WE. What in earth is going on?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Lastpointe

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1,453
One of the oddest things in the time line laid out in the Globe is that WE was paid and working in the project long before it received cabinet approval. Oops!
 

Carolla

wondering & wandering
Messages
7,648
Reaction score
5,076
Hmmm - watching, well mostly listening as I do other things - to the testimony this afternoon. Sure can pick out the politicos.
 

Lastpointe

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1,453
A good globe editorial about this. Explaining that whether we think this is a bogus charity or not, is not actually the point as far as the government is concerned

yes if they are tossing money to WE without due diligence it makes them lazy or perhaos gullible or careless with our money

but the issue is more is there a quid pro quo going on

interesting that they said yesterday that margaret, Sophie and Sacha Trudeau were being paid not for speeches but for extra events like cocktail parties. What?

and that margaret was not a paid speaker before son became PM. Oops. That is a bad look

they also stated that Morneau was gifted the trip he has subsequently paid for. Oops. Against the law for morneau

they lobby all the time for work but are not lobbyist. Oops

they weren’t going to be making any money off this grant. I find that unlikely, 45 million is a lot for staffing costs over three months. Those are some really well paid staff

started working on it before cabinet approved it. Oops

not their idea? Yet they were able to submit a plan the day it was announced

despite their email to staff , they in fact were not asked bythePMO to run the program or by the PMO to host a Canada day event. Well one of those statements is a lie Or did they just boast of close connections tothePMO to make themselves sound better?

the convoluted structure of this business mascarading as a charity is , well convoluted. The board had no access to financial info......

it’s a bad look for WE. It’s a bad look for the PM. Obviously we in ow both Trudeau and Morneau broke ethical rules. They have already admitted to it. So a nice slap on the wrist from the ethics commissioner is coming. but likely not more unless something else comes to light

i do think that COVID is hampering some of these meetings. a face to face meeting is better for everyone than zoom. Better to be able to defend yourself and better to be able to question. But we get what we get

WE is an odd organization. It’s relationship with politics and school boards is way too deep. IMO
 

Lastpointe

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1,453
WE-sponsored travel for donors not the norm for other charities: experts
In the wake of revelations that Finance Minister Bill Morneau and his family had overseas trips sponsored by the WE organization, experts in the charitable sector say covering a donor's travel costs is an unusual practice.

WE-sponsored travel for donors not the norm for other charities: experts


once again other in the charity community questioning WE. It’s high end ME to WE accommodations and using donations to treat high end clients
 

Waterfall

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,096
Reaction score
3,614
While they're fiddling a farting around with this, why not take that 900 million and get some running water onto the reserves that need it while it's still summer?
 

Lastpointe

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1,453

this is the trip Morneau took to Ecuador

this business is far to involved with the government

and I am still trying to get my head around the idea that margaret Trudeau wasn’t paid to speak but was paid $300,000 to attend cocktail parties
 

Lastpointe

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1,453
Trudeau has a pretty clear choice today

he needs to be very upfront. He needs to open up all the communications related to alltheWE octopus dealings with the government

if he chooses his standard obfuscating this will bite him in the ass

the problem for Trudeau is that he never believes he is wrong. If he thinks it is a good idea then it is and how can people ossicle question his judgement. Which Trudeau will be see today

the one who thought his groping of a reporter was people experiencing things differently ( yes ask Weinstein about that idea)
or the one who sincerely regretted his black face
 

Lastpointe

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1,453
the Time line we got from the minister in charge of this said that WE was circulating a proposal at the beginning on April. Then after a couple of conversations they revised their proposal and when it was announced on April 19 as a new government idea they resubmitted their proposal

yet in their testimony they said the government called them on April 19 and asked them to help

so which is it. Did they submit a proposal on April 19 or did the government call out of the blue and ask them to “help”

I really found Craig very condescending and evasive in answers

hard to believe this guy leads this octopus of an organization
 

Luce NDs

Well-Known Member
Messages
45,531
Reaction score
3,609
Is clear speech or obfuscation more political? ... or will positive double talk overrun negative double talk as the humble truth is diminished in the demiurge to win ... success at all costs!

Caesars have gone against the people and the senate over the millennia to accomplish empire building! "Screw them" had nothing to do with a turn on gentile love ...
 

