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.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Excuse me. You said a moment ago that you thought the Prime Minister's chief adviser had no role in establishing this program. Your message to him did not say, thank you for joining me on LinkedIn. It said, “Thank you for your kindness in helping shape our latest program with the gov't. Warmly, Craig.”
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
So, which is it? I want to ask you clearly. Did you know that Mr. Chin was playing a role in establishing this program? Yes or no.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
You sent a message to someone thanking him for helping shape your latest program even though you had no knowledge of his involvement in the program.
4:40 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
A hundred messages went out to my LinkedIn people, and my EA kindly drafted them.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Right. Okay. Did you send a hundred messages out to random people thanking them for establishing a government program?
4:40 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
No. Each had a personalized LinkedIn request. That was his LinkedIn request.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Did his LinkedIn request ask you to thank him for establishing this program?
March 15th, 2021 / 4:40 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
No, that was my LinkedIn request to him.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Okay. Your story is shifting here, my friend.
This is important because you've until now claimed the Prime Minister's Office wasn't involved in shaping the program, it was just the bureaucratic ESDC. You've tried to distance the Prime Minister, who your organization has paid off, and now we find out that you corresponded with his top adviser thanking him for shaping the program.
4:40 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
Allow me to phrase it this way: that was the only correspondence I had in the course of two years with him, a three-line LinkedIn request to join.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
This isn't a LinkedIn request, my friend; this is you thanking him for establishing a program. You did not say, “Thank you for joining me on LinkedIn”; you said, “Thank you for your kindness in helping shape our latest program with the go'vt.” You said that. I appreciate that your lawyer's trying to help you out here. He looks extremely uncomfortable, and I don't blame him. I hope he's being paid well for this, and I think he'll be in your employ for a very long time, because lying to a parliamentary committee is, in fact, an offence. You have not explained why, a moment ago, you told us—
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
—that Mr. Chin did not have any involvement in the program and yet you actually sent a message to him thanking him for that involvement.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Mr. Poilievre, I'm going to recognize Mr. Dong's point of order.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Thank you, Chair.
My point of order is that I think the question was put; the answer was given, and then a comment was put towards the lawyer, who has no place to speak or respond, and I think that—
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you. I don't think that's a point of order; I think that's a point of debate.
Mr. Poilievre, we'll get you to finish that question; we'll give the Kielburgers an opportunity to answer, and then we'll move on to the next questioner.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Chin actually responded to your message. He said, “Great to hear from you Craig. Let's get our young working!” so obviously, in direct reference to the program, not “Thank you for agreeing to add me on LinkedIn”, as you're now claiming. Are you testifying that you never spoke or communicated in any way, shape or form with Mr. Chin outside of this message, before or after?
4:45 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
We're going to have a hard time getting LinkedIn followers after this.
4:45 p.m.
Founder, WE Charity
Mr. Poilievre, we'd love you to follow us on LinkedIn. That would be awesome.