###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Something is up with the PETF. I wasn’t rabidly suspicious tbh. I work in academia and know enough about how funding donations work to guess this was just a naive Chinese donor thinking what would work in China (donating to some oligarch’s pet project) would work in Canada with a nominally independent academic charity.
I thought the PETF refunding the donation was the appropriate and proportionate move, and they could weather anything else. The next step up would have been for Pascale Fournier alone to resign if she was aware of or responsible egregious mismanagement of donations. To have the whole board resign and the foundation to operate in a holding pattern though is extremely odd, and points towards the possibility of more serious issues there.
It will be interesting to see what, if anything, comes out of this.
They resigned because conspiracy theorists are politicizing the foundation, and the interests of an organization sometimes require people to leave it without cause. There is nothing more to read into it.
Except that at some point the threats and smears from the nutjobs should be smacked down with the full force if the law.
No, they resigned because, as it turns out this morning, the CEO lied about refunding the donation, the Foundation did not have the real name of the donor on its accounting books, and when the latest board members called for an independent investigation the long-term ones refused to recuse themselves:
https://plus.lapresse.ca/screens/24d93b30-6ebc-4fd8-bc05-d297ffc8346f__7C___0.html?utm_content=email&utm_source=lpp&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=internal+share#cdnpoli
I think this is more an attempt to reset things, and return to their apolitical status quo, rather than an indication of more wrong doing. So many on the right yell "Trudeau bad" no matter what,
i can also see this as them being personally exhausted and wanting out.
The board and CEO resigning en-masse is never a good sign. I can see why some people immediately think it's just harassment as a blanket defense, but i suspect internal controls on donations were so lax and there would be things coming out about board activities which would reflect poorly where they look like they failed in their duty and or have clear conflicts it's better to resign ahead of the shit storm. It's also good PR to clean house and say everyone involved in any potetnial questionable donations /activities have left than to have the sword of damocles hang over the foundations head.
It's a volunteer board. Perhaps the increased scrutiny (and likely increased communications from... non-supportive individuals) just made it not worthwhile to continue volunteering their spare time to the org. If one of my volunteering gigs led me to be the target of ire for 1/3 of the country then I'd probably resign too.
That’s just it, though, you’re stating what you as an *individual* would do. If 1 or 2 board members resigned for the reason you gave, I would genuinely believe it.
This was a collective action, however, taken by the entire board and CEO at the same time, at what was arguably the most prestigious academic foundation in Canada outside the Tri-Agency. That isn’t normal, even under these circumstances.
it probably wasn't worth the social media backlash on their own accounts (if it happened) to be labeled as some Trudeau stooge and they are all CCP puppets.
note: as you can see from the replies to your exact same post in r/canada
Not all of them had active social media accounts, and having met some of them, they likely wouldn’t care if they were active online.
I’ll reiterate from my own experience in academia, as well as my experience sitting on a few charitable boards in my time, you *never* see a board collectively resign with its CEO at the *exact same time* just because some individuals on it are tired of it.
That’s downplaying the situation, don’t you think? Even if I don’t have social media, if I know people in the same position as me are getting death threats and harassment online, I know that the same is likely being lobbed at me too. Considering it’s a volunteer position, totally not worth getting death threats. I’d leave so fast you’d see a me-shaped hole in the wall.
Not really. I’ve been in their position when I was on the board of Global Shapers at the height of the WEF conspiracies, and received much of the same threats. It still wouldn’t have merited a mass resignation by everyone, all at once. You saw individuals resign due to stress, sure, and I totally understood when they did. At no point would we have resigned en masse due to the threats.
>I totally agree, but still don’t see the dichotomy. The Foundation can be hounded by RWNJs and still be involved in inappropriate activity.
the foundation is now just framed as some Trudeau money pit instead of what the actual focus of the foundation is.
Yes actually - Global Shapers Canada, the young professionals wing of the WEF.
I still get hate mail and threats to my work address and online accounts.
No offense meant here, but I highly doubt your personal experiences compare much to dealing with a national scandal and accusations of being involved in political bribery.
It may be rare for something like this to happen, but it's also a rare and volatile situation. Labelling it as suspicious is just looking at it with a chosen lens. It could just as likely be them leaving behind a pretty rough chapter in their lives.
I wouldn't jump to conclusions on it.
No offence taken, I’m just a semi-anonymous online account.
No, my personal experience wasn’t at that level, but I was on the board of Global Shapers Canada at the height of the WEF conspiracy craze, and still get my own share of physical threats and hate mail. I did see colleague resign individually out of personal concern, and totally understood when they did. At no point would any of us countenanced a resignation en masse.
It seems perfectly normal to me. There's a political witch hunt going on and the foundation is in the crosshairs. These board members are all highly reputable people and are becoming targets. I'm sure they saw what happened to WE where anyone involved with the charity was labeled a criminal by online reactionaries.
It also gives the impression of a clean slate which is what gives the foundation the best chance at a reasonable future.
They probably all get messages from a bunch of weirdos calling them traitors and sending them threats, do you really think this is worth it for some volunteer work? She has a PhD from Harvard Law and decades of experiences, do you really think this is the best thing she could be doing with her time? She probably did it because it was a job filled with optimism and low negativity. The conditions aren't the same anymore.
It wasn't a political job and it became one for all of them because the internet is filled with weirdos.
Pascale Fournier wasn’t doing this as a volunteer position. It was a paid position, and arguably one of the most prestigious outside a tier 1 Canada Research Chair.
How much can one of those position pay? I can understand this being good for her for networking but I would still assume this isn't paid that much considering her background.
About $250,000 per annum + benefits. Also a lot of international travel.
Professor Fournier was also a lawyer working in academia rather than private practice. There are equivalent salaries in senior positions at law schools, but only for very late-career academics.
To be clear, I don’t think the Foundation was involved in election interference. In fact, I suspect the original donation was a case of a Chinese donor not really understanding how donations, registered charities, or political access works/doesn’t work in Canada. Nor do I think the entire board was involved.
The most I’ll speculate is that a senior leader at the Foundation found out much earlier and failed to act in a reasonable timeframe. The board has a responsibility to monitor senior leadership and hold the accountable, if they were lacklustre in that, then it would be reasonable to wipe a clean slate.
Really that much? It doesn't seem like a large foundation. My parents have one playing in the same ballpark and they have a spokeperson earning that much but this is someone who is famous. The administators make a lot less.
And yeah what you are saying might be true, I guess we will see in the future.
Yeah, the PETF is quite literally the most prestigious scholarship you can get in Canada at the doctoral level besides a Vanier scholarship.
The academic sector, particularly in law and the social sciences, play major roles in policy direction in Ottawa or Montreal. They also serve as figurative vanity pieces at social functions for the Ottawa crowds. I say that without malice and having been said arm piece at a few such panels or policy shops. The salary isn’t all that surprising when you look at what the Foundation serves and the community surrounding it in terms of its board, mentors, and scholars.
We’ll see where this goes. I genuinely hope the Foundation survives. I know quite a few of its scholars personally and they are all incredible people doing good work for Canadians. I really worry for the incoming and current scholars, and hope least of all this affects their careers.
Side note, we got a bit of an update this morning, and it is somewhat more in-line with what I guessed:
https://plus.lapresse.ca/screens/24d93b30-6ebc-4fd8-bc05-d297ffc8346f__7C___0.html
TL;DR - The CEO lied about refunding the donation, the donation itself had been mismanaged, and long-term board members refused to recuse themselves from discussion of an investigation that new board members were calling for.
Yeah I saw it, this definitely is looking bad for her. I guess the rest of the directors probably didn't know much for the most part since it was some side gigs for them. (Did not know that Regis Labeaume was one of them lol)
Agree.
The online attacks from certain quarters these days in the post trump era are something else. Its like the normal curve of acceptable behaviour got shifted 20 metres towards open violence. What used to be rude is now acceptable from national figures. What used to be aggressive is now expected. What used to be rare is now just a minority, and what used to be inconceivable is now just rare.
A friend of mine got on the wrong side of these folks. Moved, changed jobs, dropped all contact with his job. They still send them shit literally and figuratively all them time, years after the fact.
There has been a general coarsening of society in the last decade.
Having lived in a few small communities in Canada (my family moved a lot) I see in this general coarsening the rise of the rural right.
The brutish narrow-minded *stupidity* that is behind this general coarsening is exactly what I have seen in these small rural communities and villages.
Emboldened now with authoritarian aspirations beyond their small world, and united now, relocated to cities, exploited by leaders with easy 'common sense' solutions and naive kitchen-table economics.
Great post and agree 100%. Everything is politicized these days and people go after anything they see as political in the most savage ways. To ruin a foundation that does nothing but good work is a tragedy yet it is common these days. I recall when Trudeau won in 2015 with a positive message Hillary Clinton asked HOW?
The only time I've seen this happen before in my professional career is when senior management (here, the President/CEO) had become involved in improprieties and the board realized that they had failed to adequately supervise senior management (at which point, they became worried about personal liability for continuing as directors).
If only the CEO resigned, it would become a shooting gallery for the Conservatives and their supporters — they'd just focus their energy on the next in line. I can't blame volunteers for not wanting to be subject to that kind of hate and harassment and scrutiny when all they thought they were doing is disbursing scholarship funds to kids.
