU 
THINK THIS SETS UP THURSDAY'S 
TESTIMONY FROM THE PRIME 
MINISTER?
LIKE DOES IT CHANGE YOUR VIEW OF
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IT OR HOW DO
YOU THINK IT FEEDS IN TO IT?
>> SO, I THINK AT BEST, AGAIN, 
THIS IS ALL ABOUT SORT OF BEST 
CASE SCENARIO, WORST CASE 
SCENARIO.
BEST CASE SCENARIO, I THINK THE 
LACK OF ANSWERS THAT FRANCOISE 
HAS HIGHLIGHTED AND THE WAY SOME
OF THE QUESTIONS CAME OUT AND 
REALLY WHAT WE DIDN'T LEARN FROM
THIS CONTINUES TO LEAVE SOME 
QUESTIONS AS TO WAS THIS RUSHED?
WAS THIS EITHER SENIOR, SENIOR 
CIVIL SERVANTS WHO BY TRAINING 
AND BY DEFINITION ARE NOT, YOU 
KNOW, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE THE
METHODOLOGICAL PROCESS-DRIVEN 
FOLKS, WERE THEY ALL TRIPPING 
OVER THEIR FEET TO GET THIS DONE
VERY QUICKLY?
WHY?
WHAT WAS GOING ON BEHIND THAT?
WAS IT POLITICIZED?
WAS IT POLITICALLY DRIVEN?
YOU'VE HEARD THE KIELBURGERS SAY
TODAY THAT IT WASN'T THEM 
PUTTING UP THEIR HANDS, WHICH 
THEN PUTS SOME QUESTION SQUARELY
BACK ON THE PRIME MINISTER 
AROUND WHAT DROVE THIS DECISION?
AND AGAIN, WAS IT ABOUT A 
MOTIVATION IN AND ABOVE THE 
DESIRE TO GET FUNDS OUT TO 
STUDENTS TO VOLUNTEER AT A TIME 
OF A GREAT HEALTH PANDEMIC, WAS 
IT ALSO ABOUT ASENSEUATING WITH 
A LITTLE MAGICAL DUST THAT WE 
CARRIED TODAY OR WAS IT 
SOMETHING ELSE AT PLAY?
SO I THINK THE QUESTIONS FOR THE
PRIME MINISTER AGAIN ARE REALLY 
GOING TO CENTRE ON WHAT WAS THE 
MOTIVATION, WHO DROVE IT, WHOSE 
DECISION WAS IT, AND AGAIN, WHY 
DID YOU, PRIME MINISTER, AND WHY
DID YOUR FINANCE MINISTER NOT 
RECUSE YOURSELVES FROM THOSE 
DISCUSSIONS?
THAT IS, AGAIN, WHAT IT BOILS 
DOWN TO.
IN TERMS OF THE TAKEAWAYS AROUND
WE CHARITY, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE 
HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT AND I'LL 
JUST TAKE A MOMENT TO SAY THIS 
SINCE IT'S REALLY FOR THE 
GOVERNANCE ISSUES.
WE HEARD FROM MICHELLE DOUGLAS 
THIS MORNING AND HER CONCERNS 
AND I THINK MANY OF US ON THIS 
PANEL ARE VOLUNTEER MEMBERS OF 
CHARITIES AND NOT FOR PROFIT 
BOARDS.
I AM.
I DECLARE THAT OPENLY, BOTH TO 
THE CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY 
NATIONALLY AND THE JACK WEBSTER 
FOUNDATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.
PART OF WHAT TRUSTEES AND BOARDS
DO ARE TO TAKE BIG CONTRACTS, 
BIG PROJECTS LIKE THIS AND GO, 
OKAY, WHOA, WAIT A MINUTE, IS 
THIS NORTH STAR, ARE WE CROSSING
ALL OF OUR Ts, DOTSING ALL OF 
OUR Is, ARE WE MAKING SURE 
EVERYTHING IS SIGNED OFF SO WE 
DON'T RUN INTO PROBLEMS LIKE 
THIS?
IT JUST SORT OF ADDS MORE TO THE
MURKINESS AND MUDDINESS AND THE 
MESS OF IT ALL.
>> Vassy: I THOUGHT AS FAR AS 
LINE OF QUESTIONING GOES, IT'S 
ANOTHER DAY OF WONDERING HOW 
THOSE QUESTIONS WEREN'T POSED BY
THE GOVERNMENT WHEN DECIDING TO 
PURSUE THIS LINE OF 
ADMINISTERING THE PROGRAM.
