Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Opinion

Red Deer – Lacombe MP Blaine Calkins calls on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to resign

Published

5 years ago

14 minute read

What We Know About Trudeau’s Latest Ethics Scandal

BLAINE CALKINS

 

Over the past several weeks Canadians have been shocked at the details coming to light regarding Justin Trudeau’s WE Scandal. Justin Trudeau and the Kielburgers have been happy to benefit from each other for years. While they are quick to downplay their relationship, the facts tell a different story. According to WE Charity, Justin Trudeau and his family have participated in over 50 WE Events where they have been able to share their political message with young Canadians.

In 2017 WE created a campaign style ad featuring Justin Trudeau for Canada 150 and even pressured employees to go to a political event for the Minister of Finance in his Toronto riding. The Kielburger brothers have donated to the Liberal Party in the past, and under the Trudeau government WE has received upwards of $5.5 million in government funding.

This reciprocal relationship is concerning all on its own, before even considering the current scandal regarding the Canada Student Service Grant, Justin Trudeau and WE. The twists and turns in the story can be difficult to track, but it is clear that Justin Trudeau and former Finance Minister Bill Morneau have once again failed to live up to their legal obligations laid out in Canada’s conflict of interest laws. Here is what we know so far.

In April, WE sent an unsolicited proposal for a youth entrepreneurship program to Minister Chagger and Minister Ng. Ten days later WE received a call from Rachel Wernick, a senior bureaucrat with Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) about the yet to be announced Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG). When the program was announced to the public a few days later WE co-founder Craig Kielburger sent Ms. Wernick a proposal to administer the grant that same day.

According to the Kielburgers someone at the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) contacted them the next day about delivering the program, which they later recanted claiming it was a public servant who contacted them. Ms. Wernick is credited as being the public servant who recommended that WE was the only organization that could deliver the program.

 

On June 25th WE Charity was announced as the partner for the $900 million CSSG program, and Canadians were told they would receive $19.5 million to administer it. When asked, Trudeau suggested there was no conflict of interest because he and his wife had never been paid by the organization. A few days later Conservatives asked the Auditor General to probe the deal since parliamentary oversight was hindered by the program being outsourced, and due to concern over the well documented relationship between Trudeau and the Kielburgers.

 

By July 3rd Mark and Craig Kielburger announced that WE would be giving up the contract to administer the CSSG. On the same day, the Ethics Commissioner confirmed that he would be starting an investigation into Justin Trudeau for the third time. Less than a week later WE confirmed that the Prime Minister’s Mother, Margaret Trudeau had been paid $312,000 for 28 appearances since 2016 and that his brother, Alexandre Trudeau, was paid $40,000 for 8 events in 2017-2018. They also acknowledged that the Prime Minister’s wife, Sophie Gregoire Trudeau had received $1,400 for an appearance in 2012.

We later found out that on top of those fees WE Charity also paid an additional $212,846 in expenses between the three members of the Trudeau family. This brings the total remuneration to over $566,000. This revelation, in part, led to the Conservatives writing to the Commissioner of the RCMP to request that they look into this matter as it pertains to potential criminal code violations.

 

The Prime Minister isn’t the only one with an apparent conflict of interest in this matter, with former Minister Morneau also having close family ties with WE. Like the Prime Minister, he did not recuse himself despite the fact that his one daughter works for WE and another has been a speaker in the past and received a book endorsement. This led to the Ethics Commissioner launching an investigation into former Minister Morneau as well.

At an appearance before the Finance Committee former Minister Morneau would later go on to acknowledge that he and his wife had recently made two large donations, roughly $50,0000 each, and that he had also just written a cheque for over $41,000 to reimburse WE for expenses he and his family incurred on two vacations to Africa and South America, where they visited WE projects. WE later confirmed that the complementary trip was offered to former Minister Morneau and his family because of their history of significant donations to similar programs. These revelations led to the Conservative caucus calling for the now former Minister to resign.

