{"id":64827,"date":"2020-09-09T23:37:00","date_gmt":"2020-09-09T20:37:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/en.buradabiliyorum.com\/the-rise-and-fall-of-we\/"},"modified":"2020-09-09T23:37:00","modified_gmt":"2020-09-09T20:37:00","slug":"the-rise-and-fall-of-we","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/the-rise-and-fall-of-we\/","title":{"rendered":"#The rise and fall of WE"},"content":{"rendered":"

“#The rise and fall of WE<\/strong>”<\/p>\n

\n
\n This article app<\/a>ears in print in the October 2020 issue of Maclean\u2019s magazine with the headline, \u201cFrom WE to they.\u201d On Sept. 9, 2020, WE Charity confirmed it will be shutting down its Canadian operations and the Kielburgers will step down.<\/i><\/p>\n

An adolescent boy in a blue T-shirt, hosting a press conference on his first trip<\/a> abroad, is sitting shoulder-to-shoulder with an Indian girl as she reads from a piece of paper. In front of Canadian reporters, the girl implores the Indian government to address the practice of child labour.<\/p>\n

The boy, Craig Kielburger, needs no notes. With what a travelling Maclean\u2019s<\/em> reporter then described as \u201cthe poised assurance of a veteran performer,\u201d young Craig demands a meeting with prime minister Jean Chr\u00e9tien to discuss the issue.<\/p>\n

\u201cForget being prime minister for a second. Just simply as a Canadian, it\u2019s his moral responsibility to do this,\u201d he insists. The two meet for 15 minutes five days later, in January 1996, and though Craig complains to reporters that Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s commitment to child labourers is \u201cvague,\u201d the appointment itself is an out-and-out victory for a growing movement of impassioned Canadian youth.<\/p>\n

Fast-forward nearly two decades. Onstage in front of 16,000 youth who have earned their tickets through service and fundraising, Craig Kielburger is elated. Wearing a blazer-and-jeans combo that matches his older brother Marc\u2019s, he hypes up the crowd. \u201cWe are honoured to welcome to the stage two individuals who are passionate about young people, bettering their community and the world.\u201d<\/p>\n

For one of the guests, it is a \u201cfirst public appearance\u201d since being sworn in less than a week ago, Marc exclaims. \u201cHow cool is that?\u201d The fresh-faced crowd goes wild. The guest, Marc tells them, \u201ctruly believes in the power of young people\u201d and \u201ctruly believes in you.\u201d<\/p>\n

As Justin Trudeau and his wife, Sophie Gr\u00e9goire Trudeau, appear on stage, a hot microphone catches Craig making a joke about \u201ccampaign rallies\u201d as he hugs the newly elected Prime Minister.<\/p>\n

In his brief remarks, Trudeau, with rolled-up shirt sleeves, sums up the nebulous mission of the charity\u2019s modern-day iteration. \u201cWE Day is about showing you that \u2018we\u2019 is powerful, that \u2018me\u2019 as part of \u2018we\u2019 is powerful, and that together we can and will change the world.\u201d<\/p>\n

The contrast between the two images is stark. In the former, a young boy rails against the vague assurances of one Canadian prime minister, demanding he back up his empathetic signals with action; in the latter, that boy-turned-seasoned-charity-mogul embraces the platitudes of another PM, seemingly secure in his belief that this is the best way to change the world.<\/p>\n

Craig learned early about the intersection of power, youth and influence. The charitable behemoth now known as WE was propelled by smart fundraising and the dedication of young do-gooders, to be sure, but also by successful solicitation of powerful politicians and corporate interests.<\/p>\n

Headed by an activist wunderkind<\/em>\u2014Greta Thunberg is not the first\u2014and fuelled by celebrity, the Kielburgers\u2019 growing organization sought to go beyond freeing foreign children from bondage. Today it defies easy description, from its high school clubs to international development projects to ethical chocolate sales to mental health advocacy. From simple beginnings, it twisted off in umpteen well-intentioned directions until, for better or worse, its brand became synonymous with good intentions themselves.<\/p>\n

Their aura of positivity and stadium rallying cries made the Kielburgers and Trudeau\u2019s sunny-ways Liberals perfect dance partners. But instead of vaulting the organization to new heights, a hastily conceived pandemic-era partnership exposed, for WE and the Trudeau government both, the perils of acting with virtuous conviction, absent second thought.<\/p>\n

Scrutiny of the dead-on-arrival Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG) program led to a conflict-of-interest investigation for Trudeau. The Kielburger undoing may be bigger yet as corporate donors abandon the cause, school boards rethink their ties and critics call for the brothers to cede control.<\/p>\n

\"Craig's<\/img><\/p>\n

Craig\u2019s first petition at age 12 (Courtesy of WE)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

***<\/p>\n

It is an origin story told countless times: 12-year-old Craig Kielburger was at home in Thornhill, Ont., ready to flip to the comics section of the Toronto Star on an April morning in 1995. Then he saw a front-page article about a Pakistani child labourer turned activist who\u2019d been killed.<\/p>\n

He told his Grade 7 class about the death of Iqbal Masih and asked if anyone wanted to start a group to carry on Masih\u2019s mission. \u201cWe were all asked to write an essay on why we would want to be involved,\u201d recalls Ashley Stetts in an email. She joined the group before they even settled on a name: Free the Children.<\/p>\n

In the early months, there were petitions to foreign leaders and speeches at nearby schools. Despite its members\u2019 youth, or because of it, the group found a growing audience. Reaching powerful ears was soon a priority. Garage-sale fundraisers were quickly overshadowed by the windfall of $150,000 in donations that came after Craig\u2019s speech at an Ontario Federation of Labour convention.<\/p>\n

‘It wasn\u2019t necessarily an organized effort with a clear goal. We were 13.’<\/p>\n