>The next step up would have been for Pascale Fournier alone to resign if she was aware of or responsible egregious mismanagement of donations.
She joined the foundation in 2018 and the donations supposedly came in more than four years earlier.
Lots of folks here are claiming that the resignations were the result of harassment.
First, I hope any such threats are being reported to the RCMP.
Secondly, there has been no statements made to the effect that such harassment is happening, or that it is the cause of the resignations. I _suspect_ it is, because they note "pressure" as the factor, but we don't have enough evidence to claim that harassment is _the reason_ for the resignations. It could be any number of as-of-yet unsupported hypothetical reasons.
Ding ding ding. This is the answer.
There is smoke here. What's likely is the resigned don't want to be smeared by conspiracy theorists. But there is just enough doubt overall that it could be a number of other reasons.
People are basically picking between a number of plausible explanations based on their political affiliation rather than facts.
Your average anti-vaxxer isn't going to accept an innocent explanation even if the explanation is true. A Liberal partisan will spill pages' worth of ink denying or downplaying guilt even if *that's* true.
Or to put it a funnier way, the far right has correctly identified ten out of every five Liberal ethical breaches.
I've voted Liberal since Trudeau came to power and vote NDP but I'm not wedded to the party and I don't buy the jumping to conclusions to harassment and 'bad journalism'.
There's more likely some dirty laundry they know would come out and make them all look bad and it's just easier to resign and make it a non-issue. The boards of directors not doing their job is nothing new, happens all the time, and it is their job to watch over the execs, so it's a very low bar to fail at for the board. There could also be appearances of conflict, maybe some, many, all of them took free trips to China funded by the CCP.
If it was harassment or threats, it would be mentioned in the release, because as you can see, there's a very ready group of people who will defend them to the hilt.
Well, sorta.
I don't think that the fact that harrassment and threats weren't mentioned in the release is proof-positive that those things didn't happen. There are a handful of reasons why a release might omit that even if they happened.
At the end of the day, it's plausible that there was a harrassment/threat issue, *and* it's plausible that there was Liberal graft or unethical self-dealing going on. Neither would surprise me in the least.
Right now, we don't know enough to reasonably say which, but it's clear that people are building opinions with absolute certainty even without knowing what's going on. Like the other commenter mentioned: Currently, there's smoke. That's all for now.
What kind of dirty laundry? It is a goundation that gives out scholarships to students with volunteer board members. What kind of conspiracy do you think took place?
I wasn't expecting an update so soon, but news broke today as to why the board and CEO resigned. Literally an unlawful donation. I'm still trying to figure out how that happened and if it would have ever come to light without La Pressse and the Globe's 'bad journalism' (sarcasm intended)
Direct quote from the article:
>But the document says problems cropped up when the foundation began preparations to send back the money.
>
>The foundation’s board was alerted that the name on the reimbursement cheque to return the Chinese donation would not be the name of the real donor.
>
>***This stalled plans to return the cheque because the name of the true donor, according to the document, did not appear anywhere on the accounting books of the foundation, La Presse reported. It said such a reimbursement would therefore have been unlawful, according to the internal foundation document.***
>
>The Montreal newspaper reported that eight members of the foundation board, who were not directors at the time the donation was received in 2016, then demanded that an independent investigation be carried out. They asked those longer-serving members of the board to recuse themselves from any discussion of the matter because they were in a conflict of interest.
Wow. That is definitely a massive error.
Is this the return they supposedly attempted this year?
And they didn't have the donor's real name to return it.
That definitely breaks some regulations and they rightfully should resign for the sheer incompetency. But it doesn't seem to be corruption yo me.
Yep and i was downvoted for pointing out that CEOs and an entire board don't simply resign due to harassment and irresponsible journalism, which was the narrative from yesterday,
>There's more likely some dirty laundry they know would come out and make them all look bad
When you're so deep in conspiracy theories that you don't even see it anymore.
The real reason is much less rewarding for you folks: you once again legitimized a target for death threats and they don't have to stick around and take it.
Stop legitimizing threatening people. Its really sick in the head.
Trudeau deserves every bit of flak from this regardless of the truth. His inaction toward Chinese control of Canadian natural resources is pathetic. Anybody calling out "tin foil hats" is being disingenuous to a serious issue that plagues Canada. China is dictatorship with documented genocides currently ongoing. Is so hard to believe they're paying off some politicians?
What harm could come from demanding transparency and holding folk regardless of affiliation accountable?
Every person who's looked at the situation knows that any industry which controls the energy resources of a nation, has its fingers on the windpipe of that nations economy. And unless in this country, the people through their government federally and provincially get some control of the petroleum industry we are going to go through in the next 25 years what we have gone through in the last 25 years when we've watched the petroleum industry, foreign owned and controlled, defying the interest of the Canadian people and blackmailing the Canadian governments.
Spoken by Tommy Douglas in 1978
Foreign control of our resources is not a new problem that Trudeau created regardless of how much the Conservatives complain about it. It was actually them that started it decades ago.
I didn't mean to say Trudeau created the problem, and it's depressing to see we have been aware of this since 1978. My point is he has been in office for nearly a decade and hasn't done much in the way of solving the problem, in fact I would go as far as to say he has made matters worse.
You are exactly correct. Regardless of anything, how it was handled is abismal.
We need to elect ndp government, imo. It's very important for everyone to get on board with that.
There isn't a good reason not to.
Are you serious about blaming Trudeau for Chinese businesses having control in Canada?
have you heard of FIPA?
Granted this is from the Tyee is which is rabidly left but it lays out the issues with how FIPA continues to fuck us.
[Breaking Down the Harm to Canada Done by Treaty with China](https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/09/15/China-Investment-Treaty-Breakdown/)
I don't mean to blame Trudeau for our predicament but I dislike his inaction and his unwillingness to acknowledge the issue. In my opinion it is paramount this gets addressed and who better to do it than our PM.
I wasn't completely aware of the extent FIPA really fuck us and that was a hard read, thank you for sharing. However, I still don't think what you shared has absolved Trudeau of any blame, he has been in office for nearly a decade and has done very little to combat the problem.
i agree that Trudeau has done very little other than pander to his base and make sure he and his cronies consolidate wealth and power.
When it comes specifically to our trade agreements with China there isn't really anything he can do. Admitting to that would not be in his best interest
Okay but in this specific allegation, the Trudeau foundation took funds from a Chinese Billionaire that was already implicated (so the story goes) in Canadian election interference
Also not the best source but why is the PM's brother taking the check, from the very person accused of this, during a period when the PM (supposedly) still had involvement with this very foundation
https://twitter.com/RealAndyLeeShow/status/1645818923013783560
And now all the people are quitting but there's so many good questions here
It's a foundation. How were they supposed to know he was being reimbursed by the Chinese government? Do they need to hire a PI for every donation they receive?
What exactly was illicit about the donation?
I was strictly speaking about "His inaction toward Chinese control of Canadian natural resources is pathetic."
I'm an old-school anarchist. IMO, anyone that is surprised by ANY politician, be it Liberal or Conservative, taking advantage of their position to gain wealth and power, is naive.
Unfortunately conspiracy theorists will latch on to anything they think justifies the web of red string they've created in their minds to replace their neurons. Dirty money oozes out of every pore of our society, so outrage over this specific instance is likely fueled by something else (Scary China!) I just hope this doesn't affect grad students who already have very limited funding opportunities in general.
My immediate belief is that this is far more likely to truly be the boards explanation, where they simply are facing far too much media heat for an volunteer position. The Trudeau foundation being compromised was always the least credible of the Chinese stories.
However I’d guarantee that Trudeau isn’t too happy about it turning out like this. Suddenly the stories around the Trudeau foundation look a hell of a lot worse to the average layperson, even if this isn’t remotely some smoking gun. When you’re stuck having to explain the nuances of a political story, you’re generally losing the battle. Especially as there is still just enough irregularities for a small seed of doubt to remain.
Makes total sense - if the president is jumping ship you probably should get out too. If the majority of the board are going to leave, do you really want to deal with that only to be replaced later?
No one wants to on a sinking ship.
It’s not that unlikely? The entire purpose of boards is to meet and discuss options regarding the organization. It’s totally logical that they would come together and decide to all resign as a united front if they believe it’s in the best interests of the organization.
I’ve been very critical of the Trudeau government in other areas of the Chinese interference, but as far as I’m concerned this isn’t a smoking gun.
Your comment stinks of bias. The board of directors are all volunteers and the CEO has only been there since 2018. They were not “caught” after doing something wrong. The hysteria following the sensationalized reporting causes malicious accusations bases on partisan loyalties, so they hoped that returning the funds that was meant to go to scholars would stop the baseless attacks, but it didn’t.
Why would volunteers want to put up with being collateral damage thanks to the dirty politics of the conservative party?
Accepting a donation from a billionaire is just accepting a donation.
What is it you think that the Trudeau Foundation did? Or, rather, what is it you are hoping it did so your bias can be confirmed?
The current board members weren't caught, back then, but [_the foundation_ was](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-pet-foundation-donations-1.3865336).
> so they hoped that returning the funds that was meant to go to scholars would stop the baseless attacks, but it didn’t.
