Sincerely Ingenuous

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau  (The Canadian Press/Sean Kilpatrick)

"I knew there would be perception issues around this [family ties to a charity his government chose to distribute a $912-million student disbursement for volunteerism to]."

"At the same time, delivering a grant program to students who volunteer across the country has absolutely nothing to do with any work my brother or mother did with WE [WE Charity], and that's why there was no conflict of interest."

"We [Cabinet] pulled the item from the agenda so that we could be doing the right thing, the way."

"I wanted to push back and really make sure that everyone could say without a shadow of a doubt that this was…the way to deliver the program recommended by our outstanding and professional public servants."

"As Mr. Morneau [Finance Minister] himself highlighted, he apologized and he should not have accepted the elements of that, that were gifts."

"The idea that someone on their personal vacation would choose to support a good cause or get involved in helping make the world a better place is not something that we should reject or turn away from."

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

"Multiple ministers and senior officials have testified at the finance committee."

"Not one of them said that the prime minister pulled the WE proposal from the May 8 cabinet meeting and sent it back for further scrutiny."

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer

The Parliamentary finance committee in conducting their investigation into the highly unusual situation whereby a sole-sourced contract for a proposed Canada Student Service Grant was granted to a charity that happened to be supported and hugely favoured by the prime minister, his family, the minister of finance and his family, had invited quite a few individuals to appear before them in friendly question-and-answer settings (through remote video connection). Among others, a number of senior civil servants. From whom came the information that the connection between the Trudeau family and the WE Charity was widely known among them.

That, in fact, this specific charity and none other, catering to youth, inspiring youth to reach out and give aid to other youth in the international community much less fortunate, as well as speaking out against child labour and investing in educational opportunities for children living in abject poverty in developing countries, would be hugely favoured as a result, to be named the beneficiary of a lucrative contract. This was important because the prime minister insisted repeatedly that it was not he who arranged for the contract to be sole-sourced to WE Charity, but the civil service, and he was completely ignorant of their choice.

Until he no longer was, when he was finally apprised of his most favoured charity for which he had himself attended well publicized, popular and crowd-thick inspirational meetings, speaking to the adoring throngs of youth, taken with the message of dedicated volunteerism. Dedicated volunteerism is what the public witnessed when they listened to an enthusiastic Margaret Trudeau speak on numerous occasions to spellbound WE Charity supporters. As did her son, Alexandre, Justin Trudeau's younger brother.

However, they did so to the tune of remuneration totalling a third of a million dollars, where Margaret Trudeau herself banked $250,000 for her 28 inspiring speeches. The prime minister's wife, Sophie Gregoire Trudeau, was another enthused volunteer and spokesperson for the charity. The finance minister's two daughters were also heavily involved with WE Charity, one a contract employee, the other a speaker. This is a charity that has, besides its charitable purpose, a for-profit arm, a real estate arm, a tourism arm, and an associated contract-signing arm separate from the charity itself, but signing for it.

WE Charity excels in extending invitations to wealthy donors for all-expense-paid trips to some of its overseas ventures. Mr. Morneau and his family accepted two such trips in 2017, one to Ecuador, the other to Kenya. By all accounts quite wonderful trips to see the good work of the charity in action, and to stay at luxury accommodation in a truly unique environment for a feel-good purpose. Mr. Morneau is a multi-millionaire. The trips his family took  were estimated to the value of $93,000. Mr. Morneau suddenly recalled, on the eve he was to appear before the finance committee, that he 'owed' WE Charity $41,000 in connection with those trips, and he speedily wrote a cheque, albeit 3 years after the events.

When he responded to questions at the finance committee investigation, Mr. Trudeau gave what he considered to be perfectly valid, explicable responses; among the most salient that his 'talented' family generously gave of their time, and that the connection between their being paid by this charity and the charity being chosen for a prestigious, high-profile vote-getting program was completely above-board. Nothing to see here, folks move on, because the prime minister insists there was nothing unethical; the cause unassailable, everyone involved well-meaning.

There are other Parliamentary enquiries into this situation in the offing. The Parliamentary Ethics Commissioner has committed to investigating Justin Trudeau and Bill Morneau, both for the third time, for ethics violations. On the two previous occasions, both men were found to have gone afoul of Parliamentary ethics. The entire situation is nothing more, nothing less, than business-as-usual for this Liberal government. A finance minister handling Canada's finances and handing out tens of billions of treasury for Liberal government COVID-19-related support to business and the unemployed and students, who cannot keep abreast of his own personal finances.

