Definitely.
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 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to remind you that the comparisons identified by the Library of Parliament were at no time to be the only ones. There was never any question that we would not be able to refer to other contradictions that anyone might eventually find. My party and I have done some searches and we have noted others. I know that many Quebeckers have noted other contradictions, and they are entitled to answers to the questions that we ask. That is a democratic right, Mr. Chairman.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. I inform you that we are also keeping track of the time, as regards the seven-minute period allotted to Mr. Laforest. When our colleague Borys Wrzesnewskyj raised a point of order, only 45 seconds elapsed. We therefore still have time to ask questions. I'm convinced that the clerk remembers that. You just struck the gavel, saying that our time had expired. We spent all the time discussing points of order. So we still have time.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Order.
No, as I have said, the decision of the chair is that Mr. Laforest can put his question to Mr. Pelletier. Mr. Pelletier will respond in writing. Then we're going to move on to the Conservatives.
I invite Monsieur Laforest to put his question to Mr. Pelletier right now.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Pelletier, I would like you to explain to us how it is that, on April 6, 2004, you told the Public Accounts Committee: “I said that the publicity during the referendum was one thing, and we didn't interfere at all after that,” whereas, on February 7, 2005, before the Gomery Commission, you said:
You know, my role during the referendum period was mainly to ensure coordination with the NO Committee, led by the Leader of the Opposition in Quebec. That was my main role.
You used the expression “main role”, which means that you also had other roles.
We know that Howard Balloch at the Privy Council Office suggested that the federal government assumed advertising expenses for the NO side during the referendum campaign. Reference was made to the advertising company BCP. There are also notes on that subject, which we have as well and which we could even table today concerning the federal referendum advertising expenses. They were sent to you personally; you received a certified copy of them. Since Mr. Balloch was working for the Privy Council Office and you ensured coordination with the NO Committee, which shared referendum campaign invoices with Option Canada, how can you say...
I claim that that contradicts your statement that you did not interfere in that. On the contrary, you did interfere in it. So I'm asking you to explain that contradiction to us.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Monsieur Laforest.
Mr. Pelletier, we'll get that transcribed for you. It will be sent to you. I would ask that you respond within two weeks to that question. You can send your answer directly to the clerk.
It's Mr. Poilievre, I believe.
June 6th, 2007 / 4 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Yes. We'll be taking our fourteen minutes directly.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Pelletier, according to your February 7, 2005, Gomery testimony, you met with Claude Boulay to discuss a $5,000 donation that he had made to the Liberal Party. Where did that meeting take place?
I'm looking at page xiv.
4 p.m.
As an Individual
I don't even remember, sir, if there was a meeting or if it was a telephone call. The Privy Council Office—which should not be confused with the Prime Minister's Office; they are two quite different things, even though they often work together—informed me—
4 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Excuse me. I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt, but your testimony was quite clear that there was a meeting, that it was not a telephone conversation. It says here, “I met with him to clarify that and was satisfied in that regard, I would say.”
So without running the clock down any more, perhaps you could just tell us where that meeting took place.
4 p.m.
As an Individual
Frankly, sir, I do not remember. I can't tell you. But if there was a meeting, it was to clarify a problem that had been submitted to me by the Clerk of the Privy Council. A political donation had been withdrawn from an account in which the government had funds.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
So was it at a reception that you met him or was it in private?
4 p.m.
As an Individual
No, no, it was not at a reception; it was as part of my office work.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Well, then, that becomes very strange and very troublesome, because--
4:05 p.m.
As an Individual
I think it would be useful. The Privy Council Office reported to me that Mr. Boulay or his company had made a $5,000 donation and that the donation had been withdrawn from an account in which the government had funds. The Privy Council Office feared that government funds had been used to make a donation.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I understand, but that is well outside the realm of my question. I was asking where the meeting took place. You've indicated that it did not take place at a reception.
I thank you for giving such a clear and unequivocal answer, because it shows contradiction to your testimony before this committee on April 6, 2004, when you said, and I quote, “I never had any formal meetings with these people.” You were referring to ad agencies. You said, “I met Mr. Boulay once at a reception, but never had any professional contact with these agencies.”
Herein lie two contradictions. First, before this committee in April of 2004, you said that you met with Mr. Boulay--once--at a reception. But here we have your testimony that you met with him on a separate occasion to discuss a $5,000 donation from him to the Liberal Party. And you said just now that the meeting did not occur at a reception.
So now we have a situation where you've said this meeting happened only once and that it did happen at a reception, to now admitting that there was a second meeting to discuss a $5,000 donation to the Liberal Party.
Mr. Pelletier, I'll be direct. Did you lie in your previous testimony before this committee, or are you lying now?
4:05 p.m.
As an Individual
I very much appreciate your wording, which indicates to me that you have already formed your judgment before hearing me. When I came here and was asked whether I had met Mr. Boulay, that was in the context of the sponsorship issue. I never met Mr. Boulay in the context of the sponsorship issue. I may have met him subsequently at a reception without any issue being involved. I spoke to him by telephone or I met him, I no longer remember which, after the Privy Council Office had phoned me to say that there might be a problem regarding a political donation. When I came here, I did not remember the political donation affair. When I prepared for my testimony with the Gomery Commission lawyers, I was told about the matter of the $5,000 donation, and it came back to mind at that time.
When you are my age, sir, and it happened roughly 12 years ago, you can forget things absolutely unintentionally. Thank you very much for impugning my motives as you did by your question.