Read on Twitter
1) Ian Shugart, Clerk of the PCO, just testified before the House Finance Committee & provided helpful context on the #WECharity decision to deliver the CSSG. He confirms the public servants at ESDC recommended to Ministers that WE be the third party to deliver #CSSG. #cdnpoli
2) Shugart stated Minister Chagger was the one who brought the proposal forward to Cabinet because she is the Minister for Youth. He rejected Poilievre’s assertion that Minister Qualtrough “refused” to sign onto the proposal. ESDC & Finance officials were involved based on the
3) CSSG falling naturally in their areas of responsibility. Shugart says there were no red flags to use WE. PCO was satisfied with ESDC’s answers for why a competitive process could not be done. The public service’s due dliligence was around WE’s ability to deliver the program.
4) It was normal to brief the PM on Cabinet proposals (done in May; but he will send exact dates). PM’s Chief of Staff Telford told public servants to ensure there was scrutiny & care given the size of the program. Ministers asked them if WE was the only org who could deliver.
5) Key concern for Ministers was to ensure underrepresented students would have service opportunities. Govt was concerned about the impact of the pandemic on students & their families.
6) Shugart said CSSG will be delivered by public service now but it will be less than what was envisioned via WE. Says it’s normal to partner with third parties to deliver govt programs. WE could promote CSSG & match students with placements across the country better than the PS.
7) In short, Shugart says, WE was going to provide a service that the public service could not do on its own. Shugart reiterates that in April, a lot was happening in govt to respond to the pandemic. CSSG was one initiative among others.
8) Given size of CSSG - he emphasized *up to* $912M - Shugart doesn’t see how the PM or Finance Minister could not have been involved in the discussions around the program, though he doesn’t make a judgment about recusal at Cabinet. He reiterates the public service recommended WE
9) Shugart: in his review of the documents, there is NO evidence that the PM or PMO had ANY interaction with WE about CSSG. He states a Contribution Agreement is a long-established standard vehicle used by govts of all stripes to engage third parties to deliver govt programs.
10) The public service determined WE was “uniquely” & “best placed” to deliver on CSSG objectives in the timeframe required. Even though the Public Service is admirable, WE had the expertise to deliver better than the PS. It’s normal to engage third parties in these circumstances
11) Shugart undertook to make timelines of meetings and records of diligence and meetings available to the Committee. This also includes a copy of the Contribution Agreement with WE. More to come but based on the testimony thus far, I think the CSSG got unnecessarily derailed.
Here are details on the Contribution Agreement. https://twitter.com/ishatreza/status/1287905619723288576?s=21 https://twitter.com/ishatreza/status/1287905619723288576