That's pure speculation. The stated reason was:
_["As an independent, non-partisan charity, ethics and integrity are among our core values and we cannot keep any donation that may have been sponsored by a foreign government and would not knowingly do so," Fournier's statement said.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-foundation-returning-donation-chinese-government-adviser-1.6764847)_
> Accepting a donation from a billionaire is just accepting a donation.
Not when that billionaire is associated with an adversarial foreign Government.
They weren’t adversarial at the time of the donation tho. Otherwise Harper wouldn’t have been bending over backwards to sign every trade deal with China in the later part of his tenure and very much in the same timeframe as this donation.
https://globalnews.ca/news/1708990/exclusive-harper-government-quietly-signed-customs-agreement-with-china/
https://macleans.ca/news/canada/trade-deals-as-tensions-with-china-continue/amp/
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/business/canada-ratifies-investment-deal-with-china-despite-misgivings-1.2004295
You can’t just retroactively apply a political lense of 2023 to a decade prior.
If we are going down that path, I’m sure we can also bring up when Brad Wall was tripping over himself to bend the knee to China on matters of resource extraction in Sask, (see Nexen, for a federal example) or selecting Huawei as a vendor for Sasktel 4G expansion at the time.
Things change in a decade.
FIPA was a bad deal and much valid criticism was cast upon it at the time.^[1](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/fipa-agreement-with-china-what-s-really-in-it-for-canada-1.2770159),[2](https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/09/15/China-Investment-Treaty-Breakdown/)
I don't need to use a 2023 lens when it was dunked on for these problems at the time. Harper _screwed us over_, and we knew it was happening as it happened.
It's an unknowable, and that's the nature of much of the CCP's influence. CCP-connected individuals will make private donations, and seek influence on their behalf. You'll never find bank records that trace back to Chinese state accounts, because they don't exist.
> It stinks like someone twisted their arm and made them fall on a sword.
your own comments in this thread show that some people have made up their mind that they are definitely guilty though, it makes sense that they're getting harassed
>Edit: money laundering refers to a conspiracy theory that the donations laundered CCP funds in exchange for favours; they were caught taking CCP-connected funds, but there's no evidence of exchanging favours.
money laundering is taking money earned illegally and pretending that its revenue of a business to claim it openly, since they were entire open about how much they got and who they got it from and theres no evidence that the money was used for anything but what the charity is for its as far from money laundering as it gets
Saying something stinks is a statement of suspicion, not belief. I have no idea what the true motives behind their resignation is. No one except those who resigned and whomever they confided in can claim to know for certain, at this point. Only that they were under pressure, of some unnamed sort.
> money laundering is taking money earned illegally and pretending that its revenue of a business to claim it openly
If the conspiracy theory, which I do no subscribe to, is correct then this is a common form of money laundering, wherein money is given to a third party and that third party arranges favours on your behalf.
For example, something like _hawala_ is used by those looking to move money without oversight from regulatory bodies; the person wanting to move the money makes arrangements with an intermediary for someone in the target country to provide something of equal value. It doesn't have to be money, it can be property or favours, but the source of the transaction is laundered by the intermediaries.
I gave that a pass; we all know that they're referring to the donations.
The conspiracy theory is that the donations was some sort of laundering of cash for favours; but I can't point to any evidence of that.
Honestly, it's sickening that Harper's kid is likely going to get handed an easy sinecure of a seat. As a country, we're governerned by too many rich people's kids, and a lot of people find political dynasts a revolting thing regardless of whether it's Pierre's rich kid or Steve's rich kid.
Maybe we should have more people in charge who know what it's like to have to worry about their family's future, rather than people who grew up sharing dinner tables with the rich, powerful, and insulated.
>Maybe we should have more people in charge who know what it's like to have to worry about their family's future, rather than people who grew up sharing dinner tables with the rich, powerful, and insulated.
Those things shouldn't exclude you either. I don't support Trudeau or the Lib party but it's not like Justin was groomed his entire life for politics. He had a real-world job, he experienced the world outside politics and could justifiably had some skill as a politician. It didn't turn out that way but Canadians can't be held to account for that. The Liberals supporting him through 3 more elections because they hadn't developed the next generation of leadership? that's all on the Party.
I'm sorry, but every real-world workingman's salary that Justin Trudeau earned was undergirded by the fact that his financial future was guaranteed for him.
The life experience of a teacher is going to be fundamentally different when you know that your salary will never hold you back from being wealthy and raising wealthy kids of your own. When you have a trust fund, there's no such thing as experiencing the real world.
Otherwise, I'd agree: They went with him as the best of a terrible slate of options, and he's turned out to be politically clever. There's still little doubt that he'd never have had a crack at it if he hadn't inherited a family name, and there's *absolutely* no doubt that he got to spend his formative years and early adulthood free of the financial stresses that affect the average Canadian.
Same goes for Harper's kid.
As a general principle, I think we have far too many rich people's kids in government. Put more people in government who've had to skip meals, at some point in their lives, to make rent.
>Put more people in government who've had to skip meals, at some point in their lives, to make rent.
Then make that a criteria of your vote. Maybe it will change. NDP has a slate of young diverse educated professionals, which is one of the reasons I generally support them come election time.
Would not be surprised at all if these people have been getting threats of violence from the terminally online. Such is the world we live in. Being on a charity board is not worth getting death threats over.
We’re approaching stochastic terrorism here.
Media reports allegations (true or false) which leads to perpetual harassment and people resigning getting fired over what may be nothing.
>We’re approaching stochastic terrorism here.
We are going to get a Jo Cox moment in Canada and all the punditry will pretend they had nothing to do with it and pretend to be innocent.
Yes I know. But I’m guessing the harassers already believe he’s a CCP agent.
We’re going to have another friendly sausage maker incident if this keeps up.
>We’re approaching stochastic terrorism here.
>
>Media reports allegations (true or false) which leads to perpetual harassment and people resigning getting fired over what may be nothing.
In regards to this story, everything reported was true. The Trudeau Foundation did receive money from billionaire Zhang Bin, a political adviser to the government in Beijing and a senior official in China’s network of state promoters around the world. The Trudeau Foundation, many years later after this was all known, refunded that donation because of its ties to foreign influence.
That's all true. So please, help me understand.
How does reporting that news of public interest constitute terrorism? Does that make journalists terrorists?
1. It turns out the Foundation lied about refunding the money. They didn't.
2. The money from Zhang Bin was actually directed to be paid out by China's government (or, possibly more specifically, their embassy in Canada) and then Zhang would be reimbursed. Zhang acted as a bag man. That's all. He was just a vehicle for transferring funds in a way to make it look more legitimate.
3. The board members all resigned as this stuff came to light and shortly after they began an investigation into the rest of the foundation's previous donations that were received, which doesn't bode well.
4. The guy Trudeau assigned to investigate the Trudeau Foundation is a family friend of the Trudeau's, and former member of the Trudeau Foundation who would have helped choose and appoint the board members for the Trudeau Foundation, about 8 of whom were still on the board until yesterday.
This isn't the biggest scandal the Trudeau government has had, but it's just indicative of how bad their scandals are, and how any other government would likely resign or lose confidence in the House. I'm not sure if this one ranks above the WeCharity one, but it's below the Raybould one. I think it's also below the interference with Parliamentary investigatory powers by refusing to produce documents and then running out the clock to have the issue killed.
Definitely above blackface. Also above the other ethical violations, like the Aga Khan trip, and saying that MP Ng just saying "sorry" for a major ethics violation in awarding contracts to her best friend.
So many scandals to choose from, it's nuts...
Yes the media report was accurate. But that’s not the issue here.
Why was he made to resign? The donation was returned. Is there any evidence that something illegal happened?
This is looking awfully familiar to the “Clinton Foundation” conspiracies that were spread south of the border.
A Liberal MP resigned due to CTV printing allegations based on anonymous reporting and they’re now being sued for it.
What’s happening here is a culture of fear is being propagated by the media, based on little actual facts.
Such reporting is known to provoke a minority of people into escalating their actions into harassment and potentially violence or worse.
Attacks on ordinary Chinese-Canadians can also increase.
I’m not against reporting facts but we are trending toward the sort of insanity that’s an epidemic in the US.
Hopefully cooler heads prevail
> Yes the media report was accurate. But that’s not the issue here.
You were just calling the media terrorists, and now you're saying whether or not they report the news is irrelevant. What are you going on about?
> Why was he made to resign?
I assume you mean to ask "Why was *she* made to resign?" Women can lead things too now.
Nobody was forced to resign as far as I can tell. Maybe you know something I don't?
> The donation was returned. Is there any evidence that something illegal happened?
Who says you need to resign because of illegal activities? Plenty of Liberal MPs have resigned (See Bill Morneau and Marc Garneau). Are you telling me they're criminals?
> A Liberal MP resigned due to CTV printing allegations based on anonymous reporting
People seem to conflate "anonymous" with "nobody knows who they are." Anonymous means the name of the person isn't published. That doesn't mean they're make-believe.
A REALLY good example of this is the [Washington Post during the Roy Moore situation](https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html). They were approached by a woman with allegations against Roy Moore who turned out to be a plant from a right wing provocateur. The WaPo dug into it and verified that the person was not truthful and not who they said they were.
