Trudeau 'welcomes' ethics probe of alleged PMO interference in SNC-Lavalin case
- Thread starter Danbones
- Start date
Trudeau government contributed $1.18 million to WE Day event in 2017 during which PM's mother was likely paid to speak
So what WE know is nothing will come of this. WE ran away from the issue and is in hiding and claims to be restructuring which is another way of saying "hide until the damn issue blows over".
Justin and Billy once again show total contempt for the basic rules of conflict of interest and ethical behaviour and there is no true legal consequence.
Hey now WE are all just fine in Canada.
People should do their homework with charities. The WE charity was basically a platform for two brothers to engage in feel good rhetoric. The actual money from it used to do anything tangible for others was very low if non existent.
I say to people research your charities. Look at the annual reports. Check how much money goes to overhead and how much actually goes to some sort of tangible work project.
Great examples. Unitarian Service Committee, Salvation Army. Horrible examples, United Way (which simply intercepts your donation to pay people who then send very little of the remaining on).
Better still research the project and donate the money directly to the project. For example, go to a hospital of your choice, sit down with the department in charge of excepting public donations and ask them to advise on what specific medical projects need funding.
Myself I investigate my charities. I like to give the money as directly as I can to a project. I am not rich. I don't pay for two young men to spew feel good messages. The little I have I donate to projects to rescue wildlife or animals, or to specifically help war vets or a specifc medical research project a doctor is doing. I always admire Salvation Army because consistently 80% of your dollar ends up feeding or clothing someone. The Salvation Army people's lifestyle is public knowledge. They aint exactly living it up on your donation. The Unitarian Service Committee does not require you be of a certain religious belief to be helped and it involves itself in apolitical development programs.
I am vehemently opposed to World Vision which requires you be their version of Christian to work for them or receive assistance from them and Oxfam which is so coloured by its political views it long since served as a neutral charity and now serves as a propaganda interest group.
Choose who you think is best. Let this serve a lesson that the moment Trudeau is involved in anything, its corrupt.
Justin and Billy once again show total contempt for the basic rules of conflict of interest and ethical behaviour and there is no true legal consequence.
Hey now WE are all just fine in Canada.
People should do their homework with charities. The WE charity was basically a platform for two brothers to engage in feel good rhetoric. The actual money from it used to do anything tangible for others was very low if non existent.
I say to people research your charities. Look at the annual reports. Check how much money goes to overhead and how much actually goes to some sort of tangible work project.
Great examples. Unitarian Service Committee, Salvation Army. Horrible examples, United Way (which simply intercepts your donation to pay people who then send very little of the remaining on).
Better still research the project and donate the money directly to the project. For example, go to a hospital of your choice, sit down with the department in charge of excepting public donations and ask them to advise on what specific medical projects need funding.
Myself I investigate my charities. I like to give the money as directly as I can to a project. I am not rich. I don't pay for two young men to spew feel good messages. The little I have I donate to projects to rescue wildlife or animals, or to specifically help war vets or a specifc medical research project a doctor is doing. I always admire Salvation Army because consistently 80% of your dollar ends up feeding or clothing someone. The Salvation Army people's lifestyle is public knowledge. They aint exactly living it up on your donation. The Unitarian Service Committee does not require you be of a certain religious belief to be helped and it involves itself in apolitical development programs.
I am vehemently opposed to World Vision which requires you be their version of Christian to work for them or receive assistance from them and Oxfam which is so coloured by its political views it long since served as a neutral charity and now serves as a propaganda interest group.
Choose who you think is best. Let this serve a lesson that the moment Trudeau is involved in anything, its corrupt.
I wonder how many school kids were hired to run the shredders
Amid controversy, WE organization cancels all WE Day events, announces restructuring to be 'more transparent'
Amid controversy, WE organization cancels all WE Day events, announces restructuring to be 'more transparent'
Ethics commissioner launches investigation into Morneau's involvement in WE Charity contract
Commons finance committee to begin probing WE Charity's volunteering contract
They thought they could slide it through the cover of the pandemic, good thing the Cons. held firm on not giving the Libs. the full power of the Gov. they requested.
Commons finance committee to begin probing WE Charity's volunteering contract
They thought they could slide it through the cover of the pandemic, good thing the Cons. held firm on not giving the Libs. the full power of the Gov. they requested.
OTTAWA – Prime Minister Justin Trudeau faces multiple parliamentary investigations over his handling of a sole-sourced contract to WE Charity, but unlike during the SNC-Lavalin scandal he could be forced to testify about his actions.
