WE Charity: Selling Virtue Can Be Complicated

All figures in Canadian dollars unless otherwise noted.

On June 25, 2020, the announcement of a contract between the Government of Canada and WE Charity to deliver a $534 million student grant program had caused a scandal due to financial ties between the charity and the families of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Finance Minister Bill Morneau.^[1] WE Charity, a social justice charity, was co-founded by human rights advocates and social entrepreneurs Craig and Marc Kielburger in 1995. News headlines about the scandal read “Ottawa Outsources Student-Grant Program to a Toronto Charity that Works with Justin Trudeau’s Wife,”^[2] “We the Public Deserve to See the WE Deal Details,”^[3] and “Organization Under Scrutiny for Not Registering as Lobbyist.”^[4]

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance convened hearings into the matter, giving rise to more headlines: “Former WE Charity Board Chair Says She Had Little Insight into Finances”^[5] and “WE Charity Affair Shows Perils of Corporate Virtue-Signalling.”^[6] These headlines suggested that the scandal had evolved from concerns about politicians’ conflicts of interest and cronyism to concerns about the financial accountability and governance of WE Charity. By July 24, 2020, key corporate sponsors were ending their relationship with WE Charity.^[7]

On August 6, 2020, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance heard testimony from staff members of charity watchdog Charity Intelligence Canada (Ci).^[8] Two days later, one headline read “The Kielburger brothers’ empire struggles to survive.”^[9] The Kielburger brothers had to decide how to best address the concerns of lawmakers, individual donors, and corporate sponsors about the accountability and governance of WE Charity.

WE Charity

In 1995, 12-year-old Craig Kielburger was inspired to act against child labour after learning the tragic story of Iqbal Masih, a young boy who was murdered for advocating for children’s rights in Pakistan.^[10] Craig assembled a group of classmates, alongside his brother, Marc, to join him in his efforts. Under the name Kids Can Free the Children, the group’s early efforts focused on petitions to foreign leaders and speeches in local schools.^[11] Shortly following its inception, Kids Can Free the Children garnered worldwide attention, with Craig Keilburger speaking before U.S. Congressional committees, meeting with Vice-President Al Gore, and appearing on the Oprah Winfrey Show. Later, concluding that poverty perpetuated child labour, the organization broadened its focus to include poverty alleviation.^[12] Kids Can Free the Children grew to become one of Canada’s largest charities, rebranding in 2016 as WE Charity.^[13]

WE Charity used the collective “power of WE” globally to encourage communities to “lift themselves out of poverty” (see Exhibit 1 – Certificate of Amendment WE Charity).^[14] The charity operated a series of domestic and international projects. Domestic programming in Canada, the U.S., and the UK focused on inspiring youth to make a difference through service.^[15] The charity boasted a wide variety of youth-based programs, including

• WE Day, a series of stadium-sized events celebrating youth making a difference in their local community and beyond;
• WE Schools, a program that educated students about the pursuit of social change; and
• WE Well-being, a program that promoted personal and community well-being among youth.^[16]

International programming focused on poverty alleviation in countries within Asia, Africa, and Latin America.^[17] WE Charity partnered with local communities to create WE Villages, a “holistic, five-pillar international development” program that focused on education, water, health, food, and economic opportunity. WE Charity engaged 2,500 current and former staff, thousands of volunteers, and many influential corporate donors, including RBC, KPMG, Allstate, Walgreens, and WestJet.^[18] As a result of its work, the charity had received many awards and recognitions.^[19]

The Kielburger Brothers and WE Charity

Craig and Marc Kielburger were brothers, social entrepreneurs, and co-founders of the family of WE entities, including WE Charity and ME to WE Social Enterprises.^[20] Following the founding of WE Charity, both brothers became highly accomplished and celebrated public figures. Craig was the youngest graduate from the Kellogg-Schulich Executive MBA program, while Marc earned a degree in international relations from Harvard University and a law degree from Oxford University and was a Rhodes Scholar.^[21] Together, the brothers held a total of fifteen honorary doctorates and degrees for their work in education and human rights. One media outlet described Craig as the charismatic face of WE, and Marc as the brains behind its operations.^[22]

Despite widespread recognition, WE and its founders faced notable criticism. Some journalists criticized its “cult-like” following,^[23] others questioned the commercialization of WE events,^[24] while others questioned whether its international projects were generating real impact.^[25] Canadaland, a reader-funded Canadian news site, had criticized the Kielburgers for using seemingly aggressive tactics to maintain a positive public image.^[26] In 1996, Saturday Night magazine ran a cover story on Craig titled “The Most Powerful 13-Year-Old in the World.”^[27] Dissatisfied with the negative coverage in the article, Craig launched a lawsuit against the magazine.^[28]  Several years later, Saturday Night settled the suit, with Craig receiving $319,000.^[29] Isabel Vincent, the writer of the piece, remarked: “It didn’t seem like they wanted to deal with any kind of criticism, no matter how slight.”^[30]

In 2015, the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC) was scheduled to run a documentary on the dangers associated with voluntourism.^[31] Despite immense anticipation, the piece was pulled shortly before its scheduled airing.^[32] Canadaland speculated that the documentary had been pulled in response to WE’s concerns about critical coverage of ME to WE.^[33] However, WE asserted that its concerns were related to the documentary’s use of unauthorized WE Day footage.^[34] In response to Canadaland’s reporting, WE Charity issued a notice of intent to pursue legal action against the site for defamation in 2018.^[35]

Media outlets had revealed that several current and former WE employees had reported issues of abusive leadership behaviour by the Kielburgers, portraying WE as a hostile working environment with a culture of fear.^[36] A 2019 independent review sponsored by WE and undertaken by the Honourable Justice Stephen Goudge found that WE had a healthy workplace culture, having harassment policies and procedures “both comprehensive and compliant” with Ontario law.^[37]

ME To WE Social Enterprise and the WE Organization

In 2008, Craig and Marc Kielburger founded and incorporated ME to WE Social Enterprises (ME to WE), a for-profit social enterprise.^[38] ME to WE served two core functions: to provide economic opportunities for WE Villages and to provide a sustainable source of funding for WE Charity.^[39] The Kielburgers owned ME to WE, a legally separate entity from WE Charity. ME to WE donated at least half of its net profit to WE Charity and reinvested the remaining funds back into its mission.^[40] ME to WE did not share financial statements on its website.

ME to WE generated earned income through two primary means: service trips and retail products. Service trips were promoted as “life-changing experiences” in which individuals and groups had the opportunity to travel overseas to volunteer with one of WE Charity’s international development projects.^[41] These trips could involve activities such as helping with local harvests, collecting water, or building a local school. As these trips became popular, so did debate about the ethics and impact of the growing “voluntourism” industry.^[42] ME to WE also generated revenue through the sales of ethically sourced, sustainable products including coffee, bracelets, and chocolate.^[43] For example, ME to WE’s Chocolate that Changes Lives™ was made with Fairtrade-certified cocoa from Ecuadorean farmers and could be found at major retailers in Canada and the United States.^[44]

Together, ME to WE and WE Charity were commonly referred to as the WE Organization, WE, or the WE Movement.^[45] ME to WE and WE Charity shared a website, the operation of WE Days, physical facilities, branding, and several executives. The WE Organization issued a single annual transparency report that included both entities.^[46]

The Nonprofit and Charitable Context In Canada

According to the Canadian constitution, nonprofit organizations were established, maintained, and supervised by the provinces; however, provincial supervision was largely passive.^[47] Nonprofit organizations included community groups, service groups, trade organizations, professional organizations, or recreational clubs that might be unincorporated, incorporated federally, or incorporated provincially.^[48] As WE Charity was a federally incorporated nonprofit, this section focuses on federal nonprofit and charity laws and regulations.

A nonprofit incorporated under the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act (CNCA) must have included a statement of purpose in its certificate of incorporation and filed form 4022 annually.^[49] Failure to do so could have resulted in decertification of the corporation.^[50] Nonprofits that reported more than $10,000 in public funding in any year had to file as a soliciting corporation and provide financial statements that were then made publicly available.