Late in 1995, Craig embarked on the seven-week trip to South Asia that would see him connect with Chr\u00e9tien. He came home to a hero\u2019s welcome and attention outside Canada. He appeared before U.S. congressional committees, met with vice-president Al Gore and was the subject of a glowing profile on the popular U.S. news<\/a> broadcast 60 Minutes<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Supporters popped up south of the border. \u201cWe shared a similar mission and passion related to child labour,\u201d says Shannon Goold, who started a Free the Children chapter in Washington. \u201cBut it wasn\u2019t necessarily an organized effort with a clear goal. We were 13.\u201d<\/p>\n

If there was an obvious goal, aside from spreading awareness, Craig articulated it on C-em in 1996: \u201cThe eventual elimination of child labour and the exploitation of children.\u201d He said youth could do more than just play video game<\/a>s or hang out at malls, \u201cwhich the media<\/a> portray as young people\u2019s role.\u201d<\/p>\n

With more attention came more critical scrutiny, which wasn\u2019t always welcome. In a 1996 profile of Craig in the now-defunct Saturday Night <\/em>magazine, the writer describes taking notes as Craig tells an anecdote about he and Marc gathering stranded baby frogs in buckets to move them to a pond. Craig interjects, asking the journalist not to include the story: \u201cIt\u2019s not part of the image I want to convey.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"November<\/img><\/p>\n

November 1996 issue of Saturday Night magazine. (Photograph by Liz Sullivan)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Craig had bigger problems with the article, titled \u201cThe most powerful 13-year-old in the world.\u201d He sued the magazine for libel, not just because it alleged his family was financially benefiting from the not-yet-registered-charity Free the Children, which he strongly denied, but because of its general<\/a> tone, depicting him as a \u201cprecocious pubescent\u201d who had \u201clearned to speak in almost perfect sound bites.\u201d He eventually got a $319,000 settlement from the magazine.<\/p>\n

Until 1997, Free the Children was essentially a club. That year, two legal entities were born to cover its activities. Kids Can Free the Children was a registered charity fundraising for international development work, while Advocates for Free the Children was a non-profit organization that, unlike a charity, was allowed to spend more than 10 per cent of its time on \u201cadvocacy,\u201d petitioning Canadian governments on issues such as the politics of child labour. By 1998, Free the Children had paid employees. The Advocates non-profit gradually became a smaller part of activities and eventually ceased to exist.<\/p>\n

RELATED:\u00a0Every important number in the WE drama that\u2019s consuming Ottawa<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

If the meeting with Jean Chr\u00e9tien and the appearance on 60 Minutes <\/em>were breakthroughs, they were dwarfed in 1999 by Craig\u2019s appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show<\/em>. It became clear that Free the Children was expanding well beyond child labour issues. Oprah announced that she wanted to help Craig build 100 schools abroad. The charity would have its work cut out for it.<\/p>\n

The Kielburger parents eventually moved out of their family home and the charity took it over, says Kim Plewes, then a volunteer and now a senior adviser with WE. Some workers moved into the upstairs bedrooms. The house got full enough that others opted to pitch a tent in the backyard. \u201cIt was about the impact we were all coming together to create,\u201d Plewes says, \u201cand we were all willing to make certain sacrifices at that age.\u201d<\/p>\n

The same year, Marc co-founded a private company, Leaders Today, a precursor to what would later be rebranded as ME to WE. A funding vehicle for Free the Children, the for-profit entity offered products and services that couldn\u2019t get the green light under Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) charity regulations. Along with organizing overseas volunteering trips, it provided \u201ctraining for college applications and maintaining scholarships.\u201d Marc explained in a 2007 interview: \u201cWe run the place with a non-profit philosophy but with business principles.\u201d<\/p>\n

Leaders Today dabbled early in the concept of giving kids a feel-good experience when they travelled abroad\u2014and when they raised money at home. A \u201cFUNdraising Pack\u201d encouraged would-be trip-goers to brainstorm names of those who might be willing to help financially. Each would be rated from one to three. A \u201cone\u201d might give $75, $100 or more. A \u201cthree\u201d would chip in, say, $2, no more than $10.<\/p>\n

Free the Children volunteers would relay first-hand accounts of journeys abroad during talks to schoolchildren in Canada. The trips were always in \u201cdemand,\u201d according to a former paid staff member who went to Thailand, Kenya and Nicaragua. He is one of several ex-volunteers and staffers who spoke to Maclean\u2019s<\/em> under condition of anonymity\u2014in some cases out of concern their current employers would disapprove of them commenting; in others, out of fear they would be violating non-disclosure agreements. (Maclean\u2019s <\/em>requested an interview with the Kielburger brothers; they provided a written statement.)<\/p>\n

\"Craig's<\/img><\/p>\n

Craig’s first trip to Southeast Asia in 1996 (Courtesy of WE)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

A trip abroad cost $5,000 per person, remembers one Leaders Today participant. She canvassed stores in her neighbourhood to fund her two-week trip to Thailand in the early 2000s. There, she and others slept on mattresses in a large communal space, within a community she described as a \u201cslum\u201d\u2014the area did not feel unsafe, she says, but it was littered with garbage. Participants helped Thai kids with English lessons at a local school, took part in cultural activities and cooked Thai food, then spent a week on an island doing \u201cleadership training.\u201d She says she doesn\u2019t remember any talk about child labour.<\/p>\n

The participant\u2019s description of spending time in a more impoverished part of the country contrasts with Craig\u2019s own description of Bangkok, its capital. In his 1999 book, Free the Children<\/em>, he lamented that the city, in its modernity, had \u201cgiven itself over to Western influences, to commercialization in its most vulgar form.\u201d By the same token, he praised Mother Teresa, whom he had managed to meet with during his first trip to India, for her simple living and lack of ego.<\/p>\n

