This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/world/canada/justin-trudeau-we-charity.html

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Trudeau Goes Before Parliament to Face Questions on Charity Scandal A Cool Trudeau Rebuffs Conflict Charges. Will Canadians Buy His Story?
(32 minutes later)
TORONTO — Canadians are lifting their heads from the exhausting struggle with the coronavirus to watch a political spectacle that is increasingly familiar — their prime minister, Justin Trudeau, under fire for questionable ethical decisions, and the opposition parties calling for him to step down. TORONTO — There was no corruption, no conflict of interest, just a government and prime minister working around the clock to save lives and livelihoods during a pandemic.
This time — in an unusual move for a Canadian prime minister — he will answer questions before a parliamentary committee. The subject will be his cabinet’s vote to award a no-bid contract overseeing hundreds of millions of dollars for an emergency youth volunteer program to WE Charity, a group intricately tied to not only Mr. Trudeau’s family, but also to his finance minister, Bill Morneau. That was Justin Trudeau’s message on Thursday to Canadians, who for the past month have lifted their heads from the exhausting struggle with the coronavirus to watch a growing political scandal over his government’s decision to award a hefty no-bid contract to a charity that has ties with his family.
Mr. Trudeau’s wife and brother earned more than $200,000 over the past four years for speaking engagements with the charity. Mr. Morneau’s daughter works there, and his family has traveled overseas with the charity twice in recent years. “Nothing of this program was in any way going to benefit any members of my family,” the prime minister said during a rare virtual appearance before the standing finance committee of the Canadian Parliament. “I was not in a conflict of interest.”
The highly anticipated session, which stretched for 90 minutes, had elements of drama — heated exchanges, baiting questions and even a power outage during a storm over the chairman’s home.
But Mr. Trudeau predictably kept his cool, displaying his well-honed political talents.
The contract, made to the WE Charity, was to oversee hundreds of millions of government dollars for an emergency summer youth volunteer program. Mr. Trudeau defended the decision to give the charity the contract by presenting himself as a longtime champion of youths.
And he said he was following the advice of public servants to start a program that, like others his government has set up, would help thousands of people across the country.
“We moved quickly to try to get help out to people as fast as we could as flexibly as we could,” Mr. Trudeau said.
The question is: Was his performance enough to persuade Canadians that he did nothing wrong and put to rest thorny ethical questions that have set the media ablaze for the past month and dragged down his party’s polling numbers?
WE Charity is tied to not only Mr. Trudeau’s family, but also to his finance minister, Bill Morneau.
Mr. Trudeau’s mother and brother earned more than $200,000 over the past five years for speaking engagements with the charity. Mr. Morneau’s daughter works there, and his family has traveled overseas with the charity twice in recent years.
Both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Morneau have apologized for not recusing themselves from the cabinet decision. Both are under investigation by the country’s ethics commissioner.Both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Morneau have apologized for not recusing themselves from the cabinet decision. Both are under investigation by the country’s ethics commissioner.
On Thursday, Mr. Trudeau is scheduled to appear before the standing finance committee to answer questions, followed by his chief of staff. But during Thursday’s testimony, Mr. Trudeau reinforced what others have said before him — that officials of Canada’s apolitical public service chose the charity and that his cabinet was given a “binary choice” of either agreeing to the plan, or having to abandon it altogether.
“People who never watch these committee meetings will be watching,” said Lori Turnbull, director of the school of public administration at Dalhousie University in Halifax, who is among the rapt viewers who have blocked off hours to see the unfolding testimonies. The perception of a conflict with his family, he added, caused him to put the decision on hold for two weeks and push the public service to “make sure that everything was done exactly right, because I knew there would be questions asked.”
“It’s very rare to see a prime minister come before a committee,” she said. Lori Turnbull, director of the school of public administration at Dalhousie University in Halifax was among the rapt viewers who blocked off hours to see the unfolding testimonies.
The question many are asking is whether Mr. Trudeau’s testimony before the highly partisan committee will open more pointed questions about his actions and lengthen an investigation he has no control over — or whether he’ll again work his magic to regain the narrative, subdue the media frenzy and halt the damage done to his polling numbers. “He got his message out — you want the Liberals to be there to take care of you when a crisis like this hits,” she said, referring to Mr. Trudeau’s party. “To me, the prime minister left this meeting as a youth champion who made a little error.”
