Trudeau’s cabinet ministers will not say if they had any knowledge of the connection between the Trudeau family and the WE charity.
The Globe and Mail reached out to all members of Trudeau’s cabinet. Each of them were asked if they had known members of the Trudeau family received money from WE Charity when they decided to give the organization a $912 million contract to administer the Canada Student Service Grant program.
Only three ministers responded to the Globe’s question.
A spokesman for Transportation Minister Marc Garneau said that he had not been aware members of Trudeau’s family received money for speaking at WE Charity events.
The spokespeople for Labour Minister Filomena Tassi and Middle-Class Prosperity Minister Mona Fortier both said the ministers cannot comment due to cabinet confidentiality.
On Thursday, Canadaland reported that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s mother and brother had been paid by WE and its network for speaking events.
Margaret Trudeau has received a total of $312,000 and Alexandre Trudeau has received $40,000 since 2016.
On Friday, it was revealed that Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s daughter is a current employee of WE.
WE co-founder Marc Kielburger has said that the Prime Minister’s Office had personally reached out to offer WE Charity the contract, a claim that Trudeau disputes.
Trudeau claims that the Department of Employment and Social Development was involved in selecting WE Charity for the contract. Employment and Social Development Minister Carla Qualtrough did not respond to the Globe’s questions.
On Thursday the Government Operations committee voted unanimously to open an investigation into the Trudeau government’s relationship with WE Charity.
The committee also voted to summon Ministers Carla Qualtrough, Jean-Yves Duclos, Anita Anand and Bardish Chagger for questioning.
WE Charity withdrew from the contract with the government last week after the deal was met with public outrage.
The revelations in the wake of the WE scandal are screaming for a police investigation. But then again, we are still waiting for a conclusion of the obstruction of justice investigation into the SNC-Lavalin scandal. Remember the investigation the RCMP told us was just “on hold” during the election? There is no indication it was made active again.
There are so many questions about what the Trudeau government was doing in all of this – giving $912 million to a Liberal friendly firm for a single-sourced contract is bad enough, but to give it to a charity that is closely affiliated to the Prime Minister is worse.
To top it all off, we then learned that it was a cabinet decision and Trudeau was at the table. The fact that he didn’t recuse himself just makes it slimy.
But the RCMP don’t investigate slimy. They do, however, investigate crimes.
Or at least they are supposed to.
Trudeau has extensive ties with WE. We know that Trudeau was associated with WE since at least 2008, and WE has paid more than $300,000 to members of Trudeau’s family ostensibly as speaking fees.
We also know that Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s daughter works for WE and another has connections there as well, and in 2019 Morneau gave $3 million to WE in another of our government’s “investments.”
On the surface, this would appear to be at least a major conflict of interest on the parts of both the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister. But it is more than that.
Remember ADSCAM? In the early 2000s, the Liberal government at the time was funnelling money to Quebec advertising firms who then acted as a slush fund and kicked back most of the money to the Liberal Party by way of donations.
The RCMP investigated and charged a number of people with fraud and related offences and some went to jail.
The scandal toppled the Liberal government of Paul Martin and ensured the election of Stephen Harper as Prime Minister.
The same sections of the Criminal Code that convicted Chuck Guite, Jean Brault and Jean Lafleur of multiple counts of fraud would also seem to be applicable in the case of the WE scandal.
In simple terms, using public money and diverting it to the benefit of politicians, employees or members of their family is contrary to the Criminal Code under Section 121 (1)(b).
But there’s also section 380 (1) of the Code which deals with defrauding the public by deceit or falsehood.
Was there a deceit or falsehood involved? WE originally stated that no Trudeau family members were paid by the organization – that clearly is not the case.
Trudeau also said that WE was the only organization that had the national network capable of operating this type of program for young people. That claim has been disputed by many.
The editor of the Hillborn Charity news Ann Rosenfeld said to CBC, “There are many strong, reputable charities with offices in multiple locations across Canada who could do this youth volunteer program well.”
She mentioned the United Way, Volunteer Canada and Community Foundations of Canada as examples.
There’s enough stink to all of this that the RCMP should investigate and determine if a crime or crimes have been committed.
RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki, who seems to be little more than a lickspittle for Justin Trudeau, needs to place her duty before personal loyalties and do her job.
Last week, President Trump invited Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and Justin Trudeau to Washington for a formal signing of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) – the world’s biggest trade deal.