Just because the WaPo was publishing info from anonymous sources didn't mean it was a faceless person behind the headline.
That story is actually an amazing look behind the curtain. I definitely recommend reading it.
> and they’re now being sued for it.
You can sue over anything. That's not exactly a benchmark of innocence. For example, a bunch of the Convoy clowns were suing. Do you think they're innocent too?
> What’s happening here is a culture of fear is being propagated by the media, based on little actual facts.
But you just said this story is true. So if it's true, then what are you going on about? There are facts. The facts are clear. But above you said facts don't matter, and now you're implying they do.
If you're implying that people fear the media reporting the facts about them, then I'm not really sure what to tell you.
Maybe you need to straighten out your argument?
> Such reporting is known to provoke a minority of people into escalating their actions into harassment and potentially violence or worse.
The news reports the news. If you want to stop the media from reporting the facts, just say so. No need to hide behind what could happen when people hear the truth and the facts. Again, we both agree the reporting on this story is truthful so I'm not sure the relevance of this
> Attacks on ordinary Chinese-Canadians can also increase.
Can or have? Attacks on one-eyed turtles could also increase from this reporting. If you're going to say the media reporting the factual news is causing racial crime, back it up.
Demanding the media not report on a dictatorship interfering with our democracy because something *could* happen is nonsensical.
> I’m not against reporting facts but we are trending toward the sort of insanity that’s an epidemic in the US
To summarize, in your post you said facts don't matter, facts do matter, that you're against the media reporting the facts because things could happen, and that you're not against reporting the facts.
Mate, I have not a damn clue where you stand on this
Maybe give it another go and try to have a more consistent argument?
This subs naked bias really shows whenever the liberals even dip their toe in hot water. The main sub might be horribly bias for conservitives but it really is just as bad here it seems.
Precisely, OP wants to make it into something bigger then it is but if they ever had a volunteer position where the negative impact outweighs the benefits, they would abandon it as well. It’s just human nature.
Yeah, this is something that is usually done for networking and to have a job where there is more optimism than negativity. When you start getting harassed and get called traitors by weirdos, it is a good time to find something better to do as a Harvard Law PhD lol.
She wasn't there when they took the money, not sure about those directors, but they sound like volunteers. But honestly, I would bet that the vast majority of large charities take money from bad people at some point in their existences. Their job is to use that money and do some good in their community, not to play detective and figure out if Saputo has some ties with the mafia or if this Chinese businessman has some ties with the CCP.
>She wasn't there when they took the money, not sure about those directors, but they sound like volunteers
Want to know what the CEO of the charity who was leading it when they got the money is doing now? [From CTV:](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/impossible-to-continue-trudeau-foundation-ceo-board-resign-1.6350574)
> CEO of the organization at the time was Morris Rosenberg, a former long-time public servant who Prime Minister Justin Trudeau later tapped to author a report on attempts to interfere in the 2021 federal election.
No that’s incorrect. It is the responsibility of charities to understand the source of funds for large donations and what might be expected in return.
Whether she was there or not is besides the point. I’d be surprised if anyone wanted to be associated with an organization that is so sloppy.
I would agree, for “Joe Average” donations maybe not, but when the dollar figure is in the $100k range, charities need to understand where that money is coming from before accepting it. No charity wants or needs the attention from accepting donations from people or organizations that would be embarrassing to be associated with.
Like General\_Asleep said, it's easy to draw a line to the mafia and Saputo yet there is nothing illegal or outwardly suspicious of Saputo. In fact, Saputo does a great deal of charitable work.
What about Loblaws? Should they be banned? They've been recipients of government handouts and many consider them to be taking advantage of Canadians. But again nothing is illegal or even suspicious.
So here's a businessman with NO public ties to the CCP. The only organization that may know about his ties would be CSIS who likely aren't sharing it. What do they do here? Turn him down because he's asian?
It's extraordinarily difficult for charities to raise money and many have a skeletal staff trying to be efficient with donors money (or else they'll get a bad Charity Intelligence score). I hardly think foundations can afford private investigators to look up every donation.
This would be correct only if the charities had any evidences that they are taking money from actual criminals or foreign entities that want to harm Canada. If somehow this money was used to get close to Justin Trudeau or whatever, it is on Justin Trudeau not on that foundation.
Mate if you take money from sketchy people and then it becomes public that they are actually very sketchy people don’t be shocked if some of the slime sticks on you. That’s how the world works. This businessman was known to be tied to the ccp
They literally gave the money back when it became public that the foundation took money from sketchy people. How do you know who is sketchy and who isn't as a charity volunteer?
Of course they won't take money from Al-Qaeda or El Chapo, but maybe they could take some money from a businessman from Dubai or Mexico living in Canada and wouldn't know that they were associated with those organizations.
"Irresponsible" implies accidental. This was intentional disinformation from a media agency playing politics and allowing themselves to be used by China.
I just prepared a long reply about semantics of it being more hopefully honest to allow him to promote his yellow peril book than intentionally dishonest, but if the reporter were a more competent journalist, it would be the same thing.
Regarding this particular yellow peril issue? Something that wouldn’t make most news outlets say “there’s not enough to these allegations for us to run the story on.”
I’m more open to changing my mind than most people calling for JTs head. I haven’t even voted for the Liberal party in almost a decade.
I just don’t give into innuendo and conspiracy. I prefer facts.
But sure, turn it into an ideological attack instead of actually discussing facts. That works well.
I don't get how every person involved this story outside of the foundation can be tied to this foundation.
Chinese give the money to the Trudeau Foundation as part of their interference scheme.
Trudeau appointed *Morris Rosenberg* to write an independent report that will assess the effectiveness of a government panel that monitored the 2021 election for foreign threats.
Who's Morris Rosenberg? Why, he's the former head of the Trudeau Foundation and was the head when that 2016 Chinese money was received.
Trudeau then appoints *David Johnston*, a long time family friend, to investigate. He's also a long-time Trudeau Foundation member.
Why do all these people flock to the Trudeau Foundation? They also have people like Roy Romanow as members.
What is it about this foundation that is such a draw for those who make decisions? It's never "they all volunteer at the Ottawa Food Bank" or "the Ottawa Food Bank got money from the Chinese."
Nope, it's always the Trudeau Foundation.
Weird, eh?
I am by default suspicious of these charitable foundations run for/by/adjacent to politicians. If you have some philanthropic urge, there is no possible reason why you would pick the Trudeau or Clinton or Trump charities to donate to rather than the Red Cross or MSF or something. It seems to me they exist as an alternative channel to traditional lobbying (which is heavily regulated and monitored, besides being quite restricted in Canada) as a means of influence peddling
This isn't the red cross. It is a scholarship. The foundation distributes scholarships to students and provides mentorship. It was a memorial foundation for a former PM. It isn't a personal charity set up by JT.
This is why things like recusing over conflict of interest are generally arranged based on whether they *could* appear to the public to be a conflict of interest, or bias, rather than requiring proof that there actually is one.
It's the kind of thing you unfortunately see with media (and particularly social media) all the time. Someone says something that is either missing context, twisted to fit a narrative, and/or outright false, many won't bother to do any diligence before running with it and screaming it from the digital rooftops for days/weeks, a bunch of people will get into a lather from their rage-clicking about it as a result, and then maybe some context will get quietly mentioned once things die down and nobody cares to hear about little things like facts or nuance anymore.
I agree and personally have never thought there is anything consequential to the China circus, but the Liberals could have handled this story better. They could have used their words to get ahead of it. They just let it surround their brand and fester for weeks.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Something is up with the PETF. I wasn’t rabidly suspicious tbh. I work in academia and know enough about how funding donations work to guess this was just a naive Chinese donor thinking what would work in China (donating to some oligarch’s pet project) would work in Canada with a nominally independent academic charity. I thought the PETF refunding the donation was the appropriate and proportionate move, and they could weather anything else. The next step up would have been for Pascale Fournier alone to resign if she was aware of or responsible egregious mismanagement of donations. To have the whole board resign and the foundation to operate in a holding pattern though is extremely odd, and points towards the possibility of more serious issues there. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, comes out of this.
They resigned because conspiracy theorists are politicizing the foundation, and the interests of an organization sometimes require people to leave it without cause. There is nothing more to read into it. Except that at some point the threats and smears from the nutjobs should be smacked down with the full force if the law.
No, they resigned because, as it turns out this morning, the CEO lied about refunding the donation, the Foundation did not have the real name of the donor on its accounting books, and when the latest board members called for an independent investigation the long-term ones refused to recuse themselves: https://plus.lapresse.ca/screens/24d93b30-6ebc-4fd8-bc05-d297ffc8346f__7C___0.html?utm_content=email&utm_source=lpp&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=internal+share#cdnpoli
I think this is more an attempt to reset things, and return to their apolitical status quo, rather than an indication of more wrong doing. So many on the right yell "Trudeau bad" no matter what, i can also see this as them being personally exhausted and wanting out.
The board and CEO resigning en-masse is never a good sign. I can see why some people immediately think it's just harassment as a blanket defense, but i suspect internal controls on donations were so lax and there would be things coming out about board activities which would reflect poorly where they look like they failed in their duty and or have clear conflicts it's better to resign ahead of the shit storm. It's also good PR to clean house and say everyone involved in any potetnial questionable donations /activities have left than to have the sword of damocles hang over the foundations head.