Unlike for-profit organizations, nonprofits did not have shareholders; instead, nonprofits had members who controlled but did not own the nonprofit organization.^[51] The most common nonprofit membership models were the open membership model, where any person could become a member and the self-perpetuating model, in which the membership consisted entirely of the directors of the corporation.^[52] Nonprofit corporations could assign different rights and duties to different classes of members, which allowed the nonprofit to recognize and ensure representation of different stakeholders.^[53]

The CNCA required that a nonprofit organization have at least three directors, the majority of whom must be at arm’s-length to the charity, who held responsibility for oversight of the organization, its financial viability, and fulfilment of its public purpose.^[54] Directors could not receive compensation, except for expense reimbursement. Regulators recommended that directors should make governance decisions collectively:

Our casework shows that a breakdown of collective decision making by charity boards is often at the root of poor governance and serious mistakes or indeed mismanagement. Sometimes, this breakdown occurs because individuals or groups of individuals—often including staff members—become too dominant and make decisions that are for the board as a collective body to make. . . . Sometimes, dominant individuals have ulterior motives and go on to abuse a charity for personal gain. Sometimes they use an opportunity they have been given because no-one challenges them, or they have too much control for their own advantage or gain. But that is not always the case; sometimes, the individuals in question mean well in their work for the charity. But . . . it is never healthy for strategic decisions to be made without the active involvement of the full board.^[55]

Registered charities, a subset of nonprofit corporations, had a charitable purpose, such as relief of poverty, advancement of education or religion, or other commonly designated charitable purpose, and provided a measurable public benefit to a large segment of the public.^[56] Registered charities were not required to pay income tax, could issue tax receipts to donors, and must file an annual registered charity information return (T3010). Consistent with the Income Tax Act, the Charity Directorate of the CRA registered, approved, and regulated charitable organizations.

In a charity, the majority of directors must be at arm’s length from each other and must not bestow individual benefits to a small group of persons unrelated to the group’s purpose, or they could lose their registered charity status.^[57] Registered charities could advocate to change public policy but were not permitted to support a political party or candidate for public office.^[58] However, if a registered charity advocated for change in federal public policy, it had to observe the Lobbying Act, which required that those employees who spent more than 20% of their time lobbying the federal government be registered with the Commissioner of Lobbying.^[59]

Despite increasing interest in social enterprise since the mid-2000s, Canada had yet to develop specialized corporate forms, which combined elements of for-profit and nonprofit organizations, to facilitate social enterprises.^[60] However, nonprofits, registered charities, and for-profit businesses alike could still engage in social enterprise. Registered charities could pursue a for-profit business related to the charitable purpose of the organization, if it was

“linked and subordinate” to the charity’s charitable purposes. Examples…include a business activity that is an offshoot of a charitable program, a use of excess capacity, or a means of promotion the charity or its purposes. The business activity must also play a clearly minor role, in terms of both resources and attention, in comparison to the charity’s charitable purposes.^[61]

Canadian charities could have relationships with non-charities, including related corporations; however, the corporations must be separate and independent.^[62] Mark Blumberg, a lawyer specializing in nonprofit law in Toronto, cited the Charity Commission for Wales and England’s guidance on separation and independence: The relationship between a charity and non-charity must

• further charitable purposes,
• avoid personal benefit to members of either entity or conflict of interest,
• demonstrate separate financial structures, and
• avoid confusing the public about the relationship between the entities.

Organizations should avoid using the same working name, joint branding, or shared websites to avoid consumer confusion.^[63]

Many larger charities consisted of more than one corporate entity, including a registered charity, a nonprofit corporation, and/or for-profit corporation. By incorporating a separate for-profit corporation, organizations could make a profit through social enterprise while still maintaining their charitable status.^[64] Legal experts recommended that the charity be the sole member or shareholder of any subsidiary corporation to maintain accountability and effective oversight of the subsidiary.^[65]

Registered charities adopted a multi-corporate structure for several legitimate reasons. Some nonprofits, such as universities, incorporated foundations to attract people to fundraising initiatives, who might not want to retain personal liability by sitting on the board of the operating charity.^[66] Additionally, multi-corporation structures could be used to shield a nonprofit from liability and protect its assets. Many international development charities controlled separate nonprofit corporations to meet CRA requirements when working in partnership with other agencies outside of Canada.^[67] Moreover, Canadian charities working in other countries might have been required to establish local nonprofit corporations to comply with local law.^[68]

The WE Charity Scandal

In early April 2020, the Canadian Government, led by the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC), began to discuss the need to provide financial support to Canadian post-secondary students impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.^[69] In response, officials contacted several organizations, including WE Charity, in an effort to develop student-focused support programs. Days later, WE submitted a youth entrepreneurship proposal to the offices of multiple government officials, claiming to have been encouraged to do so after conversing with Minister of International Trade and Small Business Mary Ng (LPC).^[70] Ng later denied WE’s claim, indicating that the proposal was unsolicited.^[71]

In late April 2020, Rachel Wernick, Assistant Deputy Minister of Employment and Social Development Canada, and Finance Minister Bill Morneau (LPC), spoke with WE about its capacity for volunteer administration.^[72] A day after this conversation, Morneau’s office received a new proposal from WE that included a volunteer service element. On June 23, 2020, the government approved WE to administer the Canadian Student Service Grant (CSSG) program and a contribution agreement was signed with no open competition. The program was deemed to have started on March 5, 2020, which enabled WE Charity to recover related program expenses incurred prior to the date of the signed agreement.^[73]

On June 25, 2020 Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (LPC) announced the details of the $534 million CSSG.^[74] The program was meant to connect Canadian post-secondary students and recent graduates with volunteer opportunities.^[75] In return, participants could receive between $1,000 to $5,000, depending on the number of hours they volunteered. The announcement was accompanied by a background document that described WE Charity as the sole organization contracted to administer the program.^[76] The contract included a program implementation fee of up to $34.78 million to cover WE Charity’s costs of delivering the program.^[77]

The next day, controversy erupted in response to the announcement.^[78] Many accused the Liberal government of cronyism by selecting WE Charity for the contract with no open competition^[79] and conflict of interest because both the Trudeau and Morneau families had ties to WE.^[80]

Major organizations in the nonprofit sector criticized the program’s design. Volunteer Toronto, Volunteer Canada, and Imagine Canada expressed concerns about the contracting process, the way the program blurred the meaning of volunteerism by paying participants, payment at a rate below minimum wage, an inequitable program design that presented barriers to participation, the potential for creating “make-work” roles, and the program’s development of a new volunteer management system instead of using existing community-based volunteer platforms.^[81]

On July 3, 2020, the government terminated WE’s contract.^[82] On July 15, 2020, WE announced an organizational restructuring, seemingly in response to the considerable criticism of the lack of organizational transparency and accountability.^[83] Despite this announcement, public skepticism towards WE increased because newly released documents revealed that the initial CSSG contract had not been granted to WE Charity.^[84] Instead, the contract had been awarded to the WE Charity Foundation, a separate incorporated charity apparently controlled by the Kielburger brothers with the purpose of holding real estate and which reported no employees or assets.^[85]

House of Commons Finance Committee testimony

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance launched an investigation into what had been referred to by the media as the WE Charity Scandal. Standing Committees of the House of Commons consisted of Members of Parliament (MPs) from all political parties who investigated issues of the day in more depth and provided recommendations to the House of Commons.^[86] From late July to early August 2020, several key stakeholders involved in the controversy appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance.