In a similar vein, the charity posted a youth declaration on its website in 2003: \u201cGlobalization, without proper guidance and management, leads to the untrammelled pursuit of profits, often at the expense of social justice.\u201d<\/p>\n

By the time Craig turned 21, Free the Children reported it had recruited 300,000 active members in 35 countries, built 300 schools (of which Oprah helped build about 60, according to her website), provided daily education to more than 15,000 children, established rehabilitation centres in India for freed child labourers, and sent millions of dollars of medical equipment overseas.<\/p>\n

As the kids in charge grew into adults, their vision for the future of the organization began to shift. An initial focus on child labour evolved into a broader focus on international development. Now, the experience of Canadian participants\u2014always a major concern\u2014began to take on outsize importance; the symbolic rejection of commercial interests, less so.<\/p>\n

In its early years, the charity fostered a culture where staff felt comfortable lobbying against taking money from a major U.S. bank, according to the former staffer, because of the \u201cbad trend\u201d that could set. Plewes, for her part, remembers that in the early 2000s, there were deliberately no brand campaigns, celebrity engagements or splashy galas.<\/p>\n

In 2004, a new staff member\u2014Russ McLeod, now executive director of ME to WE\u2014came up with the idea for a sponsored, rally-style event to reward Canadian volunteers. The idea was met with skepticism, but within a few years would become a \u201ccentral pillar to the organization,\u201d as Plewes puts it.<\/p>\n

\u201cI thought, \u2018You\u2019ve found the wrong organization, man. This is not what we do,\u2019 \u201d she says of her initial reaction. \u201cThat was my mistake, as opposed to saying, \u2018What a brilliant, new, innovative idea. Let\u2019s become an organization that does that.\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

When the tsunami ravaged Southeast Asia in 2004, the Kielburgers\u2019 charity rushed in, because that\u2019s where need\u2014and public attention, and donor dollars\u2014had shifted.<\/p>\n

They urged student supporters to raise funds for new Sri Lanka aid projects, and secured funds from Oprah Winfrey\u2019s Angel Network. Money flowed to tsunami relief, but shrivelled up for other charitable causes, worrying Free the Children leaders. They began wondering, they\u2019ve said, about different, sustainable revenue streams.<\/p>\n

In 2005, Marc chewed this over at lunch with former Harvard classmate Oliver Madison, a private banker. Late that year, the brothers launched the for-profit company ME to WE Style, with Madison as CEO. They marketed eco-friendly, ethically produced sweatpants and T-shirts at a time when \u201ceco-\u201d and \u201cethical\u201d were huge buzzwords. The added incentive: half of net profits went to Free the Children.<\/p>\n

It was a ragtag operation. One early staffer recalls getting a fresh copy of a Kielburger book, promotional videos and a laptop, and being instructed to start immediately. That book was 2004\u2019s ME to WE: Finding Meaning in a Material World<\/em>, which touted a self-help philosophy of finding fulfillment in helping others. The mindset found root in the clothing company\u2014\u201cIf you knew that your T-shirt could change the world, wouldn\u2019t you want to fill your closet with style that matters?\u201d one promotion read. ME to WE volunteer clubs sprang up in schools; the organization\u2019s guest speakers inspired; fledgling curriculum programs ensued. Many volunteers became employees, but the charity\u2019s ambitions strained young staff. Several ex-employees describe experiencing burnout. One former full-time speaker says a schedule of 14-hour days, expectations to be in the office on days off and pressure from management to reach lofty sign-up and fundraising goals left her struggling with depression. \u201cI had to give motivational speeches while feeling that way.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\"Craig<\/img><\/p>\n

Craig appearing on Oprah Winfrey\u2019s show in 1999 (Courtesy of WE)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\"The<\/img><\/p>\n

The Kielburger brothers and the Dalai Lama in 2009 (Jonathan Hayward\/CP)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

***<\/p>\n

In 2007, the charity filled a Toronto arena with enthusiastic middle- and high-schoolers for the first \u201cME to WE Day\u201d (later WE Day), led by Russ McLeod, who after several years had succeeded in getting his idea off the ground. The event marked a turning point for the organization as the Kielburgers began to invest in the idea that doing good should feel<\/em> good.<\/p>\n

Speakers included the cast of Degrassi<\/em>, retired general Rom\u00e9o Dallaire, the Kielburger pair and Justin Trudeau, via video message: \u201cWe don\u2019t need you to be leaders of tomorrow,\u201d the soon-to-be Liberal MP said. \u201cThe only way to make a difference tomorrow is to start today.\u201d The event also showcased the charity\u2019s increased ability to draw sponsors: Telus, National Bank, eBay and more.<\/p>\n

Despite the high-calibre celebrity and corporate lineup, the Kielburgers\u2019 staff ran and organized nearly everything for early WE Days. In gruelling, 16-hour-plus days (which the charity says would \u201cnot be normal business practice\u201d now), workers oversaw parking and crowd-wrangling, and supervised the school groups that came early to stuff participants\u2019 swag bags with giveaways and promotional brochures.<\/p>\n

The arena days became more professionally run as they grew. ME to WE Style was there with concert-merch-style booths, routinely selling 5,000 shirts per event. For a $40 shirt, \u201cwe realized these kids are thinking $20 is going back to Free the Children, not understanding the verbiage [about net profit only],\u201d the former Style employee says.<\/p>\n

In 2008, the Kielburgers incorporated and launched ME to WE Social Enterprise, a for-profit company that subsumed ME to WE Style, the Leaders Today trips and training, and some short-lived product lines. \u201cTraditional philanthropy wasn\u2019t connecting with the next generation, so we tried fashion, books and music to engage youth to care about causes,\u201d says the charity\u2019s present-day chief operations officer, Scott Baker. \u201cUnfortunately, the necessity to create these entities is often portrayed as suspicious, when in fact it is an innovative and entrepreneurial approach to operating within Canada\u2019s antiquated and constrained regulatory environment.\u201d<\/p>\n