 

The Finance Committee and the Ethics Committee began to look into this latest scandal, and the testimony and information they have received has painted a confusing and troubling picture. They uncovered a number of very concerning details before the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament in order to shut down the committees.

· WE stood to collect $45.53 million in fees, over double what was initially stated.

· The program, originally announced at over $900 million, was actually contracted out at $544 million instead. Why the discrepancy?

· The Clerk of the Privy Council stated that there were no red flags when considering WE, but that the Public Service didn’t probe the organizations finances. This is quite odd.

· The President of the Public Service Alliance disputed that only WE could have delivered the CSSG, stating that to say the Public Service was unable to was insulting. He pointed to the various government grant programs, Canada Summer Jobs and the Canada Service Corps as comparable programs. The theory that only WE could handle the program was further dismantled when it turned out that they had to subcontract part of the program because they weren’t able to deliver it in French.

· The contract for the CSSG wasn’t actually with WE Charity, but with WE Charity Foundation, a shell foundation that had no previous experience in delivering these types of programs.

· The former Chair of the Board at WE Charity testified that she had been forced to resign by Craig Kielburger for requesting financial documents from WE Executives to justify the layoff of hundreds of employees.

· The Kielburger brothers testified, claiming that they were running the program as a favour to Canada, and that their organization was to be reimbursed for expenses, but not make money off of the program. In a leaked document, a draft budget dated May 4th outlined some expenses including for staff salary. This included 175 program managers at $30,0000 each for 4.5 months work, ten supervisors at $45,000 each for 5.5months work, five group leaders at $70,000 each for 6 months work, and two project leaders for $125,000 for eight months work.

· WE Charity started to incur eligible expenses on May 5th, despite Cabinet not approving the program until May 22nd. This was being done with the full knowledge of ESDC, and allegedly at the financial liability of WE.

· Trudeau testified that he only found out about WE’s involvement on May 8th, shortly before it was set to be discussed at Cabinet. He claims that he removed it from the agenda and asked the public service to complete additional due diligence given his family connection to WE. He did not contact the Ethics Commissioner despite the concerns. This additional due diligence did not unearth any of the problems disclosed by the former Chair of the Board. It is noteworthy that no Minister, prior to the Prime Minister making his claim, had a story that would corroborate this feeble explanation.

 

The Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff confirmed that a handful of employees in PMO were aware of WE’s involvement and had interactions with the organization in the lead up to the approval. This included an interaction on May 5th, the day WE started incurring eligible expenses. So far, every time someone has come forward to try and explain away the Liberal’s latest mess, Canadians are left with more questions than when they started. Canadians deserve answers, and my Conservative colleagues and I are committed to finding them using every tool at our disposal.

While the studies at committee may have been temporarily halted by Trudeau’s prorogation Conservatives will continue to investigate this matter, and pursue every whiff of corruption like when we called on the Elections Commissioner to look into the political benefits that the Liberals have been given by WE. While the Prime Minister may be attempting to prevent Canadians from knowing the truth, Members of the Finance committee received thousands of heavily redacted documents from the Liberal government on the same day that Trudeau prorogued Parliament. They paint a very different picture of how WE came to be selected for this program than the one that the Liberals have offered up.

These documents suggest that the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth told WE to develop a proposal for a summer service opportunity before the CSSG was even announced. They go on to claim that the former Minister of Finance was “besties” with WE and that senior members of the Prime Minister’s office were involved in the development of the program and were having conversations with WE from an early stage. You can see these documents for yourself at wedocuments.ca.

 

The timeline of Mr. Trudeau’s version of events simply doesn’t add up. The CSSG was announced on April 22nd. A member of PMO spoke with WE about their proposal on May 5th, the same day they started to charge expenses for administering the program, but Cabinet wouldn’t approve the program for two and a half weeks.

