Talk:WE Charity scandal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Regarding the Value of the Contract

Hi there!

The page currently states the contract was valued at 19.5 million CDN in the "Early Events" section, this is what was announcedby the government, however this only a section of the overall contract as it was signed and implemented; the correct number is 43.53 million $ CDN.

"In 2020, the federal cabinet selected WE to administer a payment program for the Canada Student Service Grant program, a $900 million volunteer program, for a contract worth $19.5 million." -current Early Events section on Wikipedia

The contract was in fact for 43.53 million $ CDN from the outset, the possibility of the additional payments were not disclosed, however they were part of the agreement. This is why WE Charity accepted a payment of 30 million $ CDN from the government, which was paid on June 30, 2020.

"WE Charity could have received as much as $43 million for meeting the commitments it agreed to when it took on the administration of a $900 million student grant program — more than twice the sum previously announced — a federal cabinet minister said Thursday.

Initially, the federal government said WE Charity would get $19.5 million for administering the grant program, with $5 million of that going toward not-for-profits to help them with administration costs. The first payment to WE Charity was intended to create 20,000 volunteer placements.

Chagger said today an additional $10.5 million would have been made available to WE to help smaller not-for-profits participate in the program, and another $13.53 million would have been given to WE to create an additional 20,000 volunteer placements, if necessary. " https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/we-charity-contract-chagger-committee-1.5652667'

"The contract Ottawa signed with WE Charity allowed the group to receive all of the money to administer the Canada Student Service Grant upfront, with the organization getting $30-million out of a potential $43.5-million before the contract was cancelled." https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-we-charity-contract-came-into-effect-may-5-ottawa-paid-most/

As of August 16 We Charity has returned 22 million $ CDN of the 30 million $ CDN.

"The group has returned $22 million out of the $30 million handed out by the government when that deal was signed, and is waiting on the government to accept the remaining $8 million, a spokesperson for the WE Charity said in a statement." https://globalnews.ca/news/7265177/ethics-committee-ministers-we-charity/

The article's early events section should be changed to reflect the true value of the contract; as well, the payment of 30 million $ CDN by the government to the charity on June 30 should be added to the timeline section, as well as the repayment of 22 million $ CDN.

(edit on behalf of User:GaiusTranquillusSuetonius by GeneralNotability (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC))

Value of money paid to the Trudeaus

Hi there!

I noticed someone keeps changing the value of the money paid to the to the Trudeaus by the charity to be $280 000. This is incorrect. The charity PAID them in excess of 300k, they RECEIVED 280k after paying their agents from the award which was in excess of 300k. This same person continues making the reversion. The reason they gave for the initial change was "people cannot read" and the second time the reason was "the two sources are in contradiction". Neither of these statements is valid within this context.

Additionally, this user stated that one of the sources was "much older" and this was a reason to remove it. This user clearly did not take the time to look at the source as both were published on the same day; the date is given directly at the top of the article. If the user had merely moused over the link instead of following it to ensure proper research was done, it would have given the date it was accessed, August 17 instead of the date it was published which might create this misconception. You should make sure to always read the sources yourself instead of just quickly mousing over it before making an edit like that.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/margaret-justin-trudeau-we-charity-1.5643586 (Posted: Jul 09, 2020 1:44 PM ET | Last Updated: July 10)

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-prime-ministers-mother-brother-paid-to-speak-at-we-charity-events/ (PUBLISHED JULY 9, 2020 UPDATED JULY 10, 2020)

(Notice the exact same date of publication)

Additionally, the Globe and Mail offers 5 free articles a month, so literally none of the reasons for the change: individual inability to read, paywall, contradiction, old source, were valid.

When a lawsuit is settled and announced in any major news source, the total value paid to the defendant is given BEFORE the lawyer hired by the defendant (their agent) is paid by the defendant from the award; the settlement number is not given minus the lawyers cut. This can be confirmed by simply googling "civil lawsuit settlement" in the news, nowhere do they give the number AFTER the agents take their cut.

Additionally, the user continues to make these changes without any citations or sources, whereas every alteration I have made is backed up with accredit sources.

"Between 2016 and 2020, Margaret Trudeau was paid about $250,000 to speak at about 28 events, the charity said in the statement. That sum was minus the 20 per cent commission the speakers’ agency takes, meaning a total of $312,000 was paid for Margaret Trudeau’s events, the charity said."

"“Alexandre Trudeau also spoke at eight events during the 2017-2018 academic year and received a total of approximately $32,000 in speaking honorariums via the Speakers’ Spotlight,” the statement said. Including the 20 per cent commission, about $40,000 was paid for his participation.

According to the charity’s statement “an error in billing/payment” led to WE Charity rather than ME to WE paying for some of Margaret Trudeau’s speeches. “For these speeches, the charity paid the speakers’ bureau directly, and the charity was reimbursed by ME to WE social enterprise for their sponsorship of the speeches,” the statement said.

“The amount paid from the charity to Speakers’ Spotlight was approximately $64,000. This was an error and corrected by accounting. All speeches by Alexandre Trudeau were paid by ME to WE social enterprise,” the statement said."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-prime-ministers-mother-brother-paid-to-speak-at-we-charity-events/

The amount the charity paid to the Trudeaus was in excess of over $300 000 this is a fact, please stop changing it.