Trudeau apologized Monday for failing to recuse himself from the decision to put WE in charge of a $900 million student volunteer program, despite hefty speaking fees his mother and brother received from the organization. Finance Minister Bill Morneau issued a similar statement because his daughters are involved in the charity.
But that won’t be the last word on the issue as both the Finance and Government Operations committees of Parliament have decided to study the contract. Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre said over the weekend that he intends to put the prime minister on the finance committee witness list. In addition to the parliamentary committees, the ethics commissioner has launched an investigation, but results from that are expected to take months.
Should Trudeau refuse an invite from any of the committees, Parliament as a whole would have to consider next steps and a potential vote to force his appearance. Barrett said he doubts Trudeau’s apology, but if the prime minister wanted to prove he was remorseful showing up to committee to answer questions without a parliamentary fight would be a good start.
“I contend that he’s just sorry he got caught. And if he is in fact contrite, then I expect to see him give a nice little account to finance committee,” he said. Trudeau was circumspect Monday about whether he will appear.
“We have a number of ministers and officials testifying this week to answer questions at committee and I will look at any invitations that come in and discuss them with my house leadership team,” he said. http://nationalpost.com/news/politi...ons/wcm/b860e54c-7dfd-4d11-8bb0-43b6a901be1b/
LINK: http://nationalpost.com/news/politi...ram/wcm/3bdc9690-b10c-402e-b70e-2f8a55a80283/
OTTAWA –The Trudeau government was willing to pay WE Charity up to $43.53 million to administer the Canada Student Service Grant, according to a federal minister.
That sum, disclosed by Diversity, Inclusion and Youth Minister Bardish Chagger during a parliamentary committee meeting Thursday, is more than double the original amount disclosed by the federal government.
The government had only previously spoken of a payment of at least $19.5 million, depending on the number of volunteers placed.
Meanwhile, the federal ethics commissioner announced an investigation into Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s involvement in the government’s outsourcing of a $900-million student volunteer grant to WE Charity, where one of his daughters currently works.
Thursday’s Finance committee meeting was the first of four focusing on how the government came to the decision to outsource the Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG) to WE Charity, which has close ties to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, his family, as well as Morneau.
Chagger, the first witness, repeated that it was the public service that recommended the grant program be outsourced to a third-party via a contribution agreement (which is different from a contract, she insisted).
Normally, the government would put out a request for proposals when considering a contribution agreement, Senior Associate Deputy Minister Gina Wilson said. But that process can take “two to three months”, and so it was not followed because of the short deadline to deliver the program.
She also said she “personally” (?) had not spoken to Trudeau’s or Morneau’s office about the bureaucrat’s recommendation, but dodged questions about if her staff had.
Chagger also confirmed that questions had been raised at Cabinet about the prime minister and his family’s ties to WE Charity during discussions about the CSSG.
Testimony by Employment and Social Development Assistant Deputy Minister Rachel Wernick, whom Chagger identified as the bureaucrat who had recommended WE Charity administer the student grant, raised eyebrows among opposition MPs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPVDhYEp3GA
Testimony by Employment and Social Development Assistant Deputy Minister Rachel Wernick (Yes, Micheal Wernick of SNC Lavalin Scandal....his Sister), whom Chagger identified as the bureaucrat who had recommended WE Charity administer the student grant, raised eyebrows among opposition MPs.
Wernick said that WE Charity submitted an unsolicited proposal to several bureaucrats and ministers before Trudeau announced the CSSG on April 22. WE Charity later confirmed that document was sent on April 9.
The proposal was “related to social entrepreneurship and indicated that it could be adapted as needed,” Wernick said. She knew of at least two ministers’ offices that were aware of it: Chagger’s and Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade Mary Ng’s.
But it was only later that the Trudeau government told her department that they wanted to implement a student volunteer program. Wernick (This name sounds sooo familiar...) says she contacted WE Charity on April 19 to see if they would be interested in administering such a program.
On April 22, the prime minister announced the details of the CSSG. “I learned the final contents of the package from the announcement,” Wernick said.
The same day, a full draft proposal to administer the program arrived in her email inbox, courtesy of WE co-founder Craig Kielburger.
“Now we know that this whole thing originated with WE,” Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre concluded.
Late Thursday evening, WE Charity published a statement saying it was “incorrect” to conflate the first, unsolicited proposal with the second one specifically related to the CSSG.
