WeScandal

Friday July 31, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday July 31, 2020

Whether Trudeau’s testimony worked or not, the winds of change are blowing for Liberals

October 23, 2000

Jean Chrétien used to tell his cabinet a folksy allegory that suggests how he would have handled the WE affair.

A farmer is covered in cow dung but knows that if he tries to wipe the manure away while fresh, he will spread it all around and make it worse. So he waits until it dries and then brushes it off.

Reprehensible perhaps but that’s how he survived in politics for 40 years.

Justin Trudeau adopted a different approach, agreeing to appear before the House finance committee, while the muck is still moist.

Dec. 15, 2006

No prime minister in my nearly two decades on Parliament Hill has appeared before a House committee (Stephen Harper once testified before a Senate committee on his reform bill).

More wily operators were aware that no good could come from allowing lowly opposition MPs a free kick at the prime minister.

As a defensive manoeuvre, it is unproven.

But it is a measure of how much trouble Trudeau’s government is in that he believed only he could come to its deliverance. What self-assurance. What swagger.

July 24, 2020

But the Liberals need a game-changer, and Trudeau clearly believed he could be it.

The verdict is still out on whether he succeeded but he emerged from his 90 minutes before the finance committee relatively unscathed. It’s possible he even convinced some people of his own innocence, beyond the failure to recuse himself from the awarding of a lucrative contribution agreement to the WE Charity.

“I didn’t do anything to influence that – I didn’t even know it had been made until May 8,” he said, by which point the public service was already recommending WE.

A hirsute-looking prime minister said he pulled the WE contract from the cabinet agenda on May 8 because he knew there would be questions asked about his links to WE (it finally went to cabinet on May 22). But he insisted WE received no preferential treatment.

On its own merits, Trudeau might be able to brush off the WE affair without too much muck being spread around.

But political sins, like sweaty feet, rarely come singly. (National Post) 

 

Thursday July 30, 2020

July 30, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday July 30, 2020

The Kielburgers boys’ self-described ‘labyrinth’ organizational structure is still murky

July 24, 2020

WE Charity. ME to WE Foundation. ME to WE Social Enterprise. WEllbeing Foundation. Imagine1day. WE 365 LP, and at least two other entities that sound like the prototype numbers for do-gooder androids. There is such a long list of entities in the WE umbrella that the former chair of WE Charity’s board, Michelle Douglas, wasn’t confident enough to say how many.

The brothers clarified that they need to incorporate in every country where they operate. And under Canada Revenue Agency rules, charities can’t operate as businesses in the administration of “social enterprise,” said Craig. So they had to “build a labyrinth to adhere to Canadian laws and regulations.”

Marc later explained the two started the charity when they were children. He said it’s like building a house. “You add a wing, and add a skylight, and add a swimming pool for your kids,” he said. “This wasn’t out of malice.” A global consulting firm, Korn Ferry, has been hired to help streamline the structure.

July 11, 2020

The Kielburgers said the government was fully briefed on the fact they planned to use a separate nonprofit entity, the WE Charity Foundation—which had been set up to help limit liability—as a party to the contribution agreement. (In the agreement, WE agreed to full liability for participants in the program.)

Former board chair Michelle Douglas, in her testimony, described concerns around the executive team’s refusal to provide substantial financial records that would allow the board to fulfill its functions.

“I did not resign as a routine matter or as part of a planned board transition. I resigned because I could not do my job. I could not discharge my governance duties,” she said in an opening statement.

February 18, 2004

She described in March, the executive—including Marc and Craig—had not fulfilled requests for evidence, reports or data that could support their rationale for laying employees off during the pandemic. In a March 25 phone call, she alleged that Craig asked for her resignation. She gave it. Most of the rest of the board left the organization shortly thereafter, although Craig claimed in committee that this could be explained by an existing “renewal” process.

Douglas said she had also raised concerns, in early 2018, about the WE Charity Foundation. “The board was never satisfied that the operation of this foundation was in the best interests of the charity or its various stakeholders,” she said, adding her understanding at the time was that the organization was intended to hold property. In their testimony, the Kielburgers dismissed the real estate claim as an inaccuracy, saying there were “multitudes of purposes” for such an entity.

Although Douglas said nothing in the organization’s operations caused her “deep concern,” she described a climate characteristic of “founder-led” organizations: “We were always striving to get greater insight into the work.” (Maclean’s)