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.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
Perhaps you could elaborate on that and tell us how they were fiddled with.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I don't think that's relevant to the apparent inconsistencies in the testimony that Mr. Guité gave before this committee and the Gomery commission.
I'm going to rule that out of order.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
That's fine. I'll continue with another question, Mr. Chair.
In this committee, Mr. MacKay quoted from your submission where you said:
Did the PMO and ministers provide input and decisions with respect to the specific events that were sponsored and in the allocation to specific firms? Absolutely.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
You stand by that as well.
Mr. MacKay then said:
And you make a very fine line in determining what was political input and what was political influence.
You responded with:
Yes. Quite a bit of difference.
Do you agree with that statement?
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
I asked this of Mr. Pelletier earlier, so maybe you could give your definition between political influence and administrative influence, or administrative advice.
4:50 p.m.
As an Individual
Are you talking input or advice here, or administration versus...?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
As an Individual
In my definition, the input would have been either no, we don't want that event and would prefer that one, or else yes, we want that event and here's what we want.
On the administration side, it would be the amount of moneys that they would allocate to it.
If you go back to the records again, and I think it came out very clearly in the Gomery commission, I think it was the Tulip Festival of 2000--or 1999; I think I was still there. I left in August 1999, so it would have been the Tulip Festival of the spring of 1999. I turned down the request from the Tulip Festival organization.
If you go back to the records of the Gomery commission, there is quite a story there about how it ended up being approved and the discussions that went on between.... I'm trying to remember the names. I think Manley was one of them. Correspondence and e-mails went back and forth between ministers, and at the end of the day, the political system said to my organization, yes, we're going to approve X, Y, Z.
That, to me, is getting involved in the administration of the program.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Mr. Guité. I remember your testimony in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I was present at that time. You understand very well that we are trying to see whether there is a difference between a testimony given in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and another given before the Gomery Commission.
I'm going to start with a fairly specific, fairly precise point. Before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, you told me that you had been responsible for the success of the 1995 referendum, a success for the NO side, of course. However, at the Gomery Commission, you presented yourself as the executor of the Prime Minister's Office.
I refer you to page 19,867. This concerned the love-in that took place in Montreal on October 27, 1995. In your testimony before the Gomery Commission on April 29, 2005, you said, and I quote:
So obviously and during the leading up to the Referendum and during the Referendum and post-Referendum, even myself, the famous big rally that was in Montreal the day before or the week before the Referendum, I came down to Montreal with a trunk full of that stuff to promote the cause.
I need answers to specific questions because you told me before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts that you were responsible for that success, whereas elsewhere you said you were an agent.
To whom did you deliver that material? Who helped you set it up? Among the politicians present, whom did you meet? Among the leaders of the NO side present, which ones were aware of the federal government's involvement in that demonstration? What about Jean Charest, Daniel Johnson, Senator Pierre Claude Nolin and Ms. Frulla?
I have another question. In your opinion, was that promotional material included in the expenses of the NO side? Were federal funds invested in that rally, in your opinion? How much money came from the federal government? How much could that event have cost in total? Did employees from your service or from the Privy Council Office work at that event?
Here's my last question. Among the projects you worked on at the time, did you have to share invoices with other organizations outside the government, such as the NO Committee, the Council for Canadian Unity or Option Canada?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Before you answer the question, there are a lot of questions and comments there. We are here to talk about the alleged inconsistencies that you gave at this committee when you testified before it, and what you gave at the Gomery commission. A lot of the questions have to do with money spent or who you met with. I would ask that you restrict your answers to the inconsistencies
A point of order, Mr. Guimond.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
With respect, Mr. Chairman, if the witness wants to answer, I think we should let him answer. Mr. Guité does not have a reputation for being shy, but if he is shy about answering my questions, I trust him, he will tell me so.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4:50 p.m.
As an Individual
Mr. Chairman, I think you're right, there were about eight questions there, but I think I'll try to answer what I think he's looking for.
The night before the
big rally in Montreal, I was in Montreal. In my car, there were 200 or 300 Canadian flags, not very big, and perhaps 10,000 pins with the Canadian and Quebec flags together, the maple leaf and so on. I don't remember that there was anything else. There were flags, pins and pens, if I remember correctly. I left everything at the Château Champlain. I didn't hand those things over to anyone in particular; I left them in the lobby of the Château Champlain because, if I remember correctly, they used a suite upstairs to coordinate things the next day, for the rally. I can't confirm it, but if I remember correctly, there were people there. I told hotel reception to tell people that the products had arrived.
The next day, the day of the big rally, I went down to Montreal twice during the day, again with promotional items, flags and pins.
Second, was I aware of invoices shared by those organizations? No, not to my knowledge, but I know that expenditures were made and resulted in nothing.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
4:55 p.m.
As an Individual
For example, there was an organization at the time called... I don't remember the name in French.
It was the FPRO, Federal-Provincial Relations Office.
If I remember correctly, Stéphane Dion was the minister. The Privy Council Office was very much concerned with the referendum. Within the Privy Council Office, there was a group for which one of my employees worked full time. If I remember correctly, in February or March 1995—the referendum was held in the fall of 1995—they prepared a document in English and French that they wanted to distribute to the occupants of all Quebec households. They also wanted to distribute it in the street, publish it in the newspapers and so on. I received a message from my employee who was working there and who told me about that plan. I may be wrong about certain things; we're talking about 1995. I answered that I didn't make any decisions.
They decide, I pay the bill, and they send me the money.
When I saw the document, I strongly suggested conducting a survey, bringing together a consultation group to evaluate the document. When I saw it, I didn't agree. Strong pressure had to be exerted; discussions were necessary. They conducted a survey of people who would vote yes and of others who would vote no. If I remember correctly—once again I may be mistaken, Mr. Guimond—
it was a disaster for the no, let alone the yes.
So I got a call, or my employee did--I think that was at PCO or FPRO: “Shred it.”
So we called the printer and said, well, guess what? This was all printed—and I'm not talking about a few thousand; I'm talking millions. “Shred it.”
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
4:55 p.m.
As an Individual
It would have been money.... See, what happened during the referendum—and if I had a day and a half, we could have a long discussion with all members here—moneys....
4:55 p.m.
As an Individual
Anyway, who paid for it? FPRO, PCO, unity money.
I had forgotten totally about this document. During the Gomery commission, I don't know where they got documents, but they have a room this size full of them.
A copy of the document that we were going to distribute was sent to me. I have a copy of it here. It's called, “A Critical Look at the Draft Bill on Sovereignty”.
“Livret-critique de l'avant-projet de loi sur la souveraineté.”
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Okay, we're way off time. We're going to move on to the next examiner.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Could the witness hand the document to the clerk?