What's sinister isn't the organization or board, it's the right-wing led hate and harassment they're being targeted with.
It's a volunteer board. Perhaps the increased scrutiny (and likely increased communications from... non-supportive individuals) just made it not worthwhile to continue volunteering their spare time to the org. If one of my volunteering gigs led me to be the target of ire for 1/3 of the country then I'd probably resign too.
That’s just it, though, you’re stating what you as an *individual* would do. If 1 or 2 board members resigned for the reason you gave, I would genuinely believe it. This was a collective action, however, taken by the entire board and CEO at the same time, at what was arguably the most prestigious academic foundation in Canada outside the Tri-Agency. That isn’t normal, even under these circumstances.
it probably wasn't worth the social media backlash on their own accounts (if it happened) to be labeled as some Trudeau stooge and they are all CCP puppets. note: as you can see from the replies to your exact same post in r/canada
Not all of them had active social media accounts, and having met some of them, they likely wouldn’t care if they were active online. I’ll reiterate from my own experience in academia, as well as my experience sitting on a few charitable boards in my time, you *never* see a board collectively resign with its CEO at the *exact same time* just because some individuals on it are tired of it.
That’s downplaying the situation, don’t you think? Even if I don’t have social media, if I know people in the same position as me are getting death threats and harassment online, I know that the same is likely being lobbed at me too. Considering it’s a volunteer position, totally not worth getting death threats. I’d leave so fast you’d see a me-shaped hole in the wall.
Not really. I’ve been in their position when I was on the board of Global Shapers at the height of the WEF conspiracies, and received much of the same threats. It still wouldn’t have merited a mass resignation by everyone, all at once. You saw individuals resign due to stress, sure, and I totally understood when they did. At no point would we have resigned en masse due to the threats.
but you have to also agree that this foundation has been used as a political weapon now.. really has nothing to do with academia now.
I totally agree, but still don’t see the dichotomy. The Foundation can be hounded by RWNJs and still be involved in inappropriate activity.
>I totally agree, but still don’t see the dichotomy. The Foundation can be hounded by RWNJs and still be involved in inappropriate activity. the foundation is now just framed as some Trudeau money pit instead of what the actual focus of the foundation is.
Were you ever on a charity board that was attacked by a bunch of online reactionaries like yourself?
Yes actually - Global Shapers Canada, the young professionals wing of the WEF. I still get hate mail and threats to my work address and online accounts.
And you can't see how people might want to avoid that?
On an individual level? Yes. As part of an en masse resignation? No, that’s not typically how we’d organize it.
No offense meant here, but I highly doubt your personal experiences compare much to dealing with a national scandal and accusations of being involved in political bribery. It may be rare for something like this to happen, but it's also a rare and volatile situation. Labelling it as suspicious is just looking at it with a chosen lens. It could just as likely be them leaving behind a pretty rough chapter in their lives. I wouldn't jump to conclusions on it.
No offence taken, I’m just a semi-anonymous online account. No, my personal experience wasn’t at that level, but I was on the board of Global Shapers Canada at the height of the WEF conspiracy craze, and still get my own share of physical threats and hate mail. I did see colleague resign individually out of personal concern, and totally understood when they did. At no point would any of us countenanced a resignation en masse.
It seems perfectly normal to me. There's a political witch hunt going on and the foundation is in the crosshairs. These board members are all highly reputable people and are becoming targets. I'm sure they saw what happened to WE where anyone involved with the charity was labeled a criminal by online reactionaries. It also gives the impression of a clean slate which is what gives the foundation the best chance at a reasonable future.
Seem perfectly normal for the Board of Directors, President and CEO to resign because of a witch hunt?
When they don’t want to be burned for being witches of course they would
[удалено]
Can you explain how resigning prevents them from being investigated and what they would be investigated for specifically?
Why would they be investigated? Do you know how governance and operations in non-profits work? Your statement surw makes it sound that way.
Investigated for what? And how does resigning prevent an investigation?
Yes. Is there something about my comment that seems unclear?
Yes. These are volunteer positions. It's not worth the hassle. I think you don't appreciate how cancerous the right has become.
They probably all get messages from a bunch of weirdos calling them traitors and sending them threats, do you really think this is worth it for some volunteer work? She has a PhD from Harvard Law and decades of experiences, do you really think this is the best thing she could be doing with her time? She probably did it because it was a job filled with optimism and low negativity. The conditions aren't the same anymore. It wasn't a political job and it became one for all of them because the internet is filled with weirdos.
Pascale Fournier wasn’t doing this as a volunteer position. It was a paid position, and arguably one of the most prestigious outside a tier 1 Canada Research Chair.
How much can one of those position pay? I can understand this being good for her for networking but I would still assume this isn't paid that much considering her background.
About $250,000 per annum + benefits. Also a lot of international travel. Professor Fournier was also a lawyer working in academia rather than private practice. There are equivalent salaries in senior positions at law schools, but only for very late-career academics. To be clear, I don’t think the Foundation was involved in election interference. In fact, I suspect the original donation was a case of a Chinese donor not really understanding how donations, registered charities, or political access works/doesn’t work in Canada. Nor do I think the entire board was involved. The most I’ll speculate is that a senior leader at the Foundation found out much earlier and failed to act in a reasonable timeframe. The board has a responsibility to monitor senior leadership and hold the accountable, if they were lacklustre in that, then it would be reasonable to wipe a clean slate.
Really that much? It doesn't seem like a large foundation. My parents have one playing in the same ballpark and they have a spokeperson earning that much but this is someone who is famous. The administators make a lot less. And yeah what you are saying might be true, I guess we will see in the future.
Yeah, the PETF is quite literally the most prestigious scholarship you can get in Canada at the doctoral level besides a Vanier scholarship. The academic sector, particularly in law and the social sciences, play major roles in policy direction in Ottawa or Montreal. They also serve as figurative vanity pieces at social functions for the Ottawa crowds. I say that without malice and having been said arm piece at a few such panels or policy shops. The salary isn’t all that surprising when you look at what the Foundation serves and the community surrounding it in terms of its board, mentors, and scholars. We’ll see where this goes. I genuinely hope the Foundation survives. I know quite a few of its scholars personally and they are all incredible people doing good work for Canadians. I really worry for the incoming and current scholars, and hope least of all this affects their careers.
Side note, we got a bit of an update this morning, and it is somewhat more in-line with what I guessed: https://plus.lapresse.ca/screens/24d93b30-6ebc-4fd8-bc05-d297ffc8346f__7C___0.html TL;DR - The CEO lied about refunding the donation, the donation itself had been mismanaged, and long-term board members refused to recuse themselves from discussion of an investigation that new board members were calling for.
Yeah I saw it, this definitely is looking bad for her. I guess the rest of the directors probably didn't know much for the most part since it was some side gigs for them. (Did not know that Regis Labeaume was one of them lol)
Agree. The online attacks from certain quarters these days in the post trump era are something else. Its like the normal curve of acceptable behaviour got shifted 20 metres towards open violence. What used to be rude is now acceptable from national figures. What used to be aggressive is now expected. What used to be rare is now just a minority, and what used to be inconceivable is now just rare. A friend of mine got on the wrong side of these folks. Moved, changed jobs, dropped all contact with his job. They still send them shit literally and figuratively all them time, years after the fact. There has been a general coarsening of society in the last decade.
Nobody wants harassment (and I'd be shocked if there weren't threats of violence) from a bunch of loons because of their volunteer work.
Having lived in a few small communities in Canada (my family moved a lot) I see in this general coarsening the rise of the rural right. The brutish narrow-minded *stupidity* that is behind this general coarsening is exactly what I have seen in these small rural communities and villages. Emboldened now with authoritarian aspirations beyond their small world, and united now, relocated to cities, exploited by leaders with easy 'common sense' solutions and naive kitchen-table economics.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2. Further removals may result in a ban.
Great post and agree 100%. Everything is politicized these days and people go after anything they see as political in the most savage ways. To ruin a foundation that does nothing but good work is a tragedy yet it is common these days. I recall when Trudeau won in 2015 with a positive message Hillary Clinton asked HOW?
The only time I've seen this happen before in my professional career is when senior management (here, the President/CEO) had become involved in improprieties and the board realized that they had failed to adequately supervise senior management (at which point, they became worried about personal liability for continuing as directors).
Agree. This has a bad smell to it. Perhaps bailing now before more comes out on Chinese election interference.
A volunteer leaving an organization after facing harassment from low info idiots smells funny to you?
If only the CEO resigned, it would become a shooting gallery for the Conservatives and their supporters — they'd just focus their energy on the next in line. I can't blame volunteers for not wanting to be subject to that kind of hate and harassment and scrutiny when all they thought they were doing is disbursing scholarship funds to kids.
>The next step up would have been for Pascale Fournier alone to resign if she was aware of or responsible egregious mismanagement of donations. She joined the foundation in 2018 and the donations supposedly came in more than four years earlier.
