Mediaboss Marketing

OTTAWA A timeline of events regarding the Canada Student Service Grant program, based on public documents, eventsandstatements from cabinet ministers, government officials, and WE Charity:

March 6, 2020: WE Charity staff prepare a concept paper on service learning for public servants at Employment and Social Development Canada.

April 5: Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau talk over the phone about how to help students whosesummer job and volunteer opportunities were vanishing due to the COVID-19 pandemic.Finance Department officials are tasked withconsidering options the next morning.

April 7: SmallBusiness Minister Mary Ng and WE co-founder Craig Kielburger have an introductory phone call in which Ng asks WE to send what it calls a "pre-established proposal" to help young people launch businesses.

April 7 or 8: Morneau's office contacts theWE organization, among other groups, to get their input on potential programs. Morneau says the call was on April 7 while WE says it was April 8.

April 9: WE Charity sends the unsolicited proposal for a youth business program to Youth Minister Bardish Chagger, Ng, Morneauand Trudeau's office. The price tag is between $6 million and $14 million to provide digital programming and $500 grants, plus"incentive funds,"for8,000 students.

April 16: ESDC officials mention WE in the context of the student program in an email discussion with Finance officials.

April 18: Morneau's officials raise the idea of partnering with a non-profit, or for-profit group to administerthe program. (ESDC officials suggest the same day that WE might be an option.) Morneau said it was the first time he was involved in any talk about WE and the grant program.

April 19: Wernickcontacts Craig Kielburger. WE says the call wasto discuss launching a youth service program in the summer and that Wernick asks Kielburger to develop a proposal to fulfil that objective. During the call, Wernick learns of the April 9 proposal for a youth business program and Kielburger agrees to send both proposals.

April 20: Morneau's office contactsWE to ask about its ability to deliver a volunteer program. An official's record of the call notes "WE Charity will re-work their 10-week summer program proposal to fully meet the policy objective of national service and increase their current placements of 8,000 to double."

April 21: Morneau approves going with an outside organization to run the volunteer program, but nospecific group is chosen.

WE's youth entrepreneurship program proposal is included in annex nineof a briefing packageabout a student aid programthat goes to the Prime Minister's Office, chief of staff Katie Telford later tells the finance committee. The proposal is declined.

April 22: Trudeau announces a $9-billion package of student aid, including the outline of a volunteer program paying students up to $5,000 toward education costs, based on the number of hours they volunteer. WE sends Wernick an updated proposal to reflect the announcement. The message is forwarded to Chagger, Ng and Morneau.

April 26: Morneauspeaks with WE co-founder Craig Kielburger, but told the finance committee neither of them talked about the Canada Student Service Grant program. Craig Kielburger later tells the committee he only brought up the youth business proposal, not the grant program.

April 27: Volunteer Canada, a charity that promotes volunteering and helps organizations use volunteers well, meets Chagger and raises concerns about paying students hourly rates below minimum wage and calling it volunteering.

May 4: WE sends a third proposal to ESDC, this time with more details and specific to the grant program. Finance official Michelle Kovacevic, who was working on the program,told the finance committee she received it May 7.

May 5: Chagger goes to a specialCOVID-19cabinet committee with the recommendationto go with WE for the program. Neither Morneau nor Trudeau isat the meeting.

The same day, a member of the Prime Minister's Office policy team speaks with WE as part of stakeholder consultation, but then directs the organization to ESDC.

WE begins incurring eligible expenses.

Story continues

May 8: Trudeau finds out that WE is being recommended to run the student-volunteer program hours before a cabinet meeting. He later tells the finance committee that he pulled the item from the agenda and sent it back to the public service for more due diligence because of how the deal could be perceived.

May 21: The public service comes back to Trudeau, he tells the finance committee. The recommendation to go with WE doesn't change.

May 22: Cabinet, including Trudeau and Morneau,approved handing the reins of the program to WE.

May 23: The public service officially begins negotiating a contribution agreement with WE, which would have paid up to $43.5 million in fees to the group.

May 25 to June 3: In a series of meetings with Volunteer Canada, WE suggests the target for placements through the program had gone from 20,000 to 100,000.

June 12: WE co-founder Marc Kielburger says in a video chat with youth leaders that he heard from Trudeau's office about getting involved in the volunteer program the day after it was announced by the prime minister.He later backtracks, saying the contact came the week of April 26 from Wernick, and not the Prime Minister's Office.

June 23: WE Charity Foundation signs a contribution agreement with the federal government. WE signatoriesincludeScott Baker, named as president of the one-year-old foundation and executive director of WE Charity, and chief financial officer Victor Li. Chagger signs for the government.

June 25: Trudeau unveils more details about student aid. A government release notes that WE will administer the student-volunteer program.

