Evidence of meeting #24 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was program.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I see.
As for Mrs. Grégoire Trudeau and members of her family, those expenses were not—
4:35 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
Correct. All the expenses were paid directly to the providers and never to those individuals.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Mr. Fergus.
We'll turn to Mr. Poilievre for the next five minutes.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
We'll take it that Mr. Fergus thinks there's nothing wrong with an organization paying a politician's mortgage and saying that they're not giving that politician any money by virtue of that logic.
Messrs. Kielburger, you could not tell me the total value of all of the in-kind and monetary payments of expenses and fees you'd given the Trudeau family. I've tried to add it all up—it's a lot of money. What I have here is $566,345. Is that the total amount of cash and in-kind fees and expenses your organization paid for Mr. Trudeau, his wife, his mother and his brother? Yes or no.
4:40 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
By the end of our time together we'll have that answer for you. They're adding it.... We thought we had until the end of the session, but I promise—
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
You've had almost a year. It looks incredibly suspicious. You still haven't been able to do the arithmetic. It does show the sordid relationship your organization has with the Trudeau family, that you can't even add up all the benefits and cash that you've paid them, so we'll move on to my next question.
What was the role, exactly, of Mr. Chin, senior adviser to the Prime Minister, in setting up this program?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
Yes, that's correct.
Who are you referring to, sir? Can you repeat this, please?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Then why did you send him a message on LinkedIn on June 27 saying, “Hello Ben, Thank you for your kindness in helping shape our latest program with the go'vt. Warmly, Craig.”
4:40 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
Sure. I sent a hundred messages because I only had seven or eight people on LinkedIn before that, so that day a hundred messages went out. My EA sent them to people to join on LinkedIn, and he was one of them. I actually didn't...but my EA did.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Sorry, Craig, this is your message. It's signed by you. If I could be clear—
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
—Excuse me. It says, “Thank you for your kindness in helping shape our latest program with the gov't. Warmly, Craig.”
You sent that, did you not?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I'm sorry, you've got yourself in a lot of trouble here. You just said a moment ago you thought that the Prime Minister's senior adviser, Mr. Chin, had no role in the establishment of the program, but I have correspondence where you thanked him for helping shape that very program.
Why did you thank him for shaping the program, when now you claim you didn't know he played any role in the program?
4:40 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
My EA wanted to personalize it and very kindly, as a great EA, wrote a few lines to a hundred different LinkedIn requests that went that same day to different people to join my LinkedIn page.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Excuse me, Craig.
Craig, you're in a lot of trouble here, my friend. You're under oath. Perjury is a crime.