Skip to main content
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track on the Olympic Games
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track onthe Olympics Games
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Marc Kielburger, screen left, and Craig Kielburger, screen right, appear as witnesses via video conference during a House of Commons finance committee in the Wellington Building in Ottawa on July 28, 2020.

Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press

A report on the WE Charity fiasco released this month by the House of Commons ethics committee is yet another damning look at the Trudeau government’s handling of the matter, but it leads to an unexpected conclusion: that the conflict of interest scandal long seen as the heart of the affair wasn’t even the worst thing about it.

The report says that the government’s decision to sign an untendered contract worth $543.5-million with WE Charity was “deeply troubling” for reasons that had nothing to do with the organization’s relationship with the Trudeau family, and everything to do with the committee’s finding that Ottawa hadn’t done its due diligence with regard to WE.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced on June 25, 2020, that WE would manage the Canada Student Service Grant, a pandemic-relief program aimed at providing youth with opportunities to do volunteer work, and get paid for it.

Story continues below advertisement

A week later, the deal collapsed. Amid a storm of conflict-of-interest allegations, WE Charity announced its withdrawal from the CSSG on July 3.

The allegations focused on the fact that WE, an organization known for voluntourism, celebrity spokespeople and concert-style youth rallies, had paid Mr. Trudeau’s wife, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, his mother, Margaret Trudeau, and his brother, Alexandre, hundreds of thousands of dollars to speak at its events.

Mr. Trudeau himself was an enthusiastic participant in the charity’s events, in particular its revival-like WE Day gatherings, but was never paid to appear.

As an added bonus, Mr. Trudeau’s finance minister, Bill Morneau, had travelled in 2017 to Kenya and Ecuador with his wife and daughter to learn about WE projects in those countries, and somehow allowed WE to pick up the tab.

Both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Morneau failed to recuse themselves from the May 22, 2020, cabinet meeting at which the government chose WE Charity to run the CSSG program.

They both eventually apologized for doing so. Mr. Morneau also resigned, after reimbursing WE for his 2017 trips.

In May of this year, the federal ethics commissioner found Mr. Morneau had broken federal ethics laws three times, largely owing to his personal friendship with Craig Kielburger, one of the two co-founders of WE (along with his brother Marc Kielburger).

Story continues below advertisement

The ethics commissioner ruled that Mr. Trudeau had not broken any rules. But the conflict of interest allegations still hang over him. And he only made things worse for himself when he prorogued Parliament last August in a naked attempt to silence the committees looking into the WE affair.

It didn’t work, of course. The ethics committee picked up this spring where it left off, and its main conclusion suggests the conflict of interest allegations may have been a distraction from something worse: rampant incompetence.

The report found that Mr. Trudeau never asked for documented support of the claims that the public service wouldn’t be able to run the CSSG program, and that WE was the best choice.

It was simply more convenient to accept what turned out to be spectacularly poor due diligence on the part of those charged with setting up the program.

The ethics committee said it “was unable to find any due diligence reports that actually tested the credibility of the claims made by the WE Charity. This group had never undertaken a project close to this magnitude…”

The committee also discovered that key members of the government were unaware that the $543.5-million contract wasn’t signed with WE Charity, but with the WE Charity Foundation, a related shell company that had no assets.

Story continues below advertisement

And it found that, after 10 months of study, it was still unable to get a clear picture of the financial structure of the charity, which had both charitable and for-profit arms. “We were unable to ascertain a clear division between how monies flowed through the charitable wing and their for-profit operations,” the report said.

None of this proves that WE Charity could never have successfully set up and run the CSSG program. But it’s a frank condemnation of the Trudeau government’s incompetent rush to buy popularity by showering pandemic dollars on a valuable demographic (ah, youth!), without really understanding or caring where the money was going.

And that’s an even more serious charge than conflict of interest.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies