Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 7th, 2020

[Martin Daraiche]

No, Mr. Gourde.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, what we were trying to do was reach out to as many not-for-profit organizations and students as possible. When we contacted constituency offices, it was so that the MP would pass on the information regarding the grant program to the same audience, not-for-profit organizations and students. We were not trying to influence you in any way, shape or form.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

I understand what you were trying to do, but when a communications firm the size of NATIONAL approaches us or sends us an email, as MPs, we are somewhat skeptical. We are always careful in light of the Lobbying Act, which governs the contact people have with us. You engage in lobbying on other issues, so when NATIONAL communicates with us to promote something, it is a request by NATIONAL to work with us as MPs, so we are on guard to a certain degree.

Could you have been clearer in your explanation to MPs?

Could you have let us know that you wanted to work with us on communications?

Personally, I was quite surprised.

[Martin Daraiche]

Mr. Gourde, our communications with members of the House of Commons were extremely clear, in my view. The purpose was always to have you pass on the information. Since you brought up lobbying, I want to make sure this is understood: on some occasions, professionals from our firm do indeed communicate with public office holders, elected officials, or public servants in—

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you. I understand. I'm almost out of time.

I have one last question.

[Martin Daraiche]

Those activities, Mr. Gourde, we report through the registry of lobbyists. It's important to make that distinction.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

I understand. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Gourde, that's all the time we have. Sorry about that.

[Martin Daraiche]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We'll now move on to Mr. Fergus for five minutes.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.

I must say I'm a bit disappointed, Mr. Chair. The members of the official opposition had three opportunities to apologize for dragging the reputations of these two firms through the mud. The fact that, as members of Parliament, we enjoy legal protection in terms of what we say here—

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The honourable member is claiming I said things I did not say. I did not drag NATIONAL through the mud. NATIONAL is a public relations and communications firm I respect. I especially don't want the honourable member's claim regarding my supposed comments to be replayed. I would ask that he please withdraw his remarks.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold. That's not a point of order.

Mr. Fergus, go ahead.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I am not trying to claim that Mr. Berthold, in particular, made the comment. I am referring to some of his fellow members, actually one specific member who made certain statements. In reference to Mr. Perelmuter, I believe he made the following statement:

“legally ordered WE documents have been destroyed.”

It implies that the firm's leadership did not want to abide by the committee's decisions or requests.

My question is for Mr. Perelmuter.

First of all, let me just ask you this quick question.

You said you have 27 employees.

[Martin Perelmuter]

That's right.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Before the tweets and the attacks in the media this summer, have your employees ever faced any opprobrium or threats in the course of the duties of their work?

[Martin Perelmuter]

No, nothing like this.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Since Mr. Barrett had taken those actions, could you tell us what effect this had on you, your family and your employees?

[Martin Perelmuter]

I'm sorry. It's cutting out a bit, but I think you're asking about the effect—

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Yes, that it's had on you, your family and your employees.

[Martin Perelmuter]

My wife was actually.... I'm sorry. It's a little bit difficult to talk about it. My wife was in fear for her own personal safety for a while. She didn't want to leave the house. When people are coming at you.... One of the individuals somehow found her personal cellphone number and posted it on some Facebook group with a photo of her, calling her disgusting and derogatory things. Her phone started ringing day and night, with all kinds of people calling. It was really unsettling. That obviously affected her greatly, and me as well.

Some of my staff let me know that they were concerned about their own safety. Many of our staff are young women in their twenties and thirties, so to have someone coming after them.... We actually tried to pre-empt some of it when we found out who the individual was and blocked them. I had to reach out to our staff and let them know to block this individual from social media before he started coming after them on social media.

It's something that we never thought we would have to deal with. We're not in a controversial type of business. We're in a business of sharing ideas, sharing hope and sharing inspiration. We've never had anything like this, and it was something that, frankly, we weren't quite prepared for.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Again, Mr. Perelmuter, as Ms. Shanahan said, I am terribly sorry that you, your family and your employees had to face this. I would hope that the members of the official opposition will profit from the time they have here to also present their apologies to you directly.

[Martin Perelmuter]

Thank you.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Sir, I know that going to court is a long and costly process, especially when you know that MPs enjoy certain immunity for what they say in the House and, by extension, what they say at committee, but have you ever considered filing suit against some members for the untrue statements they've made about you or your company on social media, which is not protected by parliamentary privilege?

[Martin Perelmuter]

We've been very busy just managing our business and trying to get through the pandemic and so forth, but certainly it's crossed my mind. Probably when I have a moment to breathe and things slow down a bit towards the holidays, I may reach out.

I should say that I am not a litigious person. I've never brought suit against anyone. I would not want to do that, but if there were ever a situation where I would consider it, this would be one, because it's been really disappointing that this would be brought on at all, and in particular, the circumstances and how it came about.... It was just unnecessary.

Mr. Angus mentioned something earlier about getting answers. I believe in this process. I believe in this committee. That's why we're here. That's why we've co-operated through the whole process. That's why it's doubly disturbing, because if the work was done here at the committee, I would have no issue with answering questions and providing the information or documentation that was requested. That's the disappointment: It was taken outside of the committee and thrown into the public sphere, I guess, and we were just held out to dry.

We're not a big company. We can't hire a communications firm like NATIONAL Public Relations or someone like that. We're dealing with this on our own, and it's not fun when the first thing you do when you wake up in the morning is check to see what kind of nonsense is on social media and what people are saying or doing. It's been tough.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's all the time that we have. I gave an extra minute there because I felt that Mr. Perelmuter deserved to be able to heard, but we're over time.