Belarus & the Covert Civil Unrest


QUESTION: Dear Mr. Armstrong, I am writing from Lithuania, next to Belarus, which is is undergoing some serious civil unrest. It is anyone’s guess whether the presidential election outcome was faked/real, but the fact is that President Lukashenko is under serious pressure aimed at him being ousted. A question arises if the concerted effort to remove him was precipitated by his skeptical attitude towards all things covid19. I have to admit that I am no big fan of any dictator including Lukashenko, but the timing seems odd, as TPTB cannot care less for human rights abuse- Saudi Arabia is ok to them.

MY QUESTION IS IF BILL GATES IS PULLING THE STRINGS, as Lukashenko made a mockery of the corona affair? There were some obviously staged events in Lithuania to support the uprising in Belarus. And what worries me most, is the fact that participants were joining gloved hands and had masks on, sort of voluntary slaves. Ironically, the Belarus dictator let his people live their normal lives, including football games, when my Lithuania was under lockdown, and my 9 yo daughter has some anxiety issues since. Sort of Stockholm syndrome.

Keep up your great work.

PS

ANSWER: President Lukashenko is often called the accidental last dictator of Europe. There is no question that the Belarusian government has been against the climate change movement. Only in January 2020 did it announce an action plan to phase out polymer packaging. However, Lukashenko also rejected COVID-19 and did not lockdown his economy.

The rumor is that the opposition is being funded by Soros. Lukashenko accused the West of fomenting unrest as he sought to consolidate his grip on power amid widening protests. But it may not be governments, but clandestine activists on a global scale. Lukashenko spoke as the European Union rejected the official results of the vote. The EU naturally expressed its solidarity with protesters. The EU said it’s preparing sanctions against Belarusian officials responsible for the brutal post-election police actions. Lukashenko is also keeping in close contact with Putin in Russia.

FILE UNDER FACTITIOUS


by Tabitha Korol

I found The Book of Trees, by Leanne Lieberman, to be an unusual reading experience.  I was struck by  its inauthenticity, as the author clearly had a list of grievances and concocted a story line to convey them.  Her intent was to disparage and delegitimize Israel as a nation and the Jews as a people – indeed to challenge their very existence – revealing her opinion through Mia.

 ***

Mia is the 17-year-old daughter of unwed parents in Canada.  Her mother is an irreligious, Jewish, Bohemian-type remnant of the 1960s; her father, an atheist, lapsed Catholic, and a travelling musician who was often absent.  She is lonely, in need of spiritual grounding.  Alluding to her Jewish grandmother, she responded to a Jewish outreach poster and accepted a scholarship to study in Israel with a friend, Aviva Blume, for the summer between high school and university.

From the first day that she can run off on her own, Mia finds beauty in the endless desert and in the mosque on the Temple Mount and the Armenian church within the Old City.  She disparages all else – Mrs. Blume, who hosted Mia’s first Shabbat dinner in Canada, as “frumpy”; Mr. Blume, as “fat and middle-aged,” although Mia was touched by the evening and the traditional love song.  In Israel, she finds the tourists “dorky,” the Kotel “just a stone wall,” and the wigs worn by orthodox women for modesty weirded me out.”  The young man in class is cute, butgeeky.”  The teacher’s kerchief is “ugly and classes about the laws of kashruth (Jewish religious laws of the suitability of food) are “ridiculous” and “disappointing.”  She is often dizzy, her head aches from clenching her teeth, and she was “nauseated” during prayers.  However, she finds the non-Jewish American guitarist, Andrew, attractive, and she makes a feeble attempt at limiting her association.  The author’s opinions about Judaism and Jews have become obvious.

She takes her first bus trip with Aviva into the Judean Desert, its name derived from Judah, one of the sons of the Jewish Patriarch, Jacob, also known as Israel, but the author has obvious reasons for overlooking the connection.  Also ignored are the 3,000 years of recorded Jewish history on this land, including verified accounts of kings, prophets, characters that define the people, their artifacts and values, preferring to imagine credibility for Arabs who have no historical ties whatsoever.

