Minister Chagger is testifying to the Finance Committee on the CSSG now. Follow the fun here: parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/Pow…
1/ Whoa there is some big stuff here. The $19.5M was for a first 20 K participants, $10.5M was for WE, $5M was meant to be transferred to other non-profits (not clear where other $ were for). There could have been a second agreement of similar size if the first 20K got places
2/ This would have been to cover a second 20K students. But this makes ZERO sense. With only 40k participants, max the program could have cost was $240M (40K x $5000 in payments to students + 40M admin to WE and partners). How was the other $670M to be spent?
3/ Chagger seems really offended by the fact that people keep calling the WE deal a "contract" when it was actually a "contribution agreement". I'd be really curious to know why she thinks that makes a damn bit of difference.
4/ Poilievre: what number of jobs was 900M meant to create, Chagger is avoiding the question, just talking about the potential 40K. Claims it would all go to students, but that's clearly impossible.
5/ Poilevre is doing the math I just outlined above -how can you possibly get to $912M. Chagger has no idea how to respond. She just keep repeating her opening statement which doesn't cover this issue.
6/ Holy crap Chagger is bad at this.
7/ Liberal MP Fragiskotas asks why WE was recommended and not others. She does not answer, but claims she asked a lot of tough questions about it (does not relate what questions she asked, though). Also claims PMO never directed *her* to do anything.
8/ Fragiskotis asks "what next, how do we deliver this"? Chagger: "we're working around the clock to figure that out" (seriously? It's mid-July - how late can you go on administering a summer program?)
9/ Chagger's stalling here is amateur hour. The only answer she seems willing to give is "the public service recommended WE." She's punting everything to Rachel Wernick. She'd better hope Wernick is prepared to take a bullet for her.
10/ Charlie Angus is up: Refers to Chagger as "Madame Ministress" (?). Goes after the ethics angle. Was she aware of Trudeau/Morneau links to WE? "That was not my focus, my focus was getting youth into jobs."
11/ The only thing worse than Chagger's tenth-rate stone-walling is the un-co-ordinated nature of the committee members' questions. We're not getting very far here.
12/ Good question from Angus about whether she got a legal opinion re: whether the program might have broken labour laws. Chagger: "I am sure the professional public service, who work *so* hard, must have got some legal advice." (oh dear Lord)
13/ Michael Barrett keeps asking questions which are *almost* good. It's all gotcha questions "who did you speak to and when did you speak to them" which are easily side-steppable. it;s like he doesn't get how Ottawa actually works.
14/ Bootlicking questions for Liberal member Annie Koutrakis. Time for a bathroom break, because nothing's happening in this five minutes slot.
15/ Chagger is done. Short break, and then back to the public servants.
16/ here what MPs should ask: i) how do you reconcile a $90m budget with only 40K students? ii) when did ESDC first get wind of CSSG? Before or after April 22? iii) on what date did ESDC day it could not be done by pub sec? iv) on what date did ESDC say WE was only alternative?
17/ v) what was the process by which potential non-govt orgs were identified and evaluated as to whether they could handle the contract? vi) were there discussions with PMO about the design of that process? vii) were actual discussions held with any orgs other than WE?
18/ let's see how many of those actually get asked and how many answered.
18/ Gina WIlson, DM for Diversity inclusion and Youth speaking now, and she's informative. She seems to suggest the public service was not consulted on CSSG prior to the program being announced on April 22 which is an important point.
19/ Wilson making a *really* important point about contribution agreement - she basically says it is so government *does not have to care about implementation details* - just give some high-level objectives and let them go crazy".
20/ Wernick up. I was asked in "mid-April" by Finance and PMO to provide options re: service opportunity for students. She only learned final details of the program when PM announced it on April 22. (again - this is a big one)
21/ On Apr 22, "I asked Finance for some details/help". Finance said "it;s got to be up by Mid-may"
(I am not getting the impression Wernick was very enthusiastic about this)
(I am not getting the impression Wernick was very enthusiastic about this)
22/ "it was quickly clear that there were high ambitions to get this program off the ground in all provinces, from all backgrounds, in towns and big and small, all in three weeks." (not verbatim. boy there seems to be a lot of very veiled sarcasm here)
23/ Wernick: ESDC was overburdened, couldn't do it internally. It was clear that not-for-profit sector was burdened too. Lots of concerns about student saftey and - interestingly - the way this program would interact with CERB and CEWS.
24: Wernick: "students don;t go to government websites, no matter how hard we work at it." The need for *outreach* to students, meeting students where they are, therefore was upper-most in their mind when designing program.
24/ And then Wernick's video craps out.
25/ Wernick says the key considerations were organizations which had strong youth outreach and strong technological capacity.
26/ HOLY SHIT. "WE has already put together a proposal on social entrepreneurship to a number of ministers prior to April 22." WE submitted a new proposal on April 22 adjusting their proposal to adjust for CSSG announcement.
27/ Wernick now says she first spoke to WE on April 19. Poilievre: "did anyone ever tell you the opinions of Ministers who had seen this proposal"? Wernick: I do not recall anyone telling me that.
28/ Poilievre: Who gave you the revised WE proposal? Wernick: direct from Craig Kielburger, on April 22. P: How many positions were supposed to be created for 912M? W: can;t speak to that it's a cabinet confidence (!!!)
29/ Wernick clarifies. She called WE on Apr 19 to discuss broadly what could be done in terms of your volunteerism. On Apr 22, PMO announces program. Also on Apr 22. Kielburger comes back with a proposal on same day.