This company, too, pledged to pump half its net profit into the Kielburgers\u2019 charity, the other half going back into the enterprise (in more recent years, says Baker, 90 per cent of profits have gone to the charity). The company encouraged youth to live and consume according to the ME to WE ethos. \u201cIt\u2019s not just about people using their paycheques and putting in volunteer hours for charity,\u201d Craig told a reporter in 2009. \u201cIt\u2019s about thinking about the trips they take, how they learn, how they shop and how they interact with the world on a daily basis.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"National<\/img><\/p>\n

National Me To We Day in Toronto in 2007 (Ron Bull\/Toronto Star\/Getty Images)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

While this was novel in Canada, where charities\u2019 for-profit activities are heavily regulated, there were international examples: Bono\u2019s (RED)-branded products supported the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, and Oxfam opened U.K. stores full of housewares and gifts.<\/p>\n

Roxanne Joyal, Marc\u2019s wife and CEO of the ME to WE company, launched a line of accessories made by a group of artisans in rural Kenya\u2014the Rafiki beaded bracelet became a signature item. In addition to setting up supply partnerships with stores, the enterprise launched various licensing deals: with Staples and Hilroy for specially branded school supplies, and with both Lipton Tea and David\u2019s Tea (the latter was served at Craig\u2019s wedding, where Rafikis were a party favour). On the charity side, there was even a Free the Children RBC Virtual Visa Debit card aimed at young shoppers.<\/p>\n

More recent products include the ambitiously named Chocolate to Change the World and Coffee to Change the World; this year, the WE organization registered a trademark for ME to WE Impact Points, a proposed credit\/debit card rewards program. Sales of items such as bracelets and chocolate have created jobs for some 1,800 artisans and farmers abroad, the organization says.<\/p>\n

Along with the business ventures, domestic youth programs grew rapidly. One-year programs to encourage students\u2019 support for charitable causes\u2014not just WE Charity itself\u2014became known as WE Schools, with cross-Canada provincial funding and free curriculum modules, underwritten by sponsors and donors named on teaching materials. By 2010, they boasted reach into 4,000 schools. Before the decade\u2019s end, that would quadruple to 16,000 schools, attended by 4.3 million students in North America and the U.K.<\/p>\n

\"Craig<\/img><\/p>\n

Craig (left) and Marc speak at a WE Day (Hannah Yoon\/CP)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

The charity stresses that neither money raised by schools nor donations for international development are used to pay for WE Schools or WE Days. It estimates that in 2018-19, WE Schools produced some US$321 million worth of \u201cimpact value,\u201d that is: the combined value of students\u2019 hours of service, food donations and dollars raised for causes (WE Charity itself only received about 22 per cent of funds raised at WE Schools between 2014 and 2018, it says).<\/p>\n

The Kielburgers and WE enjoyed huge success in parts of the U.S., especially in liberal states like Washington, New York, California and Minnesota. Schools embraced free curricula; kids enjoyed the WE Day celebration; and major sponsors such as Allstate Insurance, Walgreens and Microsoft welcomed exposure with the broadly idealistic movement.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt was a pretty safe bet\u2014you\u2019re not supporting a cause; you\u2019re supporting getting kids involved in causes,\u201d says David Stillman, former U.S. director for WE. American celebrities including Magic Johnson, the Jonas Brothers and Natalie Portman backed the movement. On one ABC-broadcast WE Day\u2014in 2015, the same year the Kielburgers welcomed a newly elected Trudeau to the stage\u2014then-first lady Michelle Obama praised students \u201cfor showing the world that \u2018we\u2019 is so much stronger than \u2018me.\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n

\"Craig,<\/img><\/p>\n

Craig, Gr\u00e9goire Trudeau, the PM and Marc onstage for a WE Day in Ottawa in 2015 (Chris Wattie\/Reuters)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

In 2016, Free the Children became WE Charity. Somewhere along the way, entities went all-caps, no longer simply \u201cMe to We.\u201d As it shifted toward a focus on youth engagement and away from humanitarian work, the organization became part of the burgeoning \u201chappiness movement,\u201d says David Jefferess, a cultural studies professor at the University of British Columbia\u2019s Okanagan campus. \u201cWhat they want to do is play on this idea that Canadian youth have an unfulfilling life,\u201d he says. \u201cAnd the way to be fulfilled is to associate with WE. So it becomes about the brand.\u201d<\/p>\n

WE Charity counters by citing intangible benefits: according to a social-impact measurement firm it hired, the school and WE Day programs make youth more likely to vote or start a non-profit than their peers.<\/p>\n

The branded products did produce profit that the ME to WE company rendered to the charity. ME to WE has contributed more than $20 million to the charity since 2009, the group has repeatedly said, though some of that took the form of in-kind services like administrative help, office space or support for WE Day. That $20 million is less than five per cent of the charity\u2019s overall revenue in the past decade, according to financial statements. Money flowed in the other direction, too. The charity purchased at least $11.6 million of supplies and services from the ME to WE business, disclosures show.<\/p>\n

At least $126 million has come from other \u201ccorporate partners,\u201d the charity\u2019s annual reports state. And few charities can boast the depth and breadth of corporate sponsorship that WE does\u2014or the ability to draw celebrities, or the appeal to politicians.<\/p>\n

When the Kielburgers made their first public appeal weeks after the 2004 tsunami, Ontario\u2019s then-premier Dalton McGuinty appeared with them. Public document disclosures reveal letters from the brothers to former B.C. premier Christy Clark over several years of her tenure, in which they lay out the benefits of the province\u2019s annual $200,000 grant for their organization\u2019s education programming. They also invited Clark to speak at annual WE Days, to attend a celebrity-studded donor function at a local developer\u2019s mansion and to join a school-building trip to Kenya, which Clark planned to do with her son in 2013 before cancelling last-minute.<\/p>\n

