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.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Why didn't you make that distinction in your opening remarks? Why were you unequivocal?
This wasn't in response to a question. This was your prepared text, where you said that they never selected an agency without following the process, as defined. In your opening comments, you were very definitive—
5:10 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
So what I'm asking is, why didn't you say that the first time?
5:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Because the first time the question that was asked here was how—
5:10 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
It wasn't a question, sir, it was your opening comments.
5:10 p.m.
As an Individual
My opening comment was that we followed the procurement policy to qualify an agency. You don't apply appendix U in selecting an agency.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Okay, we'll follow that up in committee. I appreciate that.
5:10 p.m.
As an Individual
No, so you're very clear, when we do a competition, appendix U doesn't play a role.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Yes, we'll follow up. I don't have appendix U here, but we will when we deliberate on these matters.
5:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Make sure you get the one that was in force when I was there, because they have changed it, apparently, sixteen times since I was—
5:10 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Okay. We have very sharp analysts. They will have picked that up, sir.
You were asked a question, a simple matter, but it speaks to the issue about gifts: “...did you ever receive gifts from Mr. Lafleur?” You said no, which would be a nice tidy answer. But then at the commission, you were asked:
Do you recall receiving a large number of gifts and presents from Mr. Lafleur?
You said:
I received some gifts, yes, but…. Your Honour, I believe that, in general, all the codes of ethics are agreed that this type of gift is not out of line. These are not exorbitant amounts.
Of course, the question is not whether the gifts were out of line, but you were asked a point-blank easy question: did you received gifts? You said no. You were asked there, and you gave a different answer. Please explain.
5:10 p.m.
As an Individual
I have no explanation. I mean, the gifts that I got from Lafleur would have been a bottle of wine at Christmas--
5:10 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I realize that, but here's my concern, sir: when you said no that way, you just said no. Clearly your intent was to make sure nobody thought there was anything untoward; nobody needed to split hairs to understand why. You just said no to shut it down, apparently. And that would do it.
If you had just said no, I wouldn't have a follow-up question. But then you said you received gifts, so it's very clear, sir. You were asked if you received gifts, and you said no; when you went to the commission and were asked if you received gifts, you said yes. Boom. I haven't heard an adequate explanation, sir.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Okay.
Let me go back to where Mr. Poilievre was and see if I can get any further.
If I'm understanding your point, you're saying that there was a two-step process. One is that you had to qualify as an agency; then, once you qualified, you went on a list, and you could be selected from there. You're saying there was no political interference in qualifying; the political involvement came in selecting the agencies.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I realize.... Your your answer at the Gomery commission was that a decision was made in discussion with the minister and Monsieur Pelletier as to what agency would get it. How can you say there's no involvement from the Prime Minister's Office when you acknowledge that they were involved in making the agency selection?
5:10 p.m.
As an Individual
No, I didn't say there was no involvement. I'll reread the statement again.
For the PMO, the PCO, or the minister's office, there's a log of involvement. Again I repeat that they were not involved in qualifying the agency to do business. They were involved in assigning projects, and what agency--
5:10 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
You say that as though it makes it okay. The fact that somebody qualifies and there is then political interference doesn't make it any better than political interference at the beginning of the process, sir.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
5:15 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Okay, I hear you.
Let me ask you this question. You were asked to what extent there was ongoing political direction in the program. You said, “There is quite a bit of difference between political interference and political input... And to say that they interfered--i.e. with the selection of agencies--never. I would not let them do that, because ministers are not to interfere with the selection process.”
Let me finish. You, sir, made sure that we used the term “qualifying agencies”. You don't mention anything about qualifying here. You just say it's in the selection.