LIKE THERE ARE CLEARLY SOME 
BIGGER ISSUES THAT THE CHARITY 
IS DEALING WITH.
WHY WASN'T THAT CONSIDERED WHEN 
MAKING THE DECISION?
I KNOW THEY'VE SAID THEY WERE 
RUSHED AND IT WAS IMPORTANT, BUT
THAT SEEMS TO KIND OF JUMP OUT.
>> WELL, I THINK, LOOK, I HAVE 
NO IDEA, YOU'LL HAVE TO ASK THE 
BUREAUCRATS WHY, AND THEY WERE 
UP THERE AND I THINK THEY 
ANSWERED TO THE EXTENT THEY 
COULD.
I THINK PART OF THE CONTEXT OF 
WHAT WAS GOING ON DURING THIS 
TIME IS RELEVANT AND I THINK 
SOMEONE SAID WAS IT RUSHED?
I THINK THE REALITY IS THE 
GOVERNMENT WAS ABSOLUTELY 
RUSHING, RUSHING TO GET AID OUT 
TO CANADIANS ACROSS ALL 
SPECTRUMS, ALL, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE
WERE RUNNING IN TO SERIOUS 
PROBLEMS ABOUT BEING ABLE TO PAY
RENT, BUY FOOD WHEN THEY WERE 
SENT HOME, AND THE GOVERNMENT 
WAS TRYING TO RESPOND ON A DAILY
BASIS.
SO YOU HAD LITERALLY THE, YOU 
KNOW, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF 
DOLLARS OF PROGRAM DESIGN BEING 
DONE IN DAYS.
AND, YOU KNOW, BOTH KORY AND I 
HAVE BEEN AROUND THOSE TABLES 
AND NORMALLY, IT'S NOT DONE THAT
QUICKLY.
YOU HAVE A BIG POLICY PROCESS 
AND SOMETHING THAT BIG IS GOING 
TO TAKE A YEAR OR MORE.
SO, YOU KNOW, ON ONE LEVEL, IT'S
UNSURPRISING THAT SOME OF THE 
PROGRAMS HAVE RUN INTO GLITCHES,
AND, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THE 
DILIGENCE PROBABLY THAT 
BUREAUCRATS WOULD NORMALLY DO 
DIDN'T GET DONE TO THE EXTENT IT
SHOULD HAVE.
MAYBE THESE QUESTIONS WOULD HAVE
BEEN ADEQUATELY ANSWERED.
I DON'T KNOW.
NOT MY JOB TO DEFEND THE WE 
CHARITY.
BUT I THINK AT THE END OF THE 
DAY, YOU KNOW, THE CASUAL 
CASTING OF ASPERSIONS AROUND 
THIS IS APPALLING.
I DO THINK THAT THE ISSUE, YOU 
KNOW, THE PRIME MINISTER IS 
GOING TO HAVE TO ANSWER IS 
AROUND HIS RECUSAL, THAT'S AN 
APPROPRIATE POLITICAL THING.
THE REST OF IT IS JUST BS AS FAR
AS I'M CONCERNED.
>> Vassy: I SAW KORY'S EYES JUMP
OUT, SO I'LL GET A FINAL COMMENT
FROM BOTH KORY AND FRANCOISE.
KORY, YOU FIRST.
>> WELL, LOOK, I THINK THE 
MORNEAU STUFF SHOULD BE PRETTY 
CONCERNING TOO IF WE'RE LOOKING 
AT AREAS WHERE THERE'S SOME 
PRETTY, YOU KNOW, CLEAR PROBLEMS
AND JUDGMENT ON THE PART OF THE 
GOVERNMENT ON THE POLITICAL 
SIDE.
YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH, YOU 
KNOW, THE NOTION THAT THERE'S 
NOTHING NORMAL ABOUT PANDEMIC 
PLANNING AND STUFF THAT WAS 
GOING ON IN GOVERNMENT, BUT, YOU
KNOW, THE DECISION ULTIMATELY, 
YOU KNOW, HOW DID IT COME 
FORWARD, YOU KNOW, DID 
BUREAUCRATS FEEL PRESSURED 
BECAUSE OF THE RELATIONSHIP WITH
THE TRUDEAUS.