Conflict of Interest and Relationships with Politicians

Initial public criticism following the CSSG announcement centred around WE Charity’s relationship with several influential politicians.^[87] Many speculated that WE had been granted its contract primarily because of relationships with Prime Minister Trudeau’s wife, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, his mother, Margaret Trudeau, and brother, Alexandre Trudeau.^[88] In his testimony, Marc Kielburger estimated that WE had reimbursed expenses of approximately $212,846 to various Trudeau family members for their involvement in WE Day events.^[89] Margaret Trudeau was paid speaking fees of over $250,000 by ME to WE for speaking events related to WE Days after Prime Minister Trudeau was elected in November 2015. Critics believed that these payments violated the Conflict of Interest Act, which prohibited elected officials from furthering the personal interest of themselves, their family, or friends when exercising an official power or duty.^[90]

Finance Minister Bill Morneau also shared ties with WE. In 2017, he and/or his family participated in ME to WE trips to Ecuador and Kenya.^[91] Testimony before the Finance Committee revealed that WE had covered the family’s expenses for WE-related programming during the trips, including accommodations.^[92] During his testimony before the Finance Committee, the finance minister revealed he had written a cheque for $41,366 to reimburse WE and that his daughter was employed by WE.^[93] In a press release, WE Charity responded that “many international charities” invited supporters to see the impact of the charity on a “complementary basis.”^[94] In response, consultant Elizabeth Gomery said “I can genuinely say that it’s extremely rare to see a case where a charity foots the bill for a high-net-worth individual to visit the work that they’re doing overseas.”^[95]

Many critics suggested that the Liberal Government’s decision to contract with WE was in conflict of interest, given that the politicians’ families had received financial benefits from WE and neither Justin Trudeau nor Bill Morneau recused themselves from the decision.^[96] During their testimony, Marc and Craig Kielburger faced extensive questioning about the rationale for the organization’s relationship with the Trudeau family.^[97] When asked if Margaret Trudeau would have been invited to speak at WE Days had she not been related to the Trudeau family, Craig remarked: “She is more than someone’s mother or someone’s wife. She is someone who, in her own right, has spoken extensively on mental health and is a hero to many.” Charlie Angus (MP, New Democratic Party, [NDP]) responded, “You were buying the name. Come on.”^[98]

Governmental Lobbying without Registration

Another concern voiced throughout the testimony was the fact that WE Charity was not registered as required by the Lobbying Act.^[99] Given WE’s significant involvement and communication with the Liberal Government leading up to the announcement of the CSSG program, many critics pointed out that WE should have been registered to lobby.^[100] During the Kielburger bothers’ testimony before the Finance Committee, Charlie Angus (MP, NDP) remarked,

I don’t see how guys, men as sophisticated as you, don’t recognize the obligation to follow what every other charity in the country does, to register and to be tracked so that there’s accountability. It’s the lack of accountability that’s really giving us a hard time believing you.^[101]

Craig Kielburger maintained that the organization did not register because WE had had minimal engagement with the government prior to the initiation of the CSSG program, and the organization “didn’t think at that point that something was necessary, because they were calling us to be helpful to them”; however, he noted that the charity was looking further into the matter.^[102]

Failure to File as a Soliciting Corporation

WE Charity was a federal corporation under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act (CNCA) and, given that it received over $10,000 in public funds in any year, it was also considered a soliciting corporation.^[103] Although WE Charity was a soliciting corporation, the charity had filed as a non-soliciting corporation with Corporations Canada in the past five years.^[104] It was not until July 2020 that WE Charity amended its previous filings to change its status to a soliciting corporation.^[105] However, WE Charity did file the T3010 Registered Charity return with the CRA for these years, which provided more financial information than the Form 4022 for nonprofit corporations.^[106]

Multiple Related Entities

The WE Organization’s highly complex organizational structure was a point of concern throughout various testimonies. According to Charity Intelligence Canada (Ci), at least 32 organizations located in various countries were part of WE’s network, with the potential that more existed but had not yet been identified (see Exhibit 2 – Corporate Entities Connected to the WE Organization). WE responded that many of the listed entities were not related to the organization.^[107]

During his testimony, Greg Thomson of Ci asked “Why does WE need such a complex organizational structure with multiple single-purpose entities to do its work? This is highly unusual for charities, even Canada’s largest international aid charities.”^[108]

Mark Blumberg, an attorney specializing in nonprofit law, also noted in his blog that

there is a difference between having a “for-profit” in a group that is wholly owned by a charity and a for-profit that is owned by two or three private individuals and has a close relationship to the charity that benefits to some extent the for-profit. There is a difference between having multiple corporations with transparency about each corporation and clarity as to how they work together versus having so many corporations that the chair of the charity for 10 years cannot even say how many there are.^[109]

When questioned on this issue, Craig Kielburger maintained that there were two reasons behind what had been referred to as WE’s “labyrinth” of a structure.^[110] Firstly, as a charity which operated globally, the WE Organization was legally required to incorporate in other countries in which it operated. Secondly, it was made necessary by Canada’s complex laws and regulations surrounding social enterprise, which Craig asserted did not allow charities to a use for-profit business structure to solve social problems. Despite this justification for WE’s complex structure, he admitted that there was likely a way to streamline it and he announced that the organization had engaged Korn Ferry, a management consulting company, to assist with this process.

Relationship between WE Charity and ME to WE

Critics also questioned the close relationship between WE Charity and ME to WE. Kate Bahen of Ci claimed that the shared branding of the two organizations resulted in donor confusion.^[111] Jesse Brown testified that, “while the WE organization insists publicly that the two entities are completely separate and distinct, internal WE Organization documents obtained by Canadaland reveal that WE’s mission is to create a ‘single brand experience’ with one overarching brand.”^[112] In a Canadaland article, Mark Blumberg stated that

while some may think it is a good idea to have a seamless “one organization” approach with branding, governance, and operations, it will be a huge problem from a legal perspective in Canada, because the benefits of being a “registered charity” do not apply to that “one organization,” the resources of the registered charity can only be used for the purposes and activities of the registered charity, and there needs to be a clear separation/distinction between the registered charity and the other, non-qualified donees [ME to WE].^[113]

The relationship between WE Charity and ME to WE was governed by a master legal agreement, which outlined the working relationship and sharing of assets and employees between the two organizations, including shared programs such as WE Day and Track Your Impact.^[114] However, this agreement was not available to the public.

An analysis of WE Charity’s financial statements showed that $11 million had been transferred from WE Charity to the for-profit ME to WE in the past decade.^[115] In 2019, 6.7% of WE Charity’s revenues were transferred to ME to WE compared to 0.8% in 2011.^[116] Greg Thomson noted that “the related party transactions, with 8% [sic] of donations to WE Charity going to ME to WE, the private business controlled by Marc and Craig Kielburger,” should have been a red flag because these transactions were out of the norm for Canadian charities.^[117]

See the following exhibits for financial information:

Exhibit 3 – WE Charity Notes To Non-Consolidated Financial Statements August 31, 2019

Exhibit 4 – WE Charity Statement of Operations

Exhibit 5 – WE Charity Statement of Financial Position

Exhibit 6 – WE Charity Statements Financial Transactions with ME to WE Social Enterprise

Finally, there was significant overlap between employees’ roles across various WE-related organizations. For instance, Victor Li, WE Charity’s chief financial officer, also held the role of CFO at ME to WE and CFO of WE Charity in the U.S., as well as treasurer of the U.S. ME to WE Foundation.^[118] Despite these concerns, WE Charity maintained that ME to WE operated as “a legally separate entity with its own governance and finances.”^[119] This was, according to WE, entirely in accordance with Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA) rules for registered charities.

WE Charity Foundation

Critics questioned why WE Charity Foundation had been granted the contribution agreement for the CSSG. Michelle Douglas testified that “the board was never satisfied that the operation of this foundation was in the best interests of the charity or its various stakeholders.”^[120] Kate Bahen characterized the WE Charity Foundation as a “shell foundation.”^[121]

The WE Charity Foundation was incorporated as a public foundation in 2018 with the purpose of maintaining facilities and holding funds (see Exhibit 7 − WE Charity Foundation Certificate of Incorporation). The foundation had filed as a non-soliciting foundation on its Form 4022 in February 2020.^[122] In its T3010 return filed in December 2019, the foundation reported three directors, Dalal Al Wahedi, Scott Baker, and Victor Li, who were employed by the WE Organization. The foundation declared no revenues, expenses, land, or buildings, and had no employees.^[123]

Charlie Angus (MP, NDP) questioned why the foundation which appeared to be a real estate holding company had been granted the authority to administer the program and manage taxpayer dollars. In response to these concerns, Marc Kielburger remarked that the foundation was

not a real estate holding company. This is actually a charitable organization that was set up to help limit liability. . . . The Government of Canada asked us to assume massive liability, sir, as part of this initiative for 40,000 young people volunteering during the pandemic. It would have been very difficult for us to put the entire organization at risk under those circumstances.^[124]