Why was a charity that had to recently lay off hundreds of employees due to financial hardship related to COVID-19 so willing to accept the liability of starting the program without approval? Why were they so sure they would be approved? Why were they told they could start charging expenses before approval?

To answer that, you only need to look at the cozy relationship between Justin Trudeau, former Minister of Finance, Bill Morneau, the Liberal Party and WE. Now that the former Minister Bill Morneau has resigned and more than 5000 pages of documents have been released for review, Canadians are hungrier for that truth than ever before. The Liberals are banking on Canadians forgetting about this scandal during their prorogation and hoping that they can change the channel later this month with a new Throne Speech, but it isn’t going to work. Despite prorogation and all of the confusion and misdirection, one thing is absolutely clear – Justin Trudeau must resign for his part in this scandal.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
2025 Federal Election / 3 hours ago

‘Coordinated and Alarming’: Allegations of Chinese Voter Suppression in 2021 Race That Flipped Toronto Riding to Liberals and Paul Chiang

2025 Federal Election / 5 hours ago

MORE OF THE SAME: Mark Carney Admits He Will Not Repeal the Liberal’s Bill C-69 – The ‘No Pipelines’ Bill

2025 Federal Election / 5 hours ago

Three cheers for Poilievre’s alcohol tax cut

2025 Federal Election

‘Coordinated and Alarming’: Allegations of Chinese Voter Suppression in 2021 Race That Flipped Toronto Riding to Liberals and Paul Chiang

Published on April 2, 2025

By

“There were Chinese officials following Bob Saroya around.” The Bureau investigates claims of voter intimidation in the Toronto-area riding now at the centre of Canada’s election.

As Canada’s snap election unfolds under the shadow of foreign interference—following the resignation of a Liberal MP accused of suggesting his Conservative rival could be handed to Chinese officials for a bounty—The Bureau has uncovered new allegations that Chinese agents attempted to intimidate voters and the Conservative incumbent in the same Markham–Unionville riding during the 2021 federal campaign. The revelations raise urgent concerns that similar tactics may be resurfacing in Toronto-area ridings with large communities of immigrants from China and Hong Kong.

Paul Chiang, a former police officer who unseated longtime Conservative representative Bob Saroya to win Markham–Unionville for Team Trudeau in 2021, stepped down as a candidate late Monday after the RCMP confirmed it was reviewing remarks he made to Chinese-language media in January. During that event, Chiang reportedly said Conservative candidate Joe Tay—a Canadian citizen wanted under Hong Kong’s National Security Law—could be taken to the Chinese Consulate in Toronto to claim a bounty.

Tay, a former Hong Kong broadcaster whose independent reporting from Canada has drawn retaliation from Beijing, rejected Chiang’s apology, calling his comments to Chinese-language journalists “the tradecraft of the Chinese Communist Party.” He added: “They are not just aimed at me; they are intended to send a chilling signal to the entire community to force compliance with Beijing’s political goals.” His concerns were echoed by dozens of NGOs and human rights organizations, which condemned Chiang’s remarks as an endorsement of transnational repression.

There is no indication Chiang was aware of the intimidation campaign alleged by senior Conservative sources during the 2021 vote. He has described his January remarks as an ill-considered joke, a serious lapse in judgment, and emphasized that he intended no harm or wrongdoing.

According to multiple senior figures from Erin O’Toole’s 2021 Conservative campaign—who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of intelligence disclosures—O’Toole’s team was briefed by Canadian intelligence that Chinese officials were actively surveilling Saroya during the election. One source recalled being told that “there were Chinese officials following Bob Saroya around,” and that “CSIS literally said repeatedly that this was ‘coordinated and alarming.’”

“Bob lost because the Chinese vote abandoned him,” the source added.

When asked to respond, O’Toole—who stepped down after the 2021 loss—acknowledged awareness of voter intimidation reports but did not say whether CSIS had informed his team about alleged Chinese surveillance targeting Saroya.