A prime minister who feels entitled to believe that anything he decides would be in the best interests of the country should go unquestioned, and to that end manipulated a situation whereby a second-tier opposition party agreed to support a motion to suspend Parliament for the duration of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic roiling the world, until such time as a vaccine is discovered and widely available. Setting the stage for this prime minister to govern like a true autocrat whose decisions cannot be questioned. Had Parliament been fully restored, opposition parties would have been able to intervene in this situation.

The fact that the charity was in deep financial trouble would have been noted and questioned. Its real estate holdings, unusual in size and breadth for a charity would have been noted and questioned. Its default on its banking obligations would have been noted and questioned. Its firing of 400 employees would have been noted and questioned; after all, how could such an ambitious program such as the student grants be administered short-handed? Most telling of all, the resignation of the chair of the WE Charity board of directors would have been noted and questioned.

Former WE Charity Board Chair, Michelle Douglas 'testifying'

That most other members of the board chose to leave along with the chair should certainly have been a flapping red flag. Michelle Douglas too appeared before the finance committee to respond to questions put to her. She described feeling uneasy and puzzled that upon request and even after pressing, she and the board were unable to obtain copies of WE Charity finances. She was troubled by the precipitate firing of 400 employees which she felt to be completely inappropriate and unnecessary. When, in a telephone conversation with the Kielburgers she insisted on seeing financial records, the line went dead.

Subsequently she was requested to hand in her resignation. “It was our view that you don’t fire hundreds of people without very strong demonstrable evidence, and even then should explore mitigation measures to save jobs", she explained to the committee. "Instead, the executive team were dismissing employees with great speed and in large numbers."  As for payment to speakers, she and the board had been led to believe that all speakers did so voluntarily. "The WE Charity board always understood that speakers were not paid by the charity or the related organizations to speak at WE Day. The board made direct inquiries on this issue."

Co-founders of WE Craig (left) and Marc Kielburger (right) are seen on stage during WE Day California in Inglewood, California, U.S. April 25, 2019. The brothers spent four hours in front of a committee of MPs today answering questions about their role in the federal government's student grant program. (Mario Anzuoni/Reuters)

Marc and Craig Keilburger, co-founders of WE Charity and all its stunningly complicated arms initiated work on administering the controversial Student Volunteer Grant program well before it had been approved to proceed by Cabinet. They had, they explained, been advised by departmental officials that they could feel free to incur expenses related to the disbursement program prior to to being informed the agreement had been formally awarded to WE Charity. Their haste, they explained, had nothing whatever to do with anticipating the $43-million profit that would come their way; they were assiduous in starting for the simple reason that delay would harm the program.

The idea was to get as many university students unable to find summer jobs during the COVID pandemic involved as soon possible, to enable them to have the financial wherewithal to pay for their forthcoming tuition when the university year commenced. And so, they overlooked the possibility that the agreement would not come through and they stood a chance of forfeiting any expenditures on their part, for the greater good of the country, because this is what they're all about; making the world a better place.

"That was a decision that they took because they knew how important it was to get this program going and they assumed certain risks in going forward and starting to spend on a program that hadn't yet been approved by cabinet and would not be approved for another few weeks", explained Mr. Trudeau, in their defence and his own. Ungenerously, the leader of the opposition, Mr. Scheer, responded "Why was WE so sure that they were going to be approved? Why were they told they could start charging expenses before the program was even approved?"

As for Justin Trudeau's forgiving attitude over Bill Morneau's ill-advised acceptance of an all-expense-paid trip hosted by a charity he and his family have generously supported, it's hardly surprising. Given that Justin Trudeau and his family were pleased to accept just such a trip whose invitation was extended by the Aga Khan for them to enjoy Christmas at his private island in the Bahamas. Justin Trudeau innocently described the trip as a gift from a family friend, and couldn't see what the fuss was all about. That was the first time that the Ethics Commissioner issued a rebuke for trangressing Parliamentary ethics when he was found to have violated sections 5, 11, 12 and 21 of the Conflict of Interest Act.

Minister of Finance Bill Morneau rises in the House of Commons to deliver a fiscal snapshot as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau looks on, Wednesday, July 8, 2020 in Ottawa. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld