Up until now, the Liberals’ main defence regarding the WE controversy has been that any misdeeds, and they acknowledge there were some, were fundamentally innocent. Careless and embarrassing, sure, but not malicious. Both the prime minister and the now-former finance minister have acknowledged wrongdoing. They both agreed they should have recused themselves from the cabinet vote into the contract and apologized. Chrystia Freeland, the new finance minister, was also moved to apologize, somewhat bizarrely, on behalf of the cabinet.

MORE ON THIS TOPIC

Matt Gurney: The government's WE defence falls apart

Redacted WE documents are part of coverup by Liberal government, Conservatives say

It wasn’t their finest hour, as a variety of cabinet ministers have ruefully acknowledged in a series of interviews, but gosh darn it, don’t you know it was an emergency? That these are unprecedented times? Maybe we got a bit sloppy in our haste to do good, they say, but that’s all this was.

Advertisement

STORY CONTINUES BELOW

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content continued

Unfortunately for the prime minister and his government, information contained in newly released internal documents show this defence is false.

The critical issue here is the role of the public service. In the official Liberal version of the events, there was an identified need for a program to assist students and youth, and the public service recommended that WE be the organization to execute it. The error for the government, in the Grit-approved narrative, was that that independent public service recommendation was seized upon with such haste that Justin Trudeau and Bill Morneau tripped over their own good intentions by forgetting to recuse themselves out of their obvious conflicts.

But that’s not exactly what happened. The public service did indeed recommend WE. That is true. But WE was recommended after the Trudeau government — not just the public service, but cabinet ministers or their staff — was actively working with WE. The recommendation of the public service, though undenied, did not happen in a vacuum, nor was it generated neutrally. It took place against a backdrop of active lobbying by WE and communication about the matter at high levels of the Trudeau government.

This turns the Liberal narrative on its head. Trudeau and his senior ministers and aides have thus far used the public service as armour, putting it between themselves and the scandal. They cop only to sloppiness. But we know from these documents — sections of which remain redacted — that while the public service recommended WE to the prime minister on May 13, cabinet minister Bardish Chagger was communicating directly with WE as early as April 17, and that a policy adviser in Morneau’s office was communicating with WE as early as April 20. Indeed, WE’s Craig Kielburger even sent Chagger an email on April 22, thanking her for her “suggestion” of a student support program.

Advertisement

STORY CONTINUES BELOW

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content continued

Chagger told the National Post that she rejects the suggestion that the program was her idea, saying only that they discussed the matter. In any case, the main conclusion is obvious: Chagger, Morneau’s office, the public service, WE itself … they were all working together on the plan that the public service later approved. Indeed, one of the revealed documents is an internal email, in which members of Morneau’s staff refer to the WE team as their “besties” — best friends.

The documents do give the PM some cover — he seems to have needed to be convinced of WE’s necessity as late as mid-May. That will come as some personal relief to him.

But the government’s overall narrative of it somewhat carelessly approving a plan presented to it by the public service doesn’t stand up in light of these documents. WE was actively engaged with members of the government weeks before the approval, and it was that combined effort that was put to the public service, which approved what it had helped craft. (WE’s efforts, by the way, included a proposal that literally included photos of the PM’s family acting in their various roles with the organization.) The public service, perhaps left insensate by the likenesses of the PM’s nearest and dearest, then took the proposal to the government, where Trudeau and Morneau failed to recuse themselves and approved the plan.

WE was actively engaged with members of the government weeks before the approval

A plan, if you need reminding, to fund a proposal from an organization that had extensive financial ties to their families and which had developed that proposal with the active co-operation of the Trudeau government.

Advertisement

STORY CONTINUES BELOW

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content continued

It’s not a good look. It’s even worse in light of the government’s decision to prorogue Parliament weeks earlier than necessary if the goal was simply to bring down a new throne speech in late September, a move clearly calculated to short-circuit the ongoing investigations. Trudeau’s hope, it’s clear, is to buy himself some time to get clear of WE’s stench before bringing in a channel-changing suite of economic and social proposals he hopes will catch the public’s eye.

It might work. Canadians don’t have the longest political memories. But whatever hope Trudeau might have had that Morneau’s departure, Freeland’s promotion and the icing of Parliament would draw attention off of WE has been complicated by the release of these documents. Nothing here makes the government look good. Morneau may not be last member of the Trudeau government to suddenly decide that seeking a job at the OECD might be their best move.

• Email: magurney@postmedia.com | Twitter: mattgurney

• Matt Gurney: The government's WE defence falls apart


• Redacted WE documents are part of coverup by Liberal government, Conservatives say