Minister Chagger is testifying to the Finance Committee on the CSSG now. Follow the fun here: https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20200716/-1/33582

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.