Trudeau didn’t think it was important enough to attend and declined Trump’s invitation.
True North’s Leo Knight has more on Trudeau’s latest diplomatic blunder.
Earlier this year, I wrote about how the Beijing-owned TikTok – a seemingly harmless social networking application – actually poses a huge security risk to its users, including hundreds of thousands of Canadians, whose sensitive personal information could be being shared with the Chinese communist state.
But times are about to get tough for the app – and that’s a good thing.
President Trump has signalled that his administration is considering banning the app as one possible way to retaliate against China over its handling of the coronavirus, which has infected nearly 3 million people in the United States.
TikTok, after all, partnered with the World Health Organization to promote information relating to coronavirus following the start of the outbreak. However, information promoted by the WHO were later determined by Canadian researchers to be biased towards praising Chinese narratives, rather than solely focusing on scientific evidence.
The United States would be the second country to explicitly ban the social media app after India banned TikTok last month following a border clash. In doing so, India similarly cited privacy concerns, including how using the app would threaten their national security.
This isn’t the first time the United States federal government has taken aim at TikTok, either.
In fact, they are already being investigated to determine if they failed to comply with a 2019 agreement aimed at protecting children’s privacy. The New York Post reported that a Massachusetts technology policy group took part in separate conference calls with the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department on these matters earlier this year, including on complaints that TikTok failed to delete personal videos and information about users aged 13 and younger.
As the United States continues its investigation and considers a ban, it’s clear that Canada should do the same. Canadian privacy rights are more important than inflating the pockets of a Chinese state-owned company, and certainly not worth sacrificing for some mindless entertainment.
However, do not expect any proposal for a ban to be without serious resistance as TikTok has already started gearing up to increase lobbying efforts in Canada.
Most recently, TikTok hiredthe former head of public policy for Amazon Canada Steve de Eyre to serve as their Director of Government Affairs in Canada. The job posting for this position, as found on LinkedIn, showed TikTok looking for an experienced candidate who can build a relationship with elected officials and advocate policy positions that “benefit and protect the TikTok user community.”
Unfortunately, without serious reform that would need to include separating completely from the Chinese entity, what is good for the TikTok community will be bad for Canadians – specifically those among us who would prefer our private information kept far away from the communist state.
A shocking story by Canadaland reveals Justin Trudeau’s mother and brother were both paid a combined hundreds of thousands of dollars to speak at WE events in recent years, before the government tried to make the charity responsible for administration of a $912 million government program. Meanwhile, the PMO tries to downplay WEScam while the Bloc Quebecois and CPC leadership candidates call on Justin Trudeau to step down while the investigation is ongoing.
Plus, the Left defends the Trudeau government for running a $343.2 billion deficit and bringing the net federal debt to $1.2 trillion. The Left continues to ponder if deficits still matter? Of course they do!
These stories and more on the True North Update with Andrew Lawton and guest co-host Sam Eskenasi!
After weeks of record spending, the Trudeau government is projecting a $343.2 billion deficit in the upcoming fiscal year. Could this have been avoided?
Many are arguing that these are unprecedented times and that the government had to spend money during the pandemic.
But True North’s Anthony Furey argues that because the government kept spending during good times, the current deficit is a lot bigger than it needs to be.
Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet believes that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau should step down after his connections to WE Charity were exposed.
According to TVA, the Bloc leader said that Trudeau should let Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland take over his duties as the WE Charity scandal continues to develop.
Controverse WE: le chef du Bloc Québécois demande à Justin Trudeau de se retirer et de confier les commandes du gouvernement à Chrystia Freeland le temps que la lumière soit faire sur l'affaire. #polcan#tvanouvelles
Conservative Leadership Candidate Peter MacKay echoed similar sentiments. In an interview with NewsTalk1010, MacKay says he thinks the prime minister should resign over WE Charity scandal but concludes that Trudeaulikely won’t.
Conservative leadership candidate Peter MacKay says he thinks the prime minister should resign over WE Charity scandal, but likely won't.
Trudeau has faced significant backlash since it was revealed that his government had given a $912 million contract to WE Charity, an organization he has close connections with.
On Thursday, it was revealed that Trudeau’s mother, brother,and wife have all been paid by WE Charity or its sister organization.