“He’s not controlling the agenda on any of this,” said Darrell Bricker, the chief executive of Ipsos Public Affairs, an international polling and market research firm in Toronto. “It’s really thin ice.” Still, the prime minister has already been found in breach of the country’s conflict-of-interest rules twice since coming to office five years ago. That he acknowledged a perceived conflict but did not recuse himself raises troubling questions about his political judgment, said Shachi Kurl, the executive director of the Angus Reid Institute, a Canadian nonprofit polling firm based in Vancouver.
Still, the country’s general satisfaction with the government’s response to the Covid-19 crisis has remained high, at 73 percent, according to one poll this week. “In some ways, I think he did very well,” Ms. Kurl said. “But it doesn’t fix other problems. Now, we have to assess to what extent these ongoing examples of the prime minister not having good judgment will become a ballot question.”
At the very least, though, Canadians will be left asking about Mr. Trudeau’s judgment when it comes to conflict-of-interest issues, particular since he was already found by the ethics commissioner to have breached conflict laws twice since becoming prime minister five years ago. The story has unfolded since late June, when the Trudeau government announced it had awarded the job of administering the summer program, worth up to 912 million Canadian dollars, to WE Charity.
“There’s a pattern here that is a very sloppy pattern,” said Janice Stein, the founding director of the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. “The ballot box question is will Canadians punish a prime minister who is sloppy on these issues, but not corrupt?” Two brothers, Craig and Marc Kielburger, founded the charity as teenagers. Since then, it has grown into a network of organizations that have built schools and wells in countries like Kenya and Nicaragua.
The story has unfolded since late June, when the Trudeau government announced it had awarded the job of administering an emergency summer program for youth volunteers, worth up to 912 million Canadian dollars, to the WE Charity.
The brothers Craig and Marc Kielburger founded the charity as teenagers, working out of their parents’ home. Since then, it has grown into a network of organizations that have built schools and wells in countries like Kenya and Nicaragua.
But it is best known for inspiring young Canadians to get involved in social justice issues through school programs and huge concert-like events featuring motivational speakers, including Prince Harry, Malala Yousafzai, Mr. Trudeau and his wife, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau.But it is best known for inspiring young Canadians to get involved in social justice issues through school programs and huge concert-like events featuring motivational speakers, including Prince Harry, Malala Yousafzai, Mr. Trudeau and his wife, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau.
The charity says the Trudeaus volunteered their time and were never paid, with one exception in 2012, when Ms. Gregoire Trudeau received about $1,000 for a speaking engagement. Mr. Trudeau was not prime minister at the time.The charity says the Trudeaus volunteered their time and were never paid, with one exception in 2012, when Ms. Gregoire Trudeau received about $1,000 for a speaking engagement. Mr. Trudeau was not prime minister at the time.
But it did pay Mr. Trudeau’s brother Alexandre, a filmmaker, and mother, Margaret, the country’s former first lady, for speaking over the past four years on behalf of the charity at various events. The Kielburger brothers said attracting sponsors for these events was their main way of raising money.But it did pay Mr. Trudeau’s brother Alexandre, a filmmaker, and mother, Margaret, the country’s former first lady, for speaking over the past four years on behalf of the charity at various events. The Kielburger brothers said attracting sponsors for these events was their main way of raising money.
Witnesses told the committee in recent days that Mr. Trudeau was not involved in selecting the charity to administer the program, which involved overseeing up to 100,000 students volunteering for public service jobs. That decision, they said, was made by officials at the apolitical public service, and the cabinet simply approved. On Thursday, Mr. Trudeau said he did not have a personal relationship with the Kielburger brothers and had no contact with them about this contract.
In recent days, witnesses before the committee bolstered what Mr. Trudeau said Thursday — that he was not involved in selecting the charity to administer the program, which involved overseeing up to 100,000 students volunteering for public service jobs.
WE was to have received as much as 43.5 million Canadian dollars to run the program, according to documents released this week. But after the controversy erupted, the government announced it was taking the program back, and the Kielburgers said they would return all the money.WE was to have received as much as 43.5 million Canadian dollars to run the program, according to documents released this week. But after the controversy erupted, the government announced it was taking the program back, and the Kielburgers said they would return all the money.
The program is still on hold.The program is still on hold.
Hours before Mr. Morneau, the finance minister, was set to testify before the committee, he announced he had written a check to the charity for 41,366 Canadian dollars, stating that he hadn’t realized he and his family had not paid the full fare for the two trips they took with the organization. Hours before Mr. Morneau, the finance minister, was set to testify last week before the committee, he announced he had written a check to the charity for 41,366 Canadian dollars, stating that he hadn’t realized he and his family had not paid the full fare for the two trips they took with the organization.