Perceptions of Self-Dealing for Private Financial Gain

Some media representatives and committee members speculated that the Kielburger brothers had engaged WE in the CSSG program for personal financial gain. The Kielburgers maintained government compensation for WE’s involvement in the CSSG was strictly for expense coverage, although committee member Pierre Poilievre (MP, Conversative Party of Canada [CPC]) asked whether they had planned to “pay the expenses to [themselves].” Craig maintained that:

WE Charity made absolutely no money and could never have made any money in any way on this, with the contribution agreement. This was the ask from the government. We did not submit a proactive proposal. Rachel Wernick asked us, and we fulfilled the request that came in. The WE Charity Foundation was to solve a need the government asked us to solve.^[125]

An independent review conducted by the Honourable Justice Gouge found that Marc and Craig Kielburger had never received any form of payment from WE Charity; however, each received an annual salary of approximately $125,000 in 2018 and the use of a hybrid car from ME to WE, the for-profit controlled by the Kielburgers.^[126]

WE Charity’s ownership of real estate had also come under scrutiny. Although it was legal for a charity to own real estate, the media questioned why WE Charity owned so much real estate.^[127] As of August 31, 2019, the charity reported over $42 million worth of buildings, land, and leasehold improvements. During his testimony, Craig Kielburger remarked,

The real estate, surprisingly, has exploded as an issue. We use real estate like a science centre or a school. We host young people. We have our own global learning centre. We were retrofitting a series of buildings to create a shared space for youth to launch their own social enterprises and their own youth-led charities. Somehow that’s being attacked in the press now, when a few months ago it was being praised.^[128]

It was not unusual for large charities and nonprofit corporations to own real estate. For example, in 2020 University of Toronto owned $2.3 billion in land, and $1.3 billion in capital assets.^[129] WE Charity believed that ownership of real estate was good financial stewardship and estimated that the charity saved $1.2 million annually by owning rather than leasing facilities.^[130]

In 2019, the charity had engaged the Honourable Justice Stephen Goudge to assess its real estate holdings and practices. He found the real estate policies and practices of the charity reasonable, stating that “WE Charity’s policy of owning real estate has provided a financial and organisational benefit, and supports the work of the charity.”^[131] Furthermore, one of the stated purposes of WE Charity was to provide and maintain physical facilities to house operations of WE and other charities (see Exhibit 1 ‑ Certificate of Amendment WE Charity).^[132]

Organizational Bylaws and Founder Status

In March 2020, prior to the CSSG controversy, all but three members of the WE Charity board resigned. Michelle Douglas, former WE Charity board chair, testified that WE Charity executives were proposing mass layoffs in response to declining ME to WE revenues due to the COVID-19 pandemic which, in turn, resulted in ME to WE’s declining contributions to WE Charity. She went on to state that

We had not seen any evidence, reports, or raw data to support the drastic measures that were being taken by the organization. . . . It was our view that we could not fire hundreds of people without very strong demonstrable evidence, and, even then, that we should explore mitigation measures to save jobs. . . . Given the pace and volume of job losses, the board committee demanded that the executive team produce immediately the documents and reports that were said to be being generated and relied upon. . . . The executive team, when asked, did not agree to provide these documents.

On March 25th Craig Kielburger called me and asked that I resign from the board of directors of WE Charity. It was clear that there was a breakdown in trust between the founders and me as the board chair. . . .  As I was not going to be able to discharge my oversight duties, I opted to resign immediately. In an accelerated process, the remainder of the board of directors was replaced, but for one Canadian member [director] and two U.S. board members – in early April.^[133]

Craig Kielburger testified that Douglas’s resignation was part of a long-planned process of board renewal. In a Canadaland interview, Kate Bahen contested WE Charity’s position:

If a charity was to take the strategic decision to radically replace its entire governance structure, that needs to be signaled to donors and corporate sponsors well ahead . . . . Everybody needs to know what’s going on, so that it isn’t a surprise that you find out on Twitter that the chairman of the board resigned in March…and since the chair of their board resigned, that doesn’t jibe with their story.^[134]

WE Charity’s bylaws maintained two classes of membership: founding members and voting members. Founding members were granted significant power, including the ability to remove voting members.^[135] See Exhibit 8 – Free the Children By-laws and Exhibit 9 – WE Charity Foundation General ByLaw. According to the WE Charity website, Marc and Craig Kielburger were co-founders of WE Charity, although it was unclear if this meant that they were founding members.^[136] Michael Barrett (MP, CPC) asked Douglas, “Where does ‘founder’ fit in, in the organizational chart?” She responded

they [Marc and Craig Kielburger] had significant governance power because the bylaws allowed them to make decisions on essentially dismissing the board of directors or obligated the board of directors to refer to the founders and inform and consult them on significant directional shifts in the organization. So, the founders did have governance power in that sense. Certainly Marc Kielburger, and rarely Craig Kielburger, attended most board of director meetings with the executive director.^[137]

In his testimony, Greg Thomson of Ci asked,

why are the Kielburgers [brothers] not directors of any of the WE charities, but take the title of “co-founders,” which allows them to avoid fiduciary responsibility and evade disclosure? Why has neither WE Charity Foundation in Canada, or ME to WE Foundation in the U.S. disclosed in their regulatory filings the non-arm’s-length relationship of three of their directors?^[138]

In response to the Ci employees’ testimony, WE Charity noted in a media release that “Craig and Marc Kielburger are volunteers for WE Charity. They have never been employed by WE nor served on the Board of Directors to help ensure the independence of the Board of Directors.”^[139]

While this membership model was legal, there were concerns about its transparency and accountability.^[140] Elizabeth May (MP, Green Party of Canada) remarked during the testimony. “In the future I think you may want to look at your role as founders . . . you have founders, staff, the board of directors. It’s a bit murky as a governance question.”^[141]

WE Charity’s Social Impact

Some observers questioned the organization’s social impact.^[142] Ci, a charity watchdog organization, had given the charity a “Low” impact rating for its 2018 fiscal year based on demonstrated impact per dollar spent (see Exhibit 10 – Charity Intelligence Rating of WE Charity 2018 and 2019).^[143] Greg Thomson (Ci), stated,

When it comes to WE Charity in particular, we looked at their international programs, and the level of reporting is weak when it comes to understanding what impact they’ve had. They talk about how over the last 20 years, since they’ve been in business, they’ve built 1,500 schools and they’ve helped a million people get access to water. These are all very vague statements that provide very little demonstrated impact over what happened in the last year . . . It was their domestic programs that had somewhat better-quality data, with more specific, actionable, understandable metrics that we could actually value.^[144]

See Exhibit 11 – WE Transparency Report 2019. In a media release, WE Charity responded to Thomson’s testimony:

Our impact is clear: WE Charity impacts [include] Canadian students active in 7,000 WE schools; 1M+ youth attended WE Days logging 70M hours by youth to earn entry; Youth fundraising for 3,000 causes. WE Charity Global impact: 1,500 schools and schoolrooms, with 200,000 children attending; 30,000 women led groups; 1 million people access to clean water.^[145]

WE Charity posted its 2010 to 2018 financial statements and annual reports, and 2019 transparency report on its website. The 2019 annual report and financial statements had not been posted as of early August 2020. The ME to WE Foundation and WE Well-being Foundation financial statements were also posted on the WE.org website.^[146]

The Problem: How to Respond to Public Concerns

In late July, The Globe and Mail reported that Telus Corporation had ended its multiyear sponsorship with WE Charity.^[147] On July 28, the day of the Kielburgers’ testimony, the Toronto Star also reported that multiple major corporations were ending their partnership with WE Charity, including the Royal Bank of Canada, Loblaw Companies Ltd., GoodLife Fitness, and KPMG.^[148] On July 31, the CBC reported that the Government of Ontario would not be renewing its $500,000 contract with WE Charity.^[149]

By late July, 59% of Canadians believed that the controversy was “serious and significant” while 37% thought the behaviour of WE should be investigated “as a criminal act.”^[150] Only 8% of Canadians knew nothing about the controversy, and 57% suggested that it raised issues of governance, transparency, and management relevant to all charities.