Mia criticizes a grove of neatly spaced trees that had been planted by the Jewish National Fund (JNF), saying they looked unnatural, lacking the undergrowth of a northern forest. “It felt dead, like a tree graveyard.” She belittles the monument that commemorates the soldiers who took the hill in the 1948 War of Independence, battling five Arab armies that attacked the new sovereign state.  Aviva suggests that the trees were probably planted over what had been an Arab village, to which Mia responds, “I guess they were determined to keep their homeland,” again endorsing the Muslim story line.

Rather than fact-check prior to writing, Lieberman recently reviewed her own book for credibility; book sales are weak, perhaps due to her tenacious bias. Mia cries for trees she imagines have been planted over Arab villages, but not for the Israelis murdered by those Arab villagers, or for diners killed, crippled or blinded by a jihadi’s explosive belt; or for the homes and playgrounds and thousands of agricultural acreage and wildlife preserves burned to cinders by their youths’ incendiary balloons.  She repeats the Palestinian lie of Israeli oppression, and accuses Israel of apartheid, the charges never substantiated.  During the pandemic, the Palestinian Authority continues to prioritize payments to convicted terrorists and their families over their people’s well-being. Even though Israel’s economy has suffered and people have died, the Jewish state continues to send aid to the PA and Gaza.

Muslim citizens enjoy more rights in Israel than they do under Islamic rule.  The 20th century is packed with Arab raids, terrorism, massacres, revolts, numerous wars, intifadas, and suicide bombings worldwide.    Azzam Pasha, secretary-general of the Arab League, declared of Israel on May 15, 1948, “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”  Islam has been the cause of mass slaughter, devastation and annihilation since its inception and responsible for the more than 37,483 deadly attacks, worldwide (to 8/18/20), since 9/11.  They have never declared a desire for peace as Lieberman suggests. and have never enacted laws to abolish slavery or grant individual freedoms. The Book of Trees is a mission in deception for the Palestinian narrative, and it is time to drop the legend of indigenous Palestinians.

The 600,000 – 750,000 Arabs who left Israel according to their own armies’ commands were part of the displaced masses from the Arab-initiated war, and should have been welcomed back to Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.  Egypt is 36:1 the size of Israel, Iraq 15.7:1, Syria 6.6:1, and Jordan 3.2:1, and the Naqba is the betrayal by their own.  Lieberman’s hope that Israel will welcome their avowed enemy and descendants is a wish for Israel’s annihilation.  She does not advocate that the 850,000 displaced Jews be permitted to return to the Islamic countries from which they fled at the same time.  Yasser Arafat declared that a Palestinian state would be Jew-free, yet the author and others expect Israel to be overwhelmed by their enemy.

From her new lover, Andrew, Mia learns that the Palestinians are “a poor native people who have been uprooted,” and that they want clean water and good schools – basic human rights.  She does not know that Israel supplies large amounts of water from its own provisions to Palestinians and Jordan because this desert country has become a world leader of water conservation and desalination, overcoming almost insurmountable obstacles, while Hamas-controlled Gazans refuse to cooperate to improve their lot, and use the water as a political issue.  Similarly, Mia seems not to know that Palestinians refused every opportunity to create their own country on land offered by the UN and Israel, and unaware that their children are raised to be murderous jihadis.  And how is “good schools” defined when they teach hate against Israel and all Jews, and how to behead their perceived enemy.  After the Arabs lost their War of 1967, they still declared, NO peace with Israel, NO recognition of Israel, and NO negotiation with Israel.

Mia learns about the checkpoints, but not of their effectiveness at apprehending terrorists before they can gain entry into Israel and discharge their explosive devices among the citizens.  Lieberman describes the West Bank as a third-world country, with no infrastructure, their economy in ruins, but appears to be unaware that their more-than-generous funding (among the world’s largest per-capita aid recipients) gets funneled to Palestinian officials, for armaments against Israel and for mothers of jihadi martyrs.  Funds earmarked for cement for housing are instead used to construct miles of terror tunnels, and the elite reside in grandeur.

Andrew tells Mia that he volunteers to teach music and tutor English at a Palestinian school, and he rebuilds Arab homes razed by the Israeli military.  Once again, Lieberman withholds why these homes have been destroyed.  Some were built as illegal acts of defiance by the United Nations against Israeli law; others were erected by nomadic tribes on land that lacked infrastructure and  deemed unsuitable for housing (Israel offers to move Bedouins!); and still others were intentionally demolished as reprisal for the families of murderous martyrs.

Upon seeing the Kotel, the remaining Western Wall of the ancient Jewish Temple and Jewry’s holiest shrine (built in 2nd century BCE, destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE), Mia criticizes their prayer customs of thousands of years.  (Doubtful that she would be this respectful with other religions.)  Lieberman uses Andrew to remind the reader once again, that the Palestinians were “violently” expelled in 1948, their trees and groves destroyed, the innocents killed or imprisoned by the Israeli army.  (Read Arab accounts here)   Lieberman’s choices of informational sources are no different than if she had contacted Josef Goebbels for data about the Holocaust.

Despite the attempts to discredit and delegitimize Israel, the truth is known.  Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, an Arab Muslim leader, told the Peel Commission in 1937: “There is no such country as Palestine!  Palestine is a term the Zionists invented.  (TK – The Romans invented the term as an affront to the Jews.)  There is no Palestine in the Bible.  Our country was for centuries part of Syria.”  In 1946, Arab-American historian Philip Hitti testified before the 1946 Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry:  “There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not,” – meaning that there had never been a nation bearing this name.

Syrian President Hafez Assad told Yasser Arafat, “Palestine is an integral part of Syria,” and Prince Hassan of the Jordanian National Assembly said, on February 2, 1970, “Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine.”

PLO executive committee member, Zahir Muhsein, said, “The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel.”  in short, its only purpose is to oppose Zionism and this is one of many war tactics.

Of the numerous Muslim-majority states worldwide, they may all have begun as small parcels of land,  no-go zones within cities that expand by force under Islamic rule, but an independent Arab Palestine has never existed – not under Ottoman rule or British rule, not under the United Nations Partition Plan, and not under Jordanian or Egyptian rule.  For now, it remains a myth based on deception, and Lieberman’s book for vulnerable children and young adults a sad symptom of our times.

 

Tabitha Korol

www.amazon.com/dp/B08CP9DMZH  Please note new link, pls change accordingly; thanks)

$30M Advance to WE Charity Still Outstanding?


WHERE’S THE MONEY?

Ken Grafton image

Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesAugust 17, 2020

We Scandal, Justin Trudeau

For reasons not disclosed, WE Charity received a $30M advance payment from Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) in connection with the contribution agreement to administer the Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG) program.

The government has not confirmed repayment.

Questions regarding the program began almost immediately following the announcement on April 22nd by Prime Minister Trudeau of a $9-billion student aid package, which contained CSSG.

WE received payment(s) from the government amounting to $30M (for yet unspecified purposes)

While the contribution agreement with WE was not approved until June 23rd, WE started work on May 5th. According to testimony from Trudeau Chief of Staff Katie Telford before the Finance Committee, an unnamed official in the PMO spoke with WE on May 5th (in what must have been an interesting call), following approval of WE by the COVID-19 Cabinet Committee (on the basis of a recommendation from Youth Minister Bardish Chagger).

The PM testified however that he didn’t hear about WE in connection with CSSG until May 8th.

Cabinet approval was given on May 22nd, and the public service began negotiating an agreement with WE the following day…eighteen days after WE started work.

It was reported that although the contract was signed on June 23rd, it came into effect on May 5th (before the PM heard about it). If this sounds like complete nonsense, the “backdating” of contracts is generally permissible under Canadian Law…but not however for the purpose of misleading third parties (such as the public) or to circumvent Rules or Legislation (such as the requirement for Cabinet approval).