He also disclosed that his family had donated 100,000 Canadian dollars to the charity in recent years.He also disclosed that his family had donated 100,000 Canadian dollars to the charity in recent years.
“You don’t donate $100,000, take trips with a charity and have a daughter who works there and not know there’s a conflict of interest,” said Duff Conacher, the co-founder of a nonprofit watchdog organization, Democracy Watch, which is calling for a criminal investigation.“You don’t donate $100,000, take trips with a charity and have a daughter who works there and not know there’s a conflict of interest,” said Duff Conacher, the co-founder of a nonprofit watchdog organization, Democracy Watch, which is calling for a criminal investigation.
“This is a story about how every government has friends, those friends help them get elected and promote them, and then the government wants to help those friends because they will promote and boost them more,” he said.“This is a story about how every government has friends, those friends help them get elected and promote them, and then the government wants to help those friends because they will promote and boost them more,” he said.
The committee has not heard any evidence that Mr. Trudeau or Mr. Morneau stood to financially benefit from the contract, several political experts pointed out. If there has been any damage, it has been in optics — in members of the prime minister’s family earning money from a group that was later awarded a government contract. The committee has not heard any evidence that Mr. Trudeau stood to financially benefit from the contract, several political experts pointed out. If there has been any damage, it has been in optics.
“I haven’t seen anything to lead me to believe there may have been corruption, as in somebody lining their pockets,” said Ian Greene, co-editor of the book “Honest Politics Now,” and an emeritus professor at York University in Toronto. “Technically speaking, he didn’t need to recuse himself in my opinion,” said Ian Stedman, a professor of Canadian public law and governance at York University in Toronto, and an expert on Canadian parliamentary ethics law.
“If Trudeau had said to the Kielburgers, ‘I really like what you are doing for my mother and brother, we’ll get you the contract, and I want you to do everything you can to support us in the upcoming election,’ that would be a criminal breach of trust,” he said. “I don’t see any evidence that something like that has happened.” But, he added: “But pragmatically speaking, what he did was bad politics. He allowed himself to be the story, instead of his policies.”
Canadians have been generally happy with the Trudeau government’s handling of the coronavirus epidemic. But in recent weeks, since news about the charity has continually made the front pages, his approval rating has fallen. It is unclear whether that is a blip or the start of a trend. Canadians have been generally happy with the Trudeau government’s handling of the coronavirus epidemic, which has leveled off across the country, allowing hairdressers and restaurants in most places to reopen and plans for school openings to be drafted.
But in recent weeks, since news about the charity has continually made the front pages, Mr. Trudeau’s approval rating has fallen. It is unclear whether that is a blip or the start of a trend.
“People have concerns about this, but they have so many other issues right now,” said Jean-Marc Léger, the chief executive of the Léger polling firm based in Montreal. “They are worried about the pandemic, the economic crisis, relations with the United States.”“People have concerns about this, but they have so many other issues right now,” said Jean-Marc Léger, the chief executive of the Léger polling firm based in Montreal. “They are worried about the pandemic, the economic crisis, relations with the United States.”
The Kielburger brothers maintain they would have made no profit from the contract.The Kielburger brothers maintain they would have made no profit from the contract.
Because of the intense scrutiny over the past few weeks, many big sponsors have cut ties with WE — the organization has called the decisions mutual — and former staff members have poured out stories on social media about the charity’s “culture of fear.”Because of the intense scrutiny over the past few weeks, many big sponsors have cut ties with WE — the organization has called the decisions mutual — and former staff members have poured out stories on social media about the charity’s “culture of fear.”
Craig Kielburger said the unfolding controversy might “destroy” the organization.Craig Kielburger said the unfolding controversy might “destroy” the organization.
“Frankly, there are days that we wish that we never answered the phone,” when the government called asking them “to help,” he told the committee near the grueling end of the brothers’ four-hour appearance. “Frankly, there are days that we wish that we never answered the phone,” when the government called asking them “to help,” he told the committee near the grueling end of the brothers’ four-hour appearance earlier this week.
Ms. Turnbull said she expected lawmakers to be restrained with Mr. Trudeau out of respect for his office, and anticipating his own well-honed political acumen. Dan Bilefsky contributed reporting from Montreal.
“There is nothing but gain for him here,” she said. “He’ll go in and have the final word on everything.”
She added, that while his appearance before the committee was unusual, it played to his own strengths as a deft, even-tempered communicator.
“This is his jam,” she said.