Waterfall

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,096
Reaction score
3,614

this is the trip Morneau took to Ecuador

this business is far to involved with the government

and I am still trying to get my head around the idea that margaret Trudeau wasn’t paid to speak but was paid $300,000 to attend cocktail parties
$250,000 breaks down to approx. $10,000 per speaking engagement for 24 times. She has been speaking out for years on mental health and her own bipolar.....what does this have to do with Justin or WE lying about paying her?
 

Lastpointe

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1,453
Actually they said under testimony that they only started paying her in 2015 after Trudeau was PM

i don’t know if that means they didn’t hire her to speak until her son was PM or if they had hired her but only started paying her later on

and they now say that they didn’t pay her to speak but to attend cocktail parties. I think that is because other high profile people like Fleury alphabet said they did not get paid to speak
 

Waterfall

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,096
Reaction score
3,614
$250,000 breaks down to approx. $10,000 per speaking engagement for 24 times. She has been speaking out for years on mental health and her own bipolar.....what does this have to do with Justin or WE lying about paying her?
Should have said.....WE lying about NOT paying her.
 

Lastpointe

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1,453
I thoughtthe PM handles himself fairly well. There wasn’t his usual smugness and he more or less answered questions

he disputed the idea that WE got approval and was running the program before they got government approval. And that I guess is easy to check And it was all about being fast with the money

no real comment of what a stupid idea it was and I didn’t listen to it all but I didn’t hear him discuss how this convoluted paying for volunteerism came to be

but he was not completely evasive. Which is good for his brand

third investigation is not good for his brand but they knew that
 

BetteTheRed

Resident Heretic
Messages
16,986
Reaction score
7,968
Lastpointe, would you agree that a good "counterpoint" to these kinds of problems (I've just posted a FB meme on my page that is a picture of Andrew Scheer in a photo op with the founders of WE), would be some sort of different, more representative' voting system than "first past the post"?
 

Lastpointe

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1,453
This problem doesn’t scream that to me. i know that we consistently get a government with only about 35-37% of the vote. And it switches around. And occasionally we get a minority. What I do like about a minority is that the combined opposition has more power in these committees. I think that is good. It is less easy for any government to dodge issues


i still don’t think this has been answered as to what happened

according to the public service testimony, WE was circulating a proposal To ministers on April 8. How ministers can read something from someone not a lobbyist is a whole other question. Someone from the finance ministers office asked her to discuss with WE to make some changes to the proposal. Trudeau announced the grant idea and they got a new proposal from WE that day

how does that happen? Who suggested to WE that they should submit a new proposal that exactly offered What the PMO wanted to do. They didn’t guess

I think how WE knew what to propose is key

then, how does the PM and his chief of staff, understand that Sophie needed approval because of possible conflicts and yet, after they seemed to push back the decision for two weeks, they still figured it was ok for PM to discuss and vote

and of course the issue that WE was already working and had already been paid before cabinet approval. That implies that cabinet approval was just a rubber stamp If Trudeau, Morneau and Telford want something it gets approval

and the idea that the entire plan was stupid to begin with
trudeau said he didn’t know, from April when it was thought up and announced until May 8 that WE was going to run it. In their due diligence it never emerged that WE was undergoing huge issues. They didn’t know they paid money to a shell company.


and one really odd thing Trudeau said. He was asked how much WE reimbursed his wife. He didn’t know. And then he said WE would have made all the arrangements anyway. WE was buying flights and hotels for thePMs wife, a person protected by theRCMP ? With body guards I assume?
and a funny note. He said he didn’t know which London hotel she stayed at. Seriously? Did he just not want to say out loud she was staying at the Dorchester or something?

charity watch dog groups have already said that paying people to speak and paying expenses for people is not the way most charities function. I have certainly never been reimbursed for Anywork I have done for various charities
 

Lastpointe

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1,453
Interesting.

likely is more a situation of having other things on your mind. But when your spouse is traveling and you have young kids, wouldn’t you think you would call them to see how the day went?



and I think he needs to get a haircut. He was looking very scruffy. Between his scruffy hair, beard and eyebrows and his manner of wiggling so much in his chair he looked , odd He really bobs around in his chair. Nervous?
 
Top