Absolutely not.
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.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Guité, as you know, we are trying to look at the discrepancy in testimony between our public accounts committee and what was done at the Gomery commission, trying to get a clarification of what the truth is in either one of them, because there are clearly some discrepancies.
In committee on April 22, 2004, under oath you testified on the issue of political direction. In response to a question from one of my colleagues, you said:
There is quite a bit of difference between political interference and political input. To me, they are two completely different things. And to say that they interfered...with the selection of agencies—never. I would not let them do that, because ministers are not to interfere with the selection process.
To a further question, “Did they have input into the program over who got the sponsorship and which sponsorships we were going to do?”, you responded: “Obviously.”
Was that an accurate statement, and do you still stand by the statement you made then?
4:40 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes, I do. If you go back to the records, on the last page of my opening statement the last time I was here....
Let me step back to the first time. The first time I was here, Mr. Chair, I was under an oath of secrecy, and a lot of questions were asked that I refused to answer. On the second go-around, the second time I was here, that was removed by Privy Council. It's at that meeting that I finished my opening statement with the following:
While I was executive director, I want to make it clear—I repeat, very clear—that the PMO, Minister Gagliano, and Minister Dingwall never suggested a name or were involved in the agency selection process.
I stand by that today.
Next, I terminated by saying:
Did the PMO and the minister provide input and decisions with respect to specific events that were sponsored and the allocation to specific firms? Absolutely.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I'm not exactly sure what he's meaning about this oath that he has now referred to that seemed, in his opinion, to take precedence over his oath and his requirements and obligations to be truthful and forthcoming to this particular committee when he appeared here before.
We do know that Mr. Guité appeared in camera. That testimony was made public, according to certain conditions, at a later date, and he also appeared in public.
At no point in time do I recall anything of any kind being said that he was bound by a higher oath in giving his testimony
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
No, Mr. Williams, you're absolutely correct. That meeting took place. It was July 8, 2002. It was held in camera in the West Block. He was under oath to tell the truth and the whole truth at that time. There was no oath of secrecy, but it was in camera because of other proceedings. Of course, at a later date, the in camera restriction was lifted.
So Mr. Guité, I will allow you to explain what you mean. I can see where you might be using the term “secrecy” because of in camera, but I hope you're not suggesting to this committee that you weren't telling the truth at the July 2002 meeting because it was in camera.
4:40 p.m.
As an Individual
No. No, I'm not, Mr. Chairman, and I don't think it was the second time I appeared here. It wouldn't have been the second, it would have been the first. I recall a member asking me a question, and what comes to mind is: What did you discuss with the minister? I said I wouldn't discuss that. That was based on a statement that I had made that, as a former public servant, I was bound by an oath of secrecy about discussions I had with a minister. I think if you go back to the minutes of this committee, you will find those statements.
Subsequent to that, when I came back here, the chair, who was Mr. Williams at the time, advised that they had verified with PCO, and that was removed. That's when I made the statement that I would not have made the first time I appeared here.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I think to fill out the whole argument and rationale, it's well understood in the public service that if a public servant gives advice to a minister, he is not obligated to answer that question, but the minister may be called to answer it instead. Mr. Alfonso Gagliano was, of course, before the committee at a later time.
Now, I don't recall if.... I think there may have been some reference to the PCO allowing him to be more forthcoming as far as his advice to the minister was concerned, but what we are concerned with here, of course, is statements in one place versus statements in another. I only wanted to clear up, to make sure there was no shadow of a doubt, that there was any inhibition on his capacity to answer questions before, so that the evidence that we're using is clear and under oath, without any inhibition.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
That certainly would be my understanding, because if it were a ministerial confidence, he wouldn't answer the question and there would be no evidence.
Ms. Sgro.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Going back to the clock there, I'm glad that you stopped it. He stopped the clock, I watched it. I know how Mr. Williams goes on. He could have taken up everybody's time, with all due respect, Mr. Williams, and I wanted to make sure we got our points across.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Given the fact that he's such an experienced member of this committee.
Mr. Guité, also before this committee and under oath, on the issue of input versus interference, in response to a question from the former chairman, you stated:
The minister's office and the Prime Minister's Office...had input into the process. There's no question.
You went on to say:
I managed the files, or my organization did. I briefed the minister's office and PMO on the results that we were getting. Now, I'm sure that on several occasions the minister said, well, there might be this event over here, so maybe we should consider that one or this one, and so forth. So they had input. But, no, they did not direct me on how to manage the program.
Do you stand by that statement today?
4:45 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes, I do. You see, what....
I've explained it, and I had the same problem at the Gomery commission: in the selection of an agency to be qualified to do business, the political system has never interfered--except in a couple of cases. I brought that up the last time I was here. I think it was in the case of Paul Martin's office. And even to the point where I went to the commissioner of conflict of interest, I think it was, with some fairly hard proof that there was, I felt, a conflict of interest, he said no, no, don't worry about that; get on with the job.
I think I explained that at this committee, the last time I was here, the Martin issue about interfering, suggesting names to be added to the list. The end result was that we cancelled the competition.
Had I had the documents that were put before me at the Gomery commission, I would have brought them to this committee. But there were fireworks that went between DMs and ADMs and ministers.
Again, I stand by what I said, that ministers never got involved in qualifying an agency to do business with the government. Did they get involved in selecting events, who got the events? Absolutely.
I have a document here; there's a log kept by the minister's office, and I'll quote a few of them later on, if time permits. And they're not involved...? You know, there's a log from the minister's office, on the sponsorship program, of discussions between PCO, PMO, me, and so forth. But they've never been involved.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
It can be tabled, but it's only going to be tabled in reference to what we're talking about.
4:45 p.m.
As an Individual
The documents that I have with me today, Mr. Chairman, I do not have copies of.
4:45 p.m.
As an Individual
If I leave them to this committee, I have no difficulty doing that, as long as they're returned to me.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
They will be returned to you.
Ms. Sgro, you have one more minute left.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
Thank you.
Before this committee, Mr. Guité, under oath, you testified that subsequent to your retirement, “Mr. Cutler fiddled with the files, and I have the proof of that.” Do you stand by that statement?