In July 2015, Craig\u2019s WE Day invitation letter to Clark added: \u201cWe would like to humbly request that the province of British Columbia\u2019s support be renewed once again with a continued investment of $200,000 for the 2015-16 academic year.\u201d (WE Charity says a formal proposal was also sent by Vancouver staff.) Clark\u2019s government obliged, announcing the funds on the day the premier shared the WE Day arena stage with Henry Winkler, Marlee Matlin, Barenaked Ladies and others. In its statement, WE Charity says this was an informal reference to funding separate from its formal request to the ministry, and that it invites leaders of all political stripes with no funding strings attached.<\/p>\n

\"Promotional<\/img><\/p>\n

Promotional image from a Kenyan WE School (Courtesy of WE)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

***<\/p>\n

As an enterprise that had come to rely so heavily on travel, retail and events, ME to WE would have been hurt by the global pandemic and economic crisis no matter what.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe pandemic has been devastating for the organization,\u201d Russ McLeod, the executive director of the ME to WE company, says in an interview. There is no travel. There is a significant threat to retail. Beading workshops in Africa shut down. \u201cPrior to the pandemic, we were probably 135 full- and part-time employees. Today, we\u2019re maybe six.\u201d<\/p>\n

At WE Charity, meanwhile, 203 employees were let go in the early days of the COVID-19 lockdown, its statement says. Former board chair Michelle Douglas, in testimony to Parliament, said Marc asked her to resign at the end of March after her repeated demands that the board be provided with better financial documentation to justify the layoffs. \u201cThere was a difference of opinion between Ms. Douglas and WE Charity senior management regarding pandemic staff terminations. It was a trying time for everyone, and the outcome was regrettable,\u201d says Scott Baker, the WE Charity chief operations officer. After \u201cstaffing transitions\u201d and pivoting to virtual delivery of school programs, WE Charity itself was in \u201cstable financial standing,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n

The Kielburgers have strongly denied that WE stood to make any profit from working with government. But it was during this \u201ctrying time\u201d in April that a seemingly golden opportunity presented itself.<\/p>\n

The charity had received federal funding for programs prior to and since Trudeau\u2019s election\u2014to the tune of $5.5 million since 2015, including money for a special Canada 150 WE Day. Though it hadn\u2019t registered any lobbyists\u2014a normal practice for Canadian charities\u2014WE staff were frequently in touch with government officials. (Rules stipulate that \u201clobbyists\u201d need only register if they spend more than 20 per cent of their time on lobbying activities.)<\/p>\n

Early in April, WE Charity pitched the feds on a social entrepreneurship program. Craig picked up the phone to discuss it with Small Business Minister Mary Ng and later with Youth Minister Bardish Chagger, who had taken over the \u201cyouth ministry\u201d from Trudeau himself after the last election. Craig also directly contacted then-finance minister Bill Morneau about the program, in one of several April emails he addressed to \u201cBill,\u201d records submitted to a parliamentary committee show.<\/p>\n

RELATED:\u00a0The obvious lessons Justin Trudeau keeps failing to learn<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

But faced with a crunch of unemployment that was putting students in dire financial straits, ministers wanted to think bigger. As the COVID-19 cabinet committee discussed a wider volunteering program, disclosed emails suggest Chagger offered to connect the Kielburgers with civil servants, who asked the charity for a new proposal.<\/p>\n

On April 22, Trudeau formally announced the up-to-$912-million Canada Student Service Grant program. The same day, Craig sent a revised proposal. A month later, Trudeau\u2019s cabinet signed off on a grant program worth $543 million, for which the public service had decided\u2014in their rush to provide advice on a perilously truncated timeline\u2014that WE could be the only administrator. Some $500 million in grants tied to volunteer hours would have been available to students, while up to $43 million could be expensed by WE for its costs.<\/p>\n

The partnership quickly unravelled. It was not lost on Trudeau\u2019s political opposition, nor on the media, that the Prime Minister had spoken at six WE Day events, that his wife was hosting a podcast for the charity and that she had, weeks before Trudeau announced the program, been photographed with actor Idris Elba at a WE Day event in London, U.K. (Both were diagnosed with COVID-19 shortly after the early March event.) The WE organization confirmed it covered Gr\u00e9goire Trudeau\u2019s expenses for the trip\u2014something that Trudeau\u2019s chief of staff, Katie Telford, testified was approved by the federal ethics commissioner, Mario Dion.<\/p>\n

But after stories broken by Canadaland and the CBC, it also confirmed that it transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees and expenses to the Prime Minister\u2019s mother, mental health advocate Margaret Trudeau, and brother, Alexandre \u201cSacha\u201d Trudeau, for events over the years. Some of the fees had been paid by the charity itself, not by its sister company. WE Charity said this was an administrative oversight, that the corporate arm would cover costs and that Trudeau family members were interesting speakers on their own merits.<\/p>\n

The family entanglements of Trudeau\u2019s finance minister added gasoline to the fire. It emerged that Morneau\u2019s daughter was a WE employee, and that he and his family had travelled to WE projects abroad. By July 3, only a week after the program\u2019s parameters were announced, WE pulled out.<\/p>\n

During the extraordinary set of virtual parliamentary committee hearings that followed, Trudeau testified that all he had wanted to do was support Canadian youth. He said he delayed the program\u2019s approval by a couple of weeks, thinking that further \u201cdue diligence\u201d would be required because he recognized a conflict of interest could be perceived. His own purported misgivings did not prevent him from participating in the final decision.<\/p>\n