“We submitted this proposal on April 9. It is distinct and clearly unrelated to the CSSG. It was never adopted, because the government went in a different direction, and subsequently reached out to WE Charity to submit a different proposal, along the lines of its proposed CSSG,” WE Charity wrote.
Considering that her department was told it barely had a few weeks to set up the CSSG, Wernick said the WE proposal ticked all the necessary boxes for them to be best suited to run the $900-million program.
“I determined with my team and colleagues that their draft proposal was the best available option in the time we had to work with,” Wernick said.
Wernick also confirmed that their decision-making process did not include spotting potential conflict of interest issues between the Trudeau Cabinet and WE.
“The onus is on the public office holders to uphold the guidelines,” Wernick told the committee.
Three weeks after the beginning of the WE Charity controversy, the ethics commissioner has already announced investigations into both the prime minister and, starting Thursday, the finance minister.
Both Trudeau and Morneau admitted recently they had not recused themselves from Cabinet discussions about the outsourcing of the CSSG to WE Charity, despite close ties to the organization.
The prime minister has hosted multiple “WE Day” rallies in the last decade, his wife, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, is a “WE ambassador” and both his mother, Margaret Trudeau, and his brother, Alexandre Trudeau, have been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in total speaking fees by WE since 2016.
In Morneau’s case, one of his daughters currently works for the Toronto-based organization, while another has spoken at three WE events.
The WE organization is also embroiled in controversy regarding its corporate structure as well as its treatment of staff, particularly those from minority groups. On Wednesday, WE suddenly announced it was cancelling its flagship “WE Day” events for the foreseeable future, all the while launching a major restructuring of its corporate structure.
Trudeau apologized Monday for failing to recuse himself from the decision to put WE in charge of a $900 million student volunteer program, despite hefty speaking fees his mother and brother received from the organization. Finance Minister Bill Morneau issued a similar statement because his daughters are involved in the charity.
But that won’t be the last word on the issue as both the Finance and Government Operations committees of Parliament have decided to study the contract. Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre said over the weekend that he intends to put the prime minister on the finance committee witness list. In addition to the parliamentary committees, the ethics commissioner has launched an investigation, but results from that are expected to take months.
Should Trudeau refuse an invite from any of the committees, Parliament as a whole would have to consider next steps and a potential vote to force his appearance. Barrett said he doubts Trudeau’s apology, but if the prime minister wanted to prove he was remorseful showing up to committee to answer questions without a parliamentary fight would be a good start.
“I contend that he’s just sorry he got caught. And if he is in fact contrite, then I expect to see him give a nice little account to finance committee,” he said. Trudeau was circumspect Monday about whether he will appear.
“We have a number of ministers and officials testifying this week to answer questions at committee and I will look at any invitations that come in and discuss them with my house leadership team,” he said. http://nationalpost.com/news/politi...ons/wcm/b860e54c-7dfd-4d11-8bb0-43b6a901be1b/
LINK: http://nationalpost.com/news/politi...ram/wcm/3bdc9690-b10c-402e-b70e-2f8a55a80283/
OTTAWA –The Trudeau government was willing to pay WE Charity up to $43.53 million to administer the Canada Student Service Grant, according to a federal minister.
That sum, disclosed by Diversity, Inclusion and Youth Minister Bardish Chagger during a parliamentary committee meeting Thursday, is more than double the original amount disclosed by the federal government.
The government had only previously spoken of a payment of at least $19.5 million, depending on the number of volunteers placed.
Meanwhile, the federal ethics commissioner announced an investigation into Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s involvement in the government’s outsourcing of a $900-million student volunteer grant to WE Charity, where one of his daughters currently works.
Thursday’s Finance committee meeting was the first of four focusing on how the government came to the decision to outsource the Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG) to WE Charity, which has close ties to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, his family, as well as Morneau.
Chagger, the first witness, repeated that it was the public service that recommended the grant program be outsourced to a third-party via a contribution agreement (which is different from a contract, she insisted).
Normally, the government would put out a request for proposals when considering a contribution agreement, Senior Associate Deputy Minister Gina Wilson said. But that process can take “two to three months”, and so it was not followed because of the short deadline to deliver the program.
She also said she “personally” (?) had not spoken to Trudeau’s or Morneau’s office about the bureaucrat’s recommendation, but dodged questions about if her staff had.
Chagger also confirmed that questions had been raised at Cabinet about the prime minister and his family’s ties to WE Charity during discussions about the CSSG.
