<the article may be relevant to show the pay for play is alive and active. Pay for play has been suggested as a cover for child trafficking sexual activities. This article might inspire someone to research the pay for play programs and see if any deeper information can be dug up. >

I know this is a few months old, but I didn't see it show up in search and I forgot to submit it in July. This article details the direct project to which Canadian Trudeau donated, called critical sexual and reproduction health (SRH) services around the world. The article changes the phrase pay for play to cash for access. This prevents the idea that play and cash is linked to sexual services, but it does vaguely suggest in a sentence that it's wrong because Clinton Connections have been shady.

Is this a cover name

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/07/12/canada-shouldnt-donate-to-the-clinton-foundation

Justin Trudeau has been a vocal advocate on women’s issues.

Our Prime Minister has been praised, both here and abroad, for his efforts to advance equality among men and women.

He’s been particularly effective advocating for the United Nations and other governments to do more to help women living in violent or oppressive conditions, particularly women in those parts of the world subjected to barbaric practices such as female genital mutilation or child and forced marriages.

We could not be more supportive of this sort of advocacy.

Canada can and should play a leadership role in advancing initiatives that foster real change in the lives of women globally.

However, we have real concerns with plans announced Tuesday by the Liberal government to hand $20 million over to the Clinton Foundation to “support projects that will provide critical sexual and reproduction health (SRH) services” around the world.

The initiative was created under the umbrella of the Clinton Foundation, formed by former U.S. President Bill Clinton, and prominently supported by both Hillary and daughter Chelsea Clinton.

The Clinton’s have earned millions from their association with the foundation, not from direct compensation, but through book and speaking tour fees.

Bill Clinton, for example, reportedly received $26 million in speaking fees from organizations that donated to the foundation.

Meanwhile, the lavish foundation-related travel needs of the Clintons – including first-class tickets and charter planes – are covered by its donors.

More problematically, the foundation was at the heart of the cash-for-access scandal that dogged Hillary during her failed bid for the U.S. presidency.

While Hillary was Secretary of State, the Clinton foundation received millions from rich and powerful donors, including foreign governments – many of whom were seeking favorable decisions from the U.S. State Department.

Without doubt there were inflammatory allegations during the campaign about improper ethical behaviour, but just as clearly there were legitimate questions about relationships between the donors, the Clintons and their foundation.

And there’s no doubt the foundation has served as a powerful political tool for the Clintons.

Into this sticky wicket wades Justin Trudeau.

We take no issue with our government showing leadership on women’s issues.

We do question the wisdom of using Canadian taxpayer cash to get into bed with the Clintons.

Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly noted the sum handed over to the Clinton Health Access Initiative. The total is $20 million, which is a portion of a broader $241.5 million announcement of numerous contributions.