I DON'T KNOW, I THINK ALL THESE 
THINGS WOULD COME OUT IN THE 
FULLNESS OF TIME.
AND I THINK WE CHARITY HAS A LOT
OF EXPLAINING TO DO AND I DON'T 
FEEL TERRIBLY BAD FOR THEM.
I THINK THERE'S QUESTIONS ABOUT 
GOVERNANCE.
I THINK THERE'S QUESTIONS ABOUT 
APPROPRIATENESS AND THEIR 
RELATIONSHIP WITH ELECTED PEOPLE
WHO ARE IN A POSITION AND DO 
SOMETIMES GIVE THEM MONEY.
I WONDER IF THAT'S SOMETHING 
THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING
AND IF WE'LL HAVE A WIDER IMPACT
ON HOW OTHER CHARITIES BEHAVE IN
THE FUTURE.
>> Vassy: THEY SURE LIKED TO 
TALK ABOUT HOW MANY HOURS THEY 
WERE APPEARING BEFORE THE 
COMMITTEE FOR.
FRANCOISE, FINAL WORDS FOR YOU.
>> AND MOSTLY WITH WHOM THEY 
PREPARED, BUT THAT'S AN OLD 
LAWYER'S JOKE, WHO WERE THEY IN 
CONTACT WITH.
THE PRIME MINISTER BETTER BE 
READY, ALTHOUGH HE WILL HAVE AN 
EASIER JOB BEING THERE ONLY FOR,
WHAT, AN HOUR, BUT WITH HIS 
PRESENTATION AT THE BEGINNING 
AND HIM PLAYING AROUND THE 
CONCEPT OF WE AND YOUTH, HE'LL 
BE IN HIS ELEMENT AND BEST 
DEFENSE IS OFTEN THE OFFENSE.
SO IF THE OPPONENTS ARE TRYING 
TO MUDDY HIS MOTHER OR HIS WIFE 
LIKE THE KIELBURGERS WERE 
SAYING, THEY ARE SOMEBODY OTHER 
THAN JUST THE WIFE OF OR THE 
MOTHER OF AND SO ON AND SO 
FORTH.
SO HOPEFULLY THE OPPOSITION WILL
BE VERY FACT-ORIENTED AND IF 
THEY CAN LEAVE ASIDE THE 
POLITICAL GAME, IT COULD BE A 
VERY INTERESTING BECAUSE YOU 
NAIL IT ON THE HEAD, VASSY.
THE REAL QUESTION IS, IT WAS 
DONE VERY FAST, MAYBE WITH A 
GREAT OBJECTIVE, BUT MORE REASON
TO KNOW WHO IN THAT OFFICE, THAT
PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE, IS IN 
CHARGE OF MAKING SURE THAT ALL 
THE CHECKS AND BALANCES, AS FAST
AS THEY CAN GO, ARE DONE, 
ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE TALKING 
ABOUT A DEFICIT THAT WILL BE IN 
THE HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF 
DOLLARS.
HOW MANY OTHER CONTRACTS?
THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE 
LIKE ME WHO ARE WILLING TO GIVE 
THEM, OKAY, THE BENEFIT OF THE 
DOUBT BECAUSE YOU ALWAYS PRESUME
PEOPLE ARE IN GOOD FAITH, BUT TO
A CERTAIN POINT.
SO HOW MANY OTHER CONTRACTS WERE
JUST PREPARED AT THE CORNER OF 
THE TABLE, VERY QUICKLY, AND 
THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME WE'LL
DISCOVER MORE AND THAT IS WHAT 
IS PLAYING IN THE MIND OF PEOPLE
AND ADD TO IT THE SEXY FACTS OF 
PEOPLE BEING VERY IN TO THE 
CHARITY AND VERY INVOLVED IN 
SOME COMMERCIALS DURING THE 
ELECTION AND SO ON.
THAT GIVES YOU THE PERFECT SETUP
FOR A (Speaking French)
.
>> Vassy: WELL, IT CERTAINLY 
WILL BE INTERESTING, LOTS MORE 
TO SEE WHEN THE PRIME MINISTER 
TESTIFIES ON THURSDAY.
THANK YOU TO OUR POWER PANEL FOR
STICKING WITH US.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND 
INSIGHTS AS ALWAYS.
THANKS TO SHACHI KURL, KORY 
TENEYCKE, TIM MURPHY AND 
FRANCOISE BOIVIN.
I'M GOING TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK 
ON "POWER
