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

A Play In Four Acts Becomes a Ploy

"So myself, my team ... had all watched this [April 22 announcement], and the next day, the Prime Minister's Office kindly called us and said, 'You know that announcement we just made? Would you be interested in helping us actually implement it'?"

"So after much consideration, we put up our hand and said, of course, we're happy to be of assistance. This is really important at an important time."
Act One

"Speaking loosely and enthusiastically, I incorrectly referred to the Prime Minister's Office. In fact, the outreach came from unelected officials at Employment and Social Development Canada. To be specific, contact came to We Charity the week of April 26th, from a Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Skills and Employment Branch at Employment and Social Development Canada and various additional members of ESDC staff. In fact, all discussions came at the instigation of departmental officials and they led discussions with respect to contract and program parameters." 

Act Two

Marc Kielburger, co-Founder, WE Charity

Marc Kielburger and Prime Minister Justine Trudeau  Ashley Fraser/Postmedia

"When I'm listening to [WE Charity] speak on this, it sounds to me that they're really playing up their personal connections to the prime minister."

"The prime minister needs to explain how those connections work, because it certainly sounds from what WE Charity was telling their inner circle is that they were called directly, they had the inside track. It was all golden for them."

Charlie Angus, ethics critic, New Democratic Party

"It's totally different to have a prime Minister's Office call you as opposed to someone in the bureaucracy."

"I just don't believe he would be confusing that, because they've received grants and contracts from government departments. So they know the difference between the government department and the Prime Minister's Office."

Duff Conacher, Democracy Watch, accountability watchdog group

So, late last monthPrime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a special COVID-19 relief program for students, called the Canada Student Service Grant structured to pay students up to $5,000 over the summer for volunteering to work on special community projects. And it was later announced that a sole-service contract had gone out to a youth-centric charity group, linked to the Trudeau family. A group which had previously been the recipient of grants under $40,000, which under the sole-sourcing rules escaped going out to tender.

This time, over $900 million of taxpayer funding is involved in this very special program. A program the likes of which are usually administered by public service departments, just as the Summer Jobs Program always has been. And according to government figures, the student grant program has seen over 35,000 applications come in during the first week of its operation, a majority of which identify as visible minorities, a situation dear to the heart of this prime minister, who has delegated to himself complete authority in dispensing huge sums of treasury linked to COVID-19, no longer questioned by the Parliamentary opposition, because the prime minister manoeuvered a situation that has side-lined Parliament.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is being investigated for the third time by the federal ethics watchdog, this time for his government’s decision to outsource management of a $900 million COVID-19 student grant program to the WE Charity, where the prime minister’s wife is an “ambassador and ally,” as well as a podcast host.

The sole-sourcing of this contract with its huge pay-out and questionable accountability has roused the rage of Members of Parliament not of the ruling Liberal Party for its unconstitutional presentation, in the sense of its illegality, bypassing normal authorization and processes. Questions have been raised, and so have suspicions, and one revelation after another has been brought to public attention over the sole-sourced nature of this huge file.

And then came the reversal, with WE Charity announcing its withdrawal, a decision made by them, the statement claims, because the questions are distracting from the purpose of the student volunteer grant contract, unfairly targeting the government, and that's just such a great shame. Leading the prime minister to announce in his turn that "The decision taken by WE this morning to withdraw from this work with the government is one that we support. Obviously, the way this situation has unfolded has been unfortunate. We will continue to work hard to make sure that young people get the opportunities to serve their country, but it will no longer be with the WE organization." Act Three

An organization that the prime minister had been at great pains to iterate and reiterate had all the qualifications that the public service did not, to deliver the program in the best possible way. A charity hand-picked by the prime minister to administer the program where volunteers will become part of a paid workforce, though they will still be considered to be volunteers, according to the prime minister's strange reckoning, one that runs adverse to a national volunteer organization that raised its own objections to the situation.

On July 2nd, a letter was sent to Procurement Ombudsman Alexander Jeglic, sent by three Conservative Members of Parliament, stating their wish that the federal procurement watchdog review a series of sole-source contracts that have gone out to the WE Charity: "The Liberal government's pattern of providing untendered and sole-sourced contracts to an organization with close personal ties to the Prime Minister, who is head of the government, is deeply concerning to many Canadians. We believe that it would be greatly beneficial to Canadians and to the principle of 'open and transparent government' if your office were to review these contracts."

Now, moreover, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's office which previously published two damning reports on breaches of ethics by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in recent years -- accepting a costly family vacation at an island resort owned by a frequent lobbyist to government, and Trudeau's interference on behalf of a favoured Liberal-supporting company, undermining the authority of the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General -- has stated its intention to monitor the situation. 

And it didn't take long for the federal ethics commissioner to decide to investigate links between the Prime Minister and WE Charity in response to letters received by the Conservative and NDP parties. 

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion has advised Justin Trudeau he will be opening an investigation into facets of the WE Charity deal. Mr. Dion wrote to MP Charlie Angus: 

"In your letter, you allege that, given the existence of Mr. Trudeau's close family ties with WE Charity and the outsourcing of this project to the charity over the federal public service or another volunteer organization, Mr. Trudeau afforded preferential treatment to WE Charity in contravention ... of the Conflict of Interest Act. I have considered your request and am of the view that it satisfies the requirements set out in ... the Act. I am therefore commencing an examination." Act Four

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau arrives on stage at We Day on Parliament Hill. (Justin Tang/The Canadian Press)