In the wake of growing controversy regarding conflict of interest and another investigation by Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion, cancellation of the WE agreement was announced on July 3rd.
Public confusion is forgivable here. The timeline is convoluted, but critical.

Somewhere between May 5th and July 3rd – and we can only assume that both the Ethics Committee and the Finance Committee will investigate transaction dates in order to determine whether any payments were made prior to signing the contract on June 3rd – WE received payment(s) from the government amounting to $30M (for yet unspecified purposes).

Where is the money now?

Appearing before the Ethics Committee Aug 11thChagger could not say how much of the $30M has been repaid by WE since the contract was finalized; “We can share that … $30 million has been released to the organization through the contribution agreement. I was not aware of how much money has been returned,” As Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Youth, Chagger was responsible for CSSG.

Non-Liberal committee members, and many Canadians, were surprised to learn that Chagger didn’t know how much money had been recouped…and that it wasn’t a higher priority.

Conservative MP Michael Barrett asked, “Why hasn’t the money been returned at this point? That seems odd. It’s been quite some time since the program was cancelled or that WE withdrew…” Chagger responded, “We want to ensure that all processes are being followed. So, I can assure you that the public service is working with the organization to ensure that it is returned.”

According to a Global News article on Aug 11th, WE issued a statement saying that they have repaid $22M of the $30M handed out when the contract was signed, and have been waiting on the government to accept the remaining $8M…whatever that means. A WE spokesperson said, “WE Charity has repeatedly communicated to ESDC the desire to return the remaining funds as soon as the government is able to accept the transfer.” They did not elaborate as to why they hadn’t returned the full amount immediately, or why the government was having difficulty accepting the outstanding balance.

Due diligence has been one of many glaring anomalies with respect to WE-Gate, with questions regarding WE’s financial health.

In testimony before the Finance Committee, Kate Bahen of watchdog Charity Intelligence Canada, outlined how she used easy-to-access financial data to report that WE Charity had financial stress, “At August 2019 year-end, WE Charity had cash and investments (gross funding reserves) of $11.5m compared with $14.0m at year-end August 2018. WE Charity’s bank loans increased to $13.7m in 2019 compared with $11.1m in 2018. This creates a negative funding reserve of $2.2m. For the second year, WE Charity is in breach of its financial covenants on its bank debt. Its bank has waived these conditions for the current period.”

With the $1 trillion debt that the Liberals have incurred, Canada has already emptied the national piggy-bank…and every penny counts

This would be the point where the loans officer at your local bank branch stops returning your calls.

A cursory review of WE’s 2018 Audited Financial Statement should have raised red flags.

Alarmingly, clerk of the Privy Council Ian Shugart admitted that federal officials did not probe WE Charity’s financial situation or governance structure when doing homework on the $912-million deal.

It has also come out that the WE agreement was actually made with the WE Charity Foundation, a private company owned by WE founders Marc and Craig Kielburger, not WE Charity. The foundation has no employees or assets, other than WE Charity. Since the payment was made to what is effectively a holding company, recovery of the funds could prove problematic.

It is incumbent upon the Government to inform Canadians what the status of the $30M is exactly, and when it will be fully repaid. If $22M has indeed been repaid, the government needs to say so, and recover the remainder owed.

With the $1 trillion debt that the Liberals have incurred, Canada has already emptied the national piggy-bank…and every penny counts.

Where’s the money?

A Plea from a Member of the Italian Parliament – International Call to Action


International call to action: demand your governments to access the technical-scientific data of Covid-19 emergency!

Italian international call to action demanding transparency and data on Covid-19.

We are appealing to all the associations (and citizens) whose Countries have experienced and are still experiencing restrictive measures like Italy. We need to share with you an unacceptable fact and we want to ask other citizens in the world to take action in order to shed light on the many shadows that envelop the emergency situation we are facing.

