Public Accounts Committee on June 6th, 2007

[Jean Pelletier]

I would like to emphasize that I am referring to the transcript of my evidence, which was filed by your committee. Unfortunately, the pages are not numbered. The only indication that I can give you when I cite a reference would be to give you the time, if it is stated on the page I am reading.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

No, Mr. Pelletier, I was referring to the questioners--they have a book in front of them--only to refer to the page. This is only to assist the translators.

Monsieur Laforest.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Mr. Pelletier.

The question today concerns testimony that we find quite different. I'm talking about the testimony you gave before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the evidence you gave another day before the Gomery Commission. I have particularly focused on your statements on those days concerning the federal government's expenditures during the referendum campaign.

On April 6, 2004, you told the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and I quote: “I said that the publicity during the referendum was one thing, and we didn't interfere at all after that.” However, what you said on February 7, 2005, appears on page 12,485 of Volume 71, and I quote:

You know, my role during the referendum period was mainly to ensure coordination with the NO Committee, led by the Leader of the Opposition in Quebec. That was my main role.

However, we know that a note from Howard Balloch of the Privy Council Office suggests that the federal government paid advertising expenses for the NO side. Then there is a reference to the BCP company. Furthermore, notes concerning federal government referendum advertising expenditures were addressed to you personally.

Mr. Balloch worked for the Privy Council Office, as you did, and you were chief of staff. How can you say that you ensured coordination with the NO Committee, which shared invoices with Option Canada?

How do you explain that? It seems to me that's contradictory.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

May I interrupt you, Mr. Laforest?

Maybe the translation is not coming through, but in your question I didn't detect any reference to examination before this committee, before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Maybe I'm wrong.

It appears to me that you're referring to some other committee in Quebec—

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Yes, I will refer to what he said before the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

—versus the Gomery. That's what we're here about. If that's where you are, it's out of order.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pelletier made that statement on April 6, 2004. That was the same day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Before this committee?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Yes, it was before the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay.

[Jean Pelletier]

Could you restate the reference to the two documents that your clerk sent me? Where is that located in those documents?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I have a point of order.

I very clearly understood the remarks by Mr. Williams earlier, who referred to the Library of Parliament documents. Mr. Pelletier wants to know on what specific page that appears in the Library of Parliament document. I remind you of the wording of the motion agreed to by this committee on May 9, 2007. I'm going to read it to you.

That the following key witnesses, Jean-Marc Bard, Jean Pelletier and Charles Guité be invited to reappear before this committee to explain themselves on the apparent contradictions in the testimonies given to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts during the hearings on the November 2003 report of the Auditor General as well as testimonies before the Gomery Commission.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Laforest was clear. Mr. Pelletier stated that on April 6, 2004, and he made another statement before the Gomery Commission on February 7, 2005, which appears on page 12,485. The pagination problem you referred to is real and serious. However, we have before us the date on which that was said. It is as though you didn't say it to me when I was sitting on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. So I repeat that it was February 7, 2005 and that it appears on page 12,485.

Mr. Chairman, given the wording of the motion that the committee agreed to, it is not true that we are going to rely solely on Library of Parliament documents. There are contradictions. The Library of Parliament service, which is very competent, may not have found or seen certain elements. On the other hand, we have found some.

Now I understand why Mr. Williams wanted to ensure that was filed. It is not true that we will prevent ourselves from moving forward if we find other contradictions. I would like to settle that at the outset.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Monsieur Laforest, you can show Mr. Pelletier the testimony and he can attempt to answer it, but I can tell you that we spent a lot of time preparing that. What I would suggest, in the interest of time and efficiency, is that you show it to him, ask the question, and we will ask Mr. Pelletier and his lawyer to get back to you in writing, if he's not prepared right now.

Is that okay with you, Mr. Pratte?

[Jean Pelletier]

Mr. Chairman, your clerk told us that the questions that would be put to me would be related to what is written on the two pages that I'm presenting to you. I am perfectly prepared to answer on that basis. However, as we were not advised that we would be going beyond this subject, if you insist on an answer, my lawyer will have to send it in writing.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the motion—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We will allow you to respond in writing.

Mr. Laforest, your question.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the motion was not exhaustive and stated that we are talking about contradictions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Christopherson on a point of order.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm sorry, I can't sit back quietly. I agree entirely with Mr. Pelletier. We've been very clear. I've been part of this process at almost every committee meeting and at the steering committee meeting, and I understand fully the process, and we were clearly talking about this. We've had processes where we've whittled these things down, based on legal advice and long discussions. We conveyed to Mr. Pelletier that these are the questions, be ready to be grilled, to answer questions about discrepancies that exist.

To suggest to him now that there are other questions is patently unfair. I think we would have to internally change what we were going to do, notify the witness and give him ample time to respond. I think it's patently unfair, given the process we've followed, the document in front of us, that what you read at the beginning.... I think it's unfair to the witness to suddenly change the rules in mid-stream, and that's the way it looks to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Christopherson, that's exactly what we're doing. I'm allowing the.... It's pretty obvious here what's going to happen. Mr. Pelletier is going to take it and come back--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

With respect, Chair, you're allowing questions on testimony that is not part of the document that Mr. Williams tabled at the beginning of the meeting. How could that be fair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Guimond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I see that my NDP colleague is fired up, but I simply want to remind him that nowhere in the motion is it written that the questions put to witnesses Jean-Marc Bard, Jean Pelletier and Charles Guité were to focus solely on the document prepared by the Library of Parliament. It is written that these persons will come before the committee to explain themselves on apparent contradictions. Perhaps there aren't any; perhaps it's simply a matter of interpretation.

For my part, I am convinced that Mr. Pelletier is not ashamed of what he said. He is a man of honour. I am convinced that he acknowledges what he said. Mr. Pelletier is an institution in the Quebec City.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay, your time is up, Monsieur Laforest. I'm going to allow you to put your question, and I'm going to allow Mr. Pelletier to respond in writing. Please put your question to the witness.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Pelletier answers us in writing, I believe he must submit his answers to the committee. That will then become an answer provided to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and it will be public.