Trudeau and Morneau both apologized for failing to recuse themselves from the cabinet meeting at which the contribution agreement with WE was approved. Accused of cronyism, both are under investigation by Dion, and the RCMP stated in August that police are \u201cexamining\u201d the matter. On the heels of a document dump that saw one official describe Morneau\u2019s office\u2019s relationship with WE as \u201cbesties,\u201d the finance minister resigned.<\/p>\n

‘It\u2019s questionable whether ME to WE will survive’<\/p>\n

In testimony to a parliamentary committee, the Kielburgers were incredulous that any of this had been controversial, accusing Opposition politicians of misinformation. \u201cWe were not chosen for this work by public servants because of our relationship with politicians,\u201d said Craig. \u201cWe were chosen because we are willing to leverage every part of our 25 years of experience to build this program at the breakneck speed required to have an impact on Canadian youth over the summer.\u201d<\/p>\n

The two stated the political scandal was \u201ckilling\u201d them and \u201charming young people in this country in the process.\u201d Marc said he wished they\u2019d never answered the phone.<\/p>\n

But disruptive as the political controversy became, McLeod says the pandemic is a greater threat to the organization\u2019s future. \u201cIt\u2019s questionable whether ME to WE will survive,\u201d he says of WE\u2019s for-profit arm. \u201cIf the pandemic didn\u2019t hit, we would survive everything related to the government-program problems.\u201d<\/p>\n

Elizabeth Gomery, a founding partner at charity consultancy Philanthropica, is skeptical that WE was the only Canadian organization capable of administering a volunteer grant program. But she doesn\u2019t blame them for jumping at the opportunity: \u201cI think what happened was they needed to find a way to continue to operate and to continue to sustain some activity during a period of time where their traditional activities were no longer available. And this was a perfect way to do that.\u201d<\/p>\n

WE Charity executives promised to pay back government money received to administer the program. And the charity retroactively added its staffers to Canada\u2019s federal lobbying registry, tracking dozens of communications with government officials since the beginning of 2019. Despite federal lobbying rules, it appears the charity will face no penalty for disclosing that information up to 18 months late.<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Testifying via video call, with a Canadian flag and some framed photographs on a shelf behind him, then-finance minister Bill Morneau told the finance committee, and the country, he had made a mistake.<\/p>\n

After his family took two trips to see projects administered by WE Charity in Kenya and Ecuador in 2017, Morneau said he realized he had never reimbursed the charity for staying at its accommodations and participating in its programming. Morneau said he wrote the charity a cheque for $41,000 the day before the hearing.<\/p>\n

‘The public thinks WE is a big actor, an important development agency. WE is not.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe family asked to pay the highest possible cost that any individual could have paid to arrange similar experiences,\u201d says Baker, the chief operations officer. (That means the difference between what Morneau paid and the actual cost was effectively a donation.) Offering complimentary trips to wealthy donors is an established strategy, Baker says, sometimes leading to significant funding for projects. He points to WE\u2019s agricultural learning centre in the Amazon, which helps farmers tend sustainable crops, as an example: \u201cThis strategy and approach has been incredibly successful.\u201d<\/p>\n

Robert Fox, a former executive director of Oxfam Canada who advises international charities on good governance, says the approach is unusual\u2014and is better suited to for-profit businesses that wine and dine clients.<\/p>\n

Fox says the public has an impression that the WE organization is a much bigger player in the international development sector than it actually is, because of its celebrity connections and good marketing. For example, Save the Children International\u2019s annual revenue is $2.9 billion, about 44 times more than WE Charity Canada\u2019s $66 million in 2019. \u201cBecause the public knows so little about the sector and doesn\u2019t know how many digits are involved in these things, they think WE is a big actor, an important development agency,\u201d Fox says. \u201cWE is not.\u201d<\/p>\n

Baker says the WE organization currently has a presence in places including Kenya, Ecuador, India, Ethiopia, Haiti and rural China. Its projects are wide-ranging, from conservation in the Amazon basin to the operation of a Kenyan hospital serving tens of thousands. In 2019, WE Charity reported directing $26.8 million toward international work\u2014including $8.7 million to non-profits outside Canada\u2014a little under half its total charitable program spending. The rest of the charity\u2019s program spending\u2014that is, total spending minus overhead\u2014went to domestic programs, including WE Day and WE Schools.<\/p>\n

In the fallout over the Canada Student Service Grant program, the WE organization promised a full-scale review of its operations. Its executives say its core purpose is still international development and that it intends to return to its roots.<\/p>\n

RELATED:\u00a0The Canada Student Service Grant\u2019s unusual cabinet ride<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This will likely prompt a reckoning over the type of work WE Charity does abroad, experts say. The kind of travel that sees Canadian teenagers parachuting into Thai communities for a week or two at a time is out of vogue. \u201cInternational development has switched focus, by and large, to not having this sort of top-down, do-gooding, North America-coming-in-to-presumably-teach-local-populations-what\u2019s-what approach,\u201d says Gomery, the Philanthropica consultant. \u201cThis whole notion of having people come in to \u2018save\u2019 them is rooted in the idea that the communities don\u2019t know what their problems are in the first place. It is deeply patronizing.\u201d<\/p>\n

Baker says WE Charity \u201cgenuinely and truly\u201d partners with communities, and the WE Villages model is \u201cdesigned to empower people to break the cycle of poverty\u201d by helping communities become economically self-sufficient within an average of five years. \u201cIt is the adage about teaching someone how to fish versus giving a fish,\u201d he says, adding that trips allow donors to witness the work they have funded.<\/p>\n

The WE organization touts a 2012 report by charity impact assessment group Mission Measurement, which found WE\u2019s international programs are effective, sustainable and cost-effective. Charity research organization Charity Intelligence more recently gave WE Charity an impact rating of \u201cfair,\u201d the second-lowest out of five possible ratings, based on publicly available information. WE Charity has said it didn\u2019t have time or resources to participate in that review process, but claims additional data can demonstrate greater impact.<\/p>\n