We are an Italian association 1 fighting for freedom of choice in the vaccination and therapeutical fields since 1993, but we are here today speaking also to those associations that do not totally agree with our way of thinking and living freedom.

Italian people have gone through the Covid-19 pandemic strictly following the rules imposed. Italian people have complied with the Government’s restrictions and provisions but even so, for months we have been watching tv programs showing drones, helicopters and law enforcement vessels chasing and identifying individual citizens walking deserted streets or empty beaches, 2-3-4-5-6-7 and even law enforcement precluding religious services. Media have been pointing the finger at the runners, ordinary citizens going solo for a run, suddenly becoming terrible plague spreaders and primary cause of infection, according to the mainstream media narrative.

We are silently accepting our Country’s economy to fall apart and we should at least expect that our Government, responsible for the imposed restrictive measures, would clarify and be willing to provide evidence and answers to the people.

Every single choice the Italian Government made to manage the Covid-19 emergency, was and will be based on the opinion of the Technical-Scientific Committee (CTS). A small number of people called the shots of the Government Agenda, from the forms and lasting of Lockdown, to the masks, the social distancing, and any regulatory act always issued “having consulted the CTS”.
Recently, three lawyers, being part of a foundation, decided to file a FOIA (request for access to documents) , specifically requesting to view the minutes of the Scientific Technical Committee of February 18th, March 1st, 7th, 30th and April 9th. The data and opinions expressed and collected in these minutes are basically the reason, the drive, the foundation for the Government to have issued every act relating to the Covid-19 emergency management.

After the request has been rejected at first instance, the lawyers have been forced to apply to a Court. On July 23rd, 2020 the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio (TAR) had ruled in favour of the publication of the documents by August 21st at the latest. 8

And here is the shocking and for us unacceptable fact: the Italian Government, through the State’s attorney, on July 31st opposed 9the Court (TAR) ruling, motivating that the publication would have caused “a real damage to public order and security that exposing the CTS minutes, at this stage of the emergency, would cause for both technical assessments and general guidelines of the technical body”. 10

On August, 5th 2020, we learned from journalistic sources 11 and from the same lawyers who had requested access to the documents, 12 that the Italian government will publish these minutes, but the question remains unchanged:

Why did not it make immediately transparent what really happened in the emergency? If the Italian government acted on expert opinions, why did it oppose the publication of the data? What are the contents of these reports that should cause damage? Why would damage to public order and security even be expected?

In the next days we will inform everyone about the content of these minutes, verifying together with many experts who work alongside us, if the emergency policies have been correctly undertaken, if they were fair or exaggerated or disproportionate, up to at least the end of the State of Emergency, but the fact that the Government has opposed the publication of documents that should be public, worries us greatly. We remind that the news of the declassification of the minutes, if analyzed with intellectual honesty, show that it took place solely for political conflicts with the parliamentary opposition, not for true listening and transparency towards citizenship.

All of you reading us, both ordinary citizens and associations, have at your disposal a tool created for this kind of action, the Freedom of Information Act, 13 that is the law granting freedom of information and public access to data held by national governments!

Anyone, by a legal team but also independently, may submit along the same lines a request for access to the documents aimed at verifying what are the conditions, the minutes, the documents that the various Countries have based on to pass decrees and various acts in the context of the Covid-19 emergency, obviously in relation to those acts that brought a counterpart in economic and limitations of personal freedoms terms. In our opinion, this is necessary, not because of a priori mistrust but because of a proper civic sense and supervisory task, democratically exercised with the tools available which exist precisely for these purposes.

If you believe that there are the conditions to raise legitimate doubts in the management of Covid-19 and if your Government has not made public all the data, opinions and “advice” of the experts dedicated to the Covid-19 emergency that have led to pass laws with inevitable strong impact on citizens’ lives in the short and long term, request in first person to make the original data and reports visionable!

Repropose this action in various Countries increases the possibility of shedding light on the management of this emergency situation linked to Covid-19, where the Italian government has instead vetoed this possibility, at least for now.