June 26: Facing questions about WE, Trudeau says the non-partisan public service made the recommendation, and the government accepted it: "As the public service dug into it, they came back with only one organization that was capable of networking and organizing and delivering this program on the scale that we needed it, and that was the WE program."

July 3: Citing the ongoing controversy, WE and the Liberals announce a parting of ways and the federal government takes control of the program. Ethics commissioner Mario Dion tells Conservative and NDP ethics critics in separate letters he will examine Trudeau's role in the awarding of the agreement because of the prime minister's close ties to the group.

July 9: WE says it has paid Trudeau's mother Margaret about $250,000 for 28 speaking appearances at WE-related events between 2016 and 2020. His brother Alexandre was been paid $32,000 for eight events, and Trudeau's wife Sophie Gregoire Trudeau received $1,400 in 2012 for a single appearance. The organization says Trudeau himself has never been paid by the charity or its for-profit arm.

July 13: Trudeau apologizes for not recusing himself from discussions about WE over his family's longtime involvement with the organization. Morneau also issues an apology.

July 16: Dion says he will investigate Morneau's actions in the affair. Chagger testifies at the finance committee, saying Trudeau's office didn't direct her to go with WE.

July 21: Ian Shugart, clerk of the Privy Council, tells the Commons finance committee there is no evidence to suggest Trudeau spoke with WE before the organization was awarded the deal to run the student-volunteer program.

July 22: Morneau tells the finance committee hejust repaid over $41,000 to WE for travel expenses the organization footed for the minister and his family. The Opposition Conservatives call for Morneau to resign.

Trudeau's office says he and Telford have agreed to testify before the committee with a date and time to be set.

The House of Commons ethics committee also calls on Trudeau to testify, andvotes to seek copies of records for Trudeau and his family's speaking appearances dating back years. Six opposition members outvote five Liberals to have that committee start its own investigation.

July 23: Conservatives and New Democrats ask Dion to launch a new probe of Morneau over his travel expenses.

July 27: A copy of the contribution agreement with WE Charity Foundation is filed with the finance committee. It lays out the details of the program, includinga provision for a maximum contribution of $543.53 million $500 million for grants, and $43.53 million to WE.

July 28: Craig and Marc Kielburger testify over four hours of sometimes testy interactions with MPs on the finance committee. The co-founders of WE Charity say their history and experience, not ties to Liberal cabinet ministers, landed the group the deal to run the volunteer program. They add they would have never agreed to take part in the program had they known it could jeopardize the work the WE organization has done over 25 years.

They also say WE estimated the cost of theprogram to bebetween $200 million and $300 million.

July 29: The Conservatives call on the federal ethics czar to widen his probe of Trudeau to include travel expenses WE covered in addition to speaking fees for his mother, wifeand brother. Dion sends letters to the Tories and NDP saying he is expanding his probe of Morneau to look into the $41,000 in WE-sponsored travel.

July 30: In a rare event, Trudeau testifies before the House of Commons finance committee and lays out when he first learned about WE's involvement in theCanada Student Service Grant program. He says WE Charity didn't receive any preferential treatment in the process. He also says itis now unlikely the grants will be rolled out. Telford also appears before the committee.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 29, 2020.

The Canadian Press

Follow this link:
A timeline of the controversy around WE, the Liberals and a student program - Yahoo Canada Finance

Philippe J. Fournier: While the Liberals still hold a solid lead over the Conservatives, a host of new polls shows the party beginning to shed support

While many Canadians are taking much needed time off from work and/or their pandemic routines, the news cycle out of Ottawa has not slowed down one bit. The WE Charity stories alleging potential conflicts of interest with the Prime minister and Bill Morneau, the minister of finance, appear to be evolving daily.

One question on the mind of many is whether Canadians are actually paying attention. (And do they care?) No fewer than four new federal polls were published in the past week to measure the impressions of Canadians:

We add these latest figures to the 338Canada model and present today this updated electoral projection. All federal polls are listed on this page. For details on the 338Canada methodology, visit this page.

The Liberal Party remains on top of voting intentions with an average of 37 per cent nationally, seven points ahead of the Conservatives at 30 per cent:The NDP has remained remarkably stable throughout the spring and summer and currently stands at 17 per cent. The Greens and Bloc are at 7 per cent each (the Bloc stands at 30 per cent in Quebec).

The regional breakdown of support still heavily tilts towards the Liberals: The LPC leads by an average of 23 points in Atlantic Canada, by six points in Quebec (over the Bloc), and by 11 points in Ontario. Additionally, the LPC currently leads a tight race in British Columbiasix points over the Conservatives and only 10 points over the NDP.

As for the Conservatives, they remain comfortably in the lead in Alberta and in the Prairies.