Amid scrutiny of the relationship between its charitable and business arms, WE points to two reviews from former judges finding the relationship between those entities to be transparent and legally compliant. Still, experts point out myriad ways in which the charity has managed to defy norms within the charitable sector. \u201cI think it\u2019s safe to say the charity sector has lots of problems and issues,\u201d says Toronto charity consultant Ann Rosenfield, principal at Charitably Speaking. \u201cWE seems to have all those times a hundred.\u201d<\/p>\n

For one thing, WE Charity\u2019s financial statements show Craig and Marc Kielburger own the majority of for-profit ME to WE\u2019s voting shares through a holding company. David LePage, managing partner of Buy Social Canada, which offers a certification program for social enterprises, says if a charity owns 100 per cent of shares of the businesses it operates, that guarantees profit flows to the charity and creates reporting requirements for all transactions. To his knowledge, ME to WE is the only company connected to a Canadian charity that doesn\u2019t operate this way.<\/p>\n

According to Baker, the reason for that is that the Kielburger brothers decided in 1999, on legal advice, that their charity should not own its sister company, then called Leaders Today, for liability reasons. The Free the Children board worried that a liability issue, such as a participant getting injured, could bring down the charity.<\/p>\n

Another grey area is that WE Charity routinely promotes ME to WE\u2019s products and services. For example, materials for the charity\u2019s educational program, WE Schools, include promotions for ME to WE trips and suggests selling bracelets as a curriculum \u201cactivity.\u201d In the 2019-20 academic year, a little under $75,000 in bracelets were purchased through a WE Schools campaign, according to the charity. \u201cIt is important to note that ME to WE Social Enterprise does not make any profit on this program,\u201d the charity says in its statement. \u201cThis program is solely to support the women artisans and to assist with school fundraising goals.\u201d<\/p>\n

Even so, the appearance that the charity is being used to further ME to WE\u2019s business interests hurts the credibility of other social enterprises in the public eye, LePage says. \u201cUsing the charity to create profits is actually pushing the line of what I think even the CRA or any of us in the sector would recommend,\u201d he says. \u201cWhen you start pushing private value through the activities of the social enterprise, you start to lose the integrity of the social enterprise concept and brand.\u201d<\/p>\n

The WE organization\u2019s governance structure, too, is unusual. The two entities share a chief financial officer, and three of WE Charity\u2019s five board members (four of them new, after Michelle Douglas\u2019s departure) have previously worked for or with the ME to WE company. Baker, the chief operating officer of WE Charity, says periodic board transitions are normal and a sign of a commitment to strong oversight. He says the organization put him and other executives on the boards of related entities \u201cto ensure a clean line of accountability to the overall WE Charity board of directors.\u201d<\/p>\n

But Kate Bahen, managing director of Charity Intelligence, says boards should be independent from the charities they oversee: \u201cAs a WE donor, as somebody who donates to WE Charity, I would want an independent director who hasn\u2019t previously worked with Marc Kielburger.\u201d<\/p>\n

WE executives also sit on the boards of many related, but separately registered, charities and foundations. A parliamentary committee\u2019s request for a full list of all WE\u2019s related entities was not fulfilled before prorogation, but filings show that, in addition to WE Charity Canada and ME to WE, at least 11 more entities exist in Canada, the U.S. and the U.K.<\/p>\n

In its statement to Maclean\u2019s<\/em>, WE Charity said there has been a \u201chigh level of misunderstanding\u201d about the number and purpose of WE-related entities. The charity and its sister company carry out \u201cthe vast majority of the overall organization\u2019s work,\u201d while other entities have been established over time for one-off purposes or as required by government in other countries where WE operates. Announced in July, a review by Korn Ferry, a global organizational consulting firm, is tasked in part with streamlining the WE organizational structure\u2014including ensuring a \u201cclearer separation of the social enterprise from the charitable entities.\u201d<\/p>\n

Some affiliated entities have tiny budgets and little indication of an operating purpose. One such entity, WE Charity Foundation, was used to sign the contribution agreement for the Canada Student Service Grant program. The Kielburgers said in their committee testimony that it had been set up to limit liability, but CRA filings listed its purpose was to hold real estate. In its statement to Maclean\u2019s<\/em>, the charity says that \u201cin the initial application to the CRA, holding real estate was briefly considered, but this never occurred.\u201d The foundation does not hold WE Charity real estate assets, the statement goes on, and its mandate was formally altered with the CRA prior to its signing of the contribution agreement.<\/p>\n

WE Charity owns about $44 million in real estate, according to its financial statements. (An analysis by the National Post <\/em>found that number for the entire WE organization was closer to $50 million.) About $30 million accounts for the charity\u2019s hub, the WE Global Learning Centre in downtown Toronto, according to Baker. Nearby properties were acquired to establish a \u201ccampus for good\u201d tied to the organization\u2019s 25th anniversary this year, for which plans have been put on hold.<\/p>\n

The charity says it doesn\u2019t use funds designated for projects, or raised by schools or children, to buy property\u2014it holds real estate as a reserve fund it can access in hard times, and its use for office space cuts administrative costs. But Fox, the former Oxfam director, says international development charities rarely own any property at all.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/img><\/p>\n

The Kielburger brothers testify before the parliamentary finance committee on July 28 (Photograph by Blair Gable)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

***<\/p>\n

Is WE an international development charity? A youth movement? A school volunteer program? A purveyor of handmade jewellery? The organization\u2019s streamlining initiative goes on. But as it stands, WE would be hard-pressed to come up with a clear, 30-second elevator pitch. And that is a problem, charity experts tell Maclean\u2019s<\/em>. It isn\u2019t just facing an existential crisis, but an identity crisis, too.<\/p>\n