“Our candidate Bob Saroya was a hardworking MP who won against the Liberal wave in 2015,” O’Toole wrote. “He won in 2019 as well, but thousands of votes from the Chinese Canadian community stayed home in 2021. We heard reports of intimidation of voters. We also know the Consul General from China took particular interest in the riding and made strange comments to Mr. Saroya ahead of the election. It was always in the top three of the eight or nine ridings that I believe were flipped due to foreign interference. The conduct of Mr. Chiang suggests our serious concerns were warranted.”

A third senior Conservative campaign source confirmed Chinese interference was a concern in multiple ridings. “The concern was related to China… we had candidates that were being intimidated,” the source said.

Speaking specifically to Saroya’s campaign, the source said that in the early stages of the 2021 election, Saroya and a close family member believed they were performing well. “He said he had never had such a good reaction at the doors, and he assumed he was getting the Chinese traditional vote,” they recalled.

But the campaign later learned from CSIS that Saroya was allegedly being followed by suspected Chinese security personnel. Intelligence assessments reportedly indicated that these actors were shadowing Saroya’s canvassing team and visiting the same homes shortly after campaign stops. While The Bureau has not confirmed CSIS’s exact conclusions, the conduct appears consistent with voter suppression tactics—paralleling public warnings issued this week by Canada’s SITE Task Force.

The source added that CSIS interviewed Saroya. “He was convinced he was being tailed at times,” they said. The Bureau has independently confirmed with two sources that Saroya was interviewed by CSIS.

Saroya has declined to comment.

While Saroya is not named among alleged victims, a January 2022 “Special Report” from the Privy Council Office—sourced from over 100 CSIS documents and reviewed by The Bureau—stated that a small number of MPs in 2021 reported concerns for their families, reputations, privacy, and re-election chances due to “targeted” CCP activity.

Another section of the report details threats and coercion strongly resembling the emerging picture in Markham. It stated that Chinese diplomats, public security officers, and intelligence officers had monitored Canadians, including one case in which agents threatened the parents of a student in Canada.

The Privy Council Office report also suggested that concerns about forced repatriations—or even covert renditions—of dissidents are plausible. It noted that in 2020, a Chinese police liaison worked with a Canadian law enforcement officer to repatriate an economic fugitive in the Fox Hunt campaign. Another coerced repatriation involved Chinese police bringing a fugitive’s brother and father to Canada, and the relatives could not return to China unless the fugitive returned with them.

The report also noted that “Chinese intelligence officers have discussed that Canadians can be ‘messed with’ in person and online because they are critical of China.”

Although SITE officials have not directly addressed Joe Tay’s statement that he contacted the RCMP for protection in relation to his candidacy, they acknowledged under repeated questioning from Canadian reporters Monday that the spread of Chiang’s comments through Chinese-language media fits a broader pattern of foreign interference aimed at silencing dissidents and influencing voters.

In a public statement, a SITE official said the task force is aware of ongoing efforts by authoritarian regimes to target dissidents, critics, journalists, and other members of diaspora communities. “Please remember two things. First, your vote is secret and secure—it will not be possible to find out who you vote for. And second, it is an offense to threaten someone so that they change their vote,” the official said Monday.

Canadians experiencing intimidation or threats were urged to write down the details—such as the person, location, and nature of the event—and report to local police or contact the RCMP National Security Information Network.

Though Saroya has not spoken publicly about the matter—despite repeated interview requests from The Bureau—parliamentary testimony suggests he raised his concerns within Conservative leadership. During a 2023 hearing of the House Procedure and Affairs Committee, Conservative MP Michael Cooper asked Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Chief of Staff, Katie Telford:

“Ten weeks before the 2021 election, Bob Saroya, then member of Parliament for Markham–Unionville, received a cryptic and threatening text message from Beijing’s Consul General in Toronto, suggesting that he would no longer be a member of Parliament after the 2021 election. Were you, the Prime Minister or anyone in the PMO briefed or otherwise have knowledge about that text message?”