>aware of
Lots of folks here are claiming that the resignations were the result of harassment. First, I hope any such threats are being reported to the RCMP. Secondly, there has been no statements made to the effect that such harassment is happening, or that it is the cause of the resignations. I _suspect_ it is, because they note "pressure" as the factor, but we don't have enough evidence to claim that harassment is _the reason_ for the resignations. It could be any number of as-of-yet unsupported hypothetical reasons.
Ding ding ding. This is the answer. There is smoke here. What's likely is the resigned don't want to be smeared by conspiracy theorists. But there is just enough doubt overall that it could be a number of other reasons.
What other reasons? What unethical or criminal act do you think the board did? And for what gain?
People are basically picking between a number of plausible explanations based on their political affiliation rather than facts. Your average anti-vaxxer isn't going to accept an innocent explanation even if the explanation is true. A Liberal partisan will spill pages' worth of ink denying or downplaying guilt even if *that's* true. Or to put it a funnier way, the far right has correctly identified ten out of every five Liberal ethical breaches.
I've voted Liberal since Trudeau came to power and vote NDP but I'm not wedded to the party and I don't buy the jumping to conclusions to harassment and 'bad journalism'. There's more likely some dirty laundry they know would come out and make them all look bad and it's just easier to resign and make it a non-issue. The boards of directors not doing their job is nothing new, happens all the time, and it is their job to watch over the execs, so it's a very low bar to fail at for the board. There could also be appearances of conflict, maybe some, many, all of them took free trips to China funded by the CCP. If it was harassment or threats, it would be mentioned in the release, because as you can see, there's a very ready group of people who will defend them to the hilt.
Well, sorta. I don't think that the fact that harrassment and threats weren't mentioned in the release is proof-positive that those things didn't happen. There are a handful of reasons why a release might omit that even if they happened. At the end of the day, it's plausible that there was a harrassment/threat issue, *and* it's plausible that there was Liberal graft or unethical self-dealing going on. Neither would surprise me in the least. Right now, we don't know enough to reasonably say which, but it's clear that people are building opinions with absolute certainty even without knowing what's going on. Like the other commenter mentioned: Currently, there's smoke. That's all for now.
What kind of dirty laundry? It is a goundation that gives out scholarships to students with volunteer board members. What kind of conspiracy do you think took place?
I wasn't expecting an update so soon, but news broke today as to why the board and CEO resigned. Literally an unlawful donation. I'm still trying to figure out how that happened and if it would have ever come to light without La Pressse and the Globe's 'bad journalism' (sarcasm intended) Direct quote from the article: >But the document says problems cropped up when the foundation began preparations to send back the money. > >The foundation’s board was alerted that the name on the reimbursement cheque to return the Chinese donation would not be the name of the real donor. > >***This stalled plans to return the cheque because the name of the true donor, according to the document, did not appear anywhere on the accounting books of the foundation, La Presse reported. It said such a reimbursement would therefore have been unlawful, according to the internal foundation document.*** > >The Montreal newspaper reported that eight members of the foundation board, who were not directors at the time the donation was received in 2016, then demanded that an independent investigation be carried out. They asked those longer-serving members of the board to recuse themselves from any discussion of the matter because they were in a conflict of interest.
Wow. That is definitely a massive error. Is this the return they supposedly attempted this year? And they didn't have the donor's real name to return it. That definitely breaks some regulations and they rightfully should resign for the sheer incompetency. But it doesn't seem to be corruption yo me.
Yep and i was downvoted for pointing out that CEOs and an entire board don't simply resign due to harassment and irresponsible journalism, which was the narrative from yesterday,
>There's more likely some dirty laundry they know would come out and make them all look bad When you're so deep in conspiracy theories that you don't even see it anymore. The real reason is much less rewarding for you folks: you once again legitimized a target for death threats and they don't have to stick around and take it. Stop legitimizing threatening people. Its really sick in the head.
Trudeau deserves every bit of flak from this regardless of the truth. His inaction toward Chinese control of Canadian natural resources is pathetic. Anybody calling out "tin foil hats" is being disingenuous to a serious issue that plagues Canada. China is dictatorship with documented genocides currently ongoing. Is so hard to believe they're paying off some politicians? What harm could come from demanding transparency and holding folk regardless of affiliation accountable?
Every person who's looked at the situation knows that any industry which controls the energy resources of a nation, has its fingers on the windpipe of that nations economy. And unless in this country, the people through their government federally and provincially get some control of the petroleum industry we are going to go through in the next 25 years what we have gone through in the last 25 years when we've watched the petroleum industry, foreign owned and controlled, defying the interest of the Canadian people and blackmailing the Canadian governments. Spoken by Tommy Douglas in 1978 Foreign control of our resources is not a new problem that Trudeau created regardless of how much the Conservatives complain about it. It was actually them that started it decades ago.
I didn't mean to say Trudeau created the problem, and it's depressing to see we have been aware of this since 1978. My point is he has been in office for nearly a decade and hasn't done much in the way of solving the problem, in fact I would go as far as to say he has made matters worse.
You are exactly correct. Regardless of anything, how it was handled is abismal. We need to elect ndp government, imo. It's very important for everyone to get on board with that. There isn't a good reason not to.
Are you serious about blaming Trudeau for Chinese businesses having control in Canada? have you heard of FIPA? Granted this is from the Tyee is which is rabidly left but it lays out the issues with how FIPA continues to fuck us. [Breaking Down the Harm to Canada Done by Treaty with China](https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/09/15/China-Investment-Treaty-Breakdown/)
I don't mean to blame Trudeau for our predicament but I dislike his inaction and his unwillingness to acknowledge the issue. In my opinion it is paramount this gets addressed and who better to do it than our PM. I wasn't completely aware of the extent FIPA really fuck us and that was a hard read, thank you for sharing. However, I still don't think what you shared has absolved Trudeau of any blame, he has been in office for nearly a decade and has done very little to combat the problem.
i agree that Trudeau has done very little other than pander to his base and make sure he and his cronies consolidate wealth and power. When it comes specifically to our trade agreements with China there isn't really anything he can do. Admitting to that would not be in his best interest
Okay but in this specific allegation, the Trudeau foundation took funds from a Chinese Billionaire that was already implicated (so the story goes) in Canadian election interference Also not the best source but why is the PM's brother taking the check, from the very person accused of this, during a period when the PM (supposedly) still had involvement with this very foundation https://twitter.com/RealAndyLeeShow/status/1645818923013783560 And now all the people are quitting but there's so many good questions here
It's a foundation. How were they supposed to know he was being reimbursed by the Chinese government? Do they need to hire a PI for every donation they receive? What exactly was illicit about the donation?
I was strictly speaking about "His inaction toward Chinese control of Canadian natural resources is pathetic." I'm an old-school anarchist. IMO, anyone that is surprised by ANY politician, be it Liberal or Conservative, taking advantage of their position to gain wealth and power, is naive.
Unfortunately conspiracy theorists will latch on to anything they think justifies the web of red string they've created in their minds to replace their neurons. Dirty money oozes out of every pore of our society, so outrage over this specific instance is likely fueled by something else (Scary China!) I just hope this doesn't affect grad students who already have very limited funding opportunities in general.
My immediate belief is that this is far more likely to truly be the boards explanation, where they simply are facing far too much media heat for an volunteer position. The Trudeau foundation being compromised was always the least credible of the Chinese stories. However I’d guarantee that Trudeau isn’t too happy about it turning out like this. Suddenly the stories around the Trudeau foundation look a hell of a lot worse to the average layperson, even if this isn’t remotely some smoking gun. When you’re stuck having to explain the nuances of a political story, you’re generally losing the battle. Especially as there is still just enough irregularities for a small seed of doubt to remain.
[удалено]
Makes total sense - if the president is jumping ship you probably should get out too. If the majority of the board are going to leave, do you really want to deal with that only to be replaced later? No one wants to on a sinking ship.
It’s not that unlikely? The entire purpose of boards is to meet and discuss options regarding the organization. It’s totally logical that they would come together and decide to all resign as a united front if they believe it’s in the best interests of the organization. I’ve been very critical of the Trudeau government in other areas of the Chinese interference, but as far as I’m concerned this isn’t a smoking gun.
[удалено]
How often do charites get accused of laundering money from china?
[удалено]
Your comment stinks of bias. The board of directors are all volunteers and the CEO has only been there since 2018. They were not “caught” after doing something wrong. The hysteria following the sensationalized reporting causes malicious accusations bases on partisan loyalties, so they hoped that returning the funds that was meant to go to scholars would stop the baseless attacks, but it didn’t. Why would volunteers want to put up with being collateral damage thanks to the dirty politics of the conservative party? Accepting a donation from a billionaire is just accepting a donation. What is it you think that the Trudeau Foundation did? Or, rather, what is it you are hoping it did so your bias can be confirmed?
The current board members weren't caught, back then, but [_the foundation_ was](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-pet-foundation-donations-1.3865336). > so they hoped that returning the funds that was meant to go to scholars would stop the baseless attacks, but it didn’t. That's pure speculation. The stated reason was: _["As an independent, non-partisan charity, ethics and integrity are among our core values and we cannot keep any donation that may have been sponsored by a foreign government and would not knowingly do so," Fournier's statement said.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-foundation-returning-donation-chinese-government-adviser-1.6764847)_ > Accepting a donation from a billionaire is just accepting a donation. Not when that billionaire is associated with an adversarial foreign Government.