On top of pandemic losses, school boards are reviewing their participation in WE programs in what the charity calls \u201cby far the most challenging seven months in the organization\u2019s history.\u201d Major WE Charity corporate partners including Royal Bank, Telus, KPMG Canada and Virgin Atlantic either froze or ended their support after the political crisis.<\/p>\n

\u201cNever could we have imagined that the combination of COVID-19 and the political fallout of the CSSG could be so devastating for WE Charity, our staff and the millions of beneficiaries of our programs and projects around the world,\u201d WE Charity says. The organization let go an additional 16 full-time workers and 51 contractors in August. Its U.K. operations are also being centralized to its Canadian headquarters, resulting in a loss of 19 full-time and contract employees.<\/p>\n

In the U.S., where there is little coverage of the controversy, sponsorships have been less affected, with educational partners, corporate supporters and donors still \u201chighly engaged\u201d despite the pandemic. But even there, WE\u2019s future is uncertain.<\/p>\n

\u201cHas there been a setback? Oh my god, yes. But right now, truly, all efforts are going to minimize damage to staff and progress and protect global projects,\u201d says David Stillman, the charity\u2019s former U.S. director and a current member of the U.S. board. \u201cI personally think it\u2019s shameful that 25 years of work could get lost in the political crisis.\u201d<\/p>\n

If peculiarities with the organization\u2019s structure have been revealed in the past few months, Stillman suggests they do not come from an intention to obfuscate, but from a commitment to pioneer new ways to conduct charitable work in Canada. To use his metaphor, the Kielburger brothers would sometimes \u201cbuild the plane as they were flying it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Enormous loss could come from dismantling the WE empire, says Susan Phillips, a professor at Carleton University and an expert on the non-profit sector. The organization had succeeded in reaching high school students and nurturing in them a desire to serve others. Its relationships with schools would be hard to replace.<\/p>\n

‘The only way Marc and Craig will survive this is if they step away\u2014but they won’t’<\/p>\n

More pressingly, Phillips says, the reputational hit the WE brand is taking, and the glut of reporting on the murkiness of its operations, will damage the charitable sector writ large. \u201cBecause of the pandemic, you have a lot of international organizations in financial trouble,\u201d she says. \u201cAnd the work that\u2019s going to need to be done in low-income countries is going to grow incredibly.\u201d<\/p>\n

A lot needs to change for WE to re-earn donors\u2019 trust, says charity consultant Ann Rosenfield. \u201cTheir governance structure makes no sense and is unaccountable, which we hear from the testimony of their chair. Their incorporation structure is Byzantine at best and unaccountable and needs to change. They have fuzzy roles as founders, which ultimately make them accountable to no one,\u201d she says. \u201cThe Kielburger brothers and family and WE need to be two separate entities.\u201d<\/p>\n

She and others interviewed by Maclean\u2019s<\/em> describe WE\u2019s predicament as a case of \u201cfounder\u2019s syndrome.\u201d Founders get caught up in growing their movements and trying to change the world. But at a certain point, the organization gets bigger than they are capable of dealing with. Instead of ceding control to independent directors, they cling to the helm.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s \u201cvery difficult\u201d for founders to take a step back from their \u201cbaby,\u201d says Carleton\u2019s Phillips. But to re-establish trust, that can be necessary. And in this case, she thinks it is. \u201cYou\u2019d need a strong independent board who is going to move it in a different direction. To do that, the founders would voluntarily need to step away,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n

In a written statement, the Kielburgers did not directly respond to the calls for them to step back. The brothers remain focused on \u201canchoring the goodness that young people have created at home\u201d and \u201cprotecting the integrity and long-term sustainability of our development projects abroad,\u201d the statement says. \u201cWe hope to continue to support and inspire a generation of young people while preserving and continuing 25 years of impact.\u201d<\/p>\n

A former WE staff director, who would not speak publicly because they still work in the sector, put it bluntly: \u201cThe only way Marc and Craig are going to survive this is if Marc and Craig step away, and they won\u2019t, because their egos are too big. They made decisions that grew the organization to a place that it couldn\u2019t sustain itself anymore.\u201d<\/p>\n

The brothers learned early to build influence in their pursuit of good intentions, often challenging assumptions about the essence of charity. And as they grew, the movement known as WE evolved in their image.<\/p>\n

In 1996, that image was of a 13-year-old Craig, shoulder-to-shoulder with the children he wanted to help, fighting for the attention of a prime minister.<\/p>\n

In 2015, that image was of two polished men welcoming to the stage a fellow of their own ilk\u2014a leader who had grown up in the spotlight and spoke compassionately about the country\u2019s amorphous \u201cyouth.\u201d Two men literally embracing the sort of powerful figure their younger selves were ready to make sweat for having \u201cvague\u201d ideals.<\/p>\n

They\u2019ve come a long way.<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

If you want to read more News articles, you can visit our General category.<\/a><\/span><\/strong>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

if you want to watch Movies<\/a> or Tv Shows go to Dizi.BuradaBiliyorum.Com<\/a> <\/span> for forums sites go to Forum.BuradaBiliyorum.Com<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Source<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“#The rise and fall of WE” This article appears in print in the October 2020 issue of Maclean\u2019s magazine with the headline, \u201cFrom WE to they.\u201d On Sept. 9, 2020, WE Charity confirmed it will be shutting down its Canadian operations and the Kielburgers will step down. An adolescent boy in a blue T-shirt, hosting…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":64828,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[22974,67826,67806,67816,67827,67828,67805,32681,67825,67818],"class_list":["post-64827","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general","tag-canada","tag-craig-kielburger","tag-editors-picks","tag-justin-trudeau","tag-kielburgers","tag-marc-kielburger","tag-ottawa","tag-politics","tag-the-rise-and-fall-of-we","tag-we-charity"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64827","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=64827"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64827\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/64828"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64827"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64827"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64827"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}