We are here to support all interested parties, according to our capabilities we will provide further clarification and our help for better understanding how the request has been put forward and how the Government has decided to reply.

A coordinated action is important and useful above all because it gives a clear sign of the people’s need and will to have answers, and it also increases the chances to obtain data and answers in this regard.

Thanks to everybody,
Corvelva Staff
Document undersigned by:

Sara Cunial, Member of Parliament
Ivan Catalano, President of COSMI, former MP and former Vicepresident of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry “Depleted Uranium”
Davide Barillari, Regional councillor of Lazio and President of the Commission Pluralism of Information
ADER
CliVa Toscana
Colibrì Puglia
Cittadini liberi consapevoli Puglia
CReLDiS
GruppiUniti.it
Genitori del No Obbligo Lombardia
VacciPiano Sicilia
… e molti altri
References
Website for International Call

If Bill Gates Was President

How Many Times? That Is The Question


Finance Committee Hearing or Liberal Campaign Ad?

Ken Grafton image

Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesAugust 4, 2020

How Many Times? That Is The Question

Prime Minister Trudeau testified before the Parliamentary Finance Committee on July 30th in connection with the WE Charity scandal, currently under investigation by Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion.

Canadians can be forgiven for wondering why.

Amping up the Trudeau charm, well lit and smiling directly into a high-resolution camera, coiffed hair blacker than beard; the relaxed PM was clearly focused upon communicating directly with voters, rather than answering questions from committee members.

The Trudeau brand was under attack, and the message for Canadians was that his Liberal government is doing a great job. The narrative ran that they would in fact be doing even more for Canadians, if it weren’t for Conservatives bringing up this nettlesome conflict of interest thing. Sure, he should have recused himself from approving the sole-source WE contract, but that wouldn’t have happened if it weren’t for COVID-19…and his long-standing interest in youth-affairs. The Liberals’ commitment to providing financial assistance to students during COVID-19 led to an accelerated implementation of the CSSG Program…which caused the PM to slow down the approval process because of the increased scrutiny and appearance of conflict of interest that his family affiliation with WE would bring…before then failing to recuse himself from the process. The Civil Service made all the decisions anyway, not the PM. If the logic is difficult to grasp here…well….

Although it is impossible to disconnect the damming, feculent bright-red Liberal dots leading from WE to the Prime Minister, distraught Liberal spin doctors had obviously been billing some overtime on damage control.

The central pivot from conflict of interest and Liberal corruption seems to be good intentions and the tremendous benefit to young Canadians that could have been…if only the unfortunate scandal hadn’t blown up (read, if they hadn’t been caught).

Canadians should blame the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecoise, for making a mountain out of a mole-hill, really…when you think about it…from a Liberal prospective…

The questioning began:

MP Pierre Poilievre – “What is the total dollar value of all expenses reimbursed and fees paid and any other consideration provided by the WE group to you, your mother, your spouse, your brother and any other member of your family? Just the total please.”

PM Trudeau – “Uh…I don’t have that exact figure…uh…reimbursing expenses is something done by an organization…uh…for example…so I don’t have…uh…those totals.”

Liberal MP Julie Dzerowicz (trying) – “Mister Speaker…uh…Point of Order…Mister Chair, sorry…not Mister Speaker. My Point of Order is what’s the relevance of these questions…uh…of ancillary…uh…fees paid to family members to the official motion…?”

Chairman Wayne Easter – “I don’t think that is a Point of Order Miss Dzerowicz, back to Mister Poilievre.”
Poilievre – “So you are telling me that you don’t know how much immediate family members have been paid in expense reimbursements by this organization.”
Trudeau – “Uh…my mother and my brother are professionals in their own right who…uh…have…uh engagements…uh…and have for many, many years with organizations across the country…”
Poilievre – “Do you know?”
Trudeau – “…uh…and I…uh…don’t have the details of their…uh…work…uh…work experiences of their…uh…expenses.”
Poilievre – “What about your spouse? What is the dollar figure?”
Trudeau – “Uh…WE…uh…I think WE Charity has been able to share those figures with you.”
Poilievre
 – “When was the last time that she had an expense reimbursed by WE Charity?”
Trudeau – “Uh…I…uh…believe it would have been to uh…”

As one can gather from this short excerpt, the Prime Minister was less than forthcoming. It’s a fine line between pivoting and refusing to answer. In Court, it may well have led to a charge of Contempt. Perhaps a Contempt of Parliament charge would be appropriate here.