The Prime Minister’s mother Margaret Trudeau has received $312,000 for speaking gigs since 2016, with around $64,000 coming directly from WE Charity.
In June, WE Charity co-founder Marc Kielburger claimed that the prime minister’s office had reached out to offer the group the $912 million contract, of which the group will pocket $19.5 million.
Kielburger’s comments contradicted Trudeau, who claimed that the Department of Employment and Social Development was involved in selecting WE Charity for the contract.
“So myself, my team… had all watched this [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?’,” Kielburger said on a recorded phone call.
On Thursday the hashtags #TrudeauResignNOW, #TrudeauCorruption, and #TrudeauMustGo were all trending on Twitter.
The House of Commons Government Operations committee has voted to investigate all dealings between the Trudeau government and WE Charity.
According to Blacklock’s Reporter, committee members felt that they had a moral duty to investigate allegations of cronyism between the government, the charity and the prime minister’s family.
“I’ve been receiving some disturbing details and emails,” said Conservative MP Ziad Aboultaif.
“Feedback is coming from constituents telling me we owe it to the public to do this study and push forward.”
The vote was unanimous, with the five Liberal MPs on the committee all voting to open a probe that may implicate the government.
The vote came on the same day that it was revealed that Justin Trudeau’s mother, brother and wife have all been paid for work done for WE Charity in the past.
The Prime Minister’s mother Margaret Trudeau received $312,000 and his brother Alexandre received $40,000 by WE Charity and a sister organization.
The Trudeau government had given WE Charity a $912 million sole-source to administer the Canada Student Service Grant program in June.
On Friday, it was revealed that Finance Minister Bill Morneau also has extensive ties to the charity. The Minister’s daughter Clare Morneau spoke at WE Day Ottawa in 2016 when she was 17 years old and another daughter is currently an employee of the charity.
WE Charity decided to withdraw from the contract last week when the deal faced public backlash.
The committee agreed to investigate all dealings with the charity, including the $5.4 million in grants they have received since 2017. The committee will also summon members of cabinet for questioning.
The probe by the committee is just one of several investigations into the connections between the government and WE Charity.
On July 7, the Finance committee voted to hold their own hearings on the contract between WE Charity and the government.
Last week Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion confirmed that he would be opening his own ethics investigation into the prime minister’s dealings with the charity. This is Justin Trudeau’s sixth investigation since taking office.
On Friday, the Conservative Party of Canada demanded a criminal investigation into the matter.
In a statement on Thursday, the Prime Minister’s Office said that the fact that Trudeau’s mother and brother had both been paid by WE Charity in the past was not a factor in a $912 million contract his government offered to the organization.
“The Prime Minister’s relatives engage with a variety of organizations and support many personal causes on their own accord,” the PMO wrote.
“What is important to remember here is that this is about a charity supporting students. The Canada Student Service Grant program is about giving young people opportunities to contribute to their communities, not about benefits to anyone else.”
On Thursday, Canadaland reported that the Trudeau family has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by WE Charity since 2016.
The Prime Minister’s mother Margaret Trudeau received $312,000 for 28 speaking events for WE. Justin Trudeau’s brother Alexandre was paid $40,000 for eight events.
In addition, wife of the Prime Minister Sophie Grégoire Trudeau also received $1,500 from WE in 2012. Grégoire Trudeau is also a “WE ambassador and ally.”
WE Charity has previously stated that they had never paid the Trudeau family, which the family had never corrected publicly. WE justified its past claims by saying that the Trudeaus were paid by ME to WE Social Enterprise, a sister organization, rather than WE itself.
The Trudeau government originally announced that WE Charity would be administering the Canada Student Service Grant program. With this decision came a $912 million sole-source contract for the organization.
After publicly outcry and accusations of cronyism, WE Charity withdrew from the contract with the government.
“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,” Trudeau said.
The WE Charity scandal has resulted in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s sixth ethics investigation since taking office.
Last week Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion confirmed that he had opened an investigation at the behest of the Conservatives and NDP.
I have been an activist for practically all of my adult life. Much of that time has been spent working to combat antisemitism and build bridges between communities.
As I grew both in age and political experience, the way I understood what antisemitism was began to change. What I ultimately realized was something important, not just for the Jewish community of Canada, but for all Canadians who cherish the values which make Canada great.
So what did I learn about combating racism that made me drastically change my world view? In short: It’s about power.
It all began when I started to wonder why antisemitism was accepted, justified or even promoted by many of the same people who claimed to be actively fighting racism.
Throughout my career, I have worked with government officials and have met many high-profile politicians from both the right and the Left. Our meetings were often specifically focused on discussing the rising levels of antisemitism in Canada.
When I attended these meetings, I brought with me statistics about anti-Jewish hate crimes in Canada. These figures included total amounts, comparisons to other similarly discussed groups and documentation showing that antisemitism, by all reasonable measures, was a real and persistent area of concern to Jewish Canadians.
According to Statistics Canada, Jews have been the number one victims of hate crimes in the country since at least 2014 and in the City of Toronto since at least 2010. This is despite being approximately 1% of the total population, making their per capita victim rate extraordinarily high.
You may be surprised to learn this fact, especially given that other forms of racism seem to be discussed more often, while antisemitism seems to be downplayed.
I decided to put that question to one left-wing politician (whose name I won’t mention because we spoke in confidence). I asked why it seems that many on the Left of the political spectrum aren’t bothered by antisemitism and some even seem to justify it.
His answer was direct — he said it was because Jews are white (they aren’t), Jews speak English, Jews are rich and successful and Jews have organizations to speak on their behalf. He argued that there is far less antisemitism than Islamophobia (again not true- – despite Muslims outnumbering Jews in Canada by nearly 4 to 1, Jews are the victim in more hate-motivated crime.) Finally, he said, most antisemitism is really just criticism of Israel.
Translated, he told me the following: It isn’t about racism or discrimination against Jews, it’s about power. Jews as a group have power, and therefore do not need the power of the state to help. Sure, Jews have suffered historical injustices, but those are made up for now, and you guys are at the top.
I was floored. Was he really saying that Jews do not deserve the added protections of government because some of us had greater financial means? This didn’t make sense to me. My parents came to Canada separately as immigrants from Israel. They did not speak English, were poor and had no connection to any “official” Jewish organization that could speak for them.
However, it was only after some serious thought about the conversation did I come to truly appreciate his candour. He gave me insight into the mind of so many of those on the “progressive” left that I would not otherwise have. And he did so only because I came to have an open conversation, to learn from each other and I specifically took Israel off the table by acknowledging that one can obviously criticize Israel without being antisemitic — a red herring often used by antisemites.
The Left’s focus on power, power relations and monolithic groups is a serious problem for most people because often that isn’t the lens they use to view the world. It’s also why they aren’t ‘speaking the same language’ as those on the right, and ignore legitimate instances of racism when confronted with them.
Because much of the activist left views the world through the lens of any number of conflict theories (Marxism, Feminism etc.) — which draw attention to power differentials, such as class/race conflict on a macro level — they have difficulty examining the micro-level, or the individual as opposed to his or her group.
This is critical to understanding the left-wing point of view, because if the world is a series of power struggles between groups, such as the Jews, who have perceived power and those who do not, then small instances of racism or discrimination are unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
Throwing a rock at Godzilla makes no difference because even if you break off a tiny scale, he is still Godzilla.
As such, instances of antisemitism can be ignored, downplayed or even justified because of the perception that Jews as a group have a great deal of power. According to this logic, individuals may be victims of racism, but since they are members of a
(perceived) powerful group, we can ignore them and should instead focus on groups that we believe to have little to no power.
Not only does this attitude fall into classical antisemitism when directed against Jews, but it has also historically lead to real-life consequences including discrimination, violence up to and including attempted genocide.
Further, this view ignores the individual (of any group) and creates perceptions based either on stereotypes or beliefs that are skewed by a few individuals which may be extraordinarily famous, wealthy or have power. It also assumes all individuals are driven by group interests even though they may not even use that power and wealth for the benefit of ‘their group.’
The downplaying of antisemitism should be concerning to all Canadians because it reveals an ebbing away of the rule of law and of societal norms that temper bad behaviour.
If someone can vilify or attack Jews (like Louis Farrakhan has been for years) without any repercussions, it normalizes hate of the other and will eventually lead to serious consequences for society at large, as frustrations and anger between the ‘groups’ eventually give way to violence.
It has been said that Jews are the canary in the coal mine, and perhaps that’s true. This is why we cannot ignore, accept or even justify antisemitism, especially by those on the Left who claim to oppose racism and discrimination.