Now, under the glare of intense media coverage following the testimony of Kate Bahen and Greg Thomson, and the loss of several important sponsors, Marc and Craig Kielburger had to decide how to best address the concerns of lawmakers, donors, and corporate sponsors about the accountability and governance of WE Charity and its related corporate entities.

Exhibits

Exhibit 1 – Certificate of Amendment WE Charity

Certificate of Amendment WE Charity/Organisme Unis
Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation
Purpose of the Corporation
May 4, 2019

1. To relieve poverty in developing nations by providing people in need with access to:

(a) education;

(b) health programming;

(c) clean water and sanitation;

(d) agriculture and food security; and

(e) basic tools and training required to generate income and develop a livelihood.

2. To advance education and promote volunteerism by providing leadership and citizenship training programs, awards and events designed to encourage and enable Canadians to participate more fully as community members, volunteers, and responsible citizens on a local, national, and international level.
3. To improve the efficiency of other registered charities by providing a facility or facilities to house the operations of other registered charities and by providing expertise to registered charities on all aspects of their operations to better enable them to deliver their charitable programs.
4. To receive and maintain a fund or funds and to apply all or part of the principal and income therefrom, from time to time, to qualified donees as defined in subsection 149.1(1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada).

Source: Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada. (2019). Certificate of Amendment Articles of Incorporation WE Charity 335640-0. Government of Canada. p. 2.

Credit: Excerpt is reproduced from documents available via the Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada website under the terms and conditions of non-commercial reproduction.

[back]

Exhibit 2 – Corporate Entities Connected to the WE Organization*

For a graphic representation of the WE Organization and its corporate structure, see “The WE Organization’s Structure” exhibit in “How A Charity Superstar Innovated its Way to Political Scandal” from Bloomberg.

*This list may not be exhaustive of entities related to, or affiliated with, WE.

Sources: Based on Ci’s top 10 questions for Marc and Craig Kielburger. (2020, July 27). Charity Intelligence Canada; and Obiko Pearson, N., Bochove, D., & Herbling, D. (2020, December 29). How a charity superstar innovated its way to political scandal. Bloomberg.com.

[back]

Exhibit 3 – WE Charity Notes To Non-Consolidated Financial Statements August 31, 2019

Excerpts from Non-Consolidated Financial Statements 2019 Notes 16 and 17

NOTE 16 IMAGINE 1 DAY INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

Effective May 8, 2017, the organization took control of Imagine 1 Day International Organization (“I1D”), a charitable organization, by virtue of a common board of directors. I1D’s programs focus on providing children in Ethiopia with access to quality education. I1D’s program activities include the construction of schools, water points and latrines, curriculum enhancement, leadership and teacher training, and parent and community mobilization initiatives.

As part of the arrangement to transfer control, the organization received $10,000,000 in marketable securities from Imagine 1 Day International Foundation, an entity controlled by I1D by virtue of a common board of directors until May 7, 2017. The amount transferred is to be used towards initiatives in Ethiopia. As of August 31, 2019, $3,170,118 (2018 – $6,340,235) of the transfer is included as part of deferred contributions.

During the year the organization paid contributions to I1D in the amount of $860,000 (2018 – $300,000) to be used towards its programming in Ethiopia. Included in the organization’s accounts payable and accrued liabilities is a payable to I1D in the amount of $100,000 (2018 – $242,000). Included in the organization’s contributions receivable is a receivable from I1D in the amount of $100,000 (2018 – $Nil).

NOTE 17 ECONOMIC INTERESTS

The organization provides funding to a number of not-for-profit organizations outside of Canada to achieve its international program initiatives, known as “WE Villages”. The initiatives operate in nine countries around the world using a holistic economic and humanitarian development model. The organization has a regional director who works closely with each local not-for-profit organization to monitor their use of the organization’s funding and provides the organization with regular progress updates for ongoing initiatives.

Funding provided to these not-for-profit organizations for the year amounted to $8,736,000 (2018 – $6,385,000).

The organization also works closely with charities in the United States and United Kingdom that share the same mission and vision as the organization.

During the year, the organization received contributions in the amount of $20,884,000 (2018 – $13,074,000) from the charity in the United States and $1,204,000 (2018 – $573,000) from the charity in the United Kingdom, towards the organization’s international and domestic programming.

Included in contributions receivable is $33,000 (2018 – $199,000) and $65,000 (2018 – $Nil) receivable from the charities in the United States and United Kingdom, respectively. Included in accounts payable and accrued liabilities is $1,326,000 (2018 – $Nil) payable to the charity in the United States. Included in deferred contributions is $1,371,000 (2018 – $1,670,000) received from the charity in the United States towards the organization’s international programming.

The organization also works closely with not-for-profit organizations in Canada to achieve various domestic program initiatives. The organization received contributions in the amount of $900,000 (2018 – $Nil) from Canadian not-for-profit organizations. Funding provided to these Canadian organizations for the year amounted to $400,000 (2018 – $Nil). Included in contributions receivable is a total of $47,000 (2018 – $50,000) receivable from the Canadian organizations. Included in accounts payable and accrued liabilities is a payable to the Canadian organizations in the amount of $130,000 (2018 – $Nil).

Source: WE Charity Financial Statements 2019 retrieved from Charity Intelligence Canada.

Credit: © WE Organization, all rights reserved. Reused under fair dealing.

[back]

Exhibit 4 – WE Charity Statement of Operations

WE Charity (Canada)
Statement of Operations 2017^b, 2018^a, 2019^a ($ CAD)¹

Notes:

1. WE Charity’s 2020 financial statements had not been released as of April 16, 2021 (the time of writing).
2. In 2018, WE Charity changed its year-end from December 31st to August 31st, resulting in an 8-month period for the 2018 fiscal year. 2018 Financial data were revised in the 2019 financial statements.
3. Included only in the 2019 Statement; 2018 data was revised to include amortization.
4. WE365 Holdings is a for-profit corporation that was jointly held by ME to WE Social Enterprises and WE Charity. In 2018, WE Charity acquired 100% of WE365 Holding Company.
5. In 2017, “Unrealized gain on marketable securities”; in 2018, called “Gain on Marketable Securities”; and in 2019, two items called “Realized Gain on Marketable Securities” and “Unrealized gain (loss) on marketable securities.

Sources:

1. WE Charity Financial Statements 2019.
2. WE Charity Financial Statements 2017.

[back]

Exhibit 5 – WE Charity Statement of Financial Position

WE Charity (Canada)
Statement of Financial Position 2017^b, 2018^a, 2019^a ($ CAD)

Notes:

1. In 2018, WE Charity changed its year-end from December 31st to August 31st, resulting in an 8-month period for the 2018 fiscal year.
2. WE Charity was in breach of covenants on bank debt in 2018 and 2019. See FINA No. 49, House of Commons of Canada, 43rd Parliament, 1st Session, 18 (2020).

Sources:

1. WE Charity Financial Statements 2019.
2. WE Charity Financial Statements 2017.

[back]

Exhibit 6 – WE Charity Statements Financial Transactions with ME to WE Social Enterprise 

Non-Consolidated Financial Statements 2019 Note 15 (page 20)

The co-founders of the organization [WE Charity] have a controlling interest in ME to WE Social Enterprise Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, “ME to WE”) through a holding company. The purpose of ME to WE is to help support the operations of the organization [WE Charity]. The organization purchases books, educational material, promotional items and travel and leadership training services from ME to WE at, or below, wholesale prices.

During the year the organization [WE Charity] purchased books from ME to WE through intermediaries in the amount of $759,200 (2018 – $542,625) at or below wholesale price. The amount has not been included in the disclosure above.

Included in contributions receivable is $588,422 (2018 – $63,000) receivable from ME to WE.

Included in accounts payable and accrued liabilities is $179,474 (2018 – $267,423) payable to ME to WE.

These transactions are in the normal course of operations and are measured at the exchange amount which is the amount of consideration established and agreed to by the related entities.

Source: WE Charity Financial Statements 2019 retrieved from Charity Intelligence Canada.

Credit: © WE Organization, all rights reserved. Reused under fair dealing.

