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.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Yes. These proceedings are supposed to lead to answers around contradictions between testimony here and testimony at Gomery, and the answers are still not forthcoming.
The question that we have posed him is why he failed to mention this meeting about a $5,000 donation with Mr. Boulay. It was very important, obviously. He was asked about it before this committee and he said it didn't happen. He denied there had been any meeting other than a chance encounter at a reception. And we've asked this question very clearly.
I'd ask, Mr. Chair, that you step in to demand that the witness answer the questions as we go forward.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Mr. Poilievre, you may not have got a satisfactory answer, but it's not a point of order, and at the end of the thing, the committee will deliberate on the answers that we received.
Mr. Christopherson, seven minutes.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you, Monsieur Pelletier, for attending today.
Relating to the direct testimony in the documents, the first page of it, which would be roman numeral xiii, you were asked at this committee, sir:
At any time prior to the Auditor General's analysis of the operation of this department, were you personally aware...of any activities by the communications function within the federal government or processes they followed that would have been inconsistent with the implementation of the Financial Administration Act?
You answered here, sir, “Not directly. The only information I got was the result of the internal audit of 1999-2000.”
And you were asked at the commission, “What information or rumours came to your attention regarding the possible existence of problems in the administration and management of the sponsorships?” Then you gave a much more fulsome answer, where you said, “What people were saying was that it was always the same people who got the contracts...”, which proved to be true, “and that others were complaining that they could not get access and as a result the rules that were in place may have been broken”, which proved to be true.
The next one--“Through newspaper articles that intimated there were problems, through the usual gossip in the Press Club....”--again, very fulsome.
One is left with the impression, sir, that you knew and heard absolutely nothing except through the formal channel of the report of 1999-2000, and at the commission you gave a very fulsome answer that seemed to go further in terms of its honesty by saying that you had heard these other things.
That's quite a gap there. Would you please address that, sir?
As an Individual
Mr. Chairman, I think two things are being confused. In the question that has been put to me here, reference is made to activities, facts. The only fact of which I had any knowledge was the internal audit report. In all the rest, there are no facts, only rumours. I said that when I was told about it at the Gomery Commission. I would like to emphasize that there was a lot of talk of rumours when I testified before the committee. I take the liberty of referring you to the transcript of my testimony three years ago. The only indication that I can give is that it was around 10:30 a.m. In response to a question by Marlene Jennings, I said, and I quote: “But I can tell you, since you want me to tell all and I'm willing to do so, that at one point, I heard some rumours.” You know, there are a lot of rumours in Ottawa. If you had to think that every rumour was true, you'd be in a panic all day long. At some point, I heard all kinds of rumours, both in Ottawa and in Montreal, about the program's administration. I informed the Prime Minister of the rumours I heard. Mr. Chrétien asked me at that point to speak with the minister responsible, Mr. Gagliano—
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Could you just keep your answers a little brief, but a little bit more to the point?
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I need the floor back, sir. I have the floor, sir. Thank you. You're going on and on, and you've gone beyond, in my humble opinion.
You've raised the issue of facts. Nowhere in the first question was it about facts. It just asked, “were you personally aware...of any activities...?” Here, you said no. Later you said you did hear this and you did hear that, and those things that you did hear there and did hear there turned out to be the truth. So it looks like you didn't give as complete an answer here as you did at the commission.
Please address that gap.
As an Individual
Sir, a rumour, in my view, is not an activity. Furthermore, I talked about rumours—
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Where did the word “fact” come from? You brought the word in, sir. That's not in the question.
As an Individual
It was the word activities. A rumour is not an activity. The text states—
...were you personally aware of any activities by the communications function within the federal government or processes they followed...?
We're talking about activities, and activities are not rumours. I answered the question as it was put to me. I talked about rumours I don't know how many times during my testimony. I didn't try to conceal from you that there were also rumours. I would say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the rumours triggered the internal audit. The internal audit came after the rumours, not before.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Okay. I have to tell you, I didn't hear a great answer there.
I'll move on to the next one in line. You're prepared for this; you know these are coming. This was the question:
Could you clarify for us what role your office played concerning the administrative details of the sponsorship program, and advertising matters....
The quote goes on, but that's the relevant part.
You answered here, sir, in part, that:
We at the Prime Minister's Office were in no way involved in the administrative management of the program. I want that to be very clearly understood.
Then, at the commission, you were asked the following:
From your answer, I understand that opinions given by Mr. Guité related, on one hand, to the appropriateness of supporting a given event…and, on the other hand, to the level of funding for various events?
To this you said:
Yes, certain events would ask too much, and I would say, “No, that doesn’t make any sense. That’s too much. It’s a worthwhile event, but not at that level.”
And “that level” is the level of funding.