Trudeau’s repetitive and vexatious use of the word “uh”

Also telling was Trudeau’s repetitive and vexatious use of the word “uh”. In linguistics, “uh” is known as a “hesitation form”, or “filler word”. Filler words are often a red flag for deception. In Psychology Today, Professor Jack Schafer of Western Illinois University, a behavioral analyst for the FBI, explains. “Little words, often ignored in normal speech, can signal deception. Words such as um and uh indicate cognitive load. Liars experience increased cognitive load. Um and uh signal impending delays is speech. Liars need time to evaluate their answers to ensure their lie will be believed. Liars also need additional time to choose the right words to camouflage the truth. Truthful people do not need extra time to convey information.”

The Prime Minister wouldn’t lie though, would he?

So, what are the issues with WE-Gate exactly?

The growing Hydra-like list may keep Commissioner Dion up at night:

  • Was CSSG designed specifically for WE to administer?
  • Why the Canada Service Corps was not tasked with CSSG?
  • Why a sole-source contract?
  • Details of due diligence done, due to the fact that WE appeared to be in financial trouble and in violation of bank covenants. WE Board Members had resigned and mass layoffs of staff had occurred. WE had also never delivered a similar program previously.
  • Why was WE paid $30M upfront, and how will it repay taxpayers?
  • Why was a WE real estate shell company used, instead of WE Charity?
  • Why was a $30M upfront payment made on contract award?
  • WE claimed initially that the PMO had called, asking if they wanted the CSSG contract.
  • Who authorized WE, and why, to begin spending money on May 5th, prior to June 23rd approval?
  • Failure to recuse/Conflict of Interest –
    • PM has spoken for WE in past
    • WE has paid for Trudeau campaign ads/gave Trudeau a platform to connect with hundreds of thousands of young voters
    • WE has paid Margaret and Alexander Trudeau
    • WE has paid Sophie Trudeau
    • WE relationship with Katie Telford
    • WE paid Bill Morneau $42K expenses
    • WE employs two Morneau daughters.

Beyond the blatant corruption

Beyond the blatant corruption issues however, the CSSG model may have also been fatally flawed from birth. The very real possibility exists that CSSG could violate Minimum Wage laws. CSSG would pay a student up to $10 per hour, which is less than the minimum wages in all of Canada’s provinces and territories. If the concept of paid volunteers seems counter-intuitive, the law actually recognizes two classes of volunteers. According to Labour Law firm Goldblatt Partners, “Volunteers are not covered by the Employment Standards Act in Ontario, and need not be paid the minimum wage. But that does not mean that an employer can evade its obligations under the Act by classifying anyone as a volunteer. Only a ‘true volunteer’ is excluded from the protections of the Act…if a participating student views the program as a means to make a livelihood during a time that fewer summer jobs are available, they may be able to argue that they are not a ‘true volunteer.’” A class action lawsuit waiting to happen then.

But, back to the show.

Poilievre (translation) – “I have a simple question for you. How many times does a Minister in your Government need to break the Ethics Act before being sacked? How many times?”
Trudeau (translation) – “We…uh…take it very seriously, every time there are Ethics issues…
Poilievre – “How many times?”
Trudeau – “…and…”
Poilievre – “How many times?”
Chair – “The Prime Minister has the floor…and he has the right to answer. Mister Prime Minister”

He had the right to answer, but apparently not the ability.

How many times? That is the question…for all Canadians.

Great campaign slogan for Conservatives next election cycle…