Telford replied: “I can’t speak to that information.”

Meanwhile, a review of September 2021 campaign materials shows at least one controversial appearance in Markham featuring Paul Chiang, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and then–Public Safety Minister Bill Blair.

In a Facebook post, Chiang wrote: “Today I hosted Justin Trudeau here in Markham–Unionville. It’s time for Erin O’Toole to come clean with Canadians, and for Bob Saroya to do the same. Their commitment to re-legalize 1,500 models of assault-style firearms will put the safety of our community at risk.”

That message echoed attack ads against O’Toole displayed on a digital screen inside a Chinese grocery store in Toronto’s Scarborough–Agincourt riding, according to evidence presented at the Hogue Commission.

Even after Chiang’s resignation, Prime Minister Mark Carney has faced renewed scrutiny for expressing confidence in him just hours before the RCMP announced its investigation. Carney characterized the controversy as a “teachable moment.”

Dennis Molinaro, a former national security analyst and author of the forthcoming book Under Siege: Interference and Espionage in China’s Secret War Against Canada, criticized Carney’s handling of the issue.

“The threats the community faces are real and longstanding,” Molinaro said. “Carney’s reference to Chiang as a former police officer—as if that’s a valid reason for him to remain in the race—is ludicrous.”

“Carney has continually said next to nothing on China,” he added. “It’s one of the most significant political and geopolitical issues of our time, and he has nothing to say? Why? China is a major concern for the United States, and yet he remains silent—even after the execution of four Canadians?”

The Durham Regional Police Association—which represents officers in one of the three Ontario forces where Chiang served—issued a statement condemning Carney’s actions. “We are disappointed in the clear lack of integrity and leadership displayed by Mark Carney to stand by this candidate rather than act after such egregious actions,” the association wrote, adding that Chiang’s conduct “would be held to a higher standard for an active officer in Ontario.”

The group also rejected Carney’s defense of Chiang’s law enforcement background: “The fact that Mr. Carney used Chiang’s policing career as a shield for his actions undermines the great work our heroes in uniform do in their communities each and every day.”

Chiang’s policing career spanned nearly 30 years. He began with the London Police Service in 1992, later served with the Durham Regional Police, and retired in 2020 as a sergeant with York Regional Police. In 2013, he worked as a diversity officer in York’s Diversity and Cultural Resources Unit.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

For the full experience, please upgrade your subscription and support a public interest startup.

We break international stories and this requires elite expertise, time and legal costs.

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Don’t let the Liberals fool you on electric cars

Published on April 2, 2025

By

CAE Logo Dan McTeague

“The Liberals, hoodwinked by the ideological (and false) narrative that EVs are better for the environment, want to force you to replace the car or truck you love with one you can’t afford which doesn’t do what you need it to do.”

The Liberals’ carbon tax ploy is utterly shameless. For years they’ve been telling us that the Carbon Tax was a hallmark of Canadian patriotism, that it was the best way to save the planet, that it was really a “price on pollution,” which would ultimately benefit the little guy, in the form of a rebate in which Canadians would get back all the money they paid in, and more!

Meanwhile big, faceless Captain Planet villain corporations — who are out there wrecking the planet for the sheer fun of it! — will shoulder the whole burden.

But then, as people started to feel the hit to their wallets and polling on the topic fell off a cliff, the Liberals’ newly anointed leader — the  environmentalist fanatic Mark Carney — threw himself a Trumpian signing ceremony, at which he and the party (at least rhetorically) kicked the carbon tax to the curb and started patting themselves on the back for saving Canada from the foul beast. “Don’t ask where it came from,” they seem to be saying. “The point is, it’s gone.”

Of course, it’s not. The Consumer Carbon Tax has been zeroed out, at least for the moment, not repealed. Meanwhile, the Industrial Carbon Tax, on business and industry, is not only being left in place, it’s being talked up in exactly the same terms as the Consumer Tax was.

