With respect, sir--
Evidence of meeting #64 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pelletier.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #64 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pelletier.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
As an Individual
I clearly stated in my evidence that I did not want to mislead this committee, ever.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
So you admit there was an error. You have said now that in fact there was a second meeting. Once again, you told this committee that you met Mr. Boulay once at a reception. Later you said that you'd met Mr. Boulay to discuss a $5,000 donation. That was a separate meeting that you have confirmed for us before this committee.
Then there's a second contradiction. You told this committee that you never had any formal meetings with the ad agencies. Now we know that you had a very formal meeting with one of the most notorious ad execs, Mr. Boulay, to discuss that donation that I mentioned earlier.
Do you understand why these contradictions are so significant, Mr. Pelletier? You met with agency presidents when you occupied the position of Prime Minister Chrétien's chief of staff, but you tried to deny that those meetings were held in order to conceal the connection between the Prime Minister's Office and the agencies that received dirty money. If you made errors of that significance, Mr. Pelletier, that looks like an attempt to conceal the connection that existed between the Liberal Prime Minister's Office and the agencies that received millions of dollars in dirty money. How can we believe you when you said three contradictory things here and before the Gomery Commission?
4:10 p.m.
As an Individual
I said nothing contradictory. There was no connection with the agencies regarding the sponsorship issue, no more with Mr. Boulay than with any other. I established that very clearly when I testified here three years ago. As for the rest, it was not a meeting, but a social encounter where there were perhaps 300 or 1,000 persons. It wasn't a meeting organized for the purpose of meeting Mr. Boulay, but a damned crumb. As for the approach I made to Mr. Boulay concerning his donation, I clearly explained the situation in which the commission's lawyer Cournoyer had reminded me of that event.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
At this point, what is your story at this moment in time? What is your story today? Originally--
4:10 p.m.
As an Individual
I've already told you that. I have nothing to add to what I told you.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
One at a time, please. Let Mr. Poilievre finish his question, Mr. Pelletier, and then you can answer the question.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Originally you said you met with Mr. Boulay once at a reception, but never had any professional contact with the agency. Now you've confessed that you had another meeting with him, a different meeting, where you discussed this $5,000 donation to the Liberal Party. Are you saying those were the only two meetings that you held?
I ask that while the witness is consulting with his lawyer the time be stopped.
4:10 p.m.
As an Individual
It is somewhat amusing that I'm being criticized because I contacted Mr. Boulay, whereas I wanted to ensure that the rules had been properly complied with. It was precisely in order to ensure that there had been no abuse that, at the request of the Privy Council Office, I—
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
A point of order, Chair. I'm not asking the witness whether he should have contacted Mr. Boulay to discuss this $5,000 donation or not. That is not my question. My question is why he told this committee he only met once with Mr. Boulay, when we've now learned that in fact there were additional meetings. If he could simply explain that contradiction, it would help us move forward.
That's my point of order.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
It's not a point of order, but it's a supplementary question.
Mr. Pelletier.
4:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Mr. Chair, I believe I've already answered the question perfectly well. First, I said before this committee that I had no contact with Mr. Boulay concerning the sponsorship issue. I reaffirm that strongly.
Second, I was put in Mr. Boulay's presence at a reception where there were several hundreds of people. I don't call that a meeting; I call that a chance encounter.
Third, I properly explained the circumstances of my approach to Mr. Boulay regarding his donation. I did that in order to be sure that the rules had been properly followed. My answer is therefore clear and complete.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I'm afraid it's not clear or complete, because you clearly indicated that there was only one meeting at a reception and now you've admitted that there was more than one meeting, the second meeting, which was of a formal nature, which contradicts your testimony before this committee.
My question to you is were you lying when you came before the committee last time, or are you lying now? Because there is a contradiction between the two.
4:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Mr. Chairman, the important thing is to know whether there was contact between the Prime Minister's Office and the agencies concerning sponsorships. I answered no, and I still answer no. The chance encounter did not concern the sponsorships or Mr. Boulay's donation or his agency.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Pelletier, this is probably your last chance to get out of this honourably. Do you want to take a moment to apologize for the general waste and scandal that occurred under the previous Liberal government, of which you were a part?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
That question is out of order. I would ask Mr. Pelletier not to answer it. We're here, gentlemen, lady, to talk about the inconsistencies.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
The only question I have, Mr. Chairman, is....
Mr. Pelletier, you seem to have a completely segmented situation: you met with Mr. Boulay at a reception, you never talked to him about the sponsorship scandal, you didn't bring that up here because the $5,000 cheque was a different issue.
But we noted during the investigation that there was an interplay between money given on payments by the Government of Canada under the sponsorship program and donations back to the Liberal Party. Therefore, your clear distinction between one transaction that had nothing to do with the sponsorship scandal and the other one, which was the $5,000 donation to the Liberal Party, leaves me at some odds. I cannot understand why the Privy Council Office would even know about it, know which bank account it came out of, why they would be informing you about it, because this is an Elections Canada issue, not a PCO or a PMO issue.
Perhaps you can give us some background as to why the PCO informed you about a $5,000 cheque. I think it's quite relevant, Mr. Pelletier, because we did find a correlation between the sponsorship scandal and donations to the Liberal Party.
4:15 p.m.
As an Individual
I am not in a position to answer the question when I am asked how it is that the Privy Council Office was involved. You ask them that; I don't know.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
No. The answer is to the PMO, because the PMO, Mr. Pelletier, the chief of staff, dealt with the issue. Therefore, Mr. Pelletier, as I said, there's no separation here between the sponsorship scandal and donations by Mr. Boulay to the Liberal Party of Canada, which you resolved personally and directly through a direct meeting with Mr. Boulay, and you denied even meeting with him when you met with us at the public accounts committee.
I'm trying to find out why you didn't divulge that information to the public accounts committee. Also, I wouldn't mind hearing why you, as the chief of staff at the PMO, were actually involved in finding out why a cheque was written on a bank account that perhaps had government money in it.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
As an Individual
Mr. Chairman, I took care of that because the Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council called me to ask me to clarify matters. I thought that the best service I could render to Canadian society, to propriety and to good governance was to ensure that the rules had been properly followed. That is what I did. I filed a report, and the problem was solved. I don't see why I should be criticized on that account.