Testimony by Employment and Social Development Assistant Deputy Minister Rachel Wernick, whom Chagger identified as the bureaucrat who had recommended WE Charity administer the student grant, raised eyebrows among opposition MPs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPVDhYEp3GA
Testimony by Employment and Social Development Assistant Deputy Minister Rachel Wernick (Yes, Micheal Wernick of SNC Lavalin Scandal....his Sister), whom Chagger identified as the bureaucrat who had recommended WE Charity administer the student grant, raised eyebrows among opposition MPs.
Wernick said that WE Charity submitted an unsolicited proposal to several bureaucrats and ministers before Trudeau announced the CSSG on April 22. WE Charity later confirmed that document was sent on April 9.
The proposal was “related to social entrepreneurship and indicated that it could be adapted as needed,” Wernick said. She knew of at least two ministers’ offices that were aware of it: Chagger’s and Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade Mary Ng’s.
But it was only later that the Trudeau government told her department that they wanted to implement a student volunteer program. Wernick (This name sounds sooo familiar...) says she contacted WE Charity on April 19 to see if they would be interested in administering such a program.
On April 22, the prime minister announced the details of the CSSG. “I learned the final contents of the package from the announcement,” Wernick said.
The same day, a full draft proposal to administer the program arrived in her email inbox, courtesy of WE co-founder Craig Kielburger.
“Now we know that this whole thing originated with WE,” Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre concluded.
Late Thursday evening, WE Charity published a statement saying it was “incorrect” to conflate the first, unsolicited proposal with the second one specifically related to the CSSG.
“We submitted this proposal on April 9. It is distinct and clearly unrelated to the CSSG. It was never adopted, because the government went in a different direction, and subsequently reached out to WE Charity to submit a different proposal, along the lines of its proposed CSSG,” WE Charity wrote.
Considering that her department was told it barely had a few weeks to set up the CSSG, Wernick said the WE proposal ticked all the necessary boxes for them to be best suited to run the $900-million program.
“I determined with my team and colleagues that their draft proposal was the best available option in the time we had to work with,” Wernick said.
Wernick also confirmed that their decision-making process did not include spotting potential conflict of interest issues between the Trudeau Cabinet and WE.
“The onus is on the public office holders to uphold the guidelines,” Wernick told the committee.
Three weeks after the beginning of the WE Charity controversy, the ethics commissioner has already announced investigations into both the prime minister and, starting Thursday, the finance minister.
Both Trudeau and Morneau admitted recently they had not recused themselves from Cabinet discussions about the outsourcing of the CSSG to WE Charity, despite close ties to the organization.
The prime minister has hosted multiple “WE Day” rallies in the last decade, his wife, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, is a “WE ambassador” and both his mother, Margaret Trudeau, and his brother, Alexandre Trudeau, have been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in total speaking fees by WE since 2016.
In Morneau’s case, one of his daughters currently works for the Toronto-based organization, while another has spoken at three WE events.
The WE organization is also embroiled in controversy regarding its corporate structure as well as its treatment of staff, particularly those from minority groups. On Wednesday, WE suddenly announced it was cancelling its flagship “WE Day” events for the foreseeable future, all the while launching a major restructuring of its corporate structure.
Last edited:
Liberals MPs filibuster committee motion to review WE Charity payments to Trudeau family
Link: http://ipolitics.ca/2020/07/17/libe...review-we-charity-payments-to-trudeau-family/
Liberal MPs on the House ethics committee on Friday successfully delayed a vote (in the spirit of full cooperation, of coarse) on a motion to launch an investigation into Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s family ties with WE Charity, pushing a decision on the matter until next week.
A motion submitted by Conservative MP Michael Barrett called for the committee to look at all speaking appearances at WE Charity events from Trudeau, his wife Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, his mother Margaret Trudeau and his brother Alexandre Trudeau. It also requested receipts of any fees and reimbursements since October 2008.
The committee meeting, which lasted nearly four hours, ended after NDP MP Charlie Angus put forward an amendment that would result in financial records between WE and the Trudeau family to be forwarded to the federal ethics commissioner in exchange to have the prime minister called to testify. Liberal members and Angus then agreed to adjourn the meeting and meet again next week. Here's Charlie Angus on the Liberal Song & Dance earlier today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEP9CKL5uhc&list=PLLzHOgGvydCnFW52abncjWkAEQ-oV9sx0&index=2
Barrett had said the motion would reassure Canadians that Parliament is providing its function as a check and balance, saying it’s necessary to determine why Trudeau’s mother was paid for speaking at WE events, while other speakers were told WE does not pay speakers. “It’s a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money going to an organization with direct financial dealings with the Prime Minister’s family,” he said. “The sooner we get all of the answers, the sooner we can put this matter to rest.”