[back]

Exhibit 7 WE Charity Foundation Certificate of Incorporation

Certificate of Incorporation WE Charity Foundation
Articles of Incorporation

Purpose of the Corporation

January 29, 2018^a

To promote the efficiency and effectiveness of other registered charities by providing and maintaining facilities to house the operations of other registered charities, including WE Charity.

To receive and maintain a fund or funds and to apply all or part of the principal and income therefrom, from time to time, to qualified donees as defined in subsection 149.1(1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada).

Amended June 9, 2020^b

To promote public participation with volunteer and community organizations with an aim to foster good citizenship and encourage healthy communities.

To advance education by providing publicly available scholarships, bursaries, and other forms of financial assistance to individuals to be used for post-secondary education.

Source:

1. Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada. (2018). Certificate of Incorporation—WE Charity Foundation Corporation Number 1060450-0. Government of Canada.
2. Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada. (2020). Certificate of Amendment—WE Charity Foundation Corporation. Government of Canada.

Credit: Excerpts are reproduced from documents available via the Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada website under the terms and conditions of non-commercial reproduction.

[back]

Exhibit 8 – Free the Children By-laws

Excerpts from By-law 1 of Free the Children (In 2016 Amended Name to WE Charity)
December 6, 2013

Membership in the Corporation shall be available to persons interested in furthering the Corporation’s purposes and who have applied for and been accepted into members in the Corporation in the manner set out herein.

Section 2.01 Classes and Conditions of Membership

Subject to the articles, there shall be two (2) classes of members in the Corporation, namely, Voting Members and Founding Members.

Voting Members

(a) The voting members are such individuals or corporations whose application for admission as a voting member has received (i) the approval of a majority of the votes cast by the directors of the Corporation at a meeting of the directors of the Corporation, (ii) the approval of the majority of the votes cast by members, if any, at a special meeting of members and (iii) the unanimous approval of the Founding Members, if any.

(b) As set out in the articles, each Voting Member is entitled to receive notice of, attend and vote at all meetings of members and each such Voting Member shall be entitled to one (1) vote at such meetings.

Founding Members

(c) The Founding Members are such other individuals whose application for admission as a founding member has received (i) the approval of a majority of the votes cast by directors of the Corporation at a meeting of the directors of the Corporation, the approval of the majority of the votes cast by members, if any, at a special meeting of members and (iii) the unanimous approval of the Founding Members, if any.

(d) As set out in the articles, each Founding Member is entitled to receive notice of, attend and vote at all meetings of members and each such Founding Member shall be entitled to one (1) vote at such meetings.

Section 2.02 Consultation Right

The directors of the corporation shall be required to consult with the Founding Members, if any, at least 30 days prior to making any decision, taking any action or entering into any agreement, or authorizing any such decision, action, or agreement that would result in a fundamental change in the direction of the objectives of the Corporation, provided that the Founding Members may by written agreement waive their rights under this Section 2.02.

Section 3.02 Termination of Membership

A membership in the Corporation is terminated when:

(a) The member dies, or in the case of a member that is a corporation, the corporation is dissolved;

(b) The member fails to maintain any qualifications for membership described in the section on membership conditions of these bylaws;

(c) The member resigns by delivering a written resignation to the secretary of the corporation in which case, such resignation shall be effective on the date specified in the resignation;

(d) For Voting Members only, if at a special meeting of members, a resolution is passed to remove the Voting Member by either (i) the unanimous approval of the Founding Members; or (ii) the approval of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the votes cast by members, provided that in either case the Voting Member shall be given notice of the meeting at which such resolution is to be voted upon and granted the opportunity to be heard at such meeting;

(e) The member’s term of membership expires (if any); or

(f) The Corporation is liquidated or dissolved under the Act.

Source: By-Law No. 1 A by-law relating generally to the conduct of the affairs of Free the Children (later known as WE Charity). (2013). WE Charity 335640-0. Government of Canada.

Credit: Excerpt reprinted under the Government of Canada terms and conditions for non-commercial reproduction.

[back]

Exhibit 9 – WE Charity Foundation General ByLaw

Excerpts from General Bylaw 2018-1 of WE Charity Foundation
March 5, 2018

Section 2.01 Composition

Subject to the Articles, membership in the Corporation shall consist of the following two (2) classes of membership:

(a) such initial Founding Member as is admitted as such by the initial Directors and thereafter, such Founding Members as are admitted as such by the then Founding Members; and

(b) Ordinary Members, who shall be those individuals who are the Directors of the Corporation from time to time, each of whom shall cease to be an Ordinary Member immediately upon ceasing to be a Director.

A corporation or other entity may be a Member.

Section 2.02 Voting

The voting rights of each class of Members shall be as follows:

(a) each Founding Member shall be entitled to one (1) vote on all matters brought before the Members;

(b) except as otherwise provided in the Act or the Articles, each Ordinary Member shall be entitled to one (1) vote on all matters brought before the Members; provided however, that so long as there shall be at least one Founding Member in office, then the Ordinary Members shall not be entitled to vote on the matters listed below and the Founding Members shall be the sole class of Members entitled to vote on:

(i) any amendments to the By-Laws of the Corporation;

(ii) any amendments to the Articles of the Corporation;

(iii) the admission of additional Founding Members pursuant to section 2.01(a);

(iv) the admission of additional Ordinary Members pursuant to section 2.01(b);

(v) the removal of an Ordinary Member pursuant to section 2.06(a);

(vi) the election of an Appointed Director pursuant to section 3.02; and

(vii) the removal of an Appointed Director pursuant to section 3.06(a).

Source: General Bylaw 2018-1 of WE Charity Foundation, March 5, 2018.

Credit: Excerpt is reproduced from documents available via the Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada website under the terms and conditions of non-commercial reproduction.

[back]

Exhibit 10 – Charity Intelligence Rating of WE Charity

Excerpts from Charity Intelligence Rating of WE Charity
2018 and 2019 Results

Results and Impact

WE Charity’s 2019 annual report is not yet posted. These results refer to 2018.

WE Charity reports that $265,921,623 of social value was created globally in F2018 by youth involved in the WE Schools program. In surveys of U.S. and Canadian educators, WE Charity found that through its domestic programs, 90% of students demonstrated increased leadership amongst their peers and 83% of teachers feel better equipped to teach about social justice issues.

WE Charity reports that over 200 women were empowered in F2018 through a new Women’s Empowerment Centre in Kenya. The centre has a computer lab, banking facility, artisan production space, and daycare.

While Ci highlights these key results, they may not be a complete representation of WE Charity’s results and impact.

Charity Intelligence has given WE Charity a Low impact rating based on demonstrated impact per dollar spent.

Finances

Please note: WE Charity changed its fiscal year-end to August. The 2018 figures are for only 8 months and are not comparable with 2019 figures for 12 months.

WE Charity is one of Canada’s largest charities with $27.5m in donations and corporate sponsorships. In addition, WE Charity received $20.9m from WE US and $1.2m from WE UK, $8.5m in donated goods in-kind and volunteer time, and $1.6m in Canadian government funding. Excluding the funds from WE US and WE UK (since each has its own fundraising costs), WE Charity’s fundraising costs are 8% of donations. Administrative costs are 6% of total revenues. WE Charity’s total spending on overhead is 14%. This is within Charity Intelligence’s reasonable range.

At August 2019 year-end, WE Charity had cash and investments (gross funding reserves) of $11.5m compared with $14.0m at year-end August 2018. WE Charity’s bank loans increased to $13.7m in 2019 compared with $11.1m in 2018. This creates a negative funding reserve of $2.2m. For the second year, WE Charity is in breach of its financial covenants on its bank debt. Its bank has waived these conditions for the current period. These bank loans are secured against WE Charity’s properties valued at $39.4m.

WE Charity’s audited financial statements disclose related party transactions: In F2019, WE Charity paid ME to WE $3.6m for promotional goods, travel and leadership training services, and rent. WE Charity received contributions from ME to WE of $4.4m. WE Charity paid $1.4m to We365 Holdings Inc. for support for Canadian programs. We365 Holdings Inc. is entirely owned by WE Charity. WE Charity gave Imagine 1 Day, a controlled charity, $860k in F2019 and $300k in F2018 for programs in Ethiopia, giving children access to education, including building schools and latrines. Imagine 1 Day owes WE Charity $3.1m.