No matter that it will continue to go up at the same rate as the Consumer Tax would have, such that it will be indistinguishable from the Consumer Tax by 2030. And no matter that the burden of that tax will ultimately be passed down to working Canadians in the form of higher prices.

Of course, when that happens, Carney & Co will probably blame Donald Trump, rather than their own crooked tax regime.

Yes, it is shameless. But it also puts Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives in a bind. They’ve been proclaiming their intention to “Axe the Tax” for quite some time now. On the energy file, it was pretty much all you could get them to talk about. So much so that I was worried that upon entering government, they might just go after the low hanging fruit, repeal the Carbon Tax, and move on to other things, leaving the rest of the rotten Net-Zero superstructure in place.

But now, since the Liberals beat them to it (or claim they did,) the Conservatives are left grasping for a straightforward, signature policy which they can use to differentiate themselves from their opponents.

Poilievre’s recently announced intention to kill the Industrial Carbon Tax is welcome, especially at a time when Canadian business is under a tariff threat from both the U.S. and China. But that requires some explanation, and as the old political saying goes, “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.”

There is one policy change however, which comes to mind as a potential replacement. It’s bold, it would make the lives of Canadians materially better, and it’s so deeply interwoven with the “Green” grift of the environmentalist movement of which Mark Carney is so much a part that his party couldn’t possibly bring themselves to steal it.

Pierre Poilievre should pledge to repeal the Liberals’ Electric Vehicle mandate.

The EV mandate is bad policy. It forces Canadians to buy an expensive product — EVs cost more than Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles even when the federal government was subsidizing their purchase with a taxpayer-funded rebate of $5,000 per vehicle, but that program ran out of money in January and was discontinued. Without that rebate, EVs haven’t a prayer of competing with ICE vehicles.

EVs are particularly ill-suited for Canada. Their batteries are bad at holding a charge in the cold. Even in mild weather, EVs aren’t known for their reliability, a major downside in a country as spread out as ours. Maybe it’ll work out if you live in a big city, but what if you’re in the country? Heaven help you if your EV battery dies when you’re an hour away from everywhere.

Moreover, Canada doesn’t have the infrastructure to support a total replacement of gas-and-diesel driven vehicles with EVs. Our already-strained electrical grid just doesn’t have the capacity to support millions of EVs being plugged in every night. Natural Resources Canada estimates that we will need somewhere in the neighborhood of 450,000 public charging stations to support an entirely electric fleet. At the moment, we have roughly 30,000. That’s a pretty big gap to fill in ten years.

And that’s another fact which doesn’t get nearly as much attention as it should. The law mandates that every new vehicle sold in Canada must be electric by 2035. Maybe that sounded incredibly far in the future when it was passed, but now it’s only ten years away! That’s not a lot of time for these technological problems or cost issues to be resolved.

So the pitch from Poilievre here is simple.

“The Liberals, hoodwinked by the ideological (and false) narrative that EVs are better for the environment, want to force you to replace the car or truck you love with one you can’t afford which doesn’t do what you need it to do. If you vote Conservative, we will fix that, so you will be free to buy the vehicle that meets your needs, whether it’s battery or gas powered, because we trust you to make decisions for yourself. Mark Carney, on the other hand, does not. We won’t just Axe the Tax, we will End the EV Mandate!”

A decade (and counting) of Liberal misrule has saddled this country with a raft of onerous and expensive Net-Zero legislation I’d like to see the Conservative Party campaign against.

These include so-called “Clean Fuel” Regulations, Emissions Caps, their war on pipelines and Natural Gas terminals, not to mention Bill C-59, which bans businesses from touting the environmental benefits of their work if it doesn’t meet a government-approved standard.

But the EV mandate is bad for Canada, and terrible for Canadians. A pledge to repeal it would be an excellent start.

Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X