Barrett clarified that the only Trudeau he wants to hear from is Justin, saying he doesn’t want to bring anyone to committee, but only to look at the Trudeau’s records and documents related to speaking appearances.
Link to previous apologies (& non-apologies) from previous ethics violations:
A few other apologies circling the "WE" Fiasco: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPg9cvb9GUk&list=PLLzHOgGvydCnFW52abncjWkAEQ-oV9sx0
Blanchet 'weighs & measures PM Trudeau's apology, and finds it wanting': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qLel7lG2kc&list=PLLzHOgGvydCnFW52abncjWkAEQ-oV9sx0&index=9
Trudeau being the typical greasy shit-stain we've come to expect him to be with Ethics violations: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVQwbwvXA24&list=PLLzHOgGvydCnFW52abncjWkAEQ-oV9sx0&index=6
OTTAWA -- The Liberal members on the House of Commons ethics committee have stalled a vote on whether to study the nature of the government’s WE Charity contract and review past speaking appearances of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his family.
After nearly four hours of discussion following a Conservative motion to investigate the issue, Liberal MP Greg Fergus put forward a motion to suspend the meeting until the earliest time next week to deliberate on an NDP amendment. The NDP amendment proposes that the committee share the speaking records and the associated fees or reimbursements by Trudeau, his wife Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau, his mother Margaret Trudeau, and his brother Alexandre Trudeau with the ethics commissioner.
The amendment, put forward by NDP ethics critic Charlie Angus, also asks (?) that Trudeau testify before the committee. Five Liberals and Angus were in favour of adjourning, while the remaining four Conservative and Bloq MPs opposed. (Was Jagmeet promised more magic beans???)
Tory MP Michael Barrett accused the Liberals of a cover-up. "So its laid bare for everyone to see that the Liberals have attempted to filibuster this committee," he said. "If playing hardball is filibustering the committee, waiting and running the clock until two o'clock and slyly passing a point of order to try and adjourn the committee, that's clumsy, but I’m not sure if that's hardball."
Barrett and Angus pointed out that the Liberals took the time allocated to vote on the motion on Friday to instead give lengthy history lessons and to speak about their alma maters. "We’ve heard today the history of Athens, the personal history of Liberal MPs, we’ve learned about the Medieval Era, we’ve learned about everything except the fact that WE is very implicated with the Trudeau family and the Trudeau government is now under investigation. We need to get answers," said Angus.
Liberal MP Élisabeth Brière delivered a long speech about democracy, the rule of law, and the role of the committee at large. She also said it would be inappropriate to involve Trudeau’s family members in the study. Angus agreed that family members should be void from committee questioning, but that key members of the prime minister’s inner circle should be held accountable. He mentioned Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Trudeau’s chief of staff Katie Telford as vital witnesses.
"It’s Katie Telford, his chief of staff, who should have been looking after a prime minister and putting some kind of big ethical mitts around him so he didn’t keep putting his finger in the conflict of interest socket, that’s what I’m interested in," he said. "But I’m not interested in our committee being used to go after the individual members of the Trudeau family and I agree that we can put a limit on how that’s done." Barrett confirmed the only member of the Trudeau family he’d like to see appear before the group is the prime minister himself. "I’m not looking for Margaret Trudeau to come to this committee. I’m not looking for Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau to come to this committee, nor am I looking for his brother Alexandre to come to this committee, but he’s put them in a terrible, terrible position," said Barrett.
The opposition agreed the central question the committee must seek to answer is whether there was a successful attempt to buy political influence by the WE Charity.
Link: http://ipolitics.ca/2020/07/17/libe...review-we-charity-payments-to-trudeau-family/
Liberal MPs on the House ethics committee on Friday successfully delayed a vote (in the spirit of full cooperation, of coarse) on a motion to launch an investigation into Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s family ties with WE Charity, pushing a decision on the matter until next week.
A motion submitted by Conservative MP Michael Barrett called for the committee to look at all speaking appearances at WE Charity events from Trudeau, his wife Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, his mother Margaret Trudeau and his brother Alexandre Trudeau. It also requested receipts of any fees and reimbursements since October 2008.