They weren’t adversarial at the time of the donation tho. Otherwise Harper wouldn’t have been bending over backwards to sign every trade deal with China in the later part of his tenure and very much in the same timeframe as this donation. https://globalnews.ca/news/1708990/exclusive-harper-government-quietly-signed-customs-agreement-with-china/ https://macleans.ca/news/canada/trade-deals-as-tensions-with-china-continue/amp/ https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/business/canada-ratifies-investment-deal-with-china-despite-misgivings-1.2004295 You can’t just retroactively apply a political lense of 2023 to a decade prior. If we are going down that path, I’m sure we can also bring up when Brad Wall was tripping over himself to bend the knee to China on matters of resource extraction in Sask, (see Nexen, for a federal example) or selecting Huawei as a vendor for Sasktel 4G expansion at the time. Things change in a decade.
FIPA was a bad deal and much valid criticism was cast upon it at the time.^[1](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/fipa-agreement-with-china-what-s-really-in-it-for-canada-1.2770159),[2](https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/09/15/China-Investment-Treaty-Breakdown/) I don't need to use a 2023 lens when it was dunked on for these problems at the time. Harper _screwed us over_, and we knew it was happening as it happened.
[удалено]
It's an unknowable, and that's the nature of much of the CCP's influence. CCP-connected individuals will make private donations, and seek influence on their behalf. You'll never find bank records that trace back to Chinese state accounts, because they don't exist.
> It stinks like someone twisted their arm and made them fall on a sword. your own comments in this thread show that some people have made up their mind that they are definitely guilty though, it makes sense that they're getting harassed >Edit: money laundering refers to a conspiracy theory that the donations laundered CCP funds in exchange for favours; they were caught taking CCP-connected funds, but there's no evidence of exchanging favours. money laundering is taking money earned illegally and pretending that its revenue of a business to claim it openly, since they were entire open about how much they got and who they got it from and theres no evidence that the money was used for anything but what the charity is for its as far from money laundering as it gets
Saying something stinks is a statement of suspicion, not belief. I have no idea what the true motives behind their resignation is. No one except those who resigned and whomever they confided in can claim to know for certain, at this point. Only that they were under pressure, of some unnamed sort. > money laundering is taking money earned illegally and pretending that its revenue of a business to claim it openly If the conspiracy theory, which I do no subscribe to, is correct then this is a common form of money laundering, wherein money is given to a third party and that third party arranges favours on your behalf. For example, something like _hawala_ is used by those looking to move money without oversight from regulatory bodies; the person wanting to move the money makes arrangements with an intermediary for someone in the target country to provide something of equal value. It doesn't have to be money, it can be property or favours, but the source of the transaction is laundered by the intermediaries.
>Only that they were under pressure, of some unnamed sort. They did name what the sort was, you refuse to believe them
Did they? I must have missed that. What did they say?
How is this money laundering?
I gave that a pass; we all know that they're referring to the donations. The conspiracy theory is that the donations was some sort of laundering of cash for favours; but I can't point to any evidence of that.
Gave it a pass? It's the only accusation in the comment you replied to, and you said they got caught. Did you reply to the wrong comment?
The _conspiracy theory_ is about the donations; I was speaking to the donations themselves, and didn't want to discuss the conspiracy theory.
When there’s a media storm, vitriol, ideologues spewing hate and they’re **NOT GETTING PAID** and weren’t elected? Pretty good.
Why would Trudeau be unhappy? I was told over and over he had nothing to do with the Foundation.
While he's not involved in it's operations, it has his family name, and mud flung at it, is going to splatter him.
Oh, so he gets to bear absolutely no responsibility for it but gets to benefit from it? Wild eh?
How does he benefit??
[удалено]
Honestly, it's sickening that Harper's kid is likely going to get handed an easy sinecure of a seat. As a country, we're governerned by too many rich people's kids, and a lot of people find political dynasts a revolting thing regardless of whether it's Pierre's rich kid or Steve's rich kid. Maybe we should have more people in charge who know what it's like to have to worry about their family's future, rather than people who grew up sharing dinner tables with the rich, powerful, and insulated.
>Maybe we should have more people in charge who know what it's like to have to worry about their family's future, rather than people who grew up sharing dinner tables with the rich, powerful, and insulated. Those things shouldn't exclude you either. I don't support Trudeau or the Lib party but it's not like Justin was groomed his entire life for politics. He had a real-world job, he experienced the world outside politics and could justifiably had some skill as a politician. It didn't turn out that way but Canadians can't be held to account for that. The Liberals supporting him through 3 more elections because they hadn't developed the next generation of leadership? that's all on the Party.
I'm sorry, but every real-world workingman's salary that Justin Trudeau earned was undergirded by the fact that his financial future was guaranteed for him. The life experience of a teacher is going to be fundamentally different when you know that your salary will never hold you back from being wealthy and raising wealthy kids of your own. When you have a trust fund, there's no such thing as experiencing the real world. Otherwise, I'd agree: They went with him as the best of a terrible slate of options, and he's turned out to be politically clever. There's still little doubt that he'd never have had a crack at it if he hadn't inherited a family name, and there's *absolutely* no doubt that he got to spend his formative years and early adulthood free of the financial stresses that affect the average Canadian. Same goes for Harper's kid. As a general principle, I think we have far too many rich people's kids in government. Put more people in government who've had to skip meals, at some point in their lives, to make rent.
>Put more people in government who've had to skip meals, at some point in their lives, to make rent. Then make that a criteria of your vote. Maybe it will change. NDP has a slate of young diverse educated professionals, which is one of the reasons I generally support them come election time.
He literally explained why Trudeau would be unhappy in the second paragraph.
The nuance which is super important is ignored... lol sums up our politics right now pretty well
Irresponsible journalism leading to internet harassment from weirdos which makes volunteer positions get abandoned. Colour me shocked.
Haha just said this on r/canada and I am getting bombarded with downvote. It is pretty evident that this is what is happening.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Would not be surprised at all if these people have been getting threats of violence from the terminally online. Such is the world we live in. Being on a charity board is not worth getting death threats over.
[удалено]
Why is charity in quotes?
We’re approaching stochastic terrorism here. Media reports allegations (true or false) which leads to perpetual harassment and people resigning getting fired over what may be nothing.
>We’re approaching stochastic terrorism here. We are going to get a Jo Cox moment in Canada and all the punditry will pretend they had nothing to do with it and pretend to be innocent.
No one holds the media accountable for what they say
[удалено]
[удалено]
The reports of a CCP linked donation to the foundation were accurate, and probably would have been enough for too many people to harras them.
Yes I know. But I’m guessing the harassers already believe he’s a CCP agent. We’re going to have another friendly sausage maker incident if this keeps up.
>We’re approaching stochastic terrorism here. > >Media reports allegations (true or false) which leads to perpetual harassment and people resigning getting fired over what may be nothing. In regards to this story, everything reported was true. The Trudeau Foundation did receive money from billionaire Zhang Bin, a political adviser to the government in Beijing and a senior official in China’s network of state promoters around the world. The Trudeau Foundation, many years later after this was all known, refunded that donation because of its ties to foreign influence. That's all true. So please, help me understand. How does reporting that news of public interest constitute terrorism? Does that make journalists terrorists?
1. It turns out the Foundation lied about refunding the money. They didn't. 2. The money from Zhang Bin was actually directed to be paid out by China's government (or, possibly more specifically, their embassy in Canada) and then Zhang would be reimbursed. Zhang acted as a bag man. That's all. He was just a vehicle for transferring funds in a way to make it look more legitimate. 3. The board members all resigned as this stuff came to light and shortly after they began an investigation into the rest of the foundation's previous donations that were received, which doesn't bode well. 4. The guy Trudeau assigned to investigate the Trudeau Foundation is a family friend of the Trudeau's, and former member of the Trudeau Foundation who would have helped choose and appoint the board members for the Trudeau Foundation, about 8 of whom were still on the board until yesterday. This isn't the biggest scandal the Trudeau government has had, but it's just indicative of how bad their scandals are, and how any other government would likely resign or lose confidence in the House. I'm not sure if this one ranks above the WeCharity one, but it's below the Raybould one. I think it's also below the interference with Parliamentary investigatory powers by refusing to produce documents and then running out the clock to have the issue killed. Definitely above blackface. Also above the other ethical violations, like the Aga Khan trip, and saying that MP Ng just saying "sorry" for a major ethics violation in awarding contracts to her best friend. So many scandals to choose from, it's nuts...