On January 1 2019, WE Charity registered a charity, a public foundation, WE Charity Foundation. WE Charity’s audit does not report any transaction with WE Charity Foundation and is not consolidated in Charity Intelligence’s analysis.

This [finance] report is an update. Charity Intelligence is reviewing the financial information with WE Charity’s management. Changes and edits may be forthcoming. Updated on July 10, 2020, by Kate Bahen.

Source: Bahen, K. (2020, July 10). Charity Intelligence rating of WE Charity.

Credit: © Charity Intelligence, all rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

[back]

Exhibit 11 – WE Transparency Report 2019

Excerpts from Internal and Third-Party Evaluations, Accreditations, Reports and Statements for
WE Charity and ME to WE Programs, Operations and Governance 2019

We actively seek out independent third-party assessments of our work, engaging professional evaluators like Mission Measurement, Knightsbridge, BCorp, Fair Trade, Plan to Protect and, of course the youth, educators and community members around the world who participate in our programs. As part of our commitment to transparency, WE has for years shared these evaluations, reports, certifications, testimonials and policy documents online. We wanted to make it even easier to share these resources by compiling them in this booklet. The goal is to share our journey of self-evaluation, learning and growth with you, our supporters, donors and participants. As the organization strives for continuous improvement, we seek to build on our strengths and address our weaknesses so we can achieve the greatest possible impact.

WE Charity Financials and Governance¹

At WE Charity, our goal is continuous learning, growth and improvement. That’s why WE engages third-party experts to review our financials, governance and organizational oversight. In accordance with our commitment to openness and transparency, we share this information with our donors, partners, and the general public.

We believe social enterprises represent an important means to deliver social impact. Inspired by groups such as Grameen Bank, REStore (for Habitat for Humanity) and Goodwill, ME to WE is a social enterprise. As a pioneer, we strive to establish and uphold best practices for the sector. From the very beginning, WE has engaged recognized experts and authorities to advise and evaluate every aspect of our social enterprise.

International Programs and Trips

For over 20 years, WE Charity has engaged in sustainable development work that empowers communities as active partners in positive change. Aligned with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, WE Charity employs our unique five-pillar sustainable development model that addresses the underlying challenges that lead to extreme poverty: education, health care, clean water and sanitation, environmentally sustainable food security and economic opportunity. Integrally woven into and supporting our development work are ME to WE travel experiences. ME to WE travelers experience an immersive cultural experience rooted in community friendship and trust, actively contributing to and supporting the work of WE Charity in developing communities. It’s a safe, immersive and socially responsible way to travel. (p. 8)

Domestic Programs

WE Schools seeks to bring service-learning into every classroom. The WE Schools program is aligned with Ministry of Education and Common Core guidelines, and impacts more than 4.3 million students at over 16,000 schools in North America and the UK. Service-learning is a form of experiential learning where global issues are directly linked to core curriculum, and students learn about the subject through volunteering, action and real-world problem solving in their own communities. WE Schools resources are developed in partnership and with direct input from educators, and we routinely seek feedback from teachers and school board officials to continually improve. We also engage third parties to study and quantify the impact of the WE Schools program. (p. 14)

Note:

1. WE Charity consistently posted its Financial Statements, Annual Reports, and Transparency Reports on its website. As of April 25, 2021, the 2019 Financial Statements for WE Charity were not available on the WE Organization website.

Source: WE Organization. (2019). WE Transparency Report 2019 Internal and Third-Party Evaluations, Accreditations, Reports and Statements for WE Charity and ME to WE Programs, Operations and Governance (p. 13).

Credit: © WE Organization, all rights reserved. Reused under fair dealing.

[back]

References

A significant part of duties “the 20% rule.” (2022). Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada.

About ME to WE. (n.d). WE. Retrieved April 6, 2021, from https://www.we.org/en-ca/about-we/me-to-we/about-me-to-we/

About us. (n.d). WE. Retrieved April 6, 2021, from https://www.wecharity.org/about-we-charity/about-us/

Bahen, K. (2020, July 10). WE Charity. Charity Intelligence Canada.

Ballingall, A. (2020, June 25). Ottawa outsources student-grant program to a Toronto charity that works with Justin Trudeau’s wife. Toronto Star.

Bell, S. & Russell, A. (2020, July 22). Trudeau gov. contract for $912M student program was with WE Charity’s real estate holding foundation. Global News.

Blumberg, M. (2020, July 28). WE Charity filings with Corporations Canada. Canadian Charity Law.

Blumberg, M. (2020, September 4). What will be the impact of the WE charity scandal on the Canadian charity sector? Canadian Charity Law.

Brown, J. (2015, March 20). Why did the CBC just pull an exposé on “voluntourism”? Canadaland.

Brown, J. (2020, July 9). Trudeau family paid hundreds of thousands by WE organization. Canadaland.

Brown, J. (2020, July 15). What’s the deal with WE Charity’s accounting department? Canadaland.

Brown, J. (2020, July 18). WE Charity moved millions to private Kielburger company. Canadaland.

Canada Revenue Agency. (2006, March 10). Guidelines for registering a charity: Meeting the public benefit test.

Canada Revenue Agency. (2012, October 31). General requirements for charitable registration.

Canada Revenue Agency. (2019, April 25). What is charitable?

Canada Revenue Agency. (2019, August 31). 2019 registered charity information return for WE Charity Foundation.

Canada Revenue Agency. (2023, August 8). T3010 registered charity information return: WE Charity.

Canada Student Service Grant. (2020, June 25). Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau.

Canadian Charity Law. (2020). Membership of non-profits and charities in Canada [Webinar].

Canadian Charity Law. (n.d.a). Multiple corporate structures for Canadian for-profits, non-profits and charities to enhance flexibility + impact [Course].

Canadian Charity Law. (n.d.b). Separation and independence by Canadian charities from entities that are not Canadian charities [Course].

CBC News. (2020, July 15). WE Charity announces restructuring amid student grant controversy. CBC.

CBC News. (2020, July 28). The WE Charity controversy explained. CBC.

CBC News. (2020, July 31). Ontario government cuts ties with WE Charity. CBC.

Charity Commission for England and Wales. (2015). Corporate report: Tackling abuse and mismanagement 2014-15, full report.

Charity Commission for England and Wales. (2019). Guidance for charities with a connection to a non-charity.

Charles, G. (2019). Directed charities and controlled partnerships[PDF]. Canadian Council for International Co-operation (CCIC).

Cheney, P. (2000, January 22). Kielburger, magazine settle lawsuit. The Globe and Mail.

Clark, C. (2020. July 3). We the public deserve to see the WE deal details. The Globe and Mail, A4.

Conflict of Interest Act (S.C. 2006, c. 9, s. 2). Retrieved from the Justice Laws website:  https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-36.65/

Corporate partners page. (n.d). WE. Retrieved April 5, 2021, from https://www.wecharity.org/about-we-charity/financials-and-governance/corporate-partners-page/

Corporations Canada. (December 6, 2013). By-law no. 1 A by-law relating generally to the conduct of the affairs of Free the Children (later known as WE Charity). Government of Canada.

Council on Foundations. (2020, November). Nonprofit law in Canada. International Center for Non-Profit Law.

Craig Kielburger, co-founder of WE. (n.d). WE. Retrieved April 7, 2021, from https://www.we.org/en-ca/about-we/our-founders/craig-kielburger

Curry, B. (2020, June 27). PM accused of cronyism over WE Charity contract.The Globe and Mail. 

Deschamps, T. (2020, July 29). Sponsors, WE Charity agree to part ways; RBC, GoodLife Fitness, KPMG among companies backing away amid ongoing controversy. Toronto Star, B1.

Downard, P. (2018, November 6). Notice of intent to commence proceedings for defamation against Canadaland[PDF]. Fasken, Martineau, DuMoulin, LLP.

