The federal governments top public servant pledged his full support in finding and releasing all relevant documents for a committee investigation into the governments decision to outsource the management of a $912-million student volunteer program to WE Charity.
Ian Shugart, a veteran public servant and Clerk of the Privy Council, also prompted questions from opposition MPs by stating that, in his view, both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Finance Minister Bill Morneau would need to be involved in such a major program decision in spite of questions related to conflicts of interest.
He also said that, as far as he knew, the public service did not raise any red flags with the finances of WE during discussions.
Story continues below advertisement
Tuesday is the second day of hearings by the House of Commons finance committee as part of its review of the federal governments since-terminated arrangement with WE Charity.
The Prime Minister announced the Canada Student Service Grant program on April 22, but it was not until June 25 that the government revealed it was outsourcing the administration of the program to WE Charity. By July 3, the outsourcing was cancelled amid conflict of interest concerns.
The Liberal government has said it outsourced the work to WE on the advice of the public service, but opposition MPs are seeking to determine whether the idea originated with Liberal ministers or their political staff.
In response to questions from Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre, Mr. Shugart pledged that he would approve the release of all related communications involving political staff in the Prime Ministers Office and the Finance Ministers office and their interactions with the public service. The Clerk was then asked if he would provide recordings of private videoconference discussions related to WE.
If there is such a thing, we can provide all of that. My intention, chair, is to be expansive as possible in the information we provide to the committee, he said.
Mr. Shugart also pledged to release the contribution agreement between the federal government and WE Charity.
After the role of WE in the program was confirmed, it was revealed that WE Charity had paid members of Mr. Trudeaus immediate family hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees to speak at WE events. It was also revealed that Mr. Morneaus daughter works for WE.
Story continues below advertisement
Federal ethics commissioner Mario Dion has announced investigations into both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Morneau.
The Prime Minister and Finance Minister have both issued public apologies and said they should have recused themselves from the WE Charity decision given their personal connections to the organization.
When asked about those statements and apologies by Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Morneau, Mr. Shugart said he is of the view that their positions would require them to be at least somewhat involved in a program decision of that magnitude.
This is quite a surprising comment, NDP MP Peter Julian said. So is it the position of the [Privy Council Office] that theres a limit to where the conflict of interest code would apply? At what level is that? If a billion dollars of taxpayer money is too large for a minister to recuse themselves, at what level is that no longer a consideration? Is it $50-million? Is it $1-million? Could you please clarify your remarks?
In fact, Ill repeat them, Mr. Shugart replied. What I said was that I could not imagine how the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance could not have been involved as part of this process. I did not refer specifically to recusal at cabinet. I indicated that this was a fundamental policy issue for the government. I do not see how the Prime Minister could have nothing to do, no knowledge of the development of the policy that would meet the needs of students impacted by the pandemic. And for the Finance Minister, given responsibility for the finances of the of the country, given the significance of the expenditure here, at some stage the minister of finance would, in my judgment, have to be aware of the scale of a program or the existence, the development of a program, of that scale. I make no judgement whatsoever about the Prime Ministers comment on his non-recusal. And I make no judgement about the Finance Ministers comments in that regard either.
During a separate line of questioning, Mr. Shugart was asked by Mr. Poilievre whether anyone in the public service raised any red flags regarding the finances of WE Charity before the issue went before cabinet.
Story continues below advertisement
The answer, as far as I am aware, is no, said Mr. Shugart, who also defended the practice of outsourcing such work as a normal practice in government.
Chris Aylward, national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which is the largest union of federal public servants, said the administration of the program should never have been outsourced.
While the government has argued the student grant program needed to be turned around quickly, it took almost two months to even announce who would receive the contract. Today, three months later, the program is still not in place, he told MPs on the committee after Mr. Shugarts appearance. If the program had been turned over to the public service to organize a delivery system, it is likely students would now be receiving some actual benefit.
The committee heard from Joshua Mandryk, a labour and class actions lawyer with Goldblatt Partners LLP, who said the structure of the program raises legal concerns about whether the students would be volunteers or paid employees.
The original program offered grants of up to $5,000 for students who volunteer for 500 hours, which works out to $10 an hour, which is less than minimum wage in all provinces.
The program potentially exposes its participants to workplace exploitation and misclassification. The question of whether someone is a true volunteer is a legal determination, which rests on more than simply whether the hiring entity says theyre a volunteer. And this program raises legitimate concerns as to whether these individuals are true volunteers, he said. The program is seemingly at odds with the governments own efforts to crack down on the exploitation of workers through unpaid internships.
Story continues below advertisement
Know what is happening in the halls of power with the days top political headlines and commentary as selected by Globe editors (subscribers only). Sign up today.
