Read on Twitter
The Star’s @alexboutillier (who blocked me after my last thread) has written a piece about WE Charity “exposing” that they started work on the federal student grant program weeks before cabinet approval.
*** thread***
*** thread***
This is not the big news he wants you to think it is - despite the breathless headline and story.
Here is why.
WE Charity entered into a contribution agreement with the government - not a contract – to administer the Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG).
Here is why.
WE Charity entered into a contribution agreement with the government - not a contract – to administer the Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG).
Even though most journalists have waved it away as a difference without distinction, that difference is important.
Historically, government has used contracts when the outcomes of the work are considered to be of direct benefit to the government.
Historically, government has used contracts when the outcomes of the work are considered to be of direct benefit to the government.
The purchase of their office supplies, for example, or to acquire any other good or service that is used or consumed by the government itself.
Grants are used when some other element within society is the intended beneficiary, but not the government per se.
Grants are used when some other element within society is the intended beneficiary, but not the government per se.
Most grants are unconditional transfer payments - there are no (or very few) strings attached to grants. If the grant recipient meets the eligibility requirements, they are expected to use the funds to further goals or outcomes the government believes is important.
It is basically “Take this money. Go forward and do good work!”
In contrast, contribution agreements usually have strings attached and governments routinely reserve the right to audit how recipients spend their contribution funding.
In contrast, contribution agreements usually have strings attached and governments routinely reserve the right to audit how recipients spend their contribution funding.
Over the life of a contribution agreement, the recipient must demonstrate to government that they are meeting conditions set out by the government – goals, targets, outcomes, etc. - in order to be reimbursed for specific costs.
Which brings me back to Boutillier’s article damning WE Charity for doing work on the CSSG before the contribution agreement was in place.
The work they were doing was to establish the program.
They undertook that work at their own expense.
The work they were doing was to establish the program.
They undertook that work at their own expense.
WE Charity was not reimbursed for work done to establish the CSSG - the work with which Boutillier takes umbrage.
They did it so students would be able to get their grants sooner.
They did it so students would be able to get their grants sooner.
This is not unusual and, in fact, by working at their own expense to establish the CSSG WE Charity was doing a good thing for young Canadians.
A charitable thing, even.
Let no good deed go unpunished, as they say.
A charitable thing, even.
Let no good deed go unpunished, as they say.
Here is @alexboutilier's story: https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2020/07/27/we-charity-started-work-on-justin-trudeaus-student-grant-program-weeks-before-cabinet-approval.html
My apologies to @alexboutillier for tagging him in this thread, and then tagging him again when I tried to fix the error.
My apologies to @alexboutillier for tagging him in this thread, and then tagging him again when I tried to fix the error.
One more thing...
This kind of reporting is endemic in Canadian political journalism.
In my last long thread I called it "scandal journalism".
It takes a few forms, but the result is the same: groupthink and sneering cynicism, and a belief that everyone is corrupt and lying.
This kind of reporting is endemic in Canadian political journalism.
In my last long thread I called it "scandal journalism".
It takes a few forms, but the result is the same: groupthink and sneering cynicism, and a belief that everyone is corrupt and lying.