Empowering change. (n.d). WE. Retrieved April 4, 2021, from https://www.wecharity.org/

Federal Corporation Information. (n.d.a). 335640-0 WE Charity. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. Retrieved March 22, 2024, from https://ised-isde.canada.ca/cc/lgcy/fdrlCrpSrch.html?lang=eng

Federal Corporation Information. (n.d.b). 1060450-0 WE Charity Foundation. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. Retrieved March 22, 2024, from https://ised-isde.canada.ca/cc/lgcy/fdrlCrpSrch.html?lang=eng

Financial reports. (n.d). WE. Retrieved May 2, 2021, from https://www.we.org/en-ca/about-we/we-charity/governance/financial-reports

Frequently asked questions ME to WE. (n.d). WE. Retrieved April 6, 2021, from https://www.we.org/en-ca/about-we/me-to-we/about-me-to-we/faq

Global News Staff. (2020, July 29). Charities don’t usually sponsor rich donors’ travel like WE Charity, experts say. Global News.

Godel, L. J. (2007, July 1). The how, why, and when of using multiple corporate structures. The Philanthropist.

Goudge, S. (2019, April 11). Independent assessment of WE employment policies and practices[PDF]. Stephen T. Goudge Professional Corporation.

Goudge, S. (2019, May 23). Independent assessment of WE’s co-founders’ compensation, WE’s reporting protocols, and relationship with Theresa and Fred Kielburger. 

Goudge, S. (2019, November 13). Independent assessment of WE Charity’s real estate holdings and practices. Stephen T. Goudge Professional Corporation.

Goudge, S. (n.d). Independent review regarding WE Charity, ME to WE, Craig and Marc Kielburger and the Track Your Impact program[PDF].

How WE Charity started. (n.d). WE. Retrieved March 4, 2021, from https://www.wecharity.org/about-we-charity/our-story/

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. (2019). Certificate of amendment articles of incorporation WE Charity 335640-0. Government of Canada. p. 2.

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. (2022, July 21). Your reporting obligations under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act (NFP Act). Government of Canada.

Kerr, J. (2018, November 19). How the Kielburgers handle the press. Canadaland.

Kerr, J. (2019, June 25). Inside the ‘cult’ of Kielburger. Canadaland.

Korzinksi, D. 2020, July 27. WE scandal: Trudeau’s approval drops six more points, but Canadians doubt issue will bring down government. Angus Reid Institute.

KRP LLP Chartered Professional Accountants. (2012, May 8). Kids Can Free the Children financial statements. Audited Financial Statements.

KRP LLP Chartered Professional Accountants. (2020, February 29). WE Charity nonconsolidated financial statements[PDF]. Audited Financial Statements.

Manwaring, S. & Valentine, A. (2012). Social enterprise in Canada. The 2012 Lexpert®/American Lawyer Guide to the Leading 500 Lawyers in Canada.

Marc Kielburger, co-founder of WE. (n.d). WE. Retrieved April 7, 2021, from https://www.we.org/en-ca/about-we/our-founders/marc-kielburger

ME to WE partnership. (n.d). WE. Retrieved April 9, 2021, https://www.wecharity.org/about-we-charity/financials-and-governance/me-to-we-partnership/

Merali, F. (2020, July 7). Former WE Charity employee says staff tried to silence her by rewriting anti-racism speech. CBC.

Miller Thomson LLP. (2018). WE Charity Foundation general by-law number 2018-1[PDF].

Milstead, D. & Waldie, P. (2020, July 29). Former WE Charity board chair says she had little insight into finances. The Globe and Mail.

Nardi, C. (2020, July 17). WE organization under scrutiny for not registering as federal lobbyist; conservatives ask if proposals breached law. National Post.

On the Canada Student Service Grant. (2020, July 10). Volunteer Toronto.

Our domestic work. (n.d). WE. Retrieved April 4, 2021, from https://www.we.org/en-ca/about-we/domestic

Our founders. (n.d). WE. Retrieved April 7, 2021, from https://www.we.org/en-ca/about-we/our-founders/

Our story. (n.d). WE. Retrieved April 6, 2021, from https://www.wecharity.org/about-we-charity/our-story/

Oversight and accountability. (n.d). ME to WE. Retrieved from April 9, 2021, https://www.metowe.com/about-us/oversight-and-accountability/

Prowse Chowne LLP. (n.d.). Types of not-for-profit organizations in Canada.

Savoie, Y. (2020, September 2). Untangling the corporate web: Charity conglomerates and the WE Charity scandal. Imagine Canada.

Serebrin, J. (2020, September 27). Do groups like WE Charity actually help the overseas communities where they operate? CTVNews.

Shop ME to WE. (n.d.). ME to WE. Retrieved April 6, 2021, from https://shop.metowe.com/en-ca/

Smith, M.-D. (2020, September 9). The rise and fall of WE Charity. Macleans.

Social enterprise. (n.d). WE. Retrieved April 6, 2021, https://www.we.org/en-ca/about-we/me-to-we/about-me-to-we/social-enterprise

Speevak, P. (2020, June 29). For the record: Volunteer Canada’s Views on the Canada Student Service Grant Program. Volunteer Vibe | Parlons Bénévolat.

Standing Committee on Finance. (2020, August 6). Evidence – FINA (43-1) – No. 49. House of Commons, Parliament of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/43-1/FINA/meeting-49/evidence

Standing Committee on Finance. (2020, July 22). Evidence – FINA (43-1) – No. 43. House of Commons, Parliament of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/43-1/FINA/meeting-43/evidence

Standing Committee on Finance. (2020, July 28) Evidence – FINA (43-1) – No. 43. House of Commons, Parliament of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/43-1/FINA/meeting-45/evidence

Thomson, G. (2016, October 18). Free the Children becomes WE Charity. Charity Intelligence Canada.

Tumilty, R. (2020, July 24). Who does “voluntourism” actually help? Trips run by WE and other charities draw skepticism. National Post.

University of Toronto. (2020). Financial report, April 30, 2020[PDF].

Waldie, P. (2020, August 19). WE Charity’s fall from grace: The Kielburger brothers’ philanthropic empire is struggling to survive. The Globe and Mail.

Waldie, P. (2020, July 24). Virgin suspends WE Charity donations, Telus drops partnership, as sponsors review ties. The Globe and Mail.

Walsh, M. & Curry, B. (2020, July 28). How WE got here: A timeline of the charity, the contract and the controversy. The Globe and Mail.

WE Charity awards. (n.d). WE. Retrieved April 5, 2021, from https://www.we.org/en-ca/about-we/we-charity/we-charity-awards

WE Charity real estate. (n.d). WE. Retrieved April 25, 2021, https://www.we.org/en-ca/transparency-reporting/we-charity-real-estate

WE Charity. (2020, August 6). WE Charity’s statement in response to testimony by Charity Intelligence before the Standing Committee on Finance [Press Release].

WE Charity. (2020, July 22). WE Charity response to testimony of Finance Minister Bill Morneau[PDF] [Press Release].

WE Charity. (2021, January 2). Response to Bloomberg Businessweek. https://www.we.org/en-ca/about-we/we-charity/response-to-bloomberg-businessweek.

WE Organization. (2019). WE transparency report 2019[PDF].

Welcome to committees. (n.d.). House of Commons, Parliament of Canada. Retrieved April 20, 2021, from https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/Home

Wyatt, B. (2021). It should have been so simple: The regulation of charities in Canada. In S. Phillips & B. Wyatt (Eds.), Intersections and innovations: Change for Canada’s voluntary and nonprofit Sector (pp. 1–16). Muttart Foundation.

Yakabuski, K. (2020 August 4). WE Charity affair shows perils of corporate virtue-signalling. The Globe and Mail.

Download a PDF copy of this case [PDF].

Read the Instructor’s Manual Abstract for this case.

How to cite this case: Sharen, C. M. (2024). WE Charity: Selling virtue can be complicated. Open Access Teaching Case Journal, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.58067/r8ff-0p61

The Open Access Teaching Case Journal is a peer-reviewed, free to use, free to publish, open educational resource (OER) published with the support of the Conestoga College School of Business and the Case Research Development Program and is aligned with the school’s UN PRME objectives. Visit the OATCJ website [new tab] to learn more about how to submit a case or become a reviewer.

ISSN 2818-2030