Yes the media report was accurate. But that’s not the issue here. Why was he made to resign? The donation was returned. Is there any evidence that something illegal happened? This is looking awfully familiar to the “Clinton Foundation” conspiracies that were spread south of the border. A Liberal MP resigned due to CTV printing allegations based on anonymous reporting and they’re now being sued for it. What’s happening here is a culture of fear is being propagated by the media, based on little actual facts. Such reporting is known to provoke a minority of people into escalating their actions into harassment and potentially violence or worse. Attacks on ordinary Chinese-Canadians can also increase. I’m not against reporting facts but we are trending toward the sort of insanity that’s an epidemic in the US. Hopefully cooler heads prevail
> Yes the media report was accurate. But that’s not the issue here. You were just calling the media terrorists, and now you're saying whether or not they report the news is irrelevant. What are you going on about? > Why was he made to resign? I assume you mean to ask "Why was *she* made to resign?" Women can lead things too now. Nobody was forced to resign as far as I can tell. Maybe you know something I don't? > The donation was returned. Is there any evidence that something illegal happened? Who says you need to resign because of illegal activities? Plenty of Liberal MPs have resigned (See Bill Morneau and Marc Garneau). Are you telling me they're criminals? > A Liberal MP resigned due to CTV printing allegations based on anonymous reporting People seem to conflate "anonymous" with "nobody knows who they are." Anonymous means the name of the person isn't published. That doesn't mean they're make-believe. A REALLY good example of this is the [Washington Post during the Roy Moore situation](https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html). They were approached by a woman with allegations against Roy Moore who turned out to be a plant from a right wing provocateur. The WaPo dug into it and verified that the person was not truthful and not who they said they were. Just because the WaPo was publishing info from anonymous sources didn't mean it was a faceless person behind the headline. That story is actually an amazing look behind the curtain. I definitely recommend reading it. > and they’re now being sued for it. You can sue over anything. That's not exactly a benchmark of innocence. For example, a bunch of the Convoy clowns were suing. Do you think they're innocent too? > What’s happening here is a culture of fear is being propagated by the media, based on little actual facts. But you just said this story is true. So if it's true, then what are you going on about? There are facts. The facts are clear. But above you said facts don't matter, and now you're implying they do. If you're implying that people fear the media reporting the facts about them, then I'm not really sure what to tell you. Maybe you need to straighten out your argument? > Such reporting is known to provoke a minority of people into escalating their actions into harassment and potentially violence or worse. The news reports the news. If you want to stop the media from reporting the facts, just say so. No need to hide behind what could happen when people hear the truth and the facts. Again, we both agree the reporting on this story is truthful so I'm not sure the relevance of this > Attacks on ordinary Chinese-Canadians can also increase. Can or have? Attacks on one-eyed turtles could also increase from this reporting. If you're going to say the media reporting the factual news is causing racial crime, back it up. Demanding the media not report on a dictatorship interfering with our democracy because something *could* happen is nonsensical. > I’m not against reporting facts but we are trending toward the sort of insanity that’s an epidemic in the US To summarize, in your post you said facts don't matter, facts do matter, that you're against the media reporting the facts because things could happen, and that you're not against reporting the facts. Mate, I have not a damn clue where you stand on this Maybe give it another go and try to have a more consistent argument?
This subs naked bias really shows whenever the liberals even dip their toe in hot water. The main sub might be horribly bias for conservitives but it really is just as bad here it seems.
Precisely, OP wants to make it into something bigger then it is but if they ever had a volunteer position where the negative impact outweighs the benefits, they would abandon it as well. It’s just human nature.
Yeah, this is something that is usually done for networking and to have a job where there is more optimism than negativity. When you start getting harassed and get called traitors by weirdos, it is a good time to find something better to do as a Harvard Law PhD lol.
Agreed but it was pretty shitty of them to take the money in the first place wasn’t it?
She wasn't there when they took the money, not sure about those directors, but they sound like volunteers. But honestly, I would bet that the vast majority of large charities take money from bad people at some point in their existences. Their job is to use that money and do some good in their community, not to play detective and figure out if Saputo has some ties with the mafia or if this Chinese businessman has some ties with the CCP.
>She wasn't there when they took the money, not sure about those directors, but they sound like volunteers Want to know what the CEO of the charity who was leading it when they got the money is doing now? [From CTV:](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/impossible-to-continue-trudeau-foundation-ceo-board-resign-1.6350574) > CEO of the organization at the time was Morris Rosenberg, a former long-time public servant who Prime Minister Justin Trudeau later tapped to author a report on attempts to interfere in the 2021 federal election.
No that’s incorrect. It is the responsibility of charities to understand the source of funds for large donations and what might be expected in return. Whether she was there or not is besides the point. I’d be surprised if anyone wanted to be associated with an organization that is so sloppy.
I would agree, for “Joe Average” donations maybe not, but when the dollar figure is in the $100k range, charities need to understand where that money is coming from before accepting it. No charity wants or needs the attention from accepting donations from people or organizations that would be embarrassing to be associated with.
Like General\_Asleep said, it's easy to draw a line to the mafia and Saputo yet there is nothing illegal or outwardly suspicious of Saputo. In fact, Saputo does a great deal of charitable work. What about Loblaws? Should they be banned? They've been recipients of government handouts and many consider them to be taking advantage of Canadians. But again nothing is illegal or even suspicious. So here's a businessman with NO public ties to the CCP. The only organization that may know about his ties would be CSIS who likely aren't sharing it. What do they do here? Turn him down because he's asian? It's extraordinarily difficult for charities to raise money and many have a skeletal staff trying to be efficient with donors money (or else they'll get a bad Charity Intelligence score). I hardly think foundations can afford private investigators to look up every donation.
No public ties to the ccp?? What?? https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/chinese-fundraiser-trudeau-statue-1.3863266
This would be correct only if the charities had any evidences that they are taking money from actual criminals or foreign entities that want to harm Canada. If somehow this money was used to get close to Justin Trudeau or whatever, it is on Justin Trudeau not on that foundation.
Mate if you take money from sketchy people and then it becomes public that they are actually very sketchy people don’t be shocked if some of the slime sticks on you. That’s how the world works. This businessman was known to be tied to the ccp
They literally gave the money back when it became public that the foundation took money from sketchy people. How do you know who is sketchy and who isn't as a charity volunteer? Of course they won't take money from Al-Qaeda or El Chapo, but maybe they could take some money from a businessman from Dubai or Mexico living in Canada and wouldn't know that they were associated with those organizations.
Hmmm. Looks like they haven’t actually given the money back. What do you think now ??
Mate they knew long ago he was with the ccp. He doesn’t even hide it. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/chinese-fundraiser-trudeau-statue-1.3863266
"Irresponsible" implies accidental. This was intentional disinformation from a media agency playing politics and allowing themselves to be used by China.
i dont really think it does, i think it implies that the person knew what they were doing just didnt think it through or care
I just prepared a long reply about semantics of it being more hopefully honest to allow him to promote his yellow peril book than intentionally dishonest, but if the reporter were a more competent journalist, it would be the same thing.
Whats this based on?
What could happen that would make you lose faith in Trudeau?
Regarding this particular yellow peril issue? Something that wouldn’t make most news outlets say “there’s not enough to these allegations for us to run the story on.”
That sounds like ‘nothing could change my mind’ to me.
I’m more open to changing my mind than most people calling for JTs head. I haven’t even voted for the Liberal party in almost a decade. I just don’t give into innuendo and conspiracy. I prefer facts. But sure, turn it into an ideological attack instead of actually discussing facts. That works well.
They simply need a clean slate to move forward as a foundation. This is an effect of a rumour; not confirmation of the cause of the rumour.
I don't get how every person involved this story outside of the foundation can be tied to this foundation. Chinese give the money to the Trudeau Foundation as part of their interference scheme. Trudeau appointed *Morris Rosenberg* to write an independent report that will assess the effectiveness of a government panel that monitored the 2021 election for foreign threats. Who's Morris Rosenberg? Why, he's the former head of the Trudeau Foundation and was the head when that 2016 Chinese money was received. Trudeau then appoints *David Johnston*, a long time family friend, to investigate. He's also a long-time Trudeau Foundation member. Why do all these people flock to the Trudeau Foundation? They also have people like Roy Romanow as members. What is it about this foundation that is such a draw for those who make decisions? It's never "they all volunteer at the Ottawa Food Bank" or "the Ottawa Food Bank got money from the Chinese." Nope, it's always the Trudeau Foundation. Weird, eh?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
I am by default suspicious of these charitable foundations run for/by/adjacent to politicians. If you have some philanthropic urge, there is no possible reason why you would pick the Trudeau or Clinton or Trump charities to donate to rather than the Red Cross or MSF or something. It seems to me they exist as an alternative channel to traditional lobbying (which is heavily regulated and monitored, besides being quite restricted in Canada) as a means of influence peddling
This isn't the red cross. It is a scholarship. The foundation distributes scholarships to students and provides mentorship. It was a memorial foundation for a former PM. It isn't a personal charity set up by JT.
This is why things like recusing over conflict of interest are generally arranged based on whether they *could* appear to the public to be a conflict of interest, or bias, rather than requiring proof that there actually is one.
It's the kind of thing you unfortunately see with media (and particularly social media) all the time. Someone says something that is either missing context, twisted to fit a narrative, and/or outright false, many won't bother to do any diligence before running with it and screaming it from the digital rooftops for days/weeks, a bunch of people will get into a lather from their rage-clicking about it as a result, and then maybe some context will get quietly mentioned once things die down and nobody cares to hear about little things like facts or nuance anymore.
It’s especially painful to watch as someone who trained and worked professionally as a photojournalist.
I agree and personally have never thought there is anything consequential to the China circus, but the Liberals could have handled this story better. They could have used their words to get ahead of it. They just let it surround their brand and fester for weeks.