Here is the progression of national voting intentions since January 2020. We see the Liberals and Conservatives in a statistical tie throughout winter, and the Liberals taking the outright lead from April to July:

Has the pandemic/CERB bump in the polls come to an end for the Liberals? It certainly is a plausible hypothesis at this point in time, and we will know more in the coming weeks, but once again we must use caution with summer numbers, as several Canadians are on vacations and fewer voters usually pay attention to the news. Nevertheless, it appears the Liberals have indeed shed some support of late.

For the Conservatives, while they could rejoice in seeing their main rival slide for the first time since early spring, these latest numbers show the CPC has remained stuck at the 30 per cent mark (or below) since April. In short, the latest Liberal misfortunes have not yet translated into additional Conservative support. The new leader of the CPC will be elected in the second half of August, so it will be interesting to see what kind of bumpif at allthe CPC gets then.

In the national seat projection, the 338Canada model has the Liberals winning an average of 177 seats, just above the 170-seat threshold for a majority at the House of Common. Notice however that the confidence intervals show the real possibility of the LPC falling into minority territory.The Conservatives win an average of 102 seats. According to these numbers, the best-case scenarios for the Conservatives would have them win around 125 seats, slightly above their 2019 election result of 121 seats. The Bloc, NDP and Greens all remain close to their 2019 election results.

From a purely political point of view, every sitting government in Canada has enjoyed surging support and increasedsatisfaction level to some extent since the COVID-19 pandemic reached Canadas borders. The federal Liberals were no exception. But as the pandemic goes from a public health crisis to a financial one with billions and billions of dollars of projected deficits, which governments across the country will keep voters on their side to weather the storm ahead? And will the WE Charity stories coming out on an almost-daily basis of late further hurt the Liberals in the eyes of voters?

This falls parliamentary session should be interesting to say the least.

For complete numbers of this 338Canada federal projection, including regional and district-level projections, visit 338Canada.

Read more here:
338Canada: The end of the Liberals pandemic bump - Maclean's

The latest GOP jeers came after an order from the Court late last Friday rejecting a bid by a Nevada church to block state COVID-19 attendance restrictions, which impose tighter limits on churches than on businesses like casinos. Like most summary orders, the justices gave no reason for siding against the church, but Roberts joined the more liberal justices in the vote.

That spurred Republicans to pounce, blasting Roberts for failing to zealously guard what they view as religious rights.

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas tweeted that Roberts abandoned his oath and suggested that churches would be better served by the court if they set up craps tables.

Earlier the year, Roberts also joined the courts liberals in turning aside abortion restrictions enacted in Louisiana, citing court precedent. Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri threw down a new gauntlet. I will vote only for those Supreme Court nominees who have explicitly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided, Hawley told The Washington Post. By explicitly acknowledged, I mean on the record and before they were nominated.

Trump explicitly made Robertss vote an election battle cry, tweeting: Wow! Win in 2020!

But ironically, the Republican ire gives Roberts political cover to be the conservative he has long shown himself to be.

Because what he wants people to do is think the court is a nonpolitical institution that isnt beholden to the Republican Party, said Tom Goldstein, a veteran Supreme Court practitioner and cofounder of the SCOTUSblog website. So weirdly, the more he is attacked for not advancing their agenda, the more he accomplishes one of his goals. He cares enormously about the institution and how its perceived, and about its legitimacy.

And by careful managing of the publics perceptions and expectations of the court, Roberts can lead it through a tumultuous election year, with plenty of time to spare in his still-young tenure to steer the court firmly to the right.

A close look at last weeks vote by Roberts, along with other votes he cast with the liberal justices of the court this term, reveals no leftward shift in the chief justices jurisprudence, but rather what appears to be a knack for avoiding political firestorms and biding time to bring his true judicial conservatism to bear.

Yes, he was the deciding vote that kept Trump from nixing the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals order, or DACA, protecting young Dreamers from deportation. But only on a technicality, ruling simply that Trump didnt follow statutory rules governing how to dismantle the program.

He declined to give Trump blanket immunity against subpoenas from House Democrats and New York prosecutors seeking the presidents tax returns and other financial documents. But in the process, Roberts narrowed the scope of lawmakers ability to act as such a check on the executive.

He sidestepped attempts by his fellow conservative justices to add gun rights to the docket and restrict abortion rights, but those issues remain teed up for a less politically fraught moment in the future when the right cases appear. Roberts has already made clear what side hell be on when hes ready to cast substantive votes on those issues, as well as votes on voting rights, affirmative action, and immigration.

He is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, said Melissa Murray, a constitutional law expert at New York University School of Law. His carefully cast votes, she said, give John Roberts more cover to be conservative.

That means progressives who want long-term protection of reproductive rights, voting rights, and gun control shouldnt confuse the GOPs impatience with Roberts as victory. The onus lies on Democrats to roll up their legislative sleeves and be as effective as Republicans have been in convincing voters that the control of the Supreme Court is a crucial campaign issue. Because when Roberts has enough political cover to be his true ideological self, progressives will likely no longer be cheering.

Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us on Twitter at @GlobeOpinion.

Visit link:
Roberts is no GOP villain or liberal savior. Hes a dyed-in-the-wool conservative - The Boston Globe

How do the Scots Nationalists get away with it? In every other country on earth the addition of the word nationalists to a political partys name makes self-described liberals shudder. Even many conservatives are wary of the connotations that the term brings.

Yet among all the nationalist parties and movements, only the Scots nationalists are given a pass by the respectable and media classes. And this is curious because Scots nationalism is no different from any other type of nationalism. In fact, it is worse than most. Its sole motivating factor is anti-Englishness. Its leaders will speak well of any country in the world (Cuba, Iran, France) just so long as they can portray the English and the dreaded Westminster in the worst possible light.

Of course they have pulled this off in recent years by portraying themselves as progressive. No right-on cause can appear without the SNP putting its fumbling, fat hands around it. From there the contradictions pile up without consequence. At present the SNP is an avowedly green party whose sole honeypot is (it believes) North Sea oil. It is a pro-diversity party that welcomes people of all creeds and colours. Except the English.

In power it has presided over failure after failure in every sector in which it has any control. It has been responsible for a decline in Scotlands once-great education system, an increase in waiting times in the healthcare system and a failure of Scottish care-homes (even before Covid) on a fatal and tragic scale.

Still the polls show steady support for the party. And since the last once in a lifetime referendum, support for the idea of an independent country that would be perpetually governed by these numpties has actually risen. If a referendum happened today, Scotland might sail off to join sub-Saharan Africa in the ranks of the world poverty indexes.

Unionists are right to be worried about this. Not least because nothing we say has any effect, as the recently departed leader of the Scottish Tories, Jackson Carlaw, discovered. Personally I find the idea of a second once in a lifetime referendum ridiculous. But if it ever did happen, it should only take place with the consequences of a yes vote fully agreed upon.

Next time, let the voters know exactly what would happen to their currency, international alliances and security arrangements. Above all let it be agreed what share of the national debt they would be forced to take on. Only once these things are agreed upon should any vote even be considered. Which is one way of course of ensuring that it never happens at all.

See more here:
Why are liberals so happy to be associated with Nicola Sturgeon's brand of nationalism? - Telegraph.co.uk

Tasmania's Upper House appears set to be dominated by the major parties for the first time in its history, with new faces looking likely to enter the state's Parliament from the divisions of both Huon and Rosevears.

After a campaign prolonged by the coronavirus pandemic, voters have finally had their say on representation in the Legislative Council seats of Huon, south of Hobart, and Rosevears along the West Tamar in Tasmania's north.

In Rosevears, Liberal candidate Jo Palmer and independent Janie Finlay a former Launceston Mayor were virtually neck-and-neck throughout early counting, before strong performances in Legana and Riverside booths helped push former newsreader Ms Palmer ahead.

Ms Palmer was on 41 per cent of first preference votes at the close of counting on Saturday night, and Ms Finlay behind on 30 per cent, with 63 per cent of votes counted.

The other four candidates in Rosevears all remained in single digits.

In Huon, Labor candidate Bastian Seidel led the counting all night, polling 31 per cent of first preference votes, with 64 per cent of votes counted.

The incumbent, conservative independent Robert Armstrong, overtook Greens candidate Pat Caruana on postal votes to finish the night in second place with 19 per cent, ahead of Mr Caruana's 17 per cent.

Electoral analyst Kevin Bonham posted on his Twitter feed at 1:00am "called. Huon ALP gain".

Earlier, Professor Bonham said it would be "very difficult for the candidates in second place, which is now Finlay and Robert Armstrong in Huon, it's very difficult for them to get up from here".

If the final result is as predicted, there will be no significant change in the make-up of the Legislative Council in terms of progressives and conservatives.

Dr Seidel would replace the conservative Mr Armstrong for Labor in Huon, but retired progressive Kerry Finch would be replaced by Jo Palmer for the Liberals.

It would also be the first time in its history that party members have outnumbered independents in the Legislative Council, with both Labor and the Liberals adding new members over the past few years.

Labor would end up with five members in the Upper House, and the Liberals three.

"Party representation in the Legislative Council as a percentage was already at an all-time high even before this election, so if the parties win both these seats it will go up to eight out of 15 which will be a majority for the first time," Dr Bonham said earlier on Saturday night.

"It will also be the highest number of party members in the council at one time, there was a time in the old Legislative Council with 19 seats where there were seven party members in."

Final results may not be known until after postal votes close on Tuesday, August 11.

Read more:
Independents out, Liberal and Labor in, as Huon and Rosevears voters have their say - ABC News