Three Strikes and You’re Out: The WE Charity Controversy
Like baseball, politics is a complex undertaking. Strategy is often crafted with a view to pushing the rules to the margins, without breaking them. When a batter steps into the box, they have three strikes before the umpire calls them out; in politics, however, the ramifications of breaking rules are less clear.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is currently under investigation for his involvement in a cabinet decision vis-a-vis WE Charity, marking the third time that Trudeau has faced an ethics investigation. His first infraction occurred in December 2017, when the Ethics Commissioner concluded that Trudeau violated ethics rules by accepting a trip to the Aga Khan’s island while his foundation was lobbying the government. In 2019, Trudeau broke ethics rules for the second time by interfering in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. Trudeau’s involvement in the SNC-Lavalin affair would ultimately lead to the Liberals’ loss of a majority government in the October 2019 election.
Trudeau’s third ethical scandal came in August 2020, less than a year after the SNC-Lavalin scandal. As a minority government, the Liberals passed various programs to support Canadians impacted by COVID-19, with dedicated resources directed towards students without summer employment prospects. In June, the government announced that WE Charity, a Canadian organization with a vast program of domestic and international initiatives focused on youth development, would oversee a $912 million program designed to connect students to paid volunteer opportunities. Notably, WE Charity holds a reputation amongst cynics in Canada for directing charitable contributions towards a bloated administration, and the $912 million disbursement was no different; in fact, the contribution agreement stated that WE would have received over $45 million in fees for running the program.
In addition to the questionable merits of donating almost a billion dollar dollars to an organization with a significant administrative overhead, the government’s disbursements to WE raised red flags due to the organization’s close relationships with Justin Trudeau and former Finance Minister Bill Morneau. On July 3, the Ethics Commissioner announced his investigation into the government’s decision to outsource the program. Several days later, WE stated that it had paid Trudeau’s brother, mother, and wife several hundred thousand dollars for speaking at events over the past four years. Amidst heat from the public, Conservatives, and the Ethics Committee, Trudeau conceded that he should have removed himself from the decision-making process. Bill Morneau also apologized for not recusing himself because of his personal relationship with WE; in addition to WE Charity employees being pressured to attend Morneau’s political events, Morneau’s daughters also work and volunteer for WE.
Given the plethora of evidence that pointed to preferential treatment given by Trudeau and Morneau to WE Charity, the PM and former Finance Minister were called to testify in front of the Finance Committee. On July 22, Morneau stated that he paid $41,000 to WE for travel expenses in 2017, an expense that had previously been covered by the organization. Morneau claimed that he was unaware that WE paid for these trips until his family reviewed their personal financial records. Although one could point Morneau’s misplacement of $41,000 to the Morneau family’s vast personal wealth, the all-expenses-paid trip was simply more evidence of the close, reciprocally beneficial relationship between Morneau and WE Charity. Unsurprisingly, Morneau’s testimony was met with numerous calls for his resignation. On August 17, Morneau succumbed to public pressure and formally stepped down as the Minister of Finance.
Just over a week later, Trudeau appeared before the Finance Committee to submit his own testimony. The crux of the Prime Minister’s testimony was that WE did not receive preferential treatment in the charity selection process, an implausible explanation given that while multiple organizations are usually considered for disbursements, WE was the only charity considered for the $912 million disbursement. Trudeau subsequently prorogued Parliament until September 23, prompting questions of whether Trudeau was simply delaying a confidence vote that could trigger another election.
In the meantime, Trudeau attempted to salvage what remained of his Cabinet by appointing Chrystia Freeland as the nation’s first female Finance Minister. However, it remains unclear if Freeland’s appointment and Morneau’s resignation will mollify disillusioned Canadians. In a last-ditch attempt to save the Prime Minister’s reputation, Liberal sources cited policy disagreements between Morneau and Trudeau as the reason for the former’s resignation. In response, Pierre Poilievre, a Conservative MP, stated “...if Trudeau publicly acknowledges that there is such a thing as three strikes you’re out, then he would have to apply the three strikes rule to himself. Which would bring an end to his scandalous and law-breaking career.” By not holding their leader to account, the Liberals have crossed the proverbial Rubicon; their fate in the near future is now inextricably tied to Trudeau’s ethical missteps.
This scandal extends beyond power politics in Ottawa; Trudeau’s actions have shown that no politicians are immune to the type of virtue signaling and empty promises that characterize the administration south of the Canadian border. For voters who bought into a platform that promised equality, prioritizing public interests over private concerns, and an absolute prohibition of political interference, Trudeau’s ethical missteps come as a shock. Five years after Trudeau promised a rosy future for every Canadian, he has transformed into a self-interested and cynical leader who disdains Parliament's ability to hold him to account – not once, not twice, but three times. Given Trudeau’s repeated missteps, we must not only consider how the WE Controversy has impacted the Liberals, but also what it says about Canadian voters’ willingness to forgive repeated ethical mistakes in favour of a political future helmed by the Liberal Party.