70.29.37.53 (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

GaiusTranquillusSuetonius (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a scandal not a “controversy”

Today the finance minister resigned over this. Please update inaccurate liberal bias title. TradCdn (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I also think the term "scandal" is likely appropriate for this topic. That said, I titled it "controversy" when I started the article because that was recommended by other editors here, and there have been edit wars about this sort of thing in the past (most recently with the SNC-Lavalin affair). If you want to change the title (move the article to a new name), you may wish to follow the procedure set out at WP:RM#CM.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

“Recommended by editors” yeah it’s a bull**it spin to call it “controversy” -the highest ranking minister has resigned... at this point it’s not just something “controversial” -revise it to a sensible title. Thanks TradCdn (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

No need for that language friend. If you want to start a discussion about moving the page, you are free to do so. As I said, there are instructions how to do so here. If you do, you are likely to find me supporting a move, when I started the article I was choosing my battles.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I also now support revising the term controversy to scandal. Initially I had agreed with the use of the term controversy, it was somewhat of a personal inference as to whether the events were a scandal or business as usual; one persons controversy is another persons no-story and both sides need to be heard. I think however in light of the revelations, the term scandal is accurate to use at this point. This is also reflected in the major media sources now, as the term scandal has replaced controversy. https://globalnews.ca/news/7288867/we-charity-scandal-liberal-support/ https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/tories-say-they-want-full-truth-of-we-charity-scandal-out-before-next-election-1.5070561 https://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-gurney-finally-the-truth-behind-the-we-scandal-it-doesnt-look-good-for-the-liberals https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53494560 (WE charity scandal - A simple guide to the new crisis for Trudeau) GaiusTranquillusSuetonius (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 21 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to WE Charity scandal —usernamekiran (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

---

WE Charity controversy → WE Charity Scandal – Hi there! As I outlined on the talk page to an earlier response, I believe the term 'scandal' is now more fitting than 'controversy'. Firstly, the majority of major news outlets have now started to use the term WE Charity Scandal to refer to the event: https://globalnews.ca/news/7288867/we-charity-scandal-liberal-support/ https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/tories-say-they-want-full-truth-of-we-charity-scandal-out-before-next-election-1.5070561 https://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-gurney-finally-the-truth-behind-the-we-scandal-it-doesnt-look-good-for-the-liberals https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53494560 I originally supported the use of the term controversy as it contains less potential bias than scandal and when the page was written not all the facts had come to light; however, given the term scandal is now more commonly used by major media sources, the revelations that have since come to light, and the subsequent consequences i.e. the resignation of the Finance Minister and the abrupt prorogation of Parliament, the term scandal is now more fitting. GaiusTranquillusSuetonius (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Move - Much of the media have referred to this as a scandal. It fits the definition. Trudeau has admitted he made a mistake and should have recused himself. We have now had a prominent minister resign over it. There are various investigations by the Ethics Commissioner and Parliament. I don't think we need to be squeamish about using the word "scandal".--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Note - I have placed a notice of this discussion on the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as premature (though would likely support in, say, a few weeks if it keeps getting worse). [1] ("controversy");[2] ("scandal"); [3] (both); [4] ("controversy"); [5] (both). I'm not seeing consensus from news orgs on how to treat this, so I don't think we should pull the trigger quite yet. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Also [6] ("controversy"). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The above user states that "I'm not seeing consensus from news orgs". To provide evidence of this they cited an article by chatelaine.com written in July which uses the term controversy. Chatelaine is a women's magazine, not major news media outlet. https://www.chatelaine.com/news/we-charity-controversy-faq/ - July 29

BBC News, The National Post, CTV News, Global News, The Globe and Mail, have all used the term "We Charity Scandal", not controversy, in major headlines during the Month of August. Global News- Liberals, Tories in close race on heels of WE Charity scandal, Morneau resignation - Aug, 21 CTV News- Tories say they want full truth of WE Charity scandal out before next election- Aug 19 National Post- Matt Gurney: Finally, the truth behind the WE scandal. It doesn't look good for the Liberals -Aug 21 BBC News- WE charity scandal - A simple guide to the new crisis for Trudeau -Aug 20. GaiusTranquillusSuetonius (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

WE Charity scandal: Committee hears from charity watchdog organization- Aug 6 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-opposition-parties-hope-we-charity-documents-shed-some-light-on-how/ I forgot to include the Globe and Mail GaiusTranquillusSuetonius (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Trudeau accused of attempting to cover up scandal by proroguing parliament - The Guardian Aug 18 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/18/justin-trudeau-scandal-prorogue-parliament

LILLEY: WE scandal hits Trudeau with voters- The Toronto Sun Aug 15 https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-we-scandal-hits-trudeau-with-voters GaiusTranquillusSuetonius (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't have a strong view either way, but if moved then "scandal" should be uncapitalized in order to comply with WP:NCCAPS, as it's not a proper name. Impru20^talk 20:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. It would have to be "WE Charity scandal" (last word uncapitalized).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support move to WE Charity scandal: per WP:COMMONNAME, Google Trends, and per GaiusTranquillusSuetonius. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support move to WE Charity scandal: per nom. It does appear to be a scandal by all appearances, and the dozens of news articles listed by GaiusTranquillusSuetonius make a strong case that many news organizations are aware of this. Handy History Handbook (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Politically Motivated hatchet job

This article is a politically motivated hatchet job. It is garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.217.90.97 (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This is an ongoing scandal and should be in present tense

This scandal is constantly evolving as more truth comes to light. Can editors please update the start of the article to reflect the ever evolving nature of this scandal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.ross8217 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)