OTTAWA — The president of the agency that handled speaking fees for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his family vented frustration at a parliamentary committee Monday over being dragged into the political firestorm of the WE Charity scandal.
Martin Perelmuter told the committee that his company, the Speakers’ Spotlight bureau, was subjected to “ridiculous claims and false accusations” over the issue of how much the Trudeaus had been paid by WE Charity and its affiliates over the years.
“For the past three months, our company has been the subject of harassment, including personal threats to ourselves and our staff,” Perelmuter said.
He relayed one example of how his wife’s photo and cell phone number had been posted in a Facebook group with derogatory comments, and her phone “started ringing day and night, with all kinds of people calling.” He called it “really unsettling,” saying his wife feared for her personal safety and didn’t want to leave the house.
“We’re private citizens and a private company who have been needlessly dragged into the middle of this political firestorm and find ourselves caught in the crossfire,” he said.
“I wish to remind members of the committee that as holders of public office in these increasingly divisive times, your words and actions have consequences, and that private citizens should not be used as tools to further political ambitions or agendas.”
The WE scandal erupted last June after it emerged Trudeau had not recused himself from a cabinet decision to have WE administer the Canada Student Service Grant despite the fact Trudeau’s wife, mother and brother had all been paid to appear at WE events. The Liberals have said the decision was based simply on the recommendation of the public service.
In the summer, the House of Commons ethics committee ordered Speakers’ Spotlight to produce documents of the Trudeau family’s speaking fees to verify claims about how much money had been exchanged.
Perelmuter said his company took the matter very seriously and was fully cooperative with the committee’s requests, though it did initially ask for an extension in order to collect all the files.
However, it took months for the opposition to get access to the documents. First, it was because Trudeau prorogued Parliament on Aug. 18, the day before Speakers’ Spotlight was set to hand them over. Prorogation dissolved the committee and it was not able to take the matter up again until early October.
Then the Liberals filibustered the opposition’s attempts to revive the document request, arguing it was an abuse of Parliament’s power to compel financial information about Trudeau’s family. The motion finally passed after the NDP voted with the Liberals to remove Trudeau’s mother, Margaret, and brother Alexandre from the request.
On Nov. 23, Speakers’ Spotlight handed over speaking fees on Trudeau and his wife Sophie Gregoire Trudeau to the committee to examine “in camera,” meaning behind closed doors. Since then, opposition MPs have not asked the committee to make the documents public, which indicates they did not find any smoking guns.
Under questioning from Conservative MP Michael Barrett on Monday, Perelmuter said he was not able to share any other information about Margaret and Alexandre Trudeau’s speaking fees. He also said his company has not handled any speaking events for Trudeau or his wife since 2013.
Perelmuter aimed much of his frustration at Barrett for stoking controversy around his company. He pointed to a letter Barrett posted in August that asked Speakers’ Spotlight to “do the right thing” and voluntarily disclose the documents, despite Parliament being prorogued.
Barrett also posted a video to Twitter in November claiming “legally ordered WE documents have been destroyed” by Speakers’ Spotlight, speculating in committee testimony that the destruction seemed to happen after Parliament was prorogued. The video racked up 260,000 views.
Speakers’ Spotlight released a statement the next day calling the claim “patently false and misleading,” saying it regularly purges hard copy documents more than seven years old in line with privacy and tax laws. It said nothing had been destroyed since the WE scandal broke, and that some digital records remained going back more than seven years.
After Perelmuter aired his frustrations, Liberal MPs demanded Barrett apologize to Perelmuter, and Liberal MP Greg Fergus asked if Perelmuter considered suing Barrett.
“We’ve been very busy just managing our business trying to get through the pandemic and so forth, but certainly it’s crossed my mind,” Perelmuter said, adding that he’s not a litigious person. “If there was ever a situation where I would consider it, this would be one.”
Committee chair David Sweet, a Conservative MP, told Perelmuter he has the committee’s “sincere apology for any of the unintended consequences that came from any actions of the committee members in regards to the obligations of our office here at the committee, and I’m certain that all committee members feel that way.” Barrett did not respond directly to Perelmuter.
NDP MP Charlie Angus also apologized to Perelmuter. “We live in a very toxic climate, I’ve certainly been abused relentlessly on Twitter and Facebook for my work on this file,” Angus said. “I want to apologize, I don’t think that’s what should have happened.”
• Email: [email protected] | Twitter: btaplatt
Copyright Postmedia Network Inc., 2020
