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.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Guité made reference to Mr. Dion, pre-referendum. Mr. Dion was elected after the referendum, not before.
So will you please correct the testimony?
As an Individual
Okay, well I made reference to him, but I said I think Mr. Dion was there. But it could have been that he was at FPRO after the referendum.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Yes, Mr. Chairman. The witness made reference to a document, and once it's been referred to, it's appropriate that it be tabled. It's not appropriate for you to say that it's irrelevant.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
No, I already asked him to table it. I said that after.
So Mr. Guité, we're going to table both documents.
We're going to move on now to Monsieur Guimond, for seven minutes.
No, no, I'm sorry about that. No.
Mr. Poilievre, for seven or fourteen minutes?
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
These new intrigues that you're sharing with us notwithstanding, I'd like to focus, at least initially, on your testimony here.
You said again today that there was never any intervention by the PMO in the agency selection process, but you told the Gomery commission on November 22, 2004, and I quote: “And a decision was made in discussion with the Minister and Monsieur Pelletier what agency would get it.”
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
So you are telling us one thing here and one thing there.
As an Individual
No, it is no different from what I said here: what sponsorship would go to what agency.
I said very clearly here that they were directly involved.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
No, but this says “agency”. It doesn't say “projects”; it says “agency”.
Conservative
As an Individual
No, it's not.
If you go back to my testimony at Gomery, what you have there is a statement of part of the discussion that went on at Gomery for a few hours, and I repeat it to this committee. If somebody can clearly show to me that the political system was involved in agency selection to qualify them, then I'll say I wasn't aware. I'll also give you—
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
At Gomery, you said that they were. That's what you said.
I'll give you another quote that you stated at Gomery. On November 22, 2004, in questioning from Monsieur Pratte, you said:
Do you ever recall Mr. Pelletier telling you to change an event from one agency to another?
You responded:
Regularly. ...we reviewed the list. He wouldn't change it but he would say that should go to this agency.
We're not talking about whether a festival should be held in Mount Royal or Alma. We're talking about the agencies that were hired to do the work, or in most cases, to do no work at all.
You said that the political level was not involved, but at Gomery you stated that the Prime Minister's chief of staff reviewed the list of agencies and chose which ones would get the pork. Which is it?
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
The contradiction is obvious. First, you said before this committee that the Prime Minister's Office had never been involved in selecting agencies. Then you told Judge Gomery that the Prime Minister's chief of staff was regularly involved in agency selection.