The committee meeting, which lasted nearly four hours, ended after NDP MP Charlie Angus put forward an amendment that would result in financial records between WE and the Trudeau family to be forwarded to the federal ethics commissioner in exchange to have the prime minister called to testify. Liberal members and Angus then agreed to adjourn the meeting and meet again next week. Here's Charlie Angus on the Liberal Song & Dance earlier today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEP9CKL5uhc&list=PLLzHOgGvydCnFW52abncjWkAEQ-oV9sx0&index=2
Barrett had said the motion would reassure Canadians that Parliament is providing its function as a check and balance, saying it’s necessary to determine why Trudeau’s mother was paid for speaking at WE events, while other speakers were told WE does not pay speakers. “It’s a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money going to an organization with direct financial dealings with the Prime Minister’s family,” he said. “The sooner we get all of the answers, the sooner we can put this matter to rest.”
Barrett clarified that the only Trudeau he wants to hear from is Justin, saying he doesn’t want to bring anyone to committee, but only to look at the Trudeau’s records and documents related to speaking appearances.
Link to previous apologies (& non-apologies) from previous ethics violations:
A few other apologies circling the "WE" Fiasco: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPg9cvb9GUk&list=PLLzHOgGvydCnFW52abncjWkAEQ-oV9sx0
Blanchet 'weighs & measures PM Trudeau's apology, and finds it wanting': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qLel7lG2kc&list=PLLzHOgGvydCnFW52abncjWkAEQ-oV9sx0&index=9
Trudeau being the typical greasy shit-stain we've come to expect him to be with Ethics violations: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVQwbwvXA24&list=PLLzHOgGvydCnFW52abncjWkAEQ-oV9sx0&index=6
- Liberals delay vote on ethics committee's probe of WE contract
OTTAWA -- The Liberal members on the House of Commons ethics committee have stalled a vote on whether to study the nature of the government’s WE Charity contract and review past speaking appearances of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his family.
After nearly four hours of discussion following a Conservative motion to investigate the issue, Liberal MP Greg Fergus put forward a motion to suspend the meeting until the earliest time next week to deliberate on an NDP amendment. The NDP amendment proposes that the committee share the speaking records and the associated fees or reimbursements by Trudeau, his wife Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau, his mother Margaret Trudeau, and his brother Alexandre Trudeau with the ethics commissioner.
The amendment, put forward by NDP ethics critic Charlie Angus, also asks (?) that Trudeau testify before the committee. Five Liberals and Angus were in favour of adjourning, while the remaining four Conservative and Bloq MPs opposed. (Was Jagmeet promised more magic beans???)
Tory MP Michael Barrett accused the Liberals of a cover-up. "So its laid bare for everyone to see that the Liberals have attempted to filibuster this committee," he said. "If playing hardball is filibustering the committee, waiting and running the clock until two o'clock and slyly passing a point of order to try and adjourn the committee, that's clumsy, but I’m not sure if that's hardball."
Barrett and Angus pointed out that the Liberals took the time allocated to vote on the motion on Friday to instead give lengthy history lessons and to speak about their alma maters. "We’ve heard today the history of Athens, the personal history of Liberal MPs, we’ve learned about the Medieval Era, we’ve learned about everything except the fact that WE is very implicated with the Trudeau family and the Trudeau government is now under investigation. We need to get answers," said Angus.
Liberal MP Élisabeth Brière delivered a long speech about democracy, the rule of law, and the role of the committee at large. She also said it would be inappropriate to involve Trudeau’s family members in the study. Angus agreed that family members should be void from committee questioning, but that key members of the prime minister’s inner circle should be held accountable. He mentioned Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Trudeau’s chief of staff Katie Telford as vital witnesses.
"It’s Katie Telford, his chief of staff, who should have been looking after a prime minister and putting some kind of big ethical mitts around him so he didn’t keep putting his finger in the conflict of interest socket, that’s what I’m interested in," he said. "But I’m not interested in our committee being used to go after the individual members of the Trudeau family and I agree that we can put a limit on how that’s done." Barrett confirmed the only member of the Trudeau family he’d like to see appear before the group is the prime minister himself. "I’m not looking for Margaret Trudeau to come to this committee. I’m not looking for Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau to come to this committee, nor am I looking for his brother Alexandre to come to this committee, but he’s put them in a terrible, terrible position," said Barrett.
The opposition agreed the central question the committee must seek to answer is whether there was a successful attempt to buy political influence by the WE Charity.
Having Liberals on an ethics committee is akin to having CHina and North Korea on the UN human rights commission.