30/ Julie Dzerowicz for the Liberals: can you confirm that you looked at alternatives other than WE Charity. Wernick: yes, but given criteria of broad reach, tech capacity and experience with outreach to youth (particularly underserved capacity), we could not find anyone as good.
31/ JD is doing useful work explaining the program (better than Chagger) Wernick: $912 M reflects government ambitions to support students. But then says - obliquely - the arrangements with WE did not envisage spending more than about 30% of what cabinet had funded.
32: Bloc MP Fortin: Did you know about Sophie Trudeau's role with WE? Wernick: Yes. Fortin: What about PM's brother and mother? Wernick: No. It is not the responsibility of the public service to suss out conflicts of interests. MPs have to do that themselves.
33/ This hearing would have been so much better if MPs had talked to public servants before they had spoken to Chagger.
34/ Charlie Angus: back to the first WE proposal - when did you get it, how was it circulating? Wernick says she will answer in writing and include the proposal. Angus: is it possible that E and PMJT cooked up the idea to create CSSG in such a way that Kielburger was only option?
35/ Wernick: can't speak to that. Angus: what about potential conflict of interest, did you red-flag? Wernick: again, not our problem. Angus: explain things like per-student costs, on-boarding costs. Wernick: point of a contribution agreement is contribuee take care of all that
36/ Angus: back to the Q about possibility of breaking labor law (line between paid work and volunteering). Did you get a legal opinion? Wernick: it was a lump sum bursary, not a wage. Angus: Gimme a break, they are paid according to amount of work.
37/ Wernick: not able to speak to that because it's advice to Minister, solicitor-client privilege (🚨🚨ENORMOUS BULLSHIT ALERT🚨🚨 Angus asked about whether an opinion was sought, not the content of the opinion).
38/ Wernick claims the contribution was not in place until June 23rd. WHAT IN GOD'S NAME???? Barrett notes WE was recruiting as early as second week of June.
39/ Poilievre is going back to the April 19 meeting: who brought up the idea of calling Kielburger. After much pulling of teeth, Wernick says: Finance brought it up. Poilievre: who specifically? Wernick: Michelle Kovacevic (ADM - public service, not a political position).
40/ Poilievre smells blood. "In mid-April there was a WE charity proposal floating around - how did you know that?" Wernick; Kielburger told me that (presumably on 19th), and there were emails from other ministries (such as ISED) floating around. Can provide more info later.
41/ Poilievre: If contribution agreement was only signed on June 23 why was WE advertising jobs in early June? Wernick: negotiations began in late May. Whatever WE did before June 23 was at their own risk.
42/ A correction here from an alert reader.
43/ An important point here from another reader.
44/ So here's what I think we learned there: i) CSSG was developed by PMO/Finance without a lot of input from public service. PS knew broad parameters 3-4 days in advance, enough to pick up the phone to WE to ask "how the hell can something like this be done" but not much more.
45/ ii) public service *clearly* thought the idea was nuts, timeframe way too short, and actively found ways to restrain it (eg only committing to agreements that would at most spend about 30% of budgeted money)
46/ iii) WE proposals re: social enterprise were floating around in snr govt head-space prior to Apr 22 & likely influenced the April 22 decision. Within hrs of announcement WE was in Rachel Wernicks' inbox with a new proposal that suggests some advance knowledge of announcement
47/ (for transparency: I also had advance knowledge of April 22 announcement, having had a call from Finance on the night of April 21. Giving a heads=up to knowledgeable experts is Standard Operating Procedure for media mgmt, not necessarily evidence of shady practices)
48/ Paula Speevak of Volunteer Canada now testifying. She is relating VC's consistent advice, offered on several occasions over April and May both to ESDC and WE Charity, that paying for volunteering - in particular, paying *below* minwage - was hugely problematic.
49/ Interesting, she seems to suggest that WE Charity told her in May that their contribution agreement did not allow anything other than paying below minwage. Interesting since Wernick just finished explaining how the contributions agreement was not yet in effect in mid-May.
50/ Angus: did government of Canada *ever* initiate contact you about program design or your ability to work on this project? Speevak: no.
<just on its own, ignore everything else, this is not a good look for feds>
<just on its own, ignore everything else, this is not a good look for feds>
51/ Angus and Speevak having a very useful exchange establishing that WE understood it had a lack of experience in engaging with the rest of the non-profit sector. WE offered Volunteer Canada a $100K fee to be a partner to work on this matching business. VC refused.
52/ (sorry, that was Michael Barrett not Charlie Angus speaking, am working from audio).
53/ Dzerowicz for Libs asks: CSSG really never meant to be an hourly wage, just about "growing skills, encouraging youth to help their communitites", isn't that a good idea? Speevak: Youth volunteer at higher rates than any other age group, don't need too much encouragement.
54/ Bloc's Fortin: in your opinion, could anyone other than WE have run this program? Speevak (after a long pause): there were other organizations that might have more experience in some area. Eventually suggests a coalition of organizations could have done it.
55/ Guys, it's been fun but I gotta go - an RFP to write and a #tfclive humiliation of the Impact to watch. Thanks to those who read, apologies to those whose feeds were unwantedly cluttered. Appreciate all the new followers, be warned this turns into a sumo account on July 26.
56/ Last point, scrolling through the replies. The subtleties of the interplay between political aides and public servants in govt. decision-making seems not well understood. Canada needs a Yes Minister (only don't give it to Terry Fallis because Best Laid Plans was terrible)