The way I see it, that is very much involvement in....
Could you comment on that, please?
As an Individual
Sir, first I would say that earlier you prevented me from finishing. If you want us to give you the references that I have in my evidence of three years ago, we can do that and submit them to the clerk, who will submit them to you. You've just asked me... What did you ask me? I'm sorry.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Please, Mr. Chair; please. I'm assuming the chair will reset the clock. I'll be glad to repeat the question as long as I get my time back.
Okay, that's fine, sir. I'll be glad to repeat the question.
What I said was that you testified here.... Come on, sir, it's the second part in the document. You had to have pored over this stuff. By now you must know it by heart. I know I would, if I were coming here.
So you were asked what role your office played concerning the administrative details of the sponsorship program, and you answered:
We at the Prime Minister's Office were in no way involved in the administrative management of the program. I want that to be very clearly understood.
And then you said at the commission:
Yes, certain events would ask too much, and I would say, “No, that doesn’t make any sense. That’s too much. It’s a worthwhile event, but not at that level.”
Again, this refers to level of funding.
So on the one hand, you're making it categorically clear that your office had nothing to do with the administration. Then later on, in front of the commissioner, you're saying yes; you seemed to have a great involvement in some of these decisions.
As an Individual
Sir, when someone from your riding asks you to resolve an issue and you bring pressure to bear, are you interfering in the administration of the relationship? No. It's the same thing. We were asked for our opinion on events to be sponsored or not to be sponsored, and sometimes we were asked whether such and such an event, which was not known to those administering the program, was worth $10,000, $15,000 or $100,000. We answered and gave opinions, in the same way you give your opinion on issues that are submitted to you. That does not mean that you are interfering in the administration of the program. It's precisely the same thing for us. We answered the questions that the program administrators asked us on certain issues that were before them. We gave them our opinion, but we did not administer the program.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you, Mr. Christopherson. Thank you, Mr. Pelletier.
Mr. Rota, up to seven minutes.
Liberal
Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
Up to seven minutes; I'll be brief.
I realize that some of the drama in the room today would probably merit an Oscar, an Academy Award of some sort.
Mr. Pelletier, the last time you appeared before this committee, you said that you had given Mr. Guité some suggestions. Perhaps the English word was “input” rather than “suggestions”. You said that the Prime Minister's Office had played no role in selecting the intermediaries, agencies or businesses that did business with the government in the context of the sponsored events. You said that you played no role in awarding contracts, establishing costs or the administration of the program.
Could you confirm that a political opinion was offered, but not an opinion on the administration, management of the program?
As an Individual
I always said they were political opinions on sponsorship requests, but that we did not concern ourselves with administration.
Liberal
Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
You've finished? That was brief.
At the Gomery Commission, you said that Mr. Guité had been given instructions concerning project selection. The last time you appeared before this committee, you said, in response to questions from Mr. Crête and Mr. Kenney, that it was acceptable to intervene with respect to various projects.
Can you explain to the members of this committee what the difference is between political opinions and administrative opinions on the management of a program? Could you explain to us the difference between the two? It seems to me that certain members of this committee do not understand that.
As an Individual
The purpose of the program was to raise Canada's profile through subsidized activities. It is quite clear that a subsidized activity that highlighted Canada was more important politically. I am not talking about partisanship; I'm talking about politics. It was more important in Alma than in Westmount. We gave political opinions, as it was our duty to do, on grant applications made for activities. If we had gotten involved in saying which agency should be hired and on what conditions, we would have been interfering in the administration of the program, which we never did.
Do you understand the difference between political opinions on the selection of events to be sponsored or not to be sponsored and opinions on the decision made by the department concerning the hiring of an agency or intermediary to delivery the goods?
Liberal
Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
You've explained it very well, thank you very much. I see that we are out of time. That's the end.
Thank you very much, Mr. Pelletier.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you, Mr. Rota.
Thank you, Mr. Pelletier.
Mr. Pelletier, you're going to get back on some of your quotes from earlier. I invite you now, Mr. Pelletier, to provide the committee with any closing remarks you want to make.
As an Individual
I would tell you that I'm a bit surprised that the committee is still examining this issue. Parliament is not a tribunal, and there are all kinds of judicial activities currently underway concerning this matter. So I am a bit surprised. Once the judicial process is underway, it seems to me your committee should withdraw from the matter. Otherwise, there is a risk that your action will be interpreted as a simply partisan gesture, which would be bad. If that were the case, for people of good faith, that would be another reason feeding cynicism toward political institutions and elected representatives.
If at the end of my evidence, Mr. Chairman, some members still have questions to ask or would like clarification, I would invite them to put them to us in writing, and I will see that my legal counsel submits written answers to the clerk of the committee. Thank you very much.